Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[Bagel seed]

ROI for the market. Dev costs vs how much more it will sell for coding to the metal.

I was talking about ROI for myself as a consumer buying a console.

Problem is you won't get 2.5 TFLOPS class for $400 and even if you say you are willing to pay more, the market probably won't.

We won't because they can't do it or because they don't want to? To pass the buck.

Whatever console you buy, the graphics will be the same. Your "low settings" four years later is the same setting it was when you bought it. It's only because you saw something better that you want it. If Xbox 540/PS 3.5 had come out in 2009, your games in Xbox 360/PS3 would still look the same as they do now.

It seems you're looking at this from you personal perspective. You have to realize the market perspective isn't the same. I'm not saying a 2 year upgrade is the right way but the system we have now (reset, long cylces) is kind of breaking and tablets and upstarts like Ouya are starting to make it look antiquated.

Yes, I saw something better and I want it, but in order to do that I need to fork out $400 or whatever again. I and so many others have said this a few times now.... if that's how it is I'll stick to PC.

And actually like I just addressed before, the gaming market never cared about this constant upgrading model. So why are we championing them to force this model on them now? If we lost these fools to tablets then they are gone. It was never about graphics or specs post initial generation transition. Are you saying Orbis and Durango will fail unless they do constant refreshes to capture attention?

So you going to choose to be tided over with hardware.

1. That relies on a hardware upgrade method that offends you when applied to consoles.

2. Doesn't code to the metal because it's games relies on being compatible with 100s different hardware configuration.

3. Doesn't come close to playing nice with consumers as the potential of any PC hardware config doesnt come close to being realized.

Good luck on hoping that any gpu you buy this year will even be supported by the majority of newly released PC games in 6-7 years.

You're right, I'd probably upgrade my PC twice or something in the next few years. Not going cripple myself with a 6 yr old GPU intentionally. But like I already said before, I can do this on my own and cheaper! And anytime I want. I don't need several replacement boxes for this upgrading purpose. And I'm not limited to 200w. And I can brute force whatever efficiency is gained (especially now against this fat forward compat API).

---

To reiterate. Please quote and rebut these points if you want to. I don't like the multiquote sentence battles:

1) I don't need this upgrading model, I already got PC for that and have more freedom in how to upgrade. Not buying Durango with a fat API and 1.2TF for $400 in 2014 under general principle. Or a 2.4TF one in 2015 either. We enthusiasts should understand this.

2) Mass gaming console market never cared about constant upgrade style models ala iPad disease and etc. They really don't. Your little cousin is still awestruck at COD. So why do we want this for them? Are we afraid of the battle being lost before it even started against tablet and phone wars? This is not going to entice them back to consoles if we're that afraid of losing them to the tablet world. They are lost.

3) We are almost to the cloud in 7, 8 years. We aren't going to be doing this refresh thing in 2025. Why bother now for one gen?

 

[AzBat]

I think one thing people might be glossing over is that IF Microsoft goes with upgradeable console platform where newer, better, faster hardware released every 2 years they will probably allow you to either upgrade for free or at least at a low cost when purchasing via their 2 year contract. This is something you can't do with a PC(or if you can I haven't come across it). I might consider it next time. Didn't make sense this last time, but if I'm already paying for Gold & if they provided me a way to stay current with the latest hardware, then it could be very enticing. Yes, you may pay more in the long run, but people are doing it every day for their fancy iPhones & Android phones.

Tommy McClain

 

[trainplane]

Are you saying Orbis and Durango will fail unless they do constant refreshes to capture attention?

I'm saying that Orbis and Durango will look outdated in 4 years and in 8 years (the same time between 360 and Xbox Next), maybe no one cares about them at all if they are not refreshed. A top ARM A15 is already comparable to the 8-core Jaguar today and if Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, and Imagination (PowerVR) get agressive with the GPU side, you could see an Ouya type console or Android laptop match Durango and Orbis in 4-5 years. PC GPUs today of course already surpass the GPUs of Durango and Orbis in many ways.

1) I don't need this upgrading model, I already got PC for that and have more freedom in how to upgrade. Not buying Durango with a fat API and 1.2TF for $400 in 2014 under general principle. Or a 2.4TF one in 2015 either. We enthusiasts should understand this.

2) Mass gaming console market never cared about constant upgrade style models ala iPad disease and etc. They really don't. Your little cousin is still awestruck at COD. So why do we want this for them? Are we afraid of the battle being lost before it even started against tablet and phone wars? This is not going to entice them back to consoles if we're that afraid of losing them to the tablet world. They are lost.

3) We are almost to the cloud in 7, 8 years. We aren't going to be doing this refresh thing in 2025. Why bother now for one gen?

You don't know what the market wants because a short cycle cross compatible console doesn't exist. What we see is an iPad where consumers buy it in droves even with little real world benefits knowing it will be replace just months. Oh, and before the iPad, many people said the market doesn't need a giant iPod. In 2005 it was consoles only in the living room. In 2013, it is consoles, upstarts like Ouya, potentially Steambox, Alienware X51 and similar, maybe Apple, and tablets. The market is changing.

Cloud is not a forgone conclusion.

 

[-tkf-]

Comparison to iPad as an example of consumers willing to buy hardware knowing it will be updated in 6 months? Yes. .

If we should compare the iPad to consoles then we should expect consoles to be as easy to sell when a new revisions comes out. That remains to be seen. Historical it's not like used and old consoles have been considered very valuable when new editions came around. In this case it could be better since they wouldn't be totally useless. But i doubt you will see the same willingness to keep on spending money on games like people do with phones and tablets. The daily usage is just not on the same level.

 

[Bagel seed]

Ok, now I see where the arguments are coming from. You MBA dudes want people to be as upgrade hungry for consoles as they are iPads. Cool, I wish them the best of luck in that then.

Considering it was always, always about the games that made them money, this makes complete sense!

BTW I'm not against a 4 year cycle with a slightly fat forward compat API. Hopefully Orbis has this in mind and not this insane Apple envy model.

And I think we should have a little more faith in next gen too because from how you say it, it seems like the "competitors" have already won. Too much weight is put on how much you think the average person wants to upgrade for graphics constantly. That is the realm of the enthusiast, and we have PC's. Apple is Apple and should never be brought into the comparison. Let's wait for Steambox and Ouya to start creaming MS and Sony before we clamor for this.

 

[Squilliam]

What kind of console could they release as an update to Durango? Well if they release on 20nm then likely they could pack in more shaders, clock the cores a little higher and use DDR4 memory with say 50% higher bandwidth. If they don't upgrade the console then they will still pay all the costs to move to that node whilst taking no benefits for themselves given the extra cost of new nodes going forwards. If the console is hacked then they also have an opportunity to lock it down again with new hardware.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

1) I don't need this upgrading model, I already got PC for that and have more freedom in how to upgrade. Not buying Durango with a fat API and 1.2TF for $400 in 2014 under general principle. Or a 2.4TF one in 2015 either. We enthusiasts should understand this.

That's fine for you because you've already got a PC you can upgrade. Many console buyers haven't, either using a very outdated PC that needs a complete set of innards to replace, or a laptop.

2) Mass gaming console market never cared about constant upgrade style models

When has the mass market ever had an option of a constantly upgrading console?

3) We are almost to the cloud in 7, 8 years. We aren't going to be doing this refresh thing in 2025. Why bother now for one gen?

Cross device. Your XBox games run on your tablet and PC. This encourages adoption of the MS ecosystem where they are currently struggling to attract interest. Why would I buy a Windows tablet instead of Android or iPad? Because it plays the same XBox games! (thanks to a fat API). Why would I buy Xbox over PS3? Because it's games also run on my PC! Etc.

 

[ERP]

The problem with an upgradeable console is it ceases to be a console, at least if your drawing comparisons with the like of PS3/X360, it would end up being a software platform with improving hardware and a 3-6 year old performance baseline.
I actually think the software platform part is inevitable, it's just a question of when, but if a company went that way, unless the revenue driver changed I don't think they would lock themselves to a single piece of hardware. Apple does it on IOS devices because they make a lot of money selling them.

 

[Bagel seed]

@Shifty

Alright, let's take PC enthusiasts out of the equation.

Why are mainstream users better off or attracted more to this upgrading model, when the upgrading model is just a small iteration of performance over the years that will not be visually distinguishable to the common person? Answer: they wouldn't care. It can be debated whether or not most people will even appreciate the jump to next gen... a roughly 8x leap. They may already fail right off the bat. So 2 years later when 2.4TF box comes out they can fail again. Again, little Timmy still loves and thinks COD8 looks great and doesn't need iterating performance boxes to convince him to buy COD9.

So that leaves the it's better for the manufacturers argument. How will they make more money off of refreshed boxes that don't see a reduction in BOM because the savings were spent on TF boost? The money will still be made off of the 1.2TF box. But as usual the real money is made in software and has nothing to do with the boxes.

Cross platform and cross generation forward compat is another story. Those are good things in my book. Constant refresh however I think is a waste of time.

