• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

GI.biz: "Sony 'believes in generations', which is the fundamental philosophical difference between itself and Xbox"

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
23,383
27,099
1,845
Console generation, I get the concept.
I am just wondering if it’s applicable on PC.
How do you define a generation on PC?
New graphic cards? Processor evolution?

The big jumps come around the time the new console generation starts. The unfortunate truth is that most PC games are console ports.

If there's no generation leap this doesn't happen and it would lead to industry wide stagnation that would even impact the hardware manufacturers.

The likes of Nvidia want PC gamers to feel threatened by consoles so that they can sell them shiny new graphics cards. They want games to release that push people to upgrade their hardware in order to have a good experience.

All of this "no generations" crap is bullshit, no enthusiast who is buying new RTX graphics cards or new consoles day one wants things to stay the same. Which is why I find it laughable that it's the people who are lining up to buy the Series X on day one who are the ones that are most likely to parrot this nonsense.
 
Last edited:

El Pistolero

Member
May 21, 2020
251
435
240
Sony believes in generations that’s why the 3 biggest titles are 1) Up ported Spider man DLC 2) A PS3 up port (if makes it) 3) a ratchet sequel that looks like the last one with more garbage on screen (if makes it).

good thing they dropped BC or they wouldn’t have anything.

Oh, so a new generation implies getting rid of all previous franchises! I guess that none of the consoles that have released in the last 20 years or so has marked a generational shift then! Just when you think someone has hit the bottom with their nonsensical takes, they strive to surprise you by summoning the fanatical magic shovel before digging their way down to the bottomless pit...
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
12,002
6,573
1,365
Because then they couldn't justify the XSS, it's obvious.
Also the X1X didn't set the world on fire like they expected.

Its just shows what an empty statement it is though. They aren't going to be selling current gen hardware indefinitely and as a result developers will also abandon the platform in time. They might choose not to "believe" in generations, but the reality still exists and at best they are just deferring it slightly.
 

JCK75

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,462
1,459
445
I don't believe in generations, the entire reason I love PC is that it's just one big collection or games from the majority of the time I've been alive at my fingertips.
I like where MS is going with it (but feel like if you're going to force devs to support previous gen it's reasonable to support the One X, not so much the original/S because they are so friggen weak)
 

Reficul

Member
May 12, 2020
126
488
300
46
The crow eating will be glorious. 2013 SSD is the new hidden dGPU. Keep fighting the good fight. Cyberpunk 2077 will be just the beginning of the meltdowns.
Crow happens to be my favorite dish so I Don't mind.
Why so serious? Can't take a joke?
 

Azurro

Member
Jun 11, 2018
1,874
3,249
420
Microsoft is a company that endlessly chases trends, and is usually behind on every trend it is trying to catch.

You have seen it before. GaaS takes off? "Quick, we need some GaaS games!" and Sea of Thieves comes out. Remember when single player games were supposed to die? "Let's turn Scalebound into a co-op multiplayer game!" and so on and so forth.

Gamepass is just their latest attempt at trying to chase some trend. It doesn't generate any profit, but it's the only thing they have that looks good on paper. That's the only reason this "new generations are anti consumer" narrative was spun up.

I just think it's a bit funny since on the one hand, they went all in with "Series X eats monsters for breakfast!! Most powerful console ever!!" and on the other hand "hey, I'm not actually going to make games with that hardware in mind for a few years'.

Confused and ineffective messaging, because they don't want to state their actual strategy: "The only thing we want is for you to subscribe to GamePass. We give no fucks on what platform, old gen, new gen, we don't care, we'd put it on Playstation if Sony would let us. Please, just subscribe.".
 

Ten_Fold

Member
Jan 18, 2017
2,158
1,785
480
Microsoft ain’t got shit, yeah it’s cool to play 360 games still I wish Sony would at the VERY least let me play my ps1-2 disc, so I gotta give Microsoft some credit.
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
Sep 24, 2005
4,834
3,876
1,840
42
Sea lab
Oh, so a new generation implies getting rid of all previous franchises! I guess that none of the consoles that have released in the last 20 years or so has marked a generational shift then! Just when you think someone has hit the bottom with their nonsensical takes, they strive to surprise you by summoning the fanatical magic shovel before digging their way down to the bottomless pit...

not at all, it’s funny that Halo is getting shit for being up ported but Sony is doing the same thing they just took away the current gen version.

