• 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.

Phil Spencer admits that developing for two different specs is more work for devs.

Oct 16, 2017
1,405
2,192
405
It so heartwarming to see such concern for Xbox users.
You are wrong. Series S as development baseline affect everyone, even PC gaming. Especially pc gaming. Your chanting of memes without understanding what it meant, does not apply in this thread.

I would explain, but I doubt you care about my reply. It had been explained so many times before that those who still don't understand, is either pretending to not know or not want to know.
 

Soodanim

Member
Feb 24, 2012
6,152
1,258
915
I don't think he ever denied it, but some people here denied it.

To be fair one has to take into account that developers have to put more work into their titels for the new PS OS features as well. It may have an impact on overall performance, because time and effort has to be put into it.
I would have thought that it’s perfectly obvious to everyone that it’s more work. It’s the use of “Admits” in the title that gets me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Almanac

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,454
3,443
460
You are wrong. Series S as development baseline affect everyone, even PC gaming. Especially pc gaming. Your chanting of memes without understanding what it meant, does not apply in this thread.

I would explain, but I doubt you care about my reply. It had been explained so many times before that those who still don't understand, is either pretending to not know or not want to know.
I agree, the XSS could have a big impact on PC gaming. It should help hold the minimum spec on new AAA titles down a bit, providing a chance for more systems to meet or exceed the minimum spec. Maybe even some of the quad channel APUs that will hit the market sooner or later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardGawd

RoboFu

Member
Oct 10, 2017
1,948
2,586
470
You are wrong. Series S as development baseline affect everyone, even PC gaming. Especially pc gaming. Your chanting of memes without understanding what it meant, does not apply in this thread.

I would explain, but I doubt you care about my reply. It had been explained so many times before that those who still don't understand, is either pretending to not know or not want to know.
Lol I have a degree in computer science and have worked as a programmer professionally for over 20 years. So please tell me how I don’t understand again ? 😂😂
 

RaySoft

Member
May 31, 2013
892
1,342
670
Oslo, Norway
So I am now arguing with a windmill of a memory you think you have of something you think I might have said :LOL:. I have half a mind to reply in the same aggressive vein, but that would be even more pointless than attempting an answer. If you have to be nasty you can ignore me, I do not recall having tagged you.

Concise reply in pictures:



In words/wandering stream of consciousness:
The more diverse HW you target with a single application the higher the costs or the lower the utilisation of the potential of each HW and QA will be impacted too (which will siphon resources/time off)... not sure when this went up for grabs.

Can you throw more teams at something and do parallel product development... sure, in some case it can help (but throwing people at a problem might not lead the improvements in development one might hope), but then do you need to maintain the same feature set designed for the highest end HW capabilities (which is the rea lead platform)? Can the two teams work fully independently? Do do you need to launch at the same time? Can you sell it as separate products?

Sure, VF2 Genesis did not hold back Arcade VF2’s development and features, but it is for reasons that should be as obvious as bad the metaphor was :).

... and then we have code re-use and rewrites (which some do) vs custom backends targeting the new HW capabilities with more or less abstractions (which others do), and use of middleware (which lots do). All nice and correct, but orthogonal to what we were talking about and you know it if you were not trying to jump on my neck. Not sure why you wanted to start this, isn’t it easier to ignore me if you hate talking with me mate instead of acting up?
So I am now arguing with a windmill of a memory you think you have of something you think I might have said :LOL:. I have half a mind to reply in the same aggressive vein, but that would be even more pointless than attempting an answer. If you have to be nasty you can ignore me, I do not recall having tagged you.

Concise reply in pictures:



In words/wandering stream of consciousness:
The more diverse HW you target with a single application the higher the costs or the lower the utilisation of the potential of each HW and QA will be impacted too (which will siphon resources/time off)... not sure when this went up for grabs.

Can you throw more teams at something and do parallel product development... sure, in some case it can help (but throwing people at a problem might not lead the improvements in development one might hope), but then do you need to maintain the same feature set designed for the highest end HW capabilities (which is the rea lead platform)? Can the two teams work fully independently? Do do you need to launch at the same time? Can you sell it as separate products?

Sure, VF2 Genesis did not hold back Arcade VF2’s development and features, but it is for reasons that should be as obvious as bad the metaphor was :).

... and then we have code re-use and rewrites (which some do) vs custom backends targeting the new HW capabilities with more or less abstractions (which others do), and use of middleware (which lots do). All nice and correct, but orthogonal to what we were talking about and you know it if you were not trying to jump on my neck. Not sure why you wanted to start this, isn’t it easier to ignore me if you hate talking with me mate instead of acting up?
Yeah.. re-authoring assets for ONE target seems rather pointless, but in this case necessary, for now. Engines & tools moving forward makes this easier/a moot point.
Ram amount being a bigger concern.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,037
8,072
2,055
Lol I have a degree in computer science and have worked as a programmer professionally for over 20 years. So please tell me how I don’t understand again ? 😂😂
Not sure, you tell us when adding HW configuration helps and makes your life easier (I suspect you are not the only work working in the programming field... and btw, see my previous post for just one of the more famous examples [Id engine developer]).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kumomeme

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
2,803
1,700
645
Not sure, you tell us when adding HW configuration helps and makes your life easier (I suspect you are not the only work working in the field... and btw, see my previous post for just one of the more famous examples [Id engine developer]).
Wasn’t Id part of that 7.5 billion purchase?
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DaGwaphics

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
2,803
1,700
645
I would have thought that it’s perfectly obvious to everyone that it’s more work. It’s the use of “Admits” in the title that gets me.
more like acknowledging it is a thing and pointing out it was mostly done to broaden their market. So, sacrificing one for another. It’s still a thing. It was floated around plenty that it wasn’t a big deal. If they had done better current gen, it wouldn’t be a necessity. But now, in order to gain some market share back, they are potentially gimping what makes their x console most appealing by holding back what it can do with a lesser specd system. Let’s face it, the main reason someone will look to buy an x is the belief that it may be the most powerful next gen console.
 

RaySoft

Member
May 31, 2013
892
1,342
670
Oslo, Norway
I would have thought that it’s perfectly obvious to everyone that it’s more work. It’s the use of “Admits” in the title that gets me.
It's not flippingg a switch, but it is as simple as MS requiring a single GDK that allows for optimization of specs for multiple SKU's. Programming for Windows, S/X at once is efficient, but obviously more steps than coding for a single SKU.
Do you want to cater for the masses, or the singularity?
GDK is for the masses, ending with less optimized code for each taget. The point is that you can't make your cake & eat it too. Something has to give somewhere.
 

Foamy

Formerly 'DChosenOne'
Aug 25, 2019
1,944
3,770
540
Do develops typically have completely different teams programming for different consoles or is that POS S series going to slow things down for everyone?
 

DR3AM

Member
Jun 13, 2010
3,687
13
835
phoenix
When publishers start getting more money from the XSS due to the $300 price point, they will not care anymore.
 

scalman

Member
Feb 6, 2019
2,563
1,572
375
and with time noone will care about S console that just not powerfull enough. PS5 digital thought will be ok all times.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
2,803
1,700
645
He posted this before the purchase was public/known to employees. He was not working for them yet.
damn. And then it was deleted? Pretty telling. It may end up working out, but it is a strange way of introducing 2 systems. It’s one thing to have a console and then put out a pro model. But both at the same time is strange. Especially where we are right now tech-wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: megreotsugua

Almanac

Member
Sep 15, 2019
765
1,479
490
* Nothing is impossible, it's only the definitions that change. You could i.e render Toy Story 3 on a Commodore 64, if you have some years to spare. The PS5 UE5 demo could also be done on the C64, albeight with 100 pixels on screen. (you wouldn't be able to see anything, but the logic could run regardless (simplified) etc.. Everything is in the eye of the beholder and everything is relative.
What irrational nonsense is this?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Riky

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
2,803
1,700
645
Xss will bite them in the ass if it doesn't end up selling much.
If it’s the reason x games aren’t better optimized, then yeah.
But more likely it will just end up discontinued within a couple of years. They won’t let it get that far where it hurts the brand
 
  • Like
Reactions: megreotsugua

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,269
891
1,270
It can be true both that optimising for more platforms requires more work, and that adding a lower powered platform does not lower the graphical bar for everyone.

