Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[forumaccount]

Lets not kid ourselves though; 40% is a reality - the question is, how many developers actually get to target it in a meaningful way besides a simple resolution gain? My guess: not many, especially considering using that 40% in a multi game project isn't free. It needs time and resources too.

This is an "interesting" discussion and I won't say much except for this... I still feel held back on both PC and XB1 compared to PS4 and I think my colleagues would agree. There's a lot more we could do if not for the "other platforms". Things are catching up, but far too slowly. I think in about a year maybe we'll be closer, but it requires developers pushing on the first parties in the areas they're lacking and from talking with them it sounds like a lot of developers are still behind the curve, so who knows.

 

[chris1515]

This is an "interesting" discussion and I won't say much except for this... I still feel held back on both PC and XB1 compared to PS4 and I think my colleagues would agree. There's a lot more we could do if not for the "other platforms". Things are catching up, but far too slowly. I think in about a year maybe we'll be closer, but it requires developers pushing on the first parties in the areas they're lacking and from talking with them it sounds like a lot of developers are still behind the curve, so who knows.

Held back by API?

 

[Nesh]

It certainly isn't magic. I think its actually much simpler. Multi platform games take the lowest common denominator and build the game around it. Then depending on how much time is left, some improvements can be made with that 40% "headroom". If the game in question is running inconsistent as it is, that headroom is simply there to make it more stable, so the end result is perhaps simply a resolution bump and perhaps (if GPU bound) a more consistent framerate. If the game easily hits its targets on both platform and there is time to spend that on, getting a bit more out of it, I'm sure the 40% could be used to make it a slightly nicer looking game.

Lets face it though; what good is there to do that if you know your game and your port will be scrutinized? You run the risk of upsetting one of your partners (in this case Microsoft, who is a partner none-the-less) and you possibly upset the public too for those playing on the 'weaker' console, having to come up with excuses on why your port is supposedly sloppy etc. If the game however runs nigh on identical except for the accepted resolution difference as it appears to be with MGSV, Fusion Trials or other games, well, you are going to be under the radar and there will be less to justify.

Lets not kid ourselves though; 40% is a reality - the question is, how many developers actually get to target it in a meaningful way besides a simple resolution gain? My guess: not many, especially considering using that 40% in a multi game project isn't free. It needs time and resources too.

We dont see the PS4 trumping the XB1 in exclusives either though.
And as far as multiplatform games we havent seen a multiplatform game that demonstrates its superior performance on the PS4 like the Tomb Raider DE.
I dont thing its simply a matter of adapting a game on the lowest common denominator. We could have been seeing more differences than just resolution that are more subtle. But we dont.

edit:
Chris1515 mentioned API. I suspect that this could also be the culprit. This is probably why the XB1 is seeing more games hitting the 1080p sweet spot with good performance even in some multiplatform games while the PS4 remained stagnant. Horizon Zero and Uncharted 4 may be outstanding looking games but they arent 40% better looking than anything on the XB1.

Then again for the rest of games that simply have a resolution differences it is a problem that in the past we didnt used to deal with. Performance was utilized in more meaningful ways as display resolutions were standard and limited on consoles for decades. Now all the extra juice is used for a res pump which doesnt make much of a difference in the eye due to diminishing returns. Back in the day we could see differences between PS1, Saturn, N64 or the DC,PS2, GC, XB. And it all came to the effects, lighting, geometry and such

 

[Phil]

Then perhaps I suspect the performance is being "wasted" on resolution. If you want, you can devote your 40% GPU difference by rendering ~30% more pixels, or you could have resolution parity and achieve a more striking difference. Somethings going to give. Speaking of exclusives though; I do think Uncharted 4 is pretty ahead of anything on either platform though. Perhaps not from a subjective point of view, but what the team is doing technically is hugely impressive. Sure you can fake a lot to create something that looks just as good, but it doesn't mean the former isn't doing "more".

 

[Clukos]

We could have been seeing more differences than just resolution that are more subtle. But we dont.

And we won't. Nobody can justify having completely different builds for different platforms right now. Hell, even PC multiplatform games end up looking identical with small improvements here and there (AO, higher quality shadows, longer draw distance, Nvidia gimmicks) and the power differential between Ps4 and high end PC is marginally larger than X1 and Ps4. Unless something changes substantially i don't think we'll see anything different than 900p/1080p for consoles in multiplatform games the next few years, at least. And on PC you can always scale up to 4K if you have money to blow on hardware.

