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 6.49%
 
MS will do better than the PS5 presentation 14 18.18%
 
MS will do as good as the PS5 presentation 13 16.88%
 
MS will do less well than... 45 58.44%
 
Total:77
padib said:

Guys, let's please keep it civil.

About the question of generational leap, the interview shows that the delta will be smaller regarding visual performances and regarding what we will be able to do graphically this gen versus last gen, relative to the jump from 2D to 3D and then moving forward in history. Phil says that this may be depressing to some, in the condition that they don't understand the next paragraph.

The small differences we will see will now melt the 4th wall, and increase the immersion, making games life-like. This is anything but depressing. The improvements that increase the immersion, per Phil, are:
- High framerate
- Low input latency
- Drastically reduced load times
- Increased storyteller (dev) empowerment, probably via the dev tools and new HW capabilities
- I'll personally add here the non-specified but obvious gain in graphical performance that MS invested a lot of R&D money into, so I'll let the money talk on this point. Even if the delta is small to Phil, it's still a delta.

This comes from video 9:15 - 11:45

Since we are waiting for the presentation by MS this month, I'll use a Sony game to help breathe depth into what Phil means by small graphical delta and increased immersion, when it comes to graphics (which he most likely assumes we understand from his words and from what XsX will be, in terms of raw specs).

https://youtu.be/Rxx-OoPU8Ds

The video mentions that the original games were already gorgeous on the Decima engine, but lacked some physical capabilities due to the limited CPU & GPU (esp. CPU). So, even if the next gen games look graphically not so much of a leap from this gen, the effects that the new HW and engines allow will increase immersion in a significant way, by making the overall presentation more life-like.

Well, Phil did say it may be depressing to some, and maybe I'm just one of them. Phil talks like a used car salesman but with melting that 4th wall he's still saying higher res, better load times and input latency are what he feels will be the major differences between current- and last gen. He also mentions increased story telling which at least is something to get a bit excited about. 

The problem is that you have to practically analyze whatever Phil is saying to get something positive out of it in regards to pushing next gen boundaries. That is why I seem to upset some people who think I'm intentionally twisting words and have some kind of agenda. Truth is that he's either being brutally honest and he's a terrible sales person OR... he's being as political correct as possible because he knows their cross platform strategy puts Series X is a difficult spot to really flex those next gen muscles. 

Sony is doing the exact opposite and is constantly telling us how their SSD is God's gift to mankind that will revolutionize gaming as we know it. Now maybe they are overselling it and I should temper my expectations. But I would rather have them over-hyping things with crazy footage from games that never even get released or 6 years later, than getting less and less excited whenever I read a Phil Spencer interview. 

MS totally got me when they announced a 12Tflops console, and I still think those specs are insane. But after that all we've been hearing is things like; no next gen exclusives, them not wanting to be in a platform war with Sony, Smart Delivery, Optimized for Series X logo's, a 4Tflops Lockhart and how framerates/resolution are going to be biggest differences between current and next gen. Its almost as if they're trying to sell us a Xbox One X 2.0 instead of a next gen console that typically allows for completely new experiences, not possible on current gen.

Last edited by goopy20 - on 02 July 2020

Around the Network
goopy20 said:

Well, Phil did say it may be depressing to some, and maybe I'm just one of them. Phil talks like a used car salesman but with melting that 4th wall he's still saying higher res, better load times and input latency are what he feels will be the major differences between current- and last gen. He also mentions increased story telling which at least is something to get a bit excited about. 

The problem is that you have practically analyze whatever Phil is saying to get something positive out of it in regards to pushing next gen boundaries. Either he's being brutally honest and he's a terrible sales person or... he's being as political correct as possible because he knows their cross platform strategy puts Series X is a difficult spot to really flex those next gen muscles. 

Sony is doing the exact opposite and are telling us how their SSD is God's gift to mankind that will revolutionize gaming as we know it. Now maybe they are overselling it and I should temper my expectations from Sony. But I would rather have them overhyping things with crazy footage from games that never even get released or 6 years later, than getting less and less excited whenever I read a Phil Spencer interview. 

