Support NeoGAF

[Bgamer90]

sounds like a bad idea for developers. all of a sudden they have to account for multiple SKUs

Depends on how many relevant models we're talking about. Xbox One models more than likely won't be supported forever.

I stated this possible breakdown earlier:

-- 6 years of gaming support for each Xbox model (same length of time as an average gaming generation) --

2016 -- New Xbox for $399
2019 -- New Xbox for $399; 2016 model is $249; Original Xbox One released in 2013 is phased out
2022 -- New Xbox for $399; 2019 model is $249; 2016 model is phased out
2025 -- New Xbox for $399; 2022 model is $249; 2019 model is phased out

Etc.

If there will be only two relevant models every year then I don't think it will be that hard, especially if the newer/more expensive model is truly just a ".5" version of the cheaper/older one (instead of being or feeling like a true "next gen" upgrade).

 

[USC-fan]

So are they supporting PC 100% or is it like in the past?

Love to have everything on PC so i dont have to buy an xbox.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I'm down to buy a more powerful Xbox every 3-5 years as long as the jumps are good enough.

My real question is software support, because I would definitely be in the minority to upgrade so often.

Are Xboxs still going to have at least 5-7 years software support, if not 10?

Also I think it opens up a leasing like problem similar to what Apple started with the iPhone this last go around.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

A new more powerful Xbox that is both forward and backwards compatible with it's software library sounds a great idea, can't see one coming this year but in 2017? Sure and I'd probably be there on day one.

 

[Durante]

So are they supporting PC 100% or is it like in the past?

Love to have everything on PC so i dont have to buy an xbox.

I believe that they will support the Windows Store and UWP quite heavily. Whether that really is "PC" as we know it or not is a subject of heavy debate -- in my opinion it's closer to a console ecosystem running on a PC.

 

[On Demand]

Agreed. Sony hinted at it as well. So they are both prepared to act if the market is right for it. The only one who is prompted to act harder is the underdog at the moment. Thus why we are hearing about it now, with more speculation from what was said.

Why would Sony need to do this? PS4 sales continue to increase. Clearly nobody is asking for new hardware.

MS is trying to turn things back in their favor as much as they can.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I believe that they will support the Windows Store and UWP quite heavily. Whether that really is "PC" as we know it or not is a subject of heavy debate -- in my opinion it's closer to a console ecosystem running on a PC.

Agreed.

 

[Bgamer90]

I'm down to buy a more powerful Xbox every 3-5 years as long as the jumps are good enough.

My real question is software support, because I would definitely be in the minority to upgrade so often.

Are Xboxs still going to have at least 5-7 years software support, if not 10?

With Microsoft's current ecosystem push for Xbox gaming (games being supported on various devices), I would definitely assume that an Xbox model would still have around 6 years of support.

I could see the first three years of an Xbox model being when that model will shine the most as it will be the most powerful Xbox. It will get support during its last 3 years but the newer model will run games better.

People wouldn't be left behind though due to the older model still getting support, and some more casual gamers would still find the older model attractive due to it being a cheaper price and having the same games as the newer model during the newer model's first 3 years.

 

[AmFreak]

Interesting article about the incremental upgrade speculation

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...ade-plan-could-win-it-the-console-war-1316190

Another article ignoring the technical realities.
Where would the power increase every 1 or even 2 years come from?
The reason we get these big jumps in power are die shrinks.
But die shrinks now happen as slow as never before.
We are still @ 28nm, a process used by gpus since jan. 2012.
This year we will finally get to 14nm meaning it took over 4 years.
So what would be the point of releasing something a little faster every year or every 2 years?
I mean do you really want to divide the market cause you get 10 or 20% more power?
Releasing a new sku every 4 years seem to be the much better solution (they might want to release one this year cause the timing is right).
Releasing a new sku every 4 years isn't really something new though (Xbox -> 360).

Also why should Sony start from zero with the PS5, that didn't even happen this gen with all the cross-gen titles. There is no way this is gonna happen.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why would Sony need to do this? PS4 sales continue to increase. Clearly nobody is asking for new hardware.

