Do you think there will be a mid gen refresh console from Sony and Microsoft?

[davis.anthony]

So as I had a spare 10 minutes I've researched the amount of RT games before and after the consoles were announced with hardware RT and guess what, the games after are substantially higher than before they were announced.

Pre console announcement (RTX announcement in Aug 2018 to March 2020) = 17
Post console announcement (March 2020 to current day) = 59

This is just for released games.

The more hardware that supports a certain feature, the more likely developers are to use and implement that feature, I would have thought that was common sense.

 

[PSman1700]

These RT features in games would have most likely happened anyway, considering adoption prior your consoles launched.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem with a next gen refresh isn't a hardware problem, it's a software one.

They have to give gamers a reason to upgrade and once again spend hundreds of dollars, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were easy sells as they simply looked better on a 4k TV.

But a new mid-gen refresh will still be upscaling to 4k and won't really look that much different to the average consumer then what PS5 and Xbox Series-X currently looks like on their TV.

Potentially, they could work smarter? Let's say advanced AI upscaling, plus better RTHW so you get the full next-gen RT look at 60 fps instead of 30...I think that's enough. I think many were sold on mid-gens for framerate increases rather than resolution upgrades. The important thing is to a meaningful upgrade and I think there's plenty of scope for that in various ways as the consoles age. However, I'd expect the generation to be lengthy, so the 'mid gen refresh' would be more in a 'next gen' timeframe, like 5 years in with Next Gen happening 10 years after PS5/XBS release.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Potentially, they could work smarter? Let's say advanced AI upscaling, plus better RTHW so you get the full next-gen RT look at 60 fps instead of 30...I think that's enough. I think many were sold on mid-gens for framerate increases rather than resolution upgrades. The important thing is to a meaningful upgrade and I think there's plenty of scope for that in various ways as the consoles age. However, I'd expect the generation to be lengthy, so the 'mid gen refresh' would be more in a 'next gen' timeframe, like 5 years in with Next Gen happening 10 years after PS5/XBS release.

You don't even necessarily need AI, just a scalable engine with an eye towards the future.

Imagine for a second that the original Crysis released on a fixed platform instead of being able to run on a PC of any spec. Also, in this situation that the code for it was exactly the same (IE - forward looking code that expected faster and more capable hardware than was available at the time). Now since they'd be releasing it on a fixed platform, they'd likely lock down the settings so that it could run at 30 FPS (due to how "heavy" and demanding the engine was) with a very small chance of another setting option for 60 FPS (at much greater reduced IQ).

For hardware available at that time, that would likely mean some mix of low and medium settings with maybe a high setting or two enabled for a more "mainstream" oriented hardware setup (say around 500-750 USD PC specs at the time the game launched).

Fast forward 4-5 years and again with "mainstream" oriented hardware (under 1k USD PC specs) and settings can be bumped quite significantly.

We've seen how the graphics in Crysis can change quite dramatically depending on the level of hardware that it can run on (IE - the settings that are used).

So unlike the actual PC release where someone could immediately run max settings (at a virtual slideshow) and see how the game would look, a fixed platform wouldn't expose those higher setting levels (texture quality, filtering, POM, higher geometry settings, view distance, lighting quality, etc.) at launch. So in 4-5 years when new hardware came out, it would have been a rather dramatic increase in game visuals as opposed to how the PC release played out where you already knew what the game could look like, but now it's playable at higher settings.

Keep in mind that Crysis was still considered one of the best looking games available even 4-5 years after it released.

Of course, the argument against something like that is that there really aren't any developers anymore that really push the envelope with graphics in their games (meaning, coding for some future combination of unannounced hardware products) due to the constant complaining by a vocal segment of the PC community that constantly complains that they can't run maxed Ultra settings on their 2-3 year old hardware.

So then the question would be, could MS or Sony convince developers to start programming like that again? IE - like PC game developers coded back in the late 90's to early 2000's before all the big PC devs went multiplatform and started to focus on consoles as the primary development target.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

You don't even necessarily need AI, just a scalable engine with an eye towards the future.

