Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
You know how that works on the phone platforms right? They aim super low so they can get all the phones made in the last 4-6 years.
The key part of fixed platforms is you can aim to the exact hardware and be sure it runs on all of that platform. On diverse platforms there is a huge incentive to aim low (see Blizzard and the PC market).
So it means the w10 market will be like the iOS one. Lots of devs aiming low and hoping to get lucky. If the w10 market takes off. It's had a very small market share of the money running through the PC environment right now and offers very little to the consumer aside from the promise of xbox first and second party games. There is no reason to be there except that. Folks don't jump on something unless there is a upside for them versus other options. W10 offers nothing but downsides.
I can totally see Sony countering this next gen. Let the PS4 run crappy versions of all PS5 games, let PS5 run all PS4 games.
I think this is about the extent that im willing to stretch as far as "console upgrading" goes. Add ons that boost performance or whatever just gets confusing and annoying. Give me a new box that plays games for 4-5 years and im good, "should i upgrade now? What if theres a better upgrade next year? What if the new box is about to come out?" is a bunch of crap i dont want to deal with.
I think this is about the extent that im willing to stretch as far as "console upgrading" goes. Add ons that boost performance or whatever just gets confusing and annoying. Give me a new box that plays games for 4-5 years and im good, "should i upgrade now? What if theres a better upgrade next year? What if the new box is about to come out?" is a bunch of crap i dont want to deal with.
Alebrije
Member
Console upgrade has been used before with little success, even the easy to use/install memory pack for the N64 did not had a good welcome from users , Nintendo split the market with it as Sega did with 32x , Sega CD
People get a console instead of a PC because the easier to use and almost plug and play function. Do not know if an Xbone that can be upgraded will work , maybe on a part of the market but not the average kid that plays Minecraft or PvsZ , etc
People get a console instead of a PC because the easier to use and almost plug and play function. Do not know if an Xbone that can be upgraded will work , maybe on a part of the market but not the average kid that plays Minecraft or PvsZ , etc
Uno Venova
Banned
yeah man you've made it clear a couple times you're not happy with the overall response to phil's quote.
Can you play last of us, uncharted, Bloodborne, last guardian, persona, God of war, horizon etc... on pc? These are all goty candidates that one might miss out on
I only made this comment because you made it sound like pc is the place to be
Yet.
If Microsoft buys AMD, then it's a whole different kettle of fish. AMD has been desperately trying to sell itself to somebody, anybody, for awhile now, preferably someone with big bucks and a desire to sit on charity case loss making business divisions for years.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
AMD is not doing too hot. Would they really want to?
I think I speak for a lot of heavy users of Steam when I say that, it is CRAZY to invest into a more-and-more digital platform if by the next console ideration, you would have to-rebuy your contents, as remakes, releases and so on.
Everything you bought on PS3 and Xbox 360 should work on the newer consoles natively. But it doesn't. It's a complete shitshow.
I think, the next consoles are going to skip the physical media. so It would be doubley important.
I have a feeling this is likely as well, but people are gonna be dragged into the next generation kicking and screaming when it happens.
And nearly all the margin would go to AMD, so no, this is not the same as low value accessories. MS makes computers because they get deals on the parts and have good manufacturing contracts, then their branding and design allows them to sell their Surface units at a tidy profit. Highly doubtful there will be an upgradable Xbox model outside of HDD - there is virtually no monetary incentive for them to do that. Multiple skus is a different story.
old manatee
Banned
Yeah, Microsoft made it real clear to PC gamers that they want to make sure we can still access our games in the future.
Vol5
Member
Seriously, who does this appeal to? Take a step back and look at the announcement. It appeals to absolutely nobody. Nobody actually cares that MS want to consolidate to Win10, nobody cares that there might be a revisionist console. All people give a fuck about is games. I doubt when Phil and co decided on this did they sit down and say to themselves "who would buy into this, who would this appeal to, would this increase our player base?". It's the kind of announcement that is really disappointing and kind of dumb. All Phil has to do is stand up and announce content. Instead we've got this announcement about nothing interesting or engaging. Clealy MS are in a place now where any idea will stick, which is a pity because someone has to keep Sony honest.
Only if it takes off. The market leader tends to be conservative because they don't want to squander a lead. They'll only jump aboard if it's clearly winning.
So why not just go PC? The concept is basically working as a middle ground between 2 market segments. Those who want something simple and just works and those who don't mind the PC complexity. So how many folks want to be on the upgrade treadmill but don't have a PC; want the console experience but want to upgrade too.
