The Next Next Gen Thread o/\o - The Bear and Badger

Diluted Dante

Ask a question in a headline, and the answer has to be no.

GurtTractor

hunk wrote:

John Linneman echoing my previous thoughts on MS' decision and how it could be a problem. Not everything can be scaled effectively across generations, so major design and feature choices are made based on the system capabilities.

Paul the sparky

The critical question is this: could Titanfall or Rise of the Tomb Raider be as impressive as they were on Xbox One if Respawn and Crystal Dynamics had to factor in Xbox 360 in the initial design phase? Similarly, while Dead Rising 3 had its issues on Xbox One, it's clear that the developers had a vision that out-stripped the capabilities of Xbox 360. Meanwhile, Ryse: Son of Rome may have started out as an Xbox 360 Kinect title, but it evolved into something very different - a technically brilliant release that set the bar in several respects for the rendering technologies that would come to dominate the current generation. Would any of these titles have been anything like the same experience if the developers had one eye towards accommodating Xbox 360?

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-can-microsoft-deliver-next-gen-experiences-while-still-supporting-xbox-one

Titanfall was released on the 360, so I'm not sure what they're on about there.

Since most of it was developed with that platform in mind, Ryse could have been released on 360 too, but obviously a bit less shiny.

Rise of the Tomb Raider wasn't a launch title, it came out in 2015, the Xbone was out in 2013, so it falls into the bracket where they're thinking about releasing exclusives.

Dead Rising 3 seems to be the one where you can't get it done without doing shit like breaking the world into chunks with load screens between them, or significantly reducing the number of enemies you're capable of having on screen at the same time and how you interact with them. Changing those goes against everything the game is trying to do, so I understand that you can't compromise there. But then again, there's this which shows that DR4 is nerfed in some areas where the original is better:

How is that stuff possible on previous gen hardware but not in a sequel released a decade later, three years into the next generation?

I'd be interested to see how long it takes to develop a AAA game, how long the specs for the next gen consoles have been known, and how the two match up to give a release window. I'd not be surprised if it turns out to be one or two years after launch.

Paul the sparky

Can anyone tell I'm putting off getting up for work?

Moot_Geeza

I can't even tell the difference between the two games in the clip.

LivDiv

I would add that DR1 and 2 were much better games and actually benefited in terms of gameplay by having parts sectioned off.

I didn't rate DR3 at all, it wasn't until they added the mental Capcom stuff that it was remotely interesting and even then wasnt as good.

RamSteelwood

Paul the sparky wrote:

I'd be interested to see how long it takes to develop a AAA game, how long the specs for the next gen consoles have been known, and how the two match up to give a release window. I'd not be surprised if it turns out to be one of two years after launch.

Yep. i'd wager any AAA game set for release in the first year of the next gen will have been in dev for a good year or so already, prob when next gen specs weren't set in stone, and always with the real risk the hardware launch could have been delayed...basically always with one eye on current gen hardware.
I suspect it's prob always been like that to an extent, where even launch exclusives were games being developed before they knew what the spec would be....hence why historically there's always a big jump in the quality (graphical if nothing else) a few years into each cycle, cos that's when you see the games that actually were designed for the hardware.

RamSteelwood

MS' method here might even be a benefit to devs....they will have a better idea of what will definitely work (assuming it's the same code for diff consoles and it reacts to the hardware, rather than them having to compile different versions of the game for each), and can then maybe plan better around the areas they will have more resource.
You'll still likely run into the design issues mentioned where they're limited by what the current hardware can't do, but personally i doubt that was much of a concern for devs at this stage in the console life anyway.

LivDiv

It has all been blown out of proportion anyway.
We are only talking first party exclusives that MS control.

We will see how many Sony first party exclusives change the face of gaming via CPU within 18 months.
I suspect there may be a couple that push the CPU but unlikely to be in ways that are particularly interesting. Probably a rerelease of that zombie game with the biker, but with TRIPLE DA ZOMBEES.

RamSteelwood

Anyway, can anyone clarify for me what 'Xbox Series X' actually is?
is that the name of a particularly SKU, or a range of hardware...i know there was talk of different spec machines, will they all be Xbox Series 'something', or is it Xbox Series X 1/2/3?

hunk

Again, I think the situation will be a lot like pc but the devs will get to choose which console version will be the 'target' platforms. If devs want to be super ambitious and think their game can only run on next gen Xbox (seriesx?) than...why not? If they want to expand to xbox1x because they think that is still capable hw, that should also be an option. The original xbone might get left behind but that's the dev's choice and that's okay. Dev's should keep in mind that by choosing that path they are limiting their access to the xbox1 audience, the targeted user pool will be smaller obviously.

