Support NeoGAF

[DeltaPolarBear]

Lol if it would be the other way around the reaction would be way different:

„that’s great Sony! Thanks for supporting the PS4 longer and thanks for supporting your loyal user!“

„typical M$! Can’t wait to start the new gen and fuck their userbase over! M$ just recently released the One X and now I can’t get new games? Fuck M$!“

AS I see it. It does not matter. The first year we don’t see true nextgen games anyway. And it will ONLY FOR THE FIRST year where the base Xbox has to be supported. NOT TWO YEARS, Only for the FIRST YEAR after launch of the seriesX. ONE YEAR.

I am not sure why you actually believe MS delayed next gen game launch intentionally. Certainly looks like they just fell behind schedule for 12 months, and needed an excuse for it.

If MS cared about XboxOne customers, it would have been longer than one year.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I think this strategy comes with 3 major drawbacks

1) Development:
Developing games across multiple generations is an extremely expensive and lengthy task, sometimes farmed out to other devs with largely disappointing results.

SeX games will still be mandated to show off the new hardware, so games will still be made to look good, then have to be extensively reworked to work on old hw.

2) Marketing:
Games made for last gen may quickly look outdated, as they did at the beginning of this gen.
Entire scenes and systems which can show off improvements will just get cut.

Now, launch games aren't usually the best titles, but they can still be pretty fun, especially when there aren't a ton of new games to play.
Furthermore, their main aim is to sell just how big the improvement is. They need to work as proof-of-concept.
Ryse might have "failed" at being a great game, but it succeeded in selling people on the jump in graphical fidelity of the X1.

MS might ameliorate this by trying to limit how much it markets old-gen versions of its new games but:
a) Then what's the point of making that version at all
b) With GP people will just see the game is available anyway and not consider the SeX

3) Competition:
The competition isn't bound by these limitations, and will absolutely hammer home this difference.

Imagine: next Halo, we transition from a busy party to an intense shootout, as your base is under attack and dynamically crumbles and rolls through several other areas during the fight.
Even if this part is hot garbage to play, it can show off what CAN happen NOW. Plus, it could actually be amazing fun to play.


SSD speeds, RT, VRS etc. are buzzwords, and it's vital to market them visually.
It's one thing to talk about power, it's a whole other to sell your console as being powerful.

 

[DoctorEkkoUK]

To me I'd say there is a good argument that games can be built to take advantage of new hardware then settings scaled down so it will run in some way on old hardware. The problem is when it comes to CPU for example you might be able to have a 128 player battlefield game on a new console and you could technically get that game running on older consoles but you would need to reduce the player count therefore changing the nature of the game.

This doesn't apply to all types of games obviously.

 

[dark10x]

So what? Sony is going the same route i think. As long as the games are made with next gen hardware in mind and scaled down for current gen, i don't see an issue.

It was the exact same thing with the previous transition into this gen, why would it be different.

If both companies take this approach, it will not change my feeling on it.

I do not feel this is the same as last generation at all and I presented this in the video.

Basically, last time around, cross-gen games were developed as separate products by bespoke teams. Sure, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Shadow of Mordor and the like appeared across generations, but these were unique products. You didn't buy the PS4 version of Mordor and received the PS3 version. They were different games designed for different platforms.

Which is pretty much how things have always played out. You'd have a new game designed for a new platform which would often receive ports to lesser machines. This goes back to the arcade days even when everyone wanted to have conversions of popular games. Yet, the original developers of those games did not take into consideration the home market while creating them. It was up to separate teams to build these conversions and find ways to make them work.

What is being proposed this time is different - these first party titles are being designed as a single SKU. That same code will run across the full range of consoles. Halo Infinite on Xbox One S will be the same game as the Series X version. The changes are likely to resemble what you'd expect from changing settings on a PC game. The fundamental base game is being designed for the lowest common denominator. There will be no maps or scenarios in Halo Infinite which the Xbox One S cannot handle. The design team must ensure this.

