Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

@FullbringIchigo I know MS has had a 'tough' time because of the runaway success of the PS4. They weren't helped by their poor 2013 E3 but I do think they have had a unnecessarily tough time. People are criticising them for not having Exclusives but in the last year they have released ReCore, Gears 4, Forza Horizon 3 (to huge critical acclaim), Dead Rising 4, Halo Wars 2, Voodoo Vince, that Phantasy something game, as well as other Indie games. I know that the next year looks a bit light with mostly just Forza 7, Sea of Thieves, State of Decay 2, Crackdown 3 and PUBG but a number of these, as well as few older games like Halo 5, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break (I believe) as well as a few 3rd Party games like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, RE7, Doom, TF2 etc are all getting enhanced by the 'X'

The Project Scorpio edition Xbox, certainly in the UK at least, has sold out in most places (if not all). I have no doubt that it will do 'well' but I still can't see it catching up with PS4 in 'sales' BUT MS don't 'need' to. Its not as if their Xbox division is keeping MS afloat and the fact that the Xbox division has 'merged' with the Win10 division, they have a much larger potential install base. Whether the fact that games can now be bought from MS and played on Win10 PC's in a 'Xbox on PC' type way means that they effectively have ALL the Win10 PC gaming market as well as the Console market. The fact that most, if not all 'exclusives' will all be playable in the same' servers regardless of whether you play on PC or Console with the same 'party' and communication options will no doubt help.

Competition is always a good thing. The fact MS are 'fighting' back shows the brand is strong. As we know, games are taking longer to develop so there are going to be 'lean' years whilst games are being made. It maybe that this year, the games are not 'ready' but E3 could have some 'big' news. They don't have as many studio's as Sony either - another reason why we may get a few more 'lulls' in the releases. Overall though, the Xbox One hasn't been a total failure and the 'X' may well propel it forward even though I doubt they will get 'close' to PS4's sales

@KratosMD Sony certainly have been helped by the plethora of Japanese based studio's releasing all their PS4 games in quick succession. It hasn't always been so one-sided. It maybe that MS are currently going through a lull but the turnaround between releases has become much longer and so you are bound to get lulls. If it hadn't been for the Japanese Studio's releasing so many 'niche' titles all in such a small window, things would be 'similar'. Those Japanese games, whilst 'numerous' are not necessarily going to appeal to a western audience and for many, only brought up when the topic of exclusives on each platform arises.

I am NOT denying these games at all but its odd that so many mention them to win an argument yet judging by 'sales', these were very insignificant to the 'majority' of PS gamers. When a million out of 60+ million buy a game, its hardly going to persuade someone to buy into Sony - especially if their interest doesn't stretch to 'niche' titles. Don't get me wrong, I know that for many, these titles are what matters to them - more than the big AAA western blockbuster and I am only using 'niche' because I see a number of Sony fans also refer to these as niche - except when they want to win an 'argument' over Xbox. I am not denying that 'exclusives' are nice and Sony has the most varied and quantity but only a 'few' exclusives (at most) will sell to more than 1 in 5 people that own that specific console (unless its a Nintendo). Uncharted 4 is Sony's biggest selling exclusive and has sales figures of 1 in 6ish - meaning that over 80% of people with a PS4 didn't buy it. When you look at the likes of Infamous and Bloodborne - the next group of biggest sellers, the figure is more like 1 in 20 or 5%. I don't think Horizon:ZD is at 10% yet but its 'steadily' growing. Point is, that Exclusives are 'great' but the bulk of Console owners buy and play Multi-platform games a lot more. Maybe this is where MS are looking - building a Console that plays 'every' game better than any other Console and, as most of the games we buy are 'multi-platform', it means that if you own an 'X', the majority of the games you buy, could be the 'best' place to play. It may not 'compete' with the PS4 on 'exclusives' that people want to play but it can make the majority of your games better than any other console. In an average year, I buy around 2-4 'exclusives and around 8-12 multi-platform games. Assuming Sony has 3 Exclusives a year I want and Xbox only 1, my PS4 Pro is only getting 3 games a year whilst my XB1X will be getting 9 -13 games in the same year.

I do remember though, that the topic of 'power' but few 'exclusives' was once leveled at the PS4 too. When it launched, Killzone was the 'big' exclusive with Knack as an alternative and the promise that Infamous would be coming. The XB1 had Ryse, Forza 5, Dead Rising 3 with Titanfall (the CoD Killer) just around the corner - then followed that up with Forza Horizon 2, Sunset Overdrive etc. The Order was 'disappointing' and Uncharted 4 was still a way off. Its really been the last few years that Sony's studio's have finally started delivering games - inc ones that started life as a PS3 game. Back then though, a lot of people were 'happy' that the 'majority' of games they bought, looked and/or played better on the PS4. They were content to wait it out safe in the knowledge that Uncharted 4 would be coming soon and in the meantime happily playing the best 'versions' of multi-plat releases.

