-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GI.biz: "Sony 'believes in generations', which is the fundamental philosophical difference between itself and Xbox"
- Thread starter Bullet Club
- Start date
GHG
Member
The big jumps come around the time the new console generation starts. The unfortunate truth is that most PC games are console ports.
If there's no generation leap this doesn't happen and it would lead to industry wide stagnation that would even impact the hardware manufacturers.
The likes of Nvidia want PC gamers to feel threatened by consoles so that they can sell them shiny new graphics cards. They want games to release that push people to upgrade their hardware in order to have a good experience.
All of this "no generations" crap is bullshit, no enthusiast who is buying new RTX graphics cards or new consoles day one wants things to stay the same. Which is why I find it laughable that it's the people who are lining up to buy the Series X on day one who are the ones that are most likely to parrot this nonsense.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
Because then they couldn't justify the XSS, it's obvious.
Also the X1X didn't set the world on fire like they expected.
Redlancet
Banned
MS is wants to sell your bottom of the barrel crap and lot of future promises
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
SONY holds the record for most consoles sold will PS4 make the 10 year life cycle SONU expects? Their consoles are required to last 10 years
El Pistolero
Banned
Oh, so a new generation implies getting rid of all previous franchises! I guess that none of the consoles that have released in the last 20 years or so has marked a generational shift then! Just when you think someone has hit the bottom with their nonsensical takes, they strive to surprise you by summoning the fanatical magic shovel before digging their way down to the bottomless pit...
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its just shows what an empty statement it is though. They aren't going to be selling current gen hardware indefinitely and as a result developers will also abandon the platform in time. They might choose not to "believe" in generations, but the reality still exists and at best they are just deferring it slightly.
Journey
Banned
The crow eating will be glorious. 2013 SSD is the new hidden dGPU. Keep fighting the good fight. Cyberpunk 2077 will be just the beginning of the meltdowns.
JCK75
Member
I don't believe in generations, the entire reason I love PC is that it's just one big collection or games from the majority of the time I've been alive at my fingertips.
I like where MS is going with it (but feel like if you're going to force devs to support previous gen it's reasonable to support the One X, not so much the original/S because they are so friggen weak)
I like where MS is going with it (but feel like if you're going to force devs to support previous gen it's reasonable to support the One X, not so much the original/S because they are so friggen weak)
Reficul
Member
Crow happens to be my favorite dish so I Don't mind.
Why so serious? Can't take a joke?
Azurro
Banned
Microsoft is a company that endlessly chases trends, and is usually behind on every trend it is trying to catch.
You have seen it before. GaaS takes off? "Quick, we need some GaaS games!" and Sea of Thieves comes out. Remember when single player games were supposed to die? "Let's turn Scalebound into a co-op multiplayer game!" and so on and so forth.
Gamepass is just their latest attempt at trying to chase some trend. It doesn't generate any profit, but it's the only thing they have that looks good on paper. That's the only reason this "new generations are anti consumer" narrative was spun up.
I just think it's a bit funny since on the one hand, they went all in with "Series X eats monsters for breakfast!! Most powerful console ever!!" and on the other hand "hey, I'm not actually going to make games with that hardware in mind for a few years'.
Confused and ineffective messaging, because they don't want to state their actual strategy: "The only thing we want is for you to subscribe to GamePass. We give no fucks on what platform, old gen, new gen, we don't care, we'd put it on Playstation if Sony would let us. Please, just subscribe.".
You have seen it before. GaaS takes off? "Quick, we need some GaaS games!" and Sea of Thieves comes out. Remember when single player games were supposed to die? "Let's turn Scalebound into a co-op multiplayer game!" and so on and so forth.
Gamepass is just their latest attempt at trying to chase some trend. It doesn't generate any profit, but it's the only thing they have that looks good on paper. That's the only reason this "new generations are anti consumer" narrative was spun up.
I just think it's a bit funny since on the one hand, they went all in with "Series X eats monsters for breakfast!! Most powerful console ever!!" and on the other hand "hey, I'm not actually going to make games with that hardware in mind for a few years'.
