By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer Signals Xbox One Hardware Upgrades

TheMessiah on 02 March 2016
potato_hamster said:
TheMessiah said:

The 360 didn't even run windows 8. It ran a custom os. Xbox One runs the exact same Windows 10 as PC right now. That's why it wouldn't fragment with Xbox moving forward. the same way galaxy s5 and s6 both run the latest os.

The point is Titanfall on 360 was not on the same servers as Titanfall Xbox One. Largely because 360 and Xbox One are on different Xbox lives so to speak. All these issues wont exist with what Microsoft are moving forward with now.

The same way my dad still uses iPhone 4s, people will still use the 2013 Xbox one. connect to the same Xbox live as version 2 and 3 and run the same windows 10 version as well. Until a point in time when the tech inside can't keep up. Just like IPhone 3g is no longer powerful enough to run past ios version 6.

Its not that difficult to understand.

 

Of course Windows 10 will evolve, but it will now evolve with hardware. As opposed to releasing brand new Windows after a time. Exactly like where Xbox console is heading.

Literally everything you just posted, everything, does absolutely nothing to address to comments I made above. It doesn't matter what the X360 ran or the X1 ran now. The fact of the matter if both of those consoles are used to play the same game on the same match on the same server then at least in some cases they must be on the same servers. Are you trying to say that this is why they had to put in extra work in order to get the game run? That they didn't have to do anything to account for the fact the games are running at different resolutions, different frame rates, with different draw distances, different textures, and animations, different shaders, different anti-aliasing effects. Nothing was done to ensure the gameplay was fair and equal on both consoles? Nothing at all? Source please.

So your dad uses the iPhone 4s. Does he expect the latest games made for the iPhone 6s to work on his iPhone 4s? Probably not. His iPhone 4s is only 4 YEARS OLD, and it's already completely redundant for new software. Can you imagine buying a console on release and 4 years later not being able to buy the latest games coming out for Xbox consoles on it?That is completely unacceptable for console gamers. Completely unacceptable, and you're glossing over it as if it doesn't matter. If most consoles gamers cared about having the latest and greatest technology every 3-4 years they would buy a PC! This model completely screws over Xbox console gamers and you're in complete denial.

The reason the 360 version didn't release alongside the x1 version was because of the difficulty in getting them on the same servers equally.

 

The 360 ran the same games as pc 8 years after release just at far inferior graphical levels. Are you saying the 2013 version of Xbox one wont be able to just 4 years after release?



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 02 March 2016
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:

Literally everything you just posted, everything, does absolutely nothing to address to comments I made above. It doesn't matter what the X360 ran or the X1 ran now. The fact of the matter if both of those consoles are used to play the same game on the same match on the same server then at least in some cases they must be on the same servers. Are you trying to say that this is why they had to put in extra work in order to get the game run? That they didn't have to do anything to account for the fact the games are running at different resolutions, different frame rates, with different draw distances, different textures, and animations, different shaders, different anti-aliasing effects. Nothing was done to ensure the gameplay was fair and equal on both consoles? Nothing at all? Source please.

So your dad uses the iPhone 4s. Does he expect the latest games made for the iPhone 6s to work on his iPhone 4s? Probably not. His iPhone 4s is only 4 YEARS OLD, and it's already completely redundant for new software. Can you imagine buying a console on release and 4 years later not being able to buy the latest games coming out for Xbox consoles on it?That is completely unacceptable for console gamers. Completely unacceptable, and you're glossing over it as if it doesn't matter. If most consoles gamers cared about having the latest and greatest technology every 3-4 years they would buy a PC! This model completely screws over Xbox console gamers and you're in complete denial.

This is an assumption, we don't know this for sure because gamers have never really had a choice. 

The choice is either pay $200-$400 for a home console or like $1500+ for a PC with a significant performance bump. There's never been anything in the middle and most people don't hook up their PC to their TV, I don't know too many people when you go visit their home who have a giant freaking PC tower under their TV in the living room. 

