Xbox : What should MS do next? *spawn

[Deleted member 11852]

You had to get a more expensive laptop with a discrete GPU if you wanted something good. This gen, the consoles are low to mid-range (at best). Getting seven or eight years out of them seems crazy when there will be laptops and tablets with new generations of Intel GPUs for under $1000. Having cheap laptops or hybrids that are competitive with game consoles is going to be a new thing this generation.

What demographic is going to buy a cheap laptop over a games console for games? If you genuinely need a new laptop that's all well and good but the problem Intel and Microsoft both have is that for the last few years, laptops - even the cheap ones - are more than adequate for doing what people want to do - web, email, music, movies (watching and editing/creating). And there doesn't seem to be any usage case on the horizon that'll get everybody buying new hardware.

Microsoft's operating systems are no longer making two years old CPUs cry and nor are Microsoft's new operating systems a compelling upgrade for most people - Windows 7 is a solid, sound OS and people are still using XP. It's at this point I always refer to the Steam hardware survey page, which is always an eye opener

This is likely a significant contributor to why PC sales are declining and why Windows 8 adoption was so low - it was 13% of active Windows systems in July.

I don't think you can count on people getting a gaming-capable laptop by default when they upgrade next because a lot of people aren't upgrading; they're keeping the computer they already have or are using a tablet of their phone more.

Plus casual gamers have been conditioned for years to think that cheap PCs aren't good for games. Given the choice, plenty will opt for a console + controller + no worries over a cheap laptop with shit screen + cable for TV + controller + windows updates.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You sell cheap laptops that can play games well at the same time that you continue to sell the Xbox for people who want something even cheaper. You just make sure the games run on both. Put the Xbox brand on the PC side. You get people on the PC subscribing to Xbox Live and you get people buying games from the Xbox Store on the PC. The console just ends up being the bar for entry.

I hope it happens. I can easily see myself buying a cheap gaming PC four years from now.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You sell cheap laptops that can play games well at the same time that you continue to sell the Xbox for people who want something even cheaper.

My point is cheap laptops that game respectably are not likely going to materially impact sales of games consoles - all things being equal. Games consoles seem to have an immutable niche mostly, I believe, became they have evolved to become more rounded entertainment devices that are always connected to the TV. And with PlayStation 4 and Vita - away from the TV.

Of course the cost of consoles will drop and probably below the cost of a laptop, which will always have overheads a console will not - profit for the manufacturer, a Windows licence from Microsoft. And unless you're willing to play on a cheap screen and keyboard, you'll be wanting to plug that sucker into the TV and buy a controller.

You just make sure the games run on both. Put the Xbox brand on the PC side. You get people on the PC subscribing to Xbox Live and you get people buying games from the Xbox Store on the PC. The console just ends up being the bar for entry.

And maybe this is Microsoft's goal. It's be interesting to hear the views of an Xbox One and Windows developer. My understanding is that Xbox One contains APIs far closer to the metal than will exist in DirectX 12 which would still mean two code paths for the 'unified' platform, although you could offer a fat binary as was the norm for Windows CE/Handheld PC/PocketPC.

But, hmmm, I wonder if this is a defensive move by Microsoft. It must irritate them that WindowsRT and WindowsPhone struggle for the kind of app support that exists on Android and iOS. But if Microsoft build toward a single platform, and offer developers an easily supported/adapted universal UI framework, then they don't have to worry about the individual platforms and you prevent the platform isolation that makes their mobile devices less diverse (in app terms) places than their competitors.

I hope it happens. I can easily see myself buying a cheap gaming PC four years from now.

Four years is a long time. Valve may have refocussed the mess that is SteamOS/Box by then but competition in this regard is good for everybody And from my perspective it would be one less console to buy. I have a big steam library already and not having to buy an Xbox to play Xbox exclusives which I can play on my PC is great.

