mrlovepump
Neo Member
I wonder if this is a publisher thing. Given that screenshots and youtube portray effects but not so much the FR and res?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
DF: The Secret Developers: what next-gen hardware balance means for gaming
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
I wonder if this is a publisher thing. Given that screenshots and youtube portray effects but not so much the FR and res?
Killer Instinct seems to suffer from this based on what I played. 720p crushes detail.
Riky
$MSFT
I'm not that excited about third party cross-gen launch games not being what people expect, it's like judging the 360 on Gun and Tony Hawks at launch.
It is also clear that the days of massive loss leader hardware sales are well behind us which is why the machines aren't as cutting edge as previous generations at launch. However both Forza and Killzone running at 1080p says to me we will be fine in the long run. If tools were so much more immature on Xbox One and the Esram is an extra hurdle compared to PS4 then it may take longer for Xbox One to get there but I'm sure it will.
It is also clear that the days of massive loss leader hardware sales are well behind us which is why the machines aren't as cutting edge as previous generations at launch. However both Forza and Killzone running at 1080p says to me we will be fine in the long run. If tools were so much more immature on Xbox One and the Esram is an extra hurdle compared to PS4 then it may take longer for Xbox One to get there but I'm sure it will.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Shhh right now he's busy damage controlling 720p
they'll get to shoddy framerates when the time comes
also: clicking on digital foundry links, not even once.
wonderdung
Member
Balance is only an interesting concept if one component is highly inferior. RSX, for instance.
Whereas if you take almost identical machines, put faster memory and a better GPU in one and leave the other alone... "balance" doesn't mean the first machine is going to keep up.
Author's claimed resume is similar to mine but we see things differently, which is interesting to me.
Whereas if you take almost identical machines, put faster memory and a better GPU in one and leave the other alone... "balance" doesn't mean the first machine is going to keep up.
Author's claimed resume is similar to mine but we see things differently, which is interesting to me.
The way the article talks of developers making trade-offs to best accommodate each current generation platform makes a lot of sense. The bulk of the article relates to this, and it is all very reasonable.
However I feel it is far too early to be applying these lessons to the coming generation, as reflected in the title of the article and the points made at the end.
However I feel it is far too early to be applying these lessons to the coming generation, as reflected in the title of the article and the points made at the end.
DragonSworne
Banned
Can't wait to see Leadbetter spin the first PS4/Xbox One head-to-head.
Eyestrain, 1080p is unbalanced.
Face offs will be a mix of lazy/incompetent developers, early tools which will be fixed and everything will be sex and rainbows next week, and finding a tiny thing the XBO version does better, and making it seem like the Earth orbits around it.
"Yes, well, if you care about 1080p and 60fps, sure, the PS4 version is edging out there, but the XBO version having 12xAF instead of PS4's 8xAF really is the defining factor in this comparison."
"Yes, well, if you care about 1080p and 60fps, sure, the PS4 version is edging out there, but the XBO version having 12xAF instead of PS4's 8xAF really is the defining factor in this comparison."
ChainsawFilms
Member
"We found during our test process that, indeed, there was actually too much visual information to process, which detracted from the gameplay. On the other hand, we found the 720p resolution of the XBone far easier, from an optic perspective, to process, and found ourselves pulling off headshots easier, without the distraction of too much visual integrity."
Lol
What I don't get with this "balanced" article, other than "balance" was the whole notion that to achieve high fidelity something must be sacrificed, when so far the PS4 is having it's cake and eating it to.
Assuming game complexity means something like corridor level design ala God of War, again Killzone SF is managing all the eye candy while changing it's fundamental level design to a more open ended one, which I hope to see more in future games.
If this article was talking in isolation of just the Xbox One, I'd understand the point that's being made, but it mentions the PS4 too much to not draw this into a comparison war.
Assuming game complexity means something like corridor level design ala God of War, again Killzone SF is managing all the eye candy while changing it's fundamental level design to a more open ended one, which I hope to see more in future games.
If this article was talking in isolation of just the Xbox One, I'd understand the point that's being made, but it mentions the PS4 too much to not draw this into a comparison war.
Perfect.
Can Crusher
Banned
Every time some shit happens that contains bad news for Xbox One, DF puts out an article to put some flames out.
Captain Tuttle
Member
Came in expecting to see Gaffers embarrassing themselves and do not leave disappointed.
Risk Breaker
Member
Will have to buy a counterweight for my PS4, needs moar balance.
