Thank you for the long and informative reply, I actually learned a few things from this. I had this thought in my head for such a long while and I needed someone to really tell me the pros and cons of such a device. So again thank you and everyone else for their time in addressing this. It seems that there are more troubles with this idea than I previously thought.thesilentman said:
Why doesn't Microsoft just make a PC/Console hybrid? (Tech savvy people please respond.)
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because that has been tried and failed spectacularly everytime.
How would one go about that nowadays anyways? I have a machine here with which i can play most games (after i worked for a few eternities to get around copy protection). Why would i buy a new machine?
How exactly would a machine that can do what my PC can do and what a console can do look like? Like ye olde Amiga computers perhaps?
Those Amigas had good fansupport and took quite some time to eventually vanish from the market.
But vanish they did and it was a niche product to begin with. Today, the PC market is apparently too small for some developers to port their games.
How would one go about that nowadays anyways? I have a machine here with which i can play most games (after i worked for a few eternities to get around copy protection). Why would i buy a new machine?
How exactly would a machine that can do what my PC can do and what a console can do look like? Like ye olde Amiga computers perhaps?
Those Amigas had good fansupport and took quite some time to eventually vanish from the market.
But vanish they did and it was a niche product to begin with. Today, the PC market is apparently too small for some developers to port their games.
Because that would be Microsoft inching towards a Vertical Monopoly, and they already went to court during the 90's for violating corporate law.
I'd postulate that it's more of a marketing thing rather than a hardware thing.
Consoles are designed to be simple, convenient and cheap. Perfect for the "casual" gamer or someone who just wants to get to the games quickly and easily. The mass market. To people like us who have in depth knowledge about the industry and the hardware, what you've described seems like an obvious choice and obviously a good thing, but I think the average consumer probably wouldn't understand it unless it was explained very carefully to them.
I think the market for this kind of thing is actually pretty small. Most consoles users like their consoles for being quick, easy, and cheap. Most PC users want the most customization possible. This kind of system would really only appeal to a very specific demographic that wants a little bit of customization, but not as much as a PC.
The other thing is that it's not a good business strategy for consoles to let users upgrade rather than buy a whole new console. Unless Microsoft is locking out all competition except their own first party graphics cards, they won't profit from users upgrading, and they won't profit from new console sales that would have replaced upgrading. As devious as it seems, I don't think it's a smart choice as a system designer to lengthen the lifespan of your system. That is a great feature on paper, and might convince more people to buy a system at first, but might also limit your revenue later in the system's life.
Another issue was brought up by Jim in a Jimquisition episode called something like "The irony of PC gaming" in that graphics are the most commonly brought up advantage of PC gaming, but the real advantages are the library, the customization, the modding, the indie games, etc. Practically everything but the graphics are real, solid, objective features the PC lauds over consoles. The graphics should simply be seen as the icing on the cake, not the main advantage.
Anyway, that's why I think it might not work. HOWEVER, if Microsoft can make the Kinect of all things sell, fucking ANYTHING is possible, and they might just be able to pull it off.
Consoles are designed to be simple, convenient and cheap. Perfect for the "casual" gamer or someone who just wants to get to the games quickly and easily. The mass market. To people like us who have in depth knowledge about the industry and the hardware, what you've described seems like an obvious choice and obviously a good thing, but I think the average consumer probably wouldn't understand it unless it was explained very carefully to them.
I think the market for this kind of thing is actually pretty small. Most consoles users like their consoles for being quick, easy, and cheap. Most PC users want the most customization possible. This kind of system would really only appeal to a very specific demographic that wants a little bit of customization, but not as much as a PC.
The other thing is that it's not a good business strategy for consoles to let users upgrade rather than buy a whole new console. Unless Microsoft is locking out all competition except their own first party graphics cards, they won't profit from users upgrading, and they won't profit from new console sales that would have replaced upgrading. As devious as it seems, I don't think it's a smart choice as a system designer to lengthen the lifespan of your system. That is a great feature on paper, and might convince more people to buy a system at first, but might also limit your revenue later in the system's life.
Another issue was brought up by Jim in a Jimquisition episode called something like "The irony of PC gaming" in that graphics are the most commonly brought up advantage of PC gaming, but the real advantages are the library, the customization, the modding, the indie games, etc. Practically everything but the graphics are real, solid, objective features the PC lauds over consoles. The graphics should simply be seen as the icing on the cake, not the main advantage.
Anyway, that's why I think it might not work. HOWEVER, if Microsoft can make the Kinect of all things sell, fucking ANYTHING is possible, and they might just be able to pull it off.
To prod the second post here.
It's not good for the bottom line.
Besides, it's easier to close off a console than anything with the freedom a PC provides. If it's got PC capabilities, it becomes more open to modification which also is bad for the bottom line. That's why the Other OS option was removed from the PS3.
It's not good for the bottom line.
Besides, it's easier to close off a console than anything with the freedom a PC provides. If it's got PC capabilities, it becomes more open to modification which also is bad for the bottom line. That's why the Other OS option was removed from the PS3.