Support NeoGAF

[Bitch Pudding]

XB1 comes out in 2013
XB2 comes out in 2017. Games run on XB1 and XB2
XB3 comes out in 2020. Games run on XB2 and XB3. XB1 deprecated or maybe gets the usual end of gen licensed stuff for a couple of years.

The thing is, the very minute a game tells you "sorry, you need XB 3 to run this game, please upgrade!", customers will be pissed².

The other thing is, why bother to buy a proprietary "XBOX branded PC" (or whatever) if literally any Gaming-PC will be able to play Windows Store games. And then again, why bother with Win10 Apps and their limitations if 99,9% of all games are available on platforms which let you play your games as win32.exe???

So, in my opinion, it's a cool thing for me as a PC and PS4 player, but it's the end of XBOX as hardware.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Assuming this idea comes to fruition, you could expect the 2017 or 2018 Surface to have a big 'Supported Xbox Device' sticker on the box, as you could with any capable full Windows 10 machine.

The only trick for something like a Surface is making sure the store prevents/warns you from buying games/apps that your system is below the minimum requirements for, which would likely be necessary for the annual console/PC upgrade strategy anyway.

You mean like it already does?

Using a Surface Pro 3, i3.

 

[mcrommert]

It's just how it is objectively speaking. I know it's a big shock to gamers when a console manufacturer leaves the competition but from a corporate prospective, particularly after the reshuffle, it's looked like a likely outcome for a long time.

The higher ups at MS probably don't care too much what happens to the Xbox hardware division and probably only very slightly more about the brand, but suddenly announcing that they are ceasing production and/or development of future consoles would be seen to traders that aren't even particularly interested in the Xbox as reason to lose confidence in the company as a whole.

That's why a publicly traded corp as big as MS would always try to put a less negative spin on it, but that's nevertheless pretty clearly what's happening here.

Nevermind, I guess we will see who steps in to compete with Sony or whether or not the console market finally does change beyond recognition when it comes to the next cycle.

Wait...let me get this straight...they are going to make more consoles...so that means they are leaving the console market?

 

[mrklaw]

I likw how this news has completely exposed people's ignorance for the PC market and their complete, irrational and immature loyalty to a brand. This thread is great!

As for the news itself, I like it. Microsoft will finally bring their games to their platform which has the most users around the world (Windows) as well as continue to support those who prefer the console way of things.

Updating hardware cycles could be pretty damn easy. If we use the Xbox One for example, MS sets the Xbox One as the standard for this "family/generation" of Xbox. Then every two years or so, releases an upgraded model that will allow the same games to play at higher resolutions, framerates and features. Meanwhile, those who brought in first can continue to play those same games. Release one more revision at even higher specs (or don't, whatever) and then a couple of years later, it is time for the new generation of the Xbox family.

It mimics what happens in the PC space already and developers will do what they have already been doing; offering scalability in their games and future proofing them for long legs throughout a generation. This method isn't new to consumers. Apple has been doing it for how long now? Samsung? Sony? Everyone?

MS sees that the money is in the software and not the hardware. But offering more options in the console space can be an interesting way of doing things. Software continues to drop year over year in the console space and continues to rise in the PC space. It's time to get on that or really get left behind. Whynotboth.gif?

In a highly technical space such as video games, why are people happy to be stuck with old tech for 8 to 10 years? I don't get it. Will people be happy with shitty gen one VR on old tech for 5+ years? I should hope not.

my only wonder (not really a concern) is how they'd transition generations. If, like you say, they do XB1 as the baseline, then do an Xbox 2 that plays the same games at higher framerates/resolutions/detail settings. Lovely. Then comes time for XB3, and time to wave goodbye to XB1 support (just like a normal generation would have). Presumably the XB2 has to be your new baseline, but then it isn't a big jump like a generation would be.

 

[AwRy108]

As an owner of every console (though primarily a PS4 user), MS just address one of my biggest concerns that I fear SONY will royally screw up: when I move on to new hardware, I want to take my Library with me.

