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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft to unify PC and Xbox One platforms, ending fixed console hardware

rockykev on 03 March 2016
superchunk said:
Hopefully this means steam availability of some sort. This way I can convince kids once and for all we can just keep our chromebooks and ditch the only remaining PC in the house. Its nearly useless at this point anyways.

Haha! I'm glad I'm not the only one!

We currently have one gaming rig, that we stream from our lightweight laptops all over the house.



I'm setting up a video game "book club"! Still figuring out the details -- PM me!

Around the Network
TheMessiah on 03 March 2016
potato_hamster said:
TheMessiah said:

But surely if MS are designing smaller steps in power increase as opposed to a big step end of gen, the costs of the parts involved would be cheaper? If they made a version 2 say for release Xmas this year or sometime next year they could have an increase of say 4gb extra ram, not the best gpu out, but say a gpu 2 generations up from the existing one. The CPU could even remain the same just at a higher clockspeed and better cache. Something like theoretical performance of say 2.2-2.4 teraflops overall. Surely in 2016-2017 that could be done at a price to sell for $400. Then perhaps in 2019-2020 a 3rd version with another smaller bump. 16gb ram, 2 x generation gpu leap again, and this time maybe the next gen of the CPU as it would already be around and cheaper.

Is that not doable? It doesn't have to be the top pc components that pc gamers will use at initial monster prices. Just enough for 2-3x more power each time. as opposed to waiting a whole gen then designing a console with current parts to be 10x more powerful than previous gen like Xbox one - 360.

No. No it isn't doable. It's not a matter of simply swaping out the RAM chips in your Xbox factory for another and telling developers to have fun with it. They'd still have to retool the factory, develop and create new dev kits - costing millions of dollars. Then, you have convince developers to buy hundreds of extra dev kits at thousands of dollars a piece after they just bought hundreds of dev kits 3 years ago, and then, spend more time developing specifically for the better hardware and practically double the cost of QA for every single Xbox game they make for what is for all intents and purposes, a new, but super easy to develop for platform, costing developers millions of dollars in extra development costs.

That's a really really hard sell, and you still have to deal with the pissed off fanbase who now has to worry about their Xbox not getting treated as well as their neighbors better xbox, if new games will even run on them.

Kinda a hard sell, don't you think?

They retool the factories for slim models. Different Die sizes on the ram, cpu and gpu. Even different size motherboarrds. So whats different there. Also they alrady have numerous revisions of SDKs throughout a consoles life. So sending out new SDKs isnt anything new. Since Xbox One has been out developers have been sent over 5 Software Development kits already.



TheMessiah on 03 March 2016
SvennoJ said:
TheMessiah said:

But surely if MS are designing smaller steps in power increase as opposed to a big step end of gen, the costs of the parts involved would be cheaper? If they made a version 2 say for release Xmas this year or sometime next year they could have an increase of say 4gb extra ram, not the best gpu out, but say a gpu 2 generations up from the existing one. The CPU could even remain the same just at a higher clockspeed and better cache. Something like theoretical performance of say 2.2-2.4 teraflops overall. Surely in 2016-2017 that could be done at a price to sell for $400. Then perhaps in 2019-2020 a 3rd version with another smaller bump. 16gb ram, 2 x generation gpu leap again, and this time maybe the next gen of the CPU as it would already be around and cheaper.

Is that not doable? It doesn't have to be the top pc components that pc gamers will use at initial monster prices. Just enough for 2-3x more power each time. as opposed to waiting a whole gen then designing a console with current parts to be 10x more powerful than previous gen like Xbox one - 360.

Following the Nintendo model by staying behind the curve, yes then they can keep the $400 price tag, ie if people still buy it the same.

But it will be quite behind the ps5 when that comes out, which will be based on 8 to 10 years of sales. You get a situation where the incremental box is a step behind at launch, equals or slightly surpasses it 3 years into the gen (yet the competitor already had several price cuts), is noticeably ahead 6 years in (against a now much cheaper slim model),  gets passed up 1 or 2 years later when the next gen starts, while the incremental box releases a weaker console at the competitor's launch or after. Don't worry it will catch up again later and games will still incrementally get better. They look a bit poor compared to the competitor going all out with a big jump in fidelity with all shiny new custom made graphics engines for the same price.

Meanwhile you've been spending 3 times as much to have better graphics half of the gen. Why not spend 1 third to have better graphics the other half of the gen and never worry when certain new games won't support your system anymore in case you stop upgrading. Ofcourse you can flip flop, ideally MS and Sony would not come out at the same time yet 4 years apart. That would be best for consumers, affordable state of the art 8 year plan console every 4 years, with an affordable slim model every 4 years as well. Although that would suck for multi platform developers. And of course MS and Sony do not want to share their user base in such a way.

Im cool with that. Upgrade when I want. And importantly backward and forward compatibility. Negating those silly remasters. A full Library of games all the time. And the majority of the time MS would have the most powerful console. Negating perhaps a couple years at the start of each Playstation gen.

Come to think of it, If they released 1 this year or next, Oculus Rift would definately be on Xbox to. Without no R&D from MS into VR. That would be very smart move also.

Sure some will upgrade every 3 years. Others might choose to upgrade every other, 6 years. Difference is choice. If People want to stay Playstation and dont care to much for having the latest graphics they can. Its all about choice at the end of the day.

But smaller steps is exactly how I see MS doing this. We will hear the plans of release later in the year. At the end of the day it hurts noone by doing this. I know people who chose PS4 simply because of the power. They always want the most powerful console for Battlefield etc. They dont PC game at all. So this kinda upgrading would definately be done by these folk.



czecherychestnut on 03 March 2016

I'm surprised by the timing. If you look at the rate of processing power improvement, it has never been lower. It used to be CPU's were getting 100% faster every 2 years, now we are lucky to get 10% every two years. Same with GPU's, the massive growth in processing power has stalled as we're running harder and harder against the laws of physics with semiconductor lithography.

I raise this because if there was ever a time for upgradable consoles, it was around 10 years ago when a 5 year console cycle meant the next console was 3-5 x faster than its predecessor. For MS to go down this path now when the rate of processing power improvement is at its slowest makes the least sense. You release a new console in 3 years, its lucky to be 50% faster than the old one. Why would you upgrade for such a small improvement? We are already seeing people mutter about the smaller step between PS3 and PS4 than what was experienced between PS2 and PS3, it will be 10 times worst if the console generations shorten to 2-3 years under MS plan.



Soundwave on 03 March 2016

I don't even see why this is being argued like it's some kind of debate. It's not. Microsoft has made their decision and as this pertains to the future of their gaming business it's not something they likely did on a whim and it's something that's been phased in already for while now anyway (more and more PC/XBox multi plats).

It's happening. Debating about it now is kinda like debating whether or not Sony should do VR. It's gonna happen, the nay sayers just need to get over it.



Around the Network
KungKras on 03 March 2016
Soundwave said:
Swordmasterman said:

Cellphone is a Market with More consumers than Humans on the Earth, we have Billions of Smart Phone working out there, we have Less than 500 Millions of Consoles working out there, Consoles are More Expensive, and Changing the Console, so OFten, is like purchasing a new Sofa, and a New TV, every year, there are kind of Goods, that need to last Longer, and consoles are the ones, do you sell a new Table for the same Person every year ?, a new Bathroom ?.

I find it hillarious they we are being sold this crock that LESS choice for us as consumers is good for us. 

The game industry isn't a bunch of little kids to whom a new console model is a huuuuuge deal because it means they have to beg mom/dad for the next 10 months to buy them the new system. 

We're grown adults. $400-$500 upgrade for me every 3-4 years is no big deal. You can't buy shit for $400 these days anyway, what does that get you today? A ticket to one night out at a pro sports event for you and your girl, a couple of hot dogs and beers? Whoopity fucking doo. 

I'm not 12 years old anymore where $400 is like a lottery sum. This industry has grown up, I for one welcome CHOICES that reflect the modern market, not 1991.

If you don't want an upgraded model or can't afford it ... don't buy it. Simple as that. 

A game console is not a sofa or washroom, it's an ELECTRONIC device, and if we have CHOICE is virtually every other electronic device (phones, tablets, laptops, TVs, cameras, PCs) why not in consoles? 

Unless you make games for a living. You are NOT the game industry.



I LOVE ICELAND!

teigaga on 03 March 2016
Azuren said:
teigaga said:

Won't happen anytime soon. They're investing in building Windows 10 as a platform, playstation and Nintendo are not part of that equation. 

Except Windows 10 isn't a gaming platform, it's an Operating System. Something everyone is going to have to have anyway (unless you like being unproductive). 

An operating system which you need in order to run the games. Sony and Nintendo do not have Windows 10 on their platform and will continue to not have it unless they want a $50+ hike in the price of their hardware.

The point is there is no other competitive windows 10 living room device, the Xbox will continue to fill that space for the foreseeable future. 



potato_hamster on 03 March 2016
TheMessiah said:
potato_hamster said:

No. No it isn't doable. It's not a matter of simply swaping out the RAM chips in your Xbox factory for another and telling developers to have fun with it. They'd still have to retool the factory, develop and create new dev kits - costing millions of dollars. Then, you have convince developers to buy hundreds of extra dev kits at thousands of dollars a piece after they just bought hundreds of dev kits 3 years ago, and then, spend more time developing specifically for the better hardware and practically double the cost of QA for every single Xbox game they make for what is for all intents and purposes, a new, but super easy to develop for platform, costing developers millions of dollars in extra development costs.

That's a really really hard sell, and you still have to deal with the pissed off fanbase who now has to worry about their Xbox not getting treated as well as their neighbors better xbox, if new games will even run on them.

Kinda a hard sell, don't you think?

They retool the factories for slim models. Different Die sizes on the ram, cpu and gpu. Even different size motherboarrds. So whats different there. Also they alrady have numerous revisions of SDKs throughout a consoles life. So sending out new SDKs isnt anything new. Since Xbox One has been out developers have been sent over 5 Software Development kits already.

Yes they do retool the factories for slim models, but they also use economies of scale, and decrease unit costs during these revisions Your suggestion would ensure that their unit cost would remain higher, which means MS doesn't actually see the financial benefit typically seen when reducing to a slimmer, cheaper to make model. Also while they have released many revisions of the dev kits, first off many of the older versions still work fine for producing X1 games, its just that when developer request additional kits, MS will send a new model. I personally saw about 6 different xbox 360 developer kits, but even the oldest ones still could be used to develop games with a firmware update. There's no way to update the firmware to have more RAM in it. The only models they replace for developers would be dev kits that represented a hardware configuration that wasn't what was in the final X1. These developer kits aren't cheap to develop or manufacture. You typically only see revisisions to these kits if its absolutely necessary, or they were able to apply some of their cost savings (smaller chip sizes etc.) to the dev kits.



potato_hamster on 03 March 2016
teigaga said:
Azuren said:

Except Windows 10 isn't a gaming platform, it's an Operating System. Something everyone is going to have to have anyway (unless you like being unproductive). 

An operating system which you need in order to run the games. Sony and Nintendo do not have Windows 10 on their platform and will continue to not have it unless they want a $50+ hike in the price of their hardware.

The point is there is no other competitive windows 10 living room device, the Xbox will continue to fill that space for the foreseeable future. 

Steam machines. You can put windows 10 on them, or they come with Windows 10. There's many different varieties. Value also sells a device so that you can stream the video output of your comptuer to your television, and it will transmit control inputs back to your PC so long as its on the same wireless network as the box. Literally any computer can be made into a Windows 10 living room device with a $50 add on.



Swordmasterman on 03 March 2016
teigaga said:
Azuren said:

Until, in the name of profit, they see more money being made in releasing their games on all platforms instead of two. 

Won't happen anytime soon. They're investing in building Windows 10 as a platform, playstation and Nintendo are not part of that equation. 

Yes, making games For PC, is going Multiplataform, does not matter if is not on other console, only if it is on Other Plataform, they just own the Store, just like Steam, does, Valve, is a Third Party Company, make games for Their Store, and Console, even if is Xbox/PC games, like Left 4 Dead, still Third Party, and Multiplataform, the only difference is that Valve, does not own the PC, neither the Xbox, and Microsoft, own the Xbox, but not the PC.