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 6.25%
 
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
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

That is the thing, it can't. I already said to you, you will need roughly twice the power to go from 1440p to 4k and also twice the power to go from 30 to 60fps. XSX have 10-20% power advantage (more precise numbers we will only know very well into the gen). So if MS stick to 4k60fps they'll have to sacrifice a lot in other aspects of the game versus a 1440p30fps game on PS5.

Isn’t 4K twice of 1080p? 1440p is like the half way point more or less right? I hear 20-30% when the PS5 isn’t over clocking. Unless it’s overclocking 100% the time it’s not overclocking it’s just....clocking. 

My dumbing down aside lol, I guess this is gonna be a case by case basis. 

Nope. 1080p is half 4k per axis, so it is 1/4 of the pixels.

Tflop is just one aspect and not even the most thrustworthy one. And on that I think the difference is 18%. So overall the system could be on that range of 10-20% perhaps more, but we will only know when we have games out to compare.

From Mark Cerny PS5 will be able to keep the maximum clock for as long as the dev request it.

So If a game on PS5 is 1440p30fps for it to even be 4k30fps on XSX it would need cuts in several other aspects, for 60fps even more. Now if both are rendered at the same pixel count and framerate then that power discrepancy in favor of Series X can be used on some image quality aspects (that I wasn't sure until Pema said them) that can be quite usefull. That is the reason I told you that sometimes you can get better overall image quality internally rendering at 1440 and time reconstructing to 4k than rendering nativelly in 4k because the power saved could be used to stuff more impactfull.

Were you able to see the DF video I told you?



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
Ryuu96 said:
DonFerrari said:

The problem was when zero and sales suggested Lockhart as the lead platform and where MS would concentrate their sales with Series X being just their premium console. If that was truly to happen then most games would more likely be designed to it and then improved for Series X, that could really lead to constrains in the scope for the game.

Personally I think Xbox's top studios (Playground, 343, The Coalition, etc) will target Series X as the lead platform and port down, Playground did it with One X to One and I believe The Coalition did it as well but I'm not 100% sure.

Lockhart will likely be where most the sales come from Tbh given the price difference might be pretty big, who knows but I don't think that means Xbox's studios will necessarily design their games around Lockhart - Developers want the best for their games too.

I also don't think Lockhart will hold back Series X all that much, I try to stay out of tech discussions but folk that know better than me say the same, at the very least it is a substantial upgrade from One X and will still feel next gen with stuff like SSD combined with improved CPU/GPU/RAM, etc.

I'll wait and see (I do think they should drop Xbox One ASAP though, my personal theory is they will drop it when xCloud launches).

-

Brad Sams take on it as well.

"One of the misconceptions about Lockhart is that it is going to hold back next-generation games. It’s a valid concern and the idea sprung up about a year ago when details were murky about the path ahead for the next generation consoles. Specifically, developers were not fully versed in how development (or profiling as it is now called) was going to actually work on the hardware which resulted in myself, and others, hearing mixed messaging from those briefed early on the plans.

As we have learned more during the past year, those concerns have faded as Microsoft has built a strategy of using the same base components across both devices (like Raytracing support and CPU specs) that should make it easier for developers to target the same visual fidelity for both consoles but at different resolutions. Meaning, the series X will be optimized for 4k gaming while the series S is optimized at 4TF for 1080P displays."

https://www.thurrott.com/games/xbox/237240/the-latest-on-lockhart#

Agree and think it is very reasonable to expect the flagship series of MS to be made focused on Series X best scenario and then do as many cuts as necessary to launch it on Lockhart (normally would be just pixel count and some cases framerate, sometimes if the series X version let's say is 1440p then some other cuts may be necessary so Lockhart don't go lower than 1080p or worse 720p).

For games that aren't flagship they may go the cheaper route of making the Series S and them putting bells and whistles for Series X, but really nothing would be lose because those games wouldn't be pushing series X by definition anyway.

That's is the reason I said my reply was countering sales and zero saying Lockhart to be the main system for MS. Sure I can understand it possibly will sell more, but if it becomes the focus of MS (let's say it sell 80% of the systems, like do Pro and possibly X1X) then there is a possibility that very few will care to make the best version possible on Series X (like again happens this gen), but I don't think that will be the case. I believe MS focus is Series X and they are making Series S just to increase their market possibilities.



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:

Isn’t 4K twice of 1080p? 1440p is like the half way point more or less right? I hear 20-30% when the PS5 isn’t over clocking. Unless it’s overclocking 100% the time it’s not overclocking it’s just....clocking. 

My dumbing down aside lol, I guess this is gonna be a case by case basis. 

Nope. 1080p is half 4k per axis, so it is 1/4 of the pixels.

Tflop is just one aspect and not even the most thrustworthy one. And on that I think the difference is 18%. So overall the system could be on that range of 10-20% perhaps more, but we will only know when we have games out to compare.

From Mark Cerny PS5 will be able to keep the maximum clock for as long as the dev request it.

So If a game on PS5 is 1440p30fps for it to even be 4k30fps on XSX it would need cuts in several other aspects, for 60fps even more. Now if both are rendered at the same pixel count and framerate then that power discrepancy in favor of Series X can be used on some image quality aspects (that I wasn't sure until Pema said them) that can be quite usefull. That is the reason I told you that sometimes you can get better overall image quality internally rendering at 1440 and time reconstructing to 4k than rendering nativelly in 4k because the power saved could be used to stuff more impactfull.

Were you able to see the DF video I told you?

I’m familiar with the checker boarding now. So ultimately it’s gonna be a balance between using that extra power to compensate for any cut backs to achieve resolution and possible FPS benchmarks. 

We talked before that certain genres are better off with 60 FPS despite being more taxing on the tech. And I’m sure even if they target as close to 4K as possible the games will still look next gen. I’m thinking of LOU on Ps3 which pushed the tech to its limits. That said I wouldn’t have called Halo 4 no slouch either on 360. So even if there has to be cutbacks to hit benchmarks i still believe the power difference will help and the games will look next gen regardless. 



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

 

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope. 1080p is half 4k per axis, so it is 1/4 of the pixels.

Tflop is just one aspect and not even the most thrustworthy one. And on that I think the difference is 18%. So overall the system could be on that range of 10-20% perhaps more, but we will only know when we have games out to compare.

From Mark Cerny PS5 will be able to keep the maximum clock for as long as the dev request it.

So If a game on PS5 is 1440p30fps for it to even be 4k30fps on XSX it would need cuts in several other aspects, for 60fps even more. Now if both are rendered at the same pixel count and framerate then that power discrepancy in favor of Series X can be used on some image quality aspects (that I wasn't sure until Pema said them) that can be quite usefull. That is the reason I told you that sometimes you can get better overall image quality internally rendering at 1440 and time reconstructing to 4k than rendering nativelly in 4k because the power saved could be used to stuff more impactfull.

Were you able to see the DF video I told you?

I’m familiar with the checker boarding now. So ultimately it’s gonna be a balance between using that extra power to compensate for any cut backs to achieve resolution and possible FPS benchmarks. 

We talked before that certain genres are better off with 60 FPS despite being more taxing on the tech. And I’m sure even if they target as close to 4K as possible the games will still look next gen. I’m thinking of LOU on Ps3 which pushed the tech to its limits. That said I wouldn’t have called Halo 4 no slouch either on 360. So even if there has to be cutbacks to hit benchmarks i still believe the power difference will help and the games will look next gen regardless. 

No doubt Xbox Series X games even at 4k60fps will look next gen even compared to the best 1080p30fps games on X1X this gen, raytracing, CPU power, newer techniques, etc will grant this =]

And yes some genres benefit more of 60fps than others. On those genres I believe devs will make the game 60fps on both PS5 and XSX (and even Lockhart), some of those like fighting and racing they will also be able to do 4k because of the limit of stuff in screen and things like that, for other genres perhaps some will be 4k with graphics dialed back a little and others (like perhaps Halo after infinite and Gears) will prefer to go 1440p and use the power for better graphics while keeping 60fps smooth.

XSX GPU is like 10x the one on X1 GPU perhaps is even more than that, so 4x the pixels and 2x the framerate still give some leeway for more effects anyway.



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

4K 60FPS is no excuse for Halo's bad graphics, since it has no raytracing. If it had raytracing then one could understand the GPU being taxed, but an open world game that looks worse than open world games on a 1TF console sure is something.

As many have said there are clear development issues at 343i:
- The models are low poly or bland in art (trees, grass, enemies, characters)
- The art direction on the map is plain
- Particle effects are worse than some PS360 games (no kidding)
- Static scenery
- Low grass density,
- Low draw distance
- No destruction, smoke, persistent fires
- Animations for characters and enemies is stiff
- Level design is nothing special, which is unlike Halo's philosophy

This is what it should have been:



Captain_Yuri said:

"XCloud is not a replacement for PC or console, but is a question of convenience. At home, a player may want to play on PC or console, but on the go, streaming will allow them to continue their game (of course with limited fidelity)."

How cloud streaming should be

Yea not going to be getting xbox anytime soon but I do love what they are trying to do with the streaming. Hopefully Sony copies all of this for their own ecosystem. I do it on PC already but I want it for my console also.



Does PlayStation have anything to match the beauty that is Craig? I don't think so!

/Thread