What he's actually saying is "There's only so many times you can churn out exactly the same games on the same hardware and have people buy them. We need new hardware so we can churn out the same games in even more HD and have people buy them again".

Or alternatively you could just produce an original game which everyone will buy cause it's good and they haven't played it before...

It's a valid point though.

Now-a-days your cpu comes with more gpu horsepower than a console. The point of a console is that not only is it set hardware that doesn't require maintenance by the user or guesswork by the developer for a lowest common denominator, it is also to give an experience inherently better to where you'd expect from the lowest common denominator (on PC). That is no longer the case.

Since the dawn of dx11 and the standardization of 1080p, both which have happened over the last couple years, PCs have regained a footing that could have been quelled by a new console. That said, since a new crop did not emerge, the typical amount of graphics horsepower inherently needed for a 1080p experience has been allowed to increase with new gpu iterations. Hence we are left with consoles that will need approx. the horsepower to meet 30fps minimums for PCs launching at that time. Currently that means a ~7850-7870 (or probably similar to 660 non-ti). Had it happened earlier, we may have been stuck for years an entire class downward.

You take the good with the bad.

Longer console life-cycle did force developers to write more efficient games, although I must say it has been just a bit too long. No matter how well design and how they shrunk the manufacturing process, the age started to show a couple years ago.

I just hope MS will stay away from proprietory hard drive so that we can swap the HDD out for an SSD to double the performance at minimal cost.

That aside, the next gen consoles have very high expectation to meet. While some want them to be pure gaming console, others want them to be much more -- an entertainment center that is upgradable.

On what grounds does he claim that PC games compete on the same market as consoles and tablets? Before the neoliberals brought computers and the internet to the ordinary consumer, games were manufactured for and bought only by dedicated fans. Piracy and tablets do not slow down that segment, where the consumers know a good computer game. I think this guy is full of BS, as is most of the contemporary games on the market.

Gamespot did an analysis on new IPs and historically it is true that more newer IPs are created at the start of new console generation. So to some extent it's not that hardware limits creativity but that small companies or large companies won't take many risks at the end of the console generation. When there is already an established base of players for PS3/360, developers would much rather launch proven and safe sequels like COD and Assassin's Creed, or Batman, then to launch a new IP and risk selling only 1-2 million copies.

When Do We See the Most New IP?
"11 new IP from the Big Three (Sony/MS/Nintendo) in the last four years combined (2009-2012), an average of less than one original game per console per year. If you look at the number for the first half of the console generation (2005-2008), there were 23 games based on new IP, averaging just under two per console per year. And keep in mind, the PS3 and the Wii weren't even out until late 2006, so if anything, that figure actually short-changes the new IP push from the first half of this generation."
http://www.gamespot.com/f...-the-most-new-ip-6384770/

Also, we can't deny that current console generation has stagnated PC gaming and affected us negatively as well. Since Crysis, only Metro 2033, Witcher 2, BF3 and a handful of other games even attempted to set the bar higher. Crysis was released at the end of 2007 and it still is better looking than 97% of PC games.

PC games only need to look at Dark Souls which is a 100% pure port of a PS3/360 console game at 1024x720 limited to 30 fps to see how outdated consoles have become by today's standards. It's just that console gamers don't notice since most of them aren't gaming on the PC, especially not on a $300 GTX660Ti or something similar where the PC graphics shine vs. PS3/360. I would bet once PS3/360 owners see next generation consoles, they'll realize how wrong they were about us not needing new generation hardware. Even BF3 on consoles had to be limited to just 30 fps and levels for multi-player minimized since the consoles couldn't handle it. So it is also true that current console hardware is completely maxed out, plus it's only DX9.

The current console generation is BY far the longest in the last 15 or more years. It has been dragged out for way too long. I don't remember people complaining when Nintendo release SNES and then N64 and Sony updated PS1 with PS2 then PS3. This is the first generation of whiny little kids who don't want next generation consoles because 2006 graphics are good enough for them. I don't blame MS and Sony for holding out on new consoles (especially since Sony took a huge financial loss for first 3 years of PS3 hardware), but it has definitely hurt the industry more than it helped in my opinion. If consumers are dumb enough to keep buying $250 6-year-old PS3 console, then Sony is in no rush to release new version; that is unless the competitor forces its hand.

I seriously think if it wasn't for Wii U, MS and Sony would have milked PS3/360 until 2016 since their consumers have such low standards for graphics. Look at COD:MW1. Same exact game sells millions of copies later as MW2/MW3/BO1/BO2.

Remember when PS3 launched and it was so much faster than PS2? Well we didn't complain about the progress that was made. I say bring out Xbox720 and PS4 as soon as possible. People who can't afford next generation consoles can still buy a discounted PS3/360. The rest of gamers are ready for new consoles.