The old model is the only choice we've been given as consumers, these companies have never offered us anything else. PC parts are sold at a massive price mark up, MS can still subsidize the price of these XBox upgrades/differing models, that alone is a huge difference, they can also keep it streamlined and TV centric so it's easy to upgrade and has a console like form factor that simply plugs and plays into any TV. 

MS is under no obligation to use the same business model that Sony does. In fact it's kind of stupid in their case since they are the lead OS for PC gaming already, keeping PC and XBox seperate was a bizarre choice from the get go. 

You don't actually believe you need to spend $1500 on a PC in order to have a decent gaming PC, do you? You can get by just fine for years on a PC that costs $800. And who says anything about having a "giant PC tower" under their PC. Don't be so obtuse. Alienware's version of the Steam Machine is smaller than the Xbox One and cost $450. You can also get a version that runs Windows 10 instead of steam OS... for $400. So there you go. PC gaming in your living room on a box made for use on your TV for a whopping $400.  And, the Alienware version isn't even the cheapest steam box! The costs are astromical I say! And while it's true it probably won't be able to run much of anything in 3-4 years time, that pretty much puts you in the same boat as this proposed X1 model, except, oh wait - the Alienware box is upgradable.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-alpha/pd?~ck=mn%E2%80%8B

But what's that? You already have a high end PC and you don't want to buy another computer to use on your couch! Fear not: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Steam-Link-Streaming-Device For $50 you can use your PC on your couch. For another $60 you can even use a Xbox One controller to play your games. It's like so hard to do though, it's literally a little more difficult than actually hooking up an Xbox One - too much for the average console gamer.

The business model is already out there and was already pushed quite heavily by valve. It bombed, and bombed hard. It continues to bomb. So please spare me that there's been no middle ground. There's been a middle ground for years that has been completely ignored because no one wants it. But here's where valve was wrong. Instead of pushing a valve pushing for a PC under the TV, people need Microsoft to push their PC under the TV instead. I mean it's not like steam has more active users than Xbox live.

Ohh wait.



ArnoldRimmer on 02 March 2016

Sounds just like a standard PC. Just way more limited.



Soundwave on 02 March 2016
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:

This is an assumption, we don't know this for sure because gamers have never really had a choice. 

The choice is either pay $200-$400 for a home console or like $1500+ for a PC with a significant performance bump. There's never been anything in the middle and most people don't hook up their PC to their TV, I don't know too many people when you go visit their home who have a giant freaking PC tower under their TV in the living room. 

The old model is the only choice we've been given as consumers, these companies have never offered us anything else. PC parts are sold at a massive price mark up, MS can still subsidize the price of these XBox upgrades/differing models, that alone is a huge difference, they can also keep it streamlined and TV centric so it's easy to upgrade and has a console like form factor that simply plugs and plays into any TV. 

MS is under no obligation to use the same business model that Sony does. In fact it's kind of stupid in their case since they are the lead OS for PC gaming already, keeping PC and XBox seperate was a bizarre choice from the get go. 

You don't actually believe you need to spend $1500 on a PC in order to have a decent gaming PC, do you? You can get by just fine for years on a PC that costs $800. And who says anything about having a "giant PC tower" under their PC. Don't be so obtuse. Alienware's version of the Steam Machine is smaller than the Xbox One and cost $450. You can also get a version that runs Windows 10 instead of steam OS... for $400. So there you go. PC gaming in your living room on a box made for use on your TV for a whopping $400.  And, the Alienware version isn't even the cheapest steam box! The costs are astromical I say! And while it's true it probably won't be able to run much of anything in 3-4 years time, that pretty much puts you in the same boat as this proposed X1 model, except, oh wait - the Alienware box is upgradable.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-alpha/pd?~ck=mn%E2%80%8B

But what's that? You already have a high end PC and you don't want to buy another computer to use on your couch! Fear not: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Steam-Link-Streaming-Device For $50 you can use your PC on your couch. For another $60 you can even use a Xbox One controller to play your games. It's like so hard to do though, it's literally a little more difficult than actually hooking up an Xbox One - too much for the average console gamer.

