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

[Death_Cometh]

This is honestly one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard in my life.

I used to work in games retail and telling people that they can not play a game because they need something more than their console will have them bitching all day long. Telling them that a game is online only, needs a sub, a motion controller or a bigger hard drive than they have makes people furious. Combined with the fact sometimes accessories tend to have shortages I see this turning into a massive cluster fuck during Christmas every year. The worst thing that platform holder could do is fragment the platform more.

This also discourages early adopters since why buy the console at launch when in a year you will get the slightly upgraded version for the same price and 2 years later the much more upgraded version for the same price as technology advances and the costs per unit come down. As much as Sony and Microsoft will guarantee that this doesn't happen just look at the Xbone to see how quickly a platform holder will backtrack if they feel their system is under performing. Plus this will ruin any company selling consoles because the moment the upgraded version is announced they may as well burn their old stock since that isn't going to be selling any more.

Add this to bloated development costs and gaming will become an even more expensive hobby since EA and Ubisoft will decide that they need to charge $70 a game to make back the costs of developing for even more platforms. Even if they don't raise the standard price I can still see them using it as an excuse to cut games up even more and try force in micro-transactions because they have to make money and with their costs being higher so they will need to somehow make up the difference. Same will go for buggy unplayable at lauch games because they will say well it works perfectly on consoles with X or y hardware so you can go eat a bag of dicks for not having that hardware.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Whether or not I'd be personally invested depends on how they do it.

From a business perspective, they would at least need to give some incentive to upgrade beyond "We're locking you out of the newest games. Ha! Ha!" They could do trade-ins, free upgrade plans, or anything. But I wouldn't be interested in paying the full price ever few years just to keep up with the latest console. (Personally, I'd imagine most companies would do this. It's already common to see with phones, tablets, and some laptops).

For compatibility, they would have to make sure that new iterations are backwards compatible so that I don't have to worry if my favorite game from one iteration fails on the new one. There would also have to be some level of overlap with older iterations on the new games. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of them holding games ransom. Eventually, it would become necessary, but at least give 1-2 iterations before we're forced to jump into the next one just to keep up with the games.

Alternatively, they could just make consoles extensible or open to upgrading. They don't even have to take the PC route. Both Microsoft and Google have worked on technology for phones that would allow you to essentially build your phone with the necessary components and desired peripherals, all without having to worry about wires, pins, screws, etc. If they could get that technology working (Google almost did from what I remember) and bring it to consoles, that would get around the need to constantly buy a whole new console at each iteration.

The biggest problem I see, though, is with the general population. I'd imagine it will cause a lot of headache for some people due to having to keep up with they can/cannot play. PC gamers have come to accept that. Console gamers may not be so interested.

 

[meiam]

I don't see the point, its kinda like the steam console which are pretty pointless and don't have an audience because no matter what people are looking for PC or normal console can do it better.

I like console because of how simple they are, no having to figure out if my graphic card can run it, which is way to complicated especially when they only give the specificity for card of a brand you don't have.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

I agree in that you will eventually need a new console, or perhaps a future console run already upgraded. But I still don't get why a sliding scale of set manufactured console upgrades couldn't be linked to set improvements in visual display for more intensive games. I could still see a colour coded console specifity chart.

Green GPU, Yellow RAM expansion to play (x) at 1920 x 1280.... for instance. It would be nice to have a console give an easily accessible components slot to insert additional assets, as then you can replace individual assets.

I agree that we've never really done it well, and the only times we've been successful has been when it was limited in scope. But I think it's doable as a sales pitch.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I thought the whole point of consoles were that they were cheap, no fuss machines that should last you until developers can't wring anything else out of them. If you're going to start doing something iterative and therefore, more expensive, why not just get a powerful PC and have it be good for multiple console iterations while probably saving a ton more money in the long run?

 

[Something Amyss]

I agree in that you will eventually need a new console, or perhaps a future console run already upgraded. But I still don't get why a sliding scale of set manufactured console upgrades couldn't be linked to set improvements in visual display for more intensive games. I could still see a colour coded console specifity chart.

Green GPU, Yellow RAM expansion to play (x) at 1920 x 1280.... for instance. It would be nice to have a console give an easily accessible components slot to insert additional assets, as then you can replace individual assets.

