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.
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.
I think you're confusing forward compatible with backwards compatible.
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?
Then why even make an Xbox Two?
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.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.
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.
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.
But you can see how 1st party Xbox Two games will have a disadvantage to PS5 games then right?
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.
Playing PS4 games on a PS5 is backwards compatibility.
Playing PS5 games on a PS4 is forwards compatibility.
I think you're confusing forward compatible with backwards compatible.
We have plenty of games on Xbox One currently that were on Xbox 360. Were you pissed off then?
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.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.
Are you implying the PS5 will be a clean break?
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
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.
most likely the same way, letting devs pick from running on Xbox One+, Xbox One X+, or Xbox Two+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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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
Are Pc games in a disadvantage to consoles because they scale to run to even lower specs compared to xbone and Ps4?
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.
most likely the same way, letting devs pick from running on Xbox One+, Xbox One X+, or Xbox Two+
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.
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!
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
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).
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.
Well that's stating the obvious. At some point just like PC, mobile, whatever old hardware isn't going to cut it.
Except, not really, because PCs have consoles acting as the lowest common denominator right now. Games generally have to run on an XBO, and its hard to make a weaker PC than that.PC gaming just destroys this narrative. I can't agree.