Based on what they said in the spring, they are not thinking about a miniPC, they are talking about the most significant technological leap. I think this can only be a more expensive hardware, or it can be scaled in terms of hardware from the user's side.
Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
That statement just isn't true. There's no way you can create a leap from XBSX to XBN bigger than the leap from PS1 to PS2 or XB. Even moreso from SNES to N64, and earlier.
At best, that statement would be limited to the XBox family, meaning a leap equivalent from OXB to XB360. Well, XBO to XBSX wasn't anything like as big a leap, and technological progress is only slowing,
Ergo this statement should not be taken at face value in terms of performance. If there's any truth in it, it'll likely be a tangential technology. eg. truckloads of AL and realtime simulated speech in games that look largely the same. That'd provide the biggest tech leap in NPCs ever, moving from scripted and pre-recorded to procedurally generated and voiced. By going the 'AI' route, there's plenty of scope to claim 'biggest technological leap ever in a generation' without having that much more CPU and GPU power.
Yes, I agree with that.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I've been less active because we tend to go in circles a lot, but I'll restate my position:
1. The S stands for "Saved" Xbox as over half the sales were S. It's a good idea, even though MS could have had a little more RAM in the box and made it 6 TF instead of 4 TF. Still a great machine.
2. They should shrink the S into an M whenever it makes sense.
3. They should bring out the next Xbox whenever they feel like and shrink the X into the S form factor and just keep supporting 3 SKUs. I don't believe this is an issue for devs supporting dozens of PC GPUs.
4. They should have showcase titles for the new box from 2 or 3 of their 30+ studios. They don't need to follow Sony's lead.
5. They should produce 3+ AAA games every year and 3+ AA games as well. Bring them out 2-3 years later on PS/Nin
6. Keep pushing GP on Xbox and PC
1. The S stands for "Saved" Xbox as over half the sales were S. It's a good idea, even though MS could have had a little more RAM in the box and made it 6 TF instead of 4 TF. Still a great machine.
2. They should shrink the S into an M whenever it makes sense.
3. They should bring out the next Xbox whenever they feel like and shrink the X into the S form factor and just keep supporting 3 SKUs. I don't believe this is an issue for devs supporting dozens of PC GPUs.
4. They should have showcase titles for the new box from 2 or 3 of their 30+ studios. They don't need to follow Sony's lead.
5. They should produce 3+ AAA games every year and 3+ AA games as well. Bring them out 2-3 years later on PS/Nin
6. Keep pushing GP on Xbox and PC
Microsoft is launching its Xbox store for mobile games, moving even further away from consoles.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25556574/xboxmobilestore.jpg)
www.theverge.com
It's not only going to work on mobile but also on the web. The webpage is already available, though still empty.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/mobilestore
Where is the Xbox mobile store?
Xbox president Sarah Bond revealed earlier this year that a new Xbox mobile store would be launching in July. Xbox fan Klobrille discovered an Xbox mobile store webpage recently, which suggests Xbox Insiders will get access first. “Testing has begun for our browser-based mobile store,” says Kari...
www.theverge.com
It's not only going to work on mobile but also on the web. The webpage is already available, though still empty.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/mobilestore
I wouldn't consider that a move away from consoles. Just a widening of their gaming reach. Whatever their console plans, I'd expect this given their trajectory.
1.) At the end of the day the execution had to be flawless but if they had put more RAM in it they wouldnt have been within budget. MS spent more money on making console hw this gen than Sony did. They paid for a more powerful APU in the Series X with more die area and barely any dev is taking advantage of it because the low level APIs are not optimized for the hw. So yes good idea about more Series S RAM but unrealistic and was not financially feasible within context. Better would have been to make one single console then a handheld down the line. I dont think they will ever try this approach again maybe just make Xbox OS available to OEMs but not launching two consoles at the same time.
3.) If they release a new console in 2025 or 2026 which developers are going to take advantage of it, what software tools will be available to take advantage of it even to internal studios?. They havent even addressed compiler issues on the Series X but they're supposed to release new hw in 2025 or 2026? Maybe letting OEMs sell licensed Xboxes and make a very niche Xbox console built similarly to their niche surface hw
4.) Makes sense
5.) Makes sense
6.) Makes sense
Jez in the video in the tweet doesn't say that:
•it's a traditional console
•that it's a add on
Good job Kloot, whoever you are, you lack basic comprehension of conversations
So what does he say?
