Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

[GhostofWar]

PC users should get used to AAA games skipping their platform of choice all because they selfishly desired the industry to splinter off into their own bubbles ...

This is rubbish, I would have had to believe this point of view previously because we had no other data to prove it wrong but we do now. Kotiks testimony during the testimony in the ftc case said pc is the biggest platform for cod, it was like 24% pc, 16% ps and 8% xbox (rest mobile), and cod hasn't been considered big on pc for a very long time.

I would guess based on that, that other games like elden ring are also in a pretty good spot sales wise on pc. Unfortunately for people who keep dismissing the pc market, it's probably not as skippable from a revenue perspective as people like to think.

 

[Dictator]

Jakub commented that he presented the first iteration of path tracing to some directors at the company and the response was "no way" due to the poor rendering of character faces.

30:10 in the video.

I think he means "No way" as in "they could not believe it."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/no-way

 

[Below2D]

I get you're not big on specifics, but try it sometime.



It's a question of what is a reasonable expectation. I think it's certainly possible (perhaps even desirable) across different GPU's with different architectures, for games to have varying performance across GPU's in the same class, obviously if they were identical then you would flip a coin to device your next purchase. It's the degree of this difference which is the outlier now though, with the rendering load being equal. Being an 'outlier' doesn't imply fraudulent/artificial mind you, at least not in my eyes - there could very well be some significant architectural advantages of RDNA that just haven't been utilized that well due to market conditions without AMD's assistance, sure.

However, it is also perfectly reasonable for gamers to see this particular level of performance discrepancy, after years of comparable data points between these GPU families, and wonder 'uh...wtf?!'. If we had more examples of this kind of chasm, then sure - you could say "Eh, different architectures, deal with it duh" - but we just don't. If so, please point me towards those games?

For example, when it was released, AMD had a clear edge in AC: Valhalla. I routinely saw people wonder what was up that title on Nvidia GPU's, and some Nvidia fanboys complained when it was included in benchmarks as it would 'unfairly' skew results to Radeon (which was silly, it was the latest release in a huge franchise). Eventually, driver updates from Nvidia negated much of that earlier lead. This 'large' AMD advantage at launch though? Well:

View attachment 9643



View attachment 9642

The 6800XT had a 15% advantage at 1440p over the 3080, and was all but identical at 4k. That was what defined an "AMD optimized" title in years past. 30-40%? This is decidedly new territory in rasterized titles, it's understandable for people to see that and be surprised.

And there was no outrage here, nor is there outrage for COD games running better (actually, much better) on AMD hardware. We simply chalk it up to architectural differences and conclude that these games prefer AMD hardware. If this double standard truly existed, there would have been torches and pitchforks out, especially given the fact that AC and COD aren't exactly small niche titles.

AMD GPUs trouncing NVIDIA ones by up to 40% in Starfield is puzzling. @Dictator also showed this wasn't the only problem. I also believe the frame times on NVIDIA cards are horrendous with some settings so it isn't just raw fps we're talking about. Then DLSS being MIA when a modder took like 2 hours to add it along with the suspiciously low power usage. I don't think those reactions are unreasonable at all.

If this game is somehow leveraging AMD hardware the best possible way there is, I think we'd all like to know why. Hell, if AMD hardware can consistently beat NVIDIA parts by that much, I'd like to see them being exploited to their full potential more often instead of leaving so much performance on the table. If it's simply an outlier, what makes it so?

 

[trinibwoy]

Am I happy they UE5 and Starfield don’t require these things? Yes! It may perform like shit on a 4090 respectively to what you’re used to, but I can play this game at fairly decent performance with lowered settings.

That really frames the discussion because when I see people upset about the majority being catered to, I only see the 40XX cards being mentioned.

Yeah people’s reaction will be based on their own situation. For me it’s always better when games are released with advanced rendering options because by the time I play them it’ll be 2-3 hardware generations in the future.

I get the emotional/pride tax of not being able to enable all the bells and whistles in a game but the beauty of the PC platform is that it’s scalable and immensely backwards compatible and you can still play a 15 year old game if you wanted to. We’re missing a beat if we’re advocating for PC games to be “maxed out” on settings and features equivalent to contemporary consoles. Might as well just game on a console at that point.

