I can read "his" interviews and "he" is not the second coming, I can also think for myself. Sure titles uses the extra powers as PC GPU does, though they can't leave the XB1 behind. If they are planning exclusive it is a new system and fast their MAIN user base will feel pissed or betrayed, etc.
Impact of XBox One X on the industry and competition *spawn
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
I post a lot but as decision process, even if the thing ends as "grey" experiment, I suspect that it will warn companies some more about evaluating costumers needs and expectations through social networks which are social bullcrap in fact.
Customer were present a more powerful product and a more ambitious one (XB1 + Kinect) sold at a premium for a good while.
I do believe people could have gone past the difference in power and that shares could have been closer to last gen had kinect been optional and system started at price parity. Ultimately MSFT has been selling at a slightly lower price the all gen which was right move but I guess it is like a bad start in some race you can recover and decent race but winning baring competitors mistakes...
Power is extremely important if we speak about a "clean" reset. This gen was an extremely clean reset: same tech, no BC, simultaneous launch.
Customer were present a more powerful product and a more ambitious one (XB1 + Kinect) sold at a premium for a good while.
I do believe people could have gone past the difference in power and that shares could have been closer to last gen had kinect been optional and system started at price parity. Ultimately MSFT has been selling at a slightly lower price the all gen which was right move but I guess it is like a bad start in some race you can recover and decent race but winning baring competitors mistakes...
Not that I disagree but this gen showed the importance of halo products and it is better do through software.
I do believe that Killer Instinct will have done more a lot more to the XB1 sales and brand this gen (especially in the US) than the X ever will (imo it had a negative impact on the 1S perception and XB1 overall). In the same manner GoW is a halo product, it never reaches crazy volumes, you can rent it, resale it, etc. yet it showcases a system, buy some level of loyalty from your costumers, show your (well calculated...) dedication to the system you sell, etc. To a lesser extend Wipe out is the same.
So are some other racing games, even thoug hthe costs and scales of those games nowadays should almsot make them one shot for the whole generations, something release in the second hal of the system once it is mature (and user base is huge, it is business).
that's an awkward twisting of my words, no one here has mentioned that, surprised that you would jump to it.
I don't know, it remains ambiguous. The official publicity is that all games work on all xbox ones, they would have to spin this into a time-limited statement (like the way they used of the word exclusive). He seems to imply it's up to the devs after all, but didn't actually say it.
It certainly makes business sense to make games for the previous gen as long as there are enough gamers buying them. But as a platform, there should be a clear statement about whether it's up to the devs or mandatory compatibility for each sku available under the "xbox one" name.
It certainly makes business sense to make games for the previous gen as long as there are enough gamers buying them. But as a platform, there should be a clear statement about whether it's up to the devs or mandatory compatibility for each sku available under the "xbox one" name.
Link the future of Xbox to software updates rather than hardware, just like Android and Windows.
Then push the "Xbox Two" update out only to X1X.
If MS want to keep X1X around longer than X1/S due to it being newer and massively more capable then there are absolutely ways to approach it.
Then push the "Xbox Two" update out only to X1X.
If MS want to keep X1X around longer than X1/S due to it being newer and massively more capable then there are absolutely ways to approach it.
As per MrFox's commentary.
There are no rules that govern how things should happen. If this is the way that he want Xbox to roll out, as MrFox said, he should be clear about it. But I'm not going to rule it out as a possibility just because traditionally this have never been done. Game Pass was never done before, and here it is with all 1P titles and some 3P launching directly onto the service. All 1P exclusives on PC has never been done before, and now that's where xbox is headed with all it's new titles.
I'm not even sure if I would call this controversial at this point in time if one were to declare the end of exclusives for XBO 1, enable exclusives for Xbox One X don't sell a new box until 2021 and repeat the same process when X1X hits 5 years of age. Would people be mad at this? I dunno.
Sorry I did not mean to twist your word, I think for myself, I also add crap by self... lol
Yeah, it could be simply that they haven't decided yet, so they must be careful to leave both possibilities open.
MS have both esram and the lower power to consider with mandatory compatibility with the original and S in addition to X. OTOH Sony have practically the same architecture which means supporting ps4 in addition to Pro is just a question of resolution and a few shaders to downgrade. Cross-gen for them is simpler.
I don't see enough of an architectural delta between Xbox One + One S to warrant One X exclusives (VR excluded if it ever comes). The One X was very clearly designed to handle Xbox One games with higher res/framerate and the hardware specs don't seem to allow for much beyond that.
What could you do on the X that you couldn't do on the One if you lowered the graphical settings?
What could you do on the X that you couldn't do on the One if you lowered the graphical settings?
Depends on how important that 30++ % CPU advantage is, how much compute is required as a baseline for simulation, if you're using the additions to the command processor (whom I kidding, no-one is using the custom command processes on either unit), and how scalable the assets for the game are.
Another question might as well be "what could you do on PS5 that you couldn't do on X1X". I mean, look at the way X1X optimised games can scale down to the Switch. The frikkin' Switch. There is likely to be a point where scaling downwards disproportionately fucks up a game but there's a fair degree of wiggle room so long as you're careful about minimum CPU capability when you design.*
Market demand is a far bigger factor in exclusives than hardware capability.
*Faster CPUs please. In the short term it means 60 fps. In the longer term it means more complex game worlds.
The bastard child of the architecture is the esram, so ditching the xb1 but not the X might simplify development. The additional sales from supporting older architectures must be worth the additional development effort. Those sales will drop progressively after next gen launches. The more effort it requires, the sooner devs will want to drop it.
Hopefully enough to justify it being called the PS5 instead of the PS4 Pro Ultra.
Phil Spencer is saying a lot of things lately.
On Ryse 2:
New IPs and sequels:
Immersion and freshness:
RPGs
Xbox Game Pass
I continue to believe that people have read too much into Phil "generationless" comments when it comes to games having to run on prior releases of the hardware any further than the One and One X. I expect there will be games released for the next major iteration of Xbox hardware that will not run on the current systems barring a clear statement saying there won't be.
Developer choice really. You’re right that it cannot do anything more except run better settings.
Last edited:
I expect it to be like a longer transition period, letting developers pick and choose which platforms they want to release on as opposed to being forced to deploy on just the current gen. Much like 360 to XBO transition, there was 1 year of overlapping games and 360 titles fell off entirely. I suspect the same thing, only i think it would last significantly longer.
Sure. I could see that. Main reason to stop releases for prior gen is to stop having to do physical releases. Maybe digital releases end up more open-ended?
Similar threads