If SONY doesn't address this with the PS4 and beyond, I'll be a disgruntled consumer.

 

[LukasTaves]

Too late. The Windows 10 store adds all sorts of anti-PC-gaming garbage to all games by default.

Anti Pc gaming? This is going to be the xbone reveal all over again, huh?

I can see it already happening: No exclusive full screen on win store games, what a load of crap*!

*Ignoring completely the fact that there's no real negative on nothing having exclusive full screen in this case since all the features that require it work, there's no performance penalty and then there's the advantages of non exclusive full screen like alt tabbing not fucking everything up.

Not to say there isn't a valid point of concern with modding/injectors, but even that seems like making a bigger deal than it actually is.

 

[ViolentP]

Oh so you're worried about the potential console warrior reaction.

Not at all. Gaming performance is a legitimate want for many gamers.

 

[potatohead]

They are going for the mass casual market that want upgrades every year. Like the phone market.

I have to say I don't think it is a complete strategic mistake.

The only thing that will stop this is not aggressive enough pricing. Lower the price enough to make some of the audience re-buy a console every year, and it's worth it. Say $199 to $299 each year, and the audience buys one every other year or every 3 years? Not a bad move.

Maybe for the GAF audience yes, it is a mistake, and they will suffer with this audience, but for everyone else I think it remains to be seen.

I think the mass market is more ready for annual console releases, especially from a company like MS who seeks so much to emulate the success of Apple in the hardware market.

I can see it happening. Remains to be seen how effective it will be though.

That said do I want Sony or Nintendo to do this? No, I already have a PC.

 

[xxracerxx]

As an owner of every console (though primarily a PS4 user), MS just address one of my biggest concerns that I fear SONY will royally screw up: when I move on to new hardware, I want to take my Library with me.

If SONY doesn't address this with the PS4 and beyond, I'll be a disgruntled consumer.

The PS4s architecture will make this much easier than PS3 to PS4. Sony better not fuck that up.

 

[Sydle]

my only wonder (not really a concern) is how they'd transition generations. If, like you say, they do XB1 as the baseline, then do an Xbox 2 that plays the same games at higher framerates/resolutions/detail settings. Lovely. Then comes time for XB3, and time to wave goodbye to XB1 support (just like a normal generation would have). Presumably the XB2 has to be your new baseline, but then it isn't a big jump like a generation would be.

Maybe they base it on new versions of DirectX/Windows?

 

[GoldenCrow]

I have been saying this prior the Xbox One announcement but Microsoft should launch what is essentially an upgradable PC that has the form factor as close to a console as possible that runs an OS that is entertainment only and just call it the Xbox.

Xbox should be the name of the division for all entertainment coming out of Microsoft be it games, tv, movie or anything else that might come along in the future. Allow there to be an Xbox mode for Windows PC's that users can switch to or boot into where they can get very similar features to what is on the standalone Xbox unit which shares a unified username system and anything purchased on that account can be played on any devise as long as the hardware is good enough.

The PC equivalent would be open and cheaper but you also get the problems that brings for the average user. The standalone Xbox unit would be a closed system that is upgradable that provides the benefits for the average user and a clear system that show what can be played and what benefits they would get from each game if they upgraded as it is controlled by Microsoft.

 

[mclem]

Sony hinted at the same. I think NX will likely be built with this in mind as well based on comments from Iwata

The interesting thing about the NX is that in principle, at least, we'd expect over time there to be a portable form factor for an older console platform, and that's intriguing in its own regard.

Mind you, that's also possible for Sony and MS, although Sony may not be interested in continuing with portables, and MS have shown little interest so far.

 

[TSM]

Not even close.

The 'nuclear option' from Valve's point of view was Microsoft restricting installations to Microsoft's app store.

That's basically what I just said. Games only available as apps through the app store because they were ported through the XB1 platform.

