Next gen console idea! Merge Console and PC! Thoughts?

OK, so I was deep in thought yesterday, after reading about rumors for the new systems as well as components that will be installed in the systems. Being an avid gamer of both consoles and pc, I had an idea for a next gen console. Why not merge what gamers love about their consoles with what gamers love about their pc's? How you might ask? Well someone like Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo, could develope a next gen console that is similar to a computer case but much more proprietary and make some components upgradeable. Obviously some R&D would be needed by the company, but if they do it right, they could make it a fool proof case and limit where you can plug in the components so that regular Joe doesn't get into parts of the system that can void warranty or accidently damage if you don't know what you are doing, but leave certain things like the video card slot exposed and easily accessible to pop in a new video card or what not. Think of the idea as similar to the Nintendo 64's Expansion Pack (increased system memory), but done right. I'm not saying make every component upgradeable but things like graphics card or memory, so that gamers can choose to upgrade when they want, and slowly instead of spending 500-600 bucks on a brand new system. Also, software/games would not require you to upgrade any of the components, but they could have an option to unlock the highest graphics setting or give a performance boost if people do add a new component. Lastly, this would benefit developers too, as long as Sony/MS/Nintendo are sure to only make upgrades every so often, and not like the PC industry where there are 50 different video cards you can purchase and change every few months. I think this will keep the console adaptable throughout the life cycle and extend the life cycle of the console and allow it to keep up with the ever changing flow of technology and the future! Plus it gives gamers a choice and not a requirement!

I dont think its a very good idea. You end up with a system that pleases no one. The average console gamer isnt interested in upgrading and arent likely to see upgrades as a bonus and more like an imposed handicap in order to get people to upgrade.

PC gamers arent particularly interested in such "fixed" upgrades. Some people like particularly high anti-aliasing, or high anisotropic filtering. Some might want a dual or even triple monitor setup for surround gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mJeefx5_Qc

You will either need to supply a bewildering array of options that most console gamers would get so confused as to not understand how to upgrade, or you would limit options that most PC gamers would care for.

In any case, The existing processors in the consoles are prety weak and outdated (yes, even the Cell). A powerful GPU can be weakened by a CPU because the CPU cant feed it commands quickly enough. To maximize upgradability, you would also have to allow the CPU to be replaced...and then the memory. And then you basically have a PC.

I'd be shocked if anyone actually thinks this is a good idea.

Or you could just build a PC.

See I love building PC's for gaming and upgrading every few years, but what I'm saying is that this could be a great idea if done right. Think about it once. You have a console, but built end user friendly so that even the most non technical person can upgrade something like the video card. Of course the hard core PC only gamers won't like the proprietary case or being locked out from certain components like the CPU, which yes, you guys are right, the CPU can be the bottle neck at times, but when we are talking about a 10 year life cycle, it's possible to put a powerful enough CPU in there to get the job done, granted towards the end of the life cycle of the system, it would start to show its age. Then again, most benchmarks for PC games are shown to be dependent on GPU not CPU.

Not to mention my personal experience *cheating the system* by avoiding a mobo + ram + CPU upgrade, I've been able to get away with upgrading my GPU recently to a evga geforce 460 2win, even though I'm still on a dual core intel x6850 C2D processor... and this is a SLI card, so it is possible to get nearly perfect performance with a simple GPU upgrade as long as the other components are of decent quality as to not bottle neck. I know some of you will say, DUAL CORE CPU!!! thats your bottleneck!!! Well of course it is, but I still pull 35-50 FPS in all modern games without any hitching of any kind, and yes I have 2x AA and 8x AF on at 1920x1080, though of course I could be pulling more with this card if I upgraded my CPU to match, though I'm still pretty sure that may not increase much given the fact OC'ing the CPU has not yieled any further performance increase, which if the CPU was the bottleneck an OC would give some type of FPS gain.

Of course some games run slightly quicker on quad cores if designed for, but even then, the benchmarks I've seen do not yield much more in terms of FPS, and like you guys said, the average console gamer wouldn't care about that. So my point in all of this, is that this could be an awesome idea for console makers to merge the gap more, though the PC enthusiast's or hardcore PC gamers will only want triple monitors 3d high rez glory, but that market is small due to the cost of such a setup, and the biggest thing for this idea is the cost behind it. After the initial R&D of the console, and finding the right components, you could have a system that is user friendly, proprietary so that the console maker can still have control over their platform (obviously PC enthusiasts or the like will find a way to modify parts as we always do), keep costs down for the gamer so that they don't have to shell out 600 bucks everytime a new console is released, and lastly, Sony, MS, or whomever, would be able to keep the design kits up to date for developers as they release the newest graphics card, and I'm not talking about a new gfx card or component every 2-3 months like in PC land, that would make it impossible to develope for, not to mention, make this idea fail, because no one would upgrade that often. I'm saying, for example, release a new gfx card every year or 2 and people will eat that up. Like I said, it would not be required to play the game, and by upgrading (just like the N64 expansion pack), it will improve performance or unlock higher graphical options! Give the gamer the choice!

Consoles already have one upgradeable piece of hardware already, the hard drive, at least with the X360 and PS3. With updates, which are mostly driver updates for said hardware as well as those for software (OS), consoles are already more PC like than ever before. What more do you want really? Console gamers do not want to have to worry about having to make any decisions about their hardware or software updates other than how big a hard drive to get for their machine.

Adding a myriad of choices to the equation for a console, one might as well just go with a full PC instead.

Microsoft has already done that. Sort of,... The original Xbox was built from off the shelf Computer parts a Pentium III for all intents and purposes. The current Xbox 360 and PS3 are somewhat Computer like.

The upcoming Razer Gaming tablet is the closest idea to merge Console and PC. It will be able to play Computer games at the best/highest settings.

So it would be a PC that prevents you from choosing between dozens of off-the-shelf components, and instead limits you to a few proprietary components that would have no competition as far as price or performance? Like the way Microsoft charged $70 for a $10 wireless network adapter, or Sony charges $88 for a $20 32gb Vita memory card?

Yeah, super :P

Lol yeah Jack I see your point, but at the same time, if done simple enough, the average gamer that loves gorgeous graphics, but doesn't know crap about pc's and wants to save some cash, can still upgrade to the latest and greatest graphics settings without plopping down 600 bucks. You also described that very well from the companies stand point, which I think companies would love that idea, though like you say, its not necessarily great for gamers if its over charged proprietary components, but it would still be cheaper. I guess I thought it'd be an interesting idea to toss around the forums to see what you guys thought. Seems like a bad idea to most, but I still think if someone did it right, it'd allow the average gamer to get more out of their consoles over the life cycle of the console. One thing I agree with most of you on, is that PC gamers may be turned down on it, or at least the hard core pc gamers. I myself am a hardcore pc gamer, then again, I consider myself a hardcore gamer in general for any platform, but would still probably purchase these upgradable components for my consoles for games that are strictly for that console only Also, a quck little background detail about me, I consider myself a well rounded gamer. I don't just stick to one platform, like PC, or PS3, or 360. I have them all because I hate missing out on games that are for one console or another, or PC only etc...

All I want that hte PC has is the TES creation kit and mods.

thats all... only for skyrim...

i dont want upgrades and ****

So PrecedeInsanity you would like to keep the same ugly last gen graphics for 7-10 years and then plop down another 600 bucks to upgrade to the newest, latest and greatest? Or would you prefer to either annually upgrade your graphics or every couple years, so that you can see the newest eye candy available as games mature for the console? I understand there will be some gamers that strictly care about gameplay and nothing else, but graphics can have a big impact on things like physics, animation for a game, as you have more power to render more complex scenes and new instructions/shaders for the graphics card. It can completely change the way the game feels or even plays in some instances, and those gamers that are willing to pick up an upgrade, can unlock those graphics features. If you decide not to, you'll still have a great game to play, you just won't be unlocking its full potential, which may not matter to you. I would assume most people would want to get the latest and greatest though.

I understand what you are talking about. Try to overcome the weakness in the PC and the Concole by mixing them. It could be hard to sell but it may work.

Consoles are 70percent software

Pc is hardware. it uses real gpus not optimised console graphics

i mean it's impossible compete agianst pc. the gpu's are just to complex and advance and for outdated pc cards they need optimisation like console cards do but suffer bottlenecking due lack support that consoles get. so it's impossible to combine both.

I think it's a horrible idea. I understand your want of a better system, that is adaptable. But the sacrifices are HUGE.

1) Developers would have choices to makes:

a) Focus more time creating tweaks to the game such that it optimizes each set of hardware, which would leave less time and resources to fixing more important things, like bugs and gameplay

b) Forget about making multiple versions of the game and just make the game work for everyone, thereby making the added GPU power useless

c) Focus on making a better game that utilizes the new hardware, therefore making the game only playable for people who bought the new hardware

2) If developers choose option (c), gamers are forced to buy the new upgrade or get left in the dust. It's like DLC. You end up with a community split in half: the people who bought it and the people who didn't. The best thing about XBL and PSN is that the communities are SO LARGE. By introducing this type of system, you are dividing and conquering the masses.

3) Ultimately this system would piss everyone off, and in the end, it would cause for lower quality games, more money spent, and/or a divided community where you can only play games with friends who got the upgrade.

-J

Or you could just build a PC.

-Unreal-