Forums

Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

Posts 481 to 500 of 583

ArkhamKnerd

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

PSN: ArkhamKnerd

BAMozzy

@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.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BAMozzy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x77TOR9HC5Y&feature=em-up...

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...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

FullbringIchigo

@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

My top 3 Star Wars Movies are, The Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith & The Force Awakens, YEAH i said a Prequel movie WHAT OF IT?

BAMozzy

@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...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

MaccaMUFC

@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.

Edited on by MaccaMUFC

MaccaMUFC

BAMozzy

@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'

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BlueOcean

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

BAMozzy

@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.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BlueOcean

@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.

BlueOcean

BAMozzy

@BlueOcean Certainly all of Xbox games will be running on Windows 10 and built to deliver the full 4k experience. Therefore it should be relatively easy to port those to the Xbox One X and down grade to the lowest console in the specs. Its not that different from those Devs listing the minimum required PC specs but in this case, they know the XB1 is the minimum and optimising the settings for that - similar to adjusting the settings on PC manually by gamers to optimise for their specs.

I am only speculating about how MS could move forward in a 'generation-less format. At E3 last year, there was talk of VR for example, that disappeared - partly I think because it was a 'grey' area - something the X has but the S doesn't. MS then spun that to say VR wasn't viewed the same yet of course it was still adding 'games' and the possibility of bonus features, missions etc in VR that standard XB1 users cannot access. Games like RE7 and RotTR had 'pro' enhancements that 'enhanced' the VR too, but tits not like base PS4 owners couldn't access these too if they wanted. Its not a stretch to see non-VR games also also having differences in content - even an 'exclusive' to 'X' release. Why have 1 rule for VR games and not for all games. The N64 had a few games that were 'enhanced' by the Expansion pack that also had more content (Perfect Dark) and even a 'requirement' to play (DK64, Majoras Mask). Its a 'difficult' position for MS - on the one hand they want to keep parity but on the other they don't want people finding out that there £450 console is limited and restricted by the significantly inferior hardware. I know I would be annoyed if I found out that content my 'X' could comfortably play was 'cut' or not releasing on XB1 because the weaker console can't cope with it. I am not referring to 1st Party Games as MS will tailor these to be native 4k on the X so will scale down to the standard console but the 3rd Party games, the games that, at best have to use checkerboard rendering to achieve a 4k image would struggle to run native 720p on the XB1. I guess the Devs could use CB rendering - like Rainbow Six: Seige - to run on the Standard too. Its speculation because we are not at that point right now and the games releasing would still scale down.

We know that Sony will release its PS5 at some point. The PS4 though also has more 'leeway' in terms of game resolutions. It 'could' drop to 720p for example but if a game like SW:BF2 had to run at 720p on the base PS4, what resolution would the XB1 have? The last SW:BF ran at 720p on XB1 anyway so it really doesn't have much room to cope with more demanding games. Again speculation - we may not see this situation occurring - not before MS decide what they are going to do. Sony could well have a PS5 out by that point and those type games could just get a PS5 release for example. Would MS allow them to release just to the 'X'? Will they bring out a 'new' generation to avoid that? Will we see disclaimers on the box - like Xbox X recommended or minimum required?

On the one hand, MS are talking about a 'generation-less' future but on the other hand, they are talking about the 'X' and 'named it' to lock it into this generation. In the PC market, the market they are trying to emulate, at some point, your current GPU will need to be upgraded to keep playing the latest games. Upgrading doesn't eliminate access to your game library either. So what will MS do? Like I said they could bring out an 'upgraded' console every 3-4yrs, like replacing your GPU every 3-4yrs on PC and phase out the weakest system. There would always be 2 specs on the market - the 'low' and 'highest' spec so no console ever gets 'exclusive' content. By the time a game 'can't' run on base XB1 for example, the 'X' is the 'minimum' standard and MS has a more powerful console on the market. The 'X' running the game at CB1800p for example but the 'newer' one running it at native 4k.

