Computer Innovation or source of rage, you decide.

[Twilight_guy]

Well my college recently hosted the IEEE International Games Innovation Conference and being a student volunteer I got the chance to listen to some of the talks and sessions. It was very interesting and inspiring and all that, but one of the talks specifically interested me because of what I've heard here at the Escapist. The gist of said talk was that companies in the future might consider selling technology in a new way that mirrors a practice in the games industry that many disagree with. What they would do is that they would sell, say a computer and in that computer they would include advanced technologies like say a super awesome ray-trace or GPGPU or whatever, and these advanced technologies would be disabled by default. If you paid an additional fee then they enable the use of said technology. Now if you choose not to buy the advanced bit of technology then you would only be charged for the power of the system without these bits. Meaning that in effect if you want to upgrade your computer rather then going to the store and tracking down new components and going through a hassle, you could just pay a fee and have technology that already existed but was unused be unlocked and thus upgrade your computer. Now this clearly mirrors the tactic of day-one DLC and on-disk DLC in that you must pay additional fees for something that is already there but considered extra. This of course didn't escape the notice of the people in the audience who immediately asked the question, "Won't the customer be angry?", an entirely valid question given the light of DLC controversies. I actually felt that the answer he gave which boils down to the customer will get used to such practices over time as are increasingly used and that customers don't usually know what they're buying and are happy with it anyways seems a bit too smug and cavalier but maybe that was just my interpretation clouding a more reasonable answer. Anyways, the reason I though of the Escapist is because I have heard lots of angry things shouted about this issue for games and I assume the same would be true for hardware but I honestly have no idea and I though it would be an interesting thing to ask you guys.

In short, If you were sold a computer that you could pay extra for to unlocked more advanced features on or to upgrade using existing systems within the computer, how would you feel about it? Does this concept upset you? Do you think it's convenient?

(Oh and try to keep things civil. The last time I posted a thread was over 2 years ago and I don't want my first stepping out again to end in pain).

 

[Alexnader]

I don't see how that's viable in a hardware product. It works for software because once you've programmed the additional content you can stick it on as many disks as you want for basically no extra cost.

If you're selling beefy computers that people are only paying for half of then I don't see how that could be all that profitable. Either you charge the consumers more for something they won't use or you cut into your own profits by giving away all this extra crap for free.

Also there'd be all the extra risks of people cracking the PCs and getting them to work anyway. Essentially they want to take one of the biggest costs to the software development industry and put it in hardware.

 

[Alexnader]

EDIT Double post:

Screw forum glitches and everything to do with them.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If that ever happened PC enthusiasts everywhere would figure out how to crack open that additional hardware. It would never work.

 

[Saulkar]

If that ever happened PC enthusiasts everywhere would figure out how to crack open that additional hardware. It would never work.

What he said. There are always going to be smarter people who will figure out how to use your hardware and software better than you do.

 

[Sp3ratus]

I'd be pissed. Hardware != games. Reselling hardware is nowhere near as common or financially lucrative as reselling games are, after you're done with them, since the technology of hardware moves so fast. I can sort of understand why the big publishers do it, even if it is a dick move, but hardware producers doing the same? That's just greediness, pure and simple.

Now, having said all that, unless they integrate this into the individual component, this probably won't affect me, since I buy the component by themselves and put it together, since by doing that, I get exactly what I want. Also, I like messing around with the insides of a computer, even if it's as uncomplicated as replacing a graphics card.

Also:

By the way, mind if I suggest you space out your paragraph? I did read it all, but sort of strains my eyes seeing that big wall of text. No offense, just advise ^_^ and I know how it feels to want civilized posts since topics such as these can be touchy. I admire your Thread indeed.

All of it, nice thread, but a bit hard to read.

 

[s0p0g]

"hey, here's your new Ferrari, but you can only use the full power of the engine if you give us another 20.000 bucks - awesome deal, right?"

shut up, you bet i'd be pissed off. i buy something, i want the entire package that i paid for.

 

[Esotera]

Didn't Intel try this with one of their processors in America, and got gigantic backlash and boycotts? It's a terrible idea and hopefully won't become the norm...otherwise I'd just build with different parts.

And it's not really computer innovation..it's business innovation. I wish there was a button that would fire micronukes at every businessman/woman on the planet.

 

[DaWaffledude]

I can sort of see where this is coming from. You only pay for what you can use, and if you want to use more, you pay for it it, without the hassle of physically installing it.

 

[WarDialler]

I can sort of see where this is coming from. You only pay for what you can use, and if you want to use more, you pay for it it, without the hassle of physically installing it.

I would argue that most PC enthusiasts LIKE ripping thier rig open to tinker with it. This whole Idea of 'DLC' hardware leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I built my first PC when I was 10. It was an AMD 486DX66 and it ran Doom like a bauce.

If you want no hassle gaming fun, you buy a zbox 720 or a Playcenter 4, plug it into a TV and away. If you want the exquisite rage, joy and depression of a truly monster gaming machine you build a PC. And then get a second job. and another mortgage. and an addiction therapist.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

This is nothing new. Back in the mainframe days, companies like IBM used to sell identical hardware with different limiting options. The rumor was that all the field service engineer would have to do to upgrade you is come out and resolder a wire or clip out a resistor.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I can somewhat understand the logic to it (well sort of) since some people don't view a computer that important to their lives. However if these type of un-lockable pc were given to them, it would mostly like to be a waste of technology as in not utilising the pc to it full potential (assuming if some people only it to check email at the most). Otherwise if the person who first bought it wasn't much into using a pc end up using it at a daily basis and want more of it (like started to play pc games but the graphic card is locked).
Overall I think it's a wasted investment to pour the expensive to making a high end pc to lock it and sell it. It will be a gamble if the customer wants to unlock it or not.

Also why would I buy a pc with lockable content in the first place? I mean yes it will be very convenient to upgrade it seeing how I want to buy a new pc soon but why I didn't buy a better pc in the first case? The only explanation is really just money wise.

Lastly how much of a upgrade are we talking about? I can assume that when I bought it, the locked content were advance but let say five years later I want to uplock the upgrade stuff in the PC. Would these stuff will still be consider a upgrade since these stuff wouldn't probably cannot be updated (like a components like e.g. a graphic card).

 

[Sethzard]

This wouldn't work, people would work out how to crack it too quickly so they could enjoy the good bits without needing to pay, and there would also be the problem of needing to fully upgrade the computer when you have unlocked all of the other parts.

 

[Vrach]

First off, a person with the knowledge to activate these bits on their own could do it, which would render this useless (I don't care how complicated it is, you're always gonna find someone who can do it and it'll just turn into a "call your local hacker" thing).

Second and more importantly, take a look at the PC hardware market. Now back to me. Now back to the market. The PC market now has a better component out there. It goes through improvements so fast, why the fuck would anyone wanna buy something they can't use only to activate it later when at that later point, they'll be able to spend as much money to buy something better?

So yeah, that's not annoying, that's just plain stupid.

 

[Weslebear]

That would definitely not work.

Give it what a week before some people find how to crack it, everyone can buy top tier PC's for the price of a standard one and illegally unlock it to full power, who wouldn't take that opportunity?

And they would be losing so much money, think of how many people wouldn't want or need those upgrades and then they are manufacturing thousands of high end complex components that will never even be powered on. Waste of time.

 

[Smooth Operator]

That is a horrid idea on both ends:
- all the hardware would need to be the same high end pricy stuff, no matter if the customer payed for it or not... that is just dumb ^ 2
- in order for it to work they need absolute and undeniable control of your computers at every point in time... can you see the problem yet
- most likely scenario people would buy it all cheap, enable all features and cost the companies tons of money... I think we are at dumb ^ 4 already

All this to sneak in hidden costs?
Well I'm sure this briliant idea did not at all come from a group of accountants...

P.S. It would probably work very well for Apple tho.

 

[OneHP]

From an economics point of view I can see how this could make sense. The company producing the hardware cuts costs by producing lots of the same item, each item being capable of performing at different tiers of power.

They can pass those reduced costs on to the customer, bringing the price of the entire range down. The customer can then buy the item at the tier they can afford, or require the power of, cheaper than another product with the same power.

This would rely on saving enough costs from the economies of scale to cover the gap of not making the full amount possible from the materials put in though and I'm not sure that's viable.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Interesting answers. Just a note that it's not as if this is something that will ever happen, it was just a topic of discussion with no particulars or specifics.

Personally I don't think it will work because now companies will face to face hardware pirates instead and computer costumers are, honestly, the most vindictive assholes that exist and will go out of there way to screw a company if they feel ever slightly cheated. The majority of users wouldn't know how to do anything and might not even care but technology buffs would go into a blood rage and make it a point to jailbreak every computer of every person in the world through something like a mass virus.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If that ever happened PC enthusiasts everywhere would figure out how to crack open that additional hardware. It would never work.

Or, you know, build their own company which would be more profitable than this trash.

Well, just think on it for a bit. If we're getting cheaper prices because some of the hardware is locked off, if that's cheaper than getting a computer normally, it would be cheaper for most people to just by and crack the hardware.