What about a PC-console hybrid?

Back in the 90’s there was a distinct difference between PCs and consoles, with PCs being signficantly stronger and offering much more customization. Recently however, consoles are becoming more and more like PC’s with hard drives, internet connectivity, stronger hardware, and even an OS of sorts, such as the Dashboard for the 360. However, they’re still different enough such that the PC versions of games usually have much more options, and are able to output graphics at higher settings. The increased connectivity also allows games such as Team Fortress 2 to be patched and updated very quickly. But with that said, consoles provide extremely good performance for the price, sometimes offering games with visuals above and beyond even what a medium gaming PC can do.

But here lies the problems. While consoles certainly give good bang for buck and are easy to use, they become trapped in time and end up abandoned later on as developers move to the next generation of hardware. There are no 360 games, even the worst looking ones, that can run on the original Xbox. The unique architectures of consoles also make them fairly hard to code for, especially in the first couple of years.

Gaming PCs on the other hand are very expensive, and a single component upgrade can cost more than an entire console. PC developers are also unable to optimize games as fully as is possible on consoles. Look at games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2; arguably some of the best looking games on any platform, they are able to run on what is essentially 4-5 year old hardware. This is because the PS3 is a fixed platform, and the number of optimizations that can be done on a fixed platform with expert developers would blow your mind.

While games such as Crysis look better than anything available on consoles, they also require far more hardware power to do so. Factor in vastly different hardware configurations, driver issues, Nvidia vs. Ati based coding, and different versions of standards such as DirectX, there’s simply no way for developers to optimize a game in the way they can do a console, making PC comparatively powerful, but very inefficient at what it does.

Due to the above disadvantages of consoles and PCs, I’m proposing the concept of a PC-console hybrid platform. This would be a highly modular machine with consumer-friendly input slots of key components such as graphics cards, processors and   hard drives. It would use current (or future) computer standards of connectivity such that any future upgrades would be easily implemented on the machine, and doing so would be no harder than inserting a cartridge into an SNES.

It would first be sold essentially as a console, but its modular nature would then allow for specialized future upgrades provided by the parent company such as graphics cards, much like how Nintendo’s peripherals such as the Wii Motion Plus and Wii Balance Board work. These custom upgrades could be provided by the parent company x-annually, much like how the Xbox 360 is getting Natal about halfway through its life cycle or how the Wii got MotionPlus a couple of years into its. In a way similar to the N64 expansion pack but much better supported. Look at it as upgrading from a Nintendo DS to a DSi, but without having to actually rebuy an entire machine and at much less of a cost proportionally.

This would provide a somewhat uniform platform for developers to develop on, while at the same time maintaining a high degree of hardware strength. The cost of buying these “peripherals”  can be offset by the money saved on games due to digital distribution, which would in turn be far more feasible due to larger hard drive space and a more desktop-based OS. If Microsoft were to make such a machine they could implement Windows on it for example.  

The advantages of a PC-console hybrid include:

- Reduced cost to PC gamers due to mass production; no more $2000 gaming machines necessary to play the latest games at max graphics. Would not be significantly more expensive for people who prefer consoles either.

- Fixed platform, allowing for the optimization seen in current consoles.

- Much stronger hardware available in consoles. A game as well optimized as Uncharted 2 with 10 times the hardware power would truly be a sight to behold. Modular structure would also allow self-upgrades of things such as the hard drive to anything you want.

- Reduced cost to developers; the cost of developing multiplatform scales almost linearly with the number of extra platforms involved. With just one platform, and one that is under a standard that most developers would agree to (such as DirectX), the cost of development would go down and even more and better could content could be implemented into games. 

- Introduction of computer technology to the mass market.

- Brings digital distribution to the consoles in a big way; Steam on a console? Hell yes.

- Tying into digital distribution, cost of buying games goes down.     
 
- Would be able to support any controller configuration you want, including keyboard and mouse, joystick, 360 controller etc.   

- Indefinite lifespan.

