• It's the most wonderful time of the year! Make your list and check it twice. The ResetEra Games of the Year 2019 Voting Thread is now live. Voting will be open for the next 1 day, 4 hours, 57 minutes, 51 seconds, and will close on Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

Digital Foundry | Can Microsoft deliver next-gen experiences while still supporting Xbox One?

Orioto

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,168
Paris
This isn't going to be a concern on a game design or technical level... The only concern here is a marketing one (an explanation is coming, don't worry).

Throughout gaming history, across ALL console generational transitions (with perhaps the only exception being the SNES-N64 transition), first parties have a dirty little secret that they'd rather you didn't know about...

All launch-window titles for a new console, from a first party studio, are ports from the previous console

This is a universal truth, and the first parties have traditionally tried to hide this by pretending that their new consoles make these new games possible, and that they simply couldn't have been made on the previous console; but very rarely is this actually true.

Even going as far back as the SNES we can see this phenomenon starting. Simcity is a perfect example of a game that was originally designed for NES, before having its NES version cancelled and turned into a showpiece title for the new SNES hardware. Ico was originally a PS1 game, Saturn and 32X were littered with Megadrive ports and cancelled Mega Drive games that were up-ported as "exclusives"; Gran Turismo HD on PS3 was just a port-up of Gran Turismo 4; Metroid Prime 3 and Super Mario Galaxy were originally built on modified Gamecube hardware; Pikmin 3 was originally a Wii game and so on and so forth...

I bet you didn't know that every single first party launch-window title for the Xbox One was originally running on 360...


Ryse: Son of Rome on Xbox 360


Killer Instinct on Xbox 360


Crimson Dragon on Xbox 360

Oh, and just as an added bonus...


Here is Kameo: Elements of Power on the original Xbox; basically 100% identical to the Xbox 360 version

The point I'm making here? Previously, console manufacturers have gone to great lengths to hide this truth from their customers; in order to paint their new consoles in a better light. However, this time, Microsoft are going against the grain and are not hiding it anymore. Microsoft is no longer in the business of selling boxes and pushing hardware platforms, but rather they are positioning Xbox as a service that works across a myriad of devices (including PC, mobile and Switch). Microsoft therefore, have no need to hide this truth anymore, as they benefit from making their userbase for Game Pass as large as possible.

It is standard for the first 1-2 years of a console's life to be made up primarily of first-party projects that were cancelled on previous consoles and then ported up to the new hardware; and this has been true for as long as consoles have been pushing 3D graphics (this window was historically shorter, but has been steadily increasing as game development requirements and complexity has increased over time). Sony will be doing exactly the same thing as what Microsoft are doing here; but will not be telling you that they're doing it. When they make the claim that Demon's Souls Remastered and Gran Turismo 7 could only be done with The Power Of Playstation 5; they are bullshitting you.

Sony want to sell you a shiny new box, and they will do everything they can to make you think that it's literally a gift from God. Microsoft are no longer in the business of just selling boxes; they want your Game Pass sub, and they don't really care how they get it.

Game design has not really been limited by CPU/GPU specs since the PS2/Xbox/GCN era and that is still true now; no matter how much the console manufacturers want you to believe otherwise.
Yeah i think your arguments are all wrong.

_The fact that every new console actually has some "old gen" titles being lazily ported on the new one doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sure we'll always have those games, but if they were the only ones at launch, then good luck to sell your new console. If Sega Saturn only had genesis 2d ports at launch and no Viruta Fighter ? Ho i'm sure things would have went super well for it. If Snes had only NES titles with upgraded graphics ? Nah it had things like games designed around mode 7 actually and fortunately.

_ The fact that some games started development on old hardware doesn't prove anything neither. Look at that Ryse video, do you think it has what was impressive in the XBO game ? DO you think the SNES version of Mario 64 would have been comparable to the N64 version ? Or Ico on PS1 ?You're confusing 2 things there. A game starting its dev on an old hadware and a game having to run on those 2 hardware is not the same thing. Those games were actually upgraded, not only in graphics but also in ambition and scope when they shifted hardware. What if they had to keep running on the old hardware in a good enough version ? They would have been super different.
 

DrDeckard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,090
Fuck it. Why even bother with new consoles given that it's clearly possible to make good games on the current ones.
Just thinking about how both those games came out within a year of the console launching, were base on previous gen games and are still revered as 2 of the best games in the last 10 to 15 years.

Hell I'd play last of us remastered over any ps4 exclusive bar god of war.

Basically, I think a last gen game turned upto ten with next gen hardware can be amazing. Especially for the first year while devs are getting to grips with having ssd etc.
 

grandwizorb

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,112
Both Gears 5 and Horizon 4 support lower spec PCs and look and play fantastically. Nothing about them running on worse specs made them worse.

