The devs are prioritizing X over S. In most cases the S performs above Pro. The S is a weird contraption. Even One X sometimes performs better. Series S has next gen feature sets that when supported have a performance cost in resolution or framerate.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
At the beginning of a generation devs focus on the easiest to pullout performance. With Series X being sold out and being toe to toe with PS5 on sales at the start of the generation, your assertion sounds possible but not proven as a universal fact. It is a possible assumption
It's a trash product that'll hand around the XSX's neck like Kinect did on the XB1.
Not really sure what you're getting at. There's nothing amazing about it... it's the same as it's always been. Both of these consoles are basic as hell. They both ended up in the an extremely same spot because there's almost no other technology for them to choose from. Both use the same vendor, both use mostly the same architecture.. 16GB of the same RAM. There's various tweaks here and there, some of which Sony made bets on, and it's paid off. And make no mistake... Sony makes those bets because they know their console has the edge when it comes to dev priority and APIs and tools. Sony also are in a position of strength when it comes to negotiating their contracts with suppliers.. and that factors into their design decisions as well.
It's pretty sad that the biggest differentiator between the consoles is the I/O capabilities.
I agree with this somewhat. the easiest way to pull performance is to copy what they’ve always done and carry last Gen technology over to next Gen. that’s how you get that instant boost in resolution and frame rate.
Eventually you need to start pushing graphical boundaries, and we can see between exclusives on PS5 and Xbox Series they are likely to approach this differently moving forward. For starters, on PS5 there is definitely a trend to go above 10GB of VRAM. And Xbox there will definitely be a trend to stay below 5-6GB of VRAM due to series S. (RT would push it closer to 6-7GB). And we see this with Starfield today, and I suspect we will see something similar with Forza.
I think that is going to be a large fundamental difference in optimization and I largely suspect most developers in the MP space have a much easier time fitting their game into PS5 and they likely base the game around having more space to work with, and optimize the game around that.
If we ignore GPU differences this VRAM limitation is already quite a difference. It makes for a situation where your technology choices (on Xbox) must reduce VRAM pressure, so the things like SFS will matter, and VRS, the IO, and only streaming what you need. With PS5 they have more space to take advantage of, and they don’t need to conserve as much VRAM and have the option to use it to improve graphics or just generally make things run smoother.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You say you don't know what I'm getting at but regurgitate my post in your response. So yeah, dude. That.
That is what naturally happens when a console become the clear market leader. There is no guarantee of that happening every generation. It wasn't the case in the Xbox 360 / PlayStation 3 era, where 360 launching more than. year ahead of PS3 in most territories gave it that advantage at the start of the generation.
As was confirmed during Microsoft's information release to the EU during the Activision acquisitions, we know that Xbox sell in about half the number of individual territories that PlayStation does and even in the territories that Microsoft do sell in, the marketing is often razor thin to non-existent.
Yea, I said I don't know what you're getting at.... because you're not making the case that it's "amazing" with your post... It's less amazing than it's ever been... and every "no shit sherlock" thing you stated has been true for every console generation.. hence why I said "there's nothing amazing about it" in the first place. So yea... I continue to not understand why you said it at all.
That's why I said it... and it's true for this generation coming from the last.
The discussion here needs DSoup and Remij to be particularly about what 'it' is when they say 'it' is/isn't amazing. 
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I was agreeing with Nesh's post.The discussion here needs DSoup and Remij to be particularly about what 'it' is when they say 'it' is/isn't amazing.
Remij is disagreeing with Nesh's post. But to be clear, I think the work to make consoles appealing and so enduring is absolutely amazing. Microsoft and Sony, begin working on their next consoles right after launching their last. They're working with IHVs to predict technology trends in something deliverable in 5-6 years time for a product that will be on the market for another 5-9 years.
I disagree with Remij's insinuation that technology choices are obvious, this is really only the case when you limit your product decision to launching at a specific time at a specific budget. Even then, you get the situation like PS4 vs Xbox One which prioritised different features and resulted in different hardware performance, and PS5 vs XSX whereas Sony went narrow/fast and Microsoft went wide/slow. Sony have done an amazing job in making tech choices for five generations of console in terms of their ability to shrink consoles and costs over time, something we're seen happen less on Microsoft's side.
How so, in hardware terms for seven generations consoles, hardware has been more different than it has similar. It's only 8th and 9th generation they two competing consoles have used the exact same CPU and GPU architecture, and available memory capacity.
