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

Azzanation said:
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.

I guess you are misunderstanding me. Tech made Minecraft and Fortnight game play possible. Without online access, no battle royale. Without relatively fast/reliable online access, no building in battle royale, a staple of Fortnite. Without HDD or other easily write-able storage, no Minecraft.

One of the last times I played AoE2 was when 6 of us came together at the office on a Sunday to play on the largest possible map size in LAN. Tech could not keep up. It went fine at first but by the time all six of us were running into the 200 unit limit the game or rather network code had crawled to a halt, 1 or 2 fps, unplayable and we had to forfeit the match.

What can SSD do, more units, more buildings, more changes, instant back and forth with hot keys. Picture in picture, multiple views, helping out the ram requirements and allow more variation and customization in units as well. The cloud can keep people connected for big versus matches and help out with overall management.

I'm interested in seeing more interactive game design instead of more graphic violence. Tlou2 looks great but my wife hates it, can't play it with my kids anywhere around, constant F words and extremely graphic kills. More building, less limits.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
goopy20 said:

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.

Don’t forget people loyal to PS themselves. Better to compete with the weaker hardware then one that’s considerably better. 

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/ps4-pro-vs-xbox-one-s-2940191/amp

Id settle for 4K/60 or even 4K/30 for any slow paced 3rd person single player action adventure games. 

Edit: It begins, the resolution wars of 2020 :)

https://twitter.com/strictly_nobs/status/1282411380235173889?s=21

Last edited by sales2099 - on 12 July 2020

 

 

Conina said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

You needed to buy a HDD for the arcade for certain games to run and you can't install all acts of MGS4 on a PS3 Super slim.
The fact that gimped consoles existed didn't mean games were held back to be able to work on those!

But of course not all games will need the speed of an SSD. Some will, if they won't be held back. ps3 and 360 had other limitations as well making the slow HDD and Blu-ray speed less of a problem. 2 generations later, HDD is the biggest bottleneck.

Just a little random tidbit of information: PS2 Texture buffer bandwidth: 9.6 GB/s, almost the same as the max throughput of the PS5 SSD. Pretty amazing.



sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

Don’t forget people loyal to PS themselves. Better to compete with the weaker hardware then one that’s considerably better. 

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/ps4-pro-vs-xbox-one-s-2940191/amp

Id settle for 4K/60 or even 4K/30 for any slow paced 3rd person single player action adventure games. 

Edit: It begins, the resolution wars of 2020 :)

https://twitter.com/strictly_nobs/status/1282411380235173889?s=21

So the poorly formed opinion of a random person is the same weight as Phil Spencer whose console weren't able to compete at all? Gotcha.



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

chakkra said:

And we have been seeing destructible environments since Battlefield Bad Company 2

Destructible environments were in Red Faction back in 2001 on the PC/Xbox/Gamecube/Playstation 2.



chakkra said:

weather changing the environments in FH4, etc.

Shenmue had dynamic weather back in 1999 on the dreamcast.


chakkra said:

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.

Thief: The Dark Project in 1998 pioneered Stealth... And stealth mechanics have typically always reverted back to those games on how to do it right.



Metal Gear Solid 3 on the Playstation 2 you could hide in tall grass...

chakkra said:

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).

Agreed. I think we need to wait on the games to see how things actually play out in my opinion.

We haven't seen anything that hasn't been done before, not mechanics wise anyway. - Visually things are on an entirely different level... But you know what people are like, new hardware, new hype.

I am super excited for next gen, just not excited about some of the claims people are throwing out... Because for all intents and purposes, games will still be designed with legacy hardware in mind as developers migrate to the newer platforms and rework their tools... Even then many franchises work on a formula because it sells, so we may not see much deviation in gameplay mechanics.

That's not to say they won't be visual spectacles, far from it.

CGI-Quality said:

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.

Same. Noticed the same. I can't tell the difference between a 240MB/s Sata SSD on the Core 2 Quad Rig, 500MB/s SATA SSD on the old Sandy Bridge rig, 2.5GB/s SSD on the Ryzen notebook or 3.5GB/s on the Ryzen Desktop.

The main benefits that SSD's brought weren't transfer rates, it was those insanely low access times, the CPU is still tasked with procedural generating, decompressing and other tasks which can hold back loading throughput.
It's also why the Switch see's a load-time decrease when the CPU clockspeed can run at max speed.

Games that have allot of small non-contiguous files though see massive performance increases shifting from mechanical to solid state, it's those low access times that makes the big difference.

For the most part the PC just dumps everything it can into memory, so there is less of a reliance on streaming assets... Helps that a mid-range PC sold/built these days has around 24Gb of total memory. (System+GPU.)

Plus the OS does allot of hard work caching everything it can into free memory to reduce it's reliance on storage.

Next-gen though will be very disruptive to I/O and storage technologies, can't wait to see what it means for game design.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
sales2099 said:

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. 

I can't enforce a definition of "next gen" but mine doesn't allow The Last of Us Remastered to be a "next gen" title in the PS4 when it released simply because of a facelift. It was an enhanced edition of a last gen game.

If Micro releases Xbone-SEX multiplats and makes the Xbone version look good and actually sell the idea that those games look good in both versions then they can't help but put themselves in a ditch when they try to argue that what they are putting out in terms of exclusives put PS5 dead in the water.

If Xbox One can get the job done, enough for Micro to release a Xbox SEX game because they think it is worth buying in Xbox One, then PS5 does that and more.

You can't try to undermine the gap between your old gen and new gen while overselling a supposed gap between your console and your competitor's which runs parallel to what you offer hardware-wise.

Of course, this may be a temporary situation until Micro stops sharing SEX exclusives with Xbox One.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Pemalite said:
chakkra said:

And we have been seeing destructible environments since Battlefield Bad Company 2

Destructible environments were in Red Faction back in 2001 on the PC/Xbox/Gamecube/Playstation 2.

...

Next-gen though will be very disruptive to I/O and storage technologies, can't wait to see what it means for game design.

Destructible environments were in Space Invaders in 1978 :p However can you imagine what Crackdown promised, without the cloud, in a full scale world. Fast read/write access will make it possible to have large scale completely destructible/alterable worlds, shape the terrain anyway you like without limits. Yep, can't wait to see where games will take us next.

You can also see it like this. HDD is like dial-up, SSD cable/fibre. Why keep making games for dial-up internet.
It's pretty crazy to realize that the fastest home fibre internet you can get atm 1 Gbps, is faster than reading from HDD. Your download speed is actually limited by how fast the HDD can write the data to disk... My laptop HDD topped out at 640 mbps read speed.

Max SSD throughput will be 40 Gbps on Series X, 72 Gbps on PS5. Apparently NASA has that beat already. NASA has the world's fastest internet with a connection speed of 91 Gigabits per second. Then Australia comes along with 44.2 terabits per second. Cloud is ultimately the future.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200522095504.htm




SvennoJ said:

Destructible environments were in Space Invaders in 1978 :p However can you imagine what Crackdown promised, without the cloud, in a full scale world. Fast read/write access will make it possible to have large scale completely destructible/alterable worlds, shape the terrain anyway you like without limits. Yep, can't wait to see where games will take us next.


That is all entirely possible now, it's just making the assets takes time and money.

Just keep in mind that many of the promises people are "proclaiming" to be coming next-gen have been many of the same promises we have had every gen.

SvennoJ said:


You can also see it like this. HDD is like dial-up, SSD cable/fibre. Why keep making games for dial-up internet.
It's pretty crazy to realize that the fastest home fibre internet you can get atm 1 Gbps, is faster than reading from HDD. Your download speed is actually limited by how fast the HDD can write the data to disk... My laptop HDD topped out at 640 mbps read speed.

1Gbps is "Giga BITS Per Second". - There are 8 bits in a byte.

1Gbps thus converts into 125MB/s. - I have hard drives that are faster than that.

640Mbps equates to 80MB/s. I have had Laptop hard drives that are faster than that.

Now 10 Gigabit ethernet/internet will definitely hit some mechanical disk walls... However keep in mind that internet tends to function on latencies measured in "Milliseconds" rather than "Nanoseconds" of a mechanical disk, so a mechanical disk still has significant advantages over high speed internet connections.

Either way, the storage is entirely redundant if you can fit everything into Ram anyway.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
SvennoJ said:

Destructible environments were in Space Invaders in 1978 :p However can you imagine what Crackdown promised, without the cloud, in a full scale world. Fast read/write access will make it possible to have large scale completely destructible/alterable worlds, shape the terrain anyway you like without limits. Yep, can't wait to see where games will take us next.


That is all entirely possible now, it's just making the assets takes time and money.

Just keep in mind that many of the promises people are "proclaiming" to be coming next-gen have been many of the same promises we have had every gen.

SvennoJ said:


You can also see it like this. HDD is like dial-up, SSD cable/fibre. Why keep making games for dial-up internet.
It's pretty crazy to realize that the fastest home fibre internet you can get atm 1 Gbps, is faster than reading from HDD. Your download speed is actually limited by how fast the HDD can write the data to disk... My laptop HDD topped out at 640 mbps read speed.

1Gbps is "Giga BITS Per Second". - There are 8 bits in a byte.

1Gbps thus converts into 125MB/s. - I have hard drives that are faster than that.

640Mbps equates to 80MB/s. I have had Laptop hard drives that are faster than that.

Now 10 Gigabit ethernet/internet will definitely hit some mechanical disk walls... However keep in mind that internet tends to function on latencies measured in "Milliseconds" rather than "Nanoseconds" of a mechanical disk, so a mechanical disk still has significant advantages over high speed internet connections.

Either way, the storage is entirely redundant if you can fit everything into Ram anyway.

Yes, there are faster ones, I'm just using the benchmark crystal disk gave me for my laptop, 79.92 MB/s sequential read speed, hence 640 mbps. Avg is 100 MB/s. HDDs are also CLV so it also depends on whether the data goes on the inside or outside edge.

RAM is always a constraint in consoles and the increase from this to next gen is rather little. However thanks to SSD a lot less will need to be kept in RAM. Consoles can't fit everything in RAM.

Crackdown apparently wasn't possible now (as promised), it kinda sucked compared to the tech demos early in the gen. Internet latency and having to compress down to 1.5 mbps were likely the main reasons. That 44.2 terrabits per second internet will also not help game streaming as long as latency and jitter are still an issue, but it is interesting to see what can be possible in the future. At least image quality can vastly improve for streaming.

Anyway it was just an analogy, HDD = dial up speeds, SSD = cable/fibre speeds.
Can you play Fortnite on 56K modem... Of course somebody tried lol



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

Don’t know what to tell you. You can stick with your PC or Xbox One you all ready bought if you aren’t ready. Or you are forced to spend $500 on a new console. This goes double if you aren’t a early adopter. You think people who bought a PS4 in the last year or two are day 1 adopters? 

Bold: Halo Infinite is exclusive in that I can’t find it on PS. We both know that’s the only parameter that matters here. It’s also a Series X launch title. Also a new game when it releases. You have no idea how different it will be to the last gen version. Myself and many others don’t want to settle. We want the best version. That said:

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

We will see plenty of games that will fall outside the cross gen window in the coming weeks.  

Maybe that's the only parameter that matters for fanboys. But Halo not being on ps5 is just a business decision, whereas Horizon Zero West being exclusive to the ps5 is a design decision. Big difference there in how far the developers can potentially take their ambitions.

The truth is that MS is too busy being all consumer friendly that they ARE forgetting the people who are excited about next gen. You know the people who want to see exciting new games, conceived to be impossible on current gen. I get what you're saying and that you won't settle for anything less than the best version of Halo Infinite. But how many people bought a X1X or a high-end gpu to play the best version of base console games? 

There simply is a difference between a generational jump we typically see when new consoles come out, and scalable graphics like we see on pc. This is the difference.

Generational leap

And it's not just the graphics in this screenshot, it's about the entire scope and visual package of the game.

Scalable graphics on pc

Scalable graphics on pc and the mid-gen consoles are a lot more subtle. Obviously the resolution and framerate jump is noticeable when you're playing the game, but you're still getting the exact same game (same levels, ai, physics etc.) whether your playing on a 1,3TF Xbox One or a X1X/high-end pc. 

Scalable

The Witcher 3 PC

How do you explain this?. Do the images of the witcher 3 not look at least 2 to 3 gens apart?.

I wonder how many devs it took to make both versions....