Xbox 720 May Feature PC-Like Customization

[Maxtro]

The problem is that if you don't have the upgrade then you can't play the games that require it. With your expansion pak example - having an N64 but not being able to play Perfect Dark, Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64 would be pretty damn shitty.

That's not really a problem.

Look at it this way. The PS3 came out in 2006. What if, from the start it had the capability to have the RAM upgraded? Lets just say $50 for 2 GB of Playstation RAM.

Then in 2008 Konami releases Metal Gear Solid 4 but decides that the RAM pack is required. Massive panic ensues. But you know what, because it's f-ing Metal Gear Solid, people bite the bullet and buy the damn stick. Over time more games come out that require the expanded memory but it's hardly news as most PS fans have already upgraded.

Then when the PS3 slim gets released it already comes with the expanded memory. From then on, every game released could require more memory. Anybody who is still rocking the Fat model can play all the new games as long as they had upgraded the RAM.

So yes, it would be annoying having games that require additional hardware, but most of us are adults and can afford it.

If I could have spent $100 to upgrade my PS3 and make it into a better gaming machine, I would have done it no problem.

 

[medv4380]

btw. ouya is nothing but a good and cheap barebone pc with a controller.

Actually it's nothing but a phone without cell service that happens to connect to your TV for a screen.

 

[lacktheknack]

Queue the bloody tears of every dev's optimization team. The lack of console customization was the only thing keeping them getting up in the morning!

Yeah but doing away with optimisation would save untold millions of dollars a year on game development that publishers could then conveniently not pass on to the consumer.

I'm not sure I follow.

Then be sure and catch up.

No can do. What I got out of your statement is "we should ditch optimization", which is insanity.

 

[Bigsmith]

Urgh, I feel like Microsoft are just trying to reinvent the computer.

Cause it's not like they don't get enough money making Operating systems for them already.

I could understand if they wanted to go into the hardware market and make there own computers like what Mac does.

Personally I think I continue to stick with a proper full gaming PC with access to things like Steam and all the Indi games I like.

...Also, I swear to go if this threads starts the 'BUT GAMING PCS COST OVER $9000 DOLLARS' argument then I'll slap a *****.

 

[saruman31]

ROFL! If this is true, they took the only desirable feature in a console and brutalized it with chainsaws.

 

[Sovereignty]

Eh, one of the largest draws of consoles are the fact that what you buy is generally all you need to play. (Games obviously needed as well.)

The notion that 2 years into the console cycle my system will need to be upgraded sort of defeats that whole aspect. I'm pretty sure that the people buying consoles don't gravitate towards PC gaming because they don't/can't/are unable/etc to put together a solid PC. It forces them to either pay $400 for a console, or to drop $800+ on a dell made for gaming. So I get it there, I understand why they'd want the console. If they can't put it together themselves and save a good chunk of cash to make it more viable then a console OR pre-made gaming rig, it makes sense.

Still I don't see how this would draw those people in. Why would they want to upgrade? They're not going to pull in any true die-hard PC gamers, unless they turn it into a full-fledged PC. It's also obviously not targeted at the casual crowd who can't build their own PC's...

So who would this be for? What market is this supposed to help Microsoft take in the gaming world?

 

[loa]

If this becomes too convoluted (multiple versions of parts) then this introduces the convoluted mess of pc hardware to consoles.
I guess they want to give the new console more longevity which is a good thing but the means don't sound too good...

I don't want lagging frame rates to be anything but the developers fault and I suppose knowing exactly what they work with is beneficial for developers too, lest they split their customer base (which is why hardly anyone wants to make use of addons. See: kinect, move, n64 memory pack etc).

 

[The Grim Ace]

To the people of this thread:

I realized that my post may have sounded a bit rude. I apologize for this. I, in fact, just finished playing the PC (Or Mac, if you want to get techincal) version of New Vegas. Hell, my PC has more hours then the majority of my consoles! (Except the Gamecube. Sonic Adventure 2 was badass, wasn't it?) I was not trying to insult any PC gamer.

HOWEVER! I still don't like Jim, nor his show. That I will stand by.

To make up for my epic act of assholery, how about some adorable?

<youtube=kNK0UDEoaOM>

All your seeming rudeness is forgiven by virtue of, yes, Sonic Adventure 2 was all the win.

OT: My faith in microsoft and the prices they love to charge already for upgrades such as hd expansions leads me to believe this could be terrible for the average consumer. Then again, I thought the same thing about dlc and that hasn't been nearly as disastrous as I first thought.

[small]So, all the grains of salt, PC customization on consoles could totally work out...[/small]

 

[Pinkamena]

Well this will surely result in a shitstorm of massive proportions... And I don't mind. Customization is always a good thing.

 

[Scow2]

Stop stop stop stop. This is not true. There is not way that MS would ever allow anything like that. Or at absolute best, you have to send it to them so they can do it for you, for a ridiculous price. Haha, I'll stick to my PC where at least when I upgrade, I have a ridiculous number of ways to upgrade. And I can shop around for the best price.

Nah, Microsoft's not in the "Send it to us to do" business: They can't be bothered to deal with the shipping. After all, the Xbox 360 is already upgradable, at least in the hard-drive department. And as someone else mentioned, so is the Nintendo 64.

Actually, I'm flipping my mind about this, if it enables more PC-to-Console ports, as long as all Xbox games run consistently on the new console's minimum specs, or have a label giving the minimum level of its upgrades. There were a number of games on my 64 that had improved graphics options if you had the memory booster, and I could see that being re-applied to the Xbox: having simple-to-install (As in "just plug it into the slot"-level simplicity) consistently-manufactured hardware upgrades that can allow the game to render higher-resolution graphics objects and reducing load times. I'd much rather spend $30-$60 dollars on a mid-cycle upgrade than $300+ on a new console that MIGHT be backward-compatible with the previous generations.

The more I think on this, the better the idea of a scaling console actually sounds.

Captcha: Van Surfing

But it hated me, so: guinea pig

 

[vallorn]

hmm... well if M$ do this then they will make badly made and expensive parts for you to add to your machine. and god help you if you try to modify non Xbox hardware so it works in the machine.

however. Sony's track record on customization is mixed. on the one hand you have the memory cards of doom for their handhelds and on the other the PS3 can be upgraded with any normal Sata 2.5" hard drive (Seriously. I upgraded my 40Gb disk it came with to a 320 Gb). so if this catches on Im probably going to favor the Sony components.

 

[Rad Party God]

Upgradable console?, I just hope it doesn't turn out like this:

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I'd much rather spend $30-$60 dollars on a mid-cycle upgrade

Yes, I'm sure you would... however a a complete CPU/GPU replacement is more likely to cost you as much as the launch price of a console... and that's without factoring in Microsoft's mark up.

 

[Bvenged]

It won't be scalable in the sense that: I could go out and buy the latest graphics card, and stick it in my Xbox 720; it will be Microsoft releasing "more powerful" Xbox 720's with time that are architecturally the same as prior 720's, but more capable for distant future games in the presence of the 2nd 720's release.

That way they have an ever-evolving console cycle which won't expire, remaining competitive with PC.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Well, I seem to remember that my N64 needing some sort of memory expansion to play many late-gen games and my PS2 needed a HDD and modem to play many online games. I also remember buying each of these upgrades without question.

If Microsoft believes that they can make more money off of gamers by forcing them to periodically upgrade their console, they will do so and the vast majority of gamers will fork over their cash without question (many already pay them extortionate fees for online gameplay...).

Hardware upgrades will significantly increase the lifespan of the new console, reducing long-term costs for Microsoft as manufacturing an entirely new console while ensuring a lower retail price generally requires them to take a loss and make up the difference in game sales. Come to think of it, MS might decide to keep hardware costs to a minimum by installing cheap components at launch and then force gamers to eat the cost of proper hardware later on, sort of like those "gaming" PCs you can buy at the big box stores...

Developers really have no excuse when it comes to optimising their projects for different hardware configurations as most of them started out in PC gaming and continue to release titles to the PC market. Dealing with different hardware configs should be oldhat at this point and IMO doesn't seem that difficult for modern hardware.

Anyways, if the next Xbox does feature hardware upgrades, it will be good news for PC gamers. Multi-platform titles will be no longer be stymied by the limited capabilites of an aging console generation. Optimisation of PC ports might improve as well. For console gamers, things would become a fair bit more expensive...better graphics, faster load times yay!?

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Then I'll just stick with my PC then

 

[Baresark]

Stop stop stop stop. This is not true. There is not way that MS would ever allow anything like that. Or at absolute best, you have to send it to them so they can do it for you, for a ridiculous price. Haha, I'll stick to my PC where at least when I upgrade, I have a ridiculous number of ways to upgrade. And I can shop around for the best price.

Nah, Microsoft's not in the "Send it to us to do" business: They can't be bothered to deal with the shipping. After all, the Xbox 360 is already upgradable, at least in the hard-drive department. And as someone else mentioned, so is the Nintendo 64.

Actually, I'm flipping my mind about this, if it enables more PC-to-Console ports, as long as all Xbox games run consistently on the new console's minimum specs, or have a label giving the minimum level of its upgrades. There were a number of games on my 64 that had improved graphics options if you had the memory booster, and I could see that being re-applied to the Xbox: having simple-to-install (As in "just plug it into the slot"-level simplicity) consistently-manufactured hardware upgrades that can allow the game to render higher-resolution graphics objects and reducing load times. I'd much rather spend $30-$60 dollars on a mid-cycle upgrade than $300+ on a new console that MIGHT be backward-compatible with the previous generations.

The more I think on this, the better the idea of a scaling console actually sounds.

Captcha: Van Surfing

But it hated me, so: guinea pig

I agree, it would be a far better console if you could scale it up. The main reason this wouldn't work is that there would probably not be any increased definition is graphics or performance, even with upgrades because it still has to be made for the lowest common denominator. But I could be wrong. I had a N64 with the RAM expansion, that shit was awesome. But a game had to be made for it and I don't think a lot of developers would put in the time on this, having two different definitions modes. And say there is more expansions; say they release 4 GPU's over the course of the system life. This would play havoc and need a lot more work to release a game. This is the reason why a lot of developers just don't do PC development.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Pretty sure this is obviously wrong. The only drawcard for a console over a PC for a developer is that if you code for one X360, you can be damn sure that the code will work on every X360 ever released. The difficulty with PC systems lies in the fact that no two PCs are exactly the same.

 

[Scow2]

I'd much rather spend $30-$60 dollars on a mid-cycle upgrade

Yes, I'm sure you would... however a a complete CPU/GPU replacement is more likely to cost you as much as the launch price of a console... and that's without factoring in Microsoft's mark up.

Unless they mark it down instead. An Xbox 360 originally cost significantly LESS than a PC of similar cost, and with a consistent board and processor arrangement (Even if they somehow make it possible to plug in more processor cores, which may or may not be possible by then), it could bring down the production and distribution costs of improved graphic and RAM cards.

It won't be scalable in the sense that: I could go out and buy the latest graphics card, and stick it in my Xbox 720; it will be Microsoft releasing "more powerful" Xbox 720's with time that are architecturally the same as prior 720's, but more capable for distant future games in the presence of the 2nd 720's release.

That way they have an ever-evolving console cycle which won't expire, remaining competitive with PC.

Re-releasing a box that's functionally different from its predecessor isn't "scalable". It would just clutter everything up because there's no way to change the things. Right now, I think I could upgrade my 360 Arcade to be identical to a 360 Elite, and the same games run on both just fine.

Pretty sure this is obviously wrong. The only drawcard for a console over a PC for a developer is that if you code for one X360, you can be damn sure that the code will work on every X360 ever released. The difficulty with PC systems lies in the fact that no two PCs are exactly the same.

But when the only difference between the machines is the numbers, not brand and manufacturer, they are much more consistent. An ATI graphics card doesn't function the same way as an nVidea one does. A Toshiba computer is a different beast from a Dell, HP, or Acer computer of the same stats.

Being able to plug in a larger/better RAM and/or Video Card to access larger texture resolution/polycount/particle counts and/or reduce loading times is a good thing to me. Requiring me to get a new console to play a game branded as running with my current console, or allowing me to buy a console that doesn't work with the games supposedly made for it, is a bad thing to me.