Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[Statix]

You would design it to run the same games jsut at lower quality, like PC or Android. Every new game runs on the old console, at lower quality. There's a thread on this subject.

That sounds to me like optimization hell. Almost like, instead of developing for two platforms/SKUs (PS4/Xbone), you're developing, testing, and optimizing for three platforms (PS4/Xbone/Xbone 1.5).

Certainly the two Xbone SKUs being the same architecturally makes it much easier than having to develop for completely separate platforms, but the fact remains that you would have to do twice as much testing and optimization in order to ensure that the "low-power" version of the Xbone doesn't crash, and runs at a playable, consistent framerate. By most any developer's account, hitting a target framerate of 30/60hz while maintaining good visuals is no easy task, regardless of how much power you have.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You wouldn't optimise so heavily. You'd optimise to the middleware, and that have the same benefits for both consoles. You'd design for the lower platform and the higher platform would just run it better, so no need to struggle. You'd start to ignore the limitations of the older platform later on. It crawls along at 20 fps? Tough! They can upgrade (this'd be 4-5+ years on from launch, and down to the developers to decide). We already have that with games now on PS360 not running at decent framerates. We had the same on PS2 too. Instead of developers constraining their vision for their game because the hardware isn't good enough to run it at a decent framerate, they'll target a high baseline and specification (same as now on PC and mobile).

Owners of the old console get no different to what they have now. As it gets old, it plays the latest games in lower quality. You can put up with that, or buy an updated machine - the choice is yours. The choice of how old a platform to develop for is the devs. All this choice is good balance. the only negative, as I say above and previously in this thread, is that instead of gettign 100% utilisation from your hardware, you're only going to get 80%, say. The positive is that every game you buy is forwards compatible and you'll be able to play the same game in a few years in better quality if you so chose.

 

[Statix]

The thing though, is that heavy optimization is what leads to fantastic looking games (Uncharted, Killzone, Gears, Forza, for example) a few years after launch, and is also one of the main benefits that makes consoles inherently consoles--being a closed, unvarying platform that you can depend on for a certain set of specs, and do extreme optimization for. Not only that, but the resultant marketing and consumer backlash--wherein early-adopters and loyal supporters get pissed off that they suddenly get an inferior (and potentially sloppier) version of every game--is something that I doubt any company wants to deal with, from a PR perspective.

Add that to the fact that Sony needed almost every year of the PS3's lifespan to date in order to just break even on manufacturing cost, and you can pretty clearly see why neither MS, Sony, or Nintendo would have much incentive to do something like an (unnecessary) hardware upgrade a few years down the road, and decrease their margins all over again. All of these companies are focused on profit above everything else. Many gamers, even today, think that current-gen graphics are "good enough," and wouldn't care for having to buy another console, whether it's because they don't know any better, or they don't care.

 

[RudeCurve]

They could still make a profit on new revisions of the hardware because it wouldn't be from the ground up, it would be performance boosters...ie more RAM more powerful GPU etc. Obviously the new models would be sold at launch like prices while the old models get price reductions as has always been the case.

 

[ThatGamer]

The thing though, is that heavy optimization is what leads to fantastic looking games (Uncharted, Killzone, Gears, Forza, for example) a few years after launch, and is also one of the main benefits that makes consoles inherently consoles--being a closed, unvarying platform that you can depend on for a certain set of specs, and do extreme optimization for. Not only that, but the resultant marketing and consumer backlash--wherein early-adopters and loyal supporters get pissed off that they suddenly get an inferior (and potentially sloppier) version of every game--is something that I doubt any company wants to deal with, from a PR perspective.

Add that to the fact that Sony needed almost every year of the PS3's lifespan to date in order to just break even on manufacturing cost, and you can pretty clearly see why neither MS, Sony, or Nintendo would have much incentive to do something like an (unnecessary) hardware upgrade a few years down the road, and decrease their margins all over again. All of these companies are focused on profit above everything else. Many gamers, even today, think that current-gen graphics are "good enough," and wouldn't care for having to buy another console, whether it's because they don't know any better, or they don't care.

I doubt there would be a substantial backlash at all. Everyone's older revision wouldn't instantly become useless. If anything most devs would optimize for the consoles with the lower specs and just throw higher res textures and higher fps at the more powerful box.

You are missing all the benefits: New console revisions would be backwards compatible, important tech can be quickly integrated, a lot more pricing flexibility, mind share, etc.

Also I don't think PS3 is a good example. IIRC they were taking a large loss mainly because of the Blu-Ray drives. MS started making a profit on the 360 hardware after only one year on the market.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html

 

[Nesh]

So how many SDKs do you think they need to release for the PC space since there are millions of different combinations of hardware components? Or are you including HARDWARE in your definition of SOFTWARE Development Kits?

Also, its not releasing at the same time. You release the hardware and software kit when the console 1.0 is out. Then years later you release the second set when console 2.0 is out. No where in there is a simultaneous release.

[Anyways, this was entirely off topic until I moved your discussion into this upgradable console discussion thread.]

I meant SKU's. It was a typo because I was in a hurry. My apologies for that. The meaning of my post completely changes taking that into account.
I dont think thats gonna work well with the consumer nor the developer who responds to the consumer's needs

 

[Shifty Geezer]

how does it work with iPads and smartphones then?

 

[expletive]

how does it work with iPads and smartphones then?

To that end, or PC Gamers, that happily upgrade their rigs every two years (or less).

From a fragmentation perspective I would guess PC developers split their testing in two ways:

1. AMD or Nvidia
2. Tiers of performance within each manufacturers product line

I'm not sure why the perception is that it would be so much harder for developers to target two coexisting console hardware performance envelopes given what we see in the PC space.

 

[ninzel]

I don't approve of this thread. Please don't give them any ideas.

 

[Nesh]

how does it work with iPads and smartphones then?

Simply because the consumer is different and has different demands

 

[warb]

If this were to happen it wouldn't be new hardware every year. It could be a great thing in 4 or 5 years.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Simply because the consumer is different and has different demands

How do you prove that? Is there actually an investigation into this anywhere, or are you just looking at the legacy console market and assuming it can't adapt?

 

[-tkf-]

How do you prove that? Is there actually an investigation into this anywhere, or are you just looking at the legacy console market and assuming it can't adapt?

In the case of ios and android games the difference between high power skus and low power skus is very subtle, almost worthless. Higher res textures and in some games higher fps. Hardly something special that pushes new hardware.

I am certain that there is special case examples, but for the most part the games just look the same. Not a surprise since these games very rarely push the boundaries of anything except micro transactions.. :-\

Comparing touch games to console games still seems far fetched considering what the touch games offers today..

 

[Nesh]

How do you prove that? Is there actually an investigation into this anywhere, or are you just looking at the legacy console market and assuming it can't adapt?

You are also assuming it can without any investigation either.
Proof are the products themselves, the difference is night and day. If the androids/iOS were perfect substitutes to high end consoles only then your argument or assumption would have had some merit

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In the case of ios and android games the difference between high power skus and low power skus is very subtle, almost worthless. Higher res textures and in some games higher fps. Hardly something special that pushes new hardware.

We're not talking new consoles here, but updated ones. 2 years later, playing the latest games at smoother framerate and better IQ and more stuffness (more/better grass, particles, lighting, etc.). The correct comparison is PC - smartphones just shows an example if high product refresh rates that works for both developers and consumers. On console, the development tools and targets are more sophisticated than touchies, so the game can be scaled up with minimal effort.

You are also assuming it can without any investigation either.

Because I'm assuming the status quo, that the attitudes shown by consumers in upgrading other items in their life would spill over into wanting to upgrade their console experiences too. You're suggesting consoles are uniquely positioned in that consumers buy them and then don't want to improve their experience at any cost for 5 years. Given a choice, I expect a fair few gamers would love the chance to get the same games only better - that strikes me as logical based on observation of people talking about games (the framerate in this game is terrible. It's subHD. The jaggies hurt my eyes). I'm not seeing a reason to believe that the response of 100% of gamers when confronted with a chance to upgrade their experience and solve those issues to be, "but I want fixed hardware that the devs max out, even if the results are low framerate, sub-HD jagfests!"

I'll go so far to ask what other industry doesn't have tiered experiences for different budgets? You can buy entry level, mid range, and enthusiast TVs, cars, sound systems, tablets, food blenders, etc., all compatible with the high-end versions just providing an inferior experience at a lower price. It's only consoles where there's only one to choose from and no cost/benefit variety. Console gamers are the only mass-consumer market I know of where there is no provision for high end, more lucrative enthusiast products.

 

[Nesh]

We're not talking new consoles here, but updated ones. 2 years later, playing the latest games at smoother framerate and better IQ and more stuffness (more/better grass, particles, lighting, etc.). The correct comparison is PC - smartphones just shows an example if high product refresh rates that works for both developers and consumers. On console, the development tools and targets are more sophisticated than touchies, so the game can be scaled up with minimal effort.

Because I'm assuming the status quo, that the attitudes shown by consumers in upgrading other items in their life would spill over into wanting to upgrade their console experiences too. You're suggesting consoles are uniquely positioned in that consumers buy them and then don't want to improve their experience at any cost for 5 years. Given a choice, I expect a fair few gamers would love the chance to get the same games only better - that strikes me as logical based on observation of people talking about games (the framerate in this game is terrible. It's subHD. The jaggies hurt my eyes). I'm not seeing a reason to believe that the response of 100% of gamers when confronted with a chance to upgrade their experience and solve those issues to be, "but I want fixed hardware that the devs max out, even if the results are low framerate, sub-HD jagfests!"

I'll go so far to ask what other industry doesn't have tiered experiences for different budgets? You can buy entry level, mid range, and enthusiast TVs, cars, sound systems, tablets, food blenders, etc., all compatible with the high-end versions just providing an inferior experience at a lower price. It's only consoles where there's only one to choose from and no cost/benefit variety. Console gamers are the only mass-consumer market I know of where there is no provision for high end, more lucrative enthusiast products.

You have created your own logic and wrapped it around an argument which is somewhat anecdotal. Whereas you ask me to bring up an investigation, you brought up your gut feeling. Using the opposite gut feeling for example I would like to point you that while some people wish their consoles played games at higher framerates and better resolutions there are also many that complain that their PC is never getting maxed out and hence not their money's worth since developers dont deal with a closed box. There are many that dont like having to upgrade to get the best available experience and many who dont like dealing with driver and compatibility issues.

There are many that appreciate the stability of the console and the fact that the console they got is the best available version for years to come until the next version is released.
Not all console core gamers, especially the first adopters who paid premium would like to know that a better version will be out in 1 or 2 years. They will be wondering whether they should wait or not to buy the console if buy at all. Its a convenience that many of us appreciate even though we would like better framerates and HD. I would have been pissed if me who was an initial adopter will have to upgrade my console to get the best LAST OF US experience. I dont mind as much if I play a game on my android that runs better on another though

If someone is not satisfied with the console anymore, he has a solution available already. Its called PC and will immigrate there. The rest will stay on consoles. Its a natural way to make the market decide who will remain on which.By the time that consoles continue to have a strong demand in the market enabling them to last for 7+ years is a great indication right there that consoles dont need to be forced your "upgrade" solution. The market has demand for the console market as it is even if some wish they got better framerates or resolution. Let the market decide.

You are later comparing different markets different products bought for different purposes and upgraded for different reasons. It looks like it makes sense, but it doesnt once you take the facts in.
People dont upgrade their TV's every 2 years because a better version was released. A TV investment like a console is destined to last for far more even for a decade, whereas an android device is upgraded by many even in a few months.
All TV's that now have the standard features (HD, hdmi, Digital Receiver) regardless of model regarding their primary purpose have a much closer image quality between each model than from android device to android device, or from console game to console game.
Both TV's and android devices have the ability to segment the market because they have multiple devices at varying performances at varying prices released simultaneously by multiple vendors. Unlike those your proposal suggests one console that continues to have a single path, every 2 years instead of every 7 years. In addition android devices do not include just one type of product. There are multiple devices that have android, bought for different purposes that people upgrade for different reasons. Because there is a clusterfuck of android devices around, there is no hardware target but many customer profiles. Regarding when it needs upgrade, you buy an android device and it will start feeling slow and sluggish after some time as there are more and more demanding software releases. So many consumers are forced to upgrade. At the same time you can buy a new state of the art android device that runs software that look or play like crap because the developer of said software was targeting a bigger market that included weaker devices. Some upgrade for games, some upgrade for work, some upgrade because its trendy, some upgrade because they like to have the best version available despite not using fully its potential (see smartphone fashionability) etc.
Unlike consoles people have less demands on the performance of an android especially when it comes to games. Whereas you may see some people wanting better resolution or textures or framerate or what not on a console release you will see people caring less about their android devices. So once again using TV's or android devices as an example does not fit

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your points are somewhat immaterial to the discussion. Everything you say is about things valued about console or disliked a PC is true, but that's also not proof an upgradeable console couldn't work - only that some people would complain (and those same people may also upgrade and still complain). Those PC gamers who dislike that their hardware doesn't get maxxed out still choose to play on PC rather than outdated consoles that are maxxed out but produce worse results.

Note I have never said the upgradeable console is a perfect solution nor ideal for everyone - only that it could work and the gaming populace wouldn't shun it outright, which is what you've suggested. You also cite unrelated arguments like driver issues. That's not a problem for a console platform as described in this thread. Effectively consoles give the PC upgradeable experience without the drawbacks. It's the iPad experience in console form.

I would have been pissed if me who was an initial adopter will have to upgrade my console to get the best LAST OF US experience.

So if you don't want to upgrade in 3-5 years to get the same game at a better experience, you want to deny other people the opportunity to? If Sony had released a PS3.1 last year that could play LoU at 60 fps, high IQ, your PS3 version would be exactly the same as you have now. You've lost nothing from other people having the chance to buy a better machine to play the same game at a better experience. Those people who pay more money than you are entitled to get a better experience, no? Bare in mind that the argument isn't for a $500 launch console followed by a $200 replacement. At worst, you'd pay $500 earlier to get more years of play, and then a later buyer of the new console would get more hardware for the same money, but that's technology for you. If you buy a $500 PC this year to game, someone who buys a new PC in three years will get a better experience than you. Same for their TV, their mobile, their new car, and their camera. Everyone is acutely aware that their technology will soon be superseded, so it's hardly a concern for consoles.

Its called PC and will immigrate there.

PC gaming is not the same as console gaming. You get a different library, different game emphasis, different online structures, different living room experience. You also have driver and maintenance issues. A PS3 gamer wanting better visuals for LoU wouldn't be served by PC, but would be served by PS3.1.

The rest will stay on consoles. Its a natural way to make the market decide who will remain on which.By the time that consoles continue to have a strong demand in the market enabling them to last for 7+ years is a great indication right there that consoles dont need to be forced your "upgrade" solution.

Firstly, I'm not forcing anything. I'm not a policy maker. Secondly, the upgradeable console is an option not forced on anyone even if it was realised. Thirdly, the market has never had an option to try an upgradeable console. Moving to PC isn't the same, so it's never been tested and you can't prove gamers would react against it.

Let the market decide.

If you really believed that, you'd be in favour of MS or whoever releasing a new, compatible box in 2 years time and letting the consumer decide if they want to buy it or not.

 

[Final Destiny]

This discussion made me think of the Pentium G6951 (pay and be given a code that would unlock parts of the CPU). Would it be do-able in a console?

I was thinking something like the following:

Year 1/Introduction
-it would have X-number of CPU (at some speed) and Y-number of GPU cores (at some other speed)

Year 3-4 and beyond
-"upgrade option" - upping the # cores/speed for some amount of money

Thoughts?

 

[Arwin]

So if you don't want to upgrade in 3-5 years to get the same game at a better experience, you want to deny other people the opportunity to? If Sony had released a PS3.1 last year that could play LoU at 60 fps, high IQ, your PS3 version would be exactly the same as you have now. You've lost nothing from other people having the chance to buy a better machine to play the same game at a better experience.
.

There are more configurations in the market to target for developers, in a shorter amount of time, So what he would lose is a whole host of games not targeted optimally for his device, and next-gen owners would get way more games targetted at a lower spec machine than theirs. So everyone gets everything a little worse, even if they spend more money on hardware, because developers won't be able to target the hardware as efficiently.

That said, I agree with you that it could work, and I would basicalky imagine as some form of the Steam-box, with perhaps a yearly or two-yearly refresh.

 

[dobwal]

Optimization would be dictated by the demographics of the userbase.

Happens on Android and iOS.

You invest where the users are and use simple and practical solutions to accommodate where they aren't.

If devs can accommodate annual refreshes on iOS and annual refreshes and dozens of hardware and software configurations on Android with 99 cent/free apps, then how is this more difficult on consoles where devs already accommodate PC ports where annual refreshes and hundreds of hardware configurations exists even moreso than the smartphone market?

Platform providers don't avoid fragmented hardware ecosystem because its too hard for devs to manage software development. They avoid fragmented hardware because of the cost of supporting multiple hardware instead of just one. When you fragment the hardware you fragment everything else including production and support.

Its seems like MS has made it more feasible for its Xbox market to handle multiple configurations. What its doesn't have is the evidence that going to intragenerational refreshes will actually encourage more sales of hardware within a generation. New iphones have not only proven the ability to sustain sales but grow sales as Apple iphone sales volumes has grown every year since the inception of the product. Consoles haven't shown that ability whatsoever.