Confused and ineffective messaging, because they don't want to state their actual strategy: "The only thing we want is for you to subscribe to GamePass. We give no fucks on what platform, old gen, new gen, we don't care, we'd put it on Playstation if Sony would let us. Please, just subscribe.".
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
There will be crow eating but it won't go the way you believe
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
not at all, it’s funny that Halo is getting shit for being up ported but Sony is doing the same thing they just took away the current gen version.
Would have been nice if they did have a few new games and not just stuff ported form pervious gens. Maybe in a few years
Based on this article I am assuming what Ratchet and Clank has presented is just not possible on a PC or Xbox Series X?
Journey
Banned
And what is it that I believe? PS5 will show it's advantages in SSD performance for sure, load times will be better, some games will show what can be done with an SSD, but many forget that Series X also has an SSD with an incredible boost in I/O over last gen, so it will have its own list of games showing off what the SSD brings, look no further than "The Medium" which instantly loads multiple realities. Overall performance will be better on Xbox Series X, heavy hitters like Cyberpunk and especially anything pushing Ray Tracing will have an advantage on Series X.
I see games like Control UE with the AWE expansion coming to both PS5 and Xbox Series X having a performance advantage on XSX. DF analysis may show a higher base pixel resolution on Series X and/or better framerate or more applied Ray Tracing effects. Things will be minimal initially as companies like Activision/Ubisoft push for profits and platform parity, but those games that push the high end PC will have to have a hierarchy with PC coming out on top, followed by XSX > PS5 > X1X > PS4 Pro in that order.
Let's hear your belief's while we fill this bowl of crow soup.
Last edited:
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
I'm referring to the perceived difference between the versions of these games
Hawking Radiation
Member
They want to turn Xbox into Office 365.
Gaming as a service.
Thats been evident for a while now.
It already has.
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
So long as there is technological progress in the chip industry there will be generations.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Ascend
Member
Let's put all the biases aside and simply look at things from a business perspective.
Sony's perspective is that they can make more money by having the system as closed off to the past as possible. It makes it easier for them to not have to take into account that much from their past consoles. You have to pay for everything on the new system, even if it is a revamped game. But it's up to you if you want it or not. Their promise is that they will give you the most up to date experience that current technology can give you, and you significantly pay specifically for exactly what you want.
Bottom line; They play on your novelty factor and expect you to pay high enough for it piece by piece, generation to generation, game by game, feature by feature.
Microsoft's perspective is that they can make more money by making their Xbox service as continuous as possible. It is hard to keep almost everything from the past compatible to the most recent generation, but they believe that long term it is worth the cost to do so. You can get upgraded experiences with the newer hardware, and although the newer games are not completely up to the technological limit initially, over time the growth and advancement in games is still there, and the user gets to not only keep access to all their past games, they also get free improvements on them. You get a large gaming package for a reasonable price.
Bottom line; They play on your nostalgia factor and work to keep you constantly hooked into their service for a relatively fixed income for them and expense for you.
Neither is wrong or right. They can both work for different types of people.
Sony's perspective is that they can make more money by having the system as closed off to the past as possible. It makes it easier for them to not have to take into account that much from their past consoles. You have to pay for everything on the new system, even if it is a revamped game. But it's up to you if you want it or not. Their promise is that they will give you the most up to date experience that current technology can give you, and you significantly pay specifically for exactly what you want.
Bottom line; They play on your novelty factor and expect you to pay high enough for it piece by piece, generation to generation, game by game, feature by feature.
Microsoft's perspective is that they can make more money by making their Xbox service as continuous as possible. It is hard to keep almost everything from the past compatible to the most recent generation, but they believe that long term it is worth the cost to do so. You can get upgraded experiences with the newer hardware, and although the newer games are not completely up to the technological limit initially, over time the growth and advancement in games is still there, and the user gets to not only keep access to all their past games, they also get free improvements on them. You get a large gaming package for a reasonable price.
Bottom line; They play on your nostalgia factor and work to keep you constantly hooked into their service for a relatively fixed income for them and expense for you.
Neither is wrong or right. They can both work for different types of people.
