Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

[Remij]

The reality is that all platforms are not identical and therefore what is actually "fair" or at least preferable for the various stakeholders (including the players) is very different. Ensuring actual equal outcomes really means delaying the game for the platforms that are ahead in development and/or pulling resources away from it.

Let's look at just an abstract scenario with 2 platforms.

Platform A is twice as easy to develop for and you know will have twice as many purchases/users as Platform B. What exactly is the preferable resource allocation and priority here? Why should the majority customers essentially "sacrifice" for the minority?

If platform A is twice as easy to develop for then you move resources to platform B to accelerate development there.

Customers aren't sacrificing anything.. Why should the "lesser" customers have to deal with spoilers potentially ruining the game for them for a year before they get to play?

Look I know things aren't fair.. but if they want to reach a wider audience and build an audience on other platforms.. you generally don't do that by screwing those people over.

 

[Karamazov]

So they also should not enhance PC versions so no one feels lessened with a "weaker" version ^^

 

[davis.anthony]

I'm not seeing the issue then if games release in a poor state as you describe and then need to fixed. Those like yourself who choose to wait can choose to wait. Those that want to dive right in also have the choice of doing so. However delaying the game and/or features as whole removes that choice away from the latter group.

In other words, let developers release whatever shit they like and don't hold them accountable for releasing said shit and asking money for it.

How low are your standards and expectations.

 

[davis.anthony]

So they also should not enhance PC versions so no one feels lessened with a "weaker" version ^^

Why even bother with PS5 and XSX? Just make games on PS4 and One X as they're established machines and developers have years of experience with them and sod the 'next gen' machines

 

[pjbliverpool]

unless developers explain why the game perfroms bad and that the problem is unsolvable or not of their fault. Like api issues or architectural issues for instance io stutters on pc architecture,

I think thousands of perfectly running PC games demonstrate this isn't a valid excuse. The developer should ensure the game is tailored to the specifics of the system and API that it's being released on, and provided the user meets the recommended specs, the game should run properly on their PC. there's nothing inherent about PC API's or architecture that makes poor performance or stutters unavoidable. Even shader complication stutter can be avoided or mitigated to a point of not having a significant impact.

I'm not seeing the issue then if games release in a poor state as you describe and then need to fixed. Those like yourself who choose to wait can choose to wait. Those that want to dive right in also have the choice of doing so. However delaying the game and/or features as whole removes that choice away from the latter group.

I think there's a difference between a game being released in a state that essentially matches, but does not go beyond the console version in graphics and performance, perhaps with a handful of minor bugs/stutters that are fixed post launch, and a game being released in a completely broken state like Calisto Protocol or Sackboy on PC.

In the case of the former I agree with you. Even if the game has no unique PC features I think I'd rather see it released day and date and upgraded later (provided it IS upgraded later) than see it delayed until those extra features are added - Atomic Heart is kind of an example of this, although it actually does have console+ features already, but not the promised killer RT features.

But in the case of the latter I really think they should have just delayed the game until the serious issues were fixed. That's not just because it would be my personal preference and to be damned with people that think differently, but rather for the overall health of the PC platform - which is relevant to people who don't care about day 1 game breaking bugs as well.

There seems to be a perception of the PC developing recently of a platform that basically only has broken games where no amount of money can give you a good experience (with a hand full of notable exceptions). And I think launches like Calisto, Sack Boy and Wild Hearts contribute greatly to that perception. The fact that these issues are generally solved, or mitigated to the point of no longer being that important within days or weeks of the games release doesn't tend to enter the wider consciousness. And that can be seriously damaging to the long term future of PC gaming.

 

[msaki]

I think thousands of perfectly running PC games demonstrate this isn't a valid excuse. The developer should ensure the game is tailored to the specifics of the system and API that it's being released on, and provided the user meets the recommended specs, the game should run properly on their PC. there's nothing inherent about PC API's or architecture that makes poor performance or stutters unavoidable. Even shader complication stutter can be avoided or mitigated to a point of not having a significant impact.



