Bear Force One
Banned
This is the thread to bookmark when this fails hard.
Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
old manatee
Banned
It's not going to fail. Microsoft is rededicating itself to PC gaming. For real this time.
Well APUs are pretty much the perfect usage scenario for living room pcs / consoles (which is what we're talking about in this thread) ... And you're ignoring that most of their gpus are equal to or better than Nvidia throughout the mid-high end range. It's not like Polaris and Zen are worthless.
tiredheadcrab
Member
Thats pretty much what I think they are aiming for with Windows 10.
When they do this, the upgrade wont be every holiday. Hell itll probably be 3 years before the next upgrade. So they probably wont do it this year. My guess is 2017. They release a new tier Xbox in 2017 and its faster than the PS4 and Xbox one. MS guarantees that system will last atleast 5 years and gives developers that requirement. They can support it past 5 years if they want. Then users can upgrade to the next system in 2023. There will probably be one that releases before that in 2020.
I am honestly in the boat that I hate how the systems are stagnant. Technology is moving at a fast rate and things change. Hell the tech industry wasnt the same when the 360 and ps3 launched. It was radically different than going from 2000-2006 with smart phones and the huge social networking boon. MS can keep the console market fresh with new tech and faster hardware. That would excite many people.
Exactly, it needs to be as simple as possible. I see it being a whole new system with improved specs. I see them having two SKUs at any given time with one budget model and a new model.
Roughly something like this;
2016: XBO v.1 - $250, XBO v.2 - $400
2019: XBO v.2 - $250, XBO v.3 - $400
2022: XBO v.3 - $250, XBO v.4 - $400
I also see a scenario where developers have the choice to require a minimum XBO version. This provides a fluid progression to console generations where all of your old games will always work on the newest hardware and developers can make the shift at their own pace. By the time the PS5 comes out a next gen only game could already work on the last few years worth of Xbox consoles. This means that the Xbox console userbase shifts and evolves over time instead of completely resetting every six or seven years.
That is the idea the huge question is will the consumers follow or will they keep in their current pool of consoles for folks who don't want to mess with the complexity of upgrades and PC for those that do.
Hawk269
Member
If the decision to make multiple versions or updated version of a console was brought up 10-12 years ago, I would agree with those that say it wont work and will just confuse the general consumer, but in this day and age, things are much different. People are use to electronic items having various versions and upgrades yearly or bi-annually. I don't think explaining this to a customer that walks into a Best Buy, GameStop, Wal-Mart or Target and the employee simply saying "For $299.99 we have the introduction Xbox One. It plays all the games and has a 500gb Hard Drive. For $399 we also have the Xbox One pro, which plays all the games, but has more memory, larger hard drive and a better graphics. Either system will play all games and even your Xbox 360 games, it is just making a decision if you want a higher end model or a lower end model".
It is not that hard to understand and something that can work. You then have to take into account trade in offers that many retailers and in particular Gamestop offers. I could see them easily bring a program where you trade in your current Xbox One for a Xbox One pro and pay the difference.
To me it would be a welcomed thing. I am tired of the the long wait between consoles and have to start over. I think part of the reason I would agree with such a thing is that this time both Sony and MS decided to go with underpowered systems versus cutting edge tech like years past. The Xbox 360 was a hi-end device when it released and it showed. I would have no issue having an upgrade system every 2-3 years that will still allow me to play my 360 games, my library of Xbox One games and newer games that take advantage of the newer hardware.
It is not that hard to understand and something that can work. You then have to take into account trade in offers that many retailers and in particular Gamestop offers. I could see them easily bring a program where you trade in your current Xbox One for a Xbox One pro and pay the difference.
To me it would be a welcomed thing. I am tired of the the long wait between consoles and have to start over. I think part of the reason I would agree with such a thing is that this time both Sony and MS decided to go with underpowered systems versus cutting edge tech like years past. The Xbox 360 was a hi-end device when it released and it showed. I would have no issue having an upgrade system every 2-3 years that will still allow me to play my 360 games, my library of Xbox One games and newer games that take advantage of the newer hardware.
Why? It's not like games would cease to exist. There being multiple tiers of Xbox, with each tier being tied to performance - is easier to explain than the current SKU situations most platforms find them in.
IcyRhythms
Member
Nothing wrong with that. The less exclusives, the better. Exclusives are very anti consumer
Ehh, 3 years is too long. Need a new model every 2 years to lock in the Elite console gamers.
The console market exists principally because folks want to avoid that complexity on the PC. That is why. This is aiming for a market which has been shown to be nearly non existent int he past.
