• 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.

Opinion Hardware No, Series S/Lockhart Will NOT Hold Back Series X (From Technology POV). Here's Why.

CamHostage

Member
Sep 30, 2004
5,846
515
1,555
There is literally no legitimate ground anymore for someone to hedge concern around Series S on that idea anymore, when we can look at games like SOM alone as well as the logical reality of how MS will prioritize software development (or already have). At this point, it comes off almost as concern-trolling.
False equivalent, though. (As has been pointed out.)

What Microsoft have NOT said they're doing (and goddamn them if they do) is making a crippled shell of a product for the old console just to say it's on there, the way you're talking about with Shadow of Mordor. That would be fucking ridiculous if Halo Infinite wasn't just about feature-complete with its cousin (especially since we're assuming the PC, One, and Series X versions will be cross-play.)

Shadow of Mordor on next-gen wasn't held back by it's past-gen versions because those aren't the same game; those PS360 versions are the equivalent of PSP ports of the game, ported down by an external studio (Behaviour Interactive, the same studio that made the not-at-all-the-same PSP version of Dante's Inferno, so yeah, pretty equivalent.) Different boxes of the game, different builds of the game inside the box, different studios making them each. SoM isn't relying on scaling or optimization or anything like what we're talking about with the One/Series X transition because it was handed off to some external studio who were told, "Here, this ain't our problem, you go shove it into the old shitboxes somehow, we're too busy making the real game." It couldn't have been hurt by the prioritization of versions, because developer Monolith in their Washington studio was 100% prioritized on the only version of the game that they made, and all they had to do was share some assets and design docs and builds with the studio in Canada that had 0% affect on the core product because they were miles away working on their facsimile.

There's no evidence that this is the plan with any of Microsoft's 1st Party games. I'm not saying I expect the One versions to be 100% the same if there's something the next-gen version does that can't be replicated on past-gen, but for this first year that MS is saying to count on every game to be on both, I would be surprised and very disappointed if the Xbox One products were bullshit connected in name only to the Series X products. They may employ external studios to assist (and this doesn't always go badly; the Xbox 360 port of TitanFall 1 was really surprising,) but MS is saying that Bungie is making the Halo Infinite they are advertising right now (though to be fair, you cannot actually pre-order any version of Halo Infinite right now, so they may clear up that messaging when the SKUs get set,) and whichever copy of Halo Infinite I reach for, I'm currently expecting Bungie's hands to have molded it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
21,941
20,892
1,685
Please understand, the thread.

When you have to make posts like this to try and convince yourself and others that it won't be a problem then you know its going to be a problem.

This is what people did with the PS5 SSD saying it would make up for the teraflop deficit and they were rightly ridiculed.

If something is going to be beneficial then the results will be visible and it should need no explanation.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bladed Thesis

01011001

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3,587
5,567
455
When you have to make posts like this to try and convince yourself and others that it won't be a problem then you know its going to be a problem.
I vote to from now on call GHG an Islamist Terrorist. because I am convinced he is, even tho I have no evidence that he is... he just seems like one.
so from now on every time he comes up in any mentions, address him as "The Convicted Islamist Terrorist GHG"

how would you like that, if it happened for real? like if this wasn't a joke that was obviously started by a post like this one? But if everyone on here would simple call you an Islamist Terrorist without any ounce of irony or banter, but ridiculing you wherever you go. and with the drive to bring it up every time you post something or are mentioned... Would you not try to set the record straight? If you had proof that you were in fact never convicted, and it's pretty clear that you're not to anyone who isn't absolutely ignorant, should I then come in to that thread where you show receipts that you're not a convicted Islamist Terrorist and say "When you have to make posts like this to try and convince yourself and others that you're not a Terrorist then you know you are one."
(you could also switch out the terrorist part for rapist or anything else detestable)

I chose a extreme example here just to demonstrate how fucking stupid that would be, like ridiculously stupid even.
but this is exactly what is happening with the conversation around SonyGAF whenever the Series S/Lockhart is even hinted at... people with absolute zero technical knowledge come out of the woodwork trying to convince everyone that the Series S is a problem going forward, when it is as easy as looking up performance tests on similar PC hardware and see that you would really, and I mean REALLY, have to try in order to make a game for Series X that would be hard to run on Series S. you would, as a developer, have to go out of your way to make a game like this... it would need to be on purpose basically... that would need to be a game that runs at like 720p30 on the Series X while maxing out the GPU to its absolute max.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
Console guys can't wrap their heads around the idea of having the same SSD, CPU, and GPU architecture, but with different resolution targets. It's where gems like "2070 Super would be minimum requirement to run a PS5 game on PC" come from. Dude, not even a PS5 is as powerful as a 2070 Super. :messenger_grinning_smiling:

I just did another test on my 2060 Super downclocked and limited using Afterburner custom frequency/voltage curve to a hair above 4TF(1005MHz lock for stability reasons), and achieved over 5200 graphics score in Time Spy, while RX 580 scores 4469. I booted up TW3, Novigrad Docks where NXGamer did a ride and showed the unpatched 900p/Xbox One Settings version of the game running on X1X and hitting low-mid 40s for framerate. I used 1080p/Ultra settings, HairWorks disabled, HBAO+, and had 65fps avg for the ride through the dock area where he tested. That's with Zen 1 R5 1600 CPU, not Zen 2 8c/16t CPU.

The only concern I would have is if it has 10GB RAM instead of the originally rumored 12GB, but after recent research I don't even think that would be an issue. This is assuming Turing-esque performance/FLOPS, RDNA 2 could be better concerning traditional raster performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nikana

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
21,941
20,892
1,685
I vote to from now on call GHG an Islamist Terrorist. because I am convinced he is, even tho I have no evidence that he is... he just seems like one.
so from now on every time he comes up in any mentions, address him as "The Convicted Islamist Terrorist GHG"

how would you like that, if it happened for real? like if this wasn't a joke that was obviously started by a post like this one? But if everyone on here would simple call you an Islamist Terrorist without any ounce of irony or banter, but ridiculing you wherever you go. and with the drive to bring it up every time you post something or are mentioned... Would you not try to set the record straight? If you had proof that you were in fact never convicted, and it's pretty clear that you're not to anyone who isn't absolutely ignorant, should I then come in to that thread where you show receipts that you're not a convicted Islamist Terrorist and say "When you have to make posts like this to try and convince yourself and others that you're not a Terrorist then you know you are one."
(you could also switch out the terrorist part for rapist or anything else detestable)

I chose a extreme example here just to demonstrate how fucking stupid that would be, like ridiculously stupid even.
but this is exactly what is happening with the conversation around SonyGAF whenever the Series S/Lockhart is even hinted at... people with absolute zero technical knowledge come out of the woodwork trying to convince everyone that the Series S is a problem going forward, when it is as easy as looking up performance tests on similar PC hardware and see that you would really, and I mean REALLY, have to try in order to make a game for Series X that would be hard to run on Series S. you would, as a developer, have to go out of your way to make a game like this... it would need to be on purpose basically... that would need to be a game that runs at like 720p30 on the Series X while maxing out the GPU to its absolute max.
Christ alive what the fuck are you rattling on about?
 

