A question that has plagued me for a while: do we need new hardware?

There has been a lot of talk recently about hardware and hardware prices. The increase in AI data centres and the necessity for RAM chips and solid-state chips has driven prices up and, currently, there is no end in sight. I keep hearing about the AI bubble popping, but I cannot see this happening. I think the demand for AI at its current level of hype will die down but AI is here to stay. Hopefully, more long-term, sustainable use of AI will be reached and this crazy Wacky Races style pursuit of AI dominance by the big tech firms will abate. There will be big losers in this race but I feel it won’t be anyone who is currently profiting from AI. The smaller tech firms that are providing services to the bigger tech firms will go under or be subsumed as the big AI firms consolidate services under their umbrellas to fit the realistic AI needs and uses within our society. The only people who will suffer are the working people within these companies (big or small) as their services are not required when they inevitably cut down their workforce, the C-level execs will have made their money. Hopefully it will see a reduction of the false reliance on AI that is sweeping every industry as corporate management and owners realise that this is not what they have been told it is and it cannot do the wonderous things the tech companies say AI can. There is currently a serious concern I have, on top of the unnecessary lack of jobs and job losses we are still seeing due to AI, that there are not new people entering the workforce at lower levels who will be the future leaders in their fields. The current lack of entrance level jobs is setting up a long-term issue that can be averted if the powers that be can see the issue and set things in motion to rectify it before it becomes and issue. This won’t happen but it is worth stating as I have said this for a few years now as AI has got bigger and people I know in certain fields praise it, but people don’t see it.

My purpose of this article was not about AI (although it is a huge proponent of the discussion) but rather about hardware related not only to PC (my preferred platform), but consoles and other gaming devices. I was looking forward to the Steam Machine, not as a device for myself, but rather being interested in its uptake. I cannot understand the discourse that I see from many that it is competing with the major console systems out there mainly because, like the Steam Deck, I don’t believe pure sales numbers are Valve’s aim. As with the Steam Deck it is not designed to compete with the major console brands, but rather to be a staging point into PC gaming. It is also designed to increase the uptake of Lynix as an operating system. This is where I believe the Steam Deck was incredibly successful. More people who were not that enamoured with Windows and all it’s issues, realised they had another outlet. An outlet that before was hard to use. Steam OS has led to people having a more accessible alternative to Windows and has created a host of copycat OSs that have simplified Lynix and made it more user friendly. Lynix always had a reputation of being fiddly, hard to use and the modular nature of it, that should have been seen a benefit was instead often seen by people, who just wanted an OS that worked and didn’t require work, as a downside. I was one of these people. I wanted Windows to be more streamlined for my needs and for it to have less of the obligatory bloat that everyone complains about, something that I really hope the Xbox service can get Microsoft as the OS behemoth it is to do with the new Windows for gaming created for the Xbox Ally. A service that still has a long way to go but is in reality heading in the right direction contrary to many critic’s viewpoints.

Hopefully the Steam Machine and all the other Steam devices do come out and are priced decently. I feel that the effect that the Steam Deck had on the industry is obvious if you look. Games are now more frequently optimised, or at the very least altered, for the Steam Deck and other handhelds. More and more developers are designing their games to be Steam Deck and other handheld compatible. This means more games than before have controller and lower end hardware in the forefront of the design and development process. This is a huge win overall for gaming as people on lower end and controller-based systems benefit directly from this design and development focus. The series S, as much as it has been maligned in the press and by every talking head out there, has had a similar effect. Developers have openly said that designing for the Xbox Series S and the Steam Deck has meant that other versions of the game (PC, Xbox Series X and PS5) have all benefitted. This has come with some teething problems, with some developers just refusing to do so and I think the end product has suffered for it.

This brings me to my main thought that made me write this. I feel that when it comes to consoles, we have had 6 generations of FOMO. Every device that has come out promises greater performance and a huge upgrade in every facet of gaming. Now this has been true for every generation, but as is noticeable more and more each time and is increasingly obvious this generation, is that that uptick has become narrower and smaller with each iteration. I think both the PS5 and the Series X are phenomenal machines. How these companies created a device with the power and capabilities these devices possess for the price is incredible. I don’t believe this generation has been subsided by Sony or Microsoft (maybe possibly in the beginning) as they have done in the past. But I do think that the most telling thing is many of the games released this generation across both machines is the fact that they are cross generational. Most games released on the PS4 and Xbox one. This may have changed recently and there are, as always, exceptions. The current games market dictates that developers need to reach the most players possible. More games are being sold on multiple platforms and although moneyhatting and paid exclusivity still exist, games are more frequently being sold across multiple platforms. Obviously Xbox leads the way with this, but Sony putting Helldivers 2 on Xbox is probably the biggest change in their status quo and it definitely sent shock waves through the gaming sphere. The fact is games need to reach the biggest audience possible in order to make money or even in some cases break even.

