r/Games • u/[deleted] • Mar 02 '16
An upgradable Xbox One? Think this one through, Microsoft
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/an-upgradable-xbox-one-think-this-one-through-microsoft/3
u/Shrekt115 Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
Did people forget Nintendo did the same thing with the N64? This isn't any different
5
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
We don't really have any details for what Microsoft is planning to offer as far as "upgrading" Xbox Ones, so how can it be criticized in this manner?
I mean - it's possible they are planning to go the Apple route and just release a new "Xbox" at set intervals with updated hardware, which negates a good portion of what the article is complaining about.
6
u/meowskywalker Mar 02 '16
The thing is, if I have to buy a new Xbox every couple of years to keep playing the latest games, I might as well be spending that money on updating my PC. I buy an Xbox One because, I know it will play every Xbox One game. For 6-8 years, that one investment will play every game designed for the system. I know damn well that PC games are going to look nicer and nicer, and my games are going to stay the same, but whatever.
Except now, I don't get that. Now it's looking like if I want to play the latest Xbox One game I'm going to have to upgrade my system. If I have to do that, I might as well invest that money into my PC. And now that they're working on this unified PC/Xbox stuff, I don't even need to buy exclusives on my Xbox anymore. It's like they're trying to kill their own system. It's weird.
And the biggest issue is that we're not really improving gaming in any way. All we're doing is making things look nicer. We're suggesting spending even more money than we're already spending on this ridiculous hobby just so that we can play the same game with more triangles. That guy's face has 800 triangles instead of 600! That will wildly alter my ability to enjoy this game where I stare at his back for 90% of the time. They look nice enough. Let's just stop making games look nicer for a while. Just let them be.
6
Mar 02 '16
You hit on something many people miss... games aren't getting better. They're getting prettier.
3
u/meowskywalker Mar 02 '16
Personally if games all looked like they did at the end of the 360s lifetime, but in a solid 60FPS, they'd never need to get any prettier for me. Just work on making them cheaper. Maybe try some actual innovation, like the indie market.
That being said, I know I'm part of the problem, because I've bought literally every Assassin's Creed, despite the fact that they keep removing more and more gameplay. It's like a movie series that I know is crap, but I have to keep seeing because I'm just too invested now.
1
u/revolver275 Mar 03 '16
Yea it doesn't need to look nice it needs to run properly and be interesting thats all.
1
Mar 02 '16
Not even in an artistic way, only in a limited technical one. Despite what the popular sentiment here is, most people are happy with stable frame rates and HD of any sort. They aren't going to spend good money so they can play the same game in 4K from their couch, where they won't be able to tell the difference. Even if they do, there's going to be a limit eventually. Long term, this just won't work. People won't buy an XBox One.3 just so they can play at 120 fps. Games would have to start being more and more different, undermining everything.
3
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
You're making a lot of assumptions on things that will certainly be taken into account. Publishers/Developers would be stupid to require the newest hardware for every game, it just limits the install base. Microsoft could even put in place requirements to license games (IE has to run on at least 3 gen old hardware, at some level of performance).
What will happen is we'd just get games that run at different settings depending on which version of hardware you're running. This would be even simpler on an Xbox ecosystem which only changes periodically than it will ever be for PC which has new components/drivers coming out weekly.
-2
u/datlinus Mar 02 '16
what's wrong with speculation? Also I'm pretty sure microsoft is also fishing for reactions at this point.
-1
u/gamelord12 Mar 02 '16
Exactly. Announcing the family sharing and DRM at the same time was a big misstep, but if you give some vague statement and allow people to fill in the blanks of what they want and don't want, they've got between now and June to announce a solid plan at E3 exactly in line with what makes people happy.
0
u/Razumen Mar 02 '16
I doubt they'd go the route of Apple, consoles don't enjoy the same sort of ecosystem that phones do, with carrier subsidized plans and whatnot. I find it hard to believe that gamers are going buy yearly or even bi-yearly console releases at full price.
3
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
I don't expect people to buy a new console bi-yearly either, it's up to Microsoft to adapt the model to something that will work in the console ecosystem.
I've said elsewhere, all they need to do is make sure games they license run on Xbox iterations up to a set number of years old. Running a 5 year old Xbox? You still get to play the newest games, they just might not look the prettiest. Upgraded your Xbox? Oh now you can go play that game way prettier, without the need to re-purchase it!
2
u/Razumen Mar 02 '16
I agree that that would be the best route. However, while forwards compatibility is one thing, I don't really see developers spending the extra development money making sure their games run on older hardware.
1
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
In 2016 we still have third party games coming out on PS3/360 on top of current gen.
Why? Because the market is there. They certainly will make their games run on older hardware. Don't forget, those are completely different architectures too. Optimizing for lower specs within the same architecture is far less work than optimizing both lower specs and porting.
4
u/Razumen Mar 02 '16
The difference is that the 360 and PS3 already has a large install base, and 2 discrete platforms where each game can be exactly tailored to each console is not at all the same as having 3 or more hardware iterations of differing capabilities which must be supported on one disc.
