Support NeoGAF

[SneakersSO]

The reason why SneakerSO is saying what he is saying is because traditionally game development has been using engines to do some generalized code but then the devs go in and try to ease out the most power out of the system that their engine allows (also while having hackjobs on the side, render pipeline and such). So doing the same thing for 2 versions of a console is a nightmare because of the hackjobs to make stuff look good for both versions. I totally get that as a dev (not in gaming but I do that on the side).

The reason why people say UWP/UWA and mobile and such is because of opportunity cost. Normally you would (as a dev) be getting all the power out of the box as much as possible, find out ways to do it...but if there's another version of the hardware that should scale with your code (obviously you need settings for such stuff) then you wouldn't need to squeeze it out for the lower version. Yes, this does mean that the previous version of the console wouldn't be getting the best it possibly can. So the time a dev would be "wasting" to grab all that power could be used elsewhere. That's why Phil Spencer even mentioned decoupling the hardware from the software. There's downsides and upsides to both.

That's not to say that a dev should be throwing away time to make a game look/perform well. What it does say is that the generic code of the engines used need to take advantage of the APIs of DX12/UWP so that the scaling happens easier and get the performance as much as they possibly can towards the API and minimize the amount of "hacks" one has to do for a version. The hacks is the issue is because that's where testing comes in and that's where the cost is.

So I say that there will be a change in how one would be developing their code (depending on how they want to approach development). GDC will probably be answering a lot of these questions for devs. It's going to be a change of the mindset on how one approaches game development. So yes, in the traditional sense, yes, you're absolutely right SneakersSO. I see it (my opinion) that it will go to how it is in the mobile development space where you are easing the power of the API as much as one can and let the hardware/API do work that normally is on the dev. That's not to say that there won't be hacks, but it should be minimized. The engine folk are going to have a lot of changing to do.

Hopefully what I said makes sense.

I see what you're saying, but there is no reason for developers to change our approach in development for the sort of games we're discussing here. This announcement certainly isn't giving us a reason, as all this does is increase our budget for zero gain. There are a ton of mobile apps & what we traditionally label 'mobile games' that will ABSOLUTELY benefit from this. But if we're talking strictly in the sense of console & PC focused games? No. It's not changing. At least, its not changing so that MS could allow themselves the opportunity to release new console hardware every 2-3 years. Understand - DX12 isn't intrinsically tied to UWP. It's a graphical API library, and MS would never be stupid enough to make UWP/UWA compatibility a requirement in order to utilize DX12.

You just don't understand how a sophisticated game engine runs on the hardware we have to make it run on. We could absolutely reduce scope, functionality, & graphical capability in order to work directly through the W10 OS just for Xbox games, but then there will be way more devs who don't go that route, and specialize their game code they way they currently do. Its asking a lot from devs just to enable MS to take a gamble on a business strategy that most likely won't even work.

 

[wapplew]

In the spam of the new generation will xbox one support be dropped? For sure for most titles, by the time competition hits? I don't think so, just like 360 and ps3 kept going receiving games for a while after Ps4 and Xbone came. If anything developers will have more incentive to support older hardware because a sale is a sale no matter what device.

And that's kinda the point, if someone keeps just the xbox one, by the time Ps5 hits the person will still be able to purchase games for his system that will work even better on new hardware.

So by then this person will have a choice. Do I remain on xbox where I can have all my games, many of them will play better, and I still can use my accessories, or do I lose it all to switch to Ps5?

If they already had that in place for 360-> Xbone I doubt we would see that many gamers that switched from 360 to Ps4 this gen.

And Ms is in a very good position because they can tap into 360 and OGxbox libraries to give even more incentive to be invested on their consoles.

But all this advantages gone if PS5 have full BC right? They are using x86 architecture, so PS5 is very likely have full BC be it native or emulation.
Then we have 100+m plus PS4 users likely to move forward to PS5 like you describe.

 

[valkyre]

Why are there so many people finding this a good idea?!

 

[justsomeguy]

I see what you're saying, but there is no reason for developers to change our approach in development for the sort of games we're discussing here. This announcement certainly giving us a reason, as all this does is increase our budget for zero gain. There are a ton of mobile apps & what we traditionally label 'mobile games' that will ABSOLUTELY benefit from this. But if we're talking strictly in the sense of console & PC focused games? No. It's not changing. At least, its not changing so that MS could allow themselves the opportunity release new console hardware every 2-3 years. Understand - DX12 isn't intrinsically tied to UWP. It's a graphical API library, and MS would never be stupid enough to make UWP/UWA compatibility a require in order to utilize DX12.

You just don't understand how a sophisticated game engine runs on the hardware we have to make it run on. We could absolutely reduce scope, functionality, & graphical capability in order to work directly through the W10 OS just for Xbox games, but then there will be way more devs who don't go that route, and specialize their game code they way they currently do. Its asking a lot from devs just to enable MS to take a gamble on a business strategy that most likely won't even work.

Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if they're working on some plan to get the XDK to spit out universal apps? I know that's nigh on impossible because your libraries and hence available APIs change - but wonder if that's the direction they're thinking. Doesn't negate the testing cost but takes a lot of pain out of the dev cost.

 

[FonkyByNature]

I see what you're saying, but there is no reason for developers to change our approach in development for the sort of games we're discussing here. This announcement certainly giving us a reason, as all this does is increase our budget for zero gain. There are a ton of mobile apps & what we traditionally label 'mobile games' that will ABSOLUTELY benefit from this. But if we're talking strictly in the sense of console & PC focused games? No. It's not changing. At least, its not changing so that MS could allow themselves the opportunity release new console hardware every 2-3 years. Understand - DX12 isn't intrinsically tied to UWP. It's a graphical API library, and MS would never be stupid enough to make UWP/UWA compatibility a require in order to utilize DX12.

You just don't understand how a sophisticated game engine runs on the hardware we have to make it run on. We could absolutely reduce scope, functionality, & graphical capability in order to work directly through the W10 OS just for Xbox games, but then there will be way more devs who don't go that route, and specialize their game code they way they currently do. Its asking a lot from devs just to enable MS to take a gamble on a business strategy that most likely won't even work.

Thanks for your input SneakersSO ! Great discussions on a very interesting topic.

 

[justsomeguy]

But all this advantages gone if PS5 have full BC right? They are using x86 architecture, so PS5 is very likely have full BC be it native or emulation.
Then we have 100+m plus PS4 users likely to move forward to PS5 like you describe.

Depends. I would suspect power/price is a bigger influence than back compat in purchasing decisions.

If "Xbox One v3" (or whatever launches at the same time as the PS5) is cheaper and more powerful then history tells us that many people will switch ecosystem for it.

Or someone may have only recently bought a PS4 and then decide to wait for Xbox One v4 to come out a couple of years after PS5, knowing it'll have better performance again.

Who knows? I don't. I'm really interested to see how it pans out. It's not without its risks that's for sure.

 

[SneakersSO]

In the spam of the new generation will xbox one support be dropped? For sure for most titles, by the time competition hits? I don't think so, just like 360 and ps3 kept going receiving games for a while after Ps4 and Xbone came. If anything developers will have more incentive to support older hardware because a sale is a sale no matter what device.

And that's kinda the point, if someone keeps just the xbox one, by the time Ps5 hits the person will still be able to purchase games for his system that will work even better on new hardware.

So by then this person will have a choice. Do I remain on xbox where I can have all my games, many of them will play better, and I still can use my accessories, or do I lose it all to switch to Ps5?

If they already had that in place for 360-> Xbone I doubt we would see that many gamers that switched from 360 to Ps4 this gen.

And Ms is in a very good position because they can tap into 360 and OGxbox libraries to give even more incentive to be invested on their consoles.

A sale is not a sale no matter the device. Let me be clear about this - each platform we put our games on cost us money. A lot of money. A lot of money & more importantly, effort. If MS launches a new console that is a slight iteration on its last one, if that console doesn't build an install base that justifies me supporting it natively, why the heck would I do so? Especially when Xbox already has a system that they are still selling that I am still making games on.

Yes, the first year or two of a generation do have a ton of cross-generation games, but that is a transitional period, not an ever-lasting one. I already know that in a year after a generation, the install base and the market direction will have moved onto the new machine, and growth & sales on the older machine will have completely died down. But in this scenario, there is no reason to assume that, yet publishers are still being asked to support all of the older machines.

 

[Crayon]

Maybe it's time to create a thread about what UWA can and cannot do.

Not necessary. There's all of ten people in here who watch ms presentations for fun and drink all the koolaid and there's no changing their minds.

 

[Markoman]

I'll also like to mention that what MS is doing is what Apple, Google, and all the big tech companies have been doing (well all companies)...lock into the ecosystem. It makes it much harder to switch to another ecosystem with this. Not saying one can't have both systems (I encourage that) but having all of your games follow you will make it hard for some people who are PS4/XBO to switch if they only can afford one system as they would be essentially "starting over" with their library. It's easier to do that with ~6-8 year generations...but if you could get one ~4 years into it, would you choose to leave all of your games and go to the other side? Not saying people wouldn't...but it just helps lockin.

Good point, but you are implying that most consumers care about 5 year-old games and I'm not sure about that, especially in a gaming landscape with so many sequels. Just for convenience reasons I sometimes would like to erase some older games from my Steam library. Yes, GAF keeps every game like a treasure close to the heart, but I think the 'consume-and-throw away' mentality prevails.

 

[RedSwirl]

I don't see why Sony couldn't do this. Maybe Sony doesn't feel the need as much as Microsoft, but it could still do an incrementally upgraded PlayStation.

And I don't understand the posts suggesting PS4 users would have to start all over. No they wouldn't. It would be the same architecture, the same OS, and the same software. I've said before that this is pretty much what I think the PS5 is going to end up being, just on an interval the equivalent to a normal console generation.

 

[Synth]

You're right that the OS you're working through, and its overhead, is something you do not have access to. I did give a scenario that would allow this to be possible - emulation. That, or streaming a server rendering the game to the user. Yes, the head of Xbox is making a claim about launching a new console. Thats what this would be - a new console. A new console that is relatively conservative in terms of the technical iteration on top of its predecessor than we are normally used to when discussing console generations, but a new console nonetheless. The other way this would be possible would be if it were a beefed up version of the same APU they already have, warts & all. When i'm talking specialization, i'm talking about your render pipeline, your memory manager, your various code threads, etc. - those are all things that can be specialized to the hardware your code is running on. These specializations are things we do when developing PC & Console games that we don't do when developing mobile games. In mobile games, we allow the OS to handle much of that for us.

Honestly, considering there is no other detail other than a blurb over some future intent of theirs, I think this topic has gone way past the point that we can go in terms of discussion. What we're talking about now is feasibility. And we have devs in here saying that the feasibility of such an endeavor, especially in how the community thinks it would go, as not anywhere near as clear cut as that blurb made it sound like.

The bolded sounds like what would make sense as a general solution here. This would then mean that the new console would both be able to play everything the previous console did, whilst also being equipped to run that (and other software) better. The reason I didn't consider software emulation to be a very likely solution is because as you say, the new console would like be relatively conservative in how much improved it is over the original, and attempting to replicate a console that's within spitting distance in terms of power via software emulation doesn't seem like it'd work very well at all (it'd be stupid to have this machine running Halo 5 worse than the console I already own).

The real question that'd remain then would be for the future, where iterations on the same somewhat crippled architecture would make no sense to hold onto. Though I suppose if this whole WIndows 10 drive bears fruit, at that point it may be a non-factor, as there could be a Windows 10 version of every game by then, which would be deployed to future consoles in place of the current Xbox One build.

The reason why SneakerSO is saying what he is saying is because traditionally game development has been using engines to do some generalized code but then the devs go in and try to ease out the most power out of the system that their engine allows (also while having hackjobs on the side, render pipeline and such). So doing the same thing for 2 versions of a console is a nightmare because of the hackjobs to make stuff look good for both versions. I totally get that as a dev (not in gaming but I do that on the side).

