These are facts. KillZone reveal was a jaw dropper. Everyone watching immediately knew what next gen looked like.
-
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.
Ryan McCaffrey (IGN): I was wrong to drink the "current-gen won't hold next-gen back" Kool-Aid
- Thread starter orochi91
- Start date
- Status
There was literally one cross-gen game and nothing else for the next year or two, making the cross-gen period "a year or two". Genius level gambit there.
This is what the majority of people on Era were saying for a long while. I think Sony is taking the right approach on this matter. I am not buying a next-gen system for it to be held back by current gen limitations.
What does the MC score have to do with the game being from one gen or another? Absolutely nothing. A game can be from this gen (PS4) and crap, and be a masterpiece from the PS3 gen like TloU
I think you're confused lol
PS: Also i think there's something wrong with the "." button on your keyboard.
You were right haha
If you insist on taking it that way.
That's at least 8 systems you want games for.
Xbox One
Xbox One X
Xbox Series S
Xbox Series X
PS4
PS4 Pro
PS5
And then PC
And the occasional, Switch?
It's super obvious that the last gen CPU in particular limits what can be acheived. I don't think it will be long before the Xbox One family is cut.
Those tens of millions should have been properly served by the time the next machine rolls out. They should have had hundreds upon hundreds of titles to quench their thirst. Why should they expect a commitment to serve them 7 years after the machine they invested into had hit the market? Weird take. This consoles-PC convergence is starting to undermine the very logic behind generations...
Metacritic scores are irrelevant here. KillZone, Infamous, and The Order 1886 were full blown PS4 titles full stop. This revisionist "they don't count because of Metacritic" drips with console war BS.
As was battlefield 4 except it actual had some next gen gameplay stuff AND it was cross gen.
This entire argument is interminable, stupid, and often in bad faith.
Here's the real answer. Prepare to be shocked.
It depends. It depends on the game design, budget, and porting strategy. There's nothing inherent about cross gen games that makes them be "held back". There's also almost never a magic cost-free "scale to last gen" button.
Here's the real answer. Prepare to be shocked.
It depends. It depends on the game design, budget, and porting strategy. There's nothing inherent about cross gen games that makes them be "held back". There's also almost never a magic cost-free "scale to last gen" button.
All those games blew me the fuck away graphically.
I still dont see anything on that level for the new consoles.
Good question, I'm probably not the one with those sorts of numbers. But I cannot imagine it being a viable demographic to shoot for, with how expensive game development is. And still even among the high-end PC enthusiast there is still large variables like: SSD? Raytraced enabled GPU? ect. ect.
It's kind of funny how meaningless Microsoft's statements about cross gen ended up being. There was so much concern about Xbox One holding back next gen but aside from Halo I feel like most of their big games will release after the cross gen period is over.
Seems like even Microsoft's first-party devs wanted to ditch the OG XB1 as soon as they could.
Seems like even Microsoft's first-party devs wanted to ditch the OG XB1 as soon as they could.
BF4 was an absolute disaster at launch. That was a sufferfest. Even well after launch. And it still didn't look as good as KZSF. Regardless these are two very different games anyway.
I think I'm still okay with cross-gen for the first couple years but the vast majority of stuff releasing after 2021 should be next gen only for sure.
The thread where people were vehemently arguing against this was hilarious.
Phil Spencer just says what people want to hear.
Phil Spencer just says what people want to hear.
It's not. We'll just see less Switch ports of AAA games than we already do now.
I'll believe it when I see actual level / game design (not just graphics) that uses the bigger power features. Ratchet and Clank has been the only game so far that has actually looked like it's doing something new and not just current gen but better somehow.
I mean is not as if they could release the games earlier than that, so that was not even a choice
I don't get the impression that most big games these days even come out on Switch. That's only going to become more true once next gen starts and the gulf in power goes from large to enormous.
Can you play Star Citizen or Total War on Jaguar CPU and come back sharing your experience :-)
I wonder if MS has considered dropping the XB1 version of Halo Infinite. Could be laying the foundation for that.
Killzone has its share of problems as well.
