Diluted Dante wrote:Would my original Bone work with these Series X games, or does it need to be at least an S?
Minnesänger wrote:OG Bone will work. It’ll run like shit.Diluted Dante wrote:Would my original Bone work with these Series X games, or does it need to be at least an S?
Minnesänger wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:Would my original Bone work with these Series X games, or does it need to be at least an S?
OG Bone will work. It’ll run like shit.
RedDave2 wrote:Minnesänger wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:Would my original Bone work with these Series X games, or does it need to be at least an S?
OG Bone will work. It’ll run like shit.
It says a lot that a company would sacrifice the end user experience just to say 'but at least you can run it on your 6 year old system!'
RedDave2 wrote:Remember when computer and video games used to review the amiga version of a game and give it 90+% and then there would be a little side box with the c64 score. It wasn't as high, mostly.
Tell me about it. I asked for the big box Italia 90 game for the amazing graphics on the back for my 10th birthday only to realise on loading it up that they were Amiga only and didn't feature on the C64 version.
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.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?
MattyJ wrote:Multiplatform games will most likely still look and perform better on Xbox series x, if we only go by stats.
For me, I'd rather wait for Sony to have 3/4 exclusive strong games so when I get one it's worth it
GurtTractor wrote:No idea how they are going to handle that, or if there's a good solution.
So day one then ?MattyJ wrote:Multiplatform games will most likely still look and perform better on Xbox series x, if we only go by stats.
For me, I'd rather wait for Sony to have 3/4 exclusive strong games so when I get one it's worth it
Minnesänger wrote:
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.
acemuzzy wrote:For me it boils down to this: extra shinies are nice, but I'm much more likely to buy a new console if it gets me access to games I couldn't otherwise play. MS are saying there will be zero (first party) games in that category, for two years. That definitely makes me less likely to buy the new console.
Not saying I won't, or others won't, but it's a less compelling sales pitch for sure. And yes, historically, some games are only available on the new gen console for reasons that stretch beyond technical limitations of the older system. And yes arguably that's bad. But it still risks being a major footgun IMHO.
Moot_Geeza wrote:A Rare game was shown recently I believe. Looked a bit BotW-ish, can't remember the name.
Minnesänger wrote:Eric wrote:The Dead Rising debate also doesn't account for the different developers involved. I think only the first was developed in house by Capcom Japan the others were farmed out which could account for the different mechanics.
It doesn't work for another reason. People compare Dead Rising 1 to 3 or 4. But compare Dead Rising 1 to what came BEFORE and what do you see? A title within the first 12 months or so or the 360s life cycle that couldn't have existed on the OG Xbox.
RedDave2 wrote:OK. I dont get this approach from MS. If they were in the strongest position (ie the Sony role) it would make sense as you have those 100 million machines out there and all that brand loyalty. I dont see this helping getting Xbox back to where it can really be called a competitior to the Playstation format.
Or maybe this is microsoft moving away from hardware in a way and really just focusing on the service. Whats the chance of a nintendo machine or even an apple or google machine playing an xbox gamepass app in the near future?
I confused.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!