Consoles with upgraded hardware... Could this be the next step the industry takes?

Obliterator said:
Yeah I mean we just had a scenario like this happen last year with n3DS and it was a huge success. And it wasn't even all that well supported and consumers ate it up.



Yeah thats truth. The console industry is the only form of technology still using the long term "cycle' idea. Its a bit archaic compared to all other consumer technologies
Click to expand...

No it isn't. People rarely replace PCs or televisions every 2-3 years. This is fantasy land- 5+ years for both is the expectation. Televisions in particular have a VERY hard time convincing consumers to upgrade to things like 3D or higher resolutions. Consumers literally do not care. Tablets are slowing down as well, Apple isn't seeing the base "upgrade" them anywhere near as often as they were for phones.

“Investors now have more evidence that the tablet upgrade cycle is a little longer than you think,” Niu writes. “Earlier this month, right before the iPad Pro launched, Localytics released some estimates on the composition of the current iPad installed base. Localytics is a life-cycle engagement platform and looked at over 50 million iPads to derive its figures. According to Localytics, the iPad 2 remains the most popular iPad model out in the wild, representing 20% of all iPad models as of October 2015.”
Click to expand...

http://macdailynews.com/2015/12/01/apples-ipad-upgrade-cycle-is-longer-than-most-think-but-eventually-consumers-will-come-back-for-more/

The Ipad 2 launched in 2011. It's 2016. Casual users simply do not care enough to upgrade things that frequently, and consoles are aimed directly AT the casual user, not the enthusiast.

Phones are the sole exception here- and cellphones are not only usually either heavily subsidized or have the cost broken up over monthly service plans, they also have more than a bit of planned obsolescence built in and tend to break down around this mark. This is ESPECIALLY true for iphones, as new versions of iOS have a nasty habit of making phones that previously ran smoothly run like garbage.
 
Mike Golf said:
The problem with the OP's scenario is too many what-ifs. In my mind there's two extremes here; 1.) devs still focus most attention on the base console as it already has a huge user base and the upgraded console just gets the benefits of improved framerate and resolution with no other special attention given, then 2.) the opposite where the new version gets most of the attention and old version users are boned with whatever poor performance and fidelity they get as their version wasn't the primary focus. I just don't see all versions being equally optimized.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of stronger hardware and 'special attention' you're expecting. Improved resolution and frame-rate, speedier HDD is enough. If you value that enough to buy the stronger iteration then go ahead, if not get whatever. What 'special treatment' do PC versions of multiplatform games have on the high-end?

There shouldn't be any problems with attention to both iterations. You bought the PS4\XB1 based on the specs the console had. Nothing is taken away from you. You get the experience, performance and games that you based your decision on.
This is just like a PC game having several graphical presets. It wouldn't be new. Also don't see why that should be raised as an issue when the current console model had it's fair share of poor performing and 'optimized' titles. Don't see people writing off the single specced console philosophy because of that.
 
So we have thunderbolt 3, that's 4x PCI-Express lanes of bandwidth. Sure Sony or MS could put out a new console with thunderbolt 3 and allow external graphics boxes which are upgradable. But the CPU portion would prolly be reaching End of life around 1.5-2.5 GPU gens through it strictly from it getting old and wearing things out. Most likely a no there.

So we all have smartphones. Next gen you just buy a GPU box and hook it to your phone thunderbolt charger port and BAM. Take games everywhere on your phone, Upgradable GPU, lower cost cause you have a phone already. Prolly won't happen since phone specs will remain everywhere and architectural differences.

You think they will make it internal and user replaceable? Yea I wish that too but the general population mass watches Facebook posts on how to tie their shoes and cook.... Should we let them stick their tied up chicken covered hands inside the console?

So we are left with software as a service, or as you've seen it already PSNOW. Stream games to any device regardless of specs. Done easiest and now nobody has to make hardware ship and sell it. Just upgrade the servers to make the service better and guess what, not everyone games at the same time so the amount of hardware needed overall would drop. Next best part, should work on your phone and you can hook that to your TV, there's no reason it shouldnt be able to already except money. But there are tons of ps3s and xbox 360s that would be capable of streaming this; of course they won't. But it they let current gen consoles becoming gaming stream boxes at the end of this gen instead of paper weights then we have some real interesting things happening.