The business model is already out there and was already pushed quite heavily by valve. It bombed, and bombed hard. It continues to bomb. So please spare me that there's been no middle ground. There's been a middle ground for years that has been completely ignored because no one wants it. But here's where valve was wrong. Instead of pushing a valve pushing for a PC under the TV, people need Microsoft to push their PC under the TV instead. I mean it's not like steam has more active users than Xbox live.

Ohh wait.

Yes you can get a decent PC for $800 but if you want something that significantly outperforms a PS4 you need to go higher than that. 

Yes there are Alienware PCs ... but it's a for a niche audience.

When the *AVERAGE CONSUMER* thinks "build a PC" they think a giant freaking PC with 8000 wires all over the place. Most normal people don't want to do that.

STEAM is welcome to subsidize/take losses on their Steamboxes if they want, my guess is they don't want to, in which case, Microsoft has a huge, huge advantage. 

$500 gets you shit in PC terms, but $400-$500 today would let MS release an XBox that takes a giant shit all over the PS4. 

If it's something you don't like or want ... great. Don't buy it. But let the consumer decide, we've never been offered anything other than the same tired console model from the 1980s. I for one welcome something that offers me a *choice*.

As a consumer I'm tired of being treated like I'm a 12 year old or a broke 18 year old college kid by this industry who needs mommy/daddy to buy him a console. I would prefer to be able to upgrade on my own terms, I am getting a 4K TV this year ... it would be nice to be able to play console games in a resolution above 1080P on my TV before 20freaking19 just because Sony tells me that's how long I should wait. Fuck that. 



potato_hamster on 02 March 2016
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:

You don't actually believe you need to spend $1500 on a PC in order to have a decent gaming PC, do you? You can get by just fine for years on a PC that costs $800. And who says anything about having a "giant PC tower" under their PC. Don't be so obtuse. Alienware's version of the Steam Machine is smaller than the Xbox One and cost $450. You can also get a version that runs Windows 10 instead of steam OS... for $400. So there you go. PC gaming in your living room on a box made for use on your TV for a whopping $400.  And, the Alienware version isn't even the cheapest steam box! The costs are astromical I say! And while it's true it probably won't be able to run much of anything in 3-4 years time, that pretty much puts you in the same boat as this proposed X1 model, except, oh wait - the Alienware box is upgradable.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-alpha/pd?~ck=mn%E2%80%8B

But what's that? You already have a high end PC and you don't want to buy another computer to use on your couch! Fear not: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Steam-Link-Streaming-Device For $50 you can use your PC on your couch. For another $60 you can even use a Xbox One controller to play your games. It's like so hard to do though, it's literally a little more difficult than actually hooking up an Xbox One - too much for the average console gamer.

The business model is already out there and was already pushed quite heavily by valve. It bombed, and bombed hard. It continues to bomb. So please spare me that there's been no middle ground. There's been a middle ground for years that has been completely ignored because no one wants it. But here's where valve was wrong. Instead of pushing a valve pushing for a PC under the TV, people need Microsoft to push their PC under the TV instead. I mean it's not like steam has more active users than Xbox live.

Ohh wait.

Yes you can get a decent PC for $800 but if you want something that significantly outperforms a PS4 you need to go higher than that. 

Yes there are Alienware PCs ... but it's a for a niche audience.

When the *AVERAGE CONSUMER* thinks "build a PC" they think a giant freaking PC with 8000 wires all over the place. Most normal people don't want to do that.

STEAM is welcome to subsidize/take losses on their Steamboxes if they want, my guess is they don't want to, in which case, Microsoft has a huge, huge advantage. 

$500 gets you shit in PC terms, but $400-$500 today would let MS release an XBox that takes a giant shit all over the PS4. 

If it's something you don't like or want ... great. Don't buy it. But let the consumer decide, we've never been offered anything other than the same tired console model from the 1980s. I for one welcome something that offers me a *choice*.

