Xbox is 'Moving Full Speed Ahead' on Next-Generation Console - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 08 April 2024 / 4,533 Views
Xbox President Sarah Bond in an email sent to Xbox employees obtained by Windows Central revealed the team is "moving full speed ahead" on the next-generation Xbox console.
"It’s been nearly six months since we came together as an organization. Our collective achievements in that timeframe are tremendous. Everyone should feel incredibly proud of what we’ve achieved and excited about the opportunities ahead," said Bond .
"We are moving full speed ahead on our next generation hardware, focused on delivering the biggest technological leap ever in a generation."
Bond added Xbox will be taking advantage of Microsoft's AI innovations.
"We are innovating in Gaming AI, focused on delivering player-first, developer-first value for discovery, engagement, and creator velocity."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Wow already? Feels like the Gen just started. Especially with so many cross Gen games.
No chance the XBS consoles get supported for long if the new one comes out. It will have about 24GB of RAM. The XBSS has 8GB. If you support the XBSS your just ruining the games being developed for your new hardware because it's just a blown up XBSS game
Series S has 10 GB RAM. Yeah, that's less than the One X and Series X. And it will be far below the 24 GB RAM or more the Fifth Xbox has.
While I disagree with Xbox mandating every single game that plays on Series X to play on Series S, it's not the end of the world.
Keep in mind Xbox One games are running on Xbox One OG/S consoles, not just One X.
To date, the only Xbox platform that had support dry up somewhat quickly was the original Xbox. But keep in mind that it still got support over 2 years after the 360 launched and was tougher to develop games for than future Xbox consoles.
It technically has 10GB but only 8GB is usable for games. 2GB can only be used for operating system, So, I say 8GB because they are gaming consoles and only 8GB can be used for gaming.
Lets just be honest here, if they develop, for example ES6 to be compatible with the XBSS they are just ruining the game. It could be a way better game if they had it exclusive to the console with the 24gb RAM. It would be a crazy bad decision.
As crazy of a bad decision as Sony and MS making cross-gen games for 2 years on the terribly dated last gen hardware?
Nope not even close. They both have 8Gb of RAM too. That's why they have lived so long. XBSS has RAM similar to 2013 consoles so as soon as new one comes XBS consoles will be immediately dropped and there will be no corssgen period with them
So you will knock off 2GB of RAM for the Series S but give the last gen consoles the full 8GB of RAM it had even though 5GB was for gaming? Lol You wonder why people call you out for your bs.
Not to mention 10 GB of GDDR6 RAM in the Series S is superior to the 8GB of GDDR3&5 RAM for previous gen systems. You're also dismissing the rest of the dated hardware since you want to pretend RAM is the only part that matters.
There is no BS. I know not all of the 8GB is usable for games but the exact figure has not been disclosed by MS/Sony. You just made an assumption it was 3GB and that is far more BS than what I said because the exact amount is private and no-one knows it.
I don't know why you are defending these consoles that MS is about to drop. They failed. There's no arguing that or defending it.
I didn't assume anything. You can look it up yourself. It's about 5-5.5 depending on the system. Anyways, My point still stands, you are purposely misleading and this isn't the first time.
A console has failed before we even know anything about it? Interesting. You've already made yourself look foolish enough lately. Go play some games or whatever.
Im the fool? Not the person who is defending MS 2nd most unsuccessful console ever. Something they are about to throw in the trash and replace.
I wouldn't even have to be in a position to 'defend' Xbox or Switch for that matter if you didn't have such terrible takes with misleading information. Instead of talking about the systems and games you like, and ignoring the one's you don't, you have to convince yourself and others which plastic box is superior and inferior. This is the console war mentality to a T and a truely foolish position to be in. Maybe someday you'll grow up, mentally at least.
All I'm trying to say is exactly what" scoopz" is saying below me. Is he console warring and posting misinformation? I would NEVER deliberately give misinformation to anyone over a gaming console.
You've gotta consider the reasons why support for the original Xbox dried up so quickly. It was getting slaughtered by its main competitor Sony. So MS wanted to get the jump on them and start the next gen early and it paid off with the 360. This gen MS are getting slaughtered to a similar extent and with all the rumours of their next gen entry coming in 2026 things are pointing towards history repeating itself and MS trying for another 360 gen.
Waaay to soon. This gen hasnt even started yet. Man gaming is soo badnowadays
If the rumor is true it would be 6 years of the Series consoles on the market and older consoles are still supported for years after the release of a new generation.
It takes 5-6 years to make one game. Are we getting like 1 game a gen now? PS5 will be supported until 2030 (because people buy it)
It's easy to go full force now onto next gen when they gave up trying this gen.
I'm sure they've already finalized their plan for their 'slim/all digital white' XBSX and to release enough random games to stretch out this gen for another 3yrs or so. But I wouldn't expect anything big from MS anymore this gen.
