Should Next-Gen Game Consoles Be Upgradeable? 348
MojoKid writes "Historically, console add-ons that boosted the performance of the primary unit haven't done well. Any attempt to upgrade a system's core performance risks bifurcating the user base and increases work developers must do to ensure that a game runs smoothly on both original and upgraded systems. The other reason is that a number of games rely on very specific hardware characteristics to ensure proper operation. In a PC, swapping a CPU with 256K of L2 for a chip with 512K of L2 is a non-issue assuming proper platform support. Existing software will automatically take advantage of the additional cache. The Xbox 360, on the other hand, allows programmers to lock specific cache blocks and use them for storing data from particular threads. In that case, expanding the amount of L2 cache risks breaking previous games because it changes the range of available cache addresses. The other side of the upgrade argument is that the Xbox 360 has been upgraded more effectively than any previous console; current high-end versions ship with more than 10x the storage of the original, as well as support for HDMI and integrated WiFi. It would also forestall the decline in comparative image quality between console and PC platforms."
It doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose all those problems were resolved, and after resolving them we concluded "yes, next gen consoles should be upgradeable".
It wouldn't make any difference. Consoles are proprietary platforms--controlled by one company. The fact that making the console upgradeable would benefit *you* isn't going to result in an upgradeable console. It wouldn't benefit the company, and that's what matters. I mean, I'm sure that PS3 Linux benefitted people.
(Incidentally, for an example of a successful add-on, look at the PC Engine CD. We just don't remember it much because the system barely got a foothold in the US.)
Re:No, because that's not the point (Score:5, Interesting)
+1 I was going to make a similar reply. The whole point is so developers can make their game run on 4 year old hardware, optimized of course. This is why so many console games don't look as nice as their PC counterparts..but they do play on 4 year old hardware.
the other nice benefit of consoles is multiplayer, everyone is on equal hardware. Where as in the PC world, someone playing on 4 year old hardware might not be able to perform as well as someone with the latest and greatest system (think fps)...that is one benefit of consoles.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
No
Correct.
The reason platforms become popular are for one of two reasons.
1. A known base system so developers know what to build for. The Kinect is an outlier as it was advertised as the "next-gen" of the XBox and it was interesting enough for people to get to play with. It wasn't a memory increase (N64), but it was a Rumble Pack which came packaged with a product that requires it.
Apple did well with the requirement of having 1 mouse button as the standard. It forced developers to make simpler interfaces, which made Macs easier to use.
2. Cheap replaceable and interchangeable parts. The PC falls into this category, but companies with systems like Consoles or consumer gadgets do not want people poking around them. To top it off, all major console manufacturers have acted against altering the systems systematically.
Re:Culture of bigger monitors and multiple gamepad (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been disappointed with perhaps decreasing support for split-screen in console games. To me it's where consoles really shine above PC games. I haven't upgraded from Forza 3 to Forza 4 because they didn't make much improvement to the splitscreen mode (co-op online play, more than 2 AI cars, etc).
Re:Yes, they should be PCs. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Consoles vs. PCs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes, they should be PCs. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, as the summary talks about, programming for PC's and for consoles is very very different in some aspects. You can do a lot of stuff with a console you just can't on a PC because you know precisely what resources you have, where they are, and how fast they will be. The PS3 actually has custom libraries from Sony/Naughty Dog that are similar but different from openGl precisely because OpenGl would be too slow for the PS3 if you can avoid it. If you started allowing different GPU's you'd have to move to something like directx. Which is a good concept for 200 or so different video card models, but it's not worth the efficiency loss if you'd only ever have say, 4. Directx (and openGl) manage a lot of the GPU memory system stuff for you. That's easy, but it can be very inefficient, which is why a video card with 1 gig of memory does about as well as a PS3 or 360 with shared 512. Now directx and opengl (and the GDI layer in general on windows) have to account for the arbitrary nature of what might also be in video memory at the time. Right now I have two web browsers, some office applications I left open, a game, and steam all doing stuff that might take up memory. That's actually a really tough problem to manage in general, which is why consoles can do some awesome stuff with less, because you know exactly how much memory you get. When you could lock down a full screen application in windows and boot everything else out it was easier (but not easier on users and had its own complications).
In short. Your point 1 is wrong. If it supports windows it has to support general program environments and random crap hanging out in the desktop. Windows is a productivity OS (despite what people may think) and you can use a stripped down version of the kernel, but the actual OS as sold does a lot of stuff you definitely would not want in a memory constrained environment, like layers of stuff on the desktop etc.
And yes, the idea with windows 8 is to have a unified environment to execute phone or desktop code. Same OS, different skin. Now if then get intel into a 3 way with nokia they will have one hell of a product on their hands.