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.
That had zero to do with MS....and everything to do with bad decisions made by sony with Cell, Bluray being expensive at the time. Sony was pushing bluray, MS had zero to do with it. In fact had they went MS route they would have went with more over the shelf arts and spent less, they were in fact opposite of MS then.
Actually the combo US/ UK is pretty much the only space where Xbox has somewhat maintained their numbers (and signs point to that soon falling behind), but looking at it from a WW perspective, they have lost pretty much all they had built with the 360. They didn't stagnate, they went backwards, big time.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.
They had ideas of what each other were doing and the PS3 stretches Sony's resources because they knew in advance where MS was going (it's a smallish industry). MS too had a idea. So they pushed each other into sinking billions in R&d and taking big losses per unit. That was MS money war with Sony. And neither will repeat it because it was such a huge debacle on their finances.
Pue speculation...Sony was going to try to push blu-ray, and Ken's idea for cell was to be used in all sony devices..don't think MS had anything to do with either. Again Sony's philosophy was the polar opposite of MS then. If sony was worried about MS they would not have launched at 599. They thought ps2 gamers would automatically go to ps3 and would follow them, MS had little to do with their decisions then.
So that gen being the biggest spends on their legers of any console generation is just coincidence? A big per unit loss on par with DC by both competitors is just coincidence as well.
Because both didn't want to lose money again? One has nothing to do with the other, only proves my point..that XBOX cannot spend with impunity.
They had ideas of what each other were doing and the PS3 stretches Sony's resources because they knew in advance where MS was going (it's a smallish industry). MS too had a idea. So they pushed each other into sinking billions in R&d and taking big losses per unit. That was MS money war with Sony. And neither will repeat it because it was such a huge debacle on their finances.
My point is they did try during the 360 PS3 era to win with money and the fallout from that is why they had to go stingy. MS Corporate reigned them in and re- evaluated what gaming meant to them. The big moves lately is just more of that.
If that was the case MS wouldn't have botched Xbone with eSRAM.
360 was no different, it also had a budget, so can't say I agree. 360 went years without a price drop when ps3 was closing the gap, they could have easily undercut sony but never....it's because xbox division is like any other division in a business.,
I don't think we fundamentally disagree. Having more money isn't the same as unlimited money but the 360 / ps3 gen was the gen MS tried to win with money and it nearly killed Sony.
Ugh..no..Sony bad decisions did, had nothing to do with MS. Sony going with cell, and bluray had zero to do with MS.
You think they don't watch each other? Why did they both spend big last gen and both reigned int his one?
Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Now I know some may be thinking about the dev compatibility issue. Well, if the developer develops toward the UWP, it would be up to the developer to choose what system they support (a la min requirements of PC) instead of MS. MS is just making the hardware and provides the API that has the ability to scale their code. Obviously it would be wise for them to start with the 2013 XBO (duh) as it has more people. And because the increments are smaller and the power isn't a huge jump, the dev isn't really worrying about year 1 to year 3 (usually AAA dev cycle) where they change the code a bunch. They can release their game and sell it to the millions who have XBO '13, '16', '17. Also because there's a new version per year, that also means that they can't make many feature additions (that change a lot of the system) in one version so that developers can reasonably dev and test those features if they choose to use them.
Then the last piece is making sure MS updates UWP for Xbox in a way that's beneficial to developers that want their games to scale (we currently don't have the knowledge around that right now in detail...only some). Also they have to make sure that the OS updates as well (they have been good about that). Each update doesn't necessarily mean only game updates but OS getting better because of the power involved. Also this also keeps the price up for the "big version" and give a healthy 2nd hand market to the other versions for retailers (including MS) and give better prices on the previous' year version (like Bgamer90 said).
So basically what I'm saying is that a yearly update to the XBO system can work because:
1. Difference in power in minimal from year to year
a. Gamers won't feel jipped because they bought last years version (maybe by 3rd)
b. Developers don't have to worry about power difference that much but it is dependent on...
c. Microsoft making UWP scale easier for developers. Also MS has to make the innovations for developers to take advantage of the differences between versions but not too many that it would be overwhelming for dev.
2. Allows Microsoft to innovate in hardware (not everything needs to be a power boost)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also a big portion is missing in this thread is that we all talk about AAA devs (which are already slow to do creative things) are now that XBO is going to be open up to more Indy devs this year, we'll see indy devs take advantage of the hardware innovations that MS does moreso than AAA that will most likely focus on the biggest population (XBO '13).
Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Now I know some may be thinking about the dev compatibility issue. Well, if the developer develops toward the UWP, it would be up to the developer to choose what system they support (a la min requirements of PC) instead of MS. MS is just making the hardware and provides the API that has the ability to scale their code. Obviously it would be wise for them to start with the 2013 XBO (duh) as it has more people. And because the increments are smaller and the power isn't a huge jump, the dev isn't really worrying about year 1 to year 3 (usually AAA dev cycle) where they change the code a bunch. They can release their game and sell it to the millions who have XBO '13, '16', '17. Also because there's a new version per year, that also means that they can't make many feature additions (that change a lot of the system) in one version so that developers can reasonably dev and test those features if they choose to use them.
Then the last piece is making sure MS updates UWP for Xbox in a way that's beneficial to developers that want their games to scale (we currently don't have the knowledge around that right now in detail...only some). Also they have to make sure that the OS updates as well (they have been good about that). Each update doesn't necessarily mean only game updates but OS getting better because of the power involved. Also this also keeps the price up for the "big version" and give a healthy 2nd hand market to the other versions for retailers (including MS) and give better prices on the previous' year version (like Bgamer90 said).
So basically what I'm saying is that a yearly update to the XBO system can work because:
1. Difference in power in minimal from year to year
a. Gamers won't feel jipped because they bought last years version (maybe by 3rd)
b. Developers don't have to worry about power difference that much but it is dependent on...
c. Microsoft making UWP scale easier for developers. Also MS has to make the innovations for developers to take advantage of the differences between versions but not too many that it would be overwhelming for dev.
2. Allows Microsoft to innovate in hardware (not everything needs to be a power boost)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also a big portion is missing in this thread is that we all talk about AAA devs (which are already slow to do creative things) are now that XBO is going to be open up to more Indy devs this year, we'll see indy devs take advantage of the hardware innovations that MS does moreso than AAA that will most likely focus on the biggest population (XBO '13).
Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Now I know some may be thinking about the dev compatibility issue. Well, if the developer develops toward the UWP, it would be up to the developer to choose what system they support (a la min requirements of PC) instead of MS. MS is just making the hardware and provides the API that has the ability to scale their code. Obviously it would be wise for them to start with the 2013 XBO (duh) as it has more people. And because the increments are smaller and the power isn't a huge jump, the dev isn't really worrying about year 1 to year 3 (usually AAA dev cycle) where they change the code a bunch. They can release their game and sell it to the millions who have XBO '13, '16', '17.
Then the last piece is making sure MS updates UWP for Xbox in a way that's beneficial to developers that want their games to scale (we currently don't have the knowledge around that right now in detail...only some). Also they have to make sure that the OS updates as well (they have been good about that). Each update doesn't necessarily mean only game updates but OS getting better because of the power involved. Also this also keeps the price up for the "big version" and give a healthy 2nd hand market to the other versions for retailers (including MS) and give better prices on the previous' year version (like Bgamer90 said). Also because there's a new version per year, that also means that they can't make many feature additions (that change a lot of the system) in one version so that developers can reasonably dev and test those features if they choose to use them.
So basically what I'm saying is that a yearly update to the XBO system can work because:
1. Difference in power in minimal from year to year
a. Gamers won't feel jipped because they bought last years version (maybe by 3rd)
b. Developers don't have to worry about power difference that much but it is dependent on...
c. Microsoft making UWP scale easier for developers. Also MS has to make the innovations for developers to take advantage of the differences between versions but not too many that it would be overwhelming for dev.
2. Allows Microsoft to innovate in hardware (not everything needs to be a power boost)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also a big portion is missing in this thread is that we all talk about AAA devs (which are already slow to do creative things) are now that XBO is going to be open up to more Indy devs this year, we'll see indy devs take advantage of the hardware innovations that MS does moreso than AAA that will most likely focus on the biggest population (XBO '13).
At that point why not just release an Xbox branded pc every year.Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Now I know some may be thinking about the dev compatibility issue. Well, if the developer develops toward the UWP, it would be up to the developer to choose what system they support (a la min requirements of PC) instead of MS. MS is just making the hardware and provides the API that has the ability to scale their code. Obviously it would be wise for them to start with the 2013 XBO (duh) as it has more people. And because the increments are smaller and the power isn't a huge jump, the dev isn't really worrying about year 1 to year 3 (usually AAA dev cycle) where they change the code a bunch. They can release their game and sell it to the millions who have XBO '13, '16', '17.
Then the last piece is making sure MS updates UWP for Xbox in a way that's beneficial to developers that want their games to scale (we currently don't have the knowledge around that right now in detail...only some). Also they have to make sure that the OS updates as well (they have been good about that). Each update doesn't necessarily mean only game updates but OS getting better because of the power involved. Also this also keeps the price up for the "big version" and give a healthy 2nd hand market to the other versions for retailers (including MS) and give better prices on the previous' year version (like Bgamer90 said). Also because there's a new version per year, that also means that they can't make many feature additions (that change a lot of the system) in one version so that developers can reasonably dev and test those features if they choose to use them.
So basically what I'm saying is that a yearly update to the XBO system can work because:
1. Difference in power in minimal from year to year
a. Gamers won't feel jipped because they bought last years version (maybe by 3rd)
b. Developers don't have to worry about power difference that much but it is dependent on...
c. Microsoft making UWP scale easier for developers. Also MS has to make the innovations for developers to take advantage of the differences between versions but not too many that it would be overwhelming for dev.
2. Allows Microsoft to innovate in hardware (not everything needs to be a power boost)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also a big portion is missing in this thread is that we all talk about AAA devs (which are already slow to do creative things) are now that XBO is going to be open up to more Indy devs this year, we'll see indy devs take advantage of the hardware innovations that MS does moreso than AAA that will most likely focus on the biggest population (XBO '13).
Actually, I have changed my stance on the timing of releasing new hardware. They could release a new Xbox One every single year. At first I was like, wait, they shouldn't do that, wait like 2.5-3 years before doing that but then that would be very close to the situation that we have now, it would feel like a whole "generation" gap and people would get mad that they bought one early because of the wait is not that short and the gain isn't that big. But if they literally did it every year where the box itself isn't that much more powerful people wouldn't feel that bad. And within 5 years time the different between XBO 2013 v. XBO 2018 would be a "generation" by normal standards.
Now I know some may be thinking about the dev compatibility issue. Well, if the developer develops toward the UWP, it would be up to the developer to choose what system they support (a la min requirements of PC) instead of MS. MS is just making the hardware and provides the API that has the ability to scale their code. Obviously it would be wise for them to start with the 2013 XBO (duh) as it has more people. And because the increments are smaller and the power isn't a huge jump, the dev isn't really worrying about year 1 to year 3 (usually AAA dev cycle) where they change the code a bunch. They can release their game and sell it to the millions who have XBO '13, '16', '17. Also because there's a new version per year, that also means that they can't make many feature additions (that change a lot of the system) in one version so that developers can reasonably dev and test those features if they choose to use them.
Then the last piece is making sure MS updates UWP for Xbox in a way that's beneficial to developers that want their games to scale (we currently don't have the knowledge around that right now in detail...only some). Also they have to make sure that the OS updates as well (they have been good about that). Each update doesn't necessarily mean only game updates but OS getting better because of the power involved. Also this also keeps the price up for the "big version" and give a healthy 2nd hand market to the other versions for retailers (including MS) and give better prices on the previous' year version (like Bgamer90 said).
So basically what I'm saying is that a yearly update to the XBO system can work because:
1. Difference in power in minimal from year to year
a. Gamers won't feel jipped because they bought last years version (maybe by 3rd)
b. Developers don't have to worry about power difference that much but it is dependent on...
c. Microsoft making UWP scale easier for developers. Also MS has to make the innovations for developers to take advantage of the differences between versions but not too many that it would be overwhelming for dev.
2. Allows Microsoft to innovate in hardware (not everything needs to be a power boost)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also a big portion is missing in this thread is that we all talk about AAA devs (which are already slow to do creative things) are now that XBO is going to be open up to more Indy devs this year, we'll see indy devs take advantage of the hardware innovations that MS does moreso than AAA that will most likely focus on the biggest population (XBO '13).
Who would buy the new hardware if the difference in power is 'minimal'? I don't think they should do it every year, 4-5 years is fine though.
Slim models come out a few years after the release of a new console.....Same people who buy slim consoles as soon as they come out more than likely (even though the only difference with these models are their size).
Just have to make sure that there's good compatibility with what these users bought in the past during this current gen so they don't feel screwed over IMO.
Slim models come out a few years after the release of a new console.....
Slim models come out a few years after the release of a new console.....