Would have been nice if they did have a few new games and not just stuff ported form pervious gens. Maybe in a few years
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ascend

Drewpee

Member
Apr 15, 2018
479
680
325

Ratchet & Clank is the unlikely star of the PS5 line-up | Opinion

The 18 year-old series has become the poster child for what a new generation can do

Ratchet & Clank has always been a technically accomplished series.

Before my career in the media, I worked in video games QA and that included several months on the PS3 game Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction. We had tested a number of early PS3 titles at the time, including Warhawk, Resistance: Fall of Man, Snakeball (don't pretend you don't remember it) and the first Uncharted. But Ratchet & Clank was the surprise favourite, the game that we felt was the most technically accomplished, satisfying and the best reason why anyone should consider spending money on a PlayStation 3. It wasn't purely the visual splendour, but how satisfying it was to just move around and hit things. This is a series fine-tuned to feel as good as it looks, there's even a document within Insomniac on how many crates should exist in a given area, how they should be stacked and how many explosive crates should be use

Considering that, it perhaps shouldn't come as a huge surprise that the Lombax and his robot friend have emerged as the best evidence yet for what a PlayStation 5 can do above what we've seen in the past. And not purely from a visual perspective (although it's clearly a step up from what was achieved with the PS4 Ratchet & Clank remake), but in terms of gameplay. Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart's opening trailer during the initial PS5 reveal showed a game where players can jump to entirely different areas instantly and without a loading screen. There was no need to squint to see any evidence of ray-tracing here, it was immediately apparent that this was a game that could indeed only be done on PlayStation 5.

Last week, a longer version of that demo was the grand finale to Gamescom's Opening Night Live. It was the closing act opposite the Call of Duty opener, and received top billing over all those Star Wars trailers. Medal of Honor and that fancy Mafia remake. Its position in the running order had nothing to do with Ratchet & Clank's commercial popularity -- it has its fans but it's no Star Wars -- but because of what it represents: this is what a new console generation will offer consumers.

Granted, it's not had the same impact as that stunning Unreal 5 demo that Epic got running on PS5. But this is about what games can do and how they feel. In fact, how games feel is a big part of the PS5 campaign, and last night Insomniac detailed how it's been using the DualSense controller. The developer detailed the way in which the haptic feedback will allow all of the game's bizarre armoury to feel different, while the adaptive triggers enabled the firm to add in secondary functions for the weapons. You can also imagine what sort of experience you'd get from the 3D audio, with trains whizzing past and civilians running into the distance. Just like Nintendo uses Mario to highlight the functionality of its new devices, Sony is using a familiar (almost elderly by games industry standards) franchise to show us precisely what its new machine will do.

Ratchet & Clank is not going to be PS5's biggest game. Of course not. Insomniac's own Spider-Man series is a significantly bigger beast in terms of popularity. Nevertheless, Rift Apart has become a poster child for Sony's argument around the importance of console generations. Check out any recent PlayStation exec interview, and you'll likely stumble upon the phrase 'we believe in generations'. This has become the almost unofficial PlayStation slogan, and represents the fundamental philosophical difference between Sony and its competitor.

Xbox is breaking down the walls between generations and platforms. It feels the idea of getting consumers to buy an expensive new device to play the latest titles is 'completely counter to what gaming is about'. It's a strong argument in the current climate, where gaming has become a powerful tool in which to connect people. The idea that Xbox One, Series X and PC gamers can play Halo: Infinite together is a compelling prospect; couple that with the Game Pass value proposition and the current economic climate, then PlayStation's pitch that users should spend hundreds of dollars on a new machine, in order to play $60 - $70 sequels to games that were perfectly great on their current device... well that feels like a big ask, at least for anyone outside of the core fanbase.

Yet Sony 'believes in generations'. It believes that new consoles should enable developers to do more than just create prettier, faster and busier versions of what came before. It believes creators should be given the encouragement to build with the latest hardware in mind, and not worry about satisfying those still gaming in the past. And it has to make that argument in a world where customers can't easily touch the new machine or experience how different these games really are.

There's only so much a clever TV ad can do to make that case. Sony will need to highlight the games that can't be done anywhere else other than PlayStation 5, and in Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, it has at least one title in which to do it.

Source: Game Industry

Based on this article I am assuming what Ratchet and Clank has presented is just not possible on a PC or Xbox Series X?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

Journey

Banned
Aug 18, 2014
2,928
2,670
620
There will be crow eating but it won't go the way you believe


And what is it that I believe? PS5 will show it's advantages in SSD performance for sure, load times will be better, some games will show what can be done with an SSD, but many forget that Series X also has an SSD with an incredible boost in I/O over last gen, so it will have its own list of games showing off what the SSD brings, look no further than "The Medium" which instantly loads multiple realities. Overall performance will be better on Xbox Series X, heavy hitters like Cyberpunk and especially anything pushing Ray Tracing will have an advantage on Series X.