Games like The Witcher 3 etc. all support lower end PCs. Are they hampered?
This is where all this rhetoric breaks down. DF especially praised Gears 5 last year as being a technical show piece, a game that was scalable to run on the highest end PCs, the Xbox One X , Xbox One original and even older low end PCs. We're now supposed to believe it looked bad because it was able to have the settings cranked down and play on a 750ti?

I also find this idea that technology and graphics don't progress unless it's a new console standard laughable as well. You can take a game like Crysis 3 which came out during the last console generation. The PC version wiped the floor with anything coming out at the end of that generation, and still today holds up to games coming out on the current consoles. Min Spec changes with time and the advancement in products and prices. They sure as hell didn't make Total War Three Kingdoms to run on Jaguars.
 

BradGrenz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,214
Killzone Shadow Fall, we have never seen a PS3 build of; but it would almost certainly have originally started life as a PS3 game, just because it would've had to have been in order for the game to have gotten made in time for the PS4's launch. It's simple logistics.
That is preposterous. It would have started on early versions of the PS4 devkit/speculative pre-production based on expected PS4 capabilities.
 

Polyh3dron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,304
Halo was a port of a Mac game that was already in development; that's well known.

Killzone Shadow Fall, we have never seen a PS3 build of; but it would almost certainly have originally started life as a PS3 game, just because it would've had to have been in order for the game to have gotten made in time for the PS4's launch. It's simple logistics.
"simple logistics"? The build of Halo when it was a Mac game was drastically different from what ended up on the Xbox. There's no way that game, in its Xbox form, could've possibly run on even a top end Power Mac G3 running Mac OS 9 from the time.

As for Shadow Fall, the x86-based, AMD graphics PS4 is a drastically different console from its CELL-based, Nvidia graphics predecessor. How do you think starting development for that game on a completely alien platform would be simple logistics? That makes literally zero sense.
 

panda-zebra

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,825
A couple of things not touched on in this video. Firstly, RT is supposed to help devs by having them free their artists and engineers from rigging and pre-baking lighting via current methods. Supporting older hardware as well means you not only don't get to save on this, you actually have to do it both ways. None of that matters to me playing the game, just those making it. Unlike...

Multiplayer lobbies. Having to sit and idle waiting for the person with the slowest drive to load the damn game in stuff like Destiny and Anthem, that's really tedious, and that's me playing from a decent drive with players on the exact same machines with just slightly less good drives. Cross gen multiplayer games will be horrible in this regard... having a ridiculously fast SSD but still having to wait it out for those folks.... no thanks!

Sure, but it works both ways, right? Devs have been working with x86 for nearly a decade now. That learning curve/adjustment period from previous generations doesn't really apply anymore. It isn't going to take years of growing accustom to the architecture and tool-sets before they can fully tap in to the new systems' capabilities.
The same profiling tools they've been developing for 7, 8 years are there right now, adapted to the new hardware, fully mature. What they have now vs what they had a year before gen 8 is not comparable, and all directly applicable. Getting up to speed with new boxes is going to be the slickest process ever.

Them opting to continue cross generation support for new titles gives me an idea to how much their Series X price is going to be. It's not going to be $399 or $499. They've got to continue to provide content for people who aren't going to be able to afford this new premium console. That's just me speculating, so don't get upset at me for thinking that this console is going to be $600+. I'm just another person with a shitty opinion.
I got a ton of those myself. It's not so much about supporting people who can't afford this new high end box, but continuing to cater to those who are alreay making regular monthly payments. this box is aimed at the kinds of customers you cater to differently. Same as you, I don't see it being cheap either, nowhere near mass market pricing and definitely on the ultra premium end. Not when it'll appeal to the kinds of people who are already heavily invested and likely loaded up on gp ultimate. There's got to be some payoff somewhere and it'll be the box price. It's a big, powerful box and without exclusives I wouldn't be surprised to see it do numbers similar to xbox 1x, targetting the same kinds of consumer. And effectively another mid-gen refresh until it begins to get its own exclusives at some point down the line. That's the generationless approach.

That’s the model they’ve been moving to this generation. I don’t think they’d sell separate versions at all.

The next-gen version is likely to be no different than releasing an X enhanced update. Settings changes and some new feature but nothing that dramatically alters anything. There won’t be a Shadow of Mordor situation.
That's exactly how I see it. Wrote about this in the next gen thread, personally I also see them rebranding to "xbox" and you'll check the icons on packaging to determine which models it supports/is enhanced for. No "xbox one" boxes or "xbox series ?" boxes, just xbox. Same games, same disc, potential additional downloads.

