Switch Discussion Thread

[Exhuminator]

PC gaming has always been there, doing what it does, and largely it hasn't changed how consoles have worked. Mobile has iterated very quickly though, and come to represent a large chunk of the market.

I don't really agree with this.

Once Microsoft came out with the Xbox, it changed the whole PC game. Microsoft courted PC developers for Xbox, and gave them tools to make porting simple. PC developers started focusing on the Xbox version primarily, and then back porting to PC. This continued with the 360. Unfortunately the 360's lifespan lasted too long, and people start to choose the PC version of a game over its 360 version, due to the PC version having higher resolution and better framerates. That sexier tech coupled with the ease of Steam, made people start choosing PC over console more and more. Now that PC gaming is easier and cheaper than it ever has been, combined with powerful and easy to use port parity engines, it makes total sense why console manufacturers are struggling to compete with PCs. Especially since most of their console games have superior PC versions by default. Consoles are competing with PC, not mobile.

Mobile has iterated very quickly though, and come to represent a large chunk of the market.

Yes, but the library of game types targeted for mobile are not analog to the library of game types targeted towards consoles. These are different worlds in both content and demographics.

If we're really going to embrace this tiered console concept, we might as well just make the consoles have modular CPUs, GPUs, APUs, RAM, whatever. So when it's time to upgrade the console, you just pull the part out, and insert the upgraded component. Yes that makes the console even more close to being a PC, except say the GPU upgrade will only come from the manufacturer of the console, so there's no compatibility issues to worry about. And the modular components will always be a known commodity for the developers as such.

I still don't like it though. I was happy with 5 year console lifespans, with consoles that I just pop a game in and it takes off running. No patching, no OS updates, no tiered system capability worries. Just pure and simple gaming bliss. But those days are behind us now and aren't coming back.

[Sarge]

I still don't like it though. I was happy with 5 year console lifespans, with consoles that I just pop a game in and it takes off running. No patching, no OS updates, no tiered system capability worries. Just pure and simple gaming bliss. But those days are behind us now and aren't coming back.

Man, couldn't agree more. I do like that completely broken games can be fixed, of course, but the primary appeal of consoles was that they weren't complex. You just throw in a game and it works.

As for the 360 and PC side of the equation, PC gamers were mad for quite a while that the 360 tech was holding back the PC side. There's probably a decent amount of truth to that. Not that I necessarily care, but there it is. Anyway, with all the demand for features and the desire to leverage games on multiple platforms, it was inevitable that consoles would eventually become simplified PCs. And even then, that's getting more complex as folks want a robust feature set.

I also think the rise of major broadband services and online multiplayer has necessitated this need for constant patching. If you're running local multiplayer, it's not as big a deal, and single-player rarely needs much tweaking unless a huge bug slips through QA (or gets ignored).

Long story short, so long as consoles keep aiming for the diversity of PCs, they're going to be competing with PCs. Still, for those of us not running up-to-date gaming rigs, something like a PS4 is still a godsend, warts and all. No worries about whether a game will run or not, even if it requires tons of patches and installs and whatnot.

[isiolia]

Yes, but the library of game types targeted for mobile are not analog to the library of game types targeted towards consoles. These are different worlds in both content and demographics.

Not entirely, no, and certainly not at the high end. However, that could easily change.

It wasn't just MS coming out with the XBox that changed things for western developers. They were already looking more at consoles due to market share for consoles and widespread piracy of PC software (massive P2P sharing and broadband boom). At the same time, at least to me, PC gaming was becoming more niche because of the added requirement of a good GPU that not everyone had, or could even add. Just, in general, lots of factors, and a topic unto itself

My point though, is that PC gaming has always been ahead, at least in some ways. The PC versions of games were better than 360 or PS3 versions the day those consoles launched, not just years later. 7th gen still lasted longer than most.
I don't disagree that firing up Steam is far easier than dosstart.bat and such from years ago, but for mass market, consoles are still simpler, lower cost of entry (kinda), etc.

I also don't disagree that for a segment of the fanbase, what you're saying is completely true. Personally, I think that's a lost cause for console platform holders though. PC is always going to be ahead on specs.

I see mobile hardware as more of a "threat" to them because it's commodity, it's global, and people are buying it anyway. It's one thing to say that a $400 box can't compete with a $2000 PC. Most people would expect that (and, sure, it probably can't compete with a $600 PC either). The bigger potential issue is if the cheap SoC in their phone or tablet is nipping at the heels of what that specialized box can do. With the pace of mobile hardware, that'd be a distinct possibility if consoles weren't trying to upgrade.

At least with regard to mass-market, that seems more pertinent.

Just practically too, it's probably better for customer retention. Trying to convince people to buy into your ecosystem is probably easier if you don't reset it every few years.

[Exhuminator]

PC versions of console games have always been more technically impressive yes, but as the overly long 7th console gen dragged on, that disparity grew ever more noticeable. And as much as I hate Steam, even I admit it's silly to dismiss its impact on the world of PC gaming. Steam really did draw in huge swaths of gamers who otherwise wouldn't have bothered with PC. Precisely because it's such a super simple easy portal to PC gaming.

Trying to convince people to buy into your ecosystem is probably easier if you don't reset it every few years.

Exactly. Why would anyone want to buy the PS5 on day one, if they know a year later it'll be obsolete due to the PS5v2, and a year after that PS5v3, and so on. With each successive iteration a more powerful version of the console you just bought last year. It makes becoming an early adopter unappealing to say the least. Not a good way to try and maintain sales.

Also these yearly smartphone upgrades are subsidized by subscription services to cellular plans. Would we be seeing something like that in place to accommodate absorbing the cost of annual console upgrades?

[Stark]

Also these yearly smartphone upgrades are subsidized by subscription services to cellular plans. Would we be seeing something like that in place to accommodate absorbing the cost of annual console upgrades?

There was a subsidy program later in the life of the 360 actually, so there's precedent.

[isiolia]

Exactly. Why would anyone want to buy the PS5 on day one, if they know a year later it'll be obsolete due to the PS5v2, and a year after that PS5v3, and so on. With each successive iteration a more powerful version of the console you just bought last year. It makes becoming an early adopter unappealing to say the least. Not a good way to try and maintain sales.

Also these yearly smartphone upgrades are subsidized by subscription services to cellular plans. Would we be seeing something like that in place to accommodate absorbing the cost of annual console upgrades?

Because they likely won't be. Same as you don't lose all your apps when you go buy a new iPhone. You simply have your Apple account and stuff that you've bought on it, and it goes with you from device to device. That seems to be where consoles are going too - it was something specifically brought up by MS if I recall.

Smartphone subsidies have actually been going away (and haven't really been a thing internationally either AFAIK). Not everyone upgrades every time either. My take is that there won't be a general expectation for everyone to upgrade to every successive model. Likely, plenty of people will, IE, DSi, New 3DS, etc...but many more won't until they're limited (can't get new system software or something), or a new model offers something they really want.

[BogusMeatFactory]

No system would be delayed a couple months because it adds a completely different game element. That would be an insane amount of work and redevelopment of all the software to encorporate it properly at launch. NX wasn't delayed to begin with as there was never a release date to begin with.

I agree with your first point, as it does sound sketchy, but as for there never being a release date, that's not true. Nintendo announced the release date as March 2017, worldwide.

But people are saying it was delayed because they had it in their brain it was going to be released in December.

[Exhuminator]

Because they likely won't be. Same as you don't lose all your apps when you go buy a new iPhone. You simply have your Apple account and stuff that you've bought on it, and it goes with you from device to device.

I'm not talking about the annoyance of porting accounts or digital libraries, I'm talking about having to rebuy a console platform every year. The monetary cost to the end user, that is the prohibitive aspect I can foresee annoying the current demographic. People expect being able to buy a console and use that same console throughout the life of its library. That's the precedent set by consoles since the inception of the concept. Moving away from that concept in the world of consoles will be tricky.

[isiolia]

I'm not talking about the annoyance of porting accounts or digital libraries, I'm talking about having to rebuy a console platform every year. The monetary cost to the end user, that is the prohibitive aspect I can foresee annoying the current demographic. People expect being able to buy a console and use that same console throughout the life of its library. That's the precedent set by consoles since the inception of the concept. Moving away from that concept in the world of consoles will be tricky.

It remains to be seen how significant and frequent upgrades are. I don't disagree that it's a potential mess based on how people are used to consoles working...but the flip side is that it'd be following the precedent set by literally every other category of consumer tech.

If, instead, we assume maybe 2-3 years per upgrade, and each model not becoming obsolete each time (logical, since it can become the budget model/etc), then you might still potentially get 6-9 years out of the hardware each time. Comparable to regular console life cycles. Unless, again, you actually see a compelling reason to upgrade earlier.

[fastbilly1]

Also these yearly smartphone upgrades are subsidized by subscription services to cellular plans. Would we be seeing something like that in place to accommodate absorbing the cost of annual console upgrades?

There was a subsidy program later in the life of the 360 actually, so there's precedent.

Seganet?