@colourful_hippie: I don't think he said it was going to be thin. Just that people aren't talking about this stuff until the last minute. what I think Jeff said was that information ahead ahead of the show was, "At an all-time low". That doesn't mean that the show is thin. I think we'll find that the opposite is true, and we're going to have quite a bit of new things being shown and discussed this year. Can't wait.

@laxbro19: I think you read into what I was saying far too much, and I don't know where you got that I was saying MS and Sony on the same level as Comcast because they simply aren't. They're doing far more for consumer faith than they have in the past, as well as compared to other industries and fields, and it's showing in features like backwards compatibility, cross-play/cross-buy, and other areas. I don't think it's also accurate to say that Sony or Microsoft are "weathering hard times" - even Microsoft who is behind in console sales to Sony, is up about 5 million units on the same pace the Xbox 360 had from the info I can gather. They really don't have an incentive other than what I said to offer some pack-ins like XBL or games - if the games that keep coming out work on both skus, that'll likely be their angle. You don't HAVE buy the new sku, but they'll more than happily sell it to you. It's the same idea that EVGA might do a step-up program but does Gigabyte, Asus, or other PC component manufacturers? Not that I know of (could just be ignorant of the info here) but they don't have an incentive to,

There's no scheming in what I said. The reality is that these are businesses - regardless of how much we want to put stock in them as being "for the people" they'll still make decisions based on multiple factors, and a major one that you correctly pointed to is consumer trust and faith, but they've also got to consider the ramifications. Three Red Light fiasco cost $1.5bn and that's just fixing a mistake to make things right for the consumers.

My point here is that business is business - there's an aspect of it that has to be consumer friendly, and it surely will be if they're going to actually bring out new skus in both 2016 and 2017. The fact of the matter is however that they don't need to give away the farm or provide an upgrade path. If Eurogamer/Digital Foundry starts putting up articles that games look decent on Xbox One and Ps4 but the Xbox1.5 version is the definitive console edition, on par with say a GTX970 on PC - the headlines across mainstream gaming sites will be "looks best on Xbox" - with very few people reading into caveats and whatnot - this leads to the standard consumer seeing headlines, walking into a Best Buy and grabbing the latest and greatest Xbox console. And all the while it doesn't matter what we think MS or Sony should've done - because we're talking about this in a frankly small corner of the internet that doesn't reflect the 18 million Xbox owners and the 40 million PS4 users.

If I'm Phil - we announce the slim redesign as a "available now" at E3 with a quick montage to either lead in or fade out of the presser - and in the coming months start talking about and showing the Xbox Scorpio or whatever it is and talking about the upgrade path in terms of "If you buy an Xbox One in 2016, you can pick up the Xbox Scorpio from a Microsoft Store for $100 off, get a year of Xbox Live Gold, and find these three titles to kick off your new experience" - the $100 off is probably a stretch but if it's tacked on to "only at a microsoft store" the chance you might pick up a controller or other game are a little greater and that loss is negated directly.

This is a very insightful comment. I was one of the "noooo MS what are you doing" folk, without really knowing why, until I read this. I think part of it is that it feels like they're shoehorning a marketing opportunity into the middle of a console cycle and making current owners feel like they're no longer the target market--worse, turning the longtime loyal owners into 2nd class customers. I'm not saying I hold this view, I just think that's probably a meaningful component to the resistance.

Also, I don't have a lot of mental bandwidth for dealing with lots of different options and parts. Video cards, processors, etc., all just sounds exhausting. It's why a gaming PC doesn't sound feasible for me, so I wouldn't like for consoles to stop having that simplicity.

And the thing that no one yet mentioned, even if everyone moves from Console to PC Microsoft still wins. Because who's gaming on Mac or Linux. Valve tried the push and so far I'm utterly disappointed by developer support. Sure there's tons of indie titles and the (very) occasional AAA.

Let's hope that Vulkan and native Linux support in all the major game engines will change that over the coming years. But as of right now Windows is where it's at.

100% getting a PC if I ever decide to upgrade from my PS3. I was almost entirely convinced PC was the way to go around a year ago, but the iterative nature of this generation has dealt the hammer blow. Pony up more for decent hardware upfront, but factor in the massive reductions on games, longevity of components, ease of upgrade, and versatility of the format, and it's a no-brainer.

@bigprimenumbers: I feel the same confusion over people's reluctance to look at a new model for this kind of thing.

If we're being honest here, I feel like this is a business model that should have happened already.

The only worry I see most people bring up is how badly smartphones are sold and marketed. That may be true, but, as obnoxious as it can sometimes be, the gaming community is far more vocal about when they feel they've been taken advantage of. Any attempt to show that same kind of "Apple" level arrogance here probably won't go over well.

The real takeaway for me is that I need to sell my X1 soon while I can get something for it. I have nothing against the system, but beyond Killer Instinct and Forza, both of which are coming to PC, I have no real reason to keep it anymore.

Considering the bad press and just general incompetence surrounding it lately, the news on oculus support is a moot point as well. Good on MS for possibly adding it, but I'm not sure the headset is going to get much love.

@williamflattener: That was super refreshing to get a response that was actually cordial! Much appreciated :)

While I totally understand some of the trepidation that some have (and this not necessarily being your view), I feel it might be a little misplaced. I don't know that this is shoehorning a marketing opportunity, and instead an admission that the rate at which hardware evolves nowadays leaves the consoles behind more quickly than in the past. I had a bunch of friends jump ship from console to PC last generation because the systems got too long in the tooth, something these companies surely want to stem. Of course MS and Sony are happy to sell more hardware, but these two companies don't make much on the tech (sometimes even taking a loss, making it up in software), especially in the early years with new hardware, so they don't stand to turn much in profits. The 2nd class customer notion would make sense if the new hardware became the focus and the older hardware was ignored, but again, that doesn't appear to be their goal (instead trying to bridge hardware iterations with old and new software); people with older hardware are still privy to the same games (which is why we all come to the table, right?).

I'm totally with you on the bandwidth part of dealing with PC. I have a job, family, responsibilities, and personally just want the simplest, direct, most comfortable way to enjoy my gaming. At this point in my life, I don't want to fuss with drivers, installing new hardware, troubleshooting, etc. but buying a more powerful version of consoles I know, understand, and enjoy while also bringing my game library with me sounds like a great in-between.

What kills me is that they are pointing to the cell phone model for why this is a good idea. With being on AT&T, the new iPhone only cost me $50, compared to $849

E3 is gonna be exciting for sure. I'll hop in bed with anyone who can promise me 60fps games as standard.

@neozeon: Totally agree with you that this model makes sense. I think the longevity of last generation showed that the old console model just couldn't hold water with the frequency of hardware improvements; the previous systems were far outclassed at their EOF, and the new consoles were hardy enough at first, but are already a bit behind ~3 years in (though still demonstrating some awesome stuff!). As time becomes more and more of a premium for me, I almost certainly will stick with consoles due to their straight-forward, well-known, and comfortable delivery of games for me, but much love to those who play their games elsewhere! We're all here for the same reason :)

I think this is the problem with both being on x86 hardware. Now power is an apple to apples comparison and many gamers went PS4 because it was easier to tell which way it was pointing (not easy with 360 vs PS3). With so little to differentiate them this means the only option for Xbox to catch up is to grab the power needle back which in turn made Sony respond to even rumors of that and here we go on the hardware upgrade warpath. My personal opinion is that this is a win because really I'd rather just see consoles be PCs with dedicated interfaces and limited hardware/driver selection to give them rock solid stability.

From a purely technological perspective, this makes total sense. When these consoles launched they were mid-range at best. With the recent die shrink for GPUs, it's going to be a night and day difference between consoles and a decent 2016 PC.

If you think about it, it makes total sense that consoles get a turbo boost with a (meaningful) die shrink, or in other words, about every three years. I mean, that's been happening for a couple generations anyway. Both the 360 and PS3 benefited from a big die shrink, but instead of getting more power they maintained power and became smaller.

So now assume consoles move to a regular tick-tock cycle. We're in a new generation now. These new consoles come out, and are just more powerful versions of existing consoles. The first iteration gets made into a slim model, but they both play the same games. Then in around 2020, a new generation of consoles come out. These play totally new games that the old ones can't play, and maybe the turbo charged previous console gets a slim version.

By doing this you ensure two things; console generations still last ten years (initial, slim & turbo, slim-turbo), and consoles are able to keep up reasonably well with PCs. While CPU development has basically leveled off, GPUs still have room for improvement. See the recent Nvidia release. And with viable VR hardware hitting the market, it's paramount that consoles have the horsepower to support them in the event they're truly "the future of video games".

Microsoft's and Sony's challenge is effectively communicating this to consumers.

Personally? I'm a diehard Xbox player, and always will be. I'm in the midst of building a PC, and am feeling pretty good about it now that it seems like Microsoft is pivoting to release all first party titles on both Xbox and Windows, including Halo. And with CPU releases becoming less important, an overclockable Skylake processor will last for over five years. I'll have to upgrade my GPU once in a few years and that's it.

That being said, I'll still want to keep an Xbox around. The one-two punch of Games with Gold and backwards compatibility has been killer! If I can continue to sell my original model and get the slim one for very little, and main releases continue to be $400, it still makes sense for me to keep around a console given the massive back catalogue of games available to me. ESPECIALLY since it's very likely future consoles will be fully compatible with the previous generation of games.

