Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]

[cheapchips]

The big one is anti-piracy measures. A PC OS can't beat the traditional game console OS in that area which doesn't ever allow unsigned code execution by design. That's how console vendors enforce their exclusive right to be the sole digital market regulator for their own platforms and it gives stronger confidence for game developers to participate in it as well without having to implement DRM themselves especially ones which require constant online validation ...

The other reason being is that console APIs are more powerful than PC APIs. Console vendor subsidies for hardware aren't the only way to get a cost advantage over equivalent PC hardware but the fact that game developers can better optimize their software with a specialized API for it means that they can provide their customers with great performance at a very reasonable price ...

Xbox runs it's OS and then runs native and BC games in their own VMs. I wouldn't see 'native' Windows as more than another VM. There's actually a variety of ways to run those as well, if you take the likes of GeForce Now /Luna as examples.

You'd have a console environment that's works the same as it does today, from a performance, development and security perspective. It's still a very defined platform.

On the business model / PC game piracy point, all I'd say on that is that it didn't stop Valve entering the console business with a machine that's more open than what MS can do. Steam is a bit different, but I'm not sure how different it really is.

 

[Lurkmass]

Xbox runs it's OS and then runs native and BC games in their own VMs. I wouldn't see 'native' Windows as more than another VM. There's actually a variety of ways to run those as well, if you take the likes of GeForce Now /Luna as examples.

You'd have a console environment that's works the same as it does today, from a performance, development and security perspective. It's still very defined platform.

On the business model / PC game piracy point, all I'd say on that is that it didn't stop Valve entering the console business with a machine that's more open than what MS can do. Steam is a bit different, but I'm not sure how different it really is.

Game developers might still prefer it if game consoles didn't have access to a PC environment. The deck isn't a threat to the traditional game console model either since upcoming AAA games in the near future will be out of reach for the system and it has relatively low market penetration ...

If Valve could subsidize a powerful system even after factoring in PC API overheads and sales units started taking off, all of a sudden you've got a very accessible (low price/high compat w/ AAA games) gaming system with potentially much more propensity to engage in piracy so game development practices will radically evolve to adopt more invasive DRM measures/policies as a response ...

 

[Cyan]

Xbox is already plug'n'play, as much as any console platform can be these days.

we are going full circle. It is plug and play and you are right, but the model isn't working.

But in an open PC environment, it'd be no more 'plug n play' than any other PC.

Nobody said open. A flexible contained Windows machine, meant for gaming with a friendly focused gaming UI, it's what I mean, facilitating the use of mods like PC Gamepass does, taking into account that PC Gamepass games have been unbreakable because of the hard measures they got.

Mods can easily be allowed, some aren't exes at all. And for those using exes, only allow those certified by MS and that's it.

Maybe some people would just want to use it as a regular PC and install Linux or more full-fledged Windows, with a bit of know how, but that's a different story

There's no magical middle ground here that straddles both worlds while being able to defeat the traditional console financial model at the same time. It just doesn't exist.

your phone, for instance, is a PC, and you configure it for the most part. As for the traditional console model, you are right. You are defining it though, traditional... It works for Nintendo, and somewhat works for Sony, but not for MS.

It's more about Windows, integrating the user in the full experience and having things other OSes can't offer, and Windows loyalty, 'cos Xbox as a brand, except for the X360 isn't popular.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

your phone, for instance, is a PC, and you configure it for the most part. As for the traditional console model, you are right. You are defining it though, traditional... It works for Nintendo, and somewhat works for Sony, but not for MS.

You have to be uber popular to be able to charge a premium on hardware, which then is not the traditional console model. I think a more expensive Xbox with decent margins would do even worse than now!

 

[Jay]

John asked how to make Gamepass appealing?

The answer is simply in my opinion, create a small development studio who's goal is to port older games over to modern Windows API and add them on to Gamepass.

I tried PC Gamepass once and the best games on there for me was the Medal Of Honor Collection.

If Microsoft can make Gamepass to best place to play new and retro games, that would be something I would be interested in.

And make exclusive PC classics available on Xbox with controller support, The games don't have to have a full on remaster ala Blue Point style.

Imagine F.E.A.R, ported to modern Windows and DirectX, running on Xbox Series X at native 4k@120fps.

Even the S.T.A.L.K.E.R games which never got a console release, get them ported to DX12 and modern Windows and on PC and Xbox Gamepass.

There's a service I can get behind.

The trouble is it's not a GP issue.
GP is appealing to people who have xbox.
The question is how to make the console appealing.

The amount of people who will buy the console just for GP isn't as big as MS & people think. Sure people want value, but they are willing to just buy games if all things aren't equal.

Some people aren't going to like it, but it is quality, type and consistency of exclusives that drive it (possibly change in future)
Also things like marketing and localisation.

Playing old games is cool, but just additive. Will give the game and service a nice bump but will not sell the console in the first place to get people into GP.

 

[Cyan]

You have to be uber popular to be able to charge a premium on hardware, which then is not the traditional console model. I think a more expensive Xbox with decent margins would do even worse than now!

dunno about any example to compare with, but if we could define Steam Deck as a traditional console, Gabe Newell, mentioned in an interview that some very tough decisions had to be made to be aggressive with the Deck's price, specially hinting at the base model which indicates that they are either selling at a loss or with zero profit. The other two original Deck models seemed to be fine in that regard.

With this Valve aren't only helping themselves, but also Linux gaming, while MS does nothing to help Windows gaming, and it makes no sense 'cos Windows is the best experience and has gaming features that other OSes don't.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The other reason being is that console APIs are more powerful than PC APIs. Console vendor subsidies for hardware aren't the only way to get a cost advantage over equivalent PC hardware but the fact that game developers can better optimize their software with a specialized API for it means that they can provide their customers with great performance at a very reasonable price ...

If Valve could subsidize a powerful system even after factoring in PC API overheads and sales units started taking off, all of a sudden you've got a very accessible (low price/high compat w/ AAA games) gaming system with potentially much more propensity to engage in piracy so game development practices will radically evolve to adopt more invasive DRM measures/policies as a response ...

I don't see why game developers would factor this into any decision making process given it makes basically no difference in the real world. We've seen countless times from DF head to heads that this generation, games perform on the consoles very similarly to equivalent hardware on the PC. There is so realized "API advantage" that makes consoles perform like higher tier PC parts so, no reason for devs to factor this in. Even in the one or two games where the consoles do seem to perform more in line with higher tier GPU's in the PC space (I'm thinking TLOU and Uncharted 4 where the roughly 2080 equivalent PS5 performs closer to a 2080Ti), the culprit there seems more likely to be due to the games being hand crafted for one specific console and then later ported to PC with potentially a lot less platform level optimisation. And even then it's pretty trivial to find examples of games that perform equally better on PC (I think DIablo 4 may have been one big recent example).

I'm not saying there aren't theoretical advantages that a dedicated dev might be able to leverage to make consoles perform like higher tier GPU's in the PC space, but rather that it's not realized in the real world this generation. Perhaps that's down to the complexity of modern game design, or the increasing cross platform nature of games that makes using the lowest common denominator API features/paths more fiscally efficient, who knows,

 

[Lurkmass]

I don't see why game developers would factor this into any decision making process given it makes basically no difference in the real world. We've seen countless times from DF head to heads that this generation, games perform on the consoles very similarly to equivalent hardware on the PC. There is so realized "API advantage" that makes consoles perform like higher tier PC parts so, no reason for devs to factor this in. Even in the one or two games where the consoles do seem to perform more in line with higher tier GPU's in the PC space (I'm thinking TLOU and Uncharted 4 where the roughly 2080 equivalent PS5 performs closer to a 2080Ti), the culprit there seems more likely to be due to the games being hand crafted for one specific console and then later ported to PC with potentially a lot less platform level optimisation. And even then it's pretty trivial to find examples of games that perform equally better on PC (I think DIablo 4 may have been one big recent example).

I'm not saying there aren't theoretical advantages that a dedicated dev might be able to leverage to make consoles perform like higher tier GPU's in the PC space, but rather that it's not realized in the real world this generation. Perhaps that's down to the complexity of modern game design, or the increasing cross platform nature of games that makes using the lowest common denominator API features/paths more fiscally efficient, who knows,

A part of the reason why it's harder to observe the API advantage on consoles in comparison to PC is because the graphics architecture between them has gotten closer in recent years thus their APIs also become more similar but make no mistake that console APIs still do have the upper hand ...

The biggest example of console specific optimization is Epic Games using spinlocks to implement inter-workgroup synchronization for their work queue in Nanite. They can't apply this optimization on PC since it causes deadlocks on GPUs so they've settled on the slower chains of indirect dispatch workaround. It won't be until AMD and Microsoft ships GPU Work Graphs where they can apply a similar optimization ...

In Horizon Forbidden West, they have a ring buffer just like in Nanite but they do something even more wild where compute shaders are the producers while graphics shaders (vertex/pixel) are consumers!

 

[tuna]

Valve allows SteamOS to run on any hardware. If you're a 3rd party ODM and want to make a gaming handheld and want it to run SteamOS, no problemo.

Valve does not provide builds of the version of SteamOS that is run on SteamDecks. It would be nice if they could run that project as any other Linux distro!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see what that matters to the business, as SteamOS fuels Steam purchases which helps Valve - its in their interests for someone else to take on the burden of hardware costs to provide a Steam customer. Hardware with a controlling software ecosystem is a zero sum question. The problem is when you have an open platform and don't control the software sales, and someone else is taking all that money. An XBox where people can use Steam is an XBox where MS lose a lot of the revenue they get from the current closed platform model. Same with PS - if I could get Steam on PS, I'd be using that for most of my purchases and Sony's income would nosedive (not because I spend billions, but other PS gamers would do the same ).

 

[dobwal]

I don't see what that matters to the business, as SteamOS fuels Steam purchases which helps Valve - its in their interests for someone else to take on the burden of hardware costs to provide a Steam customer. Hardware with a controlling software ecosystem is a zero sum question. The problem is when you have an open platform and don't control the software sales, and someone else is taking all that money. An XBox where people can use Steam is an XBox where MS lose a lot of the revenue they get from the current closed platform model. Same with PS - if I could get Steam on PS, I'd be using that for most of my purchases and Sony's income would nosedive (not because I spend billions, but other PS gamers would do the same ).

I don't believe MS needs to produce a console with such functionality. But what about a handheld? Outside of the Nintendo, no other company offers a subsidized handheld. A derivative of the Xbox OS which supports sandboxed versions Windows or SteamOS in a handheld sold for a healthy profit margin might be feasible.

It, from a performance and useability aspect, would have to be better than Steam Deck. But given its long presence in the console market as well producing Surface devices paired with its deep pockets (contracts based on higher volumes), MS probably can design better hardware with cheaper pricing than Valve.

I am not of the opinion that "this plays both the xbox and steam" is a winning marketing strategy. But marketing the device as "Hey this is better hardware than Steam Deck" and "Hey play your xbox games on a portable" specifically to the relevant crowds, may work better as a marketing strategy.

Its a device that caters to its Windows and console users without outright combining those two businesses and their conflicting profit models.

 

[Jay]

The only way an unlocked xbox works financially is if the unlock was higher tier of GP. They make the money of subs regardless if you play steam games.

I'm all for a streamlined Windows gaming shell, but that's different than a cheap relatively performant console.
Which isn't sold at normal margins to make it worth doing if wasn't subsidised by being closed platform.

As for EU opening up consoles stores. Well that would be for all consoles, not just one which makes all the difference.
Also at that point, consoles probably would be dead as a price performance subsidised platform.
MS could just drop the hardware and put its store on PS, profits from the store inc GP, no loss on hardware.

 

[dobwal]

As for EU opening up consoles stores. Well that would be for all consoles, not just one which makes all the difference.
Also at that point, consoles probably would be dead as a price performance subsidised platform.
MS could just drop the hardware and put its store on PS, profits from the store inc GP, no loss on hardware.

I just don't see this happening. Sony, MS nor Nintendo could sell at subsidize price points. Plus, I doubt they would abandon the profit model outside the EU, so european gamers would end up with domestic consoles priced several hundreds of dollars more than the rest of the world. The smart ones would just import a foreign device but nevertheless the official market for consoles in Europe would just shrink dramatically.

Instead creating more competition in the EU market it would be more like "cutting off one's nose to spite their face".

 

[Seanspeed]

we are going full circle. It is plug and play and you are right, but the model isn't working.

Nobody said open. A flexible contained Windows machine, meant for gaming with a friendly focused gaming UI, it's what I mean, facilitating the use of mods like PC Gamepass does, taking into account that PC Gamepass games have been unbreakable because of the hard measures they got.

Mods can easily be allowed, some aren't exes at all. And for those using exes, only allow those certified by MS and that's it.

Maybe some people would just want to use it as a regular PC and install Linux or more full-fledged Windows, with a bit of know how, but that's a different story

your phone, for instance, is a PC, and you configure it for the most part. As for the traditional console model, you are right. You are defining it though, traditional... It works for Nintendo, and somewhat works for Sony, but not for MS.

It's more about Windows, integrating the user in the full experience and having things other OSes can't offer, and Windows loyalty, 'cos Xbox as a brand, except for the X360 isn't popular.

Well the original idea being talked about was an 'open' Xbox. If you're talking just the current Xbox, but with a bit more freedom, I guess, but I dont think it'll be easy to play this middle road without frustrating people or developers with what can or cant be done as a promise of such extra freedom. Tell people they have freedom, and it comes with expectations. Tell people they dont have freedom and they're largely ok with it on a console, cuz they're used to it and fine so long as the hardware is relatively affordable as a result.

As for my phone - my phone is not a subsidized piece of hardware. Again, that was my whole sticking point.

And yea, I'm talking 'traditional' console model cuz I genuinely think it's basically the only one that works. If it's not working for Microsoft, I dont think they'll find some successful alternative strategy and will likely just make things worse instead. Though I'd still argue the only reason it hasn't worked for MS is cuz they haven't made enough killer games people really want to entice people over to Xbox and not because of any fundamental lack of alignment with the traditional console model.

"It's more about Windows, integrating the user in the full experience and having things other OSes can't offer,"

I guess I'm just not quite clear enough what you mean by this in the context of a Microsoft console.

 

[davis.anthony]

Does this topic not warrant its own thread as it has gone way off topic about DF.

 

[DavidGraham]

RTX HDR is far better than Windows AutoHDR.

RTX HDR for games is officially out, along with RTX Vibrance.

NVIDIA RTX HDR Brings AI Powered HDR to SDR-Only PC Games; New Game Ready Driver Is Optimized for Nightingale

NVIDIA has released the RTX HDR AI-powered Freestyle filter to enable great HDR in SDR-only PC games. They also added RTX Dynamic Vibrance.

wccftech.com

 

[Seanspeed]

Does this topic not warrant its own thread as it has gone way off topic about DF.

It was something DF specifically talked about, John especially about the 'PC-esque Xbox' idea. We'll get distracted with a new topic soon enough, dont worry.

 

[Cyan]

RTX HDR for games is officially out, along with RTX Vibrance.

NVIDIA RTX HDR Brings AI Powered HDR to SDR-Only PC Games; New Game Ready Driver Is Optimized for Nightingale

NVIDIA has released the RTX HDR AI-powered Freestyle filter to enable great HDR in SDR-only PC games. They also added RTX Dynamic Vibrance.

wccftech.com

that feature makes me envious. In addition, they are getting rid of the old nVidia control panel for Windows.

 

[Cyan]

Well the original idea being talked about was an 'open' Xbox. If you're talking just the current Xbox, but with a bit more freedom, I guess, but I dont think it'll be easy to play this middle road without frustrating people or developers with what can or cant be done as a promise of such extra freedom. Tell people they have freedom, and it comes with expectations. Tell people they dont have freedom and they're largely ok with it on a console, cuz they're used to it and fine so long as the hardware is relatively affordable as a result.

As for my phone - my phone is not a subsidized piece of hardware. Again, that was my whole sticking point.

And yea, I'm talking 'traditional' console model cuz I genuinely think it's basically the only one that works. If it's not working for Microsoft, I dont think they'll find some successful alternative strategy and will likely just make things worse instead. Though I'd still argue the only reason it hasn't worked for MS is cuz they haven't made enough killer games people really want to entice people over to Xbox and not because of any fundamental lack of alignment with the traditional console model.

"It's more about Windows, integrating the user in the full experience and having things other OSes can't offer,"

I guess I'm just not quite clear enough what you mean by this in the context of a Microsoft console.

by semi-open I mean what consoles are doing now, with settings, and also controlled mods, i.e. what Larian are doing with Baldur's Gate 3, which will soon receive the mods made on PC, or like Bethesda did at the time with Skyrim on PS and Xbox. I used them, some of those mods made Skyrim even better on consoles. I loved that companion mod that made dialogs a bit more interesting, can't recall her name.

Imho that strategy would be better for MS to protect their own software and OS. Either that or wee will have another generation of MS competing with Nintendo and Sony.....

Someone with know-how who wanted to dig deeper also could do that to use it for productivity or to use other stores, but the default interface could simply be Windows with a 5 y.o. kid friendly UI + Windows Store. They could integrate a special version of other stores (a la GoG Galaxy) for a little fee, Epic Games was very happy with MS collaboration to integrate their store on Windows.

 

[Below2D]

I don't believe Rich mentions the CPU he used, however.