Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

[Deleted member 86764]

I thought these games were going to be be run connected to TV and power outlet? Also tablets tend to fill FOV as much as TVs.

Aren't you essentially describing a WiiU? As much as I love mine, that thing isn't exactly a success. And to be honest I prefer to play on my pro pad than the tablet thing (can't remember the name of it). I don't see the point in buying a machine that has a screen if I can plug it into my TV instead. I'd rather the resource was spent on more powerful hardware.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's not surprising now with full hindsight, but it was been back then because no one believed that they would be able to fit enough horsepower and battery power into the frame of an iPad in such a short time frame..

What I meant was that the Citadel demo looked far more impressive in 2010 than what the Bioshock on iOS looks today (time adjusted). I remember thinking based on the Citadel demo that iPad 2 should be capable of pretty good stuff.

I guess the 2gb is a file system limit? I thought iOS was 64bit already, but maybe the file system isn't.

I have thought the cap is there for because Apple ships products with only 8/16GBs of storage. It's the download size that can't exceed 2GB, but uncompressed gamedata can be over 2GB.

 

[joker454]

Everyone here seems to be talking about tablets like they expect them to be the near future of gaming. I personally went through a phase of gaming on my phone until I realised it was no good, even if the specs annihilated my PC from 12-14yrs ago. I mean honestly, do you really want to play Halo and COD on a tablet? I sure don't, no matter how good the specs are.

I'm trying to remove my own opinions from the mix as much as possible and trying to get a feel of what the masses want. Think of it another way, when you ask if anyone would really want to play Halo or COD on a tablet, I think of the *exact* same question myself except replace "tablet" with "console". To you someone playing such games on a tablet is crazy. Likewise to me someone playing such games on a primitive console is crazy. And yet lots of people do both. So we need to remove our personal feelings from the mix and try to get a feel for what the masses would do.

I thought these games were going to be be run connected to TV and power outlet?

I was thinking just playing on the tablet itself. Snuggle on a couch somewhere, plug the tablet to a wall outlet, and play with a controller. That seems to be a very popular thing to do now, and people like having their own personal device. What I was wondering is having someone watch a guy play a ps4 game, and then this person plays a game on their iPad 7 and thinks yeah, this is good enough for me. It looks "just as good" as the ps4 game. That's what I'm wondering when will it happen, and I don't think these types of games will necessarily have to be played on a tv to be considered good enough. We already have people watching movies and entire tv shows on their phones, so having people transition to gaming on their small tablet screens doesn't seem like science fiction anymore. Sure they could display them on a big tv for times when friends are over or whatever but for all we know maybe they will do most of their gaming on the small screen, just like more and more people do their movie and tv watching on the small screen.

What I meant was that the Citadel demo looked far more impressive in 2010 than what the Bioshock on iOS looks today (time adjusted). I remember thinking based on the Citadel demo that iPad 2 should be capable of pretty good stuff.

I dunno, I don't really feel the same way. The Citadel demo was not real in that it didn't have to deal with any of the vast performance spikes that a real game has to. So they could show something like a very heavily controlled Citadel demo and yet be no where near actually being able to run a true game that looked anything like that. It reminded me of old pc graphics demos way back in the day by guys like Future Crew and so on who would show all kinds of neat graphics effects on pc demos but that stuff never translated to actual games since there was no way to actually make a real game and still do all those neat visual effects at the time. It was all just cool demo eye candy and nothing more.

Bioshock on the other hand puts loads on the cpu, gpu and bandwidth that are highly variable and all over the map, so getting something like that actually running on a tablet to me is crazy cool. It's real and they did it even on the current heavily bandwidth constrained devices. Tablet hardware is set to change quite a bit in the next few years so this development is hugely promising to me as far as getting nice games running on tablets...assuming they can finally get standardized gamepad controls as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What I was wondering is having someone watch a guy play a ps4 game, and then this person plays a game on their iPad 7 and thinks yeah, this is good enough for me. It looks "just as good" as the ps4 game. That's what I'm wondering when will it happen, and I don't think these types of games will necessarily have to be played on a tv to be considered good enough.

Graphically, probably, but the issue of control is always going to be a limiting factor. Some games will work on touch screens with a little modification, but others plain won't. For core gamers, I think the annoyance of the finger in the way of the screen is always going to be discouraging. Maybe handsets with plug-in controllers will take off instead?

 

[Deleted member 86764]

But then the mass market beyond traditional gamers haven't taken to controllers (with the exception of the wiimote).

Both Microsoft and Nintendo have both tried to appeal to a wider market and failed with their latest machines. The next real test is definitely VR, but that has some cost issues. Particularly when people suggest that you may need 4k screens and upwards of 100fps.

Sony/Oculus have a very interesting test on their hands. Sounds amazing to me and I haven't used one since Virtuality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Both Microsoft and Nintendo have both tried to appeal to a wider market and failed with their latest machines. The next real test is definitely VR, but that has some cost issues. Particularly when people suggest that you may need 4k screens and upwards of 100fps.

There's an interesting problem of supply there. At the moment, Samsung can supply a super hires phone screen for OVR. However, as Sony is showing with its latest phone, there may be a move to stop at 1080p as perfectly adequate and better on battery life. If the mobile business goes that way (which it should, because it's the only sane path!), there'll be no requirement for super highres 5" displays except headsets. One of the aspects that makes OVR so cheap may get a bump on the head.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Yeah, it's both the hardware for such a setup and the hardware to run such a setup. I guess if 1080p screens prove sufficient for the moment, then it should be possible to advance in 5 to 10 years. Providing VR becomes successful (I'm secretly hoping it will).

 

[patsu]

Yup, which always factors into my usual argument against these start-from-scratch-with-no-bc machines because by the time they do come to grips with the new machines that forced them to start all over yet again, the "closed box" advantage will mean all of zero because console hardware will be 3 to 4 generations behind what's on pc.

Well... the developers won't be able to make so many games so quickly. So we should be able to see the advantages against comparable PC GPU (Think NaughtyDog). The h/w vendors will shrink the chips to keep up with manufacturing and power efficiency along the way.

OTOH, the latest PC GPU will be hot, power packed and expensive as usual. The edge will always be there to various degrees, one way or another. No need to wait for 3-4 gens to see the difference against console hardware if people want to show off their gears.

Game is a packaged whole. With proper attention dedicated to the 2-3 main console SKUs, the resulting games should be better QA'ed and tuned overall.

I'm actually more interested to see how the console hardware will compare to the tablets of the time, when console coders finally come to grips with the new hardware in about 3 years or so. Be curious to see how far behind tablets are visually to the average gamer, and if anyone will really care about the visual difference.

Tablet vs console ? IMHO, the power difference seems too great for sustained use.

Because of their "common" design, it seems that both MS and Sony have made their latest console more "upgradable". The next gen may be different from the past ones.

 

[orangpelupa]

about playing game on tablet, more and more "hardcore" pc games are available on tablet. I think the latest is Bioshock.

btw im enjoying playing Left4Dead2 multiplayer on tablet. Its as fun as i played on PC although i do need to run it in lowest graphic options.

about screen resolution development.
sony do limit their flagships at 1080p but other company like samsung and LG still doing the resolution race.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But they might back-pedal. It'd probably be wiser to. Higher resolution isn't really a benefit and comes with costs that make for a generally inferior phone. A 1080p phone with greater colour, brightness, contrast and battery life is I'd hazard preferable to pretty much everyone.

 

[orangpelupa]

Those that understand screen my prefer it. But people that buy based on spec 'bigger is batter' may not get it.

The spec war is still crazy in phone. It's like back in the pc market a few years ago.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those that understand screen my prefer it. But people that buy based on spec 'bigger is batter' may not get it.

Yeah, but the market will likely get wise eventually. Tech sites that review the phones and start awarding better scores sensibly will eventually offset bigger number syndrome. Maybe not, but it's a possibility IMO. I'm not sure people talk about camera megapixels how they used to, because they all have lots now such that it makes little difference, and camera reviews (phone or dedicated) place more emphasis on picture quality and low light performance than megapixels. They'll do the same with screens. There was a race for screen density and it possibly helped LG land a few early sales, but I'm not convinced it'll be sustained and result in loads of 5" 1440p/4k screens for VR use.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yeah, but the market will likely get wise eventually.

