{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/12/2017 12:50:05 AM
1
That's exactly why Microsoft is moving to a more modular system so they can make incremental updates more frequently.
Hopefully Sony follows suit.
I'd have no issues buying a new console every two to three years.
English
-
Modificato da Sideswipe: 8/12/2017 5:19:17 AM[quote]Hopefully Sony follows suit. I'd have no issues buying a new console every two to three years.[/quote] Or they could go the PC-esque route and allow us to upgrade the hardware periodically.
-
There are problems going that route. Not only is it more expensive, it also makes optimization efforts less effective and more costly for devs. And depending on how versatile you're talking, you run the risk of making hardware so generic that there are branding issues. Consoles are significantly more successful than computers because they are easier to deal with (minimal setup and maintenance), lower cost entry and are highly brand able. I think phones may have set enough of a precedence to decrease purchase cycle times but I think the do it yourself piece causes too many issues for the consumer demographic for it to be a worthwhile change.
-
Perhaps your right. I just feel there has to be a better way for consoles to stay "High tech." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like even when consoles are released they're still only equivalent to a mid range PC and within a year or 3, they're seemingly only as powerful as a smartphone in terms of processing power.
-
Mid range compared to what hardware is currently available but the cost of moving into a higher end market is something that most gamers aren't willing to take on. A console cost between $200-$500. A PC can vary between hundreds and thousands of dollars. Lower high end components typically cost around what the entire console sells for. The argument that you'll typically hear from PC gamers is that being able to upgrade incrementally reduces costs. That isn't true, it just allows costs to be spread out. Timing of parts purchases is what lowers cost. Dollar for dollar, PCs rarely are comparable to console performance. I'd be down for higher end, more costly consoles but it doesn't seem like something most consumers would support. If you had a choice between a $300, $500, $1000, $1500 and $2000 console. They all play the same games in the same way but you get better graphics/frame rate on costlier systems, which would you buy? Which do you think most people would buy?
