Support NeoGAF

[Kumomeme]

Oh for sure. Making games in itself is a monumental task, and they will refine tools as the gen goes on. It will become better/easier with time.

...and the monumental task will get harder. Game development never been easy and never will despite how much better tools has become. Even now, lot of devs underpaid, lot of complain of crunch and they will be burdened more. For us we dont bother because its not our work and we just playing finished product so we can talk about it easy since we not in their shoes.

What concern more is to those smaller developers especially indies. Like other said in this thread, even for witcher 3 port to switch take whole team, do you think these smaller devs has any capacity for it? Their already hands full with developing game, where they gonna find bunch other peoples to handle it? Not every studio also has shit tons of money to hired others studio.

 

[Shmunter]

What that not how it works let me explained. When you play the backwards compatibility games on your Series S it will download that version of the game that will run on that system it won't just download a 4k game wile the Series S is not design to play in native 4k.

That’s right, Series S will only play the One S games in BC. One X enhanced games will not be executable on Series S.

 

[killatopak]

No way they are going to have different assets. Textures and such are not determined by output resolution.

Not exactly assets but the number of settings they need to optimize potentially increases with each SKU of console there is.

Performance modes, quality mode, docked mode, handheld mode, whatever you name it, are things that have risen in popularity but also meant more optimization for devs.

Being the budget sku of the Xbox Series line of console doesn’t mean it’s exempt from it. So not only do you optimize for a different spec, there’s also a chance you might need to optimize for a performance/quality mode as well. Add in some option to disable raytracing and such for more performance and you’re potentially looking at more than the standard 3 spec optimization from the PS3/360/Wii gen and older.

Another point that is specifically for Xbox though is smart delivery. Though I’m not quite sure how many games supports this feature, but there are in fact games that do have different asset quality from One S to One X. It’s not that far fetched to use different assets especially as a space saving feature for Series S’ relatively small SSD size.

 

[Fake]

I don't think it's a terrible equivalence at all.
My question to you is this, is it going to be harder for a dev to get a game that is developed for XSX to run on the series s compared to the witcher 3 port?

Porting games has been around since the very first consoles. I just don't understand the concern all of a sudden. Nes/Master system ports, snes/genesis ports, ps1/n64 ports, ps2/gamecube/Xbox ports.

Unlike those ports, devs will have same cpu, same gpu feature set, and wouldn't you believe they purpose built an API to handle a ton of the work. Yes, it would be easier if it were one sku but nothing new is being asked of these devs.

You can't answer a question with another question...

If the devs are saying will be compromise, so why to doubt? Again, I asked you to use the DQXI case. Can you remember?

DQXI came to PS4, and them came to Nintendo Switch as a form of 'S edition'. Now, the 'S edition' will come to PC and PS4, but instead of an updated version or already existence game, both will get a port on the Switch AKA an inferior version of the proper game will be ported.

And thats why there is a false equivalence. There is a challenge trying to port Witcher 3 to Switch, and more than challenge are the compromises. You can praise whatever you want, but they're there. Another example: Doom 2016? Remember that?
And Witcher 3 for PC?

Again, unless you're a dev, thats is nothing wrong saying what devs are actually thinking about this hole sittuation. Some devs will find fine, others not. Vary from company to company. More SKUs, more time required, sometimes the timeline is not met and ports are compromise.

 

[MarkMe2525]

...and the monumental task will get harder. Game development never been easy and never will despite how much better tools has become. Even now, lot of devs underpaid, lot of complain of crunch and they will be burdened more. For us we dont bother because its not our work and we just playing finished product so we can talk about it easy since we not in their shoes.

What concern more is to those smaller developers especially indies. Like other said in this thread, even for witcher 3 port to switch take whole team, do you think these smaller devs has any capacity for it? Their already hands full with developing game, where they gonna find bunch other peoples to handle it? Not every studio also has shit tons of money to hired others studio.

If the devs can't afford to make a game for the MS platform then they won't. What are we going on about in here? Do indie devs have a hard time building games for the X1x or the ps4 pro? You know the series s is more powerful than those. It's not like it's a toaster.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

We’ll see how this plays out in some benchmarks over the next few months. If it’s really that bad I hope devs just collectively say screw it and focus on the high end. Let people who opt for the XSS deal with performance issues on the low end. We already had a mid gen refresh like never before, there is no point in keeping a half measure around for another entire generation.

