• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why do we still not have scalable console SKU's?

F

Future PhaZe

Member
It's 2014 and consoles are still living in an age of sitting still in a cycle of ever improving technology while almost every other electronic device out there is iterating and giving their users more options seemingly yearly.

I'm not advocating anything quite so extreme, but are console makers leaving cash while also missing out on the needs and desires of the userbase?

We're in an era where phones and tablets are not only retailing for higher than consoles but are also releasing new models that are becoming so diminishing in terms of upgrades that they seem to only be targeted towards the most hardcore of enthusiasts, yet people are eating them up.

So why do I not have an Xbox One - Prime option available for 600 dollars with a better GPU and CPU? Why don't we have a SKU that's 399 dollars with the harddrive sliced in half and no kinect?

You can argue that adding too many sku's would destroy what makes consoles what they are in terms of ease of development for developers, but is adding one or two additional scaling graphical options for 2-3 models per gen really that big of a deal?

The impetus for this thread comes from a guy who sold his Xbox One almost solely because of disappointment in the strength of the hardware. I'm reading the recent leaks about potential software and I'm super excited--excited for Kinects live tv integration, excited for playing with friends again, excited for the software lineup, the apps, etc.

But I can't. I just can't do it because it simply doesn't meet my needs. I can't do 720p. I refuse to do 720p.

So if I'm willing to pay more, why not give me the option?

Why aren't we getting a situation every few years where a new SKU comes out, gamestop issues a trade in sale, and enthusiast gamers can trade in a PS4 vanilla for PS4 gold?

I just don't understand why this isn't happening in 2014.
 
F

fredrancour

Member
Game companies don't seem to show any hesitation in taking consumers' money. If it made sense financially they'd probably do it. Maybe it wouldn't add enough income to justify the extra investment, maybe they're afraid devs would chase the high end too aggressively and would have slower, buggier performance on the low-end models, or maybe they just don't believe that enough people would bite on it.

Most people who buy consoles love the fact that there's just one hardware standard for the entire generation.
 
K

kmg90

Member
Well consoles that get attachments or add-ons that increase performance or allow only certain games that have been made for said attachments don't really succeed... (N64, Sega in the 90's)
 
W

Warm Machine

Member
Mr_Antimatter said:
Because that defeats the point of the consoles unified environment. That's pretty much just asking for a PC.
Click to expand...

Not really. The moving target now is mostly video and memory. You could simply update both and allow for backwards compatibility.

You may be left behind if you don't upgrade losing forward compatibility or simply get worse performance.

Writing for an incrementally more powerful console every 2 years or so would be better than writing for a sea of different configurations and OSs.

The whole process would have to be really delicately handled.
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
plexcide said:
Let's fragment the userbase!
Click to expand...

How? Same ecosystem and playing the same games. Same PSN, same XBL. What's it fragmenting? Games are still going to be developed with the worst SKU in mind.

MrNyarlathotep said:
...why not just buy a PC, which does exactly this?
Click to expand...

Because I want XBL or PSN and all the advantages of a console while still being able to invest in graphical upgrades from time to time if I want to?

Saying "har har buy a PC" is a very simple response.
 
Z

zulux21

Member
because the xbox one doesn't fit in my pocket?

seriously, that is why phones get eaten up, they are always with you, often break, and have contracts to make them much cheaper and thus people replace them every few years anyways.

consoles aren't sold on contract, don't get destroyed from carrying around with you all day ect.

as others have said if you want scaling consoles go get a pc... the main draw of consoles is knowing exactly how a game will perform on your system due to it being closed and not having an unique issues you can have that your friend won't. There is no real reason to have multiple scales of consoles if you are planning on just making them all play the weakest link... release the weakest link and call that it... anything more doesn't make business sense.

plus we really don't need more models of consoles around... there is more than enough already.
 
T

Thoraxes

Member
The point of consoles being as they are is so developers have a standard to develop for.

Once you start throwing everything else in, they have to optimize per configuration, which is just terrible for them in the console space.
 
O

Olli128

Member
People have already answered - that's what Pcs are for.
However I'd defiantly buy a PS4 Pro for an extra $100 that also plays PS3/2/1 games
 
T

TheAngryMonkey

Member
Dark FaZe said:
How? Same ecosystem and playing the same games. Same PSN, same XBL. What's it fragmenting? Games are still going to be developed with the worst SKU in mind..
Click to expand...

Then what's he point of having different models? I think you can (and MS/Sony does) change up the storage a model has but the performance of the machine can't change.
 
T

Twenty7KVN

Member
I get what you're try to say op, a multi sku system like a low,mid and high end pc. They all have the same family of components just clocked lower or less cores.
 
M

Mrbob

Member
Wouldn't be surprised if both Sony and MS see how Steam Machines are received and adjust strategy accordingly. Because it is exactly what you are asking for.
 
C

CriterionDog

Member
Sounds like a PC. And, it would be stupid for like, Microsoft or Sony to release a more powerful version of their home console the next year and so on. It would limit games and the first model would have issues or not even play the games built to run on the newer model. It's dumb for consoles. People already spent like $400/$500 + games on them.
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
Thoraxes said:
The point of consoles being as they are is so developers have a standard to develop for.

Once you start throwing everything else in, they have to optimize per configuration, which is just terrible for them in the console space.
Click to expand...

It's not even close to the amount of optimization that has to be done for PC games. Offering two or three possible configurations for a console, all of which use the same GPU and CPU families and API's ...the difficulty for developers is being drastically overestimated imo.

Twenty7KVN said:
I get what you're try to say op, a multi sku system like a low,mid and high end pc. They all have the same family of components just clocked lower or less cores.
Click to expand...

yes
 
F

fredrancour

Member
zulux21 said:
because the xbox one doesn't fit in my pocket?

seriously, that is why phones get eaten up, they are always with you, often break, and have contracts to make them much cheaper and thus people replace them every few years anyways.
Click to expand...

Oh wow I forgot about contracts giving people new phones. I've only ever used monthly prepaid ones. Suddenly the frequency with which people get new phones makes more sense. Yeah, unless consoles come up with some intense mandatory subscription system, there won't be a very big market for incremental hardware improvements.
 
T

Twenty7KVN

Member
CriterionDog said:
Sounds like a PC. And, it would be stupid for like, Microsoft or Sony to release a more powerful version of their home console the next year and so on. It would limit games and the first model would have issues or not even play the games built to run on the newer model. It's dumb for consoles. People already spent like $400/$500 + games on them.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true,Pc's have different spces running from low to high it could be the sameway. The low end system can play the same games as the high end one,but with the graphics turn down.
 
T

Thoraxes

Member
Dark FaZe said:
It's not even close to the amount of optimization that has to be done for PC games. Offering two or three possible configurations for a console, all of which use the same GPU and CPU families and API's ...the difficulty for developers is being drastically overestimated imo.
Click to expand...

It's not that it's hard, but it takes time, QA and certification for each configuration, money, and people to make it happen. And then they'd have to patch games per configuration and figure out which configurations do and do not work when a game is released, which results in more wasted people, time, and money.

It's just an necessary hassle from a business perspective. As a consumer I think it would be great though.
 
O

oSoLucky

Member
In regards to the phone reason, as some have stated, a good amount of the ones bought are subsidized through a contract renewal every 2 years. Also, people are going to be willing to pay more for a much more versatile piece of equipment, which will be with or near them nearly all the time throughout those 2 years vice a console which may get 15-20 hours of play per week. I really don't think the benefit outweighs the risk for the platform holders. Microsoft and Sony both recently have bled enough on R&D and taking losses on their consoles, and while theoretically, off the shelf parts could be used for upgrades, will the cost be worth the possible uptake on the backend? I don't think there's really a market for a closed platform holder to make that much profit off of this idea, especially considering the sensitivity to price that the console market usually has.

I believe your opinion to be in the extreme minority given the availability of PC ports for big games these days, and I seriously doubt that it would be a risk worth taking in the end.


Thoraxes said:
It's not that it's hard, but it takes time, QA and certification for each configuration, money, and people to make it happen. And then they'd have to patch games per configuration and figure out which configurations do and do not work when a game is released, which results in more wasted people, time, and money.

It's just an necessary hassle from a business perspective. As a consumer I think it would be great though.
Click to expand...

Another good point. Any sort of issue with a game not working on one of the "tiers" of consoles, and that will instantly turn off a large part of the market, in which the majority tends to be casual. Look at how many people buy Apple products because they "just work".
 
A

atbigelow

Member
Bad idea. Once you give a ceiling, it will start to become a requirement. Imagine if the PSP-3000's extra RAM was required.

The processing power requirement needs to stay the same, but I'm cool with extras like BC, multitasking, storage, etc.
 
R

raphanum

Member
Dark FaZe said:
But I can't. I just can't do it because it simply doesn't meet my needs. I can't do 720p. I refuse to do 720p.
Click to expand...
I just can't take your post seriously. I refuse to take it seriously.

On topic/edit: it would be quite neat though now that I think about it. If consoles could actually compete with high/ultra PC settings, then would it be safe to say that it may even entice some PC-only users, too? Probably not, I guess. Wouldn't Sony/MS also have to increase profits/returns for this to work?
 
O

Ogimachi

Member
Lots of people buy phones that cost more than consoles every couple of years, and it's not hard to find some who do so in a yearly basis. I do think Microsoft and Sony(especially MS could be making more money with this. R&D costs would be minimal (same architecture, better components and specs) and consioles would keep up with new tech innovations and trends. If every SKU at least runs every game on that platform, backlash would be minimal.
 
H

Harp

Member
There is a reason why a game like gta5 can be made with just 512 megs of memory. Its call extreme optimization. If you prefer a world of 10,000 candy crush clones. My all means advocate for fragmentation.
 
C

Cheeky

Member
Because it is a very small niche, Most people do not care about graphics as much and the ones that truly do tend to make a PC
 
O

outunderthestars

Banned
Dark FaZe said:
How? Same ecosystem and playing the same games. Same PSN, same XBL. What's it fragmenting? Games are still going to be developed with the worst SKU in mind.



Because I want XBL or PSN and all the advantages of a console while still being able to invest in graphical upgrades from time to time if I want to?

Saying "har har buy a PC" is a very simple response.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the vast majority of console owners want to be able to buy a console and know that that every game that they buy on it will run as well as possible. Your idea would alter that, which makes even less sense given the subsidized nature of console hardware.
 
A

ayob

Member
why not have a sku that plays all games at 720p 30fps for $400 and a sku that can play them at 1080p 60fps for $600? i think that'll work no?
 
L

low-G

Member
Cuz Sega tried that and it failed and was a dumb idea and still is a dumb idea.

It's not as easy as just making hardware that works magically for all games.

Not having that option is the very thing that makes consoles so much more efficient than PCs for games.

It will never, ever happen.
 
goldenpp72

goldenpp72

Member
This concept has never been done successfully, which is probably why. I'd personally not mind but i'm an unusual consumer.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
So much wrong in that OP that I don't even know where to begin. So, I won't.

I'll just say that you're completely misunderstanding the reason for the existence of consoles in the first place.
 
K

Kimawolf

Member
Its a great idea but console makers wont do it because developers will bitch till infinity. Look how they treay PC releases. Hell they bitched so much already they convinced Sony and MS to practically make the same system.
 
Caayn

Caayn

Member
Having multiple SKUs for one console results in worse optimization as the devs need to make their game compatible with every SKU.

Buy a steambox if you want the closest thing to a scalable console.
ayob said:
why not have a sku that plays all games at 720p 30fps for $400 and a sku that can play them at 1080p 60fps for $600? i think that'll work no?
Click to expand...
No such a massice difference would require more than simply higher clocks. Making the game incompatible with the other SKU.
 
D

Doctor_Thomas

Member
I know you scoffed at the idea of "buy a PC" but, when you start making different SKUs with different CPU and GPU configs, you are into PC space and Steam Machines, which may be the answer you seek.

For a console maunfacturer it's just not a viable option.
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
raphanum said:
I just can't take your post seriously. I refuse to take it seriously.

On topic/edit: it would be quite neat though now that I think about it. If consoles could actually compete with high/ultra PC settings, then would it be safe to say that it may even entice some PC-only users, too? Probably not, I guess. Wouldn't Sony/MS also have to increase profits/returns for this to work?
Click to expand...

Yes, and there's no reason they couldn't price the hardware to make money for each unit sold, or at worst sell it a price that matches the same ratio of profit as the base SKU.

outunderthestars said:
Yes, but the vast majority of console owners want to be able to buy a console and know that that every game that they buy on it will run as well as possible. Your idea would alter that, which makes even less sense given the subsidized nature of console hardware.
Click to expand...

And that's still the case here. Nothing is changing.

Zefah said:
So much wrong in that OP that I don't even know where to begin. So, I won't.

I'll just say that you're completely misunderstanding the reason for the existence of consoles in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then by all means, educate me.

The optimization arguments aren't making much sense. Extreme optimization is still taking place with the base SKU's in mind, using similar architecture. The difference being "more".

Again, I'm not suggesting a PC system where you can change aliasing options, ambient occlusion, model and texture quality, etc. I'm simply suggesting a more expensive PS4 or Xbox One that run the games better. Users wouldn't have access to any sort PC graphical options.
 
S

SomethingInTheSea

Member
People would be confused as to which config to buy, and that might put some of them off altogether. Its a sure fire way to higher development and manufacturing costs only to end up with a smaller audience for your games, which is where you make your profits anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Console exclusivity- does it still have a future?
2 3
121
3K
odhiex replied
Believe me, a new Sega console would repeat all the same mistakes Saturn and Dreamcast.
2 3
132
5K
Geometric-Crusher replied
Do game developers still want to publish on Xbox? A survey of independents and small studios
39
2K
SNG32 replied
With Microsoft Going Balls Deep on Gamepass do we think its coming to other systems?
2
61
3K
Gojiira replied
Xbox Explains Why It Doesn't Reveal Console Sales Anymore
2 3 4
174
13K
JohnnyFootball replied
Top Bottom