hypothetical "tick-tock" console technology/ business model

[metacore]

I think we we all agree that today most important roadblocks to rapid advancement of games grapics progress are time and economics.
Even with those record console launches , many Devs/publishers are rather carefull and not going full force yet, or delaying announced projects overwhelmed by requied work. Situation would probably be much worse with alternate reality, more powerfull 600$ console, with half of userbase.… Anyway , compared to past launches , this diminishes a little, traditional „ next generation” idea.

Even worse on pcs. We have ever changing powerfull pc parts with all those power IMHO wasted on another arbitrary resolution/fps level or questionable(to put it lightly) implementation of some bonus effect. Certanily far cry ( pun intended) from from 2004 or even 2007 efforts.

Since console manufacteters abandoned exotic setups , until infrastructure will allow to mass market deployment of console as cloud service, I propose little shake up.

New console model (breaking even/profitable at start) every 3-4 year with software deribelately targeted for newest and last model ( or even full backward/forward compatible). Why and what could this acomplish.?

- consumers today are more tolerant to more frequent HW upgrades . We see this in smartphones or even this console launch with record sales without trully groundbreaking software.
- With scalable engines and forseable hardware devs could target both, with less fear of ROI on small new userbase.
- For those looking for latest and greatest or resolutnio/fps checkboxes, with 3-4 year cycles , there would always be something around the corner without dragging in late years. And For console ecosytem , less risk of eventualy losing those bored customers ehemm …. Elswere .
- those who would not care , would still have cheaper, older model working with sacrifices .
- for developers , 3-4 year( as opposed to 7-8) generation,I think would allow to build game without worrying about being beetween rock and hard place of order of magnitude diffrences in HW and how to target it simultaniusly .

I think this angle could work and should be implemented even last decade. Only concern today i see for that to work, are slow adoption of next process nodes.

Console gamers , How do you see this idea ? would you accept this scenario?
Comments on the matter from our beyond3d residents who are closer to development/publisher side of reality, would be much appreciable. Do you see hyphotised model work?

 

[Pixel]

Its probably going to get even worse. I'm sorry, I hope you forgive developers. They will start creating multiplats that target mobile devices as the lowest common denominator. This will hold back some AAA titles on XO PS4. Damn you mobile devices damn you. but yeah its probably coming. That is where the casual market will be.

In 3-4 few years a huge amount of Mobile smart phone userbase will have performance at X360/PS3 levels, not just inflated marketing comparisons and pointing out the superior ram size on mobile devices.

Sure the assets, resolution, draw distance, environment detail, and possibly physics systems in games will be designed to scale to take advantage of the power of XO/PS4, but in other ways we will see will be held back, just like we are seeing current titles that exist both on lastgen and currentgen not take full advantage of the current gen hardware.

 

[rapso]

the problematic thing about compatibility are features. if you drop a new hardware with the same features, but faster, then it's all fine and phones proof it can work out. In 'compatibility' mode, the AMD hardware can for sure always pretend to be an XBOne or PS4 to run older games, but new games could easily utilize more GPU/CPU power.

So, yeah, from the start I'm expecting that's the plan MS and Sony have. Instead of some "slim" version, rather a new version for the same price with more power.

yet, I also agree, phones will win once core games will be released on those. I mean, you have the choice to spent your $500 on a phone or a console, now if you could plug your phone to your TV, grab a pad and play latest fifa/nba/nfs/cod/..., would you really buy a PS4/XBOne just for some more polys or blur effects?

Only trouble there is, is whether phone users will accept $50 prices for games.

 

[metacore]

Its probably going to get even worse. I'm sorry, I hope you forgive developers. They will start creating multiplats that target mobile devices as the lowest common denominator. This will hold back some AAA titles on XO PS4. Damn you mobile devices damn you. but yeah its probably coming. That is where the casual market will be.

In 3-4 few years a huge amount of Mobile smart phone userbase will have performance at X360/PS3 levels, not just inflated marketing comparisons and pointing out the superior ram size on mobile devices.

Sure the assets, resolution, draw distance, environment detail, and possibly physics systems in games will be designed to scale to take advantage of the power of XO/PS4, but in other ways we will see will be held back, just like we are seeing current titles that exist both on lastgen and currentgen not take full advantage of the current gen hardware.

