Forums

Topic: Xbox One/Xbox 360 Thread

Posts 4,901 to 4,920 of 7,637

NEStalgia

@ThanosReXXX Rather than hashing through all that I will return to my very original statement (paraphrased) that started that whole mess: I hope the X1X CPU being weak and a poor choice doesn't prevent the concept of forward compatibility with the "X2".

Neither of you have really said much contrary to that original meaning. Blue also talked about the uncertain possibility of that, and you mentioned "forward compatibility" to some extent or another with X alone as possible as well. So far there's a lot of arguing but no actual disagreeing here.

I'll also add that missing out on making X a "bridge" of sorts would be missing a huge opportunity to shift the industry away from generations which Phil has indeed many times hinted toward doing/liking, and also, again, nothing in that video affirms positive or negative whether that will be the case or not. It drums up the new box, but that doesn't comment at all on what can or will or won't be done with X.

IIRC you and I had a conversation panning "mid gen bumps" back before they came out. That still holds true. PS4 Pro is kind of a joke but thankfully an underused joke. I like mine but mostly to give me the performance they promised my my OG box would have but didn't. It didn't really change their ecosystem (at all, a few third party games like Nier aside) so that's fair. X changed the ecosystem and was heavily touted. While I love my X I bought in with a hope that it was forward looking and not excessive marketing on a late stage short lived machine. If it turns out it was excessive marketing, I still like my X (I would never have bought an S since it didn't really give me much I didn't have with my PS4) but it will indeed make me more hesitant to jump on board their hype next time, and I'd be more likely to buy an OG PS5 that will probably be viable all generation, and wait for the inevitable "actual XBox Two" 5 years later than ump into an XBox Two early. Oddly I'd be more likely to buy in to Two if my X would run the new games, because I'd like the upgrade, and I won't feel like I'm funneling money into a planned obsolescence grist-mill. If the X doesn't run Two games, I'll see their strategy of planned obsolesence and just wait until I run out of things to play on X before buying into the next unit, expecting 2-3 "better" models will pass in that time.

I still have significant hope though that they're not planning on cutting X after a 2.5-3 year life. That would be a pretty awful hardware cycle in hindsight. Even WiiU had a longer shelf life (you can say "it's just a One" but they dedicated 2 E3s to presenting it and it was handled as a full console launch.

I'm not saying I actually believed it was a fully new console, I didn't. But their presentation and launch was either a hint of a more interesting long term strategy, or overhype marketing of the lowest calibre. My impression of XBox becomes very high if it's the former, and lower than Sony if it's the latter. My library is now tied up in XBox, and they do handle digital better than Sony, but I'd return to the lack of confidence in both of them I had in 2013. The fact that it's a 10 month old console and we're already debating it's soon obsolescence is an indicator of why that is a fail. Where Pro was just a premium SKU and nothing more, X has been showcased as a lot more significant than that. And it is indeed a lot more significant than that. How they handle that and what they do with that is most important though.

But back to my original comment, if it doesn't play forward compatible, it all comes down to a very poor choice of crippling CPU. That said, "new benchmark in console gaming" does not at all preclude the same software running on slower machines (X) at a lower benchmark.

Here's the thing that gets forgotting in this discussion. Xbox is just a PC. A customized PC, yes, but ultimately a PC. Look at PC games and the hardware supported in PC across many performance levels. The same will be true of X2 games. They will also be PC games. And those games will be designed to run on PC hardware that's both a lot more powerful than X2, and hardware that's less powerful than X1X. The games themselves will be designed for that at least for several years into it. PC game design has kind of hit an impasse as to the power levels needed. Previous consoles with special architectures far behind PC was a different thing. The games can run on that hardware. The question is how MS does or doesn't implement support for doing so. It's bold if they would do that. It's unfortunate if they don't (and the mix of how X was presented so far, and comments from Phil would sour my opinion of company messaging and, to use Reggie's words, how "fan forward" they are.) I.E. "old Microsoft never left"

But we'll see. Even you said "I could still see a moderate amount of "forward compatibility" happening, but only on the X".....that's all I was talking about originally

