Support NeoGAF

[Bgamer90]

Still not the same as a more expensive box.

But we are talking about a box that would only be (at most) $50 more than a typical slim remodel. You don't think people would be happy with that if they knew a slim could also play games a bit better instead of simply being a better size/style?

The slim also took the place of the original..Apples and oranges.

But the slim still had different SKUs over time that were different prices. People hear are saying that a plan like this would more than likely cause the Xbox One to be cheaper than the "Xbox One.5".

 

[Purest 78]

Because digital is becoming more and more popular. If I have a digital library of course I want it to carry over. We are used to that right now with any other Eco.

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

 

[gamz]

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

Oh. Because more games are always great, so BC is welcome.

 

[HokieJoe]

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!

Your point is irrelevant. Because of the PC-based hardware/software architecture, BC would be trivial for both Sony and Microsoft going forward. It's a selling point for some of the market. Of that we can be sure. How much? I dunno' and again it doesn't matter.

 

[Bgamer90]

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?

Maybe because there are causal gamers that have stated that they like the fact they can play old games they missed out on? Ask people who work in gaming retail if they've ever received "Can this play the old games"-questions and I'm pretty sure they will all say that they did at least once.

Again, my point is simply that there are people outside of core gamers who care about BC. I never said it was a large number. All I did was say that there are some people outside of that group that care about it. I don't see why that is controversial -- and no, it shouldn't require the same amount of proof as a "BC doesn't help sales at all"-conclusion as it's not as definitive of a statement to make.

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

I think what he's trying to say is that all three console markers wouldn't be wasting their time on compatibility features if they felt there wasn't a decent amount of people who care.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Exactly, and this thread is about ".5" step up models releasing during the same amount of time as the period between a new console and its slim remake (3-4 years).

The time for a "full 1.0" step up (i.e. a true successor) would still be the same if a company went through this plan.

If MS goes through on this plan, then the Xbox One's true "next gen" leap would be seen with the 2019/2020 Xbox model -- and I'm sure many expected that period to be when we will see next gen consoles anyway. The ".5" model that would possibly release this year wouldn't change that fact.

This thread isn't about that, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about Phil Spencer's actual comments, which were that -

1- He recognizes that similar markets renew their hardware on a more timely basis, instead of every 7 years or longer.

2- We will see them come out with new hardware within those typical console generation lengths.

Somehow this has been spun to -

"Upgradeable hardware!, we can switch out the GPU if we want!"

"Regular updates to Xbox One, 3 or more devices on the market at once!"

"Yearly upgrades!"

None of those are correct. Well I mean they might be, but Phil certainly hasn't said any of it. He has outright dismissed the first one.

Isn't it more likely given his comments that they are just looking to replace the Xbox One with entirely new hardware, whilst retaining compatibility with XB1 games?

To me people have taken a badly misinterpreted thread title and ran with it.

 

[AncientDiety]

But we are talking about a box that would only be (at most) $50 more than a typical slim remodel. You don't think people would be happy with that if they knew a slim could also play games a bit better instead of simply being a better size/style?



But the slim still had different SKUs over time that were different prices. People hear are saying that a plan like this would more than likely cause the Xbox One to be cheaper than the "Xbox One.5".

That's the issue....how are you going to launch a more powerful box that's only 50 bucks more? Don't see that as being possible. In order to entice people there needs to be tangible benefits, and for 50 more I don;t see how there would be. In order to have any real reason to upgrade your box is going to be more expensive then that.

 

[Kaako]

Annual HW releases now? But why not biannual? Or even quarterly? Surely technology moves faster than that. What could possibly be holding the devs back if we got the magic of UWP? All you gotta do is just follow the directions, code specifically for this magical solution and it'll auto scale to all our devices in our ecosystem. Isn't that wonderful, ya'll?
Blessed are we, the coders of UWP.

 

[MilkyJoe]

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

4x faster GPU is just wishful thinking. The new one will be significantly faster, no doubt about that. But best case scenario is that it will push XBOO just ahead of PS4 in terms of theoretical performance. Practically, 99% of 2017+ games will look the same on both consoles, because XBOO would have to be not only much faster than its predecessor, but also much (!) faster than PS4 to have a real impact. So, basically, MS can either go for a much faster XBOO which no one will buy because of it's $599 price tag or they go with an incremental $399 upgrade which just pushes XBOX on par with PS4, but still no one will be bothered to buy, either because they already have the old one, a PC, or they want to go with a $249 PS4 or whatever-prices NX console.

Significantly faster
+
Best case scenario Just ahead of PS4

Extraordinary...

This folly aside, 3 - 4 years in no one is buying a PS4 or just above Xbox One+ console. A conservative estimate would be 2x Xbox One. 8 years between last and this gen was 6 - 8 times increase. After 4 years a leap in gflops in consoles measured in tflops is comical.

 

[Bgamer90]

This thread isn't about that, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about Phil Spencer's actual comments, which were that -

1- He recognizes that similar markets renew their hardware on a more timely basis, instead of every 7 years or longer.

2- We will see them come out with new hardware within those typical console generation lengths.

Somehow this has been spun to -

"Upgradeable hardware!, we can switch out the GPU if we want!"

"Regular updates to Xbox One, 3 or more devices on the market at once!"

"Yearly upgrades!"

I don't understand what you mean. I stated in my post that it wasn't about a yearly upgrade or removable parts and add-ons via my "new Xbox model every 3-4 years" point in that post. I may be confused as to what you are getting at though.

Isn't it more likely given his comments that they are just looking to replace the Xbox One with entirely new hardware, whilst retaining compatibility with XB1 games?

To me people have taken a badly misinterpreted thread title and ran with it.

Oh okay. I guess you are saying that the thread had people discuss more than what I said right? In that case, yes I agree. I was simply stating why this thread was made.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I don't understand what you mean. I stated in my post that it wasn't about a yearly upgrade or removable parts and add-ons via my "new Xbox model every 3-4 years" point in that post. I may be confused as to what you are getting at though.




Oh okay. I guess you are saying that the thread had people discuss more than what I said right? In that case, yes I agree. I was simply stating why this thread was made.

Sort of, although you do keep harping on about this Xbox One.5

Tell me, what is it's USP?

Why would I buy it over a PS4?

 

[Bgamer90]

That's the issue....how are you going to launch a more powerful box that's only 50 bucks more? Don't see that as being possible. In order to entice people there needs to be tangible benefits, and for 50 more I don;t see how there would be. In order to have any real reason to upgrade your box is going to be more expensive then that.

What's possible at $350-400 now isn't the same as what was possible for that same price 3-4 years ago. Things become cheaper obviously. The box that's not as powerful (the older model) would more than likely get a price drop too.

 

[Bgamer90]

Sort of, although you do keep harping on about this Xbox One.5

Yes, it would be a ".5" step up since the model would be coming sooner than the average length of a gaming generation. The next Xbox would obviously be a bigger step up if they released it 7-8 years after the Xbox One was released instead of just 3-4 years after it (well, again, if they do go through on this plan).

Tell me, what is it's USP?

Why would I buy it over a PS4?

The system should play third party games better than the PS4 if it's releasing 3 years after the PS4 launched. I would say that would be the biggest reason. If you care more about the games coming to PS4 over what's coming to Xbox though, then I don't think that would change things much for you.

 

[AncientDiety]

What's possible at $350-400 now isn't the same as what was possible for that same price 3-4 years ago. Things become cheaper obviously. The box that's not as powerful (the older model) would more than likely get a price drop too.

New hardware will drive the cost more then 50 bucks. Play games better then ps4 would require more money then what you are suggesting.

 

[EvB]

New hardware will drive the cost more then 50 bucks. Play games better then ps4 would require more money then what you are suggesting.

how much would it cost?

 

[AncientDiety]

how much would it cost?

More then 50 dollars more expensive.

 

[Bgamer90]

New hardware will drive the cost more then 50 bucks.
Play games better then ps4 would require more money then what you are suggesting.

Why? You can do more now for $400 then what was possible back in 2013 at the same price.

There are already PCs for around that price that have better specs than the Xbox One and PS4.

 

[AncientDiety]

Why? You can do more now for $400 then what was possible back in 2013 at the same price.

There are already PCs for around that price that have better specs than the Xbox One and PS4.

400 is a lot more then current consoles, not 50 dollars more. You are not building a PC for 400 with better specs then a console, not if you need to build it all.

 

[onQ123]

Your point is irrelevant. Because of the PC-based hardware/software architecture, BC would be trivial for both Sony and Microsoft going forward. It's a selling point for some of the market. Of that we can be sure. How much? I dunno' and again it doesn't matter.

How is facts about console BC irrelevant to console BC?

 

[Purest 78]

Oh. Because more games are always great, so BC is welcome.

Where in my post did I say BC wasn't welcomed?

 

[gamz]

400 is a lot more then current consoles, not 50 dollars more.

Yeah but it's still reasonable. It's still a good price point.

 

[gamz]

Where in my post did I say BC wasn't welcomed?

So what did you mean? Seems like you said that people don't really care about it.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Yes, it would be a ".5" step up since the model would be coming sooner than the average length of a gaming generation. The next Xbox would obviously be a bigger step up if they released it 7-8 years after the Xbox One was released instead of just 3-4 years after it (well, again, if they do go through on this plan).



The system should play third party games better than the PS4 if it's releasing 3 years after the PS4 launched. I would say that would be the biggest reason. If you care more about the games coming to PS4 over what's coming to Xbox though, then I don't think that would change things much for you.

I'm not interested in the PS4 at all, I don't even own one. However, as we've seen, more consumers are interested in the PS4, and by a significant margin.

I would think that if Microsoft are indeed releasing new hardware, one of their primary goals would be to detract people from the PS4 and back over to them.

They aren't going to achieve that with a minor update to the Xbox One. They do however have a chance with a real upgrade. An actual next gen machine. Holiday 2017 would be 4 years in which isn't that far from a typical console generation, going by history.

I'm just not seeing what this minor Xbox One update of yours achieves.

How does it build market share? What hardware does it have?

 

[AncientDiety]

Yeah but it's still reasonable. It's still a good price point.

Most people will just go for the cheaper option or a PS4...which begs the question..what's the point?

 

[get2sammyb]

They probably could do a more powerful system for $400. Two problems, though:

1) Sony will easily be able to go down to $299 by then, and may even be able to twist the knife further and hit $249. They better hope that the improvements are very tangible, otherwise they're going to look very expensive in comparison.

2) At best they'll be breaking even on $400, which means they squander the tail of the generation where all of the money is made. They're going to need to make sure that they really increase the install base so that they can sell plenty of Live subs and software, otherwise what's the point?

 

[Cynn]

You think they don't watch each other? Why did they both spend big last gen and both reigned int his one?

You are completely off target. Sony just came off the PS2 with a huge profit and the most important gaming brand world wide. Ken moved on his vision of a cloud computing CPU, included hard drive, included high definition video format and ports galore relying on the strength and popularity of the PlayStation brand to push $600 consoles. (And new formats) Microsoft followed up their Xbox with a modular device that had a normal CPU, hard drive optional, DVD as opposed to High definition discs, and didn't even feature HDMI until later revisions. They couldn't have been doing more different things. Sony imploded the PS brand and had to spend years getting it back on track. MS had RROD. That's where the money went.

The PS4 was designed sensibly because the PS3 was an albatross for the company that essentially erased the profits PS2 gave them. If they hadn't shocked the industry and added extra high speed ram at the last second it would have been a lot closer if not inferior in some cases to the Xbox One that would have had slower but double the ram.

If there was some "spending war" with a quantifiable amount that would kill Sony off other than alllllmost doing it you can bet your own bottom dollar that Steve Ballmer would have spent that extra amount in trade for essentially the entire console market when he was in power.

 

[gamz]

Most people will just go for the cheaper option or a PS4...which begs the question..what's the point?

You don't know that.

 

[Bgamer90]

400 is a lot more then current consoles, not 50 dollars more. You are not building a PC for 400 with better specs then a console, not if you need to build it all.

??? -- I don't think I understand what you are trying to say anymore. The PS4 and Xbox One are $299-$349.

 

[Maniel]

You don't know that.

