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

Conina said:
SvennoJ said:

Current gen is just as much limited by 5400 rpm HDD as last gen. There was zero improvement in random access speed. So yep, we mostly got bells and whistles this gen, but still some actual game play improvements thanks to ram increase (see my previous post).

Wrong again.

In the last gen mandatory HDD installs were the exception, not the rule.

Most Xbox 360 and PS3 games had to load most of the data from the optical disc (DVD or Blu-ray):

The Xbox 360 had a 12x DVD drive, so sequential max. speed 15.8 MB/s with abysmal seeking speeds compared to 5400 rpm HDD.

The PS3 had a 2x Blu-ray drive, so sequential max. speed 8.6 MB/s with abysmal seeking speeds compared to 5400 rpm HDD.

Last gen already relied on HDD, installing bits and pieces or using the HDD as cache. Plus last gen actually had tricks to use both HDD and optical drive together. The digital version of Halo Reach actually performed worse with only the HDD to run from instead of using both pathways.
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.232501-Should-You-Install-Halo-Reach-to-Your-Xbox-360

So actually we went a bit backwards this gen in general I/O since everything is installed on HDD now, no more benefits from a secondary source.

Sorry, but you are wrong. (Or I'm dreaming I had to wait 10 minutes between MGS4 chapters to install the next part to HDD)



Around the Network
chakkra said:

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).

By interactive I mean more evolving changing worlds instead of static worlds. The more you can move around, destroy, build in worlds, the more you need to remember, either in RAM of by committing it to disk. The SSD augments RAM, less needs to be kept in memory since it's much faster to retrieve it.

More interactive worlds were also held back by baked lighting. The advance of ray tracing and dynamic lighting removes that obstacle (that any changes won't effect the lighting correctly) while the SSD allows all changes to be stored and retrieved from disc, up to 1000x faster than from HDD when it comes to random read write access.


People get excited about 10x the tflops compared to last gen. But somehow fail to see what implications up to 1000x the I/O speed can have.
This is the difference between SSD and HDD on my laptop


Next gen console SSDs will be even faster, up to 5 GB/s (with hw compression) for Series X and 9 GB/s for ps5.
HDDs are even slower this gen (games designed for standard 5400 rpm drives)

So for example now we have a car that can go 900 mph, but you have to design your game around pedestrians that can't run faster than 8 mph.


Scaling only goes so far. Yep Minecraft was actually possible on the 3DS, well only the new 3DS that is and with severe limits
Although the height limit is only 128 blocks, worlds can be larger than the Small world type from Legacy Console Edition. There is a mob cap that is much stricter than Legacy Console Edition, where a maximum of 24 enemies, 24 animals, 16 squid, and 16 villagers can exist at one time.
Can you still call that the same game as the PC version where you can build stuff like this

Building games have long been limited by ram and storage speed.

Interactivity depends on hardware capabilities. CPU/GPU for physics, RAM and storage for amount of changes that can be made/stored, input methods for how to manipulate the environment (especially in VR). All will be better next gen, yet storage I/O will be magnitudes better next gen. Supporting HDDs will hold new ideas back.



SvennoJ said:
Conina said:

Wrong again.

In the last gen mandatory HDD installs were the exception, not the rule.

Most Xbox 360 and PS3 games had to load most of the data from the optical disc (DVD or Blu-ray):

The Xbox 360 had a 12x DVD drive, so sequential max. speed 15.8 MB/s with abysmal seeking speeds compared to 5400 rpm HDD.

The PS3 had a 2x Blu-ray drive, so sequential max. speed 8.6 MB/s with abysmal seeking speeds compared to 5400 rpm HDD.

Last gen already relied on HDD, installing bits and pieces or using the HDD as cache. Plus last gen actually had tricks to use both HDD and optical drive together. The digital version of Halo Reach actually performed worse with only the HDD to run from instead of using both pathways.
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.232501-Should-You-Install-Halo-Reach-to-Your-Xbox-360

So actually we went a bit backwards this gen in general I/O since everything is installed on HDD now, no more benefits from a secondary source.

Sorry, but you are wrong. (Or I'm dreaming I had to wait 10 minutes between MGS4 chapters to install the next part to HDD)

Most Xbox 360 games of the first years worked without any HDD. A few later games needed a small HDD for some caching and for patches, but most of the data still was loaded directly from the DVD.

Most PS3 games only needed a small part of the HDD for some caching (usually as mandatory installs of tiny fractions of the game) and some patches, but most of the data still was loaded directly from the Blu-ray.

Xbox 360 Core and Xbox 360 Arcade existed, the PS3 Superslim with 12 GB existed.



SvennoJ said:


People get excited about 10x the tflops compared to last gen. But somehow fail to see what implications up to 1000x the I/O speed can have.
This is the difference between SSD and HDD on my laptop


Bench

Input/Output doesn't "buzz" like teraflops do. But, of course I agree with you.

