System Wars: Upgradeable/Iterative Consoles- Yay or Nay?

MS needs to hurry up and get those upgrades out to shut up the Cows.

@charizard1605: Honestly this is one of the dumbest topics you've created dude, there's so much wrong with having a upgradeable console

Lets go down the list

*Can you imagine wanting to buy Uncharted 6, but oh your CONSOLE doesn't require the minimum requirements

*Consoles would be A LOT more expensive, F that, no seriously that's a main selling point of a console cause it's affordable

*Games would be spread out depending on the hardware, a lot of issues with this one cause Sony and Nintendo would need to work on a OS for their consoles that would require that system to play every game. Then there's the issue if a game can't run properly, that's not a issue with PC gaming cause there's always gonna be fan made patches like Vampire Masquerade BL, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 which need fan made patches to work. I just don't see this working for consoles.

*If I wanted to upgrade every 4 or 5 years I'd stick primarily with PC gaming cause upgrading a Sony system, Nintendo system, a MS system and a PC system would get costly for someone who likes to own multiple systems. I already spend about a grand on video games a year, I don't need to add another $1,000+ every few years to that list on hardware.

Hopefully you get the point. As for tech and pushing boundaries, we don't need any more fads in gaming and it's gotten out of control lately with all the crap people are trying to push on the market (motion controls, 3D and voice activation has already failed horribly). As for graphics, they've improved a lot the past 10 years

Because Jesus

I voted nay, but after reading more I'm leaning towards yay

I mentioned this in SW before the 8th gen started and got shot down for it. Now though, it looks like it'll become a reality of a sorts. Maybe because I've always been a PC gamer I just don't understand why the console companies have completely re-designed the wheel with every generation of console, limiting backwards compatibility and forcing developers to re-learn how to drive the machines. Just a daft and expensive way to run an industry.

The only reason I can think of for any of the 3 console manufacturers to adopt this route would be if they were planning on launching streaming devices in the next 3 or 4 years, in which case an upgradable console would be a pointless and costly experiment.

I see your points. I understand the positives. But imo, I don't think it'll work well at all. At least not at first.

Both consoles are fine upgrading them just annoys gamers because they bought the older versions, if I cared about better graphics I'd build a PC

it would annoy a lot of people just like Nintendo annoys its 3DS market with its constant SKUs

Yeah perhaps they are running fine enough. It's not like a SNES to N64 jump that's for sure.

I think the idea is for consoles to still last 5-6 years. For a couple of years all AAA games will still be released on both X2 and X1 (or Ps4 + Ps4.5) for a few years until X3 is released. Then all games will be released on X2 and X3 and so on. So if you wish you can get every two console and it will be the same as now more or less (that's my theory for how this is gonna work anyway).

Because before the 7th gen, custom hardware actually did let consoles leapfrog PC, and for a good bit. N64, Dreamcast, GC etc.

The 7th gen consoles could've went X86 and maybe even had better CPU's for it, or at least no worse, but they had the momentum of the tradition and didn't think X86 was good enough at the time, as it wasn't before. Sony esp. wasn't paying attention. They also didn't anticipate PC Gpu's getting much bigger and hotter that generation, a lot of things flew over their heads.

I wouldn't be surprised if they planned this from the start, either that or they quickly realized these boxes couldn't last another 8 years. Streaming won't be taking over anything, it's shit and I don't see any reason digital games would go away.

Pretty much.

@dynamitecop: technological innovation ??? it is mostly graphics, games still play the same.

I voted "nay" because it is crap to update so often. We saw Nintendo run the crap during the Gameboy advance, then crap again with the DS and now with the 3DS. Like the N3DS is stupidly useless right now.

If you do system update every 2 years and have to support 6 years of hardware ... it will be a mess I can tell you because there won't be any gap between gen because gen won't exist anymore. We will have to have spec on the box to be sure our PS4,5 can run the game ... Oh no the box said minimum requirement for this game is PS4.6 well **** I need to buy a 400$ consol. I don't see any store having to have PS4.5 PS4.6 and PS4.7 on the shelves, they are already shrinking because we buy digital more than anything else now.

They will have to create a store like Steam that could still be avalaible in 15 - 20 years from now otherwise it will be a mess and we won't be able to play our stuff even though the new consol we just bought can run those as well.

I think that style of making game work on PC because it is an open source, it is just a box that you can put together as you wish with no brand in particular ... then why have a Sony box and a Microsoft or Nintendo box ? If this is the case why not create the PSstore avalaible on PC to compete with Steam and whatnot ?

Then it will be a fucking mess for the environnement ... so much old obsolete plastic box in a blink of an eye.

