Upgradeable Consoles.

[Vilcus]

I do find it annoying when there's a multiplatform game, and the consoles get shafted on overall graphics, while the PC enjoys a massive graphics potential (due to customization and things like that). While this is true, I don't see the need to have it for consoles, seeing as games are streamlined to work on consoles, and that makes things easy to understand.

I have no trouble navigating Windows interfaces, and I know pretty much everything there is to know about building myself a computer. So when I get the money I'll stick to upgrading my PC, because my consoles don't need it.

 

[Tharwen]

I think this could be a really good way of generating income for console developers. Imagine if every console was sold as a single case with most of the internal hardware removed. You could then buy the graphics card/memory/processor/hard drive separately, each as a single module which you could simply slot into the case you've already bought. It would also make RRODs and the like much easier to deal with.

The problems with this would then be that game devs would find it hard to program the graphics efficiently, and there wouldn't be much incentive to buy the next generation of consoles.

I'm a bit confused by that, you've jusgt described a PC.

But the only interchangeable hardware would be the graphics card, memory and hard drive, and all of them would be manufactured and marketed entirely by the console manufacturer. That way you could be sure that the hardware you bought would be compatible with your console and you wouldn't have to piss about with drivers. They would basically be extremely simple so that console users find it easy to install them.

 

[Hateren47]

Your idea is nothing but fantasy. And it's obvious you haven't thought through nor understand what you're talking about.

I do understand what I'm talking about, but if you think I haven't thought it through maybe you would like to inform me why it wouldn't work.

The price of parts would be exorbitant. All the extra fluff that exists already is overpriced. There would be no competition, as all manufacturing would go through or be owned by Microsoft/Sony.

This console generation has had enough catastrophic hardware and software failures without adding variable hardware to an already unstable mix.

RAM capacity could be modular. But it doesn't need to be. Current RAM amounts are acceptable. Would be nothing but an unnecessary money gouge.

VRAM would benefit most from upgrades, both xbox360 and PS3 only have 256MB of VRAM. But you can't. You can't just "slap in more graphics". It's fundamentally changing the hardware in a preset system. You can't add more, you can only replace what's there. Driver support would be awful, as they can barely get patches out anyway. For heightened graphics, you put your system at extreme risk of total failure. Bricked.

Hardware changes beyond the most small, simplistic additions (ie. N64 Expansion Pak) void warranty. VOID WARRANTY! ON THE CONSOLE GENERATION THAT HAS SEEN THE MOST CRITICAL ERRORS EVER!MADNESS!

The average console use lacks the technical ability to make hardware changes. And the average console user doesn't care to learn. That's why they chose a console in the first place; It's easy. And adding all this extra shit WILL require some serious tech work. On hardware that is less straight-forward, no-nonsense than a PC.

The PSU would be especially strained, or simply unable to cope all the extras. These systems were manufactured cheaply with budget parts. Gaming PCs have very high quality, high capacity PSUs to handle the stress. But consoles PSUs are hardwired in. Unable to be replaced. Modular PSUs (with modular cables) are fucking awesome, but would just be too much trouble for manufacturers.

Heat. More parts = More heat. And the 360 already has trouble with it. Not to mention consoles having godawful ventilation. Parts would fry within hours.

Hope you enjoyed the read. It was served with a nice, hot cup of rage.

Actually I didn't in particular enjoy the read because your only valid point is the price. And yes, if it says MS, Sony or Nintendo on it, it could set you back a pretty penny.

More RAM would reduce loading times, although having the game "installed" on the HDD would reduce it even more.

And VRAM would of course sit with the new GPU which would not void your warranty since it was sold to you by the same company that made the console.

And, on the subject of heat, I'm sure you could find a GPU that would run faster than the Xenos (basically a Radeon X1900) or the RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' (literally a GeForce 7800-series), use less power and waste less energy (heat) because of a more modern, smaller processor.

These things would of course go in the next generation of consoles, as it would be impossible to do in this, but it's hard to speak about hardware that won't be released for another 5 years.

If the Xbox 1080, the PS4 or the Nintendo Hoo had modular upgrades would it make you not want to buy it?

 

[Kagim]

No, because that's not why we buy consoles.

I bought a console so I don't have to worry about anything not working on it until the next generation come out. Upgrades would mean games one day would be released requiring said upgrades. While one day i am going to have to buy a console of the next generation its generally five years before the next generation is announced, and another 1-2 before people stop making games for the older console.

Upgrades would mean the very reason I am not heavily invested in PC gaming. The day i have to upgrade my PS4 to play new PS4 games is when i get sick of the whole mess.

