The Xbox 720

[veloper]

Stability is a non-issue.
An upgradeable xbox, running windows wouldn't be a PC(multiple hardware vendors) but more like a homecomputer (think ST and amiga).

Complexity doesn't have to be a problem.
The 360 doesn't need a faster CPU and GPU so much as more memory. Detailed textures will go a long way to improve visuals.
Adding more memory could be a simple procedure. There is even some prior art in console land for this. It's also the simplest upgrade for a PC.
If you're going to replace CPU+GPU+RAM though, you might aswell take a new box entirely.

Market penetration on the old model doesn't have to be a problem.
It's not a true homecomputer yet and the difference is that M$ has full control over which games they allow on the box. M$ could simply demand for all future games to be optimised for both the slower model and the faster model.
The biggest hurdle then is that the faster model may not be perceived to make much of a difference and people will stick with the old and so developers will too concentrate on the old set, continuing the cycle and turning the modular design into a flop.

 

[crazyarms33]

I don't think the whole "upgradeable consoles" thing will take off.

The N64 had some success with its RAM upgrade, but I think that was the last we'll ever see of such a practice.

I agree, but I think there were only 2 reasons that the N64 survived that:
1.) It was a literal 30 second replacement. It took no time and small kids could do it with minimal effort.
2.) The Nintendo 64 was DOMINATING the market. The Play Station had yet to really "take off" so to speak so Nintendo really didn't stand to lose that much. Whereas today well I think people just couldn't be bothered to do all that. If I have to go through all that trouble to buy new components for my gaming console I would just buy a PC. I don't think I'm alone in this.

 

[darksakul]

The Xbox 720

Experts weigh in on the possibility of a modular Xbox.

Read Full Article

Oh this? I though it was called a Personal Computer a.k.a. the PC.

Really though the idea of a modular console kind of irrelevant.
Players don't have to mess with consoles, they are a system that maintains static.
You don't need to sink a few hundred dollars so you can play the newest games this year because its a console.

Other than memory for gave saves/ setting and recently DLC and Game downloads a console ill-needs upgrades. (Memory and flash cards and Hard Drives).

Almost every upgrade/ add-on for a console in the past is a marketing failure. The expansion pack for the N64, the Sega CD and Sega 32X add-ons, the Game Boy Camera and printer. All these add-ons for the most part never caught on.

A Console with Modular CPU, GPU and ram would fracture the market place, make developers lazy, ether making games only for the upgrades or avoid upgrade capabilities all together and go for the low end specs. Any ways didn't Value and Blizzard proved it is proper coding and great visual aesthetics and not hardware that makes for stellar graphics.

 

[pepitko]

I wouldn't want a modular console even if it was cheaper than a regular one. I switched to console gaming from PC, because I got tired of messing around with graphics settings every time I got a new game only to have it crash to windows or slow down at some moments so I had to go back and change the settings again. If I wanted the ability to upgrade my hardware and tinker around with the settings, I would have gotten a gaming PC. The last thing I want to do on a console is to have to update the graphics drivers.

I like my 360, because I get home from work, pop the disc in and it works without a setup. And I have the relative security of knowing that everyone else has the same console, so if there's a bug in a game it will be solved very quickly. Also, the appeal for developers is that it is a single hardware platform that doesn't change, so they can heavily optimize the game for the hardware.

 

[Wintermoot]

or make console controllers compatible with PC,s and have Sony/MS release the software to run it on a PC.
I mean the 360 controller is already compatible via USB and both Xbox and Windows are owned by MS.
PS3/4 controller on the PC can be a bit troublesome considering Sony and MS are competitors.

 

[lRookiel]

And I wont be getting the new xbox, just because I cba and PC wins every day

 

[Stavros Dimou]

I don't know if that will be the future of gaming,but if it is,I might as well stop being a gamer.

So basically what this article suggests is to make consoles share the same hardware and software attributes with actual computers,with the only difference being that you won't be able to choose the brand of your RAM,CPU etc,but you will be FORCED to buy specifically Microsoft branded hardware.

That's dark as hell considering that when Xbox360's 20gb hard drive costed 100$,you could buy a 1tb drive for computers with the same money..
Yeah,so perhaps xbox720 will come with upgradable RAM,so Microsoft will be able to charge it at 49$ for each gigabyte while there will be 1gb RAM sticks for computers for 8$,yay!!!!!
And then console gamers will be happy because Microsoft loves them,because they will promote this farming they will do to them as a selling point,yay!!!

Oh,and there is a wrong assumption in the article too.At a point you ask the question "But will developers make use of upgradeabillity" ? to answer it later by saying that from what you see what they do with computers,they will.Well that's bullsiht.
80% of the games those multiplatform developers release on PCs,are broken ports that players have to fight to even get their menus working.Just look at Crysis 2,there was a "PRESS START" message on its PC version while computer keyboards doesn't have "start" button,and in Skyrim you couldn't exit the character creation screen and move on with the story if you didn't had a controller because of its BROKEN user interface.

