I was curious about a lot of your comments and went ahead and checked my post history through 2015 here. The only thread I participated in that I think you're referring to was a thread created by you, purely on your own personal speculation about how you want Windows 10 and Xbox to merge. The discussion wasn't about iterative consoles, and the thread wasn't grounded on any data, it was a thread you wanted to make to express to everyone that Windows should be on Xbox.

I do remember initially being against iterative upgrades, but that was for the Neo rumors. Being a concurrent OG PS4/PS4 Pro owner, my stance has changed on that. If you made a thread asking why it was okay that Sony was doing it, then the thread had to have been in 2016 after Scorpio was revealed because the console was never even rumored before that year (again, as far as my research has led me).

In regards to your link in this quote, that discussion is focused on actual next gen consoles, not these mid gen upgrades. In that link, it talks about AMD designing next gen consoles for 2018. PS4 Pro came out in 2016, Scorpio 2017. As far as I am aware, AMD/Intel/NVidia generally can meet their road maps but it is rare to find them being ahead of schedule with delays usually being more prominent. With that said, the 2018 consoles are probably being pushed to 2019 for PlayStation and later (or not?) for what comes after Scorpio. I don't think that link is referring to the consoles we are discussing in this thread. Which would demonstrate that those were never rumors for mid gen upgrades, those are rumors for actual next gen consoles. 

Fwiw I don't imply that pro or Scorpio copied each other in the sense that you describe. I personally think Sony was planning Pro for a long while, and Scorpio was supposed to be next gen but Microsoft had to reposition Scorpio when they found out what Sony was doing with the Pro. There's a tweet from Phil Spencer the same week that Ito from Sony was interviewed about iterative upgrades. Phil at that time said he believed there would be a next console generation. Phil now states Ms is doing away with console gens. So again, that shows that they've had to shift strategy at some point between late 2015 and the first half of 2016 before Scorpio was rumored.

As for R&D and incubation time for consoles, now? The turn around time has to be much, much, much quicker than previous gens. Consider that up until now consoles have always had unique architecture. That is where a lot of the R&D costs/turn around time comes from I imagine. Current consoles are now, however PC APUs with the heavy lifting being done by AMD, based on their own roadmap for PC tech. This 'years and years of R&D" is probably a thing of the past with consoles. I'm willing to bet that Sony/Ms will spend more time designing the look of the box, or the controller, or OS features now that the tech inside is being handled almost entirely by AMD (remember, Ps4 was sold at a profit day one. At a $500 premium, even with ESRam and Kinect, I think X1 was sold at an even greater profit at launch. This is clearly a change in design philosophy for both companies, so it's a moot point to say that it takes years and years of R&D now. It might for AMD, but there's probably much less overhead for R&D in the console hardware itself).

That would explain why MCC bombed so badly. That thing still has problems a year later.

Yes but only if you know the secret handshake .

Replies in Italic.

MCC selling 3.3 million for a remaster is a bomb? Huh? Also online was mostly fixed by March 2015 so there shouldn't be any major problems or or anything major.

So you believe the R&D etc that go into mobile phones cost only $250?. If we are switching to how much they cost to make after the R&D and changing goal posts around then how much do you think it was costing to build the PS4 after the inital R&D Costs?, how much do yo think its costing now?.

I don't see how thise negates what I was saying.... its because of those R&D costs and whatever else thats associated with bringing those other devices to market is what makes  a two to three time markup over its prodution costs is needed. But consoles are usually sold with very little or no markup because being cheap is the primary goal of every console. 

Im sorry if this upsets some folks but that is just a solid fact. The PS3 and XB360 on release where monsters that would cost $1000 or more to get near their levels at the start of last gen, they where using Hardware that wasnt even released on PC yet or just about released, they where Top end systems at the start of last gen. This gen on PS4's release $500-600 PC's where out pacing them. Its the reason why this gen we have needed mid gen upgrades.

This kinda reasoning just makes no sense.... we have not "needed" mid gen upgrades this gen. They simply just changed how they revise the skus this gen as some form of product experiment and to play with the possibility of still having a high paying SKU on the market.  One reading yourcomment on this would think that all of a sudden the consoles released in 2013 can't play games anymore..... thats not true. The ogPS4 will still outsell the PS4pro all the way till the time the PS5 is released. There are still more 1080p gamers out there than there are 4k gamers. 

