I kinda think that ridiculous upgrade treadmills harm gaming more. Remember the mid-90s, when a bleeding-edge box was obsolete in a year?
I don't think it's fair to blame consoles entirely for the slowing rate of hardware progression--we've just reached a point of diminishing returns, where it takes more and more hardware improvement for less and less visible benefit. Compare the difference between, say, Quake and Half-Life 2 versus Half-Life 2 and Crysis 3--about the same amount of time between each.
But whatever it is, I do think reduced hardware development is good for the vast majority of gamers. The tiny group that is "hardcore", demands bleeding-edge graphics, and has thousands of dollars to burn every year might whine, but for the rest of us, the playing field is getting more level. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, but it's gameplay, not shaders, that make gaming fun.
I don't think it's fair to blame consoles entirely for the slowing rate of hardware progression--we've just reached a point of diminishing returns, where it takes more and more hardware improvement for less and less visible benefit. Compare the difference between, say, Quake and Half-Life 2 versus Half-Life 2 and Crysis 3--about the same amount of time between each.
But whatever it is, I do think reduced hardware development is good for the vast majority of gamers. The tiny group that is "hardcore", demands bleeding-edge graphics, and has thousands of dollars to burn every year might whine, but for the rest of us, the playing field is getting more level. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, but it's gameplay, not shaders, that make gaming fun.