The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?

[eastmen]

Sony's early success is based on 40 million already having a ps4, millions already having the camera, even 15 millions having moves, and the DS4 being fully trackable. This means millions have a 399 entry price into high end VR.

A new xbox starts from scratch, CV1 is $600, you add motion controllers "below $200", and you need a new more expensive xbox... Cost of entry at launch is not comparable. Those with that amount of disposable income get a PC VR instead. (which is exactly what you did)

Phil Spencer recently said there's is no xbox 1.5 in development, the xb1 is doing well, next gen hardware will have to be substantially more powerful, etc.... It would be a pretty stupid comment to make if they launch a mid-gen power upgrade next year.

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/there-won-t-be-an-xbox-1-5-says-phil-spencer-1318199

I don't think it matters much. People will be able to choose a VR experience or not.

You can even sell the crossfire addition on its own to allow games to run at 4k resolutions.

Folks can choose when they want to jump into VR or if they even want too. When you offer it isn't as big of deal as how you do. In the ps4 case sony wasn't anywhere ready with a vr unit and software for a 2013 launch but they started showing it off quite early in the ps4 life cycle.


IF MS skips a half step as phil has recently suggested and actually launches an xbox two with a brand new apu or even split cpu / gpu the xbox two could be the best console experience for 1080p , 4k and VR. We are already seeing limitations on the current consoles creep up.

Remember they could launch with a new APU in 2017 with an APU based on Zen and Vega and HBM 2 with 16 gigs of ram. Its not out of the possibility because of the micron drop. Even if they moved from jaguar to puma or a new form of puma they would still get much better clocks than the jaguar allowed.

 

[MrFox]

16gb hbm2 and 14nm would be a mid-gen upgrade, not the 8x memory and 8x performance upgrade we expect from a generation jump.

 

[MrFox]

With Spencer denying the rumors, we now have a complete reversal from some months ago. It's now xbox on long generation and playstation rumored to have mid-gen upgrades?

 

[eastmen]

16gb hbm2 and 14nm would be a mid-gen upgrade, not the 8x memory and 8x performance upgrade we expect from a generation jump.

depends on how they do it. The ram might not be a 8 times increase in memory but they could get 8x the performance if they split across two different chips for cpu and gpu.

As for spencer and a longer console generation. I am sure MS has multiple mock ups for different plans. They most likely have a protype xbox 1.5 in the labs , a 2017 2.0 and a 2018 one too .

 

[Rikimaru]

As for spencer and a longer console generation. I am sure MS has multiple mock ups for different plans. They most likely have a protype xbox 1.5 in the labs , a 2017 2.0 and a 2018 one too .

Or a plan to not have a new console at all.

 

[mpg1]

Microsoft's biggest hardware issue is the memory system. The decision to continue with small embeded high speed ram on Xbox One will be consequential for moving forward. Do they keep going down the small amount of dedicated embedded RAM route or move to a general unified memory system like Playstation?

How cheap or realistic is it to put say 128 or 256MB of ESRAM in next Xbox?

 

[turkey]

If Microsoft do go all out

Microsoft's biggest hardware issue is the memory system. The decision to continue with small embeded high speed ram on Xbox One will be consequential for moving forward. Do they keep going down the small amount of dedicated embedded RAM route or move to a general unified memory system like Playstation?

How cheap or realistic is it to put say 128 or 256MB of ESRAM in next Xbox?

Or turn it on its head, large fast memory pool and small slow memory pool....hbm and ddr4 split?

Assuming the app side will be even more so next time, perhaps even will full windows desktop given we hear about mosue and keyboard support and universal apps...

The surface box.

 

[Scott_Arm]

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/there-won-t-be-an-xbox-1-5-says-phil-spencer-1318199

If this is the source, there's absolutely nothing that Phil Spencer said that signals they wouldn't do a 4-year cycle. He just said they wouldn't do a minor update, it would be significant, if they were to do one.

 

[MrFox]

Which new technology allows a 8x improvement on 14nm in 2017?

 

[AlNom]

How cheap or realistic is it to put say 128 or 256MB of ESRAM in next Xbox?

32MB SRAM was huge enough. 14nm would just be double density.

 

[iroboto]

Which new technology allows a 8x improvement on 14nm in 2017?

At a similar TDP I'm assuming? Probably none. But if that TDP restriction wasn't there or they managed to get around it; that would be something else.