Imagine for a second that the original Crysis released on a fixed platform instead of being able to run on a PC of any spec. Also, in this situation that the code for it was exactly the same (IE - forward looking code that expected faster and more capable hardware than was available at the time). Now since they'd be releasing it on a fixed platform, they'd likely lock down the settings so that it could run at 30 FPS (due to how "heavy" and demanding the engine was) with a very small chance of another setting option for 60 FPS (at much greater reduced IQ).

For hardware available at that time, that would likely mean some mix of low and medium settings with maybe a high setting or two enabled for a more "mainstream" oriented hardware setup (say around 500-750 USD PC specs at the time the game launched).

Fast forward 4-5 years and again with "mainstream" oriented hardware (under 1k USD PC specs) and settings can be bumped quite significantly.

We've seen how the graphics in Crysis can change quite dramatically depending on the level of hardware that it can run on (IE - the settings that are used).

So unlike the actual PC release where someone could immediately run max settings (at a virtual slideshow) and see how the game would look, a fixed platform wouldn't expose those higher setting levels (texture quality, filtering, POM, higher geometry settings, view distance, lighting quality, etc.) at launch. So in 4-5 years when new hardware came out, it would have been a rather dramatic increase in game visuals as opposed to how the PC release played out where you already knew what the game could look like, but now it's playable at higher settings.

Keep in mind that Crysis was still considered one of the best looking games available even 4-5 years after it released.

Of course, the argument against something like that is that there really aren't any developers anymore that really push the envelope with graphics in their games (meaning, coding for some future combination of unannounced hardware products) due to the constant complaining by a vocal segment of the PC community that constantly complains that they can't run maxed Ultra settings on their 2-3 year old hardware.

So then the question would be, could MS or Sony convince developers to start programming like that again? IE - like PC game developers coded back in the late 90's to early 2000's before all the big PC devs went multiplatform and started to focus on consoles as the primary development target.

Regards,
SB

While i support the idea, it doesnt seem like something 'console style', it was and somewhat still is to some extend the pc-way of thinking. I liked that, i welcome the idea across all platforms.

 

[see colon]

You don't even necessarily need AI, just a scalable engine with an eye towards the future.

Imagine for a second that the original Crysis released on a fixed platform instead of being able to run on a PC of any spec. Also, in this situation that the code for it was exactly the same (IE - forward looking code that expected faster and more capable hardware than was available at the time). Now since they'd be releasing it on a fixed platform, they'd likely lock down the settings so that it could run at 30 FPS (due to how "heavy" and demanding the engine was) with a very small chance of another setting option for 60 FPS (at much greater reduced IQ).

For hardware available at that time, that would likely mean some mix of low and medium settings with maybe a high setting or two enabled for a more "mainstream" oriented hardware setup (say around 500-750 USD PC specs at the time the game launched).

Fast forward 4-5 years and again with "mainstream" oriented hardware (under 1k USD PC specs) and settings can be bumped quite significantly.

We've seen how the graphics in Crysis can change quite dramatically depending on the level of hardware that it can run on (IE - the settings that are used).

So unlike the actual PC release where someone could immediately run max settings (at a virtual slideshow) and see how the game would look, a fixed platform wouldn't expose those higher setting levels (texture quality, filtering, POM, higher geometry settings, view distance, lighting quality, etc.) at launch. So in 4-5 years when new hardware came out, it would have been a rather dramatic increase in game visuals as opposed to how the PC release played out where you already knew what the game could look like, but now it's playable at higher settings.

Keep in mind that Crysis was still considered one of the best looking games available even 4-5 years after it released.

Of course, the argument against something like that is that there really aren't any developers anymore that really push the envelope with graphics in their games (meaning, coding for some future combination of unannounced hardware products) due to the constant complaining by a vocal segment of the PC community that constantly complains that they can't run maxed Ultra settings on their 2-3 year old hardware.

So then the question would be, could MS or Sony convince developers to start programming like that again? IE - like PC game developers coded back in the late 90's to early 2000's before all the big PC devs went multiplatform and started to focus on consoles as the primary development target.

Regards,
SB

Isn't Fallout 3 like this on console? Maybe not in effects, but aren't the textures of higher quality than the game ever displays on PS3 and 360. I feel like I read something about it when it was added to Xbox One's back compat, and they tweaked the LOD bias to expose the full quality textures.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Isn't Fallout 3 like this on console? Maybe not in effects, but aren't the textures of higher quality than the game ever displays on PS3 and 360. I feel like I read something about it when it was added to Xbox One's back compat, and they tweaked the LOD bias to expose the full quality textures.

It's quite possible, especially since PC was the lead platform. So to simplify distribution they likely just left the higher resolution textures in the distribution package.

Regards,
SB

 

[see colon]

It's quite possible, especially since PC was the lead platform. So to simplify distribution they likely just left the higher resolution textures in the distribution package.

Regards,
SB

I checked some videos again, and I'm not sure I was right. It might just be that the mip levels at distance are so much better that it just looks like higher quality assets, but up close everything is the same.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Backwards Compatibility has ended generations IMO. Rolling hardware is the thing now with 3 or so hardware configurations supported. Right now we have X1, XSS and XSX support. Once games like Hellblade 2, Forza Motorsport etc... drop support for the X1 in 2023 it will open the door for an Xbox Series RT or something maybe in 2025.

That way XSX owners get to enjoy their top dog console status for a couple years before MS tries to sell them new hardware.

At that point they likely have XSS at $199. XSX at $399 in a smaller case and XSRT at $599 in an XSX form factor.

 

[dobwal]

You don't even necessarily need AI, just a scalable engine with an eye towards the future.

Imagine for a second that the original Crysis released on a fixed platform instead of being able to run on a PC of any spec. Also, in this situation that the code for it was exactly the same (IE - forward looking code that expected faster and more capable hardware than was available at the time). Now since they'd be releasing it on a fixed platform, they'd likely lock down the settings so that it could run at 30 FPS (due to how "heavy" and demanding the engine was) with a very small chance of another setting option for 60 FPS (at much greater reduced IQ).

For hardware available at that time, that would likely mean some mix of low and medium settings with maybe a high setting or two enabled for a more "mainstream" oriented hardware setup (say around 500-750 USD PC specs at the time the game launched).

Fast forward 4-5 years and again with "mainstream" oriented hardware (under 1k USD PC specs) and settings can be bumped quite significantly.

We've seen how the graphics in Crysis can change quite dramatically depending on the level of hardware that it can run on (IE - the settings that are used).

So unlike the actual PC release where someone could immediately run max settings (at a virtual slideshow) and see how the game would look, a fixed platform wouldn't expose those higher setting levels (texture quality, filtering, POM, higher geometry settings, view distance, lighting quality, etc.) at launch. So in 4-5 years when new hardware came out, it would have been a rather dramatic increase in game visuals as opposed to how the PC release played out where you already knew what the game could look like, but now it's playable at higher settings.

Keep in mind that Crysis was still considered one of the best looking games available even 4-5 years after it released.

Of course, the argument against something like that is that there really aren't any developers anymore that really push the envelope with graphics in their games (meaning, coding for some future combination of unannounced hardware products) due to the constant complaining by a vocal segment of the PC community that constantly complains that they can't run maxed Ultra settings on their 2-3 year old hardware.

So then the question would be, could MS or Sony convince developers to start programming like that again? IE - like PC game developers coded back in the late 90's to early 2000's before all the big PC devs went multiplatform and started to focus on consoles as the primary development target.

Regards,
SB

Developers would risk the cost of forward-looking work being unrealized as the direction of technology can change. CryEngine 2 and thereby Crysis were developed around the idea that single core performance would continue to grow. But the CPU manufacturers ran into a frequency wall.

So what if you built your game with the idea that shader performance will continue to grow at its current rate? You coded features that ideally needed horsepower not provided by current GPUs. But the rate of growth for shader performance stalls instead and newer GPUs spend most of that extra silicon on increased cache, upscaling, RT, or unknown future tech?

Given that DD is widespread across all gaming markets. Developers are benefiting from much longer tails. That provides the opportunity for devs of popular titles to continually iterate and they can invest in things like better performance and adoption of new features to keep their titles viable.

 

[Janne Kylliö]

I'm wondering if very capable RT hardware in next gen consoles (RTX4080 level of performance or more in 2024/2025) could enable RTX Remix like functionality where older titles could automatically gain RT support / physically based materials to improve graphics quality? That would be neat.

 

[orangpelupa]

Backwards Compatibility has ended generations IMO. Rolling hardware is the thing now with 3 or so hardware configurations supported. Right now we have X1, XSS and XSX support. Once games like Hellblade 2, Forza Motorsport etc... drop support for the X1 in 2023 it will open the door for an Xbox Series RT or something maybe in 2025.

That way XSX owners get to enjoy their top dog console status for a couple years before MS tries to sell them new hardware.

At that point they likely have XSS at $199. XSX at $399 in a smaller case and XSRT at $599 in an XSX form factor.

And on top of that, I can install emulators on Xbox to play lots of even older games, from all kinds of platforms.


If only Sony follows MS' move...

 

[Rootax]

No. We don't even have a lot of current gen exclusives yet. Most of the games are just "last gen +". It's a shame really.

 

[orangpelupa]

We'll get lots of current gen exclusives with psvr2, probably.

 

[PSman1700]

We'll get lots of current gen exclusives with psvr2, probably.

Exclusive to those with PSVR2 headsets.

 

[BRiT]

If only Sony follows MS' move...

They do, they're just really slow, so it's years and years later.

 

[orangpelupa]

They do, they're just really slow, so it's years and years later.

---SpongeBob title card

An eternity later

---SpongeBob title card

Btw with Sony's pc initiative, it could means easier for them to accommodate mid gen refresh. As their work on pc should applies to midgen refresh, their work on midgen refresh should apply on pc too.

2 birds with

 

[milk]

I wonder if next time next-gen consoles arive, adoption will be much slower thanks to the long "mixed-gen" period we saw this time....

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I wonder if next time next-gen consoles arive, adoption will be much slower thanks to the long "mixed-gen" period we saw this time....

There's always people that want better and faster or even just newer. Just look at phones or cars or graphics cards.

Will everyone rush out to get it? Nope, but then if they didn't you'd just have a really long period of demand being greater than supply.

5 years into the PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 generation people were still buying consoles by the millions despite nothing changing (except price).

With rolling generations, 5 years into a console generation they could instead be buying the next upgraded version of the console. Existing games can scale up in terms of graphics or performance or both giving an immediate benefit to people buying into the "new" generation.

Since it takes time to ramp up a new generation, you discount the previous generation to bring in the more price conscious consumers when you are able to continue to bring in higher revenue from the gamers that must have the newest and shiniest device.

The last mid-gen consoles sold relatively well despite not all titles being made to scale to better hardware. Imagine how much better sales may (or may not) have been if all or almost all released games immediately saw a boost in graphics or performance when run on the "new" console?

Basically some of the benefits of PC gaming except at a massively lower cost. That is older games scaling up to newer hardware (games that were targeting the older generation) while newer games can scale down to older hardware (games targeting the new generation).

Also consider that there's a very real possibility that there won't be any significant price reductions before year 4 or 5 this generation of consoles.

Regards,
SB

 

[see colon]

Also consider that there's a very real possibility that there won't be any significant price reductions before year 4 or 5 this generation of consoles.

There wasn't really last gen either. Outside of stuff like the XBox One SAD I don't think any of the consoles had a real MSRP of $199 or less. And I think it only hit $199 on sales and carried a 249msrp most of the time. The consoles got a bump in storage and the mid gen refresh but stayed around $300 for most of the generation. Inflation is a factor, of course, but IIRC Xbox 360 (arcade) hit $199 before the slim came out and had almost half the generation at that price.

Actually, one of the things that's been totally different this generation is the last of the super budget option for last gen. I guess the SAD could be considered that, but that launched about a year before Series consoles. And it was essentially abandoned before Series launched. But 360 got the E model with Xbox One design language, and less USB ports and the multi AV out removed for cost reductions. PS3 got the 12 GB super slim. We never got that with PS4 or Xbox One.