There have been rumblings about the new PS6 and the Xbox (Whatever They Will Call It, Magnus??), but these have suddenly come to a sticking point with the AI chip grab we have seen. The Steam Machine is the first and obvious victim to this, but the other consoles are quickly following suit. The CFO of PlayStation has come out to reassure the investors they have enough chips for predicted sales for this year for the PS5, but when pressed admitted that there is a significant possibility that they will be forced to raise the price. This will be mirrored by Xbox and Valve when they discuss hardware, even if this is not directly referenced.

The question I keep wanting to ask is: do we need new consoles? I realise that it is that time and the cycle is coming to an end, but realistically do we need to? They haven’t really got the best out of the consoles that are currently there, the quantity of games that have broken through and sold significant numbers over this generation are smaller than previous generation and the games that have showcased the hardware (Ghost of Yotai, Doom the Dark Ages, Death Stranding 2, Forza, and so on) have not really pushed the hardware to the point where everyone is crying out for more significant power in these consoles. There is the PS5 Pro that does in some cases have an uptick in performance, but often the reports show that, although nice, the performance increase is not necessarily worth the increase in price. This is not to denigrate the PS5 Pro, but I have seen many gamers who own one (as someone who does not own a PlayStation) say that this. They don’t regret the purchase now they have it but are unsure if they would buy it again if they went back.

I have aways wondered if PC gamers actually upgrade their PCs as much as people think. The Steam hardware survey came out as it does every year and once again to many people’s surprise (except PC gamers I imagine) the average PC specs are way below what people expected. This is where the above question came from. I kind of feel that people on consoles should not upgrade if you don’t need to. As I said the console market relies heavily on FOMO and forcing people to upgrade via the games they can purchase. From Xbox vs PlayStation ecosystem choice to the old versus the new hardware. There are people still on Xbox Ones and PS4s (as per the investor reports of both companies) and both companies are trying to move those gamers onto the newer hardware. These people don’t need to move as the games they play are where they are. The most played games on all gaming systems show quite clearly that most gamers play free to play and online games as a service games. Fortnite, Call of Duty, Apex and so on don’t need a PS5 or Xbox Series X to play and they definitely do not need a RTX5090 or a PS5 pro. Most people play on 1080p and therefore they don’t need 4K 120fps capable gaming systems. Successful games go where the gamers are and do not force games to come to them. All the most popular games run on a potato system, or shock horror on mobile.

I kind of feel the Switch 2 came out at a bad time. The RAM shortage is just going to push the already expensive Switch 2’s price up. Nintendo will not subsidise the price I don’t think. They are also going to suffer from the fact that most people who bought a Switch are not really the people likely to upgrade to the Switch 2. The sales of the initial Switch, in my opinion, were down to the uniqueness of the device. It was, to many, a revolution in gaming. The upgrade from previous Nintendo products was a no brainer but the same cannot be said about the Switch 2. It is a more expensive Switch in reality for most people and on top of that people just don’t have the money.

PlayStation from what I can see is doggedly holding to its tried and tested strategy of console exclusives and paid for exclusives. They do seem more reluctant to admit to many of the third party paid for exclusives they have recently been party to, but it seems the developers and publishers are swiftly moving away from this strategy and instead are releasing their games on as many platforms as they can in order to increase sales. Final Fantasy is a good example of this with Square releasing all games outside of the PlayStaion ecosystem, first on PC then Xbox, and there is talk about the final game in the Final Fantasy 7 remakes being released day and date. They were not happy about the sales of both FF7 Remake games and Final Fantasy 16 on PlayStation. It seems a few of the big Japanese games publishers and companies are rethinking their loyalty to Sony when there is money to be made on PC and Xbox.

