Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades

Does anyone else feel like this will be the end of physical games in the new windows 10 ecosystem?

My opinion: App ownership will be completely account-driven from now on: purchase a windows 10 store app on your account and you'll own it on your PC, your tablet, and your new windows 10 store set-top box. If there are physical discs, they'll just contain a download code and maybe the day-one software.
 
Or as my friend just put it:

Spencer: "without invalidating the old games that run on the new platform"
IRL: "but invalidating the old platform to run the new games":

Nope, since they are universal apps they'll run on the old platform too, but with lower detail, which will be always the best details available for that platform
 
They are not going to stop supporting it. There will just be an upgraded, more PC-like system available sooner. But 'Xbox is dead', I guess.
Their attention is already split between unique platforms with very different consumer expectations.

Looking at how Hyrule Warriors Legends performs on the standard 3DS doesn't make me excited at the idea of hardware upgrades.
And there isn't even an architectural difference between 3DS and N3DS.

Optimization? Haven you seen most of the comparisons with a budget pc as of late?

You realize that the big advantage consoles had of a "to the metal" api is coming over to the pc with dx12 soon right? Not to mention MS never cared if games ran well or not on pc but now they have a reason to ensure it will.
To the metal means making the most of a specific hardware architecture.

Microsoft's not going to maximise performance on new 'console' hardware (still competing with new PC hardware) by just upclocking the original Xbone hardware in a new package.
 
Think about what you're saying. If developers fail to use the hardware power or correctly scale their games for a console that lasts 5+ years, I'm certain they will work even harder to scale and optimize for hardware that gets replaced every 2 years....

Use your head.

The fundamental thing you're forgetting is that they already will have to design to a lower spec machine to cater for whatever machines Sony and Nintendo put out - unless they too also adopt a new hardware refresh cycle.
 
I like that MS isn't making you choose between PC and console anymore. Halo on PC would be epic. This is the right move imo, just make sure you fix your store
 
Nope, since they are universal apps they'll run on the old platform too, but with lower detail, which will be always the best details available for that platform

yeah, but no. At one point there will be a significant delta regarding performance and/or hardware requirements.
 
Just to imagine that ND puts out two or three different version of Uncharted 4 is an absolutely no-go imo. I want the best possible experience for the hardware I've paid ONCE this generation and I bet someone like ND wants the best version of their game for every PS4 owner out there and not just for those who have the latest PS4+ Ultra Edition.
 
I think some people referring to the 32X are missing the point.

In a few years MS can sell the Xbox Two. Everything from the Xbox One can run on the Xbox Two. The Xbox Two will also be able to run Xbox Two games.

A few years after that, MS can sell the Xbox Three, which is 100% backwards compatible with One and Two, etc.


And everything from the Xbox Three will also work on Xbox Two and Xbox One... Phil specifically mentioned "forward compatibility".
 
Or as my friend just put it:

Spencer: "without invalidating the old games that run on the new platform"
IRL: "but invalidating the old platform to run the new games":

So, again, like every console generation before it, only this time you will actually be able to run games for many years after new hardware has come out.
 
I would totally be down with an Xbox 1.5, but I dont think it will actually happen. Xbox One is such a great console so anything that extends its life is okay with me.
 
Just to imagine that ND puts out two or three different version of Uncharted 4 is an absolutely no-go imo. I want the best possible experience for the hardware I've paid ONCE this generation and I bet someone like ND wants the best version of their game for every PS4 owner out there and not just for those who have the latest PS4+ Ultra Edition.

They already put out 2 versions of the first three.
And PC games inherently have several versions of the same game, depending on your hardware.
 
Pretty much. It also means the traditional console generation model is done for Microsoft, which is fine by me with how rapidly graphics card technology is evolving. Getting a box/upgrade out every 2-3 years with noticeable improvement in quality while maintaining compatibility with every game seems good to me.

Yeah I can't see much negativity in that either to be honest. But it also would mean developers have to keep the changing hardware in mind when developing a game but then.... the same is already the case for PC gaming today. So let's say Halo 6 comes out and there is a new hardware upgrade available. With the current hardware you'll get the game at 900p/60fps and with the upgrade maybe 4k/60fps for example? MS just has to make sure to keep everything straightforward just like Xbox One now is, to not alienate the user base it has now.
 
