-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Could a console with upgradeable parts work for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo?
- Thread starter mechphree
- Start date
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Ask again in 2017, OP.
What is with people and bad ideas today? Like do you think this hasn't been tried before? Ram packs on N64, Sega CD, etc. Seriously, these ideas are getting ridiculous by the day. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Its a horrible idea that needs to die by fire.
I'm not going to explain to you why its a bad idea as several others have explained it sufficiently. If you have issues with the concept of consoles, go buy a pc. A console is not there to address the needs of everyone. It targets a specific area of the market and fulfills the needs of those consumers. Everything doesn't have to be compatible with you(referring to the 60fps complainers as well), there is another product that fulfills your wants and needs. Go buy a pc. Wow.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i'm typing on a huge 60 inch tv
so i have enough space to write shit
it makes it easier to read because instead of a huge block of text, they're nice and double spaced. single spacing is only for asshole teachers to make your life miserable.
the anomaly that is cross-gen games just throws this all out, sorry. Where there's a will there's a way. If it weren't economical to make a next-gen game then why would they even be porting them or making them now? Not even talking about the older generation versions here.
also, no one cares if "its available on a PC." consoles are a different product than PC. netflix is available on PC but consoles are the #1 devices to use it on... cause its attached to the TV and NOT a pc!
no, its not called a PC. Its called a Mac. One set of hardware, one OS that is upgraded roughly yearly, and is more or less backwards compatible until it isn't.
and i'm not saying "many" times in a few years. once a year. if many>few
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
The person you're responding to literally explained to you why cross-platform games between a small number of platforms exist, and why it becomes less feasible as the number of platforms increases.
I don't really think you have an argument.
sono
Gold Member
No this is not how console business model works.
Things like amount of ram and cpu speed define the console for the generation.
If you had user upgradeable parts
a. the base unit needs to be complex for that and therefore would be more expensive to start with.
b. The support model for console manufacturers would be much more complex
c. the supply chain and retail support of the compatible extra parts needs to be constructed
d. developers have to write additional code to figure out what is there and tune itself to the configuration - which is more complex to develop and support (= expensive)
In other words you get some kind of Frankenstein version of the PC world and also you would have more expensive console hardware and console games compared to the current model.
Things like amount of ram and cpu speed define the console for the generation.
If you had user upgradeable parts
a. the base unit needs to be complex for that and therefore would be more expensive to start with.
b. The support model for console manufacturers would be much more complex
c. the supply chain and retail support of the compatible extra parts needs to be constructed
d. developers have to write additional code to figure out what is there and tune itself to the configuration - which is more complex to develop and support (= expensive)
In other words you get some kind of Frankenstein version of the PC world and also you would have more expensive console hardware and console games compared to the current model.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
This statement:
"People are still making games for the PS3 because it's 1 of 3 7th generation systems. Not 1 out of 18 of 6 years of 3 different brands of iterative consoles."
is not an explanation for cross-platform games existing. there is no data to say they wouldnt support this statement whereas i have games that are "cross-gen"
ps3->ps4
psp->psvita
xbox360->xbox one
ipad 1->ipad 2->ipad air
games already appear on 8 different platforms at a time. we also have ps3s with larger hard drives every year, so people could assume that hard drives were large and didn't have to worry about size constraints. supporting an "OS level" for the hardware doesn't change anything other than saying what it supports.
was there a game that needed more than 40 gb of hard drive space? i don't know -- are there any MMO games you have to download that become that big? that's your prime example right there of how upgrading would work. barely anyone has the 40gb ps3 anymore. regardless of the fact you could switch out the hard drive, which isn't what i'm implying at all. the yearly refreshes are across the board, and not iterative.
No only small things like wii fit are hardware implementations with huge success.
Things like hardware must be included when puchasing a console. All games are based on that specs. Take for example turok or donkey kong expension. They delivered it with the game because of that. It just don't work.
Pc is another story, those games have diff settings. most of them can run on new and older hardware.
Maybe if nintendo release their new OS
Things like hardware must be included when puchasing a console. All games are based on that specs. Take for example turok or donkey kong expension. They delivered it with the game because of that. It just don't work.
Pc is another story, those games have diff settings. most of them can run on new and older hardware.
Maybe if nintendo release their new OS
Thats the key no one seems to understand.
Developers could optimise their game for the standard base hardware that only can be switched for better, so the game can only run better and never worse.
If the market doesnt offer any piece of hardware that is worse than the console standard's, then we have nothing to worry about.
I think it could work from an ideal perspective, if you arent happy with the power of your 400$ console, buy a better processor/RAM and boost up that extra fps you desire.
It's like having options, and that's always better for the consumer.
On the reality perspective, like this thread shows, people doesnt have the right point of view for this yet so if would likely fail.
lifeexpectancy
Member
Nope, terrible idea. There is a very large portion of the console playerbase that is functionally illiterate when it comes to things like upgrading specific components, drivers, plugins, etc.
