How should devs handle ports between consoles? *spawn

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by onQ, Jun 2, 2013.

  1. joker454

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Sort of...the big difference I'd say is that it's in the game companies interest to keep MS/Sony happy because they need them to be able to publish their content on their closed boxes, to get more favorable marketing and placement, to get better deals in commissions and so on. On the pc side NVidia doesn't have any leverage of that sort over any content maker so their hands are mostly tied, I don't think it's something they could pay their way out of either.
     
  2. fbomber

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    17
    MS/Sony needs the game companies too. It´s a two ways path.

    Another thing: if this BS 30fps lock on PC impacts Intel, they would get in the way. Would any gamer buy their more expensive CPUs if a 100 dollars celeron can get you to the 30fps? Maybe some that do other heavy things, but the majority wouldn´t.
     
  3. joker454

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Absolutely, it's a symbiotic relationship. But when it comes down to any negotiating it's always leverage that matters, and NVidia doesn't have as much as MS/Sony do in this case.


    I don't think Intel would care, they own the high end processor market by a long shot and are focused on the mobile space now.
     
  4. fbomber

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    17

    It depends on how much of Intel´s bottom line gaming CPUs represent. If it´s a fair chunk, they would not let that happen. My 5960 says hi. There are others involved: monitor manufactures with their 120hz and 144hz flagships, all rendered useless with this ridiculous lock; NVIDIA and AMD; motherboard makers; power supply makers; etc. If there´s no incentive to buy a better system, the sales would fall, and that at the highest profit margin business: the high end.

    All this parity BS is getting out of hand: why don´t Sony and MS make a deal to release the same box, with the same config, and split the profits? Parity means no differentiation and no benefit to provide a better product. I´m really having a hard time to understand any benefit to the consumers here.
     
  5. Phil

    Phil wipEout bastard
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,785
    Likes Received:
    377
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I doubt anyone here is playing at a per pixel level. For that to be anything but close to true, you'd have to be sitting a few inches in front of your screen to actually distinguish a pixel... and I would love to see you actually moving the stick in that kind of precision. And as long as you use an adequate scope (as you would anyway), I don't see 720, 900 or 1080p being any issue. :razz:

    If you factor in viewing distance vs resolution, I doubt that for the most people 720p vs 1080p really is a major issue. Resolution is usually a bigger factor in strategy game where you use a mouse as input and need a lot of resolution but in fast moving games like shooters, it's less of an issue. And that's coming from someone who's playing on a projector with roughly 3m diagonal screensize where resolution would account for quite a bit...
     
  6. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,345
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    The Evil Within has a 60 hz mode on PC, but it's buggy and they're trying to fix it.

    Which is the reason, I suspect, for the odd game that locks frame rate. If your game breaks - or might break - at anything other than 30 or 60 hz, you have to lock it down. Games that are primarily console games with the PC as an afterthought might very well not be able to scale to release level reliability with different frame caps officially supported.

    BTW, there was official confirmation, but that is being interpreted as Phil Spencer being a bare faced liar.
     
  7. DrJay24

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    634
    Location:
    Internet
    What does per pixel have to do with it? If a person is across the map and not moving you need highers resolution to distinguish the enemy from a bush from the background. 900P in BF is fuzzy when the enemy gets far away and if they are not moving you just don't see them. I had this issue all the time when I played. "Is that blob of pixels a player? Let me just spray a few bullets that way.." Is a bad strategy. The more pixels the better.
     
  8. Phil

    Phil wipEout bastard
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,785
    Likes Received:
    377
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Well, he was talking about taking the shot... :razz:

    Of course resolution matters, but the overal point was if it changes the gameplay experience. I doubt any seasoned BF4 player would make a point that the resolution change between 720p, 900p or 1080p would actually be detrimental to the overal gameplay, unless perhaps for a PC gamer who sits up close to a screen at god knows what kind of uber resolution, using a mouse with a ridiculous high speed polling rate and equipped with a 4x ACOG scope on his SRR61 to sniper off targets sitting 300m away. (And yes, I play a lot of BF4...). Going from 720p -> 1080p would be a 50% increase in both directions. In other words, any object a pixel in size would be 1.5 at the higher resolution. If you factor in the actual viewing distance to the screen, the visual difference is even smaller.

    I'd argue that at the typical screensize and viewing distance most people actually play their games at (hence, not sitting directly in front of their television sets), the resolution difference between 720p and 1080p is a lot smaller. I'd argue it's easy to obsess about these things on a forum since we browse using a PC/monitor with fixed resolution and close viewing distance, so upclose, we tend to focus on such details. In an actual gaming environment though, adding screensize and viewing distance, these details become far less apparent.

    It's like arguing if your smartphone with a 5 inch screen really needs a FullHD resolution or even QHD. Yes, the text might be a bit sharper/smoother etc, but really? There's a point where the screensize / distance ratio where a higher resolution yields little benefit. Certainly not detrimental to the overal gameplay experience.

