I am on mobile, so I will try to explain as best I can using this terrible keyboard.

Edit: Also, cross-buy will be enabled. Anyone can now side-load custom software on the Xbox. And their new games (Forza and Gears of War) are being coded for PC.

To sum up the article, Phil Spencer talks about the Xbox app on PC. How it's going to allow cross-platform play and all that. He then drops the bombshell that Xbox games will now be designed to work on the PC. They say that a unified console is not the best gaming experience and they plan on releasing frequent Xbox updates that follow the iPhone model of annual hardware revisions.

I also think it's kind of funny that they mention how, since the Xbox and PC are now a unified console experience with interchangeable apps, they now have the best selling gaming platform.

I am sure that there is more to talk about, but I have a class starting in ten minutes and need to leave the coffe shop.

Edit: Link because I forgot.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/01/microsoft-to-unify-pc-and-xbox-one-platforms-ending-fixed-console-hardware?CMP=twt_gu

I wonder if going forward all MS games purchased on the Xbox will come with the PC version as well, a la Quantum Break.

@adamwd: That is the word.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/01/microsoft-to-unify-pc-and-xbox-one-platforms-ending-fixed-console-hardware

As long as they dont force all pc games to be ran through that shitty app and its only their first party stuff.

@jinoru: Until they say it's happening with a Microsoft owned brand like Halo or Gears of War it should come with an asterisk.

It's certainly an interesting move, but I don't know if I can see the kind of people who buy consoles (myself included) would be willing to drop a couple of hundred every other year to keep up. If they offer some sort of subscription model, I could see it working. That's why people are willing to upgrade to new phones every year, because it's cheap up front and the cost is spread out over a year or so worth of a contract, which in addition to paying for your phone, pays for using the phones services (3G, 4G, phone calls, texts etc) all be it at a premium. Joe Public doesn't drop $700 every year for a new iPhone. They drop $100, trade in their own model and spend $40 a month or so on their contract until they do the same thing a year or a year and a half later.

If you could do the same for an Xbox and get your Xbox gold account included and maybe something like a Netflix account included to make up the value depending on the monthly cost it might be more viable.

I'm also interested to see what more developers are going to think of it.

If nothing else this year's E3 should be shaping up to be a real interesting one.

This all sounds like the end of the xbox to me. People are not going to drop $400-$500 a year a on a new xbox. The people who buy new iphones are not the same people who buy xbox consoles, sorry to break it to you Microsoft. And if you are going to be doing that, and all the games are exactly the same on PC, why would I buy an xbox when I can just play them on my PC.

Finally a major console manufacturer acknowledges market realities by hedging their bets with PC support. Can't wait to hear similar announcements from Sony...and maybe Nintendo, eventually...

I don't know.

I don't see the average consumer snapping up a new Xbox every other year. There isn't nearly the same demand as a smartphone.

Will they make Live Gold free? How many variations will they keep in retail before retiring a model?

Honestly, hearing this just tempts me to sell my system off now, and just dump the money into a new GPU.

@sterling: I don't know if they are going to expect people buy a new console every year. I haven,t purchased an Xbox yet, so if I can wait till fall and get one that can run games at 1080p/60fps then I would consider it.

Also, the iOS App Store is almost exclusively releasing games that work on my iPhone 5 (I can think of two that don't work). That's four and a half year old device, so why would an annual Xbox be any different. Consoles are filled with rules about how things get done, I can see Microsoft putting in a requirement about how all Xbox games need to support the 4 year old hardware.

I can see the next gen in 3/4 years being more of an upgrade because the PS4/XB1 they both use PC architecture they should be backwards compatible using the same games, apps, peripherals and os etc, but yearly hardware refresh seems nuts it's total opposite of what most of the console audience wants. The best I can see is an XB1.5 with a small buff to cpu and ram to run the os / apps slightly better like the New 3DS, but that would be a one off.

Why would they want to do that when they can just sell everyone the same games and more accessories over and over again?

I guess the XBOX ONE will be the last XBOX. Seems like Microsoft will just stick to the PC.

I think they will have something to let you easily plug in and play on the TV, but it won't be like all the Xbox consoles we have seen before. I wouldn't be that surprised if future consoles didn't have a disc drive though.

Woohoo Xbox 32x: beta tested in the future

http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/1/11121666/xbox-one-hardware-upgrades-phil-spencer-microsoft

I'm actually really excited about the idea of forward compatible games. I wouldn't buy a new Xbox every year but maybe every three years and be happy knowing that all my games and accessories would still work. I really really like that idea

While skimming through the article I recognized some of the quotes were taken straight from a conference I watched on youtube called the "Xbox Spring Showcase 2016" -- it seemed like a leaked video based on what was said in the video itself, but either way, I'm nothing if not positive about the stuff Phil talked about.

Also, in the video, Phil briefly mentioned "forwards and backwards compatibility" -- now, my assumption, based on those words alone, is that developers will continue to develop for the OG-XBone, and then, just like a PC, we'll start to see console games allow for customization of graphics settings -- basically, newer Xbones could then take advantage of better hardware, which means they could make the games look prettier, run better, or both.

That would also mean that everyone who doesn't want to upgrade their console every year wouldn't have to. You could upgrade it every other year, or heck, not at all if that's your thing. To me, however, a $400 or so a year upgrade to get the latest, gaming-ready system would be far preferable to buying a beast PC every few years. They'd need a trade-in system for that to work though, I think, because I don't think I can fit any more old consoles in my closet.

@monetarydread said:

Yeah, I don't think a yearly console revision is even remotely what Spencer was suggesting. The earliest they could realistically launch a revised Xbox would be this Autumn, which would be three years after the original launch and just about halfway through a typical console generation. That doesn't strike me as an unreasonably tight schedule.

Anyway, I think this is a solid idea. I doubt a revised Xbox would be leaps and bounds above the existing consoles in terms of processing power, if only because it seems like Microsoft would either strongly prefer or outright require developers to support both versions, but it would probably mean the difference between a 900p and 1080p frame buffer and a shaky versus a rock solid 30Hz frame rate.

@oursin_360 said:

That's my fear... please no. Please!

In my opinion, the two most interesting things that could come from this are cross-platform play, and a unified Xbox Live experience across platforms. If the Xbox and PC become a unified platform I don't see any reason for me to have both. I'll stick to my PC, my friends that don't have gaming PCs can stick to the Xbox, and we'll all still be able to play games together.

I like the idea anyway. We'll see how it shakes out though.

The day I can put my rare replay disc in my PC and play is the day I ditch my X1.

Sounds great but the 99% chance that all of those games will only be available on the Windows Store absolutely kills it. As much as I dislike Uplay and Origin, I'd use those every day without a word before I'd even consider using the Windows Store. If it's not on Steam, Origin, or Uplay, I'm not buying it, and considering the backlash about Quantum Break only being available on the Windows Store, I'd say most people feel the same way. Did Microsoft learn nothing from Games for Windows Live?

I think it's very interesting how about 4 or 5 years ago everyone was saying the PC was dead and there won't be many big PC games anymore. Now only a few years later it seems like people are running away from the consoles as fast as they can and going over to the PC in some form (whether it's a full-on custom build desktop, laptop, or some Steam Machine) and the future of consoles is looking like what the PC did from say 2008-2012. I just can't shake the feeling that we're headed for another crash within the next few years. It just seems like consumer confidence is pretty low right now and every console or PC that comes out that has some bullshit attached to it or isn't a blockbuster success just brings it down lower and lower. It's a sad state of affairs when we're actually surprised and excited when a game isn't broken or doesn't have bullshit DLC or micro-transactions at release. Almost like we're celebrating mediocrity because, well, that's the norm these days. Or at least that's how it feels.

Maybe they can do a "steambox" for realsies now. Main problem with that was it wasnt standardized enough. One box for most/all games, or at most two or three different varieties.

Microsoft already has a major interest in PC and on top of that they have been moving away from the console market as the company as a whole changes focus. Sony and Nintendo do not have this interest and when they will have to change course the whole industry will be in a weird place that will undoubtably look very different.

So what do they mean with 'forward compatibility'?

will an xbox 1.1 be able to play xbox 1.2 games , but at lower settings? Just like a PC can run the newest games if the user tweaks the settings a bit?

At that point , why would someone elect to buy an xbox over a pc? Both require some tinkering with settings, but a PC is way more flexible and will have a bigger library of games.

I feel like a lot of people who buy an xbox at launch will look at their games 2 years down the road, and see that they run like garbage on their old xboxes while it runs fine on the newer xboxes.

Yes. Microsoft has finally give nuclear.

@onemanarmyy: I think that's exactly what they mean. So people will be able to buy new hardware revisions like the Xbox One.2, but if they don't want to they will still be able to play new games at 900p/24.

They should just go all out and have it have a separate boot setting to run windows 10. Its been a long time coming, but consoles should be a personal computer. I personally would never use it as such, but there are plenty of people who would.

Holy shit, that's a megaton.

Does this basically mean that future Xbox hardware are more or less glorified Steam Links?

Yay I can now buy the 2 Xbox games I care about per console cycle for PC

So, like Steam Machines, different hardware tiers?

How about custom Xboxes? Will I be able to run the entire Xbox ecosystem on my Windows machine?

Crazy and exciting. We'll see.

@mike: Maybe it's just me, but i don't see why people would buy an Xbox at that point.

If you are the sort of person that wants the 'simplicity' of a console , PS4 and Wii U / NX (?) will give you that experience. (apart from the install / patches / system updates). If you want to experience the games at their highest quality and have the most games available to you, PC is the option. Xbox seems like a weird middle ground between those two choices. Sure it might be cheaper initially, but when you're upgrading every 2 years , after 6 years you will have spent at least 1200$. At that point, why wouldn't you invest in a PC? Even if you hate sitting at a desk, you could hook it up to your TV.

@onemanarmyy: I'm assuming the explanation of others here is correct: You won't have to invest in a new Xbox if you don't want to. In fact, the rate of graphical improvement in games is significantly slower than to require an upgrade every two years. Maybe every 3 or 4. However, there will be those consumers with the disposable income to upgrade more frequently, and there will also be new entrants into the market who might benefit from having a console that was updated more recently than that.

For anyone wanting to buy a new console at x point in the future, they will still have two options, an Xbox or a Playstation, and they will base that decision primarily on games - I think that Xbox has made a pretty good argument for itself on that issue to date. There will remain some portion of the audience who will buy based on performance, though, and with regular hardware updates, Xbox can make itself the platform of choice for that audience too. For those who value price over performance, the decision that anyone buying a smartphone makes is available, buy the older hardware for cheaper and you can still play most new games, but the performance may not be optimal.

Microsoft is not describing this as a new hardware model and they're right - it's very much like the phone model that has been so successful. The only question I have is whether the hardware updates will be subsidized by some service (ostensibly more expensive than Xbox Live) to make upgrades more palatable to the consumer.

I think most PC gamers will look at it this way: This means even more likelihood of no dedicated PC Ports as all meaning games like Forza, GoW, and Halo will not have much polish on PC.

This consolidation must sounds great to executives at a OS company, "Hey, lets just consolidate everything 'gamey' all under one banner and make it all work interchangeably!" Meanwhile, the gamers who have a vested interest in console games working like console games and PC gamers having an interest in high-res/high-frame-rate PC games will get shit. In two years and after a few games, they will need to walk this back too. This is Microsoft 2013 all over again...

Games are not MS Office! Consoles are not PCs, and PCs are not consoles and thye BOTH exist for good reasons. Do you know why late 80s Wintel PCs and the NES existed next to each other and didn't have one replace the other or vice-versa? Or, why each successive generation of consoles and PC have not wiped the other away? It because Consoles and PCs serve two different purposes, and the ONLY way one will kill the other is if consoles forget to be consoles and if PC forget to be PCs. They won't kill each other, one will kill itself.

Microsoft is in serious need of being shaken by the shoulders, you can't run the XBox Division like it is something that will easily consolidate into Games of Windows or Windows Phone.

This has me really, really excited in ways I'm not even sure are right or correct, but if they make a console with easily swappable parts that I don't have to worry overly much about screwing up, I'm all fucking in.

