Ed Fries was vice president of game publishing at Microsoft and one of the co-creators of the original Xbox. He worked for 14 years for the company from Redmond and left 2004 to pursue other opportunities. He currently works as board member and advisor for various companies and is the CEO of FigurePrint, a company that makes licensed 3D models of World of Warcraft characters.

Fries sat down with Geekwire to talk about various topics, such as VR and the impact smartphones have on PC and console gaming. When asked about the Nintendo Switch, he said that although he thought it was creative, he wasn't sure if it was going to be successful. He claimed things like separate controllers were ideas they had talked about during his time at Microsoft, but those obviously didn't materialize. He enjoys playing Mario and Zelda on the Switch, praising how creative the Joy-Cons can be used to play. In the end, the Switch won him over as a "cool machine". Speaking about Nintendo Labo, he loves the creativeness of it and praises Nintendo for thinking outside the box.

Regarding Sony and Microsoft, he said that they shouldn't try to imitate or be Nintendo as he thinks they wouldn't be very successful at it. Instead, they should find out what they are good at and stick to it.

Fries: When I first saw it, I thought it was creative, but I wasn’t sure if it was going to be successful. Some of the ideas we had actually talked about at Xbox, like having controllers you could separate and hold in each hand. I first played Zelda on the Wii U and enjoyed the game, and thought, maybe I don’t need a Switch. Eventually I buckled and got a Switch to play Mario, and I was really surprised how many different and creative ways they use the controllers, how they can be joined onto different supports, or you can separate them and hand them to another player and turn them sideways. It’s something that’s really won me over as a cool machine.

I love how creative Nintendo is. Now they have this Nintendo Labo with the cardboard. When I saw that I thought, good for you Nintendo, I just love how they’re always thinking outside the box. This cardboard thing ties into the whole maker movement, and it’s great to have kids building something physical.

I don’t think the right thing for Microsoft or Sony to do is imitate Nintendo or try to be Nintendo. I don’t think they’ll succeed by being Nintendo. I think they’ve gotta figure out what it is that they do well and continue to do that well.

Check out the source below for the complete interview.

Source

 

[Yepi69]

I don't understand.
Sony has been copying Nintendo occasionally, why don't they copy the fact that they have cross platform too?
You know, something that gamers fucking want?

Spoiler

 

[Foxi4]

180 degree spotty tracking on the controllers, easily messed up by speed is not good. Nobody has reviewed the Move controllers positively with PSVR after trying the Vive and Oculus controllers. Move is a generation old by console standards (1.5 if you count Pro/1X that way), which means it's decades old by 2018 standards for VR. Affordability is a cop-out, they could've designed much better VR controllers at $100 a set, launch in a discounted bundle.

Anything more than 180 degrees tracking would effectively require multiple satellite sensors/cameras, you know this. It's not a limitation of technology, it's a limitation of implementation.

 

[Xzi]

Anything more than 180 degrees tracking would effectively require multiple satellite sensors/cameras, you know this. It's not a limitation of technology, it's a limitation of implementation.

As if a second wireless camera would be a problem to add. The only reason it's not a priority now is because Move tracking sucks in general and 360 tracking would only expose it further.

 

[Foxi4]

As if a second wireless camera would be a problem to add. The only reason it's not a priority now is because Move tracking sucks in general and 360 tracking would only expose it further.

I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, controllers in general shouldn't cost more than $20, PSMove or otherwise, there's just not that much high-end tech in them, on any platform. They're expensive because they're accessories and they break - they're the part of the system that requires replacements whether you take good care of them or not due to wear and tear. I don't think it's fair to criticise the pricing of Move wands when they're in line with controller pricing in general. Heck, the XBO controllers have no sensors whatsoever, just a wireless chip and inputs, and they cost an arm and a leg. The Switch controllers are pretty high-tech, but don't even feature analog triggers, and neither does the Pro controller. Controllers in general have gotten stale in terms of features, companies seem to focus more on comfort levels. As far as VR controllers are concerned, I don't think the weird Vive halo finger sensor rigmarole is the way to go. For true VR I expect someone will eventually come up with gloves that don't suck, that's the only path forward for true immersion, at least in my opinion.

