By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
setsunatenshi on 25 May 2016
Edit Thread
Veknoid_Outcast said:
setsunatenshi said:

the inconsistency is:

A- better graphics, lighting, frame rate, etc is not important for me, I don't want to buy a new console just because of that

B- a new console that plays the exact same games simply with better graphics, lighting, frame rate, i feel forced to buy it

 

either being on the bleeding edge is important or it's not important, can't be both at the same time

So, as I wrote earlier, I'm all for advances in technology - just at a slower pace. If graphics and lighting meant nothing to me, I'd still be playing ColecoVision. As far as B goes, I don't recall writing I would feel forced to buy an interative console. I wrote that the act of upgrading mid-cycle would cloud the line between PC and console, and, in the process, destroy the raison d'etre of console gaming.

I think my points comply with and inform each other. I don't want iterative consoles because 1) when I invest in a console I expect a stable, uniform experience for a five or six year period and 2) I object to the principle that mid-cycle refreshes are necessary in the first place.

It's a matter of opinion on how frequent is too frequent, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, but having said that my point still stands. Taking the rumors we have (and it's pretty much all we can base this on), they plan to share the same game library between both console generations. So what would you have to lose by keeping your current console and skipping the so called mid-cycle upgrade?

There is a stable uniform experience for you during whatever time it takes for the new leap to happen, so if you don't want to upgrade you really don't have to at all.

Is there something I'm missing here?