GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,865
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on June 19th, 2018 in the Gaming category.
Phil Spencer Teases That the Next-Gen Xbox "Scarlett" Could Be a Family of Consoles
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 61 comments
- 4,897 views
- 251
- Germany
- momorious
8k60???!!! NEVER going to happen with next gen Consoles. 4k60 will be the target for the next gen consoles for all AAA games.
- 2,295
- Indiana
- pie4july
I'm worried about "streaming games". What if the internet connection isn't that strong? I don't want to be playing a laggy game offline. Does that mean we would always need to be online to save? People hate that for GTS, imagine that for every game ever. 
I hope that isn't the case.
I hope that isn't the case.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Isn't 4K and 60 FPS the target currently? Also, remember we are still 18 months away from a probable release date, technology will grow very rapidly during that time. 4K TV's are already fairly inexpensive and 8K TVs will continue to drop in price.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
To add to what @Joey D said above, we wouldn't be surprised if the two-tier system (or mid-gen refresh) isn't a one-time thing. A One X/PS4 Pro type move a few years after the initial reveal is entirely possible — and the power from that should be considerable.
That said, I think 30fps is completely fine for certain things. Not racing games (or at least semi-realistic ones), but it does offer a certain cinematic feel that just doesn't happen with 60fps. I imagine most gamers aren't too bothered by frame rate either, so it probably won't be incredibly common even a decade from now. HDR makes more of a visual impact IMO; I can't wait until that's just a standard, expected feature.
I'm also hoping that 8K is the ceiling for a long, long time, at least with home TVs. There's just no reason for any more resolution outside of posturing IMO; you already need a +40" set (and a close seating position) to tell 4K and 1080P apart. 8K is practically identical unless we're talking home theatre-style setups.
- 251
- Germany
- momorious
No, For AAA games the target for current gen consoles is to maintain 4k30. There is no AAA game out there which have TRUE 4k60 without checkerboard etc. I am VERY sure the next target will be TRUE 4k60 with enhanced visuals (like Dolby Vision) (which is totally fine, nobody will have a 8k TV in 2020, even now in 2018 I dont know that many who own a 4K TV, there are a LOT of people still using HD TVs).
And remember that even with 2 years away from the release of the next gen consoles Sony and MS are choosing their hardware NOW more or less today and then they develop the new console. They dont pick up a GPU and CPU which comes 1st half of 2020 to develop the console then. The decisions for hardware will be done now in the coming months (if not already happened). And today NO GPU and CPU will handle 8k60 - NEVER. (at least not for AAA games, where current gen consoles even struggle to mainatain a sloid 4k30).
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
When he says a family of consoles I suspect he means some sort Xbox portable device along side a base and 'pro' home console. Since the success of the Switch I can imagine both camps have been thinking about trying portable again. MS has already gone big into portable with the Surface line.
Playstation Now and On Live proved the the world doesn't really want streamed games, because both have been flops. You have to pay full prices, you don't physically or even digitally own anything, you can't resell it and the quality is poor (compressed) even with a good connection. They can't even do 1080p good, imagine 4K60!
I really hope we see the new 9th Generation consoles soon, within the next 2 years with custom chips and UHD-BD capacity game disks
Playstation Now and On Live proved the the world doesn't really want streamed games, because both have been flops. You have to pay full prices, you don't physically or even digitally own anything, you can't resell it and the quality is poor (compressed) even with a good connection. They can't even do 1080p good, imagine 4K60!
I really hope we see the new 9th Generation consoles soon, within the next 2 years with custom chips and UHD-BD capacity game disks
Last edited:
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
FM7 does native 4K60, though only on the X. FH4 will have a 60fps option too, though I imagine that will involve sacrificing resolution.
Corsa
Premium
- 2,104
- United States
Interesting article I don't see how a solid state drive is a mandatory thing for consoles.
They are introducing "fast start" which just identifies key files to download to get you in game faster.
An SSD won't necessarily improve fps or performance, it just loads the game quicker than a hdd.
I have 7 games on steam, all are on HDD.
My SSD is 250gb, only has Windows 10 (which is a pig) and AC Content Manager on it.
They are introducing "fast start" which just identifies key files to download to get you in game faster.
An SSD won't necessarily improve fps or performance, it just loads the game quicker than a hdd.
I have 7 games on steam, all are on HDD.
