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

Cross-gen games forever on XBox if this happens then, console developers will always aim for the lowest common denominator.

What I don't understand is; software licencing and sales are where money is made on consoles, and manufacturing costs for a console reduce over time. So why would MS go down the route of retooling a factory every 18 months or so, thereby increasing research & development, production and design costs (console hardware is expensive to design and produce), confusing the traditional console buyer, the retailer (which versions get the shelf space?) and eating into their own profits on older hardware?

Apart from the BC aspect it makes not sense.

They should just throw the money into producing first party games and release them on all systems.

Firstly, throwing money into first party games and releasing them on all systems kinda invalidates the "software licensing" part that forms the basis of your point. They'd be giving that licensing fee to the other platform holders instead. I'd also imagine that incremental hardware revisions wouldn't have the same design and production costs as the entirely new architectures we've been seeing across previous generations.

As for cross-gen forever... logically this would already be the case on PCs if such an assertion were to be true.. but it never has been. Rather than "lowest common denominator" it's pretty much always been a case of "lowest common reasonable denominator" which general tend to be what the general console generation is, or in the absence of that (such as the iPhone) something like every other cycle.
 
4GYOHIp.gif
 
Firstly, throwing money into first party games and releasing them on all systems kinda invalidates the "software licensing" part that forms the basis of your point. They'd be giving that licensing fee to the other platform holders instead. I'd also imagine that incremental hardware revisions wouldn't have the same design and production costs as the entirely new architectures we've been seeing across previous generations.

As for cross-gen forever... logically this would already be the case on PCs if such an assertion were to be true.. but it never has been. Rather than "lowest common denominator" it's pretty much always been a case of "lowest common reasonable denominator" which general tend to be what the general console generation is, or in the absence of that (such as the iPhone) something like every other cycle.

I think that's a given and anyone arguing differently would be asked to sit down.
 
I think that's a given and anyone arguing differently would be asked to sit down.

You would think so... but that doesn't seem to be the case going by this thread, where we're being told that this model would necessitate Uncharted 4 needing to be the equivalent of a 1080p/60fps version of what ran on hardware of 10 years ago.
 
It's an idea that's hung around for a long time. It's a cool sounding idea but the devil is in the details and the execution.

Having a standard platform is one of console gamings major pillars so this is a big challenge. The big issue is in optimisation. Quantum Break funny enough gives us some insight as it's a UWA and it's PC specs are some of the highest I've ever seen, suggesting it's not as optmized for PC.

The other big issue is the market and making it clear and transparent. The 'New' 3DS for example is not how to do this. So confusing for the consumer.

However it could work I guess if handled very well. So keeping an eye for sure.
 
You would think so... but that doesn't seem to be the case going by this thread, where we're being told that this model would necessitate Uncharted 4 needing to be the equivalent of a 1080p/60fps version of what ran on hardware of 10 years ago.


I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from anything I have read in either this thread or any of the articles.
 
I think the typical development cycle would be:

Xbox 1.0: target hardware for entire generation. Not capable of running games that target xbox2.0
Xbox1.5 : capable of running Xbox 1.0 games with better performance and/or feature support (oculus rift). Also capable of running games that target Xbox 2.0, but with graphics setting significantly lowered.
Xbox 2.0: capable of running games that targeted previous iterations. Target hardware for entire generation.

Rinse and repeat.

For the type of gamer who prefers a 5-6 year cycle, they skip on the 1.5. and upgrade when the 2.0 comes out because they new games won't work on their 1.0

For the gamer that what's the latest and greatest they trade in there 1.0 console when the 1.5 launches.

For gamers that join a gen late, they have the option of getting cheap but well supported hardware 1.0 hardware or state of the art 1.5. They don't have to worry about limiting their games catalog.

For AAA developers, targeting the 2.0 hardware is less risky, because people with 1.5 hardware are also potential customers.

For developers of less intensive games, your potential audience spans multiple generations.

What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.
 
Are there people in the thread defending this????

When people buy a console they expect it to last a generation. .....


I am out of Microsoft monopoly if this happens. I hope this approach bombs hard...
 
What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.

Yup, and that's it. No larger levels, no better AI, just the same game as before, just better looking. Yay!
 
What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.

1.5 ? I thought they would have to target the 1.0 to be sure everything is working fine on the lowest entry ? But I don't know much about gaming development.
 
Getting a kick out of the people saying Microsoft should/could buy AMD. No way that would ever be allowed to happen. Between Intel lobbyists and the US Justice Dept. there is no way that acquisition would be allowed.
 
Are there people in the thread defending this????

