What outdated component would you put in a console?

What outdated component would you put in a console?

  • Cpu like wii u did

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Media, like N64 and GameCube did

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • Put a weaker GPU and save money per unit

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Making a powerful console inside an ugly case

    Votes: 27 55.1%
  • another, which one?

    Votes: 14 28.6%

  • Total voters
    49
A Nintendo Switch 2.
Happy Chris Pratt GIF by Parks and Recreation
 
PPU - dedicated physics processing unit


Physics computation have been taken over by cpu and graphics cards, but developers prefer to use their resources for other purposes than physics simulation, so that many games today have poorer physics than what Physix was capable of 20 years ago. The return of a dedicated unit just for physics calculations would perhaps encourage developers to develop physics in games again.
 
Most chose cheap cases and secondary details as the best option and allocate budget on gpu cpu.
After all, you can't have cutting-edge technology in every component and be commercially viable at the same time.
 
Of course you downgrade the looks if it means everything else is perfect? Like who wants a console that is pretty but runs like shit? Give me the ugly console that works properly.

A Nintendo Switch 2.

You haven't heard? Sony is adding that to the PS6.
 
Last edited:
One thing I loved about the big cartirdge era was the choice developers had to include extra memory or processing power on the game cart itself. Sure you're taking a financial risk by adding those components, but you think it will pay off. I love this model and there's actually a way in can come back. Well, partially at least. Full on game streaming. Hear me out. If you're a CDPR, you can spend the money to make your game run on much more powerful hardware. On the other end, if you're an indie start up, you can set it up where you pay less than CDPR because your game requires less processing power. This would allow for games to use much more powerful hardware than they would be able to on a PS5 or Xbox Series. Even on PC, imagine if the Wukong devs decided to throw 2x 5090 performance at their game? Shit would be awesome and would actually spice up the console world, which has otherwise devolved into a wall garden around a mid-level laptop APU. Fresh out of the box the APU can play every PC game in the world, but Sony and MS spent millions finding a way to stop that and only let it play games they control. The concept is just regressive.
 
So basically a PS4 with FX-4150, 4GB GDDR5 + 32MB eDRAM, R9 280x. Uses AMD's answer to a i3-4150 yet still has games doing 1080p60 90% of the time.
The PS4 illustrates the essence of this thread: "How can we offer a more powerful console than the PS4 while costing less?" An all-digital console with 6GB of RAM would allow for a gpu more powerful than the 1.84tf. However, a 1.34tf gpu can also handle 1080p games.

What decision would you make? (think like a manager)

A - 6GB, all-digital, 2.56tf, and a sub-Jaguar cpu, to run PS4 like games in 1440p30fps
$399
remember, 1440p TVs didn't exist in 2013, and the internet was very limited,
a strong marketing campaign would also be needed to encourage console gamers to use DisplayPort monitors
since it only has 6GB and a sub-Jaguar cpu, in some games the PS4 would be able to obtain superior or equal quality.

B - 12GB, Xbox One gpu, sub-Jaguar cpu, no storage like Wii U but many exclusive games in 1080p, such as Forza Horizon 5 and Gears 4, they ran on the Xbox One despite the weak gpu
$349
with no multiplatform games in the first 2 years it would be possible to claim the existence of some secret sauce , a lie but no one would be able to prove otherwise.
 
Top Bottom