If you want upgradable GPUs join us in the PC Mustard Race where the consoles can't Ketchup
 
Manmademan said:
No it isn't. People rarely replace PCs or televisions every 2-3 years. This is fantasy land- 5+ years for both is the expectation. Televisions in particular have a VERY hard time convincing consumers to upgrade to things like 3D or higher resolutions. Consumers literally do not care. Tablets are slowing down as well, Apple isn't seeing the base "upgrade" them anywhere near as often as they were for phones.
Click to expand...

It's not whether people buy every year, new models are made available every year. Consumers upgrade as they see fit.
 
Manmademan said:
No it isn't. People rarely replace PCs or televisions every 2-3 years. This is fantasy land- 5+ years for both is the expectation. Televisions in particular have a VERY hard time convincing consumers to upgrade to things like 3D or higher resolutions. Consumers literally do not care. Tablets are slowing down as well, Apple isn't seeing the base "upgrade" them anywhere
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about? There are new GPU's, CPU's, TV models EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Every one almost without exception.

You dont need your entire base to upgrade every year. You present the option yearly or by-yearly and let the consumer decide
 
Obliterator said:
What are you even talking about? There are new GPU's, CPU's, TV models EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Every one almost without exception.

You dont need your entire base to upgrade every year. You present the option yearly or by-yearly and let the consumer decide
Click to expand...

This is a recipe to lose money. There are GPUs released Every Year, but these are targeted at the enthusiast market, not the casual user. These things have hefty markups built into them because of it.

Have you looked at the TV industry lately? New models are released yearly, but buyers are scarce, especially for high end units. Sharp is out of business. Sony has massively scaled back production, and Panasonic plasmas? Gone too. Vizio is doing well at the bottom of the market but that's it. People upgrade televisions when they break, not when the next big thing hits shelves...ask manufacturers how 3D television went sometime.

edit: every japanese manufacturer is pretty much screwed right now- Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sharp are all either massively scaling back production or leaving the US entirely. The cause are cheap chinese and korean televisions they can't compete with, because consumers are flocking to the bottom of the barrel.

http://www.theneweconomy.com/home/japanese-brands-exit-the-global-television-market

http://www.wsj.com/articles/panasonic-logs-solid-profit-1422949929
 
Can't wait for the Sega CD + 32X like upgrades.
This would be hilarious.
But a console like a new 3DS could be possible.
But honestly that should be the point to switch to pc if you do not own one yet.
 
I also see it as hugely inconvenient for some developpers. Developping for PC where the hardware varies immensely is already a big hastle in terms of optimization and bug hunts, but doing that for console as well would add a lot of extra work. Plus for whom do you target your game ? The lower end console, to which the userbase who bought the "more powerful hardware" would then feel like they spent their money for nothing, or go straight for the better hardware to the point where you would get an Iphone situation where older ps4s get more and more obsolete as they're not the target anymore
 
KingJ2002 said:
unlike the smartphone market.... annual or bi-annual Hardware refreshes for game systems aren't possible due to

1. the radical changes in hardware architecture.
2. changes in operating system
3. changes in SDK's
4. no subsidy model or payment plan to make the system affordable to low income households


I believe this will change with the Nintendo NX... with their system Nintendo plans to borrow many strategies that they see from Apple & Google and standardize their hardware architecture, provide a unified OS with a number of SDK improvements, while also leveraging cloud computing for storage and account management. This gives them the option to provide hardware upgrades while keeping previous generation titles playable. If they can provide a compelling reason for the consumer to upgrade on an annual or bi-annual basis... then providing a payment plan to accommodate would allow them to completely adapt the smartphone model and change the console market forever.

Sort of legitimizing Apple's platform (if it wasn't legit already)
Click to expand...