I see games like Control UE with the AWE expansion coming to both PS5 and Xbox Series X having a performance advantage on XSX. DF analysis may show a higher base pixel resolution on Series X and/or better framerate or more applied Ray Tracing effects. Things will be minimal initially as companies like Activision/Ubisoft push for profits and platform parity, but those games that push the high end PC will have to have a hierarchy with PC coming out on top, followed by XSX > PS5 > X1X > PS4 Pro in that order.

Let's hear your belief's while we fill this bowl of crow soup.
 
Last edited:

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Sep 30, 2019
4,316
8,191
580
And what is it that I believe? PS5 will show it's advantages in SSD performance for sure, load times will be better, some games will show what can be done with an SSD, but many forget that Series X also has an SSD with an incredible boost in I/O over last gen, so it will have its own list of games showing off what the SSD brings, look no further than "The Medium" which instantly loads multiple realities. Overall performance will be better on Xbox Series X, heavy hitters like Cyberpunk and especially anything pushing Ray Tracing will have an advantage on Series X.

I see games like Control UE with the AWE expansion coming to both PS5 and Xbox Series X having a performance advantage on XSX. DF analysis may show a higher base pixel resolution on Series X and/or better framerate or more applied Ray Tracing effects.

Let's hear belief's while we fill this bowl of crow soup.
I'm referring to the perceived difference between the versions of these games
 
Dec 29, 2018
3,470
9,964
705
Microsoft forgot how to keep it simple and straightforward (again).

I think people just wanted a powerful next-gen Xbox with great games.
Most people aren't hostile to the idea of having to buy a new console for a new generation of games.
Microsoft's next-gen strategy isn't a response to what gamers want (who was asking for ninth-gen games on Xbox One?).
It's really about reshaping the Xbox to fit into Microsoft's wider cloud-based vision.
They want to turn Xbox into Office 365.
Gaming as a service.
Thats been evident for a while now.
 

YeulEmeralda

Member
Aug 8, 2020
604
566
285
Its just shows what an empty statement it is though. They aren't going to be selling current gen hardware indefinitely and as a result developers will also abandon the platform in time. They might choose not to "believe" in generations, but the reality still exists and at best they are just deferring it slightly.

So long as there is technological progress in the chip industry there will be generations.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,261
4,666
525
Let's put all the biases aside and simply look at things from a business perspective.

Sony's perspective is that they can make more money by having the system as closed off to the past as possible. It makes it easier for them to not have to take into account that much from their past consoles. You have to pay for everything on the new system, even if it is a revamped game. But it's up to you if you want it or not. Their promise is that they will give you the most up to date experience that current technology can give you, and you significantly pay specifically for exactly what you want.
Bottom line; They play on your novelty factor and expect you to pay high enough for it piece by piece, generation to generation, game by game, feature by feature.

Microsoft's perspective
is that they can make more money by making their Xbox service as continuous as possible. It is hard to keep almost everything from the past compatible to the most recent generation, but they believe that long term it is worth the cost to do so. You can get upgraded experiences with the newer hardware, and although the newer games are not completely up to the technological limit initially, over time the growth and advancement in games is still there, and the user gets to not only keep access to all their past games, they also get free improvements on them. You get a large gaming package for a reasonable price.
Bottom line; They play on your nostalgia factor and work to keep you constantly hooked into their service for a relatively fixed income for them and expense for you.

Neither is wrong or right. They can both work for different types of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XOMTOR

truth411

Member
May 19, 2014
1,996
776
530
And what is it that I believe? PS5 will show it's advantages in SSD performance for sure, load times will be better, some games will show what can be done with an SSD, but many forget that Series X also has an SSD with an incredible boost in I/O over last gen, so it will have its own list of games showing off what the SSD brings, look no further than "The Medium" which instantly loads multiple realities. Overall performance will be better on Xbox Series X, heavy hitters like Cyberpunk and especially anything pushing Ray Tracing will have an advantage on Series X.

I see games like Control UE with the AWE expansion coming to both PS5 and Xbox Series X having a performance advantage on XSX. DF analysis may show a higher base pixel resolution on Series X and/or better framerate or more applied Ray Tracing effects. Things will be minimal initially as companies like Activision/Ubisoft push for profits and platform parity, but those games that push the high end PC will have to have a hierarchy with PC coming out on top, followed by XSX > PS5 > X1X > PS4 Pro in that order.

