A number of weeks ago, rumors of an upgraded PS4 began cropping up all over the place offering significant performance boosts to the initial PS4 design along with 4K compatibility. Now, anonymous insiders are reporting that Microsoft is working on their own big console upgrade, dubbed "Scorpio" and "Xbox One-Two".

This supposed upgrade's target performance is nearly 4x that of the current Xbox One, with sources saying 6 TFLOPS compared to the current console's ~1.5 TFLOPS. The inside source also claims the upgraded Xbox, like the rumored PS4 Neo, will be backwards compatibility with current Xbox One games. The reports claim this upgrade isn't likely to show up until 2017, with a Slim model of the current console possibly being announced this E3.

Source

How will these mid-generation console upgrades effect console gaming in general? Will these mid-generation upgrades prove a poor idea, effectively dividing owners of current consoles? Will developers bother supporting the older consoles when a newer, more powerful option is out there? Who's to say. Personally, I'm not necessarily against these upgrades as long as the respective companies offer big trade in bonuses for the old hardware, and as long as game developers continue supporting the old consoles as well.

 

[Deleted User]

Please no Console re-releases.

 

[DinohScene]

Of course they are, especially if you trade in the old one. With inflation accounted for, paying the +/- price difference between the new and the old system is about the cost of a Game Boy.

It still is nonsense.
Not everyone wants to trade in their system cause of reasons.
Saved games, DLC etc.
Then again, me opinion is slightly biased.
I prefer older games ;p

 

[Foxi4]

It still is nonsense.
Not everyone wants to trade in their system cause of reasons.
Saved games, DLC etc.
Then again, me opinion is slightly biased.
I prefer older games ;p

That argument makes sense in a system transition, like between a PS3 and a PS4 where you lose content or compatibility. If all the content can be transferred and the upgraded system supports all the games, keeping the old one has no advantages. These are not successors, they're upgrades. You're arguing that you'd keep a PS3 Phat if you bought an infinitely superior PS3 Slim, except every aspect of the hardware is better, not just the peripherals, it plays games better and in the future it'll have exclusives. We're talking about PlayStation and Xbox becoming ecosystems rather than physical platforms, as it's the case on Android, iOS or PC. The hardware is just a means to access the content in that scenario.

 

[KSP]

Of course they are, especially if you trade in the old one. With inflation accounted for, paying the price difference between the new and the old system is about the cost of a Game Boy. All they need is a 4-5 year lifespan of each iteration with 2 years of an adaptation gap - it's effectively the same span of time as a console generation, except you never lose game compatibility.

Here's the caveat, why on earth would I spend 600 bucks every 2 years on a new console, when I can just spend 1000 once on a new PC rig where there is little to no DRM and software protection, where I can test (pirate) almost every single new game for free. Makes no sense for me to pay console manufacturers for their DRM driven consoles that cannot be hacked to play pirated games, and also pay extra for the console version of the same game that I download for free on piratebay.

If what you are saying is what is to be expected in the future, which is essentially consoles becoming PCs with incremental upgrades every few years and difference performance tiers for the same game. Why wouldn't everyone just go back to PC, where the system fully open to piracy. Why pay console manufacturers at all for their closed system, when the alternative is an open system that I can upgrade whenever I want where games can be downloaded and installed for free from any torrenting site?

If consoles become PC, then there is NO reason to have console at at all. None. Why pay for a system that is designed to be closed off from piracy when the alternative is pay for a system that you have full control over and can pirate freely at will.

The only reason for anyone to buy a console is due to the console's unified archetecture and thus unified gaming experience. You remove the unified archetecture on a console and make it upgradable then you essentially reduce a console to nothing more than an closed off version of a PC that cannot pirate games. On top of that you also add the added price of games cause you need to pay Sony and MS's royalty fees. Why would anyone choose consoles if this is the case?

