Phil Spencer: The Xbox One Is Not Going To Be Our Last Console

Makes sense. I don't know if I would consider the release of the NX the beginning of a "new console generation". Was the Wii U supposed to be part of this generation? Nintendo is an odd duck and seems kind of like the red headed stepchild. I wouldn't be surprised if the specs for the NX were similar to current gen hardware in which case is it really the start of a new generation or a dated attempt as actually meeting the status quo for this generation?

I personally think Consoles are going to have tough years ahead. Especially if computer components are becoming cheaper and cheaper as the years go by. There are even PC's that function like consoles these days. I bet the next generation consoles are going to function more like PCs than ever before.

With Surface Pro and XBO console, Microsoft also a hardware vendor.

In the same article they were also talking about doing more cloud, where Crackdown 3 was the first one. Can't wait to see the cool stuff they'll do with the next Xbox, and the cloud.

He said that he fully expected, which means that it isn't up to him. Time will tell.

I am glad that there will be an Xbox 4. Hopefully this time Microsoft will have learned from the mistakes of the Xbox one launch. If Microsoft can just make a commitment to making a great game machine for the 9th Generation. Then they won't have to scramble to fix a terrible launch like with Xbox one. MS has done a great job turning it around. Hope that Xbox 4 launch goes smoothly. Whenever MS decides to continue the Xbox brand.

Microsoft is flailing around, grasping for purchase. The second Xbox couldn't be 2 because 2 < PS3 so they went full retard with the 360. Where do you go once you've gone too far? You have to double down of course, and call your third iteration number 1. What is the fourth iteration going to be called? Probably something like Xbox Ultra or Xbox Cubed.

The fact that Microsoft even has to state this is pretty damning. Also "expecting" another console isn't exactly a glowing endorsement for the future of the Xbox brand.

^ This

They should name it like car companies seemingly name their cars....having no apparent reasoning behind it.

Like:

Xbox Mi9

Xbox Turango XL

Xbox Q30.i

Some shit like that.

That is a very good thing to hear, They need to keep Sony in check, it has been growing cocky recently.

and then it's a Roku clone..

Well Halo 5 was a FLOP and now Xbone lost November:

PS4 WON!

1539k - PS4

I would hate it if MS dropped out of the console race. Nintendo are no competition (by their own admission, they are not in competition with the others) and if Sony didn't have someone looking over their shoulder they would take the piss. They take advantage as it is. Want a healthy video game industry? You need competition. When there is competition, the customer matters. The more competition, the more you matter, the less they can afford to take advantage of you.

"I didn't hear no bell."

Microsoft goofed. People were excited for kinect. The initial demo concept, that is. People rave about the surface tablets. Xbox One should have stressed this. These two consoles--ps4 and x1--are already media boxes. I think had microsoft stressed games, in addition to real productive software in tandem with surface/kinect/hololens/etc people would have went for it.

most people here dont understand this

Well thanks to gamers sadly MS wont dare to innovate anymore, so it's a given that the next Xbox will match or exceed the PS5 in performance. It's what MS do. This is their first underpowered console, where as Playstation have a MUCH longer history of poor console performance with the PS1 and 2. Xbox was much more powerful, Xbox 360 matched the competition and the Xbox tried innovation, but it's cost the company I think too much.

There is absolutely no way MS will risk VR, and hardware peripherals or streaming.

I'm not even happy about it. I'd rather have a weaker console and some innovation some where. Consoles this gen are a 0.5 update of last gens. What's the point, it's boring.

That's nice. He may not be the head of Xbox in a year. The CEO of MS might decide to radically transform or sell off the division in six months.

Consoles already filled the niche that many foresaw media PC's taking. For a relatively low price a consumer has a wide range of choices for a bluray player with streaming capabilities that also plays games well with effortless setup.

It sounds like a radical idea now, but I really think the next big change in consoles will be modular upgrades. Just undo a screw and pop in a new SoC/APU. And we're already seeing the groundwork for expanded use of extra screens and devices, even offloading of compute. I say this because I think it would be cost effective for, say Sony, to mass produce a bunch of chassis's and then sell upgrades down the line. Much like how Valve is doing with the Steam Machines games would just load with presets based on specs.

Then again I don't know much about fabrication costs and contracts, so maybe this is a super dumb idea. Sounds cool to me though.

Actually the PS2 was powerful...as was the PS1. The problem was time, but that's also a factor when trying to get your machine on the market over the competition.

With regards to the March 2000 PS2 Hardware, it was powerful. So much in fact that the Xbox, with Bill Gates order after seeing the Xbox graphics back before the projected year 2000 launch, delayed the Xbox for a year and a half (Nov 2001) to overpower the PS2 (which worked). It worked, but it meant the Xbox hardware was completed a year and half after the PS2 hardware released at retail (March 2000 PS2 vs. Nov 2001 Xbox). The long delay cost the original Xbox marketshare and with that the Xbox lost many multiplatform games that could and should have released on the Xbox platform but did not. Another tidbit, the PS2 was 128bit and the Xbox was 32bit. The Xbox was more powerful, but that was due to the delay as it was originally supposed to release the same year as the PS2. There is a few books on this if you ever want to read up. I think it's neato.

The PS1 was also a technical marvel in it's day releasing in 1994 and it's main competitor initially was Sega's Saturn.

Nintendo came along in Nov 1996 and having the extra time did allow for more power under the hood for the Ultra 64, but again, Nintendo made some other decisions that cost them 3rd party support which included that delay.

Releasing last gives a technical advantage over the competition, something the N64 enjoyed over the Saturn & PS1.

Releasing after the November 1998 Dreamcast allowed the March 2000 PS2 more juice in the same vein the Nov 2001 Gamecube and Nov 2001 Xbox enjoyed over the March 2000 PS2. Of course, the PS2 had the tech to keep up with the majority of multiplats pumped out for PS2/GC/Xbox, but certainly the PS2 struggled against newer technology in the GC and Xbox. The Dreamcast never got that chance.

Now we see the last strategy work again for the Nov 2013 Xbone and Nov 2013 PS4 over the 2012 Wii U.

That same releasing last strategy worked for the Nov 2001 Gamecube and Nov 2001 Xboxes favor over the 1998 Dreamcast and March 2000 PS2.

Unfortunately, the late release of the PS3 and Wii did not help against the early 2005 360 due to other variables. Nintendo went with an innovation/gimmick route that took up precious R&D from the tech. Sony created a beast with the Cell, but not a lot of developers didn't had incentive to utilize the Cell in multiplatform releases since the Cell wasn't easy to work with. The Cell was more powerful than the current Xbone and PS4 CPUs in fact.

You are right in that the Playstations do have a history of course, but it makes more sense looking at the timeline.

In the first two Playstations, Sony was eager to get the jump and release early with great technology of it's time. Tech moves fast though.

For the PS3 and PS4, Sony delayed the hardware. The PS3 struggled with a powerful but hard to access tech, like the PS2, and the PS4is Sony's move to make the PS consoles easy to work with like the original PS1, although this time Sony released out of the gate at the tail end unlike the PS1.

Regarding your prediction, we'll have to see how that plays out. It definitely could play out that way, for sure. PS is known for strong hardware upon release and Xbox is known for good software. Each company approaches design differently, which means there is no guarantee one way or the other. There is the other issue of releasing hardware before the competitor. For instance, if Xbox releases a year before the next PS, or if the next PS releases a year before the next Xbox, that allows the other later released hardware to overpower the machines (assuming no gimmicks).

Sometimes not doing great in sales initiates an early release of hardware, as we saw with the Dreamcast (succeeding the Saturn) and now what looks to be the NX (succeeding the Wii U possibly). Depending on how this generation breaks down between Xbone and PS4, can propel the lower selling hardware to release before the others.

It didn't lose anything, at that point it didn't have anything. Even if it came out before the PS2, it never would have suddenly gotten a lot of support. I don't think it was hugely delayed, just because of that, it took MS a while to get ready in general.

The Xbox CPU was 32bit, but then so were all PC CPUs back then. But the PS2 CPU wasn't 128bit, it might have been 64bit, can't remember or tell because it's convoluted, there are bits all over the place in that thing with the marketing. No CPU has exceeded 64bit, by definition it is a little pointless right now, even more so back then. The PS2 had a 128bit SIMD. The Intel was very different to the Emotion Engine, it's not worth trying to compare them.

"Contrary to some misconceptions, these SIMD capabilities did not amount to the processor being "128-bit", as neither the memory addresses nor the integers themselves were 128-bit, only the shared SIMD/integer registers. For comparison, 128-bit wide registers and SIMD instructions had been present in the 32-bit x86 architecture since 1999, with the introduction of SSE." Wikipedia.

The Xbox's Intel CPU had SSE and MMX instruction sets.

The terms were used and abused by marketing. Then, if you look at the specs, you'll find these numbers pop up left and right and they'd pick them out for marketing.

I appreciate you responding, (although citing user edited and constantly changing Wikipedia notwithstanding), and the PS2 having a much more powerful CPU, although not user friendly, than the Xbox (although the year and half Xbox delay advantage worked fantastic for the Xbox due to the better layout, design, user friendliness, more RAM, and Nvidia GPU), my general point addressing the:

"Playstation have a MUCH longer history of poor console performance with the PS1 and 2" as those were powerful machines for their time. They just happened to release 1.5+ years before more powerful hardware released (N64 and Xbox graphics benefited from the delays, although the 3rd party support effect was the inverse). I know nearly 2 years doesn't seem like much, but in console lifetimes of 4-6 years, it's actually a rather long time.

I also inserted some other stuff in my first post for ya to address your prediction on the future.

Typically, the lower selling machine initiates the console manufacturer into an earlier release for their next machine in a 1st to market gambit. That can pay off, especially when the competitor makes mistakes (like the PS2/360). Other times, the hardware is considered too weak for the longterm of the gen, like we saw with the early released Dreamcast and early released Wii U. The other compromise between releasing first is the technical power of the machine may not hold up to later machines (again, this is where later released machine screw ups can help). The Xbox, Gamecube, Wii, and PS3 released later, but were not fully exploited like they could have been.

Based on the current sales, we are already seeing the struggling selling Wii U to next gen replacement NX being talked about. Between the Xbone and PS4, if the current sales pace keeps up, it could mean that Xbox execs may want to get the jump on Xbox 4 over PS5. Again though, the compromise is technology if Xbox or PS release early.

The PS1 and PS2 had great hardware for their time (1994 PS1 and March 2000 PS2). It's about balancing that fine line between power and releasing first to get machine sales. The PS4 is interesting in that it's the most powerful console between the big three and it's selling well despite releasing last tier alongside the Xbone, but I believe a lot of that has to do with screw ups by their competitors this gen. Next gen will reset and should be interesting to see who screws the pooch, who releases first, and if any companies push a "gimmick" at the cost of graphic fidelity.

Wikipedia points are usually cited. But this is a pretty factual point in particular.

While I accept your idea of context, it still is what it is.

A knowledge bomb by TY, dead on as usual.

They are sometimes cited, but it's always tricky.

That said, it's all good broham. I had some time to kill before dinner, thanks for the respectful engagement once again. :)

I'm thinking the next generation Xbox will be capable of graphics like this, at launch, and have this very game as well!