*keep hope alive gif*
Lol.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I know that, Sorry what I meant was
Generations*
*Excludes 5th, 6th & 7th generations
Last edited:
Journey
Banned
How do you measure perception that can vary from gamer to gamer? Just look at the PS3 vs 360 head to heads, that had to be the closest generation in terms of graphics, yet when DF gave the nod to 360, some gamers relied on that to purchase the "Superior" version.
I personally will be owning both a PS5 and XSX, but will likely be using the PS5 mostly for exclusives and XSX for multiplatform and MS/PC titles since my PC won't be getting an upgrade until at least a year after the console's launch.
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Just saying that the difference will be very small and most gamers won't care
DarkMage619
$MSFT
So we went from won't force you into buying an XSX to play Xbox exclusives at launch to we don't believe in generations at all and we will only make X1 games. Got it.Well, just because you asked so nicely and you seem like a solid poster...
- You won’t be forced into the next generation. We want every Xbox player to play all the new games from Xbox Game Studios. That’s why Xbox Game Studios titles we release in the next couple of years—like Halo Infinite—will be available and play great on Xbox Series X and Xbox One. We won’t force you to upgrade to Xbox Series X at launch to play Xbox exclusives.
You Are the Future of Gaming - Xbox Wire
Games are a source of joy, inspiration, and social connection. They have the power to bring us together, create empathy, and strengthen our social fabric. As we prepare for the next generation, our efforts to make gaming more inclusive, more immersive, more connected, and more social are as...news.xbox.com
Stilton Disco
Member
Even as a PC gamer, you still need to thank console generations for keeping gaming moving constantly forward.
Without consoles, what exactly would be the minimum spec developers would be aiming for? 10 year old systems? Integrated graphics? The weakest GPU's currently on sale? What drive would there be as such, for most people to upgrade their specs? Consoles keep the baseline moving, and with it the upper ceiling for what high end PC games can realistically and easily afford to add as nice extras.
Also there's no point in keep the XOX and dropping the XO. No one is going to just develop for the niche mid gene refresh, and games would still be hobbled by the shite CPU.
iHaunter
Member
I can someone hear her voice in my head. Make it stop.
Shmunter
Member
Pretty much. The messaging is like a smorgasbord of dumbfuckery.
Journey
Banned
Gamers care about visuals and they want the superior version. Owning both PS5 and XSX will have gamers turning over to DF to view which version to get, and whether you believe the difference is small, the majority will be picking up the superior version, I know I will be it PS5 or XSX.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
What about the XSX isn't a generational leap over the X1? Is it possible that this no generations meme going on here could mean that XSX is the only next gen console that can play games from 4 console generations natively? It's all about bias and perspective. If you don't like the Xbox you spin their backward compatibility as a negative. If you look at the games coming up on the XSX there are are 5 or fewer games that are on the X1 but still people here claim the X1 is holding next gen back. Halo Infinite gets delayed and now XSX has 'no games'. It's all about bias. Some is on MS and some is on fanatics who dislike the Xbox and will turn anything they do into something indicating the Xbox will no longer be a development platform. The naysayers have said that about the Xbox since the original. Why gamers would want fewer options I'll never know.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
One thing that can't be denied is Sony's excellent messaging of late. Stuff like the new R&C are really doing wonders for them heading into the PS5 launch. I wish I could say the same for MS and Series X but currently I just don't see that same momentum at large, especially with Halo Infinite's delay. And that's not to say MS don't have some good games coming in the launch period but most will be multi-platform or are smaller AA-style experiences (The Medium, Scorn) that probably won't command the level of attention of a R&C or Miles Morales game (never mind the fact none of their most impressive stuff so far (Bright Memory Infinite, Exo-Mecha, Scorn, The Ascent, Flight Simulator 2020) have been seen running on an actual Series X unit :S).
That isn't to say Sony haven't had some mistakes here or there, either: Ubisoft seemingly let the cat out of the bag WRT lack of any BC older than PS4. But I think those are smaller incidents and the stuff Sony's doing right in terms of messaging strongly outweigh probable lack of PS1/PS2/PS3 BC (something they never really guaranteed in the first place).