I get that you are talking a completely locked down OS, but that wasn't really going to happen anyway.

 

[jroc74]

Steam machines featuring Windows 10. Seemed pretty likely seeing the moves they have been making lately.

I'm calling another thing: Oculus VR support (using CV1) incoming with first upgraded model.

This I could get on board with.

Added benefit; it would allow Microsoft to compete with Sony in the console VR space sooner. Otherwise they're waiting until 2020-or-so, when they'd traditionally release the higher powered box.

Makes sense.

And all this gives MS the specs war nod by default if Sony stays traditional. Nintendo is going to have to go with common parts just to keep up. Dont do PowerPC, Nintendo.

 

[commish]

It's called fragmenting your userbase. A big reason many tend to stick with consoles is because they don't need to worry about this kind of thing. They plug it in and they play. For there to be value in upgrading components, there would ultimately have to be enough disparity between performance that some games would be rendered unplayable on older hardware.

You would be forcing many console gamers into doing something they have tried to avoid in PC gaming.

Why wouldn't it still be plug and play...? And how is it fragmenting your userbase? Because my Halo 10 runs at 60 fps and my friend's halo 10 runs at 50 fps? Again, these are all things that are present in the PC world and have been for decades, without issue.

 

[heyf00L]

Modularly updating a PC only goes so far.

Sure, you can easily add more RAM if your mobo supports it. And you can pretty easily get a new graphics card if your PSU has the juice. But eventually you're going to be limited by your processor, and that usually means a new motherboard, which occasionally means new RAM.

And if you could streamline that in some way, now the devs can't target a single architecture. You'll have to abstract the hardware some.

For consoles, it's just not worth it.

 

[Trago]

Sure, but at that point, getting an actual PC is looking mighty tempting. I can't see proprietary Xbox-branded hardware upgrades being cheaper than the equivalent components in the PC market.

I think this might all be a big transition for Microsoft to get out of the console space. I think this generation could very well be their last. They are moving all their franchises to W10, slowly merging the XB1 into a PC/W10 device. There's room for the Xbox to just be pre-built PC's.

Hence, the hardware generation won't matter anymore. They want us to buy into their ecosystem. Giving more options to access that ecosystem is the big plan here.

If you find the PC more tempting, have at it. If you still want the ease of use that consoles give, have at it.

 

[Bsigg12]

As an owner of every console (though primarily a PS4 user), MS just address one of my biggest concerns that I fear SONY will royally screw up: when I move on to new hardware, I want to take my Library with me.

If SONY doesn't address this with the PS4 and beyond, I'll be a disgruntled consumer.

I feel this is actually some of the biggest news of the day is that moving forward you'll never lose access to your library of Xbox One games. That is great, also hopefully the hardware revisions mean the 360 BC will actually run better on those boxes.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

The thing is, the very minute a game tells you "sorry, you need XB 3 to run this game, please upgrade!", customers will be pissed².

The other thing is, why bother to buy a proprietary "XBOX branded PC" (or whatever) if literally any Gaming-PC will be able to play Windows Store games. And then again, why bother with Win10 Apps and their limitations if 99,9% of all games are available on platforms which let you play your games as win32.exe???

So, in my opinion, it's a cool thing for me as a PC and PS4 player, but it's the end of XBOX as hardware.

Would they be pissed when it's exactly the same for Sony? Were people pissed when they couldn't play Killzone SF on PS3?

And the reason people will still stick with console is entry price and the guaranteed tail. What $350 PC could you make in 2013 (includes input + brand new AAA game) that will still run the newest AAA games in 2019?

 

[Caipirinha]

My gut.

I can see this being a successful course of action. I personally just hate the idea of purchasing a new updated console after only 3 or 4 years. This is like a dream come true for those always complaining about console cycles being too long, I was never one of them.

Bro, you're thinking way too hard about this, as is everyone who is worried that it will fragment the user base etc.

