Support NeoGAF

[Bitch Pudding]

Exactly. and it's common sense to understand that.

So, what u are saying is, that at a certain point, there will be a fundamental (hence not: incremental) change of hardware. Or in other words: A generational leap.

Like, XBOX 3.1 instead of XBOX 2.3 (3rd upgrade of XBOX 2).

Doesn't that contradict the incremental innovation concept mentionend in the OT?

Besides, how long should each generation carry the forward compatability burden of its first SKUs? 3, 6, 9 or 12 years? I call those numbers because some people here mentioned an upgrade every 3 years would just be fine.

Then again, will people with a XBOX 2.3 be bothered to buy 3.1? I mean, they just spent money for yet another upgrade, why switching to the new one? And what's the incentive for developers here? Spending resources for optimiziation of 2.3 games which just a minority owns? Shouldn't they focus on the standard SKU?

EDIT

If I was Sony I'd release PS5 one year after MS launches XBOX 2.3, making it dead in the water and giving Sony a 2 year head-start of it's newest generation.

The second reason I believe this is a bad avenue for Microsoft, is for the same reason you never announce a slim model months in advance. I already know one person who was planning on buying an Xbox One, but who now is holding off until Microsoft announce more details. Multiply that incertitude by 100 million. The net effect is you have people with perpetual cold feet, not knowing if a more powerful unit is around the corner. Meanwhile, PS4 continues to fly off the shelves.

Good point, indeed. I believe we'll see first results of that very early announcement quite soon within the sales threads.

 

[twobear]

how are people interpreting 'we are going to make more consoles' as 'we are leaving the console business'? that seems more like wishful thinking.

 

[Synth]

If Sony are going to have a regular cycle then by the time they come along the xbox will either be there or .5 behind.

It will blow the traditional "console war" out of the water. It won't even be a thing any more unless Sony do the same thing. It would be like 3 Nintendo each doing their own thing, be damned what the other's are up to.

Possibly.. this is just my thinking

But I would imagine Sony would get on board and do something similar. as half way through the gen a lt of people would jump ship back to MS for Multi plats.

Yea, essentially. The latest Xbox would either be aligned with the newest PlayStation at the time, or would be a increment behind (making the next increment somewhat similar to a slightly later launch, which has been very common in past generations). If this model were to show to be working for MS, then it's possible that Sony would try for it as well.. but they have less of an incentive to imo (no extended ecosystem outside of the console) and it would basically just have the effect of making console generations effectively shorter, with each odd generation being remaster city, lol.

 

[ramparter]

If this is a stealth MS bail-out from console manufacturing announcement, that's some very good news, and long overdue.

Thanks for making clear where you are coming from.

 

[Zedox]

how are people interpreting 'we are going to make more consoles' as 'we are leaving the console business'? that seems more like wishful thinking.

Bruh. It's crazy.

 

[gamz]

how are people interpreting 'we are going to make more consoles' as 'we are leaving the console business'? that seems more like wishful thinking.

Don't forget posting Sega in every other post.

 

[Trup1aya]

I was going to make a near identical argument yesterday. The starting point for developers will always be the PS4 and lowest XBO SKU with the highest number of units sold. Newer iterations will run full HD @ 60 fps without breaking sweat. But third-party developers aren't going to pour a disproportionate amount of time and energy into the maxing out the capabilities of the more powerful model. The Xbox One v2013 literally becomes a ball and chain holding newer iterations back until, that is, the older model is cut loose, abandoned and PS5 appears.

The second reason I believe this is a bad avenue for Microsoft, is for the same reason you never announce a slim model months in advance. I already know one person who was planning on buying an Xbox One, but who now is holding off until Microsoft announce more details. Multiply that incertitude by 100 million. The net effect is you have people with perpetual cold feet, not knowing if a more powerful unit is around the corner. Meanwhile, PS4 continues to fly off the shelves.

I disagree that developers will target the lowest common SKU with the most units with this 'ball and chain effect. '

Developers tried that with the transition into current gen, with cross-gen releases, and generally, the old gen versions of games massively under performed despite having larger installed bases...

That's where MAU (monthly active users) comes into play...

When Xbox 1.5 releases, Xbox 1.0 will still be the target device, because the the way to reach largest population of active users will be to target Xb1.0. The xb1.5 will only serve to improve performance of xbox1.0 games and MAYBE add support for VR hardware. customers will only be expecting visual upgrades, not games that specifically target their .5device.

