Impact of XBox One X on the industry and competition *spawn

When Phil suggested Xbox One X could have exclusive content.

Do you have that quote at hand? I didn't see it.

That's pretty much the rolling generation model, the only difference here is that you called it PS5, instead of PS4 Pro.

The key difference between the two is never preventing developers from making games that run on the new hardware and only on the new hardware.

Also you're not muddying your branding and marketing as to what software runs on what box. PS4's run PS4 games. PS5 runs PS5 games and can also run PS4 games through it's BC feature. Neither PS4 can run PS5 games. Simple.

This opposed to: PS4 runs PS4 games. PS4 Pro runs PS4 games through it's BC feature, PS4 games with PS4 Pro enhancements and, "insert branding here that somehow indicates games that will run on PS4 Pro and PS5, but not PS4" games. PS5 runs PS4 and PS4 Pro enhanced games through its BC feature, PS4 games with PS5 enhancements and, "insert branding here that somehow indicates games that will run on PS4 Pro and PS5, but not PS4" games.

So when I said that they'd have to enable exclusive content for X1X, it was so that 3rd parties could release games designed for next gen, PS5, and still have it available on the Xbox ecosystem, the X1X.

I still think you overestimate the capabilities of the One X over the One, honestly. I believe anything that could run on the One X could be made to run on the One with lowered resolution/detail/performance.
 
Last edited:
Do you have that quote at hand? I didn't see it.
It’s under a registration wall so I’ll post thr important bits

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...hief-says-future-games-could-run-exclusively/

But Phil Spencer, Microsoft’s executive vice president for gaming, said in an interview with The Telegraph that the situation could change in the future.

"They [developers] want to reach the largest audience possible," Spencer said. Now, at some point in the future are there pieces of hardware that become old enough that they fall out of the ecosystem? We see that today; we're not manufacturing Xbox 360 and yet there are 360 games that do very well right now on our platform.


"We'll talk more about this and frankly keep our ears open to what customers want and developers want. But our goal right now is to give them the highest performance in the broadest market they can."

When asked if this meant the policy was one for now, rather than a guarantee, he said: "That's right, that's what we're saying to people now and I'm always listening to what people want.

“Three or four years ago if someone made an investment in an Xbox One, they bought that they bought their library of games, I want them to feel they get a full generational use out of their console, same with the Xbox One S. [But] at some point, we see this usage and other things can drop low enough where you kind of move on to things.”
There's probably another interview out there that talks about how developers currently choose their targets on the PC market, and he wants it to be more like that. Letting developers determine the market for their titles.

The key difference between the two is never preventing developers from making games that run on the new hardware and only on the new hardware.
Correct, that is a key differential. I'm assuming that the key concern here is that forcing developers to move forward (and the population), versus letting developers continually develop for the larger market and the population doesn't move forward, games don't move forward, thus stagnation.

I would say just because the option presents itself for developers to take that route, doesn't necessarily mean that they would. We've known that graphics are a big part of selling a game, everyone wants the latest graphics and that's a big part of the experience. When developers are competing in the market place that will always be a factor, so they'll find a way to push that envelope and if they can do it while the legacy system is there, then that's fine, if they can't, they're going to drop it off.

Also you're not muddying your branding and marketing as to what software runs on what box. PS4's run PS4 games. PS5 runs PS5 games and can also run PS4 games through it's BC feature. Neither PS4 can run PS5 games. Simple.

This opposed to: PS4 runs PS4 games. PS4 Pro runs PS4 games through it's BC feature, PS4 games with PS4 Pro enhancements and, "insert branding here that somehow indicates games that will run on PS4 Pro and PS5, but not PS4" games. PS5 runs PS4 and PS4 Pro enhanced games through its BC feature, PS4 games with PS5 enhancements and, "insert branding here that somehow indicates games that will run on PS4 Pro and PS5, but not PS4" games.
Yea this problem needs to be solved better. Their interim solution may work:
9112zGRitXL._SY445_.jpg

I still think you overestimate the capabilities of the One X over the One, honestly. I believe anything that could run on the One X could be made to run on the One with lowered resolution/detail/performance.
I don't, I'm just leaving it to developers to make the choice. Most people over emphasize the importance of a feature or something incorrectly, in this case, I'm doing the opposite and undervaluing the importance of CPU for next gen. The only exception I could see is Star Citizen, but by the time games like that hit the mainstream, we'd be onto 2023 when i expect another console generation.

I'm not yet convinced having 5x more CPU is going to be game changing at least in a way that it completely redefines gaming, or doesn't have a possible online alternative solution available.

There will always be 30fps gaming on console, people will keep trying to push the bar. With the CPU, i dunno, if it's a draw call issue, MS has put a lot of effort into customizing executeIndirect for xbox, so perhaps that's a possible avenue. I don't know.

I'm just not convinced that we're going to get better AI or anything from a gameplay perspective. Better animations though, yea that could be a thing. Nothing to go crazy about over. From the graphics side, ray tracing is promising, DXR allows for multiple pathways though, so once again a game can scale from hardware with the most top notch RT hardware acceleration, to a GPU with none of it.
 
Last edited:
There's probably another interview out there that talks about how developers currently choose their targets on the PC market, and he wants it to be more like that. Letting developers determine the market for their titles.

Defining the ecosystem as the current gen + n generations prior is the opposite of allowing developers to determine the market for their titles. I don't have an issue with enabling developers to continue to target multiple generations. I do have an issue with mandating support for prior generations of hardware as a continuing policy.

