Sony PS6, Microsoft neXt Series - 10th gen console speculation [2020]
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I don't buy the argument that PC is the big platform devs are targeting. It's too fragmented.
Witcher 3 sold 28 million copies on consoles and only 12 million on PC.
Cyberpunk 2077 sold 12 million copies on consoles and only 8 million on PC.
So roughly 35% PC sales for a game that works well in both ecosystems (ie. mouse/keyboard not necessary). Probably only 20% sold to users with PC hardware > than console hardware of the day. The high-end PC market is too small to be the target.
That means that CDPR needs console sales to fund the content of their games. They aren't going to do it on PC alone. This means they need to target good performance on consoles and scale where possible to use extra PC features.
The content budget is the primary (non-marketing) budget for a AAA game now. It makes sense to build the content for Xbox and PS and scale accordingly for high-end PCs (true 4k, 60 fps, sometimes RT etc...)
PCs aren't going to replace consoles and consoles aren't going to replace PCs, but cloud-streaming might replace both at some point 10+ years down the road as network speed and latency improve.
I believe there will be an XboxNEXT and PS6 at least.
Witcher 3 sold 28 million copies on consoles and only 12 million on PC.
Cyberpunk 2077 sold 12 million copies on consoles and only 8 million on PC.
So roughly 35% PC sales for a game that works well in both ecosystems (ie. mouse/keyboard not necessary). Probably only 20% sold to users with PC hardware > than console hardware of the day. The high-end PC market is too small to be the target.
That means that CDPR needs console sales to fund the content of their games. They aren't going to do it on PC alone. This means they need to target good performance on consoles and scale where possible to use extra PC features.
The content budget is the primary (non-marketing) budget for a AAA game now. It makes sense to build the content for Xbox and PS and scale accordingly for high-end PCs (true 4k, 60 fps, sometimes RT etc...)
PCs aren't going to replace consoles and consoles aren't going to replace PCs, but cloud-streaming might replace both at some point 10+ years down the road as network speed and latency improve.
I believe there will be an XboxNEXT and PS6 at least.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is the ironic strength and weakness of the platform. The PC platform can accommodate almost any breadth of PC hardware hardware and capability, but from a devs perspective this is not a plus point. With consoles you can reliably predict the console market hardware because new console specifications are infrequence, but predicting what may be common PC hardware configurations in 3-5 years for a game project is far less predictable.
PC is a singular platform, 'consoles' is not. How many copies did the witcher 3 sold on PS4 alone? On Xbox one? Same for CP2077, and theres both current and last generation to account for.
How exactly is this relevant and how does it invalidate his arguments
I disagree. Consoles are actually becoming more fragmented than ever before. A developer can be supporting PS4, PS4 Pro, PS5, XO, X1X, XSS, XSX, and even Switch. That's up to 8 different console SKUs.
The Witcher 3 sold most on PC, and continues to sell best on PC, all this time later. Cyberpunk 2077 was also CLEARLY developed with PC in mind first and foremost. "Only 8 million on PC huh...? Where are you getting your numbers from?
This is from CDPR
PC makes up the bulk of sales. Obviously the consoles would have been higher, had their platforms actually had a decent version of the game.. but it is what it is.
Obviously the reality is that its in developers interest these days to target every viable platform possible. That doesn't just go for 3rd party developers... that goes for Microsoft and Sony too... and you're seeing it now with Sony's live service games. They want them to have the best chance at succeeding as possible, and so we're likely getting PC versions day and date.
And that's why I fully believe that consoles will first become generic PCs. You can target the largest amount of players possible, deployed from a single build. When the risk and costs of R&D simply don't add up like they used to. Having to build up a new player-base on the new platform generation after generation.. Once Sony has a large library of their games functioning on PC... and Streaming begins to take over... making the switch starts to make a lot of sense. They'll still have a "console"... but it's just a more generic PC running a Sony front end.
Of course there will be a traditional PS6 and Series Next... but after that? Generic PCs and Streaming IMO.
If a developer is already supporting Switch than it's cakewalk to also target PS4 / Xbox One. That right there gives the ability to run on all those additional SKUs you listed such as 4Pro, X1X, XBSX|S, and PS5. If they're not targeting the Switch then they only need to target XBSX|S and PS5 in 2023.
