Consoles with upgraded hardware... Could this be the next step the industry takes?
- Thread starter FuuRe
- Start date
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Even Apple has a hell of a time convincing people to upgrade to the new Apple TVs. This is a terrible idea. More console addons/revisions? There's already enough steps the XOne/PS4 need to take in between the successor console. Terrible idea.
Until they are able to get a <100W miniMS4/XOne out the door, With USB3.1/TB3 support, with swappable HDDs and better media input/output/functionality, I'd be extremely disappointed if MS or Sony skipped revisions to fragment the market. There are a million more interesting changes they could do rather than 'slightly more power'. This isn't the phone arms race.
Until they are able to get a <100W miniMS4/XOne out the door, With USB3.1/TB3 support, with swappable HDDs and better media input/output/functionality, I'd be extremely disappointed if MS or Sony skipped revisions to fragment the market. There are a million more interesting changes they could do rather than 'slightly more power'. This isn't the phone arms race.
Stilton Disco
Member
Pretty sure this will be Nintendo's strategy woth the NX, so if so we'll see in the next few years if that works or not.
Assuming Nintendo don't fuck up in some other way that'll make it impossible to tell whether it would have been a success or not of course.
More broadly though, I don't think it's a great idea. The n3DS is a great example of how under supported such a incremental change would likely be, while also leaving the older hardware with games that look and run like turds on it.
Fixed hardware for a generation has lasted this long as the norm because the benefits out way the negatives. Given the way this industry is run, moving the goal posts is going to most likely lead to less optimised games and more frustrating experiences for those not willing to constantly upgrade.
Let's leave this kind of stuff to the gaming PC's that are built literally for the idea.
Assuming Nintendo don't fuck up in some other way that'll make it impossible to tell whether it would have been a success or not of course.
More broadly though, I don't think it's a great idea. The n3DS is a great example of how under supported such a incremental change would likely be, while also leaving the older hardware with games that look and run like turds on it.
Fixed hardware for a generation has lasted this long as the norm because the benefits out way the negatives. Given the way this industry is run, moving the goal posts is going to most likely lead to less optimised games and more frustrating experiences for those not willing to constantly upgrade.
Let's leave this kind of stuff to the gaming PC's that are built literally for the idea.
MrCunningham
Member
I think the NX could be an operating system that would work in the same way as iOS and Android. It could be a software layer that might allow for cross compatibility across different hardware platforms. At least that is one of my guesses.
SmoothBrain
Member
I disagree. Who do they want to keep up with? The 1500$ PC? I don't use a console often enough to upgrade it every 2 years for 400. VR and 4k are still very niche. This will become better over the next couple of years, but especially VR will remain niche for quite some time. MS and Sony might invest more into the next console-gen, to get the hardware ready for some better VR experiences, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I personally don't get the need for implementing PC like ideas in consoles. There is a reason why they both cater to different audiences and to try implementation such ideas run contrary to the philosophy of what consoles are, that would be the equivalent of Sony shooting the whole industry on the foot
As usual with these threads, the desire for this appears to be coming from many people who spend a majority of their gaming time on PC's and want the console industry to be more aligned with their interests. So from that perspective, it's a no brainer for why some may be interested in this concept.
However, from the perspective of someone who spends the majority of his gaming time on consoles, I'm not interested in this. A console is closer to a TV for me than a smartphone in the sense that once I buy it, there's no reason to keep upgrading to a new slightly shinier version every 2 to 3 years. My TV works perfectly fine and until it either stops working or there's a major breakthrough in design and technology that's worth the cost of replacing it, I'm not going to replace it.. because it works.
For incremental improvements on console hardware, there's no reason for me to replace a console that works perfectly fine for an incremental upgrade that costs several hundred dollars. I expect my $400 for the PS4 to last 5+ years with no additional spending on hardware. I don't care about slightly better graphics when the graphics we have are good enough at this point. I just want to play games, on my PS4, no matter who makes them. It's that simple.
I would need to see a significant advancement in hardware over my current and perfectly usable box with games to match the advancement for me to even think about taking the leap.
However, from the perspective of someone who spends the majority of his gaming time on consoles, I'm not interested in this. A console is closer to a TV for me than a smartphone in the sense that once I buy it, there's no reason to keep upgrading to a new slightly shinier version every 2 to 3 years. My TV works perfectly fine and until it either stops working or there's a major breakthrough in design and technology that's worth the cost of replacing it, I'm not going to replace it.. because it works.
