Look we went over this months ago. You might not think Infamous and Killzone were true next gen games but it's pointless to argue your or mine definition of what a true next gen game entails. People will use their own eyes and anyone who gave those games one look during the ps4 reveal could immediately tell it was a leap over anything we've seen before on ps3. Even if they turned out to glorified tech demos, they still got people excited for next gen and played a major marketing role for the ps4 early on.

Maybe you can convince yourself that Series X doesn't need exclusive launch games as the early wave of titles tend to suck. But I already said back then that the early games don't have to suck by default. What would happen if Sony didn't launch with a Killzone and Infamous but with a HZD and Spider Man instead? And guess what, that's exactly what's happening. I also said MS will have a hard time explaining the difference between their current- and next gen console with their consumer friendly strategy and that's exactly what happened in May.

Do I have psychic abilities? No, it's just a matter of listening to Phil and using common sense. I was also never a fan of the Killzone series but one thing is for sure, GG does know how to push amazing visuals and now they've struck gold with a new ip. It would be downright weird if HZW doesn't set a new benchmark in visuals and turns out to be a great game as well. You might say you don't care and that 2 years isn't that long, but lets be honest here. We would both love to see MS counter games like HZW, and whatever Sony will show in August, with their own Series X exclusives on the 23rd.

Unfortunately, pushing next gen visuals just isn't part of their strategy, pushing their services is. And like DonFerrari said, why would they focus on high-end pc's and Series X if they can build way more GP subscribers by not doing that? 

People are confused, that games at the befining of a gen tend to be crosgen is by choice of the companies. Not because they cant do the upgrades or knowledge of the hardware or what ever. But to sell their games to as many people as possible. Its usually up to the platform holder to sell their device and once the installbase is there devs choose to utilize the full capabilities of the hardware and drop the previous one. But third party's tend to care for profits first so they won't push for upgrades. So thouse games tend to not be the best possible. Thus wont sell the hardware as much cuz gamers have no reason to upgrade. So if MS does not push the hardware, giving the consumer a reason to upgrade, then they won't and therefore third party's will have to reason to also drop last gen if they wont make their money on the ip. So if the series x thanks to this "pro consumer" approach does not have any acceptable installbase after the promised 2 years then I do see this timelimit being extended.

Frankly I see these first couple of years the ps5 just runing away with the sales more than the ps4 did. If the gap grows bigger, which all signs point to it everywhere but the US, then I do see a lot of devs just making ps5 exclusives, therefore making the gap get bigger.

Again, reply to the question instead of tagent it.

Do older hardware hold back newer hardware? Yes or no. If No, why not support the X1 for the whole 9 gen?

You can try to change history all you want but we all remember the thread. Yeah, graphically games like Killzone SF were obviously a step up from PS3. But you weren’t arguing that. You were arguing that games like Killzone and Infamous offered not only better graphics but also gameplay possibilities and design not possible on previous gen. It was only after numerous people proved you wrong (and you yourself did to when you linked to a DF Infamous article that literally said it was a PS3 game with increased visuals) that you flip flopped to saying gameplay doesn’t matter, what really matters are graphics. 

So again... what is the problem? Even the games MS showed in May were a clear jump visually. Are they as big a jump a MS’s own first party games? Judging by Hellblade and Halo, obviously not. You’re making this case for Sony being next gen but then not picking these irrelevant qualifications you think MS doesn’t abide by because you take interview quotes completely out of context of flat out lie about what they are saying. 

If you’re expecting incredible gameplay changes not possible on last gen, the Sony event and the MS May event showed you that you’ll be disappointed. But that’s console launches for you. Also, how are they going to increase GP subs by sticking to Xbone and low tier PC’s? The Scorpio is already discontinued. The S won’t be far behind. Again, why do you even bother talking Xbox? lol

I answered your question, just not in the way you’d hoped. Also, you should look up what tangent means so you don’t look silly using it incorrectly again.

Answer this question, do devs not utilize hardware better as the generations go on? Did PS4 peak with Knack and Killzone? Or did developers get better with the hardware and make games with better visuals? 

No you didn't answer, you evaded. Because you do know that Phil isn't telling the truth. If older HW didn't hold back newer HW then you wouldn't even need minimum specs and a Pentium 2 would run games. And of course Phil doesn't define what is the "weak PC".

For all the scalability in the world there is still a limit on how much you can cut before it falls apart and also that base level needs to run every single function of the game (unless of course you make two very different versions like is the case of Fifa Legacy editions) so whatever you decide as minimun and how "loaded" it is makes the limit of what you better version will have.

Tools and engines improve during the gen. So when devs improve their tools the older HW suddenly becomes what hold down the newer HW?

You just couldn't reply with yes or no right? Or do you want to try again.

If by mean "designed around the limitations of PS4/Xbox One Hardware" as if Developers have settled on a formula that sells millions of copies of games? Then yes.

Not all games will benefit from faster storage... A 2D platformer like Ori and the Will of the Wisps is a prime example, the datasets can exist entirely within memory and just load the entire level.

Long install times will continue to exist as well, the SSD won't make much of a difference there, the hard drive wasn't the limiting factor on that front.

As for PC games, they are pushing new rendering effects like Ray Tracing, they aren't being held back by consoles to much.

I have. There are plenty of PC games that don't have load times, some games may have an initial load and that is it... Diablo comes to mind.

Plus the PC is working with more memory... A Mid-range PC of today has more overall memory than the un-released next-gen consoles, it takes time to unpack and load that data in.

Yeah, it would be good to see what an RTX 2080 can do, the Xbox Series X might be the best representation of that, but in a few months the RTX 2080 is likely to be mid-range in capability, still impressive, but mid-range.

Plenty of games have you "teleporting" between different worlds/level sets in an instant.

Final Fantasy 8 on the Playstation 1 did it.

The transition from Oblivion to Shivering Isles did it.

If you have all the data necessary in memory, then you wouldn't even need to stream it.

What makes the Playstation 5 impressive and "different" in this regard is the sheer quality of the assets being employed, which is what makes it impossible on current consoles... But the idea of teleporting between different worlds and streaming that data in? That my dear watson has been around for decades.

There are games on the Xbox One and Playstation 4 which use Global Illumination leveraging various Ray Tracing techniques to various extents.

Ray Tracing isn't a technique that has "popped up" overnight, but it seemsr everyone has latched onto the marketing buzzwords without understanding it's implications, it's been a path the entire industry has been heading towards for decades.

Towards the end of the 7th gen, developers would often do a GI path traced lighting pass and then bake that detailing into the game for very cheap. - But it also came with the caveat of not being real time.

It is entirely possible.
You just can't stream as much data. - And as such, you need to give up something to ensure you can fit all the required data in working set memory, such as asset quality.

Over a period of 30 seconds a decent mechanical disk can transfer 3GB of data... Where-as the SSD can transfer 165GB of data...
That 3GB of data supplements the 5.5GB of working memory for a total of 8.5GB of total data over a 30 second time period.
If you can fit multiple worlds in that working memory set (Keep in mind entire worlds on the OG Xbox could fit in 64MB), then you can jump between levels without a single load.

Obviously you do need to give up something such as asset quality and number of *different* objects.

But it's always been possible, just not at that Playstation 5's level of visual fidelity, that is where it's ground breaking.

We haven't seen what the Slipspace engine can fully deliver though.
Some of the lighting and DoF passes were impressive in the engine reveal, but then some aspects like the continued use of sprites stuck out like a sore thumb.

Let's be honest though. Exclusives in the first 2 years of a consoles life cycle have never showcased what the hardware is fully capable of, that is something that tends towards the end of a generation.

Anyone who thinks gameplay is about to be held back by XB1 are admitting the industry is ripe for a bit of disruption.

No I can’t reply with a yes or no because I have common sense and know it’s not black and white. Hope that helps. Again, I answered your question, it just wasn’t the answer you are hoping for. 

So you understand that tools and engines improve as a generation goes on, so why can you not understand that a game being feasible for cross gen at the start of the gen might not be feasible years into the gen? It’s hilarious, you’re literally sitting there reaching the same conclusion I am but because you want to play console warz you can’t accept my answer as legit. Jeebus lol

You don't think being limited by 1/30th of the possible I/O speed or less doesn't have an effect on possible game design? Next-gen has the chance to start experimenting with that huge increase in I/O speed right from the get go, unless you still have to support HDDs.

1/30th is probably still underestimating it, my laptop has a 35x difference in sequential read speed between SSD and HDD, about a factor 200 to 800 difference in random read/write access. Up to 800 times faster! And that's a slower SSD than in the series X and faster HDD than the consoles have currently, and no HW compression benefits or direct into RAM loading.

Neglecting this massive advantage for 2 years or what it could open up in game play possibilities is a crime! Memory is not a limiting factor anymore to how big / complex / constantly evolving worlds can get. For example From dust without the small world limits. No more need for static environments.

Thanks for finally admitting that a weaker/older hardware holds down what is possible on newer hardware even if you had to be roundabout to protect Phil.