MS is trying to turn things back in their favor as much as they can.

I never said they 'would', but being on x86, the way their OS is now, the comment made by one of the designers about it, etc...

They are prepared to react with the same counter, if the other one caught on and had any effect on marketshare to Sony.

I think it would be Silly for MSFT to play that game, since the competition that is leading 2-1 is prepared to do the same. Unless they hope to have it come down to a profit/money dump game to try and force them out.

So it can either be an 'exit strategy', or a, 'cost them too much to match' strategy. The latter with a higher chance to fail, which then would make the former an easy transition for them as well.

Another article ignoring the technical realities.
Where would the power increase every 1 or even 2 years come from?
The reason we get these big jumps in power are die shrinks.
But die shrinks now happen as slow as never before.
We are still @ 28nm, a process used by gpus since jan. 2012.
This year we will finally get to 14nm meaning it took over 4 years.
So what would be the point of releasing something a little faster every year or every 2 years?
I mean do you really want to divide the market cause you get 10 or 20% more power?
Releasing a new sku every 4 years seem to be the much better solution (they might want to release one this year cause the timing is right).
Releasing a new sku every 4 years isn't really something new though (Xbox -> 360).

Also why should Sony start from zero with the PS5, that didn't even happen this gen with all the cross-gen titles. There is no way this is gonna happen.

Very good points as well. The PS5 part cracked me up, and almost wreaked of MSFT marketing in a way on how that article was written, lol.

 

[Bgamer90]

Also why should Sony start from zero with the PS5, that didn't even happen this gen with all the cross-gen titles. There is no way this is gonna happen.

It's definitely obvious (or at least it should be obvious) that all console makers are currently setting things up so that people will be tied to an ecosystem in which their games can be played on various devices that these companies make.

The "starting off fresh" plan is VERY outdated now. I highly doubt that we'll ever see it again.

 

[wapplew]

The thing I hate about IPad model, no developers would fully utilize the power of newer iterations.
Hell most of the game run exactly same on old ass iPad compare to my IPad Air 2.

Cross gen suck ass!

 

[Zedox]

Another article ignoring the technical realities.
Where would the power increase every 1 or even 2 years come from?
The reason we get these big jumps in power are die shrinks.
But die shrinks now happen as slow as never before.
We are still @ 28nm, a process used by gpus since jan. 2012.
This year we will finally get to 14nm meaning it took over 4 years.
So what would be the point of releasing something a little faster every year or every 2 years?
I mean do you really want to divide the market cause you get 10 or 20% more power?
Releasing a new sku every 4 years seem to be the much better solution (they might want to release one this year cause the timing is right).
Releasing a new sku every 4 years isn't really something new though (Xbox -> 360).

Also why should Sony start from zero with the PS5, that didn't even happen this gen with all the cross-gen titles. There is no way this is gonna happen.

Power increase happens because parts get cheaper. So as Bgamer90 said (which i'm starting to believe 2.5-3 years is sufficient) you would keep the higher priced item the more powerful one, say way more RAM and a little bit more power for the CPU/GPU because those parts become cheaper than it was before when the first XBO came out. You have to look at the market now and the prices of items.

The thing I hate about IPad model, no developers would fully utilize the power of newer iterations.
Hell most of the game run exactly same on old ass iPad compare to my IPad Air 2.

Cross gen suck ass!

I stated that as well. That's the issue with it. The power that you gain is mostly through the platform (UWP/iOS/Android) taking advantage of what's given, not having the developer try to get as much power as possible. The tradeoff is that the developer has less work that he/she has to do and can work on other things that are more important (content) and giving a user a more content filled game (hypothetically speaking) than a prettier game than runs insanely but not as much content. This isn't to say that a developer can't try to take advantage of the first XBO as much as possible and do scaling to the other versions...but it is less likely.

 

[dose]

This would be ideal, and everyone would get behind it.

Everyone? I take it you've not read this thread at all then.

