Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[milk]

On the short refresh cycle, I just thought about how Nintendo had an oportunity to do that with the wii and missed it. They were going to release a cheap and underpowerd machine anyway, and weren't worried with staying cutting edge. They could very well made it so games run on some fatter Higher level API, and they already had hardware that was sold on profit. A Wii HD could had come in 2010 instead of now, with hardware still barelly capable of running ps360 games, but that could play Wii stuff in 720p, and still be sold at a profit.
Around 2014, while the NextBox and ps4 were new, there could be a Wii3, still underpowered and sold at profit. Basically a DX11 level console between the HD gen and the next one, too weak for ps4 games, but more capable than a ps3 for example, and would play all old wii and wiiHD games at 1080p or 720p3D, thanks to the fat API. It would be the lower cost option to gamers not willing to pay 400 dolars for the next gen machines. And around 2020, those big machines would still be in the middle of their cycle, when Nintendo could release a wii4 capable of games about as rich as theirs, but in a more modern and cheaper hw. Effectivelly making a all around better product, for the same price or cheaper, without any loss for ninty, exept for constant development of new hardware.
This way they could keep the last two interations of hardware alive simuntaneously, catering to a wider range of consumers, and developers would choose how far down the line they want their games to be suported. Pretty much how it is with iOS and Android right now. Upgrading to the next Nintendo machine would always be much preferred over switching to the another company if all your games play on the new nintendo one with improved res, or in 3D or whatever.
The other benefit of a fatter API is giving room for more agressive reenginearing of the hw for cost reduction during the cycle too. Nobody does it though, cause it reduces the output performance of the machine, but again, if you are not too worried about staying cutting edge, it's not much of an issue.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The other benefit of a fatter API is giving room for more agressive reenginearing of the hw for cost reduction during the cycle too. Nobody does it though, cause it reduces the output performance of the machine, but again, if you are not too worried about staying cutting edge, it's not much of an issue.

the value of cross-device compatibility renders that no longer an issue I think. Given a choice between console 1 that plays its games, and console plays that plays its games at slightly inferior quality on the console but you can also play them on other devices, I'd pick the latter, and I think a lot of folk are like minded*. The benefits of the closed platform are diminishing with time.

* For those thinking a handheld is no good for playing Uncharted or Halo etc., most of the games I'm playing on PS3 these days are simpler games. eg. Might and Magic just came out on iOS. I own it on PS3. There's no cross-device value there for me. And XCOM would work well as a tablet game as well as console. There'll still be console only titles using a dual-stick etc. (and probably two-stick handheld s like Vita), but there'll be considerable value to cross-device games, in the same way we consume music and video as media. When it's all cloud based, it'll be completely hardware independent, but that's a ways off and hardware+API is the interim solution.

 

[jonabbey]

Eurogamer argues for updatable/scalable consoles as a possible response to the smartphone:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-11-trends-of-2013-the-last-console-generation

 

[patsu]

I don't know... might be doable if the gaming division stays laser focused on gaming only ? i.e., Ignore other living room functions. Either the base unit or an add-on keeps getting upgraded.

The difference needs to be very noticeable though.

If they choose to go this route, they need to translate the incremental computing power into tangible, attractive gaming experience very effectively (Like send NaughtyDog equivalents to help polish CoD even more). All the computing resources must be reserved for gaming only. Otherwise, it'd be diluted like PC/Mac, iOS/Android and multi-platform titles on home consoles.

There may be other possibilities and spin-offs that involve casuals later, but I think they need to get the basics right first.

EDIT: Okay, in a sense, Valve's newly announced service may be heading that way.

 

[SedentaryJourney]

I think the biggest advantage of having shorter hardware refresh cycle while maintaining compatibility is that it could effectively remove the console generation cycle. Instead of rebuilding the market share from zero with every console generation, the company can effectively maintain their marketshare while expanding with each new releases.
In this business model, the console manufacturer may also need to make profit on the hardware to justify the r/d costs. It would mean that consoles would be far more modest in terms of processing power than it would for the traditional model, but shorter refresh cycle would mean that the consoles would stay in line with any technological advancements.

Damn it is hard to make long posts with smartphone lol.

Reversals of fortune are entirely possible with a yearly model as well. RIM lost market share dramatically, and the Apple-Samsung tug of war is taking its toll on iPhone 5 demand.

As for cost savings, someone is going to have to walk through this argument in finer detail. With handsets, the cost of producing new handsets every year is surely higher, and consoles don't have carrier subsidies either. Older handsets may be cheaper for the consumer but I doubt they cost the manufacturer much less to produce. Consoles on the other hand are designed to be cost reduced so that they can reach a pricing sweet spot without subsidies.

the value of cross-device compatibility renders that no longer an issue I think. Given a choice between console 1 that plays its games, and console plays that plays its games at slightly inferior quality on the console but you can also play them on other devices, I'd pick the latter, and I think a lot of folk are like minded*. The benefits of the closed platform are diminishing with time.

* For those thinking a handheld is no good for playing Uncharted or Halo etc., most of the games I'm playing on PS3 these days are simpler games. eg. Might and Magic just came out on iOS. I own it on PS3. There's no cross-device value there for me. And XCOM would work well as a tablet game as well as console. There'll still be console only titles using a dual-stick etc. (and probably two-stick handheld s like Vita), but there'll be considerable value to cross-device games, in the same way we consume music and video as media. When it's all cloud based, it'll be completely hardware independent, but that's a ways off and hardware+API is the interim solution.

I'm not sure console developers want a fat API, one would have to be forced on them and we're not headed towards that kind of ecosystem anytime soon. In fact there's no need, Playstation Mobile proves you can have your cake and eat it too.

Let's not forget also that optimizations aren't just about how efficiently you can code to a specific platform, a lot of it is targeting a spec and designing your games around those limitations. If you look at handset gaming, I doubt I could find a single game that wasn't designed to run on an iPhone 3GS, despite the fact that todays handsets boast specs that are easily 4x higher. Even the PC suffers this limitation, DX9 is still required for older cards. It could be the case that moving to the upgradable model will be qualitatively worse than what we have now by driving the baseline even lower.

To me switching to this model means that you start with a cheap low-powered console, and then you're stuck until that spec is EoL (which could take 4,5, or even 6 years). In addition, any modest increases in performance will be dwarfed by PCs anyhow. This is akin to copying the PC, badly.

 

[trainplane]

I think the biggest advantage of having shorter hardware refresh cycle while maintaining compatibility is that it could effectively remove the console generation cycle. Instead of rebuilding the market share from zero with every console generation, the company can effectively maintain their marketshare while expanding with each new releases.
In this business model, the console manufacturer may also need to make profit on the hardware to justify the r/d costs. It would mean that consoles would be far more modest in terms of processing power than it would for the traditional model, but shorter refresh cycle would mean that the consoles would stay in line with any technological advancements.

Damn it is hard to make long posts with smartphone lol.

A 1-2 year cycle would be too much for consoles and gamers would react badly at first because we have been trained for the 5-7 year wait. We are about 3-4 years from significant percent adoption of 4K (>20% say) but it is unlikely the 2013 consoles can manage it without a big hit on IQ and framerate. So if they release an upgraded console in 2017 with 4K abilities, games can still be compatible on both the 2013 and 2017 systems but the 2017 will have additional benefits of 4K, maybe more AF, AA, etc. Both consoles can be sold for a long time simultaneously similar to how Apple sells last year's iPad as the low end and this year's as the high end. Those that want the bleeding edge can upgrade in 2017 but everyone else who is happy can still play all the games released for the next few years. But it is very important that the 2013 model have forward compatibility for at least 6-7 years until the 2021 model arrives to keep consumer confidence up.

And lest people think this is just the Apple model, it is really the entire tablet and phone model, because everyone, including Surface and Nexus lines will be doing these PC-like upgrades. And given that they are using standard PC parts, the future R&D should be much smaller than previous consoles with custom hardware.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I seriously doubt you'll see anywhere near 20% adoption of 4k by 2017. If that's your only driver of an upgrade for a console you might want to rethink it.

 

[trainplane]

I seriously doubt you'll see anywhere near 20% adoption of 4k by 2017. If that's your only driver of an upgrade for a console you might want to rethink it.

That depend on pricing. If a 4K 50" is more than $1000 US vs its 1080p counterpart in 2017, no one will buy it. But if it is $100-$200 more, it's conceivable that 20% would opt to get it even if there isn't too much content. Just a little bit for more future proofing would appeal to consumers.

Regardless, that doesn't negate the benefits of cross compatible consoles. It's how every other electronic platform operates. I'm sure both MS and Sony are thinking about this which could be one reason why Sony especially supposedly got rid of Cell and went with x86 which will be supported and upgraded for a long time to come. Then it becomes about ecosystems than hardware.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

But I'll say that this whole upgrade mentality for consoles only really works for 6-8 year cycles where casuals may even begin to notice a difference from the hardware leap.

That statement is completely ridiculous even though many at b3d seem to have this view..

Just because they don't play games as much as you doesnt mean that they are blind!!!!! I have witnessed plenty of casual gamers even noticing things like framerate differences across their FIFA on xb360 vs my ps3.... Being able to notice differences between each hardware leap? Are you kidding me??? Everybody I know that have a console but are casual gamers are able to spot differences between sequels on same console if they have played both games..

Just because they dont care as much as you do about graphics doesn't mean they do not have a pair of functioning eyes. So please stop with these sort of statements. It's quite simply stupid, caring about the difference and seeing a difference are two completely different things

 

[Shifty Geezer]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-07-ouya-there-will-be-a-new-ouya-every-year
New Ouya every year.

 

[pipo]

Exactly what I was hoping for. Love it.

 

[patsu]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-07-ouya-there-will-be-a-new-ouya-every-year
New Ouya every year.

Phhppt... Someone building stackable consoles ? It should be possible for both Orbis and Durango.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

PS4 that may be notably better than XB3, but who's library will be outdated and a dead-end in 4ish years

Perhaps they have some streaming boost up their sleeve for the middle/end of the PS4 product cycle.There are a lot of Sony patents circulating in the world wide web that deal with cloud computing and Sony also has GAIKAI. Pixel streaming is not the only cloud gaming approach, cloudpaging for example streams instructions instead of pixels. Why not having an intergradiation? Start with a very fat client in the early years of PS4 and work your way to a thin client for PlayStation 5.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I actually think any future compatibility MS is planning is aimed at cloud servers, too. The 2010 Strategy Doc sure seemed to indicate they weren't planning to release future hardware iterations, preferring to transition to cloud delivered games. Tight control over the environment for developers could simply be to ensure they will work on the cloud platforms of the future.

 

[expletive]

Perhaps it's worth expanding on this a little. We are already seeing a few rival systems appearing who will offer just that. Ouya will offer a box where your games get better over time, to some degree, as you upgrade the hardware. SteamBox will provide the same. If Apple create a set-top box, that'll provide the same. And MS already have a forwards compatible platform that allows your old library to be played in better and better quality in Windows. That could be a significant advantage next-gen against a rival who's library is a one-stop deal. If MS communicate effectively that it's Xbox Forever, than my options will be: PS4 that may be notably better than XB3, but who's library will be outdated and a dead-end in 4ish years; or XB3 and a family of improving boxes I can buy into when I feel its time for an upgrade, including PC even, taking all my library with me. That's a compelling argument.

There's a whole other two or three threads discussing this (Upgradeable console etc.) for those who want to argue for or against, but the key point is this is clearly a valid business strategy for MS and so shouldn't be looked on with surprise or consternation. We might well see a disparity between Orbis and Durango that goes beyond hardware differences, but that may also result in Durango (DirectX, Windows) being the preferred platform for gaming in the coming years.

I do believe we are entering into the age where XBox models look like this:

Xbox (Late 2013)
Xbox (Mid 2015)
Xbox (Late 2016)

The console market is really not the console market it was in 2005, now its really the set top box market. The box you connect to your TV that also plays games. Its too fast moving for MS to lock themselves into a hardware platform for 7 or 8 years. They need this flexibility to add features that aren't necessarily 'core' to the platform itself but are necessary to maintain parity with the competition, which is coming from all directions. The core gamer does suffer here early on but in the long run get new hew hardware more regularly.

What this means though, is that for those who prefer a console over a pc they wont have to wait years while PCs slowly surpass the capabilities of their console, they'll always be up to date. They may be "N-1" in terms of power on the first iteration, but for a majority of the next 8 years (what would be the console lifecycle), they'll be better off than they would have been in terms of power, and the entry cost will be cheaper.

Thinking about it, aside from appliances and cars (which is even debatable in the US with leasing now taking over), is there another piece of electronics we buy that really has an 8 year lifecycle?

I actually think any future compatibility MS is planning is aimed at cloud servers, too. The 2010 Strategy Doc sure seemed to indicate they weren't planning to release future hardware iterations, preferring to transition to cloud delivered games. Tight control over the environment for developers could simply be to ensure they will work on the cloud platforms of the future.

I personally don't like the idea of cloud gaming at all. I just don't believe there can ever be proper reliability and a guaranteed quality level for peak load on the systems. I see a situation where "COD X" is release and either the cloud is crashed or the performance is degraded due to the load on the systems. Much prefer having the processing and game data in my home.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I refuse to upgrade my console in less than 5 years. Just as I won't buy new TVs, cell phones, PCs, tablets and such every second year either. I also don't want to bother with selling them online or such.

I've got enough things to spend on, gadgets are quite behind on the list. I suppose a lot of other people feel the same way. If MS tries to adapt to such a strategy, they'll probably fail.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, I can't imagine early adopters will be happy when their expensive consoles start becoming obsolete every 2 years. Part of what has made the console business model successful is stability, both for consumers and game makers. Just think about development. If you make iOS games you probably spend about 3 months on a title so a year refresh doesn't effect you that much. If you're making a AAA console title you could spend 3-4 years in development. How many hardware refreshes will that cross? What do you target? Will the market tolerate you orphaning a system from 4 years ago in favor of the latest model?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yeah, and beyond screwing with customers and developers, there are other costs that would hurt MS - developing new hardware every 2 years, and inability to shrink manufacturing costs as time goes on.

So who exactly would benefit from this business model, apart from people who have too much money to throw away on what are basically expensive toys?

 

[dobwal]

If they release such an underpowered console and expect me and my friends to continue with XBXLGold , they're in for a shock

It's my belief they are going to maintain the multi sku model they have except instead of the differentiator being the HDD it will be extended to the hardware.

They already have patents showing multiple skus based off different number of gpus and CPUs. AMD already has plans that allows upgrading PC apus in such fashion.

They are probably going to release an arcade at a base config with a premium or elite with a higher CU/GPU count that's accomplished with an addon card.

It allows you to address the whole market from casual to enthusiast without catering to one specific sub market or hoping a significant amount of people buy into refreshes every two years. All at the release. It's pretty much no difference than what's the PC market offers us already except instead of performance based on bigger and faster CPUs and GPUs it will be based on CPU and GPU count.

It makes sense that they would drop the high performing hot and high cost hardware for energy efficient parts that are scalable. Jaguar cores aren't even meant for desktop PC, they are made for form factors even more TPD restrictive than consoles. Consoles have more space to work with and you don't have to contend with battery life.

Energy efficient CPU, GPU and RAM will allow for upgradeability from the start and cater to all markets without being to force to contend with hardware cost for parts meant to satisfy the core market on lower priced skus for the casual market who will still have the option of upgrading performance as they transition to a core gamer.

As we move down to 20 nm and below it will allow for more CPUs and GPUs and help creat hardware that scales smoothly over time without disrupting the market.

MS and or Sony changes the dynamic of the console market every gen. We got Live and a HDD with xbox 1 and we got multiple skus and digital distribution with the PS360.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I refuse to upgrade my console in less than 5 years. Just as I won't buy new TVs, cell phones, PCs, tablets and such every second year either. I also don't want to bother with selling them online or such.

I've got enough things to spend on, gadgets are quite behind on the list. I suppose a lot of other people feel the same way. If MS tries to adapt to such a strategy, they'll probably fail.

Agreed. One of the great things about the console space, relative to the PC space, is that you don't have to upgrade all of the time. On top of that, think about the mountains of cellphones littering landfill, and now imagine the same thing with much larger game consoles.

2 year upgrade cycles work with tablets and phones because people can write and release new apps very quickly. Games are taking more than 2 years to hit the market once they start production. It just doesn't make any sense.

I can see them shortening this gen to 5 years instead of 7, or whatever it was this time around. 2 years is too short.