Maintenance
Member
Damn the flip-flopping here.
Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
This won't go well. People that can't afford the yearly upgrades will devalue on every forum ect. The vocal broke few will whine until system is changed. I mean look at the amount of people that whined because they made an premium controller. Or the people that scream when dlc is 15 bucks. Console space will always be held back by the broke.
SneakersSO
Member
Who is buying the console at that cost & then reselling it? You think Gamestop or MS themselves are gonna give you that much money towards a new machine? Heck, when people do that with phones, the phones are already subsidized through the carrier.
In order for this to be sustainable, people would still need to have a purpose in the old consoles that were purchased when trading in for the new ones. Considering games are a bleeding edge tech field, as opposed to phones, where even a 2-3 year old phone can run the overwhelming majority of apps & features that users would still want from it, I just can't see a user base ever walking into a store & buying the inferior used console knowing its software shelf life is probably super short, especially if its been out for awhile now.
As a dev, don't get me started on the nightmare this would create for us, either in terms of financial cost or development resources.
Ninja Scooter
Member
No offense but what you want doesn't matter. This isn't a discussion on what gamz wants. We all want a lot of things. I already conceded that yes, having a million options that suit every single persons specific tastes would be fan fucking tastic. But that doesn't translate into reality. The fact that a much more mass market product like an iPad is struggling to maintain this kind of business model makes it much more likely that a video game console could, and, in turn, also less likely that a game console manufacturer would even attempt this kind of business model. What you personally want has no bearing on that.
You'd have to use the Windows Store though which is a special kind of hell as far as PC gaming is concerned and it'll soon get worse: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1191995
It's still good news but not as good as you'd think.
Graphics Horse
Member
Sure if it's a $500 console it won't work, but it needn't be that. Last gen showed they could sell the same thing at the same price for years with superficial improvements and overvalued hard drive space.
When Phil Spencer says "that the Xbox One could see a future in which it is upgraded, rather than replaced by new consoles," that doesn't sound like the existing model albeit with more frequent refreshes.
I'd imagine it's going to be a modular design of some sort, or basically how the Xbox 360's original hard drive worked - albeit on a larger scale.
maniac-kun
Member
Lets see if Sony is capable of doing the same thing. I would love for this to happen.
I doubt even an industry leading console would be worth it for them. They got into this industry under the notion that living room computing was the future, that would shift billions of their devices. It's never going to be that, the amount of resources building the Xbox is worthless to the company if it isn't also being used to help Windows 10 and whatnot these days.
His point is that it may not be feasible for them to do so, regardless of what you (consumers) want. Ultimately, it must make business sense in practice.
Microsoft are unifying the PC/XB1 due to market conditions. The current conditions on PC are heavily in favor of Steam, and the current conditions on console are heavily in favor of PlayStation. That said, Sony is moving towards making PlayStation a platform that can exist on non-PlayStation hardware. That's what the Gaikai purchase was about and (unless they stop caring) that's what PS Now is going to be. It's going to happen someday. Right now, they're still able to sell a lot of consoles, so they don't have pressure to pull an Xbox and go multi-platform.
That's good that you want that choice, but the mass market has traditionally rejected it; it is unsustainable to build a business around it for anything other than a phone (which, as has been explained, is a completely different product, being that it is a subsidized and essential to living one's life).
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Yeah but if that's what it takes I'm fine with another store. Already have a desura, gog, steam, battle.net, origin, etc accounts.
The no modding thing sucks though.
I wonder if we'll see this realised in the Windows Experience Index being accompanied by an Xbox Experience Index; something along those lines to offer an at-a-glance 'your machine is good enough for this game' metric - with the consoles being released corresponding to certain scorecards - might not be a bad idea.
Being able to assert that your PC is Xbox One equivalent, for instance, is a useful metric for determining what you ought to be able to run.
Being able to assert that your PC is Xbox One equivalent, for instance, is a useful metric for determining what you ought to be able to run.
Iced_Eagle
Member
Read the OP more closely. Phil Spencer says forwards compatible.
Granted, if they were to do this, it would likely follow the iOS and Android model whereas it is the developer's choice on which to support and not support. It is in tthe developer's interest to support as many as possible (since they need to make money after all), but it does bring around more uncertainty to the console market in terms of games because you would need to wait to hear about essentially "min spec" for consoles. You'd reach a point where eventually you would need to upgrade to buy new games since developer's wouldn't be supporting it anymore (like iOS and Android).
