Official Xbox: Series X | Series S Thread

[Jason]

RDR2 also has an insane budget tbf, with an engine that has an insane budget too. Studios that aren't Rockstar being able to pump out worlds with RDR2 level lighting, that's exciting. Makes you wonder what Rockstar are cooking up with RAGE too.

 

Tell ya what was amusing about that demo though, all the hype about no loading... it used one of the most common and annoying "hide the load" tactics there is right now, when the character squeezed through that narrow path. I dunno if they were poking fun or what, but it made me laugh.

[Turan]

21 hours ago, Jason said:

AC Unity is also an example of how it takes time to figure out the hardware, it was a public embarrassment for Ubisoft.

AC Unity is still a competent game though. My point is that it is possible to make games that are impossible on old hardware early on into the gen. Which also means that developers get their final specs for the new hardware earlier than you think.

 

Quote

 

Again, though, the SSD is uncharted territory. It is being touted as the biggest game changer in consoles in a long, long time - a technological leap that we've not seen in generations. The doors it opens regarding level design are incredibly exciting but right now they are just ideas, it will take time for developers to figure out how to use the full potential of that. Like I said, it opens doors but it doesn't provide any answers, cause no one has yet to make a game around m2 SSD speeds - and no one will outside of Sony devs for a long time cause PC lol but that's another conversation entirely. Sh*t takes time to figure out yo.

 

It's a similar concept to VR development, the hardware is pretty much there (cost issues aside) but there's still design issues that need to be solved to be able to take full advantage of the hardware. Half Life Alyx is one of the first to really take a stab at it and going by what I've heard, will be an example many other VR games use as a reference for years/decades to come.

 

Why do you think SSD is going to be so difficult to figure out? I actually think that developers will have an easier time developing thanks to the SSD. I'll give you an example:

 

Take a look at Horizon Zero Dawn. I've seen the development videos for that game in which the developers showed how they actually had to come up with crazy tricks to get around the limited loading capability of the PS4. That alone cost them a lot of time. With SSD they won't have to worry about things like that anymore. 

 

And another thing: I think that SSD will also introduce gameplay features that would not be possible on old hardware. For example, in Horizon Zero Dawn you are not able to fly because of the limits of the hardware for the same reason I gave above. So with an SSD they will be able to let us traverse faster and with a far bigger scope. If they were to keep designing games for old hardware, like you want them to, then something like that would not be possible on the sequel to Horizon Zero Dawn. We would yet again be stuck with the limits of the old hardware even on the PS5. But I guess it is good enough for you to play it in higher resolution/framerate? Not for me man. I want better designed games first and foremost. 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Turan

[Jason]

I don't think it's going to be difficult, I think it's going to take time. New hardware takes time to figure out, it always has and always will.

 

Again, one of the things people are excited about regarding SSD's is how it can change level designs due to how quickly levels and environments can be loaded and unloaded. Things like narrow paths with canned animations to hide loads, tight twisty level design that goes back on its self, etc, are all often symptoms of being limited by the hardware. These restraints are essentially gone, or greatly reduced with the SSD.

 

I'm sure developers have a lot of ideas on how they can take advantage of this stuff now, but raw ideas don't translate 1:1 into practice. Now they have the final specs (and I assume devkits) they can start putting these ideas and concepts into the hardware and figuring out what works, what doesn't, what's fun, what's not, etc. Game development is a lot of iteration, a lot of figuring out what works and what doesn't, it takes time, innit.

 

It's why I think we'll be waiting a few years before we see games really taking advantage of the SSD. It's no different than the most technically advanced games releasing at the end of a generation.

[Turan]

I am 99% sure that we will see PS5 exclusives in the first year of the PS5 that are going to be impossible to pull of on current-gen consoles. Scaling down resolution and graphics will most definitely not be enough.

[DEALUX]

 

17 hours ago, GTA3Rockstar said:

RDR2 already had pretty damn good lighting. I think the biggest thing is all of the "triangles" and how more realistic it looks

 

Plus the minimal/no loading.

RDR2 had a similar implementation of global illumination. I guess this one's supposed to be more efficient but I don't think that amount of polygons is necessarily desirable. The difference between a game and a demo is that a game has more stuff to render (like games that feature a ton of characters at the same time on screen) so this demo is more of a proof of concept kinda thing. I wouldn't be surprised if those graphics maxed out the PS5 and it's not even a full game.

39 minutes ago, Turan said:

I am 99% sure that we will see PS5 exclusives in the first year of the PS5 that are going to be impossible to pull of on current-gen consoles. Scaling down resolution and graphics will most definitely not be enough.

There's a difference between impossible and hard to do. Even the UE5 guys are saying their engine will run on lower end hardware but it won't scale all that well.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Turan said:

I am 99% sure that we will see PS5 exclusives in the first year of the PS5 that are going to be impossible to pull of on current-gen consoles. Scaling down resolution and graphics will most definitely not be enough.

