Either that, or you've gotten older. The young always want to play that one specific NEW game. Currently that usually means PS5, either Fortnite or Call Of Duty (and yes that one specific version). PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon.
Fortnite and Call of Duty are not great examples given they both still run on the PS4. Even the latest Call of Duty iteration that launched barely two weeks ago still runs on last generation consoles, because there's still so many players who haven't felt the need to upgrade to the successor generation after four years.
I don't think there's ever been a console generation before where the last generation was still getting big new releases this deep into the next one. The PS5 Pro is out now and the PS4 is still getting new games.
From what I've heard only about 4% of CoD: BO6 buyers were on PS4. It might finally be getting to the point where it just no longer makes sense to craft an entirely different version for the older consoles. Perhaps Switch 2 getting CoD will keep the PS4 version on life support however.
I wonder how much effort it really takes to release a game for both PS4 and PS5, especially if you're already building it for Xbox and PC. PC requires you to support a wide array of performance capabilities, at least in theory making it easy to scale back performance to a previous-gen console; and they're probably still using an evolution of the same engine they were using for PS4, so at least to my mind it's a checkbox, some performance tuning and a bunch of QA. (at least in theory). maybe some different servers to support multiplayer - but since CoD supports cross play maybe not even that.
Agreed, and 4 years into PS5, the onus on making the PS4 a "quality" experience is lower, vs. just giving PS4 owners "something" to play e.g. in developing markets where people mightn't have upgraded yet.
An analogy I might draw is the FIFA games, where FIFA 14 came out on the PS4 and PS3, but also the PS2 and Wii, which were just roster updates of previous years (no new gameplay features whatsoever), and clearly that was acceptable to enough people to give EA the trouble of developing, printing and distributing.
Yeah but the only discernible difference to most gamers from last gen to this gen is load times… the ps5 pro side by side to a ps5 screenshot of an enhanced game vs the unenhanced version is crazy.
"The young always want to play that one specific NEW game."
And people want to see that specific one NEW movie, too, not even just "the young". Even now, after all that has happened, Hollywood can still put butts in theater seats for a new movie, even though the attendees probably average several dozen movies at home and probably still have literally hundreds of movies they would enjoy as much or more than the one they are watching in the theater. A lengthy essay could be written on why, which I'll let someone else write.
But I can promise you from personal experience that a 2024 gamer has an easier time picking up and enjoying a 2014 game than a 2004 gamer would have picking up a 1994 game, to the point that it is not even close.
Checking a list of games from 2014... heck, I've got personal proof, my young teen recently started Shadows of Mordor. While it didn't "stick" (we got Skyrim somewhat after that and that has stuck, however, while initial release is 2011 on that the history is complicated and I won't complain if someone wants to forward-date that at least a bit), he wasn't like "oh my gosh this looks so bad and the QoL is so terrible I can't play this anymore". Others from 2014 include Super Smash Bros Wii U, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, and The Last Of Us: Left Behind. Really not that dissimilar from what is being put out today.
Whereas 2004 to 1994 is the delta between Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas and Sonic 3 and Knuckles. That's huge. Yes, I'm old enough to have been there and I can you from personal experience that in 2004 "Sonic 3 and Knuckles" was very definitely legacy in a way that The Last Of Us: Left Behind is not. If you tell someone today that you just started the latter, they might wonder why you're late to the party but they're not going to think anything more of it.
RISC-V makes the most sense. It means they wouldn't be locked into one CPU supplier. Requiring a GPU based on RISC-V (or a separate open GPU ISA) could further insulate them from the current AMD lock-in.
> Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.
The documents accidentally leaked from the FTC vs. Microsoft trial revealed that Microsoft was at least considering switching to an ARM CPU with the next Xbox generation, but they hadn't decided yet at the time those documents were written. Either way they would still use an AMD GPU, so it would be AMD+AMD or ARM+AMD.
