Idea: Getting Next Gen Consoles to last longer than 5 years

There are some great technologies out today and with todays consoles there is some serious firepower going on - The only thing that will hold the consoles back is the RAM. Each system as of now has a total of 512 MB of RAM - not 1 GB or 1.5GB, but 512 MB. Check out Gamespot's Head to Head Tech specs of each system here.What I would propose is that the manufacturers of these systems put an upgrade feature in place. That the person fills out some information request for their system, pays a fee for the upgrades and sends it in to get the upgrades put in. With the development of faster RAM from Samsung, this would definitely speed up the processing of the games and also with the more efficient use of multi-core processors this would be a HUGE thing.What do you think? Idea: Getting Next Gen Consoles to last longer than 5 years
How about more than 64 megs with the Wii.Idea: Getting Next Gen Consoles to last longer than 5 years
I'm not too certain about this. I do want a console to last for more than 5 years, but I don't want it to turn into a gaming version of a PC. I really think they can go with 7 year cycles without the need to upgrade if they really wanted to.
[QUOTE=''alabaster46'']There are some great technologies out today and with todays consoles there is some serious firepower going on - The only thing that will hold the consoles back is the RAM. Each system as of now has a total of 512 MB of RAM - not 1 GB or 1.5GB, but 512 MB. Check out Gamespot's Head to Head Tech specs of each system here.What I would propose is that the manufacturers of these systems put an upgrade feature in place. That the person fills out some information request for their system, pays a fee for the upgrades and sends it in to get the upgrades put in. With the development of faster RAM from Samsung, this would definitely speed up the processing of the games and also with the more efficient use of multi-core processors this would be a HUGE thing.What do you think? [/QUOTE]That faster RAM you give a link to is going to be made for video cards, not normal systems. You can't replace RAM on video cards. Face it, consoles weren't made to be upgraded like that. If you want to upgrade, get a PC. If I want more RAM for my PC, I go buy more RAM. Consoles aren't made to be cutting edge, there isn't a market for it.
I'd prefer console generations to last at least 7-8 years, but without upgrades.
Such an idea would never work. Having a console with different sets of core components eliminates the single-most important advantage a console has: that its a set platform with known quantities. Having different configurations means that dev no longer have a single target to aim for, instead they have multiple. And you can ask any multiplat developer what happens when a game is designed with multiple hardware configurations in mind (or I'll tell you: they aim for the lowest common denominator).

Besides...isn't a console with upgradable hardware just a PC?

For them to last longer than 5 years they need to be open platforms with upgradable hardware. Console manufactuers will never do this because there is not nearly as much money in releasing hardware upgrades as there is in manufacturing entirely new consoles.

PS. This belongs in either General Hardware or System Wars.

The N64 allowed you to double the RAM.
[QUOTE=''Ravenprose'']I'd prefer console generations to last at least 7-8 years, but without upgrades.[/QUOTE]

Why is that? I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want games to stay at one level of technology for so long. If I had to play Metal Gear Solid 4 on a PS2...well lets just say I would be spending even more time than I already do on my PC.
[QUOTE=''dchan01''] The N64 allowed you to double the RAM.[/QUOTE]However, this time architecture is more complex and won't allow you to simply plug in new hardware. That'd require opening the case and that's already a bit of a daunting task for most people.
[QUOTE=''dchan01'']The N64 allowed you to double the RAM.[/QUOTE]

Yup, and its almost a perfect example of why the proposed idea wouldn't work. A grand total of about 4 games used the expansion pack, and in the end it didn't extend the N64's lifespan one bit.

[QUOTE=''Teufelhuhn''][QUOTE=''Ravenprose'']I'd prefer console generations to last at least 7-8 years, but without upgrades.[/QUOTE]

Why is that? I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want games to stay at one level of technology for so long. If I had to play Metal Gear Solid 4 on a PS2...well lets just say I would be spending even more time than I already do on my PC.[/QUOTE]

I'm really not into bleeding edge tech; I simply want to play games, and I'd prefer to do so without having to upgrade expensive hardware every four or five years. I bought my GC and Xbox 1 in 2002, and I'm still not done playing those games. Visual upgrades just don't do it for me anymore. I'm still perfectly happy with last gen graphics and gameplay. I upgraded to Wii and 360 because I had to due to lack of software support for those older consoles, not because I wanted a new system.

Nintendo said recently that they won't adhere to the traditional console lifecycle with Wii and DS. Their point is if the hardware and software is still selling, and devs can still come up with new ideas for it, then why force people to upgrade? I agree with them.
[QUOTE=''Ravenprose'']I'm really not into bleeding edge tech; I simply want to play games, and I'd prefer to do so without having to upgrade expensive hardware every four or five years. I bought my GC and Xbox 1 in 2002, and I'm still not done playing those games. Visual upgrades just don't do it for me anymore. I'm still perfectly happy with last gen graphics and gameplay. I upgraded to Wii and 360 because I had to due to lack of software support for those older consoles, not because I wanted a new system.
Nintendo said recently that they won't adhere to the traditional console lifecycle with Wii and DS. Their point is if the hardware and software is still selling, and devs can still come up with new ideas for it, then why force people to upgrade? I agree with them.[/QUOTE]
For a console to laast 7-8 years it will need ''bleeding-edge tech'' to stay alive that long. After abour a year most consoles are already heavily outdated by the PC market and long outdated after about 3 or 4. And are you willing to pay $600+ for a new console every 7 years?

And lack of software for older consoles? You play the PS2 much? God of War II, a critically acclaimed game and supposedly one of the best of 2007, came out earlier this year and pushes the PS2 to its absolute limits.

And you agreeing with Nintendo is somewhat unfounded. Their reasoning behind these ''smaller steps'' is to make the consumer upgrade more and more often thus making them even more money. Two $250 consoles over the span of five years costs the same as one $500 console over the same amount of time.

Consoles will always have a problem with hardware limitations, this will always be a fact. I think they should stay ''consoles'' and not try to be PC's with online, updates and the like. They should be simple plug-n-play systems that require no special updates or alternate hardware attachments. There should be a separation between the console market and that of the PC market, they were two very markedly different places... now it is all just massing together into one big mess of mainstream developers out to get more money than other developers while the indies get crushed under the mighty tyrants. [/rant]
sorry but i don't think thats a good idea at all. why would people want to send in there consoles if everybody is already pissed that they have to send them in because there broken
Umm... I'm going to take the capitalist side of this argument and say that if the majority of people didn't want new consoles, they wouldn't be out. Hardware manufacturers don't want new consoles at all; they lose money on the hardware, and gain it back on the software. The only one who wants to push the next generation is usually those who want a fresh start.Let's look at the early 90s for example. The NES was still selling and doing awesome, and Nintendo wanted to keep it going. Sega's Master System was getting soundly trounced by the NES, so they knew they needed a new system. They came out with the Genesis, and guess what? More and more people started buying that and less and less people stuck with their 5 year old NES. The Super NES had to struggle to catch up because they thought consumers would be happy with 6 year-old tech. There you have it. You might not want a new system, but if one is offered at a reasonable price and the upgrade is big enough, most people do.
God, no. One of the great things about consoles is that a game ''just works.'' Either it works on everybody's system or it doesn't. None of this worrying about specific configuration crap like on PCs. They're already pushing it with all these different PS3 models IMO. I don't like the direction things are headed in.
Consoles should be consoles. There should only be a one-time hardware cost.Replacing the single generational hardware cost with slightly smaller incremental costs is not an improvement.
[QUOTE=''Ravenprose'']
Nintendo said recently that they won't adhere to the traditional console lifecycle with Wii and DS. Their point is if the hardware and software is still selling, and devs can still come up with new ideas for it, then why force people to upgrade? I agree with them.[/QUOTE]

You seem to neglect the fact that nobody forces anyone to buy a new console. If all everyone had wanted to was play PS2 games for 10 years...then that's what we would be doing. And mark my words, if someone else comes up with a new console that can draw away the Wii crowd then it won't really matter how long Nintendo plans to ride that one out: people will move on to the next thing.

There's no escaping the fact that consoles are more and more becoming like PC's, it started with multiple models, continued with limited upgradeability (that doesn't directly affect the system's performance - HDD's), so it's entirely plausible that as time progresses consoles will offer more and more customization. I don't think that's a good thing, really. I love PC gaming, but I also like the simplicity, ease of use, and standardized hardware that consoles offer. When I decide to buy a console, I want a console, not a PC.Oh and by the way, 512MB of RAM is a lot for a console.
Two things.1) There is no such animal as a traditional console lifespan. The seven year old PS2 saw quality games like Persona 3, GoW2, Guitar Hero: The 80'sand Romance of the Three Kingdoms 11 this year (by way of contrast, nothing of consequence was released for the younger Xbox or the GC this year). 2) On a related note, lifespan is due more to success than technology. Successful consoles live much longer than failed consoles because the makers of failed consoles are the ones most eager to hit the reset button and start the race over again.