I'll happily be wrong, I aint trying to doomsay or anything, I am just personally tempering my expectations based on how these generations always go especially when big hardware jumps happen.

 

I will say that if any studio does start taking advantage of the SSD gameplay wise earlier than I expect I think it'll be a Sony studio. As I've said in other threads (and probably this one), multi platform studios will probably have to balance between the PS5 SSD, the XSX SSD and the wide variety of PC drives when creating games. I expect the result of that for the foreseeable future will be that the consoles SSD's main advantage will be quicker load times. That is until we start seeing PC versions requiring SSD's and even then, m2 drives's aren't super cheap still.

[Mister Pink]

17 hours ago, Turan said:

Take a look at Horizon Zero Dawn. I've seen the development videos for that game in which the developers showed how they actually had to come up with crazy tricks to get around the limited loading capability of the PS4.

And see here you give the benefit of doubt to developers using "crazy tricks" to overcome certain limitations with PS4, yet you don't extend the same charity to developers scaling down on Xbox. 

[Turan]

4 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

And see here you give the benefit of doubt to developers using "crazy tricks" to overcome certain limitations with PS4, yet you don't extend the same charity to developers scaling down on Xbox. 

 

So you're saying that developers should put most of their work into a version of a game that will sell the least? That doesn't make any sense. 

[Mister Pink]

2 hours ago, Turan said:

So you're saying that developers should put most of their work into a version of a game that will sell the least? That doesn't make any sense. 

No, I did not say that at all. And I'll answer this in two parts because, I didn't say that, and even if I did say that, your statement is still incorrect. 

 

I said, that your are being charitable to developers and their ability to overcome obstacles  - the example you gave was the developers of Horizon Zero Dawn coming up with crazy tricks to overcome limitations with regards to loading ability, as you put. Yet you don't extend that charity to developers we speak of scaling down because you think it's either not enough or doesn't amount to a true next-gen experience. Is that fair to say? 

 

The second part, about putting work in to a version of a game that will sell the least? It depends on what version you think is going to sell the least.  How many PS5's or Series X's you think will sell at launch? I'm going to estimate about 6-12 million in the first year.. You going to ignore the other collective 150+ million of of console users that aren't going to have access to a next-gen console at launch? 

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

I've given this subject a lot of thought. I think the 2 main questions are;

 

1. Can developers realize their vision and goals of a game on a Series X/PS5 that satisfies their own benchmarks (and customers) as a next gen experience? 

 

2. Can a developer make a game that solely uses the next-gen technology in such a way that their vision is compromised by downscaling it to current gen? 

 

Short answer for both is yes. 

 

Answer 1: We aren't the developers and their targets of their next gen game might be to use X, Y, Z. Their goals to tell such and such a story, using ray-tracing, machine learning, and maxing out all they can on his hardware combination that's still new to them and will that they wont know it's true potential for another 2 or 3 years, especially as game engines adapt to use to new technology like Unreal 5 which is out 2021. What ever their vision is, I argue that their goals can be met and the game scaled down. Can a customer feel like they are getting a true next-gen experience? Absolutely. Your taking about a most Xbox users or base PS4 users upgrading to 4K 60fps from 900p and 30fps on some games, never mind all the genuine leaps in tech when it comes to things like ray-tracing, somethings that's never been on consoles. 

 

Answer 2: It's entirely up to the developers goals and visions. Can they make a game that will solely run on that hardware but running with without ray-tracing and running it at 1080 or 900 to get it run at 60fps instead of 4K. Yes. Absolutely, but that's up to the developer. Maybe they don't want their game to have a down-scaled version. And that's fine. But their market might only be 13 million people in the first year. That's just shy of the amount of people that bought PS4's most successful exclusive which is about 10% of the PS4 userbase. And of that 13 million people, how many of those people will want and more importantly buy that game? Even I'm charitable and say 20% of the userbase will buy the exclusive, that's only 2.6 million. 

 

___________________________________________________________________________

 

So can you see why Xbox might want to support older consoles for a 1-2 years? PS4 exclusives got greenlit due to current and projected sales of console units sold. They don't make the games and then hope people will just buy the console. They have meetings and they say, we've sold 60 million PS4 units. About 10% of them might buy game  exclusive 'X' but in 5 years time we expect to have 100m PS4 units sold. If 10% buy the game, we can expect 10 million copies sold. If we can sell 10 million copies, we can earn X amount of profit and it's worth taking the chance.  It's not wonder, Microsoft, with around 50+ million users got sequels and stuck to established series.  

 

Again, it's 1-2 years support. It takes time to fully realize the potential of the new consoles. Because their makeup is not like a standard PC. They share the same architecture but aren't the same in how they utilize their power. Both Sony and Xbox each are using custom RDNA2. Xbox's version will be different to PS5's when it comes to RDNA2 based on the strengths of their own console make up. So developers don't utilize the tech for some time. 

