Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Silenti]

I assume this is the best thread to stick this question in.

What about Move 2, Kinect 2?
Ok, they just came out. If you release a new console just 12-36 months from now (with a likely date toward the higher end there), what do you do about upgrading the motion controllers? Currently you are stuck upgrading in mid cycle. That does not seem like the best idea for a host of reasons (splitting the install base being pretty high on that list).

Just assuming you purchased a Kinect Bundle recently, that is 400$. Similar cost for a Move Bundle.
I'm not trying to start a consumer cost argument with this statement. Those are the current bundle prices. So you invest 400$ 5 years (4 for the PS3) into the generation. How are consumers going to react to a new one, requiring the same investment, in that short a time frame?

Bottom line, if you release a new Kinect/Move, that just seems quick enough that it would annoy nearly everyone. If you don't, then you are stuck with a mid-life upgrade for you motion controllers. (Side Note: I am not intimately familiar with actually using either device. Only store demos and internet videos, leaning heavily toward the Kinect. It does appear that the Kinect would benefit a great deal from a resolution upgrade and some software time. Maybe this is more of a problem for MS than Sony if Sony pleased with the capabilities.)

The above assumes the Kinect/ Move controllers are not bundled with the new hardware. That may be easier for MS than Sony, simply given the number of different controllers that Sony has vs. 1 camera/ Microphone setup.)

 

[AlphaWolf]

I assume this is the best thread to stick this question in.

What about Move 2, Kinect 2?
Ok, they just came out. If you release a new console just 12-36 months from now (with a likely date toward the higher end there), what do you do about upgrading the motion controllers? Currently you are stuck upgrading in mid cycle. That does not seem like the best idea for a host of reasons (splitting the install base being pretty high on that list).

Just assuming you purchased a Kinect Bundle recently, that is 400$. Similar cost for a Move Bundle.
I'm not trying to start a consumer cost argument with this statement. Those are the current bundle prices. So you invest 400$ 5 years (4 for the PS3) into the generation. How are consumers going to react to a new one, requiring the same investment, in that short a time frame?

Bottom line, if you release a new Kinect/Move, that just seems quick enough that it would annoy nearly everyone. If you don't, then you are stuck with a mid-life upgrade for you motion controllers. (Side Note: I am not intimately familiar with actually using either device. Only store demos and internet videos, leaning heavily toward the Kinect. It does appear that the Kinect would benefit a great deal from a resolution upgrade and some software time. Maybe this is more of a problem for MS than Sony if Sony pleased with the capabilities.)

The above assumes the Kinect/ Move controllers are not bundled with the new hardware. That may be easier for MS than Sony, simply given the number of different controllers that Sony has vs. 1 camera/ Microphone setup.)

You aren't required to buy a new one just because they release a new one.

 

[Silenti]

Perhaps true, but the motion contollers either become part of your "core" install base or they are just another peripheral. If it costs 50$ for either set of controllers, and they are included as part of all base packages, that is 50$ that is not available for the rest of the machine. If you do not include them then either a new version is released in mid-cycle or you are stuck with the current tech for the next cycle as well.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Perhaps true, but the motion contollers either become part of your "core" install base or they are just another peripheral. If it costs 50$ for either set of controllers, and they are included as part of all base packages, that is 50$ that is not available for the rest of the machine. If you do not include them then either a new version is released in mid-cycle or you are stuck with the current tech for the next cycle as well.

They are peripherals, until they are included with every box.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Technology has not caught up in that level of performance per watt as well as battery life though, so it's a bit of a dream for the moment.

If they'd sort out fuel-cell tech, this wouldn't be a problem!

 

[Silenti]

Does anyone not expect these controls to be pushed as "must have" standards?

 

[MfA]

It depends, if Nintendo or Valve pushes them into launching in a year or two I don't think they will have a choice ... people would feel robbed if they had to spend the money on motion input again so soon. They will have to allow people to use their old equipment I think.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It depends, if Nintendo or Valve pushes them into launching in a year or two...

But how can Nintendo and Valve push people who ahve just spent on PS360 motion controls into buying a new Nintendo console? If Nintendo launch a new machine next year, they'll face exactly the same problem (if it exists) as MS or Sony launching new machines. If the market is happily enjoying their current consoles, they won't buy the latest box.

 

[MfA]

Valve doesn't need to push, they just have to launch a remote administrated PC which is impossible to screw up (normal PC use would be done through dual boot or virtualization, their own game launcher would be virtually indestructible ignoring hardware failure) with a nice subset of steam games slightly adapted to work well with TVs and the controller right out of the box. Minimal cost, and since they are expanding their existing market instead of trying to set up a new one they don't need a huge launch.

As for Nintendo ... having the most powerful hardware by far on the market will eventually leach gamers away from Microsoft and Sony. It's a game of chicken really, Nintendo's profitability for being first depends on how long Sony and Microsoft will let them stay next gen alone.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Valve doesn't need to push, they just have to launch a remote administrated PC which is impossible to screw up (normal PC use would be done through dual boot or virtualization, their own game launcher would be virtually indestructible ignoring hardware failure) with a nice subset of steam games slightly adapted to work well with TVs and the controller right out of the box. Minimal cost, and since they are expanding their existing market instead of trying to set up a new one they don't need a huge launch.

As for Nintendo ... having the most powerful hardware by far on the market will eventually leach gamers away from Microsoft and Sony. It's a game of chicken really, Nintendo's profitability for being first depends on how long Sony and Microsoft will let them stay next gen alone.

What's the appeal of this Valve launcher compared to PC-gaming today again?

Nintendo having significantly the most powerful hardware is huge stretch also. Let's see if they even reach the level of current consoles in processing power. Eventually leeching gamers away sounds a little weird, because how much time before the others launch their consoles they are going to have anyway?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As for Nintendo ... having the most powerful hardware by far on the market will eventually leach gamers away from Microsoft and Sony. It's a game of chicken really, Nintendo's profitability for being first depends on how long Sony and Microsoft will let them stay next gen alone.

But if there are people who would leave PS360 motion gaming for a high-tech Nintendo console, surely those same people would leave PS360 motion gaming for a high-tech MS or Sony console. I dont see how Nintendo have an advantage over MS and Sony in this regard if Silenti's position pans out and recent buyers-into the move phenomena don't want to be spending hundreds more bucks any time soon on new hardware.

 

[MfA]

Whoever is first has a potential advantage, depending on their lead.

 

[MfA]

What's the appeal of this Valve launcher compared to PC-gaming today again?

It's not a launcher, it's a launcher running on a Valve determined hardware configuration ... with a bootprom which will keep the box in a Valve determined OS configuration come hell or high water (at least for the dashboard, you could still dualboot into a self-administered OS or run one inside a virtualized environment).

So you get console-like foolproof operation (games can still crash, but you can never screw up the way it runs games by fucking up the OS ... without hardware failure it simply always runs and launches your game, just like a console) with some QA specifically targeted at your hardware configuration so you don't have to fiddle to get it to work right with TVs and a controller.

It acts like a console, it is a PC.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's not a launcher, it's a launcher running on a Valve determined hardware configuration ... with a bootprom which will keep the box in a Valve determined OS configuration come hell or high water (at least for the dashboard, you could still dualboot into a self-administered OS or run one inside a virtualized environment).

So you get console-like foolproof operation (games can still crash, but you can never screw up the way it runs games by fucking up the OS ... without hardware failure it simply always runs and launches your game, just like a console) with some QA specifically targeted at your hardware configuration so you don't have to fiddle to get it to work right with TVs and a controller.

It acts like a console, it is a PC.

So is it a separate box and does not run on any PC hardware, but a box that Valve sells like other manufacturers sell their consoles? I'm sorry but I don't see it doing too great. Like PC it would miss a lot of big budget games. I don't see it getting exclusives that easily and the hardware would pale against med and high end PC's or it would be too expensive.

 

[MfA]

It is PC hardware and Valve sells it just like other manufacturers sell their PCs, with some value added services to make it idiot proof ... hell, even ignoring games a lot of people might prefer running Chrome OS applications on a box they simply can't fuck up if it was marketed right. Apple has had a lot of success marketing idiot proof hardware.

PS. I might not have mentioneded, but the box of course just runs windows (even if the user won't be able to access it without dual booting). As I said, it is a PC.

