Sony Reveals TGS 2017 PS4 Software Lineup

When I'm a grandfather some day in the distant future I'm looking forward to lecturing my grandkids about the virtues of patience with stories of Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF7R.

"When I was boy, we didn't get things that we wanted when we wanted, we had to wait years, and years and years, trying to catch even the tiniest glimpse of a game we'd wait ages for. You kids today got no patience, pulling things out of thin air on those glasses glued to your faces."

I am not up on all the Japanese games that are listed although I can't imagine many (if any) will be on Xbox - well apart from Code: Vein, Dragon Ball Fighting game (both at Xbox E3 - maybe exclusive to PS4 in Japan as the Xbox is 'struggling' to sell) and Monster Hunter but it looks like its lacking a few of the 'big' exclusives. I know the Sony are more likely to focus on their Japanese line up that are more 'Niche' in the western world but I still think Spider-Man or God of War, both slated for 'early 2018' and I thought more 'universal' than a game like Days Gone - games set in a western world (albeit after an apocalyptic event) with more western characters and game-play. Its not surprising that Yakuza and Ni No Kuni are there - I bet these are 'huge' in Japan.

In general, I don't have a big interest in TGS. I am not the biggest fan of Japanese style gaming and story either. On the list of PS4 games, I am only really interested in CoD. I know that may sound poor but in the next couple of months, of all the 7-8 games I have pre-ordered/bought, CoD is my least anticipated. I am only 'buying' it because PC2 is too much like Forza and I don't need 2 Racing games and the fact that MP's are 'seasonal' - besides, the Zombies looked 'dark' and I do enjoy that.

Anyway the point is, that if one of my 'least' anticipated games is the only game I would buy at TGS, it just shows why I am not especially bothered by TGS. I am much more interested in the PSX in December!

@rjejr I remember those days! I am a 'grandfather' to one of my ex's kids - more a step-grandfather - not that I see them since separating.

I still find it amazing that people complain at loading times or the 'hassle' of swapping a disc. I grew up with the only way to find out about new games, new consoles etc was via magazines - like CVG and the 'official' Insert brand name magazines. All you had was often a little pic of a screenshot or a 'feature' to find out what the game was. I also remember always popping to my local game store that had a list of new releases in that month and a few 'coming soon'. The 'big' new release given lots of window and shelf space. Demo's too could only be found if you bought the 'right' magazine - although I don't recall that happening before the PS1 and the cheapness of CD then DVD discs.

Kids to day have it easy. Not only can they instantly see a game running with a 'video' as well as streamed access to all the big events like E3, Gamescom, they also get a lot more after care too. Games that have glitches, bugs etc are not new and they were not patched or 'tweaked/balanced' after release. Some games could have major bugs, glitches etc. Funnily enough, the speeding up of the Space Invaders was unintentional. Its down to the fact that there was 'fewer'sprites to draw so sped up. Its similar to modern day frame-rates (unless capped of course) that increase with less things to draw or can decrease in more 'busy' areas. Between that and Asteroids, these took a lot of my 'pocket money' - LOL - damn I'm OLD

Pretty good lineup ! Hope there's a surprise at their press conference 😊

@BAMozzy Tech world just changes so fast. Bronze Age, Age of Enlightenment, Industrial revolution. Things took decades if not centuries, people had time to adjust to the new normal.

http://www.biographyonline.net/different-periods-in-history/

I'd say we're close to a 10 year life cycle now. I know tech changes every year - stupid phone cycle - and video game consoles every 5 years, but those aren't always noticeable changes. But 10 year old iPhone changed things with smart phones. iPads changed things with tablets. Somebody will finally get AR or VR right, either Google Glass or on PC. And once smartphones get powerful enough to power VR headsets in another 5 or 10 years we're all done for. SD, HD, 4k. DVD, blu-ray, ultra bluray. LP, 8-track, cassette, CD, MP3. Dial-up, broadband, wireless. Seems like the faster things change, the faster they change the next time.

When our smartwatchs can get superfast downloads and send a wireless signal to our AR glasses we all become mind readers as face recognition brings up social media bios of every person we look at. That's scarier than most future sci-fi apocalypse movies. And it's coming fast. VR used to scare me the most - people just volunteering to live in the Matrix, we'll never see "Second Life" players again - but real time face recognition Equifax breach entire life histories. Now that's scary.

Everything changes fast. But Squenix gets slower with it's releases. PS4 will never see FF7R.

Do you believe Sony and MS that Pro and X will never get exclusive games like New 3DS has? If so, that's a reason for PS5 and Xbox Eleven. Even if Pro and X can run a game, like FF7R for instance, if Slim and S can't run it, then it has to be a next gen game, gives Sony and MS a rationale for releasing new hardware in 2019. Sure, Pro and X can run the game they'll say, 4k power for a 4k game, but b/c Slim and S can't, they don't want to split the install base, so new 4k all-the-time hardware is needed. Seems sure to annoy some people, but it's an excuse. Though it would really be a shame to see all of that X1X power held back by X1S restrictions. Maybe MS breaks their word? Maybe videogame tech is changing too fast?

Dissidia Final Fantasy NT and Yakuza Kiwami 2 are the ones I'm most interested in. Hope to see some more of both the upcoming Resident Evil 7 DLCs as well.

EDF5!

@rjejr I do believe that the Pro won't get any exclusives. Its not that dissimilar from the base PS4 - same RAM allocation, same GPU - just faster, etc but not significantly more powerful that a game would run on that but not the base. Look at Tekken - 852p on Ps4 and 1080p on Pro. You would have to think that a game would need to be struggling to run at 900p on Pro to struggle to run at 720p on PS4 and I think sub 720p (sub HD) is the cut-off.

With the X, I can see a time when games may not run on a base XB1 but I also think that MS will have a more powerful console out so that the X doesn't technically have 'exclusives'. They have said they want to move away from 'generations' so I see that as making a new Xbox every 4yrs and phasing out the weakest. The same principal as replacing your GPU every 3-4yrs on PC's. Those GPU's that are 7-8yr old by then, wouldn't be expected to offer the 'latest' games at the 'minimum' standards. So technically, the X may not get 'exclusives' as it becomes the 'weakest' and the 'next' Xbox also plays the game too which comes out as the base XB1 is phased out.

To me that makes sense based on what MS has said about wanting to move away from generations and having to rebuild your library with each new era. Sony will certainly have a PS5 out by the time a game may not run on a PS4 and maybe could on a Pro. The difference here though is that the game will probably only be a PS5 release. I don't think we will see a PS4 Pro only game.

