Upgradeable Consoles

When do you think consoles will become upgradeable? I'm talking about units with ports that allow GPUs and CPUs to be popped out and popped in with little to no difficulty.

• Upgrading a PC is more complicated than upgrading a console would be as I described in the OP. The console market is a market in which most people aren't as technically savvy as PC gamers, so upgrading must be simple.
• The point of having multiple configurations for a console would be for those console gamers that want premium graphics and are willing to pay a little more. The architecture of the higher end CPUs and GPUs would be the same but simply have more processing power, which would eliminate compatibility issues with games.

steambox says hi..

I'm not sure if it's as easy to upgrade as I've described in the OP. I'm talking about CPUs and GPUs designed specifically for consoles and in such a way that they can be effortlessly swapped.

Let me see. There was the Sega 32X, those N64 games with the extra little chips in them.

But I think the most truthful answer is:

Never.

It seems to me you're looking for a PC. Just buy one of those instead. Console makers sell hardware, so what would be the point of making new hardware if you could just swap out parts like a PC?

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already to be honest. I mean, the N64 already had the Expansion Pak.

i forget...what games took advantage of it?

Perfect Dark, Majora's Mask, and Donkey Kong 64 are the games that come to mind. I'm sure there were more.

my well get a pc...

rather have update upgradeable chips

That's what's nice about consoles. You dont need to upgrade, plug and play. Every disk you stick into the console works and the game was made with the consoles hardware configuration in mind.

Consoles don't need to be upgradable.

Horrible idea and would just serve to split the community.

• Upgrading a PC is more complicated than upgrading a console would be as I described in the OP. The console market is a market in which most people aren't as technically savvy as PC gamers, so upgrading must be simple.
• The point of having multiple configurations for a console would be for those console gamers that want premium graphics and are willing to pay a little more. The architecture of the higher end CPUs and GPUs would be the same but simply have more processing power, which would eliminate compatibility issues with games.

Why on earth, if you wanted to upgrade a console, would you not just get a PC?

That product (the N64 expansion pack) wasn't supported very well at all (a handful of games) and is a great reason why this premise wouldn't work as devs for consoles will develop for the lowest common denominator. That means that the devs can target the ORIGINAL console configuration or bother spending more time and $$$ to give those that bought that doohicky (upgradeable parts) some extra benefits. Where is the money in that?

The business wouldn't work well. In the N64 case, the PSOne multiplats that were late ported to the N64 were guaranteed sellers, there was no need to support Nintendo's initiative for the expansion pack. They just ported from PS1 to N64 and called it a day. More N64 users had no expansion pak and that larger install base was where the $$$ is.

Dividing the console's userbase results in publishers going after the money the best way the can.

That's the same problem every time. Developers have no financial incentive to go the extra mile and boost their game a bit for a small number of users.

Try getting Metro UI to work with Xbox 360 controller i.e. it needs xpadder app.

MS is clearly is not being serious to make the PC as the interactive entertainment HiFi device since it's in conflict with Xbox. I hope Steam boxes teach MS a lesson like Google's Android in the smart phone clone hardware business.

Pointless thread when the TC makes is nothing but speculation that's like saying the same thing if that were possible for PCs. If you want upgrading get a pc and those steam machines coming out next year.

There was also: Gauntlet Legends, 007: The World is Not Enough, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and Star Wars: Episode I Racer.

>Upgradable Consoles.

It's called a PC with Steam you ninny.

Legacy will probably hold the stronger GPU,also it will create segregation between those with the upgrade and those who doesn't.

You could upgrade memory on the N64 and saturn few games support it,and segregation hurt it.

WTF ! No seriously ! What The **** !

Never heard of a computer ?

I think a better solution for consoles which I hoped they do this gen but they didn't is having two models instead of upgrading like PCs.

The standard model which is what we see now with PS4 and Xbone.

The premium model is a few hundreds dollars higher price-tag with bleeding edge technology from the CPU, GPU, RAM and HDD combo for the people who could afford that kind of price point which is most people who grew up gaming who now have jobs and living comfortably.

Im willing to pay $600-$700 for a console no problems, it's an investment for the next several years so why not make this option available for people who don't want to see their console becoming outdated tech in year 2 or 3?

Only disadvantage I see is longer console cycles.

When console games are designed around an API not the hardware. They optimize their games for a very specific GPU/CPU/RAM combo, what they call optimization, to the metal. However when you change one of those pieces the game will not work.

If the game is designed for an API, DX11 for example it will lack that optimization but as long as the API doesn't change the game will work even if you change CPU or GPU. Sorta like PC games.

The market for such a high end console is almost non-existent in my opinion. People who want the bleeding edge of computer tech already have PC's, and chances are the PCs these guys have will be far more powerful than any premium variant of a console.

Getting really high end hardware into such a small form factor would be a massive challenge too. Just imagine how many hardware issues they would have.