There are probably disadvantages to this idea as well, but at first I would say that the given obvious advantages far outweigh any possible disadvantages, and that such a system would greatly benefit gamers currently on PC’s and consoles alike.    

I'm all for it, if we can expand on the console like how the N64 let you use a memory pack for better framerates and textures. I also wish the ps3 had that option to add more ram or change the gpu. It would give you better resolution and textures for multiplatform games, however you would have to pay for it yourself and it's optional, not required. Installation would be easy as moving a card out of a slot without the need for complicated pc installation procedures, rather it's just a plug and play sort of upgrade which would be entirely optional because there should be enough graphics at default.  
 
However that's the problem, consoles aren't a pc regardless, you can't really make a console a pc unless you are able to upgrade which you can't. I'm sure it features alot of things that are like a pc, however as you said it's still a static console. If anything, you want the optimizations back, pc developers would have to redevelope these games on the pc first, sort of like what japanese companies are doing like capcom, then porting it to consoles and scaled to whatever power the console could run at. Then again pc is getting less developer support due to piracy and how they can make more money on consoles, so that wouldn't happen. I say to those if you want that sort of power a pc has, the power is there, it's just you have to pay for it which isn't cheap.

well PC gaming has sucked because of the developers not caring about the release of the PC version. it is just something that i hate about the PC. they don't give as much love as the consoles sometimes. modern warfare 2 is a great example of that. we need mod support for the games, dedicated servers. 
 
steam on the consoles would sound like an alright thing. something tells me that it wont' work like with microsoft. microsoft just wants money from developers. the team fortress 2 thing, PC version gets great updates while xbox 360 version microsoft wants people to pay money to get those.

"PC gaming has sucked"

  @  iam3green  
If it wasnt for PC Gaming Consoles would not have a lot of their franchises.. The Call of Duty series was initially targetted at the PC market and gained its popularity there. Even up to COD4 it was being developed for PC and ported to the Consoles.. 
 
There was talk of this in the past,  it was to be called the Phantom. being developed by   Phantom Entertainment, formerly Infinium Labs. Its was slated to play current and future PC games and use Direct download as its medium for getting games. The Console itself was announced in 2002 and first seen at E3 in 2004 near the end of that year it had become apparent that the company still not developed the online delivery system, licensed games or found any retailers. It missed its deadline a few times, including a deadline around the same time as the Xbox360. In early 2006 it was stated that it was to be put on hold indefinitely awaiting further funding, before later that year being completely removed from the company website and cancelled.

From what I've seen, OnLive seems to be the first real step in this direction. It may not be a console, per-say, but how it's organized from a social, distribution and processing standpoint it could very well be the true "PC Console ". 
That or the iGuGu Gamecore

I like the idea, Geno. I'm almost certain there's some company out there that is already working on a prototype. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft might get involved somehow. I think I even remember hearing that Dell might be interested in entering the Video Game Industry in one form or the other. Who knows, but I think we may see something within the next 10 years.

The downside of a project like this is that PC Games keep getting more and more advanced and regardless what spec that you put into the console it will be outdated again in 6 months. I built a top of the range gaming PC 2 years ago costing nearly $2500.. I have recently had to update it to keep up with the requirements to play current games, in a fixed console this would not be possible giving the machine a lifespan of at most 18 to 24 months.. 

Well.. Upgradeable consoles has existed in the 80s, and it didn't work out too well.

This sounds like a horrible idea.  32X and Sega CD anyone?

A logistical problem I see with this is that top-of-the-line hardware often requires a change in the form factor, and for something that is meant to be self-contained and portable like a console, this could get very messy very quickly. I remember being shocked when I was shopping for the video card I have now and discovered that a current-gen card takes two slots and twice the power. The only way I can think to avoid that is to make new hardware to fit on the motherboard the thing ships with and in the slots provided, but that would severely limit the sort of upgrades that could be performed. Plus, what if games are designed that push the hardware that become considerably less stable on consoles that haven't had custom parts installed? The only way it's been done successfully in the past was with something like the N64 RAM expansions, but that was a pretty superficial change.
 
I've also given this some thought, and I think the best thing would be a monolithic PC manufacturer (think Apple except not a pain to upgrade) that builds a variety of PCs that are easily upgraded with modular parts. It's still a PC and it runs a familiar OS (the company I imagine would have a custom Linux distro because a strong, centralized repository is important for accessibility, and like a console manufacturer would want custom software to restrict disc copying, etc), but the components are more standardized and easier to replace (like your idea with the SNES cart metaphor). A large part of the barrier to entry for the PC market is that Joe Six-Pack doesn't know a lot about jumpers or pin counts... but then that would have some of the same problems as the console - either new base models still need to be released or the sort of upgrades you do are going to have a ceiling.
 
Plus, no company would ever want to do it. I lost all hope for this sort of thing ever happening when Microsoft started dumping epoxy on their firmware chips to prevent people from running Linux on a 360. It just creates too many opportunities for hackers, which is a large part of why developers started fleeing the PC as a development platform in the first place.

This thread is full of ignorance.  But I'll just point out
 
"
Reduced cost to PC gamers due to mass production; no more $2000 gaming machines necessary to play the latest games at max graphics. Would not be significantly more expensive for people who prefer consoles either."
 
2000 dollar machines are necessary to play games at max graphics?  ROFL!  Comments like that just prove how little you know about gaming.  Just stick to your console son.

Just to referance the previous poster, I am currently running MW2 balls to the wall at 1900x1200 res, max settings, on a quad 2.8, 8gig ram, nvidia 8800gtx, which would cost maybe $600-$700 these days

" @cess: Pretty sure the OP knows what he is talking about. Yes you can build a gaming pc for somewhat cheap but you wont be able to run at high resolutions fully maxed. If you want to go balls to the wall high end components and max everything out at 1900x1200 resolution every setting maxed. then yes you are looking to spend around $2000 for all components. "

" This thread is full of ignorance.  But I'll just point out  " Reduced cost to PC gamers due to mass production; no more $2000 gaming machines necessary to play the latest games at max graphics. Would not be significantly more expensive for people who prefer consoles either."  2000 dollar machines are necessary to play games at max graphics?  ROFL!  Comments like that just prove how little you know about gaming.  Just stick to your console son. "

You can max out almost every PC game for about $500. 
 

@wolf_blitzer85:

PC gaming is moving in a plug-and-play direction anyway.  I changed my graphics card today by popping out the old and inserting the new one.  I connected two power cables and *walah* I was up and running again.  Since my old drivers were still NVidia and up to date, I really didn't have to install replacements.  Although, I did anyway and that amounted to downloading them then running the installation program.  A decade ago when I was a serious PC gamer, these things were time consuming and confusing.  Not so anymore.  The PC hardware makers have gone out of their way to dumb it down so that with just a small amount of knowledge "Joe Average" can get their PCs running most games smooth and shiny.

Going slightly off topic, Just very quickly, nothing matched properly or anything, this is what a current top of the range PC would set you back.. Also this price is in euro's 

Yes, fancy case and 12GB ram will be awesome for gaming. You could add a second graphics card there, or a third (the mobo has 3 PCI-E slots!) to show how costly they are even more! And don't forget an eyefinity monitor setup! You'll end up needing 5000 for a top of the line PC!

That screen would put me off.. having to physically move my head to look around it.. Terrible for gaming IMO.. 
 
Anyway back on topic, A console for pc gaming although would be great it is completely unfeasable

The future of console gaming isn't upgradeable hardware for the product, it's releasing a product with powerful enough hardware that as the console ages it still provides a competitive edge for the product against its competitors. Current generation consoles have lasted longer than most of us expected them too, folks appreciate this as they definitely feel like they've received their moneys worth. And developers appreciate it as the job of creating games for them is easier since the hardware stays the same and all they have to do is find new ways to utilise it and optimise their games with it.
 
