By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
killer7 said:
Pemalite said:

So basically in your eyes, the only aspect that constitutes a succesor is just the name? Because its' definitely not the hardware.

Because the hardware in the PS5 is just an updated Playstation 4 in essence. - PS4 and PS5 both use AMD X86-x64, both use AMD Radeon graphics.
Just Sony is using more modern designs in the Playstation 5.

And the Playstation 5 Pro is using a more modern updated (And larger!) chipset that is found in the base Playstation 5.

 

I know some people see it different. Some of them are younger and did not live through the gens. I experienced the NES launch as a small kid. I am sorry but i can't just "mix up" generations. Some people say Switch is Gen 8, i even heard some saying gen 7 because its closer to PS3/ Xbox 360 power than Ps4/ XboxOne but i cannot agree with this. Its just my opinion but console generations should not be defined in power. It was like this in the 80s and 90s as well as in the early 2000s. It was 2006 when this confuzing deffinitions started because of the Wii. I also don't say DC and PS2 would be gen 5.5 only because they are clearly inferior to Gamecube and Xbox. Is the 3DS another generation than the Vita? Or is the DS another generation than the PSP? We should take this into account i think.

It's not mixing up.
It's a reclassification based on a set number of variables.

It's like looking through a database where you can sort and group different values based on specific values.

If people wish to categorize console generations based on power alone rather than company release cadence, year or hardware features... It actually doesn't make them wrong, it just makes their approach different from other established norms.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--