Consoles needs to change

[The_Blue_Rider]

One of the main selling points of a console is that it's hardware is closed off.

Game devs only have to worry about making their game compatible with those specs and consumers don't have to worry about the games they buy not working properly with their hardware.

Exactly, but in the next generation, there are a few things that need to change, in particular, the memory which a console ships with. With more and more games going for the "install for optimal performance" approach, and downloadable content being a big thing, we are in desperate need for bigger hard drives by default. Possibly more accesibility to add more memory in a way that is simple, as well, perhaps with specially made portable memory. It'd certainly have to be bigger than the average USB, but hopefully still compact.

I hope its something similar to what Xbox is doing, you can install if you want the game to run great, but its entirely optional.

I love my PS3 but that 60GB it came with is running out D: has run out, im down to 25MB

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Well that would completely ruin the point of consoles. They stay the same so that the devs can very easily optimize for them. That's why if there's a pc port, even if the pc is better then the console, sometimes it'll run better on the console.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Well that would completely ruin the point of consoles. They stay the same so that the devs can very easily optimize for them. That's why if there's a pc port, even if the pc is better then the console, sometimes it'll run better on the console.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Although modular console design sounds nice, it would be rather difficult to pull off. Now that video games are in the "main stream" the average user is either too ignorant or too lazy to know or check the difference. If you make certain console games require specific system specifications, you might end up in a whole world of trouble.

Fact of the matter is, it's easy to develop for a single static platform. It saves money and ensures the greatest number of units sold. There are some devs who still can't properly optimize PC games. What makes you think they'll do any better with a modular console?

Not to mention that would make consoles really shitty PC's, by which point you could just buy a PC for a little more and have far more versatility.

Now that I think about it, consoles are gradually getting to the point where it's not as simple as putting the disc in and playing it. With this generation, we're seeing more and more codes in the form of online passes, endless patching, software updates etc to the point where the supposed down sides of PC gaming and benefits of console gaming are blurring. Things like Steam make patching and updating games so easy, anyone who uses the "Oh well you have to update all the time" is just stupid and full of shit. Sure, occasionally you have to update drivers, but you don't have to very often and it's as easy as downloaded a .exe file and letting it run itself. Not to mention most problems are usually easily searched for over google and peripherals are plug and play.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Could I upgrade the processor and get faster loading times? That's the only advantage I can see. By default, my Xbox plays any Xbox game I put into it. My laptop doesn't have that capability due to the system specs. I don't want my Xbox to become like my laptop.

If you want to play games, dont use a laptop.

Fair enough but it's all I have for a PC right now. Basically my point is that the good thing about consoles is that they never need to be upgraded, besides the occasional software update.

That quite fair enough also


My point is that maybe there should be a middle ground somewhere.

Where does that middle ground lie? If we open the box for upgrading consoles at our leisure, as stated above by someone else, I see them becoming crappy PCs.

Lets use the 360 as one example. Lets say on E3 2013 MS announced that they would release a new upgrade card for it prolonging its lifetime. Of course this would require that the console were made for an easy to replace graphics card to begin with.

I swear, this sounds like a good idea.......inside my head.

 

[DustyDrB]

One of the main selling points of a console is that it's hardware is closed off.

Game devs only have to worry about making their game compatible with those specs and consumers don't have to worry about the games they buy not working properly with their hardware.

Yep. If I have to upgrade parts, then I might as well be playing on a PC. They've already started to ruin the plug-in-and-play simplicity advantage that consoles used to be good for. We don't need variables like different hardware complicating things.

 

[Maxtro]

From what I've read, the biggest downfall of the PS3 is that is severely limited in RAM. RAM is also the easiest thing to upgrade in a PC.

It would be great if it were possible to just stick in a new RAM module into the PS3.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

Could I upgrade the processor and get faster loading times? That's the only advantage I can see. By default, my Xbox plays any Xbox game I put into it. My laptop doesn't have that capability due to the system specs. I don't want my Xbox to become like my laptop.

If you want to play games, dont use a laptop.

Fair enough but it's all I have for a PC right now. Basically my point is that the good thing about consoles is that they never need to be upgraded, besides the occasional software update.

That quite fair enough also


My point is that maybe there should be a middle ground somewhere.

Where does that middle ground lie? If we open the box for upgrading consoles at our leisure, as stated above by someone else, I see them becoming crappy PCs.

Lets use the 360 as one example. Lets say on E3 2013 MS announced that they would release a new upgrade card for it prolonging its lifetime. Of course this would require that the console were made for an easy to replace graphics card to begin with.

I swear, this sounds like a good idea.......inside my head.

Hmm now thats not a bad idea if you look at it like that. Instead of putting out a whole new console every generation, simply upgrade the existing one. That sounds more cost-effective for everyone. I like the way you think.

 

[octafish]

One of the main selling points of a console is that it's hardware is closed off.

Game devs only have to worry about making their game compatible with those specs and consumers don't have to worry about the games they buy not working properly with their hardware.

Exactly, but in the next generation, there are a few things that need to change, in particular, the memory which a console ships with. With more and more games going for the "install for optimal performance" approach, and downloadable content being a big thing, we are in desperate need for bigger hard drives by default. Possibly more accesibility to add more memory in a way that is simple, as well, perhaps with specially made portable memory. It'd certainly have to be bigger than the average USB, but hopefully still compact.

I hope its something similar to what Xbox is doing, you can install if you want the game to run great, but its entirely optional.

I love my PS3 but that 60GB it came with is running out D: has run out, im down to 25MB

Doesn't the PS3 use a standard laptop HDD? You should be able to pick one up cheaply. Of course I've no idea what size devices Sony's software supports.

It amuses me that people keep saying that an upgradable console would be a crappy pc...like they aren't already.

Consoles are in desperate need of, above all else, more RAM. You would get better games with more RAM. Not just better graphics. I wonder how consoles will be seen in a year or two when smartphones are better specced?

 

[mrdude2010]

Alright, background info :

When my high end computer works I play computer games, when it fails I play console games and vice versa. I bought the new 360 slim with mass effect 3 and gears of war 3 since my old one red ringed. It was a good feeling to play console games again, especially lying comfortably on the couch.

What I have noticed though, it the big difference between hardware performance. So why cant there be consoles where you can upgrade the hardware? It should be that difficult right? I can imagine consoles being designed in a more compact way obviously, but why not design something where you can replace a graphics card in the same way you can change a memory chip?

I think there are only upsides to such a console. It would reduce the need for "next gen" consoles every 5 years.

Thoughts?

They did this with the N64 back in the 90's to some extent, but console technology has been moving in the opposite direction for a while now. If you upgrade your console, you don't buy a new one as often, so the companies don't make as much money. Plus, you have to include additional settings for different levels of graphics, since certain people will have different levels and combinations of upgrades. Plus there will always be that idiot who only upgrades his processor, but leaves his 2005 graphics card in there and is confused when all his games run slowly.

 

[Jamash]

From what I've read, the biggest downfall of the PS3 is that is severely limited in RAM. RAM is also the easiest thing to upgrade in a PC.

It would be great if it were possible to just stick in a new RAM module into the PS3.

Even if you could add new RAM to the PS3, no PS3 game would use it.

Part of the difficulty of programming games for the PS3 is that it has a 512mb of RAM split between the GPU and memory, so developers can only use 256mb for graphics and 256mb for everything else.

Even if you added another 2GB or RAM to the PS3, every PS3 game is programmed to only use 256mb of RAM (which is quite a balancing act), so no game would even know to recognise the extra RAM.

Theoretically, developers could program games to use hypothetical extra RAM, but they would have to basically code 2 different versions of each game, one standard version that juggles all it's assets between the 256mb/256mb memory of the standard PS3 and another, "enhanced" version that could possibly use extra RAM if available, which would alter the code and even the very design of the game drastically, which in turn would cause development time and costs to skyrocket.

The same is true for the 360, i.e. any hardware upgrades wouldn't be utilised by any games (even the presence of a hard drive can't be utilised of to it's full extent as not every 360 has a HDD on which to install games).

Similar programming issues are also why many PC games don't fully utilise of Quad Cores CPUs and why having too much RAM or overly powerful hardware can actually cause some games not to work properly.

 

[Jazoni89]

Alright, background info :

When my high end computer works I play computer games, when it fails I play console games and vice versa. I bought the new 360 slim with mass effect 3 and gears of war 3 since my old one red ringed. It was a good feeling to play console games again, especially lying comfortably on the couch.

What I have noticed though, it the big difference between hardware performance. So why cant there be consoles where you can upgrade the hardware? It should be that difficult right? I can imagine consoles being designed in a more compact way obviously, but why not design something where you can replace a graphics card in the same way you can change a memory chip?

I think there are only upsides to such a console. It would reduce the need for "next gen" consoles every 5 years.

Thoughts?

They did this with the N64 back in the 90's to some extent, but console technology has been moving in the opposite direction for a while now. If you upgrade your console, you don't buy a new one as often, so the companies don't make as much money. Plus, you have to include additional settings for different levels of graphics, since certain people will have different levels and combinations of upgrades. Plus there will always be that idiot who only upgrades his processor, but leaves his 2005 graphics card in there and is confused when all his games run slowly.

