• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think consoles should be more costly and powerful or like the wii?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dagamer34 said:
We didn't have Call of Duty every freaking year.. -_-
Click to expand...

No, instead we had a new version of street fighter 2 every year, the most popular competitive game of its day. A new mega man too. There was what, 5 main sonic games? Countless spinoffs of sonic and mario, doing any and everything. A TON of franchises had 3-4 releases during that cycle. EA sports was annual by then too.

It's always been this way, 16 bit was no exception.
 
As a business model it likely just wouldn't work since most gamers realistically wouldn't want to bother with paying for further upgrades. Truth be told anyway I think the PS3 was built well enough that it doesn't have a need to be upgraded for what most developers have been pushing out. And the Wii did good because Nintendo was smart about appealing to a certain group of gamers. That's why the Wii has done better in hardware sales then the other consoles but not as good in software sales. I think we'll just continue to see what we have now with consoles being made good enough but because of price and being practical they'll never push the limit. Still I think gaming technology is good enough as is on consoles. And upgrades like that just doesn't seem practical or profitable from the standpoint of any company.
 
BD2003 said:
A new mega man too.
Click to expand...
To the 16 bit generation's credit, there was only one new Mega Man (i.e., 7, which is also my favorite of the original 10), although the Super NES had 3 Mega Man Xs.

They should've made both Mega Man 6 and 7 (and maybe even 4 and 5) for the Super NES, considering that MM6 was one of the latest games for the NES.

Sequels sell, that's why there are so many of them (I wouldn't be surprised if Capcom more made money off Devil May Cry 2 since it probably didn't cost much to make and since so many people including myself bought it because it was the first sequel to the first five-star PS2 game). I'm always more enthusiastic about remakes and sequels than I am about reboots.
 
Exavier said:
And upgrades like that just doesn't seem practical or profitable from the standpoint of any company.
Click to expand...
I don't see how they couldn't be more profitable... for example, all the PS3 really needs is a better GPU. If they had just had included a really high bandwidth expansion capability, then they could've skipped the PS4 by just upgrading the GPU for the PS3. I think people who bought the PS3 for 599.99 (in 2006 USD) in 2006 would be a lot happier just buying something like a Fermi-grade add-on in 2011 or a Kepler-grade addon in 2013 for like $250 (in 2011 USD).
 
Anarchist420 said:
I don't see how they couldn't be more profitable... for example, all the PS3 really needs is a better GPU. If they had just had included a really high bandwidth expansion capability, then they could've skipped the PS4 by just upgrading the GPU for the PS3. I think people who bought the PS3 for 599.99 (in 2006 USD) in 2006 would be a lot happier just buying something like a Fermi-grade add-on in 2011 or a Kepler-grade addon in 2013 for like $250 (in 2011 USD).
Click to expand...

Fragmentation would hurt it.
 
Anarchist420 said:
I don't see how they couldn't be more profitable... for example, all the PS3 really needs is a better GPU. If they had just had included a really high bandwidth expansion capability, then they could've skipped the PS4 by just upgrading the GPU for the PS3. I think people who bought the PS3 for 599.99 (in 2006 USD) in 2006 would be a lot happier just buying something like a Fermi-grade add-on in 2011 or a Kepler-grade addon in 2013 for like $250 (in 2011 USD).
Click to expand...

You mean add some kind of parasitic leech of a box onto your existing PS3 that fits both form factors and plugs into a magic plug and requires its own Power supply since obviously the PS3's wouldn't be enough?

So what we now have is the equivalant of a Sega 32x. A freak of nature ugly box with yet another power cord with some kind of adapter to attach the two (magic?) yet maintain cross compatability and high enough bandwidth so both systems can work in conjunction and maintain backward compatability between older games and newer ones.

Now, like the 32x. The Stockholders are gonna be very nervous and twitchy at this point plus we need developer support for some new hardware that attaches to hacked old hardware and must be backwards compatable. I'm sure some new licensing fee's would be required with the ever question of how popular is this leech gonna be?

Yup, Sega used to think the same things, we see how well that worked.
 
As long as there's enough of a reasoning to make it cost $600, I'll pay it. The biggest thing that keeps me from buying a console is typically the lack of games in conjunction with the price. The PS3 also had the added bonus of being a good Blu-Ray player.

EDIT:

DarkVision said:
You mean add some kind of parasitic leech of a box onto your existing PS3 that fits both form factors and plugs into a magic plug and requires its own Power supply since obviously the PS3's wouldn't be enough?
Click to expand...

No. He's talking about something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXM
 
DarkVision said:
You mean add some kind of parasitic leech of a box onto your existing PS3 that fits both form factors and plugs into a magic plug and requires its own Power supply since obviously the PS3's wouldn't be enough? So what we now have is the equivalant of a Sega 32x. A freak of nature ugly box with yet another power cord with some kind of adapter to attach the two (magic?) yet maintain cross compatability and high enough bandwidth so both systems can work in conjunction and maintain backward compatability between older games and newer ones. Now, like the 32x. The Stockholders are gonna be very nervous and twitchy at this point plus we need developer support for some new hardware that attaches to hacked old hardware and must be backwards compatable. I'm sure some new licensing fee's would be required with the ever question of how popular is this leech gonna be? Yup, Sega used to think the same things, we see how well that worked.
Click to expand...
See Aikouka's post and link🙂 Instead of making a brand new console every 5-6 years, they could just do a GPU and RAM upgrade every 4-5 years. Then new consoles would only have to be released every 10 years.