My SSD is 250gb, only has Windows 10 (which is a pig) and AC Content Manager on it.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I bought my 4K Sony TV for $800 at Best Buy, given the rate TV prices fall I wouldn't count out 8K TVs being a thing by 2020. Sure they're obscenely expensive right now, in fact, the only one I found was $20,000 and only shown at CES.
And yes, they are picking hardware now, but what's available for the consumer market is different than what's available for the industrial market. I mean Sony will more than likely use a bespoke version of the AMD CPU that isn't available yet for consumers. They are certainly designing and engineering their consoles to a certain set of parameters. I mean all one has to do is look at Moore's Law to see this.
And I don't know why a GPU couldn't handle 8K at 60 FPS. The current Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti runs Witcher 3 at an average of 68.3 FPS at 3840x2160.
- 7,947
- Wreckage, Turn 1
- PrecisionXCIV
Fun fact: The rumour of an Xbox Surface being in the works have been floating around the web prior to the Xbox One unveiling. Given the success of the Switch, it makes you wonder if Microsoft would have been onto a masterstroke had the Xbox Surface been a thing back in 2013.
- 251
- Germany
- momorious
...... Because next gen consoles are still targeting mainstream and to get true 8k60 they would AT LEAST need the new GTX 1180/2080 and they will NEVER put such an expensive GPU into a gaming console because nobody would buy that console if the price is too high. 500 Euro is a key target for consoles, anything above is critical regarding mainstream buyers. But I highly doubt that even the next gen nVidia cards will run 8k60 on AAA games.
IF next gen consoles are targeting 8k then I only think they will targeting 8k30 but NEVER 8k60.
Anyway, 8K TVs wont be anywhere as cheap as modern 4K TVs, I doubt we will se any 8K TV by 2020 at under 5000 Euro.
Regarding hardware, there are already articles in the www regarding the upcoming specs of the PS5 at least and that hardware doesnt look like 8k60 at all.
Last edited:
- 1,604
- Here and there...
- SUBMANIAC
I'm sorry but reading this:
"The console makes sense as it’s the bread and butter of the Xbox lineup. Given the time frame, we think 8K resolution is a real possibility with a target of at least 60 FPS for all games."
... made me laugh out loud. There is no way in 2 years we'll see this from a console. Maybe in 10, not less.
4k 60 sounds more plausible but still doubtly so. Personally, I don't care one bit about 4k so whatever. At this point, I only want a smooth 60fps on a 1080p game. But I have my pc for that.
"The console makes sense as it’s the bread and butter of the Xbox lineup. Given the time frame, we think 8K resolution is a real possibility with a target of at least 60 FPS for all games."
... made me laugh out loud. There is no way in 2 years we'll see this from a console. Maybe in 10, not less.
4k 60 sounds more plausible but still doubtly so. Personally, I don't care one bit about 4k so whatever. At this point, I only want a smooth 60fps on a 1080p game. But I have my pc for that.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
The hell would you even do with such a high resolution? What's the point? 4K is more than the vast majority of people need, so why bump it up even further? Are we expecting people to suddenly start buying 80 inch plus TV's on a regular basis?
That so many people buy into marketing numbers like this is truly disconcerting. Higher numbers just for the sake of higher numbers with no concern for what is actually visible to the human eye in real conditions is ridicules, even more so when there are far more important aspects of graphics that GPU's can be used for.
What I'm really concerned about with the next generation is if Microsoft, and potentially Sony too, is going to go ahead with some form of idiotic always online BS. I fear that either this generation, or the next one, will be the last consumer friendly one. Once (if) always online and exclusively digital or streaming becomes the standard, then consumers will have lost all control and all rights within gaming.
That so many people buy into marketing numbers like this is truly disconcerting. Higher numbers just for the sake of higher numbers with no concern for what is actually visible to the human eye in real conditions is ridicules, even more so when there are far more important aspects of graphics that GPU's can be used for.
What I'm really concerned about with the next generation is if Microsoft, and potentially Sony too, is going to go ahead with some form of idiotic always online BS. I fear that either this generation, or the next one, will be the last consumer friendly one. Once (if) always online and exclusively digital or streaming becomes the standard, then consumers will have lost all control and all rights within gaming.
- 974
- GOTHEBURG
8k is no problem (late) 2020
but by 2021 its a fact.
Why? Samsung and LG are going for large screens, 80”and above (see Samsung the Wall with modules building your screen as you wish) and by 2021 the point is to have as much wireless as possible (even power like QI). Also VR needs good resolution so it feels real. And with 5G i guess streaming games is the way to go...as long as you have a screen or vr just play on.
but by 2021 its a fact.
Why? Samsung and LG are going for large screens, 80”and above (see Samsung the Wall with modules building your screen as you wish) and by 2021 the point is to have as much wireless as possible (even power like QI). Also VR needs good resolution so it feels real. And with 5G i guess streaming games is the way to go...as long as you have a screen or vr just play on.
- 251
- Germany
- momorious
but still no mainstream kid will be able to buy 8K by 2020. And the consoles wont have the power to go 8K anyway. I think the topic 8K is over, this one wont happen with next gen consoles, at least no 8k60 as mentioned in the article. I think we can be happy if AAA games finally maintain solid 4k60 with enhanced visuals, thats all what we should expect from next gen consoles.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
I'm aware that massive screens exist. I'm also aware that the percentage of people who go for the really big sizes are insignificant, and that this will likely continue to be the case. Why? Because the massive TV's absolutely dominate the rooms that they are in, and a good quality TV that size is incredibly expensive. Higher resolutions also require more data being sent from your device to the screen, and as such, it would only be more of a hindrance to going wireless.
I don't know just how high the resolution needs to go in VR for the image to not appear pixelated. I own and use a PS VR myself, and I can tell you from experience that resolution is certainly not the only graphical issue when using it, nor do I consider it the most pressing, although it is certainly something I expect to get better in its next iteration. I doubt we'll need more than 4K per eye though. You have to remember that we're talking rather small screen sizes in VR headsets, so I reckon 4K ought to be enough.
Some people like to stream games and movies. That's fine. Just leave physical games/movies as an option for those who like the practical aspect of not relying on an internet connection, and equally important, for those of us who like actually owning our products. Outside of the obvious, I tend to not buy stuff with expirations dates, and that is exactly what digital and streaming products are. (In before some smartass mentions that disc based formats will eventually decay into uselessness...)
I would cite a source for TV screen size distribution, but the only statistics I was able to find from a quick search (statista) didn't bother disclosing background information. I'm not a fan of statistics in general, but I outright refuse to pay attention to ones that fail to inform of sample size and methodology.
Last edited:
- 1,960
- Adelaide
Out of the eleven games tested on that website, only two of them were able to maintain 60FPS at 4K. And that's with a ~$1.1K AUD GPU, paired with a top of the line (at the time, at least) ~$470 AUD CPU. I seriously doubt that next gen consoles will contain that type of hardware. (For reference, the Xbox One X has a GPU roughly equivalent to an RX 580 - a ~$450 AUD card, and a CPU that probably costs less than half that amount).
The next gen AMD and Nvidia cards may be able to make 4K gaming more achievable for mainstream users, but we're still quite far away from 8K.
The company executives that keep bringing up that BS must not play games themselves, because even with a perfectly ideal internet connection, ping is an immutable speed limit for getting a button input from your house to the server and back again to display the reaction on your screen. Then there are the millions of players who don't have ideal internet connections...I'm worried about "streaming games". What if the internet connection isn't that strong? I don't want to be playing a laggy game offline. Does that mean we would always need to be online to save? People hate that for GTS, imagine that for every game ever.
- 24,617
- Anoka, MN
You don't even have to go to a poor country to find bad internet. Here in the states unless you live in a high-population area or an area that's just now getting underground lines ran to it you will likely have issues from time to time simply because of how old the infrastructure is. I live in a suburban area and while my internet is great most of the time there are still occasions (thankfully rare) where I have issues streaming stuff because my internet is being sluggish. I would hate to see how it would perform trying to stream something much larger like a full-blown video game.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
How is 4K gaming not available to mainstream users? Anyone with a PS4 Pro of Xbox One X can run a game at 4K if it supports it.
If the ninth gen consoles truly are being geared for 4K gaming at 60 FPS, then I really see zero reason for anyone to buy one over the Pro or One X. What could the next-gen consoles possibly offer that would make someone drop another $500 on the system? Unless it comes with integrated VR out of the box instead of buying an add-on, I'm not sure what benefits it'll have. Sure they'll be quicker, have more hard drive space, and have more GPU power, but if they can't support something other than what's currently on the market, then I'm not very optimistic.
