Slownenberg said:
For What I'm Responding to: Spoiler! no. just no haha. You're living in the wrong time of gaming if you want that. For so many reasons. Why would you want to be a system that will only be relevant for 2-3 years instead of 10 years? Who cares if it is new lol, it is new to you when you buy it. If anything gens are likely to be at minimum 10 years from here on out. Big AAA games seem to take like half a decade to make now. Systems are very expensive and getting ever more expensive and don't get cheaper over time anymore so affording a system that starts out expensive and only gets more expensive is very different than when a system used to launch at like $2XX and drop to $99 later on. Also diminishing returns on tech improvements from gen to gen, I mean look at PS4 to PS5, it was what like a 7 year gen and pretty dang minimal upgrade from one system to the next, and with the cost of hardware in the current AIpocalypse it returns will be even more diminished due to price constraints. Sure Switch to Switch2 was a solid generational leap, but that'll probably be the last gen leap that feels very solid in under 10 years upgrade time, and even that was only cuz they went from an affordable system to an expensive system. And then of course the obvious thing that one of the nice things about consoles is you don't have to deal with the tons of different specs that people are playing games with. With consoles, you know if you own the system it's gonna play and play well, or if it doesn't play well that's entirely on the developers fault and generally it is common knowledge that they did a bad job. |
I think you've misunderstood what I'm advocating for. I'll explain why below:
On Relevance
You're accusing me of wanting the exact opposite of what I'm actually arguing for. I'm not arguing for shorter windows of relevance, I'm arguing for longer windows no matter when I buy the latest version of a console.
So, having more frequent generations doesn't reduce the length of time the hardware is relevant, it instead makes sure that you'll have future proofed hardware available at all times, not just the early generation. To go into more detail: under the more frequent generation paradigm (or business model) I suggest, if I bought a new Switch in 2032, it would be relevant for a long time because it would have the latest or near latest engineering advancements included: I'd be getting 2030 hardware at the oldest, maybe 2031 or 2032. However, if I bought a Switch 2 it under the current paradigm in 2032, it would be relevant for significantly less time because it would be using 2025 engineering, far older, less capable, will be missing features and software that will be available on more advanced hardware.
On porting
Again, you're assessing porting on massive generational leaps. Shorter steps means far simpler porting (if it's even necessary).
With the current paradigm, Nintendo devs had to worry about not just one or two SoC generations, but nearly 8 years worth of SoC generations, drastically increasing the hurdles they had to cover. We have examples of far more sophisticated platforms that operate on an even more frequent hardware update paradigm: take Apple, Google, Samsung (with OS partners). I also think, given the vast distance between Switch 1 and 2 that Nintendo handled the transition quite well, and we can deduce it will be far less of an issue with far fewer generational steps in their SoC and fewer feature discrepancies. But either way, this is a technical hurdle rather than a problem with my suggested paradigm. Given the increased ease of porting, I'd also argue that it's a strength.
On price
I'm not concerned about higher prices for myself or anyone else. The older hardware will be available for lower prices for everyone who wants lower priced hardware, but for those who want to pay a premium for future proofed hardware, it's better to have that option available to us. I'd also argue that more frequent hardware updates will create cheaper hardware prices available to consumers.
The reason for price increases aren't impacted by one paradigm model or another, it's because you're comparing prices using two different currencies in two different economic states. The 1994 USD is not the same currency as the 2026 currency, that's why your 299 US dollars in 1994 for a Playstation isn't the same as 299 dollars in 2026. Converting 299 1994USD gets you 676 2026USD. You also have to take into account that changes in the tech industry have resulted in a temporary supply constraint, which has increased the price of components until manufacturing can catch up to demand or demand reduces. Bottom line: not a problem with a specific paradigm, as economic stresses effect every paradigm.
So, why I think more frequent hardware updates lowers prices is because there will be incentives for vendors and resellers to sell earlier iterations of hardware for cheaper prices. Because there is going to be a strata of consumers who will always sell the old hardware to help pay for an upgrade, there will be an increased flow of goods into the used market compared to how it exists today. The impact could be so pronounced on older iterations that it will become a buyers market.
So, people who want cheaper and older hardware now have more of an advantage, and those of us who want newer hardware with a longer lifespan of relevancy have that as well.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
