Is there a future for consoles without a return to exotic hardware? *spawn

We need to steer clear of politics here. ;) Exploitation/employment opportunities is open to debate as we eschew ethics and just look at what's feasible. Once a business plan is drawn up, we can decide whether it's morally objectionable or not in another forum. :p
In that case, my business plan is: in occupied territories, make the kids produce the chips and work in those factories in order to get food, also use the clean water for factory cooling and cleaning of the dies and after the cooling and cleaning the children are allowed to drink the water. Also the parents are kept in separate locations and they have to built the consoles in order to see their kids. And get food, but they have a stronger immune system so they drink the water at a later stage, which is cheaper as well.

Because of the factories the kids and parents and Red Cross employees are less likely to be blown up by a drone or JDAM bomb as that would destroy the factories as well! So all in all the production pays for itself and it is the cheapest as the people in the occupied territories are essentially slaves.
 
@Lauritzen touched on something which I feel needs more expansion: why can't (or, shouldn't) Sony or Microsoft build their own, bespoke game engine, built straight to the metal of their products, optimized to demonstrate the unique strengths of the hardware they've selected? At the end of the day, customers don't give two turds about what's inside the box, they are paying for the gaming experience. For all they care, it could be a stupidly overclocked AMD 6x86 on a Socket 7 board with a Rage128 card slapped in it. So long as the games meet or exceed their expectations, they'll be happy.
How "straight to the metal" are the existing first-party bespoke game engines: Decima, Insomniac's engine, Santa Monica's engine, Naughty Dog's engine, and ForzaTech? All of these engines have been used for PC ports, but I doubt the console versions are leaving performance on the table for the sake of PC compatibility.
 
How "straight to the metal" are the existing first-party bespoke game engines: Decima, Insomniac's engine, Santa Monica's engine, Naughty Dog's engine, and ForzaTech? All of these engines have been used for PC ports, but I doubt the console versions are leaving performance on the table for the sake of PC compatibility.
It's a good question, and I didn't articulate my stance well. To that point, I very much agree with your suggestion re: those engines were purpose built for the hardware of their respective consoles and accordingly should be able to showcase the "best" of a console's abilities. They're also purpose built for their own unique games, so they don't waste dev time on things not core to their gameplay. This allows for light, efficient code which only caters to the requirements of the game they support.

Whereas something like UE5 or Crysis or IDTech will necessarily cover so many processor generations, GPU generations, storage generations, and OS generations in order to serve the greatest catalog of both game genres and hardware + OS combinations. This is nice for a development shop who wants to "Author once and deploy to many" but always leaves something on the table in terms of utmost capability on any one specific hardware platform.

The core difference here, in my mind, is development effort spent on the general-purpose engines isn't lost on someone who moves over to write a custom engine for current-gen consoles. Foundationally, it's all the same x86-64 architecture and all the same AMD GPU architecture they've built "paths" for, now without the other cruft. Conversely, having to R&D a completely new chunk of computing silicon, to then debug it, and then learn how to write code to it, just tosses an entire toolbox of wrenches into the equations.

It's like English having become the "universal language" for most of the planet. It's not because English is the best (it isn't) or the most clear (it isn't) or the most concise (it isn't), but somehow it has become the language that most of the world can speak. Inventing a new language could result in some efficiency gain, perhaps a more precise way of speaking, perhaps provide a more evocative way of describing life, but it also means everyone has to learn the new language. Same goes for X86 today -- essentially every CompSci nerd speaks it, so why make it harder to get work done? Sure, you might save 10% of your compute cycles, but the R&D cost to create a whole new instruction set, debug it, build it at scale, and teach it to everyone is going to far outweigh the cycle loss of just using a common language.

Maybe ARM will be the next "big" change, in a generation or three.
 
Last edited:
How "straight to the metal" are the existing first-party bespoke game engines: Decima, Insomniac's engine, Santa Monica's engine, Naughty Dog's engine, and ForzaTech? All of these engines have been used for PC ports, but I doubt the console versions are leaving performance on the table for the sake of PC compatibility.

