Microsoft All of our games… will play up and down that family of devices” – Xbox’s Matt Booty

[TwinIon]

On 1/10/2020 at 4:54 PM, sblfilms said:

Anybody have some examples of why you couldn’t make a game take advantage of solid state on one platform and spinning disk on another? I see this claim made regularly but don’t really understand it.

A concrete example that Sony used when they first started talking about the PS5 is that Spider-Man's top speed in the PS4 game was limited by the speed they could stream the game world from the disc at.

 

However, as the article that @AbsolutSurgen linked points out, it's unlikely that even something like that couldn't be solved by motivated devs. If you really wanted Spider-man's top speed to be higher, you could do it, you'd probably just have to make a non-SSD console really turn down the details when you're moving over a certain speed.

 

So my actual answer is that it's unlikely to be true that a game designed around an SSD couldn't be ported to a console without one, it's simply a matter of how much effort it would take.

[crispy4000]

15 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

A concrete example that Sony used when they first started talking about the PS5 is that Spider-Man's top speed in the PS4 game was limited by the speed they could stream the game world from the disc at.

 

However, as the article that @AbsolutSurgen linked points out, it's unlikely that even something like that couldn't be solved by motivated devs. If you really wanted Spider-man's top speed to be higher, you could do it, you'd probably just have to make a non-SSD console really turn down the details when you're moving over a certain speed.

 

So my actual answer is that it's unlikely to be true that a game designed around an SSD couldn't be ported to a console without one, it's simply a matter of how much effort it would take.

 

Almost any current gen game could be a last gen game if devs tried hard enough.

I think the larger takeaway is that the SSD puts an added wrinkle in port downs, in addition to the standard CPU / GPU / RAM / etc, upgrades.  Worlds will have to be designed within current gen limitations in mind if devs don't want to make it tougher on themselves down the road.  Either that, or kick the bucket to another studio to handle a port.

[Guest]

I’m thus far unconvinced this is actually an issue. Seems to largely be conjecture. We shall see!

[AbsolutSurgen]

Digital Foundry have now put up a video.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Eventually there will probably be minimum requirements labeled on the back of the box for these console games, which could happen with the next-gen refresh cycle comes about in 5-6 years. The Xbone S will stop being supported for the majority of games, but perhaps the X1X can handle a few more.

 

I do like the idea of buying a game once that can run on multiple generations of consoles, and if games are developed with scaleability in mind then we could potentially find ourselves experiencing a game quite differently by simply upgrading the hardware.  It's very consumer friendly to not have to re-buy the same game over and over again.  Hopefully developers can handle it, and if they can't then I think a good balance would be higher priced games (by this I mean games don't go on super cheap sales as much) - or the subscription model takes off.

[AbsolutSurgen]

14 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

I do like the idea of buying a game once that can run on multiple generations of consoles, and if games are developed with scaleability in mind then we could potentially find ourselves experiencing a game quite differently by simply upgrading the hardware. 

While I find it likely that MS will sell you both the XB1/SeX version together -- they have not yet said they will.

Of course, everyone with GamePass will have access to both.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, cusideabelincoln said:

Eventually there will probably be minimum requirements labeled on the back of the box for these console games, which could happen with the next-gen refresh cycle comes about in 5-6 years. The Xbone S will stop being supported for the majority of games, but perhaps the X1X can handle a few more.

 

 

I find that highly unlikely.  Maybe if the X's CPU bump was as substantial as the GPU bump, there'd be more reason to go there.

[cusideabelincoln]

If the Switch can get PS4/Xbone ports, there's no reason the X1X won't get down-ports of its own deep into the next gen cycle, especially from Microsoft first party games since Microsoft is the one pushing this issue.

 

The concept of distinct "console generations" is going extinct.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

10 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

If the Switch can get PS4/Xbone ports, there's no reason the X1X won't get down-ports of its own deep into the next gen cycle, especially from Microsoft first party games since Microsoft is the one pushing this issue.

 

The concept of distinct "console generations" is going extinct.  

Almost any game can be ported to any system -- this has "always" been the case.  Case in point:

 

 

 

However, the question is, how significant are the compromises required to do the port, and how "easy" is it to do the port, and how "willing" a developer is to do the port.

(A key example of a cross-gen "compromise" done was X360/PS3 versions of Mordor didn't have the nemesis system -- which was one of the key features of the game.)

