Support NeoGAF

[Shmunter]

It is very interesting to hear the argument that "cross-gen" games do not hold back next-gen development when the very nature of it's state was meant to work across both consoles. Placing TLOU/GTAV as examples fall short when Uncharted 4, RDR2, The Witcher 3 and the TLOU2 would've made the argument redundant.

And yet it appears, they are giving too much credit on current gen hardware. Even looking at current-gen games at the highest level settings fall short of that Unreal Engine 5 demo as well as Horizon: Forbidden Wilds.

The question is right now, "what" exactly is scalable down to hardware and what isn't. Mark Cerny's last PS5 spec reveal shows the SSD would dramatically give freedom to developers to make levels with minimum constraint. Does this mean that with some "optimizations" and some magic sprinkle dust the PS4 would be able to run that level without compromise???

IT means the levels on the PS5 version would be diluted. Why? Because if the mandate from the start is to build the same game across the devices, consideration needs to be paid to whats possible.

You do not shoot for whats impossible if the mandate is clear that it needs to work on XYZ hardware. Once the product is shipped, people wouldn't even know what it 'could' have been like and just take it for what it is.

Only when next gen exclusives start flexing their muscles, people will start noticing a delta between similar genre games and start naturally praising the better contenders.

 

[DarkMage619]

I mentioned two additional and you completely ignored them.

Oh I'm sorry I missed the forced cross gen X1 games you mentioned. Please restate because I didn't see them in your posts.

 

[longdi]

When storage was the limiting factor....

DF Retro: why Resident Evil 2 on N64 is one of the most ambitious console ports of all time

How two CDs were crammed on to one 64MB cart.

DF Retro: why Resident Evil 2 on N64 is one of the most ambitious console ports of all time

www.eurogamer.net

 

[supernova8]

IT means the levels on the PS5 version would be diluted. Why? Because if the mandate from the start is to build the same game across the devices, consideration needs to be paid to whats possible.

You do not shoot for whats impossible if the mandate is clear that it needs to work on XYZ hardware. Once the product is shipped, people wouldn't even know what it 'could' have been like and just take it for what it is.

Only when next gen exclusives start flexing their muscles, people will start noticing a delta between similar genre games and start naturally praising the better contenders.

What annoys me is that we might not see anything truly next-gen from FIFA until very late in the generation if current trends are anything to go by. FIFA was cross-gen (ie PS3, 360) up to FIFA 19 and FIFA 20 was the first one to drop the old consoles. Considering FIFA 14 was the first current gen game to come out, we wouldn't get a true 'next-gen' title until like FIFA 25 or something. I really hope not but I don't trust EA Sports not to just use the SSDs for fast loading times and nothing else.

 

[CamHostage]

The question is right now, "what" exactly is scalable down to hardware and what isn't. Mark Cerny's last PS5 spec reveal shows the SSD would dramatically give freedom to developers to make levels with minimum constraint. Does this mean that with some "optimizations" and some magic sprinkle dust the PS4 would be able to run that level without compromise???

My kind of blind understanding of how games are made in a console generation transition is that a developer can seemingly either try a lot of new stuff, or maximize the known stuff.

• If you build your game around new stuff (let's imagine a game totally built for raytracing and boldly uses no other lighting system/technique, although a 100%-raytraced game is a dragon's egg on even the upcoming hardware...), you're breaking from known technology to explore the future, and you're at the mercy of the changes of the hardware or the unexpected limitations & complications that arise in development, and you could fail, but you could get something out of it really extraordinary and you could end up with something that sets the pace for nextgen and makes everything else look like "pastgen+".

• If you build your game around known stuff, you can slather on effects and beef up models and just go 10x on everything because you know the hardware can handle it if the old hardware can handle it, and you can even put some limited use of next-gen techniques on top of it all (throw in a little bit of raytracing on a few shiny surfaces, why the hell not?), and you know you're not going to fail because the challenges to making everything better are just time and money rather than technology... but underneath all the shiny new surfaces, its old roots may show.

And I think Microsoft's thinking was, who is really building "next-gen" games a core level right off the bat?

Because even if you look at all those PS5 games which are absolutely not cross-gen... they still are a little bit cross-gen, just with no crossing. None of them appear to be "built from the ground up" for next-gen. Horizon 2 is a Decima Engine with all the enhancements Guerilla has been making and showing off since H1/Death Stranding. Godfall pulls no great surprises out of the UE4 bag, just with a sheen of raytracing and GI making it shine. GT7 we don't know enough about but PD usually starts by kitting out its previous engine. Demon's Souls is probably mostly new but might be using the foundations of SotC. Project Athia is either Luminous Engine or UE4, one of the past two FF engine cores. Spider-Man Miles Morales is for sure the Spider-Man engine on steroids; similarly R&C is a great upgrade over the PS4 game but it probably shares a lot of tech (and probably could have been ported down except that a theoretical PS4 version would have been fucking miserable spending >45-second loadtimes every time you fall into a void...)

