You replied to someone saying worst case scenario is a 720p game. Then you went on a completely baseless rant about how MS would never approve a 720p game in certification. And then finally you backtracked saying actually you didn't mean a specific resolution. Which makes the entire initial point of debate moot since suddenly 720p actually isn't an issue. This is you why you're not even worth bothering with. Dishonesty from start to finish.
I'm sure Cyberpunk blamed last gen consoles for the state it was in at some point. Developing for PS4/XB1 is not without issues either.
Very true but this is referring to games developed "firmly for new consoles" which I imagine means those who have decided to drop last gen.
Fair enough, though I would say it's a little more than just looking good. There's game features, and development cost too.
CPU is basically identical apart from being clocked 200mhz lower. Plus the SSD the exact same speed/architecture except for capacity so yeah XSS itself shouldn't be the limiting factor. Developers should focus on not making stuff for the bloody the last gen consoles first before we worry about XSS even remotely being a bottleneck.
Not the same thing / playing semantics eh and still tangential to the main topic, bit of a detail there mate
.So you're not tired of having the same conversation over and over again?
I think you missed the original tweeter's point.
I hope so. I also think they might copy Xbox's 2 pronged approach moving forward to ensure they snatch the kiddie/Fortnite market and have a more profitable box. I'd buy a 5-6tf PS5.
Dude look how good Rift Apart looks and it's basically a year one PS5 game. Your crazy if you think games will only look 10% better.
Idk why people keep defending this when actual game devs have said the same thing multiple times. But at the end of the day the console is in the wild, it's too late so I don't see the point of going back and forth about it.
Only time will tell if Xbox made the right decision with the Series S. They only care about game pass so pushing the envelope with their consoles clearly isn't the main priority, it just sucks that they made it seem like it was when they announced the Series X first with the tag line "most console console ever made"…
"Clarified" after being told over several posts that 720p20 hasn't been a reason to refused for certification in the past.
But who's at fault, the little console that could or the big engine developer that couldn't?
Well then basically every single game ever made that isn't exclusive to a specific platform has the same problems but companies still make it work. Plus, look at all the companies that started putting games on Switch when it became a hit (after initially being not interested at all).
I could be very wrong about this, but isn't same case with PC? I'm no expert but isn't usually PC developers have to make the games able to run on low end gaming PCs?
I clarified straight away in the initial post that the main point was that optimisation is required to pass certification
You brought up pubG not me as an example of such a game. I said PubG just had the Xbox one S build, playable at stable 30fps for 2 years on Series S before they released a native Xbox Series S version this June. I even admitted that yeah XSX and PS5 got an update that time too. Why so long. They could have just hit compile and away they went.
No idea what you're saying here but min spec can be set by the dev at whatever they want. End of story.
'Tale plague' may be showing signs of what? What is it struggling with? Performance optimisation isn't stellar correct? but it hits its target 30fps most of the time. It still had to be optimised and pass certification.
In the OP, that's the evidence.
This would depend on your team, game scope, engine. Series X challenges are not the same as Series S. It's obvious the effort for Series S is much much higher.
Yes, those challenges aren't comparable in scope though.
Why would I say that? They praise it for different reasons, install base for a cheap console being one. Those reasons are not ease of development though, especially compared to XSX/PS5.
unified memory was far better, agreed. Do you agree that a split memory pool was an issue for some devs on the PS3? Now imagine a tiny split pool now. Cell I can see mixed results because while novel it provided great performance on some tasks. My motivation isn't what you think it is if this is what you're bringing up.
Yes I feel for them and I'm just commenting on a forum like anybody else. I'm a tech lead.
We've already discussed this. They specifically mention "memory optimisation especially on the Series S". Any optimisation however would apply to all systems even the PS5. The point is that they had to step in for optimisation and Epic couldn't just do it on their own. They didn't just hit compile and release a mess on Series S, they shifted the memory and performance optimisation onto The Coalition.The Coalition stepped in to get the demo optimized on both the Series X and Series S. Not just the Series S.
See how you're pushing misinformation?
Nobody. It's not a blame game. It's the reality of a situation.
Absolutely it's a positive they did.
It's also got a massive budget and was made by a large amount of different studios (9 I think)
I'm pretty sure you're misreading "We worked with Epic on the initial Unreal Engine 4 support for xbox series" as them polishing some kind of demo. Maybe also true, but that's not what it says. They worked with them as usual for hardware support. That collaboration conitnued with UE5 hardware support.…And you're doubling down.
Coalition weren't brought in to make it work on Series S. They were brought in to optimize the demo on Xbox hardware. They were responsible for getting it running on both Series X and Series S.
You pitching it as 'Epic couldn't do it on their own' makes no sense. The Xbox wire article also says Coalition worked with Epic on the March 2020 UE4 demo for Xbox Series X. Are you also gonna claim that Epic couldn't get UE4 running on 12TF, 16GB RAM Series X?
