Digital Foundry Claims Xbox Series X Initially Designed as a Mid-Gen Console Refresh

[T0@st]

According to main members of the Digital Foundry team, Microsoft had informed them during Xbox Series console preview sessions (prior to the November 2020 launch) that plans for the more powerful variant had changed. Richard Leadbetter, John Linneman and Alex Battaglia discussed this puzzling notion during yesterday's DF Direct Weekly videocast (episode number #116): "Microsoft told us this back when we saw the Series X for the first time that the Series X is their mid-gen refresh. They just decided to do it, ahead of time, I guess you could say...The Series S is what they consider the standard machine and then Series X is, you know, that's getting ahead of the cart there and this is what you might get from a mid-gen console." They compare the current offerings to predecessors, and propose that Microsoft simply "transplanted" and repeated model hierarchy from the past, albeit with a simultaneous launch—Series S is the newer answer to Xbox One S, and Series X is a current-gen equivalent to the One X.

The debate touches upon (Xbox Chief) Phil Spencer's recent declaration that a more powerful Xbox Series console is not necessary, despite Sony allegedly working on a PlayStation 5 "PRO" model. The DF team reckons that game developers are yet to extract the most from current offerings—Battaglia agrees with Spencer's observation and suggests that only a loud minority of hardcore console gamers are demanding more powerful refreshes. Linneman thinks that the Series X is still a "great box" despite headlines focusing on restrictive 30 FPS performance, and its full potential has not been unleashed. Games running on Unreal Engine 5 are still a rarity on home consoles, but the guys acknowledge that AAA development is taking longer and becoming more expensive, so truly next-gen visuals are not arriving soon. Leadbetter estimates that it takes about four years to hash out console hardware, so the current generation's lifespan could be extended if refreshed hardware turns up.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Gargf]

Sponsored by Microsoft

 

[HeadRusch1]

Update: Consoles continue to over-promise and under-perform. Film at 11.

Series X is a perfectly good machine for 4k/30, and likely even a great machine for 1440p/60 if the developers put some effort into that option.....but they don't! On a 65" set you will easily notice a drop in visual effects/draw distance/fidelity, what you will not easily see is a 1440p native resolution...or a 1440p native resolution scaled-up to 4k, hell even the PS4 Pro could do that pretty reliably. And yet the games keep offering up "4k/30 pretty, or sorta-4k gimped at 60fps after we turn some settings down", with rare exception.

Forza Horizon 5 does it wrong, by making its 60fps mode have reduced visuals but keeping a near 4k resolution at all times when they could have locked it at 1440p and probably left all the visual intact to achieve 60fps, but a game like
Ghost Recon Breakpoint did it correctly, by offering a 4k/30fps native resolution with some reduced graphical effects or a 1440p (on Series X) at 60fps with max detail. That should be the target, not "we absolutely must adhere to native 4k or we look like losers!"...that's b.s.

Sadly that's the world we live in. "Does it have Ray Tracing?" is all people know. We will probably have amazing Ray Traced and Path Traced games...........in another 10 years.

 

[chrcoluk]

Can see where they coming from, they could release something with twice the TFLOPs and we would still be seeing 30fps games as dev's would just treat as a "do less optimisation" for same performance target.

It would also in turn hasten obsolescence of the standard X and maybe also the S, as the targeted hardware would be changed, which invalidates previous purchases, a good decision in my opinion.

 

[HeadRusch1]

Can see where they coming from, they could release something with twice the TFLOPs and we would still be seeing 30fps games as dev's would just treat as a "do less optimisation" for same performance target.

It would also in turn hasten obsolescence of the standard X and maybe also the S, as the targeted hardware would be changed, which invalidates previous purchases, a good decision in my opinion.

"do less optimization" is dev-speak for "ship software faster so we can start on the next yearly release!" in publisher-speak, so I totally agree that the only real reason for offering upgraded consoles at this point would be to let the developers work quicker at pumping out content and spending less time making that content work optimally on what hardware is 'currently available'.

PS5 and Series X are literally 18-24 months into "general availability", before that you were still paying a premium or waiting for something to be in stock thanks to the end of the Pandemic......but when you look at the software side of things, it's shockingly bad.

Why ask me to spend another $500 bucks, on top of the $500 (or more) I already spent to play.....what, exactly? The other issue is...what would this upgrade path be? If the current gen boxes are based on last-gen AMD APU's, then these refreshes would be based on current-gen APU's....which, while an improvement, is hardly a doubling of performance and framerates...its like the typical cycle of asking us to spend the same money again for a 10-30% uptick in performance.

So I can play Far Cry 5 again with some Ray Tracing slapped on or at 120hz with a joypad? Whats the point. It probably doesn't matter either way, I suspect any Unreal Engine 5 based game is going to cripple all the current hardware, console or PC alike.....new engine with new, immature dev tools spells disaster usually.

 

[Veseleil]

30FPS powah baby!

 

[sepheronx]

Is it bespoke?

 

[QUANTUMPHYSICS]

STEAM GAMING PC > PS5 > Xbox

 

[watzupken]

The comment don't make any sense. MS is saying they designed Series X as a mid range refresh, at the start of the next gen console line up? The explanation and the timeline just don't sync up. If they have no plans for a mid life refresh, just say no, instead of trying to cook something up that don't make sense. I do feel that the hardware in the Series X is underperforming since it is clearly beefier tha PS5, but it can hardly edge out PS5 in actual game performance.

Update: Consoles continue to over-promise and under-perform. Film at 11.

Series X is a perfectly good machine for 4k/30, and likely even a great machine for 1440p/60 if the developers put some effort into that option.....but they don't! On a 65" set you will easily notice a drop in visual effects/draw distance/fidelity, what you will not easily see is a 1440p native resolution...or a 1440p native resolution scaled-up to 4k, hell even the PS4 Pro could do that pretty reliably. And yet the games keep offering up "4k/30 pretty, or sorta-4k gimped at 60fps after we turn some settings down", with rare exception.

Forza Horizon 5 does it wrong, by making its 60fps mode have reduced visuals but keeping a near 4k resolution at all times when they could have locked it at 1440p and probably left all the visual intact to achieve 60fps, but a game like
Ghost Recon Breakpoint did it correctly, by offering a 4k/30fps native resolution with some reduced graphical effects or a 1440p (on Series X) at 60fps with max detail. That should be the target, not "we absolutely must adhere to native 4k or we look like losers!"...that's b.s.

Sadly that's the world we live in. "Does it have Ray Tracing?" is all people know. We will probably have amazing Ray Traced and Path Traced games...........in another 10 years.

I feel there is no right or wrong way to optimize a game. 4k is not native 4K to begin with and may be utilising upscaling, and/or, dynamic resolution to achieve the target performance. Dropping to 1440p does not mean it will solve the hardware limitations, not to mention that we are more CPU bound at lower resolution. Zen 2 is not that good when it comes to games.
Ray tracing is clearly not for current gen consoles in my opinion. No reason to kill performance for more realistic lighting.

 

[colossusrageblack]

These consoles were basically PS4 Pro Max and XBOX ONE X Ultra, they are able to run the games at 4K 60fps that the Pro and One X could only achieve doing 4K 30fps. But that means that they are consoles that should have existed in the previous gen. If they were truly next gen, they would be able to achieve 4K 60fps on current and future titles, but they can't because they're underpowered. Both companies skimped on the hardware because of costs and they basically just created what should've existed instead of the PS4 Pro or XBOX ONE X. If there is a mid gen refresh those will probably be what should've been made in the first place. Neither of these consoles have achieved 4K 120fps in any reasonably demanding game. Even Doom Eternal runs at 1080p upscaled to 1440p at 80fps in "120fps mode". This console gen is disappointing to say the least. I'm thinking that I'll be sticking with PC from now on.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

The comment don't make any sense. MS is saying they designed Series X as a mid range refresh, at the start of the next gen console line up? The explanation and the timeline just don't sync up. If they have no plans for a mid life refresh, just say no, instead of trying to cook something up that don't make sense. I do feel that the hardware in the Series X is underperforming since it is clearly beefier tha PS5, but it can hardly edge out PS5 in actual game performance.

What I got from that was that MS had to launch the Series X at the same time as the Series S, which they originally planned not to do.

 

[Tomorrow]

Hard cope by MS. If SS was their baseline they they would have lost horribly to PS5. They needed SX right away to even stay competitive in terms of hardware but they are lacking in exclusives and sales.