Both methods have their Pro's and Cons. For a generational format, you don't have to worry about MP parity or ensuring the content 'works' well enough on the weaker system. You also don't have to nerf performance on the more powerful hardware, cap frame rates at 30fps because thats all the weaker system can handle. However, you also may have to reset - build up your library and user base. It will be interesting to see exactly how things play out though...

@BAMozzy I suppose lumping Sony and MS together was my first mistake, I should know better.

I agree on the Sony side, PS4 and Pro aren't that different. And besides, Sony needs to sell more PSVR headsets than Pro consoles anyway, there is already that $ hurdle and segmentation in their market, they don't need another. A bump in framerate and resolution is really what it's all about for 4k tv owners.

MS though, Xbox 1 doesn't look like much to me. I own 1 and am not impressed. Barely more power than a Switch, and a Switch gives you portability. X1X is a $500 monster. Seems like it deserves some games that X1 simply can't handle at any framerate or resolution. But if they do that, well how many are they going to sell in total anyway? 13mil like fiasco Wii U sold? Limits your sales on exclusives with such a limited install base.

I have to admit I don't know what MS is up to w/ their "no generations". Like smartphone cycles, the OS will dictate? The console name will dictate to people what's a new console and what's a mid-gen refresh. And backwards compatibility.

They do seem stuck now though. With a $500 X1X how expensive will Xbox Eleven be? How powerful? When? Sony seems set - PS4 and Pro $249 and $349 this year, give or take, $199 (sweet spot) and $299 next year, then holiday 2019 $199 PS4 Pro (Slim is gone) and $399 PS5. I'm not sure how MS moves forward from a $199 1S and $499 1X this year.

@ToddlerNaruto Sorry, I'm a stay-at-home day, kids went back to school, so I'm just sitting here alone while my mind wonders to distract me from the isolation. It'll pass in a few days.

I'll catch up with Detroit after the event. No interest in the rest of those listed.

@rjejr The Switch is nowhere near the Power of an XB1 - not even close! There is probably as big a gap, if not more, between the XB1 and the 'X' than. If you only look at fp32 instructions, the Switch has less than 400Gflops performance from its GPU in docked mode. That's 0.4tflops compared to 1.4tflops in the XB1. Then of course there is double the RAM at more than double the speed too. CPU is much faster - nearly 2x and has 2x the cores. The Switch and an XB1 combined make a base PS4 effectively - although the XB1 has a faster CPU than a base PS4 anyway so only counting the GPU - but that extra 4GB of low bandwidth RAM in the switch may offset the difference between the faster RAM in the PS4.

Anyway, the Switch wasn't part of the discussion. The X, whilst it is 'powerful' and much more than the 'base' XB1, its also being built to handle 4x the resolution and handle the much higher quality assets. What this means is that games would target 4k for example and then that should scale down nicely to the XB1 - the same thing we see in the PC market where a 1080ti will play a game at 4k with 4k assets, these can scale down to the 780 and play just as well at 1080p with HD assets that don't require so much RAM and Bandwidth. Obviously if it comes a time that the 1080ti (or X for example) can only manage to run a game at 1080p, chances are, that it would scale down to maybe 540p (or less) and then of course, their is a possibility that the XB1s could use CB rendering to boost that up to a HD 720p BUT the point is the 'X' at that time isn't also meeting its design purpose of offering UHD resolutions.

The way these are designed though is to offer that 'scaleability' and the X, whilst being more than 4x the power, is also offering 4x the visuals.

It may come a time when the CPU is the deciding factor. Its no secret that these (base and upgraded) are very GPU heavy, unbalanced in that regard - built more delivering enhanced and high res image rather than some 'game changing' experience - like incredible AI and with a lot of separate personalities, or lots of physics based destruction and particle effects for example - tasks that are often more linked to CPU. In many ways, its this imbalance that has forced devs to go a 'similar way with game design. The Reason games aren't 'radically' different this gen compared to last but look a lot better. Devs did try with games like Just Cause 3 and AC:Unity (or Syndicate - I can't remember which) but the lack of CPU performance hit these games hard on consoles - trying to cope with that destruction and all those AI.

I doubt Sony will be weak' on its next CPU and I wonder if we will see a 'split' base in the future with MS - going the generational free route. It would be 'harmful' if the next step up can offer 60fps (or more with HDMI2.1 offering up to 4k/120 capacity) if their X can't get more than 30fps. I can see games being listed as 'unlocked' 60fps but the 'lower' console maybe only hitting 40fps (although Game VRR can make that feel smooth) whilst the more powerful console runs at a basically locked 60fps. Both are capped the same - Like BF1 of PS4/Pro, but the more powerful console offering superior performance - even in MP - a loophole?

I think MS are in a difficult position now with the X - unless they are following that 3-4yr upgrade path. As you rightly say, a new generation/console really needs to be an upgrade over the previous. Sony kept the Pro more simple and a PS5 could easily launch and offer a tangible upgrade over every area. 4k and 4k textures etc, 4k HDR Bluray, Dolby Atmos Audio, Game VRR... The only 'generational upgrade' MS has is maybe more native 4k across the board and most importantly higher frame rates. Everything else, the X offers. Why would you spend say £4-500 on maybe going from a CB to native 4k only. You also have to factor in the current power, RAM etc and offering a '2x' improvement across all sectors would be difficult - a 2x boost though would make the jump from a base XB1 to that new console a similar jump that the last gen to this gen saw.

I know the Pro can offer some CB4k (and the odd native) but doesn't offer the full 4k textures etc and some games don't even offer more than 1080p so there is a 'tangible' and certainly something that would be relatively easy to see as well in game - let alone the obvious upgrade to the bluray drive for example. MS really can't offer too much more than they do with the X - not that would be a reasonable step up all round.

The only thing that 'fits' in my mind for MS is that 3-4yr cycle of bringing out a more powerful iteration and phasing out of the weakest. Much like we see with PC GPU's. The GTX780 (for example) may cut it now for 'HD' and the GTX1080 for 4k but in 3-4yrs time, maybe those on the 780 are now getting a few games that won't run and upgraded to 4k Monitor so could go for the 1080 which is showing its age a bit or get the 1380 to get the 'best' experience for the next 3-4yrs until the 1680 comes out which also see the 1080 starting to be phased out... etc etc - your games still move forward with you too...

@BAMozzy As knowledgeable as you are I hope you're in the industry some where putting all of this to good use. Not necessarily gaming, but tech.

Didn't realize the Switch was THAT far behind the X1. Probably should have b/c I know it's not much better than Wii U, and Wii U is about a 360, so I'll just go ahead and leave it out of all discussions going forward.

