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).

I think it’s fair to say there’s a 20-30% gap. PS5 can’t overclock their games 100% of the time where as Series X is consistent. 

I’m looking at Gears 5 and Forza 7 which are both 4K/60 FPS on Xbox X. Both aren’t ugly games by any stretch of the imagination. If any console has a shot of hitting those benchmarks while STILL providing a next gen visual upgrade it’s Series X. Even if it’s 4K checkerboard with 60 I’m sure is an option only Series X can do comfortably. 

Its the only reason why MS would say things like "The differences between current and next gen are mainly in the resolution and framerates". And "we don't care if you buy Series X or not". Lets face it, ever since MS announced a 12Tflops console it has felt like there's always been some kind of catch, like the no exclusives for the first 2 years thing. I mean if its Phil's job not to get people excited about Series X, he sure has been doing a fantastic job.

Now, just imagine there was no Series X and MS only announced Lockhart. People would be pissed as 4Tflops doesn't sounds like much of an upgrade. So what do you do? You announce the premium 12Tflops Series X first, while at the same time talk about how the generational jump will be a lot smaller compared to previous gens and lower people's expectations. Then you announce the 4Tflops Lockhart saying it plays the same games as Series X except in 30fps/1440p at a third of the price...

We already know that only 1/5 of ps4's sold were pro models. So why would MS use 4k/60fps as the main selling point for Series X, knowing most people don't care about it and 80% will likely opt for the cheaper version? I'm telling yas, we're all getting bamboozled!  

I heard it was just one generation apart because X1X is gen 8 while Switch is gen 9.

You are factually wrong. The UE5 demo had RT on it, what it didn't do was use the RT cores of the PS5, which would likely show a better image if used.

Also Cerny on the presentation said some of the builds they done in Sony had 3 of the 4 main elements of RT and the impact in performance was small. That was the objective with the RT cores, to give RT without taxing the rest of the GPU (sure some devs may go even heavier and then need to use the rest of the GPU for it).

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-the-witcher-3-switch-tech-interview

Digital Foundry: How long did this take to develop?

Piotr Chrzanowski: Over a year now. Well it depends on whether you want to add the business stuff, but then I would say it's around 12 months at this point.

Digital Foundry: How did the first attempts at getting Witcher 3 running Switch pan out?

Piotr Chrzanowski: We had the project set up in a very clear [direction]. We wanted to achieve each stage that was planned - what was aimed at. Of course one of the first things was to make sure that engine would actually run on the Switch. I would say the other big milestone was to have a piece of the game actually playable. So we went with Kaer Mohren with the prologue, because it was a self-contained world that has all the systems, including combat etc. We looked through that, we saw how we needed to shape the next stages of the project. And then we could expand to the White Orchard, and then to the rest of the world.



https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-the-witcher-3-switch-tech-analysis

Pick a busy street in Novigrad for example, and the lowest reading comes in at just 810x456. For perspective, that's 63 per cent on each axis of 720p.

Jump to PS4, and there's not a tangible a difference in NPC density, just going by eye. Of course, their draw distance is compromised on Switch, but the rendering range on NPCs is generous enough to cram everyone in. The only snag is that the frame-rate on characters is halved towards the distance.

Beyond the inevitable blurriness, there are further downsides. The first is pop-in; often it's well-handled, but Switch has limits in how quickly it can draw everything in. The big trouble spot is cut-scenes; fast camera cuts overwhelm the system, and the way geometry flickers in and out can be pretty glaring. Detail-rich areas such as Novigrad can also push the streaming systems hard, resulting in pop-in that varies on repeat tests.

The Witcher 3's drive for compression also has an impact beyond FMV quality. Textures and sound also take a hit. Texture assets and filtering are of a notably lower quality, where a form of trilinear filtering is used which adds to the generally blurry look - while the assets themselves are essentially very similar to the PC' version's low setting.

Docked play is solid, but dense areas like Novigrad will see performance drop to something closer to 20fps. Portable play is similar, but not quite as robust overall.

A lot of work, a lot of compromises and downgrades. And what does it prove, TW3 has no next gen game play, just better graphics!


Yep, if you work long enough on it and comprise enough you can port things down quite a lot

Minecraft on new 3DS


Minecraft on PC

Of course TW3 and Minecraft have nothing to do with automatic scaling. Tons of work went into these versions with severe compromises. TW3 got the game play in yet Minecraft not so much.

Anyway these examples have nothing to do with being held back, since the 3DS version of MC and Switch version of TW3 came later and had no influence on the design of each game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-the-witcher-3-switch-tech-interview

Digital Foundry: How long did this take to develop?

Piotr Chrzanowski: Over a year now. Well it depends on whether you want to add the business stuff, but then I would say it's around 12 months at this point.

Digital Foundry: How did the first attempts at getting Witcher 3 running Switch pan out?

Piotr Chrzanowski: We had the project set up in a very clear [direction]. We wanted to achieve each stage that was planned - what was aimed at. Of course one of the first things was to make sure that engine would actually run on the Switch. I would say the other big milestone was to have a piece of the game actually playable. So we went with Kaer Mohren with the prologue, because it was a self-contained world that has all the systems, including combat etc. We looked through that, we saw how we needed to shape the next stages of the project. And then we could expand to the White Orchard, and then to the rest of the world.



https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-the-witcher-3-switch-tech-analysis

Pick a busy street in Novigrad for example, and the lowest reading comes in at just 810x456. For perspective, that's 63 per cent on each axis of 720p.

Jump to PS4, and there's not a tangible a difference in NPC density, just going by eye. Of course, their draw distance is compromised on Switch, but the rendering range on NPCs is generous enough to cram everyone in. The only snag is that the frame-rate on characters is halved towards the distance.

Beyond the inevitable blurriness, there are further downsides. The first is pop-in; often it's well-handled, but Switch has limits in how quickly it can draw everything in. The big trouble spot is cut-scenes; fast camera cuts overwhelm the system, and the way geometry flickers in and out can be pretty glaring. Detail-rich areas such as Novigrad can also push the streaming systems hard, resulting in pop-in that varies on repeat tests.

The Witcher 3's drive for compression also has an impact beyond FMV quality. Textures and sound also take a hit. Texture assets and filtering are of a notably lower quality, where a form of trilinear filtering is used which adds to the generally blurry look - while the assets themselves are essentially very similar to the PC' version's low setting.

Docked play is solid, but dense areas like Novigrad will see performance drop to something closer to 20fps. Portable play is similar, but not quite as robust overall.

A lot of work, a lot of compromises and downgrades. And what does it prove, TW3 has no next gen game play, just better graphics!


Yep, if you work long enough on it and comprise enough you can port things down quite a lot

Minecraft on new 3DS


Minecraft on PC

Of course TW3 and Minecraft have nothing to do with automatic scaling. Tons of work went into these versions with severe compromises. TW3 got the game play in yet Minecraft not so much.

Anyway these examples have nothing to do with being held back, since the 3DS version of MC and Switch version of TW3 came later and had no influence on the design of each game.

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't just the 2 years of Xone support that will be a pain in the ass. The remainder of next gen developers will need to work around the limitations of the 4Tflops Lockhart. Of course MS will say Lockhart won't be holding Series X back. But how are we supposed to believe that when they say even the ancient Xone isn't holding it back?

To me it sounds the Series S will actually be MS's main next gen console and Series X is their mid-gen console coming early. Its the only logical explanation why MS is talking so much about 4k/60fps.