Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

Status
Not open for further replies.
So technically.. why are games fixed a mere week or less after launch, if the issue was technical in the first place?

A lot of games apparently need just one more week of development. What technically has changed in that timeframe?
Because devs are so stressed for meeting work deadlines they don't see problems until a majority of people play the game, or don't actually have the time in general to play and fully optimize every build, which basically has normalized pubs to prioritize patching after launch. It's not the devs not caring or being lazy about their work as you suggest
 
Because devs are so stressed for meeting work deadlines they don't see problems until a majority of people play the game, or don't actually have the time in general to play and fully optimize every build, which basically has normalized pubs to prioritize patching after launch. It's not the devs not caring or being lazy about their work as you suggest
They can't see the problem that happens with every Unreal Engine release these days? Can't see the problem that a cursory glance at the finished build running on any PC will tell you?

You can't not see those problems... and that doesn't explain how one week or less later the issue is mostly fixed... usually only after a big fuss is made about it.

Let's just face facts here.. whoever is in charge of ensuring that some basic level of quality assurance is met... isn't doing their job. Delay the game a couple of weeks and fix it.

If your response is to make excuses for the publisher and that delaying the game isn't feasible, or that I should simply wait and not purchase games at launch... you're completely missing the point. There's no reason you can give me that excuses releasing a broken mess, and then fixing it a week later. Just don't release it and fix it first. Sorry, not sorry.

Edit: Is there a thread specifically for complaining about PC ports? I realize it shits up other threads and will gladly either create it or only post there and leave everyone else alone who is sick of it.
 
They can't see the problem that happens with every Unreal Engine release these days? Can't see the problem that a cursory glance at the finished build running on any PC will tell you?

You can't not see those problems... and that doesn't explain how one week or less later the issue is mostly fixed... usually only after a big fuss is made about it.
You keep bringing up "well they fixed it soon after launch" as if it's a huge revelation, but the amount of effort needed to fix something doesn't mean anything when your working on the game itself down to the wire especially on multiple platforms with many variables. there are tons of different builds in development after all
If your response is to make excuses for the publisher and that delaying the game isn't feasible, or that I should simply wait and not purchase games at launch...
You've missed my point entirely. I literally said the publisher is the one who decides the rules and that devs are not to blame who work hard enough.
 
You keep bringing up "well they fixed it soon after launch" as if it's a huge revelation, but the amount of effort needed to fix something doesn't mean anything when your working on the game itself down to the wire especially on multiple platforms with many variables. there are tons of different builds in development after all
You're not giving any valid excuses at all.. The game should be tested before it is released... and not released until it WORKS properly. These issues should be very obvious to the people who sign off on this stuff...

Being multiplatform is NO excuse. Coming down to the wire? Tons of different builds? Too bad. I mean how can you possibly think that is acceptable?

Test the build you push out to the servers. Fix it before it's released.

You've missed my point entirely. I literally said the publisher is the one who decides the rules and that devs are not to blame who work hard enough.

Why you think I'm singling out programmers is beyond me. I mentioned the entire chain. If devs aren't able to get it working properly in time DELAY IT! Why the hell are you acting like I'm saying they need to whip their developers harder instead of giving them more time to do the job properly???

I already said it doesn't matter what the reason is or who is ultimately at fault. The ENTIRE CHAIN is bad if a single link isn't strong.. and what I'm saying right now is that industry wide PC gaming QA has SERIOUS issues right now, and it needs to change.
 
How are you sure the differences aren't caused entirely from YouTube 720p compression?
My pics are from the 4K (youtube) feed. Like the reduced AO on PS5 I think it's probably an omission. Seems they are using the same ground textures resolution as on XSS.
 
People are literally waking up to this stuff FINALLY.

That's largely my point.

Look, I'm grading on a scale here of course. Obviously we're far from the ideal where you no longer need to approach a day-1 release on the PC like it's an IED.

I do see though, at the very least (and yes, it is the very least) that more developers/publishers are actually acknowledging these flaws and publicly making declarations of forthcoming improvements. There will be no hard cut-off date for "pc ports now good", especially with 3-year development cycles being considered 'rapid' these days and the PC as platform just being inherent more complex than console - there are no doubt more problematic ports waiting in the pipeline. This is going to be a long, long process to expand the knowledgbase among the industry of working with these lower-level API's effectively on the PC, the improvement will be gradual.

All I'm saying is that what it seems to me is that with the continual focus on these issues, that there is some light breaking through. Grasping at straws? Yeah, sure. But I don't think we would even get these crumbs months earlier.
 
I’m not sure if sharper is the intended rendering. It’s definitely filtered differently, but sharper shadow textures aren’t exactly as processing intensive as properly blurry ones.
Yeah. A wider penumbra is more computationally demanding, resulting in softer shadows. It's hard to tell from that screen which is the better rendering.
 
