[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles

Actually the correct phrase should have been "Platform holders also get royalties AND percentage for every game sold" not "platform holders also get royalties FOR percentage FOR every game sold".
I said percentage but surely it can just be a fee as you say.

Now I don't think Sony or MS can stop games they don't publish from being released just because for them they are bad without either breaking the agreement/partnership with the publisher/developer or loosing a lot of money.
I can't name a single game that was not released due to "quality reasons" after going gold.

Of course if I am wrong again please correct me without hesitation.

 

Of course if they don't publish a game they are going to lose money. That's what publishers use to coerce the console companies into letting them publisher whatever.

Games won't be denied release after going gold because the fees have already been paid and the discs released. I didn't realise that was the conversation here. I thought the topic was what controls companies exert on the publishers to control game flow and quality. Once the console company has agreed to publish a game, and certainly after the printing fees have been paid, the game will get released irrespective of quality. Prior to that though, the console company can turn their nose up at any game. This has certainly happened in the past. Importantly you won't hear about it either - you won't hear about developers who have created games on console who then weren't allowed to release those games. But it has happened. It seemed more prevalent in yesteryears where the console companies wanted t manage their platform image. TRCs also ensured a minimum quality, but QA seems to have become low priority and the console companies are quite happy to have broken, unplayable games on their machine these days. As for controlling the games to ensure parity between platforms, I don't think there's anything particularly illegal about it per se (there may be in some cases), but a console companies that annoys a publisher too much risks seeing them abandon the platform. IIRC, talk from devs on this board have pointed the finger at the publisher, not the console company, when it comes to ensuring platform parity and writing to the lowest common denominator. They reportedly don't want consumer of Platform A to look at the game on Platform B and see its better an accuse the publisher of not trying hardware enough on their box, rather than accepting that their box can't run that game as well, so they target the same game on both boxes.

 

Off topic: I think it's silly (that's putting it nicely) that anyone thinks these console companies hold enough control to effect the quality of other versions. Take your tinfoil hats off please.

On topic: As others have said, I'm fine with 720p60 if we get 64 players and the range of improvements found on the PC.

I am confused about one thing though with this part:

Wouldn't the console versions also benefit from DX11 since their cards are based on DX11 architecture or am I just reading this line wrong?

 

I think you've read it wrong. He's saying 2.0 only had DX11 compatibility on the PC. 2.5 will have it on all platforms.

 

The scaler may well be the issue, it's something I had considered. I may have a play around with it tonight, isn't there an option in the NV control panel to choose between the GPU's scaler or the TV's? Or have I just made that up.

 

I remember notch (of minecraft fame) complaining tha ms wanted $40,000 to q&a a patch what if it fails ?

 

He's saying that DX11 will be the minimum supported by the engine, so no DX9 or 10 on the PC.

 

Not sure that really makes sense when the game will appear on the PS360 as well. Reading it again, Dr. Evil's interpretation sounds more likely IMO.

If you set the resolution to the Tv's native resolution, there should be no scaling done on the TV.

That was actually a comment by Phil Fish IIRC. Patches are handled differently for Minecraft I believe.

 

Yeah I agree, looks like I misread it too!

Thats the problem though, my TV's native resolution is 1080p but I want to render the game at 720p and still have it look good. At the moment it looks pretty bad so I'm assuming whichever scaler I'm using at the moment (TV or GPU) is rubbish and I need to try the other one. Or did I miss your point?

 

You can turn the gpu scalar on and off in the nvidia control panel. I don't remember how to do it. It' s been a long time since I've used windows with an nvidia gpu. I would assume most tvs would have a decent scalar. I could be wrong. I don't know the quality of the gpu scalars, comparably.

 

Cheers I found it. It was set to the display scaler as opposed to the GPU. I'll have a play later and see if the GPU makes any difference.

 

There are different rules for download games and patches. I'm talking specifically about disk game releases which is the comparison being made investigating this generation and what made titles similar across boxes. It's clear Sony and MS don't have much interest to ensuring high quality titles on the platform on release, happily taking the publishers' money to fabricate discs full of broken games. Considering both console companies charge for distributing patches, perhaps its a business decision by them?

That's all besides the point though. The idea of the console companies forcing publishers into strong-arming developers into platform parity strikes me as completely unfounded. The notion seems to be born from fanboys seeing games not running better on their platform of choice and deciding it's because the developers are holding back rather than that that's as good as the platform can do. Blaming the evil rival nemesis console company is a suitably primitive knee-jerk connection you'd expect. What little discussion there has been on this matter has followed the rational understanding of business practices where optional content is requested, but there's no sly "tell the devs to make the rival platform's version a bit crappy for us" going on.

Spoiler

If the is, it'll be counter to sense and a big scandal!

 

Perhaps the devs could make everyone happy and give an option for 1080@30 or 720@60, if the rumor is true of course.

I'm one of those crazies who sits about 6' from a 42" Viera and would much prefer 1080@30 if it was able to maintain the framerate.

 

You're right outside the 1080p benefit range. Unless you mean 6inches then you likely have an amazing face tan.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

 

Heh, nice to see my off the cuff calculations for being able to discern 1080p at my current viewing distances was pretty close. I'd need around a 100" HDTV in order to just barely be able to potentially see the difference between 1080p and 720p. Which means that to be able to see details as well as I can on my desktop 24" 1920x1200 monitor, I'd need something along the lines of a 150-160" HDTV at 3-4 meters.

And hence why I've yet to have a person take my blind resolution test on my TV that has been able to distinguish between a 1080p source and a 720p source when UI and text weren't a factor.

[edit] playing around with that though leads me to think I need to get a 70-80" TV if I want THX recommended viewing distances, which would still make it unlikely for anyone taking my test to distinguish between a 1080p source and a 720p source.

Regards,
SB

 

It's probably best not to go into that discussion again. It's been had lots! I'll just note that going by your link, 5.5' is the maximum distance to resolve 1080p on a 42" diagonal set, so, given rounding errors (I doubt keenism used a tape measure from eyes to screen) and people can have better than 20/20 vision, keenism probably isn't far off and should certainly be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

I'd be in favour of providing the resolution+framerate option myself, as the feedback from users would be invaluable. But it means a lot more work for the developers so probably isn't worth it.

 

That's why I generally use the term "typical viewing distance." Although I guess that might be different in Europe.

At least in most homes in the US, Taiwan and Japan, you usually have a Couch -> Coffee table -> TV. So typical household viewing distances tend to be in the 3-4 meter range (sometimes more but rarely less than 3). But I guess single people just making their way in the world may not be able to do that, so might have things closer than that.

Regards,
SB

 

A higher frame rate is not just a visual feature, it is a game mechanics enabler as well (see the recent 30 vs 60 fps thread).

 

I'd hardly go so far as that. Gameplay is exactly the same, it's just 'easier/more accurate/better/less disorientating' at 60 fps. Someone choosing to play the same game at a higher resolution and lower framerate, such as on PC, is still playing the same game even if it's not the way you'd prefer.

 

Sigh, are we going to have this discussion again? If the player can, for example, aim better/faster/more accurately you can design the levels differently and have different speed of player/camera movement.