Sony have also been good at keeping the same big Western releases in peoples minds for years before release - especially at E3. In recent years, only Uncharted and Horizon:ZD have been 'released' from their 'big' E3 games. We are still waiting on games like Dreams, Wild, Days Gone, God of War, Detroit, Spider-Man, Last of Us 2, GT Sport - admittedly this hasn't quite been a year yet since its reveal but I bet it won't be out within 2yrs of its announcement. I know we have had releases, but Sony seem content to keep the 'long' term games in peoples minds so they believe the 'future' is solid. MS though, certainly more so in recent years since Phil Spencer came along, have dialled back reveling their 'long' term software products and 'focusing' more on the 'next' year - the games we can expect to arrive before their next E3 briefing. I know that MS also showed a few long-term 3rd Party projects too - like Anthem and Metro but generally most of E3 is 'short' term arrivals - projects that 'should' arrive in the next year. I know Crackdown 3 and Cuphead have been talked about for years but again goes back to the time before (or at) the time that Phil arrived. This means that Sony fanboys can cling onto the likes of Days Gone, God of War etc for 'years' if necessary to win arguments about the future. Xbox fans though, have a good idea of the next year ahead but unsure of the years beyond that. In a years time, we could still be discussing games like God of War, Days Gone etc as 'expected' releases but most of the games MS had at this years E3 will be out and we will be talking about the 'next' year - probably Forza Horizon 4, Halo 6, maybe a new Gears of War as well as any indie games, maybe VR (or AR) too by then and any 3rd Party games that MS may have 'partnered' with. Point is, with Sony we have a good idea of the next 2-3 yrs now. Only Sucker Punch of those that make more universal games are unknown. The Japanese studios may struggle to get a AAA game out in the next 18months after releasing their current projects recently but we have a good idea of the next 'few' years of Sony's exclusives yet we only know the upcoming year of MS games. We can predict a few - like Forza, Halo and Gears of course but beyond E3 2018, (unless we see delays to Crackdown and Sea of Thieves again) we have no 'confirmed' (just the inevitable predicted releases) indication of what to expect. Its this different approach though that can work both for and against you. Obviously the 'negatives' for MS is that people don't have a clear idea of what they can look forward to - beyond the immediate year. It also makes the long term future look 'bleak' because there is no 'concrete' evidence to suggest otherwise and the negatives for Sony is that their 'briefings' feel a bit 'deja vu'. Positives for Sony is that it looks like the 'future' is well catered to (although when the 'future' will arrive is frustrating) and for MS, their briefings offer more 'new' games (even if they are not all AAA) and a 'date' or at least a 'ballpark' date as to when we can actually play these games. Just to reiterate, the two have 'different' ideas on this but both have pros/cons.

I wouldn't want to pick between Sony or MS. I think Sony has 'more' Exclusives that appeal to me currently and have lost faith in 343 and bored of Halo, not particularly bothered by 'racing' sims and Gears 4 was a bit weak. Its campaign was OK but it's lost something the previous trilogy had. Enemies were also a bit 'bland' and only the second half seemed more 'Gears'. I am more likely to buy Gears 5 than Halo 6. I may pick up Forza 7 - just because. However compared to Days Gone and Spider-Man, Sony has my interest. the fact though that the X will be enhancing 'many' games I own, as well as many games I want, its a no brainer. The thought of playing all these games at their 'best' console version, is exciting. I never finished games like Sunset Overdrive and Fallout 4 and maybe a 4k (HDR) update may spur me on. I am looking forward to AC: Origins, Wolfenstein 2, Evil Within 2, SW:BF2, RDR2, Destiny 2, Anthem, maybe CoD:WW2, etc etc and all these will be 'enhanced'. I know I could play these on my Pro but, like the past 4yrs, the most likely console I will play these on will be the console that delivers the 'best' in most cases. Only 'friends' or 'exclusive bonuses' may persuade me to buy on the 'weakest' of the 2 platforms but generally, the Console with the 'best' performance (Frame rates first, visually 2nd) will determine which console I buy for.

If Sony were to release a PS5 in Nov that beats MS in every area (better CPU/GPU/RAM) - as well as the same (or better) features like 4k HDR Bluray player, Atmos Audio, Game VRR etc, I would still buy an Xbox X because of the benefits to my existing Xbox library but I would probably buy 'most' multi-platform releases on Sony's PS5. Its nothing personal at all. I have no brand loyalty and its purely about playing games at their 'best' possible on 'console' - and that includes ANY 'exclusive' even if they are few and far between on one console. I have owned at least 2 gaming devices going way back into the late 70's, early 80's. I have a 4k HDR TV so it makes sense to buy the 'X' and take advantage of its 'extra' resources over the Pro. I certainly won't be getting rid of my Pro (or my PS4, XB1 and XB1s) just because I pre-ordered an 'X' - the Pro for example is still going to get used and its still the best console to play Uncharted, Days Gone, Spider-Man etc. As far as I am concerned, Sony studio's now have to step it up to entice me to buy and play my Pro or, alternatively, Sony need to get on and release its PS5 to get me playing 'mostly' on Sony's system.

During the PS3/XB360 era, games were much closer in performance. The biggest reason to buy on PS3 for me was 'bonus' content but I did struggle more with racing games and online MP games - mostly because the controller was 'uncomfortable' for me and PSN wasn't as fast or stable. Playing CoD after playing it on Xbox, I noticed how much 'slower' and 'easier' it was (although some of that 'easiness' was because all the 'hardcore/try-hard' CoD gamers were on Xbox because of the 'exclusivity' deal.). I still couldn't pick Xbox over PS3 because of games like Uncharted, Killzone, Resistance etc.

This Gen, its been a bit easier to pick which platform to buy for. I admit I bought an XB1 because it worked out cheaper for me at the time than PS4 initially. This was even before MS removed Kinect but it still worked out cheaper - mainly because of the fact I still had a year of Gold left and no PS+ subscription (it wasn't necessary on PS3) and one of my Season Passes was carried over onto the XB1 saving me around £80 that I would have needed to get the same on PS4. It was this reason that I ended up with more multi-platform releases for XB1 - because I didn't get my PS4 until it was around 15months old - meaning I upgraded to a Pro within 2yrs of getting a PS4. I had moved so couldn't afford both. I have also had a 4K TV since 2014 so all my games have been 'upscaled' from 1080p (or less) to 4k and I also bought a number of games on both. I can certainly see the difference 900p to 1080p made - especially when these were upscaled to 2160p by my TV. There is no way I am 'happy' to play games on my 'S' when I know I could be playing them on my 'X' at a UHD resolution and 'any' console that improves and/or enhances my gaming experience is 'worth' it - especially by the amount the 'X' can. I could justify the 'Pro' - even though my PS4 was still less than 2yrs old, because it improved some of the games I had as well as enhance the upcoming games I wanted. I can still see where the 'Pro' falls down, textures that look a bit blurry compared to their surroundings, upscaling blurriness with 1440p and 1800p CB - as well as 'occasional' CB artefacts, some games offering 'tokenistic' support and a 'number' just offering a 1080p only enhancement. Look at the 'Tomb Raider' video I posted above and compare that to the DF video of the Pro version and then apply those 'differences' to the upcoming games and a number of your 'current' unfinished games, and the X makes perfect sense. Don't get me wrong, but the difference between a Pro and 'X' is much more significant than the difference between the XB1 and PS4. The PS4 obviously has a 'better' GPU and faster RAM bit its CPU is weaker than the XB1 CPU and both share the same RAM allocation for games - in fact so does the Pro. The Pro's GPU is literally two PS4 GPU's bolted together and clocked 11% higher - Half shuts down with most games and unless you use 'Boost' mode, its just a PS4. The CPU and RAM have been sped up a bit too but its literally a PS4 with an 'extra' PS4 GPU bolted in - not criticising and it makes 'sense' in an 'iterative' update - especially one that is only aimed at boosting resolution for the 4k era without being a 'full step up' as a 'new gen' system would be expected to deliver. As a result though, its not really built for the '4k era' as such. The lack of RAM means it can't handle 4k assets, the 2x boost in GPU means its unlikely to hit 4k often (and why we see 1440p, 1800-2160 CB resolutions as these are all within the 2x boost. 2160p CB is rendering 2x1080p and no doubt, any 'overheads' are used to improve the CB rendering - object tracking for example so it can pull the 'right' pixels forward. The 30% boost in CPU probably helps with the CB and upscaling but its also a reason why games are more 'pretty' these days because 'consoles' (and PC's too nowadays) are more GPU heavy rather than balanced. The last Gen though was more CPU heavy and the PS3's was certainly better than Xbox's but the 360 had the edge in GPU and RAM configuration.

I know the X is yet again GPU heavy - at least before considering any modification that MS used. They have talked about the 'X' being 'balanced' so the Mods must be quite extensive. We know Audio has been removed from the CPU pipeline and that DX12 is built in too - so the CPU can send most of the graphics render instruction to this area to communicate with the GPU freeing up resources to use on other tasks - like AI/NPC's, etc. We also know the RAM is significantly higher than the Pro's. Not only does it have a much higher bandwidth (50% faster), 9GB is allocated for gaming compared to just 5.5GB on the other consoles. Its why it can and will offer Higher quality assets - like textures for example. Where the Pro is like 2 PS4 GPUs bolted together, the 'X' is more like 3 PS4 GPU's bolted together - and clocked faster too (3 x 1.84tflops = 5.52tflops). Couple that with the 4k HDR Bluray, Atmos audio (in gaming too) and Game VRR - meaning games can target various different Frame Rates without going out of sync with your Display. The reason we have 30 or 60fps is because of the TV's and their refresh rate. At 60fps, the TV refreshes with each new frame making the game look and feel smooth. At 30fps, a TV will show the same frame twice and again making the game look and feel smooth. 40fps doesn't correspond with the TV's refresh rate making it look and feel more 'jerky' despite having a 'higher' frame rate than 30fps. Game VRR can alter the TV's refresh rate so it always refreshes with each new frame making the game look and feel sooth - 40 and 50fps would look and feel better than 30fps so Devs could target what ever frame rate they wanted. With HDMI 2.1, they 'could' target up to 2160/120fps - if hardware can run at that level...

Anyway, yet again I have waffled on. I have a Pro and pre-ordered the X for virtually identical reasons. Gaming is my 'hobby' and primary form of entertainment. Being 'disabled' and on 'meds', I can't exactly go to a Pub or even drive these days so I am not having the expense of a car and mobile phone, not spending money on 'alcohol', eating out, going to the cinema etc budgeted for the X. Both will bring me 'joy' (at least I hope so) and blow me away too. Next up for me is Uncharted: Lost Legacy in 1440/30 HDR on my Pro. Whether I cave and play Destiny 2, AC: Origins, Wolfenstein 2 and Evil Within before Nov 7th, I will have to see....

Not a bad month....

Hmmm, I have Forza but I don't have the other three so there's more to add to the backlog. TBH I don't know much about Oxenfree or the Hydro one so they are completely new to me. I have BF4 so I would assume 3 is similar?

@crippyd I enjoyed BF3 at the time - I had all the DLC maps too but the campaign wasn't 'great'. Whether a game like this still has 'value' I don't know as I haven't played for years and have no idea if the MP is still occupied.

Hydro Thunder looks like Mario Kart in speed boats. Oxenfree passed me by too but based purely on this video, it doesn't appeal. I have pre-ordered Forza 7 which comes in a month (or two) so I can't see me getting a lot from Forza 5 but will still add it to my games list regardless. Would have preferred one of the old games getting an 'X' enhancement that I missed out on or bought on PS4...

@BAMozzy I don't tend to play games like Battlefield online anyway as I am quite poor at that part of the game and I just get annoyed. I'll play the campaign and leave it at that. I wonder if there will be anything different when the X launches with the GwG scheme? What do you think?

@crippyd I very much doubt that GwG will change because the 'X' is still an XB1 gen console. Maybe it might change when MS deem the XB360 'dead' but even then I can see them offering 'older gen' titles to XB1 Backwards Compatibility. I can't see them doing away 'totally' with the 360 GwG but I can see them 'rebranding' and including maybe the odd OG Xbox game too.

The problem is, MS seem to be giving out 'mixed' messages about the 'X' and the potential future. On the one hand, they talk about a 'generation-less' future - an era where every 3-4yrs, they bring out a 'new' Console that essentially does the same as a 'new' GPU would - play all your existing games - some better, and all new games at an enhanced level. When the 'new' console releases, gradually phase out the oldest in the line. For example in 2020/21, the 'next Xbox' releases that is better than the 'X' and phase out the XB1 and Slim so the 'X' becomes the 'lowest' hardware console for 'most' games (the OG XB1 could still play more 'simple' or 'indie' new releases as its phased out - in a similar way to phasing out the XB360/PS3 when the new gen consoles released. The only difference being that MS will have two consoles on the market at ALL times - the lower spec and higher spec.

Anyway that's how I interpret their statement on generational free future. On the other hand though, they have totally position the 'X' clearly in this 'generation' even though it represents a much bigger 'jump' than Nintendo tend to make on their 'new' generation consoles. The Switch for example is not 2x the WiiU - certainly not when undocked - but this is over 4x the XB1 (4.6x the 'day 1' console and 4.3x the Slim in GPU alone). The statement made at last years E3 regarding VR etc has gone very quiet but that was a 'dodgy' area if you are talking about 'parity' between ALL consoles in a 'generation' with regards tpo software and features. The PS4 Pro for example only offers the exact same software as the base - inc VR too. If the 'X' gets VR (or AR for that matter) and then of course the plethora of Software, extras in games (like the Tomb Raider VR, CoD:IW VR etc) whilst the 'base' has no access to these 'games' and 'bonuses' - as well as all the other benefits VR/AR could offer outside of gaming, its not a 'far' stretch to see that 'happening' with non-VR software too. If in 2-3yrs, some 3rd Party developer just physically can't get their game running at 720/30 with 'adequate' visual effects on the XB1 and 'not' happy to release a 'poor' looking game but on the 'X' it will run at 1080p/30 with ultra settings or maybe even push 1440p (or even 1800p CB - 2x900p) with console type settings, so its easy to see how a XB1 would struggle at a native 720p (although 1440p is 4x 720p but the 'X' is 4.6x more capable). What happens then? Will MS say I am sorry but you can't release as it MUST be on the base model too? Would they say fine - make it purely for the 'X' as they wouldn't want to miss out? Would they allow some 'compromise' like 'Perfect Dark' on the N64 - where the 'Expansion Pack' enabled gamers to play 'everything' but those without, only had access to limited content - in other words, a 'disparity' between the XB1 and 'X'? At the moment, MS are only talking about their 'exclusives' and they will be built to run natively at 4k so will obviously scale down to the OG consoles and no doubt MS and their studio's could continue to do this throughout the life of 'both' consoles. The issue though, I think, will first rear its head amongst the 3rd Party games - the ones making games that really push 'high-end' PC's to even deliver a smooth 4k/60 - PC's aren't likely to want to run at 30fps. If Anthem releases as shown at E3, that runs at a CB4k (2x 1080) 30fps and with 'compromises' to certain aspects - like texture streaming distance for the ground, no reflections on 'particles', you can bet this will be a 720p game on base console and of course 30fps. Point is, you can't really drop below 720p and definitely NOT below 30fps - its no longer 'HD' then. Of course we could see CB rendering coming into help the lower spec console push higher resolution. 1080p CB is essentially 2x540p so I guess they could look at utilising that method to keep the OG XB1 going for a bit longer...

