Listen to the podcast I posted around the 50 minute mark.
-
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
Listen to the podcast I posted around the 50 minute mark.
GHG
Gold Member
Don't worry, similar things are happening in the Windows store/UWA threads. It's tough times for certain people. Some of these guys were also saying Xbox exclusive games will never come to the PC. Now that that's happened these same people are now some of the stoutest defenders of Microsofts questionable actions since then with the Windows store and their handling of UWA's. Funny that.
All I know is that if whatever this little plan is that Microsoft has doesn't work then they will exit the hardware market and urge Xbox One gamers to transition over to the PC since they will have the ability to make all of their first party content carry over.
They did exactly the same thing with Zune a few years back and urged everyone to transition over to Windows phone in the process as a way of being able to keep your content with new hardware as it transitioned over into Groove Music. You cannot however keep your subscription with your old existing hardware for some reason and as a result those who didn't want to get a Windows phone or use the groove music software/app on another device have been hung out to dry. I can still use my old Zune to play any music I outright own as I can upload music to it but I cannot use the subscription service on it which I find quite reduce loud considering the service actually still exists, just under another name.
The Xbox brand itself isn't going anywhere but to rule out a potential exit from console hardware is stupid. Based on their previous actions with hardware, this will be their last throw of the dice.
Christ, you were against the very idea of an upgraded console. I even brought up new 3ds xl and xbox elite but now you are trying to say all your posts were taking the every year idea into context. If you look at that thread, I even stated every year won't work but keep deflecting and saying everybody is interpreting your posts wrong and you are the only one in the right.
Say hello to the future of Xbox One.
Minus three 32x's and the PS2, this image is actually accurate.
It may seem that way but somehow it don't seem to turn the tides when it come to new consoles.
PS3 was released with PS1/PS2 BC but it went mostly ignored , Wii U has Wii BC & can play Nintendo games from generations & generations still didn't help , Xbox One now has Xbox 360 BC but it hasn't changed much in sales. PS4 dropped it's past at the door & went for self & the result is fuck BC get money!
wapplew
Member
It's all about "ecosystem". /s
Seeing how what's being discussed in this thread could possibly work for all console companies if they plan it smartly and put a huge focus on compatibility = "tough times for certain people"? How?
It was pretty obvious before the gen started that some Xbox games would come to PC too. Are you sure that you aren't grouping different people together based on their points not being in line with your opinion and are truly seeing people who said "Xbox games will never be on PC" in the past being happy about it now?
_______
Yes, I was against the idea of an upgraded console if it meant the older console would need add-ons and/or instantly go off of store shelves. I still am as this would cause Sega-like similarities.
I have also changed my mind a bit since that time on the possibility of an upgraded console working due to all three companies making more statements about compatibility that makes things more clear. I've stated this already (before we even stated our discussion). Hence, why I wouldn't compare my posts in your fashion. As long as great compatibility is there and no game content is exclusive to the new model from the get-go (a la New 3DS) then things could work out. I am allowed to changed my mind based on companies coming out with more information right?
I never said this. I said some of my posts were in response to "every year (iOS)" -- hence why it wasn't really right to group everything together and compare it to what I said in this thread about an "every 3-4 year" plan.
And yes, you brought up the Xbox Elite controller and I replied to that by saying that the Elite controller works since it's an improved device that targets specific users and doesn't completely cause the old controller to be seen as "useless/worthless". The device is compatible for all Xbox users too.
This follows what I'm saying here in this thread about there needing to be compatibility for this upgraded console idea to work. There will need to be compatibility and convenience. Separate add-ons would cause confusion and I don't think that would work. If you mentioned add-ons in that previous thread then I more than likely made a post in response to that too (I don't think add-ons would be a good idea).
Convenience is king in terms of consoles and I think add-ons alongside new models would just cause confusion.
I've never said this (bold) at all. I've explain why I've changed my opinion in certain areas about this topic, and why comparing what I said back then to what I said in this thread isn't productive. Companies have stated their future plans in more detail since the time of that thread thus making me feel that an upgraded console wouldn't necessarily automatically equal a Sega situation.
It's obvious by your tone that you aren't going to stop until I say "You got me" so I'll just do it so we can move on and keep the thread on topic (instead of it being about what posters said or didn't say).
But you are seemingly making these examples simply due to those consoles you've mentioned (PS3, Wii U, Xbox One) not being #1 in sales during their gen. Helping sales =/= automatically making something #1. For all we know, all of those consoles would have sold worse if they didn't have BC.
Anyway, I just think that all of the work these companies are doing right now in terms of getting games to work on various devices would completely go to waste if they started out fresh again. Also, I think the disappointment in a next gen console not being backwards compatible would more than likely be greater than the amount of disappointment we saw in response to "not BC" for Xbox One and PS4 due to this recent compatibility push. These current gen consoles have pretty straightforward hardware unlike their last gen predecessors too -- so the base for future compability is far more evident than it was during the third year of the 360 and PS3's life in my opinion.
Do you have a bet with Crayon on who can post more passive-aggressive remarks?
rokkerkory
Member
IndoAssassin
Banned
Ok so next consoles do 1080p baseline res. What will the incentive be for gamers to upgrade to another console in say 2 years.
We went 8 years to this Gen compared to 5 last Gen. Yet that 5 year gap saw a far better improvement than the 8 year gap in both graphics tech and visuals. The law of diminishing returns is only going to worsen as we move forward.
So how will they market the need to upgrade to a new console every 2-3 years with even less noticeable graphics upgrades.
How big is the enthusiast console market even?
I fail to see how this endeavor will make Ms more successful in the console market than now.
wapplew
Member
Just like New 3DS then.
Enthusiast will buy day one, won't do much to change final LTD of Xbox one family I guess.
Someone on gaf found that if you do analyse the curve of each console, the general magnitude of LTD sales and how it's doing at any point is decided at launch and a short window after.
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
It's digital now. It's different. Having your library just there is a much bigger deal. More like steam. Don't even look at it as BC
So you ignore the part where Xbox One didn't have BC before & their sells didn't change much once they added it?
Like I said before the upgrade model work for Phones/Tablets /Multimedia devices /PCs because the upgrade benefits are wide spread & not really about games , the games is just part of it. A new Xbox that's only about 2X as powerful as the Xbox One but the games are not even 2X better graphically will probably piss most hardcore Xbox fans off like Xbox One reveal did but if Xbox One wasn't seen as the new Xbox but as something like SurfaceTV a new Windows based Multimedia Set Top Box that gave you Windows 10 / Xbox & more multimedia stuff with simple voice & gesture controls for the living room it could have avoided all the backlash from the hardcore gamers & became the "It Product"
Gamers have their Xbox One but Microsoft's vision of the Multimedia STB was attacked by the gamers so now would be a good time to move away from the Xbox name & continue their vision with a Multimedia STB with a new smaller Box & Kinect with better features.
If they can sell Minecraft world or whatever they call the next Minecraft across all Windows 10 devices exclusively & sell 10 X more than the next Halo or Forza game on Xbox One without much effort I think they could live with that.
The value of this is hard to define. We just don't know. PC does have the continuity but many consumers there play a handful of games forever (DOTA2, LOL, WOW, D3, CS, HS, etc..) vs consoles.
If we look back. BC and the lack of it doesn't seem to effect console sales.
Who knows. I guess we may know next time but the median gamer is nothing like us here and may act like they did before. shun complexity and jump on the next hype wave when they're tired of their old one and have the money.
Maybe. I remember the factoid not the source. I recall it being well charted with a lot of legacy consoles.
I didn't ignore this at all. I said that you are simply basing this on the system not being in the number one spot. We don't know how lower the system's recent sales would be without BC.
Same is the case with Wii U and PS3 if those systems didn't have BC from the start.
If anything the new system being pushed from the get-go as a multimedia device would "piss hardcore gamers" off as much as the Xbox One reveal did.
The games don't have to be more than"2x better" graphically. Heck, I think many would simply be satisfied if a new model meant 90-95% of future Xbox One games hitting 1080p (well, on that new model only).
I don't think so. They currently aren't in a position to make this push. The Xbox One isn't in the same position as the Xbox 360 was in 2010/2011. MS needs to make plans similar to the PS3 in its later years (re-branding and continuing the focus on core games) to continue on making the Xbox brand relevant.
Not sure what you mean by this. A new Minecraft would probably sell far better than Halo and Forza regardless due to name/popularity alone.
Feel_The_Pain
Member
I personally dont care about resolution much, I want stable minimum 60fps in my new xbox
wapplew
Member
Realistically speaking, how much improvement can a console get with same price point in 2017?
That's 4 years on, I could imagine GDDR5 is cheaper. They could have a 8-16 gb unified pool. They had a Kabini derivative APU. They could probably use Carrizo. Benchmarks of it put it 10% higher than kabini. If they still have to stick to eSRAM for fast caching despite having a bigger pool of GDDR5 it's be <10% more capable than a XB1 with less ram limitations that devs would have to target specifically, If they ditch the eSRAM they could be <10% better than a PS4 with more ram. For ~$350. For $300? Maybe the 8GB of GDDR5.