The switch is a perfect example of how low settings might work on consoles. I mean cdpr got the Witcher3 and it's dlc's working on switch hw. That's quite a tier below what the base models of what current gen are capable of.

That said, I think we'll only see true 'next gen' stuff once combined seriesx/ps5/uberpc install base hits critical mass. It makes no sense targeting hi end hw exclusively with tiny userbases. Much too risky.

poprock

RamSteelwood wrote:

Anyway, can anyone clarify for me what 'Xbox Series X' actually is? is that the name of a particularly SKU, or a range of hardware...

The product naming strategy won’t be clear until there are two or three different models/SKUs on the market.

For now, it seems the plan is this:

Xbox is the family. The overarching brand.
Xbox Series X is the first console in this new generation.
Xbox Series [something else] will be the next SKU in the family.
(ie. there might be an Xbox Series S that’s lower spec.)

hunk

Aye, MS naming conventions are shit. Consumers will be totally befuddled by it.

Wii/WiiU all over again.

g.man

Yeah, this has public perception disaster written all over it.

mistercrayon

I think Microsoft will manage to convey there’s a new console out tbh.

LivDiv

It won't be as bad as the WiiU.
The big problem with WiiU was that the Wii audience didn't follow gaming and were confused about needing a new piece of hardware.
It could have been called the Nintendo Chiswasser and would have faced much the same problem.

g.man

It'll be interesting to see what Sony does going forward with the PS5. Are they going to throw the pS4Pro under the bus? Common sense would say no, but then if that's the case, then that puts them in the same situation as MS.
I'd imagine that'll be the case, but they'll wait and let MS launch at E3 with an absolute muddle of a pitch that baffles everyone and causes the internet to go into meltdown, then they'll mop up with a simple message about PS5 at their own event.

mistercrayon

Nintendo didn’t help themselves at all though.

New controller!!

LivDiv

You know what I can't wait for?
The inevitable re-release of Fallout 76 for new consoles.

Paul the sparky

g.man wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sony does going forward with the PS5. Are they going to throw the pS4Pro under the bus? Common sense would say no, but then if that's the case, then that puts them in the same situation as MS.
I'd imagine that'll be the case, but they'll wait and let MS launch at E3 with an absolute muddle of a pitch that baffles everyone and causes the internet to go into meltdown, then they'll mop up with a simple message about PS5 at their own event.

Here's some PS4 remasters.

g.man

LivDiv wrote:

You know what I can't wait for? The inevitable re-release of Fallout 76 for new consoles.

hahaha

RamSteelwood

mistercrayon wrote:

I think Microsoft will manage to convey there’s a new console out tbh.

Yeah, but if Xbox Series S comes out after Xbox Series X, but is more equivalent to an xbox one X, and intended to replace the Xbox one S, and you're trying to buy a game to see which of those it will work on....it's a lot messier for the consumer than PS5 > PS4

g.man

Paul the sparky wrote:

g.man wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sony does going forward with the PS5. Are they going to throw the pS4Pro under the bus? Common sense would say no, but then if that's the case, then that puts them in the same situation as MS. I'd imagine that'll be the case, but they'll wait and let MS launch at E3 with an absolute muddle of a pitch that baffles everyone and causes the internet to go into meltdown, then they'll mop up with a simple message about PS5 at their own event.

Here's some PS4 remasters.

You could very well be right. That's the sort of message joe public will understand.

Paul the sparky

RamSteelwood wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

I think Microsoft will manage to convey there’s a new console out tbh.

Yeah, but if Xbox Series S comes out after Xbox Series X, but is more equivalent to an xbox one X, and intended to replace the Xbox one S, and you're trying to buy a game to see which of those it will work on....it's a lot messier for the consumer than PS5 > PS4

Not if you're downloading the game from the console's dashboard.

g.man

That pre-supposes that you've worked out which console to buy in the first place.

Minnesänger

Paul the sparky wrote:

The critical question is this: could Titanfall or Rise of the Tomb Raider be as impressive as they were on Xbox One if Respawn and Crystal Dynamics had to factor in Xbox 360 in the initial design phase? Similarly, while Dead Rising 3 had its issues on Xbox One, it's clear that the developers had a vision that out-stripped the capabilities of Xbox 360. Meanwhile, Ryse: Son of Rome may have started out as an Xbox 360 Kinect title, but it evolved into something very different - a technically brilliant release that set the bar in several respects for the rendering technologies that would come to dominate the current generation. Would any of these titles have been anything like the same experience if the developers had one eye towards accommodating Xbox 360?

