I'm talking about a closed system that has one set of inflexible hardware and a single OS. Basically, with a PC you can upgrade components, change CPUs, and do all sorts of things. However, with a console the hardware is fixed and the OS is fixed. Developers know exactly what hardware is going to be in the console when they are making their games and they know exactly how much memory the OS is going to use.
Non-Gimped, Full Powered Console Thread -- Open Discussion
- Thread starter babcat
- Start date
- Status
I'm talking about a closed system that has one set of inflexible hardware and a single OS. Basically, with a PC you can upgrade components, change CPUs, and do all sorts of things. However, with a console the hardware is fixed and the OS is fixed. Developers know exactly what hardware is going to be in the console when they are making their games and they know exactly how much memory the OS is going to use.
There is one "magical" thing about a closed platform -- you can get much more performance out of it. Unlike PCs, consoles will always have the same hardware and OS. Developers can push to utilize the hardware to the max.
I personally think that a 600-1000 dollar console could sell, if it was clearly superior to all others. People pay huge amounts of money these days for cell phones and iPADs. A top notch iPAD might cost 800 dollars. I don't see why there would not be a market for a console that costs about the same as a top notch iPAD or cell phone, but that would be 20 times or more as powerful.
Cloud gaming is to big brotherish in my opinion. I don't like the idea of some company or some government being able to remotely turn off my ability to play a game. I want a powerful system that no one can disable remotely.
No. I don't think that a high end console would need to cost 1500USD. I'm thinking that in mass production a high end console with something like a GTX 680 and a very good CPU would cost significantly less than that. To be blunt, I don't think that it would cost an extra 1,000 dollars per console for Sony or Microsoft to add a powerful discrete GPU in addition to the one already in the APU. These companies can buy the GPU's by the hundreds of thousands and get significant discounts.
That is an interesting point. However, I think a very powerful console would be something a lot of people would use extensively. Some of the tech demos I have seen lately (running with lots of ram and lets say a GTX 680) look pretty close to film quality. One of my dreams is to be able to "play" through science fiction TV shows. For example, Star Trek. Just imagine if instead of only watching their favorite shows on TV they could also PLAY them and they would look ALMOST the same. For example, what if you could watch, "The Walking Dead" on TV and then explore the ruined landscape on your console?
I think this is possible with a powerful console.
I personally think the exotic cooling system could be something that attracts people. For example, what if the cooling system used an exotic liquid of some kind. It might look interesting or "cool."
No, not an X-Box. Imagine an X-Box with a case twice the size and a much better cooling system. Any potential super powerful console would need to be torture tested so that it would not end up with the red ring of death.
If the consoles don't do something to differentiate themselves from cell phones and iPADs they will die out.
The one thing that I think could truly make them seem different and worth the money is if they are clearly far more powerful than any mobile device. Other than this, there is really nothing to differentiate them. Anything a console can do a mobile device can do too.
However, no mobile device would be able to produce the high quality graphics that a console with a GTX 680, 8 gigs of fast RAM, and a good CPU could produce.
Regardless of the graphic fidelity, games will always be games and people will have a set amount of time for them.
Graphic fidelity isn't the reason the reason why people might opt to watch a TV show instead of playing the game...
You missed my point. As I stated, you could 'fix" any PC component target and obtain the same thing. You don't need custom hardware for that advantage, which IMHO is actually fairly overstated TBH. Current generation consoles certainly do somewhat better than the sum of their parts (vs. a similarly-spec'd PC), but not 2x... not even 1.5x I don't think.
Really? Even after the Wii last generation and declining ASPs in most of the typical "higher end" market? I don't think the evidence is on your side in that assertion.
And phones and tablets really do not compete for the same dollars. That's similar to me saying "why won't people spend $1k on a console when they spend $10k on a car?" But as far as gaming goes, you don't need a GTX 680 to demonstrate that they are "far more powerful" than mobile devices... hell even the ancient 360 and PS3 are still far more powerful than the fastest mobile stuff (nonsense hype aside).
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have two super CELL cpus, maybe 4 or 8 PPE cores each, 128 upgraded SPUs which can do a litle more than the ones in PS3, one would be dedicated to assisting the GPU, which would of course be the best available at the time, and the other would be able to do anything the devs want, so physics, game code or even help the gpu if the dedicated CELL isn't enough.
I would have 8 GB or GDDR5 ram, accessible to all but reserved as graphics ram and a further 8 GB as system ram, which again could be used for any task the devs want, all connected via an infinite bandwidth device.
Obviously, on the systems release I would go into hiding so the angry mob of devs cannot find me, but I think it would be a monster of a console.
I would have 8 GB or GDDR5 ram, accessible to all but reserved as graphics ram and a further 8 GB as system ram, which again could be used for any task the devs want, all connected via an infinite bandwidth device.
Obviously, on the systems release I would go into hiding so the angry mob of devs cannot find me, but I think it would be a monster of a console.
Unfortunatly, I don't think it's really a good route to go. The PC market moves much too quickly for something like a closed high end PC box to be feasible. It's pretty well known that the difference in price for a high end component is much higher than the performance that it actually nets.
High end CPU - $1000
Just below high end CPU - $400
High END GPU - $800
Just below High end GPU - $350
In anycase, say you DO make a closed system off high end PC parts, you sell it for $1500-$2000, what happens one year later when said system is all of a suddon not state of the art, why wouldn't somone just make a PC for better performance, than buy that now out of date system?
Besides, there will always be people willing to spend much more than what is feasible in a closed system, meaning your closed system will never be top end. Triple, or Quad SLI? not cost effective for a closed system, but there are lots of people building such systems which would laugh at your closed system.
Consoles like the next Xbox and PS4 essentially were near top end when they are in developement, by the time they actually get released (since there is a huge time frame for developing/finetuning the hardware, but also to give time for developers to support it), they no longer seem as bleeding edge. But it's all about hitting the cost/performance mark, and drawing a line in the sand.
High end CPU - $1000
Just below high end CPU - $400
High END GPU - $800
Just below High end GPU - $350
In anycase, say you DO make a closed system off high end PC parts, you sell it for $1500-$2000, what happens one year later when said system is all of a suddon not state of the art, why wouldn't somone just make a PC for better performance, than buy that now out of date system?
Besides, there will always be people willing to spend much more than what is feasible in a closed system, meaning your closed system will never be top end. Triple, or Quad SLI? not cost effective for a closed system, but there are lots of people building such systems which would laugh at your closed system.
Consoles like the next Xbox and PS4 essentially were near top end when they are in developement, by the time they actually get released (since there is a huge time frame for developing/finetuning the hardware, but also to give time for developers to support it), they no longer seem as bleeding edge. But it's all about hitting the cost/performance mark, and drawing a line in the sand.
Instead of bothering with a GPU, you could just add two more of those super CELL CPUs - and have 192 SPUs rendering any gaming scene in real-time directly from Maya, while the remaining 64 SPUs could either do some AI and physics stuff - or just keep folding proteins in the background if they should run idle. Who needs a graphics engine?
- Status
Similar threads
