Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[Bagel seed]

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.

It all depends. If they can subsidize it to the level that beats my PC upgrading ability in cost/perf/IQ, I welcome it. Looks doubtful though, if they're starting off with 1.2TF fat API and $400 + subs.

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.

From PC guy's POV they may already be long in the tooth right off the bat. Are they really going to be long in the tooth for everyone in 3 yrs? Let's see how impressive the tech demos are Feb 20. If I don't see Agni's quality there I'm waiting another year or so. Joe Schmoe might not care either way and jump in and keep jumping in for the next few years regardless.

 

[-tkf-]

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 You either buy a modern piece of hardware at a high price, or an outdated piece of hardware at a budget price, in stark contrast to other platforms and devices where you have a range of options from low to high end, cheap to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.

Many of the CE devices you mention have a limited return on investment, meaning the updates are incremental. I wont see a big differences between a TV that is 4 years older than a new one. Tablets are getting there as well, a high resolution screen is not a new experience, things will look better sure, but again it's not a earth shaking event.

The reason why everything is updated is the crazy way the market works, it's not because the devices becomes twice as good over 12 months or the customers can see a difference.

One of the issues i think still hasn't been covered by the Incremental Console Society is the thing about developing for 4 different versions and having to squeeze the game down to the smallest. I think there is a serious challenge there. While there are ways to compromise there is no doubt that there will be compromises to cater to the low spec model, and as time progresses those compromises will grow. Version 4 will simply be the one version where the customer gets the least for the money, the most powerful hardware limited by the weakest hardware.

Yes publishers can choose to target only V4, but as the version number increases there is a real risk of it selling less and less than the previous versions. in order to succeed it would have to grow a new market or risk reaching saturation to fast.

The console preservation society on the other will have old hardware but the focus of every publisher since the target for the games are the same hardware. Making development easier as times goes by and as a secondary bonus the budget is used on the game not 4 different platforms.

 

[trainplane]

The issue of multi-generation software development has been discussed on this thread multiple times.

Those advocating the traditional way of managing consoles still haven't addressed many of the broken parts of the genration model that has resulted in both Sony and MS having a net of zero profit as was mentioned earlier--namely that each new generation starts at zero user base and the work of the previous generation is nullified which is why the leadership position keeps changing. They have to throw away the ecosystem they built up. Plus because generations need to be long, after eight years, the luster of a the hardware wears off. Meanwhile machines like the iPad generate huge excitment each year. Hardware releases tend to generate massive buzz. And last but not least, console makers lose money on hardware.

A cross compatible console with shorter cycles addresses all of these issues. No more restarts, grow your ecosystem, profit on hardware, no 8 year stagnation, and allowing the hardware makers to generate hardware excitement every few years. Yes there are drawbacks such as developers can't write to the metal but other than for the geek crowd, that isn't so important. And yes, R&D and manufacturing is higher but using standard PC parts alleviates this a great deal.

 

[-tkf-]

The issue of multi-generation software development has been discussed on this thread multiple times.

Maybe i missed it, but since you know maybe you can tell me how you would design a game for a PS2 and still take advantage of a PS3?

Those advocating the traditional way of managing consoles still haven't addressed many of the broken parts of the genration model that has resulted in both Sony and MS having a net of zero profit as was mentioned earlier--namely that each new generation starts at zero user base and the work of the previous generation is nullified which is why the leadership position keeps changing. They have to throw away the ecosystem they built up.

Actually Microsoft was on to something with the original XBOX, which was ordinary PC parts. They threw that away with the 360, which i at that time considered stupid. They also made the mistake of just killing the XBOX instead of letting it live like Sony does with their old consoles until they don't sell anymore.

Plus because generations need to be long, after eight years, the luster of a the hardware wears off.

They used to be 5-6 years the need is something that we can only fault MS and Sony for.

Meanwhile machines like the iPad generate huge excitment each year. Hardware releases tend to generate massive buzz. And last but not least, console makers lose money on hardware.

I think the comparison to apple products is getting overused, Lenovo, Dell and HP release new hardware every year to less excitement.

