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."
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
No
Correct.
The reason platforms become popular are for one of two reasons.
1. A known base system so developers know what to build for. The Kinect is an outlier as it was advertised as the "next-gen" of the XBox and it was interesting enough for people to get to play with. It wasn't a memory increase (N64), but it was a Rumble Pack which came packaged with a product that requires it.
Apple did well with the requirement of having 1 mouse button as the standard. It forced developers to make simpler interfaces, which made Macs easier to use.
2. Cheap replaceable and interchangeable parts. The PC falls into this category, but companies with systems like Consoles or consumer gadgets do not want people poking around them. To top it off, all major console manufacturers have acted against altering the systems systematically.
You basically said what I was going to say.
Essentially, allowing them to be "upgradeable" removes the last barrier that effectively makes them computers with odd user interface devices. So I must say to anyone who wants upgrade-able consoles, it is okay. You don't have to be in the closet. PC gaming isn't so evil you need to hide it under a hipster like charade. We understand.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
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?
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.
Actually, as the summary talks about, programming for PC's and for consoles is very very different in some aspects. You can do a lot of stuff with a console you just can't on a PC because you know precisely what resources you have, where they are, and how fast they will be. The PS3 actually has custom libraries from Sony/Naughty Dog that are similar but different from openGl precisely because OpenGl would be too slow for the PS3 if you can avoid it. If you started allowing different GPU's you'd have to move to something like directx. Which is a good concept for 200 or so different video card models, but it's not worth the efficiency loss if you'd only ever have say, 4. Directx (and openGl) manage a lot of the GPU memory system stuff for you. That's easy, but it can be very inefficient, which is why a video card with 1 gig of memory does about as well as a PS3 or 360 with shared 512. Now directx and opengl (and the GDI layer in general on windows) have to account for the arbitrary nature of what might also be in video memory at the time. Right now I have two web browsers, some office applications I left open, a game, and steam all doing stuff that might take up memory. That's actually a really tough problem to manage in general, which is why consoles can do some awesome stuff with less, because you know exactly how much memory you get. When you could lock down a full screen application in windows and boot everything else out it was easier (but not easier on users and had its own complications).
In short. Your point 1 is wrong. If it supports windows it has to support general program environments and random crap hanging out in the desktop. Windows is a productivity OS (despite what people may think) and you can use a stripped down version of the kernel, but the actual OS as sold does a lot of stuff you definitely would not want in a memory constrained environment, like layers of stuff on the desktop etc.
And yes, the idea with windows 8 is to have a unified environment to execute phone or desktop code. Same OS, different skin. Now if then get intel into a 3 way with nokia they will have one hell of a product on their hands.
It wouldn't be that nice. Only approved upgrade kits would work, every 6 months a new $100 kit would come out, and developers would be forced into an SDK that automatically keeps any game's minimum requirements lock-step with the console upgrade schedule. The upgrades would be nothing more than unlock codes for clockspeed and features already built into the machine.
Apple would sue them for ripping off their business model.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
No
Mod parent up.
The great thing about console programming is that you know every last detail of the target machine. You know what works, what doesn't. You can budget everything right down to the last clock cycle and squeeze out 100% performance from the chips.
If you take that away then it's game over as far as optimization is concerned.
No sig today...