The only other option is to go back to 'generational' consoles and the 'X' is literally the same as the Pro. Then when a 'game' gets too much for the OG XB1, MS release the XB2 and the game releases on that despite the fact it could 'run' on the X. The Pro really isn't much of a leap. Yes it has 'double' the GPU with a bit more speed clocked but the RAM is the same 5.5GB for gaming - with a 'slight' boost to bandwidth - why it can't handle 4K textures etc and the GPU is the same - just a 30% boost in speed - no modifications. Its literally designed to offer PS4 games with PS4 quality Assets but at 2x the resolution (which is in the range of 1800p CB, 1440p or as much as 4k CB). The PS4 is also more powerful than the XB1 so has more 'room' to manoeuvre than the OG XB1. If the PS4 is 'struggling' to run a game at 720/30, how well do think it will run on a weaker XB1? Because the PS4 and Pro are much closer, its easier to see a time when Sony will replace 'both' with the PS5. What will MS do when they have a 'beast' of a console offering 'next' gen features? The only areas that MS could improve on are the CPU and GPU. RAM looks more than adequate to offer 4k assets. We already have ALL the 4k HDR and Atmos media. Would people pay another £4-500 on something that doesn't look like 'much' of an upgrade - especially if the X is still delivering 4k HDR Atmos games? If Sony wanted to, they could 'easily' build a PS5 that offers a tangible upgrade in every area and built for the 4k HDR 'Atmos' era. Going from 1440p with HD level assets to full 4k with 4k Assets, upgrading the Bluray to 4k HDR bluray, upgrading the Audio to Atmos and adding in HDMI 2.1 features like AMD Freesync, HFR etc. Point is Sony 'could' easily make a 'next' gen console today that would represent an upgrade 'bigger' than the Switch was over the WiiU in every area but MS would be hard pressed to do so for quite some time - at least if they want to keep it within a certain 'budget'.

It may seem like I have gone off on a tangent but this does relate back to the GwG scheme and MS. Its difficult to see how they could change. They can't take away the 2 BC games as that's been well established and expected now. Of course they 'could' change the parameters and include all BC games - inc those from the OG era as that goes live. Long term, it really depends on what MS do and how they position subsequent Consoles. If the 'next' console is a 'new' generation and ALL existing XB1, XB360 BC and OG Xbox BC games run, then 'maybe', just maybe - initially anyway, that MS will still offer the 4 games - 2 XB1 era games and 2 older gen games. As that gen gets older and has a bigger library, maybe MS will gradually add in 'newer' gen games. Maybe at first we get 1 monthly new gen game and 3 older games, then 2 games (say after 2years for example) and 2 'older' games but these 'older' games could be from 'any' era up to and inc XB1 - except now of course, the XB1 era would be classified as BC and join the OG and XB360 titles.

If on, the other hand, they move to the format where every 3-4yrs a 'new' iterative Xbox arrives and the 'lowest' console is phased out, then we will fundamentally always be in the 'XB1' gen meaning that we will still get 2 XB1 games and 2 BC games - at least until they have exhausted the possible BC titles - not all can be brought forward due to licencing, permission (some studios no longer exist) etc. Maybe they might then add 'old' (say pre 2017 non 'X' patched) games as BC whilst any 'enhanced' games are considered to be the 2 'new' games.

Its not that simple to predict where MS may go with the GwG programme but for the next few years at least, I really can't see them changing. At most, I can see the 2 XB360 games being 'renamed' as BC (or something similar) and including OG Xbox games as they phase out the XB360 but beyond that, I think it really depends on the direction MS goes. If they do opt for a 'new' gen rather than an 'iterative' upgrade, I can see the XB1 games joining the BC games and the 'new' gen getting its own GwG - not initially but phased in over time as the library grows. If opt to do away with 'generations' altogether, I can see little changing at all. Maybe we will see those XB1 non-enhanced games become part of the 'BC' GwG offerings and with each new iteration, the games that were built for the 'lowest' console, become part of the BC games - if that make sense. To explain it another way, in say 4yrs, MS bring out their 'next' iterative hardware and all XB1 games that were not patched for 'Scorpio' join the BC games. 4 years after that, the games that were patched for 'Scorpio' and/or not patched for the 'next' console join the BC list etc etc. Only the 2 most current consoles and 'games' patched or built to run on the 'lowest' are counted as the 2 'new' games whilst all the other games, inc those not patched to run better' on the 'lowest' current console are considered as BC. A game like Titanfall (the first) would be BC as soon as the next console after 'Scorpio' comes out but TF2, because its getting patched, would count as 1 of the 2 new games offered. 4yrs later, when the 'Scorpio' is 'phased' out (its 8yrs old by this point), games like TF2, the Witcher 3, Forza 7, Sea of Thieves etc, become part of the BC because these were not 'enhanced' for the 'console' that came after the Scorpio.

Either way the principal still remains in that you get 2 'new' and 2 'old/BC' games. In a generational scenario, when a new console releases though, I doubt you will get '2' new gen games. After a period of time - like 1yr, you may see 1 'new' game replace 1 of the 'old' games and after 2yrs, you get the same 2 new, 2 old. If they don't go 'generational' then you will always get 2 new and 2 old. The 'new' being the 2 latest consoles - which at the moment is the XB1 and X and old being 360 (and maybe OG XB too). In say 4years time, the old 'could' include XB1 games that were not patched for the 'X'

In many ways, the 'generation-less' console format makes a LOT of sense and would really help with GwG too. If Sony were to bring out a PS5 for example, would they drop the PS3 and/or Vita PS+ games? They can't offer PS5 games immediately so PS+ becomes 'very' expensive for those who only have a PS5 - especially if there is NO BC. Its the same issue we saw back at the start of this Gen when XB1 wasn't getting any games (unsurprisingly as there was a limited library and publishers wanted to sell their games). A generation-less system could still allow the GwG/IGC format to work. There is always at least 2 'eras' of console to count as the 'newest' games and the BC list of titles never runs out of options because every 3-4yrs, a new library of games gets pushed back into the BC era. IF MS keeps the 'same' mantra - ie the BC games are 'totally' free with NO conditions (like having to keep up your Gold membership to keep playing), they 'could' offer some games again as BC. In say 4yrs when the 'next' box comes out, MS could offer Forza 5 as a BC game. I know we may get it next month with 'some' conditions, but in 4yrs+ they could offer it condition free as BC. People like you and I may not be interested in having our own 'condition free' freebie but a whole new generation can get it who may have missed out on this.

Yet again I have typed an essay to a 'simple' question but the answer is a little more complex considering we are not fully informed of the direction MS are taking. As such it leaves a lot of speculation and multiple scenarios - most of which could play out in a few different ways. Hope I didn't bore you...

@BAMozzy You have certainly given my question some thought ! I think, from what I've read, that MS are going with the generationless path so by that token all the games will work on the new one, so for me I think it'll stay as it is.

@crippyd In that situation, nothing will change with the 'X'. In my mind, as soon as the next console comes out though, those XB1 games that were not enhanced for 'X' could be moved to the BC pool of games. Those games would be HD but the 'X' and 'next' would be 4k which to me says the HD games are old gen now and makes sense that they would then be in the same category as OG and XB360 era games. The 2 'newer' games would be those that are on the 2 most current Xbox consoles. MS could always have a 'low' spec and 'high' spec model. Every 4yrs, the high spec becomes the 'low' spec and we get a 'new' high spec device. The former low spec is then phased out and the games built and not patched for the high (now low) spec console become part of the 2 'old/BC' games list. That way MS can keep the same format indefinitely...

Anyway - time will tell. The X isn't out yet anyway so there is plenty of time before anything may change...

I almost bought Oxenfree during that summer sale awhile back. It was only $8 then but free is better! Glad I decided not to.

On a different note, and the reason I came to this thread.. What do you guys think of Super Lucky's Tale? I really liked the look of it at E3 and decided to see if there was anything new from Gamescom. There's a 15 minute gameplay video and I still think it looks really fun! 😄 Definitely something the Xbox needed!

@ArkhamKnerd That' not a game I've come across yet, what type is it?

@ArkhamKnerd It's not a game that impressed me although its nice to see the return of the 3D Platformer. Its not exactly a 'System Seller' and it was a surprise from MS - considering the first was a 'mediocre' Vive game. It looks like something we would expect coming to the indie market place. Its difficult to know how the game will eventually turn out but performance so far looks average - not perfect - especially considering how 'simplistic' the visuals are (compared to games like Gears or Forza which both hit 4k with overheads to boost visual settings above the 'base' console yet I can't see there being to much difference when the game runs on base XB1's.

I admit I haven't watched many video's, but the few I have does make it look a bit 'basic' and quite linear too. In some sections, it seems more 2D than 3D with, at most, the 'Streets of Rage' method of moving a bit left or right as you progress along. Some areas do look a bit more 3D but overall it looks like Xbox are offering a game to try and compete with 'Crash Bandicoot'. Yooka Laylee looks more '3D' - a bit too dated in its game-play but it looks more Banjo or Mario 64, than Super Luckys Tale.

I guess its good that MS are still considering 'younger' gamers. Its not often they release a colouful child friendly game - that's often the domain of the 'indie' developer but even then, child/family friendly games are in short supply.

Quite an interesting early look at the Xbox X enhanced version of Rise of the Tomb Raider and how it matches up to the Pro version. Of course things could change between now and Nov 7th, but its looking promising...

@BAMozzy no point in me watching that, i don't have any 4K equipment at all but i'm sure with how good the normal version looked that it looks great in 4K

@FullbringIchigo I watched it first on my 1440p laptop screen and quite a few of the differences were very obvious. Just looking at the cliffside or when Lara looks at one of those obelisks for example - even the sharpness and way the hair moves (it doesn't in one scene on the pro but does on the X - not mentioned by DF but I noticed), I am sure you will notice on a 1080p TV.

Its more about the 'potential' though and how the extra power could be utilised - not just over the PS4 Pro btw but even for those with a base current gen console and/or 1080p TV owners. It may give people an idea of what level of enhancements may be possible in all future Xbox releases (inc multi-platform games). If you were undecided on whether to buy the cheaper Pro or spend the extra on getting an XBX, things like this give an indication as to what that 'extra' CPU, GPU and RAM actually translates into from a gaming perspective. That way, its up to the individual to determine whether the extra is worth it or not. Of course you probably won't get the 'full benefits' that X can offer over Pro from one of these video's especially not if you can't view them fully on the screen you are most likely to game on. Not only is there compression, but also things like HDR or Atmos audio that are unlikely to be used on a youtube video. I doubt you will see how good the 4k HDR bluray player is and some bonuses are more for the future - like Game VRR. Understandably though, especially on a site like this, gaming and most will be interested in what the differences will be - if any...

@BAMozzy That's the first game comparison video I've seen between the X and Pro, you can definitely see some differences in some of the scenes from Rise of the Tomb Raider, like backgrounds and draw distances clearer on X, close-up textures looking blurry/smudged on Pro while the X keeps it looking smooth and detailed.

There's no excuse for a developer to not use the full power of the X to make their games look and run better, there will be many more comparison videos when the X is released and if a game on the X looks the same or worse than on the Pro then we would know they were lazy and did not put any effort in enhancing their games on a more powerful console.

I'd like to see how much improvement X enhanced games have over the standard XB1, we should noticed the differences a lot more when comparing the two.