All that said tho, this article's basically just playing into marketing jargons. Sony "believing in generations" is nothing remarkable because pretty much every new console ever released has seemingly "believed in generations" when you see how they were marketed. They may've never outright claimed that slogan but gamers knew what was up. Microsoft's generation-less messaging is also basically marketing jargon, but I think they've taken a much bigger hit here. Halo Infinite again is the culprit. MS said cross-gen wouldn't hold next-gen back and then they showed Halo Infinite. That game's problems are definitely due more to 343i being horribly ran at the top and having mediocre workplace culture but MS seem 100% okay letting the narrative form that XBO support was indeed the thing that screwed the game over (we have plenty of counter-examples to this narrative). None of the other 1st-party games shown in the July showcase had XBO versions listed aside maybe Grounded? If that's the case why even bother messaging on the idea of "generations are dead" or whatever?
Halo Infinite being delayed to 2021 now even puts the XBO version of that game in doubt, it would potentially be a waste of resources and the Series X could absolutely benefit from that being a next-gen only game by that point in the next-gen cycle. Let's just hope in such a case HI has a longer-term positive impact than TitanFall did for the XBO (yeah I just realized Halo Infinite is kind of taking up the role for Series X that TitanFall did for XBO...dunno how I feel about that tbh :S).
I don't think this will be possible for at least another decade or so, likely longer. The "issue" with gaming is that there is no fully standardized set of hardware or software/API features, implementations, etc. like there is with, say, Blu-Ray disc players, televisions, etc. Consoles going x86/x86-64 may've been a first step in this direction but the fact there are other emerging segments of gaming like VR and AR still finding their full footing, prevents what MS wants from being capable for a good while.
The Big 3 would have to not only establish some sort of universal system of standards that all would have to support, but also have to allow other manufacturers (Samsung, JVC, Hitachi, LG, possibly also PC OEMs like Lenovo, Asus, Alienware etc) to freely license such a standard. ALL systems across the spectrum MUST support those established standards, meaning when the standards are updated, partners would have to eventually come around to support them.
Of course, this'd also mean part of the standard would include homogenizing the delivery platform for gaming content, meaning it'd be near impossible for hardware manufacturers to earn royalties off of software sales the way Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo currently do. Which would then mean...the price for hardware increases because manufacturers would need to earn a profit off the hardware sales (similar to AMD and Nvidia GPU sales on PC platforms). And unless major advances in game dev pipelines occur which help dramatically lower costs, I doubt you'd see software prices lower all that much.
3DO already tried this type of setup in 1993 and it failed. Personally I don't the idea itself is bad, but it requires a standard of homogenization in the hardware and software/API space WRT game consoles to really take hold if you want to get more hardware partners involved and to proliferate a platform standard that all partners can use, which can be updated over time and your partners can develop new hardware for it. SEGA sort of had a good idea with this for hardware partners like JVC and Hitachi in the 1990s making their own variants of MegaDrives and Saturns; however, this was exclusively in the realm of SEGA's systems at the time, and those other hardware vendors still had to sell at for-profit margins because they didn't get any cut on royalties.
I just find it a bit funny sometimes Microsoft want to treat buying new consoles like upgrading PCs when the main thing which defines PCs are them being an open standard that any manufacturer can freely choose to design around and choose what standardized features they want their hardware to support or exclude (often as a means of controlling pricing). MS would basically need to establish Xbox as an open platform to truly achieve this goal, but they already have a foothold on PCs doing this already.
Personally that might be the reason they are leveraging Series X development for deployment of feature standards into PC (and vice-versa) so tightly; I always felt MS would be the right ones to re-attempt Valve's Steambox strategy, and we're getting slight tinges of them doing this already. Over the next several years we'll see them ramping this up as they transition Xbox into a service that is mostly hardware-agnostic (though still hardware-bound in terms of MS releasing incremental upgrades to the Series systems). That service will be available on MS hardware and 3rd-party hardware that are open-standard to support their services like television, smartphones, possibly even Blu-Ray players etc. But by still manufacturing systems like the Series X and Series S, MS can ensure an optimal set of hardware to support their software (whether that remains native support or a transition to cloud gaming remains to be seen) and services, and ensure enough of a market presence for 3rd-parties to provide software support while simultaneously guaranteeing them a wide audience of cloud/streaming gamers using MS's services on other devices who will potentially play their game.
