By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer confident after seeing PS5 presentation - Gamelab 2020 interview

 

How do you think MS will perform at the July presentation?

MS will be in a league of its own 5 6.25%
 
MS will do better than the PS5 presentation 14 17.50%
 
MS will do as good as the PS5 presentation 13 16.25%
 
MS will do less well than... 48 60.00%
 
Total:80
kirby007 on 30 June 2020
DonFerrari said:
kirby007 said:
Fun fact even if my tv wouldnt have been 120hz an engine running 120fps would still be better on a 60hz tv

Never tried a 120fps game so I wouldn't know. But if you had felt it is the best way for you that is good, hope more games on console offer you that option.

Honestly i wouldnt worry about it, unless many ps5 games get crossplay with pc



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
goopy20 on 30 June 2020
Machiavellian said:
goopy20 said:

True that, and its exactly why the Series X's May event got so much crap. Everything they showed was targeting 4k/60fps and it didn't leave much room for improving overall fidelity compared to current gen. 

Hmm, I do not remember people complaining about the graphics of those games during that event, instead they mostly complained that there were not actual gameplay which was stated.  The thing about graphics is they are great to show off but if the experience is choppy and not smooth then the experience of actually playing the game can be frustrating.  Targeting a smooth experience is always will be more preferred then graphical fidelity.  In reality when it comes to consoles, people just change their goalpost depending on the console they like the most.  I really see not difference in this thread. I have seen enough console bitch fighting to know that people will champion what their console does the best and crap on the others for what benefit I have no clue.

Just read the comments under the youtube video. People were disappointed because there was so little gameplay and because everything looked like typical games running on a X1X. Nobody's saying fps and resolution aren't important at all, it's just that native 4k and 60fps is way too expensive to aim for by default. Developers always need to make compromises no matter how powerful these next gen consoles may seem. It's either maximum visual fidelity or 4k/60fps, and not both.

Now I've never heard of any game developer saying we're making a 4k/60fps game and then think about what they want to put in their game. Its always the other way around. They try to get their full ambitions of the game running first and think about resolution/fps last. That's the way it should be and why so many Xone games are still running in 720p. When MS says all their games will be 4k/60fps, it just means they're not trying to make visually ambitious games.

Phil Spencer has said that games can't look any better than what we have now and they can only improve on framerate and resolution. I think that's absolute BS as Sony has already shown things that are a true generational leap over what we've seen to date, like the UE5 demo for example running in 30fps and 1440p. But it's not exactly rocket science that it wouldn't have looked as impressive if it was running in 4k/60fps, though. 



ArchangelMadzz on 30 June 2020
sales2099 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Because 4k60 in every game isn't feasible without making a lot of compromises. 

Even a 2080Ti will struggle to max out games at 4k60fps. Maybe the 3080Ti/3090 will be able to do it. But for $500-600 consoles it's not going to happen outside of racing games and FPS games that either aren't as demanding or compromise on visual quality.

If games like AC Valhalla run at 4k/60fps on XSX comparable to PC High/Ultra settings I'll happily eat my words of course.

Sigh, maybe next next gen we will see it standard lol 

Just feel like trying to promise 4k120fps is gonna go the way of cloud computing.

100% have 4k 60fps standard by a comfortable margin where you could really push the quality of games for PS6/XBsomething. But because marketing I have a biggg fear that we'll end up with 8k 30fps next gen... 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

goopy20 on 30 June 2020
DonFerrari said:
kirby007 said:
Fun fact even if my tv wouldnt have been 120hz an engine running 120fps would still be better on a 60hz tv

Never tried a 120fps game so I wouldn't know. But if you had felt it is the best way for you that is good, hope more games on console offer you that option.

120 Fps is seriously overrated and I honestly can't tell the difference. Some pc gamers swear by it for competitive gaming in 1080p, where a tenth of a millisecond delay can sometimes make a difference, though. But for the average console gamers it's pretty useless.



kirby007 on 30 June 2020
goopy20 said:
DonFerrari said:

Never tried a 120fps game so I wouldn't know. But if you had felt it is the best way for you that is good, hope more games on console offer you that option.

120 Fps is seriously overrated and I honestly can't tell the difference. Some pc gamers swear by it for competitive gaming in 1080p, where a tenth of a millisecond delay can sometimes make a difference, though. But for the average console gamers it's pretty useless.