@falconer: Well said. Not all of this is doom and gloom. There is definitely room for this business model, and it gives consumers real options about what they want from a system. It will be interesting to see which company blinks first with an on boarding program. My bet is on Sony. They seem really keen on being gamer and consumer friendly. But Microsoft have been changing their tune recently and are behind in sales compared to the PS4, although both consoles are still selling quite well and even outperforming the old generation of systems in terms of units sold to date. I do hope that they both ditch the old habit of locking out games from previous generations. I would be happy to have Xbox and Playstation games be available across the iterations of consoles so that we can have large libraries with only the level of performance the games run at and which exclusives you want being the deciding factor, instead of having to make tough choices over which console sku plays which games. Ideally we would have a market where everyone can play everything and the only choice we have to make is how good we want it to look. That might sound nieve, but from what the report Austin gave on the site a few weeks back, Sony seem to be really keen on keeping everyone on board and as happy as possible. I was someone who was fed up with the way games looked and ran on 360 and PS3 at the end of the system's life span, especially in open world games. I knew PC stuff was out there that would blow my socks off but I knew at the same time I could never afford the investment at the time to get those results. Now it sounds like if my Xbox One or PS4 isn't doing it for me like I want it to, I have an option that is just right for me.

I could see buying an xbox one slim if it was priced cheap. Like, $149.99 cheap!

i think that xbox scorpio will a new console that has backwards compatibility with xbox one games but develepers are allowed to make exclusive game for it, the reason is that the power difference between xbox one and scorpio is too high ( 4 times the power to the xbox ones ) and that is just the TFLOPS, memory also will be different ( no more ddr3 or esram, it will be gdrr5 or gddr5x and it won't be 8 it could be up 32GB).

Microsoft is doing the same thing they did with the orignal xbox and the xbox 360, cut their current console short and realease the next machine before the competition.

Zero chance of that happening. The current version retails for $350. When the 360 S came out it was the same price as the original 360 at the time ($300). There's no way the Xbone Slim is less than $250. Seeing as Xbone games install to the hard drive no matter what, you can't ship without a HDD to get the price down lower like with the 360.

Except the big difference here is that the Xbox One (and PS4) are essentially off the shelf PC components. That will continue with these new versions as well. How do PC games work? Different, but similar, hardware with a WIDE range of capabilities. How do developers account for that? Different graphical settings. And unlike games running on a PC, devs will only have to target four different hardware types for their games running on consoles.

Not to mention if a new console generation started after only 3-4 years everyone would revolt and buy a PC. Sony has zero intention of starting a completely new generation, so there's so way Microsoft will on their own. The only exclusive games you could possibly see on the new consoles are VR games.

@falconer: if people were into pc gaming ps4 won't have solt 40m, nor xbox 20m, the reality is that desktop pc are out of fashion, now people buy laptops, or tables, very few still want a "tower pc" that occupies space in the house, and if MS/Sony/Nintendo/Some other company could provide a box that does have good enough graphics they will buy it.

@alexgbro: News flash, consoles are "out of fashion" too. Kids these days almost exclusively play games on their phones.

PC being out of fashion is something that isn't currently happening especially with streaming being extremely popular with a lot of people who play games and typically stream using their PCs even those who play on their consoles but still use the PC as the streaming machine for overlays, etc. Otherwise, there are people who buy or build PCs at the consumer level that aren't necessarily building huge towers but prefer smaller cases or set-ups. Companies like NVIDIA, AMD, Intel along with hardware and accessory companies like Razer, Logitech, Asus, Gigabyte, Corsair, etc. wouldn't continue to iterate or exist if PCs particularly at the consumer level were "out of fashion" (though AMD is currently having some trouble internally but that is a different story altogether and has more to do with trying to compete with NVIDIA).

Fact is that PC gaming or the PC in general isn't a SKU dependent business like the console platforms are because there are different ways a consumer can acquire one (e.g. built by buying parts individually, bought pre-built, or customised but built by a third party). Just because consoles are selling millions of units doesn't mean that PC is declining or out of fashion. It just doesn't have to compete directly with gaming consoles.

One only needs to look at Nvidia's GPU sales to see that PC gaming is getting more popular every year, not the other way around. If you want to learn more you can review this AnandTech article on Nvidia's recent earnings report which provides some insight into the current state of the PC gaming market. Nvidia's GPU division alone is bringing in $1 billion in revenue per quarter and that number is consistently going up, in this case 10% from the same period last year. That is significant growth, and equal or higher numbers have been consistently seen in Nvidia's earnings reports for previous periods as well.

If people "weren't into PC gaming" then GPU sales would be on a consistent decline year after year, however we see here that in fact the opposite is true. This has nothing to do with consoles or the popularity of consoles. There are plenty of people who own both PCs and consoles, the two aren't mutually exclusive and there is no correlation between console sales and some imaginary decline of PC gaming. If you ever want to actually become informed about what you're talking about, the information is all freely available for you to review.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9500/nvidia-fy-2016-q2-results

@falconer: true, kinds are into mobile, but maybe when they try out Vr, they will go OMG this in incredible

I think having 2-3 year console releases is a really bad idea. Kinda misses the purpose of buying a console. At that point it just makes more sense to go with pc gaming.

Xbox 1 is now 299 for 500 gig versions, 316ish for 1 terabyte versions: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1226021