Support NeoGAF

[ricardo_sousa11]

haha of course he does.

MS has always sucked at getting exclusive deals.

 

[GHG]

The most next gen title so far, by Xbox. Will be on everything from Xbox One to Series X to PC, and looks better than any game right now, is planetery sized and allows you to see and fly over (or into) your own home if wanted.

I'm not sure if you were dropped on the head or something, but you know how games have a "video settings" option that usually has "low, med, high, extreme" settings ect? Thats what "next gen" has been and always will be. I'll wait for your pseudo explanation as to what "next gen" actually means and why everyone is wrong.

" By definition, if it's the same game on current gen consoles then it's a current gen game."

By definition, doesn't it mean that if it plays on the next gen consoles then its a next gen game too though? What if its made targetting next gen then just ported downwards to older gen console so it can be playable on those too... Is it not next gen then?

Oh boy, you're using Flight Sim 2020 as an example?

Don't be surprised when they say the only capacity that game is releasing on base Xbox One is via Xcloud.

A next generation game is one that is built around next generation hardware without the constraints of previous generations hardware.

On console that means you have to buy a new console. On the rare occasion those games release on PC they require most people to upgrade. When the original crysis released it reinvigorated the PC hardware market.

It's not exactly rocket science. Next generation consoles bring with them a series of architecture advancements that help to achieve results otherwise not possible on current gen hardware.
And yes, ray tracing is one of those advancements.

The other way around, if I understand your logic correctly, you're leaning toward next-gen console exclusivity as a definition of a next gen game. This quite a pointless definition,

If a developer decides to create gameplay mechanics designed around ray tracing (which can't be done on previous generation consoles) then it would absolutely be a next gen game. If it's a current gen game that has a sprinkling of ray tracing support added on top that doesn't make it next gen. If that's the case then PC has had "next gen" games since 2018.

It's not a pointless definition, it's about what the developers choose to make concessions for or not. A cross gen game cannot be made solely with next gen hardware in mind, there will be compromises.

 

[FranXico]

Microsoft notoriously buying 3rd party franchises to create the perception that the properties are coming from Microsoft Game Studios when in reality there are only a handful of titles that have originated from inside Microsoft (Flight Sim, Age of Empires, and Forza?).

The intent is not even that. It literally is just to eliminate sources of content from the competition, with GamePass fodder as a secondary purpose. Any PR rhetoric they can spew based on those purchases is a bonus.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

It's not exactly rocket science. Next generation consoles bring with them a series of architecture advancements that help to achieve results otherwise not possible on current gen hardware.
And yes, ray tracing is one of those advancements.

The other way around, if I understand your logic correctly, you're leaning toward next-gen console exclusivity as a definition of a next gen game. This quite a pointless definition,

If your game is desgined to run on current gen with next gen getting graphic improvements, then it is cross gen. Exclusivity isn't what defined it; it is whether the core of the gameplay was sacrificed to run current gen hardware.

And yes, I have seen the excuse that Sony is somehow evil for deliberately not run their PS5 games on PS4. That is silly. Super Mario Odyssey can't run on the WiiU and no one expect it to be. As i said before, it would seem funny if it wasn't so sad. I hold no illusions that Sony is a giant greedy corporation who is not my friend, so when I see others thinking Micriosoft is trying to make friends, I see a con coming.

 

[Sony]

If a developer decides to create gameplay mechanics designed around ray tracing (which can't be done on previous generation consoles) then it would absolutely be a next gen game.

It's not a pointless definition, it's about what the developers choose to make concessions for or not. A cross gan game cannot be made solely with next gen hardware in mind, there will be compromises.

I'm sorry, for some reason my post was cut, there is a piece missing. What I wanted to say:
This quite a pointless definition, as by that standard a PS5 exclusive that looks and runs worse than TLOU II PS4 and doesn't take advantage of next gen architecture would be a next gen game in your eyes.

Additionally, are PC exclusives in your eyes capable of being next gen games? Imagine if we have PC Exclusive A.
X has a PC that is only able to run that game on Very Low settings at 30 fps max
Y has a PC that is able to run that game on Very High settings at 60fps

What now?

 

[Sony]

If your game is desgined to run on current gen with next gen getting graphic improvements, then it is cross gen. Exclusivity isn't what defined it; it is whether the core of the gameplay was sacrificed to run current gen hardware.

And yes, I have seen the excuse that Sony is somehow evil for deliberately not run their PS5 games on PS4. That is silly. Super Mario Odyssey can't run on the WiiU and no one expect it to be. As i said before, it would seem funny if it wasn't so sad. I hold no illusions that Sony is a giant greedy corporation who is not my friend, so when I see others thinking Micriosoft is trying to make friends, I see a con coming.

Oke, so next gen is about core gameply now. Question then, which aspects of the core gameplay of Uncharted 4 need to be sacrificed in order to run on PS3 looking like Uncharted 3?
Prior Uncharted games have shown setpieces and sequences on par with Uncharted 4, albeit at much lower graphical fidelity.

And I have seen those excuses too. The difference is that those excuses are made by forum dwellers, not Microsoft.

Instead of asserting motive as to why these companies are doing what they do, try to enjoy the benefits that it brings for you.

 

[Dodkrake]

From goalpost to goalpost. This is so fun to watch.

Oh, and a game being released in multiple gens makes it, by definition, cross gen. But yeah, the Xbox has the fastest SSD because physics doesn't matter, and now we are seeing a rewriting of Merriam Webster

 

[GHG]

I'm sorry, for some reason my post was cut, there is a piece missing. What I wanted to say:
This quite a pointless definition, as by that standard a PS5 exclusive that looks and runs worse than TLOU II PS4 and doesn't take advantage of next gen architecture would be a next gen game in your eyes.

Additionally, are PC exclusives in your eyes capable of being next gen games? Imagine if we have PC Exclusive A.
X has a PC that is only able to run that game on Very Low settings at 30 fps max
Y has a PC that is able to run that game on Very High settings at 60fps

What now?

If we're going to use your examples then those games are poorly designed and/or the developer didn't have the resources to make it cross-gen so they decided to tie the game down to a single generation (or piece of hardware).

Last time I checked Microsoft do not have a bunch of resource strapped incompetent development studios. We're talking about the games that Microsoft are putting out here, not "baby's first indie game" made by some guy in his mums basement.

If they wanted to blow our socks off and go all out in creating truly next gen experiences for us then they could, but for whatever reason they are not there yet. Hence this is the narrative and unfortunately quite a few of you can't see it for what it is.

 

[JCK75]

So I guess generations for Xbox stopped with the original Xbox then (which was PC HW)? Surprising, I seem to recall exclusive Xbox 360 and Xbox One titles .

You also are taking it the other way around: the user replaceable HW/open HW platform PC gaming market as not having generations and the semi custom silicon that you may also see in PC’s down the line as if they were the same thing. Both consoles contain a lot of customisations not available on PC’s and the console generation is defined by this fixed HW and the software and tools built around that specific model and thus able to present a more focused and efficient development and debugging environment to devs.

You can enjoy PC gaming as it is without trying to make consoles just a closed box PC locked behind a multiplayer paywall and a proprietary store only because a PC platform stakeholder is trying to change the rules of a market it had not been able to win big in about 30 years...

Please stop being so patronising about this MS is doing all of this to help customers that are broke not to have to jump on the new console. That is really the disingenuous argument I find annoying. Nobody is forcing PS4 customers to jump in, the strapped for cash gamers are not going to buy all the launch software nor the new consoles, but the titles already available for the console and in the last two years PS4 did not exactly withhold titles just to add to the PS5 lineup.

Microsoft did not use X86 until Xbox One - Xbox and Xbox 360 were both RISC- The Xbox was closer to a gamecube than a PC.

Microsoft is selling it's games on Steam, so much for the closed wall marketplace

Besides allowing it's existing users to slowly migrate without pressure what possible gain is there in forcing devs to allow the game for one year to existing platforms? if it was about greed they would force them to buy new hardware.

Nothing you said is factually correct, and none of it makes sense.. but please keep feeling like you just dunked on me.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Microsoft did not use X86 until Xbox One

Are you for real?

 

[LeftThumbstick]

Oh boy, you're using Flight Sim 2020 as an example?

Don't be surprised when they say the only capacity that game is releasing on base Xbox One is via Xcloud.

Yes i am using FS2020. Let me guess, this somehow doesnt count because PlAnES!?

A next generation game is one that is built around next generation hardware without the constraints of previous generations hardware.

What new features is the next gen going to give you (other than technical enhancements) that current gen consoles and PC GPU & CPU's cant? I'm genuinely curious as to why they cant be built for multiple platofrms but not leverage the advancements of the newest tech at the same time. I'ts been done lots of times before so why are we constrained again?

On console that means you have to buy a new console. On the rare occasion those games release on PC they require most people to upgrade. When the original crysis released it reinvigorated the PC hardware market.

Speaking of constraints, this is an artificial one that you have fell head first into the marketing teams hands. You DONT need to buy a new console, you are being artificially constrained to buy their newest product because they want the full whack of cash from you, no choice or no option, just you buy the newest because we said you need to.

If a developer decides to create gameplay mechanics designed around ray tracing (which can't be done on previous generation consoles) then it would absolutely be a next gen game. If it's a current gen game that has a sprinkling of ray tracing support added on top that doesn't make it next gen. If that's the case then PC has had "next gen" games since 2018.

It's not a pointless definition, it's about what the developers choose to make concessions for or not. A cross gan game cannot be made solely with next gen hardware in mind, there will be compromises.

Why on earth would a sane developer do that? At that point its not about creating good games but rather making technical demos. It's like not even a rectangle set of goal posts at this point, more like an zig zag pattern set of goal posts in which developers must hit this weird standard you have set just to qualify .

Honestly i feel sorry for developers in this day and age, especially the smaller ones who dont stand a chance against this type of wild expectation.

Also, Ray Tracing was built and developed in this "current" gen or even before therefor making it not next gen at all, checkmate.

 

[Sony]

If we're going to use your examples then those games are poorly designed and/or the developer didn't have the resources to make it cross-gen so they decided to tie the game down to a single generation (or piece of hardware).

Last time I checked Microsoft do not have a bunch of resource strapped incompetent development studios. We're talking about the games that Microsoft are putting out here, not "baby's first indie game" made by some guy in his mums basement.

If they wanted to blow our socks off and go all out in creating truly next gen experiences for us then they could, but for whatever reason they are not there yet.

I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you, but if you're saying that PC exlusives that have graphics options ranging from Very Low to Very High are poorly designed, then it's very hard to take you seriously.

 

[Nikana]

If your game is desgined to run on current gen with next gen getting graphic improvements, then it is cross gen. Exclusivity isn't what defined it; it is whether the core of the gameplay was sacrificed to run current gen hardware.

