Quantcast

Xbox Series X

iwb100

Distinguished Member
The multi platform games perhaps. Theres normally a few Next gen only games. Things are changing now though and at least everyone gets to try those new games rather than just those who early adopters wanting the best.
The early games though - usually there is no good reason why they aren't on older hardware. Just artificial "buy the new machine" stuff. The thing is over time there will be good reasons - hardware ones why. Hopefully MS get the balance right.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
The multi platform games perhaps. Theres normally a few Next gen only games. Things are changing now though and at least everyone gets to try those new games rather than just those who early adopters wanting the best.
I haven’t read the MS guys full quote about this but It has me a little worried that there is no real made from the ground up game for the new console. I understand that they don’t want to leave the existing user base behind but they have to be careful that PS5 doesn’t leave Xsx behind by delaying a monster title like Last of Us 2 ( I think they will) and releasing a dedicated version for the new PS5 with a watered down version for PS4. The new Halo title must be clearly head and shoulders above the Xbox One X version and what we seen in the trailer last E3 hasn’t got me convinced.
 

Indiana Jones

Moderator
I am sure it will make use of the extra power and adopt a similar approach to how PC games are treated, playing on the S will be like choosing Low, playing on the X will be like picking the medium settings with some of the fancy settings enabled but then you play on the Series X you will get High/Ultra settings with all those fancy settings enabled.
 

iwb100

Distinguished Member
I haven’t read the MS guys full quote about this but It has me a little worried that there is no real made from the ground up game for the new console. I understand that they don’t want to leave the existing user base behind but they have to be careful that PS5 doesn’t leave Xsx behind by delaying a monster title like Last of Us 2 ( I think they will) and releasing a dedicated version for the new PS5 with a watered down version for PS4. The new Halo title must be clearly head and shoulders above the Xbox One X version and what we seen in the trailer last E3 hasn’t got me convinced.
Its a different priority. MS are driven by wanting as many people using their services and playing their games. Their hardware and new hardware is only one entry point into the Xbox ecosystem. MS don't care if you play Halo with an old or new xbox, on your phone on a PC or probably if they were ever allowed - using a rival console's hardware.

They simply don't make their money from selling a physical box - their money is made via cloud and services - so their gaming strategy is aligned to that. Selling a box and a local copy of a game is pretty meaningless to their business model. Its central to Sony's right now. MS have sold their cloud gaming services to Sony - it shows where MS are as a business and what they prioritise. Were the boot on the other foot Sony would have wanted to keep it from MS as a competitive advantage - but its not how MS are thinking.

They've created an environment where its almost irrelevant how much hardware they sell but far more relevant that they make good and compelling games. They've still got some ways to go there.

But buy an Xbox Series X and for a £10 a month you get 200 games many of which are AAA ready to go from the start of the generation. A huge library immediately - probably many enhanced using the BC technology. Plus you get Halo infinite and any other 1st party titles they launch with. For £10 a month.

Compare that to Sony who will offer you no doubt a big game or two for £50 or whatever each that you have to buy the hardware for.

Some will love each approach - some simply want that new box, new game. Some will simply not upgrade their Xbox because they see no need. Some will prefer a more traditional console launch.

But I honestly think when you look at it, you've got real choice and real points of difference.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
Its a different priority. MS are driven by wanting as many people using their services and playing their games. Their hardware and new hardware is only one entry point into the Xbox ecosystem. MS don't care if you play Halo with an old or new xbox, on your phone on a PC or probably if they were ever allowed - using a rival console's hardware.

They simply don't make their money from selling a physical box - their money is made via cloud and services - so their gaming strategy is aligned to that. Selling a box and a local copy of a game is pretty meaningless to their business model. Its central to Sony's right now. MS have sold their cloud gaming services to Sony - it shows where MS are as a business and what they prioritise. Were the boot on the other foot Sony would have wanted to keep it from MS as a competitive advantage - but its not how MS are thinking.

They've created an environment where its almost irrelevant how much hardware they sell but far more relevant that they make good and compelling games. They've still got some ways to go there.

But buy an Xbox Series X and for a £10 a month you get 200 games many of which are AAA ready to go from the start of the generation. A huge library immediately - probably many enhanced using the BC technology. Plus you get Halo infinite and any other 1st party titles they launch with. For £10 a month.

Compare that to Sony who will offer you no doubt a big game or two for £50 or whatever each that you have to buy the hardware for.

Some will love each approach - some simply want that new box, new game. Some will simply not upgrade their Xbox because they see no need. Some will prefer a more traditional console launch.

But I honestly think when you look at it, you've got real choice and real points of difference.
I get and largely agree with a lot of your points but I think you have missed my point a little. I get the ability to play first party titles on PC and eventually on cloud Services via whatever device and MS have the correct idea on cross play. GamePass is a great idea and ahead of the curve but what I’m saying is, “there needs to be clear daylight between the xsx and Xbox one not just in frame rate or resolution but in game performance as the PS5 is going to have this on day 1“

If Xsx is running an NVME and loads the map almost instantly (as per Spider-Man demo from Sony) and xsx owners are sat waiting for 30-50 seconds while the old 8 year old Xbox one loads the map it will get frustrating fast. Lots of games are now big open world and sometimes open world multiplayer and you only have to look at the difference an SSD makes to perhaps the best game of the generation, the Witcher 3; now imagine that you could play via Xbox live as Geralt and Ciri in the same game and you had to wait on the other player on base console loading from that old 5400rpm hd from 2012 at what is roughly two minutes every time you died or fast traveled.

The other area of concern is people are saying that PC games scale, which they do, however none of those PC are using the old Jaguar CPU in Xbox One as the base, take Star Wars BF2, it wants an i5 6600 as the minimum CPU So they are setting the bar higher at not only the high end but also the lower end of the scale.

As said, I haven’t seen the MS guys full quote so perhaps we will get a full fat Xsx version comparable and playable with PC and then a real cutdown 720p or lower version for the Xbox one with maybe dynamic 4K for an Xbox one X version. My concern is that you can optimise so much and Xbox one has had its day and MS should look to convert these to cloud boxes. I still think the one X can offer another year or two with cutdown performance against the xsx.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
I am sure it will make use of the extra power and adopt a similar approach to how PC games are treated, playing on the S will be like choosing Low, playing on the X will be like picking the medium settings with some of the fancy settings enabled but then you play on the Series X you will get High/Ultra settings with all those fancy settings enabled.
I get what you are saying with low quality graphics but the other issue is the CPU and HD speed. Look how long some games like Witcher 3, battlefront 2, Forza Horizon 4 take to load and how the improve with a USB SSD and then look at the Spider-Man loading test Sony showed For the massive improvement again. I honestly think it’s almost time to retire the Xbox one, probably shortly after the Xsx releases and then convert them free of charge to streaming boxes for Xbox Cloud to use with gamepass ultimate subscription as that is the only way I can see new games not being held back.

I think Phil needs to be ruthless here.
 

Indiana Jones

Moderator
I don't really see a problem, people know that if they want the best they will need to pay for it, for those that are more casual gamers then the cheaper systems are there for them complete with their low resolutions, poor frame-rates and horrible loading times.

Playing co-op or multiplayer and having to wait for those with slower drives/connections to join has always been a thing but not something I see as deal breaking.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
I don't really see a problem, people know that if they want the best they will need to pay for it, for those that are more casual gamers then the cheaper systems are there for them complete with their low resolutions, poor frame-rates and horrible loading times.

Playing co-op or multiplayer and having to wait for those with slower drives/connections to join has always been a thing but not something I see as deal breaking.
Don’t forget that this is the first time proper fast drives are going to be used in console as well and even an SSD was held back by bandwidth on USB (5Gb/s) or Sata port (3Gb/s) if fitted internal, this will be quite a bit quicker than those (5-7 times faster than ssd and over 30 faster than 5400rpm)

I don’t think the Xbox one will hold the xsx back in terms of graphics as that’s easily scaleable with low res textures and other cutbacks but for me it’s more the risk that the base CPU & HDD speed hold back how far a game developer can go to make the game work on all platforms.
 