So, UE5 isn't ready to go, these SSDs are allowing invisible loadtimes & a few "levels-loading-levels" games but otherwise aren't rewriting the book yet, so many of these techniques that are "next-gen" like raytracing and global illumination and machine-learning enhancements have been the hot tech for years now (remember that UE4 was supposed to have GI and had to pull it,) and so many game productions are relying on manpower and money and management rather than groundbreaking new tech (analysis of TLoU2 and GoT say it's not that Sony's studios are doing things nobody else could do, Sony is just backing its studios enough so that the attention to detail gets done.) Developers stuck to enhanced versions of traditional techniques for the majority of games on the platform rather than pioneering anything revolutionary, and cross-gen or engine reuse is pretty common early on, so why assume next-gen will reinvent the wheel as soon as it shifts into 1st gear?

The terrible showcase of Halo Infinity, however, showed all the possible follies in their belief, and then some. So no matter what Microsoft believes is possible with scalable engines, they've poisoned the water to any interest in that approach.

 

[Type_Raver]

For a person in his position, he should've known better and this has exposed his intelligence on the subject.

We can all learn at least...

 

[supernova8]

Oh I'm sorry I missed the forced cross gen X1 games you mentioned. Please restate because I didn't see them in your posts.

I'm not the one who said they are definitely forced - those were your words trying to put them into my mouth. I said they are not really 100% free to do whatever they want. The fact is that some of those first party games (not just Halo) ARE coming to Xbox One. That is just a matter of fact. Whether Xbox as an entity forced it or whether the studio themselves forced it is, in the end, irrelevant. The fact that any of them are coming to Xbox One means that Spencer or someone else reporting to Spencer either allowed it or mandated it because otherwise they do not get their budget signed off.

In contrast with PS5, there are zero first party titles coming to PS4. Zero. Zilch.

 

[supernova8]

My kind of blind understanding of how games are made in a console generation transition is that a developer can seemingly either try a lot of new stuff, or maximize the known stuff.

• If you build your game around new stuff (let's imagine a game totally built for raytracing and boldly uses no other lighting system/technique, although a 100%-raytraced game is a dragon's egg on even the upcoming hardware...), you're breaking from known technology to explore the future, and you're at the mercy of the changes of the hardware or the unexpected limitations & complications that arise in development, and you could fail, but you could get something out of it really extraordinary and you could end up with something that sets the pace for nextgen and makes everything else look like "pastgen+".

• If you build your game around known stuff, you can slather on effects and beef up models and just go 10x on everything because you know the hardware can handle it if the old hardware can handle it, and you can even put some limited use of next-gen techniques on top of it all (throw in a little bit of raytracing on a few shiny surfaces, why the hell not?), and you know you're not going to fail because the challenges to making everything better are just time and money rather than technology... but underneath all the shiny new surfaces, its old roots may show.

And I think Microsoft's thinking was, who is really building "next-gen" games a core level right off the bat?

Because even if you look at all those PS5 games which are absolutely not cross-gen... they still are a little bit cross-gen, just with no crossing. None of them appear to be "built from the ground up" for next-gen. Horizon 2 is a Decima Engine with all the enhancements Guerilla has been making and showing off since H1/Death Stranding. GT7 we don't know enough about but PD usually starts by kitting out its previous engine. Demon's Souls is probably mostly new but might be using the foundations of SotC. Project Athia is either Luminous Engine or UE4, one of the past two FF engines. Spider-Man Miles Morales is for sure the Spider-Man engine on steroids; similarly R&C is a great upgrade over the PS4 game but it probably shares a lot of tech (and probably could have been ported down except that the PS4 version would have been fucking miserable spending >30-second loadtimes every time you fall into a void...)

So, UE5 isn't ready to go, these SSDs are allowing invisible loadtimes and a few games with "levels-loading-levels" but otherwise aren't rewriting the book yet, so many of these techniques that are "next-gen" like raytracing and global illumination and machine-learning enhancements have been the hot tech for years now (remember that UE4 was supposed to have GI and had to pull it,) and so many game productions are relying on manpower and money and management rather than groundbreaking new tech (analysis of TLoU2 and GoT say it's not that Sony's studios are doing things nobody else could do, Sony is just backing its studios enough so that the attention to detail gets done.) Developers stuck to enhanced versions of traditional techniques for the majority of games on the platform rather than pioneering anything revolutionary, and cross-gen or engine reuse is pretty common early on, so why assume next-gen will reinvent the wheel?

I think I can see your line of reasoning. In other words "Why not build a version for current gen if they aren't going to really use the next-gen exclusive walled off features anyway?". That makes sense but I have a counter-argument:

Perhaps Sony wants its development teams to focus all of their energy on getting to grips with this new (supposedly) paradigm shift in console hardware design. Perhaps they don't want their development teams wasting any resources whatsoever on downports because they think that will result 'true' next-gen games being realised quicker and perhaps they will actively share their findings with third party partners because, considering PS5's SSD is considerably faster than Series X, it would be in Sony's interest to get developers migrated over to SSD-oriented game development quicker because that's where they theoretically can beat the Series X. If developers stick with 'traditional' methods and go for a more brute force approach then it seems like Series X would have the upper hand.

In other words, Sony knows they are losing a lot of potential game sales (people on PS4 who haven't yet moved to PS5 cannot buy the game) but they think it's a risk worth taking to get a foothold early in the generation.

I could be totally wrong but that's my reading of the situation.

