Support NeoGAF

[Tulipanzo]

The first 3 games you mentioned are actually pretty damn good on 360. Rise is especially impressive.

Face-Off: Rise of the Tomb Raider on Xbox 360

When Microsoft announced an exclusivity deal for Rise of the Tomb Raider, we were surprised to learn that such an impor…

www.eurogamer.net

Face-Off: Titanfall on Xbox 360

Digital Foundry's exhaustive cross-gen comparison between PC, Xbox 360 and Xbox One.

www.eurogamer.net

.

Face-Off: Forza Horizon 2

Titanfall saw the the majority of the Xbox One experience shoehorned onto last-gen hardware. Can Forza Horizon 2 follow…

www.eurogamer.net

Titanfall runs at an average of 45 fps on 360, and I feel the time and investment for the last gen port could had been better spent on a campaign or more content.
Similarly, FH3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider were much better games than their predecessor.

Still, you're missing the point: plenty of cross-gen games were quite famously bad, despite the 360->X1 jump being far more modest than X1->XSX. By only looking at the few darlings, you're ignoring the many trashfires.
The situation is actually harder than porting stuff from X1 to Switch, and the context is worse.
Imagine if Obsidian had to ship both X1 and Switch version, at the same time, with no outside assistance, and you're getting to the crux of supporting cross-gen. It's a lot extra work and effort, which could go elsewhere, to get a worse game out.
There's a reason developers are already cancelling last-gen versions of games out in 2021: it's not worth it.

 

[deriks]

As much I think they can do it, I guess they won't just because of how market works

Series S cheaper than an One X is too confusing.

But if they keep a $50 - $100 difference between the three, could work hard

 

[Mistershine.]

As much I think they can do it, I guess they won't just because of how market works

Series S cheaper than an One X is too confusing.

But if they keep a $50 - $100 difference between the three, could work hard

The xbox One line of consoles would likely be discontinued in favour of the series s.

 

[deriks]

The xbox One line of consoles would likely be discontinued in favour of the series s.

All consoles?

 

[Sony]

Edit: woops, my bad.

 

[Mistershine.]

All consoles?

Yep.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

I'm a big xbox fan, have been since the beginning, but I'm wondering why I would get one since it seems all the games will be on PC as well? What are the xbox exclusives for the next gen? (that won't be on PC) Halo Infinite will be on PC right?

Microsoft spokesperson

"Thank you for supporting our ecosystem"

 

[diffusionx]

Titanfall runs at an average of 45 fps on 360, and I feel the time and investment for the last gen port could had been better spent on a campaign or more content.
Similarly, FH3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider were much better games than their predecessor.

Still, you're missing the point: plenty of cross-gen games were quite famously bad, despite the 360->X1 jump being far more modest than X1->XSX. By only looking at the few darlings, you're ignoring the many trashfires.
The situation is actually harder than porting stuff from X1 to Switch, and the context is worse.
Imagine if Obsidian had to ship both X1 and Switch version, at the same time, with no outside assistance, and you're getting to the crux of supporting cross-gen. It's a lot extra work and effort, which could go elsewhere, to get a worse game out.
There's a reason developers are already cancelling last-gen versions of games out in 2021: it's not worth it.

Titanfall didn't really run well on the Xbox One either. it wasn't a great game technologically. And the 360 port was done by much beloved Bluepoint, I don't think they were going to make single player content, or that Respawn would have had the resources to add more stuff had the 360 game not existed.

I actually don't agree with you about FH3 or Shadow of the Tomb Raider, they are both inferior IMO, but even if they're not, there's no evidence that ports done by outside studios (Sumo and Nixxes) had anything to do with deficiencies in the original games. There are millions of studios that can port this stuff and porting a game to a whole new platform means a whole new base of people to sell to, whereas adding a few new maps isn't going to massively expand the audience on an existing platform. Likewise, Obsidian didn't actually make the Switch version of Outer Worlds. I don't think the "main" studios do those versions normally. So you pay a studio to port it and can reach millions of new people. Also - I think the environment today and tools are much more suitable to making X1/XSX games than they were 360/X1. MS has sunk tremendous resources into this, as have Epic, Unity, etc. I don't really think it's a big deal, if that's what they know they are doing from the start. I think in terms of architecture and all that, the XSX is closer to the X1 than the X1 was to the 360 actually.