That said, PC, itself, needs to take better advantage of the NVMe. Yes, so far, I've noticed a small upgrade in speed but nothing like what I saw when I went from my 7200 RPM HDD to a SATA SSD. For this coming gen to truly be a difference on the platform, games are going to have to start taking advantage of those drives. Seeing as that's what I expect, I'm not too frayed, but until that happens, only the consoles will really be able to flex an NVMe.

But, that just goes right back to your point ~ people should really look closer at these types of changes over just your typical graphical upgrades.



                                                                                                             

goopy20 said:

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.

I'm also curious which games you played with 120 fps.

On what system? With which monitor/TV connected?



Around the Network
Conina said:
goopy20 said:

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.

I'm also curious which games you played with 120 fps.

On what system? With which monitor/TV connected?

Well not many because I have a GTX1060, which I admit isn't a great card for gaming at 120fps. However, I was curious what the fuzz was about so I did play some simple games like PugB, Doom, Fortnite on Forza Horizon 4 on my Msi Mag272cqr and I honestly couldn't really tell the difference between 60 and 120fps. It does give you a slight edge in competitive gaming as mouse movement seems a bit snappier, but overall it's complete overkill, especially on consoles.

4K is the same thing. On a pc monitor it does look a lot better but sitting away from a tv, it becomes a lot less noticeable, especially compared to 1440p



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.

Dirt 5 wouldn't of attracted more people if it was built from the ground up either. Infact the most talking point of the game is its 120fps mode.. otherwise it would be just another racer like everything else.

SvennoJ said:

You do realize Fortnite and Minecraft weren't possible before their time, and it's only hardware / tech advancements that made these games possible. Fortnite and Minecraft are game play advancements, Crisis and Star Citizen are mostly graphical advancements.

Age of Empires 4 can benefit greatly from SSD. No memory limits to building / alterations. 200 player battle royale on a Earth size map. Near instant jump to any part of the map loading in the needed detail. Cloud computing to keep track of everyone's armies. Instead we'll probably just get AoE 2 with better graphics.

It's good for you you enjoy older games at higher res or the same old game play in higher fidelity. I love new experiences, hence only playing VR for well over a year.

You can always keep buying a PC to enjoy games at higher res/fps. But wouldn't it be nice to have new games unlocked from the constraints of slow HDDs. And traditional games will continue to be made. Heck we're practically drowning in retro games nowadays. And I greatly enjoyed streets of rage 4 as well. However, variety is the spice of life. New experiences is what keeps me interested in gaming. If it wasn't for VR, this gen would have been rather mediocre.

Minecraft and Fortnight are playable on Mobile phones, they don't require the need of state of the art machines to play. Minecraft is an 11 year old game and was in development a lot longer before than. It doesn't need tech to be fun. Its the gameplay that keeps people into it, not the visuals.

SSDs are awesome, however its not what makes games great, its just hardware at the end of the day, its definitely an improvement. AoE4 even if it was being made from the ground up on XSX wouldn't change how AoE4 plays because the developers are making the game to their vision, keeping it traditional for the fans that actually love those type of games. Age of Empires is not a 200 player Battle Royal game and i am sure many RTS fans don't want them to change there vision just because they have hardware to do so. 

Either way, weather you like it or not, its not going to change anything, majority of games due out this year and next year are most likely designed with current gen in mind so we wont see anything soon from Xbox and even Playstation that take full advantage of these systems hardware until at least 1 to 2 years into the console generation.

I am interested in seeing more game announcements, not how they are made, but that's just me.



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

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.

You can’t lecture me on repeating the 20-30% gap when you peddle the holding back concern trolling stance since the year started. Fact is Xbox is in a better position to hit benchmarks while also looking next gen. 

If you make a game on the lower hardware and port up then 100% you are right it holds new hardware back. But since they announced Halo Infinite is built natively on Series X we now know they just have to cut corners to scale down. You know this but still for some reason hope (???) that MS is building games natively on old hardware and porting up.

It’s simple, my TV is 4K and more frames the better. If you wanna settle for less before the generation even begins then I’m glad I’m not on your side. Series X has a better shot to do both because they actually designed it to be next gen. I never played a game at 120 FPS but I imagine it’s a step up and can’t wait to see the difference. 

Here I know it doesn’t suit your concern but here’s the confirmation again.

https://twitter.com/xcloudtimdog/status/1276173499028078592?s=21

Last edited by sales2099 - on 12 July 2020

 

 

You’re talking to goopy, who reads an interview with the director of Halo and ignores where he talks about building the game around the most powerful hardware and how it will shine on XSX but instead focuses on the part where he says the game will look and run well on Xbone and twists that to mean they are designing the game around base Xbox One and then just making stuff look better.



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

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.

Don't forget Papa Phil said PS4Pro competed against X1S not X1X because apparently 1,3 vs 4,2 Tflops (3x) are a smaller difference than 4,2 vs 6? (40%) difference.

So it is obvious that X1 doesn't holds XSX down but it will be a world difference agains PS5. It will be like X1 1080p30fps, PS5 1440p30fps and XSX 8k120fps you'll see.



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