I am pro shortened cycle, just not 2-3 years shortened cycles with fat PC like API's.

 

[rockpunkx]

What if they tried to keep it very simple?

The base console is the whole entertainment box/dvr/kinect 2.0 with support for xbla games only. Purchase one upgrade module to play retail games at 720p 30fps. Purchase a 2nd module and your games would run at 1080p, 60fps. Would that be work at all?

Cost wise maybe $250-300 for the base system, ~$400 for the 'game' system with one module already installed. Extra modules would run around $100?

Personally I wouldnt mind an upgrade system like this, and its rumored that Microsoft wants a base kinect/dvr/media sku right?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why are mainstream users better off or attracted more to this upgrading model, when the upgrading model is just a small iteration of performance over the years that will not be visually distinguishable to the common person? Answer: they wouldn't care.

So why does Apple keep upgrading their hardware if no-one cares? People do. they may not distinguish the difference as a huge leap like traditional generational transitions, but they 1) can appreciate the same experience made better (higher framerates) and 2) even if Joe Public doesn't care, they can buy the cheap box wondering why Joe Gamer buys the Box+ because Joe Consumer doesn't see what Joe Gamer gets out of spending more money on seemingly the same experience.

It can be debated whether or not most people will even appreciate the jump to next gen... a roughly 8x leap. They may already fail right off the bat. So 2 years later when 2.4TF box comes out they can fail again. Again, little Timmy still loves and thinks COD8 looks great and doesn't need iterating performance boxes to convince him to buy COD9.

So he keeps his old box until he sees an upgrade he values.

So that leaves the it's better for the manufacturers argument. How will they make more money off of refreshed boxes that don't see a reduction in BOM because the savings were spent on TF boost?

There will be a cost, but you can't say 1 pro cancels out 1 cost. The cost, if using a fairly generic design, will be minimal. The reason new mobile devices can be released upgraded every year is because RnD isn't an astronomical cost. And remember we have the option of a multi-SKU platform, reducing the entry level box to make it cheaper and providing a high-end SKU for the top end. It's standard consumer market practice, and one where consoles are alone in not providing high-end versions and entry level margins (something which changed slightly this gen but only regards storage, and not actual device performance).

Cross platform and cross generation forward compat is another story. Those are good things in my book. Constant refresh however I think is a waste of time.

If you have cross-platform and cross-generation compatibility, you need a fat API. That means your hardware isn't being used as well as a fixed box to-the-metal system. To provide core gamers with the experience they want, you'll have to put in proportionally more hardware at higher cost. Or launch with a lower spec and lower price, and not be able to compete with the march of technology. However, if you have that fat API, you can switch in a new box whenever. Let's say Durango fairs poorly against Orbis because core gamers see it's outclassed. MS can roll out a higher performance replacement in 18 months to take back that performance edge. We have people suggesting Nintendo do the same given Wii U's current showing. The other option would be to do nothing for 5 years and have Durango a turkey and start again next gen. Does that make sense? Doesn't to me if it can be avoided. Instead the platform can be dynamic, rolling out upgrades as wanted, watching the market and responding, and remaining competitive.

I am pro shortened cycle, just not 2-3 years shortened cycles with fat PC like API's.

Then you won't have your cross-platform or cross-generation support. Fat APIs and hardware abstraction are needed for that. A significant problem though is people still seeing it in terms of cycles. It won't be a 2 or 3 year cycle. It'll be an evolving platform. Your old box doesn't die after 3 years as the traditional console cycle. You have the option to play your current-gen games in better qualities if you want after a couple of years of ownership. The software evolves from being confined to one box to playing across many devices. The cost of this is the end of closed hardware, to the metal coding, and amazing value-for-money on hardware that made console gaming far cheaper to enter than PC gaming and more user friendly. I expect hardcore console gamers to be resistant, wanting to stick with the Old Ways, I expect Joe consumer to be somewhat indifferent (if you think a 2 year hardware refresh isn't enough to impress Joe Consumer as an upgrade, how can you think a to-the-metal box will show more valuable improvement?) and be marketed to accordingly, and I expect mainstream gamers to be suitably impressed (with successful communication) of the possibilities that they'll prefer the software platform model.

 

[Squilliam]

If you're buying a console in year 3 which would you prefer. The same box as was released on launch day or a refreshed box? I wouldn't count on price cuts as I'm willing to bet that Microsoft/Sony have learnt their lesson and seen the massive profits Nintendo made on the Wii whilst the going was good and it wouldn't surprise me if they want to at least take a shot at a piece of that action. In the absence of price cuts this is another good way to increase value.

