The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*

[Kameradschaft]

That doesn't make any sense.

"We'll sell maybe 2 million on 360 and maybe 3 million on PS3 because it has better Steam integration."
"Really? Let's just make the 360 version on the cheap then because it's not as big."

You don't deliberately reduce sales because you can't be arsed! Whatever choices were made regards the 360 development were in view of making the most money. The cynical notion of holding back 360 games to match inferior PS3 versions because PS3 can't cope makes some sense, because of the "they didn't try hard enough" reaction from lunatic fans resulting in less PS3 sales. But having a game that could be better not being better is going to lose you sales for no gains. What's the thinking here? 360 owners were never going to buy Portal 2 because it hasn't got Steam integration, so you may as well not bother?!

The most plausible reason for one version of a game to look inferior to the other platform is technical, by along chalk. I can agree comparable results my by political, with a choice to hold back one platform, but I can't believe either of the 50ish million install base of each console is worth brushing aside with a cheap port, such that developers won't try to make the best game they can. So looking at something like Crysis 2, the reason it looks worse on PS3 isn't because MS moneyhats bought CryTek out, but because they had trouble getting their game to run as well on PS3.

OK so you're implying that the theory that Valve made a quick/basic port on the 360 makes no sense and that between the two versions the differences are purely due to hardware limitations...do you think that from what we've seen and know thus far about the tech of the game that the 360 couldn't do better than this? and if you believe so then could you please elaborate what are the reasons? in all honesty I'm very curious to know what aspects of the 360's hardware are holding the 360 version back technically.

 

[jonabbey]

People on GAF are speculating that the 360 is skipping MSAA so that they can avoid tiling on the 360 with Source. I don't imagine that makes a great deal of sense.

 

[assurdum]

Platform politics may also play a role. Gabe already did a 180 when he decided to announce their appreciation of the PS3 and Sony's online system after all those years of bashing the console - I wouldn't put it past Valve and Sony to "help" one version look better (or worse) than the other.

 

[joker454]

That doesn't make any sense.

I don't agree that devs purposely gimped one version. Honestly all the devs I've ever met have had way too much pride in their work to do something like that.

However the love affair between MS and Vale is over, or certainly should be over. Windows 8 will ship with an app store, and along with a pc + console + phone gaming ecosystem Ms is basically looking to eliminate Steam come Win8. Steam, as cool as it may be, can fall just like any other in the long list of "invincible" companies/tech we've all seen in the past 30 years. So right now it behooves Valve to make a big partner, and do it *fast*. They will never have MS has a partner for what they want to do, period, so Sony is the logical choice. Doing so does not mean gimping titles, but if they are smart they should be dedicated all resources to what helps their long term, in this case they need to keep Sony happy and make sure they devote more resources to PS3 versions of all games going forwards. Feel free to quote me, but I do not expect to ever see a Valve game perform better on 360 compared to PS3 ever again, doing so would be dumb business. Again though it does not mean purposely gimping one of the versions, it just means putting more effort to whatever and wherever helps their long term goals best which from now on is the PS3. Because once the Win8 app store hits Valve will have some serious competition on their hands.

 

[makattack]

OK so you're implying that the theory that Valve made a quick/basic port on the 360 makes no sense and that between the two versions the differences are purely due to hardware limitations...do you think that from what we've seen and know thus far about the tech of the game that the 360 couldn't do better than this? and if you believe so then could you please elaborate what are the reasons? in all honesty I'm very curious to know what aspects of the 360's hardware are holding the 360 version back technically.

I didn't come away from Shifty's comment with your interpretation at all. I simple saw his quote:

The most plausible reason for one version of a game to look inferior to the other platform is technical, by along chalk.

As saying (despite the typo with lack of spacing between "a" and "long") that the minor differences in architecture results in minor differing results. For example, a software based edge-smoothing (under certain conditions) resulting in better results being easier to implement on the PS3 because of it's support in the PSDK vs. the traditional GPU based anti-aliasing options on the XDK which can't be utilized for whatever reasons...

These are well-known differences between the two platforms. I think Shifty is basically saying that these are the technical reasons for the differences... vs some sort of conspiracy-theory laced argument about purposely sabotaging one version vs. the other.