There's also the possibility I raised that if "X2" consists of both a powerful local machine and a "streaming device" (which would likely be a simple Apple TV type device....it doesn't take much for a streaming client other than the rumored "prediction" based latency mitigation (eeeewwww, I've railed and railed in text walls against that in Splatoon 2), but there's the possibility that X1 and/or even S are both "full fledged X2 devices", along with possibly Surface and/or any Windows 10 device. It would be slightly bait and switch that old XBoxes are only X2 compatible as a streaming client, but it would also be to the letter of the word accurate, if one of the X2 devices is just a streaming box. Of course 75% of the US wouldn't even be able to use that functionality, and I question what on earth they're thinking with a streaming box when even Crazy Yves who thinks X2 will be the last console before only streaming to phones and tablets exists releases AC: Odyssey streaming only in Japan because apparently someone told him the internet doesn't actually support that well anywhere else (and if you hadn't heard, PS Now is now copying Game Pass in allowing local download of games from PS2 & PS4 from the streaming library, but not for PS3 since the PS4 can't emulate Cell (if PS5 emulates Cell Game Pass will get a run for its money and have to enlarge it's library! The competition between those two is wonderful...PS already dropped the Now price to match Game Pass (for 12 mo/ subs only, for PS+ subscribers. Then MS may be forced to improve the GP value....win-win.) So with MS backing down from streaming with GP, then Sony backing down from streaming on the only mainstream streaming platform that exists Now, and Yves "one more gen before streaming only" releasing his flagship streaming game in only one country that doesn't have garbage internet....I'm not sure why now is the time MS is diving into a whole hardware unit just for streaming. "XBone" "XBox Done".....that's a new PR disaster in the wings.

BUT all the same, there's zero reason the 1X (and the 1S (and the OG One)) can't run the streaming client (along with all other win10 boxes)...the hardware in all of them is almost certainly far more than is needed to do the job, and that would make good on the "end of generations" (** needs streaming sub) talk. It won't work for most people in the US (crash and burn, Streaming Scarlett!) but it actually would work for me.....I could wait out most of the next gen working on my 200 game strong X backlog plus play the new hits streamed with a sub, then jump into new hardware when the X2X inevitably makes the X2 look bad (right before they discontinue it all? )

On a more on track note, Scream Ride is flipping awesome. I never heard of it before, but it's a hidden gem for sure. Weird, but arcade awesome. It's by Frontier, famed for Elite Dangerous. Also Kameo is really cool...never played it before. Ugly, but cool. Those early 360 games sure were rough in the texture department. Sonic Generations OTOH looks brand new. I also pre-loaded AC: Odyssey.....I have to laugh that the biggest AC game to date, finally an RPG, and X1X enhanced and the download size is like 43GB. How is such a huge brand new game smaller than half the other games on the platform? Wonder what RDR2's size is (no preload available for that so far....it's on order.)

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

NEStalgia

@BlueOcean So far N.O. isn't so bad unless you're into voice chat in which case it's not great. Otherwise it's the same as at least PS+ minus the monthly freebies and sales for 1/3 the price. The VC will expand (over years?) And paying for cloud saves....well on XBox we get that free either way, but I've been multi-console for a long time, and paying $20/yr for cloud saves is better than $60/yr for cloud saves like Sony Meanwhile I didn't pay for Gold for 7 years, loaded up Sonic Generations (digital yesterday, owned on disc back at launch) and there were was my save data.....that's a nice trick. But that's the whole "5GB One Drive with every Live account" package policy helping.

And yeah, Crash Bandicoot was on sale on Switch for the same price as well that week (rare that Nintendo has a retail "AAA?" title on a parity price sale!) but I snagged it on X1. The really shiny graphics are half the point of buying it if your'e not a Crash super fan. It looks stunning. The gameplay is as hinkey as ever. Not sure why it's so popular, but it's weirdly addictive (in a Dark Souls sort of way..... )

NEStalgia

SuperGhirahim64

@BlueOcean yeah especially after the NES classic was so popular, complete with a controller! I've no reason to have Switch Online only to play Splatoon 2. To be honest that can wait until the next time I want to. I was playing Mario Kart 8 Deluxe online, but now I'm just going to my Wii U to play online. Im actually playing more Wii U now until smash and Pokémon let's go come out in a few months. Mario + Rabbids I'd stick on but I'm bouncing about between 3DS, Wii U and Switch. Online is a always a really disposable experience for me.

