Why didn't other systems have easily expandable memory ?

[Anthony1]

I got rid of my Nintendo 64 before the Memory Expansion Pack ever was released, but looking back at it now, I think it was a smart idea for Nintendo to have thought ahead like that.

From what I understand, the games that required the expansion pack had their graphics pretty considerably improved.

Plus the expansion pack was relatively inexpensive, and could even be added to the package of certain games for a higher price.

Just think if the Playstation 2 or XBOX had a slot for a memory expansion pack?

With how cheap Ram is right now, you could add a strip of 256MB of Ram to the XBOX, and have special XBOX games that would be dramatically improved.

And if the PS2 could use some expansion memory, then every game could run at 640 x 480 in Progressive Scan.

Now, certainly, the next generation of systems are going to have so much Ram on board standard, that this will be a moot point, but I just thought it was interesting in looking back at Nintendo's expansion pack.

[Nature Boy]

The problem with it is consumer backlash. Doesn't it smack of a way to get an extra few bucks out of you? Besides, if I wanted a machine whose RAM I could easily expand I'd be a PC gamer.

Although I do have the N64 expansion I hope I never see it happen on another console.

[Sylentwulf]

Ram prices ARE down. So are CD Drives, fans, cases, CPU's, and video cards.
It quickly turns into a PC.

[Anthony1]

I doubt that you will ever see it on a future console, but just think if you could add 128MB of Ram to the Playstation 2 right now.

They could sell it for 20 bucks.

They could pack it in with a special version of Metal Gear Solid 3 or something.


The fact of the matter is that Sony is going to have to come out with the PS3 way before they would like to, because the PS1 is looking so long in the tooth compared to the XBOX.

If you could expand the Ram for a mere 20 bucks, it could extend the lifespan of the PS2 another 3 years and allow Sony to release the PS3, when they want to, rather than when they have to.

How much Ram does the PS2 have anyways?

Would adding 128 more than double the system Ram?

[Arcade Antics]

The fact of the matter is that Sony is going to have to come out with the PS3 way before they would like to, because the PS1 is looking so long in the tooth compared to the XBOX.

???

[Anonymous]

I think he meant the PS2.

And yes, 128 megs of ram would quadruple it. The PS2 only has 24 megs of ram total, the Gamecube has 40, and the Xbox, 64.

[Anthony1]

Arcade Antics: what I mean by that statement, is that purely from a grahics standpoint, the PS2 is starting to look rather outdated in terms of technology, when compared to XBOX games like Brute Force. When you go to a EB and see a XBOX kiosk with Brute Force in it,and a PS2 kiosk with whatever in it, the difference is pretty remarkable.

Now of course Sony is absolutely dominating market share, but they are very aware of the fact that the PS2 is started to look very outdated in terms of comparing the same game running on the XBOX and the PS2. (if it isn't just a quickie port, and it actually taps into the power of the XBOX).

Sony was originally planning on taking their sweet time in bringing out the PS3, but since then they have decided that they need to come out a year or more ahead of their initial schedule, so they can get back the visual edge in terms of pure graphical bliss.

[Arcade Antics]

Arcade Antics: what I mean by that statement, is that purely from a grahics standpoint, the PS2 is starting to look rather outdated in terms of technology, when compared to XBOX games like Brute Force. When you go to a EB and see a XBOX kiosk with Brute Force in it,and a PS2 kiosk with whatever in it, the difference is pretty remarkable.

Gotcha - I was thrown when you said PS1, which while true, wasn't clicking with me. :)

I dunno though, I really don't see a world of difference (graphically) between the XBox and PS2. The days of quantum leaps are largely long gone, so I would be skeptical that Sony would reprioritize their next system launch based solely on marginal graphics disparity.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Sony's all that concerned about the graphics being the best. All of the developers have committed to making Sony games. There is a considerable investment in deciding to make games for a system, and many smaller developers are financially bound to the PS2 because that is all they can afford to program for. If anything, Sony needs to worry about not having a system that can do what developers want gamewise. If microsoft practically gives away the developer kit for Xbox2, and it allows developers to do things that they could not do before, or do things that would take forever to develop on the PS2, then they have to worry. But graphics are a huge drain on a developer's resources.

