potato_hamster said:
Mr Puggsly said:
I've used New 3DS as an example that it can be done. Lets be honest, the New 3DS audience doesn't really care about graphics and performance as much the 8th gen console gamers. So there is less incentive to use New 3DS specs. Nintendo and Capcom are the few developers that push 3DS specs. While many developers push X1 and PS4 specs.
Not all developers have to use the new specs, but I'm sure many would. Especially if it could be done simply. Many don't know but a lot of games used the N64 expansion likely because it was easy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_accessories#Expansion_Pak
Frankly, its possible instead of doing a price cut they could instead put a considerably more powerful CPU and/or GPU in newer models. As long as the new specs are there and easy for developers to use them, they will be used. At the very least it would be interesting experiment.
|
An interesting experiment? The experiment has been done many times. Every single time it's failed.
Nonsense. The New 3DS is an example that it can be done, and also a huge example that it shouldn't be done. You also cite the N64 expansion pak, that was released in 1998, and afterwich a very small fraction of games released for the N64 actually supported this memory expansion. This is again a very good example of why it shouldn't be done. Further examples include the Sega CD and 32X. Both were also big failures. Also note, the improved processing power of the PSP over it's liife with each hardware revision, something Sony learned from with the Vita and didn't once try to improve. The extra processing power simply wasn't being used. Every time the vast majority of developers ignored the improved specs and just developed for the lowest common denominator.
History has shown time and time and time again that any efforts to improve console specs mid-cycle is a waste of time and money. Only a small fraction of consumers end up supporting it, and a even smaller fraction of developers even attempt to take advantage of it. There is no reason to expect this time to be any different. If you think somehow the technology to make such modifications easier for game developer look at the disaster than is the Unified Windows Platform and how PC ports of UWP games are a complete mess at launch. If MS can't figure out how to make it easy to port a X1 game to a PC what makes you think they can come up with an easy way to adapt engines to support multiple hardware specifications, and most importantly, not increase the cost of QA work. Game development is more expensive than ever and hardware is more complicated than ever. There's even less incentive to supoort multiple hardware configurations than ever before, especially when there is absolutely zero indication that if developer do support the improved hardware that it will lead to greater sales.
Here's what many people fail to understand. Three years in, the PS2 had only sold around 50 million units worldwide, but due to price cuts, the PS2 sold an additional 105 million units on its way to becoming the highest selling console of all time. The key to keeping up a consoles momentum and selling high volumes of units is via price cuts. This of course is also where hardware developers make the vast majority of their money. The hardware is cheaper for consumers because it is cheaper to produce and with it comes a higher profit margin. Year 3-6 is where most console developers make the vast majority of their money off of console sales. You're expecting them to throw that away, hit a reset on the generation half way through, and replace the most profitable years of a console's life with a more expensive, lower margin console that will cost more to market, more to design and manufacture, and more to support. For what exactly? How does this idea actually make Sony or Microsoft more money than they would putting out smaller, cheaper to make PS4s or X1s at $200 or $250 this fall?
|