Bringing upgradeable hardware into the equation starts creating the problem of development for games being even more difficult, consumers feeling pressured into paying yet more money out of their pockets. And the most worrying of all being the parent companies of consoles intentionally lowering original hardware in the product so they can sell more advanced hardware later down the line.
 
In theory it sounds good to me, but in practice I don't think it would work. Simply because I feel producing a console with decent and powerful hardware designed to last longer than a few years is a better solution.

The DS XL sprouted out of the idea of making a hyrbid console and handheld.
 
Maybe Nintendo will explore it in the future.

HAHAH post fail... epic for the win... 
 

" @wolf_blitzer85 said:

" @cess: Pretty sure the OP knows what he is talking about. Yes you can build a gaming pc for somewhat cheap but you wont be able to run at high resolutions fully maxed. If you want to go balls to the wall high end components and max everything out at 1900x1200 resolution every setting maxed. then yes you are looking to spend around $2000 for all components. "

But that's not what most people get, and still enjoy visuals far superior to consoles with better performance. That there are settings you can crank up to levels most don't even notice the improvement of doesn't mean much. No matter how much you spend you could always say something ridiculous like "oh, I want to play this on a 12-screen setup at 1080p times 12 resolution total so I need to spend more!" or whatever. Besides, a system as described here wouldn't offer the best of the best of the best visuals if it was meant to be a mass produced lower cost system either. So what would it be? A mass produced mid range PC. Like most people have anyway. Except it would become a more closed platform, so a console.

"

*woosh* ?

"@jams: Insert html and paste this for it to be readable: <img src="http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/7/71102/1246563-pc.png"> "

Standardization is the biggest advantage consoles have.  If you start introducing modular upgrades, all you achieve is undermining that advantage and splitting the user base.  If you have to start making your game work on, say, 15 different possible configurations instead of 1, you immediately start losing the benefit of optimization.  If you have more than 1 possible configuration then your platform is neither fixed nor uniform.  
 
Realistically, I don't see how these modular upgrades would be much cheaper than an equivalent PC component anyway.  Consoles are only as cheap as they are because they can tool up to make x million identical components, and because those components are the bare minimum they can get away with (and sometimes not even that if you take the RROD problem).  What I mean by that is, if you take your proposed 'Initial Base Unit' and swap out the modular GPU, suddenly you need to replace the bare-minimum PSU because it's no longer powerful enough, or you need to replace the cooling system because it can't cope.  If you future-proof those components for such an eventuality (like you might if you were building a PC), then they are initially better - and therefore more expensive - than they need to be, and you lose the 'cheapness' that is inherent to console production.
 
Really all you end up with is an idiot-proof PC.  I don't think you would see any of the cost or optimization benefits you get from a traditional console.

" This thread is full of ignorance.  But I'll just point out  " Reduced cost to PC gamers due to mass production; no more $2000 gaming machines necessary to play the latest games at max graphics. Would not be significantly more expensive for people who prefer consoles either."  2000 dollar machines are necessary to play games at max graphics?  ROFL!  Comments like that just prove how little you know about gaming.  Just stick to your console son. "

@Al3xand3r

Anyway, it seems you're suggesting for the gpu and cpu companies to stop competing trying to offer better things than each other and instead provide a particular performance at a particular cost and never put anything else out unless they all decide it's time to jump the performance, essentially putting out a console in collaboration with each other. That wouldn't be a PC in the end. And to counteract that collaboration which would mean less profit potential (after all they all try to grab the biggest market share they can) they'd likely attempt to control their new "platform" and enforce fees and what not like first parties do essentially breaking the fact the PC is an open platform with no controlling first party (it's bad enough Microsoft has this kind of grasp on it, we shouldn't wish for more control) where the consumer often decides its direction via what hardware sells the most as software generally prefers hardware people own, with certain exceptions of niche software that targets high end only systems.

" Standardization is the biggest advantage consoles have.  If you start introducing modular upgrades, all you achieve is undermining that advantage and splitting the user base.  If you have to start making your game work on, say, 15 different possible configurations instead of 1, you immediately start losing the benefit of optimization.  If you have more than 1 possible configuration then your platform is neither fixed nor uniform.    Realistically, I don't see how these modular upgrades would be much cheaper than an equivalent PC component anyway.  Consoles are only as cheap as they are because they can tool up to make x million identical components, and because those components are the bare minimum they can get away with (and sometimes not even that if you take the RROD problem).  What I mean by that is, if you take your proposed 'Initial Base Unit' and swap out the modular GPU, suddenly you need to replace the bare-minimum PSU because it's no longer powerful enough, or you need to replace the cooling system because it can't cope.  If you future-proof those components for such an eventuality (like you might if you were building a PC), then they are initially better - and therefore more expensive - than they need to be, and you lose the 'cheapness' that is inherent to console production.  Really all you end up with is an idiot-proof PC.  I don't think you would see any of the cost or optimization benefits you get from a traditional console. "

@jams 
 
You do if you want it to still be a gaming PC in 2 years, Power PSU for multiple GPU's and hd's..  
 
for that specific GPU the minimum power requirement is  550W, taken from  http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_285_us.html 
 
Case is a little overboard alright, but cant say no to a nice case :)

Everybody seems to be forgetting the elephant sitting in the middle of the room which is what is probably preventing most of these things from happening. Ill give you a hint, its everybody in the industry's worst nightmare and strange design choices have sprung up thanks to this fear. PIRACY!
 
One of the things that the console manufacturers can say these days is don't open up your X-Machine or your warranty is expired, also, we'll pull an apple and booby trap the inside so unless you are skilled and know you're way around the product (most console tards don't believe you me), you'll inadvertently rip some ribbon or in some way make it clear that you forced open the product and we don't need to give you a new one. Now obviously the pirates and hackers EVENTUALLY win out every time, but part of what delays them is for many, the fear of opening up the console and fucking something up permanently. 
 
Now if we have some PC-console hybrid that requires you to open up the thing to make changes to it, this gives people the right to play around obviously and it is much harder to know when something was an honest mistake or the work of a tweak gone wrong. Think of it, open up the machine, try to tweak something the size of a fly's testicle, get it right and play free games forever, get it wrong, take it to the store and ask for a new one. Many today are scared off because they know there will be no free replacement if they make a mistake, no free lunch. 
 
In short, very idealistic idea, but the day Nintendo lets you make changes to the console is the day they retire the Mario franchise.

" @jams 
 
You do if you want it to still be a gaming PC in 2 years, Power PSU for multiple GPU's and hd's..  
 
for that specific GPU the minimum power requirement is  550W, taken from  http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_285_us.html  Case is a little overboard alright, but cant say no to a nice case :) "

" Everybody seems to be forgetting the elephant sitting in the middle of the room which is what is probably preventing most of these things from happening. Ill give you a hint, its everybody in the industry's worst nightmare and strange design choices have sprung up thanks to this fear. PIRACY!  One of the things that the console manufacturers can say these days is don't open up your X-Machine or your warranty is expired, also, we'll pull an apple and booby trap the inside so unless you are skilled and know you're way around the product (most console tards don't believe you me), you'll inadvertently rip some ribbon or in some way make it clear that you forced open the product and we don't need to give you a new one. Now obviously the pirates and hackers EVENTUALLY win out every time, but part of what delays them is for many, the fear of opening up the console and fucking something up permanently.   Now if we have some PC-console hybrid that requires you to open up the thing to make changes to it, this gives people the right to play around obviously and it is much harder to know when something was an honest mistake or the work of a tweak gone wrong. Think of it, open up the machine, try to tweak something the size of a fly's testicle, get it right and play free games forever, get it wrong, take it to the store and ask for a new one. Many today are scared off because they know there will be no free replacement if they make a mistake, no free lunch.   In short, very idealistic idea, but the day Nintendo lets you make changes to the console is the day they retire the Mario franchise. "

are you talking about the Igugu gamecore?

Motionplus sure, and from the onset ok, you raise a good point about the essentials being streamlined, but do you really think that a machine that is supposed to last for 15+ years with parts upgrades is going to have readymade slots that can just swap out any time for every single thing they think of changing? The PC is a tad easier because we know all the basic things you can/want to swap out, RAM sticks, cards etc. You take something like a console that has any amount of crazy peripherals that they didnt know were going to exist when they first designed the machine and you run into a dearth of problems. 
 
Also, remember, im not saying consoles are free of piracy, I also mentioned that the pirates always win eventually, but im sure that some people are scared off by the notion that their changes could brick their machine. I know for a fact that there are more out there, you can fly under the radar, piracy is rampant, but nowhere near as easy or pervasive as on the PC.
 
Also big ups to fate for having me sit down and reload the page when you edited your last comment 0 min ago, thats how conversations keep rolling.

Eww. No. Geno, I realize you're a complete graphics whore, but I'll keep my open platform. I really don't feel like sucking any one companies dick; I'd rather they compete for my talents.

" @cess: I can't believe you just called Geno a console gamer.
 

It would be easier to optimize for than a PC today, but still harder than a console today.  

It wouldn't be in this hybrid-platform maker's best interests to sell components at a loss (as they'd be selling a lot more hardware), so while you'd gain some efficiency through mass production it wouldn't be a large gain over the current model where Nvidia or ATI make 2 million video cards of a certain build. 

You'd have to win over the entire market and no company has ever done that and it's unlikely to ever happen. It would be a good thing to have such a platform in the industry, but it would be far from a silver bullet for all the problems on consoles or PC today. "

With stuff like alternate OS capability and keyboard support, the older PS3 models are damn close, aren't they?

" The future of console gaming isn't upgradeable hardware for the product, it's releasing a product with powerful enough hardware that as the console ages it still provides a competitive edge for the product against its competitors. Current generation consoles have lasted longer than most of us expected them too, folks appreciate this as they definitely feel like they've received their moneys worth. And developers appreciate it as the job of creating games for them is easier since the hardware stays the same and all they have to do is find new ways to utilise it and optimise their games with it.  Bringing upgradeable hardware into the equation starts creating the problem of development for games being even more difficult, consumers feeling pressured into paying yet more money out of their pockets. And the most worrying of all being the parent companies of consoles intentionally lowering original hardware in the product so they can sell more advanced hardware later down the line.  In theory it sounds good to me, but in practice I don't think it would work. Simply because I feel producing a console with decent and powerful hardware designed to last longer than a few years is a better solution. "

A big difference between the Wii and the Phillips CDi and the 3DO example however is that they were playing catch-up with the PC while the Wii is a gaming experience all its own.

" @SeriouslyNow: Valid points, but I think you're ignoring the effects that the mainstream marketing push has had in more recent times. Look at the number of people who have bought Wii MotionPlus, which came bundled in every Wii Sports Resort. Wii Sports Resort has sold 13 million copies; there are thus at least that many people who bought the peripheral out there, or about a quarter of the Wii audience and growing. Looking at Natal, I'm willing to bet that the majority of 360 owners will get one at some point after its launch as well. If the console was marketed from the ground up as being this highly adaptive modular system, and marketed to people the periodic upgrades as they came out, I think it would have far more success than the CDi and 3DO, which at the time had extremely limited marketing resources, and only a small audience.  "

PC gaming is already becoming more and more like console gaming. Swapping out RAM and video cards,  even processors is much more simple than it used to be. It's no longer necessary to use complicated water-cooling or overclocking and whatever other weird PC things people were doing.

" I like the idea, Geno. I'm almost certain there's some company out there that is already working on a prototype. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft might get involved somehow. I think I even remember hearing that Dell might be interested in entering the Video Game Industry in one form or the other. Who knows, but I think we may see something within the next 10 years. "