I don't know who is canceling PS4/Xbox One versions of the games, you are talking about selling the game to an additional ~150 million people on top of the 10-15 million people on the new systems, seems like a smart move to me, and the tools allow it, and the existence of a PC version means the games will scale anyway.

Next-Gen Face-Off: Titanfall

Digital Foundry compares the Xbox One version of Titanfall with its PC sibling.

www.eurogamer.net

 

[Nikana]

Titanfall runs at an average of 45 fps on 360, and I feel the time and investment for the last gen port could had been better spent on a campaign or more content.
Similarly, FH3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider were much better games than their predecessor.

Still, you're missing the point: plenty of cross-gen games were quite famously bad, despite the 360->X1 jump being far more modest than X1->XSX. By only looking at the few darlings, you're ignoring the many trashfires.
The situation is actually harder than porting stuff from X1 to Switch, and the context is worse.
Imagine if Obsidian had to ship both X1 and Switch version, at the same time, with no outside assistance, and you're getting to the crux of supporting cross-gen. It's a lot extra work and effort, which could go elsewhere, to get a worse game out.
There's a reason developers are already cancelling last-gen versions of games out in 2021: it's not worth it.

Gonna need to see receipts on developers canceling "last gen" (current gen) versions of games already. Haven't seen that stated once.

And there were not many trash fires that were cross gen. They are not going to look as good simply because of the platforms they are on. That doesn't make them trash fires.

The whole reason these companies went to other developers to make these ports What specifically so that the developers wouldn't have to sacrifice time. saying that that money could have been spent elsewhere to make more content doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Coney]

This will all get really confusing if the Series S comes out after the Series X and is the less powerful console. I've always just considered the One X what the Series S was.

 

[LordOfChaos]

$200...Color me skeptical. Microsoft doesn't hate money.


So many seem to think they'll enter a big war of attrition because they're able compared to Sony, but that's not how things are going to work just because they "can". Microsoft already went through the process of combing over every department for profitability and culling a lot of jobs and departments. Xbox will be under pressure to be profitable, not a liability.

 

[thief183]

at 200 I'd might be interested too... I mean, I can repair 2 Iphones and buy 2 of them....

 

[The Alien]

MS was fully aware it could cost between 4 - 7 Billion to enter the console game market with the original Xbox. They started with

1. no game franchises
2. no IP
3. no foothold in the console game market outside of an OS deal with Sega
4. no perception they could get support from publishers
5. no hardware distribution channel to many countries

All of that takes a ton of money to build up.

You seem to have an agenda, and that isn't to show the full facts. MS had a one time 1 billion write off during the Xbox 360 years for RROD. They made money in that generation as well. Xbox 360 was designed to be more custom to maximize performance after MS saw how Nintendo sold the least amount of units with gamecube and still managed to make a profit. That lead to using ATI at the time and designing custom hardware.

MS didn't just start making a profit after 20 years of losses. You are clearly exaggerating on that point. MS has been making money since the Xbox 360 (the second console).

It sucks that it was the result of hardware failure, but its funny to me that the "RROD" is held up as costing Microsoft over 1 billion.

In the same generation, Sony lost about the same amount of money due to the cost of production and their high sales prices (which was then reduced to increade demand). Of course one of those triggers pulled was removing consumer-friendly back compat components in the PS3.

Both companies lost money during that gen, but the RROD is front and center even though Sony lost more money that gen than MS.

PlayStation 3-related Losses Hit $4.7 Billion

Sony expects turnaround in next term.

www.tomsguide.com

 

[Tulipanzo]

Gonna need to see receipts on developers canceling "last gen" (current gen) versions of games already. Haven't seen that stated once.

REVIII, after the PS5 reveal, from the guy that originally leaked the project.

Resident Evil 8 Reportedly Isn't Cross-Gen To Avoid Loading Screens

Resident Evil Village is only for next-gen and PC

screenrant.com

And there were not many trash fires that were cross gen. They are not going to look as good simply because of the platforms they are on. That doesn't make them trash fires.

The whole reason these companies went to other developers to make these ports What specifically so that the developers wouldn't have to sacrifice time. saying that that money could have been spent elsewhere to make more content doesn't make a lot of sense.

