New Xbox One Hardware In The Works

[HalGameGuru]

If they refuse changes they don't get consoles or games. Markets are just as controllable as computers themselves.

 

Yes, they are a practical solution. If motherboard makers can do it (and do), so can console makers.

 

I'm not sure you understand how markets work.

 

Sony or Microsoft start requiring massive outlays of money or resources nintendo won't go back to its old ways and dominate? A new player won't come in? That won't push people to android consoles?

 

The market is probably the one thing that CANNOT be controlled, Any attempt to control a market leads to pushback, whether its a black market, increased prices, less choices, inferior products, etc. Artificial controls do not lead to better things. And trying to force a market to abide by your opinion (as a provider) merely leads to competitors taking over. How many failed consoles in history prove the market cannot be dictated to?

[HalGameGuru]

Eh, if Microsoft and Sony just stop supporting their old hardware and sell new stuff while also incentivizing the game debs to switch, the market doesn't have a choice. Sometimes free markets are stupid. The U.S. proves that all the time, but people can be controlled, and so they are.

 

You think america has a free market? I have a slew of youtube videos to educate you on this paradigm if you'd like.

[Darkman]

Good for them, but they need a serious performance jump to catch up to the PS4. I don't know how they are going to work it out if it's a performance increase? The Xbox One gets 900p and the Xbox One Slim gets 1080p? Wonder how the owners of the original Xbox One would react...

The original owners will probably be like, "Hey, mine actually looks like it's for movies." Too soon? Sorry.

[Ashley]

Good for them, but they need a serious performance jump to catch up to the PS4. I don't know how they are going to work it out if it's a performance increase? The Xbox One gets 900p and the Xbox One Slim gets 1080p? Wonder how the owners of the original Xbox One would react...

"resolution doesn't matter", so they wouldn't care.

[PatrikStar24]

To the people saying that M$ or $ony should and/or will put more powerful hardware in their consoles, that may sound like a good thing, but as a few people have pointed out, that would ruin compatibility with the early adopter's consoles, among other problems.

In fact, one only needs to look at (pre third party) Sega regarding what NOT to do.

Apologies if this next essay is off topic.

<FLASHBACK TO 1994>

The Sega Genesis (aka MegaDrive) was on its way out, but Sega needed to prop itself up while trying to develop its 5th Gen Console. Enter the Sega CD, an add on that supported its own games with CDs (duh lol). It sold moderately well, but due to Sega's mentality at the time, they decided to release yet another add on that supported its own games. Enter the Sega 32X. I should note that both the 32X and Sega CD required their own power supplies (the ones with the brick plug... You know what I'm talking about), on top of the MegaDrive's power supply (again, also a brick plug... Imagine that clusterf***). Anyway, despite being an add on, the 32X was marketed as a next gen console. It only lasted a year and only sold 600,000 units.

Fast forward to 1995, Sony announces that it is releasing its first console called the Playstation in September in the North American market, for it had already been released in Japan approx. 6 months prior. Sega sees this and panics, and as a result, rushes the North American launch of the Sega Saturn. A rushed launch wasn't the Saturn's only problem, it's hardware was oriented towards 2D gaming in a time when 3D (not to be confused with Virtual Reality) was on its way in, and was very difficult to code for (due to its many hardware oddities, such as having 2 CPUs, etc).

As time passes, it sells okay in Japan and Europe, but in NA, it's a flop. So Sega of America ended up saying the ever infamous line "The Sega Saturn is not our future". Long story short, the majority of the Saturn's library remained Japanese exclusive (on top of Sega's usual IP hoarding), and finished in 3rd place in the console race (N64 in 2nd and PS in 1st).

3 short years later in 1998, the Dreamcast releases in Japan using the proprietary GD-ROM format (essentially a CD with 500 MB more space). Things seemed to be going okay until the Playstaion 2 arrived with its DVD functionality. Next thing we knew, developers were abandoning Sega left and right, things got worse and worse for Sega until they outright dropped out of the console race in 2001.

To Sony and Microsoft, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it!

[Techhog]

I'm not sure you understand how markets work.

Sony or Microsoft start requiring massive outlays of money or resources nintendo won't go back to its old ways and dominate? A new player won't come in? That won't push people to android consoles?

The market is probably the one thing that CANNOT be controlled, Any attempt to control a market leads to pushback, whether its a black market, increased prices, less choices, inferior products, etc. Artificial controls do not lead to better things. And trying to force a market to abide by your opinion (as a provider) merely leads to competitors taking over. How many failed consoles in history prove the market cannot be dictated to?

Don't mind him. He's just extremely angry that consoles hold PCs back, and thus wants console cycles reduced to 2 years for his personal benefit.

[Rassilon]

Going from DDR3 to DDR4 isn't going to make it faster, that's not the point. The point is low energy. You can't make a console faster because then old consoles couldn't run the games.

[StingBull]

So now there are going to be versions of the same console with different performance?

 

Somebody should have told Nintendo just that before they came up with the New 3DS.

[Techhog]

Going from DDR3 to DDR4 isn't going to make it faster, that's not the point. The point is low energy. You can't make a console faster because then old consoles couldn't run the games.

Changing the hardware architecture at all will run the risk that older games will have issues with the new console. There's a reason 360 never moved to DDR3.

[patrickjp93]

I'm not sure you understand how markets work.

Sony or Microsoft start requiring massive outlays of money or resources nintendo won't go back to its old ways and dominate? A new player won't come in? That won't push people to android consoles?

The market is probably the one thing that CANNOT be controlled, Any attempt to control a market leads to pushback, whether its a black market, increased prices, less choices, inferior products, etc. Artificial controls do not lead to better things. And trying to force a market to abide by your opinion (as a provider) merely leads to competitors taking over. How many failed consoles in history prove the market cannot be dictated to?

The only reason you say that is no one has succeeded because no one continually provides a superior product. If Nintendo had Sony's monetary resources, Microsoft wouldn't even be in the game.

If all suppliers cooperate in such a way as to keep tech progressing and selling games, then there's no reason for console makers to listen to consumers. If the machine functions on a superior level, then the consumer has to buy it if a game comes out exclusively for it. Markets are controllable and continually are. Insurance, ISP, television, CPUs/GPUs. You have a lot of good examples of how to do it and maintain control, legally too.

[pk-man]

so first day xbone customers are getting xboned? lol

[patrickjp93]

You think america has a free market? I have a slew of youtube videos to educate you on this paradigm if you'd like.

The very idea of a free market is a farce. A market with no restrictions would have meant the death of AMD when Intel decided it wanted to buy the loyalty of PC OEMs and buy TSMC into not giving AMD a way to produce its APUs. Free markets are the least free in the world. Standard oil, carnegie steel, and Barkley's all prove this. That said, this is because the markets are too stupid to know when there is a better way. Console peasants are very much like this.

[decer304]

they wouldnt change performance. Every iteration of the consoles are always die shrinks and redesigns for better efficiency. If there was a clear difference in performance, it could create buyers remorse, which could be disastrous for MS.

[HalGameGuru]

The only reason you say that is no one has succeeded because no one continually provides a superior product. If Nintendo had Sony's monetary resources, Microsoft wouldn't even be in the game.

If all suppliers cooperate in such a way as to keep tech progressing and selling games, then there's no reason for console makers to listen to consumers. If the machine functions on a superior level, then the consumer has to buy it if a game comes out exclusively for it. Markets are controllable and continually are. Insurance, ISP, television, CPUs/GPUs. You have a lot of good examples of how to do it and maintain control, legally too.

