Duderino

2 hours ago, TomCat said:

which is exactly what i've been saying MS came up with a better way to get the job done. I mean they wrote the api that raytracing runs on.  cant believe yall scoffing at the power of this thing.  It ran Gears of war 5 on all ultra pc settings at 4k 100fps  and that was non optimized.  and it will do BVH just just havent shown it off yet. this is just getting started  they will be releasing tons more in the coming weeks

They have shown it off with Minecraft, a raytracing best case scenario.

We haven’t seen evidence yet that MS + AMD have built a better raytracing solution.  We know how their approach differs now, but are lacking adequate examples.

2 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

While I'm not getting my expectations too high, they did say that the Gears 5 port was only two weeks worth of work and that they hadn't implemented ray tracing in the way they would expect new games to, so I don't think it's the benchmark we should expect.

I don't doubt games this gen will get there, but unfortunately Minecraft is not indicative of the challenges other games will have with incorporating raytracing.

Can't say I'm surprised that Minecraft is their raytracing demo while Gears 5 relies on UE4's screen space global illumination instead of DXR.  The cost of Raytracing BVH trees would be significantly less expensive in a game like Minecraft.

In case you are not following, BVH trees are used to reduce the number of points each cast ray needs to test against.  In the case of Minecraft, the world geometry is practically one big BVH tree already, simplifying computation and memory costs.

In other words, keep your Raytracing expectations in check.

5 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Sure they require time and investment, but not as much as the returns from releasing a super high profile game on a new platform, I'm sure! At most that would just delay day and date releases, no reason to keep "forever exclusives."

I very much doubt Sony would delay a game from a strategic launch date to ensure a simultaneous launch on PC.

3 hours ago, Dexterryu said:

The way most coding is these days is much less platform specific. There are some exceptions, but most games are built on shared libraries so that they can be relatively platform agnostic. This is a general practice in the software / dev industry as a whole (not just gaming).

Answer me then, why are the Death Stranding and Horizon PC ports slated for summer and not early spring?  With few AAA releases this quarter they could do even better releasing now.  Doesn’t make sense, unless of course the work to bring these games to PC, going from a single console target, is responsible for the summer date.

4 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

I'm sure even in the pipe dream scenario where Sony eventually releases all their games on PC, they'd still probably hit the Playstation significantly earlier.

Which raises a different question... why? It's not like everyone who buys consoles will just buy a PC even IF all the games were there day and date. People on this very forum have made it very clear that the size, the hassle, the price, that they "don't like dealing with PCs" etc means they'll always have a console. I bet Sony could release day-and-date and only gain popularity and make more sales, making for much more impressive PR statements about "X number of games sold in the first week" or whatever. I doubt that'll ever be the case, but I seriously don't get it. PCs are doing just fine, but the majority of console users are dedicated console users.

AAA PC ports still require time and investment from engineering, QA, UX, design, etc.  There is also no guarantee Sony 1st party game engines are even up and running on PC in the first place.  Could be running straight off the devkits.  First time they will be targeting nvidia cards too.

It is a different situation from Xbox 1st party devs, many of which rely heavily on the years of cross platform development that has gone into UE4, unity, etc.

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I do appreciate how it differs from both Kingdom Hearts and FFXV.  Especially for a Final Fantasy game, XV felt like a step back from the options, strategy, and abilities you get with turned based combat.

 I’m totally cool with the FFVII remake taking a step away from the A.D.D. combat (action air-dodge  ) for something a little more measured and less out of DBZ like this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuH-6e2rK5U

27 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Are those calling it not button mashy playing it right or are they playing it wrong?

There’s probably no right or wrong way to issue the attacks (like FFXV), but mashing one button will clearly result in Cloud taking more damage than necessary.

I get the impression that the general melee

is lite in the way of required button dexterity for a reason.  Managing a third party member Is likely going to be demanding enough.

I've heard far worse criticisms of the original FF7 back in the day.  The player drop off rate after an hour or less of play was probably astronomical, at least in the US.

9 hours ago, stepee said:

 

Wouldn’t that be the same as playing a game you own on a friends computer/console though? 

Sure, if your friend was pocketing $5 a month to loan his hardware to you.

Comercial software or services that allow you play (or view) content on another potentially unsupported device can be pretty good grounds for a lawsuit if there is no agreement in place.  Even if nVidia were to win the potential case(s) in court, the service could be taken offline until the verdict is reached.  

See what happened to Connectix.

( How ironic it would be to see Apple sue nVidia over this  )

After playing the demo I can't help but think the complaints about the combat in this thread are a bit on the hyperbolic side.

First, it's not a button masher.  Yes, you can needlessly bash the attack button rather than holding it down to commit attacks, but when battles pick up with the more dynamic enemies excessive mashing would be a poor choice.

Second, despite some surface level similarities, this is a good departure from FFXV's combat. XV required nowhere near this level of player input, respose, party management, and positioning.

My first impression is that they made a pretty engaging combat system.  Just might not be everyone's cup of tea, at least at first.  Looking forward to seeing how it holds up with a 3rd party member.

So if I was ok with FFXV’s combat will I be ok with this?  Sounds like the same deal where you hold attack and block on occasion, then trigger special attacks when  ready.  Would it be wrong to say FVII:R’s combat is a bit more varied and tactical?  (A Good thing)

5 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 Looking like it’s quite plausible for a modern 4TF-ish GPU to keep pace with the XBoneX’s 6TF.  Maybe even double the FPS if the goal of a potential Lockhart is 1080p-1440p. 

Question remains though, would a GPU close the XBoneX’s output be enough to keep pace with the next 6+ years of advancements in shaders/lighting/FX, GPU assisted simulation + other compute tasks, and rising assets counts and costs.  

I suppose that’s why the developers Jason Schreier spoke to had reservations.

4 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

1)  The rumoured SeX APU die size (~405 mm^2) is not big enough to have much in the way of Ray Tracing cores (and certainly not enough to have an Nvidia style implementation)

Digital Foundry have speculated the same.

Not expecting either console to have dedicated, Nvidia style, tensor cores for BVH and denoising operations, but I do think in other ways the hardware will be tuned for it.  At least to a lesser degree.

More speculation here, but I suspect Raytracing on consoles will be paired back in the way of:

• Less cast rays
• Lower quality denoising
• Lots more temporal smoothing
• Exclusion of many or all non-static objects
• Reduced raytracing distances, missing objects in reflections, lower raytraced LODs
• Less ornate geometry that would be expensive for rayracing to accurately represent.
• Less use of "full" raytracing (shadows, ao, global illumination, and reflections).
• Continued reliance on screen space techniques, cube maps, voxel based methods, and/or light probes/baking to make up the difference.

Going by varying performance of DXR enabled tittles on PC there is little reason to believe Microsoft has universally solved the raytracing optimization problem.  The best examples today are just as much a testiment to each dev team's own advancements.

In all likelihood that will also be the reality with next gen consoles (with Vulkan too).  Sure won't stop marketing from doubling down on Raytracing though, even if at the start of the gen it's not common place.

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I agree with almost all of this.  Except I think many developers will jump on the RT bandwagon with Series X and PS5 regardless of how capable the chip is.  It's not only good to have that tech in place for PC ports and/or scaled-back console implementations, but for pre-release bullshot in-engine reels.

Console devs traditionally sacrifice performance (and/or resolution) for other visual bells and whistles.  I think we'll see a continuation of that trend as it relates to RT.  Everyone's going to want to say they're doing it.

Calling it now, there is going to be quite the performance/quality gap between developers that build custom RT tech and those that do little more than rely on what comes with DXR.
 

Furthermore we’re going to see frame rates take a dump in a lot of unexpected ways.

On 1/15/2020 at 12:52 PM, cusideabelincoln said:

If the Switch can get PS4/Xbone ports, there's no reason the X1X won't get down-ports of its own deep into the next gen cycle, especially from Microsoft first party games since Microsoft is the one pushing this issue.

 

The concept of distinct "console generations" is going extinct.  

In light of the recent rumor that Cyberpunk 2077 was delayed due poor performance on the PS4 and Xbox One, I do wonder if we'll see a few MS first party studios struggle to keep their ambitions in line with the base Xbox One hardware.

Getting flashbacks of Bungie porting Halo: Combat Evolved to PC a year before Halo 2’s release on console.

On 1/14/2020 at 12:33 PM, TwinIon said:

If you really wanted Spider-man's top speed to be higher, you could do it, you'd probably just have to make a non-SSD console really turn down the details when you're moving over a certain speed.

 

So my actual answer is that it's unlikely to be true that a game designed around an SSD couldn't be ported to a console without one, it's simply a matter of how much effort it would take.

I wonder if Spiderman crashing into a spawning cars, billboards, and water towers would sit well with their audience. 

19 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Anybody have some examples of why you couldn’t make a game take advantage of solid state on one platform and spinning disk on another? I see this claim made regularly but don’t really understand it.

With disc HDDs, one of the optimization tasks developers have to deal with is grouping data together into packages.  In other words, store assets that are frequently accessed together close on disc.  For example, there might be an environment biome package, an NPC faction package, a regional audio package, etc.  The goal is to reduce the distance that needle needs to travel to access the requested block of data.  When assets do not breakdown neatly into these separate groups, there are 3 options:

1. Pre-load assets into global memory if space is available.

2. Duplicate assets across multiple packages on disc.

3. Suffer the potential performance consequences.

(Option 2 is more common than you would think.)

The HDD disc is a limitation that can impact everything from the overall game size to how worlds are designed.  A developer could of course build a game around the PS4/Xbone HDDs, but their next-gen ambitions would be restricted by it.

Something else to consider, 3rd party cross-gen games will need to support PS4, PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Xbox One X, PS5, Xbox Series X, likely PC, possibly Lockhart, and maybe even Stadia.

That’s an extremely tall order that I very much doubt will be sustainable for 2-3 years for the vast majority of developers.

1 hour ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

Resolution is the largest contributing factor to performance when there is no CPU bottleneck.  The two systems are rumored to use the same or similar CPU, so draw calls and AI won't need to be downscaled. Any other bottlenecks should be easily adjustable as most PC ports offer them as options.  It will be more work for developers to verify the optimal settings, but nothing most aren't used to by now who have put in the time for decent PC ports.

 

I'm guessing the reality of the situation is the vast majority of 3rd party multi-platform games that will come out for next gen are also going to be cross-gen, especially in the first 2-3 years of the lifecycle.  I suspect multiplatform games will only start becoming next-gen exclusive past the 2 year mark.  Publishers will appeal to the massive player base that is already established, because that's the economy we live in now.  Only the handful of showcase titles will be next-gen only.  We'll probably also see heavily cut down games.  Like Shadow of Mordor getting a dumbed-down Nemesis system and the Switch somehow barely running Doom and Witcher 3.

The context of what the GPU has to render factors into those resolution costs.  As that complexity increases next gen, so will the challenge of supporting less capable GPUs whether it’s the last gen consoles, older PCs, or perhaps now Lockhart.
 

Not everything that negatively impacts GPU performance is guaranteed to have a convenient dial, a low acceptable threshold, an available alternative method, or a clear and easy path forward with optimization.  At least on PC devs can bump up the minimum and recommended specs.

24 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

It’s a possibility, but none of those links fills me with confidence that it is for sure coming, or that it’s not possibly another iteration of the XB1, or who knows. It’s too much hearsay, and it’s still a ways until launch. 
 

I have my doubts MS will split its base up from day 1, but I guess we’ll see in less than a year...

Both Jason Shreier and DF are clearly talking about Lockhart in the context of the Scarlett family.  Not the Xbox One.

I have doubts too, but those have more to do with the practicality of Lockhart than the validity of these rumors and their sources.

19 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I agree that speaking about Lockheart as if it’s a foregone conclusion is just a step of speculation too far. 