People either go for the cheapest or the most popular option. The Xbox 1.5 would be neither.

 

[AncientDiety]

??? -- I don't think I understand what you are trying to say anymore. The PS4 and Xbox One are $299-$349.

You think A new xbox will be launched when they are that price? Yeah no.....by the time it does, if it does they won't be.

You don't know that.

I am pretty sure I do. You think WW people will jump on a 400 marginally improved x1 over a ps4? Other then the hardcore it is really unlikely.

 

[EvB]

More then 50 dollars more expensive.

51?

 

[gamz]

I find it funny how people say thread after thread that PS4 being a "more powerful" system is the reason why x, y, z.

Now if the Xbox comes out with a more powerful system people are saying it doesn't matter it's not a selling point. I mean WTH?

 

[gamz]

I am pretty sure I do. You think WW people will jump on a 400 marginally improved x1 over a ps4? Other then the hardcore it is really unlikely.

Again, you don't know that.

 

[onQ123]

I'm not interested in the PS4 at all, I don't even own one. However, as we've seen, more consumers are interested in the PS4, and by a significant margin.

I would think that if Microsoft are indeed releasing new hardware, one of their primary goals would be to detract people from the PS4 and back over to them.

They aren't going to achieve that with a minor update to the Xbox One. They do however have a chance with a real upgrade. An actual next gen machine. Holiday 2017 would be 4 years in which isn't that far from a typical console generation, going by history.

I'm just not seeing what this minor Xbox One update of yours achieves.

How does it build market share? What hardware does it have?

It help MS for the fact that it's their exit plan from the Xbox Console Model & into a Windows Device Model.

 

[AncientDiety]

I find it funny how people say thread after thread that PS4 being a "more powerful" system is the reason why x, y, z.

Now if the Xbox comes out with a more powerful system people are saying it doesn't matter it's not a selling point. I mean WTH?

Do you have the proof it's the same people saying both? Gaf is a big place as is the internet with many different people. Power is just 1 factor, there are many factors, like brand recognition, messaging, perception, price.....to narrow it down to 1 factor is over simplifying it. PS is a strong brand WW, a new x1 won;t change that. Ps4 will be 299 or lower when and if this launches, as opposed to cheaper then x1 and still more powerful at launch, not the same thing.

 

[AncientDiety]

Again, you don't know that.

It's pretty obvious, people in europe and japan, ROTW are not going to switch to x1 because of it, you're free to think otherwise but I think that's delusional.

 

[Maniel]

I find it funny how people say thread after thread that PS4 being a "more powerful" system is the reason why x, y, z.

Now if the Xbox comes out with a more powerful system people are saying it doesn't matter it's not a selling point. I mean WTH?

Power has never been the reason for one console to sell more than another. It has always been a mix of brand/advertising, game library, and price.

 

[Bgamer90]

I'm not interested in the PS4 at all, I don't even own one. However, as we've seen, more consumers are interested in the PS4, and by a significant margin.

And the PS4 playing third party games better than the Xbox One plays a role in that.

They aren't going to achieve that with a minor update to the Xbox One. They do however have a chance with a real upgrade. An actual next gen machine. Holiday 2017 would be 4 years in which isn't that far from a typical console generation, going by history.

That's the thing though, it won't be a "real next gen upgrade" since it would release a shorter amount of time than the typical length of a gaming generation. What's considered acceptable in 2016/2017 wouldn't be the same as what would be considered acceptable in 2019/2020.

I'm just not seeing what this minor Xbox One update of yours achieves.

How does it build market share? What hardware does it have?

As someone else has stated, it will cause some current Xbox One owners to upgrade and it would cause some people to buy it instead of the PS4 if they care about playing the best running third party games within the console space. There will also be some people who still don't have a current gen console that would buy this model.

I mean,your questions could be stated for a typical slim model. We've seen slim models of consoles help sales in the past when they were nothing more than the same old console with a new design. If those models helped sales, then why would it be impossible for a slim model that also had a bit more power to run the same current gen games better have absolutely no purpose in comparison?

 

[get2sammyb]

Now if the Xbox comes out with a more powerful system people are saying it doesn't matter it's not a selling point. I mean WTH?