Doug Heffernan
Member
I don't see any issues.
It's an option, nothing wrong with having options.
The older XB1 iteration won't be abandoned from a development standpoint. Theoretically, devs would just program a check at startup to see which version of the hardware you're running and it would adjust the settings accordingly.
Upgrading from iPhone Model X to Model X + 1 is not a necessity, yet people do it.
Movalpolos
Banned
My mind is trying to rationalize how you came into this thread with the intention to make a comment, so off-topic and so deliberately a port beg.
Seek help.
Ninja Scooter
Member
The point of those revisions was to make the hardware cheaper, so that even if the price point stayed the same, the manufacture would be making more money off of them. So you are replacing that traditional avenue for console manufacturers and saying "ok instead we are going to spend more money and r&d to make the console more powerful, so that we can continue to sell it at a loss at a stage in the console cycle where we normally start to get a break in costs". Doesn't make sense to mem
Hitokiri03
Member
If that is the future for the consoles, I guess I will join the PCbros next gen.
Yes, is more expensive up front, but cheaper games compensate that.
Just click log out and done
Yes, is more expensive up front, but cheaper games compensate that.
Just click log out and done
Graphics Horse
Member
He compares it not just to pc, but to tablets and mobile. The current xbo simply does not support a modular design, unless you want to slap a giant second box onto the HDMI in.
Isn't that what this will be, eventually? Consolidating on Windows?
Xboxes therein will be Windows gaming PCs, perhaps subsidised, and locked to the windows store. It'll be a brand for Microsoft designed game PCs, not a sw platform distinct from Windows.
I can't see them keeping two separate software and business platforms if the goal is unification. In the short term with Xbox one they may keep both platforms - have Windows apps/games and 'native' Xbox one games both on Xbox. But I think the goal is to eventually hone in on Windows only with a single Windows store. The standalone Xbox platform will be gone.
geordiemp
Member
If sony released a Ps4.5 which was
1. PSVR integrated and ready
2. Stronger CPU and GPU which could be toned down to run Ps4 games
3. Option to run in 4.5 mode when supported for more 1080p60
4. Lower 14 nm processors allowing for cooler running
5. Improved heat sink for ultra quiet
The above could be seamless, so 2 consoles is no different to ipad and Ipad2, they would play the same games.
I would upgrade. I see no issue here, people are used to Ipad and Ipad 2 or Iphone 5 and 6 so its not a big deal.
Same goes for Xb1, just using Ps4 as an example as it probably needs a new version with the extra VR boxes.
1. PSVR integrated and ready
2. Stronger CPU and GPU which could be toned down to run Ps4 games
3. Option to run in 4.5 mode when supported for more 1080p60
4. Lower 14 nm processors allowing for cooler running
5. Improved heat sink for ultra quiet
The above could be seamless, so 2 consoles is no different to ipad and Ipad2, they would play the same games.
I would upgrade. I see no issue here, people are used to Ipad and Ipad 2 or Iphone 5 and 6 so its not a big deal.
Same goes for Xb1, just using Ps4 as an example as it probably needs a new version with the extra VR boxes.
This is definitely a good thing. The concept of stagnant hardware that is supposed to last 7-10 years in today's world is insane. I thought both current gen consoles would allow for upgradable hardware. It will be interesting if MS does pull something off and somehow makes the XB1 on par with, or better than, the PS4.
That is fine also. You are still buying their game. It is win-win for them.
My money is on Xbox being an experience available on all Windows platforms in varying capacity, from phones to tablets to Surface to PCs (with perhaps a PS Now-style streaming service over Azure to offer an alternative to lower-horsepower Windows devices), with a couple of set-top box Windows machines "optimized for Xbox". I'd wager that.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I've been thinking for years that merging the Windows gaming space with their Xbox space would only serve to make Microsoft a stronger gaming presence, but for over a decade now they keep stating how "PC gaming is a focus for us" and then completely ignoring it and even shitting on it. HOWEVER, Phil Spencer certainly seems to have been gradually moving in the merger direction over time. If they are truely serious this time, then I applaud them for finally actually fucking doing what they should have done long ago.
I know for myself, as a PC only gamer, I'd buy Halo and Forza on PC if I was able to. Gladly and eagerly.
I know for myself, as a PC only gamer, I'd buy Halo and Forza on PC if I was able to. Gladly and eagerly.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
On one hand it's good in retroactively applying that to the past "man what if we could have had an upgraded ps2 to run gta3 at a locked 30 fps" but not so good in that "that gta3 was designed around the PlayStation 1.5 as a min spec"
Although with this current gen I don't see huge leaps in game design through the hardware, it's just looked prettier etc. but something like red faction guerilla wouldn't have worked like it did with a ps1 as min spec.
Although with this current gen I don't see huge leaps in game design through the hardware, it's just looked prettier etc. but something like red faction guerilla wouldn't have worked like it did with a ps1 as min spec.
People comparing gaming consoles to phones now? Don't be ridiculous.
Phones are seen as absolutely essential for everyday functioning in today's society. They serve hundreds of separate purposes, are heavily subsidized and everyone owns one.
That's the only reason the yearly/bi-yearly upgrade cycle works.
Trying to apply this line of thinking to dedicated gaming consoles is laughable. They are not even within the same realm.
Phones are seen as absolutely essential for everyday functioning in today's society. They serve hundreds of separate purposes, are heavily subsidized and everyone owns one.
That's the only reason the yearly/bi-yearly upgrade cycle works.
Trying to apply this line of thinking to dedicated gaming consoles is laughable. They are not even within the same realm.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It's much more of a neccessity than video games are. And when carriers are basically subsidizing the cost of the phone, or hiding it behind monthly payments, it makes it that
much easier to swallow. The two are not even in the same ballpark, it's silly to even bring them up. It's become increasingly clear that the cell phone market is its own beast and cannot be used to predict the consumer habits in other markets. There is zero reason to believe there is any correlation between cell phone buying habits and video game console habits.
He compares it to Tablets and Mobile in the sense that their software is forward and backwards compatible, and eventually phased out at a required specification level - as opposed to a new platform release forcing the issue.
Graphics Horse
Member
I don't know how much.truth there is to this, but when the 360 got shrunk down into a single APU, it was supposed to have the memory bandwidth gimped so it would still be compatible, when in theory it could have been much faster. If they can bring in natural improvements at the same time as they shrink to 14nm, why not do it?
Jacksinthe
Banned
People buy consoles for ease of use and ecosystem.
How does selling a new hardware revision every year or two that is functionally the same with more power go against that in any way? Plays all the same games, apps, etc.
Consoles are not phones. They are a means to an end, the end being playing the latest games available.
To put it another way, when was the last time you upgraded your TV? I don't even mean getting a larger TV, but the same size TV but with the latest in SmartTV tech, a thinner display panel, etc.? Do you think people upgrade their TV every two years or so so they can upgrade from LCD to LED to OLED and so on? Not likely, not for a large majority of TV owners. There's a reason why 3D/4k/Curved TVs aren't exactly moving the needle on sales.
This isn't a play for getting a bigger audience, because it would fail. This is a play to shuffle their existing audience onto a new platform altogether: the Windows ecosystem.
Papacheeks
Banned
If the system was modular in it's design for you to pick and choose the type of upgrade you wanted, this would make sense.
Making refreshes only hurts and fragments community. Also how will this work on the software side? Are certain features, graphically or not going to be simply unavailable to non-upgraded versions of the console?
I don't see this as being the correct step to take. I would rather they re-focus on rebuilding partnetships with studios, building long term relationships with developers, and expanding what they offer for software.
Having their games on PC is fine, but doing incremental upgrades to their dedicated xbox hardware is something I don't think will work unless it's incrementally optional.
Having one version of the xbox one being able to do something the older model can't is the same thing as 3ds to New 3ds, or even something sega has done in the past.
They are seriously going into frenzy mode to try and make xbox a viable sector of the company but IMOH going about it the wrong way.
So they fucked up this gen, so did Sony last gen and Nintendo this gen as well. Make the changes necessary without compromising what xbox has always been about. Hopefully they are already designing their box for next generation.
If they concentrated on making software and long term partnerships, their library will change, and putting it on PC with letting people play it the way they want to(with mods etc, against console players, custom graphical options, no limitations).
It will only strengthen their brand and perception of the company. Having hardware refresh's is not the way. If they could make a powerful box, make the correct connections, developer partners , they will have a strong foundation for the next console.
This idea will destroy Xbox and it will have a slow death.
On average it's every 2-3 years.
Making refreshes only hurts and fragments community. Also how will this work on the software side? Are certain features, graphically or not going to be simply unavailable to non-upgraded versions of the console?
I don't see this as being the correct step to take. I would rather they re-focus on rebuilding partnetships with studios, building long term relationships with developers, and expanding what they offer for software.
Having their games on PC is fine, but doing incremental upgrades to their dedicated xbox hardware is something I don't think will work unless it's incrementally optional.
Having one version of the xbox one being able to do something the older model can't is the same thing as 3ds to New 3ds, or even something sega has done in the past.
They are seriously going into frenzy mode to try and make xbox a viable sector of the company but IMOH going about it the wrong way.
So they fucked up this gen, so did Sony last gen and Nintendo this gen as well. Make the changes necessary without compromising what xbox has always been about. Hopefully they are already designing their box for next generation.
If they concentrated on making software and long term partnerships, their library will change, and putting it on PC with letting people play it the way they want to(with mods etc, against console players, custom graphical options, no limitations).
It will only strengthen their brand and perception of the company. Having hardware refresh's is not the way. If they could make a powerful box, make the correct connections, developer partners , they will have a strong foundation for the next console.
This idea will destroy Xbox and it will have a slow death.
On average it's every 2-3 years.
Doug Heffernan
Member
Exactly.
If I had an option to pay a nominal upgrade fee to get a console with better specs than the competitors, I'd be all over that. Stagnating devices should be a thing of the past. Consumers want options, Phil is ahead of the curve on this.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Not interested in a console that updates yearly. It removes one of the aspects of consoles I enjoy. I have my gaming PC if I want to go high end tech.
I remember that after the 360 MS said it would never build a hardware device it lost money on again.
"Despite an estimated $36.50 gross profit on each console it makes, each Xbox One likely loses money for Microsoft."
If they can break even on the console and make up $ for games / services that's where it's at. Recurring revenue is the bank. Making $20 for each console sold (like the PS4 did in the beginning) is peanuts compared to the games and services (low risk / high RIO).
Then if they can streamline the revisions without having to reinvent the wheel every time, that will substantially lower the R&D part of the xbox.
Obliterator
Member
Thats exactly what I think. GameStop gives you $200 for an Xbox One or a PS4 right now
Krisprolls
Banned
I love the spin here. Basically it means they just give up on Xbox as a console brand.
A console you upgrade has a name, it's called a PC. It brings absolutely nothing compared to existing PC while removing every advantage consoles have over PC (convenience, closed specs...)
They'll release every game on PC. Then just stop with gaming altogether when it becomes clear all you need is a PC and steam.
Basically it's the end of the Xbox brand.
A console you upgrade has a name, it's called a PC. It brings absolutely nothing compared to existing PC while removing every advantage consoles have over PC (convenience, closed specs...)
They'll release every game on PC. Then just stop with gaming altogether when it becomes clear all you need is a PC and steam.
Basically it's the end of the Xbox brand.
Papacheeks
Banned
My issue is will it play them better than the older model?
Or will it give it an edge over older model?
That;'s the thing that needs to be addressed IMHO.
Televisions are a pretty poor comparison. Price (4K & OLED) and content (3D & 4K) are the biggest reason new television technology has difficulties taking off. The absolute closest comparison is PC gaming.
So devs will thus be making games for various versions of Xbox with each one scaling in graphics and such. The newest Xbox version of said game would be considered high or ultra or whatever equivalent in PC speak (granted nowhere near actual PC ultra settings) and the oldest Xbox version would get the equivalent of 'standard' settings.
The only way this would work out for them is if they begin selling the lowest performing Xbox's at a very low entry price (let's say $200) and make all version of games coming out for that version cheaper (let's say by $10 for what would be a $60 AAA game) than the others, because people will not be willing to shell out $60 for a game that performs worse than other versions for the same price.
The only way this would work out for them is if they begin selling the lowest performing Xbox's at a very low entry price (let's say $200) and make all version of games coming out for that version cheaper (let's say by $10 for what would be a $60 AAA game) than the others, because people will not be willing to shell out $60 for a game that performs worse than other versions for the same price.
Devilgunman
Member
Same here. I want this like today!
Having it backward and forward compatible is something that is way overdue.
Papacheeks
Banned
It's crazy that not many are talking about this, which is why I think it's a bad idea.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
I wonder how it would look, like would their Xbox brand boxes be locked to a Windows storefront (in guessing yes like non jail broke iOS devices are). I do feel like it's an end of the era though if that's the case.