Rumor: XBox dual SKU next-gen launch

[AlNom]

It would almost be a compile option in the sdk. Xbox one X boost mode is "free" with the recent sdk builds so this is not too outlandish an idea I feel.

The simplest path may just be a dynamic res considering it's not likely to be so huge a difference ala Scorpio. Another option is if devs aren't pushing the CPU to 30Hz (although locking to it for non-variable-rate monitors would be prudent), and then include a high framerate option.

I think folks are overblowing the hypothetical outrage vs the layman.

Ultimately, Phil will need to work on the messaging.

 

[mrcorbo]

If they make the next gen BC but not forced FC with mid-gen (seems to be the plan after all), it's not nice for those who just bought an xb1x after the allusions to a rolling generation.

What allusions? No one from MS ever said FC was going to be a thing. They just said there would be no Scorpio exclusives. Similarly, there will probably be no Anaconda exclusives and titles will have to run on Lockhart as well. The only difference is that the latter two are coming out simultaneously.

 

[mrcorbo]

Mid-gen, as a whole, caused a nasty dilemma.

If they make the next gen BC but not forced FC with mid-gen (seems to be the plan after all), it's not nice for those who just bought an xb1x after the allusions to a rolling generation. It will be only three years from launch until some flagship games start coming out requiring next gen.

The alternative is worse, if they don't allow games to be made exclusive to next gen hardware, they would cripple the first three or four years with only cross-gen titles.

The idea of rolling generations looked good on the surface, because it solved the longevity problem of xb1x, but that would have been to the detriment of the real next gen. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The upside is that there will be much more cross gen titles than in the past, because it's all x86 and easier to port. First year or two should have only a handful of flagship titles exclusive to next gen. Only the ones that absolutely require it. While in the past, cross gen was a massive development burden regardless of how much the game could scale down.

With the exception of the one sentence, though, I agree with most of this. Some will probably feel burned by a new gen following so close on to the launch of the One X, but some also felt burned by the PS4 Pro coming out 3 years after the PS4 and that turned out OK. I think the impact will largely depend on how quickly software support dries up for current gen. If big titles continue to be released for One/One X far enough into the next gen the shit-storm may be minimized.

 

[MrFox]

With the exception of the one sentence, though, I agree with most of this. Some will probably feel burned by a new gen following so close on to the launch of the One X, but some also felt burned by the PS4 Pro coming out 3 years after the PS4 and that turned out OK. I think the impact will largely depend on how quickly software support dries up for current gen. If big titles continue to be released for One/One X far enough into the next gen the shit-storm may be minimized.

No sure if many felt burned by the pro, it was a surgical PR strategy where they mandated in TCRs that all games must be full featured on both, no frame rate advantage in MP, and clearly explained that it exists within the same generation, all of this guarantees it won't cut short the ps4 generation. They went out of their way to make sure nobody feel burned, and that those who buy the Pro know what to expect as longevity. That there are still generations and there will be a PS5. Result is that slim outsells pro 75:25, but it also meant the original sku continued to be trusted.

MS first said no more generations, referenced iphones, referenced PCs, said there's zero reason to buy xb1x unless you have a 4k TV, then that all games will be on the whole xb1 family, and when pressed about whether X would get exclusives they deflected wildly. The expectations of xb1x longevity were all over the map, caused by journalists and forum posters trying to interpret MS complicated non-answers. Even here on b3d lots of poster were convinced the X would be the base specs next gen.

It was a mess:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._Phil_Spencer_looks_to_the_future_of_Xbox.php
https://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-teasing-xbox-one-x-forward-compatibility
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ne-x-microsoft-is-killing-console-generations

 

[dten]

We have to be careful not to get ahead of ourselves. Assuming this rumor is true, there are still a lot of unknowns. Like how low end is the low end console? Also, how do we know there won't be a lot of cross compatible games, especially in the beginning?

I've tended to stay away from the next gen thread (not to dissuade anyone) lately because a lot of assumptions were just tailspining based on assumptions--if 1, then 2, then 3, then 4. What if 1 was never true? Until we get a Kotaku type leak, there isn't enough info for me to really react too negatively or positively.

 

[iroboto]

No sure if many felt burned by the pro, it was a surgical PR strategy where they mandated in TCRs that all games must be full featured on both, no frame rate advantage in MP, and clearly explained that it exists within the same generation, all of this guarantees it won't cut short the ps4 generation. They went out of their way to make sure nobody feel burned, and that those who buy the Pro know what to expect as longevity. That there are still generations and there will be a PS5. Result is that slim outsells pro 75:25, but it also meant the original sku continued to be trusted.

MS first said no more generations, referenced iphones, referenced PCs, said there's zero reason to buy xb1x unless you have a 4k TV, then that all games will be on the whole xb1 family, and when pressed about whether X would get exclusives they deflected wildly. The expectations of xb1x longevity were all over the map, caused by journalists and forum posters trying to interpret MS complicated non-answers. Even here on b3d lots of poster were convinced the X would be the base specs next gen.

But none of us feel burned by the 1X. The messaging is rather clear and it's got a very high satisfaction. I don't see a bunch of people walking around upset that the 1X isn't playing Scarlett titles. I don't see a bunch of people walking around upset it doesn't have it's own exclusives. I see people very happy with it playing 360 enhanced titles at 4K, OG titles at 4K. Being able to hit 4K native, doing everything they marketed it as. It's still quiet and the build quality is very good.

Your game library moves forward to the next generation and ideally the next generation plays the older content better.

The generation isn't over yet, it's not like next gen is coming next month. It's still 2 full years out. 1X will be 3 years old by then, it won't suddenly hit a wall of no games just because next gen started. It will keep going for at least another 1 possibly more.

 

[mrcorbo]

No sure if many felt burned by the pro, it was a surgical PR strategy where they mandated in TCRs that all games must be full featured on both, no frame rate advantage in MP, and clearly explained that it exists within the same generation, all of this guarantees it won't cut short the ps4 generation. They went out of their way to make sure nobody feel burned, and that those who buy the Pro know what to expect as longevity. That there are still generations and there will be a PS5. Result is that slim outsells pro 75:25, but it also meant the original sku continued to be trusted.

I didn't say many felt burned, I said some, which is objectively true. I saw their posts here and elsewhere. Vocal minority? Maybe. But there were definitely people that were upset with that change to the status quo and with the subversion of their expectations when they made their PS4 purchase.

MS first said no more generations, referenced iphones, referenced PCs

In general terms. And any time they got specific, they referred to games having longer engagement, allowing that engagement to continue across hardware generations and how valuable it was for people to be able to carry their library forward. Not just in one interview, but across several interviews. FC was never mentioned and you can't really even call the relationship between the One and One X one where FC is involved because the One doesn't play One X games. There are no One X games!

said there's zero reason to buy xb1x unless you have a 4k TV

Not gonna defend that one. That was bullshit.

, then that all games will be on the whole xb1 family

Which was true, was the plan from day one and, has never changed.

, and when pressed about whether X would get exclusives they deflected wildly.

No they didn't. No One X exclusives, except for VR. They did pivot away from VR. Based on my experience with Windows MR, they are well away from a consumer-friendly VR solution. It was probably better for them to change course on this than to do it badly.

The expectations of xb1x longevity were all over the map, caused by journalists and forum posters trying to interpret MS complicated non-answers. Even here on b3d lots of poster were convinced the X would be the base specs next gen.

Which is my point. In the absence of definitive statements people speculated and assumed. So, they are effectively damned either way. They either commit publicly to a strategy early on and risk having to walk that back if the market or tech changes in a way that makes that strategy less viable (which is not going to be a good look for them given recent history) or they say nothing and deal with uncertainty and speculation.

It was a mess:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._Phil_Spencer_looks_to_the_future_of_Xbox.php
https://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-teasing-xbox-one-x-forward-compatibility
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ne-x-microsoft-is-killing-console-generations

I navigate it by asking, "what makes sense?". Limiting the potential of next-gen games by the capabilities of the CPU specifically in any of the current-gen consoles seems like a really bad idea, so I didn't and don't think it likely that that will happen. And nothing I have read or heard has given me reason to believe it is any more likely.

 

[eastmen]

What if it targets the $299 segment?

Sub $300, maybe even $200 . My guess scrub jaguar from scorpio and add in an 8 core zen. It should be at least 7nm or lower by the end of 2020. So the gpu in scorpio should be able to clock higher to stretch its wings and give it newer ram. Also no disc drive. Maybe it will inch up to closer to 10tflop

Higher end system would be a zen 2 perhaps 12 core with a new gpu design and an ssd inside. I'm thinking this one would be close to 20tflops and hopefully have 24 gigs of ram .


I'm thinking maybe they want to move off scorpio so they can have a similar cpu across the board ? I don't see a 8 core jaguar even at 2.4 ghz keeping up with an 8 core ryzen at 3ghz let alone a higher core count and clock speeds.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

With the exception of the one sentence, though, I agree with most of this. Some will probably feel burned by a new gen following so close on to the launch of the One X, but some also felt burned by the PS4 Pro coming out 3 years after the PS4 and that turned out OK. I think the impact will largely depend on how quickly software support dries up for current gen. If big titles continue to be released for One/One X far enough into the next gen the shit-storm may be minimized.

If the next Xbox comes out in 2 years, the XBO will have been on the market for a full 7 years. At that point there's no reason to officially support new titles on it, although I'm sure they will make an attempt to have new titles run on it. But if support is cut for the XBO, then it has had a full entire generation of title support...just like a regular console generation.

XBO-X, should be supported by all titles for at least a few years IMO. It shouldn't be difficult to do that. At worse if there are CPU limitations, then you'll have to turn down the dial of NPCs, AI, Physics, whatever, on the XBO-X version.

Regards,
SB

 

[goonergaz]

Beyond that, they specifically talk about enabling developers to patch old games to take advantage of new hardware (which we saw with Xbox One to One X) to give them a second life on that hardware. The thing that I believe people consistently got wrong is that MS's comments about generations had implications for older devices' ability to play newer games. Outside of the case of members of the same product family, this was never stated. It was just people assuming or reading into the generational comments and completely ignoring all of the text around them that specified what was meant by them. It was always about ensuring new hardware could not only play old games but that, where possible, those old games would give an improved experience on the new hardware. It was about ensuring that console owners could carry their entire library forward into the next generation and that developers could continue to support and earn revenue from titles across hardware generations.

I don't disagree but MS have a habit of getting themselves into these situations and then not clarifying the situation, allowing the interwebs to run-a-mock.

I mean, saying things like 'no-one get's left behind' and then going on to say things like 'generations as we know them won't exist', and even mentioning PCs as a comparison - and all this after Sony had made it clear that generations as we know them will continue, does indeed imply that new games might work on old hardware. The question is, were MS wording this to mislead people considering the X and if it would be worth it for $500 with X2 out in a few years meaning X would be obsolete?

 

[iroboto]

I don't disagree but MS have a habit of getting themselves into these situations and then not clarifying the situation, allowing the interwebs to run-a-mock.

I mean, saying things like 'no-one get's left behind' and then going on to say things like 'generations as we know them won't exist', and even mentioning PCs as a comparison - and all this after Sony had made it clear that generations as we know them will continue, does indeed imply that new games might work on old hardware. The question is, were MS wording this to mislead people considering the X and if it would be worth it for $500 with X2 out in a few years meaning X would be obsolete?

It’s definitely a strategy of theirs to communicate in such a way. In many ways it allows them to create dialogue early in the community before they release the product. People talking about the product before it’s fully released and with what they are trying to do, changes to how game libraries are viewed, and changes to how and where games are played, I personally don’t fault them for starting the communications early. The direct communications to direct sales don’t work well for MS, and they will be largely ignored, things that are not given enough time to be communicated and it’s value appreciated before released are, often not bought especially when going up against well entrenched incumbents.

I mean, it’s clear they can execute so why not just announce it when it’s done right? But that has never been their concern; these features take a long time to build, these features are hard to execute. The other day I just read on era that Sony could crush MS by making their own game pass. How long did it take Sony to allow for user name changes ? How come Sony is still mum on BC coming for PS5?

It’s not so simple handling game licenses, it’s not so simple doing contracts. It’s not so simple doing BC. And it’s clearly not so easy doing game streaming. So it’s best to communicate early that it’s coming at least it is for MS

That being said, yes the wording is michevious. No one being left behind is the same as the people moving forward still play the same games as you do and with you if you didn’t move forward. Or the other interpretation is what you wrote, this idea of forward compatibility.

The second can still occur, but developers need to get involved in freeing the CPU up and changing their rendering method to GPU side. That might free up significant amounts of CPU to go further. At least a while longer, until of course with even GPU side rendering there still isn’t enough CPU it’s probably time to call it quits.

The easiest way to look at it though, is that from MS perspective they have a single SDK that can test all of a games variants. And libraries that support the development make it straight forward for developers to support multiple Xbox SKUs should they choose to. All next gen kits for instance should be Anaconda, just as today they are all Scorpio.

So we may not see a hard transition like we did in the past. Where as soon as the next console is out exclusives are instantly locked to the new system. We won’t be seeing halo 6 on Scarlett locked to Scarlett devices, we should see them cross play with Durango and Scorpio.

So as far as I can see, we are doing a good job discussing and they’ve done a good job with what they have delivered so far. Messaging, now that we are in the end game for this gen, will be critical for them to sell their next gen.

 

[vipa899]

While sony has a bigger console market, i do like MS's strategy more. Platform excluvity and the locking down to that platforms eco system seems an unhealthy thing to the general gaming market.
Couldnt a company behind spiderman make more if the game was ported to xbox too?
I know this has always existed but, sonys console would sell as many units anyway?

 

[goonergaz]

The other day I just read on era that Sony could crush MS by making their own game pass. How long did it take Sony to allow for user name changes ? How come Sony is still mum on BC coming for PS5?

It’s not so simple handling game licenses, it’s not so simple doing contracts. It’s not so simple doing BC. And it’s clearly not so easy doing game streaming. So it’s best to communicate early that it’s coming at least it is for MS

Clearly the name changing was a big issue for Sony, it wasn't built from the beginning with that option in mind. Sony have said very little about PS5, largely because (frankly) they don't need to - they are sitting top of the tree so why give away anything to the opposition? I don't want a gamepass for PlayStation, but I can see the appeal. Personally I'm still old school and prefer to buy the games I want when and how I want...but then I also love collectors editions!

While sony has a bigger console market, i do like MS's strategy more. Platform excluvity and the locking down to that platforms eco system seems an unhealthy thing to the general gaming market.
Couldnt a company behind spiderman make more if the game was ported to xbox too?
I know this has always existed but, sonys console would sell as many units anyway?

To be honest, the whole exclusivity thing took off with MS buying up Halo and starting the whole 'only on Xbox' marketing. If you don't have exclusives you then have little to chose between the 2 consoles (IMO anyway). Personally I'm not a fan of all these services, I know they are popular but I always didn't like it when XBLive came out and you had to pay ~£3pm...I said at the time it was the thin end of the wedge and I feel I've been proven right. Looking at MS now you have live , gamepass, EA access and talk of a streaming service...it won't be long before people are happily paying £30+pm to play games.

 

[iroboto]

Clearly the name changing was a big issue for Sony, it wasn't built from the beginning with that option in mind. Sony have said very little about PS5, largely because (frankly) they don't need to - they are sitting top of the tree so why give away anything to the opposition? I don't want a gamepass for PlayStation, but I can see the appeal. Personally I'm still old school and prefer to buy the games I want when and how I want...but then I also love collectors editions!

They don’t. That’s just us understanding the differences between the two. We can’t hold them to the same communications standards because of their pull on the industry itself.

You are absolutely right that Sony keeps tight lipped. We never discuss Sony plans because of this. It’s not that there are an overwhelming number of Xbox fanboys on this forum, but for the sake of our hobby, MS is the only company that gives us things to talk about pre-release. Thus we end up discussing MS.

 

[MrFox]

There's going to be an interesting balancing act to promote both skus at launch. Which one will be emphasized?

 

[MrFox]

Phase 2 of Meiosis.

Are we cell yet

If there's one thing I learned from the internet, it's that mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.

 

[eastmen]

Clearly the name changing was a big issue for Sony, it wasn't built from the beginning with that option in mind. Sony have said very little about PS5, largely because (frankly) they don't need to - they are sitting top of the tree so why give away anything to the opposition? I don't want a gamepass for PlayStation, but I can see the appeal. Personally I'm still old school and prefer to buy the games I want when and how I want...but then I also love collectors editions!



To be honest, the whole exclusivity thing took off with MS buying up Halo and starting the whole 'only on Xbox' marketing. If you don't have exclusives you then have little to chose between the 2 consoles (IMO anyway). Personally I'm not a fan of all these services, I know they are popular but I always didn't like it when XBLive came out and you had to pay ~£3pm...I said at the time it was the thin end of the wedge and I feel I've been proven right. Looking at MS now you have live , gamepass, EA access and talk of a streaming service...it won't be long before people are happily paying £30+pm to play games.

Excusives were a big thing even at the launch of the playstation. FF going playstation exclusive was huge , so was resident evil and tomb raider . You can go back to the genesis and super nes when it was Mario vs Sonic also.

As for the subscription debate. People may be happy paying $30 per motnh to play games but there are a lot of people buying a new game or more a month. And for others they might buy a lot of games during the holidays. So it oculd still work out to be cheaper for those people. Here in the states through the microsoft store you can get a year of xbox gamepass for $70. That's less than $6 a month

 

[eastmen]

If the next Xbox comes out in 2 years, the XBO will have been on the market for a full 7 years. At that point there's no reason to officially support new titles on it, although I'm sure they will make an attempt to have new titles run on it. But if support is cut for the XBO, then it has had a full entire generation of title support...just like a regular console generation.

XBO-X, should be supported by all titles for at least a few years IMO. It shouldn't be difficult to do that. At worse if there are CPU limitations, then you'll have to turn down the dial of NPCs, AI, Physics, whatever, on the XBO-X version.

Regards,
SB

Also lets not forget the sony rumors . Ps4 2013 , Pro 2016 , 5 2019 . That's 3 year cycles between systems.
If the Nintendo rumors are right you have Switch march 2017 , Switch refresh in 2019 . Wont even be 3 full years.
Xbox one 2013 to X in 2017 is 4 years to Next in 2020 is 3 years. Seems to be on par with sony and nintendo

 

[vipa899]

RDR2 shows exclusivety isnt needed for great games/graphics. Even if this has always existed, this exclusivety seems there to get people locked to one platform.

Here in the states through the microsoft store you can get a year of xbox gamepass for $70. That's less than $6 a mont

Not bad considering.

 

[goonergaz]

Excusives were a big thing even at the launch of the playstation. FF going playstation exclusive was huge , so was resident evil and tomb raider . You can go back to the genesis and super nes when it was Mario vs Sonic also.

As for the subscription debate. People may be happy paying $30 per motnh to play games but there are a lot of people buying a new game or more a month. And for others they might buy a lot of games during the holidays. So it oculd still work out to be cheaper for those people. Here in the states through the microsoft store you can get a year of xbox gamepass for $70. That's less than $6 a month

Yes, but the problem with subscriptions is that everything is not included. So what inevitably ends up happening is a false economy where you subscribe but still buy most of the games you would have anyway. Hopefully gamepass is changing to a better model, it's certainly made strides. But even so, you're still going to have to buy the biggest games.