Remember when it was just Lockhart holding back next-gen? The good-old days.
It's just a different approach (for first party). It is getting harder to justify a Lockhart though. Until those true next gen games do begin to appear what does it really do, where does it fit? Presenting 4k Series X games at 1080P. But if there aren't any, and all games are scalable, the other boxes already offer cheaper and lesser experiences. And by then, the idea of a 4TF system might seem rather twee.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,936
Yeah i think your arguments are all wrong.

_The fact that every new console actually has some "old gen" titles being lazily ported on the new one doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sure we'll always have those games, but if they were the only ones at launch, then good luck to sell your new console. If Sega Saturn only had genesis 2d ports at launch and no Viruta Fighter ? Ho i'm sure things would have went super well for it. If Snes had only NES titles with upgraded graphics ? Nah it had things like games designed around mode 7 actually and fortunately.
Those days are LONG over. Advances in CPU/GPU hardware & storage media no longer drive advancements in game design possibliities and haven't done so for two decades now. The only thing that truly influences game design are the new and novel forms of input that new consoles introduce, new forms of communication tech, and new display methods. Things like motion controls, VR, 3D, HD Rumble, touchscreens, wireless tech, novel forms of input (like the crank on the PlayDate). THESE are the hardware innovations that drive innovations in game design; not better CPUs/GPUs.

The fact that some games started development on old hardware doesn't prove anything neither. Look at that Ryse video, do you think it has what was impressive in the XBO game ? DO you think the SNES version of Mario 64 would have been comparable to the N64 version ? Or Ico on PS1 ?You're confusing 2 things there. A game starting its dev on an old hadware and a game having to run on those 2 hardware is not the same thing. Those games were actually upgraded, not only in graphics but also in ambition and scope when they shifted hardware. What if they had to keep running on the old hardware in a good enough version ? They would have been super different.
Those games did not expand in scope; they were quick up-ports with better graphics/framerate and that's it. We HAVE the original builds to prove it too.

The truth is that any game could be downported to lesser hardware and the game design would remain intact. You could make Red Dead Redemption run on a PS2 if you really wanted to. It would look like arse, but it could be made to play the same; hell it isn't even all that different from Red Dead Revolver in terms of game design really.

But console manufacturers and game developers want to sell you shiny new boxes with shiny new graphics, because it's the easiest way to keep your interest. Innovating with game design is hard, making the same games with shiner graphics is so much easier.

They could make these games with seamless loading right now if they really wanted to; but they don't. They want to make their games look pretty, at the expense of long loading times, so they pump their games full of high res textures and complain that they can't pump even more high res textures in.

"simple logistics"? The build of Halo when it was a Mac game was drastically different from what ended up on the Xbox. There's no way that game, in its Xbox form, could've possibly run on even a top end Power Mac G3 running Mac OS 9 from the time.
It could be made to run on it; sure, with downgraded visuals, but it could be done. It would've started on Mac before being moved to Xbox/X86 PC anyway.

As for Shadow Fall, the x86-based, AMD graphics PS4 is a drastically different console from its CELL-based, Nvidia graphics predecessor. How do you think starting development for that game on a completely alien platform would be simple logistics? That makes literally zero sense.
They did not make that game from scratch, with no reuse of their prior PS3 engine tech, or any PS3 assets, within a year. You are a fool if you think that.

Game development never starts from truly nothing. The game would have had to have started on PS3 and then been ported over to the PS4 hardware as the SDKs were delivered to Guerella's offices.
 
Last edited:

Kyoufu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,613
All launch-window titles for a new console, from a first party studio, are ports from the previous console
Why would you make things up like that? Using the most recent launch-window titles as examples, Infamous Second Son and Killzone Shadow Fall to name just a couple, were all developed for PS4. There's no hidden PS3 build.
 
Feb 10, 2018
16,233
Yeah i think your arguments are all wrong.

_The fact that every new console actually has some "old gen" titles being lazily ported on the new one doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sure we'll always have those games, but if they were the only ones at launch, then good luck to sell your new console. If Sega Saturn only had genesis 2d ports at launch and no Viruta Fighter ? Ho i'm sure things would have went super well for it. If Snes had only NES titles with upgraded graphics ? Nah it had things like games designed around mode 7 actually and fortunately.

_ The fact that some games started development on old hardware doesn't prove anything neither. Look at that Ryse video, do you think it has what was impressive in the XBO game ? DO you think the SNES version of Mario 64 would have been comparable to the N64 version ? Or Ico on PS1 ?You're confusing 2 things there. A game starting its dev on an old hadware and a game having to run on those 2 hardware is not the same thing. Those games were actually upgraded, not only in graphics but also in ambition and scope when they shifted hardware. What if they had to keep running on the old hardware in a good enough version ? They would have been super different.
I think what those videos of 360 versions of X1 games may suggest is that if those games were to also ship on the 360, would the X1 versions suffer?

If first year games don't really take full advantage of a new gen console, why not also release them on the current gen?

It does seem apparent that games are cancelled on the prior gen as a business play to sell more new gen consoles, and not for technical reasons.
 

NewtypeSp

Member
Jun 9, 2018
29
Why would you make things up like that? Using the most recent launch-window titles as examples, Infamous Second Son and Killzone Shadow Fall to name just a couple, were all developed for PS4. There's no hidden PS3 build.
Apart from the visuals, these games have gameplay like the previous generation, even worse.
 

Jiraiya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,280
Expanding this to first 2 years of availability to make it a fair comparison

Sunset Overdrive
Dead Rising 3 (as explained in the video)
Killzone Shadow Fall
Watch Dogs
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Infamous: Second Son
Warhawk (PS3)
Halo 3
Ryze: Son Of Rome
Gears of War
Halo: Combat Evolved
Soul Calibur (hell, half the Dreamcast launch lineup for that matter)
Metal Gear Solid 2
Grand Theft Auto III

This is just off the top of my head.
For example...dead rising couldn't run on previous gen because the scope was too much. Too many zombies...etc.

Gameplay wise.... it's still dead rising.
Killzone was still a fps gameplay wise. Ryse was being developed on the 360.
Infamous was done before the ps4 too.

Grand theft auto 3 fits that bill. And how long ago did that happen?

Most people are against this decision because of reasons they can't clearly articulate because we've no idea what these consoles present to the dev on that level.

And in most previous new gens...we received games that could run on the previous gen gameplay wise.

I don't see any reason first party devs can't take advantage of the things we know...like the ssd.
 
OP
OP
nib95

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,218
Halo was a port of a Mac game that was already in development; that's well known.

Killzone Shadow Fall, we have never seen a PS3 build of; but it would almost certainly have originally started life as a PS3 game, just because it would've had to have been in order for the game to have gotten made in time for the PS4's launch. It's simple logistics.
That's not necessarily how things work. Often next gen games start development on high end systems that have assumed or prospective next gen performance specs, and then eventually move development on to closer to retail dev kits, and then eventually final retail dev kits. Sometimes with more steps inbetween dependant of how many updates the dev kits see before final.

Lest we forget Killzone Shadow Fall looked like this, and was a launch title. It positively blew away anything we'd seen graphically and in terms of geometry and scope from an FPS from the previous gen, and holds up graphically even today.



Personally I don't expect any non tentpole PS5 next-gen only exclusives to really highlight that next-gen only difference (eg the equivalent of low-mid budget titles like Knack), and feel we'll have to wait for tentpole AAA exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn 2 or Spider-Man 2 to really see what's possible. Whether those games will be launch window titles (eg first year or so) or not remains to be seen, but I doubt they're launch titles.
 
Last edited:

Kyoufu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,613
A big budget AAA game can take 3-4 years to produce. Do you think Sony's internal studios have been working with PS5 dev kits since 2016?
If they're targeting PS5 from the beginning then yes, they'd be using PC hardware in the range of their target specs before dev kits with PS5 hardware are made available later on. That's how it goes.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,936
Why would you make things up like that? Using the most recent launch-window titles as examples, Infamous Second Son and Killzone Shadow Fall to name just a couple, were all developed for PS4. There's no hidden PS3 build.
If you think we know about every single pre-launch build of every single game, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Oh no, I guess these feature-complete HD games must've just have been magicked up within less than a year, using entirely brand new technology, engines & assets that were all made entierly from scratch, coded in assembly before the devs even had access to alpha hardware... Yeah, sure.
 

harSon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,611
This is so overblown.

We live in a world where the Nintendo Switch, Original PS4/XB1, and PC releases of The Witcher 3 exists. They're all TOTALLY different experiences, and the game is still among the most impressive things this generation.

It's not like the Xbox One is going to be the lead platform, nor is Microsoft guaranteeing that the Xbox One version is going to be the prettiest, well performing, or best optimized of experiences. It's merely going to be playable.
 

Hudsoniscool

Member
Jun 5, 2018
1,356
Absolutely but then it’s just like PC graphics settings again. I’m not talking about visuals being limited in any way. I’m talking about fundamental decisions made early in development that may be influenced by the need to support the Jaguar CPU + slow storage. Maybe that won’t mean anything in many cases but that’s what I’m thinking about here.
Booty said that Xbox one would be supported for the next year or 2 this last November. Meaning he only committed to no more than a year of XSX.

It can take 4 or 5 years to make a big game. Meaning we are talking about games that started development between November 2015. Which would be halo infinite, and Going to around November 2017. Which is 4 years before November 2021.

For games that started development that far back it makes sense to have an Xbox one version. Back then it would have been a gamble to assume next gen would have an ssd.

At the end of the day we are talking about 3 or 4 big games that will end up cross-gen. I don’t get all the fuss.

And ya Microsoft could be pulling a forza horizon 2 or titanfall like situation for some of these games. Heck... skybox labs who has partnered with 343 on infinite could be making the Xbox one version for all we know.
 

Kolbe1894

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,213
So you think they’d have two studios working on two entirely separate versions of a game and sell it as a single release? I suppose that IS possible...
Well I doubt there will be more than 10 fist party games will be cross gen, with some studios like 343i can handle by itself, and some studios like Undead Labs never been technically impressive since beginning...so yeah it's possible.
 
Last edited:

Kyoufu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,613
If you think we know about every single pre-launch build of every single game, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Oh no, I guess these feature-complete HD games must've just have been magicked up within less than a year, using entirely brand new technology, engines & assets that were all made entierly from scratch, coded in assembly before the devs even had access to alpha hardware... Yeah, sure.
It's clear you don't understand game development at all.

There's absolutely no logic in starting a PS4 launch title's development on PS3 hardware when you know you're making an exclusive launch game for PS4, never mind the radically different architecture of the two. What you're suggesting is nonsensical and any developer will tell you the same.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,936
That’s a good point
And that's the only point that needs to be made.

The argument against this is nothing more than an issue with public perception. This is the standard and has been for generations, but you have not been privy to it before, so now you will look at this and think that it's not really "next-gen".

It's purely psychological.
 

StudioTan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,936
If they're targeting PS5 from the beginning then yes, they'd be using PC hardware in the range of their target specs before dev kits with PS5 hardware are made available later on. That's how it goes.
I don't think even Sony knew the target specs in 2016. I just don't see that we get earth shattering new game designs within the first year of launch because no studio would have had the hardware long enough to make something from scratch to those specs. It'll be graphics bumps for the most part.
 

Orioto

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,168
Paris
I think what those videos of 360 versions of X1 games may suggest is that if those games were to also ship on the 360, would the X1 versions suffer?

If first year games don't really take full advantage of a new gen console, why not also release them on the current gen?

It does seem apparent that games are cancelled on the prior gen as a business play to sell more new gen consoles, and not for technical reasons.
Those days are LONG over. Advances in CPU/GPU hardware & storage media no longer drive advancements in game design possibliities and haven't done so for two decades now. The only thing that truly influences game design are the new and novel forms of input that new consoles introduce, new forms of communication tech, and new display methods. Things like motion controls, VR, 3D, HD Rumble, touchscreens, wireless tech, novel forms of input (like the crank on the PlayDate). THESE are the hardware innovations that drive innovations in game design; not better CPUs/GPUs.

Those games did not expand in scope; they were quick up-ports with better graphics/framerate and that's it. We HAVE the original builds to prove it too.

The truth is that any game could be downported to lesser hardware and the game design would remain intact. You could make Red Dead Redemption run on a PS2 if you really wanted to. It would look like arse, but it could be made to play the same; hell it isn't even all that different from Red Dead Revolver in terms of game design really.

But console manufacturers and game developers want to sell you shiny new boxes with shiny new graphics, because it's the easiest way to keep your interest. Innovating with game design is hard, making the same games with shiner graphics is so much easier.

They could make these games with seamless loading right now if they really wanted to; but they don't. They want to make their games look pretty, at the expense of long loading times, so they pump their games full of high res textures and complain that they can't pump even more high res textures in.
So wait, you have a snes version of Mario 64 that runs as good and plays as well as the N64 one ? I'm impressed.
You posted yourself a vid of Ryse on 360 where there are basically no soldiers on screen lol. Where are the tons of soldiers and animations that made the XBO version so special at launch ?? This is ridiculous.

I'll talk for the 3rd time in 2 days about Drive Club, being a racing game based on global illumination and dynamic volumetric weather. But see, the part where you're the most wrong is when you think game design is all there is and that it doesn't change in the end. A game is a little more than that. Cause you could tell me, Drive Club is a racing game, it doesn't need fancy weather and lights, hell it's the same fondamental design as out run for christ sake! Except no, Drive Club is different cause it has those things, that wouldn't have been possible before the PS4, and they're part of the ambition and intentions of the devs.

Anyway that whole anti consumer conspiracy theory about new consoles being some scam way to rebrand games but were never needed is just as stupid as any conspiracy theory.

It's like the thing about Devs doing launch games for new consoles with no new ambitions in mind. That's stupid. Devs live to use new hardware, they've been stuck with limitations for 6 or 8 years, Believe me, they are full of joy when they can forget about those and do more.
 

tutomos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
940
So essentially people are using a variable they don't know as a negative.