Emm, cross-gen titles are infamous for looking behind the times and often running embarrassingly.
AC4, COD: Ghost, Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor all went well below 30fps and even missed major features on last-gen, with fine but not spectacular current gen ports. They also all sold worse on last-gens, despite a bigger audience.
The few exceptions are usually games with a long last-gen development time or with a lengthy parallel focus from additional studios (which are hardly the norm).

While time isn't sacrificed, scope still is. It's an obvious example now, but portals as in Rift Apart couldn't happen on next-gen.
Devs could come up with the most amazing, optimized, easy RT solution on XSX, but they'd still have to put in work on a traditional lighting solution for next.-gen. Incredible textures need to be downgraded, assets reduced in quality and density.
This can easily weigh down on development, especially with highly anticipated next-gen showcases.

I don't see why people take issue with this: the XSX is a significant upgrade over X1, and supporting the latter limits the former's potential.
Not every game might be equally affected, but the cost in time, money, and ambition is there, and I think we'll get much more impressive releases after the "Booty years" (as seen with HB2).

 

[Tulipanzo]

Titanfall didn't really run well on the Xbox One either. it wasn't a great game technologically. And the 360 port was done by much beloved Bluepoint, I don't think they were going to make single player content, or that Respawn would have had the resources to add more stuff had the 360 game not existed.

So you agree that making a game cross-gen can easily limit its scope and quality, even with a renowned studio working in parallel to the main one on a last-gen port-

I actually don't agree with you about FH3 or Shadow of the Tomb Raider, they are both inferior IMO, but even if they're not, there's no evidence that ports done by outside studios (Sumo and Nixxes) had anything to do with deficiencies in the original games. There are millions of studios that can port this stuff and porting a game to a whole new platform means a whole new base of people to sell to, whereas adding a few new maps isn't going to massively expand the audience on an existing platform. Likewise, Obsidian didn't actually make the Switch version of Outer Worlds. I don't think the "main" studios do those versions normally. So you pay a studio to port it and can reach millions of new people.

Those "millions" are very theoretical.
You're making the same mistake third parties did this gen, and expect the existing 160M userbase to be independt people from next-gen adopters.

What happens in reality, is that the people interested in your game either get the next-gen version or wait: last-gen ports nearly always sell worse.
What publishers realized, is that the active buying audiences are the most likely to jump on next-gen early (or be saving money for it), meaning they had forced their studios to downgrade their games and limit scope for no gain.
You can see now how companies are openly talking about their next-gen exclusive plans for 2021 or earlier, while PS3/360 were still getting bad ports well into 2015.

Also - I think the environment today and tools are much more suitable to making X1/XSX games than they were 360/X1. MS has sunk tremendous resources into this, as have Epic, Unity, etc. I don't really think it's a big deal, if that's what they know they are doing from the start. I think in terms of architecture and all that, the XSX is closer to the X1 than the X1 was to the 360 actually.

This is wishful thinking, and better tools can't make up for massive gaps in technology.
Given the CPU jump, is about the same as feasible as getting an X1 title running on a PS2: it's not going to work great.

You either have to limit your ambition a lot, or deal with tragic last-gen ports. The additional workload weighs on overstretched teams, all to make your game less good.

I don't know who is canceling PS4/Xbox One versions of the games, you are talking about selling the game to an additional ~150 million people on top of the 10-15 million people on the new systems, seems like a smart move to me, and the tools allow it, and the existence of a PC version means the games will scale anyway.

Next-Gen Face-Off: Titanfall

Digital Foundry compares the Xbox One version of Titanfall with its PC sibling.

www.eurogamer.net

REVIII's developers, Capcom, as quoted above.
The smaller audience on next-gen is much more prone to buy, and a better product in a less competitive market will likely sell very well.

You're again making a mistake with scalability, seeing it as infinite.
The X1 CPU doesn't have a PC equivalent: it is simply too weak and old. Effectively developers will have to account for hardware with 0 support outside of MS's mandate, even below the minimum PC requirements.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

A 200$ console is a pretty good proposition.

 

[diffusionx]

So you agree that making a game cross-gen can easily limit its scope and quality, even with a renowned studio working in parallel to the main one on a last-gen port-


Those "millions" are very theoretical.
You're making the same mistake third parties did this gen, and expect the existing 160M userbase to be independt people from next-gen adopters.