Yes „good enogh” threat form mobile is real in macro scale rather than ps360 levels. What I’m saying is new console 2017/18 with software also targeted on current ps4/one . Another one in 2021-22 with software also build for 2017 ones. For egzample, uncharted 5 developed for ps4 and ps2017 , later with 4k and solid grapical enhancements for hardcores . After few years next game still working on ps2017 but with primetime on ps2021 and so on. Just like iphone games
That kind of succesion should allow to easly diffrentiate from mobile all the time and even to not fall back behind pc much. On high end side it would allow more sustainable rapid grapical progrress or even is the only way from investment POV these days . Certainly better than 7-8 years and jump to relatively mid lewel hardware (dictated by price points ) and waiting for userbase to grow to the point when you can actaully bring that software.

 

[Rangers]

Its probably going to get even worse. I'm sorry, I hope you forgive developers. They will start creating multiplats that target mobile devices as the lowest common denominator. This will hold back some AAA titles on XO PS4. Damn you mobile devices damn you. but yeah its probably coming. That is where the casual market will be.

In 3-4 few years a huge amount of Mobile smart phone userbase will have performance at X360/PS3 levels, not just inflated marketing comparisons and pointing out the superior ram size on mobile devices.

Sure the assets, resolution, draw distance, environment detail, and possibly physics systems in games will be designed to scale to take advantage of the power of XO/PS4, but in other ways we will see will be held back, just like we are seeing current titles that exist both on lastgen and currentgen not take full advantage of the current gen hardware.

I dont see this being a real issue. There's the Modern Combat series of FPS for example on mobile. Nobody (really, core gamers) plays it because touch controls suck, and theres no way around this issue.

Also battery life. essentially need to be tethered.

Sure you can bluetooth a controller, but it's like the N64 RAM pack, it's never going to happen in large numbers, only the default configuration.

Overall I'm skeptical of this model. Asking consumers to buy new $400 or even $300 box every 3-4 years wont fly. Seems like business discussion though.

 

[3dcgi]

yet, I also agree, phones will win once core games will be released on those. I mean, you have the choice to spent your $500 on a phone or a console, now if you could plug your phone to your TV, grab a pad and play latest fifa/nba/nfs/cod/..., would you really buy a PS4/XBOne just for some more polys or blur effects?

Only trouble there is, is whether phone users will accept $50 prices for games.

Yes, I would buy a console or PC for better graphics and so my phone can be a phone/internet device. Many people don't like the hassle of changing discs vs. switching to a digital copy of a game. Imagine them now having to plug their phone into a dock by the TV.

Phones and consoles are different devices. I prefer to pay for dedicated devices. Most of the time convergence sucks.

To bring this back on topic... While I don't mind spending money on different devices with targeted use cases I don't like to spend money replacing technology that works. This means I don't like to send something to the landfill unless there is a clear benefit to the new device. Time doesn't matter. It's a matter of impact. The new capabilities need to blow me away enough to entice me to upgrade.

 

[Akumajou]

consumers today are more tolerant to more frequent HW upgrades . We see this in smartphones or even this console launch with record sales without trully groundbreaking software.*
- With scalable engines and forseable hardware devs could target both, with less fear of ROI on small new userbase.
- For those looking for latest and greatest or resolutnio/fps checkboxes, with 3-4 year cycles , there would always be something around the corner without dragging in late years. And For console ecosytem , less risk of eventualy losing those bored customers ehemm …. Elswere .*
- those who would not care , would still have cheaper, older model working with sacrifices .*
- for developers , 3-4 year( as opposed to 7-8) generation,I think would allow to build game without worrying about being beetween rock and hard place of order of magnitude diffrences in HW and how to target it simultaniusly .*

I think this angle could work and should be implemented even last decade. Only concern today i see for that to work, are slow adoption of next process nodes.

Consumers are more "tolerant of frequent HW upgrades"??

PS4 had a $400 price point helped by progressive economics of parts and it's HW contract arrangements.

HDDs are a bit cheaper and they jammed a SATA 2.0 interface despite SATA 3.0 being out for over four years.

"Bored consumers"?? Although last gen "dragged" as you claimed, the gaming scene actually changed as it was mostly first person shooters and other online shooters dominating sales numbers and even causing other games to lose sales.

Smartphones are disposable tech. Consoles aren't. On that note...PC parts are also "disposable tech" I wonder how does retro-gaming even work with PC-gamers...I know how I solved that issue but I don't see it much online.

"Scalable engines" existed before last gen. Look at Ninja Gaiden even if it was modified or adapted for PS3 or xbox.

Game devs will still want to tap that HW...I honestly don't believe despite claims that they don't want to tap it like last gen...remember all that "easy to dev for"?

Console installed base can work wonders for sales...as long as there isn't anyone selling development kits on eBay or leaking proprietary software diagrams on the interwebz and hacking and pirating games like they did all three last gen consoles.

Those major hacking cases cost these companies millions and PCs aren't hacker free either.

Best bet is for PS4/Xboxone/WiiU to last till 2021 at the earliest. Or prepare to launch new hardware in 2020. By then the cost to make these games and dev kit documentation, ease of use and mastery should in theory allow for so many games to be made...and break even and perhaps a return to different popular genres instead of three popular ones that dominate sales. I'm exaggerating here.

 

[function]

Most console gamers couldn't give a shit about retro games, and those that seem to are mostly happy to pay again for an emulated version of fondly remembered games on their current, disposable platform.

Consoles have the momentum of a strong software library that can't be played on or transferred to a newer, better platform. Console tech is surely disposable though - both by consumers and hardware vendors (even Cell was taken out back at IBM and put down with little ceremony).

We've yet to see if any console vendor could make a go of more rapidly changing platforms with limited forwards compatibility.

 

[eastmen]

Meh , Consoles will just go to shorter generations. The 7 or 8 years of the last generation wont happen again.

So yea the xbox360/ps3 generation may have been bested or in the process of being bested by cell phones but it will still be years before phones display the graphics on the new systems .

The iphones still have 1 gig of ram and while android has some varients using 3gigs of ram its still a far cry from the 8 gigs in the current consoles.

Then you have the factor of heat. When I play dragon warrior on my note 3 or heck simpsons tapped out I could fry an egg on the back of it. Then power wise I could get 2-3 hours max of gaming on that thing while if I don't game at all and only surf the web and watch youtube and text / talk I can go over a day without recharging.


I think what you will see if a faster console cycle with late gen exclusives being forward compatiable.

I.E if gears of war comes out in 2018 for the xbox one and the xbox next hits the same year then we will see gears of war with higher rest textures and resolution , better frame rates , more fsaa , better filtering and so on. But that's about it.

Consoles wont go any where. I remember everyone talking about how no one will buy laptops anymore because tablets are here. But I've now been seeing a trend in my peer group of people buying new laptops because the tablets just don't cut it for more than a couch surfing device that in an emergency can get work done.

 

[Rodéric]

With GPU tech evolving at a slower pace, as well as CPU tech, I don't see why there would be consoles more often, that should rather be the opposite...

The true interesting idea for a game console, would be to make new versions every 3-5 years that compatible hardware (like a PC), it's stupid to restart each cycle from scratch IMO, capitalizing on an existing software library could be much more interesting.
That said, there are PC and SteamBox soon, which would do exactly that, making consoles a fair bit less attractive. (Same titles, higher price, no sales... Of course they might adapt, but your SteamBox will still be able to run Office or other productivity software, which consoles don't seem interested in at all...)

 

[metacore]

Overall I'm skeptical of this model. Asking consumers to buy new $400 or even $300 box every 3-4 years wont fly. Seems like business discussion though.

And thats why I was talking about software targeted for two consoles. Those wanting longevity and very big jumps , could still play for 6-8years.

Meh , Consoles will just go to shorter generations. The 7 or 8 years of the last generation wont happen again.

And thats why I was talking about software targeted for two console. Those wanting longevity and very big jumps , could still play for 6-8years.
I.E if gears of war comes out in 2018 for the xbox one and the xbox next hits the same year then we will see gears of war with higher rest textures and resolution , better frame rates , more fsaa , better filtering and so on. But that's about it.

Yeah in thats case it’s a wash( on the other hand latest remasters are doing quite good) , but if such outcome was on roadmap in advance , devs could diffrentiate two version a bit more .
And then what? selling new hardware at break even, waiting years ( and watching „already outdated ”etc. campaigns on social media ) for userbase to grow to the point where you can actually bring big software guns out.? In 2001 sure , with today development times and budgets, not so much. Two tick-tock consoles with shorter lifespan would help that.

"Bored consumers"?? Although last gen "dragged" as you claimed, the gaming scene actually changed as it was mostly first person shooters and other online shooters dominating sales numbers and even causing other games to lose sales.

Game devs will still want to tap that HW...I honestly don't believe despite claims that they don't want to tap it like last gen...remember all that "easy to dev for"?

Console installed base can work wonders for sales...

.

Don’t get me wrong, I was not bored . On the contrary , watching those systems pushed more and more beyond wildest imaginations was enjoyabale . Instaled base with low piracy , Economies of scale and mature tools certainly helped , on the other hand software sales were declining for last few years, some were bored for sure.
Yeah homogenization is disturbing but it is precisely self publishing and new easier hardware which can bring diversity back from new smaller developers .
If console vendors want these platforms remain as unchalenged places for those big event games they cannot wait such longe time and start from zero again. This talk is from perspective of overall ecosytem. More on that below.

With GPU tech evolving at a slower pace, as well as CPU tech, I don't see why there would be consoles more often, that should rather be the opposite...

The true interesting idea for a game console, would be to make new versions every 3-5 years that compatible hardware (like a PC), it's stupid to restart each cycle from scratch IMO, capitalizing on an existing software library could be much more interesting.
That said, there are PC and SteamBox soon, which would do exactly that, making consoles a fair bit less attractive. (Same titles, higher price, no sales... Of course they might adapt, but your SteamBox will still be able to run Office or other productivity software, which consoles don't seem interested in at all...)

Yes it might be a threat in lets say 3 years, but open pc ecosytem, despite tens of milions high end grapic boards have problem with delivering trully high end software ( muliplatform sales don’t reflect in hw base either) . That famous epic quote about 500$ boards and piracy may stiil hold much truth.
I’m sure those developers who are interested in making expensive titles are more intrested in platforms where they can sell those at high prices rather than 5$.
Relatively small needs for upgrades in last few years , those sales and constant babling about rez and fpses made some pepole switch. With tick tock model on consoles , upgrade pressure would be higher , making pc less atractive. Technology/production values would always be on forefront and more sustainable ( with faster time to market) due to two consoles closer in capabilities, one of them bringing userbase and another latest tech and checkboxses .




In latest interview Andrew House suggested , "they don't plan really that much beyond 2-3 years" ,common architecture, somewhat casual morpheus roadmap, currrent microsoft and nintendo situations. I think long cycles and starting from scratch are over.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't see anything other than a 'normal' console lifecycle of probably 6 years happening. I really doubt we're going to have new consoles every 3-4 years based on the way mobile products are introduced every couple years, and yet, I also don't expect another 7-8 year cycle like PS360.

And PCs already well outclass consoles now, even at launch nearly a year ago.

Even though the advancement of CPUs and GPUs have slowed down, one that that should be a major advance is the advent of 3D stacking for chips and DRAMs. We should start to see real products that use this in 2016 in PCs. The amount of bandwidth that stacked DRAMs can provide will help everything related to graphics.

From the 2016 timeframe going forward, the tech will migrate from high and mid range PCs down to consoles that could launch no sooner than 2018, and more likely 2019. I believe It will also help make possible native 4K gaming at 'decent' framerates with reasonable hardware costs.

Best bet is new consoles in 5 more years.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't see anything other than a 'normal' console lifecycle of probably 6 years happening. I really doubt we're going to have new consoles every 3-4 years based on the way mobile products are introduced every couple years, and yet, I also don't expect another 7-8 year cycle like PS360.

Ditto. Shortening the typical life cycles of consoles would affect the fundamental economics for the manufacturers, which does not seem to be in their financial interest. And as long as the hardware capabilities of a platform in later life does not make game development too unwieldy (like trying to squeeze games in the 512MB of 360 and PS3 with all sorts of technical/gameplay compromises) I doubt developers want new consoles more frequently either.

Back in the early days (generations 1-4) new hardware genuinely introduced new gaming experiences that were otherwise impossible on previous consoles at a technical level. I don't feel the last generation really pushed any boundaries in this regard and I'm not expecting anything earth shattering this generation either. The biggest plus for the PS4 for me is that everything works better and, unlike the PS3, it's not spluttering and wheezing to output a 720p image inconsistently. 1080p seems to be more easily achievable and nobody is really optimising for the hardware so I expect it to be a default for everything in a year.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's perhaps worth pointing to lack of profitability for mobile manufacturers by and large as evidence that relentless updates probably aren't economical if the market isn't forcing such strong competition. In fact in all CE business, constant upgrades due to constant competition keeps squeezing margins, whether mobiles, TVs, disc players, etc. Consoles have it pretty nice that there's only a few competitors and they can generally operate in less chaotic cycles, although it also means that hardware choices haunt them for a long time and have a massive impact on long term profitability and success, unlike any other consumer product out there.