Digital Foundry and console warriors alternate realities *spawn*

DF should do separate analyses and write up an article for each platform. Outside comparing each console port to its PC brethren where the PC hardware and its ever growing performance can serve as a baseline, putting up PS4 vs XB1 articles is nothing but a battle of the e-pee-pees.

If someone wants to know if any differences exist between the two platforms just read both articles. As of now DF articles seem more like clickbait with hits driven by emotions spurned by the console wars rather than by a desire of a finer understanding of technology that drives these games. All you have to do is look at the comment sections of this articles and realize that DF contributes to the polarization effect within the console community when looking at the visuals produced by the PS4 and the Xbox 1.
 
Cyan said:
but their article says "Mario Kart 8 effectively operates at 59fps with a subtle but continuous stutter visible on-screen." In huge letters. That's very controversial.
Click to expand...
What's controversial about it?

It's not a very detailed statement, and it doesn't go into the finer aspects of how the phenomenon occurs, but it's a fair representation that's supported by the data and analysis later in the article. Even people who don't think the performance is a problem don't usually find the claim of running at 59fps to be particularly controversial.

Their new Mario Kart Animal Crossing DLC video doesn't clarify matters much.


Before the 59fps thing was an oddity that happened in one of each 64 frames. Now look at the video above....

Something doesn't square with their initial Mario Kart 8 WiiU analysis. I have a feeling that the numbers aren't rounded up, and Mario Kart 8 runs at 59.6-59.7 fps, but the graph only says 59 fps.
Click to expand...
DF's framerate graph uses a 1-second time-average; during seconds where there was a stutter, the graph reads 59fps, and during seconds where a stutter did not occur, the graph reads 60fps. There's no rounding foul play happening.

Occasionally the stutter does not occur. Presumably there's a large task that gets executed every 64 frames that usually goes over budget but sometimes does not. This isn't unique to the new footage, though, and the original DF article explicitly mentions this clustered behavior (i.e. they did point out that the "59fps" phenomenon wasn't happening fully 100% of the time, just most of the time).
 
Last edited:
Rangers said:
https://twitter.com/Marcin360/status/603180688142147584
You have to say this would have never happened without DF around. Nobody would have really noticed or cared enough for CDPR to issue such a patch.
Click to expand...
Yep. DF scores a win for X1 gamers by stabilising the W3 framerate. Let's see how much thanks they get...

Cyan said:
You're trying to be kind to them, okay, but their article says "Mario Kart 8 effectively operates at 59fps with a subtle but continuous stutter visible on-screen." In huge letters. That's very controversial.
Click to expand...
It's informative. The headline/byline is supposed to highlight the key aspect of the game, and that's the key aspect of MK for the technically interested. Otherwise it's like every other game. And DF do exactly the same for Sony platforms. They've talked about soft-V-sync on PS3. They blew the lid on KZ's upscaling. And they've tended to do so with some impartiality and respect for the developers, although I do think some of the contributors add a little more personal editorial than warranted in a pure tech analysis.

For those without a platform allegiance, all we read at DF is technical points with whatever degree of competency we interpret. It's only those with an emotional attachment to their gaming boxes that see slurs and prejudice, and I doubt they'll ever be convinced by discussion to adapt their world view. In twenty years you'll see things differently. ;)
 
dobwal said:
DF should do separate analyses and write up an article for each platform.
Click to expand...
Like that's not a complete waste of time. The games are the same save for the few differences. A single article is perfectly fine to cover all three platforms in terms of baseline and two variances.

As of now DF articles seem more like clickbait with hits driven by emotions spurned by the console wars rather than by a desire of a finer understanding of technology that drives these games. All you have to do is look at the comment sections of this articles and realize that DF contributes to the polarization effect within the console community when looking at the visuals produced by the PS4 and the Xbox 1.
Click to expand...
The responses aren't necessarily indicative of the intentions. If DF wanted to be controversial/antagonistic, they could do so far more strongly than they do now. Because they don't. They list differences because those articles make them a living which in itself isn't an onerous intention, and it was one born purely out of curiosity. The genesis of DF is fully recorded on this forum. What people do with DF's articles is down to those people over which DF has no control.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Like that's not a complete waste of time. The games are the same save for the few differences. A single article is perfectly fine to cover all three platforms in terms of baseline and two variances.
Click to expand...

Why? We got (or still get?) separate reviews from many sites for years. At one point it seemed like many review sites purposely avoided comparisons in order to avoid being dragged into the console war conversation. Metrics were kept separate especially in regards to the Wii and its visual performance.

If the differences are minute why aren't these articles mostly platform agnostic with a few lines highlighting differences? A lot of these DF articles seems to focused on these differences and are part of the central theme of the articles themselves.

Shifty Geezer said:
The responses aren't necessarily indicative of the intentions. If DF wanted to be controversial/antagonistic, they could do so far more strongly than they do now. Because they don't. They list differences because those articles make them a living which in itself isn't an onerous intention, and it was one born purely out of curiosity. The genesis of DF is fully recorded on this forum. What people do with DF's articles is down to those people over which DF has no control.
Click to expand...

The very act of doing comparison articles in and of itself drives controversy. The moment you declare a winner or one hardware doing something better than the other, you automatically work console warriors into a frenzy. Plus, its plainly obvious by their comment sections that they don't mind the hits driven by the most vocal and fervent console owners willing to espouse, denigrate or defend these console platforms.

I am sure the readership and membership of B3D could be a lot higher if mods let every discussion devolved into versus and tit for tat emotional outbursts. And while some emotions and loyalties seeps through into our discussion, moderation makes it possible to have some resemblance of a balanced discussion. If DF's intention is to drive civil discussion about gaming technology, it does so knowing those discussion have to take place in forums like B3D because they make very little attempt to drive any civil discussion within their own readership.

DF is more ESPN than it is New England Journal of Medicine. One is a organization that monetizes its content in order to drive forward the field it covers the other uses the field it covers to drive the monetization of its business.

Personally I don't visit DF too often. I find not what it does but how it does off putting. Its first and foremost a business where it rather fast track its article releases versus vetting the assertions laid out in those articles and where it rather court controversy versus civil discourse. Whether DF has humble beginning or not is irrelevant to me, its priorities seem to be out of order.
 
Last edited:
Cyan said:
Yes, PS4 did. XBO is improving every day, if you compare the first CoD at 720p and the second at something like 1080p..., now the XB1 version is the one with the better framerate.
Click to expand...

PS4 is improving too (it won the face off and BTW, the multiplayer was a draw on framerate - where most hours will be spent), but with the more complicated (and weaker) hardware I'd say more work is currently being put into the XBO to try and 'keep up' - let's see how this is in a couple of years when games are really pushing these consoles.

Cyan said:
BF4 was great on the PS4 and bad on the XBO, but now Hardline performs better on the X1,
Click to expand...

Framerate - at the cost of running at last gen 720p

Cyan said:
and Unity too.
Click to expand...

Victory with the broken and probably worst optomised game ever, Unity...congrats.

Cyan said:
Most games are catered to the PS4 architecture, simply because of raw power. If only DF gave more credit to more platforms...
Click to expand...

Well the XBO hardware is a little more complicated, but MS ise Direct X - so I'm not quite sure what you're saying. DF do give more credit, BF4 was essentially a draw saying 'apples and oranges' and as for not giving PS4 stick, least we forget how overblown the whole GTAV 'junction-gate' was - they even tried suggesting it was due to the superior CPU. lol

Cyan said:
In their most recent article they wrote that now Borderlands runs at an almost perfect 1080p and 60 fps on the "PS4 and Xbox One", literally. The "and" was highlighted in italics, as if saying, "the game can run at 1080p 60 fps on the X1 too, can you believe it?". They are doubting the graphical capabilities of the consoles.
Click to expand...

Could it be because the XBO had more issues with framerate in the original face-off? Maybe they emphasise the 'and' to acknowledge that it had the better improvement?

Sorry, but at the end of the day you need to read them like I did last gen - and take from the articles what's important to you, but the bottom line is people want them to pick a 'winner' so they do (but more often than not then go on to say there's nothing wrong with the other version)
 
Last edited:
Also, again a football analogy - being an Arsenal fan I know my team is the 3rd best in the league. Why? beacause all teams played each other home and away and at the end of the season the better teams end up higher...Arsenal 3rd. There is little to dispute my team are not good enough to be 3rd best in the league and I'd be foolish to suggest we are better than anyone else. Did we outplay and beat all the teams below us? No. Does that mean anything (really)? No. Blips happen - we beat the team who ended up 2nd at their ground are we better than them? No. Not across the fairest metric.

In this league PS4 is the 2nd best hardware behind PCs but ahead of XBO (if it were not obvious).
 
dobwal said:
Why? We got (or still get?) separate reviews from many sites for years. At one point it seemed like many review sites purposely avoided comparisons in order to avoid being dragged into the console war conversation. Metrics were kept separate especially in regards to the Wii and its visual performance.

If the differences are minute why aren't these articles mostly platform agnostic with a few lines highlighting differences? A lot of these DF articles seems to focused on these differences and are part of the central theme of the articles themselves.



The very act of doing comparison articles in and of itself drives controversy. The moment you declare a winner or one hardware doing something better than the other, you automatically work console warriors into a frenzy. Plus, its plainly obvious by their comment sections that they don't mind the hits driven by the most vocal and fervent console owners willing to espouse, denigrate or defend these console platforms.

I am sure the readership and membership of B3D could be a lot higher if mods let every discussion devolved into versus and tit for tat emotional outbursts. And while some emotions and loyalties seeps through into our discussion, moderation makes it possible to have some resemblance of a balanced discussion. If DF's intention is to drive civil discussion about gaming technology, it does so knowing those discussion have to take place in forums like B3D because they make very little attempt to drive any civil discussion within their own readership.

DF is more ESPN than it is New England Journal of Medicine. One is a organization that monetizes its content in order to drive forward the field it covers the other uses the field it covers to drive the monetization of its business.

Personally I don't visit DF too often. I find not what it does but how it does off putting. Its first and foremost a business where it rather fast track its article releases versus vetting the assertions laid out in those articles and where it rather court controversy versus civil discourse. Whether DF has humble beginning or not is irrelevant to me, its priorities seem to be out of order.
Click to expand...
The comparison part sparks innate curiosity, and maybe it is okay because of that, but I agree with you, especially because I said it several times in the forum... that DF articles could do without the Digital Foundry verdict part. They look like the richest kids of the block that have all the devices where the game was played and compared and choose one because it has a bit of everything. Plus, some of the verdicts are so subjective and unfair...

Maybe it would stir more controversy letting people decide and think, but people can be smart and will know which version to pick if it's possible for them. say... why are you telling me to pick X version of The Witcher 3 if maybe, just maybe, I prefer a higher framerate?

It's been more than over a year that I don't read DF verdicts, just the rest of the article, not to feel ill...

goonergaz said:
Also, again a football analogy - being an Arsenal fan I know my team is the 3rd best in the league. Why? beacause all teams played each other home and away and at the end of the season the better teams end up higher...Arsenal 3rd. There is little to dispute my team are not good enough to be 3rd best in the league and I'd be foolish to suggest we are better than anyone else. Did we outplay and beat all the teams below us? No. Does that mean anything (really)? No. Blips happen - we beat the team who ended up 2nd at their ground are we better than them? No. Not across the fairest metric.

In this league PS4 is the 2nd best hardware behind PCs but ahead of XBO (if it were not obvious).
Click to expand...
The moral you describe makes me think that consoles' reign, like the biggest empires in the history of the world, say Greece, Rome, Byzantium, is cyclical. Higher towers had fallen already. This is not like the British in the battle of Agincourt, battling against equal odds.

How to win battles with odds stacked against you, that's a different story. All I know is that limitations can be helpful in some cases to stir imagination. The best examples of this I can think of is games like Life is Strange -one of my favourites-, or techniques you use on the more limited hardware that also benefit more powerful hardware.

It's time for Arsenal to conquer England once and for all. After some chastening years, don't give up.
 
BRiT said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...

PC specs improve over time. The CPU in even the most basic PC used for gaming far outclasses the CPU in the PS4 already. How many generations of Intel CPUs do you figure it will be before the integrated graphics in one or more of their CPUs outclass the Radeon HD 7850+-class integrated GPU in the PS4 both in performance and capability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrFox
Next Generation business and marketing - how to play the console war of 2019. *spawn
Replies
18
Views
4K
bgroovy
B
Back
Top