(I don't work in that area of computing; I'm estimating based off Kabini vs Carrizo benchmarks and relative price of video ram. Also APU advancement is slowish because AMD R&D struggles. Intel would want much more money.)
...Scatter...
Banned
Well, without a Kinect taking up $150 in costs...
Enough to hit 1080p 60fps I think. They should be able to squeeze in the equivalent of an AMD R9-290x
Bitch Pudding
Member
wapplew
Member
Is it technically possible to squeeze 290x into an APU?
Might be <20% of PS4 if they're taking Carrizo's 'succesor' and what ever GPU equivalent is attached to it and if it's eSRAM but on a smaller process like 20nm they could probably do that. PS4/XB1 switch to 20nm last year i think. For a cheap closed computer I don't think they'd hop to 14nm.
...Scatter...
Banned
Equivalent in power. Just like this gen was based off of HD 7850 I believe.
We're going to need more swizzles lol. (Ah the brutality of the XBO launch)
PS4 7850 vs XB1 7770.
A 2017 would be close to what ever is mid-low for the market at the time. I agree without kinect and without having too much of the APU sliced off for eSRAM it'd be closer in relative value to the PS4 was in 2013.
The Xbox One's AMD APU is dated 2012
Moore's law says a a 3 year newer chip could be 4x the power in 2016
Bitch Pudding
Member
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/
4x faster GPU is just wishful thinking. The new one will be significantly faster, no doubt about that. But best case scenario is that it will push XBOO just ahead of PS4 in terms of theoretical performance. Practically, 99% of 2017+ games will look the same on both consoles, because XBOO would have to be not only much faster than its predecessor, but also much (!) faster than PS4 to have a real impact. So, basically, MS can either go for a much faster XBOO which no one will buy because of it's $599 price tag or they go with an incremental $399 upgrade which just pushes XBOX on par with PS4, but still no one will be bothered to buy, either because they already have the old one, a PC, or they want to go with a $249 PS4 or whatever-prices NX console.
...Scatter...
Banned
wapplew
Member
I sure hope 290x will be at mid range price point by 2017.
Mac@NeoGAF
Banned
I don't see the point increasing GPU power by a factor of three (or more) when you will be horribly CPU bound by that Jaguar CPU.
...Scatter...
Banned
Yeah, it's $300 now and that's for consumers. I'm sure on an APU mass produced it would be much cheaper.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
So how are them Steam Machines doing?
Probably just like the future Xbox PC Boxes. Not well.
NM. I did a bad look up. I don't think it'll be a raw 3x as powerful even the GPU's are more complicated.
Bench mark of Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA
r9 290x 79.8 fps
hd 7850 36.6 fps
gollumsluvslave
Member
Personally, I think the current Microsoft is quite alarming (and I say this as a .Net developer who relies on MS as part of his day job).
It's been pretty clear to me for some time that MS as a whole look at Apple and Google and realise that they done goofed - both with Xbox, but more importantly, their original goof was making Windows an open platform (in their minds, based on revisionist history)
MS now look at IOS and to a lesser extent Android, and see that both Apple and Google have MUCH more control over the customer on those platforms than they do on Windows.
So whilst MS seem to superficially be embracing Open Source on the development world side (which is a GREAT thing), this is at odds with what they appear to be doing on the gaming side, which is by any means they want to control the route to the consumer - Apple do it and make crazy bank, why can't we?
It certainly seems to me that MS want to leverage the Xbox Live subscription model for Windows somehow; they want the recurring subs, but most important they want that customer!
I suspect that they are 'casting the net wide' in this enterprise, they want to see what sticks; and for them I suspect that the 'Xbox Machine' is what they would prefer, because they effectively move Windows to a closed platform by the backdoor.
The one thing that we have to look at in history where Microsoft have already taken something that was free, open and monetised it and made it closed was P2P onlinge gaming, and we gamers only have ourselves to blame on that because we let them do it.
Just like P2P Online play, MS are banking that the masses are looking for convenience, first and foremost, but also a veneer of 'comfort'; if they can provide a software gaming platform/architecture that is both backwards compatible and future compatible, then colour me very concerned.
This is MS way to phase out Win32 IMO, and if they can migrate to a closed (or much more closed) Windows world then the happier they will be.
It will eventually backfire on them IMO; they need to look back at the history and realise that the PC and Windows got to it's position of dominance and ubiquity BECAUSE it was an open platform.
But of course the shareholders just see the 'Apple Customer' paradigm and rage.
It's been pretty clear to me for some time that MS as a whole look at Apple and Google and realise that they done goofed - both with Xbox, but more importantly, their original goof was making Windows an open platform (in their minds, based on revisionist history)
MS now look at IOS and to a lesser extent Android, and see that both Apple and Google have MUCH more control over the customer on those platforms than they do on Windows.
So whilst MS seem to superficially be embracing Open Source on the development world side (which is a GREAT thing), this is at odds with what they appear to be doing on the gaming side, which is by any means they want to control the route to the consumer - Apple do it and make crazy bank, why can't we?
It certainly seems to me that MS want to leverage the Xbox Live subscription model for Windows somehow; they want the recurring subs, but most important they want that customer!
I suspect that they are 'casting the net wide' in this enterprise, they want to see what sticks; and for them I suspect that the 'Xbox Machine' is what they would prefer, because they effectively move Windows to a closed platform by the backdoor.
The one thing that we have to look at in history where Microsoft have already taken something that was free, open and monetised it and made it closed was P2P onlinge gaming, and we gamers only have ourselves to blame on that because we let them do it.
Just like P2P Online play, MS are banking that the masses are looking for convenience, first and foremost, but also a veneer of 'comfort'; if they can provide a software gaming platform/architecture that is both backwards compatible and future compatible, then colour me very concerned.
This is MS way to phase out Win32 IMO, and if they can migrate to a closed (or much more closed) Windows world then the happier they will be.
It will eventually backfire on them IMO; they need to look back at the history and realise that the PC and Windows got to it's position of dominance and ubiquity BECAUSE it was an open platform.
But of course the shareholders just see the 'Apple Customer' paradigm and rage.
...Scatter...
Banned
They also have to carry forward design decisions they made if they want smooth and east BC with the XB1. Which means that eSRAM taking up space. At 14nm it's less space. They coudl go with GDDR5's successor too. I don't think they'll be super super ambitious with it if they aren't subsidizing.
...Scatter...
Banned
Personally, I think the current Microsoft is quite alarming (and I say this as a .Net developer who relies on MS as part of his day job).
It's been pretty clear to me for some time that MS as a whole look at Apple and Google and realise that they done goofed - both with Xbox, but more importantly, their original goof was making Windows an open platform (in their minds, based on revisionist history)
MS now look at IOS and to a lesser extent Android, and see that both Apple and Google have MUCH more control over the customer on those platforms than they do on Windows.
So whilst MS seem to superficially be embracing Open Source on the development world side (which is a GREAT thing), this is at odds with what they appear to be doing on the gaming side, which is by any means they want to control the route to the consumer - Apple do it and make crazy bank, why can't we?
It certainly seems to me that MS want to leverage the Xbox Live subscription model for Windows somehow; they want the recurring subs, but most important they want that customer!
I suspect that they are 'casting the net wide' in this enterprise, they want to see what sticks; and for them I suspect that the 'Xbox Machine' is what they would prefer, because they effectively move Windows to a closed platform by the backdoor.
The one thing that we have to look at in history where Microsoft have already taken something that was free, open and monetised it and made it closed was P2P onlinge gaming, and we gamers only have ourselves to blame on that because we let them do it.
Just like P2P Online play, MS are banking that the masses are looking for convenience, first and foremost, but also a veneer of 'comfort'; if they can provide a software gaming platform/architecture that is both backwards compatible and future compatible, then colour me very concerned.
This is MS way to phase out Win32 IMO, and if they can migrate to a closed (or much more closed) Windows world then the happier they will be.
It will eventually backfire on them IMO; they need to look back at the history and realise that the PC and Windows got to it's position of dominance and ubiquity BECAUSE it was an open platform.
But of course the shareholders just see the 'Apple Customer' paradigm and rage.
I think you may be smoking the stickiest of the icky. But maybe you're right and MS is ready to throw away all their enterprise and government clients in a mad power grab in "gaming".
wapplew
Member
Hm, so what about R9 380? That's mid range card. Almost 2X 7770.
2017 is real close to typical new gen, what's the point? This year is better for stop gap upgrade.
...Scatter...
Banned
I wonder if they could recompile that code to run in unified RAM. Hell if they can make 360 games work on XBO...
That or the 270x. Who knows what AMD's got cooking over there on the APU side.
It would depend if anyone got clever with the eSRAM. Low latency memory tricks. If it was widespread they need to carry it forward. It's relative cost would be lower because of a 14nm process.
...Scatter...
Banned
Similar threads
- Locked