Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty wants those who invest in the current Xbox One and upcoming Xbox Series X to feel equally comfortable.
Ok but then you must also expect people not to feel like having to make a choice between buying your next generation console. If your user base feels no need to move to the next generation, they will stay on your current hardware but maybe Microsoft also doesn't care about that anymore.
It's not that hard to see their goals. Everything has focused on expansion of the ecosystem for 4+ years. We're finally seeing what that means in the new generation. Just think of Halo Infinite, which is undeniably the biggest launch game MS could provide. It will be available to purchase on: Xbox One S Xbox One X Series X Lockhart PC (and Play Anywhere) You'll also be able to play it for a minimal entry fee through Game Pass. Or, even mobile can play via xCloud. Compare that to your historical methods where we'd only get to play it if we shelled out $100's for the new system and $60 for the title. I'm sure they would love to see millions still do that (and they will), but I find this new approach a refreshing change. Even if you're only mildly familiar with the PC space, you'll see why this approach is preferable to gamers and devs alike.
Compare that to your historical methods where we'd only get to play it if we shelled out $100's for the new system and $60 for the title. Right, so why buy the new console? "Even if you're only mildly familiar with the PC space, you'll see why this approach is preferable to gamers and devs alike. " So just stick with PC?
@ Atom666 This is correct. Microsoft is concerned about selling more software, and what better way to do that, than to allow your existing customers to buy that software on hardware they already own. The people who will spend the $500.00 or so on a new console, will do so because they want a proper 4K experience on their new 4K TV that they might have just purchased, and in order for that to happen, you need a powerful console that natively renders games @ 4K. This is why people upgrade PC hardware, so that they continue to have the best experience with the latest and greatest hardware.
@Sibyl1 No one, including MS, cares if you stick with PC. Why complain about not feeling forced to buy something you don't need? If you're someone without the $$ and don't care for graphical improvements, stick to your old XBox. Similarly, if you don't care about top fidelity of your PC games, wait a bit longer to upgrade your graphics card. In the mean time, enjoy the games you want. Again, it's not hard to understand, and it's great for consumers. @Chap Exactly. They're finally incorporating the best feature of PC gaming into consoles. I'm all about it.
I'm sorry, I wanted next gen to actually be next gen. I wanted the SSD to provide large seamless worlds like Phil was talking about I wanted them to make use of the 4x the cpu power of Zen to transition into advanced AI and physics ect, I wanted next gen, not another upgraded xbox one.
Hate to break it to you, but it will both have those things you wanted AND just be an upgraded Xbox. Once it becomes achievable and wholly necessary to really utilize those advancements in technology, we will see games use them. This will be true of future Xbox games, PC games, and PS games. Same as it's always been. If you're actually a PC gamer, you really shouldn't have such unrealistic expectations. These ecomically-priced boxes aren't going to magically leapfrog us into some new technological standard.
No, you don't get it, AI and SSD are limited on PC due to older hardware. It's why all games don't use ray-tracing and games still have loading sections and AI hasn't improved for a decade. These new console had the potential to do things PC couldn't do. The only thing that will be upgraded from the generation switch will be graphics. Everything else is being hamstrung by old hardware. Face it, the new xbox is just an upgraded xbox one until they make games that specifically use the new hardware.
@ Sibyl1 It's pretty much a guarantee, that all 3rd party developers will make games that will either port over from PC to consoles, and from consoles to PC, meaning that they will design their games to use traditional hard drives as well as solid state drives. They will most likely not use anything proprietary that Sony may or may not have on the PS5. Besides, as long as an SSD allows a level or part of an open world to load up within a few seconds, I'm sure people won't mind. If people are really that concerned about having top performance all around, they should be gaming on PC, not limited console hardware.
Face it, we've heard that for decades about prior systems and yet there has yet to be a game that can't be run better on PC. Name one PS or Xbox game now that can't be run on a PC. Next fall, you will be able to buy a faster, more capable gaming system on PC than anything we'll see from Xbox or Sony at launch. Lower those expectations. Console games were never going to do what you think. PC can already outperform consoles in regards to AI and world building. You should know that if you had one. The games will be well optimized, advanced, and look great on Xbsx and PS5. I'm sure we'll see indie devs tell Gamingbolt that their 2d Sprite sidescroller "is only possible on the new consoles," too. It doesn't change the reality of the tech.
