@nintendians: ok that makes more sense than your initial comment but I think the issue is mostly down to English (apparently) not being your first language.
Microsoft isn't saying if you get banned in Game A then you will get banned in Game B. They are saying if you get banned in Game A on say PC then you should also be banned on other platforms like PS5, Xbox, switch etc.
I have to agree with them about that. The more places you block a cheater from the better. Hell I'd take it even further and use their hardware information to ban them. That way they can't just buy another copy or make a new account with a different email address and then go right back online and cheat again.
There's nothing more frustrating than losing in an online game because of a cheater.
I mean I have a high end PC, very high end compared to 99% of people in the steam hardware survey. I have a Ryzen 5800x, 32 gigs of dual rank 4000mhz CL14 DDR4 and a 3080ti FTW3 Ultra (that I got at MSRP!).
The reason I'm telling you and everyone my specs isn't to brag... It's to tell you that despite the fact that I can play pretty much everything with all the visuals cranked at 4k and still get a high frame rate, if it's a MP game... I'll probably play it on console instead so I can avoid cheaters as much as possible.
Even with cross play between console and PC you see less cheaters in those matches than you would on a purely PC match.
Now if it's a single player game I'll play on PC if possible. Like... Halo infinite. 90% of my multiplayer time has been on the series x but 100% of my campaign play has been on PC. I've played over 400 matches and only seen 1 cheater.
On the flip side we have COD... I loaded up vanguard multiplayer on PC the other day for the first time (got it as a gift) and in my first and 2nd match I saw more than 1 person using wallhacks and aimbots. I immediately shut it off.. I wasn't missing much because the game is terrible, at least the mp is.
Point is... We need better tools for reporting cheaters. Microsoft is really the only company with a functional reporting system. We also need better anti cheat and by better I don't mean just better at catching cheaters. I mean the anti cheat system itself needs to be less invasive. COD's new and completely useless anti cheat system is basically a root kit... I don't want that on my system.
So when someone is confirmed as a cheater I say ban them on as many platforms as possible and do so in a way that they can't just easily sign up again and start playing with a new name in 15 min.
Cheaters in mp ruin it for everyone and I'd love it if by some magical method they all got insta banned from every game and platform right now... If you cheat then you don't deserve the ability to play online with others. Or better yet don't "ban" them but secretly place them in servers that are populated by other cheaters so it's always cheaters vs cheaters.
Then the rest of us can just sit back, relax, and enjoy playing online.
Fantastic idea and would go a very long way in ending this scourge of cheaters.
On Xbox there is report but that only works for that network. For example if you're banned in Halo infinite on Xbox or Windows store you won't also be banned on steam and you should.
Same goes for other games. If you're banned from the PC version you should be banned from the console versions too and vice versa.
Cheaters ruin games. It's time to come down really hard on them.
@nintendians: Huh? Did you read the article? If you did the only way your comment makes any sense is if you cheat and don't want to get banned everywhere.
I doubt this is the LAST backwards compatibility update. It might be the last for original Xbox games but this generation hasn't really started yet due to the insane shortages.
Microsoft could make every game backwards compatible but they need permission from publisher's to do it.
I'll just end this post with the fact that MS has said it's the last BC update before. So... Expect more eventually.
@boltronics: Xbox has been region free forever. Well some games aren't because Microsoft left it in the hands of the publisher but the vast majority aren't region locked
@arifmunshi83: Crap lol. I didn't check what article it was, I just replied to the comment and also misread the comment and thought it said gpu not cpu.
CPU bound... That's a tough one. Technically almost any modern game can be CPU bound depending on settings and the CPU... But that's not what you mean so I won't cheat lol.
Honestly... No. There aren't any games that are CPU bound assuming a balanced system is being used at reasonable settings.
However most modern games make full use of the cpu even if you don't see 100% or even close to 100% cpu use.
These days games are designed to split tasks across cores as you know. The reason you won't see really high use on a CPU that's even a few years old is because the best way to run a game is with lots of small tasks across multiple cores with core 0 (or with Ryzen whatever core is determined to be it's best) then core 0 will basically act like a command and control server and dole out tasks to other cores.
Since these tasks are small and distributed across multiple cores the overall workload on the CPU appears to be kinda low but it's actually being pushed quite a bit.
The rise (finally) of proper SMT in games has made the likely hood of being cpu bound quite low. Again it's obviously based on the game and what mix of hardware in the system but I honestly doubt we will ever see a truly cpu bound game ever again.
That is until we transition to something other than silicon. It's possible that the first few generations of CPU's using new wafer technology could produce a CPU bound situation but that's years off and completely speculation.
@s1taz4a3l: huh? DDR5 is a thing. The only issue is it's launch speeds aren't any better than ddr4's top end speed and ddr5 will be expensive for at least the first year.
I remember when x99 launched along side DDR4 and a kit of 16 gigs was like $360 for 2133mhz. Thankfully it could be run in quad channel so you could get by with low speeds that had really tight timings.
Recently I bought 32 gigs of DDR4 (16x2 dual rank, dual channel) that was 3600mhz CL15 for $140.
So at least if you buy alder lake you can use ddr4 until prices come down on ddr5.
@arifmunshi83: ahh yes ok. I would say Control is probably one of the best examples. It came out with the 2000 series but even on a 3080ti ftw3 ultra I still had to run DLSS balanced to lock in 60 at max settings with all RT features enabled. It will likely even push mid range 4000 series cards.
It's a very well optimized game and runs extremely well with RT off but it was designed to push ray tracing beyond current hardware limited at least at 4k. It's also absolutely gorgeous.
Another game id put on that list is Metro Exodus. They recently updated the game and it definitely runs better than before despite already being well optimized but it's visual settings even without RT push even high end cards.
Both games were definitely designed to be playable today but not fully maxed out with RT.
Even DLSS doesn't allow for monster frame rates at 4k although I haven't had a chance to test it on the 3080ti yet. I played it extensively on a 2080ti ftw3 ultra and a Ryzen 5800x with 32 gigs ddr4.
I think Metro should run fine maxed out at 4k on the 3080 or above BUT only with DLSS.
Those 2 games are the first that come to mind as titles designed for hardware that's not out yet or wasn't out when they released. There are definitely more. Cyberpunk is one as well and when you max it out it's... Stunning. Once they hammer out all the issues I'm actually going to finish it lol. I think CDPR is going to make it right and end up exceeding expectations with what's going to essentially be a 2nd launch that will happen when they release the true PS5/series x updates. Their roadmap shows the game is in for significant changes so hopefully it works out.
Oh one more that popped into my head is Ghostrunner which I believe was made by 1 person. Without RT it's not a super demanding game but with RT you need at least a 3070 for a solid 60fps with DLSS. Visuals aside it's also fun as hell. The learning curve is steep but after an hour or so you start getting everything down and it's just pure fun.
@arifmunshi83: actually devs don't have to do anything just like they don't have to find the best Ryzen core in a ccx. Windows will handle it and distribute the workload.
Big little is not a new idea. It's been used in mobile for many years.
Technically Ryzen could be made to use big little with barely any modifications made to the design. They could have say 1 ccx with 8 cores and 1 ccx with 16+ little cores.
I have a feeling amd designed Ryzen the way they did so they could quickly pivot to big little if it proves to be beneficial on desktop
The real issue is Intel's Benchmarks. The BIG PROBLEM with these performance numbers and benchmarks is that they were done on Windows 11 BEFORE the CPU bug with Ryzen cpu's was fixed this week.
That means all the Ryzen performance numbers are significantly lower than they would normally be and Intel is knowingly doing their marketing with very bad data.
For once I'd like Intel to be at least semi honest when they send out marketing slides.
teamparadox2k's comments