Forza communicated over ethernet, but.........
....I just remembered that you still needed to run the game locally on each 360, and each of those goes to each display.
Nevermind.
Yeah, at that point, it'd just be a new (partial) generation.
Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
....I just remembered that you still needed to run the game locally on each 360, and each of those goes to each display.
Nevermind.
Which might be why under this standard it would be more realistic than not. Today ps4 and XBO share the same CPU requirements. Their respective GPUs are somewhat close in performance. For an external GPU it doesn't need to be a Titan or anything. It just needs to be close to or slightly more powerful than ps4. That already in combination with its existing GPU is already significantly more powerful than one on its own.
Costs should still be an aspect right?
As for CPU being too weak to feed the GPU. That may be true, but with two GpUs why not syphon off compute tasks more liberally with the additional compute now available ?
Not saying it's a reality but as long as MS isn't shooting for 4K resolution any sort of eGPU with equivalent specs to the current box would nearly double performance. That's already a significant boon. There's no reason for it to be 7x or 8x more powerful.
I'm skeptical about the viability of an eGPU on console. On PC, you have separate VRAM on the GPU, and usually a lot. So you can copy a lot of data to the GPU up front to minimize how much you have to copy back and forth over the USB or Thunderbolt interface. The current gen of consoles are built around a different programming model, where the CPU and GPU access the same memory, memory the GPU would have to access over the USB/Thunderbolt/network interface. Suddenly you have a new bottleneck, or you change programming models and get back into VRAM on the eGPU. Don't think devs would like that if they're trying to make a game that runs on both Xbox One and Xbox One plus eGPU.
I just assumed the eGPU would contain its own VRAM. It would be slightly different from a iGPU plus dGPU setup.
System integration, and the balancing of various buses, bandwidths and latencies - not to mention the the desire to have optimised cooling and power supply - pretty much guarantee that upgradeable systems are a no.
32X - possibly the biggest upgrade any system has every received - plugged into a system bus, vastly increased size, regurgitated a video out (HDMI fans take note), and required two PSUs. This is not how the modern world works. Arguably, it wasn't how the world worked in 1994 either ...
Edit: I will say that watching Virtua Racing running on a Megadrive via 32X was one of the coolest things ever (and it played brilliantly). But it was not in any way the correct strategy for Sega to take.
32X - possibly the biggest upgrade any system has every received - plugged into a system bus, vastly increased size, regurgitated a video out (HDMI fans take note), and required two PSUs. This is not how the modern world works. Arguably, it wasn't how the world worked in 1994 either ...
Edit: I will say that watching Virtua Racing running on a Megadrive via 32X was one of the coolest things ever (and it played brilliantly). But it was not in any way the correct strategy for Sega to take.
I think one of the postives is when we look at how a traditional generation transition has happened in the past.
If we start with the nes they had almost 90% or more of the market , then sega launched a genesis 18months before the super nes and Suddenly Nintendo lost a huge chuck of their market which they have never gained back. Both Sega and Nintendo lost market share when Sony entered the market. Sony was able to hold on to their market with the ps2. however the transition to the ps3 let MS go from 20m to almost a 100m hardware sales.
So a generation change is very volatile. By consistently releasing steping stones of new consoles or expansions you can keep your base without having to worry about a change.
MS can have an xbox one at the low end of $200 or less. Xbox two at $400-$500 . As the xbox one ages out of being viable maybe in its 7th or 8th year. You have an xbox three in the market. The xbox two drops down to $200 and the three is at $400-$500
The trick would be to make your games scale both ways. Halo 6 hits on xbox one and xbox two. But when xbox three comes out they tweak the download you'd get for the three and increase anistropic filtering , fsaa , resolution and so forth. That way there is an incentive to move to the next console over a sony or Nintendo system.
If we start with the nes they had almost 90% or more of the market , then sega launched a genesis 18months before the super nes and Suddenly Nintendo lost a huge chuck of their market which they have never gained back. Both Sega and Nintendo lost market share when Sony entered the market. Sony was able to hold on to their market with the ps2. however the transition to the ps3 let MS go from 20m to almost a 100m hardware sales.
So a generation change is very volatile. By consistently releasing steping stones of new consoles or expansions you can keep your base without having to worry about a change.
MS can have an xbox one at the low end of $200 or less. Xbox two at $400-$500 . As the xbox one ages out of being viable maybe in its 7th or 8th year. You have an xbox three in the market. The xbox two drops down to $200 and the three is at $400-$500
The trick would be to make your games scale both ways. Halo 6 hits on xbox one and xbox two. But when xbox three comes out they tweak the download you'd get for the three and increase anistropic filtering , fsaa , resolution and so forth. That way there is an incentive to move to the next console over a sony or Nintendo system.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
But outside of a few hardcore gamers, how many truly care about BC? PS3 bombed at launch even though it had PS2 BC. Wuu bombed even though it has Wii BC. X360 sold loads more than Xbox even though it didn't had BC.
I doubt the average consumer is going to buy a bigger and better box just to play old games. Besides, its not like buying a new console means you cannot use the old one anymore. Anybody really interested in playing his old games will just keep his old console. That 100 bucks you might earn selling it aren't really going to make a difference. Besides, those buying a used old console probably want one with a few good games.
BC is good for devs and pubs, but then we aren't talking about disk based BC but software BC so they can just put their old software up on the store so people can buy the old software for their new console at a reduced price and cash in on the same game twice that way.
I don't see the point in hardware upgrades for a console.
The whole concept of a console is that you got a relatively cheap box that you know will run all software released for it for the next ~5 years and is plug and play. No worries about performance of having the right expansion.
Same goes for the devs that don't have to worry about whatever many varieties there might be. Are devs going to be required to update old games to work with new expansions? Or what is certain combinations cause issues? Will devs have to create updates?
How are consumers going to take this? If they see a game advertised with gfx made for the gpu expansion they don't have will there be backlash when they get home and it looks and runs totally different on their system?
Consoles with hardware expansions or upgrades to me sounds like a gaming device we've had for decades. It's called the PC.
I think that's the critical part, having a lot of games to pick up at release, but that's only appealing if you didn't play those games already...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Or if you want to continue playing those games (multiplayers like COD, BF, Destiny, The Division) but need to sell your current console to finance your new one and aren't switching platforms because your old games won't work on your new console anyway. I don't think you'll find many console gamers who wouldn't like to be able to play their current library on their new console but equally you'd be hard pushed to find evidence that backwards compatibility impacts sales of new consoles.
It's a pickle!
.)You would have a huge collection of games ... your collection. People bought gears 1 ultimate on both the xbox one and pc. That is a 10 year old game.
Apparently Sony fans are just fine buy HD remasters of last generation games. With a generational console why rebuy and not just redownload for the new console and enjoy benfits of having one.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Right, because no Xbox One owner ever bought a HD remaster. No copies of Metro Redux were sold for Xbox, Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for Xbox sat on shelves. Nobody bought The Master Chief collection! Gears of War: Ultimate Edition? ZERO SALES! Dammit, I miss the rolling eyes emoticon so much!
Thus far, backwards compatibility on consoles has given you last generation's experience - if you're lucky. The downside is once you are accustomed to whatever current generation graphics are, reverting back to even well regarded games (Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, GTA V, Far Cry 3) is like somebody clawing their fingernails across your eyeballs. It's also easy to forget how many games last gen were sub-720p and how many this gen are sub-1080p. Or have framerate issues, or compromises draw distances, or all three. The ideal is to have games written today run better on next generation consoles, just like PC games do, but for that to happen today's games need to be written to be extensible with scaleable resolutions, frame rates, shading and lighting effects. Much will depend on the execution of UWP on Xbox hardware but developers can't tune today's settings for future hardware that's not even on the drawing board.
While this would be a great selling point for Microsoft and great for gamers, it would be less appealing for publishers and it can't work without them. And they don't want you replaying old games on your new console, they want you buying new games. Letting you play old games much better isn't good for business.
I think the dream is for publishers to be able to keep selling their games for as long as they can. And in the digital realm - where you no longer need to pay for pressing runs - games can continue to sell. Digital has seen games like Half Life 2, Vampire the Masquerade, Witcher, System Shock 2, Jet set Radio, Sonic 2D collection etc continue to shift, and while selling for low prices now these are games well past any projected sales curve and so margins are incredible. It's a constant drip-feed of money from your old library, with little or no work required.
MS are about to introduce the ability for XBowners to buy BC 360 games, so as well as packing old games with new releases and allowing libraries to be transferred, they're looking into opening up the old catalogue as a new revenue stream. And this is with publisher blessing.
I think I'm getting old. My PC is faster than PS4Bone, and while I do like shiny graphics, I still enjoy my 360 (currently playing Forza Horizon and re-re-re-re-re-playing Ace Combat 6).
I think BC is very important if they're talking about a 3 or 4 year upgrade cycle. On a 7 or 8 year cycle, there is such a huge disparity in platform performance that people really don't go back to play old games. They just seem primitive at that point.
A lot of the talk about this type of console cycle, either having major/minor releases or upgrades, is that the games would take advantage of the new hardware to give better visuals or performance. So backwards compatibility may be more appealing, because it's not just the old game running as it was. You get something more out of it.
Global forced 16xAF plskthnx
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Equally, you'll have to support them on new hardware. Support for PC games necessarily has a longer tail than console games, with PC games typically being supported for years and years unlike consoles games which will often get a few patches to iron out major issues but where support beyond that is the exception rather than the rule.
It's not all free cake ;-) If you're going to take console gamer's money, you now need to plan to support that game on it's release platform, the next platform, the platform after it. Or stop supporting it and stop selling it. This is an advantage of implementing basic backwards compatibility, i.e. emulating the game as it was intended to run on console originally.
I still prefer the console experience. Both consoles have nailed immediacy this generation. I like having a discrete box under the TV that I can just pause at any point in a game, then leave for days or weeks and pickup and continue within seconds of the mood taking me. That's a selling point of a box the doesn't nothing other than games. I'm mot interrupting it to do non-gaming things and it's not interrupting me with non-gaming things.
We have this new exciting platform with a distruptive service that allow to play old games so you can keep monetizing on old software, are you interested?
Ok
Do you want to develop new exciting software on this new revolutionary platform?
No
Similar threads
