Hellblade 1 was incredibly limited in scope and you were only ever fighting a few enemies at a time. If the sequel is similar with just jacked up visuals then it's not even relevant to this discussion.
-
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.
Digital Foundry | Can Microsoft deliver next-gen experiences while still supporting Xbox One?
- Thread starter nib95
- Start date
Hellblade 1 was incredibly limited in scope and you were only ever fighting a few enemies at a time. If the sequel is similar with just jacked up visuals then it's not even relevant to this discussion.
No. They would not play the same. At all.
You are talking about an era where advances in technology actually mattered to game design. You could not replicate F-Zero on the NES in any capacity that resembles the same gameplay; and your absurd example of a 2D Amiga version of Assassin's Creed is just laughable.
That era is dead and buried though. There is no meaningful difference between the way in which a hypothetical Assassin's Creed on PS2, would play VS its PS3 counterpart however (or even PSP... which actually did get several Assassin's Creed games that all played like their console counterparts). The difference is purely in their aesthetics.
Drive Club could be replicated on the PS3 with lesser visuals. Easily. And its existence wouldn't have made the PS4 version a lesser game; which is my overall point.
If Drive Club was a cross-gen game, it would still have been the same game on PS4 as what it is now (barring any potential issues with manpower needed to support two versions across different hardware architectures). Consoles are nothing more than standard spec PCs in a box now (to the point that PS5 and Xbox Series X will be binary compatible with existing PS4/Xbox One games); so it is reletively trivial to dial up and down visual settings, like what PC games have done for generations.
And that is what these "next-gen" games will be. They will be PS4 and Xbox One games with the visual settings dialed up, regardless of whether or not a version actually gets released for PS4 and Xbox One. It makes no material difference to the PS5/Xbox Series X games themselves anyway, meaning that there is no real reason to be concerned about the proliferation of cross-gen games across these first two years.
When discussing this topic, we do have to keep in mind that Booty said 1-2 years from X019. That suggests this cross-gen window ends at some undetermined time next year. Not two years after the launch of Series X. Sorry if I've taken your quote out of context. There's a lot of replies in here.
Unless Microsoft are releasing their entire generations worth of 1st party titles in year one, I don't think there is anything to worry about.
If they release a bunch of great cross gen games in year 1 are you going to turn your nose up at them because they aren't next gen exclusive, it's absurd and the big hitters like Halo 5 have been in dev so long just like Last of Us 2 etc. what would justify them cutting the cord, nothing.
If they release a bunch of great cross gen games in year 1 are you going to turn your nose up at them because they aren't next gen exclusive, it's absurd and the big hitters like Halo 5 have been in dev so long just like Last of Us 2 etc. what would justify them cutting the cord, nothing.
That's a lot of unfounded equivocation! The engine having roots on the PS3 is not the same as the game "starting as a PS3 game that was ported to PS4".
I'm not even sure that's a good example or that what they typed here is entirely accurate. The Witcher 3 is in reality not very CPU intensive and runs well on a dual core if you are targeting 30fps. It also wasn't designed around 6+ core CPUs. A 4c/8t 6700K runs it at the same fps as an 8c/16t 6900K.
The Switch and the PS4/X1 aren't generations in technology apart either.
It depends on how you are defining next gen games. Like, if it's basically the stuff we've been getting but with 60FPS instead of 30 and/or 4K, then obviously Microsoft can do that. While it's harder to define, the sorts of things a true next gen console can allow for game developers is a lot less scaleable. Things like how a world is designed, how intricate it is, and populated, and vertical, and how complex is the AI - and really it's how all of these different things are together.
I don't know what/if a next gen game will look like that's beyond just the visuals or how obvious it is based on that stuff. Unfortunately it's that stuff that excited me, so how scaleable visuals/polish are isn't interesting to me personally.
I don't know what/if a next gen game will look like that's beyond just the visuals or how obvious it is based on that stuff. Unfortunately it's that stuff that excited me, so how scaleable visuals/polish are isn't interesting to me personally.
I didn't say they weren't good. I said their gameplay wasn't so drastic that it couldn't run on the previous gen.
Most of us have no idea what the new gen is capable of. But people have come up with wishlists of what they hope this little info means and they use that wishlist to be concretely negative about news like this. That's bizarre to me.
Here's what is concrete. This is not Microsoft's first new generation. They're also selling you a premium console.
My thoughts....i find it hard to believe Microsoft thinks they can sale us a machine like the series X and not show us why. Mainly because i don't believe in this paradigm shift in gameplay some others are thinking we're getting.
I see your point..But there are people still gaming on 970's and 4th gen Intel CPU's. Games have to scale. There's no reason to think because Microsoft is developing for all of the Xbox family, that they are somehow holding back their next gen hardware.
I dont think he meant from two years from X019, wouldnt make sense because XSX probably wont even launch until X020
E
Except if you've played on a PC before imo that is nothing revolutionary...
The beginning of the original article:
"It's now been over six years since the troubled launch of the Xbox One and another 10 months or so until we see the release of Microsoft's Xbox Series X. Yet despite all that, we've never seen a platform holder less in need of a next-gen boost than Microsoft is now."
"That confidence came through in every interview, and casual chat, we had at Microsoft's X019 meeting late last year. Across the board there's momentum, fresh ideas and a sense of focus around Microsoft's gaming arm at present. The platform is buzzing."
Here's the quote from Mat Booty:
"As our content comes out over the next year, two years, all of our games, sort of like PC, will play up and down that family of devices," Booty explains. "We want to make sure that if someone invests in Xbox between now and [Series X] that they feel that they made a good investment and that we're committed to them with content."
Obviously, Series X had not yet been revealed. This was also pre-Black Friday and Microsoft was heavily pushing the Xbox One S-All Digital Edition, Xbox All Access and Xbox Game pass.
there is a big difference between scaling down visual settings in accordance with a linear power decrease and having to stop yourself from designing games that would simply not run on a different class of hardware without an entirely customised downport.
a 4th-gen intel i5 is vastly more powerful than what the xbox one s has to work with today. that's actually the whole point — the benefit of a legit new CPU and SSD is not going to be felt as strongly if games still need to run on jaguar and 5400rpm.
i like the move from an xbox ecosystem perspective but i have no doubt you'll see a difference in PS5 exclusives if sony doesn't go the same route.
What sense would it make for the "cross-gen window" to start before the new-gen has even begun?
This is all silliness at this point. Microsoft is just making computers. Can a computer with a better graphics card, hard drive, memory, and CPU play games better than a 5 year old one?!?! Yup. Ok conversation done. It's all scalable at this point. The loading times will be better. I guess there is that. Like Sony will have some secret sauce in their PS5. It's just the upgraded version. Prettier graphics and faster loading times is what you are getting. (Sure more crap on the screen at once). This argument that their needs to be an exclusive launch line up is tired. I just want to have the best console that can play all the games at the highest fidelity. I guess we will see which company delivers that. (They both will have their exclusives eventually, yes I know Sony will have launch exclusives but we have no idea how many and what).
Starting from the PS3 era moving forward, nearly any game can be made to run on previous generations. All you'd need to do is lower everything: resolution, textures, scope, etc.
Game design hasn't really changed since around the PS2 era. We've mainly been getting games that look prettier and have become bigger since then.
That's basically what next gen always brings: better visuals and bigger environments than the last.
This next generation though, if targeted exclusively, can show a bigger jump due to advancements in CPU, GPU, RAM, RT, SSD.
A first year cross-gen first party game will not look as good as a first party next-gen exclusive game, especially when it's actually one dev trying to accommodate for lower end hardware. This gen was different, due to cross-gen games being worked on by different devs. The current gen version was able to take advantage of current hardware while the previous gen version was ported down.
Cross-gen first party titles will probably still look like current gen titles with a higher resolution and better performance, with some improvements like shadows and such. Essentially, a cross-gen game on Xbox Series X will probably look like a current gen game with ultra settings while a next-gen exclusive will actually look next-gen, since they wouldn't need to take 7 year old hardware into account.
Game design hasn't really changed since around the PS2 era. We've mainly been getting games that look prettier and have become bigger since then.
That's basically what next gen always brings: better visuals and bigger environments than the last.
This next generation though, if targeted exclusively, can show a bigger jump due to advancements in CPU, GPU, RAM, RT, SSD.
A first year cross-gen first party game will not look as good as a first party next-gen exclusive game, especially when it's actually one dev trying to accommodate for lower end hardware. This gen was different, due to cross-gen games being worked on by different devs. The current gen version was able to take advantage of current hardware while the previous gen version was ported down.
Cross-gen first party titles will probably still look like current gen titles with a higher resolution and better performance, with some improvements like shadows and such. Essentially, a cross-gen game on Xbox Series X will probably look like a current gen game with ultra settings while a next-gen exclusive will actually look next-gen, since they wouldn't need to take 7 year old hardware into account.
PC scaling sucks for the high-end owners unless they only want higher fps and resolution. Games aren't made to specifically take advantage of that power, they just get whatever they can scale up or turn on. Games aren't designed specifically for their hardware, they are just "ported up".
That's why they also love new console launches. It means the minimum specs finally go up and people expect better games.
That's why they also love new console launches. It means the minimum specs finally go up and people expect better games.
I mean current consoles is holding PC back, there is a reason why folks can still run games with 970s and 4th gen intels. No one calls mid/high end PC gaming next gen, its basically turning a few graphics sliders higher. Same for the One X and same for the SeX most likely. So yeah having xbox one as a baseline will hold the SeX back, the CPUs differences are massive.
Consoles do hold back mid to high-end PC gaming, but without new consoles the minimum specs for games don't go up as clear-cut either.
Framerate, resolution or some shadow setting toggles that scale up easily are not the only benefits of much more power. It's not the full potential of their power.
Last edited:
The majority of what PC's play are better versions of current-gen games. You know, "scaling". What games are out there (other than maybe Star Citizen) that are actually designed from the ground-up for modern PCs?
The PC comparison is based around such fallacy and just needs to stop being used. On PC, the fastest hardware is never being targeted specifically so it's nothing like consoles.
Develop games exclusively for an i9-9900K/Ryzen 3900X's full potential and then talk about "it's was just scaling bro" as owners of quad cores experience an extinction level event.
If the XSX's full potential was targeted with no remorse, Jaguar would be wiped from even loading the title screen.
You expect too much if you expect everyone ITT to actually watch this video and process the information in it.
It reminds me of how Miyamoto wanted to put Yoshi in SMB3 but couldn't due to hardware restrictions. Fundamental design decisions get made with hardware limitations taken into consideration all the time and it's not always a matter of halving the frame rate or turning off SSAO.
There are thousands of PC games released every year that never come to console. None of them are that far beyond what a console can do. Xbox One X GPU is comparable to a mid range modern graphic card. CPU's are the main choke point on the current consoles, but not in the sense that they would be limiting a PC game.
They should make Halo 900p on Xbox, 1440p+ on X, and 4K on series X. Whatever assets they have to adjust to reach that goal so be it. This is how it should be for all their games moving forward.
I'm not saying this will be the case, but during this gen, microsoft has been routinely paying second teams to handle their ports
First I don't know what you are expanding for 2 years after launch because MS' comment refers to a period that begins nov2019 and ends no later than nov 2021.
As such,
Most of these games either weren't launch games or didn't feature gameplay elements that were impossible in prior generations...
Halo and Soul Caliber fit bill...
This. All of this. I don't know why this concept seems so hard to grasp for some people.
You just regurgitated the Kickstarter pitch for Star Citizen.
My take is that it instills confidence that the console you buy today (or last Black Friday) will still be useful tomorrow. "Cross-gen window" is merely the term I used to describe what Matt Booty was talking about. As far as I know, it's not an official term used by Xbox, so don't take it too literally.
Here's the original article from MCV: https://www.mcvuk.com/we-need-to-de...ame-studios-matt-booty-on-the-future-of-xbox/
Star Citizen would be that game. Crysis was that game. Not many people have the hardware.
I wish Cyberpunk 2077 was that game and they made it for the ground up for next-gen consoles. It's going to be bitter sweet that it releases at the end of this gen. Imagine if it was made ground-up for next gen and was a launch game. People are upgrading their rigs for it.
It would probably be buggy...unless they shared the specs with devs ages ago.
Even if there were "AAA" PC exclusives they still wouldn't target ultra high end specs because that would limit the market too much.
This is exactly what we don't want, that would just make the Series X like a 1X Pro. The difference in power and processing potential is much bigger than similar bumping up a game from 1440p to 4K.
This is exactly what we don't want, that would just make the Series X like a 1X Pro. The difference in power and processing potential is much bigger than similar bumping up a game from 1440p to 4K.
Last edited:
Because the concept is not sound.
You know those fantastic GPU benchmark fools that trash the highest of high end features? How come even top of the line cards and CPU's can still struggle with them? Is it not optimized? Why don't we see an example of a PC game that would be impossible to run on a console?
Because even the the tech has improved, ultimately the tools are very much the same.
I am not going to pretend to be an expert... but look at Sea of Thieves.
The art style may help, but this is a pretty impressive graphics engine that scales incredibly well. It runs and is playable at low resolutions on my entry level Surface Pro 3.
Looking at it on a One X though, the game looks really impressive. And on a high spec PC, I can imagine it looks even better.
In no way does the fact it works on entry weaker PCs is the game "held back".
The art style may help, but this is a pretty impressive graphics engine that scales incredibly well. It runs and is playable at low resolutions on my entry level Surface Pro 3.
Looking at it on a One X though, the game looks really impressive. And on a high spec PC, I can imagine it looks even better.
In no way does the fact it works on entry weaker PCs is the game "held back".
It's all about the market.
Hypothetically, if a game was made JUST for 2080Ti/12 core CPU at 5.5ghz, 32GB of RAM, super fast SSD, and had a budget of 500 million with whatever dev time, we would see something even beyond Star Citizen.
But because of that, I think it's less consoles holding the PC back and more the marketshare.
While it would be cool to see what a game like that would look like, financially it will never make sense.
Especially since PC doesn't have a big daddy financing said games.