Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[Shifty Geezer]

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...
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.

Um...this is a discussion forum and not a board meeting requiring hours and hours of preparation and presentation! You're asking a great deal. If someone else wants to go to all that effort, good for them, but I'm happy myself to look at similar sales and updates across the CE industry, couple that with a vision of a software platform, and see it's viable.

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.

That may just be patching Vita to 1.1 to solve shortcomings that should never have existed in the first place. We were all saying it needed HDMI out. Unless the internals get an update, I wouldn't count Vita as representative of the upgradeable console.

 

[-tkf-]

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.

I think i mentioned Metro apps earlier, so no. But as the Console goes to PC it also widens it's enemies.

but I'm happy myself to look at similar sales and updates across the CE industry, couple that with a vision of a software platform, and see it's viable.

But it's not like everybody updates their CE devices at every refresh. In this case its a problem since the CE device in question is used to sell software as well, not just a dumb piece of electronic.

Yes the iOS software does a nice job of proving me wrong with 3(?) generations of hardware, but in that case i think this thread has shown us that it can't be compared since iOS games are something else, and apparently they all aim for the lowest spec, with few updates on the top hardware.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes the iOS software does a nice job of proving me wrong with 3(?) generations of hardware, but in that case i think this thread has shown us that it can't be compared since iOS games are something else, and apparently they all aim for the lowest spec, with few updates on the top hardware.

But that's looking at only 2-3 years of devices. In five years time, will iOS developers all still be aiming at 7 years old hardware? The PC shows a truly progressive architecture and how devs have moved the bottom end forwards as the years have progressed and technology has become outdated for what they want to do. No-one's going to target a Ti4200 any more because it's old news. No-one's going to target to a single core 1024x768 iPad in a few years because it'll be outdated and the market of higher spec'd iPads will outnumber it 3:1 and those people interested in better games will have better hardware.

The logic that devs will be eternally capped by the lowest SKU is only valid if you forget there is competition between software on the same platform. If Battlefield targeted PS2 level and sold to last gen as well as this gen, providing graphical upgrades, it'd have a target market over twice as large, but it'd lose completely the modern, more active market to games targeting the smaller userbase of current-gen machines. Likewise if Battlefields and COD move to iPad in 2014, the game that targets only iPad4s and above and lokos far better because of it will likely sell far better than the game that targets iPad1 and above and looks a dog next to the 'next-gen' iOS game. It's way too early to see that in the iOS space, but market forces and parallels with other platforms tell us this will happen, and would happen with a software platform console too.

 

[Gubbi]

It doesn't have to be either/or.

You could provide long term support for a generic API, while still allowing more low level access through a "native" API.

For example, Microsoft could put the Win RT stack on the next XBOX. You'd then have all the casual games made for phones and tablets, as well as a shit ton of shovelware, but also quality productivity apps. These programs will continue to work on the next gen hardware.

At the same time you could have AAA games that utilize every single feature of the hardware. These won't necessarily run on the next installment of hardware.

While I don't think rapid hardware revisions of a console is a viable idea in general, I do think the PS4/720 generation will be rather short. In one to two years time DDR4 will be the commodity RAM of choice and stacked memory will be standard vastly improving performance at any given cost.

Cheers

 

[Phil]

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.

Perhaps. Although, when you look at the last 8 years (this generation) and consider what may happen in the next 2 years, it's easy to see why:

People are not buying high-end "set-top-boxes" that happen to do a lot of stuff, among other, playing games - they are buying "game consoles" to play games, with some features of the console that go beyond gaming. There's a difference.

You don't sell your console to 50 million gamers and then suddenly think that those 50 million will automatically buy your new set-top-box that happens to share the same name. All else considered - when next generation starts, for the most people outthere, the next Xbox and the next PlayStation will be viewed as game consoles with extra features.


This might be changing, but it hasn't by much so far - and I'm still having a hard-time imagening what features outside of gaming that should make the newer consoles attractive multimedia boxes that would make people stop viewing them as machines predominantly for gaming.
There's also the point to be made that these other features don't bind the costumer to the platform. If a costumer uses the set-top-box to watch movies, listen to music, view pictures - it's as replacable as any other piece of CE electronics outthere. The only thing that will bind a costumer to their platform to some degree is building up a friendly software-eco-system, one like Apple has for its i-devices (iPhone, iPad etc) or Google has for its Android devices. Buy software that will also run even when you replace your old hardware with newer one.

