Shoulf next gen consoles scrap hardware raytracing

S

Shangounchained

Banned
Do we really need forced hardware raytracing cores or should the gpu be invested to normal cores for better rasterized effects and performance.

Since seeing the crytek software raytracing demo it looks to show that going forward software raytracing will improve especially with 12 teraflop machines.

Recently digital foundry showed wolfenstein young blood running with full 4k vs dlss and as silly as it sounds dlss performed better but also looked better than full 4k so i bet next gen consoles might not have dedicated raytracing cores but software tricks like dlss, vrs, 8k checkerboarding, and 120hz frame interpolation dynamic resolution and so on.
 
Last edited:
I definitely do not want temporal reconstruction/checkerboarding for games. And I am also sure, that checkboarding from 4k to 8k it's just way too many pixel to be reconstructed.
 
M1chl said:
I definitely do not want temporal reconstruction/checkerboarding for games. And I am also sure, that checkboarding from 4k to 8k it's just way too many pixel to be reconstructed.
Click to expand...
Dlss worked better than full 4k in woflenstein young blood and consoles are notoriously known for performance yoga tricks so i bet theyll use tricks
 
Yes.

I can live another gen with state of the art precanned lights, reflections and shadows, if this means better framerate, better physycs, better resolution and better details overall.

A fucking 2080ti is not enough to play some games at more than 1080p if you want full rtx and 60 frame ROCK SOLID, now imagine a less powerfull console doing the same thing...

Maybe in more linear game with no so much on screen and small location like the office in that mara trailer from ninja theory, but not in massive games with giant scope, nobody is gonna sacrifice raw details, resolution and framerate for nicer shadows and reflections.
 
Last edited:
GymWolf said:
Yes.

I can live another gen with state of the art precanned lights, reflections and shadows, if this means better framerate, better physycs, better resolution and better details overall.

A fucking 2080ti is not enough to play some games at more than 1080p if you want full rtx and 60 frame ROCK SOLID, now imagine a less powerfull console doing the same thing...

Maybe in more linear game with no so much on screen and small location like the office in that mara trailer from ninja theory, but not in massive games with giant scope, nobody is gonna sacrifice raw details, resolution and framerate for nicer shadows and reflections.
Click to expand...
You got one thing wrong here and most people do aswell, a game being massive doesnt necessarily mean its taxing the hardware no. A linear game and an open world game both use the same data per frame,

There is no magic here its pure math a ps4 sends 170gb of data per second to be processed at 30 fps that means all 5.6 gb vram dedicated for games is being used, doesnt matter if linear or open world the trick is in open world games new data is streamed and old data is deleted as you traverse so at any given time or scene you can have ray tracing or anything. The limit is your storage.
 
Last edited:
Shangounchained said:
You got one thing wrong here and most people do aswell, a game being massive doesnt necessarily mean its taxing the hardware no. A linear game and an open world game both use the same data per frame,

Their is no magic here its pure math a ps4 sends 170gb of data per second to be processed at 30 fps that means all 5.6 gb vram dedicated for games is being used, doesnt matter if linear or open world the trick is in open world games new data is streamed and old data is deleted as you traverse so at any given time or scene you can have ray tracing or anything. The limit is your storage.
Click to expand...
Open world have usually more stuff on screen tho.

You are not gonna see a lot of npc like ac or witcher 3 in linear games, same with enemies in most of the case.

These are things that suck performance, especially if they have good physics and ia on them, linear games with smaller scope can push other graphical aspects because there is far less things on screen at the same time.

Also i think that rendering a room and rendering an open vista are very different in terms of resources, and that's why in small location you don't have the same shitty lod problem that every open world suffer.

There is no open world with the same graphics of the order, that game in some instance looks like cg, especially for the location, even the most beatiful open world like metro exoddus or rdr2 doesn't have that level of perfection in the locations (character are already better in other games tho).
 
