| VideoGameAccountant said: Let's talk convenience. Console did take out arcades because gaming at home was more convenient and the systems became good enough as technology advanced. But the PS4 and XBox One are not the convient console. The Nintendo Switch is. Much like the console before it, it's more convenient as you can take it on the go and play on a TV, and the system is "good enough" (heck, its able to run DOOM and Wolfenstein 2). So if consumers are looking for convenience, they aren't going to go to a Playstation, they are going to go to a Switch. With Switch getting more third party games, it's going to take over the lower end of the market that you are talking about. The mini-PCs, the PS4 and XBox One, aren't really that convenient. Sure, you can plug your PS4 to a TV, but you still have to deal with downloading all the updates which takes far longer on the PS4 than it does the PC. PC are even easier to build and place like BestBuy's Geek Squad will build the PC for you. I suspect that it will be even easier to build a PC in 2022. PC has services like Steam which makes it easy and you don't even have to pay for online. What you are ignoring is that PS4 and XBox One are competing for the same market as the PC. The only people who would buy a PS4 over a PC are those that are enthusiast enough to want graphics and power but are too lazy to do the extra effort to build a PC. Heck, you don't even have to build one as you can always buy a premade one. Sure, it's a bit more expensive, but these machines are already expensive. The PS4 launched between $400 and $500. The PS5 could easily be more expensive. This is why Sony has to launch consoles more frequently. Sony can't compete with Nintendo with the Switch. The PSP and PSVita proved that. So that market is gone for Sony. And since the PS3, Sony has focused their consoles on being more expensive and "powerful." This was doable in generation 7 and the beginning of Generation 8, but it's not going to work in Generation 9. It's getting easier to get into PC gaming and PCs are getting most of the games Sony gets. Unless you REALLY have to have Uncharted, then there isn't much of a reason to get a PS4 over just building your own PC. You say releasing every 2 years or so is a trainwreck. I say it will be a trainwreck if they don't release soon. Using the 2022 date again, if Sony waits that long, they won't be able to sell a PS5. Developers will either make for the Switch (which will have the install base) or PC. The customers who Sony is targetting will move to PC as all of the games will be released there and the new cards will be better than the PS4 Pro. Developers aren't going to be as keen on building Sony's install base for them as they were in Generation 8. There are more alternatives now for developers outside of the XBox and Playstation. If Sony waits too long, consumers and developers will just move to greener pasters. |
I think you are looking at this from your own perspective and not in a broader sense.
For the first bolded point, I'd argue that should be phrased the opposite way.The only people who would buy a GAMING PC over a PS4 are those that are enthusiast enough to want graphics and power and are willing to put in the extra effort to build a PC. Even though there are more PCs out there, there are still more current gen consoles out in the wild than there are PCs that play games better than PS4. It's definitely growing, but it's not as big an audience as you think. The biggest games most popular games on PC can be played rigs that are last gen. Same with all the indies.
For your second bolded point, Sony has had the longest support for their consoles and has kept brand recognition and stayed competitive since PS1 (taking first place in 3 out of 4 home consoles, and coming back from third after losing a lot of consumer trust with the high PRICED PS3). Just about every console has had nearly 10 year lifecycles and most didn't see a new system release before 5 or 6 years of its predecesor's release. If anything, the Pro will allow that gap to be larger. The Vita and the PSP (to a lesser extent, since it was by far the most successful NON-Nintendo handheld) couldn't compete with Nintendo, sure. But this in no way backs your point that they should have shorter generations. You're saying that because Sony can't compete with Nintendo, it has to adopt a model that competes with Microsoft. But Sony is in the lead. Aside from the the 360 (which eventually it closed the gap), Sony has dominated Microsoft. Sony doesn't have to adapt to an incremental generational leap...Microsoft has to take that model in order to not completely lose relevance since it has no real competitive edge with the current base hardware. And even then, Microsoft is competing more with itself in order to boost its PC gaming given it's pretty much given up on it's console exclusivity, has added both console and PC versions for one purchase, and is obviously out to create an ecosystem more competitive with Steam.
Finally, I don't think developers intently try to build Sony's install base or care to. I think that when a new generation comes that is firmly separated from those before, it allows the developers to be much more creative and do new things that generate buzz for their IP. This is as important to them as it is to Sony and other console developers. People like Mark Cerney or Digital Foundry have discussed the model that Sony is sticking with in contrast to Microsoft's iterative process. Getting that definitive generation gap is what they are aiming for, because it allows the consumers to better observe the tangible differences and offer a firm reset so that developers aren't tethered back to offering support for the old consoles. And I have read from several developers (maybe not the big guys that like easy CoD money), that they prefer this approach as well.
