Predict: Next gen console tech (9th iteration and 10th iteration edition) [2014 - 2017]

[iroboto]

I maybe missing something here, but aren't you still talking about Backwards Compatability here?

BC = being able to play old games "updated" on new hardware.

Whereas:

FC = being able to play new next-gen games on legacy hardware, but with lowered settings.

The former isn't much different from what we've had in many console generations since their inception. Ok, with Scorpio we can now see titles natively up-rendered. I doubt that will change with XBTwo being able to up-render XB1 games to 4k or beyond...

...I'm not sure it follows thus that Scorpio and XB1 will be able to play XBTwo games.

BC like Scorpios would be great since it allows new hardware to be able to push old software to new heights without devs being required to go back and patch those old games.

FC (by the definition I give it above) would mean all next-gen games would have to be able to run on old legacy hardware, thus meaning devs would have to spend time tuning, testing and QA'ing their next-gen games for old consoles forever (down to a minimum hw cut-off). Meaning, software will inherently be held-back by weaker hw forever.

Not sure why anyone would want that.

To be clear, and I wasn't with my last message.
a) Forward compatibility is a choice the developer makes. When X2 arrives it's entirely up to developers to choose to release the title for X1 and/or X2. MS will continue to support the X1 platform even though X2 is released. That's my understanding of their vision of forward compatibility. Games that are built in the X1 and want to continue to span generations of hardware because it's an eSport or because it's a MMO-lite based game. They want to ensure that their model supports those titles, as hard cut generations have significant impacts to the shelf life of games that follow this model. It also continues to give Indie games access to a significantly larger player base as the hardware generations continue to move forward. Not many indies are capable of fully saturating hardware the same way AAA devs do.

So the idea of forward compatibility from a technical perspective doesn't really exist, this idea that the hardware today will be capable of playing the games in the future with the same setup is likely false. Graphical scaling will be possible though.

But what if we defined FC like how MS has merged old 360 games to become X1 and 360 physical boxes, (image below) what if next gen physical disc now reads X2 and X1?

See how it appears to be forward compatible, and it sort of is, and sort of isn't

Its entirely possible that MS has more in store for X1 (different hardware variants) even after X2 is released. I think MS will have something figured out, they seem extremely committed to building out their platform more so than building a first party portfolio.

We'll likely know more if they are on this path after E3, but they do seem committed to adhering to the notion that you should be able to use any of your software on any of your devices.

b) X1 and X360 games can have their settings upgraded with Scorpio, but not all of them. It would appear that AF is a global feature that they can control, not sure if they have control over any other options. The rest of the work needs to be patched in, luckily with Scorpio this is straight forward.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So if a studio believes a game can scale between x1 & x2, they develop it in BC mode as you call it.
If they think it's only possible on x2, then it runs in "native" mode.
In the end it works out hardly any different to having FC if
a studio is allowed to define the minimum console supported (which I assume they will be allowed to do)

It depends whether FC is forced or not. Presently devs still have the option to release cross-gen ports. Conceptually when PS3 launched, devs could have chosen to develop a PS2 game knowing PS3 owners could run it in BC mode. As I've said before, unless there's a system break, next-gen software will be driven by development economics. This in turn will affect next-gen hardware sales and developer choices. It'll be down to the console companies to promote a generational transition, leaving behind the old console and user, either by forcing a next-gen clean break or encouraging next-gen targets somehow. Or they just leave it to just and everyone wings it and sees what happens...

 

[Prophecy2k]

To be clear, and I wasn't with my last message.
a) Forward compatibility is a choice the developer makes. When X2 arrives it's entirely up to developers to choose to release the title for X1 and/or X2. MS will continue to support the X1 platform even though X2 is released. That's my understanding of their vision of forward compatibility. Games that are built in the X1 and want to continue to span generations of hardware because it's an eSport or because it's a MMO-lite based game. They want to ensure that their model supports those titles, as hard cut generations have significant impacts to the shelf life of games that follow this model. It also continues to give Indie games access to a significantly larger player base as the hardware generations continue to move forward. Not many indies are capable of fully saturating hardware the same way AAA devs do.

