• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Console Upgrades?

T

todlerix

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
2,244
Why don't MS/Sony offer more powerful consoles.

Such as PS3 and PS3+.


I realize most of the console community does not care or know about picture quality but it wouldn't be too difficult to add higher levels of graphic settings for the people with the 'Plus' version of the consoles. Higher framerate/soft shadows/faster read on the disc drive/AA/etc.

Thoughts?

- Read post #14
 
Then consoles would be more like PC's. With consoles since the hardware is the same the makers do not have to worry as much about what different users will be running so its essentially plop in your disc and play. If everyone had the upgraded consoles then boom they could add those features and not really worry. If they had to add all of that it production times would be longer. Most games for each that come out now support multiple resolutions each optimized for the hardware to run them at.

Making it a menu option wouldnt hurt too much, but how many people upgrade their consoles? (Not counting the HDD) For MS/Sony to waste money on upgrades seems pointless really, money better spent on making the next set of consoles that much better IMO.
 
It would defeat the purpose of a console. People, especially PC gamers, like to point out that consoles are getting more "PC like," but basically keeping hardware set accross all the systems out there makes it MUCH easier on developers, and the gamers themselves.
 
as i understand consoles (very little), the games and hardware are heavily optimized to work with each other. which is why consoles w/ inferior hardware performs at levels which they could not on pc.

also: consoles allow companies to create a video game which runs on every single console out there, instead of just the pcs which have hardware capable of running them. (see: crysis)
 
Console upgrades don't usually do too well.

Remember the Sega CD, the 32x, the robot for the NES (yeah, you probably don't, lol). People buy the console to play the games and they don't want the hassle that PC gamers deal with on a regular basis (allthough it's NOTHING like it used to be when you had EMS/XMS bootdisks, etc)
 
I guess upgrades was a bad term to use, i wasn't implying complete freedom. More like PS3 and PS3+

The game would detect which you had and up the image quality if you had the PS3+. I didnt mean, add another 128mb of ram or a different video card etc.
 
todlerix said:
I didnt mean, add another 128mb of ram or a different video card etc.
Click to expand...

todlerix said:
it wouldn't be too difficult to add higher levels of graphic settings for the people with the 'Plus' version of the consoles. Higher framerate/soft shadows/faster read on the disc drive/AA/etc.
Click to expand...

That's getting kind of close to 'different graphics,' I think.
 
You might not have ment that the end user purchases seperate parts and installs them but its the exact same thing essentially. What will make the PS3+ better? More ram and a better video card, same thing as people who purchase different computers for different reasons. The same issues would apply, the game may auto detect which you have or you have to select it the first time you put the disc in, but to keep the game quality high developers would now have to optimize their game for each version of the console.

Ontop of the fact that each console can do 1080 now what better image would you be getting? Its the Dev's that have to add the eye candy and texture quality to make the resolution pretty. Granted games like GTA downgrade some of the detailes to add more elsewhere giving you an overall great experience with available hardware. With better hardware they wouldnt have to worry about it as much, but if everyone had better hardware wouldnt that be the next set of consoles ;)

Again I say they spend that money on the next console system to make it even better. Not to mention the Wii and PS3 are both still in their infancy really and the Dev's have not squeezed all that they can from the hardware. The 360 has been out a little longer and I would say games are getting into their stride with what they can milk from its insides. Look at early PS2 games vs late PS2 games as far as graphical looks and smoothness, it took some time but as time went on the games got better and better because the Dev's were learning how to utalize the hardware.

Upgrades might not be a bad thing, but if you add those to consoles you loose the user friendlyness of them I think and at that end why not just go buy a high end gaming PC?
 
People get PO'd enough when there's a new version of a console with HDMI, larger HD, etc.
Plus - have any "upgrades" ever succeeded? Sega pretty much tanked themselves with theirs.
Items like the Neo Geo CD, Jaguar CD, and the like also failed.
I think consoles are targeting such a different audience that they don't want anything like this.
It's why the best selling PC games like Half Life, UT the Sims, and WoW would play on anything you tried them on.
 
todlerix said:
I guess upgrades was a bad term to use, i wasn't implying complete freedom. More like PS3 and PS3+

The game would detect which you had and up the image quality if you had the PS3+. I didnt mean, add another 128mb of ram or a different video card etc.
Click to expand...

You would need to have more ram or a new video card in order to be able to increase the IQ. :confused:

Ripskin said:
You might not have ment that the end user purchases seperate parts and installs them but its the exact same thing essentially. What will make the PS3+ better? More ram and a better video card, same thing as people who purchase different computers for different reasons. The same issues would apply, the game may auto detect which you have or you have to select it the first time you put the disc in, but to keep the game quality high developers would now have to optimize their game for each version of the console.

Ontop of the fact that each console can do 1080 now what better image would you be getting? Its the Dev's that have to add the eye candy and texture quality to make the resolution pretty. Granted games like GTA downgrade some of the detailes to add more elsewhere giving you an overall great experience with available hardware. With better hardware they wouldnt have to worry about it as much, but if everyone had better hardware wouldnt that be the next set of consoles ;)

Again I say they spend that money on the next console system to make it even better. Not to mention the Wii and PS3 are both still in their infancy really and the Dev's have not squeezed all that they can from the hardware. The 360 has been out a little longer and I would say games are getting into their stride with what they can milk from its insides. Look at early PS2 games vs late PS2 games as far as graphical looks and smoothness, it took some time but as time went on the games got better and better because the Dev's were learning how to utalize the hardware.

Upgrades might not be a bad thing, but if you add those to consoles you loose the user friendlyness of them I think and at that end why not just go buy a high end gaming PC?
Click to expand...

Well technically the consoles don't natively support 1080, they have to upscale. An upgrade that actually allowed that would be a nice option. However allowing for upgrades defeats the purpose of consoles. The more upgrades you allow the less optimization they can do. In addition it increases the number of potential problems that needed to be taken into consideration. It also increases the production cost of both the games and the hardware.
 
Chombo said:
Well technically the consoles don't natively support 1080, they have to upscale. An upgrade that actually allowed that would be a nice option.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah get all technical on me :p

An upgrade that did that would be nice if it was a firmware upgrade, otherwise put it in for the next set of consoles.
 
todlerix said:
I guess upgrades was a bad term to use, i wasn't implying complete freedom. More like PS3 and PS3+

The game would detect which you had and up the image quality if you had the PS3+. I didnt mean, add another 128mb of ram or a different video card etc.
Click to expand...

Well, like it has already been pointed out, the same arguments still apply. A "PS3+" would no doubt have newer/better hardware, like a better videocard, more memory, etc. You're suddenly adding another hardware configuration to the mix, that developers have to work with, and develop for, when they're making their games.

Then you'd have some people who would feel the need to get the better hardware. Hell there were were people who got new 360s simply because the Elite SKU, and the newer Premium/Pro models included HDMI.

Finally, you might have some developers who would want to push the envelope, and try to make games look even better, but would really only be accomplished if you had the better version of the PS3, or Xbox. I suppose Microsoft and Sonly *could* say you can only develop games that would run on the older systems, as well as the newer better ones, but in the end it still defeats the purpose of a console.

One of the nice things about consoles if you can buy a system the day it comes out, and assuming it doesn't break on you, you can keep playing all the new games that come out for it, all the way up until they no longer make new titles for it, without having to worry about your hardware becoming outdated (to the extent it won't play the newer games obviously).
 
It's theoretically possible as a beneficial part of a business plan(just difficult), and I'm fairly sure someone will make an another attempt at console upgrades.

The main difference between console and PC is who is in control. On the PC it's the millions of individual users, on the console it's the console manufacturer's standard. You can still standardize upgrades, it will be incrementally more complex than a single configuration, but the upgrade itself will still be a standard process with a standard result. All possible configurations are still outlined and controlled from a single point.

I'm not saying it's a good idea either, but it's definitely within the scope of a console manufacturer to do so. Accessories are a minor extension of "upgrades". They unlock functionality that would not otherwise be there.
 
My thought process was having the PS3 and the PS3+ have identical hardware but the PS3+ would have more** or higher clocked hardware. So the extra picture quality would come from the remaining cpu/gpu cycles or from the additional hardware. Again, not different hardware, additional or faster. I wish there was an expert in this field who could give us an inside opinion.






**Note: I think one of the GPU manufactures was putting a chip onboard that gave native 2xAA to everything.
 
todlerix said:
-snip-

**Note: I think one of the GPU manufactures was putting a chip onboard that gave native 2xAA to everything.
Click to expand...

What you heard was ATI ranting about how amazing the 2900XT was going to be, and how 2xAA was going to be "free" -- zero performance hit vs. no AA.

What you heard was a total fabrication. A hoax. A sham. An outright, bold-faced lie.

That was some time ago (read: two years) and they've yet to deliver. Instead, ATI hasn't even had properly working AA hardware for the last two generations -- 2900XT/Pro, HD 3870/50 -- and have to send the AA work to the stream/shader processors... hence why they are so slow with it. Failure of epic proportions.



Now stop using stupid tiny font.
 
The reason I bring all this up is because consoles have so much potential. But, I stay away from them as much as I can for two reasons: I must have the ability to use a keyboard on any and every game and low IQ. Having the Plus version or UEE (ultra extreme edition) would solve the image quality factor.
 
silent-circuit said:
What you heard was ATI ranting about how amazing the 2900XT was going to be, and how 2xAA was going to be "free" -- zero performance hit vs. no AA.

What you heard was a total fabrication. A hoax. A sham. An outright, bold-faced lie.

That was some time ago (read: two years) and they've yet to deliver. Instead, ATI hasn't even had properly working AA hardware for the last two generations -- 2900XT/Pro, HD 3870/50 -- and have to send the AA work to the stream/shader processors... hence why they are so slow with it. Failure of epic proportions.



Now stop using stupid tiny font.
Click to expand...


That is indeed what i was referring to, however hearing that it was a sham makes me sad.
 
Whatever the case it won't happen and would be stupid if it did. The only reason to own a console is knowing without a doubt that all things being equal in 6 years you can play a brand new game for the same system sitting on the same couch with the same controller.

For the most part the 32X, Sega CD, Jaguar CD (even though the Jaguar was doomed), NeoGeo CD was all doomed to fail and have 1 or 2 at best AAA games availible.

And as far as having the higher clocks on the GPU and CPU have you ever seen what happens when you overclock a console? Granted you could potentially fix that with proper programing but still it's an entirely different variable being added to the mix. I would much rather see them focus on how to make the current generation perform better with better programming.

Wait for the next generation of consoles or play PC games if you want better graphics. I'm pretty confident the next generation of consoles with have native 1080P for instance.
 
The only moderately successful upgrade for a console that I can think of was the Expansion Pack for the N64, but only a few games supported it. I remember it was included with, and required for, Donkey Kong 64, which gave it some nice graphics. Perfect dark was the only other game that I owned that supported it, and it made for a noticeable improvement.
 
360 developers don't even have an optional install to increase performance because of the lack of a hard drive in the core/arcade version and the lack of space on a DVD9, what makes you think they'd EVER bother with programming with two hardware configurations in mind?

And no, simply adding more DVD9s is not an option for installing; that costs money. Anyone see the Lost Odyssey case? They stacked three DVDs into a normal game case that holds one, then put the fourth in a paper sleeve. THAT'S how cheap developers are.

And yes, optional installing requires a lot more space on the optical disks, hence why PC games tend to have one more CD/DVD than the console counterparts, which would be compounded by the fact that you would need a separate disk(s) for people who don't want to install at all (data is ordered and stored very differently for standard non-install console games, primarily for performance purposes).

Obviously the PS3 does a better capacity to deal with things like optional installs, but many of the same factors still apply.
 
everyone seems to be thinking you'd have complete setup of new hardware, my thoughts are on addition hardware. Similar to PhysX card If you have it - download the PhysX patch, if you don;t... don't


No more data needs to be put on disc, just download the extra.

As far as lazy developers - Thats a crap excuse. Sounds like you'll take whatever you can get.
 
oh boy. the 'lazy developer' comments again. look, if they were lazy, they would be fired. simple as that :p

you'd be amazed how many hours these guys work when it comes close to deadlines.(specifically talking about game developers here)
 
Why don't MS/Sony offer more powerful consoles.

Such as PS3 and PS3+.


I realize most of the console community does not care or know about picture quality but it wouldn't be too difficult to add higher levels of graphic settings for the people with the 'Plus' version of the consoles. Higher framerate/soft shadows/faster read on the disc drive/AA/etc.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is why..
sega32xcdql2.jpg


Because every time they do, they flop... very very very badly.
The picture I posted is FILLED to the BRIM with fail.
 
lloose said:
This is why..
Because every time they do, they flop... very very very badly.
The picture I posted is FILLED to the BRIM with fail.
Click to expand...

Where's the power base converter? ;)

I know, I've also got my Genesis blinged out... unfortunately, only certain losers will buy crap like that. :)
 
PWMK2 said:
Where's the power base converter? ;)

I know, I've also got my Genesis blinged out... unfortunately, only certain losers will buy crap like that. :)
Click to expand...

I have the original drawer load SegaCD and the Power base converter.
 
Has anyone overclocked their xbox? What kind of numbers are you running at and is there a huge difference in the fps? I would assume you need an extra fan to keep the temps down?
 
Ha ha ha - I used to have the "Sega Tower of Power."
I had the original Genesis, with the underneath SegaCD, Power Base Converter, and 32X. When you hooked up any 3 at once it formed a crasy daisy chain of RF adapters on my old 17" TV.
The Sega CD was actually a worthwhile purchase, although it was insanely expensive.
It had 7-8 games I truly thought were wonderful, but most of it's library was made up of FMV trash and reduxes of old games with FMV added.
The 32X takes the cake for "worst system EVER" in my eyes. At least the Virtual Boy was a novel idea :)
 
the downside to upgradability with PCs is there are so many different architectures from ATI to nvidia chipsets. For consoles, all they would have to do is, well in the words of PC gamers 'dumb it down' for console upgradability and keep the architecture very similar. or like how SLI works. you just add more of the same thing, and you get more power. new code would have to be written initially to take advantage, but nothing nearly as time-consuming as programming for completely different architectures in PC game development.
 
damonposey said:
the downside to upgradability with PCs is there are so many different architectures from ATI to nvidia chipsets. For consoles, all they would have to do is, well in the words of PC gamers 'dumb it down' for console upgradability and keep the architecture very similar. or like how SLI works. you just add more of the same thing, and you get more power. new code would have to be written initially to take advantage, but nothing nearly as time-consuming as programming for completely different architectures in PC game development.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top