Xbox 720 May Feature PC-Like Customization

[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.

 

[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.

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.

uh, you're aware that different types of GPU from the same manufacturer will also function differently?

Also, you both contradicted yourself and proved my point. There's no point in consoles becoming upgradeable, because they still won't match the power of PCs and their convenience, whilst giving up their only competitive advantage for developers.

 

[scully745]

Done right, this COULD end PC gaming, or at least force it to change in some way that makes it attractive to current PC gamers. Of course, it's being done by Microsoft so what potential there is will be almost completely wasted. They seem to have forgotten that most choose consoles over PC to avoid precisely this, so it could also kill their chances of succeeding with that generation. Of course, there're always the fanboys of each platform who will buy it regardless of how shit it may or may not be, better to assume they'll screw it up. Dosn't influence me either way, as I don't consider it blasphemy to own both an Xbox and a good enough PC to call myself a PC gamer like many here seem to.

 

[Scow2]

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.

uh, you're aware that different types of GPU from the same manufacturer will also function differently?

Also, you both contradicted yourself and proved my point. There's no point in consoles becoming upgradeable, because they still won't match the power of PCs and their convenience, whilst giving up their only competitive advantage for developers.

But the difference is small (if at all) if the GPU is from the same series.

And what's this bullshit about them not matching the power of PCs? When the 360 came out, it was superior to any PC within twice its price-tag, and the PS3 surpassed even that. It's not that they're underpowered, it's that they didn't upgrade as PCs did. I remember seeing projections for how long each of the consoles was supposed to last:
The 360 was predicted to be replaced in 2008, since its advantage was in the early start and raw power (Which would quickly get surpassed).
The Wii was predicted to be replaced in 2010, but nobody cares about that.
The PS3 was predicted t be phased out in 2014, because that's how long it was predicted developers would take to figure out how to make it work.

As far as convenience: The N64's memory boost-thingy and Xbox 360's hard drive proved it was VERY easy to make a console convenient and upgradable. There are three barriers in upgrading a PC:
1. Finding the right component you need out of the dozens out there, with the differently-advertised features of each one making it difficult to determine which one's actually better, and if it works for your computer's port. It's a lot easier to upgrade from "Xbox GPU Mk1" to "Xbox GPU Mk2" than it is to go from "Nvidia GeForce Whatever" to "ATI Pro Whatever" or "Radeon HD Infinite Whatever"
2. Price, which can be undercut to ensure market share due to proprietary control (Micro$oft sells its consoles for a loss, and makes it back and then some from Xbox Live and their cut from every game sold). Also, being the only seller of the component means they can mass-produce and package them for individual sale and be sure of moving all units.
3. Firmware updates, especially trying to figure out WHICH obsolete PoS in your system it needs to get the upgrade for and applying it, and hoping the rest of your system has the stats to figure it out.
4. The actual need to open the computer box and figure what goes where, and what's compatible with what. Making a hardware upgrade as simple as changing NES games makes this insurmountable-to-average-joe barrier completely trivial.

In macroeconomics, limiting choice and having sale monopoly of a market is a bad thing. However, in this case, in the proprietary model of Xbox upgrades, there's no real market - if people want out, they can put up with the hassle of PC gaming instead. Developers still have firm benchmarks, and even flexibility in what they want to do, because they know that regardless of whether the target console has 4 or 8 GB of RAM, or a GPU 1 or GPU 2, it still functions as long as all components meet the minimum ones it's rated for.

 

[Frostbite3789]

In before some asshole references Jim the asshole and yell how we shall all be PCs or be shot.

Seriously though, if this is where we're going, why wouldn't you just go the PC route?

You hate having lower game prices, more sales and a far bigger library?

I mean, for all the bitching people do about how expensive a gaming PC is (they aren't actually that expensive), it's more than made up for in the cost of games. Easily. A few times over.

That's a point apparently everybody misses.

 

[Frostbite3789]

2. Price, which can be undercut to ensure market share due to proprietary control (Micro$oft sells its consoles for a loss, and makes it back and then some from Xbox Live and their cut from every game sold). Also, being the only seller of the component means they can mass-produce and package them for individual sale and be sure of moving all units.

This point is undercut so hard by this generation. Remember that time when MS requires the use of their proprietary hard drives now and they're so overpriced, it's laughable? I can go pick any random 1TB HDD for like $60-$80 while MS was charging over $100 for a 120gig HDD.

Also see: Any Apple product ever.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh hey, maybe some console peeps might realize there's even less reason to use the format and start playing games on the PC.


That's kinda good for everyone.

Players get a better experience, and the PC format gets more players.

 

[clippen05]

I say sure do this as I'm probably not getting the next generation of consoles but it will mean that consoles will stop holding back PC development due to its outdatedness in the later stages of the console life-cycle.