So the idea of forward compatibility from a technical perspective doesn't really exist, this idea that the hardware today will be capable of playing the games in the future with the same setup is likely false. Graphical scaling will be possible though.

But what if we defined FC like how MS has merged old 360 games to become X1 and 360 physical boxes, (image below) what if next gen physical disc now reads X2 and X1?

See how it appears to be forward compatible, and it sort of is, and sort of isn't

Its entirely possible that MS has more in store for X1 (different hardware variants) even after X2 is released. I think MS will have something figured out, they seem extremely committed to building out their platform more so than building a first party portfolio.

We'll likely know more if they are on this path after E3, but they do seem committed to adhering to the notion that you should be able to use any of your software on any of your devices.

b) X1 and X360 games can have their settings upgraded with Scorpio, but not all of them. It would appear that AF is a global feature that they can control, not sure if they have control over any other options. The rest of the work needs to be patched in, luckily with Scorpio this is straight forward.

I see. Thanks for the clarification and explanation.

I suspect you're right about the approach. But given the approach of placing the choice of target platform in the hands of the developer is in many ways no different to how it's always been. In which case, given London-Boy original post:

But that's assuming that PS5/XB2 will actually have titles that are coded for their strengths, and not just spruced up current games at higher res, to fit into a theoretical backward/forward compatibility model. Which is a big question.

I'd say it's damn near impossible that we won't see any next-gen games that choose to target only the new hardware to full take advantage of it. This could only happen if devs are forced to make their software available for legacy titles, thus lowering the minimum requirements for the game.

If it's up to the devs/pubs to decide whether the game ends up being packaged as a disc that runs on both XB2 and XB1, or a game developed to be cross-generational treating XB2 and XB1 as separate target platforms, so long as the choice is there whether or not to include legacy hardware in your list of target platforms, it's pretty immaterial, since the biggest AAA productions will compete on scale/graphics/ambition as always and eventually target only the highest spec machines once the installed bases are large enough to support them (ala this most recent generational transition).

In which case, consoles continue to be consoles in the traditional sense.

 

[iroboto]

I'd say it's damn near impossible that we won't see any next-gen games that choose to target only the new hardware to full take advantage of it. This could only happen if devs are forced to make their software available for legacy titles, thus lowering the minimum requirements for the game.

If it's up to the devs/pubs to decide whether the game ends up being packaged as a disc that runs on both XB2 and XB1, or a game developed to be cross-generational treating XB2 and XB1 as separate target platforms, so long as the choice is there whether or not to include legacy hardware in your list of target platforms, it's pretty immaterial, since the biggest AAA productions will compete on scale/graphics/ambition as always and eventually target only the highest spec machines once the installed bases are large enough to support them (ala this most recent generational transition).

Most of what the population is debating seems to be around semantics. Typically there are economical driving forces for developers as well. In order to separate themselves from the pack, they will leverage better 'graphics' as a whole. And it will come to a point where the economics will be in favour for a developer to reduce their selling base to increase sales based upon the fact that your game will look significantly better than the rest (who are deploying to 2 platforms). And then there's becomes this arms race between companies that can both afford and are willing to walk this route.

If I were to call it as it is, forward compatibility is the same thing as backwards compatibility. It's just a matter of reference. 2 is 100% more than 1. And 1 is 50% less of 2. Same idea really. If you made a game for Xbox One today, and it runs on XBox Two 5 years from now, you've made a forward compatible game. The reason it's forward compatible is because it's made today, and it's runs with hardware in the future. And in the other perspective, when you take the viewpoint of Xbox 2, it's running backwards compatible, it's able to run a library of game that pre-dates the release of this machine.

In essence it's the same.

And then what remains are two remaining possibilities to define Forward Compatibility:
a) the idea that games made when Xbox Two arrives and supports both XBO and XB2, with XBO being the limiter in terms of hardware performance. (so not really forward, more like legacy support)
b) the idea that games made for Xbox Two and only Xbox Two, somehow hardware in XBO is able to run it as well. This is forward compatibility in that sense ?, but we're discussing an entirely different concept: "Back to the Future"

I think (and when I speak to Xbox, I really mean both Sony and Xbox), it's clear that there's a lot of development still to be had with our current platforms. Sebbbi's Claybook and MM's Dreams, are great examples of where we can head, with these 100% compute shader only engines. So its clear there is still more R&D to be done. And if this is the future and AAA also want to continue down this route, these big games take a lot of time to turn the ship. Tool chains, production chains, a lot of stuff changes such that it's more feasible to change slowly over the course of 10+ years.