In the past, we've seen that this group of middle ground folk are tiny and never pan out. Sega, Nintendo and Sony all attempted some form upgradable system. To see it fail because the console market isn't into the idea. The PC market also isn't because they get more value out of just having the PC. They can deal with the complexity. MS is not going to be able to undercut the players there. There just isn't the margin there for them to under cut the dozens of companies in the PC system.
For the right price, it's all about the negotiations with AMD trying to manufacture some sort of quality price buyout price for its shareholders.
Basically AMD is really, really cheap, it's worth a very small multiplier of its annual revenue, and there is some appeal to Microsoft vertically integrating its console SOCs, but the tradeoff is what does it do to Microsoft's relationship with intel.
bananafactory
Banned
For an example of how easily confused consumers are, look at what happened with the WiiU. There are still people out there who think it's an add-on for the Wii
Now try to explain this system to those people
Now try to explain this system to those people
GillianSeed79
Member
All they need to do is confirm that all Xbox exclusives going forward will receive a PC port (albeit Windows 10 exclusives) and I can sell my Xbox One and be done with it. I'm already building a gaming PC and owning an Xbox console going forward will be pointless. Honestly, if Sony just started releasing there games on PC, I'd have no reason to own a console. If anything, this might be a way for Microsoft to gracefully bow out of the hardware market or allow a Steam Box like approach to the Xbox platform going forward. Releasing a console that won't be able run games released for it five years down the road is suicide. Imagine parents when they find out their child's Xbox One can't play Xbox games anymore.
Also, the FTC might not like MS buying AMD, even though it would probably serve to make the CPU space more competitive, not less.
Not yet anyway.
The idea of a modular PC is not new, with concepts by Hive, Razer, Acer, etc., but it's never had a big company like MS behind it. They stuck behind the tablet/laptop hybrid long enough to see Surface become a billion dollar business.
What's kind of interesting is that both Hive and Razer were proposing subscription models to keep the hardware current. For example, Hive proposed $99 every 6 months for the latest model, or you could buy a model outright for like $399. Not sure how I feel about that, but it's a very different approach that I find somewhat intriguing. Could a Xbox subscription one day turn into a hardware subscription that also comes with things like Games with Gold and access to a lot of free games (e.g., Fable, Killer Instinct, Forza 6 Apex)? Again, not advocating it, just thinking on it.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Can you think of any other hardware devices that inspire a great deal of fervor upon announcement and then again upon release?
(iphone)
That quote is about how the future of Xbox will play out for the console, which is to release two or three consoles per generation.
AMD split off from their foundry. An AMD acquisition would be buying IP and market share. They still need to go to Globalfoundries or TSMC or UMC or Samsung. They R&D pipeline is not doing well compared to nVidia or Intel. Margins on the stuff is slim so it doesn't make a huge amount of sense of MS to acquire them.
MS likely doesn't want to wrangle with Intel especially with AMD who has fallen so far behind.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
No, I'll play those on my $200 ps4. The point is if you're going to spend $700 or whatever on an i7/modern GPU ps4 you would be better off just building a PC.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
The problem there is that cellphone providers cockblock Android updates, leaving the people with older phones at a disadvantage and basically try to force them to upgrade by only giving two years of updates.
Not to mention I don't think they would launch multiple skus at once, just one every 2-3 years. At least until people are more used to the idea. IPhone does have different skus, but they are largely the same, just different screen size and memory. It's not like Apple released the iPad pro, original ipad, and ipad mini all at the same fucking time. Now they might release updated versions at the same time, but only because people are familiar with the model already.
Maybe they are not tech savvy and don't want to put up with the pc complications and just want a plug and play solution....
This too. They obviously won't have two/three tiers at launch.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Again, high performance CPUs cost a lot of money in materials. That's why consoles have such horrible CPUs by modern standards. I'm very interested to see where MS goes with this but my gut feeling is you will just be better off building a PC as was always the case if you care about performance.
Is it more plug n play than a modern PC? Multiple upgrade tiers makes it more complicated than a Console. PC are already very friendly; you can basically but one every 4 years and be okay with what it does. Can a xbox hybrid be easier than that?
The fact there will be upgrade tiers is a intrinsic part of why many people stay away from PC's. The 'feature' itself is the complication people try to avoid.
On Phones and tablets it's less of an issue as everything aims low so you reasonably old stuff will work.
It's why this sounds like spin because the market had not worked out that way even though others have tried. There are barriers development side, problems consumer side, and just no reason to do it.