[Anthony1]

I hear ya, but to be the disparity between graphical quality is ridiculous. Of course, I'm the type that notices slight little things in the backgrounds and foregrounds, and just little details that most people would never notice nor ever care about.


To me, I have always considered the Playstation 2 to be an absolute failure in engineering by Sony's engineers, in terms of developing a system that would be the "be all, end all", like it was hyped up to be prior to release.

All the games that I see on that system just have this "PS2 look" to them. It's just a muddy, washed out look. It's a dark look, without a lot of clarity and color to the picture.

Personally, I think that the Nintendo 64 could output a better picture from just a color and clarity standpoint.

The PS2 picture is just so full of noise in it.

It's very hard to explain, but if you were a videophile like I am, then you would know what I'm talking about.

[Anthony1]

oops, I meant the Super Nintendo, not the Blurry 64.


Sorry!

[l_lamb]

Personally, I think that game developers need to make their games work within the constraints of the original system design. Allowing upgrades just means that they can write sloppier code and just increase the system requirements to make their game run. That's been my problem with PC games; they're written to run on the latest and greatest processor/graphics card and most won't run on a PC that was state-of-the-art just one year before >:(

[Anonymous]

It's very hard to explain, but if you were a videophile like I am, then you would know what I'm talking about.
FYI this sounded a little backhanded. I know that wasn't the intent, though so don't worry about it. It's pretty hard not to notice the difference between PS2 graphics and Xbox graphics, but as has been pointed out many many times in the past, graphics do not a successful system make (NES vs. SMS, N64 vs. PS1, GB vs. Lynx/gamegear/NGPC). The system that has the best and most games is the winner, and the more developers you have for a system, the more impressive graphics you'll get out of it. If the NES is more successful you're going to get developers working to squeeze every drop of performance out of it, even if the same thing could be done on the SMS much easier.

However, I think that now that systems are dictated by the mainstream, marketing, licenses, and diversity of games are going to be more important to the industry. Word of mouth still counts for some, as do graphics and developers, but at this point I think reputation and branding are way more important. as unfortunate as that may be.

[Nature Boy]

oops, I meant the Super Nintendo, not the Blurry 64.
Sorry!

heh heh heh - you're not having the best day today, eh?

I can see differences I suppose in the consoles but it's not exactly fair to use a recent title like Brute Force for comparisons. Of course an exclusive title (and recently released one) is going to shine. Of the stuff that's ported they're all pretty much the same from what I've seen. I don't bother looking at that stuff for the most part though (I mostly buy exclusive stuff, which is why I have so few Xbox games).

If anyone rushes to market I figure it'll be Nintendo trying to get there the same time as Sony, and not be a year behind. Maybe MS will follow suit, who knows. But I still think the expansion idea is a bad one. Even if Sony does try to use it to expand the PS2s life cycle, it still comes across like a money grab (especially if all the new games require it, as opposed to just use it a bit) and I have a feeling more people would bolt to a new console before they'd buy a memory upgrade (or just wait for PS3).

[zmeston]

Arcade Antics: what I mean by that statement, is that purely from a grahics standpoint, the PS2 is starting to look rather outdated in terms of technology, when compared to XBOX games like Brute Force. When you go to a EB and see a XBOX kiosk with Brute Force in it,and a PS2 kiosk with whatever in it, the difference is pretty remarkable.

The visual differences between the current crop of competing consoles are much less dramatic than you make out, especially for casual/mainstream gamers who continue to play their consoles through composite video and RF boxes (the latter of which remains a best-selling peripheral). Agreed, the PS2 is technically the weakest of the three, but a well-programmed and well-drawn PS2 game can be just as visually stunning as anything on the other two consoles. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Metal Gear Solid 3, and Need for Speed were the most gorgeous console games at E3, and all running on PS2 hardware. Developers have had more time with the PS2, and thus have learned more visual tricks.


Sony was originally planning on taking their sweet time in bringing out the PS3, but since then they have decided that they need to come out a year or more ahead of their initial schedule, so they can get back the visual edge in terms of pure graphical bliss.

Did you read this somewhere? If so, could you point me to the magazine or website? I've never seen any Sony official make any statement about rushing the PS3 into production.

As for the N64 Expansion Pack, Nintendo cut costs on the N64 base unit by yanking out some of its RAM, then sold that RAM as a bundled item later on when costs had come down. That's "thinking ahead," but from a perspective of benefitting Nintendo's bottom line, not the gaming experience.

-- Z.

[bargora]

As far as system selection goes, in my view it's all about teh gamez. Once I "went retro" and once again savored the taste of 2-D gaming, I discovered that the subtleties of background shading in modern games just kind of go over my head. I mean, it's great that games look good now. I like it. Shiny games. Pretty games. Yes, bargora like.

Anyway, I think you may have a valid point about RAM expansions, Anthony. I mean, the eventual availability of (comparatively) dirt-cheap RAM is a near certainty, so you'd think that it would be a no-brainer to try to get a couple more years out of a console by giving it some limited expandability.

But did it work for N64? Well, I have no idea whether it improved matters for Nintendo. How far into the N64's life cycle was the 4Mb expansion pak introduced? How many were sold and installed compared to the number of systems sold overall? How many games took advantage of or required the feature?

I mean, wasn't the PS2 video RAM considered undersized even at the time of launch? And wasn't it configured that way to save costs over including a larger amount of RAM?

Of course, I'm hard pressed to think of an aftermarket expansion thing for a console that has been wildly successful (unless the N64 expansion pak could be considered as such). I mean, look at Sega's exploits. :/

[YoshiM]

You can't even think PC pricing when it comes to consoles. Why? Most consoles are custom designed, so pretty much off-the-shelf parts are not going to work. There would have to be modifications to make it work in an easy to plug-in fashion (ala the N64 Expansion Pak) as most people on the planet are not comfortable with the idea of opening the hood on a piece of electronic equipment. So modification costs money. Then there's the RAM. It's not going to be conventional, so toss the Best Buy prices out the Window. Being specialized RAM for a specialized system costs even more. Then they have to decide how much RAM to include that would make a noticable improvement in quality of the game and then decide if its price effective for the masses to buy it.

Creating an expansion to enhance games is a tricky business. For one existing games probably won't run any better as they were optimised for the original hardware. Then there are future games- does it pay to spend the time to create a mode that uses the extra memory (remember, it's not like a PC with an expandable video card that automatically allocates RAM. I would bet that they would have to make special drivers to utilize extra RAM) along with an "unenhanced" mode or do they go for broke and make an "enhanced only" game. It's a juggling act trying not to alienate their customers. Then there's the question of what the average customer has for A/V equipment. Is the enhancement going to make a difference on a standard TV? Again, they don't want customers to give them a bad rap over an expansion pack that requires a better TV to use.

I agree with Nature Boy. I hope a "RAM expansion" never comes out on future systems.

I'm still wondering how a hard drive expansion for the PS2 is going to fly over here in the states.

[Anthony1]

I can't find a link now, but I read a story a couple of months back that was titled something like......


SONY SPEEDS UP THE TIMETABLE FOR PS3

or something like that. It was a Story that was on Yahoo News. It basically talked about how some people at Sony felt that as we got into late 2004, that the PS2 could start looking very inferior to some of the newer consoles like the XBOX and Dreamcast. Because at that point the XBOX and Dreamcast would be on their 4th or 5th generation of software and would start to have some games that really showed off their more powerfull systems.

When I read this news piece, I was very shocked to see that Sony was basically outright admitting that their PS2 was very much inferior from a technological standpoint. Even though everybody is aware of that fact, you wouldn't think that you would actually admit that to the press.

[Captain Wrong]

All I know is I remember many people crabbing when Perfect Dark came out and most of the game was missing unless you had the expansion pack. Yeah it be good for people who care about such things to add RAM but I don't think most consumers really care and it seems to me that buying console upgrades is not a popular way to go.

[zmeston]

I can't find a link now, but I read a story a couple of months back that was titled something like......


