Just to clarify, are you saying that the system software won't change, but the hardware inside would be improved for the Xbox Two?
The kernel almost certainly will not change. The graphics drivers and some other firmware will change with changing hardware. But the architecture will be 100% identical and that's a certainty.
I think this is the likely outcome, but again the PS4 doesn't have the exclusives to drive anyone to that system at the moment. If all you care about is playing Fallout 4 and the Xbox is $50 cheaper you'll probably go that route.
But what you're saying isn't really born out by the facts. Even with the PS4 being more expensive, it still moves far more units. So, I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion?
This is why Phil is saying what he is today.
And understand, I'm not a fan of either console, I'm speaking solely as someone in the development industry.
I agree with you that the generation probably has another 3-4 years in it (with Nintendo jumping the gun a year or 2 early as they did this generation), but it will be hard for Microsoft to jump any sooner than that because they risk alienating the customers that did plunk down $400 for their last console and unless it is a major upgrade run into the problem that the millions of people who bought a PS4 aren't ready to upgrade.
I think you misunderstand me.
I do not think this generation has another 3-4 years in it.
The reasons are outlined above. There is no architecture gap between this generation and future generations of Xbox.
So you're not alienating consumers by releasing a console that is not only backwards compatible with the last two consoles natively (One) and through emulation (360); but releasing firmware allowing the Xbox One to be
forwards compatible with the Xbox Two for at least several years.
So, think about it, what exactly would the complaint be? Microsoft shouldn't release a new console that plays the same games? Haha.. That's like saying Apple shouldn't release the iPhone 6s because the 6 is too new, etc etc..
Microsoft is very likely to move in this direction as this is how they've operated in the past, and this is how both Google and Apple operate with their OS versioning system.
I also agree with you that Microsoft seems to be more interested in keeping people buying PCs, which with them getting into the harder business on that end now, I could easily see them turning into just a publisher of games or turn the "Xbox" into their gaming PC brand.
I.. don't actually think this.. lol, I think you misunderstand me.
Microsoft is moving away from the PC market. We've known this for years. They spent billions of dollars transitioning the Windows kernel and Office source to the ARM platform as well as the UI/UX to mobile compatibility.
Microsoft is doing everything they can to be prepared for the next 10 years of transitioning away from PCs and towards laptops, STBs, and mobiles.
Hence buying Nokia, Windows 8, Roslyn, and the new move of their C++ compiler (which is the foundation of all their software) to LLVM to support non x86-platforms as well as non-Microsoft operating systems.
They are hedging their bets that the Windows monopoly will eventually fail with the emergency of Linux/Unix (MacOS) in consumer devices.
As for steam machines, I think they made a mistake letting anyone make them as the general consumer will be confused by the differences, and eventually I think they'll settle for the brands they know in Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo who provide the exclusive IP they know along with the third party stuff on steam and (at some point down the road) the indie titles released there as well (although I doubt most of them even know about or frankly care about indies).
I think this is
way off-base.
Gamers generally buy the best hardware they can afford, with the best games.
Given there aren't many console exclusives left; what is the reason to buy one over a configurable, upgradable Steam Machine?
Also... it was brilliant making Steam an open system available to anyone. They realize you make no money from console sales and are focusing on expanding STEAM the platform, not trying to monopolize the hardware.
This same argument was used against Google re: fragmentation, and look how that turned out.
Also, why would a PC gamer buy one when they already have a gaming rig that can do the same thing?
Because they might not have a gaming rig that can do the same thing?
Because their gaming rig might be out of date?
Because they want a portable gaming rig (sign me up)?
Because they want HTPC capabilities on the gaming system (sign me up)?
Because they want Steam integration more so than what's presently offered (sign me up)?
Because these machines essentially replace consoles (sign me up)?
The more relevant question is why would a console gamer not buy one of these things?
To play Mario? Lol..
Dunno if you know this but Nintendo is selling it's games on Android/iOS.. That means you'll be able to play Mario/Zelda games on Steam Machines but not on any Microsoft or Sony platform.
That's the direction things are going..