Slashdot Mirror
Should Next-Gen Game Consoles Be Upgradeable?
MojoKid writes "Historically, console add-ons that boosted the performance of the primary unit haven't done well. Any attempt to upgrade a system's core performance risks bifurcating the user base and increases work developers must do to ensure that a game runs smoothly on both original and upgraded systems. The other reason is that a number of games rely on very specific hardware characteristics to ensure proper operation. In a PC, swapping a CPU with 256K of L2 for a chip with 512K of L2 is a non-issue assuming proper platform support. Existing software will automatically take advantage of the additional cache. The Xbox 360, on the other hand, allows programmers to lock specific cache blocks and use them for storing data from particular threads. In that case, expanding the amount of L2 cache risks breaking previous games because it changes the range of available cache addresses. The other side of the upgrade argument is that the Xbox 360 has been upgraded more effectively than any previous console; current high-end versions ship with more than 10x the storage of the original, as well as support for HDMI and integrated WiFi. It would also forestall the decline in comparative image quality between console and PC platforms."
No
It is too much of a change from the current gen being downgradable.
. .
Isn't the point of them to be simple? n00bs use them. ;)
Step up to PC gaming if you want to able to upgrade your stuff.
-americamatrix
The entire point of game consoles is that developers at least have a chance at a homogenous platform where they can make sure the game mostly runs the same everywhere. If you allow upgrading CPU, GPU, etc. then it's just PC gaming with a weird OS and components that will most likely cost more just because they can.
Bifurcation means the splitting of a main body into two parts.
I believe that if you want an upgradable gaming/HT platform, then you should build a PC. Consoles are specifically manufactured to run on a set hardware specification. Adding and/or changing the predefined hardware of a console will only add to the development cost of games, which will eventually be passed on to the consumer in the form of even more expensive games. Although the concept seems cool, I don't want next-gen xbox games to cost $100 each.
Suppose all those problems were resolved, and after resolving them we concluded "yes, next gen consoles should be upgradeable".
It wouldn't make any difference. Consoles are proprietary platforms--controlled by one company. The fact that making the console upgradeable would benefit *you* isn't going to result in an upgradeable console. It wouldn't benefit the company, and that's what matters. I mean, I'm sure that PS3 Linux benefitted people.
(Incidentally, for an example of a successful add-on, look at the PC Engine CD. We just don't remember it much because the system barely got a foothold in the US.)
Past consoles that had upgrades didn't do too well. In particular changing aspects that the programmers depend on (the amount of memory being the particular given example.) The "counter-example" is that adding entirely new optional features or additional file storage that the programmers can choose to use or not, and which do not change _anything_ about the regular architecture if they choose not to use them, doesn't seem to have any adverse problems. (Which says nothing about how well new games using the optional features sell, just that it doesn't break old games.)
Using that "counter-example" to argue that perhaps they should allow upgrades to the components the programmers depend on is just weird. Certainly you'd have to include a disclaimer in the docs right from the start about which components might be upgraded in the future. Even so, a large number of programmers would either not notice the disclaimers and fail to account for the possibility in their programming, or decide that dealing with it would be too difficult and thus fail to account for the possibility in their programming.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Anything in the initial design should be such as amount of storage space and video outputs (as it has to support many even with the most basic version). Beyond that no. The beauty of consoles is that it is a fixed hardware platform. Even the lack of hard drive in the original basic Xbox 360 was a disaster in my opinion (and caused troubles with dashboard upgrades later in the cycle for those units).
No they shouldn't. The whole reason you get a console is because it just works. Don't have to worry if your video card is good enough, if you have enough ram, if you have the right drivers installed.. etc. You just plug it in, hook it up to a tv, and put your game in. If you want upgradable consoles, then just use your pc and buy a controller.
Unless you mandate that older hardware works just as well as newer hardware, no.
People will rush to point out things like Kinect, or PSMove, or WiiMotion Plus... Those are accessories. Often cheap too, relatively speaking. The CPU is still the same, the RAM is still the same, game compatibility is still the same(more or less; there are bizarre examples across the board). Having upgradable mass storage or expandable accessories doesn't break the underlying assumptions.
I think that consoles should be "good enough." Big deal, Battlefield 3 looks amazing on PC. Surprise, it also looks amazing on Xbox and PS3. Increased levels of detail do improve immersion a LOT. But when there's a huge trade off between bleeding edge graphics and stability and compatibility, I'll lean towards stability and compatibility.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
So they just won't make gaming consoles in the future; it'll be converged into something else.
Expansion Pack, baby! Increase your RAM from 4mb to a whopping 8mb! That's DOUBLE the fun? Want to play MultiPlayer in StarCraft64? Better buy it!
The Nintendo 64 did this with a RAM upgrade from 2MB to 4MB which enabled better textures in newer games.
It seemed to work out fine there, but more advanced changes such as CPU or GPU replacement I think are better left to a new console generation.
Now would be the dumbest time to start making consoles upgradeable. The long lifespan of current-gen consoles shows that the hardware is no longer improving very rapidly in any way that people are willing to pay for. The low cost yet low sales of desktop PCs confirm the same fact. The next-gen consoles ought to be designed to run a generous poly count at 1080p resolution at 120hz (i.e. 60hz in 3d). Do that, and people will be happy for quite some time.
They are called Gaming PC's. It's a niche market and there is reasons for it. The XBox 360 adding internal WiFi is one thing, changing anything relating to processing power is completely different.
Upgradable in anything more than a trivial way, HD or Optical for example, basically an add-in card, blows the console economics out of the water. Socketed ram adds cost and drops speeds vs soldered. Same with CPU, and then we get to cooling issues..... Given MS's ability to keep the bumps on the 360 from shattering, would you want people to start mucking with that?
Part 2 is pointed out well above, console = fixed platform = cheap software testing. Upgrades = not fixed platform = testing nightmare.