This is Microsoft winding down their console business, leaving the current Xbox One as a Windows 10 machine and the possibility of future slightly upgraded SKUs down the road. Anything else they can squeeze out of the Xbox One now is a bonus.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Except to many, the experience is diminished when you know that others are getting more out of the same game. That's one of consoles selling points. You are guaranteed the same experience.

Every console game is a diminished experience compared to the PC port right now.

 

[Kaako]

See, with PC, its different. And yes, considering how ridiculous some PC ports for games that focused on consoles have been performing on PC these last 2 years, there are many devs who have had nothing but headaches on PC.

At least with PC, there is a constant 100+ million marketshare I can sell my games to, thus making supporting a broad range of CPUs/GPUs worth it. Even if we give this plan the benefit of the doubt, and say 50% of the current X1 user base upgrades to the X1.2 within the first 12 months, bringing it to about ~10 million users, why should I eat the cost on developing a whole other version of the game out to natively run on that lower install base? Its going to be a lot of extra work. Unless MS is willing to eat some of the cost, i'd just continue supporting X1.

THANK YOU. This is the route that almost all devs will take unless MS eats a good chunk of development costs. This is and will continue to be the reality.

 

[npm0925]

They will likely do what PC gamers have to do. Suck it up. If they want to play the latest all singing and dancing game, they have to have the right spec. Or you can play it on your current system and have to dial things down.

Tech is not shifting that fast that a 1 year gap would have a system that utterly destroys the previous one. Especially if they are not planning to drop a $2000 price tag on it.

Mark my words: You won't even have the option to play a new (enough) game at low quality on an old Xbox. It will be a seemingly arbitrary cutoff (2018 models can't run it, 2019 models can) put in effect to stimulate upgrades.

 

[Ol No Bones]

My gut.

I can see this being a successful course of action. I personally just hate the idea of purchasing a new updated console after only 3 or 4 years. This is like a dream come true for those always complaining about console cycles being too long, I was never one of them.

Then don't buy one and play at lower settings.

 

[Trago]

It's called fragmenting your userbase. A big reason many tend to stick with consoles is because they don't need to worry about this kind of thing. They plug it in and they play. For there to be value in upgrading components, there would ultimately have to be enough disparity between performance that some games would be rendered unplayable on older hardware.

You would be forcing many console gamers into doing something they have tried to avoid in PC gaming.

So you figure after a hardware upgrade or two, games wouldn't be playable on OG hardware?

 

[xxracerxx]

Bro, you're thinking way too hard about this, as is everyone who is worried that it will fragment the user base etc.

This is Microsoft winding down their console business, leaving the current Xbox One as a Windows 10 machine and the possibility of future SKUs down the road. If that happens to sell enough to be worth their while then I guess they'll continue it, but it's not the launch of some new chapter in their console business, it's the end of it.

And this bums me out honestly.

 

[Beefy]

So say I buy a launch Xbox and keep it without upgrading for 2-3 years. I buy a online multiplayer game in the 3rd year, would I be screwed against people with the upgrade Xbox?

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Maybe they base it on new versions of DirectX/Windows?

There will be no new versions of Windows. Windows 10 is their OSX. It's their platform. Only .1 and .2 updates from here on out.

 

[The God]

They are going for the mass casual market that want upgrades every year. Like the phone market.

I have to say I don't think it is a complete strategic mistake.

The only thing that will stop this is not aggressive enough pricing. Lower the price enough to make some of the audience re-buy a console every year, and it's worth it. Say $199 to $299 each year, and the audience buys one every other year or every 3 years? Not a bad move.

Maybe for the GAF audience yes, it is a mistake, and they will suffer with this audience, but for everyone else I think it remains to be seen.

I think the mass market is more ready for annual console releases, especially from a company like MS who seeks so much to emulate the success of Apple in the hardware market.

I can see it happening. Remains to be seen how effective it will be though.

That said do I want Sony or Nintendo to do this? No, I already have a PC.

There's a mass market in the console audience that wants yearly updates?

 

[cheesekao]

Every console game is a diminished experience compared to the PC port right now.

Obvious is obvious but that's only if you have the hardware to do so.

 

[harSon]

Do you really expect the likes of Ubisoft, Bethesda, Telltale etc to spend money and time on Dev & QA to ensure that the lowest spec machine runs their game at a decent res/framerate from start to finish? Seriously? I'll say it again. Terrible idea.

They already do, and have been doing such for a long time now. The Xbox was more powerful than the Playstation 2. The 360 was easier to develop for than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. Developers have been ensuring that their games run across multiple tiers of platforms for a long time now.

 

[justsomeguy]

You missed the point. "Put in a new video card every few years? That I have to buy to keep up with the Jones's? Like a PC? Forget it."

Those people can buy a PlayStation ;-) (something something product for people in that situation)

 

[outunderthestars]

So when do you think we will see their first new hardware under this strategy? Spring 2017?

 

[Carn82]

How is this issue different than how it currently is on PC and mobile?

It isnt, but it will bring along a new 'dimension' in the console space that devs will need to work with. It would kinda suck if matchmaking puts 30FPS and 60FPS gamers together, for example.

 

[thomasmahler]

Honestly, with the new consoles being x86 machines, I think this is a good way of moving forward.

Hardware-config wise, it still won't be anywhere near as hellish as PC development is... And knowing that I'll be able to play all games I'm buying for this console on any future console update is a very good thing.

I hope the 360 library on X1 will expand a lot in the future and I'd love to also play 360 games on my PC. If it's all one unified platform with tons of games, I'd love that.

 

[ViolentP]

Why wouldn't it still be plug and play...? And how is it fragmenting your userbase? Because my Halo 10 runs at 60 fps and my friend's halo 10 runs at 50 fps? Again, these are all things that are present in the PC world and have been for decades, without issue.

PC gamers and console gamers are two entirely different beasts. PC gamers embrace upgrading and performance tuning. Console gamers tend to prefer ease of use. You are introducing an opposite ecosystem that will force certain gamers to adapt, or get left behind. If they agree to that, then this is a non-issue. My personal opinion leaves me believing that they prefer parity performance across the board.

The day that a popular game is released that works only on new hardware will be the determining factor if I had to guess.

So you figure after a hardware upgrade or two, games wouldn't be playable on OG hardware?

I have no idea how many upgrades it will take. I do think it will eventually happen, though. It happened on the 3DS after I believe 2, but could easily be 10. Regardless, the timing would have to be balanced by Microsoft.

 

[Gtagentleman]

The thing is, the very minute a game tells you "sorry, you need XB 3 to run this game, please upgrade!", customers will be pissed².

IOS has been doing this for years and nobody cares.

 

[blodtann]

You make zero sense. Surface is not sold as a gaming device.

Then why do they show how to hook up an xbox controller and play games on it?

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

They are going for the mass casual market that want upgrades every year. Like the phone market.

I have to say I don't think it is a complete strategic mistake.

The only thing that will stop this is not aggressive enough pricing. Lower the price enough to make some of the audience re-buy a console every year, and it's worth it. Say $199 to $299 each year, and the audience buys one every other year or every 3 years? Not a bad move.

Maybe for the GAF audience yes, it is a mistake, and they will suffer with this audience, but for everyone else I think it remains to be seen.

I think the mass market is more ready for annual console releases, especially from a company like MS who seeks so much to emulate the success of Apple in the hardware market.

I can see it happening. Remains to be seen how effective it will be though.

That said do I want Sony or Nintendo to do this? No, I already have a PC.

the phone example is bad because just about everyone uses their smarphone every day. Casual gaming fans would have a much harder time investing in a constantly evolving gaming platform given that they likely do not use their machines every day and are dependent on them so much as they are with their smartphones.