Sophisticated_Chap your just making excuses and deflecting to Sony. If two days ago someone had asked you what you looked forward too about next gen you would have said exactly what i am saying, now your the one who has changed because your favorite console manufacturer has said they aren't actually going to jump to next gen. There are so many of you guys who just days ago were excited about better AI and and taking advantage of SSD who just LITERALLY the second Microsoft changed their plans you 100% instantly changed what you wanted from next gen. Now next gen for Microsoft is just another xbox one that's a little more powerful than the X. You changed not US. Atom666 Next fall, you will be able to buy a faster, more capable gaming system on PC than anything we'll see from Xbox or Sony at launch. Yes, sadly next fall there will be faster PC and we'll still be tied to the old a$$ crap from a dozen years ago, and the hope that we would finally see gaming dragged out of the mud died with Microsoft's xbox plans. Hopefully Sony's first party games will actually use the hardware to the fullest and at least on the Sony side we'll get some real next gen games. Actually maybe this is what we needed, Microsoft can make it's consoles just PC extensions and Sony can continue making console games. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise that will separate consoles from PC's again.
Gotcha. Enjoy your PS5 and its -impossible to achieve anywhere else- games.
Gamers and devs alike? I'm willing to bet that the devs would rather people pay full price than get a $1 gamepass subscription. I mean, it does help those smaller devs, but there are also multiple sales that can help them as well. I don't see gamepass subscribers buying retail copies (or digital) when the game is gone or as often as one would without the sub and just buying the game right off. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems this way to me
But that ecosystem is stagnant - maybe growing a little with PC users. How many people will be buying xbox consoles this time next year? Not many - they already own a ms console to play the new games on. You'll get a few that will upgrade - sure, but will that be enough? I don't think so - another landslide victory for Sony it seems. Thanks Don, I mean Phil, sorry Matt - got there in the end.
Sophisticated - they're not even remotely interested in selling software - subs is all they want. Easy monthly cash is all they want - if anyone thinks otherwise, ms is lucky to have you.
Atom - like a steambox? And people thought Stadia was DOA.
@oldboy Stagnant would be better than regressing back to zero, would it not? When the next Halo releases, instead of being released to a brand new market, they'll have a preexisting install base of 10's of millions to go from. @muzikguy Same rationale I just explained appeals to 3rd parties. Remember Ubisoft holding off games early due to low install bases? They're not alone. That's not an issue under the cross-gen apprach. Also, can we please remember three things: 1) Not every game is on GP, 2) 1st Party devs get their paychecks even though a game is on GP, and 3) 3rd Parties receive a lump sum check for adding their game to the service. Literally everyone is paid. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to some of you, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think we're suddenly going to get games and experiences that aren't possible on PC. Again, name me the game from this gen, or last gen, or the gen before that that couldn't run on a PC. Consoles are just optimized PCs. Devs will maximize their features to great results, but if you think you're walking into Best Buy and buying some magical computing device that runs off moon dust for $400, you're in for another disappointing generation.
the excuses just keep getting better and better lol microsoft still trying to stay afloat by combining all their consoles to help them sell units and inflate those numbers... couldn't fool me...this is them still struggling and trying anything to stay in the race...if they are still even in it.