This is standard under phil. Lack of compelling games. Not uncommon for the console to have a year of almost nothing. 2020 not much. Not much in 2022. 2017 it was Halo wars and? Just starting over again hurts trust. Outside of the loyal fans. This is a failing strategy. It really is time for new leadership. Sarah Bond. James Bond. The Toothfairy. IDK just get Phil out of there. Make the brand mean something again.
Yep, but that doesn't fit the narrative that anti-xbox individuals are trying to push and should not be taken into consideration.
10 years of Phil Spencer, billions spent on acquisitions, and still Xbox has not made a game considered a system seller.
To be far, majority of those acquisitions haven't bared any fruit under MS. Obsidian's and Ninja Theory's first major releases under Xbox is this year and those were 2018 acquisitions.
Yeah you're right. I really hope hellblade 2 and avowed are good
So do I.
So the rumors of a handheld, and then licenseing out their brand, to make xbox pc's instead, is.... false? Also its barely been abit over 3 years right (since PS5/XSX launch)? Isn't is very early to be talking about a new gen?
Im not sure what Microsoft can do to change their fortunes. the have a great console now and lots of great games. are they expecting games like ES6 to make a huge difference?
Until we get further info this is just business as usual. We are by all measure at the halfway point of the gen so working on next gen is to be expected. Still would not expect anything to come out before 2027.
Just give me an XPCBox for plug and play that can function as a PC. With access to Steam games at $5-20 a pop (depending on msrp of said game) to get access on Xbox so it doesn't hurt MS's revenue, or an expanded GP subscription tier (say. $20-25 a month) that allows free, unlimited access to Steam games without any cost, and I'd be good!
This doesn't send a good message to Xbox Series owners. New console in 2 years according to the rumours? What about all the games that were announced years ago?
Were those games cancelled?
No, but what if they skip the Series X|S and just release on next gen only?
Seems very unlikely. If a game is announced for Series consoles, it will release on those systems. Cross-gen will likely last at least another year or 2 like it did this generation.
What is the difference between anticipating a console generation and launching a PRO console? I think it makes no sense to launch a PRO console to update the hardware, so why not do something completely new, just like the PC user changes their GPU and CPU periodically?
Because new console will have a big CPU jump making it harder to optimize for older system, Pro consoles have small CPU gains
You just need to define with the studios the hardware for which the games will be released. A new generation can start every five years, and studios release games for the past generation and the current generation, so you have a hardware range of 10 years. This is not absurd when you compare it with PC GPUs, as every year we have a new line of products, for example, the RTX 10XX, 20XX, 30XX, 40XX, but currently studios have minimum requirements for a 20XX or equivalent. .
It may seem absurd, but anyone who uses a PC is more accustomed to making a faster technological transition than other platforms. Telling a PC user that they should upgrade their hardware every five years is not absurd. Another platform that users always keep up to date with is mobile devices, as you rarely come across a person who had a cell phone from 5 to 10 years ago.
I think it's disrespectful to the user to launch a PRO version, as it doesn't make sense to pay for other hardware to be in the same generation. The user who entered the generation early spent US$ 350 to 500, so if he wants to stay updated he will have to go through the trouble of selling his old hardware and paying US$ 350 to 500 again? Who knows, maybe it will be more expensive? If he bought it for US$500 and had a hardware depreciation of 20% per year then we would have
First year: US$500
Second year: US$400
third year: US$320
fourth year: US$256
If the PRO costs US$600 and the user sells the old console for 256, then he will have to invest US$344. In this generation the customer invested 500 + 344 = US$844
I just don't agree with that. It's better to be honest with the customer and say that the hardware will only last 5 years, as after that it becomes unfeasible for studios to optimize games for a console that is "weak" for the current graphics engine.
The stronger a CPU (data processing) or a GPU (graphics processing) is, the easier it will be for the developer to use a current graphics engine with more features than the old one.
Current consoles have very good hardware, but when developers use current graphics engines with many resources, the console cannot run at 4K and 60FPS, so there is a choice to be made, which is 4K (dynamic or upscale) and 30FPS or 1080p or 1440p with 60FPS. The fact is that current consoles would run games at 4K and 60FPS or 120FPS with older graphics engines, or at least they would run at a resolution close to 4K, but when designing the console, the engineering teams did not count on such heavy resources that are used in current graphics engines.
Hellblade 2 is being made in EU5, but regardless of the console that will be released, the game will never reach 60FPS, as the processing capacity demanded exceeds the limits that the hardware can deliver.
Also you have to realize 2026 Xbox will have worse hardware than 2028 PS6 so Xbox won't be the most powerful system for long, it makes little sense to me to marginalize XSX so quickly.