Last edited:
Nah let's move things forward. I wouldn't judge RT as a whole purely on the Nvidia consumer RTX cards at this point. Consoles do still have a distinct advantage over PC in that their components can be designed and optimised towards specific tasks in a holistic way rather than siloed. If the GPU, CPU, memory, storage and any other custom hardware are specifically tailored towards specific goals as part of a known closed system then it will be capable of doing some things in ways that a much more powerful PC is unable to. For example, the much touted fast SSD storage that we are going to see in these new consoles is supposedly fast enough to be used as memory to some extent which is a massive advantage that we have never seen before (orders of magnitude above PC virtual memory or swap space). If the actual RAM can be freed up from being used to stream in textures for instance then it opens up a lot of possibilities. You could argue that this "could" be done on PC and yes it "could" but the developers would have to mandate a minimum (very high) spec for the storage speed which would immediately reduce their potential customers to a fraction of what it could be without taking this decision. This is just one example of an advantage that consoles have and when they are all added up it can become significant. RT is an exciting tech that could make games development much faster while also improving visuals.
 
GymWolf said:
Open world have usually more stuff on screen tho.

You are not gonna see a lot of npc like ac or witcher 3 in linear games, same with enemies in most of the case.

These are things that suck performance, especially if they have good physics and ia on them, linear games with smaller scope can push other graphical aspects because there is far less things on screen at the same time.

Also i think that rendering a room and rendering an open vista are very different in terms of resources, and that's why in small location you don't have the same shitty lod problem that every open world suffer.

There is no open world with the same graphics of the order, that game in some instance looks like cg, especially for the location, even the most beatiful open world like metro exoddus or rdr2 doesn't have that level of perfection in the locations (character are already better in other games tho).
Click to expand...
😂😂😂😂 Bro it doesnt matter whether you have more stuff on screen or not the amount of data available on screen at any given time cannot not go beyond the capacity the memory can hold. Its a big myth that open world games are more taxing its the illusion of a big map that fools people.

Linear games or open world both tax the system the same they simply use whats available in hardware there is no magic whatsoever your simply being tricked into believing so.

They use procedural tricks asset streaming tricks to fool you, LOD, TESSELLATION, TEXTURE STREAMING, and recently VARIABLE RATE SHADING and so forth
 
Last edited:
Shangounchained said:
I dont hate 24-30 fps not every game should be 60 fps to be honest i dont mind playing metal gear at 24-30 but i do mind playing forza or gt sport at 24 fps
Click to expand...
I really don't get this sentiment.
Because turning the camera always looks like a juddery mess at 30 fps. (Something you do in most games)
Even Walking Simulators are better at 60 fps imho.
Plus the impact a higher framerate has on the feel of the game is immense to me.
 
Last edited:
Obominuru said:
I really don't get this sentiment.
Because turning the camera always looks like a juddery mess at 30 fps. (Something you do in most games)
Even Waking Simulators are better at 60 fps imho.
Plus the impact a higher framerate has on the feel of the game is immense to me.
Click to expand...
Doesnt really bother me fast doesnt mean better, for arcade racing games 60 fps yes for ninja gaiden kind of games and fighting games 60fps yes mandatory but for action games say uncharted splinter cell metal gear nope not mandatory ive never even considered fps when playing such games u just get sucked in the story.
 
Shangounchained said:
Doesnt really bother me fast doesnt mean better, for arcade racing games 60 fps yes for ninja gaiden kind of games and fighting games 60fps yes mandatory but for action games say uncharted splinter cell metal gear nope not mandatory ive never even considered fps when playing such games u just get sucked in the story.
Click to expand...
I sure as hell didn't "get sucked in the story".
It's fine if you don't see / don't mind a difference, but I sure do.
When playing games like What remains of Edith Finch or The Witness for example (just examples - because those are games where the framerate usually isn't talked about) the juddery camera was actually distracting to me.
But you do you! ;)
 
Last edited:
Obominuru said:
I sure as hell didn't "get sucked in the story".
It's fine if you don't see / don't mind a difference, but I sure do.
When playing games like What remains of Edith Finch or The Witness for example (just examples - because those are games where the framerate usually isn't talked about) the juddery camera was actually distracting to me.
But you do you! ;)
Click to expand...
I dont remember a story being related to frames per second and i find it really silly 10 years ago people cried for 30 fps 1080p today they cry for 60fps 4k in a few years theyll cry for 120fps 8k. its astonishingly stupid.

The fact that you say a 30fps camera is juddery explains it all ..... Proper rubbish. Images being thrown faster on screen has never had anything to do with a games story as i said before i couldnt care less for 60 fps in certain games but everybody has different fetishes nowadays.
 
Shangounchained said:
😂😂😂😂 Bro it doesnt matter whether you have more stuff on screen or not the amount of data available on screen at any given time cannot not go beyond the capacity the memory can hold. Its a big myth that open world games are more taxing its the illusion of a big map that fools people.