I feel that the gaming landscape is about to have a dramatic shift. I also feel that the current changes are very much in Xbox’s favour. Ripping into Xbox seems to have become a pastime many partake in, but their game plan had to change and differ from PlayStation. They were not going to beat PlayStation by sticking to the generational strategy everyone had had for years, and it has been said by many Xbox upper management directly, both past and present, that they lost the worst generation to lose with digital ownership. Xbox had to shift and go a different direction. The current generation console sales have proven this with PlayStation staying at around 90mil units and Xbox reported to be around 30-40mil with no actual definitive number for Xbox.

The Xbox Ally shows this move quite clearly. The Asus partnership and them not releasing their own hardware (there was a rumour that they abandoned their own personal hardware) makes sense. I believe that the next Xbox being a PC is a solid move. It differentiates them from PlayStation and as they will offer other storefronts (Steam and Epic) on their system this will further differentiate them. I feel they will eventually release a handheld (or that this is the current plan but could change depending on various factors) and that the Ally X was a proof of concept and a testbed for the Windows gaming OS. If they can create an effectively pared down version of Windows that frees up more resources for games, in the style of Steam OS, they have a serious proposition for gamers on Xbox and PC. Pair this with Play Anywhere and they have an ecosystem that has the potential to be consumer friendly.

The thing I think people fail to see is that Xbox realised they cannot compete with PlayStation at their game and decided instead to shift to another way of making money. Effectively that are now competing with Valve. People keep saying Xbox is dead and that they are a publisher now and I feel that this is only halfway true. They will make money selling their games everywhere, but they will continue to make consoles (or console like devices), and this proves that their drive will instead be to pull people into their ecosystem. This is effectively what Steam did for Valve. They have created a state where they are the defacto storefront on PC. They are not, as people keep claiming, a monopoly but instead they have created a place where customers feel they are the focus. Microsoft want this. Game Pass is effective if you don’t listen to the media and talking heads who are repeatedly dismissive of the system. The price increase, although inevitable, was seen as the killing blow and yet the numbers seem to go up or at the very least stay the same. Cloud gaming will only continue to be a draw for people as infrastructure continues to get better and Xbox will continue to make the system more effective at slower internet speeds. Will this new direction and drive work? I don’t know. Xbox needs to ensure that they innovate and ensure they provide a service that players want. This is effectively how Steam created their dominance. Epic failed to learn this lesson and in a recent interview, the VP of Epic games stated that the store sucks.

Then there is the availability of PlayStation games on Xbox. PlayStation may not have a choice to put their games on Xbox if things play out as it seems it will. Steam and Epic Game Store (along with others I am sure) will be on the next Xbox in whatever form that takes and therefore PlayStation games will be on the next Xbox. Effectively they already are in the Xbox Ally X. The argument of whether it is an Xbox or not is completely irrelevant because if you bought it as an Xbox player, you can play PlayStation exclusives on an Xbox branded device. That is a well thought out plan.

Now I don’t want to make out as if Xbox are geniuses, but they didn’t have a choice and the direction they have gone is smart. They are fully aware that they messed up and they are where they are because of things they did. Sure, PlayStation did things that increased their market dominance over Xbox, but Xbox were their own worst enemy and were the instigator of their downfall. Hopefully Xbox learned their lesson and realise that ensuring the customer is offered what they want will make gamers more likely to invest in their ecosystem. PlayStation needs to learn this as well before they head down the route that Xbox did. More of their players are starting to rumble about what they are being offered by PlayStation. The number of remakes directly is not the issue but rather the fact that the remakes are the predominant release this generation. PlayStation developers have been making remakes instead of new entries (Last of Us and even now the remakes of the God of War games). Then there is PlayStations live service drive resulting in massive layoffs, cancelled projects and failed live service games like Concord. There have been a few PlayStation published games that have done well (Helldivers 2 and Death Stranding 2) but these are either on PC and Xbox or are coming to it.

The success of both of these gaming companies is important to the industry as a whole as they are a counterweight to ensure that the other is held in check. Consoles are a vital part of the gaming landscape but the increase in the useability of PC gaming and the lack of a need to have the latest and greatest hardware means more people are entering PC gaming for the first time. Game on PC have over the last decade been less about the hardware and more about the options available to the gamers. PC gamers are able to tailor the experience to their own personal preferences. Do you want higher FPS? Or do you want fidelity? Hopefully this AI distraction will settle down over the short term but I think the outcome for this hopefully will be less of a reliance of hardware selling a platform and rather a push towards making games available for more people.