And yes, I have seen the excuse that Sony is somehow evil for deliberately not run their PS5 games on PS4. That is silly. Super Mario Odyssey can't run on the WiiU and no one expect it to be. As i said before, it would seem funny if it wasn't so sad. I hold no illusions that Sony is a giant greedy corporation who is not my friend, so when I see others thinking Micriosoft is trying to make friends, I see a con coming.

It's not that Sony is evil it's that people try to define game development as a linear process and developers simply sit on their hands and say, well might as well wait for next gen hardware.

Games are developed based on features and not teraflops. You can't tell me that stuff like Spiderman Miles Morales and SackBoy were originally developed for ps5 day 1. They are very clearly games that are leveraging ps5 features but built on foundations of PS4.

Games are often started mid gen or late gen. You think suicide squad and Harry Potter, games that have been in development for years, are only going to release on series X/S and Ps5 were concepted and started with next gen only in mind? Nah.

So simply because Microsoft is taking a different approach and releasing games acorss their devices doesn't somehow turn them into the bad guy.

 

[Hobbygaming]

But Sony had a drought for the launch of the PS4, and with all their AAA studios having nothing for the launch of PS5 it looks to be the same. Take TLOU II being built for the Pro and scaled back for the OG - they couldn't do this for the PS5?

PS5 already has a better launch window than the PS4 with Spider-man Miles Morales, Astro's Playroom and Horizon Forbidden West coming in the 1st year

And if this wasn't the case, they'd still be more than fine as they have earned the hardcore gamer's trust

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's not that Sony is evil it's that people try to define game development as a linear process and developers simply sit on their hands and say, well might as well wait for next gen hardware.

Games are developed based on features and not teraflops. You can't tell me that stuff like Spiderman Miles Morales and SackBoy were originally developed for ps5 day 1. They are very clearly games that are leveraging ps5 features but built on foundations of PS4.

Games are often started mid gen or late gen. You think suicide squad and Harry Potter, games that have been in development for years, are only going to release on series X/S and Ps5 were concepted and started with next gen only in mind? Nah.

So simply because Microsoft is taking a different approach and releasing games acorss their devices doesn't somehow turn them into the bad guy.

This has been covered ad nausea, they are under a bad light not because they have a different strategy, but because they are obnoxiously trying to pin a PR fail onto Sony painting this as proof they are the (sanctimonious) white knight of pro-consumer efforts. You could not really crack the console market even while pouring lots of billions in it and your competitor almost killing themselves off in a generation and are trying to play by new rules?! Fine, but do not piss on people and tell them it is raining, do not start arguing the console generations model is inherently bad and anti consumer because you could not crack it.

It is because they talk about exclusives being bad and anti consumer, which is an argument in quite bad faith, while buying studios up and locking services and games to their own Windows/Xbox platform.

 

[Sony]

Ultimately, we're at a point that it's a definition game between cross gen and next gen. Traditionally, cross gen games are seen as inferior to next gen exclusives. Wer are at a point, however, where due to great advancements in scaleability of engines the term cross-gen has a different bearing. Sure, you can be very strics and argue to the end of times about the meaning of cross gen and how inferior those games are. If you do, you'll be in for a very bitter generation.

 

[GHG]

I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you, but if you're saying that PC exlusives that have graphics options ranging from Very Low to Very High are poorly designed, then it's very hard to take you seriously.

Here's a PC game that has graphics options ranging from Very Low to Very high:

Star Citizen Minimum System Requirements

Below you will find the system specifications needed to run Star Citizen on your PC, as well as our system recommendations to give a better experience when exploring the 'verse. As the game is sti...

support.robertsspaceindustries.com

It's not a last gen game and won't run on last gen hardware, it's not been designed to do so.

The range of settings has nothing to do with it, it's what the developers decide their spec floor is going to be and what hardware they decide to design their game around that matters.

 

[Nikana]

This has been covered ad nausea, they are under a bad light not because they have a different strategy, but because they are obnoxiously trying to pin a PR fail onto Sony painting this as proof they are the (sanctimonious) white knight of pro-consumer efforts. You could not really crack the console market even while pouring lots of billions in it and your competitor almost killing themselves off in a generation and are trying to play by new rules?! Fine, but do not piss on people and tell them it is raining, do not start arguing the console generations model is inherently bad and anti consumer because you could not crack it.

It is because they talk about exclusives being bad and anti consumer, which is an argument in quite bad faith, while buying studios up and locking services and games to their own Windows/Xbox platform.

I haven't seen any PR that has called ps5s(or traditional) approach anti consumer or bad.

 

[Sony]

This has been covered ad nausea, they are under a bad light not because they have a different strategy, but because they are obnoxiously trying to pin a PR fail onto Sony painting this as proof they are the (sanctimonious) white knight of pro-consumer efforts. You could not really crack the console market even while pouring lots of billions in it and your competitor almost killing themselves off in a generation and are trying to play by new rules?! Fine, but do not piss on people and tell them it is raining, do not start arguing the console generations model is inherently bad and anti consumer because you could not crack it.

It is because they talk about exclusives being bad and anti consumer, which is an argument in quite bad faith, while buying studios up and locking services and games to their own Windows/Xbox platform.

