The Xbox Series X|S thread

[Right]

46 minutes ago, adity said:

Apple being a major dick lmao

 

 

Point is that they are worried that F2P games like CoD Mobile, PUBG which make money for them will shift to xCloud and Apple will be deprived of revenues.

Worse thing if XCloud really takes off, Console titles won't be a match to Mobile ones.

[Right]

2 minutes ago, adity said:

But it's extremely anti consumer to ban an app just because its better than your offering. What's stopping them from banning Spotify, Netflix, etc. to promote apple counterparts. I think they're going to get sued hard over this. A streamed game is essentially just video. Do they certify every video uploaded to YouTube? 

 

It is Anti-consumer in a way, but they are just protecting themselves.

In last 3 years, mobile gaming has changed a lot. Devs are making crazy revenues with Hyper-Causal games, Apple/Google don't get a dime out of that model.

The reviewing is just an excuse to fail the games which will have Micro-transactions.

 

YouTube doesn't lose revenue when a video promoting some other Video site is posted.

Hell, they will make money out of such video if such video gets a million hits.

 

 

[CarbonCore]

44 minutes ago, adity said:

But it's extremely anti consumer to ban an app just because its better than your offering. What's stopping them from banning Spotify, Netflix, etc. to promote apple counterparts. I think they're going to get sued hard over this. A streamed game is essentially just video. Do they certify every video uploaded to YouTube? 

 

Nothing. They can do it tomorrow if they want. If Spotify and Netflix want mobile apps they can launch their own mobile phones. People can't bat for monopoly when its against one company and then call it anti-consumer when it happens against another company. Apple can do whatever they want because they built up this platform from ground up, right?

[Right]

How could GamePass even come on a Rival console.

GamePass is more like an incentive to help them pull people in the Xbox Ecosystem, not a proven business mode which makes billions for MS.

 

I don't think its even worth porting the binaries of their Xbox exclusives to PS4/5. 

[CarbonCore]

11 minutes ago, adity said:

I really thought about Sony not allowing Xbox Game Pass before posting. I feel there is a difference between these 2 cases but I cannot articulate it. 

Maybe because game consoles are purpose build devices and mobile phones are more multipurpose. 

Idk man. But this doesn't sit right with me. 

 

They just want 30% cut from everything, its that simple. The difference between something like Netflix and Xcloud is that with Netflix, once you pay for sub there's nothing else to pay for from inside the app. With Xcloud you could buy DLC and MTX for individual games, and Apple probably can't get a cut if its inside one singular streaming app. So they make every game have separate app and enforce 30% rule. Epic tried to fight this sh*t and lost, so the status quo is going to remain the same for a long time.

[Right]

8 minutes ago, AnK said:

The customers 

they will stop buying apple devices if they don’t get their favourite apps 

 

It’s like Sony deciding to stop releasing EA,Ubisoft,Bathesda,CDPR,Square Enix games on Playstation coz they want monopoly for great SP content of World Wide studios 

 

ppl will stop buying Playstation if Sony decides to shove Horizon down their throats & abandon Witcher 

They actually pulled this stunt with Google  Maps.

They had contract with Google to bundle GMaps. And in the side they were making their own Map app.

New OS rolled out and that inserted their own App and removed Google's.

 

Their turdy map app wasn't even half-ready.

Suddenly people were missing their trains.....hell broke out.

Led to exit of many execs in Apple Maps.

 

People found ways to manage with Google maps on browser, but it was painful..

Then Google played hardball and didn't put Maps on Appstore for next 3 months. 

[Mysteryman]

Apple has become increasingly anti consumer in all kinds of ways to increase their profits. They remove essential features like jacks and now this rumored separate packaging for fast charging battery packs. Even in 2020 they are still sticking with the free 5GB for icloud. 

[CarbonCore]

9 minutes ago, adity said:

Ok. If they disabled buying mtx entirely, would they allow it? Because xbox games can only buy through MS. so if MS disables its gateway for xcloud on iPhone, it would work just as well. 

MS probably thinks its too much of a hassle anyway, so they decided to not go with this plan.

[roun90]

1 hour ago, CarbonCore said:

 

Nothing. They can do it tomorrow if they want. If Spotify and Netflix want mobile apps they can launch their own mobile phones. People can't bat for monopoly when its against one company and then call it anti-consumer when it happens against another company. Apple can do whatever they want because they built up this platform from ground up, right?

 

Actually, no. Apple cannot remove Netflix and Spotify tomorrow. Whenever any company takes service of another - they both sign a contract. This contract is legally binding. And in cases of major companies, they also have a say in what goes into the contract. Apple needs Netflix and Spotify as much as they need Apple. Now, in such contracts, most of the times, there is a time period stipulated after which the companies decide whether to renew the contract or not. Companies can also break the contract in between - if they give notice in writing and both parties agree (Such things are there in the contract itself). If business volume is not up to the mark (What was projected) - they will not renew the contract, and the app will vanish from the device. If Apple removes Netflix and Spotify tomorrow, they will sue Apple for losses incurred and the hypothetical future business lost - and they will win. Apple will have to pay up.

 

Epic's case was different. In Epic's case, Tim Sweeney gave his Shiny Autograph to the contract with Apple, agreeing that he will pay 30% of revenue. And then he, on his own terms (Or on CCP's orders) broke it. Then, he immediately put up a provocative trailer within what? 1 hour or so and filed a case by the next day. Hence, he was kicked out. Apple will ultimately win that case because Epic broke the terms. Apple will slam the contract in the face of the judge - when the time comes and walk away.

 

As far as the 30% cut - why do you guys think it's unethical? Services are provided for money - not for free. And Store will charge fees when money flows. Do people crib when banks take processing charges? It's the same case here. As far as F2P and MTX is concerned - look at it this way. If you write a Star Wars Fanfiction tomorrow, and put it up on the net - no one will care. However, if you make a teaser - that gets popular, and then start selling Star Wars story parts - Disney will sue you immediately. It's their right and their property. There is nothing wrong in that. It's the same case here. Replace the Star Wars free teaser with F2P and the further chargeable parts with MTX, and you get the same logic. Here, PUBG does not belong to Apple, but the security services, marketing, payment services, the No. 1 listing in the "New and Trending" section - that promoted more casuals to download it in the first place etc. - all does belong to Apple. Hence they take their due.

 

It's also the same reason why Steam is moving to bar listing of games that is not going to come out on their platform first (Or within 30 days of releasing on another platform from what I heard). They don't want people using Steam Discussions, Recommendations etc. to promote games on Epic (Free Marketing for competitors).

[CarbonCore]

10 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

Actually, no. Apple cannot remove Netflix and Spotify tomorrow. Whenever any company takes service of another - they both sign a contract. This contract is legally binding. And in cases of major companies, they also have a say in what goes into the contract. Apple needs Netflix and Spotify as much as they need Apple. Now, in such contracts, most of the times, there is a time period stipulated after which the companies decide whether to renew the contract or not. Companies can also break the contract in between - if they give notice in writing and both parties agree (Such things are there in the contract itself). If business volume is not up to the mark (What was projected) - they will not renew the contract, and the app will vanish from the device. If Apple removes Netflix and Spotify tomorrow, they will sue Apple for losses incurred and the hypothetical future business lost - and they will win. Apple will have to pay up.

 

Epic's case was different. In Epic's case, Tim Sweeney gave his Shiny Autograph to the contract with Apple, agreeing that he will pay 30% of revenue. And then he, on his own terms (Or on CCP's orders) broke it. Then, he immediately put up a provocative trailer within what? 1 hour or so and filed a case by the next day. Hence, he was kicked out. Apple will ultimately win that case because Epic broke the terms. Apple will slam the contract in the face of the judge - when the time comes and walk away.

 

As far as the 30% cut - why do you guys think it's unethical? Services are provided for money - not for free. And Store will charge fees when money flows. Do people crib when banks take processing charges? It's the same case here. As far as F2P and MTX is concerned - look at it this way. If you write a Star Wars Fanfiction tomorrow, and put it up on the net - no one will care. However, if you make a teaser - that gets popular, and then start selling Star Wars story parts - Disney will sue you immediately. It's their right and their property. There is nothing wrong in that. It's the same case here. Replace the Star Wars free teaser with F2P and the further chargeable parts with MTX, and you get the same logic. Here, PUBG does not belong to Apple, but the security services, marketing, payment services, the No. 1 listing in the "New and Trending" section - that promoted more casuals to download it in the first place etc. - all does belong to Apple. Hence they take their due.

 

It's also the same reason why Steam is moving to bar listing of games that is not going to come out on their platform first (Or within 30 days of releasing on another platform from what I heard). They don't want people using Steam Discussions, Recommendations etc. to promote games on Epic (Free Marketing for competitors).

 

Apple can come up with a bullshit reason like security breach or failing QA certification with new update or risk to their iOS user data and shut down the app or put it on hold. Or they make them jump through the same hoops as xCloud. They've done it before plenty of times. These contracts mean sh*t when you have a monopoly and rule with an iron fist. iPhone/iOS users made their bed a long time ago. The contracts are also not above the law if the judge think its breaking the ethical practices and monopoly rules. Just because two parties agreed to do something doesn't mean the law has to follow their terms. That is the whole basis of Apple vs Epic, or countless times Apple sued MS in 80s and 90s.

[Walker]

18 minutes ago, roun90 said:

As far as the 30% cut - why do you guys think it's unethical? Services are provided for money - not for free. And Store will charge fees when money flows. Do people crib when banks take processing charges? 

Kind of shooting youself in the foot there champ. Think about what you're saying here. I'll give you a hint. Monopoly.

[dylanjosh]

 Stupid Tim Sweeney  Forgot that he signed a contract  If only he remembered  Must have been too busy playing Fortnite  

[Walker]

Honestly flip it to Steam vs Apple and watch how the tune changes.

[roun90]

44 minutes ago, Walker said:

Kind of shooting youself in the foot there champ. Think about what you're saying here. I'll give you a hint. Monopoly.

 

Is it though? The very definition of monopoly is - There is only one player in the entire industry, and more importantly - there are such huge hurdles that no other player in the industry. 

 

You think Apple itself is an industry? No it's not. Mobile Phones/Cellular Communication is the industry, and Apple is just 1 player there.

 

There are tons of other players as well - Samsung, Mi, Google, OnePlus etc. Even iOS is not a monopoly because Android is there. 

 

As far as stores and devices are concerned, it's only Apple that's banning Epic - because they have an ecosystem. Google can only ban from Play Store, but cannot stop APIs. Samsung etc can also have their own store and list Epic Games. And they have separate contracts themselves.

 

Legally, don't see how any of it is monopoly at all. By it's very definition - if there is even 1 extra player, it's not a monopoly. And there are multiple players in Mobile Devices, OS and Mobile Stores.

 

Also, if Apple phones don't do well - you think their store will have any value? You think Apple can command such terms then? The fact that listing is valuable and provides customets is in itself a service Apple provides.

 

@CarbonCore You are confusing major firms with 1-2 minor customers like us. No, Apple cannot BS their way out of a contract. There are highly qualified and very highly (maybe in millions) paid legal teams in all major firms. Also, any good contract also provides for Arbitration terms, Legal terms and cancellation terms. 

 

Major firms don't click "I Agree" without reading ToS like we do. They get written contracts and each and every word is read over 100 times and negotiated before signing. And law arbitrations of major forms are very costly, plus affect reputation and trust. These are not taken lightly, believe me.

 

Also, as I said, Apple is not an industry. They are a player in an industry. If they want to ban you - it's not a monopoly. Because you are only kicked out of Apple, not mobile industry altogether. 

 

If you are banned from McDonalds, it's not a monopoly, because you still have KFC, Burger King etc. Now if McDonalds makes the most delicious burgers, which you love, all your friends go there (customers) and you cannot stand othet burger joints - that does not make McDonalds a monopily either.

Edited September 12, 2020 by roun90

[CarbonCore]

28 minutes ago, Walker said:

Honestly flip it to Steam vs Apple and watch how the tune changes.

Forget Steam, just look at the thread on Era about Apple blocking MS streaming vs Apple blocking all Epic engine games. The issue is exactly the same, Apple trying to fleece more money out of 3rd parties. But the reactions are so starkly different you start to wonder how self aware people are  

[sobbii]

8 hours ago, VelivolusDas said:

Somehow streamable never works for me. So, I can't see what those links are for. ?

 vpn its probably blocked by ur isp

 

[WhiteWolf]

Developer Speaks About Lockhart "Holding Back Next Gen." And PS5 VS XSX Dev Kits.

 

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/developer-speaks-about-lockhart-holding-back-next-gen-and-ps5-vs-xsx-dev-kits.1553103/#post-259078920

 

Approved by Staff member. 

 

Quote

 

 

Decided to ask a buddy of mine in the industry about the Lockhart and Series X vs PS5 and what he thinks so far. He is working on Borderlands 3 for Next Gen right now.


When I asked about Lockhart "holding back next gen." He had this to say:

"I really hate this term as it doesn't make any sense in terms of how games are actually made but I understand what people are trying to say. But if you have ever designed a game there isn't much you can and can not do. Its all a matter of what you are willing to put time/resources into to get working correctly. Whenever a new generation of consoles happens it allows creators to get things working faster and easier. Lockhart when we/my team was first briefed on it sounded really bad on paper.

Microsoft failed on providing real dev kits and details on the project. We didn't get any type of Lockhart hardware until very recently. Before we actually had the hardware we were given a profile on Anaconda dev kits that would mimic what Lockhart would be. But Microsoft never mentioned that it would have the same CPU and an SSD or how much RAM they intended Lockhart to have. I suspect this was because they themselves hadn't decided. To put it bluntly, they released these profiles far too early. The tools they provided made us hate Lockhart.

That changed once we got Lockhart Dev kits. It is indeed the same CPU and SSD and getting up and running on this device was super easy compared to Anaconda running in the Lockhart profile. We have been able to do the work we want on Anaconda and get it running on Lockhart with not a ton of work but it has required a bit more time to make sure the code runs on both machines in the same fashion. Its not something we are really worried about anymore. As the generation goes on I feel like this will be the approach for many studios. You start on Anaconda and then optimize for Lockhart. There is nothing the Lockhart can't do that the Anaconda can.

The one thing I have heard thats concerning is that Lockhart dev kits are not common. It seems like Microsoft really wants to be able to use Anaconda to accurately portray Lockhart performance and that has not been the experience my team has had. The profiles and tools are getting better on Anaconda in terms of mimicking Lockhart, but if you don't have a Lockhart dev kit, I feel like you are not going to be able to see how it accurately runs on Lockhart. Maybe this will change, but as of right now you really need a Lockhart Dev kit to understand it. For smaller teams I could see the optimization process being more time consuming but the tools provided by Microsoft have come a long way. They make it very easy to jump from one kit to another and the Lockhart kit is equipped with a lot of tools that help you see exactly where code needs to be looked at. Ray Tracing is one area that they seemed to have focused on and have made it very easy to adjust the levels."

Q- I asked about PS5 Dev kits vs Series X dev kits and which console has the upper hand?

"PS5 dev kit is a bit easier to work with. Its well thought out and designed in ways that make it a bit easier to tweak and change things vs Anaconda. To say I prefer one over the other isn't' really fair because both are very good, but its just a bit easier to work with PS5.

 

But Anaconda has the upper hand in terms of us being able to really push effects. The difference will come down to effects over resolution for us. We have both dev kits pushing 4K/60 on Borderlands 3 and we have almost zero loading times on both kits. Looking at them side by side the image is very similar.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by WhiteWolf

[WhiteWolf]

All the concerned trolling must stop now. Devs who were talking bunch of nonsense were saying without any hands on Lockhart dev kit.  

 

Games made for seriesX then scale down on graphics to work at 1080p resolution on S keeping system memory bandwidth in mind.

Edited September 13, 2020 by WhiteWolf

[CarbonCore]

There is nothing the Lockhart can't do that the Anaconda can.

 

We already know what it can't do, running last gen games at 1X spec. Imagine running RDR2 at 862p/30fps on a supposed next-gen machine  

[WhiteWolf]

26 minutes ago, CarbonCore said:

 

 

 

We already know what it can't do, running last gen games at 1X spec. Imagine running RDR2 at 862p/30fps on a supposed next-gen machine  

U want to bet on that? You 100% sure that Xbox one games will run at less than 1080p and sub30 even in BC games with dynamic resolution with Ryzen 2 and Navi RDNA 2 in it?  

 

Since you so concerned about BC games all of sudden. Tell me how many BC games will work on PS5? Will it run RDR2 at 4k60 on PS5?

 

Coliation is porting One X version of Gears 5 to Series S and X. Lets see which version runs better. One X or Series S.  

Edited September 13, 2020 by WhiteWolf