Finally,I can't but feel surprized by the fact that you seem to wish to see the death of PC gaming.This article was one of the most harsh platform bashing words I've ever seen in the internet,can't tell if serious or trolling.

 

[thespyisdead]

i just hope this console won't have such i high initial release fail rate... everything else( besides the ability to play good games with good graphics) is optional

 

[Sonic Doctor]

No thanks. As tempting as a console-based simplicity with pc-like upgrading might sound, Steam is good enough at that on PC. Leave my consoles be.

I think it would work, but only if the upgrades happened within a period of 5 years at least, no less.

I think that is a good generation period, considering how this generation is just a little past that. Also considering that I've only had my 360 for a little over two years(got the Wii first and then got my Elite about three years later because all my friends had one), and I've had some very good times with it, so much so it has felt like I've had the thing longer. I like the length of his generation so far, because of how long it has been is the reason I have been able to afford to experience two of this generations consoles, instead of one console like all the other generations I've lived during.

But I agree that it would be a bad idea to have an upgrade cycle like PCs do, it just isn't economical.

I know back when I tried to keep up with PC gaming, I was having to upgrade my PC at the most every two years, usually in less time. It was around about the time of this generation that I gave up on trying keep up with the PC upgrades.

I still find it crazy what relatively low priced PCs can't play. Christmas 2009, my dad got me a new PC(meaning latest tech of that PC year), just the PC and keyboard, no monitor, for 400 dollars. It can barely play high graphic games from 2006, heck the thing can barely play WoW. The same year, 2009, I previously around May, I bought my 360 Elite, for 435 dollars. My bundle came with one controller, a headset, Fable 2 and Halo 3, and three months of Xbox live. The thing has worked ever since and has played every game I bough for it. That is what makes consoles so convenient.

Since gaming is a major part of PCs, that each new PC model each year, the lowest base price model, should at least play PC games made in that year and ones that came before. It's rather dumb to have to pay at least twice the price of a console to get a PC that can play games at at least a console level. Yes I know it can be done cheaper if one takes the time to go on a scavenger hunt to find each random part to construct the PC, but a person should have to go to all that trouble to get a cheap gaming PC. Normal people just don't have the time to do such things.

I would say the only way upgradeable consoles would work, is that at the least every five years, all the console gamers have to do is pay at the most 150 dollars for a new upgrade.

I look at the Kinect as a kind of upgrade. That console upgrading should be handled.

 

[TechieBoy]

What will Sony respond to the XBOX 720? A PS4?

 

[TheComfyChair]

I still find it crazy what relatively low priced PCs can't play. Christmas 2009, my dad got me a new PC(meaning latest tech of that PC year), just the PC and keyboard, no monitor, for 400 dollars. It can barely play high graphic games from 2006, heck the thing can barely play WoW. The same year, 2009, I previously around May, I bought my 360 Elite, for 435 dollars. My bundle came with one controller, a headset, Fable 2 and Halo 3, and three months of Xbox live. The thing has worked ever since and has played every game I bough for it. That is what makes consoles so convenient.

You spent 400 dollars on a PC and expected it to run games? $400 will NEVER buy you the 'lastest tech'*, you want to be looking at around $700-800 really. I'm sorry to break it to you, but PC's aren't just gaming devices, you can't pick up an office PC and expect it to run games. Yes, PC's are more expensive at the outset but if you have a console:

a) £10 more per game with no sales that even come close to steam
b) £35 a year sub for xbl for 360.

and, this is the kicker, the end of all 'PC gaming is expensive debates ever':

c) You'll STILL need that $400 PC or something equivalent.

You didn't buy a $400 PC for gaming, you bought the $400 on the basic office PC you needed and spent nothing on PC gaming, you definitely did not even have an dedicated GPU. You had spent $425 on the console, which, if added to the PC cost, would run any game maximum by PC standards (vastly higher than what consoles handle). Your overall console cost, including all factors included with PC gaming, was $825 in your case.

Additionally, how are you upgrading every two years? are you one of those guys that rages the moment you have to turn a setting down to medium in one game? My hd5870 would last until 2014 easily for gaming even at 1920x1080 as long as I turn down to medium settings in most games towards that time. I won't, i'll upgrade, but i don't whine about it because i know i don't need to upgrade if i didn't want to.

However, you do have to build it yourself to get the best value.

* The phrase you used here gave me a massive insight into the issues you were having, since it is one used by the component illiterate, something you simply cannot be if you want to play on PC effectively. There's a plenty of help around for you though.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Well, at the moment the 360 is just and internet browser, word processing software, and printer compatibility short of becoming my PC, at least in the sense of all the things I use my PC for. If Microsoft really wanted to, those three things could be added to the 360 with a simple couple or three updates.

I mean, even the dinky little Wii as an internet browser. No reason the Xbox wouldn't be able to handle one.

So really consoles, aren't far off to being a cheaper alternative compared to trying to spend all that money to build a "proper" gaming PC.

And no, I'm not the type of person that runs out for an upgrade every time I'm not able to get top graphical specs.

Each time during those three 2 year or less upgrade periods, I upgraded because my PC wouldn't run the latest game period, no matter how much troubleshooting and solution hunting I did. I had to upgrade period, each time I wanted to play the latest batch of newest games.

 

[saruman31]

I think the only good thing about a console is that you don`t have to upgrade it to run the latest games. And that`s pretty much why everybody gets one and not a PC. Imagine if your xbox won`t be able to run the latest xbox game. Haha...that would be quite funny.

 

[Dastardly]

I think what they are trying to get at is the console generation has really hit the summit of technology right now. The only way the next generation would be better/worth it is if consoles essentially became PC's.

A PC with all of its better assets mixed with the stability of a Console, that might be the next and last generation of consoles.

Still though, I can see Microsoft and Sony charging more for console upgrades than what you would pay for the PC. I can also see various companies [read: Activision] making CoD 8: Nazi's/Communists/Nazi-Communists is SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE! require the latest upgrade in order to push an amazing 32 fps.

Oh, I agree. I'm just kind of poking fun at the way they're approaching the issue -- they're inventing PCs without calling them PCs.

It's like me saying, "Okay, I want to invent a car that can also drive across water. Basically, I'll need to seal it up, like a boat. It'll need a different shaped body to move through water, like a boat hull. To properly displace the weight, I'll need to make it a shade wider, almost like a boat. The steering wheel won't quite do it, so I'll need to work in a rudder system, kind of like a boat. And I forgot about propulsion -- I'll need a propeller, like on a boat."

In the end, what I really want is a boat. And that's what I have by the time I'm done: It's not a car that can drive across water, it's a boat with wheels.

 

[Hyakunin Isshu]

I hate when people say "we don't need new Consoles" because I have tons of tech demos showing things we could NEVER do on the PS3. WE need to new Consoles, and we need them now.

 

[TheComfyChair]

snip

Well, at the moment the 360 is just and internet browser, word processing software, and printer compatibility short of becoming my PC, at least in the sense of all the things I use my PC for. If Microsoft really wanted to, those three things could be added to the 360 with a simple couple or three updates.

I mean, even the dinky little Wii as an internet browser. No reason the Xbox wouldn't be able to handle one.

So really consoles, aren't far off to being a cheaper alternative compared to trying to spend all that money to build a "proper" gaming PC.

And no, I'm not the type of person that runs out for an upgrade every time I'm not able to get top graphical specs.

Each time during those three 2 year or less upgrade periods, I upgraded because my PC wouldn't run the latest game period, no matter how much troubleshooting and solution hunting I did. I had to upgrade period, each time I wanted to play the latest batch of newest games.

The consoles have an issue of being at the mercy of what microsoft, sony and nintendo want. The PS3 WAS a PC with linux, now it's not. No-one who relies on PC's for work ect. is going to take that risk If a console could run word and internet explorer, it'd mean about 10m 360 users can likely drop their PC's that they don't game on anyway For everyone else, there's always something that they need that wouldn't run on the 360.

As for your upgrade cycle that's half of every single gamer i know, the only thing i can say is that possibly you upgraded to the wrong parts at the wrong time. A simple GPU upgrade every 3-4 years, with overall system (RAM/CPU/Mobo) upgrades on a roughly 5 year turnover is fairly normal for mid range PC's (case in point: people with 9800GT's are starting to upgrade now after starting to drop from running medium settings). I should know, I help people build and upgrade them all the time.

If you have around an $800 budget over every 5 years for PC gaming, you'll easily run all games from 'good' to 'maximum'. Considering buying 40 games over 5 years isn't uncommon, it all evens out even without the additional PC cost of a console. Plus, the PC versions are always prettier

 

[Dastardly]

but......there are boat-cars.


or car-boats.


sailing automobiles.....

And how many of them are mostly boat? All the ones that I've seen!

 

[Ashley Blalock]

I agree, but I think there were only 2 reasons that the N64 survived that:
1.) It was a literal 30 second replacement. It took no time and small kids could do it with minimal effort.
2.) The Nintendo 64 was DOMINATING the market. The Play Station had yet to really "take off" so to speak so Nintendo really didn't stand to lose that much. Whereas today well I think people just couldn't be bothered to do all that. If I have to go through all that trouble to buy new components for my gaming console I would just buy a PC. I don't think I'm alone in this.

With the current X-Box vs Playstation market I think you are right that it doesn't really have a chance of working.

Only a few exclusive titles left in the console battle between X-Box and Playstation. So there aren't that many huge reasons for the average person to go with one brand or the other right now. But if we got into a situation where people were looking at having to constantly upgrade a X-Box 720 or just buy a Playstation 4 that didn't need to be upgraded I'm thinking the market shift would be toward the no hassle system.

If I skipped on buying the Old Republic MMO because I didn't want to upgrade my computer to play it then of course I'd be more likely to buy a Playstation 4 that didn't need upgrades over a X-Box 720 that needed upgrades just to play Spacemarines 2. Heck I've skipped on the Kinetic upgrade just because it doesn't seem worth buying it just to play one or two games.