Didn't see this about RE 8 so thats good info but thats also appears to be the exception and not the rule.
And I really still dont see your point that last gen version of games ran looked worse. Like no one is denying that in any capacity. Selling worse doesn't mean they didn't sell either. Which doesn't mean they should be scrapped.
Most of these version very likely lost money; we stopped getting last-gen ports for a reason...
Scope can definitely be sacrificed. I agree with that but at the start of a gen there are usually one one or two games that really push for Next Gen and actually take full advantage of the hardware. You could make the argument that maybe Halo Infinite might be held back because of this but again we don't know how they are handling the port. The scope of Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of Mourdor and FH2 weren't held back in any way. Features got cut entirely from the previous gen versions meaning devs and pubs were willing to sacrifice quality to not gimp the next gen versions.
You're again bringing up a handful of non-butchered ports, rather then facing the plethora of trash available.
MGS5 at 20fps sounds like a waste of everyone's time.
You're then guessing that games whose sequels were improved in nearly every capacity, were "not held back".
You're uniquely looking at the very best case scenarios, and pretending it will apply to all MS titles on no evidence whatsoever.
I may very well be wrong, but at least I bother to check historical data.
And again in the bolded, that all depends on how they handle the ports. Microsoft and other devs have removed features before on previous gen versions simply because they weren't possible.
We are also talking about a gen where we are sticking to the same overall x86 architecture. But most games arent started on next gen machines 2-3 years out. Its too unpredictable.
The x86 architecture helps some; the HDD, less RAM, worse GPU,
MUCH WORSE CPU are the problem.
On the second bolded, theres no reason to assume that they wont put in the work. Again, this has been done before. You can take advantage of next gen while still making it work on previous gen. No one is denying it will take work, time, and money. But in the case of Halo Infinite it makes sense to do that work as its a first party title and its Halo. You will want to appeal to casual and next gen fans alike. Now if we are talking about something like Battletoads then maybe your agrument holds more weight in that they wont push the envelope in terms of Series X features and it will be simply a res bump.
For one thing, plenty of people are denying it will take any work time, or money.
For another, given both how most cross-gen titles shape up, and the way certain MS Studios title run on the OG X1 (owner here) I feel there's plenty to doubt.
Halo: Infinite is an especially stupid title to lock behind this policy, as a big exclusive would have helped XSX distinguish itself and drive sales, as every other Halo tried to do. But I guess you can just make it "work" on an X1.
It'd actually make more sense with BattleToads, a far less ambitious title.
I know you have said to other people that this gen is a bigger jump than 360/ps3/ to xone/ps4 was but I don't know if anyone can say thats true. On paper and specs wise yes, but the change from POwer PC and Cell to x86 was a massive change. Its not all about power.
and the third bolded is a given. But that goes for every gen. As the tools get better and more finalized and the devs get more comfortable with the tech thigns get massively better. But that will not happen for quite some time into the next gen cycle.
Power PC to x86 is an architectural change, and means nothing in terms of "jump".
The PS3 CPU actually outperforms the PS4 in some tasks: this will absolutely not be the case this time around.
Cross-gen ports are getting far harder, not easier, and developers are already taking notice.
Still, this has gotten way too far off-topic. Point is, MS's "no next-gen exclusives" strategy makes no sense with major hardware losses.