Also, the add on's of the 90's consoles, including the 32x, SegaCD/MegaCD, Jaguar CD, and TurboDuo. All of which improve the graphical capabilities of their respective systems significantly. The N64 expansion pack was just an extra Ram cartridge for better texture filtering, not really an improvement as such, because the N64 could handle games like DK64, and Manjora's Mask on it's own, if not for Nintendo's enthusiasm to compete with the Dreamcast graphically in it's later lifespan.

 

[Amaror]

They did this with the N64 back in the 90's to some extent, but console technology has been moving in the opposite direction for a while now. If you upgrade your console, you don't buy a new one as often, so the companies don't make as much money. Plus, you have to include additional settings for different levels of graphics, since certain people will have different levels and combinations of upgrades. Plus there will always be that idiot who only upgrades his processor, but leaves his 2005 graphics card in there and is confused when all his games run slowly.

Actually consoles often don't make money with actuall sales.
The PS3 often even made sony loose money when somebody bought the ps3, that's the whole reason this console generation lasted this long. What makes the money with consoles are the, often more expensive, games.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I've played mainly RPGs throught my 23 year gaming life (I'm 31, btw) and I can say this...

Consoles do not need to be changed. The best games I have ever played were for the SNES and PS2.

What needs to change is a combination dev/publisher realtionship so good games can actually be made and that the developer should have more say in the game's overall direction, and that the industry itself needs a weening off of the samey-same games over and over and over and over again.

Granted, I preordered Borderlands 2 - and I'll admit, the first one was a grinding fest of guns and loot - but General Knoxx and the other stories presented as DLC were great (minus that kalamari ending, it sucked TBH). Looking forward to seeing what Gearbox can improve upon. If the gameplay vids are any indication, it's going to be a nice gun-toting romp through Pandora again!

 

[Dresos]

I think that if developers know that the hardware will never change they can optimize the use of it without having to worry about technical difficulties, or at least that's what I believe.

Also I believe that the simplicity of consoles is a pro not a con. But then again I've never cared about graphics.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

One of the main selling points of a console is that it's hardware is closed off.

Game devs only have to worry about making their game compatible with those specs and consumers don't have to worry about the games they buy not working properly with their hardware.

Exactly, but in the next generation, there are a few things that need to change, in particular, the memory which a console ships with. With more and more games going for the "install for optimal performance" approach, and downloadable content being a big thing, we are in desperate need for bigger hard drives by default. Possibly more accesibility to add more memory in a way that is simple, as well, perhaps with specially made portable memory. It'd certainly have to be bigger than the average USB, but hopefully still compact.

I hope its something similar to what Xbox is doing, you can install if you want the game to run great, but its entirely optional.

I love my PS3 but that 60GB it came with is running out D: has run out, im down to 25MB

Doesn't the PS3 use a standard laptop HDD? You should be able to pick one up cheaply. Of course I've no idea what size devices Sony's software supports.

It amuses me that people keep saying that an upgradable console would be a crappy pc...like they aren't already.

Consoles are in desperate need of, above all else, more RAM. You would get better games with more RAM. Not just better graphics. I wonder how consoles will be seen in a year or two when smartphones are better specced?

I was thinking of using USB sticks, or one of those USB 3.0 with 500GB on it.

I know the USB 2.0 are compatible but i need to find out about the USB 3.0

 

[targren]

If you want to play games, dont use a laptop.

Fair enough but it's all I have for a PC right now. Basically my point is that the good thing about consoles is that they never need to be upgraded, besides the occasional software update.

That quite fair enough also


My point is that maybe there should be a middle ground somewhere.

You mean Desktop PCs?

 

[TehCookie]

I agree consoles need to change, but in the exact opposite way. I have a PC, I want something cheap that plays games not my PC's long lost retarded cousin that tries to do everything but worse.

 

[the abyss gazes also]

Put me in the camp of too lazy to want to fiddle with it. Barring some hiccups my PS3 has worked fine for gaming when I want to game. One of the reasons I dropped out of the PC gaming scene was the constant need to spend money to upgrade if I wanted to play the latest games. If I didn't have a job requiring my brain for 8-hours a day, or a job that was more computer oriented that kept all my comp-u skills fresh I could see maybe getting back into the constant upgrade scheme. But right now, give me a console so I can game when I want and then not worry about "Do I have the RAM for this?"

 

[Kingjackl]

I'd say if there's any direction consoles shouldn't be going in, it's the PC direction, which is all about the constant march of technology at the expense of accessibility. Besides, the lack of changing hardware on consoles doesn't stop the graphics technology from improving. Compare some of the early 7th gen console exclusives like Gears of War or Bioshock, compared to 2011/2012 era games. Oblivion and Skyrim were both released on Xbox 360, but if you put those two versions of the game side by side, you wouldn't dare suggest that the technology hasn't been improving.