I think consoles themselves should be ended.

Nope. I want the cycle to be longer. But also make them more PC-like, more modular. Nowadays you can add external storage or switch to a bigger internal storage. Next they should try removable CPU/GPU/RAM, so instead of partial refreshes (PS4 Pro) or two-tiered console (Series S and X), people can upgrade as they see fit and on their own pace. Of course, that's as long as there's still acceptable performance on the base, unupgraded console.

The problem is that you get compatibility issues between consoles that are similar, but not quite identical, in hardware.

If every instance of a console has the same GPU, then games can ship with their shaders pre-compiled, allowing shader-heavy games to start without having to first compile their shaders. Switch out the GPU, however, and you have the same problem that plagues some PC/Console ports (Horizon Zero Dawn comes to mind) where it takes a while (some report as long as a half hour) for the game to start on its first launch.

Remember that both the PlayStation 2 and the Game Boy Color had some glitches in their backwards compatibility.

No I don't, and it is pretty clear from all you say, that you don't have much understanding of technology ... hardware and software. Don't be fooled by all the specs and numbers ... there is a lot more to it than that.

For starters, there is optimization. With true optimization you need far less computing power. PC's are not that optimized, so generally brute force things, whereas Consoles will be optimized.

Then there is the development cycle. That means you cannot change the specs that developers are building to too often ... they require stability and known factors. This why you rarely have issues with a Console, compared to the many issues experienced with PCs.

It is also all about cost and hardware production and development, where all the bits and pieces are ordered and bought in bulk, and they would want to recover their outlay.

etc etc

Not to forget the development cycle of the console itself, which no doubt doesn't really start until prior one is released, and at that point there is no games yet to test it with, so they need to go into development too, which cannot happen until the game developers have something to test with. And because they are usually wanting to incorporate some relatively new technology, it all takes time to understand, develop and test.

The budget for AAA games are soaring. If this keeps up then making AAA games would no longer be sustainable. Consoles help create a new baseline for developers and a bankable target market; which is why shortening console life cycles would defeat their very purpose.

Cyberpunk was a high risk project and today there a few developers who are willing to gamble on out-of-the-box game ideas, at least in the AAA market.

How exactly is Cyberpunk out of the box? It's an FPS with a sci-fi setting.

It was supposed to be so much more than that. The idea was to create an open world futuristic city on a gta-esque scale. That, to the best of my knowledge, has not been done before: simulating a living breathing futuristic cyberpunk sandbox on this scale. You have FPS mechanics, RPG mechanics, driving mechanics, weather cycles, and everything else that goes into an open world sandbox.

Games that try to do everything always tend to fail, and the best games are those that specialize. Even the GTA developers struggle to deliver a modern city simulation with driving, without having to also make a complex RPG on top of that. Hey, Star Citizen with it's "budget of a small country" budget might be an exception to this rule, you know if it ever comes out and isn't just a giant scam.

Many of the most well known video game designers have openly stated that video game development is about choosing which features are most important to the game and those which aren't and need to be cut in order to release the game in a reasonable timeframe. It sounds like the 2077 devs never really made the decision as to what is most important and instead tried to do everything.

All good points.

Another factor is consumer expectations. People playing on console don't want to spend their time with studying stats and figures. They want to plug the thing in and start playing - and everything should work out of the box. Otherwise many people will simply shrug and say "too complicated for me" and stop buying.
And that also means that people who buy a console expect it to last a few years at least. Although that might change now that people are used to get a new phone every two years (which are often as expensive as a console...).

There's also the fact that resellers are making PC building a nightmare. The 1660 Super is a budget card that should cost around $300 - $450. Look at this bullshit: https://imgur.com/a/MQ9cEWx

$1K for a 1660S? A PS5 is about half that amount.

I wouldn't consider a GPU at that price range to be "budget". Considering that I can get an entire computer for around $500 that can play the games I'm interested in, and said computer even includes an integrated keyboard, display, and battery, I think spending nearly that much for *just* a GPU is not reasonable for a budget PC.

Should RoG_PL's thread creation cycles be increased?

Discuss

Well that's just the current situation with the pandemic, US trade war with China and other factors. There'll be better days.
You can't buy a PS5 or XBox X either, or (PS5 Disk) only for 800-1000€ (officially recommended price 500€).

Yeah, I'm sure it'll pass, as usual.
The last couple of years we've seen quite a few extreme price hikes of computer hardware:
- Memory (RAM), because of natural disasters in Asia, and the production of smart phones.
- Graphics cards, because of currency mining.
Still ongoing:
- CPU and GPU - Corona
- Internal HDDs (compared to USB ones)
- Misc. hardware - because people working at home (like webcams)

Still: pre-2000, computer hardware was A LOT more expensive, in general.

I'd like to get a new graphics card - but my backlog is so big that I can easily wait it out for a couple more years (understatement).

Yep for sure, especially as buying a console is a lot of money for some and then there is the cost of games.

So for many it can take a while to build up a collection of games ... years in many cases. So you would be hoping your console is supported for long enough, and not all the game developers move on too quickly to the next generation. As we've seen in the past too, not all are backward compatible.

And many of us have seen the increased prices and reduced availability for games that older consoles require. Even secondhand they can be damn pricey ... and many of the discs have problematic scratches etc.