AbbathTheGrim said: It will be hard to sell your Xbox SEX advantages over the PS5 when you are at the same time arguing that your last gen and new gen are this compatible.
Well think about it this way. Ultimately the games do the talking.
Is Halo Infinite available on PlayStation?
Repeat this question but change the game for everything they show at the July 23rd conference. The answer for all 1st party games you insert should lead to “no”. And if they look great on Series X, then I don’t see an issue :)
Disclaimer (read in fast disclaimer ad voice on tv): Doesn’t include games all ready locked to multiplatform release aka Wasteland 3, Psychonauts 2, and Minecraft/Minecraft Dungeons.
Well, what you are bringing is a discussion on what makes Xbox or any console have individual value which I agree, it's the games they offer that nobody else does or direct competitors don't that makes them standout.
But I am talking about the specific PR regarding XboxSex hardware. In this moment we have Micro getting their "exclusive" SEX games released between both old and new gen and as long as they do that people will point out that the potential of XboxSEX is not being demonstrated, or that new gen is not that impressive at all, even more difficult to claim a gap with your current gen competitor, PS5.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
LudicrousSpeed said: Nah, saying he doesn’t care if someone doesn’t have the money to upgrade consoles this year because of COVID doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about XSX sales. They have goals they want to meet. Surely you believe this.
And again, supporting older hardware during year one when the games are basically all cross gen or not utilizing the new hardware fully is not the same thing as supporting it in year five when everyone is pumping out amazing looking stuff.
Logic is so simple.
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?
Couldn’t resist, your posts too juicy to ignore.
Short answer: Sure it does. But it depends on the game design. Linear games, racing games, fighting games etc, not so much. Vast open world games I can imagine old hardware cant do as much detail in the scenery or draw distances etc. But even then you build high you can scale down like we saw in Witcher 3 for Switch. Scaling up then 100% old holds back new. I mean it would have to be a design choice so unique that it wouldn’t be possible to replicate, like the Ratchet and Clank quick loading of levels.
Why not support for the full 9 years? Because gamers move on. Don’t see many core gamers still using Xbox 360 and PS3 in 2020. If old hardware has a market like Switch (not old per se but underpowered) then of course devs will do what they can to scale down:
End of day we all know year 1-2 exclusives never take as much advantage as late gen games. That’s just a fact. Might as well take care of the late adopters at the same time. I see it as win win.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
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.
maximum of one year from launch = two years
The time frame of cross gen support does not support the idea that next gen XSX games will be held back. Hell most of their studios released games recently or are about to and won’t have games ready until that cross gen period is done. People are basically upset about launch window games which as we’ve seen in both events so far, aren’t pushing those SSDs anyway.
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
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
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.
Never denied it can. But whatever you need to tell yourself in order to feel better, be my guest.
Well think about it this way. Ultimately the games do the talking.
Is Halo Infinite available on PlayStation?
Repeat this question but change the game for everything they show at the July 23rd conference. The answer for all 1st party games you insert should lead to “no”. And if they look great on Series X, then I don’t see an issue :)
Disclaimer (read in fast disclaimer ad voice on tv): Doesn’t include games all ready locked to multiplatform release aka Wasteland 3, Psychonauts 2, and Minecraft/Minecraft Dungeons.
Well, what you are bringing is a discussion on what makes Xbox or any console have individual value which I agree, it's the games they offer that nobody else does or direct competitors don't that makes them standout.
But I am talking about the specific PR regarding XboxSex hardware. In this moment we have Micro getting their "exclusive" SEX games released between both old and new gen and as long as they do that people will point out that the potential of XboxSEX is not being demonstrated, or that new gen is not that impressive at all, even more difficult to claim a gap with your current gen competitor, PS5.
I’d argue cross gen arguably helps distinguish the difference. Halo Infinite base Xbox One vs Series X will show differences in FPS, resolution, draw distances, AI, textures, ray tracing. Maybe even a mode unique to Series X that Xbox One cant do.
But nm that, as long as their games look next gen in their own right, regardless of the games being cross gen, concern trollers will make little difference. Series X is after all about 20% stronger then PS5 and I would think 1st party devs can leverage that.
And I believe Sony is in a similar situation. Spiderman MM is supposedly built off the base game with upgrades next gen elements. GT7, Sackboy, Destruction All Stars, all games that PS4 could also do.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
LudicrousSpeed said: Nah, saying he doesn’t care if someone doesn’t have the money to upgrade consoles this year because of COVID doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about XSX sales. They have goals they want to meet. Surely you believe this.
And again, supporting older hardware during year one when the games are basically all cross gen or not utilizing the new hardware fully is not the same thing as supporting it in year five when everyone is pumping out amazing looking stuff.
Logic is so simple.
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?