 

[betan]

I don't agree that devs purposely gimped one version. Honestly all the devs I've ever met have had way too much pride in their work to do something like that.

So can you please remind us again, who were gimping 360 versions for so called platform parity to get Sony's approval?

However the love affair between MS and Vale is over, or certainly should be over. Windows 8 will ship with an app store, and along with a pc + console + phone gaming ecosystem Ms is basically looking to eliminate Steam come Win8. Steam, as cool as it may be, can fall just like any other in the long list of "invincible" companies/tech we've all seen in the past 30 years. So right now it behooves Valve to make a big partner, and do it *fast*. They will never have MS has a partner for what they want to do, period, so Sony is the logical choice. Doing so does not mean gimping titles, but if they are smart they should be dedicated all resources to what helps their long term, in this case they need to keep Sony happy and make sure they devote more resources to PS3 versions of all games going forwards. Feel free to quote me, but I do not expect to ever see a Valve game perform better on 360 compared to PS3 ever again, doing so would be dumb business. Again though it does not mean purposely gimping one of the versions, it just means putting more effort to whatever and wherever helps their long term goals best which from now on is the PS3. Because once the Win8 app store hits Valve will have some serious competition on their hands.

If only PS3 had something like an app store.
Seriously though if there is something going on between Valve and Sony, it may have less to do with PS3 but more to the with all other platforms.

 

[assurdum]

I can't believe in what I have readen in some quote so basically crysis 2 on the ps3 use more low res because crytek has an exclusive agreement with microsoft, right? I can't imaginate what going on if anyone just tries to said something like that talking of the crysis 2 version on the ps3... couldn't be the valve engine working better on the ps3 hardware, no?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Okay, I extend my question from Shifty to anyone willing to give any theories for an explanation.

The blur on the X360 is clearly destructive and removes texture detail while doesn't really help with the aliasing. What possible reasons could Valve have to do so, instead of delivering a simple 720p noAA image?

Because it's not like the XGPU would apply the blur on its own unless Valve gets some Xbox coding ninjas to do some crazy programming-tsu and remove it. Someone had to put it in there intentionally, and I honestly wonder why they did that.

 

[AlNom]

I can't believe in what I have readen in some quote so basically crysis 2 on the ps3 use more low res because crytek has an exclusive agreement with microsoft, right? I can't imaginate what going on if anyone just said something like that talking of the crysis 2 version on the ps3... couldn't be the valve engine working better on the ps3 hardware, no?

Right. I think we should dispense with the conspiracy theories with companies.

I'm rather more interested in why they couldn't afford even 2xMSAA...

The blur on the X360 is clearly destructive and removes texture detail while doesn't really help with the aliasing. What possible reasons could Valve have to do so, instead of delivering a simple 720p noAA image?

Well, historically speaking, they have used an edge blur filter before for L4D1&2...

 

[assurdum]

Okay, I extend my question from Shifty to anyone willing to give any theories for an explanation.

The blur on the X360 is clearly destructive and removes texture detail while doesn't really help with the aliasing. What possible reasons could Valve have to do so, instead of delivering a simple 720p noAA image?

Because it's not like the XGPU would apply the blur on its own unless Valve gets some Xbox coding ninjas to do some crazy programming-tsu and remove it. Someone had to put it in there intentionally, and I honestly wonder why they did that.

Probably MSAA not working so good & cost too much compared the effective result I guess... even gears of war seem not AA even used 2xmsaa...

 

[function]

I can't believe in what I have readen in some quote so basically crysis 2 on the ps3 use more low res because crytek has an exclusive agreement with microsoft, right? I can't imaginate what going on if anyone just said something like that talking of the crysis 2 version on the ps3... couldn't be the valve engine working better on the ps3 hardware, no?

The 360 game looks nasty. It would look nasty if there was no PS3 version.

Steamcloud on the PS3 is a big deal. Steam is bigger than Portal 2. Crytek don't have a cloud based service linking up to the 360 version of Crysis 2.

I'm not going to engage in conspiracy theory talk, but I'll point out two simple facts:

i) PS3 Portal 2 is more important than 360 Portal 2.
ii) 360 Portal 2 looks nasty.

 

[assurdum]

The 360 game looks nasty. It would look nasty if there was no PS3 version.

