-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Phil Spencer: "the diversity of hardware choice in PC has not held back the highest fidelity PC games on the market"
- Thread starter pswii60
- Start date
- Status
IKR? The reality has been right before us since The Game Awards 2019. Just look at what kinds of visuals they are targeting with Senua's Saga: Hellblade II, what that game is supposedly going to look like. It looks insane. Compare it to Halo Infinite and you can see what a next-gen exclusive looks like next to cross-gen.
I'm at a loss… how people can claim such things about long-established generations of gaming. This is not the first topic where people only now have a problem with the status quo because it happens to be what the corporation has decided upon, rather than them trying to make a case for it years ago. It only "makes sense" because it's their current business strategy, not because they are correct. So either the developers been wrong and lying to us for decades, or what the exec is peddling is nonsense.
- Cevat Yerli about Ryse: Son of Rome not being possible on the 360.
- Ted Price about Sunset Overdrive not being possible on the 360.
- Wojciech Piejko about The Medium not being possible on the XB1.
Last edited:
Son of Rome and Sunset Overdrive are visually not possible on 360. There's no reason those visuals couldnt be paired back enough to deliver similar gameplay experiences on 360.
There's no reason technical reason we couldnt get a 360 game that played like 2013s Ryse, but looked like this
"The medium" has gameplay and story telling mechanics that are reliant on next gen IO solutions. Not being able to scale it back isn't a matter of fidelity. This is completely unrelated to Phil's comment.
People are conflating completely unrelated points.
Last edited:
Microsoft saying there's going to be cross generation games for one year is an incentive to not purchase their new console at all?
Also is the fact MS feel the need to create Lockhart (while seemingly already stopping production of Xbox One S and Xbox One X) not disproving his point? Why do they need Lockheart when they have Xbox One S/X? Surely that's their low and mid tier platforms? It's maybe because they need the new CPU architecture and the SSD for games that simply wouldn't work without advanced hardware. It's almost like it's a new generation...
First of all, he didn't say he wasn't going purchase the new console at all. Booty said up to 2 years they will have cross gen support. So he can get one after two years. Stop putting words in people mouth.
Kinda misses the point. The desire to set a new baseline for experiences at a target fidelity and performance level does not make his point less accurate.
Compared to PS4/Pro, Xbox One/X are not equally appealing as a next-gen console at a similar price. Sony is happy to keep selling PS4s because it is a very successful product, Microsoft wants to move on because the One line was not a successful product.
Good summary.
At the end of the day though, I think people should wait to see what the games look like before getting so worked up either way about cross gen games. If the differences between the Xbox One and Series X versions aren't worth it, play on your Xbox One. If you don't own a Xbox, then wait and see if the content looks good enough to buy one. BOTW was rated higher than any exclusive on Xbox this generation yet spent most of it's development life on the WiiU...and released on the WiiU.
You're putting words in Booty's mouth? Microsoft said that they didn't want a situation where people bought a console now (in 2019), and were unable to play their games two years from now (one year into the new generation). They didn't say two years after the consoles launched.
Congrats!
I don't think they care if you buy the new console. Little money is made on the console which is why Microsoft is making it easy to purchase their games on multiple platforms including PC. It boggles my mind that people can't comprehend that this has always been the way with PC gaming and that if developers want to make a game exclusive to the Series X they can.
I think a fraction of the fanbase would want a next gen only Forza/Halo/Fable, etc...
I get that MS is basically going full PC, but I feel like not everyone will appreciate it.
Who knows, though -- maybe people do not want a typical console generation cycle.
Nope. His point is not that there isnt value in increasing the baseline hardware target.
His point is that the baseline hardware target doesnt limit the fidelity of the high end hardware target.
Like just about everyone else here, you're "disproving" his point with strawman arguments.
I guess I don't understand the point of buying a new console if it doesn't have amazing games that you can't play on previous systems.
That period of being able to play games on previous generations is short lived though. And I hate using the term, but early adopters tend to be hardcore gamers, where rationality like that is left at the door. You may not understand the point, and that's perfectly fine, but for a lot of people - merely being able to play the game isn't enough. They want to play a respective game at its best. That's why you have people upgrading computers every few years, even though their old rigs can still play any and all games - albeit with sacrificed performance. That's why you have people purchase a mid generation refresh, when the only selling point is "play the games you can play with your existing console, except they'll look and run better!"
Are we talking about game design or scope and graphics? Pick an argument. From a game design perspective it's pretty much functionally the same in both games.
I totally understand and respect your point, I think I am just old-school. To me, a new console generation means new, amazing games to look forward to that weren't possible in the previous generation. The promise of these new compelling games that showcase my new system is what justifies the investment of several hundred dollars of hardware and accessories. That transaction to me is a two-way contract between me investing in a new console, with promise that the platform holder is going to spend the next six years or so delivering amazing new games that justify my investment in their new platform. If that isn't happening, I do not see the point in home consoles anymore.
To that point, PS5 is a lot more appealing to me, both in content and capability, than Series X is at this point. That may change after the 23rd, who knows, but I have my doubts based on what has been stated so far. As someone who chose Xbox 360 and Xbox One over the last two PlayStation consoles, that is saying a lot, believe me. Nintendo and Sony are delivering on their promise of investing in a new platform cycle, but it is looking like Microsoft just isn't interested in that anymore.
I can imagine the vast majority of developers working on cross-gen Xbox titles are not best pleased having to still consider XB1 versions of games 8 years after that console released, for at least another year. Of course they won't say this publicly.
As someone who works in the creative industry, itching to work on the latest tech and being unshackled from the constraints of old technology is a common thing, game developers are no different, especially if the tools this gen are ready and waiting for them, better than ever to make their games.
I dont understand the point of this comment.
This hypothetical new console you're talking about, doesnt exist. Microsofts new console will certainly have games that cant be played on previous systems.
They've already teased next-gen exclusive first party titles.
The only difference between what MS is doing and what has happened with previous generations is MS has committed to upto a year of cross gen support - and they are saying that they can do this w/o sacrificing visual fidelity on next gen versions. This really shouldn't be as controversial as people are making it out to be.
They've already proven this capability with games like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Forza Horizon 2.
Other 1st party publishers release cross-gen titles, or continue to release last gen software after the new gen begins and no one bats and eye. Now, suddenly it's an outlandish idea.
Last edited:
I look at it like this: I just got an X1X last year. I bought a PS4 Pro/PSVR in 2016. I'll eventually get whatever Xbox because I enjoy the variety of the various console ecosystems, but MS has made it very easy to skip launch at this point. Maybe they'll show something that will make me change my mind, but I doubt it. That said I have an active GamePass sub and use it regularly, so it's not like I'm really skipping anything to their services line of revenue. It's different, but there is great value there.
PS5 on the other hand I will probably buy day one along with games and accessories because that's their model. Hopefully I won't have to upgrade for a few years and during that time I'll probably grab whatever the latest/best buy version of the Switch and/or Xbox Series whatever at some point.
Bottom line, though, is that they will all eventually get my money because at this point they're all doing relatively smart things. Much better than the WiiU/Xbox One era for sure.
That you first used a picture to compare the graphics of SC and Cyberpunk that are two completely different types of games and scope and then a comparison to No mans sky that is not a tenth as demanding graphically and don't support a fraction of the gameplay mechanics of SC and It's complexity just show you are either simply trolling or don't know what you are even arguing and talking about.
Matt said everything in the PS5 conference was realtime. its on the first page of one of the game threads.
i think its not just looking better. We got a sneak peak at what DICE is trying to do with BF6 and just why they straight up came out abd told the investors that the next BF will HAVE to be next gen only.
With Sony they are cutting off first party PS4 support when they really don't need to. Most of the games they showed during their event are either coming to PC or look like they could be graphically paired down to run on PS4. Looking at GT7 there is no reaosn that could not also be on PS4.
And using Nintendo as an example is just hilarious. BOTW was cross gen and so many of their biggest games have been straight ports from the last gen.
Just because they are forcing you to upgrade to their new system to play the latest games doesn't make it a good practice when it is not 100% required. And yes, I acknowledge there are certain games where it is just too much work to scale down.
I think PC fails this point because every setup is different, including software packages, driver updates, etc., and that doesn't even get to the hardware. Consoles are almost entirely homogenized, and the operating system forces you to update regularly.
Because the cross gen games will look way better on it and multiplats on SX will probably look better than on any other console. It's not hard to understand.
A cross-gen game it will be interesting how it looks compared to Horizon 2, Ghost of Tsushima and Horizon Zero Dawn PC from a visual point of view.
Last edited:
Yup. I'm like the foremost fucking authority on that game lmao since I did more than was necessary to 100% it and the F&F spin-off all on xbox one and xbox 360. I don't even know anyone else who's done that lmao.
The game is full on a completely different SKU. It is bad. Unless you are a diehard fan of the franchise like me, seriously don't bother. It's not even a matter of like, the settings being low. It looks fundamentally different.
It seriously looks worse than FH1, which I think is a really important point. It suffered on 360 from being cross gen. It might have looked better if it was solely designed for 360 from the get go. But since it was down ported it suffered greatly and they had to cut features like rain from it.
It is also the only Forza Horizon game to not run at a completely, totally locked 30 fps. It also has glitches too like getting sent under the world or AI bugging out. It's not even like SUMO is a bad dev. But it seems pretty clear they struggled to port it down. Being fully open-world this time meant that at the end of the day, stuff just had to cut. The game is not the same SKU. It physically could not be. Thankfully things could be cut and still preserve the game...but at what cost? I mean for me I'd say enough that it isn't worth playing if you can play the xbox one version. Idk if that really works with the idea of things just being able to be scaled. If you're going to insist on everything being the same SKU, then this situation isn't possible. The only reason the 360 version didn't "hold back" the xbox one version is because the game was clearly designed for xbox one and they had to create a completely different SKU with removed features and redesigned things in order to make it work.
Titanfall on 360 actually looks pretty decent, but it can't hold 60 fps at all, and Bluepoint, known as some of the most talented porting devs in video games, said it was their hardest project ever.
Some things are not easily scalable. In FH2's case, they had to completely change what was there in the scenery at times because they just physically couldn't have as much. In Titanfall's case, the 360 despite having one of the best developers out there do an incredible job making it function, it cannot hit 60 fps no matter how hard they tried and has awful screen tearing, because the nature of the game meant it just did not work on 360 in the same way. It was still possible, but these are just examples that it is not as simple as scaling things up and down. Sometimes there are hard limits, and sometimes those limits are game breaking or game changing.
Agreed on all points. I don't dislike Xbox as a platform (clearly), I just am not sure how their approach makes people want to go out and buy their new system. It seems like more of a high-end upgrade than a brand new console. In three or four years, I have no doubt that Series X will have lots of exclusives that are not compatible on XB1 systems, but for now Team Xbox seems quite clearly focused on not having anyone not able to buy the latest Xbox games no matter what console they own. Time will tell if that is a recipe for success in the home console business.
My point is that a lot of those PS5 games have been in development for multiple years, making use of the specs of the new machine. Some of the PS5 specs are things that were not possible on PS4 at the time, and therefore many of these games are developed with some of the unique characteristics in mind. It is not always a matter of just "porting it down". PS5 is a generational leap, and it is going to have games coming out in short order that were developed to make use of the new features of the hardware. My point is that this reality puts Xbox at a disadvantage, because that is very clearly not what Microsoft is doing this generation, at least for now. And many people pick their console(s) of choice based on the first party catalogue, or the promise of the 1st party games to come, not based on 3rd party, which will be mostly identical on either one.
And no one is "forcing anyone to upgrade". Buying any new console is a choice, the question is who is making the best pitch for your money, and right now I'd definitely pick PS5 without a second thought.
This really doesnt make any sense. We already know MS has next-gen only games in development that will have been in development for many years at the time of release, and will be making use of the specs of the new machine. How can you say "this clearly isnt what MS is doing this generation?
These games will also likely start coming out in short order. Why are you talking about "3 or 4 years" down the road when The "all of our upcoming games will play up and down the family of devices" period ends sometime prior to holiday 2021.
Do you think they haven't started developing the games that will release after this period is up?