Points 1-3 are aspects of console gaming that need to change anyway. In the past exotic machines offered advantages over other gaming sectors, but that's just not happening anymore.
 
Consoles with upgraded hardware would defeat the purpose of consoles; therefore, they better not fucking do it. Want to upgrade your hardware get a fucking pc and leave my consoles alone, it's that easy.
 
I would love be being able to get upgraded consoles, launch 1080p @ 30fps, upgraded 1080p @ 60fps and etc., but it's not going to happen. Consoles are home electronics which carries a expectation of lasting at least for a few years. People don't buy TVs and will replace them the next year.

And, I am not sure why people keep on using cellphones as reason why people don't mind high cost and/or constant upgrading. Phones are mobile device which people have them within reach 24/7. The time using them more than justify the cost vs other electronics.
 
I kind of hope so. I think it's the right direction for the industry, but it has to be a very simplified approach. Something along the lines of a "value" and "pro" console. Basically, every 4 years a new console comes out and the old "pro" model shifts to the value tier. Any given model would have a supported lifespan of 8 or so years.

The trick is to make this very easy on the dev's with a very flexible dev environment that handles a lot of the scaling under the hood. It's basically like a dumbed down PC version.

It would not surprise me if MS is the one that goes this direction in the future. But it also wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo went this way as well.

Both of those companies were completely burned by the console transition when former users jumped ship. Starting a new generation with a 0 user install base is disastrous and I think this is a way they can address that.
 
I hope so, the generational paradigm where we are forced to just throw away our entire catalogs and accessories is just stupid. (And imo, precisely the reason on how Steam became so huge, as it allowed you to build a library you can take anywhere)
 
Nintendo has tried extending the life of its hardware via subtle iterative upgrades in the past. In both cases these iterations were not very well supported.

Developers tend to design games for the most populous platforms, that works against these upgrades in a very real way. Heck, even whole new platforms tend to need at least a year for publishers to begin targeting them, and in those cases the advantages the new platforms offer are generally far more noticable.
 
assuming the development tools help easily account for it, and some reasonable degree of game compatibility is maintained, then it could work.
 
Nope. Not good for anyone. Fragmentation. More work for developers. Confuses the hell out of average gamer, who just want to go out and get a console for themselves and JUST play.
 
no. nintendo and sega tried this in the 90's with addons, which is a much better idea that still failed. nintendo has also done this before with the original DS and pretty much zero games take advantage of it. same with 3ds there's what.....xenoblade? If sony, microsoft or nintendo tries this expect absolutely no 3rd party games to support it and for it to be completely inconsequential.
 
I think it's dumb and would give devs more optimization targets and not everyone would have the same experience. You might as well just build a PC. Consoles are supposed to be a fixed spec.
 
Felix Lighter said:
It's not whether people buy every year, new models are made available every year. Consumers upgrade as they see fit.
Click to expand...
This is obviously how it would work. The previous thread I made on this some posters couldn't comprehend skipping a year either. It happens with all consumer electronics. They make new TVs every year but you don't need to buy them every year.

People don't want to pay a lot for consoles, but they do want to feel what they are playing on is relevant and current technology-wise. The easiest way to achieve both is to set a reasonable target price of $299 (pulling out of ass a bit) and incrementally improve the hardware every year. I don't think console manufacturers can sustain a long enough generation anymore to see profits soar. The technology is too dated and can't last that long with how fast the PC is progressing and how many people are jumping on the bandwagon. The core gamers will at least try PC gaming as they age and have more income.

They would most likely support at least three generations of hardware and probably more. So if you don't want to pony up you'd be fine. Optimizing a game for that many generations may not be feasible or worth it, however. That's probably a big factor in this.
 
Tyl3n0L85 said:
Upgraded console lol. This is ridiculous... Ever heard of a PC?
Click to expand...
I think everyone would agree. The point is that consoles are starting to have a pretty tough time remaining technologically relevant for the price people will traditionally pay. VR, 4K, etc.