 

[Kumomeme]

If the devs can't afford to make a game for the MS platform then they won't. What are we going on about in here? Do indie devs have a hard time building games for the X1x or the ps4 pro? You know the series s is more powerful than those. It's not like it's a toaster.

do you think they didnt?

 

[Shmunter]

I hope the lack of Optical drive keeps sales low comparative to XsX.

 

[Jboemios]

hes scared of exactly what i said in my thread.

series X is just a resolution boost. its not being utilized properly because its not the base.

Give name of girl in your avatar

 

[Reallink]

As I've mentioned before, the troubles are going to arise in year 2 or 3 titles. Developers will inevitably desire to push Series X and PS5 to their knees, which means 1440p geometry and 1080p or lower buffers (alphas, volumetrics, dof, etc...). The S will sell gangbusters, and I simply don't see MS certifying or developers being willing to eat the negative PR and inevitable shitstorm of shipping 720p (or lower) Series S titles with 540p (or lower) buffers. Games with that level of ambition simply won't get made, they'll build the games to run at 1080p on Series S above all else, while PS5 becomes a defacto "Series S Pro" uprezing to 1800p, with Series X stepping up to native 4K. PS5 and SX are going to be treated like the Mid-Gen console refreshes.

 

[Shmunter]

As I've mentioned before, the troubles are going to arise in year 2 or 3 titles. Developers will inevitably desire to push Series X and PS5 to their knees, which means 1440p geometry and 1080p or lower buffers (alphas, volumetrics, dof, etc...). I simply don't see MS certifying or developers being willing to eat the negative PR and inevitable shitstorm of shipping 720p (or lower) Series S titles with 540p (or lower) buffers. Those games simply won't get made, they'll build the games to run at 1080p on Series S while PS5 becomes a defacto "Series S Pro" uprezing to 1800p, with Series X stepping up to native 4K.

Yep

 

[Craig of War]

That’s right, Series S will only play the One S games in BC. One X enhanced games will not be executable on Series S.

Yes it won't play 4k One X enhanced games since it was never design for 4k to begin with you got it good job.

 

[Shmunter]

Yes it won't play 4k One X enhanced games you got it good job.

You’re welcome

 

[Craig of War]

You’re welcome

No Your welcome

 

[Shmunter]

No Your welcome

No probs, good on you for keeping an open mind

 

[nikolino840]

Userbase

 

[MarkMe2525]

You can't answer a question with another question...

If the devs are saying will be compromise, so why to doubt? Again, I asked you to use the DQXI case. Can you remember?

DQXI came to PS4, and them came to Nintendo Switch as a form of 'S edition'. Now, the 'S edition' will come to PC and PS4, but instead of an updated version or already existence game, both will get a port on the Switch AKA an inferior version of the proper game will be ported.

And thats why there is a false equivalence. There is a challenge trying to port Witcher 3 to Switch, and more than challenge are the compromises. You can praise whatever you want, but they're there. Another example: Doom 2016? Remember that?
And Witcher 3 for PC?

Again, unless you're a dev, thats is nothing wrong saying what devs are actually thinking about this hole sittuation. Some devs will find fine, others not. Vary from company to company. More SKUs, more time required, sometimes the timeline is not met and ports are compromise.

I didn't answer question with question. I didn't attempt to answer at all, I have no idea what you are referring to.

That would be a false equivalence if that was the point I was trying to make, but it is not. My example of Witcher was not to demonstrate that it was easy in the slightest. My point was if a publisher thinks there's money to be made they will do the port, even if it is hard. That's why I used the Witcher as an example, as you pointed out as well, it was really hard.

I also never inferred that there wouldn't be compromises, on the contrary, I have mentioned that there would be compromises throughout this thread. They are to be expected. If the series s version turns out to be crap, well so be it. I'm not buying a series s and neither are you.

So that leaves me to suspect that we are debating two completely separate points so how about we call it quits . Have a good night.