A cross compatible console with shorter cycles addresses all of these issues. No more restarts, grow your ecosystem, profit on hardware, no 8 year stagnation, and allowing the hardware makers to generate hardware excitement every few years. Yes there are drawbacks such as developers can't write to the metal but other than for the geek crowd, that isn't so important. And yes, R&D and manufacturing is higher but using standard PC parts alleviates this a great deal.

Surely it helps on many issues, but it introduces it's own issues and it really is a glorified Microsoft PC.

 

[trainplane]

Maybe i missed it, but since you know maybe you can tell me how you would design a game for a PS2 and still take advantage of a PS3?
...

Not even sure what this means. We're talking consoles of the future built with upgradablility in mind.

Also, you know why this generation is going on 8 years right? Because the console makers and publishers are weary of restarting from zero. They would love for people to keep buying 360/PS3 software for 15 years if possible. As long as costs keep rising and a reset is required, you'll never see 5 years again. Only when they are pushed--when sales stagnate--that they would be pressured to create a new console in the generation model.

Hardware excitment happens for devices that are mass market hence the Apple analogy. But if you don't like Apple, there is the Galaxy S IV generating huge buzz. And the next Google Nexus devices too. All annual releases.

The PC analogy is not quite right since these are controlled devices. It's more like an iPad or even a Macbook. To be fair, I never liked one company controlling all aspects of your purchase which is why I prefer a Windows/Linux/Android approach, but for the console market that isn't possible--you give up freedom because you need stability.

 

[Bagel seed]

They'll be fine with the razor and blades model. Except this time the AMD razor won't be sold at huge losses. It may actually turn out to be the best generation yet for profits in the last 2 decades. And they can go back to 4, 5 yr cycle with back and forward compat if they stick to x86 and AMD CU's.

No need to project gear upgrade fetish needs to the average gamer. Every post in support of this idea is pushing for that for some reason.

 

[-tkf-]

Not even sure what this means. We're talking consoles of the future built with upgradablility in mind.

Well, my PS2/PS3 example is meant to show the difference between the first versions of a PC720 and the third version. Maybe the upgrade between each generation wont be as big. Which is another issue, how much exactly can we expect to see the PC720 improve over 24 months.

Also, you know why this generation is going on 8 years right? Because the console makers and publishers are weary of restarting from zero. They would love for people to keep buying 360/PS3 software for 15 years if possible. As long as costs keep rising and a reset is required, you'll never see 5 years again. Only when they are pushed--when sales stagnate--that they would be pressured to create a new console in the generation model.

The generation last as long as there is money to be earned, the PS2 stopped production last year. There is no evidence that updating a console every 2 years would make a difference in that regard.

Hardware excitment happens for devices that are mass market hence the Apple analogy. But if you don't like Apple, there is the Galaxy S IV generating huge buzz. And the next Google Nexus devices too. All annual releases.

Nothing compares to iPhone launches, but i doubt you can generate the same lemming like launches with a console every 2 years.

The PC analogy is not quite right since these are controlled devices. It's more like an iPad or even a Macbook. To be fair, I never liked one company controlling all aspects of your purchase which is why I prefer a Windows/Linux/Android approach, but for the console market that isn't possible--you give up freedom because you need stability.

A PC made by Microsoft could do the same thing as Apple does, which is why i call it a glorified PC. Microsoft would have 100% control over hardware and software.

 

[Cjail]

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....

The need/itch to upgrade is something no console player has because consoles, as they are now, don't require it.
PC on the other hand runs almost on "obsolescence"; on PC the you need/itch for upgrades.

 

[RobertR1]

The need/itch to upgrade is something no console player has because consoles, as they are now, don't require it.
PC on the other hand runs almost on "obsolescence"; on PC the you need/itch for upgrades.

There no itch because their is no such option. Once you provide that option for people, they will turn up.

That's my bet.

 

[-tkf-]

There no itch because their is no such option. Once you provide that option for people, they will turn up.

That's my bet.

Most of us around here may have that itch. But the itch for something that few people use every day is not going to be on level with phones and tablets.

 

[RobertR1]

Most of us around here may have that itch. But the itch for something that few people use every day is not going to be on level with phones and tablets.

As long as each iteration provides better value and can be swapped out for cheap, while maintaining the same subscription plan, I think it'd be a solid hit, especially in the US.