 

[eksy]

Why would Sony need to do this? PS4 sales continue to increase. Clearly nobody is asking for new hardware.

MS is trying to turn things back in their favor as much as they can.

I agree. The way I see it, console gamers have never been demanding for better and better tech, something PC gamers would seek out. They don't live on the bleeding edge.

I can see another console where 1080p/60fps becomes the standard, along with VR, but beyond (4k) is a bit away until prices come down.

But I think the situation that we have here on consoles is similar to the saying: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you." MS is going for this model to not get topped by Sony once again, and if they did, well the "next" generation is a short few years away.

MS is taking some sneaky approaches to make the market more favorable for them, lessening consumer sway and power. I think it's more important than ever to keep them under constant scrutiny.

 

[Joe]

Is there a single video I can watch that explains everything so far? I'm confused and I'm tired.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Everyone? I take it you've not read this thread at all then.

You mean the initial knee-jerk with no details? Of course. We are all guilty of that. However, if there was a similar trade-in program like smartphones, and I should not have used 'everyone', you are correct, way more would be for it. I am also confident a large portion who knee-jerked, would be like, 'that actually is not too bad every 3 years'.

 

[wapplew]

Power increase happens because parts get cheaper. So as Bgamer90 said (which i'm starting to believe 2.5-3 years is sufficient) you would keep the higher priced item the more powerful one, say way more RAM and a little bit more power for the CPU/GPU because those parts become cheaper than it was before when the first XBO came out. You have to look at the market now and the prices of items.

The frame rate benchmark different between 2013 and 2015 top of the line APU from AMD is 42 vs 62fps, good luck turning 1080 30fps to 1080 60fps within 2 years, 4K my ass.

Unless they give up AMD and go back Intel+Nvidia.

Edit: my bad, that's 720p result. 1080p actually is 23 vs 31 fps.

 

[vcc]

Is there a single video I can watch that explains everything so far? I'm confused and I'm tired.

Summary:
MS is announcing some of their xb1 exclusives are going to pc. Implying they all will be. Assures this is not bad for xbox. Truth of this statement remains to be seen, historically strategues like this have been bad for the console.

MS alludes to another strategy that many companies have suggested (frequent incremental upgrades). No company has yet done this successfully and the majority that have tried have existed soon after.

MS asserts it will all be different this this. No details available yet.

 

[Zojirushi]

Is there a single video I can watch that explains everything so far? I'm confused and I'm tired.

This whole thread is based on a kindasorta vague statement by Phil Spencer. Nothing is announced and chances are absolutely nothing's gonna happen.

 

[etta]

This whole thread is based on a kindasorta vague statement by Phil Spencer. Nothing is announced and chances are absolutely nothing's gonna happen.

Nah, he wouldn't have hinted at it if it wasn't happening, otherwise that would put doubts in people's minds and sales would stall. They question is how long until it's out? Usually consoles release soon after they are announced so as to not tank the sales of the predecessor in the meantime, but in this case we only have the hints, which means they are preparing people to the idea so that come E3/Gamescom, it's not a totally new concept being proposed.

 

[Joe]

Summary:
MS is announcing some of their xb1 exclusives are going to pc. Implying they all will be. Assures this is not bad for xbox. Truth of this statement remains to be seen, historically strategues like this have been bad for the console.

MS alludes to another strategy that many companies have suggested (frequent incremental upgrades). No company has yet done this successfully and the majority that have tried have existed soon after.

MS asserts it will all be different this this. No details available yet.

This whole thread is based on a kindasorta vague statement by Phil Spencer. Nothing is announced and chances are absolutely nothing's gonna happen.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Any chance this new one plays games at 4K?

XBOO would at least need 5x the power of the original one to do that (properly). Hope that answers your question. I have no doubt MS (and Sony) will at some point deliver 4k Blu-Ray support, but 4k console gaming is most likely still a couple of years away.

 

[etta]

XBOO would at least need 5x the power of the original one to do that (properly). Hope that answers your question. I have no doubt MS (and Sony) will at some point deliver 4k Blu-Ray support, but 4k console gaming is most likely still a couple of years away.