Edit: I may have figured out why we are debating two separate points, the op is on my ignore list so his post is not up there for me to see. I mistakenly took the first comment as the op.

 

[Represent.]

Give name of girl in your avatar

My Ex. But I took the photo and I still like it plus shes still hot as fuck. I should let go now though

 

[quest]

...and the monumental task will get harder. Game development never been easy and never will despite how much better tools has become. Even now, lot of devs underpaid, lot of complain of crunch and they will be burdened more. For us we dont bother because its not our work and we just playing finished product so we can talk about it easy since we not in their shoes.

What concern more is to those smaller developers especially indies. Like other said in this thread, even for witcher 3 port to switch take whole team, do you think these smaller devs has any capacity for it? Their already hands full with developing game, where they gonna find bunch other peoples to handle it? Not every studio also has shit tons of money to hired others studio.

Indy games are night and day compared to even a few years ago. I am not going to worry about them we have seen plenty of indy games that look like winners on both consoles. If indy games had any issues the series x and s launches would not be leaning on them lol. The concern is very touching I'm sure the guys making games like the falconeer are totally struggling launching day one on the series x and s.

 

[Fake]

I didn't answer question with question. I didn't attempt to answer at all, I have no idea what you are referring to.

That would be a false equivalence if that was the point I was trying to make, but it is not. My example of Witcher was not to demonstrate that it was easy in the slightest. My point was if a publisher thinks there's money to be made they will do the port, even if it is hard. That's why I used the Witcher as an example, as you pointed out as well, it was really hard.

I also never inferred that there wouldn't be compromises, on the contrary, I have mentioned that there would be compromises throughout this thread. They are to be expected. If the series s version turns out to be crap, well so be it. I'm not buying a series s and neither are you.

So that leaves me to suspect that we are debating two completely separate points so how about we call it quits . Have a good night.

Now you said 'I mention compromises', but again you used the Switch version on the Series S version thread.
I guess you just need a better example, but as far as this is going, we have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Mister Wolf]

You think people won't notice shit 720p upscaling? 1080p on native 1080p screen can still look good depending on distance.

Doesn't matter if they notice or not. You get what you pay for.

 

[Kumomeme]

Indy games are night and day compared to even a few years ago. I am not going to worry about them we have seen plenty of indy games that look like winners on both consoles. If indy games had any issues the series x and s launches would not be leaning on them lol. The concern is very touching I'm sure the guys making games like the falconeer are totally struggling launching day one on the series x and s.

worth to mention this is interview with Frogware developers on April this year.

I think more and more devs will offer you a choice between resolution and framerate. I personally hope 60 FPS will become the standard, but optimization is not that easy, especially for smaller studios.

 

[Shmunter]

worth to mention this is interview with Frogware developers on April this year.

That’s when you build for the slower system, optimise once knowing the faster system will be just fine. Sadly this will happen more often than not, by devs off all size and caliber. Why? Time, money, budget.

 

[Jboemios]

My Ex. But I took the photo and I still like it plus shes still hot as fuck. I should let go now though

PM me her instagram if you dont mind.

 

[treemk]

I really think Microsoft is pushing to kneecap next gen with the series S, and I kind of hope the flop for trying it. The argument is the scale of resolution will match the differences in power between the S and the X. That's true only as far as you wanting to use all that power for resolution. This means all of the gameplay, visuals, draw distance, etc. will have to be built around the S so the X can boost the resolution and FPS effortlessly. The problem is we don't even have a 1080p standard this gen, we don't even have a 30 fps (let alone 60 fps) standard this gen. Games still use odd resolutions and dynamic resolutions to maintain performance, and some still struggle to maintain 30 fps. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's up to the devs on how to utilize it. If I'm playing Doom or Gran Turismo I want that 60fps and a resolution that doesn't look like my TV is covered in vaseline, but if it's a slower paced RPG I don't mind lower FPS and other sacrifices to increase overall graphics, draw distance, NPCs on screen etc. They're not perfect, but generally devs are good at targeting this, and the series S is going to limit their decision making here. MS is essentially reserving 66% of the X's power for a resolution boost, which to me seems absurd.