 

[iroboto]

If this game is somehow leveraging AMD hardware the best possible way there is,

I suspect a big part of it is that Starfield had Xbox Advanced Technology Group on it for a very long time. You’re seeing the effect of a game heavily optimized for Xbox series S and X and that carrying over to PC.

And as Xbox tries their best to right their ship and put out high performing series S titles (leaked info shows that 75% are series S not X sold) then it’s understandable that they leave no stone unturned, and maximize the limit of these consoles - because it’s clear no one else is interested in doing it given their market share.

 

[iroboto]

Yeah people’s reaction will be based on their own situation. For me it’s always better when games are released with advanced rendering options because by the time I play them it’ll be 2-3 hardware generations in the future.

I get the emotional/pride tax of not being able to enable all the bells and whistles in a game but the beauty of the PC platform is that it’s scalable and immensely backwards compatible and you can still play a 15 year old game if you wanted to. We’re missing a beat if we’re advocating for PC games to be “maxed out” on settings and features equivalent to contemporary consoles. Might as well just game on a console at that point.

It’s the difference between entitlement and reality I would say. I would always love to see the latest and greatest too, I just don’t demand developers cater to me. They didn’t force me to pay for a $2500+ video card.

It’s just simply unaffordable to keep up with top of the line hardware anymore.

When the 50xx series comes out there’s going to be new ray tracing, new dlss, and some other new AI items that’s not going to work on the older models. It’s nearly a guarantee. It’s a tough pillow to swallow if you want the latest and greatest from nvidia.

And so like you I appreciate games a little later. I’m still waiting to start cyberpunk for instance. But if I switch to mobile gaming then things change. Though I’m likely to stay with PC just dumped $1500 on alien ware oled monitor

 

[trinibwoy]

It’s the difference between entitlement and reality I would say. I would always love to see the latest and greatest too, I just don’t demand developers cater to me. They didn’t force me to pay for a $2500+ video card.

It’s just simply unaffordable to keep up with top of the line hardware anymore.

When the 50xx series comes out there’s going to be new ray tracing, new dlss, and some other new AI items that’s not going to work on the older models. It’s nearly a guarantee. It’s a tough pillow to swallow if you want the latest and greatest from nvidia.

And so like you I appreciate games a little later. I’m still waiting to start cyberpunk for instance. But if I switch to mobile gaming then things change. Though I’m likely to stay with PC just dumped $1500 on alien ware oled monitor

Yeah developers aren’t obligated to put anything into their games that they don’t want to. Only power we have as gamers is deciding how to spend our time and money.

 

[Lurkmass]

Nobody cares, PC market is thriving now more than ever, and both console makers have a deep interest in porting their games to PCs. The situation won't change much. Of course this will break backward compatibility which is something you always bring to the discussion, but hey, if you don't care about it anymore, I won't.

The situation WILL change if the conditions change. Are you seriously somehow naive to believe that at least 1 console vendor won't try to carve out industry if they can't take advantage of being able to share their infrastructure with PC anymore ?

And? If pubs will drop PC so easily..because let's be real, that's what you're saying.. then it's clear that PC never had this amazing power to dictate what developers were ever going to do on any grand scale to begin with and thus why even have this conversation? If Nvidia is such a big bully trying to insert their horribly limiting proprietary tech into the gaming world then why don't Sony just build that exotic dream machine and take control of the industry?

I'd love to watch them try. PS2 was sailing sky high, and PS3 quickly brought Sony back down to earth... Go ahead and get cocky again. I'll enjoy the show.

Now that I've read your post I'm beginning to understand why Microsoft are nearly always behind their competitors ...

Considering how often they keep focusing on the technical aspects of their gaming business segment instead of nurturing their design aspects, Microsoft slapping an inferior version of their OS on some generic box while telling their most loyal customers to repurchase all of their games should vaporize any trust that the public held left for them when they've been a letdown for 3 times in a row. Associating themselves with a crowd like Nvidia who is only interested in making more tech demos isn't really going to help their case further ...

Sony's attempts at carving up the industry has undeniably been more successful (2/3) than Microsoft's entire console gaming history (1?/4) which is a more credible strategy than what you're perpetuating with a scorched earth approach ...

This is rubbish, I would have had to believe this point of view previously because we had no other data to prove it wrong but we do now. Kotiks testimony during the testimony in the ftc case said pc is the biggest platform for cod, it was like 24% pc, 16% ps and 8% xbox (rest mobile), and cod hasn't been considered big on pc for a very long time.

