| Slownenberg said: I mean, you may as well be arguing that instead of launching the PS4 Pro, Sony should have skipped that and later launched PS5 in 2018 amazing, 2019 perfect, 2020 meh. By your Switch 2 logic of cutting off a system well before it's time, PS4 should have launched a year or two ago and XBox Series should have probably launched like 3 years ago. For some reason you just REALLY want Nintendo to keep following what they did with Wii U, except you don't realize the reason they cut the Wii U off so early was because it was a massive failure, while the Switch is a massive success and in its fourth year its sales are still improving. |
This is the only point I care to address because I think it's quite interesting. And honestly I'm brain farting so read at your own risk
If Microsoft could have skipped Xbox One X and instead waited a year to release what would essentially function as the rumoured anaconda. Then yeah I think they should have done that.
IF the tech was available to fulfil the function & purpose; if it wasnt then no.
2018 Xbox Series S $499 (Series X 2022)
- play current gen & cross games at 4k, 60fps
-Play ground up next gen games which mostly won't come til 2022. 900p-1440p(upscaled to 4k)
-Notably under cut PS5 in terms cost by time of its 2020 launch.
The main point is understanding the purpose of a platform.
In this case, the rumours suggest Mixrosoft think (and I think I kinda agree) that not everyone cares about 4k and that diminishing returns means 50% difference in GPU is not that important if you can be cheaper (and in my hypothetical Series S situation arrive 1/2 years early). Playing the same generation of games just with slight less clarity which wouldn't matter given most peoples home set ups and attention to detail. What you have to establish is when a decent % of your userbase are ready to spend on new hardware and when can you nake that bare minimum tech leap, also understanding what that leap is (SSD or no SSD stc)
A soft transition could help reduce the risks you see with hard transitions. DS > 3DS, Wii > WiiU, PS2 > PS3. Xbox 360 > Xbox One. Late gen updates do not do this. The 2010 DSi XL still dies when the 2004 DS stops receiving interest from developers. Nintendo doesn't make money from that hardware sale after 2 years, and they have convince the users to come back in their ecosystem.
-----------
Things that would be problematic however
- if Microsoft could not offer "next gen" features like SSD inside a 2018 Series S,
- If the difference in CPU strength meant Xbox Series S targeting 30fps whilst PS5 boasted 60fps.
- essentially if it lacked feature parity outside of easily scalable GPU features.
- If Sony decides to follow their lead but leverages advances to release a more powerful system that manages to be even cheaper in 2020 when most would start shopping for a new system.
All at once you have to look at the desires in your existing base, both those who bought a system in 2014 and those who will in 2018. You have to look at what technology is available and at what price, and you have try and stay ahead of your competition without exposing yourself to to weak spots.
---------
But there's really so much nuance this topic deserves and I don't really feel like wasting any more energy on it.
I will leave this thread with a memory I had before we got the PS4 Pro/X1X. This forum was 50/50 split with some arguing that a mid gen update would be suicide, it would be ridiculous and would never work. At most they can do a PS4 lite/slim. Sony would piss off their userbase who aren't ready, developers would struggle etc. This wasn't one or 2 people, this was a good half of us. Jump to 2020 and look where we are, no one even questions it. Times change, so don't be surprised if the way you perceived a generation last decade slowly fades away in the one to come (whether it be from Nintendo or someone else)
