Consoles need to be more powerful because of the perceived importance that marketing has created for gamers desperate need for graphical fidelity over all else.
The gameplay of COD and FIFA doesn’t matter so long as it’s sharper/more crisp/more real. Granted, this mindset has somewhat faded, however it is still present and as a result corporations are still pushing it because while 60hz may be an old standard, Sony now has 120hz TV’s to sell you.
In addition to that, COD and FIFA don’t have to be nearly as well optimized if the consoles can just brute force through it. Also, without newer consoles that are more powerful, there then won’t be games that are too powerful to run on older consoles, meaning they won’t get to sell you new consoles because of the old games you want to play. Instead they can sell you the new games that only work on the new consoles.
I’m sure there are more reasons, but those seem to be the 3 core facets that make up the purpose of console gaming; sell the lie of the best graphical fidelity, make a game that requires a high powered console to play it, market it as “needing the best of the best” to be able to play it, and suddenly you have a brand loyal set of consumers who keep returning to the fishhook.
You must be younger than me. I grew up in the 90s and the Sega/Nintendo rivalry was intense.
I think it was the SNES/Genesis era when “who has the better graphics” started to matter.
At the time, I was actually of the opinion that the N64 was a step down from the SNES. Sure the graphics were 3D, but they looked like shit even then. Nintendo really fucked up by sticking with cartridges that generation.
Console fidelity wars, from my understanding when I was growing up the improvements in graphics were appreciated but not the sole aspect of whether a game was good, like the way 2005-2025 (and somewhat into 2025 but significantly less so) did
They don’t have asmany sales, but I’ve definitely scored some good prices on games here and there. They often run 20+% off on first party titles and non-first party gets deep discounts (I scored Rabbids for $4 a while back). I just wish they’d do the equivalent of PS Greatest Hits for like $20.
For some situations a console is nicer than a PC. Solid, consistent, single unit I can just connect to a TV and play. I’ve got a PC and I prefer it, but the average console is cheaper than my PC was and simpler for non-geek family members to boot up and play on a whim.
TVs have been available in 120Hz and VRR for a while now. Even my 2017 OLED supports 120Hz, albeit only at 1080p.
That said, I don’t see the need to chase that with more expensive hardware. Any game with a choice of performance vs resolution, I find myself swapping to performance mode. I can see extra frames, I struggle to see extra pixels.
There are a lot of ‘fake’ 120Hz+ TVs you have to watch out for though. The real ones are expensive.
The point being really, most people dont upgrade their TVs at all, for as long as the picture is good. Consoles have the hardware todo 120Hz right now.
Thats another good point, when you are sat so far away from the screen, the resolution becomes less important.
What’s the point of consoles getting more powerful? Shouldn’t affordability be the main target at this point?
Their main target audience is couch gaming on TVs, which are usually only 60Hz, something the PS5 and XSX can do comfortably.
Consoles need to be more powerful because of the perceived importance that marketing has created for gamers desperate need for graphical fidelity over all else.
The gameplay of COD and FIFA doesn’t matter so long as it’s sharper/more crisp/more real. Granted, this mindset has somewhat faded, however it is still present and as a result corporations are still pushing it because while 60hz may be an old standard, Sony now has 120hz TV’s to sell you.
In addition to that, COD and FIFA don’t have to be nearly as well optimized if the consoles can just brute force through it. Also, without newer consoles that are more powerful, there then won’t be games that are too powerful to run on older consoles, meaning they won’t get to sell you new consoles because of the old games you want to play. Instead they can sell you the new games that only work on the new consoles.
I’m sure there are more reasons, but those seem to be the 3 core facets that make up the purpose of console gaming; sell the lie of the best graphical fidelity, make a game that requires a high powered console to play it, market it as “needing the best of the best” to be able to play it, and suddenly you have a brand loyal set of consumers who keep returning to the fishhook.
Enter Nintendo. Crappy 9yo SOC, sure, whatever, here are some fun games that aren’t graphically advanced.
The console wars have always been between Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo does the innovation side of things
Nah, it was Coleco/Atari - Coleco lost
Then Nintendo/Atari - Atari lost
Then Sega/Nintendo
Then Sega/Nintendo/Sony - Sega lost
Then Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft - Nintendo lost, but pivoted to play a different game.
Then you can throw things in there like 3DO and Jaguar Turbo FX, but they didn’t do so got to be considered contenders in the “war”
Sorry, I meant console wars of graphical fidelity from my memory. I don’t remember it mattering as much when I was young, but I could be wrong still.
You must be younger than me. I grew up in the 90s and the Sega/Nintendo rivalry was intense.
I think it was the SNES/Genesis era when “who has the better graphics” started to matter.
At the time, I was actually of the opinion that the N64 was a step down from the SNES. Sure the graphics were 3D, but they looked like shit even then. Nintendo really fucked up by sticking with cartridges that generation.
Just a bit I imagine, I grew up in the 90’s too but I was young in my graduating class
If by always you mean the last 15-20 years, plenty more warring from the likes of Nintendo and Sega before then!
Console fidelity wars, from my understanding when I was growing up the improvements in graphics were appreciated but not the sole aspect of whether a game was good, like the way 2005-2025 (and somewhat into 2025 but significantly less so) did
Also Nintendo: They are $70. Want an old game? Also $70. Sales? What are those?
Consoles are such a scam when you think about it, but their low barrier to entry carries them (along with the marketing of course).
They don’t have asmany sales, but I’ve definitely scored some good prices on games here and there. They often run 20+% off on first party titles and non-first party gets deep discounts (I scored Rabbids for $4 a while back). I just wish they’d do the equivalent of PS Greatest Hits for like $20.
For some situations a console is nicer than a PC. Solid, consistent, single unit I can just connect to a TV and play. I’ve got a PC and I prefer it, but the average console is cheaper than my PC was and simpler for non-geek family members to boot up and play on a whim.
They sell tens of millions.
TVs have been available in 120Hz and VRR for a while now. Even my 2017 OLED supports 120Hz, albeit only at 1080p.
That said, I don’t see the need to chase that with more expensive hardware. Any game with a choice of performance vs resolution, I find myself swapping to performance mode. I can see extra frames, I struggle to see extra pixels.
There are a lot of ‘fake’ 120Hz+ TVs you have to watch out for though. The real ones are expensive.
The point being really, most people dont upgrade their TVs at all, for as long as the picture is good. Consoles have the hardware todo 120Hz right now.
Thats another good point, when you are sat so far away from the screen, the resolution becomes less important.