 

[Scott_Arm]

... My understanding is that Xbox One contains APIs far closer to the metal than will exist in DirectX 12 which would still mean two code paths for the 'unified' platform, although you could offer a fat binary as was the norm for Windows CE/Handheld PC/PocketPC.
...

I do not believe this is true. I'd have to go digging, but it sounds like the Xbox One API is quite "fat" and that Direct3D 12 will bring it closer "to the metal." It already has some features from Direct3D12, but it is closer to Direct3D 11.

Read this post for the developer of Metro's opinion of the Xbox One API and the importance of DirectX12.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1870055&postcount=624

It has already been announced that DirectX12 is coming to Xbox One (I think it has ...) If they end up dropping Windows 10 on it, then there isn't too much of a reason you cannot move games back and forth between Xbox One and desktop platforms. Same OS, same APIs, same AMD x86 processor and GPUs. Kinect is coming to PC. Xbox Live would have to move to PC feature-for-feature. Only difference is ESRAM.

I'll also add that having a slightly fat API layer on Xbox One that is somewhere between DirectX11 and 12 makes a lot of sense if you consider their plan was to move to Windows 10 and DirectX12 from the start. If they'd made some exotic API layer, running in the Windows 10 environment and having consistency with other platforms could be an issue.

I guess we'll see where it goes.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I do not believe this is true. I'd have to go digging, but it sounds like the Xbox One API is quite "fat" and that Direct3D 12 will bring it closer "to the metal." It already has some features from Direct3D12, but it is closer to Direct3D 11.

The Metro Redux interview does that Microsoft have implemented low level API support.

But Microsoft is not sleeping, really. Each XDK that has been released both before and after the Xbox One launch has brought faster and faster draw-calls to the table. They added tons of features just to work around limitations of the DX11 API model. They even made a DX12/GNM style do-it-yourself API available

But I still believe a dual-code path is inevitable because fundamentally the system architecture of PC and Xbox one are very different and need to be approached differently. A PC will (generally) have a large fast CPU RAM pool and a smaller fast VRAM pool separated by a bus. Managing data and assets between RAM/VRAM is part and parcel of PC games development. On Xbox One there's one RAM pool but you're having to use that small ESRAM pool very carefully, which isn't an issue on PC. Because these are problems that are addressed by the developers in code, you have to approach each differently.

I'll also add that having a slightly fat API layer on Xbox One that is somewhere between DirectX11 and 12 makes a lot of sense if you consider their plan was to move to Windows 10 and DirectX12 from the start. If they'd made some exotic API layer, running in the Windows 10 environment and having consistency with other platforms could be an issue.

I guess we'll see where it goes.

We live in interesting times!

 

[Scott_Arm]

The Metro Redux interview does that Microsoft have implemented low level API support.

Yes, the API has something low-level, but it's apparently not as low-level as DX12. This is two questions later.

Digital Foundry: To what extent will DX12 prove useful on Xbox One? Isn't there already a low CPU overhead there in addressing the GPU?

Oles Shishkovstov: No, it's important. All the dependency tracking takes a huge slice of CPU power. And if we are talking about the multi-threaded command buffer chunks generation - the DX11 model was essentially a 'flop', while DX12 should be the right one.

The only real difference between PC and Xbox One is ESRAM. That is two code paths, but it should not be massively different. The CPUs and GPUs are the same architecture. Xbox One has a single large pool of DDR3, but most integrated GPUs on the PC side use system RAM as VRAM as well. From a Direct3D 12 standpoint, things should not be remarkably different, if much at all. ESRAM is the only issue to code around, but that would essentially be taking something like a PS4 code path. Regardless, it would be easier than it is now to do separate Xbox One and PC versions. Plus, a licensed game engine would handle that for you, and a lot of devs use Unreal Engine.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, the API has something low-level, but it's apparently not as low-level as DX12. This is two questions later.

