Support NeoGAF

[Weevilone]

Then only buy once every five years or whatever and play the same games that the rest of us would be playing only at a lower resolution or graphics setting.

Not seeing why this model has any negatives other than a marginally increased testing overhead for developers.

I'm not trying to make some argument on my own behalf. I can either chase the best specs and experience, or just use my PC since it's already high end. I can use the Steam streaming box on the TV now too, so I have the PC covered. If they're going to converge then I don't need the console.

I'm trying to look at this from the more mainstream perspective. Most people I know just buy a console and use it for a long time. Still, they're very aware of the differences between the Xbox and PS4 this generation, so if they're using MS product then it's out of Xbox Live loyalty, or love for the controller. I don't see the public that's had their attention glued to the performance delta this generation, buying into an ecosystem where it'll take frequent upgrades to not be on the wrong end of the performance equation.

For all the talk about a modular console.. I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think for a moment that people are going to be buying console CPU and GPU modules at Best Buy. If this upgrade approach ever happened, the best realistic possibility would be an upgrade discount off new models for owners of previous SKU's. I doubt that it would be sufficient, however.

A random crazy thought, maybe Microsoft will leverage the movement away from traditional cable set top boxes to rent us a new Xboxes to handle all of our gaming and TV needs. Then we can just pay an upgrade fee and they'll ship us a new leased Xbox. We get rid of cable rentals and simply move all of our marbles over to MS, losing/forgoing traditional physical game and console ownership in the process. End users get cross-buy via digital media and easy to upgrade hardware in the process. The device could handle traditional cable TV, OTA antenna, or a PS Vue-type content delivery on the same device. I mean hey, why not... everyone's just speculating anyways.

 

[Darkstorne]

You really can't use Nintendo as an example of anything other than "how to make bad business decisions and confuse your mass market".

If Microsoft can launch the next Xbox with a single removable GPU slot, and enforce a 1080p 30fps minimum for all games on the base hardware, then they're on to a good thing here. Upgrading your console would literally be as simple as swapping game discs. Remove current object, slot in new object, wait while console checks for patches, play.

 

[SneakersSO]

I know people want to jump on this as a terrible idea, but what would be so bad from having something like this:

On the console front, Xbox systems in a 3 tier approach:

• Xbox high end (priced at, or above, typical introductory console prices)
• Xbox middle end (priced somewhere below normal introductory console prices)
• Xbox low end (priced at bargain levels - prices you normally see >5 years into a console's cycle)

Start by releasing just a single system up front. Introduce a "new" system (just updated specs) after ~3 years. ~3 years after that, release another "new" system (again, just updated specs).

At this point, you have 3 versions of the Xbox that can play games that are currently out. It adds slightly more work for devs, but you get the benefit of the console space not being left behind by PC games and it also lets devs branch out graphically more than they might if they're locked into just one spec for ~8 years. If the machines are built correctly, the dev work could be streamlined enough where building in compliance for all 3 tiers of the system would be much smaller than the PC world (where you have to make it run on basically anything).

If this is done iteratively over time, the oldest (low end) system will be ~6-9 years (I'd prefer closer to 9-10) old by the time it is "phased out". This would fall into line with normal standards of what we expect from console's support.

The advantage of this is that we can, iteratively, also move forward in quicker fashion in having better graphics.


On the PC end of things, do things as they are now. MS could try to push universal apps and put their first party games on the PC. But it'd still be an open environment where things like Steam are still very heavily used.

Unless the APU on each console is the same as the last, it doesn't add a little more work; it would be a LOT more work. And it sub-divides their ecosystem into several smaller markets, while increasing the cost on developers. It would be costing more money to sell to the same pool of users. There are a lot of other issues with this approach as well, particularly for the hardware vendor themselves.

 

[Glorified G]

I like the idea, I hope they do it. For as long as the consoles still have the easy plug and play nature and "it just works" environment, I don't mind more frequent hardware upgrades, especially when they promise continuous backwards compatibility.

Exactly. I'm don't see any cons for this approach. Seems to be a win-win for everyone.

Will a mod please do me a favor and just go ahead and Permaban me? Too many people go way out of their way to make news seem negative and I think it will be better for me to just not be a member. Thanks.

Dat meltdown. Don't worry, MS is going to be ok bro.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Nonsense.