 

Basically the consoles during their life cycle will age like fine-wine served with mature cheese as well as fresh cheese. But you want the wine now, only with the fresh cheese. But there's value in the aged wine with mature cheese.  Had to throw in some awful analogy there!  

Edited May 15, 2020 by Mister Pink

[Turan]

On 5/15/2020 at 8:56 PM, Mister Pink said:

No, I did not say that at all. And I'll answer this in two parts because, I didn't say that, and even if I did say that, your statement is still incorrect. 

 

I said, that your are being charitable to developers and their ability to overcome obstacles  - the example you gave was the developers of Horizon Zero Dawn coming up with crazy tricks to overcome limitations with regards to loading ability, as you put. Yet you don't extend that charity to developers we speak of scaling down because you think it's either not enough or doesn't amount to a true next-gen experience. Is that fair to say? 
 

 

Overcoming that obstacle on PS4 with Horizon required a lot of effort. But it was worth putting effort in because the game came out on a current-gen console, meaning it would sell for years to come and can be considered an investment for future games on PS4. And you are asking me why I don’t extend that charity to developers for doing the same on a last-gen console which will be phased out very soon (if not already)? I think it obvious why but I’ll explain further below.
 

Quote

 

The second part, about putting work in to a version of a game that will sell the least? It depends on what version you think is going to sell the least.  How many PS5's or Series X's you think will sell at launch? I'm going to estimate about 6-12 million in the first year.. You going to ignore the other collective 150+ million of of console users that aren't going to have access to a next-gen console at launch?
 

Ah, the same shallow argument we’ve heard so much during the last generation transition. Turns out, having a base of 150m last-gen consoles means nothing, because the current-gen consoles outsold their games by quite a margin with a significantly smaller base. I wonder how that happened? Maybe because all the enthusiasts who spend the most money on gaming already moved on to next-gen? And because there is this concept called “system sellers”? The people who remain are casuals who barely buy any games. So why cater to them for only a small portion of the sales? That is what I mean by putting in too much effort for the least amount of sales. 

 

Quote

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

I've given this subject a lot of thought. I think the 2 main questions are;

 

1. Can developers realize their vision and goals of a game on a Series X/PS5 that satisfies their own benchmarks (and customers) as a next gen experience? 

 

2. Can a developer make a game that solely uses the next-gen technology in such a way that their vision is compromised by downscaling it to current gen? 

 

Short answer for both is yes. 

 

Answer 1: We aren't the developers and their targets of their next gen game might be to use X, Y, Z. Their goals to tell such and such a story, using ray-tracing, machine learning, and maxing out all they can on his hardware combination that's still new to them and will that they wont know it's true potential for another 2 or 3 years, especially as game engines adapt to use to new technology like Unreal 5 which is out 2021. What ever their vision is, I argue that their goals can be met and the game scaled down. Can a customer feel like they are getting a true next-gen experience? Absolutely. Your taking about a most Xbox users or base PS4 users upgrading to 4K 60fps from 900p and 30fps on some games, never mind all the genuine leaps in tech when it comes to things like ray-tracing, somethings that's never been on consoles. 

 

Answer 2: It's entirely up to the developers goals and visions. Can they make a game that will solely run on that hardware but running with without ray-tracing and running it at 1080 or 900 to get it run at 60fps instead of 4K. Yes. Absolutely, but that's up to the developer. Maybe they don't want their game to have a down-scaled version. And that's fine. But their market might only be 13 million people in the first year. That's just shy of the amount of people that bought PS4's most successful exclusive which is about 10% of the PS4 userbase. And of that 13 million people, how many of those people will want and more importantly buy that game? Even I'm charitable and say 20% of the userbase will buy the exclusive, that's only 2.6 million. 

 

___________________________________________________________________________

 

So can you see why Xbox might want to support older consoles for a 1-2 years? PS4 exclusives got greenlit due to current and projected sales of console units sold. They don't make the games and then hope people will just buy the console. They have meetings and they say, we've sold 60 million PS4 units. About 10% of them might buy game  exclusive 'X' but in 5 years time we expect to have 100m PS4 units sold. If 10% buy the game, we can expect 10 million copies sold. If we can sell 10 million copies, we can earn X amount of profit and it's worth taking the chance.  It's not wonder, Microsoft, with around 50+ million users got sequels and stuck to established series.  

 

Again, it's 1-2 years support. It takes time to fully realize the potential of the new consoles. Because their makeup is not like a standard PC. They share the same architecture but aren't the same in how they utilize their power. Both Sony and Xbox each are using custom RDNA2. Xbox's version will be different to PS5's when it comes to RDNA2 based on the strengths of their own console make up. So developers don't utilize the tech for some time. 