I agree that we've never really done it well, and the only times we've been successful has been when it was limited in scope. But I think it's doable as a sales pitch.

We can. But consider what you think of as easy might not be the same for other people. Might not be the same specifically for the plug and play, "it just works" audience.

I consider upgrading my PC to be ridiculously easy and consider many parts pretty much foolproof. I've had people break their Mobos trying to force RAM in backwards, or for which a couple of screws proved to be too daunting. But that's just the installation part, and yes, they could have special component bays. They could colour code them, make them unique shapes to minimise the risk of accidental insertion, but then we'd still likely be looking at multiple tiers of each, leading to a series of specs that's going to put people who just want to stick a game in and play right off. Even if it's "yellow tier 3 required," when you get enough of them you have now compromised that strength of ease of use.

This isn't to say it's an awful idea overall, but I do think it's misplaced in the console world. The reason consoles still remain as popular as they are, even as they've become proprietary PCs, is that they don't require updates, installation, and everything works on them across the board. People basically keep saying "last console generation!" "death of consoles!" but it doesn't come to pass because they keep it simple and that sells.

 

[kilenem]

Handhelds are a little bit different because technically the gameboy color is a incriminate upgrade because the GBA was delayed.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I'm gonna borrow someone's avatar for a moment.

Incremental upgrades just speak to the amount of stupidity console makers have. Consoles are ALL about plug and play. And local play with friends/family too.

And Microsoft is demonstrating over and over that they don't know how to handle the PC (UWP) and they don't know how to handle their own console. (Halo 5/Incremental Upgrades)

The only way incremental upgrades would work is if developers were still forced to have their games run on the base system. That is it. And if that's the case, then there is little point in doing it besides a gfx increase.

 

[Remus]

This is why I have a reliable Logitech controller for PC and a 50in TV for PS4 both - if I want a game I can pop in and play, i have a great view from any angle with the TV, and if I want console-style controls in a PC environment, I have that too. If consoles were made upgradeable, the parts would have to be competitively priced, and not Sony's "Charge $20 extra because our name is on the label". But then game companies would have to create multiple graphic settings for consoles, which depending on hardware compatibility, might make PC ports either way easier or insanely more complicated. Implementation is key if this were to become a thing.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

We can. But consider what you think of as easy might not be the same for other people. Might not be the same specifically for the plug and play, "it just works" audience.

I consider upgrading my PC to be ridiculously easy and consider many parts pretty much foolproof. I've had people break their Mobos trying to force RAM in backwards, or for which a couple of screws proved to be too daunting. But that's just the installation part, and yes, they could have special component bays. They could colour code them, make them unique shapes to minimise the risk of accidental insertion, but then we'd still likely be looking at multiple tiers of each, leading to a series of specs that's going to put people who just want to stick a game in and play right off. Even if it's "yellow tier 3 required," when you get enough of them you have now compromised that strength of ease of use.

This isn't to say it's an awful idea overall, but I do think it's misplaced in the console world. The reason consoles still remain as popular as they are, even as they've become proprietary PCs, is that they don't require updates, installation, and everything works on them across the board. People basically keep saying "last console generation!" "death of consoles!" but it doesn't come to pass because they keep it simple and that sells.

That's a fair argument, but what if we went half way with it? A la the N64 expansion pack bundle ...? What if we included the parts as major bundles to games for a reduced price? I could see a start up console company actually afford the massive investment cost and losses on each console production in the name of making a profit from game licencing.

Rather than spending hundreds of millions in the console development cycle and in losses from every sold console, you subsidise some of that large scale development loss with merely providing slottable SATA 2 style simple components with major game bundles? Kind of an amalgam between plug and play and cable, and you merely open up a sealed containment beneath, insert the 'expansion card' or whatever in the right slot. Slide it in, press a button that connects the diodes or whatever on the connector, locking the 'expansion card' in place?

Make it as brain dead as possible. Basically plug and play (Or 'slot' and play) but EVERYTHING colour coded ... so you know exactly where to put it, automatic power down function when you open the expansion access panel, etc. Basically like the N64 expansion pack, where they did bundle it in the initial run of certain games. Nobody really complained Perfect Dark needed the expansion pack to make the game playable, because there were so many cheap ways to get one of the expansion pack modules.