The reason why people say UWP/UWA and mobile and such is because of opportunity cost. Normally you would (as a dev) be getting all the power out of the box as much as possible, find out ways to do it...but if there's another version of the hardware that should scale with your code (obviously you need settings for such stuff) then you wouldn't need to squeeze it out for the lower version. Yes, this does mean that the previous version of the console wouldn't be getting the best it possibly can. So the time a dev would be "wasting" to grab all that power could be used elsewhere. That's why Phil Spencer even mentioned decoupling the hardware from the software. There's downsides and upsides to both.

That's not to say that a dev should be throwing away time to make a game look/perform well. What it does say is that the generic code of the engines used need to take advantage of the APIs of DX12/UWP so that the scaling happens easier and get the performance as much as they possibly can towards the API and minimize the amount of "hacks" one has to do for a version. The hacks is the issue is because that's where testing comes in and that's where the cost is.

So I say that there will be a change in how one would be developing their code (depending on how they want to approach development). GDC will probably be answering a lot of these questions for devs. It's going to be a change of the mindset on how one approaches game development. So yes, in the traditional sense, yes, you're absolutely right SneakersSO. I see it (my opinion) that it will go to how it is in the mobile development space where you are easing the power of the API as much as one can and let the hardware/API do work that normally is on the dev. That's not to say that there won't be hacks, but it should be minimized. The engine folk are going to have a lot of changing to do.

Hopefully what I said makes sense.

Whilst everything you say here makes sense. it's somewhat of a branch from the topic we're actually discussing. We're not really talking about new UWP designed games being carried forwards... but more a new model's ability to play the current Xbox One lineup. If they release a new model say later this year, it'd be a bit stupid to be all "here's the new improved HIGHER SPEC Xbox One!" and then you can only play Gears UE, Quantum Break, Recore, Fable Legends and the like on it. They would absolutely have to make it so that all the games released up until this point for the current Xbox One also work. The conversation started from the suggestion that developers would have to target both the current XB1 and a theoretical XB1.5 individually for a game to run on both... in other words, that they would be unable to simply release an XB1 game in the way that they have been up until today.

 

[SneakersSO]

Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if they're working on some plan to get the XDK to spit out universal apps? I know that's nigh on impossible because your libraries and hence available APIs change - but wonder if that's the direction they're thinking. Doesn't negate the testing cost but takes a lot of pain out of the dev cost.

I mean, they already have a universal apps approach to W10 development. The reason this hasn't caught on with console games development is because of how specialized our code bases require us to be. The reason it hasn't caught on with mobile devs is because W10 isn't the defacto target platform for mobile devs - iOS & Android are.

Like I said, there will absolutely be game developers who will change their approach and attempt to make games that are more in-line with a traditional app, and are far less reliant on the hardware that is running it. But for the demands of the core console gaming demographic, we just aren't there yet.

 

[scrambles]

I'm not sure developers are going to have to specifically develop for each platform, my understanding is that this will be somewhat like the steambox. Instead of making games for xbox, they will simply develop for windows 10, and the xbox versions will then play each game to varying ability.

It makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make a lot of sense however, is any xbox fan who bought an x1 day 1, and is behind this move. If I was just getting into the market, this looks like it could be something I'd pick up, but given the way MS has handled xbox for the past 3 gens, there has been more bad than good. xbox og completely discontinued once 360 comes out, 360 changing over to kinect focus, x1 seemingly being replaced early. It just seems like there is a history of abandonment associated with the console.

I would rather get a steambox.

 

[SneakersSO]

The bolded sounds like what would make sense as a general solution here. This would then mean that the new console would both be able to play everything the previous console did, whilst also being equipped to run that (and other software) better. The reason I didn't consider software emulation to be a very likely solution is because as you say, the new console would like be relatively conservative in how much improved it is over the original, and attempting to replicate a console that's within spitting distance in terms o power via software emulation doesn't seem like it'd work very well at all (it'd be stupid to have this machine running Halo 5 worse than the console I already own).

The real question that'd remain then would be for the future, where iterations on the same somewhat crippled architecture would make no sense to hold onto. Though I suppose if this whole WIndows 10 drive bears fruit, at that point it may be a non-factor, as there could be a Windows 10 version of every game by then, which would be deployed to future consoles in place of the current Xbox One build.

Honestly, MS pushing out a new console with the same APU with higher clock speeds & larger memory pools for eSRAM & DDR3, just doesn't seem like a good idea. Sure, you get full BC for the currently released library, but its not like their APU is the gold standard in the console marketplace right now. I just don't see what they necessarily gain other than being able to say 'We have a machine that is the strongest console on the market right now". Sure, this would be a valuable statement, if having the strongest console ever really meant any sort of guaranteed sales success.

Instead, you run the risk of alienating an install base that has, to this day, spent $350+ on a machine they were told they could rely on for years & years to come. There are tons of things they'd have to overcome in their marketing & PR that, quite frankly, they have not been very strong on in the last few years.

 

[chocoedd]

I wonder if this move is a step toward cloud gaming ecosystem. No need for manufacturing console and dealing with retailers and logistics. 100% complete control of content without worrying pirates/hacks. The only thing MS need to manufacture are controllers and peripherals. Consumers can run any games on any Windows 10 devices, even on standard smartTVs. Basically a hardware-agnostic game, where you don't need to worry about specifications anymore, just your internet bandwidth.

 

[LukasTaves]

But all this advantages gone if PS5 have full BC right? They are using x86 architecture, so PS5 is very likely have full BC be it native or emulation.
Then we have 100+m plus PS4 users likely to move forward to PS5 like you describe.

The impact is diminished for sure, but even then Ms would have a differentiator. The same game would run better on newer models, whereas BC usually is the same. That can too be countered by offering crossbuy with Ps4 and Ps5.

But then there's another ace in Ms strategies. Eventually phones will be powerful enough to run xbone/Ps4 games and when they do you add another family of devices you are able to game on with the same library. It's not the most compelling reason ever, but I think it all adds up.

 

[Crayon]

The impact is diminished for sure, but even then Ms would have a differentiator. The same game would run better on newer models, whereas BC usually is the same. That can too be countered by offering crossbuy with Ps4 and Ps5.

