Feasibility of an upgradeable or forwards compatible console *spawn*

[patsu]

I don't entirely agree with what he said, but whatever. Not sure if he understands his ex-colleagues position when he's already out of the organization. He also hasn't seen the work from the new team. The Xbox organization went through a lot of changes in its early days too.

 

[dobwal]

That's one of the most bizarre articles I've ever read. He thinks the last five years of Xbox were painful to watch, the years in which it became a force to be reckoned with rather than the joke it was when the brand started? He bashes Microsoft for trying to stop second hand sales, yet praises Apple even though their entire ecosystem doesn't permit second hand sales? He blasts Microsoft for not supporting indie developers, when any indie developer can download all the tools for free and put out any game they want? He thinks Apple would kill everyone by bringing their ecosystem to the TV, yet he blasts Microsoft for basically trying to do the exact same thing? Seriously, I don't get this article at all, wtf is he talking about?

Agreed.

I find it pretty sad that he doesn't realized that if Apple had to deal with even a small loss like $10 a unit Apple would struggle with profitability. The app store revenue and profits in software are driven by a gigantic hardware business. It's software profit per unit isn't that attractive in the console market where hardware volume don't even begin to approach smartphone levels.

Half of the apps aren't even applicable to the console market and the user's expectation for software on consoles are higher. Higher expectations and a smaller userbase leads to higher investment and less potential for revenue, so one guy with some free tools isn't going to be as attracted to consoles as highly as smartphones or tabs even if consoles had a similar ecosystem.

Smartphones and consoles are as different as golf carts and go carts, they do basically the same things but exists in different circumstances, have different user expectations and play different roles. What's applicable for one doesn't mean it's applicable to the other.

 

[dagamer]

Everyone loves a Monday morning quarterback. Keep in mind that this guy wasn't even employed at Microsoft when the Xbox launched in 2001. He stopped working there in 1999. 14 year old information I take with a grain of salt.

 

[Squilliam]

One interesting thing could be that this might be the first generation in a while which has reliable consoles. What this means is that we may see lower sales simply due to the fact that the launch consoles won't be dogs in terms of reliability and therefore will not need to be replaced.

 

[trainplane]

I don't really agree with the guy in the eurogamer article either, saying games should be $2 both in price and content, but one thing he pointed out and other pundits have mentioned is that for all the billions of dollars spent on marketing, these guys only managed to sell 80 million units over 7-8 years. And now even all that work is gone as they start again at zero. That's one of the major problems in the generation model vs the ecosystem model of Windows, OSX, and iOS.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't really agree with the guy in the eurogamer article either, saying games should be $2 both in price and content, but one thing he pointed out and other pundits have mentioned is that for all the billions of dollars spent on marketing, these guys only managed to sell 80 million units over 7-8 years. And now even all that work is gone as they start again at zero. That's one of the major problems in the generation model vs the ecosystem model of Windows, OSX, and iOS.

In terms of marketing, they are most certainly not starting at 0. Live and the Xbox brand are quite strong now. And only 80million units? That's like $25billion in hardware sold.

 

[RudeCurve]

Yes, that's the challenge and the risk. On the other side of that, MS offer a cross-device and future-safe experience that Sony isn't. If Duranog is effectively a Windows box, then as long as there's Windows, there's the possiblity of someone wanting a simple box for the living room, hence a Windows console. That's one take. As I say, there are various options. Thus the failure to gain massive mindshare with Durango 1 versus PS4 due to performance difference (where I think experience and services will be much more the deciding factor, plus existing market shares and brand loyalty) wouldn't mean the death of Durango and the end of v2 and v3.

I could see MS mitigating PS4's performance advantage at launch by going with a two SKU strategy....same idea from page 1 of this thread. For example offer the "Core" SKU for $250 which includes HDD/ODD. Then offer the premium "Core Duo" SKU which is a Core + upgrade module for $400. The Core Duo would have equal performance to PS4 while the Core would have less performance but both Core SKUs would be able to run the same forwards compatible games. The upgrade module would also be sold separately for $150 for those who gets the Core at launch but wants Core Duo performance later down the line. If MS wants they could release a 3rd ultra premium SKU Core Trio with two upgrade modules included for $600. On the 2nd year they release Core version 2 which is an improved Core.

 

[Squilliam]

I don't think that Microsoft will initially offer performance differences. One of the reasons IMO as to why they are rumoured to offer HDMI in is because it'll help differentiate their premium/basic system given the likely fact that the initial models likely both have a HDD. I guess they have a couple of options to 'upgrade' the console, either offering a SKU without an optical drive which is download only for instance as a 'cable box replacement' or offering a SKU which eventually comes with say 128GB of flash memory for a cheaper price when the price and capacity of flash can justify it. However at this point you can get a 320GB HDD @ Egg for $49 retail which is considerably better than any reasonable quantity of flash memory.

 

[-tkf-]

But that's looking at only 2-3 years of devices. In five years time, will iOS developers all still be aiming at 7 years old hardware? The PC shows a truly progressive architecture and how devs have moved the bottom end forwards as the years have progressed and technology has become outdated for what they want to do. No-one's going to target a Ti4200 any more because it's old news. No-one's going to target to a single core 1024x768 iPad in a few years because it'll be outdated and the market of higher spec'd iPads will outnumber it 3:1 and those people interested in better games will have better hardware.

The logic that devs will be eternally capped by the lowest SKU is only valid if you forget there is competition between software on the same platform. If Battlefield targeted PS2 level and sold to last gen as well as this gen, providing graphical upgrades, it'd have a target market over twice as large, but it'd lose completely the modern, more active market to games targeting the smaller userbase of current-gen machines. Likewise if Battlefields and COD move to iPad in 2014, the game that targets only iPad4s and above and lokos far better because of it will likely sell far better than the game that targets iPad1 and above and looks a dog next to the 'next-gen' iOS game. It's way too early to see that in the iOS space, but market forces and parallels with other platforms tell us this will happen, and would happen with a software platform console too.

iOS developers have a problem with old hardware, because iOS constantly moves, forcing the developers to leave old hardware in the dust as Apple stops updating them. And that is independent from the Apps actual hardware requirements.

The "upgradeable" console (it's really the compatible console isn't it?) idea is to provide the users with a "smooth" experience where they essentially can have a console that lasts them for 6-8 years(?) and where the developers can target every version easily but just ignoring low level code and going through a fat api.

At least that is how i understand it. The economy behind the idea is compared with mobile phones, which is used everyday and is a very important aspect of modern life. The iPad is also used as an example though that market is not the same as the iPhone, and the upgrade "lust" can't be compared at all to the phone market. Phones break, get worn down, so even if the lust for updates is declining on phones, they have a shorter life span than iPads or Consoles. Another comparison is CE devices, just because everything sees a refresh every year it's not like everybody buys a new TV every year.

So besides the obvious flaws in software development with a market that auto fragments every year, there still is a big issue with convincing people they should fork over $400 dollars every year.

We can make a mobile phone like plan, where every buyer pays $20 over 24 months plus $5 dollars for Live pr month. Who would willingly pay $20-25 dollars pr month for their console for the rest of their console life. I guess it could be said that if this could work, the same could be done for TV's and other CE devices. Just as expecting people to invest $400 every 2nd year is going to hurt your market share. I just don't see it happening, you loose a big share of the market if you go this way.


And you need people to keep on updating if you want your grand scheme to work. You are not going to grow your market if people don't want to pay, all your other examples is machines that have other purposes than games, you don't buy a iPad 4 to play the latest greatest games, you don't buy an iPhone 5 to play the latest greatest games. And PC's are so infected with piracy that you don't bet your money on PC games as a developer. Finally those that actually would pay "anything" to have the best looking games are already on the PC platform, i just don't see where your customers should come from.

Just by going over those i know that have a console i fail to see which of them that would buy into a ever moving target with no promises that it would have games for more than a few years.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So besides the obvious flaws in software development with a market that auto fragments every year, there still is a big issue with convincing people they should fork over $400 dollars every year.

It's not $400 every year. It's $400 whenever you feel like an upgrade. That'll be 5 years in for some people, and 3 for others, and every year or two for the most fanatical. It could also be $250 for the second tier model if you don't want the latest, greatest. Or $200 off eBay for an old but still current platform as someone upgrades, as there'll be a more consistent supply of second hand devices with a faster hardware refresh.

Just by going over those i know that have a console i fail to see which of them that would buy into a ever moving target with no promises that it would have games for more than a few years.

There's no reason the software scenario would be any different to the PC, which has 10+ years of old games available to any box you buy, and a good 3+ years of games that scale down to it. The issue is what quality you want. You'll get games 5 years down the line for any console iteration you buy, but it may be a rather stodgy 20-30 fps relatively low-res games. But that's no different to what people are willing to buy on their 6 year old consoles.

 

[expletive]

It's not $400 every year. It's $400 whenever you feel like an upgrade. That'll be 5 years in for some people, and 3 for others, and every year or two for the most fanatical. It could also be $250 for the second tier model if you don't want the latest, greatest. Or $200 off eBay for an old but still current platform as someone upgrades, as there'll be a more consistent supply of second hand devices with a faster hardware refresh.

And the scenario where you sell your "last gen model" for $200 and chip in an extra $200 to get the latest and greatest every other year (as implied above). Still seems far more economical to be cutting edge in the upgradeable console space than in the PC space.

I don't really agree with the guy in the eurogamer article either, saying games should be $2 both in price and content, but one thing he pointed out and other pundits have mentioned is that for all the billions of dollars spent on marketing, these guys only managed to sell 80 million units over 7-8 years. And now even all that work is gone as they start again at zero. That's one of the major problems in the generation model vs the ecosystem model of Windows, OSX, and iOS.

In addition to AlphaWolf's valid comments, this is why MS started building the xbox platform as a services platform and not just a hardware platform. I think all of these companies can foresee a future where all hardware is commoditized and its the ecosystem and services that separates an Xbox customer from a Playstation customer, not the box under their TV.

 

[warb]

Then there's be more games that require an XboxTwo. The DD/on-demand service would save some confusion if games not compatible with your hardware didn't show up. They would intsead fill the ad squares.

 

[Nesh]

You would design it to run the same games jsut at lower quality, like PC or Android. Every new game runs on the old console, at lower quality. There's a thread on this subject.

Yeah but on Androids games are cheaper smaller scale games and the users expect a casual experience. Not a high end experience. You wont see gamers complaining that their game runs like ass whereas someone else's runs well.

So neither the developer nor the user is concerned that they get the best running, well optimized game on their Android.

If MS opts with various iterations of the XBOX console the developer will have to spend time and money optimizing or choose not to optimize at all.

I think both the developer and consumer is happier to have consistency in hardware and user base since it keeps things simpler and certain

 

[warb]

I presume we would just see a smoother transition. As if all 360 games just worked with better IQ on the new console, along with some next-gen exclusives and more over time.

 

[RudeCurve]

There's no need to have a fixed release schedule like that, that's not what forward compatibility and/or writing to api's is for. Aside from the obvious benefits like saving devs a fortune in development costs, having great launch titles, easy compatibility across different platforms, forward compatibility, etc, the other benefit is that it let's them release a new revision of Durango as needed rather than being forced to ride it out on a fixed 7 year schedule.

The old (and to me now broken) console development model was throw everything away, spend a pile of money re-writing everything for a new box that has no audience, and milk that cow for 7 years because you have to recoup your investment and not piss of every dev on the planet in the process. With forward compatibility and writing everything to an api then can now release a new Durango as needed. If by 2016 Durango is still very popular, selling great and there haven't been many new hardware advances then cool, keep riding it out, no need to release a revised model. If sales slow or if some new must have hardware development emerges then also cool, ship a Durango 2 that plays all existing games and leverages said new hardware developments.

It gives them the freedom to do whatever they want, and no one is hurt in the process because all code written to whatever platform can be re-leveraged on whatever other compatible platform. Developers will now actually have an investment in code and in their knowledge base of the platform, rather than having to throw it all away every few years. Developers also don't have to risk the bank on a new platform because the new platform isn't really new anymore, it's compatible with a bunch of other platforms so they can target a Durango 2 safely even if it has an audience of 6 because that same code will get re-used on the myriad of other compatible platforms.

Best post yet...

 

[Cranky]

Yeah but on Androids games are cheaper smaller scale games and the users expect a casual experience. Not a high end experience. You wont see gamers complaining that their game runs like ass whereas someone else's runs well.

So neither the developer nor the user is concerned that they get the best running, well optimized game on their Android.

If MS opts with various iterations of the XBOX console the developer will have to spend time and money optimizing or choose not to optimize at all.

I think both the developer and consumer is happier to have consistency in hardware and user base since it keeps things simpler and certain

Because of the VM aspect, the hardware doesn't really matter that much. Things do stay "constant" Say MS is on a 2 yr hardware refresh.

XB1.0 plays games at 960p 60fps 2xAA
XB1.1 plays games at 1080p 60fps 4xAA
XB1.2 plays games at 1080p 60fps 16XAA and ultra high textures

Game is the same in each instance. Only difference is slight differences in visuals. MS can segment graphics whores from gameplay freaks. The customer can select how important marginal improvements in graphics are to them with their wallets. All three machines could be on the market simultaneously at 199, 299. and 399.

 

[Nesh]

Because of the VM aspect, the hardware doesn't really matter that much. Things do stay "constant" Say MS is on a 2 yr hardware refresh.

XB1.0 plays games at 960p 60fps 2xAA
XB1.1 plays games at 1080p 60fps 4xAA
XB1.2 plays games at 1080p 60fps 16XAA and ultra high textures

Game is the same in each instance. Only difference is slight differences in visuals. MS can segment graphics whores from gameplay freaks. The customer can select how important marginal improvements in graphics are to them with their wallets. All three machines could be on the market simultaneously at 199, 299. and 399.

Here is the question then. Are they going to release 3 SDK's simultaneously or one at a time? Because the only way to segment is to release three different SDK's simultaneously and have the consumer type choose the console they want. Releasing 1 SDK at the time will absorb a mixed bag of consumers
Early hardcore adopters that belong to the visual freak segmentation will be pissed to know that their console 1.0 wont be top of the line anymore 2 years later. Motivating them to wait or demotivating them not to buy a console because they know a better version will be around the corner isnt a good idea

 

[BRiT]

Here is the question then. Are they going to release 3 SDK's simultaneously or one at a time? Because the only way to segment is to release three different SDK's simultaneously and have the consumer type choose the console they want.

So how many SDKs do you think they need to release for the PC space since there are millions of different combinations of hardware components? Or are you including HARDWARE in your definition of SOFTWARE Development Kits?

Also, its not releasing at the same time. You release the hardware and software kit when the console 1.0 is out. Then years later you release the second set when console 2.0 is out. No where in there is a simultaneous release.

[Anyways, this was entirely off topic until I moved your discussion into this upgradable console discussion thread.]

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Here is the question then. Are they going to release 3 SDK's simultaneously or one at a time?

With a decent software layer, one SDK works for all supported platforms. It's why DirectX exists, to allow devs a common way to target completely different GPUs. One DX library works for all hardware (expect of course for driver issues which isn't a problem when dealing with finite, known hardware designs like iterations of the hardware platform). For reference, there is one iOS SDK. You install it on your Mac and it works for all supported iOS devices. You can choose which level of OS to support with your software, selecting yourself which userbase is important enough (are the lower performance and lack of features of the older devices really desirable to you?).

Middleware goes beyond this. Unity allows you to develop one game and distribute on PC, Android, iOS, web player, and even XB360 and PS3 if you have the SDKs.

If the OS layer is so designed, supporting XB1.0, XB1.5, and XB2 will be as easy as supporting low, middle and high end PCs. Yes, that will come with sacrifices to peak attainable performance but also it'll come with gain to optionally improving your game's performance by buying a new machine if you want to play the same games at a better experience (imagine the option to buy a PS3.1 that plays LoU at a smooth 60 fps, and GT6 at 1080p with high IQ and no crappy shadows, for example. Some gamers would appreciate that).

All that's been covered in depth in this thread already, so anyone new to this thread should probably have a read through on the numerous pros and cons.

 

[Nesh]

Correction. I meant SKU not SDK. I was in a hurry and typed SDK by mistake