If you can make a game console have 2+ extra years longevity by doing that, even if they make 10 or 20 dollars loss on selling components attached to game bundles or the like, you'll make it up reducing development costs on new consoles down the line ... plus with the extended longevity and the ability to alter the poroduct, more companies are going to be receptive of putting their games on a certain console if there is a guarantee the company will take seriously about modifying certain specificities with the next upgrade product.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be challenges, but I think itf you limited upgrades to a once a year affair, and coupled it with a major game bundle to show off the new tech, people might be more receptive and I think it would save a bit of money in the longrun assuming the console producer is in it for the 'long haul' and plans on creationg more consoles down the line.

Plus you could chart development to the schedules of game developers, it would be like free hype each year of a console that is alkways changing and consumers knowing they'll get an affordable piece of tech that can compete in a marathon when other consoles go for the sprint. Plus you could send other console makers 'in check' ... Microsoft announces the XBox 0, with these specs ... you could check that hype by showing a new console run with expanded features bundle included, and a new expansion each year or two and be like; "And there's more to come ..." -- and the consumers will believe it. All without the budget breaking new development cycle that accompanies brand new consoles.

 

[loa]

What would be the advantage with inane game development traditions that seem to forbid so much as selecting the resolution or rebinding buttons of your game on consoles?
They're not going away. We'd sooner see the most insane rationalizations about "30 fps being more cinematic" because mama game dev knows what's best for you than receive actual options that would make modular consoles even remotely worthwhile for all the confusion splitting up the userbase would cause.
And at that point, it would be a PC shackled by proprietary nonsense.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't think making a games console that's upgradable would be a great idea but...well, I DO think it's a pretty good idea at the same time. I think it's an issue of marketing really; instead of calling these things game consoles (because they won't be dedicated games consoles: Sony hasn't made one since the PSX and Microsoft has never made a dedicated games console), they should just be marketed as gaming PCs that are INCREDIBLY easy to mod. I've never modded a PC before because it just seems intimidating to me. Sony and Microsoft could make a PC that easily snaps together and apart with over-large, fisher-price, cartridge-like sound and graphics cards that can be swapped with newer versions as easily as...well, game cartridge.

I'm parroting info that I heard from a youtube video who knows how long ago but the 2 big advantages consoles have over PCs is local multiplayer and instant gratification. Since every game seems to need to be installed no matter what your platform is (even 3DS games need updates from time to time), that's one advantage gone BUT, if you give PCs the instant gratification of being able to open one up without tools, pull out the starter graphics card for the newly released one then...well, there's a fine new advantage. It would also give "consoles" the opportunity to utilize PC-like options for people who haven't upgraded their Sony or Microsoft-brand graphics cards or whatever.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's a fair argument, but what if we went half way with it? A la the N64 expansion pack bundle ...? What if we included the parts as major bundles to games for a reduced price? I could see a start up console company actually afford the massive investment cost and losses on each console production in the name of making a profit from game licencing.

Depends on how deep you want to go. If we're talking multiple, modular updates, things are going to get hairy fast. Keep in mind that the expansion pack was a niche deal, as are most peripherals, and there's a reason we haven't seen many. Kinect was one of the best selling, and mostly because people were using it for everything from surgery to rocket science, but not gaming.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I miss the days of peripherals. I would love to have actual Zapper guns that work with modern TVs so I could play light gun shooters again. But peripherals are poorly supported, sell poorly, and divide the market. Any time you lock a game behind a new expansion, you fragment the audience.

Now, companies could work around this. Games could be developed with options that can be turned off for people not running the best expansions. But this means more development time and may not be possible in all cases (in fact, probably won't be). So with each of these new expansions, you're looking at developing for a smaller base.

Microsoft and Sony kind of fucked themselves this gen from the get-go, no longer taking the loss-leader approach. This also meant less powerful hardware. The same was true of the Kinect, which sold at a solid profit. I'm not sure we're likely to see discounts and acceptable losses. But I'm not sure we need more powerful hardware to extend the life of a console, either.

In any case, it would represent a complete 180 from both companies. Designing an expandable system would also increase cost and make it harder to QA for any game, not just the ones that mandate the new expansions. Hell, both Microsoft and Sony have bricked consoles because of the different chipsets used in different models of 360/PS3. It sounds absurd, but they've both have trouble supporting the same specs just with different chipsets (or even different HDD sizes). It's going to get messy trying to stack new hardware on old, which is why Windows is a bloated mess. Well, part of why.

