Duderino

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Their profitability incentivizes them to build things. There is a reason they continue to branch out into new products and services, they want to continue feeding their profit engine.

Apple has spent the last 36 years developing Mac operating systems and software without a closed-platform App Store to incentivize their continued development.

Apple and iOS can and will adapt if the platform opens up.

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

There certainly is an argument to be made that the companies who build the underlying technology that facilitates all developers is of equal or greater value than an individual developers bottom line. There are a lot of developers who would have never had the opportunity to gain any following were it not for the world of Apple. Apple certainly has more of an impact on my day to day life than app developers do.

Then rest assured, you are already funding Apple’s iOS development by purchasing an iPhone or iPad, effectively licensing the OS.
 

An open platform where Apple cannot double dip with each App purchase sold is not going to prevent Apple from furthering their own OS and software development.
 

 It might actually even will lead to a better App Store, given Apple will need to make positive changes to keep developers and consumers coming back to their storefront.

54 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Sure, but not in the way Epic is going about doing it.

Filing an anti-trust lawsuit is the right way to take Apple to task on this.  The Supreme Court ruled that companies have the right to do so.

42 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

A combination of hatred for Epic and/or love of Apple completely clouds the good that Epic winning here would result in. I don't care if Epic winds up being happy as a result. There are a TON of publishers and developers that would benefit greatly.

Precisely.  This is bigger than Apple, Epic, and gaming.

A loss for Epic here would be a loss for all smart phone and mobile developers that are stuck with the excessive fees of these single storefront monopolies.

I understand that Epic’s primary motivation has to do with their own monetary gains, but I also don’t understand the backlash to their goal.

Phones today are general-purpose portable PCs, with an arbitrary Apple/Google tax tacked on with software  purchases.  Apple no question has a double standard when comparing their terms for phones and PC software.  I’m glad Epic is challenging the status quo.

6 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

No surprise there.  Still looking forward to those Control benchmarks.

Yup.  Neither console will have an easy “raytracing” button for developers to push .  It’s going to take serious work to implement with most devs opting for a hybrid approach.  People, keep those next-gen expectations in check.

3 hours ago, JPDunks4 said:

Phil stated they learned a lot from the XB1 launch, and wouldn't be out of position on Price or Power again.

 

So question is, does that mean it'll stay in line with console launches, at $400 or $500, or does it mean they have Lockhart to compete on price, X to compete on power.

I suspect the Xbox One’s S/X combo was a turning point for the Xbox brand after the launch fumble.  If the layperson associates Xbox with the most powerful and cheapest console (even if split between SKUs), systems will sell.

I doubt pricing will be an issue if hypothetically the Series S comes in at $350-$400 and the Series X drops at $600, even if the PS5 is less than the latter.  The bigger challenge will be demonstrating what value developers can add with Series X’s GPU, and why the Series S, with its compromises, is still adequate.

Between Ratchet and Spiderman, I expect Insomniac will release some of the first next-gen console games with raytracing.

The Series X clearly has the higher cost GPU, but the PS5 likely has the more expensive controller, SSD, and specialized hardware (custom i/o unit, tempest engine).  I could see the later resulting in a higher price tag.
 

I also don’t doubt that games on the Series X will have an easier time targeting 4K.  The bigger question is how important is native 4K really going to be to what people classify as next gen.
 

I’m personally way more interested in what else that 2-ish extra TF can afford developers.  Same goes for the PS5’s SSD advantage.  It would be a bit anti-climactic to see 3rd party games just boost resolutions on the X but load faster on the PS5.

Halo Infinite could have been what BoTW was to the Switch; a cross-gen game that still served as a system seller for the new console.

Not that the Series X needs a big killer app at launch to be a success (just look at the One X), but missing Halo this holiday does take some of the wind out of its sails.

With Halo out, I’d guess most people still interested in the Series X this holiday are looking to play the big 3rd party cross-gen tittles on it.  If that is the case there will be a lot riding on those Digital Foundry XSX vs PS5 comparisons.  Here’s hoping one of the the smaller Xbox exclusive tittles is a runaway success so graphics don’t completely dominate the discussions.

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

They just cut a deal I doubt they are going to say anything negative about Sony on getting Spider-man in the game.

Exactly.  Crystal Dynamics is not going to spill the beans on the term details outside of saying working with Sony was necessary.

4 hours ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

@Duderino

 

This is article matches my understanding of Spider-Man’s video game rights.

 

Crystal Dynamics did just clarify that they had to do business with more than Marvel to get Spiderman in the Avengers game.

That shouldn't really come as a surprise.  While Marvel does not need Sony's permission to use Spiderman in video games they could still violate the terms if they lean on the films.

9 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Marvel + *Square Enix

 

Typically in these types of the deals the Publisher make the call, not the Developer.

 

See the Destiny exclusive content on Playstation for a year.  Bungie had openly said they hated doing it, but Activision made those decisions and made the deal with Sony.

 

As soon as Bungie cut ties with Acitvision, they stopped doing the exclusive content.  The developer is the one left trying to defend the decision to do it, and have to explain to angry fans on other platforms why their version of the game they are paying the same money for is gimped.  

 

You can already see it from Crystal Dynamics trying to explain why this deal is in place, and promising no other characters will be released this way.

According to Crystal Dynamics, Spiderman would not be in the game at all if it was not for Sony's relationship with Marvel.  That could be for a plethora of reasons (reduced licensing fees,  Spiderman film likeness rights, etc).

Also interestingly:

Quote

when it comes down to choices of where and what Spider-Man can be, that's a relationship question that PlayStation absolutely has the rights to

Which suggests that while Sony may not own the game rights outright, they still likely have a say here.

If I had to guess the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.  Sony wants the exclusive content, Square Enix + Crystal want good terms.

1 hour ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Sony only has Spiderman movie rights no? Marvel has the rest of the rights which is supported by the story that Marvel approached Pubs about making Marvel games. If Sony owned Spiderman game rights, they wouldn’t have waited this long to make a game. 

Was not aware it was just film.  So Marvel + Crystal Dynamics ultimately made the call to accept an exclusivity deal with Playstation?

As far as video game "anti-consumer" practices go, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft keeping their intellectual property exclusive to their platform(s) is quite a tame.  They are all guilty of it, but 99.99% of the time we don't question it.  It is, for the most part, an accepted practice that is easy to rationalize.  Spiderman is a Sony owned IP with broad appeal beyond games.  It's that second part that has people thinking this is somehow different.

8 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

But the screenshot does have a haze to it, just closer to what real life haze would look like

 

 

 

Halo Infinite has the color shift, but the other atmospheric properties are not well represented.  This leads to a less natural and more artificial look.

This is getting silly now, especially when you consider Halo Infinite has similar LOD artifacts to Days Gone that persist despite the hardware.

Lets remove the LOD quality from the equation (it's moot anyways) and just focus on what a subtle amount of distant grain/blur can do to give a better sense of scale and place:




Too bad a 1:1 comparison doesn't exist, but this should be enough to clarify my point.  Halo's world rendering could look less flat with some additional subtle depth cues.
 

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

No, in Days Gone that’s literally being used to hide the change in LOD and mask the lower details and blurred textures. Go outside on a clear day, look into the distance, does fog magically appear after a certain point (when you’re not in mountain ranges ridiculously above sea level)?  
I’m not stating that fog shouldn’t be used to set atmosphere, but in 100% clear weather, when it’s only in the distance, that’s a graphical trick to hide draw distance changes. It’s the same that was used in Turok on N64, just further away.

Water moisture exists in the air even on the clearest days. Light refraction limits how well the human eye can make out distant objects, and in certain conditions can result in a mirage.

Yes, distant textures, objects, and even shadows in both Days Gone and Halo infinite have levels of detail that can pop and look poor when zoomed in.  The more present atmospheric blur in DG is not enough to cover that up, but it does help represent a natural phenomenon.

This is far from Turok 64 type situation.  Geometry, tree cards, and especially shadows in DG extend far into the distance.  Further than say HZD, that I would agree does rely on thick distant haze to hide shadow draw distances in particular.  Halo Infinite has similar artifacts on display but I don’t think a blanket of fog is what is required here. Just a subtle increase to the distant blur to help the environment look more like a local in a world.

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

I'll take infinite clarity any day. FUCK THE BLUR.

Higher uniform image sharpness does not necessarily equate to more clarity.  In many cases the opposite is true:



Depth cues (like a subtle amount of blur) help our brains interpret how far in the distance objects are relative to others. 

The Halo Infinite key art is actually pretty "flat" as well, but it is infinitely  more clear.

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

The haze/blur is to hide pop-in from a limited draw distance from hardware limitations. You’re likely going to see a lot less of it in new titles, especially because of the SSDs. Halo Infinite’s draw distance seemed... well, “infinite”. It was about the only thing that impressed me in the demo.  

Can't say I agree there.  Days Gone is not hiding behind a layer of haze/blur; it is relying on it to enhance the photorealism.  The game's draw distance is not lacking in comparison, especially when you factor in how much further shadows are drawn:




I stand by what I said, Halo Infinite could use a little more haze to break up the "computer graphics" look that it is currently evoking by having this much of the picture in focus.  Native 4k highlights the need for more blur/grain in the distance to counter balance the sharp details.  Some very subtle DOF could go a long way.

9 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Maybe the finished game will have that!

Perhaps.  I'd like to see this and other improvements addressed to get Halo Infinite's visuals at least on par with the best current gen open world offerings.  The ship has probably sailed for Halo being the Series X's definite next gen showcase, but that's ok.  So long as the game is good.

Think Halo infinite could use some more atmospheric haze/blur as well.  It is quite unnaturally sharp in the distance:



When compared to say:

1 hour ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

And that's kinda what bothers me. Everybody wanted to see gameplay. They gave Microsoft tons of shit (rightfully so) after their last show for not showing gameplay. So guess what? They showed gameplay. MS literally can't fucking win.

 

And I'm not making excuses here, but I have a suspicion that what we saw was current gen Halo Infinite. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Series X "enhanced" version of Halo Infinite isn't set to release until after December.

 

Maybe it was even a demo from an old build. 343 aren't exactly technical wizards, but Halo 4 looked fantastic and that was a 360 game. I have to believe there's no way Halo Infinite is going to be this ugly when it releases, especially on Series X.

 

I really wish MS would shut up about the whole "taking full advantage of the Series X" bullshit. We all know that's a moving goalpost. 

Media bias is a thing, but not all of the criticism is unfounded.

The Microsoft Studios titles outside of Halo that generated the most interest from this event ( guessing Everwild, Fable, Avowed ) were presented as abstract teasers.  Information about the gameplay, game structure, design elements, is extremely vague or non-existent.

As you mentioned, these titles are likely extremely early in development, so it makes sense that we only saw broad stroke concepts.  That said, I can’t fault people for wanting game presentations to be more substantive, especially when they are looking with intent to purchase a next gen console.

At least Halo Infinite was an informative gameplay demo.  No other tittle in the showcase came this close to illustrating what the gameplay loop would be and in Halo’s case, what makes the entry different.

13 hours ago, TomCat said:

primitive shaders have been confirmed for the ps5

Indeed, the point is both consoles will have means for accelerated geo culling and other uses of a more unified shader architecture.

6 hours ago, TomCat said:

Secret Sauce     also ps5 has been confirmed not to be fully rdna2.0   No vrs  no mess shaders  

There hasn’t been much in the way of confirmation regarding VRS’s inclusion or exclusion on PS5, but we do know that UE5’s Nanite demo leverages RDNA 2.0’s primative shaders:

Quote

"The vast majority of triangles are software rasterised using hyper-optimised compute shaders specifically designed for the advantages we can exploit," explains Brian Karis. "As a result, we've been able to leave hardware rasterisers in the dust at this specific task. Software rasterisation is a core component of Nanite that allows it to achieve what it does. We can't beat hardware rasterisers in all cases though so we'll use hardware when we've determined it's the faster path. On PlayStation 5 we use primitive shaders for that path which is considerably faster than using the old pipeline we had before with vertex shaders."

I assume the same will also be true for Nanite on the XSX, but how developers interface with it may be different (DX12 API vs PS5’s API).  The differences in performance, if even notable, will probably come down to the finer details.  Things like the XSX's extra horsepower, the PS5’s coherency engine, etc.  It all depends on where the bottlenecks are.