@MaccaMUFC Devs are not going to compare their own games on each platform so we are relying on independent sites like DF to analyse these and report on their findings. Devs though are coming forward and stating some of the enhancements although these are 'vague' rather than specifics - better 'draw distance', better Ambient Occlusion etc. DF though will quantify those differences.

As for the Devs making the 'effort' for X, I really do not understand why they wouldn't. Have they not for the past 4yrs bothered to utilise the Sony hardware to obtain a 'better' experience for PS4 owners? ave we not seen the rise of DF because Devs have not been lazy and deliver identical performance between the weaker GPU of the XB1 and the stronger GPU of the PS4?

I really don't understand why this would be any different. Even when MS had the 'exclusivity' with CoD, Cod on PS4 still outperformed the Xbox. Same with games like the Witcher 3, Fallout 4 etc too. Now the 'X' has the advantage over all other consoles, I really don't see devs 'nerfing' their games to PS4 Pro level. The only problem may be that devs may not be 'free' to talk about or show the 'X' enhancements until release or maybe not at all and sites like DF will be relied on to showcase the differences.

I have seen a screenshot of Gears 4 compared between both the XB1 and XB1x. The difference was similar to the Tomb Raider above. In every case, the XB1X will be a much bigger difference than the Pro version to PS4. Even if you have a 1080p TV, the difference will be obvious - mostly because the games will be super sampled down to 1080p whilst the XB1 games are upscaled to 1080p (running at 720-900p).

Regardless of the PS4, the X will still be a big difference over the XB1 - whether you own a 1080p or 4k TV. All your existing games will be 'enhanced' - just those with 'enhanced' for X having a much bigger improvement. Those not patched will still be enhanced by faster load times, better anisotropic filtering, better performance - running at 'capped' levels and not dropping resolution or frame rates and no screen tear either. Games that run perfectly at capped levels will be enhanced the least of course but can still benefit from faster loading and better anisotropic filtering.

Whether that's enough for some, time will tell. Some seem to think that if it says 1080/60, the game runs at 1080/60 - games like Halo 5, Doom etc. However the reality is that they tend to run closer to 900/52 (for example) for the majority and only hit 1080/60 in very narrow corridors with no action but as soon as you get into combat, the resolution and frame rates drop - just when you need it the most. What Scorpio will offer is much better performance and of course visuals too - even for 1080p TV owners...

I am not bias to either Sony or MS but I do want to play my games at the highest possible level. I do own a 4k HDR TV so probably benefit the most - I can't wait though for this - and, by the time it releases, should have around a dozen or more games that will be enhanced for 'X'

The amazing results that the developers have achieved on the original Xbox One are remarkable compared to similar results on PS4 which has a better GPU (look at Resident Evil 7 on both consoles, to name one). Some efforts on PS4 Pro have been impressive, but it seems that Xbox One X is getting much more support from developers than Pro, probably because of the new scalable development kits that make the task much easier and the huge extra bandwidth and memory. I can't wait to see what Digital Foundry says once they have the console in their headquarters and start testing old and new games.

@BlueOcean Part of the problem with the Pro is that its not that much of a boost in most areas over the Base PS4. Of course the GPU is more impressive but its essentially 2 PS4 GPU's bolted together and slightly faster too. When a 'non-patched' game is played, half the GPU is switched off and, unless you engage Boost mode, the Pro is exactly the same specs as a PS4. Boost mode still only uses half the GPU but 2.1Tflops is not much of a boost compared to 1.84tflops. RAM has a small bandwidth boost and the CPU is identical (ie not modified in any way) but slightly faster.

What this means is that, in boost mode, you can see up to a 30% improvement if both CPU and GPU are bottle necking but could just see 11% improvements. That means a game running at 40fps could only see an extra 4-12frames per second - not enough to run at a locked 60fps.

When it comes to UHD resolutions, the GPU is, as I said, a little bit more than double because of the speed increase, but 4k is 4x the resolution. 2160p checkerboarding only renders 2x1080p per frame so essentially, this is the 'best' you can expect. The method of checkerboarding that the PS4 Pro uses also requires some GPU resources to track the objects to try and more accurately pull the right pixels from the previous frame to fill in the 'gaps'. 1440p, a common resolution used by the Pro is not quite 2x but that could also allow some overheads to make improvements in the visuals - better shadows for example. the other common resolution is 1800p CB - essentially 2x900p which actually renders fewer pixels than 1440p but again would still require some resources to CB and maybe allow some scope to improve visual settings. 1800p CB though still looks sharper and better than native 1440p. The main issue though is that RAM is virtually identical to the base PS4 - same 5.5GB game allocation - a small increase in bandwidth, so they are not able to use the full 4k assets - textures for example. Although the slight changes they have made, may allow for a 4k menu or HuD.

I totally believe that Sony's approach was to build a PS4 with an extra GPU just to increase the resolution output only. I really think they were not looking to go the whole hog into 4k (inc the Bluray Drive) because of their future plans and fact they are still planning on sticking to the 'generational' format that they have always adhered too. The PS4, like the XB1 for that matter, arrived at a time when analysts were predicting that consoles were 'dead' and as we were in a financial crisis, they also thought that consoles and gaming would be hit. People aren't going to be spending big bucks on a leisure activity in a time when financial security was not guaranteed. Both MS and Sony though had to build a new console to keep offering their users the upcoming games - games like Watchdogs, Division, Batman: Arkham Knight etc - all shown at E3 2013 but would not of run on XB360/PS3 in the way the games were being built. At the time, because of the financial state of the world, they were not going to build £600+ consoles that could easily do 1080/60 - especially with 4k just around the corner and VR a few years away but certain to arrive during this era. MS obviously cut back a bit more on GPU - maybe because of the cost of Kinect 2.0. Both MS and Sony though have said they had a plan to build an iterative console because they both knew that 4k TV's were releasing, VR would be too and they knew there hardware wouldn't cut it as ore and more people upgrade to 4k or want VR.

Anyway going back to Sony, as they are still sticking to the generational format, they couldn't make the Pro too powerful but had to give it a bit of a boost to make a difference. Had they gone 'fully' into 4k, with enough RAM to handle 4k Assets and added a 4k Bluray, what can they do for the PS5? It won't be much of an upgrade if the only difference is 30fps compared to 60fps because of a better CPU. However if Sony wanted to, they could easily build a PS5 now that would offer true 4k, with 4k assets, 4k HDR bluray, atmos audio etc and EVERY area is a noticeable upgrade - visuals, frame rates, audio, 4k HDR media.

Its going to be a few years before MS can really offer a tangible upgrade - admittedly they could again improve the CPU and GPU to offer more native 4k and more 60fps games but they probably won't need to improve the RAM, can't improve on the full Media or Audio options can they? MS have said they want to be generation-less. What that could mean is that in 3-4yrs, they could bring out another more powerful console and phase out the XB1 and Slim. The XB1X then becomes the 'base' console for AAA big games - offering 4kCB for example whilst the 'next' is now native 4K - essentially gradually phasing out the weakest when they introduce the next so they always have 2 consoles - a lower spec and higher spec.

The X may be getting more 'support' (or seem that way) because the Devs have had over a year to get ready for it and the experience of doing 'Pro' versions. Some of it could also be down to the Dev Kits and MS building them based on feedback from devs about what they want/need. The Dev Kits are a lot more powerful and more RAM too so they can probably run analysis tools without using the resources that the domestic console will have. It sounds as though Devs are finding it very easy to get their gaes up and running and it seems that they can also make adjustments quickly and easily as well as get all the information they need.

Its not as if the games the XB1 will be getting, were not built to run at the full 4k for PC's - even the Exclusives. Therefore all games will already have all the 4k quality assets - inc older multi-platform games. We saw Forza Horizon 3 at last years E3 running at 4k on a PC - it was part of their 'demo' of how easy it was for 'gamers' on MS platforms can easily jump in to the game together. The Rise of the Tomb Raider DF breakdown literally said the game appears to be using the same assets as the PC version so it shouldn't be a major job to port these over for the X version - its not like they have to make them especially for the console.

For the past 4yrs, when there has been a 'noticeable' difference in performance, the Devs have all tried to get the 'most' out of the consoles. Even those 3rd party multi-platform games affiliated to the XB1 have tended to look and/or run better on the PS4 because of the 'extra' performance that offered. Games were not 'nerfed' to XB1 standards - a blanket HD standard across both consoles - that's partly why DF suddenly exploded because they were the ones who analysed games and, as we know, the PS4 was the 'best' place to play games. I really can't see 'devs' not utilising the resources available to them with the XB1x. They have already started breaking down games - although these games tend to be 'Alpha/beta' builds at the moment but they have had hands-on with a few games - like Tomb Raider, Forza 7 and it will be interesting to watch their video's

I already have pre-ordered my XB1x as well as a few games for it. I also have quite a few games that will be patched too - Forza Horizon 3, Gears 4, Sunset Overdrive, Witcher 3, Fallout 4 etc so along with the new games I am looking forward to, Nov 7th can't come too soon... I am even contemplating a few games I have on my PS4 Pro - Doom (although not enhanced on PS4 - yet), Titanfall 2.. I think these could look stunning in 4k - especially with HDR. Tomb Raider hasn't added HDR to a consoles yet so I may have to replay that in 4k HDR...

Anyway, yet again I have typed another 'essay' but that's my take on the situation. The TL:DR is that Sony built their Pro just to increase the resolution a bit but still leave room to build a PS5 that offers noticeable upgrades as they are still sticking to the 'Generations' format. MS went much bigger into 4k because they are more inclined to leave 'generational' consoles behind. Every 4yrs (for example) they can bring out a tangible upgrade and phase out the weakest - that way they are always offering a 'two-tier' experience, never losing your gaming library or friends (at least until they can afford to buy a new console) or keeping games back to release and sell the 'next' gen hardware. There is little reason that Forza 5 or Ryse couldn't have been scaled down to the XB360 for example but MS wanted to use these to launch with the XB1. With the generationless system, they can still release games to coincide with the launch of the next iterative hardware but those games can be played on the older system. When you choose to upgrade, those games still remain playable but at enhanced level. Don't need to rebuy the 'next' gen versions like we did with games like CoD:Ghosts, BF4, AC4 etc for example.

@BAMozzy Yes, it all seems to point in that direction. Developers are no longer in the PS4 and Xbox One scenario but in a new flexible one where the same games are running on Windows, not just the games published by Microsoft but basically all third-party games. With the new development kits is easy for them to release the best version of their games for the latest Xbox console. The early results are promising and the break of generations is a clever idea.