Why choose from a range of great characters like Wario, Waluigi or Baby Luigi, when you have all green jelly Luigi and Toadette. Why have regular Toad and Toadette or another character when you can have a blue or yellow dressed Toad? 😵

SuperGhirahim64

@Grumblevolcano That's not good to hear outside of those big 3. So far Nintendo have done great with Switch, but online has been their first real backward step. They need to revamp it quickly.

Why choose from a range of great characters like Wario, Waluigi or Baby Luigi, when you have all green jelly Luigi and Toadette. Why have regular Toad and Toadette or another character when you can have a blue or yellow dressed Toad? 😵

BlueOcean

@NEStalgia I got Crash Bandicoot when it was a Deal with Gold, time flies, I thought it was last week! I haven't played it yet though. I've only played the GameCube games that honestly I didn't like but those were made by a different developer. I hope that the trilogy is much better than Wrath of Cortex, Nitro Kart,Tag Team Racing. The last two are not platformers but anyway these are the three I have played and are mediocre at best.

BlueOcean

BlueOcean

@Banjos_Backpack I still play some Wii U games online too, I am playing Wii U more often lately and also trying to finally beat Xenoblade Chronicles.

Apparently, only Mario Kart 8, Splatoon 2 and Mario Tennis Aces survived on Switch so people will be paying for those and Super Smash Bros. 5, and the NES games. The thing about Nintendo is that online gaming is usually a more casual thing for a few games, and being free on Wii U suits that.

BlueOcean

NEStalgia

BTW, PSA for all: I discovered that Groups (folders) are for some unknown reason not stored at the account level but only locally. I have over 150 games organized in groups, logged in on another console.....and no groups...I had to wade through the alphabetical list! So keep in mind, if you're as big into using groups as I am, that it does NOT carry to other consoles, it's just local save data on the hardware. Which makes zero sense at all, but that's how it is. Woe is me if it's ever lost.

@BlueOcean Wrath of Cortex was interesting...it was a weird 2d/3d sidescroller with a little of crash in it. It was kinda neat, but weird. I played it a little on PS2 when it was well past its prime and it was kinda meh. It was made by Tt...the company that makes the Lego games.

The original trilogy was, of course Naughty Dog. And ironically the big complaint I have for the game is: The Naughty Dog Camera(TM) that everyone says all ND games have. It's obviously not the trademark "over the shoulder at a specific angle" camera everyone mocks. But it does show ND had an obsession with weird camera angles that get in the way from day 1.

It's an experiment. A platformer that has you running into or away from the screen. Neat in theory. In practice it leads to incredibly cheap deaths very very often. Falling into a pit just on the other side of a ridge that you can't see until you're over it which then demands trial and error gameplay of failing over and over, to memorize where the pits are in the course, to then be able to predict ahead of the events. In some ways like a racing game.

Technically the game design isn't very good. One can argue it's in fact very, very bad. However, especially with the fresh coat of paint (and some fixes to the physics), there's a weird Souls-ian addiction to "ok one more time, this time I've got it!) no matter how cheap and stupid it is My brain knows I'm playing a game that's terrible from concept to implementation. Yet somehow I grin while playing it. The Switch build and it's so so graphics dont' inspire the same joy, which goes a long way to say "the game-play actually sucks but looking at it is so fun" The gameplay would actually be more suited to quick burst handheld play, but without the shine I'm less inspired to want to play it.

What saves it is it's a unique experiment in gaming that's never really been tried again, so even though ti's flawed, and it's flaws are the reason it's never been tried again, it's really the only experience like it, so it's worth enjoying despite its flaws (until you snap your controller in half.)

NEStalgia

SuperGhirahim64

@BlueOcean Yeah if anything those on Wii U online are probably more hardcore fans like ourselves too which adds to it. But I find online is a bit of a strange experience. I used to play a good bit of FIFA and CoD online. But it was just repetition for hours on end. I was going to bed thinking, what was the highlight of that? There's no real story, no real achievement, nothing of value compared to something like Breath of the Wild or Mario Odyssey were I am going to bed amazed, looking forward to the next session.

What is Xenoblade Chronicles like? I was thinking of getting the 3DS game.

Totally agree regarding online. They just need to offer more. I like the NES online thing. Give us a range of back catalogue consoles to do that with. Something interesting rather than a poundshop stop of Xbox Live or PS plus.

Why choose from a range of great characters like Wario, Waluigi or Baby Luigi, when you have all green jelly Luigi and Toadette. Why have regular Toad and Toadette or another character when you can have a blue or yellow dressed Toad? 😵

NEStalgia

@Banjos_Backpack I'm with you on online. I got into online back in the 90's PC world when it was all new. It was cool. It was a cool group of people. But that kind of "spend all day and all night on one game with no set goals other than "win the match" really burns itself out fast. The first time since Quake 2 I actually got back into it was Splatoon for some reason. And ARMS. The only thing I use XBLG/PS+ online services for is internet coop for games that don't support LAN. Gears and Halo now support lan so that leaves Destiny as pretty much the only other one. That's a little different because there's actually a campaign that takes place online, like an MMO.... but otherwise I'm not enthused about online play at all (the Dark Souls hints are helpful though.)

Off-Topic, but New to XC? The N3DS port is decent, but the Wii or WiiU version will look a lot better if you have the U. I played on 3DS though so it's perfectly doable. Still waiting for the inevitable Switch port. It's a JRPG but with a weird semi real-time battle system. IMO everything monolith is a rough flawed diamond. The whole series has some inexplicable problems (hint: Don't use Sharla more than you must, she sucks horribly, few mechanics are explained well ever, and yes, the beginning sucks, just stick with it. Also side quests in XC1 are MMO fetch quests and mostly skippable, but the game is still huge.) But the world and story are unforgettable and combat becomes fun if you take the time to figure it out (XC2 and XCX have much deeper combat though) and easily a top slot winner if you can stick through the flaws.

NEStalgia

BlueOcean

@Banjos_Backpack

Xenoblade Chronicles

I am hating Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii) so much, which explains why I stopped playing it back in the day. It's incredible frustrating, the camera is awful, the difficult spikes are crazy. Sometimes you are about to beat a difficult enemy and it push you to a ravine and you have to start again finding your way back. It has the most boring side quests (I am not exaggerating) that I have played in my whole life and you are almost forced to do them. I really can't believe how this one was critically acclaimed so much. As a hardcore JRPG you spend most of the time fighting but in this game you also have to walk endlessly for one or another reason. The battle system is well designed but when put in practice is a mess, literally, when fighting more than one enemy at the same time which is most of the time because the enemies move, the camera is awful and manual and you have to move your character as well and also find other characters and touch them for boosts, help and reviving. On top of that the frame rate suffers in battles which makes more challenging to get the boosts right because they are rhythm micro-games. It's a broken game somehow.

However, it has a genuinely interesting story, it's visually appealing, Bionis' Leg looks very elaborated considering it's a Wii game, it looks even better than Breath of the Wild, resolution aside. The cut-scenes are great, the characters fit in the story, although they seem to be inspired a bit too much by the protagonists of Final Fantasy X, and the voice acting is pretty good, which is really surprising in Nintendo-published games. The soundtrack is hit or miss. I just want to beat it and say goodbye to it forever after all these years, but at the same time the story and characters will not be forgotten.

Online gaming - Wii, Wii U and Xbox One
The only games I have spent a significant amount of time playing online would be Monster Hunter Tri (Wii) and now Sea of Thieves and Fortnite. The reasons are different, Monster Hunter Tri was like sharing real adventures with new friends I communicated with, even as far as using videocalls on Skype.

On Wii U it's basically Mario Kart 8 every now and then, because the game against the CPU is easy and boring on 150cc and 200cc is messy, but I got Splatoon so I'll try that too.

