Should Next-Gen Game Consoles Be Upgradeable? [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

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."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


More...

[OldSchoolGamer]

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!

[Gameguy]

The N64 was upgradable with it's expansion pak, you couldn't play Majora's Mask or several other titles without it. It seemed like a stupid idea to me back then too.

[Gamevet]

It would be nice if they offered system memory upgrades like what was done with the N64 and Saturn.

The PS3 and 360 would have benefitted from having system memory upgrades, since the amount of RAM space has limited the available memory to do higher res texture mapping on those systems. I'm sort of shocked they had chosen 512MB/ 256MB for their system memory, when they were touting these consoles have a longer life cycle than the previous generation.

[Collector_Gaming]

pfft if that happens i wont even bother buying a newer gen console... Just release the damn games on the pc and i'll just hook up a controller to the computer and game on that. Same damn thing

[Gamevet]

pfft if that happens i wont even bother buying a newer gen console... Just release the damn games on the pc and i'll just hook up a controller to the computer and game on that. Same damn thing

Until publishers start making the PC the lead development platform, I'm not buying their slightly enhanced version of a console game. I'm not buying DX9 enhanced games on the PC, when I can play the same game on a console from the comfort of my livingroom. Yeah, if I'm seeing DX11 games being developed for the PC gamer first, I'm buying it.

[kedawa]

I play PC games from the comfort of my living room.

[Gamevet]

I play PC games from the comfort of my living room.

I have as well, with titles like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 (I bought it after the DX11 patch), but I moved my PC into the livingroom only when a title was good enough to do so. I didn't buy Skyrim on the PC, because it was pretty much a DX9 title that played just as well on the consoles, and I might as well play it on the console since the achievements and trophies offer more of an incentive to play the game beyond completing the main storyline.

[substantial_snake]

I don't see the point since that's what PC gaming already is.

I already don't like how the current consoles require you to download fairly regular updates either for their own system or for X game's update in a very PC-like manner. Despite all of the advantages of regular content and software updates I much preferred when consoles were a plug n' play system because both that and a consistent experience (read: no fiddling with drivers, software, or hardware to make it work) are largely what have kept me buying home consoles instead of just going full PC. The only differences that I can see hardware produces bring to the table is a new marketing term to "de-geek" whatever your upgrading in your console along with exorbitant prices to go along with a whole new console experience.

I can just imagine when you'll see this on your local gamestore window:

PREORDER NOW for the ALL NEW, ALL EXCLUSIVE Gears of Drake 6: Fortunes Widow and get a DISCOUNTED M2 UPGRADE UNIT for your PLAYBOX1080˚!!!*

*Offer only applies as supplies last. Warning, all new official Sonysoft titles after the release of Gears of Drake 6: Fortune's Widow (11/06/16) will require the M2 unit however this may make your system incompatible with M1 unit developed software, please visit Sonysoft.com for more details and/or listing of compatible software. Users will need to acquire the SM2 Driver package for full compatibility with all future M2 developed software, please see a sales associate or visit Sonysoft.com for further information. Gears of Drake, M2, and the PLAYBOX1080˚ are registered copyrights of Sonysoft industries, all rights reserved.

However I think this is a non-issue since the future of gaming seems more likely to involve content streaming services like Onlive.

[calthaer]

I don't think this idea is far off, but I think it's going to creep in from the other direction: I think we may start to see PCs that are more easily upgraded, perhaps. I can imagine PCs that are put into a particular type of case where the upgrades - sound cards, video cards, whatever - can be slid in like a cartridge instead of having to open the case and fiddle with screws and whatnot. I can imagine there would be fewer upgrades available for this, but the idea is kind of appealing: get a new "core" unit (read: motherboard) every 5 years, upgrade the video card every 2-3 perhaps. This thing would likely operate on a stripped-down version of Windows (much like the Xbox) that focuses on DirectX. Of course, the thing would have to plug into a TV and have a user-friendly interface and whatnot - with Steam and Desura and GoG and other vendors' systems pre-loaded. I guess at that point it might be a lot more like a console, but I think it's more likely to see a "console-ized" PC than a "PC-ized" console.

[Genesaturn]

Done and Done

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/01/...ized-gaming-pc

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

Technically, all the firmware updates we do on the modern systems are upgrades. I suspect larger upgrades that involve switching out components is not something the average consumer is interested in. If Apple released a new upgrade chip for the iPhone, I doubt people would purchase such an item. They'd rather get rid of the "old" phone altogether and buy a shiny new one.

[Shulamana]

It would be nice if they offered system memory upgrades like what was done with the N64 and Saturn.

The PS3 and 360 would have benefitted from having system memory upgrades, since the amount of RAM space has limited the available memory to do higher res texture mapping on those systems. I'm sort of shocked they had chosen 512MB/ 256MB for their system memory, when they were touting these consoles have a longer life cycle than the previous generation.