So I can see what MS's end-game goal is here, and it's pretty advanced while also being forward-thinking. My concern though is that they've maybe been too outwardly vocal about it to hardcore/core gamers not already in the ecosystem, too early. I don't think gamers at large are in the state of mind to either understand MS's vision or support it quite yet. Look at some of the online-centric stuff MS was pushing in 2013, specifically WRT digital purchases. They got tons of backlash because it was too soon of a concept to sell most gamers on. Five years later, though? Most gamers went majority digital-only, and it that's only been increasing since 2018.
Like it's probably been said multiple times by now, MS needs to get better at "reading the room", something Sony's been mastered for years.
That isn't to say Sony haven't had some mistakes here or there, either: Ubisoft seemingly let the cat out of the bag WRT lack of any BC older than PS4. But I think those are smaller incidents and the stuff Sony's doing right in terms of messaging strongly outweigh probable lack of PS1/PS2/PS3 BC (something they never really guaranteed in the first place).
All that said tho, this article's basically just playing into marketing jargons. Sony "believing in generations" is nothing remarkable because pretty much every new console ever released has seemingly "believed in generations" when you see how they were marketed. They may've never outright claimed that slogan but gamers knew what was up. Microsoft's generation-less messaging is also basically marketing jargon, but I think they've taken a much bigger hit here. Halo Infinite again is the culprit. MS said cross-gen wouldn't hold next-gen back and then they showed Halo Infinite. That game's problems are definitely due more to 343i being horribly ran at the top and having mediocre workplace culture but MS seem 100% okay letting the narrative form that XBO support was indeed the thing that screwed the game over (we have plenty of counter-examples to this narrative). None of the other 1st-party games shown in the July showcase had XBO versions listed aside maybe Grounded? If that's the case why even bother messaging on the idea of "generations are dead" or whatever?
Halo Infinite being delayed to 2021 now even puts the XBO version of that game in doubt, it would potentially be a waste of resources and the Series X could absolutely benefit from that being a next-gen only game by that point in the next-gen cycle. Let's just hope in such a case HI has a longer-term positive impact than TitanFall did for the XBO (yeah I just realized Halo Infinite is kind of taking up the role for Series X that TitanFall did for XBO...dunno how I feel about that tbh :S).
I don't think this will be possible for at least another decade or so, likely longer. The "issue" with gaming is that there is no fully standardized set of hardware or software/API features, implementations, etc. like there is with, say, Blu-Ray disc players, televisions, etc. Consoles going x86/x86-64 may've been a first step in this direction but the fact there are other emerging segments of gaming like VR and AR still finding their full footing, prevents what MS wants from being capable for a good while.
The Big 3 would have to not only establish some sort of universal system of standards that all would have to support, but also have to allow other manufacturers (Samsung, JVC, Hitachi, LG, possibly also PC OEMs like Lenovo, Asus, Alienware etc) to freely license such a standard. ALL systems across the spectrum MUST support those established standards, meaning when the standards are updated, partners would have to eventually come around to support them.
Of course, this'd also mean part of the standard would include homogenizing the delivery platform for gaming content, meaning it'd be near impossible for hardware manufacturers to earn royalties off of software sales the way Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo currently do. Which would then mean...the price for hardware increases because manufacturers would need to earn a profit off the hardware sales (similar to AMD and Nvidia GPU sales on PC platforms). And unless major advances in game dev pipelines occur which help dramatically lower costs, I doubt you'd see software prices lower all that much.