If that's the case, the difference in specs will encourage different mechanics/AI/physics (not strictly graphics only) that's only available for the premium model. Basing on that, it'll be likely that there'll be exclusive for one model instead of similar libraries for both model. At that point, might as well call it 2 different consoles.

Even if devs are forced to develop games for both models, the weaker one will just hold back the stronger one (think of it as last gen consoles vs high end PC).

That's called a PC....

I kinda disagree with you, if I have this in mind there are surely people like minded who don't want companies to submit to certain demographics to be profitable, we could have both type of console gamers pleased with both models available.

Sony or MS could still sell these standard consoles and be profitable and at the same pleasing the enthusiasts and still make a profit on that other demographic who wants the premium, plus people who have PCs would probably come back to console because it's much affordable in that way.

As far as issues considered, thats a different story.

As far as traditional consoles being upgradable, the industry is extremely gun shy. I think the last mainstream console to attempt such a feat was Nintendo with the 64dd. Before that Sega was the king of upgrades with 32x and Sega CD, both of which used the Genesis to function. They both failed miserably. The success of consoles relies on not fragmenting the market.

I am not a tech expert but probably they could implement something like PCs for the premium model where you could choose to play as the standard model or to switch it up some notches for some factors in terms of resolution and FPS, effects…etc.

As far as AI and mechanics goes it is not a big issue in that regard since we are not talking about a huge jump in graphics, it's the same gen game but better looking and more living breathing. The dev has the freedom to choose if they want to implement better mechanics or AI if they wish but the standard is as I said it's like PC settings.

That enthusiast group is not as big as you think it is and they will still stick with PC for one simple reason. No static hardware.

You can make a really powerful $1000 console for these enthusiasts. A few months later another GPU comes out that is more powerful. 2 years later that "beast" of a console will be just meh.

Hardware enthusiasts are more enthusiast about hardware that constantly evolves and a lot of them spend more times posting their 3Dmark score on forums than actually play games.

What a stupid post TC

My bad for not responding to your original post, didn't read it until you quoted me here.

In that case about developing for a certain set of API, ok now thats a bit of a problem that i don't have the answer to.

about consoles and being static, it's for that reason Im suggesting this idea, I am not comparing consoles with PCs but what I am trying to say is technology updates fast and consoles needs to be up to date with these new technologies, putting that kind of horsepower inside them can make them more future proof.

And good one on that last sentence lol.

And I agree with you here. A console having cycles is such an outdated concept that still goes on for some stupid reasons.

IMO consoles should have went PC route or mobile too. Cycles should disappear. Having your entire gaming library just go in the trash is moronic, being tied to one unchanged hardware for 7 years is stupid too.

IMO MS or Sony should had a model where they upgrade their consoles continuously. Just a slightly more powerful GPU on the consoles released next year for example. Not make a big deal out of it, still name the console the same. Is just that the PS4 released in 2014 would run BF4 in 1080p. A continuous slow evolution that goes on year after year. The casuals will not care that much and others will decide to upgrade every 3 years if they want. Your gaming library will not become useless, newer consoles will run old games.

They didn't however. They're still rocking Nintendo's original model that started ages ago while PCs and tablets have a much more future proof model.

Because when a dev makes something for a system they're always going to make it for the LCD (ie. people that have not upgraded).

Standardized hardware is both consoles' biggest strength and weakness at the same time.

The N64 had a nice idea with the upgradeable RAM, but I would rather not see Sony or MS try to squeeze a little more life out of this gen's consoles with pointless add-ons like Sega did with the Genesis.

That system would create a fragmented user base and also console gamers do not want to be burdened with having to upgrade their system every two years, its too costly. Also you fail to realize that when a new console releases, it comes with other components that are not even GPU related which if using this PC style upgrade system would be cumbersome.

I also wonder what an upgraded Nintendo 64 would look like in 2013 TC, you see my point?

That will take away the simplicity and easy of use of consoles. Then developers will have to design games for multiple configurations just like they have to do with PC. That is one reason why playing games on computers isn't as popular as it use to be and why it PC games are now console ports.

just build a PC and quit being a pleb. Building a PC isn't hard. Anyone capable of graduating high school can do it. If you can come in here and read all these stupid threads about nothing of importance, you can just as easily look up how to assemble a PC and actually learn something that will add value to your life. You would have a better understanding of technology even if you never end up building a rig you learned something useful that you can apply at work, at school, or the next time your computer or your friends computer gives you trouble. So I never got the "it's too complicated" argument. Seriously you can figure how to get top score in pokemon but you can't figure out how to build a computer...ok

As far as the idea of an upgradeable console it would be too difficult to implement. Consoles are not just GPU, CPU, and RAM like a PC. There are a lot of costume stuff in their that have to work hand in hand with the GPU and CPU. You could end up having a lot of compatibility issues.

To me the solution to the aging console is not to upgrade it but to replace them more frequently. Console generations should last 5 years till new ones are introduced. 6 tops but no more than that. 5 is ideal to me. That way you get refreshed constantly and gaming can move forward at a faster clip because devs will always have new hardware to play with and aren't stuck on the same archaic specs for years when they know they could do so much more.

There were plenty of "upgradeable" consoles in the past. The ability to do this usually ends up underutilized, adds further cost to the building the base console, the peripheral is typically expensive and under supported, and available products to make use of the expansion ports can fragment player markets.

LOL Stick to PC if you want upgradeable hardware.

The PS2 ethernet modem expansion is one of the very few examples of a successful expansion peripheral and it's success was due to the rise in online gaming and the fact that the PS2 was hugely successful by the time it was available. It didn't help that there were a decent slew of games that supported it.

more trouble than it's worth for consoles

pretty much this ^

Upgrading consoles has been a total failure.

For starters, it splits the userbase. Third parties would rather develop for the inferior hardware and get all the users rather than make something nicer but less profitable.

Second, upgrading one aspect of a console is short-sighted. If you make a whole new console you can upgrade every component of it, which is an underrated aspect for sure. The 32X and the SegaCD added some graphical features but still had to deal with that dated and inferior Genesis sound chip. Plus of course it is just a total mess of a setup both internally and externally, as AVGN showed so well. Even for the N64, although the texture chip upgrade was nice it was not worth the guaranteed frustration that many less informed gamers got when they bought a game that didn't work because it needed that chip. I'm sure more than a few kids were upset on Xmas when their new game didn't work because they didn't have the chip in their n64. A lot of gamers never even noticed the difference so it's just wasted effort.

If you're going to release an add-on, you might as well just make it a whole new console instead. That way you can have the hype train behind it 100% and everyone fully understands what the deal is.

never is the simple answer

It will never happen. At least not on the kind of levels you're talking about.

The reason is because it's not about just popping CPUs and GPUs in and out of ports like you think. There are many other factors that are involved. Things such as CPU, GPU and RAM compatibility (otherwise you run the risk of creating bottle-necks). When you change components, power consumption is altered (which means you may have to change power supplies). And with power changes comes heating changes/increases (meaning you may have to come up with a new cooling arrangement such as bigger fans, redesigned casing, etc). Also the motherboard in which you house everything on has to work with whatever you want to add.

I could go on about all the different things that could be affected, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying here. You have to take a lot of things into account when changing hardware. It involves a lot of re-evaluating and re-balancing. You simply can't do that with Consoles.

Note that PS4's high/low level graphics APIs runs on top of AMD's customised FreeBSD Radeon HD driver and it's said to be similar to AMD Mantle on PCs.

http://gearnuke.com/dice-mantle-playstation-4-will-drive-frostbite-development-going-forward/

From the GpGPU front end, R9-290/R9-920X has an identical 8 ACE unit structure as PS4's 8 ACE units.

http://gearnuke.com/amd-flagship-r9-290x-has-same-number-of-aces-as-the-ps4/

PS4's GCN is basically R9-290/R9-290X's mid-range 7850 class GPU for the Volcanic Island family.

AMD should have released PS4's GCN as the R9-270 instead of the renamed 78x0 ASIC.

AMD plans to update R9-280X from the renamed 7970 GE. http://www.techpowerup.com/193366/amd-to-release-radeon-r9-280x-revision-this-late-november.html

Technically, PS4's GCN has an upgrade path i.e. R9-290/R9-290X GCN i.e. both exposed front-ends are similar.

An upgradable console is not for a console gamer, the vast majority of console gamers have no real clue on how to install a CPU properly, with thermal paste, let alone the technical aspect of upgrading it, these people think 6GB makes a GPU two times faster than a 3GB one.

So my answer? it is a bad idea to begin with.

there is not one single good reason for upgradeable consoles (outside of HDDs, nice to have that option).

it works on PCs because a lot of companies rip lumps out of each other to get a slot in a PC, laptop, tablet or super computer and there are etablished standards for developers to use.

an upgradeable consoles would only be a price gouge for people. do you really think MS, sony and ninty would let hardware manufacturers compete for a slot in a console upgrade? not a hope. they would make it themselves and charge an absolute fortune.

it would also break up the market hardware wise and remove many of the advantages of a console. many of those advantages are being eroded from gen to gen as is....this doesnt need to be another one.

it would also cause confusion. notice now that MS and sony have released one and only 1 SKU for their consoles. no messing, no trying to understand what comes with each one. there is only 1 PS4 model and 1 X1 model. no messing.

5 year gen cycles is a better option. the PS3 and 360 should have been put to the sword around 2 years ago.

past console upgrades like the N64 ram module existed simply because the initial design was flawed and they were trying to patch it essentially. the X1 and PS4 dont have these problems. they have their limits and quirks but nothing that causes serious headaches.

also remember that, at the end of the day, hardware does not sell hardware. games sell hardware. services sell hardware to a lesser extent. very few people buy a console just to have a console.

There's not much of an advantage owning the same thing everyone else has, is there? The advantage would be immediately obvious when you upgraded to the GTX 780 Ti.

Not many games required it but many got better details, high resolution textures etc if you used it.