What exactly have 3D-platformers on PS4/X1 better than Mario Galaxy besides better graphics? What exactly have FPS games on PS4/X1 better than HL2 besides better graphics? What exactly have puzzle games on PS4/X1 better than Portal 2 besides better graphics? What exactly have Kart-Racing games on PS4/X1 better than MK8? What exactly have open-world games on PS4/X1 better than BOTW besides better graphics?
So NO, the only thing that these consoles were holding back was the graphics department. PS5 games are not gonna be magically better than PS4/X1/Switch games just bcuz developers have more power to put more details into them, or should we expect Sackboy to be the most complex 3D platformer in history just bcuz is being developed for the PS5?
And I said it before and I will say it again: the only game that Sony has shown so far that possibly would not be able to run on PS4 is Ratchet & Clank (and even that is in the air bcuz we have seeing portal-jumping mechanics since.. well, Portal) everything besides that is just graphics.
Oh! and I'm actually expecting PS5 games to pop up more (visually) at first glance than XSX games, but that is because MS has committed to 60FPS and Sony hasn't.
As for your question: you should know by now that the hardcore crowd (A.K.A. the people who buy the most games) tend to upgrade on the first 2-3 years of the console cycle, so after that it makes little sense to keep supporting the old consoles since the volume of software sales just not make it worth it anymore. So yeah, both MS and Sony's decisions in this subject are purely business-driven.
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?
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
DonFerrari said:
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?
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?
I said next gen games typically means new experiences. More immersion is a new experience and that is what a generational jump in graphics usually means. The dimension jumping in Ratchet & Clank makes the game more immersive. Now if that had 30 second loading screens, it would completely break the immersion and it would have been pointless to put it in the game in the first place.
MS's strategy isn't only about the Xbox One. Obviously they'll not be supporting it for another 7 years. But since they're not pushing next gen tech, MS will just look at how they'll potentially reach the biggest user base and target the lowest common denominator. They'll likely be targeting a 4Tflops Lockhart and low-end pc for the remainder of next gen. Not sure how a low-end pc will compare to Series X, 4 years from now. But it might take a while before RTX2080 like performance and NVME SSD becomes standard on pc.
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?
Couldn’t resist, your posts too juicy to ignore.
Short answer: Sure it does. But it depends on the game design. Linear games, racing games, fighting games etc, not so much. Vast open world games I can imagine old hardware cant do as much detail in the scenery or draw distances etc. But even then you build high you can scale down like we saw in Witcher 3 for Switch. Scaling up then 100% old holds back new. I mean it would have to be a design choice so unique that it wouldn’t be possible to replicate, like the Ratchet and Clank quick loading of levels.
Why not support for the full 9 years? Because gamers move on. Don’t see many core gamers still using Xbox 360 and PS3 in 2020. If old hardware has a market like Switch (not old per se but underpowered) then of course devs will do what they can to scale down:
End of day we all know year 1-2 exclusives never take as much advantage as late gen games. That’s just a fact. Might as well take care of the late adopters at the same time. I see it as win win.
Of course it all depends on what kind of game they're making. If it's a 2D platformer then yeah, its not going to be pushing SSD and those 12Tflops. The cool thing with next gen consoles is that developers can think about completely new and vastly more ambitious game concepts when they specifically target next gen consoles.
Historically speaking we typically don't see the big ip's coming out in the first 1 or 2 years. That doesn't mean early games can't potentially take full advantage of the hardware, though. Killzone SF and something like the Order 1886 still look pretty darn good today, they just weren't great games. But what is stopping GG from turning HZW into a next gen showcase early on?
Actually xbox one ran rdr 2 really well. But that's the thing first party exclusives will be built from the ground up for series x then scaling it down. It can be done. It has been proven with x enhanced games how easy it is to increase visuals of the game to take advantage of the machines.
Yea it will work, it will jsut have downgraded visuals, 900p resolutions, 30fps and loading screens. Its not hard to reduce all of that. So far the first party for Sony first party games haven't impressed me with their visuals taking advantage of its ssd and better cpu and gpu.
goopy20 said:
dane007 said:
The fact that first party exclusives look better than multiplatform games proves exactly why the Xbox One will be holding Series X back.
Ps5 games will potentially be build from the ground up to take advantage of features that aren't in the ps4, like the SSD, and a 10 times more powerful cpu and gpu. It simply allows developers to be far more ambitious with their ideas than if they constantly have to think "will this run on a HDD and a Jaguar cpu too?"
Of course loads of things are scalable on the gpu side but even that has its limits. The Xbox One's gpu is comparable to a GTX750, but try running something like RDR2 on a GTX730. It's simply impossible. Even in 360p at the lowest settings it will run at like 12fps.
No one is going to be disappointed that games with worlds the size of RDR2 or visuals like TLOU2 or gameplay like BOTW release on XSX. What the XSX will do is play those games at next gen levels, offering 4k/60fps support with added Raytracing, high quality shadows and many other bells and whistles, you know, much like what Phil is saying, just like how a high end PC play games compared to a low or mid range PCs. There will be differences, however good design games will ALWAYS be up to the developers not the hardware.
Innovation is a timed manner, not a hardware manner. Hardware obviously helps but its not everything, its always up to the design teams.
That's not what next gen game play is about, bells and whistles.
Can you agree that there is a difference between games made for VR and games ported to VR? And that games made for VR lose a lot or can't be ported down to non VR?
That's what I expect from next gen game play. Worlds that weren't possible on the previous generation, either through lack of memory, lack of processing speed, lack of online capabilities, lack of input methods or lack of storage options / speed.
Next gen has about a 30x to 50x faster read/write access, a bigger jump than the increase in processing power from ps2 to ps3. So yep, it's disappointing to read that games will continue to be designed with 1/30th of the IO speed in mind. All these new possibilities, however the biggest change, don't use that to design your game around!
I want it to be different from buying into PC gaming.
Current gen is leaps and bounds better than last gen and yet it took the middle years before we saw games blowing the doors off for this generation. Titanfall was one of the best games around the launch of these consoles which shows that innovation didn't come in terms of hardware, it came in terms of game design. Which is exactly my point. PS4 offered Bloodborne, a game that is designed identically to all its predecessors, nothing next gen about it aside from its graphics (Bells and Whistles) Same can be said with Infamous Second Son, a game that didn't require PS4 hardware to make, it plays like the original games with again, all its (Bells and Whistles) which is what makes them stand out. This gen, you have been playing games that didn't require next gen hardware to be created for you to enjoy the games.
Weather you agree with the decision of Phil's comments does not change the fact that its what they are focusing on. Go buy a PC game like RE2Remake, run it with its lowest settings, than play it again with everything turned on and you will see major differences. That is what Phil is saying. XSX is for those who want the ultimate versions of the games, and it will also be doing next gen games as well, because 3rd party games have the freedom to go with current or next gen designs. If you don't want to buy a XSX or are not interested in the games on it, than just don't, its pretty simple. The system is not for you.
I play a lot of Switch games and i cannot complain, Switch games are amazing and the last thing i think about when playing those games is the visuals, i just love the gameplay Nintendo offers me. Lets see how Halo Infinite looks at this event because that's designed around the XB1 and will see how disappointing it will look in your eyes.
Actually xbox one ran rdr 2 really well. But that's the thing first party exclusives will be built from the ground up for series x then scaling it down. It can be done. It has been proven with x enhanced games how easy it is to increase visuals of the game to take advantage of the machines.
Yea it will work, it will jsut have downgraded visuals, 900p resolutions, 30fps and loading screens. Its not hard to reduce all of that. So far the first party for Sony first party games haven't impressed me with their visuals taking advantage of its ssd and better cpu and gpu.
goopy20 said:
The fact that first party exclusives look better than multiplatform games proves exactly why the Xbox One will be holding Series X back.
Ps5 games will potentially be build from the ground up to take advantage of features that aren't in the ps4, like the SSD, and a 10 times more powerful cpu and gpu. It simply allows developers to be far more ambitious with their ideas than if they constantly have to think "will this run on a HDD and a Jaguar cpu too?"
Of course loads of things are scalable on the gpu side but even that has its limits. The Xbox One's gpu is comparable to a GTX750, but try running something like RDR2 on a GTX730. It's simply impossible. Even in 360p at the lowest settings it will run at like 12fps.
The only reason why RDR2 is possible on weak sauce current gen hardware is because the game is 100% optimized for them. That's the whole beauty of consoles as developers can go for the best bang for the buck on the base console versions. With RDR2 for example, they're using a mix of lower than the lowest, and ultra settings from the pc version.
If you have games that are THAT optimized, it's going to be a lot harder to scale things down. Like I said, current gen consoles have something like the equivalent of a GTX750 but it's literally impossible to run RDR2 on say a GTX730 even at the lowest settings and 360p. We need to see more from Sony but fact is that the ps5 exclusives don't need to scale with a bunch of different devices. Meaning they can potentially go completely crazy with things like ai, physics, geometry, level design, asset variation, npc's etc and push the ps5 to its absolute limits. This is what makes for a new level of immersion and new experiences compared to current gen.
Unfortunately, that's something entirely different than the scalable graphics Phil is talking about on pc and Series X. The whole core game design (levels, ai, physics, npc's, asset variation etc.) will be designed to hit at least 30fps/1080p (maybe 720p) on Xbox One, and Series X will be shackled to those limits. Since parity is a thing that developers need to work around, all they can do on Series X is use those 12Tflops to boost resolution, fps and add some ray tracing. Obviously it will look a lot better, but its still the same game designed around the hard limits of the xone. Just like you're getting the same experience when you're playing Gears 5 on a 1,3Tflops Xbox as on a $3000 uber pc.
