and Microsoft is hinting that the Series X/S will be their last console.they flat out directly said that they're working on new consoles already lmfao
The 5 year cycle that existed in the 90s and 00s is obsolete, Sony and Microsoft need to stop pretending otherwise.
The reality is that technological advancement has hit a wall. For years, advancement seemed to be exponential, but we've seemingly flatlined. The current console generation was released far too soon (not to mention launching in the middle of the most serious global crisis since the Second World War was a very questionable move).CPUs have flatlined for now but GPUs are still growing. GPUs are way more powerful anyway. More and more things will be offloaded to the GPU from here on out.
CPUs have flatlined for now but GPUs are still growing. GPUs are way more powerful anyway. More and more things will be offloaded to the GPU from here on out.
I thought consoles would tank after the PS4. People keep buying them so I guess not. Some people just want an affordable cool looking box with cool lights and a cool UI that doesn't take much effort thinking or troubleshooting to set up. But there's no reason for me to ever buy one.i wish they were affordable and cool looking with cool lights
bring back transparent plastics
They're still growing, but there are substantial diminishing returns in terms of player experience. Paying hundreds of dollars for a very marginal increase in visual fidelity isn't overly appealing. Meaningful growth now is going to be more along the lines of rendering more entities at once or otherwise having games that are more computationally complex (which is generally more of a CPU thing, as I understand it), or improvements in form factor like what the Switch did (which the Steam Deck has followed up and the PS Portal has quasi-mimicked).
Consoles? No. Physical media is going to be phased out HARD though. I doubt PS6 will have a physical media version, its going all digital. Sony is going to have an iron grip on your game license rights, its going to be a fucking disaster.Yeah I suspected the all digital content only but that also raises the question for storage because some of the games I have download on my PS4 and PS5 exceed 70GBs so that eats at space.
I think the next big change will be cross-platform gaming. That would be awesome to play your buddies etc on XBOX if you have PS. Now idea how Nintendo would fit into that though.
Yeah I suspected the all digital content only but that also raises the question for storage because some of the games I have download on my PS4 and PS5 exceed 70GBs so that eats at space.
That would just be their justification to push for full cloud storage and streaming play. Don't have to worry about storage space when you're not storing anything locally.
It's what the publishers already want - "In the future you will own nothing and be happy."
It's also the thing that will basically lock me out of gaming forever. Because fuck that future. Fuck it in the ass with a rusty fork. Sideways.
That would just be their justification to push for full cloud storage and streaming play. Don't have to worry about storage space when you're not storing anything locally.
But $20 a month for access to all the games? People will pay that easily even if they are just buying it to play CoD. It is why they are so popular. Minimal effort for maximum profit.
I doubt that would happen in the near future given that even gigabit internet has a hard time playing streaming games without a very noticeable hit to latency. It is why Stadia failed so hard and no one gives a crap about Playstation Plus.
I think the next big change will be cross-platform gaming.
It would probably be dumb to pay $20 a month every month for multiple months for one game, though, tbh
I mean, if you spend three months playing the game, that's roughly equivalent to buying it for $60. Obviously, that value calculation falls apart if you start looking at replaying it again in the future and needing to pay for it again, and that doesn't work out in your favour for games that would last you that long but cost less than $60, but it also does work in your favour if you play more games than that.
If you're only ever playing one game? Yeah, that's not so worthwhile. But it's still a pretty solid deal, if you're willing to accept the loss of control over your library (which is a big sticking point).
I think Im talking about the ones who play it everyday for like a year, or until the next one comes out. Paying $20 a month for just that seems like a lotMost people aren't going to care though.
Most people aren't going to care though.
How many people have subscriptions to stuff they don't regularly use? That is why subscription services are being pushed so hard.
I think Im talking about the ones who play it everyday for like a year, or until the next one comes out. Paying $20 a month for just that seems like a lot
Most people aren't going to care though.
How many people have subscriptions to stuff they don't regularly use? That is why subscription services are being pushed so hard.
Cross-platform is already a thing, but it's mostly Microsoft pushing for it and Nintendo going along when it's feasible to do so. Pushing for it is mostly a product of being behind, though. Those in the lead tend not to want cross-play because they can already offer enough of a playerbase to leverage fence-sitters into buying their platform to play with friends. Those that are lagging, however, benefit more from "you don't have to choose between getting our system and playing with your friends."honestly i think the push that brought it over the edge from "we don't really want this" to "yeah we want this" was epic using fortnite to bully Sony into finally allowing it, and then call of duty following along