Less and less, The Last of Us (original, ye gods Naughty Dog make new games instead of remakes) barely ran on PS3 and needed hand built assembly code in places just to do so.

But today, as you pointed out, Decima now runs on PC for dev purposes, making it relatively easy compared to earlier games to just port it over to PC or even Iphone for that matter. Not only that but no third party dev would use an engine that runs on one console anymore, even first party outside Nintendo is getting ported to other platforms, port to all the places is now the default.

Also, to the origin of this thread, exotic hardware in terms of rendering/performance would be 100% useless, I.E. PS4 Pro's triangle ID buffer. Meanwhile Nintendo, which would find the suggestion laughable, is doing gangbusters in the console space. Consoles can sell if they're a product people want to buy first and foremost, and then after that a subsidized price vs the same thing as a PC(or whatever). PS5 and Xbox Series aren't doing the hottest because they didn't go mobile, which baffled me 4 years ago and feels baffling still, like the execs of both were somehow entirely unaware of both the Switch and the Iphone at the same time.
 
How "straight to the metal" are the existing first-party bespoke game engines: Decima, Insomniac's engine, Santa Monica's engine, Naughty Dog's engine, and ForzaTech? All of these engines have been used for PC ports, but I doubt the console versions are leaving performance on the table for the sake of PC compatibility.
There's not going to be any "leaving performance on the table" if consoles aren't going to keep their API/feature lead anymore!
 
There's not going to be any "leaving performance on the table" if consoles aren't going to keep their API/feature lead anymore!
As you and others have written before, console APIs still have certain advantages over PC APIs despite using PC-like hardware. It will always be easier to develop an API for a fixed hardware configuration in a machine dedicated to running games than it is to develop an API for a variety of hardware configurations featuring products from multiple IHVs on a desktop OS. Bespoke hardware still exists, like the PS4 Pro's CBR hardware, PS5 Pro's PSSR hardware, or the PS5 and Xbox Series's decompression units.

Are you claiming that consoles should use exotic hardware specifically to differentiate themselves, or that going with exotic hardware will improve their price-to-performance or other characteristics compared to the more generic hardware the two most recent generations used?
 
As you and others have written before, console APIs still have certain advantages over PC APIs despite using PC-like hardware. It will always be easier to develop an API for a fixed hardware configuration in a machine dedicated to running games than it is to develop an API for a variety of hardware configurations featuring products from multiple IHVs on a desktop OS. Bespoke hardware still exists, like the PS4 Pro's CBR hardware, PS5 Pro's PSSR hardware, or the PS5 and Xbox Series's decompression units.
Are you absolutely sure we're still going to have "multiple IHVs" at the end of it all when one of them are currently facing an existential crisis and the ultimate end goal of the industry is hardware design convergence ?
Are you claiming that consoles should use exotic hardware specifically to differentiate themselves, or that going with exotic hardware will improve their price-to-performance or other characteristics compared to the more generic hardware the two most recent generations used?
Consoles didn't have to be general purpose computers to run word processors, editors, or ML frameworks since they're specifically meant to be gaming machines and could somehow always stand to benefit more by removing out those unnecessary bits while adding in unique features (whether it was to optimize for a new paradigm or to just spite older hardware/multi-generation/platform software development). PC hardware can command high prices because for many people out there they ultimately make have to make a living by using them! (the value of BC is obvious at your workplace but it's mostly lost on game consoles in general)

I don't exactly remember explicit APIs being much of a thing during last generation all the while the likes of DF quietly stopped claiming that the GTX 750 Ti matched or even exceeded the PS4 in terms of graphical performance later on as the generation progressed. For this generation, the PS5 succeeding may have been somewhat of a fluke on it's own since the brute force progression of transistor cost scaling alone delivered much of the value proposition for both consumers (mild $100 price increase) and developers (exclusive renderer improvements) for upgrading ...