Now since im not a console maker and dont get to make deals with AMD to get my parts cheaper i would have to do it a different way to get my deals, but your answer is an easy yes.. I could go on Ebay and buy all the parts i needed to make a gaming PC that doesnt only match the PS4 in terms of power but outperforms it

i5 3.3GHz Desktop PC with 4GB ram EUR 159.83+11.31P&P

Extra 4GB DDR3 ram if you need it EUR 10.28+7.42P&P

AMD Radeon R9 280x 3GB GDDR5 EUR 54.80+9.85P&P

Total: €253.49 or $271.24

That might be $21 over your budget thanks to P&P but its still only 3 euro more then the price of a 2nd hand PS4 in gamestop over here.

Oh, so what happened to the case, controller, PSU, hard drive, blu-ray drive and operating system? And second hand PS4? A brand new PS4 is $250 right now in 2017. So pls build something that can outperform it and give you everything in the box at that price. Or if you wanna look at the 2013 price, build with what was on themarket then. The fact that you even think this particular point is something you can win just tells me you aren't actually trying to debate but rather just rying to say I am wrong regardless of how right I may be. Its common sense, the whole point that console exist is that they will always offer a better power to price advantage of whatever you can get in the PC space at that particular time and for that particular price.

Like i have shown above Its not always the case PC's can be cheap too. However your original point was "why would i buy a PS4 etc if i could just get everything on PC."

A console will always be cheaper than a PC, and always represent that all in one walk in and buy all you need to play option. No hassle. thats why consoles have always existed. How this is suddenly a strange concept to you is beyond me.

Read what i said above, you will come home, connect your phone to your TV or turn on your tv or set top box etc, go to the Sony or MS or whatever Digital Store you choose to use and buy your game and then play it, The Sony store will still have its own exclusives same goes for the Ms store etc. When you buy a game from one of them stores Sony or MS etc will still get royaltys from them sales just like Valve and EA do today on PC and Apple and Google with their stores.This is the future of gaming and entertainment.

But please do explain to me why this doesnt make sense to you?

Obviously, you are one of those people that think the cloud will replace everything. I on the other hand believe that physical hardware will always outperform what we have in the cloud for specific use case scenarios.... especially gaming. That future you talk about, if at all its going to happen, is at least 3 gens away. And is all under the assumption that we are going to hit a technological barrier where technological growth can only be achieved with regards to serversystems as opposed to the physical hardware in your pocket, hand or home. 

This is too big a topic and would require even longer posts than what we have had so far to explain or get into and is why I am trying to avoid it. 

Nope.... I see windows as the neutral enemy. Now if gaming as far as PC goes was a Linux dominated affair then I wouldn't worry. But as itstands, knowing that PC gaming as it stands is tied to windows is very disturbing to me. This si why I was happy when steam was trying to push their steam box initiative. 

I think all of gaming being tied to a platform owned by microsoft is just a really scary proposition. And I don't know how anyone can trust MS. Coming off the biggest console success sony had, their true colors came through and then went and made and over engineered and expensive machine. Pushed Blu-ray and what not. That sony, thats the kinda bad we can expect from their arrogance. But Microsoft? Their own arrogance and true colors showed in the form of an always online, no used games, drm heavy, mandatory kinect push. And we know how they are when it comes to their partnerships for games. I am sorry, but thats not a comapny I can trust.

But why? Why increase the power 4x fold if games are still being held back so significantly by older hardware? Why not make this a new generation? Seems like a waste of hardware power to me. Scorpio will indeed be the equivalent to the Ps4 Pro, going by Phils statements. And on that note I can't see this launch shaking up the industry too much.

Great time to be on PC though

Microsoft is making the Scorpio because Sony is doing it. Its as simple as that. As soon as they heard about Neo, they announced the Scorpio at E3 because they were embarassed about having a weaker platform to Sony. They were so embarassed, they literally raced to raise the clock speed of the XBox One before launch. Thats primarily what this is about. As time goes on they will find other good reasons, but the timing is right for this sort of thing now because of middle generation iterations before the next generation in cellphones.

Thing is, Steam pushed those boxes and no one wanted them, same with the OS (though they still need to work on it more, but still). MS for years has offered an OS every few years that ends up being adopted by the majority of PC users out there, mostly because it's more convienint and universal to use than the various distros of Linux or the differences with Mac OS, you cannot really pin that all on MS as a bad thing, not when the other two aren't trying nearly as hard to make their OS's appealing to both the major populace and gamers alike.

Imagine if all gaming was tied to one of the other big 3, it'd be the same dance and story, like it or not, when you give one of those 3 absolute power, it would only corrupt them and allow them to further clamp down on their hold all the more. 

I find it somewhat odd though that you wouldn't mind if everything ended up on PC, just not on another OS besides the other one you chose.