I think there's a difference between a game being released in a state that essentially matches, but does not go beyond the console version in graphics and performance, perhaps with a handful of minor bugs/stutters that are fixed post launch, and a game being released in a completely broken state like Calisto Protocol or Sackboy on PC.

In the case of the former I agree with you. Even if the game has no unique PC features I think I'd rather see it released day and date and upgraded later (provided it IS upgraded later) than see it delayed until those extra features are added - Atomic Heart is kind of an example of this, although it actually does have console+ features already, but not the promised killer RT features.

But in the case of the latter I really think they should have just delayed the game until the serious issues were fixed. That's not just because it would be my personal preference and to be damned with people that think differently, but rather for the overall health of the PC platform - which is relevant to people who don't care about day 1 game breaking bugs as well.

There seems to be a perception of the PC developing recently of a platform that basically only has broken games where no amount of money can give you a good experience (with a hand full of notable exceptions). And I think launches like Calisto, Sack Boy and Wild Hearts contribute greatly to that perception. The fact that these issues are generally solved, or mitigated to the point of no longer being that important within days or weeks of the games release doesn't tend to enter the wider consciousness. And that can be seriously damaging to the long term future of PC gaming.

thats false since for years weve heard developers complain about dx12. weve just heard recently since the ps5 reveal that the pc memory architecture will be a problem to cope with from different developers, weve seen stutters on ps5 ports returnal, forspoken, even spider man has texture streaming and decompression issues on pc that still exist even after patches, and recently here andrew lauritzen explained how dx 12 has issues and optimizing for diverse pc configurations out there is a problem and it isnt always developers fault because they are trying as hard as they can. callisto protocol has since been patched but hasnt solved most of the problems do u really think its intentional or something is just unsolvable?

 

[arandomguy]

Ugh.. This is exactly what is wrong with modern gaming.

It's completely baffling to me how you'd accept that... instead of asking studios to do better.

Have you considered the differing viewpoints and priorities of others?

I feel like it's pretty self evident that access to content ASAP is quite in demand and preferable by a lot of users and has been. Plenty have people have historically wanted to pay to be able to get early access to content even in the form of alpha/beta tests, and it's being heavily monetized now in the form of "early access."

In terms of what I'd accept, well I have the choice of not buying a game that's been released if I do not like it in it's current state, something that I exercise quite often especially given the fast rate of price drops. The key here being I have personal agency in being able to choose, that doesn't exist the other way around.

If platform A is twice as easy to develop for then you move resources to platform B to accelerate development there.

Customers aren't sacrificing anything.. Why should the "lesser" customers have to deal with spoilers potentially ruining the game for them for a year before they get to play?

Look I know things aren't fair.. but if they want to reach a wider audience and build an audience on other platforms.. you generally don't do that by screwing those people over.

I'm going to guess this is going to be a viewpoint in which there is going to be insurmountable divide here which occurs beyond this debate but I'm just going to respond more so with my perspective.

My opinion is that resource allocation is based on a fixed pie or at least largely. In essence you're proposal is saying each customer for Platform B gets allocate x4 the resources per capita of Platform A. Whether or not that is fair I feel is highly debatable and an point of off debate even in other issues. And yes the it does effect the experience of Platform A users, for instance resources put into improving Platform B could also be used for general improvements/content that would benefit Platform A.

Why should Platform A customers care about the experience of Platform B customers? Even more so in this age in which single platform users tend to be highly tribal in their viewpoints? Those with more than one platform can also just choose which one they feel is the better experience.

Yes you're right things aren't fair, it's a trade off, and are we really going to assume that they aren't already weighing the pros/cons of what group to cater to? Does the developer think they will get more sales by catering to the minority or the majority? You can say the same thing about not wanting to "screw over" the majority of your customers either.

 

[pjbliverpool]

thats false since for years weve heard developers complain about dx12. weve just heard recently since the ps5 reveal that the pc memory architecture will be a problem to cope with from different developers, weve seen stutters on ps5 ports returnal, forspoken, even spider man has texture streaming and decompression issues on pc that still exist even after patches, and recently here andrew lauritzen explained how dx 12 has issues and optimizing for diverse pc configurations out there is a problem and it isnt always developers fault because they are trying as hard as they can. callisto protocol has since been patched but hasnt solved most of the problems do u really think its intentional or something is just unsolvable?