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
6,831
4,414
655
As long as Lockhart has the same CPU and SSD there is no reason for this situation to happen.

Only the visual effects and resolution should be scaled down. Framerate maybe, but even this is not as obvious as framerate is also strongly tied to CPU.

Let's wait and see if MS really announces the console and how it is marketed.
 

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,476
5,766
655



J/K, I know it won't hold anything back, but it's sure funny as hell to watch the delusions from the console-only crowd due to their complete lack of knowledge/experience. I mean, people forget that next-gen games will have to run on PCs/laptops that are even way below Lockhart specs to begin with.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Just...what?!?

Dude, that's not how this is going to work. If any developer were doing that right now, we'd of gotten some substantive rumors pointing to such. And if that were the case, then I could see your concern.

But it's literally not what they're doing; Series S and Series X are not fully analogous to XBO S and XBO X. The latter used the S as the baseline since the S was essentially the original XBO which was the original system release. With all of MS's marketing and messaging so far it's pretty clear the Series X is their baseline and the Series S is the port-down machine. It's there as the alternative, not the main.

If it turns out I'm wrong, and MS are actually using Series S as the baseline (and mandating devs to use Series S as the baseline, even though they aren't even forcing 3rd-parties to support cross-gen if they don't want hence Scorn and The Medium among sure-to-be many others), I will be the first to eat the biggest, fattest crow of all time and wash my hands of all of that.

But I doubt that's something I'll need to do at all.
How are we not getting rumors pointing to such? All MS's been talking about is 4k/60fps or even 120fps and it does make Series X pointless for those who don't own a 4k tv. They might not be able to force it on 3rd party developers, but except for AC Valhalla, has MS announced any game that isn't going to 4k/60fps on Series X?

In the end it will all come down to installbase and if Series S sells the same or more as the Series X, 3rd and 1st party developers will be using the lowest common denominator as the base platform.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330



J/K, I know it won't hold anything back, but it's sure funny as hell to watch the delusions from the console-only crowd due to their complete lack of knowledge/experience. I mean, people forget that next-gen games will have to run on PCs/laptops that are even way below Lockhart specs to begin with.
Not the ps5 exclusives, though.

We'll get a ton of cross gen titles for the first couple of years that will run on any potato pc. But as soon as the big 3rd party ps5/Series X exclusives start coming out, the minimum requirements for the pc versions will skyrocket to something like a Ryzen cpu, RTX2070 Super and a NVME SSD.
 

Supmate

Neo Member
Nov 24, 2018
11
3
110
I am a believer in the Lockhart but only at the right price and that price is parity with the PS4. So if the Lockhart is $250 ish then it should be a massive success?

How many PS4's and PS4 pros are Sony expecting to sell in the next holiday season. It should be in their financials... 5 - 10 million worldwide? There's it's market right there?

Lockhart would be able to outperform any current gen console playing current gen games by a country mile and it has the advantage of being able to play any next gen game at 1080P with next gen frame rates.

As an alternative to PS4/Pro it is a far more compelling proposition than the current Xbox S or X.

All big PS4 exclusives after Ghosts of Tshushima are shipped, so the choice surely should come down to its ability to play games rather than exclusives. Lockhart appears to be able to play anything released over the next 2 years or so and if your happy with a current gen Madden for example it will be $10 cheaper to do so. It's gonna massively outperform back catalogue multiplats too.

There's also one big advantage that it will have over Series X and PS5 and that is size.

As an example take the alleged size difference between PS4 and PS5. Apparently PS5 is at least twice the volume of the PS4. Given that a shipping container is a fixed size, that would mean Sony, for every shipment, would only be able to ship half the amount of consoles it would have last season as it can this holiday.

Shipping containers have to be booked way in advance and you can't just magic up additional containers. They are effectively in limited supply so you either ship half the product or you do the same amount but it takes TWICE as long.

To get your product to the consumer with the deadline of the holiday season the latter option is not an option. Sony's capacity to ship PS5's is going to be significantly reduced whilst the PS5 is the size it is.

If Lockhart is the reported tiny box that we are hearing then say its 4 times less the volume of the PS5. That would mean Microsoft could ship 4 times as many Lockhart's as Sony could their product.

Given that a Gamepass subscription is a sub whether its either Series console and if you look at the boxes from either company as gateways to their ecosystems, then Microsoft's capacity to gain market share is 4 times that if Sony's this holiday?

As longs as the price is right and they can market this product successfully to make it attractive to the consumer, Lockhart really has massive potential for Microsoft.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Console guys can't wrap their heads around the idea of having the same SSD, CPU, and GPU architecture, but with different resolution targets. It's where gems like "2070 Super would be minimum requirement to run a PS5 game on PC" come from. Dude, not even a PS5 is as powerful as a 2070 Super. :messenger_grinning_smiling:

I just did another test on my 2060 Super downclocked and limited using Afterburner custom frequency/voltage curve to a hair above 4TF(1005MHz lock for stability reasons), and achieved over 5200 graphics score in Time Spy, while RX 580 scores 4469. I booted up TW3, Novigrad Docks where NXGamer did a ride and showed the unpatched 900p/Xbox One Settings version of the game running on X1X and hitting low-mid 40s for framerate. I used 1080p/Ultra settings, HairWorks disabled, HBAO+, and had 65fps avg for the ride through the dock area where he tested. That's with Zen 1 R5 1600 CPU, not Zen 2 8c/16t CPU.

The only concern I would have is if it has 10GB RAM instead of the originally rumored 12GB, but after recent research I don't even think that would be an issue. This is assuming Turing-esque performance/FLOPS, RDNA 2 could be better concerning traditional raster performance.
If Horizon Zero West runs at 30fps and uses something like checkerboard rendering, you will need a RTX 2070 Super or whatever the pc equivalent that is in the ps5 and a fast NVME SSD. At least if you want to play it the way the developers intended it to on ps5.

Isn't console optimization all about getting the best visual bang for your buck out of the platform? Native 4k is anything but that. Even a ps4 pro, which sole purpose is to run ps4 games in 4k, is using checkerboard rendering or dynamic resolution in almost all games and nobody cares.
 
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
If Horizon Zero West runs at 30fps and uses something like checkerboard rendering, you will need a RTX 2070 Super or whatever the pc equivalent that is in the ps5 and a fast NVME SSD.
You are confusing the meaning of minimum vs recommended settings. Minimum requirements will be something like R9 290 4GB and Ryzen 5 1400. DF said the game doesn't appear to even be using RT.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
You are confusing the meaning of minimum vs recommended settings. Minimum requirements will be something like R9 290 4GB and Ryzen 5 1400. DF said the game doesn't appear to even be using RT.
I think people are confusing how scalable graphics on pc work compared to games specifically designed for a single platform. Yes, if Guerilla Games would be super inefficient on the ps5 then HZW would run perfectly fine on a lower end pc. But like I said, isn't console development all about being as efficient as possible, making the right sacrifices and getting the best results on a tv? Its always been that way and its why we're still seeing games look as good as they do on current gen.

