I totally disagree. And speaking as a dev and a gamer, it sounds fucking horrible.
-
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
Beerman462
Member
I imagine it will work like PC development. You develop your game with a baseline and allow it to scale up from there. In this case though the PC like settings would mostly be out of reach for the consumer and be set automatically according to the developer. Framerate might be locked at 30 or 60 depending on the game, then depending on your hardware version of Xbox you get Low, Med or High presets. If your lucky you get a 30/60fps toggle. I wouldn't expect great optimization, but multi plats are pretty much there already.
While I didn't read through every single page... this sounds like a complete and utter disaster that will pretty much divide both gamers who purchased the Xbox One but developers who will likely need to create multiple versions of the game across several systems.
People buy game consoles because they don't want to have to constantly upgrade their systems. They want to pay for a console, play it for 5 or more years and then eventually upgrade.
Every single decision Microsoft has been making with Windows 10, Xbox and PC gaming has been absolutely terrible. I am not sure what is going on over at Redmond but these ideas are far worse then anything from Bill Gates and Steve Balmer (my opinion).
Windows 10 store gaming is a disaster (see multiple threads) with piss poor gaming performance and blocking of standard PC game features and now they seem like they want to break their Xbox product line as well with terrible choice making.
Xbox One is already selling far less then PS4 and I think decisions like this would force a lot of those Xbox fans to move over to Sony products. Maybe not everyone but a lot will.
I don't own a PS4 or Xbox One yet and was eventually planning on upgrading but if Microsoft really does release a new Xbox One with new hardware then I might just skip altogether and get a PS4 and that's it.
I just don't like anything the company is doing anymore in regards to any of their products. Bad decisions for everything!
People buy game consoles because they don't want to have to constantly upgrade their systems. They want to pay for a console, play it for 5 or more years and then eventually upgrade.
Every single decision Microsoft has been making with Windows 10, Xbox and PC gaming has been absolutely terrible. I am not sure what is going on over at Redmond but these ideas are far worse then anything from Bill Gates and Steve Balmer (my opinion).
Windows 10 store gaming is a disaster (see multiple threads) with piss poor gaming performance and blocking of standard PC game features and now they seem like they want to break their Xbox product line as well with terrible choice making.
Xbox One is already selling far less then PS4 and I think decisions like this would force a lot of those Xbox fans to move over to Sony products. Maybe not everyone but a lot will.
I don't own a PS4 or Xbox One yet and was eventually planning on upgrading but if Microsoft really does release a new Xbox One with new hardware then I might just skip altogether and get a PS4 and that's it.
I just don't like anything the company is doing anymore in regards to any of their products. Bad decisions for everything!
It's either a obscured exit, a desperation move, or a extreme missreading of this market. Or a mix of all 3 and a hope they can carve out something.
It doesn't matter what the details would be, The statement applies moves itself.The loss or exclusives. the w10 store, the apparent rush, the allusions to big changes.
Dinky Dino
Member
Nevermind misread a post.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Its the XBone reveal all over again. How the fuck have they learned nothing after only three years?
geordiemp
Member
Some Ps4 games already have given the option of 30 or 60 FPS , so I dont know what is so crazy about this.
All that needs to be done is the 60 is not selectable for the lesser hardware version or at users risk if it runs at 40 fps.
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....
If they're going with an iterative stance to console generations, rather than a complete shift in hardware from generation to generation (like from the x86 of the OG Xbox to the PowerPC of the Xbox 360), they're only reducing the hardware cycle in the sense that a new box comes out every three to four years or so.
The idea is backwards AND forwards compatibility--the box you buy now--or when/if they decide to go down this route--would be guaranteed to work for the duration of two--or even more--cycles. The games are still getting released on the base hardware, the upgraded systems only net increases in performance and resolution. When the base hardware is dropped after, say, six years, then the next box above that takes its place, and the cycle continues.
If you want to keep the box you have/will get for six years, by all means, do so--this route means that they won't drop support for that box, it just becomes the baseline, and games are still made to take advantage of it. Devs shouldn't have to worry about the latest box, because it's all iterative, and the only thing gained is--once again--performance and resolution, neither of which should require--for this case--a completely different version or a radical shift in the development process.