 

[Xzi]

I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, controllers in general shouldn't cost more than $20, PSMove or otherwise, there's just not that much high-end tech in them, on any platform. They're expensive because they're accessories and they break - they're the part of the system that requires replacements whether you take good care of them or not due to wear and tear. I don't think it's fair to criticise the pricing of Move wands when they're in line with controller pricing in general. Heck, the XBO controllers have no sensors whatsoever, just a wireless chip and inputs, and they cost an arm and a leg. The Switch controllers are pretty high-tech, but don't even feature analog triggers, and neither does the Pro controller. Controllers in general have gotten stale in terms of features, companies seem to focus more on comfort levels. As far as VR controllers are concerned, I don't think the weird Vive halo finger sensor rigmarole is the way to go. For true VR I expect someone will eventually come up with gloves that don't suck, that's the only path forward for true immersion, at least in my opinion.

IMO gloves in gaming have been overrated for a long time despite the fact that they never sell well. Even in VR gamers want something to touch and provide feedback, a pad or a thumbstick and at least a couple buttons. The only substitute gloves have been able to provide is touching your own fingers with your thumb, and it's simply not good enough.

 

[Foxi4]

IMO gloves in gaming have been overrated for a long time despite the fact that they never sell well. Even in VR gamers want something to touch and provide feedback, a pad or a thumbstick and at least a couple buttons. The only substitute gloves have been able to provide is touching your own fingers with your thumb, and it's simply not good enough.

We've solved that problem already. We now have membranes that react to electricity by expanding or contracting, creating "bubbles" (Tactus). In conjunction with rumble motors they could be used to simulate touch. In fact, there's even tech out there that simulates the sensation of different textures via electrovibration, so you're not just simulating touch, but also precise feel of the surface. So far this tech has been used in touchscreens, but I can see it being implemented effectively in VR. You don't even need to go so high-tech, either - just some good 'ol air and a silent pump will do.

Oh My!!!

"Regarding Sony and Microsoft, he said that they shouldn't try to imitate or be Nintendo as he thinks they wouldn't be very successful at it. Instead, they should find out what they are good at and stick to it."

This guy know those copycats I was talking about before...

And that's precisely the point of it all, they are only good at emulating and refurbishing games. No creativity nor innovative ways of gaming would come from them.

I love my PSP/PS Vita for emulating games from other consoles, because their games suck so hugely... LOL

You have Sony to thank for dual analog sticks, they changed the gaming landscape. Besides, innovation is all well and good, execution is a whole different story. Sony's strength is in hardware design, they're pretty good at picking functionality that resonates with their customers and putting it together into appealing consoles. The PS4 isn't innovative in any way, it improves on all of their previous designs though, that's why it's so successful. You don't always need to re-invent the wheel, sometimes you just have to make a good wheel and people will come to buy it. I don't see it as a bad thing, I think it's great - I'd be happy to see all consoles feature similar functionality and just choose the one that comes on top in terms of quality. Taking things that work and making them even better is equally as important as making new things - you already know they work, you can only go up from there. There are gamers who want to have a profound experience with a piece of cardboard, there are also gamers who just want to sit down after their 9 till 5 and play a round of their favourite shooter, and you have to cater to both.

 

[kuwanger]

Makes sense. The XBox was a financial success, but it was a success in what Microsoft's goal was: spending whatever it took to become an established games console maker that had the potential to be profitable in the future. They did it primarily through a combination of buying out Halo and marketing the idea that the XBox was for hardcore gamers. The results, of course, was a lot of FPSs and racing games on the XBox. Also, by using Windows-like + Intel as a framework it lured developers to their platform, even though they ended up switching chips in the next gen--presumably because of the hardware cost.

So, yes, if you're a start-up in an industry, you want to make a name for yourself by being different enough to gain an audience. Established players, though, have a good notion of their audience is (usually), and it only makes sense to not follow other companies in the same space when going overboard in it. Sony and MS copy--or supersede--Nintendo's latest gimmick because they want parity for developers and gamers alike so certain exclusives don't have to exist on one platform. Within that scope, they still try to expand out in their own niche enough to make their platform desired.