When the Xbox 2.0 launches it will become the target platform, because the active user base will now span xb1.5 and xbox2.0 as people begin to stop using xb1.0 en masse since it can no longer play the latest games.

 

[MilkyJoe]

So, what u are saying is, that at a certain point, there will be a fundamental (hence not: incremental) change of hardware. Or on other words: A generational leap.

Like, XBOX 3.1 instead of XBOX 2.3 (3rd upgrade of XBOX 2).

Doesn't that contradict the incremental innovation concept mentionend in the OT?

Besides, how long should each generation carry the forward compatability burden of its first SKUs? 3, 6, 9 or 12 years? I call those numbers because some people here mentioned an upgrade every 3 years would just be fine.

Then again, will people with a XBOX 2.3 be bothered to buy 3.1? I mean, they just spent money for yet another upgrade, why switching to the new one? And what's the incentive for developers here? Spending resources for optimiziation of 2.3 games which just a minority owns? Shouldn't they focus on the standard SKU?

No

It means that forward compatibility will have a limit but backwards, in theory, will not.

You can play CoD 1 on a 2016 PC

You cannot play CoD Black Ops 2 on a 2003 PC - but you could play CoD 1, 2 & 3 before it struggled.

 

[Synth]

So, what u are saying is, that at a certain point, there will be a fundamental (hence not: incremental) change of hardware. Or in other words: A generational leap.

Like, XBOX 3.1 instead of XBOX 2.3 (3rd upgrade of XBOX 2).

Doesn't that contradict the incremental innovation concept mentionend in the OT?

Besides, how long should each generation carry the forward compatability burden of its first SKUs? 3, 6, 9 or 12 years? I call those numbers because some people here mentioned an upgrade every 3 years would just be fine.

Then again, will people with a XBOX 2.3 be bothered to buy 3.1? I mean, they just spent money for yet another upgrade, why switching to the new one? And what's the incentive for developers here? Spending resources for optimiziation of 2.3 games which just a minority owns? Shouldn't they focus on the standard SKU?



Good point, indeed. I believe we'll see first results of that very early announcement quite soon within the sales threads.

It doesn't contradict the statement in the OP, because the statement in the OP doesn't claim that the current hardware will last forever. They can release an XB1.5 without invalidating an XB1... but nothing says that an XB2 wouldn't invalidate an XB1.5 along with an XB1 (but the XB2 would still play all the previous games also). Again, it logically can't be forever forwards compatible (not even PCs are), as that would be like having to make sure a PS1 can play PS4 games. It's nonsense to even theorize about.

As for the other post you replied to... it's a valid point... but it's also not as clear cut as that. If an XB2 and PS5 are released at the same time, and a consumer is reluctant to buy the XB2, because an XB2.5 may come along shortly after and run all their favourite shit better... then that doesn't automatically sell the PS5 either, because the XB2.5 would render that console similarly inferior. If anything choosing the PS5 would be a disadvantage in this case, because unless Sony follows the same model, any buyers remorse you may have felt when the XB2.5 is released becomes worse if you can't simply trade up to the new model whilst keeping all the software and contacts that you obtained along the way.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Yea, essentially. The latest Xbox would either be aligned with the newest PlayStation at the time, or would be a increment behind (making the next increment somewhat similar to a slightly later launch, which has been very common in past generations). If this model were to show to be working for MS, then it's possible that Sony would try for it as well.. but they have less of an incentive to imo (no extended ecosystem outside of the console) and it would basically just have the effect of making console generations effectively shorter, with each odd generation being remaster city, lol.

Yeah I think the whole thing will turn into a mess if everyone is onboard...

Monthly console gens

 

[gamz]

I really wonder how they are going to make this work. Will we have to buy a new console first or is the one we have right now actually already upgradeable?

New console just like we did in the past on revisions. How is this so hard to understand?

 

[Helznicht]

As for the other post you replied to... it's a valid point... but it's also not as clear cut as that. If an XB2 and PS5 are released at the same time, and a consumer is reluctant to buy the XB2, because an XB2.5 may come along shortly after and run all their favourite shit better... then that doesn't automatically sell the PS5 either, because the XB2.5 would render that console similarly inferior. If anything choosing the PS5 would be a disadvantage in this case, because unless Sony follows the same model, any buyers remorse you may have felt when the XB2.5 is released becomes worse if you can't simply trade up to the new model whilst keeping all the software and contacts that you obtained along the way.

 

[Netherscourge]

They should just do Windows Boxes and let 3rd party manufacturers make different configurations, like Steam Machines.

They'd sell more Windows 10 licenses that way too.

 

[PG2G]

They should just do Windows Boxes and let 3rd party manufacturers make different configurations, like Steam Machines.

They'd sell more Windows 10 licenses that way too.

But then prices would suck because the manufacturers need to make a profit off each box instead of making the money from game sales/royalties.

See 3D0

 

[MilkyJoe]

It doesn't contradict the statement in the OP, because the statement in the OP doesn't claim that the current hardware will last forever. They can release an XB1.5 without invalidating an XB1... but nothing says that an XB2 wouldn't invalidate an XB1.5 along with an XB1 (but the XB2 would still play all the previous games also). Again, it logically can't be forever forwards compatible (not even PCs are), as that would be like having to make sure a PS1 can play PS4 games. It's nonsense to even theorize about.

As for the other post you replied to... it's a valid point... but it's also not as clear cut as that. If an XB2 and PS5 are released at the same time, and a consumer is reluctant to buy the XB2, because an XB2.5 may come along shortly after and run all their favourite shit better... then that doesn't automatically sell the PS5 either, because the XB2.5 would render that console similarly inferior. If anything choosing the PS5 would be a disadvantage in this case, because unless Sony follows the same model, any buyers remorse you may have felt when the XB2.5 is released becomes worse if you can't simply trade up to the new model whilst keeping all the software and contacts that you obtained along the way.

 

[trixx]

My thing is, i don't want too many of these boxes in my home. So long as they're modular or game decent resale I don't mind this route. Not every year or even 2 years though, maybe every 4 is good.

 

[SpotAnime]

50+ pages into this thread, and I don't know if anyone has made these points or not:

1. Microsoft wants to be a gaming service. They will provide the platform for developers to make games on. What's good for us is that the platform is Windows, so every developer has access to its tools. It will be the lead version from which developers will port to every other platform.

2. I read this as, Microsoft finally wants to leverage the 100 million+ user base of Windows 10, as well as look at the success of Steam and emulate that. Not saying they don't have a lot of ground to cover to catch up to Valve, as we all know the limitations of games purchased on the Windows 10 store. But that Xbox app will be the future of Microsoft gaming, I forsee.

3. Everyone is equating this to a 32x situation, but it's not. There are so many permutations of hardware configurations, yet PC games run on all of them. Sometimes there's a situation where minimum requirements force users to upgrade, but by and large the games will scale resolution and framerate based on hardware, so they'll still run. I forsee many hardware manufacturers supporting an Xbox gaming service, with many configurations and a range of prices to choose from. Barrier of entry will be dropped as people can purchase the $400 box that does 30fps at 1080p, or the $1000 box that does 60fps at 4k. But it would be no different than PCs today, except...

4. I'm sure Xbox will define minimum specs throughout the generations. So, all games must support 30fps and 1080p at the low tier hardware, etc. And they would also ensure standards, such as all games must be controller compatible, have support for the Xbox-range of controllers, etc. It won't be all wild west like a normal PC, and again I see that as a good thing for gamers.

5. If everyone doesn't like the yearly generation cycle and is worried about compatibility, look at your phones and tablets. Every year they get more and more powerful, yet they all (largely - I know there are exceptions) support the apps and games you bought four years ago, and the games you will be buying today and tomorrow. Everyone lines up every year to trade up their phones, why not give Microsoft the same pass?

I for one am looking for a unified console/PC experience, where games are not tied to dedicated hardware and are bound to console generations. It's the reason why most of my third-party purchases in the past two or three years have been on the PC. Not to say there's not an argument for console exclusives, and there will be manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo) who will likely continue to provide dedicated consoles, so consumers will have that choice.

 

[Trup1aya]

They should just do Windows Boxes and let 3rd party manufacturers make different configurations, like Steam Machines.

They'd sell more Windows 10 licenses that way too.

Than you leave developers to deal with of a shit ton of configurations to consider.

I still think they'd like to limit the number of configurations on the market at one time to 2.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

how are people interpreting 'we are going to make more consoles' as 'we are leaving the console business'? that seems more like wishful thinking.

