Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MS: 1st party Xbox games will be cross-gen for "next year, two years"

Pemalite said: 
Mr Puggsly said:

I don't feel 16GB RAM and 8GB of VRAM is mid range. Certainly not average. But consoles still often have less memory in comparison and must be more efficient via streaming data.

How you feel is irrelevant, with all due respect.

16GB of System Ram is what mid-range gaming PC's have, Dell even throws that in with some of it's more budget-conscious orientated gaming PC's.

8GB is low end... And you can't even buy 2x2GB DDR4 for 4GB setups.

8GB GPU's like the Radeon RX 480/580/590 are mid-range GPU's (They were mid-range even on release), which is roughly the same powerlevel as the Xbox One X.

Step it up to the nVidia Geforce RTX GPU's... And you have the RTX 2060 Super which also comes with 8GB of Ram... On the AMD side of the fence you have the Radeon RX 5500XT and 5600 both with it's 8GB of Ram.

So 16GB+8GB is what a mid-range rig will generally have today.

High-end you are looking at 32GB System+11GB-24GB of GPU Ram for a total of 43-56GB of memory.

I.E. 32GB+Radeon 7 16GB = 48GB.
32GB+Titan RTX 24GB = 56GB.

Enthusiast you could be looking towards 64-256GB of System Memory and potentially 24-48GB of total GPU memory.

Genuine question Pemalite,

The Series X has 16 Gigs (13Gigs of GDDR6 and 3 Gigs of DDR6 Ram) I don't know any GPU on the market that's mid range that offers 16gigs of GDDR6, not even high end models have 16gigs of GDDR6.. the Mid range PCs you are referring to are 16gigs of DDR3 or DDR4 with 2gigs to 4gigs of GDDR5 ram, its quite the opposite of what type of ram they are running. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now I don't know the difference between running a game on a 16gigs DDR4 ram on PC compared to a Console running 16gigs of GDDR6 Ram.. but it doesn't sound like a mid range PC is on par there.  



Azzanation said:
Pemalite said: 

How you feel is irrelevant, with all due respect.

16GB of System Ram is what mid-range gaming PC's have, Dell even throws that in with some of it's more budget-conscious orientated gaming PC's.

8GB is low end... And you can't even buy 2x2GB DDR4 for 4GB setups.

8GB GPU's like the Radeon RX 480/580/590 are mid-range GPU's (They were mid-range even on release), which is roughly the same powerlevel as the Xbox One X.

Step it up to the nVidia Geforce RTX GPU's... And you have the RTX 2060 Super which also comes with 8GB of Ram... On the AMD side of the fence you have the Radeon RX 5500XT and 5600 both with it's 8GB of Ram.

So 16GB+8GB is what a mid-range rig will generally have today.

High-end you are looking at 32GB System+11GB-24GB of GPU Ram for a total of 43-56GB of memory.

I.E. 32GB+Radeon 7 16GB = 48GB.
32GB+Titan RTX 24GB = 56GB.

Enthusiast you could be looking towards 64-256GB of System Memory and potentially 24-48GB of total GPU memory.

Genuine question Pemalite,

The Series X has 16 Gigs (13Gigs of GDDR6 and 3 Gigs of DDR6 Ram) I don't know any GPU on the market that's mid range that offers 16gigs of GDDR6, not even high end models have 16gigs of GDDR6.. the Mid range PCs you are referring to are 16gigs of DDR3 or DDR4 with 2gigs to 4gigs of GDDR5 ram, its quite the opposite of what type of ram they are running. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now I don't know the difference between running a game on a 16gigs DDR4 ram on PC compared to a Console running 16gigs of GDDR6 Ram.. but it doesn't sound like a mid range PC is on par there.  

The difference is System RAM (DDR4) versus Video Memory (GDDR6). A PC with a graphics card like an RTX 2080 SUPER + 16GB of D4 will compete nicely with the XSX (which, btw, DDR6 doesn’t exist yet). 


As for high end and above - my Titan RTXs have 24GB of GDDR6 (and that’s before we even consider mem pooling - though this matters far less for games). Thus, the XSX is the equivalent of a very capable mid-ranged computer (have to consider the sum of all parts, like Tensor Cores, and not just Random Access Memory on its own). To answer the question, games will take advantage of the G6 on both devices, while the D4 helps facilitate the process.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 27 February 2020

                                                                                                             

trasharmdsister12 said:
goopy20 said:

Did Gears 5 have better physics, ai, world simulations, more npc's and biggers multplayer maps with a higher player count on pc and X1X? There are some exceptions like Shadow of Mordor, BF3 and Forza Horizon 2, but it's pretty rare to see a cross gen game that has core features missing from the pc version. MAybe they are doing that with MS's exclusives and Halo Infinite will look like a half ass version on X1. But it's far more likely that the core game will be identical on X1 and Series X but upscaled to 4k and a higher fps.

It will still look great obviously, and I'm sure it will be a good game. However if you look at something like GTA6 that will likely skip current gen. I'm pretty damn sure it will not be just a 4k/60 fps version of GTA5. It will be a dramatic leap over GTA5 in terms of map size, physics, world simulations etc. and it will probably have drops below 30fps and run at 1440 or 1080p on next gen consoles.

And yes, cross gen games do tend to be pretty much the same across gens in the first couple of years. That's why the 1st party exclusives are important, as they're usually the only games that showcase what these consoles can do early on. 

I don't know if it's far more likely. You're mixing your argument with multi-platform games instead of focusing on actual cross-gen titles. Cross-gen titles have become more prevalent as production budgets have gone up. They weren't anywhere near as common 2 generations ago as they were this last generation. And as we've seen this trend grow, in a general sense we've seen more and more cross-gen games make cut-backs on older generation platforms. Be it large features (Shadow of Mordor), modes (Call of Duty), or straight up different engines (many sports titles). If we take a look at MS's past efforts on their published titles that are cross-gen, we have only 2 examples to work from; Forza Horizon 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

In both cases, a separate studio has handled the port and in both cases the game targeted the newer console. In both cases they did an amazing job of taking advantage of the new hardware as both Forza Horizon 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider were considered technical showcases for the X1 platform in their year of release. And in both cases they made the right cutbacks for the games to run on the older generation, and that includes making cutbacks to the actual vehicle simulation, world geometry, race events, and dynamic environments in Forza Horizon 2's case. 

But don't just take my word for it, DF did analysis of both and make no mention of the newer platform being held back. So as far as MS goes as a publisher for cross-gen titles, they've set a precedent that they do a good job of making sure each platform gets the respect it deserves and the capabilities of them are utilized well. If we want to look back at historical data to make a future prediction, we should factor in more granular things like specific publishers. 

As far as the CPU goes, there's actually a fair amount of savings you can do from one CPU to the next. The obvious one is framerate (say XSX is 60 and X1/X is 30), but beyond that the CPU organizes a lot of stuff between various system components including the GPU, memory, and storage. If everything is slower, then the game on that platform is going to use lower quality assets in general. That lowers the CPU requirement in so many ways. You're loading in lower quality assets, and a fewer number of them into memory. For example, think of individual grass sprites for example; Infinite might load in 16 unique sprites where X1/X loads in 4 and they're repeated more often. So even if a specific technique is largely hinging on the performance of the GPU or storage, you can find savings on the CPU based on the technique being used. Another example, if the GPU is doing less (i.e. less particle effects, dealing with less or lower quality shadows, lower quality textures need to be loaded from storage), the CPU has to do less work to prep the GPU to do what it has to do. None of these things is a huge saving on its own but they add up for the CPU coordinating all of them. Further, you can alter the game logic refresh of various elements of the game simulation for other savings. You have enemies out in the distance who aren't attacking you? Cut their logic refresh to 15 fps on X1. That way you can keep a higher quality of logic but just not apply it to all enemies.

I think the only reasonable thing for anyone to do on either side of this debate is to wait and see what MS and 343 show off regarding this going forward. They've given us very little information thus far about Infinite so this conversation will just go in circles as no one will convince anyone else of anything and we're all just bunkered in our own pre-conceived notions. I have my doubts about Infinite as well, as someone who considered Halo as my favourite franchise of anything for nearly a decade and has absolutely hated the majority of 343's decisions with the franchise. But I'm going to let them provide me with info before I make a stance about Infinite and their handling of this cross-gen situation. I personally would've liked the clean break to leave no doubt. But even as it is, if you look at how MS has handled cross-gen specifically (yes, specifically. There's a lot of other stuff that can be pulled into this conversation - that I myself have knocked them for - to try to taint what they've done in this specific regard but it's unrelated) then I'd say things aren't as dire as many are painting them to be and we just have to wait and see before we cheer them on or crucify them.

Totally agree with this. Like I said, if MS is making their exclusives for Series X first and outsource the X1 version, that'll miss out on core features, I would have no problem with that. MS has done that in the past so it's not completely impossible.

The only thing that's worrying for me is their change in strategy and making it a point to have all their exclusives run on a ton of different devices for the first couple of years. It probably took a lot of work to make 2 different versions of Horizon 2, running on completely different tech. But are they really going to make 4 different versions of their exclusives for Series X, Lockhart, X1, X1X? To me it sounds more likely that it will be 1 game and that it will scale up and down their family of devices, like we're seeing on pc. But here's the thing. We are now at the end of this console cycle and I can't name a single AAA game that is really a dramatically different game on pc, where we have core features missing on the ps4/Xone versions.   

There were some exceptions, but generally speaking there wasn't a huge leap between the 360/Xone versions of cross-gen titles in the first couple of years. Instead, they looked like HD remasters while the exclusives did kinda stand out. Also, keep in mind that a ton of Xone cross-gen games still ran at 720p/30fps so I'm not expecting native 4k/60fps to be the standard at all next gen.

Call of Duty Ghosts 360 vs Xone 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g28nO_EnQQM

NFS Rivals 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NImenK6e5RI

Blackflag 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCPP9CBkTIc

Killzone Shadowfall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w48b17ag518

Infamous SS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qB3_phj_4

Ryse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Vu8sVvaWk



Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

I don't care what Steam says. Steam accounts for all PC's, new, old, netbooks, the lot... And isn't representative of new mid-range PC's being built or sold.

You can disagree all you want. Mid-range PC's are configured with 16GB of Ram, 8GB of VRAM. Those are today's mid-range specs.

Okay, I disagree.

A mid range PC is more like enough to get the job done, nothing fancy. You instead feel mid range is a machine ready for next gen.

I remember early in the 8th gen people said these consoles were mid gen PCs. I guess you would have argued they were actually potatoes.

You are moving the goal posts just to argue for the sake of arguing.

Are you really denying that mid-range PC rigs don't come with 8GB GPU's and 16GB of System memory?

...Because like. I am ready with evidence and stuff to quickly contradict you and stuff.

Azzanation said:

Genuine question Pemalite,

The Series X has 16 Gigs (13Gigs of GDDR6 and 3 Gigs of DDR6 Ram) I don't know any GPU on the market that's mid range that offers 16gigs of GDDR6, not even high end models have 16gigs of GDDR6.. the Mid range PCs you are referring to are 16gigs of DDR3 or DDR4 with 2gigs to 4gigs of GDDR5 ram, its quite the opposite of what type of ram they are running. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now I don't know the difference between running a game on a 16gigs DDR4 ram on PC compared to a Console running 16gigs of GDDR6 Ram.. but it doesn't sound like a mid range PC is on par there.  

Well. We don't actually know how much memory the Xbox Series X actually has yet, that information hasn't been revealed, it could be more than 16GB, it could be less. - It could be 16GB of DDR4 and 8GB of GDDR6 or HBM2, we can't actually draw comparisons yet.

PC GPU's don't need to have 16GB of GDDR6 to match the series X either, because... Like you partially alluded to... That entire 16GB isn't going to be reserved for games... And more yet isn't going to be reserved for graphics duties either... We also don't know how much DRAM will be reserved for OS/background duties, but if they are going to "suspend" more than one game at a time... There is the potential that DRAM requirements will increase over the 8th gen consoles.

And like I said... PC GPU's don't need to match the consoles to output superior results either. - I.E. A 4GB AMD Fury is going to have better graphics than the base Playstation 4 with 8GB of GDDR5... Heck a 3GB GDDR5 Radeon 7970 will output better visuals than the Playstation 4 with 8GB GDDR5 more often than not.
Shit a 2GB Radeon 7870 will crap all over the 8GB Xbox One every day of the week.

Ram Capacity is only part of the story, bandwidth, latency and so forth all play a role... So does how it's actually used by developers.

The Mid-Range PC's I am mentioning are those with... Like you said, 16GB of DDR3 or DDR4 memory and 8GB of GDDR5X/GDDR6.

Mid-Range GPU's like the Radeon 5500XT and 5600 come with 8GB of GDDR6, I would even argue they are on the lower-end of the mid-range performance spectrum rather than actually mid-range or high-end, they also lack super important next-gen features like Ray Tracing.

Such a rig would have 24GB of memory in total, that is DDR4 and GDDR6. - Nor am I suggesting that the performance would be equivalent to 16GB of pure GDDR6, just that on a totals-basis, mid-range PC's being equipped and sold today have that amount of DRAM in total.

Also we need to keep in mind to what happens to a PC GPU when it actually does exceed it's GDDR6 DRAM buffer.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 27 February 2020

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite talks more than me , but the overall message is you’re looking at a mid-ranged product that will sit nicely among console supremacy.

And yes, we need to see catchy what the XSX is sporting.

@Pemalite

I doubt they’re going the HBM2 route, but stranger things have happened!



                                                                                                             

Xbox Series X GPU is high-end not mid-range though, am I right?

When I bought my RX 5700 XT on December 30th I thought it would match PS5 and Xbox Series X, and it's already confirmed XSX is more powerful than my new GPU :(



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Okay, I disagree.

A mid range PC is more like enough to get the job done, nothing fancy. You instead feel mid range is a machine ready for next gen.

I remember early in the 8th gen people said these consoles were mid gen PCs. I guess you would have argued they were actually potatoes.

You are moving the goal posts just to argue for the sake of arguing.

Are you really denying that mid-range PC rigs don't come with 8GB GPU's and 16GB of System memory?

...Because like. I am ready with evidence and stuff to quickly contradict you and stuff.

Azzanation said:

Genuine question Pemalite,

The Series X has 16 Gigs (13Gigs of GDDR6 and 3 Gigs of DDR6 Ram) I don't know any GPU on the market that's mid range that offers 16gigs of GDDR6, not even high end models have 16gigs of GDDR6.. the Mid range PCs you are referring to are 16gigs of DDR3 or DDR4 with 2gigs to 4gigs of GDDR5 ram, its quite the opposite of what type of ram they are running. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now I don't know the difference between running a game on a 16gigs DDR4 ram on PC compared to a Console running 16gigs of GDDR6 Ram.. but it doesn't sound like a mid range PC is on par there.  

Well. We don't actually know how much memory the Xbox Series X actually has yet, that information hasn't been revealed, it could be more than 16GB, it could be less. - It could be 16GB of DDR4 and 8GB of GDDR6 or HBM2, we can't actually draw comparisons yet.

PC GPU's don't need to have 16GB of GDDR6 to match the series X either, because... Like you partially alluded to... That entire 16GB isn't going to be reserved for games... And more yet isn't going to be reserved for graphics duties either... We also don't know how much DRAM will be reserved for OS/background duties, but if they are going to "suspend" more than one game at a time... There is the potential that DRAM requirements will increase over the 8th gen consoles.

