Please enlighten me then.
Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
Please enlighten me then.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
One of the problems lately is that Moore's Law is slowing down.
The PS2 launched in 2000 with EE on a 250 nm process
X360 launched in 2005 with CPU on a 90 nm process
X1/PS4 are launching in 2013 with SOCs on a 28 nm process
See, it only took 5 years for process nodes to be about 1/3rd in size. Then it took 8 years for that to happen again.
I don't think we'll see the next boxes until 10 nm processes are mature. That might not be until 2022 or something.
PS: I just noticed that X1 and PS4 are roughly 8-10x as powerful as their predecessors and have roughly 10 times the transistor density. I suppose that's not too surprising for most people around here.
The PS2 launched in 2000 with EE on a 250 nm process
X360 launched in 2005 with CPU on a 90 nm process
X1/PS4 are launching in 2013 with SOCs on a 28 nm process
See, it only took 5 years for process nodes to be about 1/3rd in size. Then it took 8 years for that to happen again.
I don't think we'll see the next boxes until 10 nm processes are mature. That might not be until 2022 or something.
PS: I just noticed that X1 and PS4 are roughly 8-10x as powerful as their predecessors and have roughly 10 times the transistor density. I suppose that's not too surprising for most people around here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I doubt Microsoft will release a new console sooner than 2016. Most likely 2017 or 2018. The following is just toying with the idea of how a four-year cycle would work.
There would probably be some benefits to switching to the smartphone model. One is that you always have a premium model that you can try to sell for big margins and a cheaper model that you can sell on volume. There will always be that small group of people willing to pay for the latest and greatest.
The other is that it could actually simplify generational cross-platform issues. Right now, you have developers in a situation where developing for PS4, Xbox One alone is a financial risk. There still aren't a lot of units out there. That leads to cross-platform PS360 development, on hardware that is vastly different than the newer simpler consoles. If you could make a game and distribute one executable that could run on both Xbox Two and Xbox One, or PS5 and PS4, that could make things a lot easier. Suddenly you're not limited solely to the next-gen market, or having to worry about having multiple teams working on different versions of the game. You ship one disc, one version, that can be played on both. This all relies on the hardware being similar enough, of course, that you could do that, like having two PCs with different specs that run at different settings, but ultimately run the same code. There may be other considerations, like disc space because of texture resolutions.
On the consumer side, you could skip models. If I have an Xbox One, I don't need to buy Xbox Two, but I can upgrade when Xbox Three comes out. I'm not sure why this would be so offensive to people. You'd still have more longevity than the phone, tablet space, where you have only about a year or two before you're well behind on the latest and greatest. Those products are equally as expensive as new consoles. I don't think 4 years between hardware releases would be all that bad.
Also I think mandating and explicitly stating, "All Xbox Two games will run on Xbox One," would go a long way to preventing Xbox One owners from feeling cheated (as gamers tend to do about nearly everything, being the entitled pricks they are). It's the only way an upgrade would work. You couldn't cut off the old console from getting new titles too fast. You'd end up with an eight-year lifecycle for Xbox One with a four-year overlap into Xbox Two. Then Xbox Two would have an eight-year lifecycle with a four-year overlap into Xbox Three etc.
There would probably be some benefits to switching to the smartphone model. One is that you always have a premium model that you can try to sell for big margins and a cheaper model that you can sell on volume. There will always be that small group of people willing to pay for the latest and greatest.
The other is that it could actually simplify generational cross-platform issues. Right now, you have developers in a situation where developing for PS4, Xbox One alone is a financial risk. There still aren't a lot of units out there. That leads to cross-platform PS360 development, on hardware that is vastly different than the newer simpler consoles. If you could make a game and distribute one executable that could run on both Xbox Two and Xbox One, or PS5 and PS4, that could make things a lot easier. Suddenly you're not limited solely to the next-gen market, or having to worry about having multiple teams working on different versions of the game. You ship one disc, one version, that can be played on both. This all relies on the hardware being similar enough, of course, that you could do that, like having two PCs with different specs that run at different settings, but ultimately run the same code. There may be other considerations, like disc space because of texture resolutions.