Imagine someone buying a game for their son and taking it home, opening it, only to find out that it isn't compatible with his PS5 because it was designed with the new PS5-G2x graphics card. Then they take it back to the store and they say 'sorry, no refunds on games that have been opened'.
In an ideal world the devs COULD make games with a 'low', 'medium', and 'high' graphics setting to account for upgraded and non-upgraded consoles, but they aren't going to do this for the most part. It ramps up the cost of game production greatly, so unless it's a game that is already being developed with a PC port in mind, they aren't going to bother. Also, judging by what my PC gaming friends have told me, the PC ports tend to be extremely under-optimized, meaning that what *should* run well on high settings on their PC due to its power advantage over consoles tends to only run well on medium settings instead. These aren't the latest high-end PC builds, mind you, but it's an example of the headaches that console gamers have never had to face and do not want to face.
I mean hell I'm pretty technically literate myself, and I STILL would balk at the idea of an 'upgradeable' console. I want to know that 5 years from now the games being release on XB1 and PS4 will still be compatible with my day 1 machines (if they don't break/RROD/BLOD/etc by then).
Imagine someone buying a game for their son and taking it home, opening it, only to find out that it isn't compatible with his PS5 because it was designed with the new PS5-G2x graphics card. Then they take it back to the store and they say 'sorry, no refunds on games that have been opened'.
In an ideal world the devs COULD make games with a 'low', 'medium', and 'high' graphics setting to account for upgraded and non-upgraded consoles, but they aren't going to do this for the most part. It ramps up the cost of game production greatly, so unless it's a game that is already being developed with a PC port in mind, they aren't going to bother. Also, judging by what my PC gaming friends have told me, the PC ports tend to be extremely under-optimized, meaning that what *should* run well on high settings on their PC due to its power advantage over consoles tends to only run well on medium settings instead. These aren't the latest high-end PC builds, mind you, but it's an example of the headaches that console gamers have never had to face and do not want to face.
I mean hell I'm pretty technically literate myself, and I STILL would balk at the idea of an 'upgradeable' console. I want to know that 5 years from now the games being release on XB1 and PS4 will still be compatible with my day 1 machines (if they don't break/RROD/BLOD/etc by then).
IdreamofHIME
Member
Then Sony released the PSPgo so no one could play Crisis Core ^_^
That's true but quite a bit of games still used it, like:
007: The World is Not Enough
All-Star Baseball 2000
Armorines - Project S.W.A.R.M.
Army Men: Sarge's Heroes 2
Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness
Command and Conquer
CyberTiger
Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers
Duke Nukem: Zero Hour
Excitebike 64
F-1 World Grand Prix II
Gauntlet Legends
Hybrid Heaven
Hydro Thunder
Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine
Indy Racing 2000
International Track & Field 2000
Jeremy McGrath Supercross 2000
John Romero's Daikatana
Ken Griffey Jr.'s Slugfest
Madden NFL 2001
Mega Man 64
Namco Museum 64
NFL Quarterback Club '98
NFL Quarterback Club '99
NFL Quarterback Club 2000
NFL Quarterback Club 2001
Nuclear Strike 64
Pac-Man: Maze Madness
Pokémon Stadium 2
Quake II
Rayman 2
Resident Evil 2
Re-Volt
Road Rash 64
Roadsters Trophy
San Francisco Rush 2049
Shadow Man
South Park
Star Wars: Episode I Racer
Star Wars Episode I: Battle for Naboo
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron
Stunt Racer 64
Supercross 2000
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Top Gear Hyper-Bike
Top Gear Overdrive
Top Gear Rally 2
Turok 2: Seeds of Evil
Turok 3: Shadow of Oblivion
Turok: Rage Wars
Vigilante 8
And when used it allowed a lot of different things between high resolution, high res textures, and the ability to increase framerate when playing at a lower resolution. This would be cool for future consoles if it were used more often.
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Reality does not support your theory.
One of the launch Xbox 360 models did not ship with a hard drive. This resulted in a number of compromises:
- For several years, XBLA games had comparatively tight file size restrictions so that it was possible to run them from a memory card or small HDDs. Occasionally, larger games would suffer from heavy compression to fit within this limit, even late in the system's lifespan. Sometimes the ramifications for this would even be felt on PSN ports because developers either didn't want to or didn't have the means to put in the extra work for the port. It's also a contributing reason to the very strict patch size requirements for the system.
- Some late generation games ship with two discs: an install disc and a gameplay disc, requiring the user to copy the install disc to the HDD and play the game from the other disc. For a game like this, an HDD-less console isn't even an option.
"The game can only run better and never worse" is a fantasy scenario. It's theoretically possible for a developer to account for every variable, but real-life concerns (budget, time, manpower, console manufacturer restrictions and guidelines, market feasibility, etc.) get in the way of that.
Alright, let's table this part of the discussion and more on the more grounded in real life part. I still don't agree with you, and if I wanted to I could say roughly the same thing I already said with different wording. How would companies financially benefit from this new strategy? And what graphical advantages would I expect to get from such an upgrade? Consoles sell the most after they hit a mass market price of $300-$200. Is it economically feasible to expect your consumers to lay down any more than that every 1-2 years of they want the biggest and the best? And more importantly, what would I get from upgrading? The differences between a graphics set and cpu of roughly equivalent prices between 12 calender months is only so big. What will upgrading offer me? Better anti-aliasing, a resolution bump, and a slightly higher framerate? We already have people frothing about not seeing a difference in graphics and that would absolutely be amplified to its maximum if we had to do it once a year.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
No. Exception being if it was like the 64 Expansion Pack.
ryanofcall
Member
That would kill one of the main reasons to buy home consoles...
Absolutely the hell no. The consoles out now are the best that their makers could do at this time, at the target price, at the target power consumption. Upgradeability doesn't change the sweet spot. It just adds extra physical interfaces, chassis expansions, moving power/cooling targets etc, i.e. cost that nobody wants to absorb for a purely theoretical benefit that no developer will take advantage of.
manzo
Member
When ViDoc 4++ supports a 780ti with full bandwidth (5gb/sec PCIe is not enough), I'll get one.
SystemUser
Member
There is another thread: It's time for (limited)graphics settings in console games!
I think the time is right for both ideas. It would be awesome if someone made box could be upgraded and had games graphics with settings. Too bad no one makes one of those. Would probably be cool if someone made one.
I think the time is right for both ideas. It would be awesome if someone made box could be upgraded and had games graphics with settings. Too bad no one makes one of those. Would probably be cool if someone made one.
maquiladora
Member
Please no....
Nikodemos
Member
As a Saturn/N64-style memory pack, no. However, I can see Nintendo, should they to go for a dockable voltron-esque solution for their next effort, specify two levels of detail/resolution/graphic effects for their games. Have the base station (which is a console) run games at regular, dock the (optional, sold standalone or in limited-time bundle) XDS for maximum oomph.
no. If someone wants/ likes to deal with optimizing a game's performance to run better like PC gaming, go get a damn gaming PC and upgrade it every month/ year. I just want to be lazy and enjoy my pop corns without going through all of the trouble PC gaming requires me to do all so often.
Caayn
Member
Upgradeable consoles? Won't work, or you must be happy too lose a lot of optimization since the dev now needs to optimize twice for effectively the same platform. On top of that it would massively fragment the install base
x86 doesn't suddenly make this possible. This was already possible with the PPC architecture of the previous consoles, like how Nintendo is doing for example.Boss★Moogle;114825937 said:
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I had/have an N64. Been there done that.
Ol No Bones
Banned
My question is whether an ios or android esque system where they upgrade without the a complete over haul every couple years could work. It would be pretty interesting to play the Xbox 1.5 and PS4.5 in a couple years.
I know it wont work but I would be interested to see it in action.
I know it wont work but I would be interested to see it in action.
.
Doesn't make much sense and for developers it will be hell having to deal with already array of multiple configurations.
People would be better served getting a PC without the constraints of consoles in the situation where console upgrade-ability is a thing.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Can it be done? Yes. It has been done.
Will it be done again? No except for possibly stuff like a kinect that adds functionality to the game.
Will it be done again? No except for possibly stuff like a kinect that adds functionality to the game.
AustinFelix
Unconfirmed Member
No. It's pointless. Power will be limitless when cloud streaming is established anyway.
Canis lupus
Member
No. They would make the game targeted for the base system, and people that have upgraded parts, can ran it in higher res/fps.
I'm up for such an idea, but the risk is that some devs will go out their way to target the best upgrades and make their game run like crap on the base console.
zerokoolpsx
Member
It would split their install base. Sega did it.
Can it be done? Yes. It has been done.
Will it be done again? No except for possibly stuff like a kinect that adds functionality to the game.
Woo-Fu
Banned
I'd say the real risk is that devs skip your platform completely since it is the worst of all worlds. The limitations of a console with the headaches of a fragment platform.
InsaneTiger
Member
No way. That is the beauty of consoles. One set of specs for devs to optimize towards.
They start doing that Sony and MS might as well start releasing their games on PC.
They start doing that Sony and MS might as well start releasing their games on PC.
SystemUser
Member
Sega even double did it with the 32X was in addition to the Sega CD. There were even games than required both I think.
If you take out a basic piece of the architecture, of course games wont run...
As long as you dont change the architecture and just improve already existing pieces, its perfectly posible.
Changing an HDD from a 5400 rpm 250GB to a 7200rpm 500 is objectively better and posible.
Changing GPU/CPU for a better one of the same architecture with higher mem/clock speed is objectively better and possible.
The only thing I could be afraid of is RAM speed/latency, I dont know how it would affect highest speed with highest latency.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
The fragmentation issue would be a nightmare for developers/publishers.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
No op. Just no.