Definitely gives devs a convenient cop-out, doesn't it? All the while their marketing will say: "Oh but we're really PUSHING these next-gen consoles to their limits!"
I was questioning the Series S holding developers back in 2 or three years. For instance- will a PS5 exclusive released in 2025 be dramatically more impressive than an Microsoft one or even a 3rd party that has to develop for Series S as well?
Not really, just that based in raw hardware, the series s will encounter it's limits much sooner than series x . But the velocity architecture and mesh shading are tech which the series s needs has the series s is meant to be more relying on the velocity architecture. Just to showcase what the velocity architecture can bring for lower end hardware configurations.
It's good to see DF talk about DLSS sharpening weirdness, as its something I've noticed in a lot of games recently. There is a huge issue with the way some games implement their DLSS sharpening slider, where 50% on the slider is actually 0% sharpening. Anything under 50% adds smoothing to the image, and anything over 50% adds that sharpening with weird haloing and artifacts. It's pretty rough because if you realize that the weird artifacts in motion are because of DLSS sharpening, you would set it to 0 thinking you are turning off sharpening, when you are actually having DLSS add blur to your image.
Do you want example???? MINECRAFT RT ON XBOX SERIES WAS NEVER RELEASED BECAUSE I THINK SERIES S WAS NOT CAPABLE FOR FULL PATH TRACING. EVEN SERIES X STUCK AT 1080P SUB 30FPS
@@kusumayogi7956 You might be right. I'd forgotten all about that. I can't believe Microsoft haven't released that for Xbox yet. They should try to release it some way. I hate the fact they haven't really done a first party game that showcases what their machine can do with ray tracing.
DLSS 2+ really wore me out in Cyberpunk especially. So many artifacts! I just wish we could significantly increase performance the old way through better and smaller chip designs. Alas we have been at at the end of that road for a long while now. Maybe AMD’s comparable technology is less grating? I still have to try it.
Nailed it mate there was a great thread on this very subject on Guru3D. It also seems that AMD CAS is significantly better than Nvidia’s sharpen solution at this time for whatever reasons.
This is so ridiculously true, it's almost insulting. The Series S isn't even a *bad* PC-equivalent. It's a midrange 6000 series GPU and a Ryzen 7 from 2019. These are better specs than most PC gamers are using. When you look at what devs are pulling off on the Switch, all of this complaining about the Series S just comes off as contemptuous.
@@cakeisamadeupdrug6134 Exactly what I have been saying recently. Just look at the steam hardware survey, a lot of people are using 4gb graphics cards still, such as the 1050 and 150ti.
They can scale, the problem is, they don't tend to scale very well. As the game gets more complex, the devs start to shortcut too much to cater for the weaker hardware and therefore hardcode certain downgrades into the actual engine itself. The main problem is that the dev kits are console specific and the games are built for console from the ground up and then third party devs need to then reverse engineer and port to PC. Normally this just ends up with issues such as graphics settings either not working when you select them, or certain settings going missing altogether. If it was the other way around where they built their games around PC at the lowest common denominator and then looked to port as best they could on console, it would be alot cleaner and you'd probably get more desired results. Consoles full stop are holding back gaming, but as Witchard said, Microsoft did a pretty decent job scaling down MSFS on the Series S, so I suppose that's one good example of the way ports _should_ be handled going forward.
@@Longlostpuss I'm aware of all of this, I have worked full-time as a dev for almost a decade now. That being said, there are practically no games releasing right now that are pushing hardware enough for the Series S to hold games back. In theory, yes. In reality, 99% of modern games aren't doing anything bleeding edge enough to consider the Series S a handicap. Most dev teams are just looking for an easier and quicker path to production. I don't see anything wrong with that, but throwing shots at MS for the Series S isn't the solution. With more headroom they can push things out the door without worrying as much about optimization, but management rarely gives them the time needed so they're pushing the blame elsewhere. I know because I'm guilty of doing similar things lol.
@@MrModaman just like plagues tale requiem and Gotham knights devs both refusing to put in the required time, and effort into optimizing their game’s with 60fps Performance modes on The New Consoles which Are absolutely capable of running those game’s @ 60fps no problem as all it takes is extra time, and effort to deliver the performance modes
@@technologylord4017 Gotham knights runs bad because it was made poorly and not optimised, plague tale: requiem on the other hand runs poorly because it is just that demanding
They can get it to run on a variety of hardware but you always have target minimum specs. They are not forced to optimize the game for a 5 year old card to get their game out. Microsoft on the other hand, requires that you release your game for both the Series consoles, which means that you are forced to spend additional time optimizing and there is a significant amount of opportunity cost that is lost.
Series S is faster than an RX 580 or 1060 6 GB, that's before accounting for DX12U tech, like VRS, Mesh Shading or Sampler Feedback, or the lowest ms cost of FSR2 on RDNA2 va GCN4/Pascal. I'd argue this is faster than just 65% of the marketplace.
Exactly. If anything lower end PCs and iGPU laptops are holding back gaming. Even the most used hardware today is a quad/six core from a few years ago and a 1060/1050ti. People always say that consoles are holding back games as if everyone with a PC has a high end system even though they make up for maybe 0.01% of the playerbase. The majority has midrange hardware from years ago or low end hardware that can not even meet minimum specs.
@@kwedl And most of these people are not expecting their system to run next gen games. Most of them play CSGO and Valorant. Most people who buy AAA games have mid to high end PC. Also the GPU prices are stable now and very competitive. So the average system is going to change in one or two years.
Love Johns comment on RT reflections in racing games being a bit of a waste of resources as your eyes are focused on other things in the scene, having GI would be better suited as it would compliment the whole scene. I love how GI looks in games.
With racing games being predominantly outdoors with relatively few/sparse occluding objects and no express need for dynamic time-of-day, weather, or ability to closely probe the scene, the amount of value to get from GI RT is probably not that great either, IMO. If you were to take the latest GT or Forza game and render it with something like Octane or Arnold I suspect the average person wouldn't care much about the improvement. After all, the GI likely already is RT/path-traced, it's just baked rather than realtime.
Almost half the screen in a racing game is taken up by the cars. Cars being the super reflective objects that they are, it makes sense to make the reflections as accurate as possible. Self reflections alone make a massive difference. As for everything outside the car. Arguably that's even less important because its all blurred away at such high speeds anyway. RTGI requires tones of samples which takes a long time to resolve, by which point you'd be miles down the road anyway.
I don't think RT reflections are worth it for any fast paced game imo, I found them pointless in Spiderman as well for how quickly you're generally moving through the city and because they slash performance by 30-50%.