I'm not really looking at it from a "can we make this run" type of perspective... but rather.. you have multiple configurations, trying to target as large portion of the overall console market as possible. Despite the fact that the game can run... you still have to configure it for the various skus and QA to ensure that it will run and work properly for everyone.
And that's all they have to target, for now. I don't believe there will be mid-gen upgrades... but who really knows? There very well could be. Maybe by the time current gen games really get going, they'll be ready to announce upgrades
..And then you're back up to 5 different SKUs... probably enhanced RT and effects + resolution on the upgraded consoles.My main point is that it's fractured enough lol.
’Consoles’ is playstation, switch, xbox (and their different generations). Hes comparing multiple platforms versus one.
Lets see how pc and xbox game sales hold up to each other for example. The xbox is considerd a different platform then switch or playstation.
Therefore i think comparing all consoles combined game sales vs the pc isnt all that fair. Anyway his numbers where wrong to begin with. No idea where he fetched those from.
It’s true it’s fractured; but developers are well supported. On PC, there’s virtually no support if your game works on some configurations properly and not on others. Xbox and Sony and Nintendo will help you figure it out, even if it costs $$$ at least you know there is support there instead of banging your head against a wall.
That’s a big difference in the platforms and why console only titles are much better managed and polished. I do not think star citizen will ever get anywhere near as polished, despite its platform being PC only; It’s too much, too big, and very demanding across the entire spec in a platform with far too many configurations.
PC is not a singular platform. A PC game being supported by all PC boxes with modern hardware isn’t a reality. PC Spiderman is going to work with any PC based OS? Native support on Chrome, Mac OS or FreeBSD? How about hardware? Native support on ARM? Is Spiderman guarantee to work on any IGP?
Personal computing is a label for a particular market segment not a platform.
There is a reason Sony and MS can just stamp PS5 and XBox Series on a game and call it a day while a PC game has to come with a detailed list of what it needs to function.
Last edited:
You're right about that... but every platform comes with pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. For every developer that benefits from the support you get on a closed platform, there's another that curses being locked into closed platforms to begin with. Rumors of studios having meetings "desperately" asking Xbox to drop the Series S requirements because it's hampering their "next gen" design ambitions, for example. The experience also isn't always great... It certainly didn't help CDPR with CP2077
but yes I surely agree with consoles having far better developer support and tools, as they inherently should as closed platforms.However, consoles are still becoming more PC like every generation. My point about console developers having to contend with more hardware configurations, and offer more user configurable than ever before isn't wrong. Things used to be FAR simpler before than they are now. Before, you had one console power target for an entire generation. now you might also have mid-gen upgrades. As a user there's firmware updates, you have game installs, you have game patches, you have more hardware settings than ever before. Games these days are adding more options than ever before. In the past, you'd start a game up and it would just run. What you saw was what you got. Now you have resolution modes to choose, now you have framerate modes, now you have VRR, now you have 40hz "120hz" modes which only works with some TVs, Ray Tracing modes... more games are adding FOV options, toggleable visual settings like DOF, and CA, ect. ect.
That "tailored" console experience... is becoming more and more fragmented as time goes on. The hardware itself is more PC like than ever. The codebase is closer to PC than ever. The user choice is more PC-like than ever.
I simply see it continuing in that direction, until it's essentially just a small form-factor PC. At what point does it simply become more reasonable to create one version of a game and hit all the different gaming form factors out there, instead of multiple versions?
You mention Star Citizen when speaking about polish and management, which is a good example for you to use. That game is extremely ambitious... and I don't think anyone could create a game in quite the same way as they have. What I mean by that is continually changing and updating core systems to newer APIs and hardware specs multiple times over development. No console developed title is going to have that freedom (this could also easily be considered a negative, as too much freedom can also be a detriment to a products development) but they are unique in their situation regarding their development budget as well. And let's be honest, with so many moving parts and such ambition, there's bound to be a lack of polish that comes with it, simply due to scope. I have no doubt in my mind that if you took at AAA console developer, like SSM, or Naughty Dog... and had them develop a PC only game with a AAA budget... they would create an extremely polished product. It will always be a challenge to develop for the widest amount of configurations as possible.. but there's also a lot of self-induced pain that developers cause for themselves. Every developer handles these things differently.
I dont think it was simpler before. The XBOX Series were designed for easy scalability, and I am sure it is much easier than it is on PC because the configurations/architecture between X and S is compatible.You're right about that... but every platform comes with pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. For every developer that benefits from the support you get on a closed platform, there's another that curses being locked into closed platforms to begin with. Rumors of studios having meetings "desperately" asking Xbox to drop the Series S requirements because it's hampering their "next gen" design ambitions, for example. The experience also isn't always great... It certainly didn't help CDPR with CP2077
However, consoles are still becoming more PC like every generation. My point about console developers having to contend with more hardware configurations, and offer more user configurable than ever before isn't wrong. Things used to be FAR simpler before than they are now. Before, you had one console power target for an entire generation. now you might also have mid-gen upgrades. As a user there's firmware updates, you have game installs, you have game patches, you have more hardware settings than ever before. Games these days are adding more options than ever before. In the past, you'd start a game up and it would just run. What you saw was what you got. Now you have resolution modes to choose, now you have framerate modes, now you have VRR, now you have 40hz "120hz" modes which only works with some TVs, Ray Tracing modes... more games are adding FOV options, toggleable visual settings like DOF, and CA, ect. ect.
That "tailored" console experience... is becoming more and more fragmented as time goes on. The hardware itself is more PC like than ever. The codebase is closer to PC than ever. The user choice is more PC-like than ever.
I simply see it continuing in that direction, until it's essentially just a small form-factor PC. At what point does it simply become more reasonable to create one version of a game and hit all the different gaming form factors out there, instead of multiple versions?
You mention Star Citizen when speaking about polish and management, which is a good example for you to use. That game is extremely ambitious... and I don't think anyone could create a game in quite the same way as they have. What I mean by that is continually changing and updating core systems to newer APIs and hardware specs multiple times over development. No console developed title is going to have that freedom (this could also easily be considered a negative, as too much freedom can also be a detriment to a products development) but they are unique in their situation regarding their development budget as well. And let's be honest, with so many moving parts and such ambition, there's bound to be a lack of polish that comes with it, simply due to scope. I have no doubt in my mind that if you took at AAA console developer, like SSM, or Naughty Dog... and had them develop a PC only game with a AAA budget... they would create an extremely polished product. It will always be a challenge to develop for the widest amount of configurations as possible.. but there's also a lot of self-induced pain that developers cause for themselves. Every developer handles these things differently.
What you think is a problem now for consoles is a far more complicated matter for PCs with all the architectures, drivers, feature set support etc. Trying to make your game run on multiple PC configurations makes the X and S simultaneous support a cake walk in comparison.
Things are a lot simpler now than they were every other gen for consoles. Each console had a lot more differences between each other and PCs. Making a game on PS5 is easily made for Series and vice versa and much easier to port between PC and console. Porting a game between PS3, 360 and PC was a far complicated matter then and even worse before that.
Unless you are a developer making an exclusive game for console, closed platform isn't much of a limit itself because anyways games take into consideration multiple configurations by default and developers need to make their games run well on mid range hardware in order to ensure customer sales and satisfaction.
Cyberpunk is an exception as it was released at the very very end of the generation. But even there, PS4 and XBOX One didnt stand on it's way of pushing hard. Most of the game's issues on PC were related to its complex and rushed development. The game is still very impressive with max settings on PC and the hardware is taxed
I don't entirely disagree, but again, you actively have developers speaking about how Series S is holding back their ambitions and causing development issues... you have consumers mad because we're still getting last gen versions of games, holding things back.. Regardless of how similar the developer environment may be... they have to deal with these things.. and it takes time and resources. It's added complexity that no developer actually wants.
I think you're just proving my point that consoles are becoming more PC like.. And that's one of the issues I have with consoles now... there's no proprietary hardware which differentiates them from PC or each other. They're basically all becoming the same thing... a closed box PC. The complexities I'm talking about comes from dealing with multiple console hardware configurations on top of offering more user facing options than ever before. PS7 and XSX3 can be generic closed box PCs... and still benefit from improved development tools and targeting a specific closed box configuration.