The only thing is - what software do people want to run on their set-top-box / TV? An email client? A fancy picture viewer? Beyond games, I just can't think of anything else really, now that tablets are becoming popular and probably already found in many households, replacing the PC for basic surfing, emailing and showing pictures. And because games are still the predominant aspect of what the game console will do - the stackable hardware argument with iterating consoles is relevant - and especially, how well it runs games.

If we have the scenario that Microsoft is going with a forwards-compatible platform and Sony concentrates on the 'traditional' console cycle, it'll be interesting to see how they compare to each other.

For one, I question how game developers tackle the "lowest-common-denominator" issue when they have 3 iterations of hardware to consider like -tfk- pointed out and with that in mind, how version3 games compare to effectively games running on your nearest competitor on fixed but older hardware when they have the version1 hardware to consider.

IMO - it would make more sense to have two APIs - one for forward compatible software (like mini games and software that extend beyond gaming that push your box to be more than just for gaming) and the other for games that need to compare well to your nearest competitor. I don't think you can have both at the same time.

 

[Phil]

But that's looking at only 2-3 years of devices. In five years time, will iOS developers all still be aiming at 7 years old hardware? The PC shows a truly progressive architecture and how devs have moved the bottom end forwards as the years have progressed and technology has become outdated for what they want to do. No-one's going to target a Ti4200 any more because it's old news. No-one's going to target to a single core 1024x768 iPad in a few years because it'll be outdated and the market of higher spec'd iPads will outnumber it 3:1 and those people interested in better games will have better hardware.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the argument. On iOS, people are buying a multi-media device, most probably a smartphone for making phonecalls. That's the primary function of any smartphone. Thanks to subscription models offered by telephone providers, it's easy and cheap to upgrade in most countries every 2 years. Because technology is fast pacing, it makes sense. Just because people there are willing to upgrade within 2 years doesn't mean they'll do the same on consoles where the market so far as been anything but.

In the console market, the predominant aspect is playing games. It needs to do this well. I think the intriguing point is:

- if the console is made to be forwards compatible - how well will the games take advantage of the hardware?

I think if the console is cheap enough for costumers to buy and upgrade, it could work - but not if your nearest competitor is going with a traditional console cycle, potentially equal (at some point worse) but more efficiently used hardware and outperforming you in the one area that matters: games.

 

[Bagel seed]

Um...this is a discussion forum and not a board meeting requiring hours and hours of preparation and presentation! You're asking a great deal. If someone else wants to go to all that effort, good for them, but I'm happy myself to look at similar sales and updates across the CE industry, couple that with a vision of a software platform, and see it's viable.

It is like turning in a board meeting already. Except it's a bunch of marketing execs with no data, figures, and research just miming and flailing their arms around

Just looking for a simple breakdown like Squilliam tried above. Numbers and examples would help describe what people have in mind.

Like here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1691958&postcount=91
Or here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1704308&postcount=1773

 

[patsu]

That may just be patching Vita to 1.1 to solve shortcomings that should never have existed in the first place. We were all saying it needed HDMI out. Unless the internals get an update, I wouldn't count Vita as representative of the upgradeable console.

At this point, yes. They also need to make more $$$$ first to cover the initial R&D costs before they can upgrade the console. But mobile computing is one area where people are used to fast changing specs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the argument. On iOS, people are buying a multi-media device, most probably a smartphone for making phonecalls.

Elliminate iPhone and think just iPad which is the device I was specifically referring to. There's no subscription or upgrade cycle there, beyond people wanting to buy the latest model.

- if the console is made to be forwards compatible - how well will the games take advantage of the hardware?

They don't. There's an abstraction layer. You trade high HW utilisation for greater device flexibility.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just looking for a simple breakdown like Squilliam tried above. Numbers and examples would help describe what people have in mind. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1704308&postcount=1773

But I don't have a business plan. Whether the new box comes out in 2 years or 2.5 or 3, or annually in tick-tock fashion, and whether it's high-end and lossy or cheap and cheerful, are just variables. There are many ways to play the upgradable console (software platform, more accurately) strategy and no-one's in a position to use anything but completely made up numbers for market appeal and response, finance options, likely software costs and sell-through, etc. when making a case based on numbers.

