Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer Says Xbox Series X Games Aren't Being Held Back By Xbox One

SvennoJ said:
chakkra said:

What exactly have 3D-platformers on PS4/X1 better than Mario Galaxy besides better graphics?

Bigger more interactive worlds. Dreams is not possible on the Wii. Dreams (like games) will vastly benefit from SSD since levels won't be limited anymore by what fits in memory.

What exactly have FPS games on PS4/X1 better than HL2 besides better graphics?

Bigger more interactive worlds. Tlou2 has vastly bigger environments than HL2 which you can even get lost in. So much more detail to hide in and hide traps / enemies is. You can't hide and crawl through tall grass in HL2 for example. Lighting plays a huge part in visibility and remaining hidden. SSD will benefit these games as well, no more limit of interactive environments since every change can quickly be written to SSD to be retrieved instantly when circling back. More complex environments provide more complex stealth game play.

What exactly have puzzle games on PS4/X1 better than Portal 2 besides better graphics?

Games like Infinifactory are not possible at that scale on PS3. This already has trouble chugging along on ps4 pro

SSD will vastly benefit the build/create puzzle game genre.

What exactly have Kart-Racing games on PS4/X1 better than MK8?

Track builder / VR (Track mania Turbo) Also here SSD creates opportunities to have everything on track interactive and no limits to track builders. Anything you knock over, leave on the track can be saved and retrieved from SSD in the next lap without worrying about memory constraints.

What exactly have open-world games on PS4/X1 better than BOTW besides better graphics?

Again bigger more interactive worlds. Fallout 4 base building, is that possible on Switch?

It was still severely limited by ps4 RAM and speed. (That above there only managed 6fps on base ps4 before the pro patch) The draw distance also left a lot to be desired. With an engine like the new Unreal engine with the new SSDs to no have constraints on how much you can build or it effecting performance would be a game changer. True interactive world where anything you touch stays the way you left it, no matter if you come back in a minute or a week later. No more memory constraints to have every (local) change have to fit in working memory.


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.

So, yes. We are on the verge of a paradigm shift where working RAM is no longer a hard limit and can be augmented by the enormous increase in I/O that the switch from HDD to SSD offers. The ability to have 200x to 800x faster read/write random access opens up tons of new game play opportunities. Stuff we haven't seen on PC before since that also still has to support mechanical HDDs. (But PC does have the benefit of a much larger working RAM pool)

We can finally leave the static world design behind. Evolving worlds, making real changes in RPGs and god games. Game design will change to make use of and compensate for evolving worlds. Weather can actually change the worlds. Earthquakes, bombs that flatten entire areas, burn down forests, alter water ways. The only downside, save games will be massive in size :/

And Minecraft might finally run decently on consoles.

Bigger worlds with more details in them is what we always expect by default in a new generation, and those are things that can easily be scaled up or down. Even open-world games can be scaled down to run on much weaker hardware, even if you have to cut the world into several chunks, limit the draw distance, and put loading screens on the weaker version; I mean, we have already seen it multiple times.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "more interactive worlds," interactivity comes down to game design, not hardware power; I mean, HZD was designed with PS4 in mind, yet BOTW world feels more interactive. And we have been seeing destructible environments since Battlefield Bad Company 2, fire burning down forests since Far Cry 2, weather changing the environments in FH4, etc.

And I don't know what you mean with TLO2 hiding mechanics. We have had hiding mechanics for ages, the only difference here is that the grass looks more realistic.

Look, I will concede that when the gap is too big there might be some things that you might not be able to do on the weaker hardware, but I do not believe that the gap between 8th and 9th gen is so big for that to happen, so I will believe this "new experiences not possible before" talk when I actually see it (and I'm still not convinced with this portal-jumping mechanics in R&C bcuz he have seen portal-jumping before, ages ago actually).



Around the Network
goopy20 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

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? 

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.

Why would it need 30 second load screens for what was essentially a scripted sequence? You didn’t explore those worlds as you jumped through. Again, it’s funny how low your bar for “real next gen” is with PS5 yet with MS, who you claim has been badly marketing next gen and lowering your expectations and making you angry, your bar could not be higher. 

Oh cool so now immersion is what matters. Another goal post shift. Did you see the Hellblade cinematic? Since you’re so giddy over the HFW cinematic, you must also be thrilled about the Hellblade one too, right? That was incredible. Did you see the lighting and weather effects? And the sound. Talk about being immersed. You can find YouTube videos of literal Viking descendants being amazed at the sounds and visuals of the game and how authentic they are. So next time you’re admittedly very angry about what Microsoft is doing, just remember that. Oh and remember Halo, because one second you’re saying it will be 4k and 120fps and the next second you’re saying MS isn’t pushing the XSX hardware. Have you considered you might get less angry about MS if y oh stopped relying on so much FUD?



