Probably you are not alone. But for me i am okay with graphic is not mind blowing at all, and for sure it's far better than PS3/Xbox 360. But it's far from next gen graphic we are hoping for. That's because they using Xbox One as baseline hardware. There will be no fancy realistic graphic with this games, the Scarlet version will just ended up having the same look but with 4k and 60 fps capability (just like Xbox One X running every Xbox One games with better resolution and faster frame rates ).  

Windows Store isn't JUST about selling as many games as possible. They also want their own store to thrive and that means not everything can come to Steam, at least not immediately and some simply never will. If you don't like then go use the Epic store.

No, let me clarify. MS doesn't want to make Fable 3 keys so get over it. Go play Witcher.

I'm sure there are other reasons why Witcher 3 works on Switch, but not having to struggle with RAM is huge. The developers were able to overcome limited CPU and GPU, but I think Switch having just enough RAM is what really makes some of these ports feasible or it would just be too much work.

I'm simply saying the added power of new consoles, primarily on the GPU, primarily goes to graphics over increasing the potential or scope of most games. I'm suggesting game design potential is still pretty great on limited specs like 8th gen consoles, while new specs is more about visual polish. It gets back to topic of this thread. People feel Halo Infinite has limited potential because its being built for X1, I feel the potential is more dependent on how the game is designed. For example, Halo 5 was a more linear experience because that's how it was designed. Not due to limitations of the hardware.

Look at Switch, in practice much of its content looks like 7th gen games. Yet its doing fine running Witcher 3 and I credit that to Switch having plenty of RAM compared to 7th gen consoles. I get the impression bringing Witcher 3 to Switch was easier than Witcher 2 to 360. The advent of dynamic resolution also helps Im sure for performance.

The potential of any game is always held back by the hardware of a previous generation, this is an issue the PC has been dealing with for years... And whenever a new console generation hits and the old platforms phase out... Games start taking massive leaps as the baseline has moved up a notch.

Halo 5 was limited by hardware though on the visual front, which I feel might have impacted some other decisions in the games design like Physics effects. - In saying that, Halo 5 released relatively early in the Xbox One's life cycle... So we can assume it doesn't make the best use of the consoles hardware anyway... Infinite will likely leverage the base Xbox One's relatively anemic hardware more effectively.

Well. To "thrive" you kinda' need to sell in volume.
If people have a crap experience on the Windows Store, then they are going elsewhere.

I mean, Microsoft hasn't even allowed for Crossplay between digital PC stores in the past like with Halo Wars, this kind of thing shouldn't be happening on PC, it's a singular platform.

Let me clarify. I already own a copy (Or two), so I don't need to go play The Witcher. - Nor do you get to dictate what games I can and can't play anyway.

If Microsoft doesn't wish to sell more keys, then that is their decision, but it's also my decision to give them criticism where criticism is due... And it is due on this front...  So if you don't like it (Which I assume from your abrasiveness) then you should move on.

Witcher 3 scales down in hardware really well, the Ram certainly helps... Even if there is only 3GB of it, but the more Modern hardware is really the driver here.

The potential of any game is always held back by the hardware of a previous generation, this is an issue the PC has been dealing with for years... And whenever a new console generation hits and the old platforms phase out... Games start taking massive leaps as the baseline has moved up a notch.

Halo 5 was limited by hardware though on the visual front, which I feel might have impacted some other decisions in the games design like Physics effects. - In saying that, Halo 5 released relatively early in the Xbox One's life cycle... So we can assume it doesn't make the best use of the consoles hardware anyway... Infinite will likely leverage the base Xbox One's relatively anemic hardware more effectively.

RAM capacity is definitely Switch's biggest advantage over PS3/360, and it does make game development a lot easier, but let's not overlook the advantage of running a GPU 10 years more advanced, which also helps a lot. That's how you get a lot of Switch games running much of the same current gen rendering tech as PS4/Xbone games, stuff that the ancient DX9 era cards in PS3/360 wouldn't cope with. Saves devs the trouble of having to redesign effects and such, you can just turn the settings down instead.

Speaking of hardware, on the CPU side what kind of leap are we most likely looking at going from the Jags in the Xbone to the Zen 2 in Scarlet? 4 times the performance? 5 times? 10 times?

Many games this gen didnt really need the power of 8th gen consoles per se. Most of the power just goes into better graphics. However, the biggest limiting factor in large scale games was probably RAM. During the 7th RAM requirements in PC games grew significantly. Muliples times the RAM found in 7th gen consoles.