Clearly, the Switch port of Doom Eternal is requiring a lot of work. Does the Switch port existing mean Xbox and Playstation users have to settle for lesser quality graphics?
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2017
1,405
2,192
405
What irrational nonsense is this?
A logical one. You don't have to like the facts, facts are facts even if you don't want to believe them.

For the last 6 month Xbox PR had been generating irrational nonsense, and their FUD still gets spread in the forums even now. Maybe you just don't understand how facts work since Xbox use so little of it in their statements?
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2018
2,012
4,931
625
It can be true both that optimising for more platforms requires more work, and that adding a lower powered platform does not lower the graphical bar for everyone.

Clearly, the Switch port of Doom Eternal is requiring a lot of work. Does the Switch port existing mean Xbox and Playstation users have to settle for lesser quality graphics?
If there were no PS4, XB to profit off (with PC) ... there would be no Witcher 3, Doom Et. Switch ports. They make enough cash with the main copies, that´s at best an afterthought.

Ask EA, why they cant be bothered to port the real version of Fifa 2021. If Witcher 3 had only sold like 5million copies across PS4, XB, PC ... a switch port would not have made any sense, it only exists because they made enough cash (28 mill. sold copies, of which 1.3? are from the switch).

Not everyone has time to downgrade their games.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
1,544
1,337
1,555
I'm sure all developers would prefer to code for RTX 3090s exclusively but that is not the reality we live in. PCs come in a million specs and yet developers survive. I don't think the XSS is a lower spec than the average PC so again I'm sure developers will survive. For their efforts they reach an even larger audience and that means more money for the industry some of us love. I prefer market expansion over contraction.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Riky

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,269
891
1,270
If there were no PS4, XB to profit off (with PC) ... there would be no Witcher 3, Doom Et. Switch ports. They make enough cash with the main copies, that´s at best an afterthought.

Ask EA, why they cant be bothered to port the real version of Fifa 2021. If Witcher 3 had only sold like 5million copies across PS4, XB, PC ... a switch port would not have made any sense, it only exists because they made enough cash (28 mill. sold copies, of which 1.3? are from the switch).

Not everyone has time to downgrade their games.
Well, are the XSS and XSX two completely different platforms with different player bases? Or is it reasonable to assume XSS users will have a similar desire to play AAA third party titles?

And do we not expect the PS5/XSX platforms to have a massive combined player base in their own right, which developers will want to target?
 

The Shift

Member
Sep 6, 2009
912
675
1,000
An Xbox thread on NeoGAF:

Tears.
I remember you being one of the Top Dogs over at Playstation Universe Forums back in the PS3 days, you know, the biggest Playstation shill site on the internet that constantly slagged this site. I bet the internet remembers - as we know, it never forgets right?
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,213
2,114
1,520
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Well, 2 specs is this gen. Plus S and X in the previous one, plus PC. This is a lot of work for 1st party devs.

And then if you add PS for the multis even more. I'd have discontinued XB1S and XB1SAD instead of XB1X, and I'd have kept XB1X as the cheap SKU instead of releasing Series S.
 
Last edited:

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
5,759
2,454
1,695
Lol I remember all the concern threads when Microsoft put their games on PC about extra time. Oh yeah no one said shit lol. If this is a concern so are PC versions.
A logical one. You don't have to like the facts, facts are facts even if you don't want to believe them.

For the last 6 month Xbox PR had been generating irrational nonsense, and their FUD still gets spread in the forums even now. Maybe you just don't understand how facts work since Xbox use so little of it in their statements?
You mean being for generations before being against them to let the press lay into Microsoft while hiding ps4 versions of games lol?
 

bumleforce

Member
Apr 6, 2017
744
641
370
I’m sure it’s no more work than developing on PS4 and Xbox one due to 2 configurations for each. Same with switch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riky

longdi

Ni hao ma, fellow kids?
Jun 7, 2004
7,411
4,225
1,820
Gotta admire Phil candidness and courage.
I think he has done a superb job communicating with the media.
He can just end up as this gen MVP. :messenger_bicep:
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
22,571
24,157
1,825
I remember you being one of the Top Dogs over at Playstation Universe Forums back in the PS3 days, you know, the biggest Playstation shill site on the internet that constantly slagged this site. I bet the internet remembers - as we know, it never forgets right?
Thanks for proving my point. Instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and/or the post that I've made in this thread here you are crying trying to make it personal with people. It's all you can do when faced with the truth though right?