Chances are the next generation is potentially heading towards a demographic collapse (both current generation consoles are now tracking behind their predecessors) if consoles don't come with major exclusive HW features (thus no API/optimization advantage compared to PC) while there's a steep price jump ($800+) either because consumers see that many developers aren't motivated enough to commit only developing for next generation systems (both since there's not a big enough improvement to warrant so and they don't want to ever subscribe to creating exclusive content) or developers see that consumers aren't convinced of their value proposition due to a combination of factors such as high starting price (dependent minors and other countries are effectively gated) and the lack of benefits (no exclusives or high perf/cost) compared to PCs. Staying on the old paradigm without the progression of transistor cost scaling just means that console vendors in the future will now be forced to have to either pick current generation consoles (why upgrade if there is even one at that ?) or PCs as their competitors. THAT'S been the erosion of the console model that I've been trying to point out when next generation hardware are possibly facing to be squeezed out from both sides of the aisle (current gen & PC) ...
 
If somewhat more unique hardware is chosen for the next-generation console, it will probably affect the memory architecture. The most restrained part of the current consoles (although I still admit that they came out with great hardware overall) was the amount of RAM. The 8GB of the XB1 was only doubled in the XSX, which is not much compared to previous generations. This was presumably due to rising memory prices.

Maybe this could be avoided if they use a more special memory design again, but with way more amount of RAM. For example, the next console could have 48-64GB DDR6 and a 1-2GB extremely fast scratchpad. This method would be more cost-effective and would provide a lot of memory space at the same time. Which will probably be necessary due to the local AI calculations.
 
Maybe this could be avoided if they use a more special memory design again, but with way more amount of RAM. For example, the next console could have 48-64GB DDR6 and a 1-2GB extremely fast scratchpad. This method would be more cost-effective and would provide a lot of memory space at the same time. Which will probably be necessary due to the local AI calculations.
Yeah, one area untouched so far is stacked on-die RAM. Seems like a tech that's been waiting in the wings with a chance to do something meaningful.
 
Chances are the next generation is potentially heading towards a demographic collapse (both current generation consoles are now tracking behind their predecessors) if consoles don't come with major exclusive HW features (thus no API/optimization advantage compared to PC) while there's a steep price jump ($800+) either because consumers see that many developers aren't motivated enough to commit only developing for next generation systems (both since there's not a big enough improvement to warrant so and they don't want to ever subscribe to creating exclusive content) or developers see that consumers aren't convinced of their value proposition due to a combination of factors such as high starting price (dependent minors and other countries are effectively gated) and the lack of benefits (no exclusives or high perf/cost) compared to PCs. Staying on the old paradigm without the progression of transistor cost scaling just means that console vendors in the future will now be forced to have to either pick current generation consoles (why upgrade if there is even one at that ?) or PCs as their competitors. THAT'S been the erosion of the console model that I've been trying to point out when next generation hardware are possibly facing to be squeezed out from both sides of the aisle (current gen & PC) ...
Sony doesn't seem concerned about competition from PC. If they were, they wouldn't be bringing their first-party titles to PC. Developers supporting last-gen consoles long after the arrival of a new-gen is just going to be the new normal. Developing a game for the latest-gen only means spending more money (for superior art assets or gameplay logic) to get less money. If the console manufacturers want to drive sales of new consoles and make the industry switch quickly then they should lead by example and only release games for the latest generation. Since Sony didn't do that, I suspect they didn't mind a long cross-gen period.

If consoles do need exclusive HW features though, then Nintendo's success has demonstrated that the focus should be on peripherals and form factor, not silicon. Features that fundamentally change how gamers interact with the console - motion controls, touchscreens, a second screen, or portability - will always have a greater impact than features that just change how developers create games for the console.
 
Maybe the future for any computational device that requires complex hardware to perform its monolithic day to day tasks is a looking a little bleak with the rise of AI. Why throw physical resources and money at a problem when it can be inferred by a tightly trained NN. Nvidia seems to be forcasting the death of graphics cards and the requirements they have now, spend computation time on one pixel and infer the other 31. Traditional builds will be replaced with SOCs that work smarter, not harder.

It might be that PCs become more like consoles and not the other way around.
 