Could be enabled case by case for indie games if they use a UWP/PC format.

 

[Pimpbaa]

The thing I hate about IPad model, no developers would fully utilize the power of newer iterations.
Hell most of the game run exactly same on old ass iPad compare to my IPad Air 2.

That's because the budgets for mobile games are tiny and are often done by very small independent developers. They just don't have the ability or money (except for a few) to do high quality 3D assets. And that isn't going to change since people expect their mobile games to be less than 5 bucks (and anything more is apparently a ripoff). If big name developers can make their games run on a wide range of PC hardware, they sure as hell can make their games run on a few different xbox models.

 

[garyizraw]

XBOO would at least need 5x the power of the original one to do that (properly). Hope that answers your question. I have no doubt MS (and Sony) will at some point deliver 4k Blu-Ray support, but 4k console gaming is most likely still a couple of years away.

Guess I'll just accept a box that can play Ori at 1440 and everything else as 1080 60

 

[Markoman]

80 pages of beating around the bush? This is MS's way of saying 'we're cutting this gen short, but don't worry all future games will run on your old system, too'
MS will just try to get another headstart before PS5 with shorter cycles in the future and full software compatibility?
Here's what I don't understand:
- hypothetically XboxOne+ is released this fall
- AAA game is released this fall and runs on XboxOne+ and XboxOne
- Will the game on the disc already support XboxOne++ (for example higher res textures) or will devs be forced to work on the game again and even reprint the retail version when XboxOne++ is released in the future?
In comparisson PC works differently because Devs are working with a distinct performance target:
Without modding each game released has the maxed out version on disc or in the digital version(Ultra settings, AA, and all the other options), fps are determined by the hardware you use at that time and will increase with newer GFXs, Cpus...in the future.
This means after all the patching is done, the dev doesn't really have to bother with the game anymore. How will this work for the 2nd and 3rd uprade of XboxOne though?
The way I see it, this sounds like a ton of work on the developer's side. Imagine CDPR having to 'remaster' Witcher 3 on PC for every new Gfx-card being released.
If MS just ends up with a one year headstart I can totally see them being stomped again by PS5, because as both are working with the same architecture we won't see another PS3 vs. Xbox360 scenario again where the PS3 more powerful on paper but most of 3rd party games turned out to run better on 360. This could turn into something which already makes me think about never buying a console again.

 

[Zedox]

XBOO would at least need 5x the power of the original one to do that (properly). Hope that answers your question. I have no doubt MS (and Sony) will at some point deliver 4k Blu-Ray support, but 4k console gaming is most likely still a couple of years away.

Cheap console gaming. They could offer a crazy Xbox One that has 4K and all that jazz. It would be expensive as shit. It wouldn't fly as people aren't used to buying 1k type of consoles, that's usually left for computers. But shit, who's to say that they wouldn't? Might as well speculate on that, we are doing the same with everything else.

 

[IndoAssassin]

What will they upgrade tho? The CPU has significantly slowed down in improving speeds. Now it's all about efficiency.

We've had the same midrange GPU architecture for 4 years now just with new names each year and a tiny improvement.

Unless they expect the console market to blow $700 on a GPU, midrange GPU's haven't improved much over the last 4 years. A CPU that's 10 years old can still run today's games at high resolutions.

Once GPU moves to 16nm, we'll be stuck there for even longer than 4 years.

So what are console owners going to upgrade that's affordable?

 

[Figments]

80 pages of beating around the bush? This is MS's way of saying 'we're cutting this gen short, but don't worry all future games will run on your old system, too'
MS will just try to get another headstart before PS5 with shorter cycles in the future and full software compatibility?
Here's what I don't understand:
- hypothetically XboxOne+ is released this fall
- AAA game is released this fall and runs on XboxOne+ and XboxOne
- Will the game on the disc already support XboxOne++ (for example higher res textures) or will devs be forced to work on the game again and even reprint the retail version when XboxOne++ is released in the future?
In comparisson PC works differently because Devs are working with a distinct performance target:
Without modding each game released has the maxed out version on disc or in the digital version(Ultra settings, AA, and all the other options), fps are determined by the hardware you use at that time and will increase with newer GFXs, Cpus...in the future.
This means after all the patching is done, the dev doesn't really have to bother with the game anymore. How will this work for the 2nd and 3rd uprade of XboxOne though?
The way I see it, this sounds like a ton of work on the developer's side. Imagine CDPR having to 'remaster' Witcher 3 on PC for every new Gfx-card being released.
If MS just ends up with a one year headstart I can totally see them being stomped again by PS5, because as both are working with the same architecture we won't see another PS3 vs. Xbox360 scenario again where the PS3 more powerful on paper but most of 3rd party games turned out to run better on 360. This could turn into something which already makes me think about never buying a console again.

They wouldn't have to, though. Because they already don't do it. No sane person should expect devs to have to revisit a game years after its support has ended. The new hardware would increase gains in performance and resolution, not require devs to go back and update all the assets.

 

[Markoman]

They wouldn't have to, though. Because they already don't do it. No sane person should expect devs to have to revisit a game years after its support has ended. The new hardware would increase gains in performance and resolution, not require devs to go back and update all the assets.

Maybe my tech knowledge is not on par here, so pls correct me if I'm wrong.
A game in 2016 has textures and assets on the disc for a certain resolution output.
If a future 4K console runs the same game it will work with the same texture fidelity like the old machines, so older titles will only run better on the new console but never exploit the full power potential.

 

[Figments]

Maybe my tech knowledge is not on par here, so pls correct me if I'm wrong.
A game in 2016 has textures and assets on the disc for a certain resolution output.
If a future 4K console runs the same game it will work with the same texture fidelity like the old machines, so older titles will only run better on the new console but never exploit the full power potential.

Do you expect the original Doom--unmodded, might I add--to run on a 4k-ready PC built in the range of 2014-2016 with upgraded textures/sprites, sound design, et cetera?

Devs don't have to take advantage of the full hardware potential of a system if they don't want to.

Less snarky answer: Yes. Unless the devs really want to upgrade the assets to take advatange of the new hardware, the only gains would be in performance.

 

[Markoman]

Do you expect the original Doom--unmodded, might I add--to run on a 4k-ready PC built in the range of 2014-2016 with upgraded textures/sprites, sound design, et cetera?

Devs don't have to take advantage of the full hardware potential of a system if they don't want to.

LOL, I don't even know what I was trying to say there
Man, something about the whole thing just rubbs me the wrong way, and I can't put my finger on it.
Let me try to explain: Last gen (way too long imo) 360 owner, this gen day one PS4 owner.
I'm one of those who thinks that this gen is really slow. Now, if I knew that the next gen is already coming in fall 2016, I would have waited. The thing is, games are selling consoles and if we look at the long dev cycles for games it makes no sense to reduce the hardware cycles. Just imagine Sony doing the same in the future:
2017 XboxOne+
2018 PS4+
2019 -
2020 XboxOne++
2021 PS4++
That would be too much for me, because I surely won't buy a new console every 3 years and certainly not both consoles. Just buying the next console and 'being ok' with the fact that it will become outdated after 3 years just won't work with me.
We are already in the third year of this gen and I'm still waiting for it to really pick up. If we ever see a launch cycle like the one I've mentioned above, I can see myself not bothering about consoles at all.Hope I make sense....

 

[spookyfish]

sounds like a bad idea for developers. all of a sudden they have to account for multiple SKUs

Yep. Fracture the user base, make it hard for developers to know what to work on, and you'd have people like me who would just wait for the last iteration of the hardware so I could just play everything.

Sounds horrible to early adopters like me.

 

[Cranster]

sounds like a bad idea for developers. all of a sudden they have to account for multiple SKUs

Yup, it was an issue with the early Xbox360 SKU's too as developers were restricted with a version of the XBOX360 that didn't include a Hard Drive. It also created some confusion with casual buyers of the system. In the long run, this scenario cannot work and will fracture the entire community.