Linear games or open world both tax the system the same they simply use whats available in hardware there is no magic whatsoever your simply being tricked into believing so.

They use procedural tricks asset streaming tricks to fool you, LOD, TESSELLATION, TEXTURE STREAMING, and recently VARIABLE RATE SHADING and so forth
Click to expand...
I don't know if you are right or not, but it's very hard to believe that a shitload of stuff on screen with ia, physics etc. In a giant location has the same weight of a smaller location with 4-5 npc on screen...

I mean the pc version of witcher 3 or gta5 have far more npc on screen because pc are more powerfull, i can't see another reason...

Probably the same reason why cyberpunk console is not gonna have the same number of npc on screen...

So why there is not a single open world with the same graphics of the order or nate daughter room in the unchy4 finale?

Ready at down best graphics devs ever? I can't believe that...
 
Last edited:
I feel the current Hardware raytracing is a stopgap. It is very limited And it will be obsolete in a few years.

Its like back with the early geforce cards when we had fixed Transform and Lighting hardware acceleration.

It was not until the geforce3 we got programmable pixel and vertex shaders. And it blew all the fixed T&L stuff out of the water.

And even then, it took a few more gens to get to general purpose GPU uses.
 
GymWolf said:
I don't know if you are right or not, but it's very hard to believe that a shitload of stuff on screen with ia, physics etc. In a giant location has the same weight of a smaller location with 4-5 npc on screen...

I mean the pc version of witcher 3 or gta5 have far more npc on screen because pc are more powerfull, i can't see another reason...

Probably the same reason why cyberpunk console is not gonna have the same number of npc on screen...

So why there is not a single open world with the same graphics of the order or nate daughter room in the unchy4 finale?

Ready at down best graphics devs ever? I can't believe that...
Click to expand...
Pc or not, every pc is different every rig is different you can even mod games as u like whatever you see on screen all depends on your available hardware, it doesnt matter an open world game doesnt mean alot stuff is on screen thats a big misconception, doom 2020 has alot going onscreen and runs at 60 fps on consoles battlefield had alot on screen more than most open world games and runs at 60 fps on console, everything you see on screen exists in the memory and ur processing capabilities there is no magic here.
 
PuppetMaster said:
I feel the current Hardware raytracing is a stopgap. It is very limited And it will be obsolete in a few years.

Its like back with the early geforce cards when we had fixed Transform and Lighting hardware acceleration.

It was not until the geforce3 we got programmable pixel and vertex shaders. And it blew all the fixed T&L stuff out of the water.

And even then, it took a few more gens to get to general purpose GPU uses.
Click to expand...
I really feel current raytracing implementation is a hyped gimmick that doesnt need to use dedicated cores on consoles, i dont need half of a consoles gpu to be raytracing water puddles instead of adding more assets on screen amd i hope they have a better implementation.
 
Shangounchained said:
Pc or not, every pc is different every rig is different you can even mod games as u like whatever you see on screen all depends on your available hardware, it doesnt matter an open world game doesnt mean alot stuff is on screen thats a big misconception, doom 2020 has alot going onscreen and runs at 60 fps on consoles battlefield had alot on screen more than most open world games and runs at 60 fps on console, everything you see on screen exists in the memory and ur processing capabilities there is no magic here.
Click to expand...
Doom 2020 doesn't have near the stuff on screen compared to big open world games...not even close lol...
And battlefield doesn't have any ia, they are controlled by humans, far less load on the cpu compared to open world games...
Also what mods have anything to do with this?? You have an option on the graphic setting of witcher 3 to decide how many npc on screen you want, or the foliage lod etc.

Console doesn't have these option because the hardware are trash compared to a pc so you can't have the same number of npc on screen without tqnking the framerate, if this is not a proof i don't know what to say...
It's literally more power= more stuff on screen.

Agree to disagree i suppose...
 
Last edited:
Shangounchained said:
I really feel current raytracing implementation is a hyped gimmick that doesnt need to use dedicated cores on consoles, i dont need half of a consoles gpu to be raytracing water puddles instead of adding more assets on screen amd i hope they have a better implementation.
Click to expand...
Completely agree on this one.
 
GymWolf said:
Doom 2020 doesn't have near the stuff on screen compared to big open world games...not even close lol...
And battlefield doesn't have any ia, they are controlled by humans, far less load on the cpu compared to open world games...
Also what mods have anything to do with this?? You have an option on the graphic setting of witcher 3 to decide how many npc on screen you want, or the foliage lod etc.

