Melchiah
Member
We'll see if the tone changes the next round, if the next Xbox is more powerful than the PS5, and the developers hold the latter as the limit.
Batman: Arkham Knight Aiming for identical Res/Framerate Across Xbox One and PS4
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
We'll see if the tone changes the next round, if the next Xbox is more powerful than the PS5, and the developers hold the latter as the limit.
That was PC footage
Wow
I think they're too busy, you know, making a game and all.
Has it ever been the standard? Many SNES/Genesis games were completely different despite sharing the same/similar names! A buncha Saturn/PS/N64 multi-plats often differered in content and obviously how they ran. Same for the next generation an so on. I'd never expect multi-platform games to be wholly equal on each system they come out on because its rarely if ever worked that way!
It's not possible to bring the Xbone to parity with the PS4 if you are pushing the PS4 to the max. No amount of coding will bridge that gap if you put equal effort into both versions, that's why people say one platform is being held back by the other.
It's like time racing two identical cars with the same driver. One car has about 100 more HP yet they both clock the same time in the 1/4 mile. Only way that happens is if the driver of the more powerful car doesn't floor the accelerator.
Pathfinder
Member
Do you really require that kind of constant validation?
Isn't owning the more powerful console enough for you, or do you need every developer on the planet to say it on record? We KNOW it's going to run better on PS4. We've all had a solid year to realize this.
Seriously, I think most devs are too busy making games to care about what people are arguing about on NeoGAF.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Parity is straight up BS!
When console is obviously stronger you cant have parity without selling the stronger system short.
When console is obviously stronger you cant have parity without selling the stronger system short.
Night Angel
Member
Damn. Another game to boycott. Sry Rocksteady, I'm picking this one up used.
boredandlazy
Member
If only I had a preorder to cancel...
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
I sincerely hope this isn't a thing. I mean as a line of thinking it's entirely crazy and flawed.
I mean what kind of stupid would an Xbox One owner have to be to actually go and buy a console that is widely known to be weaker with regards to its GPU and then go in the huff and feel alienated when games are graphically below the level set by another console they already knew was stronger?!?!?
I believe most sensible Xbox owners surely have accepted their weaker GPU by now and they picked their console for what they perceive to be its relative advantages (Kinect, HDMI passthru etc).
Surely, I mean SURELY they don't want other versions to be held back??
When I had a Spectrum and my mate had a C64 I never used to sit there wishing that developers would stop using the SID chip to make cool music just because the Spectrum had a crappy soundchip.
Night Angel
Member
Nope. I don't see why boycotting a shitty practice is ridiculous enough to be sarcasm.
How far do you think this "controversy" reaches outside of these enthusiasts gaming forums?
So what makes it such a shitty practice to you exactly?
Are your posts all going to be the same theme of I can't believe people care about this as your initial post indicated or are you going to actually argue some kind of point?
Raven Prime
Member
BrainZEROX
Member
Yes I can understand it in a PC context where the CPU addresses ram devices that are different than those the GPU addresses. I don't know what is the impact of CPU intensive tasks on GPU operations when the CPU and the GPU share the same memory though.
For 99% of games out there it is cut and dry. Go into your GPU control panel and enable better AA, AF and whatnot. 99% of time better better hardware equals better framerate without the user doing anything. Using an outlier to defend something is pretty dumb.
On one hand I think this parity business is silly (on the part of the devs). On another hand I don't really understand the decision to boycott, it's not really a big deal even though it's dumb. Like, the thing is, I only boycott games if something about them truly upsets me in a way that affects my experience with the game in a meaningful way. This graphical parity shit isn't that, as a PS4 owner if I really cared about 1080p/60FPS on multiplats I would have gone PC. It's the principle that's upsetting, yeah, but I can't see how supporting a game like this would set a bad precedent for the industry other than having worse resolution and graphical performance. And let's be honest, it's not something that enough people care about that a widespread boycott is going to happen. Like, I boycott bad DRM practices because that's something that affects the industry in a meaningful way. Buying these games won't lead to anything. A game being a 900p instead of 1080p doesn't make or break my gaming experience. If I boycotted every single game where the developers made a dumb decision in terms of game design somewhere in the game then I wouldn't buy very many games. If you're boycotting this game I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, you can boycott whatever you like, but I just feel like I don't really understand your perspective.
But yeah disregarding the reactions in this topic this is still some bullshit. I'd definitely put my money on Microsoft being the cause, and honestly I can see why they'd do this but it's still scummy as hell.
But yeah disregarding the reactions in this topic this is still some bullshit. I'd definitely put my money on Microsoft being the cause, and honestly I can see why they'd do this but it's still scummy as hell.
