Support NeoGAF

[vcc]

There wouldn't be much innovation in the technological field if companies reduced their initiatives to stuff that people plainly asked for. Your argument is the equivalent of questioning VR's current viability based on its failure in the 90s.

They are revisiting a old idea. I'm asking you what is different?

For VR the difference is the underlying technology caught up to the potential of the concept. For upgradable consoles what has changed?

 

[Yoday]

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?

Indeed. I don't think this is nearly as complex as some make it out to be. You get the option if buying a new box every few years, but you don't need to upgrade at all until games start requiring it, which wouldn't be for quite some time. Even if you are required to upgrade every six years, that isn't any different from how things are in a normal console cycle. But, you have the option to do an incremental upgrade, and no matter what your entire catalog is always there regardless of platform.

Consumers get more options, developers get more flexibility, and MS retains a significant chunk of their users instead of doing a reset. This brings the scalability and backwards compatibility of the PC while maintaining the ease of use and closed environment of the console.

There is already history of people buying new versions of hardware with the multiple slim versions last generation with both platforms, why not have those revisions evolve the platform instead of just refine it?

 

[butman]

You wouldn't have been able to play Xenoblade anyway without the new 3ds though

It's a good game but not worth $255.

 

[CrispyBoar]

I don't believe that this idea will work, nor am I fond of it.

Xbox One
Xbox One Plus

Xbox One S
Xbox One S Plus

Xbox One SE which is just the original Xbox One repackaged.

This is going to cause headaches for developers having to support multiple SKUs as well as future games being held back graphics wise like cross-gen. They are just doubling down on all the stupid decisions they have made this gen.

Well, they won't have my support. I buy dedicated video game hardware to avoid having to worry about updating for five or six years. If this is your thing, more power to you, but I'm out.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[flaxknuckles]

It's a good game but not worth $255.

So how is it a virus? Just like, don't buy the upgraded system.

 

[Maintenance]

Maybe they'll lease you the hardware at no cost if you put an always on camera and mic in your family room?

That'd be awesome.

 

[Bear Force One]

It would be in the best interest of console devs to just say fuck no and not support it.

 

[jdmonmou]

It just doesn't make sense for MS to release hardware more frequently when Xbox One is selling that well. My bet is that they will use the cloud to implement the upgrades.

 

[Crayon]

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahaha Perfect.

 

[Zedox]

It just doesn't make sense for MS to release hardware more frequently when Xbox One is selling that well. My bet is that they will use the cloud to implement the upgrades.

MS releases a new xbox this year that's more powerful than the PS4. One less thing PS4 has on XBO. Some people buy it, some people don't. Now the following year, another new Xbox One comes out even more powerful, the previous year drops in price and the one before that does as well. The PS4 stays stagnant in performance while getting cheaper but doesn't get all the new bells and whistles. Which console do you think is going to support 4K TVs first? Yea...it is definitely the right idea. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Xbox One next year or just getting another more powerful one (because I want two for different rooms). It makes total sense for Microsoft to do this.

 

[Crayon]

MS releases a new xbox this year that's more powerful than the PS4. One less thing PS4 has on XBO. Some people buy it, some people don't. Now the following year, another new Xbox One comes out even more powerful, the previous year drops in price and the one before that does as well. The PS4 stays stagnant in performance while getting cheaper but doesn't get all the new bells and whistles. Which console do you think is going to support 4K TVs first? Yea...it is definitely the right idea. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Xbox One next year or just getting another more powerful one (because I want two for different rooms). It makes total sense for Microsoft to do this.

Then why didn't they do it in the first place?

 

[...Scatter...]

XBOX 16 (2016)
XBOX 19 (2019)
XBOX 22 (2022)
XBOX 25 (2025)

Games would be labeled for minimum requirements and suggested.

XBOX 16 minimum req
XBOX 19 suggested

So you know if you want to play it like god intended you should be on 19 but you can still run it well on 16.

XBOX Live ties everything together.

I'm bout this life. I can't stand waiting 8 years for a new console generation and this would still keep the simplicity of console gaming as there are no parts to replace and the hardware is a known quantity to developers.

 

[harSon]

They are revisiting a old idea. I'm asking you what is different?

For VR the difference is the underlying technology caught up to the potential of the concept. For upgradable consoles what has changed?

Society? Consumers? Technology? Fucking everything is different since the 90s.

 

[vcc]

Society? Consumers? Technology? Fucking everything is different since the 90s.