As a consumer I'm tired of being treated like I'm a 12 year old or a broke 18 year old college kid by this industry who needs mommy/daddy to buy him a console. I would prefer to be able to upgrade on my own terms, I am getting a 4K TV this year ... it would be nice to be able to play console games in a resolution above 1080P before 20freaking19 just because Sony tells me that's how long I should wait. Fuck that. 

When the average consumer thinks console they think something they buy every 6-8 years that plays the lastest games for 10 years. Most normal people don't want a console that doesn't do that.

I'm also not talking about your conventional Alienware PC. I'm talking about a steam machine that just so happens to be made by Alienware. The are steam machines made by dozens of hardware manufacturers. there's a whole bunch:

http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-announces-some-stuff/

How is a PC under your television that runs xbox games less niche than PC under your television that runs steam games?

But we haven't been offered anything but the same old tired console. What about the Sega genesis - Sega Cd - Sega 32X. Not the same old tired consoles, but those add ons were abysmal failures. How about the memory expansion for the N64? Another abysmal failure, and that was just a little block you had to pop in the top of your console. It left the average console gamer confused, and angry that they had to buy this $30 add on just to play a handful of games. How about the "new 3DS" and the "new 3DS" only Xenoblade chronicles?  Failure. Then there was all of those PSP models that were actually more powerful than the last, and the digital-only PSP Go. Again, failures. You're acting as if its a novel idea to segment your userbase mid-console generation. It really isn't - it just hasn't ever been successful.



Around the Network
DakonBlackblade on 02 March 2016

I like the current model and I seriously think MS wouldnt be doing anythign similar to this if they were leading the console market or tied with Sony right now. Like it is now it is easy to understand and devs focus on 1 plataform with 1 spec wich result in some pretty incredible games. I like the buy 1 box play with it for 5-6 years then buy the new box model quite a lot, I already do the upgrading thing with my PC don't want to do that with my console as well.



SvennoJ on 02 March 2016
Soundwave said:

STEAM is welcome to subsidize/take losses on their Steamboxes if they want, my guess is they don't want to, in which case, Microsoft has a huge, huge advantage. 

$500 gets you shit in PC terms, but $400-$500 today would let MS release an XBox that takes a giant shit all over the PS4. 

Why do you think MS would heavily subsidize a box that takes a giant shit over the ps4.

You forget that consoles can be sold at cost or a slight loss because of the promiss of big profits when the majority of sales happen, when the margins are bigger and all the R&D, factory retooling and marketing costs can be recouped. The price and components of a console are based on a sales projection over the 6-8 year period. The same has to be done for your premium mid gen upgrade. Yet those shorter cycle devices will have lower sales projections, still have all the R&D costs, factory retooling and marketing costs again, which leaves a lot less room to subsidize the console. That $400 shit Alienware box, maybe MS can sell the shit $500 model for $400. Meanwhile the price of the older model drops faster, second hand models flood the market, lower profit margins all around. It's a simple case of lower efficiency over all.

Sure if MS had started the gen now, with the promiss of selling this console for 8 years, they could launch a $400 console 3 years more powerful than the ps4. Which isn't a giant shit, yet still very significant. Now reduce that to 3 years sales forecast, hmm that console now needs to be $600 or more.
Everything else stays the same, same xbox live revenues, same game license fees. Although margins could become a bit smaller on games with more choice and more old games competing for the same user base.



COKTOE on 02 March 2016

I hope this fails catastrophically.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 02 March 2016

Everyone is talking about power and I'm sitting here playing Undertale. I don't play on PC b/c of the power, I play for teh games.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

elektranine on 02 March 2016

This will never work. Sony already tried this with the PSP and it failed badly. Developers will not support this at all. They will target the lowest common denominator and not alienate an existing potential customer base.

"Our games will be backwards and forwards compatible" they have said the exact same PR line last gen and the gen before that. Likely not going to happen. With incremental upgrades you give up the ability to go back and correct fatal hardware/software design choices. Imagine if the PS4 was just a PS3 with more SPEs and more memory.