Jump to content
IGNORED

Xbox One X


Bojangle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, CarloOos said:

 

I don't think there will be a 'next-gen', for Microsoft at least. Sony might well launch a console called the Playstation 5 at some point, but I think Microsoft will just keep iterating and eventually drop universal support for the base One when the next model launches in four or so years. It's what all their platform integration over the last two years has been pointing towards, and why I think buying digitally off Live is future-proof in a way PSN is not.

Given the architecture, I don't think it's likely PS5 won't be backwards compatible with PS4.

 

On the Subject of XboxOneX I have gone from "Nope" to "I'm going to pre-order". I was always going to get a Xbone at some point and  The more I think about it, the more it is making sense, gives me a UHD bluray player , and the best way to play the back catalogue.

 

Last year my Christmas present to myself was VR and a Pro, this year I think its going to XboxOneX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other advantage of a fully integrated platform is that there would be nothing stopping developers of less taxing titles that don't necessarily need the top specs from simultaneously launching their games to an install base across 3+ consoles long after the Xbox XXX has come out. It would effectively give the older consoles a life cycle far beyond what they'd normally have, rather than being dropped for newer systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Wahwah* said:

I cannot wait until you find out about the differences between iPhones. They cost more and come out annually! 

To be fair it's an entirely different model based around subscriptions, monthly payments etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Given the architecture, I don't think it's likely PS5 won't be backwards compatible with PS4.

 

Probably, but I don't necessarily trust Sony to put as much forward-thinking into their infrastructure as Microsoft clearly have. 

 

19 minutes ago, Stanley said:

To be fair it's an entirely different model based around subscriptions, monthly payments etc. 

 

Try admitting to having a contract in Off Topic, you get called mug with no financial sense for not having £800 in hard cash to lay down on an annual basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

 

Probably, but I don't necessarily trust Sony to put as much forward-thinking into their infrastructure as Microsoft clearly have. 

The same MS that launched Xbox One without BC you mean? As proven recently it's not a feature used by many console owners, and certainly doesn't appear to attract more sales. I'd say that both manufacturers will consider everything else first for their next gen consoles before worrying whether they're backwards compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Spencer's on the record as saying he wanted BC to be in the Xbox One from the start, isn't he? It's the first thing he asked for when he took over. He knows which way the wind is blowing, we shouldn't necessarily be thinking of it as BC at all and should start thinking of the Xbox as a single pool of games, from old to new, like Steam or iOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

Try admitting to having a contract in Off Topic, you get called mug with no financial sense for not having £800 in hard cash to lay down on an annual basis.

 

I don't think the Shoreditch cognoscenti in Off Topic are exactly representative of the average consumer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

The other advantage of a fully integrated platform is that there would be nothing stopping developers of less taxing titles that don't necessarily need the top specs from simultaneously launching their games to an install base across 3+ consoles long after the Xbox XXX has come out. It would effectively give the older consoles a life cycle far beyond what they'd normally have, rather than being dropped for newer systems.

 

here's a thing:

 

how much do they charge for that? £50 for a new game? it's an xbox one title that happens to play on XBox one-two (one-two testing) and xbox3 !

 

there are no additional costs for development, and there are no additional shinies, it looks like an oooooold gaaaaaame... who's buying this?

 

new pricing structure! oh wait, it's purely digital now, and MS control the market place? teh monopoly!

 

developers of less taxing titles won't bother working for the Xbox XXX, no one will if the development costs get out of hand*. So people won't buy the the Xbox XXX if the games are not there, and there's no real reason to upgrade. and there's going to be a more powerful version of the console in another 2 years.

 

It's the thin end of the wedge! (It's the 32x all over again).

 

can someone put a positive spin on my flight of fancy?

 

 

* surely they'll want to do it "cheaper", rather than "faster"?

 

 

 

Edited by SeanR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

36 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

The other advantage of a fully integrated platform is that there would be nothing stopping developers of less taxing titles that don't necessarily need the top specs from simultaneously launching their games to an install base across 3+ consoles long after the Xbox XXX has come out. It would effectively give the older consoles a life cycle far beyond what they'd normally have, rather than being dropped for newer systems.

Never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

I think Spencer's on the record as saying he wanted BC to be in the Xbox One from the start, isn't he? It's the first thing he asked for when he took over. He knows which way the wind is blowing, we shouldn't necessarily be thinking of it as BC and should start thinking of the Xbox as a single pool of games, from old to new, like Steam.

The problem for Phil is that he's got to keep a close eye on the competition. If Sony decide to break away from x86 architecture for their next console  and anticipate a more powerful solution as a result, then he'll have a tough job persuading the company that BC is more important. 

 

They had it for 360 but never supported it because they were selling consoles anyway, and it was the first feature Sony dropped for PS3 when proved too costly. Also consider that Nintendo, who have offered BC for their last two consoles, dropped it like a stone because of the Switch's unique design. 

 

It's just not a system seller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SeanR said:

 

 

here's a thing:

 

how much do they charge for that? £50 for a new game? it's an xbox one title that happens to play on XBox one-two (one-two testing) and xbox3 !

 

there are no additional costs for development, and there are no additional shinies, it looks like an oooooold gaaaaaame... who's buying this?

 

new pricing structure! oh wait, it's purely digital now, and MS control the market place? teh monopoly!

 

developers of less taxing titles won't bother working for the Xbox XXX, people won't but the the Xbox XXX if the games are not there, and there's no real reason to upgrade. and there's going to be a more powerful version of the console in another 2 years.

 

It's the thin end of the wedge! (It's the 32x all over again).

 

can someone put a positive spin on my flight of fancy?

 

My spin is that this exact kind of fear-mongering nonsense that (partly) caused the Xbox One to be the compromised Frankenstein monster it launched as. Who's talking about AAA £50 games? You're conveniently ignoring the entire indie market as it already exists, there are plenty of games that launch between £10-30. Also older titles are already regularly discounted and on sale on Live, their On Demand pricing is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 360 days.

 

9 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Never going to happen.

 

Why would the dev of something like Spelunky, or Inside, or even an like MMO Elder Scrolls Online lock their game off to only the top tier when they could launch it for the entire Xbox platform? We're not just talking about CoD 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

 

My spin is that this exact kind of fear-mongering nonsense that (partly) caused the Xbox One to be the Frankenstein monster it launched as. Who's talking about AAA £50 games? You're conveniently ignoring the entire indie market as it already exists, there are plenty of games that launch between £10-30. Also older titles are already regularly discounted and on sale on Live.

 

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

 

Why would the dev of something like Peggle, or Spelunky, or Elder Scrolls Online lock their game off to only the top tier when they could launch it for the entire Xbox platform? We're not just talking about CoD 2020.

Because it has to go through MS, sony , nintendo and I couldn't see any manufacturer allowing release of new titles on old machines  - There is nothing to stop them doing it now; but they don't. Because they want you to buy new consoles from them, not second from ebay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The problem for Phil is that he's got to keep a close eye on the competition. If Sony decide to break away from x86 architecture for their next console  and anticipate a more powerful solution as a result, then he'll have a tough job persuading the company that BC is more important. 

 

They had it for 360 but never supported it because they were selling consoles anyway, and it was the first feature Sony dropped for PS3 when proved too costly. Also consider that Nintendo, who have offered BC for their last two consoles, dropped it like a stone because of the Switch's unique design. 

 

It's just not a system seller.

 

It's not about it being a system seller, it's about it being the system. You're buying into the Xbox ecosystem, not a particular console's lineup.

 

6 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Because it has to go through MS< and I couldn't see any manufacturer allowing release of new titles on old machines  - There is nothing to stop them doing it now; but they don't. Because they want you to buy new consoles from them, not second from ebay

 

Respectfully disagree, I think this is exactly what they're aiming for. I don't think what they've done in the past is particularly relevant, they're trying to modernise what it is to be a console platform. They were trying to do it four years ago, and now they're trying again with a thankfully far more refined approach and consumer-friendly approach. It doesn't matter to MS what Xbox you buy to play the Xbox library of games, if you've got a PC you don't have to buy an Xbox at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

 

It's not about it being a system seller, it's about it being the system. You're buying into the Xbox ecosystem, not a particular console's lineup.

Well I think it will come at a cost, and that cost will be losing customers to Sony, who offer a wider array of exclusives, and aren't tying themselves down to any 'eco system'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Well I think it will come at cost, and that cost will be losing customers to Sony, who offer a wider array of exclusives, and aren't tying themselves down to any 'eco system'. 

 

Yeah but they are though, aren't they? They're buying into PSN. And you can't tell me that Playstation owners wouldn't prefer access to the entire PS1, PS2 and PS3 catalogue, or that Switch owners wouldn't like access to Wii games like Mario Galaxy 1&2 if they could. It's no different, and it's exactly how mobile/tablet/PC stores operate.

 

It's like you're willfully refusing to acknowledge that there's any relevance to how all non-console games exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CarloOos said:

 

Yeah but they are though, aren't they? They're buying into PSN. And you can't tell me that Playstation owners wouldn't prefer access to the entire PS1, PS2 and PS3 catalogue, or that Switch owners wouldn't like access to Wii games like Mario Galaxy 1&2 if they could. It's no different, and it's exactly how mobiles operate.

 

It's like you're willfully refusing to acknowledge how all non-console games exist.

They're buying into PSN so then can play online, I'm sure they'd switch consoles at the drop of a hat if the competition offered something better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring to the PSN store and/or Playstation platform rather than the online service.

 

But I feel like we're going in circles, you think the only way console market will ever work is the same way it always as, whereas I think that model was already verging on outdated four years ago and that the first platform to nail a genuinely persistent gaming library will clean up in the long run, just like they have done for every other medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This generation has proven that friend lists alone aren't enough to prevent console owners from switching sides. 360 gamers migrated en masse to the PS4. But full BC may very well be a bigger incentive to stay put - imagine if not just you friends list but also every game you've ever bought for that platform migrated over to the next-gen iteration? At the start of the generation that is an even bigger incentive, since at that point you're still playing games from your backlog on your older machine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

The problem for Phil is that he's got to keep a close eye on the competition. If Sony decide to break away from x86 architecture for their next console  and anticipate a more powerful solution as a result, then he'll have a tough job persuading the company that BC is more important. 

 

They had it for 360 but never supported it because they were selling consoles anyway, and it was the first feature Sony dropped for PS3 when proved too costly. Also consider that Nintendo, who have offered BC for their last two consoles, dropped it like a stone because of the Switch's unique design. 

 

It's just not a system seller.

 

Couple of points:

- Microsoft have demonstrated the ability to support backwards compatibility across CPU architectures.

- The only other CPU architecture in town is ARM, and (I believe) Microsoft have demonstrated compatibility layers between ARM and x86.

- Sony dropped Backwards Compatibility because it required additional hardware parts.

- Phil's point that some games now have a very extended shelf life - Minecraft, GTA V - and that backwards compatibility (perhaps with some niceties - more stable performance, better filtering, vsync) might not be an anti consumer thing, is quite plausible. I don't think you could say that was the case back in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

The problem for Phil is that he's got to keep a close eye on the competition. If Sony decide to break away from x86 architecture for their next console  and anticipate a more powerful solution as a result, then he'll have a tough job persuading the company that BC is more important. 

 

They had it for 360 but never supported it because they were selling consoles anyway, and it was the first feature Sony dropped for PS3 when proved too costly. Also consider that Nintendo, who have offered BC for their last two consoles, dropped it like a stone because of the Switch's unique design. 

 

It's just not a system seller.

 

Can I just say I hate ...nay despise the idea that because something as good as backwards compatibility isn't deemed a system seller that's it's something easy to write off. This is backwards logic akin to something you'd read on neogaf. There's people who have spent 100s/1000s digitally over the last 8-10 years and and now have the knowledge that their digital purchases can be brought forward with them can only be a huge positive. It's gives trust in the ecosystem and it shows consistency in the ability to offer features going forward.

 

Sony dropped backwards compatibility in the PS3 because it was an expensive hardware solution. Once you have a working software solution there is no cost in implementation apart from the development time.

 

Microsoft have managed to get backwards compatibility working through two different sets of architecture and GPU already, They are the only platform holder offering a software solution to their last two previous systems.

 

Xbox = x86, Nvidia

Xbox 360 = Power PC, ATI

Xbox One = x86, ATI

 

MS have already shown with the One X they are capable of building a system to a much better standard than Sony so why is what Sony do the defining factor of where Xbox go in the future?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

This generation has proven that friend lists alone aren't enough to prevent console owners from switching sides. 360 gamers migrated en masse to the PS4. But full BC may very well be a bigger incentive to stay put - imagine if not just you friends list but also every game you've ever bought for that platform migrated over to the next-gen iteration? At the start of the generation that is an even bigger incentive, since at that point you're still playing games from your backlog on your older machine

 

The problem with this is the size of the Xbox One user base is a fraction of that of the PS4 userbase. Had Xbox users stayed put at the beginning of the generation it would have been great. If the current 20-25 million still stay put it's not quite the same thing. 

 

It's arguable how much PS4 owners will care about BC if they never owned an Xbox One. 

 

You would hope that Sony have the sense to at least ensure BC between PS5 and PS4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Mankind Dividied came out I went back and finally finished Human Revolution, and when Gears 4 came out I replayed Gears 2, 3 and Judgement in couch co-op with my housemate. When it comes to cross-generational franchises like the those there's an argument to be made that it actually drives sales and encourages people who missed out on titles originally to catch up. You don't have to be playing 360 games for any majority of time for their support to be worthwhile, the point is it's there when you want it. 

 

In the HD era there's no real technical or mechical mechanical dis-connect when it comes to playing older titles, it's not like going back to Tomb Raider 2 after playing Uncharted 2 or something. I genuinely don't think all these 'bu-bu-the PS3!' arguments are relevant at all, the landscape is different now. People expect their purchases to migrate, it was one of the main things people were pissed off about when the Xbox One launched!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

People expect their purchases to migrate, it was one of the main things people were pissed off about when the Xbox One launched!

 

This! I can still play steam titles which I bought in 2004, on mobile devices I can continue to use software I have bought before. I have this expectation and I'm used to generations of console changes. If the next iteration of console doesn't support what I'm digitally buying now I will just stick with what I have. This is not likely to happen with MS though as they seem to have made their intentions clear and are investing in getting as much content available as possible from the past. Also its a great thing to get the opportunity to play games you may have missed without owning the old device or having to fork out £££'s to get a physical copy from somewhere....so don't think its as much about making BC available for "the gamers" but allowing older content to be resold (having the side effect of keeping gamers of the previous generation happy that their investment is protected). It's a win/win for MS. I also think Sony will be following the same pattern going forward with the PS4...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Revival said:

MS have already shown with the One X they are capable of building a system to a much better standard than Sony so why is what Sony do the defining factor of where Xbox go in the future?

 

lul wut? at the third time of asking maybe. (and it'll cost £450)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanR said:

 

lul wut? at the third time of asking maybe. (and it'll cost £450)

My OG Bone was utterly silent and reliable. My original PS4 would sound like a demented hairdryer after half an hour. Then it died after the big firmware update. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PC Master Race said:

My OG Bone was utterly silent and reliable. My original PS4 sounded like a demented hairdryer after half an hour. Then it died after the big firmware update. 

 

and if the One X is hairdryer? then what?

 

"already shown"...

 

subjective post was subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanR said:

 

and if the One X is hairdryer? then what?

 

"already shown"...

 

subjective post was subjective.

I doubt you will find many people who would subjectively say the PS4 was of a superior level of build quality to the Bone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PC Master Race said:

I doubt you will find many people who would subjectively say the PS4 was of a superior level of build quality to the Bone. 

 

I guess it's what's inside that counts, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.