Well if it's GNM-like, which they say, it's closer to the metal than DirectX 12. The example they give on PS4 is that in many cases you're literally writing direct to the GPUs command buffers. That's not an API that's shoving data into GPU registers.

The only real difference between PC and Xbox One is ESRAM. That is two code paths, but it should not be massively different. The CPUs and GPUs are the same architecture. Xbox One has a single large pool of DDR3, but most integrated GPUs on the PC side use system RAM as VRAM as well.

If you're using an integrated GPU that uses RAM, that may work. If you're using a discrete GPU with VRAM separated by a local bus then that isn't going to work. You're focussing on your cheap PC plan but writing off all the other hardware. You can do that, Microsoft can not At least not if they are planning to put a bake a unified Xbox platform into a future version of Windows.

Regardless, it would be easier than it is now to do separate Xbox One and PC versions. Plus, a licensed game engine would handle that for you, and a lot of devs use Unreal Engine.

One codebase, two architectures sounds like recipe for sub-optimal performance. As for engines, well you still need to tailor code and assets for the target platform. Remember all those early games using Unreal Engine on PlayStation 3? And that was with a lot of optimising by the developers. Meh. In terms of highlighting the architectural differences, image the Xbox One is an Xbox 360 and the PC is a PlayStation 3. Remember all the "challenges" developers mentioned when porting games from 360 to PS3? Same challenge getting One games to run well on PC.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looking at what Intel is doing, I've had a hard time believing this console gen can last more than 5 years, because integrated GPUs are going to demolish PS4, Xbox One in that time span, not to mention the CPUs.

Absolutely. PC is going to offer great value. But another gen after this one is sounding all the more strained. If MS has this Win 10 platform, they for one won't bother. Where will Sony and Nintendo be? Not for this thread!

You sell cheap laptops that can play games well at the same time that you continue to sell the Xbox for people who want something even cheaper. You just make sure the games run on both.

I just need a GPU to have a way better rig than PS4, but PC gaming still isn't the same as console gaming. Gamification of the PC via incorporating Xbox DNA has to be a positive influence towards that (although I fear games are just becoming a bit poop these days).

 

[dobwal]

I can see MS doing away with consoles totally.

Offering console gaming as a online service to mainstream and casual gamers on any device that supports Glass while intergrating the Xbox OS into Windows 10/11/12 and offering it to those that want to host the service on local hardware.

Have a 8-16 core AMD/Intel cpu with an AMD/Nvidia gpu then Windows will present virtualized hardware to the App/Game OS. Mid range hardware get a console like experience while highend hardware gets access to settings that allow greater resolution, better AA and higher rez textures.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well if it's GNM-like, which they say, it's closer to the metal than DirectX 12. The example they give on PS4 is that in many cases you're literally writing direct to the GPUs command buffers. That's not an API that's shoving data into GPU registers.

If the Xbox One API is so low overhead, and "to the metal", then why would he think it's important they bring Directx12 to the Xbox One?

If you're using an integrated GPU that uses RAM, that may work. If you're using a discrete GPU with VRAM separated by a local bus then that isn't going to work. You're focussing on your cheap PC plan but writing off all the other hardware. You can do that, Microsoft can not At least not if they are planning to put a bake a unified Xbox platform into a future version of Windows.

I'm focusing on the cheap PCs because they are likely to outperform Xbox One and PS4 in a few years. As for higher-end stuff, they absolutely crush the consoles as is, without Directx12. I don't see why it would be a huge undertaking to have Xbox One games run on the PC, just because PCs have seperate pools of VRAM from main memory.

One codebase, two architectures sounds like recipe for sub-optimal performance. As for engines, well you still need to tailor code and assets for the target platform. Remember all those early games using Unreal Engine on PlayStation 3? And that was with a lot of optimising by the developers. Meh. In terms of highlighting the architectural differences, image the Xbox One is an Xbox 360 and the PC is a PlayStation 3. Remember all the "challenges" developers mentioned when porting games from 360 to PS3? Same challenge getting One games to run well on PC.

PS3 was an absolute freak of a machine. It's not comparable. Xbox One and PS4 are low-end PC hardware. They are the same CPU and GPU architectures with little to no changes. PS3 was an exotic machine with a weird CPU and memory architecture that required a total change in the way software was written, especially at a time when multi-threading was totally uncommon. I don't think you can compare the situations at all. Even 360 is more different from PC than PS4 and Xbox One. Porting to the PC from consoles should be easier than ever. If Xbox One gets Windows 10 and Directx12, the difference should be night and day from last gen.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Absolutely. PC is going to offer great value. But another gen after this one is sounding all the more strained. If MS has this Win 10 platform, they for one won't bother. Where will Sony and Nintendo be? Not for this thread!

I just need a GPU to have a way better rig than PS4, but PC gaming still isn't the same as console gaming. Gamification of the PC via incorporating Xbox DNA has to be a positive influence towards that (although I fear games are just becoming a bit poop these days).

I was a PC gamer up until 200 ... 7? 360 just gave me an easier experience than PC, cheaper gaming and a more consistent online experience because of Live.

You put Live on Windows for a consistent online experience, Directx12 to give good gaming performance on low-end hardware and competitive digital pricing on games and I'm pretty much back to PC in a heart beat. It would also put me back onto a Windows-based PC for the first time since 2008.

Also, you're wrong about games. There are tons of good games. You're just old and bitter so you can't enjoy them anymore I find I just can't get into games as much anymore, no matter how good they are.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If the Xbox One API is so low overhead, and "to the metal", then why would he think it's important they bring Directx12 to the Xbox One?

From the interview it seems to be that only certain functions are low-level on Xbox One. For it to really benefit, and they gave an example where "On Xbox One it easily could be one million times slower [than PS4] because of all the bookkeeping the API does", they need to remove the API guff from everywhere they can.

I'm focusing on the cheap PCs because they are likely to outperform Xbox One and PS4 in a few years. As for higher-end stuff, they absolutely crush the consoles as is, without Directx12. I don't see why it would be a huge undertaking to have Xbox One games run on the PC, just because PCs have seperate pools of VRAM from main memory.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. As sebbbi has mentioned, nobody is really exploiting the nextgen consoles yet and games are still being written for the ROPS generation architecture. Compute in DirectX games is barely used because far too much of the market consists of machines with low/no compute capability and it will likely be years before that changes (I refer again to the Steam hardware survey to get an idea of how dated a lot of PC gaming hardware is). Every PlayStation 4 and Xbox One has compute capability.

PS3 was an absolute freak of a machine. It's not comparable. Xbox One and PS4 are low-end PC hardware.

You're focussing on the components and not the system architecture. PlayStation 4, Xbox 360 and Xbox One are unified memory system architectures. PlayStation 3 and PC are split memory system architectures. And this difference is absolutely huge and one of the reasons ports were so problematic and why it later became common for target PlayStation 3 first. On split memory architectures you have to worry about where data is, and worry about moving it if necessary. On unified memory architectures you don't.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Playstation 3 was a box with 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM, which is incredibly limiting. PS4 has 8GB of RAM, which will be segmented for VRAM and general RAM by software. In a couple years, you'd be hard pressed to find any PC being sold with less than 8GB of RAM, and it could potentially have additional VRAM on top. I'm not really seeing the issue.

I'm sure a PC code path would be different than Xbox One, but they should be closer than ever. Unreal Engine 4 already handles it for you, and they're not even running the same OS yet.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Playstation 3 was a box with 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM, which is incredibly limiting. PS4 has 8GB of RAM, which will be segmented for VRAM and general RAM by software. In a couple years, you'd be hard pressed to find any PC being sold with less than 8GB of RAM, and it could potentially have additional VRAM on top. I'm not really seeing the issue.

It's not the quantity of RAM, although that can be an issue, it's where data is and who (CPU/GPU, I/O) needs to access it. On a unified memory system CPU, GPU and I/O can access with the same data, with or without coherency between CPU and GPU. On a split memory system the GPU really wants the data it needs in VRAM and the CPU wants the data it needs in main RAM and the game should do it's best to ensure that the GPU is never waiting on transfer from main RAM, or the CPU is needing data worked on by the GPU to be passed back over the local bus to main RAM. This is bad.

Imagine if you couldn't just walk from your living room to your kitchen, but instead had to leave the house and re-enter through another door.

I'm sure a PC code path would be different than Xbox One, but they should be closer than ever. Unreal Engine 4 already handles it for you, and they're not even running the same OS yet.

You'd probably want different (platform specific) renderers, asset managers and streaming solutions. For a game like GTA, that's a considerable portion of the game code.

 

[joker454]

PlayStation 3 and PC are split memory system architectures. And this difference is absolutely huge and one of the reasons ports were so problematic and why it later became common for target PlayStation 3 first.

Split memory was actually one of the least of our problems when dealing with ps3 way back then. There's a long list of other pitfalls to that platform which made us bang our heads against the wall but I won't dredge that up again here. If you want to talk memory specifically, it was the significant lack of available memory on ps3 that hurt us the most compared to the other machine at the time.

I can see MS doing away with consoles totally.

One has to wonder how long they would consider risking millions to possibly lose billions, or possibly earn slightly more millions when talking about only going after consoles and targeting core gamers. Seems to me there is much more money and stability to be had with a broader approach.

 

[rokkerkory]

I think MS is doing the best they could have within a year. Hoping they stay hungry and desperate, that's the best MS.

 

[London Geezer]

Technical specifications are obviously not the sole, or even overriding, factor in choosing a console. If it were there would be far more PC gamers versus console gamers. Hell my 2012 MacBook Pro decimates my PS3 and a) it's a bloody Mac and b) it's a bloody laptop

If tech specs were the number 1 factor lastgen would be died years ago.

<CGImageProvider 0x14fc0720>

Damn. You just made me realise that my shiny brand new Macbook pro retina (i7, 16GB RAM and GT 750M) should be quite powerful, not sure if more or less than my PS4 as I have no idea about that GT750M, though the i7 is a monster... But I haven't tried a single game on it!

 

[cal_guy]

Playstation 3 was a box with 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM, which is incredibly limiting. PS4 has 8GB of RAM, which will be segmented for VRAM and general RAM by software. In a couple years, you'd be hard pressed to find any PC being sold with less than 8GB of RAM, and it could potentially have additional VRAM on top. I'm not really seeing the issue.

I'm sure a PC code path would be different than Xbox One, but they should be closer than ever. Unreal Engine 4 already handles it for you, and they're not even running the same OS yet.

According to the wayback machine the most popular memory configuration for desktops on bestbuy.com for the 250-499 segment was 3 GB. The most popular today? 4 GB. So I wouldn't assume that the amount of memory will continue to rise constantly especially after the price of DRAM finally reaching a bottom a few years back.

 

[eastmen]

According to the wayback machine the most popular memory configuration for desktops on bestbuy.com for the 250-499 segment was 3 GB. The most popular today? 4 GB. So I wouldn't assume that the amount of memory will continue to rise constantly especially after the price of DRAM finally reaching a bottom a few years back.

the density for ddr 3 peaked a few years ago. With DDR 4 we should see capacity jump again in a year or too.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Damn. You just made me realise that my shiny brand new Macbook pro retina (i7, 16GB RAM and GT 750M) should be quite powerful, not sure if more or less than my PS4 as I have no idea about that GT750M, though the i7 is a monster... But I haven't tried a single game on it!

I recommend a windows install on an external or something, because Windows gaming performance is incredibly better. For older games i play in OSX, but if it's something relatively new you'll want that Windows game performance.