[cusideabelincoln]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Almost any game can be ported to any system -- this has "always" been the case.  Case in point:However, the question is, how significant are the compromises required to do the port, and how "easy" is it to do the port, and how "willing" a developer is to do the port.

(A key example of a cross-gen "compromise" done was X360/PS3 versions of Mordor didn't have the nemesis system -- which was one of the key features of the game.)

 

1 hour ago, cusideabelincoln said:

If the Switch can get PS4/Xbone ports, there's no reason the X1X won't get down-ports of its own deep into the next gen cycle, especially from Microsoft first party games since Microsoft is the one pushing this issue.

 

The concept of distinct "console generations" is going extinct.  

 

Microsoft has just stated they are willing to put that work in. While they could change course, they have shown that's not the kind of approach they're going for. Their recent history has proven they will continue on this path.  They have been putting the work into making "old" 360 games run flawlessly on the Xbone, on a one game at a time basis. which tells us they are  supporting this idea of indistinct console generations - buy a game once and run it on multiple systems. Their games are going to support the X1S for, straight from the horses mouth, up to two years.  The X1X's massive GPU upgrade compared base Xbone could potentially extend that support past the two year mark.

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

 

Microsoft has just stated they are willing to put that work in. While they could change course, they have shown that's not the kind of approach they're going for. Their recent history has proven they will continue on this path.  They have been putting the work into making "old" 360 games run flawlessly on the Xbone, on a one game at a time basis. which tells us they are  supporting this idea of indistinct console generations - buy a game once and run it on multiple systems. Their games are going to support the X1S for, straight from the horses mouth, up to two years.  The X1X's massive GPU upgrade compared base Xbone could potentially extend that support past the two year mark.

Backward compatibility is different from indistinct console generations, having my PSX games run on PS2 didn't make the generations any less distinct.

What are the compromises required to SeX games to get them to run on X1S?  That was the whole point of Digital Foundry's video.

[Duderino]

 

On 1/14/2020 at 12:33 PM, TwinIon said:

If you really wanted Spider-man's top speed to be higher, you could do it, you'd probably just have to make a non-SSD console really turn down the details when you're moving over a certain speed.

 

So my actual answer is that it's unlikely to be true that a game designed around an SSD couldn't be ported to a console without one, it's simply a matter of how much effort it would take.

 

I wonder if Spiderman crashing into a spawning cars, billboards, and water towers would sit well with their audience. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Booty.

[crispy4000]

18 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

If the Switch can get PS4/Xbone ports, there's no reason the X1X won't get down-ports of its own deep into the next gen cycle, especially from Microsoft first party games since Microsoft is the one pushing this issue.

 

The concept of distinct "console generations" is going extinct.  

 

It’s not about just the X1X here.  It’s about the S.

 

If a dev is going to go through the trouble to make a next-gen game run on the One X’s limitations, they might as well pair it down further to the S with a lower res, draw distance, etc.  Their architectures were literally designed with that complementary in mind.  S ports might run borderline at times, but at least there’s no need to change marketing strategies or limit sales reach to only a portion of the generational base.  3rd parties will inevitably be porting to base PS4 for a similar time frame as well. So they might as well support the S for that reason too.

 

By design, much of the serious port work and optimizations could apply for both X1X and S versions of games.  It’s hard to imagine a next-gen-to-X1X port down that couldn’t also be tweaked for the S, particularly given their Jaguar CPUs. That’s what makes them ‘generational,’ in spite of hopes that the X1X will live past its expected expiration date.

 

At the end of the day, when the retail S ports stop so will the One X ports, and vice versa.  If the industry isn’t ready to move on from the One X, it won’t be ready to move on from the S, Pro and base PS4 either.  Microsoft is currently the biggest advocate for that.  

 

... It’s not that generations are fading away, it’s that some companies will choose to ignore them (for now) and port everywhere to maximize profit.  This is just the first time a console manufacturer has resolved to do it.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

... It’s not that generations are fading away, it’s that some companies will choose to ignore them (for now) and port everywhere to maximize profit.  This is just the first time a console manufacturer has resolved to do it.

You’ve been consistently wrong in your takes on where MS is trying go with Xbox 

[crispy4000]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You’ve been consistently wrong in your takes on where MS is trying go with Xbox 

How so?  That's a blanket statement.  Give me an example, or better yet, let's have a discussion about what you quoted.

