New Xbox One(s) on the Way?

Ah. We must be getting closer to E3.

The weather is getting nicer, the flowers are blooming, and the wild speculation and predictions of what will be announced at the June event has begun.

I give you
Exhibit A.

Stay tuned.

:)

 

New console

I have a Xbox One console. I want to buy the new Xbox One S instead. What happens to all my games that I bought and downloaded? Can I re-install those on my new Xbox One S ?

/Jonas

 

Disk unreadable

Which xbox´s do you guys have,the newer S-version,or the old one?

I had disc-reading problems until the dvd-rom crashed on my old xbox,nothing on my new one,worked fine for almost a year now...

 

Flowers are blooming? You must not be from Pennsylvania lol.

A slim version I can see but not a slightly upgraded sku especially since Phil said he's not interested in a small jump. You never know though.

 

I agree, I think it will be a (slightly cheaper) slim version of XB1 too. Unlike previous leadership, Phil has been pretty direct about what's going on and to-date hasn't said anything that was proven to be false. I own a PS4 too and if the rumors are true,
think Sony is making a huge mistake.

 

One of the rumors floating around is the new Nintendo being more powerful than the PS4 (According to some developer.), so I could see Sony or M.S. releasing a .5 version of current consoles.

Peace, J.R.

 

@brandiesel,

Close enough to PA.

I share your passion for the Birds (looked at your twitter link).

I hope we can overcome the Chip Kelly Experiment.

On topic: It's going to be a very interesting E3. I can't wait!

 

It can't have DDR3 RAM. GDDR5 or DDR4 RAM. And a quad core CPU with a clock speed of at least 3.0Ghz. Those are some of my ideas. Also it needs more GPU cores and higher ROPs and more unified pipelines count and stuff and higher RAM bandwidth. 68 point something
GB's just doesn't cut it. Nintendo's current 8th gen console hardware wise is weaker than Xbox 1's current hardware. I've seen a lot of people speculate about an upgradable Xbox or next gen will come out around the corner. But all those sources are not from
Microsoft so are not official until they announce it (not on some dodgy non-Microsoft site which doesn't have a padlock on the address bar ;D).

But I'm satisfied so far with how this gen Xbox is going. In Xbox One's Screamride, the graphics look incredibly amazing, especially the water detail. I love the game so much I also got it for Xbox 360 version, and to be honest, the water detail on the 360
version looks like it was drawn with crayon when you compare it to the X1 water looks real life like version. And so far some games do play in 1080p 60fps, Halo, Minecraft are just examples.

I love Planet Coaster. It's in Alpha version for PC. But one person wrote this about it:

"With that said, these system requirements are far more demanding than your typical tycoon game. That's probably because Planet Coaster isn't your typical game, and you can see from the various footage and screenshots released that it's packed with detail
and has massive environments. As such, the minimum requirements are fairly steep for a management game, but compared to the AAA blockbusters out there they're a walk in the (theme park)."

With the pressure I guess for game developers to make better games, that really will up the hardware needed to even run those games on low settings. But I prefer not having an upgradable Xbox option. It would probably only introduce what is all too common
on PC, something called "system requirements". Congrats you need Xbox 1.1 to play this game or Xbox One (original) can play it at this level. Just release a next gen console, and this time, get it right with the hardware you put in it. Still, many PC's don't
have GDDR5 as it's standard memory, though it would be cool if it were. Usually it's DDR3 or the newer DDR4.

 

It doesn't matter what specs it has.

It's what it does with them.

Microsoft are already able to outperform the PS 4 with a lower spec machine using their lesser resources more efficiently through the cloud servers.

Most people jumped up and down when MS said they wanted the ONE to be Online only convinced that Microsoft wanted to hold gamers hostage when all along it appears they had something completely different in mind.

Here we've got arm chair quarterbacks telling us what resources a machine needs to deliver the best performance but there's a reason these guys are roaming internet forums quoting stuff they read on NeoGAF instead of working for Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.

 

Az, I was one of those that jumped up and down. Why?

1. It is obvious that the "cloud" is not going to cut it. At least not yet. And definitely not at the launch or near launch when these new consoles hit. It would have been something that just required a sign-in.

1a) And we have to remember that nothing is stopping games from using the servers. So it would have been possible. There are many games that require online so why not use the servers to do these things. It was not going to happen.

2. A big reason for myself was that I know many who just cannot do always online. This is due to these areas not having great internet available. They were 360 gamers who switched to PS4 just because of the One policy announcements. They just did not
want to chance it. Had this went through we would have seen things be far worse as well. This console would have definitely sold less than it has.

3. I will tell you from experience. Using the servers to do things in a game have to be kept at a minimum currently. It takes a lot of resources, talking man power here, to get those things ready. It costs a lot and is why MS themselves have minimal
server based stuff in games so far. I have to wonder if this server offload is so great why not offload some Quantum Break stuff to improve performance. And not streaming live action either as streaming tv stuff has been around forever. There are a lot
of instances where performance could have been vastly improved this way. There is a reason for that.

Just my opinion at this point but I think Crackdown will suffer for this. If they rely totally on the servers for that destruction I have to wonder what they will do during time when that heavy processing has "hiccups". And it will. Could be potentially
game breaking. Then again, it really could work great when everything is perfect. I expect Crackdown to the sort of a tech demo, the MP portion, to show devs. what they can accomplish with this. But the cost will still be something that most will not want
to incur for it.

Honestly, there have been servers for a very long time. Cost is a huge reason we do not see it used in more than minor ways to enhance a game. It is not like they could not have done these things. They could have even implemented their "vision" with the
current setup. You want to use these features they only work if you sign in daily or whatever the requirement was they wanted to put in or they want to put in now. They very easily could implement game share (although I think it would be like steam and only
1 person could use it at a time whereas now I share games with my wife/sons and play them together). Nothing really stopped it. The backlash was just an excuse.

I have a project I worked on for a while. It used a powerful server and a fast network. The system we used was powerful enough but the system was to rely on the server for certain loads. If you slowed the connection, had a minor drop, etc. it could cause
major issues. There was that expectation, and need really, that the data was sent. As soon as the data was lost you needed a contingency. Issue is that the base system had to be able to handle doing these things or that was lost. Tough to lose destruction,
AI, etc. all of a sudden. And it limits your audience as well.

Really, had MS not backtracked with the One being online only they would not have the sales they have. And I bet more games would skip the One. I may not care about sales but you can bet the devs./publishers do. And MS does as well.

On a side note: Sony and Nintendo could also put servers in place to do this stuff. So, this is not a benefit of the One since any company could do it.

 

Kind of like how there's a reason why the Xbox One just isn't selling that well, despite the fact that it's constantly on sale with bundles offered. The competition doesn't have to try nearly as hard though.

These guys working for MS sure have done a great job and know all though, huh? /sarcasm.

 

The XBox ONE isn't selling well?

Finally, someone who works for Microsoft wading in with a comment that comes from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

(Seems a little tight they won't let you have Gold as a perk of being a Microsoft Employee though Codecat).

 

"These guys working for MS sure have done a great job and know all though, huh? /sarcasm."

Sarcasm or not I think MS is on a better path. The current people, like Phil Spencer, who have been moved into these position after the disastrous start have been doing well considering. They lost a lot of the non-hardcore Xbox fans and it will be hard
to get some of those back, impossible for others, this console cycle. It does not help when you have some games launching earlier on the competitions console and sometimes exclusively just due to the considerably larger unit sales number. I know of 2 myself
and I doubt those are the only 2. One of those may come to the One later however. Considering everything they have been doing well.

What has to happen is that MS needs to keep considering the consumer. Work hard to put out what the consumer wants, obviously within reason. Work hard at marketing that as well.

They also need to continue to open up to developers and bringing in those people with open tools. Expand the programs that are in place. One of my favorites is their program for business start-ups. Can get some great free software there. ID@Xbox is great
as well. They need to continue to push these things. And I think they will.

Overall I feel that MS and the Xbox division is on a solid path.

On the new Xbox I am all for it. I know some are not but I am fine with that as well as the PS4K or whatever. As long as the consoles I have here work for a good 2-3 more years I think it is fine. Just have to be sure that the games work on both. Sure,
eventually they have to phase out the older console but something like this could give the consoles longer legs.

 

"Sarcasm or not I think MS is on a better path. The current people, like Phil Spencer, who have been moved into these position after the disastrous start have been doing well considering."

That I won't disagree with. That doesn't change the fact that some MS employees still did a horrendous job to begin with though. It would have been hard for most any of the "armchair quarterbacks" on the forums here to have done any worse.

 

PS3 launched with a $500 price point.

That was fine. It permitted Xbox to gain a significant foothold in the Video Game market coming in at a significantly lower price point with the 360

In fact, record sales and millions of subscriptions to XBL sealed their dominance for the last gen.

The current gen is still young. It wouldn't surprise me if a new Xbox iteration is announced and they can not match or surpass Sony in the long run.

Microsoft has a lot of resources (Cloud, DX12, Windows) that they can utilize.

Stay tuned haters!