The only real odd-man out in this is Nintendo. Nintendo gambles on new ideas (or old ideas well). It pays off decent well, but you can't readily ape innovation with a one year or more lead time. So, you clone for the future. *shrug*

Sony's strength is in hardware design, they're pretty good at picking functionality that resonates with their customers and putting it together into appealing consoles.

Uh, Cell processors? Maybe you mean on the peripheral end. Except PSMove. No, I'd say Playstation got a lot of developers on board in the PS1 era and has basically sold on the point they have the largest (or near largest) catalog of games going forward.

PS - As impressed as I am with the XBox in theory including 720p and 1080i support, very few games used either one. The hardware just isn't there to really support it in a lot of cases.

 

[Foxi4]

Makes sense. The XBox was a financial success, but it was a success in what Microsoft's goal was: spending whatever it took to become an established games console maker that had the potential to be profitable in the future. They did it primarily through a combination of buying out Halo and marketing the idea that the XBox was for hardcore gamers. The results, of course, was a lot of FPSs and racing games on the XBox. Also, by using Windows-like + Intel as a framework it lured developers to their platform, even though they ended up switching chips in the next gen--presumably because of the hardware cost.

So, yes, if you're a start-up in an industry, you want to make a name for yourself by being different enough to gain an audience. Established players, though, have a good notion of their audience is (usually), and it only makes sense to not follow other companies in the same space when going overboard in it. Sony and MS copy--or supersede--Nintendo's latest gimmick because they want parity for developers and gamers alike so certain exclusives don't have to exist on one platform. Within that scope, they still try to expand out in their own niche enough to make their platform desired.

The only real odd-man out in this is Nintendo. Nintendo gambles on new ideas (or old ideas well). It pays off decent well, but you can't readily ape innovation with a one year or more lead time. So, you clone for the future. *shrug*

Uh, Cell processors? Maybe you mean on the peripheral end. Except PSMove. No, I'd say Playstation got a lot of developers on board in the PS1 era and has basically sold on the point they have the largest (or near largest) catalog of games going forward.

PS - As impressed as I am with the XBox in theory including 720p and 1080i support, very few games used either one. The hardware just isn't there to really support it in a lot of cases.

God forbid Sony uses a supercomputer architecture they believed would give them a competitive edge, and many times it did - Naughty Dog games were breathtaking at the time. It wasn't an ideal choice, but hindsight is always 20/20 - it's easy to say that you should always bet on the winning horses after the race.

 

[kuwanger]

God forbid Sony uses a supercomputer architecture they believed would give them a competitive edge

If Sony didn't learn anything from the Sega Saturn, then God help them. Oh, right, it looks like they did for the PS4.

Naughty Dog games were breathtaking at the time.

As in comparatively impressive to what the XBox 360 could do? Or just generally they were one of the few that did a good job utilizing the Cell processors compared to others?

It wasn't an ideal choice, but hindsight is always 20/20 - it's easy to say that you should always bet on the winning horses after the race.

"Winning horse"? It's clear that regardless the PS3 would be a top tier console because it was a continuous of the PS2 and the steady supply of developers eager to develop games. Ie, it was enough that developers wanted a game on the platform and would work hard to get something passable even if it was a lot more work. It's hardly hindsight to notice that the PS3 isn't a supercomputer so a supercomputer architecture might not be ideal and most the parallel tasks you want are in the GPU. Hence, it's hard, but not impossible, to never the less utilize the platform to its full potential.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have seen Cell processors on the Desktop at the time, but OpenCL for the GPU has basically supplanted the need with a lot more performance/parallelism. I can definitely see Sony not seeing the latter point at the time, but to know that high parallelism and gaming are difficult and will not be heavily utilized in most games is, again, a lesson learned from the Sega Saturn. There it was further hampered with the inconsistency of the various CPUs, but I don't think that was the core reason.

 

[Hyborix3]

"What they're good at and stick with it." What? Both of these competitors had already several imitations from both sides already + the VR shtick. There's nothing creative about either of them except for maybe exclusivities from Sony's side.

Also why would he even say that it won't be successful? I think it gives more reason to own an Xbox more than PC gaming for an hybrid like crossplatform and with Sony's lineup of games. Hell, even more Japanese people will buy them because it's portable. And let's face it, the current crossplatform for the PS4 to Vita is shit and I would kill for an imitation like the Switch. Yes you will see bitching from the Nintendo fans, but it'll die out eventually.

 

[Kioku]

"What they're good at and stick with it." What? Both of these competitors had already several imitations from both sides already + the VR shtick. There's nothing creative about either of them except for exclusivity from Sony's side.

Also why would he even say that it won't be successful? I think it gives more reason to own an Xbox more than PC gaming for an hybrid like crossplatform and with Sony's lineup of games. Hell, even more Japanese people will buy them because it's portable. Also let's face it, the current crossplatform for the PS4 to Vita is shit and I would kill for an imitation like the Switch.

The Switch is better served as a system to run parallel with a PC imo. I've got a beefy system and a Switch, and recently added a One X. Guess which one I really don't play.

 

[Bladexdsl]

would you like Fries with that?

 

[Foxi4]

If Sony didn't learn anything from the Sega Saturn, then God help them. Oh, right, it looks like they did for the PS4.



As in comparatively impressive to what the XBox 360 could do? Or just generally they were one of the few that did a good job utilizing the Cell processors compared to others?



"Winning horse"? It's clear that regardless the PS3 would be a top tier console because it was a continuous of the PS2 and the steady supply of developers eager to develop games. Ie, it was enough that developers wanted a game on the platform and would work hard to get something passable even if it was a lot more work. It's hardly hindsight to notice that the PS3 isn't a supercomputer so a supercomputer architecture might not be ideal and most the parallel tasks you want are in the GPU. Hence, it's hard, but not impossible, to never the less utilize the platform to its full potential.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have seen Cell processors on the Desktop at the time, but OpenCL for the GPU has basically supplanted the need with a lot more performance/parallelism. I can definitely see Sony not seeing the latter point at the time, but to know that high parallelism and gaming are difficult and will not be heavily utilized in most games is, again, a lesson learned from the Sega Saturn. There it was further hampered with the inconsistency of the various CPUs, but I don't think that was the core reason.

A lot of time has passed since the Saturn, to be fair. As for CELL's in desktops, I distinctly remember CELL blades being available for research, as well as PCI-E boards, if you were filthy rich and wanted a multi-architecture build for no reason. As for the legacy of CELL, it lives on in AMD's APU's which are basically assymetric processors with a shared memory bus, they just use the GCN architecture for the GPU cores. It's a very similar setup, if you think about it.

 

[Futurdreamz]

The Switch is better served as a system to run parallel with a PC imo. I've got a beefy system and a Switch, and recently added a One X. Guess which one I really don't play.

I have a similar setup (but One S) and ironically it's the PC I don't play as much - I bought many games over the years on sale but never had a decent graphics card. I'm trying to avoid crossbuy however, but I like to collect games. I bought the Xbox recently but find it to be a better experince for gaming. Maybe I need a more comfy pc chair?

 

[Hyborix3]

The Switch is better served as a system to run parallel with a PC imo. I've got a beefy system and a Switch, and recently added a One X. Guess which one I really don't play.

I guess it depends on what your preference is. My friend hooked his Switch to his PC monitor rather than his TV cause he used it more so than his PS4/Xbox

 

[SG854]

We've solved that problem already. We now have membranes that react to electricity by expanding or contracting, creating "bubbles" (Tactus). In conjunction with rumble motors they could be used to simulate touch. In fact, there's even tech out there that simulates the sensation of different textures via electrovibration, so you're not just simulating touch, but also precise feel of the surface. So far this tech has been used in touchscreens, but I can see it being implemented effectively in VR. You don't even need to go so high-tech, either - just some good 'ol air and a silent pump will do.
You have Sony to thank for dual analog sticks, they changed the gaming landscape. Besides, innovation is all well and good, execution is a whole different story. Sony's strength is in hardware design, they're pretty good at picking functionality that resonates with their customers and putting it together into appealing consoles. The PS4 isn't innovative in any way, it improves on all of their previous designs though, that's why it's so successful. You don't always need to re-invent the wheel, sometimes you just have to make a good wheel and people will come to buy it. I don't see it as a bad thing, I think it's great - I'd be happy to see all consoles feature similar functionality and just choose the one that comes on top in terms of quality. Taking things that work and making them even better is equally as important as making new things - you already know they work, you can only go up from there. There are gamers who want to have a profound experience with a piece of cardboard, there are also gamers who just want to sit down after their 9 till 5 and play a round of their favourite shooter, and you have to cater to both.

And thank Alien Resurrection for dual analogue controls for FPS. Nothing wrong with copying. Don't know why people have a problem with this. You copy and improve on it. Thats what we all do. If people are going to complain of not being completely original and copying, then why not complain about the English language. We are all copying words someone else came up with. What separates humans from animals is our ability to copy to the extent we do. Babies imitate their surroundings and thats how they learn. This is how societies are built, and knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. The ability to copy and build upon the past is why we have the advanced technology we have today. Don't wanna be copying everything exactly if you want something to separate yourself from others, but nothing wrong with copying. Wasn't really a problem till money and patents came along.

 

[kuwanger]

A lot of time has passed since the Saturn, to be fair.

The PS3 was released close to 12 years after the Sega Saturn. But paralleling tasks has been a hard problem since at least the 70s. The only real places that have demonstrated any reasonably room for heavy parallel tasks are sufficiently independent things, like areas of a screen, processing multiple video frames at a time, or all the supercomputer stuff with weather/data/etc. Games, though, tend to be rather dependent things and it's a lot of work to try to avoid bottlenecks that degenerate the task into really horrible performance.

I'll readily admit that at some point developers needed to become better at utilizing multiple cores because the clock rate has reached a threshold--whether it's permanent or not is unclear--and scaling with more cores is almost certainly to pay higher dividends when well utilized. It's just the case that until developers actually have the experience, it's a very big gamble liable to fail. So, you end up with a system where 50% or less of the potential performance is there.

As for CELL's in desktops, I distinctly remember CELL blades being available for research, as well as PCI-E boards, if you were filthy rich and wanted a multi-architecture build for no reason.

If Cell had been the future, it'd have not been "for no reason". Beyond that, if you are actually working with video, certain bits of cryptography, possibly emulation, etc, there's definitely a potential there for multiple cores and the underlying architecture is something the compiler has to worry about; you just have to make sure the workflow fits.

As for the legacy of CELL, it lives on in AMD's APU's which are basically assymetric processors with a shared memory bus, they just use the GCN architecture for the GPU cores. It's a very similar setup, if you think about it.

Uh, yea, that's why I said that GPUs effectively superseded Cell. Nvidia and AMD probably pushed it precisely because of Cell. The main difference is that the GPU makers were already building up all that parallelism in their designs. Compare a Cell processor with a max of 32 APUs vs GPUs with hundreds to thousands of mostly equivalent cores. Of course the biggest thing for adoption was the relative performance for price. Just another situation with IBM selling to the mainframes at a sharp price premium and forgetting the consumer space.

 

[Foxi4]

The Switch is better served as a system to run parallel with a PC imo. I've got a beefy system and a Switch, and recently added a One X. Guess which one I really don't play.

Probably the Switch since it has no gaems. I haven't played anything on mine for months.

 

[Kioku]

Probably the Switch since it has no gaems. I haven't played anything on mine for months.

Ah, the good ol' Vita... Wait......

 

[Foxi4]

Ah, the good ol' Vita... Wait......

At least it had gaems, quite a bit of them, actually. As of today the Switch has maybe 5 must-have titles and very weak mainstream developer presence, basically just Ubisoft's Rayman, Bethesda's Skyrim and Doom and EA's FIFA and NBA and a couple of Square's Dragon Quest games. Most AAA's still avoid the Switch like the plague despite excellent sales. It's all nice and dandy that you can have a console experience on the go, but that only works if you have the games that go with it. For now I own Splatoon 2, BotW, Fire Emblem Warriors and Monster Hunter XX, I'll probably pick the system up again once Metroid Prime 4 is released.