LudicrousSpeed said:
goopy20 said:

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.

Why would it need 30 second load screens for what was essentially a scripted sequence? You didn’t explore those worlds as you jumped through. Again, it’s funny how low your bar for “real next gen” is with PS5 yet with MS, who you claim has been badly marketing next gen and lowering your expectations and making you angry, your bar could not be higher. 

Oh cool so now immersion is what matters. Another goal post shift. Did you see the Hellblade cinematic? Since you’re so giddy over the HFW cinematic, you must also be thrilled about the Hellblade one too, right? That was incredible. Did you see the lighting and weather effects? And the sound. Talk about being immersed. You can find YouTube videos of literal Viking descendants being amazed at the sounds and visuals of the game and how authentic they are. So next time you’re admittedly very angry about what Microsoft is doing, just remember that. Oh and remember Halo, because one second you’re saying it will be 4k and 120fps and the next second you’re saying MS isn’t pushing the XSX hardware. Have you considered you might get less angry about MS if y oh stopped relying on so much FUD?

Because of the amount of data being streamed in. You are essentially loading into levels within seconds. That is simply not possible with last generation hardware.

Another exclusive Medium, on XSX that takes advantage of new hardware. Here's what a dev had to say about their game  -

Speaking to Xbox Wire, Bloober Team producer Jacek Zięba reconfirmed that there'll be no cross-gen port of The Medium, and that it would be exclusive to Xbox Series X and PC. 

Zięba touched on some of the reasons for this, telling Xbox Wire: "Thanks to the power of Xbox Series X, we can develop the game the way we have always envisioned it. I’m not talking only about graphics, although certainly it helps create an immersive and disturbing atmosphere, but also about gameplay."

Not even to mention games like Star Citizen. And other true next gen games like Crysis back in 2017. And the plethora of games that take advantage of hardware without constraints of being tied to old hardware.

I'm sorry but Phil's full of shit. A few weeks ago he goes on like he doesn't care about how many Xbox's they sell. And here we are in the middle of July.. and they haven't even announced their price. He's saying that he finds it counter-productive to lock people out of playing games and goes against gaming is all about and yet buys out many Studio's for exclusivity. Unless you buy into their ecosystem, right?

The guy can't even keep his stance on anything other than try to look like the 'good guy' and pro consumer and all the other buzzwords he uses to describe what is view on what gaming is about. They (MS) act like they doing this as a favour to the consumer but in reality its like other company, they only care for your money and that is the bottom line.

He should just let the games do the talking tbh.



I agree. Microsoft should only hire devs who are also free to work wherever else they want and the games they make must play from the most powerful PC all the way down to the slower shittiest Android device or else he’s a dumb hypocrite.



hinch said:

I'm sorry but Phil's full of shit. A few weeks ago he goes on like he doesn't care about how many Xbox's they sell. And here we are in the middle of July.. and they haven't even announced their price.

I don't like it either that we still don't know the price... but are Sony or Nintendo better?

We also still don't know the PS5 prices and Nintendo announced the Switch price in January 2017, only 9 weeks before launch.

So they all are full of shit, obviously.



Around the Network
sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

Totally agree. 4k and 120fps Might sound amazing but once we see games that are going for an actual generational leap at 1440p/30fps, playing current gen games at 120fps will look pretty boring in comparison. That's why nobody got excited about seeing something like Dirt 5.

It's strange that a lot of people don't seem to realize that you can take any 30fps current gen game, boost the framerate to 120fps and you're pretty much maxing out these next gen consoles already.

Well that’s your narrative. I say Ps5 is holding back progress because the specs won’t allow for it. If Series X can hit any combination of 4K and 60fps AND provide a next gen graphics bump then that’s clear to me who’s actually trying to be next gen. Remember it’s 20% stronger so everything helps. 
As much as 30% when PS5 isn’t overclocking. Remember Series X is built to be consistent all the time.

It’s funny it should be like 2013 except I’m the smug PS fan who’s bragging about 1080p and you are supposed to be the Xbox guy being defensive saying 900p isn’t so bad. I am genuinely amazed the narrative is able to change to “1440p/30 FPS is next gen so long as I get my graphics bump”.

Hopefully the July show will help shift the narrative back to where it belongs because I know MS can do both. They can hit benchmarks and make their games look great. Because they have the hardware to do it, not using their PR and fans to justify lower expectations. 

I don't think you can have 4k/60fps AND a generational jump in visuals lol. Lets say Halo Infinite will be shown running at 720p/30fps on Xbox One and 4k/120fps on Series X. That would mean there are no gpu resources left for anything else. That's why I think it will look pretty much identical on both platforms unless you're watching the stream at 120fps.

I am just wondering if you ever played a game in 120fps and/or 4k? I have and I can tell you this, it's not that big a difference as Phil makes it out to be. And definitely not something that should define next gen games.

 



Conina said:
hinch said:

I'm sorry but Phil's full of shit. A few weeks ago he goes on like he doesn't care about how many Xbox's they sell. And here we are in the middle of July.. and they haven't even announced their price.

I don't like it either that we still don't know the price... but are Sony or Nintendo better?

We also still don't know the PS5 prices and Nintendo announced the Switch price in January 2017, only 9 weeks before launch.

So they all are full of shit, obviously.

Its obvious they care otherwise they would have announced the price already. Like back in June, 2013 at E3. Sony cares as Playstation is a big part of Sony's business. But they don't come out and with stuff like this.

At least the management of Nintendo and Playstation doesn't come out h some new stuff every week that fits their narrative. Watch how when MS moves all development to XSX, you really think they'll bring up crossgen it is to support more systems. No they will be like 'this plays best on Xbox Series X' best EXCLUSIVE games only on Xbox Series X/S. Crossgen isn't new. Nintendo systems generally have at least one Zelda that launches with their new consoles and don't constantly try drum it into people making it a stand out point.



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

Well that’s your narrative. I say Ps5 is holding back progress because the specs won’t allow for it. If Series X can hit any combination of 4K and 60fps AND provide a next gen graphics bump then that’s clear to me who’s actually trying to be next gen. Remember it’s 20% stronger so everything helps. 
As much as 30% when PS5 isn’t overclocking. Remember Series X is built to be consistent all the time.

It’s funny it should be like 2013 except I’m the smug PS fan who’s bragging about 1080p and you are supposed to be the Xbox guy being defensive saying 900p isn’t so bad. I am genuinely amazed the narrative is able to change to “1440p/30 FPS is next gen so long as I get my graphics bump”.

Hopefully the July show will help shift the narrative back to where it belongs because I know MS can do both. They can hit benchmarks and make their games look great. Because they have the hardware to do it, not using their PR and fans to justify lower expectations. 

I don't think you can have 4k/60fps AND a generational jump in visuals lol. Lets say Halo Infinite will be shown running at 720p/30fps on Xbox One and 4k/120fps on Series X. That would mean there are no gpu resources left for anything else. That's why I think it will look pretty much identical on both platforms unless you're watching the stream at 120fps.

I am just wondering if you ever played a game in 120fps and/or 4k? I have and I can tell you this, it's not that big a difference as Phil makes it out to be. And definitely not something that should define next gen games.

 

Well to be clear I said any combination of the 2. Then again seeing the Halo reveal trailer with the nature aspects, I was sold right there. And again Series X is 20% stronger then PS5, 30% when it’s not being overclocked. 

You wanna peddle you’re narrative well this is mine. MS actually planned for a next gen leap in graphics while hitting benchmarks that weren’t possible last gen. They aren’t relying on PR and their own fanbase to rationalize settling for less. 



 

 

The only way this statement would have any truth is if XSX isn’t a true next gen upgrade. There are several generations of consoles, with decades of graphical progress, to prove he’s speaking out of his rear right now. There’s no way in hell a game like HZD could’ve run on PS3 with just scaling back things like framerate and resolution. So much of the game would have to be changed or completely removed that it wouldn’t even be close to the same game. Even now, I can’t see how the hell PS4 could run the new R&C or Horizon 2.



0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

I don't think you can have 4k/60fps AND a generational jump in visuals lol. Lets say Halo Infinite will be shown running at 720p/30fps on Xbox One and 4k/120fps on Series X. That would mean there are no gpu resources left for anything else. That's why I think it will look pretty much identical on both platforms unless you're watching the stream at 120fps.

I am just wondering if you ever played a game in 120fps and/or 4k? I have and I can tell you this, it's not that big a difference as Phil makes it out to be. And definitely not something that should define next gen games.

 

Well to be clear I said any combination of the 2. Then again seeing the Halo reveal trailer with the nature aspects, I was sold right there. And again Series X is 20% stronger then PS5, 30% when it’s not being overclocked. 

You wanna peddle you’re narrative well this is mine. MS actually planned for a next gen leap in graphics while hitting benchmarks that weren’t possible last gen. They aren’t relying on PR and their own fanbase to rationalize settling for less. 

We know man, you already mentioned the 20% gpu difference 5 times now. So you think 20% more gpu power will make a huge difference but let me guess, a 4Tflops Lockhart or the 1,3Tflops Xbox One won't hold back Series X at all because uncle Phil says so...

But I'm still curious if you ever played a game at 120fps and why you think that's so important? I'm also curious if you can tell the difference between native 4k and something like 1440p or checkerboard rendering.