Let's hear your belief's while we fill this bowl of crow soup.
*keep hope alive gif*
Lol.
 

Journey

Banned
Aug 18, 2014
2,928
2,670
620
I'm referring to the perceived difference between the versions of these games


How do you measure perception that can vary from gamer to gamer? Just look at the PS3 vs 360 head to heads, that had to be the closest generation in terms of graphics, yet when DF gave the nod to 360, some gamers relied on that to purchase the "Superior" version.

I personally will be owning both a PS5 and XSX, but will likely be using the PS5 mostly for exclusives and XSX for multiplatform and MS/PC titles since my PC won't be getting an upgrade until at least a year after the console's launch.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Sep 30, 2019
4,316
8,191
580
How do you measure perception that can vary from gamer to gamer? Just look at the PS3 vs 360 head to heads, that had to be the closest generation in terms of graphics, yet when DF gave the nod to 360, some gamers relied on that to purchase the "Superior" version.

I personally will be owning both a PS5 and XSX, but will likely be using the PS5 mostly for exclusives and XSX for multiplatform and MS/PC titles since my PC won't be getting an upgrade until at least a year after the console's launch.
Just saying that the difference will be very small and most gamers won't care
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,122
2,707
1,590
Well, just because you asked so nicely and you seem like a solid poster...

  • You won’t be forced into the next generation. We want every Xbox player to play all the new games from Xbox Game Studios. That’s why Xbox Game Studios titles we release in the next couple of years—like Halo Infinite—will be available and play great on Xbox Series X and Xbox One. We won’t force you to upgrade to Xbox Series X at launch to play Xbox exclusives.


So we went from won't force you into buying an XSX to play Xbox exclusives at launch to we don't believe in generations at all and we will only make X1 games. Got it.
 

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
7,057
7,914
800
England
I don't believe in generations, the entire reason I love PC is that it's just one big collection or games from the majority of the time I've been alive at my fingertips.
I like where MS is going with it (but feel like if you're going to force devs to support previous gen it's reasonable to support the One X, not so much the original/S because they are so friggen weak)
Even as a PC gamer, you still need to thank console generations for keeping gaming moving constantly forward.

Without consoles, what exactly would be the minimum spec developers would be aiming for? 10 year old systems? Integrated graphics? The weakest GPU's currently on sale? What drive would there be as such, for most people to upgrade their specs? Consoles keep the baseline moving, and with it the upper ceiling for what high end PC games can realistically and easily afford to add as nice extras.

Also there's no point in keep the XOX and dropping the XO. No one is going to just develop for the niche mid gene refresh, and games would still be hobbled by the shite CPU.
 

iHaunter

Member
Sep 6, 2015
2,315
2,017
550

I can someone hear her voice in my head. Make it stop.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
7,607
17,578
725
So we went from won't force you into buying an XSX to play Xbox exclusives at launch to we don't believe in generations at all and we will only make X1 games. Got it.
Pretty much. The messaging is like a smorgasbord of dumbfuckery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

Journey

Banned
Aug 18, 2014
2,928
2,670
620
Just saying that the difference will be very small and most gamers won't care


Gamers care about visuals and they want the superior version. Owning both PS5 and XSX will have gamers turning over to DF to view which version to get, and whether you believe the difference is small, the majority will be picking up the superior version, I know I will be it PS5 or XSX.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,122
2,707
1,590
What about the XSX isn't a generational leap over the X1? Is it possible that this no generations meme going on here could mean that XSX is the only next gen console that can play games from 4 console generations natively? It's all about bias and perspective. If you don't like the Xbox you spin their backward compatibility as a negative. If you look at the games coming up on the XSX there are are 5 or fewer games that are on the X1 but still people here claim the X1 is holding next gen back. Halo Infinite gets delayed and now XSX has 'no games'. It's all about bias. Some is on MS and some is on fanatics who dislike the Xbox and will turn anything they do into something indicating the Xbox will no longer be a development platform. The naysayers have said that about the Xbox since the original. Why gamers would want fewer options I'll never know.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: SynTha1 and jaysius
Aug 28, 2019
3,689
7,697
625
www.instagram.com
One thing that can't be denied is Sony's excellent messaging of late. Stuff like the new R&C are really doing wonders for them heading into the PS5 launch. I wish I could say the same for MS and Series X but currently I just don't see that same momentum at large, especially with Halo Infinite's delay. And that's not to say MS don't have some good games coming in the launch period but most will be multi-platform or are smaller AA-style experiences (The Medium, Scorn) that probably won't command the level of attention of a R&C or Miles Morales game (never mind the fact none of their most impressive stuff so far (Bright Memory Infinite, Exo-Mecha, Scorn, The Ascent, Flight Simulator 2020) have been seen running on an actual Series X unit :S).