Yeah. A wider penumbra is more computationally demanding, resulting in softer shadows. It's hard to tell from that screen which is the better rendering.
Of course as that's subjective. Some people prefer when it's blurrier. But there are definitely more details on the sharper shadows / textures.

Like I said it seems they are using XSS settings also on the XSX side (which wouldn't be a first) as those 2 assets (shadows and ground textures) actually look very similar in quality between both machines. More an omission than anything else.
 
I am quite surprised he missed the resolution difference displayed on all ground textures from 7:29 between PS5 and XSX. I could immediately notice the difference on a compressed 720p youtube video! Like the shadows those textures are quite sharper on PS5.

PS5 is on the left:
mA9D1PC.png


R21iBWu.png
If you look closer, you can see that both shadows include the same details, but the one on the Xbox got an extra pass to make them less sharp (a bit more realistic).
The shadow isn't blocky or anything. Not pixelated but has less sharp edges.
Some people prefer the sharp edges, but that doesn't make them more realistic or more demanding. It is just a missing filter.
 
If you look closer, you can see that both shadows include the same details, but the one on the Xbox got an extra pass to make them less sharp (a bit more realistic).
The shadow isn't blocky or anything. Not pixelated but has less sharp edges.
Some people prefer the sharp edges, but that doesn't make them more realistic or more demanding. It is just a missing filter.
And they also did another pass on the textures to make them blurrier? :runaway: It's probably just a bug because of XSS /XSX dev we already saw plenty of times. They'll probably correct the problem if enough people complain.
 
And they also did another pass on the textures to make them blurrier? :runaway:
Yes, that doesn't explain the terrain tetures. But there's two different points at play here. The tree shadows are far blurrier than the textures, so the shadow softness is caused by something different to the lower texture fidelity. I think it more pertinent to look at the textures than the shadows for your argument!
 
As these images are zoomed could it be PS5 has a very slightly higher level of AF?
It could be that, or maybe just that the Xbox and Playstation version use textures stored in different compressed formats. Or that the textures are slightly lower resolution. My guess would be that they are just in a more compressed format that is probably unified between the Series S and X to compensate for S's smaller memory. There doesn't seam to be more stair stepping in the fine details like the stems of leaves, but it's obviously blurrier than the PS5 textures. If you use image editing software to convert an image from one format to another one that is compressed, and there are quality options for that compression you can get results that look sort of like this. You can get 2 images with the same resolution but one will be blurrier with a smaller file size.
 
worth noting for PC challenges.
It's definitely a resource challenge. If you don't have the level of knowledge and support, but you're pushing DX12, it could very well be a painful experience.
Curious to see where they go from here. Will D3D13 change on PC to be more supportive? Or will IHVs start investing significantly more into support, tooling and documentation.
 
Maybe two versions of DX12 are needed?

One that's basically a re-badged DX11 to use if you don't care about ray tracing and want a somewhat easy ride (But with DX12's better CPU perf)

And one that's full blown DX12 with all the bells and whistles enabled but with the associated extra work that comes with it.
 
Last edited:
Baldur's Gate 3 is a big enough IP or, should I say, an IP with enough exposure that if Microsoft has not sent a team over to the developer the help them out with this, they should seriously consider doing so. I think the same situation happened with the Matrix Awakenings demo, and the Coalition needed to be called in. I believe it was worth it with that demo. I agree with John's suggestion here.

Though it would cost Microsoft a great deal of money to help developers with the engineering part of their games, games that are not exclusive or have a marketing deal. On a case-by-case bases, Microsoft should consider helping developers get gameplay features they are having trouble with up and running. Only after that fails should Microsoft allow a feature to be dropped on the Series S, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Baulder Gate 3 is a big enough IP or, should I say, an IP with enough exposure that if Microsoft has not sent a team over to the developer the help them out with this, they should seriously consider doing so.
Why would they when the dev manager said it's nothing big just that they are at different stages of development? It certainly didn't sound like something the devs wouldn't resolve themselves.
 
Interesting perspective from Sebbbi about public engines and custom engines, seeing his role at Unity. I wonder if there's an intention within the Scripting Render Pipeline to integrate such custom rendering within the Unity development framework? How custom does custom need to be?
 
Interesting perspective from Sebbbi about public engines and custom engines, seeing his role at Unity. I wonder if there's an intention within the Scripting Render Pipeline to integrate such custom rendering within the Unity development framework? How custom does custom need to be?
I believe he left Unity a while back. I think he's on his own game studio now, or joined another.
sebbbi
Building the HypeHype renderer.
Previously at Unity and Ubisoft.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top