Nailed it.
Many people think fast loading has to do with hardware. It’s not. It comes down to coding. Faster level loading was never on the priority list for developers.
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Many people think fast loading has to do with hardware. It’s not. It comes down to coding. Faster level loading was never on the priority list for developers.
The moment NVME drives hit the scene. Would it be reasonable to expect them to do it as soon as they arrived? No, but it's been 10 years, and still eludes us.
Because Microsoft are the ones who own Windows. We don't care about the Xbox so why should their little console define what's going on in the PC space? The onus is on them to make Windows as good as possible but it's basically a monopoly, so why would they care? And that's exactly why they pull stuff like this and have the nerve to shackle PC users to their consoles that have nothing to do with us. Where would we go anyway? Linux?
No, and I addressed it clearly. You're doing a false dichotomy. These are two separate issues and you're equating them to being the same thing. Microsoft should have made the push for DirectStorage regardless of what the developers did because it's their job as the ones who develop Windows. One doesn't preclude the other from happening.
And in that case, your argument should be: "Developers could have taken advantage of the SSDs by writing different algorithms without DirectStorage. Since they didn't, that's evidence that even if DirectStorage had been introduced earlier, they wouldn't have bothered anyway."
That's how you should have framed it.
And do keep in mind, I'm simply referring to DirectStorage 1.1, not even 2 with GPU decompression which is a fair bit more involved.
Hold up. Let’s get some context here. A great deal of many games in the last 10 years the streaming system and graphical systems the old slow HDD could support. Developers were not asking for millions of micro IOPS to support micro streaming.
We didn’t need direct storage until microstreaming came into play. Microsoft leans into developers to determine what is needed next. A long time ago this was probably low on the list because many games were leaving Dx11 to become multithreaded on Dx12. Once games got more multithreaded with more threads doing their own thing, came a time where it makes sense that each thread should be able to make its own calls for assets. But that’s a far departure from how games were made back then.
We are still not even there today, only the top developers have the abilities to run intensely multithreaded games in which micro requests is the next thing they needed support for.
So I guess the question is that MS with its limited resources in the discussion with developers and IHVs we’re going yo put priority here when they were being asked to
Put priority elsewhere ?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Keep in mind, that just because DirectStorage exists, doesn't mean developers will use it. We have ample evidence that developers are quite happy to ignore most of the benefits of fast storage on PS5 and XBS consoles because it requires work and rethinking how they approach storage which means coding specifically for it.
So, with consoles being the primary development platform for the vast majority of developers if the consoles didn't have it 10 years ago, what are the chances they would bother to code specifically for DirectStorage on PC knowing that it would no benefit them at all on console where the majority of their profits were?
I mean, how many developers took advantage of the larger memory pools available on PC during the PS3/X360 generation? Almost none? Yup. But as soon as the consoles had more memory suddenly they couldn't get enough memory on PC at least until PC memory once again exceeded consoles at which point it didn't get used.
Advanced rendering features enabled by more advanced GPUs on PC? Again, mostly unused until the consoles could match it.
So, I make my assertion with at least some basis on past developer behavior that is consistent with how developers approach things.
Also, keep in mind that MS doesn't generally push tech. just because they can. MS, historically pushes tech if there is pressure from either ISVs or IHVs for the tech. That has always been the driving force behind DirectX and Direct3D, for example. Both of those arose from a push by ISVs and IHVs and continued advancements in them were pushed by ISVs and IHVs.
So, where was the push for DirectStorage from either ISVs (developers) or IHVs (hardware manufacturers) 10 years ago? Hmmmm? MS has never pushed a version of DirectX or Direct3D without that and they never will. Why would DirectStorage be any different?