 

Basically the consoles during their life cycle will age like fine-wine served with mature cheese as well as fresh cheese. But you want the wine now, only with the fresh cheese. But there's value in the aged wine with mature cheese.  Had to throw in some awful analogy there!  

I’ll give you an example that proves your theory wrong:

 

Watch Dogs released in 2014 (within one year of release of the new consoles) and came out on all consoles. 
 

On one hand you have 160 million PS3’s and Xbox 360’s. And on the other 20 million PS4’s and Xbox One’s. According to your theory the former would outsell the latter right? Well it didn’t. PS4 and Xbox One outsold the last-gen consoles despite that massive difference in consoles base. I’d argue that Watch Dogs would’ve sold more copies on PS4 and Xbox One if it didn’t receive such a massive downgrade to make it work on last-gen. The marketing backlash it received damaged the sales for sure (WD2 sold like sh*t as well so the whole franchise got damaged). 

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying they should drop current-gen consoles completely as soon as next-gen arrives. I’m okay with some multiplatforms sticking with them for a year to cater to casuals (FIFA, COD, Fortnite). But true next-gen games, so basically first party exclusives, should drop them asap. I don’t want to see the sequels to Horizon and God of War on PS4. Let those games flourish on PS5. They will sell like crazy because people will buy PS5’s for them. No need for the PS4 at that point. 

 

And they absolutely will take advantage of the power of the new consoles in a way that wouldn’t be possible on current-gen within the first few years. I really don’t understand what makes you think that devs won’t be able to do that until several years into the gen? They received the specs several years ago after all. 

[Mister Pink]

31 minutes ago, Turan said:

Overcoming that obstacle on PS4 with Horizon required a lot of effort. But it was worth putting effort in because the game came out on a current-gen console, meaning it would sell for years to come and can be considered an investment for future games on PS4. And you are asking me why I don’t extend that charity to developers for doing the same on a last-gen console which will be phased out very soon (if not already)? I think it obvious why but I’ll explain further below.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Basically, I was saying that you give credit to developers for doing exceptionally good work for overcoming limitations. But, when it comes developers scaling down games, they're incompetent - for want of a better word. I had to rephrase that and put in bluntly, so I know understand me. I wasn't questioning the validity of the developers work on HZD, I was questioning your consistency and the principles of your argument.  I wasn't talking about next gen games being scaled down for PS3 or 360 either. I'm specifically talking about games due to release 1-2 years after Series X being cross-gen. 

 

38 minutes ago, Turan said:

Ah, the same shallow argument we’ve heard so much during the last generation transition. Turns out, having a base of 150m last-gen consoles means nothing, because the current-gen consoles outsold their games by quite a margin with a significantly smaller base. I wonder how that happened? Maybe because all the enthusiasts who spend the most money on gaming already moved on to next-gen? And because there is this concept called “system sellers”? The people who remain are casuals who barely buy any games. So why cater to them for only a small portion of the sales? That is what I mean by putting in too much effort for the least amount of sales. 

It's up to the developers whether they want to ignore the market of current gen casuals, as you say.  If removing markets from your sales opportunities is a "shallow argument" then I'm not sure why we're interacting. There will be some hardcore gamers that wont be able to afford an upgrade so quickly. It may take a year or two for them to upgrade. So, it's up to the developer whether they want to develop a cross-platform game or not. It's not Microsoft's decision for all developers. Microsoft is only supporting cross-gen on their first-party titles for 1-2 years. 3rd-party devs can make Series X exclusives if they want. I suspect many of them wont want to ignore markets. When you are in the business of selling items, ignoring markets isn't a priority when you know that you can still make a next-gen quality game and still scale it down. That's not my personal opinion or theory. That's just marketing and business 101.

 

44 minutes ago, Turan said:

I’ll give you an example that proves your theory wrong:

I'm not sure you read my post as it's not an "I'm right/you're wrong" hypothesis. It's says it's basically up to devs whether they want to make a next-gen scalable game or not. But it's up to them. 

 

My point is, and this is the crux of where we disagree: Basically a next gen game that's down-scaleable isn't next-gen in your eyes. Is that fair? 

My rebuttal is that we can have next-gen games that are able to be scaled down (for at least 1-2 years). 

 

54 minutes ago, Turan said:

And they absolutely will take advantage of the power of the new consoles in a way that wouldn’t be possible on current-gen within the first few years. I really don’t understand what makes you think that devs won’t be able to do that until several years into the gen? They received the specs several years ago after all. 

First of all, I never said they wont be able to take advantage of the power of the new consoles. I said they they will take advantage of the power the best to their ability/knowledge. But as time goes on, they'll utilize the power more as generations go on. A developer developing for Xbox One base model, will have more experience maxing out the power of the of a game that developer did in 2010. I'll quote myself below. 