Dictator93
Member
You read the article instead of driveby posting? Assuming your post means that you think people insisting that the article is poorly written and somehow exists to prop up the "balance" crap from microsoft PR.
When I read it, and look at the context of what Digital Foundry is, I am confused. Isn't the point of Digital foundry to point out differences in graphics, performance, and tech in games and not justifying them in some strange way?
Also, his referencing last gen in relation to this is really bad argumentation.
If you want to be secret you probably should list the generations Gen1-4 starting with the Playstation/N64. Pretty sure the only company that does that is EA (at least publicly). Cause once people think it is EA you are just going to run into the "agreements" that EA and MS have and the entire article is compromised.
koji kabuto
Member
nelsonroyale
Member
Good thing you joined the club then.
Especially with such statements:
Digital Foundry said:
What I find remarkable with this faked emphasis on "balance" is that it silently assumes that the PS4 is "unbalanced" and that its advantage in GPU resources will effectively be nullified by some bottleneck which remains unspecified. The PS4 not only has more raw GPU processing power, it also has a better performing memory architecture, and more performance across the entire GPU pipeline to match the advantage in raw processing power. Which bottleneck can they possibly mean? Apparently, the GPU advantage transforms nicely into higher resolutions across virtually every game that we are getting news about. So where is that bottleneck that the XBO's "balanced" architecture seems to lack? (An ironic thing to say given that the XBO actually has a bottleck in the the size limitation of its eSRAM.)
This article follows the subtextual narrative of the XBO's architecture articles and the Crytek interview perfectly. So I cannot be blamed for being skeptical about the "purpose" of that "secret" developer's statements.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Can someone explain this "Balance" bullshit? I've never heard of it in the past couple of generations until now, and all of a sudden its far more important than whatever you pack in the box. I can't wait for people to say "Bro, does it even balance?" eventually and they still don't know what it means.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Was loving the article right up until this part here.
I say that all the time.
But, seriously, I think this is a fantastic idea and has potential to be a really great series if more developers start taking advantage of it, and actually go on to share some really exciting and interesting things about the development process and, specifically, the work they're doing, or have already done. No doubt because of what it's saying most will view it as an attempt at damage control for the Xbox One, but there were some very fair and reasonable points made, particularly if, as stated, some development studios only just received hardware in February as described by the dev in this article. And with major aspects of the development environments for the systems changing, that most certainly can't favor the less powerful system with the more complicated architecture. And, quite honestly, as opposed to releasing games with crippling performance issues, or even drastically compromised graphical quality in the name of hitting 1080p native, it's much better to drop the resolution to something a whole lot more manageable and make the game you want to make.
And, really, who here if they had a choice are going to take 1080p COD Ghosts on the Xbox One with severely limited graphics quality just to say, "Hey, at least it's 1080p just like the PS4 version?" I would imagine most would want the game that the developer wanted to make if they could get it running at 1080p, not the one they didn't where they strip out so much just to get it running at a stable framerate at the higher resolution. I personally wasn't planning on picking up COD at launch, and BF4 is something I'm still on the fence about, but taking the hit to resolution rather than, presumably, a hit to everything else suggests to me that developers are doing the right thing by not falling into the resolution trap. If it can't hit 1080p because you don't have enough time, don't try to force it at the expense of the game. If you can't hit 1080p because the system simply isn't powerful enough (which I don't believe), again, don't try to force it at the expense of the game. Now if BF4 and and COD Ghosts should happen to have performance issues on the Xbox One on top of also being 720p, then that's an even more troubling sign than any resolution decrease, we can be certain of that much.
And looking at games like Forza running at 1080p and Ryse running at 900p at launch, along with the fact that the development tools will not only get better, but developers will also get better acclimated with the system, then at the very least for the ones having more issues than others things should improve to a point, eventually stabilizing at whatever devs feel is the right resolution for making the kinds of games they want to make on the Xbox One. I get the feeling 900p will be pretty popular, and, I don't know, can anyone see Turn 10 potentially dialing back from 1080p in future releases of Forza to push even more from the hardware? Probably one of the more interesting questions, but either way it will be interesting seeing where they go as it will probably tell us quite a bit in the process. And then of course there's a number of other major exclusives set for 2014 and beyond that should give us a better idea of how things are progressing. Whatever the case true second wave games (as in the developer is officially making their second title for the system) on both systems will be something else.
Edit:: Not sure why anyone would have a major issue with the Crytek interview. That's a dev talking about his work and his game, and what they're doing with the system they're building games on. There's a point where the suspiciousness that any and everybody associated with the Xbox One must be lying to cover Microsoft's ass gets crazy, and we essentially blow right past that threshold when a developer can't even talk about the system in the context of the game he's developing to take advantage of that system's capabilities. With regards to this article, there's no assumption that the PS4 is unbalanced. They are using balance to stress the importance of how any game has to come together on a given platform, particularly when you're developing for multiple systems. One of the most telling lines in the entire thing was the part where the developer said the following
This makes so much damn sense. What is this if not a balanced approach to how a game is going to be designed to take advantage of two different systems?
Another example that he uses to further help back up the point he's making.
That's a criterion developer talking about the importance of balance in 2009. Here's the article.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-criterion-tech-interview-part-one-interview?page=2
Balance isn't being used in a way to assume the PS4 is unbalanced. It's being used in a way to stress the importance of balance not just in the system, but in terms of the way you go about designing for a system, and striking the right *not going to say the word, but you know what it is* yes, that thing, regarding the way you build a game for the system. The dev is effectively saying that the end results that people can play and enjoy speak louder, or at least they should, than the tech points. He also points out, I think, rather appropriately the temptation that exists to make a game look good graphically, because that's what people expect out of the gate with next gen, but at the same time there's more important things involved in making better games. It's more or less an appeal from the perspective of an obviously experienced game developer, with some added weight from others in the industry, to appreciate what developers do to ensure the best possible experience to gamers on all systems, no matter how it might appear. Now, obviously that won't get him/her anywhere with some sectors of the gaming populace, but I think some valid points were made. This isn't them suddenly expecting people to stop keeping score or to no longer poke fun at the console, or even the gamers, that look like they're getting the half eaten portion of a sandwhich, but it's an attempt to get a broader audience to have a greater appreciation for the development process, and all that might entail. And, ignoring all else. Assuming that this really is an attempt to soften the blow of the Xbox One having lower resolution version of specific titles. There isn't exactly no valid reason for developers to care about how their work across various platforms is portrayed, because they want their stuff to sell on both systems, and it probably scares the crap out of some of them when they hear a particular version of a game they worked on, or that another dev worked on, potentially being viewed unjustly as the version that has head lice lol. Analogies aside, I have to get to work!
I say that all the time.
But, seriously, I think this is a fantastic idea and has potential to be a really great series if more developers start taking advantage of it, and actually go on to share some really exciting and interesting things about the development process and, specifically, the work they're doing, or have already done. No doubt because of what it's saying most will view it as an attempt at damage control for the Xbox One, but there were some very fair and reasonable points made, particularly if, as stated, some development studios only just received hardware in February as described by the dev in this article. And with major aspects of the development environments for the systems changing, that most certainly can't favor the less powerful system with the more complicated architecture. And, quite honestly, as opposed to releasing games with crippling performance issues, or even drastically compromised graphical quality in the name of hitting 1080p native, it's much better to drop the resolution to something a whole lot more manageable and make the game you want to make.
And, really, who here if they had a choice are going to take 1080p COD Ghosts on the Xbox One with severely limited graphics quality just to say, "Hey, at least it's 1080p just like the PS4 version?" I would imagine most would want the game that the developer wanted to make if they could get it running at 1080p, not the one they didn't where they strip out so much just to get it running at a stable framerate at the higher resolution. I personally wasn't planning on picking up COD at launch, and BF4 is something I'm still on the fence about, but taking the hit to resolution rather than, presumably, a hit to everything else suggests to me that developers are doing the right thing by not falling into the resolution trap. If it can't hit 1080p because you don't have enough time, don't try to force it at the expense of the game. If you can't hit 1080p because the system simply isn't powerful enough (which I don't believe), again, don't try to force it at the expense of the game. Now if BF4 and and COD Ghosts should happen to have performance issues on the Xbox One on top of also being 720p, then that's an even more troubling sign than any resolution decrease, we can be certain of that much.
And looking at games like Forza running at 1080p and Ryse running at 900p at launch, along with the fact that the development tools will not only get better, but developers will also get better acclimated with the system, then at the very least for the ones having more issues than others things should improve to a point, eventually stabilizing at whatever devs feel is the right resolution for making the kinds of games they want to make on the Xbox One. I get the feeling 900p will be pretty popular, and, I don't know, can anyone see Turn 10 potentially dialing back from 1080p in future releases of Forza to push even more from the hardware? Probably one of the more interesting questions, but either way it will be interesting seeing where they go as it will probably tell us quite a bit in the process. And then of course there's a number of other major exclusives set for 2014 and beyond that should give us a better idea of how things are progressing. Whatever the case true second wave games (as in the developer is officially making their second title for the system) on both systems will be something else.
Edit:: Not sure why anyone would have a major issue with the Crytek interview. That's a dev talking about his work and his game, and what they're doing with the system they're building games on. There's a point where the suspiciousness that any and everybody associated with the Xbox One must be lying to cover Microsoft's ass gets crazy, and we essentially blow right past that threshold when a developer can't even talk about the system in the context of the game he's developing to take advantage of that system's capabilities. With regards to this article, there's no assumption that the PS4 is unbalanced. They are using balance to stress the importance of how any game has to come together on a given platform, particularly when you're developing for multiple systems. One of the most telling lines in the entire thing was the part where the developer said the following
This makes so much damn sense. What is this if not a balanced approach to how a game is going to be designed to take advantage of two different systems?
Another example that he uses to further help back up the point he's making.
That's a criterion developer talking about the importance of balance in 2009. Here's the article.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-criterion-tech-interview-part-one-interview?page=2
Balance isn't being used in a way to assume the PS4 is unbalanced. It's being used in a way to stress the importance of balance not just in the system, but in terms of the way you go about designing for a system, and striking the right *not going to say the word, but you know what it is* yes, that thing, regarding the way you build a game for the system. The dev is effectively saying that the end results that people can play and enjoy speak louder, or at least they should, than the tech points. He also points out, I think, rather appropriately the temptation that exists to make a game look good graphically, because that's what people expect out of the gate with next gen, but at the same time there's more important things involved in making better games. It's more or less an appeal from the perspective of an obviously experienced game developer, with some added weight from others in the industry, to appreciate what developers do to ensure the best possible experience to gamers on all systems, no matter how it might appear. Now, obviously that won't get him/her anywhere with some sectors of the gaming populace, but I think some valid points were made. This isn't them suddenly expecting people to stop keeping score or to no longer poke fun at the console, or even the gamers, that look like they're getting the half eaten portion of a sandwhich, but it's an attempt to get a broader audience to have a greater appreciation for the development process, and all that might entail. And, ignoring all else. Assuming that this really is an attempt to soften the blow of the Xbox One having lower resolution version of specific titles. There isn't exactly no valid reason for developers to care about how their work across various platforms is portrayed, because they want their stuff to sell on both systems, and it probably scares the crap out of some of them when they hear a particular version of a game they worked on, or that another dev worked on, potentially being viewed unjustly as the version that has head lice lol. Analogies aside, I have to get to work!
killatopak
Member
I remember the times when DF had a good reputation....
Gemüsepizza
Member
What does this crap here even mean?
Might? Chances are? Maybe? I thought this article was written by a friggin multiplatform developer with actual experience. Sorry but I don't believe this. This article is fabricated.
Digital Foundry said:
Might? Chances are? Maybe? I thought this article was written by a friggin multiplatform developer with actual experience. Sorry but I don't believe this. This article is fabricated.
Yes the timing of this "interview" is impeccable.
When the x360 was riding favourably the first couple of years of last gen, the articles favoured the x360.
When Final Fantasy was better on ps3, there was an essay questioning the developers for their x360 port.
When the trends changed, the reporting didn't. I used to argue that DF just had more xbox sources, which didn't explain the perceived slant, but did explain why articles such as the Bayonetta x360 was a chest beating affair, whilst Final Fantasy was an explanatory article.
It's a way of suggesting that having a strength implies you also have a weakness that counteracts it, without saying directly what it is.
"For designing a good, well-balanced console you really need to be considering all the aspects of software and hardware. It's really about combining the two to achieve a good balance in terms of performance... The goal of a 'balanced' system is by definition not to be consistently bottlenecked on any one area. In general with a balanced system there should rarely be a single bottleneck over the course of any given frame." - Microsoft technical fellow Andrew Goossen
Then you failed. Your 32MB eSRAM is very much a bottleneck, at least if you ever want to make games that hit native 1080p and have a great frame-rate.
Then you failed. Your 32MB eSRAM is very much a bottleneck, at least if you ever want to make games that hit native 1080p and have a great frame-rate.
Every system has a weakest link. For example, PS3's GPU, the RSX is weak, however, it was designed to be used in conjunction with the Cell's SPU cores, which is why results were still often impressive, more so than if the RSX alone was drawing frames.
Essentially, they're saying that PS4's CPU is comparable with XBO's CPU, so the GPU is less important. This is a pretty flawed concept, for a few reasons, GPU processing is very flexible and 'general purpose', you can throw more and more power at drawing the most pristine frame imaginable. But the CPU is still going to bottleneck frame performance. However, it's ignoring the fact that like Cell SPU's contributing to RSX's graphics, the PS4's GPU is designed to help the CPU with compute functions via the GPGPU.
At least, I think that's the argument.
I think the logic is:
We have roughly the same CPU
Their GPU is a lot stronger. But worry not, Sony just wasted their money, because it's unbalanced.
The problem of course, is that at the same time they've been trying to tell us that the difference in GPU is pretty much insignificant. So that should mean that the difference in "balance" is insignificant.
They've been trying to downplay the differences in so many ways that it doesn't make any fucking sense in the end.
Other examples of this:
- HW doesn't matter. We've got the cloud anyway which is the equivalent of a super saiyan transformation for your Xbox one. Yet we're gonna do last minute +6% improvements on our hardware.
- That +30~50% in raw GPU perfs? Don't panic fellow gamers. In real life applications, it'll make very little difference. By the way, did you know that we just increased our CPU and GPU clocks by +6%? This is very good. That will mean a few extra FPS.
Etc, etc, etc.
With pleasure. Have a look at this picture:
The smaller guy has a more balanced size ratio between his head and his body, hence he is beating the shit out of that muscle freak.
Green Yoshi
Member
M!Games, the oldest German video games magazine, claims that Crysis 3 on Xbox 360 looks significantly better than Call of Duty - Ghosts on Xbox One.
November 2013 will be a nightmare for Microsoft.
November 2013 will be a nightmare for Microsoft.
This is the genius of these articles
Use facts to show how Xbox one is balanced. Establish balance as a key benefit that Xbox has.
Imply but do not state, that he competing platform must be unbalanced because one element is reported to be stronger.
Ignore how the other elements are all so stronger, making that console also balanced - but still more powerful
Create FUD in the minds of consumers
Haha. I wanted to point this out as well.
I cannot wait until DF gets back to the business of presenting facts. Launch cannot come soon enough.
I've been saying exactly this for a while now! These new consoles have the weeniest fucking CPU's in them imaginable. It's some kind of tablet level thing IIRC or low power laptop jobbie, something like that IIRC. It's just instead of 2 of them, there's 8 of them.
I'm sure devs will figure some cool stuff out in time but yeah, those CPU's are by no means beasts, not even bloody close.
EDIT: I'm talking about both if that's not clear.
I'm sure devs will figure some cool stuff out in time but yeah, those CPU's are by no means beasts, not even bloody close.
EDIT: I'm talking about both if that's not clear.
Really? Do you have the magazine? What does it say exactly...does it say anything else?
Well if unbalanced = more powerful with an easier to use RAM pool, I bet I can still guess which one will look better...
I mean sure, you can take a car engine that is balanced with a nice flat torque curve and then suddenly throw it out of balance by turning into an engine with a screaming top end... but you'll probably still win the race with it.
IDK I'm no dev, but from my experience with computer hardware and car parts, it can't hurt to have a couple of beefed up components here and there. Balance be damned if you can make 10+ more horse power or frames per second.
I mean sure, you can take a car engine that is balanced with a nice flat torque curve and then suddenly throw it out of balance by turning into an engine with a screaming top end... but you'll probably still win the race with it.
IDK I'm no dev, but from my experience with computer hardware and car parts, it can't hurt to have a couple of beefed up components here and there. Balance be damned if you can make 10+ more horse power or frames per second.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
So "balance" is Microsoft's next attempt after flunking the whole "we invented directX" thing?
Gosh, they're really burning through buzzwords and catchphrases here.
Gosh, they're really burning through buzzwords and catchphrases here.
family_guy
Member
I don't think it will be unusual to see many third party 1080p 30fps for next gen but I'm not so sure about 1080p 60 unless the scope isn't that big, like sports titles and fighting games.
dragonelite
Member
Balanced around disappointment..