Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
I'll say one thing, Digital Foundry better hire double the staff.
-
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
This is about as good a time as any for Microsoft to experiment, just enough time to see how it's received before committing to a Xbox 4.
However, this just doesn't sound like a good idea to me, seems like the worst of both worlds. You're not getting subsidised hardware or guaranteed gaming performance for 7-ish years (in fact, it'll probably get rubbed in your face how much better the game is on the new New Xbox), but you are getting locked into a storefront without all the freedom (game sales, mods, bargain hardware) of a 'real' PC.
I'm still curious though, really enjoy watching experiments like this play out.
However, this just doesn't sound like a good idea to me, seems like the worst of both worlds. You're not getting subsidised hardware or guaranteed gaming performance for 7-ish years (in fact, it'll probably get rubbed in your face how much better the game is on the new New Xbox), but you are getting locked into a storefront without all the freedom (game sales, mods, bargain hardware) of a 'real' PC.
I'm still curious though, really enjoy watching experiments like this play out.
That era is long gone. No console maker can cut a deal for a chip which won't be broadly usurped by a discrete GPU before its even hit the market.Perfectly put.
Although Max might be Super Xbox 1
Yeah, you are not going to be left in the dust and be forced to buy a new system that often, lol. That would be nuts. You will basically be buying a system based on your needs and it will do for as long as it fits those needs and should run most, if not all of the games. But those who want to upgrade earlier and have better performance will be able to do so more frequently.
APZonerunner
Member
For the amount of hand wringing that goes on here on GAF over resolution and FPS, I'd think it'd be obvious? They can drop in a better GPU and more RAM as the cost of parts deteriorates and have developers support higher texture resolution, or higher FPS, or whatever (the kind of shit they make for PC anyway!) but it'd ultimately run the same games. Because of the PC-style structure presumably software would be able to read what 'model' it's running on and adjust settings automatically behind-the-scenes. At the same time, the advantage over PC is that if MS restricts it in-house (unlike Steam machines, which technically any hardware manufacturer can make) and doesn't do more than an iteration a year, developers can remain on top of it and cater to each model with (one would hope) not much disruption.
I'm not necessarily saying it's a good idea, but I see where they're coming from, and the comparison to Apple's iPad upgrade cycle seems pretty obvious. I think this also seems in step with some of the other ideas they've expressed in the past, such as when Microsoft stores were offering Xbox consoles on phone style contracts, except instead of paying your monthly line rental and getting the phone for 'free', you were paying for an inflated monthly Xbox Live subscription for a mandated period and getting a console. This was a weird trial, but it could make sense with this sort of model.
I mean, the console upgrade cycle is usually a revolution; everything changes all at once. They're talking about going for iteration instead. It's interesting, if nothing else.
TharpDaddy
Member
Why? You don't have to upgrade. All this means is instead of being stuck on the same hardware until the next console cycle, you can upgrade at some point if you want, but you don't have to. You're not being forced to upgrade. If you want to wait until the next console you can do so, it'd be exactly like previous console generations in that case. I don't see how having more options is terrible.
True.
But then when Sony probably follows with a similar model? What's the scenario there?
In a perfect world, Nintendo joins in to, and they all have dedicated stores via PC (Mac) that allow us to play all the "exclusive" games on one piece of hardware. But then that damages the optimization and quality that Nintendo is known for from their console approach.
Dash_Riprock
Member
MS has been trying to make it work for them for years.
They're not about to stop now.
Zepp Twofist
Member
This fits well with my impression of Windows Store games as basically a software console. It is also exactly as interesting to me to game on a MS software console as it is for me to game on an MS hardware console. They need to make the store a lot better and the api a lot more gaming PC friendly to be a viable alternative to Steam, Origin or even Uplay. And bullshit policies like no crossplay with anything outside of their eco system is exactly why I think that will never happen.
I get that not everyone would upgrade every year or every 2 years, but nevertheless if you bring out new hardware every year/two years you need something to differentiate it from it's predecessor.
So if it isn't hardware what else would it be that isn't artificial reserved for the new model?
Bitch Pudding
Member
So the Box is out of the closet.
