PS4 to PS5 transition will take 3 years, more cross-gen games coming from Sony

[Mnementh]

Dulfite said:

DragonRouge said:

JuliusHackebeil said:
Why would I buy a ps5 than? I bought into the promise of an ssd that would make completely new game design possible. No long, winding corridors, no bland nothing in between interesting stuff that has to be loaded in, etc. If I have a 10+ tflop + super fast ssd machine to play games that run perfectly fine on something that will be 10 years old after those 3 years are over, I might aswell buy the ps5 in 3 years.Can't they see how this is bad in many consumers eyes? I think it is obvious that no one would be hurt if they leave the ps4 behind after Horizon 2. With this they will just hurt ps5 sales. After a long ps4 generation people are ready to buy new tech. Don't give them less reason to want this.

There, you just cracked the code for smart gaming. No game or system is worth buying at launch price. If more people where patient, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have $70 games now.

And then all those developers experiencing crunch time would have their bonuses and salary slashed, many would lose their jobs and those remaining would have even more work consolidated into their day to day workload. When you hurt a business' finances, the billionaires aren't the ones suffering. It's the working class that suffers. In this case, even at $70, games aren't making what they made back in the 80's (if you count inflation) and are certainly more proportionally expensive to develop now. So if we were to all do as you suggest, we'd either have an overstressed, shrinking, underpaid workforce making games compared to what we have now, or games will start seeing significantly lower budgets and won't be nearly as grand as we expect them to be. Which of those two options would you pick so that you can save that extra $10-20 (or whatever you deem a reasonable price) per game?

Personally, I wish games would become more expensive so that anyone in software development can be more properly compensated for their high-demand, crunch-time-style jobs.

What? Bobby Kotick is one of the richest persons in the world, while Activision employees choose the cheapest meal in the office canteen, because that's what they can afford. 10$ less for each Activision game can be payed by Kotick and he would still be one of the richest persons. You have it wrong: if a company flourishes or struggles, the workers get paid the absolute minimum. You don't get more money in the pockets of the devs if you support price hikes on games, the only way is to support unions for game devs.