 

[Foxi4]

Here's the caveat, why on earth would I spend 600 bucks every 2 years on a new console, when I can just spend 1000 once on a new PC rig where there is little to no DRM and software protection, where I can test (pirate) almost every single new game for free. Makes no sense for me to pay console manufacturers for their DRM driven consoles that cannot be hacked to play pirated games, and also pay extra for the console version of the same game that I download for free on piratebay.

If what you are saying is what is to be expected in the future, which is essentially consoles becoming PCs with incremental upgrades every few years and difference performance tiers for the same game. Why wouldn't everyone just go back to PC, where the system fully open to piracy. Why pay console manufacturers at all for their closed system, when the alternative is an open system that I can upgrade whenever I want where games can be downloaded and installed for free from any torrenting site?

If consoles become PC, then there is NO reason to have console at at all. None.

Because you can already do that today - that's not what people buy consoles for. If they wanted performance, they'd get a PC already. Also, it wouldn't be $600 - the PS4 launched at $399, the XBO would be around that price too if not for the Kinect 2.0 that was shoved into the bundle, and in a trade-in situation you're likely to save at least $150-$200 on the upgrade, making it $200-$250. The consoles would *still* have the same lifespan of 5-7 years in their prime, except the system upgrade wouldn't break compatibility. You're losing nothing and gaining the option to improve performance over time and keep the entirety of your library.

It's 2016, these two systems were released in 2013. If the upgrades are announced this year, they'll probably come out next year. The old systems will probably continue to be supported for a year or two at the very least, just like the PS3 and the 360 were. That ammounts to a total of 5-6 years at least - acceptable, considering the fact that the upgrade is cost-effective and doesn't break compatibility. I know that the last generation lasted a decade, but that was an anomaly, not the status quo, and I'd argue that it lasted too long - it held gaming back because everything had to be scaled back to shitty decade old hardware. Anticipating your question, what do you do after the PS4 Neo or the Xbox One and a Half? You drop the numbers altogether and release a PlayStation and an Xbox, with revisions counted internally or separately to the name and the entirety of the library, 15 years worth of games, still available to you, still uniform and still plug and play, unlike PC's.

 

[3DSPoet]

Consoles offer an inherent ease of use that PCs quite often lack, even with things getting more and more complex with multi-tiered menus and such. Generally speaking, you don't have to keep up with a dozen sets of drivers or worry about software conflicts, etc with a console unit. You put in/select your game, press start, and you're off. Consoles generally have faster startup times and lower cost power-save modes than PCs do, so you get the convenience of a quick, easy to access experience that requires practically ZERO tech savvy and "anyone" can pick up a console and get it going.

In reality, game consoles are not targeted at the PC market. PC Gamers are usually much more technical and detail-oriented, keeping up with the latest tech/hardware and upgrading as they see fit/need. The console manufacturers primarily target people that are too lazy to deal with a PC or lack/don't want the knowledge on how to set one up for gaming.

A perfect example of this is the mouse/keyboard vs. controller debate. Most hardcore console gamer will swear that every game is easier with a controller because everything's right there in one easy to reach package. PC gamers will argue with the same passion that a mouse and keyboard is better because it offers so many more options and flexibility. (For me, it really depends on the game. I have a wired 360 controller I use for some games)

The whole argument actually falls along the same path as the Mobile gaming vs. handheld console arguments. Companies who make games for Android and iOS are targeting casual gamers who want something they can just pick up and play without much of a learning curve and can put down as soon as the bus arrives or their dinner is ready (etc, etc). Companies who make games for handheld consoles know their audience is looking for a fuller, more complex gaming experience that is close to, if not on par, with their home console counterparts. (There are numerous threads on this topic, so please try not to dwell on it here!)

My point is, PC Gamers and Console gamers are mostly different target audiences and console designers only have a passing interest in making games that target PC Gamers that are exclusive to the consoles.

Therefore, having an incremental or shorter lifespan for each generation of gaming console, cutting out backwards compatibility, and only improving the hardware marginally keeps the console-specific audience hooked and if a few PC Gamers buy them, as well, yay.

All of this is just my opinion, of course.