While I haven't read the article (yeah, shame on me), I know more than enough about console development, economics and programming. I also talk to people doing the 'next gen' consoles almost every week. Having written for a console, I can tell you directly that 'upgrades' are, and will always be a non-starter. Anyone who posits it seriously is the walking equivalent of a flashing neon 'N00B' sign, complete with arrows. :)
-Charlie
Technical details that would prevent newer hardware from playing older games shouldn't be a problem on a console designed for upgrades, considering the budget and the caliber of the teams that develop these systems. The Xbox 360's upgrade history is unrelated, as the upgrades mentioned add no capabilities from a software standpoint. The real issue is the one first mentioned: platform fragmentation.
Historically, console add-ons that boosted the performance of the primary unit haven't done well
Obviously the poster never owned a Genesis 32x, I mean, I'm pretty sure they sold hundreds, if not thousands of them.
...at least I learned about pork brains in milk gravy! Almost made it worth reading.
Reminds me of the original days of the PC when there was a new processor out every month. The PC manufacturers were selling stuff that was "future-proofed". In the more extreme cases the processor and memory were all contained on a card which could be plugged into a powered backplane. The idea being that when a new processor architecture came out, you could just swap out the processor card and continue using all the other peripherals in the machine. Ah what's old is new again... (ie. it didn't work then, so...)
An absolute high spec basic frame with input and output, power, cooling.
High bandwidth connections can move data between one area and the other.
Your new console is sort of like a big cartridge that slots in to this.
Think back to what carts were like, some have had custom hardware in them to handle specific instructions, more memory, stuff like that.
That but on a huge scale, why not?
It could be separate units, enclosed RAM units, GPU, CPU, the current backing store method. It would be designed to be like PC, but less of a hassle. Less of a "will this blow my system up, or will it even fit in the first place" scenarios, less dealing with crappy naming systems from [insert any company from PC industry] where things with lesser numbers are more capable than things with bigger numbers. This is confusing and almost probably intentional, actually.
It'd be less money for the company, it'd be less money for us. Things fail? Easily replaced. No more having to rebuy an entire console where >70% of the thing could be entirely fine.
Of course, there is a big thing we need to remember here. This isn't just some huge cart you replace all the time.
This is to make a standard design that developers can work with throughout the upgrade cycle.
You CAN make a moving standard if you do it right. You CAN make things expand IF you do it right.
Games going slow because it needs to stream stuff from backing store to RAM? Here comes the new PS4 Xtreme Turbo, with faster and double RAM. Your game now runs smooth as a babies bottom. (this is already done now to an extent with HDD storage)
With the right dev tools, games can be made to automatically work with new hardware.
Developers would be advised to make sure their games are designed to not be strict, to check the current version, to work with offsets and percentages from maximums.
Let's face it, nobody cares about the PC industry anymore. There is a tiny market that won't grow anytime soon. It is crashing hard. It is also at a huge changing point that will cause more problems during the transition. (not to mention Windows 8 is the other other Windows, the bad one)
It is all about the Entertainment centers these days.
The only problem, of course, is the design for it. To have a decent design that is expandable, and most importantly, cooled well!
Hell, throw in some optical computing as the backbone. Might as well go all out.
That part is partially a joke. (there should at least be one ring for generic transport)
It would be a big risk. And to be honest, doubt it'd be one they will experiment with just now. Maybe next next gen.
Glorious PC master race. Also supports jailbreaking without mod chips. You can even install Linuxs.
Yes, I think that upgradeable consoles would be great! We could even come up with a special name for them... Since you could customize them as you choose, that makes it more personal to the owner. They also perform various computations that allow you to play games. Let's call them personal computers! Perhaps we could even shorten that to "PC" if people prefer.
Just imagine one of these PCs and all of the parts you could put in it. You could even attach different types of input devices! I can even see them used for applications outside of gaming.
The Next Gen console is an inexpensive PC capable of playing the newest games with reasonable quality.
The whole console paradigm is based on two qualities.
1. Price. Consoles cut corners and lack certain qualities that PCs have and as a result have great game performance at a reduced price. This is entirely possible with PC hardware today. If MS builds their own PC from the ground up to be a gaming machine then there's no reason why it can't support windows and have superior game performance.
2. Ease of use. PCs have been hobbled for years by being too complicated for their own good when it comes to games. More sophisticated gamers have no problem with this but it can be an issue with many. Take a cue from Apple and lock down these console replacement PCs by default so the casual users doesn't mess them up. For one thing, restrict multitasking by default as that harms game performance. If people want to have lots of background processes running while they play their game then give them a setting that lets them disable the feature. But by default, just as with typical consoles, have them devote all their attention to the game when it's running. Everything else is suppressed. Also as MS would be releasing these machines there would be no driver confusion since all the systems would come with the exact same hardware installed in them.
This would also break down the barrier between Xbox users and PC users. This barrier is not in MS's interests. If the Xbox and the PC play the exact same games then no other console is going to be able to compete with them. Exclusive titles just for the xbox that don't get released on the PC don't help the xbox... they hurt the PC.
As an additional aside, the consoles and MS especially need to get serious about producing a REAL media center. Something like XMBC only better. XMBC is pretty impressive for an open source community built project but MS, Sony, Nintendo, or Apple can do better. Stop dicking around. Stop trying to restrict what people can and cannot play on the machine. This only hobbles the utility of the system and ensures it won't catch on. Who gives a damn about windows media center edition? Who ever cared? It was a flop right out the door because it was half baked. Produce a complete product and release it. We want it.
Oh, and MS... consider dropping a version of windows on a phone that can run desktop applications. These smart phones are vastly more powerful then the machines that ran windows 3.1 . I think some have to be faster then those that initially ran windows XP. If you can't squeeze a version of windows 8 on one of those phones with a custom touch UI... then you're fools. A system that had that sort of capability would be vastly more useful then any other device on the market.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, consumers should be able to upgrade storage and video card at least; and lets call them PC 2.0 :-)
If you allow upgrading CPU, GPU, etc. then it's just PC gaming
That and unlike with PCs, there's a culture of plugging consoles into bigger monitors so that people on a sofa can play together in person. Not all games are competitive FPS or RTS where splitting the screen destroys the multiplayer experience. Fighting games, for instance, don't even need a split screen.
Is someone just dead set on creating a dystopia for tech inclined people? Can you imagine the kind of people you'd deal with if you provided hardware upgrade support for the Xbox 360?