In the 8th gen however, RAM requirements kinda stayed the same. 8GB was fairly common when the 8th gen started and 8GB is still plenty for most games. VRAM has become important primarily for textures.

Look at Switch, in practice much of its content looks like 7th gen games. Yet its doing fine running Witcher 3 and I credit that to Switch having plenty of RAM compared to 7th gen consoles. I get the impression bringing Witcher 3 to Switch was easier than Witcher 2 to 360. The advent of dynamic resolution also helps Im sure for performance.

Increased specs can certainly allow for games of greater scope or whatever. Im arguing much of that power simply goes to presentation in many cases. I've looked at many games this gen and thought, "did we really need new consoles for this?"

I believe we feel that to a greater extent in the 9th gen. Its gonna be like the 8th gen but even prettier. Dont expect the scope of games to change too much. Also, it takes a lot of power just to achieve 60 fps with 4K.

Windows Store has improved, much of the complaints were addressed around the time Gears 4 launched. Its not perfect but functional.

Killer Instinct had crossplay between all versions, including Steam. Hopefully MCC will be the same.

Let me clarify again, Fable 3 on PC is shit as long as it has GFW. That version should stay dead or be fixed.

I believe PS3 and 360 have the GPU and CPU potential to run Witcher 3. The RAM though? Nope, couldnt happen. Not unless they make massive changes. Thats my point.

The thing is many games this gen could have worked on last gen. Maybe not with the same engine or visual fidelity, but the scope of the games could have worked on last gen specs. For example, God of War and Uncharted 4  are considered amazing technical acievments. But outside of visuals, Iast gen had more impressive and ambitious games. AC games impressed me more. This is why I argue new hardware doesent necessarily mean more ambitious design, larger scale, etc. I dont think I can clarify further if you still miss the point.

I really question what happen with Halo 5 technically. The game has great looking assets and opted for high quality lighting and shadows, which evidently were not a good fit for 60 fps given the quirks.

I cant help but think Halo 5 may have originally been planned as 30 fps game. It could have potentially been a great looking ~1080p/30 fps game. Instead, Halo 5 looks like a game that 60 fps forced in, not built around it.

Speaking of hardware, on the CPU side what kind of leap are we most likely looking at going from the Jags in the Xbone to the Zen 2 in Scarlet? 4 times the performance? 5 times? 10 times?

Windows Store has improved, much of the complaints were addressed around the time Gears 4 launched. Its not perfect but functional.

Killer Instinct had crossplay between all versions, including Steam. Hopefully MCC will be the same.

Let me clarify again, Fable 3 on PC is shit as long as it has GFW. That version should stay dead or be fixed.

I believe PS3 and 360 have the GPU and CPU potential to run Witcher 3. The RAM though? Nope, couldnt happen. Not unless they make massive changes. Thats my point.

The thing is many games this gen could have worked on last gen. Maybe not with the same engine or visual fidelity, but the scope of the games could have worked on last gen specs. For example, God of War and Uncharted 4  are considered amazing technical acievments. But outside of visuals, Iast gen had more impressive and ambitious games. AC games impressed me more. This is why I argue new hardware doesent necessarily mean more ambitious design, larger scale, etc. I dont think I can clarify further if you still miss the point.

I really question what happen with Halo 5 technically. The game has great looking assets and opted for high quality lighting and shadows, which evidently were not a good fit for 60 fps given the quirks.

I cant help but think Halo 5 may have originally been planned as 30 fps game. It could have potentially been a great looking ~1080p/30 fps game. Instead, Halo 5 looks like a game that 60 fps forced in, not built around it.

I agree, other aspects of the hardware help simplify port work. However, developers have redesigned effects or removed them to boost performance on Switch. That was also common in cross gen (6th/7th or 7th/8th gen) or PC to console ports to use completely different effects or omit them.

Its the RAM of Switch that allows ports to happen without having to make significant changes to how the game essentially works.

I think Shadow of Mordor is a good example of porting a game without enough RAM. Huge changes were made to the actual game and it looks like there was no room left for textures.

Witcher 2 run on X360 with a lot less RAM.

It depends on the instructions being used. - But an 8-12x increase is more than possible in an ideal scenario. (I.E. AVX)
Otherwise 5-6x increase in more conventional workloads is probably a good guesstimate...

In saying that, we have absolutely zero idea on clockrates, so it could be substantially higher if Microsoft/Sony dial those clocks home. Or lower.