Maybe but LG and Samsung's motivations for including higher-resolutions screens go beyond functionality and appeal of the phone. Both companies are big manufacturers of screens and in it's their interest to drive specifications (and demand for those specifications) up so they can continue to sell expensive displays to the likes of Apple, Sony, HTC and everybody else who puts those screens into CE devices.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They can try, but if the IHVs want better battery life instead of better resolution, LG and Samsung can't really force the issue. As in, let's say LG offer higher resolution screens than Samsung. If Apple et al all buy the lower resolution screens, LG can't force things to move to higher resolutions. If all the screen manufacturers move to higher resolutions whether people want them or not, it won't be a problem sourcing VR displays, and if people want stupidly high resolution, it won't matter. But as there are significant gains to be had with lower resolution sticking to 1080p, there has to be reasonable pressure to cap mobile displays there.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They can try, but if the IHVs want better battery life instead of better resolution, LG and Samsung can't really force the issue. As in, let's say LG offer higher resolution screens than Samsung.

You misunderstand, this is not about about LG and Samsung competing heavily heavily on screen tech - there's more than enough market to go around for both companies and it's an expanding market. This is about making consumers, who largely dumb and only focus on base numbers, want certain phones because the screens are better, so that both companies can sell more high-end screens than low-end screens.

If Apple et al all buy the lower resolution screens, LG can't force things to move to higher resolutions.

Apple don't play the specs game at all, you never know the spec of a new iPhone or iPad until they're in the wild, but in the world of Android specs are big differentiators.

But as there are significant gains to be had with lower resolution sticking to 1080p, there has to be reasonable pressure to cap mobile displays there.

Pressure from where? Phone manufacturers want to sell phones, phone manufacturers know that specs sell a lot of phones, so why are they all suddenly going to stop competing? When has this every happened before?

 

[Shortbread]

You misunderstand, this is not about about LG and Samsung competing heavily heavily on screen tech - there's more than enough market to go around for both companies and it's an expanding market. This is about making consumers, who largely dumb and only focus on base numbers, want certain phones because the screens are better, so that both companies can sell more high-end screens than low-end screens.

Agreed. Most tech review sites will start with "how beautiful the screen is" or "screen clarity is better on x and fuzzy on z" ...then you have the comment sections load with users spouting how/why resolution of their product is so much better.

Cellphone consumer (shoppers) spec pecking order, as I see it today.
- Resolution
- Screen size
- CPU/GPU speed (latest generation more so than speed)
- battery life
- OS/Application Interface(s)
- cellphone compatibility with other devices
- cellphone weight
- cellphone accessories

Apple don't play the specs game at all, you never know the spec of a new iPhone or iPad until they're in the wild, but in the world of Android specs are big differentiators.

On the surface - maybe not. Behind the scenes - yes they do. Apple is fully aware of its competitors wares, and the potential of getting their a$$e$ handed to them if they do not create a product with similar attractive features. Plus; this is the company that loves spouting how great their screens look and the dpi they can achieve with retina.

Pressure from where? Phone manufacturers want to sell phones, phone manufacturers know that specs sell a lot of phones, so why are they all suddenly going to stop competing? When has this every happened before?

Agreed.

 

[joker454]

Well... the developers won't be able to make so many games so quickly. So we should be able to see the advantages against comparable PC GPU (Think NaughtyDog). The h/w vendors will shrink the chips to keep up with manufacturing and power efficiency along the way.

Except consoles can't use the power efficiency to improve visuals until another 7 years pass and they can then launch a new console. Meanwhile all other devices can leverage such chip efficiency to bring out better hardware all the time. Naughty Dog won't make any difference here. They aren't better than other developers, they only gained notoriety because they were allowed to take the inordinate time required to make quirky hardware actually render pixels at a reasonable frame rate. Other developers that aren't bogged down by such minutia get to actually spend brain cycles on the games themselves rather than dealing with learning new hardware nuances which is such a waste of time in this day and age.