The problem is I really don't see any of this changing. We will get closer to 4k, but there are still going to be games using odd resolutions and dynamic resolutions to optimize their game to run at a desired detail level. This won't really happen on the X though, there will never be a game that really pushes it, using all the tricks to make it run well, because that is already going to be a struggle on the S. The S is the real next gen as Microsoft sees it, after feigning that they are focused on a more powerful console through their marketing campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the PS5 sells well, MS may be forced to allow devs to make X exclusives and drop the S. If the S dominates the market however it will enforce a gimped next gen.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

Even though they are similar systems, they are still "different" and If the technical producer of a company see's problems... more of then not, he probably has good reason too. I don't know the Technical Producers background, but lets assume he's had experience building games for PC's, is that fair? He's had to think about different configurations, min-spec/mid-spec/high-spec... he's likely had to make concessions to their "tech" because of that and he likely see's a similar path because of the Series S.

I don't think these dev's will be able to ignore the Series S. Does anyone think they're afraid that the Series S will handily outsell the Series X therefore making the Series S the defacto Xbox to develop for? Does that even make sense to develop for the S and then just use the extra grunt of the X to scale up to Native 4K? Or will they still develop for the X first than scale down to the S even if the S becomes a smashing success?

 

[RaZoR No1]

All devs who have developed and released games for PC should have no issues adapting to the XSS and XSX situation.
On PC you even have more things to consider, like different OS, RAM Size and Speeds, CPU, GPU, HDD/SSD etc.
Additionally the devs should already be adapted to develop for multiple console thanks to the current Gen.

My only concern will be, that the XSX will not be pushed to the max like the PS5.
We probably won't see any miracles like on the PS2/3 era, where they find some tricks etc. to push the console even further.

 

[The Scrivener]

What is it that worries devs the most? Probably feeling unworthy and incompetent in the face of such power and opportunity that is the XSS and XSX.

 

[tryDEATH]

This sort of complaining from Developers falls on deaf ears, when they didn't voice their dismay at having to optimize games for the Series X and PS5, who in themselves have all differentiating specs and features.

The Series X GPU that is more powerful and feature rich than the PS5, the more powerful CPU in the Series X, the differentiating RAM set ups, PS5's insane SSD and on top of all that both of the systems have their own unique audio solutions that need to be tuned/optimized separately.

This just screams laziness and comes across as them bitching and moaning because they got to do some more work. It doesn't help hearing these complains from Remedy, who have always had a track record for less than stellar optimization and polish and lets not get started with IW and CoD, who at this point are only second to Bethesda when it comes to shipping broken games.

I also never heard them moan about the new RTX 3060 when we know what the RTX 3090 is capable of.

 

[M1chl]

Mate I wish everything was developed on high end PC's and then scaled down to run on consoles but the reality is that they usually use a PC target spec that is around where the baseline consoles are at the time. PC just ends up with higher quality assets/textures and lighting but games being designed around high end PC hardware? It's a rarity.

Games like Flight Sim, the original Crysis at the time, Escape from Tarkov, Assetto Corsa Competizione, Star Citizen. Yes some of those games can "run" on lower end hardware (and on consoles) but the experience is a compromised one. The games are fundamentally designed around high end hardware and its obvious to see. What we usually get on PC are console ports that use 10% of our CPU's and allow the gpu to chill at 60% utilisation even at max settings. I'd like to say that a lower spec "next gen" console won't hold things back but I'm comfortable in saying that if you buy a 3080 now you probably won't need to upgrade again for the rest of the generation if all you want to play are games that will also exist on console, there will be no reason to, nothing will push it.

Anyway, let's see what happens and how things develop as the game ration goes on. Like you, I'd just like to see some good new innovative games that are enjoyable to play and push the boundaries. I don't think I can deal with another generation of 50 ubisoft style open world game clones from AAA devs.

Let's just say, that....suprisingly....Microsoft does this. You know Gears 5, when you can download HD Texture pack directly from menu and even models are better on high details, etc. No the mention they seems to be making games primary on PC nowadays then backport them to Xbox. You know Flight Sim, Gears Tactics, Age of Empires, etc.

More games are done this way recently Doom: Eternal, Control, Metro: Exodus, Cyberpunk 2k77, RDR2 was also pretty obvious.

Good thing about these games is, that they even look better on consoles, because you are scaling down the assets, not upres low fidelity one.

I think that PC market is far bigger hog, when it comes to specs, because people vomit on the internet "bad omptimalisation" when they cannot run the game on ultra, on medium range GPU.

I think also shame is that, there are just few games which is utilizing PC specific API, like GPU accelerated physics...you know PhysX and I don't mean that basic tier, that high tier.

 

[Silent Viper]

Yikes.Stop accusing devs. These are big third party publishers where these individual devs in there get nothing from either sony or ms. Stop being an armchair dev on gaf and listen to actual devs

They must be talking man power bottleneck not technical as they have to make games for one more extra hardware than just ps5 and seriesX. Optimizing game for extra next gen hardware requires additional dev cost and time.

I dont see S holding back on technical level as its using same architecture and specs as X with lower clock speed and games are made for X first according to MS then scaled down in resolution only. Also You do realise dev kits specs are double than retail box? Games are always scaled down for retail box. So if you telling me not be arm chair dev then i better not see anyone saying S holding back as they dont make games for next gen consoles either.


S powerful enough to run any game made for seriesX from ground up at 1080p60. 10Gb ddr6 with 220g bandwidth is more than enough for 1080p60fps at max graphics settings.

 

[Silent Viper]

This sort of complaining from Developers falls on deaf ears, when they didn't voice their dismay at having to optimize games for the Series X and PS5, who in themselves have all differentiating specs and features.

The Series X GPU that is more powerful and feature rich than the PS5, the more powerful CPU in the Series X, the differentiating RAM set ups, PS5's insane SSD and on top of all that both of the systems have their own unique audio solutions that need to be tuned/optimized separately.

This just screams laziness and comes across as them bitching and moaning because they got to do some more work. It doesn't help hearing these complains from Remedy, who have always had a track record for less than stellar optimization and polish and lets not get started with IW and CoD, who at this point are only second to Bethesda when it comes to shipping broken games.

I also never heard them moan about the new RTX 3060 when we know what the RTX 3090 is capable of.

Laziness nothing else. Remedy needs stfu and 1st fix frame rate issues on ps4 and Xbox for control. Game still chugs on One X. So it shows they suck at optimizing their games for multiple hardware.

 

[Agnostic2020]

They must be talking man power bottleneck not technical as they have to make games for one more extra hardware than just ps5 and seriesX. Optimizing game for extra next gen hardware requires additional dev cost and time.

I dont see S holding back on technical level as its using same architecture and specs as X with lower clock speed and games are made for X first according to MS then scaled down in resolution only. Also You do realise dev kits specs are double than retail box? Games are always scaled down for retail box. So if you telling me not be arm chair dev then i better not see anyone saying S holding back as they dont make games for next gen consoles either.


S powerful enough to run any game made for seriesX from ground up at 1080p60. 10Gb ddr6 with 220g bandwidth is more than enough for 1080p60fps at max graphics settings.

U r not a dev for a big 3rd party game company.so ur input is not valid on this subject . Sorry

 

[Panajev2001a]

games are made for X first according to MS then scaled down in resolution only

Sorry, but I do not buy that... try it the other way around unless they plan a progressively worse and worse experience for XSS customers over time. You will need extra manpower/time or just cater for the XSS as lead and then upscale/improve for XSX unless XSS sells a lot worse than XSX.

 

[Silent Viper]

U r not a dev for a big 3rd party game company.so ur input is not valid on this subject . Sorry

So stop replying to my post. You keep quoting me and then say idk anything lol.

 

[Silent Viper]

Sorry, do not buy that... try it the other way around unless they plan a progressively worse and worse experience for XSS customers over time. You will need extra manpower/time or just cater for the XSS as lead and then upscale/improve for XSX unless XSS sells a lot worse than XSX.

Games are made for dev kits with higher specs than seriesX then scaled down to retail specs. Is it hard to understand?

Its the same fucking hardware just lower clock speed. S is a next gen system.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Games are made for dev kits with higher specs than seriesX then scaled down to retail specs. Is it hard to understand?

Its the same fucking hardware just lower clock speed. S is a next gen system.

You can swear all you like, it is like working up until the last minute without a target framerate and trying to cook 60 FPS up at the last minute. Recipe for disaster and/or very costly...
Choose that approach if you want your XSS experiences get worse and worse as time goes by to have bragging rights for the XSX target.

Also, it is not just a single component pumping out less TFLOPS (RAM, CPU, and GPU changes add a bona fide new profile you need to optimise for... impossible? No, but nothing is free... the cost to achieve that scaling gets paid somewhere: either the high end machine is held back, or the low end machine experience is bad, or the scope of the game is constrained to spend more resources on the additional profile(s), or there are more bugs that need to be fixed post launch, or the developer lets you have the fun of optimising the game giving you tons of checkboxes and sliders, etc... or a mix of all of the above): https://www.neogaf.com/threads/what...hat-worries-developers.1565139/post-260062247

 

[UnNamed]

In theory, Series S should have the same cpu at the same clock, the same memory bandwith, latency, etc. Just less memory and GPU power.
So, in theory, no problems.

I wonder if there's some other issue than just scaling textures and lod.

 

[Silent Viper]

You can swear all you like, it is like working up until the last minute without a target framerate and trying to cook 60 FPS up at the last minute. Recipe for disaster and/or very costly...
Choose that approach if you want your XSS experiences get worse and worse as time goes by to have bragging rights for the XSX target.

Also, it is not just a single component pumping out less TFLOPS (RAM, CPU, and GPU changes add a bona fide new profile you need to optimise for... impossible? No, but nothing is free... the cost to achieve that scaling gets paid somewhere: either the high end machine is held back, or the low end machine experience is bad, or the scope of the game is constrained to spend more resources on the additional profile(s), or there are more bugs that need to be fixed post launch, or the developer lets you have the fun of optimising the game giving you tons of checkboxes and sliders, etc... or a mix of all of the above): https://www.neogaf.com/threads/what...hat-worries-developers.1565139/post-260062247

Not gonna argue with you anymore. You can say whatever nonsense you want.

Like its talking to a wall. If by saying Series S holding games back fits your fanboy agenda then go ahead. Continue

 

[Agnostic2020]

In theory, Series S should have the same cpu at the same clock, the same memory bandwith, latency, etc. Just less memory and GPU power.
So, in theory, no problems.

I wonder if there's some other issue than just scaling textures and lod.

The memory bandwidth is much much lower.

560 gb/s vs 220 gb/s

 

[Sleepwalker]

If I worked doing spreadsheets for a living, and was a master spreadshitter, I wouldn't like to have to do an extra spreadsheet on my regular shift, regardless of how easy it is or how little time it would take me.

 

[vdopey]

This sort of complaining from Developers falls on deaf ears, when they didn't voice their dismay at having to optimize games for the Series X and PS5, who in themselves have all differentiating specs and features.

The Series X GPU that is more powerful and feature rich than the PS5, the more powerful CPU in the Series X, the differentiating RAM set ups, PS5's insane SSD and on top of all that both of the systems have their own unique audio solutions that need to be tuned/optimized separately.

This just screams laziness and comes across as them bitching and moaning because they got to do some more work. It doesn't help hearing these complains from Remedy, who have always had a track record for less than stellar optimization and polish and lets not get started with IW and CoD, who at this point are only second to Bethesda when it comes to shipping broken games.

I also never heard them moan about the new RTX 3060 when we know what the RTX 3090 is capable of.

Dude the difference between the ps5 and xsx is known they are completely different - underlying hardware the cpus are basically identical, the xsx gpu is not more feature rich, I wish you guys would just stop with this nonsense. They are both more than capable of pushing out 4K 60FPS and / or 4K 30FPS with limited ray tracing, Sony has already proven this with their 1st party games.

The SDK's used and the API's used are completely different, between Sony and MS. Sony uses its own SDK, Microsoft uses directx - the way they work are completely different, the way any game marks achievements / trophies and links into psn and xbl is also completely different - the controllers Sony's has far more features again the interaction is different.

This is known all third party publishers know they have 2 completely different beasts to build for and target and if it is also releasing on PC that again can be very different, for example on PC it might use Vulkan not directx, I'm not sure whether ms allows vulkan on the xsx I'm not sure if sony allows it (I doubt either do) - again does it work with steam or epic or their own publisher games store that will have completely different API interactions as well. Also generally speaking PC versions get released later, Rockstar is the perfect example they optimise for the consoles first and 6 months later they release to PC, or some will release on PC first and then later release on consoles.

In amongst all of this they now have to support 2 different profiles for xbox, they don't make anything extra for it, but have to optimise for 2 different hardware profiles - variation in ram, in bandwidth and in gpu strength the gpu in xss is 1/3 weaker in practically everything, the cpu runs slightly slower but that's nothing to worry about, its the gpu 20 cus at a lower frequency (the frequency reduction probably has a much bigger impact), the lower memory bandwidth, reduced mem size, so they have to optimise how they handle the data streaming, this will mean more time wasted for any xbox game - as I said right now I expect practically all game devs are middle fingering microsoft, more effort for next to no reward.

 

[Roufianos]

If XSS isn't a success then I can seriously see 3rd party devs refusing to support it within a few years.

 

[vdopey]

If XSS isn't a success then I can seriously see 3rd party devs refusing to support it within a few years.

put it this way they have released the standard (xss) and the pro (xsx) version at the same time, most likely the standard will cannibalise the pro sales and then they have Sony which has a unified approach, so they will tally the digital + normal sales together for it.

if there is a mid gen refresh this gen again, what happens then ? Will we have a xss, xsx and then a xss+ and xsx+ ? Along with ps5 and ps5pro ? So now 6 different console versions to maintain or will Microsoft drop support for xss, not have a pro xss ? not have any mid-gen pro consoles at all ?

If Sony decides to do a pro version mid-gen can Microsoft seriously afford to be completely outclassed by their rival with a 10TF console and a pro version with 15 - 20 TF pro brother ?

 

[Compsiox]

I feel like this idea that a developer can spend all of its time creating the best X version possible, and then one day just click a "Lower resolution for S version" button is so naive it borders on stupidity.

But hey, I am not a software engineer. Maybe it's as easy as forum posters claim. And maybe this console didn't just become the starting point for all 3rd party development for the entire new generation.

Lol maybe if they bring all their games down to like 720p it could work across the board.

 

[Silent Viper]

 

[gmoran]

Single target optimisation Vs designed for scalability are intrinsically different approaches in how you deploy rendering resources.

Scalability primarily targets resolution and framerate, with less focus on other rendering innovations. Single target primarily focuses on maximising rendering features & complexity.

Recent proof in point, Nvidia marble demo. 3090 showing off gfx not at 8k/60, instead presenting 1440p/30 with unmatched scene quality only possible due to the specific target. Yes it’s a demo, Nvidia doesn’t make games - but games do use gfx.

A 4tf XsS vs 12tf XsX anchors development purely to a scalability approach.

Exactly this.

There are lots of good posts in this thread, but this eloquently nails the issue.

This is what PS5 will get and what XSX probably won't.

 

[Shmunter]

Exactly this.

There are lots of good posts in this thread, but this eloquently nails the issue.

This is what PS5 will get and what XSX probably won't.

There is a reason Sony went for a single baseline. Organisations like Sony and Xbox that focus on gaming tech consider all possibilities.

MS strategy is gaming for everyone, as demonstrated by xcloud, cross device support, etc. They are not motivated by ushering in a next gen high watermark. Indeed a high baseline limits their ambitions.

It is a shame this is obfuscated by MS and eaten up by the masses happy to repeat an untruth.

 

[Ar¢tos]

The more platforms we force devs to support, the buggier the games will be on all the platforms because of lack of budget/resources/time for proper debugging.
Buying games at launch was a risk this gen, it will become a bigger risk next gen.

MS could have done a SKU with smaller SSD and no disc drive for 100$ less that would have no impact on game development.

 

[gmoran]

Not gonna argue with you anymore. You can say whatever nonsense you want.

Like its talking to a wall. If by saying Series S holding games back fits your fanboy agenda then go ahead. Continue

Panajev is a game dev who's been posting here for 20 years. Back in the day he was an ace source of knowledge on the original xbox and the PS2. Calling him a fanboy LOL