Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

You know you are wrong.

If PS4 and X1 weren't a limit to game design then there would be no point in PS5 and XB4 plus any other system that comes after. The fact that you don't see a limitation or how they could increase scope or make a game impossible before doesn't mean it is reality.

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.

GTA V is huge, RDR also, TLOU same, and a lot of other open world. So devs could do with limited RAM with their tricks.

Do fine runing Witcher 3? Well that is a little reaching. It does run Witcher 3, but it isn't really fine. Witcher 2 run on X360 with a lot less RAM. Almost any game can run on almost any HW if you readequate enough. But still what you see will be severely impacted.

Most gamers want better presentation so certainly a lot of the performance will be put on the look. Not a problem in that. And the most power the HW have the more is free to use in other stuff besides looks.

I'll wait for gen 9 happening to say all games could be done as good without new HW.

From what CGI-Quality puts around in his thread I'm pretty confident gen 9 will bring a lot of good surprises.

And a good evidence of the HW and scope is that most of the very demanding games of this gen won't show on Switch because the compromise is to big to make it work.

Mr Puggsly said:

Pemalite said:

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.

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.

They certainly made massive changes to make the game run on Switch though.

God of War was more grounded and UC4 tries to go the realistic route so they certainly wouldn't show you the stuff you got impressed in AC.