No, various PC configurations and the split memory architecure can make development more difficult than consoles. It can mean more time has to be spent to optimise for the PC version which in turn means stutters and poor performance can be more likely. It is not a API or architecture limitation that makes poor performance or serious stuttering unavoidable (personally I don't consider an occassional and brief one off shader comp stutter a serious issue).

If it were, then what is your explanation for all those games that do not suffer from poor performance or stuttering? The fact that some games exist with performance or stuttering issues (many of which that have been fixed post launch) in no way represents proof that the problem is unavoidable, especially given that we already have proof that it is absolutely avoidable.

And please drop that tired streaming/decompression issues in Spiderman argument. It's a bug. What possible fundamental API or architectural issue could exist that would result in 24GB GPU's being unable to load the highest texture mips not just after a delay, but in some cases at all?

 

[arandomguy]

But in the case of the latter I really think they should have just delayed the game until the serious issues were fixed. That's not just because it would be my personal preference and to be damned with people that think differently, but rather for the overall health of the PC platform - which is relevant to people who don't care about day 1 game breaking bugs as well.

There seems to be a perception of the PC developing recently of a platform that basically only has broken games where no amount of money can give you a good experience (with a hand full of notable exceptions). And I think launches like Calisto, Sack Boy and Wild Hearts contribute greatly to that perception. The fact that these issues are generally solved, or mitigated to the point of no longer being that important within days or weeks of the games release doesn't tend to enter the wider consciousness. And that can be seriously damaging to the long term future of PC gaming.

The issue here is that there isn't a binary criteria of what state actually constitutes as "broken" and I'm guessing if you polled the users responding the criteria for that would be rather divided including what games as examples actually qualify.

This why I still feel the best scenario is actually giving the individual agency to choose for themselves. Access to the information is greater than ever and we even have an easy to use refund option being the norm these days.

We can also look at delaying content that might not be ready using Atomic Heart's RT as a hypothetical. Let's say if it's in state that only some users can use it, maybe only those with a RTX 4090 will find it playable (who knows), my feeling would still be choice issue and up to the individual.

I just don't agree with the general premise of self appointed gate keepers for everyone else when that isn't needed.

 

[arandomguy]

In other words, let developers release whatever shit they like and don't hold them accountable for releasing said shit and asking money for it.

How low are your standards and expectations.

Are you willing to acknowledge that "acceptable standards" can vary for everyone and that you're "acceptable standards" may not apply to everyone?

Are you also willing to acknowledge that technical proficiency/performance (for lack of a better term) may also not be of the same priority for everyone? Circling back to an earlier comment you made, maybe some people find quality in vast complex worlds as opposed to high frame rates?

If not we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The issue here is that there isn't a binary criteria of what state actually constitutes as "broken" and I'm guessing if you polled the users responding the criteria for that would be rather divided including what games as examples actually qualify.

This why I still feel the best scenario is actually giving the individual agency to choose for themselves. Access to the information is greater than ever and we even have an easy to use refund option being the norm these days.

We can also look at delaying content that might not be ready using Atomic Heart's RT as a hypothetical. Let's say if it's in state that only some users can use it, maybe only those with a RTX 4090 will find it playable (who knows), my feeling would still be choice issue and up to the individual.

I just don't agree with the general premise of self appointed gate keepers for everyone else when that isn't needed.

I do agree with your argument in principle, and even in practice to a degree. I just think when a game gets to a certain point of brokenness, it's in everybody's best interest (even those who want it now anyway) for it to be delayed until the major issues are fixed for the general well being of the PC as a platform.

I totally accept one persons view of what is unacceptably broken vs anothers will be wildly different, especially given we all run hardware of differing capabilities, but I do think there can be a fairly general consensus that things like the shader comp stutter seen in Sackboy which had the game turn into a literal slide show during it's opening sequences even on the highest end hardware (and which was also fixed within days) would qualify as "too broken".

