If consoles start doing incremental upgrades instead of generations, would you be done with them?

[WeepingAngels]

I saw this on NeoGaf and thought it would be interesting to discuss it here. So, if consoles became upgradeable every 2-3 years (like upgrading a PC) instead of being entirely new platforms, what would you do?

Example: Think of it this way, your PC can run on Steam and when you upgrade your graphics card and even your version of Windows, on Steam still works and it may run even smoother. What if consoles did that? Granted, with consoles you won't be swapping out graphic cards or upgrading the CPU, you will likely have to buy the upgraded console pre-built (think 3DS --> New 3DS).

Would you still be on board as a console gamer or would you be done with consoles?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

They've kind of done that in the past with limited success. I'm reminded of the Genesis with add ons and attachments. Admittedly, I think we know enough with resource management and design that we can circumvent a lot of the horrors that resulted with the 32X and Sega CD.

I'm sure if you could do it well it would help make console market less volatile. One of the strengths of console is universal specificities... that's not always the case, like Xenoblade Chronicles X and the initial Wii U run, but most of the time it's fairly static.

Though I could see a plug and play console where you could easily remove a drive/ card and replace it with a new one. I'm also reminded of the expansion slot on the N64... but that was built into every console.

Though if you built a console game that is like: Get the increased RAM upgrade accessory... and experience the game with improved resolution... well yeah, you're kind of working against the console's strength of easier development.

 

[WeepingAngels]

...and what would be the point of buying overpriced RAM from Sony or Microsoft when you could upgrade your PC's RAM for a fraction of the cost?

 

[Saelune]

Main reason I liked consoles more is because of ease of use and everything was fairly equal. Games worked just by popping them in, and you get to use controllers, and multiplayer wasn't annoying server lists that can be anything. So...aside from Nintendo, I could see myself becoming pure PC, since I can use a controller for most games on it anyways and Ive been trying to become more tech savvy.

 

[M0rp43vs]

If it was the way it is in your example, where even if I buy the earliest iteration I can still play the latest game right up until the new generation, then I wouldn't mind. I could wait until it gets to the level I want, go through the back log and play new games as they come. I have a minimum graphics threshold where if it's at least this good and runs consistently at an at least decent frame rate, then I'm happy.

The moment that an in-generation upgrade is REQUIRED to play a new game or compatibility issues stop me from going back, that's when I'd drop that console. Short obsolescence periods is why I no longer buy apple products. A stand alone console is not worth that, no matter how many crappy non-gaming bells and whistles it tries to tack on.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

...and what would be the point of buying overpriced RAM from Sony or Microsoft when you could upgrade your PC's RAM for a fraction of the cost?

Just an example. N64 did it... created a memory expansion, Sega Genesis did also. I don't know computer science stuff. The argument however is sound as a way of extending longevity of consoles... just need a successful sales pitch... I think the public would welcome a future ready, upgradable console product so long as you're open with devs about discussing future alterations.

 

[cathou]

...and what would be the point of buying overpriced RAM from Sony or Microsoft when you could upgrade your PC's RAM for a fraction of the cost?

Just an example. N64 did it... created a memory expansion, Sega Genesis did also. I don't know computer science stuff. The argument however is sound as a way of extending longevity of consoles... just need a successful sales pitch... I think the public would welcome a future ready, upgradable console product so long as you're open with devs about discussing future alterations.

but then, if you buy the console very early in it life, you will pay for each upgrade over time. And if you buy a console after a few years, either you will have to buy the console with 4-5 mandatory updates all at once, or if they sell an already updated console, unless the price of the console actually goes up for each upgrade, you get a really big discount that seems unfair for those who have the console for a few years.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

but then, if you buy the console very early in it life, you will pay for each upgrade over time. And if you buy a console after a few years, either you will have to buy the console with 4-5 mandatory updates all at once, or if they sell an already updated console, unless the price of the console actually goes up for each upgrade, you get a really big discount that seems unfair for those who have the console for a few years.

Not sure, I mean for the first point that you put forward is merely a force of the market. Which console is cheaper at release than at the end of its run? Secondly, it doesn't bar you playing earlier products in the console's run. The same argument could be applied to PC ganmes and growing performance specificities of the rig to play them. And not all games are going to demand the additional hardware, even later into the run.

The games I've gotten really into have been the Atelier PS3 games, for instance. The benefit also of future ready console products to challenge that notion of unfair might also be in the increased longevity. Having to buy 2 additional upgrades, for instance .... is it as unfair as having to buy an entirely new console for only a few games you want to play? I have yet to get a PS4 because I can only think of Bloodborne that I really want to play .;.. I'm sure I can think of others, but I live in a studio apartment. A nice inner Sydney studio apartment with a wonderful 8th floor view over a park, but it's still only roughly 70 ft sq (edit: feet, not metres ... brainfart).

I have a storage lockup, but frankly I'm getting a lot of play out of my WiiU, my PC, and my PS3 still ... there is something to be said of the conservation of space in a world of growing high density housing.

One of the successes and conveniences of digital distribution. You only need a space applicable to fill with a PC and nothing else. That could be ameliorated console wise with future ready, upgradeable console products. By standardising upgrades you also maintain a console's strengths to a developer in the form of near universal specificity of the platform that will be playing the software still, while catering to the modern world dynamics of smaller, more mobile housing states.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I honestly don't think it will work very well. No matter what sort of upgrade options they offer, game developers will still have build the game around the base system. All the upgrades, while they might enhance performance, will ultimately mean only cosmetic upgrades. And who would pay what the manufacturers would inevitably charge to improve a game that looks and plays fine without the physical upgrades? And considering a custom PC will be more powerful anyway, and cheaper to build, the attraction of such upgradable consoles will at best, be a niche.

 

[william1657]

When I first heard about this I was instantly against it, but after thinking about it for a while there are some ways that I wouldn't mind this.

The thing that turns me off of PC gaming is that there are so many different pieces you seem to need to worry about upgrading, and if you have all but one of them a game still might not play. As long as this model bundled everything you would need to upgrade the system then I don't see it as any worse than a company releasing a new console.

As long as the upgrades were infrequent and the games on that system all specified on their front cover what the lowest upgrade version capable of running them is.

 

[totheendofsin]

I'm not inherently opposed to it, so long as it's done right. Theoretically they could ensure games could run on any version of the system by allowing you to tweak settings like on PC (turn off superfluous effects, lock framerate at 30, lower graphical settings etc) and when it gets to the point where they can't ensure games will work on older versions that's when you release the "ps5" or "xbox two"

They also need to make upgrading as painless as possible by whatever means possible

 

[Something Amyss]

Just an example. N64 did it... created a memory expansion, Sega Genesis did also. I don't know computer science stuff. The argument however is sound as a way of extending longevity of consoles... just need a successful sales pitch... I think the public would welcome a future ready, upgradable console product so long as you're open with devs about discussing future alterations.

These expansions were fairly limited in scope and what games actually used them. In fact, we've moved away from add-ons for that very reason. It fragments the marketplace, one of a console's strengths. Microsoft and Sony actually worked around the smallest, weakest HDDs/memory cards they offered simply so as not to fragment the base.

And if we get more complex, like multiple upgrades, we're talking about compromising ease of use, the other main strength of consoles. You technically could do it, but the question is, why? It's like making a fully upgradable Mac that runs Windows by default. Even if it's a stripped-down Windows computer, it's still defeating the major selling points of a Mac. Well, unless they keep the shiny white plastic case.

 

[shrekfan246]

All the upgrades, while they might enhance performance, will ultimately mean only cosmetic upgrades. And who would pay what the manufacturers would inevitably charge to improve a game that looks and plays fine without the physical upgrades?

People have already been doing that with the PC for years.

Also, I feel like you're underestimating the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Sure, a lot of people who play on consoles might not care, but there are definitely still people who would rather have the better-performing title.

OT: If their intention is to resell an entire new console every time, then I don't see this working out particularly well. I know the PS4 was pretty successful for Sony, but I can't remember if it was sold at a profit or not? And the thought of returning a console and spending a couple hundred dollars to swap it with a slightly better one every few years just doesn't sound like a fun time to me.

Also, I could see this putting massive problems in the actual software development, too. One of the benefits of consoles, and the reason they tend to be the development standard, is their parity. You always know what you're working with and what your customers have. PC ports are optimized like complete trash because developers can't account for every possible hardware combination (combined with laziness and thinking that people with high-end PCs can just brute force their way through a bad port, and also sometimes simple inexperience with the platform). Imagine seeing that come to consoles? Sure, it sounds nice; buy a console with better hardware, get a game that runs and/or looks slightly better. But if the baseline console is still what they're developing for, there could be all sorts of little incompatibilities or simple hardware/software issues that break things in entirely unexpected ways. EDIT: And imagine if they start using one of the upgraded consoles as the development standard? What would that mean for the weaker ones? When people buy consoles, they generally just want their games to work.

In theory, I'm behind the idea of consoles being upgradeable like PCs are. As long as the hardware isn't priced the same way, I could see that actually being adopted, at least in certain markets. But I'm not too sure how many people are willing to drop ~$400 to replace their consoles every 2-3 years.

 

[CaitSeith]

They've kind of done that in the past with limited success. I'm reminded of the Genesis with add ons and attachments. Admittedly, I think we know enough with resource management and design that we can circumvent a lot of the horrors that resulted with the 32X and Sega CD.

I'm sure if you could do it well it would help make console market less volatile. One of the strengths of console is universal specificities... that's not always the case, like Xenoblade Chronicles X and the initial Wii U run, but most of the time it's fairly static.

Though I could see a plug and play console where you could easily remove a drive/ card and replace it with a new one. I'm also reminded of the expansion slot on the N64... but that was built into every console.

Though if you built a console game that is like: Get the increased RAM upgrade accessory... and experience the game with improved resolution... well yeah, you're kind of working against the console's strength of easier development.

Don't forget the N64 memory expansion pack. It was required to play Majora's Mask, Donkey Kong 64 and Perfect Dark (and improved the visuals for another handful of games).

 

[WeepingAngels]

When I first heard about this I was instantly against it, but after thinking about it for a while there are some ways that I wouldn't mind this.

The thing that turns me off of PC gaming is that there are so many different pieces you seem to need to worry about upgrading, and if you have all but one of them a game still might not play. As long as this model bundled everything you would need to upgrade the system then I don't see it as any worse than a company releasing a new console.

As long as the upgrades were infrequent and the games on that system all specified on their front cover what the lowest upgrade version capable of running them is.

If worrying about hardware specs before purchasing software is an issue for you on PC, then it will be the same on consoles. Oh and that upgradeable hardware, it won't be cheap from Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo.

Don't forget the N64 memory expansion pack. It was required to play Majora's Mask, Donkey Kong 64 and Perfect Dark (and improved the visuals for another handful of games).

Don't forget that they never did that again.

 

[WeepingAngels]

What will ultimately kill consoles is trying to be PC's. They can't out-PC, PC's. What you can buy PC hardware for is alot cheaper than what Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo will charge for proprietary hardware and PC's will still be more powerful. The strength of consoles is plug n play and without that, consoles will have no advantage.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't forget that they never did that again.

Not only did they never do that again, there has been a push away from peripherals and expansions from most of the market.

 

[FoolKiller]

The moment that an in-generation upgrade is REQUIRED to play a new game or compatibility issues stop me from going back, that's when I'd drop that console. S

And this is why I hate the new 3DS. Granted, it also tends to fail horribly. Currently, only one game requires the system. Developers hate it too because it fragments the user base.

OT: I would not get a console knowing that sort of upgrade could happen. The point of a console is the expectation that there is a certain level of game with a certain level of ease of use that I can have for the next 4 to 6 years.