Each console generation needs to blow away the previous generation. Just look at going from the original PlayStation to the PS2? It was a massive jump forward in technology.
If they stay roughly the same, it just looks like a money grab from the company to sell you games that would work just fine on the previous console.
And for reasons like this is why I'm getting away from console gaming in general. When I feel like my rig is outdated, I can just hop onto NewEgg and buy a new component and increase the spec of my system. I can't do that with a console and if the next generations don't bring substantially more than what I have now with my PS4 and One it's not really worth it.
- 1,960
- Adelaide
As @Simracer92 said earlier, most "4K" games on the PS4 Pro/Xbox One X aren't actually 4K - they're running at upscaled 4K. Even some of the native 4K titles are only running at 30FPS, there's only so much you can do in terms of software optimisation on what's essentially a midrange PC.
You need an enthusiast grade PC to run most games at 4K 60FPS max settings, and current gen consoles are far from that. Not that that's a bad thing, but the fact is that the next generation of consoles will need to have much beefier parts if the aim is to run games at those settings.
I'm sure MS and Sony will be able to convince people to buy the next gen consoles easily - the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X seem to be doing alright, despite being introduced in the middle of a generation.
Last edited:
- 64
- BOULOGNE BILLANCOURT
One with optical drive
One without (100% digital)
One only streaming
But, as we are on Win10 OS and x86 architecture, actually One is a PC... so if it's the same for Scarlett does Xbox One isn't in the same family ???
We will have a schema similar to iPhone : majority of futures games will be available on One and Scarlett (better version on Scarlett) and some will only available on Scarlett due to power.
One without (100% digital)
One only streaming
But, as we are on Win10 OS and x86 architecture, actually One is a PC... so if it's the same for Scarlett does Xbox One isn't in the same family ???
We will have a schema similar to iPhone : majority of futures games will be available on One and Scarlett (better version on Scarlett) and some will only available on Scarlett due to power.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
Because there's more to graphics than just resolution?
💡The benefits of upgrades in resolution vastly decreased once we hit full HD, to the point where it is now entirely pointless. They're marketing numbers. As for other incentives, there'd be more power to run VR, high quality exclusives would not be available on the older generations, and the upgrade in graphics would be substantially higher than what we've gotten with the One X and Pro, even if the "impressive" marketing numbers don't seem to show that. It's bizarre to me that, unless I am misunderstanding you, seem to rely completely on spec numbers to convince yourself of a graphical difference rather than what you can actually see on screen.
Just look at the jump between the PS3 and PS4. A very noticeable jump to be sure, but nowhere close to the jump between the PS2 and PS3. Sure, from a specification standpoint, the difference between the PS3 and PS4 was massive, but the results were not. Graphics quality does not increase exponentially. The gains are going to be less and less over the years as we further approach photo realism, something that we've already seen on current gen base consoles. I suspect you already know all of this.
You mean just like the GPU manufactures who release small upgrades on a quarterly basis for profit? The Pro and One X are indeed money grabs based on marketing numbers rather than a significant increase in performance. That's a result of focusing entirely on resolution. Releasing a genuinely new generation six to seven years after the latter, however, does not strike me as a money grab.
As times have changes, consoles can no longer hope to push the specifications bar like they used to do in the past without becoming too expensive. Just look at the price on the GPU talked about earlier. More than twice the cost of the XBOX One at release. They then make up for this in optimization, a magically thing that makes a lower powered console perform visually as well as a much more expensive PC, as well as other benefits, like offering games that actually work when you start them up. It's also quite nice, I think, that when I go out and buy a new generation console, I can rest assured that I can still play my older games, albeit on my older console, which I have no reason to dispose off. On a PC, however, buying a new GPU or CPU can and does make some of your older games unplayable. The touted backwards compatibility of PC's is as random as it can be beneficial.
In any case. If the hard numbers is what drives you, then obviously PC's are going to be your best option.
Last edited:
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
Well, it goes back to how different people will have different experiences with PC's due to different setups and probably also different levels of knowledge. I'm not tech savy with PC's, so working out solutions take longer and frustrate me a lot. I've encountered a lot of problems with PC gaming, which is why I've mostly gone away from it except a few genres that are not big on console. But I recognize that not everyone is as unlucky as I have been.
Similar threads