 

[Zedox]

LOL, I don't even know what I was trying to say there
Man, something about the whole thing just rubbs me the wrong way, and I can't put my finger on it.
Let me try to explain: Last gen (way too long imo) 360 owner, this gen day one PS4 owner.
I'm one of those who thinks that this gen is really slow. Now, if I knew that the next gen is already coming in fall 2016, I would have waited. The thing is, games are selling consoles and if we look at the long dev cycles for games it makes no sense to reduce the hardware cycles. Just imagine Sony doing the same in the future:
2017 XboxOne+
2018 PS4+
2019 -
2020 XboxOne++
2021 PS4++
That would be too much for me, because I surely won't buy a new console every 3 years and certainly not both consoles. Just buying the next console and just 'being ok' with the fact that it will become outdated after 3 years just won't work with me.
We are already in the third year of this gen and I'm still waiting for it to really pick up. Hope I make sense....

That's why we have to wait to hear what their plan is. Support is a major factor in my opinion. It all depends on how it is handled. But on another note, you also have to factor in what is the difference in power at each iteration. If it's not that much to make you go buy a new one, then there's no need to worry and you can choose when you want the next version. If you look at it like a 360 to XBO jump for each of these new iterations then yes, I could understand but it's not like you're getting a brand new next gen console in the similar sense. The UI will probably be the same and everything.

There will be a fracture though, that's for sure but there's always a fracture when a new console comes along anyways.

 

[Mihos]

I can't wait for the 'runs great on mine' comments like we get on video card threads, or reviews having to put down which version box they reviewed it on.

If they want to release a box with better wifi or updates bluray, I would be ok with that... but just this discussion as it is now is enough for me to not buy an Xbox right now in case they really do have something to announce soon.

 

[Ninja Sharingan]

Agreed. Sony hinted at it as well. So they are both prepared to act if the market is right for it. The only one who is prompted to act harder is the one who lost a massive amount of marketshare at the moment. Thus why we are hearing about it now, with more speculation from what was said.

Yeh Sony mentioned it first last year I think? Seems like a great idea from both. I would be more inclined to go with Ms only if you got the cross buy with pc and with the 360 back cat performing better on newer hardware I can imagine having a huge console line up of games on my ganertag. I hope ms pursue this asap

 

[MilkyJoe]

Another article ignoring the technical realities.
Where would the power increase every 1 or even 2 years come from?
The reason we get these big jumps in power are die shrinks.
But die shrinks now happen as slow as never before.
We are still @ 28nm, a process used by gpus since jan. 2012.
This year we will finally get to 14nm meaning it took over 4 years.
So what would be the point of releasing something a little faster every year or every 2 years?
I mean do you really want to divide the market cause you get 10 or 20% more power?
Releasing a new sku every 4 years seem to be the much better solution (they might want to release one this year cause the timing is right).
Releasing a new sku every 4 years isn't really something new though (Xbox -> 360).

Also why should Sony start from zero with the PS5, that didn't even happen this gen with all the cross-gen titles. There is no way this is gonna happen.

Well aren't the gpu tech that these boxes have really old and shit?

And I was not so much, or at all, calling the tech interesting, I was referring to the day one back forward compatability and day one install Base making this a very interesting path for everyone. Because it is. It's brilliant if it's possible.

 

[Markoman]

That's why we have to wait to hear what their plan is. Support is a major factor in my opinion. It all depends on how it is handled. But on another note, you also have to factor in what is the difference in power at each iteration. If it's not that much to make you go buy a new one, then there's no need to worry and you can choose when you want the next version. If you look at it like a 360 to XBO jump for each of these new iterations then yes, I could understand but it's not like you're getting a brand new next gen console in the similar sense. The UI will probably be the same and everything.

There will be a fracture though, that's for sure but there's always a fracture when a new console comes along anyways.