Also I don't need to have the internet not forget when I have a memory of my own. It was a forum I was a member of before I decided to come here to discuss games after seeing the light at the time and getting a 360 and wanting a more multiplatform gaming forum to discuss... Games, what's the big deal?

Blast from the past though, even as a young buck I had foresight though:

I just thought I'd make a post on something thats come to light for me during this E3.

Microsoft are filthy rich and have billions of dollars. Sony on the other hand have looked to be in a bit of trouble financially in recent years. Why is it that Sony are throwing money and time at their 1st party studios, allowing them freedom to create whereas MSFT are more happy to give their 1st party just a little, but throw money at 3rd parties to secure deals?

To me, it doesn't make any sense at all. At the moment MSFT are getting upstaged by Sony's 1st party games. They look a cut above the 3rd party offerings on their console and look better than anything on any other console. On the other hand with MSFT we have 3rd party games looking better than the 1st part games. How is that even beneficial? How does it help when COD4 looks better than Halo 3 and you are having to showcase that at your conference when it is multiplatform? The same goes for other titles such as Forza 2 where titles like Dirt look streets better.

The most impressive games on the system are coming from 3rd party studios or independant developers. Games like Gears (Epic), PGR (Bizzare), Mass Effect (Bioware) are all from external studios. The only 1st party company that seems to know how to get a lot out of the hardware is Rare.

It also seems to me that MSFT work with stricter time constraints than Sony do with their 1st parties. Rather than allowing their devs more time to nurture their games and create something that will be remembered, they will rather get them to finish up the game and get it on the shelves. If Forza 2 was allowed 6 more months, I'm sure it could have looked a darn site better, had all the features originally promised and have been more balanced in terms of the career mode. The way I'm seeing this is that they'd rather make money quicker than delay games until they are ready (like Sony does) and lose more money. More dev time = more wages and possibly more capital investment = money being spent.

I'll just add in something interesting. This is a quote from the Team Ninja's blog:

Publisher #1: "We think your gameplay features are too ambitious. Perhaps you could simplify it and make it more like…" DROPPED.

Publisher #2: "We love the ambition and production goals, but can you do it for [a third of the budget it would cost to develop]" DROPPED.

Publisher #3: "We will not fund a prototype but we are happy to direct you while you develop it" DROPPED.


http://www.ninjatheory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=52
Thats the response they got from 3 out of the 4 publishers they presented Heavenly Sword to. Any guesses as to which is Microsoft? I certainly have my suspicions.

So where is Microsoft's $20 million game that will come out and set new standards for the industry? Where are the games with high production values? Where's the game that will help further blur the line between the film and game artistic mediums? They can afford to do it, so why isn't it happening? Is Microsoft simply not daring enough to take such big risks with their games? Games such as Halo should be pushing the bar higher than anyone could have imagined, but to me it looks like they are playing it safe.

IMO its a risky game that MSFT are playing. While they are pouring money into 3rd party titles at the expense of 1st party titles, that money could ultimately be ending up going into projects that end up on Sony's consoles as well. In an age where game engines are flexible and assets/techniques are shared amongst different IP's within the same dev studio, there's nothing to say thats not already happening.

Only took them what, 13 years to start fixing the problem that had been apparent since 2007? You hate to see it.

So in light of that I don't blame you for lashing out at people, 13 years is a long time to be frustrated.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
1,544
1,337
1,555
Well, 2 specs is this gen. Plus S and X in the previous one, plus PC. This is a lot of work for 1st party devs.

And then if you add PS for the multis even more. I'd have discontinued XB1S and XB1SAD instead of XB1X, and I'd have kept XB1X as the cheap SKU instead of releasing Series S.
People still don't get that the X1X has the same Jaguar cores developers have been complaining about for years. The X1X would have 'held back' games more than the XSS. The X1 will be discontinued soon if it isn't already.
 