3DO already tried this type of setup in 1993 and it failed. Personally I don't the idea itself is bad, but it requires a standard of homogenization in the hardware and software/API space WRT game consoles to really take hold if you want to get more hardware partners involved and to proliferate a platform standard that all partners can use, which can be updated over time and your partners can develop new hardware for it. SEGA sort of had a good idea with this for hardware partners like JVC and Hitachi in the 1990s making their own variants of MegaDrives and Saturns; however, this was exclusively in the realm of SEGA's systems at the time, and those other hardware vendors still had to sell at for-profit margins because they didn't get any cut on royalties.
I just find it a bit funny sometimes Microsoft want to treat buying new consoles like upgrading PCs when the main thing which defines PCs are them being an open standard that any manufacturer can freely choose to design around and choose what standardized features they want their hardware to support or exclude (often as a means of controlling pricing). MS would basically need to establish Xbox as an open platform to truly achieve this goal, but they already have a foothold on PCs doing this already.
Personally that might be the reason they are leveraging Series X development for deployment of feature standards into PC (and vice-versa) so tightly; I always felt MS would be the right ones to re-attempt Valve's Steambox strategy, and we're getting slight tinges of them doing this already. Over the next several years we'll see them ramping this up as they transition Xbox into a service that is mostly hardware-agnostic (though still hardware-bound in terms of MS releasing incremental upgrades to the Series systems). That service will be available on MS hardware and 3rd-party hardware that are open-standard to support their services like television, smartphones, possibly even Blu-Ray players etc. But by still manufacturing systems like the Series X and Series S, MS can ensure an optimal set of hardware to support their software (whether that remains native support or a transition to cloud gaming remains to be seen) and services, and ensure enough of a market presence for 3rd-parties to provide software support while simultaneously guaranteeing them a wide audience of cloud/streaming gamers using MS's services on other devices who will potentially play their game.
So I can see what MS's end-game goal is here, and it's pretty advanced while also being forward-thinking. My concern though is that they've maybe been too outwardly vocal about it to hardcore/core gamers not already in the ecosystem, too early. I don't think gamers at large are in the state of mind to either understand MS's vision or support it quite yet. Look at some of the online-centric stuff MS was pushing in 2013, specifically WRT digital purchases. They got tons of backlash because it was too soon of a concept to sell most gamers on. Five years later, though? Most gamers went majority digital-only, and it that's only been increasing since 2018.
Like it's probably been said multiple times by now, MS needs to get better at "reading the room", something Sony's been mastered for years.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
New tech should never be held back by old tech. If a developer is going to release a game on two generations of a console (let's say Xbox One and Excess X) they're going to make this happen in the most efficient way possible. It is not efficient to make the game on one platform, and then start from scratch on another platform. The developers are going to make the game in whatever way lets them release it on both platforms with the least amount of effort. That means they will cut corners on the new generation so that they can use the same tricks on the old platform. This is common sense.
GHG
Member
Nobody is talking about backwards compatibility when there's been a discussion around generations and "scalability", that's just you attempting to shift the goalposts and make it about something it was never about.
Here's what papa Phil had to say about it:
Are Xbox Series X developers being held back by Xbox One?
This is part of a series of features with Xbox Game Studios. Check out the teams discuss life as a Microsoft-owned comp…
www.gamesindustry.biz
So if the head of Xbox never made this discussion about backwards compatibility, why are you?
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
The superior version will always be PC and not many will buy an XSX for slightly better multiplatform games. MS has to bring the exclusives. Avowed, Everwild and Fable is a start
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I don't understand why so many American video game podcaster don't understand the bolded in this post. Gamers have spoken with their wallets and Nintendo and Sony have been benefitting in a BIG way due to that.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
Well, they're two different companies. Sony is primarily a hardware company, always have been. Obviously it stands to reason that a hardware company is in the business of selling hardware. They are similar to Apple in this way. Microsoft is transitioning to being a service company. Service companies are interested in pushing out their services to as many people as possible in a platform-agnostic way. See how Google puts their shit on everything, including Apple. Obviously it makes sense that a service company would be less interested in selling hardware and more interested in getting their services to run in as many places as possible with similar functionality.