Obviously the new next gen consoles are very weak. They can't even do 1080p 60fps standard and 4k is here with VR. You have phones and setup boxes stronger than last gen consoles. It makes sense to upgrade the hardware instead of try to create a new platform.

I'm all for it, as long as it's done in a way that early adopters aren't screwed over. And also, I don't really want to see a new model released every year or 2. Maybe every 3-4 years. If it starts to become too often. then you might as well switch to PC. I like consoles because they are cost effective... and I'd be all for buying a new model every 3 years, minimum. Any less than that, I'm not interested.

I am completely for this just don't release the iterations to often give it like at least 18 months and [probably should be more around 2-3 and make sure its actually worth it and make sure that people with older iteration are not left out of being able to enjoy a newely released game no matter how much more advanced it may be on modern hardware. Devs have to make sure it can scale back and provide a good experience I mean if GTA V and Metal Gear Solid V can be made to run on ancient 360&PS3 hardware there is no excuse the gap should never be that big between and old and newer model console.

Hell no. It's total bullshit. I already own a PC that I upgrade every 2 years when I want top of the line graphics. I don't need my console to do the same. It's a waste of money and it's a total inconvenience. Part of the reason I own and like consoles is the fact that they have a long period of time between upgrades and the fact that everyone on a particular console is on an even playing ground. You take that away from consoles and you ruin the only advantage consoles have and I'll just stick to only PC gaming.

It's a stupid idea, and whoever adopts this business model out of the three is gonna fail hard. The cell phone market and the console market are extremely different. People get new cell phones every year because they are usually on contract plans and they expect to upgrade their phones yearly. Consoles don't have contracts and even if they did I doubt most gamers would be interested in them.

Yeah, I can definitely see this point of view too. I think if they are going to head down this road, they simply cannot release new versions too often. It's going to piss too many people off. As I said above, I think every 3-4 years might work.

All the cows here would quit gaming since their parents will not buy them another PS4.5

Maybe it's because owners of less-capable PCs/laptops grumbled about games not running well? Even midrange hardware aren't cheap.

I've skimmed the thread and haven't seen anyone mention what I think is one of the biggest selling points of a new console, a leap in graphics.

I know we video game players at system wars would NEVER admit that graphics matter, but for a large portion of people getting systems, it does. The jump from, PS1 to PS2 was groundbreaking, the jump from PS2 to PS3 was amazing, the jump from PS3 to PS4, was still pretty good. But if we started iterating off of the PS4, there will be no eye candy of a "new gen" leap in graphics (I mean, we just finally stopped calling Xbox one and PS4 "next gen", something that has annoyed me for the last 2.5 years) catching the eye of new customers, especially as improvements are in smaller increments than they were a decade or two ago. Selling consoles because there's more "GB" or VR is "better" won't be good enough if there is no objective (in the consumer's eye) proof via graphics or gameplay.

Thus even if it's better for the industry and developers, it may be a hard sell on consumers (plus who wants to remember what iteration PS4 you got, how difficult!) without developers utilizing the new system to its fullest and making exclusive games.

Yes there have been slim models, and we all know nintendo always makes a new handheld to improve the old one, but I think new hardware iterations besides just the design and more efficient chipsets are less frightening to the consumer.

Otherwise I'm all on board as long as they make it easy enough to understand the capabilities of a console and things aren't gimped on the older consoles because they wanted to take advantage of something from the newer iterations.

Though I do long for the good old days of the GameCube where all you do is get a memory card, put in a game disk, and just play. Those were simpler times.

@Zlurodirom: Definitely make some good points.

And totally agree with the last paragraph... lol. Those were the days.

Eh... If the Cell wasn't used for graphics in Ps3 games, it would be not far away from the cpu's in the current consoles in terms of general computing. That's not a leap. Ps4's GPU was a good leap but still not as big as Ps3>Ps2 by a clear margin. We're just now getting Uncharted 4, to show what the hardware can do but PS3 got 2 Uncharted games within the same time frame.

Moore's law and game development are only going to slow down further, and if a traditional PS5 came out in 2021 the graphics leap would be even smaller because of ML and diminishing returns. Those days of huge leaps are gone and they're never coming back. Better to just keep the ball rolling then to wait for ever decreasing leaps.

Sure it'll lessen the impact of new hardware some, but at the same time people haven't had an issue with paying hundreds of dollars for phones every year so the absence of big leaps doesn't matter too much I don't think. People want something new and shiny more than something impressive anyway.

@Chozofication: I did hint at Moore's law with how I described the leaps in graphics between gens (groundbreaking, amazing, pretty good), and I do agree that the leaps will get smaller and smaller, so there will be less eye candy. BUT, eye candy has what has sold people in the past, they will need a new way to sell, and I think giving hardware numbers will turn off many individuals.