It is ridiculous that they are not and the waste involved in the industry. It is nice that most consoles live a 5-7 year lifespan but there is very little reason that they could not be designed for some modularity and allow for them to be upgraded. Basically at this point it is a MB/CPU and GPU upgrade. I'd be OK if it was even the same price as a new system just to reduce the ewaste. Also, it is ridiculous that consoles are not required to offer backwards compatibility at least through emulation. I used to work in the gaming industry and it is all such a waste and most for no reason at all aside from greed.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Most historic console upgrades that I can think of consisted mostly of piggybacking what amounts to an entirely separate computer onto the console, and using the console as an input/output device. Think along the lines of the Aladin Deck Enhancer for the NES or the Genesis 32X. Often the upgrade cost as much as the console itself. It also tends to lack a "killer app," hence why so many development companies are reluctant to support it - pour $2M into a game only 5-10% of the userbase can use? Not exactly going to be rushing to jump on that bandwagon.
There is one upgrade I can think of that may have done a lot better than most of the others - that would be the N64 RAM upgrade. But, if I recall correctly, it often came with games, and it had a killer app in the form of a Zelda title. If a Zelda title is enough to move entire consoles, an upgrade is no surprise. That said, I have no idea how it actually did in the marketplace.
If they want to see mass acceptance of an upgrade they're going to need to put a LOT more thought into it, get developers in it IMMEDIATELY, make all new systems ship with the upgraded equipment built in as a standard (likely without a price increase), and drop the prices DRAMATICALLY. This may eat up their profit margin, but it's the only way to give people an incentive to buy the upgrade - after all, the reason that many people upgrade computer parts and don't just replace the computer is because it's cheaper.
It doesn't even make sense. Consoles are for idiots.(or little kids) Idiots don't upgrade, they buy new consoles. IF you are 13 years old, all of your friends will laugh you into deep depression if you had an upgraded ps3 and not a ps4.
If you want upgradable consoles, then just use your pc and buy a controller.
And pray that your game even supports controllers. Too many PC games support only a mouse and keyboard, not a HID or Xbox 360 gamepad. And even if they do let you use a gamepad without JoyToKey, they make you use a separate computer and a separate copy of the game (cha-ching) for players 2, 3, and 4.
Oh sure WHY NOT? I mean being able to upgrade by bolting on new CPU / HARD DRIVE etc, JUST ONE MORE THING TO MAKE THEM EXACTLY LIKE A PC! Seriously, at that point just game on your PC. If they DID implement something like that they would have to better regulate strict hardware standards more then the do for current PC's because how else do you guarantee everyone's console will be compatible with the latest game release? Oh yeah that's right, you code the game according to the lowest comment specification like the majority of PC games! YEP I AM BEING SARCASTIC!
Personal computer? Too personal. If you have more than one gamer in the household, you want something the whole family can use. That's why a Family Computer came with two controllers, and just about every console since then has supported two to four controllers and a TV output so that they could be used with a monitor big enough for the whole family.
They don't want you to piecemeal it . Like the cellphone makers, the want you to keep replacing the *entire* device on a regular basis.
its also why you see 'next generation' software not running well ( or at all ) on previous gen hardware.
Welcome to the upgrade-treadmill.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
isn't the xbox 360 running a powerPC processor with ATI graphics(a single purpose PC)(no PC problems from upgrading and doing a shit job at it).... so if it becomes upgradeable doesn't it become a PC..... so whats the point of the console then its just a PC that is not multipurpose ..... so I might as well have a PC no point in console
Also, it is ridiculous that consoles are not required to offer backwards compatibility at least through emulation.
Nintendo upgraded the GameCube in 2006. The new version had not only more RAM, a slightly faster CPU and GPU, and a distinctive remote controller, but also an online service to buy older consoles' games. The Wii can play downloadable NES, Super NES, and N64 games in Virtual Console emulation, and units from about the first five years of production can play GameCube game discs. What other console has as much backward compatibility?
The Nintendo 64 had the ram upgrade, it came packed in with Turok or maybe Turok 2? It let the game increase the draw distance and remove some of the "fog" also Perfect Dark had some multiplayer maps that would only work with the expansion pack too.
I've upgraded my console a bunch of times. I had a Nintendo and then I upgraded it to a super Nintendo. I was even able to play my old games by downgrading back to my Nintendo. Some time later I upgraded my super NES to aN64!
I even upgraded cross platform by upgrading my N64 to an Xbox! Crazy stuff!
The whole console paradigm is based on two qualities. 1. Price. [...] 2. Ease of use.
At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python inquisitor, make that three qualities: price, ease of use, and local multiplayer. The Wii especially is fun when you have other gamers living with you or when you have friends or relatives visiting you at home. It's a lot easier (and a lot more spouse-acceptable) to buy more controllers than to set up a LAN party.
Considering the price of games, one would think that the next-gen consoles would be nearly free, subsidized by the publishers. Especially as efforts to limit the value of used games becomes more prevalent.
I don't see Sony doing it, but I could totally see Microsoft partnering with a distribution channel to keep the price of the new consoles down. As it is, they'll probably be closer to $1000 than they will be to the prices of the current consoles.
I hope they fail. Consoles do nothing to improve the lives of gamers and have done much to degrade gaming.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The platform that most successfully upgraded itself was the NES. One of the degrees of freedom they had, because there were chips in each cartridge, was to deploy new memory management units inside the games themselves. Quite literally, the NES became more powerful for games released later in its dev cycle. SNES did this too, with the SuperFX chip inside of Starfox (the most popular DSP in the world, for its era) but it wasn't quite the "all games ship upgrading hardware".
I suspect if there was ever to be upgradable hardware, it'd have to work by yearly subscription, and it'd have to be no more than $50 a year for the part. However, with guaranteed sales in the millions of units (as games would hard-require it) the logistics of making some pretty crazy stuff fit into $50/yr wouldn't be unimaginable. Remember that XBox Live is already pulling, what, $60/yr?
The "entire point" of consoles is a) to give consumers a cheap, simple platform they can easily play games on, and b) keep control of the platform, so that the vendor can charge royalties on each game.
True, the homogeneous hardware is also easier on developers, which can at least mitigate the costs of supporting yet another proprietary platform. I'm pretty sure developers would prefer to e.g. support only Windows than to have to support Windows, Xbox, PS3, and Wii (and PSP, PSVita, DS, 3DS etc).
I've been disappointed with perhaps decreasing support for split-screen in console games. To me it's where consoles really shine above PC games. I haven't upgraded from Forza 3 to Forza 4 because they didn't make much improvement to the splitscreen mode (co-op online play, more than 2 AI cars, etc).
Think along the lines of the Aladin Deck Enhancer for the NES or the Genesis 32X.
The Genesis 32X I understand, and the Super Game Boy and Game Boy Player were the same way. But the Aladdin Deck Enhancer wasn't that so much as a set of common components (CHR RAM, bankswitching, and lockout defeat) that were in all Codemasters carts anyway. NES carts have three independent buses: the PRG bus used by the CPU, the CHR bus used by the PPU, and the CIC bus used by the lockout chip. The Aladdin adapter just handled the PPU and CIC bus jobs and ran the CPU bus lines out to a separate connector so that Codemasters' publisher wouldn't have to keep manufacturing identical PPU and CIC parts for each game.
One of the advantages of a console is that I can count on the games running in a relatively stable manner. The quality of the games usually get better over time because the developers learn better techniques & more optimizations, precisely because it isn't a moving target.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Would you buy PC games if they let you plug in multiple USB gamepads and actually use them?
that's really all the Xbox Indie games are, either clones of a different game
One could say the same for mainstream games. What are all the military FPS games other than clones of each other? Even Katamari Damacy is just the old Williams arcade game Bubbles redone as a 3D platformer. The last genre launch I know of was around 1997 when Parappa the Rapper was released.
or flash games with 3D graphics that cost money
One could say the same for a lot of Wii disc games in the $20 bin at Walmart.
So how should one join the industry if one's family is unwilling to move to Austin or Seattle?
To me it reads like satire.
Poe's law I guess....
Absolutely Not, and here is why:
With non upgradable consoles, you never go to buy a new game, and wonder 'wait, will this run on my machine?' That is the appeal of consoles over PC gaming, for the most part, 'it just works' you put the disc in, and play the game, and it is the same for everyone. No wondering if your graphics card will be able to make it look like the videos you saw online, no wondering if it will lag during action sequences, no wondering if you're going to need to drop another 50$ on more ram to play.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
No.
If I have some old SNES cartridges lying around, I can't exactly plug them into my Wii, I can't even send them in to Nintendo to have them imaged into Wii ROMs nor can I go to walmart and get a device that lets me transfer my NES/SNES/N64/Turbo-Grafix-16/Genesis/Neo Geo cartridges and play them on the Wii. Instead, I have to buy them again.
I understand your point, but by that measure, the PC is becoming not backward compatible either. If you buy a PC game and install it, you may have to buy another copy in order to be able to activate it on a different PC.
Not necessarily an upgrade, but what I would like to see is standard parts that are easily user replaceable. The PS3 hard drive is a standard 2.5" drive is easily replaced, while the Xbox doesn't allow for a standard drive to be used as a replacement. I had the DVD drive quit reading on my PS2. I was able to clean and adjust the laser lens, but eventually it got to where it wouldn't work. I bought a new PS2 since the repair bill would have been nearly as much. If I had just been able to pop in a standard DVD drive it would have been a cheap fix. From what I have seen other than overheating, the hard drive and optical drives are the two most common failures, so I would like to see those use off the shelf components that are easily replaced.
But if the consoles were wholly upgradable, wouldn't you just be buying another PC anyways?
Making a console user upgradeable makes little sense, as consoles are meant to be compact and user upgradeable parts would work against that. In times where you can't even swap the battery in most devices, you can't expect to swap the GPU or CPU. On the other side consoles should reach a point where they can get upgrades in the mid of a generation or more dramatically the whole "console generation" thing should disappear and updates should be more fluent. Essentially they should reach a point where they act like a TV: Want to see the a movie in glorious 1080p, you have to buy a new TV, but you can also just use your SDTV and view the movie just fine, but at lower quality. Furthermore your 1080p can still play old SDTV content just fine. There is a lot of forward and backward compatibility in the system. Consoles don't have that right now, backward compatibility is very limited and forward compatibly almost non-existent (except for a few GameBoyColor games). Of course at some point there would be a cut-off where the old-console would really be to old to play some new content, but things like small PSN/XboxLive games could easily be made flexible enough to run not only on the latest generation of hardware, but also a generation before that.
This would probably fail as bad as it has been tried in past consoles. Games made for upgraded consoles or add-on accessories don't see the large sales volume that regular games do because many gamers do not purchase the required equipment nor see the value for one or two games.
With the cost of developing new consoles and games we should be seeing longer console lifespans.
I agree with some of the other posters, you are making another PC. Is this a good paradigm to steal wholesale for game console manufacture?
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Short answer: Yes, consoles should be upgradeable. Why? Because I envision a next generation where all games are built to be played standards-compliant PCs. Much like the dedicated Brother Word Processor in my closet, the day of the game console should be at an end because we have a better option. We no longer need to make a single-purpose piece of hardware in order to have an affordable gaming machine. In truth, we have the technology to provide more convergence devices than ever...so why are we going backward?
Money and control. Would you like to have the choice of playing your PS3/X360 titles with online services that don't mind if you have a ton of game images on your hard drive, or the excellent MultiMan or XBMC software for your media? Well, tough shit. Despite the fact you payed between $300-600 for that lump of plastic in your living room, everything you do on it is controlled by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. You don't have to option to play any game you want on an alternative to XLive, so you have to either play by Microsoft's rules, or simply not play online. Why do you have to have the disc in the bloody tray if you install the thing to the HDD (Which, costs more per gigabyte than any "normal" HDD around)? Because Microsoft says so. Would you rather not see ads when you're paying yearly for XboxLive? Tough shit, MS knows you're not leaving because you have nowhere else to play online instead! Your games are basically being held hostage because they exist on these pieces of hardware that by the "benevolence" of their creators, you're given the opportunity to spend money on. So long as you do exactly what they say, pay up and shut up, you may get to play your game...what's left of it after the mandatory DLC-ripping occurs, that is... but do something they don't like and prepare to be hardware-level banned from the only network said hardware is able to work with. Its bloody extortion at this point. Console gaming is becoming more and more expensive, and even convergence devices are attempting to be locked down into "consolized" walled gardens to ensure that user experience and control are always second to hardware and software developer control.
That vast majority of so-called console games are developed on PCs and then "ported" to consoles, using varying SDKs. Sure, there are some easy tricks that you can use if you're absolutely sure you only need to support a very limited set of hardware, but lets be honest now the entire PC software market has developed everything from gaming to speed-trading software that is made to run on PCs that have varying hardware. There's nothing wrong with a handful of specifications on the box; PC gamers and developers haven't lamented this fact for years. If you want to make a game that requires a WiiRemote w/MotionPlus kit for the PC, then do so. Same with a DualShock 3 or X360 Controller - put the required or suggested controller on the bloody box and let us run Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword at 1080p if our hardware can handle it. I'd love to see a day when there weren't any "hardware exclusives", no $10 extra fee passed on to the customer for the privilege of playing said titles on a locked down pseudo-PC, and a given game wouldn't be a binary "Yes if you have console X No if you don't" affair.
The entire gaming experience would be much better if the next generation of games were simply programmed for normal PCs, ideally using technology easily portable so that the most hardware and software could be taken into account, especially OS-independent, FOSS technology. Everyone knows that when it comes to multi-platform titles today, the PC version is always the best one (unless its a horrible port) in terms of user access, cost, and modification. Why stay shackled to an antiquated system where a near unrelated entity has full control of the hardware and makes tons of demands to control and enrich themselves from both software developers and users, as opposed to the free and open game platforms we call PCs?
I have in the past plugged in two game pads into it and each worked independently on games that supported them.
Then let me rephrase my assertion: Not enough games support them. Too many PC game developers and publishers are stuck in the mindset of one machine per player. I'm guessing this comes from an assumption that nobody owns a home theater PC and people aren't willing to crowd around a 19" to 23" PC monitor the way they used to crowd around a 19" TV.
your comment has less to do with the platform then the game. That's just software.
I'm aware of that. So why is there a culture among AAA game developers and publishers of making multiple-gamepad games on a console to a far greater extent than on a PC, when both consoles and PCs can display on a modern HDTV? A lot of titles in multiple-gamepad genres don't even get ported to PCs at all.
Local multiplayer used to be a common feature on PC games before the internet was commonly used.
I agree that the Internet is better than a plane ticket for remote multiplayer in genres that don't depend on a rock-bottom ping. But for people who live together, or for people who are visiting for other reasons and happen to get the idea to play a video game, I don't believe remote multiplayer makes local multiplayer obsolete. What advantage does LAN play have over shared-screen play in genres that don't depend on hiding one's position from other players?
PCs are very adaptable... with little more then a software patch or an emphasis to game makers to provide certain features pretty much anything could be made standard.
But good luck getting this emphasis across when video game publishers see dollar signs in selling a separate copy to each member of the household.
like the Sega 32x, is that they cost as much as the original console did. If Im going to drop the same amount I did on the original console, it better be because I just bought an entire new console, not something of dubious value that gives me an incremental increase that's barely noticeable over default. If the upgrade was a one slot drop in a unit with an upgraded graphics chip, upgraded CPU and memory for half the price of the original? Hmmmm mebbe.
Usually buying a new console costs less then a decent computer upgrade.
Assuming that transferring "stuff" from consoles is easy, and consoles are backwards-compatible, then "upgrading" a console could merely be buying a new one, and plugging it into the old HDMI cable.
No, I will not work for your startup
They are cheap; it would be more expensive to make them upgradeable. Come on we live in a disposable society; just toss it in the dump and new one.
Is that http://www.earthsquotes.com is the best quote site on the net guaranteed!
And the internet is very serious business.
Look, I bought the XBOX 360 because I wouldn't have to upgrade it every time the latest and greatest game came out. I got tired of spending my hard earned money on my PC when there were more important things to spend it on, ie food for my family! When i spend $60 on a game I do not want to be forced into buying another $50-$100 piece of hardware just to play the damn game. I like the way game console make game devs bend and conform to the basic platform of the console. It's the basic 'do more with less' strategy.
They're consoles. The whole point is to have a consistent hardware base, so developers can custom tailor their code to the platform, leading to simplified testing and improved stability. One CPU, one memory spec, one GPU... the key parts are consistent.
You want to upgrade your console ? Trade it in for a new one! Or, if you're like me, you put it away and take it out from time to time for nostalgia.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
My idea is totally new and never been done before!
The Atari games were pretty much RAM
The Nintendo had upgrade abilities (see bottom of unit) however these were never exploited
Sega Genesis had a "32x" upgrade, also a CD Player, Also a Mega Drive downgrade
Not sure about the Super Nintendo
Nintendo 64 also had an expanded RAM upgrade and controllers had some ability to add features
Gameboys had continual improvements but no ability to really do this your self
PS1 - 3 had ROM chip replacements, faster CD drives
PS3 has an ability to upgrade the harddrive
XBOX is pretty much in the same boat but I believe it has been more hacker friendly
the WII also has allowed hackers, external hard drives
So to your point, it's not a new concept
The point was to be able to circumvent import rules on game consoles rather than computers. Officially it was something like "playstation computer entertainment system". Sony was saying 'look it even runs linux like a regular computer!'. That tack of course did not work.
The main users of linux on PS3's were research and development places that were buying PS3's, at a subsidized rate, but then never buying games. Which was just costing sony money.
Now, as a practical matter they shouldn't be allowed to remove the functionality from the device once sold. That's illegal, but they also shouldn't feel any obligation to offer further PS3's with linux support because as you say, it's a non market, and their "the PS3 is really a computer" didn't pan out.
Yes for HDD and it should be a sata with no lock in so you can by any HDD that will fit in the case.
1) Console manufacturers will turn your 300 dollar console into a 900 dollar one over the years by slowly and always releasing upgrades.