Steamcloud on the PS3 is a big deal. Steam is bigger than Portal 2. Crytek don't have a cloud based service linking up to the 360 version of Crysis 2.

I'm not going to engage in conspiracy theory talk, but I'll point out two simple facts:

i) PS3 Portal 2 is more important than 360 Portal 2.
ii) 360 Portal 2 looks nasty.

Mmm... I continue to find absurd this type of conjecture, if I remember correctly Valve time ago said to have reserve the same attention to the 360 version of the game..... However, a part the bizarre no AA & blur filter decision(however it isn't the first time & could be a technical reason) what have of so worsen or nasty the 360 version? It appear pretty similar to me...

 

[joker454]

So can you please remind us again, who were gimping 360 versions for so called platform parity to get Sony's approval?


If only PS3 had something like an app store.
Seriously though if there is something Valve and Sony, it may have less to do with PS3 but more to the with all other platforms.

Of course, betan misinderstanding a post and adding a snide comment as a bonus, I'm shocked gimped as in purposely destroying, like in this case adding a blur filter just to make one version look worse, I've never known a dev to do that.

 

[function]

Mmm... I continue to find absurd this type of conjecture, if I remember correctly Valve time ago said to have reserve the same attention to the 360 version of the game..... However, a part the bizarre no AA & blur filter decision(however it isn't the first time & could be a technical reason) what have of so worsen or nasty the 360 version? It appear pretty similar to me...

Which part of what I said, specifically, do you consider conjecture?

 

[Trejser]

But they used this blur filter previously in L4D 1/2, and I don't think they gimped 360 versions of this games on purpose. They probably can't use normal MSAA for some reason so they used this blur filter in 360 titles, on PS3 they have this "new" MLAA.

So why Rockstar added QAA to PS3 version of RAGE, it's hardly working (selective?) and it only adds blur to the image (sub-hd image...).

 

[Ruskie]

Although I have to say GTA IV had a slight "bias" towards PS3.What I mean is,it was sub hd but they did use warmer colors(dunno why) so many sites reported that PS3 version of the game is better looking one.

On this case,I honestly don't know and I don't think they gimped anything on purpose.I'm sure they gave PS3 version great treatment since they hired some ND guys but thats life for you,its not like its unplayable,its just ugly

 

[rekator]

But they used this blur filter previously in L4D 1/2, and I don't think they gimped 360 versions of this games on purpose. They probably can't use normal MSAA for some reason so they used this blur filter in 360 titles, on PS3 they have this "new" MLAA.

So why Rockstar added QAA to PS3 version of RAGE, it's hardly working (selective?) and it only adds blur to the image (sub-hd image...).

They don't use MSAA on 360 'cause they don't want to past time to recode the Source Engine for tiling. And MLAA is probably very simple due to the fact Source Engine don't use SPUs a lot so they have room for it. And for L4D… well it's really not games who exploit the 360, Source Engine it's old engine, don't really made for the consoles. And for the blur on 360, I'm thinking that date of the period when MS impose some AA method to devs, so Blur is the simple method for AA, not good one, but a method, and they don't change the code from this.
Valve had probably preferred allocate resource engineering on Steam or futur Souce evolution for Half Life 3. After all now their money maker is more Steam than game. And portal is more hype for the type of game, than for it's graphics.

And Valve don't interested in console, they want you go to Steam, simple MS don't want this, and Sony need help to refind some respect from gamers and it's online need help, so it's a natural alliance.

 

[assurdum]

Which part of what I said, specifically, do you consider conjecture?

To say 360 version is 'worse' (& just for a blur filter ) because sony has an agreement with valve steam, is something of technical relevant or a real matter of discussion? Come on now... I think it's more interesting to understand the real technical reason indeed follow this way. Probably like cryengine MSAA is impossible...it seem use a lot of physics... isn't it more expensive for the 360 hardware (like unified shaders for the ps3)?

 

[djskribbles]

I doubt it, but I REALLY hope Valve 'remasters' the Orange Box games for PS3 and re-releases them with EP3. I would buy it in a second.

 

[assurdum]

I doubt it, but I REALLY hope Valve 'remasters' the Orange Box games for PS3 and re-releases them with EP3. I would buy it in a second.

My great hopes... maybe steam can convince Valve...