The minimum requirements we are seeing now for most games are pretty much the exact specs of whats in the ps4 (GTX660). Its been like that since 2013 and it will change to around a RTX2070 Super by the time we're getting the AAA next gen games. Assuming, of course, those won't be running in 4k and 60fps on ps5/Series X, you will probably need something like a RTX3080 if you plan to play them in 4k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shubhang

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
5,176
2,437
600
Here's a game, from a company much smaller than Microsoft, working with a game on two generations of hardware saying "'Ya know what? Why should we gimp the PS4 version for the 360 and PS3? We'll just remove that entire Nemesis game mechanic from the old versions instead. No need to hold back the next-gen version for the old consoles!"

So tell me, if a company the size of Monolith Productions was able to prioritize the then-leading next-gen system for game mechanics built solely for that system even when they KNEW the same version of the game on older systems would not be able to run those new game mechanics...why do some people think Microsoft will somehow NOT take this exact same approach if a game requires it?
I'll tell you why, it's called incentive.

Shadow of mordor came out a year after PS4/XB1 launch. That means the install base was a measly amount and they required the PS3 and xbox 360 version sales. Just as MS require the xbox one game sales now. They released for that system by cutting this feature out because they were still in the gen transition where people were still playing their old console and only some had upgraded.

Series S games are not the same situation as shadow of mordor. If series S completely outsells the series X the incentive to create (some complex AI system or anything else pushing innovation) for the lower install base is not there and you will get the same games with increased fps/resolution. That's it.
 
Last edited:

Caio

Member
Jun 27, 2009
451
408
920
Rome
It's not up to MS for 3rd parties; that comes down to the publisher. MS only mandates their 1st party support both Series X and Series S, but haven't specified how.

If a team told them they had a cool game mechanic only possible on Series X, MS (or better to say, the Xbox division) would probably be okay with that feature being either scaled back or removed just for Series S version. No reason why not to do so; people should already know you're getting a compromise with Series S since it's cheaper.
Finally I know I'm not alone, I'm happy, I'm not crazy.

There can be two indipendent team developing two "different versions" of the same Game, I would say one team for XSX, the other one for XBox One.
Now give me a break if I'm wrong, but Series X and Series S share the same CPU and Velocity Architecture, so when it comes to AI, physics, system collision, gameplay mechanics, etc they should have the same features, or very close too. On the other hand,, from a graphics point of you, you need to scale down Resolution and/or frame rate,geometry, details, draw distance, effects, etc. Now there can be some gameplay elements at a certain point which could teorethically be concerned by a much less powerful GPU ? I don't think so, but even if you find some, developers can just alter that sequence of gameplay, modify it, or remove it. I can't see Lockhart holding back XSX.

Now let's talk about Halo Infinite: is XBox One holding back XSX ? What if the XSX is the Lead Platform(and it is), one team is taking care about the XSX version, and another team the XBox One version ? Not only graphics can be scaled down, but also audio, physics, animations, system collision, and AI, yes AI. As an example, the XSX version could have much much stronger, heavy, complex and sophisticated AI, which couldn't be possible on XBox One or XBox One X. So many other non-graphical aspects of the Game can be scaled down, modified or even removed.

We are talking about a big studio and a monster budget from Microsoft. So, it's up to the Publishers/developers if XSX is held back or not from the less powerful machines.

I fully agree with you, and in 16 days we will have the proof.
 
Last edited:

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Finally I know I'm not alone, I'm happy, I'm not crazy.

There can be two indipendent team developing two "different versions" of the same Game, I would say one team for XSX, the other one for XBox One.
Now give me a break if I'm wrong, but Series X and Series S share the same CPU and Velocity Architecture, so when it comes to AI, physics, system collision, gameplay mechanics, etc they should have the same features, or very close too. On the other hand,, from a graphics point of you, you need to scale down Resolution and/or frame rate,geometry, details, draw distance, effects, etc. Now there can be some gameplay elements at a certain point which could teorethically be concerned by a much less powerful GPU ? I don't think so, but even if you find some, developers can just alter that sequence of gameplay, modify it, or remove it. I can't see Lockhart holding back XSX.

Now let's talk about Halo Infinite: is XBox One holding back XSX ? What if the XSX is the Lead Platform(and it is), one team is taking care about the XSX version, and another team the XBox One version ? Not only graphics can be scaled down, but also audio, physics, animations, system collision, and AI, yes AI. As an example, the XSX version could have much much stronger, heavy, complex and sophisticated AI, which couldn't be possible on XBox One or XBox One X. So many other non-graphical aspects of the Game can be scaled down, modified or even removed.

We are talking about a big studio and a monster budget from Microsoft. So, it's up to the Publishers/developers if XSX is held back or not from the less powerful machines.

I fully agree with you, and in 16 days we will have the proof.
I dunno man. I think the Series S and Series X situation is exactly like the Xone S and the Xone X. The XoneX is like 4 times more powerful but did it get completely different versions of Xone games, developed by a different team? Of course not, the only thing developers could do with all those extra Tflops was bumping the resolution and framerates.

We'll see but I got a feeling Halo Infinite will look and play almost identical on Xone and Series X if you're playing it on a 1080p TV (minus a higher framerate and some Ray Tracing thrown in the mix). I know people are expecting a next gen spectacle from Halo but keep in mind that it's not just Lockhart, its designed to provide the same experience on Xone and low-end pc's with a HDD too.
 
Last edited:

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
21,364
1,007
690
Thats an interesting example but it would look bad if they removed important gameplay features to run on lockhart.

Fortunately im sure that's not necessary, lockhart brand new ssd and cpu will ensure it can keep up to the vastly more powerful Series X

With what we know right now, wich is not much without seeing the games themselves, my opinion is that lockhart has the potential to 'hold back' next gen a little, not for its CPU or SSD but the GPU and RAM differences are quite big and no, im not convinced when some gamers say they are used for textures and resolution only
 
  • Like
Reactions: shubhang
Aug 28, 2019
3,292
6,731
625
www.instagram.com
I'll tell you why, it's called incentive.

Shadow of mordor came out a year after PS4/XB1 launch. That means the install base was a measly amount and they required the PS3 and xbox 360 version sales. Just as MS require the xbox one game sales now. They released for that system by cutting this feature out because they were still in the gen transition where people were still playing their old console and only some had upgraded.

Series S games are not the same situation as shadow of mordor. If series S completely outsells the series X the incentive to create (some complex AI system or anything else pushing innovation) for the lower install base is not there and you will get the same games with increased fps/resolution. That's it.
Interesting, because in a way we saw how that incentive worked for 7th gen when the Wii was completely outpacing both PS3 and 360 in sales. 3rd parties did not, in fact, start targeting development of their multiplatform games for the much weaker Wii simply because it was the best-seller.