MS totally got me when they announced a 12Tflops console, and I still think the raw specs are insane. But after that all we've been hearing is things like; no next gen exclusives, Smart Delivery, Optimized for Series X logo's and how framerates/resolution are going to be biggest differences between current and next gen. Its almost as if they're trying to sell us a X1X 2.0 instead of a next gen console that allows for completely new experiences, not possible before on current gen.

I think you under-appreciate him. Here are things I really like about him:

  • He doesn't tend to exaggerate or inflate the capabilities of what they are doing or of the console
  • He cares about the overall delivery and the game experience
  • He wants to make a great product
  • He wants to drive his team in a player-driven direction, he is the icon for the new team at MS
  • He is giving 40-minute interviews from his home

You will get a presentation from Xbox in a few weeks. Be patient.

Also, I much prefer a company that discusses things that encourage a better industry and experience than a company that just boasts about itself. Right now we are comparing MS talk to Sony talk. I can tell you that Sony is most often, in my point of view, trying to create inflated hype. In the opposite, MS is staying chill and just being confident. They did their work, now they'll go to bat. I like that mentality.

As for "no next gen exclusives", you really need to adjust your visor. You need to know that MS has purchased a lot of studios that are hard at work on experiences that leverage the XsX. As you mentioned, we saw that MS has a logo to highlight games that were optimized for the new console. This means that, while they are going strong on smart delivery and allowing people to play the games on as broad a range of platforms as possible, they are dedicated to maximizing the use of the new hardware. So in my opinion you really need to understand the subtleties here, and not jump to conclusions.

Edit: I think you should also use another term than "used car salesman". I think personally that it's disrespectful to him, to the industry and to xbox fans. You should be more respectful imho, especially given his care for video games.

Last edited by padib - on 02 July 2020

Sigh....among other things said, if I were to say PS5 is little more then a PS4 Pro 2.0 given all we know, CGIs mailbox would have a dozen report notifications within the hour lol. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 02 July 2020

 

 

Dulfite said:
DonFerrari said:

If you don't have much interest in graphics and are interested in Nintendo games it is quite easy to see why you wouldn't be much interested in the games show on Sony show.

That response has nothing to do with what I just said. I'm very much interested in new, AAA, FULL FLEDGED exclusive games coming to any system, and I was basing my purchasing decision between Series X and PS5 on who had more of those. Of course I'll continue to buy Nintendo hardware and games, but for the first time since the 360 I will also be buying a second device from either Sony or MS. Based on what I require in terms of games, MS is winning my purchase as of this point. Miles Morales isn't a full fledged game. Neither is Zero Dawn expansion, from what I've read. Where are Sony's exclusive full fledged AAA brand new games at other than Rachet and Clank? 

I'm not talking about AA, or ports, or dlc experiences, or third party games, or timed exclusives. None of those will make me buy a system.

If you base your purchase on AAA games, then you have a PS4 and will buy a PS5. Because third party games will be on both and first party games Sony have been beating MS since 7th gen.

Horizon 2 isn't an expansion, it is a full game. And Miles Morales if is as promissed akin to Lost Legacy then its duration is greater than several AAA games and production values/graphics are of AAA.



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

CGI-Quality said:
shikamaru317 said:

I also had Bright Memory infinite on my cross-gen looking list, it looks good, especially for a 1 developer game, but it's not up to par with my expectations for a generational leap.

I'm kind of surprised you think Scorn looks cross-gen though. To my eyes at least, it seems like a pretty considerable leap in graphical fidelity compared to current gen horror games, even the AAA ones like Res 2 Remake, even though Ebb Software is less than 20 people I think. It definitely looked better graphically than the other horror game on Xbox's May show, Bloober Team's The Medium. It even looks a bit better than Res 8 imo, which according to leakers was originally cross-gen but had PS4/XB1 support dropped earlier this year. 

Considering that Res 8 probably has like 200 more devs working on it than Scorn, that's a pretty impressive feat of programming imo. 

Because I've had Scorn on my Steam Wishlist for three years now and it doesn't look considerably better than the best games of this gen (Metro eats it for breakfast and it actually looks considerably worse than Village). Good looking, yes, but not a leap-in-graphical-fidelity-from-what-was-there-before good looking.

I have to agree with CGI on this one for scorn.  The Trailer looks great but there is a gameplay video on Youtube and the game doesn't look as impressive as the trailer.  It still looks good but not on that next level type hype train.



Around the Network
sales2099 said:

The FPS comes down to the culture difference between our platforms. Sony likes their “third person single player story driven action adventure” games at 30fps because it works. Graphics can be pushed and it’s slow paced enough that it’s more then enough to experience properly. Xbox specializes in shooters, racers and multiplayer games. In that regard 60 FPS is a game changer. Now when MS starts to make more of their own 3rd person titles, I would hope we at least get the option, like Hellblade gave us.

I also remember playing Halo 5 at launch with sub 1080p and it was jarring. Since the 4K update I can’t imagine Halo being less now. Crisp picture at all times. Same goes for 60fps as opposed to 30. Just saying let’s try to empathize with each other because for us, 4K/60 is very much part of what makes Xbox games next gen. Also can’t blame Ms for targeting these benchmarks when they were ridiculed by gamers for not prioritizing resolutions at the start of the gen.

Otherwise it’s just silly to say Series X games won’t look next gen compared to Xbox One games. Flight Simulator, nuff said. Of course they will. And it’s wrong to see those A-AA games in the May event and hold them to the same standard as graphic powerhouses like The Coalition and Turn 10 for example.

We aren’t the casuals who make snap judgments at the first thing we see, were supposed to be above that and be a little more critical. That’s why we are here. MS made a mistake opening with smaller budget 3rd party games, and you know that. So maybe wait for their real show and not take as much advantage of their one misstep this year. 

Flight simulator will be much better on PC though, flight stick and keyboard or VR to operate the instrument panels. 60fps is also not needed for flight sims, SSD and lots of ram are though. I had fsx running at target 18 fps so it could keep up loading/generating in detail while flying. Actually it depends how you run it, it will have the option to either pre-download detailed real world data for the region you want to fly in which taxes (and fills) the SSD, or add in procedural detail on top of coarser real world data which taxes the CPU and RAM. Hence I would prefer a streaming option so you'll always have up to date real world data at the best detail level.

Btw I don't think fps comes down to culture difference, that's just nonsense. Shooters, racers and multiplayer are played just as much on Sony consoles. GT Sport is still much bigger than Forza while Forza Horizon runs at 30 fps... Plus Sony is the one that invested in VR which has runs everything at minimum 60 fps.

Remember that when ps3 and 360 launched, 1080p was supposed to be the new target. That became 720p to sub 720p throughout the gen, so no wonder people were expecting 1080p to be standard this gen. 4K has only begun with the pro consoles, or rather only with the XBox One X. Native 4K as a standard next gen is premature and likely skewed by NA being ahead in 4K adoption rates

Never mind the size/distance ratio making native 4K overkill for most of the population.

Then there's the fact that 1080p to 4K upscaling is a simple doubling while 720p to 1080p up-scaling leaves plenty artifacts, 1.5x every pixel. Scaling 1440p down to 1080p (the way most people still play their games) has very good results, while scaling 1440p up to 4K also works much better than 720p to 1080p, more data to work with, higher dpi, better results.

There's your difference for the complaints at the start of the gen for not hitting 1080p.

I actually went down in screen size in the jump to 4K HDR. I played the 360/ps3 and first couple years this gen on a 1080p projector with 92" screen. I haven't bothered upgrading to a 4K projector since they're just not very good at HDR or contrast in general, unless maybe you're willing to spend 60K or more on a high end laser projector. So now I'm down to 65" but with 4 times the pixels and yummy HDR visuals, high contrast and true blacks. So yep, sub 1080p was pretty jarring on a 92" screen. Sub 4K on a 65", can't tell the difference.

Anyway, native 4K for next gen is a waste of GPU resources imo. Perhaps I'll think differently when I have a 100" tv (and a divorce) yet for now I'm happy with 65" of greatness. VR will provide to true big screen with far better immersion. Screen size does matter when it comes to racing. I am faster and more consistent on the projector and faster and more consistent again with PSVR despite the woeful resolution. It's amazing how much your peripheral vision helps, alas a 100" tv is not practical nor affordable.



sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

I agree that 4k/30fps should be doable and I'm sure many games on ps5 will target it. It's just that some of their studios known for pushing visuals will probably go for the best balance and opt for 1440p. Sony isn't really talking about 1440p as the holy grail, they're just not saying much about framerates and resolution at all and let their games do the talking. 

MS is the one that's constantly mentioning their 4k/60fps or even 120fps. 

Well glad you agree 4K/30 FPS isn’t impossible and is more then doable. It should be the standard next gen imo. If 1440p is the standard then PS5 has more in common with Lockhart then Series X. Let that sink in....hopefully that won’t be the case. Think we also agree 60 FPS only benefits certain genres.

And I’ll say again Flight SIM 2020 is proof Xbox doing things that can all ready be described as next gen no question. 

Tell me you are joking. The fact of a game being 1440p on PS5 doesn't make it closer to Lockhart.

That is the same silly reasoning Phill used to say PS4Pro was competing with X1 while X1X was miles ahead.

Since some X1X games render in 4k30fps and AC Valhalla runned 4k30fps on May show are you going to say XSX is equal to X1X? Then why are we getting new systems?

You already admitted to not know on the subject. So sacrificing pixels for better and more advanced graphics doesn't make PS5 less powerful or closer to Lockhart.



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

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

Well glad you agree 4K/30 FPS isn’t impossible and is more then doable. It should be the standard next gen imo. If 1440p is the standard then PS5 has more in common with Lockhart then Series X. Let that sink in....hopefully that won’t be the case. Think we also agree 60 FPS only benefits certain genres.

And I’ll say again Flight SIM 2020 is proof Xbox doing things that can all ready be described as next gen no question. 

Tell me you are joking. The fact of a game being 1440p on PS5 doesn't make it closer to Lockhart.

That is the same silly reasoning Phill used to say PS4Pro was competing with X1 while X1X was miles ahead.

Since some X1X games render in 4k30fps and AC Valhalla runned 4k30fps on May show are you going to say XSX is equal to X1X? Then why are we getting new systems?

You already admitted to not know on the subject. So sacrificing pixels for better and more advanced graphics doesn't make PS5 less powerful or closer to Lockhart.

It was a joke but also to make a point. From a purely resolution point of view. Lockhart is supposed to target 1080p-1440p and Series X 4k. 

If Ubisoft won’t put in the effort that’s a shame but I know it isn’t the problem on the hardware end. The game better look gorgeous if they keeping the same resolution and frames. 

If games are 30fps then 4k should the standard. If not what are we even doing let’s all just get Lockharts and use Xcloud to stream everything. 

Edit: Guess resolution matters to me. 4K should be a staple next gen if the games are 30fps 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 02 July 2020

 

 

SvennoJ said:
sales2099 said:

The FPS comes down to the culture difference between our platforms. Sony likes their “third person single player story driven action adventure” games at 30fps because it works. Graphics can be pushed and it’s slow paced enough that it’s more then enough to experience properly. Xbox specializes in shooters, racers and multiplayer games. In that regard 60 FPS is a game changer. Now when MS starts to make more of their own 3rd person titles, I would hope we at least get the option, like Hellblade gave us.

I also remember playing Halo 5 at launch with sub 1080p and it was jarring. Since the 4K update I can’t imagine Halo being less now. Crisp picture at all times. Same goes for 60fps as opposed to 30. Just saying let’s try to empathize with each other because for us, 4K/60 is very much part of what makes Xbox games next gen. Also can’t blame Ms for targeting these benchmarks when they were ridiculed by gamers for not prioritizing resolutions at the start of the gen.

Otherwise it’s just silly to say Series X games won’t look next gen compared to Xbox One games. Flight Simulator, nuff said. Of course they will. And it’s wrong to see those A-AA games in the May event and hold them to the same standard as graphic powerhouses like The Coalition and Turn 10 for example.

We aren’t the casuals who make snap judgments at the first thing we see, were supposed to be above that and be a little more critical. That’s why we are here. MS made a mistake opening with smaller budget 3rd party games, and you know that. So maybe wait for their real show and not take as much advantage of their one misstep this year. 

Flight simulator will be much better on PC though, flight stick and keyboard or VR to operate the instrument panels. 60fps is also not needed for flight sims, SSD and lots of ram are though. I had fsx running at target 18 fps so it could keep up loading/generating in detail while flying. Actually it depends how you run it, it will have the option to either pre-download detailed real world data for the region you want to fly in which taxes (and fills) the SSD, or add in procedural detail on top of coarser real world data which taxes the CPU and RAM. Hence I would prefer a streaming option so you'll always have up to date real world data at the best detail level.

Btw I don't think fps comes down to culture difference, that's just nonsense. Shooters, racers and multiplayer are played just as much on Sony consoles. GT Sport is still much bigger than Forza while Forza Horizon runs at 30 fps... Plus Sony is the one that invested in VR which has runs everything at minimum 60 fps.

Remember that when ps3 and 360 launched, 1080p was supposed to be the new target. That became 720p to sub 720p throughout the gen, so no wonder people were expecting 1080p to be standard this gen. 4K has only begun with the pro consoles, or rather only with the XBox One X. Native 4K as a standard next gen is premature and likely skewed by NA being ahead in 4K adoption rates

Never mind the size/distance ratio making native 4K overkill for most of the population.

Then there's the fact that 1080p to 4K upscaling is a simple doubling while 720p to 1080p up-scaling leaves plenty artifacts, 1.5x every pixel. Scaling 1440p down to 1080p (the way most people still play their games) has very good results, while scaling 1440p up to 4K also works much better than 720p to 1080p, more data to work with, higher dpi, better results.

There's your difference for the complaints at the start of the gen for not hitting 1080p.

I actually went down in screen size in the jump to 4K HDR. I played the 360/ps3 and first couple years this gen on a 1080p projector with 92" screen. I haven't bothered upgrading to a 4K projector since they're just not very good at HDR or contrast in general, unless maybe you're willing to spend 60K or more on a high end laser projector. So now I'm down to 65" but with 4 times the pixels and yummy HDR visuals, high contrast and true blacks. So yep, sub 1080p was pretty jarring on a 92" screen. Sub 4K on a 65", can't tell the difference.

Anyway, native 4K for next gen is a waste of GPU resources imo. Perhaps I'll think differently when I have a 100" tv (and a divorce) yet for now I'm happy with 65" of greatness. VR will provide to true big screen with far better immersion. Screen size does matter when it comes to racing. I am faster and more consistent on the projector and faster and more consistent again with PSVR despite the woeful resolution. It's amazing how much your peripheral vision helps, alas a 100" tv is not practical nor affordable.

Remember though, Xbox's clearly strongest market is NA. So, if the adoption rate is ~50% there, and these of the 50% are actually the same as those who are expected to upgrade their Xbox, then having 4K ready from the get-go is the farthest thing from overkill, it's actually perfectly logical.

As for the distance to screen size ratio, what your post tells me is that this graphical race on consoles, unless you're gaming on anything greater than 65", will not help you see details that are only truly visible in 4k, such as vellus hairs or the insane density of polygons that the new consoles will offer. So, it is overkill to offer such power in consoles when only on PCs are we sitting right in from of the screen, or with VR like you mentioned. But I doubt that's really what you meant to imply. Show me that you can harmonize these two contrasting implications, I'd be very interested to hear your take.

As for VR, I'm pretty sure the adoption rate for VR is even much lower than 4k, internationally.



sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Tell me you are joking. The fact of a game being 1440p on PS5 doesn't make it closer to Lockhart.

That is the same silly reasoning Phill used to say PS4Pro was competing with X1 while X1X was miles ahead.

Since some X1X games render in 4k30fps and AC Valhalla runned 4k30fps on May show are you going to say XSX is equal to X1X? Then why are we getting new systems?

You already admitted to not know on the subject. So sacrificing pixels for better and more advanced graphics doesn't make PS5 less powerful or closer to Lockhart.

It was a joke but also to make a point. From a purely resolution point of view. Lockhart is supposed to target 1080p-1440p and Series X 4k. 

If Ubisoft won’t put in the effort that’s a shame but I know it isn’t the problem on the hardware end. 

If games are 30fps then 4k should the standard. If not what are we even doing let’s all just get Lockharts and use Xcloud to stream everything. 

Edit: Guess resolution matters to me. 4K should be a staple next gen if the games are 30fps 

Well no problem, you are entitled to being wrong. Are you going to attack XSX when the first non 4k game shows up?



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