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 on 15 July 2020
goopy20 said:
DonFerrari said:

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. 

Certainly in some situations it is more worthy to internally render at 1440p30fps and upscale to 4k, while others you can do 4k native just fine. And there is no doubt that TLOU2 looks better than TLOU1, it is a generational leap even compared to the ported version.

And sure most devs won't just go after the number itself. It is basically a matter of doing the best visual they can do and then seeing if it will sit near to standard resolutions and twiking to hit that at a stable 30fps or for some genres 60fps.



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."

Around the Network
Pemalite on 15 July 2020
SvennoJ said:
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.

Keep in mind that 20/20 vision isn't the maximum extent the human vision can go... You can have better than 20/20 and 30 cycles per degree.



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

goopy20 on 15 July 2020
zero129 said:
goopy20 said:

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. 

No it isnt the Switch port its the pc version running Lower then Low settings (Using a few ini tweaks) to show you that the same game can scale down to looking more then a gen apart without a massive team once the engine is already made to be scaled. It can also go beyond ultra settings too with some ini tweaks and a few texture mods it can look like an early next gen game.

Its ironic you talking about chery picked photos when thats all you do in every thread. Find photos with the smallest difference and claim they prove the is no difference and call it a day. My pics clearly show the can be a massive difference bigger then the ones between anything you showed from infamous from PS3 to PS4.

It isn't about how graphics can scale its about parity and hitting performance targets on all platforms. Who would buy Witcher 3 and play it at lower than the lowest settings? It's why pc games have minimum requirements in the first place. Sure you can still play them with even lower than the minimum requirements, but then you will spending money on a game that runs way below the quality norm that the developer was aiming for.

It's the same thing with Halo Infinity or any other Xbox exclusive that gets a Xone release. They can't just scale it to crap on Xone and mid-range pc's, effectively making it look like a different game, because nobody would buy it lol. Trust me man, Halo Infinite will probably be the best looking Xone game out there and not some blurry mess without any textures.



SvennoJ on 15 July 2020
Pemalite said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

Keep in mind that 20/20 vision isn't the maximum extent the human vision can go... You can have better than 20/20 and 30 cycles per degree.

I know, 40 to 50 cycles per degree is possible in younger people with the best visual acuity.

Which would be up to 4,000 pixels wide at 40 degree fov.
Yet at 20 degree fov 1080p is still sufficient.

I did all those calculations long ago

1080p
pixels per degree = (distance x 38.45) / diagonal
distance = (pixels per degree x diagonal) / 38.45
diagonal = (distance x 38.45) / pixels per degree

4K simply double the constant to 76.9 (pixels per degree is simply 2x cycles per degree)
720p the constant is 25.62, 1440p it's 51.24

So if you have the best possible young eyes, able to distinguish 50 cycles per degree and sit 6 feet away, your 4K tv needs to be 55" or smaller.
If you have normal good eyes (20/20) and sit 6 feet away, your 4K tv can be 92" diagonal. (anything smaller would be overkill)
If you're a regular person with 20/20 vision and sit 10 ft away, 1440p would be more than sufficient at screen sizes up to 102" diagonal.

My living room setup has me about 12ft away from the tv (eye distance), I'm 46 and wear glasses to correct to 20/20 vision.
1440p gives me 113 pixels per degree on my 65" tv, or 56 cycles per degree. No wonder I don't seen any difference between 1440p and 4K.
I do sit closer for racing, 6ft from the tv, 1440p still gives me 57 pixels per degree, just a few percent below 20/20 vision, enough for me to notice the actual difference between 1080p and GT Sports 1800p. From the couch, blu-ray or 4K streaming looks the same to me :/

To have benefits of native 4K you either need to have way better vision than most, a TV the size of a wall or sit right on top of a monitor.



goopy20 on 15 July 2020
zero129 said:
goopy20 said:

It isn't about how graphics can scale its about parity and hitting performance targets on all platforms. Who would buy Witcher 3 and play it at lower than the lowest settings? It's why pc games have minimum requirements in the first place. Sure you can still play them with even lower than the minimum requirements, but then you will spending money on a game that runs way below the quality norm that the developer was aiming for.

It's the same thing with Halo Infinity or any other Xbox exclusive that gets a Xone release. They can't just scale it to crap on Xone and mid-range pc's, effectively making it look like a different game, because nobody would buy it lol. Trust me man, Halo Infinite will probably be the best looking Xone game out there and not some blurry mess without any textures.

You keep trying to change the subject and brush of the point. It doesnt matter if someone would buy it to play on the lowest settings or someone buys it to play beyond ultra settings. The point is the engine can scale to do things like that and it was still able to hit its performance target.

And even low settings to ultra has a good bit going on. No hairworks, limited foliage, limited textures, shadows, number of npcs on screen, number of shadows, quality of the water etc. all things that can save a lot on performance.

And the nextgen jump from this one isnt that big with diminishing returns that they would have to scale it to look like shit. They aint scaling the game to play on the original xbox from 2001 or a mobile phone you know, unless you thing the best looking xbox one and ps4 games look like shit?.

Of course that's the point. Did they just slide the graphics settings to 'lower than low' on the Switch version and call it a day? Of course not because it would be a unsellable mess. Instead they spend a year optimizing it so Witcher 3 didn't look like ass and still hit 30fps on the Switch.

Sure, they could push Series X to the max with Halo Infinite while targeting 30fps/1440p. No doubt it would look spectacular and the engine can easily do that. But why would they if they also want to sell the Xone and pc versions? You keep forgetting that the core game has to look and play identical on all platforms and hit 1080p and a steady 30fps on Xone.

Since they are probably not targeting 60fps like in Halo5 on the Xone, I'm sure it will look better. Who knows, maybe it will be the best looking Xone game yet. But it's not exactly rocket science that the best looking Xone game (upscaled to 4k,120fps), isn't going to look anyway near as impressive as a game that is build from the ground up around the ps5 hardware and doesn't have to scale with anything. Especially when Guerilla Games is making it, a developer known for setting the bar when it comes to visuals.  



Around the Network
sales2099 on 15 July 2020
goopy20 said:
zero129 said:

You keep trying to change the subject and brush of the point. It doesnt matter if someone would buy it to play on the lowest settings or someone buys it to play beyond ultra settings. The point is the engine can scale to do things like that and it was still able to hit its performance target.

And even low settings to ultra has a good bit going on. No hairworks, limited foliage, limited textures, shadows, number of npcs on screen, number of shadows, quality of the water etc. all things that can save a lot on performance.

And the nextgen jump from this one isnt that big with diminishing returns that they would have to scale it to look like shit. They aint scaling the game to play on the original xbox from 2001 or a mobile phone you know, unless you thing the best looking xbox one and ps4 games look like shit?.

Of course that's the point. Did they just slide the graphics settings to 'lower than low' on the Switch version and call it a day? Of course not because it would be a unsellable mess. Instead they spend a year optimizing it so Witcher 3 didn't look like ass and still hit 30fps on the Switch.

Sure, they could push Series X to the max with Halo Infinite while targeting 30fps/1440p. No doubt it would look spectacular and the engine can easily do that. But why would they if they also want to sell the Xone and pc versions? You keep forgetting that the core game has to look and play identical on all platforms and hit 1080p and a steady 30fps on Xone.

Since they are probably not targeting 60fps like in Halo5 on the Xone, I'm sure it will look better. Who knows, maybe it will be the best looking Xone game yet. But it's not exactly rocket science that the best looking Xone game (upscaled to 4k,120fps), isn't going to look anyway near as impressive as a game that is build from the ground up around the ps5 hardware and doesn't have to scale with anything. Especially when Guerilla Games is making it, a developer known for setting the bar when it comes to visuals.  

Define identical. You can have the core game sure but Series X can still offer ray tracing, no pop in, draw distances, better AI, texture improvements, etc. While the base game is identical it’s the things working in the background that can make the Series X version so much more.

Who says Xbox One has to hit 1080p? Halo 5 was dynamic so it dipped when action went up. 

Also comparing a launch title to Horizon 2 which is a year 2 game isn’t exactly fair. Why don’t you compare Halo Infinite to Spiderman MM????? Both launch games. My guess is that you know that game is cross gen caliber, as in assets that are shared with PS4 base game. They give it the similar next gen improvements as say Halo. The sheer irony and double standards on you. So long as Spiderman MM exists, Sony ain’t no better then Ms. In fact I argue they are worse by limiting the PS4 version to artificially drum up next gen demand. 