Riky

Member
May 11, 2013
1,971
1,770
735
England
Microsoft explained to Digital Foundry in the Series X breakdown that a die shrinks on the Xbox One X was difficult and expensive. It was easier and cheaper just to develop Series S.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DarkMage619

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,037
8,072
2,055
Thanks for proving my point. Instead of actually discussing the topic at hand and/or the post that I've made in this thread here you are crying trying to make it personal with people. It's all you can do when faced with the truth though right?
Not the first time I have seen this happening in threads of this kind either. Sidestep/dodge the point and attack, as personally as you can based on what is being discussed... try to find the poster in a clear contradiction somewhere and go for the person’s image to have people dismiss everything they say (basic of an ad hominem).
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,037
8,072
2,055
Do develops typically have completely different teams programming for different consoles or is that POS S series going to slow things down for everyone?
I think it depends on the game, the publishers’ resources, and the need for the game. Outside of first parties you will likely see games developed initially from the common denominator or the slower supported HW upwards (which is why it is important the minimum spec becomes XSS and not Xbox One or PS4, CPU wise especially).

Best case scenario for maximising XSX performance would be to have a team doing the XSX version in complete isolation (say that they prioritised graphics and world complexity and physics so much that they could only hit dynamic 1440p, with not rare drops, and 30 FPS and that was their per frame budget).

Then, a separate team (in the old days it would become a separate SKU, sold separately to recoup the reimagining of the game) would take the road concept and port the game to XSS/Xbox One... although that process would be more like reimagining the entire game from scratch trying to keep it faithful to the XSX version yet also play to its own HW strengths. This version may come out at the same time or after depending on having a parallel team or requiring some members of the team to shift around and whether you can sell the game separately or if you have to release the XSS/Xbox One version at the same time
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
22,571
24,157
1,825
Not the first time I have seen this happening in threads of this kind either. Sidestep/dodge the point and attack, as personally as you can based on what is being discussed... try to find the poster in a clear contradiction somewhere and go for the person’s image to have people dismiss everything they say (basic of as hominem).
To be honest it's crazy. I can't believe it's come to "you were a member of a PlayStation forum in 2006". Yeh, sue me. Imagine feeling like you need to go that far back when trying to make a point with a stranger on the internet. You're not my wife.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,037
8,072
2,055
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

longdi

Ni hao ma, fellow kids?
Jun 7, 2004
7,411
4,225
1,820
I think it depends on the game, the publishers’ resources, and the need for the game. Outside of first parties you will likely see games developed initially from the common denominator or the slower supported HW upwards (which is why it is important the minimum spec becomes XSS and not Xbox One or PS4, CPU wise especially).

Best case scenario for maximising XSX performance would be to have a team doing the XSX version in complete isolation (say that they prioritised graphics and world complexity and physics so much that they could only hit dynamic 1440p, with not rare drops, and 30 FPS and that was their per frame budget).

Then, a separate team (in the old days it would become a separate SKU, sold separately to recoup the reimagining of the game) would take the road concept and port the game to XSS/Xbox One... although that process would be more like reimagining the entire game from scratch trying to keep it faithful to the XSX version yet also play to its own HW strengths. This version may come out at the same time or after depending on having a parallel team or requiring some members of the team to shift around and whether you can sell the game separately or if you have to release the XSS/Xbox One version at the same time
Hi Panajev, previously you expressed concerns that MS runs their Xbox under VM conditions

I just saw this https://www.sisoftware.co.uk/2020/09/28/performance-impact-of-hyper-v-virtualisation-windows-10-pro-compute/

If we juxtaposed from it, It seems MS VM wont harm the native Series X games, but older bc games will 'lose' some raw power of Series X.

Impressive and makes great pro gamer stance to go this path, the effort Phil's team put in VM will pay great in business sense. :messenger_bicep:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

Foamy

Formerly 'DChosenOne'
Aug 25, 2019
1,944
3,770
540
I think it depends on the game, the publishers’ resources, and the need for the game. Outside of first parties you will likely see games developed initially from the common denominator or the slower supported HW upwards (which is why it is important the minimum spec becomes XSS and not Xbox One or PS4, CPU wise especially).

Best case scenario for maximising XSX performance would be to have a team doing the XSX version in complete isolation (say that they prioritised graphics and world complexity and physics so much that they could only hit dynamic 1440p, with not rare drops, and 30 FPS and that was their per frame budget).