Steam boxes were a few years ago.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

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.

O_O



"Time to upload XB1 Performance Upgrade Version 1.13 (adds 2.14 Tflops)"
"Do eet"
"Schwiwiwiwiwingg"

XB1 user at the other end of the internet: "Wow Tomb Raider looks 2X better!!!"

 

[Sydle]

Steam boxes were a few years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Valve didn't put a lot of effort into marketing it? Nothing on the scale of Microsoft spending tens or hundreds of millions on their marketing campaigns for something like the Xbox or Surface.

I think the way MS pushes things into market versus how Valve is letting Steam machines grow organically is quite different.

 

[harSon]

Steam boxes were a few years ago.

I already answered this. Steam Box (assuming we're talking about Linux) 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, has absolutely ZERO mainstream marketing and is quite a bit more expensive on average than your typical home console. It's not an appropriate comparison.

 

[jdmonmou]

MS releases a new xbox this year that's more powerful than the PS4. One less thing PS4 has on XBO. Some people buy it, some people don't. Now the following year, another new Xbox One comes out even more powerful, the previous year drops in price and the one before that does as well. The PS4 stays stagnant in performance while getting cheaper but doesn't get all the new bells and whistles. Which console do you think is going to support 4K TVs first? Yea...it is definitely the right idea. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Xbox One next year or just getting another more powerful one (because I want two for different rooms). It makes total sense for Microsoft to do this.

If that's the case then I think most people will just buy a PC or PS4. One of the appealing things about a gaming console is longevity. When you buy it day 1, you know you're going to be able to play current games on it for at least 5 years. Releasing a new console every year doesn't make sense. Developers will still have to make games for the PS4 because they would be ignoring a huge amount of gamers (and money) if they chose to focus solely on the more powerful Xbox. Releasing a new console every year would make a PS4 even more appealing because Sony isn't making it outdated every year.

It just makes more sense for Microsoft to improve Xbox One by improving the interface on an annual basis and using the cloud to add more computing power to games. They could even use cloud streaming to deliver better graphics than what the current Xbox One hardware is capable of delivering. That would be really cool. Doing it any other way would be a disaster and drive Xbox fans away to PC and PS4.

 

[RowdyReverb]

Digital Foundry's job is about to get harder

 

[Bgamer90]

XBOX 16 (2016)
XBOX 19 (2019)
XBOX 22 (2022)
XBOX 25 (2025)

Games would be labeled for minimum requirements and suggested.

XBOX 16 minimum req
XBOX 19 suggested

So you know if you want to play it like god intended you should be on 19 but you can still run it well on 16.

XBOX Live ties everything together.

I'm bout this life. I can't stand waiting 8 years for a new console generation and this would still keep the simplicity of console gaming as there are no parts to replace and the hardware is a known quantity to developers.

Yeah, I'm thinking a release pattern like this (3 years) if they really go through with this.

An Xbox model will get 6 years of support -- similar to how long a typical console gaming gen lasts.

I could also see the pricing and support cycle/strategy being a bit similar to iOS devices (example):

2020 -- New Xbox for $399
2023 -- New Xbox for $399; 2020 model is $249
2026 -- New Xbox for $399; 2023 model is $249; 2020 model is phased out
2029 -- New Xbox for $399; 2026 model is $249; 2023 model is phased out

Etc.

They would have to make sure that the Xbox ecosystem allows for easy transferring and that the third party games can run well between the two revelant models during a certain period of time.

Again though, this is just me thinking out loud/posting ideas as they come to me.

Edit: I see that Yoday basically stated the same thing. "Great minds"?

 

[gamz]

If that's the case then I think most people will just buy a PC or PS4. One of the appealing things about a gaming console is longevity. When you buy it day 1, you know you're going to be able to play current games on it for at least 5 years. Releasing a new console every year doesn't make sense. Developers will still have to make games for the PS4 because they would be ignoring a huge amount of gamers (and money) if they chose to focus solely on the more powerful Xbox. Releasing a new console every year would make a PS4 even more appealing because Sony isn't making it outdated every year.

It just makes more sense for Microsoft to improve Xbox One by improving the interface on an annual basis and using the cloud to add more computing power to games. They could even use cloud streaming to deliver better graphics than what the current Xbox One hardware is capable of delivering. That would be really cool. Doing it any other way would be a disaster and drive Xbox fans away to PC and PS4.

That's not going to change though.

 

[Sarobi]

If that's the case then I think most people will just buy a PC or PS4. One of the appealing things about a gaming console is longevity. When you buy it day 1, you know you're going to be able to play current games on it for at least 5 years. Releasing a new console every year doesn't make sense. Developers will still have to make games for the PS4 because they would be ignoring a huge amount of gamers (and money) if they chose to focus solely on the more powerful Xbox. Releasing a new console every year would make a PS4 even more appealing because Sony isn't making it outdated every year.

It just makes more sense for Microsoft to improve Xbox One by improving the interface on an annual basis and using the cloud to add more computing power to games. They could even use cloud streaming to deliver better graphics than what the current Xbox One hardware is capable of delivering. That would be really cool. Doing it any other way would be a disaster and drive Xbox fans away to PC and PS4.

Not when they see that Xbox One Gen 3 plays Halo 6 with 5 more frames, and doesn't lag when you have Skype, Twitter, and Youtube up at the same time!

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Steam boxes were a few years ago.

Valve did a horrible job with the Steam boxes. No marketing, the units all came from different OEM's. The naming scheme was also terrible. Nothing differentiate between the skus either.

 

[RowdyReverb]

I wonder how this will impact the indie scene. Lots of indie games come out on Windows that don't come out on Xbox. Is this going to change that?

 

[old manatee]

I wonder how this will impact the indie scene. Lots of indie games come out on Windows that don't come out on Xbox. Is this going to change that?

You name it the Xbox One is going to get it. Minesweeper, solitaire, Minecraft.

 

[jdmonmou]

That's not going to change though.

If it's not going to change, then why would Microsoft go through the expensive process to release new consoles more frequently. The smartphone and tablet industry does this because they have stiff competition. If I can play games on older Xboxes without having to upgrade then wouldn't that adversely impact sales on new Xboxes therefore making this all a pointless endeavor? I just don't get it...Microsoft really should've released this information when they could share all the details.

 

[Bgamer90]

I wonder how this will impact the indie scene. Lots of indie games come out on Windows that don't come out on Xbox. Is this going to change that?

Anything that's Windows would be on Xbox too more than likely.

It would greatly help the Xbox's One's indie library -- hence why I don't understand people who can say that there's no benefits to this move.

 

[QaaQer]

Anything that's Windows Store would be on Xbox too more than likely.

It would greatly help the Xbox's One's mobile f2p library -- hence why I don't understand people who can say that there's no benefits to this move.

Fixed.

 

[Night Angel]

MS releases a new xbox this year that's more powerful than the PS4. One less thing PS4 has on XBO. Some people buy it, some people don't. Now the following year, another new Xbox One comes out even more powerful, the previous year drops in price and the one before that does as well. The PS4 stays stagnant in performance while getting cheaper but doesn't get all the new bells and whistles. Which console do you think is going to support 4K TVs first? Yea...it is definitely the right idea. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Xbox One next year or just getting another more powerful one (because I want two for different rooms). It makes total sense for Microsoft to do this.

So the market has spoken, and it doesn't want the XB1 as much as the PS4. You think that offering a more expensive, brand new console every few years will suddenly shift the market away from a product with a guaranteed life span of the entire generation (5+ years)? The same market that has already proven to stick with console gaming despite its relative stagnation compared to PC, which the XB1 would potentially be imitating?

And somehow releasing new iterations of the XB1 will allow MS to drop the price faster than Sony (because if that's not what you were implying, why even mention it), as if it has any effect on the manufacturing costs?

I don't think you've thought about this all that much.

 

[Zedox]

Then why didn't they do it in the first place?

Why didn't Apple have an iPad Pro at launch of the original iPad?

If that's the case then I think most people will just buy a PC or PS4. One of the appealing things about a gaming console is longevity. When you buy it day 1, you know you're going to be able to play current games on it for at least 5 years. Releasing a new console every year doesn't make sense. Developers will still have to make games for the PS4 because they would be ignoring a huge amount of gamers (and money) if they chose to focus solely on the more powerful Xbox. Releasing a new console every year would make a PS4 even more appealing because Sony isn't making it outdated every year.

It just makes more sense for Microsoft to improve Xbox One by improving the interface on an annual basis and using the cloud to add more computing power to games. They could even use cloud streaming to deliver better graphics than what the current Xbox One hardware is capable of delivering. That would be really cool. Doing it any other way would be a disaster and drive Xbox fans away to PC and PS4.

1st bold: And in this model, that changes how?
2nd bold: You do realize that there is a thing called multitasking where you don't have to be sequential in your work.

So the market has spoken, and it doesn't want the XB1 as much as the PS4. You think that offering a more expensive, brand new console every few years will suddenly shift the market away from a product with a guaranteed life span of the entire generation (5+ years)? The same market that has already proven to stick with console gaming despite its relative stagnation compared to PC, which the XB1 would potentially be imitating?

And somehow releasing new iterations of the XB1 will allow MS to drop the price faster than Sony (because if that's not what you were implying, why even mention it), as if it has any effect on the manufacturing costs?

I don't think you've thought about this all that much.

Did i say the market will shift? Did I not say some people will buy it and some people won't? I stated in this model, the PS4 (if it stayed exactly where it was) would be stagnant and "older" while newer games are showing off better performance, possibily new capabilities, etc...and will do so regularly for Xbox One. The console market and the PC market aren't the same and people do buy them for different reasons...I don't know why you or anyone else keep putting the PC as if it is a console.

What you are saying is that a person would choose a Samsung Galaxy S5 over an iPhone 7S (hypothetically speaking) because there's more people on that system and the market chose the Galaxy S5. Even if the games that are running on the iPhone 7S at better framerate, resolution and the device may have new capabilities (something that people really haven't touched on). That's funny.

 

[gamz]

If it's not going to change, then why would Microsoft go through the expensive process to release new consoles more frequently. The smartphone and tablet industry does this because they have stiff competition. If I can play games on older Xboxes without having to upgrade then wouldn't that adversely impact sales on new Xboxes therefore making this all a pointless endeavor? I just don't get it...Microsoft really should've released this information when they could share all the details.

Because many people what a more powerful system. Choices is a good thing. I mean why not? You see the DF threads and people go nuts because games can't get to 1080P and 60fps more consistently.

 

[QaaQer]

So the market has spoken, and it doesn't want the XB1 as much as the PS4. You think that offering a more expensive, brand new console every few years will suddenly shift the market away from a product with a guaranteed life span of the entire generation (5+ years)? The same market that has already proven to stick with console gaming despite its relative stagnation compared to PC, which the XB1 would potentially be imitating?

And somehow releasing new iterations of the XB1 will allow MS to drop the price faster than Sony (because if that's not what you were implying, why even mention it), as if it has any effect on the manufacturing costs?

I don't think you've thought about this all that much.

People think ps4 is the most popular because of digital foundry face offs I guess.

 

[PreyForYou]

I think Amazon will enter the game and replace Microsoft, it hasn't been easy days for MS...

Let's see How NX will do.

Hasn't been easy? thought the Xbox one was doing better than the 360 was at this point in the life cycle?

 

[Quasar]

About time.

xbox should just be a living room pc.

 

[PreyForYou]

About time.

xbox should just be a living room pc.

Doesnt this sound like the future for all gaming consoles?

 

[jdmonmou]

Because many people what a more powerful system. Choices is a good thing. I mean why not? You see the DF threads and people go nuts because games can't get to 1080P and 60fps more consistently.

But I would bet those people that go nuts over 1080p 60 FPS are a small number of people. A lot of people will just be happy if the game will run. Majority of people don't necessarily care about how well it runs. Microsoft will lose money releasing consoles more frequently to appease those people.

 

[old manatee]

So if I plug a mouse and keyboard into a PC it is a PC, but if I plug a console into a PC is it still a console?

 

[gamz]

But I would bet those people that go nuts over 1080p 60 FPS are a small number of people. A lot of people will just be happy if the game will run. Majority of people don't necessarily care about how well it runs. Microsoft will lose money releasing consoles more frequently to appease those people.

We'll never know how it will play out. Could be great or the market will reject it.

I'm not going to stop a company from giving me more choices or innovation.

 

[sunshine and gasoline]

I honestly wouldn't have much of an issue with this though that is mainly because I'm used to upgrading my PC very few years. Upgrading consoles wouldn't be a big deal. Will this happen? Probably not or at least it won't for the next generation or two. When/if consoles go this route pricing and the release schedule will be important.

 

[Zedox]

So people think that's it's only a graphics upgrade with these different models. Yall forget that they can introduce different capabilities of the system itself with those upgrades. VR/AR out of the box. Ability to connect a 360 degree camera to it for broadcasting twitch or something at 4K resolutions. Actual TV DVR of 4K content. It doesn't necessarily mean it's only a graphics upgrade but other things that people would want out of their tv entertainment device.