The N64 didn't have a billion system updates and as far as I know didn't have major hardware revisions. I could be wrong on that last one. Sony updates like ten times a week to stay ahead of piracy (and very occasionally fix something) and Microsoft does fairly frequent updates.

Could another company come along and maybe do it? Yes, but there's a lot of hurdles. And there's the question of "will it be popular with enough people?"

PC gamers already have PC. Console gamers may be put off. It may be a technical disaster. Games may not run on all hardware. The base may end up being divided.

Like, it could be done. I'm not sure it's worth the potential hazards, though.

 

[FalloutJack]

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

If this were to happen, they wouldn't actually be consoles anymore. They'd be computers. The console is designed to be just a media entertainment system, specifically for games. The bells and whistles are nice, but they were built largely for gaming, a set piece. One of thing you hear from hardcore PC players is that they don't like consoles because you can't mod them. If you did, though, it wouldn't be any different from changing your own computer system. Ergo, the question becomes moot because it's not a console.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Yes, actually. PS4 is my last console anyway. PC mustard rice, here I come.

 

[Strazdas]

i think that would be the death of consoles. at that point they become exactly like PCs but more locked down. they already use same architecture, graphical APIs and in case of Xbox - OS. Vast majority of game engines will now compile same code for both consoles and PC because they are that similar. Hardware stability is the ONLY thing they have left (well that and games held hostage). If they abandone that consoles are dead. Which for me personally would be good news.

 

[DoPo]

but what if we went half way with it?
[...]
Rather than spending hundreds of millions in the console development cycle and in losses from every sold console, you subsidise some of that large scale development loss with merely providing slottable SATA 2 style simple components with major game bundles?

Hold on, how is that going to be cheaper when you then spend paragraphs trying to nail down the "simplest as possible" method? Instead of spending hundreds of millions developing once console, you now have to spend hundreds of millions designing it to be upgreadable. You have to write down the specs, scratch them, write them down again, tear the sheet apart, write down again, burn this one, write down again, etc, etc, for dozens if not hundreds of cycles until you have just that down. That's going to take manyears of labour to nail down. You'd also have to drag in manufacturers to this because you'll have to get your parts from somewhere. Are you supplying them? Are third parties also allowed to supply them? If so, then you also need to get some third parties on board with you and you have to all sit down and figure out how exactly the specs you've written down don't work, collectively shred them and write them down again, then destroy and re-write, etc, by then you'd be all too familiar with the drill.

Oh, I mentioned manifacturers, right? Well, those entirely custom parts would cost you. It's completely non-standard, so you'll have to let them know that you'll have a custom order of few million of them. I absolute wild guess is that it'll take them at least a couple of years to start producing them. I really hope you don't plan on releasing a different console that uses "simple components" that aren't these components and that would require another couple of years for the manufacturers to even start making.

Now that you're several years into designing just the hardware, you need to also get some software people to take up your idea. Namely game developers. What are they developing against? Games take a while to produce, how often are you rotating new parts into production? Every three years? Do you do the QA (or subcontract it in some fashion) that all games work with the new hardware or do you expect the developers to do it? Who does changes if there are any? Would you allow games to only run against some extra specs, say, a game always requires an expanded RAM version 2 and above? Would you allow the games to only run against a specific extra spec, like the game would ONLY work if you have expanded RAM version 3 but not with any other? Who would verify that's the case - you (again, even if subcontracting it) or the developers? Do you require EVERYTHING to work against the base specs? Good, so who is going to verify that?

There are tons and tons of extra resources you'd need to spend if you go with this plan and you didn't even seem to consider them. Heck, that's just off the top of my head. I don't want to spend the day that it would require to find most of the obvious things. I wouldn't say all, because I don't think I'll even catch all of the obvious ones in a day. Not to mention stuff that's non-obvious.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Hell I'm already half way out the door with consoles and modern gaming in general. The only reasons I am not feeling completely miffed by Nintendo announcing their intent to walk the Wii U off a cliff this year is because...well at least I got a Wii too which has a pretty solid small library of games along with the microscopic library of the WiiU.

Seriously I just got Dreamcasted again.

But yeah, I would certainly be done with consoles if this became a norm. I'm dropping 500 bucks for these over pieced game playing blocks, they better be in it for the long haul with me.