Eurogamer: PS5 and Xbox Series X Spec Leak.

[DonFerrari]

goopy20 said:

DonFerrari said:

Seems like the story is a little different.

If Rare was independent they would have closed due to a big streak of low selling games, MS kept they alive. Also they were the ones that wanted to try something different and asked to work on Kinect and MS allowed.

Rare was hot shit before MS bought them in 2002 and MS ruined them basically so Nintendo couldn't have their games. Just read this if you don't believe me.

"Rare was always looking East at Japanese and Nintendo's games in particular, with their open-hearted childlike vibrancy and playfulness," explains Hollis. "Meanwhile, Microsoft had a US-centric style to its games, a flair of machismo and testosterone. For the first decade after the Microsoft sale the major problem for the creativity of the studio has been direction. Looking in from the outside it felt as if neither Microsoft or Rare could work out where it was headed."

From the inside the studio's gates, too, the changes to Rare introduced by Microsoft tampered with the recipe of the company's success, leaving teams feeling disorientated, and even downcast.

"For me personally, the atmosphere became much more stifling and a lot more stressful," he says. "There was an overall feeling that you weren't really in control of what you were doing and that you weren't really trusted either.

"There was also a gradual introduction of certain Microsoft behaviours that crept into the way we did things: lots more meetings, performance reviews and far more regard for your position within the company," he said."

Lets face it, MS isn't great with handling their studios. Of the 10 studios MS has acquired over the past 20 years, five have been closed, and two are still around but separated.

You are putting the blame on the wrong horse.

Nintendo had the opportunity to buy the studio (they had 50% at the time) but weren't interested so MS gone and bought all.

Taking the opinion of a single disgruntled ex-employee is hardly the way to look history.

I'm no defender of MS and I know they had made several bad decisions and studio management was among the main for me. I just wanted to correct the two or three misconceptions you had over it.

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

Well TVs are 1080p and 4k, so 1440p will need upscaling (and sure we don't know exactly what will be in the end, but I am going from the rumor of it being aimed at 1080p60fps, which sure may be wrong and MS do a clever 1440k internal resolution with native upscaler chip and deliver 4k that for general customers will be enough to convince them.

I don't think PS5 will aim for 60fps, that isn't the biggest thing on console gaming so far and I don't think it will be next gen. Sure some genres we will have 4k60fps (racer/fighters) some we may have 1080p60fps with upscale (like competitive FPS) and most will be 4k30fps (and sure some will even be less than 4k even on 30fps to increase other IQ aspects), still the 9Tf rumor on PS5 is unlikely (with both consoles launching together I don't think Sony is aiming for a 30% weaker HW).

I loved the concept of Kinect (will not comment on it not being achievable at that moment because of technology, but it was a needed step to keep developing over it and I hope it get back with more VR/AR solutions), but I can't say Kinect Sports was a critical acclaim and sales success because Kinect itself was the success and KS was bundled (KS2 sold very little in comparison). Still as I said if you consider the cases you pointed as success I can accept that without problem even though I enjoy their NES/SNES/N64 games a much more and don't think they have really aged bad.

1440p is already fairly common on X1X and PS4 Pro and it looks fine. There is also new tech that apparently uses dynamic resolution on areas of the screen that need less detail. Resource efficient ideas can help Lockhart maintain an overall sharp image, atleast less glaring then some would expect compared to more powerful hardware.

Right now, it appears Sony will only have one model of PS5 and affordability is likely a focus. I dont think having 30% less power really matters. It won't make a world of difference. But we will see.

Kinect Sports didnt have any bundling I'm really aware of. No mass bundling at least. Kinect Adventures was bundled with every unit. Kinect Sports 2 sold less, but it seems like every Rare sequel sells less, it was their trend.

1440p internal resolution sure, but it is upscaled to 4k to show on the screen (I have alluded to that), and yes the level of fidelity of PS4Pro/X1X is certainly very good for most people. The problem I have with the strategy people say MS will go for (let's dismiss Lockhart at 1080p) is that a Lockhart at 299 and XSX at 499 competing against PS5 399 with the first being 100 cheaper but less than half power and the other being 30% more powerful for 100 more will make PS5 look like an incredible deal on the middle ground. But sure I can be wrong on it.

If KA was the bundled and KS not them I stand corrected.

Mr Puggsly said:

goopy20 said:

Well, there's no arguing taste, of course. If you love Halo, Gears and Forza and want MS to just stick to these 3 franchises for all eternity, then fine. I'm merely explaining why the vast majority will stick to a Sony console based on the exclusives both companies have launched. It was a huge deal when MS took over Rare but after MS forced them to spend a whole console generation making Kinect shovelware, they are now a mere shell of what they once were. I mean what was the last game Rare made that got decent reviews? 

Not trying to hate on the next gen Xbox because like I said, I think it's great if they will launch something with beastly specs. It's the reason why I loved the original Xbox in the first place. The whole thing about launching a second console sounds pretty terrible, though. The beauty of consoles is that developers can push the hardware to it's upmost limits while getting the best visuals possible on screen. Making all games native 4k and 60 or even 120fps isn't that imo. Basically we would be playing the same games we are playing now but at a higher fps and resolution, which isn't even that noticeable when you're sitting away from a tv. It would be way better if they were still locked at 30fps and 1080p (or 1440p) with a huge boost in overall visual fidelity and ray tracing. If developers would use the cheaper Xbox as the base console, all games on the proper next gen consoles will be seriously hold back because of it.

Hehe, I do like Gears and Halo. It also doesent take a significant amount of time to play them. I would like to see Sony create a good shooter that passes the test of time but it hasnt quite happened yet, period.

Forza has actually evolved significantly. How many other sim racers have turned into critically acclaimed open world games? The Horizon games are likely more popular then the sim games ever were.

I am actually bored talking to you, its just you bitching about Xbox content. The thing is I like Sony and MS for different reasons in regard to 1st party games.

Killzone is fairly competent shooter, but yes Sony doesn't have anything of the appraisal of Halo or Gears exclusive. I don't like FPS but I agree Sony needs one to keep the diversity of offering.