One last thing, the first developer I can think of to write specifically to Fast Storage did so before either of the current consoles came out and started working on it before either of the current consoles were announced. That would have been the first potential impetus for MS to even start thinking that it was something ISVs "might" want if the developer had contacted the relevant people at MS to let them know that this would be something that developers would like to be able to do more easily.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Perhaps that was true in the past, but not this generation. They held back on finalising Xbox hardware so they could land with the full DX12U feature set, and have (for the most part) parity with PC. This cost them somewhat with the Xbox, but it is hopefully good for adoption of DX12U features on both PC and Xbox.
MS don't actually drive hardware and how hardware is used forward for the most part. That's done by hardware makers like Intel and Nvidia, and software developers who want to take advantage of what the hardware can do.
Direct Storage 1.1 is the version with GPU decompression. MS introduced that when their hardware partners were sufficiently ready. Direct Storage has been available on the Xbox (and seemingly underutilised) for more than two years.
You nailed it and this is exactly my problem with them.
Also, keep in mind that MS doesn't generally push tech
This phrase especially. Back then, I could at least excuse the behavior because what was in it for them? They had what, 5 games that made waves on PC? But since 2016, they have been heralding themselves as champions of PC gaming. In times past, they tried to hit us with the horrendous Games for Windows Live and were rightfully told to sod off. You'd think that they would have at least pushed DirectStorage in their big titles such as Halo Infinite, Forza, or FS2020. Will Redfall use DirectStorage? I don't even think it will.
Microsoft should be a trailblazer and trendsetter in the PC space, they shouldn't wait for others. They're in a unique position in that not only do they own Windows, but they have virtually an unlimited budget. They should be the ones to push this technology forward. Instead, one mediocre game from SquareEnix is the only one that uses it.
I mixed up 1.1 with 2. I couldn't remember what the name of the version was.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I understand how, you feel, I do. But the reality is that it doesn't matter what Microsoft wants to push if ISVs don't want it or IHVs can't provide it. Microsoft understands this. Do not push something the ISVs don't want. Don't assume that ISVs want something because they may not. Don't push something the IHVs can't provide. Don't assume that IHVs can provide something that they haven't indicated they can provide.
I mean, MS could have theoretically "pushed" RT back in 2000. What are the chances it would have been successful instead of them becoming a laughing stock for pushing something that was technologically not possible yet?
Even when ISVs mention something might be good and IHVs indicate they can provide it, it doesn't necessarily materialize in a good way. Hardware accelerated tessellation, for example. But it was at least a failure that was due to both ISVs indicating they wanted it and IHVs indicating they could provide it. Unfortunately the cost of implementation by ISVs wasn't as easy as they'd hoped due to the way hardware implemented it and all MS could do was attempt to make the interface between the software and hardware (API) as easy for the developers to use while still attempting to use what the IHVs provided. And in the end it wasn't as easy to use as ISVs wanted and not as powerful as what could be done in hardware. If DX12 had existed back then, maybe things would have been different with a more difficult implementation but a more powerful one?
That's a simplified example of the unglamorous side of MS being a sort of mediator between ISVs and IHVs.
MS can attempt to push whatever they want since they are the dominant PC OS. But without guidance from ISVs (on what would be used) and IHVs (on what is even possible) then it would just be exercises in futility equivalent to throwing darts at a dartboard with your eyes closed and hoping you hit the bullseye.
Regards,
SB
Thing is, for a game with a limited number of access requests (like a game that has to run well on Xbox 1 from a 5400 drive) DS might not do very much at all to improve streaming during gameplay. These games will already have relatively low overheads, and normally be relatively latency tolerant because they have to be.
Initial loading will probably be improved 'enough' just by having a massively faster CPU to do decompression. It won't much affect actual gameplay though because that has to function properly with a weak CPU and a slow as hell SATA 5400 drive with a queue depth of chuff all.
Why do you particularly want to see Halo Infinite or Forza with Direct Storage though? What do you think it will do for these games? They aren't built around rapid transitions of everything in memory (not much will ever need to be), or super high resolution assets that can only exist because they are partially resident and constantly updating on a frame by frame basis.
If MS are going to bother "pushing" DS (though I don't know why they should any more than other AAA developers), they should do it where it's enabling something meaningful that can't really be done without it. Otherwise it's more of a curiosity than a game changer.
Once we're a few years past cross gen, hopefully we'll be well into the new streaming era of PRT+.
Yeah, it seems strange to have a relatively large update be just another .1!
Games for Windows was one of the best things to happen to PC games and it's positives are felt in the PC space now more than ever. Go play a PC game that was not a GFW game and tell me how controller support is. There were plenty of games back then that required a mouse and/or keyboard to even enable a controller, much less configure it.
Eh, I don't know. The service as a whole was still garbage. That it introduced controller support is amazing but ultimately independent from the overall package that was GFWL.
Ehmmm Windows might be (well is) the leading PC gaming platform, but its not a leading revenue driver for MS, its just one other thing they do with Windows.
How many Windows installations in the world is used for AAA gaming that would need Directstorage etc vs Windows installs that never runs anything thats close to anything like AAA gaming.
A couple of friends used to work for MS, a couple of years back, in Seattle and they claimed that internally Windows was basically thought of just a platform to run MS Office. Now MS Office is online, so maybe they shifted that bit
But it seems delusional to think that MS Windows priorities centers around gaming.
How many Windows installations in the world is used for AAA gaming that would need Directstorage etc vs Windows installs that never runs anything thats close to anything like AAA gaming.
A couple of friends used to work for MS, a couple of years back, in Seattle and they claimed that internally Windows was basically thought of just a platform to run MS Office. Now MS Office is online, so maybe they shifted that bit
But it seems delusional to think that MS Windows priorities centers around gaming.
They definitely don't prioritize Windows for gaming but Windows is the gateway to their other services. They want people there so they can sell them Office, Game Pass, or what have you.Ehmmm Windows might be (well is) the leading PC gaming platform, but its not a leading revenue driver for MS, its just one other thing they do with Windows.
How many Windows installations in the world is used for AAA gaming that would need Directstorage etc vs Windows installs that never runs anything thats close to anything like AAA gaming.
A couple of friends used to work for MS, a couple of years back, in Seattle and they claimed that internally Windows was basically thought of just a platform to run MS Office. Now MS Office is online, so maybe they shifted that bit
But it seems delusional to think that MS Windows priorities centers around gaming.
What part didn't you like. The easier install requirements? Standardized packaging with an effort to simplify system requirements? Cross platform multiplayer? The required support for standard screen resolutions and aspect ratios?
Was it "garbage" that Microsoft made Halo 2 available on PC with full controller support, easy multiplayer matchmaking, support for widescreen monitors and had the option to drop the disc in your optical drive and play it without install (like the Xbox version).
You have a very romanticized view of GFWL. For one, the multiplayer was initially a paid service that was made free in 2008. You champion cross-platform play but there were like 10 games that supported it and it was largely abandoned shortly after its introduction. The DRM was overly intrusive. It happened more than once that I attempted to sign in and couldn't, resulting in my not being able to play my games. The save files were also encrypted to prevent players from getting easy achievements or copying them, and this caused more problems than it was worth.
The integration with Xbox was horrid. The moment someone fired up another device with your Windows/Xbox gamertag, you would be logged out of the first device. You had beautiful stuff like being kicked out of your account just because someone wanted to watch Netflix on your Xbox 360. Not to mention the genius idea of using Xbox's purchasing scheme of selling games and DLCs using points in the Microsoft Store rather than a flat fee. You were forced to buy points packs, often ending up with wasted points. You have 200 and this thing you need costs 800? Well, no 600 points package, buy the 1000 and end up with 1200, and then find yourself with 400 you don't need. Brilliant.
As for Halo 2, hilarious that you mention that because they only officially released it for Windows Vista. It had to be cracked and we all saw that it ran perfectly on XP. Also, interesting that you bring up Tray & Play which was promised but ended up supporting exactly 1 game before being unceremoniously dropped.
