Yes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft unifying PC/XB1 platforms, Phil implies Xbox moving to incremental upgrades
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
Yes.
vpance
Member
Could happen. I imagine they don't want to be left out of the VR warz for another 3 years. I bet they think getting an XB1.5 Oculus bundle out there by Spring of 2017, announced at E3, would steal a ton of thunder from Sony.
The Artisan
Member
not really, not in this particular instance. when i have the chance i'll maybe look through the first 10 pages because i am genuinely curious as to whether the vast majority of us are okay with this idea or absolutely hate it.Consensus? Come on, mate, you know better.
turns out you're wrong.
Modding your Console was never going to happen.
Upgrading components of a modular console - No
New Console SKUs available every 2/3 years, with games support for 6 or 7 years - Quite Likely
DryvBy
Member
I left out of this when I saw people talking about modular upgrades. Which I said to someone in real life, "People are too dumb to build a PC or switch out their own video cards. How will the average person figure this out?".
Glad he finally said it.
TheFinalCut
Member
Definitely not for this.
Especially so, since it was not part of the platform's message from the beginning. I think a lot of console(xbox or otherwise) expect a level competitive playing field and this flies in the face of that.
A fluid platform like the PC has this expectation. If their next generation platform has this paradigm, then so be it, but it seems like a good way to burn bridges with their current players.
Yup looks that way. So basically a new APU every 3 odd years, so games won't have a generational leap anymore. If anything it makes advances in game tech faster, Instead of generational.
Modular sounded like a disaster.
a Master Ninja
Member
I'm actually okay with the "iPad model", but it's hard for me to imagine an elegant way to communicate whether or not the game you want to play works with the system you own. I mean I'd do the research, but kids and parents might get burned.
Halo 7, available for Xbox One (Super and Turbo versions only) and Xbox Two.
Halo 7, available for Xbox One (Super and Turbo versions only) and Xbox Two.
Yeah, I agree with Phil that the big "back to 0 users" every generation is not healthy for the industry. Keep a good steady momentum going.
AlanzTalon
Member
I agree. an iPad 2 was viable for many years, and still is perfectly viable for games of its era. But we moved gradually to better hardware, and I think MS is seeing that this is how we now consume our electronics. the games made for that console revision and for a time after will always work, but at some point we jusp forwarrd in processor, memory, tech (1080p to 4k for example) and i think i'd welcome a hardware upgrade to go along with it.
I think MS can come up with a solution in their store (auto-filter based on machine ID) or on the packaging to make this work for most people.
SneakersSO
Member
I've given it some thought, and i've come up with the solution I do think MS will end up pursuing for this. This is my prediction anyway.
For starters, from my dev perspective, I just can't foresee how they go about fulfilling the promises they currently have while also maintaining it being a 'console'. Theres no way they'd garner the 3rd party support to support all of those machines, not to mention they couldn't build up a marketshare large enough to generate profit on any individual release within a reasonable timeframe, especially if this were a yearly or biannual release.
So, the solution I see is MS turning Xbox into a sort of living room PC box, a la steambox, and have it be an open-ended OS, rather than the closed OS that we currently get with the X1's version of Win10. Again, this would mean that they will have completely moved away from the traditional console platform, while still getting to sell a piece of hardware called 'Xbox' that consumers of their entertainment software could enjoy. I imagine the OS would be revised in some ways, but that it would be way more open than the current X1 OS is.
The benefit of turning your closed box console into an open-ended OS is that, you get to reap the benefits of having your machine be PC like. Depending on how they implement their new Xbox's OS, they could allow installation of non-UWP apps as well, allowing something like Steam on the box, which would really draw in some fans. You'd even be able to license Xbox to other hardware manufacturers and allow them to make their very own Xbox with different specs. At that point, its up to the user as to whether or not your machine could run any particular piece of software. This solves the development problem we have spent time discussing, as it would just run the PC version of games, which have code-bases which are targeted towards hardware manufacturers, and not specialized in the console's APU.
The success of this will depend on one thing: can MS get out of its own way to allow this to be successful? If they launch this box, but make the app-environment closed off, thus not allowing you to install Steam or Origin, and forcing you to only use the Windows Store, then the box will only ever be as supported as UWP gets (which as of right now, I don't see getting any more support than Origin does in terms of 3rd party releases). If the W10 Xbox OS is open-ended, allowing me to install most/any app I want, then not only do I have access to my Steam software library (and licenses on any other service I use), but all of it will carry forward onto any other device I use. But again, this relies on MS doing something MS has, in the past, proven incapable of doing.
For starters, from my dev perspective, I just can't foresee how they go about fulfilling the promises they currently have while also maintaining it being a 'console'. Theres no way they'd garner the 3rd party support to support all of those machines, not to mention they couldn't build up a marketshare large enough to generate profit on any individual release within a reasonable timeframe, especially if this were a yearly or biannual release.
So, the solution I see is MS turning Xbox into a sort of living room PC box, a la steambox, and have it be an open-ended OS, rather than the closed OS that we currently get with the X1's version of Win10. Again, this would mean that they will have completely moved away from the traditional console platform, while still getting to sell a piece of hardware called 'Xbox' that consumers of their entertainment software could enjoy. I imagine the OS would be revised in some ways, but that it would be way more open than the current X1 OS is.
The benefit of turning your closed box console into an open-ended OS is that, you get to reap the benefits of having your machine be PC like. Depending on how they implement their new Xbox's OS, they could allow installation of non-UWP apps as well, allowing something like Steam on the box, which would really draw in some fans. You'd even be able to license Xbox to other hardware manufacturers and allow them to make their very own Xbox with different specs. At that point, its up to the user as to whether or not your machine could run any particular piece of software. This solves the development problem we have spent time discussing, as it would just run the PC version of games, which have code-bases which are targeted towards hardware manufacturers, and not specialized in the console's APU.
The success of this will depend on one thing: can MS get out of its own way to allow this to be successful? If they launch this box, but make the app-environment closed off, thus not allowing you to install Steam or Origin, and forcing you to only use the Windows Store, then the box will only ever be as supported as UWP gets (which as of right now, I don't see getting any more support than Origin does in terms of 3rd party releases). If the W10 Xbox OS is open-ended, allowing me to install most/any app I want, then not only do I have access to my Steam software library (and licenses on any other service I use), but all of it will carry forward onto any other device I use. But again, this relies on MS doing something MS has, in the past, proven incapable of doing.
Here's what I'm thinking right now. This kind of hardware focus will do nothing for them, but what I can really see driving their w10 focus is getting EVERY Xbox game into their W10 store. I don't know how the contracts look like, but what is keeping them from selling FIFA oder Madden through their store on PC? Maybe they are already working on a loop hole or trying to achieve this by negotiating new conditions for existing partnerships in the near future, basically saying 'you agreed on releasing your game on XboxOne - Xbone one is now also PC'
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think this is the more realistic perspective, especially considering publishers/developers, as well as trying to have enough saturation per 'box'.
Proelite
Member
If by hardware innovations, Microsoft is specifically talking about innovations for horsepower, I can see them launching new consoles not based on arbitrary years in a general, but timed to breakthroughs in industry. I.e. Finfet, HBM, VR tech etc.
The one thing that would enable them to do this is an OS that allows apps and VR to be both forwards and backwards compatible. Developers have the added burden of a splintered userbase, but if they are also developing on PC, the addition of a few fixed configurations should be trivial, compared to the countless configuration they already have to support on the PC side. In addition, developers don't have to ever go through the ramp up of completely overhauling the toolset and development pipeline for a new generation.
The main problem would be costumer adoption of the newest and latest Xbox console. I am thinking that Microsoft will have to be satisfied with just the most of all hardcore getting the latest Xbox hardware every 2-4 years. The bulk of their user base would be on old models.
I am guessing that if a new fab process is involved, they'll make a slim version of the old model in addition to the newest model. I am guessing they'll only keep 2-3 (casual, middle, enthusiast) version of Xbox on the market. The older models will be phased out naturally.
An example timeline:
2017: New Xbox release released, 20 / 14nm chipset, HBM2. VR capable. Will be named something like Xbox Pro. Plays games at 1080p-4k 60fps with possible VR support. $400-$500.
A slim version of Xbox one released with 20nm / 14nm. Plays the same game discs at 720p to 1080p, 30fps - 60fps. No VR. $200
2020+:
New Xbox released. $400
2017 Xbox slim version. $200
2013 Xbox phased out, or re-released as a tiny setup box. $100. Newest games might not be supported.
The one thing that would enable them to do this is an OS that allows apps and VR to be both forwards and backwards compatible. Developers have the added burden of a splintered userbase, but if they are also developing on PC, the addition of a few fixed configurations should be trivial, compared to the countless configuration they already have to support on the PC side. In addition, developers don't have to ever go through the ramp up of completely overhauling the toolset and development pipeline for a new generation.
The main problem would be costumer adoption of the newest and latest Xbox console. I am thinking that Microsoft will have to be satisfied with just the most of all hardcore getting the latest Xbox hardware every 2-4 years. The bulk of their user base would be on old models.
I am guessing that if a new fab process is involved, they'll make a slim version of the old model in addition to the newest model. I am guessing they'll only keep 2-3 (casual, middle, enthusiast) version of Xbox on the market. The older models will be phased out naturally.
An example timeline:
2017: New Xbox release released, 20 / 14nm chipset, HBM2. VR capable. Will be named something like Xbox Pro. Plays games at 1080p-4k 60fps with possible VR support. $400-$500.
A slim version of Xbox one released with 20nm / 14nm. Plays the same game discs at 720p to 1080p, 30fps - 60fps. No VR. $200
2020+:
New Xbox released. $400
2017 Xbox slim version. $200
2013 Xbox phased out, or re-released as a tiny setup box. $100. Newest games might not be supported.
I'm sure that every Xbox One game sold in a retail store is going to work on all models & if it's a downloadable game that don't work with a lower model it will let you know that it don't work with your hardware.
SneakersSO
Member
This will be attainable once people see its not a closed system/console, but rather a PC-lite.
Caipirinha
Member
Guys if you're interested in the "Xbox One revision", you can start beta testing right now
and the finishing touch
and the finishing touch
Proelite
Member
The people / customers don't have to see anything. Y would they care / know about closed system / console. They'll just have to be told that the latest Halo will run on their old Xbox ones.
Yeah. That's mostly speculation on my part. The games would still be optimized, I just imagine at least one or two toggles or just automatic with better performance. I remember some N64 games when you bought the ram upgrade it would automatically be in higher resolution or just run smoother. Others, like Rayman 2, gave expanded settings and toggles for better resolution/sharpness when you had the expansion pak.
And what about all those indies for example that haven't? It's very easy to say it shouldn't be hard. Are you a developer?
Well, you've just doubled the testing time. Easy eh?
Like I said earlier in the thread, do you really think the likes of Bethesda, Telltale and Ubisoft are going to spend quality dev/QA time optimising the game to ensure that it runs on all models perfectly? They can't even do it for the one 'model' now.
Proelite
Member
I thought more indies have exclusive PC presence than the other way around.
If anything it should be easier for indies to use the MS development kit to simply press a button to build to multiple targets, than AAA studios that'll have to optimize more.
For AAA studios, still would be easier to support the next iterations of Xbox than Xbox 360 across the board. The only tricky part would be the esram. But then they can just port the PS4 version.
FYI i am an android dev.
SneakersSO
Member
Ehhhh, thats where we'd have to disagree. I think the moment they shift off of console, X1 gets left behind, and they move to the open-OS Xbox, which is basically a PCmachine. It makes more sense for MS, and they've already moved all of their first party over to PC anyway. This new Xbox is just gonna be a living room PC.
In what way do you mean?
Proelite
Member
They can update X1 to be open-OS.
Art Vandilay
Member
I can't speak for him, but with Battlefield 4 the resolution difference between PS4 and XB1 made it so that PS4 players were more easily able to hit opponents at a longer range. So if XB1.5 has better resolution and they are playing against XB1 players, then the XB1.5 players would have an advantage.