My only point was a game being cross gen or not does not define it. Bf4 looked great and did some decidedly "next gen" things despite it being a cross gen game.
Maybe the knew they were a little bit late on majors project and change the narrative in that sense? Cost nothing and is good publicity.
More talks (with developers?) as he said but likely Halo Infinite's current state of affairs shortly followed by a seemingly significant delay woke some people up and the increasing talks of the Xbox Controller not evolving (just for the sake of Game Pass compatibility across generations and platforms).
This type of thinking is weird to me. Consoles have always been this way. Heck, technology period. You can't expect a company to support your purchase forever.
Current gen has lasted since late 2013 and you got 7 years worth of gaming out of it. That's enough imo.
Well, one wants to sell you 500 dollar hardware + subscription and then other just wants you to click on his website. Who stands to gain more?
You're misunderstanding me. My point was simply that your comparison was a bad one, not that I disagree with the "pro" or "anti" consumer aspect of this.
I think offering cross-gen compatibility for a period of time is a pro-consumer decision, in that it offers increased value to current customers who maybe don't want or can't yet afford to buy a new console. If that makes the next-gen console less attractive to prospective buyers, then so be it - they can't be "anti-consumer" towards customers they don't even have yet.
But that's not the same thing as saying that making next-gen only games is "anti" consumer. I don't believe that. And indeed, from a personal perspective, I would prefer a clean break from current-gen hardware for any game that wants it. And if someone doesn't like Microsoft's approach to bringing along Xbox One owners for a couple of years, Sony are opting for the "clean break" they want. And that's fine - not "anti" consumer.
But I'll state again - it's ridiculous how threads like these cause the people who can't stand Phil Spencer to jump out of the cracks in the sidewalk to declare how full of it he is to his alleged "worshippers". And it's equally ridiculous that they aren't moderated into oblivion.
Or maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, while McCaffrey clearly has a personal bias in favour of Microsoft, he's still a human being capable of independent thought and doesn't mind contradicting them? Maybe he's not intimately involved in laying some sort of advanced groundwork for a Halo announcement, in what would be an almost comical crisis of journalistic ethics?
The number of important MS first party games that are actually cross gen is negligible.That company line was always just there because it fit in the super customer friendly narrative and to blur the lines hiding that their new studios have been acquired a bit too late to produce enough high quality games for the launch window.
You just proved my point, because I can in fact play them on that. Who says you have to optimize for last gen? Put a game at 480p on the og Xbox one, who cares? Why is this such an issue?
XB1 wont hold back Series X cause MS isn't supporting it much past next year anyway. Just look at the games showcase..75% of the stuff shown was next gen only.
The only real question is will a 4TF RDNA2 console targeting 1080p hold back a 12TF RDNA2 console targeting 4K? I'd like to think the answer is no, but as games start to really push PS5/XSX later in the gen who knows..
The only real question is will a 4TF RDNA2 console targeting 1080p hold back a 12TF RDNA2 console targeting 4K? I'd like to think the answer is no, but as games start to really push PS5/XSX later in the gen who knows..
Yeah. Halo Infinite looking amazing is more important for the Xbox brand than it being playable on last gen consoles tbh. Imagine if it looked as good as Horizon 2 visually.
Even if that makes the player base inherently smaller due to being Series X exclusive, that drives a ton of positive attention and goodwill toward the brand and creates a strong narrative heading into next gen. I think kneecapping Infinite to allow it to run on XBONE was a big miscalculation.
Is it really a next gen game if all it takes is a res reduction? Your "don't you guys PC" quip makes more sense now.
I remember arguing passionately with folks who were drinking Phil's Kool-Aid and they said I was concern trolling when I told them the obvious truth that scaling has its limits, and wasn't something you would want to do in a new gen especially one with the huge strides in CPU and SSD technology like the one coming up.
If a next gen game is on a previous gen, you'd be upset with a resolution reduction? What? Are you serious?
Edit: sorry, misread. And saying 480p was just an extreme example. You can reduce draw distance, eliminate shadows, do all sorts of things in addition to resolution. You know, just like PC games do.
- Status