Page 29No point having a powerful console if games will be handicapped by low spec SKU
Page 29No point having a powerful console if games will be handicapped by low spec SKU
Does forza horizon running on Xbox one OG compromise the pc ultra version. Does the pc low version compromise the one X version?
This argument holds no weight, no offense. Lockhart will be above pc low specs so it won't matter.
The only way it could negatively affect devs is if no pc version was planned, because I can't see 4 or 5 rdna teraflops being under the 'pc low' settings for very many games at all.
As a 90% console gamer, agreed. This Lockhart Xbox is like our crappy Jaguar situation all over again.Let's give another example.
PS4 and Xbox One being as weak as they are compromised Witcher 3. Remember the reveal trailer? If the consoles weren't that weak we'd be seeing a better looking Witcher 3 on PC(No mods).
But this isn't true. You made it up.Let's give another example.
PS4 and Xbox One being as weak as they are compromised Witcher 3. Remember the reveal trailer? If the consoles weren't that weak we'd be seeing a better looking Witcher 3 on PC(No mods).
Shortly after we published this article, the head folks at CD Projekt Red spoke out about these graphical controversies and announced some developments. In an interview with Eurogamer, the studio bosses said that they have sent a patch to certification today that will include some 600 changes, including, in the publication's words, "improvements to graphics and graphical settings." They say that soon, PC users will be allowed to edit .ini files to change everything from vegetation density to draw distance.
The developers said that changes in The Witcher 3's graphics were a byproduct of getting it to perform as well as possible. They also noted that making console versions may have lowered the game's graphical potential but literally allowed them to afford to make it by selling to a broader market. As for why they didn't warn gamers that the game's launch-day graphics would be inferior to those in trailers, CD Projekt Red's Marcin Iwinski said, "Frankly speaking, because we didn't see it as a problem." He said feedback on the matter has been "touching and we'll do our best to make it up. But if you didn't play it and you're trolling: think twice please."
S is going nowhere. X, an expensive console designed to display xb1 games at 4k, will be irrelevant and cease as Anaconda does what it does and much more at the premium end. If/when Lockhart launches it'll sit between the two.So MS will have 2 new skus to add then decommission Xbox One S?
New XBX family = XBX, Lockhart and Anaconda?
That's a lot of options for gamers and casuals.
Silicon is set. Power is pretty much set. Power targets have been known by devs for a while. It's not as early as you think.Do not listen to power rumours so early in the game, your best to wait until actual consoles are released. Judging power based off Dev kits is not wise.
Even more when the scaling probably will happen the most on the GPU. You still get a so much better CPU in these consoles and SSD. Wich were the biggest problems this gen.This lowest common denominator argument is the most disingenuous I've heard in a while considering the LCD of PS4 Dev targets is is the OG PS4 and nobody ever said that held back Horizon or God Of War, same way nobody says Gears is held back by the OG XB1.
To say in 2019 that developers do not know how to scale their builds to different development targets especially ones that use similar chip sets is just plain wrong when they do it with the current consoles and PC on literally every single release without comprising graphical quality.
Even more when the scaling probably will happen the most on the GPU. You still get a so much better CPU in these consoles and SSD. Wich were the biggest problems this gen.
Say the only difference in Lockhart and Anaconda is the GPU.. What then? Couldn't devs with some amount of ease just scale down the res to 1080p? I'm not a dev or anything but it seems possible that resolution could scale while still being able to build ambitious next gen games. It seems feasible.
Agreed.Aside from the cost issue, it would also give them more design flexibility not having to design the entire console around a large square disc drive.
"May have" is a vauge statement from an unknown person.
Still won't listen to hearsay and speculation. You'll only set yourself up for disappointmentSilicon is set. Power is pretty much set. Power targets have been known by devs for a while. It's not as early as you think.
Great points. Let's put this argument to bed everyone. Yes?This lowest common denominator argument is the most disingenuous I've heard in a while considering the LCD of PS4 Dev targets is is the OG PS4 and nobody ever said that held back Horizon or God Of War, same way nobody says Gears is held back by the OG XB1.
To say in 2019 that developers do not know how to scale their builds to different development targets especially ones that use similar chip sets is just plain wrong when they do it with the current consoles and PC on literally every single release without comprising graphical quality.
"May have" is a vauge statement from an unknown person.
What we do know is that the Witcher on the highest settings brings even the most powerful PC hardware to its knees. There's not some magical console thing that makes more powerful PC hardware just stop working to its potential.
What kinda graphical advances do you think the Witcher 3 would have had if consoles didn't exist?(not to mention the fact CD Projekt also targeted mid/low end PC hardware)
Did the console versions restrict the PC version?
"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.
"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."
i dont know what to think about all of this - i'll hold off till details are better known. i definitely understand the concern some have, but i also think MS and their engineers are not stupid.
They did a complete 180 with the always online + used games 6 months before launch...
This lowest common denominator argument is the most disingenuous I've heard in a while considering the LCD of PS4 Dev targets is is the OG PS4 and nobody ever said that held back Horizon or God Of War, same way nobody says Gears is held back by the OG XB1.
To say in 2019 that developers do not know how to scale their builds to different development targets especially ones that use similar chip sets is just plain wrong when they do it with the current consoles and PC on literally every single release without comprising graphical quality.
No interest in 4K? Kind of a baffling statement... Because you don't want to buy a new TV or???Hopefully we'll see Sonys version of Lockhart in 2021. I have no interest in 4k.
Again. CDPR targets a wide range of PC hardware.
Mods don't automatically mean "more advanced" most mods are simply different artistic choices. Again Witcher 3 was no slouch to the most powerful hardware. That's a fact.most powerful PCs to its knees lol. If that was true, people wouldn't even slap graphic mods to improve it more if their PC couldn't handle it. There is a magic that can do so. It's called money, sales, cash. They had to downgrade or else it couldn't run on consoles. The money is on console sales.
No, you made that upJust look at the reveal trailer. Those are your graphical advantages If the console didn't exist.
and thisDowngrading for consoles are inevitable but at the very least I want as little compromise as possible.
I've heard plenty of people lament aspects of the hardware in the PS4 and XB1, and that those aspects held back the generation or whatever.
Something has to define the specs devs accomodate, there has to be an entry point. I don't think anyone's disputing that. People - and some devs it seems - are just lamenting that the entry point may not be as high as they previously thought. I don't see why that's such a controversial idea.
Going to sound like a broken down record here, but unless you're arguing that PC games would look no better if devs targeted a very high minimum spec, vs what is typical today, then yes, there's a compromise. I think it's really hard to argue games would be no better off given, say, a very high minimum spec. That they would be just the same as they are now on a given high end spec. Devs are always compromising. And that's fine. Something has to give. People, and some devs, just didn't expect in a next-gen console context that the defining spec would necessarily be Lockhart, and thought it was gone. Some people, and some devs, are unhappy with that turn of events.
Life goes on, the generation will go on. Lockhart will still, hopefully, at least be a decent entry point in CPU and memory and storage IO terms. But to try to invalidate the opinion that things might have been simply better with a different entry point... I don't get the insistence on that. It's a perfectly reasonable stance to have. It doesn't conversely mean the world will end or that the generation will be terrible as a result or whatever.
No one's asking for a single target (that I can see). People are asking for a baseline target that's as high as possible with the parts and budget available. The PS5 and Scarlett sound like they fit the bill. Lockhart doesn't.A question name me one game, released on XB1, PS4 or PC that has released for a single lone Dev target in recent times?
It doesn't happen anymore and probably won't as console makers will be loathed to cut off populations of users on older hardware.
The argument is disingenuous because it asks for something (single target) that will never happen
This is the same thing they said at the end of the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation. The increase in CPU power alone will be a game changer.In a climate where truly large and ambitious games like witcher 3 can run in cut down form on Switch its getting harder and harder to see games that would be absolutely impossible to make on current gen hardware. Sure, all the buzzword bells and whistles and polish and smoother performance are nice but I'm still not convinced next gen consoles are needed and justified. Especially if theyre gonna cost upwards of $400-500. But then again weve pretty much know nothing about what Scarlet and PS5 can actually do. Maybe the reveal showcase will blow me away, I sure hope so.
No one's asking for a single target (that I can see). People are asking for a baseline target that's as high as possible with the parts and budget available. The PS5 and Scarlett sound like they fit the bill. Lockhart doesn't.
A question name me one game, released on XB1, PS4 or PC that has released for a single lone Dev target in recent times?
It doesn't happen anymore and probably won't as console makers will be loathed to cut off populations of users on older hardware.
The argument is disingenuous because it asks for something (single target) that will never happen
Again. CDPR targets a wide range of PC hardware.
And his quote isn't about technical things. Like they had to make the game a certain way to accommodate consoles.
"as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4."
It's more about time and resources going to one platform than any technical issue holding games back, as he also says graphics would have been better on the individual consoles if they only concentrated on one platform. But then again they'd make less money, so would they really be able to spend all those resources on maxing out one platform?
I don't think that quote is actually saying what you think it is.
Mods don't automatically mean "more advanced" most mods are simply different artistic choices. Again Witcher 3 was no slouch to the most powerful hardware. That's a fact.
No, you made that up
and this
Fact 1: as panda-zebra said, In the long term, Lockhart is not beneficial to poor people who can't afford a $500 console. I can resell my games after finishing them for ~$40 net profit, cutting price of games in 3. Media mail + dvd-sized padded envelopes + ebay is the golden ticket.
It doesn't ask for that. It just acknowledges that devs do have to accommodate technology still - that they can't design willy-nilly without performance constraint - and that this range of spec that needs to be accommodated is dictated by the hardware that's out there in the market. And that consoles play a big role in shifting that spec over time, and thus some people would prefer a higher to a lower spec in new consoles, or would think it would be 'better'. Again - not to say the spec we are getting is horrible or terrible or generation ruining, but that some people would have taken PS5/Anaconda as the new entry level console spec over Lockhart, and thought that's what was happening previously and aren't particularly over-the-moon to see that change. It's valid for people to be of that opinion. Some devs apparently seem to have that opinion too. I don't mind people disagreeing with that, but I think equally people shouldn't mind if others do agree with that.
?Hopefully we'll see Sonys version of Lockhart in 2021. I have no interest in 4k.
Ill leave it from here to say that I find it ridiculous that the knowledgeable posters here would seriously ask for Sony and MS to release next gen exclusive games for an install base of only the users that pick up next gen consoles on day one.
Both companies have over 100 million consumers between them in their ecosystems.
No way will they release anything for Scarlett and PS5 that ignores all of that population, some maybe, but not all. That's just leaving money behind.
I'm not arguing that fact though. I'm arguing that compromises exist because they have to develop for the consoles and that having a higher base console will in turn allow for less compromises.The game literally exists because of the console market, else CDPR couldn't have afforded the expense to even develop such a large game.
Point doesn't make sense as Crysis was released on both consoles, and no they weren't "state of the art" compared to high end PCsIt's like people forgot Crysis existed. It also targeted a wide range of specs. Except it decidedly required higher floor specs. You may say that it could run on PS3 and Xbox but remember that they were state of the art at the time compared to bargain bin pc parts that PS4 and Xbox had.
no, once agin, you made that up."they had to make the game a certain way to accommodate consoles"
Simply put downgrades.
If that's the case, the PC version held back the console version. The quote goes both ways.The point of that quote was that developing for the consoles absolutely affected PC. There's no ifs and buts about it. Whether for sales or whatever it affected what the game was gonna look and perform because they HAVE to accommodate for it. You always have to unless you plan on making an exclusive.
I never said all mods were artistic choices. Obviously you can alter draw distance etc. In the case of the Witcher 3 the base game was already very demanding on modern hardware, so most mods were cosmetic/artistic stuff.don't think you know how wide the range of things a mod can do. Skyrim with all bells and whistle mods on 4k can tank your high end pc and it was a game developed in 2011. It's not simply "artistic choices". Textures, amount of npc, ai, draw distance etc so many things affect performance. That's a fact.
Obviously DX12 works on consoles. The existence of consoles did not stop them from putting those features in the game. In fact even before DX12 was officially released on Xbox, lots of DX12 features we're already available on Xbox. They didn't remove smoke and fire cause Xbox exists, lol.Let's just give one example of a graphical downgrade which is even in the article. The billowing smoke and roaring fire. It was mentioned in the article that it would be detrimental to PCs because it required DX12. Except plenty of GPU supported DX12 at the time. You know what didn't support DX12 in 2015? The Xbox One. It was only later added in the recent years. It's probably the same for the PS4 except it uses a different API which are updated just like XBO.