No one has succeeded? Even when Nintendo WAS the biggest dog they made missteps, that's the entire point of a free market, its not that everyone wins, its that those who win and lose are decided on merits and voluntary exchange, not who has the clout to get the better competitor put down. Why would microsoft not get in the game? If there is money to be made and a competitive market, why would any large player not choose to get in on it? That multibillion dollar industry? How did any of what you are spouting have anything to do with Nintendo or Microsoft becoming competitors, if not for Sony and Nintendo hitting the rocks there would have been no PlayStation either. Why is this even discussed?

 

I'm sorry there is no reason to listen to consumers? Aside from the fact they can choose to not buy? Failed consoles come to mind. SO all this animosity towards UbiSoft will have no effect? Just like every other supplier has ignored their customer base and gone on to bigger and better things because of it?

 

No one HAS to buy anything, it doesn't matter if its exclusive or whatever hoop you put in front of the buyer. Markets are not controllable, ISP markets are the god awful mess they are because of government interference and the limits on what could have been a free market, how many new players entered the market when broadband got spooled up? How many providers NOW are not just some rehash of big cable, big telecom, or big gov't connected conglomerate? Insurance is hampered spectacularly, there is a reason why it NOW costs a couple hundred a month for health insurance where it used to be less than half that, and it wasn't the free market that let that happen.

 

Voluntary regulation has had far more positive an impact than intrusive government regulation or controls, UL, ISO, VESA, etc. How is the market on CPU/GPU controlled? Who has this control? Where do they derive their control? Legally is no argument, lots of godawful things were done legally.

 

You know what happens when you try to control markets? Detroit in the 70's and 80's, the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, the housing RECESSION, The "War" on drugs, million dollar cab medallions which leads to suits against UBER and LYFT, the husk that is the Japanese economy, the difference between China in the 60's and China now, Hong Kong vs China at any time, Famine and starvation in Ukraine, Crop failures in Russia, Obamacare, prohibition and the rise of organized crime, "Business Cycles," cronyism, the "Baptists and Bootleggers" scenario, Big Pharma, Big GMO, AT&T and the Bell Co.s, etc.

 

If all makers are providing better and better solutions and the consumer is happy buying what they provide then they are already listening to consumers because as soon as they stop spending their money you can be darn sure they will be changing their game to keep the money rolling vs. a competitor. So long as what they are selling is in demand and being bought they are doing their jobs, if they "cooperate" only to produce garbage whoever decides to make quality first will reap the benefits.

 

There is no valid argument for attempting to control a "market" it only ever ends with things worse off than they otherwise would have been. The only valid interaction is voluntary, its one thing to require a certain level of quality before you elect to buy, its quite another to limit the market players' ability to operate under threat of force.

[martinrox1568]

I was thinking the same

 

this is not good for people who bought the XboxONE already, they will be pretty angry

I don't think they will increase performance. Just make it more power effecient. Like the xbox 360 slim

[HalGameGuru]

The very idea of a free market is a farce. A market with no restrictions would have meant the death of AMD when Intel decided it wanted to buy the loyalty of PC OEMs and buy TSMC into not giving AMD a way to produce its APUs. Free markets are the least free in the world. Standard oil, carnegie steel, and Barkley's all prove this. That said, this is because the markets are too stupid to know when there is a better way. Console peasants are very much like this.

 

That's not a representation of a free market. Read up on what Capitalism really is, and Austrian Economics. The intellectual garbage you are spewing is downright saddening, especially from someone who should be well connected on the tech front. America has not had a "free market," America is not capitalist (at best we are corporatist), and freedom of a market is not dictated by the likes of Intel, the reason anything like that happening was NOT because of a free market, the entire foundation on which those circumstances arose was a limited, regulated, cronyist market with interests as disparate as the involved players, politicians, and government bureaucracies all playing a part.

 

I'm gonna suggest you spend some time watching some videos from LearnLiberty, MisesMedia, and Tom Woods on what a free market actually is. And what Capitalism ACTUALLY is. We have had none of it, and most of history would point to those free market forces providing the best product possible when its been allowed to exist, even in the face of regulated competition. Hill and the Great Northern Railroad, Vanderbilt and the Ferry Monopolies, Standard Oil, and Rockefeller and Steel. 

 

 

 

 

[patrickjp93]

@HalGameGuru Way to conflate things and miss the point all at once. Free markets would mean Intel having no competition, because no one can and Intel, if allowed, could just buy all vendor loyalty and effectively bar competition from entering the market. There's also the fact there are only 2 providers in the world of silicon foundry equipment and no one has the funding nowadays to buy into the market. Not to mention intellectual property rights extending 70 years from the day of patent issue forbid anyone from being able to build on the tech which currently exists unless they own the original tech in the first place. Free markets mean money rules all. The moment that happens society loses all morality and control. The founders of the U.S. knew it and so do all the governments of the world, loathe as Trik'Stari is to admit it.

Free markets gave us the tragedies of the 2008 crash, Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, and Intel. If you for a moment think you can deny that, you're deluded. Government intervention and regulation allows competition to be possible. Without it there is no way to stop the most financially equipped from being able to buy control. It's happened before and it will again.

[patrickjp93]

@HalGameGuru You watch that hyper conservative propaganda?! Pete freaking sake no wonder through to you. I bet you subscribe to Arthur Laffer despite his abject failures as an economist.

We are cronyist now, but we are still a greatly free market which is why money buys power. You can't have cronyism without capitalism. If there's no competition there's no incentive to buy political power, and there's no power to be had.

[Rassilon]

Changing the hardware architecture at all will run the risk that older games will have issues with the new console. There's a reason 360 never moved to DDR3.

 

They're not talking about changing architecture, and I'm sure if they did, Microsoft could make it Backwards Compatible. The 360 never moved to DDR3 because it couldn't be clocked low enough, DDR4 can come in 2133

[Techhog]

They're not talking about changing architecture, and I'm sure if they did, Microsoft could make it Backwards Compatible. The 360 never moved to DDR3 because it couldn't be clocked low enough, DDR4 can come in 2133

The RAM is part of the overall system architecture.

[HalGameGuru]

@HalGameGuru Way to conflate things and miss the point all at once. Free markets would mean Intel having no competition, because no one can and Intel, if allowed, could just buy all vendor loyalty and effectively bar competition from entering the market. There's also the fact there are only 2 providers in the world of silicon foundry equipment and no one has the funding nowadays to buy into the market. Not to mention intellectual property rights extending 70 years from the day of patent issue forbid anyone from being able to build on the tech which currently exists unless they own the original tech in the first place. Free markets mean money rules all. The moment that happens society loses all morality and control. The founders of the U.S. knew it and so do all the governments of the world, loathe as Trik'Stari is to admit it.

Free markets gave us the tragedies of the 2008 crash, Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, and Intel. If you for a moment think you can deny that, you're deluded. Government intervention and regulation allows competition to be possible. Without it there is no way to stop the most financially equipped from being able to buy control. It's happened before and it will again.

You don't understand what a free market is do you? Voluntary interaction. A free market has no place for coercion. If intel has a monopoly, so long as they are providing what the people want at the price people are willing to pay, in the free market, this is fine. As soon as they start going nuts a competitor can and will arise. If there were no AMD, Samsung could do it, Intel has no POWER to control other firms. To be fair in a true free market there wouldn't be patent trolling either, but that's neither here nor there, who imbues a set of rules on IP without government? Even if AMD wasn't around there are plenty of fabs for silicon. And anyone who wanted to could go down the road to producing it. If intel was the only player and was taking advantage of that monopoly no other big firm would invest in competing? Apple would be OK with their products being two or three times as expensive as they now are? Microsoft? How many component manufacturers would try to jump in the game if Intel had a monopoly and Pentium Dual Cores were costing 500 bucks? You assume evil in a free market and then ignore the fact there is no barrier to competition. No one has any coercive power, there is no way for Intel, or Microsoft, or Samsung to force anyone to buy their product NOR to force anyone to sell THEM their needed resources.

 

The fact you think the 2008 free fall was due to the free market is PROOF of your ignorance of these systems. I do not have the time nor inclination to go over this, but regulation, and government interference, was the WHOLE of the issue that led both to the bubble AND the burst. If you want to look up Business Cycles it's the basic structure of the boom/bust cycle. But 2008 was due to financial institution being FORCED to NOT compete, FORCED to lend to sub-prime borrowers, and the COSTS of this BAD practice being off layed to the taxpayers thru fannie and freddie. In a FREE MARKET banks are going to lend money, to people they know cannot pay it back, for houses that are valued WAY HIGHER than the market would allow... WHAT FREE MARKET would allow this to happen? Without the government forcing the issue and collectivizing the costs of bad policy the housing bubble would have never happened.

 

Rockefeller? Steel rose in quality and dropped in price during the "monopoly" watch the video I linked on the robber barons.

 

Standard oil? ignoring the fact that happened with a previous monopoly imposed by the state on railroads forcing out of the ordinary practices, standard oil brought prices down, expanded the industry, and until the government stepped in AGAIN was a massive sink for the rest of the oil industry prompting and fuelling refinery building and drilling that led to the other players, often formed by fiat through the government, being able to make their way.

 

Intel? Intel has never existed in a market that was not wholly controlled or subsidized by the government. From the very beginnign, whether it be IP, "national security", or guaranteed lending, Intel has never existed on a level playing field. They make great products, but Intel is no different than Being or Lockheed Martin, their standing in the world at large is built on the shoulders of collectivized costs and coerced markets.

 

You want real, modern, examples of as close to anarchy and the free market as we can get you have things like BitCoin, Dating, and eBay. Given time and consumer demand the market can provide anything.

[HalGameGuru]

@HalGameGuru You watch that hyper conservative propaganda?! Pete freaking sake no wonder through to you. I bet you subscribe to Arthur Laffer despite his abject failures as an economist.

We are cronyist now, but we are still a greatly free market which is why money buys power. You can't have cronyism without capitalism. If there's no competition there's no incentive to buy political power, and there's no power to be had.

 

We have always been cronyist, we have had free market or capitalistic "principles" in many portions of our economy, but we have never been a "free market" and we have NEVER been capitalist. heck it only took a couple years for the new US of A to decide to expand taxes, spark a rebellion over the whiskey tax, then be more than willing to put that down with violence.

 

You seriously have NO IDEA what cronyism and capitalism are. You cannot have capitalism IF you have cronyism. CAPITALISM requires free and voluntary exchange, CRONYISM removes this from the equation. Watch the videos. Read up. LearnLiberty, and Mises Media have some awesome economics videos.

 

In the free market, under true capitalism. There are no LOSERS in voluntary interaction. When I chose to buy something from you, and you choose to sell that thing to me, we are BOTH profiting, we are both better off, I valued what you had to sell more than the cash I had on hand, YOU valued the cash I possessed higher than the product you had in stock. Capitalism and the free market derive EVERYTHING from property, voluntary interaction, and the realization that value is subjective and all voluntary exchange is PROFITABLE.

[Redheadsrule13]

So much for those 10 year lifecycles. 
I like that MS is at least biting the bullet and getting new hardware in already, even if it does mean that their practically admitting their hardware is already inferior (which it is). They could be asshats and just leave the consoles as they are just so that they don't have to admit that they're not going to last long at all, but MS isn't, which I commend them for.

[oldaccount117]

8 player super smash bros #wiiumasterrace

[patrickjp93]

@HalGameGuru Without some structure of IP, there's no motivation to invent because then anyone who already has money can steal your work and mass produce it, effectively cutting you out. Our founding fathers knew this. What you are asking for is pure intellectual anarchy.