I think a key difference is that Sony actually convinced people last gen that the PS3 was the more powerful system. Every time an inferior port came out it was because the developers didn't take advantage of the system, not because the system architecture was a piece of crap. Microsoft tried to do the same this generation even here on GAF but of course nobody bought it.
-
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.
Digital Foundry Performance Analysis: The Division beta (PS4 Vs. Xbox One)
- Thread starter Get_craycray
- Start date
I think a key difference is that Sony actually convinced people last gen that the PS3 was the more powerful system. Every time an inferior port came out it was because the developers didn't take advantage of the system, not because the system architecture was a piece of crap. Microsoft tried to do the same this generation even here on GAF but of course nobody bought it.
WTF is this shit?
It is proven facts that the PS3 was a more powerful machine than the Xbox 360. It's also a proven fact that Xbox One is a less powerful system then the PS4.
Thank you for proving my point.
And what point would that be exactly?
Melchiah
Member
One of them being better doesn't mean the other is shit, considering the power difference, unless it runs at framerate that hinders gameplay.
It's also proven facts that the PS3 was a piece of shit in terms of architecture and was a nightmare to develop for, which is why it's 'on paper' technical advantages ended up being ultimately meaningless in practice (Arguably... outside of a small number of titles). It probably was more powerful, sure... but that power was wasted due to it's shortcomings on other fronts.
I wouldn't say 'nobody'... reading some of those cloud threads has been pretty cringeworthy.
I think everyone knows that PS3 arch. was absolute trash. That is not the point though. At the end of the day, the PS3 was more powerful than the 360.
Dictator93
Member
*if you built your entire engine around its architecture whereby it would lead to mixed results in multi-platform cases (see Frostbite and CryEngine)
LukasTaves
Member
For many developers that isn't any different at all actually. We had developers flat out coming out and saying that if they developed with Ps3 in mind and ported to 360, they could go nuts with ps3 because they were sure it would run fine on 360, while the opposite was proven to not be true.
And in many cases, we do know that Ps3 was objectively worse than 360, just like we do now with Ps4/Xbone, but somehow it got accepted as the more powerful one, so it was ok to strive for parity back then, otherwise it was a clear case of lazy devs. Now obviously, devs are being lazy if they don't use the extra power XD
bargeparty
Member
Melchiah
Member
Considering, that Microsoft had feature parity clause last gen, it doesn't seem unlikely they'd have such a mandate this gen as well.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts
This recent thread about indie multiplatform development also showed what it took to make a game on all platforms.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1173092
So, if it takes less time and resources to develop on PS4, it seems like it wouldn't be as hard for a big studio like Ubisoft to take advantage of the platforms strengths as it's on the XBO.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts
This recent thread about indie multiplatform development also showed what it took to make a game on all platforms.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1173092
The actual ports
The worst part in all of this is probably that our only programmer, Alex, did all the heavy lifting by himself (the guys a freaking machine). Making the game run smoothly on all 3 consoles took him a good amount of time and energy, especially during the certification process.
To give you an idea of the difference between the 3 consoles, heres how we spent our time on the actual ports over the second year of development:
Well thats not equal at all.
Considering that we made about equal revenues on each consoles so far, you can see that one was definitely more expensive to port to. This might change in the future though, as this was our very first time working with consoles. We also received a lot of help from our friends from Chainsawesome Games for the Xbox One port, which saved us a lot of time and headaches!
So, if it takes less time and resources to develop on PS4, it seems like it wouldn't be as hard for a big studio like Ubisoft to take advantage of the platforms strengths as it's on the XBO.
Dictator93
Member
There is definitely a form of GI present, but there has yet to be any case like that showcased in the tech trailer: e.g. a dynamic, localised, GI which works for spot light casters indoors.
You can see GI effects in the overworld from the sun and elsewhere, indoors... I have yet to see something which resembles that effect fromthe engine trailer.
The lack of GI doesn't bother me as much as some of the other issues, game looks pretty blurry in a lot of areas to me, on PS4, and has a lot of pop-in. I think it could look pretty good if those are fixed by final release, but for some reason I'm expecting the beta iq to be near the final.
LukasTaves
Member
It is?
360 had more memory available, because the OS has a smaller footprint, because of no split pool, and because the gpu supported better texture formats than RSX that allowed smaller size with same quality (or better quality with the same size)
360 had more rendering bandwidth, had the same number of ROPs but with bandwidth to support them.
360 had a gpu with an architecture that was much better at load balancing, instead of having a fixed split, which made RSX crumble with vertex load.
360 also had a more modern architecture, there were some shaders/effects that run an order of magnitude slower on RSX compared to xenos, despite the raw power being similar (That's why many early Ps3 games had missing effects like motion blur, which only became de facto on that console when sony developed a cell based solution for it and other post process, though that had its own share of issues as it increased the rendering latency)
The biggest disadvantage 360 had was the CPU, because cell was so much better than its cpu specially for gpu related tasks. But 360 didn't need to use the cpu for that because the gpu was capable of running those tasks reasonably well.
Frostbite 2.0 (the one that was used for BF3) is actually a nice example of that, they had developed the entire engine with the Ps3 in mind (focusing on the fact that next gen gpus would be very similar to cell in regards on how to handle your algorithms), and even making the rendering as much as cell based as possible they were able to practically match its performance on 360 by simply brute forcing.
I actually think the delta in performance between ps3 and 360 is bigger than Ps4 and Xbone (having trouble to fit render targets on esram notwithstanding). I haven't made an extensive analysis, but I think that the games that did manage to achieve the same resolution on both machines usually had less performance deltas on xbone compared to how they fared on Ps3.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Melchiah
Member
To my recollection, as last gen progressed some developers started porting from the PS3 to 360, as it got them better results than doing vice versa. That's not the same as "going nuts", and getting every drop of juice squeezed from Cell.
This time the platforms are much more similar with each other. So, if they take advantage of the more difficult and weaker platform, it's odd that in some occasions they don't do the same with the less complex and more powerful one. Especially, when most multiplatform titles have done exactly that.
There was no mention about laziness when it comes to development in my post, so I see no reason to attempt to sway the argument into that direction.
Dictator93
Member
One. I could load it up later and search for that. The best thing to find would be that exact same set up from the trailer, a swining spot light caster shining on a coloured wall.
Melchiah
Member
Particularly before 2010, when Sony decreased the amount of memory reserved for the PS3 OS, which was probably one of the reasons for the poorly performing ports.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/70mb-of-additional-ram-unlocked-for-ps3-developers/
Always-honest
Banned
No that's not it (from what i've heard).
The PS3 architecture was an actual problem. Especially with ports.
Not sure how much can/or should be said about the contracts, but performance/graphical parity is neither in them nor is it feasible to implement. Not now and not in the past. The so-called feature parity is a another matter, but can't talk about that.
Melchiah
Member
Thanks for shedding some light on that, which gives at least those suspicions a rest.
a console can be both more difficult to get the best out of it and more powerful... the ps3 is more powerful, but it was more difficult to use that power and for many pubs / devs it wasn't worth the extra time/ money to get their ps3 version up to snuff.
pretty much
So, is this applied only to indie development on Xbone or this is applied to all levels of game development ( indies, AA, AAA games )?
Quoted for future threads.
I think games like The Last of Us showed which of the consoles was ultimately the most powerful. But the architecture of the PS3 was made from nightmare juice...
Last gen you had the more powerful hardware being the more complicated hardware...leading to weaker multiplats
So this gen you have the more complicated hardware, also being the weaker hardware...leading to weaker multiplats
there was actually.
weren't you there at the time ? it was a bloodbath, especially because there is no much différencies with old gen...
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ah, the elusive revisionist history.
thelastword
Banned
I get your point, but this is UBisoft, the game is running at 1080p 30fps locked on PS4, they aren't going to do anything more with it. I agree that they should, but they wont....because performance is already good by openworld console standards.
Look at any of their other large openworld games, Unity is equal across framerate and resolution, Syndicate performs a bit better on PS4, but resolution and target framerate is pretty much on par. Then we have the division, which is their best performing AAA game across platforms, 1080p on both, very similar visuals and framerate about par outside of areas where the XB1 hardware buckles, (in essence, no huge framerate divide because of the lock).
This is as Ubisoft as it can get, only this time they have a better performing game, so I'd argue that they're thinking "dang "we really have no reason to keep on patching this game like we had to do for Unity etc"....So I fear they won't do much more, so I'd imagine that the extra GPU power would stay on the table here.
It's also very rare where you see an AAA developer shoot up sliders/ detail/effects after release, maybe they will implement AA/AF or offer a toggle on some effect but nothing significant, the exception to the rule are techland and the crew devs in recent times. Will Ubisoft patch additional visual detail to this game, I'm not betting my money on that, not that studio.............
Hell, It takes a special studio to make 900p games on both platforms performs worse on the more powerful platform, it also takes a lot of work to make a 1080 PS4 game perform worse than a 900p XB1 game (Witcher 3). If you noticed, these studios got fire for how glaring performance was first and foremost, bugs galore on Unity as well, but they always focus on resolving performance. Unity could have been 1080p on the PS4, that's visual (it never happened), but performance was increased because it was sloppy coding in the first place. Witcher 3's only problem on consoles is far-off from being performance only issues, but they catered to performance, improving visuals is hardly ever a thought for these games after the fact. Witcher had many below low settings, awful loadtimes, that was never improved. If they hit their 30fps targets solidly, these guys are gone faster than Nicolas Cage flooring it at 60.
If this game looked like the reveal, you'd have a point, IQ is it's saving grace, but asset detail has been decreased significantly, so too.... the reveal's more accurate lighting and better phsyx properties.
This is not to say it's not a looker; 1080p, good AA helps, character detail is decent, pbr makes the clothes look nice, but environmental effects and detail have taken a significant slide down. Perhaps these sliders could benefit from an uptick on the PS4 is all many are saying here......improve some of the asset detail and effects, seeing that the game is a locked 30fps.
Money post, you'll still get the same argument when another game which could do more on the PS4 surfaces. The point is, these two consoles are easy to develop for, perhaps the curse of the PS4 being more powerful and easy to develop for in the hands of multiplat devs. Funny, it takes less time to develop for the PS4 in typical scenarios...... This game is one of those rare 1080 across the board with good performance on the XB1, that means in this scenario, much more time than usual was taken devving on the xb1 since the norm is 900p XB1 vs 1080p PS4 (better performance PS4). 1080p on both with close performance tells the tale........
Sony did not convince anybody PS3 was more powerful, anybody who can read specifications knows that the PS3 was more powerful. First party devs proved that it was, from the start of the generation to the end with pile-up after pile-up of games that outclassed first party efforts on the 360 side. You're suggesting that there was some brainwashing going on by Sony, when it got the most vitriol I've ever seen from the press in the early days of PS3 from price to no games to live is better, to a million other reasons, do you even remember that famous Amirox post. There's no way Sony brainwashed anybody then....
DirtyLarry
Member
I checked out the beta on both platforms (somehow I got into the XBox beta without preordering the game, I think through XBox Rewards) and while they were very similar in all regards, the PS4 beta just felt a tad tighter and the visuals definitely looked cleaner and crisper to me.
Perhaps it was because when I checked it out on the PS4 it was also night time in the game, and the overall visuals of the game are just that much nicer at night. This was over the weekend so I had obviously not seen this DF analysis yet, but I sure as hell thought the PS4 version looked and performed better overall.
So now I really have to wonder am I now just conditioned to feel all games look better on the PS4 even though they may not be? Do I just expect this to be the case so right away my brain tells me it is even though it may not be? Just something I find interesting. Even after reading this analysis I still will say I felt the PS4 version looked and performed better, which I wish I did not feel as that Elite Controller on the One needs some more games.
Perhaps it was because when I checked it out on the PS4 it was also night time in the game, and the overall visuals of the game are just that much nicer at night. This was over the weekend so I had obviously not seen this DF analysis yet, but I sure as hell thought the PS4 version looked and performed better overall.
So now I really have to wonder am I now just conditioned to feel all games look better on the PS4 even though they may not be? Do I just expect this to be the case so right away my brain tells me it is even though it may not be? Just something I find interesting. Even after reading this analysis I still will say I felt the PS4 version looked and performed better, which I wish I did not feel as that Elite Controller on the One needs some more games.
We will never know as ND made the game for 360. ND has shown they have the most talented people out there which can do wonders on hardware. Therefore it's hard to say how TLOU would've looked on 360. But I doubt the game would've been impossible to do on the hardware.
Well, the PS3 was actually a very capable piece of hardware...but taking advantage of it required a lot of extra development effort. I don't think people appreciate just how MUCH effort and money was necessary to create great versions of games on PS3. It was not insignificant. Developers were well aware of issues with their PS3 titles but sometimes it just wasn't feasible to do anything about it. Whether it's lack of money, time, talent or all three...it was a fight last generation.
...but my point has nothing to do with the relative power of each platform. The entire point is that getting good performance out of PS3 in a multiplatform environment required more time, effort, and money than Xbox 360. The same is true this generation - more time, effort, and money is required to pull out good performance on Xbox One. The underlying reasons may differ, but the impact on cost of development is similar.
What we're seeing with The Division mirrors so many PS360 titles to a T. Often times you'd see PS3 games which look basically identical to the same game on Xbox 360 operate with slightly slower overall performance. Getting that "close but not quite" level of performance out of the PS3 would have required much more effort than getting it up and running on Xbox 360. So it could be argued that less time and money was spent on 360 despite its superiority.
With The Division on PS4 and XO, you have two versions of the game that look nearly identical but with slower performance on Xbox One. Getting that performance level on XO likely required MORE effort and money just as with PS3 games from last generation. That situation doesn't mean they are skimping on the PS4 version nor did it mean Xbox 360 versions were being skimped on.
Both Xbox One and PlayStation 3 were trailing behind the market leaders and required additional time and money in order to match the competition performance wise. It doesn't really matter WHY that's the case, that's just the reality. Most publishers aren't going to want to release a bad version of their game if they can prevent it. At least Xbox One owners haven't had to suffer through the early years of PS3 ports - Splinter Cell Double Agent, FEAR, Bayonetta, early years of PS3 Madden, The Orange Box, Lost Planet, Bioshock, etc. There were some bad Xbox One ports early on too...but nothing quite like these shit shows. PS3 still got shafted sometimes even later in life - look at something like Mass Effect 3. Good lord, I can't even understand how anyone felt it was acceptable to release that.
That said, I have a weird habit of collecting bad ports in general. Always fascinating.
You're remembering incorrectly.
Ninja Sharingan
Banned
Excellent informative post. Thank you. Goes to show that we indeed do havea lot of similarites Flip Floped from last gen, When it comes to time and budget of Devs etc.
Maybe the third home console for companies is cursed. lol
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Destiny is a cross gen game. The fact that MS had to send ninjas to Bungie was amusing. 1080@30 is not hard for PS360 era geometry and textures.
Parity in the context of marketing agreements always raises suspicions. It looks like the lesser hardware got some extra time or the more powerful system got ignored.
I haven't seen anything in the Last of us that made me think the Xbox 360 wouldn't be able to do that, very overrated graphics IMO, PS4 version didn't impress me either.
Well you should take a look of Battlefield 4 on ps360. Ps3 has vsync always on and 360 version is a tearing galore. FB it's probably the only multiplat engine which has pushed ps3 extremely well. Keep in mind I think 360 it's a better balanced hardware but in the right hands ps3 could give a bit more.
And I disagree about the ps3/xbone comparison. I know it exists horrible ps3 port but the difference in the multiplat between ps4 and xbone are bigger though less noticeable for the higher res.
MisterR
Member
Good. We'll know not to take your opinion seriously from now on about graphics.
But that's what they did if they went with parity.
Another ubisoft game to pick up cheap from used section. I won't support devs doing this, and they are doing it to themselves.
Melchiah
Member
I dunno if it was a common problem, but every time I went to Presidium in Citadel, the framerate took a really noticeable hit. The canyon part in Leviathan DLC had also unplayable framerate. I managed to finish the section by sheer luck, as I couldn't even aim due to the slideshow-like framerate.
ME3 also froze several times, and the same goes for the late ME1 port. IIRC, the freezes were pretty common in the latter, when returning to the ship from a mission. At first the framerate went down, then the game just froze completely, and had to be restarted.
To my understanding, the XBO versions are never as shoddy as that.
capitalCORN
Member
I think it's time for Sony to force a NO PARITY clause to developers. It'll be easy to enforce due to the bigger marketshare.
Not been a Pc Gamer since Half Life 2 days. PS4 and XB1, i just never thought they were that amazing like some people did, looked good in places and i did enjoy the game.
Yeah, that would be real popular. So you want Sony to return to 2005 Sony in terms of attitude and doing business?
Rookieuser
Banned
every time it ends up arguing over how many more pixels has a version instead of the other, but what really matters is that the game is finally a good product of Ubisoft, that all this waiting was not in vain and that I expect dozens and dozens of hours of fun with my friends.
IMHO
IMHO