And like I said... PC GPU's don't need to match the consoles to output superior results either. - I.E. A 4GB AMD Fury is going to have better graphics than the base Playstation 4 with 8GB of GDDR5... Heck a 3GB GDDR5 Radeon 7970 will output better visuals than the Playstation 4 with 8GB GDDR5 more often than not.
Shit a 2GB Radeon 7870 will crap all over the 8GB Xbox One every day of the week.

Ram Capacity is only part of the story, bandwidth, latency and so forth all play a role... So does how it's actually used by developers.

The Mid-Range PC's I am mentioning are those with... Like you said, 16GB of DDR3 or DDR4 memory and 8GB of GDDR5X/GDDR6.

Mid-Range GPU's like the Radeon 5500XT and 5600 come with 8GB of GDDR6, I would even argue they are on the lower-end of the mid-range performance spectrum rather than actually mid-range or high-end, they also lack super important next-gen features like Ray Tracing.

Such a rig would have 24GB of memory in total, that is DDR4 and GDDR6. - Nor am I suggesting that the performance would be equivalent to 16GB of pure GDDR6, just that on a totals-basis, mid-range PC's being equipped and sold today have that amount of DRAM in total.

Also we need to keep in mind to what happens to a PC GPU when it actually does exceed it's GDDR6 DRAM buffer.

I think it's not so much what you can buy nowadays for pc. It's more about what the average pc gamer has in their rig right now. Of course there are pc enthusiast who are constantly upgrading and their pc will blow next gen consoles out the water. But the bulk just buys a pc for $1000, and as long as it still works, they won't upgrade unless they have to. 

Even though we don't know all the details, it's pretty save to say that the average pc gamer right now, doesn't have hardware that comes close to specs of the Series X. Now, I also have no issue with MS launching a $700, hell I would love that. But if it won't sell to the masses because it's too expensive, there also won't be that much support for it. Just look at PSVR. I think it's awesome but for a lot of people it was probably too expensive and the install base is just too small to support AAA games for it. It's a shame really that it doesn't have more games like RE7, as for me that was the most memorable and terrifying gaming experience ever!

My whole gripe with GP is that it isn't trying to target the pc enthusiast or Series X specs. MS wants as many gamers as possible to be able to play their exclusives and that would defeat the whole point. Especially if the Series X is priced as a super premium product, instead of a mass market console. That's why I think their games will run fine on X1 and the lower spectrum of pc's. Obviously, they will scale and will look and run better on high-end pc and Series X. But I just don't see the developers going all out and make games that push the Series X to its limits at 1440p/30fps and then port them individually, so they run on 4 different Xboxes and low-end pc too.  



goopy20 said:

Totally agree with this. Like I said, if MS is making their exclusives for Series X first and outsource the X1 version, that'll miss out on core features, I would have no problem with that. MS has done that in the past so it's not completely impossible.

1. The only thing that's worrying for me is their change in strategy and making it a point to have all their exclusives run on a ton of different devices for the first couple of years. It probably took a lot of work to make 2 different versions of Horizon 2, running on completely different tech. But are they really going to make 4 different versions of their exclusives for Series X, Lockhart, X1, X1X? To me it sounds more likely that it will be 1 game and that it will scale up and down their family of devices, like we're seeing on pc. But here's the thing. 2. We are now at the end of this console cycle and I can't name a single AAA game that is really a dramatically different game on pc, where we have core features missing on the ps4/Xone versions.   

There were some exceptions, 3. but generally speaking there wasn't a huge leap between the 360/Xone versions of cross-gen titles in the first couple of years. Instead, they looked like HD remasters while the exclusives did kinda stand out. Also, keep in mind that a ton of Xone cross-gen games still ran at 720p/30fps so I'm not expecting native 4k/60fps to be the standard at all next gen.

Call of Duty Ghosts 360 vs Xone 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g28nO_EnQQM

NFS Rivals 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NImenK6e5RI

Blackflag 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCPP9CBkTIc

Killzone Shadowfall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w48b17ag518

Infamous SS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qB3_phj_4

Ryse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Vu8sVvaWk

1. With how game development works they would have to make 2 versions at worst (1 for X1 and X1X and 1 for Lockhart and XSX), 1 in the best case (for everything).

2. What does that mean to you? It can mean 1 of 2 things (or a combination of them). It either means that we're at a point that targeting higher spec hardware doesn't make a huge difference outside of graphical bells and whistle options being provided on PC or that there isn't a business case to do so, in that the return from targeting a higher spec PC version that can't be done on X1/PS4 consoles isn't viable financially. Leaning too far in one direction in what you read into this says more about your stance than what a company is actually thinking. The truth will always be somewhere in the middle. And when it comes to next gen consoles, there is a business case for companies like MS (who run the entire platform) to target a higher spec. They want to impress, they want to drum up excitement, they want to get people to play in their playground; that's the motive behind all the choice they're providing. And given that there's a business case, it's on them to do it or not. And nothing they've said precludes them from going forward with that business case to make the next-gen versions of their cross-gen games different enough from the current gen versions. We frankly don't have enough info to keep bashing our heads claiming one side or the other. We have to wait and see. Stating why you have your hopes/don't have your hopes up for it to happen only needs to happen 1 time, otherwise it comes off with negative motives that potentially break forum rules like it's coming off in this thread. So I, again, recommend we leave this conversation where it lays. 

3. In order to definitively say that we need to list each and every cross-gen game on those platforms and come to a definitive conclusion for each one whether it was or wasn't a huge leap. Neither of us have done that so this is a factoid at best. I personally thought a number of cross-gen games did an awesome job of standing out from a technical point of view given that they were launch titles with not much of a business case for the company to push a next gen version. Many of them did a good job with texture quality, object density, draw distance, and improved geometry. It's just that pesky law of diminishing returns that makes these things harder to spot but if you want to go see, go check out Cycu1's Youtube channel on the games listed below. Sadly DF didn't do much cross-gen comparison work on these titles. Those are all things you have to consider. MS has a reason to push the next gen version while a lot of these companies didn't. In the case of DICE, their games partially sell on their wow factor (not to mention there was probably some internal motive at EA to really wow so their engine would get widespread adoption through the studios early in the gen). I could go through and write a few paragraphs regarding the business case for EACH game below but this conversation is pretty much done so I'll let you do your own research.

  • Titanfall
  • Destiny
  • Watch Dogs
  • Battlefield 4
  • Call of Duty: Ghosts
  • AC4: Black Flag
  • Dragon Age: Inquisition
  • Dying Light
  • The Evil Within
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order
  • MGS5: Phantom Pain
  • Thief
  • LOTR: Shadow of Mordor


Radek said:

Xbox Series X GPU is high-end not mid-range though, am I right?

When I bought my RX 5700 XT on December 30th I thought it would match PS5 and Xbox Series X, and it's already confirmed XSX is more powerful than my new GPU :(

The 2080 Ti is high-end. The XSX is roughly what a 2080 SUPER would be (if you could compare like-for-like). I’d say it is in the higher spectrum of mid-ranged (before the release of the 3000 series later this year). 

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 27 February 2020

                                                                                                             

trasharmdsister12 said:
goopy20 said:

Totally agree with this. Like I said, if MS is making their exclusives for Series X first and outsource the X1 version, that'll miss out on core features, I would have no problem with that. MS has done that in the past so it's not completely impossible.

1. The only thing that's worrying for me is their change in strategy and making it a point to have all their exclusives run on a ton of different devices for the first couple of years. It probably took a lot of work to make 2 different versions of Horizon 2, running on completely different tech. But are they really going to make 4 different versions of their exclusives for Series X, Lockhart, X1, X1X? To me it sounds more likely that it will be 1 game and that it will scale up and down their family of devices, like we're seeing on pc. But here's the thing. 2. We are now at the end of this console cycle and I can't name a single AAA game that is really a dramatically different game on pc, where we have core features missing on the ps4/Xone versions.   

There were some exceptions, 3. but generally speaking there wasn't a huge leap between the 360/Xone versions of cross-gen titles in the first couple of years. Instead, they looked like HD remasters while the exclusives did kinda stand out. Also, keep in mind that a ton of Xone cross-gen games still ran at 720p/30fps so I'm not expecting native 4k/60fps to be the standard at all next gen.

Call of Duty Ghosts 360 vs Xone 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g28nO_EnQQM

NFS Rivals 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NImenK6e5RI

Blackflag 360 vs Xone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCPP9CBkTIc

Killzone Shadowfall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w48b17ag518

Infamous SS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qB3_phj_4

Ryse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Vu8sVvaWk

1. With how game development works they would have to make 2 versions at worst (1 for X1 and X1X and 1 for Lockhart and XSX), 1 in the best case (for everything).

2. What does that mean to you? It can mean 1 of 2 things (or a combination of them). It either means that we're at a point that targeting higher spec hardware doesn't make a huge difference outside of graphical bells and whistle options being provided on PC or that there isn't a business case to do so, in that the return from targeting a higher spec PC version that can't be done on X1/PS4 consoles isn't viable financially. Leaning too far in one direction in what you read into this says more about your stance than what a company is actually thinking. The truth will always be somewhere in the middle. And when it comes to next gen consoles, there is a business case for companies like MS (who run the entire platform) to target a higher spec. They want to impress, they want to drum up excitement, they want to get people to play in their playground; that's the motive behind all the choice they're providing. And given that there's a business case, it's on them to do it or not. And nothing they've said precludes them from going forward with that business case to make the next-gen versions of their cross-gen games different enough from the current gen versions. We frankly don't have enough info to keep bashing our heads claiming one side or the other. We have to wait and see. Stating why you have your hopes/don't have your hopes up for it to happen only needs to happen 1 time, otherwise it comes off with negative motives that potentially break forum rules like it's coming off in this thread. So I, again, recommend we leave this conversation where it lays. 

3. In order to definitively say that we need to list each and every cross-gen game on those platforms and come to a definitive conclusion for each one whether it was or wasn't a huge leap. Neither of us have done that so this is a factoid at best. I personally thought a number of cross-gen games did an awesome job of standing out from a technical point of view given that they were launch titles with not much of a business case for the company to push a next gen version. Many of them did a good job with texture quality, object density, draw distance, and improved geometry. It's just that pesky law of diminishing returns that makes these things harder to spot but if you want to go see, go check out Cycu1's Youtube channel on the games listed below. Sadly DF didn't do much cross-gen comparison work on these titles. Those are all things you have to consider. MS has a reason to push the next gen version while a lot of these companies didn't. In the case of DICE, their games partially sell on their wow factor (not to mention there was probably some internal motive at EA to really wow so their engine would get widespread adoption through the studios early in the gen). I could go through and write a few paragraphs regarding the business case for EACH game below but this conversation is pretty much done so I'll let you do your own research.

  • Titanfall
  • Destiny
  • Watch Dogs
  • Battlefield 4
  • Call of Duty: Ghosts
  • AC4: Black Flag
  • Dragon Age: Inquisition
  • Dying Light
  • The Evil Within
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order
  • MGS5: Phantom Pain
  • Thief
  • LOTR: Shadow of Mordor

You have to admit that a lot of the things MS are doing don't sound viable if they plan on selling as many Series X boxes as possible. Traditionally platform holders use their 1st party exclusives to push console sales and that kinda works. Console generations aren't a new concept and no ps4 owner will be upset or disappointed if the exclusives on ps4 start drying out. The masses desperately want to upgrade to a new console with the promise of new games that are a radical departure of what's possible on their old console, as long as it's not more than $499.

With MS they aren't doing that. Instead they are making all their exclusives cross-gen so there's no real need to upgrade. The console itself looks like a mini pc that no single person on earth will be able to stick under the tv. And, probably the weirdest thing, they aren't just releasing their flagship exclusives on pc, they are practically giving them away for free through their $1 GP promotion. All in all it sounds like a terrible plan to launch a mass market console, but I guess we'll have to wait till MS reveals a price before it all starts to make sense. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 27 February 2020