Console doesn't have these option because the hardware are trash compared to a pc so you can't have the same number of npc on screen without tqnking the framerate, if this is not a proof i don't know what to say...
It's literally more power= more stuff on screen.

Agree to disagree i suppose...
Click to expand...
The point im trying to make is you cant have more data on screen than your memory can hold, gta5 or just cause on a ps4 uses the same amount of ram available as any triple a game linear or not. Gta 5 spider man just cause all of them use data streaming tricks to load unload and delete data as u traverse to keep your vram usage at max or below otherwise games will crash, on pc if you go above ur gpu vram the game starts using system ram and youll start noticing alot of poppins if you exceed that the game crashes with an out of memory error. Its as simple as that, uncharted 4 taxes the ps4 just as any open world game.
 
Lanrutcon said:
You shoulfn't worry about it too much.
Click to expand...
I have to worry cause if its dedicated raytracing cores then i feel its another forced tech like the kinect on xbone, whats really worrying is those dedicated raytracing cores being idle when playing games that dont require raytracing for instance fifa amd what not.
 
Shangounchained said:
The point im trying to make is you cant have more data on screen than your memory can hold, gta5 or just cause on a ps4 uses the same amount of ram available as any triple a game linear or not. Gta 5 spider man just cause all of them use data streaming tricks to load unload and delete data as u traverse to keep your vram usage at max or below otherwise games will crash, on pc if you go above ur gpu vram the game starts using system ram and youll start noticing alot of poppins if you exceed that the game crashes with an out of memory error. Its as simple as that, uncharted 4 taxes the ps4 just as any open world game.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think that we are talking about 2 different things or the same thing but from different angles.

I know that uncharted 4 is taxing like an open wordl because even if the stuff on screen is less they use the power to render better assets, so the power in use is the same but for different things.
 
Shangounchained said:
I have to worry cause if its dedicated raytracing cores then i feel its another forced tech like the kinect on xbone, whats really worrying is those dedicated raytracing cores being idle when playing games that dont require raytracing for instance fifa amd what not.
Click to expand...

I was joking. There's a spelling mistake in your thread title :P
 
It's best for the hardware to be as capable, wide-ranging as possible, and fit all kinds of software, especially given that it will be around near a decade.

Most software on the other hand, yeah, if it keeps being stuff like 'this rail has a slightly more accurate reflection', I'd prefer they just not use it at all, and make everything else look fantastic.

I've seen some awesome stuff from Ray-Tracing where less demanding games (usually retro or simpler games) look absolutely amazing though, and I hope it's used in full where it can make a big impact.
It'll be interesting to see if somebody can make a typical blockbuster game that uses it to big effect. I don't think it'll happen, but we've seen some crazy stuff pushed out from consoles.
 
Last edited:
GymWolf said:
I'm starting to think that we are talking about 2 different things or the same thing but from different angles.

I know that uncharted 4 is taxing like an open wordl because even if the stuff on screen is less they use the power to render better assets, so the power in use is the same but for different things.
Click to expand...
Exactly what im saying. You cant escape your hardware capabilities and limits, open world games are a fantastic illusion, i thought the same when playing vice city and san andreas on my ps2 and i always asked my self if they are capable of rendering this whole open world why not make ps2 graphics better but nope i was fooled. Its the tech behind asset streaming that fools people into believing that open world games have more data on screen.
 
Im
-Arcadia- said:
It's best for the hardware to be as capable, wide-ranging as possible, and fit all kinds of software, especially given that it will be around near a decade.

Most software on the other hand, yeah, if it keeps being stuff like 'this rail has a slightly more accurate reflection', I'd prefer they just not use it at all, and make everything else look fantastic.

I've seen some fantastic stuff from Ray-Tracing where less demanding games (usually retro or simpler games) look absolutely amazing though, and I hope it's used in full where it can make a big impact.
It'll be interesting to see if somebody can make a typical blockbuster game that uses it to big effect. I don't think it'll happen, but we've seen some crazy stuff pushed out from consoles.
Click to expand...
Im all for raytracing on forza, gt sport i bet itll really show the future of graphics but yes as for water puddles and reflections on a piece of metal is a waste of processing resources,

If they can improve on traditional techniques and make another god of war or uncharted with 10x the beauty then fantastic, i think were a months away from having near avatar graphics and and rubbish graphics with reflections
 
Last edited:
What's the best video showing off raytracing?
I tried finding some on youtube and honestly I wouldn't be able to tell the difference aside from shots of very shiny floors, which look unnatural anyway.
Like sometimes the lighting looks better to be in the non ray traced case.