What multiple versions? The record states backwards and forwards compatibility. If the devs want to release their shit twice, that's on them--they wouldn't have to in this system, because the games would be guaranteed to work on the baseline and subsequent iterations, regardless, without requiring them to retool the whole thing. I guess if they want to waste their money on a completely new version, then by all means, they should.
And if you don't want to upgrade for five or six years, that's the beauty of the whole setup! You don't have to! Shit's still gonna work until they drop support once the /third/ iteration of the box drops, whenever that would be.
This is all, of course, speculation.
What?
How so?
The Xbone reveal was a multitude of different things wrong. This is literally the head of the division saying "We're gonna have a box--we don't exactly know what it'll be yet, but we have an idea." At this point in time, it's perfectly acceptable to not be forthcoming. We're only about three years into the current generation. They'll announce something concrete when it's time.
Nothing would change about that more than likely; The Xbox One would still get supported over a 5-6 year period of time (the average length of a gaming gen) since Microsoft is working on an overall ecosystem. It's just that users would have the option of a newer model that's a ".5" step up in power. Developers wouldn't have to worry about nothing more than "2 Xbox versions" as the older Xbox models wouldn't be supported forever and games would work under the same ecosystem that the relevant models are a part of.
I mean, we are already used to slim models during the mid point of a gen and many people upgrade to them. Wouldn't it be nicer if a slim model was more than just a smaller size at the same price though?
Pretty overboard statement to make before any details or confirmation releases.
Windows 10 gaming hasn't really gotten underway yet and the store is still giving games to people who wouldn't have them otherwise (PC only gamers). I'm positive that there will be improvements as the months move on.
Why if the original Xbox One would still get supported since MS is moving things into an overall ecosystem? Many are happy/pumped when news comes out about a slim version of a console they already own with the difference being nothing more than size. Why would better specs on top of better size cause more anger when it would obviously be a better buy?
Even if a possible new Xbox One model would have better specs? Though, this may not matter if you are a PC gamer anyway.
Let's wait to see what they will do with this before jumping to conclusions. They could definitely screw this up but if they keep their focus on an overall ecosystem, release a new Xbox model at the same rate as "slim" consoles (every 3-4 years), while at the same time making sure the old Xbox model gets game support for as long as the average gaming gen (6-7 years), then I think they will be on to something very innovative within the home console space instead of making the same mistake that Sega made during the middle of the '90s.
Cynn
Member
That doesn't change. People can still buy a console and use it the whole generation. Those who are more power hungry can buy a "plus" model just like a lot of us buy slim models as the years go on. Absolutely nothing changes for people who want the same box at the same power level for 7 years.
So people who upgrade later on when plus models of Xbone are out there will choose the then underpowered PS4 because of what again? People choosing PS4 are currently doing it because they want more power, they want PS exclusives, or they are brand loyal. The first reason will go away with Xbox One+ but the second two reasons have nothing to do with Xbox at all. "Xbox fans" in your example like Xbox... So why would they dislike a more powerful one? I don't get it.
May I ask why? What is it about a most likely, very slightly more powerful Xbox One existing in the future that you don't like? Would you not buy a PS4 if Sony said a slim model is coming soon? If you want Sony exclusives or just like them better that's fine. But if your sole reason for passing on an Xbox One is that a special edition might exist in the future then I'm confused. There's already an X1 with a hybrid SSD and re-tooled controller. This is the next step. And it's a step you don't have to take of you don't feel like it.
Sounds like they want to try it. Depending on how the w10 store goes and how these boxes sell it will determine how lomg they keep trying.
To me it seems like a desprate attempt to squeeze as much shoet term as they can from xbox investment without concern for the long term.
I'm positive that MS is smarter than this. If this plan becomes a reality, then we will more than likely see a new Xbox model every 3-4 years.
I mean, we've been in a pattern of "new console, slim model three years later, new console three years later, etc." for almost two decades. I would definitely prefer a slim to be a ".5" step up in power too instead of having original console specs over the course of a 6-7 year period.
A new console every year would definitely put things into Sega territory. It wouldn't be smart at all. I could see how people who think MS will do this are worried but again -- hopefully MS is smarter than this. People who think this ".5 idea" would be good are mostly people who aren't expecting a new Xbox model every year anyway.
Dash_Riprock
Member
What exactly have they done in the past three years to convince you of this?
They had a smashing console launch, took over the mobile market, launched Windows 8, and treated customers fairly with the games for windows live.
/s
This works both ways; What exactly have they done in the past three years to convince you that they WOULD release a new Xbox model every year considering they haven't done so?
I'm really not sure what DRM and their bad pre-console launch PR has to do with whether or not they would release a new Xbox model every year; Completely different topics.
But to answer your question, they are building an ecosystem. Spending time building an ecosystem to only have it fragmented with new models every year would be very silly. The possibility of them doing it is definitely there but I think that they are smarter than this. Doing it would make them a "modern Sega" with devs and consumers constantly holding back and/or questioning what model they should put their focus on.
TheFinalCut
Member
This would definitely prove to be an interesting change in strategy but the performance differences created within the same platform is a factor I don't think many early adopters of the Xbox One (or console gamers in general) would appreciate.
This difference in performance can directly equate to an advantage in multiplayer focused games. The PC already demonstrates this can be a natural component of the platform, but it is assumed rather than foisted, as would be the case of an after release platform change. Gamers who bought into the Xbox (or Playstation if they adopt this strategy) may have purchased the platform believing that it remain relatively fixed and equally competitive.
I think this kind of new hardware strategy needs to be a future platform, where the expected expandability is communicated up front. Though this is a large assumption, I think introducing this for the Xbox One will only lead to bad PR as the current adopters of the platform may feel burned for adopting early where later adopters might not just get a better deal, but a better platform.
This difference in performance can directly equate to an advantage in multiplayer focused games. The PC already demonstrates this can be a natural component of the platform, but it is assumed rather than foisted, as would be the case of an after release platform change. Gamers who bought into the Xbox (or Playstation if they adopt this strategy) may have purchased the platform believing that it remain relatively fixed and equally competitive.
I think this kind of new hardware strategy needs to be a future platform, where the expected expandability is communicated up front. Though this is a large assumption, I think introducing this for the Xbox One will only lead to bad PR as the current adopters of the platform may feel burned for adopting early where later adopters might not just get a better deal, but a better platform.
I dont think there is anything wrong with his statement. Should you really buy a xbox one at this moment? If you have the money and want to play some great games right now, sure.
For people with a limited budget or just willing to wait for different reasons, its probably smarter to wait and see what Microsoft announces regarding all this.
SunEatsMoon
Member
Completely random, but Bgamer90 from TXB?
Beerman462
Member
I didn't say anything about being crazy. I said if your lucky. The only game I know of with this option is TLOU Remastered. It's not like it's common practice. They might give the option of 60fps at lower settings on the more powerful hardware if they feel it's worth it.
Haha, it seems like you missed the recent post in which I've stated why I changed my mind about this idea. It has nothing to do with "MS vs. Sony". It has to do with the fact that I'm seeing the console companies go all in on ecosystems with forward and backwards compatibility.
Some of the points I made in that old thread were also in response to people saying how or if an iPhone-like model of new consoles every year would work and I still feel like that wouldn't work (as shown in the posts I made above). So my points about confusion and "What model do I buy?" are still the same when it comes to that. My point about some people who recently bought a console being mad about a slim having more power still holds true too (I haven't changed my opinion on that).
I do however, think a slim model being more than just a smaller model of an old console would work just as long as a company makes sure that the old model gets support and continues on staying relevant for people who want a cheaper option. This would be different from the typical original -> slim transition since the original usually gets phased out within months that the slim is released. That's why I made the points I did in that older thread -- I thought it would cause the older PS4 model to be quickly phased out with devs focusing on the the newer PS4.
Sony, MS, and Nintendo releasing more statements and/or details (after early December 2015) involving their ecosystem goals has opened my mind as to why multiple devices from companies during the same gen could work. They just have to play it smart, not release a new model every year, and make sure that people with the older/cheaper console still get the same time length of support as popular consoles from previous gens.
WOW
chromatic9
Member
Phil does say they will take advantage when possible.
Problem for XBO and PS4 is they went with the old 7000 series GPU that wasn't even that impressive when AMD launched them in terms of power per watt. The 28nm GPU done right was Maxwell.
The next GPU succeeding Maxwell from NVidia and AMD should be quite considerable again in power to performance. It might only be one time window and we're stuck again but I think its a good time to launch a better console.
Sony MS waited a while to launch the XBO/PS4. In 2010 you had a Radeon 5770 to fit a power range available but this wasn't really going to do much except play the same graphics in 1080p.
Also we have a new perspective at Microsoft after 2013. They probably understand how they went too low on hardware and lost sight of gamers. Before these consoles launched I said on PC forums that PS4's alleged 7850 ish GPU will just about do 1080p and offer a decent improvement on graphics but a 7790 will fall short often and this has been the case.
I found it ridiculous that in 2013 we had sub native games on a new console after 1080p HDTV's were common place in 2006/2007. Just think it will be 2017 in less than 12 months. MS need a new box out. I'm not even sure it will be a success, might just keep them in the game, or be the demise or a good starting point to go forward. I think they should do something. I don't see XBO keeping up with 360's third year sales.
If VR is a thing, they will need a new box. What a great way to use perhaps the Oculus with a GTX 970 in power GPU using 100-150W in 2017 or something similar/better around that 2017/2018 time.
His statement was more than just this but I agree with the bold -- however, I don't think this is any different from what we see during "slim model" rumors anyway. The same statements/line of thinking was made last gen when rumors starting building up about the slim PS3 and slim Xbox 360.
Heck, some here have stated months/years ago that they prefer to wait to buy an Xbox One whenever an inevitable slim model releases.
___________________
TXB during the 360 era, PS forums during the PS2 era and other gaming forums during that time too (though not as frequently as the previous two).
Heh, another poster that likes to try and "catch me" via posts out of their original context -- I've explained everything in my post above.
wapplew
Member
Sony doing it wrong, MS idea is much better.
/s
I like how some poster change from 1 year upgrade to 2 years and now 3-4 years after they realized 1-2 years upgrade just stupid.
MS losing this gen and trying to cut gen short, forward compatible just how they try not to piss off Xbox one owner IMO.
I know X1 is losing this gen but I'm just wondering if X1 selling more than X360 in the same period of time? Is X1 profitable for MS just like X360?
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Phil never said anything about incremental upgrades. All he said is that hardware in the mobile / tablet sector gets improved on a much timelier fashion than the console business.
He's just using that reasoning to justify cutting the Xbox One life short and releasing a new console. Simply because the XB1 has basically failed.
If it hadn't failed they would be running with it as long as possible, just as they did with the 360, and probably just as Sony will do with the PS4.
The new console will be much better, and play XB1 games to soften the blow. Released no later than holiday 2018. Though I'm guessing it will be here next year, holiday 2017.
Book it!
He's just using that reasoning to justify cutting the Xbox One life short and releasing a new console. Simply because the XB1 has basically failed.
If it hadn't failed they would be running with it as long as possible, just as they did with the 360, and probably just as Sony will do with the PS4.
The new console will be much better, and play XB1 games to soften the blow. Released no later than holiday 2018. Though I'm guessing it will be here next year, holiday 2017.
Book it!
Nope, he specifically referenced how phones and tablets do frequent upgrades as tech comes out. They are taking a PC approach to console generations.
The consoles themselves have a little profit but most of the money is the licence fee off third parties. It's drastically less for second place. They were taking 2/3 of all the licence fees last gen to 1/5 this gen. big swing.
I've explained myself above. Has nothing to do with one company vs. the other.
And on top of this, this statement doesn't make sense considering both cases haven't been confirmed. They are "what if" discussions at the moment and not confirmed ideas/plans yet.
I've always stated that 1 year upgrades would never work and cause a lot of confusion. Models releasing every 3-4 years could work though since people are already used to "new console, then slim model 3 years later". As long as the older console continues on getting support from devs without consumers having to buy an add-on and becomes a cheaper option (instead of the same price) then I think this plan would work regardless of what console company does it.
"Forward compatible" was more than likely a plan before the Xbox One even launched -- especially if they are serious about this Xbox/Windows ecosystem push (a push that was stated before the Xbox One launched).
Mr"Ihatetoadmitiwaswrong" . You were responding to me and I wasn't implying every year but nice try tho
Or maybe they realize that resetting your user base every time a new generation starts is really bad business. The XBO is doing just fine this generation, and I'd bet that they have made more of a profit so far this generation than at the same point with the 360, even if you discount the RROD costs.