 

[KSP]

Because you can already do that today - that's not what people buy consoles for. If they wanted performance, they'd get a PC already. Also, it wouldn't be $600 - the PS4 launched at $399, the XBO would be around that price too if not for the Kinect 2.0 that was shoved into the bundle, and in a trade-in situation you're likely to save at least $150-$200 on the upgrade, making it $200-$250. The consoles would *still* have the same lifespan of 5-7 years in their prime, except the system upgrade wouldn't break compatibility. You're losing nothing and gaining the option to improve performance over time and keep the entirety of your library.

It's 2016, these two systems were released in 2013. If the upgrades are announced this year, they'll probably come out next year. The old systems will probably continue to be supported for a year or two at the very least, just like the PS3 and the 360 were. That ammounts to a total of 5-6 years at least - acceptable, considering the fact that the upgrade is cost-effective and doesn't break compatibility. I know that the last generation lasted a decade, but that was an anomaly, not the status quo, and I'd argue that it lasted too long - it held gaming back because everything had to be scaled back to shitty decade old hardware. Anticipating your question, what do you do after the PS4 Neo or the Xbox One and a Half? You drop the stupid numbers and release a PlayStation and an Xbox, with revisions counted internally and the entirety of the library, 15 years worth of games, still available to you, still uniform and still plug and play, unlike PC's.

What you have just decribed is a console becoming exacltly the same as a PC with various performance tiers for each console revision, making each game perform wildly different from console SKU to console SKU, with all your old games working (PC) across the years as you incrementally make upgrades to the hardware (PC).

But the only difference is instead of being able to download all your games on the piratebay (PC), you are now expected to pay for every single game (Console) at inflated console prices due to console manufacturer needing make a cut off each software sale.

So what you suggest is that consoles become exactly the same as PCs, and with added burden of a closed off anti-piracy OS that cannot be hacked.

Why on gods earth would any sane individual not simply just buy a PC instead of your so called Sony/MS Console that gets upgraded every few years?

I can upgrade my PC any time, and test (steal) every single game any time. Why would I get a console that does exactly what my PC does with the added price of games and DRM?

Unified archetecure was the only thing seperating console from PC, you remove unified archeture there is no reason for console to exist, PERIOD.

 

[Foxi4]

What you have just decribed is a console becoming exacltly the same as a PC with various performance tiers for each console revision, making each game perform wildly different from console SKU to console SKU, with all your old games working (PC) across the years as you incrementally make upgrades to the hardware (PC).

But the only difference is instead of being able to download all your games on the piratebay (PC), you are now expected to pay for every single game (Console) at inflated console prices due to console manufacturer needing make a cut off each software sale.

So what you suggest is that consoles become exactly the same as PCs, and with added burden of a closed off anti-piracy OS that cannot be hacked.

Why on gods earth would any sane individual not simply just buy a PC instead of your so called Sony/MS Console that gets upgraded every few years?

I can upgrade my PC any time, and test (steal) every single game any time. Why would I get a console that does exactly what my PC does with the added price of games and DRM?

Unified archetecure was the only thing seperating console from PC, you remove unified archeture there is no reason for console to exist, PERIOD.

The architecture is still unified, just improved over time. You can upgrade your PC at any time, but no average console owner opens their console up to swap the RAM or the CPU and they wouldn't even if they could - they'd just buy a new console. Only two "tiers" would be available at one time at maximum - the current one and "the next box", so there would be no "wild performance spike" in the adaptation period. Using illegal activity as an argument is not constructive - most console gamers don't pirate games. I could just as easily say that the upgrade can be free because I can steal tge console from a mall, your point about "the bay where corsairs dock" is moot. The exact same business model has worked for smartphones for years now and noone complains about it - clearly people are willing to upgrade if the upgrade is worth their time.

 

[KSP]

The architecture is still unified, just improved over time. You can upgrade your PC at any time, but no average console owner opens their console up to swap the RAM or the CPU and they wouldn't even if they could - they'd just buy a new console. Only two "tiers" would be available at one time at maximum - the current one and "the next box". Using illegal activity as an argument is not constructive - most console gamers don't pirate games. I could just as easily say that the upgrade can be free because I can steal tge console from a mall, your point about "the bay where corsairs dock" is moot.