On the consumer side, you could skip models. If I have an Xbox One, I don't need to buy Xbox Two, but I can upgrade when Xbox Three comes out. I'm not sure why this would be so offensive to people. You'd still have more longevity than the phone, tablet space, where you have only about a year or two before you're well behind on the latest and greatest. Those products are equally as expensive as new consoles. I don't think 4 years between hardware releases would be all that bad.
Also I think mandating and explicitly stating, "All Xbox Two games will run on Xbox One," would go a long way to preventing Xbox One owners from feeling cheated (as gamers tend to do about nearly everything, being the entitled pricks they are). It's the only way an upgrade would work. You couldn't cut off the old console from getting new titles too fast. You'd end up with an eight-year lifecycle for Xbox One with a four-year overlap into Xbox Two. Then Xbox Two would have an eight-year lifecycle with a four-year overlap into Xbox Three etc.
Ahh the old Pc incremental upgrade model thing. Never been done, I've always been very very skeptical. You guys are ignoring all the people, like me, that it would royally piss off as they just bought in there eyes a $500 paperweight. Yes you can say "but it's not a paperweight", but to somebody like me, that's what it'd be rendered as soon as a significantly better Xbox came to market.
IMO the more likely scenario if it comes to that is just a shorter normal generation. MS may want to move on after 4 or 5 years instead of 7 or 8.
I mean, if they start work on this 1.5 right now, you're still looking at 2-3 years lead time anyway probably. Why bother? The more likely outcome IMO is say, instead of 1.5 four years after One, just Xbox Two after 5 years, say.
And it also depends on sales. I think they could be happy if One continues tracking ahead of 360, regardless if they end up with, say, 25-33% of the market to Sony's 66-75%.
IMO the more likely scenario if it comes to that is just a shorter normal generation. MS may want to move on after 4 or 5 years instead of 7 or 8.
I mean, if they start work on this 1.5 right now, you're still looking at 2-3 years lead time anyway probably. Why bother? The more likely outcome IMO is say, instead of 1.5 four years after One, just Xbox Two after 5 years, say.
And it also depends on sales. I think they could be happy if One continues tracking ahead of 360, regardless if they end up with, say, 25-33% of the market to Sony's 66-75%.
Not so sure automatic BC is a thing. There's be tons of little hardware bugaboos maybe. Things to do with millions of variables like CPU cache, let alone the biggie of ESRAM. It will probably be far easier for Sony to have BC next gen by far because they didn't do ESRAM, so I expect they may, but I see MS forgoing it again.
If you abstract away from the hardware too far then you lose what makes consoles, consoles.
Anyways, if what you say is true then I think the next Xbox upgrade/new console imo may come in 4-5 years instead of 3? Who cares what we call it...
It's not just hardware though, a new console gen is almost a total reboot, the dash etc. Look at Xbox to Xbox 360. And then Xbox 360 to Xbox One. Huge changes and improvements in both cases. An incremental model would necessarily see a lot less of that as there just isn't time to do a massive reboot every 2-3 years. So you'd just get the same OS and features mostly, on new, but only incrementally so, hardware.
I dont like the idea. It's just not consoles. The problem is you just doom Xbox One owners to a subpar experience. If that happens 2-3 years after you paid $500 for a box, bridges are gonna be burned with consumders, and rightfully so.
Speaking to the topic title and offering an alternative then, I think MS has to cut the costs a lot, try to get to $299, try to be "good enough" graphically, continue to pump out games, etc. Try to keep One above 360 sales, at least, then you can at least argue it's some progress.
If you abstract away from the hardware too far then you lose what makes consoles, consoles.
Anyways, if what you say is true then I think the next Xbox upgrade/new console imo may come in 4-5 years instead of 3? Who cares what we call it...
It's not just hardware though, a new console gen is almost a total reboot, the dash etc. Look at Xbox to Xbox 360. And then Xbox 360 to Xbox One. Huge changes and improvements in both cases. An incremental model would necessarily see a lot less of that as there just isn't time to do a massive reboot every 2-3 years. So you'd just get the same OS and features mostly, on new, but only incrementally so, hardware.
I dont like the idea. It's just not consoles.
The problem is you just doom Xbox One owners to a subpar experience. If that happens 2-3 years after you paid $500 for a box, bridges are gonna be burned with consumders, and rightfully so.Speaking to the topic title and offering an alternative then, I think MS has to cut the costs a lot, try to get to $299, try to be "good enough" graphically, continue to pump out games, etc. Try to keep One above 360 sales, at least, then you can at least argue it's some progress.
Consoles are boxes that play games. XB1 has already moved into new territory with VMs and DX advances feeding back into the console. We also have devs saying MS is restricting low-level access. I think MS have already gone that route, so by your definition XB1 isn't a console.
Consoles are boxes that play games. XB1 has already moved into new territory with VMs and DX advances feeding back into the console. We also have devs saying MS is restricting low-level access. I think MS have already gone that route, so by your definition XB1 isn't a console.
Not to mention it sounds like Windows9 is going to be one OS for all platforms, including Xbox One. Universal apps and all that. If you had an Xbox One and Xbox Two(or Xbox One.5) on the market on the same time, they'd be running at least the same base OS. You won't get a new OS engineered for every console release from here on.
As long as the overheads for the VMs are small, and so long as you can scale back the "other crap" so it's of minimal interference when you're playing games, I don't think it really hurts to do what MS are doing.
A consistent and well thought out OS that evolves and transfers between generations is a good idea. Update the old platform as you bring online the new platform. Lovely jubley.
MS's biggest problem right now is the way people perceive the Xbone. The power gap is significant but not a game changer (literally, 1Bone can do everything in a game that the PS4 can) and it's set to shrink, it's how people see the Xbone that MS needs to change, and they do that through content, price, form factor and marketing.
If they succeed they won't need a One.5 and if they don't it wouldn't do any good anyway, I guess ...
A consistent and well thought out OS that evolves and transfers between generations is a good idea. Update the old platform as you bring online the new platform. Lovely jubley.
MS's biggest problem right now is the way people perceive the Xbone. The power gap is significant but not a game changer (literally, 1Bone can do everything in a game that the PS4 can) and it's set to shrink, it's how people see the Xbone that MS needs to change, and they do that through content, price, form factor and marketing.
If they succeed they won't need a One.5 and if they don't it wouldn't do any good anyway, I guess ...
Question: Why is the $500 tablet investment more disposable than the $400 game console investment? Hows does Apple sell new versions of the same thing every year with zero obsolescence backlash? It's a real mystery.
Yet people would feel burned by a considerably upgraded console in 2016 that is BC with their current device?
Yet people would feel burned by a considerably upgraded console in 2016 that is BC with their current device?
I believe the answer to this is that tablets are part of some kind of"Fashion" and in addition people tend to pass the "older" versions to other members of the family or friends. In other occasions they are simply bought in multitudes because a family typically use more than just one. But this is the generic trend that covers all price range of all tablets. Not the $500 tablet specifically. The purchase of a $500 tablet is not exactly characterized by perfect rationality or at least the same rationality that governs a console purchaser.
A console buyer perceives the product as a long term investment because he forms long term expectations which are not present in the tablet domain. They are also very different products with different focus so it doesnt make much sense to compare two different products that attract different people or offer different experiences and utilities.
Nintendo doesnt upgrade their handhelds every 2 years either, unlike tablets despite that its a mobile console
It's not, and it doesn't. iPad was a growth market for a new product. That period of growth is over in the countries where it started, and sales are declining (15% down this year, for the first time after growth every year before).
Yes. Consoles are not a new product, and as long as they don't offer anything considerably new, there won't be a good reason to upgrade. That said, it has happened before that a newer release of the same product offered some improvements over the older one. But with consoles it rarely works, for very many reasons, the most important ones being that a significantly more powerful device will either be underutilised because developers can't / won't exclude the first few million sold when the market is already so small, or it be more expensive than the competition because the hardware is more expensive, and this will likely never change again.
Microsoft could try though to release a new version each year with upgraded hardware. Who knows?
gadgets like iPhone and iPad also a "class statement" for those who (or want to looks like) have money. The partially bitten apple logo has become a symbol of "expensive class". and the buyer are proud with their brand of choice.
currently that kind of "brand power" in Indonesia is still being held by Blackberry and Apple.
What surprising is that Microsoft "brand power" is not good in console space although they are very strong on PC space and creeping up to certain rich class for phones. (last time I'm meeting doctors, they that works as specialist and operation bring two phones : Blackberry and Lumia)
of course those are based on personal experience so dont put up too much weigh on it. Except for Blackberry, it also have article from Time or Forbes (my google-fu failed me, cant find the link) where they investigate backberry user in Indonesia. Even the poor people willing to have their monthly salary cut to have latest blackberry model due to peer pressure: 'you are not "in" if you dont have blackberry'
i also personally get that peer pressure when i decided to buy NDS, 3DS, and Xbox 360. Instead of PSP, PS Vita, PS3. i cant play together with my friend, even when we play together using local-play, i become so dumb and uncomfortable because i'm not accustomed to the gamepad. Although it was not a problem for SP game because we can swap our console (i lend my xbox, my friend lend his ps3, etc).
currently that kind of "brand power" in Indonesia is still being held by Blackberry and Apple.
What surprising is that Microsoft "brand power" is not good in console space although they are very strong on PC space and creeping up to certain rich class for phones. (last time I'm meeting doctors, they that works as specialist and operation bring two phones : Blackberry and Lumia)
of course those are based on personal experience so dont put up too much weigh on it. Except for Blackberry, it also have article from Time or Forbes (my google-fu failed me, cant find the link) where they investigate backberry user in Indonesia. Even the poor people willing to have their monthly salary cut to have latest blackberry model due to peer pressure: 'you are not "in" if you dont have blackberry'
i also personally get that peer pressure when i decided to buy NDS, 3DS, and Xbox 360. Instead of PSP, PS Vita, PS3. i cant play together with my friend, even when we play together using local-play, i become so dumb and uncomfortable because i'm not accustomed to the gamepad. Although it was not a problem for SP game because we can swap our console (i lend my xbox, my friend lend his ps3, etc).
Last edited by a moderator:
I think other factors can also be identified. Tablets have been growing in performance dramatically, and replacing a slow tablet that can't do the things you want so well with a new one (and pass the old one down to a family member) makes sense. Once you get a product that does what you want, the intent to upgrade reduces. Something like the iPad Air can still attract interest for doing the same thing only cooler, but then we have that in consoles too. People bought the PS2Slim despite owning a PS2 because it was cooler.
As tablets start to saturate, the upgrade phenomenon will pass. Mobile devices have basically been like other CE devices on an accelerated progress curve. Eventually it'll settle down like TVs and cars and consoles with fewer upgrades because they aren't warranted. At the end of the day, they are anomalous and not a good basis for comparisons IMO.
I love that we're debating tablets now, and why people buy them, and so far no one has suggested people buy them because they're useful and they have good software. It's a fad, or a fashion statement, a class statement, or just people behaving erratically. There may have been some people buying just to see the new toy, but mostly people have a use for them, and the price seems reasonable. You don't have to buy a new one every year. A tablet is relatively cheap and can last years. You can skip generations. The same would be true of a mid-cycle console refresh (as long as they have backwards and forwards compatibility).
I still don't think it would happen. I actually think it might be a good idea, if it weren't for the target consumer - gamers. Gamers are a weird bunch. Everything in the world is scary. They feel entitled to the status quo. Any change frightens them, or is outright offensive. I think there's a lot of revisionist history, or rose-coloured glasses, when looking back at gaming in the 80s and 90s. There is some historical precedent of value and "rights" that isn't really true.
I still don't think it would happen. I actually think it might be a good idea, if it weren't for the target consumer - gamers. Gamers are a weird bunch. Everything in the world is scary. They feel entitled to the status quo. Any change frightens them, or is outright offensive. I think there's a lot of revisionist history, or rose-coloured glasses, when looking back at gaming in the 80s and 90s. There is some historical precedent of value and "rights" that isn't really true.
LOL
I laughed at his "perfectly rational statement" too....
If I were in the market for a tablet that could double as a laptop I'd get a Surface Pro for about $500...perfectly rational to me.
In that case it's rational but the market is flooded with expensive (and inexpensive) tablets that dont double very well as labtops and arent called SurfacePro. SurfacePro is a drop in the ocean. Its market performance did not meet MS's expectations either which again shows that people dont buy much to that utility but look for other gains that come with a tablet, they dont think like you.
Those references were made for the $500 tablet and later the iPad.
Those references were made for the $500 tablet and later the iPad.
Similar threads
