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:
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.