It's this unified approach that seems different to me.

Consider something like Crysis 1 - it was designed for the PC. Decisions were made to push the platform in unique ways which resulted in some amazing physics interactions and impressive encounters. The game was not designed for consoles.

Yet, years later, a console version appeared. This port follows the traditional model where it is a bespoke conversion that attempts to translate the game to a lesser machine. They did a good job preserving the original vision but the sacrifices were obvious and numerous. The key is that PS360 did not influence the creation of Crysis. They DID, however, influence the creation of Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 and, well, while they are beautiful games, many of the advanced physics interactions and simulation elements were eliminated and scope was reduced.

If Crysis 1 were created with those consoles in mind, we may never have had the game received.

Right or wrong, that's where my line of thinking stems from. It's all personal opinion based on speaking with various developers and working as a software engineer for 10 years, though.

 

[Deleted member 775630]

This is the clear and simple truth that so many people are trying so hard to spin in some kind of positive light. Once MS manages to finally release actual next-gen software 12 or more months after launching their next-gen console, they will be "leaving Xbone users in the dust" just like "evil Sony who doesn't care about their customers."

Let me ask you this, if they are behind schedule, then you think Halo Infinite had to launch in 2019? And the next Forza Motorsport is also "late" and was supposed also supposed to launch a couple of months ago? Because those are two games that will definitely launch with the new console, but you give me the impression that Halo (their biggest franchise) isn't that important to them to use the potential of XSX...

 

[ethomaz]

Well...Is like trying to convince someone to upgrade from a 1070 to 2080rtx

More like HD 7770 (or GTX 550TI) to RTX 2080.

 

[ethomaz]

So what? Sony is going the same route i think. As long as the games are made with next gen hardware in mind and scaled down for current gen, i don't see an issue.

It was the exact same thing with the previous transition into this gen, why would it be different.

Sony first-party will be developed exclusively to PS5.
After Ghost of Tsushima PS4 won’t receive more first-party games except for maybe MLB The Show due license contract issues.

Precious gens were never like that lol
You always have exclusives games to the new generation at launch.

 

[Shmunter]

The issue is likely due to the X releasing so late. Sony went bang in the middle for a mid gen refresh. MS more like 3/4 gen refresh. They don't want a backlash from core customers that blew a chunk of cheddar on a console that is redundant too soon.

At the end of the day if Sony games blow people away while MS games don't innovate, the market will speak. My only concern is for the 3rd parties being shoehorned into the MS strategy to the detriment of Sony & PC.

 

[ethomaz]

Genuinely curious as to hear why so many think developers scale down their games rather than scale up. Some of the premier devs in the industry design their games (such as GoW, Death Stranding, TLOUII) around base hardware (PS4) rather than Pro. Keep in mind, when it comes to CPU, GPU, Storage etc. these two SKUs are much closer than the next-gen consoles.

Why would they do that when they can leverage extra from a more powerful SKU? Answer is quite obvious, largest demographic game on the base model and they don't want to hamper their experience by giving preference to those with the higher-end model. This would also apply to all those first party MS studios who are designing these cross-gen games, yes these consoles are sharing the same architecture (so did PS4 and PS4 Pro) but the compute power available on next-gen Xboxs' is leagues apart to Xbox One family. They can't design their game around the Series X, and then cut down heavily to somehow make it run on Xbox One. Why? Because they wouldn't want to compromise the experience of what would be majority demographic of these games.

That is the core reason why many games scorn at the idea of cross-gen games, devs don't cater to the minority new-console owners at the beginning.

Mid-gen upgrades were made to just give a boost in graphics and performances for the games of a generation... so the base will be always the weak console of the generation and after they scale up to the mid-gen upgrade.

No game will be made targeting the mid-gen upgrade for obvious reasons.

Now a new gen hardware you don’t have that issue... you don’t need to carry the weak hardware so you can target since beginning the potential of the new hardware without bother with the old generation hardware.