Something has to be done in the console space to close the gap. Much shorter release cycle for hardware is probably one of the most obvious ways they will try to keep up. OP is just speculating.
 
Tagyhag said:
No, most mainstream gamers don't care about graphics.

They like knowing what they buy is all they need for a few years.

You start pumping out more necessary upgrades and games that require said upgrades, and not only will you confuse them, but you'll have some refusing to upgrade, which means devs will have to cater to even more different hardware or risk losing sales.
Click to expand...

First post has been the best post thus far. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself (and trust me I tried)
 
ANother "should consoles be upgradeable" thread.

Sheesh. They never end.

The answer is no no and no.

Because, its pointless.

Developers will always have to develop to the lowest common denominator and they're not likely to utilize the extra resources to make it a worthwhile endeavor. Games are shipped in bad enough shape with just one closed system.
 
CosmicQueso said:
Not sure if people aren't reading the OP or what.

A PS4, for example, that had the VR box built in, had a hybrid HD and maybe a couple other new bells and whistles... no one thinks that's a good idea or would sell? Faster load times, no add on box for VR, something like that? Of course that would sell, and it would sell a good many boxes to existing owners.



There's nothing saying you won't be able to do that in this scenario.
Click to expand...

Debatable. If you have no interest in VR, there are some that wouldn't want to pay for that functionality.

For the OP, I have yet to see why this is a good idea vs coming up with one optimized spec that you can bring down costs for every 5 years or so.
 
Boombloxer said:
Debatable. If you have no interest in VR, there are some that wouldn't want to pay for that functionality.

For the OP, I have yet to see why this is a good idea vs coming up with one optimized spec that you can bring down costs for every 5 years or so.
Click to expand...

And there are plenty of people that would pay for that functionality.

For the mfgs, this is a great idea. A hw option that lets them have a higher priced version to go after the more premium customer?

And for the customer, a hybrid drive to improve load times, vr ready, perhaps ability to upscale resolutions without impacting dev specs? Huge no brainer.

You guys comparing this to the sega cd are completely missing the point.
 
I dont think this is the holly grail of impossibilty that it is made out to be on this forum. In fact, i think people are so adamant it couldnt happen is simply because you are scared it could and are trying to wish it away.

We are very far away fron the days of the sega cd and 32x. People need to accept that and stop holding them up as examples.

The only reason it hasnt happened is simply because the big three are scared they wont convince enough to upgrade. Its a very risky endevour and one that could potentially leave millions of slow selling devices on shelves and warehouses, both of the older and newer consoles.

All this nonsense of developers and retailers kicking off is bollocks. People deal fine enough with new iphones, cars, PCs and a wide arangement of devices every year. Long as the Apis are the same, nothing would even change for a developer outside of possibly causing a delay if their publisher wanted them to target the new hardware spec.

It hasnt happened yet because worries about consumer apathy and confusion. But someone is going to try it eventually regardless and my money is actually on Nintendo. They have dipped their toes in the water several times now, all they need to do is have a platform that is designed to be upgradble from day one and communicate that.

A platform that launches from day one as an evolving one, with a clear upgrade path has far more chance of being accepted, especially if the jump in price is kept reasonable.
 
No, it's a bad idea. If you want an upgradeable console, just get a PC.
Exclusive titles are usually well optimized for the designated console anyway, so you don't have to worry about performance on those games.
 
Here's a hypothetical situation based on speculation surrounding the info we know on NX:
The portable and the console will share an OS/architecture (like iOS with iPhone and iPad) resulting in easy porting between the two.
If the portable gets replaced with a revision developers can feel better supporting it if it means they can use the extra power to make a better looking game on the console and they won't start their user base from zero.
Phase out the original portable as soon as possible and make the revision the only version you can buy.
I think it could work.
Portables can't continue on like this, they age too quickly and it becomes harder to develop for it with higher expectations and mobile progressing so quickly.
Replacing it every 2 years or so would make sense, I'd think. A lot of consumers are already used to replacing their handheld and mobile every other revision and I don't think many portables would last too long without significant wear and tear and other damage if it's in constant use
It'll keep sales up and games already in development could just get a performance boost or other upgrades like a lot of 3DS/N3Ds games. I don't think they have a lot of trouble with optimization in that case outside of Hyrule Warriors which is a port of a considerably more powerful console
 
Mass_Pincup said:
No one would be forced to upgrade and no one would be incentivize to buy it early.

If I know that something better will come down the line, somewhat quickly, why would I rush to buy the 1st edition?
Click to expand...

If people in general were this frgual, half of our economy, especially our technological economy would collapse.

People buy 1st editions because they want that new shit. There are far more owners of PS4s and X1s who bought them soley because they were the "it" item to buy in hoilday 2013 than you want to admit.

It might prevent your purchase and a whole bunch of other people, but honestly, when a product line is new it matters less who is buying than it does matter how much mainstream hype is behind it.

We have people still buying "hoverboards" despite their safety concerns and potenical for injury. Clearly, safer more improved versions are coming down the line. People and rampant consumerism does not care.

If people cannot wait to buy an item with a risk of injury, im sure the market itself can weather an upgradable console model.

Also you would be a amazed how uninformed some people are. Even if its clearly stated that new versions are on their way, some would still not know until after their release. I expect alot of salty posts even here this hoilday when the eventual PS4/X1 slim launch.
 
Starlightmuse said:
No, please, god, no, don't, no, no no no, no, god, please, no, nonono, don't, no, please no, god.

No.

Please.

No.
Click to expand...

NOGODNO.gif
 
After the debacle of the 32x, Mega-CD and RAM memory packs I don't think consoles will be going to the 'upgrade' path ever again.....and good riddance I say, if you wanna deal with upgrades etc swtch to PC gaming, I like my consoles to stay simple so more time can be spent on game development instead of testing different hardware configurations.
 
Incidently, consoles do not need to stay on the edge of technological advances to remain relevent. Console lifespans of eight years or more might be a little too long, but the main purpose of consoles is to provide a simple, affordable, and easy to use method to enter into the console market.

Besides, it takes time for technology to mature. If the PS5 came out today, it'd barely be any more powerful then the PS4, while still having all the weaknesses of a new console. If you want something that is a big leap for a similar price point, you'll need to wait a few more years.
 
Saty said:
I'm not sure what kind of stronger hardware and 'special attention' you're expecting. Improved resolution and frame-rate, speedier HDD is enough. If you value that enough to buy the stronger iteration then go ahead, if not get whatever. What 'special treatment' do PC versions of multiplatform games have on the high-end?

There shouldn't be any problems with attention to both iterations. You bought the PS4XB1 based on the specs the console had. Nothing is taken away from you. You get the experience, performance and games that you based your decision on.
This is just like a PC game having several graphical presets. It wouldn't be new. Also don't see why that should be raised as an issue when the current console model had it's fair share of poor performing and 'optimized' titles. Don't see people writing off the single specced console philosophy because of that.
Click to expand...

That's just it, there wouldn't be that much of a difference with the upgrade. We'd see slight FPS and/or res bumps which would likely not be enough to make the majority of the previous version's adopters upgrade. Console players upgrade when the next gen hits because it comes with an obvious bump in power. Say what you will about gen 8 not having as much of a bump from 7 as 6 did going to 7, which is true, but there is a clear gap regardless between PS3 to 4 and the 360 to the Xbone. That's what I mean by "special attention", the difference in performance wouldn't be enough.

For enthusiasts like a lot of us here, maybe, but average joe console gamer that makes up the majority of the console consumer base, no. I haven't thought of getting the N3DS because I know it's only a minor boost to the hardware, I knew that when it was coming out. I would wager the majority who upgraded were coming from an OG3DS, really wanted Xenoblade as it was excluvise, or were tired of the bolt on second stick on previous models and wanted to use the nub.