- Making technology decisions which cannot be fundamentally changed for another 6-8 years
- A market where technology advances so quickly
- Existing in a market which is predicated on low cost and volume sales where can be caught out by unforeseen issues
- One vendor providing the CPU/GPU hardware
- Same memory type and capacity
- The need for future compatibility pushing them to stay on course and not deviate too much
- They have to consider developer feedback and reduce risk wherever possible
There's nothing amazing about it. Consoles have gone from very bespoke devices with proprietary technology... to all using the same basic shit with tweaks here and there and landing in a very similar performance profile.. and it's not a coincidence that they've settled where they have.. the market has been going in this direction and it's not ever going back to how it was before.
Time for some low cost path tracing again. This is CP2077 running at a locked 30 FPS on my RTX 2060 laptop. I'm using DLSS Performance at 1080p, some mix between medium and high settings as well as the performance path tracing mod on Nexusmods (I wish this would be part of the official game settings. In CP2077 this is ok as it can be modded, but I hope NV will add settings in future PT games).
Very pleased with the performance. (RR is off though because it looks very bad at low res)
For comparison, this is how it looks without PT:
Very pleased with the performance. (RR is off though because it looks very bad at low res)
For comparison, this is how it looks without PT:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Because that's the direction tech has been drifting for decades. There are less CPU architectures and less GPU architectures, in common use now than there were twenty years ago. Consoles are not immune to this, nor is the PC and nor are mobile devices. I don't know what you mean by "basic" ?
For Microsoft and Sony, yes. Nintendo obvious went ARM/Nvidia.
It feels like you're ignoring Microsoft's experience in writing hardware agnostic systems. Windows is literally that. Abstracting hardware differences, even completely different hardware, has become much easier. Switching from the x64 CPU or AMD GPU would certainly present challenges but I don't believe they're insurmountable challenges. Microsoft has a ton of experience on this why Windows, running 80x86/Nvidia games on PowerPC/AMD Xbox 360, and running PowerPC/AMD games on x64/AMD on Xbox One onwards.
You're looking at the end product, I'm looking at it from how far our these projects begin inception and have to hit a budget to deploy technology that often doesn't exist outside for a hopeful roadmap at the time a project begins. This is quite different to Intel, AMD and Nvidia making CPUs and GPUs and at the point of launch, saying "fuck it.. that costs $XXX". You can't do that with a console.
When are you going to start saying something that contradicts what I'm saying? Apparently we agree that the industry has consolidated.. and yet somehow you've come to the conclusion that it's amazing.. while I think it's not.
Basic means standard.
Congrats to Nintendo for doing something different. It doesn't change what I said at all.
Nah, I've stated in this very thread that MS' experience in hardware agnostic systems THE positive they have.. that's literally why I brought up Xbox being more flexible and how a potential future console could be a small form factor PC with Intel/Nvidia parts. I'd believe Microsoft would do it before Sony ever would.. if they could.
Again, it's ALWAYS been like that. So them doing it for the Nth time (now multiple times per generation), is nothing amazing or new. Hence my original point.
Releasing video games requires long lead times, thinking about the technology of the future which you may not even have, hitting a budget target from inception.... and yet nobody says every game is amazing for doing so.. and that's because it's been like that for decades...
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
As a game company you cannot afford to do that and you generally will not do that. Especially with how expensive it is to make AAA games right now. Any potential savings for easier extraction of performance will be more than wiped out by any bad sales on the platform with the larger install base.
As such, when you go into a new generation budgeting for a new game will look to see first which platform will likely have the largest install base. That will be the one you're most likely to get the most return on money. Then you look to see what other platforms might be profitable to port to.
For this generation that meant PS5 as the PS4 had about a 2:1 install base lead over the Xbox. Any head of development who seriously considered Xbox as the lead platform either had some incredibly large cohones or they are a PC first developer with an easier dev. environment to move to Xbox or they were just inept or MS was paying them to make Xbox the lead platform.
There is no financial reason to make Xbox the lead platform. And a very real potential for your title to make your company go bankrupt if you make Xbox the lead platform. As long as the PS5 version of your game runs as well as it can be made to run, you'll get most of your sales. If Xbox isn't polished or runs rough you lose a few sales but those are sales lost from a smaller install base anyway, so the impact is far less. If you instead have a badly optimized and rough PS5 version you stand to lose enough sales that your company may potentially go out of business.
In fact we saw that exact thing happen this generation in almost the worst way possible. Thankfully, it happened to a PC first company and sales of the PC version of their game was still enough to keep them afloat even though the fallout was so bad they had to ditch their in house engine for future titles and move to a 3rd party engine. That example? Cyberpunk 2077. If the PS version had been in the shape that the Xbox version was in they would not only have made a LOT more money but they likely would have been allowed to keep developing on their in house engine.
EA, UBIsoft, Square-Enix, SEGA (except their PC developers), Bandai Namco, ABK (pre acquisition), etc. all used the PS5 as the lead platform without fail. The only developers you'll find that might have done more work on Xbox than PlayStation would be the ones that still treat the PC as the lead platform (CDPR is the only AAA immediately coming to mind that is still PC first). 4A Games (Metro) and GSC Game World (Stalker) might still be PC first as well, although I'm not sure I'd classify GSC Game World as AAA. Hell, with the war in Ukraine if either were AAA before, they likely aren't AAA anymore.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Riddlewire
Regular
I was just going to say, Sony not only exacerbated that situation (Cyberpunk) when they removed the game from the store, they effectively fired a warning shot in the direction of all AAA developers. As in, "You had better make sure your game runs as well as it can on Playstation platforms, or you won't be selling it to our large user base."
The following patches brought the PS4/Pro versions up to a reasonably solid 30fps, even if the graphical fidelity remained poor. Neither 8th gen Xbox version ever got the same attention after that. They both still struggle to maintain 30fps, with base Xbox One still dropping below 20fps at times.
In this generation, the XSX and PS5 versions of multiplatform games perform quite similarly. I am convinced that the majority of average users do not know or see any difference between the two platforms in terms of graphics. Knowing this and looking at the current discussion above, I came to an interesting consensus.
1. PS5 has no appreciable advantage in SSD I/O performance.
2. If the leading platform always determines the energy and money invested in the development of multiplatform games, then it follows that since they now perform similarly, better versions could be made for Xbox Series X than for PS5 if Xbox were the leader brand.
1. PS5 has no appreciable advantage in SSD I/O performance.
2. If the leading platform always determines the energy and money invested in the development of multiplatform games, then it follows that since they now perform similarly, better versions could be made for Xbox Series X than for PS5 if Xbox were the leader brand.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's not that simple either. While it's the case that the PS5 will be the lead platform the vast majority of the time that doesn't necessarily inform us of how much effort was put into the otherplatforms (PC, Xbox or even NSW).
It could be equal, almost equal, or significantly off. Some titles it's obvious that far less effort was put into optimizing and polishing the Xbox and/or PC version. Some titles the Xbox and/or PC version is nearly as polished and optimized as the PS5 version.
So, you can't necessarily just say that because the PS5 is performing better that it is because it had significantly more resources dedicated to it. It could be just differences in hardware (the ROP advantage for the PS5 is pretty hefty) or it could be development time and effort, we just don't know. We can, however, generalize that if the XBS consoles are running better that it's likely due to hardware differences (it does have a fairly significant compute advantage) as few if any developers are going to prioritize the Xbox consoles.
Different workloads will favor one machine or the other to greater or lesser degrees.
Thus some titles might swap positions if the Xbox had a 2:1 market lead over PlayStation and was thus the lead platform, but some might not due to hardware differences.
Regards,
SB
Not really. Sony allow any old 'crap' on their store now. Cyberpunk was just too low standard and generated too much of a stink. You can still be bad performance so long as it's not social-media-outcry level bad and Sony won't resist you. I've bought clearly unfinished games from PSN and then had to fight tooth-and-nail to get a refund.
I 100% believe Cyberpunk getting pulled from PSN was a pollical choice more than anything. I think that if CDPR hadn't stated that if you weren't happy, ask for a refund, the game wouldn't have been pulled. I also believe that if there was a Playstation marketing agreement, like what Cyberpunk had with Xbox, it wouldn't have been pulled even if those statements were made. IIRC Fallout 4's Far Harbor DLC launched in a pretty rough state on PS4, and ram mostly between 15-20FPS with the normal levels of Bethesda bugs. Homefront: The Revolution also launched in a rough state, with some crashes and performance below 20fps in many places. There was never a threat of pulling these games, nor any game before or after Cyberpunk for performance or bugs.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yeah, it was always amusing to think that Life of Black Tiger was promoted on the official Sony YouTube channel and never taken down, but CP2077 was. Obviously, due to the size and number of people seeking refunds but certainly indicates that Sony are quite happy to continue to sell crappy virtually unplayable games as long as people don't start asking them for refunds.
Regards,
SB
- Status
Similar threads