Correct, that is a key differential. I'm assuming that the key concern here is that forcing developers to move forward (and the population), versus letting developers continually develop for the larger market and the population doesn't move forward, games don't move forward, thus stagnation.

No the concern is preventing developers moving forward if they determine that is their best path to success (either financially or artistically).

I don't, I'm just leaving it to developers to make the choice.

There seems to be a disconnect here. I'm advocating that developers be given the choice to support the platforms they want for their releases without being forced to support certain platforms because they are part of some sliding window. With the Xbox One to One X transition this made sense and it may make sense for other hardware transitions in the future. I just don't want to forever limit what it's possible to create on the latest and greatest hardware to what can also run on hardware that's 3, 4 or 5 years old

I'm not yet convinced having 5x more CPU is going to be game changing at least in a way that it completely redefines gaming, or doesn't have a possible online alternative solution available.

There will always be 30fps gaming on console, people will keep trying to push the bar. With the CPU, i dunno, if it's a draw call issue, MS has put a lot of effort into customizing executeIndirect for xbox, so perhaps that's a possible avenue. I don't know.

I'm just not convinced that we're going to get better AI or anything from a gameplay perspective. Better animations though, yea that could be a thing. Nothing to go crazy about over. From the graphics side, ray tracing is promising, DXR allows for multiple pathways though, so once again a game can scale from hardware with the most top notch RT hardware acceleration, to a GPU with none of it.

A gameworld that reacts more dynamically to things you do and moves away from scripting and further towards a player-driven narrative. Fast storage and more memory enabling NPCs to stitch dialogue together so they can comment on the current world condition and the actions and current status of the player instead of repeating the same canned phrases across everyone's playthrough. Seeing a town in an RPG change over time as events in the world and the actions of the player change the "lives" and fortunes of the NPCs that reside there. So, for example, you as the player base out of a town and start doing quests and eliminating threats in the area. You make purchases at the local vendors. This improves the safety and prosperity of the town and causes vendors to improve their stock and the services they offer, causes new NPCs to immigrate to the town and build new structures, and ultimately makes it a more tempting target for more dangerous foes creating new challenges for the player. Use your imagination. There's tons of ways games can improve beyond graphics when given enough additional local resources.
 
There seems to be a disconnect here. I'm advocating that developers be given the choice to support the platforms they want for their releases without being forced to support certain platforms because they are part of some sliding window. With the Xbox One to One X transition this made sense and it may make sense for other hardware transitions in the future. I just don't want to forever limit what it's possible to create on the latest and greatest hardware to what can also run on hardware that's 3, 4 or 5 years old
hmm. Yea I think we are at a weird disconnect here.
When I read Spencer's commentary about getting full life out of their console, I interpret that as, after the 6 years it no longer has to be supported, unless developers want to support it.
In the same vein that, 2 years from now, when XBO turns 6 years old, developers can freely target X1X and only X1X if they choose to.

Use your imagination.
ehhh, yea I see that too. Flip side, if people are comfortable with the idea of connecting to a server to progress forward in your game, online can solve a lot of those issues yesterday, and is a great fit for that type of thing since it doesn't require a real time response, and will likely provide a more complex and dynamic world than a local processor can produce.
 
There will always be 30fps gaming on console, people will keep trying to push the bar. With the CPU, i dunno, if it's a draw call issue, MS has put a lot of effort into customizing executeIndirect for xbox, so perhaps that's a possible avenue. I don't know.

Well if a PS5 or Xbox next still have 30fps games, which I think they will. There will be no ways those games would run on current gen unless they not using the CPUs at all.

First party devs will definitely up there CPU usage in my opinion.
 
Well if a PS5 or Xbox next still have 30fps games, which I think they will. There will be no ways those games would run on current gen unless they not using the CPUs at all.

First party devs will definitely up there CPU usage in my opinion.
Most games are GPU bottlenecked today. Frame drops are often the result of too many things happening on the screen at once. These are all graphically related CPU issues. Which, GPU side dispatch would aims to alleviate if I'm understanding it correctly.
 
ehhh, yea I see that too. Flip side, if people are comfortable with the idea of connecting to a server to progress forward in your game, online can solve a lot of those issues yesterday, and is a great fit for that type of thing since it doesn't require a real time response, and will likely provide a more complex and dynamic world than a local processor can produce.

Server-based single player games are not a good solution for the consumer. Online games end up having a limited shelf life because of someone having to foot the bill to run the server.
 
Server-based single player games are not a good solution for the consumer. Online games end up having a limited shelf life because of someone having to foot the bill to run the server.
Yea, it would need to take a certain model, game, or platform to support it properly.
I like to think streaming video games to client models, would be a good starting point. Have everything up there anyway and beam it down.
It would take a certain type of game to be so vast imo. But we're getting OT
 
Most games are GPU bottlenecked today. Frame drops are often the result of too many things happening on the screen at once. These are all graphically related CPU issues. Which, GPU side dispatch would aims to alleviate if I'm understanding it correctly.
Yes but I also think a few more games would of hit 60fps on console this gen if the CPUs weren't so weak. So yes the GPU is almost always the bottleneck but the CPU isn't far behind.
 
I don't expect any games to target Xbox One X only without still being released on Xbox One.

As for that new Fable game that's in development, if it's still 3 or more years away, I think it'll be moved to Xbox Next, if it didn't already start out targeting the next gen Xbox.
 
Back
Top