• 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.

|OT| Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Speculation/Analysis/Leaks Thread

sircaw

Member
Jul 3, 2019
865
2,999
480
A local pond.
I mean I agree with you on a lot of things there Sircaw. I am getting the PS5 Disc version first. If there is no disc version because of low stock or i missed preorders, I will hold out until one is there.

Gamepass itself is meaningless to me; I don't care for digital games, and Honestly, even if I wanted those, I would play them on my high powered PC. What appeals to me is BC. I have seen a lot of talk about LockHart, but no one talking if it will be a Disc based system or a Digital system. I think that is an overlooked feature that may be a key selling point to drive against the PS5 DE. If Lockhart is discless, then I will put Xbox on the backburner until XSX price drives down.
I have a feeling it will be Disc-less , just for the sake of trying to make the system cost as low as possible.

Premier system Disk, cheap version not. makes sense.

Luckily we wont have to wait long to find out, hopefull in the next few weeks they will announce something.

And just like you, i will be lurking:messenger_smiling_horns:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem and Mirumi

Apollo Helios

Member
Feb 27, 2020
401
1,974
495
Ubisoft´s Battle Royale got leaked - Hyper-Scape
bleh... I wanna puke. Enough of this Battle Royale BS now I hope it dies a fiery death just as Anthem did for its part in end of GaaS hype.
 

SSfox

Member
Jan 7, 2018
479
2,398
375
I mean I agree with you on a lot of things there Sircaw. I am getting the PS5 Disc version first. If there is no disc version because of low stock or i missed preorders, I will hold out until one is there.

Gamepass itself is meaningless to me; I don't care for digital games, and Honestly, even if I wanted those, I would play them on my high powered PC. What appeals to me is BC. I have seen a lot of talk about LockHart, but no one talking if it will be a Disc based system or a Digital system. I think that is an overlooked feature that may be a key selling point to drive against the PS5 DE. If Lockhart is discless, then I will put Xbox on the backburner until XSX price drives down.
Yup, i can understand the deal for some people about this gamepass, but personally i can't care about this thing at all. As i not only don't have time (and also, simply don't want and not interested) to play 30 games each month, and games that aren't even my choice as well.

I play games that i want to play at X time, not games that somebody at Microsoft want me to play, i mean it's super obvious fact but y'know.
 
Last edited:

Vroadstar

Member
Nov 19, 2013
1,268
1,434
570
Microsoft probably thinks that undercutting Sony with a cheaper console will help them sell more units. Time will tell if that will work out for them, but I don't think it will. It's a bit like throwing different things at a wall and see what sticks.
I don't know about this because I heard from a certain group that Sales doesn't matter any more only game pass subscription, or is the narrative changing again perhaps? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
1,736
2,433
345
I said that as an example, not the rule, because in the future, you’ll be seeing games running at those lower resolutions because game engines get more powerful, more sophisticated, so I don’t see a 1620p or even 1440p resolution at 30 FPS being out of the picture on XSX, because we all know developers will push these consoles so hard.

So if those resolution were targeted for XSX, then what the heck is Series S (Lockhart) is gonna do? Run at 720p? So they’ll just downgrade games’ baselines because we all know developers won’t be making different lighting solutions, textures, character models, amount of vegetation, overall geometry just to accommodate for Lockhart & then make XSX a different set of character models, different LODs, different level geometry etc etc..., so developers will downgrade their games in order to make sure their games run properly on Lockhart 1st THEN on XSX, Because we certainly know Lockhart will sell way more than XSX because it’ll be much cheaper, so developers won’t be doing this, they’ll have to make sure that Lockhart is running well at least 1080p/1440p, making it the baseline for next-gen consoles, which will make XSX just a resolution box.

It sucks to see this kind of stuff, I would like to see Digital Foundry’s John Linneman’s @dark10x thoughts on all this, because that DF video they’ve made didn’t really tackle these certain predicaments/situations that I’ve mentioned.

John, please read this comment if you ever see it.
Everything is based on you thinking they won't use the processing power for resolution anymore, when in the next 7 years tv manufacturers will start the push for 8K tv's.
 

pasterpl

Member
Feb 8, 2020
733
1,241
330
So lockhart somehow has a faster CPU than the XsX? Because both PS5 and XsX have virtually the same CPU (100 mhz difference)
this is really not hard to understand, what he is saying is that lockhart cpu is the same as xsx cpu, and as xsx cpu is faster than ps5 cpu, this makes Lockhart cpu faster then ps5 cpu
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corndog

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
3,936
18,687
670
34
Salalah, Oman
John Oliver shouts out the "alien's waffle maker" or "penguin designed by Apple" PS5 and Horizon Forbidden West on his show this week. LOL!


Timestamped @ 4:23

"I want to murder dinosaur robots with flaming arrows, and I want to do it now."
It's wonderful how Sony is getting so many free, genuine marketing for just showing exciting games and hardware!



So true.
 

Apollo Helios

Member
Feb 27, 2020
401
1,974
495
I don't know about this because I heard from a certain group that Sales doesn't matter any more only game pass subscription, or is the narrative changing again perhaps? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
shhhhh stop pointing out their logical fallacies for them, doing their work, they need to work it out themselves to affect meaningful change, but now it is just reaction to short-term market strategies and their change in how they frame stuff to paint their losses into success stories.

As things currently stand, they know system seller big budget AAA games (which are also still years off apparently) are promised to their GamePass service with day and date releases and they can't depend on their sales for revenues. Which was the point in acquiring a whole lot of dev studios, to rival Sony's efforts after seeing their juicy sales reports. But problem is now that they spent money and then charted their course in the gaming as a service way, and produced GP and everything, now when the time comes for reaping they need to push that service even more.