What happens in reality, is that the people interested in your game either get the next-gen version or wait: last-gen ports nearly always sell worse.
What publishers realized, is that the active buying audiences are the most likely to jump on next-gen early (or be saving money for it), meaning they had forced their studios to downgrade their games and limit scope for no gain.
You can see now how companies are openly talking about their next-gen exclusive plans for 2021 or earlier, while PS3/360 were still getting bad ports well into 2015.



This is wishful thinking, and better tools can't make up for massive gaps in technology.
Given the CPU jump, is about the same as feasible as getting an X1 title running on a PS2: it's not going to work great.

You either have to limit your ambition a lot, or deal with tragic last-gen ports. The additional workload weighs on overstretched teams, all to make your game less good.


REVIII's developers, Capcom, as quoted above.
The smaller audience on next-gen is much more prone to buy, and a better product in a less competitive market will likely sell very well.

You're again making a mistake with scalability, seeing it as infinite.
The X1 CPU doesn't have a PC equivalent: it is simply too weak and old. Effectively developers will have to account for hardware with 0 support outside of MS's mandate, even below the minimum PC requirements.

I think, in general, that you are forgetting these decisions are driven by the market, not by the developer concerns. There is a reason why we got Mortal Kombat on Game Boy, or Prince of Persia on every platform on Earth, it's because they wanted to sell more copies. As large as the gap between the X1 and the XSX may be, it's nowhere near the difference between the Saturn and the Game Boy. Yet devs put games on both because it was their job.

I think that all those games we talked about before (ROTR, Titanfall, FH2, as well as titles like MGS5 and Dragon Age that got very good last-gen ports) are the games the studios wanted to make, so no, I don't agree that these ports can limit the scope. And even if they did, it doesn't matter, because games aren't made to expand scope, they're made to make money. I'll also note it doesn't matter if the port of Titanfall sells less than the main version of Titanfall - what matters is if the port of Titanfall makes more money than it costs to make the port of Titanfall.

Even if Microsoft employees hate the Xbox One, even if 343 curses the day they announced Halo for One, they're making it, because they are selling to that audience, and they will deal with it. Capcom decided to go in a different direction, which is fine, but all considerations must be taken into account, there is no right answer for this. It's not like EVERY game got a 360 port in 2015, so I don't see how that situation isn't exactly like the situation now. Some people decide to release PS4 versions, some don't. It's their call.

 

[Dolomite]

I'm a big xbox fan, have been since the beginning, but I'm wondering why I would get one since it seems all the games will be on PC as well? What are the xbox exclusives for the next gen? (that won't be on PC) Halo Infinite will be on PC right?

Likely that all or most first party titles will be accessible on PC via PC gamepass or on play anywhere. If your PC is capable I don't see why you wouldn't just use it instead. The appeal of the SXS for me is that I don't want to build a PC. I damn sure don't want to upgrade it every 2-3 years and I feel content knowing the same content is available 4K HDR @ 60-120 FPS for the next 10 years with Xbox. Will I get a PS5 too? Likely. For the similar reasons

 

[Dolomite]

For everyone embellishing Concern trolling over Cross gen Development" Holding back the next Gen"
: Here's proof, from an Actual Next Gen Developer ( Dirt 5 confirmed 4K 120 FPS on XSX btw ) explaining the technology MS offers to omit said fears. Xbox, not the devs, provide tools to scale Development, regardless of platform in the Xbox Eco system. The game isn't "developed on Xb1 or Series S then bells and whistles added, it's the opposite. The projects can be Developed to XSX full potential then scaled Down to weaker hardware. Not recoded, not forcing devs to gimp progress for other Skus.

It sounds, not unlike what Epic is doing with UE5. From $2500 PC to mobile, the same technology, respective results. It's 2020 people

 

[spawn]

If i was making games for Xbox this would annoy me because now I need to make 2 games of the same game while keeping in mind that one is significantly less powerful. I've got to make sure both run perfect and this will make the cost of making games go up. Seems like next gen will be held back by it's true potential if true

 

[Nikana]

REVIII, after the PS5 reveal, from the guy that originally leaked the project.

Resident Evil 8 Reportedly Isn't Cross-Gen To Avoid Loading Screens

Resident Evil Village is only for next-gen and PC

screenrant.com

Emm, cross-gen titles are infamous for looking behind the times and often running embarrassingly.
AC4, COD: Ghost, Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor all went well below 30fps and even missed major features on last-gen, with fine but not spectacular current gen ports. They also all sold worse on last-gens, despite a bigger audience.
The few exceptions are usually games with a long last-gen development time or with a lengthy parallel focus from additional studios (which are hardly the norm).

While time isn't sacrificed, scope still is. It's an obvious example now, but portals as in Rift Apart couldn't happen on next-gen.
Devs could come up with the most amazing, optimized, easy RT solution on XSX, but they'd still have to put in work on a traditional lighting solution for next.-gen. Incredible textures need to be downgraded, assets reduced in quality and density.
This can easily weigh down on development, especially with highly anticipated next-gen showcases.

I don't see why people take issue with this: the XSX is a significant upgrade over X1, and supporting the latter limits the former's potential.
Not every game might be equally affected, but the cost in time, money, and ambition is there, and I think we'll get much more impressive releases after the "Booty years" (as seen with HB2).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[pasterpl]

PS Studios has announced 9 at their first event;

Are all of these AAA, do all of these have release dates, are all of these next gen exclusives (no cross gens)?

 

[Investor9872]

A 200$ console is a pretty good proposition.

It's so good, that it's too good to be true!

 

[John254]

Welp

 

[KAL2006]

As a person who is planning to buy a PS5 this could be good news. Competition may lead Sony to take a hit on PS5 Digital Edition.

Let's say Lockhart is $299.
PS5 Digital needs to atleast be $350 to compete.

This will make things interesting and Sony not showing the price makes it obvious they are waiting on Microsoft.

 

[pasterpl]

Welp

Lockhard ....lol

 

[Dolomite]

If i was making games for Xbox this would annoy me because now I need to make 2 games of the same game while keeping in mind that one is significantly less powerful. I've got to make sure both run perfect and this will make the cost of making games go up. Seems like next gen will be held back by it's true potential if true

No you wouldn't, at least you wouldn't "need to make 2 games" MS themselves have tools to scale Games to weaker platforms, without sacrifing the potential of the XSX version. It's not something that requires much effort on the Dev side. What you're describing was a major issue in the PS3-PS4/ 360-XBO days of Cross Development. See my post above for proof from the Developer's own mouth.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I think, in general, that you are forgetting these decisions are driven by the market, not by the developer concerns. There is a reason why we got Mortal Kombat on Game Boy, or Prince of Persia on every platform on Earth, it's because they wanted to sell more copies. As large as the gap between the X1 and the XSX may be, it's nowhere near the difference between the Saturn and the Game Boy. Yet devs put games on both because it was their job.

Except, they are not driven by devs, or even by publishers.
The games you listed are pretty useless examples, as they were bespoke ports made AFTER the original game, not launching day and date. Also, you know, different platforms with actually distinct audiences.
However, this time companies are more than happy to move on to next-gen ASAP, as seen most recently with REVIII.

This is uniquely a MS decision, driven by, imo, a need to slow down the transition to next-gen to avoid losing GP subscribers.

I think that all those games we talked about before (ROTR, Titanfall, FH2, as well as titles like MGS5 and Dragon Age that got very good last-gen ports) are the games the studios wanted to make, so no, I don't agree that these ports can limit the scope. And even if they did, it doesn't matter, because games aren't made to expand scope, they're made to make money. I'll also note it doesn't matter if the port of Titanfall sells less than the main version of Titanfall - what matters is if the port of Titanfall makes more money than it costs to make the port of Titanfall.

MGS5, a "very good port"

Performance is highly volatile on both platforms, and it's easy to find scenes where both last-gen consoles bottom out at 20fps, and sometimes that frame-rate is sustained

You're lying about the quality of these ports, and hoping people don't check.

Still, you'll be happy to know these ports more than likely lost money, while often severely impacting development.
On MGS5, the balooning cost of developing on 5 platforms lead to severe issues with management at Konami and are often cited as a key reason for the fallout between them and Konami.

So, yes, stubborn support for last-gen is not a developer decision, but a publisher one, and often a very deleterious one.

Even if Microsoft employees hate the Xbox One, even if 343 curses the day they announced Halo for One, they're making it, because they are selling to that audience, and they will deal with it. Capcom decided to go in a different direction, which is fine, but all considerations must be taken into account, there is no right answer for this. It's not like EVERY game got a 360 port in 2015, so I don't see how that situation isn't exactly like the situation now. Some people decide to release PS4 versions, some don't. It's their call.

Again lying, as this policy, as far as we know, might impact every single MS Studios game until late 2021. By that time this gen, MS had already several high-profile next-gen exclusives on the market.


There is a very simple answer for this: move to next-gen early, as the public is clearly there.
This is what happened with every single MS gen before this one, and to pretend this is in respond to any kind of demand is ludicrous.

From bringing up unrelated titles, to ignoring the known shittiness of last-gen ports, to the costs involved, it's clear you know nothing of this topic.

 

[diffusionx]

Except, they are not driven by devs, or even by publishers.
The games you listed are pretty useless examples, as they were bespoke ports made AFTER the original game, not launching day and date. Also, you know, different platforms with actually distinct audiences.
However, this time companies are more than happy to move on to next-gen ASAP, as seen most recently with REVIII.

This is uniquely a MS decision, driven by, imo, a need to slow down the transition to next-gen to avoid losing GP subscribers.



MGS5, a "very good port"

You're lying about the quality of these ports, and hoping people don't check.

Still, you'll be happy to know these ports more than likely lost money, while often severely impacting development.
On MGS5, the balooning cost of developing on 5 platforms lead to severe issues with management at Konami and are often cited as a key reason for the fallout between them and Konami.

So, yes, stubborn support for last-gen is not a developer decision, but a publisher one, and often a very deleterious one.


Again lying, as this policy, as far as we know, might impact every single MS Studios game until late 2021. By that time this gen, MS had already several high-profile next-gen exclusives on the market.


There is a very simple answer for this: move to next-gen early, as the public is clearly there.
This is what happened with every single MS gen before this one, and to pretend this is in respond to any kind of demand is ludicrous.

From bringing up unrelated titles, to ignoring the known shittiness of last-gen ports, to the costs involved, it's clear you know nothing of this topic.

Yea I’m not lying about anything. The MGS5 last gen version was fine. It’s not perfect but nobody said it was. You’re the one being disingenuous about quality. Nobody except you seems to demand a last gen game performs the same as the new gen one. Without any sales data your claim about how they lost money is speculation.

You have no evidence that MGS5’s ports caused a problem, that’s just speculation. The fact is that the game was running on a scalable engine and was designed to be cross platform from the start. The “management issues” you are citing were related to Konami and Kojima, for better or worse. The ballooning development costs were related to shit like building a new studio in LA from scratch, hiring Kiefer Southerland to grunt a few times, and shit like that.

 

[Tulipanzo]

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.

 

[acm2000]

If the series s is real, I expect it to essentially be a replacement of the one X, aimed at 1080p rather than 4k like series x, then they can kill both the old one models.

 

[Tulipanzo]

Are all of these AAA, do all of these have release dates, are all of these next gen exclusives (no cross gens)?

To answer:
- AAA is largely subjective, but even being strict, 5 easily make the cut (and I'd argue Sackboy and Returnal ought to count)
- None really looked that far away tbh (surely more far along than HB2), but I would expect to see them all out by 2022 at the latest
- Yep, all next-gen exclusives!

Worldwide Studios: First look at 9 new PS5 games

First details coming out of today’s PlayStation 5 event

blog.playstation.com

Still, I don't see what was the problem, as my assumption was MS would have a similar number. Should I have thought different?

 

[Tulipanzo]

Yea I’m not lying about anything. The MGS5 last gen version was fine. It’s not perfect but nobody said it was. You’re the one being disingenuous about quality. Nobody except you seems to demand a last gen game performs the same as the new gen one. Without any sales data your claim about how they lost money is speculation.

You have no evidence that MGS5’s ports caused a problem, that’s just speculation. The fact is that the game was running on a scalable engine and was designed to be cross platform from the start. The “management issues” you are citing were related to Konami and Kojima, for better or worse. The ballooning development costs were related to shit like building a new studio in LA from scratch, hiring Kiefer Southerland to grunt a few times, and shit like that.

The last gen version of MGS5 ran at 20fps. You're talking shit

 

[Nikana]

Most of these version very likely lost money; we stopped getting last-gen ports for a reason...



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.


The x86 architecture helps some; the HDD, less RAM, worse GPU, MUCH WORSE CPU are the problem.


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.


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.

You're gonna have to provide receipts on cross gen games losing money because that isn't something I have ever heard major developers say. The reason cross gen games go away is because as the user base moves over, so does the development. It makes sense early on as not every adopts the new hardware.

Them being butchered is your opinion. current gen games that go down in the 20 FPS range at times. And I didnt use just good ports. Shadow of Mourdour is a terrible port. So don't accuse me of stuff that isn't true. I used those ports because they were the ones that were most notable and that stuck out in my head as being good and bad.

I have said MANY times as well that we need to wait and see how Microsoft approaches it. Not that they will approach it the same way. I am not pretending anything. Lay off the aggressiveness.

I haven't seen anyone flat out denying it will take less time and money. Maybe I haven't seen the right posters but its fair to say that I am on a lot of threads and they are the minority and probably fight for one side or the other. That shouldn't make the general consensus be that people are saying it wont take time and money.

How does a non system seller in Battletoads make more sense to put the work into to make vastly different ports when its not going to push sales like a Halo would? Just because its cheaper and faster doesnt mean you will see a ROI like you would on a Halo.

Bolded is BS . Sorry. But an architecture change is vastly capable of being a jump in what a developer can do. Specializing software to run on an engine due to an architecture is time and physical and digital resource intensive. Scaling across a similar architecture is vastly easier to do VS having to change an entire architecture plus scale. I also haven't seen any developer say cross gen is getting harder.

I dont think this is OT either as Lockhart plays into cross gen as well and the OP didn't even have any news or substance meaning there isn't much of a central topic.

 

[BigDaddyDavee]

It's a tablet or a handheld, surely?

 

[Nikana]

To answer:
- AAA is largely subjective, but even being strict, 5 easily make the cut (and I'd argue Sackboy and Returnal ought to count)
- None really looked that far away tbh (surely more far along than HB2), but I would expect to see them all out by 2022 at the latest
- Yep, all next-gen exclusives!

Worldwide Studios: First look at 9 new PS5 games

First details coming out of today’s PlayStation 5 event

blog.playstation.com

Still, I don't see what was the problem, as my assumption was MS would have a similar number. Should I have thought different?

If less ambitious stuff like Sackboy and Returnal "count" then I would say yeah you should expect the same.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

For everyone embellishing Concern trolling over Cross gen Development" Holding back the next Gen"
: Here's proof, from an Actual Next Gen Developer ( Dirt 5 confirmed 4K 120 FPS on XSX btw ) explaining the technology MS offers to omit said fears. Xbox, not the devs, provide tools to scale Development, regardless of platform in the Xbox Eco system. The game isn't "developed on Xb1 or Series S then bells and whistles added, it's the opposite. The projects can be Developed to XSX full potential then scaled Down to weaker hardware. Not recoded, not forcing devs to gimp progress for other Skus.

It sounds, not unlike what Epic is doing with UE5. From $2500 PC to mobile, the same technology, respective results. It's 2020 people

Isn't this essentially just marketing and PR spin?

I'm sure MS is trying to make scaling games as easy as possible but is there even a debate as to how difficult/impossible scaling games that push the SSD and CPU will be?

I'm not sure how much it even matters as the PS5 exclusives don't look particularly impressive, but eventually aren't we going to see games that drastically benefit from being a Series X true exclusive?

 

[Dolomite]

Isn't this essentially just marketing and PR spin?

I'm sure MS is trying to make scaling games as easy as possible but is there even a debate as to how difficult/impossible scaling games that push the SSD and CPU will be?

I'm not sure how much it even matters as the PS5 exclusives don't look particularly impressive, but eventually aren't we going to see games that drastically benefit from being a Series X true exclusive?

Why would A multiplat Dev who is making the same game on PS5 and XSX, market a feature that they didn't create?
In most cases, Developer would have to literally rewrite code, or at the very least optimize it to shit through actual labor. This tech is done on the platform side, MS has the tools to for devs ensure their entire Eco system is scalable. Does everyone have to use them? No. But if they choose to were looking at (from what I'm hearing) near seemless integration. Less work for devs is good news

 

[pixelation]

Lockhart is gonna be a freebie toy inside your Lucky Charms cereal.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why would A multiplat Dev who is making the same game on PS5 and XSX, market a feature that they didn't create?
In most cases, Developer would have to literally rewrite code, or at the very least optimize it to shit through actual labor. This tech is done on the platform side, MS has the tools to for devs ensure their entire Eco system is scalable. Does everyone have to use them? No. But if they choose to were looking at (from what I'm hearing) near seemless integration. Less work for devs is good news

I'm a little confused about your reply here.

I'm not suggesting that MS hasn't done work to make scaling games easier. I assume tons of work has been done over the last 30+ years by a variety of companies to make scaling games easier.

I'm specifically talking about the limits making your next gen game also run on the 2013 OG XBox One forces on developers.

Dirt 5 is a racing game that debuted at Microsoft's event. It's possible that a developer in that situation may speak kindly of such a massive partner without telling the whole truth.

Color me skeptical. I think a game designed to push next gen CPUs and SSDs will probably not scale nearly as well as Dirt 5...a relatively simple racing game.

 

[Sethbacca]

As a person who is planning to buy a PS5 this could be good news. Competition may lead Sony to take a hit on PS5 Digital Edition.

Let's say Lockhart is $299.
PS5 Digital needs to atleast be $350 to compete.

This will make things interesting and Sony not showing the price makes it obvious they are waiting on Microsoft.

PS5 is up to 2.5 times more powerful than Lockhart if it's 4tb as rumored. Even $100 or $150 price difference makes the ps5 a ridiculous value proposition vs getting what is essentially a last gen system power wise. I think 399 DE is happening regardless myself.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Lockhard ....lol

 

[alabtrosMyster]

It's so good, that it's too good to be true!

I did not want to pronounce... but the sx at 399 is pretty much the same!

 

[Investor9872]

I did not want to pronounce... but the sx at 399 is pretty much the same!

And you still haven't "pronounced" anything since there's zero chance the XSX will launch at that price, not with all of those high-end tech, the 1TB fast SSD, and powerful 12TFL CPU/GPU.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

And you still haven't "pronounced" anything since there's zero chance the XSX will launch at that price, not with all of those high-end tech, the 1TB fast SSD, and powerful 12TFL CPU/GPU.

MS has tons of money, they like to give it to gamers because they are such a cool people.

 

[Rob_27]

It's a tablet or a handheld, surely?

Hope so

 

[Mass Shift]

It's a tablet or a handheld, surely?

That would be killer.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

The only thing you may miss are some third party games that don't get a PC version (Kindgom Hearts and so on). But if you plan to get a PS5 you'll be covered.

MS doesn't care much whether PC gamers buy an Xbox, they're fine getting their money on PC where they also sell their games, DLC and Gamepass.

The two sentences are contradictory.
If you buy a PS5 for third party games, and play Xbox exclusives on PC, then Microsoft lose out on the 30% rent they collect on third party game sales. This WILL impact profitability of the Xbox Series X.

Just because it seemed the same to you, doesn't mean it is the same for Microsoft. If you don't buy and play third party games on an Xbox game console, MS isn't getting a cut. The only exception is if you actually use the Windows store to play third party games on PC... But who does that?

 

[DavidGzz]

PS5 is up to 2.5 times more powerful than Lockhart if it's 4tb as rumored. Even $100 or $150 price difference makes the ps5 a ridiculous value proposition vs getting what is essentially a last gen system power wise. I think 399 DE is happening regardless myself.

What does PS5 have to do with a XSS? Does PS5 have Game Pass, Xbox exclusives or be able to run Xcloud? There is a market for both platforms and if all of that power only gives you a higher resolution, people content with 1080p like my kids won't care. It isn't one or the other, I am getting both. A XSS will be perfect for my kids and for when I am stuck at work on a 1080p monitor, especially if it's way smaller than the tombstone sized PS5. Portability matters to some of us.

 

[Dolomite]

I'm a little confused about your reply here.

I'm not suggesting that MS hasn't done work to make scaling games easier. I assume tons of work has been done over the last 30+ years by a variety of companies to make scaling games easier.

I'm specifically talking about the limits making your next gen game also run on the 2013 OG XBox One forces on developers.

Dirt 5 is a racing game that debuted at Microsoft's event. It's possible that a developer in that situation may speak kindly of such a massive partner without telling the whole truth.

Color me skeptical. I think a game designed to push next gen CPUs and SSDs will probably not scale nearly as well as Dirt 5...a relatively simple racing game.

Aaah gotcha, but remember No one is making devs do anything. That's all I'm saying. Resident Evil 8, is not offering a current gen version, the same for the medium. If devs Choose to scale down thier engine, the tools are simply there. Faster and easier than ever. MS didn't invent scaling down projects, hell UE5 does that. I guess that there is no need to suggest that cross gen Development impedes next gen potential is the point I was trying get across