@@omarcomming722 they are well worth it in spiderman but I can see why some would prefer disabling them for the extra performance. The issue with a lot of criticism of RT is that it's often judged relative to the poor performance of a completely different implementation. Car games can use RT on only mirror surfaces which only require
How can Series S be holding back gaming when Sony is still manufacturing the PS4 with its mechanical drive and its ancient CPU? The existence of the Series S allowed Microsoft to immediately retire the Xbox One, 2.5 years ago, whereas Sony is *still* selling the PS4. The PS4’s immense popularity, and the fact that they’re still selling the thing, is holding gaming back far more than the Series S.
But the PS4 will eventually be phased out, it won't last the entire PS5 generation. Same happened with PS3-360 to PS4-One. But the Series S will be supported the entire generation and likely the first couple years of the next generation too
I'm a poor gamer and still have gtx 950 paired with i5 3470. Most game still run 30 fps and above. You just need to turn down the setting in most games. The thing i like about pc is you could scale the game however you want. I failed to see how Series S would held back anything. The developers just have to scale down every graphic setting they could on Series S and turn it up on series x or ps5.
@@markopecurica4463 well, it is. Is there any difference when making a PC game? In gaming PC you have to consider the weakest hardware for the minimum requirements.
@@markopecurica4463 what must they take into account of the series s? Lets look at its "weaker" specs - CPU well its as fast as PS5 cpu actually its faster because its the same 8 cores but clocked slightly higher - its SSD well its the same as the Series X the only thing is memory and graphics power which when you turn down settings and resolution you need less of that anyway So what do they need to calculate again?
I really liked the points made for the series s, and in the thinking of price, here in México, I've seen a lot of comments of people that are really happy that they can go in the next gen with a limited budget, because yeah the economy isn't great, in latin america everyone is a little more restricted in that sense, and having the opportunity to afford gaming in a budget and next gen, is really amazing! I don't have one yet, I'm still on my xbox one, but I'm planning on getting a series s as well for the same reason.
I bought an Xbox Series S for some relatives in Mexico. They play on 720p/1080p televisions. And because of the limited availability of physical games in that region, being able to download games is super convenient.
@@Aristowi A Series X is not 'a little more' is 2x more expensive than a Series S, and the PS5 is up 3x more expensive when the series S goes on sale. It just provides so much more value and also since he has an Xbox one he can run all his games with backwards compatibility, maybe he had an Xbox 360 and he can run those games too! And those games will run much better now. So in his case it doesn't make much sense to expend more money on a console.
i already dismissed the series S and was considering a PS5, but since my digital library is all in the xbox, i'll go for the X (and yeah, I wanna keep my 360/One retro discs too)
@Reclaimer Leviathan in lots of countries Series X and PS5 are literally 100% more expensive than Series S. Here in Brazil I bough my series S for R$ 1700,00 (aprox $ 360,00) and R$ 4600,00 (aprox $ 930,00) for my PS5. Series X was out of stock last year so I had to get a Series S at the time.
@Reclaimer Leviathan Here in México, a Series S goes from 4500MXN to 6000MXN (occasional deal price 225USD - common price 300USD) while the Series X is between 10500MXN to 13000MXN (occasional deal price 525USD - common price 650USD). Wages between North American countries don't buy the same products for the same workhours.
I always ask the same question when the Series S gets called out for missing 1440P… what about the more powerful consoles that also rarely hit native 4K?
If my math isn't off, 1440p has 44% of the pixel count of a 4K image whereas Series S has only 33% of the GPU horsepower of Series X (4 vs 12 TFLOPs) so it would be hard to hit 1440p even when Series X is actually hitting 4k and they usually don't even do that most of the time. Generally though, when dynamic resolution scaling and temporal supersampling is factored into the equation, I expect the big boi consoles to get close enough to 4k image quality in most cases. It is hard to say where Series S will end up but it should be safe for the 1080p TVs that it was always targeting the most.
There is NO practical difference between re escalated 4k and native 4k. There is a HUGE difference between 1440p and 1080p and often times series trash drops beloe that,
I really don’t understand the attacks on the Series S. Do minimum spec PCs no longer exist? To me, it just seems like excuses are being made for extremely poor optimization. A problem that seems to be more and more common these days.
The Series S is the best thing that could ever have happened to the SteamDeck Forced S support also means SteamDeck will have PC games for years to come
That and all the images upscaling technology and frame generation technology, as those get better and more widely available these devices are gonna get better
I highly doubt Steam Deck's 4 core CPU will be able to keep up with its 8 core version inside Series S when next-gen games start releasing especially considering that the Deck CPU won't likely be able to maintain its max clockspeed over longer periods unlike Xbox Series S and how much higher CPU utilization tends to be on PC games vs their optimized console versions (like how demanding Spider-Man on PC is when it was a game that was designed for 1.6 GHz Jaguar CPU inside the PS4.
@@weaverquest it's running games at a much lower resolution and with upscaling technology you can run a game at 540p and upscale to 720 and it looks pretty good
@@The_MEMEphis Yeah but running games at a lower resolution help little to alleviate the CPU load. There is basically not much you can do when the CPU can't match the minumum requirement of the game.
I think Microsoft should make a dedicated developer’s kit for the Series S, considering how well it sold up until now. I understand that optimisation needs to be done from developer’s end but it will surely ease their work as optimisation requires much more than just dropping resolution and tweaking few graphical settings here and there.
Thank you Rich for mentioning the cost of living crisis being addressed. It's too easy to say we want all games to be on series X and PS5 and to forget about the majority of people who can't access the latest / greatest technology. The Series S is a brilliant console.
It's not "the majority". 2 years out it's the minority. Honestly if you can afford a $300 console, you can afford a $500 console. You just save up a other month or two. The Series S was a terrible idea that IS holding back Current Gen just opposite of how the Pro consoles last generation ruined performance on the base consoles become devs focused on the Pro consoles.
@@Kougeru - many people aren't ready to spend 500 bucks on a console for their young kids ! Stop thinking that games and consoles are only for adults who can afford to spend 500 bucks or more on a console ! Many of my son friends are still happy playing on their switch,ps4 etc...By the way you can buy with a series s with game pass for one year for about 300 bucks max that my friend is great value for the a lot of common people who just want to play games and have fun and don't give a fuck about 30fps,60fps etc..they just want to play games !!!!
As long as the GTX 1060 is on top of the steam hardware survey, I don't see where the Series S is holding back anything. Kind of out of touch of these certain devs to say they want to force people to buy higher end hardware that they clearly don't want. Plenty of people really don't care.
GTX 1060 top of the steam hardware survey is shady I heard it was becuase gaming spaces in asia have 1060's in every pc plus nvidia seem to get asked to do the survey more then others, I think really needs looking into
@@jamielee4834 nah nothing shady about. It was a GPU that actually released to a $259 MSRP and offered a pretty decent price/performance ratio. Radeon was a blip in the radar at the time and remained that way for quite a while.