But then there's another ace in Ms strategies. Eventually phones will be powerful enough to run xbone/Ps4 games and when they do you add another family of devices you are able to game on with the same library. It's not the most compelling reason ever, but I think it all adds up.

Have you ever heard of Magical Thinking?

 

[wapplew]

The impact is diminished for sure, but even then Ms would have a differentiator. The same game would run better on newer models, whereas BC usually is the same. That can too be countered by offering crossbuy with Ps4 and Ps5.

But then there's another ace in Ms strategies. Eventually phones will be powerful enough to run xbone/Ps4 games and when they do you add another family of devices you are able to game on with the same library. It's not the most compelling reason ever, but I think it all adds up.

I guess I would prefer usual BC with titles build with new machine from ground up oppose to better looking BC titles with cross gen games.
But that's just me.

 

[Zedox]

I see what you're saying, but there is no reason for developers to change our approach in development for the sort of games we're discussing here. This announcement certainly giving us a reason, as all this does is increase our budget for zero gain. There are a ton of mobile apps & what we traditionally label 'mobile games' that will ABSOLUTELY benefit from this. But if we're talking strictly in the sense of console & PC focused games? No. It's not changing. At least, its not changing so that MS could allow themselves the opportunity release new console hardware every 2-3 years. Understand - DX12 isn't intrinsically tied to UWP. It's a graphical API library, and MS would never be stupid enough to make UWP/UWA compatibility a require in order to utilize DX12.

You just don't understand how a sophisticated game engine runs on the hardware we have to make it run on. We could absolutely reduce scope, functionality, & graphical capability in order to work directly through the W10 OS just for Xbox games, but then there will be way more devs who don't go that route, and specialize their game code they way they currently do. Its asking a lot from devs just to enable MS to take a gamble on a business strategy that most likely won't even work.

I know that DX12 doesn't mean that you have to use UWP (I should have stated it how I did, my bad). I think has to show publishers/devs/etc... why one should target the UWP. They have to prove the UWP is viable for them. (Obviously what I'm saying is speculation but I just want to clarify because others may think I'm speaking gospel or something) But if they could say and show that if you target this platform and it will work with minimal effort for PC and various Xbox versions, I can see some (obviously not all) slowly move to use that platform just for cost. But obviously that's on MS to prove, not some just words and pie in the sky stuff.

Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if they're working on some plan to get the XDK to spit out universal apps? I know that's nigh on impossible because your libraries and hence available APIs change - but wonder if that's the direction they're thinking. Doesn't negate the testing cost but takes a lot of pain out of the dev cost.

I think what would have to happen is that the XDK will stay the same until depreciated at some point in the future and replaced with a UWP SDK. But they will support both for the time being as many developers are currently developing games and having them change (especially 3rd party) all of their code for MS business reasons isn't a smart idea. But yea, I definitely think they'll be supporting both SDKs for the foreseeable future.

Good point, but you are implying that most consumers care about 5 year-old games and I'm not sure about that, especially in a gaming landscape with so many sequels. Just for convenience reasons I sometimes would like to erase some older games from my Steam library. Yes, GAF keeps every game like a treasure close to the heart, but I think the 'consume-and-throw away' mentality prevails.

Well, I'm not saying that most consumers will not change or anything but it does help with lock-in. Why don't people who have PCs and use steam switch to Linux and use that Steam? Because all of their games don't follow. Not saying there aren't a number who don't...but I'm sure you see my point. It's only a thing that will help with lock-in. It was much easier for people to switch to PS4 from X360 because everyone basically started all over. If there's no real "start over" point, it is a harder decision to make. That's all.

The bolded sounds like what would make sense as a general solution here. This would then mean that the new console would both be able to play everything the previous console did, whilst also being equipped to run that (and other software) better. The reason I didn't consider software emulation to be a very likely solution is because as you say, the new console would like be relatively conservative in how much improved it is over the original, and attempting to replicate a console that's within spitting distance in terms o power via software emulation doesn't seem like it'd work very well at all (it'd be stupid to have this machine running Halo 5 worse than the console I already own).

The real question that'd remain then would be for the future, where iterations on the same somewhat crippled architecture would make no sense to hold onto. Though I suppose if this whole WIndows 10 drive bears fruit, at that point it may be a non-factor, as there could be a Windows 10 version of every game by then, which would be deployed to future consoles in place of the current Xbox One build.



Whilst everything you say here makes sense. it's somewhat of a branch from the topic we're actually discussing. We're not really talking about new UWP designed games being carried forwards... but more a new model's ability to play the current Xbox One lineup. If they release a new model say later this year, it'd be a bit stupid to be all "here's the new improved HIGHER SPEC Xbox One!" and then you can only play Gears UE, Quantum Break, Recore, Fable Legends and the like on it. They would absolutely have to make it so that all the games released up until this point for the current Xbox One also work. The conversation started from the suggestion that developers would have to target both the current XB1 and a theoretical XB1.5 individually for a game to run on both... in other words, that they would be unable to simply release an XB1 game in the way that they have been up until today.

Oh definitely I agree that is a nightmare for developers. I've said this somewhere else but there will definitely be a bumpy road with this approach. It's going to be very interesting how MS shows this off. I still think it's going to happen this year but it's up to MS to sell it.

 

[Markoman]

I wonder if this move is a step toward cloud gaming ecosystem. No need for manufacturing console and dealing with retailers and logistics. 100% complete control of content without worrying pirates/hacks. The only thing MS need to manufacture are controllers and peripherals. Consumers can run any games on any Windows 10 devices, even on standard smartTVs. Basically a hardware-agnostic game, where you don't need to worry about specifications anymore, just your internet bandwidth.

Yep, sounds like the future. But this will take at least 10 more years to provide the necessary internet infrastructure for mass adoption.

The impact is diminished for sure, but even then Ms would have a differentiator. The same game would run better on newer models, whereas BC usually is the same. That can too be countered by offering crossbuy with Ps4 and Ps5.

But then there's another ace in Ms strategies. Eventually phones will be powerful enough to run xbone/Ps4 games and when they do you add another family of devices you are able to game on with the same library. It's not the most compelling reason ever, but I think it all adds up.

Learn to crawl before you walk. Running Halo 7 on a smart phone,console and PC sounds beyond 2020 to me right now (controls???). By that time both Sony and MS might get surprise attacked the same way when they were fighting for the living room 10 years ago.

 

[Crayon]

(Obviously what I'm saying is speculation but I just want to clarify because others may think I'm speaking gospel or something)

Zedox you are a whole new breed.

 

[SneakersSO]

I know that DX12 doesn't mean that you have to use UWP (I should have stated it how I did, my bad). I think has to show publishers/devs/etc... why one should target the UWP. They have to prove the UWP is viable for them. (Obviously what I'm saying is speculation but I just want to clarify because others may think I'm speaking gospel or something) But if they could say and show that if you target this platform and it will work with minimal effort for PC and various Xbox versions, I can see some (obviously not all) slowly move to use that platform just for cost. But obviously that's on MS to prove, not some just words and pie in the sky stuff.

In order to do that, MS has to prove there is money to be made in doing so. Why do I pick targeting UWP development, when Steam already has an established install base in the types of product i'm already making, and a storefront that users flock to? Like everything else, they have to prove that there is money to be made in changing our practices. I just don't foresee any reason why there would be. And again, you're talking about changing how devs approach our entire code base for the types of games our users want. There are a ton of drawbacks to that.

 

[Synth]

Honestly, MS pushing out a new console with the same APU with higher clock speeds & larger memory pools for eSRAM & DDR3, just doesn't seem like a good idea. Sure, you get full BC for the currently released library, but its not like their APU is the gold standard in the console marketplace right now. I just don't see what they necessarily gain other than being able to say 'We have a machine that is the strongest console on the market right now". Sure, this would be a valuable statement, if having the strongest console ever really meant any sort of guaranteed sales success.

Instead, you run the risk of alienating an install base that has, to this day, spent $350+ on a machine they were told they could rely on for years & years to come. There are tons of things they'd have to overcome in their marketing & PR that, quite frankly, they have not been very strong on in the last few years.

It may well not be a good idea. There's a risk involved with pretty much everything. If there was something that was guaranteed to pan out well for them, then they'd obviously go with that... but there isn't. The alternative would be to sit back, do nothing different and let the generation continue on the same course, and then try to meet next gen with Sony carrying over all the momentum they're currently building. May as well try something.

I'm not sure what "years and years to come" should realistic mean regarding a console purchase. 3 years (this year)? 4 years (next year, and common for previous gens)? More importantly though, someone like myself who bought the console at launch would be able to rely on their console for years to come, as games would still be released for it (I think we can both agree that nobody would want to target the XB1.5 exclusively in this scenario). It simply ceases to be the most powerful option.. which honestly is a title it never ever had (and certainly doesn't now with Windows 10 releases). It's like me buying a GTX980 in 2014... you could rely on it for years, even though it would only be the top of the line offering for around 8 months.

I guess I would prefer usual BC with titles build with new machine from ground up oppose to better looking BC titles with cross gen games.
But that's just me.

Then you'd just be on the .0 cycle rather than the .5 cycle.

 

[Zedox]

Zedox you are a whole new breed.

Excuse me. I'm not talking directly to anyone. I'm stating my position to say what I'm saying is just a speculation and not what I believe is going to happen but a possibility. The gospel part was just a joke. smh.

In order to do that, MS has to prove there is money to be made in doing so. Why do I pick targeting UWP development, when Steam already has an established install base in the types of product i'm already making, and a storefront that users flock to? Like everything else, they have to prove that there is money to be made in changing our practices. I just don't foresee any reason why there would be. And again, you're talking about changing how devs approach our entire code base for the types of games our users want. There are a ton of drawbacks to that.

I 100% agree and it's why I stated that's what MS has to prove. They can't just make it and think that everyone is going to pounce on it because it's new and shiny.

 

[etta]

Windows 10 Redstone: Second wave of updates coming in 2017

We already know that Redstone will launch in two waves, the first of which will be happening in June. This first update is being developed under the tag RS1, and according to my sources will focus mostly on the convergence of different Windows 10 devices such as PC, Xbox and Phone. RS1 will heavily concentrate on the Universal App Platform, bringing the Windows Store to Xbox One and introducing more Project Centennial and Islandwood apps to the Store.

There will also be a bigger focus on universal AAA video game titles between Xbox and PC, which is something we have already started seeing as of recently. In short, the Windows Store in RS1 aims to be a hub for all media-related content on the Windows platform, accessible from any Windows 10 device.

 

[Purest 78]

Good point, but you are implying that most consumers care about 5 year-old games and I'm not sure about that, especially in a gaming landscape with so many sequels. Just for convenience reasons I sometimes would like to erase some older games from my Steam library. Yes, GAF keeps every game like a treasure close to the heart, but I think the 'consume-and-throw away' mentality prevails.

Gamestop would have never become Huge if people kept or cared about old games. I don't think most care about a 1 year old game let alone a five year old game.

 

[Zedox]

Windows 10 Redstone: Second wave of updates coming in 2017

Yea, good stuff. I'm still waiting for my preview for extensions in MS Edge. Good to hear that they will converge the stores in RS1. I thought they would announce it during build but not let devs put stuff on there until RS2 (when RS2 was scheduled for later in the year...but seeing how that changed, i'll adjust my thoughts).

 

[wapplew]

Then you'd just be on the .0 cycle rather than the .5 cycle.

Every .0 cycle will cut off .5 support?

Like PS5 games cannot run on PS4, that's no FC.
Xbox 1 can play Xbox 1.5 game, that's FC, then 2 years later, Xbox 1.5 cannot play Xbox 2.0 games?

 

[vcc]

Depends. I would suspect power/price is a bigger influence than back compat in purchasing decisions.

If "Xbox One v3" (or whatever launches at the same time as the PS5) is cheaper and more powerful then history tells us that many people will switch ecosystem for it.

Or someone may have only recently bought a PS4 and then decide to wait for Xbox One v4 to come out a couple of years after PS5, knowing it'll have better performance again.

Who knows? I don't. I'm really interested to see how it pans out. It's not without its risks that's for sure.

Historically it went like this-

Platform with most hype wins first few years (often most powerful of consoles in the first year). Install base create momentum and draws developers/games. The weight of games, install base, momentum fends off subsequent more powerful entries.

Historically this move doesn't work. OGXB was a later entrant crushed by install base, Games library, and momentum.

MS knows this. Either they are just huge gamblers or they want to swing big saybthey tried abd exit without their base feeling like MS gave up on them. I suspect the later.

 

[etta]

Every .0 cycle will cut off .5 support?

Like PS5 games cannot run on PS4, that's no FC.
Xbox 1 can play Xbox 1.5 game, that's FC, then 2 years later, Xbox 1.5 cannot play Xbox 2.0 games?

No, it will probably be like Apple. They will run, but how well they run will diminish with each new generation, and how committed they are to enforcing forward compatibility.

 

[SneakersSO]

It may well not be a good idea. There's a risk involved with pretty much everything. If there was something that was guaranteed to pan out well for them, then they'd obviously go with that... but there isn't. The alternative would be to sit back, do nothing different and let the generation continue on the same course, and then try to meet next gen with Sony carrying over all the momentum they're currently building. May as well try something.

An iterative console doesn't solve the biggest problem they have had this generation, which has been attracting a worldwide audience to their console. MS is close in terms of sales in the US & UK. Yes, they do get outsold in those territories by Sony, but its not this huge blow out for the majority of the year. The real difference maker has been every region outside of those two. A new, iterative console will not change that. If MS wants to become the market leader, they need to figure out how to make their brand appealing in those other regions.

Also, console generations have become longer for multiple reasons. Manufacturers are making more money on these systems the longer they last. But costumers are also more reluctant to upgrade because the cost of investing in these machines is so high. Compare how much you were being asked to invest into an OG Xbox or PS2, to how much we invested into our systems during the PS3/360 era, and how much we're being asked to invest into our current machines.

 

[jroc74]

I'm not sure developers are going to have to specifically develop for each platform, my understanding is that this will be somewhat like the steambox. Instead of making games for xbox, they will simply develop for windows 10, and the xbox versions will then play each game to varying ability.

It makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make a lot of sense however, is any xbox fan who bought an x1 day 1, and is behind this move. If I was just getting into the market, this looks like it could be something I'd pick up, but given the way MS has handled xbox for the past 3 gens, there has been more bad than good. xbox og completely discontinued once 360 comes out, 360 changing over to kinect focus, x1 seemingly being replaced early. It just seems like there is a history of abandonment associated with the console.

I would rather get a steambox.

This is what some of us were arguing in the QB, Forza coming to PC threads. If MS feels they have to do this to stay in the game, more power to them.

Just dont be shocked when day 1 folks, or just some folks with XBO consoles period feel like wtf....

 

[SPDIF]

The design principles in the ascendantin phones and tablets do seem to be skewed to Apple's variants. Arguing that Metro was a paradigm shift is factious unless you're making a argument about essentially re skins by the market leaders.

vs skumorphic

What a gulf....

Ok, let's ignore any arguments about Metro being a paradigm shift and go back to your original point -- the fact you seem to think Metro was just a reskin of Apple's design -- which is really the only thing I was arguing about. Like I said, you're the only person I've come across, either online or in real life, that actually seems to think that. Even Apple fanboy extraordinaire John Gruber has never said a thing like that (I think he actually even said he likes it). If Microsoft wanted to reskin Apple's design then they would have looked at this:

And just created a slightly different grid full of icons. But they didn't:

Spoiler

It's a little hard to do the UI justice with a single static image

GIF stolen from a Windows Phone OT

They created something that was new and different to anything else out at the time.

So if you don't like Metro that's fine. If you don't agree that it may have helped to influence Apple, Google and a bunch of other companies to embrace a more flat modern design -- even a tiny a little bit -- then that's fine. But I cannot possibly begin to understand how you can sit there and claim that Metro was nothing more than MS reskinning Apple's existing design.

Spoiler

This has now gotten ridiculously off-topic, so unless you really want to continue the discussion in PM form, I won't be replying to you again. I've said what I wanted to say. Have the final word if you like.

 

[vcc]

I know that DX12 doesn't mean that you have to use UWP (I should have stated it how I did, my bad). I think has to show publishers/devs/etc... why one should target the UWP. They have to prove the UWP is viable for them. (Obviously what I'm saying is speculation but I just want to clarify because others may think I'm speaking gospel or something) But if they could say and show that if you target this platform and it will work with minimal effort for PC and various Xbox versions, I can see some (obviously not all) slowly move to use that platform just for cost. But obviously that's on MS to prove, not some just words and pie in the sky stuff.



I think what would have to happen is that the XDK will stay the same until depreciated at some point in the future and replaced with a UWP SDK. But they will support both for the time being as many developers are currently developing games and having them change (especially 3rd party) all of their code for MS business reasons isn't a smart idea. But yea, I definitely think they'll be supporting both SDKs for the foreseeable future.



Well, I'm not saying that most consumers will not change or anything but it does help with lock-in. Why don't people who have PCs and use steam switch to Linux and use that Steam? Because all of their games don't follow. Not saying there aren't a number who don't...but I'm sure you see my point. It's only a thing that will help with lock-in. It was much easier for people to switch to PS4 from X360 because everyone basically started all over. If there's no real "start over" point, it is a harder decision to make. That's all.



Oh definitely I agree that is a nightmare for developers. I've said this somewhere else but there will definitely be a bumpy road with this approach. It's going to be very interesting how MS shows this off. I still think it's going to happen this year but it's up to MS to sell it.

It's pretty fun to see you back pedal furiously when a actual game dev presses you on your unrealistic bullshit pr oriented positions.

 

[Synth]

Every .0 cycle will cut off .5 support?

Like PS5 games cannot run on PS4, that's no FC.
Xbox 1 can play Xbox 1.5 game, that's FC, then 2 years later, Xbox 1.5 cannot play Xbox 2.0 games?

