It won't sell stupidly good if it doesn't have graphics and games people really want. Price don't sell, games and graphics do.
-
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.
Verge: Lockhart has 7.5GB of usable RAM, the same CPU speed as Series X, about 4 teraflops of GPU performance. [Up: TW - Won't hold back Next-gen]
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
This forum carefully ignoring that I also mentioned PCs with multiple GPUs not holding back PC gaming for decades is also oversimplifying things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Still a bit much but considering all that is happening in the world today I can't tell anymore.
The sources that talk about the developers concern in your own article don´t get it then ?
So why would even use them on your article ?
And why would even talk about it if this is known how it works for decades ?
It's getting real hard to tell who's posting out of ignorance, and who's posting to make fun of the ignorance anymore.
Makes sense.
With what MS is doing nothing is gonna be held back. Makes the Booty quote make more sense too.
It absolutely will run everything Xbox One and older at Xbox One X settings and beyond.
My outside bet? Lockhart is still cancelled and they missed the "Lockhard" mis-spelling when someone readied the XDK for publication. i.e. they did a ctrl+f for Lockhart, deleted them all, and hit publish.
I could see a $299 box selling very well in the current economic climate. Not only in the US but in third world countries as well. I`d imagine the price difference will even have a stronger impact in those markets.
I really don't think you understand what will happen.
The Series S will essentially play Series X games, with very little changes most of the time, other than being in 1080p. 4k takes a HUGE chunk of vram compared to 1080p, so right away you save a massive chunk of memory cost there. It will essentially be a Series X at 1080p max, but for a cheaper price. If you can't see why that would be insanely popular A) at this moment in time and B) for the vast majority of people who only have 1080p sets, then I don't know what to tell you.
The way I'm reading people talk here is almost like you think the Series S will render at 900p and disable most settings/reduce textures etc. That's a solution to get a Series X game on the One X, not the Series S (if the conversion would allow anyway).
As for developers having an issue: From what I heard from my friends who work on actual games that release and don't sit in a bedroom someplace, the reason it would be a concern is that it essentially creates another avenue for testing and QA. I have no friends with direct knowledge of the system existing sadly, as my friends work for "the enemy" lol, but its no more a head ache development wise than it has been on PC for, well, ever. Only now, you need a massive QA step between the Series X and Series S to make sure both work. THAT is the head ache.
It won't hold back next gen lol
have you even read any posts above? It will run the same games, but at 1080p, nothing else to it, its not holding anything back. It is leaps and bounds better than the One X
Could we expect Lockhart to play all X1X enhanced games on BC? X1X has tons of optimized 4K/1440p games.
Lockhart will only hold back next gen game design if a developer intended to target 1080P with no ray tracing and 30fps on Series X but now can't because there would be no room to scale down to the Lockhart. The likelihood that any dev would target something so low in resolution and features that it won't scale to a system with a similar CPU and I/O is very low.
In a vacuum, maybe developers don't like it. Publishers will because it expands their reach with next gen games. The cost to scale is likely out-weighed by potential for more overall sales. In the end, the business of gaming holds back game design more than specs ever will. Lockhart actually improves the financial outlook of games that target Zen 2 CPUs and SSDs as a baseline...which indirectly opens up next gen game design faster. This of course is going by an assumption that Lockhart will sell well.
In a vacuum, maybe developers don't like it. Publishers will because it expands their reach with next gen games. The cost to scale is likely out-weighed by potential for more overall sales. In the end, the business of gaming holds back game design more than specs ever will. Lockhart actually improves the financial outlook of games that target Zen 2 CPUs and SSDs as a baseline...which indirectly opens up next gen game design faster. This of course is going by an assumption that Lockhart will sell well.
This thing could be priced below the Xbox One X which is mindblowing to my feeble mind.
In my heart I want this to be Xbox Series (S)urface.
In my heart I want this to be Xbox Series (S)urface.
I don't think people genuinely believe Lockhart will hold the next gen back, particularly after posts like yours - it just seems like subtle platform warring unfortunately.
I would imagine the people buying Lockhart would know what to expect when it comes to gaming performance.
Also, you talk about graphics being a selling point but many games like Anthem, Ryse and The Order didn't exactly light the sales charts on fire.
I don't really know what the BC story would be for Lockhart. I imagine it might run at XB1S settings, perhaps with better frame rates and what not. From a GPU perspective its too close to XB1X to just assume it can run everything easily.
That said, if the target is 1080p they don't really need to run at XB1X settings
That said, if the target is 1080p they don't really need to run at XB1X settings
It should play any games that XSX plays, just at a lower resolution.
In theory if MS have done their work well (and no reason to think they havne't) if you have a 1080p TV you should notice almost zero difference vs if you hooked up an XSX to it.
(you are likely to get some downsampling IQ benefits with XSX but hopefully you see my core point)
Price certainly does matter, how could anyone think otherwise? It's also going to provide great graphics and great games... So I don't see the issue lol.
yeah, i think i recall reading a rumor (maybe it was just speculation) that lockhart would run BC for x1s only.
What are you talking about? Price is literally the biggest factor, especially in the current world economy. Consumers have shown time and again that they are willing to sacrifice the cutting edge to save $100. Just look at how well the iPhone SE has been selling, or how well the Wii sold despite its clearly weaker graphics and third party support
You would be surprised.
Listen I get it, I do. I mean people say "well halo infinite will look awful because it has to run on the xbox one s" and for them I say "I hear ya, that makes sense. If you have this amazing SSD and incredible CPU, there is only so much you can scale back for the older one s before it becomes impossible". And for THOSE people, I would suggest that more than likely, MS have spent that HUGE budget on Halo infinite to maybe create a side team to take their Series X version of the game and port it to xbox one, making changes where needed so that it actually works on the system. Maybe cut some stuff out, maybe even remove some stuff. Its been done many, many times before, by MS even, and I would see their number one next gen title doing the same. They aren't stupid.
But that's for the Series X to the One S. That's a HUGE jump over a generation with different architecture and spec. I can see their concern.
But for Series X to Series S...? Nah, that's people worrying because they actually don't know how things work and instead just go "well, 4 is a lot lower than 12, this thing must look shit".
Wow. Seriously?
For some reason I always assume verified posters here are above the normal rabble but here you go.
I did read it but I also know 100% that developers target the least power machines to ensure 100% effectiveness and than bump up a few settings for the top tier. I'm worried that in reality with the os overhead and rumored specs This won't feel nextgen at all. Hope I'm wrong TBH but I wouldn't hold my breath that other things have been reducedto hit this price point. We just don't know about it yet
I have to agree. It will need to be more than $100 cheaper than the XSX, especially if people are speculating that the PS5 Digital could be $50-$100 cheaper than the complete PS5
Not all crts are 480p.
The underlying tech didn't really change from GC to WII it is vastly changing from x1 to lockhart, and that is if lockhart is actually coming at this point.
I think you would notice bigger worlds, raytracing, games hitting 1080p more often at native or with whatever dlss feature they come up with for rdna 2, games would also have a lot more objects and more complex physics simulations or amounts of them at once possible as well.
Using lots of tricks like DRS, VRS etc and the scaling down of visual settings... yes definitely.
I really wish they'd have left the Xbox One behind and offered these two consoles from the start. One at $600 the other at $399.
I don't buy the argument that Series X is 4K and Series S is 1080P.
Some games in Series X won't be 4k and that's ok, maybe 1440p?, in this scenario Series S -> 720p?
Some games in Series X won't be 4k and that's ok, maybe 1440p?, in this scenario Series S -> 720p?
At that time Nintendo declared (I think it was the Iwata) that people were still switching from CRT TVs to HD TVs (plasma and LCD). Most people still used SD screens and to force HD at that time would leave a huge portion of the audience without access, or with limited content.
Then they launched the Wii SD, with a low price and high accessibility with an eye on expanding the audience and capturing those users who would not migrate at that time to the HD monitors.
And I see Lockheart repeat that idea, but with HD and 4K TVs.
Theoretically it will hold next gen back, just like support for PC. As will XSX's slower SSD and PS5's worse GPU and CPU. There's always some scenario that becomes impossible as you add on requirements.
The question is, will it do so in a meaningful way? Is the attempt at front loading the adoption curve worth the sacrifice? If year 3 and 4 purchasers become year 1 and 2 purchasers that makes for a mucj healthier market.
The RAM amount is a bit lower than I expected, and I wonder how much they downclocked the CPU... but I'm not really worried about Lockhart tbh. Devs will target PS5/XSX, and just downport. Worst case is that Lockhart games will have more cutbacks than just reduced resolution, but that doesn't bother me. Pricing is more important, if the price is anywhere close to PS5, this thing is DOA.
You mean the guy who constantly criticises major Sony dev studios for their working conditions with scathing articles / tweets? What an embarrassing take. Maybe you are the biased one?
You mean the guy who constantly criticises major Sony dev studios for their working conditions with scathing articles / tweets? What an embarrassing take. Maybe you are the biased one?
So Lockhart has 50% more RAM than the One S and Series has 50% more RAM than the One X. Not sure if that's even a meaningful comparison but it's interesting nonetheless.
Doing some research on how various PC ports run and their VRAM usage, the difference between 1080p and 4k is actually pretty similar to the RAM differences between Lockhart and Series X. It does seem like the One X has way more RAM than needed compared to the One S (although I guess the One S wasn't hitting 1080p most of the time so maybe more was necessary). Also, the PS4 Pro only has 5.5GB of memory vs the regular PS4 which just confuses me more.
I do wonder about backwards compatibility. Lockhart has less RAM than the One X and it'd be pretty disappointing if it couldn't run Xbox One X quality titles. So many question, so few answers.
Doing some research on how various PC ports run and their VRAM usage, the difference between 1080p and 4k is actually pretty similar to the RAM differences between Lockhart and Series X. It does seem like the One X has way more RAM than needed compared to the One S (although I guess the One S wasn't hitting 1080p most of the time so maybe more was necessary). Also, the PS4 Pro only has 5.5GB of memory vs the regular PS4 which just confuses me more.
I do wonder about backwards compatibility. Lockhart has less RAM than the One X and it'd be pretty disappointing if it couldn't run Xbox One X quality titles. So many question, so few answers.
As long as GPUs are primarily handling graphics, you'll get no argument for me on the scalability on that side. I wouldn't knock Lockhart for its GPU, at least if it turns out to be true that most devs would like to target 4K long term on the higher end SKUs.
I think people might not be on the same page about what 'holding back' means. Lockhart - or more generally, accommodating lower end SKUs - isn't going to stop progress. But might, in some cases, accommodating a wide range of targets result in different choices vs if you were only worrying about a narrower range of higher end targets? It'd be brave to say it could never be the case IMO.
In a world where most devs are accommodating much lower end hardware than Lockhart anyway for the foreseeable future, it's a moot point anyway. Where it becomes a question is when devs move on. I don't think deferring to either Switch, or PC GPU scalability (given Lockhart's mem differences at least), really answers that question in a completely general way. The dynamics or trends you're seeing there in the ability and intention of games to reach across a range of hardware might apply to many games, but I wouldn't speak too generally about it.
Like I said earlier sorry if that offends people, but that's my general feeling I get from his posts. I can't tell you a single time I have ever seen him praise or big up any other company, but Sony seems to be a daily thing. As a gaming news journalist that works/worked for a major site that reported on EVERY console, you want less personal views and more unbiased factual reporting. I never saw that, and I'm sorry. EDIT: I did see the recent tussle he had with ND about things, yes. But other than that, I can't tell you a single time I saw him post an excited tweet about an xbox *thing*, but any time Sony do a video/event, he's posting all day, every day. I'm sorry guys that's just my view on things.
This may shock you, but have a look at just how much GPU grunt is required to render a game at 1080p, and then compare it to the SAME game, but in 4k. 4k is a MASSIVE drain. This isn't some tiny performance loss, we are talking pretty much two thirds of the grunt going towards that alone.
Do we think we are getting the price for both (XSX and XSS) in July's event? I'm completely fine with Lockhart specs, I need THE PRICE.
So, I can play next gen games on this, but at reduced fidelity, resolution and frame rate. That's about the size of it, yes?
Seems different to me. Microsoft is basically exploiting the fact that a good chunk of silicon is being used solely to hit 4k and allowing people that don't want 4k (or don't care) to save money. The goal will be to deliver true next gen graphics. Wii was barely more powerful than GameCube from what I remember.
From the sounds of it, 4k would be harder to kit consistently for Series X than 1080p consistently for a Series S specced machine. That's the way my ignorant on the facts brain reads it.
I don't know, it's almost funny how long MS and Sony are willing to play chicken over the price announcement. My guess is they have multiple potential pricepoints that are dependent on what the other does. That and they want to see how the consumer electronics market is trending with COVID