He says:
• a separate handheld (whethever that means)
• a series x successor (could be a traditional console or not)
•not just the handheld
So not much info we didn't know.
looking at current Series sales numbers I would be surprised if they release new hw in 2025. Unless maybe its a OEM hw running Xbox OS that I can see them do but a whole new fixed console next year just sounds unrealistic.
Exactly one of the main factors is that they can launch a new console sooner, because fewer and fewer Series consoles are being sold. at MS, they are not even trying to increase sales, e.g. by a price reduction that is already due, significant advertisements with exclusive games grouped for this period, etc. Exclusive games have barely arrived on the current consoles, this year only ONE game that can be said to be exclusive has appeared on the Series consoles so far! On the other hand, the game dumping that comes after this will bring good results, the only question is whether they will focus on the nextgen instead. They promised a new hardware presentation for the holidays, we'll see.
PS3 ended up outselling Xbox 360, though, despite launching later and having a more difficult development environment, and being replaced by a new generation at essentially the same time as 360. It had more total sales in less time.
XB360 sales didn't drop when PS3 came on the market, or when PS3 added features 360 had in later years. XB had its potential and it sustained that, ending with an install base as large as PS3's and its users very happy with their purchase and experience. These users had no reason to change platform until XBO failed to deliver on what they wanted in a successor.
IMHO a huge chunk of the initial PS3 sales were to play Blu-rays as it was the best player at the time.
I think this is true. I remember getting a Blu-ray player was so expensive at the time. The PS3 was the best deal Blu-ray player by far. For ~$600-$700 you got a gaming system that could play blu-rays, cds, dvds and had a harddrive for storage, usb ports. It was such a good deal.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Also, outside of Japan. MS won that generation.
Now that we're discussing X360, MS is in a similar but not identical situation to PS2/Xbox right now, which is perhaps why they want to launch early. Especially with 30 dev teams.
Now that we're discussing X360, MS is in a similar but not identical situation to PS2/Xbox right now, which is perhaps why they want to launch early. Especially with 30 dev teams.
Cappuccino
Newcomer
I mostly agree with these points but for 1 I'd say selling more than the X isn't really saying much. Being the most popular of the least popular console makes doesn't mean it was a good product. Plus, X supply was constricted early on vs the S due to them redirecting them towards server blades during the semi shortage.
Honestly I think they would have been better off trying to beat Sony on price. I also think they need to examine why the PS5 would often outperform the X despite having weaker hardware, not that these levels of performance gaps are ever the reason for console sales.
Also, I hate to beat the dead horse but on point 5 they really need to make more games, good memorable ones at that. I cannot think of a single Xbox franchise still worth following (Forza maybe but that's turned for the worse and it's ultimately just a racing game, Sony has GT which is arguably better).
Not usually discussed here but I also think the controller on Xbox holds them back. Sony maybe goes a bit hard on the gimmicks but the PS5 controller feels 100x more premium than the SX controllers (as an owner of one, I'd even say the stock PS5 controller feels better than the pro Elite controller but that's a matter of preference). I find all this rather funny as I thought it was the opposite for last gen, the Xbone controller to me felt a lot better than the PS4 controller, which felt kinda cheap to me.
I'm not sure why that matters, Sony ironically wanted the PS3 to be a media center just like MS wanted the Xbone to replace the set top box. I'm not sure we can count those sales against them here.
Now here I disagree: in the OGXB days they had a ridiculously hyped sequel coming for their next gen (Halo 3) and generally people were looking forward to seeing what they had planned next (at least, this is the impression I get, I was 5 when the X360 came out lol) since the OGXB was the first iteration and you kinda get a pass for mistakes made there.
Xbox is now a mature brand so I'm not sure people are still interested in seeing what they have to market considering they trashed all of their notably franchises (Halo, Gears, Forza), and even if you do like those games they are bringing them to PlayStation/PC/your internet browser via XCloud so why bother buying their hardware?
Last edited:
Similar threads