Consumer conditioning is already there. Just need to provide a product for them now.

 

[Cjail]

There no itch because their is no such option. Once you provide that option for people, they will turn up.

That's my bet.

Such an option is not needed.
Obsolescence should not rule consoles as well.

 

[-tkf-]

As long as each iteration provides better value and can be swapped out for cheap, while maintaining the same subscription plan, I think it'd be a solid hit, especially in the US.

Consumer conditioning is already there. Just need to provide a product for them now.

Again, i think the point of entry into consoles is higher than it is for something that you have to use every day, and which is an important tool in every modern life.

How much would you think that a subscription model like that would end up costing pr month?

 

[joker454]

Again, i think the point of entry into consoles is higher than it is for something that you have to use every day, and which is an important tool in every modern life.

It sounds like you're still thinking of a console as a box that just plays games, a situation that is fast coming to an end.

 

[Billy Idol]

It sounds like you're still thinking of a console as a box that just plays games, a situation that is fast coming to an end.

But isn't this exactly what everyone wants when buying a console? At least...I want it. For everything else, we have PC. And imo, no closed box can beat a PC.

Edit: maybe, consoles are really fast coming to an end

 

[Bagel seed]

Everyone for this model, break it down for us, over a 6 year period. No more "I bet it will work" or "it's the future" or "Apple is doing it well" statements.

Tell us the upgrade and refresh schedule with BOM costs, pricing and performance. Account for redesign costs and potential node refresh gains and timing. Tell us who you are targeting with each refresh and how many you expect to sell of each over previous models. Tell us how much better v2 game will look compared to v1 game. And when do you anticipate vX to be 8-10x more powerful (a traditional leap) than v1?

I want to know how it will work and make more money for them than with a one box per gen model, which should be small to no loss this time.

 

[Squilliam]

Everyone for this model, break it down for us, over a 6 year period. No more "I bet it will work" or "it's the future" or "Apple is doing it well" statements.

Tell us the upgrade and refresh schedule with BOM costs, pricing and performance. Account for redesign costs and potential node refresh gains and timing. Tell us who you are targeting with each refresh and how many you expect to sell of each over previous models. Tell us how much better v2 game will look compared to v1 game. And when do you anticipate vX to be 8-10x more powerful (a traditional leap) than v1?

I want to know how it will work and make more money for them than with a one box per gen model, which should be small to no loss this time.

It already costs X to move to a new node. Memory technology like DDR4 will be cheaper than GDDR5 and/or high speed DDR3 in a couple of years because it will become commodity. So if we take Durango we could see them increase the clock speed to 1Ghz/2Ghz and increase the memory bandwidth ~100GB/S as well as increase the number of CUs to 20. This would represent around a doubling of GPU compute resources which could be used to increase the dynamic resolution of some of the display layers and perhaps offer native 3D support for games. Lets call this the 2014 refresh. They could cut the cost of the lower end model at the same time by supporting flash instead of rotating HDD if they can fit 128GB in a reasonably small budget.

In 2017 they could release a new architecture entirely on 14nm. They can use the refreshed Durango as a lower cost box for another couple of years before retiring it.

 

[trainplane]

Extremetech is positing a similar position (that the traditional console cycles are ending): http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/147945-traditional-hardware-release-cycles-are-a-thing-of-the-past

I think 2014 would be too early but a 2016 refresh seems like a good idea since that would be the time for AMD's post Volcanic Island card. Once the console family can have a cross compatible high/low version, they can start making money on hardware. The low is low margin as usual (but not selling at a loss) and the high is the high margin for enthusiast, pretty much how Intel sells the i7 for enthusiast and i3 for mainstream. With this cadence, the console manufacturer never has to release a console for a loss again.

 

[patsu]

There is a new rumor of an updated Vita. It will add HDMI out and 4G at the same price point. Perhaps Sony will do faster refresh for its mobile game console to keep up with other mobile devices. Let's see.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Extremetech is positing a similar position (that the traditional console cycles are ending): http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/147945-traditional-hardware-release-cycles-are-a-thing-of-the-past

Assertion based on Apple and Ouya. When any of these platforms start getting AAA software, call me.