Moving to an incremental release structure that retains your user base and keeps them invested is just smart. If they go to an evolving platform instead of rebooting every generation they are going to have a strong user base of millions of people that have next gen capable hardware by the time Sony would launch a PS5 if Sony doesn't do the same thing. MS seems to be making the investment now so that they no longer have to go through this stupid cycle of starting from scratch everytime a new generation starts.
It always bothers me when repeats that term. It's not a real thing but more of a PR speak for 'please in the future consider these separate things the same'. Essentially trying to push people to use words they're defining to control the message and perception. The more a company does this the less I trust them. Blast processing and such bullshit.
I liked Phil because he used to do this very little. I guess MS has whipped him into shape.
Catch You? If you can't see how hilarious the difference in tone in those post are, I genuinely don't know what to tell you.
It's definitely bad for the platform holder and THEY have a vested interest in us rolling with it. The reason it won't work is it's bad for the publishers/developers. They need to invest more often and spend more time. It's bad for some consumers who just can't afford to keep up. It's why 'consoles' still exist.
No he talked about not waiting the whole console cycle to release new hardware.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
The first part of your post is correct, and is exactly what I just said.
The second part of your post is a wild leap based on nothing. Phil said, and I quote, "You will see us come out with new hardware within a generation". That's all.
Nowhere did he say anything you and several others seem to be suggesting.
What?
Holiday 2017 would be a 4 year lifespan for the XB1. That's shorter than the historical average and far shorter than the last generation.
He said the path that they are on includes multiple hardware generations on consoles as well PC & that they want to release new innovations as they happen & not have to wait 7 or 8 years & that he do not embrace the big jump at the end of a console life to the next generation & that what they are doing is something better & going to make the console space better. (something like that)
https://soundcloud.com/xbox/mnr-564-phil-spencer-the-1#t=49:54
Crayon
Member
Your idea makes sense. I guess I could see that happening, but it's so crazy for them to keep this fight against sony going.
I still think it's going to be a premium priced xbox with nicer materials and an upclock so the ui can run a lil better. Wring some more dough from the more faithful fans and make a halo product to help ride out the generation and then replace it with an apple tv sort of thing.
They really have little reason to continue this console business. The only use of xbox is to try to transplant as many current xbox users as they can to wintendo and try to keep them locked up there where it's cheaper to do and at least of more use to the core business.
I like the idea of forward and backwards consoles but it is a good idea for a company that can stay the course through the fat times as well as the lean. At the rate ms changes their mind, they could release an upgraded xbox with every intention of starting a dynasty and change course before the next one even comes out.
There's many ways this can go but after all the news lately, I can't see any of them being pretty unless they can make a series of ambitious maybe hasty moves all somehow click into place.
Heh, how does "Hate To Admit I Was Wrong" work here when neither rumored plan has been confirmed and/or started yet? We obviously haven't seen results of these plans yet either due that previous fact so again, how could this be a "Hate to Admit I was wrong"-situation?
There were posts in that thread discussing "every year like iPhone" and that's what I brought up in part of my previous post in this thread about this. I still to this day don't think a new model every year would be smart so nothing has changed there. "You were responding to me" doesn't work either considering you took posts from that thread that I made to other people who weren't you too; All of those posts were not in response to you only.
Edit: Also how could you say you weren't implying every year when you stated "Times have changed. People are used to being "screwed" over every year or every other year aka iPhone 5 to iPhone 6, iPad Air to iPad Air 2." in that thread? Again, let's not go into this territory. It's always messy and leads to many posts being taken out of context. Heck, I could have taken your post I just mentioned out of context without knowing it. Let's not get deeply into this.
_____
But they are from different discussions in reply to different posts that were made during different times. We have more details about what all console makers are planning to do with their ecosystems now in comparison to months ago. If you think the change in tone isn't about that (and what I stated/explained in my previous post in this thread) and solely about "different companies" then I don't know what to tell you either as you've would have obviously already written me off based on posts that are out of their original context.
Again, I'm not interested in having a back/forth of this style since it usually always leads to misunderstandings and disregard for different time periods. Just thought I would explain the differences between those posts and what I stated here in this thread though (I mean, that would be fair right?).
As I've stated in my previous post, I can't see any console company completely starting from scratch at this point. Compatibility should be expected if all companies are serious about pushing their ecosystems.
Not having compatibility is VERY outdated when you look at the current trends in the tech world.
Similar threads
- Locked