That doesn't require a hardware refresh. Just look at how well ps3 did after it got its first slim model.
A hardware refresh will get people excited. More so then just a slim model.
That doesn't require a hardware refresh. Just look at how well ps3 did after it got its first slim model.
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.
How is facts about console BC irrelevant to console BC?
That's actually a solid point.
I have my moments lol.
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.
I had honestly forgot about HD. It blew me away when I played Geometry Wars last generation. LOL!
One of the reasons last gen started off slow was back then was people were just starting to migrate to HDTV's, amazing how fast time flies.
Yep! I totally remember that now. Fuck was that gen long!
I remember arguments on forums people would try to say HDTV was a gimmick and you could not see much if any difference haha.
Pay attention I been seen it I guess it will take others longer to see it.
One of the reasons last gen started off slow was back then was people were just starting to migrate to HDTV's, amazing how fast time flies.
I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
Developers had to wrap their noggins around multi-core processing as well. IIRC, it wasn't very well fleshed out at that point time.
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.
Developers had to wrap their noggins around multi-core processing as well. IIRC, it wasn't very well fleshed out at that point time.
Exactly. You'll see more games that are more like a service with BC with newer hardware not worrying about that. I can say that right now that I don't want another Killer Instinct, i'd rather them just keep building on this same version. If I got a new XBO, I'd want to continue to play that same game and have them continue to update it because that's the game that I like. If my Xbox vNext had some features that it could take advantage of (4k or something), I hope that it could...but it would be on the developer to choose when to take advantage of that feature. They aren't beholden to make that transition right away. It's really no different than phones today that when a new feature for iOS comes out, it's not necessarily true that all the apps are updated to work with that new feature (if at all). It would depend on the userbase of that app and whatever feedback/metrics the developer chooses to make that decision to support it. No reason why consoles can't act the same way. That way the software features is only on the developer to support. Think about it, MS wouldn't need a mandate to say "hey your game needs to be 4k" like they did with 720p...it would just be in the best interest of the developer to do so, otherwise people aren't going to play your game. To me, it puts more onus on the developer to support stuff than the hardware/platform holder.
Yes, this. Pretty much that's where we are going with Windows 10, OSX, Office 365, etc...Just more updates on a base system.
I mean the last thing I want to do is in 2-3 years is boot up my new console and the store is empty and my digital games aren't there anymore.
If MS can pull this off I honestly think it'll be a wastershed moment for consoles. I really, really do.
Yes, this. Pretty much that's where we are going with Windows 10, OSX, Office 365, etc...Just more updates on a base system.
I mean the last thing I want to do is in 2-3 years is boot up my new console and the store is empty and my digital games aren't there anymore.
If MS can pull this off I honestly think it'll be a wastershed moment for consoles. I really, really do.
And that approach lets developers choose when they want to support the newer features. If we wait 3 years...people are going to expect developers to take advantage of those new features to the fullest...and it would basically be the same stuff that we're in now (aka short generations). No one would want the old stuff and everyone would get the new stuff and that group of people. If it happened every year...there's no way to expect every developer to support the new stuff (and I mean this for all of the systems, not just MS). Game developers should just make games from a base that they choose and have features that they want to support to give the experience that they feel is right for a user. It's literally no different than supporting Kinect than not supporting Kinect.
Those have bought neither yet? Why do people always assume that every gamer has already bought a new gen console?I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
It won't be 'marginally' more powerful, I'm pretty sure of that, after all that would be the selling point of the console. Power has been the biggest issue this gen so far ie resolution gate.
What I can't wrap my head around is how they will define where their 'generation' ends, or do Devs simply pick their own minimum spec and develop from there? It's an interesting idea.
I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
I ask for clarification and you link me one of your own posts? That's not quite what I was looking for.
I mean you could be right, eventually. But there's certainly no evidence of it right now. In fact just the opposite, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist after all.
A unifying of services across several hardware platforms != exit strategy confirmed!
It won't be 'marginally' more powerful, I'm pretty sure of that, after all that would be the selling point of the console. Power has been the biggest issue this gen so far ie resolution gate.
What I can't wrap my head around is how they will define where their 'generation' ends, or do Devs simply pick their own minimum spec and develop from there? It's an interesting idea.
Exit strategy of the Console model.
After reading the last three pages trying to catch up,can someone tell me if anything is confirmed?
Have Microsoft confirmed a sort of X1+ in any way or are we still guessing?
We're debating the viability of iterative console hardware and backwards-forwards compatibility.
Seeing the same console winning every DF Face Off and hearing the talk about having the best versions of all the popular AAA multiplats will sell consoles for sure. This is basically PS4 up to this point, sure future exclusives matters too but generally speaking I think people focus way too much on the exclusives in sales, I honestly don't think they matter all that much anymore, when the first wave of exclusives are out it'll take too long for the second wave to arrive but having better performance on everything will always be a plus.I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
Seeing the same console winning every DF Face Off and hearing the talk about having the best versions of all the popular AAA multiplats will sell consoles for sure. This is basically PS4 up to this point, sure future exclusives matters too but generally speaking I think people focus way too much on the exclusives in sales, I honestly don't think they matter all that much anymore, when the first wave of exclusives are out it'll take too long for the second wave to arrive but having better performance on everything will always be a plus.
Exit strategy of the Console model.
]Seeing the same console winning every DF Face Off and hearing the talk about having the best versions of all the popular AAA multiplats will sell consoles for sure[/B]. This is basically PS4 up to this point, sure future exclusives matters too but generally speaking I think people focus way too much on the exclusives in sales, I honestly don't think they matter all that much anymore, when the first wave of exclusives are out it'll take too long for the second wave to arrive but having better performance on everything will always be a plus.
I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
I'm still wondering who the Xbox 1.X is for.
Whatever they release will have the same games as the PS4, and will probably only run them marginally better (assuming a reasonable sub-$450 price point). It will lack exclusives and it will cost significantly more than the PS4 at that time. It will be fighting against a console with an enormous userbase, mindshare, and great word of mouth.
Who, aside from current XB1 owners, is going to buy this thing?
Power has never been the main reason people choose one console over another. If you had to pick one factor, it would be price. I can't see this increasing the XB1s market share, it seems more like an attempt to extract more money from their existing users.
After reading the last three pages trying to catch up,can someone tell me if anything is confirmed?
Have Microsoft confirmed a sort of X1+ in any way or are we still guessing?
"What I'm saying is as hardware innovations happen we want to be able to embrace those in the console space. And make those available and maybe not have to wait seven or eight years for things to happen. But right now, we're not announcing hardware. I'm happy with the console we have and the platform we built on top of that console and the constant innovation and the games that are there. But as a longer-term vision statement I wanted to make sure people understood what we're doing I think is good for the console space in addition to being good for the PC space."
What is the console model?
But Phil has 'announced' they will be making new console hardware just the other day.
Now that console might not be quite the same as it is today, but I'm pretty sure it will still be a console. i.e plug n play hardware.
The fine details might change, but that has already happened anyway. We've gone from a 'true' console which exclusively plays games, to full on multi media devices hooked up to the internet.
It makes sense that things will change even further, because technologies change as time advances. New concepts are born. It may look and work different, but it's still a part of the same family tree.
...
In my mind, Xbox in the future can stick around as a cheap, easy, closed HTPC option. I guess that would make it Microsoft's Alienware Alpha but locked to Windows Store software?
To clarify: what will make a consumer choose an XB1.X instead of a PS4, PC, or XB1?People who want the newest thing.
People who don't have a next-gen device. (meaning they don't have a PS4/WiiU)
People who want an Xbox and don't have one. (meaning they have a PS4/WiiU)
People who want another Xbox device for their home.
To clarify: what will make a consumer choose an XB1.X instead of a PS4, PC, or XB1?
I thought I was clear that power has proven in past generations to be much less of a factor than price. The people who haven't yet decided on a next gen console will still, based on past results, go with the cheaper option.
I just don't see this as an attractive offer for bringing in a larger audience.
As for my claim that the power increase would be marginal: I can't see a whole lot of improvement at a $400 price point that will make an enormous difference in performance over what we're already getting from the current gen consoles.
Oh ffs by "a consumer" I don't mean ONE consumer, I mean consumers at large.
I presented my case on why I don't think this strategy will succeed. "I don't think" wasn't the meat of my post, even if it was all you chose to read. This strategy flies in the face of what has been successful in the past in the console industry, and I have yet to see anyone post something resembling a good reason why this will be different.
Give me some evidence why I should ignore historical trends and see why a large portion of consumers outside of MS's existing base would want to do this in the console space.
Not that simple either.Really not that simple, never hurt ps2, even ps3 ww with all going against it sold faster then 360.