Rein: Consoles put a stranglehold on DX10

[pjbliverpool]

I do not think it will be the case this time. The biggest jump in rendering quality occurs when the entire shader pipeline went to floating-point with SM2.0 IMO which none of the previous-gen console hardware had. This gen, therefore it is different. Yes, PC games will look better, but I doubt it will look a generation better even four years after the debut of 360.

It wasn't features which drove superior PC graphics last generation and it won't be this generation. Its raw power. Features will of course be leveraged for extra effects but games will remain largely DX9 just as they were largely DX8 last gen (yes even Farcry, HL2, Doom 3 etc....).

However when you have multiple times the DX9 graphics pushing power plus a few extra DX10 enabled effects to throw on top, you a going to see some fairly healthy graphical improvements. What Rein is saying though is that the improvements could be so much greater if the games abandoned DX9 completely and made DX10 the minimum spec. But thats not going to happen until the next gen consoles lauch just as we didn't really see any DX9 only games until the current gen consoles launched.

We will see advantages of DX10 (and possibly DX11) on the PC but we won't feel its full impact until Xbox 3 and PS4. Thats just a sad fact but its no different than the previous console generation.

On the other hand I think all the calls of doom and gloom for the PC are greatly exagerated. I don't know if anyones noticed but cross platform development between consoles and PC has been soaring this gen. Thats probably due in large part to MS's efforts to make the 360 and PC as close as possible in development terms and the trend seems to be on the constant increase. Hell, there was even an announcement of a Dead or Alive game for the PC recently. PC exclusives may be diminishing, we will have to deal with that, but so are console exclusives. And as a result the PC platform is benefiting from a wider variety of games.

One thing is for sure, MS won't see the platform die as a gaming machine, its too valuable for their Windows stranglehold. Its always been my view that the xbox line was at least in part created to shield the PC from the ever growing dominance of the playstation in the gaming market. I can't imagine were PC gaming would be now if MS hadn't launched the xbox.

 

[Color me Dan]

In this regard it feels like Epic is being cheap. Complaining that now that you could make equal(ish) games on more platforms for more money you might have put yourself in a situation that means limiting yourself to keep doing so. I understand the situation, but not his reasoning.

 

[Fox5]

Its always been my view that the xbox line was at least in part created to shield the PC from the ever growing dominance of the playstation in the gaming market. I can't imagine were PC gaming would be now if MS hadn't launched the xbox.

Honestly, I think PC gaming would be healthier. Many of the games that went to xbox were pc games anyway (it's still where most of their support comes from) that would have had to make a choice between making a completely different game for playstation, or plunking away on the PC. This, in turn, would have made the PC a more attractive platform over the consoles and probably picked it up some more sales and pushing. (though not anywhere near what xbox brought to MS)

Additionally, without xbox live to compete against, sony's online system on the ps2 probably would have been even more still born than it was. Heck, we may have seen seganet make a comeback as a crossplatform initiative.

 

[Todd33]

I actually haven't seen a playable game on PC that looks better than Gears of War on an X360. Even on a great rig. PC developers just can't afford the art assets IMO.

Well accept GoW PC...

 

[Sonic]

I disagree with his statement. I don't see why PC games have to stagnate in the face of the current behemoth of machines. Thanks to companies like Nvidia that keep the graphics moving ever forward on PC's people will make use of it. But for a long time now PC's have always been pushed to the edge when it comes to games, you just up the visual effects or scale it down depending on the specs of the machine.

Console games are more profitable simply because there is a larger userbase (I know there's way more PC's around compared to consoles but the target audience is different) for devs/pubs to sell their games to. Consoles are meant for one thing, at least used to be, and that is to play games. The costs are more controlled because it is a specific target a developer can aim for...this applies for multi platform games as well. As developers get more familiar with the hardware then the graphics get better, because that's what optimization does for us.

At the same time it is by far easier to play certain games on a console than it is for a PC. The standard controller allows this compared to a keyboard and mouse that can be quite a mess to set up.

PC games will still advance where they have in the past decade traditionally. That being games FPS games, simulators, and RTS.

I think Mark Rein needs to point his finger at other companies like Nvidia for pricing high end hardware out of the mainstream's hands.

 

[Oboro Shogun]

What problems do you speak of? And Gears is still the #1 game on XBL, and probably therefore the #1 online game in the world, and has been since release.

No ranked matchmaking was a philosophical choice, as such, it cant really be considered a flaw, even though many do. Anyway, you can just play player match with your friends? Why do people always ignore that option as if it doesn't exist?

Ridiculous host advantage. Very abusable glitches that kept appearing after they were "solved" by the updates. Embarrassing ones too like getting outside of level boundaries. They may very well be solved now, many, many months later. Terrible matchmaking and TruSkill is a joke. No ranked games with friends. A genuine inability to host games for many people, meaning no one could see your games to join them. Not to mention the community is WORSE than the Halo 2 community, if you can believe that one.

Also the problem with player matches is that it's hard to find good actual competition in player matches. Most people just try to jump in glitch and be racist and then leave you with uneven teams.

Gears is successful because it's marketed well not made well, at least in terms of online. Single player is great.

 

[djskribbles]

What problems do you speak of? And Gears is still the #1 game on XBL, and probably therefore the #1 online game in the world, and has been since release.

i doubt that, if you mean for all platforms.

 

[pjbliverpool]

What problems do you speak of? And Gears is still the #1 game on XBL, and probably therefore the #1 online game in the world, and has been since release.

World of Warcraft alone has as many users as Live does in total.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I actually haven't seen a playable game on PC that looks better than Gears of War on an X360. Even on a great rig. PC developers just can't afford the art assets IMO.

Although not yet playable, Crysis clearly contradicts that assumption.

And there are games from other genres which are on par with Gears technically/graphically but not directly comparable due to the genre differences. e.g. Company of Heroes, or games that are also on the 360 (but look better on the PC) such as Dirt, Lost Planet and Oblivion (when modded).

I agree nothing stands out as clearly above Gears yet but those games are just around the corner now.

 

[ebola]

Perhaps he was saying that. But he's wrong, since it cannot. You may be able to emulate some aspects of the DX10 featureset on the consoles CPU's (and Xenos does go part way on its own), but much of the time its going to make no sense whatsoever or its going to be a lot slower.

to clarify my point :-

Imagine forgetting the PC and designing a console engine from the ground up for Xenos & SPU Vertex Preprocessing.
You'd get a console engine better than current ported multiplatform DX9 engines, for making console games. You could then port this engine to DX10.

Sure you couldn't go the other way round. I'm not claiming you can emulate all of DX10 on the consoles.

I agree with the point on 'overall power': .. sure PC/DX10 is already ahead in overall horsepower.

But consoles provide a bigger market to sell the expensive art assets needed to show off that power... and you could take the engine I've described above, run your game at 30fps on consoles, and run at 60+fps at a higher resolution with more AA filtering, more motion blur or whatever ... you'd burn those extra shader cycles pretty quickly....

.. so I think it's unfair to say consoles hold back DX10 it's more the case they put high end 3d into the mainstream.

My take on that statement, reading between the lines, is that it's from a PC orientated developper who reluctantly ports to consoles and would rather be making PC only games

 

[pjbliverpool]

to clarify my point :-

Imagine forgetting the PC and designing a console engine from the ground up for Xenos & SPU Vertex Preprocessing.
You'd get a console engine better than current ported multiplatform DX9 engines, for making console games. You could then port this engine to DX10.

Sure you couldn't go the other way round. I'm not claiming you can emulate all of DX10 on the consoles.

I agree with the point on 'overall power': .. sure PC/DX10 is already ahead in overall horsepower.

But consoles provide a bigger market to sell the expensive art assets needed to show off that power... and you could take the engine I've described above, run your game at 30fps on consoles, and run at 60+fps at a higher resolution with more AA filtering, more motion blur or whatever ... you'd burn those extra shader cycles pretty quickly....

.. so I think it's unfair to say consoles hold back DX10 it's more the case they put high end 3d into the mainstream.

My take on that statement, reading between the lines, is that it's from a PC orientated developper who reluctantly ports to consoles and would rather be making PC only games

Ok cheers, I see where your coming from now. So its not like consoles are limiting PC games to DX9 because the consoles themselves when taken as a whole can go beyond DX9. Thus a game ported from console to PC, a game which fully leverages Xenos's features and the SPU's capabilities would actually go some way into the DX10 feature set anyway.

Going DX10 from the ground up would still produce better results but thats just not going to happen much due to the difficulty of then porting that game to a console.

 

[archangelmorph]

Going DX10 from the ground up would still produce better results but thats just not going to happen much due to the difficulty of then porting that game to a console.

I'm sure the largest factor limiting this from happening based around the sheer lack of DX10 penetration in the PC space..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure you couldn't go the other way round. I'm not claiming you can emulate all of DX10 on the consoles.

You could emulate all DX10's features. The question is how fast they'd be. DX10 is a feature set, not a performance measure. You'll get DX10 cards unable to use DX10 features suitably quickly in future DX10 games, just as old DX9 cards aren't too hot at running modern DX9 games. One has to avoid the confusion of faster graphics hardware being faster because of DX10. If you take something a DX10 card is doing that the consoles aren't, if the consoles had the same amount of expensive silicon in them, chances are they'd be something of a match in many cases. Put your DX10 GPU on a 128 Mb bus with 512 MBs shared RAM, and see how well it handles Crysis or even more complex DX10 titles...

 

[pjbliverpool]

I'm sure the largest factor limiting this from happening based around the sheer lack of DX10 penetration in the PC space..

Yes definatly that aswell for the moment. But I suspect even in 2-3 years when DX10 penetration is relatively high I think the consoles abilities might hold back "pure" DX10 games. If we are still in the same console gen by then of course.

Im personally hoping that this gen will last until at least the end of 2010.

 

[pjbliverpool]

You could emulate all DX10's features. The question is how fast they'd be. DX10 is a feature set, not a performance measure. You'll get DX10 cards unable to use DX10 features suitably quickly in future DX10 games, just as old DX9 cards aren't too hot at running modern DX9 games. One has to avoid the confusion of faster graphics hardware being faster because of DX10. If you take something a DX10 card is doing that the consoles aren't, if the consoles had the same amount of expensive silicon in them, chances are they'd be something of a match in many cases. Put your DX10 GPU on a 128 Mb bus with 512 MBs shared RAM, and see how well it handles Crysis or even more complex DX10 titles...

I see were your coming from but I don't think simply adding 768MB of memory on a 384bit bus to RSX would make PS3 capable of the same feats as an 8800GTX. It would certainly close the gap a hell of a lot though.

 

[archangelmorph]

Yes definatly that aswell for the moment. But I suspect even in 2-3 years when DX10 penetration is relatively high I think the consoles abilities might hold back "pure" DX10 games.

I don't believe that for a second..

PC developers are going to continue to do what they always do.. Make there games look good on the consoles and make them look even better on the PC..

Since graphics is about the only area I see DX10 making much of a difference I really don't think consoles will "hold anything back" unless PC developers reach the point of diminishing returns in terms of the cost of advancing visual fidelity on the PC doesn't justify the returns.. But IMO this isn't the console's fault.. It's the fault of failing PC business model with regards to both hardware and software..

In the end the consoles are only there as a means for PC devs to get their high end games to the mass market.. It's has no bearing on just how "high end" PC devs want to make their games look.. Especially considering the fact that PC devs have to support the lowest common denominator even on the PC so porting a downgraded build to consoles isn't as big of a problem as some made want to believe..

 

[ebola]

Going DX10 from the ground up would still produce better results but thats just not going to happen much due to the difficulty of then porting that game to a console.

Absolutely. And I suppose it would be a much easier development process with OOOE...and the lack of unified shader pipes on the RSX + SPU vertex prepcoessing makes it much harder to balance... so it's an 'in order' graphics pipeline too
So I suppose in that respect you could certainly say 'the complexity of console development holds back pc gaming', and in that context the original statement isn't completely nonsensical.

It is interesting how the two play off eachother. consoles were the first to innovate really useable gaming 3d hardware, but now economies of scale mean consoles use pc-derived graphics chips. Although the ps2 was behind DX for most of it's life, it did innovate programmable vertices. Consoles were first with unified shader pipes & 'geometry preprocesing' ... etc..

I like to remember that there's more to graphics techniques than what gets standardized in DX..

 

[pjbliverpool]

I don't believe that for a second..

PC developers are going to continue to do what they always do.. Make there games look good on the consoles and make them look even better on the PC..

Im talking about pure DX10 games. I.e. DX10 is the minimum spec as some fundamental aspect of the engine requires a DX10 feature that the consoles lack. I don't think we will see many games like that on PC even in 2-3 years due to the fact that they couldn't be ported to the consoles easily.

Its the same as last gen. How many games did we see with DX9 as a minimum spec before the 360 launched? If I recall correctly, Battlefield 2 was the first game that didn't have a DX8 path.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see were your coming from but I don't think simply adding 768MB of memory on a 384bit bus to RSX.

On RSX only, no. But throughout the entire system, the CPU can step in to satisfy the missing aspects to RSX. Where RSX lacks geometry shaders, Cell can do that workload. GPU's have the potential to do certain tasks faster than a CPU given the workload, but if you're not working on heavy texture data, fast vector CPU's aren't at any particular disadvantage. I don't know the ins and outs of DX10 to know what really needs specialist hardware to be usable in games, but certainly as features there's nothing it can do that these consoles can't. It's always a matter of speed. The DX10 GPUs have hardware to drive these features quickly where the PC CPU couldn't handle it (or perhaps where it just makes more sense to have it on the GPU in a PC), but the consoles are a bit different.

The real point is that having a DX10 GPU that's compliant with a DX10 game doesn't enable super-dooper-awesomeness. It's having a massive amount of processing silicon as well. The performance advantages of these new DX10 cards comes more from having more power under the hood, with associated costs. Versatility is something the consoles don't lack, as they're not locked into a certain way of doing things unlike the PC API's.

 

[archangelmorph]

Im talking about pure DX10 games. I.e. DX10 is the minimum spec as some fundamental aspect of the engine requires a DX10 feature that the consoles lack. I don't think we will see many games like that on PC even in 2-3 years due to the fact that they couldn't be ported to the consoles easily.

Its the same as last gen. How many games did we see with DX9 as a minimum spec before the 360 launched? If I recall correctly, Battlefield 2 was the first game that didn't have a DX8 path.

A games rendering capability isn't defined by it's interface..

PS2 never used DX at all and yet could emulate many DX supported effects using other means..

Porting a game from Dx10 hardware to OpenGL ES hardware is only as hard as looking at the visual/rendering effects being used and trying to figure out how you could do the same thing either as fast or as close to that speed as possible..

Make sense?