The project to help the number one off the shelf engine work better on Series S is something that was worth The Coalition getting involved in because it means that those tweeks are now in for everyone to make use of (the source code for the Matrix demo is open and anyone can load it in and see how it's working under the hood). Looking at code examples and learning from them is something all developers have to do anyway and is the primary reason for these demos, not for consumers to download and play with. If a developer doesn't want to learn from these examples and wants to carry on using old methods then they are not really doing their jobs properly, would you trust a surgeon to carry out an operation who wasn't upto date with their knowledge and certifications? I can understand the reason why cross-gen games can be difficult to port due to the game being primarily coded for old APIs using old techniques. However, when these devs are saying things like "when we are developing full next gen only games the Series S is going to be a problem" it really doesn't hold water. It means that they can use all these new techniques right from the ground up that the machines were designed to take advantage of and will allow the developers to write efficient code and get the most out of them. If these devs see these new powerful machines (XSX PS5) as a way to brute force more out of using the old techniques then it's their own mentality that is at fault not the Series S. The Series S is full current gen architecture and any game that is written specifically for XSX and PS5 will down port easily and as many devs have come out and said, when you down port to Series S you actually get more headroom to play with because a lot of the architecture is exactly the same as the full fat consoles. I would bet that those saying that they are having issues down porting are also taking shortcuts or reusing lots of old code and using the power in the full fat consoles to make up for it. Follow good practice with your coding and the down port will take care of itself to a large degree is the message I am getting from the devs who are saying Series S isn't an issue.
That's just my speculation but if Jimbo is smart he would give a dev "special treatment" like 20/80 split or smh, that would decide to go exclusive.
This is how you misconstrue things. I never said they passed over a mess. In fact I said the opposite that they didn't jus hit compile and release a mess but handed the memory optimisation and performance debt/work to The Coalition.
I did say it. I said the intent and context matters straight away. I asked for examples only because I used numbers for what I would consider poorly optimised. I just wanted some examples that ran at 20fps 720p on a Series S. You didn't provide that either. Matrix awakens is mostly 30fps in gameplay and has been optimised by MS themselves. You brought up PUBG xbox one s for some reason a 900p game even on the One. I would consider 720p 20fps a poorly optimised game on a Series S
You gave an example on a One S silly. I mentioned dips below 30fps on One S was akin to not hitting a 60fps target today with dips to 40s or whatever. I still maintain that a game running at 720p 20fps is a badly optimised game on a Series S but the values and how stringent they are are not relevant and I made that clear.
You think when we are talking about the difficulty of optimisation and certification the fact that it was a first party optimised demo is irrelevant? OK
I said support for Series S wasn't high on the priority list for PUBG because it just got the Xbox One S build. Are you saying that's not true while simultaneously arguing it's recent July update was through BC?
Disagree but Ok.
Ok? The point was that min spec is different. It doesn't require certification and it can even be barely passable subjectively.
So it's not CPU bound, right. what stopped them going even lower res on the higher spec machines? It was just optimisation work in specific scenarios but they aimed for 30fps and hit it fairly well. It isn't some poor performing game. What it struggled with was dev time to optimise for specific hardware.
Based on what? The small pool is the bigger issue I agree but memory performance is just as important to overall performance.
there's a reason racing games come out at the launch of every new console. they're FAR LESS demanding than say a GTA or Assassin's Creed, etc. That's why they can put all the bells and whistles on them and tout them as "look at the power of these machines!" trophies. so saying that Forza looks great on xbox doesn't mean shit. not trying to be a dick. just wish something could be sorted because it will suck to have an entire generation of games hamstrung by a system that people are too cheap to pony up the extra $150/$200 to just get a series x. i mean for god sake's, isn't the "average gamer" age like 37? pretty sure 37 year olds can afford $500 for a gaming system that will be used for 6+ years.
Absolutely, you're correct, but consider the idea that you have a limited pool of memory that the coalition have optimised the Matrix demo for. You need even further optimisation to add anything on top. Big developer or not the Series S would determine what you can do.
I think he is treating this thread like some kind of horde mode seeing how many
he can rack up!
Slap in one of these bad boys and we're all good. Nothing stops this train.
The entitlement is hilarious though. Ask for multiple difficulty levels and you're "entitled." But ask to have multiple millions of people's brand new game systems dropped so you can have slightly shinier graphics, and you're not at all a selfish prick apparently.
I'm all about the Series S price point. And frankly, if games have to target that system than maybe we'll see some Switch 2 ports in play also. It's better for Xbox and better for Nintendo, and better for consumers as well.
Anyone crying about Series S is trying to push out poorly optimized games that still don't look on par with Naughty Dog stuff on PS4. They want an easy out of working on optimization, and want you to foot the bill.
Your examples of games were on Xbox One S where 30fps1080p is considered a good performance target. The fact that PUBG was a stuttering mess of a 30fps1080p game in early access on an xbox one or whatever is a little different to a game running at 20fps720p on a Series S today I would say.
Says the guy who said I was somehow saying Series X versions would be cancelled or that death threats were sent to the devs. You can't get reading comprehension worse than that.
Just set texture size and resolution too high for the amount of vram you have and you will see that can be a pretty serious problem (you can see how some GPUs that could otherwise handle higher resolution are bottlenecking because of lack of vram).
no specific performance metric is being argued but a 30fps1080p target and getting 17fps1080p on an xbox one is different to what I would consider a really bad 20fps 720p on Series S which was just given as an example. 17fps1080p on an Xbox One S is crap but it's not 20fps720p on a Series S crap.
It did happen before but they had next gen consoles and the PS4 and xbox one were struggling and causing the delays. you brought up a new game running on old hardware at 720p sub 30fps.
Yup, so the slow memory bank can't feed the fast one.
