Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

Expand

@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.

Expand

@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