Games for Windows Live could have been a fantastic service that could have rivaled Steam but Microsoft's incompetence and insistence on making it an extension of Xbox Live backfired spectacularly and the service died as a result.
Last edited:
I think GFWL and controller support only mattered to the degree that you wanted to use your PC to play console games (or if you were a real masochist, wanted to play PC games with a controller.) What changed between then and now isn't anything that GFWL did, or anything that PC games did for that matter, but rather the console multiplatform umbrella growing to include PC as a day1 launch target, and that was more than anything facilitated by Valve's push to make Steam's UX more living room friendly with native Xinput controller support. How much any of that matters to you today still depends on how much you play console games on the PC. GFWL occupies the same place in my mind as Windows ME did -- the software equivalents of ill-fitting clothing that you were gifted but can't return, so you stick it in a spare-room closet until you forget you ever had it.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Hardware Unboxed Looks at RX 6800 vs 3070
This is largely focused on recent titles that are regarded to be VRAM constrained, and in particular looks at them after they've received patches to supposedly address that. What in particular I appreciate about this video is it's actual gameplay with video through each benchmark run, along with measured frame times, not simply a summary of the 1% lows/average. The recorded run is particularly important as you'll discover why.
Of particular note is that the Last of Us at 1080p/High still sucks with 8gb, even on recent patches which supposedly reduce vram usage a bit. While I don't agree with the comment that "If most gamers had 16GB vram there would be little to complain about with performance" (the game is massively CPU and render-bound regardless of vram constraints), there have been arguments presented here that High fits in fine in the 8gb buffer, even at 1440p. At least in these tests, that does not appear to be the case. Playable? Yeah sure I guess - but that consistency is shit.
Note that they do look at a suite of recent titles in the latter part of the video that perform well within 8gb to give a more complete picture of recent releases, and they also state that 8GB is perfectly fine and will be for a bit - but it's entry level now. The point of contention is this is being shipped on $500+ GPU's.
This is largely focused on recent titles that are regarded to be VRAM constrained, and in particular looks at them after they've received patches to supposedly address that. What in particular I appreciate about this video is it's actual gameplay with video through each benchmark run, along with measured frame times, not simply a summary of the 1% lows/average. The recorded run is particularly important as you'll discover why.
Of particular note is that the Last of Us at 1080p/High still sucks with 8gb, even on recent patches which supposedly reduce vram usage a bit. While I don't agree with the comment that "If most gamers had 16GB vram there would be little to complain about with performance" (the game is massively CPU and render-bound regardless of vram constraints), there have been arguments presented here that High fits in fine in the 8gb buffer, even at 1440p. At least in these tests, that does not appear to be the case. Playable? Yeah sure I guess - but that consistency is shit.
Note that they do look at a suite of recent titles in the latter part of the video that perform well within 8gb to give a more complete picture of recent releases, and they also state that 8GB is perfectly fine and will be for a bit - but it's entry level now. The point of contention is this is being shipped on $500+ GPU's.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Things like this is why I went with the cheaper 6800. I still can't believe that NV skimped so much on the memory on the 3070.
Sure, 8 GB is good enough for the PS4/XBO generation of games, but it was released after the current generation of consoles. If history has taught us anything it's that a new console generation generally also brings an increase in VRAM usage now that developers have a reason to utilize more memory.
The RTX 3070 was just a badly thought out product, IMO, with only 8 GB of memory releasing after the current gen of consoles when they absolutely knew that VRAM usage was going to start to increase in the near future.
Regards,
SB
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
I really don't see what they can do with the upcoming 4060/ti, they're hamstrung by the bus. So I guess they're just going to release it with 8gb, and as a result it's going to basically be mocked in reviews. Or they double it to 16gb and we're back into the odd 3060/3060ti situation where the lower performing card has more vram, as this would be the case with when compared to the 4070. That would still be preferable I think to the PR disaster of releasing an 8GB card above $400 in 2023 though.
Yea. A good rule of thumb is that you should have as much VRAM as consoles do total RAM.
- Status
Similar threads