That isn't to say Sony haven't had some mistakes here or there, either: Ubisoft seemingly let the cat out of the bag WRT lack of any BC older than PS4. But I think those are smaller incidents and the stuff Sony's doing right in terms of messaging strongly outweigh probable lack of PS1/PS2/PS3 BC (something they never really guaranteed in the first place).

All that said tho, this article's basically just playing into marketing jargons. Sony "believing in generations" is nothing remarkable because pretty much every new console ever released has seemingly "believed in generations" when you see how they were marketed. They may've never outright claimed that slogan but gamers knew what was up. Microsoft's generation-less messaging is also basically marketing jargon, but I think they've taken a much bigger hit here. Halo Infinite again is the culprit. MS said cross-gen wouldn't hold next-gen back and then they showed Halo Infinite. That game's problems are definitely due more to 343i being horribly ran at the top and having mediocre workplace culture but MS seem 100% okay letting the narrative form that XBO support was indeed the thing that screwed the game over (we have plenty of counter-examples to this narrative). None of the other 1st-party games shown in the July showcase had XBO versions listed aside maybe Grounded? If that's the case why even bother messaging on the idea of "generations are dead" or whatever?

Halo Infinite being delayed to 2021 now even puts the XBO version of that game in doubt, it would potentially be a waste of resources and the Series X could absolutely benefit from that being a next-gen only game by that point in the next-gen cycle. Let's just hope in such a case HI has a longer-term positive impact than TitanFall did for the XBO (yeah I just realized Halo Infinite is kind of taking up the role for Series X that TitanFall did for XBO...dunno how I feel about that tbh :S).

Was doing just that, they agree with what i said:

“In other [consumer technology] ecosystems you get more continuous innovation in hardware that you rarely see in consoles because consoles lock the hardware and software platforms together at the beginning and they ride the generation out for seven years or so,” said Spencer. “We’re allowing ourselves to decouple our software platform from the hardware platform on which it runs.”

“We can effectively feel a little bit more like what we see on PC where I can still go back and run my old Quake and Doom games, but then I can also see the best 4K games coming out. Hardware innovation continues and software takes advantage. I don’t have to jump generation and lose everything I played before.”


Also more recently:

"Xbox believes in generations. Generations of games that play on latest HW taking advantage of next-gen innovation offering more choice, value & variety than any console launch ever. All our Studios titles launch into Game Pass & you get those next-gen game upgrades for free."

AKA, they're taking an approach similar to PC where a new hardware doesn't lock out old gen titles. They want to treat buying a new console like upgrading your PC

I don't think this will be possible for at least another decade or so, likely longer. The "issue" with gaming is that there is no fully standardized set of hardware or software/API features, implementations, etc. like there is with, say, Blu-Ray disc players, televisions, etc. Consoles going x86/x86-64 may've been a first step in this direction but the fact there are other emerging segments of gaming like VR and AR still finding their full footing, prevents what MS wants from being capable for a good while.

The Big 3 would have to not only establish some sort of universal system of standards that all would have to support, but also have to allow other manufacturers (Samsung, JVC, Hitachi, LG, possibly also PC OEMs like Lenovo, Asus, Alienware etc) to freely license such a standard. ALL systems across the spectrum MUST support those established standards, meaning when the standards are updated, partners would have to eventually come around to support them.

Of course, this'd also mean part of the standard would include homogenizing the delivery platform for gaming content, meaning it'd be near impossible for hardware manufacturers to earn royalties off of software sales the way Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo currently do. Which would then mean...the price for hardware increases because manufacturers would need to earn a profit off the hardware sales (similar to AMD and Nvidia GPU sales on PC platforms). And unless major advances in game dev pipelines occur which help dramatically lower costs, I doubt you'd see software prices lower all that much.

3DO already tried this type of setup in 1993 and it failed. Personally I don't the idea itself is bad, but it requires a standard of homogenization in the hardware and software/API space WRT game consoles to really take hold if you want to get more hardware partners involved and to proliferate a platform standard that all partners can use, which can be updated over time and your partners can develop new hardware for it. SEGA sort of had a good idea with this for hardware partners like JVC and Hitachi in the 1990s making their own variants of MegaDrives and Saturns; however, this was exclusively in the realm of SEGA's systems at the time, and those other hardware vendors still had to sell at for-profit margins because they didn't get any cut on royalties.

I just find it a bit funny sometimes Microsoft want to treat buying new consoles like upgrading PCs when the main thing which defines PCs are them being an open standard that any manufacturer can freely choose to design around and choose what standardized features they want their hardware to support or exclude (often as a means of controlling pricing). MS would basically need to establish Xbox as an open platform to truly achieve this goal, but they already have a foothold on PCs doing this already.

Personally that might be the reason they are leveraging Series X development for deployment of feature standards into PC (and vice-versa) so tightly; I always felt MS would be the right ones to re-attempt Valve's Steambox strategy, and we're getting slight tinges of them doing this already. Over the next several years we'll see them ramping this up as they transition Xbox into a service that is mostly hardware-agnostic (though still hardware-bound in terms of MS releasing incremental upgrades to the Series systems). That service will be available on MS hardware and 3rd-party hardware that are open-standard to support their services like television, smartphones, possibly even Blu-Ray players etc. But by still manufacturing systems like the Series X and Series S, MS can ensure an optimal set of hardware to support their software (whether that remains native support or a transition to cloud gaming remains to be seen) and services, and ensure enough of a market presence for 3rd-parties to provide software support while simultaneously guaranteeing them a wide audience of cloud/streaming gamers using MS's services on other devices who will potentially play their game.

So I can see what MS's end-game goal is here, and it's pretty advanced while also being forward-thinking. My concern though is that they've maybe been too outwardly vocal about it to hardcore/core gamers not already in the ecosystem, too early. I don't think gamers at large are in the state of mind to either understand MS's vision or support it quite yet. Look at some of the online-centric stuff MS was pushing in 2013, specifically WRT digital purchases. They got tons of backlash because it was too soon of a concept to sell most gamers on. Five years later, though? Most gamers went majority digital-only, and it that's only been increasing since 2018.

Like it's probably been said multiple times by now, MS needs to get better at "reading the room", something Sony's been mastered for years.
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
290
470
275
New tech should never be held back by old tech. If a developer is going to release a game on two generations of a console (let's say Xbox One and Excess X) they're going to make this happen in the most efficient way possible. It is not efficient to make the game on one platform, and then start from scratch on another platform. The developers are going to make the game in whatever way lets them release it on both platforms with the least amount of effort. That means they will cut corners on the new generation so that they can use the same tricks on the old platform. This is common sense.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
23,383
27,099
1,845
What about the XSX isn't a generational leap over the X1? Is it possible that this no generations meme going on here could mean that XSX is the only next gen console that can play games from 4 console generations natively? It's all about bias and perspective. If you don't like the Xbox you spin their backward compatibility as a negative. If you look at the games coming up on the XSX there are are 5 or fewer games that are on the X1 but still people here claim the X1 is holding next gen back. Halo Infinite gets delayed and now XSX has 'no games'. It's all about bias. Some is on MS and some is on fanatics who dislike the Xbox and will turn anything they do into something indicating the Xbox will no longer be a development platform. The naysayers have said that about the Xbox since the original. Why gamers would want fewer options I'll never know.

Nobody is talking about backwards compatibility when there's been a discussion around generations and "scalability", that's just you attempting to shift the goalposts and make it about something it was never about.

Here's what papa Phil had to say about it:

... We should applaud load times and fidelity of scenes and framerate and input latency, and all of these things that we've focused on with the next generation. But that should not exclude people from being able to play. That's our point. How do we create an ecosystem where if you want to play an Xbox game, we're going to give you a way to go play it?

... So many of our teams are used to shipping on PC," says head of Xbox Game Studios Matt Booty. "If you look at some of the store comments you get on PC games, some of the more negative feedback is because people are trying to run the game on an old machine that is very underpowered, but they have the expectation that it should run. ...

Our teams have a pretty good skillset on architecting things so that it is scalable and putting that into the hands of players. We are so tightly connected to the hardware team and the platform team, that I don't ever worry about taking advantage of the high end. I don't think we'll be in a situation where our teams won't be making the most of what is given to them. In fact, I don't even know how we'd do that [laughs]. Keeping a game team away from new hardware, new features and new things, that is where they're naturally going to gravitate.

Xbox Series X is the most powerful console out there and it will have absolutely the best versions of our console games. But that's not to exclude other people from being able to play.

I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about

Frankly, held back is a meme that gets created by people who are too caught up in device competition


So if the head of Xbox never made this discussion about backwards compatibility, why are you?
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Sep 30, 2019
4,316
8,191
580
Gamers care about visuals and they want the superior version. Owning both PS5 and XSX will have gamers turning over to DF to view which version to get, and whether you believe the difference is small, the majority will be picking up the superior version, I know I will be it PS5 or XSX.
The superior version will always be PC and not many will buy an XSX for slightly better multiplatform games. MS has to bring the exclusives. Avowed, Everwild and Fable is a start
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
46,115
11,781
2,000
MS has rebranded it's own failings and the idea of technological stagnation as both pro consumer and innovation, but at it's heart it's fundamentally antithetical to the way technology works and customers behave.

People do not want current gen to last forever, or for all future games to have to cater to old, feature starved, cheap technology for all time.

Generations have never and will never hold gaming back.

Infact the whole reason they exist, and have kept being used for all these decades, is because they work to improve gaming, to constantly keep us moving forward and improving instead of getting stuck in a rut.


The fact is MS do not have a clear goal for gaming beyond maximum return for the smallest investment. Their lack of a clear vision for the experiemce and art involved in games is self evident in their derivative and poorly managed first party output, and I find it insane that so many are still so willing to believe they have some masterplan, and library of incredible games, just around the corner, waiting to be revealed.

They're not trying to cater to everyone, they're just hoping to get money from anyone. They've spread a wide net of 'good enough', cheap and cheerful, "it's OK that it's mediocre because gamepass is so cheap", it's the classic jack of all trades, master of none schtick.

But is that all any of us want? Good enough? Just what we've got now but a bit prettier? Is that all people really want from their hobby, a samey, underwhelming experience that has the sole positive of being cheap?

Because I'd much rather gaming be allowed to continue to evolve, to improve, to raise the bar instead of lower expectations, and for the hobby I've loved all my life to have a future worth investing in.

"Good enough", to me, simply isn't good enough.

I don't understand why so many American video game podcaster don't understand the bolded in this post. Gamers have spoken with their wallets and Nintendo and Sony have been benefitting in a BIG way due to that.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
14,571
14,664
1,650
Well, they're two different companies. Sony is primarily a hardware company, always have been. Obviously it stands to reason that a hardware company is in the business of selling hardware. They are similar to Apple in this way. Microsoft is transitioning to being a service company. Service companies are interested in pushing out their services to as many people as possible in a platform-agnostic way. See how Google puts their shit on everything, including Apple. Obviously it makes sense that a service company would be less interested in selling hardware and more interested in getting their services to run in as many places as possible with similar functionality.

MS has rebranded it's own failings and the idea of technological stagnation as both pro consumer and innovation, but at it's heart it's fundamentally antithetical to the way technology works and customers behave.

People do not want current gen to last forever, or for all future games to have to cater to old, feature starved, cheap technology for all time.

Generations have never and will never hold gaming back.

Infact the whole reason they exist, and have kept being used for all these decades, is because they work to improve gaming, to constantly keep us moving forward and improving instead of getting stuck in a rut.

No, they exist because the market was based around selling closed hardware boxes from the beginning. The truth is, you don't need generations to advance gaming. You can look at the PC gaming market from the 80s through the early 2000s (when the PC game market got tethered to consoles) to see how gaming advanced alongside hardware. In fact, it was MORE innovative and dynamic than the console generation system, because it was based on an open market as opposed to a handful of hardware manufacturers defining how gaming was going to be for the next 5+ years. if technology was good it got adopted quickly and games took advantage of it, like sound cards, custom peripherals, modems, 3D accelerators, CD-ROM drives, etc.

of course, MS is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by releasing this generational hardware while saying it's not generational and mandating support. In a true non-generational market, the Xbox One would have been abandoned years ago for being too weak and shitty.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
46,115
11,781
2,000
Let's put all the biases aside and simply look at things from a business perspective.

Sony's perspective is that they can make more money by having the system as closed off to the past as possible. It makes it easier for them to not have to take into account that much from their past consoles. You have to pay for everything on the new system, even if it is a revamped game. But it's up to you if you want it or not. Their promise is that they will give you the most up to date experience that current technology can give you, and you significantly pay specifically for exactly what you want.
Bottom line; They play on your novelty factor and expect you to pay high enough for it piece by piece, generation to generation, game by game, feature by feature.

Microsoft's perspective
is that they can make more money by making their Xbox service as continuous as possible. It is hard to keep almost everything from the past compatible to the most recent generation, but they believe that long term it is worth the cost to do so. You can get upgraded experiences with the newer hardware, and although the newer games are not completely up to the technological limit initially, over time the growth and advancement in games is still there, and the user gets to not only keep access to all their past games, they also get free improvements on them. You get a large gaming package for a reasonable price.
Bottom line; They play on your nostalgia factor and work to keep you constantly hooked into their service for a relatively fixed income for them and expense for you.

Neither is wrong or right. They can both work for different types of people.

Sony's perspective is the same perspective that Nintendo uses too. So who do you trust more in the console space? Sony and Nintendo........or Microsoft?
 

NullZ3r0

Member
Jun 8, 2017
1,343
3,140
485
For a company that "doesn't believe in generations" why are they the ones who have already ceased production on their current flagship model?
One has nothing to do with the other. Ceasing a model in production doesn't make your current game library disappear.

Due to Xbox One BC with 360, I got to play Fable 3 and Gears 2 & 3 for the first time. I have a huge backlog of Xbox One games that I need to play but never had the time.

People tend to think of BC as replaying old games when it's not always the case. It's often times a chance to play old games for the first time. And with Series X, some of those games will have improved graphics.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,122
2,707
1,590
Nobody is talking about backwards compatibility when there's been a discussion around generations and "scalability", that's just you attempting to shift the goalposts and make it about something it was never about.

Here's what papa Phil had to say about it:














So if the head of Xbox never made this discussion about backwards compatibility, why are you?
Again less than 5 games are X1 games including Halo Infinite coming to XSX. None of the comments you listed support the 'holding back' meme or that the XSX isn't a generation leap over the X1. Backward compatibility is all about blurring generations. That compatibility is all about scalability too older X360 games run at 4K on the XSX that is not scaling? It isn't leaving your games behind. People don't want to give Xbox any credit and that's fine but don't act like bias isn't the reason that credit isn't given. If the PS5 could play PS2 games at 4K I KNOW you'd be singing its praises.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
290
470
275
People tend to think of BC as replaying old games when it's not always the case. It's often times a chance to play old games for the first time. And with Series X, some of those games will have improved graphics.

People tend to think of backwards compatibility as newer systems being compatible with older games. That's the end of it. It doesn't matter if the game is "new to you" or not. If you didn't play a game for 10 years you don't have a right to get mad at Sony because their newest console doesn't support playing that game which was developed for an entirely different console. Buy a retro-console and enjoy the game, or move on.
 

JCK75

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,462
1,459
445
Even as a PC gamer, you still need to thank console generations for keeping gaming moving constantly forward.

Without consoles, what exactly would be the minimum spec developers would be aiming for? 10 year old systems? Integrated graphics? The weakest GPU's currently on sale? What drive would there be as such, for most people to upgrade their specs? Consoles keep the baseline moving, and with it the upper ceiling for what high end PC games can realistically and easily afford to add as nice extras.

Also there's no point in keep the XOX and dropping the XO. No one is going to just develop for the niche mid gene refresh, and games would still be hobbled by the shite CPU.

I only suggest it because it's a more reasonable goal, the Xbox One and S were just so horribly underpowered it becomes an unreasonable expectation.. I don't hop on my Xbox One S often but when I do the difference from my PC on games like Forza Horizon 3-4 is so huge it's insane.. just like with a PC aiming for a game to run on a GTX 1050 right now is not unreasonable, but going for a 1030 would be.. which is the only reason I say One X is reasonable, One S and under really is not except for lightweight indie games.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
23,383
27,099
1,845
Again less than 5 games are X1 games including Halo Infinite coming to XSX. None of the comments you listed support the 'holding back' meme or that the XSX isn't a generation leap over the X1. Backward compatibility is all about blurring generations. That compatibility is all about scalability too older X360 games run at 4K on the XSX that is not scaling? It isn't leaving your games behind. People don't want to give Xbox any credit and that's fine but don't act like bias isn't the reason that credit isn't given. If the PS5 could play PS2 games at 4K I KNOW you'd be singing its praises.

Phil Spencer isn't going to talk about cross gen holding anything back when he's the one who is an advocate for it. It's sad that you're calling it a "meme" just because he is despite us seeing the negative effects of cross gen development and hearing from developers who would rather not have to worry about the older consoles.

He's talking about leaving people behind in the article above, not games.

If you want to talk about backwards compatibility we can do so in an appropriate thread, it's not like the topic hasn't come up in the last couple of days.