What I really won't like with this model is if in say 2-3 years a game comes out and is marked as compatible with the original console and you buy it and its a mess as it was designed for Xbox 1.2 or PS4.1 and scales down poorly to the original system. Will reviewers even pick up on it or will they mostly be testing on their new systems?
I can already picture the fast hardware adopters sneering asking why I haven't upgraded yet just because I actually want hardware I buy to last a long time with games designed for it. I hate the graphics and hardware arms race, this mid point in a gen is my favourite time when the focus is just on games and its up to devs to design a game that runs well on the hardware they have, even if its "outdated" by top of the line PC standards.
I can already picture the fast hardware adopters sneering asking why I haven't upgraded yet just because I actually want hardware I buy to last a long time with games designed for it. I hate the graphics and hardware arms race, this mid point in a gen is my favourite time when the focus is just on games and its up to devs to design a game that runs well on the hardware they have, even if its "outdated" by top of the line PC standards.
Being as simple as possible at launch is important, and both companies knew that this gen, that why both launched with one console each instead of like three each like last gen.
Sends a clear message to consumers.
They aren't vertically integrated though as the foundries are still separate. They'd just own chip IP and R&D. AMD problem isn't just marketing, it's that they are a IP/R&D house pushing out products that are worse than their competitors. So they can only survive by making them cheaper and selling to to the value market. Makes it hard to profit which is why they're struggling. They were only competitive with Intel when Intel massively fucked up with netburst. AMD capitalized then but Intel got their shit together and AMD hasn't been able to compete well since.
The CPU side and GPU side still almost operates as 2 separate companies. The GPU side is doing okay but nVidia is still beating them most of the time.
Hockeymac18
Member
I think a lot of people are saying this is what MS could do. A new version of the system every 3-5 years...let the last version (or even 2 versions back depending on how frequent the updates are) be able to run the latest games (albeit at lower res/frame rates).
I don't see how that couldn't work for all console manufacturers.
I guess it'd get complicated for devs. But if they can make PC games now work on basically any type of config, I don't see how the industry couldn't adapt over time. Maybe that means not having specific console dev paths and making everything "generic"...I don't know.
On the GPU side I don't think their products are worse than Nvidia. Nano (even 390x) is better than 980, 390 better than 970, 380x/380 better than 960. Fury X is super close to 980 ti and sometimes better DX12/ depending on the game. I imagine polaris will be as good or better than pascal in DX12. They also have the best APUs.
Stand alone cpu yes they are way worse than intel. But maybe Zen will be competitive. Just saying I honestly do think MS could sell more of AMDs IP than AMD can themselves. Would bring in huge marketing and R&D spend as well.
Also, hey you have a MS Windows PC? Why not use MS windows optimized hardware. That's where the FTC might have a problem!
Bubba_Sparks
Member
I think it is a very interesting idea, which is what I had hoped they were going to do at the beginning of this gen.
I think releasing a new SKU every two years would be reasonable. The earliest SKU would be supported for six years or three cycles of consoles before being depreciated. That way the earliest adopter gets six years of use out of a system. Also, since each platform is being released every two years you don't have to worry about massive differences in performance, making multiplatform support much easier. Basically look at the evolution of each successive iPhone and I think you have a good template.
I think releasing a new SKU every two years would be reasonable. The earliest SKU would be supported for six years or three cycles of consoles before being depreciated. That way the earliest adopter gets six years of use out of a system. Also, since each platform is being released every two years you don't have to worry about massive differences in performance, making multiplatform support much easier. Basically look at the evolution of each successive iPhone and I think you have a good template.
Not PC but SCALABLE MULTIMEDIA COMPUTER SYSTEM
Set Top Box basically & if MS is smart they will use the die shrink that's happening this year to clock the Xbox One GPU to 1.2Ghz to match the PS4 it would put them back in the race if Sony don't do the same thing.
What if the Xbox subscription included the latest hardware (module?) plus Games with Gold, Deals with Gold, and access to free games like Fable, Forza 6 Apex, and Killer Instinct? Obviously the sub cost would increase, but that's not all too dissimilar from what other companies are trying to do with modular PCs.
What if the Xbox module just hooked into a Windows 10 laptop or desktop (or even phone I suppose) docking station to give your current rig extra power?
Okay I'll admit, I can understand why some people don't trust developers to optimize their games for these supposed multiple Xbox One versions. They already have trouble optimizing their games for just ONE version of each console. We've got big games that can't even maintain 30fps.