 

[DarkMage619]

I'm not the one who said they are definitely forced - those were your words trying to put them into my mouth. I said they are not really 100% free to do whatever they want. The fact is that some of those first party games (not just Halo) ARE coming to Xbox One. That is just a matter of fact. Whether Xbox as an entity forced it or whether the studio themselves forced it is, in the end, irrelevant. The fact that any of them are coming to Xbox One means that Spencer or someone else reporting to Spencer either allowed it or mandated it because otherwise they do not get their budget signed off.

In contrast with PS5, there are zero first party titles coming to PS4. Zero. Zilch.

So you can't provide a list of forced X1 games holding back next gen. You have no proof MS game studios are being forced or not allowed to make games for XSX. In fact based on the list Black_Stride made there is no basis in reality X1 is 'holding back' next gen.

Current XGS game in the "crossgen transition":

• Halo Infinite - They def need to drop the XB1 version atleast of campagne. MP can be on the old box.
• As Dusk Falls - I doubt the XB1 is holding this game back.
• Grounded - I imagine this started as an XB1 title outright. And they have it running on XB1 already.

And thats it.....the offering from Microsoft regarding this whole crossgen transition isnt all that high....they are still making full on nextgen titles with:

• MSFS
• Hellblade 2
• P:Mara
• Forza Motorsport
• State of Decay 3
• Fable
• Avowed
• Everwild

If what you are saying is true why aren't the new Fable, Avowed, or Forza coming out on X1? If X1 is supposed to be holding things back those games should be on X1. The reason? The 'hold back' narrative is NONSENSE. Bad on MS for not pushing it back but the evidence is clear. Unless you are making an argument against Grounded and how it isn't reaching Obsidian's creative vision staying with X1 there is no merit to the X1 holding anything back for next get. There is only Halo and that game was ALWAYS an X1 game.

 

[longdi]

Switch has what 0.4TF and bandwidth limited AF

Tech Interview: How was The Witcher 3 ported to Nintendo Switch?

DF talks with CD Projekt RED on the conversion process.

In this detailed interview, we talk about the origins of the conversion effort, how the existing game and all of its expansions were crammed onto a 32GB cartridge and how the assets and content transitioned across to Switch

Tech Interview: How was The Witcher 3 ported to Nintendo Switch?

How did they do that? It's becoming an increasingly common question with the top-end ports arriving on Switch, with dev…

www.eurogamer.net

 

[supernova8]

So you can't provide a list of forced X1 games holding back next gen. You have no proof MS game studios are being forced or not allowed to make games for XSX. In fact based on the list Black_Stride made there is no basis in reality X1 is 'holding back' next gen.

Current XGS game in the "crossgen transition":

• Halo Infinite - They def need to drop the XB1 version atleast of campagne. MP can be on the old box.
• Everwild - Maybe they are also having trouble getting the XB1 version to run?
• As Dusk Falls - I doubt the XB1 is holding this game back.
• Grounded - I imagine this started as an XB1 title outright. And they have it running on XB1 already.

And thats it.....the offering from Microsoft regarding this whole crossgen transition isnt all that high....they are still making full on nextgen titles with:

• MSFS
• Hellblade 2
• P:Mara
• Forza Motorsport
• State of Decay 3
• Fable
• Avowed

If what you are saying is true why aren't the new Fable, Avowed, or Forza coming out on X1? If X1 is supposed to be holding things back those games should be on X1. The reason? The 'hold back' narrative is NONSENSE. Bad on MS for not pushing it back but the evidence is clear. Unless you are making an argument against Grounded and how it isn't reaching Obsidian's creative vision staying with X1 there is no merit to the X1 holding anything back for next get. There is only Halo and that game was ALWAYS an X1 game.

You yourself have essentially outed two major XGS games being held back by XB1. I never made an argument regarding Grounded. That seems to be originally an XB1 game so no beef with that.

Don't expect Xbox Series X exclusive games from Microsoft until at least a year after launch

Microsoft doesn't plan on releasing games exclusive to Xbox Series X until at least a year after the console launches.

www.vg247.com

Phil Spencer defends the lack of launch exclusives for Xbox Series X -”the player [is] at the center”

News, reviews and opinions on the biggest video games.

www.vg247.com

XB1 was going to hold next-gen (as of January/February 2020) back for 'at least a year or two' and now it isn't (as much) because we the consumers (along with gaming press) gave them shit for it. I'm actually glad (as I hope you are) that by July 2020 it was clear a lot of (but not all) their first party stuff is Series X exclusive.

But to suggest that it was the never the case and it's just some urban myth is also nonsense.

Perhaps they were just trying to come up with a more pleasing way to say "We have no reasons for you to buy an Xbox Series X aside from Gamepass at least for the 12-24 months" because that would be a slam dunk for Sony, but if so the wording was confusing or misleading or both.

 

[Kerotan]

To be expected. MS PR has been one big contradiction in itself and at this point a meme.

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

No, not at all. A smart developer can do some very impressive things with scaling (or in the case of Xbox, separate execuiteables) and porting consideration, but if a game exceeds the capabilities of the hardware, it is what it is.