To the final point, I understand the OP is coming from a hypothetical future where devs shouldn't have a problem supporting multiple versions, but in reality my previous two extremes are the way I see it happening if we got minor upgrades to the specs every two years until a major upgrade hits. Hell even iPhone models eventually just don't get certain apps or updates any more as they're abondoned for the sake of more current hardware. That's honestly not the future I want, to have my base PS4 become less desirable over time as the PS4.5 etc. is getting the best versions of games to the point where having the original is a detriment (ofcourse granting this extreme is what happens over my alternative). I have a PC I just upgraded from a 7970ghz to a 980ti after using the 7970 for almost 3 years. I did so to get the best expereince at the settings I want at the res I play at. I don't want to have to worry about the same on home consoles, that's not where their strength lies.
 
No for a list of reasons. Drive up dev costs trying to support different versions of hardware, drive up manufacturing costs retooling production lines for different versions.

And the big reason people are happy to buy a brand new box every 5 to 7 years.
 
Sounds really pointless. I don't see that many console players caring enough about graphics and frames to upgrade like that.
 
I think doing this is the best way to keep consoles relevant for longer and increase the size of the player base via hand-me-downs.

So let's take the PS4 and apply a "refresh" cycle about every 3 years. Right now the PS4 uses a 1.6Ghz AMD Jaguar Dual Quad-Core processor with a GPU comparable to a Radeon 7850 or R7-370. Let's say that Sony wants to offer a compatible, but upgraded version of the hardware so old games will run on the new hardware, and new games will run on the old hardware with some sacrifices in performance.

The Theoretical PS4+ would have a faster more efficient Dual Quad-Core set up based on Carrizo instead of Jaguar, and with the higher IPC and higher clockspeed (2.2Ghz) and a Polaris based GPU with performance comparable to an R9-380 this would be able to run any game that on the original PS4 @ 1080/900p/30fps at 1080p/60fps.

After the release of the PS4+, games for the PS4 would be like iPhone/Android/PC games, but less granular(hence much more doable for a console environment) , and run in two different modes depending on the model of PS4. It wouldn't involve a complete reprograming of a game, but on the Original PS4 the game would run at 30fps/1080p with some graphic settings toned down, but on the PS4+ all games would run at 60fps/1080p with also some improvements in shading and general post-processing. So just a base set of settings.

Theoretically if Sony were to release the PS4+ in December 2016 it would extend the PS4 lifespan at least another 3 years mimicking the life-span of the PS3.

With Sony upgrading the hardware on the PS4+ it would make the move to the PS5 in 2020 a bit smoother. Again with keeping the same architecture as the PS4 and PS4+, so it can run all PS4 games, but all games starting with the launch of the PS5 will only have to work on the PS4+(@1080p/60) and PS5(@4K/60), so the original PS4 at this point will no longer be supported with future titles.

This helps grow Sony's marketshare in that, much like with iPhones being hand-me downs, the old PS4 would become hand-me downs to friends and family after we get our PS4+'s which would grow Sony's customer base, and it would continue as the PS4+ becomes a hand-me down system after the PS5, with the digital and physical collection coming along with each user.
 
I like how all posters agreeing with this are like "Could be, because reason 1 plus reason 2 and ..."

And all the naysayers are like "you crazy?" "no" "buy a pc" "remember mega cd?"

Please guys let's have a discussion in here :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The next console manufacteur?
Opinion Hardware  2 3
129
284
RAIDEN1 replied
Windows Central/Jez Corden: Xbox's new hardware plans begin with a gaming handheld set for later this year, with full next-gen consoles targeting 2027
News Rumor Hardware  2 3 4
185
9K
DenchDeckard replied
Jez Corden: Xbox next-gen console hardware has now passed the early pitch stage
News Rumor Hardware  2 3 4
174
11K
StreetsofBeige replied
Leaked Details Indicate Next-Generation Xbox Controller May Feature Capabilities Similar to DualSense. Will be Compatible With Next Xbox Console
News Rumor Hardware  2 3 4 5 6
252
15K
Bungie replied
GTA 6 costing $100 could help the industry rebound??
2 3 4 5
222
10K
SmokSmog replied
Top Bottom