Sony doesn't seem concerned about competition from PC. If they were, they wouldn't be bringing their first-party titles to PC. Developers supporting last-gen consoles long after the arrival of a new-gen is just going to be the new normal. Developing a game for the latest-gen only means spending more money (for superior art assets or gameplay logic) to get less money. If the console manufacturers want to drive sales of new consoles and make the industry switch quickly then they should lead by example and only release games for the latest generation. Since Sony didn't do that, I suspect they didn't mind a long cross-gen period.
Sony isn't concerned when their current generation system is doing fine because they weren't attempting to closely follow the latest prohibitive PC HW feature trends so they still had a lean hardware design (low baseline cost) while being able to provide a relatively painless upgrade that was worthwhile to both consumers and developers. Do you think the statement that "PCs and consoles aren't competitors" will remain true after consoles lose their privilege of being a high value (perf/cost) proposition and virtually all software exclusivity they've had left if console vendors are cornered make more expensive hardware while user experience on PCs continues to vastly improve by becoming ever more closed off ? At that point game consoles become somewhat of an 'investment' just like PCs already are so they had better come with productivity applications when consoles are literally just expensive PC hardware ...

What exactly is a "new console cycle" supposed to entail if neither the consumer nor developers see a true upgrade or much of the demographics can't afford them ?
If consoles do need exclusive HW features though, then Nintendo's success has demonstrated that the focus should be on peripherals and form factor, not silicon. Features that fundamentally change how gamers interact with the console - motion controls, touchscreens, a second screen, or portability - will always have a greater impact than features that just change how developers create games for the console.
Frankly, the industry hasn't been very good at making use of uncommon peripheral interfaces (the platforms that were successful at this also had weird silicon too with a very different set of popular software) and they see portable devices as an entirely different market (they've made much more profit with mobile phones than something like the Switch or let alone Steam Deck). They're seemingly comparatively better at using strange HW logic to make a custom renderer/program logic (even use entirely different engines too) than modifying their game mechanics/design to suit different control schemes if their priority is still multiplatform development and mobile HW being vastly different hasn't really dissuaded developers from developing content for it so why should consoles be left to rot with PCs ?
 
At this point both PlayStation and Nintendo are competing against their own consoles (PS2, SNES) and MS (PC/Xbox) pushing for a world where gaming only takes place on x86.
Beyond just the console each game studio with games on the PS2 is in a perpetual competition with their own PS2 games. Every user has only so much gaming time and no one can do two things at once.
Part of the reason no console has ever been able to beat the PS2's sales numbers is that many of those PS2s are still being used and have a massive library of great games costing next to nothing.
PS2 games are modern games and will never be 'obsolete' in terms of either graphics or gameplay. Load times from DVD are the biggest negative while the PS2 boots about twice as fast as the PS4.

Unscientific Hypothesis: Modern Game Studios are in an endless competition with their PS2 games.
Study Design: Giving people two console setups side by side with their respective physical disks and controllers.
1. Launch PS2 connected to a good Sony TV with GTA3 and GTA San Andreas discs.
2. Launch PS4 connected to a good Sony TV with GTA5 and RDR2 discs.

Projected outcome: Most people will eventually figure out how to install one of the PS4 games and while waiting for it (15+ minutes avg., ~90min RDR2) they'll move to the PS2.
Most people will easily startup the PS2 and be playing one of the PS2 games in under 4 minutes.
After a few minutes of gameplay they could change games quickly and easily with no installation.

Newer x86 consoles are harder to use and their bigger games come with massive downsides (installation, HDD management, cost) without really providing much more in the way of things that users appreciate.

Obsoleting the PS2?
PlayStation's DualSense controller is a revolutionary step for gaming and moving from playing the PS5 to the PS2 makes the PS2 feel obsolete by lack of DualSense feedback.

Study Design: Putting users in a room setup with Astro's Playroom on PS5 with DualSense (already installed) and a PS2 with the entire PS2 library of games.
Projected outcome: Most users prefer the DualSense feedback to the DS2's rumble feedback while also preferring the PS2's massive library of great games.

Sony could push back the trend of gaming moving towards x86 by doing exactly what Kutaragi already did with the launch PS3 and adding relatively inexpensive PS2 (EE+GS combo)/PS1 hardware to a new console.
The key difference now being the creation of a new stream of revenue for both Sony and game studios by obsoleting existing PS1 and PS2 games - incentivizing studios to reformat their old games to make use of the DualSense feedback. Reinventing the game PKG system and making all PS1 and PS2 games digital-only would guarantee that the updated DualSense PS2 games never end up choking both Sony and studios via a perpetual resale market.
Sony could open up the new platform to game studios as an inexpensive alternative to 4k x86 games. Shorter development times and lower development costs would make the platform appealing to studios once they come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of users don't care about graphics beyond having games that look great and play great.

Both Sony and Nintendo have massive back catalogs of Japan-only games that never made it to the West and could be easily localized and sold to the American market. Outside of illegal emulation which doesn't take advantage of proprietary gamepads, MS(PC/Xbox) has no real wealth of old games locked to proprietary hardware, no Japan-only games and no proprietary hardware of any real value to add to a new console. With both Sony/Nintendo pushing thousands of exclusive games via new consoles with new proprietary controllers and reopening old platforms up for new game development - x86 gaming would likely fall out of popularity once again. Sony and Nintendo could easily block MS games from their respective platforms while doubling down on exclusives and pushing MS out of both consoles and game studios.

A key aspect for the return of game consoles is the proprietary look and feel that games developed specifically for the console provide. PC-first games being available across platforms and games shipping on multiple platforms (while profitable for game studios in the short term) is paving the road for the slow death of consoles which will devastate game studios in the long term.
 
In a world where Sony stuck with the Cell processor and updating for PS4 and PS5, I wonder if developers would be using it to run ray tracing instead of a GPU.
 
mobile HW being vastly different

Everything on mobile is vastly different. Form factor, power budgets, interfaces, monetization. It’s not that useful of a comparison.

Is there some compelling research out there that illustrates the potential for new hardware paradigms to produce vastly better gaming experiences? One problem with the “cheap exotic hardware” theory is that there’s no scale. Odds are that commodity hardware and APIs will produce better results simply due to receiving more time and investment from the dev community.

Would it be amazing to see some crazy new architecture that’s way more cost efficient and can do things not possible on any other kit while providing a great development experience? Absolutely. But right now that sounds like a fairy tale.
 
It'd like next gen Sony console to only allow games made in Dreams 2 and the hardware be geared to making it as fast as possible. :)
 
Is there some compelling research out there that illustrates the potential for new hardware paradigms to produce vastly better gaming experiences? One problem with the “cheap exotic hardware” theory is that there’s no scale. Odds are that commodity hardware and APIs will produce better results simply due to receiving more time and investment from the dev community.
Even if that didn't end up being the case, consoles in the future need MORE exclusivity and NOT LESS of it because of the impending competition posed by current gen consoles and PCs. Ken Kutaragi was ultimately right in that standardized hardware only proved to be a greater disincentive for developing exclusives than an incentive for easing game development and exotic designs were just his means to achieving both exclusivity and a new cycle!

A new console generation was always about providing new experiences to all sorts of diverse backgrounds. It wasn't defined by providing old experiences with multi-generational parity or solely catering to elite consumers. What exactly is the path for a new console that competes it's predecessor or the one that has no globalized reach but in both cases have straight up no exclusives ?!
 
Ken Kutaragi was ultimately right in that standardized hardware only proved to be a greater disincentive for developing exclusives than an incentive for easing game development and exotic designs were just his means to achieving both exclusivity and a new cycle!
Switch is an example of the opposite of that, though. It's an outdated off the shelf SOC, clocked lower than other products that featured the same SOC making it less performant than, say, nVidia Shield. Switch's hardware, and by that I mean it's electronic components, are the least exotic in that there are other devices that existed on the market with essentially the same hardware. Series and PS5 have semi-custom SOCs, so even if there are parts with similar specs, they aren't as close as Switch is to Shield. Yet achieved the highest sales this generation, and has a bunch of exclusives - probably more than PS5 and Series.
 
Back
Top