It took me a while to appreciate HDR, and even now I don't think I'll be able to 100% pick out content that has it. Raytracing is much harder for me to discern and given the performance penalty I'm not sure it's worth it.
That being said, if they will improve raytracing to the point where it's obvious and noticeable, and the consoles will be able to support it and still hit 30 FPS, that would be fine. I worry that whatever hardware for RT they put in the consoles right now just won't cut it in 2-3 years when this tech has matured more (perhaps that's when they will drop console revisions? who knows).
 
Hotspurr said:
What's the best video showing off raytracing?
I tried finding some on youtube and honestly I wouldn't be able to tell the difference aside from shots of very shiny floors, which look unnatural anyway.
Like sometimes the lighting looks better to be in the non ray traced case.

It took me a while to appreciate HDR, and even now I don't think I'll be able to 100% pick out content that has it. Raytracing is much harder for me to discern and given the performance penalty I'm not sure it's worth it.
That being said, if they will improve raytracing to the point where it's obvious and noticeable, and the consoles will be able to support it and still hit 30 FPS, that would be fine. I worry that whatever hardware for RT they put in the consoles right now just won't cut it in 2-3 years when this tech has matured more (perhaps that's when they will drop console revisions? who knows).
Click to expand...
Metro exodus and control are the best ray traced games, but even with that in mind, is still a tertiary (or worse) thing that comes after resolution, framerate and raw details in terms of noticeability, at least for me.
 
-Arcadia- said:
Probably this. At least in my experience. The low overhead of Minecraft really frees up resources for raytracing to shine.

Click to expand...

I agree raytraced minecraft looks absolutely beautiful but anyhow mine craft is a 10 year old game it was designed for 10 year old hardware in mind if it was revised today it can achieve the same raytraced look with traditional techniques even 10 years ago if they decided to make it realistic they could have so to me they havent sold me into it.
 
GymWolf said:
Metro exodus and control are the best ray traced games, but even with that in mind, is still a tertiary (or worse) thing that comes after resolution, framerate and raw details in terms of noticeability, at least for me.
Click to expand...
Control looks like a tech demo more like one of those benchmarking demos, raytraced mirrors and corridors dont cut it for me, metro exodus looks good but thats mostly to do with the global illumination and honestly both games side by side raytracing vs rasterized dont look worlds apart and as u said not worth it for the performance cost.

Im all for raytracing if they can pull a nextgen game with nextgen graphics fidelity i mean more 10x the polygons, textures, characters on screen, effects on screen + raytracing at 30 or 60 fps then they can go for it if not then its pointless, its either the whole engine is raytracing or not because rasterization doesnt ask anything it is the engine itself where as currently raytracing is implemented above rasterization and this is asking too much.
 
Shangounchained said:
Control looks like a tech demo more like one of those benchmarking demos, raytraced mirrors and corridors dont cut it for me, metro exodus looks good but thats mostly to do with the global illumination and honestly both games side by side raytracing vs rasterized dont look worlds apart and as u said not worth it for the performance cost.

Im all for raytracing if they can pull a nextgen game with nextgen graphics fidelity i mean more 10x the polygons, textures, characters on screen, effects on screen + raytracing at 30 or 60 fps then they can go for it if not then its pointless, its either the whole engine is raytracing or not because rasterization doesnt ask anything it is the engine itself where as currently raytracing is implemented above rasterization and this is asking too much.
Click to expand...
What i fear are devs that make shitty precanned lights and reflections on purpose to force you to use rtx...

I mean look at some gifs from gt sport or forza horizon, we are already in the photorealistic realm with fake reflection, so we already know that precanned things can be very very good.
 
Last edited:
Obominuru said:
I sure as hell didn't "get sucked in the story".
It's fine if you don't see / don't mind a difference, but I sure do.
When playing games like What remains of Edith Finch or The Witness for example (just examples - because those are games where the framerate usually isn't talked about) the juddery camera was actually distracting to me.
But you do you! ;)
Click to expand...