True, my biggest fear is that the missing clear cut between console generations will turn into a 'cross gen all the time scenario. For example AC Black Flag was cross-gen, AC Unity was designed only for next gen and featured things like the huge crowds which the old consoles couldn' t pull off (lol, this gen's consoles barely could). Consoles are already holding PC back and I can totally see the old consoles holding back the newer ones in this case.

 

[Ninja Sharingan]

Agreed. Sony hinted at it as well. So they are both prepared to act if the market is right for it. The only one who is prompted to act harder is the one who lost a massive amount of marketshare at the moment. Thus why we are hearing about it now, with more speculation from what was said.

Yeh Sony mentioned it first last year I think? Seems like a great idea from both. I would be more inclined to go with Ms only if you got the cross buy with pc and with the 360 back cat performing better on newer hardware I can imagine having a huge console line up of games on my ganertag. I hope ms pursue this asap

 

[DopeyFish]

sounds like a bad idea for developers. all of a sudden they have to account for multiple SKUs

you'd just see the weaker sku as the target, definitive on the stronger (AA/high framerate/higher resolution/etc)

Xbox 3 comes out then drop Xbox 1 support

rinse repeat

 

[AmaterasuOni]

What will they upgrade tho? The CPU has significantly slowed down in improving speeds. Now it's all about efficiency.

We've had the same midrange GPU architecture for 4 years now just with new names each year and a tiny improvement.

Unless they expect the console market to blow $700 on a GPU, midrange GPU's haven't improved much over the last 4 years. A CPU that's 10 years old can still run today's games at high resolutions.

Once GPU moves to 16nm, we'll be stuck there for even longer than 4 years.

So what are console owners going to upgrade that's affordable?

Look at what Apple is doing. They just throw in some old PC hardware, bring up the price to 3x that the PC build would be and laugh when they check their bank accounts (and giggle at the masses who fell for it - not including the professionals who need Mac for work). Rinse and repeat. Microsoft PR goes "NOW with the power of the cloud, at least 20% more powerrrrrrrrr!!!!!" every two years or so. People are then buying that exact same console over and over again. Well, those who are falling for it. Business is good. They can basically triple their profit (during the normal lifecycle of a console, 6-8 years) when they just say it's "an upgraded" Xbox One, even though it's about the same.

But in the end Microsoft can't really pull the Apple scam with Xbox brand. I doubt anyone can do this within the PC realm, because only the, erhm, let's say "uninformed" buy the "branded gaming PCs" for 2000 dollars (when you can build the same PC for $1000). There's always few of these fools who buy branded PC junk. Alienware and such are trying this, but I definitely hope people aren't falling to these ridiculous branding scams.

 

[jelly]

Who knows what the future holds. It's not a certainty they'll release a new Xbox console every few years. The success, technology leaps, competition, user appeal, features can easily change what happens. The only thing I believe is Microsoft don't want to be stuck with Xbox One for 5-7 years, the writing is on the wall and they won't sit still. Is a new console drastic, definitely but not so much when you don't dump Xbox One following it's release. They won't beat Sony this generation but can they give themselves a mid gen boost which might give them momentum going into a new generation, possibly. If VR takes off, do they want to sit and watch or say experience Oculus on Xbox..

 

[Nocturno999]

Sounds like a good idea on paper as long as they don't throw a new version with negligible power increase every 6 months.

I would love to know devs' opinions on this.

 

[AmFreak]

Power increase happens because parts get cheaper. So as Bgamer90 said (which i'm starting to believe 2.5-3 years is sufficient) you would keep the higher priced item the more powerful one, say way more RAM and a little bit more power for the CPU/GPU because those parts become cheaper than it was before when the first XBO came out. You have to look at the market now and the prices of items.

The big reason "parts" get cheaper are die shrinks ...
Sure a piece of silicon can get cheaper over time cause the yields are getting better or the design gets optimized or changed to better suit the requirements (new gpu gen), but i already accounted for that with the 10%-20% performance increase.
And all these aren't comparable to a shrink and without die shrinks your parts would just stop getting cheaper at a certain point.
The reason we are where we are are die shrinks.

