Forums - Microsoft Discussion - 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 6.58%
 
MS will do better than the PS5 presentation 14 18.42%
 
MS will do as good as the PS5 presentation 13 17.11%
 
MS will do less well than... 44 57.89%
 
Total:76
LudicrousSpeed said:
goopy20 said:

MAybe it was a disgrace on forums or people who watch DF comparison videos. But did people really care that games like Halo 4/5 were 720p? Truth is, loads of people like the idea of 4k, 60fps but once they play a game, they won't be able to tell the difference. Like Phil says, its more a feeling while visual fidelity is something that's instantly noticeable. 

I have played some games in 120fps on my gsync monitor and I honestly couldn't tell the difference. I did notice how my games looked like hot garbage because I had to turn all settings to low to hit that 120fps, though.

goopy20 said:

Okay, then tell me which are the best games you played this gen and how many of them were in 60fps? 

It was routinely discussed here at the start of the gen. You were questioned as to how you could possibly game on a system that played a game at 720 or 900p. And that’s compared to 1080p. Now you’re trying to tell us people don’t care or can’t tell the difference in 4k lol. Why did MicroSony even bother with Scorpio or Pro then? Why are UHDs even a thing? 

Ive played tons of games this gen that are 30 or 60 and higher. But at 60 on my Scorpio I have played Titanfall 2, Horizon 4, FM7, Wolfenstein, the CoD2k20 campaign, Red Faction, Battlefront 2, Doom, Battlefield, Neir, Gears 4/5, Halo MCC/5, Tomb Raider Rise, among many others and not including PC or PS4 games. Plus a lot of Nintendo titles on Switch that I own are 60. Also bear in mind a lot of these games on Scorpio have options to pick between graphics or frame rate and I will pick the frame rate every time because smoother gameplay is the most important. 

I'm sure it was discussed on forums but forums aren't the whole world. Like I said, the average Joe doesn't care, they care about how the game looks and plays and don't watch DF comparison videos. Of course there are people who do care and that's why Sony and MS released the 4k mid-gen consoles. I bought one and I think it was worth it, mostly because I recently bought a 65inch Oled. But the fact remains that not many upgraded because they didn't think a bump in resolution was worth it.

I agree that some genres definitely should be 60fps like I said, mostly racing- and online fps games. But you were talking about single player campaigns and said "give me 60fps campaign over 30 any day of the week, thanks. Much more impressive, much more responsive." So are you saying you weren't impressed with some of the highest rated games of this console generation like RDR2, BOTW, GOW, TLOU2 etc. because they are 30fps?

Last edited by goopy20 - 3 days ago

Around the Network

     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".



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

Shouldn’t bring casuals into this to prove a point. We all know that’s the reason the mid gen console upgrades weren’t widely adopted. Im more curious about the double standards. Ok, people like the graphics that come with 30fps for slow paced games. But how 4K isn’t important anymore? It seemed to matter a lot when PS4 did 1080p and Xbox 1 did 900p. I was actually surprised when I discovered the UE demo was 1440p, felt like it should have been higher. 

Did Xbox game sales tank because they were 900p vs 1080p on ps4? Maybe it mattered a lot on forums but the average Joe probably doesn't even know some games are running at 720p on Xone vs 1080 on ps4.

Like I said, people like the idea of 4k/60fps but in the end they don't care once they see and play the games. If you look at one of the highest rated and visually impressive games like RDR2, it wouldn't have looked the way it did if it was targeting 60fps. Same thing for the UE tech demo. Aiming for 4k and 60fps simply comes at the expense of what developers can put in their games and in reality people care a lot more about the overall visual fidelity. 

MS is making it sound like 60fps is something next gen, while the ps2 had a ton of games that were 60fps already. Ratchet & Clank pops to mind which was 60fps on the ps2 and now we have a ps5 R&C game running in 30fps. It has nothing to do with power, it's a design choice. Developers like Insomniac stopped aiming for 60fps a long, long time ago. They said nobody really cared, because they'll still buy the game and they're not exactly wrong. Its the same thing with native 4k, especially when most people can't even tell the difference when they're playing on a tv.  

It certainly didn’t help when multiplats are 90%+ of a consoles library. Why would you pay more for weaker multiplats? We aren’t the average Joe, we are the forum dwellers that put more thought in our hobby. I don’t care what they think, tell me what you personally think. In this regard I simply can’t overlook the changing priorities between gens.