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-can-microsoft-deliver-next-gen-experiences-while-still-supporting-xbox-one Titanfall was released on the 360, so I'm not sure what they're on about there. Since most of it was developed with that platform in mind, Ryse could have been released on 360 too, but obviously a bit less shiny. Rise of the Tomb Raider wasn't a launch title, it came out in 2015, the Xbone was out in 2013, so it falls into the bracket where they're thinking about releasing exclusives. Dead Rising 3 seems to be the one where you can't get it done without doing shit like breaking the world into chunks with load screens between them, or significantly reducing the number of enemies you're capable of having on screen at the same time and how you interact with them. Changing those goes against everything the game is trying to do, so I understand that you can't compromise there. But then again, there's this which shows that DR4 is nerfed in some areas where the original is better: How is that stuff possible on previous gen hardware but not in a sequel released a decade later, three years into the next generation? I'd be interested to see how long it takes to develop a AAA game, how long the specs for the next gen consoles have been known, and how the two match up to give a release window. I'd not be surprised if it turns out to be one or two years after launch.

I agree with much of this but I think there's a couple of thing worth considering:

1. The last couple of gens have been LONG. 7 years now for these 2 gens. And this gen wasn't a huge leap - the consoles were mid-range on launch. The PS5 and Series X will be much bigger jumps.

2. Cross-gen is fine, and yes, most games will be ok BUT the issue isn't really whether games can cross gen with the best Xbox One hardware - i'm specifically worried about the Xbox One S. The X is a great bit of kit and has enough power for most new gen games, probably. But the S is the weakest, easily, of the 4 main home console SKUs out today. It reliably runs new releases at the lowest resolutions and the lowest framerates. It has hit its limits. Any Xbox first-party exclusives could be fine on the X...but the S is now an anchor around the neck of the entire endeavour for the next 2 years. There 100% will be compromises.

3. Sony will come out strong - Santa Monica, Insomniac and Guerrilla will have games ready within the first two years, almost without doubt. First party games should be flagships. Sony, for all their faults, get that. The first 2 years of the PS5 will be stronger than the first 2 years of the PS4, and that might make a difference when consumers look to upgrade, especially as backwards compatibility, without trying to be fanboyish, will probably be a bigger sell for the PS5 (with the PS4 catalogue) than the Series X (with the One catalogue).

4. Between Xcloud / Play Anywhere and the piss poor naming conventions etc. they're not doing a great job of selling me the actual box. I'd love to buy an Xbox Series X - the One was the first one I skipped and I bought a Surface Pro and 2 (!!!!!) Windows Phones - i'll buy into MS hardware if I even half-believe in what they're peddling. But, right now, I really don't. I'm not convinced in their love of the box itself, I'm seriously worried about their strategy to support the S with first-party titles, and I think their first-party studio acquisitions have been...for lack of a better word, absolute dogshit.

Minnesänger

g.man wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sony does going forward with the PS5. Are they going to throw the pS4Pro under the bus? Common sense would say no, but then if that's the case, then that puts them in the same situation as MS. I'd imagine that'll be the case, but they'll wait and let MS launch at E3 with an absolute muddle of a pitch that baffles everyone and causes the internet to go into meltdown, then they'll mop up with a simple message about PS5 at their own event.

Sony sunset consoles well, traditionally. There will be cross-gen titles, but I doubt that will be an official policy. The next God of War, for example, will be PS5 exclusive. I'd put money on it. They'll ditch the Pro - it'll get the same Indian summer games as the base model.

Easier for Sony, I think, as the Pro is no Xbox One X. That thing is tasty.

g.man

Whatever happens this year, the view from the trenches is going to be interesting as it all unfolds.

Minnesänger

g.man wrote:

Whatever happens this year, the view from the trenches is going to be interesting as it all unfolds.

Agreed.

Bob

g.man wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sony does going forward with the PS5. Are they going to throw the pS4Pro under the bus? Common sense would say no, but then if that's the case, then that puts them in the same situation as MS.
I'd imagine that'll be the case, but they'll wait and let MS launch at E3 with an absolute muddle of a pitch that baffles everyone and causes the internet to go into meltdown, then they'll mop up with a simple message about PS5 at their own event.

Of course they are. Same as they’ve always done only less so cos bc

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories