Support NeoGAF

[slavesnyder]

The simplicity is lost when user is drowning in marketing about the 2017 XBox version of Elder Scrolls being better than ps4, and they get the game home to their 2013 pooch xbox to find their game is actually worse than ps4. There's a confidence that is damaged.

Very good point.
The whole thing will be a huge challenge for the pr and marketing guys.it all sounds very complicated and full of ifs and exceptions.
Boiling thins down into short and catchy messages will be a nightmare.

 

[yukianderson]

They have to make it clear to parents the difference so when they buy games for the update console is different and it doesn't confuse normal buyers. Hardcore will know the difference but parents wont and that can cause a problem confusion is never good.

 

[Synth]

In your estimation, would there be a full-gen xbox to line up with the eventual ps5 release? Because the ps5 will probably come with the old message "this is a significant upgrade". An effective one. Bolstered by the fact that they can now say theyre the only ones offering it. Would there be a similar whole number xbox to meet that?

Yes. As I was saying before endless forwards compatibility is too unrealistic to warrant any serious discussion. Imagine if the PlayStation line had always been forwards compatible. What this really means is that every game from the PS1's launch to today is really just a PS1 game. Backwards compatibility is a term that has a worthwhile meaning... forwards compatible in this sense really doesn't, as it really just means you never changed standards.

This isn't going to be possible, because unless this somehow manages to effect Sony as well, the PS5 will see multiplat games an XB1 absolutely cannot run in any reasonable form whatsoever. So whatever model of Xbox One is around playing those games is going to be on a clearly separate tier from the XB1 of today (even if it remains fully backwards compatible). So it would make perfect sense for this machine to then be the Xbox Two instead, representing the same clear generation shift that we've always been used to.

 

[Shin-Ra]

Actually, with the purchase of Xamarin, I think MS is making a case for developers to use it (along with UWP) to create iOS,Android,Windows, and Mac apps. One they have a developer on their platform it would be easier for them to port code to different platform. But that'sfrom the developer standpoint.

MS actually had (in preview form) Android apps tunning natively on Windows phones. It worked too well lolol and they want people to use UWP to make any type of app ( that'sprobably why they bought Xamarin) and not use what they already have that excludes them.

Also there are Xbox games on iOS and i think on Android right now. So its not like it wouldn't happen.

But do the apps you buy on Windows 10 follow you to Android (iOS is closed to third party stores) and Android to Windows 10?

 

[Crayon]

Another problem for them is that current playstation becomes the defacto target hardware. It may be rare to see the superiority of an upgraded xbox demonstrated.

Also would eventually highlight trailing xboxes as being decidedly the worst versions when publishers want to target them despite being long in the tooth.

 

[yukianderson]

Very good point.
The whole thing will be a huge challenge for the pr and marketing guys.it all sounds very complicated and full of ifs and exceptions.
Boiling thins down into short and catchy messages will be a nightmare.

We all know what happened to MS last time the messages wasn't on point. If they do this they need a clear United message and have everything thought out and how everything is going to work. No half measures...

 

[Zedox]

There is no debating that the UWP is ambitious.

However, Microsoft has been undergoing this process for a very long time, much before Xbox One's release.
This unification has clearly been a goal of Microsoft's since Windows 8 and the Metro App.
Even when they first announced the Xbox One, the vision was for the console to integrate into the Windows 8 ecosystem.

The UWA is a application format that is intended to run on all Windows 10 devices.
To suggest that Xbox is leaving the console industry because of this announcement is quite foolish, given that the Xbox One is running Windows 10.

Developer support is obviously a critical factor in its success.
In his presentation, Phil says that communicating with developers and evolving the UWA to meet their needs is Microsoft's number one priority right now.

And it is clear that Microsoft's goal is for the UWA to support AAA gaming in its full form.
Already, they've worked with two third party developers (Remedy and Crystal Dynamics) to develop their games as UWA. ROTR is out now and Quantum Break has gone gold.

We'll see how it pans out within the next couple of years, but this unification is not a reactionary move to the console space, and it is certainly not the signal of an exit.
It has been a work in process for many years.

Yep. It's been the company's goal for quite some time, it's only getting really close there. Right now getting people on board and fixing the issues for people is the biggest hurdle they have to overcome. They have to get their PR right (cuz MS as a whole company is horrible at that) for not only consumers but for developers, to retail, publishers, etc...Big ambition. It could work if they get the message right and developers on board.

