By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

I’d think of it more as Witcher 3 PC vs Witcher 3 on Switch in terms of gap where the high end version stands out on its own merits. Plus they did announce Halo is natively built around Series X and thus will be ported down so not the same as a porting-up remaster like LOU on PS4. 

I maintain this is only for the launch year, where no developers are able to squeeze out maximum potential out the gate. So in the meantime, MS just not gonna abandon late adopters day 1 next gen, which I think is win win. 

So if Halo on XSX compared to X1 doesn't show the same difference as Witcher 3 high end PC vs Switch we can expect you to complain a lot?

To be fair Xbox One is more capable then a Switch. Point being Goopy seems to think it’s a resolution and FPS bump and they call it a day. I’m thinking textures, ray tracing, draw distances, AI, just off the top of my head. If the differences are so small that upgrading isn’t warranted, then sure I’ll complain. But I doubt that. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
sales2099 said:

Bold: Two seemingly contradictory points that show you definitely looking at this from a negative view. Almost like you have a pre determined narrative...

I can imagine LOU maxes out benchmarks because PS4 can handle it. LOU 2 is what it is because the PS4 Pro is not a well designed console. It struggles to hit benchmarks like Xbox X easily can. I imagine it’s the same scenario with PS5 and Series X where Sony didn’t think to give it enough power to make way for a fast SSD. Series X has more of a shot to do both. 

Whut? SSDs are a huge benefit in low powered laptops with integrated graphics. What the heck does power have to do with I/O speed. The PS3 would have benefited from SSD. Skyrim for example wouldn't have run into trouble, using the SSD as cache for the changes made to the world.

If anything Series X has less of a shot since it has the same memory but a slower SSD and no direct to GPU pathway, thus can't save as much on RAM by utilizing the SSD as much to lower the amount that has to stay present in memory.

RAM use is linked to storage I/O speed. PC compensates for slow storage speeds by using lots of RAM. My laptop has 22 GB of ram even though it has an SSD. 16GB of system ram, 53% in use just for browsing. Cache, cache and more cache. When ram was still an issue on PC swap files were used. But oh boy, when system RAM ran low and the swap file (on HDD) got used the system crawled to a halt.

More power means you need more RAM for bigger screen buffers and bigger textures. Thus by any means, MS didn't think to give it enough RAM or I/O speed to lessen the burden on RAM to make full use of the power.


A useless comparison

7th Gen, avg 100 MB/s HDD speed, 22.4 GB/s RAM speed (360)    RAM is 230 times faster
8th Gen, avg 100 MB/s HDD speed, 176 GB/s RAM speed (ps4)     RAM is 1800 times faster
9th Gen, PS5 upto 9 GB/s SSD speed, 448 GB/s                           RAM is 50 times faster
9th Gen, SX upto 5 GB/s SSD speed, up to 560 GB/s                    RAM is 112 times faster

Looks like PS5 is in a great position to augment RAM (the biggest bottleneck in any game design) with SSD but Series X still has a better ratio than 7th gen.



sales2099 said:

I know MS breaking tradition. Change is usually met with uncertainly and skepticism. We used to the idea of console makers abandoning their player base day 1 next gen. Not a early adopter? Too bad wait till you ready to make the jump. Nintendo did a great thing with BOTW, not abandoning their WiiU crowd and showed a great game speaks louder then the game having a version somewhere else. If the Series X can show next gen improvements then who cares if late adopters get a inferior version?

Their method is 100% more consumer friendly and you know it. Still the irony is pretty huge considering their top launch title, Spiderman MM, is very likely a cross gen style game with many assets from the original PS4 game, with next gen facelifts for PS5. The audacity on you to have this kind of double standard. 

Don't you do any fact checking???

https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/03/14/breath-of-the-wild-was-never-meant-to-be-the-wii-us-swansong

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a superb launch title for Nintendo Switch, but it was never intended as such. For almost all of its development, Breath of the Wild was a Wii U game through and through.

Development of BotW started 5 years before the Switch came out! Besides that, WiiU to Switch isn't much of a jump at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/3/17070664/nintendo-switch-technology-bayonetta-2-anniversary

The Switch is roughly as powerful as the Wii U — a little speedier, sure, but they’re not in different galaxies.



goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

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

We don't even know what "Series X optimized games built natively for Series X" means. All I know is that Halo will be coming out on Xone and they're talking about 4k/120fps or 60fps with RT on Series X. They did say some of the "optimized for Series X" games get more enhancements than others and Halo is one of them. My guess is that it could set a new benchmark for Ray Tracing compared to the stuff we've already seen on pc and it will probably look great.However, the core game will still be designed around the limitations of the Xbox One.

It's like how TLOU remastered maxes out the ps4 pro at 4k/60fps compared to TLOU2 at 1440p/30fps. You tell me which is the more ambitious and better looking game?

I can totally see how the Xbox One is holding back this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqJALPVn0Y&feature=emb_title



chakkra said:

I can totally see how the Xbox One is holding back this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqJALPVn0Y&feature=emb_title

When is it coming to XBox One?



Around the Network
sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

Everybody knows what real next gen games means man. We've never had a new console generation where we didn't get them. But have we ever heard any console maker say "Here's our brand new next gen console... But your old one will run the same games so you don't really need to buy it". 

I know MS breaking tradition. Change is usually met with uncertainly and skepticism. We used to the idea of console makers abandoning their player base day 1 next gen. Not a early adopter? Too bad wait till you ready to make the jump. Nintendo did a great thing with BOTW, not abandoning their WiiU crowd and showed a great game speaks louder then the game having a version somewhere else. If the Series X can show next gen improvements then who cares if late adopters get a inferior version?

Their method is 100% more consumer friendly and you know it. Still the irony is pretty huge considering their top launch title, Spiderman MM, is very likely a cross gen style game with many assets from the original PS4 game, with next gen facelifts for PS5. The audacity on you to have this kind of double standard. 

You are wrong man.

Sony released games for PS1, PS2 and PS3 even after the sucessor had released. PS4 is receiving TLOU2, FF VIIR, GoT, etc months before PS5 release. But after a console release it is expected that they support the newer system. Meaning, titles that were near end of development will release on the system even if the replacement have released (perhaps with some remaster or port for the newer system) but like 2 years before the system is replaced all the new titles were already made thinking about the next gen system, and even some titles that got some issues during development on original system may become crossgen (like BOTW).

sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

So if Halo on XSX compared to X1 doesn't show the same difference as Witcher 3 high end PC vs Switch we can expect you to complain a lot?

To be fair Xbox One is more capable then a Switch. Point being Goopy seems to think it’s a resolution and FPS bump and they call it a day. I’m thinking textures, ray tracing, draw distances, AI, just off the top of my head. If the differences are so small that upgrading isn’t warranted, then sure I’ll complain. But I doubt that. 

Don't deflect to goopy, you were the one comparing X1 to XSX difference to Switch to High End PC. And looking at Halo 5 on X1 I hardly think you'll have a gap as noticeable as those images of Switch versus High Eng PC for Witcher 3.

And Goopy isn't saying it is just res and FPS bump and call a day. He is saying that if you pick the same game 720p30fps on X1 and run it at 4k120fps on XSX then you won't really have any juice left for anything. 720p image is less than 1Mp while 4k is over 8Mp, the difference in resolution is 9 times which would almost get the whole GPU power difference from X1 to XSX (just look at X1 vs X1X, the power difference there is about 5x so games that were about 1080p on X1 could be 4k on X1X with not much added after that, but games that were 720p wouldn't be native 4k on X1X) then you want a 4x frame rate that would put it at 36 times difference. Let's say Halo Infinite is 1080p30fps on X1 and 4k60fps on XSX that would already consume 8x difference in GPU so there would be just a little more to be used on improving other stuff, and if Halo Infinite aims for 1080p60fps on X1 sure the jump will look bigger on XSX because the rendering will only get 4x GPU difference so will have a lot of power available to other stuff but that big jump will be achieved by Halo Infinite looking subpar on X1.

You are still stuck on the more pixels = better image quality as sole factor even after I explained to you that you can have 1440p checkerboardered to 4k and using the power saved on other effects giving you much better image quality than using that power just to draw native 4k. Sure a lot of crossgen games will be 4k60fps or 120fps on PS5 and XSX, that is because they will be made to be around 1080p30fps on PS4 and 720/900p30fps on X1 and with very little extra effort put on the PS5 and XSX version so all the power will be used for extra frames and res (reason why goopy have been complaining of MS strategy), but for games that have more ambition on IQ you can expect 4k30fps start of gen and certainly 1440p30fps will be common on AAA by the end of gen.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

Everybody knows what real next gen games means man. We've never had a new console generation where we didn't get them. But have we ever heard any console maker say "Here's our brand new next gen console... But your old one will run the same games so you don't really need to buy it". 

I know MS breaking tradition. Change is usually met with uncertainly and skepticism. We used to the idea of console makers abandoning their player base day 1 next gen. Not a early adopter? Too bad wait till you ready to make the jump. Nintendo did a great thing with BOTW, not abandoning their WiiU crowd and showed a great game speaks louder then the game having a version somewhere else. If the Series X can show next gen improvements then who cares if late adopters get a inferior version?

Their method is 100% more consumer friendly and you know it. Still the irony is pretty huge considering their top launch title, Spiderman MM, is very likely a cross gen style game with many assets from the original PS4 game, with next gen facelifts for PS5. The audacity on you to have this kind of double standard. 

Umm.. what? 

BOTW Was a Wii U title from beginning. It wasn't developed for Switch then ported to the Wii U, it was the other way around...

You either choose to be more consumer friendly to your last gen console base or consumer friendly to your early adopters. I can see why MS is doing it this way because the XB1 didn't get anywhere near the support it deserved during it's lifetime, so they probably felt it wouldn't be right to stop support for it straight away.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

sales2099 said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

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.

I’d think of it more as Witcher 3 PC vs Witcher 3 on Switch in terms of gap where the high end version stands out on its own merits. Plus they did announce Halo is natively built around Series X and thus will be ported down so not the same as a porting-up remaster like LOU on PS4. 

I maintain this is only for the launch year, where no developers are able to squeeze out maximum potential out the gate. So in the meantime, MS just not gonna abandon late adopters day 1 next gen, which I think is win win. 

True, but the performance gap between the Switch and Xone isn't as huge as the one between Xone and Series X though. Not exactly sure, but I think the Xone is about 3 times more powerful than the Switch, whereas Series X is almost 10 times more powerful than the Xone. There's also a reason why we aren't seeing the more demanding games on Switch like RDR2, Cyberpunk 2077. They are simply impossible to down port. Hell, didn't they delay Cyberpunk because they couldn't hit their performance target on the Xbox One? https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/01/22/cyberpunk-2077-delayed-xbox-one-unsatisfactory-performance/

Witcher 3 is running at like 500p on the Switch. That might not make the game completely unplayable on a small screen, but on a tv that would be a different story. Now lets say the Switch version of Witcher 3 was designed along side the ps4/Xone version. They likely would have targeted 720p on the Switch and the whole game would have had to be compromised across the board as it can only run in 500p on Switch in its current state.   

Also, MS isn't talking about down ports that take a ton of time and resources. They are talking about scalable graphics like we're seeing on pc. In any case we will see soon enough. But I would be very surprised if Halo doesn't run on Series X at 4k/120fps or 4k/60fps with RT. If that's next gen enough for you, then fine. To me that just sounds pretty boring compared to completely new experiences that would chug along at 4fps on current gen, before bursting into a big ball of flames. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 13 July 2020

SvennoJ said:
chakkra said:

I can totally see how the Xbox One is holding back this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqJALPVn0Y&feature=emb_title

When is it coming to XBox One?

They keep saying: "later this year," so I assume they're going to announce a date in the showcase.



SvennoJ said:
sales2099 said:

I know MS breaking tradition. Change is usually met with uncertainly and skepticism. We used to the idea of console makers abandoning their player base day 1 next gen. Not a early adopter? Too bad wait till you ready to make the jump. Nintendo did a great thing with BOTW, not abandoning their WiiU crowd and showed a great game speaks louder then the game having a version somewhere else. If the Series X can show next gen improvements then who cares if late adopters get a inferior version?

Their method is 100% more consumer friendly and you know it. Still the irony is pretty huge considering their top launch title, Spiderman MM, is very likely a cross gen style game with many assets from the original PS4 game, with next gen facelifts for PS5. The audacity on you to have this kind of double standard. 

Don't you do any fact checking???

https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/03/14/breath-of-the-wild-was-never-meant-to-be-the-wii-us-swansong

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a superb launch title for Nintendo Switch, but it was never intended as such. For almost all of its development, Breath of the Wild was a Wii U game through and through.

Development of BotW started 5 years before the Switch came out! Besides that, WiiU to Switch isn't much of a jump at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/3/17070664/nintendo-switch-technology-bayonetta-2-anniversary

The Switch is roughly as powerful as the Wii U — a little speedier, sure, but they’re not in different galaxies.

You missed the point that the game was cross gen. I don’t care how it came to be. And yet the games quality spoke for itself and added value to the brand. I am sure we will see more tangible benefits with Halo though. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.