Heres a question. What if Microsoft for instance had updated the 360 in 2010 when they released their revision? I wonder if perhaps they would have if they didn't have to also support DVD, say if they had used an HD format instead where there was enough disc space to support multiple versions. What could they have done in hindsight? Perhaps some insight there could enlighten us as to what they could achieve if Durango/Orbis are upgradeable. What if they say doubled the number of shaders, trebled the EDRAM size and doubled the memory and slapped on another core with say twice the L2 cache? It'd have helped bridge this extended generation better and made the old machine a lot more current when the future consoles rolled out.

 

[-tkf-]

So why does Apple keep upgrading their hardware if no-one cares? People do. they may not distinguish the difference as a huge leap like traditional generational transitions, but they 1) can appreciate the same experience made better (higher framerates) and 2) even if Joe Public doesn't care, they can buy the cheap box wondering why Joe Gamer buys the Box+ because Joe Consumer doesn't see what Joe Gamer gets out of spending more money on seemingly the same experience..

Apple sells Phones, which people use alot more than consoles.
Phones doesn't last as long as consoles, they break, are dropped etc.
Actually i would say that the will to upgrade to new hardware in the smartphone sector will see a decline.
When it comes to Macbooks the will to upgrade is much lower, most people let their Mac's "die" before they upgrade.

Comparing a upgradeable console to Apple isn't valid imho.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Apple sells Phones, which people use alot more than consoles.
Phones doesn't last as long as consoles, they break, are dropped etc.

iPads aren't phones. Nor were iPods which were getting yearly updates.

Actually i would say that the will to upgrade to new hardware in the smartphone sector will see a decline.

I agree as I've mentioned before, but that's from a yearly upgrade to a, say, 3 yearly upgrade. I don't expect handhelds and tablets to be on 5+ year lifecycles as the consoles have been held to.

Comparing a upgradeable console to Apple isn't valid imho.

I wasn't making that comparison directly. I was just using Apple as a real-world example where annual hardware updates are generating consumer interest even when the result is a minor upgrade at times, in contrast to Bagel seeds's comment to the contrary.

There are two conflicting arguments philosophies being tooted by the "console preservation society" ()) though. 1) That a minor hardware update won't be worth it, and 2) That longer life sees better results from the hardware. If a hardware update doesn't bring enough to the platform to be worth it, then the updates in software which will be even more minor must be even less important to preserve.

 

[RobertR1]

The problem with an upgradeable console is it ceases to be a console, at least if your drawing comparisons with the like of PS3/X360, it would end up being a software platform with improving hardware and a 3-6 year old performance baseline.
I actually think the software platform part is inevitable, it's just a question of when, but if a company went that way, unless the revenue driver changed I don't think they would lock themselves to a single piece of hardware. Apple does it on IOS devices because they make a lot of money selling them.

And that's really the game. The console market is as backwards in that the manufacturers decided to subsidize to gain market share.

They should be finding a way to sell profitable hardware they can cycle out faster.

MS lost a ton with the original Xbox playing this game. Sony lost their ass in their Ps3. It's a silly gamble they take each gen and frankly quite unnecessary.

People tend to rebuy the console during the course of a generation anyway. Why not give them the chance to upgrade during this time.

You can still have the older sku for the lower price points but for those itching for an upgrade, they have an option also after 3-4 years.

It'd be the direction I'd take the market than this 7 year gamble....

 

[Bagel seed]

So why does Apple keep upgrading their hardware if no-one cares? People do. they may not distinguish the difference as a huge leap like traditional generational transitions, but they 1) can appreciate the same experience made better (higher framerates) and 2) even if Joe Public doesn't care, they can buy the cheap box wondering why Joe Gamer buys the Box+ because Joe Consumer doesn't see what Joe Gamer gets out of spending more money on seemingly the same experience.

Ok, I see where you're coming from Shifty. Still, I think Apple is Apple and what works for them is on a different plane of existence from others.

We'll just have to see it in action and if people will be attracted to that, because we're talking theoretical what if situations and using other non gaming markets as a template. Change for the sake of change. We did fine this gen, what is sparking the need for this new model?

I expect hardcore console gamers to be resistant, wanting to stick with the Old Ways, I expect Joe consumer to be somewhat indifferent (if you think a 2 year hardware refresh isn't enough to impress Joe Consumer as an upgrade, how can you think a to-the-metal box will show more valuable improvement?) and be marketed to accordingly, and I expect mainstream gamers to be suitably impressed (with successful communication) of the possibilities that they'll prefer the software platform model.