When people buy a console they expect it to last a generation. .....


I am out of Microsoft monopoly if this happens. I hope this approach bombs hard...
Your console would still last a generation. It would just be joined by additional versions later on that do a little bit more.
 
What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.

Xbox 2.0 would be a new gen basically releasing the same time as a PS5. Devs can still develop for 1.5 (think cross gen)
 
Microsoft know they underwhelmed with the Xbox One and consumers responded. They are doing what you said but trying not to look like they are doing a Sega. They will come out with a better Xbox console, support the Xbox One much like today, not transition like new hardware usually does. Microsoft are trying something new while fixing a mistake. If it doesn't work, nothing really changes.


What is with people thinking new hardware every year, I think you might see a refresh every 3-4 years at most.

We already have revision 2-3 times a generation. So if you can do a revision and a spec bump. Then do it.

They already did it with the controller. Remember when everyone thought they were insane on a controller that cost 150 bucks and it flew off the shelves?
 
It's an idea that's hung around for a long time. It's a cool sounding idea but the devil is in the details and the execution.

Having a standard platform is one of console gamings major pillars so this is a big challenge. The big issue is in optimisation. Quantum Break funny enough gives us some insight as it's a UWA and it's PC specs are some of the highest I've ever seen, suggesting it's not as optmized for PC.

The other big issue is the market and making it clear and transparent. The 'New' 3DS for example is not how to do this. So confusing for the consumer.

However it could work I guess if handled very well. So keeping an eye for sure.

I think marketing will make or break the business model. It will boil down to naming conventions and messaging and I think this is part of the reason they went the name Xbox One.

I think consumer tech history shows exactly how and hoe not to confuse confuse customers. "New 3ds" or "WiiU" confusing. Iphone6s or PS3 slim, not confusing.
 
Man, reading through this thread has been crazy, I'm so torn. Some good arguments from both sides.

Not sure if the question has been asked but is this actually happening or is it one of those "thinking about it" cases...

Trying to get back to link but it won't load for some reason

Edit:

Nvm I'm in, read it
 
Are there people in the thread defending this????

When people buy a console they expect it to last a generation. .....


I am out of Microsoft monopoly if this happens. I hope this approach bombs hard...


MS is just trying to exit in an "elegant" way from the console space, whatever one may add or subtract from this is not important.

The business as it is now, for them, is not worth anymore, xbox as console is a thing of the past.
 
Are there people in the thread defending this????

When people buy a console they expect it to last a generation. .....


I am out of Microsoft monopoly if this happens. I hope this approach bombs hard...

The "console" you buy will still last a generation.
 
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from anything I have read in either this thread or any of the articles.

Well, to be fair the post that I had in mind when I typed that didn't say that exactly... They did make the clarification of the PS3 being forwards compatible, which would be the equivalent of XB2 having to accommodate both XB1 and XB1.5 (and that's assuming there was like 4 years in between each).

This was the post though:

Agree
Backward compatible is great, but forward compatible is big no no for me.
Say PS3 and PS4 fully backward and forward compatible, ND could only make Uncharted 4 that look like Uncharted collection. No large driving level, just higher res corridor.


There have been numerous posts along these lines, but I'm not going to go back quoting them all (there were discussion about games like Battlefield not being able to increase playercounts etc).. plus there's this right here on this page, implying the same...

Yup, and that's it. No larger levels, no better AI, just the same game as before, just better looking. Yay!

What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.

Why would this be the case though? To make that suggest also suggests that they also cannot target a potential PS5, and that regardless of what spec it contains, it would only be able to house games that target the previous cycle's Xbox (excluding Sony exclusives). This doesn't make any sense. If Xbox 1.5 is indeed Xbox 1.5, then it's software base would logically be an XB1, with extra potential bells and whistles. An Xbox TWO, would be a different matter, and could easily represent a completely separate tier of software, that would then be shared by a future Xbox 2.5. Saying that they developers would have to target the previous device no matter what would be similar to suggesting that an Xbox 2 would have to target Xbox One so long as it remains fully backwards compatible (like say numerous Nintendo consoles/handhelds are) even in an XB1.5's absence. It makes no sense. Being able to play all DS games on my 3DS didn't prompt everyone to just make DS games for another cycle.
 
Doom & Gloom v. Hope & Desire

Will Microsoft crash and burn on thier xbox console businnes?
Will Microsoft rise like a phoenix on their xbox console business?
We'll find out next time on another episode of DRAGON BALL Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
What you're not realizing is that under your scenario there is no longer targeting Xbox 2.0 for devs. Devs would have to target Xbox 1.5, and then throw in some graphical extras for Xbox 2.0.

1.5 ? I thought they would have to target the 1.0 to be sure everything is working fine on the lowest entry ? But I don't know much about gaming development.

All of this depends on the adoption rate and buying behaviour. Even now there are theoretically some tens of million of people not yet moved to current gen, but in practice they're buying very few games so cross-gen is dying. The same will most likely happen also in this case. Looking at the behaviour in the mobile market, the console and the PC market there is no reason why the consumer behaviour shouldn't be the same in this case.
 
Well, to be fair the post that I had in mind when I typed that didn't say that exactly... They did make the clarification of the PS3 being forwards compatible, which would be the equivalent of XB2 having to accommodate both XB1 and XB1.5 (and that's assuming there was like 4 years in between each).

This was the post though:




There have been numerous posts along these lines, but I'm not going to go back quoting them all (there were discussion about games like Battlefield not being able to increase playercounts etc).. plus there's this right here on this page, implying the same...





Why would this be the case though? To make that suggest also suggests that they also cannot target a potential PS5, and that regardless of what spec it contains, it would only be able to house games that target the previous cycle's Xbox (excluding Sony exclusives). This doesn't make any sense. If Xbox 1.5 is indeed Xbox 1.5, then it's software base would logically be an XB1, with extra potential bells and whistles. An Xbox TWO, would be a different matter, and could easily represent a completely separate tier of software, that would then be shared by a future Xbox 2.5. Saying that they developers would have to target the previous device no matter what would be similar to suggesting that an Xbox 2 would have to target Xbox One so long as it remains fully backwards compatible (like say numerous Nintendo consoles/handhelds are) even in an XB1.5's absence. It makes no sense. Being able to play all DS games on my 3DS didn't prompt everyone to just make DS games for another cycle.

But this is not going to work based on the fact that PS3 & 4 were 9 or ten years apart.

The fundamental difference here is he is talking about upgrades within the same generation, or a couple of years apart. Those time frames are going to be resolution and AA differences between xbox 1.1 and xbox 1.2. Not the texture qualities.
 
Why would this be the case though? To make that suggest also suggests that they also cannot target a potential PS5, and that regardless of what spec it contains, it would only be able to house games that target the previous cycle's Xbox (excluding Sony exclusives). This doesn't make any sense. If Xbox 1.5 is indeed Xbox 1.5, then it's software base would logically be an XB1, with extra potential bells and whistles. An Xbox TWO, would be a different matter, and could easily represent a completely separate tier of software, that would then be shared by a future Xbox 2.5. Saying that they developers would have to target the previous device no matter what would be similar to suggesting that an Xbox 2 would have to target Xbox One so long as it remains fully backwards compatible (like say numerous Nintendo consoles/handhelds are) even in an XB1.5's absence. It makes no sense. Being able to play all DS games on my 3DS didn't prompt everyone to just make DS games for another cycle.

So, no more forward compatible for Xbox 1.5?
 
Well, to be fair the post that I had in mind when I typed that didn't say that exactly... They did make the clarification of the PS3 being forwards compatible, which would be the equivalent of XB2 having to accommodate both XB1 and XB1.5 (and that's assuming there was like 4 years in between each).

This was the post though:




There have been numerous posts along these lines, but I'm not going to go back quoting them all (there were discussion about games like Battlefield not being able to increase playercounts etc).. plus there's this right here on this page, implying the same...





Why would this be the case though? To make that suggest also suggests that they also cannot target a potential PS5, and that regardless of what spec it contains, it would only be able to house games that target the previous cycle's Xbox (excluding Sony exclusives). This doesn't make any sense. If Xbox 1.5 is indeed Xbox 1.5, then it's software base would logically be an XB1, with extra potential bells and whistles. An Xbox TWO, would be a different matter, and could easily represent a completely separate tier of software, that would then be shared by a future Xbox 2.5. Saying that they developers would have to target the previous device no matter what would be similar to suggesting that an Xbox 2 would have to target Xbox One so long as it remains fully backwards compatible (like say numerous Nintendo consoles/handhelds are) even in an XB1.5's absence. It makes no sense. Being able to play all DS games on my 3DS didn't prompt everyone to just make DS games for another cycle.

For this to work, XB1.5 has to support the software of XB2 though. The same way XB1 owners expect the support of XB1.5 software.

Of course I'm assuming the hardware refresh will happen in kinda fixed period, say every 2-3 years. If the case of something like XB1.5 is two years after XB1 and XB2 is 4 years after XB1.5 (Practically XB2 and XB1.5 not in the same generation) then your point stands.
 
MS is just trying to exit in an "elegant" way from the console space, whatever one may add or subtract from this is not important.

The business as it is now, for them, is not worth anymore, xbox as console is a thing of the past.

You don't exit the console space by making more consoles... That's silly
 
I think this is the key thing.

If you imagine a hardware refresh every two years, then as long as MS can give a commitment that games will be compatible and work going back 3 iterations (6 years) then I'm happy.
If it's anything like for iOS, then they don't even need to give that commitment. Most publishers will want to make their games work for as big of a demographic as possible and as such will make them go back at least a couple of generations of hardware. And the smart ones can make their games look nicer on newer generations of hardware with lower quality graphics on older gens.
 
But this is not going to work based on the fact that PS3 & 4 were 9 or ten years apart.

The fundamental difference here is he is talking about upgrades within the same generation, or a couple of years apart. Those time frames are going to be resolution and AA differences between xbox 1.1 and xbox 1.2. Not the texture qualities.

Yea, upgrades within a generation would only have incremental improvements, but this wouldn't have to be a rolling situation for each and every piece of hardware. If you still have Playstations releasing every other cycle, then there will absolutely be software that represents a clear generational difference, otherwise the argument suggests that every PlayStation released also becomes limited to essentially being a .5 increment over the previously released Xbox model. This seems incredibly unlikely to happen.

So, no more forward compatible for Xbox 1.5?

At least not fully, no. The line will always have to be drawn somewhere, otherwise over time you'd end up with something like a PS1 still running PS4 games... which would really mean there are no PS4 games. If an XB1.5 is playing the same game as an XB1, then it's an XB1 game. If a XB1.5 is playing an XB2 game... then it's actually an XB1.5 game (which quite possibly might not ever happen), and the XB2 is simply running it better. If you have an actual XB2 game... then that implies it requires an XB2 to run.

For this to work, XB1.5 has to support the software of XB2 though. The same way XB1 owners expect the support of XB1.5 software.

Of course I'm assuming the hardware refresh will happen in kinda fixed period, say every 2-3 years. If the case of something like XB1.5 is two years after XB1 and XB2 is 4 years after XB1.5 (Practically XB2 and XB1.5 not in the same generation) then your point stands.

Consumer expectations are easily managed by simply not naming each console something stupid. Xbox One -> Xbox One S -> Xbox Two -> Xbox Two S... every customer can tell which is the base for the generation and which is a new generation of hardware here. Name them Xbox One, Xbox Next and Xbox Ultimate or something equally stupid (Nintendo does this a lot) and then you might start running into expectation problems.
 
Frankly, I rather like this approach if it is done right. They could do something similar to the iPhone and iOS. Phones are upgraded each year (I usually update my phone on a two-year cycle), but compatibility with the OS and software is, for the most part, maintained for years (although you have a few pieces of software that require the new device).

I would rather have the option to have things move forward and improve from a hardware perspective as opposed to being locked into aging hardware for years.
 
In terms of forward compatibility-

The mid gen console (X.5) would never be the target hardware.

It would run X generation games better through brute force. And it would be cable of running Y generation games at the expense of graphics settings. And you'd expect that at some point during the Y generation X.5 would no longer be able to play the most intensive new games... That would probably happen around the time Y.5 launches.
 
I really wonder how they are going to make this work. Will we have to buy a new console first or is the one we have right now actually already upgradeable?
 
I really wonder how they are going to make this work. Will we have to buy a new console first or is the one we have right now actually already upgradeable?
I highly doubt the consoles will ever be upgradeable. You'll be able to "upgrade" by buying the newer version with better specs. I just don't see how this will work for multiplayer. Either the people with the lower spec console will be at a disadvantage because of lower framerates, lower draw distance, etc. or the people with the higher spec console will be pissed that their graphics are capped to give parity to the weaker console.
 
Bells and whistles.
Smoke and mirrors.
The power of the cloud.

It's either a faster processor, more/faster memory, a more powerful graphics chip and the like. That would just bring 20fps games to the Xbone 1.0.

What the Xbox brand really need is a box more expensive than the PS4.
Games will be reviewed on the expensive box and parents will purchase the old discounted model in droves at Christmas. It's a plan.
 
I really wonder how they are going to make this work. Will we have to buy a new console first or is the one we have right now actually already upgradeable?

Probably a new console

or

Something that fixes on the side and connects to the side USB3??

The latter is probably way off

That said

Would it be a new console but with a modular architecture? Like xBox 1.5 has the APU inside a module that slides into the the Console. And Xbox 2.0 is not a console just an APU in a module to replace the 1.5 module?



Who knows...
 
I highly doubt the consoles will ever be upgradeable. You'll be able to "upgrade" by buying the newer version with better specs. I just don't see how this will work for multiplayer. Either the people with the lower spec console will be at a disadvantage because of lower framerates, lower draw distance, etc. or the people with the higher spec console will be pissed that their graphics are capped to give parity to the weaker console.

It works for multiplayer on PC... Why wouldn't it work here?

In general, I think people are more worried about whether or not an experience is good for them, not what opponents are seeing on their screens.

I too doubt they'll have users manually upgrading console components. Instead people will trade in there old for the new.
 
It works for multiplayer on PC... Why wouldn't it work here?

In general, I think people are more worried about whether or not an experience is good for them, not what opponents are seeing on their screens.

I too doubt they'll have users manually upgrading console components. Instead people will trade in there old for the new.

Yeah that was the cnclusion I came to when the missus said it's seems a bit soon, last night.
 
If this is a stealth MS bail-out from console manufacturing announcement, that's some very good news, and long overdue. If not and their real intent is to put out an Xbone 1.1, a Xbone1080p add-on or whatever, well, this is the most asinine thing they've said since the original Xbone reveal.
 
Yea, upgrades within a generation would only have incremental improvements, but this wouldn't have to be a rolling situation for each and every piece of hardware. If you still have Playstations releasing every other cycle, then there will absolutely be software that represents a clear generational difference, otherwise the argument suggests that every PlayStation released also becomes limited to essentially being a .5 increment over the previously released Xbox model. This seems incredibly unlikely to happen.

If Sony are going to have a regular cycle then by the time they come along the xbox will either be there or .5 behind.

It will blow the traditional "console war" out of the water. It won't even be a thing any more unless Sony do the same thing. It would be like 3 Nintendo each doing their own thing, be damned what the other's are up to.

Possibly.. this is just my thinking

But I would imagine Sony would get on board and do something similar. as half way through the gen a lt of people would jump ship back to MS for Multi plats.
 
It's either a faster processor, more/faster memory, a more powerful graphics chip and the like. That would just bring 20fps games to the Xbone 1.0.

The bolded makes no sense, else the PS4 would be bringing 20fps games to the XB1 (no smart-ass response to this low hanging fruit here please...). Similarly, if the XB1.5 were to be 40% more powerful than a PS4, I doubt it'd result in the PS4 receiving worse iterations of games than it does currently (afterall the existence of PC versions isn't doing that). The XB1.5 would just apply some of the graphical advancements that PC versions have over current consoles, and would maybe have things like 1080p/60fps in a game like Battlefront that operates at 900p/60fps on a PS4 today.

But the base for the generation is set, the upgraded console will always be the minority SKU, and would never become the new base.
 
If this is a stealth MS bail-out from console manufacturing announcement, that's some very good news, and long overdue. If not and their real intent is to put out an Xbone 1.1, a Xbone1080p add-on or whatever, well, this is the most asinine thing they've said since the original Xbone reveal.

And why is that good news for any party involved here?

Lets hear this

The floor is yours.
 
If MS forces game developers to make any game run on the cheapest and oldest (!) SKU as well, then this SKU becomes the weakest link in the chain. This naturally limits the possibility of developers to actually exploit the additional power added which each upgrade.

So this forward compatability is actually limiting games develepment. So while fps and resolution may profit, the games' scale, KI and so on wont.

Result? AAA Games possible on PS5 won't be possible on XBOX Two's weakest SKU, hence developers will either abandon that ship or they produce downgraded games which wont exploit the power and possibilities of the stronger ones. How "funny" ist that? Sounds like a nightmare to me.

I was going to make a near identical argument yesterday. The starting point for developers will always be the PS4 and lowest XBO SKU with the highest number of units sold. Newer iterations will run full HD @ 60 fps without breaking sweat. But third-party developers aren't going to pour a disproportionate amount of time and energy into the maxing out the capabilities of the more powerful model. The Xbox One v2013 literally becomes a ball and chain holding newer iterations back until, that is, the older model is cut loose, abandoned and PS5 appears.

The second reason I believe this is a bad avenue for Microsoft, is for the same reason you never announce a slim model months in advance. I already know one person who was planning on buying an Xbox One, but who now is holding off until Microsoft announce more details. Multiply that incertitude by 100 million. The net effect is you have people with perpetual cold feet, not knowing if a more powerful unit is around the corner. Meanwhile, PS4 continues to fly off the shelves.
 
Top Bottom