On subscriptions: No thanks. Subscriptions generally result in forced consumption, and create a disconnect between what people want and where their money goes.
Television is probably the most extreme example. You only watch a couple shows on a channel, but you pay for all the content on the channel, effectively subsidizing a bunch of crap you don't care about. Even worse, you probably had to buy a bunch of channels you don't care about to gain access to the few that you do.
No thanks. Let the games stand or fall on their own merits.
On incremental upgrades: Not seeing much value here, either. The key advantage of consoles is that they provide a fixed and well-known hardware spec, allowing developers to design specifically for that target.
You know how the first year or two of games on a new system kinda suck? It's because developers are adapting to the new spec, and after a little learning curve they get really good at taking advantage of the strengths and mitigating the weaknesses of a console. If a console had an annual upgrade cycle, the developers would never get out of that learning curve.
Perhaps worse, dramatic shifts in console capabilities would become impossible for fear of alienating existing users who got their console only a few months ago. New interface changes, dramatic architecture shifts, even new online capabilities would be constrained (eg, PS4's video sharing relies on a new button on the dual shock).
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