Right, I don't think Joe Consumer really cares that much and I think it's wholly unnecessary on the console manufacturer's part. We can argue what ifs like this all day and I could say they wouldn't be impressed enough and you could say they would be. This is a marketing exec's nightmare to try and sell it to the board which I'd never want the responsibility for I'm saying JC is good enough with one box over long stretches (maybe not 8 years long this time though) and new JC's will join the fray just as well as previous ones. See 2 decades of console history for that.

Whether one goes with a 2 year refresh and the other chooses 4-5, I really don't know who would go with what in the 3rd year (Squilliam's scenario) and what would sell better overall. There's too many variables. All I know is it wasn't necessary in the past and everything we're discussing about is being sold as being theoretically better using other markets as a template.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ok, I see where you're coming from Shifty. Still, I think Apple is Apple and what works for them is on a different plane of existence from others.

But it's not just Apple. It's every consumer electronics company in the world. Digital cameras are updated every year. TVs are. PVRs are. How many CE devices have a cycle of 5+ years with zero updates? None apart from consoles! When I bought my TV, I new it would be supplanted by new, improved model a year later, and two, and three. Likewise my camera. But I pick the points when I chose to upgrade. I'm currently eyeing the Galaxy Note 10.1, but I want to wait until it gets a higher resolution screen. I'm picking my own targets. With consoles it's not like that beyond price. You either buy a modern piece of hardware at a high price, or an outdated piece of hardware at a budget price, in stark contrast to other platforms and devices where you have a range of options from low to high end, cheap to expensive, offering a range of features from old to the cutting edge. There's no choice of a cheap 30 fps Halo playing box, or a more pricey 60 hps Halo playing box.

Change for the sake of change. We did fine this gen, what is sparking the need for this new model?

There is no market need for change per se, but if the upgradable model is better business sense both in wooing customers and generatng profitable revenue, then it 'needs' to happen. Remember that the current console business does very well at losing companies billions of dollars with its hit and miss strategy, and crazy race to success in the launch year. Sony's PS2 profits were wiped out by PS3, so 10 years of zero net profit, and XB360's success are building on the hole of XBox. So really, we've had 10 years of gaming generating net zero for the console companies other than Nintendo! Is that really 'doing fine'?

We can argue what ifs like this all day and I could say they wouldn't be impressed enough and you could say they would be.

No, I'm not saying they would be. I'm saying they might be. I'm not advocating the change - I'm advocating the possibility/viability/sense of it against those who flatly refuse it as a ridiculous notion.

 

[Bagel seed]

Ahh there's the difference. The real money is made in software, not hardware like all those other CE's. And people are pixel blind to an extent so console makers can get away with older hardware for longer stretches. What we pixel whores want isn't really relevant in the console game. Cross platform fat API right? PC would provide that fix. Console box would probably be more expensive as an upgrade.

Profit wise, looks like next gen will be fine. With these sub 2TF consoles no one is going to break the bank, so profit from the start after a few pieces of software sold is pretty likely, or even without!

No, I'm not saying they would be. I'm saying they might be. I'm not advocating the change - I'm advocating the possibility/viability/sense of it against those who flatly refuse it as a ridiculous notion.

Alright, I concede that point. There is probably some value in it. But from a PC enthusiasts POV I'm not impressed. And from Joe Schmoe's POV I'm not really convinced it warrants the effort.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ahh there's the difference. The real money is made in software, not hardware like all those other CE's. And people are pixel blind to an extent so console makers can get away with older hardware for longer stretches. What we pixel whores want isn't really relevant in the console game. Cross platform fat API right? PC would provide that fix. Console box would probably be more expensive as an upgrade.

Yes and no. I've considered the option of PC gaming, but there are other costs beyond the financial in terms of how games are represented. eg. There's less local coop in PC versions of games, and the interface is not consumer friendly yet (whole other thread on this!). If the console hardware is subsidised by software licenses, you should still be able to get more HW for your money from a new console than a PC. If you're already on the PC train, consoles won't offer better value, although they'll still be the launch platform for new peripherals and stuff.

Profit wise, looks like next gen will be fine. With these sub 2TF consoles no one is going to break the bank, so profit from the start after a few pieces of software sold is pretty likely, or even without!

But that's because both companies are eschewing the classic console model of old of packing in uber hardware that'll carry the console for 5+ years. 3 years in, these boxes are gonna be long in the tooth. It's as though they are setting themselves up for a shorter life by putting in HW with short legs.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I think it is time they went with a two machine approach. A consumer machine and an enthusiast machine.

One machine being sub $299, the other $449+.