Until we see complete stagnation happening, developers will not en mass cut over to new gen. Your'e always going to get some early adopters, because the economics are great (launch window, only 5 games available, you're likely to take a big cut of those sales) , but I think as a whole this generation and each generation following it, will survive quite long.

 

[3dilettante]

If I were to call it as it is, forward compatibility is the same thing as backwards compatibility. It's just a matter of reference. 2 is 100% more than 1. And 1 is 50% less of 2. Same idea really. If you made a game for Xbox One today, and it runs on XBox Two 5 years from now, you've made a forward compatible game.

For the purposes of this discussion, forward and backwards compatibility focus on the console versions, not the software. The question is what they do with the same binaries.
Another scenario is that you can run a 32-bit game on a x86-64 processor, but trying to run a 64-bit binary on a 32-bit core will give you a bad time.

I think (and when I speak to Xbox, I really mean both Sony and Xbox), it's clear that there's a lot of development still to be had with our current platforms. Sebbbi's Claybook and MM's Dreams, are great examples of where we can head, with these 100% compute shader only engines.

Progress has been gradual, but we can see at this point with Volta and possibly Vega or Navi that years of incremental and significant changes that there are more and more things that have opened up that 2013 hardware will be kept from doing.
There are some signs that Sony and Microsoft are only able to fit limited changes around the margins of some creaking hardware, and more can happen in the non-compute portion with regards to feature set because there are portions that are abstracted from the binaries. GCN2's low level flaws and missing features are exposed to the software that it needs to be compatible with.

Volta's threading model allows it to do things that will kill GCN as we know it, and as an upshot likely make a number of things easier to implement without falling apart on a GPU. However, architecting data structures and whole algorithms for a smarter, more expressive, and consistent execution model while maintaining one that is less efficient, complicated, and could deadlock itself makes the costs higher.
If there is something that would make me think it worthwhile to start a new GCN generation console, it would be something like that--or a new generation console without GCN if AMD cannot get its tech to be less stupid something that was called out as a problem in 2009.

Also, maybe the PS5 can drop the touchpad. What's it good for again?

 

[iroboto]

For the purposes of this discussion, forward and backwards compatibility focus on the console versions, not the software. The question is what they do with the same binaries.
Another scenario is that you can run a 32-bit game on a x86-64 processor, but trying to run a 64-bit binary on a 32-bit core will give you a bad time.

Forgot about this.
If this is what we're defining as FC; I guess the point is where we draw the line for a game, Games designed with FL12_1+ can still run on hardware that is FL12_0 with performance differentials, you'd have to write separate code paths, but it still works.

I guess it really all comes down to requirements.

for the sake of discussion though:
what if XBTwo was based on nvidia hardware, but XBTwo games could run on Scorpio and XBO? There's an obvious hardware difference, but somehow the API is abstracted enough to run on AMD hardware. Is that considered FC?

 

[zupallinere]

Forgot about this.
If this is what we're defining as FC; I guess the point is where we draw the line for a game, Games designed with FL12_1+ can still run on hardware that is FL12_0 with performance differentials, you'd have to write separate code paths, but it still works.

I guess it really all comes down to requirements.

for the sake of discussion though:
what if XBTwo was based on nvidia hardware, but XBTwo games could run on Scorpio and XBO? There's an obvious hardware difference, but somehow the API is abstracted enough to run on AMD hardware. Is that considered FC?

Call it Functionally or Functionality Compatible, instead of Forward Compatible.

 

[3dilettante]

Forgot about this.
If this is what we're defining as FC; I guess the point is where we draw the line for a game, Games designed with FL12_1+ can still run on hardware that is FL12_0 with performance differentials, you'd have to write separate code paths, but it still works.