So either MS needs to create this market segment or they know it's a no go and using it as PR spin to cover their retreat.
snoopeasystreet
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if there's year tick-tock updates like how apple releases the S models every other year. I think frequent updates to the hardware are necessary in keeping people on the newest iterations of the device. It also allows for a resale/hand me down market that gets the product into the hands of people not willing to pay full price for the latest the device. The loss in hardware sales is theoretically made up by a larger number of users buying software.
I believe that this is ultimately the best way for consoles to go. The idea of being hamstrung by 5 year+ old technology isn't the best thing for developers.
I believe that this is ultimately the best way for consoles to go. The idea of being hamstrung by 5 year+ old technology isn't the best thing for developers.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
old manatee
Banned
I wonder if PC gamers are going to get access to that cloud that's been solving all of Microsoft's problems. I gotta get me some of that cloud man.
I've been waiting for them to go this way since the original xbox...it's a natural move given how much they already do to abstract away hardware differences with Direct X. Now they canuse games to push windows, regardless of your hardware, and maybe get some mobile traction if you can take your games on the go via windows phone. Hopefully they don't allow too many permutations of xbox as to confuse people.
Still, better late than never ... maybe I'll actually buy KI and Forza now...
Still, better late than never ... maybe I'll actually buy KI and Forza now...
Hawk269
Member
The key thing here though is that the consumer then will have the choice. Do I go for the $250 model of the $400 model and then 2 years later decide to hold on to what they have or upgrade or wait to upgrade when the upgraded model goes down in price? I think the key thing will be in how seamless they message that regardless of which Xbox One System you buy, you Xbox Live Sub will work, Your Xbox One Controllers/Wheels will work, Your Xbox One games and your Xbox 360 games will work backwards or forward.
I think for devs, especially for PC devs, this will be something easy as PC devs are already use to this. They make a game that is scalable. The difference will be that the game once it begins to boot will do a quick check, if it detects the low end Xbox One, the games settings will automatically scale down to 900p/30fps/8xAF, 2xAA etc. If it detects the mid-range system or high end system it goes to whatever those presets. On PC the user has the ability to adjust resolution and a long list (depending on game) to customize it to the users liking. For a console, it needs to be simple, so it would be pre-set's type of configuration.
The game loads, it runs a quick compatibility and the settings are loaded for low/mid/high/very high or ultra. This would allow the scalability as future versions of systems come out or games get patched with other pre-sets. Right now I can take any one of my PC games and scale the game from 720p to 4k without an issue, why would it be a nightmare for developers as some are suggesting?
First of all, the console markets existence isn't intrinsically tied to its simplicity in comparison to the PC market. Second of all, how is this aiming for a market which has shown to be nearly non-existent in the past? To my knowledge, nothing of this sort has existed within console gaming - so I'm not exactly sure how someone could bring forth the notion that they're somehow reaching into a pot that doesn't exist.
snoopeasystreet
Member
Also, I think a new console every year definitely makes Microsoft's E3 conference/coverage way more prominent to people outside of the hardcore.
Crayon
Member
No more xbox isn't that hard to figure out. But here we are.
Two years is too short. Even three is a bit too short, but it's viable at least.
Having two, maximum three, consoles per generation, like the iPhone 6 and 6S, mostly the same design with minor upgrades, then new generation for 7 and 7S.
Folks aren't dealing with the complexity of upgrades. The phone market is different as the software aims at the lowest common denominator. The must have apps all aim very low (facebook, instagram, twitter). Unlike gaming performance isn't a huge factor. Nothing pushes the hardware because doing so also drains the battery as well as excludes potential customers. Mobile gaming/apps all aims very low.
I'm not getting that from all this. Xbox isn't going anywhere
TheChewyWaffles
Member
You can't buy a subsidized new phone every year.
Papacheeks
Banned
Guess you weren't around for the whole sega debacle in the Mid 90's?
OR LIKE others have stated see how well steam Box flopped.
Console upgrades do not sell well in the past; upgraded systems such as t16 revisions sold a subset of the initial base.
Also steam machines is exactly this and flopped.
This is not a new idea. It's a old idea that had failed repeatedly because it is intrinsic to why consoles still exist.
You can under new contracts that Verizon, Sprint, etc. have been promoting. They allow to pay over time with the option to trade up whenever you want, even if the contract is still going.
The Verizon one is called Verizon Edge iirc.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
To me, the quotes in the OP referring to Phil's words talk about my proposal of upgrading the existing box.
Not the conclusion the author comes to, which is multiple new SKUs. The multiple SKUs won't work. Upgradeable hardware at least has a chance at working.
Not the conclusion the author comes to, which is multiple new SKUs. The multiple SKUs won't work. Upgradeable hardware at least has a chance at working.
old manatee
Banned
People keep saying 'upgradable', but I think it's going to be a cheap 'replaceable' PC.
flaxknuckles
Member
You wouldn't have been able to play Xenoblade anyway without the new 3ds though
I don't think its in a company's best interest to utilize trends from two decades ago when deducing their game plan moving forward. Nor do I think its in Microsoft's best interest to use Steam Box's lack of success when deducing whether to move forward with such a plan, considering Steam Box is a platform whose library is largely stunted due to its operating system, has dozens of SKUs due to it being an open platform, is nearly non-existent in retail stores, had absolutely ZERO mainstream marketing and is quite a bit more expensive on average than your typical home console.
Haven't been following the discussion here, but what's the consensus on the worry that this leads to "never-ending cross-gem games"? With more iterative consoles, is the gulf small enough that while there will be performance differences and the ultimate design of the game won't be impacted?
Hawk269
Member
The reason that they did not do well in the past was that the add-on's games were only for those that bought the add-on. This not the same thing, no where near it in fact. We are talking both backward and forward compatibility. Meaning that if someone does decide to purchase a Xbox One 2.0, they are not stuck with only 2.0 software. All games will work on the unit, but if you have a 2.0 unit your games will run with better resolution, framerate, AA, AF etc.
When you bought a 32x, you only could play 32x games on it and those people that did not have a 32x could not play 32x games on their standalone Genesis. The 32x did allow you to plug Genesis games and it would bypass whatever the 32x added. However, the 32x caused a fragmentation and Sege now had to make games that only 32x owners could play or make Genesis games that would have no benefit of having a 32x. The 32x did not work because it's software was not available the majority of Genesis users unless you bought a 32x.
This is not what I believe the plans are for the iterations of the Xbox One. Regardless of which system version you own, Halo 6, 7 or 8 will work on any of them, it is just that the visuals will be better on the latest version of the hardware...but it will not alienate you because you decided not to buy the latest version.
I can't even tell which posts in here are real or trolling anymore
The question is:
Who wants this?
Why do they want this?
The answer from the past is "a few folks but not enough to justify the effort". So how is this different?
Subsidized or discounted by a Xbox subscription, or available to buy outright.
They're going to work in that subscription somehow lol
They've experimented with console contracts previously. Maybe we'll see something similar whenever this new Xbox (or whatever it ends up being) launches.
I remember Major Nelson saying something about the Xbox One being the only console you ever need before it was released. Also, there was a lot of talk about the Azure cloud. Do you think they'll use cloud computing to implement the upgrades? If so, that'll be cool and it would really add value to a Live subscription. I don't think MS is planning on releasing a new console every couple of years. The process for that is too costly.
The first time I read this I assumed he mean incremental as in keeping the same processing architecture for each future xbox so that old games continue to run without being emulated on future xboxes and games made for future xboxes will run on the xbox one but with degraded graphics, the same way PCs/iOS works. I think Nintendo is aiming for the same thing by unifying their console/handheld divisions. Sounds smart to me. I can see the xbox being upgraded every year and a half. It would make more sense to compare this to something like tablets than phones. People will no-doubt skip some generations because the existing xboxes will hold up well and play future software to some degree.
I have and iPad (gen 3) that's approaching 4 years old i think. It still works but newer games run below 30fps. every 3-4 years works for me as far as upgrading. I'd love if consoles did the same.
I have and iPad (gen 3) that's approaching 4 years old i think. It still works but newer games run below 30fps. every 3-4 years works for me as far as upgrading. I'd love if consoles did the same.
That goes back to the dev side; you aim for the broadest base of customers. Making western games for the Vita isn't wise because it's install base is tiny. So the issue you have with upgraded consoles is limited install base. So you make it for the base model; maybe throw some support for the upgraded models in minor ways.
So would you buy a new machine every 3 years for marginal features? Would a dev make features for a marginal install base?
That catch 22 is why it never succeeded before and why consoles as a concept still exist. It spaces it out enough and allows both consumers and devs to transition. It's a model that works for how people buy things and how devs make things. The hybrid model has the same catch 22.
For PC's it's lowest common denominator which shifts over time. The game makers aim that way. However the consumers are the type of folks who are fine with thinking about that complexity.
The PC question for a Xbox PC is what upside does it have over just a PC? The Console question is how do they break the catch 22 which sunk many other similar ideas?