I really don't know how MS view the future and what they intend to do. To me though, they are giving mixed messages and the naming of the 'X' does seem to put it in the XB1 generation. I would feel quite annoyed if in 2-3yrs MS were to bring out a 'new' generation and that 'some' games are not released on XB1 (like we see with every new generation) even though they 'could' run on the X. Its significantly more powerful than the Pro - not just GPU but the RAM too for the 4K textures so the Pro has some clear areas that a PS5 could offer a 'tangible' reason to upgrade. The X on the other hand already offers enough RAM for 4k Assets, 4k HDR Bluray player, Atmos and Game VRR, delivering 4k (not 1080-1440 or CB1800p - like the Pro) so its not like they can 'upgrade' enough components to make it feel like a 'new' generation. CPU and GPU could be upgraded to offer more native 4k and higher (maybe even above 60fps with HFR TV's) but it looks like the 'X' will have HDMI2.1 upgrade soon anyway. I can't see MS going for or needing to use a 24tflop GPU (4x over the X) and a 8core, dual thread CPU clocked at 4.5ghz, 24GB of HBM2 RAM (or better) as well as an 8k HDR Bluray Player or something like these - just to make a 'significant' 'next' gen upgrade. This would still be less of a 'jump' up from the XB1x than the XB360/PS3 era was to the current generation. If we go for an ~8x jump from the base XB1, that's still less than a 2x jump from the XB1x and less of a 'step' up in general than the Pro was to the PS4. As you can see, this puts MS in a difficult position. They can't really make a 'new' generation that is a 'significant' generational jump from the 'X' but they can't expect to keep parity with the XB1s either and keep those that spent 'big' on the X happy either. The most realistic option appears to be bringing out an 'upgraded' console every 3-5yrs (most likely every 4yrs unless there is a 'need' to release either sooner or later) and phase out the weakest. They cannot realistically make the same technological jump in specs that we have seen in previous generations but a ~2-4x jump every 4 years or so is achievable and could be similar in essence to just buying a new GPU every 3-4yrs to keep playing games at a 'consistent' or better level. It would also allow them to be flexible too - react to new technology - like VR/AR or display changes like 4k HDR that we have seen this gen - rather than be locked into a spec for 5yrs+. Its not even 4yrs since the XB1/PS4 launched yet in that time, we have seen a number of technological jumps - certainly in Displays - which is partly why Sony and MS have had to build iterative hardware to offer 4k HDR to match the quality of the displays. I know some may be on 1080p TV's but more and more are upgrading - either through choice or because their HD TV is in need of replacing. I have owned a 4k TV for over 3yrs now so its great for me to actually have a console capable of delivering this too. Also games have been made to 4k standards for longer than the PS4/XB1 has been around - BF4, a launch title on these, could be played at 4k on PC if you had the hardware. DF often use Crysis 3 as a 4k test game too so its not 'new' to gaming - but its taken Consoles years to catch up. Well in truth, its taken years for the hardware to both drop in price and become sufficiently 'small', economic to run without generating masses of heat to dissipate and 'suitable' for use in a 'small' plastic box. Of course Sony and MS could have tried to hold out another year or two, get to the 5/6yr anniversary and bring out a new gen specifically built for 4k. No different from the XB360/PS3 being built for Widescreen HD. Some thought the 'X' should be a 'next' gen - 4yrs isn't unheard of with MS as that's how long the OG Xbox was and the N64 for that matter before they had new gen replacements. I do think though if MS had done so, a certain portion of the internet would accuse MS of 'failing' with XB1 and moving on...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

crippyd

I see the pre orders of the "normal" One X are open now. It'll be interesting to see how fast they sell.

crippyd

BAMozzy

@crippyd My Game 'email' said they had limited stock so it will be interesting to see if they sell out before launch too...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

crippyd

@BAMozzy I would think that the console will be a good seller for MS, at least I hope it will. I'm certainly looking forward to the launch and seeing the upgrade over my One.

crippyd

BAMozzy

@crippyd It seems better geared towards the 4k era than any other console and for those with 1080p TV's, a noticeable upgrade over the XB1. We all know that the XB1 doesn't offer as many games in the full 1080p so even on 1080p screens, games have a bit more softness to them. Even those in 1080p though on the XB1 can look better too - with higher quality textures etc. Of course those with the latest 4k UHD Premium TV's and/or Atmos Audio set-up's should benefit the most.

