Xbox Series S/X: Thread 02

[CMcK]

A dev engine guy has a look at some Dirt 5 Series X footage and says some words that are mostly negative. Does he have a point though? This could be a current-gen game.

It is a current gen game. Just with a few extra options for the new systems. Still the same assets and game engine.

[hudson]

That Dev guy loves to kick the boot in on Xbox at the moment... Just watch the Digital Foundry content instead they go through all the modes and the sacrifices made to reach the higher frame rates.

"is this a mobile game?" talk about click bait crap.

I kinda like his videos now I've watched a few more. He seems reasonable.

[Neon Ignition]

Yeah, there was never any real question about why Dirt 5 can do 120hz, it's resolutely a current gen game. Also, once developers let go of the XBO/PS4 cross gen era software development and fully go XSX/PS5 60fps+ games will get less common, not more. It's also worth tempering expectations on 60fps backwards compatible games too, unless the developers put in the effort (which most won't) to release performance patches then many games won't hit 60fps consistently and may just cap at a solid 30fps instead.

As for Series S, if a developer is making a game primarily targeted at Xbox it won't be a bottleneck - That's Xbox One.
If a developer makes a game primarily targeting PS5 then yes, it's a bottleneck and will need heavier optimisation which will only come if the Series S commands a significant portion of the audience otherwise it'll be given what it's given as they focus on the leading SKU's.

[hudson]

So for multi-platform games from third party devs, we may find that Series S could ruin the party for all?

[nonny]

Yeah, there was never any real question about why Dirt 5 can do 120hz, it's resolutely a current gen game. Also, once developers let go of the XBO/PS4 cross gen era software development and fully go XSX/PS5 60fps+ games will get less common, not more. It's also worth tempering expectations on 60fps backwards compatible games too, unless the developers put in the effort (which most won't) to release performance patches then many games won't hit 60fps consistently and may just cap at a solid 30fps instead.

As for Series S, if a developer is making a game primarily targeted at Xbox it won't be a bottleneck - That's Xbox One.
If a developer makes a game primarily targeting PS5 then yes, it's a bottleneck and will need heavier optimisation which will only come if the Series S commands a significant portion of the audience otherwise it'll be given what it's given as they focus on the leading SKU's.

I think it's fair to say even now the Series S is going to account for a significant portion of the audience. I mean, price-wise as a second console it seems like an all round winner. Yes the spec is lower, but that is the point right? It isn't built to be a 4K machine. I guess if it does see decent sales developers will be more inclined to put more effort into hitting that specific level.

For 1st party titles I don't think there is anything at all to worry about, nor for larger 3rd party titles which are cross-platform either (COD, AC etc...), it's going to be those smaller studio titles with big ambitions that might cut corners it more ways just to get it running on it.

It remains to be seen though and it's going to be a title by title analysis for sure.

As for BC, there's two parts to this. The original development studio might be able to release a simple patch to leverage more of the next-gen architecture but it will be interesting to see if they are bothered with the effort. Plenty will as we know Borderlands 3 as an example is getting a patch, Cyberpunk as well etc...

If a studio isn't interested in doing that there is still the central MS team working on BC. They have often stepped in and requested permission to apply simple fixes where they see a particular title can benefit from a piece of BC functionality they can provide. In many cases I would think all is not lost just because the original developer is not going to do it.

Again... remains to be seen!

[MartyG]

So for multi-platform games from third party devs, we may find that Series S could ruin the party for all?

Has the Switch ruined it on current platforms for all? Has having a GTX1060 on PC ruined it for all?

[Cassius_Smoke]

I like the idea of having a big open playground when it comes to game design. The hardware should allow for all kinds of ideas a game designs and of course its also constrained by the technology available.
Lets say I have the idea of making a game were I bounce light around a room to solve puzzles and I want to use raytracing to make it happen. If I have that idea 10 years ago it wouldn't be possible; Harware has constrained me.
So lets say I make that game now. I want as much flashyness as possible and in 60fps. I develop primarily on the SeriesX and I want to get as much out of it as possible. Suddenly I realise that i'm using 10gb of ram...well that won't cut it because the SeriesS doesn't have that much. I'm left with 2 options, either strip the game back for both consoles and make a poorer product, or I spend more time and money optimising it for the seriesS and making a subpar version of the game, eating time and money from the overall budget. Neither is a good prospect.

[MartyG]

This is a non-issue. It hasn't been an issue on PC, it's not going to be an issue on consoles. This will be especially true when UE5 starts being widely used.

They ported The Witcher 3 to Switch.

[Neon Ignition]

I think it's fair to say even now the Series S is going to account for a significant portion of the audience. I mean, price-wise as a second console it seems like an all round winner. Yes the spec is lower, but that is the point right? It isn't built to be a 4K machine. I guess if it does see decent sales developers will be more inclined to put more effort into hitting that specific level.

For 1st party titles I don't think there is anything at all to worry about, nor for larger 3rd party titles which are cross-platform either (COD, AC etc...), it's going to be those smaller studio titles with big ambitions that might cut corners it more ways just to get it running on it.

It remains to be seen though and it's going to be a title by title analysis for sure.

As for BC, there's two parts to this. The original development studio might be able to release a simple patch to leverage more of the next-gen architecture but it will be interesting to see if they are bothered with the effort. Plenty will as we know Borderlands 3 as an example is getting a patch, Cyberpunk as well etc...