That specific model being on top doesn't mean anything. The people with with 3060's and 3070's account for more than that. Consoles (in general) do and will always hold back gaming. They have close to null ray tracing capabilities and they can barely do 4K60 in games. While something like a 4090 or 7900XTX can ALREADY do 4K120 and even some 8K gaming. Yeah, they're super expensive top of the line cards that very few people own, but the thing is it's 2022 and there's already hardware capable of doing that. Meanwhile, we'll have to wait an entire console generation for the PS or XBOX to catch up!
IMO is very sad that a 6+ years old budget GPU is still the main hardware of PC gamers. And ironically being very close to series S' GPU performance will make PC users even more reluctant to move on.
@@pripyaat it definitely does mean something. 3 of the top 5 GPUs are 1060, 1650, and 1050Ti. So therefore any game releasing on PC pretty much needs to at least work on those GPUs - and not to mention on PC there are still a lot of people using spinning hard drives as game storage. The point is not about the upper bound of performance. It's about what is the low bound. And Series S in terms of features as well as performance is equal to or better than a lot of people's cheap gaming PCs.
THANK YOU! I got a Series S for my kid and he LOVES it. Didn't expect it to be as capable as it is considering the price but that also makes it accessible for those with a smaller budget!
The cost of triple A games has got crazy. 70-80 dollars a pop or more is not going to fly in an economic crunch. The problem is these games have been in development for years and based their sales on a stable economy. Those developers are going to have to change or go bust in the coming years. I would hope to see more indies making smaller budget games that push the boundaries of gameplay and ideas rather than who can make the largest, flashiest looking openworld tour de force.
Agreed. AAA gaming has really stagnated on the gameplay front. Nobody really wants to experiment anymore. The executives always want to play safe. There is no real reason why gaming has to be this expensive affair.
@@nou4605 Doom eternal experimented look how it’s treated on the Internet, remember evolve, that died as well. Truth be told people really just like safe games like call of duty and their annual sports games.
@@chalpua8802 but don't forget there's now more people gaming than ever, wether it's on PC, console,cloud or handheld. You don't need to raise the price if you're selling way more, you could but that's just greed at that point.
@@ismo9529 that doesn’t matter as much. Not every gamer plays the same games. Costs go up overtime. It takes so much to develop a game and corporations want to maximize profits. I’d rather pay more up front than get nickel and dime by games like Assasisn Creed. Who now plan to do both lol.
Personally I love the Series S. I snagged one for $275 US and Elden Ring runs better in performance mode than it does on my Asus ROG gaming laptop that was $1200. I'm still ok with 60fps and 1080p.
@@peite7878 I have almost 500 hours in between 6 different play throughs so...seems plenty playable to me. I'm a hardcore Souls fan and most of them ran at 30fps LOL. Bloodborne especially ran at 30fps with just awful frame pacing...still fun though. I don't have a frame counter on there to tell but there isn't any screen tearing. Some areas probably slow down into the 40's...who cares? When you've been playing games since 1995 like I have it isn't a big deal.
@@liamflan9553 So I actually didn't know and had to look it up. I have a Sony x85K and it appears that it does support VRR. I didn't realize it was "turned on" even lol. I guess that's why I'm not seeing any screen tearing?
Why do I never see anybody talking about how great these thumbnails are? Every week I'm left guessing what facial expression I'll see these guys make 😂. Maybe it's a dead topic at this point considering how many episodes there have been.
Massive Thanks for calling out Sackboy developers, and getting them to fix the stutter issue. It is very important to constructively criticise developers for releasing games in such state!
I feel like the idea of a platform like Series S holding back PC development is fundamentallt flawed. I don’t think big AAA publishers would be any more incentivised to make huge technological leaps even if the PS5 and XSX were the only platforms to worry about.
Yeah, there would still be memory constraints but with just series X and ps5, the level designs would not need any loading masks because all of the loading would be very quick. I guess on the bright side, having a lower end system means we are not getting 200 GB game anytime soon.
Except PC games development never materializes in games as optimized as on consoles traditionnaly. The idea of scaling means doing every thing on a more general scale and not as finely tuned. This shift by MS really begs the question as opposed to Sony's approach.
Exactly! It is just like PC, you can make amazing looking games for a 4090, but we all know there will be mostly people still using the 1060. Does that make sense?
graphics on AAA games are a selling point. People expect a new Rockstar game to look good. Look at the gap between GTA 5 on 360 and Red Dead 2 on Xbox one x... When people gonna play GTA 6 , they gonna expect something way better that Red Dead 2
@@Lancelotxxx But despite RDR 2’s advancements, it still ran well on PS4 and Xbox One, just like GTA V did. So I think it’s good that companies have a reason to think of lower end hardware.
FYI, raytraced reflections in forza are limited to internal reflections only. In photomode it does add AI opponents but at no point are other players visible.
20+ years ago the Quake 3 Arena gamers (I wasn't one of them) were going crazy on FPS turning off everything including graphics and basically playing in wireframe/graphics-less mode. Mouse frequency was also all the rage and you were even frowned upon if you had a mouse which was not be able to go above a certain value. It was all about reducing the latency I guess. IIRC there was also some jumping exploit/glitch in Q3A starting with a certain FPS count.
For Series S, I wonder how much of it just boils down to time constraints. You could argue that the Series S is holding back the Series X and PS5 when you have to spend time and money developing for the Series S. All these projects have timetables and you get to a point where you can't move timetables anymore. Series S just consumes valuable time. So you end up having meetings on what is getting cut with the intial launch (say a 60fps mode on the Series S) and say refinement on a stable 60fps on the Series X. I think the considerations, constraints and holding back the more powerful consoles is going to boil down to time. I think that is going to be more of a challenge than people will ever really be able to realize unless you are actually in the industry producing games. When you think about it, so many games release with issues that could be fixed with patches, but we don't get them. Time is dedicated somewhere else.
I think the series s makes sense in that Microsoft wants to also sell PC games. By forcing devs to make sure it works for the S also makes sure that it works for lower end pcs. It even helps the steamdeck in a way
Back in the day the focus was on making games so good that people bought new consoles and upgraded their pc's to play them. I like that philosophy better than trying to appeal to the lowest denominator.
@@androidtechgeek series s was planned years before 2020 that's not why it exists and gpus that are close to or superior to 500 dollar consoles don't cost that much especially in the years after launch. Supply issues are better now but also irrelevant to what I said.
@@i-10haula88 I'd much rather have what we have now. PC Gaming was prohibitively expensive back then. I'd rather not have to buy a new gpu every 6 months or a year. Lowest common denominator? That could be applied to gameplay actually. Every game tries to be a generic open world rpg. I'd rather they fix that instead of trying to put in flashy graphics.
I think you’re right, we don’t really know much of anything as we’re still in cross gen. So as long as games are running on a PS4 and XBox One, there’s not much to say about the S. I think the real test would be, after cross gen, if Sony starts pushing out first party games that are well beyond what third party is delivering at a technical level. Because at that point third party, and XBox first party, would be tied to the S where Sony exclusives would not be. And I’m not talking about game design or visuals and art style. I’m talking games that just would not run on Series S even in a downgraded version. The scalability of games this gen, making them more in line with PC’s, is making it hard to imagine a game that couldn’t run on the S at even 1080p 30 or something. So it will be interesting to see how the gen plays out. And if they do actually end up releasing pro style consoles, this issue will come up even more I assume.
One could argue that 1st party Sony games that truly utilize the hardware to the fullest, specifically meaning the really fast SSD, would not run on either the X or the S. I would not even worry about 1st party Sony games looking so good that Microsoft would have to abandon 1st party games on Series S. If all the features of the Series hardware are utilized to their fullest, and Series S targets the 1080p resolution I think things will be fine. Where things could get interesting is 3rd party AAA games in say 2 years. The _only_ issue I really see is memory size of Series S, as all the other important aspects are covered, fast SSD and CPU, to match the premium consoles. Hopefully this is where SFS, VRS, and the other RDNA2 features of the Series consoles will help out. I just can't believe, yet, that Microsoft was not looking fare enough in the future to understand what the put together with the Series s would not be sufficient to last a 6-year generation. I guess we will find out. If they release Pro versions of the X and PS5 with substantial increases in GPU power or memory size, then the entire discussion of the Series S is moot. The now premium consoles will have to be called out for holding back the Pro consoles just as much as some beleive Series S is now.
For all the talk about Series S and older hardware in general holding gaming back, DF crew could barely name a handful of games that could be use to showoff the power of a top end PC. This is as good of an argument to the contrary, as the rest that were brought in first discussion segment.
When you say "show off" at what frame rate?, there has been several recent games where PS5 & XBSX are sadly stuck at a crappy 30fps (welcome back to the bad old days), where even a mid range PC's hits 60fps and of course a lot higher for high end rigs.
That's because every game for the past 7 years has been designed specifically for (and held back by) the PS4, with barely any features specific to high end PC. It's not like the days before Crysis when developers would actually target high end PC. In the next couple of years they'll drop the PS4 and move on to the current-gen consoles or, if we're all unlucky, the Series S.
@@imo098765 the problem wasn't that they designed around PC, it was that they tried to release it on the ancient PS4 and Xbox One when games simply don't scale down like that. The result was everyone got a worse game that CDPR are now slowly fixing with updates that only target current-gen and PC.
@@faustianblur1798 The problem was their development management was trash and they lied to people. GTA5 and RDR2 runs on ps4 no problem. PC was just the brute force answer to crapy code.
11:32 I always love Rich's reaction to Alex using obscure english phrases that native speakers might never have heard before in their lives such as "in the hullabaloo" or "the hand not communicating to the leg" something like that.
1:17:30 Daniel Cacace, play Guardians of the Galaxy, Call of Duty Vanguard, Quantum Break, Red Dead Redemption 2 in Saint Denis city. Those will get your eyeballs seizuring beautifully👌🏼 I‘ve played every major game from all platforms in the last five years - RTX 3090 & PS5 - on a 4k OLED. Those games I listed have some of the best graphics in existence. The rest of the list: Demons Souls Flight Simulator Control Forza Horizon 5 Cyberpunk 2077 Horizon Forbidden West A Plague Tale: Innocence A Plague Tale: Requiem Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2022) Call of Duty Black Ops: Cold War Uncharted Thief’s End and Lost Legacy Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart
@@raresmacovei8382 Why not? The character detail and animations, most importantly how life-like they feel overall, are still top tier. Better than most of the games on that list. And the environments hold up really really well thanks to the art style.
Scapegoat! That's the word you were looking for Alex. Series S will be the scapegoat for every shoddy unoptimised game by developers looking to blame anything but themselves.
“Holding back gaming”… as in impeding games sales? As in making gaming less fun? Or are we just talking about maybe holding back the kind of graphical fidelity only a nitpicker holding a magnifying glass to their TV screen would obsess over?
He's the one who's not in a bubble of only caring about £1000 GPUs and £500 consoles that require £1000 displays that many people don't own and aren't in a rush to buy. It's easy to only consider the top end when you get access to all of that kit without paying for it. Rich has a very sensible perspective on current gen gaming. If the Series S had a disc drive, it'd be the perfect 1080p console. As things stand, it's really cheap due to NOT having that drive, and forcing digital purchases and no pre-owned games. This is why there's so much noise about it - the people who can't make a quick buck off of it, would rather it died off ASAP.
When I was homeless I created a beef suit to keep me warm in the windy city of Chicago. I dug outside in the garbage to find expired beef products. I then stitch a yarn exoskeleton around my body that can safely hang meats to cover me entirely. The expired meat kept me warm.
Hey guys, I'm really impressed how you approached the topic of Series S. It was so wide, professional and analytical on different levels, that I was impressed even more than usual after DF Direct. Listening you guys talking with such knowledge and sense is a pleasure. Thank you so much for your content.
Releasing a weaker hardware option. So when Xbox does it, it's holding the industry back. When Nintendo does it, aww that's just Nintendo being Nintendo.
Series S "might" hold some games back. That though is a big might with several caveat. Devs that complained say those that worked on Arkham Knights can be ignored given the poor general optimization even on high end PC or Series X and PS5. If better experience/talented devs who are first party have issues I would take those more seriously. Series S in comparison to PS5 or Series X is obviously anemic. It's in general better still than prior generation systems that are still mostly supported still. So if argue Series S is holding games back I argue the still using PS4/Xbox One is worse in said aspect. I don't even have a Series S or want one, but I'll defend the mostly BS complaints against it. The ones like Arkham Knights complaining is to me obfuscation of poor general optimization. Especially given Arkham Knight on prior gen in many aspects looks, play, and runs better... Not the original PC launch mind and talking PS4 and Xbox One. As that PC port was plaqued with s many issues even to this day... my point is at least with that game as an example that it isn't about the power of the system and more the game and its engine.
I'd say probably 1 out of every 10 people I know have a current gen machine and many of them are due to the fact that they can't afford the newer consoles even if there weren't shortages. Series S is a huge win for getting people access to current gen at all frankly.
They spoke about the Matrix demo on Series S this year. They really struggled to fit within the memory budget. They were GBs away from the target initially. To the point that Coalition joined in to help them. Everything was pushed to use the VT memory pool, SDFs and grooms took to much memory. It was a huge technical achievement that they managed to ship it in the end.
@@faustianblur1798 they also do that on the Spider-Man games for PlayStation. When you run the 60 FPS raytracing mode on the PS5, they reduce the amount of pedestrians and cars on the roads so the game runs better.
@@Omar-kl3xp I think it's to early to say at this point. For Epic and Coalition it was the time to learn new hardware in a production setting. Which resulted in new findings, knowledge and documentation. Memory was a constraint at that time for all platforms. Series X was 1-2GB over budget initially. But limitations give you ideas how to go around them. One of them could definitely be better utilization of storage capabilities. For now, Matrix Awakens and the previous UE5 demos capped at around 300 MB/s bandwidth.
I've seen this argument about Xbox Series S on twitter a lot and... no. Its CPU is the same as the X and the PS5 so none of that side of things is affected, the big difference is a weak GPU. So... just turn off ray tracing and lower the resolution. I've seen a couple of developers make outlandish claims about how it's just not possible to scale games to fit this midrange RDNA2 hardware when most PC gamers are on much older, weaker, and less optimised hardware than that and are managing to play modern AAA games just fine.
@@emlyndewar It happens every console generation. The new hardware comes out and games starts looking like trash and running badly until a few more years later devs start realizing the hardware has limitations and work within those limitations rather than pumping out unoptimized games.
@@rixzin5046 Last gen the machines were genuinely terrible, though. Jaguar CPUs and an underclocked 280. There's no excuse for complaining about midrange RNDA2 and 8 Zen2 cores. Not when other devs pull off the incredible with "impossible" Switch ports.
@@cakeisamadeupdrug6134 Last gen wasn’t as comparatively powerful as current gen is but they had a huge increase in the amount of performance compared to the ps3 and Xbox 360 as well as memory. Devs are simply trying to use the extra power the new consoles provide to brute force games which is why we have games like Gotham knights being released. It is lazy and pathetic but it will pass with time
@@rixzin5046 That's not really true. The PS3's CPU and SPUs were much more powerful than the shitty Jaguar CPUs in the last gen consoles, they were just abominably difficult to get the most out of. The GPUs were also pretty lacklustre. The HD 7850-equivalent GPU in the PS4 wasn't particularly powerful back in 2013, and it only got worse as the decade went on AND what the Xbox One has was even worse! Sony marketed the PS3 on the merits of 1080p gaming, but they didn't release a console that was actually capable of that without substantial amounts of chequerboarding until 2016, and even that didn't do anything to help with the fact that I have a more capable CPU running my fridge. The Xbox Series S, X and PS5 are completely incomparable with the genuine group of turds that made up the entire last generation of consoles. The PS4 was an evolutionary improvement while the PS5 is a revolutionary improvement.
3:30: Flight simulator 2020 on Xbox series X doesn't look like this anymore since Sim update 11: LOD has been drastically reduced. Now, there is a lot of pop-in, especially in photogrammetry cities (but it affects the whole world). Don't know if it is intended or a bug, but the visual downgrade is massive. Also, VRR mode in 120Hz with uncapped framerate has also been dropped...
Damn!!!!!!! I just downloaded again last night. I was hoping it was more stable it the visuals were a very key point of my love of the game. LOD was so minimal it was not visible from a reasonable distance on 65 in tv. The frame rate drop was minimal and never really hit until you start landing in heavy geometry locations. Even then, it was fine because it didn't really affect your performance unless you were trying to get a perfect score on the landing competition mode l. Sorry I forget the exact name to it. Anyways, I just want to rant...
@@axumitedessalegn3549 Indeed, Sim update 10 was visually perfect for Series X (minimal LOD, 30fps nearly fully locked, and even much more fps most of the time in VRR mode). Since Sim Update 11, the downgrade is huge. I hope it is only a bug. On the official forum, there is a topic about this issue. It has been classified as "bug logged", so there are chances that it will be fixed. But it seems that the issue was already there since the release of the beta of SU 11 so, a few months ago...
Game Devs: We'd love to make something other than open world collection games full of micro transactions, or hero shooters full of micro transactions, but I'm afraid the very scalable Series S is holding us back from making innovative experiences.
Any developer who has worked on pc ( or is planning on porting to pc) and has the time to step down to series s shouldn’t have a problem, only poor development teams who aren’t funded correctly or don’t have the time will have these issues, ue5 should scale just fine to a series s …. Ue has a powerful developer environment… but it’s up to the developers to optimize…
You think thats the problem ? Hahaha man lot of ppl can't see the real issues , games will always work on series s if devs are making the game for it , but what about first party sony studios ? They will push ps5 its possible limit while cross platforms and xbox exclu would be held by series s , which will make the marge between sony exclusive and other games very very big , we will have exclusives that will make other games look like last gen once , so this is the real problem
With regards to Richard's comments about hardware costs. I don't follow the PC market as much as I'm strictly a console user, but I still see 3090 TI cards at Best Buy here in Canada going for $2400. That's insane. I'll always be a gamer but considering that these cards have been replaced, I'm surprised by the extremely high cost still. Sure there are lesser expensive GPU's. But still, $2400??
If XB-S is holding back, then does the PS4 not holding back more? Yet the games are stunning on the PS5. And games are scalable on PC too, and yet stunning on the higher PC builds. So no, I don't think the XB-S is holding back. Developers themselves holding the XB-S back, not the other way round.
To Alex's point, Series S is not a 1440p console when Series X and PS5 are not 4 consoles, which is often, most games are still running with a dynamic 4k or 1440p on the premium machines, so it's only logical the S would not hit higher resolutions.
I feel like if we're going to talk about how the consoles on the lower end of the spectrum are holding back gaming that we need to address the massive Steam user base still using old GPUs. Devs do try and design games so that most people can run it.
If you look at the recent system requirements for newer PC ports, the "massive Steam user base still using old GPUs" has been all but abandoned. Games releasing for the current-gen consoles (Silent Hill 2, Callisto Protocol, Plague Tale:R, Dead Space Remake, etc) are recommending GTX 1070s and RX 5700s as GPUs just to run 1080p. It's always like this when a new gen drop, PC gamers either upgrade or drown.
Cross gen won't continue forever. They are concerned about new games on UE5 and other modern engines, which are too hardware consuming for the weak Series S hardware.
I think the question is moreso, sure games are being made for S and PS4, and XBOX one to an extent, but when that ends, and we're strictly in the next gen, will Series S hold production of those games back.
When you see games like mw2 running at 1440p 60/ gears 5. Battlefield 2042. All these games run really well and look great on series s. Makes me truly believe it’s all about optimization when it comes to developing games for this console.
@@lum1notryc828 BF 2042, like most games right now were made for last gen. They just have slight upgrades on next gen consoles, like better resolution and fps. They aren't next gen games though.
Simple answer is YES, it’s 10 GB GDDR6 will force many 3rd party game set that as default target for any ps5/XSX games. It’s GPU for RDNA2 should also been slightly better Xbox x. Should been 7 Tflops. This forces devs for all 3rd party games that make XSS as base target code for. Which includes it 10 GB ram limit. Which prob closer 8.5 to 9 Gb for game dev to use in games. Unless dev team decide only targeted ps5/XSX.
Since Series S architecture is the same, why don’t developers just make games for Series X / PS5 then just dial down resolution, textures, post-processing and other stuff until it runs at 30fps on Series S with FSR 2.1 ?
After playing most ps5 games at 60 fps I can never go back to 30fps no matter how good the visuals are. The same should be true for Series S. Every game should offer a 60fps mode on all consoles. Even with big visual hits.
I played CP2077 in 30fps mode on ps5 for most of it and tbh, I forgot it was 30fps as my brain became accustomed to it, I did play at 60fps but flipped back as I preferred the subtle improvements (higher NPC count, RT shading etc)
personally, i want the option. it depends on the game for me and how stark of a difference it is. on my laptop i'd crank the settings on witcher 3 and lock it to 30, you get used to 30 after a while
30fps on a 65in oled looks horrendous. 60fps is the only way to play on large screens. Hand held devices like steam deck or switch 30fps is acceptable.
Tbh 30fps will be very common for the series s in the future ,especially when unreal engine 5 games will came out ,so you def should not buy a series s for 60fps because that’s not going to be many 60fps games in the future for series s.
Series S is, objectively speaking, probably one of the best value consoles ever released. You can’t match the bang for buck performance with anything else. A EUR. 289,- console that runs games like AC Valhalla and Forza Horizon 5 at 60 fps. Added to that is the fact this thing has been widely and readily available at retailers all throughout whatever worldwide crisis was going on. In my mind the Series S is the people’s champ out there 😉👊
I don't think the Series S is holding back next gen gaming, at the core level, the cpu and ssd are about the same, the gpu is where the big difference is but that scales very easy as we see on the PC. When you hear PC gamers complain about consoles holding back PC gaming, it's the cpu, ssd side of things they are talking about, as they can't be used in a meaningful way until consoles can handle that, whereas on the gpu side of things, developers can push much harder on much more powerful hardware, as they do on the PC without it holding things back, but that isn't the case with the cpu and ssd, if a game takes advantage of them at a core level, it would be very difficult to have that game on the last gen consoles. Now to be fair, the Series S has less memory than the Series X but that shouldn't be a major issue with Series S games running at a lower resolution and visual settings, so unless I'm missing something, I don't see the Series S holding back the current gen consoles no different from how lower tier PC hardware doesn't hold back games on the PC and personally, it sounds like some developers are just making up excuses when really, supporting the Series S is no different from supporting another hardware tier, something they do all the time on the PC anyway. As for that sackboy game, I think they've gone too aggressive on the shader completion now with how it's dragging the performance down to it's knees for about a min on first loading the game, I think they should have it where it's using about 70% of the cpu or gpu, depending on how it's done so that the introduction is also smoother, it will take a little longer to do, so from 1 min to a min and half, that's no big deal and once it's done, it doesn't need doing again unless you update your drivers. Still, even the way it's done now is a lot better because the introduction will only be a stuttering mess on first load up and should be smooth after that. As for ray tracing, it's a nice feature to have but raster performance is far more important for now, I think ray tracing will really start to shine with the next gen of consoles like the PS6, by then, the performance should be there even with consoles to do it justice, but for now, I honestly don't care about ray tracing with games and it seems a lot of others think the same way, that view is only likely going to change once games target ray tracing without a fallback option to baked lighting, that's when ray tracing will get really interest, but for now, ray tracing is just slapped onto of games that were designed around baked lighting, and yes, some of the results can look nice but some don't quite look right, that won't be an issue once games are designed around ray tracing from the start and that's only going to happen over the next few years, thats when ray tracing performance will matter. Also let's not forget that the ray tracing performance on the newer AMD cards are still solid, it's just not as good as what Nvidia offers but it looks like it should compete well with Nvidia best last gen ray tracing offering, so that's still going to be good for gamers that want ray tracing.
@@user-qg7oq6qw5c how when its the developers themselves that set the min spec...the min spec has been so low for so long because the last generation of consoles were already outdated and slow the day they launched and held back the entire generation as platform holders were not confident consoles could survive a mobile/cloud future
it will on xbox exclusives sony will move to just making games for ps5 with 10.4 teraflops of gpu on there exclusives, with MS they still will cater there games with 4 teraflops of power in mind every game they create
and there are games that can only run on high end cards on pc thats a lie that all of the games can scale dow.n to every lower GPUS 😂. there are game that recommends powerful gpu and wont run on lower end cards at all
I’ve not yet encountered any video game in which ray-tracing was actually noticeable/beneficial enough to make it worth the inevitable drop in frame rate.
This js so stupid, no S doesnt hold back anything, its like saying gtx 1660ti holds back rtx 4090. Current gen consoles are just PCs and graphic can be scaled the same as with PCs and GPUs
For most developers it's not the fact that it's holding some of these current projects back but the fact that even if they drop last generation they still need to devote Manpower into developing for a less powerful console. So you're not only have to develop for the Xbox series X and PS5. You're having to work on this less capable system instead of concentrating on current gen more powerful machines only. This affects development time and most likely affects development decisions as a whole.
yeah but that argument only makes sense for console only games, most games have PC versions and according to the steam survey most people still use a GTX 1060, so really most devs have to commit that time anyways for the PC version and what is holding back the game design is that DXU 12 features are not supported by old PC hardware and many people still run games on regular HDD's on PC as well
@@IchibanKasuga1 Yes. But this will change over time. This generation will last until 2030 and developers will STILL have to make games for Series S. This will cause A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SUB-1080p games, etc.
@@awsomeboy360 Yeah it maybe the case but it's hard to tell since the devs are not really using all the features DXU12 provides to improve performance for the Series S but we will see I guess
@@IchibanKasuga1 Most games are developed for console first and then pushed however far they can with PC Hardware. Minimal spec requirements aside the lowest spec console is the first thing that is considered in most cases because of the player base but with two XBOX's in one generation along with a small player base when split, this is probably something they would rather not deal with. You've already got three development requirements with PC, PS5 and Series X. That Series S cannot be a popular requirement as far as I can see. Things will be even worse if there was an equivalent of a lower power PS5. Mid-gem upgrades are going to be crazy because we will have three separate Xboxes that developers have to target. That will be a total of five Target consoles as well as PC.
the idea of Series S holding back gaming is moronic, really. Those 3 big consoles, 4 if you want to add Steam Deck are all similarly built with similar architecture. Only the strength may vary. And those spec sheets are available from day one. Anyone who wants to sell in to that ecosystem should know what they are getting into. Those are the market you wanna dive in, then make something that the market could use. Or just sell it on PC, and only let those who have NASA-tier supercomputer plays it. You cut the possible audience but nothing will hold back your 'gaming'.
The TurboGrafx-16 Mini also got a ton of love from M2! It got a bit of an unfair rap regarding audio latency and input latency, but it turns out both are at similar levels to the Mega Drive Mini 1 and 2, when you actually measure them objectively.
Why are we asking about the Series S holding gaming back when the already behind the curve hardware wise Nintendo Switch has a much more massive footprint for developers to consider? You guys just did a video on Sonic and the differences across the platforms, which one was the worst and probably had the most development time actually put into making it 'work'? I don't even feel like we're in the realm of games, outside of first party Sony/Nintendo devs, being "held back" by consoles period. The PC game footprint has only been on the rise, and greatly according to Steam numbers. So if anythings holding game development back its the fact that games likely still need to be considered to work on the lowest possible hardware. I feel like just a year or two ago I saw a AAA game that still had AMD Bulldozer as a min spec...
@@N.i.E.M.O There's not a chance in hell games like Witcher 3, Doom 2016/Eternal, Warframe, Dying Light, Nier Automata could run on the mere 256MB RAM available to the PS3 vs the 3GB on Switch. The Switch is absolutely a much more capable machine than the PS3.
If they patched out the stutter in a week, I can guarantee you they had already programmed in the fix and were testing it already by the time Alex's video came out.
I have a ps5 and series s. And I have to say I'm really enjoying my series s to play fallout 76, prey, dishonered, yes the series s is underpowered but its still a fun console.
Can’t blame the S. People have unrealistic expectations of the newer consoles, partly due to deceitful marketing by MS and Sony. They’re never going to be 8K and often struggle with 4K. 4K 60 is still a dream for many games, and what happened to proper ray tracing too? If you really want “next gen” gaming performance the only option is a decent laptop or PC. Just accept the limitations of the consoles and be happy with them.
Yeah, I got the impression that my 4K 60 tv would be perfect for PS5 SX to get at least check board 60. Lmao= now it’s looking like there’ll be a lot of games in 4 years time that will only be 30 or 40fps max. 40fps requiring a 120hrtz tv
Just look at the Steam survey and see how many GPUs can do Raytracing well. Its not going to be many. Apart for that for me gameplay always comes ahead of graphics, so if I'm on a console and can choose between 30 and 60 I will always pick 60.
+1:33:00 I can't think of a single Triple A Game published in several years I would honestly recommend to anyone to be honest. I prefer the smaller titles.
I've thought about this a little and settled on "latest-gen" as the go-to term. But yeah others here have already covered that it's hard to blame them given last-gen is still here.
Many of you here may be like me. Over 50, grew up with a ZX81 > Spectrum > C64 > Amiga > PC etc. Vids like this, discussing the limitations of such powerful hardware are really interesting, but make me reflect on the games I did enjoy. Those with the best graphics often resulted in being a slightly playable demo. Some of the best were the ones that made me think and strategise. Populous comes to mind. Look up some older games occasionally all, and marvel at how good we have it!
Nice to see a fellow quinquagenarian, 😁 I totally agree with you, some of my best games were not graphics powerhouses. In fact, some of the best fun I had were the click on the grainy/compressed video of Seventh Guest, which i guess looking back at the time was impressive. Or going back even further, reading the text adventures like Zork! Who didn't love spending countless amounts of time getting sound to work on the PC back then.. LOL. We do have it so good right now.
imo In UE4, Series S was a 1080p system, with sometimes a more optimized or 1st party titel that made it posible to do 1440p/30 , however on UE5 it will be 720p/1080p-30fps range. Just like i think Series X was actually a 1440p(Ultra)/60(ish) fps , i know it did 4k/60 but never at max settings, and it dosnt seem to have enogh headroom to ever do 120fps stable at 1440p/4k resolutions. so for UE5, PS5/Series X, will prob end up being 1080p/60 or 1080/30, depending on the optimization/gametype/used FSR/DSR or such.
Yes, the series s is holding back the generation and not the fact that the majority of gaming PCs use a 1060 or below. Look at the steam hardware survery. Most pc gamers play at 1080p and can't even turn ray tracing on. But yes, let's blame tHe CoNsOlEs
Did the RTX 3060 hold back the RTX 3090? Xbox Series S isn't the weak link as long as devs still target Xbox One and PS4. They have much weaker CPUs, HDDs, and less memory (and bandwidth). People want this huge generational leap, but that was already spoiled by having mid-generation refreshes.
To be fair the Series S is not really a bandwidth monster, it is not that much more than a PS4 Pro, like 7GB more, which in my mind was not much more than the 174GB of memory bandwidth in the PS4. Regardless Series S should have more than enough to work at 1080p/60.
@@davidandrew6855 The Series S GPU and bandwidth is comparable to the PS4 Pro's, but the Series S has more memory. And it's CPU cores are much faster. And the NVMe is far superior to the spinning HDD in the PS4. Series S was always designed for lower resolution graphics compared to the Series X, but that scales more easily than other gameplay features.
@@LucidCoder You are preaching to the choir. All I was stating is that if one is implying the Series S as a console with more bandwidth then Pro, it certainly is not by any real stretch, like 3% more. It has a decent 29% more than base PS4 so there is that. I'm more than confident the Series S is much more powerful than the PS4, and decently more than the Pro with the RDNA2 feature set and vastly superior CPU and storage.
This is the era of $70 games. The price of $60 has been static for decades and I always roll my eyes when some layman or the local news is in utter shock and compares it to a $7 matinee at the movies. They are utterly different mediums and one can provide 100x more hours of entertainment than the other. Always so ignorant of the $70+ Nintendo cartridges in the 90s. If you can't afford to pay for full price, then wait for a sale or after a year for the price to drop by half or more. It's that simple. This is not insulin for your child. It's a game. The same logic applies to consoles. Hundreds of millions of last-gen consoles still exist that work with older games and cross-gen releases. Don't hamstring the current gen to appease the few idiots who want to play the latest games even at a subpar experience. Do you think a person who can barely afford a $300 console can justify a $70 game? At most they will buy ONE hotly anticipated game at full price and Microsoft is still in the red because it doesn't make up for the console subsidy. All other games will be borrowed/at huge discount/stolen. You are catering to the lowest rung. If they really want it, they will find a way to pay. People continue to buy Nintendo hardware at full price and the games are never on sale, even the crap shovelware stuff, and Nintendo makes huge bank from it. You know an iPhone 14 Pro Max is $1100? You can get the regular iPhone 14 for $300 cheaper or the 14 Plus for $200 cheaper. Yet an overwhelming 80% of sales are for the Pro variants, to the point they are reconfiguring factories to stop making the vanilla 14 models and focus on the Pro, because the lead times are still over a month. The people who want one want the newest models with the newest features, not the "same thing" as last year. They want an actual upgrade. Otherwise why bother.
Starting? Nvidia has been similarly hubris driven for what feels like a decade at this point, especially considering their poor treatment of their "partners". I mean it's not surprising why the companies refuse to cooperate since pre 2010, they both think they infallible
South of the US border the Series S is going to absolutely outperform the X and PS5. For the longest time it was PS2 vs 360 there. The PS4 has started to crack that market open super late in its life cycle, but now the Series S is already priced to compete especially with Game Pass. A combination of a smaller economy and nutty import tariffs make modern game platforms, especially with the increased game costs, unfeasible at the PS5's price point. It's a luxury product in those regions. As far as I'm concerned the Series S is the next gen. The Series X and PS5 are upgrades from that, but the S both is and should be the baseline target. Even here in America it's a great system for people that maybe used to play games a lot, but not enough anymore to really justify putting half a grand down on a new console. $275-300 though? Totally doable. It's a good console for the ex-hardcore gamer that'd like to game but doesn't have the time or lifestyle to do it particularly often, and also a great option for parents to get their children when they don't want to drop $500 on what is ostensibly a toy. The Series S has another advantage there in that it's not as fragile as the Switch and the box can stay away from the children so if they throw or smash something, as kids can very well do, it'll just be the controller and not the whole ass console. People, including game developers, need to understand that there's a lot more to the market than mid-late 20 somethings with disposable income and a desire to always have the best possible gaming experience.
Answer to the title question is no. The main limiting factor for most games hitting 60 is cpu and the series S has the same exact cpu that's in the ps5 and Series X it was a smart choice by MS because it should honestly never hold pack any game. If the game is gpu bound you can drop resolution and if that doesn't work you can start lowering graphical quality to it gets there. All sorts of stuff you can reduce and degrade visually if need be but the cpu can keep up. Arkham knights freaking struggles on a 3090 / 4090 and only hits 30 often sub 30 on PS5 / Series X. This is because they screwed up how the cpu is being used. 100% on the developers for that debacle anything else is a shameless excuse. Long story short if a game hits 60FPS on the Series X it should really be able to hit 60 on the series S as well. The cpu is there to hit those frame times as long as you make the appropriate visual cuts to go along with it.
@@lockekappa500 this isn't true at all. The CPU on the Xbox Series and PS5 is fine. Arkham Knights has a lot of other issues going on and is a terrible example to use for any measure. My CPU is basically the same as the PS5 but with my 3080 I'm getting over 144+ fps in most games that the ps5 only gets 60 fps in. The CPU is fine in most games. Rare exceptions like Plague Tale and Gotham Knights are just that - rare exceptions/outliers that are poorly designed/programmed. I don't know why I even typed all this out. The proof is in basically every video in here for the last 2 years. If CPU was the main factor like you said, then the Series S would be getting the same performance and visuals as the X but that's not the case, ever. The only times it gets 60 fps is when it's using dynamic resolution that dips low and/or has much lower graphic settings compared to ps5 and Series X
@@Kougeru I was simply stating that it appears in the past they've been willing to give us 30 fps with higher graphical fidelity over 60fps with lower. Unless you were referring to OP.
After playing GOW Ragnarok I think we should ask also the question: is PS4 holding back gaming on PS consoles? For sure, but you won't see a video about that in this channel.
Because GoW was basicly guaranteed to be a cross gen game anyway. What would have changed in the game if it was current gen only? Do people really think it would have been a completely different game? We are now getting to the point where the last few cross gen games are coming out. After that it will be current gen only and obviously people are going to mention Series S at that point. And i can't wait for people to cry about 30fps because guess what, the moment we move on from cross gen games we will keep getting more and more 30fps games again, they are still just 500 dollar boxes. But everyone will now just call every dev bad or attack them.
Regarding Alex's comment on Halo Infinite's feature/fix prioritization - this is neither the Developer's fault NOR a "Project Management issue". Technical project managers are given work to deliver they do not define the strategy of what work is done. This strategy would typically be defined by senior management, hopefully based on recommendations from their analysts and not their whim, but that varies by company!
From what I understand, technical project managers are definitely part of the requirements analysis phase where what needs to be taken up for the next sprint or so is decided. They may not have all the say, but they definitely do have some say. Technical leads are also involved in those discussion since what can be delivered and in how much time etc. is decided upon. Developers are rarely involved.
@@jal.ajeera A technical PM would define what, of an already agreed scope of work, would come next in a sprint. They would not decide what priority that work has that would come from above and that would be the guidance that the PM would typically use to decide that priority level.
@@Helicon1 "From above" involves the technical manager too. It's the requirements analysis phase. TM resides over these meetings assigning priority to the tasks based upon multiple factors like user requested, analytics etc. TM is definitely involved in the process along with the technical leads. The already agreed scope of work is decided by technical manager and others. So Alex isn't wrong in his assumption. Devs aren't involved for sure in most of these higher level processes. Your understanding is incorrect in this.
@@jal.ajeera A technical project by definition has no strategic influence. If they are also acting in the role of an analyst or program manager then they may do. Many companies blend these roles as you describe, there's not a right or wrong way to do it. Anyway the underlying point is that the issue Alex mentions is not about Project Management which is delivering a discrete, pre-defined output, but in the underlying Strategy and underpinning analysis that has driven the project management approach. I appreciate this is semantics but I wanted to be clear in why I stand by my original statement.
The Xbox Series X is capable of ray-tracing, 120fps, and runs Overwatch 2 at 120fps. I think as long as developers competently optimize their games, they should be fine.
You think so ? hahahaha man ocerxatch isn't a next gen title to speak about , its like valorant , the day sony make an exclsive that push ps5 to its limits while other game are made to a 4 teraflops series s , then sony will crash xbox
I haven't watched the discussion yet, but the existence of the Matrix Awakens demo stands in stark contrast to the claim that Series S is holding back anything. The demo looked amazing on all current gen systems.
I like the Unreal engine, some of my favorite games have used the engine with beautiful results: MKX, MK11, Batman Arkham, The Ascent, Gears of War, etc. That being said, if the engine can't be optimized or handle 60 fps in consoles (or even PCs) then it should be avoided at all costs, Gotham Knight was a sign that the engine may be messy to work with, and having that mediocre performance in a mediocre looking game is unacceptable.
I just don’t get this. As a PC gamer we have been adjusting settings to match our performance target for decades. Unless you have extremely old hardware it’s just a matter of compromises. The series s could be a 1080/30 machine while the bigger consoles be 1440/60. Gamers want frame rate period. Look at the most popular games they are all easy to run at high frame rates and work across a ton of hardware. Pushing tech is great but gamers aren’t begging for it. They just want a good game that is supported and runs at 60fps. It’s that simple.