Indiana Jones

Moderator
Don’t forget that this is the first time proper fast drives are going to be used in console as well and even an SSD was held back by bandwidth on USB (5Gb/s) or Sata port (3Gb/s) if fitted internal, this will be quite a bit quicker than those (5-7 times faster than ssd and over 30 faster than 5400rpm)

I don’t think the Xbox one will hold the xsx back in terms of graphics as that’s easily scaleable with low res textures and other cutbacks but for me it’s more the risk that the base CPU & HDD speed hold back how far a game developer can go to make the game work on all platforms.
Having watched the DF Direct video I understand your concerns better but there are still a lot of unknowns at this stage which I am sure will be addressed over the coming months.

Same arguments discussed by DF here

we should get a spot on the show as we nailed most of the points lol
I had assumed tonyk79 had watched that as the points he brought up were identical :rotfl:
 

iwb100

Distinguished Member
I get and largely agree with a lot of your points but I think you have missed my point a little. I get the ability to play first party titles on PC and eventually on cloud Services via whatever device and MS have the correct idea on cross play. GamePass is a great idea and ahead of the curve but what I’m saying is, “there needs to be clear daylight between the xsx and Xbox one not just in frame rate or resolution but in game performance as the PS5 is going to have this on day 1“

If Xsx is running an NVME and loads the map almost instantly (as per Spider-Man demo from Sony) and xsx owners are sat waiting for 30-50 seconds while the old 8 year old Xbox one loads the map it will get frustrating fast. Lots of games are now big open world and sometimes open world multiplayer and you only have to look at the difference an SSD makes to perhaps the best game of the generation, the Witcher 3; now imagine that you could play via Xbox live as Geralt and Ciri in the same game and you had to wait on the other player on base console loading from that old 5400rpm hd from 2012 at what is roughly two minutes every time you died or fast traveled.

The other area of concern is people are saying that PC games scale, which they do, however none of those PC are using the old Jaguar CPU in Xbox One as the base, take Star Wars BF2, it wants an i5 6600 as the minimum CPU So they are setting the bar higher at not only the high end but also the lower end of the scale.

As said, I haven’t seen the MS guys full quote so perhaps we will get a full fat Xsx version comparable and playable with PC and then a real cutdown 720p or lower version for the Xbox one with maybe dynamic 4K for an Xbox one X version. My concern is that you can optimise so much and Xbox one has had its day and MS should look to convert these to cloud boxes. I still think the one X can offer another year or two with cutdown performance against the xsx.
You make good points. The counter to them being that if you release a big MP game simply to the new console your player pool is hugely limited which makes matchmaking take more time which negates the SSD advantage potentially in loading maps.

The thing is - when you look at launch games will any be so head and shoulders above the Pro/X as to be compelling? I doubt it to be honest. MS have to judge the right timing for phasing out older hardware for sure. S needs to go probably 12 months or so into new gen. But again their priorities are not pushing new hardware but pushing new games. It may change strategy somewhat.
 

MarkyPancake

Distinguished Member
Don’t forget that this is the first time proper fast drives are going to be used in console as well and even an SSD was held back by bandwidth on USB (5Gb/s) or Sata port (3Gb/s) if fitted internal, this will be quite a bit quicker than those (5-7 times faster than ssd and over 30 faster than 5400rpm)
I thought the internal SATA 3 connection in the Xbox One X was capable of 6 Gb, compared to USB 3's 5 Gb. Wasn't this one of their selling points when it launched.

One thing's for sure, throughout Destiny 2 it loads much faster on my One X internal SSD, than it does on both my external mechanical drive and external SSHD drive via USB 3. I decided to replace the cheap drive Microsoft chose to put in the X myself, after it failed when my Scorpio Edition was out of warranty.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
Having watched the DF Direct video I understand your concerns better but there are still a lot of unknowns at this stage which I am sure will be addressed over the coming months.