For incremental improvements on console hardware, there's no reason for me to replace a console that works perfectly fine for an incremental upgrade that costs several hundred dollars. I expect my $400 for the PS4 to last 5+ years with no additional spending on hardware. I don't care about slightly better graphics when the graphics we have are good enough at this point. I just want to play games, on my PS4, no matter who makes them. It's that simple.
I would need to see a significant advancement in hardware over my current and perfectly usable box with games to match the advancement for me to even think about taking the leap.
soundscream
Member
I like the idea but not for the way the current consoles are constructed.
If you were able to add new gpu/cpu/memory from the console manufactures ( so developers were still able to aim at a fixed number of configurations ) it could work. This way you don't have to get rid of your old console.
If you were able to add new gpu/cpu/memory from the console manufactures ( so developers were still able to aim at a fixed number of configurations ) it could work. This way you don't have to get rid of your old console.
This - it would only cost them money.
And what happens if the console flops?
Do you cancel the successors then or do you develop an upgraded successor knowing that it will flop?
The other point is that technology advancement has slowed down so much that you will have problems upgrading your console every 2-3 years.
The main reason we get more powerful hardware are die shrinks, but these get harder and harder and take much longer because of this.
Take the ps4, launched with a 28nm SoC and still on that tech.
The first 28nm gpus from AMD launched jan. 2012 meaning they have been on the same process tech for over 4 years.
What i'm trying to say is that there is just not enough advancement (anymore) to make a upgrade worthwhile every 2-3 years. Worthwhile here means at least >2x the power of the predecessor, cause splitting your hardware base for 20 or 30% more power is crazy.
Nocturno999
Member
A Playstation 4s would be great as long as they don't screw the current user base by fragmenting it.
LouisaFerre
Member
I'm pretty sure the only reason Nintendo bothered with the N3DS was to try and get more sales out of a largely saturated market because the Wii U wasn't taking off and they wanted a bit more money to try and soften things while they got NX ready.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
It really doesn't. Devs would either have to downgrade the game to run on the older revision or have it run perfectly on the newer revision but like trash on the older one. If you want a PC, buy a PC.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
More frequent revisions than last gen (5 years, maybe) but with 100% flawless BC and a sizeable overlap with the current gen is more preferable to hardware upgrades.
A bit like Apple ditching the c 'budget' model and instead maintaining the previous version as the cheaper, less powerful, but still viable alternative. With longer time scales than an annual release, obviously.
A bit like Apple ditching the c 'budget' model and instead maintaining the previous version as the cheaper, less powerful, but still viable alternative. With longer time scales than an annual release, obviously.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Obviously wrong.
Nintendo has released updated versions of their handhelds for many generations. Nothing new.
UnrealEck
Member
There's misconceptions of this and things get blown out of proportion. Just felt the need to point out things like DirectX are primarily what the game is going to be working around and the drivers are another addition.
This idea doesn't even work for that purpose. The reason why you can constantly upgrade PC parts is a combination of hardware flexibility and the margin on hardware sales. Consoles operate on a different business model, so the same selling points don't translate there. It's pretty much a lose-lose idea.
Sure, but the n3DS is still an obvious attempt to shore up a product that was reaching the end of its life cycle.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Pls no. I already have a PC, I don't want to buy upgrades for my freaking consoles every few years as well.
yongeandcollege
Member
I doubt it. Seems like a bad idea that caters to a niche that is already served by PCs. I would not upgrade my console more frequently.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
No. I could buy a PC then.
Its easier for devs as well, they only need to work with a unified system. Look at the chaos PC developers need to deal with it.
No. I like my console the way it comes out.
Its easier for devs as well, they only need to work with a unified system. Look at the chaos PC developers need to deal with it.
No. I like my console the way it comes out.
burn.money
Neo Member
Honestly if i could get like the PSVR box without the VR and use it to just bump frame rates up to a rock solid 60fps, i would be all over that. i mean games on consoles look great now. they are not eyemelting like on PC, but if i could get a solid 60fps i sure would be happy. like seriously. 1080p60fps is all i want out of my console.
PS. yes i built a $2500 computer a couple years ago but man. i hate windows. and i sure as hell love to sit down and play games like BloodBorne that are console only. also that 65inch 4ktv/super comfy couch bonus that PCs dont get.
PS. yes i built a $2500 computer a couple years ago but man. i hate windows. and i sure as hell love to sit down and play games like BloodBorne that are console only. also that 65inch 4ktv/super comfy couch bonus that PCs dont get.
I think the parallels between console and PC game design / porting are so close now with the similar architecture it may actually be possible. It might skew the pricing even higher for games though. The biggest shame in it, is that they would use it as a justification to make the older revisions obsolete and then sell the better revisions at the same fixed price. There wouldn't be any savings joining a generation 3-4yrs in if a manufacturer just kept releasing more powerful versions.
Consoles are not quite as ingrained as smartphones / iphones have become. You're only going to get the absolute hardcore who would actually buy each new version when it comes out. That said, I think one of the big 3 (or a newcomer) is going to eventually try this model.
Consoles are not quite as ingrained as smartphones / iphones have become. You're only going to get the absolute hardcore who would actually buy each new version when it comes out. That said, I think one of the big 3 (or a newcomer) is going to eventually try this model.
ColdDeckEd
Member
It will never work if they call it ps4 plus or Xbox one plus. Maybe by next year they can call it PS5 or Xbox two now there's something. (with enhanced backwards compatibility omg!). Don't get all the outrage in this thread since this is the direction consoles are heading. This generation of consoles will still persist but their successors will be here much sooner than previous gens.
robertlebrone
Member
No. If you want to upgrade hardware buy a PC. Simple as that.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Lol at all the posts saying, "just buy a PC", yet giving no reasons as to why. Which kinda makes me chuckle, since if PC is successful, then what are you afraid of? Having more power parity again?
Even more funny, are the ones bringing up the 32X, when clearly tech, and how we purchase gadgets was night and day different compared to now.
We are in a more disposable society when it comes to this. If they make one large ecosystem, like mobile is, it can and will work. People thought tablets would not take off that are updated as frequent as phones because you can still do most of that on your phone, but that shit sells and people "have to have it". It is happening with the watches now. We buy bigger phone screens just to go back to squint-o-vision, because it's new, and people are now CONDITIONED to buy, have, want.
The one ecosystem. If the customer doesn't feel like they are alienated, and their stuff can always go with them when they feel ready to upgrade, they will adopt this.
Like it or not, games are shifting to service based, and the big three are going to adopt that ecosystem. It is not going to effect the devs any more so, not to PC levels, because it will still be a closed box, they will just have different graphic settings based on them.
TLoU Remastered gave a taste with the 30 vs. 60 and shadow improvements in 30.
Even more funny, are the ones bringing up the 32X, when clearly tech, and how we purchase gadgets was night and day different compared to now.
We are in a more disposable society when it comes to this. If they make one large ecosystem, like mobile is, it can and will work. People thought tablets would not take off that are updated as frequent as phones because you can still do most of that on your phone, but that shit sells and people "have to have it". It is happening with the watches now. We buy bigger phone screens just to go back to squint-o-vision, because it's new, and people are now CONDITIONED to buy, have, want.
The one ecosystem. If the customer doesn't feel like they are alienated, and their stuff can always go with them when they feel ready to upgrade, they will adopt this.
Like it or not, games are shifting to service based, and the big three are going to adopt that ecosystem. It is not going to effect the devs any more so, not to PC levels, because it will still be a closed box, they will just have different graphic settings based on them.
TLoU Remastered gave a taste with the 30 vs. 60 and shadow improvements in 30.
vasametropolis
Member
Your points about 4K and VR are fair for the next couple of years at least, so I'll give you that. In regards to keeping up with the $1500 PC though, no. They need to keep up with the $500 PC. Even that price for hardware will easily surpass current console hardware and at some point may turn into a threat from a point of value for the core gamers (it already has).
I have a friend who is the FIFA or shooter of the day kind of guy. So not quite a core gamer.
When I told him the consoles wouldn't be getting VR in a meaningful way to start, even he said "That sucks!"
Consoles used to provide parity with the best technology feature set available. This is not the case any more at all. The bar is shifting too fast and anything they release could be embarrassingly outdated quickly in the coming years. I say could because I don't know. It is speculation.
What does seem apparent is that the amount of processing power required for these new experiences is increasing at a much greater rate than a 5 year system can remain relevant for at all.
Console makers are AT RISK of losing their core audience. It will happen gradually, but it can and very well might happen. I'm already bailing on consoles for PC as a console lifer. They already can't keep up any more in terms of value and features.
Boombloxer
Member
Not really, I don't actually think there are enough people willing to pay for it to offset the advantages of a simple closed box. They can already go after that customer with software, which has a much higher margin digitally and maintain cost-effectiveness on the hardware. The hardware is a means to an end, and that end is higher margin.
All of the things like VR ready, upscale resolutions, etc..have to be the same anyway because of the base line model, which is going to be the default. And absolutely none of them trump price on a wide scale.
The Sega CD add-on is not quite the example, but the idea of a half-ass leap isn't one that been accepted by the market mid-generation for any console hardware cycle.