...All I'm saying is, I hear Shadow of Mordor talked about all the time as proof of some example of porting challenges, but if I were asked whether it was the hardware's fault or the developer of Naughty Bear and Wet that this port was busted, I'd feel 99% safe pointing at the developer.



Shadow of Mordor 360/PS3 had all kinds of problems besides just a crippled Nemesis system. Nemesis system was the intentional compromise, but stuff is just missing or broken or built wrong. (And I'm not saying that Behaviour/A2M was a terrible developer back then, as there's stuff of theirs that I liked, but having played their PSP Dante's Inferno which looks nice but has fundamentally unplaytested glitches like no play effect of the "punish or absolve" system. And the less said about their PS2 version of Mercenaries 2, the better. They weren't the studio you'd go to for polished, technically capable ports.)

When I think of the Nemesis system, I think of its complexity and its richness of production elements, but I don't know that I think "next-gen power", or that it's such a rich and present database that it couldn't be replicated on console hardware that could track character choices/interactions across three complete Mass Effect games. I'm not seeing too many reviews from that period which say the cutbacks in PS3/360 felt reasonable to them, or that the product has any reason to exist if such compromises were required to make it play on past-gen.

Last-gen revisited: Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

We did it because no one else would. Paying a total of £80 from our own pockets for Shadow of Mordor on PS3 and Xbox 36…

www.eurogamer.net

Ports down from Xbox One to Xbox 360 were quite rangey. Performance was of course often the biggest differentiator in the short time that publishers supported both platforms (in the time before developers pushed the boundaries beyond the outdated hardware's capabilities, or else the financial incentive to bother to try had dried up,) but there were also cutbacks and other sacrifices. Instead of always mentioning the pathetic Shadow of Mordor port, I'd rather we looked at more indicative and accomplished ports like...

Forza Horizon 2 (by Sumo Digital.) It ran fine and mostly looked nice, but the world could sometimes be a little empty. Sumo quietly changed a lot about the car handling and the festival circuit campaign in their version (it's more arcadey, and it avoids open offroad racing events where it can even though the offroad stretches are there on the map,) presumably to get the most out of 360 instead of attempting an unflattering 1:1 port from Xbox One. You could say it was the best that could be done with old hardware, except that FH1 on 360 arguably looked better.

Cape Cod Times: Local News, Politics & Sports in Hyannis, MA

Get the latest breaking news, sports, entertainment and obituaries in Hyannis, MA from Cape Cod Times.

blogs.capecodonline.com

And Titanfall (by Bluepoint.) The Xbox One game that pretty much sold us on next-gen being here and amazing ended up porting down real well in the hands of good talent. It may not be 100% perfect, but it's nearly impossible to complain about.

Tech Interview: Titanfall on Xbox 360

The inside story of how Bluepoint Games managed to squeeze Titanfall onto Xbox 360 without compromising the heart of the game.

www.eurogamer.net

If you think about it, making previous gen versions of these games didn't limit them for next gen as some are "concerned" about with the new xbox. The previous gen had gimped versions, not the current gen.

 

[DonF]

 

[DarkMage619]

You yourself have essentially outed two major XGS games being held back by XB1. I never made an argument regarding Grounded. That seems to be originally an XB1 game so no beef with that.

Don't expect Xbox Series X exclusive games from Microsoft until at least a year after launch

Microsoft doesn't plan on releasing games exclusive to Xbox Series X until at least a year after the console launches.

www.vg247.com

Phil Spencer defends the lack of launch exclusives for Xbox Series X -”the player [is] at the center”

News, reviews and opinions on the biggest video games.

www.vg247.com

XB1 was going to hold next-gen (as of January/February 2020) back for 'at least a year or two' and now it isn't (as much) because we the consumers (along with gaming press) gave them shit for it. I'm actually glad (as I hope you are) that by July 2020 it was clear a lot of (but not all) their first party stuff is Series X exclusive.

But to suggest that it was the never the case and it's just some urban myth is also nonsense.

Perhaps they were just trying to come up with a more pleasing way to say "We have no reasons for you to buy an Xbox Series X aside from Gamepass at least for the 12-24 months" because that would be a slam dunk for Sony, but if so the wording was confusing or misleading or both.

I just checked Xbox.com. Everwild is not coming to X1. It is NOT being held back. Halo Infinite has been in development for 5 years. It was always an X1 title. There are plenty of reasons to buy an XSX but maybe not for the hardcore Sony fans. People are mistaking some X1 games getting XSX patches to mean that those games would have been XSX exclusives but MS 'forced' dev teams to make X1 versions of those games instead. That absolutly is an urban myth and total nonsense. There is no quote from Phil Spencer or anyone else saying X1 was holding back next gen. They were saying they would still release X1 games that in many cases would also get XSX patches that would make the games look even better. X1 games are X1 games. There are no XSX games forced to run on X1. This IS different from Sony where any PS4 games will not be getting any sort of next gen PS5 upscale treatment.

 

[CamHostage]

I think I can see your line of reasoning. In other words "Why not build a version for current gen if they aren't going to really use the next-gen exclusive walled off features anyway?".

Well, or, "If these game engines are so flexible that we can stack amazing next-gen effects on top of a pretty-good-looking game and also crank up performance to end up with a product that's mostly competitive on both past-gen and next-gen, when is it worth not going that route?"

Because people have said, "GTAV was a good looking last-gen game but it only looks nice on PC where you can install all kinds of mods that would never run on current gen systems," but that's part of what we're talking about here. Amateur modders are making use of flexible engines and stackable effects to make games look amazing while running on old engines; imagine a professional designer having all that power and more from day one. If they can plug in next-gen models, next-gen lighting, crank up the framerate, go nuts with effects, do all that and get a game that looks and plays like a next-gen game at the time it's finished, then when does the need to "go 100% next-gen" happen?

Now, you asked, doesn't a game development studio want to focus 100% on next-gen so they're next-gen tech savvy going forward, and sure, you don't want to be left behind with outdated tech. But do know that you're still doing plenty of exploration and pioneering even if you've got some older root technology. Titanfall 1 and 2 were made on the same worked-over-ad-nasuem Source engine that put Half-Life 2 on the original Xbox. Call of Duty still had Quake 3 systems inside it until I think COD Ghosts. Arkham Knight could have jumped to UE4, but the developers felt better about their massively-rewritten UE3 engine variant (and when the previous two Arkham games were "ported up" to UE4, the games actually looked worse in the changeover.) Games are way more a parfait of engine and systems than people are aware of. Even after UE5 gets here, most likely some top-tier UE4 games will still look better than the spiffy new model games until the balance fully shifts.

And developers never stop learning. Whether they rewrite their engine or graft new tech onto the old one, they're still pushing boundaries and developing new stuff. Maybe those who cut ties with the old ways will get through the "next-gen gate" first, but then again, maybe not. Long, successful careers have been made in maximizing and redoubling familiar systems to make them unrecognizably powerful. It just depends which method you use of getting to the same destination; one where you start from scratch and you stretch blindly to reach for every inch, the other where you keep stacking more and more on top of what you already have, making progress all along but eventually you're standing on a wobbly base.

 

[Shmunter]

I just checked Xbox.com. Everwild is not coming to X1. It is NOT being held back. Halo Infinite has been in development for 5 years. It was always an X1 title. There are plenty of reasons to buy an XSX but maybe not for the hardcore Sony fans. People are mistaking some X1 games getting XSX patches to mean that those games would have been XSX exclusives but MS 'forced' dev teams to make X1 versions of those games instead. That absolutly is an urban myth and total nonsense. There is no quote from Phil Spencer or anyone else saying X1 was holding back next gen. They were saying they would still release X1 games that in many cases would also get XSX patches that would make the games look even better. X1 games are X1 games. There are no XSX games forced to run on X1. This IS different from Sony where any PS4 games will not be getting any sort of next gen PS5 upscale treatment.

Cross generational games are inherently held back by past gen hardware. That’s the premise no matter how many words are used to describe it. Any game conceived today that still targets x1 will be subject to the basic fact of these tech limitations.

Where has it been confirmed Sony studios will not patch any of their PS4 games?

 

[DarkMage619]

Cross generational games are inherently held back by past gen hardware. That’s the premise no matter how many words are used to describe it. Any game conceived today that still targets x1 will be subject to the basic fact of these tech limitations.

Where has it been confirmed Sony studios will not patch any of their PS4 games?

The fact that Sony has not mentioned one PS4 game that will be getting a PS5 patch? Sony believes in generations. They have clearly chosen to focus on PS5 and that's cool. What games are targeting X1 outside of what has already been mentioned?

 

[MrFunSocks]

Cross generational games are inherently held back by past gen hardware. That’s the premise no matter how many words are used to describe it. Any game conceived today that still targets x1 will be subject to the basic fact of these tech limitations.

Where has it been confirmed Sony studios will not patch any of their PS4 games?

lol why do you and onQ have such a hard time understanding that if Series X didn't exist, those "cross gen" games would still be *exactly* the same because they are not series X games? They are Xbox One games that are then getting some work put in to make them have a few little extras and look nicer on the Series X. They were NEVER designed as Series X games.

You're basically saying that you would prefer that they just release those games on Xbox One and not do any work at all to make them run at higher resolution or with better effects on the Series X.

 

[supernova8]

I just checked Xbox.com. Everwild is not coming to X1. It is NOT being held back. Halo Infinite has been in development for 5 years. It was always an X1 title. There are plenty of reasons to buy an XSX but maybe not for the hardcore Sony fans. People are mistaking some X1 games getting XSX patches to mean that those games would have been XSX exclusives but MS 'forced' dev teams to make X1 versions of those games instead. That absolutly is an urban myth and total nonsense. There is no quote from Phil Spencer or anyone else saying X1 was holding back next gen. They were saying they would still release X1 games that in many cases would also get XSX patches that would make the games look even better. X1 games are X1 games. There are no XSX games forced to run on X1. This IS different from Sony where any PS4 games will not be getting any sort of next gen PS5 upscale treatment.

Everwild was listed as coming to Xbox One.



Avowed was listed as coming to Xbox One.

Maybe it was just a mistake with the listing but does that mean they really haven't really decided what they're doing with it?

 

[MrFunSocks]

Maybe it was just a mistake with the listing but does that mean they really haven't really decided what they're doing with it?

No, it was a mistake made by whichever of the web developers or content writers does those pages. The games were never announced as coming to Xbox One.

 

[DarkMage619]

Xbox.com. Avowed is not shown as an X1 title. It is not evidence of X1 'holding back' anything. I choose Xbox.com over someone on twitter.

 

[Shmunter]

The fact that Sony has not mentioned one PS4 game that will be getting a PS5 patch? Sony believes in generations. They have clearly chosen to focus on PS5 and that's cool. What games are targeting X1 outside of what has already been mentioned?

Pretty sure they mentioned Spider-Man getting a patch.

Apart from that would expect other late gen releases to get the same based on past Pro patch approach. No guarantees, but educated guess is valid.

 

[Shmunter]

lol why do you and onQ have such a hard time understanding that if Series X didn't exist, those "cross gen" games would still be *exactly* the same because they are not series X games? They are Xbox One games that are then getting some work put in to make them have a few little extras and look nicer on the Series X. They were NEVER designed as Series X games.

You're basically saying that you would prefer that they just release those games on Xbox One and not do any work at all to make them run at higher resolution or with better effects on the Series X.

I have no idea what your arguing against anymore. I’ll leave it there.

 

[ZywyPL]

Would be nice if he provided some titles. Or at least gameplay examples. But I guess that's too much to ask from a Twitter "journalist"

 

[DarkMage619]

Pretty sure they mentioned Spider-Man getting a patch.

Apart from that would expect other late gen releases to get the same based on past Pro patch approach. No guarantees, but educated guess is valid.

I don't see any mention of that on PlayStation.com. Maybe it's true but it surely isn't anything like what MS has stated on their site for Halo Infinite. I know what MS is doing with X1 titles on XSX. I only know that there is a good chance that PS4 titles will run but there is no guarantee of any enhancements.

 

[supernova8]

Well, or, "If these game engines are so flexible that we can stack amazing next-gen effects on top of a pretty-good-looking game and also crank up performance to end up with a product that's mostly competitive on both past-gen and next-gen, when is it worth not going that route?"

Because people have said, "GTAV was a good looking last-gen game but it only looks nice on PC where you can install all kinds of mods that would never run on current gen systems," but that's part of what we're talking about here. Amateur modders are making use of flexible engines and stackable effects to make games look amazing while running on old engines; imagine a professional designer having all that power and more from day one. If they can plug in next-gen models, next-gen lighting, crank up the framerate, go nuts with effects, do all that and get a game that looks and plays like a next-gen game at the time it's finished, then when does the need to "go 100% next-gen" happen?

Now, you asked, doesn't a game development studio want to focus 100% on next-gen so they're next-gen tech savvy going forward, and sure, you don't want to be left behind with outdated tech. But do know that you're still doing plenty of exploration and pioneering even if you've got some older root technology. Titanfall 1 and 2 were made on the same worked-over-ad-nasuem Source engine that put Half-Life 2 on the original Xbox. Call of Duty still had Quake 3 systems inside it until I think COD Ghosts. Arkham Knight could have jumped to UE4, but the developers felt better about their massively-rewritten UE3 engine variant (and when the previous two Arkham games were "ported up" to UE4, the games actually looked worse in the changeover.) Games are way more a parfait of engine and systems than people are aware of. Even after UE5 gets here, most likely some top-tier UE4 games will still look better than the spiffy new model games until the balance fully shifts.

And developers never stop learning. Whether they rewrite their engine or graft new tech onto the old one, they're still pushing boundaries and developing new stuff. Maybe those who cut ties with the old ways will get through the "next-gen gate" first, but then again, maybe not. Long, successful careers have been made in maximizing and redoubling familiar systems to make them unrecognizably powerful. It just depends which method you use of getting to the same destination; one where you start from scratch and you stretch blindly to reach for every inch, the other where you keep stacking more and more on top of what you already have, making progress all along but eventually you're standing on a wobbly base.

I totally get your point. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if the difference in game development between HDD and SSD really is as big as Sony (and, to be fair, other non-Sony developers) are saying, then the difference between engines designed to take advantage of the SSD speed and those not will become more visible faster than in previous generations.

 

[supernova8]

No, it was a mistake made by whichever of the web developers or content writers does those pages. The games were never announced as coming to Xbox One.

Well that's great news. I'm pretty hyped for Avowed. That's (right now at least) the only reason I'd bother with Xbox.

 

[Jigsaah]

Lmao finally took his face from between Phil’s cheeks

Please, Ryan McCaffrey has never been a true xbox fan in my mind. This is just another example of him showing his true colors.

I'll never forget the "Who is Xbox One X for?" bullshit he started. Dude is a fraud.

 

[MrFunSocks]

I have no idea what your arguing against anymore. I’ll leave it there.

I haven't had any idea what you're actually trying to say since the start, cause you're not making any sense. You're flip flopping all over the place. I mean look at this:

Any game conceived today that still targets x1 will be subject to the basic fact of these tech limitations.

Ok, now show me where Microsoft are forcing anyone to make games still targeting the Xbox One. They've shown about 6 Series X exclusive games, none of them coming to X1. They have a few games that are coming to Series X because they were almost complete on Xbox One already, such as Grounded (which is already out on X1 btw) and Halo Infinite, but they were never built or designed for the Series X. They were built and designed for the One, and will get patched to look and run better on the Series X. They aren't "held back" by the One because they only exist because of the One.

