I remember hearing Xbox One and PlayStation 4 were getting upgrades. Xbox One with the Project Scorpio, while PlayStation 4 with the PlayStation 4 Pro. Coming in at somewhere around 3 years into the lifespan of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, these upgrades have generated mixed feelings among casuals and game fans alike. For day one and recent purchasers alike, the reception has been mostly confusion. "Why do I have to buy another version of this machine?" It seems that both Microsoft and Sony have decided to fragment their markets and divide the consumer. Meanwhile, Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank as they generate hype in the transition from the Wii U to the NX, mimicking neither Microsoft nor Sony in the process.

There's nothing wrong with the Xbox One. To me, it's still new technology with plenty of potential and power. There's nothing wrong with my Xbox One, and if the PS4 is so powerful, then why is it also getting an upgrade? There has been criticism of the Xbox One's power, but if you look carefully, only a few games really even use the Xbox One's power. This is even true for the PlayStation 4! Really, with developers largely using last-gen engines, how much of these machines' power have they even tapped? The only engine that really even approaches it is Unreal Engine 4. After that, very few even use the power these systems provide, and enhanced versions of these machines are already being ushered in?!

One reason a lot of console owners choose them over PC is simply because of resale. With a console, you can always (and I mean always) trade them in or sell them. No matter who, there will always be a party who is interested in purchasing them second-hand, be it a big retailer like the shitbags at GameStop, the average good-hearted dude who just likes retro stuff, or the online retailer who specializes in video games of all types. Older PC graphics cards, on the other hand, aren't quite as lucrative, so you can't just go out and trade or sell them like you can with consoles. This isn't an opinion; this is just a fact that most PC game players have accepted. Resale isn't really an option unless it's within the same generation, and even then it's not as easy as taking a console in to a brick and mortor buy/sell/trade. That being said, the console manufacturers are forgetting their place in this ecosystem. They are trying to go toward the whole "upgrade like a PC or mobile route," but they are forgetting that those who purchase consoles do it largely because they don't have to upgrade them like a PC. It's an investment to them, and they'll probably move to PC if that selling point is lost. The justification for not going PC will be lost if consoles are just as expensive, and the console manufacturers (namely Sony and Microsoft) could see a substantial decrease in revenue because their customers will have moved on to PC. Microsoft will still have the PC imprint of their XBox brand to make some money from, but Sony, on the other hand, will have to rely on their other electronic products for revenue because their PlayStation brand is one-dimensional. That is, unless Sony actually does bring out another portable (which they said they would not do).

Mobile is a vast, yet tight space, though, and Sony would be competing against Nintendo, Apple, and Android. This has proven to be a formidable opponent not only in the portable space, but in the entertainment space as a whole. Mobile has changed a lot of things in video games, from pricing structure to gameplay structure, and even distribution. Mobile devices (namely cell phones) are financed with phone bills the consumer is already paying for, and it works them, but it is a much harder sell for consoles. Sony and Microsoft both have said that they want their brands to become like the mobile platform, with annual, incremental upgrades. The problem with this is that there are key components that make this work for mobile; most of which clash with the console model both of those companies embrace.

The first of those components is affordability and portability, which are complimentary in the way they justify each other. Without one, the other cannot be justified. Mobile devices may not always be cheap, but the trade-off is that they are portable. Sony and Microsoft's plans to make their consoles with the mobile model will encounter troubles because they have traditionally been priced high and bound to a monitor or television to function. Nintendo, again, doesn't have to worry about this (because they don't play by the rules of the industry), but Microsoft and Sony need to really reconsider. The industry has poked fun at Sega for their "add-ons", but not unlike what Sony and Microsoft are proposing? How is what they are proposing different from what Sega did with add-ons? If the industry is saying it didn't work for Sega, how can they possibly justify it for Sony or Microsoft?