 

[msaki]

No, various PC configurations and the split memory architecure can make development more difficult than consoles. It can mean more time has to be spent to optimise for the PC version which in turn means stutters and poor performance can be more likely. It is not a API or architecture limitation that makes poor performance or serious stuttering unavoidable (personally I don't consider an occassional and brief one off shader comp stutter a serious issue).

If it were, then what is your explanation for all those games that do not suffer from poor performance or stuttering? The fact that some games exist with performance or stuttering issues (many of which that have been fixed post launch) in no way represents proof that the problem is unavoidable, especially given that we already have proof that it is absolutely avoidable.

And please drop that tired streaming/decompression issues in Spiderman argument. It's a bug. What possible fundamental API or architectural issue could exist that would result in 24GB GPU's being unable to load the highest texture mips not just after a delay, but in some cases at all?

dx 12 api has been mentioned to be a problem for years now and like ive said andrew lauritzen a dev working on ue5 said it again here this week and many devs have said the same, not every problem is the developers to solve yes some games run flawless on pc because devs did a good job and the hardware or api didnt cause any problems. Doesnt mean every game will work smoothly, developers can only do much weve seen callisto protocol being patched and still has stutter and other problems, cyberpunk is still being patched till this day, crysis still couldnt run properly for god knows how many years..

and having a 24 gb gpu and a high end cpu doesnt solve every problem, as mentioned by a couple of developers from tim sweeney to nixxes who made the spiderman port decompression and the memory management on pc is an issue its not the fault of the 24 gb gpu its just how their game works it relies mostly on streaming and they arent just targeting a 24 gb gpu they had to make it work on potato pc's aswell which is alot of work. im quoting the developers themselves not the usual ''bug'' excuse and the ol ''lazy devs''

 

[davis.anthony]

dx 12 api has been mentioned to be a problem for years now and like ive said andrew lauritzen a dev working on ue5 said it again here this week and many devs have said the same, not every problem is the developers to solve yes some games run flawless on pc because devs did a good job and the hardware or api didnt cause any problems.

And yet in the last 2 weeks we've had two very good DX12 releases on PC of high profile games.

Doesnt mean every game will work smoothly, developers can only do much weve seen callisto protocol being patched and still has stutter and other problems.

That's a developer problem, we've had another UE engine game release recently that offers shader compilation at start up so there's no reason why Caslisto couldn't have offered the same.

cyberpunk is still being patched till this day

The game has been fine for ages now.

Crysis still couldnt run properly for god knows how many years..

Load of rubbish, I was playing Crysis last night and it runs awesome....it was playable a year after it released.

having a 24 gb gpu and a high end cpu doesnt solve every problem, as mentioned by a couple of developers from tim sweeney to nixxes who made the spiderman port decompression and the memory management on pc is an issue

That port offers good performance on PC.

its not the fault of the 24 gb gpu its just how their game works it relies mostly on streaming and they arent just targeting a 24 gb gpu

So it's a developer issue to sort out then.

they had to make it work on potato pc's aswell

Those potato PC's are likely still way more powerful than base PS4.

Heck compared to my PC even PS5 and XSX are potatoes.

which is alot of work. im quoting the developers themselves not the usual ''bug'' excuse and the ol ''lazy devs''

Development on a single platform is a lot of work but if a studio has made a decision to target multiple platforms then I expect a good release on each platform.

They shouldn't be biting off more than they can chew.

 

[mr magoo]

dx 12 api has been mentioned to be a problem for years now and like ive said andrew lauritzen a dev working on ue5 said it again here this week and many devs have said the same, not every problem is the developers to solve yes some games run flawless on pc because devs did a good job and the hardware or api didnt cause any problems. Doesnt mean every game will work smoothly, developers can only do much weve seen callisto protocol being patched and still has stutter and other problems, cyberpunk is still being patched till this day, crysis still couldnt run properly for god knows how many years..

and having a 24 gb gpu and a high end cpu doesnt solve every problem, as mentioned by a couple of developers from tim sweeney to nixxes who made the spiderman port decompression and the memory management on pc is an issue its not the fault of the 24 gb gpu its just how their game works it relies mostly on streaming and they arent just targeting a 24 gb gpu they had to make it work on potato pc's aswell which is alot of work. im quoting the developers themselves not the usual ''bug'' excuse and the ol ''lazy devs''

Right, so dx12 is a problem in exactly same way as low level PS5 api is a problem for developers. It requires more work to get more from your GPU, but for some reasons people intrepret that as PS5 api good dx12 api bad. Besides DX12 is getting constant changes and is evolving.