I don't get the fanboys on this site. They don't care about what's good for consumers or the gamer. They care more about Sony's profits than anything else. sibyl1 said "so why buy the new console?" This is what I'm talking about. Any discussion about whether exclusivity is good for gamers is met by these kinds of silly questions. It's completely backwards. It's as if they start with the premise that the whole point of this hobby is to buy console hardware and then secondarily to that you go looking for excuses to buy said hardware. Therefore whatever company forces you to buy more new console hardware is the best, because buying hardware is apparently the point. Well, obviously it's exactly opposite of that. The main point is to play games. And to play games in the way that most suits your budget and preferences. For example, on PC games are highly scalable so they are playable even if you have much older hardware. So you still get to enjoy the game even if you don't have the money for some of the newer processors or graphics cards. But those that do want to play the game with the best graphics and framerates have the option to buy the newer hardware. This kind of choice is good for gamers. Imagine, instead, that in order to play a new game you had to buy a GTX 2080. That would suck, right? Yet this is what some fanboys are basically advocating for the console market. So, to answer the question "why buy the new console?"...well, to enjoy the higher performance, better graphics and new features, of course. This is not a hard concept. There's no reason that the PS4 Pro, for example, couldn't play scaled down versions of every game that comes out for the PS5. Unless Sony arbitrarily decides to restrict them to the PS5. Again, that would be like Nvidia saying you can't play a new game unless you get the newest most powerful graphics card from them. And people cheer that kind of crap?!
Atom666 "Stagnant would be better than regressing back to zero, would it not?" NO. . That's what console generations are. You move on to better hardware that allows you to make games that you couldn't with the older hardware. That is the WHOLE POINT of new generations. "Same rationale I just explained appeals to 3rd parties. Remember Ubisoft holding off games early due to low install bases? They're not alone. That's not an issue under the cross-gen apprach." Third parties can do what they want, but this is about first party. The console owners should be the ones leading next gen development showing how they envision their console to be used. The whole point is for them to entice people into buying the new consoles. starchild, "Any discussion about whether exclusivity is good for gamers is met by these kinds of silly questions. It's completely backwards. It's as if they start with the premise that the whole point of this hobby is to buy console hardware and then secondarily to that you go looking for excuses to buy said hardware." You call me a Sony fanboy but what about Switch? Nintendo shouldn't be allowed to have their own games? Why even have consoles if you don't want exclusives? If you just want their to be one device, why even have Xbox at all? Obviously only PC needs to exist in that scenario. Yes I want exclusive games and if I am going to spend big money on a new console I want games that take advantage of it. And the first parties should be the ones leading the way by making games that the previous generation can't. This isn't a new concept it's what we have been doing since the console was invented. It's the innovation that keeps driving the technology forward. The idea that there shouldn't be exclusives is what I find silly. The fanboys are the ones defending Microsoft for a decision that no one was asking for before Microsoft made this choice. Those same people were excited about they would do with the new hardware, people talked about how the SSD could be used and talking about how that were hoping for new AI and physics. It's amazing how fast people switched, I can hardly believe it to be honest.
I....am not gonna argue over anything MS said here. If they really don't want to push the SX and still let the Xbone family play its games, then...great...?...I guess... They already let PC play all its games already, and now pretty much confirming that the SX will not have any exclusive, not that I'm complaining but do they want to sell the SX or not? 🤔
I agree! Halo infinite will be huge because of this.
@ Zack Like Sony did with the "PlayStation Family" last gen? Disagree if I'm telling the truth
I'm not going to spend $400-500 on a new console if the 1st party content won't utilize next gen features I'm eager to see implemented. As a developer, I don't see mandating support of older gens as being practical. It can make game design more frustrating, and there is a reason devs move on at some point. There will be games that are fine under this paradigm. Maybe even a majority. But it is those big leaps by those motivated developers to really show what can be done and push game design forward which redefine the games we play. Epic games didn't support lowly hardware when making Gears, and that became a poster child for how modern games, even to this day. We didn't really have that this gen, mostly due to hardware being limited. But, when a console maker mandates that it's required, it becomes a problem, because all the back end design is going to be on the lowest common denominator. It's been like this on PC for decades, so why would it be any different on consoles? I'm not buying new generations of hardware to have prettier graphics. If that's all I cared about then I'd play games on PC, and eventually, PC game design will catch up. Graphics always improve, but they aren't what get me excited. New ideas flourish when done right, and they set the bar higher for the entire industry to strive for. As a consumer, that is what we should want from the industry. If all people talk about is wanting prettier graphics, that's all we're getting. EA hasn't done jack squat with game design advances since early in the PS3 days. But they keep trying to make better looking games. Is that what people want? The industry to only have the expectation of looking better? Do we watch movies which have advanced significantly in art design for CGI to the point of becoming indistinguishable from the real thing and say those movies are good because of that achievement? or do we still look at the underlying value of that movie based on what makes a good movie? The answer is the latter, and in gaming, we should be expecting that the underlying premise of great and innovative game design be the pinnacle of advancement. My only problem comes if it's required by all devs for all games for XSX games. That will have ramifications for those that don't even support Xbox. Publishers are not going to care, and they will make devs support older hardware to get their sales. The devs can suffer, and that's a problem for them and us. people can talk about how awesome it is, and assume that this just means uglier versions of games. But damn if I don't remember how people were always complaining about how game design wasn't advancing after a certain point last gen, and they weren't talking about graphics. I recall the start of this gen where people were excited for the new advances that the new hardware could bring, and I think they forgot about those things as they never came to fruition, because the hardware choices limited that advancement. So why should this new idea from MS be praised, or defended? Some people are just being way too short sighted, and not even looking at the bigger picture. Disclaimer: This comment assumes that it's a mandate, and that it's what some people are positing it will be. That isn't completely known at the moment, so this may just be a rant based on a singular principal of principal.
