I've been critical of the idea for multiplayer and I think it's valid. I remember an interview with 343 in 2015 where they said that they couldn't increase the player count in war zone any further due to limitations. Maybe that was an engine issue that will be resolved with slipspace idk. But I've never witnessed a game with high player count on console with the level of detail I'm imagining. Apex is the closest I could think of. Pubg has more players and maps are bigger but the quality detail is much much too low.
Look at my post history. I'm not fake concerned. I'm an Xbox gamer since 2003 with over 100k gamerscore. Haven't owned a PlayStation since ps2,(though I do have psnow on my laptop)haven't owned a Nintendo console since n64 and haven't touched pc gaming since Starcraft 2. I'm just an avid Xbox gamer who will buy the XSX and a halo super fan.
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting there's
no chance of there being compromise in these situations. The point is more that it's about much more than bald facts (assumed ones at that). Rather, it's the idea that there's no massive paradigm shift from a technical development coming
as it relates to what we'll actually end up playing, if the past is anything to go by. By this I mean it's more likely a series of welcome progressive/gradual changes and thus the setting of new expectations, rather than you turning on a next-gen console on Day 1 and experiencing something
utterly new. Maybe this is unimaginative of me, but looking at the vast, vast, vast majority of highly praised games, they are the products of this slow progression, marked by
design revelations more than technical feats. This isn't to say games haven't got bigger and more complex - they have - but that this isn't contingent on generational leaps, nor is it sudden, nor is it about tech alone. Gears wasn't stunning because of its complexity of level design, it was stunning cos it was brute-forcedly pretty. Dark Souls isn't beloved because of its technical prowess. Etc.
On multiplayer specifically, PUBG is ugly because the engine is poor. Not because it's inherently impossible to make large maps with high player counts that look good. Naturally the higher the count the ropier a game will likely look, as it makes compromises. But the raw fact of having, say, 200+ people in a map has been done on tech
way older than Xbone and PS4 (although AI is an extra facet, but Warzone's AI is marshalled, it's not an entire map of dynamic enemies, it's controlled spawns... add in too many, and yes, you'd likely need either a
serious equivocation on performance or, basically, block modes from some platforms). The devil would again be in the design: how would a weaker/stronger version of the game, tech-wise, help/hinder players respectively. Where, if there is one, does the compromise fall, and how, and why?
Also, this
could fall into the trap, age-old, of thinking 'bigger automatically is better'. I know you ain't necessarily saying that, and I too would be interested in a bigger Warzone-kinda mode. It's just never been the case that more=always better. Splinter Cell MP is one of my favourites ever, 2v2. Imagine that, next-gen, with a whole host of smoke, light and other effects... hooo momma. Could still work on Xbone too!