People given the choice between paying full fat price of 60 bucks for a single game and owning it for eternity vs subscribing to the service just for a month and finishing said game in that month (and possibly lots of other games too btw) and cancelling their subscription if that game was the only game they wanted to play; it is a fact that it is hard to beat the value proposition of the latter choice and people in droves will go that way. And that is how imo MS have shot themselves on the foot. Even when people continue with the subscription, the studio acquisitions and game development costs will eat into their revenues, and more and more as they need to amp up their 1st party productions if they really intend on rivaling Sony.
 

danielJackson

Neo Member
Jun 18, 2020
16
27
110
One aspect for "series S vs series x":

only one device, 12 TFlops = devs can choose to make 4k/60 fps game, or 1080-1440p 30fps game with much more detailed/better graphics and upscale it.

4Tflops device + 12 Tflops device = devs cant make 1080-1440p 30fps super ultra detail game for 12tflops machine, as it would not run on the 4tflops machine without huge downgrade.

So IMO it limits the creativity and choices of devs, as they just have to think that slow system, so they are kind of forced to waste faster machine into 4k, unless they want to pray voodoo gods to manage to do the downgrade.

(not even taking PC ports + possible xbox one ports into the count)

Meanwhile on PS5:

Devs can make 4k game, or 1080p game, or anything between and it just works on all the systems, no need to think that slow system at all.

Devs probably do lot of 4k games or close to 4k, but many gamers would be happy with 1080-1440p games upscaled, to get more fps and/or "better graphics/physics".

And because xbox aren't nearly as popular as playstation, it is quite possible that series S outsells series X, so base platform will be the 4tflops machine and devs just crank up the resolution and few other things for the 12tflops version.


So in the end having more choices for customers equals into less freedom for devs.
 

Neofire

Member
Mar 11, 2015
461
320
520
I normally really try to take a back seat and be a mod but this post is ridiculous.
Ridiculous, how so? The individual he's responding to seriously, some how, tired to equate the ps4 loud fan to the RROD failure rate of the 360. If anything that is ridiculous, if not a travesty. I get why dude insulted his intelligence, such nonsense should be frowned upon.
 

Fordino

Neo Member
Jan 18, 2020
34
124
140
Everything is based on you thinking they won't use the processing power for resolution anymore, when in the next 7 years tv manufacturers will start the push for 8K tv's.
I really hope 8K isn't taken seriously in gaming for at least another ten years.

It feels like every generation something comes along to scupper the 60fps dream. 720p, 1080p, 4K, ray tracing, 8K. What's next, 3D 16K?

Hopefully in a few years, when the mid-gen PS5 Pro and XBox Y come out, developers will be focussed on delivering solid 4K 60Hz experiences with full ray tracing. 8K can wait IMO.
 

Apollo Helios

Member
Feb 27, 2020
401
1,974
495
Ridiculous, how so? The individual he's responding to seriously, some how, tired to equate the ps4 loud fan to the RROD failure rate of the 360. If anything that is ridiculous, if not a travesty. I get why dude insulted his intelligence, such nonsense should be frowned upon.
Yeah I agree. RROd failure rates were admitted by MS execs to be even higher than what they calculated them to be after-the-fact and then because of this, they decided to include any and all device failures related to RRoD into device replacement service, completely unrelated to and above the framework of the original guarantee. If the graphs seem exaggerated to people, they need to research and find it as factual and then come to term with some ugly truths about QA of their initial console manufacture in the first wave, which were remedied in much later batches. DGrayson DGrayson
Also I like to point out that 120hz thing was presented as personal opinion which I also agree. Apart for things like VR, anything above 90hz is personal taste and that actually dependent on personal sensitivity of their eyes, and normal flat screens that is plenty of distance away from you do not produce motion sickness and the rest is just personal taste, finding 144hz or 240hz displays impressive or not should be considered personal opinions. I didn't read that as something being found as unimpressive on MS or any corporations part in their endeavors but rather on the part of technology itself. And talking with the poster later on with DMs I found he has been reply banned which I don't think was fair for his personal opinion which wasn't presented as facts at all.
 

DGrayson

Mod Team and Bat Team
Staff Member
Dec 5, 2017
1,137
2,792
535
Ridiculous, how so? The individual he's responding to seriously, some how, tired to equate the ps4 loud fan to the RROD failure rate of the 360. If anything that is ridiculous, if not a travesty. I get why dude insulted his intelligence, such nonsense should be frowned upon.

Im not going to get into it really but the following really struck me;

- I've seen 120 Hz things in person and I wasn't very impressed. (yes this is subjective but the most important thing about high refresh rate is how they feel to the player. I suggest actually playing them not just watching)
- I think it'll be matched price to PS5 with disc or maybe just a bit cheaper because of their insecurity. (these are huge huge companies with tons of market research etc, their pricing may be influenced by the PS5 but it will have nothing to do with "insecurity" of anyone involved)
- To a point when they bleed money because they've gone too far. We've already had one Atari moment in the history of gaming. Game Pass is a danger of it coming back. (Gamepass is going to lead to an Atari moment? Please back that up with proof).
 

Apollo Helios

Member
Feb 27, 2020
401
1,974
495
Im not going to get into it really but the following really struck me;

- I've seen 120 Hz things in person and I wasn't very impressed. (yes this is subjective but the most important thing about high refresh rate is how they feel to the player. I suggest actually playing them not just watching)
- I think it'll be matched price to PS5 with disc or maybe just a bit cheaper because of their insecurity. (these are huge huge companies with tons of market research etc, their pricing may be influenced by the PS5 but it will have nothing to do with "insecurity" of anyone involved)
- To a point when they bleed money because they've gone too far. We've already had one Atari moment in the history of gaming. Game Pass is a danger of it coming back. (Gamepass is going to lead to an Atari moment? Please back that up with proof).
So for the first you agree on subjective feeling but still not really, anything before a but is null and void most of the time. How do you know seeing in person just relates to watching? He may have experienced games on 120hz and still felt unimpressed and stated that as seeing it in person. It would be prudent to follow up on it instead of straight judgment as it still strays on the personal opinion on technology that encapsulates both consoles tbh.

I assume he is a non-English speaker using that word in non-personal way, more in financial way. Not used for a distinct someone. Financially corporate strategy of both companies feel insecure to me as both are waiting on the other to go with their pricing first to undercut the other, if it is a game of chicken like it currently is, stating their marketing strategy as insecure isn't that wrong imo following that it also applies to the others side as well. Remember last gen prices would have been already revealed, since we are past E3 and both companies made their reveals on or before that time (traditionally though as E3 is non existent this year), on for Sony and before for MS and still we don't have prices for both.

Okay this one's fair as it is an exaggeration and hard to prove it can be a failure of that size without seeing into the future, or MS's books. I do believe current GP strategy with no adjustments can turn into a big deficit if they can not manage to separate their first party games from it. Btw MS would either cut their losses like in Mixer case, or make adjustments to the service as it evolves before they let that be their end even though everything they do revolve around their service model.
 

BadBreathOfTheWild

Gold Member
May 1, 2020
487
3,144
425
One aspect for "series S vs series x":

only one device, 12 TFlops = devs can choose to make 4k/60 fps game, or 1080-1440p 30fps game with much more detailed/better graphics and upscale it.

4Tflops device + 12 Tflops device = devs cant make 1080-1440p 30fps super ultra detail game for 12tflops machine, as it would not run on the 4tflops machine without huge downgrade.

So IMO it limits the creativity and choices of devs, as they just have to think that slow system, so they are kind of forced to waste faster machine into 4k, unless they want to pray voodoo gods to manage to do the downgrade.

(not even taking PC ports + possible xbox one ports into the count)

Meanwhile on PS5:

Devs can make 4k game, or 1080p game, or anything between and it just works on all the systems, no need to think that slow system at all.

Devs probably do lot of 4k games or close to 4k, but many gamers would be happy with 1080-1440p games upscaled, to get more fps and/or "better graphics/physics".

And because xbox aren't nearly as popular as playstation, it is quite possible that series S outsells series X, so base platform will be the 4tflops machine and devs just crank up the resolution and few other things for the 12tflops version.


So in the end having more choices for customers equals into less freedom for devs.
How well Series S sells in comparison to Series X will be extremely interesting.

We’ve had a few Series X Enhanced “interviews” so far where the studio representative has done very little talking about their game, and a lot of hitting the same talking points as all the other “interviews”; mentioning resolution and frame rate, potential for adding some ray-traced effects, and even more weirdly sometimes plugging how great backwards compatibility is. All in response to very robotic leading questions that feel as if they’re being asked by the person writing the answers to justify the talking points.

That Series X is being offered as the big native resolution high frame rate machine almost seems as if it’s the “Pro” offering to the Series S base machine.

Can there be Series X games, and not just Series X Enhanced games? Sony wouldn’t allow PS4 Pro only games, and there needed to be feature parity with PS4 which held back the project scope of some PS VR multiplayer titles where frame rate was critical. Firewall Zero Hour was designed to have dynamic lights and shadows and early footage running on PS4 Pro showed it, but it couldn’t get through QA on PS4 so the feature was dropped to maintain parity and keep the multiplayer gameplay fair between both consoles.

If Series X is the “Pro” variant of Series S, with them both being of the same generation, with the same expected lifetime, and are essentially the same platform, then depending on how well they sell compared to each other the talk of how something could be scaled down to Series S might be the wrong way to look at it.
It assumes Series X is the primary and lead platform for a project, when in fact it could end up the other way around, like PS4 is to PS4 Pro.

The real question then becomes how do games scale up to Series X, and then suddenly all of the recent marketing surrounding Series X hardware seems to make sense, as does the Series X Enhanced badge.

Series S only makes sense if it is to be more popular and sell better than Series X. I’ve always thought of it as being a cheaper console to the Series X “main event”, and maybe that’s why it was revealed first to give that impression.

Microsoft need market share more than anything else right now, and price has by far the biggest impact on that.

So what happens with something like the Unreal Engine 5 tech demo? Something reduced to an average of 1440P at a stable 30 FPS on PS5, where the compute capability of the GPU isn’t just used for painting more pixels, but for doing the bulk of the Nanite geometry data crunching and triangle work? Whatever GPU advantage Series X has over PS5 will only mean it sits at a slightly higher average dynamic resolution at best. Certainly not 4K and/or 60 FPS as the delta between the two systems isn’t even approaching that significant.
What becomes of a game or project like that on Series S, if it is the starting point and lead platform that needs feature parity with Series X?
It would need new mesh assets entirely to even reach 1080P, which adds significantly more cost to the project and negates the savings offered by something like Nanite in the first place.
Project scope is set as much by budget (time/money) as it is by hardware.

If Series X is tied to Xbox One there is no question at all that game project scope is limited for Series X, for the same reason the new Ratchet and Clank game couldn’t be designed as it is if it had to also target PS4.

Series S having Series X CPU and IO mitigates most of this problem entirely, but if Series S massively outsells Series X, it also means the scaling between the two will likely always be just in pixel counts, as hinted at by Series X marketing.
With finite budgets and significantly more Series S than X, it might not be a question of how to make it work on Series S, but how to economically add value to Series X, with higher resolution and frame rate being the easy option on the table.

And what’s the point of Series S if it’s not to sell massively more units than Series X and hopefully PS5?

No sane game studio that wants to make money is making a PC game targeted at making a 2080Ti sweat. They certainly have graphics options that can be adjusted to do just that, but only for diminishing returns in graphics quality over the more typical settings.
If all PCs in the world had 2080Tis I can’t imagine the graphics we’d see now in PC wouldn’t be any different.
We’ve had GPUs as powerful as what will be found in PS5 and XSX for a while now, but I’m certain graphics on PC will take a leap in response to this level of GPU becoming commonplace on console.

