By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Are there any benefits to shorter lifespans for consoles?

Conina on 04 July 2015

If they manage to keep older console games compatible and scalable for the next consoles, I'm looking forward to shorter lifespans.

All my PC games stayed compatible when I switched from a GTX 275 to a GTX 580 to a GTX 970, most of them look much better now (higher resolution, maxed effects) and/or run with smooth framerates (60 - 144 fps).

All my iPad-games stayed compatible when I switched from the iPad1 to the iPad3 to the iPad Air. Many of them run the same on the newer devices (fixed resolution, fixed settings), but many others look much better now (2048x1536 instead of 1024x768, better effects, better textures).

This compatibility and scalability could also come to home consoles if the stay on the chosen x86-path... and why shouldn't they stay on it? I'm pretty sure that the "Xbox Two" will be compatible to all XBO-games from the start and that most of these XBO-games will run better on the newer console, since Microsoft is integrating the Xbox-branch into the Windows-family, where backwards compatibility and scalability are common.



Around the Network
Danman27 on 04 July 2015

You get updated tech more often. That's the benefit.



KBG29 on 04 July 2015
Never said:
Personally, as long as the console supports full backwards compatibility, I wouldn't mind updating regularly because I can afford it and I don't have many consoles to replace.

I replace other more expensive items like my phone and laptop far more frequently than consoles not to, mention collecting other expensive items, such as guitars, so it wouldn't be an issue.

It's more a matter of whether companies can get the install base they need and if others would be willing to upgrade every four years or so. Having game that automatically adjust to the different spec hardware in different gen consoles could fix that. So, for excample, a game plays on an old ps4 but plays in 4k at 60fps with some enhanced graphical features on a new ps5.


I am lucky enough to be in the same boat. I would have no problem upgrading every year if possible, but I think every 3 years is a decent amount of time for a console refresh. Like vivster mentioned, if they use the same architecture then it will not effect gamers or developers. 

To me the most logical path is making each console generation a hardware platform. Basically, the PS4 launched with 28nm tech, they could potentialy have a PS4(subtitle) at 20nm 2017, and a PS4 (subtitle) at 14nm 2020. Each refresh would see increased CPU/GPU cores, and additional RAM. Same CPU/GPU Cores, and the same GDDR5 memory. Each revision would launch at $399. the previous model can sell for $299 until stock is deplinished. 

In this scenario, the PS4 name sticks around for 10 years, PS4 games work on every unit, just performing slightly better on each refreshed model. The bases for all development would be 1080p/30fps on the OG PS4 unit, thus keeping day one customers happy for 10 years if they don't feel the need for 1080p/60fps or 4k/30fps. It also allows Sony to stay competitive against Tablets and Set Top boxes which will see refreshs on 6 and 12 month cycles. 

Then this leaves the door open for PS5 to be a worthy improvemnet in 2022 - 2024. This is when HBM memory, SSD's, and a new CPU and GPU architecture can be deployed, and of course, it would be fully backwards compatible with all PS4 software, apps, and services.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

fatslob-:O on 04 July 2015
SvennoJ said:

By level playing field I mean, any developer that wants to start out with the new hardware doesn't have to face a huge catalog to fit into. Early games receive the benefit of there not being that many games available yet, while the most hungry consumers are the ones that buy the console first.

Competition is generally a good thing ...

SvennoJ said:

Sequels happen and stagnate over the years as a console gen goes on. Publishers focus on pushing the graphics for each sequel leaving less room for extensive physics, smart AI or many characters at the same time on screen. Small teams have a much harder time producing anything that looks close to the graphic fidelity AAA games have gotten to. At the start of a gen everything is still fresh and people don't mind the gap so much, nor shorter games.

Sequels do happen but that does not mean we can't get new high quality IPs late into the gen and The Last of Us is a great example of this including many others. Publishers can choose to not focus on graphics in favour of extensive physics and smart game AI is hardly much of an issue with developers not making much use with the extra CPU cores but if you were looking for something more organic then game AI is not what you want to look at in comparison to the simulations of super computers. Small teams will still have a hard time breaking into the mindshare of a new platform because more ambitious games tend to be delayed and there's the issue of people wanting high production quality too ...

SvennoJ said:

Unfortunately this gen the hardware isn't that big of an upgrade and we're already at the stage of graphics pushing innovation away :/ At least there's still a bit more (dumb) characters / cars on screen.

"Big" is a relative term and a lot of gamers think otherwise. The PS4 is an order of mangitude faster than the PS3 by about 10 times. Graphics is pushing innovation away ? Umm, that's the developers fault and not the hardware ...



JRPGfan on 04 July 2015

If you live off of hardware profits, and you can sell your console at profit from launch.... sure?



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 04 July 2015
KBG29 said:

I agree with this, but I also see a huge benifit in doing more of a mid cycle refreash similar to what vivster is talking about. With a mid cycle refreash where they just add more of the same CPU and GPU cores, and increase the RAM, it would not effect development at all. All devs would have to do is build the game for the OG model and ramp up the res/fps and effects for the mid cycle model. This would allow players that bought the OG console and are content to continue enjoying all new games, and also let new buyers get a better experience. Another benefit is if your old console dies, then the newer model will play all of your games better. 

In this scenario a console can easily be on the market for 8 - 10 year before needing a full replacement. That would mean the next version would be a major improvement over the last, and it would mean a massive library for the generation. Honestly a mid cycle refreash is a win, win, win for gamers, developers, and publishers.

Except vivster wasn't talking about mid cycle "refreshes", he was talking about mid cycle "replacements" ...



teigaga on 04 July 2015
garretslarrity said:

So when I buy stuff, I want to use it for a long time.  I like the feeling of knowing that I've had something for a long time and it has always worked well.  Technology, even though it moves so fast, is no exception.  Consoles are a perfect example of this.  Not only I want a console I buy to work for many years, but I want their lifespans to be long.  I see a lot of benefits to consoles having long lifespans, such as: 

-The purchase is better justified.

-A better library.

-Developers learn the hardware very well and can create some impressive looking games.

-A greater chance for smaller IPs to make it onto the system (this one mainly applies to Nintendo consoles)

 

So I can see all these benefits to longer console lifespans, but I can't think of any benefits to shorter lifespans.  The only one I can see is that if a system is selling very poorly, ending its lifespan somewhat early can create greater profits.  So are there other benefits?  I named a benefit to the producer, are there any benefits to the consumer?

1. More new Ips, console launches see's devs actual take the opportunity to introduce new franchises, more so then drawn out dev cycles. This is backed by more active userbase. When generations are drawn out people loose interest, the market over saturates and in general its harder for games to sell, only the huge IPs benefit from a 100m userbase when you're 6 years into a systems life.

2. "Developers learn the hardware very well and can create some impressive looking games." Or they can just work with hardware 6x more powerful and produce games far better looking with exactly the same amount of effort. Sure the Last of US and GOW: A looked great, but imagine the PS4 launched in 2012 and those games were built for it instead of the PS3. No matter how well a dev optimises a game, modern hardware will always produce better results.

3.Better user experience. New hardware brings a whole host of new features, interfaces and interactivity which benefit peoples experience. Put simply, the more drawn out a generation, the longer we suffer outdated experiences and the slower we evolve.

4. Freedom. Introducing a new line of hardware does not mean the previous hardware automatically dies, its gives the tech enthusiasts what they want whilst those on more of a budget can stick it out with the old hardware for a year or so whilst it still gets releases. Similarly for devs it gives the freedom of 2 userbases.

Truly the only benefit of a long lifespan is on peoples wallets, but when you're talking about the difference between 5 years or 7, I don't think its a biggie for most. In terms of feeling like you're getting your moneys worth,PS1 (depending on region)/N64/Gamecube/Xbox all had lifespans of 5 years or less and I loved them a lot.



teigaga on 04 July 2015
garretslarrity said:
KBG29 said:
The only people that really benefit from a short cycle are people with lots of money, people that need the best graphics all the time, or people that are living life trying to impress others with their material buying power. For the rest of us, and the entire game developement and ppublishing industry longer is better.


And for those people, I would recommend a PC.  So the one demographic that would benefit is not even best suited for consoles in the first place.

The whole notion that consoles and PC are interchangable for everyone is really tired, tons of console gamers are graphic whores and tech enthusiasts, but they simply do not want to game on PC. I mean why else did the PS4 sell 16m in 12months when 95% of its games were available on the previous generations? Because people cared about graphics, performance and new tech. If they wanted PC's they would have got one, but they don't. 



Azzanation on 04 July 2015

I purchase products to last me awhile. There really isn't any benefits for upgrading sooner rather then later. Last gen has been the most successful, and delivered some of the greatest games of all time because devs got use to the platforms and that they released many games knowing a lot of gamers had that platform. The only time you should upgrade sooner is if they make a backwards compatible console for there next product. One thing I love about PC gaming is I can build a PC that will last me many years without worrying about playing older games or upgrading to a newer platform in the space of 5 years.



tokilamockingbrd on 04 July 2015

No. Consoles are designed to reach the masses meaning the people buying them are not too concerned with the specs, its about the games, and a shorter lifespan means devs have less time to work with a console.

Even when 5 years was the norm the 1st 2 years of consoles was slow. Back then it was 2 slow years with some classics being trickled out, then 3 years of plenty, then a new console, and back to 2 years of not too much.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.