Even if they said theres a new XBO this year...we wouldn't see the benefits (unless they brute force it somehow with their software for XBO games) until devs make use of the tools and that most likely happen until next year...for 3rd party games. I believe someone else mentioned that.

 

[gamz]

Another problem for them is that current playstation becomes the defacto target hardware. It may be rare to see the superiority of an upgraded xbox demonstrated.

Also would eventually highlight trailing xboxes as being decidedly the worst versions when publishers want to target them despite being long in the tooth.

Trust me every single AAA title it will be demonstrated. MS has never been shy helping the developer develop for their system.

Edit:

Better said:

There is no debating that the UWP is ambitious.

However, Microsoft has been undergoing this process for a very long time, much before Xbox One's release.
This unification has clearly been a goal of Microsoft's since Windows 8 and the Metro App.
Even when they first announced the Xbox One, the vision was for the console to integrate into the Windows 8 ecosystem.

The UWA is a application format that is intended to run on all Windows 10 devices.
To suggest that Xbox is leaving the console industry because of this announcement is quite foolish, given that the Xbox One is running Windows 10.

Developer support is obviously a critical factor in its success.
In his presentation, Phil says that communicating with developers and evolving the UWA to meet their needs is Microsoft's number one priority right now.

And it is clear that Microsoft's goal is for the UWA to support AAA gaming in its full form.
Already, they've worked with two third party developers (Remedy and Crystal Dynamics) to develop their games as UWA. ROTR is out now and Quantum Break has gone gold.

We'll see how it pans out within the next couple of years, but this unification is not a reactionary move to the console space, and it is certainly not the signal of an exit.
It has been a work in process for many years.

 

[Crayon]

No half measures...

More like no half generations. I'm highly skeptical that this will go anywhere. At most, youre talking about the console equivalent to the elite controller.

 

[LukasTaves]

Are Microsoft going to open their ecosystem to Android and iOS phones?

Actually phil did say once that the plan is to eventually support the xbox platform on competing platforms, but until they make uwa truly universal (and some recent reports are saying that that's ms end goal) I think it will be more of a cloud/streaming solution.

 

[wapplew]

We all know what happened to MS last time the messages wasn't on point. If they do this they need a clear United message and have everything thought out and how everything is going to work. No half measures...

This is opposite of MS that I know.

 

[Trup1aya]

They have to make it clear to parents the difference so when they buy games for the update console is different and it doesn't confuse normal buyers. Hardcore will know the difference but parents wont and that can cause a problem confusion is never good.

The idea is, There won't be games made specifically for the updated console.

The games will work regardless of which console the child has at home.

 

[Crayon]

Trust me every single AAA title it will be demonstrated. MS has never been shy helping the developer develop for their system.

If there's anyone who trusts you with the posts you make, they'll be in my prayers.

 

[gamz]

If there's anyone who trusts you with the posts you make, they'll be in my prayers.

Amen!

 

[yukianderson]

Another problem for them is that current playstation becomes the defacto target hardware. It may be rare to see the superiority of an upgraded xbox demonstrated.

Also would eventually highlight trailing xboxes as being decidedly the worst versions when publishers want to target them despite being long in the tooth.

As long as Sony continues the six year generation they will always have this problem. They might as well try now with the Xbox one not doing so well they could test it and perfected in time for ps5. They need developers behind them might as well try to get as much goodwill as posible moving forward.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Very good point.
The whole thing will be a huge challenge for the pr and marketing guys.it all sounds very complicated and full of ifs and exceptions.
Boiling thins down into short and catchy messages will be a nightmare.

I'm sure they'll manage the confusion, these are the people who gave us 'family sharing' and explained it beautifully.

 

[gamz]

Actually phil did say once that the plan is to eventually support the xbox platform on competing platforms, but until they make uwa truly universal (and some recent reports are saying that that's ms end goal) I think it will be more of a cloud/streaming solution.

Yeah they would have zero issues with that. Look at Azure. Anyone and everybody can use it. Sony if they wanted to.

 

[Crayon]

The idea is, There won't be games made specifically for the updated console.

The games will work regardless of which console the child has at home.

I think Synth would disagree with you and he lays out a good argument:

Yes. As I was saying before endless forwards compatibility is too unrealistic to warrant any serious discussion. Imagine if the PlayStation line had always been forwards compatible. What this really means is that every game from the PS1's launch to today is really just a PS1 game. Backwards compatibility is a term that has a worthwhile meaning... forwards compatible in this sense really doesn't, as it really just means you never changed standards.

This isn't going to be possible, because unless this somehow manages to effect Sony as well, the PS5 will see multiplat games an XB1 absolutely cannot run in any reasonable form whatsoever. So whatever model of Xbox One is around playing those games is going to be on a clearly separate tier from the XB1 of today (even if it remains fully backwards compatible). So it would make perfect sense for this machine to then be the Xbox Two instead, representing the same clear generation shift that we've always been used to.

 

[Synth]

I think Synth would disagree with you and he lays out a good argument:

I'm not entirely sure we're even saying different things tbh,

If a child has an XB1 or an XB1.5, the same games will play on both.

If one child has an XB1 and the other has an XB4 though... then the kid with an XB1 probably isn't playing the latest CoD. The kid with an XB4 could still play Halo 5 with his poor XB1 friend though.

 

[yukianderson]

The idea is, There won't be games made specifically for the updated console.

The games will work regardless of which console the child has at home.

If the game is not specifically made for the updated console and it does not get optimize to what this updated platform that you paid more to buy and the general looks the same as the original platform what's the point of all this?

 

[LukasTaves]

The tech experts in this thread are still discussing how this will work and I still don't see Witcher 3 ports on Iphone and S. Galaxy, so I do have a point, because that's what we are talking about: game x is released, and the same version of the game plays on various devices with different scalability. Like I said, not going to happen in the next 2-3 years in regard to mobile devices, because of various reasons. Getting a possible Halo 3 remaster on next Surface pro is a whole different story.

But I'm not talking about current games on mobile, I'm talking about older games.

Eventually they will expand the platform to truly have a game so scalable that works all the way from the phone to the desktop? I believe so, but right now they have a "legacy library" they could tap into.

They already have everything in place for having digital games being purchased on other platform. They have a super efficient way of emulating old systems even on xbone underpowered cpu.

They can go further on that route and little by little increase the offerings and reach of their marketplace, even if they never get to a point where you can run current gen games on your phone, no matter how scaled back they are.

 

[Crayon]

I'm not entirely sure we're even saying different things tbh,

If a child has an XB1 or an XB1.5, the same games will play on both.

If one child has an XB1 and the other has an XB4 though... then the kid with an XB1 probably isn't playing the latest CoD. The kid with an XB4 could still play Halo 5 with his poor XB1 friend though.

Then the only solution would be for all versions, including the ps5 version, to be held to limitations of the previous xbox. That's not good.

 

[Gtagentleman]

They can go further on that route and little by little increase the offerings and reach of their marketplace, even if they never get to a point where you can run current gen games on your phone, no matter how scaled back they are.

I dont see a big market for games like Forza or Gears on mobile, touch controls suck and if you need to use a controller then you are asking the customer to think.

 

[LukasTaves]

If the game is not specifically made for the updated console and it does not get optimize to what this updated platform that you paid more to buy and the general looks the same as the original platform what's the point of all this?

The ball is on Ms court to prove, but what ms is selling is that you have this api that let's you go low level regarding the innards of the gpu rendering flow and optimize your game based on your knowledge of current gpu architectures and they will made their part ensuring the api calls are as efficiently ported as possible on each device.

You can go platform specific, say for instance any code managing the esram manually, but most of the lower level optimizations will be the same on either the console ir a pc gpu.

 

[vcc]

What have I pack peddled on?

Mostly the unconditional enthusiasm for what MS is doing. He's making you accept or make conditional a lot of the things you're saying.

Everything that I think will happen is speculation (which I repeatedly say, if you want to ignore that, that's fine). PR oriented position?

A lot of unconditional enthusiasm and a 'I'm too cool for this shit' rejection of any argument against it. I can't really get down on you for the 'I'm too cool for this shit' as I think my own personality gets into the 'I'm too smart for this shit' mode more than I like. But a lot of time you don't really offer a counter point, just some 'WTF' response. To be fair, you are one of the more reasonable enthusiasts.

