Your thoughts on iterative vs true generation Consoles?

So both companies have different philosophies regarding this.

Microsoft is going for the more iterative route,

• every 4 years a new console comes out. e.g Xbox Next comes out, then Xbox One S/OG will be EOL, where there is no support for first party developers: Xbox One X replaces Xbox One S as the budget model for consumers. Xbox Next becomes the next flagship. 4 years after, the next xbox after comes out and replaces the current flagship, Xbox One X is phased out/EOL and Xbox Next is the budget model
• BC from going forward.
• Games when the next Xbox releases will be developed only both Xbox One X and the next Xbox.

Sony is going for the more traditional route saying that they will keep generations.

• PS4 and PS4 Pro games will work on PS5?? (Conflicting answers regarding this)
• PS5 games will not work on PS4x consoles, including PS4 Pro
• May have a model where they launch a PS5 and a PS5 Pro.

IMO There is a stark contrast in both models. Microsoft is following the smartphone model, where newer phones are released, the previous model is the budget model and the model before that is phased out. Sony is more traditional, where it requires more of a big leap in generational hardware, and more hard line EOL for consoles. Microsoft will probably only released 1 new console every 3-4 years. Sony may release 2 consoles for every generation.

Both reach the same point, however different ways to get there.

Love the MS route. No more gens and with all new consoles being fully BC and never needing to buy all new peripherals for those consoles.

Mighty X1X shall be mine soon.

I miss the days when iterative approach was hated.

I bet the ancient Mayans could chart out the cyclical rotation of iterative, graphics, FPS, game stories, indies, exclusives, marketing rights and so on.

Stick with pc and ignore all this shit.

Big win.

With digital games and dedicated stores you have to go iterative. The two are absolutely linked.

As always Sony doesn't know what the market has already said they wanted.

Modularity over either. But I've yet to experience the benefit that validates the iterative approach, and I own a Pro.

Is there any source for that statement? All we know is both released an original, a slim and a slightly more powerful version of their current gen system. It's pretty much what Nintendo did with the 3DS, they just started with the small version ^^

Iterative, always...

Generational. Half the fun of consoles growing up was the wacky hype surrounding a new generation of console and the exotic tech they would put in these things to try and one-up each other. Then, there were the unique titles that took advantage of these closed systems. An iterative approach would kill all of that, and perhaps stifle the technology curve as well.

I have the ultimate iterative gaming platform, the pc. As long as I have been here in System Wars, one argument that has come up in almost every discussion as a con to pc gaming is that you have to upgrade components every few years. I do not see a case where console gamers are going to desire doing the same thing.

I do not see a path ahead for an iterative console. When people spend 400-500 on a console, they expect radical results and new games. You are not going to convince people who have held out from PC gaming to start pc gaming from a closed system. Even worse, you are setting yourself up for failure by hyping a new product right when the previous sku reaches a mass market price point. The excitement of getting the new console is gone if the manufacturer is already banging the gong for the new-new one. Customer dissatisfaction guaranteed.

I don't see either "iterative" console (PS4 Pro or Xbox One X, especially) outselling the base models. And I do consider the PS4 Pro to be iterative. Either way, people buy new consoles so they can play new games. There is an audience for consoles that play the same games with better performance or graphical improvements, but I don't think it's a huge one - most of that audience is already drawn to gaming on PC.

I just don't know why you would opt for a console if your goal is to get the best gaming experience. Many console games are not designed to be forward compatible with new technologies; thus, the only way for old games to enjoy the capabilities of new hardware is to wait/hope for a developer patch. With PC, it's designed in most games from the get-go. Your gaming rig - even a middling one - will almost certainly someday be upgraded to better tech, which in the future will enable better graphics/performance in any game.

As an example, I have a modest rig with a GTX 1070. It's a nice card but it's not enough to pull off 4K/60 in most current games. That said, I can go back and play games like Tomb Raider (2013) in 4K/60 with max settings - an option which I expect will never be available in the so-called definitive edition on PS4 and Xbox One.

Iterative. Full BC moving forward, no one getting left behind, and more options. It's a win/win/win.

Microsoft doesn't really know at the moment that was Phil's answer to Giant Bomb. That's a nice position because much of it may not be up to MS to dictate. They have to see where the market is. Game logic and software sales split may effect if X1X will support every next xbox game, before the next iteration arrives. If ps5 succeed in following similar next gen adaption path and Mark Cerny vision that cpu is most important leap for next gen is true, then X1X will not be able to keep up. Third party for certain games they will look at software split between X1X and next xbox cross platform. If X1X is dragging behind then they wont let it hold the tech advancement behind. Microsoft however can keep supporting this until there next iteration.

i think the iterative approach is a complete waste. both the X1X and the pro shouldnt exist.

proper gens. minimum of 5 years per gen. maintain BC if it doesnt cost a fortune (which it shouldnt from now on). aim for a minimum of 10X in performance boost (basically dont release a console until you can release a console that meets that requirement. also note that this doesnt necessarily mean 10X higher numbers on a page across the board. its overall 10X the gaming capacity of it predecessor. hard to measure i know :P).

I only have 2 problems with iterative:

It's less interesting because we'll bever (barely ever) see any new technology come into play if consoles are iterative.

There is no launch lineup to show off the new hardware.

The start of this gen convinced me that I'm over the traditional console generations, where you start from scratch. It's just not needed. I like the way MS is going where you just iterate every 3-4 years and keep everything BC & FC (obviously games won't be FC forever, and eventually you'll have to upgrade).

@ellos: Microsoft doesnt enforce parity on both XB1 and XB1X. So I guess that does help with things.

Let's he honest though, the generational model is an unreliable and unstable business model.it relies on impact and marketing, with the reduction in technology advancement regarding CPUs in the future, it makes the generation model less relevant

I'm fine with iterative.

Last gen lasted way too long and that was not good for anyone. So it seems like this gen will last longer too, but you can buy better, more powerful consoles in between.

Plus I don't buy consoles on launch so for me this ain't a problem to wait for an improved version.

The only problem I see is that developers have way too many systems to optimize for now, all with way different specs.

But.... but.......

I thought you said X1X was going to be a Windows 10 S machine that happened to run Xbox games, which would hail the destruction of steam, origin, uplay, and everyone else?

The console space is becoming a mess. Glad I'm a PC gamer.

New consoles gens every 6 years for $399. 5 years is too short 7 is too long

I like the iterative approach, especially like the direction MS is taking and bringing a PC like experience. Its great having access to past games and carrying content forward.

The waiting for next gen console is just an outdated model. Tech is moving quickly and when feasible, its nice having Sony/MS taking advantage with an iterative approach.

Finally with an iterative approach you can jump into a new system whenever you want. After xbox one x, ill probably skip out on whatever sony/ms release next as the xbox one x will be a capable machine for years to come.

But the console space is becoming a lot like the PC market, particularly with the Xbox. Developers can compile their game for low, medium or high specs and gamers can run it on the Xbone, XboneS or XboneX. Thats a lot like the PC approach to development. I'm guessing you're thinking of things from a different perspective. I'd be interested in hearing what you were thinking when you made your post.

The way tech is moving forward Most consoles will not last as long as the 360PS3 did.

It's a new era, it's 2017 not 2001.

@kuu2: As long as consuers are willing to buy PS2 classics for say $10 on ps5, why wouldn't they?

Sony wants to keep taking in money for their legacy as often as possible. If it pays why not?

Another reason why iterative approach would work best is that all your accessories would still work. So not only do you still have you library, but you also have you accessories. Consumer-wise, and financially this is the best option.

Follow the market leader and forget about any promises made.

I haven't seen MS do the supposed iterative move and I am confident they won't will miss the hype of a true gen specially if it happens with the imminence of PS5.