General Lee
Member
The only problem I see coming from having several tiers of Xbox hardware is ultimately devs might make the base tier experience unacceptable, but when I look at Xbox One games right now, it's already the case. Also devs might not like the fact that they have to design for several tiers of hardware, but given how the tiers would be only different in terms of performance, it shouldn't be as difficult as supporting PC is.
Comparing this new kind of tiered approach to some ancient console upgrade approaches is foolish, those had very good reasons for failure, like lack of backwards compatibility, that just don't exist with MS's UWA.
I'm fully expecting Microsoft to bring their next Xbox tier within the next couple years, fully backwards compatible. A yearly upgrade cycle like with mobile devices will never happen, but the console generations as we know will stop existing. The upgrade cycle will mostly depend on the level of hardware available, and these days it might still take 5 years to get the process node jumps and architecture improvements to make a real difference.
Comparing this new kind of tiered approach to some ancient console upgrade approaches is foolish, those had very good reasons for failure, like lack of backwards compatibility, that just don't exist with MS's UWA.
I'm fully expecting Microsoft to bring their next Xbox tier within the next couple years, fully backwards compatible. A yearly upgrade cycle like with mobile devices will never happen, but the console generations as we know will stop existing. The upgrade cycle will mostly depend on the level of hardware available, and these days it might still take 5 years to get the process node jumps and architecture improvements to make a real difference.
GBC was a completely different platform with a different set of games for a start.
Absolutely not.
A console has its own identity. It has specific features and games built around those features.
It has exclusive games not available elsewhere and developers willing to write specific code optimized for the hardware.
A Steambox is not a console,it's a way to play PC games.
PetriP-TNT
Member
Why can't consoles be subsidized? Live/PS+ whatever + console for 20 dollars per month or just hand out the cash and get the console and buy the online separately.
I don't consider cars essential though by any means and your thinking of everyone upgrading every year is terribly flawed but billions of people do spend way more than 300 bucks a year for non-essentials regardless.
And then you look at the list of top selling games and notice that it's absolutely filled by multiplatforms
You bring the words "do not allow" into it and you lose dev support. Restrictions in your dev environment are not looked on well. Parity clauses for example.
You don't need specific games to buy a new 3ds dude. All games made for the 3ds run better on N3DS.
Goldfishking
Member
The difference is that mobile game takes at most 6-12 months to develop so development starts 0/1 iterations behind what the released product will be on. Games take alot longer than that so games will be designed for models 2 iterations in the past, excluding PC ports of course.
What I was thinking of was like the new LG 5, which is a modular phone. You can replace the audio chip, battery etc. If they did a new SKU which had all modular parts, and off the shelf upgrades, I suppose it'd be cheaper than replacing the whole thing.
I've just realised I've described a PC.....
Anyway, I'm with you, I can see the pros and cons, I just cant help but think the actual end product will be confusing to a customer. Eager to see what this results in though.
matrix-cat
Member
A Windows 10 Box sounds like the worst of both worlds. All the fussiness, complexity, constant upgrading and worrying about breaking compatibility of the PC gaming world, with all the rigid lockdown, lack of options and high expense of the console world. Buy everything from Microsoft, upgrade your box with proprietary Microsoft-branded upgrades that cost whatever Microsoft wants to charge, oops this new game won't work without the latest revision.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
So in a few years, Xbox Two will be basically be just a cheap Steam machine then? Because that's what it's looking like, unless MS goes all in exclusively on software instead.
NullPointer
Member
No fixed hardware?
No thanks.
No thanks.
Basically. Should be no real problem for devs to deploy a PC build with certain locked settings for different iterations of the HW
You're underestimating the psychology of status and 'missing out'.
Illustration in another context - give people two options:
1) Everyone gets $9
2) You get $10 but everyone else - or some others - will get $12
People will pick number 1). Apparently most people will take LESS if it means others not getting more or having a higher status than them.
It's a psychology that's active in the appeal of consoles and their 'same experience for all' guarantee over a reasonably substantial cycle, IMO.
I don't think they could refresh the consoles every year but certainly every two years. A decent amount of people upgrade to slim models so this would be something akin to that. I am curious to see if it works?
Bots are better than you
Banned
I guess this is pretty much the way Nintendo wants to go with the NX platforms, but without PC and thus still a little bit console fixed.
Well, i'm curious how this will work out for MS. It's pretty big to change the way of things in the middle of your products lifetime.
Well, i'm curious how this will work out for MS. It's pretty big to change the way of things in the middle of your products lifetime.
You're talking about fragmenting a userbase that is already half the size of its next-gen competitor. As a dev this sounds really bad to me. I don't want to develop for three different XB1 SKUs.
Of course what Microsoft would want to do in a few years time is have universal Windows 10 and Xbox apps so that they would automatically adapt to whatever they run on. Whether W10 gaming will take off in any way in the same scale as Steam remains to be seen. A lot of stuff has to fall into place for this strategy to take off. Bringing more XB1 games to Windows is a good, solid start.
Steam should be the ones really scared about something like this. If Microsoft integrates the XB1 into Windows then third parties can simultaneously launch titles on the console and the Windows store. Rather than waiting for PC ports, we could potentially be looking at a huge uptick in PC support that is Windows store exclusive. Microsoft can put the tools to easily make a PC version of your XB1 game into every developers hands.
Simply Sami
Member
Of course it is the same as iPad. Every iPad is more powerful than the last one. Which is going to be the same if they do it with the Xbox.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Um:
That's besides the point anyway, as N3DS isn't what Microsoft is trying to do here.
As for it being too much work/confusing for customers, that's entirely wrong. There are plenty of non-PC devices which behave like appliances that get the model right, that just work, like the iPad. New generations of devices become new baselines, right now the lowest common denominator is Apple A5/A6 devices from 5 years ago. It'll soon shift to Apple A7/A8/A9 devices.
Only MS is going to exert higher standards of control here and clearly define the hardware that developers need to specifically target (namely, Xbox consoles) that must be optimised for, above and beyond the general PC hardware that a UWP game would target.
But yeah, it'll probably go like this: Xbox console, plus Xbox updates every 2-3 years. The first Xbox console will remain the baseline for games to target for ~5 years, then the baseline will shift. Repeat.
Say the new one is $450, you could still probably get $250 for the less than year old previous. They're still gonna have a market for them.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I guess Sony has won the console war so definitively that MS feel they need to not even compete anymore and just go PC.
Man MS is this directionless mess. So much short term-ism and not an ounce of foresight.
Man MS is this directionless mess. So much short term-ism and not an ounce of foresight.
On PC they must optimize for thousands of systems ...
They will just make 3 fixed settings so the game runs with 30/60 fps on each hardware.
I'm not comparing the businesses, just that the technology does that now on phones/tablets and developers seem to manage ok.
I don't see why consumers would be confused, for the same reasons. There is a market out there for enthusiasts willing to upgrade their console hardware earlier than waiting 6 years for a new one. You can tap into that by releasing eg every 3 years, while the existing console on the market drops in price and sells to the mass market just like now.
You'd only need to support two live consoles so it wouldn't be a massive additional task if you keep your architecture the same.
eg PS4 now, then PS5 comes out for $399/499 in 2017. Both play the same games (which are all basically PC games anyway). Then in 2020/21 the PS6 comes out and developers move onto supporting PS5&6, and the PS4 support dries up - just like it would with a 'normal' console generation
Personally, I'd buy a new one every 3 years and get my increased in performance. Joe Bloggs would maybe buy every other one.
I don't think your "um" is nearly as convincing as you think it is.
Perfectly put.
Although Max might be Super Xbox 1
That will never be the case, as upgraded models will always have to conform to mass market specs and prices.
SpideySenses
Member
Wish I hadn't bought an Xbox One last year now, I have no interest being part of this kind of console infrastructure.
I'd imagine it's going to be PC gaming without as many variables. Due to the hundreds of possible figurations at any one time in PC gaming, there's no way for developers to really lay out how a game will ultimately function on a consumers computer due to the fact that there's too many variables at play. I imagine an upgradeable Xbox will have a handful of upgrades over the course of what we consider a console generation. If there's 4 or so upgrades over a typical console generation, and by extension four possible configurations of an Xbox, it'd be pretty easy to deduce how each game is going to run on each consumer's hardware. They could set up some Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze labeling for how a respective game will run on each platform or something.