Your roadmap is as good as any. How do you determine BOM for those boxes, and retail price, and market response and sell-through and licensing revenues and profitability and die shrinks? We can't guess any of that stuff for a fixed-console box (no-one can, hence why MS entered the business and sold 20 million XB and lost billions, and Sony entered and sold 100 million and made buckets, and Nintendo have yo-yo'd between success and failure, and many have hoped for a die shrink with whatever savings only to find those savings didn't materialise, etc.), so why should we be required to predict that for an upgradeable platform?

 

[Phil]

Elliminate iPhone and think just iPad which is the device I was specifically referring to. There's no subscription or upgrade cycle there, beyond people wanting to buy the latest model.

How do you know what percentage of sales are from people upgrading and not people buying their first tablet? The tablet market is potentially huge - the tablet is practically eating into the sales of PCs and Laptops as a replacement for basic PC usage (browsing/email/multimedia stuff). I'm not sure one can argue how many people are in fact "upgrading".

I'm not disputing that there are a lot of technology savy people outthere that are in fact upgrading, but contrary, there are also a lot of people new to the whole tablet experience - not to mention Apple has done a damn good job in getting their userbase to buy expensive posh hardware with a very strong brand name.

Tablets are relatively new and interesting. Of course they are selling. Given tablets are the new "hot" CE device on the market, I think it's a bit early to make a compelling argument that this market is comparable to the hypothetical situation of having an iterating-console-platform for games and extra features. I stand by that tablets != consoles in this scenario.

They don't. There's an abstraction layer. You trade high HW utilisation for greater device flexibility.

Now that's a very simple answer to a quite complex question IMO.

The point I was making: If Microsoft ships with a console that has forward compatibility in mind and Sony ships with a console with an expected 6+ year life-span in the traditional sense - to the average consumer, he'll be ultimately looking at two platforms - one with less efficient utilization (Xbox), thus weaker visuals and one with better utilization (Sony) with better graphics.

The argument there is that 2 years down the road, Microsoft may ship iteration version 2 that will have vastly better specs, but due to the abstraction layer and devs coding while keeping the lowest-common-denominator in mind, they might still not achieve parity with Sony's 2 year older hardware.

This presents a problem IMO. Microsoft is in this example effectively selling a console with an evolving platform but inferior graphics for the first X years. Under these circumstance it will be extremely challenging to gain a foothold into the *market. If they can't sell their console, due to the competitor taking away all its sales, who says there will ever be version 2? Or Version 3?

I don't think this is going to happen. I can see Microsoft doing two strategies: One where devs can code to a less agressive abstraction layer and one for programs that have forward compatibility as a high priority.


*market = market being the market they are catering to now with the x360/PS3 - effectively, the hardcore gamers of today wanting a upper level console for gaming.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This presents a problem IMO. Microsoft is in this example effectively selling a console with an evolving platform but inferior graphics for the first X years. Under these circumstance it will be extremely challenging to gain a foothold into the *market.

Yes, that's the challenge and the risk. On the other side of that, MS offer a cross-device and future-safe experience that Sony isn't. If Duranog is effectively a Windows box, then as long as there's Windows, there's the possiblity of someone wanting a simple box for the living room, hence a Windows console. That's one take. As I say, there are various options. Thus the failure to gain massive mindshare with Durango 1 versus PS4 due to performance difference (where I think experience and services will be much more the deciding factor, plus existing market shares and brand loyalty) wouldn't mean the death of Durango and the end of v2 and v3.

I don't think this is going to happen. I can see Microsoft doing two strategies: One where devs can code to a less agressive abstraction layer and one for programs that have forward compatibility as a high priority.

That's another possibility, and one Sony seems to be taking with PSM, but that does mean no forwards compatibility for the gamers who are the people
who'd likely most want it (the subset who want a better experience after 3 years).

 

[dobwal]

It doesn't have to be either/or.

You could provide long term support for a generic API, while still allowing more low level access through a "native" API.

For example, Microsoft could put the Win RT stack on the next XBOX. You'd then have all the casual games made for phones and tablets, as well as a shit ton of shovelware, but also quality productivity apps. These programs will continue to work on the next gen hardware.

At the same time you could have AAA games that utilize every single feature of the hardware. These won't necessarily run on the next installment of hardware.

While I don't think rapid hardware revisions of a console is a viable idea in general, I do think the PS4/720 generation will be rather short. In one to two years time DDR4 will be the commodity RAM of choice and stacked memory will be standard vastly improving performance at any given cost.

