Xbox Series X's cross-gen approach is robbing players of the next-gen thrill

[DonFerrari]

chakkra said:

DonFerrari said:

Yes zero progress made on the conversation. You know better than the devs.

I think the issue here is that you guys put way to much credit into whatever the devs say. I think that is a terrible mistake because a) they want to sell their games, and b) they will always make excuses to justify not putting things into said games.

Just to give you an example: recently the devs from Scorn and The Medium said they chose the XSX bcuz their "vision" would just not be possible on the X1. Yeah, that was bs. Just like when Obsidian said that Outer Worlds was limited by current hardware, as if there were not many bigger and graphically more complex games out there. Yeah, that was bs too.

Also, I'm here scratching my head trying to remember exactly what gameplay element was present in KZ:Shadowfall that didn't exist in any of the FPS from the gen before.

When it is a consensus from most devs and they were already saying that during this gen that the storage solution limited several of their options, when you see a full GDC presentation done to other devs presenting several examples of choices they were obliged to take because of the storage then it isn't just wanting to sell their games and make excuses.

Would you mind to show your credentials before calling almost all devs of liars, lazy, etc?

It isn't about gameplay element not existing before, but you know what was the main motive behind Knack design? To make the simulation of those several thousando of blocks that make the char (same with the feathers of Trico) and allow it to increase, decrease and move and sure that would possibly be possible on PS3 with major sacrifices. As already said if you cut enough almost anything done today could run on PS1 or PS2 from the gameplay elements, but the shit presentation and framerate you would have would be very bad.

Again keep ignoring devs, not only the ones on reports and interviews but guys like CGI just because you don't want to admit that storage is a bottleneck and limit design or that it was something devs have wanted improved for a long time. If it was unnecessary then why would you think both MS and Sony at the same time and without coordination decide for very good and costly SSD solution? Was it for the giggles? And Sony gone above and beyond to make it to a solution that even in PC would be quite expensive to superate (the number of lines, the priority levels, the speed, the decompression chip, the I/O control and coherence)? If the SSD wouldn't really improve the game design, presentation or easy of development they would put a very simple and barebone SSD with small memory just to cache and use that money to put more GPU.