You comparing late gen games to a cross gen window that would only happen in the first 1-2 years of the gen. lol cmon you need some consistency here 

It’s a next gen game changed to fit older hardware. Same as plenty of current gen games ported to Switch. Same as that game you mentioned in your first post.

So why can XGS devs not do the same thing with whatever XSX games they might develop for the first year of next gen? Why can 343 not scale back AI, enemies, break areas up into different levels, scale down resolution, etc. There’s a difference between a developer making multi platform games for MS, Sony, and PC and a developer making exclusive games for Microsoft. Why would MS not want these devs to utilize the hardware they’re going to be trying to sell people on? 

One of these days you guys are really going to have to fill us all in on how MS is supposed to sell a $500+ console with upscale Xbone games as exclusives and a GamePass service full of cheap filler garbage 😆

Oh its part of the argument. Looks like Holly is trying overtime but many in addition to myself are poking more holes then Swiss Cheese in the arguments ;)

But lets say he is right and he can prove cross gen games are held back by the previous gen....that’s where my argument proves it redundant. Because time and time again games in the start of a gen barely unlock the potential that late gen games do. NEVER. BEEN. DONE. 

XSX will have “Xbox” exclusives. And their metascores will speak for themselves I’m confident of it. Lol ya PS5 games will have slightly more potential unlocked at launch year....I’m shivering in fear. 

That depends, because SC is a totally different story, but at the same time it was made insanely obvious that Sony didn't want a repeat of last gen, in terms of their manufacturing costs, and the costs of parts in general, as well as Nintendo just wanting to make the safest bets possible on their HW. I'm surprised you don't (or refuse to acknowledge) notice just how much the big 3 (or at least 2 of them) want to cut corners and save as much as possible, purely just for RoI. I wouldn't say that's a good thing, nor cheer for it, and cheering just for making money, I dunno why on earth you'd do that either (unless you're working for the company and are on their payroll).

Just wanted to make that clear, before things resort to "PC's don't make the money, it's always consoles that do" rhetoric 

By "optimise", you mean increasing what was previously noted as being less, right?. 

Because by next gen, I'd really, really love to not see many cutbacks and more AI, smarter AI even, rather than current gen's version of "optimisation" (which means cutting aspects of a game back, just to run the game semi smoothly). 

Uh, yes it was. Did you not see the Digital Foundry video where they stated that BOTW could have clearly been better had it had a more Switch-centric focus? Or how about all the framerate issues on the Switch version that are also in the Wii U version, despite the Switch being much more powerful? It's funny because I don't think BOTW would have released that late if not for them needing to release it alongside the Switch, but at least day one, it's not like the optimization for Switch was all that great. The biggest difference was just that BOTW ran at 900p on Switch vs Wii U's 720p, but in motion the quality difference is minimal. Even the framerate was nearly a draw, as the way the game was optimized around the different systems resulted in both being worse at certain areas.

No its not part of the argument because nobody is denying that or trying to say that it will impeed xbox after the 1-2 years window. Its the very definition of a strawman, something you believe its being discused because you yourself keep bringing up and you yourself answer.

While I dont know Holly's history From what i have been able to see at least from this thread I can tell thats not true. I doubt any of us can prove anything of the sort as we could never know what devs chose to add or remove from a game or for what reson they chose to do so. But rare chances like theese where devs speak out and tell us exactly what they had to cut out and for why come out and people are still in denial. What holly could do at most is pile up this chances so we have a tally and see what each dev sacrificed and see a pattern. But from what is out already we already know, we knew since the x1 and ps4 came out the cpu was to weak and now they are just garbage compared to everything else. Add to that the SSD and devs will have to sacrifice a lot to for crosgen.  

At underscored: Exactly. Its probably not a big deal. We just dont know, nor can we even picture what changes will there be aside from no load times. So all these mental gymnastics to denie something that we dont even know what will be is just silly. Im glad you can come to terms with it and wait and see if that advantage will be meaningful or not.

Obviously cross gen games are hold back by the weakest link. Just because the early next gen titles don't always deliver, doesn't mean they have to be terrible by default either. Mario 64 was a launch title and so was Halo. Both are considered as some of mankind's greatest achievements at the time. 

Well, yes obviously. Unless games are specifically optimized to work within a certain hardware architecture to take advantage of everything it offers and bybass some of its issues then the longer a console generation goes on the more its going to restrict games that are made for multiple different platforms. This is nothing new or unique for this generation of consoles.

Cutting corners is a way to lower costs which means a product can be sold at a lower price which is good for consumers. Considering 2 out of the 3 console manufacturers are also selling their hardware at a loss to keep prices on a decent level I see no reason not to be happy with that.

It's all about hitting that price sweet spot. What's the point of releasing $800 "future-proof-no-corner-cutting"-consoles when no one is buying them? Less sales, less people being able to play modern games, less game support, less money earned. Is that what you cheer for?

As for the sales part I think I was quite clear. I wasn't talking about F2P, MMORPGs and maybe a few other genres where the majority of profit comes from PC and I didn't say that a game from any other genre can't be profitable on PC.