Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

Right now, consoles just jump from generation to generation. There's no inbetween.

But with the developer tools becoming more and more unified (at least for their respective platforms), could we see a day when consoles become similar to quasi-PCs in terms of upgrading?

I mean that games are developed for the latest iteration of a particular brand, but that they're also scaled down to be compatible with X previous iterations. Each iteration may come once every 18 months and recieves a power upgrade and can even add to the previous gen with hardware features like FSAA and AF for current video cards relative to older games.

So instead of having leaping upgrades, it shifts gradually and expands capabilities constantly. But with the key advantage of having relatively distinct tiers, rather than the hodge podge of mixed and matched parts that PCs are currently.

 

[cybamerc]

I hope not. But if M$ becomes the industry leader then you can be pretty sure it'll happen. Sony has hinted at similar plans though.

 

[Zaptruder]

Also would like to hear opinions about why this would be a bad/good thing?

IMO it would be good... for the most part... unless it significantly hampered the ability to just overhaul a brand/console completely, which could provide much more power than what's available with a linear upgrade (having to support legacy).

 

[cybamerc]

What would be good about it? If you want a PC buy that.

 

[Red Dolphin]

I can't see how this could be a good thing. The majority of casual console owners have bought a console because they don't have to deal with the hassles of PC's and having to upgrade, worry about compatibility issues, crashes etc.

Just look at a simple thing like the RAM expansion for the N64. Something as simple as that was not adopted by the majority of console owners.

 

[jarrod]

Sega was flirting with the idea of a user upgradable Dreamcast early on iirc. They wanted people to be able to upgrade to DVD and add extra PVR2DC GPUs running in parallel... but I think it just wasn't an affordable option in the end.

 

[Kiriku]

I thought Sega already tried this with MegaCD and 32X? :/

And if we were to go this route, it would probably escalate into something PC-like, which means you would pay for hardware (gfx cards) that developers won't manage to push very far before a new comes out.

 

[Papi]

Eh?
I'd prefer to buy a console once and not have to upgrade for a few years.

 

[Ranger X]

"Buy an PS4 and after that, new graphic cards for it. It will be obsolete 5 years later whatever you do (just like a PC) and you will spend much more money. It's the greatest idea i've ever had to make myself richer"

BAD IDEA


Don't you have no shame in giving the idea away in a gaming board and actually contribute to the idea? Banned.

Stay on your fucking PC world and continue to get screwed. (unless your primary computer use isn't gaming)

 

[Zaptruder]

I think people are misunderstanding me?

Maybe not.

I don't mean a periphiral upgrade... so much as an entire console upgrade. The new iterations are backward compatible... and so are the new games.

The difference between PCs and console upgrade is as always... consoles leverage the power of a dedicated architecture to keep costs low, and are relatively unified next to the near infinite array of PC combinations around.

Meanwhile, development costs will be altered, such that you'll be developing for iterative upgrades, rather than trying to make a single iteration last 5-7 years. So that maybe in just 1 iteration, you'll have a console in the same family that far exceeds what would be in the single long term strategy.


The correct way to think about this would be to think of PS1 as the first iteration, PS2 as the second; but that PS2 games could be scaled back to play on the PS1 (because of a consistent and unified system... ala Direct X, or XNA), while PS1 games could scale forward to take advantage of the PS2's greater powers (think bi-linear filtering on PS2 for PS1 games, except with 100% compatibility). Simlarly, PS3 would be able to take PS2 games and apply FSAA and AF to the PS2 games, while the PS2 could take PS3 games but in a much scaled back format.


With regards to pushing the console... once developers get use to the overall architecture... it wouldn't be that much more work to learn the additional features with each new iteration?

And why would it suddenly become a PC? It would still be a console. Primary use still gaming. And primary method of input is still the gamepad. Would still be played in a console like fashion (and games would be designed as such), and would still keep costs low (relative to PCs).


Still not a good idea?

Realistically... the iterative designs are unlikely to be major... and the upgrade difference between 3 successive upgrades spanning 6 years is probably worse than a single major upgrade once in 6 years. Also, because you keep adding new technologies, every couple years, you don't get time to benefit from improved manufacturing, which ultimately helps to even out the costs and turn a profit (on the hardware); Which in turn makes subsidising it at the start much less palatable of an idea; even breaking even on each unit would probably cause a high loss, with manufacturing updates as well as research.

But on the otherhand, you could upgrade once every 4-5 years like you do now... regardless of when you buy; as opposed to now... where buying now at a low cost means your console only lasts 1-2 years before it's superseded.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I don't think this would be good. Part of the reason PC components are so expensive is because the companies selling them have to make a profit on the components and nothing else. Since consoles are typically sold at a loss early on, that insures the customer is getting a pretty good deal as far as bang for their buck. To introduce a similar system as for PC's, component prices would sum up to more than the current net value of a console, as component manufacturers arent going to sell their components for a loss. That wouldn't make much sense.

So no, I don't think it would be a good thing.


EDIT- Just saw your update.

Then you have the problem of having different architectures within the user base. This will limit the features developers will try to use as they'll want to hit the largest user base. ALso it's not so simple as just "adding power" so that it can stay backwards compatible. Architectures change. If they could just "make it b/c" that easily it would be common among all successive consoles.