Actually the combo US/ UK is pretty much the only space where Xbox has somewhat maintained their numbers (and signs point to that soon falling behind), but looking at it from a WW perspective, they have lost pretty much all they had built with the 360. They didn't stagnate, they went backwards, big time.
I would even say that the only reason they are 2nd and not a distant third this gen is purely because of Nintendo's bigger mess, not thanks to anything they really did right... (Though they did try hard after the disastrous launch).
So who would upgrade if a new model comes out every year?Right. And?
Right. And?
So who would upgrade if a new model comes out every year?
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.
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!
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.
People buy slim version to replace a perfectly working console they have? Just because? I don't think so.
Slim models come out a few years after the release of a new console.....
Yes of course. I think last gen I bought 3 360 and I think 2-3 PS3.
Yes of course. I think last gen I bought 3 360 and I think 2-3 PS3.
This is way worse than what we were discussing before, and will not fly with publishers. This is a development nightmare. I understand you think UWP is in some ideal state where it just converts code bases onto different W10 machines, but it is nowhere near that right now. And again, we are talking game code here, which is a whole different beast from traditional apps. This plan is insane, and will never work.
Yeah this is not happening. Would be a nightmare with regards to game code.. People are letting their expectations run wild and are setting themselves up for disappointment.
I personally think a new model every year would cause way too much confusion from devs and consumers over which one to focus on or when "the time is right" to buy a certain model. This would definitely be "Sega 2.0".
I think they should just keep things simple with two relevant models ("old and new") within an eight year period of time with the newest model being for the more core-oriented gamers and the older model being for the more casual gamers -- the people who simply want a box that can play the relevant/new games and nothing more.
Exactly, and this thread is about ".5" steps up releasing during the same amount of time as the period between a new console and its slim remake.
The time for a "full 1.0" step up (i.e. a true successor) would still be the same if a company went through an "new .5 model every 3-4 years"-plan.
If MS goes through on this plan, then the Xbox One's true "next gen" leap would be see with the 2019/2020 Xbox model -- and I'm sure many expected that period to be when we will see next gen consoles. The ".5" model that would possibly release this year wouldn't change that fact.
You buy every new version of the same console why? Please explain, I am curious.
I wanted a built in wifi and hdmi so I bought a new 360. My day 1 360 went kaput, so I bought another. One for me and the kids.
My PS3 day 1 broke, so I bought another 1 and I bought a Slim after that.
Come one. Everyone bought only 1 360 and 1 PS3 for the entire generation?
Thats kind of my point... No doubt we'll see that kind of spin from MS 's marketing at some point, but the obvious is that their marketshare will have been maintained (possibly grown even) only thanks to the Royal F up of Nintendo, but in actuality their customer base will have shrunk (which they plan on masking by expanding Live to all Win10 users, regardless of them actually using Live or not).The Xbox 360 made up about 30% of overall console sales last gen.
The Xbox One will more than likely make up around the same percentage for this gen.
I only got one of each console last gen, but I think even that is more than most.I wanted a built in wifi and hdmi so I bought a new 360. My day 1 360 went kaput, so I bought another. One for me and the kids.
My PS3 day 1 broke, so I bought another 1 and I bought a Slim after that.
Come one. Everyone bought only 1 360 and 1 PS3 for the entire generation?
People buy slim version to replace a perfectly working console they have? Just because? I don't think so.
Slim models are also cheaper with the same hardware.....not the same as releasing a more expensive upgraded box.
Yes. We saw it last gen with the 360 and PS3. Especially the former due to RROD.
________________
The Xbox 360 Slim was actually the same price as the old Xbox 360 Elite.
Thats kind of my point... No doubt we'll see that kind of spin from MS 's marketing at some point, but the obvious is that their marketshare will have been maintained (possibly grown even) only thanks to the Royal F up of Nintendo, but in actuality their customer base will have shrunk (which they plan on masking by expanding Live to all Win10 users, regardless of them actually using Live or not).
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.
Now you're talking about replacing broken products. Well that's an obvious DUH.
Yes, and this was my original point. They definitely lost a lot of potential due to their pre-launch mistakes but the percentage shouldn't really change much from this gen in comparison to last.
The Xbox 360 made up about 30% of overall console sales last gen.
The Xbox One will more than likely make up around the same percentage for this gen.
Where's the proof of these causal gamers who missed last gen who want BC now? In this thread you're saying people don't have numbers to back what they say. So where exactly are you getting your casual theory From?