 

[McHuj]

Which new technology allows a 8x improvement on 14nm in 2017?

I think we get in the issue of semantics and what constitutes "significant" upgrade in the eyes of consumers vs manufacturers. When Spencer says significant, we don't know what he means by that and how exactly he measures that.

People want to think a generational leap, but it could be much, much less. Whatever MS releases (and if), they'll market it as a significant upgrade regardless of what the math is on the flops.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Which is already the case, except everyone's talking about extreme times here instead of realistic times. The notion that a new refresh appears two years after launch and considerably more powerful than the old version is silly. New hardware after 2 years won't be powerful enough or a large enough target to warrant notably improved games. The real refresh cycle is more like 3 years, and at 4 years, where the old console is starting to struggle to run the games devs are wanting to make, you have the option of upgrading. It's absolutely no different to what we have now, other than the transition becoming softer. Early adopters can stay on top. The general populace can pick the hardware that meets their price and performance preference.

And if you don’t, then what? You get stuck with a gimped version of all games? Because if devs aren’t going to use the extra power, then what’s the point in releasing a .5 version? So inevitably you end up with a split userbase where you’ll have to buy a new console if you want to full experience. Only instead of this happening 5 or 6 years after launch it’s now happening after 3. So you end up paying double for what? A mediocore hardware upgrade.


A better solution would be to bring back cycles to ~ 5 years.

n fact it's a major win. Presently poorer folk waiting for console hardware to drop to <$200 are buying an EOL product. A progressive model means their machine can still run the newest games if at reduced quality. Consider something like FIFA, or Diablo 3. The same game on PS3 is actually a different game to that on PS4. The devs have to keep up two software paths, and of course they can't be arsed with the older machine (in the case of D3, Blizzard gave up and don't update any more) and it gets a weaker game. Diablo 4 will run on PS4, and then PS4.5 will run it without the framerate drops when things get really busy, and then PS5 will also run it and Diablo 5, which PS4.5 will also run. If you only have a PS4, you have the option to buy a $400 PS5 to play the best D5 experience, or buy a $200 PS4.5 and still play it.

Except it’s not going to work like that. There is no point in releasing a .5 console if it’s just going to be good enough to offer some extra fps or effects, that’s not worth splitting your userbase over. Obviously it is for Sony and MS because they can expend the cycle on the cheap but it’s not good for consumers.

If there is going to be a considerable gap in performance there is going to be a difference between games much more than just fps or some additional effects. Thus those with an old console will be “forced” to upgrade only they won’t be getting the big upgrade that usually comes with a new machine.


As for poorer folks, with all due respect but are they really relevant? Profit is made on software. If somebody cannot afford a 300 ~ 400 YFC console, how many 60 YFC games are they going to buy? Most likely this group is much better served by the second hand market.

Sorry this argument really gets on my tits. I have a PC, it's a laptop / tablet, it sits on my desk at home (I WFH) and I do my work and word processing on it. I really have no inclination to finish work and remain at my desk and play games too.


I like consoles because they sit under my TV, update themselves automatically and I don't have to worry about drivers, or patching games, or mods.

Not as much as people thinking pc gaming required 10 hours of tinkering for every 10 minutes you play.


Windows is updating automatically since at least the XP days. AMD drivers can update automatically these days I think (probably Nvidia as well) and even if they didn’t, Windows 10 can do driver updates as well.


Steam and other stores update automatically too so really pc games required absolutely 0% user interference as far as updating software goes.

I built my own PCs between the late 90s and sometime in the early 00s. Up until I started office work really. I've had a couple of gaming laptops since, but I now can't justify buying any more. I never get the same satisfaction from games, just spending time getting optimal settings. Now I can just play.

Maybe you are doing something wrong. I haven’t had to do any tinker on my games for a very long time. Pretty much all the games I have just work. The only tinkering I did over the past couple of years is getting Killer is Dead to run at 60fps instead of being locked to 30. Other than that nothing. Most games do a pretty decent job at automatically detecting settings for acceptable performance so no need to do anything there either.

es, I know there are guys that love playing with settings and fair play to them. It's just not for me. That time has long since passed. And no, I don't want an HTPC or anything plugged into my TV.

Right, so you are ok with plugging in a console but a pc is a no-go? Not really fair, is it? Still, you can go with steam in home streaming or just use a long hdmi cable like I do. Get an xbox controller and you can automatically boot into steam and launch your games.


My pc is on the other side of my room and if I want to play games on my tv I just grab the controller on the couch, press one button to change monitor output and another one to launch steam big picture mode.


The argument that pc gaming required constant tinkering with settings or drivers simply hasn’t been true for at least the past 10 years.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I think it's pretty clear that come fall 2018 there will be a new Xbox on the market. It'll be more than a 1.5x bump, but it won't be an 8-10x leap either. Something in the middle, maybe 4x more power than Xbox One.

Enough to do 1080p games really well, and VR as well. Perhaps even some less complex games at 4K 30fps. A new Xbox in 2018 would easily be more powerful than PS4K, and Sony wouldn't be able to counter and launch PS5, until 2019 at the earliest. Most likely not until fall 2020.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Windows is updating automatically since at least the XP days. AMD drivers can update automatically these days I think (probably Nvidia as well) and even if they didn’t, Windows 10 can do driver updates as well.

The Windows experience is still poop. I've a MS Surface Pro 4 running MS's os, and there are plenty of issues if you read the forums. Mine was stuck in an endless Graphics Driver update. It also wouldn't allow me to install the Intel drivers and I had to grab some Beta ones. I still get borked window drawing in some cases. And that's MS Os on MS closed-system hardware!

I was a believer of PC and consoles becoming one, and the PC experience being easy and versatile. Now I've sampled it, it's still a long ways off. MS is just not able to execute on it, and we won't have a PC offering the same comfort and convenience of a console. The idea of a single ecosystem on computer, phone and gaming machine is, in my mind, a dead end now, and things are going to carry on as they are for another 5+ years I reckon. We still need consoles. And if we want consoles that aren't long in the tooth and low framerate and full of jaggies, we need more powerful consoles. As such, we need updates as frequently as the market wants, which is enabled by a progressive console family.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Windows is updating automatically since at least the XP days. AMD drivers can update automatically these days I think (probably Nvidia as well) and even if they didn’t, Windows 10 can do driver updates as well.

Well, the last laptop I had was Windows 7 and it definitely performed it's updates (downloading then updating) while the machine was on. It would be annoying because I'd want to play in the 30 or so minutes that I've got, but I couldn't because Windows needs to update first.

My PS4 updates while it's "off".

Steam and other stores update automatically too so really pc games required absolutely 0% user interference as far as updating software goes.

Same thing; as soon as I turned on the PC, the games would only then start to update. So I might have a list of three games in my steam library that are updating at the same time. And even then if I try and play an old game, I might have to update my GPU driver or Direct X to some other version in order that I'm able to play. Then when I switch back to a more recent game I have to switch it again so that I can play the newer game. What if the Java version I'm using doesn't match with the software/game that I'm about to play? It's such a faff.

My PS4 updates games while it's "off". It just drops me notifications telling me which games were updated since I last turned it on.

Maybe you are doing something wrong. I haven’t had to do any tinker on my games for a very long time. Pretty much all the games I have just work. The only tinkering I did over the past couple of years is getting Killer is Dead to run at 60fps instead of being locked to 30. Other than that nothing. Most games do a pretty decent job at automatically detecting settings for acceptable performance so no need to do anything there either.

Yeah, PC games do give some automatic settings. Although it doesn't always properly do it for mobile GPUs and even then it might not add V-sync, so the game would be really choppy. And even then I might try and fiddle with the settings to drop MSAA and add FXAA so that I could play the game at the native resolution of my monitor.

I never have to do this on PS4 as the settings are always perfect for my device.

Right, so you are ok with plugging in a console but a pc is a no-go? Not really fair, is it? Still, you can go with steam in home streaming or just use a long hdmi cable like I do. Get an xbox controller and you can automatically boot into steam and launch your games.

My pc is on the other side of my room and if I want to play games on my tv I just grab the controller on the couch, press one button to change monitor output and another one to launch steam big picture mode...

I don't have to use Windows whatsoever on my PS4. I just press one button on the pad and the PS4 is on, it'll immediately notify me of the games that have been updated and I'll start playing my most recently played game with the second button press. It sits there looking pretty under my TV and I don't have to have an HDMI cable running the whole way across the room.

The argument that pc gaming required constant tinkering with settings or drivers simply hasn’t been true for at least the past 10 years.

It is though isn't it? I'm fairly sure that lot of PC gamers like playing around with settings and finding the optimal settings for both their preferences and the type of monitor they're using.

I don't know if I can emphasise this enough, I like that consoles games and systems as they update themselves. I like the ease of use, even the "walled garden" of a console works for me, because I know it'll "just work".

A PC is a place where I do my work and it's exceptional at that. Windows is fantastic for my job! IT doesn't work, for me, at gaming.

Just to be clear, I have all the respect in the world for PC gamers. They can play at higher resolutions and framerates and have better settings providing their wallets and hardware allows. That's great. I wouldn't try and sell them console games as I'm sure they'd scoff at the idea.

The only thing that annoys me is the whole "master race" thing, firstly because it's a bit offensive based on history and how the term may have been used in the past, and secondly because I don't see how someone could be considered superior because they choose to spend more money on hardware. It's daft really, isn't it?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, the last laptop I had was Windows 7 and it definitely performed it's updates (downloading then updating) while the machine was on. It would be annoying because I'd want to play in the 30 or so minutes that I've got, but I couldn't because Windows needs to update first.

Or you're in a rush and switch the PC off, and it starts installing 16 updates so you can't power down at the wall.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Or you're in a rush and switch the PC off, and it starts installing 16 updates so you can't power down at the wall.

Yeah, exactly.

It's just a whole other type of gaming experience. I don't know why the PC guys feel the need to try and sell their platform of choice to people. Even Digital Foundry are guilty of it; "the beauty of PC gaming".

Spoiler

I hate it when I see a grammatical error of mine in quoted text. Bad, bad me.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Yeah, exactly.

It's just a whole other type of gaming experience. I don't know why the PC guys feel the need to try and sell their platform of choice to people. Even Digital Foundry are guilty of it; "the beauty of PC gaming".

I don't think it's about PC gamers trying to sell anyone anything. It's about people who are clearly in the best position to comment on the platform seeing misinformation about it being spread and wanting to set the record straight. I don't see what's so wrong with that? If I were to claim the PS4 takes 5 minutes to start up and you challenged me on it, I wouldn't see that as you trying to sell me on the platform, but merely correcting a piece of misinformation. And I believe some of what has recently been said can be categorised as incorrect.

For example, Windows updates never force you to run them, so you would never be in a situation where you want to play a game but are stopped by those updates. And that includes graphics drivers. Windows will download and prepare updates for you in the background to run at your convenience and simply let you know that they're ready to run. Yes, if updates are ready you will have to apply them before you perform a full shut down - but there's nothing to stop you simply putting the computer to sleep instead. Updates don't need to be run to allow that. The automatic graphics driver updates that are available via both AMD and Nvidia work the same way and despite common misconception, the latest graphics drivers are not required to play the latest games in the vast majority cases. They merely provide a better experience (which is usually unnoticeable in my experience and more applicable to benchmarking sites).

It's certainly true that consoles are still easier to use than PC's - it probably always will be. But tongue_of_colicab is absolutely correct when he says that this whole concept of constant tinkering with settings or drivers to keep PC gaming working is no longer true and hasn't been for quite a while. Drivers, updates and game patches all download themselves in the background and apply with zero or minimal user intervention (and you can control how much intervention you want to have in that process). I personally have never had a problem with Windows 10 with any update and I don't recall having any with Windows 7 either. I agree that if you haven't played a game in a while, then the running of an update will sometimes force you to wait until that is complete before you can play - yes consoles win there. But that's worlds apart from having to "constantly tinker with settings and drivers" to keep things operational. In fact it's pretty much no worse than the last generation of consoles.

The real PC user experience is that 9 times out of 10 I press a button on the keyboard or move the mouse to wake the PC. 5-10 seconds later, I'm on the desktop, I click steam to pop open my games library (or I can set it to be there waiting for me when the PC comes on with all my most recently games at the forefront just like a console) and I start playing whichever game I like. The tenth time, that game will start running an update first and I'll have to wait 5 minutes before I can play it. Maybe one in 20 times I'll also have an icon in my task tray from either Windows update or GeForce experience telling me a new update has been downloaded and installed or is ready to install when I'm ready. And I leave that until the time is convenient for me to click okay and wait 5 minutes for it to complete.

 

[upnorthsox]

Or you're in a rush and switch the PC off, and it starts installing 16 updates so you can't power down at the wall.

3:05 PM on Friday when trying to leave work fast for a quick weekend trip.......and then the inevitable "oh you're still here, can you.......". I really hate windows updates.