Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[dobwal]

Huhh? What has this got to do with my points about using tessellation?.

It has everything to do with it. Do you honestly think that the way tessellation is done and the problem it faces right now is the same way tessellation will done and will face those same problems tomorrow. Tessellation techniques will improve over time. The level and the rate of that improvement will be accelerated if the next gen consoles adopt it for common use across its software enviroment. PC game development doesn't revolve around apu hardware nor can we conclude that the GCN cores and their capabilities have been thoroughly explored. We don't know how the SRAM will be used in Durango.

Several tessellation patents have been granted to MS over the last two years including numerous patents regarding memory management, rendering and a host of other gaming related novel inventions. MS hardware doesn't look to be a standard PC configuration. MS nor Sony nor Nintendo is tied to the traditional hardware and software PC enviroment and the problems faced within those enviroments. Tessellation and other techniques' problem and issues might be resolved with consoles. Consoles have a ton of money backing them and you simply can't throw more silicon at them as a brute force method of improving performance.

Console require a more thorough and fine grain look at their hardware because its fixed and for 5-6 years at a time. No one is spending 15 million trying to make their game look as best as possible on a Radeon X1800 right now. But millions are still being poured into a 7 year old Xenos trying to coax more power out it. Console are now on the forefront when it comes to tackling problems with practical solutions on the software side of gaming.

I not saying the tessellation will be the magic bullet as consoles might be terrible at tessellation. All I know is that MS has patented several techniques that makes me believe they are looking at tessellation as a way to make multi tiered skus based on hardware performance a more practical approach then the way it exists on PCs.

 

[Bagel seed]

Sell the old console at Gamestop every 2 years, buy the latest one for $400 or so? So end up spending maybe $250 every 2 years on hardware. Or grit your teeth and play on low settings with your launch console while you cry at beautiful screenshots and YT videos.

By the end of 7 years assume we upgraded 3 times, so ~$1000 over the entire generation to play the best settings. I guess a PC upgrade path would cost similarly if you wanted to keep up to date too.

This is way too much carrot and stick for eye candy upgrading. Just keep the generations at 4-5 years and I think it's fine. It'd be much less of an issue if they manned up and released 2.5TF+ consoles instead of sub 2. By 2020 I'm fairly sure we're all in the cloud laughing and smiling with our Oculus Rifts anyways.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I think you'll be fine playing Halo5, PGR6, FORZA5, GEARS4 and the other games, and kinect games too, with the pc.. yes it's very redundant

and if remember well, xbox360 had a lead in graphics for some time.
if durango launches every 2 years, it will be comparable to an high end PC, but with many PRO's

I've said I do not care about the exclusives. I don't have time to play 10% of the games I'd play if I had time. And kinect is cool for controlling netflix, but I'd manage without.

How is durango going to compare to a high end PC when it's less than 1/3rd of the PC I bought last year and it isn't out yet? Especially if you are losing the thin api and have a ton of OS overhead.

 

[dobwal]

Sell the old console at Gamestop every 2 years, buy the latest one for $400 or so? So end up spending maybe $250 every 2 years on hardware. Or grit your teeth and play on low settings with your launch console while you cry at beautiful screenshots and YT videos.

By the end of 7 years assume we upgraded 3 times, so ~$1000 over the entire generation to play the best settings. I guess a PC upgrade path would cost similarly if you wanted to keep up to date too.

This is way too much carrot and stick for eye candy upgrading. Just keep the generations at 4-5 years and I think it's fine. It'd be much less of an issue if they manned up and released 2.5TF+ consoles instead of sub 2. By 2020 I'm fairly sure we're all in the cloud laughing and smiling with our Oculus Rifts anyways.

if you upgraded PC every time a new powerful part was released you could spend that over a year.

So basically u are saying u don't want to have console envy or want to Sony and ms to help u control your buying habits by maintaining a traditional console hardware and release cycle.

 

[Xenio]

How is durango going to compare to a high end PC when it's less than 1/3rd of the PC

welcome to closed box development
every cycle, same story, how can a console with X flops compare to a PC with X^10 flops?
and every time console take the lead in graphics for some time, did you ask yourself why?

