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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

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?

 

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.

 

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.