Well I am glad to see that even though you have all the specs down and hardware worked out going forward even you don't seem to know how MS is going to turn it around selling Xboxen. I can follow the specs, barely, but I don't see how they take down Sony, and Ntineod's much less powerful console seems popular, the #2 spot may be in Nintneod's reach. I don't see anything stopping the PS5 besides Sony getting stupid again w/ obscure Cell processors and crazy pricing. They've got the games. Though I don't think the devs want to bow to a Sony dynastic monopoly so I'm sure they'll do what they can to help MS out. Though I suppose Ntineod could make itself a viable option. Or all the devs follow Konami into mobile. AppleWatch games anyone?

Thanks for all of that, very informative. If my kids ever get into PC gaming I have a lot to catch up on, I kind of stopped being involved after the race to 1000MHZ and 3dfx went bankrupt. (I got married in 2000.)

@rjejr In all honesty, MS don't really need to beat Sony in terms of Console sales. They are far more profitable of the three thanks to successfully dominating the PC OS. The amount of profit per console can easily be made up by the PC game sales they gain by not keeping them as 'console' exclusives + those games are only purchasable via the MS store so not only are they increasing their potential sales of the games, they are making more from being the only retailer and selling them at 'digital' prices. Its long been known that Consoles are not that 'profitable' and its all the software sales that are the money makers. Both Sony and MS could sell their consoles at a loss and still return a profit from game sales.By building in a 'virtual' Xbox into Windows essentially they already have a much larger install base and potential market to sell games to.

You, and others it seems, will see it as a 'bad thing' that MS have merged their PC and Xbox division but for MS, they are basically unifying 2 separate entities into one - at least as far as their 'software' is concerned but PC gamers can still buy all their 3rd Party games via Steam if they want - a bit like me buying my Games from Amazon. I doubt MS get as much profit from me buying Forza for example than the PC gamer who has to buy digitally from the MS store - although they do get the Xbox version free...

If Sony has 60m to sell Spider-Man too, MS has how many people to sell Forza too? 30m on console but a lot more than 60m PC gamers! All of those gamers, PC and Console, can play Forza together in one big unified base, using the same servers etc.

All MS are doing is providing a Console if you prefer - just like you can buy a Surface tablet/Laptop if you prefer those to Apple/HP etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer a 'gaming' PC but I think that may be more unlikely as a lot of PC gamers are more likely to build their own or adapt one for that purpose than buy a 'new' build.

Having the most console sales is a bit of chest puffing to a degree. For Sony its much more important that they sell consoles as its the 'only' outlet for their Games. I guess they could make and sell them on PC too - they kind of are with PSNow of course.

Its great that Sony are doing so well and that will only benefit gaming. You can't deny that they have some of the best studio's making some of the best games. If they stick to the same formula though, when they release the PS5, for the first year or so, the user base will be 'small' but MS, if they do go the generation-free route, they won't 'need' that launch exclusive to sell the console and may suffer in the sales, as they will sell that on the 'older' console and have the PC market too.

The issue I have with MS at the moment and trying to analyse the direction they are likely to go, is that they are giving mixed messages. On the one hand they were talking about a 'generation free future - that you will 'never' lose your library and have a 'reset' every 5-6yrs and have the same 'benefits' that PC gamers have - ie that when you upgrade your GPU, you don't lose your games and many will have the option to be enhanced, although you do have to optimise games yourself on PC to get that enhanced experience. On the other hand, they have also been quite adamant that this is an enhanced Xbox One - like the Pro is to the PS4 - and even in name too. Its obvious that the Base XB1 will start to 'creak' before the PS4 will. It hasn't got the 'headroom' to drop much lower in visuals as games become more complex. A lot are already in the 720-900p range where the PS4 is more in the 900-1080p range. They could, as I said above, utilise similar tricks that the Pro utilises to achieve higher resolutions with minimal resources to give it a bit more longevity. Sony could easily make a PS5 with a meaningful upgrade over the Pro, let alone the Base PS4 and start a 'new' generation, that also means they could realistically turn round and say if it won't run on the PS4, release on PS5 only - citing RAM or GPU. I think MS would have a tough time trying to say the 'X' is insufficient but if they do phase the base XB1 out and release the 'Scorpio 2', then the X may not get 'exclusives'. The 'minimum' spec required being the X...

Its that mixed message as to exactly what the X is and where MS go based on their messaging over the past year or so.

@BAMozzy Oh wow, that's clever and deviously genius. (I used to be smart before the kids.) Make Xbox Eleven, make new games for it, make those games play on the X1X but not the X1S. That does make perfect sense, MS didn't lie, no exclusive X1X games, just X11 games that can also play on the X1X. Very well done sir.

As for there even being an X11, I think I understand. I shouldn't' have said MS beats Sony, I should have stuck with the lower standard of MS sells enough to make it worth their wile. Sega bailed after Dreamcast, as far as I'm concerned Nintendo bailed after Wii U, Switch is a portable w/ TV out, even if it can play DOOM and Skyrim that's what it is, a last-gen powerful handheld, not a current this gen home console. And it certainly won't keep up w/ X11 and PS5 in 2 years, no 4k until Switch 2 in 2022. Yeah, I know, I said I wouldn't bring Switch up again. That's more about Nitnedo bailing on the home console market than the Switch. So to me, based on declining console sales in general, MS should just give up if X1X fails to sell - which at $500 and no games it should - and go back to PCs, maybe make Surface powerful enough w/ TV out, call it Surface X. (They don't have one of those yet, I checked Wiki.) But I think you are saying Xbox, even if it doesn't sell particularly well, is also a marketing ploy to get gamers to buy PC games. Still seems like a waste of R&D to me if they can only sell say 30 mil X11 while Sony sells 80mil PS5 and Nitneod sells 60mil Switch, but I guess it has a dual purpose.

OK, so I'll expect X11 or XSquared or X1X2 (Xbox 1 X2 actually isn't that bad, though they'd have to change it for Xbox 1 X3, that isn't working for me.) And X11 games could possibly also run on X1X, just not X1 or X1S, but those people were going to have to upgrade to an X11 anyway.

So that just leaves the pricing. I suppose 2 years from now in 2019 X1S could be dead, X1X at $299, X1X2 at $399, similar in price, hardware and time frame to PS5.

Thanks for figuring all of that out for me. Now I can trade-in my X1 and forget about Xboxen. I still have my eye on Hololens, I like futuristic tech.