It's easy to sell someone on a $200-500 phone when they know that it's going to see daily use and literally improve aspects of their lives. an Xbox doesn't do that nor is it used in that way. Constantly updating the platform on a yearly basis like phones would be a mistake, imho

 

[GhostTrick]

Only if you have the hardware to do so.

That's what is implied. It's not like it's hard to do so. Plus, some advantages are tied to the form factor, like free online play, more controller options or backward compatibility.

 

[Yoday]

There is no way the console market is getting sold on this idea. Bank on it. If anything, the knowledge that a hardware refresh is only a couple years away will sell fewer consoles.

People buy consoles because they're affordable and because they've resisted the slow encroachment of planned obsolescence. This is an idea that puts Microsoft's goals for a console ahead of the consumer's.

Another way to look at it is that you know going forward your new hardware will always be able to play all of your old games. It will take at least two or three new versions, at a version every two to three years, to completely phase out the oldest hardware with how slowly PC tech is improving now.

I imagine they are going to settle on selling two active SKUs at any given time, a $250 version, and a $400 version. By the time a version is phased out you'd be able to get a much newer one for a reasonable price, and used older models would get pretty cheap as well.

My prediction is that this year we see a cost cutting revision of the current console that allows them to sell at $250, and then introduce a new version with updated specs for $400 or $450. New hardware from AMD this year could mean a substantial spec boost at close to what they are already paying for the current APU, and a die shrink of the current APU could drop production costs quite a bit.

 

[gamz]

LOL, I figured you did. I am just not seeing how it is a shitty idea. Those who want to can upgrade sooner and the rest of us can ride out a system for a little longer if we want. And all systems will have to be within a range that will run the games with proper optimization. Seems okay to me.

Yes. I don't understand the kick back. It's like tab or laptops. You don't have to upgrade yearly.

 

[D4Danger]

So say I buy a launch Xbox and keep it without upgrading for 2-3 years. I buy a online multiplayer game in the 3rd year, would I be screwed against people with the upgrade Xbox?

if the game is the same then no. No more than you would be at Counter-Strike if someone is using a better GPU and higher resolution or something. As long as the simulation is the same then there's no problem.

maybe having the weaker console would be an advantage and it's just a bunch of diamonds running around with no lighting like Quake lol

 

[Dinky Dino]

They are going for the mass casual market that want upgrades every year. Like the phone market.

Would be logical if MS actually sold and profited off hardware. They don't. They just want to push windows as a service.

 

[Cidd]

Why do I get the feeling this will be the last Xbox?

With the moves MS been making lately it just seem like they've given up on consoles and are trying to coast you towards PC.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

Several of my friends really don't like this news, but they should keep in mind that Phil is saying "could", but I can definitely see it happening. It's OK with me I guess, as long as the ease of use of Xbox in general remains intact.

 

[Caipirinha]

Wait...let me get this straight...they are going to make more consoles...so that means they are leaving the console market?

It's simple my man, it's really just the same as if Sega had said "ok guys, we don't think we're gonna make a Dreamcast 2, but hey, you can install Windows XP on the Dreamcast you have and use it to play some PC games and maybe at some point we'll release some version with more Ram and a bigger HDD etc. if some of you guys want it, otherwise see ya back on the PC".

 

[Blackthorn]

So say I buy a launch Xbox and keep it without upgrading for 2-3 years. I buy a online multiplayer game in the 3rd year, would I be screwed against people with the upgrade Xbox?

Hadn't considered that aspect. One thing I enjoy about multiplayer games on console is knowing there's an even playing field in terms of the technical fidelity. Guess that would come to an end without keeping to the current spec.

 

[Beefy]

if the game is the same then no. No more than you would be at Counter-Strike if someone is using a better GPU and higher resolution or something. As long as the simulation is the same then there's no problem.

So as long as the fps is the same you mean.

 

[cheesekao]

That's what is implied. It's not like it's hard to do so. Plus, some advantages are tied to the form factor, like free online play, more controller options or backward compatibility.

You'd be surprised at what many people in developing countries use let alone 3rd worlders.