Holy shit this is an insanely elitist attitude man. What if there are some people who want to play Halo, Forza, Sunset Overdrive + other exclusives to the Xbone? I honestly can't comprehend this brand loyalty thing...
We get you don't care about parity.
The Cowboy
Member
But what makes this a shitty practice?, all we know is they may have parity in resolution and frame rate - nothing more, we don't know anything about what that res may be or if the parity extends to in game graphics/effects.
We basically know next to nothing and yet we have people (apparently) boycotting over it, its actually quite bizarre considering how little we actually know and what was actually said in the Q&A.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
Difficult to say.
The AC:U was picked up by IGN and other online news outlets. Enough was made of it online for Ubisoft to keep releasing statements that were intended to ameliorate the situation but actually should have been filed under 'it's time to stop digging that hole'.
Some of my friends asked me if I was getting Unity and I said I cancelled my pre order and told them why.
None of them are getting it as far as I know although I don't know if they have been influenced by my stance or if they just aren't interested anyway.
I assume from the question you have a definitive analysis that clearly demonstrates this 'controversy' has reached no one outside these forums?
His phrasing was poor but I think most would agree that even though there are lots of reasons to own an Xbox One, multiplatform game performance isn't one of them.
TheFurizzlyBear
Member
I think people should wait for the results before flipping out over PR speak. WB has always been pretty chummy with Sony so I will be surprised if the PS4 version does not look better or if they pull some voodoo magic and make the X1 version as good.
That's not how programming and optimization works though. Just because the PC has better specs doesn't automatically render all ports to run better. Of course the avenues for enhanced GPU options are there but look at FFXIII and Dark Souls on PC for example. They were terrible and required post-release optimization done by fans.
So you're trying to tell me that buying a game used out of spite to a developer is justified simply because they don't favour your console of choice and validate your purchase for you? The whole point of keeping both versions of game largely the same is to not discourage others from buying their game. Because one person can go online and read about how awful the Batman game is on X1 not even fully knowing what the differences are just because it doesn't hit the magical 1080p, and they won't buy it. It doesn't matter if it is just one person or a hundred, all the shit that goes on online like this discourages buyers. Which is the last thing developers want for their game. They don't care about the resolution wars, they want to make the best game they can.
Are games that take advantage of the hardware to the fullest great, yeah they are. But games are time constricted, and sometimes not every developer has the time or resources to fully optimize their games. So at that point isn't it better to establish a baseline of how the game should run and look for both consoles?
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
You're exaggerating. At the moment it's a hypothetical boycott at best.
Most people who are opposed to the idea of parity have said they want clarification on what parity actually means in this case before deciding whether to give the game a miss or not.
nailbombxx
Member
DOWN
Banned
Did you read the thread title and OP?
Sounds like the opposite of affirming they will allow PS4 to get any further push, and I own both consoles, but don't buy multiplatform games on XB1.
I don't get your point. Why is their statement a good idea or indicating any good practice when it clearly suggests they are aiming for the stronger platform with a bigger audience to only be taken up to where the baseline of the weaker system can handle. They aren't going to try and push PS4's power, if their statement as it stands is the idea they are behind.
If they are so time constricted, then I would expect developers to spend their time where the most players are affected.
We mostly know how AAA console software by major publishers perform sales-wise and the numbers favor the PS4.
Xbone is harder to develop for than PS4, based on a lot of developers. (Not all.)
So why is your conclusion that they should go for a baseline, if the actual effort to get to that baseline is not same the same for both?
Melchiah
Member
Here's a couple of my previous posts on the subject.
As for this part...
They seem to be making the best game they can on the XB1, but not on the PS4. That's the difference.
Delta Assault
Member
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
I'm pretty sure devs try to make the best product they can make for all of their customers. Making games is incredibly difficult, and I'm pretty sure no dev is looking to slight anyone. His statement was so innocuous, it's so sad that a 20+ page thread needs to spawn from such offhand remarks whose only intention is try to make *everyone* happy. If you wanted to play this before but genuinely are intending to boycott in "protest" and voluntarily disallow yourself a great experience, or buy used intentionally to hurt the developer, because you feel you aren't getting a slightly better version, I feel bad for you.
shortsoptional
Member
Wouldn't holding back the capabilities of one console actually be favoring one over the other? It would seem arguing FOR parity would be more of an argument for someone who wanted to validate their purchase as opposed to someone wanting the best experience, regardless of gaming console.
Most everything we know about the two systems in question point to the best game they can make always being better on the PS4. That is taking away from the advantages of one product that a consumer used when making a purchasing decision. That is what a lot of people in this thread are upset about.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
MinionSaysWhaaa?.jpg
They weren't talking about a base line. The base line is the best you can manage on the weakest hardware.