Forward compatibility in file formats and applications can happen if it is planned for and built into the overall cross-generation architecture. That way, already existing code can work without future intervention. The extra work and requirements introduced with the mid-gen consoles (Pro patches, restrictions on falling back to PS4 code, Scorpio's compatibility engine) seems more consistent with this not being fully the case.

what if XBTwo was based on nvidia hardware, but XBTwo games could run on Scorpio and XBO? There's an obvious hardware difference, but somehow the API is abstracted enough to run on AMD hardware. Is that considered FC?

If what is written by the developer is abstracted enough that it can run on different hardware without modification, then the platforms would be compatible.
Whether it would have the performance to make it practical is uncertain for the performance-limited titles, and the lower-level access and hardware-specific tweaking for at least some of the more optimized games does not make it look like that level of abstraction has been reached.
For Scorpio, Microsoft is apparently pledging some amount of intervention on their part to keep things working, and Sony indicates a relatively low amount of resource investment to write a game that can utilize Pro features.

 

[DieH@rd]

From today's AMD presentation

They've also confirmed that this years first ZEN APUs for mobile use will have VEGA onboard, and not Polaris.

 

[HBRU]

Happy to read others consider FC as a possibility. But how to implement it ? IMHO..... in case of a new 2018 Sony console (PS5 ?) both partial FC and full BC will be SURE an official feature (and 2.1 GHZ Jaguars -maybe 16 cores- will be there)... in case of 2020 or later consoles maybe not; FC can be developed on a "private" level but -maybe- also Sony itself can help and lead it by giving access (on a PS4 OS release) to specific libraries that dedicate a fixed part of PS4 GPU and PS4PRO GPU to NON-GPU tasks (IA, game physic, increased-improved environment game animation). Above I've hypotized a guideline of dedicating 50% of PS4 and 25% of PS4PRO GPU calc power to non-GPU tasks... that -maybe- leads to a basic fixed 720p on PS4 that can increases on PS4pro, PS5 (full 4k).

 

[DieH@rd]

IMO, GPUs are now almost irrelevant for crossgen compatibility. Visuals can scale up and down.

The much bigger issue are CPUs. I'm sure almost nobody wants the repeat of Shadow of Mordor where the game was fully built for Gen8, but the Gen7 ports axed the core component of the game [nemesis system] making the entire game experience compromised.

If the PS5 gets 16 CPU threads that are all ~100% faster than jaguar threads [architectural gains + higher clocks], devs should focus on that don't attempt too hard to dumb down their games if their games are not fully aiming to be crossgen.


----

BTW, after watching the AMDs presentation last night, something came to my mind. Raja talked about their new GPU memory controller setup, how the VRAM is now just cache for NVME storage that can be attached directly to the GPU which enables some interesting use case scenarios for professionals and enterprise workloads [GPU having an abbility to directly access 2TB of data for 3D rendering or 4K raw video files for video editing].

What if they use this GPU storage port to connect PS5 APU with it's entire storage solution? Or a normal big spinning hard drive and a smaller 256GB NVME SSD that GPU will use to store all GPU-related stuff [textures, level data].

 

[Gubbi]

If the PS5 gets 16 CPU threads that are all ~100% faster than jaguar threads [architectural gains + higher clocks], devs should focus on that don't attempt too hard to dumb down their games if their games are not fully aiming to be crossgen.

If devs are bankrolled by the console vendors, sure.

If they are 3rd party, they should maximize revenues, and that means catering to the huge install base of last gen hardware. It has been like that in every generation transition for the past 20 years.

Cheers

 

[HBRU]

How to make sure backward compatibility without Jaguars on an hypotetical 2018 PS5 ?
No way.... IMHO.

And consider 16 cores@2.1 Ghz is a 100% more than PS4-pro... with little silicon used.... of course 8 cores are going to be dead silicon for a looong period of time... but gives the impression (a minimal impression actually) of a true NEXT GEN... together with 16 Gbytes of GDDR6.

Then you have the X part of the GPU dedicated to CPU-like tasks supported by Sony libraries.... X part -I say- 50% on PS4, 25% on PS4pro, 10% on a true 4K -9 Tflops- PS5

Of course PS4 owners will be a bit disappointed on having NEW GAMES running at 720p (or 900p)... also PS4pro max will get a 1440p->4k... so both consoles will loose value and will be exchanged to get the new PS5 with Gamestop trades... but in turn a lot of entry level people will buy an used PS4 instead of an used XBOX360 (or PS3) both of wich doesnt generate software incomes to Sony (or minimal in case of PS3).

Such people sure buy a budget 1080p or 720p TV for gaming... so 4k doesnt much matter to them.

 

[Prophecy2k]

If sacrificing BC means moving away from Jaguar to something like Zen cores for the PS5, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned.

Sony, of course, will take the business case for it into account. But as for me, Jaguar CPU architecture has become a dirty word at this point... just look at the lengths MS has gone to to avoid using the term when speaking about Scorpio.

 

[iroboto]

almost irrelevant for crossgen compatibility. Visuals can scale up and down.

The much bigger issue are CPUs. I'm sure almost nobody wants the repeat of Shadow of Mordor where the game was fully built for Gen8, but the Gen7 ports axed the core component of the game [nemesis system] making the entire game experience compromised.

Good way to write this. side note: Not sure if this is a symptom of HDD/RAM vs CPU though, then again I'm not entirely sure how the nemesis system works though.

 

[London Geezer]

The problem I see with the model we seem to be heading to, is that we already have real world examples of games that are actually PS3 games, released today also on the PS4 at 1080p. And they don't look very good from a technical standpoint. Persona 5 being the prime example. Resolution and "extra effects" only take you so far when you have to compete with games that take absolute advantage of a platform like Horizon, with new assets and engines. The difference is immense.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Persona 5 being the prime example. Resolution and "extra effects" only take you so far when you have to compete with games that take absolute advantage of a platform like Horizon, with new assets and engines. The difference is immense.

That difference is what will drive progress. Devs targeting last gen due to the larger install base won't be competitive with games that only target the latest gen. And as the old consoles see less and less software bought, there'll be a natural migration to the new platforms.

 

[iroboto]

That difference is what will drive progress. Devs targeting last gen due to the larger install base won't be competitive with games that only target the latest gen. And as the old consoles see less and less software bought, there'll be a natural migration to the new platforms.

Unless your company's name is Blizzard
Then you're just purposefully targeting the low end and getting away with stylized art.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Unless your company's name is Blizzard
Then you're just purposefully targeting the low end and getting away with stylized art.

Or Nintendo... and then people will pay out of their rear-ends too to buy your outdated hardware.

 

[Jay]

Even if PS5 isn't BC, maybe they would keep the dev tools and majority of the API's the same or legacy support them, to make cross gen games development easier.
Also don't know if the PS5 would be in the same software ecosystem which would make it a clean generation break, even if it did support BC.

Couple things we know about MS for definite although may obviously change in the future, but this is their current plan.
X2 will definitely be BC, Phil Spencer has gone on record about being able to support old games for multiple reasons a few times.
They are committed to UWP and the windows store, Xbox live (even as a social network) Last weeks build highlighted all this.

So I expect the X2 to run UWP (and X1 games), be in the windows store and be on the same Xbox live network.
They didn't like how they had to do x360 BC, so I expect all X1 games to just work on X2 without needing patches, or re-downloads etc.

MS are pushing dynamic res etc, so on newer hardware it will play and look better or minimum the same.
So graphically majority of games will be able to scale between generations anyway.
But it's the non graphics parts that could be an issue, and if a studio wants to develop a game that can't scale then they can just target X2 for a couple years in, when there's a sufficient install base.
The likelihood will be that PS5 & X2 will release within a year of eachother if not the same year.
So most multiplat games will aim for PS5 & X2 if the engine can't scale down. If the engine can scale down then they will have a larger install base to sell to on xbox, e.g. indie or AA game.

If Sony goes clean generation break and MS does not, it may work in MS's favour.With people feeling more committed to the ecosystem due to digital library etc.
The big budget AAA games it won't affect either way to much, as the size of PS5 & X2 install base is what will matter to the publisher.

People always says BC doesn't matter especially couple years in, the difference now is digital, and it would be start of new gen. So that may help MS claw back market share at that time.
I can also see Sony using their streaming service to support BC if their console doesn't, which may be their way around it.