If MS goes iterative, and Sony stays traditional, Sony would lose some of the advantages they now enjoy.

1. Almost every third party dev would make the XB the defacto dev console. Literally everything would get ported to PS. Third party support would likely swell for XB as well. An iterative console is much easier to develop and optimize for vs a new traditional one.

2. An iterative model allows MS to get more bang for their buck on console sales. MS would make more $ per console sold than Sony. Even if everything else broke even between the two, Sony would lose due to the high R/D cost that it would have to recoup vs MS.

3. There's plenty of othet small things that would benefit MS in this situation. A continual improvement of the OS and features would be top notch as they gradually improve them. Sony would have to start from scratch, which leads to bugs and clunkiness at times. It would stifle improvements there, because why further improve the PS4 OS and features in 2018/2019 when you'll have to start all over in a year or two.

PS3's RSX was a dead end architecture and not compatible with NVIDIA's CUDA GPUs.

PS3's CELL upgrades needs to be paid by Sony and SPUs doesn't directly leverage from general PowerPCs R&D. IBM didn't carry SPU customization with Power6/7/8. SPUs ISA is a dead end architecture.

Xbox 360's Xenos GPU is different from VLIW5 based Radeon HD 2900XT. Xenos GPU is a dead end. Xenos GPU was designed for big-endian data format while PC GPUs was designed for X86's little endian data format. Cheap 8 core Jaguar wasn't ready during X360's era.

Xbox 360's PPE can be updated with general out-of-order PowerPC CPU cores, but it's SIMD instruction set is a customised Altivec with 128 registers. IBM didn't carry this customization with Power6/7/8. PPE's SIMD ISA is a dead end architecture.

I never said the Xbox One X will run Windows 10 S. I said that it'll become a Windows 10 S-like device. With M&K support and a desktop-like UI, those things are happening.

All the stuff that I was talking can be done via software updates like a normal Windows PC. Xbox One OG has had API updates from moving from Windows 8 Core to Windows 10 Core and the introduction of UWP games.

I agree I love this approach by MS. They are going more the PC route. I love the idea of having an Xbox and being able to play 3 generations of games. I still play plenty of old PC games and now I can do the same on a console. I am so looking forward to playing Brute Force or Kotor again for example. With the way MS is going now I never get rid of games because I know they will carry over.

I'm also SO VERY MUCH looking forward to X1X. Playing Forza Horizon 3, Fallout 4, Gears 4, Halo, and so on with 4k patches. Or heck even the newer games with added aspects that are not available on any of the other consoles but higher level PC settings. Even if PS4 Pro and X1X have the same resolution the X1X will get more added features such as better shadows or lighting or whatever.

The consoles already do an annoying job of holding back tech since modern triple A games have to be build with them in mind, and has to be super expensive, so it has to be super safe as ****.

Which isn't helped with iterative consoles I would think, the benefit of a whole new gen, is eventually we see some clear advancements in tech once we start getting games built strictly for the new machines. A lot of this gen is more subtle advancements over the last one, because it's more of a memory jump than anything in terms of raw horse power, but I also chalk that up to a sheer lack of ambition in modern triple A games.

@jg4xchamp: How are consoles holding back tech in regards to game development?

I mean it's just basic stuff. If you are building a big expensive title, you need to be on everything, because you are on everything, you are limited by what the weakest hardware you have to deal with, ergo that's really the tech the studio can push.

Especially with expectations being what they are for "graphics" in a game, you can't just water down the visuals of a game to something PS2 tier, and take advantage of that added horse power to do something more absurd in scale n enemy count or whatever. In gens 5 n 6, the benefit of those exclusives were that they were built around pushing those specific hardware. So the PC space had more games that could push a level of scale that really wouldn't work on the consoles for a gen or 2 (ala Thief, what Deus Ex did, etc), to what Crysis did in early 07 (the version they ported to the 360 is so fucking watered down it's not even the same game).

That's not to say good games aren't being made, there are, tons of good games. But the tech itself isn't really pushing forward, and that isn't helped with iterative consoles. There are other benefits of an iterative console, but speaking selfishly, I'd probably prefer the point where we eventually have a PS5 n Xbox 4.

IF there was no mid-gen consoles, I probably wouldn't have bought a 4K TV this soon. Last gen was way too long, so I'm glad there's an option to upgrade.

Yep and to your last part. I love the idea of my current library of X1, 360 BC and soon OG Xbox BC games receiving a nice upgrade likely looking like remasters and all for free. Not to mention the new games and what they'll be able to do on X1X. :D

Well IMO consoles suck and I avoid them unless there is a compelling exclusive....

So I basically ignore gens.

Keeping an open mind, right now I just see the numerous benefits of the iterative model, and I like it. I don't see the negative impact that the PS4-Pro has had, it just looks like a hardware refresh for the people who want to upgrade and PS4-Pro owners seem happy overall. I can get a big graphical boost now, I don't have to wait another 4-5 years? Bring it on, this is what the industry has become now so I'm all in, enjoying it with tons of games to play. Doesn't work out well then it doesn't work out, no biggie.

@Shewgenja: People spend more money on phones that gets an iteration annually or even semiannually.

@cainetao11: It's actually pretty sad that people are buying digital versions of games without guarantee of being able to play them next console cycle.

With iterative you have that guarantee. I have a vast digital movie collection. I can't imagine not being able to access them and rebuy the titles on a new console. It would kill off any desire to buy digitally.

In the end this is not about hardware it's about having access to content.

Amazon

Apple

MSoft

All understand this.

Nintendo

Sony

All Japanese companies by the way still don't get it.

Good luck to them.

@kuu2: Well Sony is kicking ass this gen while MS is doing pathetic, worse than last gen and that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon so your wishes of luck are misplaced...

I think making games is just too expensive and risky these days for generations to be feasible anymore.

@funsohng: Yes, but hqving a phone is a necessity for everybody. Smart phones have been marketed as a status symbol. Smaet phones with intwgrated batteries degrade within one or two years so their charge doesn't hold as long.

Consoles are none of these things.

Very true. I believe Sony at least will catch on to the fact that if you wish to sell digitally you need to guarantee the sale lives in a space not limited by the number on a console.

LOL way to go missing the point. Hurr durr my Sony sells teh more consolz so they be right and best

If MS follows through and delivers on what they are implying it's the best route to go hands down.

I'd love to see the scenario of X1X drops Nov 2017, by 2020/2021 they announce the next Xbox and that all games from this point on will only work with X1X and the next Xbox, Xbox OneS is no longer gonna be supported the time to upgrade is now choose X1X or the next Xbox and continue carring everything over and playing. I think 5 year cycles would be ideal announcing on the 4th year dropping support for the weakest model which would have a 8 year run, drop prices and let people upgrade how they want 4 years of the low tier box or upgrade to the latest and greatest one and get 8 years out of it.

You'd get that year break of for games to ditch the weakest console and focus on games made just for X1X and the next system. They can always introduce new accessories and controller options, as well as implement VR or mixed reality.

thats what I want

I'm a PC gamer and consoles barely blip on my radar. From my point of view, having to wait 6 or 7 years to get an upgrade is very restrictive on the industry.

@daniel_su123:

Microsoft isn't going the iterative route, that was just speculation.

thats a s*itty way of looking at it....

"They are more popular with worse-consumor business models... lets praise them!"

Who says they are worse? They have provided much better and many more games this gen than Microsoft. Why would a gaming company like Microsoft that seems to be clueless and give a **** about supporting/creating/promoting games be best for gamers? Give me a break.

Because the PC/Mobile format of software eco systems is far better for the consumor? nothing to do with Microsoft in that case.

Typical Japanese company riding their brand while falling behind in modern developments.

LMFAO! Are you saying Japan is behind in mobile?? Japan was one of the pioneers of mobile technology and they still are up front.