SONY SPEEDS UP THE TIMETABLE FOR PS3

or something like that. It was a Story that was on Yahoo News. It basically talked about how some people at Sony felt that as we got into late 2004, that the PS2 could start looking very inferior to some of the newer consoles like the XBOX and Dreamcast. Because at that point the XBOX and Dreamcast would be on their 4th or 5th generation of software and would start to have some games that really showed off their more powerfull systems.

When I read this news piece, I was very shocked to see that Sony was basically outright admitting that their PS2 was very much inferior from a technological standpoint. Even though everybody is aware of that fact, you wouldn't think that you would actually admit that to the press.

Reporters can always find "anonymous sources inside such-and-so" who are willing to rag on the company, but a few disgruntled weenies don't reflect official company policy. Sony would never officially state "Our hardware is inferior, so we're shipping the PS3 early." Unless you can show me that they did...

The Xbox and GameCube (I'm assuming you mean GameCube instead of Dreamcast) won't be into their fourth or fifth generation of software by late 2004; the PS2 is only now crossing over from second-generation to third-generation software, and the hardware's been out since 2000, a year earlier than the Xbox and GCN.

Also, as evidenced by this year's E3, PS2 developers are making the most of the extra year they've had to learn the hardware. All of the show's most graphically impressive console titles were running on PS2 hardware.

As a guy who owned an Amiga and suffered through many an IBM conversion, I can relate to the pain of Xbox and GCN owners who despise "lowest-common-denominator" ports from the PS2 -- but I understand why third parties do it, and I look to Microsoft and Nintendo to provide first-party games that really show off their hardware. Nintendo has done so with Metroid Prime and The Wind Waker, and Microsoft has done so with Halo, although the latter's first-party games have been mostly terrible thus far.

This isn't the same news piece that inaccurately cited a chip manufacturer as stating that the PS3 was gearing up for production, was it? It sounds vaguely familiar.

And finally, the PS2 isn't "very much inferior," nor is "everyone aware of this fact." As a self-declared videophile, you're certainly aware of the technical differences, but the casual/mainstream gamers upon which the industry is now dependent think the current consoles' graphics are all pretty much the same -- a perception reinforced by third-party multi-platform releases.

-- Z.

[zektor]

Personally, I think that game developers need to make their games work within the constraints of the original system design. Allowing upgrades just means that they can write sloppier code and just increase the system requirements to make their game run. That's been my problem with PC games; they're written to run on the latest and greatest processor/graphics card and most won't run on a PC that was state-of-the-art just one year before >:(

I second this. Without any upgrade the programmer has to make the best with what he/she has. A testimony to this should be the Commodore 64. Great computer, pushed to it's limits for years...

[Anonymous]

Reporters can always find "anonymous sources inside such-and-so" who are willing to rag on the company, but a few disgruntled weenies don't reflect official company policy. Sony would never officially state "Our hardware is inferior, so we're shipping the PS3 early." Unless you can show me that they did...

The Xbox and GameCube (I'm assuming you mean GameCube instead of Dreamcast) won't be into their fourth or fifth generation of software by late 2004; the PS2 is only now crossing over from second-generation to third-generation software, and the hardware's been out since 2000, a year earlier than the Xbox and GCN.

Also, as evidenced by this year's E3, PS2 developers are making the most of the extra year they've had to learn the hardware. All of the show's most graphically impressive console titles were running on PS2 hardware.

As a guy who owned an Amiga and suffered through many an IBM conversion, I can relate to the pain of Xbox and GCN owners who despise "lowest-common-denominator" ports from the PS2 -- but I understand why third parties do it, and I look to Microsoft and Nintendo to provide first-party games that really show off their hardware. Nintendo has done so with Metroid Prime and The Wind Waker, and Microsoft has done so with Halo, although the latter's first-party games have been mostly terrible thus far.

This isn't the same news piece that inaccurately cited a chip manufacturer as stating that the PS3 was gearing up for production, was it? It sounds vaguely familiar.

And finally, the PS2 isn't "very much inferior," nor is "everyone aware of this fact." As a self-declared videophile, you're certainly aware of the technical differences, but the casual/mainstream gamers upon which the industry is now dependent think the current consoles' graphics are all pretty much the same -- a perception reinforced by third-party multi-platform releases.

-- Z.
This might sound a little odd, but I thought this post was really good. I liked the way you brought it full circle with the 'perception reinforced by third-party multi-platform releases' thing.

Zach, you mentioned wanting to do an article for DP. I think a 'connections' type article (like the Scientific American article and subsequent BBC/Science Channel television series) for the video game industry would be really good. You know, start with an opinion about, for example, that mainstream opinion is based on brand loyalty, then daisy chain facts together until you come back to your original opinion (Nintendo's trouble with too much brand recognition, the significance of '64' in their console, difference between N64 and C64, C64's competition with Atari/IBM and IBM's subsequent dominance, Amiga's dealing with Lowest-common-denominator programming, problem with LCD appearing in modern consoles leading to consumer apathy leading to brand loyalty).

A tough article to write, perhaps, but the Connections articles in Sci-Am are always a great read.

[zmeston]

Reporters can always find "anonymous sources inside such-and-so" who are willing to rag on the company, but a few disgruntled weenies don't reflect official company policy. Sony would never officially state "Our hardware is inferior, so we're shipping the PS3 early." Unless you can show me that they did...

The Xbox and GameCube (I'm assuming you mean GameCube instead of Dreamcast) won't be into their fourth or fifth generation of software by late 2004; the PS2 is only now crossing over from second-generation to third-generation software, and the hardware's been out since 2000, a year earlier than the Xbox and GCN.

Also, as evidenced by this year's E3, PS2 developers are making the most of the extra year they've had to learn the hardware. All of the show's most graphically impressive console titles were running on PS2 hardware.

As a guy who owned an Amiga and suffered through many an IBM conversion, I can relate to the pain of Xbox and GCN owners who despise "lowest-common-denominator" ports from the PS2 -- but I understand why third parties do it, and I look to Microsoft and Nintendo to provide first-party games that really show off their hardware. Nintendo has done so with Metroid Prime and The Wind Waker, and Microsoft has done so with Halo, although the latter's first-party games have been mostly terrible thus far.

This isn't the same news piece that inaccurately cited a chip manufacturer as stating that the PS3 was gearing up for production, was it? It sounds vaguely familiar.

And finally, the PS2 isn't "very much inferior," nor is "everyone aware of this fact." As a self-declared videophile, you're certainly aware of the technical differences, but the casual/mainstream gamers upon which the industry is now dependent think the current consoles' graphics are all pretty much the same -- a perception reinforced by third-party multi-platform releases.

-- Z.
This might sound a little odd, but I thought this post was really good. I liked the way you brought it full circle with the 'perception reinforced by third-party multi-platform releases' thing.

Zach, you mentioned wanting to do an article for DP. I think a 'connections' type article (like the Scientific American article and subsequent BBC/Science Channel television series) for the video game industry would be really good. You know, start with an opinion about, for example, that mainstream opinion is based on brand loyalty, then daisy chain facts together until you come back to your original opinion (Nintendo's trouble with too much brand recognition, the significance of '64' in their console, difference between N64 and C64, C64's competition with Atari/IBM and IBM's subsequent dominance, Amiga's dealing with Lowest-common-denominator programming, problem with LCD appearing in modern consoles leading to consumer apathy leading to brand loyalty).

A tough article to write, perhaps, but the Connections articles in Sci-Am are always a great read.

You're right -- it does sound a little odd when someone claims to have enjoyed something I wrote. Heh.

A videogame "Connections" is a very cool idea. I'll mull this over and see if I can't throw together an article in my "free time."

-- Z.

[RubbarDucklin]

I WOULD like to see a little more Ram in those babys. Because I don't know if you pals know of my gripe with LOAD times. Just cut back on the load times...thats all I ask. Hmm...Ram wouldnt improve load times that much...a new processor...I don't know but it would improve things. And it's relitively inexpencive

[Nature Boy]

What's the word on the "Dreamcast" mention anyway? Was that article written in 2000 or was it a misprint?

[Anthony1]

Dreamcast was meant to be GameCube. my bad