I would guess based on that, that other games like elden ring are also in a pretty good spot sales wise on pc. Unfortunately for people who keep dismissing the pc market, it's probably not as skippable from a revenue perspective as people like to think.

Good for Activision in being able to get near parity in revenue between PC and consoles but that's not the case with other publishers like Ubisoft are making twice as much on consoles and I imagine it plays out similarly for Japanese publishers too. You also have publishers like EA Sports frequently releasing console exclusives titles ...

Frankly the size of PC market becomes irrelevant when consoles are in their own bubble as evidenced by their different hardware design with money to be made over there. Developers are going to have to either decide between funding 3 multiplatform AAA games or 4 AAA games that are mutually exclusive between PC or consoles. If they do decide to do fewer releases, other developers will simply release games in their stead to capitalize on that weakness. PC gamers don't understand just how good they've had it when it comes to multiplatform releases ever since last generation where consoles adopted standardized hardware. All of that goes out the window regardless since developers will have to prioritize specific platforms as it happened before them so eventually there will be instances where both will draw the short end of the stick ...

 

[DavidGraham]

Ubisoft are making twice as much on consoles

No, PC sales for Ubisoft is better than Xbox.

Ubisoft reports record first quarter, PC sales surpass Xbox One

Strong 'back catalog' sales of games like Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor helped deliver Ubi's best first fiscal quarter yet.

www.pcgamer.com

I imagine it plays out similarly for Japanese publishers too

Again no , Capcom for example made half their sales on PC.

Just as it predicted last year, half of Capcom's sales are now on PC

The Japanese publisher said in late 2021 that it wanted PC to be its primary platform, and now it is.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Lurkmass]

No, PC sales for Ubisoft is better than Xbox.

That's on Xbox but the fact that PC is barely able to outpace Xbox while being a anywhere between >3-4x bigger market is not a good sign ...

Again no , Capcom for example made half their sales on PC.

Only during that quarter specifically. If RE4 remake in the UK is any recent indication, PC is still getting demolished badly by consoles ...

 

[DavidGraham]

Only during that quarter specifically. If RE4 remake in the UK is any recent indication, PC is still getting demolished badly by consoles ...

You are moving goalposts and handwaiving hard numbers, UK charts is for physical, most PC sales are digital. A significant proportion of Capcom sales is from PC now, you won't see them on any chart.

Fact is all Japanese publishers are focusing on PC, and porting their games to PC. Sega announced an aggressive expansion to PC after they made very good sales there.

Sega will "aggressively" focus on PC ports after Steam strength during lockdown

Sega will start "aggressively" porting games from its back catalogue to Steam, due to the strength of digital PC sales …

www.gamesindustry.biz

That's on Xbox but the fact that PC is barely able to outpace Xbox while being a anywhere between >3-4x bigger market is not a good sign ...

It's a good sign that PC is an important platform, and it contradicts your anectodal statement in the previous posts.

 

[Remij]

The situation WILL change if the conditions change. Are you seriously somehow naive to believe that at least 1 console vendor won't try to carve out industry if they can't take advantage of being able to share their infrastructure with PC anymore ?

Now that I've read your post I'm beginning to understand why Microsoft are nearly always behind their competitors ...

Considering how often they keep focusing on the technical aspects of their gaming business segment instead of nurturing their design aspects, Microsoft slapping an inferior version of their OS on some generic box while telling their most loyal customers to repurchase all of their games should vaporize any trust that the public held left for them when they've been a letdown for 3 times in a row. Associating themselves with a crowd like Nvidia who is only interested in making more tech demos isn't really going to help their case further ...

Sony's attempts at carving up the industry has undeniably been more successful (2/3) than Microsoft's entire console gaming history (1?/4) which is a more credible strategy than what you're perpetuating with a scorched earth approach ...

Good for Activision in being able to get near parity in revenue between PC and consoles but that's not the case with other publishers like Ubisoft are making twice as much on consoles and I imagine it plays out similarly for Japanese publishers too. You also have publishers like EA Sports frequently releasing console exclusives titles ...

Frankly the size of PC market becomes irrelevant when consoles are in their own bubble as evidenced by their different hardware design with money to be made over there. Developers are going to have to either decide between funding 3 multiplatform AAA games or 4 AAA games that are mutually exclusive between PC or consoles. If they do decide to do fewer releases, other developers will simply release games in their stead to capitalize on that weakness. PC gamers don't understand just how good they've had it when it comes to multiplatform releases ever since last generation where consoles adopted standardized hardware. All of that goes out the window regardless since developers will have to prioritize specific platforms as it happened before them so eventually there will be instances where both will draw the short end of the stick ...

You speak like as if what Microsoft has been doing since the beginning has netted them any success thus far... They've got absolutely nothing to lose at this point. It's clear that their strategy is moving from the console, to services. Nobody is being told to repurchase all their games. They're perfectly able to retain their current consoles and play those games, and they've already trained a large aspect of that fanbase to adopt GamePass which goes with them on whichever supported platform they choose anyway. Nintendo has associated themselves with Nvidia and seem to be doing alright... I think those tech demos are going to make the Switch 2 pretty sweet.

Maybe you don't like the idea of MS, Nintendo, and PC being Nvidia focused and aligned and Sony being the odd one out?

Sony got cocky and it nearly cost them with the PS3. Where ironically they were Nvidia based and their competitors were AMD (ATI based). Do they want to go down that road again? If PC is second fiddle and irrelevant, then Sony's already in prime position to do it.. so why aren't they? I'm tired of the idea that we PC gamers should be so grateful to Sony and MS for designing their hardware around standardized hardware... The entire idea of Xbox was a "PC in the living room".. things always come full circle. Consoles adopted PC standardized hardware.. because they needed to, not because consumers wanted them to... Consoles were far more interesting when they were unique... and PC was far more interesting when developers made stuff unique to it as well. I'm tired of PC being "so insignificant" that the threat of consoles changing hardware would mean all AAA support for PC will drop and fade away. If that's what would happen then... just do it. Goodbye, good riddance... that will not be held over my head.

Edit: Yes, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, sorry.

 

[GhostofWar]

edit. wrong thread for this probably so tapping out.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No, PC sales for Ubisoft is better than Xbox.

Ubisoft reports record first quarter, PC sales surpass Xbox One

Strong 'back catalog' sales of games like Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor helped deliver Ubi's best first fiscal quarter yet.

www.pcgamer.com

Again no , Capcom for example made half their sales on PC.

Just as it predicted last year, half of Capcom's sales are now on PC

The Japanese publisher said in late 2021 that it wanted PC to be its primary platform, and now it is.

www.pcgamer.com

Yeesh, it's easy enough to look at FY financials for most companies.

UBIsoft: 2022-2023 percentage of revenue.

• Consoles - 40%
• PC - 18%
• Mobile - 31%
• Others - 11%

So, sure PC might be higher than Xbox but is definitely lower than PS5 and Lurkmass is correct that consoles are greater than 2x PC for UBIsoft.

Just for giggles, for Activision of COD fame for the last FY report in terms of revenue:

• Console: 1.661 billion USD
• PC: 456 million USD

Blizzard, however does much better on PC, likely due to World of Warcraft which isn't on console.

• Console: 92 million USD
• PC: 1.203 billion USD

That's also pre-D4, so consoles are likely closer to PC for Blizzard after the D4 release.

Regards,
SB

 

[Remij]

Yeesh, it's easy enough to look at FY financials for most companies.

UBIsoft: 2022-2023 percentage of revenue.

• Consoles - 40%
• PC - 18%
• Mobile - 31%
• Others - 11%

So, sure PC is higher than Xbox but lower than PS5 and Lurkmass is correct that consoles are greater than 2x PC for UBIsoft.

Just for giggles, for Activision of COD fame for the last FY report in terms of revenue:

• Console: Activision 1.661 billion USD
• PC: 456 million USD

Blizzard, however does much better on PC, likely due to World of Warcraft which isn't on console.

• Console: 92 million USD
• PC: 1.203 billion USD

That's also pre-D4, so consoles are likely closer to PC for Blizzard after the D4 release.

Regards,
SB

So break the console down by platform... If the idea is that Sony themselves are going to go exotic and create a platform which is so unique that developers will drop all others and focus solely on it.. then it's not a "console vs PC" issue.. it's a "Sony vs everyone else" issue. How much of that 40% revenue is from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo?

Let's say maybe:
PS5 - 25%
PC - 18%
Xbox - 10%
Switch - 5%
Mobile - 31%
Others - 11%

Do we suddenly understand why dropping PC is out of the question?

 

[Lurkmass]

You are moving goalposts and handwaiving hard numbers, UK charts is for physical, most PC sales are digital. A significant proportion of Capcom sales is from PC now, you won't see them on any chart.

Fact is all Japanese publishers are focusing on PC, and porting their games to PC. Sega announced an aggressive expansion to PC after they made very good sales there.

It's a good sign that PC is an important platform, and it contradicts your anectodal statement in the previous posts.

No, the data also digital factors in digital sales. Why else were they able to register units for the PC platform if that were the case ?

The last sentence is purely strawman on your part, I never claimed that PC wasn't an important platform ...

You speak like as if what Microsoft has been doing since the beginning has netted them any success thus far... They've got absolutely nothing to lose at this point. It's clear that their strategy is moving from the console, to services. Nobody is being told to repurchase all their games. They're perfectly able to retain their current consoles and play those games, and they've already trained a large aspect of that fanbase to adopt GamePass which goes with them on whichever supported platform they choose anyway. Nintendo has associated themselves with Nvidia and seem to be doing alright... I think those tech demos are going to make the Switch 2 pretty sweet.

It definitely could be much worse for them. Reviving UWP in some box except this time they'd have to give 2 suppliers who's not going to be on good terms with each other for much longer their "fair share of the cut". None of the traditional advantages of a console (low cost & low level APIs) with a user experience like PC (compilation stutters/DRM/regressions/etc) ...

Consumers are just going to see Microsoft as another OEM (and not a good one at that) since all they're offering is a PC with less functionality dressed up as a console ...

Sony got cocky and it nearly cost them with the PS3. Where ironically they were Nvidia based and their competitors were AMD (ATI based). Do they want to go down that road again? If PC is second fiddle and irrelevant, then Sony's already in prime position to do it.. so why aren't they? I'm tired of the idea that we PC gamers should be so grateful to Sony and MS for designing their hardware around standardized hardware... The entire idea of Xbox was a "PC in the living room".. things always come full circle. Consoles adopted PC standardized hardware.. because they needed to, not because consumers wanted them to... Consoles were far more interesting when they were unique... and PC was far more interesting when developers made stuff unique to it as well. I'm tired of PC being "so insignificant" that the threat of consoles changing hardware would mean all AAA support for PC will drop and fade away. If that's what would happen then... just do it. Goodbye, good riddance... that will not be held over my head.

If Microsoft's plan is to force Sony into a total reset (no BC/compatible tools) then that's not going to work out as they think since basic game theory dictates that sticking with AMD will allow Sony to retain most of their prior advantages. Sony isn't as afraid as you think they are of doing something different from everyone else when they've done exactly that more often than not. It's not like Sony has much of choice but to carve up the industry once more which has a very real chance of happening if Microsoft is going to deny them transferrable development resources from PC ...

PC gamers should be grateful that console exclusivity has been the exception rather than the rule otherwise they would have far more titles like Red Dead Redemption which are still stuck on consoles. So I assume you've made your peace with a fractured industry based on your last few statements then ?

 

[techuse]

I would say the lack of care put into the majority of PC versions is evidence enough that it is not a primary money maker. If it was, publishers would give the studios more resources to create better versions.

 

[Lurkmass]

So break the console down by platform... If the idea is that Sony themselves are going to go exotic and create a platform which is so unique that developers will drop all others and focus solely on it.. then it's not a "console vs PC" issue.. it's a "Sony vs everyone else" issue. How much of that 40% revenue is from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo?

Let's say maybe:
PS5 - 25%
PC - 18%
Xbox - 10%
Switch - 5%
Mobile - 31%
Others - 11%

Do we suddenly understand why dropping PC is out of the question?

No, the Switch belongs in the "others" section I think ...

 

[techuse]

Was the disparity ever that large in UE4 titles?

I get you're not big on specifics, but try it sometime.

Yes. I honestly didn’t think I would need to cite specific games because it was so prevalent for almost the entirety of the prior console generation. Only towards the very end did AMD GPUs stop performing 1-3 tiers down relative to Nvidia.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Yes. I honestly didn’t think I would need to cite specific games because it was so prevalent for almost the entirety of the prior console generation. Only towards the very end did AMD GPUs stop performing 1-3 tiers down relative to Nvidia.

If it was so prevalent, it should be very easy to find a single source. Also 1-3 tiers is ridiculous. Like what, a 1060 was beating a 6800?!