D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Microsoft don't want to do this, this isn't an engineering issue for them. Microsoft have aggressively controlled the user's ability to expand the console's core storage since the 360, this makes them money because user's have to pay for only options that Microsoft provides, which are more expensive than what the free market offers.
But on the other hand, since Xbox 360 they allowed standard usb storage to have the same function as their official hdd and memory cards
They could be selling a lot more, still at a reasonable profit and not have such a big complaint against the console. But I'm guessing this is actually seagate, they need to get more on board now that the exclusivity is over.
At a reasonable price I could see a lot of people picking it up as portable storage to take around friends, between consoles etc.
But the ideal would be just making a couple adaptors available and allowing other nvme's to be used.
At a reasonable price I could see a lot of people picking it up as portable storage to take around friends, between consoles etc.
But the ideal would be just making a couple adaptors available and allowing other nvme's to be used.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yup, that's what I meant by "core storage". On Xbox 360, external USB storage support wasn't released until March 2013 - the year Xbox One launched.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, but on XBO, USB storage replaced the official storage expansion options from X360. You install and run games from USB storage.
This likely would have remained the case if sustained USB read speeds would have been able to match or exceed the internal drive.
So in terms of supported external expansions at launch of each console...
- X360 - controlled external expansion of internal storage for games
- uncontrolled external storage for music, video and photos
- XBO - uncontrolled external expansion of internal storage for everything except the OS
- XBS - controlled external expansion of internal storage for XBS games
- uncontrolled external expansion of internal storage for BC games
People may disagree, but if USB drives on the market had been able to match the sustained performance of the internal drive on XBS consoles, then I believe that MS never would have bothered with the storage expansion cards.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I know. I'm talking about the console's core storage. The storage that is pre-installed in the console.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure, but then why even mention that this makes them money? During the XBO generation since USB storage devices were able to match the performance of the XBO's internal storage there was no control over expansion of that storage. So, in effect other than Seagate and WD potentially paying MS for the right to brand some of their USB drives as "official" Xbox gaming drives, MS really wasn't making money off of it.
It was basically the same as currently exists with some NVME makers paying Sony for a license to use the PlayStation name. For example,
So, Sony allowing expansion of the "core" internal drive makes them as much money off of storage expansion as MS not allowing expansion of the "core" internal drive during the XBO generation.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The sentence in my first post was imprecise, it was referring to Xbox 360 where the ability to use any USB drives came seven years after release, the same year they stopped producing 360s.
I didn't mention Sony or PlayStation.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Gotcha, yes. That sentence reads more like that was Microsoft's strategy for making money for all Xbox's starting from the X360 generation.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Well, it certainly started with the Xbox 360 and this is where we are with the Xbox Series as well. Eergo, it started with the 360.Gotcha, yes. That sentence reads more like that was Microsoft's strategy for making money for all Xbox's starting from the X360 generation.
XBO was the exception.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The reasoning for the exception is the important thing. The X360 quite obviously did it because of how the X360 at the time handled the physical DRM of games. You'll notice that for anything that didn't require verification of authenticity, you could use any old USB drive for it.
XBO no longer needed the storage subsystem to be part of the verification chain for whether or not the games on it were "officially" released. And since existing USB drives were performant enough to match the internal drive there was no compelling reason to not allow it to be used for games. Had MS been driven by profit incentive for external media, this never would have happened.
XBS like XBO doesn't need the storage subsystem to be part of the verification chain of ownership. However, MS desires consistency in drive performance for games. So we're back to licensed drives, except this time for minimum performance consistency rather than a hardware verification chain.
I really believe that MS would prefer not to have to deal with licensing of external drives for use with games and I'm doubtful that profit incentives are what drove them back to limiting external XBS game storage to official storage expansion options again.
Odd, since I'm usually quite cynical about a lot of things, but just the fact that they did that with XBO despite XBO (at launch under management that is no longer in charge of Xbox) was at the height of penny pinching profiteering (microtransactions were a huge focus with their GAAS strategy to kick off that generation). It just seems extremely weird for them to then decide that they no longer wanted a profit stream from external storage.
Thus, IMO, it's far more likely an indication that MS just plain does not want to be in the business of selling external storage. Further proof is that unlike the X360 generation, the drives are manufactured for Microsoft and sold by Microsoft (so zero competition). Instead it's licensed to 3rd party storage makers, likely with the hope that it would drive down end user costs through competition. MS provides the specs and presumably after Seagates exclusivity period (likely to guarantee at least once source of drives at launch) any drive maker could apply for a license to provide drives, said license dependent upon their drive meeting minimum sustained performance requirements.
Now, if these drives were manufactured for MS and sold by MS, I'd absolutely agree that their choice was entirely profit driven.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't think you can hang the decision on DRM, there was 360 with no internal storage and many games did not require, and could. to, be installed to the internal drive.
You may recall the people who scoped out the purpose of XBO were not your typical gamers, they were very much pushing XBO as being the centre of media, ergo allowing people to store a lot of media may well have seemed a minor loss in the grand plan to sell vast amounts of media. But we're in the realms of idle speculation rather than truth.
Microsoft literally pioneered the ability for external hardware to meet minimum specifications and be supported transparently, their entire success with Windows hinged on Window's API's ability to do this.
Because you brought it up, I would refer to one Microsoft competitors who achieved the same thing with a simple I/O bandwidth test upon inserting a standard NVMe drive into their console. The same type of bandwidth test that is universally standard when exploring new streaming services to ensure that your hardware is capable of meeting the minimum requirements. Creating a new hardware standard for NVMe drives is most definitely not a cheaper solution that a software solution. But it probably is more profitable.
It's far more likely that the exclusivity deal with Seagate was to get a product out with the specs they needed as nobody seems to be motivated to do so at that moment. Seagate took advantage of it and set a high price. Now the exclusivity deal seems to have ended.
Your funny story has had no relevance since the X1, aka at least 10 years.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Again, Xbox Series' competitor had a much higher minimum speed and a bandwidth check worked fine. The speed which Series consoles need storage to operate at was at the lower-end of NVMe drives when Xbox Series launched. Or are you conjecturing that a faster drive, any drive not working at an exact speed, wouldn't work?
What story?
But not at the 2230 form factor they chose and probably also temperature specs when they designed the product <=2021.
Your story that this was a money scheme by the Xbox division. IMHO their hidden money making scheme is the Xbox Controller obsolescence.
I don’t follow this at all. The same controllers from 2013 Xbox One still work on current-generation consoles for all games. Maybe you're thinking of Sony that requires brand new controllers for the PS5 games?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
There are no temperature specs for NVMe drives. Again, one of Microsoft's competitors that supports faster (ego hotter) NVMe drives does not stipulate any thermal limits, bit it's recommended to use drives that work in the CE equipment temperature range of the console.
I have not mentioned controllers. Nobody has. Quit with the bullshit.
Maybe he is confusing the bluetooth models that were introduced later on in the xbox life cycle ?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Maybe, but I didn't mention controllers. This is a figment of this dude's imagination.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked