Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2022]

[Remij]

If Digital Foundry and Bandai Namco have decided to hold off on the performance analysis until it includes the latest patch and how "people will experience the game".. I've got no problems with that... however, if Bandai Namco's reasoning for doing this is because the patched version performs better and is more stable or less buggy or whatever... then perhaps that should be a part of the statement as well. It's one thing for DF to not present the information as they themselves experienced it initially when they got access... and another completely if DF can confirm that they have a strong reason to believe that performance will have changed between patches.

Did the publisher make any comments stating that was the case? I would love to have that assurance, in the absence of real data.

I get that Digital Foundry only has so much time, and they're not in the business of trying to purposefully post outdated information based on old code... however, I think there's value in knowing both how it originally performed pre-patch, and how it performs post-patch. And I believe that information would have been useful to many people on the fence about which version to get before the game actually launches.

 

[see colon]

I think there's value in knowing both how it originally performed pre-patch, and how it performs post-patch. And I believe that information would have been useful to many people on the fence about which version to get before the game actually launches.

The value to that information is pretty low, though. How it performs from the disc is only important for academic reasons, or edge cases like the a user with no/slow/limited internet. If a person wishes to know what version is the best looking or most performant, the day 1 patch version is really the one that should be tested. It doesn't matter if a game has performance issue that are removed in what is the defacto release version. And that's the thing. The on disc release for any game now isn't, and hasn't really been for some time now, the version intended for release.

 

[Remij]

The value to that information is pretty low, though. How it performs from the disc is only important for academic reasons, or edge cases like the a user with no/slow/limited internet. If a person wishes to know what version is the best looking or most performant, the day 1 patch version is really the one that should be tested. It doesn't matter if a game has performance issue that are removed in what is the defacto release version. And that's the thing. The on disc release for any game now isn't, and hasn't really been for some time now, the version intended for release.

I think it's useful. That information could help explain scores many reviewers ultimately gave their game. I'd prefer to know that there WERE issues and what they were..(potentially affecting the scores) and that they had been fixed for launch since then.


However, of course while I think there's very understandable reasons to wait to provide the analysis until the launch day code is in their hands, I still think it's all a front anyway. I think the game has performance issues on all devices, but more so on PC... and this is Bandai Namco's way of at least holding off any of the real harsh criticisms until the game is out.

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think performance is going to change much at all from what reviewers played, and what gamers will play day 1.

 

[techuse]

We need Chad Warren on DF Direct @Dictator.

 

[see colon]

I think it's useful. That information could help explain scores many reviewers ultimately gave their game.

Many reviews that come out right when the embargo lifts don't even talk about glitches or performance issues beyond a quick mention and an expectation that a day one patch should clear those things up. Especially ones in the "influencer" circles (youtube creator reviews and the like). Honestly, I wouldn't doubt that the "day 1 patch should fix it" aside is part of the agreement they have when the get the game early. Honestly, it isn't uncommon for a game with technical issues to score high, and I think it was much more common before the rise of performance reviews. Take Call of Duty 3, for example. It was a 30fps (ish) game on PS3, and a 60fps (ish) game on 360. Metacritic puts the PS3 version at an 80, while the 360 version is an 82. Gamespot's review notes a lack of multiplayer options and a "less consistent" framerate when compared to the 360 release but still rated it a "Great".

 

[Boxercide]

Context from DF via their Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1495835547763363852

That's not context, that's ass-covering weasel words and the crux of the issue. Don't whitewash this.

 

[techuse]

I fail to see the issue here. If the day one patch is representative of what gamers will play it's fine.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yah, it's tough. You can review what's on disc but it may be much worse than what's available from the day one patch and you end up misrepresenting what most people will play. If you review the day one patch, then someone that plans to play off disc without an internet connection may get a buggier game etc. Tough call.

I think as long as they're open about what they're reviewing (patched/unpatched) then that's fair enough.

 

[Karamazov]

I don't remember the last physical game i bought that had no day one patch.

 

[see colon]

I don't remember the last physical game i bought that had no day one patch.

And that's the thing, right? I love physical media. But what we are getting now, besides all the legal mumbo jumbo about us just purchasing a license, is a partially (or sometimes not even) functioning snapshot of game code that isn't in any way archival. It's so expected that a game will have a day 1 update that some games don't work at all without them. I think every Call of Duty since Infinite Warfare has required a day 1 patch to work, and if you pop one in a system today, it doesn't even download that patch, but the newest one. Unless they changed the way updates are handled, Modern Warfare (2019) makes you download the newest update for Warzone also.

What I'm getting at is that the "play it off the disc no internet" scenario is an extreme edge case now. I'm sure someone will chime in and say that they are in that situation, and that sucks. But if COD, the one of the best selling games every year, can require a day 1 patch to play at all without much backlash, then it isn't a mass market problem.

If we are to hold reviewers to the standard of what's on the disc, what of all the games that require a day 1 update? What about the Switch games that only have part of the game on the card and require you to download the rest to an SD card for you to actually play it? What about games that are digital only? And... most review copies now are digital anyway, aren't they? What's to say the digital review copy any reviewer has a week before launch is the same as the build that's on the disc?

 

[Dictator]

That's not context, that's ass-covering weasel words and the crux of the issue. Don't whitewash this.

Hmmm.
No.

We at DF make sure to cover only day one Patch performance for countless games - recent examples: Dying Light 2, Horizon Forbidden West, Ratchet and Clank. Games that all changed rapidly during the review period on a technical level to the point where reporting on pre-day 1 Patch tevcnicals makes no sense.
Did you complaim about us covering day-1 Patches in these games?

 

[Cyan]

Would love to see Digital Foundry take a stab at this:

My guess is some kind of temporal light accumulation causing tonemapping issues when the camera moves. But that's just purely a guess. The fact that the issue is less present at 60fps would kind of fit that because at 60fps you would accumulate faster. Haven't looked at the engine tech at all.

the game seems to have many technical issues from what I've seen. Not only those details mentioned in the video but also that when you get close to a wall, an odd texture appears on the wall, smoke appears or disappears depending on the camera angle, or dusty clouds appear when you step in some parts of the terrain while walking or running but the dust doesn't even show if you change the camera angle

 

[BRiT]

If you review the day one patch, then someone that plans to play off disc without an internet connection may get a buggier game etc.

Those folks are not the reach of DF articles. Those without internet won't even be able to get to the DF site, so why should an internet site focus on users who won't even be able to view their content?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Those folks are not the reach of DF articles. Those without internet won't even be able to get to the DF site, so why should an internet site focus on users who won't even be able to view their content?

That's true. I'm just saying, there are some people that only play off disc and they won't be served by a video that doesn't explore the differences between off disc and day one patch. I don't think that it should be required to test both. Maybe just mention what you're testing and leave it at that. I'd guess most people are patching nowadays and the number of offline players would bee very low.

 

[mr magoo]

That's true. I'm just saying, there are some people that only play off disc and they won't be served by a video that doesn't explore the differences between off disc and day one patch. I don't think that it should be required to test both. Maybe just mention what you're testing and leave it at that. I'd guess most people are patching nowadays and the number of offline players would bee very low.

Is it even possible today to play off disc games? I was under impression that all new games require additional download from interwebz.

 

[Phantom88]

Warhameeeeeer. Nice to see a game in a more apart genre than the usual action stuff

 

[Remij]

These are your words:

"We've seen reports that we're 'not allowed' to show Elden Ring performance pre-launch. Not strictly true: we've been asked to show performance analysis in our content based on the day one patch to show the game as you'll play it, which is a reasonable ask and nothing new."

So it's not that you're "not allowed" it's that they paid enough for you to decide not to divulge these things, thus the weasel-words.

Why are you talking about other games in an attempt to muddy the water? Are you saying it's common practice for you to accept payment to gloss over real world performance? Normally I see you guys compare such things and let your readers know when the on-disc product is jank. It's why I trust your reviews and content.

Now you're trying to wriggle out of the uncomfortable fact that you will bow to pressure and not print true facts. If you are willing to bow to publisher pressure to avoid showing a shipping product in a bad light, as alleged journalists, then I can't trust your reviews.

I should not have to spell this out, but you're obfuscating the issue and trying to speak out of both sides of your mouth while accusing me of having some nefarious motive. And you know you are.

You need to chill the hell out. Agreeing to not post performance results until the day 1 patch is applied does NOT mean they were paid to withhold information...

They simply decided to wait until they had code that was 100% representative of what everyone would be playing come launch.

 

[BRiT]

DF Weekly Article @ https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-horizon-forbidden-west-and-dying-light-2-vrr

• 00:00:00 Introductions
• 00:00:55 Cyberpunk Patch 1.5 is out
• 00:17:07 Dying Light Xbox VRR Mode
• 00:20:07 DF Bonus Supporter Q: Hey guys, did you have any chance to look at the Dying Light 2 VRR mode for Xbox?
• 00:22:28 Nintendo announces the death of 3DS and Wii U storefronts
• 00:27:52 Chrono Cross Remaster filters can be disabled
• 00:30:14 Final Vendetta - Bitmap Bureau's new game
• 00:31:52 Elden Ring recommended specs are bizarre
• 00:37:11 DF Content Discussion: Horizon Forbidden West
• 00:41:31 DF Bonus Supporter Q: SkillUp's review for Horizon Forbidden West showed significantly more noticeable pop-in than Digital Foundry's. Any idea why that might be?
• 00:45:16 DF Bonus Supporter Q: Do you think there is enough headroom for a 40fps mode?
• 00:46:20 DF Bonus Supporter Q: Do you think AMD FSR would be the better choice for the performance mode of Horizon Forbidden West?
• 00:49:12 DF Bonus Supporter Q: What do you think about the fact that all Decima games we've seen so far only lightly utilise TAA?
• 00:50:30 DF Bonus Supporter Q: What graphical elements of Horizon Forbidden West could benefit from an eventual PC port?
• 00:56:49 DF Supporter Q1/2: Would it be possible to make a kind of generation comparison video?
• 01:01:00 DF Supporter Q3: Is there a setting on LG C1 that is suitable for 30fps games?
• 01:03:21 DF Supporter Q4: What are some great HDR implementations in games to really convince somebody that HDR is as amazing as some people say it is?
• 01:06:13 DF Supporter Q5: Who would you recommend to buy AMD GPUs assuming the cards are available at MSRP? Do you think AMD can catch up with Nvidia in RT/ML and does the coming XeSS help AMD?
• 01:12:42 DF Supporter Q6: Do you think we're going to start seeing larger and larger gaps between 30fps quality modes and 60fps performance modes? And do you expect some games to drop their performance modes all together?
• 01:15:08 DF Supporter Q7: What do you think is responsible for the lack of four- and even two-player split-screen multiplayer on modern consoles?
• 01:19:27 DF Supporter Q8: How do you decide which platform to buy a game on?

 

[PSman1700]

But don't pretend like you are unbiased

Why would Alex have a bias for elden rings unpatched performance? Any particular platform that had an advantage pre-patch?

Bias or liking one platform over another does exist (though never when apple is involved), but im not seeing who has to gain what in this case.

 

[see colon]

Those folks are not the reach of DF articles. Those without internet won't even be able to get to the DF site, so why should an internet site focus on users who won't even be able to view their content?

It would be possible to have a game console with no home internet but have a cell phone or connected device that you could watch Youtube videos on. That's a hypothetical situation that I've found myself in from time to time.

That's true. I'm just saying, there are some people that only play off disc and they won't be served by a video that doesn't explore the differences between off disc and day one patch. I don't think that it should be required to test both. Maybe just mention what you're testing and leave it at that. I'd guess most people are patching nowadays and the number of offline players would bee very low.

That has almost never been the scope of a Digital Foundry video, beyond the curiosities of running disc versions on PS5 or longer running video series like Assassin's Creed Unity or Cyberpunk 2077, where they test the newest patch vs previous iterations. I can see that there may be a market for that type of content, so if someone else wanted to make a Youtube channel detailing the difference between disc and day 1 versions of a game I would probably watch it for entertainments sake. However, it isn't DF responsibility to make an exception to their fairly consistent policy of testing the release versions of games as part of their standard coverage.

Anyone whos watched a fair amount of DF content knows that they don't go out of their way to make hit pieces. If an issue crops up during review, they reach out to the developer, or publisher and let them know. They've even said that they delayed a video in the past because a fix for an issue was incoming. This isn't some hidden agenda they have to hide the disc versions performance from unwitting consumers. These policies are about presenting as accurate information as possible about the versions of games you are actually going to play, and honestly, they are probably financially less favorable to DF than putting out click bait hit pieces, or delaying a video while other channels churn out content based on old code.

This isn't to say that they haven't done preview content. But that's different. Showing a game before it's available is one thing. Reviewing a game, in this case in regards to performance, requires the finished product to be a review. I would argue that the day 1 patch version is the actual release version of the game, not the code on the physical media. Some games (modern COD games for example) won't even run off the disc without an update.

You need to chill the hell out. Agreeing to not post performance results until the day 1 patch is applied does NOT mean they were paid to withhold information...

They simply decided to wait until they had code that was 100% representative of what everyone would be playing come launch.

And this has been a fairly consistent policy of theirs. It's not new. It's not special for Elden Ring. Even if the publisher in this case asked for them to wait. As I said above, they've publicly stated before that they've found issues and reported back to a developer or publisher, who fixed the issue in an update, and DF delayed the video to provide accurate information. This is a better policy for a performance analysis channel like DF than than the industry standard review policy of ignoring bugs and performance issues if a publisher or developer tells you it will be fixed in a day 1 patch.

Side notes on this topic from my perspective:

• Youtube videos, even those in this technical review style, are an art form. You can't demand an artist art in the way you want them to art. Otherwise it wouldn't be art. There is a difference between a wish/desire and a demand.
• If anyone thinks there is a reporting gap where no one is accurately reviewing on disc content vs day 1 patches, I would recommend watching the older DF videos that teach you how to pixel count and framerate count, and start your own channel to serve that market. All the tools are available to you to do so. I will even subscribe to your channel so you have at least 1 watch every video.