Microsoft To Unify PC and Xbox One Platforms (theguardian.com)

New submitter Serzen writes: According to The Guardian, Microsoft is planning to end fixed console hardware for the Xbox One as a move towards one ecosystem running Unified Windows Applications. The head of the company's Xbox division, Phil Spencer, said that the Universal Windows Platform would be central to the company's gaming strategy. "That is our focus going forward," he told reporters. "Building out a complete gaming ecosystem for Universal Windows Applications." What this could mean is that the Xbox One becomes more like a PC, with Microsoft releasing updated versions at regular intervals with more powerful processors and graphics hardware. In theory, because games will be written as UWAs, older titles will remain compatible with the new machines.

Comments

Then why get a console?

[goose-incarnated]

If your PC can run everything that the console can, why bother with the console?

Re:Then why get a console?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your PC can run everything that the console can, why bother with the console?

Cost.

Consoles usually represent good value for the processing they provide at time of release.

Re:Then why get a console?

[antek9]

It obviously doesn't occur to them that lots of former PC gamers turned to consoles specifically to get away from yearly hardware upgrades. This is a very anti-console move by Microsoft, indeed.

It might be good news for Sony, at least in the short term, but I'm afraid it's bad news for most console gamers.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, I have noted in the past decade that the requirement for constant upgrades is becoming less excessive. Sure, I'm not running things on the highest settings but I certainly get to play and get to play with pretty shiny pixels.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Stormwatch]

Consoles usually represent good value for the processing they provide at time of release.

That was the case with the Xbox 360, which had a triple-core PowerPC back when x86 PCs were still on single-core Pentium 4. Not so much with the current generation consoles, that were kind of "meh" from the start.

Re:Then why get a console?

[DrXym]

The flip side is that whatever you save by going to consoles you lose by paying through the nose for the same game. And certain kinds of games simply don't travel well to consoles.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Tukz]

Because most games are optimized for console and ported for PC, thus the PC requirements are lower.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure bullshit. You don't need yearly hardware upgrades to get a PC gaming experience that blows consoles out of the water. That's a common misconception propagated by console users. That might have been true a decade ago, but not anymore. In addition, most of the gamers I know, including myself, moved away from consoles entirely.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Whiternoise]

It's much of a muchness.

A Core2Duo or Quad is plenty good enough for a modern AAA title combined with a modern graphics card like the GTX960. This means that you can get away with spending $200 every few years to keep up to date. Every now and again you might need a new processor, an SSD, or some more RAM, but it averages out. The big plus is that any game (pretty much ever) will run on the latest PC. And of course that it's a PC so it can do other things.

The latest and greatest console costs $400-500 (here at least) and you'd need to buy one every few years to avoid back-compatibility problems. The main advantage of a console is that it's self contained and should just work. You also have guarantees on whether a game is playable. This is similar to how Apple has been so successful with iOS because they know exactly what it's being run on vs Android which is fine on new phones, but progressively crap on older ones.

Re:Then why get a console?

[halivar]

The problem for me is that when it's time for me to upgrade (I can't run the latest and greatest at max settings) the PCI Express slots are all out of date for the new graphics cards. That means a new mobo, and THAT means a new CPU and RAM, etc. I have only managed to keep the case and power supply through the last 4 iterations.

Re:Then why get a console?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also something of a hardware apex in current hardware architectures. When was the last hardware update that didn't scale out instead of up? The last CPU I bought had the exact same clock speed as the one I bought 5 years earlier, just with more cores. My graphics card? Still rocking GDDR5 with the same bud speed from a decade ago but cuda/shader core count has sky rocketed.

Moore's law was nice while it lastest...

Re:Then why get a console?

[Stormwatch]

The Xbox 360 came out in November 2005. What else was even dual core at the time? The Athlon 64 X2 came out in May 2005, the Xeon "Paxville DP" came out in October 2005, the Intel Core Duo would only come out in January 2006, and the Itanium "Montecito" in July 2006. So, I'm pretty sure the typical desktop at the time would be at most a Pentium 4, single core (but hyper-threaded if that counts).

Re:Then why get a console?

[Whiternoise]

This is true although in the past I guess I've managed to buy at the right time. The cards are back compatible: I used a PCIe3 card (GTX750) in a PCIe2 slot and didn't have any problems running games at 1080p a couple of years ago. You'll just miss out on the extra bandwidth and possibly you can get away with it. PCIe2 isn't that much slower than PCIe3 (5 vs 8 GB/s)- at least compared to the doubling from v3 to v4. PCIe3 has been around for 6 years (2010), nobody is using PCIe3.1 yet and the specification for PCIe4 isn't even being released until next year. On top of that most games shouldn't require higher bandwidth cards for a least a year after the standard trickles down to new motherboards so I peg that at around 8 years lifespan (since the new cards will still work, but at 8GB/s vs 16GB/s).

Hypothetically if you bought a new rig in 2010 the motherboard would still be good until 2017.

Re:Then why get a console?

[AmiMoJo]

There is also the issue of console and PC players in the same game online. Having a mouse in a first person shooter usually grants a huge advantage. Are they going to enforce gamepad use, require the game to run at the same locked frame rate as the console, at the same low resolution etc?

Compatibility

[jargonburn]

older titles will remain compatible with the new machines

Well, 99% compatible; but, really, is anyone worried about the occasional game-breaking glitch in older software titles?
Nobody replays those. Even if someone discovers a classic for the first time, I'm sure the developer will keep up with fixing any bugs introduced!
[end sarcasm]

Steam Competition

[nateman1352]

Looks like the fact that Valve largely controls PC gaming and is doing everything they can to push it away from Microsoft's platform has earned them Microsoft's perceived #1 gaming competitor. Make no mistake, Microsoft knows that gaming is one of the few remaining compelling reasons for consumers to use their platform. Most (but not all) desktop application use cases can be accomplished with a web browser these days. Microsoft knows that if they don't create a reason for game devs to use DirectX 12 then there is a risk that game devs will prefer Vulkan due to the multi-platform targeting (Windows, SteamOS, Android) which will erode the position of Windows as the best PC gaming platform.

Basically this is Microsoft saying that they don't care very much about Sony anymore, they perceive Valve as a greater threat and they are willing to give up the hardware sales that XBox exclusive titles would normally drive to instead incentivize continued purchase of Windows licenses for gaming PCs. It would not surprise me if Microsoft starts licensing the XBox brand the same way Steam Machines are licensed. We could see an "Alienware Xbox" sometime soon.

Re:Steam Competition

[some old guy]

This. No serious PC gamer gives 2 hot shits about gimp console-specced games anyway, and by porting Windows games off to Mac and Linux they are saving us from Windows 10.

Re:Steam Competition

[ravenshrike]

Hell, MS will be FORCED to use Nvidia hardware for the next iteration of consoles if Vulkan takes off like it's looking to and it wants DX12 to stay relevant. Cause if they go for similarly specced AMD hardware again, there's virtually zero reason not to run Vulkan over DX12 as it gives you easy access to the widest array of platforms.

Re:Steam Competition

[mjwx]

Yep, Valve is undoubtedly the 800 pound gorilla in the room here... And Valve considers Steam's competitors to be physical sales and smaller game stores like GOG rather than consoles.

This is Microsoft finally admitting that their consoles are trying to emulate the PC... badly. Sony is doing the same thing, just not admitting it. The last generation of consoles were lacklustre. The Nintendo DS was the top selling console of the last generation, its because it's casual. Not that there's anything wrong with casual games, despite being a dedicated gamer, casual games are the ones I can enjoy with my non-gamer friends so the old Wii (last generation) gets dragged out, no-one cares that the games are 5 or more years old now.

The Xbone and the PS4 did not offer anything new. Worse yet they are huge loss leaders that take years to get into the black (to make more money than it costs to build them) let alone to pay back all the R&D. The hardware is outdated before it hits the shelves as they use chips from AMD and NVidia (3 years of R&D means the experimental chip they got when they started is last years chip when they release) and they are still limited in the types of games they can have. PC gaming remains the dominant gaming platform precisely because it doesn't have many restrictions... not to mention Steam and GOG. Sounds like Microsoft wants to cut it's hardware R&D by just using off the shelf components and letting the OS handle the differences... erm... like a PC. Cant see it working.

Re:Steam Competition

[CrashNBrn]

Are you an idiot? Vulkan is AMD for christs sake. It comes from Mantle.
http://www.pcworld.com/article...

So yeah, MS will be FORCED to use Nvidia to run AMD.

Re:Win win for MS

[jfbilodeau]

But I really wanna run Office on my xbox! Imagine all the multiplayer spreadsheet action we could have! Fear my PowerPoint skillz!

Re: No, it's why get a PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Windows desktop will be replaced by a new UI (codename Subway) that does away with the obsolete and so last century mouse controls and replaces it with a mandatory Xbox controller to provide modern, streamlined experience across all the Universal Windows Apps. New UI will be distributed as a stealth Windows Update patch as soon as Microsoft steals some more bandwidth from your neighbors to host the 10GB of it.

Re: Win win for MS

[silentcoder]

Great. Just what we always wanted. Needing a virus scanner on a console....

Another interpretation

[RogueyWon]

I'm toying with another possible interpretation of this; that this is effectively MS's way of getting out of the console market, but without the "big bang" announcement that saw Sega ditch things what should have been half-way through the Dreamcast's life-cycle.

There's not much detail out there yet, but based on what there is, it sounds like MS are planning to release what are basically cheap, locked-down PCs on a rolling basis, similar to the Steam Machines. As with those Steam machines, anything which is playable on them will also be playable on a full-sized PC. This is a long-way removed from the traditional console model, where a machine is sent out to sit in the market for anywhere from 4 to 8 years with no hardware changes and where the console-manufacturer funds exclusive titles to grow the installed base (then creams revenue off the third-party titles via licensing fees). In essence, it is just a slightly different type of PC, which sits under your TV (and yes, I know the PS4 and XB1 already resemble that description to a degree, but they were both sold on the "static hardware" model).

It's pretty clear why MS might go in this direction. Their long-standing cash-cows are Windows and Office. Xbox has been a side-line and, in some respects, a slightly risky one, in that it has toyed with undermining one of the key sales-points of Windows (gaming). It was always a sideline which only a company which was very, very confident in its continued monopoly position in its main market (and the continued health of that market) could afford to pursue.

And right now, while that monopoly still looks fairly strong, there are signs of stress; tablets (mostly non-MS ones) have convinced a lot of people to give up their laptops. Ten years ago, Linux was, in essence, NeckbeardOS with no real chance of displacing Windows in the home environment. Now you have Valve and other reasonably serious players throwing a lot of weight behind Linux-powered devices. Win8 flopped and while Win10 is doing better, it isn't doing as well as you might expect given it's basically free. MS still dominate the PC OS market, but it's an increasingly vulnerable domination of an increasingly vulnerable market. Re-emphasizing the Windows PC (be it a laptop, desktop, tablet or box that sits under the TV) as a gaming platform may well be a sensible defensive strategy.

Phil Spencer is, unlike his immediate predecessor, no fool. If he thinks for a moment that what's needed to maintain the health of the Windows cash-cow is to sacrifice the Xbox console strategy on the altar of PC gaming, he will do so in a heart-beat and that, I think, is what we're starting to see happening. Previously-announced Xbox-exclusive series have been announced for PC (albeit Windows 10, and sometimes Windows Store-only) and in some cases are already available.

This shouldn't be a surprise. The Xbox One is a moderately successful console, despite the bad publicity, but MS has no real interest in having a moderately successful console. Don Mattrick's strategy was to use the Xbox One as a doorway for MS to get a presence in every living-room in the country through an all-singing-all-dancing multimedia box, that just happened to also be a games console. That strategy was inane and failed. Spencer has turned the disaster around by refocusing the console in the short term as a traditional console, but it is still only putting out reasonably good numbers and MS have bled market-share to Sony. I just don't see why they'd be excited about staying in that market.

Re:Great

[AuMatar]

And 90% of the devs won't do that, because they're targetting the Xbox. Then they'll decide they can just release it to PC too and do so without adding those settings, because they cost time and money. As proof, I show you every other shitty PC port ever made.

Re:Great

[BitZtream]

I have a PC, I don't game on it because of EXACTLY that! When I play online games, I'm not evenly matched because my PC simply isn't fast enough, which makes crap play for me and everyone else, so I use a console.

Now what they're saying is that my nice 'its going to be the same hardware fro 8-10 years' console is going to be just another PC ... but worse still an extremely locked down PC?

I knew I should have bought a PS4, but after having 3 PS2s die on me and the Sony rootkit episode and all the other shit they pull I just couldn't force myself to do it. Now basically there are no valid consoles for me to own :( Nintendo seems to be stuck thinking N64 graphics are still the target :(

Re: Win win for MS

[jfbilodeau]

And the irony is that even though you installed an antivirus scanner on a PS2, it was to check for viruses for Windows.

Re: Great

[dave420]

It runs great on the PS4...

Submitter is far too optimistic

[GrumpySteen]

What this could mean is that the Xbox One becomes more like a PC

Yes, but it could also mean that the PC becomes more like the Xbox one with advertisements cluttering up a dashboard. In fact, they've already started showing ads in the menu.

It's more than a little cluelessly optimistic to think that MS will suddenly reverse course and make the Xbox more like the PC. Get ready to have the Xbox dashboard shoved down your throat.

Re:Great

[TheCastro1689]

An Xbox is already a low end PC. The OS is now Windows 10. It makes sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could select to play only with Xbox Live members or PC as well.

Not a new idea

[Dusthead Jr.]

The idea of an upgrade-able console has been around for quite a while, usually ending in failure. Most notably Sega's CD and 32X. Neither add-on was very successful. And the timing of the 32X didn't help it. Nintendo has it's memory pack for the N64 which few games used. Some game could only run with it, IIRC. There were other lesser known upgrades for other systems like memory expansion and VCD playback for the Sega Saturn and various devices that never made it out of Japan. People seen to reject console upgrades in general.

Re:Great

[PolygamousRanchKid]

An Xbox is already a low end PC. The OS is now Windows 10.

Oh, well that's grand then. Your Xbox now spends much of its CPU and network bandwidth on phoning in your gaming data to Microsoft.

Game producers would pay a lot of $$$ know who potential high roller gamers are.

Re:Great

[nmb3000]

Just what PC gamers need - games targeted at low end hardware so it will run on a console.

Not necessarily. There's this thing called 'settings' in most games. You know, like higher resolution/quality graphics, physics, etc...

Tell me, does that "Setting" thing:

- Enable graphical features that the devs left out because the console hardware couldn't support it?
- Fix retarded user interfaces that were designed as 10-foot interfaces so they're clumsy and don't show any details?
- Fix retarded control schemes built for a console's gamepad and shoehorned into a keyboard + mouse interface?
- Make levels larger with few or zero loading screens?
- Remove an engine-enforced frame limiter set to 30fps to prevent frameskips and tearing?
- Gracefully support resolutions larger than the average 1080p (or god forbid, 720p) television?

For any benefits they may have, the simple fact is that consoles ruin games for PCs. It used to be that a game was built for the PC and then ported to a console -- starting with a whole cloth and then cutting out pieces that don't fit. Turning that around just means a worse experience for everyone.

Re:Great

[nevermore94]

I know you can get a barebones XBOne for $300 or so, but for around $400 you can build a gaming PC that will outperform it and be capable of so much more. Here are a few links I found after just a quick Google:
http://www.toptengamer.com/top...
http://gamingbolt.com/how-to-m...
http://www.cheatsheet.com/tech...
http://bgr.com/2014/09/11/chea...

Counter to the general trend of comments here

[DarkOx]

I have always liked consoles for games because of the "it just works factor". You can pick up a title that says its for XBox One and you immediately know that it will work and you will probably have a good experience, and one consistent with the promotional videos etc.

Its entertainment I don't want do work for entertainment. I don't play what patch level of video driver works best, I don't want update libraries, and tune settings. I want to play.

I don't want to have to figure what revision of the console I have. I don't want bring a title home and find it runs like crap on my down level console.