That may not be a completely comparable example but it's the closest we have. Clearly there are factors other than sales which will influence devs and publishers. Additionally, MS is probably more than keenly aware that if they forced developers to make games for the Series S as the baseline and simply scale up resolution and graphics to Series X, they would lose developer support. When they are very clearly trying to gain developer support, such an idea runs completely opposite, hence why it isn't going to happen regardless of how Series S sells compared to Series X.

How are we not getting rumors pointing to such? All MS's been talking about is 4k/60fps or even 120fps and it does make Series X pointless for those who don't own a 4k tv. They might not be able to force it on 3rd party developers, but except for AC Valhalla, has MS announced any game that isn't going to 4k/60fps on Series X?

In the end it will all come down to installbase and if Series S sells the same or more as the Series X, 3rd and 1st party developers will be using the lowest common denominator as the base platform.
So what has Sony talking about in comparison? SSD (which from every single argument I've seen so far, has mainly been from a point of increasing graphical fidelity. Graphical fidelity != game design shift), Tempest audio, and...oh yeah, they stressed native 4K 30 FPS in their big PS5 reveals at the event!

By your own logic then, a PS5 would be equally worthless to someone who doesn't have a 4K television, because 4K and some other graphical features like RT are the main things Sony have been talking about the past few months plus again the SSD, which (again) every argument I've seen has only boiled down to increasing visual fidelity regarding unique texture assets. Yet that is simply more "graphics are good", not the game design shift people hype up (which the XSX and Series S will also be able to provide, through their own methods. They aren't using platter drives).

People are now clinging to install base, as if somehow a system selling very well is now a weakness xD. Sounds like another goalpost shift IMHO. I already explained in my response to Three how this isn't as big a factor as you guys want to magically conjure it into being.

False equivalent, though. (As has been pointed out.)

What Microsoft have NOT said they're doing (and goddamn them if they do) is making a crippled shell of a product for the old console just to say it's on there, the way you're talking about with Shadow of Mordor. That would be fucking ridiculous if Halo Infinite wasn't just about feature-complete with its cousin (especially since we're assuming the PC, One, and Series X versions will be cross-play.)
They haven't said this because what company in their right mind would use the exact words you've used here, if that were the case? Additionally, anyone who is honestly expecting massive game design shifts within the first year of next-gen should know better by now. Not a single first-party game from Microsoft or Sony (yes that also includes the new Ratchet & Clank) will be doing anything in terms of game mechanics or systems, AI, logic, etc. that wouldn't be possible on the previous generation consoles. They'll just be doing some or most of those with a bit more efficiency, and much prettier graphics.

That is generally how the Year 1 period of new consoles play out historically. The only oddballs to this were the N64 (Mario 64) and, arguably, the Wii. Even the DS's first year were mainly just prettier GBA titles. So this is an unfounded fear.


Shadow of Mordor on next-gen wasn't held back by it's past-gen versions because those aren't the same game; those PS360 versions are the equivalent of PSP ports of the game, ported down by an external studio (Behaviour Interactive, the same studio that made the not-at-all-the-same PSP version of Dante's Inferno, so yeah, pretty equivalent.) Different boxes of the game, different builds of the game inside the box, different studios making them each. SoM isn't relying on scaling or optimization or anything like what we're talking about with the One/Series X transition because it was handed off to some external studio who were told, "Here, this ain't our problem, you go shove it into the old shitboxes somehow, we're too busy making the real game." It couldn't have been hurt by the prioritization of versions, because developer Monolith in their Washington studio was 100% prioritized on the only version of the game that they made, and all they had to do was share some assets and design docs and builds with the studio in Canada that had 0% affect on the core product because they were miles away working on their facsimile.
Again, you're concerned over nothing. For starters, we already have prior evidence of MS outsourcing versions of next-gen games for older hardware. They did this Forza Horizon 2, for example. They haven't NOT said they're doing this and there's more hard evidence of this approach possibly being taken than there is to the contrary.

Secondly, MS is a pretty massive organization, much larger than Monolith Productions. They more than have the means and resources to handle a version of a game for their next-gen platform and older hardware simultaneously.

There's no evidence that this is the plan with any of Microsoft's 1st Party games. I'm not saying I expect the One versions to be 100% the same if there's something the next-gen version does that can't be replicated on past-gen, but for this first year that MS is saying to count on every game to be on both, I would be surprised and very disappointed if the Xbox One products were bullshit connected in name only to the Series X products. They may employ external studios to assist (and this doesn't always go badly; the Xbox 360 port of TitanFall 1 was really surprising,) but MS is saying that Bungie is making the Halo Infinite they are advertising right now (though to be fair, you cannot actually pre-order any version of Halo Infinite right now, so they may clear up that messaging when the SKUs get set,) and whichever copy of Halo Infinite I reach for, I'm currently expecting Bungie's hands to have molded it.
There's no problem here. Again, when you look at Year 1 of almost every major gaming platform, you see games that are generally visually impressive and a step up from the gen prior, but in terms of actual game design paradigm shifts, you hardly see anything. Those always come later and by that point MS will no longer be supporting the One family of devices for 1st-party crossgen support.

As for Series X and Series S, there is no guarantee that down the line Series S games will have feature parity, because again, the 1st parties are using the Series X as their baseline, not Series S. At least MS has a convenient program they could implement for Series S owners to upgrade to a Series X at reduced cost if they desire to do so.

So that rules out some of my concerns that they were going to be relying only on scalable technology to make XSX and XOX games different products. You can do a lot with scaling (there has never, to my knowledge, been a "past-gen" and "next-gen" PC package difference, you just get one box of say WatchDogs with a wide range of setting toggles, and either your PC can run it or not,) but I still feel more comfortable with my $70 next-gen buy actually having models and textures made as much as possible for my brand-new and expensive next-gen console. Microsoft has not specified how they will do releases that do use Optimized For (Will there be a texture pack available or on the disc? Will there be two different builds of the game on the disc, so that it runs naively on both platforms? Will the Series X just run the Xbox One game in a crazy version of Boost Mode, with textures and features and framerate turned on Ultra settings?), but at least we know (again, mostly from the price differential, not because MS has specified, or Sony either for that matter, though they're being less chummy about BC being a solution either way,) that Microsoft is not only doing it the Optimized way. They have said that everything Xbox Series X will also be on Xbox One from them, but it's becoming more clear that the way they're doing this is by having two different versions of the game rather than just scaling up and down.
You guys gotta have a little more faith ;)

I agree though, they do need to explicitly clarify the development process between Series X and Series S. Clarify outright that Series X is the baseline, and will have its own unique assets and package separate from the One version. IMO they also need to clarify that using Series X as the baseline also means in terms of non-graphical features as well, mainly in terms of game mechanics and systems and complexity of the game design.