Some games that were designed primary for consoles and ported to PC may run poorly on PCs yes. But you cannot take this as a source of truth and judge whole PC gaming sectror as bad. Lets take UE5 for example, how do you explain that is performing so much better on high end pcs?

 

[snc]

 

[msaki]

Right, so dx12 is a problem in exactly same way as low level PS5 api is a problem for developers. It requires more work to get more from your GPU, but for some reasons people intrepret that as PS5 api good dx12 api bad. Besides DX12 is getting constant changes and is evolving.

Some games that were designed primary for consoles and ported to PC may run poorly on PCs yes. But you cannot take this as a source of truth and judge whole PC gaming sectror as bad. Lets take UE5 for example, how do you explain that is performing so much better on high end pcs?

ps5 low level api isnt a problem, thats weird assumption its like saying having a big ''d'' is a problem, besides im not the one who came up with this its developers themselves who have been praising ps5s api and complaining about dx 12, even recently df said developers have told them they preferred the ps5 api over dx12 so i dont get your logic! and this isnt just recent its the same story time and time again since the ps3 days devs have always prefered the playstation api and it was one of the reasons microsoft was forced to make dx12 more low level and it doesnt seem theyve ironed out all the issues.

Ue5 performing better on high end pc's is irrelevant because any game engine performs better with more processing power and memory so this is not the question at all, what it comes down to is how the games perform on different pc configurations most pc gamers barely even have a pc that rivals a ps5. so saying that your weather simulating pc handles ue5 better than a ps5 makes no sense at all.

 

[see colon]

Are you willing to acknowledge that "acceptable standards" can vary for everyone and that you're "acceptable standards" may not apply to everyone?

I think this fully sums up what everyone is talking about here. It's an opinion what is acceptable.
The example often brought up in this thread is CP2077, how it launched in a buggy state, it's performance, and how it was pulled off PSN until it was "fixed". It's clear what Sony's acceptable standards are because there was a milestone that CDPR reached to get the game back on PSN. And I think we can all agree that CP2077 launched in a less than optimal state, but I think if you look at the games performance and the frequency of game breaking bugs, it wasn't any worse than PS3 Skyrim. In fact, I think it was better, because CP would crash and make you reload from the last checkpoint, and Skyrim could easily get to a place where it would either load for hours or simply not load, effectively ending your run.

Load of rubbish Crysis, I was playing Crysis last night and it runs awesome....it even runs good on old hardware.

Crysis is another fine example, because it did run well at launch on lower end hardware as long as you set the quality to appropriate levels. High end hardware at the time also suffered because the highest settings were for future hardware. But much like CP2077, it became an "establish fact" that it's performance was poor, and the entirety of the internet simply decided that was the way it was. CP2077's main largest fix came in the form of an animated TV show, that got people interested in the world and then playing the game. The game had been in a similar state for 12+ months before the show, but people kept saying how great it was that they finally fixed it.

 

[msaki]

And yet in the last 4 2 weeks we've had two very good DX12 releases on PC of high profile games.

That's a developer problem, we've had another UE engine game release recently that offers shader compilation at start up so there's no reason why Caslisto couldn't have offered the same.

The game has been fine for ages now.

Load of rubbish, I was playing Crysis last night and it runs awesome....it was playable a year after it released.

That port offers good performance on PC.

So it's a developer issue to sort out then.

Those potato PC's are likely still way more powerful than base PS4.

Heck compared to my PC even PS5 and XSX are potatoes.

Development on a single platform is a lot of work but if a studio has made a decision to target multiple platforms then I expect a good release on each platform.

They shouldn't be biting off more than they can chew.

which very good recent dx12 games are you talking about?

cyberpunk hasnt been fine for ages the latest take on df showed their are still problems and it took years to patch

which crysis are u talking about the remastered or the original pc version cause im talking about the original pc version that created the phrase '' can it run crysis''

offers good performance but io stutters still exist unless playing on high end rigs!

its not a dev issue because the game just doesnt target 24gb so blaming the dev that the game wasnt made to target your 3000$ gpu is irrelevant.

doesnt matter what you expect some problems are just unsolvable and cant be solved just because you expect them to, and its not going to stop devs making games for multiple devices.

 

[mr magoo]

ps5 low level api isnt a problem, thats weird assumption its like saying having a big ''d'' is a problem, besides im not the one who came up with this its developers themselves who have been praising ps5s api and complaining about dx 12, even recently df said developers have told them they preferred the ps5 api over dx12 so i dont get your logic! and this isnt just recent its the same story time and time again since the ps3 days devs have always prefered the playstation api and it was one of the reasons microsoft was forced to make dx12 more low level and it doesnt seem theyve ironed out all the issues.

Ue5 performing better on high end pc's is irrelevant because any game engine performs better with more processing power and memory so this is not the question at all, what it comes down to is how the games perform on different pc configurations most pc gamers barely even have a pc that rivals a ps5. so saying that your weather simulating pc handles ue5 better than a ps5 makes no sense at all.

I am not saying that either of those APIs are problem.

About PS5 apis

"Most people start with the GNMX API which wraps around GNM and manages the more esoteric GPU details in a way that's a lot more familiar if you're used to platforms like D3D11. We started with the high-level one but eventually we moved to the low-level API because it suits our uses a little better," says O'Connor, explaining that while GNMX is a lot simpler to work with, it removes much of the custom access to the PS4 GPU, and also incurs a significant CPU hit.

A lot of work was put into the move to the lower-level GNM, and in the process the tech team found out just how much work DirectX does in the background in terms of memory allocation and resource management. Moving to GNM meant that the developers had to take on the burden there themselves, as O'Connor explains:

"The Crew uses a subset of the D3D11 feature-set, so that subset is for the most part easily portable to the PS4 API. But the PS4 is a console not a PC, so a lot of things that are done for you by D3D on PC - you have to do that yourself. It means there's more DIY to do but it gives you a hell of a lot more control over what you can do with the system."



About dx11/12 apis

"The major difference is that with DX12, you need to be very explicit in how you talk to the GPU (via the API). DX11 is a level higher (conceptually), meaning a lot of the heavy lifting is done under the hood (in the driver). You still need to put all the various bits together when using the API (shaders, various states, etc) but you don't really need to think about how all of these things fit together beyond just specifying the thing you need, and setting it.

The explicitness of DX12 involves a lot more work on your part; you need to write a lot more code, track a lot more state (and think about how that all fits together ahead of time), and generally just think through things a lot more carefully. The driver is a relatively thin layer, and most of the heavy lifting is up to the application developer.

With D3D11, the API is much simpler, much less explicit, and so requires much less lift on your part. A ton of work is done (opaquely to you) in the driver. Most modern drivers will spin up a bunch of threads to pull things together into something meaningful for the device, and hide a lot of that overhead.

With DX11, the drivers are heavily optimized, so the performance is pretty darned good. But it still ends up being a lot more work (even if much of it happens "behind the scenes") than a well-written DX12 application where the developer explicitly knows all the parts in the puzzle."


Sounds familiar?

 

[davis.anthony]

Are you willing to acknowledge that "acceptable standards" can vary for everyone and that you're "acceptable standards" may not apply to everyone?

Are you also willing to acknowledge that technical proficiency/performance (for lack of a better term) may also not be of the same priority for everyone? Circling back to an earlier comment you made, maybe some people find quality in vast complex worlds as opposed to high frame rates?

If not we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

No.....there's a universal 'acceptable standard' for gaming.

• No crashing
• No game breaking bugs/glitches
• A consistent frame rate of at least 30fps

You would be hard pressed to anyone who doesn't expect those as the minimum acceptable standard for any game on any platform.

And yet there are big budget titles that release that fall well below those standards every month.