Microsoft Confirms Project Scarlett: 4x More Powerful than Xbox One X, Releases Holiday 2020

[Novalee]

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/halo-the-master-chief-collection-on-playstation-4/


Halo: The Master Chief Collection, which had its PC release announced only this year, would have been a great choice to break the barrier between the Xbox and PlayStation. The Halo series has inspired comics, books, live-action adaptations, toys, and other forms of content, so perhaps it is big enough to make the jump to the rival console. It remains unclear if Microsoft is still considering such a move for the franchise, ahead of the upcoming Halo Infinite.

 

[rhalgr]

https://www.windowscentral.com/proj...-versions-games?amp&__twitter_impression=true

So the roller coaster continues xD

 

[Whitestar]

That sounds to me like this:
1920 x 1080 120FPS
4K 60FPS
8K 30FPS

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[rhalgr]

My bet:
1080p 120FPS
4K 30-60FPS
8K marketing buzzword

 

[Vspectra]

Not nearly as much of a waste as 120 fps would be. Even ignoring what TV's are on the market. Above 60 fps is completely unnecessary. 8k is as well but not as much of a pipe dream on console or a waste as 120 fps is.

Not really. 4k native with good TAA already provides a fantastically high-res and sharp image quality with few if any noticeable jagged edges. The increase to 8k isn't worth the rendering power that should be spent elsewhere, nor will this increase to 8k even be discernible to the average user who most likely won't be buying 85"+ TV screens which would still require the user to sit closer to the screen to even be able to tell any differences from 4k. When it comes to resolution there is a point of diminishing returns. 8k is overboard and unnecessary.

With 120fps you can actually feel the quicker response input that positively affects gameplay. Playing Doom at 120fps is much better experience compared to 60fps in terms of how gameplay is affected than anything 8k would provide. 120fps+ is also highly necessary for good VR experiences.

 

[inCloud]

8K marketing buzzword

It could be the thing for remasters/enchanced classics, 2D/2.5D games and TV Shows.

With 120fps you can actually feel the quicker response input that positively affects gameplay

You could force input to work at 120Hz, but dont really need rendering at 60+ Fps. Thats what Forza engine do in Horizon and why it feels so smooth at 30fps - 30Fps for rendering and 60Hz for input.

 

[Griffith500]

Racing games at 120 fps (144 in my case) are exceptional. When I go back to 60 fps, it feels like the apex is approaching me in a slideshow by comparison.

100 Hz is the minimum, I'd say - that's 10 ms between frames, about the limit for our brains to discern separate events in vision and in sound alike. The sensation of a fluid experience improves all the way up to 200+ Hz for some.

Input filtering will already be closer to physics rate (hundreds of Hz), if only for FFB and reaction times.

 

[TomBrady]

Not really. 4k native with good TAA already provides a fantastically high-res and sharp image quality with few if any noticeable jagged edges. The increase to 8k isn't worth the rendering power that should be spent elsewhere, nor will this increase to 8k even be discernible to the average user who most likely won't be buying 85"+ TV screens which would still require the user to sit closer to the screen to even be able to tell any differences from 4k. When it comes to resolution there is a point of diminishing returns. 8k is overboard and unnecessary.

With 120fps you can actually feel the quicker response input that positively affects gameplay. Playing Doom at 120fps is much better experience compared to 60fps in terms of how gameplay is affected than anything 8k would provide. 120fps+ is also highly necessary for good VR experiences.

I agree with your first bit. TAA works fantastically well and makes 1080p games look cleaner and more polished (though certainly not sharper) than a modern native 4k game with no AA (assuming it has complex geometry and especially PBR shaders). So 8k will do very little besides possibly make AA entirely unnecessary , but 144 fps is even less noticable. I'm sorry but anything above 60 fps is placebo effect. It makes almost no noticeable difference to responsiveness at all even on the most responsive games like CS GO. 8k is unnecessary too, but at least it will be noticeable on huge screens.

The only thing that would be good is to run the controls at 120 or 144 Hz, or higher, but actually rendering the games at 120 Hz is an absolute waste.


I think you're ignoring the massive amount of engine lag these games have, not to mention controller lag, frame lag, and display lag. Nevermind network lag if we're talking about multiplayer games which even if you're playing people in your same city, would still dwarf the lag saved by using 144 fps. Such a small reduction of overall lag will not be anymore noticeable than 8k will be.

It's really not that valuable to render the game at such a high framerate. As games like Driveclub have proven, it's better to crank the graphics, and run the controls at a framerate, rather than both.




Frankly, I think 8k and 120 fps will be used as rarely as 1080p was on PS3 or Switch, supersampling on PS4, or native 4k 60fps is used on X1X, and Pro so it's not a huge deal in my opinion. I'd rather see them both be avoided under most circumstances.

 

[Whitestar]

I'm sorry but anything above 60 fps is placebo effect. It makes almost no noticeable difference to responsiveness at all even on the most responsive games like CS GO.

Not sure exactly what you're saying, but there are two big differences when running a PC game on my monitor in 120 vs 60 fps.

1. Responsiveness, as in less input lag, as in faster response to mouse movements.
2. Reduced motion blur.

Both these contribute to an experience that feels faster, more fluid and more "alive" and are not placebo at all. In fact, they are clearly noticeable.

 

[Griffith500]

Yeah, I can tell when I dip to 120 from 144. I'm yet to test higher than this, even my old CRTs didn't go beyond 120 back in the day.

I can see the flicker of fluorescent / LED lights at the edges of my vision under certain circumstances, they're 100 Hz minimum. I refuse to believe I'm anything special in that regard. Restaurants don't use fluorescents because it makes some of their patrons feel ill as a result of the subconscious perception of this flicker.

There's a lot more going on here. Let's not allow 60 fps to become the new 24 fps.


Extra resolution requires more detailed assets, which requires more man hours. Extra responsiveness (framerate) requires no extra content, and has a more significant effect on the feel of the game, as opposed to just eye candy (which is great, don't get me wrong). It's like a free upgrade, if you've got the computational grunt on hand.

On that note, someone said something like:

2k at 120 Hz
4k at 60 Hz
8k at 30 Hz

But the pixel count doesn't double at each step, it quadruples, so in terms of pixels per second alone it should be:

2k at 480 Hz
4k at 120 Hz
8k at 30 Hz


In reality, geometry setup and game logic (both CPU tasks traditionally) will bottleneck first, probably no higher than the 100 Hz mark. And we know the 8k rendering situation will be upscaled, possibly even interleaved, in all likelihood, too.

So in order for a game to deliver 120 Hz at any resolution on the new consoles, it will require special attention from the devs all the same. Consumer VR's final emergence helps, because, as an experience, that continues to get noticeably better for almost everyone (because of subconscious cues) way above 100 Hz.


Of course, all of this is moot if the latency between controller input and the pixels changing colour on the display isn't reduced significantly. It's currently around 100 ms (10 Hz equivalent!!) for most TVs and PCs, although VR at least is lower by necessity. The industry is aware and people are working on it - it's going to be a good thing, a return to the crisp responsiveness of old arcade games!

 

[rhalgr]

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/digit...rlett-spec-analysis?__twitter_impression=true

We need more details

 

[Terronium-12]

I'm sorry but anything above 60 fps is placebo effect. It makes almost no noticeable difference to responsiveness at all even on the most responsive games like CS GO.

You really need to learn to refrain from saying things like this because it's categorically incorrect. It reminds me of the "Human eyes can't see beyond 30fps!" nonsense.

 

[Tornado]

More frames are always better for games. There are genres where trading it off with straight image quality (like rendering resolutio, or ray tracing) is much more defensible than others, but framerate is otherwise directly related to gameplay in a way that image quality tangibles are not.

 

[Novalee]

Microsoft reportedly still working on a $60 mini Xbox for Project xCloud

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-reportedly-still-working-on-a-60-mini-xbox-for-project-xcloud/


I would buy this if the xcloud worked good .

Rumours of a cheap streaming-only Xbox has resurfaced once again, with Thurrott.com‘s Brad Sams reporting that the project is still in development.

The tiny box would be designed to make it easy to connect your Xbox controller to your TV and offer minimal processing power itself.