• 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.

Evolution address DriveClub micro-transactions concern+ why 1080/30 is right decision

mocoworm

Member
Full article at the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-22-evolution-addresses-driveclub-micro-transactions-concern

It's a system identical to that used in Evolution's 2012 PlayStation Network game MotorStorm RC, "and there were no complaints," Rustchynsky said. "If anything people said, 'that's a great way to access this content immediately.'" Vehicles in MotorStorm RC can be bought for as little as 21p.

"The important thing about micro-transactions is, if they ever influence the game design or the progression then yes, there can be a negative influence," Rustchynsky added. "But that's absolutely not what we've done with DriveClub. Progression is quick. You unlock cars rapidly. If you're part of a club you get access to those things super quick."

DriveClub does not include £40 cars or the like, Rustchynsky insisted, as some driving games with micro-transactions do. "We don't want players to feel like we're nickle-and-diming them. That's not our intention. We want players to play the game as normal."

Indeed, it sounds as if Evolution would prefer players ignore DriveClub's micro-transactions and unlock cars through the natural course of progression.

"We don't want them to use them really," Rustchynsky said. "We want them to play the tour and naturally progress through the cars. We've got everything from hot hatches to hyper cars, and we don't really want people jumping into hyper cars immediately because they might not be tooled up. They might not have the skills they need. By all means, you can do that, but we'd prefer players to play with the cars we intended to be first.

"The proof will be when people play DriveClub. They'll see it's a non-issue when they get their hands-on and start to play the game. It's not intrusive. It's almost invisible. It's something we actually kind of hide a little bit."


Meanwhile, Rustchynsky also explained Evolution's decision to target DriveClub's native resolution at 1080p and frame-rate at 30 frames per second. The latter has disappointed some who were hoping for 60 frames, but Rustchynsky said 30fps was settled on because the game's visuals already push the PS4's processing power hard.

"The cars are the most detailed cars you'll ever see in a racing game, inside or out," he insisted.
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
"The important thing about micro-transactions is, if they ever influence the game design or the progression then yes, there can be a negative influence," Rustchynsky added. "But that's absolutely not what we've done with DriveClub. Progression is quick. You unlock cars rapidly. If you're part of a club you get access to those things super quick."
Uhm. Truth or tinfoil shielding?
 

mclem

Member
Just for once, I'd like a developer to recognise that saying that dropping 60fps to 30fps is okay 'because it's pretty' is... not actually speaking in terms that relate to me.
 

Havel

Member
"We make sure all the worlds are densely populated. The vistas, well, you can see them. There are no shortcuts taken. We don't have 2D crowds or baked shadows. Everything's dynamic. Everything from our dynamic lighting solution to screen space reflections, and our anti-aliasing techniques - we use similar techniques to temporal anti-aliasing and also FX anti-aliasing as well. We've got radiosity and dynamic volumetric clouds, which you'll see god rays being cast through. You've got headlights in cars at night time, which will cast shadows onto other cars on front.

SMAA T2x confirmed.

Probably not.
 

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
Just for once, I'd like a developer to recognise that saying that dropping 60fps to 30fps is okay 'because it's pretty' is... not actually speaking in terms that relate to me.


Yep. "We decided to make the game play demonstrably worse because we wanted it to look marginally better in ways that you'll never notice while playing a fast moving game" is a good way to convince me that you don't want me to ever actually play your game, but maybe I should look up some screenshots once in a while.
 

TimmiT

Member
Given the game runs at 30 frames per second, Evolution worked to reduce the latency between controller input and on-screen action so that it is "as short as possible".
This is what I wanted to know. While racers benefit from 60fps, a big part of why they do is because of the input lag. 30fps with racers can be done well if they reduce the input lag as much as possible. For example, Forza Horizon and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit did this.

60fps is always better when it comes to the sense of speed you get though. And "It's not an arcade racer, It's this balance that sits between simulation and arcade racer." isn't a good reason when both kinds of racers benefit from 60fps.

As for the microtransactions, their reasoning of "it's only bad if it badly influences game design" sounds like bullshit because getting cars early will probably make it easier for you to complete earlier challenges.
 

pixlexic

Banned
30 fps racer is never the right solution. It just means you want those extra bells and whistles more than a great playing racer.

But reading a lot of post on many forums who can blame them really? Seems a lot forum goers totally shit all over a game if it doesn't look like what they imagined it would look like despite how it plays.
 

mclem

Member
This is what I wanted to know. While racers benefit from 60fps, a big part of why they do is because of the input lag. 30fps with racers can be done well if they reduce the input lag as much as possible. For example, Forza Horizon and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit did this.

I'm wondering if I should take that as meaning that it's polling the controllers more than once per frame and then... taking an average? I assume it's not updating the game *logic* more than once a frame (although that's not strictly impossible)

Or maybe they didn't want to put them in, but ultimately have to because Sony pays their bills? Mind-blowing, I know.
My hunch - and I stress it's just a hunch - is that the microtransactions were a negotiating deal to cover the extra cost of development through the delay.
 
That first section just seems so odd, he REALLY doesn't want us to use MTs (hiding them even) but they put them in the game regardless. Some weird logic wrangling going on here...

Is he just answering to a higher power by putting the MTs in the game?
 

Guymelef

Member
Yep. "We decided to make the game play demonstrably worse because we wanted it to look marginally better in ways that you'll never notice while playing a fast moving game" is a good way to convince me that you don't want me to ever actually play your game, but maybe I should look up some screenshots once in a while.

Of course you'll never notice the lighting while you playing...
 

BigDug13

Member
Oh fuck off. At least have the balls to own up to putting microtransactions in there.

It's not like these decisions are his to make in the first place. I'm sure it's a Sony mandate for all first party studios making racing games to include microtransactions. Developers who are under a publisher's thumb generally don't make these types of decisions on their own and are prompted to by their overlords.

He's not going to "have balls to own up" to talk shit about policies his publisher makes. That's simply not going to happen. You don't bite the hand that feeds.

And it's a bit naive for anyone to think he would be allowed to say anything different than what he's saying now.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Yep. "We decided to make the game play demonstrably worse because we wanted it to look marginally better in ways that you'll never notice while playing a fast moving game" is a good way to convince me that you don't want me to ever actually play your game, but maybe I should look up some screenshots once in a while.

Just for once, I'd like a developer to recognise that saying that dropping 60fps to 30fps is okay 'because it's pretty' is... not actually speaking in terms that relate to me.

Wow. Some of you are really still not over this eh?

Just don't buy the game if you don't like it, simple. It's not changing no matter how much you moan/slag them off.

From seeing the gameplay vids the decision has been worth it IMO. Plus it looks smooth as silk. 30fps locked >>>> 60fps variable.
 

JordanN

Banned
Yep. "We decided to make the game play demonstrably worse because we wanted it to look marginally better in ways that you'll never notice while playing a fast moving game" is a good way to convince me that you don't want me to ever actually play your game, but maybe I should look up some screenshots once in a while.
The term "marginal" gets abused a lot here.

Driveclub has dynamic global illumination. How many games in the last 10 years do that?

I don't care about how detailed the cars are, this is a game, not a museum.
Wtf?
 

Remark

Banned
Personally I think the microtransactions were forced unto them by Sony and this is their way of implementing them.

I don't have a problem with the whole 30fps thing though. Most racers I play now are 30fps anyways and I enjoyed them immensely.
 

Xav

Member
I don't care about how detailed the cars are, this is a game, not a museum. Give me my 60FPS or at the very least, some kind of 720p 60FPS option.
 

Footos22

Member
No one complains when Need for Speed puts in paid dlc for a shortcut to all the cars.

If It's all about options, unobtrusive, Doesn't require grinding for hours on end and wont give you an advantage online then i don't see the problem.

Some people are bound to cry like he has molested them though just because they think they know how to make a video game better then people who have been doing this a long time. Same goes with the 60fps argument.

Don't like it don't buy it. Its that simple.
 

GHG

Gold Member
30 fps racer is never the right solution. It just means you want those extra bells and whistles more than a great playing racer.

But reading a lot of post on many forums who can blame them really? Seems a lot forum goers totally shit all over a game if it doesn't look like what they imagined it would look like despite how it plays.

Does that mean that these 2 games aren't great racers then?:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/project-gotham-racing-4

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox/rallisport-challenge-2

Seriously...
 

Havel

Member
While on consoles I would prefer outstanding visuals at 1080p 30fps over worse visuals at 60 fps, I think making it 30 for this game was a bad idea. Racing games need that precise input.
 

Ponn

Banned
wasnt Motorstorm RC free at some point? I remember downloading and playing it but never paid money for it.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Vehicles in MotorStorm RC can be bought for as little as 21p.

What a deal, an item that costs nothing and that could be unlocked for free either by playing the game or by cheat codes is being sold for only 21p!

I have no real problem with microtransactions and obviously with NFS, Forza, and DriveClub all doing it it's pretty clear that this is the direction of the genre in the future, but let's not stand around patting ourselves on the back about what a great deal the microtransactions are.

The items could be free. The items cost them nothing. Any cost for them is an infinite profit margin. They have no actual value. Paying for them is not "getting a good deal".
 

BigDug13

Member
Wow. Some of you are really still not over this eh?

Just don't buy the game if you don't like it, simple. It's not changing no matter how much you moan/slag them off.

From seeing the gameplay vids the decision has been worth it IMO. Plus it looks smooth as silk. 30fps locked >>>> 60fps variable.

It's about the control and not about the visuals. 30fps is .033 seconds while 60fps is .016 seconds between what you see and how quickly you can respond.

Now personally, my reflexes aren't amazing. And I'm not sure that I would be able to tell a very perceptible difference in adding one and a half HUNDREDTHS of a second to my response time in a racing game.

But for others, maybe they can.

edit - Yeah I just ran my stopwatch on my phone to see how fast 2 hundredths of a second goes by. It moves so damned fast, I'm not sure I would be able to tell a control difference. Less than 2 hundredths of a second is the difference in response time between 30fps and 60fps. And I'm unable to really see that miniscule amount of time pass. Your TV most likely adds WAY more latency than 2 hundredths of a second.
 

Xpliskin

Member
Well, you want gorgeous fresh jaw-dropping next-gen graphics, 30 fps it is.
You want responsiveness at the cost of beauty, 60 frames it is.

You can't have both this early in a generation.
 

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
It doesn't really matter what they say about the micro-transactions. The assumption is always going to be that the game has been changed for the worse to incorporate them. Blame... just about every other racing game that's done this, but don't pretend like you can change people's minds with a paragraph or two, Evolution.
 

Tagyhag

Member
Heh 30fps over 60 being the right choice for a racing game? What a world we live in.

But hey, at least that sunset will help you get a sense of speed!
 
The problem is that 60FPS doesn't sell games, great graphics does. Hence why developers will sacrifice FPS for shine juice 99% of the time (the 1% being Call of Duty).
 
If the microtransactions were as inconsequential as he is trying to spin them then they wouldn't be there.

And the 30fps excuse is sad but commonplace. Most devs care more about prettier screenshots they can sell to people than smooth and responsive gameplay. We got this same talk with DmC.
 
Nobody complained about Motorstorm RC's micro-transactions probably because nobody played it. The Vita install base is tiny.

But interesting about what they're saying about the game "pushing the PS4". Already? Or is it just PR talk?
 
If you don't want players to use microtransactions then why include them in the game? Whatever. So long as they didn't alter the progression to encourage people to pay more, I don't really care.
 

Kade

Member
No one complains when Need for Speed puts in paid dlc for a shortcut to all the cars.

Yes they did. On top of that people were pretty annoyed with the inaccessible cars that opened up a store UI when you interacted with them in Most Wanted. EA gets the most shit for it.
 
If the microtransactions were as inconsequential as he is trying to spin them then they wouldn't be there.

And the 30fps excuse is sad but commonplace. Most devs care more about prettier screenshots they can sell to people than smooth and responsive gameplay. We got this same talk with DmC.

Which ran absolutely fine, as will this.
 
Here's a semi-quote from Game Informer, June 2013.

-More cars will be added through DLC; will be “one of the biggest titles for Sony from a DLC perspective”

One of the biggest titles from a DLC perspective and people are shocked at micro transactions? Sounds to me people were just hearing what they wanted to last year and glancing over some important stuff.
 

EvB

Member
No one complains when Need for Speed puts in paid dlc for a shortcut to all the cars.

People did complain and besides, that isn't the same thing, those games were traditional games where there was an option to skip to the end via a small single purchase.
 
wasnt Motorstorm RC free at some point? I remember downloading and playing it but never paid money for it.

Think it ended up on Plus at some point and also yeah I believe it may have been given away in some kind of sponsership/cross promo deal

So it is with Scion's (a Toyota company) promotion of the Vita version of Motorstorm RC. According to an announcement on the PlayStation blog, not only is Motorstorm RC launching tomorrow for PS3 and Vita, but thanks to a Scion sponsorship, the Vita edition will be completely free to download for a limited time

Nobody complained about Motorstorm RC's micro-transactions probably because nobody played it. The Vita install base is tiny.

But interesting about what they're saying about the game "pushing the PS4". Already? Or is it just PR talk?

Nice try shitting on the Vita, but it was a PS3/Vita crossbuy/crossplay
 

Liamario

Banned
Sad thing is, some of GAF will agree with that statement... As proven by this thread.

The site that keeps on giving.

While I find what he said to be very unlikely, it does go to show how people can be decieved by faking certain graphical effects. That said, as a journalist in this industry, he really should have a clue as to what he's talking about.
 

rjc571

Banned
Just think how beautiful it could be if they made it run at 20 fps!!! Which is still perfectly playable for a racing game, as evidenced by Wave Race 64.
 
'Micro transactions don't affect design' is extremely easy to say. In fact, pretty much everyone says it. Generally doesn't work out that way though.
 

The Llama

Member
It's about the control and not about the visuals. 30fps is .033 seconds while 60fps is .016 seconds between what you see and how quickly you can respond.

Now personally, my reflexes aren't amazing. And I'm not sure that I would be able to tell a very perceptible difference in adding one and a half HUNDREDTHS of a second to my response time in a racing game.

But for others, maybe they can.

edit - Yeah I just ran my stopwatch on my phone to see how fast 2 hundredths of a second goes by. It moves so damned fast, I'm not sure I would be able to tell a control difference. Less than 2 hundredths of a second is the difference in response time between 30fps and 60fps. And I'm unable to really see that miniscule amount of time pass. Your TV most likely adds WAY more latency than 2 hundredths of a second.

Yeah I'm with you on this. I can definitely tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, but I really don't get the "60 FPS is better because it helps you control the car better" argument. I doubt it would actually have an impact on anyones performance in the game.
 
Top Bottom