-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF - Tech Analysis: Titanfall beta on Xbox One and PC
- Thread starter Gavarms
- Start date
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It reads like the PC version is just the XB1 version dumped onto that platform.
I think there must have been some clause within that exclusivity to ensure parity between the two versions, which is god awful if you think about the implications.
I think there must have been some clause within that exclusivity to ensure parity between the two versions, which is god awful if you think about the implications.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
PC's will get more powerful to compensate, Xbox won't.
GlamFM
Banned
Nope. Bad performance is bad.
What does that even mean?
Chobel
Member
I know there are options for them in PC(I played and still playing the beta). But what I mean is the things that xbone can't handle should an as options in PC. I'm sure the shadows could be better.
Well, I doubt they are gonna hit stable 60-FPS. I'm gonna say this is more or less what you're gonna get at this point.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
Seriously?
You don't understand the concept of upgrading a PC with a more powerful CPU & GPU to 'brute force' it's way past the 'lag' you mentioned.
Really??? haha
It lags on my pc and its a beast....the games just not that optimised right now.
70 people made this game....in 3 years? good game...good fun on both xbox one and pc
The discs are likely being pressed very soon. It's very very late in the development cycle
I agree, Does everyone else remember the comments about it being difficult to market the game? I think this is part of the marketing strategy.
The Cartographer
Member
What about the 360 version of the game?
DarkLiberator
Banned
Its a public demo, calling it a "beta" is a joke. If anything this is to stress test their server system.
SJRB
Gold Member
Yeah, I think this "beta" was a server stress test more than anything.
game patches
Depends on how old the Beta build is I reckon. If it's fairly recent then I'd be surprised if they get to 900p on XB1 as there doesn't seem to be enough time and they clearly still have optimization work to keep stable 60fps at the current resolution.
If the Beta is an old build they've already moved well past then it might be possible depending on where the latest build is for fps and stability.
I loved this part:
Great for those without the best HW. I know a lot of people got the 7850 because it was such a great performer for the money and the R7 265 is basically a rebranded and slightly OCed 7850. Wish they gave us some option to stretch the legs though by getting rid of the horrible pop in for one.
Great for those without the best HW. I know a lot of people got the 7850 because it was such a great performer for the money and the R7 265 is basically a rebranded and slightly OCed 7850. Wish they gave us some option to stretch the legs though by getting rid of the horrible pop in for one.
Not being 60 frames 100% of the time and having "bad performance" are two different things.
GlamFM
Banned
There's also stuttering and tearing..
Yep. I've noticed all of it and still wouldn't consider the game to have bad performance. Bad performance suggests the game isn't enjoyable to play due to technical issues.
That's not the case. Not close.
SneakyStephan
Banned
35 fps is king!
It's sad that they can't be bothered with high res textures or higher res shadows on pc, another case of 'crysis 2 dx11 patch' shenanigans for parity? That or they just don't give a fuck, a middle finger to pc gamers either way
It's sad that they can't be bothered with high res textures or higher res shadows on pc, another case of 'crysis 2 dx11 patch' shenanigans for parity? That or they just don't give a fuck, a middle finger to pc gamers either way
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Reading this almost make me feel like they purposely shafted the PC version just to sell you on the Xbox One version just because They probably knew more people would gravitate there since they probably don't want an Xbox. It's like why do that when they know PC is more capable of better output. Kind of crappy.
Yes, game patches, but the time to do so is very limited, this is not like a typical Beta.
If we were to use GW2 as an example of another Beta, which has substantial performance increases from Beta to Release, which seems to be what some people are expecting here, then we need to look at the development time that they had during Beta:
Closed Beta:
December
February
March
BWE:
April
June
July
With Stress tests from July all the way up to release at the end of August. Saying it's a Beta with the assumption of a large performance increase at this time is naive. These are essentially stress tests now for Titanfall and networking is likely the main priority of development following this "beta"
Essentially, there's going to be a performance increase, but it's not going to be huge and it's not going to be comparable to many other games which had longer and earlier Beta's
I'd agree it's not unplayable, but I would still say it has bad performance, not terrible or unplayable performance but certainly bad.
Unknown One
Member
I wouldn't say shafted. It seems more like a quick dirty port. This is a console game first and foremost. It's by the makers of COD4 after all. The same guys that didn't put in dedicated servers for MW2.
I suspect he is exaggerating.
GlamFM
Banned
Glad you enjoy it, performance is still not good at all. Sorry.
Also bad performance does absolutely not suggest a game is not enjoyable. It suggest that a game performes bad. Like Titanfall for example.
Nope. Keep reading.
Unsubstantiated conspiracy time!
Reminds me of E3 when I was reading similar nonsense of MS only allowing 3rd parties to demo games on the XO, and the moneyhat to ensure 3rd party developers restricted the performance of their games on the PS4 for platform parity.
Can Crusher
Banned
I think the game just has poor tech, and poor art direction that doesn't compensate for it. I have to say, this is a bit awkward considering that it's MS's biggest exclusive for the year.
BrainZEROX
Member
DF is not super optimistic either regarding any resolution improvement the March release could introduce:
The game is running at 60fps most of the time. The drops to 40-50 during heavy action are disappointing, but also rather short. People confuse the minimum fps with the average fps. The game's performance is above the "console standard".
The main issue is that the game looks like ass.
GlamFM
Banned
Tearing is the bigger issue IMO.
The game definitely drops harder than 35fps when in an all out battle with mechs (I was on foot).
Using my anti-titan weapon, shooting down a choke point while three titans were going at it, the game dropped into the single digits for a couple seconds. Usually it was in the teens throughout this particular ordeal, but damn if it wasn't crazy choppy in any event.
Game was still the shit though. Reminded me of the low frame rate affairs in hectic GoldenEye matches back in the day.
Using my anti-titan weapon, shooting down a choke point while three titans were going at it, the game dropped into the single digits for a couple seconds. Usually it was in the teens throughout this particular ordeal, but damn if it wasn't crazy choppy in any event.
Game was still the shit though. Reminded me of the low frame rate affairs in hectic GoldenEye matches back in the day.
That too. It was definitely noticeable, e.g. during the jump at the beginning of a match.
It was just a statement to keep hope alive. Publishers only care about this "resolution/framerate drama" before release because they don't want any kind of bad publicity disturbing their perfect marketing plan.
So they say some empty promise like "we are still studying the possibility of having 60fps" or "we are currently 720p but it's still possible to reach 1080p by launch" 3 months before release. You don't change something like that 2 months before a game gets gold. That is bug hunting time not changing core fundamentals of a game engine. Anyone that believes those promises only have themselves to blame for the disappointment.
Pseudo judo
Member
Agreed. I have both as well. The PC version seems...cleaner but that's about it.
It is a true games console. Its just underpowered.
Dictator93
Member
Performance wise my biggest problem with the game comes from some strange GPU utilization. At times my FPS goes down with gpu utilization also going down. Meaning... I am somehow getting CPU limited even though I have only 1 570 working (SLI is ocmpletely broken).
A Core i7 930 @ 4.2 Ghz is limiting a single GTX 570?!
Something is not right there.
A Core i7 930 @ 4.2 Ghz is limiting a single GTX 570?!
Something is not right there.
Of course something isn't right, its a Beta.
Riky
$MSFT
Yes basically. With my 7870 which is more powerful than the Xbox One GPU I can get 1080p and 60fps with stuff like shadows/ragdolls/decals etc on low but high textures as my Phenom II 955 quad core is the bottleneck , I can run Battlefield 3 far higher and that looks much better so I don't think the game is very well optimised on PC either.
When I'm playing though it handles really well on both formats, it looks good on my 1080p Panny on both, now the over sharpening has gone on X1 it just looks a bit softer than the PC beta but it still looks good.
demigod
Member
Yep, maybe they will ask ms to unleash dgpu!
Btw i thought it was using the power of the cloud, why do they need to stress those servers?
Delusibeta
Banned
As ever, the "beta" version is actually a demo version and it's probably safe to assume that the graphics quality and performance will be reflective of the final product (or at least the final product that goes on the disc).
That's fine. Game is awesome.
Similar threads
- Locked