As it stands, Turn10 and 343 will release their games at or around launch. I trust we agree on that one? Both will massively improve the quality of their output during the generation, just like we've always seen with developers. Rarely are launch games any indication of what a true next-gen game looks like, thus I don't really see the issue of going cross-gen for a short while... provided that it doesn't ruin anything for the games running on next-gen. And I don't think it will.
Cross-gen games are not a new phenomenon, there are previous precedents. Just take a look at cross-gen releases of BF, COD, Destiny, WD etc. and compare them to their iterations which were solely developed for one-generation of consoles. Visual fidelity is a massive step and so is the overall scale of the world. This time around, not only we're getting a very very powerful (and modern) CPUs but also very fast storage which are gonna change the inherent design of the games themselves. That's why I'm disappointed in their decision.
The video we've seen from Halo was supposedly running an X1X. It's clear that it wasn't a cinematic - it was more a small glimpse of what the Slipspace-engine can do, most likely running in-engine. On the other hand we have the Hellblade video. While impressive, it was obviously a pre-rendered CGI and the game will absolutely not look like that a release. Any comparison between the two is moot, and it's certainly not anything we can use to deduce how Halo is being "held back" in anyway.
Visually HB2 'looked' next-gen, just like KZ:SF did back in 2013.
If it turns out that Halo: Infinite and Forza 8 is getting steamrolled by the PS5 launch games, in terms of looks, feel and gameplay, because of this policy, I'll be the first to eat crow.
It will be interesting to see the first real gameplay videos over the next year.
Fair enough, if you want to wait and see Series X running Halo Infinite and HellBlade 2 side-by-side before forming your opinion. I'm just basing my opinion on what has logically followed, there are hardware limitiations which no amount of dev-magic can bypass.
This is nonsense. You think this policy is because game studio acquisitions happened too late? No, it 's a business decision to make as much money as possible from the old install base.
If those acquisitions were too late, that doesn't explain why MS' stable of old developers couldnt have had at least one game ready.
My post was conjecture, I was only trying to make sense of what compelled MS to make that decision. If, money was only thing on their agenda, why stop a year down the line? Why spend hundreds of millions to develop not one but two SKUs? You and me both know they're eating a loss on them at start, then why bother?
Answer is quite simple, they have to eventually move forward and make their platform attractive enough so potential buyers jump into their eco-system (and by that I don't mean buying GP on xCloud), I'm talking the hardware side, which opens up litany of sources of revenue. Be it full digital cut, a hefty 3rd party cut, micro-transactions or just services in form of XBL etc. MS aren't going to cut the legs off a new hardware by not offering any exclusive experience on it.
It's gonna be mighty difficult to ask PS owners to switch, but they have to ensure their 50m XB1 owners make that transition as early as possible. Trying to maximize the money off FP games by putting them cross-gen isn't gonna cut the muster long term.
Coming back to MS stable of old developers, I don't think you realize how few of them MS had back in 2017. I count just 5. Coalition were working on Gears 5 which released in 2019, 343 had been working on a new Halo which was well into development, Turn 10 were busy with their annual Forza series, which leaves Mojang who do MineCraft stuff and Rare who pushed Sea of Thieves in 2018 and Battletoads for 2020. So where exactly did they have the resources to make a next-gen game from ground up in space of 2 years?
Vomit. I guess being level 15 on the PlayStation trophy rankings makes me a Microsoft fanboy & anti-Sony? How about get the f over yourself.
BTW, claiming digital foundry would have mentioned the framerate problems is kind of hilarious considering it's the same outlet which flat-out swept the framerate problems in Red Dead 2 under a rug (hello slideshow in Valentine & Saint Dennis). God of War has really nasty drops on & around the lake of nine, for example. There's a litany of stutter problems on the base console. You don't need DF to tell you that, you just need to play the game without a Sony shaped dildo up your butt.
DF are not the only tech channel who cover video-games, there is NXGamer, and 10s of millions of consumers who played on base PS4. If issues were as pertinent as you're claiming to be 'litany of stutter problems', we'd have heard about them like we did for Control, RDR2, Witcher 3, Days Gone etc. See how easy it is to cut through the bullshit?
You made a shit post in order to go on a weird tangent about how all devs struggle with base consoles, when the said game was designed around it and runs with little problems. Now you continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole. Resorting to childish personal attacks while failing to argue on basis of facts just makes you like a giant buffon, as if that wasn't apparent reading your posts.
Did you notice that during the transition between Xbox -> Xbox 360 and Xbox 360 -> Xbox One there were also games that were cross gen? This was also the case with PS2 -> PS3 and PS4, this is nothing new. MS is asserting that at least their own studios will continue to support older consoles and seeing how Forza Motorsport 2 looked miles better on Xbox One vs Xbox 360, I don't see an issue.
I've seen through all of those transitions to know development isn't linear across generation of consoles. Compare something like FH4 to Forza Motorsport 2 to see how stark difference can be when one game is designed to harness all the power of a said console, while the other was designed for another console but was tweaked to take advantage of new hardware as much as possible. Then you can pit Uncharted 3 against Uncharted 4, or TLOU Remastered against TLOUII on a PS4.
I'll be happy with a Halo Infinite that runs at 4K and 60fps with added detail over a 900p 30fps Xbox One version that looks muddier.
This is my biggest worry (and problem) with this approach. Its again the remastered/PC conundrum where much more expensive and beefier hardware will do all those things just at higher frames and resolution. All that power underneath is never going to be utilized completely due to compromises being made to support lower-to-mid end hardware. With rumors of Lockhart, I see Series X being a PC equivalent of a high-end rig which is a shame because with so much power at tap, results could've been utterly mind boggling like some of the tech demos you see which are put together on a PC.
How can you be certain that Halo Infinite's engine wasn't built for a high end PC?
Common sense, if engine was designed keeping Series X as the baseline. To what extent would devs need to make compromises to make the game run on a base XB1? Obviously they aren't going to push a new Halo with 15fps at 540p on what would still be largest contingent on which Xbox gamers will play.
Graphics can be scaled back by reducing texture quality, lighting, shadows, resolution etc. but at the end of the day CPU still has to carry all that task be it on a high-end console or a low-end console. A game designed around to take full advantage of a Zen 2 CPU isn't going to run at on a Jaguar, no matter how much dev-magic you think its out there or scaling works.
Hell Cyberpunk was being developed with the expectation that it will run on current gen as well, and look at how much trouble they're experiencing to get it to run properly on Xbox One and PS4
Which shouldn't come as a surprise if anyone has looked at the footage of the game to see how many NPCs are out on the screen at once and physics employed by CDPR. Jaguar CPUs are too ancient to run an ambitious title like this, expect the performance to be akin to Witcher 3 on base XB1 and PS4 at ~20fps.
this tells us that games are already being built for high end PCs and next gen consoles will be the closest matches and will be receiving the best possible version for consoles.
CDPR are a dev who generally design their games on a PC, just take a look at first footage of Witcher 3 to see how far and above it looked from retail release. They were too-ambitious and had to scale back and cut corners to make the game playable on consoles. It's the same with CyberPunk, game has been in development for 7 years and now they have a ~150m console user base whom they cannot ignore.
What happens with the result on older consoles should not be your concern, unless you plan on playing said games on the older consoles, but from what I understand, most of the concern is that you will not be getting (For example) the best version of Cyberpunk on PC because they're supporting older hardware, but that is simply NOT true, the headache of getting these on the older platforms is on the studio and Cyberpunk will require a kick-ass gaming PC to play it at its full glory and a decent framerate.
Which takes me back to the original point, game scaling isn't a magical tool which will solve hardware based limitations. I pre-dominantly game on PC and wanted CDPR to push out a PC release and not compromise on their original vision just to make the game work on base consoles. But, I know this isn't how industry works.
I'm annoyed that not only is this transition delayed, but multiple SKUs strategy may end up handicapping the more-expensive consoles and PC. I only hope and pray that Lockhart CPU runs only marginally slower than Series X so the baseline doesn't take a hit. But, I remain skeptical.
From a money making perspective it would make more sense to NOT make it available on older gen, because those people have to buy a new console, which might as well be the XSX since they are already in the Xbox ecosystem...
I had never seen lighting effects or reflections as good as that on console.
