Although Not Annual,
Are They Always Necessary???
Rumors have been
circulating through the gaming world that Sony’s PS3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360
will soon be “so last year”. Sony is developing a PS4, and Microsoft has Xbox
720 in the works. I am not what you would consider a gamer by any means, but
growing up in the generation that I did had me mesmerized with what I could do
with a controller in my hand and a television in my sights. I own an Xbox 360
with the Kinect, and on occasion between schoolwork and my son I will play some
Madden or immerse myself in the world of a soldier with Call of Duty.
The society we are a
part of today has such a fascination with the bigger better thing that we
forget how useful the old model was to begin with. But, that is not necessarily
our fault. It began with the big automobile manufacturer duel of the early 1900’s
between Ford and GM; more specifically between Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan.
These two men helped to revolutionize the automobile industry and mass
production as a whole. It started with Ford’s Model T that because of its affordable
price and durable make-up was leaps and bounds ahead of competition if you
could even call it that. Sloan was able to adapt top something that Ford just
would not, and that was to enhance and change. Ford’s “antiquated values” as
mentioned in Giles Slade’s Made to Break,
held him back in keeping up with Sloan’s innovations and engineering
breakthroughs. So from there dawned a new idea; making things that were meant
to be replaced by something new and improved. Ford’s old state of mind was to
make a product that would outlast its worth, a product that would give you it’s
all for years to come. But it was no match for what Sloan was developing,
something that was updated annually. Eventually the Ford Motor Co. would catch
on, and is still to this day, along with GM, two of the top selling car
manufacturers in the U.S.
I personally appreciate
the ideals that Ford possessed because I find it quite ridiculous that products
that are available to me today were made to last only until a new one was
developed. That of course is far from true. There are cars that last years and
years, and other products that last way beyond what was expected. For example,
the microwave we currently own is over 30 years old, and I’m willing to put
money on the fact that it works better than half the microwaves that are in stores
today. Other than those types of examples the products of today are not made
with the same care that they were 100 years ago I don’t care what those
engineers say. It has become obsession for companies to come out with new
models every year or other year. That is there job, once they have perfected
one prototype and it has become ready for sale, they immediately start to work
on how to improve it. I understand that without that mentality the numerous
people that work as developers would not have jobs, but I find it humorous
sometimes about the craze of a new item.
As for the gaming world,
there are questions whether the current PS3 and Xbox 360 have even begun to
utilize their full potentials. I’m not talking about the improvements that will
be made for the new systems; I mean the current games that are being made for
these systems are not displaying all of what these things can really do. A
question was posed to a top developer for Sony that said, " A lot of people say that game developers are not using the total capacity of the PS3. What have you guys done, if anything, to try to use the full potential of the machine in this new engine design and in this game?" and the answer given was, "I do not think we will use the full potential of the PS3, no other devloper has don so far. it is new technology and a different structure than we are used to working with. But I do think we have used the PS3 very well. We have used SPU's, the small processors, effectively." So even though a new version will ultimately be released in the coming months the full potential of the product will never be used. That sseems like a big waste, and is something htat will just have to be accepted apparently in our worlds bigger, better mind set.
Sources:
Slade, Giles- Made
to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America.
Link to website used:
http://www.ps3news.com/playstation-3-psn-news/top-developer-confirms-nobody-is-using-ps3-to-full-capacity/
I find this particular blog post to be of particular interest to me because just last week I purchased my first Xbox 360. I have owned a Nintendo WII for a couple of years and have not played it very much. I purchased the Xbox because I was told repeatedly from several people about how much better the graphics were and how much more it is capable of. However, the main reason for my purchase was to be able to play games with and interact with younger cousins that I hardly ever see. The timing of the topic regarding obsolescence is ironic due to the conversation I had with the salesman at Best Buy where I made this very expensive purchase. He brought up the fact that Xbox was in the process of producing the next “big” gaming console and the one I was purchasing would in some extent become obsolete. I am not much of a “gamer” so having an older model is not a big deal to me (considering I feel it is going to take me forever to learn about and use all the functions it currently has). I think that if there were more people out there with my mindset (do not HAVE to have the next big thing) and are content with using the current (functional) models they have, then this would deter big companies from producing objects that are expected to be outdated in a short amount of time and produce objects with higher levels of function and durability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what John is saying here. It's interesting to me that Sloan and GM introduced the mindset, "get the next bigger and better model" so long ago, and yet I feel that they were before their time in this innovative thinking. My grandparents, who were born in the early 1920's, were of the mindset that you use something until it can no longer be used. Like Casey said in his blog, they had the same microwave and oven that was in the house they lived in from 1978 until they passed away in 2010. 32 years of durability came about from these products. Now, you're lucky if you can get a dozen years out of an appliance like that. I think that their mindset also comes from living life as immigrants during WWII. Our society is driven by the next big and better thing. I would be lying if I said I wasn't going to buy a PS4. I don't know of a lot of people in my generation that aren't already thinking of making that purchase. It is ingrained into our culture (especially us Generation Y's), that we need to advance with technology or we will be behind our friends.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with this post, when I see people rushing to buy the fourteenth iphone that came out this month, the only question that enters my mind is "Why?". Do people just hate keeping money in their pockets or is the allure of a new piece of 600 dollar plastic just that great? I have the iphone 3g and it works just fine, yeah sometimes its slow or glitches but it works and it was cheap. It's as if the values of the American consumer are centered around instant gratification and knee jerk spending. I have to admit I spend money sometimes on things I could definitely live without so I am not trying to get on a high horse about this. Another thing that befuddles me is that people are throwing tons of money at our economy (Microsoft, apple) and our economy still sucks.
ReplyDeleteThese are all great posts and responses and I agree with you guys. Apple is my main example that I always come up with when this topic is in the conversation. When I purchased my iPhone 5 I already knew that the iPhone 5S was already set and ready for production. The technology for the iPhone 6 is most likely already set also, but they are holding off because they know first wave consumers will be salivating for the minor tweaks of the 5 and 5s and will pay top dollar. Ford had the mindset for the people while Sloan had the mindset for his pocket and somehow the people fell for Sloan’s concept. This is baffling me to this day and in a way depresses me that as a society, this is they way we chose we wanted to live.
ReplyDeleteI believe in your article there is a glaring difference is product examples. If there were ever a time where roles were reversed on planned obsolescence, the video game industry, console (platform) wise, is one that has moved with technology, rather than the market. Back in early 2005 Microsoft and Sony both had announced a bold marketing strategy to back up their new technology, claiming this ‘generation’ of consoles will last a decade. This was an unprecedented reassurance of how capable the machines were seeing that console release dates gaps had been closing fast. For example Nintendo, a credible gaming entertainment company, had been releasing their products for example (3rd gen, 1983-1990) (4th gen, 1990-1996) (5th gen, 1996-2001) (6th gen, 2001-2005) (7th 2005-2014?). This shows a movement from planning for your product to become obsolete very quickly to production costs rising so high that company’s like Sony found little profit in the Ps3 and Microsoft and Nintendo are bracing for a planned first year red margins on their products. It is commonly known that these products are mass produced and are widely popular among their respective crowds, yet these companies find it hard to push profits because the products have to stay within popular prices. Examples like the long time over priced Ps3 did not sell enough because of its price despite its “outlasting its worth” value. As someone who considers himself a ‘gamer’, this is an unsettling ‘rhyme’ in history as cheaper smartphone and Facebook games are up and coming much like Sloan with GM was marketing against Ford. These cheap games, pushed by large producers like Zanga could one day dominate the respective video game field because they make a product that is cheap and disposable versus the high cost/production value games that currently dominate the market.
ReplyDelete“History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme” – Mark Twain