2) If I want to upgrade something I do my pc. I like consoles because of the fact when I buy one thats it aside from a couple periphals.
3) Game developers will have a harder time creating games. When a dev makes a ps3 game they know all ps3's ever made will all be identical so they know exactly what they can and cant do.
4) I already own a upgradeable console, its call a pc
Maybe this is the marketing engine revving up for someone's 'next generation' product. The base model will start off real cheap. Maybe $100 for a launch product. The launch day games will be playable. A few months later, hey, you require 2GB of RAM to play this and only have one. You zip to your local Walmart and find that the extra gigabyte of slow ConsoleRAM is another $100, when you paid that much for four gigabytes of fast PC RAM a year prior. I bet you want Wireless G or N for that too, don't you?
We let everyone access our console by making them cheap! It's totally up to you whether you want to pay the latest and greatest! If not, you can stick to the games that came out last year, but we might even release a patch that makes them require new hardware.
See, this was thought up by a marketing genius. Absolute genius, I tell you. Why don't most people buy consoles more often? A big initial investment for little initial return. You pay $299 for a console, a controller, and a game. A single game. In essence, that game cost you $299. Reduce that to less than the cost of two games alone, and you've got a whole open market. It would also bring PC-style bragging rights into the modern arena. My Console has twelve gigabytes of RAM and a $500 video card, obviously your Console with only four gigabytes and a $200 video card bogs down on Quake 1. It would also take pressure off developers when it comes to optimization. They don't have to sit there for months and take shit from the art department, telling them that they gotta squeeze forty hours of gameplay with huge textures and voice acting and multiplayer and a feature-length making of movie into a single sided DVD (gotta save pennies on the cost!) and make it use no more than a gigabyte of RAM.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
If anything, give us clustering like Sony promised us with the PS3, or at least let us use additional consoles as render slaves to provide additional viewpoints, and make it easy for developers to do. Late in a console system's life when the prices come down this would be attractive to many users, and that would pull used consoles off the market so that they can make new sales when they can actually make a profit on the hardware. In addition, some users would buy multiple (say, three) consoles at launch time in spite of the cost simply to have the bragging rights.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think this all comes down to a price point. Everyone that owns a console game system wants it to be powerful. Power = money so the price of the system is high because they need the high end components to make a console powerful. Then everyone whines and complains that the console is expensive so they use lower end components and put out micro sized versions of the previous system with some of the features cut out. All I can say is if you cannot afford something that is expensive DO NOT BUY IT. It is as simple as that, video games are unessential they are a luxury that not everyone can afford and it has been that way ever since the Atari age. If they make systems modular then they will have to have the same hardware as before plus all the parts that will be used to expand them. That means they will be a computer motherboard with expansion cards which will be far more expensive in the long run. I play games constantly on my Xbox and PS3 but if every game that came out needed a expansion card for its own specific requirements, every game would cost as much as the damn console. So needless to say if you cannot afford a console when it first comes out then save your money and buy it later when the price is reduced instead of whining and complaining about something you do not need to live.
seriously? none of the highly ranked posts talk about the sega genesis? kids these days.
it was upgradeable. you could add the sega CD and 32x. any upgrade to a standardize console would follow that model: modules that easily plug in/swap in. and game compatibility would be locked to those modules. it would be absolutely stupid to do it any other way.
you think they'd let you go buy your own CPU/GPU/memory? MS doesn't let you install your own HD. why would they let you install any old off the shelf CPU.
an official CPU upgrade module, on the other hand, would be something they'd do.
Other OS wasn't the only thing removed on the PS3 with firmware upgrades.
PS3 Users report latest Firmware disables some USB adapters
but they should definitely offer completely free development kits and let ANYONE write games that wants to.
yes, that means stop the selling hardware at a loss bullshit. also, make them legally liable for any features touted in the initial run, so they are sue-worthy when they drop said features.
go to school, learn to code
What should I add to my existing B.S. in computer science?
MOVE to Austin, Seattle, or Boston
I have no support network of friends and family in Austin, Seattle, or Boston, and my family is unwilling to follow me to Austin, Seattle, or Boston. How does one relocate hundreds of miles from family for the first time in order to seek a job in the video game industry?
Nobody is stopping you from being an intern at any game studio.
If high-tech internships have become unpaid, how does an intern at a game studio afford food and rent?
Why should i upgrade a comparatively cheap console. Even if the games run, they never would be optimized to use the upgraded HW. Moreover, consoles are packed more densely, so heat problems can easily occur.
The design criteria for consoles, namely platform stability, dense packing, cheap production (solder wherever its good from a yield/repair point, ease of use (imagine that you have to provide technical support to completely unqualified people putting in a new CPU wrongly) exclude any move towards extensibility.
If you want to buy a PC you can already, and it unlikely that a market as big as for the PC will arise (unless you allow the customers to put in standard PCI cards, which really make the console a little big.
I mean, consoles are already upgrades. Upgrade from xbox to xbox 360, ps1/2/3, gamecube/wii etc. Just because it doesn't involve swapping out parts doesn't mean it's not an upgrade. Xbox360 is kinda backwards compatible with xbox games, so doesn't that net the same effect of an xbox with swapped guts? Consoles just have the power of complete lateral upgrades instead of people upgrading at various times we do it all together. And don't we all like doing things together?
Balderdash!
The N64 had a memory upgrade you could place in the "memory expansion" door on the top front of the system; the first game released requiring it tanked badly because people didn't want to shell out an extra $80 to play a console game. After that developers ignored it not wanting to damage sales and even Nintendo pretended it didn't happen.
:/
There is also a dock connector behind a door on the underside of the N64. This was designed to allow you to upgrade the N64 with modems/graphics chips/etc... after a few massive failures in the Japanese market Nintendo gave up one the whole upgrade your console idea.
So it's been tried and proven to fail, so you can expect Sony to do it
Just like the previous generation gaming machines they can be upgraded, they're called PC's.
Quit buying the boxes and you'd be surprised how much support software companies would throw towards PC gaming.