How dare they try something else instead of doing the exact same thing that didn't get them anywhere!
What is your problem? You're assigning motive and you seem to be personally hurt by Microsoft's business decisions.
A market isn't fixed. Yes, Microsoft tried and failed. But you can't argue that they didn't try. I've made this point a couple of times before and I'm happy to make this again:
Xbox cannot outsell a PlayStation counterpart, regardless of what they do.
To 'playstation' is a verb in many parts of the world, synonymous with gaming.
At the start of the Xbox 360/ PS3 Generation, microsoft was doing everything right.
- Xbox 360 launched a year before PS3
- Xbox 360 launched in more areas than PS3 did
- Xbox 360 was cheaper than PS3
- Xbox 360 had objectively better multiplatform games than PS3 for a good year or 2 after PS3 launched
- The PS3's worse multiplatform performances plagued enthousiast forums, creating a narrative of Sony is doomed
- Xbox 360 had an in-game XMB, while it took PS3 to get that functionality (without custom music) 1.5 years after being launched
- Xbox had high profile exclusives on the roadmap such as Halo 3, Bioshock and Mass Effect

Yet they still didn't outperform PlayStation 3. So it's only natural that they choose a different business approach that will benefit them more than prior business approaches.
I don't understand why you're so angry.

If Sony is in a bad light because of Microsoft's business decisions, then it's a signal that Microsoft's businnes decisions are resonating with the consumer.
The other way around, if Microsoft is in a bad light because of Sony's business decision, then it's a singal that Sony's business decisions are resonating with the consumer.
It's called competition.

So let me ask you this, what do you think Microsoft should do? Attach "we're only saying this because our past strategy in the console space didn't bring us where we wanted to be so we're moving to a more consumer friendly place in order to differentiate more from our competition?"

What do you want?

 

[Sony]

Here's a PC game that has graphics options ranging from Very Low to Very high:

Star Citizen Minimum System Requirements

Below you will find the system specifications needed to run Star Citizen on your PC, as well as our system recommendations to give a better experience when exploring the 'verse. As the game is sti...

support.robertsspaceindustries.com

It's not a last gen game and won't run on last gen hardware, it's not been designed to do so.

The range of settings has nothing to do with it, it's what the developers decide their spec floor is going to be and what hardware they decide to design their game around that matters.

A. That doesn't asnwer my question.
B. There are current gen Xbox One/ PS4 games that have PC counterparts who's minimum requirements are equal to Star Citizen's minimum requirements. What does that make Star Citizen?

 

[JCK75]

Are you for real?

Yea I'm just wrong on the original Xbox (didn't own one and made the mistake of using Quora when other searches yielded no results), It was the Xbox 360 that went Power PC and I didn't think they made a drastic change between the two.. doesn't change the fact that BOTH consoles are not PC's and the need to cut out almost as fast hardware out of getting games is not needed, I mean the Xbox One X and PS4 pro are both more than beefy enough to continue running games for a full year.

 

[Psykodad]

Sometimes I don’t know if you read or not and just reply rubbish.

First I thought this thread was about their first party games, especially if we talk about Game Pass and your agenda of “pro consumer”, so he’s they do have tons of first party games in the pipeline.

Second, why would stuff be pushed back, where do you get that? I said they could have made all their games next gen only, it was a decision that was made not to do so, what is it you don’t understand? They don’t need to push anything back, the consciously decided todevelop their games for next gen and scale them down to Xbox One levels because they can, the tools make it possible (in fact, Unreal Engine is very good at this) and that will also give them a much bigger pool of players to sell for, as in Xbox One, Xbox Series X, and a lot more people on PC as that means they will be supporting a lot more hardware options.

I somehow doubt games like Far Cry 6 require extra time to develop for next gen, they are already developing for PC, and like any game, PC will always have the highest fidelity. Again, develop high fidelity and scale down. Is there something you have a hard time grasping here? Just look at last gen when we had ForzaHorizon 2 and Dise of Tomb Raiser as examples of that.

And you pro Sumer thing you seem to think is all about doing this to keep Xbox players or whatever, again the scalability makes it possible to sell to a higher audience and have a much bigger user base which is what all games aspire to, but also to give something to Game Pass customers. People with their Xbox One that are not upgrading right away might still be possible customers of Game Pass, people on GTX 980s on PC might also be interested in paying for it to play Halo this Fall. It’s not about retaining Xbox One customers so they don’t change ship (which is only a scenario in your Sony fanboy universe by the way) but about expanding that 10 million Game Pass number to 20 million, if not more. Sony has more than twice the userbase, but 5 times less subscribers to PS Now because their service is shit. MS has something huge here and they are pushing for it as it’s working, and bringing in PC as well was a smart move, PC is a biggerplatform than consoles, and once smart devices get added in the potential is even bigger (although smart devices will run off Xbox Series X blades next year so scalability won’t matter for those devices.

So stop with your conspiracy theories and stop the cult of Jim “we want players to experience something only possible on PS5” Ryan, because it’s all PR and he knows it, he’s just trying to sell you an over locked and burning hot piece of plastic that won’t have anything “truely next gen” (as you like to think) until late next year but has brainwashed you into thinking everything you are getting this fall is only possible on their box. And the only reason why it’s only possible on their box is because they are forcing those games to be only sold there, not because they aren’t possible elsewhere.

I was merely asking for clarification on whether you were talking about 1st exclusively, or if you included 3rd party as well, since you claimed that MS has "tons of games" in the works.
It's all in the wording.

And if cross-gen games that originated on current-gen would be moved to next-gen, it would be easily possible that they would undergo extended development time due to optimisation for XSX.
Afaik XSX dev kits reportedly were sent out rather late.

I also never denied Sony's PR and in case of Spiderman I wouldn't doubt at all that it could just well be a PS4 games, just as Sackboy, Bugsnax and whatever else they announced.
R&C, GT7 and HFW are the only games I can see not being able to run on PS4 in their current state.
I'm well aware that Sony made some titles PS5 exclusive for the sake of pushing next-gen adoption, but they literally stated that they want to do that, so that's a given.

So that reply of yours is kind of unnecessary. (and yes, I only glanced over that wall of text)

 

[JOEVIAL]

How dare they try something else instead of doing the exact same thing that didn't get them anywhere!
What is your problem? You're assigning motive and you seem to be personally hurt by Microsoft's business decisions.
A market isn't fixed. Yes, Microsoft tried and failed. But you can't argue that they didn't try. I've made this point a couple of times before and I'm happy to make this again:
Xbox cannot outsell a PlayStation counterpart, regardless of what they do.
To 'playstation' is a verb in many parts of the world, synonymous with gaming.
At the start of the Xbox 360/ PS3 Generation, microsoft was doing everything right.
- Xbox 360 launched a year before PS3
- Xbox 360 launched in more areas than PS3 did
- Xbox 360 was cheaper than PS3
- Xbox 360 had objectively better multiplatform games than PS3 for a good year or 2 after PS3 launched
- The PS3's worse multiplatform performances plagued enthousiast forums, creating a narrative of Sony is doomed
- Xbox 360 had an in-game XMB, while it took PS3 to get that functionality (without custom music) 1.5 years after being launched
- Xbox had high profile exclusives on the roadmap such as Halo 3, Bioshock and Mass Effect

Yet they still didn't outperform PlayStation 3. So it's only natural that they choose a different business approach that will benefit them more than prior business approaches.
I don't understand why you're so angry.

If Sony is in a bad light because of Microsoft's business decisions, then it's a signal that Microsoft's businnes decisions are resonating with the consumer.
The other way around, if Microsoft is in a bad light because of Sony's business decision, then it's a singal that Sony's business decisions are resonating with the consumer.
It's called competition.

So let me ask you this, what do you think Microsoft should do? Attach "we're only saying this because our past strategy in the console space didn't bring us where we wanted to be so we're moving to a more consumer friendly place in order to differentiate more from our competition?"

What do you want?

Very well thought out and presented. XBOX 360 pretty much did everything right it's first 4 years, and outperformed PS3. Not by a lot, but it did extremely well. It had some of the best games. Seriously, Oblivion, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Lost Odyssey. And more than a few AA games sprinkled in for good measure.

Some were thought to be complete XBOX 360 exclusives. It was a different time for sure, so timed exclusives wasn't really a "buzzword" back then. Most people thought Mass Effect was a complete XBOX exclusive. The 360 had so many games that were totally worth buying the system for.

 

[M1chl]

Microsoft did not use X86 until Xbox One - Xbox and Xbox 360 were both RISC- The Xbox was closer to a gamecube than a PC.

Microsoft is selling it's games on Steam, so much for the closed wall marketplace

Besides allowing it's existing users to slowly migrate without pressure what possible gain is there in forcing devs to allow the game for one year to existing platforms? if it was about greed they would force them to buy new hardware.

Nothing you said is factually correct, and none of it makes sense.. but please keep feeling like you just dunked on me.

OG Xbox was Celeron from Intel. So N-O-P-E...

 

[JCK75]

OG Xbox was Celeron from Intel. So N-O-P-E...

I didn't edit, I just acknowledged my mistake 3 posts above yours.

 

[M1chl]

I didn't edit, I just acknowledged my mistake 3 posts above yours.

Sorry, missed it.

 

[SoraNoKuni]

So I guess I'll enjoy Halo in my PS5, right? Phil?

Edit: Yeah MB didn't read the statement correctly, I'll leave my comment though to get the flame.

 

[Gamernyc78]

Hell spew what ever he needs to to see what moves numbers. It's kind of like the "we can't remove Kinect bcus the os talk" but then losing sales and then seeing the execs say "we are now removing Kinect". It's his job but don't read too much honesty or truth into pr speak.

 

[GHG]

A. That doesn't asnwer my question.
B. There are current gen Xbox One/ PS4 games that have PC counterparts who's minimum requirements are equal to Star Citizen's minimum requirements. What does that make Star Citizen?

A. There was no question.
B. List all the games that have 16gb ram as a minimum requirement.

 

[NickFire]

I know what they said before. But if you take Phil's words here to heart.......it means he'll be okay with forcing 1st party devs to make games on the Xbox One for years to come. This statement of his is silly.

We've gone back and forth over whether MS would eat huge losses for market share. I figured they were all in on winning the generation come hell or high water. But all this continued talk (and known practice going forward) of un-tethering games from cutting edge hardware is starting to confuse me. Are they really trying to win? Or just establish an early narrative for possible plans if they lose?

 

[gypsygib]

Sony should do timed exclusives. Put them all on PC 12 months later.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yea I'm just wrong on the original Xbox (didn't own one and made the mistake of using Quora when other searches yielded no results), It was the Xbox 360 that went Power PC and I didn't think they made a drastic change between the two.. doesn't change the fact that BOTH consoles are not PC's and the need to cut out almost as fast hardware out of getting games is not needed, I mean the Xbox One X and PS4 pro are both more than beefy enough to continue running games for a full year.

OG Xbox was arguably more of a PC than XSX or PS5, you are putting way way too much importance on the CPU ISA here amongst other things.

 

[JCK75]

OG Xbox was arguably more of a PC than XSX or PS5, you are putting way way too much importance on the CPU ISA here amongst other things.

No it really wasn't
What we are seeing now is 3 major systems all with essentially the same hardware, a wide range of asset qualities are going to already exist because the PC version is going to support low quality 720P up to 4K Ultra (like I said before). There is absolutely no reason a game can't be released on consoles the same way and that's what MS is requesting.. that they aim to still run on older Xbox hardware at low settings.. if you think having 2-3 levels of quality performance are some major obstacle for devs you must have missed the entire PS4 Pro/Xbox One X release where they were already basically doing this.

 

[Panajev2001a]

No it really wasn't
What we are seeing now is 3 major systems all with essentially the same hardware, a wide range of asset qualities are going to already exist because the PC version is going to support low quality 720P up to 4K Ultra (like I said before). There is absolutely no reason a game can't be released on consoles the same way and that's what MS is requesting.. that they aim to still run on older Xbox hardware at low settings.. if you think having 2-3 levels of quality performance are some major obstacle for devs you must have missed the entire PS4 Pro/Xbox One X release where they were already basically doing this.

Yes, it really was. XSX contains a lot more customisations compared to what you found in the OG Xbox: look at just what they have done around ML and XVA as the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The minimum common denominator approach can be achieved and pursued on consoles too, but the same people that have tried to convince console gamers that we hit diminutive returns and consoles were done started saying it about 20 years ago and they still get proven wrong.

MS is trying to change the rules of the game because they were not winning it despite pouring many billions on it in the last 20+ years. They were not doing horribly either, but after a while and as the money you invest piles the desired RoI must shoot up too (opportunity cost and all that).

That in itself is fine, but saying that the current model is broken and worse it is anti consumer is disingenuous double talk.
“Exclusive are bad, we do not care about the device you use to play with” “Xcloud, GamePass, or Xbox games are not coming to PlayStation or Switch” “We are not done buying studio (and making the games they will develop exclusives to our devices)” “I want launch to be about new things that are taking full advantage of the hardware, especially as a first party” ... etc.. etc...

 

[FunkMiller]

I ran this through my Phil Spencer translator and it came out with:

“Yeah, we know we’re not going to sell anywhere near as many consoles as Sony, so it’s all about the software now, innit?”

 

[mckmas8808]

We've gone back and forth over whether MS would eat huge losses for market share. I figured they were all in on winning the generation come hell or high water. But all this continued talk (and known practice going forward) of un-tethering games from cutting edge hardware is starting to confuse me. Are they really trying to win? Or just establish an early narrative for possible plans if they lose?

Absolutely the bolded!

 

[bumleforce]

As someone with a house with a lot of rooms and a family I like this. I’ll be putting my series x in my game room /office so it’s good that I can go to my Xbox in my bedroom or downstairs and still play halo infinite even at lower performance. My ps5 games can only be played in one room. I think if I was younger and sat in one spot for hours and hours to game I would like the Sony approach but the Xbox approch fits my life better

 

[Klayzer]

Hey Phil, appreciate the diversion from the TLOU2 topics. Good guy Phil always looking out for gamers best interests.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

People have been doing it for pages while you are defending Phil’s words from Phil himself. It will be amusing once some first party stunning XSX exclusives will be announced and nobody white knighting for new Phil against yesterday Phil will say a single thing about it being anti consumer .

Who has been doing it? Nobody can’t prove shit, that’s the problem!

Also I’d like to know what you are on about when they themselves haven’t denied that games will become exclusive at some point? They’ve never said they’ll have a whole generation. Of games being cross gen. Even the interview this thread is about, he says: “to force someone to buy my device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about”. He’s talking about having to buy a new console at launch when not everyone can or will be able to.

Nobody’s defending anything and they are not changing goal posts, it’s pretty clear what he’s saying, your the one acting dumb with your friend psykodad.

 

[UnNamed]

Phil Spencer is clearly a Commodore fan. In the sense he wants to fail in the same way for the same reasons.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Who has been doing it? Nobody can’t prove shit, that’s the problem!

Also I’d like to know what you are on about when they themselves haven’t denied that games will become exclusive at some point? They’ve never said they’ll have a whole generation. Of games being cross gen. Even the interview this thread is about, he says: “to force someone to buy my device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about”. He’s talking about having to buy a new console at launch when not everyone can or will be able to.

Nobody’s defending anything and they are not changing goal posts, it’s pretty clear what he’s saying, your the one acting dumb with your friend psykodad.

Everything they said is fine and pro consumer until they stop and do the opposite and that becomes pro consumer and if they both do one thing and its opposite at the same time than both are pro consumer...

That is part of the point, all this talk about exclusives being anti consumer just to then a year later to start making exclusives ... again tons of arguments made already pages after pages ad nausea.

 

[nani17]

Oh, Philly Philly Philly.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

I was merely asking for clarification on whether you were talking about 1st exclusively, or if you included 3rd party as well, since you claimed that MS has "tons of games" in the works.
It's all in the wording.

And if cross-gen games that originated on current-gen would be moved to next-gen, it would be easily possible that they would undergo extended development time due to optimisation for XSX.
Afaik XSX dev kits reportedly were sent out rather late.

I also never denied Sony's PR and in case of Spiderman I wouldn't doubt at all that it could just well be a PS4 games, just as Sackboy, Bugsnax and whatever else they announced.
R&C, GT7 and HFW are the only games I can see not being able to run on PS4 in their current state.
I'm well aware that Sony made some titles PS5 exclusive for the sake of pushing next-gen adoption, but they literally stated that they want to do that, so that's a given.

So that reply of yours is kind of unnecessary. (and yes, I only glanced over that wall of text)

They haven’t stated they moved games to next gen, they said that they can only be experienced there because of next gen hardware, which is a blatant lie tooling at a lot of the stuff they have shown.

And again, I want some proof from anyone in this thread that because they are cross gen the games will be held back because no one has been able to do so this far.

I don’t want any “lol Phil is a liar cross gen is shit because muh feelings” kind of shit, I want something tangible because so far none of you guys “arguing” has done any of that.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

Everything they said is fine and pro consumer until they stop and do the opposite and that becomes pro consumer and if they both do one thing and its opposite at the same time than both are pro consumer...

That is part of the point, all this talk about exclusives being anti consumer just to then a year later to start making exclusives ... again tons of arguments made already pages after pages ad nausea.

It’s about the launch window, it’s always been about the launch window and there was nothing to argue about except when Sony fanboys decided to create a thread about it and troll for no fucking reason as they can’t even make sense of what they are trolling about.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

Oh boy, you're using Flight Sim 2020 as an example?

Don't be surprised when they say the only capacity that game is releasing on base Xbox One is via Xcloud.

A next generation game is one that is built around next generation hardware without the constraints of previous generations hardware.

On console that means you have to buy a new console. On the rare occasion those games release on PC they require most people to upgrade. When the original crysis released it reinvigorated the PC hardware market.



If a developer decides to create gameplay mechanics designed around ray tracing (which can't be done on previous generation consoles) then it would absolutely be a next gen game. If it's a current gen game that has a sprinkling of ray tracing support added on top that doesn't make it next gen. If that's the case then PC has had "next gen" games since 2018.

It's not a pointless definition, it's about what the developers choose to make concessions for or not. A cross gen game cannot be made solely with next gen hardware in mind, there will be compromises.

Except ray tracing is something that can be added or removed depending on hardware and won’t change anything about the game except how some things will look, which isn’t something that can’t be done as it’s already being done on PC. I’d say a good 98% of what has been announced so far would have been possible on Xbox One or PS4 as nothing groundbreaking has been shown so far.

 

[Psykodad]

They haven’t stated they moved games to next gen, they said that they can only be experienced there because of next gen hardware, which is a blatant lie tooling at a lot of the stuff they have shown.

Who are "they"?
You said they could've made all games next-gen, I went with that hypothetical situation. That was about MS.

And again, I want some proof from anyone in this thread that because they are cross gen the games will be held back because no one has been able to do so this far.

I never really made those kind of comments, so ask somebody else.

 

[JTCx]

Hey Phil, appreciate the diversion from the TLOU2 topics. Good guy Phil always looking out for gamers best interests.

Good guy phil out here giving life lessons. People are now questioning whether or not console generations are real. Deep stuff.

 

[nani17]

This thread

 

[FacelessSamurai]

I'll make this simple as no one here seems capable of reading and are instead pushing an agenda by making arguments about things that were not even said in the interview and are arguing for the sake of it. No where has Phil Spencer said they are trying to be pro consumer as some of you try to put it. The reality is that MS is doing what 3rd parties have been doing for a long time, scale their games according to the platform they are released on and stop bullshitting us making us think it's only possible on next gen hardware in the launch window(when it's not). To quote Phil: "Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about." He talks about launch window, not "hey I'm saying that now and I'll change my narrative in a year", no, it's quite clear that the day he mentions is launch ate of the new systems. And again: "Gaming is bigger than any one device, and that is something as an industry that we've embraced all up as we bring more and more players in. I think it's vital to the role that gaming can play on the planet." Games like Fortnite and PUBG exploded once they became available on mobile, same for Hearthstone. Who would have thought one day you'd play those games on mobile, a freakin battle royale with 100 players? Yet Epic scaled it down with Unreal Engine 4 and the rest is history!

Take for example a game like Battlefield 4, one of which was one of the most technologically advanced game released in 2013. BF was released on PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, Xbox One and PC and was arguably the best looking game of that year when it came to the PC version. That game was available on 5 platforms. That game had a minimum requirement of a Geforce 8800GT, a video card released in 2007 (game was released in 2013). So a 6 year old GPU was able to run a game releasing on next gen consoles yet people here are arguing that PC gamers have to upgrade to the latest if they want to enjoy games coming out on PS5 and Series X? Of course a 8800 GT didn't run as good as next gen consoles, but it definitely could run the game for those who wanted. And my GTX 1080 will run next gen games if I want it to without ray tracing at 1080p, a GPU that was released 4 years ago! It won't look as good for sure (I'll be playing on Series X anyway), doesn't mean it cannot be done, so what if I had decided not to upgrade and play at lower settings if I could?

Could Dice have made Battlefield 4 next gen only? They definitely could have, but they didn't because they didn't need to, PS3 and Xbox 360 versions ran like shit, but people still bought it and played it on those systems, it was worth it for them and they most likely couldn't even find a new console or couldn't afford one right away.