And you said another thing which just ties into what I've been saying all along.. Developers take all of this stuff into account and develop PC versions of the games ON TOP of the console versions... it happens anyway.. So imagine instead of doing all that console specific work, they just create a single PC codebase, and the "console versions" become tailored versions with full shader caches and other tweaks.. fully tested on those platforms.
You'll get MOST of the closed box benefits... and you're still really only dealing with one codebase.
Yea, it was just something I came to understand as this title will never be released. Looking back at this interview as to why split screen Halo Infinite was cancelled (https://gamerant.com/halo-infinite-split-screen-co-op-canceled-why/)
Speaking with my brother-in-law who works with Ubisoft, the ever-increasing scope is just killing all AAA studios, too many platforms, too many modes, too much open world. The amount of rework is staggering at this point in time, delays are common, and works in progress are often being rebooted. He believes there will be a fundamental hard scale back in the coming years.
When I think about the games that are 'top notch', they all have something in common.
a) Single platform. Single player. Limited Open world, Great Graphics
or
b) simplistic graphics, MP only, no open world
c) super dated old graphics, or something very simple, massive content and MMO only
It just comes down to scope, a game company taking on too much fails, and we actually see this becoming a thorn for Xbox titles here. If they want to continue doing simultaneous release of PC and Xbox, scope needs to come down dramatically as release dates are being impacted heavily. Sony is fine, they have a formula for success, and that formula is heavy polish but limited scope, they release first on PS simplifying their stack. Online modes and PC come later if they come at all. We're still waiting for TLOU2 MP still!
GTA V and RDR2 didn't ship with Online modes right away
WoW and EvE Online still continue to have the most content which is why players play, the graphics are non essential, runs on everything.
Fortnite, CS, PUBG, Valorant, LoL, DoTA, OW, Apex, WZ all have super reduced scope, they run well on everything, graphics are dated.
And yet, all the games that come out as 'meh' tend to be games that try to do way too much (looking at everyone else). That's why I chose Star Citizen. It's way too much. It'll never launch.
I'm honestly for it. Devs DO need to scale back and start focusing on and improving the things that actually matter. I think the "wide-linear" style of development is great. Making a game feel open and not as restrictive, while still offering a more tailored and focused experience. You're right. Sony's studios tend to very carefully consider the scope of their games, and keep them relatively tight compared to some other studios. They're quite obviously much better managed and focused on the whole. They also have a touch for artistry and presentation... which is why they're able to make the games look so visually pleasing as they do.
Companies like Ubisoft sometimes go WAYYYYYY overboard. Like those recent Assassin's Creed games (Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla) are WAY over kill. I remember playing them and just thinking... this is just too much. They've lost the focus and scope of the earlier AC titles.. and thus you risk losing what makes it special and unique. Not to say those games are incredibly impressive as product in their own right (Ubisoft has been hammering out content and fixes and patches for Valhalla since day 1) but they can't continue to keep expanding the scope of their games while maintaining that same quality across the board. There's no reason for these types of games to have more content and take longer to finish than RPGs. Scale back.. focus on what's important. I'd love a new AC game to scale down to a singular area again + outskirts... and just go incredible on AI systems, animation systems, combat systems, and platforming.
We need things to dial back again. Less bloated content spread out over stupidly large areas.. and instead more intractability, design, and polish.. in a smaller area.
TLOU Online is a standalone title and will maybe be F2P and monetisation inspired by Fortnite. The guy responsible for the monetisation of the title is an ex EPIC guy who worked on Fortnite for a very long time.
The fact that Fornite, CS, PUBG, Valorant and probably TLOU Online graphics are dated is about being available to everyone, this is a business decision not a technical one. Same TLOU Online will release day one on Ps4, PS5 and PC some as powerful as an og PS4.
Being available to everyone is a technical decision as much as it is a business one. The higher the graphics stack goes the more optimization you require. More optimizations require more features, more issues can go wrong etc. the less configurations you can support.
Going for graphics is also technically a business decision. Right. Some games only make it because of its graphics. That’s the marketing appeal. The point is; games that try to do too much often miss the mark.