Last edited:
There will be zero games around PS5's and XSX launch that are going to be fundamentally different from what we've seen in Xbox One/PS4. The advantage that the SSD brings won't be apparent in the first year of these consoles. There will be gimmicks here and there and the visuals will be absolutely superior to what we see in PS4/Xbox One, but i really doubt a fundamental change will be seen in the games launched within the first year of both consoles.
real gamers tho
real gamers tho
This is a reductionist attitude. I get what you mean here but shrugging off higher frame rate as not a benefit is a very bad take. You're going to need next gen consoles to maybe hit 60fps in Cyberpunk and that says alot.
Have you heard of a game called Red Faction Guerrilla? How many current gen games come close to its level of destruction and physics? People need to realize that things like these are more about game design that not every developer is aiming for and not necessarily for the lack of hardware resources.
Comments like these are hilarious because Series X already has next-gen exclusives announced for it and Xbox is about to have their big next-gen showcase where we'll undoubtedly see even more next-gen exclusives. MS's first party catalogue isn't going to be an issue.
What makes you say this though? No first party games from xbox will be next gen exclusive.
They're incline to support last/current gen hardware due to XGP subs, majority of their sub are on XBO. They're probably afraid that people might drop their sub if a lot of their AAA are next-gen only, XGP is probably the only thing that makes Xbox relevant to MS. Can't really blame then when they want to spin their disadvantage when they're stuck in a hard place.
What? We already know Hell Blade 2 is next gen exclusive. There will obviously be more to follow... probably even some that beat HB2 to market.
Everyone knows this? What is your point?
We're discussing why there aren't first party next gen exclusives at launch for xbox.
Huh? There will be plenty of first party next-gen exclusives for Series X. The comment I was responding to was talking about "the promise of first party games to come".
There's also already 3rd party Series X exclusives announced for launch window. The average consumer isn't going to care that it's not first party.
Should have said first two years.
The debate in this thread is whether that's due to technical necessity or not.
If they don't want to work on a cross gen have they don't have to. There will be Series X only games even at the Series X launch. Microsoft isn't forcing devs to only make cross gen games, every console gen has had cross gen games. Halo is basically like the Last of Us 2 or Ghosts of Tsushima. It's a end of gen game, but it lined up with the Series X launch so why not launch it on both. It's worked for two generations of Zelda. There is so much concern trolling over this I don't get it.
Up to one year.
Matt Booty said "Over the next one, two years" in November 2019, and the statement was talking about games before Series X launch getting next gen upgrades just as much as it was talking about games after Series X launch getting Xbox One versions.
Yep exactly. This whole thing will apply to like 4-8 total games from Microsoft first party that will be cross gen after launch of Series X but before November 2021. They have fifteen studios and third parties will do whatever they want like always. Who cares?
It was more in context of people investing in XB1 at holiday 2019 - basically saying "next gen is coming but you won't be stuck for new games for 2 years if you buy XB1 now".
Besides which, what will people really miss out on? I've said this before but the first year next gen exclusives are too often tech demos masquerading as mediocre games.
What qualifies as a next-gen game? Is it arbitrarily not making a current gen version, because there is nothing about Godfall that couldn't have been replecated on PS4. I think you know a next-gen game when you see it. So far only Hellblade 2 and the Unreal 5 demo immediately looked next-gen.
I really don't understand your point. The initial first party xbox only options are cross-gen games, which are different from next gen only games.
Every game is different in what can scale. Titanfall is full featured between xbox 360 and xbox one. Forza horizon 2 is not. Ryse never made to 360 and it's unclear whether it could have given some of the things going on. There is a big range here and it's not a very simple conversation one way or the other. This is a far cry from the idea that everything is scalable. No. Some things are, and some things aren't, and this involves everything from graphics to AI to physics to weather effects to whatever else. And every game is unique in how much an affected aspect might matter to the core experience. If the thing that doesn't scale well is core to the experience, the game probably can't scale well. If the thing that doesn't scale well is easily worked around, it's then a matter of logistics and development time whether to spend time optimizing for both generation versions of the game. If everything scales well then...well it scales well and you're hunky dory. Although again logistics still do matter.
Are you not speculating what will be shown at the showcase? Exclusives will start launching sometime within the first year. It's not risky to bet they show more than just games that will be there on launch day.
Last edited:
- Status