Now on Xbox One I found that online gaming is so well designed with invitations, game chat, party chat, solid servers, etc. Sea of Thieves is a bit like Monster Hunter, it's about sharing adventures basically, meeting people... For me, I mean, I am friendly -in spite of what some people think about me on here, ha, ha-. Sea of Thieves can be relaxing or you can go to hard challenges like battling an skeleton ship, it's up to you. Monster Hunter focus on hunting so it's more action-oriented.

Fortnite is a different thing, it feels a bit more impure because you just want to feel the adrenalin when you kill somebody that could have killed you, but at the same time it feels great when you are able to help somebody or are being helped by a friend or a stranger. It's like heaven in hell. The real challenge is building while fighting.

I think online gaming can be repetitive but also can be very rewarding because of what can bring to your brain and heart. But I don't play much anyway, there are many people that play over 40 hours a week which is more than a full-time job. I wouldn't do that whether it's offline or online, because then I'd think that I'd have a problem.

Edited on by BlueOcean

BlueOcean

Grumblevolcano

@BlueOcean A main way Nintendo could've improved the quantity of 1st party online titles is to add online to games that have multiplayer. For example Kirby Star Allies has 4 player local co-op, have 4 player online co-op and that game becomes more exciting for those who play online. Same with Super Mario Party, let River Survival and the classic Mario Party board gameplay have 4 player online multiplayer rather than just a special minigame mode.

Subspace Emissary in Brawl could be played with others in local co-op but imagine how cool it would be if Smash Ultimate had a story mode and you could play it, Classic Mode, All Star Mode, etc. online. Will it be like that? I doubt it, online functionality for Smash Ultimate will likely the same as Smash Wii U and if you're lucky there'll be a better netcode.

That was one of the cool things about Xbox 360 era Xbox, online multiplayer and co-op were present while keeping local multiplayer and co-op intact. You want to play Halo 3 campaign with friends? Doesn't matter whether those friends are with you person or far away, you can still do it. Halo Reach even had campaign co-op matchmaking.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

BlueOcean

@Grumblevolcano

I agree, my friend. Those games could be patched and have online modes and will give Nintendo Online more sense. A co-operative story mode in Super Smash Bros. 5 sounds good too, but I don't know, it's like Nintendo is rushing games too much for that. I really don't know what they are doing with all the time and all the people working for them. I don't mean just on Switch, if I am honest it was an issue on Wii U and 3DS too: Mario Kart 7, Super Mario 3D Land, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Yoshi's New Island, Mario Party 10, Star Fox Zero, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival, even Paper Mario Colour Splash and Sticker Star... All those felt rushed or lower-quality.

It looks like Smash Bros. 5 will have a lot of characters and stages but I'm not sure if it will have something like The Subspace Emissary. I think that the fact that they delayed Yoshi means that they still care about the final quality of their games, I suppose, so who knows. Luigi's Mansion 2 and Yoshi's Woolly World were great. Nintendo used to care about quality a lot in the past but in recent years you never know if a Nintendo-published game will be great or disappointing.

In short, I agree with your ideas.

I didn't have a 360 so I don't know much outside of the ton of backwards compatible games that now I own. At least The Master Chief Collection has split-screen modes but it's true, local multiplayer is rare today outside of Nintendo consoles. I don't think that there are many games for Xbox One or PS4 with split-screen modes, let alone a whole campaign like on Xbox 360.

BlueOcean

Grumblevolcano

@BlueOcean The only thing that makes me think Smash Ultimate will have a story mode is that the starting roster is only the N64 lineup. Having like 60 characters unlockable is going to be a massive grind without a story mode, like unlocking Mewtwo in Melee levels of grinding.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

DarthNocturnal

Ha. I remember that.

“20 hours of VS?! But I don't play that enough....... hmm, 700 matches you say?“

>sets stock to 1
>Jigglypuff's SD rating skyrockets mysteriously

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

ThanosReXXX

@BlueOcean Thanks, and my pleasure, and I'll wrap the whole text wall swapping up right here, so rest assured that we will stay more on topic from here on out. (although: we didn't really go off topic in the first place, seeing as it was an Xbox-related discussion) I do have to confess that things have become much clearer now, with @NEStalgia's latest and quite elaborate explanation, so we are now actually able to agree, as you will see, on most of what has been said...

@NEStalgia Holy crap! I guess it wouldn't be too far from the truth, to say that you've hit a new high in text-wall size, unless I missed some of your other efforts, perhaps in forum and/or article threads where I wasn't involved...

I more or less promised to our discussion partner to not keep this dragging on, so I'll just stick to the two most relevant points:

First off, unless I missed that (in which case my apologies), I haven't really seen you explicitly say something about the X and/or even the S becoming streaming boxes, in relation to Xbox Scarlett, so that is probably also where a large part of our misunderstanding came from, both from me and @BlueOcean, so good that we finally have that in the clear now, and I could actually see that happening, so we do indeed agree on that part.

BUT.... current gen Xboxes being able to stream next gen Xbox games does in no way equate to what I was disagreeing about with you, and that is that your comments came across as if the X was going to be the S of the Scarlett, while statements of Phil Spencer himself strongly seem to point to a completely new machine, or even two, if the streaming box + local console rumor is to be believed.

That can be backwards compatible, obviously, and what I've said before about business sense, would be to not completely alienate current gen Xbox owners, by indeed making the X2 completely backwards compatible with the ENTIRE catalog of games that can now be played on the One, including previous gen titles.

Still doesn't make the X an X2 Lite, or whatever they're going to call it, though. And it possibly being able to stream X2 games also doesn't indicate much toward that being an option. Heck, the Switch is now able to stream Assassin's Creed Odyssey in certain regions, so if that isn't an indication of that point, then I don't know what is...

But my whole point with the "makes no marketing and business sense", was that they will of course want to move people to the newer device, and that is also why I expect it to be so fully compatible with everything we've seen and received so far, so that trading in your "old" X for the Scarlett won't hurt that much, seeing as you would still be able to play and/or download your entire existing game catalog.

Keeping the older consoles tagging along, even just as streaming boxes, could potentially mean people not choosing to move, which could also mean a negative impact on X2 sales, so one way or the other, they'll have to get rid of current gen platforms, and persuade people to get that brand new X2...

Second and last point: although the Xbox and PlayStation may have become more like PC's in a box than ever before, the software and architecture is still very much tailor-made (otherwise we would simply be able to install PC games on them), and in the case of the Xbox One, there are three hardware layers/components, that each take care of a single aspect of the device, so one for the OS, one for games, and one for media. That means that unlike with a PC, the entirety of the hardware isn't constantly taxed with running both the OS and a game (at the same time on all hardware components), because those tasks are divided between the three layers/components, to optimize performance.

That also means that the device still works quite differently, AND as previously mentioned, can be programmed in ways different than ordinary PC hardware, and also in a more efficient way, because it is tailor-made to do so, unlike PC's, which as you know, come in an almost "all colors of the rainbow" number of varieties. Software adapting to all that automatically could potentially still hold the hardware back, unless game sizes go through the roof.

I would hope that Microsoft is also going to improve upon that, either by means of compression or otherwise, because it's already clear that 4K addons for games are ever growing in size, so imagine if the premium version of the Scarlett is going to tackle 8K: it wouldn't even matter then if it is a streaming box or a local console, because the internet speed requirements to handle such amounts of data would probably be too much for quite a few regions, and not just in the US, but worldwide...

Unless of course, they're simply going to stick to 4K and focus on upping and locking that frame rate, in which case, my point is irrelevant...

As for Scream Ride: how come you've only now discovered that? It's been out for ages, relatively speaking.
I've already had installed on the Xbox 360, and it is indeed quite the entertaining game.

And I don't think Kameo looks ugly at all, or perhaps that is because I'm not sat with my face only an arm's length away from the screen...

My TV is almost exactly 10 feet away from my couch, 42 inch plasma panel, full HD.

But yes, that too is a good game. Then again: what do I know? As you know I recently downloaded and renewed my love for OG Xbox game Black, so apparently, I'm really not that much of an expert on what looks good on Xbox One or not...

@BlueOcean Okay, I'm done now...
How about that Banjo-threeie rumor, aye?

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: ThanosReXX

BlueOcean

@ThanosReXXX I didn't read @NEStalgia last wall about the "generations" and Scarlett vs. PS5 because I didn't want to go crazy in the loop... So I don't know if I agree with his last comment or not. Now I feel bad and will have to read it... and explain again why he is wrong? Oh no...

BlueOcean

ThanosReXXX

@BlueOcean No, it's safe to read, except I still don't agree completely, but that's fine with me.
Most important for me, is compromise, meet in the middle and all that. If both parties in a discussion just dig their heels in the sand, then the discussion is going nowhere but down the drain.

He has a good point, we had some good points, and combined, we had several good points, and we're probably on to something in relation to digest all these rumors, and at times not all too clear official statements. I say: job done.

Edited on by ThanosReXXX

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: ThanosReXX

NEStalgia

@BlueOcean XC1 Yeah I agree with the frustrations. But the side quests are totally skippable. I did very very few of them. They were horrible. Difficulty spikes usually involved "grind more" and "send Sharla packing. Also "know when to use Melia" was a big deal. But yea, I have a love hate relationship with XC. IT's very flawed. And yet so amazing.

@ThanosReXXX I think Ralek still beats my text walls regularly.

Rather than add too much more text walling, I'll just comment on a few specific points:

-X2 being a whole new box still doesn't preclude anything software wise on prior hardware unless it's an architecture change, and that's not happening.

-The hardware customness in the current gen doesn't really mean much for a game. There's just not much that has to be put into it versus PC for it to run on the new consoles, and especially XBoxen. I think you're overvaluing the old methodologies and ignoring the great standardization of the modern era games.

-Business wise, I do disagree that "MS wants to move people to the new box." If they are firmly doing the generation thing, then yes, they do. But what do they gain by pushing the new hardware? In the past it was the ability to sell new games. But if games were inherently multi-generational like with PCs? They don't need to sell a specific box. Hardware nets them little profits. They just need to sell any XBoxen to get people to lock into their subscriptions and game store. Including smartphone apps that stream XBox games. There's no money in the hardware, the money's in the MS Store, GP, and Gold. If X can't run the games, then yeah, they want you to buy new hardware so you will buy new games. If X can run the new games, people not moving on isn't a problem: They're still buying games! And it gives game makers a much larger install base in the early years of a console, alleviating one of the biggest problems early gen for publishers. There's a lot of benefit to that strategy for MS, for 3rd parties, and for customers. (Again, if that were to be their plan.) (again, though the CPU is the question mark as to how possible that will or won't be) but business-wise, if it is possible, everybody benefits, and nobody loses from that. Imagine how much better that looks for EA or Ubisoft moving into a new gen with already millions of installs and growing rather than starting new every gen? They all want their PC model on consoles and widest possible access to customers, and that really accomplishes that better than generational shifts. Yeah last gen they wanted to cut the prior gen loose but that's because they wanted to get away from PPC and get far away from CELL. Now that it's x86 they don't have the incentive to escape this gen's hardware so completely. And that would give them exactly that.

Again, for clarity, not saying if it's going to happen or not, given the CPU, but there's incentive, business wise, across the board for that kind of ecosystem of forward-compatibility. MS wins (more software sales through their stores, increased vendor lock to consumers), publishers win (big install base, PC-like sales model), consumers win (play new games just less pretty/performant as they could be on faster hardware....like PCs....) Hardware operates so close to margin now nobody really loses if you don't buy the new hardware as long as you buy the software and subs. (if it's possible.)

But yeah, at absolute minimum, I'd be stunned of the X (and maybe S, and probably Windows boxen) can't participate in the streaming service. That would bridge that gap for the 5 people in the US that have internet that can handle it It would be a cheap way out, but less cheap than if none of the new boxes were streamers. Though I might like it....I have a Surface Pro (not One, not X, not 4, not Scarlett, just "Surface Pro" ) Streaming onto it like a giant Switch would be kind of awesome. I do that sometimes already but then my local XBox needs to be on. If streaming actually worked well (it won't, but if it did ) it could be cool to just buy Surfaces instead of XBoxes going forward It's the more expensive route, but a lot more versatile! (seriously, best laptop ever....current form factor is incredible. I spent all day transferring three 128GB SD cards from Switches to 256GB ones the other day, outdoors, and still had 30% battery left, and my lap didn't get second degree burns )