Cheers

Forget RT we might get full blown Windows 8 given that we talking x86 and not ARM and especially since microsoft has thought about this as describe in this patent.

[0067] In yet another embodiment, the shared CPU 307, the shared GPU 309, or both may execute a different general purpose operating system (e.g. Windows.RTM.) or provide additional functionality outside of that provided by either the platform services or the multimedia application. For example, these processing units 307, 309 may run a standard personal computer (PC) operating system and its associated graphical user interface, and the applications and services the PC OS provides or is compatible with such as Internet access via a browser, word processing, productivity, content generation and audiovisual applications.

[0068] In FIG. 3A, the system memory may also store mode change software 335. This is for a different embodiment wherein, instead of having a separate CPU and GPU for executing the multimedia computer system in a general purpose mode, the software switches out a CPU of one of the partitions, likely the application CPU to execute in a general purpose computer mode. The GPU of the partition may also be switched out. For ease of description, the mode wherein a multimedia application like a game executing with platform services is designated multimedia mode, and an operation mode wherein a general purpose operating system is executing is referred to as general purpose computer mode. A user may provide input via an input device indicating he or she desires to switch between modes. When switching between mode, the state of the system in the current executing mode is put in hibernation. The CPU, and the GPU, in some examples, is loaded with instructions and data is loaded into runtime memory as needed for executing the other mode. (The discussion focuses on switching between two modes for ease of description but modes may be changed between more than two modes.) If the mode being switched to previously had other applications running, the state of those applications may be restored to the point of the mode switch in some embodiments.

And a QoS console not only hint at more aggressive refreshes, it hints at multiple configurations of skus at launch.

 

[tuna]

That may just be patching Vita to 1.1 to solve shortcomings that should never have existed in the first place. We were all saying it needed HDMI out. Unless the internals get an update, I wouldn't count Vita as representative of the upgradeable console.

Having used the Vita quite a bit I do not see what it would gain with an HDMI out. Wouldn't it be better to make PS3/4 versions of the games instead?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Having used the Vita quite a bit I do not see what it would gain with an HDMI out. Wouldn't it be better to make PS3/4 versions of the games instead?

It would be a big help for media playback

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Having used the Vita quite a bit I do not see what it would gain with an HDMI out. Wouldn't it be better to make PS3/4 versions of the games instead?

Media playback primarily as AlphaWolf says, and gaming on a big screen while away from the console. Even if big-screen gaming can be argued away with the in-built screen being plenty good enough and a long HDMI cable being an issue, the media playback is important added value that sees Vita lose out to tables and high-end smart devices and specific media player, where the addition of this cheap component would give Vita one more reason to be bought. And Sony need as many reasons as possible!

I'm checking any potential portable I'm considering for HDMI out. It's proven invaluable on my Transformer tablet.

 

[tuna]

The Vita is a pretty shitty media playback device in any case. Adding HDMI out wouldn't change that.

 

[jonabbey]

Original XBox engineer Nat Brown calls out Microsoft for not supporting an iOS/Android style app ecosystem on XBox:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...l-xbox-slams-microsofts-current-xbox-strategy

 

[patsu]

The Vita is a pretty shitty media playback device in any case. Adding HDMI out wouldn't change that.

This I kinda agree. They should optimize the playback experience so that it's like a dedicated media playback device.

Right now, it's very console-ish. You can play music while gaming, but compared to an iPad mini, it's more clumsy to use and has less features.

Scaling it up to 1080p on a big screen TV probably will look like *ss.

*BUT*

Throw in a VR visor support (via HDMI out). Then we may have something interesting.

 

[joker454]

Original XBox engineer Nat Brown calls out Microsoft for not supporting an iOS/Android style app ecosystem on XBox:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...l-xbox-slams-microsofts-current-xbox-strategy

That's one of the most bizarre articles I've ever read. He thinks the last five years of Xbox were painful to watch, the years in which it became a force to be reckoned with rather than the joke it was when the brand started? He bashes Microsoft for trying to stop second hand sales, yet praises Apple even though their entire ecosystem doesn't permit second hand sales? He blasts Microsoft for not supporting indie developers, when any indie developer can download all the tools for free and put out any game they want? He thinks Apple would kill everyone by bringing their ecosystem to the TV, yet he blasts Microsoft for basically trying to do the exact same thing? Seriously, I don't get this article at all, wtf is he talking about?