DA f Kotaku who going to buy now xbox slim if know in a few monts later will be a xbox2? Good strategy from MS they low the cost product and they going for the new console

you're saying that a phone 5 generations behind the current one has a bit of performance issues when playing a more recent game? I think you're missing the point on iterative consoles, console manufacturers don't make enough profits in the hardware itself to justify releasing it too frequently. That's not the case with phones, specifically with Apple with their insane markups. There isn't also enough of a hardware performance increase to justify a new release every other year. This generation is a very special one due to the transition to 14nm process. This was a 50% die shrink compared  to the previous generation and there's pretty much very little room to reduce the sizes on the silicone. There will be no 7nm die shrinks anytime soon, until we move away from silicone completely.

edit: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/97469-is-14nm-the-end-of-the-road-for-silicon-lithography

a bit of context to my reply

The transition gets nearer.

Its definitely an interesting idea, but the key is how Microsoft handles the identity of Xbox as a brand.  I mean, if its a console or is it just a budget PC?  If PC is getting all the Xbox One games going forward, how does Microsoft market its box seperately from PC as a whole.   Notice how Microsoft has been including Windows 10 and PC gaming in its NPD PR which is a retail report.  Its like they are preparing us for the transition but how they go about blending the to together is the real interesting part of this.  There is a real unnatural disconnect that exsists between Microsoft gaming (centered around Xbox the console) and their breadwinning platform (Windows 10).  How they have remained seperate for so long is insane.  

Also, as one final point of consideration, notice that Microsoft has been advertising Xbox Live for Windows 10 PC lately (see the solitare commercial)  Bending PC and Xbox seems to require a way to get PC owners on board with Live.  This is their ultimate challange I think. 

If I can play all Xbox games on both Xbox 1 and Xbox 1.5, and the only thing that Xbox 1.5 provides is higher resolution and frame rate, then, yes, I agree there's no issue from my end. After all, that's how I treat PC gaming. I have a modestly-powered PC, and have no problem playing newer games on low settings.

But that's a big if. We're assuming developers will continue to support all iterations, and we're counting on the benevolence of Microsoft. Isn't it possible that Microsoft copies what Nintendo did with Xenoblade Chronicles on N3DS, locking out those who bought earlier iterations of the system?

I'll return to my first point: what I love about console gaming is the fact that I can drop $300 or $400 in year one and know exactly what I'm getting in year five. Mid-generation upgrades interrupt that predictability. Who knows how console manufacturers will incentivize upgrades? Who knows how first- and third-party developers will react? Who knows if online multiplayer will  maintain a level playing field?

For example: Iphone 6 broke many iPhone 5 games, including Capcom's and Square's. And it's the same architecture and same OS. This is iterative hardware. Devs strugle to keep their games and apps running on smartphones, unless they want to keep it updated for all smartphone versions which doesn't happen. I don't want this for consoles.

well I guess we fundamentally agree then. I am starting from the assumption that the leaks regarding the PS4 Neo are valid and there is absolutely no barrier between the versions of the consoles, especially in multiplayer. I am taking for granted MS will follow that same path. If they don't I'll be right there with you calling BS on this whole thing.

So i assume the next xbox could end up being a little more powerfull than the ps4neo if its released in 2017, i still going to stick to PlayStation from here on out as consoles become more like an eco-system with constant new hardware upgrades and services, its not afforable anymore to flip flop between the two.
I think its shady from MS to release the slim model this year, and next year the more powerfull hardware. A lot of consumers will buy the slim model and be pissed next year

If they came with a modular Xbox extremely well executated, and a very adjusted price, MAYBE they're not losing me as a customer. If they simply put out a Xbox "Neo" i'm done with consoles. I will play their games on PC.

Unfortunately our replies to one another always seem to require a short essay lol, I'm getting the impression we have two very different views of the gaming world.

I should also start with the first point about the frequency of upgrades. I suppose just how often it is reasonable to release an upgrade is debatable (I feel 3 years is much too short, for instance, but I'd have no problem with the Wii U lasting 4 as I feel it's run its course), but we both seem to have opinions colored by assumptions, yours optimistic and mine pesimistic.

I find it quite difficult to believe that the games will "run the same" on both systems unless the versions for the new system are rather unimpressive. The truth with console games is that, unlike PC's where development begins by focusing on minimum specs and allowing the higher end to be pushed at the user's discretion based on the capability of their hardware (which often proves unstable), console games have always uniquely been designed with maximizing performance in mind across the uniform hardware. Right off the bat this complicates matters, as they'll either have to maximize for two separate consoles, save on costs and maximize for the new one while sacrificing performance on the old, or save on costs and simply maximize for the original console while neglecting the capabilities of the new one.

That's before we even get into the added labors of different hardware. From what I've read the PS4 Neo will have upgraded memory capabilities. Little more than attempting to migrate code to a system with additional restrictions on memory can often instead require a complete reprogramming of the game (and thus one of many reasons they take a minimum specs approach to PC gaming). I suspect (and hope) this will force developers to initially develop for the original PS4 before porting it up to the Neo, but I have no doubt others will instead design the game with the capabilities of the Neo in mind as opposed to the limitations of the original. 

Essentially, there seem to be two main possiblities here: Sony is right and the two games "will literally be the same" on both systems (thus rendering the whole upgrade rather pointless in my mind), or there will be stark differences between the two. In an ideal world both would run smoothly and, as a PS4 owner who isn't interested in a minor $400 upgrade for games that they claim will hardly differ from what's available, I certainly hope that's true. I am, however, not holding my breath for it to work out that way... I'm just too accustomed to old hardware being neglected by developers.

As for the PC, while it is indeed more difficult to program for it than it is for consoles, that is precisely why they've taken the minimum specs approach for years. The available engines take a great amount of the workload off of the shoulders of the developers, and by focusing on minimum specs and generally being largely concerned with stability for only two OS (Windows and Apple) they've been able to release games that are capable of running on an enormous assortment of computers with relative stability. Truly, if there weren't work-arounds for that issue there'd be no games released for the PC at all given the logic you yourself stated.

Even so, most games require a great deal of patches to achieve any real stability, and the development cycle of PC exclusive games has become rather absurd with time; these days it doesn't seem unreasonable to say a major game intended for the PC takes at least half a decade in most cases, and plenty appear to be stuck in an eternal Alpha or Beta stage of development. As someone who loves Steam, I must say it seems like half of the major games available for sale there are actually still in Beta or Alpha. That's never been acceptable in the console community, and I do wonder how it would be received. The bar for stability and the "plug and play" mentality is very high for consoles, though, and perhaps its biggest selling point next to price, and I really doubt they'd be ok with the amount of crashing and nonsense PC gamers often encounter.

To be frank, I've forgotten why we're even discussing PC's right now (though it's a favorite topic of mine); I never claimed there wasn't more involved in programming for PC's, but the approach to programming for it has always been very different than programming for consoles. My intention for bringing up the PC was merely to point out that it's easier to plan ahead, you can replace individual parts (at this point my computer has become a Thesus's ship paradox, with virtually every part replaced at some point or another), and you can truly try to optimize the experience if you so desire, as having lesser hardware can impact the experience. This seems quite different, where the effect is either negligible or stark, and it's a community that chose consoles precisely because they didn't want to have to spend extra for the high-end experience. It's a very strange middle ground that they appear to be trying to fill here.

As for backwards compatibility, I assure you as a person who has an unavoidable love of old computer games I'm aware that virtually anything can be played so long as it is compatible with your OS, or you're running DosBox etc, though the Windows 95 era is a pain at times. The adoption of x86 is why I've been frustrated with Microsoft for not making what seems like a minimal effort to allow original Xbox games to be played on their new system, but perhaps they think there's not enough of us to be worth the effort (I have a decent library with a no longer working Xbox that's really bugging me).

Of course, the availability of those emulators and compatibility modes on PC's have never been present in consoles, so I do not see them suddenly opening up past libraries spare through the possible use of streaming (that's the only way I see PS3 and Xbox360 ever being playable on the modern consoles, for instance). That seems to be the work-around both have chosen for the moment, anyway. Hopefully going forward 86x continues to make sense for their consoles, as they have dropped it before for their own designs in the past... pressure from developers might make it stick this time, though.

So basically, what I see here are minor upgrades that either serve little purpose or could instead lead to lesser versions of games for the original owners. I suspect it's the former, and we'll see something akin to the first two years of games on the PS4 and Xbox1 that seemed like little more than enhanced ports of PS3 and Xbox360 games as, of course, that's exactly what they were, because it's far too expensive to work in the opposite direction (and thus why developers aren't happy about this development). That's just additional time, money, and manpower for seemingly little benefit.

I'm not sure there's an ideal reuslt here where new owners feel they got their money's worth and old owners don't feel like they're getting a lesser product (and if it becomes regular I'll likely be quite hesitant about early adoption in the future). This could engender some real ill-will, especially if reviews start rolling in with 9's for the new game and 7's for the old. Again, all assumption, but that's what's painting both of our views at this point as we don't know how Sony or Microsoft will behave. Hopefully, at the very least, they keep the promise not to have exclusives for the upgrade.

As a final note, if I had to guess what prompted all this it would be that the original PS4 is simply incapable of handling the Playstation VR very well and they realized they'd need a hardware boost to pull it off. I've really wondered how the base PS4 was intended to achieve worthwhile VR, and the timing of this would really suggest to me the two are intended to work in tandem (not to mention the code names "Morpheus" and "Neo" that more than suggest a connection). While I think there's a great chance games will be fairly well playable on both versions of the PS4, I suspect it's the VR games where we'll see the clear distinction.