Mid-range GPUs still exist, they just dont get the same coverage as the top-end cards. An RTX 4060 is set at $300 which is much cheaper than a PS5 or Series X
This is an interesting take. Historically, the main benefits to console gaming were 2 things:
Consoles are cheaper than PCs
Games require no config and and are guaranteed to be compatible
Nether of these is really the case anymore. For the price of a PS5 or a Series X you could get a midrange gaming PC with similar performance.
Regarding complexity, we kind of met in the middle. Long gone are the days when you could just pop a disc in the tray of your playstation or xbox and start playing, every game requires an install now. And on the PC side, you very rarely need to configure settings to get a game to a playable state. Hell, you dont really even need to manually install drivers anymore.
Of course, as the article points out, none of this applies to Nintendo and those consoles are still worth buying.
My guess for the future is that if Microsoft and Sony are going to hang around in the hardware space, they’re going to make something akin to the steam deck, but locked to their own storefront. And then they’ll wonder why people are still choosing PCs over their hardware.
Under the current system, people that produce creative works as their job are forced to monetize them. Until we live in a post-scarcity world where everyone’s needs are met, like Star Trek, we have to deal with capitalist problems. To say otherwise is to ensure a system where artists and authors are unable to survive. Currently, the copyright system is good enough™ that creating art can be profitable enough that they are not destitute.
Simply because the technology exists to endlessly replicate and distribute art, regardless of the wishes of the artist (for which it is already frequently used, if you look at piracy channels) does not mean that it should be used with reckless abandon.
Copyright is generally a good idea. There has to be some level of restriction, otherwise infinite copies of your art immediately show up and you cant make a living.
On the flipside, it harms the industry at large if the copyright is too long. There is no reason why a corporate entity should be making royalties on something long after it’s creator has died.
So, where is the middle point? What is a good length of time to let an artist exclusively sell their art without fear of someone undercutting them as soon as they make something? Personally, i think the US figured out the sweet spot before all the changes. 14 years, plus a single 14 year extension you have to register. 28 years is enough time that you can make a career, but also not long enough to harm the creative process or prevent art from reaching the masses while its relevant.