They were talking about parity which enforcing different versions to run the same. Which by its nature means downgrading one version to match the base line version.
Is there any evidence at all that this is due to time constraints?
With regards to AC:U Ubisoft came right out and said it was to avoid debates and stuff. Which is a crappy reason.
shortsoptional
Member
Bingo
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Shadow of Mordor ended up looking and playing phenomenal on PS4/Xbox One, isn't it okay to expect the same with Arkham Knight? I've heard that console optimizations comes along really well towards the end of the production cycle. I'm very confident in Rocksteady delivering a rockawesomesteady game with arkham knight, be it the resolution/frame rate or even the actual game itself.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Your assuming they are actually holding back, in order to actually hold back you'd need a perfectly smooth locked framerate with the exact same graphical fidelity otherwise performance will always be better on one console than other.
Melchiah
Member
The backwards idea, that using both of the systems to their fullest would be favorism smells like bias in itself. Why else would anyone deem it a favor, as in developers going an extra mile for another pool of userbase, if they take advantage of each platform the best they can given their resources? Is it really an equal situation, if they put an effort to get the weaker system on a certain level, while keeping the stronger one at bay?
You can't be that old with hyperbole that silly.
Maybe people would change their tune if PC games were downgraded to Nintendo DS parity? Amirite??
"They don't care about the resolution wars, they want to make the best game they can."
Best game they can =/= Parity. How does making a version of the game on weaker hardware and the version of the game on stronger hardware equalized to each other mean a developer is making the best game they can?
The PS4 exists and is more powerful than the competition. That should be utilized, otherwise what's the point?
Cave Johnson
Member
There can be numerous amount of variables to where the power gap difference from but where it really shows it's significance is within the resolution and framerate assuming of course, they target the same graphical specs. The CPU on the X1 isn't that high enough that it would make up for the lost power difference in the way the CELL does for the PS4. It's the same CPU except that it's theoretically clocked higher than the PS4. In other words, there should be some significance in regards to both versions. If one is performing as well as the other than the developer has obviously took the effort to push one system to catch up while withholding further optimizations of the better system.
In short, it's appropriate to unfairly side with one system as long as the game is good. Your post makes no sense. On one hand, you see the points how serious this issue is and yet you demean the consumers for appropriately reacting to it.
Who cares whether or not the game is good or not? It's not relevant in this discussion. You make it sound like they deserve the right to your money because they made a "good" game. This attitude serves no purpose other than to deride consumers by telling them to "deal with it" in total disregard to the context of situation. You are advocating for mismatched treatment of a certain user-base because they bought a console fully expecting it to meet their expectations.
Taking for granted a stupid development practice because the game doesn't change it's enjoyment based on your requirements is some of the most contentious attitude you can convey. Trying to use the PC argument is the most cowardly attempt to close the debate; 1080p/60fps and parity clause are mutually exclusive features. This isn't trying to make the PS4 like the PC, it's developers locking the PS4's specs so that the weaker system can catch up. That is the difference. If you can't see past this then you are being willingly obtuse.
I'm sorry, don't try to make it sound like we have a duty and responsibility for your personal enjoyment. Go ahead and vote with your wallet but don't try to evangelize mediocrity and abhorrent practices just because you are willing to let them slide. There are those who value ethics above some product compiled with code. They don't deserve demeaning attitudes because they are not willing to compromise their stance on their purchase. If this truly doesn't affect you then I don't see how your points are even relevant to this discussion, if any at all.
The Joker (parity) is causing chaos wherever he goes and he has somehow brainwashed Harley Quin (some major multiplat developers) into thinking that hes the best thing since sliced bread. Batman (gamers) has had enough of Joker's rampant shenaningans and is in the process of laying the beatdown (GAF shitstorm, twittertags and boycotts) on the Joker. He wants put him in Arkham Asylum and throw away the key (do away with artificial performance parity across significantly superior hardware) becuase that's what always happens to the bad guys (historical precedence= parity has never existed in previous generations). But Harley Quin (developers) keeps breaking the Joker (Parity) back out of the Asylum (insisting on the application of parity) for seemingly no apparent reason. SO Batman (Gamers/GAF) is getting fed up and promising to give Harely Quin (developers) the beatdown (intensely negative PR and loss of profits due to boycot) too. Moral of the story: dont fuck with Batman.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
This is no great sin in itself and I don't get why people keep acting like it is or would they rather PS3 games ran at 10 fps while X360 moved closer to 60. Because devs did a lot of this "parity" for good reason last gen..The developers don't want that and neither do owners of said consoles. It's one thing to bring one console up to snuff it's another to handicap inbuilt hardware advantages for no reason.