Crazily enough....the people who know the variable feel like this is the right decision for them.
Using the past to predict the future doesn't always work. If Microsoft wants to power people's dreams and make XSX seem like some kind of unprecedented things, then they own it to the fans to give their best shot as soon as they can. If you just tell me XSX is one of the many ways you can access gamepass, it's not something front and center for Xbox, then it makes sense to treat it as such.
 

EvilBoris

HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
7,456
Series X version will let you sprint across an entire battlefield unbothered, but the One version will incorporate tripping to allow for loading
Master Chief has a swollen prostate and frequently needs to stop and empty his bladder, this will prevent the player from getting ahead of streaming assets.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,936
So wait, you have a snes version of Mario 64 that runs as good and plays as well as the N64 one ? I'm impressed.
You posted yourself a vid of Ryse on 360 where there are basically no soldiers on screen lol. Where are the tons of soldiers and animations that made the XBO version so special at launch ?? This is ridiculous.

I'll talk for the 3rd time in 2 days about Drive Club, being a racing game based on global illumination and dynamic volumetric weather. But see, the part where you're the most wrong is when you think game design is all there is and that it doesn't change in the end. A game is a little more than that. Cause you could tell me, Drive Club is a racing game, it doesn't need fancy weather and lights, hell it's the same fondamental design as out run for christ sake! Except no, Drive Club is different cause it has those things, that wouldn't have been possible before the PS4, and they're part of the ambition and intentions of the devs.

Anyway that whole anti consumer conspiracy theory about new consoles being some scam way to rebrand games but were never needed is just as stupid as any conspiracy theory.

It's like the thing about Devs doing launch games for new consoles with no new ambitions in mind. That's stupid. Devs live to use new hardware, they've been stuck with limitations for 6 or 8 years, Believe me, they are full of joy when they can forget about those and do more.
Those differences are nothing but cosmetic, they're not gameplay related. If the only difference between a last-gen version and a next-gen version is in the visuals; then in what way is the last-gen version "holding back" the next-gen one?

Why is it now a bad thing to have games scale across many tiers of hardware now all of a sudden? If it isn't going to have any material effect on the flagship "next-gen" version anyway, then why shouldn't they allow their games to be playable on previous gen hardware? Hell, aren't we all clamering for PC ports of everything? You know, the platform where ALL games are built to be scalable anyway?

The only reason is public perception, because people have the mistaken belief that these games would somehow become bigger and grander in terms of gameplay "scope" by virtue of just being on more powerful hardware; because that is what they have been taught by the console manufacturers for the last 20 years.

The truth is that the decision to make these games cross-gen will have no real impact on how the games look and play on "next-gen" hardware anyway; despite the popular belief. Because modern games start from the existing consoles before being moved over to the next console anyway.
 
Last edited:

OneBadMutha

Member
Nov 2, 2017
4,524
Launch consoles have been oversold in recent generations. We get a bunch of tech demos a few months prior to release. Some of those tech demos never turn into games. Others are years away. Finally there's the occasional shallow pretty game that makes launch like Killzone or Ryse.

When people harken back to the days that Mario 64 or Halo left their jaws on the floor, they omit facts such back then, PCs had lots of exclusives that simply couldn't run on console architecture. Consoles were far more limited and eccentric. Doubling polygon count had a drastic impact on visual quality. That all changed in recent gens. Devs have not had games in development for 3 years focusing on maximizing Zen CPUs or the new IO speeds that aren't even available on PC yet.

I actually believe we'll get more bang for our buck early gen because games will be much smoother and ray tracing will have more impact to visuals than resolution. Load times are a significant quality of life issue. Physics already scale up on PC so devs will be prepared for that. All that in contrast to only getting prettier textures and higher res last gen.
 
OP
OP
nib95

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,218
How will you know it's being held back?
I think a lot of people will likely base things on the visuals, scope, scale, tech, next gen gameplay etc of different games, eg stuff like Horizon Zero Dawn 2 vs Halo Infinite. Both of these titles will have been in development for roughly the same amount of time (Halo Infinite potentially longer), over roughly the same period of time, and will also both be AAA tentpole next-gen open world(?) games, one being cross-gen and the other presumably being next-gen only. That's only if HZD2 does end up being a launch window title though.
 
Last edited:

Jiraiya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,280
Using the past to predict the future doesn't always work. If Microsoft wants to power people's dreams and make XSX seem like some kind of unprecedented things, then they own it to the fans to give their best shot as soon as they can. If you just tell me XSX is one of the many ways you can access gamepass, it's not something front and center for Xbox, then it makes sense to treat it as such.
Using the past to predict the future....what does this quote have to do with developing video games across multiple skus?

And the rest of what you posted was nonsense. I can tell by the gamepass mention.
 

EvilBoris

HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
7,456
I think a lot of people will likely base things on the visuals, scope, tech, features etc of different games, eg stuff like Horizon Zero Dawn 2 vs Halo Infinite. Both will have been in development for roughly the same amount of time, over roughly the same period of time, and will also both be AAA tentpole next-gen titles, one being cross-gen and the other presumably being next-gen only. That's only if HZD2 does end up being a launch window title though.
Horizon Zero Dawn 2 will have been in development since before Horizon Zero Dawn?!
 
Feb 10, 2018
16,233
Those differences are nothing but cosmetic, they're not gameplay related. If the only difference between a last-gen version and a next-gen version is in the visuals; then in what way is the last-gen version "holding back" the next-gen one?

Why is it now a bad thing to have games scale across many tiers of hardware now all of a sudden? If it isn't going to have any material effect on the flagship "next-gen" version anyway, then why shouldn't they allow their games to be playable on previous gen hardware?

The only reason is public perception, because people have the mistaken belief that these games would somehow become bigger and grander in terms of gameplay "scope" by virtue of just being on more powerful hardware; because that is what they have been taught by the console manufacturers for the last 20 years.

The truth is that the decision to make these games cross-gen will have no real impact on how the games look and play on "next-gen" hardware anyway; despite the popular belief.
True.

The truth is most of the time when Sony or MS cancel a current gen version so they can make it a next gen exclusive, they are not doing it to benefit the consumer they are doing it to benifit themselves. Its actually anti consumer.
 
OP
OP
nib95

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,218
Horizon Zero Dawn 2 will have been in development since before Horizon Zero Dawn?!
No, hence I said roughly. But you're right, theoretically Halo Infinite could end up having a longer dev cycle dependant on when HZD2 launches, but I thought I did read somewhere that development of Halo Infinite was re-organised around 2017, hence the comparison.
 
Dec 31, 2017
483
Series X version will let you sprint across an entire battlefield unbothered, but the One version will incorporate tripping to allow for loading
The worst part is some people here are talking about scenarios like this as if it was a next gen. “Oh, you’ll be able to fly so fast in Spider-Man 2, have you seen Sony’s demo?” As if Spider-Man needs to or can fly that fast anyway. Are developers now supposed to make everything go super fast just because they can, even if it doesn’t make sense in their game’s design?

Master chief to have faster running speed in XSX version, Xbone version to run slower and add N64 levels of fog to hide loading!
 

Kolbe1894

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,213
The worst part is some people here are talking about scenarios like this as if it was a next gen. “Oh, you’ll be able to fly so fast in Spider-Man 2, have you seen Sony’s demo?” As if Spider-Man needs to or can fly that fast anyway. Are developers now supposed to make everything go super fast just because they can, even if it doesn’t make sense in their game’s design?

Master chief to have faster running speed in XSX version, Xbone version to run slower and add N64 levels of fog to hide loading!
Image how fast will next-gen Sonic be.
 

Kyoufu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,613
The worst part is some people here are talking about scenarios like this as if it was a next gen. “Oh, you’ll be able to fly so fast in Spider-Man 2, have you seen Sony’s demo?” As if Spider-Man needs to or can fly that fast anyway. Are developers now supposed to make everything go super fast just because they can, even if it doesn’t make sense in their game’s design?

Master chief to have faster running speed in XSX version, Xbone version to run slower and add N64 levels of fog to hide loading!
Spider-Man doesn't have to go as fast as a plane to benefit from the higher SSD speed. In the first game, Spidey never gained any speed throughout the game even when becoming more proficient at swinging, he was still always moving at the same speed and that's down to the slow HDD being the limit.

And if you watched the video, you'd know Guerrilla Games wanted to have flying as a traversal mechanic in Horizon Zero Dawn but weren't able to because of the HDD.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,308
People are going to be shocked to learn that there next-gen exclusive launch games wont be all that ground breaking, and cross gen titles will be more polished & fully featured. also, the visual enhancements MS first party will make to take advantage of the next gen hardware will be substantial.

It'll be a few years or so before exclusives start to truly take advantage of the hardware. As long as MS has exclusives dropping by then they'll be fine.

Also there are different methods to crossgen development. Some games, like Halo will obviously be built around the xb1, then enhanced for the XSX. But other games might take the Forza Horizon 2, Rise of the Tomb Raider, TitanFall approach of having the main studio focus solely on delivering a next gen game, then having another studio figure out how to scale it back for the old gen.

This controversy while be forgotten about instantly once the consoles and games drop.
 
Last edited:

Jiraiya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,280
I think a lot of people will likely base things on the visuals, scope, tech, features etc of different games, eg stuff like Horizon Zero Dawn 2 vs Halo Infinite. Both will have been in development for roughly the same amount of time, over roughly the same period of time, and will also both be AAA tentpole next-gen titles, one being cross-gen and the other presumably being next-gen only. That's only if HZD2 does end up being a launch window title though.
Halo and horizon are completely different games going for different gameplay made by different devs on different systems and different scopes.