OTOH, the latest PC GPU will be hot, power packed and expensive as usual. The edge will always be there to various degrees, one way or another. No need to wait for 3-4 gens to see the difference against console hardware if people want to show off their gears.

Game is a packaged whole. With proper attention dedicated to the 2-3 main console SKUs, the resulting games should be better QA'ed and tuned overall.

If you show up to the race track in your perfectly tuned AMC Pacer that you worked on for 4 years, then at the end of the day it's still an AMC Pacer. Your 100% efficiently tuned car will be beat by just about everything else even if everyone else runs sloppy and inefficient. Waiting 3 to 4 years to finally get "efficient" at using hardware in this day and age is dumb, it's a dated way to operate.

Tablet vs console ? IMHO, the power difference seems too great for sustained use.

The power difference between pc and console is great but consoles still carved out their niche because of their simplicity. The same thing can work in favor of tablets and ultrabooks, with the additions of convenience and not being chained to a tv like consoles force on everyone.

about screen resolution development.
sony do limit their flagships at 1080p but other company like samsung and LG still doing the resolution race.

Ultimately resolution won't matter for games because on tablet or phone they can still render at a lower resolution and just upscale to the devices native resolution.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is about making consumers, who largely dumb and only focus on base numbers, want certain phones because the screens are better, so that both companies can sell more high-end screens than low-end screens.

Maybe you didn't read the other posts on this subject, because the argument has been that highest resolution isn't the be all and end all in consumer purchasing decisions, and there'll be phones with lower resolution (1080p) that give a better experience. 1080p is pretty much a threshold over which higher resolution doesn't bring any benefits but does decrease battery life. If consumers start to get informed enough that more pixels doesn't matter alongside the other factors, they'll possibly, hopefully, start to choose the better quality image and performance.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Maybe you didn't read the other posts on this subject, because the argument has been that highest resolution isn't the be all and end all in consumer purchasing decisions, and there'll be phones with lower resolution (1080p) that give a better experience.

I did and I agree for the most part but all things being equal would you buy a phone with a low-res screen or a high-res screen? The difference between today's medium and high-end Android handsets is closer than it has ever been since the platform launched in 2008 and Google are reducing the extent which Android handset licensees can customise their OS, which used to be the largest differentiator. Nor do I see that changing.

1080p is pretty much a threshold over which higher resolution doesn't bring any benefits but does decrease battery life. If consumers start to get informed enough that more pixels doesn't matter alongside the other factors, they'll possibly, hopefully, start to choose the better quality image and performance.

For general UI I'd agree. For movies I'd agree. For photos, comics and certain text applications, more resolution is better. I don't know what extent people use phones for things which more resolution will always be better but what I do know is people are doing vastly more on their phones than that did a year ago, two years ago, three years ago etc.

And for consumers gettings informed, I'll believe that when I see it but I'm not holding my breath. I continue to plenty of ill-informed buying decisions even on mature digital technologies like digital cameras because people grasp the specifications they understand (capture resolutions) and ignore everything else.

 

[dobwal]

I'm trying to remove my own opinions from the mix as much as possible and trying to get a feel of what the masses want. Think of it another way, when you ask if anyone would really want to play Halo or COD on a tablet, I think of the *exact* same question myself except replace "tablet" with "console". To you someone playing such games on a tablet is crazy. Likewise to me someone playing such games on a primitive console is crazy. And yet lots of people do both. So we need to remove our personal feelings from the mix and try to get a feel for what the masses would do.

The biggest difference being that consoles are a way to remove most of the aspects that encumber PC gaming. Plus the graphics performance gap between a console and PC is much smaller than the gap between a console and a tab. Tablets at most release people from the static position of their TVs, but consoles are in the midst of readily overcoming that reality.

It easier for a console to slave a tab/phone screen then it is for a tab to receive modern console specs. By the time tabs catch up with the PS4 or XB1, console gamers will already be streaming consoles titles to their ipads/iphones and android tabs/phones.