Ok if mulitple SKU become the norm. Why would Sony and MS stop at 2 SKUS, why not 6 SKUS, why not 14 SKUS. If I can make money selling a new SKU of console each year, why would I stop at 2?

You are describing an environment where a console is no different than a PC, only difference is instead of paying for the RAM and GPU yourself, you now pay MS and SONY marked up prices for their RAM and their GPU. Whats the difference? Instead of paying and installing RAM and GPU yourself, you now pay a manufacturer to do it for you at their MSRP?

FYI This world existed before console generation came along for some of us old enough to remember. There was a time when it was the wild wild west in the gaming world, where everyone just made multiple SKUs of everything and it didn't work out all that well.

The piracy argument is very real considering we are on a piracy site.

When FREE is compared to PAY, FREE always wins.

If a console becomes as complex as a PC in terms of by-annual upgrades and multi-performance tiers for various hardware configurations, then you remove the ease and simplicity of consoles and hence the console is no longer needed at all.

How can you say that archecture is unified when each console SKU will have different hardware, thus the onus is left to the developer to make each game run well on each configuration. It is no longer unified when the same game needs to function on different hardware.

What is insentive for developers to even bother perfecting the code for older hardware? It runs at 12fps, fine leave it, since it runs better on the newer hardware. Who cares.
Right now when you buy The Witcher 3 on PS4 you know that it'll run the best the game can possibly run, but under your scenario there is no guarantee that the same game well run well on the same console. You can get 12fps on one console SKU and 120fps on another console SKU, which makes consoles irrelevant.

 

[Foxi4]

We're not on a piracy site, multiple incremental upgrades have worked great in the past (the entire GB line, DS(i) line, (N)3DS line) and nobody says that the games on previous revisions will be abyssmal - they won't because the gap will be narrow. The Last of Us runs fine on the PS3, it just runs better on the PS4. Destiny works fine on the 360, it just works better on the PS4. There wouldn't be thousands of configurations, there'd be two. I fail to see how waiting for 7 years to get the next system is better than waiting 5-7, upgrading at your own leisure when you think the tine is right, keeping all your games and ultimately paying less in the long term, but we're going in circles here so let's just agree to disagree. By the way, all this is coming from a long-term console collector with systems ranging from the 2600 to the PS4, so don't give me the history speil, it'd be nothing like the chaos of 2nd gen gaming since you'd only have two ecosystems, PlayStation and Xbox, both with cumulative libraries, rather than 8 billion different systems, each with 8 games. Gamers are already doing this by the way - people traded in PS3 Phats and classic Xbox 360'ties for slim models just to get more HDD space, built-in WiFi and better cooling, the same people would upgrade their PS4's and Xbox One's if the upgrade is worth their investment.

 

[KSP]

We're not on a piracy site, multiple incremental upgrades have worked great in the past (the entire GB line, DS(i) line, (N)3DS line) and nobody says that the games on previous revisions will be abyssmal - they won't because the gap will be narrow. The Last of Us runs fine on the PS3, it just runs better on the PS4. Destiny works fine on the 360, it just works better on the PS4. I fail to see how waiting for 7 years to get the next system is better than waiting 5-7, upgrading at your own leisure when you think is right, keeping all your games and ultimately paying less in the long term, but we're going in circles here so let's just agree to disagree.

What you suggest opens a door for a world that older gamers like us have seen before, it doesn't end well. Thats all I'm saying.

When you open the door for 2 SKUs being the norm, then it has no end. Soon consoles will be like smartphones with new SKUs popping up all over the place. And it might work for phones, but won't work for consoles.

Like I said, why would a developer squeeze the code for any of their AAA games for older hardware? Its like The Witcher 3, how many revisions and patches did it take to get it to run well on PS4 and XB1? Many. If there are mulitples SKUs of more powerful consoles, why would I tweek it for the older hardware.

Also N3DS has already created a few issues, that I myself have already noticed.

Take a game like 7th Dragon VFD, this game would be able to run in 3D on the N3DS console, but because the code was written for the O3DS console and no incentives were ever given to make it better for the new console, the game has no stereo 3D. Even though the N3DS can do stereo for this title, there is just no incentive to make that a viable option on the new hardware since its cheaper to make it the same across both platforms.

With multi-sku hardware you either have developers not wanting to write code for the new hardware or not wanting to perfect the code for the older hardware. I don't see it being truly beneficial on either end of the spectrum.

Anyways, these are just my thoughts on this. I think multi-sku consoles is bad idea from the get go.

 

[Yil]

What you suggest opens a door for a world that older gamers like us have seen before, it doesn't end well. Thats all I'm saying.

When you open the door for 2 SKUs being the norm, then it has no end. Soon consoles will be like smartphones with new SKUs popping up all over the place. And it might work for phones, but won't work for consoles.

Like I said, why would a developer squeeze the code for any of their AAA games for older hardware? Its like The Witcher 3, how many revisions and patches did it take to get it to run well on PS4 and XB1? Many. If there are mulitples SKUs of more powerful consoles, why would I tweek it for the older hardware.

Also N3DS has already created a few issues, that I myself have already noticed.

Take a game like 7th Dragon VFD, this game would be able to run in 3D on the N3DS console, but because the code was written for the O3DS console and no incentives were ever given to make it better for the new console, the game has no stereo 3D. Even though the N3DS can do stereo for this title, there is just no incentive to make that a viable option on the new hardware since its cheaper to make it the same across both platforms.

With multi-sku hardware you either have developers not wanting to write code for the new hardware or not wanting to perfect the code for the older hardware. I don't see it being truly beneficial on either end of the spectrum.

Anyways, these are just my thoughts on this. I think multi-sku consoles is bad idea from the get go.

I only change my phone when a number of apps are no longer competible.
And the jump between gpu is even more ridiculus these days.
And what are you even talking about for n3ds. Stero 3d works on 3ds launch titles such as mk7.

 

[3DSPoet]

Just to level the playing field a bit....

We're on a GAMING SITE that sometimes talks about PIRACY. Pretty sure you wouldn't find a thread like this on a piracy site...or, at least, not a serious thread like this.

As to the issue of piracy itself, it really isn't relevant to the topic of this conversation.

We're generalizing, which means we need to take the average consumer as the figure of our speculation. The average user doesn't pirate their PC games OR their console games.

A more adequate comparison, if you want to talk about software as a feature of the console, would be to compare the price of a brand-new game on a console vs. say the same software on STEAM or HUMBLE.

That is all. Carry on!

 

[KSP]

I only change my phone when a number of apps are no longer competible.
And the jump between gpu is even more ridiculus these days.
And what are you even talking about for n3ds. Stero 3d works on 3ds launch titles such as mk7.

How often you change your phone is irrelevent to my analogy. What I suggested is that phone industry and the console industry are different.

Maybe your english is not very good, but what I mean't is having two SKUS O3DS and N3DS creates some odd problems. Such as game developers not willing develop a game using the higher horsepower of the new hardware because they would rather just write one code for both consoles.
I.E 7th Dragon VFD does not support stereoscopic 3D in either O3DS or N3DS, because they game was created to run smoothly on the O3DS console and Sega did not feel inclined to create a separate version of the same game using the N3DS's horsepower that would allow for 3D.

This will become an issue as multi-skued consoles become a norm. I.E 99% of all 3DS games run better on N3DS hardware when the CPU and Cache is unlocked, but very few developers bother to unlock the extra horse-power with patches. So either games will be nerfed to better cater to the older hardware ala 7th Dragon on 3DS or they will be made to run on the new hardware and will run poorly on the older hardware. Either or, its not good for the end user.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Just to level the playing field a bit....

We're on a GAMING SITE that sometimes talks about PIRACY. Pretty sure you wouldn't find a thread like this on a piracy site...or, at least, not a serious thread like this.

As to the issue of piracy itself, it really isn't relevant to the topic of this conversation.

We're generalizing, which means we need to take the average consumer as the figure of our speculation. The average user doesn't pirate their PC games OR their console games.

A more adequate comparison, if you want to talk about software as a feature of the console, would be to compare the price of a brand-new game on a console vs. say the same software on STEAM or HUMBLE.

That is all. Carry on!

Exactly. Assuming we are all honest. Its still cheaper to get the same game on PC than on console, simply due the fact that console games must pay royalty to console manufacturer. Which means there is less reason to get a console if they become more and more inline with PCs.
You're paying the console manufacturer royalty fees for NOTHING. Originally console manufacturers used to sell the consoles at a loss using the loss leader as a means to generate future royalty revenue, but they have since stopped doing that and now make money off of both hardware and software. With that said, why pay a console manufacturer for multiple SKUs when all they are doing is taking commercial PC parts and marking up the value so they can make money?

 

[Foxi4]

You are paying for your time. By buying console you have a guarantee that the game will work without you bothering with compatibility issues, drivers, recommended settings and software conflicts, none of which would be affected. An "Xbox" game would still work just fine on your "Xbox", you'd just have the option to make it work better when a new revision comes out.

The difference between a 3DS game and an AAA console game is that one is made specifically for the 3DS while the other is made on a contemporary modular engine that deploys to multiple platforms by design. To make a 3DS game work well on the 3DS and the N3DS, you have to code for both to some extent, this is not the case with multiplatform engines that already support all the necessary options to adjust the level of detail dynamically (LODing) These games are already made with tools that are tested with a variety of hardware in mind, which is why they can be simultanously deployed on the PS4, XBO, PC and sometimes even the PS3, 360 and Wii U with few adjustments. The level of detail is not controlled manually, it's controlled in-engine via mipmaps, mesh recalculation, draw distance, dynamic resolution and a variety of other tools that are already there, just hidden from the user. In fact, those same tools adjust your gameplay on just one platform depending on the circumstances you're in in the game. The apparently vexing problem of adjusting the performance level can be fixed like this:

if{Rev>=2){
DrawDist = 1000;
AA = 4;
HighTextures = true;
FPSCap = 60;
} else {
DrawDist = 500;
AA = 2
HighTextures = false;
FPSCap = 30;
}

I just deployed the game on two Xboxes at the same time based on one conditional statement, send it off to the testing team for input. Adjust options where needed.

That's all besides the point though, I just want to dispel the myth that developers would have to code the games twice - they wouldn't. The days of coding for bare metal ended a long time ago and since we're not dealing with an exotic architecture like the CELL, there are no magical optimization options available.

By the way, both the XBO and the PS4 launched selling at a loss, they weren't making any money on the hardware for at least a year and I'm not sure if they're making a lot on it now. Neither is made with off-the-shelf PC components, both are based on custom APU's and feature custom API's. They're as much PC's as the Xbox 360 was a PowerMac. Speaking of...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1686/5

This story never ceases to amuse me.

 

[KSP]

Assuming that zero work needs to be done to scale a game for one system to another. Which by the way you are wrong. A different team was assigned to port Tomb Raider from XB1 to Xbox 360. I'm talking about a whole team of developers just for one port. There is always work that needs to be done when you scale a game from one hardware to another.

But lets assume that little work needs to be done to scale from XB1.5 to XB1. What is the incentive to optimize the code with multiple patches for the weaker console? I.E It took endless patches to get The Witcher 3 to run well on XB1, if you can just throw raw processing power into it, what incentive is there to make the game run well on the older hardware? As long as the game works, the devs job is done, if you want it to play better, go and get better hardware.

The thing with unified archetecture is that every game is optimized to run as well as humanly possible, since there is no alternative, but given the alternative of stronger hardware, what would be the incentive to optimize the code for the lower end hardware? There would be none at all, you would play the nerfed version of the game on lower end hardware and get the better version on the higher end hardware, which segregates the consumer experience because now not all users will be playing the same game, which again defeats the purpose of consoles to begin with.

The whole point of paying royalty fees to Sony and MS is getting a unified experience on the same game. If there is no unified experience then two people paying for the same game can have wildly different user experiences due to hardware configuration, so at that point you might as well just buy a PC and skip paying Sony and MS their royalty fees.

 

[sarkwalvein]

This is turning into a nonsense TL;DR OT wall of text.
Please stop, or make a new thread specifically for this discussion.
Thanks, your average nobody.

 

[Foxi4]

Assuming that zero work needs to be done to scale a game for one system to another. Which by the way you are wrong. A different team was assigned to port Tomb Raider from XB1 to Xbox 360. I'm talking about a whole team of developers just for one port. There is always work that needs to be done when you scale a game from one hardware to another.

But lets assume that little work needs to be done to scale from XB1.5 to XB1. What is the incentive to optimize the code with multiple patches for the weaker console? I.E It took endless patches to get The Witcher 3 to run well on XB1, if you can just throw raw processing power into it, what incentive is there to make the game run well on the older hardware? As long as the game works, the devs job is done, if you want it to play better, go and get better hardware.

The thing with unified archetecture is that every game is optimized to run as well as humanly possible, since there is no alternative, but given the alternative of stronger hardware, what would be the incentive to optimize the code for the lower end hardware? There would be none at all, you would play the nerfed version of the game on lower end hardware and get the better version on the higher end hardware, which segregates the consumer experience because now not all users will be playing the same game, which again defeats the purpose of consoles to begin with.

The whole point of paying royalty fees to Sony and MS is getting a unified experience on the same game. If there is no unified experience then two people paying for the same game can have wildly different user experiences due to hardware configuration, so at that point you might as well just buy a PC and skip paying Sony and MS their royalty fees.

We're running around in circles and you're explaining things I already know, just don't find issues with. The XBO and the 360 are nothing alike, the XBO and the XBO1.5 are based on the same architecture, just scaled up, so porting would require minimal adjustments. Like Sark says, this is neither the time nor the place.

 

[Yil]

Assuming that zero work needs to be done to scale a game for one system to another. Which by the way you are wrong. A different team was assigned to port Tomb Raider from XB1 to Xbox 360. I'm talking about a whole team of developers just for one port. There is always work that needs to be done when you scale a game from one hardware to another.

But lets assume that little work needs to be done to scale from XB1.5 to XB1. What is the incentive to optimize the code with multiple patches for the weaker console? I.E It took endless patches to get The Witcher 3 to run well on XB1, if you can just throw raw processing power into it, what incentive is there to make the game run well on the older hardware? As long as the game works, the devs job is done, if you want it to play better, go and get better hardware.

The thing with unified archetecture is that every game is optimized to run as well as humanly possible, since there is no alternative, but given the alternative of stronger hardware, what would be the incentive to optimize the code for the lower end hardware? There would be none at all, you would play the nerfed version of the game on lower end hardware and get the better version on the higher end hardware, which segregates the consumer experience because now not all users will be playing the same game, which again defeats the purpose of consoles to begin with.

The whole point of paying royalty fees to Sony and MS is getting a unified experience on the same game. If there is no unified experience then two people paying for the same game can have wildly different user experiences due to hardware configuration, so at that point you might as well just buy a PC and skip paying Sony and MS their royalty fees.

It would take that much to port such a huge game from ppc and ati to x86 and modern amd or worse the other way around since older hardware does not support newer api like dx12 on xb1. And x86 and powerpc is even worse if you try to make x86 mac run ppc mac applucation even if they use the same language.
The reason witcher had problem is mostly xb1 is too slow on gpu end.
And consoles have some really good exclusive and majority of temp users are capable of managing their pc.

 

[KSP]

Alright ending this debate.

@Foxi4
You and I will disagree. No way either of us will ever convince the other. I think the upgrades are a horrible idea, you don't, thats that.

@Yil
No point in talking any further about conjecture. You think these upgrades will do 4K AAA, I don't. We'll see whose right.

Done with this thread.