Support NeoGAF

[QuikNez]

I would sell my XB1, tbh. The hardware as it stands isn't a big deal to me, but releasing a new console with stronger hardware will basically be a fuck you to me and other early adopters.

It's VERY possible....it would just be the worst thing to actually happen.

You guys are blowing my mind, how would this be a bad thing?

Seriously, some one explain in some coherent sense into how an "X1 Pro," that plays the same games, just with better performance and potentially features at a higher price point would be a negative thing!? To be clear, this is not a new platform.

How is this this any different than a new iPhone, or Android phone that runs the same apps, same OS just based on updated hardware?

To me, such an approach is very clearly the future. As a consumer, give me the choice, update hardware faster because I want the latest and greatest and don't alienate your existing platforms through using it as a base reference point.

 

[Ryoku]

Uh... why? It'll be coming out 3+ years later.

Funny for a 2016 system to outperform a 2013 system? Nah, it's expected.

It's a play on the idea of some still not being able to accept that the XBO is weaker than PS4. Not meant to be taken literally.

 

[JaggedSac]

Pretty soon, a windows PC and an XBox One will share game library purchases. So effectively you are correct.

 

[Newtype-001]

Alot of typing there OP but you didnt think this through at all.

 

[Dynasty8]

Not likely, but I'd buy it if did happen.

Best idea would be for Microsoft to wait another 4 years and release a beast of a console (next Xbox console). Ditch the Kinect and sell it for $400-$500 and make your entire digital X1 library playable.

By that time, in 2019, It should be strong enough to run all games at 1080p (or a little higher) and 60FPS.

 

[Windforce]

This shouldn`t be needed, as Microsoft just needs to turn on the Cloud to jump ahead of PS4 specs. What are they waiting for?

 

[Lettuce]

I think theres more chance that the XBox One will be Microsoft's last hardware incarnation of the XBOX brand. I can see the successor to the XB1 actually being an app for Windows 11 or the like, where basically the app is £100 and it just loads into the XBOX OS and you play all your game through that app, Windows 10 games and XB1 games are slowly becoming closer and closer so its only a matter of time before MS meld them into one eco system.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Did these secret sauce or new revision type threads pop up last gen when the PS3 was seemingly a little behind?

(For the record I know it is easier to gauge the hardware differences since they are now x86/64, but still.)

 

[shacklesmcgee]

You guys are blowing my mind, how would this be a bad thing?

Seriously, some one explain in some coherent sense into how an "X1 Pro," that plays the same games, just with better performance and potentially features at a higher price point would be a negative thing!? To be clear, this is not a new platform.

How is this this any different than a new iPhone, or Android phone that runs the same apps, same OS just based on updated hardware?

To me, such an approach is very clearly the future. As a consumer, give me the choice, update hardware faster because I want the latest and greatest and don't alienate your existing platforms through using it as a base reference point.

people have deemed smartphones a necessity, consoles are still a luxury item. No one wants to pay $400 every few years to play games that look a bit better.

Well, a few of you do it seems....

 

[Lynn616]

No chance. They will just launch the Next Xbox Holiday 2018.

 

[AP90]

That would be stupid of them. The new consoles for Sony and MS should have the hbm tech and prob amd's new apu's or Zen cpus.

I am a firm believer that MS will for the next Xbox will create a $500-$550 console and sell it at a $100-150 loss, so that it will be powerful and a contender..

Hoping for 4th Gen i5 equivalent CPU and 16gigs of hbm vram with a 480series equivalent gpu.

 

[rokkerkory]

So effectively you want a Wii U... That didn't turn out well for Nintendo. This isn't happening.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Pretty soon, a windows PC and an XBox One will share game library purchases. So effectively you are correct.

Did MS say much about this during E3? I know they announced some smaller games as "Xbox One and Windows 10" and a KI pet was announced, but did they really say anything about PC beyond that? I honestly thought they would say a fair amount about that sort of integrated platform approach.

 

[DragonSworne]

I like this idea. Apple gets away with it so it shouldn't be a shock to consumers.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

basically

 

[SwiftDeath]

So let's step back and look at why people make consoles in the first place.

Console Life:

1. Spend X millions of dollars and years worth of engineering teams time researching and developing a new console design including the software, network, OS etc.
2. Release console in Year 0 at it's highest MSRP with almost certainly its lowest margins so as to try and not hurt sales with too high a price. Spend millions on marketing and 10's of millions making exclusive games [over its life].
3. In Year 2 or Year 3, after continued R&D at whatever expense it goes for you change over your supply lines and release/reveal a slim model at a lower cost but at equal or higher margins so as to further increase your install base
4. Sometime after Year 5, the platform becomes a legacy platform that you lessen support for while gearing up for a new consoles life

During the entirety of a consoles life, a majority of profit from the endeavor is expected to come from royalties on game sales on your platform and from secondary services [PS+, Gold etc.]. The vast majority of this profit is almost assuredly coming from royalties on sales of 3rd party games.

Thus to maximize profit, the general strategy would be to

1. have as large an install base as possible to maximize unit sales.
2. have as many games available on your platform as possible to maximize individual users consumption of games which is basically maximizing unit sales.
3. lower the entry cost into your console to improve point 1
4. improve your margin over time on the hardware you sell

If a console maker chose to refresh their hardware with a shared library type of scenario that OP describes, every developer going forward would still have to port their game to the best of their ability to the original XB1 HW and then would either have to choose to devote more resources to ensuring a reasonable port relative to the hardware for the hardware refresh model or simply leave the initial port for both sets of HW.

One of the reasons publishers/developers like working with consoles is that it is a single set of hardware and works across every unit ever made [or should at least]. The approach in this thread which has been discussed before, adds more work for any developer that wants to do the new XB1 HW justice. How much work that is isn't clear but you can be sure that until the install base of the new HW is larger than the old HW, most developers will spend their time and resources making the old HWs port look as good as possible to please as many potential customers as they can. The logic for a refresh just doesn't play out unless perhaps a console maker is willing to pay/cover the additional resource costs of working on another set of hardware just for their console ecosystem.

Furthermore a console maker is incredibly disincentivized to do this as they now have two HW skus that they have to work with, have to try and develop good economies of scale for the production and manufacturing of the second new HW sku while maintaining the economies of scale for the older model [which I guess in this example is sticking around? lol] which now is competing with the more expensive model and thus less will be produced at higher per unit costs.

 

[brennok]

They will never do it since the bulk of their hardcore audience would cry foul. Luckily the rest of the consumer electronic market isn't as sensitive.

I could see a refreshed hardware that is released every few years which is 100% compatible with past releases on the platform. It lets them constantly offer a lower cost entry level hardware to the casual audience while offering a more powerful machine to those who care and are willing to pay the price. It also allows them to even more push digital since the library would just carry over to the new machine.

You would potentially pick up more of the casual market this way to. Most of my friends and family have zero plans to move on to newer consoles for their kids. They don't understand why the digital games won't work on the newer consoles and the kids care more about tablets then console games as a result.

 

[ironcreed]

Nah, the Xbox One is just fine. The way some people talk you would think that the PS4 was some monster rig and that the Xbox One was the Wii. When in reality, the systems are turning out to be much more alike than many would like to admit.

 

[privitsan02]

Just get a PC at that point if you want better performance and visuals. This is so pointless...

 

[RowdyReverb]

No chance. They will just launch the Next Xbox Holiday 2018.

Agreed. Though some of what OP was suggesting could be features of the XB1's successor. Now that they've made the hard jump to x86, they could keep a very similar architecture in their next console to facilitate BC and make it easier for devs to make cross gen titles as they transition to the new hardware. I doubt we'll see upgrades to XB1 games though unless publishers charged fees to "remaster" them.

Unless there is some radical new solution for VR rendering in the next few years, I think that the days of substantial internal hardware changes in console generations are over, at least until we move into the inevitable always-online future. Changes will be more incremental for next gen, similar to what OP described.

So effectively you want a Wii U... That didn't turn out well for Nintendo. This isn't happening.

That's actually a pretty apt comparison, aside from the enhancements to existing games for the new hardware.

 

[JaggedSac]

Did MS say much about this during E3? I know they announced some smaller games as "Xbox One and Windows 10" and a KI pet was announced, but did they really say anything about PC beyond that? I honestly thought they would say a fair amount about that sort of integrated platform approach.

Baby steps. They are heading in that direction. Buy once, play on PC and XBone(or other XBox platform hardware whatever they may be in the future).

 

[Trup1aya]

I actually don't think this idea is too far fetched... I think one of the reasons console generations get off to slow starts in terms of software is because developers have one foot in the past, and one in the present...

If console manufacturers adopted the iPad model, developers could develop a title once, and have it scale itself depending on the hardware it's running on... The next Xbox would essentially be a MS sanctioned gaming PC. All the benefits of being a console (dedicated hardware, controlled ecosystem), and one of the main benefits of PC (software scales to hardware, larger installed base)

For example, buy for Battlefield 5 on Xbox one it will look ok... But put that same disc in your xb1 pro, and it will run at ultra settings... And developers don't have to put as much effort into porting...

MS just HAS to be considering such a model... It's no coincidence that they've been talking up this "develop it once, and it works across all devices" stuff...

 

[ST3K3LLY]

I'd be okay with this, it would be the start of a standard that would keep games backwards compatible.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

First launching $100 more expensive than the competition, now you want them to fragment their userbase? Do you want Microsoft to go Full Sega?

 

[viveks86]

Wut? No. MS is smarter than that

So let's step back and look at why people make consoles in the first place.

Console Life:

1. Spend X millions of dollars and years worth of engineering teams time researching and developing a new console design including the software, network, OS etc.
2. Release console in Year 0 at it's highest MSRP with almost certainly its lowest margins so as to try and not hurt sales with too high a price. Spend millions on marketing and 10's of millions making exclusive games [over its life].
3. In Year 2 or Year 3, after continued R&D at whatever expense it goes for you change over your supply lines and release/reveal a slim model at a lower cost but at equal or higher margins so as to further increase your install base
4. Sometime after Year 5, the platform becomes a legacy platform that you lessen support for while gearing up for a new consoles life

During the entirety of a consoles life, a majority of profit from the endeavor is expected to come from royalties on game sales on your platform and from secondary services [PS+, Gold etc.]. The vast majority of this profit is almost assuredly coming from royalties on sales of 3rd party games.

Thus to maximize profit, the general strategy would be to

1. have as large an install base as possible to maximize unit sales.
2. have as many games available on your platform as possible to maximize individual users consumption of games which is basically maximizing unit sales.
3. lower the entry cost into your console to improve point 1
4. improve your margin over time on the hardware you sell

If a console maker chose to refresh their hardware with a shared library type of scenario that OP describes, every developer going forward would still have to port their game to the best of their ability to the original XB1 HW and then would either have to choose to devote more resources to ensuring a reasonable port relative to the hardware for the hardware refresh model or simply leave the initial port for both sets of HW.

One of the reasons publishers/developers like working with consoles is that it is a single set of hardware and works across every unit ever made [or should at least]. The approach in this thread which has been discussed before, adds more work for any developer that wants to do the new XB1 HW justice. How much work that is isn't clear but you can be sure that until the install base of the new HW is larger than the old HW, most developers will spend their time and resources making the old HWs port look as good as possible to please as many potential customers as they can. The logic for a refresh just doesn't play out unless perhaps a console maker is willing to pay/cover the additional resource costs of working on another set of hardware just for their console ecosystem.

Furthermore a console maker is incredibly disincentivized to do this as they now have two HW skus that they have to work with, have to try and develop good economies of scale for the production and manufacturing of the second new HW sku while maintaining the economies of scale for the older model [which I guess in this example is sticking around? lol] which now is competing with the more expensive model and thus less will be produced at higher per unit costs.

This

 

[shacklesmcgee]

and have it scale itself depending on the hardware it's running on...

All the benefits of being a console (dedicated hardware, controlled ecosystem)

This doesn't make sense

 

[Dynasty8]

Pretty soon, a windows PC and an XBox One will share game library purchases. So effectively you are correct.

Meaning what exactly? We can play our entire X1 library on PC taking advantage of its' specs?

 

[RowdyReverb]

I actually don't think this idea is too far fetched... I think one of the reasons console generations get off to slow starts in terms of software is because developers have one foot in the past, and one in the present...

If console manufacturers adopted the iPad model, developers could develop a title once, and have it scale itself depending on the hardware it's running on... The next Xbox would essentially be a MS sanctioned gaming PC. All the benefits of being a console (dedicated hardware, controlled ecosystem), and one of the main benefits of PC (software scales to hardware, larger installed base)

For example, buy for Battlefield 5 on Xbox one it will look ok... But put that same disc in your xb1 pro, and it will run at ultra settings... And developers don't have to put as much effort into porting...

MS just HAS to be considering such a model... It's no coincidence that they've been talking up this "develop it once, and it works across all devices" stuff...

"works" does not mean "works well". The effort would lie in optimizing for both platforms and setting different game design targets to account for the weaker platform's limitations. With a PC, you can just run a poorly optimized game well with brute force, but the whole point of consoles is to guarantee that the game will perform well and look the best possible on relatively weaker, but importantly cheaper hardware.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

No. MS will just work on the next XB hardware.

 

[slapnuts]

Wishful thinking

PS: Poor OP, he laid an egg and bounced lol

 

[chromatic9]

The new CPU offers no improvement. Have you checked how 32mb of ESRAM and a 285 is going to fit on one chip? Also 285 is 200W alone

Maybe in your thinking by 2016 they can just simply cut the power in half on 14nm but sounds like a very costly short term solution hampered by the same CPU and low ESRAM even if we just run with it

I think MS if they really need to will release a console in 2018/19 with the latest specs and memory assuming not much has changed in the gaming landscape.

Ultimately MS will act if they see a big nose dive in interest.

 

[shikamaroooo]

Would be a dis advantage for online games. Could run at a higher resolution and better frame rate.

 

[JP]

It's just impractical, imagine how wide the packaging would have to be for the new version.

 

[la flama blanca]

LMAO

 

[BlastProcessing]

You guys are blowing my mind, how would this be a bad thing?

Seriously, some one explain in some coherent sense into how an "X1 Pro," that plays the same games, just with better performance and potentially features at a higher price point would be a negative thing!? To be clear, this is not a new platform.

How is this this any different than a new iPhone, or Android phone that runs the same apps, same OS just based on updated hardware?

To me, such an approach is very clearly the future. As a consumer, give me the choice, update hardware faster because I want the latest and greatest and don't alienate your existing platforms through using it as a base reference point.

Think about it this way. If they were to do this it would be completely unprecedented. The industry is filled with people smart enough to have this idea.

There must be some good reasons why it's never ever happened, eh?

 

[OttoSporteman]

(for example the XB1 pro should have the 32MB ESRam so games that already take advantage of it, won't need re-development and optimization).

WHAT?

Realistically speaking, you don't want to fragment the user base and also you don't want to double qa and optimization phase of development.

Never gonna happen.

 

[Walshicus]

Think about it this way. If they were to do this it would be completely unprecedented. The industry is filled with people smart enough to have this idea.

There must be some good reasons why it's never ever happened, eh?

It's not really unprecedented.

The phone market follows this model. The tablet market follows this model. Somehow gaming on tablets and phones survives.

 

[mosdl]

It's not really unprecedented.

The phone market follows this model. The tablet market follows this model. Somehow gaming on tablets and phones survives.

And their games cost 5 bucks, not 60.

 

[HabeeNo]

lol not happening

 

[Larogue]

I would love to reply to every single post, but my hand won't be able to handle it.

WHAT?

Realistically speaking, you don't want to fragment the user base

Fragment the user base?

They are all buying and playing the same game off the store shelf. How can you call this fragmentation ?

and also you don't want to double qa and optimization phase of development.

Never gonna happen.

First its not much of QA and optimization work, since they share many identical features.

Once the games is stable on the original XB1, Its as simple as tuning graphics settings on a PC game to scale it up on XB1 Pro.

Second of all, its all worth it in the end, because the game gonna be sold to two hardware, instead of one, aka almost double the sales revenue.

 

[Industrialist]

The tragic thing is, that a lot of people think this is how software and hardware development works.

"Just throw in a few more GB of RAM there, Brian, will you? Replace the processor...switch out the GPU. That'll be fine. All of our development kits and tools will work without any problems. Every game released so far won't need testing and certifying fully again. Everything will still work. Plus, with a SIMPLE PATCH we'll just get all those old games to run at a higher resolution, higher FPS, and we'll throw more AA on. After all, AA is what the people want, right?

What do you mean, there are millions of people who will be pissed off that they've spent $350 on a console and now they're being told that in order for games to look the same way as all of the gameplay trailers we put out, they'll need to drop another $400? And retailers will be pissed that they've got a stockroom full of the original Xbox One that they can't sell for $100 each because everyone wants the Xbox One Pro?

Nah. Gotta be kidding, mate. This is a NO-BRAINER because even though we're already making a decent profit, giving fanboys who think that we're 'losing' to Sony some extra ammunition for use on NeoGAF is the ONLY GOAL!"

Fragment the user base?

They are all buying and playing the same game off the store shelf. How can you call this fragmentation ?

1. A developer/publisher will want to make a game that looks much better, and they can only get it running in a playable state on Xbox One Pro.
2. Microsoft will make a rule that every game has to be compatible with both systems.
3. Everyone on the planet will come down on Microsoft for holding game development back as the publisher has to release a version of the game that isn't as ambitious. Think "parity clause"-style constant lambasting of the company.

Or...

1. A developer/publisher will want to make a game that looks much better, and they can only get it running in a playable state on Xbox One Pro.
2. Microsoft says that there's no problem with that and the game is released.
3. Everyone who bought an original Xbox One but didn't upgrade to the Xbox One Pro can't play the game. Microsoft loses a customer as they head out to trade their Xbox One for a PS4, since they know that will run everything that is released that has the PS4 branding on it.

First its not much of QA and optimization work, since they share many identical features.

"Many" is not "all."

A single difference could mean massive parts of many games needing to be retooled to be compatible with both systems. You simply do not know whether or not this is the case, and are making an assumption.

Once the games is stable on the original XB1, Its as simple as tuning graphics settings on a PC game to scale it up on XB1 Pro.

No. No. Absolutely no, it is not. See above.

Second of all, its all worth it in the end, because the game gonna be sold to two hardware, instead of one, aka almost double the sales revenue.

You think everyone who owns an Xbox One will buy an Xbox One Pro, and then what...give their original Xbox One to someone who wasn't bleeding-edge enough to buy the system after TWO YEARS, but will now randomly decide to buy hundreds of games for their "new" system? The likelihood is that it will be traded in for pennies on the dollar against the cost of the Xbox One Pro, which will piss retailers off when they can't demand $50 for an original Xbox One. The alternative is for the Xbox One Pro purchaser to keep it as a "spare" box, which won't double sales of games.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

It's not really unprecedented.

The phone market follows this model. The tablet market follows this model. Somehow gaming on tablets and phones survives.

The phone and (to a lesser extent) tablet markets have people conditioned to spend more money on them and more frequently. People use their phones every day, and also get them subsidized. This is why people are willing to eat the cost of a new phone every couple of years. There's nothing to suggest any meaningful chunk of the market wants to upgrade their game consoles every 2 years.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It's not really unprecedented.

The phone market follows this model. The tablet market follows this model. Somehow gaming on tablets and phones survives.

We are talking about consoles here.

Consoles are radically different from phones the subsidy model combined with the fact that most consumers replace their phones at least every 3 years means that people actually expect constant evolution.

Tablets are more similar but you should take a look at what has happened to tablet sales, the constant upgrade cycle has killed sales growth. It's just flat lined.

As a tablet developer I had to make my game run on years old hardware which constrained me greatly. It's not working for anyone. I really wouldn't say that gaming on tablet is surviving and my next game sure as hell won't be for tablet.

 

[riskVSreward]

I'm really glad you came back to defend yourself, OP! Got any more specs or details about fantasy land?

 

[Oldsql]

I would love to reply to every single post, but my hand won't be able to handle it.



Fragment the user base?

They are all buying and playing the same game off the store shelf. How can you call this fragmentation ?




First its not much of QA and optimization work, since they share many identical features.

Once the games is stable on the original XB1, Its as simple as tuning graphics settings on a PC game to scale it up on XB1 Pro.

Second of all, its all worth it in the end, because the game gonna be sold to two hardware, instead of one, aka almost double the sales revenue.

How is that ending up in double sales revenue? 3DS games as an example aren´t suddenly doubling their revenue just because they are available on the 3DS and N3DS

 

[BlastProcessing]

I would love to reply to every single post, but my hand won't be able to handle it.



Fragment the user base?

They are all buying and playing the same game off the store shelf. How can you call this fragmentation ?




First its not much of QA and optimization work, since they share many identical features.

Once the games is stable on the original XB1, Its as simple as tuning graphics settings on a PC game to scale it up on XB1 Pro.

Second of all, its all worth it in the end, because the game gonna be sold to two hardware, instead of one, aka almost double the sales revenue.

I am going to guess that you don't have any idea how games are made.

How is that ending up in double sales revenue?

It's like how if you have a dozen eggs divide them by two, you have two sets of eggs. Now you have two dozen eggs.

 

[score01]

How is that ending up in double sales revenue?

That China 1% effect.

 

[Fitts]

That would be an amazing way to piss off the current user base while simultaneously adding to the confusion at retail. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea in theory, but I don't think the world is ready for it either. Just let consoles be consoles for now.

 

[Trup1aya]

This doesn't make sense

It makes perfect sense...

It's exactly how PC games work now...

"works" does not mean "works well". The effort would lie in optimizing for both platforms and setting different game design targets to account for the weaker platform's limitations. With a PC, you can just run a poorly optimized game well with brute force, but the whole point of consoles is to guarantee that the game will perform well and look the best possible on relatively weaker, but importantly cheaper hardware.

When developing in a PC environment, developers have an unimaginable amount of hardware configurations to consider... In this particular scenario, they have two... And they (presumably) are based on similar architectures...

the brute force approach is simplified dramatically here. Instead of worrying about max settings, min settings, and sliders... There's just max settings and min settings... Design accoringly.

 

[Larogue]

The new CPU offers no improvement. Have you checked how 32mb of ESRAM and a 285 is going to fit on one chip? Also 285 is 200W alone

Maybe in your thinking by 2016 they can just simply cut the power in half on 14nm but sounds like a very costly short term solution hampered by the same CPU and low ESRAM even if we just run with it

I think MS if they really need to will release a console in 2018/19 with the latest specs and memory assuming not much has changed in the gaming landscape.

Ultimately MS will act if they see a big nose dive in interest.

There are many way around this problem if its truly indeed impossible to fit the ESRAM on the chip.

They could program the system to run the ESRAM tasks over the GDDR5. Since it already faster than the 102GB/s speed of ESRAM. For example the PS4 GDDR5 is rated at 176.0 GB/s.