Urg I really don't want the Apple model coming to consoles.
It hasn't really been tried in this capacity. We have little track record to go on.Has this ever happened successfully with fixed console hardware?
Besides HDD upgrades and suchlike.
And you've answered your own question. Add to that three major third party developers will not cannibalise their own content delivery systems.I wonder what developers and publisher will think about this. Targetting multiple configs will complicate matters and increase dev costs.
If true, I could see a similar path for Nintendo.......
Isn't this the exact opposite reason people buy consoles? I buy a machine in 2013 and know that it will play everything for the next 7 years, no headaches.
Zombie James said:Considering how price-conscious the console market is, I don't see how anyone can think yearly $400 consoles is a good idea.
So next gen I will need to buy Xbox every year? 400 per year?
This is not going to end well.
It's already happening.This is a very good move. Just don't go GFWL on our asses again
Urg I really don't want the Apple model coming to consoles.
for all those complaining: this is what everyone's going to do
People here may be excited about the news, but won't this just encourage the entire casual market to head over to PlayStation?
I think this is the key thing.
If you imagine a hardware refresh every two years, then as long as MS can give a commitment that games will be compatible and work going back 3 iterations (6 years) then I'm happy.
Considering how price-conscious the console market is, I don't see how anyone can think yearly $400 consoles is a good idea.
For this to work, they have to create their next console in a modular format, similar to swapping out a new HDD or the new phones recently.
Without plug and play hardware parts, you'd have to be buying complete boxes at a cost rather than a smaller charge for a module to upgrade your current box. That's the only way I can see this working, it's baffling.
Microsoft taps out.
I called this.