I also think MS are better placed to offer newcomers to the family with things like Game Pass and better for those interested in more than just the latest era of games with its Backwards Compatibility.

I do find it funny that now the 'X' is about to launch, with a much more significant difference than the gap between XB1 and PS4, I see a lot of people saying that 'power and visuals' don't matter as much as 'exclusives' - reminds me of the things Xbox fanboys were saying 4yrs ago when the Sony fanboys were saying 'enjoy those games at 900p LMAO' and that they buy more multi-platform games anyway so they are getting the 'best'. I don't care either way as I have a Pro so I can pick whether I want the best looking/playing games or the version that may have extra/timed content but visually almost 'last' gen by comparison. I know that may sound 'insulting' to Pro owners, calling their console almost last 'gen' by comparison but its averaging around 1440p (CB 1800 is a little lower pixel count and CB 2160 a little higher) and using 1080p quality assets/textures. That would be like the last gen '720p' either using CB 900p (2x450p) or CB1080p (2x540p) with 540p textures compared to a 1080p console with 1080p textures, like a DVD vs Bluray quality player. Now if that isn't 'last' gen what is?

I must admit I am still a bit 'disappointed' with MS's approach. Whilst its great that, at least for the moment, all XB1 games/peripherals etc work across both, it doesn't fill me with confidence that my 'X' experience will be optimised and could be 'relatively' short-lived. I can't see how MS can think their XB1 is at its 'half-way' point 4yrs into the generation when its obviously not even built to deliver the full HD experience. Had MS 'not' released the 'X' this year, I don't think anyone would have been 'surprised' if MS released a next gen Xbox for the 4k era. It wouldn't have been too early after 4yrs if you look at the OG Xbox and when MS released its 360 (incidentally that was 4yrs after). MS probably could have held off another year at most but with many AAA games increasingly running at 720-900p, with lower and lower visual setting qualities, I find it hard to see how it could last another 2yrs let alone 3-4yrs. Will MS turn around to EA or Activision and say they 'can't' release a game on XB1 because they can't get it running at a 'reasonable' level when it would work perfectly well on the 'X'? I don't think 1st Party games will 'struggle' so much as MS do look like they target 1080p on base consoles, built with this in mind but 3rd Party devs are making games on PC's to run with bigger GPU/CPU's and then porting down to console, cutting frame-rates, resolutions, visual settings etc down to run on the limited hardware.

It will be much be much harder for MS, I think, to build a next gen Xbox. They can't exactly offer an 'improved media' - better than 4k HDR, better than 'Atmos' Audio, better than 4k HDR visuals with 4k assets (OK so they may be able to offer 'more' native and less dynamically scaling' games with maybe bit higher visual settings). In fact the only 'area' MS could really offer a tangible upgrade in is frame-rates. More games running at 60fps. Everything else is the same as the 'X' offers and people will rightfully ask, why should I need to upgrade when my 'X' 'should' be powerful enough to run these games? People could ask why they didn't make the X a next Gen and the XB1 essentially a BC option within that rather than lock this 'beast' to the very much weaker XB1. How much will that hold it back? Games that could run at 60, being capped at 30 for example? In the worst case scenarios missing out on content or even whole games because they wont run well on XB1. I guess they could still release on the weaker hardware - much to the annoyance of those still on the console - make them feel like they have to upgrade to actually 'play' the game at decent performance.

Its different to the PS4 - mostly because these are very much closer in terms of hardware specs. A slight tweak on CPU and RAM speeds and an 'extra GPU' bolted on to double resolution - not a 4.3-4.6x boost, with Massive RAM increase and much higher speeds, not a modified CPU to offload much of the workload to other areas to free up room for other tasks, not building in HDMI 2.1 features before 2.1 even launches. If Sony turned round and said 'X' game won't be coming to PS4 (and therefore Pro) because of CPU and RAM limitations, you could 'accept' that much better than MS saying it when their 'X' is clearly far more capable - even if it meant the game had to run at 1080-1440p!

In my mind, with MS saying they are moving away from 'generations', I would think that in 3-4yrs time, when the base XB1 is 7-8yrs old and 4k really has become the 'majority' (I think 4k is at a much higher % amongst gamers than the 'global' average as I can't see many 50+ age ranges bothering to upgrade when their HD TV is adequate for the content they watch Between 20-40 though, I bet the 4k TV is much higher and with gamers/techies and AV enthusiasts - the highest. I have owned 4k for 3yrs+ now), MS would release 'X2' and the base XB1 gradually phased out - much like the 360/PS3 were phased out with 'fewer' big AAA games releasing. In this case though MS stating that the 'X' is the minimum or recommended console and the X2 the 'enhanced/best' version. Essentially the 'X' becoming the XB1 and the X2 the iterative upgrade. 3-4ys later, the 'X', now 7-8yrs old, is slowly phased out, the X2 becomes the 'minimum' and X3 the 'enhanced'. Mirroring the PC market essentially and upgrading a GPU every 3-4yrs. Eventually that 7-8yr old GPU will find fewer games that it meets the 'minimum requirement' for but as soon as you upgrade, your library isn't made obsolete and a lot actually run/look better too.

Its that 'mixed' messaging and long term plan that I am not so pleased with. I am of course attracted to the bigger, better, shinier that MS are offering but on the one hand they are are talking about a generation free future and 'borrowing' the best bits of the PC ecosystem yet on the other calling the 'X' nothing more than a more powerful XB1. They seem to have dropped VR too - the one 'big' grey area - something the more powerful device offered - hardware and games - that would not be offered to base XB1 owners.So much for getting our Fallout 4 VR that E3 2016's reveal mentioned...

Anyway I have rambled enough and could ramble more too. I am still looking forward to my Project Scorpio and will have a lot of games - old and new - that will take advantage of this extra power.

Edited on by BAMozzy

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

crippyd

@BAMozzy I think MS are going more for AR rather than VR and I'm not sure how they will be going forward with the new generationless consoles. I think you might be correct in how you see it working with the One being the BC console and X being minimum spec etc. Sam here though, really looking forward to my new console and playing the great games I've been enjoying for the past 10 years or so. I'm really not bothered about console exclusive games as the ones I play tend to be third party any way except for Halo and Gears.

crippyd

BAMozzy

@crippyd I have lost 'faith' in Halo - never really liked the MP so its always been the campaign that drew me in. Gears is a favourite but I was still a bit disappointed with 4 although in fairness, I think the Coalition at least did a better job than 343 have with Halo (so far). Gears 4 looked great in HDR though but not sure I will replay it when the X arrives - maybe a level or two just to compare.

Forza MotorSport has become quite 'boring' in general but I feel that way with 'Sim' racers - not just Forza. Horizon is more 'fun' and varied but saying that, I have pre-ordered 7. Not just because of the visuals but because of the dynamic Weather that I hope changes things up more. I get bored of driving round one circuit, then moving to the next which feels similar to the last (a different combination of bends and straights but the 'same' objective) and then repeat ad-infinitum (or ad-nauseam LOL). I still have a LOT to do with Forza Horizon 3 which I purposefully have not attempted to do a lot knowing the X was coming. I couldn't resist Gears though - especially as I bought the Gears XB1s and that came with the console. I still haven't played much of the co-op/MP or added the DLC that my Season Pass enabled me to do - another thing I could 'check' with the X when I get mine.

