> that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals Personally I doubt this. Previ

> that power is mostly going to be taken up by resolution and framerate increases, so less is left over for more complex visuals Personally I doubt this. Previously, when game studios have been given the choice between high framerates, high resolution, or better effects, they've favoured better effects. The PS3 was capable of 1080p/60fps, but most games were at 720p/30fps. VR might shake things up here, as a very high framerate is a hard requirement, but I think VR will remain a niche. > more computational and artistic resources I think it's the latter that really matters. The difficulty of coding an engine to take advantage of fancy hardware (cutting-edge graphical effects, physics, etc), can be at least partly addressed by licensing an existing engine. This doesn't apply to game-specific assets though. If it takes double the art budget (compared to the previous generation) to produce the best looking game possible, many games will wisely choose not to bother. As for the next 5 generations, perhaps the necessary investment in game assets might eventually come down as tooling improves. Improving horsepower ramps up the ceiling on game asset quality, but improving artwork tools will make it easier/cheaper to reach a given level. Overall though I think we should probably expect game development prices to continually increase, following the long trend over the years.