Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[Shifty Geezer]

That's very interesting. Your example reminds me of someone that's happened to me recently.
I've just upgraded from a faulty IPad 1 to an IPad 4. There's a considerable difference in CPU and graphics power, but ive not noticed any real differences in games. Higher resolutions certainly, but that's about it.

Your iPad is two years old! Okay, three if you bought it very early. AAA development on iPad is in its infancy. In another two years, there'll be games that won't run at all well on iPad 1 if at all, in exactly the same way devs dropped developing for 8bit consoles when they were too old for anyone to be interested in them because they had all upgraded. There'll come a point when the number of iPads at iPad 3 and greater power outnumber the iPad 1 + 2s by 2:1 or more, and devs will target the higher minimum spec to differentiate from the competition. Same way PC game makers no longer target a DX7 level because everyone's moved on.

An upgraded hardware family will mean a slower adoption of new standards, but that'll be balanced by better performance of game 3 and 4 years into a generation for those who really care to have it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And a lot of people wait many many years before buying into those new technologies.

Yep. But how is that any different to waiting 7 years top upgrade your console because there's no upgrade option available? The progressive platform means those who want to wait will wait, but those who want better now can get it. That also should mean more boxes. eg. Imagine XB360+ launched in 2008. 360 still sells to everyone who bought a 360 from then til now, but 360+ would sell to gamers wanting a better experience and they'd pass their 360 down the line. Thus the 360 platform grows faster.

 

[Xenio]

Afaik the idea with consoles is to have a locked down hardware to target.

This is the old console development model, just listen to what a big developer as Joker is saying...

if this is our future, I will buy durango day one, and when durango 2 "on steroids" will launch, I will have 15-20 games upgradeable to new graphics (I use to replay all my games when I jump on a way better graphic card)

I think that microsoft is pleasing al PC players that wants new hardware and performances no matter what, every 1-2 years
and common gamers, that will be happy with first sku

and developers can hit both market at same time, plus casuals (kinect). Very smart move

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yep. But how is that any different to waiting 7 years top upgrade your console because there's no upgrade option available? The progressive platform means those who want to wait will wait, but those who want better now can get it. That also should mean more boxes. eg. Imagine XB360+ launched in 2008. 360 still sells to everyone who bought a 360 from then til now, but 360+ would sell to gamers wanting a better experience and they'd pass their 360 down the line. Thus the 360 platform grows faster.

The assumption being there is no alternative. If MS had launched a 360+ in 2008, I'd have sold my 360 and bought a ps3 or just stuck with my pc.

 

[Xenio]

If MS had launched a 360+ in 2008, I'd have sold my 360 and bought a ps3

for what reason?

I've jumped on 360+ and played halo4 and gears 3 with a console that outperforms both 360 and ps3, no doubt about

 

[AlphaWolf]

for what reason?

I've jumped on 360+ and played halo4 and gears 3 with a console that outperforms both 360 and ps3, no doubt about

I'm not buying into an iterative hardware cycle. I already have a PC if I want that experience (and it will already kick the hell out durango or orbis). There isn't an exclusive franchise I give a crap about so I'm not really stuck with a platform.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Durango is a Windows box, you've already bought into an iterative hardware cycle.

 

[Billy Idol]

for what reason?

I've jumped on 360+ and played halo4 and gears 3 with a console that outperforms both 360 and ps3, no doubt about

But then why even bother with consoles? Buy a PC and be happy. All the flexibility in price VS performance and backward/forward compatibility. All the overhead and loss in efficiency due to devs having to support multiple hardware which either cause dev cost increase or quality/content decrease.

If this is really where consoles are evolving, I expect them to not survive the next generation as a leading entertainment device. All go PC or tablet/phone instead...why even bother a 2year life cycle console if you get same/better in a much less restricted way.

 

[Bagel seed]

If Durango is a Windows box, you've already bought into an iterative hardware cycle.

Noooooooo!

Next gen could end up being a hardcore gamer's best and worst dreams. Buy the launch console, then by year 2 feel immense pressure to buy the Elite sku which will have enough power to run VR glasses for all games, plus some big AAAA first party title. Then by year 4 upgrade again for more eye candy or miss out on those exclusive titles at max quality?

They better tell us from the start if they're going to do this, because if they do I'll just stick to PC. I assume MS will have every Durango game also run on Windows. But for the mainstream maybe they'll buy into the model because they never knew how to upgrade their PC's.

 

[Billy Idol]

There's no need to have a fixed release schedule like that, that's not what forward compatibility and/or writing to api's is for. Aside from the obvious benefits like saving devs a fortune in development costs, having great launch titles, easy compatibility across different platforms, forward compatibility, etc, the other benefit is that it let's them release a new revision of Durango as needed rather than being forced to ride it out on a fixed 7 year schedule.

The old (and to me now broken) console development model was throw everything away, spend a pile of money re-writing everything for a new box that has no audience, and milk that cow for 7 years because you have to recoup your investment and not piss of every dev on the planet in the process. With forward compatibility and writing everything to an api then can now release a new Durango as needed. If by 2016 Durango is still very popular, selling great and there haven't been many new hardware advances then cool, keep riding it out, no need to release a revised model. If sales slow or if some new must have hardware development emerges then also cool, ship a Durango 2 that plays all existing games and leverages said new hardware developments.

It gives them the freedom to do whatever they want, and no one is hurt in the process because all code written to whatever platform can be re-leveraged on whatever other compatible platform. Developers will now actually have an investment in code and in their knowledge base of the platform, rather than having to throw it all away every few years. Developers also don't have to risk the bank on a new platform because the new platform isn't really new anymore, it's compatible with a bunch of other platforms so they can target a Durango 2 safely even if it has an audience of 6 because that same code will get re-used on the myriad of other compatible platforms.

You say repeatedly that codes can be conserved with this strategy which is a big advantage. But I am a bit surprised about this and wonder the following: isn't gaming development often about cutting edge technology? What if new better algorithms are developed? For graphics, for physics, AI, online play, etc. You don't want to re-write your code to implement this? You do not want to completely re-structure your code if a new approach needs it? You do not want to invest in new code? Imo, the nature of a code is not static. But organic and evolving...right?

 

[Nisaaru]

I'm not buying into an iterative hardware cycle. I already have a PC if I want that experience (and it will already kick the hell out durango or orbis). There isn't an exclusive franchise I give a crap about so I'm not really stuck with a platform.

Though we do it with game series mostly.

 

[Xenio]

But then why even bother with consoles? Buy a PC and be happy. All the flexibility in price VS performance and backward/forward compatibility. All the overhead and loss in efficiency due to devs having to support multiple hardware which either cause dev cost increase or quality/content decrease.

If this is really where consoles are evolving, I expect them to not survive the next generation as a leading entertainment device. All go PC or tablet/phone instead...why even bother a 2year life cycle console if you get same/better in a much less restricted way.

well, why?

PC don't have exclusives that I want
PC is not easly portable at the house of my friends, of my girlfriend, and at my house at beach
console is more elegant to see
console have kinect
console is always connected to my big TV, even when I'm working at pc

my PC's are in the studio room, and never get out from here

console and kinect can improve their performances every two years? then I have the best of both worlds, finally

You say repeatedly that codes can be conserved with this strategy which is a big advantage. But I am a bit surprised about this and wonder the following: isn't gaming development often about cutting edge technology? What if new better algorithms are developed? For graphics, for physics, AI, online play, etc. You don't want to re-write your code to implement this? You do not want to completely re-structure your code if a new approach needs it? You do not want to invest in new code? Imo, the nature of a code is not static. But organic and evolving...right?

A game can be patched to install all of this modifications

 

[-tkf-]

This is the old console development model, just listen to what a big developer as Joker is saying...

if this is our future, I will buy durango day one, and when durango 2 "on steroids" will launch, I will have 15-20 games upgradeable to new graphics (I use to replay all my games when I jump on a way better graphic card)

I think that microsoft is pleasing al PC players that wants new hardware and performances no matter what, every 1-2 years
and common gamers, that will be happy with first sku

and developers can hit both market at same time, plus casuals (kinect). Very smart move

Uhh this sounds pretty stupid. I should buy a console and a game, and then 2 years later my old games will look better because i can expect to be able to download higher res textures and polys? Why would the developer bother to create higher quality assets for a 2 year old game that is already outplayed. They should be busy making a new game? And then i am expected to put down moneys on a new consoles every 2 years? And i am expected to believe that the developer will be able to target my console when we are on round 3 of "upgrades", which then will be 4 years old, ohh and will my Halo 4 then be on it's second upgrade on version 3 of the console?

And do you expect Halo 6, which should target version 3 to be able to run on version 1 of the console? Well that certainly puts a limit on how the developers can push version 3.

I am confuesd, but at least my PC will be fresh with new awesome looking games.

 

[joker454]

This is the old console development model, just listen to what a big developer as Joker is saying...

Well not since 2009, I've been out of the biz many years now

You say repeatedly that codes can be conserved with this strategy which is a big advantage. But I am a bit surprised about this and wonder the following: isn't gaming development often about cutting edge technology? What if new better algorithms are developed? For graphics, for physics, AI, online play, etc. You don't want to re-write your code to implement this? You do not want to completely re-structure your code if a new approach needs it? You do not want to invest in new code? Imo, the nature of a code is not static. But organic and evolving...right?

Nothing stops you from doing any of that. The api is just there to abstract the hardware, but you are still free to invent any new algorithms you want. In fact having an api is better because it frees you to do just that. Rather than spend engineer time figuring out optimal dma cycles, how to schedule code or whatever, let the os handle all that for you optimally on all hardware implementations. Instead your engineers can spend time on physics, new gameplay concepts, etc.

If this is really where consoles are evolving, I expect them to not survive the next generation as a leading entertainment device. All go PC or tablet/phone instead...why even bother a 2year life cycle console if you get same/better in a much less restricted way.

Well consoles are under threat, that's one of the reasons they have to evolve.

 

[expletive]

I'm not buying into an iterative hardware cycle. I already have a PC if I want that experience (and it will already kick the hell out durango or orbis). There isn't an exclusive franchise I give a crap about so I'm not really stuck with a platform.

Iterative consoles are the best of both worlds though aren't they? You get the appliance level no muss no fuss of a console but don't have to spend the last 4 years of its lifecycle watching PC games outpace it. If you say your PC will kick the hell out of D or O then surely you upgrade your video card or CPU, isn't it easier and CHEAPER to upgrade your console?

Bottom line is i'm 40 years old. With an 8 year cycle i have roughly 5 more consoles in me, probably 4 where i'm not at least partially crazy. 4 more? No, that just sucks. 2 year refresh FTW!

 

[Xenio]

Well not since 2009, I've been out of the biz many years now

I follow you from the days of RSX and Xenos, time is passing by but I remember the discussion with deanoC and others
you may be out of biz, but you know what you are talking about, no doubt about this

ps excuses me for OT

Uhh this sounds pretty stupid. I should buy a console and a game, and then 2 years later my old games will look better because i can expect to be able to download higher res textures and polys? Why would the developer bother to create higher quality assets for a 2 year old game that is already outplayed.

no, the hires textures and model are already here
developer downgrades model and textures to fit targets, but Hires models, for example, are used in cutscenes, photomode, etc

sounds pretty stupid? PC's works in this way.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If Durango is a Windows box, you've already bought into an iterative hardware cycle.

If durango is a windows box, I've already got something better than the one they'll launch in 2 years. Makes buying in seem a bit redundant.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Iterative consoles are the best of both worlds though aren't they? You get the appliance level no muss no fuss of a console but don't have to spend the last 4 years of its lifecycle watching PC games outpace it. If you say your PC will kick the hell out of D or O then surely you upgrade your video card or CPU, isn't it easier and CHEAPER to upgrade your console?

Bottom line is i'm 40 years old. With an 8 year cycle i have roughly 5 more consoles in me, probably 4 where i'm not at least partially crazy. 4 more? No, that just sucks. 2 year refresh FTW!

No they are the worst of both worlds. You get middling hardware with software targeted at the lowest common denominator.

 

[Xenio]

If durango is a windows box, I've already got something better than the one they'll launch in 2 years. Makes buying in seem a bit redundant.

I think you'll be fine playing Halo5, PGR6, FORZA5, GEARS4 and the other games, and kinect games too, with the pc.. yes it's very redundant

and if remember well, xbox360 had a lead in graphics for some time.
if durango launches every 2 years, it will be comparable to an high end PC, but with many PRO's

 

[expletive]

No they are the worst of both worlds. You get middling hardware with software targeted at the lowest common denominator.

imo, the PC platform suffers more than any other when it comes to lowest common denominator.

Let's see what the first round of games look like this November compared to the best our PCs have to offer. One thing that seems to be unanimous is that what we see at launch and immediately beyond from these consoles, regardless of their 'specs', will be far better than anything we've been able to play so far on any platform.

I have a GTX 680 and while Farcry 3 is impressive looking, it does not look like a 3TF GPU is powering it. (1080p)