Most of complaints i see are gameplay related....I'm not expecting halo fundamentally change the way we look at gameplay.

I'm definitely not expecting horizon to do it just because it's next gen exclusive.

That's my thing. People are down on this decision because of gameplay implications they know nothing about.

They then prop Sony's decision...based on nothing but it being next gen exclusive.
 

Orioto

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,168
Paris
Those differences are nothing but cosmetic, they're not gameplay related. If the only difference between a last-gen version and a next-gen version is in the visuals; then in what way is the last-gen version "holding back" the next-gen one?

Why is it now a bad thing to have games scale across many tiers of hardware now all of a sudden? If it isn't going to have any material effect on the flagship "next-gen" version anyway, then why shouldn't they allow their games to be playable on previous gen hardware? Hell, aren't we all clamering for PC ports of everything? You know, the platform where ALL games are built to be scalable anyway?

The only reason is public perception, because people have the mistaken belief that these games would somehow become bigger and grander in terms of gameplay "scope" by virtue of just being on more powerful hardware; because that is what they have been taught by the console manufacturers for the last 20 years.

The truth is that the decision to make these games cross-gen will have no real impact on how the games look and play on "next-gen" hardware anyway; despite the popular belief. Because modern games start from the existing consoles before being moved over to the next console anyway.
I'm going to try one last time before i go do something else.
Take Assassin's Creed. You can develop a 2d amiga version of Assassin's Creed that will have the exact same level design. Sure you won't be running through a super realistic Paris in 3D with tons of people in the streets, but how does that matter after all, it's all about the actual core game design right ?

Now take F-Zero, hey you could have made the same game from the top on NES i'm sure, with the same exact game design.

Except those games are different cause of their tech and how they're represented, and that's part of what you experience in a videogame. You can't just say "but there is nothing new cause i could simplify the game to no graphics" cause then we never ever needed new consoles to begin with.

So the dynamic weather is no cosmetic in Drive Club, nor the super realistic light in The Order, they are part of what those games are and they wouldn't exist without them, and couldn't exist the generation before.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
10,780
Did people forget Days Gone had major stuttering and straight up pausing issues when you were going on fast on the bike which got worse when you upgraded the speed?
 

tutomos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
940
Using the past to predict the future....what does this quote have to do with developing video games across multiple skus?

And the rest of what you posted was nonsense. I can tell by the gamepass mention.
Trying to say there were no good launch exclusives in the past and use it as an argument for the up-coming gen...

It wasn't nonsense. When you see MS put huge money in ads for XSX come this holiday, not gamepass, you will know they got their priorities mixed.
 

EvilBoris

HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
7,456
The worst part is some people here are talking about scenarios like this as if it was a next gen. “Oh, you’ll be able to fly so fast in Spider-Man 2, have you seen Sony’s demo?” As if Spider-Man needs to or can fly that fast anyway. Are developers now supposed to make everything go super fast just because they can, even if it doesn’t make sense in their game’s design?
I don’t think there is any suggestion that’s the case, it was literally a demo to show speed and how games are limited by it in a way that isn’t too absract or complicated. There are very real limitations that both drive innovation, but also prevent the progression of the media.
Like how you can’t have a game that can cut from one part of the game to another part of the game without a loading screen or a lengthy non interactive section.

Imagine if movies couldn’t have edits or you couldn’t make an album with tracks with different instruments on them back to back.
 

J_Viper

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,408
I think the big question is what the scope of their projects will be moving forward.

I always thought it strange that some folks here think a linear Halo campaign could not possibly be made to work between consoles generations.

We don't know much of what MS has planned after Infinite, but I think we can assume Forizon Horizon 5, Fable, and Gears 6 will follow.

There's Hellblade 2 as well, and though I'm sure it'll show off the technical prowess of the Series X, a linear action game shouldn't be too daunting a challenge to downgrade. Remember, that Switch port of Hellblade is supposedly solid considering the gulf in power.

Maybe Fable is where the cut off happens. We'll see.
 

panda-zebra

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,825
Imagine if movies couldn’t have edits or you couldn’t make an album with tracks with different instruments on them back to back.
haha, nice analogies.

The worst part is some people here are talking about scenarios like this as if it was a next gen. “Oh, you’ll be able to fly so fast in Spider-Man 2, have you seen Sony’s demo?” As if Spider-Man needs to or can fly that fast anyway. Are developers now supposed to make everything go super fast just because they can, even if it doesn’t make sense in their game’s design?
You should watch the Spider-Man GDC tech postmortem, it'll open your eyes to the issues regarding the hoops they had to jump through to present that open world. And in that context, you can see what that kind fo throughput from SSD could do to revolutionise game design at a fundamental level.