Yes, the PS3 especially is supposed to be very RAM limited (in terms of how you can use it, this is why Skyrim supposedly had problems), however socketed ram is slower and much more likely to get loose/have a connection failure, which is a big tradeoff.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think offering up expansion ports on the off chance some subsequent peripheral could enhance certain games is a good idea even if in some cases those ports will go unused. But to that extent, outside of basic stuff like HDD swaps and FW updates, all modifications that expand the console's base capabilities should be essentially external accessory kind of additions ala expansion paks and Kinect. Anything else ends up destroying the afforementioned benefits a closed console has over the PC, that developers know exactly what they're working with and can optimize their work for one specific configuration.

[Gamevet]

Yes, the PS3 especially is supposed to be very RAM limited (in terms of how you can use it, this is why Skyrim supposedly had problems), however socketed ram is slower and much more likely to get loose/have a connection failure, which is a big tradeoff.

Yeah, Skyrim stores data like items and dead enemies in the system RAM, instead of using the HDD. The game starts to slow down after about an hour of gametime, but saving and rebooting the system clears up the problem.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by socketed RAM, but the Amiga 500 had an expansion port, where you could add an additional 512k of memory; I never had a problem with it.

Done and Done

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/01/...ized-gaming-pc

Why would anyone pay $700 for a boxed PC with a GT 545 (probably less powerful than the old 9800 GTX) video card and a dated dual-core I3?

[The 1 2 P]

I'm sort of shocked they had chosen 512MB/ 256MB for their system memory, when they were touting these consoles have a longer life cycle than the previous generation.

They have had a longer life cycle. The 360 launched in 2005 and since it's successor won't be launching until atleast 2013 that means the system was the most current gen for 8 years, 3 years longer than what is typical for console generations. Yes the PS1 and PS2 were supported for longer than 5 years but after year 5 they became secondary systems to their successors. The 360 is still the main system from Microsoft and won't become secondary until it's successor launches well past the normal 5 year next gen launch date.

As for upgrades, it wouldn't work unless all new games released after the optional upgrade were playable on both systems that did upgrade and ones that didn't. If the upgrade wasn't optional and thus required for all new games then you'd risk splitting the user base. At that point it would be better to just release a new system instead of confusing consumers about which version of your system they needed to play newer or older games on.

[Gamevet]

They have had a longer life cycle. The 360 launched in 2005 and since it's successor won't be launching until atleast 2013 that means the system was the most current gen for 8 years, 3 years longer than what is typical for console generations. Yes the PS1 and PS2 were supported for longer than 5 years but after year 5 they became secondary systems to their successors. The 360 is still the main system from Microsoft and won't become secondary until it's successor launches well past the normal 5 year next gen launch date.

Well that's pretty obvious.

What I was saying, is that it was pretty short-sighted, on their part, to design those consoles with such limited system memory when they were built to support HD displays and have an extended shelf life. Even my crappy cheap HP computer from 2002 had 256 MB of memory and most computers built in 2005 had at least 2 gig.

As for upgrades, it wouldn't work unless all new games released after the optional upgrade were playable on both systems that did upgrade and ones that didn't. If the upgrade wasn't optional and thus required for all new games then you'd risk splitting the user base. At that point it would be better to just release a new system instead of confusing consumers about which version of your system they needed to play newer or older games on.

It worked for the N64, with the RAM expansion cart making it possible for Star Wars: Rogue Sqaudron to run at a higher resolution of 640 x 480, or if you didn't have the cart the game would scale down the resolution. The newer consoles could offer the ability to upgrade your memory, making it possible for a game to have higher resolution texture mapping and less obvious load times. Those that didn't upgrade would get the same game without the perks.

[BetaWolf47]

Why would anyone pay $700 for a boxed PC with a GT 545 (probably less powerful than the old 9800 GTX) video card and a dated dual-core I3?

Dated? That i3 is part of Intel's newest line of CPUs.

[The 1 2 P]

What I was saying, is that it was pretty short-sighted, on their part, to design those consoles with such limited system memory when they were built to support HD displays and have an extended shelf life. Even my crappy cheap HP computer from 2002 had 256 MB of memory and most computers built in 2005 had at least 2 gig.

But despite these memory limitations the games that came out last year(year 6) looked and played fine. I never found myself saying "man I wish my 360 and PS3 had more memory so that Batman: Arkham City looked better". I know where you were going with that but even with this limited memory/Ram it's not affecting games in such a way that it detracts from the experience. Atleast not when I'm playing.

It worked for the N64, with the RAM expansion cart making it possible for Star Wars: Rogue Sqaudron to run at a higher resolution of 640 x 480, or if you didn't have the cart the game would scale down the resolution. The newer consoles could offer the ability to upgrade your memory, making it possible for a game to have higher resolution texture mapping and less obvious load times. Those that didn't upgrade would get the same game without the perks.

You do realize that was the point I was already making right?

As for upgrades, it wouldn't work unless all new games released after the optional upgrade were playable on both systems that did upgrade and ones that didn't.

[Tokimemofan]

The only system that did this widely was the PC Engine. The N64, Sega Saturn both tried it and only a few games used it. The same goes for most expansions that don't increase the maximum data size of a game end even some of those that do.