Aikouka said:
No. He's talking about something like this:
Click to expand...
Thank you🙂 However, it would need more RAM so that the extra features and processing power of a new GPU wouldn't be limited.
 
Anarchist420 said:
See Aikouka's post and link🙂 Instead of making a brand new console every 5-6 years, they could just do a GPU and RAM upgrade every 4-5 years. Then new consoles would only have to be released every 10 years.

Thank you🙂 However, it would need more RAM so that the extra features and processing power of a new GPU wouldn't be limited.
Click to expand...

It still makes no sense. The amount of people that buy stuff like that is always low for consoles. Why make great games for an add-on when no one will play it?
 
Anarchist420 said:
See Aikouka's post and link🙂 Instead of making a brand new console every 5-6 years, they could just do a GPU and RAM upgrade every 4-5 years. Then new consoles would only have to be released every 10 years.

Thank you🙂 However, it would need more RAM so that the extra features and processing power of a new GPU wouldn't be limited.
Click to expand...

so you didn't see how the Nintendo 64's expansion pack failed so miserably? it was supposed to enhance textures and increase resolution...but few games supported it, most that did did'nt make very good use of it and most of all, no one cared. It also had some reports of issues leading us back to "might as well get a PC" kinda thing.

Also this GPU and ram idea would have to stay within the power constraints. Its also a far more mainstream type of product and marketing to different types and age groups...asking them to install this hardware tech is the same as asking them to install anything on a laptop or PC. Even if its dead simple, plug n play from the back ....its amazing how many people refuse to do that or have someone else do it for them.
Theres an increase risk of compatability issues but more important than anything is developer support and your old games must play nicely with the new GPU...not really a guarantee sorta thing as every developer does something different with their games. Likely a driver could fix such issues through a firmware update.

Finally. theres a risk of your competition to just put out a new console and call it a win. which from a marketing point of view, would probably do better sales wise. Of course its all doable, and if you ignore history, it might even sell fine with some good marketing muscle, but in the public minds eye..its not the same as a whole new console and gaming experience. instead its more of the same.
oh and also they would run into an issue of bandwidth eventually...much like AGP ports to PCIe and now PCIe3...they could only take the GPU so far before its limiting and finally redundant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Costly and powerful is what PCs are for. Consoles should be reasonably powerful but not weak like the Wii. The Wii has decent graphics but the lack of any HD whatsoever really holds it back.

The PS3 and Xbox have aged better just because they support HD.
 
The only thing that should be upgraded on a console is storage space. Anything much more and you might as well just go with a PC. Consoles are supposed to be even and constant across the board. That's one of the perks of consoles (and developing for one), you don't have to worry about any issues with different hardware configs.
 
Just make the console integrated into the TV already. Nobody is going to pay more than 500 for a console that their kid(s) will probably kick across the room.

The console has become much more than just a gaming platform. It's time they evolve it into a true entertainment device and lower the footprint. They would sell more.
 
power_hour said:
Just make the console integrated into the TV already. Nobody is going to pay more than 500 for a console that their kid(s) will probably kick across the room.

The console has become much more than just a gaming platform. It's time they evolve it into a true entertainment device and lower the footprint. They would sell more.
Click to expand...

Good god no. Limited to what tv you can use, what if the tv breaks or falls? Definitely not a good idea at all.
 
power_hour said:
Just make the console integrated into the TV already. Nobody is going to pay more than 500 for a console that their kid(s) will probably kick across the room.

The console has become much more than just a gaming platform. It's time they evolve it into a true entertainment device and lower the footprint. They would sell more.
Click to expand...

Horrible idea.
 
I don't see "add on" hardware happening. They were universally panned even in the best of economies. Not to mention that development costs soared this generation as it is and will soar all the more in the next generation, adding on hardware for more horsepower would only frustrate developers.
 
If hardware can't be good, I think we can all agree that they shouldn't cut corners even if it costs an extra $50. For example, it doesn't seem like Nintendo is going to include optical audio outputs on the Wii-U which is ridiculous. I mean... what's the most a S/PDIF transmitter costs anyway? I have an HK3490 which delivers perfectly good 2 channel audio through its optical input... it doesn't have an HDMI input and it shouldn't.

In addition, it would suck if they don't offer 120 Hz refresh rate. They're using HDMI 1.4 which has enough bandwidth for 120 Hz, but I won't be surprised if the TMDS is limited to 60 Hz. In their defense, most people would be using HDTVs rather than PC monitors, but that's not a good excuse IMO.
 
Market segmentation is a very bad thing. Just compare what the consoles can to *today* with 2005/2006 tech, and what kind of graphics/framerates you could get out of 2005/2006 PCs. There's a fair amount of overhead involved with PC games, so you can't expect true feature parity, but console devs have the advantage of optimizing for one platform, so you see boundary-pushing titles like Skyrim working on consoles, whereas the PC version will require significantly better hardware to match the console experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top