It's 10 device installs, not how many times you can reinstall. They also recently mentioned that they're going to fix both the SLI and Vsync stuff.

Aaand this is why ps4 has and will continue to dominate the console market.

Ok, here is another way to look at this. Microsoft currently maintains 3 ecosystems for home users, PC phone and console.They own the PC. On the other hand, it does seem like the future does not contain game consoles as the monolithic boxes that we currently enjoy. The phone battle has them in a distant third with no obvious niche. If I were them, I would be trying to get everybody comfortable with the idea of a PC for everything as quickly as possible. If that starts with some kind of weird Xbox-PC hybrid, then so be it.

My only concern is that the PC will become even more of a closed system as a result. That is certainly where Microsoft has been going with Windows 8 and 10.

I can't see how this will work out well for Microsoft. If you are the sort of gamer who is happy to buy into upgrading a system on a semi-regular basis why would you not just cut out the middle man and buy a PC? One of the major appeals of consoles to the mainstream consumer is having one box that they know will run any game they buy on it (let's ignore broken games being released for now) without having to worry about upgrading it the next time a big game is released.

This could prove to be fantastic for the hardcore gamer in having more and better games available in more places but I fear it will isolate them when it comes to the mainstream as we saw with the initial disaster than was the Xbox One reveal/release.

@austin_walker said:

"The rumored PlayStation VR external processing box?"

Dr. Richard Marks talked about this at the Vision AR/VR Summit.

It's not a big upgrade or external processing box, the PS4 still does all the work. The breakout box converts that work for TV input/display, while simultaneously feeding to the PSVR. However the breakout box does process 3D audio unsure if that means no PS4 GPU/CPU cycles spent are Audio. Sounds like maybe it's just an effect or enhancement?

Surprise surprise, more Giant Bomb editorial staff shitting on Xbox. Listen, the plan doesn't sound perfect. And there is sure to be bumps along the way but at least they are acknowledging that there is room for improvement and these consoles can't stay in the same 7 year cycle we are accustomed too. So what if the PC games don't get the accustomed features PC gamers are use to? It will come in time.

Yes, I love my Xbox but I love my PS4 and Wii U too. I don't game on PC but it's hilarious listening to the bombcast this week shit all over Phil Spencer's vision for the brand. It's not perfect but at least they are trying to bring a unified vision to both Windows and Xbox. Baby steps guys. They'll reach whatever vision you have in your heads in due time.

I love that PC gamer's will be able to get there hand on Forza Motorsport 6

seems like the way this could work is to not have any games be reliant on the upgraded machines. In other words all games would have to work on the weakest iteration of the console. Theoretically games could scale up if being played on an Xbox with better Hardware. I s'pose they could start adding PC like graphical options to better frame rate and resolution, shadows, aliasing, etc... But if they start making games that will only run on the newer, better boxes they will run into issues.

AS long as the console architecture remains the same I could see this working. It obviously works for PC and things like phones and tablets. But the way it is implemented will be the thing that makes or breaks it I think.

I kinda wish Jeff was still the one writing the biz strategy articles. I mean, he's predicted this and other things way in advance.

I agree 100% with you. I would sincerely gladely pay 350$ every 2 or 3 years to have a current gaming system that is not a PC. I play in my living room. Also, I really like to play the games I buy on my PC at work on lunch time too....

@pompousdawson:

Yeah...I'm kinda with you. I'm also really disapointed in the general behavior and comments the giantbomb staff have toward Xbox and microsoft in General. Actually...I think Jeff is mostly affecting the opinion of the others before they eve have a chance to give their opinion or discuss these things...

I look forward to the Cross-Buy stuff working as intended, that would be swell. The hardware stuff definitely feels like it could go a lot of directions. As someone who has released games for iOS and Android I can say that supporting multiple hardware variations is a pain but the iOS approach of linear hardware evolution is much easier to deal with than the divergent wild west of all these Android devices I can't test against.

It should be noted that Nintendo has a history of updating hardware specs mid-generation for their handhelds. Gameboy to Gameboy Pocket to Gameboy Color. Nintendo DS to Nintendo DSi. Nintendo 3DS to New Nintendo 3DS. Hardware revisions with new functionality that were backwards compatible but had a set of exclusive titles and would sometimes unlock new features on the newer hardware revision.

@asantosbr: as an Xbox One owner I actually see a lot of potential in this. I don't have to bring in my current Xbox One to play all the games I want but if I want to upgrade three or four years down the line my library will be fully compatible AND benefit from the upgraded hardware a la PC. For me it's a win, I can play my games on basically any version of Xbox.

All this stuff reads to me is that MS is continuing down the track they put themselves on where PC will increasingly become their main priority for games. It's smart that they didn't bother following Sony with VR because they know VR in the long run will be on PC (hence their partnership with Oculus). At first I thought they would eventually ditch Xbox One for sticking to PC but it seems like the hardware add-ons will be a slow indoctrination for Xbox One users to make the shift to PC.

Well this is interesting, but not really surprising. It could go many ways.

Hardware is silly. PC, console, tablet, and phones aren't really much difference other than their horsepower, size and cost efficiency. Consoles today are more powerful than PC of yesteryear, hell phones today are stronger than PC of yesteryear. A singularity between hardware isn't that surprising, and by extension the platform itself merging is just natural. Is now the time to make that move is arguable, but Microsoft is the most logical company to try this.

If there'll be different version of Xbox a simple performance slider would suffice in mirroring increasing or lowering system requirement not unlike what is already on the PC. Having to get another Xbox every few years might or might not be the most economical or attractive route, but it certainly isn't a foreign concept. The argument for player is better off going with PC rather than Xbox at that point makes Microsoft's effort to try to get a foothold on the PC market even more logical, what that is actually going to be like is probably something they are still working on and won't tell us.

Not feeling "yet another" store on PC, though. And we know Microsoft isn't capable of actually just making a game and releasing it on Windows without adding on a bunch of nonsense or face-planting the process (GFWL memories run deep).

Put the games on Steam, or other like services such as GOG, and we'll talk. Until then, it will still likely be ignored.

Who is going to develop games for a moving target when they can just target the ps4 which has a larger install base. I'm excited to play first party games on my pc but I can't see this move pushing games forward save first party titles. Unless Sony joins in with quick turnaround consoles... and games get quicker to make...

We'll see.

Make way for the Xbox One.Five. (Xbox One: Second Edition?)

I've yet to pick up an Xbox One, so am interested to see how this change manifests.

As for their "Universal Windows Platform" initiative... I want nothing to do with Windows 10 or the Windows (app) Store. (Even if they make headway on the game-specific limitations mentioned in the article.) I'll stick with Steam, and if there's a must-play Microsoft exclusive, I'll bite on the Xbox One.

MS is trying to gracefully exit the console market proper. They're going to stop selling their own system and instead offer "Xbox" as a feature of Windows 10 PC with a certain hardware spec certification to play any Xbox One, and even 360 games via their VM model. They'll unify the Xbox Live and Windows 10 stores and offer a 10ft UI so that any fast enough PC will be at home as a gaming platform in your living room. Developing and selling loss-leading hardware has no strategic value to the company as a whole so it makes more sense to leverage the strengths of a PC's openness and hardware evolution to compete with PlayStation and Nintendo. They probably also hope this will help them to "normalize" the practice of selling ads directly in the OS on Windows as they have on Xbox.

That Kinect plug on every single Xbox One isn't being used that much; you could probably plug something in there to improve the console's overall power. Overall, though, Microsoft should have sat on this idea for another year to get all the details ironed out, and then gone public with it.

Kindly stay away from PC gaming, Microsoft =/

Guess that's one way of fluffing the "install base" for developers when they just bumped the number of machines capable of "running xbox one software" by more than 100 million units.

Everybody who knows anything knew that the Xbox One was under-powered from the first leaked specs. I don't trust a company that only came to that realization 2 years later.

I honestly don't understand what is going on at Microsoft anymore...

They had the console market in their hands at one point, then just threw it away with dumb ideas nobody asked for

Anyone who is for this is insane. Apart from slimmer versions of consoles no console should have hardware revisions that effect performance. It splits the user base into the haves and have nots.

I think a difference between this and the peripherals you mentioned is that if these games are also coming to PC, as mentioned, developers already provide some amount of scalability for games on the PC. Games can be run on systems of varying power simply by sacrificing some amount of graphical fidelity. This could work for the Xbox One too if newer frequent versions or upgrading internals are part of the strategy. It would likely be streamlined so that it detects the user's hardware and changes the default settings for what the developers feel is the "preferred" experience for the user's specs. However, this sort of strategy doesn't split the user base between the haves and the have-nots. Unlike other peripherals where there is little development for the haves since there are so many more nots.

UWA and the entire ecosystem is a massive flub IMO. no dinput. no vsync toggle. no sli. no overlays. no changelogs or other developer communications. no forums. so what does it have? a couple exclusive games, I guess.

I'm not sold, and I won't be buying in.

This is gonna be fun to watch and I hope to see more info at e3. I don't understand why anyone would bash the news unless your a fanboy of another platform. A console that could be upgraded -can style without the hassle seems like heaven to any gamer. Good luck MS.

I don't think the Vsync features and stuff are anything to be concerned about. Obviously these are problems that need to exist for compatibility reasons right now, and will be figured out as time goes on. Does anyone out there actually think that foces VSync is going to be on every and all games Microsoft puts into this platform? Hell no. Problems will be solved. I think it's a great idea if they can pull it off (eventually).

Upgradable consoles could be nuts.

This is a baffling move. Bringing locked down versions of already available PC games to their Windows platform makes their service look immediately inferior to what PC gamers already have. And being able to play "exclusives" on PC comes off as an admission from Microsoft that their hardware is weak and they need the PC to buttress sales of their first party games. Which I would imagine will canabalize XB1 sales as well. Any reason I had to buy an XB1 is now gone.

Finally, multiple versions of the hardware seems like the worst idea of all. Classic example of dividing the market.

I like the sound of yearly revisions like the iPhone. I hate waiting 10year for next gen consoles.

This whole thing reeks of 'games for windows live' all over again
only this time it seems more perverse with gating features of DX12 and other aspect of windows behind the windows app store.

I tend to agree, something I've always wanted and have always enjoyed the peripheral forays as necessary fine tuning before the right idea came along. Then again I'm primarily a PC gamer. I'm hoping this is cool enough to make me change.

And I'll just say while some of the negative nellies on here might be fanboys of other systems, I'd say some of the evangelists here are as well.

I'm so baffled by this just as much as you are, and have been for years. Microsoft has this weird one-size-fits-all tendency lately that I just don't get. For as progressive and forward thinking as they keep trying to spin their development efforts, it just reeks, to me, as an outdated kind of thinking for how to put products on the marketplace. Maybe this will work out for them better than the Xbox One is doing on its own as things stand, and that's probably good enough for them, but I can't see how this takes off and becomes some wild success. It just reads to me like Microsoft trying to concede the traditional console market without losing anymore than they've already lost.

There are some things people often bring up as this lovely idea on paper that doesn't work out in practice when it comes to the videogame industry these days. Steam machines are a perfect example of something that you would think should be killing it. But they've instead had really limited success because they offer a sort of weird middle-ground product where it's too much of an investment for the casual consumer but too locked down and restrictive for the enthusiast consumer. Given all that we know about this so far, I feel like this is doomed for that same path, where it tries to please everyone and instead pleases no one. Iterative Xbox console releases that put off the average consumer and waste loads of development and manufacturing costs, and a PC service that repels anyone who already enjoys the convenience of other marketplaces. But a lot can change.

I know why PC owners aren't happy with the W10 store side of things, but can someone explain why everyone is so down on the hardware revisions in particular? If a game is already being made to scale on many many different hardware configurations on PC, how is it any different for the game to be made to scale on a few console hardware revisions? I don't see how this divides the audience. If I want to stick with my launch Xbox, I'm going to get the same experience as I would had they never came up with this idea.

In the past this has not worked, but consoles have never been as similar to PCs in the past as they are now. As an Xbox owner who has no desire to build and maintain a gaming PC (and yes I've done so in the past), this seems like a reasonable idea that I would 100% adopt if the new hardware prices are reasonable and developers properly take advantage of said hardware.

So long as it doesn't end up being GFWL 2.0 then I'm sweet.

This sounds like legitimate suicide. They're going to split the base? I owned a 360 but good luck evergetting me to buy a single Microsoft console again if you're going to make my product obsolete in a couple years by forcing me to upgrade hardware. Once again, Microsoft is going out the insanity limb without any assurances that their competitors will be there with them. And once again, Sony literally just has to come out publicly and say "that's a fucking stupid idea" to win the PR war.

The hardware model must be a mobile-like model, right? You buy the next Retina Xbox and that runs the same games, just at 1440p or 4k or whatever, the devs just have to pack a settings file for each model and whatnot.

I think that's very interesting and kind of overdue for consoles. We'll see where it goes.

This sounds like the creeping return of the Microsoft that thought it could shake up the console industry with the original plan for the Xbox One.

Think I'll just steer clear and see how they shoot themselves in the foot this time.

Y'all some salty mfers. Jesus, take the wheel.

Developers will stop developing AAA games that are compatible with your launch XB1, the same way that they have already stopped developing AAA games that are compatible with a 3 year old GTX 650 Ti. The incentives just won't be there.

i've been thinking a lot about this idea and this could really be great for Xbox one owners that don't own a beefy pc

So this might be even worse for game development then a 8 year console generation, right? If all games will still have to work on that original Xbox One forever..

Ironically, I think the thing that proves you can iterate hardware and still call something the same name, providing backwards compatibility for old software but not necessarily letting new software run on the old platforms, is the iPhone and iPad (and to a lesser extent, Android, but that's a much less homogeneous platform with a whole host of other compatibility/power problems, and doesn't serve as good of an analog). Every year or two a new iPhone/iPad comes out, and some new apps that are released that only work on the new platform while some also work on older platforms, and it doesn't seem like this has fragmented the market or been a deathknell for the hardware.

I think this model could theoretically be brought to consoles. Games that don't necessarily take full advantage of the hardware have already become very popular recently, and new iterations of those could be made to work on older consoles, while for bigger AAA spectacle games, the immediate gains could be made through true 1080p resolution instead of upscaled resolutions, and higher frame rates on newer versions of the hardware, and in cases where a game would be incompatible with the older version or the performance unacceptably low, for digital purchases they could just disallow you from buying/installing it on that hardware in the online store, and boxed games could have some kind of indicator on the box that you need the new 2017 Xbox to play this game rather than your busted old 2013 Xbox.

Having a discrete component capable of being upgraded, or some kind of external upgrade dongle/box for the current models seems extremely unlikely to me. It's possible Phil Spencer is talking about the "next Xbox" being the "upgradable" one (if that is indeed what was being hinted at), and that that one would simply be backwards compatible with current software because the new box is still x86-64 with an AMD APU and is just binary/OS compatible with the old Xbox One, but has discrete upgradable parts. The reason this seems unlikely to me is because the whole point of consoles (for a lot of users) is that consumers don't have to deal with that shit. The iPhone model seems more likely to me.

"that means that the developers should have a much easier time porting Xbox One games directly to PC."

I don't know about this. For some reason I think it's way more significant than that, but maybe I'm completely wrong. But the way it reads, at least to me, is that you're essentially developing directly for Windows 10... meaning you (as a developer) are actually already making a PC game, except that PC game will now run natively on Xbones.

I could be wrong about that but I interpret this whole thing as them saying that the graphics card / processor etc inside the Xbone will just be treated any other PC hardware by games.

I get how people can worry about the execution but this seems like an objectably cool idea.

@pjdebrem: Yea, instead of buying a new video card for your PC every 4 years for $300 you will be buying either (A) a new console every 4-5 years for $500-600, or in best case scenario (B) a new video card for your console for the $300.

PCs arent as expensive as people tend to think, most expensive part is the video card, you can get a great mobo for sub $100, 32GB of RAM for sub $100, and CPU equivalent or better to PS4/Xbone in horsepower for under $200. That beefy PC would cost you just a tad over 600-700$. Now lets not forget that some consoles launch for that much.

In fact there is a whole myriad of PC builds for around $400 that will run Fallout 4 at better graphics than either of the consoles. (Not that Fallout 4 looks particularly great, it just runs like shit on everything). On top of that you have cheaper games (steam sales), and it supports your favorite controller if you so choose to use one. Best part, its a smaller entry cost for better experience than the consoles.

For those truly curious about building a gaming PC for $400 just look on reddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/buildmeapc/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/

It's about time they upgrade their Hardware. Microsoft should learn from other companies