If they concisely specify these things officially, it would cut down massively on the concern people such as yourself have displayed, and frankly it's just something that has to be done. They don't need to head into the generation with these concerns hanging over otherwise would-be purchaser's heads.

I really do feel 99.999999% confident that Series S will be the baseline one way or the other. There's just no scenario where I can envision MS allowing its next gen system to look obsolete. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it really matters or ever would have, and frankly the more convinced I am it will not and never would have. Even if Series S was not part of the equation, the chances are that most games would still be designed with an eye towards downward scalability for anything other than pure single system exclusives, which seem rarer these days than ever. There's just too much money to still be made on hardware that won't be matching PS5 or Series X specs.

There's a good (IMO) thread about the thoughts of someone who is working on a Borderlands 3 port. I don't think there's a snow ball's chance in hell that any dev would identify what they are working on and then say something negative about either MS or Sony's plans, and I don't think porting last gen to next gen is comparable to designing a new game that would push the Series X to the max. But I do put stock in what they said about limitations being more based on resources and desire than anything else. And those comments have helped solidify my emerging view that profit will hold next gen back far more than any particular system's capabilities ever will. Especially in the first couple years or more after launch when next gen install bases are low.
Profit has always been the big reason some systems aren't tapped to their fullest and others are. Been that way since the 8-bit days.

That's the Nikana thread you're talking about, and it was very good insight from a dev's perspective. Seemingly neutral on that dev's part which makes the account more believable. Granted they are doing a BL3 port; there's no telling if it's being graphically upgraded or other features to take advantage of next-gen hardware, but it's probably a good read on how 3rd parties in general are viewing Series X, Series S and PS5 development.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: DarkMage619

Dampf

Member
Jun 28, 2020
145
203
275
No, Lockhart won't hold back next gen. Lockhart has a modern GPU with a DX12 Ultimate support, a fast Ryzen CPU and a NVMe SSD, it's far superior than the Xbox One X. It will be a perfect 1080p next gen machine.

The cross gen approach will be what's holding MS back for quite a while.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

Dodkrake

Member
Feb 28, 2020
1,208
4,910
485
This thread is completely besides the point and looks like obvious obfuscation. The Series S will not hold back new games because it has, apparently, the same CPU and SSD than the Xbox Series X. This alone allows for the gameplay mechanics to be the same across XSX and XSS. The major difference will be ray tracing performance + maybe a few particle effects and AA and, of course, resolution. That's it.

The Xbone will absolutely hold back third party and first party games being developed for it and new gen consoles.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
So what has Sony talking about in comparison? SSD (which from every single argument I've seen so far, has mainly been from a point of increasing graphical fidelity. Graphical fidelity != game design shift), Tempest audio, and...oh yeah, they stressed native 4K 30 FPS in their big PS5 reveals at the event!

By your own logic then, a PS5 would be equally worthless to someone who doesn't have a 4K television, because 4K and some other graphical features like RT are the main things Sony have been talking about the past few months plus again the SSD, which (again) every argument I've seen has only boiled down to increasing visual fidelity regarding unique texture assets. Yet that is simply more "graphics are good", not the game design shift people hype up (which the XSX and Series S will also be able to provide, through their own methods. They aren't using platter drives).

People are now clinging to install base, as if somehow a system selling very well is now a weakness xD. Sounds like another goalpost shift IMHO. I already explained in my response to Three how this isn't as big a factor as you guys want to magically conjure it into being.
I don't think Sony has talked much about specs and 4k and 120fps at all. They were obviously very careful with revealing the Tflops number and have been more about telling us how their SSD tech will be a game changer that'll completely revolutionize level and world design as we know it. The Unreal 5 demo is still the most impressive things I've seen so far and that was running in 1440p/30fps. On the flipside, MS's May event looked like run-of-the-mill Xbox One games in 4k. Hell, all MS has talked about is 4k and how we need to "feel" the 120fps to really understand the difference between current gen and next gen.

We'll see in July but I bet there won't be a single game there that isn't going to be 4k/60 or even 120fps.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
This thread is completely besides the point and looks like obvious obfuscation. The Series S will not hold back new games because it has, apparently, the same CPU and SSD than the Xbox Series X. This alone allows for the gameplay mechanics to be the same across XSX and XSS. The major difference will be ray tracing performance + maybe a few particle effects and AA and, of course, resolution. That's it.

The Xbone will absolutely hold back third party and first party games being developed for it and new gen consoles.
Just cutting down on a few particle effects, AA and resolution is a bit of a simplistic way of putting things lol. A Gpu is pretty damn important as its what renders all of the action that's happening on the screen - objects, people, environment, visual effects, post effects etc. Apparently, what developers want from a console is a balanced platform where it doesn't run into cpu or gpu bottlenecks too quickly. If the rumored specs are true, Lockhart has to be the most unbalanced console ever build by mankind.

Believe this one developer if that makes you sleep better at night, but here's an opinion from a different AAA developer...

"One of the first things that you have to address when developing a game is, what is your intended target platform? If the answer to that question is "multiple", you are effectively locking yourself in to compromising certain aspects of the game to ensure that it runs well on all of them. It's no good having a game that runs well on PS3 but chugs on Xbox 360, so you have to look at the overall balance of the hardware. As a developer, you cannot be driven by the most powerful console, but rather the high middle ground that allows your game to shine and perform across multiple machines.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ezekiel_666x
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
I think people are confusing how scalable graphics on pc work compared to games specifically designed for a single platform. Yes, if Guerilla Games would be super inefficient on the ps5 then HZW would run perfectly fine on a lower end pc. But like I said, isn't console development all about being as efficient as possible, making the right sacrifices and getting the best results on a tv? Its always been that way and its why we're still seeing games look as good as they do on current gen.

The minimum requirements we are seeing now for most games are pretty much the exact specs of whats in the ps4 (GTX660). Its been like that since 2013 and it will change to around a RTX2070 Super by the time we're getting the AAA next gen games. Assuming, of course, those won't be running in 4k and 60fps on ps5/Series X, you will probably need something like a RTX3080 if you plan to play them in 4k.
You're still confusing minimum requirements with recommended. 95% of PS5/XSX games will run just fine on a RX 580/GTX 1060 at 1080p. We'll find out here in the next 5-months and I'll @ you.


Apparently, what developers want from a console is a balanced platform where it doesn't run into cpu or gpu bottlenecks too quickly. If the rumored specs are true, Lockhart has to be the most unbalanced console ever build by mankind.
Explain how XSS would have a CPU bottleneck using the same CPU. Same with the GPU. How will a 4TF RDNA 2 GPU that's roughly on par or better than a RX 580 bottleneck when running quarter res of XSX games?
 
Last edited:

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
You're still confusing minimum requirements with recommended. 95% of PS5/XSX games will run just fine on a RX 580/GTX 1060 at 1080p. We'll find out here in the next 5-months and I'll @ you.



Explain how XSS would have a CPU bottleneck using the same CPU. Same with the GPU. How will a 4TF RDNA 2 GPU that's roughly on par or better than a RX 580 bottleneck when running quarter res of XSX games?
Look at the pc version of HZD then. The minimum requirements are a GTX780 and a GTX1060 is recommended, while the ps4 has something close to a GTX660... That is what console optimization is all about and why consoles always punch above their weight. Horizon Zero West is a early next gen title so we don't really know how far GG will be able to push the ps5 on their 1st game. But for arguments sake lets say its as optimized as HZD is for the ps4, If so, it's probably not gonna be running at native 4k but more likely 1440p or checkerboard rendering. A game like that would require at the very least a RTX2070 Super or whatever is in the ps5.

I'm talking about the ps5 exclusives, though. Not the console exclusives that will also get a pc release. We can already see the minimum and recommended requirements for some of them. Scorn for example has a GTX970 listed as recommended and a GTX750 ti as minimum
. However the ps5's exclusives will potentially require far more powerful hardware than any of the MS exclusives that have to run on a ton of different devices with far lower specs too.

Like I said, Lockhart can run any XSX games at quarter the resolution. But what if a game is maxing out the Series X as 30fps and 1440p? You think they'll allow developers to release a 540p Lockhart version?
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,387
3,348
460
This thread is kind of moot since lockhart isn't a gen back (assuming the SSD, CPU, and RDNA 2 architecture are maintained). Any card in the same GPU arch can do the same things regardless of position in the stack. The low-end $45 part has always been compatible with all the features of the $1,000+ part. The difference is in the framerates returned and the settings needed to make things playable. MS shouldn't need to cut gameplay features for lockhart, just resolution and in some cases the amount and fidelity of effects. Nothing that should be a problem since 95%+ of Xbox games are also available on PC.

I doubt we'll ever see anything less than 1440p on the flagship systems, while lockhart may do a little 720p gaming before its useful life is over. Reconstruction techniques are getting really good, making the base render resolution less important to begin with.

But what if a game is maxing out the Series X as 30fps and 1440p? You think they'll allow developers to release a 540p Lockhart version?
1/4 1440p resolution is 720p. Both would use reconstruction of some kind, it will probably happen at some point.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
3,292
6,731
625
www.instagram.com
The Xbone will absolutely hold back third party and first party games being developed for it and new gen consoles.
Okay but 3rd parties will also be developing games for....PS4. So where does the PS4 pop up in this fear of it also holding back at least 3rd-party games?

Also again, what system has genuinely had a Year 1 with absolutely genuine game-design paradigm shifts. I'll give a hint: none of them are Sony systems. The only one I can absolutely say this for is the N64 and that's thanks to Super Mario 64. The Wii is a very contentious runner-up, but the list ends there.

Generally with 3rd and 1st-party in the first year of a new system, you're getting prettier versions of last-gen games with small changes here and there. But nothing that absolutely demands the power of the new next-gen systems. This will be the case with Sony's 1st year PS5 offerings, as well, if what we've seen so far is any indication (and this isn't a slight at them whatsoever, just stating what tends to be the case with everything outside of the N64 and (arguably) the Wii).

This thread is kind of moot since lockhart isn't a gen back (assuming the SSD, CPU, and RDNA 2 architecture are maintained).
I understand from a technological POV it's moot, but I was trying to address (and alleviate) concerns from a game design POV. Since, in light of Series S basically being a Series X outside of smaller GPU and (maybe) smaller SSD (plus no disc drive), people are falling back more on the concern from a game design POV instead.

So I've been trying to focus on illustrating how this concern, as well, is largely unfounded.
 
Last edited:
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
I'm talking about the ps5 exclusives, though. Not the console exclusives that will also get a pc release.
If it's PS5 exclusive, how will it be running on PC? I'm talking about PS5 games that will start releasing this November that also have a PC version. If they have 2070 Super listed as minimum spec, then I'll readily admit I was wrong. I think the HZD/Death Stranding min spec is pretty much spot on for next-gen, too. Just swap that FX-6300 with Ryzen 5 1400 and 8GB RAM for 16GB and you have exactly what I was saying.

Like I said, Lockhart can run any XSX games at quarter the resolution. But what if a game is maxing out the Series X as 30fps and 1440p? You think they'll allow developers to release a 540p Lockhart version?
See, what you've done is conflated a canned tech demo from PS5 with MS 1st-party and all 3rd-party developers. With X1X they pushed for 4K, and they'll do the same with XSX. For next-gen they've stated that high frame rate is a goal now that they have Zen 2 CPU in the mix. This aligns with PC culture where MS is releasing all of their games, and even many of them onto Steam. It seems you're taking native 4K res and 60fps frame rate and painting it as if it's a negative. Please clarify if I'm reading your posts wrong.

Even with PS5 we see GT7 running 4K native/60fps(albeit with smashed reflections and shadow pop-in everywhere, WIP of course) according to the updated July DF article. Ratchet and Clank running 4K native. Godfall, Astro's Playroom also native 4K. Just check out what DF said:
We also took a look at Demon's Souls, Kena: Bridge of Spirits, Little Devil Inside, Pragmata, Ratchet and Clank, Returnal and Stray - and all of them appeared locked at native 3840x2160 with no evidence of reconstruction as we know it. Horizon Forbidden West also checks out as full 2160p, but we can't quite rule out some kind of temporal reconstruction (it is very, very clean, however).
This is evidence in support of the idea that Lockhart will be fine running next-gen games at 1080p. Any theoretical PS5 exclusive running low-res is irrelevant because it's not on XSX in the first place.

With Xbox Series consoles, you also have DirectML which can be useful in a variety ways including AI Upscaling like DLSS, which has been shown to be able to produce respectable 1080p image quality with even 540p base res. This is the preferable route on Xbox. If you want 4K AI Upscale(1440p base or 1080p base) on XSX, then you use 1080p AI Upscale(720p base or 540p base) on Lockhart. MS studios have also been experimenting with ML texture upscaling and ML SDR to HDR conversion.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Okay but 3rd parties will also be developing games for....PS4. So where does the PS4 pop up in this fear of it also holding back at least 3rd-party games?

Also again, what system has genuinely had a Year 1 with absolutely genuine game-design paradigm shifts. I'll give a hint: none of them are Sony systems. The only one I can absolutely say this for is the N64 and that's thanks to Super Mario 64. The Wii is a very contentious runner-up, but the list ends there.

Generally with 3rd and 1st-party in the first year of a new system, you're getting prettier versions of last-gen games with small changes here and there. But nothing that absolutely demands the power of the new next-gen systems. This will be the case with Sony's 1st year PS5 offerings, as well, if what we've seen so far is any indication (and this isn't a slight at them whatsoever, just stating what tends to be the case with everything outside of the N64 and (arguably) the Wii).



I understand from a technological POV it's moot, but I was trying to address (and alleviate) concerns from a game design POV. Since, in light of Series S basically being a Series X outside of smaller GPU and (maybe) smaller SSD (plus no disc drive), people are falling back more on the concern from a game design POV instead.

So I've been trying to focus on illustrating how this concern, as well, is largely unfounded.
The ps4 won't be holding back the ps5 exclusives, though. Sure, you can say the first wave of exclusives historically haven't always delivered, but when you have a developer like Guerilla Games coming out with a big ps5 exclusive early, it will surely stand out among all of the cross gen titles.

For anyone who thinks a gpu is not that important, try playing RDR2 on a GTX730. Even in 360p and the lowest settings you'll be getting around 15fps.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
If it's PS5 exclusive, how will it be running on PC? I'm talking about PS5 games that will start releasing this November that also have a PC version. If they have 2070 Super listed as minimum spec, then I'll readily admit I was wrong. I think the HZD/Death Stranding min spec is pretty much spot on for next-gen, too. Just swap that FX-6300 with Ryzen 5 1400 and 8GB RAM for 16GB and you have exactly what I was saying.


See, what you've done is conflated a canned tech demo from PS5 with MS 1st-party and all 3rd-party developers. With X1X they pushed for 4K, and they'll do the same with XSX. For next-gen they've stated that high frame rate is a goal now that they have Zen 2 CPU in the mix. This aligns with PC culture where MS is releasing all of their games, and even many of them onto Steam. It seems you're taking native 4K res and 60fps frame rate and painting it as if it's a negative. Please clarify if I'm reading your posts wrong.

Even with PS5 we see GT7 running 4K native/60fps(albeit with smashed reflections and shadow pop-in everywhere, WIP of course) according to the updated July DF article. Ratchet and Clank running 4K native. Godfall, Astro's Playroom also native 4K. Just check out what DF said:

This is evidence in support of the idea that Lockhart will be fine running next-gen games at 1080p. Any theoretical PS5 exclusive running low-res is irrelevant because it's not on XSX in the first place.

With Xbox Series consoles, you also have DirectML which can be useful in a variety ways including AI Upscaling like DLSS, which has been shown to be able to produce respectable 1080p image quality with even 540p base res. This is the preferable route on Xbox. If you want 4K AI Upscale(1440p base or 1080p base) on XSX, then you use 1080p AI Upscale(720p base or 540p base) on Lockhart. MS studios have also been experimenting with ML texture upscaling and ML SDR to HDR conversion.
That's exactly what I'm saying. 4k and 60/120fps are complete overkill and a massive waste of resources for these next gen consoles. Especially when there are still so many people with 1080p tv's and when most people can't tell the difference between a quality DVD and a 4k Bluray. If people did care so much about 4k, then how come 4 out of 5 ps4's sold since the ps4 pro launched are regular ps4's?

Developers should be able to push their full ambitions into their games so we can see a clear generational leap. I mean how ambitious can a next gen game be when it's wasting 2/3 of its gpu resources by targeting 4k/120fps, compared to a game that's pushing these next gen consoles to its limits while targeting 30fps/1440p? Not saying 4k and 120fps is completely useless but that's what pc and the mid-gen consoles are for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

CrysisFreak

Perfection. Erection.
Apr 9, 2020
2,085
5,232
605
Some insiders need to start talking about what devs think about Lickhart.
I know about the Schreier comment, but some more are needed.
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,651
11,085
850
Look at the pc version of HZD then. The minimum requirements are a GTX780 and a GTX1060 is recommended, while the ps4 has something close to a GTX660... That is what console optimization is all about and why consoles always punch above their weight. Horizon Zero West is a early next gen title so we don't really know how far GG will be able to push the ps5 on their 1st game. But for arguments sake lets say its as optimized as HZD is for the ps4, If so, it's probably not gonna be running at native 4k but more likely 1440p or checkerboard rendering. A game like that would require at the very least a RTX2070 Super or whatever is in the ps5.

I'm talking about the ps5 exclusives, though. Not the console exclusives that will also get a pc release. We can already see the minimum and recommended requirements for some of them. Scorn for example has a GTX970 listed as recommended and a GTX750 ti as minimum
. However the ps5's exclusives will potentially require far more powerful hardware than any of the MS exclusives that have to run on a ton of different devices with far lower specs too.

Like I said, Lockhart can run any XSX games at quarter the resolution. But what if a game is maxing out the Series X as 30fps and 1440p? You think they'll allow developers to release a 540p Lockhart version?
Why are people so concerned about Lockhart that clearly have no intention of getting a Lockhart?

This narrative is getting really tiring.
 

Kuranghi

Member
Apr 17, 2015
1,773
3,525
670
I have absolutely no interest in the PS5 because I don't like Sony games and XsX is obviously the best place for 3rd parties. That said, I loved HZD and I'm pretty interested in GoT.

There is no way in hell I would ever pay $400 - $500+ to play 1 PS5 game and 1 BC Ps4 game. If Sony offered something like Lockhart at around $200 with Horizon 2 included, I would definitely consider getting one.
How many games you want to play would it take to get you to get a PS5?

I think I bought the PS4 Pro after there were four (4) big games I wanted to play, but there were 2-3 others coming that I knew I would play as well. I've probably played 15 games in total on my PS4 since I got it, because I play multiplatform games on PC if I can.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,387
3,348
460
M MrMiyagi just think of all the effects that could be included if devs had just been smart and stuck with 480i. 720/1080/1440/4k are such examples of waste.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
Why are people so concerned about Lockhart that clearly have no intention of getting a Lockhart?

This narrative is getting really tiring.
Because if Lockhart builds a big enough installbase it can be targeted as the base platform and next gen games would be watered down to crap across all platforms.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
M MrMiyagi just think of all the effects that could be included if devs had just been smart and stuck with 480i. 720/1080/1440/4k are such examples of waste.
I get what you're saying but we have reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolution. We had 720p on the Xbox 360 and there are a ton of 720p games on the Xone too. Loads of people were fine with that. I do agree that 720p does look a bit crap but a good middle-ground between visual fidelity and resolution would be 1440p, not native 4k. With 60fps we also know why most developers stopped aiming for it since the ps2 days, people just don't care enough and will buy the game anyway.
 
Last edited:

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,651
11,085
850
The Wii either didn't get the big ps3/360 games at all, or they were completely different games developed separately, like that on rails cod.
But it didn't become the lead platform is my point.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
But it didn't become the lead platform is my point.
I know but which console becomes the lead platform is mainly a business decision. If Series S outsells Series X 3:1, which platform do you think developers would target as the base console? It's just like the Xone S and the Xone X, where developers didn't bother to do much else on the X besides releasing a 4k patch.
 
Last edited:

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
8,651
11,085
850
I know but which console becomes the lead platform is mainly a business decision. If Series S outsells Series X 3:1, which platform do you think developers would target as the base console? It's just like the Xone S and the Xone X, where developers didn't bother to do much else on the X besides releasing a 4k patch.
First party that is 100 percent not the case. Forza Horizon 4 featured two different modes. gears 5 was a higher resolution and 60 FPS. Certain games like SoT had increased effects as well.