Some folks are living 100% in PR la la land where XB1 won the race and any moment Sony/Nintendo/Steam/Apple will crumble to dust.

Please. Sorry not sorry that I can have wants but still be realistic. I haven't back peddled on anything. I still think MS will release a more powerful Xbox One this year. I still think that UWP will be a benefit to developers (including myself...no I'm not a AAA developer, don't really care to be for my own reasons)

Oh, I wouldn't blame you. Game development and AAA development seems like working real hard to take home a smaller paycheck. A few friends I know who do AAA, make the same as me but work up to twice as many hours.

outside of only gaming in the long run. I still think we'll see some of those benefits throughout this year (QB/KI/Fable). There's nothing in my position that is unrealistic. I haven't mentioned that 3rd parties are going to jump ship right away on UWP and if I did in the past please quote and I'll say that I was wrong. I have no problem saying that.

I think they need to do a lot to get the 3rd parties on board. The UWA/UWP stuff really has benifits to small groups doing apps. For traditional games they need to convince devs it's worth it as SneakersSO was saying and it is a whole new platform target. And at the moment they are just another party wanting a percentage but also want you to change how you code and lock in with their stuff. They have to be either a outrageous success or have to lock out the competition to be able to dictate those terms.

What's really funny is that you think what I say is bullshit and I have pr oriented position. No, I like talking technology and possibilities within it. I've already said it. Please tell me what that I have stated that is not realistic.

Stuff like:

People buy new iPhones, iPads all the time...how would they get confused at this concept (if MS just released a more powerful Xbox One every 2 years or so?) That's just ridiculous. People from varying age ranges understand that concept but gamers, who are usually ahead of the curve will get confused? Seriously. You know what. I'm out. Yall are way too crazy for me.

Is leaving out why folks are willing to upgrade frequently. The difference in perception. The subsidies/payment plan even on 1 year contracts. The difference between what consoles mean to people and what phones do. Tablets and Smart watches also aren't being upgraded as regularly. It's a unrealistic tie in. Folks won't consider their console like their phone. Maybe somewhat like their tablet. Smart watches also didn't catch on the way Apple wanted which is one thing that is hurting Apples stock.

I'll also like to mention that what MS is doing is what Apple, Google, and all the big tech companies have been doing (well all companies)...lock into the ecosystem.

This bit. It worked for mobile. Hasn't worked for desktop. The desktop Apple App Store isn't doing nearly as well because they have a lot of important devs (Adobe - Autodesk) who won't abide by that lock in. So they have to keep OSX open which neuters their store. MS has the same hand cuffs here.

If they try to close it off it will start a war with some fairly large and influential organizations. Adobe - Autodesk - Steam - Intuit - SAP - Oracle and others would revolt. So it isn't possible for MS to 'lock-in' like the phones. They have 'partners' and huge vested business interests preventing that.

So I say that there will be a change in how one would be developing their code (depending on how they want to approach development). GDC will probably be answering a lot of these questions for devs. It's going to be a change of the mindset on how one approaches game development. So yes, in the traditional sense, yes, you're absolutely right SneakersSO. I see it (my opinion) that it will go to how it is in the mobile development space where you are easing the power of the API as much as one can and let the hardware/API do work that normally is on the dev. That's not to say that there won't be hacks, but it should be minimized. The engine folk are going to have a lot of changing to do.

Remember when .net rolled out. Don't these promises sound familiar? Devs do less, just lean on the API? That turned out to be unrealistic and if you're doing anything heavy you can't rely on that. Games of any scope than mobile games are heavy. It's not just the performance 'hacks' it's also the cost of abstraction.

I think we can agree that MS is taking big risks and shaking things up. I think we both agree there are admirable angles to it. I think we differ in what the likely outcome would be.

 

[Synth]

Then the only solution would be for all versions, including the ps5 version, to be held to limitations of the previous xbox. That's not good.

Nah, XB1.5 guy isn't playing the latest CoD either when it ships for XB2 and PS5. So the PS5 version can do whatever the hell it wants, and only the XB2 could limit it (or vice versa)

The existence of an "updated" console, doesn't mean that there is no completely new console after it. The new consoles only need to maintain full backwards compatibility, but any .5 console can be cut off at the end of a gen, just like a DSi didn't get to play 3DS games. A consumer can then be:

- A constant "early-adopter" type (this'd be me) who buys an XB1 then an XB1.5, and then an XB2 (iPhone every year guys)
- A standard early adopter type that buys an XB1 and then an XB2 (iPhone 4 then iPhone 5 guys)
- The late joiner that wants the best option at the time with a fleshed out library, and would likely buy an XB1.5 and then later an XB2.5 (iPhone 4S and iPhone 5S guys)
- The late joiner that's only buys shit once it's cheap. Buys an XB1 when an XB1.5 hits, and an XB2 when an XB2.5 hits (these are the iPhone 5C or iPhone 5 post iPhone 5S guys)

 

[Trup1aya]

I think Synth would disagree with you and he lays out a good argument:

I was talking specifically about a mid generation console.

Regardless of a child has an Xb1 or 1.5, parents can be confident that their child can play any xb1 games...

When the xbox2 comes out, the parent would understand that they need to upgrade.

 

[vcc]

Trust me every single AAA title it will be demonstrated. MS has never been shy helping the developer develop for their system.

It's not the help, it's the money. MS needs to either pay for it directly or demonstrate to them there is money there. They need some leverage, making it not too painful doesn't make it free. MS needs to show there is money in targeting their 'upgraded platforms' and if they make it a condition of making games for the base model they need to show why all this extra work is worth it. Leverage. I'm not sure if they have it right now.

 

[Complicated]

If the game is not specifically made for the updated console and it does not get optimize to what this updated platform that you paid more to buy and the general looks the same as the original platform what's the point of all this?

You get higher-end PC graphics without waiting 10 years for a fresh console or building/maintaining a PC. PC games aren't specifically made for high end PC's, but they're still going to look better on better hardware and take advantage of a few nice features the devs manage to put in. As old hardware is phased out the development baseline moves forward every three (or so) years instead of 5-10 years. Of course, if Sony and Nintendo keep putting out consoles and letting them sit for 10 years stuff will be held back by them if they have the market share to make that happen; but you'll still get higher end PC performance by upgrading your Xbox.

 

[LukasTaves]

Remember when .net rolled out. Don't these promises sound familiar? Devs do less, just lean on the API? That turned out to be unrealistic and if you're doing anything heavy you can't rely on that. Games of any scope than mobile games are heavy. It's not just the performance 'hacks' it's also the cost of abstraction.

I think we can agree that MS is taking big risks and shaking things up. I think we both agree there are admirable angles to it. I think we differ in what the likely outcome would be.

What's the matter with .net?

I think ms nailed it on the performance side, specially now that they have on demand compiling through the cloud.

The biggest drawback on .net is that ms never managed to actually put it in anything other than windows which truly hurt development adoption compared to truly platform agnostic solutions.

 

[justsomeguy]

The moment you have a plan to add a platform or a new distribution model to your game, your cost in terms of funding & effort will go up... If UWA development just supplants Xbox & PC, two platforms my .exe already runs on & makes money from, why would I focus on UWA development?

i think the answer is supposed to be that it reduces your cost of development as you're going from 2 codebases to one (per the first part of the quote) ... But of course you still need the exe to put on stream so *shrug*

 

[vcc]

I was talking specifically about a mid generation console.

Regardless of a child has an Xb1 or 1.5, parents can be confident that their child can play any xb1 games...

When the xbox2 comes out, the parent would understand that they need to upgrade.

You know some 'parents' still believe XB1 blocks used games and the Wii U is a tablet add one to the wii. Complex messages are tough to communicate to people who aren't invested. A lot of the console market are folks who aren't invested. But in when it's cheap and often buy it for their kids.

One of the issues that has sunk this in the past is the need for complex messages. A huge part of marketting is to make clear concise message for folks who aren't super invested.

 

[gamz]

It's not the help, it's the money. MS needs to either pay for it directly or demonstrate to them there is money there. They need some leverage, making it not too painful doesn't make it free. MS needs to show there is money in targeting their 'upgraded platforms' and if they make it a condition of making games for the base model they need to show why all this extra work is worth it. Leverage. I'm not sure if they have it right now.

Of course this is all hypothetical since we don't even know the system or how the development works on the system. Or what tools MS has created for them.

 

[vcc]

What's the matter with .net?

I think ms nailed it on the performance side, specially now that they have on demand compiling through the cloud.

The biggest drawback on .net is that ms never managed to actually put it in anything other than windows which truly hurt development adoption compared to truly platform agnostic solutions.

Stuff still doesn't scale as well as some other common languages. For what I do MS server stuff always seems to require more hardware and crashes more often.

 

[EpicBox]

Doesn't have a goal of making Xbox and Windows identical - wants "gamers to decide where they want to play their games". Talks about the distinction between playing on a couch with a controller vs a desk and keyboard.

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

 

[EvilAlPacino]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

Thats you friend, not everyone has that type of set up.

 

[Crayon]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

That could use a plant or something. Coffee table maybe. Throw pillow.

 

[Trup1aya]

You know some 'parents' still believe XB1 blocks used games and the Wii U is a tablet add one to the wii. Complex messages are tough to communicate to people who aren't invested. A lot of the console market are folks who aren't invested. But in when it's cheap and often buy it for their kids.

One of the issues that has sunk this in the past is the need for complex messages. A huge part of marketting is to make clear concise message for folks who aren't super invested.

I agree with all of that. I just think there's nothing complex about Xbox one games working on consoles Xbox 1+ . And Xbox needing an Xbox 2 to play Xbox 2 games.

 

[Synth]

You know some 'parents' still believe XB1 blocks used games and the Wii U is a tablet add one to the wii. Complex messages are tough to communicate to people who aren't invested. A lot of the console market are folks who aren't invested. But in when it's cheap and often buy it for their kids.

One of the issues that has sunk this in the past is the need for complex messages. A huge part of marketting is to make clear concise message for folks who aren't super invested.

The Wii U (and to an extent 3DS) example is actually the direct opposite problem. Because Nintendo didn't very well communicate that it is a completely separate generation of console, the default assumption for many people was that it was still a Wii, and so it's games would still play on the Wii. Simply naming the console Wii 2, would have sidestepped this issue for most of these people, and that is why after releasing an updated version of the console, the model that represents a different generation should be marketed as an XB2 (or whatever new moniker they decide to append to Xbox this time). You can call the 1.5 machine something like Xbox One Ultimate or whatever, and much like the current Xbox One Elite, or the Xbox 360 Elite before it, nobody will believe that this is a completely different generation of Xbox console that won't play Xbox One games.

The message isn't complex unless you make it so. You basically have to deliberately fuck things up to have a Wii U situation (I mean.. even the console itself looked almost exactly like a Wii).

 

[vcc]

I agree with all of that. I just think there's nothing complex about Xbox one games working on consoles Xbox 1 . And Xbox two games working on consoles with Xbox 2

Explain it to your mother/father while they're cooking then ask them about the details to see how much they retain.

 

[harSon]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

I personally have a remote HDMI switch and go between my desktop monitor, television and projector, and utilize Steam In-Home streaming on an HTPC to play in my bedroom - but you and I are definitely in the minority. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of PC gamers to a significant degree have your prototypical monitor set in terms of what they ultimately play on.

 

[Markoman]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

What's that thing you're putting your m&k on. Self-made?

 

[vcc]

The Wii U (and to an extent 3DS) example is actually the direct opposite problem. Because Nintendo didn't very well communicate that it is a completely separate generation of console, the default assumption for many people was that it was still a Wii, and so it's games would still play on the Wii. Simply naming the console Wii 2, would have sidestepped this issue for most of these people, and that is why after releasing an updated version of the console, the model that represents a different generation should be marketed as an XB2 (or whatever new moniker they decide to append to Xbox this time). You can call the 1.5 machine something like Xbox One Ultimate or whatever, and much like the current Xbox One Elite, or the Xbox 360 Elite before it, nobody will believe that this is a completely different generation of Xbox console that won't play Xbox One games.

The message isn't complex unless you make it so. You basically have to deliberately fuck things up to have a Wii U situation (I mean.. even the console itself looked almost exactly like a Wii).

Nintendo did fuck it up extremely badly. But this isn't so simple. Multiple versions with distinct capabilities will have to have very good clear messaging. Much of the nonsense that happened at the XB1 launch will have to be avoided and they need to be crystal clear.

 

[4Tran]

Yeah, but those companies were fighting to survive... MS can live without Xbox, so I don't understand why they would make such investments if they didn't have faith in the return.