If any console can hit benchmarks while still looking next gen it’s Xbox. Sorry but people consider 4K/60fps part of what makes the generational leap. If Gears 5 and Forza 7 hit 4K/60 then I have no doubts Xbox gamers won’t have to settle for less. 



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

 

sales2099 on 15 July 2020
John2290 said:
Why do we talk about the shit these people say? I mean we'd hardly see an article be titled "Phil Spencer says the XsX will be held back significantly by the Xbox one s" or "Mark Cerny says he royally fucked up designing the ps5" or "Furukwa says 480p is the new 1080p and we are sticking to it for good". Why do we bother giving them the free PR.

I’m starting to learn to limit my time doing this lol. The back and forth doesn’t change anything. Better to pick ones battles and have fun doing it. 

It’s not that we are intentionally giving them free PR, it’s that both sides identify with our favourite brand. A slight on our favourite console is almost like a slight on us. We can’t help it. To ignore is to let ignorance win (from our perspective) which applies to all sides. Just a little Console wars Pych 101. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 15 July 2020

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

 

Hynad on 15 July 2020
goopy20 said:
zero129 said:

You keep trying to change the subject and brush of the point. It doesnt matter if someone would buy it to play on the lowest settings or someone buys it to play beyond ultra settings. The point is the engine can scale to do things like that and it was still able to hit its performance target.

And even low settings to ultra has a good bit going on. No hairworks, limited foliage, limited textures, shadows, number of npcs on screen, number of shadows, quality of the water etc. all things that can save a lot on performance.

And the nextgen jump from this one isnt that big with diminishing returns that they would have to scale it to look like shit. They aint scaling the game to play on the original xbox from 2001 or a mobile phone you know, unless you thing the best looking xbox one and ps4 games look like shit?.

Of course that's the point. Did they just slide the graphics settings to 'lower than low' on the Switch version and call it a day? Of course not because it would be a unsellable mess. Instead they spend a year optimizing it so Witcher 3 didn't look like ass and still hit 30fps on the Switch.

Sure, they could push Series X to the max with Halo Infinite while targeting 30fps/1440p. No doubt it would look spectacular and the engine can easily do that. But why would they if they also want to sell the Xone and pc versions? You keep forgetting that the core game has to look and play identical on all platforms and hit 1080p and a steady 30fps on Xone.

Since they are probably not targeting 60fps like in Halo5 on the Xone, I'm sure it will look better. Who knows, maybe it will be the best looking Xone game yet. But it's not exactly rocket science that the best looking Xone game (upscaled to 4k,120fps), isn't going to look anyway near as impressive as a game that is build from the ground up around the ps5 hardware and doesn't have to scale with anything. Especially when Guerilla Games is making it, a developer known for setting the bar when it comes to visuals.  

I read your comments in this thread, and I must ask...

Why do you care?



goopy20 on 15 July 2020
sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

Of course that's the point. Did they just slide the graphics settings to 'lower than low' on the Switch version and call it a day? Of course not because it would be a unsellable mess. Instead they spend a year optimizing it so Witcher 3 didn't look like ass and still hit 30fps on the Switch.

Sure, they could push Series X to the max with Halo Infinite while targeting 30fps/1440p. No doubt it would look spectacular and the engine can easily do that. But why would they if they also want to sell the Xone and pc versions? You keep forgetting that the core game has to look and play identical on all platforms and hit 1080p and a steady 30fps on Xone.

Since they are probably not targeting 60fps like in Halo5 on the Xone, I'm sure it will look better. Who knows, maybe it will be the best looking Xone game yet. But it's not exactly rocket science that the best looking Xone game (upscaled to 4k,120fps), isn't going to look anyway near as impressive as a game that is build from the ground up around the ps5 hardware and doesn't have to scale with anything. Especially when Guerilla Games is making it, a developer known for setting the bar when it comes to visuals.  

Define identical. You can have the core game sure but Series X can still offer ray tracing, no pop in, draw distances, better AI, texture improvements, etc. While the base game is identical it’s the things working in the background that can make the Series X version so much more.

Who says Xbox One has to hit 1080p? Halo 5 was dynamic so it dipped when action went up. 

Also comparing a launch title to Horizon 2 which is a year 2 game isn’t exactly fair. Why don’t you compare Halo Infinite to Spiderman MM????? Both launch games. My guess is that you know that game is cross gen caliber, as in assets that are shared with PS4 base game. They give it the similar next gen improvements as say Halo. The sheer irony and double standards on you. So long as Spiderman MM exists, Sony ain’t no better then Ms. In fact I argue they are worse by limiting the PS4 version to artificially drum up next gen demand. 

If any console can hit benchmarks while still looking next gen it’s Xbox. Sorry but people consider 4K/60fps part of what makes the generational leap. If Gears 5 and Forza 7 hit 4K/60 then I have no doubts Xbox gamers won’t have to settle for less. 

Identical in the sense how ultra settings on pc are identical to the base console versions. It's not like we don't know what that means. You can just check out some youtube videos and see for yourself. It obviously looks better but that's not the same thing as a generational leap we typically see when new consoles come out. That's not because pc's aren't far more powerful and could do a lot more with the engine, it's because they are designed to look and play identical across all platforms.

HZW will be coming out in 2021 and we haven't seen any gameplay of Spider man yet. You seem to be convinced Spider man its just a cash grab but I'm sure there's more of a technical reason why its not coming to ps4. We will see but its not just about these early games that are cross gen with Xone during the first 2 years. I'm talking about an entire console generation where MS's exclusives will be designed around the limitations of the 4Tflops Lockhart and average pc's too. I was hoping RTX cards would be more common once the new gpu's come out, but they are actually expecting a price hike because of increased demand from cryptocurrency miners. Will be interesting to see what the new gpu's going to cost, but I don't expect RTX 2080 like performance to become standard on pc anytime soon.  

Last edited by goopy20 - on 15 July 2020

sales2099 on 15 July 2020
goopy20 said:
sales2099 said:

Define identical. You can have the core game sure but Series X can still offer ray tracing, no pop in, draw distances, better AI, texture improvements, etc. While the base game is identical it’s the things working in the background that can make the Series X version so much more.

Who says Xbox One has to hit 1080p? Halo 5 was dynamic so it dipped when action went up. 

Also comparing a launch title to Horizon 2 which is a year 2 game isn’t exactly fair. Why don’t you compare Halo Infinite to Spiderman MM????? Both launch games. My guess is that you know that game is cross gen caliber, as in assets that are shared with PS4 base game. They give it the similar next gen improvements as say Halo. The sheer irony and double standards on you. So long as Spiderman MM exists, Sony ain’t no better then Ms. In fact I argue they are worse by limiting the PS4 version to artificially drum up next gen demand. 

If any console can hit benchmarks while still looking next gen it’s Xbox. Sorry but people consider 4K/60fps part of what makes the generational leap. If Gears 5 and Forza 7 hit 4K/60 then I have no doubts Xbox gamers won’t have to settle for less. 

Identical in the sense how ultra settings on pc are identical to the base console versions. It's not like we don't know what that means. You can just check out some youtube videos and see for yourself. It obviously looks better but that's not the same thing as a generational leap we typically see when new consoles come out. That's not because pc's aren't far more powerful and could do a lot more with the engine, it's because they are designed to look and play identical across all platforms.

HZW will be coming out in 2021 and we haven't seen any gameplay of Spider man yet. You seem to be convinced Spider man its just a cash grab but I'm sure there's more of a technical reason why its not coming to ps4. We will see but its not just about these early games that are cross gen with Xone during the first 2 years. I'm talking about an entire console generation where MS's exclusives will be designed around the limitations of the 4Tflops Lockhart and average pc's too. I was hoping RTX cards would be more common once the new gpu's come out, but they are actually expecting a price hike as there's a big shortage coming because of bitcoin mining. Will be interesting to see what the new gpu's going to cost, but I don't expect RTX 2080 like performance to become standard on pc anytime soon.  

Well the bold certainly renders your argument a little moot. We haven’t seen official Halo Infinite gameplay yet that isn’t stopping you from dishing out propaganda. 

Compare launch to launch. But I imagine if you do your narrative will come up short. Lol literally wait a week so we can have a proper discussion. 



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