It has been explained many times.

At face value, Microsoft is no longer approaching consoles in the traditional sense. They're splitting development between PC and X1 (and future Xbox consoles, one could assume) as well as possibly coming out with regular hardware updates. Everyone in the thread can agree this is the case.

Beyond that, some are pointing out that this puts Microsoft in a very good position to quietly exit the console market by transitioning their current console fanbase over to their PC ecosystem. Or at least, transfer as many as possible. It's a smart move, it's probably a much more respectful way of doing it than dropping the console entirely, and it fits with their overall historical trends and stated goals.

That's why people are saying "this is a sign of Microsoft quitting consoles". Not really "wishful thinking". More like "forward-looking".

 

[justsomeguy]

I was going to make a near identical argument yesterday. The starting point for developers will always be the PS4 and lowest XBO SKU with the highest number of units sold. Newer iterations will run full HD @ 60 fps without breaking sweat. But third-party developers aren't going to pour a disproportionate amount of time and energy into the maxing out the capabilities of the more powerful model. The Xbox One v2013 literally becomes a ball and chain holding newer iterations back until, that is, the older model is cut loose, abandoned and PS5 appears.

Every time I see this argument or its variants, I think "Yup, damn good point" and then I think, "But wait, they already do it for PC for many of those very same games". (Console exclusives are the area where this is new territory, of course).

 

[Zedox]

50+ pages into this thread, and I don't know if anyone has made these points or not:

1. Microsoft wants to be a gaming service. They will provide the platform for developers to make games on. What's good for us is that the platform is Windows, so every developer has access to its tools. It will be the lead version from which developers will port to every other platform.

2. I read this as, Microsoft finally wants to leverage the 100 million+ user base of Windows 10, as well as look at the success of Steam and emulate that. Not saying they don't have a lot of ground to cover to catch up to Valve, as we all know the limitations of games purchased on the Windows 10 store. But that Xbox app will be the future of Microsoft gaming, I forsee.

3. Everyone is equating this to a 32x situation, but it's not. There are so many permutations of hardware configurations, yet PC games run on all of them. Sometimes there's a situation where minimum requirements force users to upgrade, but by and large the games will scale resolution and framerate based on hardware, so they'll still run. I forsee many hardware manufacturers supporting an Xbox gaming service, with many configurations and a range of prices to choose from. Barrier of entry will be dropped as people can purchase the $400 box that does 30fps at 1080p, or the $1000 box that does 60fps at 4k. But it would be no different than PCs today, except...

4. I'm sure Xbox will define minimum specs throughout the generations. So, all games must support 30fps and 1080p at the low tier hardware, etc. And they would also ensure standards, such as all games must be controller compatible, have support for the Xbox-range of controllers, etc. It won't be all wild west like a normal PC, and again I see that as a good thing for gamers.

5. If everyone doesn't like the yearly generation cycle and is worried about compatibility, look at your phones and tablets. Every year they get more and more powerful, yet they all (largely - I know there are exceptions) support the apps and games you bought four years ago, and the games you will be buying today and tomorrow. Everyone lines up every year to trade up their phones, why not give Microsoft the same pass?

I for one am looking for a unified console/PC experience, where games are not tied to dedicated hardware and are bound to console generations. It's the reason why most of my third-party purchases in the past two or three years have been on the PC. Not to say there's not an argument for console exclusives, and there will be manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo) who will likely continue to provide dedicated consoles, so consumers will have that choice.

 

[justsomeguy]

Yeah I think the whole thing will turn into a mess if everyone is onboard...

Monthly console gens

Love it.

 

[gamz]

50+ pages into this thread, and I don't know if anyone has made these points or not:

1. Microsoft wants to be a gaming service. They will provide the platform for developers to make games on. What's good for us is that the platform is Windows, so every developer has access to its tools. It will be the lead version from which developers will port to every other platform.

2. I read this as, Microsoft finally wants to leverage the 100 million+ user base of Windows 10, as well as look at the success of Steam and emulate that. Not saying they don't have a lot of ground to cover to catch up to Valve, as we all know the limitations of games purchased on the Windows 10 store. But that Xbox app will be the future of Microsoft gaming, I forsee.

3. Everyone is equating this to a 32x situation, but it's not. There are so many permutations of hardware configurations, yet PC games run on all of them. Sometimes there's a situation where minimum requirements force users to upgrade, but by and large the games will scale resolution and framerate based on hardware, so they'll still run. I forsee many hardware manufacturers supporting an Xbox gaming service, with many configurations and a range of prices to choose from. Barrier of entry will be dropped as people can purchase the $400 box that does 30fps at 1080p, or the $1000 box that does 60fps at 4k. But it would be no different than PCs today, except...

4. I'm sure Xbox will define minimum specs throughout the generations. So, all games must support 30fps and 1080p at the low tier hardware, etc. And they would also ensure standards, such as all games must be controller compatible, have support for the Xbox-range of controllers, etc. It won't be all wild west like a normal PC, and again I see that as a good thing for gamers.

5. If everyone doesn't like the yearly generation cycle and is worried about compatibility, look at your phones and tablets. Every year they get more and more powerful, yet they all (largely - I know there are exceptions) support the apps and games you bought four years ago, and the games you will be buying today and tomorrow. Everyone lines up every year to trade up their phones, why not give Microsoft the same pass?

I for one am looking for a unified console/PC experience, where games are not tied to dedicated hardware and are bound to console generations. It's the reason why most of my third-party purchases in the past two or three years have been on the PC. Not to say there's not an argument for console exclusives, and there will be manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo) who will likely continue to provide dedicated consoles, so consumers will have that choice.

Perfection!

 

[Trup1aya]

It has been explained many times.

At face value, Microsoft is no longer approaching consoles in the traditional sense. They're splitting development between PC and X1 (and future Xbox consoles, one could assume) as well as possibly coming out with regular hardware updates. Everyone in the thread can agree this is the case.

Beyond that, some are pointing out that this puts Microsoft in a very good position to quietly exit the console market by transitioning their current console fanbase over to their PC ecosystem. Or at least, transfer as many as possible. It's a smart move, it's probably a much more respectful way of doing it than dropping the console entirely, and it fits with their overall historical trends and stated goals.

That's why people are saying "this is a sign of Microsoft quitting consoles". Not really "wishful thinking". More like "forward-looking".

That's not exiting the console market though. If they wanted to exit the console market, they would just exit the console market. They wouldn't pour R&D and marketing into more consoles. The boxes they release will still target the console audience (people who want a cheap gaming dedicated box, with standardized hardware) despite the fact the fact that the software ecosystem is shared with PC.

And there will always be a demand for consoles. And console will always provide their biggest opportunity for game sales revenue, as their are no competing storefronts.

 

[pieface]

I don't really see this as a problem at all.

When a developer currently develops a game for PC, they have low, medium, high versions of quality which are optimized for a certain level of hardware.

Wouldn't these hardware upgrades effectively be the same thing?

Currently all Xbox games would run under the low setting
Spend £100 on an upgrade and games run at the medium setting
Spend £200 on an upgrade and games run at the high setting

As long as the users running the low settings still get the best gaming experience they can do from that hardware, then what's the problem?

Unless I've missed something obvious?

 

[gamz]

It has been explained many times.

At face value, Microsoft is no longer approaching consoles in the traditional sense. They're splitting development between PC and X1 (and future Xbox consoles, one could assume) as well as possibly coming out with regular hardware updates. Everyone in the thread can agree this is the case.

Beyond that, some are pointing out that this puts Microsoft in a very good position to quietly exit the console market by transitioning their current console fanbase over to their PC ecosystem. Or at least, transfer as many as possible. It's a smart move, it's probably a much more respectful way of doing it than dropping the console entirely, and it fits with their overall historical trends and stated goals.

That's why people are saying "this is a sign of Microsoft quitting consoles". Not really "wishful thinking". More like "forward-looking".

You don't exit a console business when they are trying to innovate it. Where in the hell do you come up with that?

 

[SparkTR]

how are people interpreting 'we are going to make more consoles' as 'we are leaving the console business'? that seems more like wishful thinking.

Chubigans posted his thoughts on that yesterday:

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing this is the easiest way to discontinue the Xbox brand of consoles altogether and merge it into their Windows platforms.

Had MS released Xbox Two or whatever, and it sold less than estimated, then that damages the brand even more. Hardware refreshes like this will allow MS to refer to the "Xbox Family" and MAUs much easier. There won't need to be major R&D costs for a new piece of hardware because they just have to keep updating components incrementally. It'll allow the Xbox to suffer whatever fate it has infront of it in a way that will be somewhat invisible to the general public, keep hardcore Xbox fans interested (or have them bail out onto the Windows 10 platform where they can play all their XB exclusive games), and so on.

This is a terrible idea from a mass market perspective but that's not what they're aiming for. They're folding Xbox into Windows, and this is kind of a brilliant move in doing it slowly but steady without causing a large amount of waves. It won't sell anything what a Playstation 5 might sell, but that's the point, because by then MS would want to be out of the console game and selling PC boxes at that point, some with the Xbox branding on it.

I always knew XB1 would be Microsoft's last console but the way they're transitioning is kind of brilliant. Well, maybe not from a sales point of view, but in keeping their Xbox brand healthy while trying to attract a new gaming audience for Windows 10? Absolutely.

My thoughts are, I don't see something like this succeeding from a mass market perspective. At least not initially. It just sounds like wild ideas that have been thrown around for ages now. The idea sounds fine (or bad, depending on who you ask) on paper, but in reality this kind of roll out just seems insane.

 

[Helznicht]

Than you leave developers to deal with of a shit ton of configurations to consider.

I still think they'd like to limit the number of configurations on the market at one time to 2.

Needs to be 3 over 6 years (new box every 2 years)

High Class XB
Middle Class XB
No Class XBone

 

[gamz]

Chubigans posted his thoughts on that yesterday:

that doesn't make sense.

 

[Trup1aya]

Chubigans posted his thoughts on that yesterday:

That makes no sense. Their 'Xbox branded Windows boxes' he speaks of will be consoles. There easiest way to get a profit from their store is to have a cheap, gaming dedicated device, that only access their store... They aren't going to abandon that opportunity.

Needs to be 3 over 6 years (new box every 2 years)

High Class XB
Middle Class XB
No Class XBone

I'd say no more than 1 every 3 years. With the "no class version" being phased out when the high class version launches.

So there'd be short periods where there are 3 in stores, but only two in production.

 

[UnwrittenZero]

To be honest I see Sony doing the same damn thing. I think that is why it is ps2 and PS3 remaster city I feel. Gotta build the library that will go forward. They are already running x86, and have talked about it is possible to release an upgraded PS4. I think everyone is looking at the apple model and how much hardware they push.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Needs to be 3 over 6 years (new box every 2 years)

High Class XB
Middle Class XB
No Class XBone

That would spread sales to the back end of things no?

If that were the scheme, I reckon people will jump in at middle and the high end off the spectrum.

Kinda how like some people wait for an iPhone plus version when a new number releases

 

[MilkyJoe]

that doesn't make sense.

It really doesn't.

Armchair analysts

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

'4K UltraHD graphics available!'*


* Not on this one though. You need the other one.

Ah ha.

 

[Sanador]

Microsoft has an under-powered console and they need to fix it quick to stop the bleeding as far as market share.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

It really doesn't.

Armchair analysts

Chubiguns is a dev if I'm not mistaken, I wouldn't say he's an "expert" but I'm sure he's not speaking from purely anecdotes either

 

[FantasticMrSnake]

Never ever has it worked.

Do you have some examples apart from steam machines?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I'm sure they are going to reveal one of these revisions very soon. It'll be a lot smaller than the terrible-looking Xbone but will also be a small improvement in specs.

 

[SparkTR]

That makes no sense. Their 'Xbox branded Windows boxes' he speaks of will be consoles. There easiest way to get a profit from their store is to have a cheap, gaming dedicated device, that only access their store... They aren't going to abandon that opportunity.

True, the second part of that equation is to get people to buy it in large numbers though. This kind of model sounds so much worse than how it is now in regards to marketing and selling units, I just don't envision a shift like this bringing in more hardware sales or users from a console/living room perspective. They'll get more Windows 10 Store users though, with PC/Phone/Surface integration, which is ultimately what they're after I guess.

It just sounds so much more convoluted I guess is what I'm saying. And if Microsoft isn't happy with their living room business now I don't see how this is going to give it a boost.

Do you have some examples apart from steam machines?

3DO, but that was back in the 90s.

 

[Purest 78]

I just don't understand If someone is willing to keep upgrading a console. Why wouldn't they build a Nice PC from The Start? This idea goes against what people expect from a console. I don't see this being a success at all.

 

[gamz]

That makes no sense. Their 'Xbox branded Windows boxes' he speaks of will be consoles. There easiest way to get a profit from their store is to have a cheap, gaming dedicated device, that only access their store... They aren't going to abandon that opportunity.


I'd say no more than 1 every 3 years. With the "no class version" being phased out when the high class version launches.

So there'd be short periods where there are 3 in stores, but only two in production.

Not to mention that MS is worried about R&D costs? By having spec bumps they will still incur R&D costs. Not too mention why in the hell would they stop selling something that sells?

 

[twobear]

Chubigans posted his thoughts on that yesterday:



My thoughts are, I don't see something like this succeeding from a mass market perspective. At least not initially. It just sounds like wild ideas that have been thrown around for ages now. The idea sounds fine (or bad, depending on who you ask) on paper, but in reality this kind of roll out just seems insane.

I mean that post is predicated on the assumption that MS will make one more console, the Xbox One S, and then stop producing them. MS wouldn't frame it as 'we'll make incremental console updates with forwards and backwards compatibility' if their plan was to release one more. They wouldn't say anything at all.

 

[gamz]

I just don't understand If someone is willing to keep upgrading a console. Why wouldn't they build a Nice PC from The Start? This idea goes against what people expect from a console. I don't see this being a success at all.

Take the 360. When it first came out it didnt have hdmi or built in wireless. Couldn't do 1080. What happened? It was upgraded. Same concept.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

My thoughts are, I don't see something like this succeeding from a mass market perspective. At least not initially. It just sounds like wild ideas that have been thrown around for ages now. The idea sounds fine (or bad, depending on who you ask) on paper, but in reality this kind of roll out just seems insane.

A large percentage of PC AAA gamers are system builders, but many people don't know how to do this or what is good for how long. They see gaming PC prices in catalogs that look insane and so they rather grab a console and a normal notebook with some low end graphic solution.
Microsoft has established a certain trust with their surface family of being well-made premium products, they could do the same with Xbox-branded gaming PCs and laptops. Imagine they sold you a "warranty" that will guarantee to run Windows-store on at least "medium" settings for x amount of years and some y years more, should you upgrade.
Microsoft could totally do this in my opinion, but as with many things Microsoft says, I think this idea will die slowly because Microsoft acts slowly.

 

[justsomeguy]

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing this is the easiest way to discontinue the Xbox brand of consoles altogether and merge it into their Windows platforms.

Had MS released Xbox Two or whatever, and it sold less than estimated, then that damages the brand even more. Hardware refreshes like this will allow MS to refer to the "Xbox Family" and MAUs much easier. There won't need to be major R&D costs for a new piece of hardware because they just have to keep updating components incrementally. It'll allow the Xbox to suffer whatever fate it has infront of it in a way that will be somewhat invisible to the general public, keep hardcore Xbox fans interested (or have them bail out onto the Windows 10 platform where they can play all their XB exclusive games), and so on.

This is a terrible idea from a mass market perspective but that's not what they're aiming for. They're folding Xbox into Windows, and this is kind of a brilliant move in doing it slowly but steady without causing a large amount of waves. It won't sell anything what a Playstation 5 might sell, but that's the point, because by then MS would want to be out of the console game and selling PC boxes at that point, some with the Xbox branding on it.

I always knew XB1 would be Microsoft's last console but the way they're transitioning is kind of brilliant. Well, maybe not from a sales point of view, but in keeping their Xbox brand healthy while trying to attract a new gaming audience for Windows 10? Absolutely.

As ever, great insight from you. Bolded though - it all depends on your definition of console. If it looks like a console, smells like a console and quacks like a console... then... it's a console.

It's certainly a major paradigm shift from the traditional model... and potentially a move away from specialist hardware to more of a commodity hardware (which is something not really touched on in this thread yet other than indirectly).

 

[Synth]

I just don't understand If someone is willing to keep upgrading a console. Why wouldn't they build a Nice PC from The Start? This idea goes against what people expect from a console. I don't see this being a success at all.

.

The parallels you're drawing between potential Xbox models and the PC are flawed imo. PC's these days are a lot simpler than they used to be, thanks to services like Steam and the like... but the experience is still not nearly as simple as a console, and that's not simply because the console's have a single specification. My PC has a rather old Haswell i5, 8gb RAM @ 1600mhz, and a 970 GTX. What settings do I choose to ensure Rise of the Tomb Raider runs satisfactorily throughout the entirety of the game? I have no fucking clue. So I spend the opening moments of the game establishing a comfortable high-end... which I'm basically guaranteed to have to adjust the moment I get to one of the two notorious open areas that seem to wipe roughly half the fps off everyone that encounters them. There's no graphical profile that's tailored to provide my PC with the optimal experience, balancing the graphics and performance in the way that the Xbox One version is. This wouldn't be the case with a potential XB1.5 or whatever, as the developers will know exactly what this alternate spec is, due to it not being something I've thrown together over time, unique to all the other thousands of hardware combinations PC users may potentially have. So if I owned this upgraded Xbox, my experience would still be entirely "plug and play" rather than the "plug, faff about a bit, and play" that much of PC gaming is.. at the very most I would imagine that you could potentially select the original XB1's graphics profile and see increased performance... but you wouldn't be adjusting a whole host of individual graphical settings, many of which the user may not have any idea of what they actually do, or the cost of having them enabled.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

That's not exiting the console market though. If they wanted to exit the console market, they would just exit the console market. They wouldn't pour R&D and marketing into more consoles. The boxes they release will still target the console audience (people who want a cheap gaming dedicated box, with standardized hardware) despite the fact the fact that the software ecosystem is shared with PC.

And there will always be a demand for consoles. And console will always provide their biggest opportunity for game sales revenue, as their are no competing storefronts.

I said it puts them in an excellent position to exit the console market. Let's use our brains instead of simply swallowing the PR. Microsoft has been criminally poor at messaging and PR this generation, so I'm puzzled why a stance of caution is being viewed as crazy on this board. "Wishful thinking" would be the people who believe this will work without a hitch and will be in the consumers' best interests, something that Microsoft hasn't been very consistent on these past few years.

Some people are taking the pieces and putting them together. This paints a possible picture of Microsoft exiting the console market for some very understandable reasons:

1) Splitting games between platforms (a.k.a "going multiplatform") has never, ever, ever been a good thing for first party platforms in the history of videogames. Ever. Microsoft is trying something new, but you're ignorant or a fanboy if you don't at least acknowledge that fact. So, there's a very good reason to be cautious.

2) Microsoft is making these moves at the same time that their console is getting trounced by PS4. "Trouced" by Microsoft's own definition, since their plans for X1 were incredibly lofty and I doubt they've achieved their plans.

3) It's one of Microsoft's least-profitable segments of the company. Plenty of threads have been made on this topic.

4) Being a "platform" instead of a "console" naturally puts you in a position where you can divorce yourself from the console hardware. Not saying their recent actions guarantee they will leave consoles, but if Microsoft is trying to double-down on consoles, they're sure going about it in a weird way.

5) We heard all of these same exact arguments that "Microsoft has a glorious plan for the future. They're just innnovating! Stop hating on their ideas" a few years ago when Microsoft announced always-on and TV TV TV SPORTS and less powerful hardware and $499 and all that. So, you'll forgive us some scepticism.

You don't exit a console business when they are trying to innovate it. Where in the hell do you come up with that?

By thinking critically.

While I do -- personally -- believe this is a graceful way to exit the console market, I fully admit it's just speculation. But all we have right now is speculation and PR statements. Surely GAF is more intelligent than just leaning on PR and leaving it at that, right?

 

[justsomeguy]

To all those saying Microsoft wants to exit the console market quietly, why on earth wouldn't they just sell the Xbox business for $5-$10bn instead of putting it out to pasture? Or do what they did with Nokia and say "We're writing off $5bn"?

If they were dropping gaming (which is, until these announcements, basically the same as their console business) then they'd have to make a shareholder announcement.

 

[Shin-Ra]

Take the 360. When it first came out it didnt have hdmi or built in wireless. Couldn't do 1080. What happened? It was upgraded. Same concept.

Changing the rendering spec of a console is totally the same as making WiFi and HDMI standard.

 

[Purest 78]

Take the 360. When it first came out it didnt have hdmi or built in wireless. Couldn't do 1080. What happened? It was upgraded. Same concept.

I'm talking about specs There's a crowd who cares about upgradable hardware, they're called PC gamers. Console gamers always say they like not worrying about Upgrading Hardware. Are we gonna pretend That hasn't been a Narrative For years?