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's not really a closed box anymore when you're carrying forward compatibility. Even if it were the specs of durango are low enough that a high end PC will crush it. My PC is around to 5TF when overclocked and it's already a year old. If they do launch durango 2 in 2 years I'd bet I'm pretty safe in saying my PC will still crush it.

 

[expletive]

It's not really a closed box anymore when you're carrying forward compatibility. Even if it were the specs of durango are low enough that a high end PC will crush it. My PC is around to 5TF when overclocked and it's already a year old. If they do launch durango 2 in 2 years I'd bet I'm pretty safe in saying my PC will still crush it.

Its absolutely a closed box when the API is designed specifically to optimize for an exact known hardware configuration. Whether its one, two or three known configurations, its nothing like a windows gaming PC.

 

[Billy Idol]

Well consoles are under threat, that's one of the reasons they have to evolve.

That is what I am wondering! Are they under threat? I wonder, because so many new consoles are up to enter the battle for a piece of pie...Ouya and Steambox. So it must be an attractive market to be.

I am really not certain to what extend consoles have to evolve. My personal hope is that we get an improved (raw power, online gaming) PS360 console with not much else changed at all. The many hints of low tec, more diverse, be all at ones for everyone PS720 next gen...scares me a bit to be honest as it seems that MS and Sony lost their focus and core.

 

[Xenio]

It's not really a closed box anymore when you're carrying forward compatibility.

it's still a closed box, it will be compatible with same hardware structure, but on steroids

Even if it were the specs of durango are low enough that a high end PC will crush it. My PC is around to 5TF when overclocked and it's already a year old. If they do launch durango 2 in 2 years I'd bet I'm pretty safe in saying my PC will still crush it.

maybe you pc crush the world, I'm happy that you have a real "chuck norris approved" PC, but you can already cut the numbers in half, because of many factors, overhead of the OS, Bottlenecks from a structure from 1970, developed targeting mid-pc and so on
no I think it will crush only numbers in theory

 

[AlphaWolf]

Durango has 3GB reserved and you think it has no OS overhead?

You're seriously overplaying the advantage of a closed system. Conservatively, it took PC's a couple of years to surpass PS360, and they launched with hardware that was at least equal in performance to the best PC's. Durango (which hasn't launched yet) has about 1/4th the processing power of a current top pc and is reserving more resources for OS and is pushing a thicker api than the 360. Midrange PC's will be running multiplatform titles better than durango and Orbis at launch.

 

[Squilliam]

Iterative consoles solve two problems. The first is the problem in starting a new generation of consoles with higher costs and zero install base and the second is finishing the generation with radically obsolete hardware whilst other platforms have evolved significantly. The hardware in an iterative console will never be completely obsolete and nor will developers ever have to target a vanishingly small userbase for their titles. The console generations are starting to become $1B expenditures so likely this will be the last traditional console launch as the business model itself cannot sustain this. I can see Microsoft's decision for Durango as perhaps a way to produce powerful and relevant hardware which can be improved upon rather than a fixed stab at producing something they hope can last 6-7 years.

 

[Xenio]

Durango has 3GB reserved and you think it has no OS overhead?

so for you overhead means how much space OS takes somewhere than how works OS software substrate?

have you considered that those 3GB of OS can be in stand by and runs on two separate cpu core?
do you think that a pc works in this way? really?

 

[AlphaWolf]

You don't reserve 3GB if you're not doing something with it. There's going to be hardware reserved as well. Even if it's just 2cores, that's no different than a pc running background tasks at low priority.

 

[Xenio]

Even if it's just 2cores, that's no different than a pc running background tasks at low priority.

no different?? after this I can quit the discussion.

 

[jonabbey]

I can see the Windows team at Microsoft deciding to muscle in on XBox and try to make it a Trojan for Windows 8, with apps written for it being leveraged to help MS where they are hurting most, in mobile and tablets, but that doesn't mean it will be a winning strategy for the console space.

All console platforms have gotten more COTS over the generations as the cost of developing the best available underpinnings increases on a yearly basis. PS3 was much more industry standard than PS2 was, and both next gen systems look to be even more so. That is a real and powerful advantage, but that doesn't mean iterating the hardware will be the best strategy for *console* dominance.

A hybrid would seem to make more sense. AAA developers to target a specific hardware rev, while less demanding titles use a more portable substrate.

Then again, that didn't work out so great with XDA this gen, hm?

 

[joker454]

That is what I am wondering! Are they under threat? I wonder, because so many new consoles are up to enter the battle for a piece of pie...Ouya and Steambox. So it must be an attractive market to be.

Ouya isn't really a console though, it's a platform. You code to their standard api and your code/knowledgebase/apps all carry forward to future Ouya devices whatever form factor they may be (console, handheld, etc). It remains to be seen what Steambox will be, but I'd wager it will also be forward compatible just like Steam has been for years. As far as new "traditional" consoles coming out, are there any? The Xbox 720 doesn't seem like it will be a traditional console, it seems like it's lining up with Windows 8 to allow code reuse and easy cross platform compatibility. I'm not following the PS4 so I don't know what they are doing, hence I can't comment there. But I don't really think the traditional console market is all that attractive anymore as I don't really see anymore going there do you? I mean who do you know who is planning to bring out a fixed plays one set of games box that they intend to throw away in a few years?

 

[Billy Idol]

Ouya isn't really a console though, it's a platform. You code to their standard api and your code/knowledgebase/apps all carry forward to future Ouya devices whatever form factor they may be (console, handheld, etc). It remains to be seen what Steambox will be, but I'd wager it will also be forward compatible just like Steam has been for years. As far as new "traditional" consoles coming out, are there any? The Xbox 720 doesn't seem like it will be a traditional console, it seems like it's lining up with Windows 8 to allow code reuse and easy cross platform compatibility. I'm not following the PS4 so I don't know what they are doing, hence I can't comment there. But I don't really think the traditional console market is all that attractive anymore as I don't really see anymore going there do you? I mean who do you know who is planning to bring out a fixed plays one set of games box that they intend to throw away in a few years?

Well, you are probably right that there is no 'traditional' console in sight. This is exactly what I fear...so yeah, they evolve it seems! Although it seems to me as well that both try to evolve in such a way that they can get a piece of the 'casual Wii showed how to do it' pie and not necessarily consider a long term strategy (I would really wonder if Sony is even capable of such a long term strategy??).

To be honest, not much about actual strategy with respect to e.g. forward compatibility is known to public except some wild speculation so I am really curious if it will turn out like you suggest. Especially what happens if one chooses this strategy and the other does not. 3rd party devs will almost certainly have sleepless nights then...

One question though with respect to code based on standard api with compatibility on different devices: is this automatically connected with overhead? Is it still possible to get down to the metal and use all the juice with such a strategy? Is it still possible to clearly separate the game for different devices? Or would the difference blur a bit due to this strategy...say only difference in resolution, but no special features, higher quality assets, etc...Or is going to the metal exactly what you don't want any more, as it is to hardware specific and thus difficult to carry over to other platforms and difficult to make profit with?

 

[Cjail]

A console that can be upgraded brings the costs of PC to the console world which is something no console player asked for, and it won't even be as flexible as PC because the "upgrades" will be available ONLY form the console manufacturers effectively removing the freedom of choice that PC has.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Afaik the idea with consoles is to have a locked down hardware to target.
Someone correct me if i am wrong, just making educated guesses here.

The idea of 'locked down' hardware was to be competitive. There are lots of historical reasons why consoles were fixed on a shortish life cycle going back to their earliest days. Those reasons have reached a point where they aren't so important, so an alternative approach is a valid consideration. What you lose in peak hardware performance, you gain in flexibility. If I had a choice between a somewhat more powerful console, or a less powerful console where the games run on my PC and phone as well, that less-powerful discrete box gains a lot of value and makes the choice harder.

The assumption being there is no alternative. If MS had launched a 360+ in 2008, I'd have sold my 360 and bought a ps3 or just stuck with my pc.