Nintendo Switch does not have the most powerful hardware, but it has sold 138 million units to date.
If the Playstation continues to change its generation every 8 years, and the XBox every 6 years, then in 24 years we will have a launch in the same year, but with different generations.
What's the point of the PRO console? Will you make your user spend twice in the same generation? Generally, people who like PCs upgrade their CPU and GPU more, but they don't need to change all the hardware. If you agree with this, that's fine! I do not agree.
Next year we will have the launch of the famous GTA 6. Do you agree with Sony's stance of forcing its customers, who purchased the PS5 in 2020, to purchase a PS5 PRO to play at 60FPS?
The guy who bought it at the beginning of the generation probably planned, made an effort to save the money, probably loves the brand, but how much respect does the brand show when launching something in the middle of the generation? What is its value?
In my opinion, the company deceived the customer, because if you stop to analyze, only the PRO user will enjoy the true benefits of the game, while the older user will have two choices, which is to play with lower performance, or sell the console and buy the PRO.
I doubt GTA VI will be 60 FPS even on the Pro. It’s a CPU heavy game and the Pro’s CPU is only 10% faster.
Yes. I agree, but I still want to wait for the PS5 PRO and GTA VI releases. I'm giving myself a chance to be wrong about the reason for the mid-gen release.
I'll be very honest... the PRO console is nothing more than a way of extending the life of a generation, with this, you theoretically update the CPU and/or GPU, but take advantage of the rest of the components, which after 4 years they will be outdated and devalued, so the company has a reduction in production costs or at least can keep costs the same as 4 years ago, and reduces the subsidy margin. Yes, consoles are subsidized hardware, as a person to build a PC with similar processing capacity will spend more. How much will you spend? Your money is the limit. An RTX 4090 should have a graphics processing capacity 3 to 4 times greater than a PS5 or XBox series X. I won't even get into the issue of CPUs, SSD or RAM.
This was the point I wanted to get to in the other comments.
Yes the Switch as sold 138 million without having the most powerful hardware but the reasons aren't solely based on power or lack of it, a lot of the Switch's success has to do with Nintendo combining their portable and home console markets, a hypothetical home console Switch would have struggled hence why they went for the hybrid sales model.
The success of the switch comes from several factors:
- Exclusivity of games for your ecosystem;
- Fun and quality games
- Different games, many of which are for families
- Portable hardware (play anywhere - something Microsoft wants to deploy and expand beyond its platform)
-
Marketing
Nintendo games cost much less than AAA high-performance consoles, and it charges almost the same price as AAA. You don't see Nintendo worried about the PRO console, as it doesn't need it, after all, you already have a console defined for the entire generation, so the engineering team already knows what needs to be done to run at "x" resolution with "y" FPS. There will be no graphics engine update until another switch is released... process at 4K and 60FPS as it exceeds capacity." Switch is the best example of why we don't need a PRO console.
With so many studios, Microsoft should focus on developing one or two graphics engines that serve all of its studios. I fully believe that the hardware division and a graphics engine division could bring a really powerful console with fluid software. Epic profits from the Unreal Engine, so I wonder why Microsoft hasn't created a graphics engine division for its internal studios yet, besides, it would be another source to generate revenue by selling licenses to external studios. The quick solution would be to buy Unity, as it has a good graphics engine for mobile games and has the potential to expand to PC and consoles.
My post was pointing out that the Switch's sales success with a less powerful console was due to its uniqueness and hybrid nature so its an apple and oranges situation when comparing Nintendo to the other console makers console specs .
Now the truth is Pro models were never about every game getting a costly mid gen transformation since neither Sony or MS want to split their base rather its original purpose was to provide some extra momentum around the time that the upwards sales curve traditional flattens off and so it was aimed at those gamers who are prepared to pay extra for smoother game play along with gaining game play settings that were once the domain of PC gaming.
it simply boils down to just a choice for those who are looking for a little bit more from their games without it impacting those who are comfortable with the standard console
Nonsense! Mid-generation consoles are a way to extend the life of the current generation, keep hardware production costs low and minimize console subsidies.
Instead of having a generation with a lifespan of 8 years, why not reduce the generation's lifespan to 5 to 6 years? You wouldn't need a mid-generation console and would guarantee updated hardware for current graphics engines. Furthermore, studios would release games for current and previous generation consoles, so we have a gap of 10 to 12 years with games coming to the console, but the previous ones would have lower performance, whether in resolution or frame rate, obviously. .
There is a product life cycle curve, it is divided as follows:
- Development (XBox and Playstation 6 are at this stage)
- Introduction of the product to the market
- Growth (the mid-generation console was inserted here, as it would extend this growth curve)
- Maturity (your sales stabilize and there is little variation)
-
Decline
In my understanding, the user who bought a console at the beginning of the generation and will buy a PRO console will invest almost the same amount in a high-end PC.
I ask you the following questions...
-
what is the difference between buying a PRO console and buying a new generation console?
-Wouldn't the user have to buy a console twice in less than 10 years if they want to stay up to date?
- The only difference is that the new generation console would have all new components, therefore, more prepared for new technologies, so what is the advantage for the user of extending the life cycle of a generation?
You must have a global view of the success of the product or service. Its uniqueness is some topics that I mentioned, but of course there are more things. In my view, the XBox currently has the capacity to be the most unique ecosystem that exists in the gaming industry, for this Microsoft would need:
-
Ensure a constant number of annual game releases (3 to 4 AAA/year), after all, they have more than 30 studios;
-
Within the 30 studios, create small groups to make low-budget games with a goal of finishing the project in 2 to 3 years; It could be new talent managed by an experienced professional; (Hi Fi Rush is an example)
-
Benchmarking between studios;
-
Job rotation between studios, as there are employees who don't want to do COD their whole lives, so giving this opportunity is sometimes better than losing a talent;
-
Career plan, benefits and, above all, a better organizational environment than the competition, as this way you maintain talent and attract talent.
-
Studio management... sometimes I think that the XBox division doesn't apply quality tools and methodologies. This would preserve the image of the studios, increase productivity, consequently, increase quality and minimize costs.
-
Multiplatform games produced by first party studios could be sold on the XBox store cheaper than on the Playstation store. If the game sold on Playstation costs the user US$70, with the revenue sharing being 70% (US$49) for the studio and 30% (US$21) for the store owner, then Microsoft You could easily be selling your multiplatform game for $49 to $60.
-
Game quality, ensuring minimum bugs and optimization for the hardware. This can be done with AI, which would reduce the programmer's time detecting errors, so he would be focused on tasks that really add value to the user and company and would also reduce costs and time for a game to be ready.
-
Diversity of games. Games of all genres, for all ages and audiences.
-
Acquisitions or opening of studios in key countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand, India, Brazil. This is not limited to studios that produce games for PC and console, but mainly mobile, as it is the platform that generates the most revenue.
-
Market study to identify games that are most successful on PC, console and mobile, with this, the company could create its own games to compete with the current successes of third party studios.
-
Creation of a division focused on creating a graphics engine that meets all the expectations of the internal studios. I'm referring to creating a graphics engine that competes with Unreal Engine and Unity, and that can be used in the production of games for PC, console and mobile. Another possibility is the acquisition of Unity. Having full control of your software and being able to develop new hardware by consulting the graphics engine team about new innovations is essential to have a fluid system making the most of the hardware. Apple executes this very well! I guarantee it would even be another source of revenue for the games division, as it could adopt a business model like Epic or Unity.
-
To play games on competing platforms, the user must create a Microsoft account, so if in the future they decide to change platforms, the game library will migrate to the current platform. Involve regulatory bodies and argue that this is best for the user, as it gives them the right to choose and increases competition.
Note that I didn't mention third-party exclusives, as I think Microsoft would be losing money on something temporary. Why invest in sabotaging your competitor, when you can simply create new products and services and bring them together into an ecosystem? Be better than your competitor and this will make you stand out, therefore attracting users and keeping them in your ecosystem is a consequence.
" the biggest technological leap ever in a generation" While that might be factually true, the perceived leap, aka the thing that matters for people, have declined with each generation. I skipped out on the past gen jumping from PS3 to PS5 still felt like a lot smaller leap than going from PS2 to PS3.
Does not have to mean graphics does it? You can frame that in regards to AI, AI, and AI integration. Personally, the statement means leveraging cloud capabilities into their games.
Game dev takes YEARS for a AAA project. Saying 'yeah we got some hardware in development' four years out from its launch is hardly surprising
Exactly, how are there going to be launch games if dev kits aren't supplied to developers early?
"biggest technological leap ever in a generation." doesn't mean anything if your considering the XBSS as current generation. It's so severely underpowered that whatever console you make next was always going to be the "biggest technological leap"
Not true.
Series X has plenty of power. The leap just seems like less when you consider some aspects of diminishing returns and if you're comparing One X to Series S.
PS4 to PS5 seems like the smallest generational leap to me (besides load times) but on paper it isn't that much smaller of a leap. Xbox One to Xbox Series X seems like a similar leap but I don't own either of them.
I didn't mention the Series X though. I know the series X is fine in power department. The reason I said what I said was....If you take the Series X as the base for the comparison, i highly doubt that they can beat the jump from Xbox one to Series X. The One has 1 Tflop. the X has 12. 12X the T flops. There's no way that the next Xbox is going to have 12x the tflops of the Series X, but it might have 12x the tflops of the S
Is this NA only? It barely sells outside of it.