When I invest in a console all i want to check when I buy a game is that the word "PlayStation 3" is on the side. Not whether i have The PlayStation 4 graphics upgrade 2, for only $149.99.

HDD upgrades? Fine. Ram upgrades, as long as they are NEVER mandatory to play the games.

Graphics and CPU and any other critical piece would entail new games being designed with them in mind. Meaning one day unless i have Graphic upgrade 2 and cpu upgrade 6 I'm SoL on any new games.

Fuck that.

 

[Hateren47]

These things would of course be for Xbox 1080, PS4 and Nintendo Hoo since the ship has already sailed on this generation of consoles. I wrote a long post but it got lost in the system and I will type it again when I've had my dinner. I still think it's an excellent idea and the only valid points against it have been price so far.

Edit: Looks like it didn't get lost after all.

 

[Wintermoot]

Would you buy upgrades for you console(s) if you could? Say if the Xbox 360 had a lid on the bottom for more RAM like a laptop or the PS3 had a cartridge-like graphics card expansion slot in the back.

If it wasn't any harder than loading up SMB3 on a NES, would you fork over the money for having more AA and higher FPS or faster load times?

Hardware prices would be the same as the PC counterpart + the usual 10% console tax for putting their sticker on it.

NO! one of the positive things about a console is that you DONT NEED TO UPGRADE IT!

 

[Warforger]

Would you buy upgrades for you console(s) if you could? Say if the Xbox 360 had a lid on the bottom for more RAM like a laptop or the PS3 had a cartridge-like graphics card expansion slot in the back.

If it wasn't any harder than loading up SMB3 on a NES, would you fork over the money for having more AA and higher FPS or faster load times?

Hardware prices would be the same as the PC counterpart + the usual 10% console tax for putting their sticker on it.

This was tried on the Sega Genesis with stuff like the Sega CD and the 32x, it failed miserably, especially since the 32x was released a few months before the Sega Saturn, the next Sega console.

 

[CarbonEagle]

I think this could work but only if done right.

If you put the driver on some flash memory on the module and the console was designed to be modular it would only read the driver from the module (therefor you only need to shut the system down, change hardware boot it up and its ready to go)

If all the hardware was of the same chipset the only difference is the speed of the hardware, the optimization would be the same. This means they all will be of the same brand and could only be made up to a certain speed before reaching the chipsets limitation withing the consoles psu and cooling abilities.

Rather than shipping the stock box with a lowest common denominator psu, motherboard and cooling you put the higher end ones in to support the better modules. These will NOT be modular.

The game would be designed to auto detect the hardware and set graphics automatically so depending on the modules you would get better load times and prettier graphics but no user interface for this would be given.

The CPU module would come with cooling built in so the player wouldn't need to use cpu goo or worry about cooling issues.

There would need to be a simple rating system to show the buyer what each part benefits you. So maybe each part is assigned a value (X/10) based on load times and graphics quality.

Its very doable but based on the console players reactions in this thread it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Also PC parts are not upgraded every 2 months. My computer is 3 years old (was only decent at the time) and since then I've only upgraded to a midrange gpu (less than $100) a year ago and I can STILL run any game at max graphics, not including dx 11, my video card wont let me

 

[Kagim]

The only valid points against it have been price so far.

What about compatibility issues? As i said in the post above yours if the upgrades were anything outside of HDD space and OPTIONAL ram upgrades games would require you update your internal hardware. This is the very reason most Console users get Consoles. The simply ease of never having to worry about whether your hardware is good enough. All you need to check is if your consoles name is on the left hand side.

Even if installation is dummy proof the problem still remains. When i buy a PlayStation i don't want to have to buy a new one for 5-7 years. Upgrades would mean I would have to keep dropping money on it, and unless everything was replaceable it would mean all the money i dropped on it would be wasted when the next generation comes out.

Compatibility issues that people buy consoles to avoid AND money problems that unless the next generations would be the last ever would entail sinking possibly hundreds of extra dollars just to toss out are two very big reasons why upgrading consoles would be a bad idea.

Only two reasons, but big ones.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Would you buy upgrades for you console(s) if you could? Say if the Xbox 360 had a lid on the bottom for more RAM like a laptop or the PS3 had a cartridge-like graphics card expansion slot in the back.

If it wasn't any harder than loading up SMB3 on a NES, would you fork over the money for having more AA and higher FPS or faster load times?

Hardware prices would be the same as the PC counterpart + the usual 10% console tax for putting their sticker on it.

I really have to say that there is no point to this. As if people want upgradeability and modability they would get a PC as that is one of the points to having or not having a PC. Also it would allow console pirating to happen much easier than it already does as adding parts like this could easily be used to override the few ways consoles have of stopping Piracy making Console DRM necessary. You're really just asking for a world of trouble and head aches especially when console gamers do not have the patience or head for this or any type of installing on average. The average console player just wants to plug in and play and minimise messing around with setting and hardware which is why they are console gamers to begin with. That is not to say they are lesser than PC gamers because they do this they are just different.

 

[Cronky]

OP. I see what you're getting at, and after reading the whole thread I believe the reason for this being unaccepted thus far is because of two different mindsets when thinking of the idea.

In a perfect world this idea would work great. Eventually games will hit SOME sort of peak. To which buying a new console will only give you very very minor upgrades to what you're doing now (Looking at some PS3 games, I almost assume it's going to be soon...ish). This idea then works. While some would still opt to buy a whole new console to upgrade their experience; module upgrades could be utilized. Cutting costs because you're only buying one piece, rather than a whole set. Manufacturers having to build more PIECES, but at a lower cost since they aren't having to build whole consoles.

The above also takes another perfect world to work the way you'd want. Companies are made to make money. While you would HOPE that the Xbox 1080 with it's upgrades to the Graphics and RAM would come out only when it was vitally NEEDED. It is more likely that it would come out more frequent simply to get peoples money. You can't trust a company to hold back simply because it doesn't make sense to make a small upgrade when they could wait and make one big one instead.

To everything else that people are saying... it's all kind of subjective to the person. If upgrades were a serious focus for a console manufacturer, then the upgrades would be easy to install, manage, and use. Much like the RAM slot for the N64 that people have mentioned. No console maker would make a console that is HARD to do something they are featuring. It defeats the point of owning the console. So they would of course make the console ready for such an option for the consumer.

I've forgot what else I was going to say. So I'll just leave it at this.

 

[Shycte]

No, because then I would have a PC. That's the charm about consoles, knowing everything will work.

 

[Hateren47]

1.) It would of course be as simple as remove the old cartridge and put in the new one.

2.) A lot of games don't run how they are supposed to. At least not as well as they could.

3.) I'm sure the console makers could do it. Microsoft have done a great job with automating driver installs in Windows 7. And the driver could easily sit in the cartridge and flash the console when you boot it the first time after upgrading. I don't think there are any technical difficulties to it.

4.) Yes 3rd party hardware could end up problematic, I will give you that.

and 5.) Developers will develop to the requirements MS, Sony or Nintendo tell them to. The basic requirements. 512 MB RAM for Xbox and 256 MB RAM for PS.

Again
1) This crosses over into my second point, how easy it is for the end user atm is rather irrelevant because it sure as hell ain't gonna be that easy for the developers or the hardware manufactures. It comes down to now is why would console owners fork out more cash for upgrades they wont notice, unless devs start programing for the consoles like they would the PC making the graphics scalable.... which then leaves me to ask, why haven't you just bought a PC?

2)If the game doesn't run how they are supposed to, its the developers fault not the console, they knew EXACTLY what they where working with before they started.

3)The windows 7 auto driver thingy really isn't all that reliable if you want to start actually using your hardware for more advanced stuff, it didn't pick up my last graphics card, had to download it myself from the site(I would have done it either way) as well as my audio drivers cause the windows ones were buggy and produces rather shit quality.

4)Of course I'm right(what else was I to put here you agreed with me)

5)And Microsoft and Sony will tell them to program for the most recent chipsets to encourage sales which will also means the devs will have to scale their games for older hardware, again this is already what PC developers do, removing any advantages of programing for consoles.

Finally let me ask you this. What platform do you game on?

Lets imagine for a moment that MS, Sony and Nintendo are reputable companies and wish only the best for their customers.

The developers would make the game for the "vanilla" version of the console. Add in the possibility for the consoles OS to turn on/up the AA by it self.

I haven't had any driver problems on the 7 or 8 desktops and laptops I have installed windows 7 on. Yes, of course the drivers are from when Windows 7 went RTM but can be updated through Windows Update.

And I play on a gaming capable PC and I play the consoles when I visit my brother. He has a washing machine and a girlfriend that can cook, so it's quite often I game on consoles.

 

[mew4ever23]

I agree with most people in this thread, if you want to customize a game console, use a PC. Upgradable consoles don't sell well.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I think you can get more storage space for the PS3.

I'm computer stupid though, so someone will probably correct me...

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Pointless and stupid. Console games are not designed to handle new hardware. They're designed to run as well as they can on fixed hardware. Replacing any component would have no effect on the game's performance or appearance as everything is locked.

Not only that, they'd charge $450 for a slight video card upgrade, $350 for a ram "doubler", and $550 for the lowest range six core processor.

The amount of people going "ooo hardware scary pls no ;_;" is disappointing though.

 

[-Samurai-]

I would have to say no.

Eventually they wouldn't be optional, but necessary.

Remember how Perfect Dark needed the expansion thing and the game was almost unplayable without it? That's what would happen to our consoles.

Developers would take the upgrades into account and start developing games that required you to have certain upgrades. I bought a console because I know it can run every game I put in it. No hardware changes required. If I'm going to need to upgrade a console to play a specific game, I'd likely just switch to pc, or keep playing older games.

 

[Hateren47]

No, because then I would have a PC. That's the charm about consoles, knowing everything will work.

It wouldn't be a PC. It would still only do gaming and be locked down even more than an Apple PC. You still wouldn't have a proper browser, anti virus or fart apps. The only thing separating the vanilla console from it's updated friend would be the graphics and possibly the resolution for games that now run in 480p or 720p.

 

[Hateren47]

Snips

Actually I didn't in particular enjoy the read because your only valid point is the price. And yes, if it says MS, Sony or Nintendo on it, it could set you back a pretty penny.

More RAM would reduce loading times, although having the game "installed" on the HDD would reduce it even more.

And VRAM would of course sit with the new GPU which would not void your warranty since it was sold to you by the same company that made the console.

And, on the subject of heat, I'm sure you could find a GPU that would run faster than the Xenos (basically a Radeon X1900) or the RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' (literally a GeForce 7800-series), use less power and waste less energy (heat) because of a more modern, smaller processor.

These things would of course go in the next generation of consoles, as it would be impossible to do in this, but it's hard to speak about hardware that won't be released for another 5 years.

Maybe you'd enjoy it better if you didn't ignore everything.

Were in agreement on RAM. This is the only aspect I think could work.

Unless you're a licensed tech, physically opening the system voids the warranty. Doesn't matter who made the parts.

Console manufacture used older designs because they where cheap to mass produce. Were they to jump to newer, more efficient parts the price would spike hard. And there would still be more heat and the ventilation still sucks.

Next-gen speculation falls into the "fantasy" I called it earlier.

Furthermore, illegal 'modchips' would become virtually impossible to detect.

You ignored my points on notorious hardware/software failures, power supply, and users' inability. Whatever.

If the Xbox 1080, the PS4 or the Nintendo Hoo had modular upgrades would it make you not want to buy it?

I do not like the idea. I'm projecting, but I see it as a horrible mix of both worlds that achieves the strengths of neither.

Well you ignored the first post and keep babbling about voiding warranties. And failing hardware could be easier, cheaper and faster replaced. If you fry you GPU and it's out of warranty you would only need to get a new GPU and not a new console. If it's under warranty pop the original GPU back in and send it off to the manufacturer. No screwdrivers needed.

Prices on GPUs aren't that high either. You wouldn't be able to get the newest top of the line PC hardware because they would indeed need more power, but you can find GPU's more powerful than the consoles have for less than the price of a single game.

And I doubt the user base would have any trouble installing a new graphics card if all you need is to power down the console, switch cartridges (no screwdrivers) and boot again.

 

[Jamash]

10% console tax? Have you seen the scandalous prices of Xbox wireless adapters and hard drives? 100% would be closer to the mark!

On topic, I suppose it could work, the Amiga 500 et al did something very similar, but developers would have to develop for the lowest common denominator so it'd only be superficial improvements. Which kind of becomes a bit pointless.

I was an Amiga child, and I remember some of the controversies and furore that occurred when certain games wouldn't run on slightly different variations of the same format.

I had an Amiga 500 upgraded with 2mb of RAM and 2 external floppy drives, and it used to piss me off when multi-disk games weren't programmed to check for/use additional floppy drives.

There was also a lot of controversy when older games wouldn't run on the improved 500+ and 600 models (people took their new computers back to the shop when it wouldn't run Fantasy World Dizzy).
I also remember that toward the end of it's life span, a lot of Amiga owners felt slighted that some games would only run on the new Amiga 1200 model, they felt they were being betrayed by the game makers.

Having the ability to upgrade a console within it's generation is pointless, since the game developers still have to make their games compatible with the lowest common denominator, i.e. the weakest, un-upgraded version (which is why X-Box Live arcade games had to be below a certain file size, so they'd fit on the smallest MU), and it can create divisions within the customer-base.

It would undoubtedly extend development times if developers had to make and test a game which would work with both 512mb of RAM, but also take advantage of 1GB of RAM or more if available.

This can be seen on the 360 in the way that Halo 3 or Crackdown (pre-patch) won't work if installed to the HDD... changing the hardware and the way the game uses it even slightly can cause problems.