Do the consoles of today have an expiry date from the start?

Hey all, I've been playing through some games recently on my old original PS2, and it got me thinking about the state of gaming now as opposed to just a few years ago.

I can trust my PS2 to continue operating as long as it's hardware is still functioning. There is no server for it to connect to, and no firmware updates. My games are the same; as long as I look after the discs properly, I can count on them still being to work for quite a while.

This is not the case anymore; my PS3 has constant firmware updates, and my games on it have constant patches. Same with my PC, I purchase games on Steam, and to do so, I have to log-in. My games being able to work is no longer completely in the power of me and my hardware, I have to use the internet to establish connections to remote servers which are in way no maintained or controlled by me. Certain services, such as the PSNow, push balance even further into that over which you have no control.

I'm not bashing on modern gaming here, you can see for yourself that I happily use services like Steam and the PSN store. Hell, I even buy PS1 and PS2 games from the Store that would be a hassle or too expensive to locate a physical copy of ( I love the fact that these titles are available so readily). I'm just trying to see what the opinions of others are on this. For how long can be expect all the servers that make modern gaming what it is today to still be running? And how will the PS3/360/Nintendo Wii and all consoles onward from there fare when there is no longer a server to connect to?

All manufactured items have a "life cycle". For electronics, consoles are unusual in that they stick around much longer than other devices and computers.

There is nothing sinister going on here. Software moves so fast it is a miracle companies stick with consoles as long as long as they do.

Huh, interesting question. I'm not as worried about it because I'm in the weird place where my Super Nintendo that's been hanging around my house since 1994 is in the process of dying, so I'm in a real existential "Nothing lasts forever, it's all about the experience" kind of mood.

In addition to that, I want to play a lot of different games year after year due to my constant following of the industry online. Each video game is such a time investment (compared to a movie for example) that I can't worry about replaying old games all the time. I just don't have the time period.

Given that so many new console games have PC ports whether they be large tent-pole releases or indie titles the solution of the future will probably be to just use Steam as a library of old games that can be played on most up-to-date hardware.

I think you're looking at this backwards. The modern connectivity allows games to be improved or fixed. When updates and firmware stop being released that won't mean your system will no longer work, it simply means it will forever remain as it is and no longer improve. If a major bug or balance issue exists in a PS2 game, the only way it's getting fixed is in the next wave of disc printings, not a problem with modern systems.

None of the current systems require an online connection to work, and you're free to decline any patch or firmware update and choose to play your game offline. Nothing is going to become nonfunctional once that stuff shuts down.

@ll_exile_ll: But the online stuff is a part of modern games. If you lose access to it, you're not playing the full game anymore.

I always find the "I want this to work forever" approach to technology to be ... I dunno, silly. Think about printers. Think about someone looking for a printer today and saying "oh, well what if it stops working in 7 years?" You'd give them a ten thousand mile stare because who cares, it's a printer. When your printer runs out of ink, it's cheaper to buy a new damn printer than refill it.

It's like keeping a PC from 2000 that hasn't been upgraded since, so that you could play Baldur's Gate on it. Rather than running Baldur's Gate in compatibility mode on a modern PC. You will spend more money attempting to maintain a console and keep it in working condition than you would spend purchasing rereleases.

It's a disposable culture. Stop thinking like a farmer and start thinking like a corporation. You buy something, you use it and thus get your value, it depreciates, you get whatever residual value you can for it, and you get something new that does more. Being really precious with tech means you're saving dimes and losing dollars.

But regarding your comparison to games on older systems, you're not getting anything less. When your PS3 stops becoming able to connect to PSN, it's only bringing in line with a PS1, which never had online capabilities to begin with. Saying older systems are better because they don't have an online component to lose is weird.

I can't speak for the current gen consoles as I own neither a PS4, XBox One or Wii U but all my consoles that I haven't sold all work fine. When I do buy one or more of those three I'll just look after them the same as the others and assume that they'll be fine.

I don't think the op was arguing that old consoles are better than new ones, just that new consoles have less longevity (theoretically). Older games were designed to be an isolated experience, but a lot of modern games utilize the Internet. If those Internet services go away (which may not even happen... technology is advancing, I think) you would be having an experience that is different than originally intended.

In theory that may make sense, but how many games really integrate online into every facet of the game? It's becoming more prominent now, but it's still not even close to a majority of all games released. Most games have online as an entirely separate and optional part of the game, and if we're being honest those become obsolete long before any potential shutdown simply due to dwindling player populations. A very large majority of console games feature an offline single player that will be functional forever. You will be able to put the Uncharted 2 disc in your PS3 and play the story for as long as you'll be able to stick Super Mario Bros. in an NES and play that.

