Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

Expand

@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...

Expand

@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.

Expand

@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...