Could Killzone and Infamous have been made on PS3? Definitely, Sony chose not to because they wanted to sell you a new system, artificially forcing you to buy a new plastic box for the sake of it. AAA games take 3-4 years of development time, they don't start development on next gen platforms (launch window games) and as such aren't designed initially to fully make use of next gen features, and a single instance in a game where they will shoehorn something for the sake of it doesn't make it any more next gen. Maybe AAs (like The Medium) with a shorter development time but then again, usually those games are not as important in scope and do not push boundaries on an overall level.

Look at what has been shown so far for Xbox Series X or PS5. From a design perspective they are games that could be made on Xbox One or PS4 as design wise they don't bring anything extra or new to the table. Faster loading can be scaled down (just wait longer), just like larger areas can as well (extra loading between zones just like old MMOs used to do), foliage, view distance, LOD, character models, framerate, all things that can be scaled down easily with modern engines. Ray tracing has already been shown to be scalable as well or completely deactivated if needs be. What has Spider-Man shown that cannot be scaled down by lowering graphical fidelity? Even R&C, if you take away that scripted sequence from the beginning of the trailer, the portals from the gameplay portion didn't scream next-gen, and the ray tracing could be removed altogether and you end up with a PS4 game. It'll look worse for sure, but far from an unplayable mess and probably a few million would buy it.

You can believe otherwise all you want, but it's PR speak to make you think it needs to be done on next gen, just like Godfall, like the dev puts it, is being “tailored to run only on Sony’s new console”, yet Game Debate has it as requiring a GTX 960 (2015 GPU by the way) as minimum requirement and the dev hasn't yet mentioned the need for an SSD on PC. But hey, they say it can only run on PS5, right? For sure it couldn't be done on PS4.....

So Xbox isn't pushing an agenda of being pro consumer, in fact like I said no where in the interview do they even say that! All they are saying is admitting that they can scale their games (Just like EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Activision, etc) and because they can they will do it, as launch windows games have rarely shown that they can only run on the new hardware. Sometimes that's the case, but it's so rare that at the end of the day, why make your other games artificially only available on next gen if you know you don't have to? You don't have to force people to buy the new hardware, because just like there are minimum requirements on PC there are those that want the latest and greatest and will buy the hardware to run at max settings, which is what the Xbox Series X and PS5 will deliver and people will buy both at launch regardless of exclusives. Launch quantities are limited, not everyone will have access to the console. And in due time, just like minimum requirements go up, and as games become really designed to push new boundaries, then they will become next gen exclusive. There are even games that have been announced already as next gen only on Series X by design, or as the Scorn dev put it, because he doesn't want to see his game run in 900p 30fps on Xbox One. He could do it, he chose not to, but not because it can't be done. MS has the man power to do it, so why not? Why not reach a bigger audience and limit your profit?

Third parties have been doing it last gen as well, with the first iteration on next gen of their franchises being cross gen (because it was possible by design) and then dropping support a year later except for a few exceptions. Why do first parties have to do the same? Just so you can gloat at your friends they can't play Spiderman simulator 2020 because Sony wanted them to upgrade to PS5 even though they can't? They aren't going to sell 100 million PS5s in the launch window, why limit the availability of the game on purpose when nothing is stopping them from releasing it on PS4? We all now the new console won't sell more because of that. The best selling PS4 games for the first months were Call of Duty Ghosts (yes, the shitty one with the dog) and Battlefield 4, both cross gen games and both multiplatform as well. People upgraded for the graphical fidelity, while the pleb waited for the first price drop in 2015 before buying, or those that aren't as savvy as us that couldn't get a pre-order in in 2013 had to wait until 2014 to get their hands on the consoles. Exclusives didn't create a demand that couldn't be fulfilled, higher fidelity graphics did (thanks to scalable engines I might add).

You could argue that newcomers will still be able to buy those console launch exclusive games down the line when they finally upgrade, but then again why do that when you have free upgrades thanks to things like smart delivery?

But hey, better trust in Jim Ryan, right? Because "it is time to give the PlayStation community something new, something different, that can really only be enjoyed on PS5." has to be true, it definitely isn't PR speak lol

 

[Agent X]

Holy alphabet soup, Batman...

But hey, better trust in Jim Ryan, right? Because "it is time to give the PlayStation community something new, something different, that can really only be enjoyed on PS5." has to be true, it definitely isn't PR speak lol

F FacelessSamurai , are you OK?

I don't see the controversy. We can simply accept generational leaps for what they are. Take them at face value. When the leap includes comprehensive backward compatibility with one or more previous generations (e.g. Atari 7800, Game Boy Advance, PlayStation 2, Wii), then game developers generally follow these simple rules.

• If the game is capable of being produced for the old system, while completely fulfilling the developer's creative vision, then go ahead and make it for the old system (because the new system can also play that game through backward compatibility).
• If the game is not capable of working on the old system without significant cuts to performance and/or content, then make it for the new system only (because the old system isn't suited for it).

That's not so difficult, is it?

The issue is that Mr. Spencer wants to frame their lack of exclusive Xbox Series X content as "no gamer left behind", when (as so many others in this thread have pointed out) this is trying to put a good face on an otherwise unsavory situation. Translation: "None of our studios have any next-generation games ready for launch". If even a single one of their studios had a big triple-A production ready for launch, then you bet your sweet bippy that their narrative would be strikingly different.

But hey, at some point those studios will get caught up. They'll eventually produce games that run only on the new system. And the moment that happens, "no gamer left behind" will be conveniently tossed into the trash bin. But most people here have already figured that out.