 

[ethomaz]

I am not sure why you actually believe MS delayed next gen game launch intentionally. Certainly looks like they just fell behind schedule for 12 months, and needed an excuse for it.

If MS cared about XboxOne customers, it would have been longer than one year.

That is probably what is mostly happening... the new studios acquisitions needs more time to start to delivery the exclusives to the new generation.
It is not out of this world because AAA games is not make in a one or two years.

 

[ethomaz]

If both companies take this approach, it will not change my feeling on it.

I do not feel this is the same as last generation at all and I presented this in the video.

Basically, last time around, cross-gen games were developed as separate products by bespoke teams. Sure, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Shadow of Mordor and the like appeared across generations, but these were unique products. You didn't buy the PS4 version of Mordor and received the PS3 version. They were different games designed for different platforms.

Which is pretty much how things have always played out. You'd have a new game designed for a new platform which would often receive ports to lesser machines. This goes back to the arcade days even when everyone wanted to have conversions of popular games. Yet, the original developers of those games did not take into consideration the home market while creating them. It was up to separate teams to build these conversions and find ways to make them work.

What is being proposed this time is different - these first party titles are being designed as a single SKU. That same code will run across the full range of consoles. Halo Infinite on Xbox One S will be the same game as the Series X version. The changes are likely to resemble what you'd expect from changing settings on a PC game. The fundamental base game is being designed for the lowest common denominator. There will be no maps or scenarios in Halo Infinite which the Xbox One S cannot handle. The design team must ensure this.

It's this unified approach that seems different to me.

Consider something like Crysis 1 - it was designed for the PC. Decisions were made to push the platform in unique ways which resulted in some amazing physics interactions and impressive encounters. The game was not designed for consoles.

Yet, years later, a console version appeared. This port follows the traditional model where it is a bespoke conversion that attempts to translate the game to a lesser machine. They did a good job preserving the original vision but the sacrifices were obvious and numerous. The key is that PS360 did not influence the creation of Crysis. They DID, however, influence the creation of Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 and, well, while they are beautiful games, many of the advanced physics interactions and simulation elements were eliminated and scope was reduced.

If Crysis 1 were created with those consoles in mind, we may never have had the game received.

Right or wrong, that's where my line of thinking stems from. It's all personal opinion based on speaking with various developers and working as a software engineer for 10 years, though.

Your Crisis example and sequels are a good exemple of how consoles hold the gaming development on PC.

A lot of PC gaming sites at time of release of Crysis 2 pointed how it was inferior at the original Crisis in graphic technology and that was because the Engine was changed to be scalable to consoles where a lot of advanced graphic techs had to be removed in face of the compatibility.

I was expecting a new jump in PC games with the new generation with a better push on CPU tasks now with consoles having better CPU.... but rumors of Lockhart and the push to force games in XB1 out that expectation on hold.

I don’t find any dev will be bold enough ($$$) to do a Crysis push again in PC development.

 

[Redlight]

Nope.

The game... not the version...

“And sometimes, the level of compromise [of 360 version] was such that the scale and scope of the game [project, that include both version] had to be cut back significantly.”

You are misunderstanding the quote. It clearly states that the compromises were made to the 360 versions only. You really have to torture that sentence to make it mean what you'd like it to mean.

 

[ethomaz]

You are misunderstanding the quote. It clearly states that the compromises were made to the 360 versions only. You really have to torture that sentence to make it mean what you'd like it to mean.

You can ask the owner of the quote he is replying here...

 

[Hendrick's]

Well...Is like trying to convince someone to upgrade from a 1070 to 2080rtx

Or to buy a new iPhone. Tough sell.

 

[ethomaz]

Or to buy a new iPhone. Tough sell.

It that really hard? I keep seeing people change phones each year or 2.

 

[Agnostic2020]

one thing john mentions against the idea of PC scaleability is that no PC has such weak CPU like PS4 and X1 and having to carry that weight will be not so exciting

 

[01011001]

one thing john mentions against the idea of PC scaleability is that no PC has such weak CPU like PS4 and X1 and having to carry that weight will be not so exciting

those PC CPUs usually also don't have the benefit of running a game at 30fps. most minimum system requirements are meant for 60fps

for example, the minimal system requirements for Witcher 3 is an i5-2500K 3.3GHz

and now look at the console CPUs it ended up running on

 

[PocoJoe]

Too many seems to forget the biggest problem with this plan:

HDD vs SSD = 50-100x slower is possible.

It is just stupid to think that they can downport games from multiple times faster storage system without losing too much

It will be huge compromise

Either games (textures, world size, stream of assets, everything) is made the slow ass HDD in mind, or they arent the same game

If it would be only about cpu/gpu/ram amount = possible to downport without losing too much

But super fast SSD is the biggest jump in consoles basically ever.

 

[skneogaf]

Due to there being pc versions of pretty much every game I don't understand why people think the xb1/xb1s won't be able to play newer games.

480p and 5 percent of the onscreen stuff will be good enough for some, it's just the multiplayer that won't be fair

 

[Agnostic2020]

those PC CPUs usually also don't have the benefit of running a game at 30fps. most minimum system requirements are meant for 60fps

for example, the minimal system requirements for Witcher 3 is an i5-2500K 3.3GHz

and now look at the console CPUs it ended up running on

that is because their team sat down and worked on the console version separately .it wasnt scaled from PC and thats what he means. next gen they want to go with sacleability route and in such scenario they ahve to make design sacrifices to put the jaguar CPu in mind. anyways we shall see how it turns out.

 

[01011001]

that is because their team sat down and worked on the console version separately .it wasnt scaled from PC and thats what he means. next gen they want to go with sacleability route and in such scenario they ahve to make design sacrifices to put the jaguar CPu in mind. anyways we shall see how it turns out.

uhm, no, the Witcher 3 is exactly the same game on every platform. all that was changed for each was the resolution and settings.

the Switch version was slightly more modified but its is essentially the exact same game, even the amount of AI characters on screen is unchanged from PC.

just because a different team did it doesn't change that fact.

 

[ethomaz]

uhm, no, the Witcher 3 is exactly the same game on every platform. all that was changed for each was the resolution and settings.

the Switch version was slightly more modified but its is essentially the exact same game, even the amount of AI characters on screen is unchanged from PC.

just because a different team did it doesn't change that fact.

Are you sure?

Number of NPC on screen is way bigger on PC compared with consoles.

That only to spot NPC AI because there a lot of more differences on PC version.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

Exactly. So to sum up this whole piss storm in a fart bag:

- only MS exclusives are going to work on older hardware.
- third party games can do anything they want, including only releasing games for the SX spec that won’t work on Xbox One/Xbox One S/Xbox One X.
- The MS exclusives will only work on older hardware for anywhere to 1 year to 2, however, let’s be honest, that will be 1 tops after the backlash.
- Even then, the only major issues on the games having to work on older hardware will be more work. More work, on barely a handful of titles. That apparently, nobody will want to play anyway because MS has shit tier exclusives, apparently.
- And even then, because of the way games are made, you won’t be seeing devs take major advantage of everything the hardware can do for years.

So in other words this whole bloody discussion is fuelled by misinformation, fan boy bullshit, and nonsense.

Peace out, bitches.

You are talking absolute rubbish.

What defines a new generation and excitement *apart* from the machines themselves?

It’s exclusive software - the company showing everyone what their new box can do...

Exclusives literally SELL consoles.

Mario World
Mario 64
Ridge Racer
Ryse
Killzone
Halo

All these titles (regardless of you rate them) HELPED to sell consoles and create an install base.

What MS are telling everyone by this approach is the Series X is basically a X Pro for at least a year in and that’s ludicrous.

MS And the studios they bought are simply not ready for full next gen release.

In 2 years time Sony will be hitting their stride and have multiple exclusives out on the PS5 - MS will be once again playing catch up.

This is a stupid move driven by execs who are playing it ‘safe’ when a new generation should be all about whipping people up in a frenzy to try new things.

MS are telling everyone that they are basically a subscription service for at least a year, for casual third party players.

The series X may not even have the power advantage or retain moneyhatted content deals yet - that’s the next potential shit show they have to deal with.

 

[01011001]

Are you sure?

Number of NPC on screen is way bigger, draw distance is bigger on PC.

if you run Witcher 3 on the lowest settings on PC it almost looks like the Switch version.

the Switch version was slightly modified further but that's nothing game changing in any way. that's my point.

at its core it's the exact same game. nothing about it had to be removed or altered in any meaningful way.

the changes you see in the Switch version are changes you often see when you edit some minor .ini file settings

 

[Nikana]

You can ask the owner of the quote he is replying here...

Ask him what? It's already clear as day. You are the one twisting words like a twisted pictures Saw film.

 

[ethomaz]

Ask him what? It's already clear as day. You are the one twisting like a twisted pictures Saw film.

Nope.
You can ask him about your confusion instead to bother others with usual bias.

 

[webber]

I'm split on this. I love my Xbox One X, but also love new hardware. It will be very interesting to see the differences between One X and Series X games.

The same ones between One X and One: NONE.
Except for higher resolutions.

 

[ethomaz]

if you run Witcher 3 on the lowest settings on PC it almost looks like the Switch version.

the Switch version was slightly modified further but that's nothing game changing in any way. that's my point.

at its core it's the exact same game. nothing about it had to be removed or altered in any meaningful way.

the changes you see in the Switch version are changes you often see when you edit some minor .ini file settings

Number of NPC is actually a big difference in CPU use... you tried to give the AI exemple where PC at minimum is way ahead consoles including Switch.

 

[Nikana]

Nope.
You can ask him about your confusion instead to bother others with usual bias.

He already has a reply in this thread that you replied to stating what we already know

Basically, last time around, cross-gen games were developed as separate products by bespoke teams. Sure, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Shadow of Mordor and the like appeared across generations, but these were unique products. You didn't buy the PS4 version of Mordor and received the PS3 version. They were different games designed for different platforms.

Let's see how you spin this one.

 

[ethomaz]

He already has a reply in this thread that you replied to stating what we already know

Basically, last time around, cross-gen games were developed as separate products by bespoke teams. Sure, Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, Shadow of Mordor and the like appeared across generations, but these were unique products. You didn't buy the PS4 version of Mordor and received the PS3 version. They were different games designed for different platforms.

Let's see how you spin this one.

Yeap like I said before his response is online of what I said.
These examples were developed separated and even so it has to make compromises due the old hardware.

Imagine if it was developed at the same time by the same team.

Keep trying to spin lol

 

[01011001]

Number of NPC is actually a big difference in CPU use... you tried to give the AI exemple where PC at minimum is way ahead consoles including Switch.

I am pretty sure the amount of AI on screen is identical across all versions, or at least across every console version... I might remember this wrong

how do you know it isn't?

 

[ethomaz]

I am pretty sure the amount of AI on screen is identical across all versions, or at least across every console version... I might remember this wrong

how do you know it isn't?

CDProject own video interview in Germany near release showed the differences.

 

[CAB_Life]

It’s pretty obvious that this is not a long-term solution or mandate and eventually the older platforms will be phased out. These new consoles and their predecessors are all computers so scaling up or down isn’t a tremendous hassle (I’m not being dismissive of the efforts developers take to tailor settings to unique hardware configurations, and each configuration obviously adds a layer of compexity and developer time).

From the language this sounds as if it just affects actual Xbox exclusives? If so, this is even less important.