I trust that Jason Schreier (Kotaku) has accurate sources, that Digital Foundry has reason to believe it is still in the works, and well... that an outspoken Jonathan Blow (the Witness) is not looking forward to at least one new console that is not the PS5.  Lockhart is by no means a forgone conclusion, but there is enough here to have a discussion about it as a possibility.
 

20 hours ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

I agree, but when Xbox One and PS4 were initially developed, I don't know if they were made with the same mentality of being able to handle these scalable engines.

 

A big messaging point around the One X was that they went to developers and took all the biggest game engines being used at the time, and looked at bottlenecks and other issues that come up, and built the hardware in order to best accommodate those engines to better be able to scale and make life as easy as possible for the developers.  

 

I think this is why my thinking is, when developing these new consoles, they will be accounting for their limitations more-so than they were back in 2012/2013, and try to make them better able to handle the inevitable mid gen refresh and constant improvements to PC tech.  

 

I just don't believe MS would be handicapping their powerful console.  Their entire messaging the past few years is to have creators create what they want to create.  If news came out that developers are being hamstrung by being forced to support the weaker console and its affecting their ability to build the games they want, that'd just shoot themselves in the foot.  

 

But who knows.  We don't even know of Lockheart even exists at this point.

In the case of the X, it's a lot easier to scale games up.  Scaling down next-gen tittles for a hypothetical Lockhart would be a bigger ask of developers.  Much easier to work with less limitations than more.

I doubt Microsoft wants to add more work for developers and possibly introduce limitations, but a second SKU is not outside of the realm of possibility if it fits their consumer facing strategy.
 

16 hours ago, Rbk_3 said:

Exactly. If PC games can be developed to play on 100's of different configurations, I don't see how it can't be done easily on a scaled back system with the same same architecture. 

Putting all problematic PC ports aside, I would agree that architecture is not the potential challenge with Lockhart. The power differential is.
 

1 hour ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

The lesser consoles running at 1080p is the easy solution here.  The base Xbone sees resolution drops below 900p now.  When the new systems are targeting 4k or 1440p, 1080p will be the fallback for the slower variants.

That's one optimization strategy that could help when resolution is contributing to the bottleneck.  Different story though if the key limiting factors come from draw calls, tri counts, and/or compute shader performance.

19 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Engines these days do most of that work for you already.  Fortnite is playable from high end PC's down to Mobile Phones or Switch on the Unreal Engine.

 

With the number of updates they push out almost daily to all these platforms, I think its pretty clear the work is largely being handeled by the engine itself to properly scale.

 

Making versions of games to play on both versions of the next gen console won't be the same as porting games to different consoles.

 

* I also don't know shit about developing games, but based off a lot of what I've read the past few years, it sems to be the direction everything is going.  Scalable engines with hardware that is ready to utilize them.

UE4 has been a mixed bag this generation in terms of scalability, at least as it relates to performance.  On one hand Fortnite, Gears 5, MK11, and others seem to scale well.  On the other, you have Jedi: Fallen Order, PUBG, State of Decay 2, We Happy Few, and many more that struggle on the base Xbox and/or PS4.  It's not just Unreal either, look at Anthem, Control, etc.

At least the Lockheart rumored CPU should be less of an issue but we're still looking at a GPU that is closer to the Pro or X.  Even with a target resolution of 1440p, higher poly counts, increased shading complexity, and more demanding games in general are likely going to result in Lockheart requiring special considerations and optimizations.  Possibly even separate lighting solutions from the Series X or PS5.

8 hours ago, Rodimus said:

I think MS is crazy if they release 2 versions of the next console. I say this because it seems clear that developers would have to make all the games for the lowest denominator and that would greatly hurt the higher end model. I know there are Pro and One X out there and I expect them to show up in a couple of years. I think out of the gate though will still have developers set the bar low to work with the lower end model.

Or vise-versa.  If the PS5 is the worldwide market leader and becomes the primary dev platform for many,  Lockheart ports could very well receive the least care and consideration.  The console would have to sell exceptionally well for it to make more of an impact.