Microsoft is fine, but Xbox may not be. Notice how the message has changed from "Xbox is the best game console with the best games" to "Xbox is synergistic with the greater Windows platform". This reeks of a division that's trying to maintain its position at Microsoft, not of one that the brass is happy with.

 

[vcc]

Microsoft is fine, but Xbox may not be. Notice how the message has changed from "Xbox is the best game console with the best games" to "Xbox is synergistic with the greater Windows platform". This reeks of a division that's trying to maintain its position at Microsoft, not of one that the brass is happy with.

That's what I feel is happening as well. (PS. they aren't their own division. They were a part of the Windows and Devices division.)

 

[Branniganz Love]

That could use a plant or something. Coffee table maybe. Throw pillow.

I think a rug would really tie the room together.

 

[Synth]

Nintendo did fuck it up extremely badly. But this isn't so simple. Multiple versions with distinct capabilities will have to have very good clear messaging. Much of the nonsense that happened at the XB1 launch will have to be avoided and they need to be crystal clear.

Well yea, obviously things become problematic when its a case of "this is what the console is" which later needs to be corrected to "well, actually this is what the console is now". That's not a similar conversation to the Wii U, and our theoretical XB1.5.

You just asked Trup1aya to explain this to his mother/father. I'll redirect that back at you, and ask you to use the Xbox One as it is right now. Do you tell them something along the lines of "these are XBOX ONE consoles... they play the games labelled XBOX ONE".. or do you start trying to fill them in on the differences between a standard Xbox One and an Xbox One Elite with the SSHD drive and Elite Controller?

You don't bother with that, because it's not what a customer like that even needs to know right? The target audience for the "upgraded" Xbox One Elite will know what the differences between it and the standard console are. The important thing is that every console labelled as an Xbox One will play all the Xbox One games, and this would remain true for Xbox One Ultimate (1.5).

I think a rug would really tie the room together.

I just think there needs to be more stuff in the space under the TV. Maybe put the consoles there or something.

 

[Sydle]

Microsoft is fine, but Xbox may not be. Notice how the message has changed from "Xbox is the best game console with the best games" to "Xbox is synergistic with the greater Windows platform". This reeks of a division that's trying to maintain its position at Microsoft, not of one that the brass is happy with.

They were already moved into the Windows team in 2014 and the Xbox hardware was moved to the Surface team last summer. I think it's just as fair to interpret what they're saying as playing their new role as a part of Windows.

 

[Zedox]

Mostly the unconditional enthusiasm for what MS is doing. He's making you accept or make conditional a lot of the things you're saying.

A lot of unconditional enthusiasm and a 'I'm too cool for this shit' rejection of any argument against it. I can't really get down on you for the 'I'm too cool for this shit' as I think my own personality gets into the 'I'm too smart for this shit' mode more than I like. But a lot of time you don't really offer a counter point, just some 'WTF' response. To be fair, you are one of the more reasonable enthusiasts.

He didn't make me accept anything. My standpoint has always been the same. How you read and perceive how I look at thing is of your own outlook on how and what I say (i'll get to the "wtf")

Some folks are living 100% in PR la la land where XB1 won the race and any moment Sony/Nintendo/Steam/Apple will crumble to dust.

What I have stated (not in this thread mind you so I can't blame you for not knowing everything I said, that's ridiculous) is that I like what I see what MS is doing and I hope for other companies to do the same as I think it's better for technology as a whole, I've stated that competition is good (I think I said "I love competition").

Oh, I wouldn't blame you. Game development and AAA development seems like working real hard to take home a smaller paycheck. A few friends I know who do AAA, make the same as me but work up to twice as many hours.

Exactly.

I think they need to do a lot to get the 3rd parties on board. The UWA/UWP stuff really has benifits to small groups doing apps. For traditional games they need to convince devs it's worth it as SneakersSO was saying and it is a whole new platform target. And at the moment they are just another party wanting a percentage but also want you to change how you code and lock in with their stuff. They have to be either a outrageous success or have to lock out the competition to be able to dictate those terms.

I always agreed that MS would have a lot of work to do.

Stuff like:

People buy new iPhones, iPads all the time...how would they get confused at this concept (if MS just released a more powerful Xbox One every 2 years or so?) That's just ridiculous. People from varying age ranges understand that concept but gamers, who are usually ahead of the curve will get confused? Seriously. You know what. I'm out. Yall are way too crazy for me.

Is leaving out why folks are willing to upgrade frequently. The difference in perception. The subsidies/payment plan even on 1 year contracts. The difference between what consoles mean to people and what phones do. Tablets and Smart watches also aren't being upgraded as regularly. It's a unrealistic tie in. Folks won't consider their console like their phone. Maybe somewhat like their tablet. Smart watches also didn't catch on the way Apple wanted which is one thing that is hurting Apples stock.

This is one of the "WTF" moments and I'll explain myself. I bolded the part where I stated that why would people be confused at the concept of how this would work, that's crazy. I said "look at the phones", people don't get confused at that concept (which, maybe we can agree upon is what we speculate is happening with the Xbox One) of another X years pass by a new product, more spec bump and a little bit more features. People understand that concept, so why would people be confused at the same concept but with a phone? I never said that they wouldn't be pissed at it and be like: "why did I just buy the xbox one a year ago and a new one is out?", but the concept of evolving the product incrementally isn't a brand new concept around the world. No different than a 2016 version of a Honda Civic vs. the 2015 version. This isn't a new concept. So for people saying that there would be confusion, I think that it is crazy...hence the gif I made.

This bit. It worked for mobile. Hasn't worked for desktop. The desktop Apple App Store isn't doing nearly as well because they have a lot of important devs (Adobe - Autodesk) who won't abide by that lock in. So they have to keep OSX open which neuters their store. MS has the same hand cuffs here.

If they try to close it off it will start a war with some fairly large and influential organizations. Adobe - Autodesk - Steam - Intuit - SAP - Oracle and others would revolt. So it isn't possible for MS to 'lock-in' like the phones. They have 'partners' and huge vested business interests preventing that.

I am not stating that MS is going to close the nature of PCs (they can't do it with that monopoly anyways) and they aren't. The PC will still be open. You can write Win32, Silverlight, UWA, etc... apps all day long and distribute it as you want (UWA isn't restricted to Microsoft's store for distribution unless someone can prove me wrong...). When I state lock-in, for those apps that ARE in the store, there's an inherit lock-in nature to it. Just like all app stores and most services. They don't all work nicely with each other and I'm sure you understand why, no need for elaboration on that. All companies want you to use only their stuff if there's competition, duh. All I was stating is that this is just another avenue in which MS wants to lock-in another customer just as any company would. This isn't a farfetched idea.

Remember when .net rolled out. Don't these promises sound familiar? Devs do less, just lean on the API? That turned out to be unrealistic and if you're doing anything heavy you can't rely on that. Games of any scope than mobile games are heavy. It's not just the performance 'hacks' it's also the cost of abstraction.

I think we can agree that MS is taking big risks and shaking things up. I think we both agree there are admirable angles to it. I think we differ in what the likely outcome would be.

Hell yea, I remember that was the whole purpose for .NET. The only reason why I believe it a little bit more this time is that MS has to work with other companies now as they aren't the big dawg (and I don't want them to be in that same position again...that's how you get stagnant...that's why I love competition). Also, they are showing it. Using Linux on Azure, having the .NET core that usable on Unix machines. Visual Studio Code on Unix, and Mac. I wish that they could make a UWA of Visual Studio that not one ran on Windows but also Mac and Unix. Remember, as a dev, it would be much easier to have the dream code "once" and have it run everywhere. I think MS is getting closer to it, not there yet, there is promise but we definitely still have to see and they have a SHIT ton of work to do.

I hope that clears up (and obviously we can agree to disagree) that misconceptions that you think I may have. I am very realistic to stuff but I do hope for the better. I think I'm more excited about this endeavor is because I've been saying this scenario (not so much the iterative console release but more UWP stuff) for a long time privately to my friends and for it to finally be almost realized is a good feeling (especially when they say "damn, you did say this was going to happen). So I'm not shy about that. So I hope you don't take my excited (nor emotion to what is being said) as thinking that I feel that everything is going to be all rosy. Believe me, if I was like that...I would also think racism didn't exist and I'm black...yea, reality settled for me a long time ago. Now back to games and speculation.

 

[MilkyJoe]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

I'm not seeing evidence of female habitation...


Which is why we have to have a console...