I had assumed tonyk79 had watched that as the points he brought up were identical :rotfl:
Im really Richard in disguise, have you ever seen us together 😂😂

Joking aside, I only just watched the video about an hour ago. In a way I think it’s good that they support people who have supported them with Xbox one and one x, I bought both and will buy the PS5 (after price drop) so I’m not interested in a Fanboy war but both need to be comparable to make sure the best 3rd party games push the system as for me these are usually the best games And I don’t want them wasting development time and budget resource due to being held back by PS4 and Xbox One.

I still haven’t read the MS guy full quote, so perhaps he is being misreported on as that never happens !
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
I thought the internal SATA 3 connection in the Xbox One X was capable of 6 Gb, compared to USB 3's 5 Gb. Wasn't this one of their selling points when it launched.

One thing's for sure, throughout Destiny 2 it loads much faster on my One X internal SSD, than it does on both my external mechanical drive and external SSHD drive via USB 3. I decided to replace the cheap drive Microsoft chose to put in the X myself, after it failed when my Scorpio Edition was out of warranty.
It is indeed Sata 3 on One X, however the other console is Sata 2 and both limited by USB 3 bandwidth and if anything else is plugged in on USB it has to share that bandwidth. Another point is the CPU clock speed and improvements on One x versus the One which affects how fast the data can be processed.

If you have watched the Digital Foundry video they quote the Horizon Zero Dawn developers who couldn’t implement flight into the game due to HDD Hardware restrictions (on even PS4 Pro).

This is what worries me about the next gen being held back.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
You make good points. The counter to them being that if you release a big MP game simply to the new console your player pool is hugely limited which makes matchmaking take more time which negates the SSD advantage potentially in loading maps.

The thing is - when you look at launch games will any be so head and shoulders above the Pro/X as to be compelling? I doubt it to be honest. MS have to judge the right timing for phasing out older hardware for sure. S needs to go probably 12 months or so into new gen. But again their priorities are not pushing new hardware but pushing new games. It may change strategy somewhat.
I don’t think anything that has already started development, especially 3rd party will be head and shoulders above current gen but that’s normally where the first party come in. Imagine if One x was a new generation, Forza 7 would have been 4k60fps with HDR v 1080-60fps with less detail and that is of course still using an improved Jaguar CPU instead of new chip.

In my opinion the issue goes back to Don Mattrick forcing Kinect into Xbox one and thus increasing the price to £425 to allow for it and reducing the gaming hardware to DDR3, EsRam, Jaguar CPU. I believe if we had no Kinect, Xbox would have had a better CPU and 2TF power at £399.

A concern I have around next gen is going to be expandable storage. If the games are designed to be run on NVME ( very conservative bandwidth estimate of 10Gb/s) how will we expand? This generation got it correct with External USB 3 but it’s going to be more complicated as even a USB 3.1 SSD is limited to 10Gb/s total bandwidth and not all SSD equal.
 

KirkSi

Distinguished Member
A concern I have around next gen is going to be expandable storage. If the games are designed to be run on NVME ( very conservative bandwidth estimate of 10Gb/s) how will we expand? This generation got it correct with External USB 3 but it’s going to be more complicated as even a USB 3.1 SSD is limited to 10Gb/s total bandwidth and not all SSD equal.
This is a key question that both Sony and MS need to answer. I'm guessing that it'll be a 1TB SSD in both machines, less than that is too small, more than that too expensive. I'm hoping it's not going to be back to proprietary drives as they'll cost a fortune. Hopefully they've got a solution to this, even if it's keeping a part of the internal SSD to use as a cache from the external HD.
 

Indiana Jones

Moderator
I don’t think anything that has already started development, especially 3rd party will be head and shoulders above current gen but that’s normally where the first party come in. Imagine if One x was a new generation, Forza 7 would have been 4k60fps with HDR v 1080-60fps with less detail and that is of course still using an improved Jaguar CPU instead of new chip.

In my opinion the issue goes back to Don Mattrick forcing Kinect into Xbox one and thus increasing the price to £425 to allow for it and reducing the gaming hardware to DDR3, EsRam, Jaguar CPU. I believe if we had no Kinect, Xbox would have had a better CPU and 2TF power at £399.

A concern I have around next gen is going to be expandable storage. If the games are designed to be run on NVME ( very conservative bandwidth estimate of 10Gb/s) how will we expand? This generation got it correct with External USB 3 but it’s going to be more complicated as even a USB 3.1 SSD is limited to 10Gb/s total bandwidth and not all SSD equal.
Perhaps the NVMe drive will be located somewhere with easy access (on the base for example) so will allow users to upgrade or perhaps the system will mandate that all games run from the NVMe so you can store games on an external drive but they will need to be transferred over first.

All speculation of course but there are certainly options available.
 

iwb100

Distinguished Member
I don’t think anything that has already started development, especially 3rd party will be head and shoulders above current gen but that’s normally where the first party come in. Imagine if One x was a new generation, Forza 7 would have been 4k60fps with HDR v 1080-60fps with less detail and that is of course still using an improved Jaguar CPU instead of new chip.

In my opinion the issue goes back to Don Mattrick forcing Kinect into Xbox one and thus increasing the price to £425 to allow for it and reducing the gaming hardware to DDR3, EsRam, Jaguar CPU. I believe if we had no Kinect, Xbox would have had a better CPU and 2TF power at £399.

A concern I have around next gen is going to be expandable storage. If the games are designed to be run on NVME ( very conservative bandwidth estimate of 10Gb/s) how will we expand? This generation got it correct with External USB 3 but it’s going to be more complicated as even a USB 3.1 SSD is limited to 10Gb/s total bandwidth and not all SSD equal.
Not sure we will expand. Aren't they both working on hugely speeding up install process to allow games to be playable almost instantly? That will be their way round it I suspect.
 

reecie

Well-known Member
The CPU and storage are the big differences. So it depends how they can mitigate those across the generation. The devil will always be in the detail of what Matt Booty didn’t say. Maybe Xcloud will play into this as well in some way.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
This is a key question that both Sony and MS need to answer. I'm guessing that it'll be a 1TB SSD in both machines, less than that is too small, more than that too expensive. I'm hoping it's not going to be back to proprietary drives as they'll cost a fortune. Hopefully they've got a solution to this, even if it's keeping a part of the internal SSD to use as a cache from the external HD.
It has to be 1TB minimum as Gears 5 is over 100GB and you would imagine that it would only be bigger for Gears 6 and the dedicated Xsx games. I wonder if the form factor will allow for an expansion slot for another NVME? It possible they could use Thunderbolt 3 as it offers up to 40Gb/s but most likely USB 3.1 which tops out at 10Gb/s if they go external.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
Perhaps the NVMe drive will be located somewhere with easy access (on the base for example) so will allow users to upgrade or perhaps the system will mandate that all games run from the NVMe so you can store games on an external drive but they will need to be transferred over first.

All speculation of course but there are certainly options available.
I think you could be correct, easily accessible for an upgrade and given the new larger tower format, possibly an extra slot as well. As we haven’t seen more than the front render, I wonder could this be modular (to a degree) allowing for official MS upgrades as opposed to a new console given MS want to do away with console generations. I think the USB ports will be v3.1 so good for 10Gb/s so at least if you did have to transfer 100GB games it wouldn’t be the port holding you back In 99% scenarios.
 

tonyk79

Well-known Member
Not sure we will expand. Aren't they both working on hugely speeding up install process to allow games to be playable almost instantly? That will be their way round it I suspect.
Agreed, this will help getting you into the games quicker and only giving the files you need, no need for 10x different languages and audio files. One of the things I read was that you can suspend multiple games where at the minute it’s only a single game. I assume this will be along the same backend principle as powering up a VM.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

Hisense abandons OLED TV models
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Loewe back after Skytec takeover
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Kef Reference Series gets new finish and additional model
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Naim announces native Qobuz support for its streaming hardware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom