The concept of "no cycle" customers was an interesting one to touch on. We all think generation to generation, but it's logical that companies see consumers even more narrowly, SKU to SKU.
Think about the iOS line... people want to get the "new iPhone", the new thing. Sometimes that has a number, sometimes a letter, sometimes just the word "new" (iPad). Brad's right, when you skip a version, you really notice the difference, but for the millions of consumers who "keep up", it's incremental.
Think about all the times this generation that we've had hardware refreshed... "hey here's the new $250 thing on the shelf: it's the PSP-2000, it's the PSP-3000, it's the Go, it's the 360 Slim, it's the white Star Wars one, it's the Lite, it's the XL, it's the ultra slim, hey the hard drive is on the bottom now, it's the Wii Mini, it's the Wii U..." wait a minute... they just slipped that one by.
Now take the idea of a subscription-subsidised console, letting them keep that sweet spot price. And they don't want to take 360s or breadboxes off the shelf yet either... it's just another SKU. Some people want the new games, so "let's go pick up the new thing, it's about the same price as the old ones last year... wow this looks way better". But they don't see the shift as generational, in that it's 8 gigs of RAM instead of 512 megs, they see it as "looks as good as my buddy's expensive computer."
New consoles will look as good as today's PC games right? But much better? I'm not sure how. The plan seems to be off the shelf parts, not try to cram a Silicon Graphics workstation in there. Until resolutions need to change again, all of that processing power can start going into better AI, procedural worlds, the uncanny valley... better made games that are also easier to make... or at least not have to fight the hardware.
Fascinating stuff. Good marketing study.