Then, a separate team (in the old days it would become a separate SKU, sold separately to recoup the reimagining of the game) would take the road concept and port the game to XSS/Xbox One... although that process would be more like reimagining the entire game from scratch trying to keep it faithful to the XSX version yet also play to its own HW strengths. This version may come out at the same time or after depending on having a parallel team or requiring some members of the team to shift around and whether you can sell the game separately or if you have to release the XSS/Xbox One version at the same time
Ok that does seem to make sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
17,037
8,072
2,055
Hi Panajev, previously you expressed concerns that MS runs their Xbox under VM conditions

I just saw this https://www.sisoftware.co.uk/2020/09/28/performance-impact-of-hyper-v-virtualisation-windows-10-pro-compute/

If we juxtaposed from it, It seems MS VM wont harm the native Series X games, but older bc games will 'lose' some raw power of Series X.

Impressive and makes great pro gamer stance to go this path, the effort Phil's team put in VM will pay great in business sense. :messenger_bicep:
I need to check their interviews, but I think XSX is still running the same or similar hypervisor + Core OS + Game OS setup as Xbox One... of course with major (improvements requiring breaking changes, changes that required games to adapt and recompile essentially) updates to both Core OS and Game OS.

I think their efforts in preserving software is so ingrained in their company DNA that perhaps it was one of the rebel components that perhaps ironically Allard and co. Left behind to chart a new history for Xbox/Xbox 360 and then others continued with Xbox One.

Spencer’s MS is back to MS roots of software compatibility and to be fair even Xbox One was designed and the HW modified to run under a virtualisation layer (first GPU to be fully virtualised) and allow Console OS (Windows derivative) and Game OS (custom OS) to run side by side and be updated independently. I seriously think it is super cool!

This setup is what is now helping them pull rabbits out of the proverbial hat in terms of enhanced BC (especially on Xbox One titles)... I would also hope the number of titles from both OG Xbox and Xbox 360 increased as they seem to get accolades for the emulation improvements but little to no criticism for the quantity of titles available even with basic enhancements.

With that said, magic has a price... price is slightly lower performance as you still have an extra layer between software and HW and it can explain why MS always goes for slightly higher CPU clocks than Sony (as well as the clockspeed increase very late in Xbox One’s development).

Now, the GameOS side could be swapped or load a new VM optimised for Xbox One/OG Xbox (games do not run off the disc, you always download a recompiled/patched version from MS’s servers).
 
Last edited:

oldergamer

Member
Aug 20, 2004
3,238
2,622
1,605
So I am now arguing with a windmill of a memory you think you have of something you think I might have said :LOL:. I have half a mind to reply in the same aggressive vein, but that would be even more pointless than attempting an answer. If you have to be nasty you can ignore me, I do not recall having tagged you.
So you dont recall your previous position on this? Im not going to go back an dig up your comments as this wasnt meant to be a gotcha moment, but there was a clear contradiction with something you previously said that implied cross gen games were a "make it run at all costs" to the effect of it being a shitty port. In my eyes you flip flopped.

Not sure what i said that came across as angry (was it bollocks or bullshit?). Anyway what i was getting at was calling a game "next gen" is more nuanced then people on GAF or the gaming media realize.

A game can be fully optimized to get a performance benefit from the new hardware, but not visually impress or have assets authored for the new hardware. Dirt 5 is an example.

Or

A game can visually look next gen despite not using any new hardware features (a good example is that game developed in china by an unknown team) that looks more next gen running on unreal 4.x then everything we have seen so far from either new consoles

Nobody said min spec doesnt matter. Nobody claimed it wasnt a lot of work. Claiming its more work, doesnt contradict any claim that thing are held back by the lowest common denominator.

That statement you posted doesn't exactly support you opinion that previous gen holds back next gen imo. The entire point is that it doesn't have to hold anything back. Sounded like he was saying Its dependent on the assets authored.

Supporting the low end hardware on gta 5 doesnt hold it back from getting visual upgrades and optimizations with newer hardware (case in point the raytracing people hacked into that game, makes it look great)

I find your stance on this was more black and white prior to leaning that sony wasnt truthful in that entire generations based argument