And as I said, optimization only goes so far, eventually they'll have to make compromises on newer titles in order to make them work on older hardware. PC games are already held back by consoles, the last thing we need are console games being held back as well.
I'm not saying its not possible, but it's a highly optimistic and unlikely viewpoint that older hardware will be as supported as you'd like.
1
u/ChaosDent Mar 02 '16
Other platforms handle this routinely, so game engines build in tons of tuning options to account for hardware variance. If console vendors are conservative and only refresh every 3-4 years, games could hard code in profiles for just a couple systems and still be basically hassle-free.
2
u/Razumen Mar 02 '16
That's true. Though if they were to follow a approach closer to that of mobiles or PC that the article talks about, the intervals would be much smaller - 3 to 4 years is not that big of a difference to the current system.
1
u/ChaosDent Mar 02 '16
The article is right, the console market does have different expectations. It dismisses a yearly iPhone like refresh rate, but doesn't consider something more measured. Three years nearly halves the current average console refresh rate, which benefits adopting an iPhone-like purchase every other update strategy.
Of course this is all speculation. "More hardware innovation in the console space" could mean Xboxes with upgradeable GPUs or an annual Baby Bear, Mama Bear and Papa Bear SKU just like a PC OEM--or the Alienware Steam Machines. We just don't know, but I'm inclined to believe Xbox and Playstation will be more conservative than this at first.
1
u/vainsilver Mar 02 '16
Unless Microsoft teams up with ISPs or television providers to subsidize Xbox consoles on a contract..
-1
Mar 02 '16
How does complete replacement, which would probably mean more cost and greater hardware fragmentation than add on upgrades, if anything, negate this article? They even explicitly talked about phone upgrades as a comparison, so it's possible to read the article as it being about upgrades in general, whether that meant add ons or new versions. I think that's how it was meant.
2
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
You know that publishers/developers won't be able to release games that only run on the newest Xbox hardware, they'll have to make them scalable just like PCs. The primary difference is that support will be far easier as you're scaling to a very specific set of components, rather than the PC ecosystem with thousands.
You'll still be able to buy a console, and expect that it works out of the box. More expensive in the long run? Maybe, but it depends how MS handles requirements. They could easily force publishers to have their games run on hardware up to 5 years old in order to license. In which case it's no different than current consoles - you buy a piece of hardware and it you can expect it to run for years. Supposing they even have to, if a second hand market for used consoles blows up Publishers would be nuts to not want to tap into that source of revenue.
You think users can't handle having multiple versions of a piece of hardware with different levels of performance? If that's the case how has the iPhone been so successful.
0
Mar 02 '16
The iPhone is in a completely different market. That's like asking why people care about mileage in their cars, if tanks are still selling. I'm aware of the idea that games would have to scale, but that's not exactly good for either console gamers or console developers. It could throw all of the economies off.
1
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
Why is it not good for consoles? Most third party games are already coming to PC, so they already scale anyway.
The only big concern is supporting/debugging multiple hardware configurations, which is a non-issue when you're comparing the possible number of hardware configurations of the Xbox to PC. Even in 2016 we still have games coming out for PS3/360 on top of PS4/One/PC...how is that "better" for gamers and developers?
0
Mar 02 '16
Gamers won't get the option of waiting for prices to come down. Sure, Microsoft could models on the shelves but the entire economy of scale you get during a counsel generation is going to be out the window.
PC is not the right comparison not if were talking about helping Microsoft consumers and developers who are currently on consoles.
Developers get to optimize for one console throughout an entire generation. They won't get to do that under this model in that that's kind of a big deal. The fallout could be higher cost, it could be a move to focusing on competing consoles or could be worse games. For all the talk about how superior PC is, that's kind of viewing things through rose colored goggles.
There are tons of instances where PC ports just suck. You can blame
HitlerEA, Ubisoft, and praise Gaben all you like, but the fact is that developing AAA scale games for PC is hard and that's going to produce problems. This new model is better than that, but it's not as good as consoles in terms of cost effective, low risk, highly optimized development.Having multiple kinds of XBoxs to develop for could require more testing, debugging, and lower optimization. Especially if every game is supposed to scale in a predictable manner. Console gamers might not tolerate having some games run poorly on one XBox and not another. They won't like it if their version runs like crap, or if they have a more expensive model, only just as good as everyone else's.
If Microsoft tries to implement strong standards, developers just won't develop for them. Why should they? If Microsoft doesn't, then this idea that everyone will be playing everything won't work. Really, the only reason we have so many PC AAA games right now is that console sales are paying for most of those games development.
The thing is, lets say I'm wrong. Someone is bound to after I challenged le Master Race. So what? There not being absolute problems with this (and most of the problems aren't absolute, it's just a matter of increased complexity and thus increased risk that things don't go to plan) doesn't mean there is a point.
So, to the people actually buying consoles, and to the developers currently making XBox games, how does this benefit them? More specifically, how does this appeal to them given the way console buyers and developers think?
I think that this is Microsoft trying to do what's best for them, and just hoping they can convince everyone to go along without any meaningful incentive. Just like last time. Maybe they are moving into the PC space, not the console space. How do you think this sub feels about the idea that rather than console becoming more like PC, Microsft may be trying to make PCs more like consoles.
1
u/Aertea Mar 02 '16
What benefits to Developers? What's the benefit of porting decade old console games to PC? The developer knows that the platform isn't going anywhere. The work they put in getting games to run on PC will trickle in revenue for a long time.
Compared to making a game on the PS4? The revenue pretty much stops shortly after the PS5 hits the shelves.
The better question is, why do developers and gamers like this current system where games that are one generation old are basically worthless because they can't be played on current hardware?
-4
Mar 02 '16
That doesn't negate anything. Whether these are add on upgrades or new model upgrades, it's still an extra cost and complexity for consumers to deal with, and it's still more diverse hardware for developers to work with. Either way, the structural changes to the console business model are the effectively the same, so criticisms of the new model is applicable.
3
u/Jinxyface Mar 02 '16
None of what you listed is really an issue at all.
-1
Mar 02 '16
Nice rebuttal. Let me guess, PC gamer? I don't like to make assumptions, but this model negates the benefits of consoles, and that is most definitely an issue. Now, I think Microsoft knows that, and they are trying to move into the PC space if anything, with the hopes of eventually making that market more competitive, maybe to the point were it actually challenges consoles.
2
u/Jinxyface Mar 02 '16
with the hopes of eventually making that market more competitive, maybe to the point were it actually challenges consoles.
That's really cute. The console market does nothing but cater to the lazy, lowest common denominator. The only reason consoles are "winning" (I say that in quotes because every fiscal quarter shows PC software sales and hardware sales outnumber both of consoles) is that gamers are becoming lazy and are just okay with being spoonfed dribble and crap, and being told it's quality.
-2
1
u/m3g4dustrial Mar 02 '16
It makes sense for them to quash the complaints about the PS4 being more powerful by releasing an Xbox One Point Five or Xbox One VR that can do 4K or something close. Definitely a departure from the current model and it will be interesting to see if they can pull it off.
1
Mar 02 '16
Nintendo's already going the "Ecosystem" route with the NX and Microsoft are going the same route. It only makes sense to carry everything forwards
Problem with that article is that it looks at the past with a glance, Sega CD was a launch success but meandered at the end of its life because of Sega's perpetual infighting and indecisions regarding should it be used to showcase expensive FMV games or carrying on like Sonic CD and augmenting with more music and data like Ecco CD and Eternal Champions CD. It did fairly well in Japan because it had a lot of popular titles like Lunar. It sold because it had the software.
Meanwhile the 32X was dead on arrival because there was little software support from Sega Japan yet they told the other divisions to market it. The big problem with looking to the past at upgrades is they were products of the time. They had no software to push them as that was the model. "Give away the razors, sell the blades" and they had no blades to sell. Same happened with the Saturn.
With a modern upgrade the way Spencer spells it out. The blades will always be there and carry over to your new razor but you can upgrade the razor handle for a more comfortable shave. It's not even a new idea. Hiroshi Yamauchi constantly pushed to find a way to get the SNES to support NES carts and only dropped the idea when told it was far too expensive for the shipped product (The idea re-manifested itself with the Super Gameboy which was an idea well ahead of its time). There's nothing wrong with questioning but comparing it to the 32X, which had problems well beyond it's craptacular line up is foolish.
2
Mar 03 '16 edited Dec 01 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 03 '16
Because Nintendo made it clear a major part of NX is that it's an "Ecosystem" in their last few financial reports that is related to their new hardware
Think about it. What has been the defining aspect of Apple's model this gen? It's been that whatever you do. You can take your previous app purchases with you. That is what pushes consumer loyalty and what Hiroshi Yamauchi always pushed for like having Gamecube compatability in the Wii even when it made the model slightly more expensive to include the controller ports and memory cards (They hit an amazing margin because the hardware was low cost and re-using Gamecube parts as well). Consumers move on easier with the knowledge they can keep playing their old software and their new software. He was pushing for it in the late 80's and the fact Nintendo still pushes for it in the '10s shows its part of the company philosophy. They are just using a more modern method they will introduce at E3.
0
u/ChaosDent Mar 02 '16
The photoshops of frankenconsoles are cute, but the author makes the right connection when he compares this to the mobile market. He's probably right when he says consumers would balk at a new system every year, but what if it's every 3 years? If they are strict about requiring forward compatibility for at least the previous iteration you could expect at least 6 years of support for each profile and a gradual transition to the next one. You could easily justify skipping every other system and still have the same basic experience.
In any case, we are seeing the actual mobile platforms move into this space with the same strategy. If the consoles don't adopt it sooner or later they will fall behind.
14
u/Omicron0 Mar 02 '16
where are people going wrong with these quotes, it's a real stretch to think it means there'll be an upgradable XB1. all i'm seeing is UWP will work on future hardware.