Also I disagree with you about the last point. People use their phones every day, constantly, and it's many people's lifeblood. I work with high school students every day and you cant get their faces out of their phones without making a huge deal about it. Now I'm not saying people don't use their consoles a lot, but it's nowhere near the social connection and interaction device a smartphone provides. Anyways the people that get a new phone every year are the consumers that may fork over for new consoles every couple years, but they are the minority (unless you're counting people on contracts, but that's just numbers taking advantage of people, something that consoles cant really hide unless they start forcing you to sign up for Live or PSN+ for an amount of time).

I predict systems answer nay to ms and Nintendo . Yay to sony doing it

If I have my HIS 7970 1Ghz (aka R9-280X), I don't need upgrade for PC's 1920x1080p max details. NVIDIA Kelper 680(aka 770) is not aging well when compared to 7970 GE/R9-280X

On iOS platform, it's the developers who decides the best detail settings for hardware not the end user. The end user just needs to buy the game.

At the same GPU clock speed

18 CU to 36 CU is a straight 2X scale

18 CU to 54 CU is a straight 3X scale

18 CU to 72 CU is a straight 4X scale

The same game can scale down by a fix scale factor. Due to PC's open hardware nature, there's no fix scale factor.

Specific optimization from lesser GCN will be applicable for higher GCN i.e. it's just a matter of fix scaling.

On the PC, you have Kelper, Maxwell, GCN and Skylake IGP

For example, PS4 has GCN version 2.0** and PS4.5 has GCN version 4.0**.

AMD's incoming Polaris is still GCN with improvements i.e. most of it's optimizations are still applicable for the original 7970. This is why 7970 (GCN 1.0) is aging better than Kelper 680/777.

**Using AMD's GCN generation numbers

GCN 1.0 = 7750, 7770/R7-250X, 78x0, 7950 BE/R9-280, 7970 GE/R9-280X,

GCN 2.0 = 7790/R7-260/R7-260X/R7-360, R9-290/R9-290X/R9-390/R9-390X , PS4 and XBO falls under this category

GCN 3.0 = R9-285/R9-380/R9-380X, R9-Fury/Fury Nano/Fury X, A10-8700/FX-8800p IGP

GCN 4.0 = Polaris.

PS4's 8 ACE units hardware programming interface is applicable for GCNs with 8 ACE units i.e. forward compatible with higher grade GCNs.

Since 4K resolution is around four times the pixel size of 1080p, PS4.5's GPU needs to be 4X i.e. 7.36 TFLOPS which is Fury Pro/Fury Nano level GPU. This GPU level is similar to NX's near-top-end PC rumored GPU.

Fury Nano = 175 watts / 2.5 performance per watt** = 70 watts

FLOPS power gain

PS3(CELL+RSX) -to-PS4 = ~ 3.88X

PS4-to-PS4.5 = ~4X

**14 nm process tech performance per watt improvements

PS4's cooling solution can contain ~100 watts GPU.

Look at it like this, the next playstation refresh may be just 1 step up for one person, but it's some kid's first console.

I'm not trying to lessen the traditional leaps, getting all those advancements all at once with groundbreaking game after game, but there are just so many factors getting in the way of that now. If the leaps were still as prevalent as they were, there'd be no need for a different business model.

Anyways I agree that the phone example doesn't translate 1:1 to games hardware, and I think a hardware upgrade every 3-4 years would be the sweet spot. Every 2 years seems a bit much to me.

I'm not totally against the idea, but I'm more interested in how this is going to be implemented. I doubt you can just trade in your new console pay 100-200bucks for new version, because that would mean loss for sony/ms and they are done with that crap. Upgrading parts on a console isn't exactly as easy as it is on PC either, it's not something your avg joe could do at home. So the only remaining route is to take your console to a store where they run the upgrade for you and you get to take a slightly beefier console back home or you have to pay full price for a "new" model?

Paying full price for a new model every few years kind of defeats what consoles have going for them vs pc's.

Nay, because if I want shit done like the PC, I'll stick to PC, the PC will do it significantly better.

The PS4 has had 1 fucking good exclusive in 2+ years until Uncharted 4 comes out in May, and that can go either way because while UC2 and The Last of Us were good, it's not like Naughty Dog's games are usually ace in mechanics or creatively interesting, they actually make pretty generic video games. Both in narrative and gameplay. Infamous was a fucking bore, Killzone was mediocre if we're being nice, haven't played Until Dawn, and the rest of their lineup plays better on a PC.

The XBox? It's Halo 5, and that's it, and it was the 7th fucking Halo, with the 6th time I invested in some halo online, and I got bored a lot quicker than usual.

These machines haven't built enough of a decent lineup of first party exclusives to validate themselves as side bitch systems, and now we're getting a hardware bump? **** that. More power isn't the answer, actually making good video games is. People are making way more creative and better playing video game with what? A 1/16th of the budget?

Upgrade-able, hell no, but iterative hell yes. The iterative model works just fine for Apple and they release new hardware every year, so it should work successfully on consoles if we only see new hardware every 3 - 4 yrs.

How is the user base divided if the same software works on both models?

Nay, company would do some BS move to push you to buy their newer upgraded one anyway like limiting certain games ...3DS & New3DS SNES games.."oh we cannot do it on original 3DS..bla bla bla BS. This could also lead people to never buy the first version of the console. :P

Reading through this thread I don't know why most of you don't game on PC if that is your interest. Consoles shouldn't be a PC.

Upgradable consoles? That's a new kind of stupid. Get a PC instead

No, plain and simple. I keep hearing in this thread that it will allow the PC to finally shine as it won't be held back by consoles outdated tech...lol...it would still be held back by consoles outdated tech. If there are let's say three versions of the ps4, the games will still have to work on the weakest version, so it won't be any different then it is now.

Not to mention games cost a TON already, no way are developers going to maximize a game for three different ps4/one models and pc, games would end up being worse off.

Add in the pissed off console customers who don't want a new console every 1-2 years, the pissed off customers who bought the first version only to have a better one come out later, etc. It would drive people away not make them want it more. It's an overall horrible idea.

If they created a modular console where you could effectively sell the a module and buy an updated one I could actually see it working. As long as its straightforward enough anyone could do it. Faster CPU done, Faster graphics card done and so on.

Lots to work out but if they did, it could spell the end of consoles and possibly PC's as you know it.

NO i want powerful consoles no upgradeable consoles its huge mistake

I'm was going to write this big long essay discussing why this would be bad, but I think the best way to describe the situation is "Over Saturation".

Nay, it would be bad to split the user base and we have PC's if we want to upgrade that frequently.

Consoles are prebuilt, easier to use, better price to performance ratio and I prefer the exclusives.

Definitly not cause they will find a way to milk it like Nintendo and the new 3ds

The market has already spoken on this matter. It is a horrible idea to fragment your own user base.

No. I'm no expert, but I've been discussing this enough to know that if you want an upgradeable console, it adds costs to the initial unit, and also puts restrictions on how the console can advance in the future. Even in the simplest cases, like when the N64 had that texture upgrade pack, it just isn't worth it to add that confusion to the casual fan. There will be a certain percentage of your fanbase that will be frustrated with it as some point, and the benefits are limited at best.

If we're talking about something like 3DS vs new 3DS, I'm just outright opposed to that. That's just dividing your userbase. You're walking down the Sega path of the 1990s with the 32x and SegaCD

So what's the advantage of such a flaccid upgrade cycle for the consumer? Console development isn't geared to work like that. That's the gutter trash domain of mobile development. Seems pointless in light of the PC.

Well if you experienced the SegaCD, 32x, N64 Expansion Pak, or Motion Plus then you would have an idea of how that plays out in the real world. Not to mention the effect if has on consumer perception.

The power of a console is that it is a unified platform built around a single spec and designed for play on a gamepad.

I guess it'd be okay.

Would make console gaming more expensive than it already is, and it's already the most expensive way to game. It would help it keep up against other electronic devices though.

I assume you mean making them modular.

To which I can answer with a resounding Yay. Speaking of which didnt Nintendo experiment with this a bit on the N64 with the Expansion Pack or whatever its called?

But it wouldn't because the lowest common denominator would still be the standard consoles.

I voted Nay

Incremental upgrades for a console sounds great on paper till you think about this. Image you are at the store and your going to buy a game for the PS5. Now you bought the base PS5 and not the PS5X, which has a better graphics card, higher memory and bigger hard drive. Now when you go to buy a game for your PS5 you now instead of just picking up the game and being along your way you have to read the back in the section now labeled PS5 requirements and make sure you have the minimum specs for a PS5 and I left behind the PC world because of this. Look I get it people want to have the latest and greatest without feeling like the tech is outdated out the box like it was blatantly obviously this generation but this incremental upgrade would just be a bit to much.

Now it could work if they did like some of you mention which is to make a game at the base model of a PS5 and then allow for setting in the games to scale up to the higher tier PS5. So I'm not completely against the idea of incremental upgrades, I just find the idea sketchy at best.