Pretty funny to actually wonder how they got there--they spent around 100M on controller research alone. If I have to take the word of a platform holder on something like this vs a swath of folks online, I'll take the platform holder, because otherwise it would be in the product. BC being important to the mass market simply isn't true. I'll answer your second question with a different one, if it's so important, why didn't the current market leader bother including it? They did last time to great lengths.
Because the tiny niche of folks that want to play the older titles will pay for it--maybe not a lot, but most folks aren't hopping on to play U2 over Bloodborne. They're playing and buying FIFA/CoD every year.
Sony said they're working on ways to bring their back catalog forward. They said it is important to them as of the beginning of this generation, but they have to come up with a different approach (PS Now) since they are working on a different architecture. They were very upfront about it. Nintendo's said as much about their outlook on their next generation of technology. Microsoft is working on a solution as well.
If it was too small, people maintaining their digital libraries, then it wouldn't be worked on at all. But if the console manufacturers want to retain people over generational leaps they're going to have to create ways to allow people to keep their investments accessible.
You mean the same manufacturers that make PCs and Gaming PCs? Yes, the context is that they made a variety of machines that haven't driven adoption of anything. There's a monster gaming PC downstairs and I'm typing on one of 2 gaming laptops in my house. Guess what you won't find in here? Steam machine.
Like I said, I believe those machines are the beginning, a sign of things to come. It's just another data point among several in reading market trends to guess where it may be going. It's proof that PCs can be package like consoles, which is what I think Sony and MS are going to continue inching closer to.
Your particular setup means nothing to me and it's silly that you used it to make a point.
Infrastructure is a big problem. This is the main hurdle, it's not dancing around the growth of to say that the differences in download speed across regions of the country are a larger hindrance than the desire to simply download something and be done with it. Half of my collection is digital, but that's also because I have 300/30 and no bandwidth caps. Everyone can't say the same, especially in the EU.
Great, you're not just bringing up random indefensible points to derail the conversation. Now how about you address my point.
What are the implications of it growing? I proposed that as it grows platform holders are going to have to provide a way for people to carry their libraries across generations. I've said it several times now and you keep ignoring it to focus on some other aspect. You either believe that console manufacturers will NOT provide a solution for backwards and forwards compatibility, or you simply don't want to acknowledge it because it weakens your argument.
I misread that, but the growing variety of preferences? Not so much. The way console platforms reach that audience is to simply bring the content over vs making different version of hardware.
I disagree that's the way it will go. I think there will be more choices of devices in the future, not less.
No. Your position from the start has been tethered to an enthusiast viewpoint, while ignoring the larger market realities.
There is nothing to suggest that anyone wants an upgradeable console of any kind--the complete opposite is true, and this is no opinion.
You've also ignored the cost and platform portion and have yet to explain why this actually makes sense for a mass market and not enthusiast one.
People like the current set-up for a reason.
I'm ignoring the larger market realities? You've skirted around all the facts I've provided in terms of console manufacturers and developers settling on architectures that consolidate development into PC pipelines, that PC gaming is growing, that consoles continue to be more PC like in nature, that consoles are no longer the center of attention when it comes to advancements in the industry consoles are getting outclassed earlier, that the industry is growing around consoles, and more. If you don't want to address those then simply don't reply, because redirecting it to other random points has accomplished nothing.
I don't want an upgradeable console either. Where did you get that from? I have an opinion on it (it's not favorable), but that's neither here nor there. I don't understand why you keep inserting these kinds of things into the discussion.
I ignored your platform portion because it's not what I was suggesting, you were misreading what I wrote and making stuff up, which you've done several times. I'm not going to respond to every random insertion you make unless it is in response to something I said.
I did not suggest that Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft are going to give up their platforms. I think they're going to expand their platforms to multiple devices, encompassing a range of performance, and get their games to more people. I already pointed to cases like PS Now reaching multiple Sony technologies including Blu-ray and TV, cross development of PS4 and PS Vita, Nintendo Virtual Console, Nintendo's talks about consolidating their development studios on a single platform, and everything MS has said about moving to Universal Windows Apps. You'll have to excuse me if those data points are far more convincing that common development platforms, as well as backwards and forwards compatibility that comes with it, are on the horizon than take the word of some random on a message board telling me "nobody wants that." You can't whisk those facts away.
I addressed the cost already, but I'll repeat it. I don't see why Sony, MS, and Nintendo need to spend billions of dollars on exotic or proprietary tech when A) development has consolidated on a common architecture and B) they can build optimized gaming consoles using existing technology, much like Steam, Nvidia, and Dell are doing. The same economies of scale can be achieved by ordering in mass.
You and I think consoles will evolve in different ways. There's no proof either one of is right because they're just guesses, and obviously we come from two different camps of thought. I'm fine leaving it at that, because I've gained absolutely nothing from your perspective and I've lost any confidence that we'll agree on anything.