[JPDunks4]

I don't personally like it.  I'm fine with cross generational games, it happens all the time.  I don't like a mandate from Microsoft that all 1st party games need to be cross generation for a certain time frame.  If one of their 1st parties wanted to do something that a base Xbox One couldn't handle, I hope they didn't make them scale the game back in order to accommodate it. 

 

I would guess this is far more about Game Pass though.  1st Party games coming out Day 1 is the biggest selling point of Game Pass, and wanting to make sure that stays a primary driver of people keeping subs during this Cross Generational period is probably big.  If some of the bigger 1st party titles were only Series X, people might let Game Pass lapse until they got a next gen console.

[AbsolutSurgen]

17 hours ago, sblfilms said:

You’ve been consistently wrong in your takes on where MS is trying go with Xbox 

Just because MS wants something to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.  Outside of Forza, MS no longer has any unique software that sells in large amounts.  Halo and Gears were huge in their day, but have rapidly fallen down the sales charts this gen.

Sony and Nintendo are  the market leaders, and have more market power.  As long as they continue to implement hardware features that create a meaningful generational divide, and customers get benefit from those features -- the generations will be meaningful.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Just because MS wants something to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.  Outside of Forza, MS no longer has any unique software that sells in large amounts.  Halo and Gears were huge in their day, but have rapidly fallen down the sales charts this gen.

Sony and Nintendo are  the market leaders, and have more market power.  As long as they continue to implement hardware features that create a meaningful generational divide, and customers get benefit from those features -- the generations will be meaningful.

 

None of this has anything to do with Crispy’s wrong takes about MS trying to move the Xbox brand to a simplified PC model, which many have pointed out they were attempting to do and he has been insistent they aren’t. But each new round of news makes it more clear that MS is indeed looking to do just that.

 

Whether they can be successful with such a strategy is a different question.

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

None of this has anything to do with Crispy’s wrong takes about MS trying to move the Xbox brand to a simplified PC model, which many have pointed out they were attempting to do and he has been insistent they aren’t. But each new round of news makes it more clear that MS is indeed looking to do just that.

 

Whether they can be successful with such a strategy is a different question.

 

The Xbox One X wouldn't have had a Jaguar CPU if they wanted to follow a more PC-like upgrade path.  It's as simple as that.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

The Xbox One X wouldn't have had a Jaguar CPU if they wanted to follow a more PC-like upgrade path.  It's as simple as that.

It’s almost as if they had contractural obligations to fulfill...

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

It’s almost as if they had contractural obligations to fulfill...

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

That’s not how that works 

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That’s not how that works 

 

Tell me, why would Microsoft be obligated to use a Jaguar CPU architecture in a new console?

[crispy4000]

  

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Just because MS wants something to happen, doesn't mean it will happen.  Outside of Forza, MS no longer has any unique software that sells in large amounts.  Halo and Gears were huge in their day, but have rapidly fallen down the sales charts this gen.

Sony and Nintendo are  the market leaders, and have more market power.  As long as they continue to implement hardware features that create a meaningful generational divide, and customers get benefit from those features -- the generations will be meaningful.

 

I would expect an uptick of popularity of Halo this go around, because of Games Pass and a PC release.  That's the path they've chosen, and I do think it's big a positive for their franchise reach.

Generations will be meaningful for however long the console manufactuers decide to create hardware 'families.'  Consoles like the Pro and X were designed to take the current gen experience to 4k.  Not to be forward thinking towards next-gen demands.  That's the rub.  It might change in the future if we start to see a more fluid upgrade design to mid-cycle machines.

[Dodger]

If you take what he said literally, he said next year, two years which means basically the first year of the Series X, and that kind of makes sense for the first year of a new console these days. He didn't say going forward, all games will come to the Bone, he said next year or two. So it's not like 5 years from now MS is still going to be releasing games that have to come out for the Bone. 

 

Besides, what will they even have ready next year that this will affect? Halo Infinite started development as a X1 game. Maybe the next Forza game or two is cross gen. Sounds like that Everwild game from Rare will be one of the titles. The rest of their first party output for 2021 is probably smaller titles that aren't a big deal to port cross gen. Most of their new studios still aren't built up enough for big next gen releases. I don't think this will be nearly the big deal some people are making it out to be. 

 

Besides, since Sony isn't following, MS will be under a ton of pressure not to keep this up for long once Sony's first party studios start releasing next gen titles with draw dropping visuals. MS can't be releasing gimped cross gen games when Horizon 2 and the next ND game comes out. 

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Tell me, why would Microsoft be obligated to use a Jaguar CPU in a new console?

Contractural obligations.

[JPDunks4]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

  

 

I would expect an uptick of popularity of Halo this go around, because of Games Pass and a PC release.  That's the path they've chosen, and I do think it's big a positive for their franchise reach.

Generations will be meaningful for however long the console manufactuers decide to create hardware 'families.'  Consoles like the Pro and X were designed to take the current gen experience to 4k.  Not to be forward thinking towards next-gen demands.  That's the rub.  It might change in the future if we start to see a more fluid upgrade design to mid-cycle machines.

 

Well Halo MCC was the 2nd largest paid release on Steam this year I believe.  That game is also on Ultimate Game Pass as well, so those numbers are pretty impressive, especially for a 4 year old game.

 

Sea of Thieves hit 10 million players recently as well.

 

With Game Pass it'll be pretty hard to judge popularity of their franchises based solely on sales.

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Contractural obligations.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you think they were contractually obligated to keep Jaguar on the CPU end, but given the go ahead to upgrade to Polaris cores on the GPU end.  In negotiations with the same company.

Sounds like bollocks speculation to me.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you think they were contractually obligated to keep Jaguar on the CPU end, but given the go ahead to upgrade to Polaris cores on the GPU end.  In negotiations with the same company.

Sounds like bollocks speculation to me.

I’m saying contractural obligations limit the ability to choose what hardware you want. 

[JPDunks4]

Didn't they say they kept the CPU in order to make sure all games would work across both consoles.

 

That some of the earlier games of the generation would have some issue moving to a new CPU?

[crispy4000]

27 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m saying contractural obligations limit the ability to choose what hardware you want. 

 

In regard to the X1X.  No?

 

I don't think there was any contractual red tape beyond going with AMD again.

[number305]

It's kind of odd how much arguing there is over what games will play on what system... when this is exactly what MS is going away from.  MS is moving toward a subscription based future like netflix.  The view for the future is that it won't matter what device you have - any xbox, phone, pc - you can play the games you have access to either by subscription or purchase.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of years from now when newer games can not be handled by an X1 any longer if they just release an Xcloud client for that box so people can just keep gaming on it.

[crispy4000]

21 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Didn't they say they kept the CPU in order to make sure all games would work across both consoles.

 

That some of the earlier games of the generation would have some issue moving to a new CPU?

 

I'd have to search for a quote, but that sounds right.  Nevermind that Series X is still claiming full backwards compatibility, so the reasoning stands a bit hollow.

Both Microsoft and Sony also said their focus was to make it easy on developers to be scale up to X/Pro, or down to S/PS4, accordingly.  With a focus on resolution in particular, with 4k (~faux-k) being the big selling point.  The CPU wasn't as critical to that goal.

[AbsolutSurgen]

11 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Well Halo MCC was the 2nd largest paid release on Steam this year I believe.  That game is also on Ultimate Game Pass as well, so those numbers are pretty impressive, especially for a 4 year old game.

 

Sea of Thieves hit 10 million players recently as well.

 

With Game Pass it'll be pretty hard to judge popularity of their franchises based solely on sales.

What's your source on MCC?  I am not seeing it as selling that much on  steam.  Is 10 million people a lot for what (for many people) is now a free to play game?

 

26 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

  

 

I would expect an uptick of popularity of Halo this go around, because of Games Pass and a PC release.  That's the path they've chosen, and I do think it's big a positive for their franchise reach.

Generations will be meaningful for however long the console manufactuers decide to create hardware 'families.'  Consoles like the Pro and X were designed to take the current gen experience to 4k.  Not to be forward thinking towards next-gen demands.  That's the rub.  It might change in the future if we start to see a more fluid upgrade design to mid-cycle machines.

It didn't seem to have an uptick for Gears 5.  Halo sales have been on a significant downward trend from Halo 3.  Halo 5 sold OK, and was no longer, IMHO, a premiere franchise.

 

Generations will exist based on development tools and hardware capabilities -- not necessarily "families".  Consoles "can't" be forward looking -- they are trying to offer cutting edge current tech at a cut-rate price.  While the current gen has been almost solely about memory/GPU power vs last gen -- there was not the case in the past, and may not be the case in the future.