Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games in

Your comments on our articles.

Top resolution doesn't always mean "highest quality visuals", explains hardware designer

There was a brief period of uproar the other week when Crytek revealed that Ryse: Son of Rome wouldn't run in native 1080p resolution on Xbox One, following a contradictory claim by Aaron Greenberg, chief of staff for the devices and studios group.... read more

Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games in

Postby Xbox11 » 02 Oct 2013, 14:59

If they couldn't design the console to have enough power to output quality visuals @ Native 1080p then they didn't do a good enough job, No more excuses, Truth is, you scanked us so your console was profitable at launch, End of story.
User avatar
Xbox11 29
 
Posts: 175
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 06:42

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby CunningSmile » 02 Oct 2013, 15:16

Xbox11 wrote:If they couldn't design the console to have enough power to output quality visuals @ Native 1080p then they didn't do a good enough job, No more excuses, Truth is, you scanked us so your console was profitable at launch, End of story.


No matter how powerful the kit you'll always have developers (usually Crytek or Id) who don't think that is enough and will result in exactly the sort of trade offs this article is talking about. Don't forget that Crytek are the company that used to boast that no one had a PC that could play Crysis.

And how dare a company want to make a profit on their products! Do they not realise they are running a non-profit charity for the good of overly entitled gamers?!
"Jar Jar, you're a genius"
User avatar
CunningSmile 74
OXM Moderator
 
Posts: 11643
Joined: 03 Aug 2009, 15:17
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby J288gto » 02 Oct 2013, 15:53

"Top resolution doesn't always mean "highest quality visuals" - though it would if the console could handle it! Surely the jump from 720p to 1080p as a requirement is not that great given the time since the 360 launch?
J288gto 32
 
Posts: 125
Joined: 20 Jun 2013, 11:03

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby The Cherokee » 02 Oct 2013, 16:01

I agree with this person

CunningSmile wrote:
Xbox11 wrote:If they couldn't design the console to have enough power to output quality visuals @ Native 1080p then they didn't do a good enough job, No more excuses, Truth is, you scanked us so your console was profitable at launch, End of story.


No matter how powerful the kit you'll always have developers (usually Crytek or Id) who don't think that is enough and will result in exactly the sort of trade offs this article is talking about. Don't forget that Crytek are the company that used to boast that no one had a PC that could play Crysis.

And how dare a company want to make a profit on their products! Do they not realise they are running a non-profit charity for the good of overly entitled gamers?!
The Cherokee 7
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Sep 2013, 05:24

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby msbhvn » 02 Oct 2013, 16:13

CunningSmile wrote: Don't forget that Crytek are the company that used to boast that no one had a PC that could play Crysis.


My current gaming beast of a PC can't play Crysis at 60fps because of the shoddy engine. Crysis 2 runs a lot better.

Under all the technical talk, what Greenberg is saying is that some games look better when rendered at slightly lower resolutions and then upscaled and post-processed to 1080p, much like the popular ENB mods do for games like Skyrim on the PC.
The new first law of the internet: For every action, there is an irrational and disproportionate social media overreaction.
User avatar
msbhvn 69
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 19:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby steve_2003 » 02 Oct 2013, 17:49

The Xbox One's basic power does seem to be less than the PS4, but Microsoft's console is obviously going to be a lot more powerful than my Xbox 360 in every department. I know that eventually I will own both consoles (just like my Xbox 360 and PS3 now) but in the end (for me anyway) it's always about the games.
I want to enjoy playing Dead Rising 3, Forza, Halo, Quantum Break, TitanFall, Fable, Project Spark as well as a whole bunch of third party multi-format titles and that means I need an 'Xbox One'.
Roll on November 22nd. :)
steve_2003 64
 
Posts: 440
Joined: 17 Jan 2003, 17:05
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby Raviel » 02 Oct 2013, 18:52

While I thought this was bad at first, then I realised that I have been playing upscaled from 720p games for a while now, have I really cared? No, and just like the 360, the One will have native 1080p games soon when developers learn to use the consoles full potential. Heck, if the console is 4K ready, they believe in it
Raviel 25
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 22:58

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby mackered » 02 Oct 2013, 20:28

Talking about "per pixel quality" and resolution is just clouding the argument and the Microsoft engineer should have left it alone. Engines are engines and some better than others. CryShrek's has always been demanding and that is why they can't get their game up to spec.

To say that the engineer is being economical with the truth is probably an understatement. The number of pixels in an image determine its resolution. Pixel quality is determined by the number of bits used to define each pixel with 32 bits being the norm today. However, no one EVER discusses this when talking about the resolution of any game as that side of things is handled by the operating system (on a PC windows ) and hardware.

On reading the article, it seems like 1080p/32bit would bottleneck the xbox one so how they can claim it is 4k capable is beyond me. Expect this engineer to be shot down in flames on loads of sites in the next few days and he/she deserves to be, the person is an idiot.

Anyway, forget Ryse, Killer instinct is 720p. Oh well...........
So then Pagan Min, to avoid a culture clash, should I stay or should I go?
User avatar
mackered 59
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 11:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby msbhvn » 02 Oct 2013, 20:48

mackered wrote:Talking about "per pixel quality" and resolution is just clouding the argument and the Microsoft engineer should have left it alone. Engines are engines and some better than others. CryShrek's has always been demanding and that is why they can't get their game up to spec.

To say that the engineer is being economical with the truth is probably an understatement. The number of pixels in an image determine its resolution. Pixel quality is determined by the number of bits used to define each pixel. If it's not true colour (24 bits per pixel) then it's quality has been diminished. No one EVER discusses this when talking about the resolution of any game as that side of things is handled by the operating system (on a PC windows ). It is ALWAYS assumed that the image being delivered by the application will be suitable of being displayed at 24 bit (true colour) quality. Expect this engineer to be shot down in flames on loads of sites in the next few days and he/she deserves to be. The person is an idiot.


Anything less than 24-bit colour was obsolete in 1998, which is the reason no one talks about it now, and is completely irrelevant to what Greenberg is talking about. People are complaining because Ryse doesn't have an internal rendering resolution of 1080p, it is rendered at 900p and upscaled to 1080p with post-processing for display on the TV screen. The Ryse engine isn't responsible for every pixel on the screen, which is what Greenberg means when he talks about "per pixel" quality.
The new first law of the internet: For every action, there is an irrational and disproportionate social media overreaction.
User avatar
msbhvn 69
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 19:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby jimbosolo » 02 Oct 2013, 21:15

Halo CE on xbox ran at 1920 x1080 native, and 480p HD at 30fps. That was in 2001
jimbosolo 15
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 14:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby mackered » 02 Oct 2013, 22:35

msbhvn wrote:
mackered wrote:Talking about "per pixel quality" and resolution is just clouding the argument and the Microsoft engineer should have left it alone. Engines are engines and some better than others. CryShrek's has always been demanding and that is why they can't get their game up to spec.

To say that the engineer is being economical with the truth is probably an understatement. The number of pixels in an image determine its resolution. Pixel quality is determined by the number of bits used to define each pixel. If it's not true colour (24 bits per pixel) then it's quality has been diminished. No one EVER discusses this when talking about the resolution of any game as that side of things is handled by the operating system (on a PC windows ). It is ALWAYS assumed that the image being delivered by the application will be suitable of being displayed at 24 bit (true colour) quality. Expect this engineer to be shot down in flames on loads of sites in the next few days and he/she deserves to be. The person is an idiot.


Anything less than 24-bit colour was obsolete in 1998, which is the reason no one talks about it now, and is completely irrelevant to what Greenberg is talking about. People are complaining because Ryse doesn't have an internal rendering resolution of 1080p, it is rendered at 900p and upscaled to 1080p with post-processing for display on the TV screen. The Ryse engine isn't responsible for every pixel on the screen, which is what Greenberg means when he talks about "per pixel" quality.


I'm sorry, but greenbergs comments are irrelevant to this article. If you read the original material that THIS article is talking about it is exactly about pixel quality. Your comments refer to a previous article about Ryse which is nothing to do with this article. Read the source material then come back and comment. Here is the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... developers

The article pretty much is about pixel quality.
So then Pagan Min, to avoid a culture clash, should I stay or should I go?
User avatar
mackered 59
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 11:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby msbhvn » 02 Oct 2013, 22:52

mackered wrote:I'm sorry, but greenbergs comments are irrelevant to this article. If you read the original material that THIS article is talking about it is exactly about pixel quality. Your comments refer to a previous article about Ryse which is nothing to do with this article. Read the source material then come back and comment. Here is the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... developers

The article pretty much is about pixel quality.


Ryse is mentioned in the first paragraph of this article! My comments have been about this article not the Eurogamer one.

I missed the part where the tech stuff was attributed to Andrew Goossen, so when I mentioned Greenberg earlier, I meant to say Goossen.

The term "per-pixel quality" refers to rendering at the display resolution (1080p is the max for TV currently), where each pixel you see on screen is rendered by the game engine. Some games on the Xbox One render at a lower resolution and upscale, meaning not all of the pixels on the screen are rendered by the game engine. Crytek say they're doing this for stylistic reasons rather than because the Xbox One GPU isn't powerful enough, and Goossen is backing them up (though he doesn't mention them specifically), saying that with the architecture of the One, matching the PS4's specs wouldn't be of any benefit, whereas the extra clock speed the driver update gave the GPU is.

And FYI the 32bpp they are talking about in the Eurogamer article refers more to texture quality (and fill rate, which is dependent on texture quality) than pixel quality as you're using the term, they are two very different things. Again, virtually no game made in the last fifteen years is designed to display in less than 24-bit colour, making half of your original post completely irrelevant. When sub 24-bit textures are used in a true colour game engine (like in a lot of 360 games for performance reasons), lighting effects will mitigate the loss of fidelity in the textures.
The new first law of the internet: For every action, there is an irrational and disproportionate social media overreaction.
User avatar
msbhvn 69
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: 04 Oct 2010, 19:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby mackered » 03 Oct 2013, 09:15

msbhvn wrote:
mackered wrote:I'm sorry, but greenbergs comments are irrelevant to this article. If you read the original material that THIS article is talking about it is exactly about pixel quality. Your comments refer to a previous article about Ryse which is nothing to do with this article. Read the source material then come back and comment. Here is the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... developers

The article pretty much is about pixel quality.


Ryse is mentioned in the first paragraph of this article! My comments have been about this article not the Eurogamer one.

I missed the part where the tech stuff was attributed to Andrew Goossen, so when I mentioned Greenberg earlier, I meant to say Goossen.

The term "per-pixel quality" refers to rendering at the display resolution (1080p is the max for TV currently), where each pixel you see on screen is rendered by the game engine. Some games on the Xbox One render at a lower resolution and upscale, meaning not all of the pixels on the screen are rendered by the game engine. Crytek say they're doing this for stylistic reasons rather than because the Xbox One GPU isn't powerful enough, and Goossen is backing them up (though he doesn't mention them specifically), saying that with the architecture of the One, matching the PS4's specs wouldn't be of any benefit, whereas the extra clock speed the driver update gave the GPU is.

And FYI the 32bpp they are talking about in the Eurogamer article refers more to texture quality (and fill rate, which is dependent on texture quality) than pixel quality as you're using the term, they are two very different things. Again, virtually no game made in the last fifteen years is designed to display in less than 24-bit colour, making half of your original post completely irrelevant. When sub 24-bit textures are used in a true colour game engine (like in a lot of 360 games for performance reasons), lighting effects will mitigate the loss of fidelity in the textures.


I'm sorry, maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not talking about resolution, I am talking about the quality of each pixel displayed on the screen, the quality of each pixel. To display 1080p requires a number of pixels across the screen and a number of pixels down the screen, that is NOT what the article in question is talking about. It is talking about what is IN each pixel.

The more info IN each pixel, the more GPU power and bandwidth it requires to deal with it. In the article, Microsoft admit that their tests were skewed to give advantage to less GPU power and more cache AND that the machine will bottleneck if they tried to do both 1080p and higher quality.

At the end of the day it is a business decision. Microsoft chose to put cheaper main memory and less GPU power than Sony and compensated by over clocking and onboard cache. For a long life cycle product, I would have thought they might have taken a small hit at the front and make more profit in the back. In terms of sheer hardware power, Sony have won the argument.

However, gaming is not only about the hardware, it is also the games themselves and the environment in which we game an for me, Microsoft have won that argument. This, however, does not stop me from being a little disappointed in what Microsoft has done. In my humble opinion, they could (and should) have put better GPU and main memory in the box for the expected life cycle of the product. And to call something that bottlenecks at 1080p 4k gaming capable is frankly laughable.
So then Pagan Min, to avoid a culture clash, should I stay or should I go?
User avatar
mackered 59
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 11:08
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby FishyGinger » 03 Oct 2013, 09:21

My tv has some pixielels in it :D
Spider-Baby. Its got the body of a spider and the mind of a baby.
User avatar
FishyGinger 71
 
Posts: 4778
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 13:42
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why Microsoft doesn't require Xbox One devs to run games

Postby SilentDark » 03 Oct 2013, 10:32

CunningSmile wrote: Don't forget that Crytek are the company that used to boast that no one had a PC that could play Crysis.

I always found this a really odd thing to boast about. "We've spent millions making this game and making sure it's as sexy as possible, it's so sexy that none of you will be able to play it. But please buy it anyway."
"That is what forgiveness sounds like. Screaming and then silence."
SilentDark 67
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Jan 2013, 15:40
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

The forum teamDelete all forum cookiesAll times are UTC [ DST ]