Gaming consoles: Features vs Durability

[Alolan_Apples]

It's been a while since one of Bell Tree's biggest blogger made his last entry. Today, I'm here to talk about some tidbits in society. I'm gonna steer clear of politics and discussions in the news since it's not blog-worthy in my opinion, while something else struck me. I was reading about console comparisons, and I noticed that in some battles, the older ones win, and it's not just limited to their libraries. Simplicity and nostalgia were two things in the battle. But here's what struck me. While newer consoles have so many special features that older consoles lacked, older consoles had a better grade in durability.

As I was surfing the web, I was reading an article on why the Nintendo 64 was more superior than the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. One reason was durability. To me, it kinda makes sense, but it's has nothing to do with generation or distributor. In a time when the Wii U is phasing out because of the NX rumors, some people still have a working N64 system. Meanwhile, there were many stories about the Red Ring of Death and the Yellow Light of Death. Some of these units didn't even last four to five years.

Judging by this information (as well as how older iPhones had a longer lasting battery), I'm beginning to wonder. Why are older systems still working fine, but newer systems die too soon? Was it that during the days of the older systems, they were more sturdily built while newer consoles had many faults in production, or was it because the enhanced graphics, wi-fi, and other special features used more energy than older systems did? It could be one, the other, or both. Or it could be related to the company that was producing the systems. If that was the case, then yes, I kinda agree that there were more technical problems with Sony's and Xbox's systems than Nintendo's. The yellow light of death was rarer than the red ring of death, especially on newer models. It could be that Nintendo was in the gaming industry longer than Sony and Microsoft, just like how older drivers drive better than younger drivers. Experience is a major factor.

But here's the bright side. While newer systems were worse when it comes to durability, they were actually better in some ways. We didn't have digital shops back in the N64 days. Now we do. Newer consoles had home screens and were rather not simple. You can have multiple games on one console without switching games. Controllers were wireless. And they can connect online. This shows that no console or handheld was perfectly better than another.

What do you think is the reason why durability isn't as good as it used to be? Do you agree with any of my points, or is there something else you have to add?

 

[JCnator]

Another reason why the more recent generations of home consoles are less reliable than the older ones is due of the liability of the disc drive found in pretty much every console generation since PlayStation 2.

It all began by the implementation of the CD technology on video game consoles, starting with Turbografx-16/PC-Engine CD add-on that dates as far as around late 80s. It is later popularized starting in 1994 by Sony PlayStation 1, which made slower loading 700MB CDs cheaper to produce and sell than the faster loading 64MB N64 cartridges. At this point, subsequent home consoles all followed suit and never went back to the cartridge format.

The problem with disc drives is that they have tendency to stop working after years of continued usage, whereas the cartridges can still be played even after 35 years since its first release regardless of their battery's state if they have any. Disc drives also consume more energy and is more prone to overheating than a cartridge reader. And they can't be as easily replaced than with a desktop PC. Though, a busted-out disc drive on a 7th and higher generation home console doesn't mean it can't longer play games, since there are also downloadable games.

It's also worth mentioning that Nintendo usually takes greater care on making their consoles more durable and energy efficient than both Sony and Microsoft, therefore their hardware will still most likely work after a couple of decades or so. Granted, the company started to slack a bit on the durability since the day Wii was released, but they're still leading in that department.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

Another reason why the more recent generations of home consoles are less reliable than the older ones is due of the liability of the disc drive found in pretty much every console generation since PlayStation 2.

It all began by the implementation of the CD technology on video game consoles, starting with Turbografx-16/PC-Engine CD add-on that dates as far as around late 80s. It is later popularized starting in 1994 by Sony PlayStation 1, which made slower loading 700MB CDs cheaper to produce and sell than the faster loading 64MB N64 cartridges. At this point, subsequent home consoles all followed suit and never went back to the cartridge format.

The problem with disc drives is that they have tendency to stop working after years of continued usage, whereas the cartridges can still be played even after 35 years since its first release regardless of their battery's state if they have any. Disc drives also consume more energy and is more prone to overheating than a cartridge reader. And they can't be as easily replaced than with a desktop PC. Though, a busted-out disc drive on a 7th and higher generation home console doesn't mean it can't longer play games, since there are also downloadable games.

It's also worth mentioning that Nintendo usually takes greater care on making their consoles more durable and energy efficient than both Sony and Microsoft, therefore their hardware will still most likely work after a couple of decades or so. Granted, the company started to slack a bit on the durability since the day Wii was released, but they're still leading in that department.

That sounds pretty true. Thanks for explaining it pretty well. Regardless, all three games have a weak point.

Cartridges - can't store as much memory as a disk or digital download can. Super Mario 64 has very small levels compared to DK64, which requires the expansion pack.
Disks - you explained it pretty well.
Digital - you can only have a few games downloaded onto your console due to using a lot of memory (especially HD). I was going to buy Super Mario 3D World, but it takes a lot of memory, so I opted out.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

I just noticed something else that made older consoles better. Yes, cartridges don't have much space, but they did have something else. Like you said, the cartridge games move much faster. In fact, I don't remember the times when it took a while for the cartridge games to load the next scene. When I was playing LBP, I remembered waiting for ages for the game to load up, which was annoying.