 

On 5/15/2020 at 7:56 PM, Mister Pink said:

It takes time to fully realize the potential of the new consoles.    ......developers don't utilize the tech for some time

 

Can you tell me where I can see evidence of developers getting the specs a few years in advance? If a developer knows of the specs of a console back in 2017 (and it takes 5 years to develop) and the One X is just released.. I think that game might release in 2022 (2 years after console release and after cross-gen is supported). But if you are 3rd party dev and you find out in 2018 or 2019 the specs, then you might be releasing your title 2023/2024 (3-4 years in to the cycle). But if you have a AAA true next gen title that's 5 years in the making, you are telling me they know they know the specs (even first party) back in 2015 or 2016? A year or two before One X releases? 

 

Let's be clear, I've always spoke of the 1-2 year cross-gen support window. Games take longer to make. So, if you subtract 5 years (we'll say that's the average dev time) from the 1-2 years post console release, you're going back to 2016/2017 before and during the release of the One X. 

 

And by your logic, games don't improve graphically or performance-wise as a generation ages because they've already got the specs "several years" in advance, so they should be optimized to work develop game right from the start, correct? But somehow we see games vastly improve from the start of a generation to the end of a generation. I can only assume it's because they get more familiar with the technology they develop for. 

 

In other news, 3rd party developers of The Medium say that their game will be Series X/PC exclusive. But that's their choice. They say the things they want to do with that game can't be done on current gen hardware. Which is what I covered in my last post but you proved my theory "wrong." It's all going to be relative anyway. 

 

As I said, it's up to the developer and their intentions. A developer starting a game back in 2015 may well be happy with the projected RAM/GPU/SSD specs that they are realizing a next-gen experience and it meets their creative vision. Not by checking boxes on some tech they use that it can't be downscaled to current gen. It may also happen to be able to be scaled as they know that their game will release in 2020 and only 5-10 million people will own a next-gen platform. 

 

As for Microsoft saying to Microsoft Studios "you must design a game that can't run on previous gen" as a driver for sales for launch - fair enough if that's what you want. It's not how games are made though. But I don't think it's necessarily going to make leaps and bounds in the my gaming satisfaction that I wont get from playing what will be on offer. I think the law of diminishing returns comes in to play here. I think I rather 2-3 titles for 1-2 years that still next gen but can be scaled to work on previous gen. I don't think I'm being cheated out of a "true next-gen experience." I think it's pro-consumer. 

 

And it works both ways. Games like Cyberpunk 2077 will get a graphical upgrade even though I'm sure that game started off to be released on this gen. 

[Static]

Rendering only what the player sees (rhetorical side note, if this is already possible, why is this a talking point for the PS5's ssd?) and using multiply level LODs, are not "crazy tricks" and have been industry standard for quite a while now. So not sure why HZD is even worth mentioning in that regard, you could say the same thing for just about any open world game. 

 

Regarding WD sales numbers,

 

Quote

Most sales were for PlayStation 4, whose hardware sales increased by 94 percent because of Watch Dogs

Source; Eurogamer

 

It sold better on PS4 and only on PS4 ( PS3 - 1.83m Total, PS4 - 4.32m Total, X360 - 1.29m Total, X1 - 1.64m Total), because people pre-ordered it mainly for PS4 before they even had the console themselves, or bought both simultaneously, all based on false advertising. Which begs the question of just how (more?) gullible the PS4 crowd was compared to the rest.

 

Quote

I’d argue that Watch Dogs would’ve sold more copies on PS4 and Xbox One if it didn’t receive such a massive downgrade to make it work on last-gen. 

It wasnt downgraded to make it work only on last-gen, but for PS4/X1 as well. So that theory goes out the window.

 

Quote

“When we show something, we ask the team to make sure it’s playable and make sure gamers can immediately see exactly what it is. That’s what we learned from the Watch Dogs experience–if it can’t be played on the target machine, it can be a risk”. -Yves Guillemot.

He pretty much admits that what they showed in the E3 trailer and the PS4 reveal, wasn't playable on any of the consoles, seeing how the "target machines" was every console since it was multi-platform title. 

 

 

Surely, there was a better example for your hypothesis. 

 

 

[Turan]

4 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

I don't quite understand what you mean. Basically, I was saying that you give credit to developers for doing exceptionally good work for overcoming limitations. But, when it comes developers scaling down games, they're incompetent - for want of a better word. I had to rephrase that and put in bluntly, so I know understand me. I wasn't questioning the validity of the developers work on HZD, I was questioning your consistency and the principles of your argument.  I wasn't talking about next gen games being scaled down for PS3 or 360 either. I'm specifically talking about games due to release 1-2 years after Series X being cross-gen. 

Hold up, when did I say they were incompetent? I simply said that it isn't worth putting all that effort in for a last-gen version of the game. And I used the sales as my main argument for that. But before that I had already implied that it is impossible to down scale form next-gen to last-gen due to the massive differences in hardware. If you think it is possible I'd love to see some examples. A game that is designed for Xbox Series X and PS5 (with the much better CPU and SSD) that can still run on XB1 and PS4. I'll believe it when I see it. 

 

Quote

 

It's up to the developers whether they want to ignore the market of current gen casuals, as you say.  If removing markets from your sales opportunities is a "shallow argument" then I'm not sure why we're interacting. There will be some hardcore gamers that wont be able to afford an upgrade so quickly. It may take a year or two for them to upgrade. So, it's up to the developer whether they want to develop a cross-platform game or not. It's not Microsoft's decision for all developers. Microsoft is only supporting cross-gen on their first-party titles for 1-2 years. 3rd-party devs can make Series X exclusives if they want. I suspect many of them wont want to ignore markets. When you are in the business of selling items, ignoring markets isn't a priority when you know that you can still make a next-gen quality game and still scale it down. That's not my personal opinion or theory. That's just marketing and business 101.

No, marketing and business 101 does not apply here. I've already shown you that even in the first year that games on next-gen do outsell the last-gen version despite having a much smaller console base. So it is not as simple as "looking at markets". 

 

Quote

 

I'm not sure you read my post as it's not an "I'm right/you're wrong" hypothesis. It's says it's basically up to devs whether they want to make a next-gen scalable game or not. But it's up to them. 

 

My point is, and this is the crux of where we disagree: Basically a next gen game that's down-scaleable isn't next-gen in your eyes. Is that fair? 

My rebuttal is that we can have next-gen games that are able to be scaled down (for at least 1-2 years). 

A next-gen game that is possible on last-gen games is by definition not a next-gen game. The CPU and SSD alone would make that impossible. If it were something like the Lockheart I'd agree with you. That console has a super weak GPU, but it does have the same architecture and CPU and SSD as the next-gen consoles. So downscaling on that is very possible without making concessions in game design. 

 

Quote

 

First of all, I never said they wont be able to take advantage of the power of the new consoles. I said they they will take advantage of the power the best to their ability/knowledge. But as time goes on, they'll utilize the power more as generations go on. A developer developing for Xbox One base model, will have more experience maxing out the power of the of a game that developer did in 2010. I'll quote myself below. 

So they can take advantage of the hardware and design games for it early on. Alright, we agree. 

 

Quote

 

 

Can you tell me where I can see evidence of developers getting the specs a few years in advance? If a developer knows of the specs of a console back in 2017 (and it takes 5 years to develop) and the One X is just released.. I think that game might release in 2022 (2 years after console release and after cross-gen is supported). But if you are 3rd party dev and you find out in 2018 or 2019 the specs, then you might be releasing your title 2023/2024 (3-4 years in to the cycle). But if you have a AAA true next gen title that's 5 years in the making, you are telling me they know they know the specs (even first party) back in 2015 or 2016? A year or two before One X releases? 

Even if the specs aren't set in stone, they do know the target specs long before release.  AC Unity was released in 2014. That is only one year after the consoles released. Assuming that games was in development for 3-4 years they would've had to known the specs in 2010-2011. And obviously there are also the first-party games that launched with the consoles that would've been in development for 3-4 years.

 

Quote

 

Let's be clear, I've always spoke of the 1-2 year cross-gen support window. Games take longer to make. So, if you subtract 5 years (we'll say that's the average dev time) from the 1-2 years post console release, you're going back to 2016/2017 before and during the release of the One X. 

 

And by your logic, games don't improve graphically or performance-wise as a generation ages because they've already got the specs "several years" in advance, so they should be optimized to work develop game right from the start, correct? But somehow we see games vastly improve from the start of a generation to the end of a generation. I can only assume it's because they get more familiar with the technology they develop for. 

I never said that games and development don't improve as time goes on. Obviously it does. My point is that developers can already do things on next-gen that aren't possible on last-gen in the very beginning of the gen. And as time goes by that difference gets bigger and bigger. 

 

Quote

 

In other news, 3rd party developers of The Medium say that their game will be Series X/PC exclusive. But that's their choice. They say the things they want to do with that game can't be done on current gen hardware. Which is what I covered in my last post but you proved my theory "wrong." It's all going to be relative anyway. 

 

As I said, it's up to the developer and their intentions. A developer starting a game back in 2015 may well be happy with the projected RAM/GPU/SSD specs that they are realizing a next-gen experience and it meets their creative vision. Not by checking boxes on some tech they use that it can't be downscaled to current gen. It may also happen to be able to be scaled as they know that their game will release in 2020 and only 5-10 million people will own a next-gen platform. 

I agree, the developers vision is important. Yet Microsoft wants their first party developers to launch games that are possible on both generations for the next two years. So if Fable is scheduled for 2022, it will also have to be made for Xbox One. Not only will that limit the game design, but I also don't see how the XB1 version is going to sell well enough to justify it. History shows it doesn't. 

 

Quote

 

As for Microsoft saying to Microsoft Studios "you must design a game that can't run on previous gen" as a driver for sales for launch - fair enough if that's what you want. It's not how games are made though. But I don't think it's necessarily going to make leaps and bounds in the my gaming satisfaction that I wont get from playing what will be on offer. I think the law of diminishing returns comes in to play here. I think I rather 2-3 titles for 1-2 years that still next gen but can be scaled to work on previous gen. I don't think I'm being cheated out of a "true next-gen experience." I think it's pro-consumer. 

 

And it works both ways. Games like Cyberpunk 2077 will get a graphical upgrade even though I'm sure that game started off to be released on this gen. 

If it weren't for the CPU and SSD I may have agreed with you. Alas, the new consoles are quite ahead of the previous ones. So much so that you could do things on it that would simply be impossible on last-gen. 

 

I have no issues with Forward Compatiblity. Cyberpunk is meant for this gen, but it happens to be close to release of next-gen. So they can easily scale the game up and make some extra money. Like GTAV did. Now that is smart tactic (because next-gen consoles aren't released yet, see?).

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Turan

[Turan]

2 hours ago, Static said:

Rendering only what the player sees (rhetorical side note, if this is already possible, why is this a talking point for the PS5's ssd?) and using multiply level LODs, are not "crazy tricks" and have been industry standard for quite a while now. So not sure why HZD is even worth mentioning in that regard, you could say the same thing for just about any open world game. 

We got to that point because I argued that developers won't have to put a lot of effort in development due to much improved hardware. Expecting them to do the same for last-gen is probably not only impossible but also not worth it financially.

 

Quote

 

Regarding WD sales numbers,

 

Source; Eurogamer

 

It sold better on PS4 and only on PS4 ( PS3 - 1.83m Total, PS4 - 4.32m Total, X360 - 1.29m Total, X1 - 1.64m Total), because people pre-ordered it mainly for PS4 before they even had the console themselves, or bought both simultaneously, all based on false advertising. Which begs the question of just how (more?) gullible the PS4 crowd was compared to the rest.

I love how you cherry picked the launch sales for UK only. And even that shows PS4 sold much better. So thanks for proving my point I guess. I'll ignore the part where you make up your own head canon to suit your position in this argument and proceed to insult the PS4 users. 

 

Quote

 

It wasnt downgraded to make it work only on last-gen, but for PS4/X1 as well. So that theory goes out the window.

 

He pretty much admits that what they showed in the E3 trailer and the PS4 reveal, wasn't playable on any of the consoles, seeing how the "target machines" was every console since it was multi-platform title. 

 

 

Surely, there was a better example for your hypothesis. 

 

 

And yet the PC version also got downgraded hard. Also, I don't see how that article proves that the PS4/XB1 were the bottleneck, it is too vague for that. 

 

But I'll gladly give another example: AC Unity. Also released in 2014 and only on next-gen. And it looks way closer to the original reveal of Watch Dogs than any other Ubisoft game at the time. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Turan

[trip]

Series X pre-order page is up at the official MS site...no price and no way to pre-order but still.

 

Looks good.

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/xbox-series-x/8wj714n3rbtl?cid=msft_web_collection&irgwc=1&OCID=AID2000142_aff_7794_1246483&tduid=(ir__wcmogorad0kftyrd0ctiwv3kfm2xntx9lhlgidb600)(7794)(1246483)((08ebf764608bb87c077170e7e6570fc9)(266696)(2049289)(t3-1130277158769335200)())(08ebf764608bb87c077170e7e6570fc9)&irclickid=_wcmogorad0kftyrd0ctiwv3kfm2xntx9lhlgidb600&source=lp&ranMID=24542&ranEAID=kXQk6*ivFEQ&ranSiteID=kXQk6.ivFEQ-jh5iZU7Je.nJBLv8Ujn0MQ&epi=kXQk6.ivFEQ-jh5iZU7Je.nJBLv8Ujn0MQ&irgwc=1&OCID=AID2000142_aff_7593_1243925&tduid=(ir__ccqdct1060kft3ttkk0sohznxu2xntgvup3y6zub00)(7593)(1243925)(kXQk6.ivFEQ-jh5iZU7Je.nJBLv8Ujn0MQ)()&irclickid=_ccqdct1060kft3ttkk0sohznxu2xntgvup3y6zub00

 

[GTA3Rockstar]

I should have enough M$ Rewards points to get $300 towards it by the time its released.

Edited June 1, 2020 by GTA3Rockstar

[trip]

I recently cashed in $100 worth of points.    should have saved 'em.

[Mister Pink]

Great news for backwards compatibility!

 

Microsoft is planning to automatically add HDR support to games played on its upcoming Xbox Series X console. While existing games will automatically play better on the Xbox Series X, Microsoft is also doing some work to add HDR support and even improve some games from a 30fps locked framerate to 60fps, or 60fps to 120fps.

Source - The Verge

 

The post confirms that supported Xbox One games - which run natively on the Xbox Series X - will make use of a variety of the next-gen console's new features, including High Dynamic Range, Quick Resume, 4K resolutions, reduced load times, and the ability to double frame-rates up to 120 FPS, many of which require "no additional work from title developers."

 

"With more than 100,000 hours of play testing already completed, thousands of games are already playable on Xbox Series X today, from the biggest blockbusters to cult classics and fan favorites.

Source - Games Radar

 

This has been unprecedented on consoles on this scale. Yes, games like GTA IV play better on my Xbox One, but the fact that so many will be ready at launch is great news. By getting a Series X, our current libraries and older gen games will play better. It's not just that the hardware is upgraded. Our libraries are too. 

[Turan]

I hope that lits a fire under Sony's ass. I need my enhanced Bloodborne. 

[Jason]

Yea that all sounds real nice. I imagine we'll see a bunch of Microsoft's 1st party games on Games Pass get the improvements, so stuff like Sea of Thieves at 60fps,, Gears 5 60fps, etc. That's one way to make those games on Games Pass keep a lot of value transitioning into a new generation for sure. All supporting that Quick Resume feature too.

[Mister Pink]

14 hours ago, Turan said:

I hope that lits a fire under Sony's ass. I need my enhanced Bloodborne. 

Yeah man, the competition this time round is great. No doubt Sony has some tricks up their sleeves. I think we're getting PS reveal next month.

 

 

 

[DEALUX]

If Xbox keep bringing PC features to consoles I think when technology will be advanced enough there might not even be a reason to buy a gaming PC anymore.

[Jason]

Or there might not be a reason to buy an Xbox ever again.

 

I think the service approach MS is going for where you pick what hardware (PC, console or cloud) suits you but you get the same service regardless is an approach I really, really like. Not being bogged down by platform exclusivity, essentially. It's not quite all the way there yet but MS is on a good path with this stuff IMO.

[DEALUX]

On 5/30/2020 at 6:06 PM, Jason said:

Or there might not be a reason to buy an Xbox ever again.

 

I think the service approach MS is going for where you pick what hardware (PC, console or cloud) suits you but you get the same service regardless is an approach I really, really like. Not being bogged down by platform exclusivity, essentially. It's not quite all the way there yet but MS is on a good path with this stuff IMO.

If and when cloud gaming is as good as gaming on a physical device, locally, but an all-in-one box will likely still be the best value for at least another decade.

Edited June 1, 2020 by DEALUX

[Jason]

Yea I don't disagree and I don't think we'll ever move away entirely from home hardware at all anyway, at least not in my lifetime. However there are people who will be interested in cloud gaming and while it's a niche right now the choice of playing where you want with the same service is exciting for them. Sony are also dipping their toes into this stuff as well with PS Now however it's not quite as comprehensive as Microsoft's approach right now.

 

Point is, Microsoft are decoupling Xbox from the Xbox console and instead making it a one stop shop for gaming, regardless of where you play your games.

[trip]

I like to re-listen to the old CGW/GFW podcasts (2006-2008) in order for fun look backs into gaming history.  There is a funny bit of "no hardware and running games on powerful computers in big data centers"...crazy dream.

 

I have xCloud and can say that game streaming is a bit away still.  I suspect we will be seeing some sort of hybrid cloud/local game development for some of the future.

 

Interesting article:

I Do Not Believe Microsoft’s Xbox Lockhart Exists

 

[DEALUX]

5 minutes ago, trip said:

I like to re-listen to the old CGW/GFW podcasts (2006-2008) in order for fun look backs into gaming history.  There is a funny bit of "no hardware and running games on powerful computers in big data centers"...crazy dream.

 

I have xCloud and can say that game streaming is a bit away still.  I suspect we will be seeing some sort of hybrid cloud/local game development for some of the future.

 

Interesting article:

I Do Not Believe Microsoft’s Xbox Lockhart Exists

 

Isn't the One X priced very close to the One S these days? That might be what will replace the One S.

[MyNameIsNotImportantBro]

This is a little bit off-topic:

But do you guys recommend me to get Xbox one X or wait for Series X?

[DEALUX]

2 minutes ago, OmarMohammed said:

This is a little bit off-topic:

But do you guys recommend me to get Xbox one X or wait for Series X?

Wait until November.

Edited June 1, 2020 by DEALUX

[Turan]

26 minutes ago, OmarMohammed said:

This is a little bit off-topic:

But do you guys recommend me to get Xbox one X or wait for Series X?

 

Definitely wait. They will lower the price of the Xbox One X after announcing Series X price. So you should be able to get it cheaper then, if you decide not to buy the XSX. 

Edited June 1, 2020 by Turan