@ll_exile_ll: Not every facet would be affected, sure. But say if I want to play some Mass Effect 3 multiplayer with some friends in the future and can't because it's no longer available... I'm not necessarily gonna want to play the single-player campaign as a substitute. In that case, dwindling populations don't matter because you only need to have 1-3 people to play with (or you can play solo, but you have to be online for that as well iirc because of the persistence stuff).

This is why all online games should come with a LAN option.

I don't know. Especially when you look at what can happen to a console loser like Sega or NeoGeo and frankly it's something that makes me hesitant to buy any of the new consoles. Realistically I rarely ever bust out my old games, but I want the option to do so if I choose.

There are still disc based games.

A lot of older consoles that are still working that don't use discs (NES, SNES, Genesis, ect.) have less moving parts which usually means less that can break. Current consoles have much more going on.

Personally my PS1 broke before the generation was done but my PS2 is still trucking. My Gamecube saw more use than my original Xbox and is older but yet that Xbox is having tray issues.

It's all about how that console was designed and made.

I feel like people are misinterpreting the question. I don't want to speak for the OP, but the way I understood the post, OP is wondering if the games for the "newer" consoles (starting from the 360 and PS3 onward) are going to last as long as the "older" consoles. Not in terms of hardware, but software since many games (and the consoles themselves) make use of servers/the internet. More or less, how are consoles going to work as we head closer toward the "all-digital" future.

I think. Personally, I'm all for it. I moved recently and fuck carrying things around. Sure, I "own" them, but then again, I "own" them. I have to move them with me and make sure they still work, etc. No thanks. I'd rather just load it up on my PC or something and lug around a gigantic (in terms of storage) external hard drive or have it live in a server somewhere.

I have a PS1 that is so beat up that i have to either put a weight on itor tape the lid shut, but the damn thing still works. Just gotta hold that lid closed.

My 360 is an old fat elite model thats like 7-8 years old, damn thing works like a champ. I've played it multiple hours almost everyday since i got it, plus semi-frequent all-day play sessions.

I trust consoles. PC's well they have all sorts of weird issues.

Almost all single player games will be playable when the servers go down. My main gripe with the aging of consoles is that with all the patching that consoles suffer to stay fresh and secure, the games after their launch window get little to no support from the developers with patches, what could potentially make the games less reliable with each console software update. So you could end up with old games in your collection working badly with your up to date console.

Thanks a lot for all the responses guys, I appreciate that some took the time to read my ramblings. I don't think I properly made my point here; I'm not referring to the longevity of current consoles in a hardware sense, but rather what would occur when a lot of the updates they are reliant upon are no longer there.
To put the question in a different way: What would the experience be like if I went and got a new PS3 from a store, and tried playing it without ever connecting to the internet?

And again, I am in no way trying to turn this into a nostalgia-fest. Gaming moving onto the internet is perhaps the largest innovation to have occurred. Not only can you access a massive library of previous, older games, but you can also purchase whatever new game you want digitally. Furthermore, the removal of the costs of physical manufacture and shipping has given smaller developers and publishers chances they could never have before.

Firmware updates are not "necessary" so much as they improve upon the hardwares abilities. Getting them will improve functionality, but are not ultimately required.

With PS3- for example- you could never use the internet and it would work fine.

The current generation I think requires updates once (when you buy it) but after that does not require it again.

I would speculate you would see no difference if you never plugged in the ethernet cable again- or on last gen devices you'd never know about the updates if you didn't care if they existed in the first place.

PS2 had online capabilites- but you didn't notice because you didn't use it. The original XBOX had online functionalities (and games did get patches online if you actually used it online) but most people probably didn't use it so didn't really notice this.

I suspect it would be the same still, although you would have to notice because now-a-days everything is online and you would have to plug them into the internet one time after purchase. You wouldn't have to bother beyond that, though.

So if the functionality went away this would make no difference to the consumer because the "updates" are generally not required.

Everything breaks. EVERYTHING. There's more than a few places to get them fixed, even after they die out.

It's on the user to find a place to get it repaired when it happens. In cases like this, Google and Bing are your friends.

While they didn't patch, even the Saturn and Dreamcast had online components that (mostly) can't be used today. Then of course there was the XBAND for Genesis and Super NES, and the Mega Modem for the Japanese Megadrive.

Yea man.

P.S. This song is rad.

P.P.S. Seriously, no sarcasm.