We already have upgrade-able closed gaming devices, what's the problem?

The head of Microsoft's Xbox division Phil Spenser has come out and caused quite a stir among the gaming communities. First it was about how Microsoft is going all in it seems with supporting PC gaming, namely with Windows as the gatekeeper. Which in itself has caused mixed reactions with restricting it to only the Windows store and the impact it will have on the Xbox brand. This blog isn't about that but rather what he said in regards to the future of console gaming and how an upgrade-able Xbox is not off the table.

What does that mean and why do we care?

This is what Phil Spencer said,

"Am I going to break open my console and start upgrading individual pieces of my console? That's not our plan," he said. "There is something special about what happens with a console. You buy an applicance-like device; you plug it into your TV; it works when you plug it in. It's not like I'm going to ship a screwdriver set with every console that comes out."

"What I'm saying is as hardware innovations happen we want to be able to embrace those in the console space. And make those available and maybe not have to wait seven or eight years for things to happen. But right now, we're not announcing hardware. I'm happy with the console we have and the platform we built on top of that console and the constant innovation and the games that are there. But as a longer-term vision statement, I wanted to make sure people understood what we're doing I think is good for the console space in addition to being good for the PC space."

and also this,

"People have asked me before, are we going to do another console, and I say I fully expect that we will. And people say well, why do you say fully expect? Why don't you just say yes? I'm in a job right now--I make decisions based on what's today; I can't always predict the future. But if you think about the strategy we're on, the strategy is a long-term vision that includes multiple hardware generations on both console, and frankly PC."

Which to me sounds like on the surface something like what Valve was embracing, the Steambox. Which is essentially trying to bridge the best of both worlds the PC and it's ability to customize along with the ease of use of the console where every game works. The idea itself sounded interesting but didn't really gel with the community who for the most part doesn't really like change too much.

What's interesting by Phil's comments is it's not about opening up the console with a screwdriver to add parts. So how does one upgrade? Nobody really knows at this point, it could even be cloud related for all we know. What is clear is some people like the idea and some don't but let's use history and even the current state of closed game devices as something we can analyze to why it's a bad idea or actually a great idea.

Back in history, the idea of upgrading your game console failed time and again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

The reason being is actually quite simple, not everyone upgraded. This meant software support that relied on these upgrades fizzled out rather quickly. Why make a game aimed at very few customers?

But let's look at a few examples where it actually did work out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Nintendo's DS and 3DS system also had many revisions that sold very well.

However let's look at what's already happening now. Sony is coming out with PSVR which is a means to virtual reality gaming. This is the new craze going on and other major players are involved too such as Oculus Rift and Valve's HTC Thrive. So does PSVR not also count as upgrading your console? Sony is asking PS4 owners to buy new hardware on an existing platform, which in essence will also create a two-tiered userbase that publishers will analyze. Why is that a good approach but upgrading your console to improve performance a bad one? I think the answer is consumers don't feel compelled to buy PSVR unless they want to. They know games will be made to offer a different experience but they also know that other games they want will still come without the need to buy the hardware. Can you imagine buying an N64 for Mario but 2 years later they come out with a Zelda game that needs the attachment to play? That isn't fair to the customers.

This is why Microsoft needs to make sure to address this approach properly. The idea of playing games like Quantum Break at 900p (or whatever it will be on the Xbox One) and 30 frames per second on the console is fine. On the other hand, if you could somehow play that same game at 1080p or even higher and the frame rates and other performances improved then that would a great option to have. The key word here, OPTION. People don't buy an XBox One to play hypothetical games like Quantum Break 2 that requires upgrading your Xbox One. Microsoft already ran into a few issues on the Xbox 360 and the lack of a hard drive on the arcade model. Games like Forza 4 made it more difficult for those without a hard drive to view replays and some of the content.

Phil's last quote also has me more optimistic to this idea of upgrading your hardware,

"So I wanted to explain that what we're doing today I think makes the console ecosystem better, in a way. Because I, both personally, as well as watching what happens in the industry, I've said the 'end of a generation' and this step-function that happens is not something I embrace. I think it's something we can do better at. I see it in music, I see it in books, I see it in movies. When I buy digital content, that digital content stays with me and I'm able to use it when I got out and get new devices."

In a time where we are buying the same software over and over again to take advantage of the new hardware, how can someone also tell people this is a bad idea?