 

[kpzero]

I have been on the 3 year long generation with forward and backward compatibility bandwagon for several years.

2016 is too early for a new xbox model. Ideally, they would introduce one holiday 2017 when the cost of both GloFo's 14nm and HBM have become more economical.

Node changes have increased to about 2.5 years and will likely increase but every 3 or 4 years is doable.

The frame rate benchmark different between 2013 and 2015 top of the line APU from AMD is 42 vs 62fps, good luck turning 1080 30fps to 1080 60fps within 2 years, 4K my ass.

Unless they give up AMD and go back Intel+Nvidia.

Edit: my bad, that's 720p result. 1080p actually is 23 vs 31 fps.

This reeks of misinformation. AMD's retail APUs are bandwidth limited since no OEM is going to use GDDR5. Once they can affordably slap on a few GB of HBM, the bottleneck will be removed and they can greatly increase the shader count.

What will they upgrade tho? The CPU has significantly slowed down in improving speeds. Now it's all about efficiency.

We've had the same midrange GPU architecture for 4 years now just with new names each year and a tiny improvement.

Unless they expect the console market to blow $700 on a GPU, midrange GPU's haven't improved much over the last 4 years. A CPU that's 10 years old can still run today's games at high resolutions.

Once GPU moves to 16nm, we'll be stuck there for even longer than 4 years.

So what are console owners going to upgrade that's affordable?

We wont be stuck on 16 and 14nm for 4+ years. It was only the failure of TSMC's 20nm and GloFo dropping theirs that has kept us on 28nm for so long. Samsung's Semi business has very rapidly joined the playing field(some would say through nefarious means).

TSMC and Samsung aren't that far off from their respective 10nm nodes.

 

[mike4001_]

Here's what I don't understand:
- hypothetically XboxOne+ is released this fall
- AAA game is released this fall and runs on XboxOne+ and XboxOne
- Will the game on the disc already support XboxOne++ (for example higher res textures) or will devs be forced to work on the game again and even reprint the retail version when XboxOne++ is released in the future?

I believe future compatibility would kind of mostly be "Run the game in the current state on all future consoles". It´s hard to anticipate the hardware of the next model if it´s, lets say 3 years away.

So why not:

1) Game develped for Xbox One+ runs perfectly on the console
2) ... runs the same of Xbox One ++ (and every console going forward)
3) ... runs with reduced graphics on Xbox One

So with the 3 year plan you get

1) Year 1-3: The games are developed for your console
2) Year 4-6: The games still run on your console with reduced graphics
3) Year 7+: The games don´t run on your console anymore.

So I can buy a new console every 3 years to be state of the art
Or buy one every 6 years and can still play every game.

 

[STEaMkb]

Sony hinted at it as well.

Yeh Sony mentioned it first last year I think? Seems like a great idea from both.

If you mean the interview with Masayasu Ito in October 2015, he was responding to a very specific question, whether or not Sony had considered releasing a more powerful PlayStation to power Project Morpheus and play Ultra HD Blu-ray. Although the switch to x86 architecture made upgrades possible, he replied that Sony had considered the possibility but chosen ultimately not to go down that path.

"It’s worth stressing on the fact that Ito-san was talking hypothetically, prompted by a specific question. So don’t go taking this as a confirmation a PS4.1 is actually in the works." (Source)

And

"However, Ito stressed that Sony has no immediate plans to introduce a technically superior PS4 model; he also explained that the bigger question is if Sony would actually want to do this at all." (Source)

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Even with that new information, it does t inspire so much confidence in me. I don't know if I like console gaming to be worked like the mobile market. Especially when fame development does take years to do. Imagine working 7 years on a game but in those 7 years, 15 different consoles has launched. What do you optimize for? Are these games going to be full price as well or will we create some sort of subscription services?

This is all very different than upgrading your Xbox. Idk, this all needs deeper explanation to how this entire function would work...from top to bottom.