Well then "as a developer", you must not make software for use on PC hardware. I mean really, what a ridiculous bunch of nonsense you just wrote.
I make tools that devs use for PC, and PC as of right now hasn't changed much in terms of technology for the past 15 years. Graphics have gotten better, and memory eventually got faster, but for the most part, the lowest common denominator for the non-GPU hardware is pretty antiquated. On that token, game design hasn't advanced on PC outside of graphics for a very long time now. If all you care about is graphics, then yeah, this is good news. Me. I want a new gen, with new gen implementations. I already went the past 6 years with prettier versions of last gen games. I don't want another 6-7 of even prettier versions of last gen games. I want real advancement, and what we're talking about with the new tech is like going from the 2D era, to the 3D era. Huge advancement to game design, with fresh new ideas, and bigger ideas that can come from the available hardware. You don't get that when you have to keep things working on the same older hardware that supported the older game designs. Want to know why I went into game development? because I was tired of the stagnant feel that game design had become. I didn't really do much with that ideal, but it's why I entered the industry. Since entering, this is really the first time I can see where the new tech will make a difference, and it has me excited. I've seen first hand what this new tech can do. From people in my office who make demos. From stuff I've done to test theoretical limits. From 3rd party demos and even some game designs. Trust me when I say you DO NOT want this forward compatibility to be compulsory. A choice, sure, but you will come to realize what you give up when you see designs that don't try to hold onto the past. If you can't see it, that's on you. Praise your 4K, and pro consumer MS. In the mean time, don't lament that games haven't gone anywhere outside those graphics. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that any game of this gen couldn't have been done last gen with compromise to graphics. Even all these big open world games were done last gen. Maybe some small features crept in, but no game this gen really set the example of what next gen meant. Last game that did that was Gears of War, when even Epic didn't support low end PC's with hardware 7 years older than the most current hardware available.
Next generation will not be held back just because a game is made available on the current gen. You talk about new advances and this gen is bringing that, better A.I, better physics, ray tracing etc. MS said that there games for the first 2 years will be on xbox one and series x, I'm sure that if developers want to release their games on older consoles if will be up to them like it always has been.
What the heck are you talking about? Most new technological leaps forward are done on PCs first and later show up on consoles, despite the scalable nature of PCs. Consoles have never done anything that simply couldn't be done on PCs. Even if they momentarily have some new architectural design or new technology it is never that dramatic and never achieves something that can't be adapted or scaled for other hardware. It won't be different this time either, mark my words.
@gaming I'm not making a judgement against MS with my comment. I'm making an observation based on some of the premature defense of this new idea as if it's a good thing because the inky consideration of it is that its consumer friendly. These same people are ignoring the larger picture, and basically saying they dont care much about the advancement of games. I cant, and won't say MS is doing something bad because what will be done for both the short and long term isnt known. @star And those leaps are graphical in nature. I dont want just another gen of graphical advances. I want advances on core game design, which we havent seen except for some baby steps since last gen. This gen had even fewer advances than last.