If a studio isn't interested in doing that there is still the central MS team working on BC. They have often stepped in and requested permission to apply simple fixes where they see a particular title can benefit from a piece of BC functionality they can provide. In many cases I would think all is not lost just because the original developer is not going to do it.

Again... remains to be seen!

Depends on whether the Xbox brand manages to expand itself again and how many units MS is shipping of the X vs the S. The only measure we have so far is the S is the slowest to sell out of all four models and that potentially it strays into a market share that could see Switch get in the way too. There are loads of different pro's and con's to the Series S and Game Pass but I think the idea that it becomes a strong option for people looking to own a second system seems a solid one. You'd still be able to to have games on it fine but it could find itself in a base Xbox One position where things don't run as well and devs don't bother patching performance post-release.

That being said, even for the FIFA/COD/GTA masses I find it hard to believe that Series S will be the system they are looking to pick up. Those games won't be on the service when consumers want them on release and they'll be perceived as the weakest versions just as all lower power system versions are. I think the Series S will ultimately need what MS did with the X360, where it didn't sell such high units because it was good, it did so because it was able to tap into the casual gamer market effectively for a few years - something MS has been lost at since then.

[Neon Ignition]

My only caveat with the PC comparison is that PC's don't struggle with these issues because they're primarily running games designed for 2013 era consoles. A PC's ability to scale is largely due to the very low technological bar modern GPU's are asked to meet and that scalability is to a degree left to the user. A GTX750 doesn't constrain a game compared to a RTX3080 because the software is rarely designed with either in mind, this isn't as true with console gaming where often one platform SKU is the lead. I don't think that we'll get games hard focused on modern tech utilisation but in theory if someone made a ray-tracing focused game but was hardlocked on requiring the GTX750 to be the base then the project would completely be compromised at its core because the base focus wasn't capable. That wouldn't happen though as the dev would quickly rule out an older GPU as the base for such a specific gameplay requirement or come up with a rough, poor mans workaround which is more likely what would happen with a weaker console SKU.

Let's put it this way, people are currently clawing and biting their way through competition to get their hands on the RTX3070-3090 stock. Can these almighty brand new GPU's run next-gen games at 4K60fps? No. Of course they can't and everyone currently rushing for these cards will, in the coming 4-5yrs, be repeating the same to pick up the inevitable RTX5080's etc that actually meet that real world target. To expect 1440p60fps or 4K60fps on console this coming gen as standard comes with only two outcomes:

1-The user ends up very sorely disappointed very quickly
2-Games include a performance mode to hit that target but the visual quality of the games gets increasingly horrific as the generation grows in years

[MartyG]

These consoles literally are PCs. The have Zen 2 and Big Navi architectures at their core on PCIE 4 mobos. They are primarily developed on PCs using multiplatform engines that do the heavy lifting.

This is a complete non-issue. The games are not going to look crap just because Xbox Series S exists.

[Neon Ignition]

PC's with no upgradeability, bare minimal control over display settings and grossly overestimated user expectations when it comes to how powerful they are

[nonny]

PC's with no upgradeability, bare minimal control over display settings and grossly overestimated user expectations when it comes to how powerful they are

The Series S is still a pretty powerful little bu gger when you look at it but people seem to expect miracles from it almost like it deserves a direct comparison to the PS5 and XSX. It is powerful but as you say, its almost targeting a different market.

I am sure it'll see plenty of titles on it hitting 1440p and possibly 60fps as well in a unit smaller almost the same size as my current Router (Orbi) and at a price point I can get behind.

[MartyG]

PC's with no upgradeability, bare minimal control over display settings and grossly overestimated user expectations when it comes to how powerful they are

This is really an advantage because you won't have users settings things to 8K with all the post-processing turned on and moaning they're only getting 5 fps.

The machines are pretty beefy in tech currently - I'd probably agree that there's certainly a degree of over inflated expectations, but that's really the fault of Microsoft and Sony over egging the whole "most powerful console in the world" stuff - like the UK having world leading track and trace.

Ultimately it won't be the technology holding game development back; these consoles have more than enough power for the next few years, it's time and money that are the biggest barriers.

[dataDave]

I like the idea of having a big open playground when it comes to game design. The hardware should allow for all kinds of ideas a game designs and of course its also constrained by the technology available.
Lets say I have the idea of making a game were I bounce light around a room to solve puzzles and I want to use raytracing to make it happen. If I have that idea 10 years ago it wouldn't be possible; Harware has constrained me.
So lets say I make that game now. I want as much flashyness as possible and in 60fps. I develop primarily on the SeriesX and I want to get as much out of it as possible. Suddenly I realise that i'm using 10gb of ram...well that won't cut it because the SeriesS doesn't have that much. I'm left with 2 options, either strip the game back for both consoles and make a poorer product, or I spend more time and money optimising it for the seriesS and making a subpar version of the game, eating time and money from the overall budget. Neither is a good prospect.

Your ray-tracing game is using 4K textures, hence the 10GB VRAM requirement. The Series S can spank that out at 1440p/60FPS using just 2.5GB to 2.8GB of VRAM by simply down-sampling the textures from 4096x4096 to 2048x2048. It could probably go down to 1024x1024 and save even more before someone like DF would notice anything like slightly softer surfaces.

In your example it sounds like you want to somehow force the Series S into doing native 4K with absolutely no optimisation whatsoever.