MilkyJoe
Member
I'm getting it'll be one more Xbox, same architecture except more beef. So still not in the multi-manufactuerer Steam Machine Park.
Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
I'm getting it'll be one more Xbox, same architecture except more beef. So still not in the multi-manufactuerer Steam Machine Park.
I don't think so. iOS works somewhat like UWA is proposed to work. Still need to do that extra work for pad vs phone and multiple versions.
Garrett 2U
Member
Phil: "We'll get more games developed for the console gamer, we'll have more gamers to play with on the console, we'll see more continuous hardware and software innovation through what's realized with this vision as we go forward. That is a commitment from our team to console gamers."
Pack it up boys, Microsoft is exiting the console industry.
No one asserts that win10 store = PC . The point still stands that developers have an opportunity to simultaneously target the xb1 audience and the win10 store audience.
Granted, the win10 store is in its infancy, but the xb1 audience isn't negligable. It's the attractiveness of the xb1 audience that will entise developers to release content on the win10 store...Which will overtime increase the usage of the store on PC.
Also selling a game in the win 10 doesn't prevent developers from selling the game in other store fronts as well. You act like developers are being presented with ultimatums. Games make there way to the xb1 store from steam all the time... Why would this be any different?
No. Microsoft is changing it's console industry.
Maybe. Existing games won't run at a different resolution (unless they're already using a dynamic resolution approach that just happens to work well.) Developers working on new games would have to decide how much effort to put into having their games scale up when they could just aim at the lowest common denominator instead. Consumers may find the idea of frequent updates discouraging when they've gotten used to longer console cycles.
It's either a bold move that will be interesting to watch play out, or it's a way to justify shifting from the traditional console business toward selling more conventional PCs tailored for the living room.
Can this thread be re-classified as fan fiction at this point? A lot of people are making a lot of really huge assumptions with only Microsoft's incredibly carefully worded PR speak as a guide and it's not going anywhere. At least people have stopped talking about somehow upgrading existing hardware.
Simple thing that a lot of people who actually work on software keep repeating [and get ignored in the face of hapless optimism]: "write once run everywhere" is fiction. It's 2016 and we can't code a calendar pop-up that looks the same in more than 75% of web browsers. All targeted platforms will require custom work and it will cost more to design, implement and test. The real question is can Microsoft make that worthwhile?
Simple thing that a lot of people who actually work on software keep repeating [and get ignored in the face of hapless optimism]: "write once run everywhere" is fiction. It's 2016 and we can't code a calendar pop-up that looks the same in more than 75% of web browsers. All targeted platforms will require custom work and it will cost more to design, implement and test. The real question is can Microsoft make that worthwhile?
Smutpeddler
Member
As far as precedent, this couldn't have been possible prior to now. Console generations were set up based on speed of technology, console manufacturers profits, and ability to iterate on the software.
Technology didn't move quickly enough to iterate in this fashion, therefore they incorporated what was possible once they felt their previous product was going stale.
A previous strategy of selling the console at a loss and making money back on the software also made the generations have a long tail, this allowed for the hardware to be made more efficiently and costs to be driven out of the system. The last 2-3 years of the Generation became the biggest boon to the console holder.
Modern software allows for a persistent OS, where in the older generations, each Gen had to have its own OS, and dev environment. This is not cost effective and is a huge reason there was such long gens.
Mostly, what we should take from this, is that it couldn't be done before. If you don't like this approach, and point to the past, you are putting your feelings ahead of the truth. I personally, love this idea, although its difficult to say whether the market will love it. Ultimately, MS has the opportunity to have hardware at different levels for every consumer, who can all play together(mostly), and drive a standard software platform forward.
I welcome the upgrades wit open arms.
Technology didn't move quickly enough to iterate in this fashion, therefore they incorporated what was possible once they felt their previous product was going stale.
A previous strategy of selling the console at a loss and making money back on the software also made the generations have a long tail, this allowed for the hardware to be made more efficiently and costs to be driven out of the system. The last 2-3 years of the Generation became the biggest boon to the console holder.
Modern software allows for a persistent OS, where in the older generations, each Gen had to have its own OS, and dev environment. This is not cost effective and is a huge reason there was such long gens.
Mostly, what we should take from this, is that it couldn't be done before. If you don't like this approach, and point to the past, you are putting your feelings ahead of the truth. I personally, love this idea, although its difficult to say whether the market will love it. Ultimately, MS has the opportunity to have hardware at different levels for every consumer, who can all play together(mostly), and drive a standard software platform forward.
I welcome the upgrades wit open arms.
Software support guaranteed by the producer of the hardware.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
I'm not seeing the commitment to the console released in 2013. The smaller the original Xbone share of the Windows 10 ecosystem, the less of a priority it is for software developers, including Microsoft.
If you're playing online on Xbone against PC and Xbone 1.5 players with higher frame rates and resolutions (and keyboard/mouse) you're not feeling like you're winning.
Boombloxer
Member
It's mystifying how this isn't clear to some people.
On-topic, consoles aren't phones and given the last go around with GFWL, the recent announcements about the store; it's hard to see why this is a positive development.
It's a strategy change for sure...but seems more out of changing the table rather than enhancing it. Competing with Sony and Valve at the same time seems like it's doomed to failure, largely because each already has a market-leading product that has beaten your offering. Not sure how more frequent updates of a platform most of the market has rejected changes anything.
They have a credibility shortfall because of all the things they confidently said then retreated on in the last few years. They've assured their base of things which they had a plan to excise brief months later. Even here he is saying one thing and all of the details contradict the implication of his words.
He's assuring us they're still committed to their console while pushing all their exclusives to another platform. They're talking about hardware innovation and promising incremental power upgrades while their competition is investigating much different things (mobile/TV hybrid and VR).
curiouscharles
Member
this is the way consoles need to go - at least until they become game streaming boxes.
i would happily, and i mean HAPPILY, pay for incremental upgrades if it meant the damn thing would never be underpowered.
gosh, it would remove so much of the hardware related stress from the whole ecosystem - i wouldn't be sweating bullets every time a new exclusive is announced for fear it will be 900p with blocky shadows and texture pop-in ;p
i would happily, and i mean HAPPILY, pay for incremental upgrades if it meant the damn thing would never be underpowered.
gosh, it would remove so much of the hardware related stress from the whole ecosystem - i wouldn't be sweating bullets every time a new exclusive is announced for fear it will be 900p with blocky shadows and texture pop-in ;p
The problem is you're conflating PC = w10 store. w10 store is just another target and Dev's/publisher's will figure out if it's worth their while. The whole PR nonsense also conflates the two. The only folks who could consider the two the same are folks making low requirement apps. Whats good for the w10 store may not be good for the XB1 owners. Growth in the w10 store environment is mostly not relevant to the XB1 base.
Papacheeks
Banned
But isn't that like chasing the rabbit? For every incremental upgrade there will still be short comings. It's chasing something that's based off the common denominator which is current tech. Why not build off of something, and make the in roads for a bigger more meaningful leap?
Which is what it was from Xbox to 360, from PS2-PS3. Yes PS4/XBOX are underpowered, but still we are getting amazing looking games from them. So really it should be about just building tools and a base, to jump from with much higher specs for the time.
Which is why console gaming has worked for so long.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
It's a hard sell. Any new thing is, and nothing is certain. Microsoft may pull it off, of course. Even though I don't think they'll pull it off, if anyone is in a position to do it, it's Microsoft. In the event that the market accepts Microsoft's "platform" and it becomes wildly successful, it would make major waves in the gaming industry in the PC, app device, and console markets, there's no doubt about that. It would give them a nearly-insurmountable advantage over Sony and Nintendo. Again, assuming the market accepts it.
That's the beauty. This move allows Microsoft to adjust if their plan fails or if the bottom falls out on the traditional console market. It's a smart move in a certain respect. But it's definitely a move away from traditional consoles.
I feel the complete opposite. Consoles have always been a curious realm of innovation. Sure, they lag behind in many ways, but I personally love the strange marriage of hardware specs, UI, controller design, console philosophy, and so forth. This unique concoction has led to some of the most revolutionary videogames ever created, and I feel we'd be losing that to a certain degree if the traditional console model went away.
Even though we feel different, I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. Just replying to your opinion, that's all.
This move definitely comes with the risk of games no longer being optimized for "that one box" and I'll explain below.
I'm not worried about that. At a basic level, I'm sure Microsoft will expect games to run on all hardware at an acceptable framerate and resolution until the hardware version is phased out.
I do not have a strong opinion on this topic. There's been back-and-forth discussion about the dangers of multiple SKUs and how the Windows API will make things all better etc etc etc but I don't necessarily feel strongly either way. I can see how the multiple SKUs would be bad as well as good for devs. I can see how customers would love it and how it would confuse them. Again, no strong opinion.
Rather, my concern is far more fundamental.
Previously, Xbox One was the tip of the spear for Microsoft's gaming division. Even with Windows integration looming on the horizon, it was still the tip of that spear. It was Microsoft's premium gaming device where developers made games exclusively for it, where the hardware was pushed to its limits, and where gamers were promised a premium (or, ahem, First Class) experience.
For starters, (for the most part) games are no longer being developed exclusively for the Xbox One console hardware. Let's not confuse the issue by trying to expand the definition of "platform". It is a simple fact. Microsoft is not going to make Xbox One console hardware exclusives any more.
This may or may not have ramifications. Maybe Microsoft's APIs will negate any and all problems. Maybe Xbox One hardware is already so flexible that developing cross-platform on PC and XBox One will be the same as developing exclusively. That all may be true.
But developing a game multiplatform has always had consequences in the past. Always. Again, maybe Microsoft will buck that trend? Who knows? But it is foolishness to pretend that Microsoft isn't trying to buck that trend. It's foolishness to act as if this is a different situation. It's not. A console's library just went multiplatform, and even though the same company owns the other piece of the platform, it's still a split between two platforms. The end. Microsoft appears to have a lot of mechanisms in place to make this work and lessen the impact, but it is still a fact that Xbox One is now pretty much a multiplatform machine.
On top of that, Microsoft's messaging makes it clear that Xbox One is now only one of many. It is not Microsoft's focus. It is not the tip of the spear. Games aren't being made to take advantage of its unique hardware or unique capabilities. In the very same way that Xbox moving away from the "traditional console model" may have good and bad consequences (you'd have to be silly to not admit that there are pros and cons to this decision), Xbox moving away from traditional console exclusives may have good and bad consequences. I can't think of many good consequences because this hasn't really been tried before. I can think of plenty of examples of bad consequences when a console loses its exclusives, though.
As such, my concern is that first-party development will suffer.
Let me put it another way on a new line for everyone to see: my concern is that the Xbox One will no longer be the best place to play Xbox exclusives. If that is the case, what's the value of getting the Xbox console? I understand that multiplatform games will almost never be "best" on consoles (assuming they have a PC equivalent), but for exclusives, what does this mean?
As long as they stick to releasing models every 3-4 years with each model being supported for at least 6 years (the length of a gaming gen), with modern games being able to work on the relevent models (similar to iOS apps across various iOS devices) then I wouldn't see the problem.
Add-on parts would be bad in my opinion so hopefully they will avoid that.
Overall, if you would have told me this 2-3 years ago then I would have definitely considered this news to be going down the same path as Sega. Microsoft's current Windows/Xbox ecosystem push though is why I feel differently since games will be able to work on various platforms (instead of devs having to make a game for each box).
The promise is it's a easy way to multi-target devices. The reality is each one takes extra work if you're doing anything more ambitious than a web content import app or a calculator.
The promise has been made before and it mostly fell flat. It's not a new idea. We see examples of it on iOS even with .net and it doesn't live up to the promise.
The actual point for UWA for MS is it's a OS enforced closed system to get more control. Harder to pirate, harder to tamper with, and allows MS to take a percentage on their previously open system. It serves their business goals. For the consumer, it's just a worst option than the options already there.
Astral Dog
Member
Xbox will finally become more powerful than PS4 again.
For many, everything will pretty much remain the same. The Xbox games will not be on PlayStation or Nintendo so people who only care about console gaming will still see the titles as exclusives.
The (most recent) Xbox console will be the best place to play Xbox exclusives within the console space.
That's what it's going to be, not a PC, not a modular Xbox
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
It's an EXIT from the traditional console space as we know it. That's what we are saying.
Dev's/Publishers don't make decisions on what they make? Seems like I'm sayign a rather a obvious truth. MS tells Blizzard what to make? Is that what you're saying?
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
"Microsoft PR said a thing, so y'all are fools for doubting it" seems to be the recurring theme of this thread.
Salty Hippo
Member
Papacheeks
Banned
Not if this backfires, and they exit having traditional consoles all together and become just a platform on PC.
Smutpeddler
Member
No.
Its a move to give consumers what they ask for. More power, you got it. Cheaper? We get that too. Games across multiple platforms. Done. End fanboy wars. Check.
You have said you've haven't developed at all. I have made stuff for iOS and nothing MS is promising is different from what iOS promises. And yes, what I say is true there. What insight do you have on it?
No, because there hasn't been a Phil and Kaz sex scene yet.
I literally said they'd make their own decision.
w10 store is just another target and Dev's/publisher's will figure out if it's worth their while
So what is your point?
Papacheeks
Banned
He's speaking from a perspective of developers who have had no issue developing on other consoles. Or seem to be hitting their stride on development.
If this add's more complexity to the the developers production pipeline then you will hear developers voice their opinion.
Though you are right in how Nintendo has been with their 3DS refresh, only time will tell if they implement the same method for their home console NX.
My opinion is when 3DS sales started to stagnat they came out with the refresh. Xbox sales are stagnat, and they come out talk about incremental refresh's.
Sony's sales are still really strong so there is no need for them to refresh outside of maybe form factor/hard drive space/ power consumption.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
What makes you think that the new hardware will be so much better than it will make a game running 30 fps on the Xbox Baseline, run at a steady 60 fps on the Xbox 2.5?
No, people are saying it's a exit from the console market. No more Xbox consoles.
Because it can't be worse?
curiouscharles
Member
- console gaming has NOT worked for so long [see the loss leading fiasco it's been ever til now]
- current console games look like CRAP compared to previous generations
- no not like chasing the rabbit, full forward/backward compatibility means everyone will have working games, just some people will have higher detail / fidelity versions of said games
- as Phil says himself, no different really than me having an iphone 6 and someone else still being stuck on a 5, one of us gets a snappier experience but we both can run all the same shit
Krisprolls
Banned
He can't say it explicitly. Xbox sales would drop to zero. I mean even faster.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
What if the game runs at 42 fps on the Xbox 2.5? That's how things actually work on the PC side. There's no simple toggle switch that bounces frame rate between 30 and 60 fps easily.
It's not hard at all since they are closed systems that use the same architecture. It's not much different than a PC game now which comes with "low/med/high" and in this case it detects console and defaults to the appropriate setting level. Keep in mind low can mean lower res, fps, low quality textures, shadows, draw distances and in a current PC game low can often run fine on a PC older than 5 years.
Where's that album of max/low PC screens for 2015 or 2014 top games?
Here's GAF's low:
neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=478074
SEGAvangelist
Member
He's not even saying it if you read between the lines.
Garrett 2U
Member
Of course it takes extra work, but not as much as developing a separate code base for every device.
You're convinced that UWAs is only sufficient for a 'web content import app or calculator' but you're wrong.
Rise of the Tomb Raider is a UWA.
Quantum Break is a UWA.
Are those low requirement, budget apps?
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
It is absolutely not the same.
It takes away the impetus for games to push Xbox One to its limits. It encourages lazy ports. It opens up the door for Microsoft to pull stuff like "30fps on consoles, 60fps on Windows PC" if they decide to further de-emphasize the Xbox console division.
It's a really sad state of affairs when Xbox loyalists equate "not on the competition's console" to being functionally equivalent to "the best place to play an exclusive." Really, really fucking sad, and I hope you don't believe that.