Stuart360
Member
Oh course. I dont even believe these Lockhart rumours. Phil already said there would be one console at launch. Of course one could come later. We will know soon enough.These specs are also still rumors.
Last edited:
Oh course. I dont even believe these Lockhart rumours. Phil already said there would be one console at launch. Of course one could come later. We will know soon enough.These specs are also still rumors.
Lockhart is what you need to run 4k Scarlett games at 1080p. In fact it will be slightly more capable at 1080p than Scarlet will be at 4k as its 4tf vs 12tf. Setting wont need to be changed in most cases, it will simply be 'you put the game in Scarlett and its 4k, you put the game in Lockhart and its 1080p'.
The only think holding back next gen is 4k, not Lockhart.
Oh course. I dont even believe these Lockkhart rumours. Phil already said there would be one console at launch. Of course one could come later. We will know soon enough.
Well first off, devs almost always design games on the console thats winning, and that will probably be PS5. And i wouldnt look too much into which will sell the most out of the Xbox's. The 4k machine will sell the most with the hardcore crowd (do a poll on here with which Xbox they would buy, it would probably be 90% for the 4k version). I think Lockhart is for the more casual crowd who havent made a jump to 4ktv's yet, and probably wont until their tv's fail.What I mean is, say 75% of next gen xbox owners buy a lockhart and 25% buy a scarlett.
All of those assets need to be made for Scarlett, be it physics or 4k or whatever.
That means all that effort Is put in for only 25% of the user base to experience because you have 75% of the user base going for the cheaper alternative.
It seems like a lot of wasted time/money/resource to make something that hardly anyone (potentially) will experience.
Why not?You seriously think Ryzen 3.5 GHz + 13 GB Ram + Navi GPU with RDNA2 is supposed to do 1080p gaming ?
1080p vs 4k. I honestly dont get how so many people cant get their heads around this.
Most of the times AAA games are designed around the weakest current gen console in mind (on which it is being released) then scaled up and down from there. This has been the case for a very long time now. Games won't be designed around some arbitrary low-end PC configs but around that shitty Lockhart. If there was no Lockhart then they would be designed around the weaker nextgen console (multiplatforms, of course).Even if they get rid of Xbox One S & Xbox One X you still have low end PCs. MS has no reason to jump out the window & try making games that can only run on a 12TF console that may or may not sale enough to recoup from the work it would take to make a game that only play on that console.
This reminds me, my wife may be cheating on me because the homeless man over the road told me there was less birds on the lawn the other day.
I should worry, seems reasonable.
Looked at it through the CeX windowBecause people don't care about hardware specs, just look at the Switch.
You’ll shoot your eye out kid.Looked at it through the CeX window
Homeless man is lying. She's doing it with a full flock of birds.
RDR2 has a super low mode, that makes it scalable. Which means it could come to switch.. maybe. It uses GTAV's engine, so it's totally possible.
The Witcher 3 is on Switch and the switch is 192 GFLOPS in handheld mode and 384 GFLOPS docked. The Playstation 3 was 192 GFLOPS. So.. it's possible.
Where is your god now?
The people not understanding that game engines are scaleable are going to be spouting uneducated garbage until they come out and blow minds.
As somebody with their own game engine that’s VERY scalable... eh...?
You can run a game with ray tracing, 200,000 polygon player models and effects all over the place that brings a 2080ti to its knees....
...that’s can also run on a 970gtx.
The point is that any decent game engine worth its salt is modular and you can enable/disable or adjust all of it on the fly at any point with zero need for waiting on code updates. That’s a standard feature that all engines have and have had for 2” odd years.
Even things that are heavily cpu bound, you can lower the precision or disable things entirely.
Why do you think Witcher works on switch? The game wasn’t even designed for the hardware it was released on, it was designed for high end PC and then scaled DOWN for Xbox/PS4. Yet here we have a very playable and not half bad version on PORTABLE.
I know the Sony juice flows strong in some of your heads but... have a day off.
You can run a game with ray tracing, 200,000 polygon player models and effects all over the place that brings a 2080ti to its knees....
You can run Quake 2 with 9000x9000 resolution and RTX it will never make it look like Death Stranding.
More than that, even in 720p DS will look miles better.
I know you’re not saying that up scaling is the same as down scaling, because I know you’re not that stupid. Nobody is that stupid.
You can take Death Stranding, lower the resolution, half the target frame rate to 30 (if it even was 60), increase LOD draw distance, lower resolution of effects and frequency, use lower mops and lod bias for textures, reduce main character LODs from their primary to secondary and tertiary, and blah blah blah....
The point is, even the all mighty best game ever created all hail Kojima post man simulator could run on a Switch, it’s not doing anything incredible at all.
If the assets are there, it’s piss easy to reduce fidelity and complexity of instruction. It’s been common place for DECADES.
But if the assets are not there you can’t just magically upscale everything. You can lose detail, you can’t gain it.
Yeah, they've really gotten egregious about wasting people's time. To allot gaming time you have to account for all this extraneous bullshit. and for those without much time, that's damn near a dealbreaker.This makes a lot of sense and is my biggest "wishlist" item for next-gen after full backwards compatibility.
I picked up Days Gone over Black Friday - that fucker took over an hour to install to my PS4 then had to download a 30GB update which took over 30 minutes to apply. By the time it was done installing / updating, I had already been playing a different game on my PC and had lost interest entirely.
In my experience downscaling never ever worked.
What works is: make a game for the lowest platform and then just upscale textures/resolution/other crap to make it look "better" on a more capable one.
Do you have any example of successfully down scaled game?
Witcher won't count, because obviously it was made for PC and pretty low spec one originally.
So game engines aren’t scaleable but they are scaleable because the have to be? Do you read what you write? Playstations going to PC, Streaming, and Console next gen. Game engines are scaleable, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to choose between performance or resolution on PS4 Pro titles.Game engines are not scalable.
They just work hard on making them scalable because of the PC/multiplat mess we are in right now.
It's much easier to target high end platform with guaranteed performance, than to make a scalable "fits all" game.
Essentially it forces developers to use engines that abstract some hardware differences = under-utilization.
That's why we see exactly the same games on 2080Ti and vanilla PS4 but with 4x resolution and some "ultra settings" crap.
Are you really suggesting that any developers (especially Sony 1st parties) are going to be targeting a next gen game at 1080p? Come on now with this strawman...Native 4k is a waste of resources that would have been better spent on making better looking/performing games. Everyone has been saying that since day fucking one.
Anaconda being designed to run Lockhart games at four times the resolution Is the anchor everyone has been talking about. MS will drive its studios and third parties to master games at 1080 for the lowest common denominator.
Could you imagine what a capable studio could render on a 12 TF system at 1080p or even 1440p with a little MSAA?
Well keep on imagining because if MS gets their way they just kneecapped that possibility for an entire generation (except for Sony exclusives if its comparable specs).
In my experience downscaling never ever worked.
Any example? Literary any game that was ported to console that had a pc release, mostly during the 360/ps3 era. Every one off them had compressed textures, lower quality assets and stripped detail.
If you have a 2048x2048 uncompressed texture, then you can use it full res. You can do things like apply detail maps and what not for the “look” of a higher fidelity asset but it will never be unless you use use data.
If you want it to run on a lower memory rig with the same data, you call into memory the compressed asset, or you call the compressed asset and then use a lower mip. Very standard stuff.
However if you have a 512x512 asset created there is nothing you can do to magically make that appear higher fidelity. Not a damn thing, run your game in 16k ultra wise resolution with 64xAA and 128xAF... you will never make it better.
That’s my point. You make the game for target spec and then DOWN port everything. You don’t make it for the lowest denominator and then UP port.
Now there ARE games out there that are made to a lower target spec, that’s common and usually happens with console games made for console that get ported to PC. But the usual way you develop is with your highest performing machine, and then lower until it fits the target spec on others. But you don’t go all in and say “well, this runs on the original am Xbox one, guess that’s fine”. That would be insane.
Look at GTAV “now” on PC. The game was made half a decade ago, but still maxes out modern rigs. That’s because the consoles uses lower quality settings and assets.
And this is exactly why X has the winning strategy. Give the hardcore, who are willing to pay a premium, a "monster eater" console. And give the casuals who are price conscious a great box that plays the same games with lower settings and is far more affordable. Both hardcore and casuals are happy.I think 12TF RDNA2 (performance wise it should be around 16.8TF Vega) is really possibe because MS want to launch 2 different SKU products, cheaper lockhart and expensive anaconda (maybe even at 599$). Yes enthusiast will want to pay premium for anaconda, but not many casuals will buy more expensive console. If Sony will launch only one console they have to think about casuals and enthusiasts at the same time, so "only" 10TF make sense.
What is your experience with game developing?
So game engines aren’t scaleable but they are scaleable because the have to be? Do you read what you write? Playstations going to PC, Streaming, and Console next gen. Game engines are scaleable, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to choose between performance or resolution on PS4 Pro titles.
Anyway, consoles now would likely use a filtering setting equivalent to 4 samples or so, not a lot. This isn’t resolution, as that’s w totally different ball party and is based on lots of factors low cube mapped shadow rendering and the like (6x performance cost of a point light). Anyway... a single setting, right? So I can increase the filtering up or down and it will greatly reduce or increase memory consumption and performance. Yet our engine goes all the way up to 64 samples, something that brings modern cards down.
Yet our engine goes all the way up to 64 samples, something that brings modern cards down.
Making scalable game engine has a cost: worse performance, poor hardware utilization.
I don't think anybody wants to invest money in scalability if they could get away without it.
Compressed textures is nothing. Just a memory saver.
And you will have high quality assets in the art pipeline anyway, so essentially having high-quality textures costs nothing.
So what PC do you target? 2080Ti? And if you have a game that's 3 years in development, what PC card will you target? And what if it will be not enough at the time you get there?
GTAV looks no different on PC and on console. Except for some quantities. It doesn't have better lighting, shadows, materials, etc. just little less aliasing.
Making scalable game engine has a cost: worse performance, poor hardware utilization.
I don't think anybody wants to invest money in scalability if they could get away without it.
So you employ suboptimal shadowing scheme (PCF is what, 15 years old?), just for the sake of scalability.
Thanks for proving my point.
Well, considering that games are developed on PC, playable on PC, scaled down to the console, then optimized. Your logic is flawed. This is true for 100% of the games out there. Let's also consider, both consoles are using x86 processors which is what they use in a PC, optimization is that much more simplified for developers.
Thinking about Xbox, the difference between the architecture of the 4TF console and the 12TF console is minimal, they will both use the same API's they will both optimize very similarly the major difference being is some sliders will be lower than others. It's not rocket science.
ust "a memory saver" yet here we are where people are moaning because the lower end console... has less memory?
As for what you target you target whatever the hell you set out to target.
If you increase the resolution of assets, increase draw distance, increase lod fade, add more peds, increase pretty much every other setting...
So you're going to cut only the places where it's easy to cut: textures, render targets. Which will result in over-cutting for a low memory hardware.
What you will target, right now? Just a small thought experiment.
It will not change anything about the game will only reduce aliasing.
If your water was rendered meh it will stay meh.
If you didn't use reflective shadow maps, you will still have no reflective shadow maps.
If you haven't used tessellated progressive meshes you will stay that way.
Etc. etc.
1. PC is not a platform.
2. There are some platforms that could be approximated as "PC": DirectX12 and Vulkan. They are different from XBoX DirectX and Sony GNM. Some of them are closer, some of them are vastly different.
3. You cannot program for specific hardware in any of these except Sony's one (you can do some low level stuff in XboX though). That's why Sony's hardware utilization is so much better. And that's why Sony's exclusives look so much better.
4. Obviously you can brute force some of these optimizations by employing less hardware specific things, on a better hardware. But it would not magically utilize it better.
My point was that having a poor-perfromance hardware baseline is worse that having a high performance one. That's all.
...and the inclusion of Project XCloud across all Xbox systems will allow you to start gaming via streaming while waiting for games to download locally.
To run next-gen games at 1080p you need 4x less power which also requires less RAM because you're not pushing 4K assets such as textures, models and meshes.
4 TF is a pathetic minimum spec for entry level next-gen Xbox.
Then don't buy it
The 12 TF of the high-end Xbox won't matter, devs will never be able to fully use that because it'll just be for getting games to render the same games (built for the 4TF console) at 4K with brute force.
So PS5 and PC multiplatform games are screwed guys, you heard it first from the arm chair developer, he's never wrong.
PS5 specs, with 10+ TF (or close to Anaconda) will be fully utilized, devs can always count on PlayStation base specs.
Yea, the next Call of Duty will look ridiculously good on PS5 and PC, but because of Lockhart, it will look crappy on Scarlett... makes sense.
Oh Fak! now that is some good use of Project XCloud
I agree with you, but when optimizing for 1080p I'm sure Microsoft will most likely scale back on texture resolution among other things which is why I beleive that they would have less RAM. But you are not wrong. I'm taking a stab at the RAM thing and why less would be required. It could totally be due to less resolution alone.While I agree with your other points, this isn't true. You may not get the most out of the assets in 1080p, but you absolutely can run any quality asset at any screen resolution, as the two are not mutually exclusive to each other. You do need less power to run 1080p over 4k, of course, that's just obvious. But you can use assets of any quality and resolution even in 240p if you want.
TFLOPS are derived from the calculated GPU power output, It has nothing to do about the rest of the system. So sure, the graphics may not be the same, but that's it. Sony and Microsoft are going for 4K. To run next-gen games at 1080p you need 4x less power which also requires less RAM because you're not pushing 4K assets such as textures, models and meshes.
- Did I say PC was a platform? No I did not, I said 100% of games are developed on PC then optimized on consoles. Steam, uPlay, Origin, GOG, etc are Platforms.
- Direct X, OpenGL, and Vulkan are API's. Microsoft typically optimizes the design of the Xbox around Direct X to make creating games easier for developers since both the PC and Xbox utilize Direct X in some fashion, optimization is that much easier. I'm sure Sony is no different.
- Sony uses the OpenGL API which was created for PC originally. Optimizing from PC to Playstation is the same as Optimizing PC to Xbox. Sony and Mircosofts optimization is the same, which is why games look better and have better assets on the Xbox One X. Just like how PS4 games look better on the PS4Pro, difference being is that I've never downloaded a 4K asset pack on the PS4Pro as it only offers better resolution or better performance.
- No shit. I've been talking about optimization the entire time. Read my entire post.
I agree with you, but when optimizing for 1080p I'm sure Microsoft will most likely scale back on texture resolution among other things which is why I beleive that they would have less RAM. But you are not wrong. I'm taking a stab at the RAM thing and why less would be required. It could totally be due to less resolution alone.
4. You need a much smaller than 4x performance increase to target 4k from 1080p. A lot of low frequency render targets may stay the same resolution. vertex buffers will probably stay the same, low res textures (billboards, particles) will probably stay the same. Etc. It all depends on how will you do it. PS4Pro in ~4k runs HZD much better than PS4 in 1080p where the GPU power difference is 2x only.
The more that I think about Lockheart, the more I think it actually makes sense. It sounds like a a pain in the ass for devs, but if they can deliver a 1080p "next gen" box for $299 that plays the same games at lower settings I can see a whole lot of those filthy casuals jumping on the bandwagon pretty quickly - and MS absolutely needs this thing to perform well out the gate. Would I buy it? Fuck no. But I know a lot of people that would.
1. "Games are developed on PC" is irrelevant then. PC as a development tool is not the same as a target platform.
2. When you cannot access directly, only through API - an API becomes your platform.
3. Sony doesn't use OpenGL. It's shader language is similar, but that's about it.
4. You need a much smaller than 4x performance increase to target 4k from 1080p. A lot of low frequency render targets may stay the same resolution. vertex buffers will probably stay the same, low res textures (billboards, particles) will probably stay the same. Etc. It all depends on how will you do it. PS4Pro in ~4k runs HZD much better than PS4 in 1080p where the GPU power difference is 2x only.