But are things going to be equal? Are the prices going to be the same? There's a lot to consider...

Remember, the PS4 was cheaper and the more powerful platform at the start of this gen, so of course it made a difference. Would it have made a difference is the Xbox One was $249 and the PS4 was $499, though? Perhaps not...

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

It help MS for the fact that it's their exit plan from the Xbox Console Model & into a Windows Device Model.

What exit plan? Do you have a source?

I don't doubt that the intention is to marry their devices together, because that makes sense. But it's a huge leap to suggest it's an "exit plan".

There's no reason why a dedicated console and PC cannot co-exist. There's a separate market for both, only now brought closer together. which does have it's advantages if done correctly.

Microsoft have said they are making a new console, not the opposite.

And the PS4 playing third party games better than the Xbox One plays a role in that.

That's the thing though, it won't be a "real next gen upgrade" since it would release a shorter amount of time than the typical length of a gaming generation. What's considering acceptable in 2016/2017 wouldn't be the same as what would be in 2019/2020.

As someone else has stated, it will cause some current Xbox One owners to upgrade and it would cause some people to buy it instead of the PS4 if they care about playing the best running third party games within the console space.

Your questions could be stated for a typical slim model. We've seen slim models of consoles help sales in the past when they were nothing more than the same old console with a new design. If those models helped sales, then why would it be impossible for a slim model that also had a bit more power to run the same current gen games better have absolutely no purpose in comparison?

But at what point does a console become a "real" next gen console?

Obviously the longer you wait, the bigger the hardware jump becomes possible. 4+ years is still a long time in the computer hardware world to get a significant upgrade and be worthy of the "next gen console" title.

If you release a console that's only slightly better than a PS4, is it really going to change anything? Is it worth it?

Is it worth keeping the Xbox One name with all negativity that surrounds it?

Or is it better to make a clean jump with a new name, a significant hardware jump and a whole new marketing campaign?

Not just, "Hey guys, we've updated the Xbox One a little bit, please buy it".

It seems like a lot of effort to me for little reward, if any. More than that, I think they would be ridiculed. An Xbox that's only slightly better than a PS4 several years later, and you only have to buy it twice to get it? Come on.

 

[Bgamer90]

You think A new xbox will be launched when they are that price? Yeah no.....by the time it does, if it does they won't be.

??? -- I said in my previous post that the older Xbox model would more than likely get a price drop to attract users who don't care about power and simply want to play the relevant new games while the newer Xbox model releases at around the same price as the current console SKUs if MS goes through on this plan.

I am pretty sure I do. You think WW people will jump on a 400 marginally improved x1 over a ps4? Other then the hardcore it is really unlikely.

People who aren't big gamers wait until 3-4 years (or more) after a gen starts to buy a console. I'm sure that there would be some in this group who would prefer to buy the better model (and again, some who wouldn't mind buying the older, cheaper model as long as there's compatibility).

I don't think anyone is saying that this plan will cause the Xbox One to take over the PS4. There's already enough history that shows that many people outside of America and U.K. prefer PlayStation even if a PlayStation console isn't the best place to play third party titles.

 

[gamz]

Power has never been the reason for one console to sell more than another. It has always been a mix of brand/advertising, game library, and price.

But power has been lacking this generation. Just look at the DF threads. This generation people are picking out pixels, resolution, and FPS.

 

[Zedox]

Why are we depending on 1 hardware schema for several years and get everyone on that schema only to start the WHOLE thing over again several years later ignoring technology advancement along the way? Yea, businesses like stability but they like growth more than anything. Why don't laptops stay stagnant for several years and then a big boom of laptops? Cuz stuff changes and incremental changes are worth it, hardware design is worth it. The software on it is the same, the hardware takes care of the differences. TVs are released every year with new models, no one blinks an eye because the stuff that it does is pretty much the same but can take advantage of the content on it. Cars have new versions every year. Video cards have new versions every year. Almost everything dealing with technology has a new version very frequent but for some reason video game consoles are stagnant.

No reason why incremental changes can't happen each year. Developers don't have to target everyone, they don't target everyone on PC, they go for best bang for buck. No reason why they couldn't do it for console. Everybody doesn't have to buy the latest version of Xbox One. Not every game has to take advantage of the latest version (no different than PC) of the hardware. I think that people may have to look outside of how console gaming is and look at what it should be. UWP and whatever PS/NX uses should be able to fully scale to whatever version the hardware is depending on what the developer chooses to support. The hardware should be getting better. Obviously this is all ideal situations, but it should work that way, in my opinion.

This is not to say this is what is going to happen.

 

[AncientDiety]

But power has been lacking this generation. Just look at the DF threads. This generation people are picking out pixels, resolution, and FPS.

Thats the same as every gen.......................remember last gen where games were sub 720p, often lower then 30 FPS , no AA and lacking many graphical bells and whistles. Thats console gaming, a new console will still fall behind.

 

[gamz]

But are things going to be equal? Are the prices going to be the same? There's a lot to consider...

Remember, the PS4 was cheaper and the more powerful platform at the start of this gen, so of course it made a difference. Would it have made a difference is the Xbox One was $249 and the PS4 was $499, though? Perhaps not...

Let's be honest before the price Xbox One launch was a freaking cluster. A little reboot with good marketing could make up a lot of ill will.

 

[gamz]

Thats the same as every gen.......................remember last gen where games were sub 720p, often lower then 30 FPS , no AA and lacking many graphical bells and whistles. Thats console gaming, a new console will still fall behind.

Yeah but last generation their was greater jump in games then this generation. I mean don't you think? Have we had any Gears of War moments...yet?

Or am I totally off base?

 

[Maniel]

Let's be honest before the price Xbox One launch was a freaking cluster. A little reboot with good marketing could make up a lot of ill will.

That doesn't require a hardware refresh. Just look at how well ps3 did after it got its first slim model.

 

[AncientDiety]

Yeah but last generation there was greater jump in game then this generation. I mean don't you think? Have we had any Gears of War moments...yet?

Thats because it was the first forray into HD...that type of jump will never happen again unless something like VR takes off...games were still lacking on console graphically. Uc4 looks to be a gears moment imo.

 

[rokkerkory]

If next iteration is solid at least 1080p60 for all games I would jump in

 

[RedSwirl]

On the question of how much backwards compatibility really matters or makes a difference in console games, I get the feeling that question hasn't been significantly answered.

What we can say is that in other sectors like mobile and PC, it's pretty much the norm and people would freak out if it disappeared. People would be far less likely to upgrade to new phones if they found out they apps they liked using didn't carry over and had to be re-bought. People would be less likely to get new computers or upgrade operating systems if they found out their office software and games didn't work on it. It's an expected thing, but that precedent has never really been set with consoles except maybe the Game Boy systems.

My hypothesis is that keeping BC for the foreseeable future would at least let console manufacturers maintain momentum through hardware transitions. A weird thing about console games is how quickly the deck get's reshuffled every hardware cycle. People have no brand loyalty, and part of that might be because nothing carries over from generation to generation other than maybe a brand name. I keep buying iOS devices and am reluctant to switch to Android because I've invested a good amount of money into my iOS software and iTunes store media.

There were a couple hardware transitions where the previous dominant company maintained its momentum in one or more markets: the transition from NES to SNES, and from PS1 to PS2, but you can't say BC or the lack of it was a significant factor in either of them. The SNES was seriously challenged by the Genesis/Mega Drive outside Japan, and even back then some people were pissed it wasn't backwards compatible. The PS2 did have BC and pretty much carried over PS1's market dominance but I think bigger factors were at play there. One big thing is that I think games themselves are different today. Back then games were treated as books or movies: you'd maybe play them once and move on to the next thing. Many games are moving closer and closer to a service model today, which maintaining BC would benefit.

I imagine if the Xbox One was BC out of the gate some more people would have upgraded and just kept playing Black Ops II on it. Imagine if EA, Activision, or Ubisoft made one game that people just kept buying new content and microtransactions for over 10 years instead of two? What we're seeing with games like Battlefront and Rainbow Six Ghosts is a version of what has been the norm for PC shooters, but accelerated by the brevity of console generations.