Support NeoGAF

[Trup1aya]

Oh look. Its me. Calling this shit 6 months ago.

I find it funny that you insist this is an exit, when it's a reiteration of commitment to this space...

Not following the discussion here, but...

Isn't the appeal of a console being able to run games without the player having to worry about specs?* Also, isn't bad to split your userbase like that?

Spoiler

*I know that technically does not apply to some games like AC Unity, but still...

Not trying to speak the truth or anything, just genuinely curious.

The user doesn't have to worry about specs. They buy the console they want, and the same games work across each iteration of the console.

The user base isn't split, because regardless of hardware, they are playing the same games

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Oh look. Its me. Calling this shit 6 months ago.

There goes that phrase again. "Exit". Weird as thats not what the head of xbox is saying.

 

[mcrommert]

Not following the discussion here, but...

Isn't the appeal of a console being able to run games without the player having to worry about specs?* Also, isn't bad to split your userbase like that?

Spoiler

*I know that technically does not apply to some games like AC Unity, but still...

Not trying to speak the truth or anything, just genuinely curious.

If you are genuinely just curious...these partial step consoles will not lock out the original xbox one. Unlike the new 3ds or whatever the newer model is called there will be no games that run just on the new model. At some point microsoft will release an xbox two that is a definite generation change...then, like it is right now, there will be new games that don't work on xbox one. The half step consoles will just run games slightly better...no exclusive games

 

[gamz]

Oh look. Its me. Calling this shit 6 months ago.

You didn't call anything. What did you call?

 

[Dinjoralo]

There goes that phrase again. "Exit". Weird as thats not what the head of xbox is saying.

Honestly, what anyone at Microsoft says they're doing tends to clash with what they're actually doing, at least with computer gaming. Even if I don't see them exiting any time soon, I don't see it not happening just because that haven't said so,

 

[SEGAvangelist]

You mean this?



Regarding not having a new successor, there will certainly be a new Xbox, but there will never be a generational leap again like we know it today, at least with Xbox. What I mean with generational leap is cutting off the previous system for new games that can only be run on the new system, which inspires consumers to purchase the next edition.

It's a whole new pathway that signals an exit out of the console market as we know it, and into PC territory where they want to ultimately be anyways. You can be out of the console market while still having a console presence. Look at Valve.

This sounded fine until you said they are leaving the console market. That's ridiculous since Phil Spencer already confirmed we'll see a new console. And no... Valve does not have a real console presence. Maybe we see new iterations on the Xbox every so many years, but that's still a console. It's just not part of the traditional console generation cycle that we currently have. I'm curious how Sony would respond if this actually works out for MS. If it doesn't work out for them, then obviously Sony doesn't have to respond and could stick with the traditional console cycle.

 

[MilkyJoe]

If you are genuinely just curious...these partial step consoles will not lock out the original xbox one. Unlike the new 3ds or whatever the newer model is called there will be no games that run just on the new model. At some point microsoft will release an xbox two that is a definite generation change...then, like it is right now, there will be new games that don't work on xbox one. The half step consoles will just run games slightly better...no exclusive games

And I will be all over it.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Oh look. Its me. Calling this shit 6 months ago.

Congrats! You've just won a chocolate watch!!!

 

[le.phat]

I find it funny that you insist this is an exit, when it's a reiteration of commitment to this space...



The user doesn't have to worry about specs. They buy the console they want, and the same games work across each iteration of the console.

The user base isn't split, because regardless of hardware, they are playing the same games

Until devs use the extra oomph to go for GFX wins ( which always happens ) splitting the the base, leaving one half of the users not able to run certain games. Happened with all the iPhone models, happened with the new 3DS and will happen here.

 

[AP90]

I assume they'd be getting their GPU from AMD. Nvidia wouldn't strike a deal with any console manufacturer I don't think. If there's a base unit with upgradeable parts, wouldn't that just reveal its true nature as a closed-platform PC? At which point it's competing with PC upgrades.

AMD is more than likely as Nvidia has burned console makers in the past..

But having having a supported system, not necessarily dubbed a console would potentially allow MS to not be limited by power requirements, thus a more powerful system would come about. Also, there is nothing wrong with a closed-platform pc like system, as it will still be providing the same sense of security as current consoles do, buy it, install it and not have to worry about updates and about games and the actual unit working.

The same would apply to the swappable GPU as they would potentially be releasing a gpu component upgrade every few years, lets say 2 a console cycle or possibly 1, having compatibility or a refined driver should not be an issue if the front end specs aka cpu and base ram are of sufficient quality in terms of performance.

This would serve the consumer the best IMO in terms of value and console longetivity for lets say 7years. Since consoles today are essentially PCs, having a line of code in games that can detect whether or not you have the swappable upgrade then default to the best setting seems feasible to me.

 

[RedSwirl]

Setting aside your Sony Too logic, Sony has already done this to a certain degree with cross-play, cross-buy, backwards compatibility for certain legacy digital purchases, Remote Play on PC, PS Now on other platforms, etc.

Thing is, PS4 is still Sony's foundation. PS4 is still Sony's premium gaming kit.

Can you honestly say that the Xbox console is Microsoft's foundation after these recent moves? Can you honestly say these moves are being done to position the Xbox One as a premium destination for gaming? Or will you believe their own words when they say they want Xbox to be "another device to play your Windows-account games"?

Xbox as a console is being de-emphasized, which leads a lot of people in this thread to speculate what this means and how it will affect gamers. Granted, this shift in direction may be good for some people depending on how Microsoft handles it, and this shift may be "a newer, better way of doing consoles", but it is a SHIFT AWAY from how consoles are traditionally handled. As such, it is perfectly normal to speculate how moving away from the traditional console model may also lead to the loss of traditional console model benefits. Surely that makes sense to you, yea?

Okay, I see what you're saying. It's true consoles are less important to Microsoft than they are to Sony or Nintendo, and that this could transition Xbox from being a platform in and of itself to being simply one of several portals to a platform. The main fear I still see throughout this thread though is that we'll no longer see games optimized specifically for that one box, and I think that fear is unfounded at this point.

When developers make software for platforms based on multiple pieces of hardware, they tend to optimize around the most popular common denominator, not necessarily the newest or most powerful one. I don't think you're going to see Windows 10 games that run at 15fps on Xbox. More people will still play those AAA games on Xbox, so they'll be optimized for Xbox. This is technically already the case, as developers make games for Xbox and PC, but optimize around Xbox because they know more copies will sell on Xbox. The only way Xbox eventually disappears is if people start favoring all the other devices over Xbox. The only way support for the base "original" Xbox One get's dropped is if the majority of the audience dumps it for the upgraded models.

 

[mcrommert]

Until devs use the extra oomph to go for GFX wins ( which always happens ) splitting the the base, leaving one half of the users not able to run certain games. Happened with all the iPhone models, happened with the new 3DS and will happen here.

What a lot of you are missing seems to be bound up in this point. They literally can't do this...not won't...can't

Microsoft certs games...devs will be force to support xbox one (in all its flavors) until a decided upon date in the future...when they will be allowed to support xbox 2. Not xbox 1.5. They literally won't be allowed to follow the apple model and decision 3 months after a new phone comes out that their game won't work on the old platform

 

[Roldan]

The user doesn't have to worry about specs. They buy the console they want, and the same games work across each iteration of the console.

The user base isn't split, because regardless of hardware, they are playing the same games

If you are genuinely just curious...these partial step consoles will not lock out the original xbox one. Unlike the new 3ds or whatever the newer model is called there will be no games that run just on the new model. At some point microsoft will release an xbox two that is a definite generation change...then, like it is right now, there will be new games that don't work on xbox one. The half step consoles will just run games slightly better...no exclusive games

Huh. I understood wrong, then. I thought the idea was to keep updating the same console for years to come, to the point it would get games that wouldn't run on older hardware.

If it's just an enhanced XOne, I'm okay with it.

 

[vcc]

AMD is more than likely as Nvidia has burned console makers in the past..

But having having a supported system, not necessarily dubbed a console would potentially allow MS to not be limited by power requirements, thus a more powerful system would come about. Also, there is nothing wrong with a closed-platform pc like system, as it will still be providing the same sense of security as current consoles do, buy it, install it and not have to worry about updates and about games and the actual unit working.

The same would apply to the swappable GPU as they would potentially be releasing a gpu component upgrade every few years, lets say 2 a console cycle or possibly 1, having compatibility or a refined driver should not be an issue if the front end specs aka cpu and base ram are of sufficient quality in terms of performance.

This would serve the consumer the best IMO in terms of value and console longetivity for lets say 7years. Since consoles today are essentially PCs, having a line of code in games that can detect whether or not you have the swappable upgrade then default to the best setting seems feasible to me.

AMD is more desperate for sales. They will under bid nVidia and Intel so that's why the consoles would go with them.

 

[Sydle]

I assume they'd be getting their GPU from AMD. Nvidia wouldn't strike a deal with any console manufacturer I don't think. If there's a base unit with upgradeable parts, wouldn't that just reveal its true nature as a closed-platform PC? At which point it's competing with PC upgrades.

NVIDIA and Microsoft are already pretty close for Surface and Azure, so I wouldn't be so sure about AMD.

http://www.informationweek.com/appl...s-acquisition-deal-with-nvidia/d/d-id/1098123

http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-gpus-to-accelerate-microsoft-azure

 

[cakely]

What a lot of you are missing seems to be bound up in this point. They literally can't do this...not won't...can't

Microsoft certs games...devs will be force to support xbox one (in all its flavors) until a decided upon date in the future...when they will be allowed to support xbox 2. Not xbox 1.5. They literally won't be allowed to follow the apple model and decision 3 months after a new phone comes out that their game won't work on the old platform

"What a lot of you are missing", followed by nothing but pure speculation.

 

[mcrommert]

Huh. I understood wrong, then. I thought the idea was to keep updating the same console for years to come, to the point it would get games that wouldn't run on older hardware.

If it's just an enhanced XOne, I'm okay with it.

100% that is what it is

For example with a game like halo 5...instead of changing frame rate or even texture quality...the new system would support perhaps 4k instead of the sometimes 1080p on the xbox one

That is the change

Edit: for a non competitive game like the witcher a frame rate change

 

[Salty Hippo]

He's a business person. If he's saying something doesn't make sense on PC he's more likely looking at the costs of doing a PC version and the expected return they would get on that version, not your couch.

For example, look at Rock Band. That game doesn't make sense on PC, not because of its controller, but because there's no way they're going to make the 1.5 million that it would cost to bring it over.

That's a different situation, Rock Band is a game designed to work with peripherals and is more in tune with "social gaming", which is more prominent on consoles. There's no reason any of Microsoft's core exclusives wouldn't make sense on the PC. It's probably the only shot they have to make Scalebound sell decently. And wouldn't Halo 5 and MCC do well on PC?

He doesn't need to say ALL, because that would include even their Kinect games, but he needs to stop spinning and dancing around when people question him about Halo on PC. Maybe he does that because he doesn't want to dishearten the most hardcore Xbox fanboys, but at the same time that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in people who are looking to play those games on PC. I find this half-commitment so fucking annoying.

 

[STEaMkb]

So if Phil Spencer is talking about this to the press, openly, they must have something in the pipeline ready to launch this June at E3, would people agree? Because it's hard to see how sales of Xbox One will improve from this point forward.

What timeframe are we looking at?

 

[gamz]

Huh. I understood wrong, then. I thought the idea was to keep updating the same console for years to come, to the point it would get games that wouldn't run on older hardware.

If it's just an enhanced XOne, I'm okay with it.

That's the idea. Spencer:

We can effectively feel a little bit more like we see on PC, where I can still go back and run my old Doom and Quake games that I used to play years ago but I can still see the best 4K games come out and my library is always with me. Hardware innovation continues while the software innovation is able to take advantage and I don't have to jump a generation and lose everything that I played on before."

 

[Sydle]

So if Phil Spencer is talking about this to the press, openly, they must have something in the pipeline ready to launch this June at E3, would people agree? Because it's hard to see how sales of Xbox One will improve from this point forward.

What timeframe are we looking at?

He talked about how they were going to bring Xbox games to Windows at GDC in March last year and the first one just released yesterday.

I wouldn't put any bets on them having something ready this year.

 

[vcc]

What a lot of you are missing seems to be bound up in this point. They literally can't do this...not won't...can't

Microsoft certs games...devs will be force to support xbox one (in all its flavors) until a decided upon date in the future...when they will be allowed to support xbox 2. Not xbox 1.5. They literally won't be allowed to follow the apple model and decision 3 months after a new phone comes out that their game won't work on the old platform

So what's the upside for the Devs? Right now w10 store has a marginal install base. Xbox 1 is #2. Asking devs to do a bunch more work to get cert on a smaller install base doesn't sound like it will gain huge traction. PC games do similar work but many many games don't get PC ports because the teams don't have resources. Of they do poor ports and the PC gaming community shits on them.

Asking them to do so just for a Xbox 1 cert is asking them not to make a xbox 1 version.

 

[AP90]

AMD is more desperate for sales. They will under bid nVidia and Intel so that's why the consoles would go with them.

Yes,I think we all are in agreement here on gaf that AMD will secure the console market.
----
Now back to my point..

Having the swappable gpu once or twice during the middle of a gen would also help to boost AMD sales as well and would probably be semi profitable for them most likely.

And the swappable gpu component would be the meeting point in the middle or the one thing that would not potentially alienate or confuse buyers who do not want to shell $ for an update or brand new console every couple of years.

 

[le.phat]

What a lot of you are missing seems to be bound up in this point. They literally can't do this...not won't...can't

Microsoft certs games...devs will be force to support xbox one (in all its flavors) until a decided upon date in the future...when they will be allowed to support xbox 2. Not xbox 1.5. They literally won't be allowed to follow the apple model and decision 3 months after a new phone comes out that their game won't work on the old platform

Okay, so then what. Supporting the lowest common denominator ?? A state of perpetual cross-gen like software ?

 

[mcrommert]

That's the idea. Spencer:

Exactly.

Think of this like the xbox pro controller...they now have tiers of products

You don't have a lot of money? xbox one

You have some more but still want a console experience? Xbox 1.5

Everyone plays together along with pc users in same multiplayer and ecosystem

Everyone wins

 

[JonathanPower]

Never ever has it worked.

Well let's say they release an XBOX1 revision with upgraded GPU/CPU that allows games to run at higher resolution and frame-rates I think people would buy it.

 

[Truespeed]

Just put your games on Steam. That's where the PC gaming community resides. Anything else is going to be a failure just like all of your other Windows gaming initiatives.

 

[Leyasu]

If the games scale to the different hardware SKUs and the upgrade is justifiable after a couple of years. I will be there day one everytime.

Especially if they have a decent trade in scheme.

 

[vcc]

That's a different situation, Rock Band is a game designed to work with peripherals and is more in tune with "social gaming", which is more prominent on consoles. There's no reason any of Microsoft's core exclusives wouldn't make sense on the PC. It's probably the only shot they have to make Scalebound sell decently. And wouldn't Halo 5 and MCC do well on PC?

He doesn't need to say ALL, because that would include even their Kinect games, but he needs to stop spinning and dancing around when people question him about Halo on PC. Maybe he does that because he doesn't want to dishearten the most hardcore Xbox fanboys, but at the same time that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in people who are looking to play those games on PC. I find this half-commitment so fucking annoying.

A cross-platform Halo would really dishearten console gamers as the Mouse and Keyboard folks crush the controller folks.

 

[mcrommert]

So what's the upside for the Devs? Right now w10 store has a marginal install base. Xbox 1 is #2. Asking devs to do a bunch more work to get cert on a smaller install base doesn't sound like it will gain huge traction. PC games do similar work but many many games don't get PC ports because the teams don't have resources. Of they do poor ports and the PC gaming community shits on them.

Asking them to do so just for a Xbox 1 cert is asking them not to make a xbox 1 version.

My understanding from devs is the extra work is small. This isn't the pc...it is supporting one platform with two devices, one of which is exactly the same as the other, other than one or two components

And pc is the easier platform to dev for...over the console...the reason teams don't make pc ports is piracy or lack of sales (one causes the other)

EDIT: also they don't have a choice

 

[Trago]

That's the idea. Spencer:

We can effectively feel a little bit more like we see on PC, where I can still go back and run my old Doom and Quake games that I used to play years ago but I can still see the best 4K games come out and my library is always with me. Hardware innovation continues while the software innovation is able to take advantage and I don't have to jump a generation and lose everything that I played on before."

*cough fucking Sony!*

I think this is the biggest thing for me. Wanna give incentive to consumers to stay in your ecosystem? Let them take their library with you.

The big three should have established hardware agnostic digital storefronts a fucking decade ago.

 

[Trup1aya]

So what's the upside for the Devs? Right now w10 store has a marginal install base. Xbox 1 is #2. Asking devs to do a bunch more work to get cert on a smaller install base doesn't sound like it will gain huge traction. PC games do similar work but many many games don't get PC ports because the teams don't have resources. Of they do poor ports and the PC gaming community shits on them.

Asking them to do so just for a Xbox 1 cert is asking them not to make a xbox 1 version.

For dev, the total audience is the combined installed base of win10 users on PC and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 being second place doesn't suddenly make the 20million users an unattractive market. especially if there are tools in place that reduce the stress of bringing your code to market on the console.

 

[mcrommert]

A cross-platform Halo would really dishearten console gamers as the Mouse and Keyboard folks crush the controller folks.

separate hoppers...they control the platform...its locked down...its completely plausible

EDIT: perhaps social would be cross control

 

[Darth Smurf X]

I wasn't going to chime in on this conversation, but I'm having a bad day... so... here we go.

I can see how people would enjoy this sort of thing. So no bashing anyone that's excited for something like this.

I, personally, want NO part in my consoles becoming like smart phones or gaming PCs. At. All.

I'd give reasons, but people would just argue over them and most have been brought up already. Just thought I'd drop off my 2¢.

 

[Crayon]

My understanding from devs is the extra work is small.

That's because Your Understanding is all derived directly from MS PR.

 

[STEaMkb]

He talked about how they were going to bring Xbox games to Windows at GDC in March last year and the first one just released yesterday.

I wouldn't put any bets on them having something ready this year.

Then they are going to pay a heavy price for talking too early. It's difficult to believe they'd go public without having something fairly well along in the pipe.

 

[Art Vandilay]

A cross-platform Halo would really dishearten console gamers as the Mouse and Keyboard folks crush the controller folks.

I'm really hoping they make cross-platform play merely an option for competitive FPSs, assuming cross-platform play for these types of games are even supported.

 

[dancrane212]

So if Phil Spencer is talking about this to the press, openly, they must have something in the pipeline ready to launch this June at E3, would people agree? Because it's hard to see how sales of Xbox One will improve from this point forward.

What timeframe are we looking at?

I first thought we could see a smaller, faster, Xbox One this year but the console is just over 2 years old. I wouldn't think it impossible to see one at E3 or this year but I would think 2017 is a good bet.

 

[AP90]

Then they are going to pay a heavy price for talking too early. It's difficult to believe they'd go public without having something fairly well along in the pipe.

Well they could be feeling out the consumer base, so that they do not wipeout like they did at the e3 announcement in 2013.

Everything is about timing and perception.

 

[Trup1aya]

That's because Your Understanding is all derived directly from MS PR.

As is everyone's

 

[vcc]

My understanding from devs is the extra work is small. This isn't the pc...it is supporting one platform with two devices, one of which is exactly the same as the other, other than one or two components

And pc is the easier platform to dev for...over the console...the reason teams don't make pc ports is piracy or lack of sales (one causes the other)

Your understanding isn't realistic. More distinct platforms means more testing and more cert. Just because a claim is made doesn't mean it changes the reality of development. iOS is fairly easy to code for but the diversity of capabilities and form factors needs to be accounted for and takes extra work.

You can make something simply on PC but a lot of the features that market expects takes work. That market perpetually is hyper critical of sub par ports.

 

[LordRaptor]

I think this is the biggest thing for me. Wanna give incentive to consumers to stay in your ecosystem? Let them take their library with you.

His message is somewhat undermined by the fact many people who bought PC titles on GFWL "a generation ago" have in fact 'jumped forward' and now cant play them anymore.

 

[MrBenchmark]

I could see pc's prebuilt with a Xbox certified logo someday. Same with tablet etc. I think we will continue to see a dedicated box for those that want them and also would welcome the ability to use my games on other devices.

I play on my tablet all the time thru remote play when the wife watches tv and would love to see devices run the games natively.

 

[vcc]

For dev, the total audience is the combined installed base of win10 users on PC and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 being second place doesn't suddenly make the 20million users an unattractive market. especially if there are tools in place that reduce the stress of bringing your code to market on the console.

w10 store is not the same as PC. For PC you can install stand alone or use steam or use gog or use origin or use uplay or use w10 store.

For MS strategy here only the w10 store matters in regards to the XB1. So currently a very small install base. They are bending over backwards to leverage their XB1 assets to push the store; I don't think there is much benefit in the reverse direction.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Your understanding isn't realistic. More distinct platforms means more testing and more cert. Just because a claim is made doesn't mean it changes the reality of development. iOS is fairly easy to code for but the diversity of capabilities and form factors needs to be accounted for and takes extra work.

You can make something simply on PC but a lot of the features that market expects takes work. That market perpetually is hyper critical of sub par ports.

Which is where thus UWA comes in, perhaps?

 

[AmyS]

What will be the differences between:

A range of new Xbox models
Steam Machines
retail / branded gaming PCs

Seems to me there will be no more lines to be blurred anymore.

I am not including custom, high-end PCs that people build for themselves.

 

[vcc]

As is everyone's

Some folks here actually make software. Some actually make games. I over see software projects. The PR seems like bullshit as they made the promises about .net and while .net is nicer that what was there before it didn't live up to the bullshit. The UAP is the same PR spin. Almost exactly the same talking points.

 

[Samurai G0SU]

Well let's say they release an XBOX1 revision with upgraded GPU/CPU that allows games to run at higher resolution and frame-rates I think people would buy it.

I would, Day 0.

 

[Trago]

His message is somewhat undermined by the fact many people who bought PC titles on GFWL "a generation ago" have in fact 'jumped forward' and now cant play them anymore.

And that's why I'm skeptical about all this.

I just want the big three to hit that benchmark already. Microsoft need to prove themselves.

 

[cakely]

So if Phil Spencer is talking about this to the press, openly, they must have something in the pipeline ready to launch this June at E3, would people agree? Because it's hard to see how sales of Xbox One will improve from this point forward.

What timeframe are we looking at?

It is weird that they're talking about new hardware two 2.25 years into the generation.

But I would need more information ... is the new product just going to be an Xbox One in a new box with a faster GPU? Or is this going to be an entirely new beast like a disc-less set-top box with Xbox One BC?

I will say this has been the most interesting topic on GAF for a couple of months.