[quote name='eddie291']Where do you get these numbers? And why do you even bring up FPS? More memory != higher FPS
Not to derail the thread, but what does cost have to do with the performance it ultimately achieved(which is what we're talking about here)? And if by "certain stuff" you're talking about the OSs, then you're really grasping at straws here. 360 uses about 30mb, PS3 uses about 50mb. 20 mb is a negligible difference.
Actually, now that someone brought it up, it would be an interesting upgrade for this generation. I think its about this time 5 years ago in the original Xbox lifecycle where the 360 was announced and is just a few short months away from being released. You look at the industry now and see that no one is really planning an all-new console(well, an all-new home console at least).[/QUOTE]
They're just examples. I do think more memory helps with FPS especially if it is graphics memory or can be used as graphics memory like the PS3 is able to use it's CPU ram as GPU ram.
Your post reminds me of this post by Naughty Dog
Q4: With streaming technologies and the included HDD in every PS3, how important is actual memory? I ask because the PS3’s OS takes up so much more of the available 512MB than the 360’s OS does.s OS does.
A4: Main memory is a cache, but remember that a larger cache enables us to keep more data in memory at the same time, enabling more detail in textures. Therefore, every MB saved improves the quality of our game. We’ve solved most of our memory problems by relying on the SPEs to perform compression, both at load-time and at run-time, using techniques developed by ICE, SCEA Tools&Tech and the SCEE ATG group. So yes, memory footprint is very important to us.
PS3 originally had 120mb used up by it's OS. As of Dec 2009 it was down to 50mb.
http://www.playstationuniversity.com/ps3-os-footprint-slashed-to-50mb-1798/
[quote name='Chuplayer']The earliest PS1 consoles had an expansion port on the back. It was mostly used for Gameshark.
The fat PS2 consoles had the network adapter and hard disk port and bay.
While the PS3 has no such expansion slot, I feel it would have been insanely beneficial had they engineered a PS2 hardware BC slot into the newer PS3 consoles so they could be just like the original PS3s. But of course, Sony and the publishers would rather sell you your old games all over again as "HD remixes" instead of letting you use your PS3 for PS2 games.[/QUOTE]
PS1 and PS2 had expansion ports, but they were designed for other uses. I doubt they could be used for ram. Great idea about the PS2 BC slot.
[quote name='Salamando3000']1) A RAM expansion would be another addon to a console, not unlike the MotionPlus or Eyetoy. As such, it'd face the same issues any addon does. Unless it comes with the console at launch, only a percentage of the people that own the console are ever going to own one. In many cases, a very small percentage. So, most game developers find themselves asking "is it worth allocating resources to develop our game to use something 10% of total console owners own" and end up answering "no".
2) It won't be nearly as cheap as you plan out. "10$, or free with a game"? No way. Microsoft charges over $130 for it's 360 250gb hard drives. A 2.5" hard drive with 300gb is easily found for $50, to a normal consumer. That's a pretty large markup, and still people pay it. What's to stop them or anyone else from doing the same with RAM?
3) Even with an unlimited amount of RAM, the system will still have bottlenecks. Could be the processor, could be the GPU. Who cares if Dead Rising 2 can have a million zombies on screen if the GPU can't render them or the CPU can't handle the AI computations for a million zombies? All extra RAM allows one to do is load more stuff into memory. This could mean more objects, higher quality textures, or models with higher poly counts. It'll be for naught though if the other components can't handle it.
4) Consider online play. More and more games are going heavily online, to the point where single-player only games are becoming the exception. If the upgrade does something significant, like allowing more players in a game, they'd never get to use it. They'd either need to downgrade to the same level everyone else is using, or get stuck trying to find games with the other handful of people that own the RAM addon.[/QUOTE]
1) I look at Eyetoy and I do not equate it as comparable to ram because it is really limited in how many games can utilize it. I look at Motion Plus and I see that it is worthwhile to many people but it's much tougher to penetrate on the Wii userbase, which is also why I don't believe a ram expansion would be that great for that userbase.
Motion Plus also feeds into the entire game design making it tougher to utilize and more expensive than being able to optimize things to a higher level with ram or not downgrade them as much to begin with. In some cases yes this would also apply to ram. I think the number would be higher than 10% on a console like PS3 or 360. Given that ram is something developers fight with to achieve what they really set out to create I think this would also be a reason why they would utilize it.
2) Look at ram prices back when N64 was around. They were able to double the ram for $10-$30 more. Why are you comparing MS prices for their HDD's... those are way overpriced accessories they use to make pure profit. A Ram Expansion Pack is not about making money by selling it, it is about making games better. What's to stop them from doing that with this, common sense, unless the things sell beyond expectations, but even at that point they wouldn't be able to jack the price way up after starting low.
3) Looking at consoles, one of the main low points in their specs is RAM. When it comes to development we've seen this generation that RAM has held them back, especially if 360 did not get that increase thanks to Gears. This has been readily apparent on PS3 until developers were able to make up for it with the CPU cores and the drops in the OS footprint.
To say the system will still have bottlenecks does not negate the added benefit of the RAM nor that these other bottlenecks were holding every game back more than the RAM was. That's like saying you should not improve the tires on a car because the engine is still being tapped out as it is.
4) DLC separates the online userbase and separates it more than a RAM expansion would because for each and every game you need that DLC. Also, as I said earlier you could have two versions of the game especially with disc capacity today so you could just choose not to utilize the RAM for a specific online game if you did not want to have 24 players instead of 16 in case you wanted to play with someone without the RAM.
But this scenario would mean you would be trying to play with a friend and we already see friends go out of their way to be able to play together by buying DLC for multiple games at $10-15 each, buying $100-$150 HDDs, even basing which console to buy based on their friends. Thus, paying a small price for RAM that would benefit them in countless games both single and multiplayer would be a tiny price to pay in comparison.
[quote name='007']You can point out the N64 or Saturn as precedents, but the bottom line is that they aren't analogs to what's happening NOW. Both the N64 and the Saturn were the respective 'losers' of their generation, and both of their memory expansions were well into what were long, drawn out death throes. When a system is dying like that, it's generally the hardcore fanbase that's left... the fanbase who would understand and care about extra RAM. Shit, I guarantee that your average Wii owner doesn't even know what RAM is. It also is important to note that the expansion pack was given out like candy, being attached to some very high-profile releases that were likely to be purchased by that core group. Let's also be fair when we talk about games that required (Majora's Mask) or required in a roundabout way by running like crap without it (Perfect Dark), were games that, again, would be ones that the core base weren't going to miss, so they bought in.
This generation isn't the same. No console maker is going to take the chance of segmenting the userbase that way. Can you imagine the shitstorm if the newest Gears required an add-on to function, or function well? How about a new Madden or Call of Duty? Unless you are bundling the add-on in with every single copy of a huge game WITHOUT raising the costs, people will balk. It's been brought up before, but the benefit of consoles is, and always has been, that you don't need to worry about changes. It worked 5 years ago, it works now... that's the point. We are the outlier group in all of this, and that's an important thing to remember. We understand the benefits of upgrading, we understand what exactly it would do... the other 75% of the userbase doesn't. They don't care. They just want to be able to buy their new Call of Duty or Halo and have it work. No more, no less.
There are just so many things that would need to happen to make this feasible that it's almost a complete impossibility.[/QUOTE]
The players on consoles from the mid 90s had much less knowledge about their components than people do today. They were on avg younger & Nintendo does have more younger users on their consoles as well. It's not always hardcore userbase only either as many new users buy the systems as they get discounted over the years, especially moms and pops that don't realize what system is successful with the most games, etc.
I've already indicated that the Wii userbase is not the right system for a RAM Expansion. I've also stated that the same could be done now, i.e. pack in the ram with high profile games.
No console maker is going to segment the userbase again in that way? What about Motion +, Kinect, Move, and all the other accessories? What about Xbox Live needed for online gaming? What about selling some of your consoles with HDD"s and some without HDD's? Is it not segmenting more by requiring a $100-$150 purchase by itself than just buying a game that has a RAM bonus or $10 extra, or standalone for $30? What about DLC for every game?
Where is the shitstorm for Zelda Skyward Sword requiring Motion +? Where's the shitstorm for people complaining that consoles were no longer consoles because of the N64 and Saturn RAM expansions? It's been done before, it was successful, the barriers are smaller now.
Did you think people were going to believe this was your first post? 
