Update February 24, 2020: Microsoft's Xbox chief Phil Spencer confirmed many of the rumored Xbox Series X specifications. We've also since had a look at the XSX's ports.
Update December 19, 2019: Microsoft has now revealed Anaconda, dubbed the Xbox Series X.
Microsoft is gearing up to reveal a two-pronged attack for next-gen consoles, complete with a more affordable SKU, dubbed "Lockhart," and a more beastly premium SKU, codenamed "Anaconda." We have no idea what the next-gen consoles will look like, or be officially named when the time comes, but we do now have a credible idea of what specs these systems are targeting.
We believe the information we've received below from multiple sources, but as always, take these rumors with a pinch of salt until we get official confirmation from Microsoft itself. Plans can and do change as we move towards production. Xbox Scarlett is due to launch in 2020, in time for the holiday season.
In the 2019 reveal video, Xbox cloud architect Kareem Choudhry said Scarlett could "eat monsters for breakfast," and indeed, Anaconda looks as though it will be able to. According to several sources familiar with Microsoft's plans, Anaconda is targeting around 12 teraflops (TF) of computing power, compared to the Xbox One X's 6TF, and the Xbox One S's 1.4. Lockhart conversely will sport around 4TF, and according to marketing materials we've seen previously, it is being positioned as the most-affordable entry point to next-gen experiences.
|Category||Xbox Series X (Anaconda)|
|Processor||Custom AMD Zen 2-based CPU (8x @ 3.6 GHz)|
|Graphics||Custom AMD Navi-based GPU (12 TF RDNA)|
|Memory||16GB GDDR6 RAM (13GB guaranteed for game developers)|
|Storage||NVMe SSD (we've heard read speeds of anywhere up to 2GB/s)|
|Video output||8K, 4K @ 120Hz|
|Optical drive||4K Blu-ray|
|Size||30cm x 16cm x 16cm (estimate)|
|Release date||Holiday 2020|
It's important to note, however, that TF doesn't really tell the entire story of next-gen systems, owing to piles of custom tech Microsoft is planning to bake into these consoles. For example, Microsoft already spoke about how ray-tracing will be a factor in next-gen systems, and while Lockhart has less raw power than the X, it will have capabilities that elevate it further than the X in various ways.
Both Lockhart and Anaconda reportedly sport eight CPU cores targetting around 3.5GHz, with Anaconda reaching a bit higher per core than Lockhart. The relatively modest increase in clock speed over the previous-gen systems may seem mild, but vast improvements to caching, new silicon architecture, and other general bespoke, proprietary optimizations will see Anaconda perform anywhere up to four to five times better than the Xbox One X, if targets are met. We're told that at least Anaconda will guarantee 13GB of RAM for games, with 3GB on the OS a total of 16GB. The X, by comparison, offered a "maximum" of 9GB for games, which often varied based on what the OS was doing. Microsoft also said in its reveal video that the SSD could be used to throw in virtual RAM as necessary. Speaking of which ...
One huge focus area for Lockhart and Anaconda is on NVMe SSD proprietary tech, which dramatically decreases load speeds, nigh-on eliminating loading completely. Games with load times anywhere up to a minute will be reduced to mere seconds as a result of these SSDs, and the inclusion of Project XCloud across all Xbox systems will allow you to start gaming via streaming while waiting for games to download locally. Next-gen is all about saving you time, increasing read speeds by gigabytes per second, while also providing cutting-edge visuals that will elevate games to all new heights.
We've been told that while many games will function across generations, next-gen features such as ray tracing for dynamic reflections and the like will most probably be exclusive to Lockhart and Anaconda, requiring new APIs that come as part of Game Core OS (which is also part of the Windows Core OS effort we've been covering). That said, Scarlett will be able to run all previous-gen games that are available on Xbox One today, including backward compatible games as Microsoft has already announced.
Similarly to the Xbox One X, games with unlocked frame rates and dynamic resolution will perform better on Scarlett, once again, being able to take advantage of the improved hardware. For example, Monster Hunter World struggles to maintain 60 FPS on the Xbox One X even in its performance mode. Even without an update, it should manage to hit its target FPS without an issue on Scarlett. Games will also be able to take advantage of the increased SSD loading speeds on the newer consoles as well, without needing an update.
As noted, always take rumors with a pinch of salt, but we're confident in our sourcing on this. It's difficult to do direct comparisons between Project Scarlett consoles and off-the-shelf PC parts, due to the unknown quantities in Microsoft's proprietary optimizations. The proof, as always, will be in the pudding.
Plans can change between now and launch (looking at you, Surface Mini), but it's looking almost certain that Project Scarlett is, in fact, two console SKUs across Lockhart and Anaconda, with Anaconda representing the higher end, and Lockhart representing a more affordable entry point to next-gen features.
Either way, across Scarlett, bigger investment in games, and Project XCloud, 2020 is looking incredibly exciting indeed.
Xbox (opens in new tab)
Jez Corden is the Managing Editor for Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by caffeine. Follow on Twitter @JezCorden and listen to his Xbox Two podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!
I feel like I'm almost not ready for next Gen consoles yet. It looks like my one x will take the current place of my og one, and anaconda will take the desk spot my scorpio current occupies
Well that's good that you are in that type of position, I'm watching my X1X struggle on Jedi right now and it's quite annoying. Even in performance mode it skips frames and lags. I'm ready for the upgrade now.
That is more the stupidly high system requirements of Unreal Engine 4 than it is lack of power of the Xbox one X. There are more patches coming to smooth things out for current consoles though all the same. It's not that bad on the X after latest patches in any case. If you are really struggling check you have plenty of room left on your hard drive.
Serious question : wouldn't "stupidly high system requirements" directly pertain to the power of said system?
@Mister Burns - Not necessarily it depends how efficiently the game engine is using the SOC for instance.
We both have a scorpio. We're in the same position lol. I'm just saying it feels like I'm not ready yet bc scorpio is so young.
I haven't played jedi yet. From what we've heard though, next Gen consoles will be the evolutionary performance boost, in terms gaming experience, that we haven't had in a long time akin to genesis and Nintendo to dream cast and Playstation.
As far as MS is concerned it's not really a new generation. Just a console upgrade.
@Avatar of Apathy
Are you serious? The world's most powerful console ever? It's been what 2 years?
New console every 3 years? I thought console gaming was suppose to be cheap.
You don't really understand technology do you? Two years is a lifetime in tech, and there is not a single console ever released that has run every single game on it at a full 60 fps, not even every single game at 30fps. It just literally has never happened. Why would you expect the X to be any different?
@Sin Ogaris I guess aotf is just salty given how cheap the Xbox One X will become when both low end and high end iteratives of Scarlett are released lol.
That makes ZERO sense why should I be salty about a console being cheaper? If anything that's good news for gamer.
Well I don't know, my point was not about the console itself but more that "need" to upgrade after only 2 years.
I've been gaming on consoles for more than 25 years and I've never felt the need to buy a new console for better visuals after just two years of buying a new console.
Maybe it's just me who thinks 3 year is really a small cycle.
well....if you get into pc gaming, 2 years is a massive difference in gpu's. for instance, 2 years ago i personally had 2 amd r9 380's crossfired. i upgraded last year to a vega 64 and that 1 vega 64 is more powerful than those 2 gpu's in crossfire (which in crossfire typically gives it about a 30% performance improvement for games that support it), not to mention, we currently are on navi based amd gpu's and nvidia's turing. amd just released rdna, which has given amd a massive performance improvement in games. next gen consoles will be utilizing navi and rdna.
the gpu in a xbox 1 x is about the same as an amd 570 (which, is basically similar to my 380's), in reality, the gpu in next gen consoles will smoke the gpu that is in xbox 1 x's. the thing is, when microsoft created the one x, the gpu's they had to work with were limited in power (they were basically low end compared to computer gpu's), now with amd moving to navi based gpu's they now have better gpu's to work with in the next gen consoles. the gpu's will be nearly on par with my vega 64. it is a massive improvement in just 2 years (will be 3 years when they come out, which amd will have navi fully refined by then).
To be fair, it could be poor optimization in the software or the fact that some of the underlying architecture of this unit is still as old as the original XB1.
Guest. Im not sure you understand technology as far as PC and Consoles go. Speak to any competent gamer and they will tell you. The jump from Jaguar SOC to Zen 2 SOC is thr biggest leap in console performance since PS1 to PS2. Dev kits have come so far for consoles in the last decade. To the point where on the Xbox side at least games are made from scratch for One X and then downgraded alot for One S. Take a look at Digital Foundries Gears 5 PC video. And you will see the sort of tools available to MS in terms of game development. DF gave The Coalitiin a huge amount of praise in the options for viudlas it gave the consumer. Thr best available on PC to date. Even including a benchmark test which they say is better than anything else available. MS entering back into PC gaming has actually benefitted PC gamers hugely. Because they have shown other developers just how to make a game that can work on massively low end hardware, and top end hardware. And the visual difference between the 2 ends on the same game is generational.
for sure. most people commenting have no idea how much more powerful ryzen cpu's are over the jaguar cpu's in consoles.
not to mention, next gen consoles will mark the first time in history that consoles will have hardware on par with gaming pc's. which is quite significant.
xbox 1 x basically has an amd 570 gpu in it (which puts it on the lower end of pc graphics cards), which the next gen consoles are supposed to have mid range navi based gpu's, which should smoke those 570's in xbox 1 x's.
most people commenting i've notices, have no clue how much more powerful pc's are over current gen consoles.
I rather wait for the real spec confirmations, as Microsoft mentioned that the consoles finalization is May 2020. anything between now and then can change.
I am not worried about the hardware. It will be very similar in performance and price to Sony no doubt. I am very interested in the games MS should start having hit next year and beyond. Even more than that the Xbox Interface needs serious redemption and tweaking. It's a horrible hot mess still. The first screen I see should be what I choose and want to see without ads. And it should flow instead of chug along like crap. My one X is a wonderful machine blemished only by an interface that is as bad as the hardware is good. So yeah I hate it that much
I gotta say that they have come a long way with the newest iteration of the dashboard in the alpha ring right now. There are no longer multiple tabs that need to load causing constant chug. You can just pin those old sections as a tile on the home screen if you want and it loads when you click that tile. It makes the interface much cleaner and quicker all around in my opinion.
If these specs hold, this thing is a beast... BEAST MODE: ON!!!!
This is not a new generation now, is it? MS said: "For us, we think the future is without console generations".
This is more like a console upgrade like what the Scorpio was.
A more powerful XB1. No games exclusives for Scarlett, as upcoming XB games will be playable on XB1x and XB1s, Besides PC and possibly on the original XB1.
Technically even if first-party and third-party games abandon porting to Xbox One consoles (X & S) of and move solely to next-gen you still will have access to xCloud to stream future games. No console left behind doesn't mean direct support of all games for local play for the whole next-gen. It just implies access which can mean access via the cloud. If you have access to the games to play via xCloud four years from now on your current Xbox One that is truer option than actually expecting current gen to be directly supported for years after the next-gen arrive. If Microsoft's streaming gets 4K capability then that $149 Xbox SD that can output video in 4K can be just as future proof with streaming from xCloud as spending $399 on an X, Maybe not as nice as local play on the Anaconda (or rumored Lockhart) but, definitely access to playing. If streaming takes then streaming at 1080p (more likely workable scenario) you will be able to play next-gen games without spending anymore in hardware you may already spent buying an S, SD, or X this gen.
That's not what MS said. They clearly talked about scaling the content down to meet requirements of the various consoles. Same approach as with PC. I'll just quote MS here:
"But what I'll also say is that today, when you launch a new device you are not eliminating all of the devices in that family to date. If I make a game for the iPhone, when the iPhone X comes out I can't just write it for the iPhone X and pretend as if the 9, 8, 7 and 6 don't exist." "When Scarlett launches, there will still be the Xbox One S and Xbox One X out there. We really need to approach that family of devices in the same way that we approach PC, where the content scales to meet the device. That's going to be the case for anybody. It's not like, if we roll back the clock 15 years, when a new device was out and people wanted you to take your old device and just put it in the closet." "We will absolutely lean in on the power of Scarlett. We think it's going to be the best way to play and it'll be the best thing to put in your living room. But we also want to understand that there will be a family of Xbox devices out there that we want to make sure we support fully." Source:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/441396/head-of-xbox-game-studios-discuss... The guy didn't mention XCloud. But what your saying could also be a possibility but as of now we don't know have enough information about XCloud, how it will actually work or be monetised.
Right now I'd rather not speculate on it...
While I can't really argue with what you are saying because they did basically say there would be no more generations and now they have to differentiate these consoles to the average person, in the end, what defines a console generation anyway? Is it the amount of power or architecture jump? Because if that's the case, this is a new gen. Is it only being able to play PS5 games on a PS5 and not a 4? That was a silly distinction only created to sell hardware and make it easier for customers to understand what they need to play a game (unlike PC specs). Look at PC who one could argue is still in the 3rd gen (DOS, Win 3.1-98, Win Xp+) or even the 1st with workarounds because there is no distinction of generations on PC.
I think I'll take their definition. Meaning It's not simply about power upgrade. Because in that case Scorpio and PS4 pro would have been a new generation.
Personally I was interested in none of those consoles.
In the past, there used to be major visible difference between console version. Now it's becoming less and less visible to the human eye. I've already posted on the difference between a 1080p and 4K to the human eye. Why do people buy a new hardware/console? I would think a large percentage would be so that they can play games they can't with the hardware they currently own.
I wonder if power and resolution is a priority for most gamers? Why is PS4 slim outselling the more powerful pro? Is it just because a price thing?
Historically, why were the more powerful console almost always outsold by weaker ones? I've always said my priority isn't power and resolution, else I would have been on PC regularly upgrading my GPU. The Scorpio was released just around 2 years back. And now we're already talking about the next console. Is this what console gamer do in general? Change their console every 3 years for a visually small resolution boost? Personally I don't think so. For me the PS5 seems more like a new generation because it is sold as one. Scarlett looks more like a simple console upgrade. Because that's what it is.
The PS5 is a simple console upgrade as well, they literally both are it's just that Microsoft is honest enough to admit it. In fact every new generation is just a upgrade. That's what an upgrade is. You are criticising Microsoft but praising Sony for literally the same action, they both released a console within the last three years and are now expecting people to purchase another one next year. The ONLY difference, and this is where you will gladly try and derail the conversation again like last time, is that Microsoft aren't going to force people to buy a new console to be able to play their new games. But feel free to spin this like you did below and start talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.
You nailed it when you said it's comparable to PC as far as scaling a game. I can't understand why so many people can't grasp this. First off the dev kit that Microsoft designs takes this into consideration and stream lines the scaling process for devs. Devs also do the work on PC's as well. Games will scale all the way down to 720P 30 fps med/low settings if necessary to run the game locally over the next few years. Expect to see more 1080P games on the X as the years progress but at 30 fps again med settings. The Lockhart will run most games 1080-1440/60 fps mixture of med/high settings. Optimization simply means tweaking the equivalent PC settings to run in the highest quality stable manner as well as coding for specific hardware which is very efficient. People have got to stop making this harder then it is and just enjoy what's being produced.
If the streaming console is going to be (on paper) weaker than the XOX then clearly at the very least the Scorpio will definitely be capable of playing any Scarlett game natively. If they put in forced obsolescence, or require xCloud on a system that is more powerful than the next gen that would be a great reason to be ****** off with Microsoft.
I mean, to be fair, this is how it should be, forced obsolescence needs to die yesterday. It's taken too bloody long as it is but at least SOMEONE is finally doing it, it's the best thing to come to consoles. If you want to upgrade and get improved visuals you can, if you are happy to just play the games and don't care about the best looking quality you won't get left behind. You're always talking about it's just about the games with you and it's about the best thing for the consumer and THIS, having systems being forwards compatible, is the best thing for consumers.
On paper, yes you could say it's "pro-consumer" because it means people don't need to buy a new console. Is making games a certain way so that it works with 7 years old hardware not a way of holding back a game? Here, we are not only talking about 7 years old hardware but possibly 10 years hardware (or more). I really wouldn't call it forced obsolescence. Force obsolescence would be making the PS4 unplayable or not allowing any games to work on the PS4. They are not doing what MS did with the XB360/XB1, announce games as 360 exclusives only to be changed into XB1 exclusives years later. But for me it goes beyond this. This is not a simple black and white answer.
I'm looking the bigger picture. This is more about trying to keep a business model profitable. And even keeping console gaming alive.
This is a bit like the "exclusive" debate or the game pass debate. So often I see people saying PSNow should include all PS4 exclusives day one.
Similarly, many people say these exclusives should also be released on other platform.
Yes, for some customers it would be great. But I think doing these would be horrible. A lot of money is needed to make games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn or The Last of Us 2. Games that doesn't focus on microtransactions to make more money. These games are not traditional games. They depend on sales, but company are willing to invest that much money because these games serve another purpose. They are made to sell consoles and they are made to make the console look good.
I've already talked a lot about my fear about gaming revenue dropping massively due to being able to rent a game. And due to that the only way to be profitable is to turn the game into a service. Try to make more money after the early sale/rent. This is the same thing with console. A huge amount of money is going into making a console. They hardly make anything through sale, the only reason it becomes worth is through sales of software. So to get return on investment they need to make the console look good. That's why they invest massively on games that uses every ressource of the hardware. And yes, it should be exclusive. It's like a cycle. The traditional way is invest huge amount to make a console, invest money to make exclusives so that people get console, and once in they'll be able to buy more software so as to recover the initial investment. MS are taking a much different approach. This is what I think happened. I think they understood that it's unlikely that they would ever dominate a generation when it comes to popularity. I think it must have hurt them massively going from a base of 80m X360 in 2012 to about base of around 10m XB1 and a rapidly dying 360 community at the start of 2015. So they stopped communicating sales because it looked bad compared to the competition.
And they decide to focus on "active user".
What must have also hurt them is the drop in XBL gold revenue.
So maybe they thought wouldn't it be great if they could keep a lot of the 360 crowd, along with the XB1 and Win10 crowd and just let them keep playing our games and that's where engagement became key. They don't want to earn back engagement for their new console because their priority is not the new console. Their priority is engagement. That's because they have services. From XBL gold, to the game pass. It's all about making gamers stay on their platform.
We can see how so many of their games are no longer games but services. So many of their major franchise have microtransactions built in them. At the end of the day, it's not about the console or the games, it's about engagement and recurring consumer spending.
Anyway, when I tell people here this is not a new generation? I say it because MS said it and used that as a selling point to sell Scorpio few years back.
It's amazing how quickly the world's most powerful console has become old news.
We cannot pretend now that it's a "NEW GENERATION" just because it helps MS sell their new console. People needs to be informed that this is not a new generation and that there won't be Scarlett exclusives even if it means MS selling less consoles. And why? Because MS made the choice to do it that way. This is just like when someone say one of their game is a XB1 exclusive, we need to specify that it's a console exclusive and it also available on other platform. Why? Because that's what MS wanted to do. That's their business model. So I'm not going to be out here trashing Sony and Nintendo for making true exclusive games. I think I can understand their business model and also I think I can understand MS's business model.
So yes, on paper making exclusives available on different platforms would be cool, but if it means that less ressources will go into making these exclusives or that they would need to have other ways of making revenue out of the game (like microtransactions) so that it becomes profitable. All that just because it's no longer "sells console" then I'd rather have proper traditional 7-8 years generation. Needing to buy a new console once every 7 years is a small price to pay imo.
"Is making games a certain way so that it works with 7 years old hardware not a way of holding back a game? Here, we are not only talking about 7 years old hardware but possibly 10 years hardware (or more)." It's worked for PC for the last twenty years, why should console be any different? It's entirely up to the developer. Do you remember how Forza Horizon 2 was released on the 360 and the XBO? They were practically completely different games there was so much effort put into the XBO version to make the most of the system it was on. Sure there will be plenty of developers that will go cheap and just half arse their offerings, but you can't blame Microsoft for another companies laziness. "I really wouldn't call it forced obsolescence. Force obsolescence would be making the PS4 unplayable or not allowing any games to work on the PS4. They are not doing what MS did with the XB360/XB1, announce games as 360 exclusives only to be changed into XB1 exclusives years later." What you would call it is irrelevant, it IS forced obsolescence, a new device is required if somebody wants to continue to partake in new products from the respective company. As an aside, this wasn't so much an issue in the past when console "generations" were actually 7-8 years, but with the Pro and One X (and even the Switch Lite to a lesser extent, or the billions of 3DS/DS models) all major manufacturers have blurred the lines on what a generational gap really is. " A huge amount of money is going into making a console. They hardly make anything through sale, the only reason it becomes worth is through sales of software." Actually, unless we are talking about Nintendo NO money is made on console sales (at launch and for a good while afterwards) it's all in games and services. So both Microsoft and Sony are taking different approaches, Sony obviously focuses on exclusives with a little bit of services (which, to be fair services are the biggest PROFIT makers as there is significantly lower expenses involved) and Microsoft focuses more on services than exclusives. Neither position is right or wrong (although even Sony is now branching out and offering their exclusive games on other systems, so even they are realising that broadening their player base is going to make them more money). Also, I completely agree this isn't a new generation, the whole idea of "generations" is a by product from when manufacturers didn't release 30 different versions of their consoles (slight exaggeration). "So yes, on paper making exclusives available on different platforms would be cool, but if it means that less ressources will go into making these exclusives or that they would need to have other ways of making revenue out of the game (like microtransactions) so that it becomes profitable. All that just because it's no longer "sells console" then I'd rather have proper traditional 7-8 years generation. Needing to buy a new console once every 7 years is a small price to pay imo." Considering I wasn't discussing exclusive games at all in my original post you did a really good job of skewing the conversation to where you wanted it to go but I will say this, you act as if it's an either or situation. It isn't. Sure having exclusives helps sell consoles, but we have already established that consoles don't make money, software does, so from a business standpoint it makes infinitely more sense to open up the number of people with access to the software, that actually turns a profit, than force people into buying consoles that don't. Like that's pretty basic logic.
"It's worked for PC for the last twenty years, why should console be any different?"
hmm I don't know how many current game supports a game that would run on a PC equivalent to the original XB1.
I look at Control for example and minimum requirements says:
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280x
The XB1 has a GPU equivalent to a 650ti.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/pc-vs-ps4-xbox-one-how-to-upgrad... That's quite the difference. And here the difference is 6 years. When you think about the difference between the original XB1 and Scarlett the difference will be even more massive. We're talking about what? being able to make a latest game run with 10 year old hardware?
You said it yourself, Two years is a lifetime in tech. Here we are talking about 5 lifetimes. "It's entirely up to the developer. Do you remember how Forza Horizon 2 was released on the 360 and the XBO? They were practically completely different games there was so much effort put into the XBO version to make the most of the system it was on. Sure there will be plenty of developers that will go cheap and just half arse their offerings, but you can't blame Microsoft for another companies laziness."
It's not laziness, it's cost. But it'll eventually come down to install base. Sure most 3rd party will happily make ports for older hardware including the PS4 when the base is so high, but as the number of people on older hardware drop, I wonder how many will really invest on older ports? "What you would call it is irrelevant, it IS forced obsolescence, a new device is required if somebody wants to continue to partake in new products from the respective company. As an aside, this wasn't so much an issue in the past when console "generations" were actually 7-8 years, but with the Pro and One X (and even the Switch Lite to a lesser extent, or the billions of 3DS/DS models) all major manufacturers have blurred the lines on what a generational gap really is."
Well that's totally debatable. What needs to be considered is technical limitation, progress and innovation. 16-bit console shouldn't have existed because games made for it couldn't technically be played on older console. Would Uncharted 4 or Red Dead Redemption 2 be as visually good if the devs were told to also make a PS3 version? For one, Sony still had PS3 versions for games like Littlebigplanet 3 or MLB The Show. So they didn't totally stopped making games for the platform, I would say it's mostly the more graphically demanding games.
You said it yourself, FH2 practically released completely different games. That's extra cost for dev, and that just to support older hardware. So if that's the case then Scarlett is also forced obsolescence because they aren't making a X360 version.And why stop there, why not make a version for Windows 7 or 8? "Sony obviously focuses on exclusives with a little bit of services (which, to be fair services are the biggest PROFIT makers as there is significantly lower expenses involved) and Microsoft focuses more on services than exclusives. Neither position is right or wrong"
Yes, neither one is right or wrong. So that's why I wouldn't say not having FC is anti-consumer. This is something that has been going on for years. We know right from 2013 that the PS4 is in a generation that will end after 7-8 years. We knew the rules before buying the console.
I find it much worse trying to use the "end of generation" as an argument to sell scorpio in 2016 and 3 years later trying to make it sound like Scarlett is a new generation. I actually find that misleading. "Considering I wasn't discussing exclusive games at all in my original post you did a really good job of skewing the conversation to where you wanted it to go but I will say this, you act as if it's an either or situation. It isn't. Sure having exclusives helps sell consoles, but we have already established that consoles don't make money, software does, so from a business standpoint it makes infinitely more sense to open up the number of people with access to the software, that actually turns a profit, than force people into buying consoles that don't. Like that's pretty basic logic."
Well, exclusives it's kind of the same thing. You want all major PS5 exclusives to not be exclusive and playable on old platform. The reason why Uncharted 4 was like that was probably because it was not made for PS3. That's what I'm saying. Also forcing all 3rd party studios to make ports for 2013 hardware is far from the giving creative freedom to devs that spencer talks about. It's more a restriction then anything.
But yes, I agree, MS's business model makes sense. They don't want to lose the base that they already have. But for me the strategy is clear. Their end goal is to 100% service and 100% digital. For me, it's clear that they are moving away from console, physical games and the used market. By doing this, they are preparing for there vision. That's why I said "And even keeping console gaming alive."
not sure what you meant, but on pc i can run games that are 20 years old. not to mention, i can play every nes, snes, sega genesis, sega saturn, n64, playstation 1-3, xbox 1 and 360, neo geo, etc etc etc games ever made. emulators have existed on pc for Years. I can play all the games you can't play on consoles.
the truth is, they could make consoles backward compatible. next gen consoles are basically full blown gaming pc's (this is the first gen that they will have as good hardware as whats in a typical gaming pc). xbox runs a modified version of windows, so in reality, since windows has emulators, they could put those emulators in xbox and be able to run every game ever made for the various consoles.
All Marketing talk because they were losing the current generation. The ps3 could play ps2 and ps1 games. You mean to tell me all Playstations are the same Gen? Ms had to change the narratives of winning and losing during a generation of consoles simply bc they were getting smoked. Genius move, but don't be mislead by marketing People forget that "backwards compatibility" only became an issue with having it or not THIS generation of concoles. It was there before
That is revisionist history.
The ORIGINAL PS3 could play PS2 and PS1 games, but only because Sony included a full CPU from the PS2 in the PS3. In the 2nd generation of the PS3 (the majority of the sales) they dropped that feature and removed the backward's compatibility from the product. The removed even more features when the PS3 Slim shipped.
Taking away the ability to boot into another OS (other than the proprietary version of Linux they used) etc.
MS doesn't have this problem. Since the XB360 all their games have run in a Virtual Machine so they can easily port it to newer hardware (as they did on the XB1X series.)
The underlying OS is a heavily stripped-down, optimized, and encrypted version of Windows 10 (now, originally it was W8.1) and in the upcoming revision will be a version of Windows Core. That means they can also port those VMs to any hardware they want to run in the Cloud for xCloud use.
Sony is a consumer hardware company. Always has been. MS is an Enterprise/Consumer software company, always has been. That gives them a big advantage in the modern Cloud-based world of streaming (and game development.)
Not talking about BC but FC.
Here there won't really be "Scarlett games" meaning games made only for Scarlett. Games made for Scarlett will be playable on older XB1.
You could not play PS3 games on PS2 or PS1.
@Mister Burns The PS3 could play... PS1 and PS2 games - the key word there is "could" but it doesn't anymore. Sony removed that ability (the emotion engine) quite early on as it sort of worked but it was still flawed and it didn't work nowhere as good as the emulation of 360 games and OG xbox games on the Xbox One series. The only reason it works that good on the Xbox One series is that optimisation was done at the hardware level not just within software (the o/s itself). Whereas the PS3 didn't have that have that level of optimisation and it was primarily done at the o/s level therefore creating an poor experience all and nothing really to brag about. The biggest draw the PS3 had was that it was and is free to play online without a subscription whereas you needed Xbox Live Gold to play on the Xbox 360.
xbox runs a modified version of windows and i can play ps1-ps3 games on my pc's, not to mention every nes, snes, sega genesis, n64, sega saturn, xbox - xbox 360 games ever made.
all they need to do is put an emulator in the xbox or playstations software and it would make it backward compatible (you'd just need to download the roms and be able to play it like that, just like you can on pc).
not to mention, next gen consoles will be the first time that a console will have hardware as good as a gaming pc (the next gen consoles are basically gaming pc's). microsoft could literally market the next xbox as a cheap gaming pc and unlock windows to be able to run all the things windows 10 runs.
I really think two SKUs is a mistake. It'll annoy consumers (especially kids, as some of their richer friends will have the better console), it surely will annoy developers (who now have more work to do), it'll annoy retailers (who will have to stock extra SKUs and answer consumer and questions), and it'll very likely result in games being either held back or having performance problems. If I were a parent on the fence, this haves-vs.-have-nots dilemma for Xbox would just push me towards getting my kid a PS5 instead.
So what you're saying is that people are too stupid to decide between two things, one being cheaper than the other. Ha.
It's no different than PC game market. Developers are just so annoyed by all those paying customers with older and random PC configs.
We are talking a massive gap here. I mean next year it'll be 7 years gap, 3 years from then it'll be 10 years.
I doubt a lot of games would run on mid range PC from 2013.