PS2 continued to sell Long into the Ps3's time and PS3 continues to sell now

Xbox 360 is still selling well

But haven't software sales dropped off a cliff?

 

[StrategyFan]

less purchases of completely redundant hardware is a good thing

it means we can spend more money on games

 

[Hockeymac18]

Unless the APU on each console is the same as the last, it doesn't add a little more work; it would be a LOT more work. And it sub-divides their ecosystem into several smaller markets, while increasing the cost on developers. It would be costing more money to sell to the same pool of users. There are a lot of other issues with this approach as well, particularly for the hardware vendor themselves.

What hardware vendors? MS would be releasing the systems.

I'm not talking about steam machines. I'm talking about official Xbox consoles made by MS.

What I'm talking about is very much similar to the iPhone model (but on a slightly longer upgrade schedule, every few years vs. every year). Older Xbox consoles are supported basically two versions out (if timed correctly, that could mean 8-10 years of support).

 

[Markoman]

I know people want to jump on this as a terrible idea, but what would be so bad from having something like this:

On the console front, Xbox systems in a 3 tier approach:

• Xbox high end (priced at, or above, typical introductory console prices)
• Xbox middle end (priced somewhere below normal introductory console prices)
• Xbox low end (priced at bargain levels - prices you normally see >5 years into a console's cycle)

Start by releasing just a single system up front. Introduce a "new" system (just updated specs) after ~3 years. ~3 years after that, release another "new" system (again, just updated specs).

At this point, you have 3 versions of the Xbox that can play games that are currently out. It adds slightly more work for devs, but you get the benefit of the console space not being left behind by PC games and it also lets devs branch out graphically more than they might if they're locked into just one spec for ~8 years. If the machines are built correctly, the dev work could be streamlined enough where building in compliance for all 3 tiers of the system would be much smaller than the PC world (where you have to make it run on basically anything).

If this is done iteratively over time, the oldest (low end) system will be ~6-9 years (I'd prefer closer to 9-10) old by the time it is "phased out". This would fall into line with normal standards of what we expect from console's support.

The advantage of this is that we can, iteratively, also move forward in quicker fashion in having better graphics.


On the PC end of things, do things as they are now. MS could try to push universal apps and put their first party games on the PC. But it'd still be an open environment where things like Steam are still very heavily used.

Ok, if I can get every Xbox game on PC now, why should I wait for 3 years to buy a new XboxOne upgrade?I could already play those games with better specs. Buy a PC for 600-800$ now and I'm sure it will beat your XboxOne upgrade in 3 years from now, because I don't see mobile CPUs outperforming current I5s in 3 years. The standard Xbox you are talking about will always be a low-end PC.

 

[Darryl M R]

I don't think this is going to help the Xbox brand, but instead Microsoft brand. I really want to see more at E3 but I don't see why I would want to update my hardware and not just get a PC still. I have the option to upgrade my Xbox but is that a reasonable option for the Xbox userbase?


Having a multi-tier console just sounds bad. More development time, what happens for people with the reasonable mid-tier hardware and find out that devs always focused on high end tier. This just doesn't make sense.

 

[SneakersSO]

What hardware vendors? MS would be releasing the systems.

I'm not talking about steam machines. I'm talking about official Xbox consoles made by MS.

Just because MS is releasing the systems, doesn't mean the APU configuration of the machine would be the same between each console. Are you telling me each console will have an AMD CPU & GPU, with eSRAM & DDR3 as its memory configuration, not to mention with the same bus configuration? Cause if any one of those components changes, the devs are going to need to make that console's own code path in order to support the machine natively.

 

[Complicated]

Some of the most successful games on the market right now do not feature cutting edge graphics. Phone & tablets and the games which are most successful on those platforms, don't even feature cutting edge graphics in the mobile sector. This idea that showing shiny graphics in front of consumers and asking them for $400 is a logical fallacy.

The best thing about this is that it preserves the current upgrade cycle for those that don't want or can't afford to do so as often. With newer hardware coming out more often the older model can go down in price much more quickly as well.

 

[MilkyJoe]

The reaction i'm seeing here to this is baffling.

