Microsoft Plans to Upgrade Xbox One Hardware, Unify PC and Console Platforms

Want a refund for Gears of War: Ultimate Edition for Windows 10 - Expect "humor"

@zombievac: Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Do you realize that you are practically saying:

"Developers are having trouble optimizing on the XB1 because of it's hardware limitations. There's no way upgrading the hardware could help."

I feel like I'm reading system wars circa 2004.

@notnert427:

"I have a launch Xbox One. I'm not concerned about them making an upgraded Xbox One, because there's no reason at this point to believe games won't simply scale accordingly, especially when they're sharing even more architecture than ever with the PC versions."

perhaps I've oversimplified things in my head but this is exactly how I'd see it too. The XOne could have multiple versions, and the game could have settings that default for each version, much in the same way that PC games have sliders for their various performance-related settings.

Wouldn't this extend the life of the generation significantly? If the user-base is only soft-split in terms of people still being able to play a game, but just with different output quality settings depending on whether they have an 'Xbox One Point Two' or an 'Xbox One Point Three', then I don't see this as any kind of a 'betrayal' of the user base as some seem to be suggesting...

...perhaps how people would feel about that would be a reflection of their individual economic willingness to pay and emotional connection to the value of what they've already bought being de-valued by the release and sale of an improved version?

If this had been part of the advertising from the beginning, it would be acceptable--"Hey guys, the Xbox One has an upgrade path, and if you are willing to chip in a couple hundred bucks every two years, it's just going to get better and better. No other console can do that!" As it is, this represents a huge violation of the implied contract. Every single person who bought an Xbox One did so with the assumption that they would be able to play all Xbox One games at their highest fidelity. This isn't just "switching horses mid-stream"--it's forcing the owner to pay to switch horses or to go with the lame one they are on now. All that said, I can't get too mad. My Xbox One is gathering dust as it is. Anything that makes me want to play it more is a good thing. I do think my limit for upgrading might sit at about $150 though. Any more than that, and I'll just upgrade a PC component instead and let the Xbox continue to be my son's Lego Dimensions box while I field questions about why we didn't just get Lego for the PS4 and save room in the entertainment center (my current answer: "cause Quantum Break is coming"--I sure hope that turns out well).

@nerdbloggerdan: Yeah I agree, gamers expect a certain path when they buy into a console generation. This sounds like it should be an entirely different product that sits between a PC and a console like a Steam Machine.

Start doing tis to consoles and we're back to the discussion parents had in the 90s: "What?! There's a Super Nintendo? But you already have a Nintendo!"

Xbox gamers already bought in on this generation at $500, now they're being told their investment might not even last as long as they thought. All those people who are saying they shouldn't have bought an X1 because QB is coming to PC are just feeling validated now, and the people who really wanted a console due to convenience and long term investment are feeling burned.

At this point it would probably be a good idea to eBay those X1s and just get a PC, they'll only go down in value and the next step up will truly be just an unupgradeable PC with a premium pricetag.

Even if MS goes with their plan of having a modular system you'll only ever get a small subset of PC hardware to choose from and you'll never be able to use OEM parts because of the nature of security on a console where it requires parts to be keyed and paired.

There is a market for cheap convenient consoles. There is a market for mid/high end custom PCs. But this thing that's not quite a PC and not quite a console, and is more expensive with none of the advantages of either, just seems like a mistake.

@extintor: What do you expect from an XB1.5, how much would it cost? To get 1080/60 gaming you would need to spend $800 on PC, a $300 graphic's card won't net you a stable 60fps on console high for Fallout 4 & Witcher 3. The best you could hope for is $500 XB1.5 1080/40 which would be pointless as most games on console are locked 30fps, you'd be spending $500 to have less frame drops and tearing. As develops get better with the hardware this'll happen less and less as time goes on anyway, the visual and performance difference between Ghosts/Battlefield 4 and BLOPS3/Battlefront is quite stark.

@nasher27: I'm not saying a hardware upgrade wouldn't perform better, I'm saying they're already having trouble optimizing the games for one set of hardware. Add more and we're going to have trouble unless they step up their game. It's already, theoretically, not hard to do on a console vs. the wide array of system configs on PC, yet they still can't get it right now even more than ever, it seems.

When I heard about this, my initial thought was that they were following the same path that got them into legal trouble when they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows to gain an advantage over competing browsers. This time they're attempting to bundle Xbox One type functionality on Windows under the guise of creating an ecosystem to gain an advantage over its closest competitor, the PS4.

I'm glad I wasn't alone.

@girlusocrazy: Hi there. Stepping just to ask a few question so that can understand your stance and point of view. Since I've looked at this whole thing with a lot of excitement and hope, maybe I've been looking at it the wrong way and I'm trying to understand why people are so fast to dismiss what MS is trying to do. You guys might be right and I wanna know why. Because I have not seen any posts or comments proving me MS is on the wrong track based on the information we have right now.

1: Do you mean that console buyers WANT to lock themselves up from potential incremental hardware upgrades?
2: Do you feel a console owner should pay the same price for a game that runs better and give the player a better experience on PC?
3: Do you think that Games makers such as Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft should only release their games on Steam when it comes to PC?
4: Don't you think there is a lot of assumptions that MS in regards to how Microsoft is planning to do this upgrade thing because Microsoft being Microsoft has not givent the proper answers people want to have as of right now and that all this might turn out to be a great solution?

I don't expect anything definitively yet because the plan hasn't really been outlined in anything but the broadest of strokes conceptually.

Perhaps Xbox One (point two) will be a re-design that makes it structurally more receptive to future modular upgrades than the current base model? Perhaps modular upgrades would be possible on a GPU/RAM/CPU level if that was the case? If they went that route it would still be a more standardized and closed system to develop for than a PC because each 'upgrade' would be to a microsoft standard rather than multiple options as is the case with PC upgrades.

I think that there's something fundamentally sane about the idea of creating a platform that can incrementally change in a way that is controlled by the manufacturer.

PCs aren't just used for gaming and the big problem with developing for PC is the issue of configuration variety. Let's say that the core of the Xbox stays the same, but there are two or three incremental upgrades which offer improved performance or graphical options. All titles still come out on all versions. Those that pay more get to play the titles to the highest spec (as is the case with PC gaming). The only concern I'd have with such a plan would be an absence of manufacturer competition and the high prices that would likely bring.

@nashvilleskyline: Hello, I don't think there's any wrong way to look at it, just a lot of speculation based on few facts for now. MS presented a very vague plan and all we have to go on is their current policies and implementations of UWP.

1. Yes. Console gamers want to buy a system with a guaranteed optimal experience that lasts 5 years, and do not want to keep spending money on upgrades to keep getting an optimal experience on the platform. The existence of a higher tier may mean compromises on the lower end and introduce fringe issues, since testing will be more difficult for the developer.

2. Yes. Just as much work goes into optimizing for one platform as another. You'd pay as much for a PS4 game as you do a Wii U game or Xbox One game. PC games may be cheaper as less platform fees may be charged and pricing isn't subject to console manufacturer policies.

3. No, for all online stores and platforms so both devs and users have choice.

4. Such as what? Is there a key assumption that you think is shifting the conversation to something completely out of touch? Right now a lot of the conversation is based around MS's UWP on Xbox announcement as well as what Tim Sweeney of Epic is saying:

"Microsoft has launched new PC Windows features exclusively in UWP and is effectively telling developers you can use these Windows features only if you submit to the control of our locked-down UWP ecosystem."

@girlusocrazy: Thanx.
Just to let you know. I for one, been primary a console owner and gamer for the last 10 years now. And the idea of being able to upgrade my console, let's say every 2-3 years, and not have to invest in a PC has been my wish fo for probably the last 6 years.
It didn't help that the last console generation lasted as long as it dit though.
I would also say that many of my friends who mainly play on console wish the same. I understand the counter arguments and it's totally fair and based on the console concept and heritage. But I think that concept needs to be changed as every other entertainment plateformes already did and embraced this path.
It may be a hard one to swallow, but this is what consoles are going to become, if they still are a thing in 5-10 years or course.
Thank you for taking the time to answer back!

@nashvilleskyline: I don't think the console needs to change, but I see no problem with a third option such as the Steam Machine and MS making their own offering there.

I just feel that by assimilating the Xbox One into that vision they are giving up on the market segment which wants a simple appliance that plays games, which is a giant segment, the console market is larger this generation than last and even the Xbox One is outpacing 360 sales as MS mentioned many times this generation. Why give that up? I believe if Xbox One buyers were told at the beginning of this generation that this would happen, they would have opted for the cheaper and longer lasting path of the PS4, or would have gone full PC with all of the advantages plus Steam/Origin library, not a machine that will soon be out of date, costs a premium to upgrade, and only has the Windows Store library.

A gaming PC could have been bought at the same price as an Xbox One at launch. When these consoles and prices were announced, many sites such as anandtech and ars had breakdowns of gaming PCs that matched console specs for a similar price.

If the idea of a system that cost the same as a console but was upgradeable was so attractive, why didn't you or your friends get such a PC build?

This idea of a consoleized PC that you can upgrade only means that you will pay more than a PC with the same spec hardware, it will be cheaper to buy a PC than stick with the Xbox One upgrade path.

First, you can't upgrade the current Xbox One. You can't even open the box to put a new hard drive. You will have to buy the more powerful version at full price and hope someone will buy your old out of date one.

Second, even if you can upgrade the Xbox One 2.0, MS won't sell you those parts at cost, or let you put generic parts in a protected system. These upgrades will be offered through MS, with a premium charged on the approved selection of parts.

So again, an upgradeable Xbox One doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. Maybe it could be a good third option. Sacrificing the PC and console distinction for a system that has none of the benefits of either seems like a mistake.

@girlusocrazy: Yet again, I disagree with you because I, once again, would have been even more compelled to buy into the Xbox ecosystem fully knowing that from now on, my games would always follow me. Which has never been the case in previous generations. All my previous console libraries have been tied to it's own time and system (well...apart from the 360 that is lurking it's way back to the xbox which I absolutely adore even though some games are a little rough around the edges.)
Once again, speaking for myself, I prefer a console ecosystem, not a PC. But I want the advantages of the PC too without having to spend the extra investment of it.
Those advantages that I am looking for are :
- Games that I purchase will always be available
- The option to upgrade the system itself and keep that library
- Having the option to play the games with people that play on other plateformes.
- Having the option to be able to play on my PC at lunch and at home on the console.

And that...is pretty much the vision I'm seeing being offered by MS.

This is what I, myself, want. Maybe not you, maybe not many people who bought the Xbox One in the first place. But I can't talk for anybody else.

Also, think about it. We are 2 years and a half into this generation. We have learned from last generation that we won't see another 7-8 years cycle. We can estimate another 2 years and a half before the next round of consoles. Whatever this new MS vision is, it won't see the light of day before another year. Then, once it's out there, I don't really see Developers being able to fully take advantage of it before another year. The worst that can happen is day one Xbox One owners will have a lesser console than it's new iteration owners...which honestly, in this day and age, is not the end of the world considering the 800$ ipad or 600$ phone that I buy is being outpaced every year by it's new iteration.

@girlusocrazy: also...just so you know
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-exec-responds-to-pc-gaming-monopoly-concerns/1100-6435372/

But I'll stop lol :) don't want to monopolize the Thread.
Have a good day

@nashvilleskyline: Thanks, checking it out now

Have a good one

I think UWP being open source makes everything click a little more. Windows 10 store won't need to be another steam. It can be MS's Origin. And if UWP games can be released on steam, developing for it makes more sense. Especially if it makes it easier to develop for PC and Xbox One at the same time.

I read Microsofts' responses, and they don't really help assuage all the concerns about this being monopolistic. It may appear like it's better now because it's an "open ecosystem," except it really isn't. It may appear like one because they're trying to focus on multiplatform developers.

Why would either Sony or Nintendo want to publish their games on UWP? That undercuts their own platform businesses and is a benefit to a competitor. There's a difference between Microsoft having a PC game division and an Xbox game division that aren't unified, and one ecosystem that unifies both of them. If successful, and that's a very big IF, they would be leveraging their Windows business to try to boost their console business. It may seem good to some consumers, but it is fairly anticompetitive as it relates to the console market. The only thing that might save them from another antitrust lawsuit is that Sony already has a big lead this generation.

Sony and Nintendo weren't writing win32 applications anyway, it's hard to draw a straight line from Windows to them.

The problem is if win32 becomes "legacy" and not fit for games of a future era, and if the only way to write games for Windows is using UWP, and if the only way to run UWP applications is to download them from the Windows Store...and if writing games for Windows is still the only way to make money off PC games? That's a hellish nightmare.

Consoles are one thing, but if it even looks like the only way to run Windows programs might eventually be to buy them directly from Microsoft there will be a lot of comment about antitrust issues. Whether it amounts to anything is another question, since the FTC is useless now.

The only actual response Microsoft had to Sweeney's op-ed was that apps can be "side-loaded" to the Windows Store. That's a pretty good indication that the awful future is very close.

@mavs: This. If not now, then probably later. I have no doubt that's their desired destination.

The first step in being more liberal with hardware would be for Sony and MS to sell consoles which can actually take advantage of an SSD.

I think we should just go back to a five year cycle. Technology's advancing just as fast, slowing down the cycling insured that consoles would never be able to keep up with PC gaming. (Not that they ever really have) The entire advantage of console gaming is consistency. Developers can work acutely on making their game run well on very specific hardware. Microsoft really shouldn't fuck with that.

I play the hell out of my X1, it does exactly what I want a console to do, play games! Sure they don't run as great as the PC or PS4, and I'm very okay with that. This hardware update this early scares me, I don't want to think of the fact that my barely year old Xbox could become obsolete if I dont upgrade. I have too much invested game wise, I really hope they address these issues earlier than E3.

@mrhadouken: Presumably you would be able to play the new games that come out and would just turn the settings down, which would make those newer games look closer to the ones released during your revision. This is my understanding with their intention of including in depth setting so users can pick and choose what it is that's compromised based on their preferences.

I imagine you'll have a problem running games that are released after your revision in a period of time similar to when you would expect a new generation of consoles.

A modular xbox could work if they follow the Nintendo way of doing it instead of the Sega way.

Sega created add ons that were all know consoles basically. The 32x games didn't work on a Genesis. Or Sega CD. However Nintendo made the Game Boy Color, for example. A more powerful system, that had a lot of games that worked on both a Game Boy and Game Boy Color. Even look now to the New 3DS. It plays the old games. Most games for it work on the old 3DS, but are better on the New 3DS.

Microsoft would have to require its game be scalable. They look better on the uograded Xbox, but it still plays on the old. Then they could release one every 2 years or so and always stay ahead of the competition.

Thing is there is little reason for developers to aim for a later version, basically you start aiming for a fraction of the fraction of the user base.

Generally speaking I think MS did an awful job in pitching this idea the way they did.

This is so against the core characteristics of console gaming that you better bring a strong case for iterative hardware progress and a sound, concrete plan when make stuff like this public.

There is also no case that the same people that are fine to replace their phones every other year to do the same with their consoles.

Most people I know that play on consoles foremost (me personally gaming on a PC) do that also because they expect to make an investment in the hardware every 6 +/- 2 years and don't have to bother with all that upgrade, manually set up optimal graphic settings and so forth stuff I personally love to mess around on the PC. It will be a hard sell for these people to see their personal benefit in replacing their console of choice by a new version of the same platform every couple of years.

@ir0n: Cell phone and tablet industry says "Hi"

That's why tablet sales are down across the board?

As I wrote people tend to replace their phones on a more frequent basis simply because the providers heavily incentivize to do so and even then the phone sales are down as of late (as the increments a given generation outperforms the previous ones get smaller each time, there is less reason to switch at first opportunity).

You can't deduct from a given class of consumers' behavior in one field how they act in another field. If every one that replaces his/her phone at a 2 years frequency would be fine to do so with tech across the board all those TV manufacturers that hoped the sales figures from the initial HD flat screen hype years would carry on would not have faced the challenges they did the past years.

It's all a matter of expectation a given consumers has towards a product and I think the main benefit a console still has over a PC as primary gaming platform is that you expect to buy a hardware once and be set for 6 something years down the line.

Let's see what E3 brings - personally I hope it turns out good but MS really has to put those initial statements in context.

When they ask me to commit to a locked down software paired with iterative updated hardware, personally I go all the way and choose both software and hardware to be up to my personal choice by choosing a PC instead.

The thing is that with tablets and especially Phones, you don't need to change as often as to most people do. The diminishing return on those devices as years go by is greater and greater. On a 400$ console though, I wouldn't mind changing every 2-3 years if that gets me to play games with better graphics and framerate without having to play those on a PC. I really don't understand why people seem to completely dismiss people like me who don't like playing on a PC but would like to benefit from having better hardware every couple of years, at a reasonnable price of course. I don't get it.

There's nothing wrong with you looking forward to those possibilities.

It's just questionable if this makes you representative for the average console player and how the majority of people that spent money on a Xbox One at max two years ago will react if a version 1.1 hits stores by holiday season.

It's also questionable how much more horse powers MS can put in an updated console currently, assuming they stick to the current price point.It's not that the prices for CPU, RAM etc took a nosedive during the past two years. Is it sufficient for average Joe to spend another 400 bucks if they can amp it up enough to run games that are 720p or 900p on the current One to run at 1080 on 1.1?

As the bomb crew stated the kind of audience for that box seems rather small and there are so many variables and uncertainties connected to that change in how console business worked so far, that the chance of screwing it up is probably bigger than to make it work.

Looking at how they mess up PC gaming once again at the moment, I just don't believe them being able to pull it off.

There is two sides of this and I don't think either side by itself or in-combination will be well served by a 'unified app environment' system. Nor do I think ist will be practical for a console to work as a console should to be upgrade-able yet still work with software that DID work in the past or work with newer games in teh future if the platform is a moving target. Notice, I said for the console to work as it should , which is to be as plug & play as possible. Meaning, if you buy the game for a console it will either work on your and everyone else's console or it won't. (Where it WON'T work, being defined as something like the shit Bethesda pulls crashing, crawling (not just merely slow) frame-rates, and various game-save destroying bugs.

A consoles is supposed to run software, and do so with an IMPROVED reliability over PCs. That is why consoles are CLOSED platforms that all work the same, because their trade off is NON-flexibility of things like frame-rate, modifications, resolution, and various other niceties the PC platform offers. PCs on the other hand trade flexibility for the possibility that on any given computer with its multitude of various parts of various manufactures of various vintages might not - PCs trade flexibility of choices for reliance of teh user being willing to tweak and fix issues themselves.

As other have said, this is the worst of both world. A closed off, non-flexible PC ports; in addition to worse reliability for the consoles because any given Xbox One could be one of 'many' if not hundred of possible permutations depending on teh choices they want to provide. The saving grace of a game like The Division and a company like Ubisoft is that while their PC ports sucks at least the game works on PC4 and XBOne. Imagine this past week discussions if the XBox One and PC versions were junk? The console is and always will be the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) of gaming. If we let that go away gaming will be a worse, less fun place for everyone.

If Microsoft wants a closed garden where games work on devices easily and where everything is simplified - well, fuck son, that was SUPPOSED to be the Xbox! And, because of they already had that we know that simplification and making things better was NEVER Microsoft intention at all. What Microsoft want was control and a bite of everyone's sandwich - they want to get a profit form the entire chain. That woudl be like your bakery saying they controls SANDWICHES in you town because they make the platform of Wonder Bread.

Alright. I quit. There doesn't seem to be a any possibility to make some of you guys understand why this could be a good thing for some other people. So yeah, I don't think there is anything else I can say :) Have a good day to you all!