Seeing as the CPUs will be the same in both new consoles, calling it just an Xbox One X 2.0 is misleading. It's seems a sound strategy to me. It'll play the newest games at a lower spec and still hold and play everything from your previous library.
-
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.
Brad Sams: Deciphering Xbox Scarlett: Anaconda, Anthem, Danta, Lockhart, Maverick, and Roma
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
What major hardware issue has there been with the original One, the One S, or the One X? Their track record since the 360 Slim has been really good, but its been pretty much spotless with the XBox One.
What's the difference in this and saying someone wants a healthy Japanese company to stay in the industry? People talk all the time about wanting to make sure Japanese games and companies stay healthy and competitive because it's good for the industry and gives them a product they enjoy so what's different about this? I for one want a strong American competitor in the market.
I think it's a new family of consoles, a new gen.
X1s + x1x won't be able to play scarlett games.
Pro and X came years later, as a mid gen refresh, during a period where usually games start reaching the consoles' limits and things start to break down (performance, etc).
Some nice hot takes and arguments starting to form:
- 'gimped'
- 'holding back'
- 'disaster for devs'
All those points are and have been existing already esp in PC space.
- 'gimped'
- 'holding back'
- 'disaster for devs'
All those points are and have been existing already esp in PC space.
How am I wrong?
If 8TF is the base, how does that not limit the 13TF? Games can be designed around 13TF only
Same way PS4 games can't be designed around Pro only, same way Switch games can't be designed around docked only, etc
Edit: didn't mean to provoke such a strong reaction. I'm not a fan of this but that's good if others are. I apologize for coming on strong and will try to refrain from discussion
Last edited:
Lmao xD. Don't pay any attention to that. That's why Game core OS will most likely play an important role. MS must have weighed and factored in so many options and possible outcomes before making a decision and I bet whatever plan Phil and Panos are going with will turn out great. There is still so much unknown .... looking forward to many more surprises at the Scarlet reveal (whenever that is).
Last edited:
This is different. PC it is accepted that hardware changes and there are less defined "generations" for games.
PC games still move the goal posts (from 2GB RAM base minimum to say 4GB then 8GB, etc) but it's accepted that you have to upgrade eventually because eventually games won't run on your rig
Consoles are stuck with whatever the base hardware is for 6-7 years.
So if you're fine with all next gen Xbox being designed around 1X level specs or so good for you. Sounds like an awful idea to me.
1X level specs, and 1X level specs with a majorly upgraded CPU are pretty different. The base level next gen Xbox, or cheaper version, whatever you want to call it, won't just be a now gen 1X.
I understand the concern and still think it's unwarranted. As long as the CPU is the same and the memory is close, the lower end should not bottleneck the higher end. Games now have been made for the 1X first and then scaled down for the 1S. There's no reason the same can't be done next gen where the gap between the two SKUs will be smaller.
Who says the CPU and memory are there tho? Memory is a big part of cutting costs by hundreds.
I'm not saying devs can't figure out how to scale between hardware. I'm saying that the base being so low would be disappointing.
So yes, cool they scale between 8TF and 13TF but nothing is 13TF only. So games have to be designed around the lower specs. And you're assuming there aren't more differences between models like CPU cores, RAM amount, etc
I'm thinking this will be revealed like the Xbox 360 Arcade and the Xbox 360, but with GPU's instead.
Not sure how well that will pan out.
Isn't that part of MS overall vision though? That an X could play those games?
Not sure how well that will pan out.
Isn't that part of MS overall vision though? That an X could play those games?
In the sense that we'll never know what a game made for the Pro specs from the ground up would look like yes.
It's the same as the X, what would a full exclusive tailored solely to that console without any concern for the prior Xbox One's look like? We'll never really know.
Obviously we know why Sony & MS wouldn't make exclusive games for their refresh consoles but I know going into next gen I'd hate to have that thought in the back of my head saying "Imagine how much better the game could be if it was designed just for Anaconda and didn't have to also play on the Lockhart"
Well yeah but it doesn't sound like a huge leap of its what it sounds like, an Xbox 1 X+.
My main problem is I want games designed around the $500 model only. Using it 100%. That's the point of generational leaps imo. This complicates that. Whether it's a huge difference between models idk.
I don't see how they could make an 1S successor and not shave off more than just TFs but idk.
Your point is valid, but history says that hardware has hardly ever won a generation, so why split the efforts?
I'm really happy that they're exploring new HW because they could potentially change the way we play (it's not just about increasing computing power but they probably want to turn this into a monthly payment service and stuff), but I feel SW is the necessary and sufficient condition to lead the industry. Under current conditions, i.e. unless they change the way we play, all they need is better SW. HW is cool, and as a geek I'm very excited to see what's in store for us, but SW is the only way to get the top position unless you actually start a revolution.
good grief by that subjective argument, we should be screaming that switch is holding back PS4P and 1X games
the point is the higher end spec is the lead platform and lesser platforms will be scaled down
Having a good record for 3-4 years doesn't make you immune to mistakes later. You shouldn't assume they'll knock it 100% out of the park, no console maker will.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This whole argument about games being customized to one specific console already happens with the two systems out now.
Yes? The Pro is fundamentally a PS4, with the limitations that the base presents.
As others have said in another context - 'imagine games using something like X as a baseline, without being tethered to the base Xbox One'. Of course without being tied to the lower level skus, that would be a bump over what we have now.
But as good a bump for the whole generation, compared to a higher baseline from the start? Hmm.
I'm not sure why we can't have a higher baseline from the get-go, and a better 'Pro' version later. If Sony goes for that strategy and releases a Pro 3 years down the line, will MS sit still with Anaconda? If they do sit still, Sony will have both a higher baseline and the more powerful high end system. If they don't, and release a third system, I think it might betray the expectations of people buying Anaconda.
I can understand why MS would take the approach that's being rumoured, they have to try something different than a conventional head-on approach to PS5 I think. But this strategy isn't without some downsides and question marks.
Of course there are games that are doable on Switch. But if this gen had started with Switch around from the start, and devs used Switch as their baseline through the generation, a lot of games would be quite different to what we get today.
Yes I'm assuming because the people designing these consoles aren't idiots and would know how to design them to scale. Graphics scale a whole lot more than game logic, physics, etc. The same CPU almost has to be there or at least very close. Even a slight difference in CPU speed should be fine since you can reduce the amount of draw calls on the lower end by cutting down on draw distance for example.
As I said above, there would be nothing stopping a studio from building around the 13TF machine and scaling it down to the 8TF machine. That's what Playground did with FH4 and it's one of the best looking games this gen.
We don't know enough to worry yet.
It seems like you're treating this hypothetical Xbox S as the base when it will really be a compromise between PS5 and whichever Xbox models comes closest in power to that.
Only if multiplats were being held back so they could also release day and date with it, like Red Dead 2 for example.
Thankfully that isn't the case and my point still stands that I'd prefer one SKU at launch with the devs focusing on it to fully max out it's power.
Because they're okay with that? It's simple
Millions are okay with that on PC. Millions are okay with it being the way it is on consoles. Since these markets coexist it stands to reason that the PC players aren't interested in console style upgrades (slower) and that console players aren't interested in PC style upgrades (faster, more often and at will)
One doesn't cannibalize the other but both markets have their followers for different reasons
???
Yes?
the minimum spec for Assassin's Creed Odyssey is a GTX 660
which very much equivalent to the custom APU the base PS4 has, and that of the Xbox One's.
and yes, because of that base, we are getting games that look like God of War and Detroit Become Human.
You see, if the base were a Pro and there were no other spec, how do you think the games will look and run? It won't be a prettier God Of War or AC Odyssey with 16x Anistrophic Filtering like PC, no. It won't have just shinier things and higher res, it will have more of pretty much everything and anything. The leap would not just be Ultra Settings applied to a GTX 660. The leap would be the game will operate differently because you have a different base spec. It will have smarter AI, more animations, better physics, everything. You don't get smarter AI when you play Odyssey on a 1080. Base spec works way different.
Everyone wants to have the best in gaming, but you have to have something that can sell to the masses. How many people will buy a $500 console from Microsoft when Sony is maybe offering a $400 console?
Microsoft wants to cover the bases here and have something at a specific price point that can bring in users who are price sensitive into their ecosystem.
It says in the article that they are already preparing the tools necessary for devs.
The S will most probably have the exact same architecture, just smaller and tuned down. They are already thinking of scaling
I don't think I would be wrong in saying Microsoft has never been this invested in Video Games as they are at this very moment. Being a underdog totally sparked a fire.
It's highly doubtful we'll see enhanced consoles a few years in. The drop below 7nm will be a while.
Thank you.
Edit: since I'm getting quoted a lot and this is getting quoted a lot, I see that I came on too strong. I'll refrain from posting any hot takes, especially in threads with insiders. I apologize and thank you guys for the discussion
Last edited:
Saying The base consoles hold back the more powerful consoles these days is like saying a new game on pc is being held back by its lowest settings. It's ridiculous.
Era 3.0 needs a filter where I can read only verified dev posts in a given thread
I really wonder if MS will reveal Scarlet at E3 2019 with another uncompressed pixels trailer. I hope so.
Yeah I get that. But that's what reducing costs over time do. The same thing with Xbox and PS today.
Get premium buyers year one then cut costs and get budget buyers. I don't see why they can't simply build a $400 or $500 console and work their way down over time in price like everything else does.
Again just imo. If you enjoy this that's good!
We don't know what we don't know right now, it's all speculation.
We'll find out in a bit won't we? Let's not have hot take reactions until we find out more was the point of my post. Everything is speculative right now without concrete data.
At this point, I'm kind of expecting that. Tease the devices at E3 2019, do another full reveal at/around E3 2020 and then release that Fall.
Okay. Since this seems inspired by my posts I guess I'll cool it for a while. Didn't mean to go too hard but I guess I did since so many people are reacting so strongly. I apologize.
Yep, let's not have yet another generation of consoles held back by a weaker iteration of hardware. Give me power.
Perhaps, yeah, though there might be other design levers to pull on later that are not quite ready in 2020.
True, there are important unanswered questions here.
OP
OP
