Sony does a great job with visuals. Its not much of a debate.

I disagree about Gears 5 being blurry, especially if you play on X1X or PC. Gears 4 also looks pretty impressive for the most part, great environments and lighting.

Forza games in general are gorgeous. Whether it be the sim games or Horizon.

Quantum Break is pretty impressive, sometimes stunning.

I've spent a lot of time with Xbox games because they're fun. But I would not say many are technical showcases.

If we are gonna include games that arent available yet. I guess Hellblade 2 and Halo Infinte might be visually impressive X1 games.

People are certainly anticipating monster upgrades from both companies. But the marketing MS is pushing suggests they will do something bigger.

I am hoping MS is gonna try to have it both ways. Boast about power, but also consider people would be happy with the cheapest box that plays the same stuff.

I don't totally disagree, but I'd say the expectation that XBSX will be the higher spec'd console in general is more so the case. Not that PS5 can't have it's advantages. I would also say a weaker PS5 won't be too big of a deal to most if they have everything else that's anticipated. I can't say the same for XBSX in terms of games though. Lack of games, or lack of quality, or both, would be much worse for MS.

Really not sure what MS is going to do. If they still aren't sure about Lockhart, then it wouldn't surprise me that if PS5 is XBSX level, that MS won't bother with Lockhart. If PS5 is $100 cheaper, then MS will be much more inclined to rush out Lockhart as soon as they can. 

agreed that playstation brand is strong worldwide, and sony doesnt need E3, from a developer stand point they wont worry about getting a vertical slice ready for e3, Sony can do on their own time.. good for dev, bad for consumer like me, who stayed up all night to watch conference back to back. But you have to agree that the reason PS4 was so strong out of the gate and had positive buzz was because of E3 2013.

HDD will be one aspect that will be limiting cross gen titles, i would hate to be a dev at MS who has to develop streaming engine for two different bandwidth, which will be constraint by slower one. sure they can have scalable engine like on PC, but it defeats the purpose of a console and that is not to brute force.

And i m pretty sure MS knew the limitation of jaguar based systems, or else they could have easily continued with One X as base model instead of investing in lockhart. 

I have no doubt that devs will work around these hurdle, but it would have been great if they had the flexibility of developing engine around new series X and not worry about the new tech being compatible on Jaguar..

What an odd post.

No company is bigger than the industry, the industry is bigger than 100m consoles sold.

Devs want there games to sell and sticking to whats popular and has an audience is far from a bad thing.

Yes Jaguar CPUs are not the best but did you know games like TLOU2, Ghosts of Whatever and Cyberpunk 2077 are built around Jaguar cores? Does that put you off buying those games?

You wont see real proper usage of next gen in its 1st couple of years, and majority of 3rd party companies will be opting for base PS4 and XB1 consoles because they have huge audiences and wont be abandoned instantly.

Lets also remember a Series X will implement Ray Tracing, offer higher graphical settings and frames on its titles plus is impressive SSD. Ray Tracing at 4k/60 alone is a massive difference and will be noticeable on Jaguar built games moving forward.

I said in a different post PS5's rumored 30% less power wouldn't matter. They can still make great looking content with a resolution compromise (simply not 4K).

I don't believe Xbox will have a lack of games thanks to recent studio purchases. They also need to pump out more content for Game Pass. I also believe PC support is increasing software revenue.

Quality seems to be going up for MS games. Phil even said they were addressing that a few years ago.

Either Lockhart has to be planned at launch or it wont happen. Games would run different resolutions and/or effect settings for the hardware. So developers need to tweak games for Lockhart at launch, it can't be an after thought.

Even if Series X and PS5 were equally priced, I think Lockhart would be good for MS.

It not like a mid gen upgrade because those already have the power to support everything.

Of course, TLOU2 and whatnot are impressive games. It's just that they would have been even more impressive if they were designed to take full advantage of these next gen consoles. Sure, it's pretty normal that in their 1st year most games are hold back because of cross gen titles. But both MS and Sony had exclusive launch titles like Forza 5, Ryse, Infamous, Killzone, Bloodborne etc. that at least showed what the consoles could do and felt truly next gen at the time.   

Also, you honestly believe these consoles can do 4k 60fps with ray tracing? A RTX 2080 can barely run BF1 at 30fps in 1080p with Ray Tracing enabled. The fact that these consoles support ray tracing tells me that 1080 or 1440p and 30fps will still be the standard for most next gen games. People seem to forget how many Xone games still run at 720p, which is the same resolution as the 360. 4k is nice but it's also a humongous waste of resources for console games that are meant to be played sitting on a couch, 16ft away from the tv. 

the reason you find it odd is because your version of next gen performance comes in the form of 4k/60 with shiny coat of paint, but there are more thing dev can do with their codes if they have the proper power to execute it. there are so many things that can be implemented with a better CPU like machine learning for AI, tessellation, collision detection, or having a dedicated node for procedural tech. No man Sky could have looked and performed better if it had been developed with ryzen Cpu's 16 threads

What advantages did Ps4, xone CPU brought that PS3 and 360 couldnt do? besides pretty graphics! For instance PS3 over Ps2 brought stream processing, handling specific task to spe so that main processor can handle other parts of the engine. Physics, motion blur etc were most of the time allotted to SPE, in short much better world simulation along with graphical jump..naughty dog after uncharted 1 retooled their engine and used SPE for graphic processing in Uncharted 2.. 

Now coming onto jaguar all things which were handled by SPE are handled by less efficient GPGPU and this takes up GPU resources as Jaguar cores couldn't handle much besides handing out draw calls ram to gpu and run OS in the background. I already gave an example of GTA4 and GTA5, GTA 5 with gta4 level world simulation is nearly impossible to pull off. or take an example of Journey on PS3 and Ps4, motion blur and sand simulation were handled by SPE which ps4 has completely omitted from the final game. There are many more example I can give but digital foundry explained the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjjRdrVAHCQ

If the Series X is going to be running games built around the base XB1, than expect targets with Ray Tracing and 4k/60 with possibly more bells and whistles. Like a high end PC having access to better specs on a older game. Worst case, we might see games run Ray Tracing at 4k/30 with cross gen games. Afterall we are coming from base hardware running 1.3tf to 12tf (If the rumour is true of course)

The games you mentioned at launch are not exactly good examples, they were all criticized fairly and in terms of substance, those games lacked heavily. Also Bloodborne was not a launch title or even a 1st year PS4 released game. Games like Ryse and Killzone SF were bland and were only visual treats nothing more. 

I can see games like Sea of Thieves, Grounded and Bleeding Edge running on a Series X with Ray Tracing and at 4k/60. After all there is a big enough power jump from current gen and what's even better, current gen games are just going to look even better on a Series X.

Maybe its me, I game on PC 90% of the time and I enjoy the graphical upgrades when playing older games on my high end rig (Well probably not high end anymore).

I am not fussed if games come out at launch with cross gen in mind because lets be honest here, we wont see any major evolutionally leaps straight away or not in a consoles first year. We are seeing bigger leaps now with current hardware as devs know the limits and can push boundaries even further. I believe giving devs the power of next gen, majority wouldn't know what to do with it and it explains why a lot of launch titles lack substance and only bring graphics to the table. Honestly look at Ryse or Killzone SF? Did anyone really care for those games? They both looked amazing and offered next gen visuals, and many probably rather play games built on the 360 and PS3. Forza 5 is a good example, a next gen game built with X1 in mind and Forza 4 was a better game.

I said this to someone before, look at Zelda BOTW, it was built on even weaker hardware yet it not only pushed boundaries it evolved the open world genre and become one of the favourite games this generation. They achieved that on WiiU specs, we laugh at Jaguar cores yet BOTW was built on an even laughable CPU. Graphics didn't get in the way and that's one positive I gain from this cross gen decision.

It would be nice to have graphics however sometimes graphics can be the down fall of games. Drive Club is a good example here. Devs need to know how to make games without thinking they will sell on visuals alone and giving devs this type of power is like overloading kids with too much sugar. 

I think he was referring to the base Xbox One.
The base Xbox One can drop to 792P or 1408x792. Maybe even less.

Then you apply Gears of Wars Temporal Reconstruction Techniques and Temporal Upscaling and Temporal Anti-Aliasing and things can start to look blurry on the low-end devices.

It looks bloody amazing on the PC and Xbox One X though.

Gears of War 5 was doing Compute Ray Tracing with Shadows on the Xbox One and was chasing 4k, 60fps.

And that is without dedicated Ray Tracing hardware to reduce the hardware overhead.

The current RTX cards are also not going to be an accurate comparison point with AMD's Navi+Ray Tracing cores, need to wait and see what AMD does on that front first.
Plus Battlefield 5 wasn't the most efficient use of Ray Tracing anyway.

We had larger character counts on screen at once. - Assassins Creed, Dead Rising for example.

The 8-core Jaguars are pieces of crap, no doubt, but they are still more capable than the Cell... But the jump isn't as pronounced as prior generations, so the increase in simulation complexity isn't always as readily apparent.

The CPU/GPU load is different because the hardware is different.
The GPU's last gen were far less capable relative to the CPU than this Gen, so developers leveraged more CPU cycles for other aspects such as Anti-Aliasing, Motion Blur or other Post-Process effects. - Jaguar can do them, it's just pointless.
Jaguar is faster than Cell at the end of the day, especially with Integer math or SIMD instructions.

This generation the GPU's are orders-of-magnitude more capable than the CPU and game development reflects that, it's all about getting the most bang-for-buck out of fixed, limited, resources.