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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
You know, originally that post was without that last part. Then I added a line about "costing billions of Americans their jobs" and saying it's justified to cut off the hands of people who criticize Sony online.
And people still take me seriously. What is this, YouTube?
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
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.