-
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.
Sony believes in console generations; Microsoft wants to eliminate them completely. What's the better strategy?
- Thread starter Maple
- Start date
- Status
I disagree with the premise. With the Series X being more powerful than the PS5, it shows MS cares just as much about new generations as Sony does. As a conusmer, I'm sure games will look just as good if not better on Series X, and that's all that matters when I consider getting a new console at the start of a new generation. Not sure why I should care if those games also run on lockhart at 1080p or if they also run on XB1 for the first year.
OP
OP
It's based more on Microsoft's overall strategy going forward, and where they will be 6+ years from now. Sony will have cross gen games for the first year or so as well.
But PS5 games will be labelled "PS5", and when it comes time for the PS6, Sony can easily move marketing/management/messaging from one platform to another. They want to make a clear step from one platform to another.
For Microsoft, all games going forward will simply be branded as being for "Xbox" - and you'll have a list of compatible consoles that will work with each game. That won't be an issue now, but going forward it might be. Consider what things could look like in 2026 for Microsoft -
- Xbox Series X
- Xbox Series X2
- Xbox Series S
- Xbox Series S2
- Xbox Series D (digital only console)
And Microsoft's new, "next-gen" console in 2027 would be, say, the Series U.
Where does Microsoft draw the line in terms of compatibility? X? X2? Series U only? It's not an issue now - they'll just drop Xbox One support in a year just like Sony will drop PS4 support. But going forward, Microsoft is clearly making a play to blur the lines among generations and to create a family of devices that play all of their games.
That poll was a surprise...
Glad that we're going forward to eliminating generations no matter what most people here want, a scalable hardware architecture with a refresh every few years and full BC is where we should go, until streaming takes over and by then hardware won't matter.
Glad that we're going forward to eliminating generations no matter what most people here want, a scalable hardware architecture with a refresh every few years and full BC is where we should go, until streaming takes over and by then hardware won't matter.
Ultimately whats better will depend on what impact the strategy has to content and services. Biggest obstacle in AAA game development is 1) lack of creative freedom 2) not enough time 3) not enough manpower/money.
As someone who's been on Xbox since 2001, their strategy is best for Xbox gamers since this is the most they've ever invested. Also Xbox is heavily reliant on community. If Sonys strategy is best for their longtime consumer base, then maybe the right answer is that both companies are taking the best approach for their situation.
As someone who's been on Xbox since 2001, their strategy is best for Xbox gamers since this is the most they've ever invested. Also Xbox is heavily reliant on community. If Sonys strategy is best for their longtime consumer base, then maybe the right answer is that both companies are taking the best approach for their situation.
I think this is a very interesting topic. IMO when streaming services become a feasible platform worldwide I think I'll be onboard with a "genless" industry. ATM I enjoy the generational approach of the industry when it drives forward innovation from creators. The standard SSD is an example since it has a lot of potential apart from reducing load times.
They've already started making them. Hellblade 2 is next gen only and two of the third party games we saw last week on Inside Xbox were next gen only. They just committed to supporting Xbox One for a bit.
I don't know if it is or isn't. But I also don't know what that has to do with my example, either.
Microsoft's strategy of accessibility doesn't mean an end to generations. There will be games that can't play on older hardware...but they want older software to run on any newer hardware. And they want you to play that software in as many places as possible.
Mentor, Scorn, Call of the Sea, that twin stick shooter and (possibly) the namco game are all just Xbox/PC
I thought PC players would be the most annoyed by Microsofts approach.
Potentially an extra few years anchored to previous gen.
Though practically I still see little difference between their strategies.
BC isn't eliminating generations. Making every game playable on old hardware is (and MS isn't doing that too, see the last IX)
I think it's going to really depend on how Sony's launch exclusives end up looking/performing.
If they can show a true generational leap from the get go while Microsoft hangs on to supporting their older consoles I think we'll be able to decide what was worth it.
At the same time, I'm kinda excited I don't have to drop $500 day 1 to play Microsoft's games. I can go PS5 first to play whatever next gen exclusives they have during the launch window and just play the Microsoft stuff on my One X. Also, if Lockhart is still a thing, they'll have to support that… which means that my One X will be just as powerful as their baseline "next gen" box, just with slower load times (no SSD).
If they can show a true generational leap from the get go while Microsoft hangs on to supporting their older consoles I think we'll be able to decide what was worth it.
At the same time, I'm kinda excited I don't have to drop $500 day 1 to play Microsoft's games. I can go PS5 first to play whatever next gen exclusives they have during the launch window and just play the Microsoft stuff on my One X. Also, if Lockhart is still a thing, they'll have to support that… which means that my One X will be just as powerful as their baseline "next gen" box, just with slower load times (no SSD).
PC gaming directly benefits from new console generations and cut offs, because with them comes an increased lowest common denominator ceiling, and more technically ambitious titles that make even better use of enthusiast PC hardware.
You can bet that if it wasn't as a result of these upcoming next gen systems, PC games would have been thethered to non SSD minimum requirements and game design for far longer.
This is false.
Looking at relative proportions in Steam surveys is meaningless. What matters is whether there's an absolute number of people running mid to high level machines with a discrete GPU to justify publishers targeting a higher spec.
Claiming that the iterative model used by PCs somehow slows progress is false - PC has always historically pushed at a faster rate than the console market, even in times when the enthusiast market was smaller than it is now.
I hope consoles eventually take an approach similar to PCs where there is the option to buy the newest boundary-pushing technology but you can technically play most games at a slight visual downgrade. I think League of Legends, Fortnite, Minecraft, CSGO, DOTA2, etc. show that there is money and power in not splitting your userbase based on whether or not they decided to upgrade to the next tier or not.
User Banned (1 week): Hostility; history of similar infractions
This is shit post.
People honestly bought into the spiel that microsoft is done with console generations? Dear lord.
in three years, >95% of games will be next-gen and PC only. To think they'd support Xbox One the entire gen is as ridiculous as thinking the PS3 and Xbox 360 should still be getting ports of the latest titles.
It makes no sense after the initial transitional period.
in three years, >95% of games will be next-gen and PC only. To think they'd support Xbox One the entire gen is as ridiculous as thinking the PS3 and Xbox 360 should still be getting ports of the latest titles.
It makes no sense after the initial transitional period.
The same way yearly iPhone releases generate buzz ,even if the OS stays the same, a new console generation is creating buzz and reinvigorates gamers to spend money on games.
At least it's that way for me.
At least it's that way for me.
It's just backwards compatible compatibility which should.make gamers happy. Did I miss something where the series x was supposed to be incredibly underpowered or something?
I mean, Microsoft literally built their entire business model that thrives off an "eternal" platform through WindowsThey are a software company that branched into videogames, so it makes perfect sense to me for them to transition to Xbox Software in the future, just let people install it on a home PC, and then just go to town.
Platform agnostic Xbox service? Install it on a PC or a Mac, your iPhone, a Sony Playstation, the Nin10do, a new Google Box, a Toshiba Flip, Samsung Drive, whatever. Who cares. Just make it a piece of software that installs anywhere you can run it and then let people buy games and take a cut. Software is their bread and butter, it makes perfect sense to go that route.
Do people really think in 20 years we're going to have 8 different boxes under our tv to run different things? I think that well just have a single box, like an Apple TV sized device, that just connects to a giant server farm that holds all your digital content remotely, and you'll access them through it. Or it will all be built into your Genius TV by default. No need for different consoles and Blu ray players and cable boxes and whatever else is under there right now, software consolidation into a universal hardware spec is definitely where I see things going.
Or I'm completely wrong and we'll just buy new $600 pieces of plastic every 3 years for eternity. Who knows.
Platform agnostic Xbox service? Install it on a PC or a Mac, your iPhone, a Sony Playstation, the Nin10do, a new Google Box, a Toshiba Flip, Samsung Drive, whatever. Who cares. Just make it a piece of software that installs anywhere you can run it and then let people buy games and take a cut. Software is their bread and butter, it makes perfect sense to go that route.
Do people really think in 20 years we're going to have 8 different boxes under our tv to run different things? I think that well just have a single box, like an Apple TV sized device, that just connects to a giant server farm that holds all your digital content remotely, and you'll access them through it. Or it will all be built into your Genius TV by default. No need for different consoles and Blu ray players and cable boxes and whatever else is under there right now, software consolidation into a universal hardware spec is definitely where I see things going.
Or I'm completely wrong and we'll just buy new $600 pieces of plastic every 3 years for eternity. Who knows.
I also think people are overreacting, we have a lot of time before launch and I'm sure both MS and Sony will show amazing games in a short span of time. We have to learn to be patient, in the end if we don't like what's offered, the industry is big enough to look elsewhere in the meantime. Current games are still amazing, cross generational games will be amazing and full next gen games will be amazing too.
There was a E3 presser one or two years ago where Spencer's overarching message was "no one gets left behind". it was a clear indication that the generational lines would be blurred going forward.
A clean slate is more exciting, and a group only ever goes as fast as its slowest member. However I do like the MS approach better because it tends to mean that Backwards Compatibility is present in some form, both for letting you run previous gen games better and carying over your past purchases/progress.
I rather prefer MS approach, full BC and changing console every other 3-4 years and carry my library without messing like in PC.
It seems that there is not enough difference but between S and X there is a lot of difference.
It seems that there is not enough difference but between S and X there is a lot of difference.
Most games PC gets are ports of console games. PC games thus have noticeable upgrades every generation.
This game doesn't have a PC port but it's a good way to represent a generational difference. Forza Horizon 1 does not have any kind of weather because it was built for xbox 360. If it had gotten a PC port, the PC port would not have weather either, because that is a lot of extra work for such a feature. Forza Horizon 2 on xbox 360 does not have weather, but it does on Xbox One. The two versions are very different and the latter was only built because there was a next generation console. If PC got a port of that game, it would get the Xbox One version. Because of the new generation of consoles, PC got a new gameplay experience. If everything worked like PC, there is not a full bonafide new benchmark point to reach, and the game would remain centered around the lower version. We would all get essentially the 360 version, maybe with increasingly better graphics, because there is no new shelf to target for such a completely new feature. You need a baseline to design around.
I realize this one example is really simple and may not seem like a big deal, but it shouldn't be hard to extrapolate out.
The point is it "works well" for PC but not in isolation. A lot of improvements PC gets to take advantage of only happen because of new generations of consoles. If you have massive variation in playerbase, it makes sense to target an agreed upon standard. So right now, games target xbox one as their base configuration. PC specs lower than that tend to struggle.
PC does experience the results of generational increases, but it's a bit messy. Without any generational increases on the console side, it would be noticeably messier.
Like look at 3D audio. PCs have been able to do this for a long time. But until a new baseline is established supporting 3D audio, developers aren't going to take the extra time to work on it. It will start making its way into PC games once it starts being taken seriously on the console side. And it doesn't get taken seriously on the console side until there is a new baseline. Otherwise, you design for the baseline you do have, which is really old. Otherwise, what is your target? What features do you focus on that are going to get what you consider a massive enough audience?
Of course no generations is better. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Always growing library, full compatibility with games and accessories are wins for the consumer, and for the manufacturer its an ever-growing user base.
Ask any pc or phone user if they would prefer to artificially limit the games they can access when they buy new hardware and you would be laughed at.
Ask any pc or phone user if they would prefer to artificially limit the games they can access when they buy new hardware and you would be laughed at.
That's not what this is about. It's about the platform allowing the developer to target all devices it wants instead of the platform holder dictating when the cut is made.
That sounds exactly like what Sony are doing though...
Practically there's very little difference between the approaches.
Interesting how powerful the messaging is though
This. Whichever gives me full BC from here on out has my support.
Without console generation, we can't see the leaps.
Imagine a game that must plays for PS3-PS4-PS5. It will actually be a ps3 game.
Imagine a game that must plays for PS3-PS4-PS5. It will actually be a ps3 game.
No, the premise of the thread is misleading. No one is mandating anyone has to continue making XB1 games, but Microsoft have said they will continue to support it for a couple years.
Same here
If Sony's strat is maintaining gens and MS's is not than the amount of generations of BC matters because it sets precedent. I'm 7 years there's a higher likelihood that I'll be able to go back and play games from this gen on Xbox than on PS.
The worst thing about generations is deciding when to upgrade. Too early and there's hardly any good games to play, too late and you miss the zeitgeist on a couple games. If you trade in a console, you can also miss out on some absolutely fantastic games that came out super late on last gen.
It also creates a hurdle for game development: Which gen is your game for? What do you target? If new consoles are announced deep into development, do you basically remaster the whole game before it's finished or just push out something that feels very last gen on the new console?
I feel ending generations will make everything simple. Devs can just put out the game they want and let it run on the hardware that is capable. If consumers buy new hardware, it can play all games. If they can't play a new game on their old hardware, it's time for an upgrade!
There won't be massive step changes in the fidelity of graphics or design. There will be a gradual improvements with every year and every AAA release as older hardware loses support in a more natural way, rather than abruptly and arbitrarily forcing everyone to move on at the same time.
It also creates a hurdle for game development: Which gen is your game for? What do you target? If new consoles are announced deep into development, do you basically remaster the whole game before it's finished or just push out something that feels very last gen on the new console?
I feel ending generations will make everything simple. Devs can just put out the game they want and let it run on the hardware that is capable. If consumers buy new hardware, it can play all games. If they can't play a new game on their old hardware, it's time for an upgrade!
There won't be massive step changes in the fidelity of graphics or design. There will be a gradual improvements with every year and every AAA release as older hardware loses support in a more natural way, rather than abruptly and arbitrarily forcing everyone to move on at the same time.
Jim Ryan said nobody wants to play old games and Sony will still have backcompat. I think people are reading to much into all of this. Appart from Halo, everwild and maybe something smaller from double fine, Microsofts other first party games will be next gen exclusives.
And who knows how things will be in seven to eight years, when next next gen launches. If streaming is big by then, Microsoft should have an even easier time to cut of old hardware then Sony so who nows.
I don't think neither Microsoft or Sony is thinking that far yet.
I will always favour distinctly separate generations. The clear leap forward in terms of what is possible, I need that.
Also, BC has nothing to do with clear generational cuts. You can deliver BC with and without discrete console generations. I don't know why people bring that up.
Also, BC has nothing to do with clear generational cuts. You can deliver BC with and without discrete console generations. I don't know why people bring that up.
The typical misunderstanding of the PC market is that everyone is buying bleeding edge hardware, yet people are still buying laptops with integrated chips and probably play more hours on steam than I do. Little Johnny isn't getting an RTX 2000 card, and doesn't care about playing on low, he just wants to play. I'm fine with negligible worse common denominator there if it means more kids get a chance to play. Nothing sucked more as a kid and not being able to play the new game...
You know how CSGO is played competitively? Really low res with all the graphics options turned down.
PC is about CHOICE, which is why I like Microsoft's approach. I mean shit what's the point of even getting these "awesome new graphics" if I have to play at low frame rates?
also keep in mind with your Forza horizon example, PC was hardly on MS radar for xbox ports. If it had been ported, I feel MS would've included some enhancements. Also keep in mind what the mid-low end hardware looked like when original horizon launched...multi core CPUs were not as widespread, if games could even leverage it, let alone most games still being written as win32 apps in dx9.0c or 10
I also love the meme that microsoft is a software company. Sure, unlike Sony, they are a huge software juggernaut. But it's like we forget all the infrastructure required for azure or any of the countless hardware devices/peripherals/whatever they've been in the consumer space making for over 20+ years
The main thing I have against the "sliding window of compatibility" model of generations (and it's still a generational divide of some kind in my mind, at any point where forward compatibility is cut off) is that hardware refreshes put pressure on me to always upgrade to the new hotness -- or be stuck playing the downgraded version of a game that was designed and optimized for the new hotness on my old-and-busted OG machine. I don't really like the idea of feeling pressured to buy new hardware every ~2-3 years. (I have this same problem with mid-gen refreshes like the One X and PS4 Pro.)
Conversely, with the "discrete generations" model, I buy my machine and I know that every game that comes out for it was made with its hardware in mind, and I'm getting the best experience I can, the end.
PCs haven't really bothered me in the same way becauseI'm used to it so it's different barring some edge cases, it hasn't really felt like the same sliding window of generations. A new PC with good hardware feels like it will last a lot longer and the backwards compatibility goes back decades. I can decide to upgrade whenever I decide my games aren't running as nicely as I'd like, rather than being told "your machine is too old now."
TLDR: For me It's mainly the fear that they'll move to "the phone model" (generations that feel almost artificially short, with planned obsolescence) rather than "the PC model" (naturally-sliding window at a comfortable-to-my-wallet pace), and I'll be pressured to either buy a new console at $600+ every two years or deal with low graphics settings and bad performance.
Conversely, with the "discrete generations" model, I buy my machine and I know that every game that comes out for it was made with its hardware in mind, and I'm getting the best experience I can, the end.
PCs haven't really bothered me in the same way because
TLDR: For me It's mainly the fear that they'll move to "the phone model" (generations that feel almost artificially short, with planned obsolescence) rather than "the PC model" (naturally-sliding window at a comfortable-to-my-wallet pace), and I'll be pressured to either buy a new console at $600+ every two years or deal with low graphics settings and bad performance.
Why is Lockhart being brought up? As long as it has a comparable CPU and SSD, Lockhart should be able to play any and all next gen games, only with reduced resolution.
I still fail to see what that has to do with potential PS4>PS5 bc due to hardware similarities and how that would play out for cross-gen titles that will be coming out in the next two years or so.
- Status