For slow paced 3rd person games sure I see the value in capping at 30. But at least with next gen 4K should a target. Being ok with less is changing the narrative and/or settling for less in my opinion. Personally I’m excited to see 4K/60  be a standard for next gen for Xbox. Makes me feel like we getting the next step.

But even then you have a game like Gears 5 which was 60fps and looked gorgeous. Played butter smooth and had some very beautiful set pieces and vistas. I will say that other people mentioned an option of choosing 4K/30 FPS or Dynamic/60 FPS is a good idea and that should be a staple. Hellblade was one such game that offered it. 

For other genres it’s night and day. Halo 5 and MCC compared to the 360 Halos at 30fps....damn I feel like I was playing gimped versions compared to 60fps. Same goes for fighters and racers. I think better gameplay takes priority over slightly better visuals. We aren’t casuals, we should have discerning tastes that rise above the masses need for purdy pictures. 

Point being of a dev can make a next gen game look beautiful and target 4K/60 FPS, that would be ideal right? Of course it would be. 



 

 

Seems like Ludicrous suffers a special case of amnesia from when he changed account.
Because on VGC during the 7th gen, a lot of Xbox fans (that left the forum when X1 didn't put great sales) during the whole gen we had DF analysis between PS3 and X360 and the constant X360 is stronger because of a lot smaller difference in pixel and framerate (that was due to devs not knowing how to optmize for PS3). Then the same Xbox fans (while they didn't left) started to say that there was no noticeable difference between 720p to 1080p (even if they saw a big difference between 576p and 600p last gen, guessing random numbers), didn't ever saw he challenging that though.



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

sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

Did Xbox game sales tank because they were 900p vs 1080p on ps4? Maybe it mattered a lot on forums but the average Joe probably doesn't even know some games are running at 720p on Xone vs 1080 on ps4.

Like I said, people like the idea of 4k/60fps but in the end they don't care once they see and play the games. If you look at one of the highest rated and visually impressive games like RDR2, it wouldn't have looked the way it did if it was targeting 60fps. Same thing for the UE tech demo. Aiming for 4k and 60fps simply comes at the expense of what developers can put in their games and in reality people care a lot more about the overall visual fidelity. 

MS is making it sound like 60fps is something next gen, while the ps2 had a ton of games that were 60fps already. Ratchet & Clank pops to mind which was 60fps on the ps2 and now we have a ps5 R&C game running in 30fps. It has nothing to do with power, it's a design choice. Developers like Insomniac stopped aiming for 60fps a long, long time ago. They said nobody really cared, because they'll still buy the game and they're not exactly wrong. Its the same thing with native 4k, especially when most people can't even tell the difference when they're playing on a tv.  

It certainly didn’t help when multiplats are 90%+ of a consoles library. Why would you pay more for weaker multiplats? We aren’t the average Joe, we are the forum dwellers that put more thought in our hobby. I don’t care what they think, tell me what you personally think. In this regard I simply can’t overlook the changing priorities between gens.

For slow paced 3rd person games sure I see the value in capping at 30. But at least with next gen 4K should a target. Being ok with less is changing the narrative and/or settling for less in my opinion. Personally I’m excited to see 4K/60  be a standard for next gen for Xbox. Makes me feel like we getting the next step.

But even then you have a game like Gears 5 which was 60fps and looked gorgeous. Played butter smooth and had some very beautiful set pieces and vistas. I will say that other people mentioned an option of choosing 4K/30 FPS or Dynamic/60 FPS is a good idea and that should be a staple. Hellblade was one such game that offered it. 

For other genres it’s night and day. Halo 5 and MCC compared to the 360 Halos at 30fps....damn I feel like I was playing gimped versions compared to 60fps. Same goes for fighters and racers. I think better gameplay takes priority over slightly better visuals. We aren’t casuals, we should have discerning tastes that rise above the masses need for purdy pictures. 

Point being of a dev can make a next gen game look beautiful and target 4K/60 FPS, that would be ideal right? Of course it would be. 

If you want to have 4k60fps as standard and if MS follows that you better be ready to have XSX games looking substantially inferior to the ones on PS5 when a dev like ND decides to push the envelope to the limit and choose 1440p30fps, because XSX doesn't have that much higher power to have better visuals while doing twice framerate and twice pixel count.



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

Around the Network
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".

See that’s my concern that many gamers who use Ps as their primary console won’t be impressed no matter what. The brand power is so strong that ultimately it comes down to “Sony good Ms bad”. 

For one if anything was multiplat I don’t think it’s fair to give Sony credit for that if Series X can play them too.

Otherwise their big guns can be summed up as Horizon, Spiderman MM, Ratchet, GT7, Demon Souls, Returnal. 6 games. Smaller games like Sackboy and Destruction All Stars. 2 there so that’s 8. I’ll give them credit in that waiting this long makes it all announced at once a pretty amazing experience. No wonder it was such a hit.

That said MS has been announcing games all year. Halo Infinite, Hellblade 2, Everwild, Grounded, Project Mara. That’s 5 games to Sony’s 8 and their July conference didn’t even happen yet. Allready we know Forza 8 is the answer to GT7. I’m going to pay very close attention to the reactions on here/Twitter. Not to games like Halo and Forza, figure people are more interested in AAA games Xbox doesn’t normally do. In that regard well see where people stand. 



 

 

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

It certainly didn’t help when multiplats are 90%+ of a consoles library. Why would you pay more for weaker multiplats? We aren’t the average Joe, we are the forum dwellers that put more thought in our hobby. I don’t care what they think, tell me what you personally think. In this regard I simply can’t overlook the changing priorities between gens.

For slow paced 3rd person games sure I see the value in capping at 30. But at least with next gen 4K should a target. Being ok with less is changing the narrative and/or settling for less in my opinion. Personally I’m excited to see 4K/60  be a standard for next gen for Xbox. Makes me feel like we getting the next step.

But even then you have a game like Gears 5 which was 60fps and looked gorgeous. Played butter smooth and had some very beautiful set pieces and vistas. I will say that other people mentioned an option of choosing 4K/30 FPS or Dynamic/60 FPS is a good idea and that should be a staple. Hellblade was one such game that offered it. 

For other genres it’s night and day. Halo 5 and MCC compared to the 360 Halos at 30fps....damn I feel like I was playing gimped versions compared to 60fps. Same goes for fighters and racers. I think better gameplay takes priority over slightly better visuals. We aren’t casuals, we should have discerning tastes that rise above the masses need for purdy pictures. 

Point being of a dev can make a next gen game look beautiful and target 4K/60 FPS, that would be ideal right? Of course it would be. 

If you want to have 4k60fps as standard and if MS follows that you better be ready to have XSX games looking substantially inferior to the ones on PS5 when a dev like ND decides to push the envelope to the limit and choose 1440p30fps, because XSX doesn't have that much higher power to have better visuals while doing twice framerate and twice pixel count.

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. 



DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

It certainly didn’t help when multiplats are 90%+ of a consoles library. Why would you pay more for weaker multiplats? We aren’t the average Joe, we are the forum dwellers that put more thought in our hobby. I don’t care what they think, tell me what you personally think. In this regard I simply can’t overlook the changing priorities between gens.

For slow paced 3rd person games sure I see the value in capping at 30. But at least with next gen 4K should a target. Being ok with less is changing the narrative and/or settling for less in my opinion. Personally I’m excited to see 4K/60  be a standard for next gen for Xbox. Makes me feel like we getting the next step.

But even then you have a game like Gears 5 which was 60fps and looked gorgeous. Played butter smooth and had some very beautiful set pieces and vistas. I will say that other people mentioned an option of choosing 4K/30 FPS or Dynamic/60 FPS is a good idea and that should be a staple. Hellblade was one such game that offered it. 

For other genres it’s night and day. Halo 5 and MCC compared to the 360 Halos at 30fps....damn I feel like I was playing gimped versions compared to 60fps. Same goes for fighters and racers. I think better gameplay takes priority over slightly better visuals. We aren’t casuals, we should have discerning tastes that rise above the masses need for purdy pictures. 

Point being of a dev can make a next gen game look beautiful and target 4K/60 FPS, that would be ideal right? Of course it would be. 

If you want to have 4k60fps as standard and if MS follows that you better be ready to have XSX games looking substantially inferior to the ones on PS5 when a dev like ND decides to push the envelope to the limit and choose 1440p30fps, because XSX doesn't have that much higher power to have better visuals while doing twice framerate and twice pixel count.

I think you are exaggerating. As long as they look better then the best of the best this gen then it’s a upgrade. Not like we gonna get 360 levels of graphics to hit those benchmarks. Like I said of Gears 5 looks like one of the best games this gen at 60fps then I am hopeful. 



 

 

sales2099 said:
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".

See that’s my concern that many gamers who use Ps as their primary console won’t be impressed no matter what. The brand power is so strong that ultimately it comes down to “Sony good Ms bad”. 

For one if anything was multiplat I don’t think it’s fair to give Sony credit for that if Series X can play them too.

Otherwise their big guns can be summed up as Horizon, Spiderman MM, Ratchet, GT7, Demon Souls, Returnal. 6 games. Smaller games like Sackboy and Destruction All Stars. 2 there so that’s 8. I’ll give them credit in that waiting this long makes it all announced at once a pretty amazing experience. No wonder it was such a hit.

That said MS has been announcing games all year. Halo Infinite, Hellblade 2, Everwild, Grounded, Project Mara. That’s 5 games to Sony’s 8 and their July conference didn’t even happen yet. Allready we know Forza 8 is the answer to GT7. I’m going to pay very close attention to the reactions on here/Twitter. Not to games like Halo and Forza, figure people are more interested in AAA games Xbox doesn’t normally do. In that regard well see where people stand. 

You missed Astro's Playroom wink wink.

goopy20 said:
DonFerrari said:

If you want to have 4k60fps as standard and if MS follows that you better be ready to have XSX games looking substantially inferior to the ones on PS5 when a dev like ND decides to push the envelope to the limit and choose 1440p30fps, because XSX doesn't have that much higher power to have better visuals while doing twice framerate and twice pixel count.

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. 

I think it have more to do with the dev competency than the target resolution.

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

If you want to have 4k60fps as standard and if MS follows that you better be ready to have XSX games looking substantially inferior to the ones on PS5 when a dev like ND decides to push the envelope to the limit and choose 1440p30fps, because XSX doesn't have that much higher power to have better visuals while doing twice framerate and twice pixel count.

I think you are exaggerating. As long as they look better then the best of the best this gen then it’s a upgrade. Not like we gonna get 360 levels of graphics to hit those benchmarks. Like I said of Gears 5 looks like one of the best games this gen at 60fps then I am hopeful. 

I'm sure it will be an upgrade, no doubts about that. What I am saying is when comparing both PS5 and XSX. If MS games are 4k60fps the overall graphical will be inferior on looks compared to a 1440p (upscalled with temporal reconstruction) and 30fps because XSX is only 10-20% stronger, so it can't really have twice the pixels, twice the framerate and still have more effects and other elements.

I used to think the resolution was the most important aspect, but after several CGI threads I saw other important aspects for IQ and seem cases where it is good to sacrifice resolution to get better IQ. No doubt that for multiplats if both system devs choose same pixel count and framerate XSX have the potential to look better. But on exclusives, and that is were Sony have been showing better graphics since PS3, if they go for lower framerate and pixel count they will have better looking games. Will that be noticeable enough for most people? Not sure. Will it be more important than 60fps? For some yes, for others nope. But for my taste it probably aligns better and for yours Xbox will have it better.



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

I wonder if those banging on about native 4K 60 fps having to be the standard, also only watch movies and tv shows on 4K blu-ray with high end frame interpolation. Streaming 4K is worse than 1440p checkerboarded, so must be unwatchable.

I stuck with blu-ray, simply don't see the benefits of 4K from the couch. Blu-ray does look significantly better than 1080p streaming, often on par with 4K streaming yet as long as you don't pause the movie and walk up to the screen to count the pixels, I don't notice.

60fps vs 30fps, another 'waste' for many titles. Stability and low input lag is more important than actual frame count. But for some genres, shooters, racing, VR, 60 fps is definitely better. Flight simulator and Age of Empires 4 could be 20 fps for all I care.

Anyway I wonder what happens when Lockhart becomes the majority console. The pro versions didn't catch on this gen, so chances are the cheaper console will become the dominant one and will also become the one to develop for, leaving the XSX with options to run the same game in quality mode native 4K, or performance mode 60fps or 120fps. Which is what a lot of people seem to want anyway, but in the end games will be made for a 4tf console and 7.5GB ram.