I believe this all hinges on the frequency of the upgrades.
If it's once or maybe twice per generation, then it should be fine. If they start coming out every year, I'm afraid that will be too much.
Sigh.
 
I think some people referring to the 32X are missing the point.

In a few years MS can sell the Xbox Two. Everything from the Xbox One can run on the Xbox Two. The Xbox Two will also be able to run Xbox Two games.

A few years after that, MS can sell the Xbox Three, which is 100% backwards compatible with One and Two, etc.

New games can be created for whatever hardware level the dev/publisher want.

I think that's more like what they're suggesting...

Exactly, just like it actually works with PC and Smartphones, if you don't want to upgrade you'll still be able to run the newer games as well as your hardware can, but upgrading you'll run those with the best details available, that would push technology way forward, and finally PC wouldn't be held back buy consoles ports which have to be made for 6 years old hardware
 
I believe this all hinges on the frequency of the upgrades.
If it's once or maybe twice per generation, then it should be fine. If they start coming out every year, I'm afraid that will be too much.
Sigh.

Agreed. There also is little incentive for MS to release annual upgraded versions of hardware as they are sold with little margin. They want as many people to be able to buy games for as long as possible.
 
Nope, since they are universal apps they'll run on the old platform too, but with lower detail, which will be always the best details available for that platform
My old iphone and ipad apps "run" too, but not well. They run worse than when they released because the hardware for both has been refreshed so many times and they've been patched to take advantage of new hardware and OS features.

This degraded performance in apps, along with apps that won't work unless you have the latest hardware with the latest OS revision push consumers to buy into the new hardware.
 
I could see this being a hit with a segment of the core market. But when it comes to the mainstream (the biggest market), no way in hell are those customers going to regularly pay for a newer updated console. They'll just buy the cheapest model available and stick with it as long as it plays most of the popular franchises. I think it is quite easy to see what the possible consequences of that will be.

Honestly, I don't think this is a brilliant Microsoft initiative for increasing console sales like some here do. It is a rather desperate and risky bid to salvage what they can of their console business. And if that doesn't come off then at least they can fall back on their Windows 10 store business which can thrive regardless of how well their consoles do.
More of an elegant exit strategy than a bid for console market domination in other words.
 
If this truly goes the mobile development route, then developers will aim for the lowest common denominator to maximize marketshare. It wouldn't matter if you have a powerful console or not, it'll be gimped like how we complain about cross-gen games now.

And be small inexpensive games. Or they can keep doing what they do today and scale thier engines and games for multiple platforms. If the MS UA platforms can make scaling easier and quicker (as its supposed to), all the better.
 
They already put out 2 versions of the first three.
And PC games inherently have several versions of the same game, depending on your hardware.

Yeah so that people can play them who never owned a PS3 last generation. We're talking about hardware upgrades and different version of games between a single generation.
 
I fail to see why this is a concern in a world where there Apple sells 5 different models of ipad, each in different colors, memory sizes, and in wifi and LTE variants.

Even consoles are still sold in different memory sizes, bundles, etc.

The era of "Mom, I want a Nintendo for Christmas" has been long gone for some time.

I'm not sure how this will work out, but to play devil's advocate for a second... ipads, iphones and game consoles are not the same thing. Expectations do carry some weight, and they vary greatly across categories.

So for example, people have occasionally asked why a game console can't be 600 bucks when other pieces of popular electronics are. The market gave an answer before that probably won't change any time soon.

I know these aren't precisely the same situations, but they both address what were or may be negative challenges to expectations of a game console's value. Game consoles don't necessarily have all the same elasticity on all fronts that other devices do especially now that the 'console model' has become so entrenched.

Again though, I'm not saying this can't work...
 
Phil specifically mentioned "forward compatibility".

That will only work to a certain degree; as in swapping out different texturepacks, maybe some extra hardware-based functions, etc, some graphical settings here and there. developers would always have to adhere to the 'lowest common denominator' hardware setup. So..

cross gen titles forever

That what Im afraid of.


So, again, like every console generation before it, only this time you will actually be able to run games for many years after new hardware has come out.

Yea, and? That's what would be considered a traditional console generation, just phase out the oldest box.

Yeah I get that, but 'time will tell' if 'phasing out' stuff means every 2 years, 4 years, or maybe even 6 years.
 
I can easily see why looking at something like an Apple iPhone new-every-year hardware rollout model would be appealing to have a yearly sales boost, but I don't think a video game console will add enough bells and whistles every year (or every other year) to have that many SKUs in the pool. Sure you could add larger HDDs like they already do, then VR support, SSDs, smaller form factor, maybe beefier processors or memory. But after that, what else?

And more importantly, do consumers want an Xbox One.1, One.2, One.3 every few years or so if they all play the same games (at various resolutions/framerates)?

What this could be doing is softening the blow of a long-rumored Xbox One slim that might be more powerful than the Day 1 edition.
 
As an average consumer who read the OT. I'm extremely confused yet again on what Microsoft wants to do. It's a problem they had since day one of talking about their plans for xbone. And they still haven't learned. Average people who play games want to easily understand the product they are buying or bought. I don't know if they mean I can upgrade my current xbone to play future games via some add on, or do I need to buy a different new Xbox that can be upgraded each year? It's always fucking confusing with these guys. I've said it in another thread but I'm almost done with this if I can play exclusive games on the pc and perhaps at a discount price makes more sense to me. Xbone is probably the last Microsoft product I buy. (Minus the exclusive Microsoft game on PC)
 
That makes no sense, since if that would be the future than by having a no upgradable PS5 you will have the same games of the Xbox Model 1, whilst only who buy the upgraded Xbox Model 2 will have all the "features" which actually would be better graphics/frame rate

That's all that will be improved for every hardware revisions? The advances won't be significant enough that developers get more opportunities like bigger worlds, or features & calculations that older systems can't handle (nemesis system)?
 
Yeah so that people can play them who never owned a PS3 last generation. We're talking about hardware upgrades and different version of games between a single generation.

Again, a "generation" is nothing more than a clunky, outdated hardware upgrade that forces people to buy new accessories, repurchase games they already bought, and prevents owners of the previous hardware from buying new games.

This simply creates a more inclusive upgrade path for consumers, preserves your current library, and doesn't leave owners of the older hardware cut off from new content.
 
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.

To that I'd suggest that those people that do buy in early in any generation are more likely to be enthusiasts, and will buy more games - the tie ratio early on in a generation is higher than it is later one when the mass market buys in and spends less on software.

So that smaller market would be disproportionately valuable and still worth chasing for relatively low additional cost.
 
yeah, but no. At one point there will be a significant delta regarding performance and/or hardware requirements.

Yes that's true, but that will happen pretty late, for example on PC you can still run modern games at low settings with 10 years old hardware, so on your console you could last playing all games even for 6 years, then you'll have to upgrade if you want to keep playing the newer games, just like it what right now, with the only difference that now you have not the choice to upgrade when you want
 
Also playing devil's advocate, but I can see this happening:

"Gee, our new game could use some more optimisation, we're close to hitting 60FPS on the 'medium-spec' Xbox profiles.."

"To bad buddy, deadlines are approaching, we'll target the higher-end configurations first, and if shit doesnt sell we'll look into optimising"
 
The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing this is the easiest way to discontinue the Xbox brand of consoles altogether and merge it into their Windows platforms.

Had MS released Xbox Two or whatever, and it sold less than estimated, then that damages the brand even more. Hardware refreshes like this will allow MS to refer to the "Xbox Family" and MAUs much easier. There won't need to be major R&D costs for a new piece of hardware because they just have to keep updating components incrementally. It'll allow the Xbox to suffer whatever fate it has infront of it in a way that will be somewhat invisible to the general public, keep hardcore Xbox fans interested (or have them bail out onto the Windows 10 platform where they can play all their XB exclusive games), and so on.

This is a terrible idea from a mass market perspective but that's not what they're aiming for. They're folding Xbox into Windows, and this is kind of a brilliant move in doing it slowly but steady without causing a large amount of waves. It won't sell anything what a Playstation 5 might sell, but that's the point, because by then MS would want to be out of the console game and selling PC boxes at that point, some with the Xbox branding on it.

I always knew XB1 would be Microsoft's last console but the way they're transitioning is kind of brilliant. Well, maybe not from a sales point of view, but in keeping their Xbox brand healthy while trying to attract a new gaming audience for Windows 10? Absolutely.

I think their implementation of this at a hardware level is going to be a bit more elegant and technologically innovative than what you're implying. And I don't see them dropping console gaming, considering a SIGNIFICANT chunk of their overall profit from gaming comes from Xbox Live - whether it be subscriptions, DLC, etc. A model that simply does not and cannot exist on PC gaming.

Microsoft is a software company, and is intrinsically linked to computers, so it makes sense to bring the underlying feature that makes those two platforms what they are to consoles - which is inherent upgradability. I think they're going to take a calculated risk blurring the lines of PC and consoles at a software level, hoping that the former won't cannibalize the hardware sales of the former - and potentially position themselves for a net positive with the existence of a new market share to sell their games too. And if they play their cards right, they can pivot themselves to take advantage of the PC's library with respect to their home console - considering what's under the hood at a software level.

I'm not sure what you envision, but at a hardware level, I see a console as it exists today - albeit expandable during the course of its lifetime. Basically a console whose release is merely a baseline in terms of processing/graphical power. All games will be playable across all SKUs moving forward, but they'll implement some type of a tiered system informing consumers at what graphical fidelity your respective SKU can play a given game at. I'm not sure if this is technologically feasible in a manner that is purely accessible to everyone, regardless of their technological prowess, but if they're able to pull it off - it's pretty fucking genius. You'll basically be able to pursue mass market consumers with an affordable baseline, and attract power users who value high end graphics/performance as well as those who are willing to undergo refreshes every 1-2 years. They'll also have 100% backwards compatibility under this model, well - at least for retail releases.
 
heh, I can already see MS making some deals with hardware vendors and introducing a hardware subscription service; as soon as there are new components or a new box is available, you`ll get it.

shamelessly quoting myself, but I still think this might work tho.
 
If they do this right they can really come out of that spot where they are the "weakest" and instantly become the "better" and more powerful system of all three. It's definitely a balsy move for sure.
 
This seems like a really bad idea. There is zero incentive to be an early adopter if it means that 5 years after my purchase there have been multiple hardware revisions and newer games look and run shittier on my console. How will Microsoft even address hardware variation with software packaging? Will there be minimum requirements called out? Will they state 1080p/30fps for g1-g2, 4k/30fps for g3, 4k/60fps for g4?

Seems messy, and doesn't align with expectations that console owners have developed over the years.
 
You won't have to, have you read? thanks to universal apps you'll be able to play newer games on the old hardware too, but with lower details, like it's already on PC, people with a 960 will play games at medium details whilst who has a 980 will play with ultra ones, same thing happens on smartphones

I won't be upgrading either. The library doesn't warrant any further investment from me at this point.
 
I think it'll be bad. Dilutes the console experience so that it alienates casual players but doesn't entice PC gamers, and UWAs look to be worse than GFW.
 
Again, a "generation" is nothing more than a clunky, outdated hardware upgrade that forces people to buy new accessories, repurchase games they already bought, and prevents owners of the previous hardware from buying new games.

This simply creates a more inclusive upgrade path for consumers, preserves your current library, and doesn't leave owners of the older hardware cut off from new content.

Which is why I fail to see the bad here.
 
To that I'd suggest that those people that do buy in early in any generation are more likely to be enthusiasts, and will buy more games - the tie ratio early on in a generation is higher than it is later one when the mass market buys in and spends less on software.

So that smaller market would be disproportionately valuable and still worth chasing for relatively low additional cost.

It's not relatively low cost. If anything, its another development pipeline; its multiplicative. Going by how much early software sales were for all of the current hardware generation machine, there is just no guarantee I will make anywhere near my ROI. Its added risk with little or negative return. Devs won't do it.

The only possibility this has is if the new hardware machines are running native backwards compatibility of the older machines.
 
I think it'll be bad. Dilutes the console experience so that it alienates casual players but doesn't entice PC gamers, and UWAs look to be worse than GFW.

I think this means that Xbox becomes more like Steam Machines...but using Windows 10 as an OS.

But it severely limits the reasons to buy them.
 
Top Bottom