@rain Things PC did first: Online gaming MMOs Upgradeable components Mods FPS games RTS games Local permanent storage (HDDs) Post release patching Social gaming (text/voice chat, lobbies) Looks like some of the biggest advances of the last 30 years were pioneered on PC. And I didn't even mention graphics
This idea that some of you seem to have that you can just "turn down the settings" to make any game run on any device is incredibly ill-informed. It's an extrapolation from games' PC quality settings, and again, that's an incredibly simplistic view of game development.
Man. . I've seen some major major damage control and swerving, some by those I think are rational. Which one of any of the defenders wanted or the asked for no dedicated software for their next gen console. I'll so ####### wait I understand not leaving anyone behind but you're expecting people to wait on top of the waiting they've been doing for the majority of this gen. . . . I think it's a misstep by Microsoft but the defence of this is worse. The start of each gen is very important and sets the tone. . Why shoot yourself in the foot.
@Light OK? Why are you giving me this list? It's not relevant to my point. PC gaming didn't push the level of console games in terms of design advancement until right around the start of last gen. before that, the advancement of game design was always faster on console, mostly because PC was a mess to work with for decades before DirectX, and even after it, it was never a consistent platform to get past the shortcomings of extra layers of software. I'm not going to take away from PC gaming and what it did first, I'm just saying that if you hold onto the past, you can never fully realize the future. Maybe you weren't around during the 3D changeover on PC, but in less than a year of the consoles going 3D, it was the norm...all while PC vendors were all vying for their own supremacy in the 3D GPU market, with games being made to specific cards, and most of the time not even running as well as their console counterparts. 2D to 3D is a game design advancement. Making an RTS genre is an advancement of a new genre, but those games still use common game design elements available elsewhere. I want something on the level of 2D to 3D advancement next gen, because I don't want to be playing just prettier versions of games for another 6-7 years, all while these companies and those who want to not understand what I'm saying act like these companies are doing me a favor for allowing me to give them money for a fancy new GPU in a box. Every single person that disagrees with me seems to think that the only thing that advances game design is graphics settings. That isn't the case. Every game design paradigm on PC has been done since the Pentium days, and even that took a while to get going as devs were still holding onto older x16 based possibilities. This paradigm, which if we want to be honest shouldn't be criticized as a failing of MS right now because we don't know the extent of it, and the discussion seems to assume it's going to be ubiquitous and long term, is not a good thing for advancing game design, and people should want more from games. If consoles push game design, that will make it to PC, just like all those things that you talk about on PC came to consoles. But, if they design games for PC or console, and the devs say that the minimum is woefully low in terms of target(current gen base systems), can you honestly say that's going to deliver the highest quality games if you happen to have that great new shiny hardware? I'm not criticizing MS over this. I'm criticizing the idea that it's a good thing and should be supported, because it seems some of the "defense" thinks that this is going to be a huge thing all gen, and applied across the board. But, MS own comment actually are counter to that being the case, and for the time frame they talk about, it probably wouldn't be an issue at all. It just means that MS isn't really looking at ways to advance their own games for what they have working now, and weren't thinking about what kinds of games they could deliver with the new hardware....and do you really want me to start pushing the idea that MS isn't forward thinking about what this new hardware can actually achieve? I won't, because if that's the case, MS can fall behind in their complacency, but that's really what this whole thing boils down to if you want to say MS is doing something awesome.
You keep that thought, in the mean time games will, without a doubt, use all the power and features the Xbox Series X has to offer.
@Star Eventually I'm sure they will, particularly as I said several times already, my comment is based on the people who think that this idea is a good idea for the long term, and that MS will not be able to mandate this as a constant across the board. I'm not criticizing MS, I'm discussing the idea that it's good to hold onto the past, and that it's not the utopia ideal that some keep trying to make it to simply disagree with me while trying to not even comprehend the bigger picture that I'm talking about. I'm calling out the short sighted people, not MS, or even what they plan to do, because MS hasn't even said they're doing anything bad, but some people are going further with it than MS implied with their statements on the matter.
here’s a perfect example of scalability. Sea of thieves. It’s the same game, across all devices, and it can play on a low low end laptop to highest end. The games the same, but the experience is vastly different https://www.neowin.net/news... The UWP makes it scaleable for them to build to the best and lower it down.