    In other words; Xbox gamers can relax; Those games that they get to experience at slightly lower resolution are just as fun and immersive as what PS4 get. Or PS4 vs PC gamers (though there are probably bigger differences between how console and PC gamers experience their games).
     
  9. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    12,755
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Location:
    London, UK
    The first thing I noticed playing BF4 (900p) and KZ:SF (1080p) on PlayStation 4 during launch, was the improved definition of things in the distance, particularly when sniping. Is it game changing? No, is it easier to headshot a small target in the distance with a higher resolution and where the target has better definition? Definitely and unquestionably. Obviously the AA solution plays a part as well.

    But like everything, you don't miss what you never had.
     
  10. Phil

    Phil wipEout bastard
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    4,785
    Likes Received:
    377
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I don't necessarely disagree that yes, higher resolution does provide a much higher image quality. That's undisputable. I notice it too, but then - my setup at home with a projector projecting a screensize of 3 meters exagerates the effect somewhat.

    IMO, I would be very surprised if the difference you are noticing between KZ:SF and BF4 is down to the (minimal) resolution difference. KZ:SF, I'm fairly certain, renderes characters quite a bit larger than BF4 - and I'm fairly certain too that there is not a single level, either single player nor multiplayer in KZ where you have a virtual distance that matches that of BF4. Also, BF4 goes for the more realistic colour palette, so yes, BF4 is quite a bit more difficult as a game because the enemies stand out less behind their backgrounds where as in KZ, by design choice, it's rather easy/easier.

    Think about it; 900p -> 1080p is something like a 25% difference in both directions. Assuming identical FOV (they are not the same), identical screensize, identical viewing distance - this would be fairly insubstantial. A head rendered using 10 pixel at 900p would be roughly 13 pixel at 1080p, but the same physical size on the screen. Or for fun sake, lets assume 40 pixels / 50 pixels. Insubsantial. Then factor in the viewing distance to the screen. Sitting up close? Sure. But the further away you sit from your screen, the less you will actually notice that difference and that added detail.
     
  11. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    12,755
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Location:
    London, UK
    Sorry my bad! I mean the difference between what I was used to on PlayStation 3 - so 720p at best for FPS games. I hadn't (and still haven't) really reflected much on the difference between BF4 and KZ:SF, I reckon I'd need to play them both again - particularly BF4 which I've not played for a looming time. I don't recall a massive difference but then I played BF4 before KZ:SF (so was ever increasing in resolution) and never revisited BF4. The only shooter I've played since is Metro Redux and that's also 1080p. If I can tear myself away from Orc Simulation 2014 this weekend I'll try a spot of BF4 and see if I can perceive any difference.

    I guess, like everything, it depends where that "sweet spot" is for an individual which is going to be complex mix of game, engine, AA, screen size, and the distance from the screen.
     
  12. goonergaz

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,603
    Likes Received:
    1,041
    Don't forget TVs are getting bigger all the time too - hell I have a 50" TV I'd like to upgrade (read upsize) :p

    So 1080p will definitely help.
     
  13. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    12,755
    Likes Received:
    8,146
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yeah I have 50" (well 49") now but when I got the PS4 I had a 40" 1080p and had that for 3-4 years so was well used to it.
     
  14. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    10,871
    Location:
    The North
    Right on. I could make an even further argument on that show stats about how pro players in twitch based shooters have not moved to 4K monitors. If you're playing for money and if resolution actually made a huge difference in your ability to play you'd assume all pro players would be moving to 4K naturally.

    Hint: They aren't. (They aren't even playing widescreen resolutions)



    This pro player sums up all the angles of different resolutions at the highest level of play.
    @8:50 he shows how much easier it is to 'see' because objects are larger at low resolution.

    I mentioned this earlier, but pretty much got no reply. Once again, it's all going to come down to preference, frame rates trump resolution. If the extremities are indicators of actual performance in the game, having a higher resolution seems to be a detriment, not an improvement.
     
  15. Billy Idol

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,984
    Likes Received:
    822
    Location:
    Europe
    @Phil: just try it out to see the difference. I played BF3 on PC with K&M. Typically I played as run and gun sniper, so choose lower resolution to get high framerate, but sometime as a camper sniper, I lay around only and cranked up resolution. I just wanted to say that resolution can also have an impact on gameplay.

    But for instance with the new BL on my PC: I immediately decreased resolution as I prefer the higher PhysX settings way to much! And with all sorts of things going on with PhysX, it also has an impact on gameplay somehow imo.
     
    #535 Billy Idol, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
  16. tuna

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,271
    Likes Received:
    428
    In an actual scientific study I linked in the 60 fps thread they only found out that higher frame rates lead to higher accuracy. Resolution didn't really matter.

    But they only tested quake 3....
     
  17. Billy Idol

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,984
    Likes Received:
    822
    Location:
    Europe
    I can understand that in a fast paced shooter, temporal resolution is everything...I play COD that way with unlocked fps and decreased settings.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...