No, they exist because the market was based around selling closed hardware boxes from the beginning. The truth is, you don't need generations to advance gaming. You can look at the PC gaming market from the 80s through the early 2000s (when the PC game market got tethered to consoles) to see how gaming advanced alongside hardware. In fact, it was MORE innovative and dynamic than the console generation system, because it was based on an open market as opposed to a handful of hardware manufacturers defining how gaming was going to be for the next 5+ years. if technology was good it got adopted quickly and games took advantage of it, like sound cards, custom peripherals, modems, 3D accelerators, CD-ROM drives, etc.
of course, MS is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by releasing this generational hardware while saying it's not generational and mandating support. In a true non-generational market, the Xbox One would have been abandoned years ago for being too weak and shitty.
No, they exist because the market was based around selling closed hardware boxes from the beginning. The truth is, you don't need generations to advance gaming. You can look at the PC gaming market from the 80s through the early 2000s (when the PC game market got tethered to consoles) to see how gaming advanced alongside hardware. In fact, it was MORE innovative and dynamic than the console generation system, because it was based on an open market as opposed to a handful of hardware manufacturers defining how gaming was going to be for the next 5+ years. if technology was good it got adopted quickly and games took advantage of it, like sound cards, custom peripherals, modems, 3D accelerators, CD-ROM drives, etc.
of course, MS is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by releasing this generational hardware while saying it's not generational and mandating support. In a true non-generational market, the Xbox One would have been abandoned years ago for being too weak and shitty.
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Member
This is an opinion piece.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Sony's perspective is the same perspective that Nintendo uses too. So who do you trust more in the console space? Sony and Nintendo........or Microsoft?
NullZ3r0
Banned
One has nothing to do with the other. Ceasing a model in production doesn't make your current game library disappear.
Due to Xbox One BC with 360, I got to play Fable 3 and Gears 2 & 3 for the first time. I have a huge backlog of Xbox One games that I need to play but never had the time.
People tend to think of BC as replaying old games when it's not always the case. It's often times a chance to play old games for the first time. And with Series X, some of those games will have improved graphics.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Again less than 5 games are X1 games including Halo Infinite coming to XSX. None of the comments you listed support the 'holding back' meme or that the XSX isn't a generation leap over the X1. Backward compatibility is all about blurring generations. That compatibility is all about scalability too older X360 games run at 4K on the XSX that is not scaling? It isn't leaving your games behind. People don't want to give Xbox any credit and that's fine but don't act like bias isn't the reason that credit isn't given. If the PS5 could play PS2 games at 4K I KNOW you'd be singing its praises.Nobody is talking about backwards compatibility when there's been a discussion around generations and "scalability", that's just you attempting to shift the goalposts and make it about something it was never about.
Here's what papa Phil had to say about it:
Are Xbox Series X developers being held back by Xbox One?
This is part of a series of features with Xbox Game Studios. Check out the teams discuss life as a Microsoft-owned comp…
So if the head of Xbox never made this discussion about backwards compatibility, why are you?
IFireflyl
Gold Member
People tend to think of backwards compatibility as newer systems being compatible with older games. That's the end of it. It doesn't matter if the game is "new to you" or not. If you didn't play a game for 10 years you don't have a right to get mad at Sony because their newest console doesn't support playing that game which was developed for an entirely different console. Buy a retro-console and enjoy the game, or move on.
JCK75
Member
I only suggest it because it's a more reasonable goal, the Xbox One and S were just so horribly underpowered it becomes an unreasonable expectation.. I don't hop on my Xbox One S often but when I do the difference from my PC on games like Forza Horizon 3-4 is so huge it's insane.. just like with a PC aiming for a game to run on a GTX 1050 right now is not unreasonable, but going for a 1030 would be.. which is the only reason I say One X is reasonable, One S and under really is not except for lightweight indie games.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Phil Spencer isn't going to talk about cross gen holding anything back when he's the one who is an advocate for it. It's sad that you're calling it a "meme" just because he is despite us seeing the negative effects of cross gen development and hearing from developers who would rather not have to worry about the older consoles.
He's talking about leaving people behind in the article above, not games.
If you want to talk about backwards compatibility we can do so in an appropriate thread, it's not like the topic hasn't come up in the last couple of days.