*spin-off* Length of the generation & HW... things

[Shifty Geezer]

I believe that for a new console to have a good chance of acceptance, it needs to bring something new to the table. Otherwise it will simply be seen as an expensive device doing nothing new compared to what the consumer already has. So far, for Sony and Microsoft, graphics has been the prime differentiator between generations. (With Nintendo proving that it is not the only way to differentiate new from old.)

Yeah. Let's pretend NES and SNES and N64 and GC never happened, and that Nintendo's audience hasn't been enthusiastically accepting the next wave of better graphics, and let's instead imagine that Wii is the only console Nintendo have ever made and that it is the best selling console ever (which it's not, at 2/3rds PS2 and ~ PS1 numbers) and more people didn't want to buy the same console with better graphics than something new (PS360 sold more than Wii). Clearly, then, better graphics is a dead end and consoles can only thrive on some new something.

Assuming that Sony and possibly Microsoft want to use graphics as a differentiator again...

While Nintendo releases outdated hardware once again? How's about you change your argument to be platform agnostic, and just ask what it'll take to get a certain level of performance beyond PS4?

...if a new console from any company wants to make a generational leap in visuals over the current gen, just how long time needs to pass for graphics to make a "generational leap"?

Quite possibly not as long as before. It depends on the price target of course, as a monster machine instantly gains 2-3x the performance even on current tech. Add in new-wave tech like HBM and stacked processors, a next-gen leap probably isn't dependent on lithographic processes.

 

[Entropy]

Yeah. Let's pretend NES and SNES and N64 and GC never happened, and that Nintendo's audience hasn't been enthusiastically accepting the next wave of better graphics, and let's instead imagine that Wii is the only console Nintendo have ever made and that it is the best selling console ever (which it's not, at 2/3rds PS2 and ~ PS1 numbers) and more people didn't want to buy the same console with better graphics than something new (PS360 sold more than Wii). Clearly, then, better graphics is a dead end and consoles can only thrive on some new something.

While Nintendo releases outdated hardware once again? How's about you change your argument to be platform agnostic, and just ask what it'll take to get a certain level of performance beyond PS4?

Quite possibly not as long as before. It depends on the price target of course, as a monster machine instantly gains 2-3x the performance even on current tech. Add in new-wave tech like HBM and stacked processors, a next-gen leap probably isn't dependent on lithographic processes.

Er, Shifty, my entire post was based on the assumption that the new generation of consoles would use graphics as a differentiator, which was why I had to throw in Nintendo as an example of why that assumption might be erroneous. Apart from that, Nintendo didn't figure into this at all, they obviously have plans of their own.

 

[Pixel]

Large swaths of consumer spending habits have changed alot over the course of the ps3/360 generation. Large swaths (not every gamer though of course) of gamers are spending lots of time in a single games robust multiplayer, and stretching their dollar, and buying fewer games.

This cuts down on the royalties Sony/MS receive because less games are being purchased, which in turn cuts down on how much they can take a loss on for selling the hardware. This dissuades them from selling systems at loss with superior hardware like they did with the xbox360/ps3.

If royalties continue to dwindle they may chose to sell the next hardware generation (unless there is a jump to the cloud) at a decent profit margin which will mean a further decrease in performance.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's why the future lies in games as a service.