 

[Deleted member 775630]

I thought Phil said it won't hold back next gen ?? Was Phil wrong ? He said only fanboys say it holds back next gen ????I m confused now.i trusted phil

You could've created a proper thread with decent opening statement, and then you did this shit. Can you be more of a fanboy?

 

[DarkMage619]

You could've created a proper thread with decent opening statement, and then you did this shit. Can you be more of a fanboy?

Well that and he was totally wrong and running with a false narrative.

 

[Shmunter]

I don't see any mention of that on PlayStation.com. Maybe it's true but it surely isn't anything like what MS has stated on their site for Halo Infinite. I know what MS is doing with X1 titles on XSX. I only know that there is a good chance that PS4 titles will run but there is no guarantee of any enhancements.

No guarantee, but pushing upgrades would see a sales bump for titles as people are hungry for new shinyness. With Sony track record, upgrades hopefully mean more than just a few ‘sliders’.

See how it plays out.

 

[Maxwell Jacob Friedman]

Well, it’s not like the Xbox One was much of a Ferrari to begin with...

Dumb analogy but sure, lets go with an amc pacer

 

[alucard0712_rus]

it is good that you can play old games on new hardware, but new games on old and weak hardware? they just wanted more money and sell games to bigger install base.

 

[DarkMage619]

it is good that you can play old games on new hardware, but new games on old and weak hardware? they just wanted more money and sell games to bigger install base.

There are no new games for old weak hardware. Only old games getting patches for new hardware.

 

[genesisblock]

IT means the levels on the PS5 version would be diluted. Why? Because if the mandate from the start is to build the same game across the devices, consideration needs to be paid to whats possible.

You do not shoot for whats impossible if the mandate is clear that it needs to work on XYZ hardware. Once the product is shipped, people wouldn't even know what it 'could' have been like and just take it for what it is.

Only when next gen exclusives start flexing their muscles, people will start noticing a delta between similar genre games and start naturally praising the better contenders.

• If you build your game around new stuff (let's imagine a game totally built for raytracing and boldly uses no other lighting system/technique, although a 100%-raytraced game is a dragon's egg on even the upcoming hardware...), you're breaking from known technology to explore the future, and you're at the mercy of the changes of the hardware or the unexpected limitations & complications that arise in development, and you could fail, but you could get something out of it really extraordinary and you could end up with something that sets the pace for nextgen and makes everything else look like "pastgen+".

• If you build your game around known stuff, you can slather on effects and beef up models and just go 10x on everything because you know the hardware can handle it if the old hardware can handle it, and you can even put some limited use of next-gen techniques on top of it all (throw in a little bit of raytracing on a few shiny surfaces, why the hell not?), and you know you're not going to fail because the challenges to making everything better are just time and money rather than technology... but underneath all the shiny new surfaces, its old roots may show.

This pretty much boils down to these arguments. Until we finally see a proper showcase with PS5 and it's next-gen exclusives, we can come back to this topic and discuss whether or not the PS4 should ever be in the discussion. MS's "next-gen" approach seems to be the "upscale" factor; SONY on the other hand is removing limitations that changes game design in general - while it's roots may be shared from the same foundation, the application and flow of the gameplay would make that much of a difference.

No more crawling in to crevices to load next sequence - EVER!

**Looks at Gotham Knights' gameplay.....

*FUCK*.

 

[Redlancet]

For a person in his position, he should've known better and this has exposed his intelligence on the subject.

We can all learn at least...

you mean games press? they dont know shit about games development

 

[alucard0712_rus]

There are no new games for old weak hardware. Only old games getting patches for new hardware.

Doesn't new Halo supposed to run on Xbone?

 

[Cato]

I'm sorry but developing two seperate versions of games means allocating budget to a seperate version that could have been used on the main game no?

Yes and no.
Making two versions of the game does not mean twice the budget.
The majority of the cost in an open world game is the cost of developing the assets and the assets can, if need to, be atuomatically scaled down to a smaller version with smaller textures, smaller resolution and fewer polygons.
This process can be done almost entirely with automated tools.
For sure, it might not look as good as handcrafted assets but it might be "good enough" expecially if the process does not require you pay a big team a salary.

So the cost of doing one version of the game for the Bib Boy is

Cost(Big Boy) := Cost(Assets) + Cost(Big Boy Code)

The cost to develop a second version for Tiny Boy is then essentially
Cost(Tiny Boy) := Cost(Tiny Boy Code)
Since TinyBoy does not need new assets. It can use the already paid for assets from BigBoy, automatically shrunken and scaled down.


Third party devs already do this for their multiplats. They develop all the assets once and then reuse these assets for all the targets.
That makes sense since the assets are the vastly most expensive part of the game. Then each additional platform they target will only cost a fractional increment of the cost of the first target.

Why cant 343 do what every thirdparty dev does all the time?

 

[Agnostic2020]

You could've created a proper thread with decent opening statement, and then you did this shit. Can you be more of a fanboy?

But I trusted Phil??? He is our guyyy???? He is one of us????now I feel betrayed. Not sure if I m getting an xsx because of this

 

[H-I-M]

Man, it’s really weird seeing all the Sony dudes creating threads about Xbox lol

Maybe if the "Xbox Dudes" (including their leader Phil Spencer) hadn't been on a crusade on how anti-consumer Sony is and how much better the Series X is, we wouldn't be here.

 

[shaddam]

Is this damage controll? What does the secret xbox discord group think?

 

[Knitted Knight]

Some serious purity tests going on here for Xbox hardcore. When Ryan is the odd man out.... oofff.

Then again I shouldn't be one to talk. I guess you could sympathize about the nature of turncoats. Counter intelligence a real problem for Xbox hardcore these days. Who's truly loyal till the very end? Who can you really count on?

 

[Agnostic2020]

When storage was the limiting factor....

Maybe Limiting factor here is xbox division heads who don't know what to do or what they want and fumble upon themselves non stop and have no clear vision for the brand other than gamepass??

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yes and no.
Making two versions of the game does not mean twice the budget.
The majority of the cost in an open world game is the cost of developing the assets and the assets can, if need to, be atuomatically scaled down to a smaller version with smaller textures, smaller resolution and fewer polygons.
This process can be done almost entirely with automated tools.
For sure, it might not look as good as handcrafted assets but it might be "good enough" expecially if the process does not require you pay a big team a salary.

So the cost of doing one version of the game for the Bib Boy is

Cost(Big Boy) := Cost(Assets) + Cost(Big Boy Code)

The cost to develop a second version for Tiny Boy is then essentially
Cost(Tiny Boy) := Cost(Tiny Boy Code)
Since TinyBoy does not need new assets. It can use the already paid for assets from BigBoy, automatically shrunken and scaled down.


Third party devs already do this for their multiplats. They develop all the assets once and then reuse these assets for all the targets.
That makes sense since the assets are the vastly most expensive part of the game. Then each additional platform they target will only cost a fractional increment of the cost of the first target.

Why cant 343 do what every thirdparty dev does all the time?

Developing two different version do the game with different code based is a different beast and also in your case assume the next generation platform as the lead one and the second as afterthought... not sure I look for third parties way to under utilise a new platform unless they can easily brute force improvements in or they have been paid to make an exclusive next generation version as role model for the MS first parties.

Automated asset scaling, is a CTO/PM wet dream like one single codebase for all platforms, etc... seems good on paper when you are not working overtime to fix it up or if you do not really care about the version you are porting down to. This still does not deal with the fact that you are still spending extra time and money developing, testing, and debugging for a wider OS:HW combination and likely building abstractions for it and targeting a minimum common denominator platform over designing it really for the best platform you are running on... especialy significant when you am have a shared engine and application code targeting multiple platforms (it would be a bit different if the Xbox One version were coming out a year later ported by a team like Bluepoint and sold separately).

You are still designing for a lower specced HW (the difference between Xbox One S and XSX is incredibly massive... over 10x the shader throughput, 2x the RAM, much much faster CPU and storage I/O, etc...) or just delivering a shitty product for those customers and spending money you could have invested on the XSX version alone.

It would have been better, if they could have done it, to release Halo Infinite for Xbox One only last year or this year, had something else ready for XSX’s launch, and then provide a big update for Halo on XSX in late 2021 (so giving them preferably two years to focus on XSX exclusive enhancements or a new game). Nintendo and MS tend to do this often, delay software causing fraught for your current consumers to ensure that the next box you sell them has launch software... this is a page they do need to steal from Sony’s playbook.

 

[Shmunter]

Some serious purity tests going on here for Xbox hardcore. When Ryan is the odd man out.... oofff.

Then again I shouldn't be one to talk. I guess you could sympathize about the nature of turncoats. Counter intelligence a real problem for Xbox hardcore these days. Who's truly loyal till the very end? Who can you really count on?

 

[The Hamburglar]

Maybe if the "Xbox Dudes" (including their leader Phil Spencer) hadn't been on a crusade on how anti-consumer Sony is and how much better the Series X is, we wouldn't be here.

Pretty sure I’ve seen non stop threads about tlou2 and any apparent negative news about the ps5 by an ‘insider’ every other day. All been proven to be false too.

 

[Cato]

...
Automated asset scaling, is a CTO/PM wet dream like one single codebase for all platforms, etc... seems good on paper when you are not working overtime to fix it up or if you do not really care about the version you are porting down to.
...

You are still designing for a lower specced HW (the difference between Xbox One S and XSX is incredibly massive... over 10x the shader throughput, 2x the RAM, much much faster CPU and storage I/O, etc...) or just delivering a shitty product for those customers and spending money you could have invested on the XSX version alone.

Harsh words but reality of first-party flagpole launch titles.
I agree 100% with the bolded and that is what should happen in these cases since the only priority should be the launch of the new gen.

You develop for the new platform and the purpose is to showcase the new platform in the best light possible so it can push hw sales. It it is profitable is less of a concern. If the old generation gets a port they should be happy that they get a port at all.
Shitty product is sometimes better than no product at all. Harsh but reality.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

I didn't even had to click on the thread to see who at IGN wrote it, of course it's Xbox poster child Mr Mcaffrey isn't it!