Support NeoGAF

[vcc]

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.

It'd be higher than a 7770. The XB1 was around a 7770 because a huge chunk of the space on the APU that was GPU for the PS4 was used for eSRAM for the XB1. eSRAM Compromise for memory bandwidth. The DDR3 in the XB1 has much less bandwidth than the GDDR5. Graphics stuff eats bandwidth up. So they had the eSRAM help cache the difference.

PS4 and XB1 have very similar designs and basically sony lucky-out on GDDR5 prices and MS deciding Kinect was the future is most of what the performance difference is.

 

[EvB]

Moore's law is about density not power x2 every 18mo and it's been slowing because that 22nm -> 14nm transition took forever.

PS. Currently moore's law is at x2 every 30 months according to intel.

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..

Yes, expecting such a huge jump in power is likely foolish. Nudging ahead of Ps4 this time and then jumping ahead again a few years after that is how it will happen.

They will have to juggle the financials to bring it to a balance between additional power and cost savings.
Xbox One and PS4 are both made with with 28nm fabrication weren't they?

Both machines have also got redundant CUs that are disabled already built into the current SOC , so there is some die space currently wasted. Would it be feasable that they could activate them in newer units now that yields will be higher or that wasted space from he redundant CUs could be occupied by useable higher density design?

In the Xbox One in particular, there is no shortage of space inside the casing, so realistically would a physically larger chip made at say 20nm be an issue should they want to pick up the pace?

 

[...Scatter...]

Yes, expecting such a huge jump in power is likely foolish. Nudging ahead of Ps4 this time and then jumping ahead again a few years after that is how it will happen.

They will have to juggle the financials to bring it to a balance between additional power and cost savings.
Xbox One and PS4 are both made with with 28nm fabrication weren't they?

Both machines have also got redundant CUs that are disabled already built into the current SOC , so there is some die space currently wasted. Would it be feasable that they could activate them in newer units now that yields will be higher or that wasted space from he redundant CUs could be occupied by useable higher density design?

In the Xbox One in particular, there is no shortage of space inside the casing, so realistically would a physically larger chip made at say 20nm be an issue should they want to pick up the pace?

Honestly that would be a waste. If you're going to upgrade, swing for the fences. You want this thing to sell for the next 3 years.

 

[wapplew]

More powerful PC'S don't suffer now. They will just get similar effects at higher resolution and FPS. Basically turning PS3 TLOU into PS4 TLOU.

Well, that's kinda the suffer for me, i need my next gen bell and whistle.

 

[vcc]

Yes, expecting such a huge jump in power is likely foolish. Nudging ahead of Ps4 this time and then jumping ahead again a few years after that is how it will happen.

They will have to juggle the financials to bring it to a balance between additional power and cost savings.
Xbox One and PS4 are both made with with 28nm fabrication weren't they?

Both machines have also got redundant CUs that are disabled already built into the current SOC , so there is some die space currently wasted. Would it be feasable that they could activate them in newer units now that yields will be higher or that wasted space from he redundant CUs could be occupied by useable higher density design?

In the Xbox One in particular, there is no shortage of space inside the casing, so realistically would a physically larger chip made at say 20nm be an issue should they want to pick up the pace?

I think if it happens it'll be a very conservative increase. They probably want to keep under the PS4 for market positioning reasons. I got a feeling thought if the w10 stuff doesn't take off then I don't think any plans for aggressive XB1 refreshes will go through.

 

[...Scatter...]

I think if it happens it'll be a very conservative increase. They probably want to keep under the PS4 for market positioning reasons. I got a feeling thought if the w10 stuff doesn't take off then I don't think any plans for aggressive XB1 refreshes will go through.

You mean price right? Not performance.

Well, that's kinda the suffer for me, i need my next gen bell and whistle.

I understand. Pay a lot of money for a rig you want to be blown away.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Yes, expecting such a huge jump in power is likely foolish. Nudging ahead of Ps4 this time and then jumping ahead again a few years after that is how it will happen.

A "few years after that" is 2019-2020, which would put a second upgrade (not: new generation) into the same spot as a potential new PS5, though.

 

[vcc]

You mean price right? Not performance.

Yes Price.

If they do it, it'll be a huge risk. They have to stay under the PS4 in price and do something to current XB1 owners as many of the less dedicated will be burned by these moves.

Exclusives moving to PC and quicker obsolescence.

 

[EvB]

A "few years after that" is 2019-2020, which would put a second upgrade (not: new generation) into the same spot as a potential new PS5, though.

In that situation , you could well have 2 machines that are about equal. Assuming you get a machine every 3 years. If I was Microsoft I would want a new version out in time for Christmas every year. Nintendo have been very successful for the last 15+ years releasing a new handheld every 1.5-2 years

It all depends on how often they plan on doing upgrades, if it is every 12 months, then it will very very quickly push a fluid format ahead of a fixed one.

Again, look at how a certain popular smartphone has improved during the same lifetime as the PS3.
(Please note, this is not a reflection on Apple specifically, rather than the model that most technology products are following, all except games consoles)

If you put aside the console wars, then you can start to see how MS and Sony could actually be concerned about Amazon or Apple or Google entering the console space using the model that is being proposed here.

Across all industries a common phrase that is spoken now is "More change will happen in the next 5 years than the last 50"

 

[gollumsluvslave]

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".

haha! I really hope you are right!!

 

[wapplew]

In that situation , you could well have 2 machines that are about equal. Assuming you get a machine every 3 years. If I was Microsoft I would want a new version out in time for Christmas every year. Nintendo have been very successful for the last 15+ years releasing a new handheld every 1.5-2 years

It all depends on how often they plan on doing upgrades, if it is every 12 months, then it will very very quickly push a fluid format ahead of a fixed one.

Again, look at how a certain popular smartphone has improved during the same lifetime as the PS3.
(Please note, this is not a reflection on Apple specifically, rather than the model that most technology products are following, all except games consoles)

If you put aside the console wars, then you can start to see how MS and Sony could actually be concerned about Amazon or Apple or Google entering the console space using the model that is being proposed here.

Across all industries a common phrase that is spoken now is "More change will happen in the next 5 years than the last 50"

ARM performance growth have nothing to do with x86.
They can archive so much growth because they started low, by the time ARM reach x86 performance, they will face the same slow down.

 

[vcc]

In that situation , you could well have 2 machines that are about equal. Assuming you get a machine every 3 years. If I was Microsoft I would want a new version out in time for Christmas every year. Nintendo have been very successful for the last 15+ years releasing a new handheld every 1.5-2 years

It all depends on how often they plan on doing upgrades, if it is every 12 months, then it will very very quickly push a fluid format ahead of a fixed one.

Again, look at how a certain popular smartphone has improved during the same lifetime as the PS3.
(Please note, this is not a reflection on Apple specifically, rather than the model that most technology products are following, all except games consoles)

If you put aside the console wars, then you can start to see how MS and Sony could actually be concerned about Amazon or Apple or Google entering the console space using the model that is being proposed here.

Across all industries a common phrase that is spoken now is "More change will happen in the next 5 years than the last 50"

Comparison to mobile isn't meaningful. Consoles and PCs hit a plateau with less increase for the med low price point over time. Mobile was still in a exponential phase because they had tighter constraints. Progress there has also slowed.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Two main reasons why incremental upgrades wouldn't work -

1) Console gamers are facile. They want and need things nice, simple, and understandable. Confusing them is a recipe for disaster.

2) AAA games take 2 years plus to make. Devs need hardware they can rely on, not that's constantly changing. On PC it doesn't matter as much because it's down to the end user to ensure they have the right hardware. Not so with consoles, it has to just work.

What does work -

Releasing one great console that everyone wants. Tried and tested.

And for the donuts who keep saying that for $400, they can maybe release a machine on par with a PS4, or very slightly better if they are lucky. This is absolute nonsense of the highest order.

4+ years later, and for the same money, they can release a much more powerful machine, and they will.

 

[onQ123]

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.

If Wii U would have dropped the Gamecube/Wii hardware legacy & went with new tech they would have came out a lot better & adding BC to Xbox One hasn't made it sell any better than it was before.

 

[sense]

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).

lol good one....

the whole point of my original post in this thread was to say how quickly you have changed your mind after having a pretty strong opinion in the other way where you did not for once bring up the possibility of how it could work.

so you are saying within 3 months! phil spencer waved the magic wand and opened your eyes and now you can clearly see how something like this could work.....

you can keep saying it has nothing to do with ms vs sony but so far i don't see anyone interpreting your posts that way except you. it is like being convicted for something with solid proof and you saying i am innocent....

i don't think i need to go any further because we will just be going in circles and me and many in this thread can see you are just in denial and i can see another "No, that's not what i said, I meant...." post

 

[Bgamer90]

Think an upgrade every 4-5 years could work but wouldn't the more powerful system suffer in the long term as games will be primarily built for the lower end consoles?

I said in a previous post that if MS does go through with this then I think we will see the biggest difference in first party exclusives since it will be easier for MS to put their focus into the extra power of the newest model. Third party games will be similar to how one PC can run games a bit better than another.

___________

If Wii U would have dropped the Gamecube/Wii hardware legacy & went with new tech they would have came out a lot better & adding BC to Xbox One hasn't made it sell any better than it was before.

I agree that the Wii U would do better if it had better specs but it's not like Nintendo had to decide between that or backwards compatibility. And again, there's no hard stats that prove what you said is true about the Xbox One. Heck, if anything one could argue that BC did help sales if that person solely focused on the increase in XB1 sales during Holiday 2015 in comparison to Holiday 2014.

Something doesn't have to take a product to the top spot to automatically help its sales. PS3 was still behind the 360 in sales after Sony's rebranding of the product but the changes in how the system was viewed, as well as its interest was definitely evident.


____________

Two main reasons why incremental upgrades wouldn't work -

1) Console gamers are facile. They want and need things nice, simple, and understandable. Confusing them is a recipe for disaster.

As long as there's a new model for nothing less than the time it takes for a slim model to release (around 3-4 years or so) then I don't think many will be confused. Add-ons alongside a new model would confuse people but if it's just "old model vs. new model" with both models playing the same games and the new model not having any exclusive games until 4-5 years later, then I think many will view it in a similar to fashion to how they've viewed "original model vs. slim model" for almost 20 years.

2) AAA games take 2 years plus to make. Devs need hardware they can rely on, not that's constantly changing. On PC it doesn't matter as much because it's down to the end user to ensure they have the right hardware. Not so with consoles, it has to just work.

If there's nothing more than 2 relevant models within a "gaming gen period of time" (i.e. 6-8 years) then I don't think devs would really mind and/or be confused.

What does work -

Releasing one great console that everyone wants. Tried and tested.

But smaller/slimmer models releasing during a gen instead of when a console's successor was on its way out was something that changed during the 2000s in comparison to the 90s. So overall, we've seen "steps" (for lack of a better way to put it) in remodels gaining more importance, features, and interest over time.

And for the donuts who keep saying that for $400, they can maybe release a machine on par with a PS4, or very slightly better if they are lucky. This is absolute nonsense of the highest order.

4+ years later, and for the same money, they can release a much more powerful machine, and they will.

Well that's the thing though -- slim models of consoles last gen were around the same price as the original model, with the difference in the slim model being really nothing more that a better look and size. That (in my opinion) is more "nonsense" than a new, slimmer model that also has extra power being the same price that the older model was before the slim launched.

 

[gamz]

Yes Price.

If they do it, it'll be a huge risk. They have to stay under the PS4 in price and do something to current XB1 owners as many of the less dedicated will be burned by these moves.

Exclusives moving to PC and quicker obsolescence.

Blah. If it's more expense, but more powerful it'll sell.

We also said that nobody is going to buy a 150 dollar controller and it sold better then anyone thought.

 

[Figments]

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.

That seems like an asinine position to take. The Xbox 360 was a resounding success, and now you imply that they can't repeat it? Was that success just a fluke? It makes no sense to think so. The Wii's success was lighting in a bottle, but the 360's? I have a hard time believing that to be the case.

The factors that led into the Xbox 360's success aren't something that can't be repeated for their next box. It's about positioning. Competition may even be closer the next go-around than it was during Gen 7, if Microsoft takes into account lessons learned.

More to the point, Microsoft continued in the console business even after the relative sales failure of the original Xbox--what's to say they won't stick it out for Box #4?

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

If were talking about 'incremental' hardware releases in the 4 - 5 year range, then that's no different than a regular cycle.

The historical average of generation switches has been about 5 years. It's only the last generation which was the anomaly.

I totally agree with that model and believe it's the most optimal. It keeps hardware more or less relevant performance wise, and gives developers the time to release at least 2 or 3 major games per cycle.

Anything shorter than that I believe creates too many problems, both on the development side, and confusion on the consumer side. It's too complicated to work.

The only way I would see it working is via monthly contracts. Microsoft say to consumers -

"Give us $50 a month for the rest of time, and we will give you Live Gold, free games and regular high end hardware for the rest of time".

 

[AncientDiety]

That seems like an asinine position to take. The Xbox 360 was a resounding success, and now you imply that they can't repeat it? Was that success just a fluke? It makes no sense to think so. The Wii's success was lighting in a bottle, but the 360's? I have a hard time believing that to be the case.

The factors that led into the Xbox 360's success aren't something that can't be repeated for their next box. It's about positioning. Competition may even be closer the next go-around than it was during Gen 7, if Microsoft takes into account lessons learned.

More to the point, Microsoft continued in the console business even after the relative sales failure of the original Xbox--what's to say they won't stick it out for Box #4?

It is highly unlikely sony drops the ball and is a year late every again like they did with the PS3.....

 

[Figments]

It is highly unlikely sony drops the ball and is a year late every again like they did with the PS3.....

That's why I said things may be even closer than Gen 7.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.



And

Oh I agree. I even tried showing these quotes for those taking it out of context in the thread that spawned from this, that it was purely hypothetical.

What I am saying, is the games as a service, how the OS is now built on the platform, and the fact they are x86, in which he did mention, can afford them to do so easier. So if let's say MSFT was successful at it (which I do not believe it will work out), then Sony is not unprepared to follow suit as well.

I totally disagree. And speaking as a dev and a gamer, it sounds fucking horrible.

I personally am not a fan, and it does sound too complicated on the consumer/development level. Just playing a devil's advocate side with how a lot of consumers think. We live in a very disposable society now.

It almost feels like, 'we can no longer win, so let's force our new shift/change/standard, or fuck up the industry (muddy the waters) on our way out for the rest, as we jump back in to the PC user-base.' lol

It almost seems like a ploy to force your competitors to 'chase the carrot' of performance, until you bleed them financially dry for trying to keep up.

Blah. If it's more expense, but more powerful it'll sell.

We also said that nobody is going to buy a 150 dollar controller and it sold better then anyone thought.

We do not know how it sold, because there was no numbers released. 5,000? Sold 10,000 when we expected only 3,000? Where are these 'numbers'?

And you are comparing a niche item which was not made to be mainstream, as a barometer for console upgrades and pricing and selling? They are happy with the sales, because they did not have a mainstream expectation with it.

Tell me more how well the $500 Xbox One sold, as well as the $600 PS3?

Just because it is 'more power' does not mean it 'will sell' if it is expensive, lol.

 

[AncientDiety]

People are already going way over board with this...it's not going to run games in 4k or support rift and occulus (Like some said in this thread)....Keep expectations in check. It's not going to change anything much in the grand scheme of things. A more expensive box thats more powerfull would be niche at this point in the gen, with only the most hardcore going for it.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

It is highly unlikely sony drops the ball and is a year late every again like they did with the PS3.....

Actually it isn't.

Microsoft clearly want to move on from the XB1 sooner rather than later. Whereas Sony are doing great with the PS4, and they have PSVR to keep interest in their platform for several more years to come.

It's very possible that Microsoft have new hardware on the market before Sony. That doesn't mean Sony have "dropped the ball", just that both companies current needs are different.

 

[AncientDiety]

Actually it isn't.

Microsoft clearly want to move on from the XB1 sooner rather than later. Whereas Sony are doing great with the PS4, and they have PSVR to keep interest in their platform for several more years to come.

It's very possible that Microsoft have new hardware on the market before Sony. That doesn't mean Sony have "dropped the ball", just that both companies current needs are different.

Disagree.....sony will not let MS get a big jump ahead ever again..PS4 will continue to sell even if new hardware drops. Neither can just start a new gen when they want, publishers need to be on board, jumping too early could do even more damage to xbox, not help. it's not as easy as some think to just drop new hardware. The hardware and manufacturing need to be there to produce as well.

 

[wapplew]

People are already going way over board with this...it's not going to run games in 4k or support rift and occulus (Like some said in this thread)....Keep expectations in check. It's not going to change anything much in the grand scheme of things. A more expensive box thats more powerfull would be niche at this point in the gen, with only the most hardcore going for it.

If they go cheap, the upgrade won't be significant; if they go expensive it will get burried by 299 PS4.
Either way, I think it will be a enthusiast product.

 

[wonderful103]

People discussing generations... This 8th one is likely the last traditional generation. Going forward it's probably going to be a forward compatible model replacement every x number of years for everyone left in the market, much as with the mobile model but nowhere near as aggressive. App support lasts similar to what used to be generational length. There is no confusion in the same way that nobody's confused about their iPhone apps and how long they work and on which iOS version your phone can support. You go to the store and buy whatever's on the shelf at the time and you're happy.

 

[Bgamer90]

lol good one....

the whole point of my original post in this thread was to say how quickly you have changed your mind after having a pretty strong opinion in the other way where you did not for once bring up the possibility of how it could work.

But you are (again) taking my points of of context. The idea of a better PS4 was brought up in that thread for VR gaming. I still to this day don't think a better PS4 solely for VR would be viewed by many with open arms since people interested in VR already have the set idea that all they need is PSVR (add-on) to get the full current gen PS4 VR experience -- not another model of the PS4 too. And on the flip side, PS4 owners who are not interested in VR wouldn't be excited about the new model if it was only pushed in that fashion.

I said shortly after that in that same thread that a plan like this would have to be introduced at first as a "PS4 slim" since most consumers are already used to slims releasing 3-4 years later but I guess you missed that post in that thread (or simply chose to ignore it). I also said that a company shouldn't push things about a new model too much to the point in which people with the old model will feel screwed over. A new model having exclusive games from the get-go would definitely cause people to think that. Hence, why all three companies stating more plans for gaming compatibility and services across various devices this year has changed my views a bit about a plan like this working.

so you are saying within 3 months! phil spencer waved the magic wand and opened your eyes and now you can clearly see how something like this could work.....

Not just "Phil Spencer". All companies have stated more information for their compatibility plans and/or ecosystems. We've seen Sony release more PS2 classics and change their pricing plans for services such as PlayStation Now as well as PlayStation Vue. We've seen Nintendo begin their steps in setting up their account system (registration). As long as there's a lot of compatibility between two models in terms of games and features, and no add-ons (something you said in that old thread) to confuse users then I think this model could work as long as it's pushed in a similar fashion to what consumers are used to already with "original vs. slim". I (again) did say back then that a plan like this would have to be introduced at first as a "typical slim".

you can keep saying it has nothing to do with ms vs sony but so far i don't see anyone interpreting your posts that way except you. it is like being convicted for something with solid proof and you saying i am innocent....

You say "don't see anyone" as if everyone is posting in this thread in your fashion. I've explained myself but it's obvious that nothing is going to change how you feel -- especially as you are taking my explanation and summing it up in one or two sentences and are only focusing on what I'm saying towards you about the reasons why you are doing this. I don't really understand why you are wasting your time at this point. Your purpose for being in this thread right now isn't for an actual discussion.

i don't think i need to go any further because we will just be going in circles and me and many in this thread can see you are just in denial and i can see another "No, that's not what i said, I meant...." post

Okay... Then don't? "Me and many in this thread..." is your opinion --- an opinion that probably wouldn't have changed no matter what I said because you have a history of doing this with my posts. So yes, thanks for moving the thread in a direction to make it about what posters said or didn't say during different periods of times with different pieces of information known instead of what this thread was made to discuss. ::thumbs up::

 

[Bgamer90]

The only way I would see it working is via monthly contracts. Microsoft say to consumers -

"Give us $50 a month for the rest of time, and we will give you Live Gold, free games and regular high end hardware for the rest of time".

MS had a contract model last gen with the $99 Xbox 360. While I'm sure they did that with the idea of testing whether or not it will work during this current gen, I'm also currently wondering if they tested it out due to them toying around the idea of releasing an "Xbox One.5" too.

__________

If they go cheap, the upgrade won't be significant; if they go expensive it will get burried by 299 PS4.
Either way, I think it will be a enthusiast product.

Sony will be pushing the PS4 alongside PSVR soon so I don't think price would be a huge problem as long as the model isn't anything above $399. I do agree with you that a new model would be an enthusiast product, hence why I think MS should make sure that original Xbox One owners don't miss out on any gaming content or only get supported for a shorter amount of time than the average length of a gaming generation; The original Xbox One should still be sold alongside an "Xbox One.5" for 3-4 years as a cheaper model that can play the same games in my opinion.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Disagree.....sony will not let MS get a big jump ahead ever again..

If Microsoft want to release new hardware as early as next year, then they can. Sony don't have a say in it?

PS4 will continue to sell even if new hardware drops.

Agree, though a new, better console on the market has the potential to stunt it's sales.

Neither can just start a new gen when they want, publishers need to be on board

Publishers would be on board. We aren't talking about a mega upgrade here. Multi platform games are already made with much higher specs in mind for the PC versions. It would just be a role reversal where the Xbox now gets the best console versions.

jumping too early could do even more damage to xbox, not help.

True. Although they already messed up with the Xbox One. They would be doing this to right those wrongs. Create a new console that a majority of people actually want.

it's not as easy as some think to just drop new hardware. The hardware and manufacturing need to be there to produce as well.

The hardware is available, especially from next year onwards. Both the PS4 and XB1 launched with conservative specs back in 2013. It would not be hard to top that 4 years later. 14nm APU's will be available next year.

People are already going way over board with this...it's not going to run games in 4k or support rift and occulus (Like some said in this thread)....Keep expectations in check. It's not going to change anything much in the grand scheme of things. A more expensive box thats more powerfull would be niche at this point in the gen, with only the most hardcore going for it.

I think some people are vastly underestimating just what a new console could do. This wouldn't be some niche product. They would effectively be starting a new generation.

In holiday 2017, for $400 break even at launch, I would say we could see a system something like -

Small CPU improvement, 3 to 4 tereflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5 or HBM equivalent. Maybe inclusion of ESRAM for legacy support. APU on a 14nm process.

That's hardly mind blowing and certainly doable. It wouldn't be doing 4K games or anything silly like that. Just a meaningful upgrade and a clear improvement over a PS4.

VR is a big new market that's just about to start. It would be obvious to come along for the ride. Probably not with their own headset, but likely via partnership with Oculus.

They would be marketing it for -

Current XB1 owners to upgrade
As yet to buy next gen console owners
Getting some PS4 owners to switch

They aren't going to release a minor upgraded Xbox One 4 years later. It would be a complete waste of time. If they are doing it they will go all out. Anything else is pointless and makes no sense.

 

[AncientDiety]

If Microsoft want to release new hardware as early as next year, then they can. Sony don't have a say in it?



Agree, though a new, better console on the market has the potential to stunt it's sales.



Publishers would be on board. We aren't talking about a mega upgrade here. Multi platform games are already made with much higher specs in mind for the PC versions. It would just be a role reversal where the Xbox now gets the best console versions.



True. Although they already messed up with the Xbox One. They would be doing this to right those wrongs. Create a new console that a majority of people actually want.



The hardware is available, especially from next year onwards. Both the PS4 and XB1 launched with conservative specs back in 2013. It would not be hard to top that 4 years later. 14nm APU's will be available next year.



I think some people are vastly underestimating just what a new console could do. This wouldn't be some niche product. They would effectively be starting a new generation.

In holiday 2017, for $400 break even at launch, I would say we could see a system something like -

Small CPU improvement, 3 to 4 tereflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5 or HBM equivalent. Maybe inclusion of ESRAM for legacy support. APU on a 14nm process.

That's hardly mind blowing and certainly doable. It wouldn't be doing 4K games or anything silly like that. Just a meaningful upgrade and a clear improvement over a PS4.

VR is a big new market that's just about to start. It would be obvious to come along for the ride. Probably not with their own headset, but likely via partnership with Oculus.

They would be marketing it for -

Current XB1 owners to upgrade
As yet to buy next gen console owners
Getting some PS4 owners to switch

They aren't going to release a minor upgraded Xbox One. It would be a complete waste of time. If they are doing it they will go all out. Anything else is pointless and makes no sense.

You don't know if publishers would be on board... Both sony and MS use the same architecture now, once it is available sony will move as soon as it is known MS is moving to make new hardware, they know when the other is making new hardware. A more expensive xbox would not stunt ps4 sales no more then xbox did ps2's.

 

[onQ123]

I agree that the Wii U would do better if it had better specs but it's not like Nintendo had to decide between that or backwards compatibility. And again, there's no hard stats that prove what you said is true about the Xbox One. Heck, if anything one could argue that BC did help sales if that person solely focused on the increase in XB1 sales during Holiday 2015 in comparison to Holiday 2014.

Something doesn't have to take a product to the top spot to automatically help its sales. PS3 was still behind the 360 in sales after Sony's rebranding of the product but the changes in how the system was viewed, as well as its interest was definitely evident.

The sells are lower after Christmas even at $299 & while having Halo 5 , Forza 6 , Rise of Tomb Raider & so on release just a few months ago so no BC has not made much of a difference for Xbox One.'

Nintendo would have easily got better specs & at a cheaper price if they would have went with new tech that wasn't connected to Gamecube/Wii. Look at the price of the Wii U now compared to the PS4 & Xbox One, they are all around the same price now but PS4 is about 10X more powerful than the Wii U.

 

[Bgamer90]

The sells are lower after Christmas even at $299 & while having Halo 5 , Forza 6 , Rise of Tomb Raider & so on release just a few months ago so no BC has not made much of a difference for Xbox One.'

But again, we don't know if sales would be even lower without BC -- hence why we can't come to the conclusion that BC hasn't helped sales without actual stats involving the feature.

 

[CrispyBoar]

Nintendo would have easily got better specs & at a cheaper price if they would have went with new tech that wasn't connected to Gamecube/Wii. Look at the price of the Wii U now compared to the PS4 & Xbox One, they are all around the same price now but PS4 is about 10X more powerful than the Wii U.

Thankfully, Nintendo have just now woken up about it with their next upcoming console. They're getting rid of everything being associated with GameCube, Wii, & Wii U when it comes to the NX altogether.

And with the kind of powerful technology being cheaper nowadays, we can assume that it'll either be as powerful as the Xbox One or the PS4 (or surpass the PS4 even).

 

[AncientDiety]

I hope both sony and MS go this route in the future, with games working on either system but scale depending on the hardware you have.

 

[Bgamer90]

They would be marketing it for -

Current XB1 owners to upgrade
As yet to buy next gen console owners
Getting some PS4 owners to switch

They aren't going to release a minor upgraded Xbox One 4 years later. It would be a complete waste of time. If they are doing it they will go all out. Anything else is pointless and makes no sense.

What would you consider to be a "minor" or "major" upgrade?

If each Xbox model is planned to last 7-8 years under a "new Xbox every 3-4 years"-plan, then MS would definitely have to make sure that an Xbox model would be able to keep up in terms of still getting game support for people who want a cheaper option when that particular model isn't the best model anymore.

However, they will also need to scale things back a bit so that there's game compatibility between the two relevant models so people will feel like they aren't being "screwed over". There definitely has to be a balance.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I hope both sony and MS go this route in the future, with games working on either system but scale depending on the hardware you have.

My concern is we have games struggling more often than not (performance wise) with a fixed system now... imagine another 2 tossed in the mix.

 

[wapplew]

I think some people are vastly underestimating just what a new console could do. This wouldn't be some niche product. They would effectively be starting a new generation.

In holiday 2017, for $400 break even at launch, I would say we could see a system something like -

Small CPU improvement, 3 to 4 tereflop GPU, 8GB GDDR5 or HBM equivalent. Maybe inclusion of ESRAM for legacy support. APU on a 14nm process.

That's hardly mind blowing and certainly doable. It wouldn't be doing 4K games or anything silly like that. Just a meaningful upgrade and a clear improvement over a PS4.

VR is a big new market that's just about to start. It would be obvious to come along for the ride. Probably not with their own headset, but likely via partnership with Oculus.

They would be marketing it for -

Current XB1 owners to upgrade
As yet to buy next gen console owners
Getting some PS4 owners to switch

They aren't going to release a minor upgraded Xbox One 4 years later. It would be a complete waste of time. If they are doing it they will go all out. Anything else is pointless and makes no sense.

But what's the hook? Play cross gen game that run a little better?
It won't have any exclusive, hardware is predictable without any surprise element or excitement; developers will target PS4 because install base,
By that time PS4 will be $249, their exclusive just starting to peak, PS5 with full BC is a year or two away, PS4 owner won't switch, casual will pick up the cheaper console,
plus Xbox one owner will have second thoughts on any new Xbox from now on.

It's an uphill battle

 

[onQ123]

But again, we don't know if sales would be even lower without BC -- hence why we can't come to the conclusion that BC hasn't helped sales without actual stats involving the feature.

Please stop. lol

That BC hasn't done nothing for Xbox One sales all it did was give hardcore fans something to use in their online arguments. it's nice to have but it's not a deal breaker & if it come down to it people will jump to a much powerful PS5 with new tech & a big change from the PS4 a lot faster than they will go out & get a Xbox One 3.0 that only play Xbox One games better.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

What would you consider to be a "minor" or "major" upgrade?

If each Xbox model is planned to last 7-8 years under a "new Xbox every 3-4 years"-plan, then MS would definitely have to make sure that an Xbox model would be able to keep up in terms of still getting game support for people who want a cheaper option when that particular model isn't the best model anymore.

However, they will also need to scale things back a bit so that there's game compatibility between the two relevant models so people will feel like they aren't being "screwed over". There definitely has to be a balance.

Well, modern graphics computing performance is measured in multiple teraflops, not a few hundred gigaflops.

The XB1 now is what, 1.4 teraflops? So I would say a minor upgrade would be anything up to 2.5 teraflops. Anything above that would be approaching a 'major' upgrade. A now fairly run of the mill PC GPU is 5 teraflops plus.

I think too much is being read into this backward - forward compatibility stuff. They will just give a new console that still plays Xbox One games.

The Xbox One has essentially been a disaster for them. I would think that once the new model is out, they will want people to forget the XB1 as soon as possible, and move on to the much better machine..

I don't see a scenario where Microsoft are actively giving full support to 2 consoles, beyond an initial transitional period of a year or so.

But what's the hook? Play cross gen game that run a little better?
It won't have any exclusive, hardware is predictable without any surprise element or excitement; developers will target PS4 because install base,
By that time PS4 will be $249, their exclusive just starting to peak, PS5 with full BC is a year or two away, PS4 owner won't switch, casual will pick up the cheaper console,
plus Xbox one owner will have second thoughts on any new Xbox from now on.

It's an uphill battle

The hook is that they release a next gen console before Sony.

 

[heidern]

Nintendo would have easily got better specs & at a cheaper price if they would have went with new tech that wasn't connected to Gamecube/Wii. Look at the price of the Wii U now compared to the PS4 & Xbox One, they are all around the same price now but PS4 is about 10X more powerful than the Wii U.

The better specs would have meant longer development times and thus potentially a release list that was even worse, meaning potentially even worse sales than the Wii U that we have.

In terms of upgrade model vs traditional console generations, a key reason for the long console generations was that technology was changing rapidly. Incrementally upgrading from SNES through to N64 wasn't viable both in terms of hardware and software development. N64 games had no chance of being playable on SNES.

However that has now changed and technology has matured and everything is converging. The PS4 launch games had versions available on PS3. Incremental upgrades would now be seamless. The SDKs are now becoming cross-platform and cross-generation and so games can just work with minimal porting time. The optimum may be the proven console generations, but it is a competitive market and MS/Nintendo have the incentive to switch to the upgrade model to get an advantage over Sony which would in turn force Sony to switch to the upgrade model.

 

[Figments]

But what's the hook? Play cross gen game that run a little better?
It won't have any exclusive, hardware is predictable without any surprise element or excitement; developers will target PS4 because install base,
By that time PS4 will be $249, their exclusive just starting to peak, PS5 with full BC is a year or two away, PS4 owner won't switch, casual will pick up the cheaper console,
plus Xbox one owner will have second thoughts on any new Xbox from now on.

It's an uphill battle

Why do people keep saying this?

There wouldn't be any cross-gen games on the system that's been proposed, because cross-gen implies two different versions of the same fucking thing. If the devs want to waste their money on an upgraded version, then by all means, they can waste however much money they want to.

They don't have to, though. That's the point of backwards and forwards compatible systems. Eliminate cross-gen from your vocabulary when dealing with this, please, because all that does is make things nonsensical and incredibly off-base with how it would actually work.

Well, modern graphics computing performance is measured in multiple teraflops, not a few hundred gigaflops.

The XB1 now is what, 1.4 teraflops? So I would say a minor upgrade would be anything up to 2.5 teraflops. Anything above that would be approaching a 'major' upgrade.

I think too much is being read into this backward - forward compatibility stuff. They will just give a new console that still plays Xbox One games.

The Xbox One has essentially been a disaster for them. I would think that once the new model is out, they will want people to forget the XB1 as soon as possible, and move on to the much better machine..

I don't see a scenario where Microsoft are actively giving full support to 2 consoles, beyond an initial transitional period of a year or so.

How is it a disaster? Because they're in second place?

IIRC, they're still making money with each box sold. If they're generating revenue, how on Earth is that a disaster?

 

[CrispyBoar]

The hook is that they release a next gen console before Sony.

Which in most cases in the past, doesn't exactly prove that they'll win the generation.

And Sony will most likely make PS5 even more powerful than the next Xbox.

 

[Bgamer90]

Well, modern graphics computing performance is measured in multiple teraflops, not a few hundred gigaflops.

The XB1 now is what, 1.4 teraflops? So I would say a minor upgrade would be anything up to 2.5 teraflops. Anything above that would be approaching a 'major' upgrade.

I think too much is being read into this backward - forward compatibility stuff. They will just give a new console that still plays Xbox One games.

The Xbox One has essentially been a disaster for them. I would think that once the new model is out, they will want people to forget the XB1 as soon as possible, and move on to the much better machine..

I don't see a scenario where Microsoft are actively giving full support to 2 consoles, beyond an initial transitional period of a year or so.

I really don't think they want people to forget about the Xbox One considering they still have games and features planned for the console up until at least 2017. I just think they will target the (original) Xbox One as a cheaper option for gamers who are more casual -- similar to what we saw Nintendo do with the NES during the early '90s or what we saw Sony do with the "PSone" during the early 2000s.

The thing that's different now in comparison to back then though is digital ecosystems which thus makes games easily compatible and playable across devices. Hence, why I feel the chance of all three companies giving support between two different models is far greater than them not doing it at all.

 

[AncientDiety]

Well, modern graphics computing performance is measured in multiple teraflops, not a few hundred gigaflops.

The XB1 now is what, 1.4 teraflops? So I would say a minor upgrade would be anything up to 2.5 teraflops. Anything above that would be approaching a 'major' upgrade.

I think too much is being read into this backward - forward compatibility stuff. They will just give a new console that still plays Xbox One games.

The Xbox One has essentially been a disaster for them. I would think that once the new model is out, they will want people to forget the XB1 as soon as possible, and move on to the much better machine..

I don't see a scenario where Microsoft are actively giving full support to 2 consoles, beyond an initial transitional period of a year or so.



The hook is that they release a next gen console before Sony.

MS doesn't control Sony, nor will launching first help this...it worked last gen because ps3 was a colossal failure at launch and way more expensive.

 

[wapplew]

Why do people keep saying this?

There wouldn't be any cross-gen games on the system that's been proposed, because cross-gen implies two different versions of the same fucking thing. If the devs want to waste their money on an upgraded version, then by all means, they can waste however much money they want to.

They don't have to, though. That's the point of backwards and forwards compatible systems. Eliminate cross-gen from your vocabulary when dealing with this, please, because all that does is make things nonsensical and incredibly off-base with how it would actually work.

Ok, no cross gen, just same game with no different what so ever? Why upgrade the machine then?

 

[onQ123]

The better specs would have meant longer development times and thus potentially a release list that was even worse, meaning potentially even worse sales than the Wii U that we have.

In terms of upgrade model vs traditional console generations, a key reason for the long console generations was that technology was changing rapidly. Incrementally upgrading from SNES through to N64 wasn't viable both in terms of hardware and software development. N64 games had no chance of being playable on SNES.

However that has now changed and technology has matured and everything is converging. The PS4 launch games had versions available on PS3. Incremental upgrades would now be seamless. The SDKs are now becoming cross-platform and cross-generation and so games can just work with minimal porting time. The optimum may be the proven console generations, but it is a competitive market and MS/Nintendo have the incentive to switch to the upgrade model to get an advantage over Sony which would in turn force Sony to switch to the upgrade model.

No they could have used new tech that's easier to dev for like everyone else did & they wouldn't have to have PS4 level tech it could have been 2X as powerful as the Wii U that they released & the price would have dropped a lot faster than what's happening now with the Wii U being stuck at around $300 with weak old tech that's not getting much cheaper.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

How is it a disaster? Because they're in second place?

IIRC, they're still making money with each box sold. If they're generating revenue, how on Earth is that a disaster?

Did you not see the lead up to launch and beyond, all the negativity?

Have you not seen how they have essentially lost half their market share?

A product does not need to completely bomb for it to be a failure.

Which in most cases in the past, doesn't exactly prove that they'll win the generation.

I never said it did. However Microsoft ended last gen with a roughly equal market share to Sony. They have squandered that with the Xbox One.

The Xbox One is not going to magically start gaining ground and they know that. With a new console though they have a chance to wipe the slate clean and start again. Then who knows, anything can happen.

MS doesn't control Sony, nor will launching first help this...it worked last gen because ps3 was a colossal failure at launch and way more expensive.

I never said they did. In fact it was you who implied that Sony have some control over MS by "no letting them"(lol) release new hardware before them.

Anything can happen with a generational change. Nobody can say how successful something will be. It could bomb. It might not.

The fact of the matter is the XB1 has been a huge misstep for them. There's no coming back to a 360 level of success and they know that. They have to do something if their aim is to not only stay in this business, but be one of the leaders.

Also as I've said before. Nintendo are basically doing the same thing. So it's not like they would be the odd one out.

 

[Figments]

Ok, no cross gen, just same game with no different what so ever? Why upgrade the machine then?

The difference is in the performance of the game. Higher resolution + better framerate.

These alone are not sufficient enough to get people to upgrade, but by retaining the idea that new console hardware needs to be completely different is a bit strange in this proposed setup.

Suddenly the idea of upgrading shifts from completely deserting the previous platform to getting upgrades in performance and resolution on your existing collection while still being able to get games built for the new hardware when the original hardware gets dropped years after launch.

You're looking at a marketing shift from "Look at all these exclusives" to "Look how big your library can get and will continue to get without having to resort to keeping old hardware around."

You'll continue to get new games without having to pretend that last gen didn't happen and that this gen is totally different and a completely new experience, when the reality is that Gen 7 basically set the standard for what people expect in a console in terms of software featureset.

But sure, let's keep pretending the standards didn't happen, complain when the new consoles don't even live up to those standards at launch, and continue ad infinitum with the whole charade that the generations are somehow different anymore.

TL;DR: The answer to your question about why someone should or shouldn't upgrade is no longer dependent on much of the same factors current consoles are, within this proposed setup. Once games start requiring the new hardware, then people will upgrade regardless, but once again within this system, that reality wouldn't happen for years.

Did you not see the lead up to launch and beyond, all the negativity?

Have you not seen how they have essentially lost half their market share?

A product does not need to completely bomb for it to be a failure.

You and I have different gauges for success, then.

 

[Bgamer90]

Please stop. lol

That BC hasn't done nothing for Xbox One sales all it did was give hardcore fans something to use in their online arguments. it's nice to have but it's not a deal breaker & if it come down to it people will jump to a much powerful PS5 with new tech & a big change from the PS4 a lot faster than they will go out & get a Xbox One 3.0 that only play Xbox One games better.

Again, you can not make a conclusion to this point without any proof for what percentage of current Xbox One sales came from people interested in BC. I don't understand why you can't see that or how stating that is "wrong".

________

But what's the hook? Play cross gen game that run a little better?

Well first of all, the games wouldn't be cross gen if we are talking about compatibility and games scaling based on whatever relevant platform someone is playing on.

Second, couldn't someone have made an argument like this for current gen consoles -- especially back during 2013-2014 when many games were cross gen anyway and therefore didn't show really HUGE improvements in comparison to exclusives? I don't see what would be the difference.

It won't have any exclusive, hardware is predictable without any surprise element or excitement; developers will target PS4 because install base,

And it will more than likely be easier to put a PS4 version of a game on to a system that's more powerful than the PS4 vs. doing so on a system that's weaker (Xbox One).

By that time PS4 will be $249, their exclusive just starting to peak, PS5 with full BC is a year or two away, PS4 owner won't switch, casual will pick up the cheaper console,
plus Xbox one owner will have second thoughts on any new Xbox from now on.

It's an uphill battle

I really wouldn't make this conclusion. We saw early on in the gen that there are some console gamers that care about being able to play third party games with the best visuals within the console space.

Many Xbox One owners are expecting at least a new, slim Xbox One anyway so if MS were to do this and brand a new model as a "slim" then I don't think there would be much backlash from people who owned the system for more than a year.