Why sell a 360 to buy a PS3 that's no more capable? Your 360 still works and still plays the games and is still getting new content.

But then why even bother with consoles? Buy a PC and be happy.

PCs currently provide an uncomfortable interface, and to date haven't been price competitive on the entry level. If next-gen launches at a low spec, the relative cost of PC gaming drops massively.

If this is really where consoles are evolving, I expect them to not survive the next generation as a leading entertainment device.

That's exactly the concern. Can discrete boxes survive for many more generations? Plenty of folk speculate not, so you want to be leading the transition to the New Way as soon as you need to, instead of playing catch up. If MS have an upgradeable console this gen and Sony don't, and the market buys into MS's ecosystem (Windows is a part of that), where does that leave Sony in 5+ years? With an outdated box and a new box on the horizon that doesn't play the old library while the competition plays everywhere. PC and XBox are the same thing to MS in the long run. Only if they can sell hardware at a profit does it make sense to consider selling consoles. If they can encourage people onto PC instead but still sell the same services and games, that's a far better future.

 

[-tkf-]

The idea of 'locked down' hardware was to be competitive. There are lots of historical reasons why consoles were fixed on a shortish life cycle going back to their earliest days. Those reasons have reached a point where they aren't so important, so an alternative approach is a valid consideration. What you lose in peak hardware performance, you gain in flexibility. If I had a choice between a somewhat more powerful console, or a less powerful console where the games run on my PC and phone as well, that less-powerful discrete box gains a lot of value and makes the choice harder.

Why sell a 360 to buy a PS3 that's no more capable? Your 360 still works and still plays the games and is still getting new content.

PCs currently provide an uncomfortable interface, and to date haven't been price competitive on the entry level. If next-gen launches at a low spec, the relative cost of PC gaming drops massively.

That's exactly the concern. Can discrete boxes survive for many more generations? Plenty of folk speculate not, so you want to be leading the transition to the New Way as soon as you need to, instead of playing catch up. If MS have an upgradeable console this gen and Sony don't, and the market buys into MS's ecosystem (Windows is a part of that), where does that leave Sony in 5+ years? With an outdated box and a new box on the horizon that doesn't play the old library while the competition plays everywhere. PC and XBox are the same thing to MS in the long run. Only if they can sell hardware at a profit does it make sense to consider selling consoles. If they can encourage people onto PC instead but still sell the same services and games, that's a far better future.

Then the side benefit of the locked down hardware was you could really get more out of it than a shifting hardware base. Which turned out to be a very important part of the console world since we got some games that would have been impossible without this side benefit. And it added to the life span of the consoles.

Maybe i am wrong, but from reading these forums for years it's my impression that developers will go through fire to get the best out of every corner of the hardware they are targeting, Something that seems impossible with a shifting target. The we add a "thin layered api" and we can all see how that works, powerful PC's which should be magnitudes better than console doesn't really show it in the games.

An upgradeable Console will be a money sink if you try to keep up, it's just like being a PC gamer, you constantly have to upgrade to reap the rewards how many would do that (i am likely to do it but i am not everybody)?

Sony on the other hand will have a machine that will last at least 2 years as the undisputed king, and when developers are starting to get to grips with the 720 V1 there is a 720 V2 that soon should be released and it will need new games to show it's power. Where do i put my development money? On V1 , can i expect all the V1 owners to upgrade to V2?

A publisher will be seeing a constantly fragmenting market where they want to sell my games, within 8 years i would have 4 generations spread over 60 millions consoles (if we go by current standards). A market that i wont be able to make ONE game for

Sony on the other hand will have one market to target with their console and for every year that goes the developers will have learned to squeeze even more out of the hardware.

So Microsoft will have games for Windows 8 boxes, which we all know = compromise to target as many as possible. Which will compete on price with windows games (is that 40% lower price?) and have a ever moving hardware target. As someone else said, it's a dressed up Windows PC. I can understand why Valve was worried when Windows 8 came out, they saw the bigger picture. On the other hand, it's about time that Microsoft started to build their own PC's and took the battle to Apple.