-
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
wapplew
Member
See, the only problem I got in this incremental upgrade is forward compatible.
By promising forward compatible on your old console mean all the game on your new console is just better performance old console game.
Same architecture all that jazz is great, full backward compatible is super,
just don't give me forward compatible because you release new machine too soon and scare to piss off the early adopters.
I just don't want the new machine get holding back by old machine and never live up to its full potential.
5 years gen is fine, just cut off the old gen, if developers want to aim for bigger market, fine, just do cross gen port like we always do.
It'll be much easier because of same architecture.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
You think Microsoft are perfectly happy with the XB1 and it's position in the market?
Where? If anything, Nintendo's huge drop has caused the percentage of current gen MS consoles sold to be similar to the percentage it was at last gen with the 360 (around 30% I believe).
It's definitely obvious that the Xbox One could have been very dominant in the markets in which the Xbox 360 dominated if MS didn't make its pre-launch mistakes based on that previous fact though (again, Nintendo's huge drop).
Wii U is the only true "current gen failure" in my opinion.
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
MS need to have full publisher support behind the new hardware ie updates to current games that fully utilise the new power. I see this as their biggest barrier to launch.
Hardware is not an issue for MS, they have more than enough clout to get it out when they need. It's the price that would be a deciding factor.
Hardware is not an issue for MS, they have more than enough clout to get it out when they need. It's the price that would be a deciding factor.
Personal preference, your mileage may vary, et cetera.
I've never been personally invested in the resolution/framerate wars, and don't care much about performance unless the game or games in question run like ass, so the forwards-backwards compatible issue doesn't really bother me much.
Whatever floats your boat, is all that needs to be said at this point in the argument, because it really comes down to that after misconceptions and miscommunications are cleared up, I think.
If they are or not, it's their prerogative. If I was making money on a second-place box, I'd call that a success.
So show me the big change in Xbox One sells after BC was added? PS4 sells went up a lot more than Xbox One after the BC was added to the Xbox One so show me where BC made a difference with people buying a console?
You can't!
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Please, if Microsoft had not made huge mistakes with the XB1, I would wager that they would now be enjoying roughly equal market share with Sony.
With Xbox once again leading in North America and probably the UK, and Sony getting the lions share of the rest of the world.
Their current reality is far from that.
Multi platform games already cater to much higher specifications due to the PC versions. It would 'simply' be the case of giving the nextBox high / very high settings, and the PS4 medium settings.
Overly simplified of course but no major problem.
To be fair other poster, neither side of this argument has the actual numbers to prove who's right or who's wrong, because Microsoft doesn't release those numbers. So this segment of the debate is a bit strange, I think.
Again, if you can't see the flaw in saying that a feature/change doesn't help the sales of product in anyway if that feature/change being added doesn't instantly send that product to the #1 spot then I don't see what else can be said.
I guess you thought the rebranding of the PS3 last gen "did nothing" in America too then considering the 360 still did better in NPD right? It's a flawed way to look at this. There's no hard proof to come to a detailed conclusion about what BC has done to sales yet.
TeddyShardik
Banned
By "not being replaced" does he mean I can buy a new gfx card or some more ram for the next xbox? (I doubt he's talking about the Xbone here)
Otherwise I don't see people spending 300 minimum every 1-2 years.
Revisions are replacements, not upgrades in my understanding.
Otherwise I don't see people spending 300 minimum every 1-2 years.
Revisions are replacements, not upgrades in my understanding.
I don't understand your need in saying "please" -- I said in the post you quoted that things would obviously be better for the system if MS didn't make its pre-launch mistakes.
Yes, and I implied this in my post so I don't see what you are getting at. All I did was say that the percentage of MS consoles sold this gen is similar to what the percentage was last gen due to Nintendo's huge drop from Wii to Wii U -- therefore, MS didn't really lose a huge percentage of current gen console marketshare this gen in comparison to last.
If BC made a difference in what console people buy it would have showed.
We can play dumb & say we don't know because MS hasn't showed the numbers but it's clear that it didn't make a difference.
That's not "playing dumb" -- it's simply waiting to make a conclusion based on proof and stats over time instead of "not (instantly) first place".
-Amon-
Member
If this hardware upgrade thing is true I guess we'll see MS out of the console space in no time.
Which is good, at least for me. I guess Nintendo will have a solid chance to bounce back.
Let's hope pc gamers will keep them in their place too.
Which means build the os, but not owning the whole business.
Which is good, at least for me. I guess Nintendo will have a solid chance to bounce back.
Let's hope pc gamers will keep them in their place too.
Which means build the os, but not owning the whole business.
Are you saying BC didn't make a difference in this particular case, or it doesn't make a difference in general?
Because BC is one of the best features about PC gaming, and if Xbox gets infinite BC from now on, that's a massive checkbox for the brand.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
So they have failed. They had an opportunity to increase their market share over the previous generation and have completely squandered it.
Your post sounded as if everything is still roses over at Xbox. They might have sold a similar amount of XB1's as they did 360 in a similar time frame, but that doesn't paint the whole picture.
Hold up! I showed you that through history BC didn't make a difference with which console sold better & that BC hasn't changed things for Xbox One & you tried to dispute that but you can't show me anything that says other wise but now you want some proof that it didn't change things? the proof is that you didn't see the sells go up when they added BC .
From all the examples we know; in the console space it doesn't make a difference to sales in general it seems. the bulk of the market doesn't care.
The reference to cell phones could mean a subscription model, only for console hardware?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. People want new games. Only the hardcore, collectors, OCD hoarders, etc want this feature (meaning they talk it up bigger than it really truly is), but barely use it. It is the collection fetish not unlike that of wanting more storage for a lot of items that will never be used again in loot centric games (Destiny/Diablo/MMOs/etc).
Yes, I want my games to be forward compatible, etc, and yes I welcome one constant growing library in one place without having to 're-buy' the same software (like I have been enjoying on the PC), but with the constant growing backlogs, etc, it is very rare that one goes back often to play older shit (like my Steam account would show, tons of unplayed years old games). Not in the mass appeal scenario that the market is structured.
Most games are treated like sports games now. Out with the old, in with the new.
Well maybe it prevented them from having sales go way down.
wapplew
Member
Then there is problem to generate excitement.
On phone or tablet side, there are plenty reasons for annual upgrade
Better screen, better camera, 40-50% performance boost per year, lighter, added features like finger print scanner, NFC etc
How do you emulate similar excitement on console? 15-20% performance boost every 2 years? Maybe Look cooler and that it.
On phone or tablet side, there are plenty reasons for annual upgrade
Better screen, better camera, 40-50% performance boost per year, lighter, added features like finger print scanner, NFC etc
How do you emulate similar excitement on console? 15-20% performance boost every 2 years? Maybe Look cooler and that it.
Eh, I wouldn't say this at all. There are causal gamers who missed out on last gen games due to being more casual that are interested in BC too.
I don't understand why we can't avoid making huge conclusions about this.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The number is much smaller than you seem to care to admit. New games drive the industry forward, and most people are talking about the next new CoD, not the one they missed out on a generation or two ago.
So you're saying console owners whose games are more expensive than PC somehow care less about keeping their library?
One of the few great, consumer-oriented things Microsoft has done about the XBO this generation, of course you'll have people try to downplay it. Amazing.
When the whole crowd exploded at the announcement like they did with FF7 R, was that faked by Microsoft or something?
What if they lure all of the 360 owner holdouts into new more powerful XB1; or lure them with a cheaper base model XB1? Either way, they get people on board. I waited a while to get my XB1, but I would have no problem with this business model for consoles. This isn't the old days of proprietary hardware/software. XB1 and PS4 are both PC-based now, so implementing this model is very doable for both of companies.
You say this as if I stated that a console having BC or not is "make or break" as to whether or not a console will be a success. I never did that.
You also (on purpose?) left out the PS2. Should I have brought up that system then?
All I did was say that there's no hard proof right now as to whether or not BC has helped Xbox One sales. My response to you in this thread would have been similar to someone saying that BC was the main reason for Holiday 2015 sales Xbox One to be better than Holiday 2014 Xbox One sales. There's simply not enough proof to state these in-depth conclusions.
But they added BC in November 2015 and sales did go up then. I agree that it was for more reasons outside of BC but my overall point is that we can't make conclusions about how much BC has helped the Xbox One yet. That's all.
Because the data points to huge conclusions about this. Enthusiasts say they care. use it a little. The game market in general doesn't.
I don't "care to admit" a number since I don't know the number. I never said that it was a feature that was as a big as a console playing new games either so I don't really know why some of your are responding to many posts in this fashion.
Heh -- again I agree. I never said otherwise. All I did was simply say that there's people who are interested in BC and that there's no hard proof as to how much BC has helped current Xbox One sales yet.
What I'm saying is the bulk people who buy consoles have not seemed to care if one has BC or not. Great successes have both had it and not had it. Which is evident with any and all sales data we have on multiple generations.
I think the point is that shifting to a model like this would give them a lot more market flexibility. Improved performance is just one aspect. Other things like VR, DVR capability etc would be a selling point for many people. Plus, iterative designs are cheaper all around, than r&d'ing for one console to last them 7-10 yrs.
CrispyBoar
Banned
It wasn't exactly BC with PS1 games that made PS2 sold well; It was because of the DVD player inside of the console along with the tons of great games in which were exclusive to PS2 that sold it (especially when at the time that the PS2 had been released, there were far less people owning a DVD player due to it being new).
BC with PS1 games were just a bonus.
AncientDiety
Banned
Sony will counter anything MS does...period.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That is fair.
It don't make much difference because most people grow attached to the console they bought so they don't just toss their old console when a new one comes out so BC don't make that much of a difference for the masses because they will be getting the new console for what's new & not for what they already have at home.
You're only talking about the generation after. What about two generations after, three? What if it breaks? What if you want to have everything on the most current console, so you can use the new controller and have new features like snap or HDMI In?
Come on, man.
Edit: not to mention that if they use UWP, they can render old games at new resolutions so you get to play BC games at 4K or 8K when that happens.
I don't think it's that simple. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Sony will try and have something oriented to hardware for some things MS may do. But they don't have the resources to go dollar for dollar is MS had the internal will to spend. Which MS Doesn't at the moment.
AncientDiety
Banned
Saying that it's only enthusiasts who care about compatibility is definitely a faulty conclusion. I wouldn't group (say,) all parents who ask "does this play the old games?"-questions in retail stores before buying their kids a new console as being enthusiasts.
Some people simply want to play what they missed out on and/or games that they had last gen on their new system on top of new titles too. I never stated that a feature like this is "make or break" for whether or not a console will do well since it's not. All I did was say that we don't know how sales would have been for "non #1 consoles" that have BC if they didn't have BC. Therefore, I don't see how a person can say that BC does "absolutely nothing".
And heck, if it was true that compatibility "does nothing" then we currently wouldn't see every console maker go deeply into making features on their current or future consoles for that purpose.
__________
Yeah, definitely agree that the PS2 having DVD was a bigger deal than it playing PS1 games.
Those aren't concerns most folks have. Most folks aren't collectors. They don't have collections. They play, they get bored with. Then sell the game to subsidize another game.
For most people a console is a means to play games. Games are a disposable entertainment.
The folks here on gaf or even on any game forum are different. We're enthusiasts. Collectors even. For me, I tend to put away a console when a PC EMU does it well enough to replace it. I just packed my PS2.
Money? yes it works that way. MS has more. But isn't interested in bank rolling xbox the same way they did for the 360. Sony is doing well but they can't go dollar for dollar. In their situation they have more of a internal will to fund gaming but they also have less money.
I find the idea of upgrading the console every few years to be a great idea for hardcore Xbox consumers. They get the best performance on the games they want to play. Overall it is a great idea in a perfect world.
The problem I see is more from the casual buyer. I could see them defaulting to the cheapest system available no matter what. Let's say that a console will be supported for three refresh cycles, which would total around ten years. That would make that console the one that all devs would target for their games as it would have the highest install base, and all the other devs also put their games on it. When that system is discontinued, where do those casuals go? They go to the cheapest system yet again. This would result in devs constantly targeting 6-10 year old hardware for their games as the oldest system would always have the highest install base.
The problem I see is more from the casual buyer. I could see them defaulting to the cheapest system available no matter what. Let's say that a console will be supported for three refresh cycles, which would total around ten years. That would make that console the one that all devs would target for their games as it would have the highest install base, and all the other devs also put their games on it. When that system is discontinued, where do those casuals go? They go to the cheapest system yet again. This would result in devs constantly targeting 6-10 year old hardware for their games as the oldest system would always have the highest install base.
Fro sales. BC appears to mean nothing. This is just what the sales data says. no hypothetical situation changes historic sales data. The market just doesn't follow your logic.
AncientDiety
Banned
No it doesn't...if that were the case MS would have done it years ago..The Xbox division has a budget they don;t get access to MS funds with impunity. Business, that's how it works. You need to seperate MS from Xbox....people have been saying this for 15 years it has never materialized. You only proved my point..MS is not interested in bank rolling Xbox into losses, it is a division that has a budget and is expected to make a profit. If that were the case why is x1 not 199 now so they could outsell ps4?
Getting publishers on board is a equally big problem.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
CrispyBoar
Banned
They did. They almost spent Sony into oblivion with the 360 launch. They both backed off because it was a enormous money pit for both. MS higher ups looks at the cost and said no and we got the XB1 and Sony was just happy not to match spending and we got the PS4.