 

[Nikana]

Yeap like I said before his response is online of what I said.
These examples were developed separated and even so it has to make compromises due the old hardware.

Imagine if it was developed at the same time by the same team.

It's not at all in the line of what you said. You are saying that there were compromises on the current gen versions of the games which isn't true. There isn't and proof to support your statement other than you saying so. Where is there proof showing compromises were made only on last gen versions?

And why would I imagine if it was developed by the same team? What are you trying to say there?

 

[GHG]

Exactly. So to sum up this whole piss storm in a fart bag:

- only MS exclusives are going to work on older hardware.
- third party games can do anything they want, including only releasing games for the SX spec that won’t work on Xbox One/Xbox One S/Xbox One X.
- The MS exclusives will only work on older hardware for anywhere to 1 year to 2, however, let’s be honest, that will be 1 tops after the backlash.
- Even then, the only major issues on the games having to work on older hardware will be more work. More work, on barely a handful of titles. That apparently, nobody will want to play anyway because MS has shit tier exclusives, apparently.
- And even then, because of the way games are made, you won’t be seeing devs take major advantage of everything the hardware can do for years.

So in other words this whole bloody discussion is fuelled by misinformation, fan boy bullshit, and nonsense.

Peace out, bitches.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, I think you're spot on but I'm interested to know what you think about the following and how they will handle it:

How do Microsoft handle 3rd party gamepass games that will potentially be next-gen only? So as an example, lets say the next Darksiders gets scheduled for next year, is next gen only and they manage to strike a deal with THQ to get it on gamepass within the first 12 months of the release of Series X.

Do they create a new "next-gen" tier of subscription much like like there is a separate PC only subscription for gamepass? Or do they keep it as is and create fragmentation within their subscription service?

I think a big driver for why they are even doing this whole cross-gen thing is gamepass to make sure subscribers stuck on older consoles don't feel hard done by. It will be interesting to see how they handle new 3rd party games arriving on the service in that respect.

 

[ethomaz]

It's not at all in the line of what you said. You are saying that there were compromises on the current gen versions of the games which isn't true. There isn't and proof to support your statement other than you saying so. Where as there is proof showing compromises were made only on last gen versions.

And why would I imagine if it was developed by the same team? What are you trying to say there?

Yes it is.

The quote is clear to anybody.
Even MS doing a separately development for these games sometimes they had to make compromises due the old hardware.

Now just imagine if MS choose to develop these games at the same time with the same team for 360 and XB1 like just scaling lol

The compromises should be way bigger.
Can’t you understand that simple? Or the bias blind yourself?

 

[Nikana]

Yes it is.

The quote is clear to anybody.
Even MS doing a separately development for these games sometimes they had to make compromises due the old hardware.

Yes it is what? Proof? What's the proof?

Microsoft getting a different development team doesn't prove compromises were made. You can keep saying that but untill you have proof it means nothing.

 

[ethomaz]

Yes it is what? Proof? What's the proof?

Microsoft getting a different development team doesn't prove compromises were made. You can keep saying that but untill you have proof it means nothing.

Unbelievable... keep the spin.
I don’t care if You believe in the reality or your own dreams.

 

[GHG]

Bless your heart if you think either of these machines will make 60fps the norm. Never mind 120... 120 is, like 8k, bullet point talk.

As far as cross-gen first party games go you might need them to target 60fps in certain instances to alleviate any issues that might occur when scaling them down to older consoles:

I'd say that there are definite routes forward for developers to take. A Series X title could target 60 frames per second (or higher in multiplayer modes) while the current-gen equivalents would run at 30fps instead. The advantages in lessening the GPU load are obvious but halving frame-rate also takes a lot of strain off the CPU: everything from world simulation to physics to animation would be much easier to handle. The process of creating draw calls - instructions from the CPU to the GPU - would also be lighter.

In Theory: Can Microsoft deliver next-gen experiences while still supporting Xbox One?