Something to think about though: An existing game that currently struggles to maintain 30fps on the current Xbox One, like say The Witcher 3 or Just Cause 3, would probably immediately sustain a more stable 30fps on an upgraded Xbox One without the developers having to do anything. There are iOS games that ran terrible on the hardware on which they were originally released, and automatically ran better on later models. A game in this situation would stick closer to its locked framerate, or if unlocked, just keep going up.
It appeals to people like me who want Forza, Gears, and Halo on PC.
Something to think about though: An existing game that currently struggles to maintain 30fps on the current Xbox One, like say The Witcher 3 or Just Cause 3, would probably immediately sustain a more stable 30fps on an upgraded Xbox One without the developers having to do anything. There are iOS games that ran terrible on the hardware on which they were originally released, and automatically ran better on later models. A game in this situation would stick closer to its locked framerate, or if unlocked, just keep going up.
It appeals to people like me who want Forza, Gears, and Halo on PC.
But that is just it. This is such a paradigm shift for the general consumer it is risky to do. It begs the question what exactly is Xbox. It leads to further questioning why I can't just put my Xbox one disc in my PC and get a w10 marketplace version and forgot the need to keep my Xbox one hardware. It makes me wonder if they if they are going to cause other companies to try to monitize online services like a steam network or origin online play.
You would have to be naive to think they aren't trying to figure out ways they can monetize traditionally free PC gaming services. If they can do that they can flip the script.
Allnamestakenlol
Member
Say hello to the future of Xbox One.
Absolutely amazing. Makes me feel old, tho. Haha
Having the best APU's is like having the best knitting needles. There is a market for it but it's not huge. Consoles use them and some embedded systems do but phones still use discreet GPU/CPU. They also use very low power CPU/GPU which AMD isn't there yet. Their footprint in the mobile market is non existent.
I don't think MS could really fix their issues. It's not just marketing. It's some internal management issues.
Oh they certainly could. Nvidia basically can't be sold unless Microsoft gets the first option to buy.
I said something like this a while back, but I don't think it would be possible to make the old thing completely forward compatible. What you would have would be, really, the same thing as cross-gen games except they aren't sold as two versions.
Imagine the PS5 comes out and it's just a continuation of the architecture and even the OS of the PS4 but beefed way up. The PS5 runs all PS4 games, but from that point forward developers can make games in the form of one disc or one download that runs on both, but differently. You play the game on PS4 and get, essentially, the PS4 version. You insert the same disc into a PS5 and get basically the PS5 version. Developers could even go all the way back to older games you already own and release updates for them that would make them run with new features on PS5 instead of releasing a whole new HD remaster. I think it would happen for current-gen games that are still really popular during the console transition. Let's say a ton of people are still playing Destiny 2 and buying Destiny 2 content on PS4 when the PS5 comes around. People will of course just be able to install Destiny 2 (or even Destiny 1) on the PS5, but Bungie could also release an update for that game that adds new features and effects when you play it on PS5.
How is multiple SKU for Xbone any less complicated than just buying a pre-built highend PC from an online vendor? For so long console owners bought into their platform because it was plug + play. Overall a simplified way to play games. Now MS wants to meld console/PC then what is the true advantage to this hybrid that a off the shelf PC doesn't have?
Call me cynical but does anyone really believe future Xbone titles will be properly optimised for the 'less than cutting edge' SKU. Jesus with only one SKU to design around half the games come out and require future patching.
Call me cynical but does anyone really believe future Xbone titles will be properly optimised for the 'less than cutting edge' SKU. Jesus with only one SKU to design around half the games come out and require future patching.
Optimizing is more than just twiddling settings. They often have to revamp sections of gameplay so it doesn't get busy enough to bog the system down. It's a lot of work and I doubt they'll do it for each tier.
Like how they do it now, they'll aim for a lowest common denominator (currently Xbox 1) then build up from there with easier additions.
So they build the game to not slow down or fuck up on XB1 level hardware, then increase resolution and add some effects for PS4, then enable options ot turn on a whole bunch of extra things for the PC. But the game design has the weaknesses of the lowest system in mind.
For things like gameplay relevant draw distance, scene complexity, number of things on screen, AI ect..
If xbox goes tiered the same thing will happen. You won't have a version optimized for each, but a base version and some extra's on the way up. Many PC games work like this too. The user adjust the system until the performance/quality settings are at a compromise the user can live with.
what's being proposed is a system will many of the draw backs of console, a few of the strengths of PC's, and many of the complexities of the PC. In my opinion it doesn't work out to something that will sell that well.