Except backwards and forwards compatibility would be guaranteed with the middleware. This doesn't make sense to keep arguing that backwards and forwards compatibility would not be guaranteed when MS says that's precisely what their middleware can do with hardware changes.

I'll say it again, because it doesn't seem to be making sense. In the past when hardware changes were made to consoles (like PS2 or PS3), they lost backwards compatibility. That's b/c their software was integrated with their hardware.

Not so with the Xbox One. Now console hardware can change and they can keep forward and backward compatibility and they have said that they will have backward and forward compatibility.

And if they want to add 4K or filesharing or multiscreen support or 2nd screen support, they can do that while maintaining compatibility. Heck, PS4 already has those features already and nobody is baffled why Dragon Age Inquisition doesn't work at full 4K on their 4K TV or why their 1080p TV doesn't play it at 4K. The hardware/software takes care of the information management and makes it work. That's what consoles do.

So they can change hardware and not make it confusing. They can still do a purple box for Kinect and a green box for non-Kinect and maybe they'll do a striped box for VR. Who knows. They can still add hardware that changes compatibility, but they would only do that for major developments like VR, their extra-reality glasses (I forget their name), Kinect or something that we don't even know will exist in the future.


If all of that doesn't make sense, then I don't know how to explain it better. I don't blame you for not understanding what MS is saying though. The author of that article thought the same thing. They took "hardware innovations" to mean "add-ons" like a "32X" which would, obviously, destroy the console.

Sex Boner?

I'm all for sex and the like, but...

I think the problem is that I understand what they're saying and it's bullshit.

There's no way of doing this where it actually makes any sense. Guaranteeing forward and backward compatibility is pretty much the death of the idea. Developers would then be stuck designing games that could actually use the new hardware without pissing off customers that don't have the upgrades.

It's likely to be a huge pain in the ass for everybody involved.

Each hardware upgrade is going to represent only a portion of the install base, which means that developers are going to be writing code that isn't used by most players and I'm not even sure how that makes any sense at all for them unless the hardware is hugely important to the experience. And if it is that important, then you've got the problem where people have to make the upgrade in order to make use of the game.

The term "clusterfuck" comes to mind. If Apple were making this declaration I'd have a much more open mind about it because they tend to be a bit more on the ball about things. But, MS regularly makes huge mistakes by not thinking things through and I'm pretty sure this is one of those things that looked good on paper, but's going to turn out to be a huge mistake if they go through with it.

People who want that kind of flexibility in their hardware don't normally buy consoles as their primary gaming platform.

The only way it would work, is to know way beforehand, before the games are made, then to know what the upgrade steps are. Most likely in processing power or upgrades, you'd end up building the game with a base (original hardware) and then just replace portions of it with either higher textures, meshes, or things that don't require a huge upgrade to run; And assuming they do it's a 1:1 swap visually while in-game it works the same speed.

Of course for PC's this is known as 'low, medium, high, & ultra' detail :P Shadows on/off, AA on/off, other effects, etc etc.

You know it might also work if they treated consoles like computers, adding in all the features even if the system wasn't strong enough, then leaving a default option that works for the console, then newer versions they can simply turn on other features as the hardware meets it.

But that would make sense... :P

Devs won't have to develop for the hardware b/c the software will negotiate the changes. So newer XBONE titles might include 4K support. They can use the same assets they're using with the 4K PS4 titles. And VR would be just like PS4 VR implementation.

As far as multimonitor support, they can develop for that just like PC devs do.

As for other options -- like wireless video transmission, mounting options, smaller, cooler, longer-lasting, file servers, etc -- those are all easy.

MS isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot and make their console impossible to program for or purchase the right games. But they will be able to deliver meaningful hardware upgrades without affecting devs or consumers in mostly negative ways (of course, devs may do some developing for certain features like 4K or VR).

In reality, neither you nor I are MS. And we can only wait and see. But I don't anticipate completely different consoles that remove backward and forward compatibility.

As Corak says, "Only Time Will Tell..."

That's true, but past experience suggests that they're unlikely to be able to make it work.

I still don't see how they're going to make it work in a way where people are willing to pony up for the hardware without being forced to. And how they're going to sell it to an audience that's choosing a streamlined product over one with more power and depth.

It's definitely going to be interesting, but I don't expect that it's going to work out any better than Windows 8, Live or Zune did. They just don't seem to have the attention span necessary to plan things out adequately.

That's easily solved. You put out an Xbox Two, write in big letters on the box 'Compatible with all Xbox One games" and make sure to also point out (on the box and advertising) that for many games you'll get higher resolution support and / or better FPS.

Then on the game box you write 'Xbox one', 'Xbox One; Xbox Two enhanced' or "Xbox Two'. People who own Xbox Two know that it's compatible with the Xbox One, so they know that all these games would. People who one Xbox one know what games with 'Xbox One' on them would work.

When the Xbox Three comes out, they're used enough to it that it's possible to drop to Xbox One, Two or Three and that's it (the Xbox Three box of course says: 'Compatible with all Xbox One and Xbox Two games').

That's assuming the upgrade path they are planing is in linear, single configuration steps, and not an arbitrary set of upgrades users can puzzle piece together in a number of arrangements. And if they do just slap a 2, 3, 4 on the box then they are really just selling console generations like they have been that happen to be technically similar enough to be backward compatible.

Upgrade suggests users have some sort of control over the upgrade and are buying add-ons they are installing. To reach level Xbox Two are users buying a Xbox One to Xbox Two upgrade kit to be officially be a XBox Two and can you only be a level Two IF you get all the stuff, but don't have to? Then how about Xbox One to Xbox Three? How does that work?

Then there is this whole Xbox as a brand and not as a box thing they got going on. Cross buy and cross play is interesting as a consumer ATM, but if that is successful how do you stop 3rd parties from making competing Xbox experience PC's out to try and compete with the consoles? If those have a lacking library then the initiative is a failure. If they library isn't lacking then it gets even more confusing. I honestly can't even imagine a scenario where this doesn't melt down into some sort of confusing, mushy mess.

Nothing I've read from Microsoft suggests that it will be a free for all. I've seen Microsoft talking about the mobile upgrade cycle in this context, and my understanding is that Microsofts wants the Xbox to be its iPhone. It wants a shorter upgrade cycle which gives developers more scope to move forward, gives enthusiasts a faster upgrade path, but lets those who choose to skip a gen or two still get OS updates and games.

IMO the Xbox is Microsoft's best chance of creating a closed wall alternative to the PC, which I think it wants. I'm not sure if Microsoft has a concrete plan of this sort, but it's a natural direction. The Xbox is already there, it's based on the Windows core but with a tightly controlled app store, and it has a large enough market. In the long run it could be made into a decent iOS style option to the PC.

I think that complaint comes from (some) PC gamers (about console generations holding back development of PC games too), not console gamers. Quite the opposite, console gamers on the whole seem quite pleased by knowing that each and every new game for their console will work 100% on it, even without having to crank down any details or graphics options.

I recall some regular here explaining how many of his friends choose console versions of games over the PC versions because they hate the idea that they can't play the PC version at 100% graphics options, everything maxxed out. The fact that the PC version at medium level would look just as good as the console versions seemed an irrelevant tidbit to them, they just couldn't live with the idea of not being able to max out everything on the specific port of the game they are playing. Some psychological oddity, but there you go. I think they'd have the same "problem" if the same was true for console versions.

If and when the console gamers seem to start thinking their current consoles are already too long on the tooth, a new console generation is about to arrive anyway. I am not sure if XBox 360 and PS3 users felt that way, considering how well e.g. GTA V sold on them even though the new generation had already arrived, or was about to arrive. Maybe most of them would have been happy with PS3 and XBox360 for a few more years, if the next generation had been postponed.

But the difference has become less and less noticeable with each generation. Earlier it seemed that advancements in the hardware allowed new types of games that wouldn't have been possible in the earlier console generation, but now it is more about "yeah now games run more often at 60fps/1080p than before, and you can see wrinkles on characters' faces more clearly".

It's really hard to comment on console gamers as a whole, but the quick adoption of the new gen suggests that console gamers have been waiting for this upgrade. It's also not that hard to find complaints about frame rate and resolution even for the current gen. Again, it's hard to say anything about "gamers as a whole", but re-releases are common and coupled with frame rate / resolution complaints, looking down at the Wii U, etc., I assume that there's a pretty big subset of console gamers who are aware of hardware performance and what it brings and want that.
That's part of why software compatibility is such a good feature. Platform games, Telltale adventures, LEGO games etc. could easily work on the prev gen while the latest FPS's would need more power. So giving game buyers choice of upgrade would be good.

How many numbfucks are working for Windows ?
One major fuckup after another...good job Windows. :P

I think it is more about them knowing that a new generation appearing (from the same vendors as the earlier generation, in this case Sony and MS) is a death knell to their current console, meaning the developers will not be optimizing games for it anymore but the newer gen, and it is more and more receiving merely party and kid's games, and less AAA titles.

I think people who care the most about backwards compatibility and/or performance, and don't mind that much having to upgrade their system more often, are mostly PC gamers already.

You mentioned earlier that MS would be trying to reach similar upgrade cycle as smartphones/tablets, but I don't really see the rush for newer and faster units there either for the most part. People who play Clash of Clans and Candy Crush Saga don't seem to be that eager to update their phones often at least for the games, they expect games to keep working passably on their current units. Those are mostly replaced with newer ones when the current unit is starting to crap out (could be even due to the failing battery, at least if it can't be replaced easily).

iPhone owners are a bit fanatic though, they might buy newer iPhones without a good reason. I think that is slowing down as well though, at least outside of China.

That just reinforces the notion of this being confusing. Now when people are buying the hardware they'll have to check with a dozen or more games to see if the games they're wanting to play will be supported by the hardware they're looking to buy.

And as somebody already mentioned, that assumes that it's a linear upgrade path. If the upgrades aren't linear, then it's going to get even more confusing as having a larger number wouldn't guarantee that you could play the games you're wanting to play.

The more people respond the more clear it's getting that it just is as confusing as I think it is. Previously, if you bought a console, you were guaranteed to be able to play any game for that console. You might need a special controller to play optimally, but you could generally play without it. Most of the exceptions I remember were when the game was actually shipped with the controller.
That's the detail I don't really get. People who don't mind the confusion about what games to play and care about the backwards compatibility are mostly PC gamers anyways. Unless MS is planning on doing something akin to what Sega did with the 32x and Sega CD, I don't really get it.

But, the things they'd need to upgrade to make it work out aren't easily upgraded in the modern era of discs. Back in the days of cartridges you could upgrade the hardware for a game if you needed to. It did lead to games being more expensive as most of the time you couldn't reuse the extra resources for other games, but it did allow you to have faster hardware for newer games towards the end of the upgrade cycle.