Destructoid Checkpoint: Do we really need a new console generation?

I typically get very excited about new video game consoles. I my childhood years, I would spend hours looking at pictures of things like the Neo Geo and imagine a world where I could afford such things. It’s good to dream, but I am not exactly keen to return to the days of not being able to afford to buy the new consoles that I want. 

Right now, I consider myself rather blessed. A series of strokes of luck and fortune has brought me to a point where I can afford all the major consoles and a nice gaming PC. I justify such things as being for work, but in reality, they are for that younger me who wanted them. I like to play games, and am fortunate to have tied a thing I love into how I make a living (or, a part of it, at least), so the expense is worth it to me, but how long can that really last?

How long can the friends who make up my current gaming circles, and the strangers who will make up my future gaming circles, continue to endure these price hikes coming from every direction? It begs the question: Do we really need a new console generation?

I’m unconvinced by the fiscal argument

As rich as companies like Xbox and Sony are, I remain unconvinced that they can really afford to make new consoles right now. I am sure they can pay the required price, but I am not convinced that they can wrestle with the AI monsters that lurk in the corners of the markets, buying up future output from fabricators, terrified that competitors might be able to buy some RAM or a GPU. 

From our point of view, Xbox and Sony are small fish in a big pond, and their return on investment is not impressive enough to make the AI-bros take their jaundiced eyes off the glowing future of an AI-powered superworld, where you are paid no wage but magically have the money to buy every single slop subscription they plan to sell you.

I just don’t have tremendous confidence in the hardware manufacturer's ability to produce consoles that people will truly be able to afford, and, worst of all…I think they kind of want that.

I am firmly of the opinion that both Sony and Microsoft plan to shed low-return players, because they are convinced that they can aim the available pool of consoles at higher-yield markets and make more money that way.

This is where we run into the clash between people like me, who think games are art that all people should have an honest opportunity to experience, and those who think of them as strictly a product. 

The biggest clue to date about this is Sony's plan to stop producing physical games. This gives them a fatter slice of every sale as they no longer share a percentage with brick-and-mortar stores, allowing them to absorb any lost sales. It also means you can no longer avail of cheaper goods during promotions in those same stores, wait out premium launch pricing to buy cheaper, older physical products later, or just easily share games with friends. It also impacts load schemes like libraries and charities being able to provide a gaming experience for people in income brackets where the cost of the hobby is prohibitive. 

Things are just going to be expensive, and that expense will be entirely controlled by the companies that produce the hardware. They will not do us any favors, and the loss of physical product is a definitive weakening of our position as consumers.

I don’t even think they have squeezed this whole lemon yet

The existing hardware is not even the biggest problem faced by developers and publishers, or even the manufacturers; it is the length and cost of development. Games take too long to make, and part of the reason for that is that the aimless acceleration of hardware and the pointless demand for “more realistic graphics” mean that everything just takes longer. Throw more teraflops in there and suddenly people need to do and see ever more, and the timeline extends again.

We have also fostered an unfortunate relationship between the connection between time and value, something that is admittedly true sometimes, but is mostly just a red herring to distract you from the fact that the turd-filled open-world snoozefest you have invested 100 hours in is actually just straight trash. But hey, you were entertained for all that time, so it must be worth something, right?

In reality, a 12-20 hour game is a superb value proposition when it comes to being entertained, and it beats the snot out of going to a concert or the cinema, or most sporting events. The only thing that absolutely bodies gaming when it comes to value for your dollar is reading, so you should probably read more. 

The best games of this generation have not been the ones that have pushed the hardware of the PS5 and Xbox Series X to their limits, frankly. We do not, under any circumstances, need to reignite the visual arms race when it has already cost us so much. 

Nothing we are playing on is even close to obsolete

I will admit that last generation, the tech was getting a little creaky by the time we got to revealing new hardware, but that is not even close to the case this time. Part of that is because of software-side improvements in things like frame generation, upscaling, and other fancy stuff that needed to be developed to justify the terrifying focus on massively demanding light physics. 

At this time, the new hardware is only really needed to reset the market, squeeze whales, price out lower-yield consumers, and cut their costs by pulling out of entire markets where their dollar presence is not rewarded enough. Remember, over 100 countries cannot access the PSN; once physical games go, so do those customers.

Most gamers have been overspending to prepare for this moment

If you give players no comfortable way to step into the next generation, they won’t do it. Both Sony and Microsoft need to realize that we are not in normal financial times. They are no longer competing with movies and music for the entertainment dollar; they are competing with pretty much everything for the only dollar left. 

Gamers have built  up libraries of titles they have never played, and if given a reason, they will simply hold onto their old hardware and go play them. If console companies really want to leave people in the past, those same people will likely be happy to stay there and not be bullied into going into debt to buy overpriced hardware on installment plans. 

All in all, I am not seeing too many positives for the consumer in a hardware change at this point, beyond allowing a “new normal” of extravagant pricing that will likely never go down. The best thing would be a console delay that allows for new launches to happen at a lower price in the first place.

And that’s it for this week.