I sure as hell want to still see a good amount of the details the devs spent so much time on when I'm actually playing the game, not just when I'm standing still or panning the camera very very slowly.
 
Last edited:
It's way too early to start downgrading the next gen consoles. I would love to have my favorite games at 4K60 fps, with HDR and Raytracing. That makes them truly next gen.
However, games such open world games with a heavy focus on graphics won't run on 60 fps, no matter how powerful the consoles will be. There will always be a trade off. The mid cycle consoles will probably fix that problem.
 
GymWolf said:
What i fear are devs that make shitty precanned lights and reflections on purpose to force you to use rtx...

I mean look at some gifs from gt sport or forza horizon, we are already in the photorealistic realm with fake reflection, so we already know that precanned things can be very very good.
Click to expand...
Gt sport is already experimenting with raytracing in fact gt sports global illumination and lighting system id baked raytracing, so i think as far as racing games are concerned raytracing will be mandatory going forward, but other action adventure games arent mandatory for raytracing and i hope they wont force it.
 
Chytin said:
It's way too early to start downgrading the next gen consoles. I would love to have my favorite games at 4K60 fps, with HDR and Raytracing. That makes them truly next gen.
However, games such open world games with a heavy focus on graphics won't run on 60 fps, no matter how powerful the consoles will be. There will always be a trade off. The mid cycle consoles will probably fix that problem.
Click to expand...
60 fps is never a goal for every game and were not downgrading nextgen consoles were simply arguing if wasting resources on raytracing instead of traditional graphics is a good thing.
 
Depends on how far it can be pushed.

What comes to performance, the TF count does not interest me even nearly as much as seeing what next gen consoles can do in RT field.

If the next consoles are stuck on the ray count, that NVidia pushes currently, It might still be too early to see full benefits of what RT can give to game industry, but seeing the implementation is most exciting to me!

Almost as exciting as advances in input technology.
 
I think it's better to have 60 FPS with checkerboarded 4K in all games than play 30 FPS with raytracing. Or I'll better prefer to play with good physics and interactivity. Or maybe something else more useful for game feeling and experience than raytracing.

And I hope that a lot of developers are thinking the same:D
 
SAF0001 said:
I think it's better to have 60 FPS with checkerboarded 4K in all games than play 30 FPS with raytracing. Or I'll better prefer to play with good physics and interactivity. Or maybe something else more useful for game feeling and experience than raytracing.

And I hope that a lot of developers are thinking the same:D
Click to expand...

I don't think that Ray Tracing excludes simulation and interactivity. If anything, I believe it helps to reinforce the interactivity of graphics.
 
It's a bit late for that discussion, isn't it? They can't make changes to the hardware 10 months before release.

I think the RT capabilities are mostly in there so Sony and MS can say "this is the hot new stuff, and we've got it in our consoles". I'm certainly not expecting games to make use them to any great effect. Nobody who has seen RT on PC (which has itself been nothing to write home about) is going to be blown away by this stuff.
 
Last edited:
LazyParrot said:
It's a bit late for that discussion, isn't it? They can't make changes to the hardware 10 months before release.

I think the RT capabilities are mostly in there so Sony and MS can say "this is the hot new stuff, and we've got it in our consoles". I'm certainly not expecting games to make use them to any great effect. Nobody who has seen RT on PC (which has itself been nothing to write home about) is going to be blown away by this stuff.
Click to expand...
Its not about not having raytracing capabilities its about the hardwsre dedicated raytracing cores thats what grinds my gears, i hopr there arent any
 
I think this is the direction developers want to go because raytracing is easier to implement than baked lighting solutions through rasterization
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The next console manufacteur?
Opinion Hardware  2 3
129
2K
RAIDEN1 replied
Jeff Grubb postulates on Xbox's next gen plans. Steam, Epic...Playstation!?
Rumor Hardware  2 3 4 5
221
2K
Det replied
Jez Corden: Xbox next-gen console hardware has now passed the early pitch stage
News Rumor Hardware  2 3 4
174
13K
StreetsofBeige replied
[Wccftech via Jez Corden] Next-Gen Xbox Rumored to Support Backward Compatibility at Hardware Level
Rumor  2 3
148
847
thicc_girls_are_teh_best replied
Windows Central/Jez Corden: Xbox's new hardware plans begin with a gaming handheld set for later this year, with full next-gen consoles targeting 2027
News Rumor Hardware  2 3 4
185
10K
DenchDeckard replied
Top Bottom