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

Shaunodon on 14 July 2020
goopy20 said:
Conina said:

And why are you excluding resolution, if it is the easiest one to adjust to performance limits?

Lockhart = 1080p, PS5 = 1800p, Series X = 2160p

Or more demanding games:

Lockhart = 720p+ (dynamic resolution), PS5 = 1200p+ (dynamic resolution), Series X = 1440p+ (dynamic resolution)

It would be similar to GTX 1650 TI, RTX 2070 Super and RTX 2080 Super.

I'm excluding resolution because 4k simply isn't the most efficient way to take advantage of these new consoles. I mean what do you think looks better, Minecraft in 4k, or Minecraft with path tracing in 1080p? Developers are always targeting the best bang for the buck on consoles and resolution is typically the first thing that gets scarified. That's why we had so many 720p and 900p games on the Xbox One and, except for some fanboys, nobody cared.

For most people there isn't a real noticeable difference between native 4k and 1440p/ checkerboard rendering. So why would a developer focus on 4k instead of pushing overall fidelity? Lets face it, if MS gives us a choice between 2 consoles and you're only missing out on 4k at a third of the price, its not hard to guess which one will sell more. That's why I believe Series S will be MS's actual successor to the Xbox One S and Series X will be more like the X1X, a niche product for those who absolutely demand 4k and are willing to pay a premium for it.

This means the exclusives will be designed around the limitations of Series S. The Series X will run those games in 4k/60fps but that's about all they can do with the extra horsepower, just like with the X1X. The ps5 on the other hand isn't bound to anything and they can in theory make a 720p game and go completely nuts with overall fidelity. 

That's why its so easy to predict that the ps5 exclusives will have a much higher wow factor, without even having seen much gameplay. Unless, of course, Lockhart isn't real and MS start announcing games that aren't 4k/120fps. Who knows, but that's pretty much all Phil's been talking about.

To design a game for their next-gen system PS5 only targeting 720p, they'd have to not be bound by reason or sanity either...



Around the Network
Pemalite on 14 July 2020

Just throwing this out, would be good if we could move from "attacking" individuals, underhanded or not... And instead debate the points that they present.
Yes there will be people who agree and disagree with certain points of view, that is the entire point of a forum discussion.

Keep it civil, keep it positive.



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

DonFerrari on 14 July 2020
zero129 said:
DonFerrari said:

Are you expecting double framerate with only 15% power advantage? PS5 also will use temporary reconstruction.

Not always no, lets say a game runs between 38-45fps on ps4 vs 60 fps on series x id imagine the dev in most cases would lock the PS5 version to 30fps to keep it more staple. And also the power advantage could be more then 15% depending on the situation. one way or the other the Series X will be able to keep higher fps.

Yes that was the scenario I told Sales... if PS5 is near 60fps (lets say 50fps) then sure dev would be able to make 60fps on XSX with same quality on everything else.

But dev would be really lazy to have the PS5 missing the 60fps by 15-20% framerate count and instead of cutting some of the effects to reach 60fps or lock it to 30fps and use the extra power to put more effects than on XSX version (so let's say PS5 version look better but XSX runs better/smoothier) just get to "let's lock it at 30fps and call it a day".



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."

goopy20 on 15 July 2020
Conina said:
goopy20 said:

For most people there isn't a real noticeable difference between native 4k and 1440p/ checkerboard rendering. So why would a developer focus on 4k instead of pushing overall fidelity? Lets face it, if MS gives us a choice between 2 consoles and you're only missing out on 4k at a third of the price, its not hard to guess which one will sell more. That's why I believe Series S will be MS's actual successor to the Xbox One S and Series X will be more like the X1X, a niche product for those who absolutely demand 4k and are willing to pay a premium for it.

This means the exclusives will be designed around the limitations of Series S. The Series X will run those games in 4k/60fps but that's about all they can do with the extra horsepower, just like with the X1X. The ps5 on the other hand isn't bound to anything and they can in theory make a 720p game and go completely nuts with overall fidelity. 

That's why its so easy to predict that the ps5 exclusives will have a much higher wow factor, without even having seen much gameplay. Unless, of course, Lockhart isn't real and MS start announcing games that aren't 4k/120fps. Who knows, but that's pretty much all Phil's been talking about.

Spoiler alert: they won't make a 720p game on PS5... Sony still wants to sell its 4K TVs.

Most shown PS5 games were 1440p - 2160p, not 1080p, not 900p and not 720p.

And one of the main reasons you don't see much difference between resolutions is because you sit ~20 feet away from your TV... and then you talk about immersion. *ROFL*

But it all comes back to this:

Goopy logic: any higher resolution than the PS5 version is a waste, diminishing returns. Any resolution lower than the PS5 version is ugly and unplayable.