"The games the same," Yep. Different experience doesn't mean different game design. You, like others, are trying to argue a point I'm not making. Look. I don't know what more I can say about this if people want to ignore what I mean by improving game design. SoT, even at it's high end, is not a demanding game. Graphics wise, yes, it goes from potato to impressive, but at no point does my comment about advancement have anything to do with improved graphics. My point is exactly that improved graphics does not mean improved game design. We all expect graphical advancements, but to me, graphical advancements are the most mundane thing to expect from a new generation. That is what we have on PC now. It's mostly what we've had from last gen to this one. What I want is to see implemented in games, what I've seen this hardware is capable of doing. We're talking huge data sets transferred near instantaneously. I'm talking complex systems held in real time. You thought Skyrim was advanced in it's interactivity back in the day due to the scale of the world....you have no idea how this new tech can turn that on it's head. We're talking database sets which can keep an entire world of interactions which can cascade to every other object in the game, which can in turn effect what happens next. All available in an instant. Want a correlary? All that cloud promise from the start of the gen. That's what you can store on the system and have it ready for use for the next game loop. One of the biggest advances in game design in the past 15 years has been procedural generation. As simplistic as it's implementations have been, this new tech can turn that into a full game, rendered at AAA quality, with worlds bigger than anything available today. If people can't see how something as simple as that can change a games design, then there really isn't anything I can say. I just hope that what this hardware can do is actually shown off, because that is the only way that people will truly understand. MS isn't doing anything wrong with what they've said so far. But at some point, I hope for the sake of those willing to stick with Xbox that MS does intend to advance gaming, because otherwise, all you're going to have to talk about is your pretty graphics. In the mean time, if MS really decides to do this all gen, and mandates it for 3rd party, then it would have an effect on the rest of the industry and the consumer. If by chance that happens, I hope that those companies not trying to be held back truly show their worth, and put all the complacent devs, and uninspired publishers to shame, and set standards that can't be ignored. The PC went on near 30 years before Intel finally said it's time to do away with the old, and it held back x86 design for decades. Software is no different. In one comment a user lists all these things that the PC did first, and all I can think is, "Yeah, and how long ago was all that stuff, and what exactly has advanced since then?" Truly, the last great advancement to game design on a significant level was the first Gears of War. It set the tone for last gen, and every single design paradigm it established is still a core of game design today. Luckily it's adaptable to different games and genres, but game design hasn't advanced much in the past 13 years since then. Comprehend it or don't. I don't see the point in trying to convince anyone. Time will do that well enough, and it's probably not worth trying to discuss the philosophical principals of this anyways, since people seem to look at this as an attack on MS, not them being blind to the big picture.
This is a good debate, but do you actually think that devs have innovative gameplay and new features ready to go, and are now going to be held back by this? I mean, the most innovative shooter I played this gen was built by a modder. Feels like you are putting too much power in a few words from Microsoft marketing. Lack of new gameplay and innovation is squarely on the shoulders of AAA devs in my opinion. I’m not convinced any of them have innovating gameplay ready for next gen.
So many conflicting statements lately. Why would they even say this? Might as well not release XSeX then. Sony is making it easier to upgrade (bc and all that) and talking about wanting to gain PS5 users quickly while MS says the opposite. Definitely a weird way to start
Weird I know, I don't see how the Xbox one S can keep up, it's struggles with games this gen never mind nxt gen, devs making games with zen2 and navi etc. I expect the usual 2 years from playstation also in regards to supporting last gen like they have always done but thats only ever been with fifa, cod and smaller games. Gamers have been fine with playstation supporting last gen as they have in the past and let devs decide how long they support them. (free pass) The gamer knows there buying late into the gen if they have only just got a console
Like I been saying. You don't need to buy a series X to play next gen games lol 😂 I'm sticking with PC. You'll be able to play Halo infinite on the Xbox one S 😄
Great, what's your GT? I wanna destroy you in Halo Infinite lol let's see if keyboard and Mouse give you an advantage like they say
@Chief What would that prove? All I'm saying is I was right when everyone was arguing with me.
Ok Microsoft gets our money and you get a game every one wins 👍
Exactly, if I had any motivation to buy the next gen Xbox console, this would dampen it.
you never did so...
@sybil1 "I'm sorry, I wanted next gen to actually be next gen." Some people say stuff like this every generation, but it's mostly nonsense. There's nothing that came out on the PS4, for example, that couldn't have been scaled down to run on the PS3 too. And that's a much bigger time gap between the PS3 and PS4. There's certainly no reason that PS5 games couldn't run on the PS4 Pro, at least.
@sybil1 You're delusional. Definitely don't sound like a PC gamer either. You're clearly a hardcore Sony fanboy. Well, I'll make you a bet. We will not see anything on PS5 that is much different than on PC or Xbox platforms. Every generation you fanboys make these same outlandish claims, yet we've never seen anything on consoles that couldn't essentially be done on PC or even other consoles. Even if the PS5 did have some technological advantage in some area I guarantee it wouldn't be so dramatic that things couldn't be adjusted or scaled for other platforms.
and you, like you've been for years, ARE a hardcore pc fanboy. i haven't seen you post your myopic, pc-elitist views on console threads for a while - and here you come in with 3 bizarro posts. and btw - what you'll see on ps5 is games you CAN'T play of pc or xbox. so, you want to play those games - you get a ps5. it's a choice. stop being so threatened by something that you don't like. btw - you can scale back ANY game to make it play on older hardware - pc included. that's a moronic statement for you to make.
@nucky64 "here you come in with 3 bizarro posts" They're not bizarro, I'm just being realistic. I don't hate consoles by any means. I just dislike rabid fanboyism. There's no current evidence or evidence from past generations for what you guys are claiming. That's the simple truth. PC and Xbox apparently will both have forwards compatibility across a range of hardware. If Sony indeed doesn't allow that to happen I don't think that is going to result in the PS5 doing things those former platforms can't do. I mean, do you guys truly believe the PS5 is going to have advanced AI or physics that the other platforms don't have? "what you'll see on ps5 is games you CAN'T play of pc or xbox" Yeah, because those games will be artificially restricted to the PS5, NOT because they couldn't run on the other platforms. "you can scale back ANY game to make it play on older hardware - pc included." That's what I've been saying. At least between ajacent generations of hardware. Eventually, yes, it becomes impractical to scale down any further. But I don't believe that PS5 games couldn't scale down to work on PS4 Pro and PS4.
I see both points ! Now if the games look alike on. Both consoles now that’s a problem
@Thundercat77 I disagree. Technology has shown us this already. You're saying "If your user base feels no need to move to the next generation". There is incentive though. Sure you can play the games across gens. PC gamers do this all the time and still upgrade their computers. Cell phone users can still make calls on old phones, yet they buy new ones all the time. The incentive is better looking games with better immersion. This is only better for the consumer.
Well you already had a choice to not buy there next gen console to play there games. The same choice they gave you this gen, buy a PC. I don’t get how it’s a bad thing for consumers.
I believe MS’s end game here is to move everyone to Windows PC. They’re slowly going to get console gamers used to the whole “no generation” thing like PC. And they’re starting with the next generation. MS knows they will never lead in consoles, so they’re moving back to the PC.
"MS knows they will never lead in consoles, so they’re moving back to the PC." Precisely. Just like Sony knows they'll never lead in portables and axed the Vita. Companies need to play to their strengths. Microsoft knows that the bulk of their revenue will come from active participants in their ecosystem....NOT hardware sales.
That's because they haven't provided compelling titles for years, rumours of bungie leaving because of being held back creatively, same for rare. They want to be 3rd party. Their messaging is so muxed, yet fanboys lap up any nonsense they say.
@leejohnson222 So they buy studios just so as to be become third party. Hmmm???
I think MS itself doesn't care about generations because they've already gone back to supporting PC. They know, that despite all this new fancy stuff they're putting into the XSX that was not that long ago supposed to be a game changer....said by the Sony side, then the Xbox side said how they have it to, so no advantage for Sony and still a game changer, that as long as their game is on PC, they have no reason to try and advance with the new tech coming out. PC will get to the new stuff eventually, but it will be at a time that devs force the min requirements to require such things, and on PC, it's not even as effective due to high level software implementation. It does make sense for MS to do what they're doing for their software. It doesn't make sense for Sony, or anyone making a console specific game, to want this. At least not past the first couple years where ties really begin to be cut. My problem would only come if MS mandates it for all publishers, because it will effect multi-plat games on the PS5. I was happy when MS said they had SSD as well, because I was thinking that it would take longer to adopt if multi-plat games couldn't take advantage on both systems. But, if MS mandates forward compatibility, it pretty much renders that new tech pointless, barring the motivated dev(with publisher resources) making a separate version of the game to take advantage of it. I'll wait to see all the details before forming an opinion. I don't want to ride MS ass all next gen, and actively trying to be neutral for them next gen. I don't care what they do personally, but if this is a requirement by MS for 3rd party, then I will have a problem with them, and I don't really look forward to spending another gen talking about how sh**tty they are. If they mandate it for 3rd party, then people say they're being pro-consumer. That's great and all, but, In the mean time they're holding back game design advancement. Who knows. maybe its a good thing. Let MS and these 3rd parties make better looking current gen(which is really just better looking last gen for the most part) games. Then, let exclusive console games show how these new techs are game changers, and let those devs and pubs who push forward game design reap the benefits, while the people who want to be pro-consumer talk about their 4K graphics, and lament how game design hasn't advanced in the past 15 odd years. People should be careful what they wish for, because if you don't look at the bigger picture, you're not going to be happy with what you end up with in the end.
There are 40mil xboxes which can play halo infinite, fm8 release day along with god knows how manys PCs and scarlett's which are goimg to be sold. Add xcloud which we are not sure yet....do you think Microsoft is ready to leave 40 mil customers behind....lets take half of it....even 20 mil...is that a small number to leave behind. Think bro....scarlett may or may not cross 20mil before there is mid gen...but still 20mil is not something small when the attach rate is high.
Right cause leading in consoles is the only way you'll make money 🙄
like my pple will say "abi woo"
But they were never good at pc gaming, which is why they made xbox. There's more competition on pc too, but on xbox only microsoft can sell games.
MS was never a big games publisher before the Xbox, so I don't think it's really fair to say they were not good at PC gaming. I know before they pulled their games on PC to push 360 sales, their games were generally well received, although many of them were them just being a 3rd party publisher. MS Flight Simulator was never really considered a game, and its kind of funny seeing people excited for it as if it were, but it's always been well received. It's recently been moved to the Xbox division. Their 1st party games have always generally been good through the 360 days, and even most of this gen, although they have a few duds in there. MS made Xbox because consoles were becoming too much a force to be reckoned with, and at the time, Sony was competition to MS because of their PC hardware, and Sony was actually willing to work with Linux builds, which MS was really against back then. When Sony decided it was time to move into the gaming market, MS knew the gaming market was going to become a huge staging ground to gain computer users, because there was already a significant number of people who only used computers to game, and consoles were offering more than PC at the time. MS didn't want Sony to dominate that market, which is why they started trying to partner with other console makers, and Sega accepted. Nintendo declined, and I don't know if they approached other players at the time. After Sega went defunct in the market, they were left with either having to abandon the market, or do their own thing, and hence, the Xbox was born, because MS was not going to let Sony run the market unchecked. It was a different time, but MS has been very vocal, and surprisingly transparent about why they entered the market.
I believe in forward compatibility, the same way I believe in backwards compatibility.
Invest in a PC - not closed hardware.
Its not an investment. You just mean "buy a PC its worth it". Buying something that doesnt give back any real needed work or time savings isnt an investment, its just you saying "a PC is good, buy one" A PC itself people have, you can get a good workable non-gaming PC for 50-100 bucks depending on how picky you are, Hell you can probably get one for free from someone if its just for PRODUCTIVE work.
The software is still closed. You must run windows for the majority of titles. And there are only two major options for CPUs and GPUs.
Sweet baby Jesus - haha - way to take something out of context. And any hardware where you can choose your own configuration - is open.