Third party that's all they were willing to do/could do as they are targeting a wide array of consoles and were constrained by the architecture.

Games are designed around hardware features not a TF count. The hardware features of Series X and S are identical as they share the same CPU and GPU architecture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CrustyBritches
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
That's exactly what I'm saying. 4k and 60/120fps are complete overkill and a massive waste of resources for these next gen consoles. Especially when there are still so many people with 1080p tv's and when most people can't tell the difference between a quality DVD and a 4k Bluray. If people did care so much about 4k, then how come 4 out of 5 ps4's sold since the ps4 pro launched are regular ps4's?

Developers should be able to push their full ambitions into their games so we can see a clear generational leap. I mean how ambitious can a next gen game be when it's wasting 2/3 of its gpu resources by targeting 4k/120fps, compared to a game that's pushing these next gen consoles to its limits while targeting 30fps/1440p? Not saying 4k and 120fps is completely useless but that's what pc and the mid-gen consoles are for.
How is low frame rate and low resolution indicative of full ambition? If a dev wants to use AI resolution and texture upscaling on XSX and Lockhart, then they're free to do so using DirectML. I think you're creating a problem where it doesn't exist by using a PS5 tech demo as an example of the de facto approach that Xbox 1st-party devs and 3rd-party devs use. In reality, not even PS5 devs are using that approach. Most are shooting for native 4K at this point.

So we have this very narrow criteria that has to exist for Lockhart to be nonviable: 1440p with no AI upscaling used. Frankly, I just don't see it happening that way on Xbox with DirectML AI resolution and texture upscaling, and VRS available.
 
Last edited:

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
How is low frame rate and low resolution indicative of full ambition? If a dev wants to use AI resolution and texture upscaling on XSX and Lockhart, then they're free to do so using DirectML. I think you're creating a problem where it doesn't exist by using a PS5 tech demo as an example of the de facto approach that Xbox 1st-party devs and 3rd-party devs use. In reality, not even PS5 devs are using that approach. Most are shooting for native 4K at this point.

So we have this very narrow criteria that has to exist for Lockhart to be nonviable: 1440p with no AI upscaling used. Frankly, I just don't see it happening that way on Xbox with DirectML AI resolution and texture upscaling, and VRS available.
Because developing on a closed platform is always about making compromises. You can't make the best looking game possible and have 4k and 60fps too. Maybe they can make it look good, but as soon as another developer drops 60 for 30fps and scales the resolution to get their full ambitions in the game, it's going to smoke the 4k/60fps game in visuals. There's a reason why Insomniac always aimed for 60fps on the ps2 but we are now seeing a 30fps Ratchet & Clank on the ps5, and there's a reason why Halo 4/5 were both 720p. High resolution and framerates might sound amazing but once people see the games, they aren't going to care. Dirt 5 looked like a current gen racer that got nobody excited even though its running in 120 fps.

People want to be wowed by these next gen consoles and see stuff not possible on current gen. That's why the UE5 demo running in 1440p/30fps got everybody excited about next gen, while MS's May event full off 4k/60fps "Optimized for Series X" games had the exact opposite effect.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,387
3,348
460
M MrMiyagi , I'm not sure what you are on about. If a dev wants to make a game at 1440p 30 with reconstruction to 4k (like the UE5 demo) what is stopping them on the MS platform? They could just make the lockhart version 720p/30 with reconstruction to 1080p. It's not a real problem. Raytracing will be the area where lockhart will have to tone things down a bit, since the virtual scene would be the same between systems but lockhart could not cast as many rays.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
First party that is 100 percent not the case. Forza Horizon 4 featured two different modes. gears 5 was a higher resolution and 60 FPS. Certain games like SoT had increased effects as well.

Third party that's all they were willing to do/could do as they are targeting a wide array of consoles and were constrained by the architecture.

Games are designed around hardware features not a TF count. The hardware features of Series X and S are identical as they share the same CPU and GPU architecture.
That's what I've been saying. Besides boosting resolution and framerate, what else could they really do with the X1X that was like 4 times more powerful? Fact is if you buy a X1X and don't have a 4k tv, it'll practically look and play the same (besides the fps that is). With Series X it'll be the same thing if Lockhart becomes the base platform. It'll play the exact same games, just better.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Neo_game

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
M MrMiyagi , I'm not sure what you are on about. If a dev wants to make a game at 1440p 30 with reconstruction to 4k (like the UE5 demo) what is stopping them on the MS platform? They could just make the lockhart version 720p/30 with reconstruction to 1080p. It's not a real problem. Raytracing will be the area where lockhart will have to tone things down a bit, since the virtual scene would be the same between systems but lockhart could not cast as many rays.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
Mar 2, 2020
183
236
330
M MrMiyagi , I'm not sure what you are on about. If a dev wants to make a game at 1440p 30 with reconstruction to 4k (like the UE5 demo) what is stopping them on the MS platform? They could just make the lockhart version 720p/30 with reconstruction to 1080p. It's not a real problem. Raytracing will be the area where lockhart will have to tone things down a bit, since the virtual scene would be the same between systems but lockhart could not cast as many rays.
I don't think going from 1440p to 720p will be enough to compensate a 300% gap in gpu performance. It would probably be around 540p. No way MS would allow games on their "next gen" console that'll look like a giant smudge on a tv screen.

 
Jul 29, 2013
2,548
4,738
950
US
Because developing on a closed platform is always about making compromises. You can't make the best looking game possible and have 4k and 60fps too. Maybe they can make it look good, but as soon as another developer drops 60 for 30fps and scales the resolution to get their full ambitions in the game, it's going to smoke the 4k/60fps game in visuals. There's a reason why Insomniac always aimed for 60fps on the ps2 but we are now seeing a 30fps Ratchet & Clank on the ps5, and there's a reason why Halo 4/5 were both 720p. High resolution and framerates might sound amazing but once people see the games, they aren't going to care. Dirt 5 looked like a current gen racer that got nobody excited even though its running in 120 fps.

People want to be wowed by these next gen consoles and see stuff not possible on current gen. That's why the UE5 demo running in 1440p/30fps got everybody excited about next gen, while MS's May event full off 4k/60fps "Optimized for Series X" games had the exact opposite effect.
Let's be clear, though. Just because you don't value high resolution and high frame rate doesn't mean that a substantial amount of gamers don't. By your own standard, games like Ratchet and Clank and GT7 are not ambitious because they are native 4K, and GT7 is 60fps when it should be 30fps.

Once again, you're conflating a canned tech demo with the approach that Xbox 1st-party and 3rd-party devs will take, when not even PS5 devs are taking this approach currently. This is your bias attempting to create a scenario where Lockhart isn't viable: 1440p no AI upscaling. Completely ignoring the support for DirectML AI resolution and texture upscaling, and VRS on the Xbox platform.