 

[pjbliverpool]

This is an "interesting" discussion and I won't say much except for this... I still feel held back on both PC and XB1 compared to PS4 and I think my colleagues would agree. There's a lot more we could do if not for the "other platforms". Things are catching up, but far too slowly. I think in about a year maybe we'll be closer, but it requires developers pushing on the first parties in the areas they're lacking and from talking with them it sounds like a lot of developers are still behind the curve, so who knows.

Some examples would be cool. I assume on PC the issue is mainly API (DX11) and to a lesser extent the featureset of older GPU's if you want to support a wider range of hardware? On XBO I assume raw performance, but also API??

 

[Nesh]

And we won't. Nobody can justify having completely different builds for different platforms right now. Hell, even PC multiplatform games end up looking identical with small improvements here and there (AO, higher quality shadows, longer draw distance, Nvidia gimmicks) and the power differential between Ps4 and high end PC is marginally larger than X1 and Ps4. Unless something changes substantially i don't think we'll see anything different than 900p/1080p for consoles in multiplatform games the next few years, at least. And on PC you can always scale up to 4K if you have money to blow on hardware.

I mentioned subtle improvements not improvements that stand in our face. I didnt mention completely different builds since I understand that it doesnt make sense. PC versions of games in closer inspection demonstrate such improvements but are scaled down on consoles. Similar improvements could have been present between XB1 and PS4.

 

[Clukos]

The "subtle" improvement is the resolution differential (around ~600k pixels), if we had both consoles running at same res we'd probably see more differences imo (like it was last gen with most games struggling towards 720p on two different machines).

 

[chris1515]

I think the resolution is the result of the 40%, if I understand well what forrumaccount said they restrain themselve on PS4 because XB1 and PC API helding back them (DX11 for PC).

I don't think the gap will be wider for multiplatform game but they will do better games on all platform...

GPU Driven rendering is better on all platform for example...

EDIT: How can you quantify 40% of power out of resolution or framerate? Resolution is 40% better most of the time... I like UC4 too but the work on Horizon is impressive too all work on volumetric lightning is gorgeous, the cloud technology is great, materials are looking good, geometry diplayed on screen is high, good work on Aloy animation(like blending ND tech...), GI with light probes, KZ SF SSR and cubemap technology, NPC animation is good, Great physics (foliage reacting to Aloy, rock and tree reacting to dinobots, little rock reacting to Aloy gliding, foliage and tree reacting to the wind, water and dinobots interation...) ... Most of technoloy are not new but it is impressive to have all the features in one package in a seamless WRPG Open world... From what I heard of Horizon the technology is already working very well from someone working in another european studio working on an exclusive PS4 game. Main concern is fall 2016 or early 2017 release date?

 

[Recop]

And as far as multiplatform games we havent seen a multiplatform game that demonstrates its superior performance on the PS4 like the Tomb Raider DE.
I dont thing its simply a matter of adapting a game on the lowest common denominator. We could have been seeing more differences than just resolution that are more subtle. But we dont.

This is not true.

Actually, many multiplatform games show greater differences than resolution alone.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...cars-patch-104-boosts-visuals-and-runs-faster : "Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, the margin is still as wide as 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dying-light-face-off : "Between the two console versions we definitely have to give the nod to the PS4 version with its improved frame-rate and better texture streaming, its higher resolution, and a near complete lack of screen-tear."

Etc.

 

[chris1515]

This is not true.

Actually, many multiplatform games show greater differences than resolution alone.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...cars-patch-104-boosts-visuals-and-runs-faster : "Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, the margin is still as wide as 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-dying-light-face-off : "Between the two console versions we definitely have to give the nod to the PS4 version with its improved frame-rate and better texture streaming, its higher resolution, and a near complete lack of screen-tear."

Etc.

And 40% is only ALU difference, PS4 have more texel and fillrate toot. But In modern engine, ROP are less important...

 

[Nesh]

well whatever the reasons why the PS4's superior performance isnt that visible to most, 40% more performance in past generation consoles would have made a whole world of a difference.

 

[goonergaz]

Diminishing Returns TM

Or just bias talk - essentially the gap is about the same as some last gen where people thought the PS3 versions were unplayable - now all of a sudden people can't see the difference....funny that.

 

[iroboto]

Game engines should be changing again - past performance isn't a good indicator or future either. In regards to shiftys earlier post I'd like to see that happen, I'd like to see graphics improve at a rate such that resolution is sacrificed.

As for diminishing returns: 40% more Compute is a big difference, but PS4 does not have 40% more bandwidth than XBO. There has been AMD papers that suggest 204 gb/s may not be enough bandwidth to feed 12CU. At the end of the day it's great to have all that available compute but you still need to read and write that data somewhere.

 

[Rangers]

But then again last gen it was all Lazy Devs (TM) fault...

And 40% is only ALU difference, PS4 have more texel and fillrate too. In moderne engine, ROP are less important

But then for example the XBO can actually throughput 6.6% more triangles as a base (both have two setup engine so it's GPU clock difference). The foundations of the systems are more the same (starting from same Blu Ray discs, HDD's, I/O read speed from discs, RAM quantity, CPU's where again XBO actually has a clock edge, etc). That's partly why you dont see fundamental differences. That said the GPU is obviously a very huge component in what appears onscreen.

well whatever the reasons why the PS4's superior performance isnt that visible to most, 40% more performance in past generation consoles would have made a whole world of a difference

Cant agree. Remembering back to PS2 era most games were technically similar quick n dirty ports between Xbox and PS2 despite I'd say Xbox being 2X as powerful as PS2 (just for example it had 2X RAM, imagine if one of PS4/XBO only had 4GB), so 1.4X isn't enough for generation leap hardly (usually pegged at order of magnitude or so). That said I think the non-1080P scandal has done almost incalculable damage to XBO sales and public perception, so the results are there for Microsoft to enjoy.

Looking at this pic from DF, we still have a ways to go in realtime rendering. The faroff trees and shrubs could use some work.

 

[Nesh]

Cant agree. Remembering back to PS2 era most games were technically similar quick n dirty ports between Xbox and PS2 despite I'd say Xbox being 2X as powerful as PS2 (just for example it had 2X RAM, imagine if one of PS4/XBO only had 4GB), so 1.4X isn't enough for generation leap hardly (usually pegged at order of magnitude or so). That said I think the non-1080P scandal has done almost incalculable damage to XBO sales and public perception, so the results are there for Microsoft to enjoy.

I disagree. XB exclusives had a huge difference from PS2 exclusives and almost all multi platform games run at better framerares, had better resolution and effects minus the games that were developed for the PS2 and ported later like MGS2 and Burnout.
The XB had a plethora of games that looked much better unlike this generation. And that despite that the PS2 had the majority of the market share
Most mutiplatform 3D games on the PS1 also looked better than on the Saturn even though the difference was even smaller.

 

[goonergaz]

But that was largely due to PS2 being a very complicated bit of hardware too.

 

[Clukos]

MGS V is 60hz, it won't push any boundaries visually, nobody expects it to. It still looks great overall imo.

 

[Phil]

There were multiplatform games back on PS2/Xbox? I can't for the life of me remember; All I played were superb looking exclusive that IMO never found their match on the Xbox. Yes, PS2 games were extremely rough IQ wise, but boy did that thing have bandwidth, particles and geometry. I much preferred most "pixelated" PS2 games to the "blurry" looking games the Xbox had (that often seemed over saturated).

EDIT: As I said though; PS2 and Xbox both went in very different directions hardware wise though. PS2 was pure bruteforce. I actually quite liked the bland looking games on the PS2. Gave it a much more realistic color palette to boot and I still think ZOE or MGS3, or even Jak & Daxter was never quite done on the Xbox. The Xbox's best went in an entirely different direction tech wise - the most gorgeous games there with higher res textures and much more colorful, vibrant etc. Overall the Xbox was stronger yes, but both had verydifferent strengths.

 

[chris1515]

I think the current difference between game is what we will have until end of generation. Better resolution on PS4 side, same or better framerate on PS4 side and sometimes better framerate on Xbox One side, sometimes better shadows on PS4 side(more ROP) side and so on...

It is logic when you compare spec of the two machine...