The GPU found in PS4 was available for a long time already in the PC space before PS4 launched, and has been thoroughly trounced since then.
But where are the games that look as good as The Last of Us Part II does on a base PS4 on PC back then?
They weren’t made because project scope for graphics like that is limited not only by budget but the capability of the base hardware spec you target.

Nobody was targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 7950 back then, although they could do it by cranking up some processing for diminishing image quality returns.

Nobody is targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 2080Ti as their baseline right now. That will start happening as PS5 and XSX become widespread.

Can Series X have games made independently for only it that can do that? Or is it a Pro variant of a Series S that will be seeking diminishing returns in image quality? It’s much more expensive to make two different lots of geometry and level design than it is bumping up a frame buffer or rate.

It shouldn’t matter much for multi-platforms as they still need to account for PC, but it could show up in first-party games if the role of Series X is to only offer more pixels to games designed around a much bigger Series S market share.

Naughty Dog is extremely talented, extremely well funded, and a first-party studio.
TLoU2 on PS4 Pro got nothing but a resolution increase. It is a higher image quality, but not a world apart. The Pro clearly has had less time invested in it and wasn’t the lead platform as the PS4 maintains a rock solid 30 FPS, but the Pro with it’s quick and easy frame buffer increase can dip a frame or two in water where the PS4 does not.

Asking how games might scale down to Series S I think is naive.

How Series X and Series S sell compared to each other will change the Xbox landscape over the next 7 years in my opinion.

Depending on sales ratio, the question could be how well can a Series X game scale up in theory (with the June Series X marketing interviews seeking to address that), and how will most developers do it in reality, with the finite resources at hand.

A lot of sweat is being lost over 10.3 vs 12.1 peak figures, but what might the average game look like between the two in reality if Series S is the lead next gen Xbox platform?

The most impressive real time interactive footage I’ve seen so far is still the Unreal Engine 5 demo, or the Horizon sequel.

Xbox needs to show what Series X means in reality, not only in numbers as they have done so far.
PlayStation have a track record of delivering in reality, even when the numbers aren’t on their side.
 
Last edited:

pasterpl

Member
Feb 8, 2020
733
1,241
330
I don't know about this because I heard from a certain group that Sales doesn't matter any more only game pass subscription, or is the narrative changing again perhaps? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
just like TFlops became not relevant metric to measure performance of consoles (I know that TFlops were never the best metric to measure this) after road to PS5 presentation, moving goalposts is quite common on both sides.
 

xacto

Member
Mar 6, 2020
574
2,856
435
Switzerland
just like TFlops became not relevant metric to measure performance of consoles (I know that TFlops were never the best metric to measure this) after road to PS5 presentation, moving goalposts is quite common on both sides.

"Moving goal posts" and "both sides" shouldn't be used in the same phrase, in the context you're referring to. Only if it helps you make it through these hard times.
 
Last edited:

Neo Blaster

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,747
7,573
495
Well, CLEARLY, he, along with the rest of Microsoft, are TERRIFIED of the new PS5. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship!

JUST KIDDING! On a serious note, that IS a really big departure. After 15 years it's not a surprise to have someone move on but this will obviously leave a big gap when potentially, they may need that experience and leadership the most. Will be interesting to see who they pick to fill the spot. That's almost certainly planned already so I'd expect an announcement soon. If they DON'T have succession planned already then I would be more concerned that this could impact them.
Well, to be fair, a lot of people left from Playstation since this gen started, like Tretton, Boyes, House and Layden, among others.
 

Thirty7ven

Member
Apr 13, 2020
1,147
4,434
405
just like TFlops became not relevant metric to measure performance of consoles (I know that TFlops were never the best metric to measure this) after road to PS5 presentation, moving goalposts is quite common on both sides.

It’s normal for people to be more excited about new tech (I/O advancements) that seem to be generating a lot more talk and excitement within the industry.

When you look at it, just recently we saw two consoles released that did the whole “more tflops” advancement. The PS4 pro and the X1X took away the shine of the more obvious enhancements that next gen will bring.
 

Neo Blaster

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,747
7,573
495
Microsoft probably thinks that undercutting Sony with a cheaper console will help them sell more units. Time will tell if that will work out for them, but I don't think it will. It's a bit like throwing different things at a wall and see what sticks.
More and more Xbox consoles become 'Gamepass delivery systems', even Phil said he's ok whether a family doesn't want to buy an Xbox this year. They want subscribers, and for that they already have the one family for budget consumers, XSX for the enthusiasts and Xcloud for those who game on mobile. Who is Lockart targeted for? It would make much more sense if it was supposed to launch only when the one family is retired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem and xacto

MisterXDTV

Member
Dec 8, 2013
895
363
480
Assuming Series S is disc-less like it should be, it has to be at least $200 cheaper than a PS5 Digital Edition to stand a chance to compete....

The value ratio (cost/performance) difference could be massive between the two machines, otherwise....

And I don't get the "But 1080p TVs"

You know that the HDMI port on a PS5 can output @ 1080p resolution just fine, right?
 
Last edited:

Neo Blaster

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,747
7,573
495
Let's isolate one single clock or TF metric and hold that as the sole determining factor of scaling and performance because I aM AuThoRiTy.

Masters in computer science/programming? Nah I have a twitter account, PhD in FUD and a good dose of dunning-kruger so I am authority.
First he says Lockart CPU will be a downclocked XSX CPU, now he says they are equal. His source: tales from his ass.

And oh, my God, a 100MHz difference is so huge, but 4TF vs 12TF isn't a problem at all. Go figure...

Here is my two cents and it will not be popular with a lot of people here but here goes. As you can see by my profile picture, i win beauty contests not intellectual debates :messenger_beaming: .

I am all for lockheart, why cos it's cheap as chips.

Being able to play the best xbox games, which include ori, grim dawn, halo , forza, new fable, all the gears etc for say around £200 pounds if the rumours are true is beyond awesome.

Knowing microsoft they will include a month or 3 months free with the console and boom you have your gamepass.
You could knock out all those games over the holiday.

However, saying that, i just feel that the ps5 and its game ecosystem are just superior in terms of quality design, and when i say this its by a long shot.

The features they are offering, the advanced haptics, the sound engine, ssd are just superior to Microsoft's offerings. Thats not including the game studious, which lets face it Sony's are the best. Microsoft are offering gaming+ while Sony are offering gaming +++

If people are on an extreme budget, which i am, the necessity for a cheap console is a god send. That's why i will not throw to much shade at it.

However, if you can scrape enough cash together, rob your granny et, sell kitten coats etc, i would tell people to try and save abit more for a ps5.

I don't feel there is really a bad choice in the end, its kinda do i go with product 1 which is an a or product no 2 which is a b.

Hope this helps, it probably did not.
If every new MS studios were next gen exclusives, Lockart would make sense for budget consumers, but the way things will be for the next 2 years they could simply grab a cheap One S.

Everything is based on you thinking they won't use the processing power for resolution anymore, when in the next 7 years tv manufacturers will start the push for 8K tv's.
That's where mid-gen updates will come...and no, I don't want that, I really hope resolution takes at step back next gen in favor of post-processing effects and efficient reconstruction techniques..
 

3liteDragon

Member
Mar 3, 2020
464
2,963
350
Lockhart’s CPU is faster than PS5’s because it has a higher frequency huh, yea let’s just completely ignore the fact that PS5’s custom CPU has SMT turned on by default, combined with the fact that all of the I/O and audio work is offloaded from it. Really makes you wonder which console (Series X or PS5) has the CPU advantage here, I mean you know I can just look at the spec sheet without wanting to learn more about the specs themselves and go “Series X has the CPU advantage” because of a 300MHz difference.
 
Last edited:

sircaw

Member
Jul 3, 2019
865
2,999
480
A local pond.
Im not going to get into it really but the following really struck me;

- I've seen 120 Hz things in person and I wasn't very impressed. (yes this is subjective but the most important thing about high refresh rate is how they feel to the player. I suggest actually playing them not just watching)
- I think it'll be matched price to PS5 with disc or maybe just a bit cheaper because of their insecurity. (these are huge huge companies with tons of market research etc, their pricing may be influenced by the PS5 but it will have nothing to do with "insecurity" of anyone involved)
- To a point when they bleed money because they've gone too far. We've already had one Atari moment in the history of gaming. Game Pass is a danger of it coming back. (Gamepass is going to lead to an Atari moment? Please back that up with proof).
What the hell, you don't think 120 frames is the be all to end all. I bet your one of those freaks that hates pineapple on their pizza too. Your lucky your not one of my neighbours, i would drive you away with pitch forks and rocks. DAMN YOU HEATHEN.

Ps i agree. :messenger_beaming:
 
Last edited:

Vae_Victis

Member
Mar 4, 2020
126
579
280
How well Series S sells in comparison to Series X will be extremely interesting.

We’ve had a few Series X Enhanced “interviews” so far where the studio representative has done very little talking about their game, and a lot of hitting the same talking points as all the other “interviews”; mentioning resolution and frame rate, potential for adding some ray-traced effects, and even more weirdly sometimes plugging how great backwards compatibility is. All in response to very robotic leading questions that feel as if they’re being asked by the person writing the answers to justify the talking points.

That Series X is being offered as the big native resolution high frame rate machine almost seems as if it’s the “Pro” offering to the Series S base machine.

Can there be Series X games, and not just Series X Enhanced games? Sony wouldn’t allow PS4 Pro only games, and there needed to be feature parity with PS4 which held back the project scope of some PS VR multiplayer titles where frame rate was critical. Firewall Zero Hour was designed to have dynamic lights and shadows and early footage running on PS4 Pro showed it, but it couldn’t get through QA on PS4 so the feature was dropped to maintain parity and keep the multiplayer gameplay fair between both consoles.

If Series X is the “Pro” variant of Series S, with them both being of the same generation, with the same expected lifetime, and are essentially the same platform, then depending on how well they sell compared to each other the talk of how something could be scaled down to Series S might be the wrong way to look at it.
It assumes Series X is the primary and lead platform for a project, when in fact it could end up the other way around, like PS4 is to PS4 Pro.

The real question then becomes how do games scale up to Series X, and then suddenly all of the recent marketing surrounding Series X hardware seems to make sense, as does the Series X Enhanced badge.

Series S only makes sense if it is to be more popular and sell better than Series X. I’ve always thought of it as being a cheaper console to the Series X “main event”, and maybe that’s why it was revealed first to give that impression.

Microsoft need market share more than anything else right now, and price has by far the biggest impact on that.

So what happens with something like the Unreal Engine 5 tech demo? Something reduced to an average of 1440P at a stable 30 FPS on PS5, where the compute capability of the GPU isn’t just used for painting more pixels, but for doing the bulk of the Nanite geometry data crunching and triangle work? Whatever GPU advantage Series X has over PS5 will only mean it sits at a slightly higher average dynamic resolution at best. Certainly not 4K and/or 60 FPS as the delta between the two systems isn’t even approaching that significant.
What becomes of a game or project like that on Series S, if it is the starting point and lead platform that needs feature parity with Series X?
It would need new mesh assets entirely to even reach 1080P, which adds significantly more cost to the project and negates the savings offered by something like Nanite in the first place.
Project scope is set as much by budget (time/money) as it is by hardware.

If Series X is tied to Xbox One there is no question at all that game project scope is limited for Series X, for the same reason the new Ratchet and Clank game couldn’t be designed as it is if it had to also target PS4.

Series S having Series X CPU and IO mitigates most of this problem entirely, but if Series S massively outsells Series X, it also means the scaling between the two will likely always be just in pixel counts, as hinted at by Series X marketing.
With finite budgets and significantly more Series S than X, it might not be a question of how to make it work on Series S, but how to economically add value to Series X, with higher resolution and frame rate being the easy option on the table.

And what’s the point of Series S if it’s not to sell massively more units than Series X and hopefully PS5?

No sane game studio that wants to make money is making a PC game targeted at making a 2080Ti sweat. They certainly have graphics options that can be adjusted to do just that, but only for diminishing returns in graphics quality over the more typical settings.
If all PCs in the world had 2080Tis I can’t imagine the graphics we’d see now in PC wouldn’t be any different.
We’ve had GPUs as powerful as what will be found in PS5 and XSX for a while now, but I’m certain graphics on PC will take a leap in response to this level of GPU becoming commonplace on console.

The GPU found in PS4 was available for a long time already in the PC space before PS4 launched, and has been thoroughly trounced since then.
But where are the games that look as good as The Last of Us Part II does on a base PS4 on PC back then?
They weren’t made because project scope for graphics like that is limited not only by budget but the capability of the base hardware spec you target.

Nobody was targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 7950 back then, although they could do it by cranking up some processing for diminishing image quality returns.

Nobody is targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 2080Ti as their baseline right now. That will start happening as PS5 and XSX become widespread.

Can Series X have games made independently for only it that can do that? Or is it a Pro variant of a Series S that will be seeking diminishing returns in image quality? It’s much more expensive to make two different lots of geometry and level design than it is bumping up a frame buffer or rate.

It shouldn’t matter much for multi-platforms as they still need to account for PC, but it could show up in first-party games if the role of Series X is to only offer more pixels to games designed around a much bigger Series S market share.

Naughty Dog is extremely talented, extremely well funded, and a first-party studio.
TLoU2 on PS4 Pro got nothing but a resolution increase. It is a higher image quality, but not a world apart. The Pro clearly has had less time invested in it and wasn’t the lead platform as the PS4 maintains a rock solid 30 FPS, but the Pro with it’s quick and easy frame buffer increase can dip a frame or two in water where the PS4 does not.

Asking how games might scale down to Series S I think is naive.

How Series X and Series S sell compared to each other will change the Xbox landscape over the next 7 years in my opinion.

Depending on sales ratio, the question could be how well can a Series X game scale up in theory (with the June Series X marketing interviews seeking to address that), and how will most developers do it in reality, with the finite resources at hand.

A lot of sweat is being lost over 10.3 vs 12.1 peak figures, but what might the average game look like between the two in reality if Series S is the lead next gen Xbox platform?

The most impressive real time interactive footage I’ve seen so far is still the Unreal Engine 5 demo, or the Horizon sequel.

Xbox needs to show what Series X means in reality, not only in numbers as they have done so far.
PlayStation have a track record of delivering in reality, even when the numbers aren’t on their side.
I completely agree with your overall analysis, but there is one element you are forgetting: there is no such thing as true console exclusives for Xbox, since even their first party games will be on PC too.

Under this light the Series S makes more sense, at least right now. If you have to accommodate for PC and Series X as a bare minimum anyway, you might as well also have a weaker console configuration that would still fall well inside the PC spectrum (I'm completely ignoring Xbox One, since support for that is supposed to be dropped in 1-2 years). Because, Series S or not, there would be no way of "developing for Series X" to begin with the same way Sony's first party studios could develop for PS5, assuming Microsoft's commitment to support the Windows 10 market.

Now, this does still pose more serious questions for the long run: what happens 4-5 years from now, when pretty much all gaming PCs will have way, way better GPUs and RAM configurations than the Series S, and even under optimal conditions it would be the Series X that starts struggling to keep up the pace with high-end PC optimization? Will the Series S keep the whole group down? Will it be discontinued for some games, that will become Windows and Series X exclusive? Or does Microsoft hope to have a Stadia-style service running by then to bypass the issue completely?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

sircaw

Member
Jul 3, 2019
865
2,999
480
A local pond.
How well Series S sells in comparison to Series X will be extremely interesting.

We’ve had a few Series X Enhanced “interviews” so far where the studio representative has done very little talking about their game, and a lot of hitting the same talking points as all the other “interviews”; mentioning resolution and frame rate, potential for adding some ray-traced effects, and even more weirdly sometimes plugging how great backwards compatibility is. All in response to very robotic leading questions that feel as if they’re being asked by the person writing the answers to justify the talking points.

That Series X is being offered as the big native resolution high frame rate machine almost seems as if it’s the “Pro” offering to the Series S base machine.

Can there be Series X games, and not just Series X Enhanced games? Sony wouldn’t allow PS4 Pro only games, and there needed to be feature parity with PS4 which held back the project scope of some PS VR multiplayer titles where frame rate was critical. Firewall Zero Hour was designed to have dynamic lights and shadows and early footage running on PS4 Pro showed it, but it couldn’t get through QA on PS4 so the feature was dropped to maintain parity and keep the multiplayer gameplay fair between both consoles.

If Series X is the “Pro” variant of Series S, with them both being of the same generation, with the same expected lifetime, and are essentially the same platform, then depending on how well they sell compared to each other the talk of how something could be scaled down to Series S might be the wrong way to look at it.
It assumes Series X is the primary and lead platform for a project, when in fact it could end up the other way around, like PS4 is to PS4 Pro.

The real question then becomes how do games scale up to Series X, and then suddenly all of the recent marketing surrounding Series X hardware seems to make sense, as does the Series X Enhanced badge.

Series S only makes sense if it is to be more popular and sell better than Series X. I’ve always thought of it as being a cheaper console to the Series X “main event”, and maybe that’s why it was revealed first to give that impression.

Microsoft need market share more than anything else right now, and price has by far the biggest impact on that.

So what happens with something like the Unreal Engine 5 tech demo? Something reduced to an average of 1440P at a stable 30 FPS on PS5, where the compute capability of the GPU isn’t just used for painting more pixels, but for doing the bulk of the Nanite geometry data crunching and triangle work? Whatever GPU advantage Series X has over PS5 will only mean it sits at a slightly higher average dynamic resolution at best. Certainly not 4K and/or 60 FPS as the delta between the two systems isn’t even approaching that significant.
What becomes of a game or project like that on Series S, if it is the starting point and lead platform that needs feature parity with Series X?
It would need new mesh assets entirely to even reach 1080P, which adds significantly more cost to the project and negates the savings offered by something like Nanite in the first place.
Project scope is set as much by budget (time/money) as it is by hardware.

If Series X is tied to Xbox One there is no question at all that game project scope is limited for Series X, for the same reason the new Ratchet and Clank game couldn’t be designed as it is if it had to also target PS4.

Series S having Series X CPU and IO mitigates most of this problem entirely, but if Series S massively outsells Series X, it also means the scaling between the two will likely always be just in pixel counts, as hinted at by Series X marketing.
With finite budgets and significantly more Series S than X, it might not be a question of how to make it work on Series S, but how to economically add value to Series X, with higher resolution and frame rate being the easy option on the table.

And what’s the point of Series S if it’s not to sell massively more units than Series X and hopefully PS5?

No sane game studio that wants to make money is making a PC game targeted at making a 2080Ti sweat. They certainly have graphics options that can be adjusted to do just that, but only for diminishing returns in graphics quality over the more typical settings.
If all PCs in the world had 2080Tis I can’t imagine the graphics we’d see now in PC wouldn’t be any different.
We’ve had GPUs as powerful as what will be found in PS5 and XSX for a while now, but I’m certain graphics on PC will take a leap in response to this level of GPU becoming commonplace on console.

The GPU found in PS4 was available for a long time already in the PC space before PS4 launched, and has been thoroughly trounced since then.
But where are the games that look as good as The Last of Us Part II does on a base PS4 on PC back then?
They weren’t made because project scope for graphics like that is limited not only by budget but the capability of the base hardware spec you target.

Nobody was targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 7950 back then, although they could do it by cranking up some processing for diminishing image quality returns.

Nobody is targeting PC games at efficiently stretching a 2080Ti as their baseline right now. That will start happening as PS5 and XSX become widespread.

Can Series X have games made independently for only it that can do that? Or is it a Pro variant of a Series S that will be seeking diminishing returns in image quality? It’s much more expensive to make two different lots of geometry and level design than it is bumping up a frame buffer or rate.

It shouldn’t matter much for multi-platforms as they still need to account for PC, but it could show up in first-party games if the role of Series X is to only offer more pixels to games designed around a much bigger Series S market share.

Naughty Dog is extremely talented, extremely well funded, and a first-party studio.
TLoU2 on PS4 Pro got nothing but a resolution increase. It is a higher image quality, but not a world apart. The Pro clearly has had less time invested in it and wasn’t the lead platform as the PS4 maintains a rock solid 30 FPS, but the Pro with it’s quick and easy frame buffer increase can dip a frame or two in water where the PS4 does not.

Asking how games might scale down to Series S I think is naive.

How Series X and Series S sell compared to each other will change the Xbox landscape over the next 7 years in my opinion.

Depending on sales ratio, the question could be how well can a Series X game scale up in theory (with the June Series X marketing interviews seeking to address that), and how will most developers do it in reality, with the finite resources at hand.

A lot of sweat is being lost over 10.3 vs 12.1 peak figures, but what might the average game look like between the two in reality if Series S is the lead next gen Xbox platform?

The most impressive real time interactive footage I’ve seen so far is still the Unreal Engine 5 demo, or the Horizon sequel.

Xbox needs to show what Series X means in reality, not only in numbers as they have done so far.
PlayStation have a track record of delivering in reality, even when the numbers aren’t on their side.
Have you ever read war and peace?
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
1,736
2,433
345
Lockhart’s CPU is faster than PS5’s because it has a higher frequency huh, yea let’s just completely ignore the fact that PS5’s custom CPU has SMT turned on by default, combined with the fact that all of the I/O and audio work is offloaded from it. Really makes you wonder which console (Series X or PS5) has the CPU advantage here, I mean you know I can just look at the spec sheet without wanting to learn more about the specs themselves and go “Series X has the CPU advantage” because of a 300MHz difference.
Xbox Series X also has dedicated hardware for audio and is also higher clocked with SMT (only 100MHz though)
 
Last edited:

BruceWayneIII

Member
Jul 3, 2007
847
69
1,135
More and more Xbox consoles become 'Gamepass delivery systems', even Phil said he's ok whether a family doesn't want to buy an Xbox this year. They want subscribers, and for that they already have the one family for budget consumers, XSX for the enthusiasts and Xcloud for those who game on mobile. Who is Lockart targeted for? It would make much more sense if it was supposed to launch only when the one family is retired.
I think their strategy includes killing off the One and the One X and replace them with Series S. The feature gap (hardware wise) from current gen to next gen is too big when they view Xbox as a series of compatible devices, I guess.
 

Thirty7ven

Member
Apr 13, 2020
1,147
4,434
405
I think their strategy includes killing off the One and the One X and replace them with Series S. The feature gap (hardware wise) from current gen to next gen is too big when they view Xbox as a series of compatible devices, I guess.
The One and the One X are selling very poorly anyway, it wouldn't make any sense to persist with them.

The Series S is the most important console for MS going into next gen. Everything they are doing with XSX is to secure their hardcore and not lose them to the PS5, but the SS is their big bet.
 

Neo Blaster

Member
Jan 27, 2020
1,747
7,573
495
The One and the One X are selling very poorly anyway, it wouldn't make any sense to persist with them.

The Series S is the most important console for MS going into next gen. Everything they are doing with XSX is to secure their hardcore and not lose them to the PS5, but the SS is their big bet.
Then MS should announce they will no longer manufacture the One family as soon as Lockart begin sales, or even when it's revealed. Get rid of current stocks with aggressive pricing on next BF and move on.
 

sonomamashine

Gold Member
Jun 29, 2019
2,660
4,395
685
The One and the One X are selling very poorly anyway, it wouldn't make any sense to persist with them.

The Series S is the most important console for MS going into next gen. Everything they are doing with XSX is to secure their hardcore and not lose them to the PS5, but the SS is their big bet.
The most important console for Microsoft is the Series X (you know the one they are advertising), we still haven't heard anything official about the series s, everything they will do with XSS is to secure the casual gamer 1080p/1440p (the majority that doesn't own a 4k screen for example).
 

Thirty7ven

Member
Apr 13, 2020
1,147
4,434
405
The most important console for Microsoft is the Series X (you know the one they are advertising), we still haven't heard anything official about the series s, everything they will do with XSS is to secure the casual gamer 1080p/1440p (the majority that doesn't own a 4k screen for example).
The Series X is very important for sure, because without it they lose the Xbox hardcore community. The narrative would be terrible for them, scorched earth. But it can't be the most important console for them, because it's a premium, high performance piece of kit that will cost 499$ minimum at a time when Xbox has no real market momentum. It's in a poor position against the PS5 by default, and completely at odds with the need to bolster Gamepass subscribers.
 

BadBreathOfTheWild

Gold Member
May 1, 2020
487
3,144
425
I completely agree with your overall analysis, but there is one element you are forgetting: there is no such thing as true console exclusives for Xbox, since even their first party games will be on PC too.

Under this light the Series S makes more sense, at least right now. If you have to accommodate for PC and Series X as a bare minimum anyway, you might as well also have a weaker console configuration that would still fall well inside the PC spectrum (I'm completely ignoring Xbox One, since support for that is supposed to be dropped in 1-2 years). Because, Series S or not, there would be no way of "developing for Series X" to begin with the same way Sony's first party studios could develop for PS5, assuming Microsoft's commitment to support the Windows 10 market.

Now, this does still pose more serious questions for the long run: what happens 4-5 years from now, when pretty much all gaming PCs will have way, way better GPUs and RAM configurations than the Series S, and even under optimal conditions it would be the Series X that starts struggling to keep up the pace with high-end PC optimization? Will the Series S keep the whole group down? Will it be discontinued for some games, that will become Windows and Series X exclusive? Or does Microsoft hope to have a Stadia-style service running by then to bypass the issue completely?
Do we know whether Series X/S will get exclusives that won't appear on PC, too? I can't see how that can happen unless IO speeds start becoming part of minimum specs, too. Which would be a great thing for PC gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Thirty7ven

Member
Apr 13, 2020
1,147
4,434
405

But what will the console look like? That’s a good question; the popular idea that it is a smaller cube fills the hearts of many as it reminds them of the Game Cube but that may not be logical.

Why? One thing that Microsoft mandates is when they let employees/third-parties travel with the hardware, they ask them to disguise the product. This is a standard practice in the industry but for the Anaconda, Microsoft recommended employees put the hardware in a PC tower, subwoofer, or something else that is quite large. For Lockhart, Microsoft has said that the hardware should be disguised by using Durango or Scorpio covers which means the device is not the same shape as the series X.
Very interesting!
 

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
3,852
1,292
640
France
I don't know about this because I heard from a certain group that Sales doesn't matter any more only game pass subscription, or is the narrative changing again perhaps? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
you stop thinking one step too early it's why.
What do they hope people buying cheaper hardware will do ?
 

sonomamashine

Gold Member
Jun 29, 2019
2,660
4,395
685
The Series X is very important for sure, because without it they lose the Xbox hardcore community. The narrative would be terrible for them, scorched earth. But it can't be the most important console for them, because it's a premium, high performance piece of kit that will cost 499$ minimum at a time when Xbox has no real market momentum. It's in a poor position against the PS5 by default, and completely at odds with the need to bolster Gamepass subscribers.
The same thing can be said about hardcore playstation community how they lost to xbox, i believe the PS5 is a premium aswell.
That would probably be in the ballpark of xbox in pricing, if you think xbox is 499$ how much would the ps5 be ?
Momentum can change like AMD vs Intel.
I don't think it's in a poor position against the ps5, they aimed at the high end & lower end.
 

3liteDragon

Member
Mar 3, 2020
464
2,963
350
Xbox Series X also has dedicated hardware for audio and is also higher clocked with SMT (only 100MHz though)
Well for the first few years, Microsoft doesn’t expect devs to use SMT as it’s more difficult to optimize for 2 threads per core (more like their engine AS OF RN, isn’t capable of doing that yet). I know the Series X has a dedicated audio chip (even though the 3D audio concepts both companies are talking about aren’t even the same), I was just emphasizing how good PS5’s CPU would perform with SMT already enabled + all the I/O and audio work offloaded. Cerny talked about how a dedicated DMAC (Direct Memory Access Controller, responsible for moving/copying data from RAM to it’s final destination) unit within the chip removes the need for the CPU to copy data from RAM to the GPU while also mentioning that the copy performance is equal to 1-2 Zen 2 cores. Then he goes on to talk about the 2 I/O co-processors (file lookup and memory mapping) and cache scrubbers (which helps increase CU occupancy btw, innovative idea) which are also custom hardware dedicated to I/O and reducing latency when moving data, Microsoft didn't talk about any of this because they don't have all this dedicated hardware for I/O (Except for a custom Zlib decompressor). So where do you think all that processing happens then? The CPU. Which is why their CPU is clocked as high as 3.8GHz (with SMT disabled) and PS5's is clocked as low as 3.5GHz (with SMT already enabled by default).
 
Last edited: