Jump to content
rllmuk
TehStu

Xbox Product Name Placeholder (Project Scarlett)

Recommended Posts

On 20/07/2019 at 17:28, petrolgirls said:

 

Any game will load faster on SSD, that's not really in question. The implication of your post was that MS would be able to design a game around next gen superfast SSD's and scale that game design down to run on HDD's. That's not really possible as the PS5 Spiderman demo running on PS4 makes very clear. You can instead design for the lowest common denominator but that's hardly offering up any insight.

 

 

Graphically, perhaps - but that's not the issue. The difference in CPU speed and data bandwidth was almost negligible from last gen to this gen whereas in this regard it looks certain that the jump from this gen to the next is going to be massive.

 

Crucially, the stuff that runs on CPU (game logic, enemy AI, physics) and data bandwidth (texture streaming) doesn't scale at all well. On that basis it seems reasonable to conclude there may actually be far fewer cross-gen titles this time around - at least as far as big budget games go. Any game that uses anything like the full amount of CPU and bandwidth available on next gen machines simply won't run on current gen machines.

 

Explain the Nintendo Switch ports of games never designed with it in mind then? on paper, a huge gap, yet you can practically downscale games to run on it, despite the huge lack of bandwidth and lesser CPU resources available.

 

 

On 20/07/2019 at 21:41, Uncle Mike said:

I don't think you understand, petrolgirls. Mushashi read something on ResetEra.

 

That insult never gets old ;)

 

 

On 21/07/2019 at 08:56, petrolgirls said:

 

Beyond GPU's there wasn't much difference between this gen and last so getting stuff running on both generations of machines was pretty trivial. This time round there won't be anything like that near parity. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out - developers will, I imagine, want to design around the new toys available to them but publishers will want to try sell to as big an install base as possible. 

 

I would hard disagree with that and I'll use some Microsoft exclusives as proof. Rise of the Tombraider, Titanfall and Forza Horizon 2 all required bespoke versions to be made to run well on the X360, so the exact opposite of trivial.

 

Shadow of Mordor also had a bespoke last gen port, so even early on, developers didn't have it easy doing last gen ports of games designed around the capabilities of the new machines. FIFA moved the last gen consoles to legacy code and essentially their own game version too.

 

Battlefield did a cross-gen game near launch where the last gen machines were both performance and graphics limited and multiplayer player counts had to be hacked back, but it worked, so you can do the exact same thing this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mushashi said:

Explain the Nintendo Switch ports of games never designed with it in mind then? on paper, a huge gap, yet you can practically downscale games to run on it, despite the huge lack of bandwidth and lesser CPU resources available.

 

Pretty simple really, CPU heavy games aren't ported. There's no big open-world stuff like modern Assassins Creed games, Red Dead and Far Cry, no complex sports sims like Madden, there's FIFA but it's a simplified game engine precisely because the Switch CPU can't run the full game. 

 

It's hard to do a direct comparison with the Switch's Tegra 4xRISC cores and PS4/Bones 8xCISC Jaguar cores - there's no question the Jaguar cores are collectively faster but not, it seems, by some massive margin. It's enough, though, to preclude a good many games getting ported. The difference in compute speed next gen seems certain to be vast which will make porting games that utilise anything like the full CPU essentially impossible. 

 

18 hours ago, mushashi said:

I would hard disagree with that and I'll use some Microsoft exclusives as proof. Rise of the Tombraider, Titanfall and Forza Horizon 2 all required bespoke versions to be made to run well on the X360, so the exact opposite of trivial.

 

Shadow of Mordor also had a bespoke last gen port, so even early on, developers didn't have it easy doing last gen ports of games designed around the capabilities of the new machines. FIFA moved the last gen consoles to legacy code and essentially their own game version too.

 

Battlefield did a cross-gen game near launch where the last gen machines were both performance and graphics limited and multiplayer player counts had to be hacked back, but it worked, so you can do the exact same thing this time.

 

RotTR and Titanfall are gameplay identical ports so I'm not sure what your point is there, FH2 isn't - they couldn't get the Forza5 engine (on which FH2 is based) running on 360 so created a different game. I didn't claim there was CPU parity between last gen and this - just that they were close enough that in the overwhelming majority of cross-gen games the ports were relatively trivial. This will not be the case next gen should developers choose to use anything like the compute power available to them. 

 

Shadow of Mordor is the one example of a game where they managed to strip out a CPU overhead precisely because it's a meta-game that sits atop the game itself so wouldn't have been too problematic to remove. I pointed this out a few posts ago as a unique example of this so I'm struggling to understand why you're just regurgitating it back at me. 

 

Yes, FIFA had a shared engine for a couple of years but then elected to use the extra compute available to them this gen which broke compatibility essentially creating two games.

 

You've made an entire post with examples that fatally undermine your notion that compute is scalable in games which suggests you don't really understand this stuff at a quite fundamental level and, if I'm honest, it's getting tiresome having to unpick your weird self-defeating arguments over and over again, I feel like I'm just repeating the same stuff but it isn't sinking in.

 

One last time, with feeling: game logic, AI and physics are all CPU dependent and, unlike graphics engines which are GPU dependent, don't scale easily at all within the context of games. This isn't a contentious position, maybe go have a read around the subject as I'm not sure I can say it much more clearly. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Sorry to play devil's advocate here but wouldn't Witcher 3 count as a big modern open world game? 

 

It's a fair point and presumably the reason it created a good deal of surprise at being ported to Switch. You have to assume it's wasn't too heavy on compute resources in the first place, been a while since I played it but I remember it having basic combat mechanics and next to no physics - you have to imagine that all helped.

 

It's not like Switch can't do open world games, as Zelda quite beautifully demonstrates, but you can literally see how Nintendo have had to cut corners to get it running on Switch and WiiU (even more incredibly).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be a real quandary for mushashi to find himself in a situation where Resetera says one thing, and someone with some actual knowledge says the opposite. Like the equivalent of a divide by zero error. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@petrolgirls Could you design them. To be scalable though, if you were going from.l the ground up? For example, via utilising algorithms that are best effort, disabling sections of the code at compile time to reduce overhead, or swapping particular modules etc. Maybe even offloading some of the compute to the cloud. 

 

Just wondering if different approaches would open the door if, say Ms has decided that's the target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, petrolgirls said:

 

It's a fair point and presumably the reason it created a good deal of surprise at being ported to Switch. You have to assume it's wasn't too heavy on compute resources in the first place, been a while since I played it but I remember it having basic combat mechanics and next to no physics - you have to imagine that all helped.

 

It's not like Switch can't do open world games, as Zelda quite beautifully demonstrates, but you can literally see how Nintendo have had to cut corners to get it running on Switch and WiiU (even more incredibly).

I thought TW3 was quite cpu heavy, which is why it ran like arse on the base consoles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kensei said:

@petrolgirls Could you design them. To be scalable though, if you were going from.l the ground up? For example, via utilising algorithms that are best effort, disabling sections of the code at compile time to reduce overhead, or swapping particular modules etc. Maybe even offloading some of the compute to the cloud. 

 

Just wondering if different approaches would open the door if, say Ms has decided that's the target. 

 

If they could offload compute to the cloud in a meaningful way in real time, outside of multiplayer dedicated servers, they would already have done so.

 

If it was trivial enough to do, someone would already have done it at some point over the last twenty years on PC.

 

each of the things you suggest simply doubles the number of test paths/failure modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, APM said:

I thought TW3 was quite cpu heavy, which is why it ran like arse on the base consoles.

 

A lazy Google around the time of launch from PC types around suggests TW3 was GPU, not CPU bound. To @kensei's point I'm sure it's possible to optimize code but it seems unlikely you'd be looking at anything like the optimization required to scale from next gen down to this gen assuming the rumours of a 4x increase in compute are founded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TW3 is cpu heavy, digital fou dry have numerous videos showing this. And an amusing demonstration is the original unpatched version on an xbox x, as outside a city it runs at nearly 60 all the time, the moment you hit a city, framerate goes down. So, it will be interesting to see what they have done to the switch version.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 5R7 said:

TW3 is cpu heavy, digital fou dry have numerous videos showing this. And an amusing demonstration is the original unpatched version on an xbox x, as outside a city it runs at nearly 60 all the time, the moment you hit a city, framerate goes down. So, it will be interesting to see what they have done to the switch version.

 

Given it runs at around 30fps on Xbox One but 60fps on One X strongly suggests it's not CPU limited - there's very little difference between the CPU in the One and One X. Slowdown when in a city is just as likely an issue with the graphics engine as anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...no...its CPU heavy.

this is just from a very recent demo, where they use a 2080ti, at 1080p to cpu limit the game, as Rich says, its CPU heavy. (should start at 17.20)

 

actually this compares some cpus. the lower end really drops in the city.

 

SO, it will be interesting to see what happens with the switch version!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5R7 said:

...no...its CPU heavy.

this is just from a very recent demo, where they use a 2080ti, at 1080p to cpu limit the game, as Rich says, its CPU heavy. (should start at 17.20)

 

actually this compares some cpus. the lower end really drops in the city.

 

SO, it will be interesting to see what happens with the switch version!

 

They're having to use an old dual-core G3258 to get the frame rate to drop significantly, even then it still runs the game mostly north of 30fps, well over 80/90fps in places - so there's no reason that well optimized code couldn't run around 30fps on the Switch's quad-core RISC setup. There's no way that you could describe Witcher 3 as CPU bound for most PC gamers setups.

 

Given the Xbox One X's antique Jaguar cores are able to squeeze mostly 60fps out of Witcher 3 and the consensus is the Switch cores are individually faster than Jaguar (albeit half as numerous) it stands to reason that you could coax something around 30fps out of a Switch without too much of a struggle. I guess we'll find out soon enough.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/07/2019 at 12:05, K said:

It must be a real quandary for mushashi to find himself in a situation where Resetera says one thing, and someone with some actual knowledge says the opposite. Like the equivalent of a divide by zero error. 

 

Is petrogirls an actual game developer then?, as the last time he mentioned what he did for a living, it wasn't in game development. And people seem to love to claim what I say is from NeoGAF ResetEra, when that's complete BS.

 

My opinions are my own, thank you very much.

 

As least nobody is claiming I've stooped so low as to regurgitate something I might have read on the unofficial Edge forum run by some bloke called Rob.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mushashi said:

Is petrogirls an actual game developer then?, as the last time he mentioned what he did for a living, it wasn't in game development.

 

I don't claim to work in development, I work in visual effects which is a fairly closely related field. My primary tool runs on OpenGL, is made by Autodesk and shares stuff like shaders with their game dev tools. My coding skills are modest, at best, but I've managed to get a few simple ideas up and running on stuff like Unity and Gamemaker. There are definitely people on here who know an awful lot more than me about developing games, but I know enough to understand the fundamentals and recognise when someone's chatting biscuits.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Witcher 3 doesn’t strike me as a game which is particularly CPU heavy. It’s got an enormous world, yes, but there’s not much unscripted game logic at work. Enemies are tied to spawn points, etc. Nothing much happens spontaneously, there aren’t many physics or weather systems which affect gameplay or interact, etc. 

 

The towns are crowded, but even then most of the NPCs are superfluous, just standing around not doing anything. Changing NPC density doesn’t really affect anything much because their pathfinding and AI is incredibly basic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone even understand what anyone is arguing about anymore in this thread? Mushashi appears to be agreeing and disagreeing that games can/can't be scaled when it suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

The Witcher 3 doesn’t strike me as a game which is particularly CPU heavy. It’s got an enormous world, yes, but there’s not much unscripted game logic at work. Enemies are tied to spawn points, etc. Nothing much happens spontaneously, there aren’t many physics or weather systems which affect gameplay or interact, etc. 

 

The towns are crowded, but even then most of the NPCs are superfluous, just standing around not doing anything. Changing NPC density doesn’t really affect anything much because their pathfinding and AI is incredibly basic. 

 

Playing W3 on PC and pumping the npc setting up made a huge difference as far as I remember. Cities were actually full of people (and with more activities) compared to the consoles which were relatively empty. There were even empty market stalls on consoles which was really disappointing. When we say that the X can run W3 on 60 fps is not really any major achievement because the way it does it is by dropping the settings to medium and dynamically changing from 1080p and up to 4K, while at the same time not really offering anything new since 2015 in the areas were the cpu is needed. 

 

I don’t think we can call it just GPU based when the new consoles can only hit their FPS targets by keeping the cpu stuff on the level they were four years ago.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On PC, I found playing with that slider changed very little in terms of my performance, and that was with bloody old hardware. You could be right, though. There will inevitably be a CPU cost, all those NPCs don’t come for free, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near like in games where you’ve got weather systems interacting with random encounters and explosions, etc. Very little which happens in Witcher 3 is unscripted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Spencer has been quoted as saying "Nobody's asking for VR on Xbox" which as patent bullshit. He basically doesn't like VR; what a short-sighted muppet. He needs to go. He just about steadied what was a very rocky ship. But now Xbox needs a visionary, Phil Spencer clearly isn't one. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thor said:

Phil Spencer has been quoted as saying "Nobody's asking for VR on Xbox" which as patent bullshit. He basically doesn't like VR; what a short-sighted muppet. He needs to go. He just about steadied what was a very rocky ship. But now Xbox needs a visionary, Phil Spencer clearly isn't one. 

Citation needed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thor said:

Phil Spencer has been quoted as saying "Nobody's asking for VR on Xbox" which as patent bullshit. He basically doesn't like VR; what a short-sighted muppet. He needs to go. He just about steadied what was a very rocky ship. But now Xbox needs a visionary, Phil Spencer clearly isn't one. 

 

I think he's just towing the corporate line. Problem is Kinect and the Xbox One fiasco. So he's had to sort things out. MS are being risk avesrse at the moment. In general people really don't know what they want but show them something revolutionary and they will buy into it. Apple with the iPhone is a prime example of this type of thinking.

 

Problem is if he keeps following what the gamers want games and the tech will stagnate. 

 

MS do have hololens so it.will be interesting to see what becomes of that and to be fair the Kinect project was a success on the 360 (think it was one of the highest selling peripherals for a console or something). So they can innovate. 

 

Not having a VR offering is a mistake at the moment I think as there is interest in it. Look at the noises Valve are making with the next Half Life. The problem is getting people to experience it and all the wires and kit you need.

 

When I tried out PSVR the other day I have to admit I was blown away and it takes a lot to impress an ageing gamer like me. Within 30 mins I saw the future. And kudos to Sony for getting this out for the price they did. The tech works really well. Its brought VR to the masses.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. I have PSVR and it’s amazing but no way is it the future in the next 5years.  There’s cheap generic  headsets coming out on Windows 10 and I can imagine that the Xbox division might at some point announce compatibility with them but I totally understand why at launch they would only want to talk about games with no VR peripheral talk to dilute the message.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.