 

[old manatee]

So people think that's it's only a graphics upgrade with these different models. Yall forget that they can introduce different capabilities of the system itself with those upgrades. VR/AR out of the box. Ability to connect a 360 degree camera to it for broadcasting twitch or something at 4K resolutions. Actual TV DVR of 4K content. It doesn't necessarily mean it's only a graphics upgrade but other things that people would want out of their tv entertainment device.

Yeah man, pcs are cool.

 

[vcc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Valve didn't put a lot of effort into marketing it? Nothing on the scale of Microsoft spending tens or hundreds of millions on their marketing campaigns for something like the Xbox or Surface.

I think the way MS pushes things into market versus how Valve is letting Steam machines grow organically is quite different.

Steam boxes + Steam OS were a half hearted hedge on MS closing the windows platform w the w8 store.

other examples also exist were upgraded hardware fell flat though. Like DSi, New 3DS. Going all the way back to Atari and the 5200. The console market has't been into the concept in the past.

 

[Ricerocket]

So people think that's it's only a graphics upgrade with these different models. Yall forget that they can introduce different capabilities of the system itself with those upgrades. VR/AR out of the box. Ability to connect a 360 degree camera to it for broadcasting twitch or something at 4K resolutions. Actual TV DVR of 4K content. It doesn't necessarily mean it's only a graphics upgrade but other things that people would want out of their tv entertainment device.

This is why people are saying this won't go well no? That is a shit load of different offerings of the same product...

The "all in the one entertainment system" is becoming a specialized device?

Or just get a PC.

 

[vcc]

This is why people are saying this won't go well no? That is a shit load of different offerings of the same product...

The "all in the one entertainment system" is becoming a specialized device?

Or just get a PC.

why not the worst of both!

 

[Hawk269]

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?

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?

I am a PC gamer as well and I built a game rig for my wife. She runs her games at 1080p and mainly at 30fps, I run the same exact games at 4k/60fps. Games scale really well from base models up to 4k. Devs will need to target a baseline system, which would be the current Xbox One. By and large most games would be 900p or so, 30fps depending on the game. Then the game would be able to be played on a higher end model at 1080p, 60fps and other bells and whistles.

For the Devs, most make PC games already so they know how to make games that scale. And saying that it would be marginal is incorrect. If you have a gaming PC, take any game you have and run it at 720p, no AA and things set to low and then run it at 1080p with things turned up. Would it "marginal" as you suggest? I would argue that there would be a substantial/generational improvement just doing that simple test.

 

[Cynn]

But I would bet those people that go nuts over 1080p 60 FPS are a small number of people. A lot of people will just be happy if the game will run. Majority of people don't necessarily care about how well it runs. Microsoft will lose money releasing consoles more frequently to appease those people.

You're chasing yourself around in circles. No one says MS will lose money with upgraded consoles. They are looking to see if there's an audience for them and will scale to demand. It's not like a new console launch. It's more like how the slim models are treated. This way the people who care about 1080p/60 and the people who are happy just how things are are all taken care of under the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Microsoft in 2015: 'Consumers can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway'

Microsoft in 2018: 'Consumers can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, 30 and 60fps. You should definitely buy the latest XB1 version to get the best performance.'

 

[Drifters]

So the brand "Made for Xbox" is going to be a thing huh?

 

[Cynn]

Microsoft in 2015: 'Consumers can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway'

Microsoft in 2018: 'Consumers can tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, 30 and 60fps. You should definitely buy the latest XB1 version to get the best performance.'

I like 2018 better.

 

[vcc]

I am a PC gamer as well and I built a game rig for my wife. She runs her games at 1080p and mainly at 30fps, I run the same exact games at 4k/60fps. Games scale really well from base models up to 4k. Devs will need to target a baseline system, which would be the current Xbox One. By and large most games would be 900p or so, 30fps depending on the game. Then the game would be able to be played on a higher end model at 1080p, 60fps and other bells and whistles.

For the Devs, most make PC games already so they know how to make games that scale. And saying that it would be marginal is incorrect. If you have a gaming PC, take any game you have and run it at 720p, no AA and things set to low and then run it at 1080p with things turned up. Would it "marginal" as you suggest? I would argue that there would be a substantial/generational improvement just doing that simple test.

So why would they do extra work to support it rather than just make PC games?

Why would publishers/devs want to be in this space? MS is subdividing their base. Increasing work for the devs for the same return. Why would they want in?