• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

eso76
(09-21-2017, 08:02 PM)
eso76's Avatar
Let's see how Xbox one X does, first ?

I'm already pissed at the existence of machine which 6TF are wasted to play the same games as the One S in 4k.

But I guess that's probably a more sustainable model for the industry.
flkraven
Member
(09-21-2017, 08:10 PM)
flkraven's Avatar

Originally Posted by cakely

So, when Xbox Two launches in November 2020, who here is going to not buy the new, hot, 12 TB console, and instead just buy Xbox Two games and play them on their Xbox One?

Because that's what we're talking about.

I will happily upgrade my console to an Xbox Two, but I will also happily hand down my Xbox One X to my wife so that I don't need to buy 2 consoles.

Originally Posted by eso76

Let's see how Xbox one X does, first ?

I'm already pissed at the existence of machine which 6TF are wasted to play the same games as the One S in 4k.

But I guess that's probably a more sustainable model for the industry.

We have plenty of games on Xbox One currently that were on Xbox 360. Were you pissed off then?
anothertech
Member
(09-21-2017, 08:13 PM)
anothertech's Avatar
Halo 7 on the Xbone in 2023?

Good luck.
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-21-2017, 08:13 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Toki767

I think you're confusing forward compatible with backwards compatible.

50% of the people in this thread have no clue what "forward" compatibility is!
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-21-2017, 08:19 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Burdmayn

As I said in my previous reply, I don't think folks are realistically expecting Xbox Two games to run on Xbox One S. Xbox Two/Xbox One X however, would be a lovely proposition. In that example, the person you're asking this question to would either be buying new hardware (early adopter) or buying/sticking to the slightly older hardware (late adopter).


Then why even make an Xbox Two?
Burdmayn
Member
(09-21-2017, 08:27 PM)
Burdmayn's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

Then why even make an Xbox Two?

Edit to be less snarky:

There's always going to be a segment of the market that wants more powerful hardware, the Xbox Two would cater to them. By that point, the One X would be in the position that the One S is in right now.
flkraven
Member
(09-21-2017, 08:32 PM)
flkraven's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

Then why even make an Xbox Two?

I think first the Xbox One S gets phased out as the Xbox One X comes down in price, then the Xbox Two is released. Being forwards compatible by 1 console makes sense imo.
LukasTaves
Member
(09-21-2017, 09:09 PM)
LukasTaves's Avatar

Originally Posted by gofreak

I can see single-sku 'cross-gen' games working in this way...but I think that's a bit of a different scenario than a general 'forwards compatibility' that extends across all Xbox games next-gen.

But no is talking about all Xbox games next gen, perhaps for a few years only during the cross gen phase, then it becomes on a per game basis.
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-21-2017, 09:15 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by flkraven

I think first the Xbox One S gets phased out as the Xbox One X comes down in price, then the Xbox Two is released. Being forwards compatible by 1 console makes sense imo.

But you can see how 1st party Xbox Two games will have a disadvantage to PS5 games then right?
phantasmic_glaive
Member
(09-21-2017, 09:47 PM)
phantasmic_glaive's Avatar

Originally Posted by Synth

You seem to have managed to parse effectively the complete opposite to what I was saying. I'm saying current games would take future hardware into consideration... not that future games would take current hardware into consideration.

Think of it more like this, the typical remaster you see today could have been the version of the game you bought last gen, if it were aware of the eventual more powerful console's release. Currently, even if a game becomes BC, it's still limited to the same resolutions and framerate caps that it had originally, because the prospect of more powerful hardware running the same game isn't considered.

EDIT: A good example to contrast the difference, would probably be Sonic & Knuckles. Sonic & Knuckles could be seen as being backwards compatible with Sonic 2. It makes use Sonic 2's data, but Sonic 2 had no idea Sonic & Knuckles was ever going to exist. This limits what Sonic & Knuckles can do with the game. Now Sonic 3 on the other hand is a different matter. Sonic 3 expects Sonic & Knuckles to exist at some point in the future, and has accounted for it in numerous ways, such as containing routes for Knuckles to go through, and being able to save Sonic & Knuckles progress. Sonic 3 then could be see as being forwards compatible, as opposed to Sonic & Knuckles merely being backwards compatible with it.

That's backwards compatibility anyway you slice it.

"Forwards compatibility" is when GAMES from 10 years from now would be playable on x1x.

Or you can play Xbox two games on an Xbox one.
He is basically saying like phones n shit.. the Xbox one X could have everything the TWO has. This has nothing to do with resolutions n framerates and all that.

If that's not what he is saying, then he clearly does not mean forwards compatibility.
93xfan
Member
(09-21-2017, 09:54 PM)
93xfan's Avatar
Microsoft is doing such a great job in this regard.
flkraven
Member
(09-21-2017, 10:11 PM)
flkraven's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

But you can see how 1st party Xbox Two games will have a disadvantage to PS5 games then right?

Are you implying the PS5 will be a clean break?
Synth
Member
(09-21-2017, 10:37 PM)
Synth's Avatar

Originally Posted by phantasmic_glaive

That's backwards compatibility anyway you slice it.

"Forwards compatibility" is when GAMES from 10 years from now would be playable on x1x.

Or you can play Xbox two games on an Xbox one.
He is basically saying like phones n shit.. the Xbox one X could have everything the TWO has. This has nothing to do with resolutions n framerates and all that.

If that's not what he is saying, then he clearly does not mean forwards compatibility.

Not really, because that would just be compatibility as standard. If we consider the mobile phone model, an iPhone 4 can't play an iPhone 6 game.. it's actually just that there are extremely few iPhone 6 games. You could continue making Xbox 360 games today, that would feasibly be playable on an XB1, but those would just be Xbox 360 games still. \the moment you actually make an Xbox One game, the Xbox 360 wouldn't be able to play it. This does happen in the mobile market also, just not as commonly.

There's a difference between the prospect of hardware being forwards compatible and software being forwards compatible. The Sonic 3 example in my previous post is different from the Sonic 2 example, because in this case the older software is actually forward looking in regards to compatibility, as opposed to the newer software only looking backwards. If you create software for an XB1 today, and it is created with a view to be enhanced by later hardware, then you'd be looking forwards in regards to future compatibility. It's not the same as making the new console later, and then looking backwards to try and get the software working, as is the case with something like X360 compatibility on an XB1.
g11
Member
(09-21-2017, 10:39 PM)

Originally Posted by cakely

Playing PS4 games on a PS5 is backwards compatibility.

Playing PS5 games on a PS4 is forwards compatibility.

Originally Posted by Toki767

I think you're confusing forward compatible with backwards compatible.

eso76
(09-21-2017, 11:04 PM)
eso76's Avatar

Originally Posted by flkraven

We have plenty of games on Xbox One currently that were on Xbox 360. Were you pissed off then?

Remakes, remasters and HD/4k ports are more than welcome, when they are additions to a library of exclusive titles.

A situation like x360 > Xbox One is one where I'll upgrade. Crippling a 6TB console with mandatory support for the One S makes sense from a business perspective, i guess, but I'm not interested. I'd rather they offered regular and enthusiast SKUs but a proper generational leap. Iterative consoles and forward compatibility is when I'm out.
Stilton Disco
Member
(09-21-2017, 11:28 PM)
Stilton Disco's Avatar
If MS want to shackle the entire industry going forward to the limitations of outdated hardware, they should just shutter their console division right now.

Generational breaks benefit everyone, spurring increased hardware and software sales, leaps in what can be experienced through the medium, new gameplay possibilities and most importantly raise the baseline for what the minimum we should all be expecting from both console and PC games.

No one wins when you take away generations., so I suppose it should come as no surprise that the only company claiming they shouldn't exist anymore is the one that has already very obviously lost this one.
rrs
Member
(09-21-2017, 11:46 PM)

Originally Posted by eso76

Remakes, remasters and HD/4k ports are more than welcome, when they are additions to a library of exclusive titles.

A situation like x360 > Xbox One is one where I'll upgrade. Crippling a 6TB console with mandatory support for the One S makes sense from a business perspective, i guess, but I'm not interested. I'd rather they offered regular and enthusiast SKUs but a proper generational leap. Iterative consoles and forward compatibility is when I'm out.

I'd see that when the Xbox 2 is out, games will then be able to choose being compatible with a certain system. For now, the X is a "your games in 4K" box, and will only enter it's own when the successor is out. Although, the high costs to the X might mean the console will get replaced with one that doesn't need expensive liquid cooling.

I'd see Sony doing the same thing when the PS5 is out, allowing PS5/PS4 Pro games.

Simply put, endless upgrades mean you won't bail on the console brand as easily and everyone is going to do it
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-22-2017, 06:15 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by flkraven

Are you implying the PS5 will be a clean break?

Yes! But still able to play PS4 games due to backward compatibility.
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-22-2017, 06:38 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by rrs

I'd see that when the Xbox 2 is out, games will then be able to choose being compatible with a certain system. For now, the X is a "your games in 4K" box, and will only enter it's own when the successor is out. Although, the high costs to the X might mean the console will get replaced with one that doesn't need expensive liquid cooling.

I'd see Sony doing the same thing when the PS5 is out, allowing PS5/PS4 Pro games.

Simply put, endless upgrades mean you won't bail on the console brand as easily and everyone is going to do it

At the end of the day, there will be devs that will want to make games for a system that they just can't make on older hardware.

Sony is going to provide that. How does MS handle this?
Jaguar Victory
Member
(09-22-2017, 06:50 PM)
Jaguar Victory's Avatar
Forward compatibility isn't an infinite thing nor should it be. Support the current box -1. So XBOX 2021 games are still playable on XBOX ONE X but not on OG XBO.
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-22-2017, 06:53 PM)

Originally Posted by Jaguar Victory

Forward compatibility isn't an infinite thing nor should it be. Support the current box -1. So XBOX 2021 games are still playable on XBOX ONE X but not on OG XBO.

i'd rather the devs be able to decide. if my game can work on the -5 hardware then i'd sure as hell just rather let it work for as many people as possible.
Synth
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:08 PM)
Synth's Avatar

Originally Posted by FyreWulff

i'd rather the devs be able to decide. if my game can work on the -5 hardware then i'd sure as hell just rather let it work for as many people as possible.

Basically this. I you're releasing something like Super Meat Boy, even 6th generation hardware is probably overkill. May as well allow it to run on any version of the platform that can handle it.

There will still be games that will only run on the latest version of the console regardless as a result of multiplatform development. MS isn't going to cause themselves to not get Assassin's Creed 45 because it's built with the PS7 as the lead platform. If the approach to generations people are trying to put forth for MS in here were actually to be a reality, then that would imply Sony's intentions of a "clean break" would effectively do nothing, because the games would still get made for a lower common denominator, and the PS5 would just end up with a jazzed up version that resembled how the latest Xbox also runs the title. You'd only have exclusive titles actually making sufficient use of the specs. It's an unrealistic proposition.
rrs
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:12 PM)

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

At the end of the day, there will be devs that will want to make games for a system that they just can't make on older hardware.

Sony is going to provide that. How does MS handle this?

most likely the same way, letting devs pick from running on Xbox One+, Xbox One X+, or Xbox Two+
kmfdmpig
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:14 PM)
kmfdmpig's Avatar

Originally Posted by flkraven

I think first the Xbox One S gets phased out as the Xbox One X comes down in price, then the Xbox Two is released. Being forwards compatible by 1 console makes sense imo.

I agree. It's not that people buying the X early in the cycle (when it's expensive) will benefit much as they're the ones willing to buy the new console early on as well, but if the X eventually becomes the cheap one then that makes sense to have overlap between the gens.
Fisty
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:20 PM)
Fisty's Avatar
So DX12 games can work just fine on Windows XP? There's a big disconnect between the title, what he says, and what forward compatibility implies
LukasTaves
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:23 PM)
LukasTaves's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

But you can see how 1st party Xbox Two games will have a disadvantage to PS5 games then right?

Are Pc games in a disadvantage to consoles because they scale to run to even lower specs compared to xbone and Ps4?
Empyrean Heaven
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:24 PM)
Empyrean Heaven's Avatar
Sounds like MS is taking the route of evolving their console to fit the games, not the other way around. As someone who owns an OG Xbone with no plans to upgrade, I'm happy with this.
The Pet of the Month
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:25 PM)
The Pet of the Month's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

But you can see how 1st party Xbox Two games will have a disadvantage to PS5 games then right?

I'm afraid I don't follow.
Trogdor1123
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:29 PM)
Sony should follow suit. I'd definitely like it if this happened.
Fisty
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:29 PM)
Fisty's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Pet of the Month

I'm afraid I don't follow.

If PS5 games don't have to run on PS4 Pro, they can fully utilize the hardware. If an XB2 games have to run on XB1X, games will continue to be kneecapped by Jaguar for a long time
Burdmayn
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:33 PM)
Burdmayn's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fisty

If PS5 games don't have to run on PS4 Pro, they can fully utilize the hardware. If an XB2 games have to run on XB1X, games will continue to be kneecapped by Jaguar for a long time

It's crazy that Wolfenstein II is being held back by the Switch version.
MaximusPayne
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:38 PM)
MaximusPayne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Burdmayn

It's crazy that Wolfenstein II is being held back by the Switch version.

Perfect
Severianb
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:40 PM)

Originally Posted by EBreda

Of course it will.
I really doubt we'll see a "wasteland scenario" ever again , as in a new generation where it starts from scratch. I'm positive our current games are gonna be carried ever , at least in MS case (digitally).

Sony , well, that's up for grabs.

And Nintendo,hell no.

But Nintendo had by FAR the best backwards compatibility track record up until the Switch.

The Cube, Wii and Wii U were all backwards compatible. Far more than any Xbox or Playstation.

Switch has seen them move to a totally different type of CPU, so they had to break their streak... but it was a impressive streak of BC.
phantasmic_glaive
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:49 PM)
phantasmic_glaive's Avatar

Originally Posted by Synth

Not really, because that would just be compatibility as standard. If we consider the mobile phone model, an iPhone 4 can't play an iPhone 6 game.. it's actually just that there are extremely few iPhone 6 games. You could continue making Xbox 360 games today, that would feasibly be playable on an XB1, but those would just be Xbox 360 games still. the moment you actually make an Xbox One game, the Xbox 360 wouldn't be able to play it. This does happen in the mobile market also, just not as commonly.

There's a difference between the prospect of hardware being forwards compatible and software being forwards compatible. The Sonic 3 example in my previous post is different from the Sonic 2 example, because in this case the older software is actually forward looking in regards to compatibility, as opposed to the newer software only looking backwards. If you create software for an XB1 today, and it is created with a view to be enhanced by later hardware, then you'd be looking forwards in regards to future compatibility. It's not the same as making the new console later, and then looking backwards to try and get the software working, as is the case with something like X360 compatibility on an XB1.

Well we have different views on forwards compatibility. In this case, of Xbox, we're talking about hardware.
Which I'm saying old hardware can play new software.

What I'm getting from you, old games being considered remastered quality on new hardware is what's happening now. In the future, almost any game should be able to run on new hardware, if allowed.

I get what you are saying. But I'm getting thrown off from MS not actually defining this process, if that is what they intend on pursuing.

Software I get, but he's talking about hardware.. so we shall see what's up.
The Pet of the Month
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:51 PM)
The Pet of the Month's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fisty

If PS5 games don't have to run on PS4 Pro, they can fully utilize the hardware. If an XB2 games have to run on XB1X, games will continue to be kneecapped by Jaguar for a long time

Kneecapped in what sense? Cross gen games have existed for a long time, and often times those games were pretty close if not identical to their latest console release counterpart (ex. Xbox to 360, PS2 to PS3, etc)

Though there are some games that were better off not happening, like Mercenaries 2.

What I'm trying to say is games can be scaled down to their lowest common denominator, and as far as I'm aware that rarely has held back the latest console versions. Some instances, like Destiny's lack of content, happened not because of horsepower but rather because of an early toolset that made creating content for cross gen systems a much longer process.

Also as Burdmayn pointed out, Wolfenstein II is getting a Switch version, I don't see any gimping being done that has made the game look worse on current platforms.

Let developers target the systems they think their games can run on. Mobile developers can do this, and PC developers release a minimum spec sheet in an anything goes environment.

Constant generation resets often spells long droughts of no games and a lack of console features and stability. I see the Xbox One X as a great opportunity for both developers and consumers, allowing creators to make games for a current healthy base and an upcoming base, and for consumers to continue to play new games as well as keep their old games for years to come.
Severianb
Member
(09-22-2017, 07:54 PM)

Originally Posted by Fisty

If PS5 games don't have to run on PS4 Pro, they can fully utilize the hardware. If an XB2 games have to run on XB1X, games will continue to be kneecapped by Jaguar for a long time

Not if Microsoft can hide the hardware completely behind their API.

Which from all indications, is pretty much what they have already done. Developers say "porting" a game to Xbox One X to take advantage of it's features is simple. Also, ALL current Xbox One games and Xbox 360 BC games take advantage of the better X (and even S) hardware for performance bumps automatically.

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that by the time a ZEN CPU-based Xbox One comes out in a few years, developers won't have to worry at all about the old Xbox One models, except to move the graphics sliders down a few notches.

Just like PC. Because that's all these are now. Walled Garden Windows 10 PCs.
Synth
Member
(09-22-2017, 08:09 PM)
Synth's Avatar

Originally Posted by phantasmic_glaive

Well we have different views on forwards compatibility. In this case, of Xbox, we're talking about hardware.
Which I'm saying old hardware can play new software.

What I'm getting from you, old games being considered remastered quality on new hardware is what's happening now. In the future, almost any game should be able to run on new hardware, if allowed.

I get what you are saying. But I'm getting thrown off from MS not actually defining this process, if that is what they intend on pursuing.

Software I get, but he's talking about hardware.. so we shall see what's up.

The thing is, he doesn't actually seem to be talking about hardware, even actively distancing the Xbox platform itself from any set hardware.

"I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that we care a lot about compatibility and in this day and age people have shifted to caring more about their community and their apps, than caring about the piece of hardware that they're on

The comparison to Windows is a software comparison, and whilst the comparison to mobiles is less obvious, that's also a software comparison. The mobile platforms are iOS and Android, not iPhone 8 and Samsung Galaxy S8. And in the case of both of these comparisons the hardware itself isn't even really forwards compatible. You can't take an Athlon XP PC with a TNT2 at set it about running Forza Horizon 3. Hell you can't take a high-spec 2017 PC running Windows 7 and do the same. It's also been more of a software discussion than a hardware one. Hardware backwards compatibility as a concept makes sense... but for forwards compatability, you'd be talking software, because the hardware side of the equation literally doesn't exist to be compatible with.

It would be very possible for Xbox One X games to continue to be made even 15 years later, and playable on all Xbox consoles released since. But the moment you make an Xbox Two game, it's an Xbox Two game because the Xbox One can't run it.
inpHilltr8r
Member
(09-22-2017, 08:25 PM)

Originally Posted by LukasTaves

Are Pc games in a disadvantage to consoles because they scale to run to even lower specs compared to xbone and Ps4?

development resources required for scaling have a cost
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-22-2017, 08:41 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Synth

There will still be games that will only run on the latest version of the console regardless as a result of multiplatform development. MS isn't going to cause themselves to not get Assassin's Creed 45 because it's built with the PS7 as the lead platform. If the approach to generations people are trying to put forth for MS in here were actually to be a reality, then that would imply Sony's intentions of a "clean break" would effectively do nothing, because the games would still get made for a lower common denominator, and the PS5 would just end up with a jazzed up version that resembled how the latest Xbox also runs the title. You'd only have exclusive titles actually making sufficient use of the specs. It's an unrealistic proposition.

No the PS5's exclusives would potentially outshine all 3rd party games that were made for the lowest common denominator. Don't forget that 3rd parties are also competing with 1st party games too!


Originally Posted by rrs

most likely the same way, letting devs pick from running on Xbox One+, Xbox One X+, or Xbox Two+

But which system would be the default system that the game is "really" being designed for?

Originally Posted by Burdmayn

It's crazy that Wolfenstein II is being held back by the Switch version.

Nope not the same deal. Wolfenstein II is basically a PS4/Xbox One gen game that's made prettier on awesome PCs, PS4 PRO, and Xbox One X. And then down ported to the Switch.

We don't know what the game would look or play like it it was made exclusively for the Xbox One X.
Burdmayn
Member
(09-22-2017, 08:49 PM)
Burdmayn's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

Nope not the same deal. Wolfenstein II is basically a PS4/Xbox One gen game that's made prettier on awesome PCs, PS4 PRO, and Xbox One X. And then down ported to the Switch.

We don't know what the game would look or play like it it was made exclusively for the Xbox One X.

But that game would never be made exclusively for the One X... Even if that were the "next gen" Xbox, Bethesda would likely still release it on the Xbox One. You're correct in that developers eventually start using the "new" systems as a baseline, but this approach wouldn't eliminate that, it just slows things down a bit. I'm more than willing to take that trade-off when the result is the death of the "hard reset".
Synth
Member
(09-22-2017, 09:08 PM)
Synth's Avatar

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

No the PS5's exclusives would potentially outshine all 3rd party games that were made for the lowest common denominator. Don't forget that 3rd parties are also competing with 1st party games too!

Which is precisely why it wouldn't happen. That scenario with Xbox One X holding back a PS7 15 years later isn't supposed to be a plausible scenario. It wouldn't happen because it would lead to either:

A) PlayStation getting defacto 3rd party exclusives in insane quantities, as that's the only way to not be graphically embarrassed by The Last Of Us 5. PlayStation would need to have a crazy share of the market (like PS1 vs Saturn level dominance) for this to be the case. This would very obviously result in MS reversing course in order to have a chance at getting software support again, causing this scenario to then cease existing.

B) Not enough 3rd parties actually care about trying to compete with Sony's first-party on a graphical level. The only way this works, is if the market dictates that graphics are no longer a huge motivator of game sales, at which point Sony's approach suddenly ceases to make sense, as they're needlessly pushing a market reset on themselves every few years for little gain.

Scenario B doesn't sound plausible to me at all, and scenario A is faaaaar too easy to spot coming from years away for it to actually happen. So the logical conclusion is that as soon as PS5 games bump up the 3rd party baseline, any Xbox consoles that couldn't feasible run the game without holding back the latest Xbox would be mostly dropped, outside of games that are inherently less taxing (Sonic Mania, Minecraft, Telltale games, etc).
Fisty
Member
(09-22-2017, 09:38 PM)
Fisty's Avatar

Originally Posted by Burdmayn

It's crazy that Wolfenstein II is being held back by the Switch version.

Great analogy. Considering how Wolf 2 is a pretty basic shooter without much in terms of demanding game design, yeah you can just crank it down to 540p30 and play that. Have fun waiting on your PUBG and Fallout 4 Switch ports.

CPU constraints are the issue, and chaining next gen machines to Jaguar with mandatory forward comp is not smart. Devs and pubs that can and want to will be able to, I'm sure. But making it mandatory would just slow down the progress of tech in game design
Synth
Member
(09-22-2017, 09:45 PM)
Synth's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fisty

Great analogy. Considering how Wolf 2 is a pretty basic shooter without much in terms of demanding game design, yeah you can just crank it down to 540p30 and play that. Have fun waiting on your PUBG and Fallout 4 Switch ports.

CPU constraints are the issue, and chaining next gen machines to Jaguar with mandatory forward comp is not smart. Devs and pubs that can and want to will be able to, I'm sure. But making it mandatory would just slow down the progress of tech in game design

The other issue with examples like Wolfenstein, is that like DOOM it'll probably end up being 30fps. Which is fine I guess... not ideal, but better than nothing.

Now what if those games were already 30fps on the other consoles?
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-22-2017, 10:51 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Synth

Which is precisely why it wouldn't happen. That scenario with Xbox One X holding back a PS7 15 years later isn't supposed to be a plausible scenario. It wouldn't happen because it would lead to either:

A) PlayStation getting defacto 3rd party exclusives in insane quantities, as that's the only way to not be graphically embarrassed by The Last Of Us 5. PlayStation would need to have a crazy share of the market (like PS1 vs Saturn level dominance) for this to be the case. This would very obviously result in MS reversing course in order to have a chance at getting software support again, causing this scenario to then cease existing.

B) Not enough 3rd parties actually care about trying to compete with Sony's first-party on a graphical level. The only way this works, is if the market dictates that graphics are no longer a huge motivator of game sales, at which point Sony's approach suddenly ceases to make sense, as they're needlessly pushing a market reset on themselves every few years for little gain.

Scenario B doesn't sound plausible to me at all, and scenario A is faaaaar too easy to spot coming from years away for it to actually happen. So the logical conclusion is that as soon as PS5 games bump up the 3rd party baseline, any Xbox consoles that couldn't feasible run the game without holding back the latest Xbox would be mostly dropped, outside of games that are inherently less taxing (Sonic Mania, Minecraft, Telltale games, etc).

You just wrote literally how I feel but way more concise.
Jaguar Victory
Member
(09-22-2017, 10:54 PM)
Jaguar Victory's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stilton Disco

If MS want to shackle the entire industry going forward to the limitations of outdated hardware, they should just shutter their console division right now.

Generational breaks benefit everyone, spurring increased hardware and software sales, leaps in what can be experienced through the medium, new gameplay possibilities and most importantly raise the baseline for what the minimum we should all be expecting from both console and PC games.

No one wins when you take away generations., so I suppose it should come as no surprise that the only company claiming they shouldn't exist anymore is the one that has already very obviously lost this one.

PC gaming just destroys this narrative. I can't agree.
RealityPales
Member
(09-22-2017, 10:57 PM)
RealityPales's Avatar
Xbox One X buyers don't strike me as the type to hold onto their system in favor of playing inferior versions of NextBox games though...
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(09-23-2017, 12:11 AM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jaguar Victory

PC gaming just destroys this narrative. I can't agree.

Except it doesn't at all! PC gaming gives you 8 million choices in RAM, CPU, GPU, Motherboards, etc. Even this new way to makes consoles wouldn't be close to giving you that much choice.
Hockeymac18
Member
(09-23-2017, 12:44 AM)
Hockeymac18's Avatar

Originally Posted by MaulerX

Well that's stating the obvious. At some point just like PC, mobile, whatever old hardware isn't going to cut it.

Yes, it just means extended compatibility periods out further.
Matt
Member
(09-23-2017, 12:54 AM)
Matt's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jaguar Victory

PC gaming just destroys this narrative. I can't agree.

Except, not really, because PCís have consoles acting as the lowest common denominator right now. Games generally have to run on an XBO, and itís hard to make a weaker PC than that.

Anyway, there will be single SKU cross gen games when the next consoles come around, but I imagine that will be a temporary situation, not an ongoing one.
imnotkleenex
Member
(09-23-2017, 01:18 PM)
I personally have yet to see a current gen game where, except for graphics, couldn't rhave run on xbox 360 or PS3, and graphics can always scale imo, just look at PC and what Rare is doing with Sea of Thieves or Turn 10 with Forza 7 running on integrated graphics.

What I'd like to see is, the same green boxes for our games, however, on the back, you'd see a compatibility list. For example, you could have Halo 7 saying, compatble with Xbox One Family of Devices and Xbox Two Family of Devices, while a future CoD might only support Xbox Two Family of Devices.

That way, devs decide if a game can scale all the way back or not, and people decide if they need to upgrade right away or not.

So maybe early gen everything would run on both family of devices, and after 2-3 years, most games would only work on the newer boxes, kind of forcing people to upgrade at that point when consoles have now become cheaper and more affordable to the masses.

Thread Tools