 

[Mobius1aic]

It is PC hardware and Valve sells it just like other manufacturers sell their PCs, with some value added services to make it idiot proof ... hell, even ignoring games a lot of people might prefer running Chrome OS applications on a box they simply can't fuck up if it was marketed right. Apple has had a lot of success marketing idiot proof hardware.

PS. I might not have mentioneded, but the box of course just runs windows (even if the user won't be able to access it without dual booting). As I said, it is a PC.

A Valve box would be interesting indeed, but it would really need to be heavily discounted in comparison to comparable PC hardware. Also, if it isn't upgradeable, it would further plunge us into more of the darkness consoles have put us in, in terms of lack of innovation on pushing what games can have in terms of graphics, orchestration, etc. It's bad enough Valve still relies on it's in many ways "ancient" Source Engine (though at the same time it affords them a huge prospective user base). Valve could either custom configure PC games for the box or just let users go wild over how they want their games configured, which could mean the desire for letting users go into the CFG files. Also a box could limit modding if so many people buy the box, unless Valve allows their modding tools on this box as well..........god this is so complicated in thought now. Yeah, Valve should just stick to normal PCs, unless the Valve box really is just PC hardware with a basic OS made to purely run PC software off Steam only. Valve could release new boxes to satisfy the demand for more powerful machines

Ok here's my ideal "Steambox" configuration, cheap and effective:

- Athlon II x4 3.0 GHz
- Streamlined motherboard with 192 KHz 7.1 Surround sound build in.
- AMD Juniper GPU or Northern Islands equivalent w/ 1 GB GDDR5 OR Geforce GTS 450 w/ 1 GB GDDR5
- 2 GB DDR3-1333
- 500 GB HDD


A very basic OS, something using OpenGL of course, since Valve wouldn't be able to get DirectX, unless it ran a full Windows OS. Ideally I would want the OS stored and ran off Flash ROM and open to being changed and having applications installed. The main point is to have a very small OS footprint, at least in basic configuration with no other programs installed outside of Steam and games. Yes, users would be able to install anything they wanted but could revert to a game mode or give the OS a "kill all unnecessary crap" function that kills everything off quickly so you could for example load up a music playback program so you can listen to music while you frag people online.

 

[Kaotik]

The OpenGL idea dies with the fact that it would have really limited supply of games - only Valve games & those which are available for Mac would be possible even in theory (no, I don't believe devs would switch over to OGL just because Valve wants to make a console)

 

[MfA]

Why would it have to be discounted? It doesn't represent a huge cost to support, so it doesn't need immediate huge uptake. It's not a console, it just acts line one.

It would not need to be non upgradeable ... it's that upgrades would remove the potential for remote administration of drivers, it could still allow use of the dashboard mode (virtualization still has advantages for stability) but if your hardware/drivers for some reason are incompatible with the dashboard or mess up your system for other reason you will have to fix it yourself. No longer idiot proof. It would likely be a very compact box with little room for expansion though, it acts like a console after all.

For config editing and modding people could dual boot into a self administered version of windows and fuck around to their hearts extent ... but for the dashboard mode you get what you get.

Windows is an absolute necessity for the plan, anything else would represent a huge engineering cost and huge costs to get developers to port. Without Windows they would be launching a true console, no longer a PC.

 

[Squilliam]

A Valve box would be interesting indeed, but it would really need to be heavily discounted in comparison to comparable PC hardware.

Why would Valve have to release it? They could easily release say 1-3 difference specification levels and then let people remember what number they have but let any manufacturer make them so long as they install the required software.

Say for instance:

Steam level 1
Steam level 2
Steam level 3

and so on as new levels are added. Then all someone has to do is look at the game description, or perhaps even have it autodetected for them to apply configuration settings.

Say on the spec : requires Steam level 2 to run whilst the developer recomends Steam level 4 for optimal play. It could also warn people if they were at or below the level recomended.

That would make a whole lot more sense than Valve releasing a box. It would also fundamentally solve one of the bigger problems with PC gaming outside of a browser and that is figuring out if the games will run!

 

[MfA]

Someone has to make sure the box keeps running ... which means doing some minimum of QA for driver updates for instance. It is possible to allow manufacturers lee way in creating boxes to spec, but only if they help carry the increased burden of QA (this doesn't mean they have to do it, but they do have to pay for it).

To act like a console it has to be idiot proof, idiots can't be relied upon to handle hardware and OS configuration.