I can't say that PUBG, Cuphead, Crackdown 3, State of Decay etc appeal either and like you, even with a PS and their Exclusives, I buy and play a LOT more multi-platform games. In the next 2 months, I have pre-ordered more multi-platform games than I have bought Exclusives in the past 18-24months. I will install the games - like Forza 7, AC: Origins, Wolfenstein 2, Evil within 2 etc on my XB1s External to update to 4k ready for the X. A simple case of plugging in my HDD to the X should enable me to be up and running very quickly on the 7th.

The 'issue' with that system of a rolling 'iterative' upgrade though is 'parity'. We know that the PC isn't necessarily 'fair' with keeping frame-rates 'similar' across the variety of different hardware. If you do get a 'game' (like CoD for example) in that phase when all 3 consoles (the 7-8yr old XB1, the 3-4yr old X and a new iterative 'X2'), would they all run a 'locked' and/or consistent 'equal' frame rate? Say for example the only way the XB1 version runs 'well' enough is at 30fps, would devs have a 'different' capped rate to create a 'smooth' experience for all? Nerf the X and/or X2 to 30fps to keep parity? Maybe just set the 'Cap' at 60fps but know the XB1 won't get above 35fps and would feel erratic? On the PS4/Pro - BF1 is 'capped' at 60fps but in MP game-play, the PS4 can be 15+fps lower in some situations.

You could argue that is an 'advantage' to those with the better console and its a 'loophole' for devs say capping the frame rate at the 'highest' possible so they can say its a '60fps' game even though the base may never reach that in 'active' (i.e not looking at the floor or nose to a wall to reduce the GPU stress). I know say 45fps vs 60fps isn't the same as 30 vs 60 but the way TV's refresh rates work, 45fps can feel worse because its not coinciding with the refresh rate of a TV. 30fps for example means that the 'new' frame always falls on the screen 'refresh' although the screen will refresh 'twice' with the same image because its refreshing at 60 times per second. This is why we see 30 or 60fps games and why a 30fps can feel smoother and better than a 45fps game despite it having a 'higher' fps.

With a 'new' generation, it of course leaves devs 'free' to not worry about parity/fairness. It also leaves manufacturers free to build the console how they wish - no need to worry about the former gen, the players and parity, no need to worry about the old games working on new hardware and vice versa - even free to go to other APU manufacturers and use completely different CPU/GPU architecture that may suit the future games better. The PS5 'CoD' gamers are unlikely to be in the 'same' lobbies as the PS4 gamers so they 'could' have differing frame-rates - even content too. With iterative hardware though, you could end up with the 'N64' situation where some games only work with the upgraded hardware (like DK64, Majoras Mask) or only parts of it are accessible (like Perfect Dark). Its not great for some consumers who may buy 'CoD' at the 'full' price and find out that the Campaign is disabled until you upgrade or worse, buy the 'prestige' edition with Season Pass and find out that the last 3 packs can't be played. On PS3/XB1, CoD BO3 didn't have the campaign, I don't think they sold the Season Pass and I think only the first DLC pack was sold. They couldn't take out the campaign etc because some of those buying may have the upgraded hardware. Maybe by that time, the majority had upgraded to the 'X' or X2 but the minority who still have the OG XB1 would be 'disappointed'

There are Pro's and Cons to both routes of course and it will be interesting to see how things progress. MS could also bring out a 'new' generation Xbox and then all the XB1 software joins the XB360 and OG Xbox Backwards compatibility programme - thus bringing your library forward as they stipulated they would. I do think though that has its 'Pros and Cons' too - how do they handle the situation when a game should run on the X but not releasing on that 'generation' because of the weaker XB1 for example. Still a lot of questions to answer and we may not know these for years. I can't say I will lose sleep over it whilst I enjoy the 4k HDR gaming on the X - but I still can't help thinking about this. If the state of the world continues to decline though, we may not even get to that point... LOL

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

FullbringIchigo

anyone played the new Minecraft yet, in my opinion it needs some work, the picture seems strange and distorted when you turn and it has a few bugs and the interface isn't as friendly as the other versions

what are your thoughts?

My top 3 Star Wars Movies are, The Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith & The Force Awakens, YEAH i said a Prequel movie WHAT OF IT?

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic