Could/Should XB1S get a new, faster hardware revision? *spawn

[function]

You didn't actually answer the question. . What does MS gain? Do they gain sales?

For phones etc. it makes sense because their are other players constantly offering new options. We also see lots of them struggling to make money because they keep spending on rolling out new products with thin margins but consumers don't flock en masse to upgrade. They have to upgrade yearly to attract those who'll be upgrading that year, who'll buy a rival if they don't.

The console market is a 2/3 horse race. If rolling out a new machine doesn't improve your sales versus your rivals, there's no point, and I don't see that being faster is enough to shift masses of future shoppers from PS4 to XB1XS Deluxe Platinum Hardcore Edition. Nor do I think it's enough to sway a lot of would be XB1S buyers who look at it and think, "I'd get one but it's not powerful enough, so I won't get any console at all." I'm open to arguments against this, but you need to present a case as to what MS gains IMO. "May as well, they've nothing to lose," isn't a great reason to invest in a major product undertaking!

Well, yeah, I think they could gain sales. Or lose fewer. However you want to see it.

You leverage a number of already developed technologies - e.g. CPU enhancements, clocks and power efficiency across the board - and "brand synergy" (or some shit like that) with the well viewed X1X to continue the move away from the botched X1 Phat launch.

Instead of continuing to sell the X1S for the next 3 ~ 4 years, you make something that's a slot in replacement that's better across the board and more desirable (higher frame rates, enforced aniso, higher dynamic resolutions, faster loading, better BC experience, more responsive apps) but re-uses already developed technologies. And you do so without increasingly manufacturing costs significantly (same or smaller die area, same memory quantity, smaller board, fewer traces).

Even with a $499 bruiser, you still need the best possible $250 product, and if you can draw on the already developed $499 product to help develop and market that, it has to be worth considering.

 

[iroboto]

Well, yeah, I think they could gain sales. Or lose fewer. However you want to see it.

You leverage a number of already developed technologies - e.g. CPU enhancements, clocks and power efficiency across the board - and "brand synergy" (or some shit like that) with the well viewed X1X to continue the move away from the botched X1 Phat launch.

Instead of continuing to sell the X1S for the next 3 ~ 4 years, you make something that's a slot in replacement that's better across the board and more desirable (higher frame rates, enforced aniso, higher dynamic resolutions, faster loading, better BC experience, more responsive apps) but re-uses already developed technologies. And you do so without increasingly manufacturing costs significantly (same or smaller die area, same memory quantity, smaller board, fewer traces).

Even with a $499 bruiser, you still need the best possible $250 product, and if you can draw on the already developed $499 product to help develop and market that, it has to be worth considering.

Playing off the VM is doable, but why go backwards in power? Wouldn't the path of least resistance go higher? Their competitor could launch as early as 2019, do you wsnt to be launching a weaker model than your flagship and go up against a competitor stronger than your flag ship?

I don't mind the idea of releasing something soon, but he way forward seems to build above Scorpio, not below.
XBO owners will need to suffer 720p as time goes on.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Only thing that makes sense to me is if they do an Xbox mini at some point, that doesn't have the bluray drive. I'm not sure if the OS is friendly enough to compete with things like Apple TV.

 

[AlNom]

To reiterate my previous question, what are the gains? Is a faster low-end console really going to make a difference at this point to be worth the significant cost of creating it? Given the entrenched PS brand worldwide, I can't see the average low-end Joe Gamer who;s waited this long to pick XB1SE over PS4 because it's faster. Cheapest and most popular and exclusives seems to me the most significant deciding factors by far. Or is the hope/expectation that a large portion of XB1(S) owners upgrade?

The scenario I was positing makes about as much sense as MS already overclocking the OneS GPU (in case that was forgotten). Rangers's scenario is a bit extreme with a whole new set of R&D, SDK etc, but a higher clocked edition of the existing architecture setup would be relatively straightforward, and afforded by process advancements, which the OneS already demonstrates. Boost is proven to not break anything at the very least.

It doesn't have to be extreme. They can just do it just for slightly improved user experience in the present day for folks jumping in late (or even replacing old HW with the latest smaller iteration), and they are none-the-wiser.

e.g. 2GHz CPU/1GHz GPU. ~ +15% CPU/GPU vs 2013 durango.

Nothing to write home about, but it takes care of a couple XO hiccoughs without going to Scorpio level of overcompensation.

 

[Rangers]

What would they gain for the costs?

Better sales because of a more powerful box.

That if my theory is correct wouldn't really cost more to manufacture.

I'm sure there are significant costs to designing and validating out a new console, quite a few of them. Somebody at MS needs to pore over that spreadsheet, if they haven't.

Mind you, Sony could do this too. At some point (arrived) things are abstracted enough hardware can be upgraded at will. Why not?

They could also take this opportunity to refresh the form factor, marketing, and whatever else. Maybe do that lower priced optical disk free SKU I'm always on about (of course this would only be an optional SKU).

Additional pluses, gets out from the ESRAM that seems to actively hold the One S back in performance, and is probably costly. Simplify programming etc.

The original EOL Xbox One can stealthily be reduced to essentially a 720P-900P port model. While the 2.6TF version is probably getting crisp 1080P versions.

I feel Xbox did well with the Xbox One X at addressing part of the power issues plaguing Xbox. Now IMO, they need to address the second part. The underpowered base SKU.

IMO, eventually console makers are going to have to stop treating these iterations as major launches. this hypothetical 2.6 box, I'd try to slipstream it in with relatively little fanfare, or at the very least you need to be sure not to leak it out too far in advance so current console sales dont tank. As stated, I'd prefer the secret launch at E3, on store shelves a month or two later model. If nothing else I bet marketing of something like X1X is costly and it isn't needed here. Unless they do a full blown new form factor too, maybe. Even then I wouldn't be too keen on highlighting "hey, that regular Xbox you bought kinda is shafted now!". But you could somewhat make the same argument with regards to X, and they advertised that plenty.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Better sales because of a more powerful box.
IMO, eventually console makers are going to have to stop treating these iterations as major launches...

If they go this route, all they'll end up doing is adding more to their costs, like the other CE manufacturers who can't find good margins on their never-ending R&D drives. At the moment the console companies have a comfortable market. They make a design and stick with it, with improvements in manufacturing driving down costs and increasing profits, so they can sell the same product at $500 and then $150. Now if their rival starts rolling out new, improved, better consoles that attract all the shoppers, you'll have no choice but to do the same. And then you're on an annual cycle of new, improved consoles. You have consumers waiting to see if the next box is worth getting. Or if the rival's update is worth getting. Your two years of profit margins on the hardware are lost because you have spend R&D on a new competitive machine. And overall, the market isn't grown any amount.

It's enough of a change to have concurrent high- and low- end machines. If we have iterations on the low end as well, we end up with constant hardware costs, no significant advantage, and likely no improvement to the market such that these companies just lose money overall.

I can't see any reason to want to change model to the harsher CE industry standard of annual models. Consoles are lucky in that they don't need that, so why take it upon themselves willingly?!

 

[function]

Playing off the VM is doable, but why go backwards in power? Wouldn't the path of least resistance go higher? Their competitor could launch as early as 2019, do you wsnt to be launching a weaker model than your flagship and go up against a competitor stronger than your flag ship?

I don't mind the idea of releasing something soon, but he way forward seems to build above Scorpio, not below.
XBO owners will need to suffer 720p as time goes on.

MS will need a console to exist at a price point lower than Scorpio for at least the next 2 ~ 3. Currently, that means they'll continue manufacturing the X1S.

X1S is at a disadvantage to the PS4 - which will also exist for years to come - in terms of performance. For almost no extra cost on BOM, MS could be at much less of a disadvantage, and actually have an advantage in some ways.

Put simply, MS have to keep making the X1S for another two or three years. Make it as competitive as possible, for as little cost as possible.

The scenario I was positing makes about as much sense as MS already overclocking the OneS GPU (in case that was forgotten). Rangers's scenario is a bit extreme with a whole new set of R&D, SDK etc, but a higher clocked edition of the existing architecture setup would be relatively straightforward, and afforded by process advancements, which the OneS already demonstrates. Boost is proven to not break anything at the very least.

It doesn't have to be extreme. They can just do it just for slightly improved user experience in the present day for folks jumping in late (or even replacing old HW with the latest smaller iteration), and they are none-the-wiser.

e.g. 2GHz CPU/1GHz GPU. ~ +15% CPU/GPU vs 2013 durango.

Nothing to write home about, but it takes care of a couple XO hiccoughs without going to Scorpio level of overcompensation.

Indeed!

Take X1S. Swap the already designed and already 16nm optimised "Jaguar+" cores in the X1X - that work just fine with X1 games - and use them. Take the DCC from X1X - which already works just fine with X1 games - and use it. Move over to DDR4 2400 if it's cheaper, save money and get a 10%+ BW increase on the most BW constrained part of the system (see iD's Wolf2 struggles).

So eliminate the DDR3 wall with DCC and mainstream DDR4, get additional CPU IPC, clock higher with yield improvements and Hovis stuffs if it's cheap enough .... and basically for the same manufacturing costs your substitute for the X1S that you have to make anyway is better at everything (fps, dynamic res, BC, loading times).

On the PC R&D for halo products trickles down into mainstream products. Xbox could do that too. It won't cost you silicon, and most of the R&D is already spent.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I don't see the point in releasing yet another console with yet another level of performance, other than to satiate fanboys who want their camp to have the most powerful base console and the most powerful 4K console.

It would be an added cost and level of complexity for developers/publishers, and would be a challenge to market: "The new XBoxOneSX, more powerful than the PS4... by a bit. But still less so than the Pro or the X1X."

I can see them utilising their emulation tech and replacing the base model with something that ditches the ESRAM, and uses GDDR5 to make up the bandwidth, but only if that works out cheaper to manufacture.

 

[Recop]

It would be an added cost and level of complexity for developers/publishers, and would be a challenge to market: "The new XBoxOneSX, more powerful than the PS4... by a bit. But still less so than the Pro or the X1X."

Indeed, this gen is completely over (Sony won and that's it) and some people seem to not understand it... not to mention that Sony could do the same thing with the PS4 if they feel a danger.

Another upgrade would be completely useless...

 

[BRiT]

Another upgrade would be completely useless...

Maybe not if you go generation-less.

 

[function]

I don't see the point in releasing yet another console with yet another level of performance, other than to satiate fanboys who want their camp to have the most powerful base console and the most powerful 4K console.

The point would be to provide the best experience they can at that price point, across a range of experiences from dash to new games to BC (something you may have noticed MS are pushing rather well).

X1S wasn't "yet another console", it was the direct successor to the X1, and it had a faster GPU, more bandwidth, and enhanced optical drive and 4K support.

It would be an added cost and level of complexity for developers/publishers, and would be a challenge to market: "The new XBoxOneSX, more powerful than the PS4... by a bit. But still less so than the Pro or the X1X."

As with the X1S you develop for the base system, and the new one just works better. No additional work or complexity for developers. No "challenge to the market" - it's the new X1S, only it's better.

I can see them utilising their emulation tech and replacing the base model with something that ditches the ESRAM, and uses GDDR5 to make up the bandwidth, but only if that works out cheaper to manufacture.

That's a more complex and expensive option. Moving the base platform in line with evolving technology is the least radical and least "challenging to the market" thing I can think of.

[Edit: releasing an X1X "lite" console to replace the X1S might be an option, but that would be greatly underutilised if limited to emulating X1S. Unlocking its potential actually would create a third target platform for developers.]

Indeed, this gen is completely over (Sony won and that's it) and some people seem to not understand it... not to mention that Sony could do the same thing with the PS4 if they feel a danger.

Another upgrade would be completely useless...

If it would offer a better experience for similar cost it clearly has a use.

If MS are continuing to release the X1S there is clearly a point for them in operating in that part of the market. If this gen is completely over then why are MS still making the X1S? Why will they still be making it next year? They are still competing in the market, and intend to be.

Sony could release a more powerful console than the X1X, but that doesn't mean there was no point in MS releasing the X1X. And Sony would need time to develop a faster PS4. Although arguably, they've already done that with the PS4 Pro.

And actually, Sony's ability to run PS4 software with blanket enhancements and without issue is not as ensured as MS's, so I wouldn't assume they can easily "just do" what MS have proven they can with little required lead time or investment. And Sony don't have, for example, an enhanced 2.3 gHz CPU solution just sitting there already designed and implemented.

Maybe not if you go generation-less.

The idea of more than one product to target more than one performance and/or cost segment of a market does not seem that radical to me. Software is in a constant state of evolution, and with the right OS and API support it doesn't need to be tied rigidly to one hardware configure every 6 years.

 

[Rikimaru]

And Sony don't have, for example, an enhanced 2.3 gHz CPU solution just sitting there already designed and implemented.

2.3 gHz Jaguar is totally not an 2.1 gHz Jaguar

 

[Recop]

If MS are continuing to release the X1S there is clearly a point for them in operating in that part of the market. If this gen is completely over then why are MS still making the X1S? Why will they still be making it next year? They are still competing in the market, and intend to be.

It's over to change worldwide sales... there are already 3 Xbox consoles... a fourth console will only add confusion among developers and consumers.

Sony could release a more powerful console than the X1X, but that doesn't mean there was no point in MS releasing the X1X.

It's a completely different situation. The next Sony console will start a new generation...

And Sony would need time to develop a faster PS4.

Wrong. They only need to prepare the next generation. They already won everything, they don't need to change their strategy.

And actually, Sony's ability to run PS4 software with blanket enhancements and without issue is not as ensured as MS's, so I wouldn't assume they can easily "just do" what MS have proven they can with little required lead time or investment.

They already released a faster console and one year before MS...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As with the X1S you develop for the base system, and the new one just works better. No additional work or complexity for developers. No "challenge to the market" - it's the new X1S, only it's better.

It's an XB1S? So it's inferior to a PS4, because we know that's better than the XB1S. No, no! This one is an XB1S but it's better than a PS4. But no, it's not a new console nor a replacement for the XB1X. "The New XB1S - better than the entry level PS4"

Other frequent updaters have clear demarcation that they're better. iPad 1, 2, 3, etc. They are the new iPad, but the number shows it's the new iteration. Consumers know what to expect. The Slim models of consoles are basically the same as the originals, not made massively better and not genuinely advertised as better. Imagine there's iPad 2, and then iPad 3, and then an iPad 2 revision that's better than the old one but not as good as the new one, released after the iPad 3. How can you talk about your improvements in a comparative way versus your rivals and other platforms? If you don't bother, if you just keep selling iPad2 only it's better, what do you gain in terms of market share if consumers are ignorant to the improvements?

If it would offer a better experience for similar cost it clearly has a use.

If it costs more to implement this better experience and yet it doesn't net any gains in sales, it has no use. If MS are going to sell no more consoles with XB1XS than with XB1S, they should stick with XB1S.

You argument seems to centre on it being a zero sum investment. If that's the case, if they could replace XB1S with a new improved XB1XS without incurring any costs, it'd be worth doing. But that seems implausible to me. They need to design and produce the new machine. I guess if they are planning another die-shrink revision and could instead swap in an improved XB1S for the same price, it'd be worth it.

Incidentally, XB1XS doesn't work for this idea because that'll be the reserve of the XBoneX Slim.

 

[function]

2.3 gHz Jaguar is totally not an 2.1 gHz Jaguar

Sony don't have a fully BC tested, improved IPC, 2.3 gHz CPU core shipping in millions of units ready to incorporate into another chip.

But sure, post a lolicon .... I guess?

It's over to change worldwide sales... there are already 3 Xbox consoles... a fourth console will only add confusion among developers and consumers.

Changing worldwide sales is not the same as making a meaningful change to your product stack to make the best of your position. Not being able to win an outright fanboy battle does not mean that doing business is over.

There are already 3 Xbox One consoles. There are already 3 Playstation 4 consoles too. I bet developers look and X1 and X1S, and PS4 and PS4 slim, and get so confused they lose sphincter control.*

(*I know a number, and they don't, that was a joke)

It's a completely different situation. The next Sony console will start a new generation...

That's an opinion.

Software increasingly doesn't actually conform in this way.

Wrong. They only need to prepare the next generation. They already won everything, they don't need to change their strategy.

Oh dear.

Don't start changing context via tiny snippets of larger context heavy passages. B3D isn't a lifeboat for NeoGaf.

You said that "Sony could do the same thing with the PS4 if they feel a danger". It takes about two years minimum to release a slim console or gather large amounts of data to work through possible chip revisions and create a production ready processor. What Sony could do would be dependant on timescales and the impact on the Pro.

They already released a faster console and one year before MS...

That doesn't do everything the X1X does and doesn't apply the same blanket enhancements. Which was what I said. And which you don't argue against .......?

 

[dten]

Console platform holders don't make their strategies based on who won a generation. That's forum wars thinking and frankly not very good analysis. They want to grow their platform regardless of their position. If an improved base console benefits them, fits with their strategy, and gives them good ROI, they will do it.

But I think there isn't much upside to a faster base console at this point. It won't make 720p/900p games become 1080p even if the hardware is capable. So the benefits are marginal. And even if they somehow did get dev buy in to support it, there is the possible side effect of user resentment and confusion.

 

[function]

It's an XB1S? So it's inferior to a PS4, because we know that's better than the XB1S. No, no! This one is an XB1S but it's better than a PS4. But no, it's not a new console nor a replacement for the XB1X. "The New XB1S - better than the entry level PS4"

It's the entry level MS console. Better than the previous entry level MS console.

It's not a taxing idea for a consumer to get their head around!

Other frequent updaters have clear demarcation that they're better. iPad 1, 2, 3, etc. They are the new iPad, but the number shows it's the new iteration. Consumers know what to expect. The Slim models of consoles are basically the same as the originals, not made massively better and not genuinely advertised as better. Imagine there's iPad 2, and then iPad 3, and then an iPad 2 revision that's better than the old one but not as good as the new one, released after the iPad 3. How can you talk about your improvements in a comparative way versus your rivals and other platforms? If you don't bother, if you just keep selling iPad2 only it's better, what do you gain in terms of market share if consumers are ignorant to the improvements?

You should check out TV's, PC's, phones, tablets. The fact that revisions can be better and more competitive within their segment would blow your mind!

If it costs more to implement this better experience and yet it doesn't net any gains in sales, it has no use. If MS are going to sell no more consoles with XB1XS than with XB1S, they should stick with XB1S.

Not my main point, but that's not necessarily true. If brand attachment, software sales, Live/PSN subscriptions improved that could be worth it too.

You argument seems to centre on it being a zero sum investment. If that's the case, if they could replace XB1S with a new improved XB1XS without incurring any costs, it'd be worth doing. But that seems implausible to me. They need to design and produce the new machine. I guess if they are planning another die-shrink revision and could instead swap in an improved XB1S for the same price, it'd be worth it.

I don't think it's zero sum, but much of the R&D is already done. We know because the tech is out there and work really rather splendidly. There's also the real possibility that at some point DDR3 will become more expensive than DDR4, making a reworking and revalidating of the chip worthwhile.

The truth is that there are still people out there considering buying X1S as an alternative or in addition to PS4. That's a real thing that's really happening.

Giving them the most compelling machine for their money would have at least some value.

 

[function]

But I think there isn't much upside to a faster base console at this point. It won't make 720p/900p games become 1080p even if the hardware is capable. So the benefits are marginal. And even if they somehow did get dev buy in to support it, there is the possible side effect of user resentment and confusion.

Wouldn't need additional dev support, in the same way X1S didn't. IQ enhancements could be enforced via firmware, frame rates would be locked to 60 / 30, loading times would be lower, dynamic resolutions would be pegged at or near their peak.

All for no additional dev work. All within the same die area. All with the games you already own. And for about half the X1X price.

MS still need something in the ~$250 area. The fact that they can't "win" a fanboy battle doesn't change the fact they will still be trying to sell a console in this area.

 

[Recop]

There are already 3 Xbox One consoles. There are already 3 Playstation 4 consoles too. I bet developers look and X1 and X1S, and PS4 and PS4 slim, and get so confused they lose sphincter control.

Wrong... there are only 2 PS4. There are 3 Xbox consoles with hardware differences.

Developers only have to aim the base PS4 for their games. With 3 different Xbox One, what console should they target at first ?

What about the X that already improves unpatched games ? So a new Xbox One that does a worse job than the X does on unpatched games ?

Doom with no patch runs better on X than on PS4. Will your XBXS match that ?

It's completely pointless... sorry...

That's an opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The PS5 goal is to start a new generation, not to compete with the X.

The PS5 aims the mass market and is here to replace the PS4. The X is a niche product.

So, this sentence makes no sense : "Sony could release a more powerful console than the X1X, but that doesn't mean there was no point in MS releasing the X1X."

What Sony could do would be dependant on timescales and the impact on the Pro.

So, if the Pro fails, they will understand that people want more upgraded consoles ? If the Pro is a success, why should they make another upgraded console ? Really, i don't understand your logic.

There is already a faster PS4 and it's the Pro. Sony doesn't need to change anything, especially with such a domintation...

That doesn't do everything the X1X does and doesn't apply the same blanket enhancements. Which was what I said. And which you don't argue against .......?

Who cares ?

An upgraded console only needs to be able to run the same games than the older consoles and that's exactly what the Pro does... and 1 year before the X...

 

[Recop]

Console platform holders don't make their strategies based on who won a generation. That's forum wars thinking and frankly not very good analysis. They want to grow their platform regardless of their position. If an improved base console benefits them, fits with their strategy, and gives them good ROI, they will do it.

I didn't say that. As Shifty said, you produce something to get a gain and i don't think that a new Xbox One will provide any benefit to MS, except consumers anger + no support from the developers.

I may have used the wrong words, but that was what i meant.