Lets say you like having a console that lasts for 4-6 years of a generation like it always has...nothing changes

Lets say you want to upgrade 2-3 years into the generation for slightly better graphics? You can do that and still play with everyone on the older consoles

Next generation all of last generations games will continue to work

You don't lose anything...some people will gain something

My thoughts exactly, I'm reading through this and shaking my head at the blinkered responses

"no standard hardware for 10 years, fuck this I'm out, I'm never buying a Microsoft product again... Blah.. Blah... "

It be like me tossing out a PC with a Gtx 670 cause some rich count has a quad Titan rig.

It's completely optional.

As soon as x86 was announced this was on the cards.

 

[Hockeymac18]

Ok, if I can get every Xbox game on PC now, why should I wait for 3 years to buy a new XboxOne upgrade?I could already play those games with better specs. Buy a PC for 600-800$ now and I'm sure it will beat your XboxOne upgrade in 3 years from now, because I don't see mobile CPUs outperforming current I5s in 3 years. The standard Xbox you are talking about will always be a low-end PC.

Because the Xbox systems would be geared towards people who don't want to build a high end PC (i.e. typical console gamers).

 

[Helznicht]

Something feels wrong here. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think that my Intel Quad from 2007 still outperforms XboxOne's and PS4's Cpu. The gap between current PC tech and consoles is already so huge, that you can't bet on PS5 and Xbox2 outperforming a GTX 980 with the power-drain-limitations of consoles in 2018/2019

Actually I upgraded my sons PC that had a 3gz Quad Core with a GTX 970. BLOPS3 ran anywhere from 30-50 FPS med-high-ish settings multiplayer (similar to the console versions). I have recently upgraded his MB, RAM and CPU to an i5 3.5 ghz and it now runs 100-150 fps, all on the same GTX 970. Don't discredit the memory architecture also, which the consoles actually excel at.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Yeah, the barely functioning 20fps versions will still work.

slippery slope bullshit. If how good developers in other software industries have been in scaleable solutions it will be. I know you're trying to be cute, but you're not.


I hope Microsoft disrupts this static locked console bullshit and takes the technology into the 21th century. Consoles are so outdated. It's bananas seeing people defending the current shitty status quo. Garbage online, shitty ports, stagnent user bases that divides, and the same 4-5 cycles that keep it locked.

 

[MutonCommander]

I guess Sony has won the console war so definitively that MS feel they need to not even compete anymore and just go PC.

Man MS is this directionless mess. So much short term-ism and not an ounce of foresight.

This is the exact opposite of what you're describing.

 

[Hockeymac18]

Just because MS is releasing the systems, doesn't mean the APU configuration of the machine would be the same between each console. Are you telling me each console will have an AMD CPU & GPU, with eSRAM & DDR3 as its memory configuration, not to mention with the same bus configuration? Cause if any one of those components changes, the devs are going to need to make that console's own code path in order to support the machine natively.

Things would have to become more PC-like, yes. But instead of supporting x number of configs, you just support 3 set configs.

Like I said, it'd be more work for devs, I recognize that. Perhaps the dev tools could be streamlined enough where much of that work is taken care of for the devs. This is a big question, and obviously MS would have to have solutions for devs if they did go this route.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Meanwhile in Japan...

Wonder if Nintendo's shares are already rising.

But on a more serious note, this topic is a perfect example why business decisions within the gaming industry should NEVER be based on message boards . If Sony had done that, they would have stepped out of console business in 2012. And if MS does that, they would come to the conclusion that their idea might just work.

Well, it won't. I perfectly understand why some enthusiasts here think that this is clever idea. But it isn't. It isn't even close to that. It is the end of XBOX hardware as we know it. And I am cool with that, as I'll be able to play all those former exclusive games on my PC. So, great news! And great news for Nintendo and Sony, because one console manufacturer literaly announced to leave the market. I am sure that this will have a severe impact on sales figures pretty soon.

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

While this is interesting, I remain extremely skeptical that MS would be able to pull it off successfully and minimize complexity for developers/consumers.

Dat meltdown. Don't worry, MS is going to be ok bro.

Video games are serious business, apparently.

 

[shark sandwich]

I think the time is right for this idea. It's already working just fine for the mobile market.

I don't think they have to release several different "tiers". More like, release a new model every 4 years or so. Run the same OS and maintain full backwards compatibility. Games could also be backwards compatible with the old Xbox version and just run at lower settings. When a new tier comes out, they could at the same time release a cheap version of the last gen (like the newest Xbox 360).

Games would have to target maybe 2-3 hardware profiles instead of one. Doesn't seem like it would be that much work, certainly less work than optimizing a game on PC.

 

[Markoman]

Because the Xbox systems would be geared towards people who don't want to build a high end PC (i.e. typical console gamers).

So 600-800$ PCs are high-end now. Let's see, we are already installing patches on consoles and now they want me to open the case to replace a component? Do you see where this is going?

 

[orochi91]

Very interesting developments!

I have no idea whether this will end in disaster for Xbox hardware, but it's exciting to see something radical taking place in the console space.

Sony should probably make the PS5 as powerful as possible if it has to compete with yearly refreshes from MS's next Xbox and/or from Nintendo's NX platform(s).

 

[Gtagentleman]

Today will be remembered as the beginning of the end for Xbox consoles.

 

[SneakersSO]

The best thing about this is that it preserves the current upgrade cycle for those that don't want or can't afford to do so as often. With newer hardware coming out more often the older model can go down in price much more quickly as well.

Except new hardware isn't what drives the cost of consoles down! Decrease in demand, coupled with decreased manufacturing costs, is what drives console MSRP down.

It doesn't preserve the upgrade path for anyone, because various over-complicated scenarios will come about from this including:

1. Game developer decides to make use of all the new Xbox Two's bells & whistles and makes it exclusive to that machine. Xbox One users will now have to upgrade in order to enjoy it, even if they purchased the X1 while it was in year 4 of its shelf life, even if its still getting supported from other developers.

2. Game developer decides to code to the greatest common denominator & makes his game Xbox One & Xbox Two compatible. However, the process of creating two versions of the same game increased dev costs & time, so theres less time to optimize towards the Xbox Two version, since the Xbox One's install base will be significantly higher, and the iterative step in tech means it wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway. This means the Xbox Two user is having a devalued experience, since they payed for premium graphics.

The greatest strengths of console to this day are ease of use & dependability. It's why the market still exists even though PC gaming has far more versatility as a platform, as well as functionality, and even lower price points. If you start to overcomplicate this for console users, then you lose the reason as to why they were console gamers in the first p lace.

 

[Zedox]

Meanwhile in Japan...

...But on a more serious note, this topic is a perfect example why business decisions within the gaming industry should NEVER be based on message boards . If Sony had done that, they would have stepped out of console business in 2012. And if MS does that, they would come to the conclusion that their idea might just work.

Well, it won't. I perfectly understand why some enthusiasts here think that this is clever idea. But it isn't. It isn't even close to that. It is the end of XBOX hardware as we know it. And I am cool with that, as I'll be able to play all those former exclusive games on my PC. So, great news! And great news for Nintendo and Sony, because one console manufacturer literaly announced to leave the market. I am sure that this will have a severe impact on sales figures pretty soon.

So people in here are talking about more Xbox hardware and consoles and your conclusion is that they are leaving the console market. Wow. And here I thought I saw it all. Bravo.

 

[EdLin]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone else has mentioned this, but I wonder how retailers are going to feel about annual upgrades? SEGA tried that, they pissed off retailers so much from unsold inventory that they had to exit the console hardware business. This sounds like a real bad idea...

 

[thomasmahler]

Hmmm, I think a lot of you guys here might think a little short-sighted. I remember people going batshit insane about Microsoft putting a Hard Drive into their console, because game consoles weren't supposed to have hard-drives and be like PCs... The fact of the matter though is that the PC architecture won out. Your Xbox One and your PS4 are nothing more than X86-based PCs. And trust me, developers are loving that fact.

So let's look at a realistic scenario of what this could mean:

Microsoft releases an upgraded version of their Xbox One, let's call it Xbox One Plus. So now there are 2 SKUs you can choose from: The original Xbox One and the Xbox One Plus.

The original Xbox One would still play all games and devs would have to ensure that their games run well on that system. Yes, this is where this might fail, cause some devs might optimize for Xbox One Plus and do a sloppy job on optimizing for the Xbox One. What that'd mean is that the game would get ripped apart in the press and the developer would take a beating, which would then ensure that they either fix it or they do a better job next time.

Let's also say that these consoles come with a restriction:

The game needs to run nicely on Xbox One, but to release it on Xbox One Plus, Microsoft only allows you to release it if your title always hits a solid 60fps.

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any 60fps games on the original Xbox One anymore, it'd just mean that there's a higher level system that costs more that gives you a better experience if you're the person who is OK with shelling out more money, similar to how the PC market works: You want steady 60fps even on the highest-end titles? Well, then you gotta invest in better hardware.

I'd be OK with this if it's kept in bounds. If you want a cheap console that plays all the games on the platform, you can buy a Xbox One. If you want the absolute best performance, you pay more and get an Xbox One Plus. This is the exact same thing that happens with Steam Machines, only that there are a dozen Steam machines and the pricing isn't in the console-range yet.

So would that really be such a big issue?

 

[justsomeguy]

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone else has mentioned this, but I wonder how retailers are going to feel about annual upgrades? SEGA tried that, they pissed off retailers so much from unsold inventory that they had to exit the console hardware business. This sounds like a real bad idea...

"annual" is an almost definitely incorrect assumption

 

[Papacheeks]

This is the exact opposite of what you're describing.

Explain then. It's not hard to understand that Microsoft has in the past couple years made 180 changes that do not benefit long term.

They were short term, like un-bundling kinect, getting rid of the entertainment department they had for xbox one. Fire sale from 2014, then changing it to regular price.

All not long term, only short term gains for market share. Long term would be building legacy studios for years and years to come. Making infrastructure changes in how they approach independent developers as to not do "case by case" basis strat.

Removing clauses that would inhibit no cross-platform play.

That's what he's getting at, if you seriously haven't been able to follow the path MS has been on hard to say you would understand Pie and Beans message.

 

[theangrypirate]

This makes no sense at all. People buy consoles because they don't have to upgrade them. You buy it and play games on for 5 years or so. If you have to upgrade to play games then why would you do it with an xbox and not just a PC? This is very sad. Microsoft was kicking ass with the 360, then Kinect happned and they went off the rails with the xbone. Why would anyone buy an upgradable xbone when you could just buy a pc?

 

[ZOONAMI]

All of you think MS means discrete components here are wrong, imo. They're talking about higher performance locked systems released every 2-3 years. Nintendo is talking a similar tune. Sony has also mentioned the possibility of a high performance ps4.

It really isn't that crazy considering people by slim revisions of consoles. As long as the launch version within the same "gen" can play the most recent games just at lower resolution / settings, I don't see what the problem is.

A generation won't really be any shorter as it should last 2-3 revisions.

 

[EdLin]

"annual" is an almost definitely incorrect assumption

Even every other year would be a bad idea...

 

[NullPointer]

Hmmm, I think a lot of you guys here might think a little short-sighted. I remember people going batshit insane about Microsoft putting a Hard Drive into their console, because game consoles weren't supposed to have hard-drives and be like PCs... The fact of the matter though is that the PC architecture won out. Your Xbox One and your PS4 are nothing more than X86-based PCs. And trust me, developers are loving that fact.

People didn't like the idea of a console with a hard drive?

I only remember people going apeshit about the non-HDD version.

The original Xbox One would still play all games and devs would have to ensure that their games run well on that system. Yes, this is where this might fail, cause some devs might optimize for Xbox One Plus and do a sloppy job on optimizing for the Xbox One. What that'd mean is that the game would get ripped apart in the press and the developer would take a beating, which would then ensure that they either fix it or they do a better job next time.

I doubt it. People would just be told to upgrade to the latest hardware.

 

[vcc]

Very interesting developments!

I have no idea whether this will end in disaster for Xbox hardware, but it's exciting to see something radical taking place in the console space.

Sony should probably make the PS5 as powerful as possible if it has to compete with yearly refreshes from MS's next Xbox and/or from Nintendo's NX platform(s).

This is PR spin for the post diaster. The XB1 was the disaster, they lost the internal influence and resources to continue and this is their 'exit' out of the console industry while assuring their fans they're 'winning' and expanding rather then exiting and shrinking.

It will likely mean the PS5 will come when it comes, and will be less competitive power and price wise which sucks. MS will put out a few token PC boxes then never mention it again.

 

[Japanmanx3]

Interesting times we are in...

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Maybe this is hinting at the next Xbox being customisable?

So where the past consoles were ultra closed, even the HDD wasn't upgradeable (outside proprietary), maybe the next one will allow users to buy upgraded parts to install themselves in a click and play manner?

I'd be ok with that.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Meanwhile in Japan...

Wonder if Nintendo's shares are already rising.

But on a more serious note, this topic is a perfect example why business decisions within the gaming industry should NEVER be based on message boards . If Sony had done that, they would have stepped out of console business in 2012. And if MS does that, they would come to the conclusion that their idea might just work.

Well, it won't. I perfectly understand why some enthusiasts here think that this is clever idea. But it isn't. It isn't even close to that. It is the end of XBOX hardware as we know it. And I am cool with that, as I'll be able to play all those former exclusive games on my PC. So, great news! And great news for Nintendo and Sony, because one console manufacturer literaly announced to leave the market. I am sure that this will have a severe impact on sales figures pretty soon.

Yo do know that you're summing up new ideas that try that break away from doing the same old, as a failure? It's always telling when people respond to things they don't know with skepticism. It's never "wait and see", "it might work- let's see what happens". It's just going straight for the doomsday hyperbole while riding on that the only thing that works is how it has been done before.

I'm not saying this new bold move will be a success, but it is a new step in a different direction, and it is more than a little weird to see so much hostility towards this concept, when you can just keep buying sony/nintendo and keep on the same old trajectory.

 

[Aostia]

O have to admit. I am confused. Let's see what this will actually mean

 

[SneakersSO]

Things would have to become more PC-like, yes. But instead of supporting x number of configs, you just support 3 set configs.

Like I said, it'd be more work for devs, I recognize that. Perhaps the dev tools could be streamlined enough where much of that work is taken care of for the devs. This is a big question, and obviously MS would have to have solutions for devs if they did go this route.

Supporting two platforms is already a daunting, expensive, time consuming task. You think a 3rd console would be anywhere near that insignificant or ever have dev tools that were that streamlined? Devs are right now trying to focus on streamlining our development process to get more & more games in a higher state of polish out the door in the next few years; not less. Not to mention, all another MS console would do was increase the cost & work on our end, while providing the same ecosystem for us to sell to - Xbox users will still be Xbox users. This doesn't grow their marketshare. I'm still selling to the same pool of users, only now I have to increase my budget & dev time to do so on two different platforms. Trust me, most publishers will just pick one platform per ecosystem & support the one that can make them the highest ROI.

It would never be a set of dev tools where it takes care of the conversion process for us. Each of our code bases can potentially be radically different, and we usually write our code bases to specialize in the machine its running on, meaning the more adept with a console we become, the more unique to those respective platforms each build's code base is.

 

[Krakatoa]

I'd be on-board with this is they did some kind of Xbox lease. So instead of forking out every 4 years $500, I pay a monthly fee and get the latest Xbox every time it comes out.

 

[ZOONAMI]

This makes no sense at all. People buy consoles because they don't have to upgrade them. You buy it and play games on for 5 years or so. If you have to upgrade to play games then why would you do it with an xbox and not just a PC? This is very sad. Microsoft was kicking ass with the 360, then Kinect happned and they went off the rails with the xbone. Why would anyone buy an upgradable xbone when you could just buy a pc?

I don't buy consoles because I don't have to upgrade them, it's honestly not even a consideration. For ps4 and Nintendo it's about exclusive games, and for Xbox it's sort of about games but more about it being a fucking awesome media box.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

So people in here are talking about more Xbox hardware and consoles and your conclusion is that they are leaving the console market. Wow. And here I thought I saw it all. Bravo.

At a minimum, Microsoft is moving away from the traditional console model. I think we all can agree on that.

But beyond that, there is speculation that this is a stopgap to get Xbox owners onto the Windows store and slowly exit the console market. While it's certainly not confirmed (and there's no way Microsoft WOULD confirm it only 2 years into the console's life) these actions put them in a conspicuously good position to leave the console market and go after Apple, Google, and Steam instead of battling Sony and Microsoft.

 

[MilkyJoe]

So people in here are talking about more Xbox hardware and consoles and your conclusion is that they are leaving the console market. Wow. And here I thought I saw it all. Bravo.

He's either Blinkered or salty, I can't decide with that one.

Console will always have a place over PC for huge numbers of people. It's optional. It's an obvious option with the architecture. And people will lap it up.

 

[vcc]

So people in here are talking about more Xbox hardware and consoles and your conclusion is that they are leaving the console market. Wow. And here I thought I saw it all. Bravo.

That is what they're doing and covering their retreat with PR spin. This is the announcement of the end of their console push and basically the loss of influence of the xbox group. They are now being put to push the w10 store and if that flops Phil and all the xbox people will either be shuffled into other groups or be fired.

So now it all rests on the w10 store. There will not be a XB2, like I said before. The writing has been on the wall for this since launch.

The PC market is so fundamentally different that the spin is talking directly contrary to reality. The same reason the steam boxes wont' take off is the same reaosn any xbox PC hybrids won't. They have to be massive value to attract that market but to do so it would have to be locked down which repels that market. So fundamentally the plan lots of folks here supporting MS imagines is failure by design. It's not a new plan, it is a exit.

They no longer have the favor of the people in charge so they are now onboarding for the w10 store. Xbox is dead.

 

[Zedox]

Yo do know that you're summing up new ideas that try that break away from doing the same old, as a failure? It's always telling when people respond to things they don't know with skepticism. It's never "wait and see", "it might work- let's see what happens". It's just going straight for the doomsday hyperbole while riding on that the only thing that works is how it has been done before.

I'm not saying this new bold move will be a success, but it is a new step in a different direction, and it is more than a little weird to see so much hostility towards this concept, when you can just keep buying sony/nintendo and keep on the same old trajectory.

You know who thought the same? Microsoft with Windows...keep going the same old tried and true...then something new came along (iPhone) and changed the whole concept of the traditional phone and basically hurt the market for PCs.

The doom and gloom patrol are truly out. People wanting the same thing for consoles forever is crazy to me. Only every so years we get a new console that we keep for 5-7 years, they aren't stable enough to be like a television, not the market that they are in. Not yet at least.

 

[thomasmahler]

People didn't like the idea of a console with a hard drive?

I only remember people going apeshit about the non-HDD version.

Oh my god, yes. When the original Xbox was released, people complained all over the place that it's just a PC and that it 'even comes with a hard-drive', thus making it more like a PC. And people didn't want their consoles to be a PC. That's also the reason why Microsoft never made a Mouse / Keyboard for the original Xbox, cause people were so afraid that their consoles would be turned into PCs.

That notion now is a little ridiculous. Having Hard Drives in PCs is obviously a good thing.

I get that it might not sound amazing having to pay more to get better perf, but I bet there's a market for it and it's bound to happen at some point. Our consoles are PCs now. I'm OK with not having to buy into a new architecture where i own 0 games the moment I upgrade.

I'd love to be able to play games like Red Dead Redemption in 60fps on my upgraded console. I'd love to be able to play everything I buy today on my Xbox One on an Xbox One model I buy 5 years from now and I know that the performance and resolution might be better there. Yes, this is the PC way of doing things, but isn't that actually a good thing?

 

[ZOONAMI]

I'd be on-board with this is they did some kind of Xbox lease. So instead of forking out every 4 years $500, I pay a monthly fee and get the latest Xbox every time it comes out.

Selling the old version and buying the new one sort of equates to leasing... Or you could just finance your console purchases, boom lease payment schedule but you get to keep the system instead of being forced to paying a monthly fee for something you can't keep at the end of the lease. Leasing is stupid in this context, these are relatively inexpensive purchases, not a car or a house.

 

[AndyD]

At a minimum, Microsoft is moving away from the traditional console model. I think we all can agree on that.

But beyond that, there is speculation that this is a stopgap to get Xbox owners onto the Windows store and slowly exit the console market. While it's certainly not confirmed (and there's no way Microsoft WOULD confirm it only 2 years into the console's life) these actions put them in a conspicuously good position to leave the console market and go after Apple, Google, and Steam instead of battling Sony and Microsoft [I think you mean Nintendo].

I think this is quite obvious. And with the rise of VR, that will be the new hardware battleground, with the host device into which it plugs becoming less crucial, and instead a focus on the "world" to which it connects and store from which games and experiences come.

 

[vcc]

O have to admit. I am confused. Let's see what this will actually mean

Xbox is dead. If W10 succeed they'll be a group supporting that. If it doesn't MS becomes third party or disappears.

 

[Maintenance]

Will a mod please do me a favor and just go ahead and Permaban me? Too many people go way out of their way to make news seem negative and I think it will be better for me to just not be a member. Thanks.

Makes a lot more sense considering Windows 10 locks into your specific hardware configuration and can't be moved to another setup without a new license purchase.

Is this true? I can't find any article about it.