From our other sites
The story
Sparked by an article covering a CEDEC2026 presentation, a discussion broke out on 5ch’s Hardware/Industry (“Geha”) board over whether a next-generation game console is even feasible anymore. The catalyst was news that TSMC has been notifying customers of annual price hikes for its most advanced processes through 2029, with wafer costs for the 3nm generation projected to climb from around $27,000 in late 2025 to roughly $36,000 by 2028. Against this backdrop of persistently high chip costs, opinions split over whether a business model built on mature, cost-down technology like Nintendo’s could survive, whether Sony and Microsoft could compete on the same footing, and whether PCs might eventually take over the role of home consoles.
Is a “Next-Generation Game Console” Even Possible in This Day and Age?
Considering the State of Semiconductor Progress — the Wall Standing
in the Way of a New Console’s Birth [CEDEC2026]
Source: gamespark.jp / Original article here
What people said
But Sony? No way.
Nintendo's not gonna make it either.
If the Switch 3 ends up costing ¥150,000, casual users will bail.
The question is whether the tech will actually mature (get cheap) at all.
Even if the Switch 3 uses a 4nm process, 4nm might still be cutting-edge as late as 2035.
And while everyone throws around "5nm" and "3nm," the old scaling law only really held up to around 20nm — today's "3nm" is really more like an 8nm-equivalent.
The node names keep getting finer while real gains slow down.
If people can't afford a PC, they'll just lower their expectations and play mobile games instead (zero investment as a gaming device).
>If people can't afford a PC, they'll just lower their expectations and play mobile games instead (zero investment as a gaming device)
PC, PlayStation, and Xbox are basically bound together — it's that three-way alliance that builds the massive market AAA games depend on. There's no way PC alone could sustain AAA development, idiot.
If multiplatform consoles disappear, PC just goes back to being a niche machine for hardcore gamers like it used to be.
It'll just split back into separate PC game makers and console game makers.
Or rather, PC game makers will just start making mobile games too.
Only companies like Nintendo, which can sustain a dedicated console with their own first-party titles, will be able to keep mid-tier console hardware alive.
Do you seriously think the PC gaming industry would just collapse if PlayStation disappeared?
PC gaming and consoles originally evolved on separate tracks — PC only started working as a kind of "upgraded version" capable of running AAA titles from around the late PS3 era.
But getting that software supply as the "upgraded version" only works because there's a bigger, more widespread console market underneath it. Take that away, and PC just goes back to being mainly an indie/niche-game/online-game machine like it was before the PS3.
Well, longtime PC gamers probably wouldn't mind that, but for guys who only play PC to feel superior in console-war arguments, that would be fatal.
I don't want to shell out big money on hardware just for that kind of trick.
That's because they're tuning it for Western viewers' eyes.
Just bump the brightness up 20% and you're fine.
It's been stuck in this pattern where density goes up 1.5x but price goes up 2x — no real cost reduction at all.
If anything, prices are going up.
Even Samsung's 8nm node just got a price hike.
Personally, I think even Nintendo is going to struggle.
That said, if you ask whether the Switch 2's performance is "good enough," I'd say yes.
If things keep going like this, it's just not sustainable — I wouldn't be surprised if the next-gen console actually ships with lower specs.
If development costs keep climbing, mid-tier third-party studios won't be able to keep up.
I still want a new Switch.
Even now the performance isn't enough, and there's still plenty of room for hardware improvement.
For now, all eyes on what Microsoft does.
Hard to say — I agree PC gaming used to be a niche path, but I doubt that even if PlayStation or Xbox vanished, things would instantly snap back to how they were before.
Steam has made PC gaming a lot more casual, and PCs themselves are way easier to use now.
I think today's PC ecosystem could serve as a "console substitute" to some degree.
That said, sticking to the thread's topic — with parts prices soaring, I'd actually guess PC is in more danger, since it can't set up the kind of massive production plans consoles can.
It'll come down to onboard graphics performance.
Once a ¥50,000 laptop can run PS5-class games at a stable 1080p/60fps, PC could really take a shot at the console market.
Even now, budget PCs with a decent Lenovo CPU can handle games reasonably well.
Leave the games that demand high specs to the PC nerds.
Even Tetris is fun.
People just got confused, mixing up "fun gameplay" with "pretty graphics."
Exactly, the console market has hit its limit.
From here on, it's the PC's era.
As long as it's a living-room box, PC will never truly dominate.
We're literally talking about consoles being too expensive to buy, and you think an even pricier PC era is coming?
That's supposed to be the whole point of a game, so do the people constantly saying "not enough power, not enough power" actually have the confidence and evidence that they could make unprecedentedly fun games with it?
If performance could rise painlessly that'd be one thing, but right now the conditions are clearly bad.
Mario Kart World (the Switch 2's flagship racer) is only moving 3,000 copies a week — so much for performance mattering.
If the only way kids can play mobile/gacha games ends up being on some giant-smartphone-sized PS5, that's a huge win for PS5.
Pokémon Pocket (Pokepoke) is finished lol
"Dopagaki" (slang for a kid who spends heavily on gacha games) isn't even an insult — it's actually a term of envy for kids who get to play gacha games.
These days middle and high schoolers basically just all play mobile games together.
Most of them don't even own a console or a PC.
Don't even think about a next-gen console until they can get it down to ¥40,000 without selling at a loss.
Luckily, Nintendo has PlayStation as its "canary in the coal mine."
Just wait and see whether the next PS6 lives or dies, then build the next-gen console accordingly.
It'd take decades for a Switch to match PS6-level performance anyway — is there even a point in watching lol
Nobody buys a high-spec PC for reasons other than gaming, except specialists in some field or hardcore enthusiasts.
Investors are just dumb enough to keep believing AAA games are a reliably repeatable business model.
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
The backdrop here is that TSMC has been notifying customers of annual price increases for its leading-edge processes through 2029. Wafer prices for the 3nm-class node are projected to rise from roughly $27,000 in late 2025 to about $36,000 by 2028. What’s often overlooked is that in recent years, node names like “3nm” and “5nm” no longer track the old scaling law (where density and cost improve proportionally) — the naming no longer matches real-world performance gains. The thread split between those who believe “a next-gen console is viable if you just raise performance” and those who argue “without being able to pass costs on to consumers, home consoles themselves become unsustainable,” with the latter group further divided over whether PC could serve as a substitute. Worth keeping in mind: a console’s survival isn’t just about the hardware’s own profitability — it’s tied to the market size (the interdependence of PC, PlayStation, and Xbox) that underpins AAA development budgets. This isn’t simply a debate about a “performance race.”
*This article is compiled from excerpts and a summary of the 5ch Hardware/Industry (“Geha”) board thread “[CEDEC2026] Is a “Next-Generation Game Console” Even Possible in This Day and Age?“
Leave a Reply