@rjejr The other thing you are forgetting though is that MS, with the BC and carrying your games forward, will probably make more people stick with Xbox. At the start of this Gen, a lot of XB360 owners jumped to the PS4. Its understandable and as it was a 'reset' there was no incentive to stick with Xbox so people jumped to PS4 as it was the 'superior' hardware. Would they have jumped if their whole XB360 games moved with them and say games like CoD: Ghosts, BF4, AC4, GTAv etc all got upgraded to XB1 standards without the need to repurchase? Maybe....

There are always going to be people that prefer a Console to a PC to game on. It suits families with kids too. Not every Child can get a gaming PC for Christmas but you can buy them a console. And if 'dad' has the Gaming PC, he could have a 'Family' Live account and buy the Digital game on MS store and get both a console and PC version so the Kids could play it on their console whilst Dad plays on the PC.

So the XB1X is £450 now whilst the Slim is £200. The way I see it, is that Slim may well last 3-4yrs as the minimum standard Console in the XB1 family. However, MS 'could' bring out Scorpio 2 in 3-4yrs (by which time the XB1 is now effectively 7-8yrs old and that's longer than the average life expectancy of a console) and, have 3 consoles on the market. However, that's when the XB1s gets 'phased' out. They basically stop making any more 'Slims' so only making Scorpio (X) 1 and 2. Some XB1 games run 'well enough' across all 3 platforms - those Indie/arcade games, Fifa etc and these will be listed as XB1 regardless. However some of the 'big' and more 'complex' releases state minimum required Scorpio 1 and 'enhanced' more on Scorpio 2.

In essence its not that different from the change up from PS3 to PS4. In the first year, a lot of the third party games had dual release - a simultaneous PS3 and PS4 release. Over time, the PS3 saw 'fewer' big AAA releases and even some 'missing' content (BO3 for example).

As MS are no longer making the XB1s, the numbers in store will dwindle and the Scorpio 1 and 2 become the 'low' and high spec Xbox consoles. 3-4yrs later, the same process happens again but this time the Scorpio 1 gets phased out and we have Scorpio 2 and 3. Don't forget though, that by the time Scorpio 3 comes out, Scorpio 1 will be 7-8yrs Old so not unusual to see it phased out by then too. That being said, those that buy Scorpio 3 can still play games like CoD Ghosts, BF4, AC4 etc as well as the XB360 and OG Xbox games that came to the Slims BC list. As long as you still have Gold, you can still play ALL of the games that MS has offered in GwG. Its 'never' a reset and you have to start building your games up again. Just like if you had a gaming PC for 10-12yrs or more. Buying a new GPU or higher spec PC doesn't mean you have to start again and rebuy games for this PC.

The Switch is in its own bracket. Its partly competing with the 3DS and Vita more than competing with MS and Sony. Its certainly not going to be the best place to play Doom or Wolfenstein 2 but its likely to be the best 'mobile' place to play those. Its a 'secondary' console for many - more than their 'Primary'. I don't really like that terminology because the Switch could have moments where you are spending more time and money gaming on that - maybe because you are invested in a game - like Zelda for example, or because you are spending more time away from a TV so the mobility suits - and its good to just plug it in and carry on when you get home. What I mean though is that for PC, Xbox and PS gamers, it represents a great secondary option. PC and Xbox owners may not see value in buying both of these and a PS4 only has the 'exclusives' to separate it. Those Exclusives can be a bit similar to alternative games like GTSport, Driveclub being similar to Project Cars, Forza and not ALL exclusives appeal whilst the Switch represents a more varied experience and portability. It also has more mass market and casual appeal. Suitable for a wide range of ages and may appeal to those non-gamers that enjoy playing games on their phones, facebook etc.

If you want the Xbox exclusives and gaming experience, maybe Hololens too, you could probably get all that on a PC. In 7-8yrs time though, Chances are your PC will not be up to running ALL the latest games at the required level so you will have to upgrade some aspect(s). You could spend £200 on 4yr old tech that will see you through the next 4yrs or so, or spend £500 and see you through the next 8yrs. 4yrs later though, an upgrade becomes available that either replaces the 'now 8yr old tech' you paid £200 quid for 4yrs ago or beats the £500 tech for another £500 whilst your £500 4yr old tech is now £200.However the thing is with PC's, is that almost immediately you buy te 'latest' most powerful tech, its beaten by some thing else where as with consoles, they at least stay 'stable' for a few years.

What I see is MS copying that 'model' above. Every 4yrs a new £450 console comes out with a life expectancy of around 8yrs. Every 4yrs, that 4yr Old £450 console is now £200 and the 8yr old console replaced. You 'could' upgrade every 4yrs to keep up with the 'best' on the market that MS offer and keep playing your ever increasing library, or hang on to the 'next' big console. You could of course wait for a few years after the £450 console released and dropped to £350 but now its only got 6yrs left and a new, more powerful console is due in 2yrs at £450 (assuming there is little inflation of course). Its a rolling situation and ever a 'hard reset'.

Sony though, at the moment at least, could do something 'similar'. Release a new gen every 5-6yrs that resets things - starts a new generation. Maybe halfway through, they bring out a 'Pro' version but that's halfway through and now only has 3yrs before the 'Reset button is pressed and you have to start again - like all console generations before it. Of course the 'reset' doesn't kill off the old gen immediately but some games will only be available on the new gen whilst the others can be bought for either console but you would need to re-buy if you upgrade and want to keep playing for example they could release a PS4 and a PS5 version and you have to buy the version specific to your hardware.

If you do trade in your XB1 - maybe because you have a gaming PC, that's your choice. You don't have to upgrade to an 'X' and maybe could hold out for the X2, keeping the 'XB1' for GwG and the odd exclusives you want. Then, when they phase out the XB1, you could buy the now much cheaper X or X2 and keep all the games you had, a lot of those now enhanced to either the X or X2 standards and so on and so on.

I could be wrong but that makes sense to me based on the way MS has been speaking but its mixed messages. It could end up being more like the PS4/Pro where MS do bring out an XB2 as 'new generation' Xbox. The XB1 games though are now Backwards Compatible and join the list of XB360 and OG Xbox games but like the PS4/PS5 scenario, we see a dual release of games - the XB1 and XB2 version. You may not need to buy the XB2 version though as the XB1 version is part of the BC list but its not 'enhanced' to the same standard as the XB2 version is - just to the 'XB1X' level - or 'maybe' it can be patched to the XB2 standard - either free or with a 'small' surcharge depending on how scrupulous companies are. Its one other possibility...

@BAMozzy "Every 4yrs a new £450 console comes out with a life expectancy of around 8yrs."

If they are making a new console every 4 years aren't they in affect doing shorter "Generations', even w/ the lock-you-in BC? I thought their "upgrade-like-it's-a-PC" model was a new Xbox every 2, 2 1/2, 3 years tops. That way you have an actual next gen every 5 years and the one in the middle is the refresh. If they only come out w/ an update every 4 years they'll fall behind Sony in 2 or 3 gens.

If they come out w/ a new model only every 4 years, that is the next gen, regardless of how they name it, that's too long for me. I'd rather see the Sony model, new gen every 5 years for the holidays, refresh every 2 1/2 years in March. give or take.

I did forget about MS locking current Xbox owners in w/ BC, that's a good call. Until they get bored playing Halo, Gears of War and Forza and decide they'd like to try Sony's wide array of exclusives instead. I'm still about the games.

Switch is a 2nd home console for Xbox and PS owners, and the 1 and only handheld. I suppose though even with Sony on top and Switch selling well MS can still sell enough to make it worthwhile.

But I can't see them waiting 3-4 years for Scorpio 2. I guess 3 is ok if Sony waits 3 years until 2020. Solid game line-up for PS4 for 2018 makes me think anything announced in 2018 is for the PS5 holiday 2019 though, maybe dual release. But if Sony waits, MS can wait, would help out Switch a lot.

But really, if MS comes out w/ a new console only every 4 years, that's a generation, not a refresh, even w/ full BC. I think Sony keeps doing minimal refreshes every 2 years - they've been doing it since PS1 Slim, PS2 Slim, PS3 slim and slimmer. So at some point MS would be behind. And if they are making statements about getting rid of the generational model, I see Xbox updating like iPhones and Surface tablets, every year, or 2 max.

Did some research of my own finally, and they do like that word generations.
Last year:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/17/microsoft-aaron-greenberg-qa-project-scorpio-vr/
This year:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/17/microsoft-aaron-greenberg-qa-project-scorpio-vr/

They still call it Surface, so I suppose they just keep calling it Xbox 1 forever, with X followed by 2, 3, 4, up to 8, skip 9, then XX. Like Windows. Every year or 2. Hopefully not too weird like Apples iPhones and iPads, too confusing.

@BAMozzy "They still call it Surface, so I suppose they just keep calling it Xbox 1 forever, with X followed by 2, 3, 4, up to 8, skip 9, then XX. Like Windows. Every year or 2. Hopefully not too weird like Apples iPhones and iPads, too confusing."

OK, I decided that last part was just stupid, they can't expect devs to make a game run on 5 different Xbox models over any given 5 year period. I know PC devs make games work on hundreds of PC vid cards, but console work should be easier.

Worse than that though, Xbox 1Xn owners shouldn't have to read the fine print on every Xbox 1 X box game looking to see what the minimum requirement Xbox model is. So every 3 years is probably the minimum for upgrading hardware, but if that's the case it's still just a generation by a different name. A short generation.

And all of that "Xbox 1 can play every game Xbox 1 X can, except VR, b/c VR doesn't count." Well that's just corporate BS. Either it can or it can't. And it can't. And once they slide down that slippery slope, it's only a matter of time. Like X1X games playing at 15 FPS like Fallout 4 fog DLC on the PS4. Sure' they'll play, but play is relative. Hyrule Warriors plays on old 3DS, but it's so gimped it should have been a new exclusive.

Glad I'm getting out. Oh, and we don't really PC game in our house, we have enough consoles. I don't count Minecraft and whatever free Smash Bros clones my kids plays in web browsers.

@rjejr I think you are either deliberately misunderstanding or just not getting it!

In this system there is NO generations at all - its just 'iterative hardware' every 3-4yrs and when the 'next' iterative hardware comes out, the original XB1 is 'phased' out - its 8yrs old and cannot be expected to continue to deliver the games anymore. The X isn't a 'next' gen - its a big upgrade over the XB1 and built for the next 7-8yrs. In say 4yrs time, a new 'iterative' upgrade comes out - call it the 'X2' for example, that is a big upgrade over the X and the now 7.8yr old, HD XB1 is now phased out. The 4yr old 'X' becomes the 'base' effectively and the 'X2' becomes the 'enhanced', 'Pro' or more powerful console.

Its no different from the PC model. You could have a GTX780 for HD and now they are bringing out a GTX1080 for 4k. You don't have to upgrade to the 1080 if you don't want and in 4yrs time say, nVidia bring out a 1480, you could keep the 780 but its now not good enough to run some of the upcoming games and definitely not great with your 4k Monitor. You could pick up a now 'cheaper' GTX1080 which will do a 'decent job, play the latest games - maybe not to the highest standard and play all the games you enjoyed with the 780 - some enhanced or go for the latest 1480 that plays all the latest games, inc ALL your old games at the 'best' standard but these are not 'next' gen.

In both of these examples - the X and X2 or the PC model - the 'upgraded' hardware is NOT a 'next' gen reset - just an iterative increase. The fact that both the Base XB1 and GTX780 will come to a point when they are no longer capable, doesn't mean the more powerful hardware is 'next' gen either. Next gen is a 'Hard Reset'.

The Pro, after 3yrs wasn't a Next Gen but the PS5 will be. The 'X' is similar to the Pro in essence but rather but rather than do a 'hard' reset and replace both, like Sony will and thus making the Pro have a 'shorter' life than the Base PS4. It must do because it released 3yrs after and will 'end' at the same time as the base model. With the generation-free model - like the PC - each model has similar life spans. They may 'cross-over' so to speak but you always have an older, cheaper and less powerful model and a newer, more costly, higher powered model. This means that each console lasts around the same length of time and as the weakest comes to the end of its life after 7 to 8yrs, there is a new iterative upgrade - not a new gen.

@BAMozzy "there is a new iterative upgrade - not a new gen."

I think I'm getting it, but I think you might be giving consumers too much credit if you think they are going to distinguish between "iterative" and "generation". Most people are just going to call it next gen, or gen 9. So Pro and Scorpio may be iterative, but whatever comes next, whether its' 2, 3 or 4 years, people are going to view that as next gen, there's just no getting around that. Even if PS4 Pro and PS5 play the same games, and Scorpio and Scorpio 2 play the same games, b/c PS4 Slim and X1 Slim won't play them, then they will be "next gen", regardless of what you or I think or say. They can't just keeping coming out with new consoles every 3 years for the next 20 or 30 years and keep saying it's not a new gen, it's just a iteration, or refresh, of PS4 and X1.

While I like the PC model comparisons, they aren't apt. People dont' buy a new PC based on a big marketing blitz and what games it can play. Maybe some gamers buy video cards that way, but where is the equivalent of E3, TGS, Gamecon, etc for video cards? Videogame consoles are purchased b/c people know exactly what games they play and don't play. People buy PCs when they need new ones, and gamers buy new cards when they need them. But it isn't really comparable, PC gamers to the parents, kids, teens buying consoles when big companies tell them it's time. Consoles can't be upgraded willy nilly hodgepodge like PCs and videocards, that's not how the industry works. MS can try to make it work that way, but they'll fail, and parents, teens and kids will just move on to tablets. Or Sony. Or Nitnedo.

Why does it have to be a "hard reset" anyway? PS1 played PS2 games. PS3 played PS1 games and PS2 games at launch. Wii U played Wii games. Wii played Gamecube games. I don't understand where this "hard reset" is coming from. Wii U to Switch is hard, but that's just b/c it is, I don't see anything anywhere that says an iteration isn't a hard reset but a generation is. Going forward, just b/c a console has BC, I don't see why it isn't "next gen"? Sorry, can't follow.

@rjejr I really don't want to keep explaining it. The 'X' is an 'iterative' upgrade - just like the Pro. If instead Sony decided to do away with 'generations' too, they wouldn't release a PS5 but a PS4 Pro 2. At some point, the base PS4 will not be able to run the games coming out at HD standard - not with a decent frame rate so a game would say PS4 Pro recommended or Minimum required. However Sony are committed to the 'generational format and therefore we will see a PS5. That PS5 may offer 'some or total' Backwards Compatibility with 'some/all' games but its still a 'Hard Reset' and it will have its own PS5 software. Some games may well get a PS4 and a PS5 release and the PS5 games won't run on the PS4. The PS4 games may run because of some 'emulation' software or, like the original PS3, the PS2 chipset but that's Backwards Compatibility.

By the time the XB1 is 'phased' out - say 3-4yrs from now, a new 'iterative' console (the X2 for example) comes out and becomes like the X and Pro are now. By phasing out, I mean that MS just stop making it - like they have with the OG XB1 which was phased out by the XB1s. The only Xboxes for sale will be the X and X2. You don't have to upgrade to buy games but unless the 'hardware' can run them 'adequately' then you will have a 'poor' experience. The game will say something like Minimum recommended X - just like we see with PC's. Instead of opening up the XB1 and sticking in a better GPU, CPU or more RAM, they build an upgraded console for you. Its no different from the Mobile or Tablet sector. You can buy a new iPhone or iPad and all your Apps etc will still work on the new tablet/phone. Like those, and nVidia or AMD, they stop making the lower spec models and phase them out. Yopu don't have to buy a new Tablet/Phone/GPU/CPU but it may mean some of the latest features/apps/games etc won't run at a 'minimum' standard.

The X effectively becomes the 'base' model - only because MS are no longer making the XB1s. You could try to run the games on the original XB1 and to a degree, they may work - but whether they are 'playable' or not, who knows. Like trying to play the Witcher 3 on a Laptop GPU - it will work but whether you can get a decent enough frame rate, even after reducing all the settings down to minimal levels - hence it has a minimum and recommended settings. Some games that come out will run well enough, better on an X and best on the X2. If you own an 8yr old PC, you can still buy and 'try' to play Fallout 4 or Witcher 3 and it will load etc. if you then upgrade to a new PC, you don't have to buy that game again and play it at a better level. If you really don't understand how PC's work and the fact they are NOT generational devices, then this is just pointless.

I am not going to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. MS could still make a 'next gen' Xbox that 'could' have its own unique software and just run all/most of the existing Xbox (One, 360 and OG) as Backwards Compatible software. The reason tge Xbox One can run 360 games is because the XB1 has a 'virtual' XB360 in the OS - maybe they could build in a virtual XB1 into the next console - so they still bring all your software with you.

I think though, that they will just make a more powerful XB1 - More powerful than the XB1X and, just like the PC sector, this would be like replacing the CPU/GPU in your PC but instead of buying those components and replacing them, they will build those into the next device. Just like we are seeing now with the Pro and X, you can just move your library across and play - With the better hardware, you get better gaming - some with a simple patch to change settings, like output resolution or even change the frame rate cap. Maybe Games will come with 3 settings 1 for each console or more like PC's where we can pick our own visual settings - change the resolution, shadow quality etc ourselves instead of the Devs deciding for us like they do for consoles now.

I really don't understand why you are failing to grasp this concept. The Pro wasn't a 'next' gen console and neither will the X be. The difference between Sony though, is that they will bring out a next gen PS5 and MS 'could' bring out another iterative hardware that is the same principal of buying a new GPU and sticking that in a PC. At some point over the next few years, the base XB1, no longer being made, is phased out. Anyone buying an Xbox will have the choice of an X or the next iterative version. Games, like we see on PC could say X recommended. or minimum required but if you still buy and try it, it will still run - just very poorly unless you upgrade. Like trying to run the latest AAA game on an 8yr old PC. I don't know how else to put it....

@BAMozzy I understand exactly what you are saying. I understand all of it. I do. I guess what I am saying is it wont' work. MS can try to make it work, but many if not most console gamers aren't PC gamers, they aren't going to keep buying "iterative" consoles every few years trying to figure out everything you just typed. At some point they'll just say forget it and buy a Switch 2 or a PS5 simply b/c it's easier to understand what works and what doesn't.

Just b/c I don't agree that it will work out well for MS doesn't mean I don't understand what you think they are trying to do. So I get it, I just don't get that it will work.

Know how poorly Wii U sold. Know how many consumers were confused b/c many of them after E3 thought the Gamepad was just an add on accessory for the Wii. That Wii U branding probably didn't help, and the Wii U console looking just like a Wii. And the lack fo 3rd party support didn't help. But people weren't actively looking for a new Wii U console, it had no presence, no mindshare, no cultural awareness. I think something similar would happen with Xbox iterations. Oh sure, the 20m or 30m hardcore gamers might keep buying them, but that doesn't expand the install base. And as those gamers get older and outgrow gaming you need to pull in younger people to replace them. And those younger people won't care about BC b/c they dont' already own any games. And they wont' know when, where or how to jump in.

Apple can get away with it, they have a loud young and vocal install base, and very little cohesive competition. MS has to compete with Sony, and to a lesser extent Nintendo. I dont' think it will work. If you think it will fine, that's your call, but I don't think it will.

@rjejr I actually think MS can make it work and in all honesty, I think it makes sense for the direction that MS are looking to take. Its really only last gen that lasted a 'longer' time - perhaps too long and has skewed a LOT of modern day gamers. 6+yrs is 'excessive' for a consoles 'life cycle' if you 'look' at the history of ALL consoles and average out the time between the release of the console and its 'next' gen replacement. I know that consoles like the PS1 and PS2 lasted well into the 'next' gen era BUT in general, most consoles were on the market for 4-5yrs before a 'next' gen replacement.

I really don't think people are 'that' thick either that if they own a base XB1 3-4yrs after the X and the move to 4k HDR TV's, can realistically expect their console that has gradually deteriorated in the average visual and performance stakes, can still expect a big AAA game with a 'new' iterative' console, as well as the internet, gaming community etc - no doubt some big label on the Box or in the Online store, could miss and still buy a game that may not be a 'good' experience.

Do you think these 'kids' that know all the technology and social media access etc wouldn't either have upgraded to the X to go with their 4k TV's in the 4yrs since it was released or noticed and accepted that there are fewer and fewer games hitting 900-1080p and running at 'locked' frame rates?

As I said, if you have an 8yr old PC, you can't expect it to run games at the standards it did when it released. Of course with Last gen, we saw an improvement before plateauing and then gradually struggling to run the 'full' game, missing out on DLC content before - like only getting 1 pack or not at all (like Rise of Iron in Destiny), in its final years missing out 'content' (like the campaign in CoD). The same principal applies - however if they do 'upgrade', then those games get a boost without needing to rebuy - whether that's to the X or the 'nextbox'.

The reason we started this discussion was because you asked IF anyone could see a time when the 'Pro' OR 'X' would get some 'exclusive' releases. I can honestly say I cannot see that situation occurring with Sony because by the time a game wouldn't run on the base console, Sony would have a PS5 to release that game on. Also the difference between the PS4 and Pro is not that 'signicant' and can easily be justified - ie lack of RAM, CPU performance etc - its not as if the Pro is 'enhancing' games by a massive amount and some not even UHD.

The X on the otherhand has a big upgrade in virtually every area. Its more than 'half' a generational leap if you want to compare the difference between an XB360 to XB1 for example. MS would have a much tougher time trying to explain why it couldn't run a game that the base can't considering its specs etc. The difference here though, is that I think. by that time, MS will have a 'new' iterative upgrade too so technically, the X won't get an Exclusive' as it will run on both the X and the 'next-box'. It would be like the PC model where the '780' (base XB1) can't run a game sufficiently, the 1080 (X) can run that 'same' game (ie not a 'different' one - next gen disc/download) perfectly well but the new 1480 (next-box) runs it best with the highest resolution/visuals/stable performance. To re-iterate by 'Same' game, I am referring to 'exactly the same disc/download etc - not a different or next gen version. There is only one PC version of the Witcher 3 for example and it works perfectly well on a 780 and 1080. Say in 4yrs time CDPR release Cyberpunk - there will be only one PC version but that may not run well (if at all) on the 780, adequately on the 1080 but better on the 1480. Now apply that to the Xbox.

If anything, the Console equivalent would be far simpler because of the fewer components and comparisons. PC games list a set of specs that you would need to know their hierarchy. Know whether your CPU/GPU etc is equivalent or better than. On console it would be far simpler to understand that the 'X' is the 'recommended' or 'minimum' console required. If you do buy a 'game' that says the 'minimum' req is an X after sitting with the base version for 8+yrs now, and find out that it states 'clearly' that your 'weak' console can't run it - despite all the internet, reviews, build up, hype, etc etc then you must be incredibly dense, live in a vacuum etc. You have a choice of upgrade your console - despite 4yrs+ of knowing that the X will run all these games much better - even with a 1080p TV to play it at a 'decent' standard or sell the game on.

It really is that simple. I don't know anyone that expects their PC to run 'every' game indefinitely without needing to upgrade. I don't know anyone that doesn't expect their base PS4/XB1 to either need replacing OR upgrading at some point. Its not going to be a 'sudden' event, that 1 day 'every' new game works, but next day, no new game will work. Over the next 4yrs, I can see a 'steady' decline on both PS4 and XB1 in terms of 'average' resolution/performance. Instead of most games releasing at 1080p (900p on XB1), the average resolution dropping to 900p (720p on XB1) and maybe even a degradation in performance too, more and more games dropping frames, screen tear, stutter etc. If you don't notice this - even with a 1080p TV, then you really aren't a gamer either.

I am sorry, maybe I am giving the majority of people too much 'credit'. In an era with so much social media, youtube etc is consumed, I really can't see how people could struggle with this. In practice, its no different from the 'Pro/X' concept. The only difference here is that in say another 3-4yrs, IF MS do make another iterative console, the 'parameters' move with it to a degree - not overnight - not a sudden cut-off - but a gradual phasing out of the XB1 as the X becomes more the 'base' model and the 'next-box' becomes the 'enhanced' (Pro/X) version. In an age where we have new mobiles every year, new tablets, new CPU/GPU's etc and its not like you lose 'everything' if you upgrade these but Apps, games etc run better. At some point though, you 'need' to upgrade all of these to keep getting the latest apps/games etc. I really can't see how anyone can be so blinkered. Like I said, maybe I am giving people more credit than I should and I could 'maybe' understand it if this was 20yrs ago when you only had 'Magazines' to get info from - but with internet, websites etc, I really can't see how anyone could not understand or not get the 'information'. Why would they even know to buy that 'game' for their XB1 let alone know that it may not 'run' well. I also wonder how many gamers will still be gaming on a base XB1 without upgrading to an X or 'other' gaming device as more and more people upgrade to 4k TV's etc. If this is the model that MS use, then we are talking about 2020/1ish and I doubt the 'next-box' will appear without some warning, some advertisement, some information - even via the XB1 dash.

@BAMozzy " then you must be incredibly dense, live in a vacuum etc."

Or be a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, in TRU in Nov looking to buy Call of Duty for your kid, grandkid, niece or nephew. I spend a lot of time in the videogame section of Target. Some in TRU. Some in Gamestop. Very little in Best Buy. But it seems like there is always some soccer mom asking a question about some game and what console it runs on. Not males aged 13-35, but other people buy and play games as well.

I do think MS can keep it's 20-30m hardcore followers, they know what's going on. But if they want to sell 80mil again like they did on Xbox360, or 100mil like Wii did, they need a focused console I think. i think it's easier to market a Xbox Eleven than Xbox 1 X2 or Xbox One X.2. The people already in that system, yes, they'll understand, but most of Apples iPhone sales are probably to previous iPhone owners. And I believe iPad sales have leveled off, no more astronomical growth there. Previous Xbox owners will be locked in, but I think it's at the exclusion of bringing in new people with a clear and delineated starting point. Not that PS5 shouldn't be able to play PS4 games, would be better if it could, but they would still be PS5 games that wouldn't play on PS4 or earlier. People like clarity I believe.

Or MS could just stop making consoles after X1X fails and make our last 2 days moot. I think we're pretty clear and in agreement on the Sony side, it's a little more straight forward.

@rjejr Don't forget, we are talking 3+yrs on from now. In an era where we have seen the Pro and X and understand what an upgrade is. If parents etc are buying CoD for their kids, then something is wrong anyway. I am sure the 'kids' would know and I doubt they wouldn't of been telling their 'parents' that they wanted an 'X' for the past 4yrs either

MS are looking to build an ecosystem and whether you decide to go the PC OR Console route with them, they will still have the largest user base because the console and PC are merged together - certainly where MS exclusives are concerned. 3rd Party may be a bit different unless MS can find a solution for cross-platform play with ALL games. They will still want to make their consoles a 'competitive' device and encourage ALL console gamers that their platform is worthwhile. That being said, they don't need to sell 60+m consoles although I am sure they would be happy to. The bigger profit comes from Software and MS has the bigger install base to sell their software too. Sony only has the Console so if they only sell 30m, that's 30m potential people to buy their Software - MS though have 30m on console and 'how many PC gamers??How much 'profit' per person per console compared to how much profit per person per year on Software' . Even some consoles have been sold at a loss knowing that software sales etc will be where the moneys's made.

The other aspect of course is that once you have a Xbox, they do a lot to keep you - All your games stay with you. Will people want to lose all their games just to jump to an alternative? Its not just 1 gen now but all the XB360 and OG Xbox BC games - MS give you 4 games a month too. Giving people 2 XB360 games every month as well as the XB1 games could give people. The fact these stay with you as well as all your purchased games gives a big incentive to stick with MS - especially if the consoles remain competitive. Iterative hardware should enable them to do that. It also enables them to react more quickly to the market and technology too and keep to a 'budget' without going overboard to predict what would be needed 6-7yrs from release.

I don't see the XB1X failing. It could have a tougher time - depending on What Sony do next. If Sony release a PS5 in a year that blows the X away power wise, MS are 'stuck' for 2-3yrs with yet another 'under-powered' console compared to Sony and have a 'good' line-up of Exclusives too. We don't know much beyond E3 2018 of what MS is bringing though so maybe that 'could' even itself out a bit but Sony have a lot more Studio's. If Sony wait 2 or even 3yrs as some seem to think, they leave the X as the best 4k Console on the Market - the best place at least for all the Multi-platform games which may help them get a big footing and then when the 'next-box' comes out that plays the hundreds (inc all GwG games) you own - many of which may be 'enhanced' further, the choice for people will be more difficult - jump to Sony and lose all of those or stick with MS and keep them. Going the generation route, at the 'end' of a Generation, the choice is more simple - whether you stick or jump, it often means leaving your library behind and starting again so you don't mind jumping to the 'best' at the time. We have seen that throughout history, people once with Nintendo buying the next Sega or even PS when they joined he console space. Then when Sega left and MS joined, the choice tended to be more between Xbox or PS for the more 'dedicated' gamer as Nintendo became the 2nd option, child friendly, more casual option. At the end of the last gen, both MS and Sony release a console at the same time and a lot jumped to Sony because it was the 'better' console for gaming. It was quite easy to leave MS because all your old games stayed with the XB360 - until MS brought BC to it anyway.

You talk about MS failing with the X, but what you don't know is what MS are targeting for sales. They could see 30m over 4yrs a success because that, along with the PC game sales, is making enough profit a year to keep MS happy. They didn't need to make the Surface either - Not with partnerships with HP etc also making Laptops in partnership. They don't need to make a VR headset, like Sony, with OR, Vive and partnerships with Acer and HP to make them.

Sony's strategy is a lot more clear - its the same we have always seen from them. Either way though, I will no doubt continue to own both Sony and MS consoles. I am not loyal to a box of electronics that I must have to play the games I want, at the best level I can. If that means that until Sony releases its PS5 that the X becomes my go-to for multi-platform releases and the few exclusives that MS has, so be it. If, when the PS5 releases, I switch to Sony for the majority of Multi-platform games so be it. I will (unless circumstances dictate otherwise) be looking to buy both companies consoles for the foreseeable future. The only thing that would change that would be if a 'console' released that was better than both and played ALL games - inc those Exclusives meaning I wouldn't need 'both' but there is less chance of that happening than me walking on the moon.

If MS do go down the route I think they will, it won't be 'complicated'. Maybe the first 1 or 2 times they bring out an iterative console but it will also become the 'norm' quite quickly when a pattern becomes established. People were confused by the Pro and X because a Lot never lived through the early years when we had Sega making the 32x, 32CD and Nintendo adding an Expansion Pack that meant some games were 'enhanced', others needed it to play some or all the game. In the last 15yrs or so its been 'straightforward'. Once MS establish that pattern, it will become much easier and like I said, by the time it gets to the point that the 'weakest' console is no longer able to 'keep' up, MS could have 2, more powerful consoles on the market and 'upgrading' to 1 will guarantee that all your games 'work'. I wonder how many people may still have an XB1 in 4yrs or so when 1080p TV's are becoming more like CRT TV's in that you can't buy them 'new' anymore (at least not branded and not 2020/2021 models) and 4k is now the 'base' TV hardware standard.

@BAMozzy "if a 'console' released that was better than both and played ALL games"

The one way I could see that happening - but I don't think it will - is if all 3 consoles - Switch, PS, Xbox - sold so poorly 3rd party devs said - "Look, we can't make our money back on any 1 of these small install bases, so every game has to be on every system." And in some reality that will probably happen, just not ours.

Good point about 1080p tvs becoming obsolete as they are replaced by 4k. It might be awhile though, I've been looking at a 32" tv for my kids bedroom and I'm surprised how many of those are still only 720p. I think anything over 50" is going to be 4k, but that's kind of big for a teens bedroom or college dorm, so 1080p tvs might exist b/c 32" tvs need to exist - some places can't fit anything any bigger. Some bars and restaurant tvs probably max out at 40. Really dot'n need 4k for those sizes. Though once bigger tvs are all 8k I suppose the smaller ones will be 4k by default.

Well whatever happens, at least tech can keep us entertained and guessing, and it's always getting better.