There is one key issue with backward compatibility, plus forward compatibility: Will Scarlett even have a disc drive? Debatable these days, and if it's so much more powerful than X, the game sizes will not fit on discs in any case. How they address that will be interesting and it may end up as a fully digital console, even if it does have a disc drive. Unless it sticks with "disc size textures + enhanced textures downloaded" like X. In which case below-X quality games will actually be the Scarlett default! "All games have a required 40GB download to simply function" doesn't sound like a good way to sell a console even in 2020. Streaming is starting to sound ideal The hype train is forgetting that there may either be no physical media, that BC may or may not mean "digital purchases only", or that new game physical media may just be a "download booster" if it's not moving to "Cartridges", thumbdrives, etc.) Worrisome times!

Scream Ride LOL yeah, I never heard of it. It's the exclusive that slipped through the cracks. It's very simplistic in a lot of ways but it's really crazy fun!

NEStalgia

ThanosReXXX

@NEStalgia And he replies with yet another wall of text... crap-ff-ing-tastic...

The business part of getting people interested in X2 is what I firmly disagree upon. To me, as a sales professional, it makes less than zero sense. Sure, the possible "X2 streaming" capabilities of the One X could be a sort of a transitional thing, to kind of ease people into the new generation of devices, but even though it's true that the most profit doesn't come from the hardware, I simply cannot (and will not, because I'm stubborn like that, lol) rhyme that with Scarlett setting a new standard in console hardware/gaming, nor do I see that being a beneficial business strategy moving forward into the Scarlett-only generation, which is bound to happen at some point.

Early adopters are key with any service or product, so like I said in the previous comment, holding that back from happening, by allowing the previous gen systems to tag along, compatible to some point or not, is not beneficial at all, in the long run. That is only true for the introductory period, or at most for the first leg of the generation to come. At some point, it has to differentiate itself, and offer that much of an added value, that people will actually WANT to buy that X2, without having to feel any remorse for having to leave their Xbox One (X) behind, because Scarlett will (must) be able to do all what that console can do, but also so much more.

And I don't believe that all of that can be incorporated in a streaming-only service either. But that was never the issue anyway, because Phil Spencer has already said that there will be dedicated hardware, so that part is more than likely already covered.

It could be argued that a streaming-only box is also a way of setting new standards in console gaming, but even if I would like to do so, I can't see a company famous for delivering power-house consoles, going into such a downgrade mode that they would revert their entire Xbox department into a streaming set-top box service. And making up such a service, with the excellent online infrastructure that they already have, could already be implemented directly. It doesn't take another two years to make hardware for that, and they've been at it for more than a year already...

As for the "not being able to put Scarlett games on a disc" part: you are apparently unfamiliar with 4- or 5-layer Blurays...

Top grade multi-layer Blurays can already hold as much as up to 125GB of uncompressed data, so using compression techniques for the install files, could probably up that to a total amount of anywhere between 150 - 200GB per disc, so I see no issues there. And there will still be the option to have additional files for download, but an entire game, whether 4K or 8K, can most definitely be put on a single disc.

Important question that arises from that, though: who is going to pay for that? The customer or Microsoft? If they do, then they will probably have to take a moderate (albeit calculated) hit on their profit margin, seeing as the manufacturing/pressing of these more expensive Blurays will need to be factored in, or they might simply add 5 to 10 bucks to the price of a retail game, which might just be acceptable for the target audience, if these new generation games do indeed go above and beyond in offering more bang for your buck...

Dang, another text wall. Perhaps you could try and be more compact in your next reply. Otherwise, I probably can't help but replying to a text wall with yet another text wall...

'The console wars are like boobs. Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'

Nintendo Network ID: ThanosReXX

DarthNocturnal

I think I've seen a few comparable tsunamis of text. Including one (not on this thread) from a user who wanted to use as many words as possible, just to get his single point across to me. The point in question could've been condensed into two words: “You're stupid“. Or at least, that's the vibe I was getting from it...

"Sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior" - C-3P0

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic