The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
PCs have never been able to be future proof, but today to a certain extent you can extend its shelf life and the possibility of running more complex and advanced games.
However, every couple of years we are introduced with new games consoles from the manufacturers with new technology. Do we really need all these new technologies? Can't today's machine be extended with more memory, more CPU and extended capabilities instead of completely redesigning the a new system?
What if the consoles themselves have been designed with flexible upgradable technologies in mind? The ability to swap out some of the main system components for an upgrade to give it more processing power and capability? Would it not be better for everyone? I mean everyone.
Manufacturers maintain similar product line and maintain customer loyalty; software developer would have all learnt to best programming and 'secret capability' of the machine and be able to maximize its performance and finally, the consumer gets to maintain their initial investment and utilise more money to buy more games instead of shelling for another totally new console.
Is this technologically not viable? Or is it commercially unattractive?
However, every couple of years we are introduced with new games consoles from the manufacturers with new technology. Do we really need all these new technologies? Can't today's machine be extended with more memory, more CPU and extended capabilities instead of completely redesigning the a new system?
What if the consoles themselves have been designed with flexible upgradable technologies in mind? The ability to swap out some of the main system components for an upgrade to give it more processing power and capability? Would it not be better for everyone? I mean everyone.
Manufacturers maintain similar product line and maintain customer loyalty; software developer would have all learnt to best programming and 'secret capability' of the machine and be able to maximize its performance and finally, the consumer gets to maintain their initial investment and utilise more money to buy more games instead of shelling for another totally new console.
Is this technologically not viable? Or is it commercially unattractive?
agingamer wrote:
> Is this technologically not viable?
Yes, PS2 already can have upgrades, like HDD and Modem
> Or is it commercially unattractive?
Unattractive to the majority of users I suspect. Reasoning is, you shell out £299 for your console on launch day, six months later developers start making use of the new "WhizzChip-MkIII" and develop games for it. So you need this plug-in chip (£39.99) to play the latest games.
Then the MkIV comes out (another £39.99) six months after that. Then Hideo Kojima releases Metal Gear Solid: Raiden vs Godzilla in LegoLand, which requires more than the standard 40GB HDD to run properly, plus you now need the Modem because it's online only, and you also need Kojima's specially manufactured plugin "Snakey's Emotion Lotion Processor", so that's another £180.
You've now run out of slots on your PS2, you've spent another £259.98 on it because you're one of those people who must have the latest games, half of those games you can't bring along to a mate's house becuase he hasn't upgraded his PS2 yet, and Sony announce the PS3 (with four extra slots this time to make it future proof).
Just the online games are bad enough at present. Those in Japan can play them, those in the U.S.A., can play them. But if you live in Wales....
> Is this technologically not viable?
Yes, PS2 already can have upgrades, like HDD and Modem
> Or is it commercially unattractive?
Unattractive to the majority of users I suspect. Reasoning is, you shell out £299 for your console on launch day, six months later developers start making use of the new "WhizzChip-MkIII" and develop games for it. So you need this plug-in chip (£39.99) to play the latest games.
Then the MkIV comes out (another £39.99) six months after that. Then Hideo Kojima releases Metal Gear Solid: Raiden vs Godzilla in LegoLand, which requires more than the standard 40GB HDD to run properly, plus you now need the Modem because it's online only, and you also need Kojima's specially manufactured plugin "Snakey's Emotion Lotion Processor", so that's another £180.
You've now run out of slots on your PS2, you've spent another £259.98 on it because you're one of those people who must have the latest games, half of those games you can't bring along to a mate's house becuase he hasn't upgraded his PS2 yet, and Sony announce the PS3 (with four extra slots this time to make it future proof).
Just the online games are bad enough at present. Those in Japan can play them, those in the U.S.A., can play them. But if you live in Wales....
PCs have never been able to be future proof, but today to a certain extent you can extend its shelf life and the possibility of running more complex and advanced games.
However, every couple of years we are introduced with new games consoles from the manufacturers with new technology. Do we really need all these new technologies? Can't today's machine be extended with more memory, more CPU and extended capabilities instead of completely redesigning the a new system?
What if the consoles themselves have been designed with flexible upgradable technologies in mind? The ability to swap out some of the main system components for an upgrade to give it more processing power and capability? Would it not be better for everyone? I mean everyone.
Manufacturers maintain similar product line and maintain customer loyalty; software developer would have all learnt to best programming and 'secret capability' of the machine and be able to maximize its performance and finally, the consumer gets to maintain their initial investment and utilise more money to buy more games instead of shelling for another totally new console.
Is this technologically not viable? Or is it commercially unattractive?
However, every couple of years we are introduced with new games consoles from the manufacturers with new technology. Do we really need all these new technologies? Can't today's machine be extended with more memory, more CPU and extended capabilities instead of completely redesigning the a new system?
What if the consoles themselves have been designed with flexible upgradable technologies in mind? The ability to swap out some of the main system components for an upgrade to give it more processing power and capability? Would it not be better for everyone? I mean everyone.
Manufacturers maintain similar product line and maintain customer loyalty; software developer would have all learnt to best programming and 'secret capability' of the machine and be able to maximize its performance and finally, the consumer gets to maintain their initial investment and utilise more money to buy more games instead of shelling for another totally new console.
Is this technologically not viable? Or is it commercially unattractive?