Ridge Racer, Halo, Super Mario 64. Some might say that the most impactful console launches were those where cutting edg…

www.eurogamer.net

 

[Nikana]

Unbelievable... keep the spin.

Bro. Answer the question.how is it proof?

Don't you think it's weird you say it's clear as day yet every other poster in here says you are wrong? So you think this entire thread is just spinning? Including the post from the person who made the video?

 

[ethomaz]

Bro. Answer the question.how is it proof?

Don't you think it's weird you say it's clear as day yet every other poster in here says you are wrong? So you think this entire thread is just spinning? Including the post from the person who made the video?

Every poster means you and another one that shows bias in every thread?

I already answered your questions not just once but you keep the same old and false narrative.

 

[Nikana]

Every poster means you and another one that shows bias in every thread?

I already answered your questions not just once but you keep the same old and false narrative.

You added a line after your reply that half answers my question. Edited comments don't give notifications so let's elaborate on your spin.

The compromises should be way bigger.
Can’t you understand that simple? Or the bias blind yourself?

Why would compromises have to be bigger?

 

[Ellery]

New people make new mistakes and I think this is going to be Phil Spencers (short-term) mistake,
Don Mattrick did way worse in 2012/2013. He basically was a walking mistake.

I can't say if it will matter long term because both Xbox and PS/Nintendo have different approaches now, but a new product which praises itself for being a hardware monster and then not making full use of it does sound unattractive to me as a consumer

 

[CyberPanda]

It’s pretty obvious that this is not a long-term solution or mandate and eventually the older platforms will be phased out. These new consoles and their predecessors are all computers so scaling up or down isn’t a tremendous hassle (I’m not being dismissive of the efforts developers take to tailor settings to unique hardware configurations, and each configuration obviously adds a layer of compexity and developer time).

From the language this sounds as if it just affects actual Xbox exclusives? If so, this is even less important.

Holy abs Batman

 

[cireza]

He is saying exactly what I said before... games are compromised by old gen versions.
Forza Horizon 2 was compromised.

Only the 360 version was compromised. It was ported by Sumo Digital.

Forza Horizon 2 for Xbox One was designed without the 360 in mind, obviously.

 

[ethomaz]

You added a line after your reply that half answers my question. Edited comments don't give notifications so let's elaborate on your spin.

The compromises should be way bigger.
Can’t you understand that simple? Or the bias blind yourself?

Why would compromises have to be bigger?

Bro you have any ideia how software development works? Because your questions makes no sense at all.

MS to mitigate the compromises between 360 and XB1 used two different teams to handle the games and even so they had to make compromises in scope and scale.

Now imagine if they didn’t do that how amount of compromises they had to do with the game if developed by the same team for XB1 and 360.

Is that clear enough? It the same I wrote before and you read.

Maybe you need to find somebody that agree with you opinion but you are in a thread that the subject is the opposite of what you think for obvious reasons... software development doesn’t work like you think.

 

[Gavin Stevens]

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, I think you're spot on but I'm interested to know what you think about the following and how they will handle it:

How do Microsoft handle 3rd party gamepass games that will potentially be next-gen only? So as an example, lets say the next Darksiders gets scheduled for next year, is next gen only and they manage to strike a deal with THQ to get it on gamepass within the first 12 months of the release of Series X.

Do they create a new "next-gen" tier of subscription much like like there is a separate PC only subscription for gamepass? Or do they keep it as is and create fragmentation within their subscription service?

I think a big driver for why they are even doing this whole cross-gen thing is gamepass to make sure subscribers stuck on older consoles don't feel hard done by. It will be interesting to see how they handle new 3rd party games arriving on the service in that respect.

Simple really, the same way they handle pc game pass.

If a game is only SX, it simply won’t show up on the Xbox one dash. There really isn’t much more do it.

The subscription isn’t changing any time soon, according to Phil. It’s making bank atm. When it starts to run into trouble that could change, but right now it not only makes MS shit loads of money, but also is amazing value to the point everybody wants in.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

People seem to also have forgot MS are supposed to be releasing TWO next gen machines...

An interesting concept is that Sony may also have 2 versions of hardware in development.

A slightly less powered and cheaper console which may launch as the PS5, especially if they see news like this from MS and their ‘anchored’ approach to next gen.

If MS aren’t ready for Series X exclusives for at least a year -

Sony could launch a PS5 Pro about 2 years / 2 and a half years in and once again have the power advantage PLUS back catalog of exclusives.

MS can’t really add a third box into the mix as that will absolutely confuse matters...

Sony is in a Win / Win situation next gen.

 

[JLB]

I think this strategy comes with 3 major drawbacks

1) Development:
Developing games across multiple generations is an extremely expensive and lengthy task, sometimes farmed out to other devs with largely disappointing results.

SeX games will still be mandated to show off the new hardware, so games will still be made to look good, then have to be extensively reworked to work on old hw.

2) Marketing:
Games made for last gen may quickly look outdated, as they did at the beginning of this gen.
Entire scenes and systems which can show off improvements will just get cut.

Now, launch games aren't usually the best titles, but they can still be pretty fun, especially when there aren't a ton of new games to play.
Furthermore, their main aim is to sell just how big the improvement is. They need to work as proof-of-concept.
Ryse might have "failed" at being a great game, but it succeeded in selling people on the jump in graphical fidelity of the X1.

MS might ameliorate this by trying to limit how much it markets old-gen versions of its new games but:
a) Then what's the point of making that version at all
b) With GP people will just see the game is available anyway and not consider the SeX

3) Competition:
The competition isn't bound by these limitations, and will absolutely hammer home this difference.

Imagine: next Halo, we transition from a busy party to an intense shootout, as your base is under attack and dynamically crumbles and rolls through several other areas during the fight.
Even if this part is hot garbage to play, it can show off what CAN happen NOW. Plus, it could actually be amazing fun to play.


SSD speeds, RT, VRS etc. are buzzwords, and it's vital to market them visually.
It's one thing to talk about power, it's a whole other to sell your console as being powerful.

Let me gently disagree.
On Development, although targeting multiple platforms is indeed more expensive, it is the norm on PC as well as most third party companies. So companies and tech had evolved to open avenues where scaling up and down is a rational path.
How much work is that? We dont know, only devs. But as stated on DF video, many of the launch titles started its dev cycle even before Series X specs were defined. I mean, some of them, like Halo Infinite, started 5 years ago, when not even Xbox One S was finished, and Xbox One X was just a blueprint.

On Marketing, I think thats not correct. Theres plenty of examples to the contrary. Imagine GTAV when got released on current gen consoles. It didnt feel outdated. Same, as mentioned on the video, for cross gen games like Tomb Raider or Forza Horizon 2.

"With GP people will just see the game is available anyway and not consider the SeX"
An Microsoft would be more than happy with that. At the end, if a GP user pays the subscription, it doesnt really matter if it plays on a current gen or Series X console. They dont make money out of console sales. Eventually, those who are early adopters / graphic enthusiasts will buy Series X day one -like me-, but many other Xbox users could keep its current console and wait a year for a price drop, or a customized SKU, or the release of a particular game that shows a huge fidelity jump.

On competition, as I've said on other threads, I think we should not give for granted that there wont be cross gen titles on Playstation. Maybe Sony will have ps5 exclusive games, which is fine, but I dont believe Sony will just full stop releasing first party games on PS4. I could be wrong, so probably its a wait and see game.

 

[Orpheum]

Sony first-party will be developed exclusively to PS5.
After Ghost of Tsushima PS4 won’t receive more first-party games except for maybe MLB The Show due license contract issues.

Precious gens were never like that lol
You always have exclusives games to the new generation at launch.

Right my bad. I didn't use my brain. I was thinking about stuff like destiny which is of course third party...