Now I think I'm going to go play a round of BF3 on my 72" wide wrap-around tripple monitor set up at 5700x1200 resolution. Don't worry, you console players should be able to enjoy the same in another 10-15 years or so.
Do the words 'Sega 32X' or 'Sega CD' perhaps sound familiar to you?
Local multi-user is an aspect that has somehow been neglected in PC gaming. I think you are right, it should be possible.
On a more general note (and getting a bit off topic), using a generic PC as multi-user device should be possible too, as far as hardware is concerned. Take a modern PC with decent speed, plenty of USB ports and an ATI Eyefinity card that can handle 4-6 displays. Hook up all you need for 4-6 users and you have a relatively cheap way of equipping an office. But so far, there seems to be not much development in that direction. All I found is this link from 2004:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/XFree-Local-multi-user-HOWTO/
C - the footgun of programming languages
If you're trying to replicate console gaming you don't need 4-6 displays -- a single display with ~720 lines would match a typical modern console system. Not that I'd object to more pixels, I'm just saying the local-multiplayer aspect of games hasn't traditionally used anywhere near that much screen space. Heck, Goldeneye for N64 is widely considered one of the best local-multiplayer games (maybe not a modern competitor, but certainly in its time), and it put 4 users in a single NTSC frame.
I appreciate a lot of PC gamers moved over to consoles when the Xcrement Box came out but console gaming is not PC gaming and shouldn't try to be. If you want to upgrade there is a system that can handle that, it's a PC.
PC developers have already shit all over console gaming by lowering the quality bar and making patching a necessity and we're losing genres because there are too many people who can't handle a game that doesn't scream masculinity even if it's being played by children. So please, go back to your PCs and jerk off over all the video cards you could buy and leave consoles alone.
But that just shows what total idiots Sony was and why they deserve to lose this round. i mean here you have a company literally bleeding red ink, and they have a product they COULD have sold at $1000 a pop and made a pretty decent killing on, as for certain tasks the Cell chip is simply the best for the task, but instead they just flipped everyone the bird, burnt their customers and painted a giant bullseye in themselves with the hackers and for what? So they could turn down incresed profits? that's fucking stupid!
Instead they could have announced a "researcher's initiative" where they would host a code repo and offer $1000 PS3 while ending the sale of PS3s with Linux (while continuing to let the old units update) and kept the goodwill of the users while still making good profits and possibly even opening up new markets as those that have research that would run better on the cell could show that Sony would be supporting the ecosystem long term with access to new boxes. Even at a $1000 a pop the speed difference between cell and x86 for certain jobs would have made it still a viable choice. So frankly their posting a fourth year of solid losing doesn't surprise me, not when they are doing bonehead moves like that!
As for TFA it COULD be done but it would have to be done smart and make the OS control the new parts seamlessly while basically lying to older games to keep from having compatibility errors. For example you could add a memory module that sped things up by caching elements there instead of the HDD. Then the OS would simply redirect to the RAM if it was there, and to the HDD if it was not, thus allowing new and old systems to coexist. On the GPU side you could add support for say something like eyefinity for those that wanted it while not affecting gameplay.
Personally i like how the consoles stretch out now, as it makes for cheap PC gaming for the most part. Even the games that aren't ports typically don't use much better graphics than the consoles so they can later port it to other systems which means I can game on this nearly 3 year old HD4850 i picked up for $60 at my screen's 1600x900 res just fie with lots of purty. And frankly as we've seen giving the game devs more bling to work with can often be a BAD idea, look at how many shooters are now basically a straight line going from "Please be amazed at our scripted sequence, doesn't that building falling fill you with wonder?" setup to the next. you give them more bling and every 5 minutes you'll have to put down the keyboard so some dev can show off his latest particle or water physics. Hell even the greats like Valve aren't immune, see how they always seem to find a way to work in a basic "see saw" physics puzzle into every HL2 game, along with the "too slow elevator" bit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The point was to be able to circumvent import rules on game consoles rather than computers. Officially it was something like "playstation computer entertainment system". Sony was saying 'look it even runs linux like a regular computer!'. That tack of course did not work.
You are mistaken. Any PS2 Linux kit owning/PS3 yellow dog running user knows that it was Yabasic on the PS2 that was the attempt to evade the import duty. It failed but the duty was removed shortly thereafter...BEFORE Linux on the PS2 was ever released and most certainly before there ever was a PS3.
Now, as a practical matter they shouldn't be allowed to remove the functionality from the device once sold.
They didn't, it's your choice to perform the firmware update. If you don't you lose PSN (their service their rules) but can keep OtherOS no problem. In fact, the update warns you in no uncertain terms that doing it WILL remove OtherOS functionality and asks you to confirm, not just once, but TWICE that you want to do it.
By the time they cut out OtherOS, nobody in the research community gave a damn about the Cell anymore. When IBM announced that the Cell architecture was a dead-end, everyone moved to GPGPUs.
need I say more?
As a practical matter you need to choose between having OtherOS or having PSN when you previously had both.
Also, didn't more recent games force the upgrade if you wanted to play?
Fixed it.
Not really. Research does not move all that quickly. New setups might have moved to GPGPUs, but those PS3 clusters are still getting a lot of use and probably will be for another few years.
This.
The reason it is illegal is because the product is advertised to have these features, and more we'll add later. Removing a feature (especially in this case, a major one) is actually fairly serious.
Now I'm sure Sony knew exactly what percent of users ever actually used their other OS, and if they were using it for piracy. If they thought people were using it they wouldn't have removed it probably.
agreed, the last place I was had a 4 PS3 cluster going, which afaik is still running 4 years later. At this point it isn't a 'computing' project it's an astrophysics data project. But it's still crunching numbers.
You buy the next generation of console.
That the 19th century innovation of interchangable parts will proliferate to the gaming console industry and others.
Most comments seem to assume this would be a non-proprietary upgrade, certainly it would be only the console maker selling the upgrades.
They are just missing out on profit. 10x the hard drive space is much of an upgrade since your gaming experience will still be the same.
Also the load times are presently awful; hopefully they will use SSDs next time, or at least the games should load as fast as my PC, at least 5x as fast with a 7200 rpm drive.
If consoles are upgradable, it ruins the point of the console: a device in which when you buy software for it, aside from the hard drive space requirements, you can pop it in and play it. The moment you add an upgrade, you'll have to ask yourself when buying a game down the road "Do I have this upgrade?"
Remember Sega CD and the 32x? That's totally how they should do it.
Just use a computer, duh.
The only console expansion scheme that ever worked was cartridges. Realistically, what are the advantages of disk-based media? Disks are cheaper to produce and package and ship. They may be more resistant to environmental factors. But if next get consoles used a customized PCI-E or Light Peak interface for plugging in game cartridges, the cartridges could have co-processors, storage, etc built in like they used to in the late 80's and early 90's. It would free up game designers to stretch their legs a bit more as the platforms aged.
I buy a console because I know that it's $300/$400 upfront and I'm good for 5 years.
If I thought I'd be spending $100/$200 every yr or two thereafter, I wouldn't shell out the $300/$400 upfront.
Its the stability of the platform that's attractive to me.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Exactly and once you have invested in the code and considering the average lifetime of the units would a thousand a pop really have bothered you or any other researcher? i'd say probably not, not when you had a unit that was so efficient at crunching numbers. When you figure in the amount of data those clusters could crunch and the amount of electricity per unit honestly I bet they would have had a hell of a lot of sales even at a thousand a pop from those adding to their existing cluster. then add in the value add by having Sony host a code repo for PS3 code so that there would be tons of FOSS code to run on your cluster and it would seem like a no brainer to me.
Finally don't forget this is a company that hasn't had a profitable quarter in 4 years. With numbers that bad and that much red ink being bled one can just turn away customers, especially ones that could be buying units in bulk that you could be making a pretty penny off of. last numbers I saw had the PS3 costing Sony around $450 a unit so they could have sold them for $800 a pop and still made nearly double per unit. that's not bad profit at all, not for something you'd have almost no support calls from. Just another case of a corp being stupid, that's all.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I switched to console gaming because I didn't want to have to worry about what configuration my gaming system had in order to enjoy the optimal experience on the platform. I didn't want to worry about video/audio settings, drivers, or whatever. Even having to worry about firmware upgrades on a console is annoying. I don't want it to get worse.
Twinstiq, game news
We have an original Wii, and it's becoming a PITA telling the kids that they can't have that new whatever game because we don't have the MotionPlus controllers, The same goes for the Move controllers for the PS3. You could say go buy the add-ons, but why? I paid $600AUD for my PS3, and not much less for my Wii. I am not forking out another ~$200 for extra bits. The joy of consoles is that you shouldn't have to worry about the hardware. Just grab a game and stick it in and enjoy.
Based on the comments I have already seen, I'm a minority. But allow me to explain my point of view.
I'm a PC gamer - I have a PC worth a significant amount of money. I love it. I also have an xbox 360.
I'm fed up of games being developed primarily for consoles, and then the PC receiving some crappy port that doesn't make anywhere NEAR enough use of the available extra horsepower that the PC has.
The only current game that has really pushed things forward in terms of what can be done is Battlefield 3. Had a few friends over recently, who all play it on the xbox. I fired it up on my PC to show them - it was like an entirely new game to them. BF3 is a VERY rare occurrence in that it was developed primarily for the PC, and to take advantage of the features that PC offers FIRST, before then being backported to the xbox 360/PS3. Based on the speculation I've seen already, the next-gen xbox, which isn't even due out till next year, is going to have a particularly mediocre graphics card even by TODAY's standards - in the period between now and when it actually gets released (likely about 18 months I reckon), that graphics card will fall even more behind what PC's can do RIGHT NOW.
Skyrim is an example of the opposite of this. It looks precisely the same on the xbox as it does on the PC (ignoring mods). In addition, the UI for PC is precisely the same as what is used for consoles - which, for a mouse/keyboard interface, is a load of crap. Hell, if I leave my xbox 360 pad plugged in to my PC, it picks this up, and DISABLES Mouse/keyboard interaction till I unplug the controller. WTF is that all about?
Optimizations and the like because your platform is always going to be the same can only get you so far when the hardware is so limited compared to what is available.
In addition, RAM is dirt cheap right now. Why are systems like this still being released with seemingly small amounts of RAM? I know there's a cost/performance ratio that needs to be met here, but seriously - I can go to any major PC seller's website and on any pre-built PC upgrade the amount of RAM installed by default from 4GB to 8GB for between £10 and £15 at the moment. Why are these consoles still going to be limited in such a way?
Stick a Thunderbolt port on it and you've got all the future expandability you require.
I envision a future where the TV has a gaming module interface in the back. TV handles all the icky non-gaming parts (controllers via Bluetooth, firmware, network connection, IM/social networking, harddrives, USB sticks etc), and the gaming module is essentially a glorified graphics card with a general-purpose CPU tacked on top of it. Also, make it possible to connect your smartphone as a controller.
However, while I know many, many people who would buy this and love it, I know very few companies willing to design it. Therefore it will remain but a dream. *sigh*
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Very good debate on whether the consoles will be upgradeable, many factors must be taken into account, do not know much about it but my common sense says it will cost a bit. While I will continue playing my favorites juegos de Mario
On-Live or netflix are the future of consoles. The graphics are instantly upgradeable. I wouldn't be surprised if the next xbox has this capability built in. In two generations there will be no consoles. The "systems" will be built into tvs as an app much like netflix is on newer TV's. I think this is good. I am a Nintendo fan and they are known for their great controllers. Nintendo can still make awesome games and controllers but get out of the CPU/GPU manufacturing business; greatly reducing prices for consumers.
The other side of the coin is the profit margin for the console maker. Much of the profit in the later years come from reducing the production cost of the hardware through iteration over the life of the console. Memory costs drop drastically over a 5 year period. CPUs can be built at smaller die sizes, using less power, for less money. GPUs become less expensive as manufacturer yields increase, and the "high end" chip of the launch window becomes a commodity part. Early adopters pay more, but the console makers typically make less profit on the boxes as well. So providing an upgradable console doesn't make a lot of sense for the console makers. It simply reduces their chances to reduce the cost of goods sold in the future.