I feel like we've already had this conversation.... lol

But yea, basically XB1 could play XB1.5 games, because they're really XB1 games.

XB2 would play multiplats that are also being created for PS5, so logically they wouldn't be able to run on an XB1. I guess the question would then be whether or not an XB1.5 could run these games in a gimped fashion... which would likely be on a case by case basis, similar to games receiving a downport to a previous gen console (such as FH2, Titanfall or RoTR). It would be very safe to assume that an XB1.5 wouldn't be able to run every XB2 game however.

An iterative console doesn't solve the biggest problem they have had this generation, which has been attracting a worldwide audience to their console. MS is close in terms of sales in the US & UK. Yes, they do get outsold in those territories by Sony, but its not this huge blow out for the majority of the year. The real difference maker has been every region outside of those two. A new, iterative console will not change that. If MS wants to become the market leader, they need to figure out how to make their brand appealing in those other regions.

No, it wouldn't. That's more what the expansion towards Windows 10 PCs is designed to help with. The iterative console would just be a side-effect of that, which would help solve one of their other more minor issues... that a console player (and possible multiconsole owner) that cares most about which machine the game runs best on (the sort of crowd DF caters to) will by default select the PS4 version of every game.

 

[4Tran]

Honestly, MS pushing out a new console with the same APU with higher clock speeds & larger memory pools for eSRAM & DDR3, just doesn't seem like a good idea. Sure, you get full BC for the currently released library, but its not like their APU is the gold standard in the console marketplace right now. I just don't see what they necessarily gain other than being able to say 'We have a machine that is the strongest console on the market right now". Sure, this would be a valuable statement, if having the strongest console ever really meant any sort of guaranteed sales success.

One of Microsoft's biggest hurdles looks to be the fact that the DDR3 and eSRAM is tying the Xbone down. Any new hardware design should use unified memory. And I'd imagine that the code base for that will be quite different from the Xbone code base. It really does look like Microsoft is making things harder for themselves.

It may well not be a good idea. There's a risk involved with pretty much everything. If there was something that was guaranteed to pan out well for them, then they'd obviously go with that... but there isn't. The alternative would be to sit back, do nothing different and let the generation continue on the same course, and then try to meet next gen with Sony carrying over all the momentum they're currently building. May as well try something.

There's a difference between the kind of risk associated with a plan that looks good but remains untried and what Microsoft is talking about. This continually upgraded console looks bad on paper because it strips away some of a console's advantages without adding any of the PC's advantages.

 

[EvB]

Why are there so many people finding this a good idea?!

Because people like consoles but also like new shiny things and better graphics.

Isn't that why everyone gets hyped for a new console?

 

[wapplew]

I feel like we've already had this conversation.... lol

But yea, basically XB1 could play XB1.5 games, because they really XB1 games.

XB2 would play multiplats that are also being created for PS5, so logically they wouldn't be able to run on an XB1. I guess the question would then be whether or not an XB1.5 could run these games in a gimped fashion... which would likely be on a case by case basis, similar to games receiving a downport to a previous gen console (such as FH2, Titanfall or RoTR). It would be very safe to assume that an XB1.5 wouldn't be able to run every XB2 game however.

Understood, so your idea of incremental upgrade is just a more powerful machine release between gen, a stop gap, but traditional console generation remain.

Ya, I could get behind this idea.

iOS decives kind of incremental, is what I don't want on console, again, not so much cross gen titles fan.

 

[Markoman]

Well, I'm not saying that most consumers will not change or anything but it does help with lock-in. Why don't people who have PCs and use steam switch to Linux and use that Steam? Because all of their games don't follow. Not saying there aren't a number who don't...but I'm sure you see my point. It's only a thing that will help with lock-in. It was much easier for people to switch to PS4 from X360 because everyone basically started all over. If there's no real "start over" point, it is a harder decision to make. That's all.

Please, try to come up with a better example. I think I know what you are getting at, but
people not switching to Linux has more obvious reasons: habit,convenience and MS's 20+ years of total dominance on PC. Why is nobody asking 'Why doesn't Apple release their OS for PCs?' Then things would get interesting for MS's ecosystem plan. Answer: they don't seem to care. They have itunes running on PC already and the money is made in there and on million devices out there running the apps.

We had this discussion in the other thread and I still think you are overblowing MS's ecosystem blabber a little bit. On my mobile device I purchase music, games,apps, etc. like millions of consumers out there. This is a way bigger market than console/PC gaming and in order to keep your purchases it really makes sense to stay with the brand. What is MS selling through their store? On devices that are not used by the majority in everyday-life? I don't need W10 to play my itunes music on PC.
What eco-system are we talking about? Being able to play games on PC and Xbox does not cut it for me and is not the same thing like being able to listen to my music or apps on three devices. MS hardware products are not the number one choice. So, who gives a rat's ass for compatibilty amongst devices they don't buy. A dedicated PC gamer will see even less reasons to buy a Xbox now. Once again, it will be a nice thing to have for a certain segment of consumers, but you can't compare what Apple is offering to what MS is trying to do right now. The gaming market is not on the same level as the mobile devices market.

 

[jroc74]

I feel like we've already had this conversation.... lol

But yea, basically XB1 could play XB1.5 games, because they're really XB1 games.

XB2 would play multiplats that are also being created for PS5, so logically they wouldn't be able to run on an XB1. I guess the question would then be whether or not an XB1.5 could run these games in a gimped fashion... which would likely be on a case by case basis, similar to games receiving a downport to a previous gen console (such as FH2, Titanfall or RoTR). It would be very safe to assume that an XB1.5 wouldn't be able to run every XB2 game however.



No, it wouldn't. That's more what the expansion towards Windows 10 PCs is designed to help with. The iterative console would just be a side-effect of that, which would help solve one of their other more minor issues... that a console player (and possible multiconsole owner) that cares most about which machine the game runs best on (the sort of crowd DF caters to) will by default select the PS4 version of every game.

This reminds me of mobile gaming, mobile apps. This works for mobile because its a different animal vs consoles. From expectations to just everything. Yea...I can see why FC might be an issue.

The only way FC really works is with PC gaming. But even then....system requirements sometimes rise with new big releases.

 

[vcc]

One of Microsoft's biggest hurdles looks to be the fact that the DDR3 and eSRAM is tying the Xbone down. Any new hardware design should use unified memory. And I'd imagine that the code base for that will be quite different from the Xbone code base. It really does look like Microsoft is making things harder for themselves.

I think at this point if they want full bc with XB1 they need to keep a pool of the eSRAM or need the whole memory pool to have similir speed and latency. Yeah this will be a huge gamble thay they can shift the business side.

There's a difference between the kind of risk associated with a plan that looks good but remains untried and what Microsoft is talking about. This continually upgraded console looks bad on paper because it strips away some of a console's advantages without adding any of the PC's advantages.

It does seem to be a mix of all the worst aspects of console and pc strategies to the various market segments with only a faint hope of changing historic trends. They need to appeal to the xb base and folks who like upgrades but are afraid of pcs. I'm not sure if enough will jump on to justify this move. Super risky and historically trends already suggest it's unlikely to succeed.

 

[vcc]

Please, try to come up with a better example. I think I know what you are getting at, but
people not switching to Linux has more obvious reasons: habit,convenience and MS's 20+ years of total dominance on PC. Why is nobody asking 'Why doesn't Apple release their OS for PCs?' Then things would get interesting for MS's ecosystem plan. Answer: they don't seem to care. They have itunes running on PC already and the money is made in there and on million devices out there running the apps.

We had this discussion in the other thread and I still think you are overblowing MS's ecosystem blabber a little bit. On my mobile device I purchase music, games,apps, etc. like millions of consumers out there. This is a way bigger market than console/PC gaming and in order to keep your purchases it really makes sense to stay with the brand. What is MS selling through their store? On devices that are not used by the majority in everyday-life? I don't need W10 to play my itunes music on PC.
What eco-system are we talking about? Being able to play games on PC and Xbox does not cut it for me and is not the same thing like being able to listen to my music or apps on three devices. MS hardware products are not the number one choice. So, who gives a rat's ass for compatibilty amongst devices they don't buy. A dedicated PC gamer will see even less reasons to buy a Xbox now. Once again, it will be a nice thing to have for a certain segment of consumers, but you can't compare what Apple is offering to what MS is trying to do right now. The gaming market is not on the same level as the mobile devices market.

Apple makes money on their hardware (lots of it). Which is why apple doesn't want their OS on non apple machines. Their customers are used to higher mark up for everything except apps.

 

[Garrett 2U]

Windows 10 Redstone: Second wave of updates coming in 2017

I'm excited for build this year.
Microsoft is pushing for AAA titles as UWA pretty hard, it'll be interesting to see what they reveal.

We've been hearing about this unification for a couple years now, we're finally seeing the results.

 

[The God]

With forward compatibility, at what point does Microsoft phase out the original Xbox One?

 

[Ol No Bones]

With forward compatibility, at what point does Microsoft phase out the original Xbox One?

My guess is devs will make games for the lowest common denominator until it is just not feasible to do so even at a low resolution. So that is dependant on how quickly the tech moves.m forward in the console space. I suspect they will support 3 hardware SKUs at any given time until they just can't.

 

[LukasTaves]

Yep, sounds like the future. But this will take at least 10 more years to provide the necessary internet infrastructure for mass adoption.



Learn to crawl before you walk. Running Halo 7 on a smart phone,console and PC sounds beyond 2020 to me right now (controls???). By that time both Sony and MS might get surprise attacked the same way when they were fighting for the living room 10 years ago.

Not halo 7, but smartphones are already capable of running halo 1 and 2, soon they will be able to run halo 3, 4 and in a few years 5. At that point even a smartphone can become a portable console, and even though they are old games since it's the same ecosystem and the same library they become another commodity that a user invested in ms ecosystem can use.

As for controls, ms has drastically increase accessory support on win10 mobile due continuum. They already support keyboard and mouse and projecting to a monitor. Projecting to a tv and supporting a controller is not a huge departure from that.

 

[justsomeguy]

exit without their base feeling like MS gave up on them. I suspect the later.

But as I posted ages back (and I think you may have replied?) why not just sell the XBox business and pocket the $5bn or whatever it would sell for?

It's not an exit. It's a change in approach. And as per previous posts it's a bloody interesting one with no guarantee of success but also a chance of being really innovative and disrupting the market.

 

[justsomeguy]

. nvm too speculative

 

[Zedox]

It's pretty fun to see you back pedal furiously when a actual game dev presses you on your unrealistic bullshit pr oriented positions.

What have I pack peddled on? Everything that I think will happen is speculation (which I repeatedly say, if you want to ignore that, that's fine). PR oriented position? Please. Sorry not sorry that I can have wants but still be realistic. I haven't back peddled on anything. I still think MS will release a more powerful Xbox One this year. I still think that UWP will be a benefit to developers (including myself...no I'm not a AAA developer, don't really care to be for my own reasons) outside of only gaming in the long run. I still think we'll see some of those benefits throughout this year (QB/KI/Fable). There's nothing in my position that is unrealistic. I haven't mentioned that 3rd parties are going to jump ship right away on UWP and if I did in the past please quote and I'll say that I was wrong. I have no problem saying that.

What's really funny is that you think what I say is bullshit and I have pr oriented position. No, I like talking technology and possibilities within it. I've already said it. Please tell me what that I have stated that is not realistic.

 

[Markoman]

Apple makes money on their hardware (lots of it). Which is why apple doesn't want their OS on non apple machines. Their customers are used to higher mark up for everything except apps.

Yes and no, Apple doesn't really need their OS on non apple device. Selling Apple OS is not their primary focus. Apple has no separate OS and hardware business . Hardware comes first, is tight to Apple OS with a storefront that can run everywhere. What MS is trying to do: Primary focus on combined OS + storefront, but they don't have the same hardware enviroment like Apple to support this - or to be more precise, they are facing strong competition on all sides here. People are buying stuff in itunes because Iphone/Ipad is their go-to device. MS is trying to sell us a storefront with nothing to back this up.