Don't most people sit 20 feet away from their tv? If Lockhart greatly outsells Series X because people are fine with whatever resolution Lockhart is targeting (probably 1440p). Then why wouldn't Sony target that exact same resolution? 



goopy20 on 15 July 2020
zero129 said:
goopy20 said:

I dunno man. I honestly think you believe Infamous 2 on the ps3 would look like Infamous SS on the ps4 if they just dialed a graphics slider

If it was build for PS4 and scaled down like say Halo Inf is being done with Series x to XBONE. Then yes it could just like the Witcher image i showed you that you now seem to be ignoring but here once again here is even a bigger jump then Inf2 to second son

How the hell did they port the game to Xbox Original? xD.

Point being the is nothing in second son that couldnt of been scaled back to the ps3 as them witcher screens shots show.

By the way, this is the actual difference between low and ultra settings. Obviously there's a difference but its a lot more subtle then you make it out to be lol. I'm guessing that's a cherry picked screenshot from the Switch version where it's loading in textures. Also, the Switch version is a down port, meaning a different game made by a different team that came out years later. 



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 15 July 2020
goopy20 said:
Conina said:

Spoiler alert: they won't make a 720p game on PS5... Sony still wants to sell its 4K TVs.

Most shown PS5 games were 1440p - 2160p, not 1080p, not 900p and not 720p.

And one of the main reasons you don't see much difference between resolutions is because you sit ~20 feet away from your TV... and then you talk about immersion. *ROFL*

But it all comes back to this:

Goopy logic: any higher resolution than the PS5 version is a waste, diminishing returns. Any resolution lower than the PS5 version is ugly and unplayable.

Don't most people sit 20 feet away from their tv? If Lockhart greatly outsells Series X because people are fine with whatever resolution Lockhart is targeting (probably 1440p). Then why wouldn't Sony target that exact same resolution? 

I sit 6ft away from a 65" screen and for me image quality is quite important. Reason why I thought 4k was a must, but know with the good upscalling methods like temporal reconstruction, DLSS, etc I'm fine with the game being internally other res and then output being 4k.

If it was true that most people play at 12ft and 42" screen Lockhart would do perfectly fine as 1080p with gorgeous image would suffice and be quite possible on it.



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."

Conina on 15 July 2020

https://www.avbend.com/blog/how-to-calculate-tv-size-and-viewing-distance/

Recommendation for a great immersion (cinematic movies and of course videogames) is 40 degrees FOV.

Sitting 20 feet away from a 65‘‘ TV are 15 degrees FOV resulting in a very shitty immersion.

I also wonder how do you read the text of a game in that distance.



goopy20 on 15 July 2020
DonFerrari said:
goopy20 said:

Don't most people sit 20 feet away from their tv? If Lockhart greatly outsells Series X because people are fine with whatever resolution Lockhart is targeting (probably 1440p). Then why wouldn't Sony target that exact same resolution? 

I sit 6ft away from a 65" screen and for me image quality is quite important. Reason why I thought 4k was a must, but know with the good upscalling methods like temporal reconstruction, DLSS, etc I'm fine with the game being internally other res and then output being 4k.

If it was true that most people play at 12ft and 42" screen Lockhart would do perfectly fine as 1080p with gorgeous image would suffice and be quite possible on it.

I also have a 65 inch screen and I do think getting a ps4 pro was worth. But if I compare playing TLOU1 in (almost)4k/60fps to TLOU2 in 1440p/30fps then part 2 is a pretty big improvement in overall visuals and immersion. 

That's why imo developers shouldn't blindly focus on just 60fps and 4k, it just leaves too little gpu resources left for an actual generational jump. Especially when there are still so many people who don't even own a 4k tv and we got cool stuff like DLLS. 



goopy20 on 15 July 2020
Conina said:

https://www.avbend.com/blog/how-to-calculate-tv-size-and-viewing-distance/

Recommendation for a great immersion (cinematic movies and of course videogames) is 40 degrees FOV.

Sitting 20 feet away from a 65‘‘ TV are 15 degrees FOV resulting in a very shitty immersion.

I also wonder how do you read the text of a game in that distance.

I know 6 feet is more immersive, but try explaining that to the missus. I tried, but she just snapped at me for contradicting every rule of feng shui. 



SvennoJ on 15 July 2020
Conina said:

https://www.avbend.com/blog/how-to-calculate-tv-size-and-viewing-distance/

Recommendation for a great immersion (cinematic movies and of course videogames) is 40 degrees FOV.

Sitting 20 feet away from a 65‘‘ TV are 15 degrees FOV resulting in a very shitty immersion.

I also wonder how do you read the text of a game in that distance.

20/20 vision is being able to distinguish 30 cycles per degree (at max contrast, it's lower for lower contrast) which is the same as 60 pixels per degree. 40 degree fov comes to 2400 pixels wide, thus 2560x1440p is more than enough for great immersion.

Most people sit more in the 20 to 30 degree fov range, 1200 to 1800 pixels width, 1080p is plenty for that. You do need descent anti aliasing since it's easy to pick up on (unwanted) patterns, aka pixel crawl and shimmer. However native 4K is not needed for great immersion.