Not really--the proof of the pudding is in the software sales, and the biggest industry drivers still get the grand majority of their sales from consoles. PC sales themselves aren't growing, the gaming sector is, but that's not enough to sustain things overall.
There is no need to keep up with a $500 PC because it still doesn't have any of the advantages that a console does.
Require developers support each hardware iteration for a minimum of 6 years. Come out with upgraded hardware every 3 years. So at most developers are only forced to support 2 revisions at any one given time. I think most people are reasonable enough to understand their 6+ year old system might not run the latest games optimally.
That's the question.
It makes much more sense to do what Sony and MS are doing this gen - come out with a fairly cheap system that doesn't lose money at launch, and then sell that for five years when it will be time for a new one. A lot of people claimed console gaming was dying or in trouble at the end of last gen, but the problem was actually that the generation dragged on too long.
jetsetnickradio
Member
I hope not. I'd rather buy a PS5 1.5 years from now instead of a slightly upgraded PS4 that most games won't even take advantage of.
akidnamededdy
Banned
I have no desire to refresh my consoles every two-three years. Handhelds can get away with it as they're not as expensive and trading in a handheld to put towards a new revision isn't as arduous as trading in a console.
For starters, the way console generations are done currently already creates too much fragmentation compared to how other hardware markets do things. At the very least they need to get away from this system where the software library and user base (and OS) starts from zero every five years.
The move to the PS5 needs to feel like the move from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 6: same architecture, 100% (or more realistically, 99%) BC, a new version of the operating system built on top of the old one instead of starting from scratch, but all with demonstrably better hardware and overall performance. Not only that, but like some people have noted on GAF recently, cross-gen software needs to essentially be cross-buy. It already sucks that you can't just buy a cross-gen game digitally on PS3 or Xbox 360 and be guaranteed a digital PS4 or Xbox One copy, or at least a discount on one, like a continuation of the upgrade plan from 2013. If anything that's a greater incentive for people to upgrade. That's what should happen for cross-gen PS4/PS5 games. I imagine it should also be possible for publishers to just print one disc for the "PlayStation version" and simply have it run at different settings for each console. Console manufacturers need to start doing the whole "one ecosystem" thing between all their products. Microsoft is already on its way by trying to mix Windows 10 with Xbox.
One issue with incremental hardware updates though is I've noticed Apple usually ties each one to some main new feature (or features) it can advertise, even if it's just a new camera or a better screen. Nintendo has done the same thing since the Game Boy -- smaller size with the Game Boy Pocket, color screen and better hardware with the Game Boy Color, two extra buttons and vastly better hardware with the Game Boy Advance (which still had full BC). The commonality between them (and I guess all handhelds) is that with handhelds you have the chips, the display, and the control apparatus all combined into one product.
That makes it easier to make easily recognizable new features for each new model. A TV box on the other hand is pretty much just the chips. The control interface and display are separate things. An example of a new control apparatus coming mid-generation would be the Dual Shock, or the Kinect. On handhelds or phones those would just be full hardware upgrades, but for TV boxes they were separate peripherals. I guess Nintendo however got away with packaging the Wii Remote with a rebranded Gamecube, but in its defense the Gamecube wasn't a popular brand like the original PlayStation was, and the Wii also added an entire operating system with the capacity for digital games (Virtual Console). My point is, it's harder to tie an incremental console upgrade with some easily-identifiable selling point than it is for an incremental handheld upgrade. Apple finally added the app store to the new Apple TV but that's almost all it can do from here on with Apple TV except beef up the hardware periodically. Maybe some new OS feature will emerge that will absolutely require better hardware. That's about all a console manufacturer would be able to do in this situation. Maybe Sony could convince people you absolutely need this new PS4 model to be able to get VR, or play all the same games in 4K.
So yeah, incremental console upgrades are a harder sell compared to phones or even dedicated handhelds. Standard console generations going forward however need to start being treated like phone upgrades, just with more drastic improvements due to the longer wait between upgrades.
The move to the PS5 needs to feel like the move from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 6: same architecture, 100% (or more realistically, 99%) BC, a new version of the operating system built on top of the old one instead of starting from scratch, but all with demonstrably better hardware and overall performance. Not only that, but like some people have noted on GAF recently, cross-gen software needs to essentially be cross-buy. It already sucks that you can't just buy a cross-gen game digitally on PS3 or Xbox 360 and be guaranteed a digital PS4 or Xbox One copy, or at least a discount on one, like a continuation of the upgrade plan from 2013. If anything that's a greater incentive for people to upgrade. That's what should happen for cross-gen PS4/PS5 games. I imagine it should also be possible for publishers to just print one disc for the "PlayStation version" and simply have it run at different settings for each console. Console manufacturers need to start doing the whole "one ecosystem" thing between all their products. Microsoft is already on its way by trying to mix Windows 10 with Xbox.
One issue with incremental hardware updates though is I've noticed Apple usually ties each one to some main new feature (or features) it can advertise, even if it's just a new camera or a better screen. Nintendo has done the same thing since the Game Boy -- smaller size with the Game Boy Pocket, color screen and better hardware with the Game Boy Color, two extra buttons and vastly better hardware with the Game Boy Advance (which still had full BC). The commonality between them (and I guess all handhelds) is that with handhelds you have the chips, the display, and the control apparatus all combined into one product.
That makes it easier to make easily recognizable new features for each new model. A TV box on the other hand is pretty much just the chips. The control interface and display are separate things. An example of a new control apparatus coming mid-generation would be the Dual Shock, or the Kinect. On handhelds or phones those would just be full hardware upgrades, but for TV boxes they were separate peripherals. I guess Nintendo however got away with packaging the Wii Remote with a rebranded Gamecube, but in its defense the Gamecube wasn't a popular brand like the original PlayStation was, and the Wii also added an entire operating system with the capacity for digital games (Virtual Console). My point is, it's harder to tie an incremental console upgrade with some easily-identifiable selling point than it is for an incremental handheld upgrade. Apple finally added the app store to the new Apple TV but that's almost all it can do from here on with Apple TV except beef up the hardware periodically. Maybe some new OS feature will emerge that will absolutely require better hardware. That's about all a console manufacturer would be able to do in this situation. Maybe Sony could convince people you absolutely need this new PS4 model to be able to get VR, or play all the same games in 4K.
So yeah, incremental console upgrades are a harder sell compared to phones or even dedicated handhelds. Standard console generations going forward however need to start being treated like phone upgrades, just with more drastic improvements due to the longer wait between upgrades.
DerSchniffles
Member
I am all for it. As long as all the games still work, why not? No one is forcing anyone to buy it, if you don't care about shiny graphics upgrades, then you can keep what you have and keep happily gaming. Who cares? I would absolutely do it, part of the reason why I have always done pc gaming is because consoles get outdated so damn fast. They need to start doing full no compromise backwards compatibility anyways, there is no excuse not to at this point.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Why not, developers can just code for the lowest common denominator?
How about just letting us play XB1 games on windows 10 with upgraded resolution and frame rate?
How about just letting us play XB1 games on windows 10 with upgraded resolution and frame rate?
I think this would be more attractive later on down the line. Right now games are mostly well optimized, play decently, and are part of the latest and greatest, graphically. Imagine 5 or 6 years down the line when the situation is different. Things are slowing down, games aren't doing as well, and compromises are being made to get the game playable on the XB1 or PS4. Then an expansion upgrade might be more interesting to a certain segment of the population. Probably no more than a niche, still, but I thin k it would play well to a certain crowd.
soul creator
Member
Agreed, pretty much my thoughts on the subject.
One other thing is I'd be curious to see if there's an overlap between people who post comments like "why don't my digital games carry over to the new system?? Why don't my old arcade sticks/steering wheels/etc. work on the new system?" threads and the people who post comments like "I just want one console to last me, not some lame 32X/Sega CD upgrade". I wonder if they realize how related those two topics actually are, lol.
People seem to be stuck in a mindset of every generation being a complete reset, yet it would be considered absurd if we treated other things the same way. And with the increasing attention on "ecosystems", digital purchases, well known development environments, and high development costs, upgraded hardware with extensive compatibility features every 2-4 years instead of start from scratch consoles every 5 seems like the ideal approach for everyone. I certainly understand not doing yearly refreshes, since the variation in console hardware isn't as noticeable as it was on phones (though I'd argue we're reaching that point with phones nowadays), like you said, but I think somewhere between 2-4 years would work. The drawbacks (developers have to support two generations instead of 1! Consumers might get confused!) seem relatively minor and solvable compared to the status quo.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
For the reasons the previous poster mentioned. It's about rejuvenating hardware in a saturated market, as a stop gap before the successor arrives.
Moon_frogger
Member
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
That's not true at all. You literally made that up lol. yes, there are some making those replies but certainly not me and others.
I think this would put a lot of burden on devs. They would need to optimize performance on multiple builds of consoles. I don't think that would go over very well. They already struggle with optimizing as it is.
Of course I understand very little of game development, so I might be wrong.
Of course I understand very little of game development, so I might be wrong.
Errm... You might think about about the first paragraph, although the second one is true.
Didn't the Saturn have some RAM cartridges of varying sizes too?