Just look at this and it's not someone unknown lmao."May have" is a vauge statement from an unknown person.
What we do know is that the Witcher on the highest settings brings even the most powerful PC hardware to its knees. There's not some magical console thing that makes more powerful PC hardware just stop working to its potential.
What kinda graphical advances do you think the Witcher 3 would have had if consoles didn't exist?(not to mention the fact CD Projekt also targeted mid/low end PC hardware)
There's absolutely no evidence of this? The Witcher 3 we actually got on PC struggled to hit 60 frames a second without turning down settings on a GTX 980 which IIRC was the second most powerful GPU in existence when the game launched.Let's give another example.
PS4 and Xbox One being as weak as they are compromised Witcher 3. Remember the reveal trailer? If the consoles weren't that weak we'd be seeing a better looking Witcher 3 on PC(No mods).
Just look at this and it's not someone unknown lmao.
It was downgraded, and a game can look like shit and still bring the most powerful computer to it's knees. Graphics doesn't equate powerful pc needed.
Also why didn't anyone here talking about Witcher 3 even consider to just post the videos here proves the points a lot faster and with a lot less words with how much the game changed,
Point doesn't make sense as Crysis was released on both consoles, and no they weren't "state of the art" compared to high end PCs
And current gen showed that it doesn't really matter. Current gen titles were seeing 70-30 splits between ps4/xbone vs ps360 just a month after release. That 100M+ install base is not an active 100M+ and those that are there are moving over to ps5/scar pretty quickly. Don't worry though, EA will continue to release fifa on ps4/xbone til 2025 as they have this gen.Ill leave it from here to say that I find it ridiculous that the knowledgeable posters here would seriously ask for Sony and MS to release next gen exclusive games for an install base of only the users that pick up next gen consoles on day one.
Both companies have over 100 million consumers between them in their ecosystems.
No way will they release anything for Scarlett and PS5 that ignores all of that population, some maybe, but not all. That's just leaving money behind.
You're telling me that PS4 and Xbox One are at least equal to PS3 and Xbox 360? People were praising 7th gen consoles because of their tech. On the other hand people were complaining about 8th gen console specs before it even got released. They were not comparable at all.Point doesn't make sense as Crysis was released on both consoles, and no they weren't "state of the art" compared to high end PCs
no, once agin, you made that up.
If that's the case, the PC version held back the console version. The quote goes both ways.
I never said all mods were artistic choices. Obviously you can alter draw distance etc. In the case of the Witcher 3 the base game was already very demanding on moder hardware, so most mods were cosmetic/artistic stuff.
Obviously DX12 works on consoles. The existence of consoles did not stop them from putting those features in the game. In fact even before DX12 was officially released on Xbox, lots of DX12 features we're already available on Xbox. They didn't remove smoke and fire cause Xbox exists, lol.
So they moved it to a more scaleable engine?Crysis was ported to consoles way after the fact and they had to move it (the console ports) to Cry Engine 3 to even getting it in a runnable state—and only barely.
what people are complaining about on forums usually doesn't much have bearing on reality.You're telling me that PS4 and Xbox One are at least equal to PS3 and Xbox 360? People were praising 7th gen consoles because of their tech. On the other hand people were complaining about 8th gen console specs before it even got released. They were not comparable at all.
No. go back and read to ur quote.What are you gonna call it then, upgrades? It was worse. What else can you call it.
PC held it back in terms of sales yeah but it wasn't what we were initially talking about. The first post I replied to was always about how console could affect what the PC version get. The poster argued it could never affect PC cause you can always scale it but it doesn't always work that way and I simply provided an example for it.
No for 4K 60fps you'd need 1080 sli and even then you'd get some dips.It really wasn't that demanding. You can run it on a 970 and max every setting. That's not even using a 980 or 980ti.
You realize that even still today, most gamers and devs have not moved exclusively to DX12. And that plenty of games have released with features only available to DX12.Oh they literally did remove smoke and fire because it hampers non DX12 compliant GPUs. maybe read the article. It may not be entirely because of the consoles but it certainly has a part in it because they literally could not run it.