SneakersSO
Member
That would destroy the X1 library! Unless they deploy an X1 emulator of sorts. The games on the console require the OS to be as is currently. Having an open OS, and allowing the user to install whatever they want, could potentially break countless number of games.
TheFinalCut
Member
That a game will run relatively even across the platform (frame rate, draw distance, etc.) in competitive game modes.
To my knowledge there isn't any precedent set for that kind of competitive advantage in the console space among "peers", or players on the same platform.
This obviously isn't the true on PC, but there's a long standing history of that being the case. With an Xbox One.5 or PS4 & 1/2 that changes. Not acknowledging that as inherent to either platform from the onset of the generation could led to a lot of frustration from early adopters I believe.
EDIT:
Art Vandilay pretty much nailed what I was going for.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Don't see any of this myself. It all seems far too confusing for the market that buys these type of products. They've already done enough of that with the Xbox One. Plus if you go too far you might as well just buy a regular PC.
I think Microsoft will just cut the Xbox One lifespan short and start a new generation, beating Sony to the punch and effectively leap frogging them. Maybe even as early as next year.
Or not bother at all.
I think Microsoft will just cut the Xbox One lifespan short and start a new generation, beating Sony to the punch and effectively leap frogging them. Maybe even as early as next year.
Or not bother at all.
It's funny because it's (likely) true.Guys if you're interested in the "Xbox One revision", you can start beta testing right now
and the finishing touch
I'm down with it being just a PC, but I'll stick to things like the understated Fractal cases. : )
I have a question: If MS was to release a SurfaceTV STB that's simple to use & voice controlled using a built in kinect sensor , a little more powerful than Xbox One , small with no Blu-ray drive & priced at about $199 & the best Multimedia box on the market you wouldn't get this for yourself or for your parents/kids?
I wouldn't buy my parents a Xbox One but I would buy this for them.
I wouldn't buy my parents a Xbox One but I would buy this for them.
You make it sound like development hell if they stick to the closed console model, so how do developers work for 3 platforms concurrently ir Xbox, PS4 and PS4 .. And some cases last gen included too? Or do you mean smaller studios or independent devs?
...Scatter...
Banned
Well if they work on PS4 twice it would be pretty redundant
All I know is something is cooking at Microsoft right now and we are all (or at least I am) struggling to get a read on what the hell is going on. Changes are coming. As far as how that will play out....we gon' see.
wapplew
Member
Many publisher need to hire entire studio just to make a port and still have performance problem.
Caipirinha
Member
Imagine a low end gaming PC bundled with an Xbox One controller and marketed to consumers, now you're imagining the future of Xbox tm.
If you think that will sell enough to warrant developer support, then fine, if you don't, then fine, but that's what's coming.
MilkyJoe
Member
This here confirms what I thought as soon as this all came to light
This just reads to me that they know Xbox is too pony to be VR capable and they are acting on that and bringing out a new console entirely
Ant the fact that the Rift ships with an Xbox One controller makes me guess who they might be "out sourcing" shall we say, their VR hardware too.
Cynn
Member
The Xbox One is an x86 device running Windows 10. That means Xbox is already a part of the Windows ecosystem. New more powerful Xboxes are still going to be consoles and universal application development includes the consoles as well as PC. What you are suggesting would be a huge waste of time for MS and give them absolutely nothing they don't already have.
MilkyJoe
Member
I concur
What I don't understand is why having 2 or 3 closed Xbox SKU's would be more difficult for developers than having an unchecked number of Win10 boxes.
In either case, developers would be targeting a lesser hardware configuration, and users will determine how their software performs by choosing their hardware. But in the case of your win10 boxes, developers have no clue what hardware their customers will be using.
Regarding the bolded, My ,admittedly limited, understanding of development makes it seem like MS would want the software development process to more closely PC development; these units would just be running the UWP version of the game, and architecture would be similar enough between consoles to not require specialization.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Yep
wapplew
Member
On console, dev have tune and test the game and make sure consistent performance.
On PC, user themselves tune or upgrade to fit thier need, different audience different expectations.
If dev release PC version on close hardware without tuning and testing, it might run bad, and user can do nothing about it.
so your saying its a user expectation thing, rather technical hurdle kind of thing?
It seems to me that so long as the hardware upgrades aren't radical changes in architecture, that consumers and developers alike can be confident that faster hardware won't lead to titles that perform worse.
I think fans biggest mistake is thinking that Xbox was actually created for the gamers & that go for PlayStation too.
Xbox & PlayStation was made from the start to Trojan horse MS & Sony's store front into the living room & gamers just so happen to be the people who was buying interactive products that was connected to the TV so they used games to get in the living room.
Xbox One reveal was MS being kinda bold about their true intent but the gamers that they used for the last 10+ years to build up the Xbox name did not like the look into MS vision of taking over the TV & they got all that backlash & tried to fix things as much as they can but the damage was already done for the most part. Gamers was not going to let MS complete it's vision with the Xbox & they hated Kinect which is a big part of MS vision because it separate Xbox One from the other Multimedia devices & was the perfect way to take over the living room by making it simple for people to just say Xbox then the name of a show or whatever & it just work. The moment MS had to give up their vision of taking over the living room with Xbox using Kinect as the new control interface for all your TV / multimedia needs is the moment Xbox as a stand alone gaming console died.
Now that Halo , Forza & so on sells have fallen what reason besides Xbox Live do MS have for manufacturing a new Xbox vs selling you Windows 10 devices? Why make this special box just to sell you Halo when they can sell you the next Minecraft on any Windows device? They don't need the Xbox to put their store front in your living room anymore because they can sell you a Windows 10 STB.
Xbox & PlayStation was made from the start to Trojan horse MS & Sony's store front into the living room & gamers just so happen to be the people who was buying interactive products that was connected to the TV so they used games to get in the living room.
Xbox One reveal was MS being kinda bold about their true intent but the gamers that they used for the last 10+ years to build up the Xbox name did not like the look into MS vision of taking over the TV & they got all that backlash & tried to fix things as much as they can but the damage was already done for the most part. Gamers was not going to let MS complete it's vision with the Xbox & they hated Kinect which is a big part of MS vision because it separate Xbox One from the other Multimedia devices & was the perfect way to take over the living room by making it simple for people to just say Xbox then the name of a show or whatever & it just work. The moment MS had to give up their vision of taking over the living room with Xbox using Kinect as the new control interface for all your TV / multimedia needs is the moment Xbox as a stand alone gaming console died.
Now that Halo , Forza & so on sells have fallen what reason besides Xbox Live do MS have for manufacturing a new Xbox vs selling you Windows 10 devices? Why make this special box just to sell you Halo when they can sell you the next Minecraft on any Windows device? They don't need the Xbox to put their store front in your living room anymore because they can sell you a Windows 10 STB.
SneakersSO
Member
The first few years of a console generation are absolutely development hell. I have colleagues that are unfortunately still working on games that are on both last gen & current gen, and its caused their team all sorts of problems & has significantly impacted their development pipeline.
Targeting two or even three machines, each being entirely different ecosystems onto themselves, isn't a nightmare, especially if these machines are on about even keel in terms of power & a friendly dev. environment. I'd say, right now, the PS4 & X1 is probably the most ideal closed console development environment the industry has ever had specifically cause developing for the two consoles can be so similar. Similar power, similar dev environments, etc.
A console generation shift, or when we do make cross generation games that first year/ 18 months, is specifically a transitional phase, and comes to an abrupt end once consoles get their footing or publishers feel they can make their money on current-gen only. It's not something that we are industry-wide expected to support for that long. Look at a game like MKX - last year, it was supposed to have a PS3/360 version meant to launch after the original launch, and the project was outsourced to a different developer. However, as they got closer to that 2nd version's release, WB looked at how they would need to provide those versions ongoing support, as well as the cost of actually publishing those two versions, and looked at how last-gen software sales were doing, and made the wise choice of canceling those two versions shortly before release.
Similar threads
- Locked