From my understanding; Phil Spencer sees the Xbox console as being the best value when it comes to price vs performance. I love my PC, but realistically, I paid twice as much as a launch PS4 for 25% better performance [ God I love how shitty the Canadian dollar is right now =( ]. Now, I am okay with that because the versatility of a PC means that I have used it more than I ever would have used a console. Some people might not have those same preferences or even the ability to afford a console.

Also, I was reading a version of the story on Polygon and Phil talks a lot about the PS4 introducing VR and relying on a separate hardware box to expand performance. Maybe there is one of those coming to the Xbox one in the future.

Not once did Spencer say anything about new Xbox One hardware on a more regular basis that runs games better.

Microsoft is all about dat Universal Windows Platform (aka universal apps). But apps aren't just the latest Asphalt game or your banking app. It's literally every piece of software now (potentially). That's what Windows 10 is all about. Making games for the UWP just means that they'll be able to run on any Windows 10 machine (that meet the hardware requirements of the game).

Xbox is still very much Microsoft's platform for gaming (unlike Games for Windows Live, etc), but that platform is no longer tied to a single piece of hardware.

@bones8677: Remember, Windows 10 will be running on the XB1 soon, according to Microsoft.

Doesn't that ultimately transform the XB1 into something like a Steammachine anyway?

It's just a box... running an OS, A PC!

@retrometal: Weren't they talking about the Windows 10 kernel update to Xbox One that happened months ago? I don't think Microsoft ever meant that the Xbox One would be running the same Windows 10 OS that PCs use.

To me, it looks like they want to prop up their platform vs the PS4 by doing a mid-generation performance bump and roping in some PC gamers to bolster their player numbers.

They've probably got a new X1 model with upped clockspeeds thanks to a process shrink and want to regain the performance crown from the PS4. By releasing a X1+, news sites can be encouraged to benchmark it vs PS4, thereby making the X1 platform look better.

Switching to Monthly Active Users would be the other half of the strategy. At the moment, that number only includes X1 players, but as they build up their Win10 audience, they'll roll those players into that number. Since there's something like 40 million gamers on Win10 right now according to Steam, why wouldn't MS want to try to target them. Think about it "It's the same game build, why shouldn't we lump the two together?"

In conspiracy level thinking, this is MS trying to break up Valve's PC platform. Valve is trying to build a plaform of Vulkan+SDL that would work for around 94% of active gamers on Steam. If MS can convince AAA studios to focus on DX12 instead, Valve backs down and Vulkan just becomes the Android low-level API.

@mike: You could be correct. I thought they were saying the XB1 would be running Windows 10. Maybe I misunderstood.

The internet in many places isn't good enough yet to justify discless consoles yet I don't think. maybe in 7-10 years but not for the next console generation.

So the console market is now just Sony and Nintendo.... This means sony will have an even bigger hold on the market.

PCPer has some commentary on this from yesterday and today.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/General-Tech/PC-Gaming-Shakeup-Ashes-Singularity-DX12-and-Microsoft-Store

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Microsoft-plans-merge-PC-and-Xbox-gaming

It's the Universal App model for games, essentially. The implications of this for the future of Windows PCs are as big as those for the future of the Xbox. These won't be traditional Windows applications, and it seems this is a continuation of the push that started with Windows 8 to phase out the previous model of Windows development in favor of a closed system directly managed by Microsoft.

From all the PC boards i look at there is a small market. Most people want to build a pc or buy console. Steam box showed us how big that market was.

If the next Xbox is more like a windows 10 box I could see it. Not say it would definitely happen but I think it's possible.

@jesus_phish: I've never felt compelled to "keep up" with my pc. I play comfortably on 3 year old hardware.

Though I'm getting in the broader question of whether its even worth it to be on top of the current games.

@cooperb212: That is... until SEGA MAKES IT'S RETURN!

...but that's the thing. Maybe they did and it'll turn out the Windows/XBox store will be good.

The people behind the "backlash" over QB only being on the Windows Store is a subset of a subset. Near irrelevant. If the games are good and the interface isn't garbage, gamers have incredibly short memories, and they'll buy in.

That stuff about Xbox revisions every year or every other year or whatever? Yeah, fuck that. Not buying in on that.