This optimization thing is overstated and misunderstood when it comes to consoles. With this model for consoles, devs aren't making games for the PS3/360 and then porting it over to the PS4/XB1 or vice versa. It's the same engine running on hardware that  can run the exact same code. Devs don't have to go and completely rewrite their code to go from the PS4 to the Neo. They give you the swme game, but just allow the more powerful console to utilize assets or better iterations of their already existing code. Rez bump here, better shadow rez there, better AA here....etc. 

Look at it this way. Devs make a game on PC and it's dialed up to 10. for consoles they port it over and bring it down to 4. With the Neo and scorpio they bring it down to 7. Same code. 

I don't think it will kill innovation. especially if going by your example. If ways to play is the kinda innovation you are talking about, then I'm sorry to tell you we have been playing the same way since the 90s. I think people have to accept that we don't have to reinvent the wheel every single time. If it's not broke don't fix it. I would rather see innovation in AI, physics, level design and character progression than in new control systems anyday. 

Besides, we are getting VR now. And I think you are putting too much faith in Nintendo. It's not just about having new ways to play. Its about having meaningful ways to play. there is a reason dual stick controllers, keyboard and mouse have been around for as long as they have. They just make things easy to do. Nintendo did different with motion controls. but a lot of their games suffered for it. I strongly doubt anyone would tell you that twilight princess was the best Zelda they played. or that people would be as excited if they were told that BotW is motion control based.

infinite compatibility isn't how generations go away though. Look at it this way...

The PS4 was released in 2013 at $399. By 2019 it could very well be $99, maybe even come without a disc drive or something. At that point the Neo will probably be $200-$250.

The pricing is key. By that time, the best selling PS4 wouldn't be the $99 version even tho it still plays all PS4 games. It will probably be the $250 Neo which plays all PS4 games and plays all PS5 games decently. The og PS4 will still be able to play PS5 games but you will literally be getting a $99 expericne. 

it's called phasing out hardware. if you had a PS4 from 2013 to 2019, at that time you could choose to get a Neo for $200/$250 and be good for the next 3-6 yrs, or you could choose to buy the PS5 for $400-$500 and be good for the next 6-9yrs. 

The luxury this model affords platform holders is that they can take more risks with hardware. They can make a $600 all powerful box knowing that they really only need the $250 box to drive sales while they can slowly get their price down. And most importantly, there will be a version of the console available to meet every price bracket and type of console gamer. 

No shame learning from the best. 

A lack of generations prevents a clean break from the previous iteration of hardware. The strength of consoles had always been a unified platform that developers could maximize. In addition, it made it clear to consumers when software was compatible with a platform.

I don't see this change as a good thing. New hardware is going to be limited by software being required to run on older hardware. Which defeats the purpose of having improved hardware. Consoles are becoming too much like PCs and forgetting what made the console model a success.

Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly. Because it seems that you are basically agreeing that console games won't be pushing the hardware. It will be like PC. 

Pushing the hardware? I dont  agree with that mindset. 

lets be honest here. what does that really mean? Is this coming from all that PR bullshit talk of how this or that game is only using 60% of the hardware?

Or is this some sort of belief that with more powerful hardware we get better games?

Well.... no. More powerful hardware just means one thing. better looking games. and in some cases better running games. But in case most dont know, devs always focus on looks first before performance. Because unfortunately looks sell games and not if it's running at 30fps/60fps.

What I want are improvements in AI. csuse to me that can have the single biggest impact on how a game is experienced. don't give me a screen full of 30 dumb enemies. give me a screen with one super smart enemey. 

the hardware we have now can do all that and then some. the issue is the devs. 

And I'm sorry. PC always pushes gaming. not consoles. There are things happenning on PC today that we won't see on consoles (properly) for at least another 3-4yrs. So I really don't understand what you mean by pushing hardware. 

"No Generations" means unlimited support for the first model, not just backwards compatibility

A lack of generations prevents a clean break from the previous iteration of hardware. The strength of consoles had always been a unified platform that developers could maximize. In addition, it made it clear to consumers when software was compatible with a platform.

I don't see this change as a good thing. New hardware is going to be limited by software being required to run on older hardware. Which defeats the purpose of having improved hardware. Consoles are becoming too much like PCs and forgetting what made the console model a success.