Overrated for you big difference



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
sales2099 on 30 June 2020
goopy20 said:
Machiavellian said:

Hmm, I do not remember people complaining about the graphics of those games during that event, instead they mostly complained that there were not actual gameplay which was stated.  The thing about graphics is they are great to show off but if the experience is choppy and not smooth then the experience of actually playing the game can be frustrating.  Targeting a smooth experience is always will be more preferred then graphical fidelity.  In reality when it comes to consoles, people just change their goalpost depending on the console they like the most.  I really see not difference in this thread. I have seen enough console bitch fighting to know that people will champion what their console does the best and crap on the others for what benefit I have no clue.

Just read the comments under the youtube video. People were disappointed because there was so little gameplay and because everything looked like typical games running on a X1X. Nobody's saying fps and resolution aren't important at all, it's just that native 4k and 60fps is way too expensive to aim for by default. Developers always need to make compromises no matter how powerful these next gen consoles may seem. It's either maximum visual fidelity or 4k/60fps, and not both.

Now I've never heard of any game developer saying we're making a 4k/60fps game and then think about what they want to put in their game. Its always the other way around. They try to get their full ambitions of the game running first and think about resolution/fps last. That's the way it should be and why so many Xone games are still running in 720p. When MS says all their games will be 4k/60fps, it just means they're not trying to make visually ambitious games.

Phil Spencer has said that games can't look any better than what we have now and they can only improve on framerate and resolution. I think that's absolute BS as Sony has already shown things that are a true generational leap over what we've seen to date, like the UE5 demo for example running in 30fps and 1440p. But it's not exactly rocket science that it wouldn't have looked as impressive if it was running in 4k/60fps, though. 

Got a quote? Because I’m pretty sure you only reading what you want to get out of it. I remember it was something like the little things would take precedence like ray tracing, loading, FPS and resolution etc. Of course graphics will be bumped up. I just wanna make sure this is the stance for the next 7 or so years...that pushing resolution/FPS is no longer the agenda. Np (making mental adaptations as we speak for future conversations). 

And about the May event, they were A-AA games at best. Hardly developers with the resources to make the best visually stunning games. This was 3rd party spillover, you can’t seriously compare those games to Horizon 2. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

DonFerrari on 30 June 2020
kirby007 said:
DonFerrari said:

Never tried a 120fps game so I wouldn't know. But if you had felt it is the best way for you that is good, hope more games on console offer you that option.

Honestly i wouldnt worry about it, unless many ps5 games get crossplay with pc

I almost don't play MP games. So that won't be a problem for me. But if my TV was 120fps I would try on games PS5 offer 120fps to see the difference, but probably would return to 30fps



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

goopy20 on 30 June 2020
kirby007 said:
goopy20 said:

120 Fps is seriously overrated and I honestly can't tell the difference. Some pc gamers swear by it for competitive gaming in 1080p, where a tenth of a millisecond delay can sometimes make a difference, though. But for the average console gamers it's pretty useless.

Overrated for you big difference

Overrated for anyone who is not that into competitive gaming, and definitely not worth making a ton of compromises over. 



sales2099 on 30 June 2020
shikamaru317 said:
How did this thread turn into a debate about resolution and FPS? lol

Personally, I tend to care more about resolution and graphics than I care about framerate, I only care about 60 fps on first person shooters, fighters, and sim racers, anything else I'd rather have higher resolution and/or better graphics at 30 fps . 120 fps feels totally pointless to me, I can barely see the difference between 30 and 60 as it is. But I realize that there are many who prefer framerate, so hopefully alot more devs offer performance and graphics/resolution modes on console next-gen, so that people can choose what they want.

In case any mods are watching and wondering the same thing... It comes down to: Will anybody who doesn’t use Xbox as their primary console be impressed if Phil Spencer advertises their July games with 4K/60 FPS (or at close to those benchmarks as possible)? Evidently the answer is “No, 1440p/30 FPS for life”.

Looks like the games themselves will have to impress and not the benchmarks they target. I mean, that’s always the goal but the benchmarks should be the icing on the cake. I like the icing but I guess others don’t want the icing at all (shrugs) 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

chakkra on 30 June 2020
Mordred11 said:

     People who think Microsoft will "do better" with their July presentation are vastly underestimating what Sony did. There is nothing MS can show that will generate more buzz. Maybe only something impossible like GTA6 being time-exclusive for a year. Not happening.
     The PS5 presentation was some avengers endgame levels of buzz, regardless of the 1% of people who thought "it wasn't anything special and that MS can easily do better".

I think the real question is why are people more concerned about who does "better" or who "generate more buzz" in a particular event instead of how many games will each console have in their launch window.