PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[NeoWind]

I would highly suggest the next console have built in thunderbolt 2.0 if we don't want to hold back PC gamers and impediment to new IP game during the mid cycle.

[vcfan]

In the past devs "were able to utilize SUPER FAST memory ... no matter how small" because these tiny SUPER FAST memory caches were an order of magnitude (10x or more) faster than the main memory and/or competitor. The Xbox 360 I believe had 256GB/s access to the EDRAM while both the main memory and the competing PS3's memory bandwidth were in the 20GB/s range. That's a HUGE difference from the Xbox One vs. PS4 where even the most optimistic (and highly improbable) usage scenario has the tiny ESRAM cache at less than double the PS4 RAM while the main system memory of the Xbox One is less than half the speed of the PS4. That slightly faster (2x or so, NOT super fast) tiny cache isn't going to make up for the significantly slower (less than half) system RAM, it's just not going to happen.

sorry but it already has made a difference. a few recent games have come out with zero AF on the PS4 versions but enabled on the xbox one versions. AF is a bandwidth heavy task.

[trooper11]

Why would they push in that direction? MS is "pushing" in that direction because they want you to use their product. Sony doesn't provide a product for others to use so what would they push? "Hey PS4 devs, go make servers on MS's Azure cloud or Amazon's cloud or Google's cloud or make your own cloud!" Sony lets developers do whatever they want for their game servers there is no reason for them to "push" any particular solution.

No no, you misunderstood my post. I was saying that Sony does not seem interested in leveraging cloud computing, etc, within games that they are building internally. I'm not talking about marketing it to other developers, just using it themselves. That's where I think its good to see MS doing that, at the very least it could be an inspiration to over developers going forward.

MS IS more willing to invest in the technology because not having good dedicated server support was one of the major knocks against their walled garden that they wanted to correct this generation. Providing cloud compute gives them dedicated server support and more WITHOUT having to tear down their walls. Furthermore Microsoft with Azure is already a competitor in the general cloud space (not console or game specific) so this made sense for them.

Sony doesn't have to compete there, there is already fierce competition so it makes sense for them to just reap the benefits of that competition. What would paying the huge sums of money to build their own gain them that developers can't already do with the current competitors? Maybe that means PS4 games will be developed on MS's public Azure cloud. Maybe it means they'll be on Google or Amazon, what does Sony care as long as they are making PS4 games. In reality it will probably be a huge mix of public and custom clouds for the PS4 no one is going to push one because they'll all just use whatever is best for their particular application, one solution isn't necessarily the best for every case. Sony IS making it's own cloud for it's own use, PS Now and such, heck I wouldn't be shocked to find that the PS chat infrastructure servers were implemented via cloud computing but people don't care how the server infrastructure for chat servers is implemented so there isn't a marketing push behind that.

I just think MS' public push is a good thing for the industry and could lead to more developers trying to use such things whether that is on the X1 or any other platform.

Its not a huge thing, but I really see MS' push as a positive.

[+Asmodai MVC]

sorry but it already has made a difference. a few recent games have come out with zero AF on the PS4 versions but enabled on the xbox one versions. AF is a bandwidth heavy task.

Do you have any evidence at all that shows this is a hardware limitation specifically?  I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I didn't find anything in a quick google search and I would be very interested in reading it.  There are plenty of PS4 games that use AF so it's not like the PS4 can't do it.  Maybe some devs just choose not to use it.  Maybe some devs choose to drop AF in favor of using the extra bandwidth to push the game to 1080p instead of 900p.  Who knows but again I'd be very interested in seeing a cross platform dev or some such say that the hardware wouldn't allow them to use it.

[+Asmodai MVC]

No no, you misunderstood my post. I was saying that Sony does not seem interested in leveraging cloud computing, etc, within games that they are building internally. I'm not talking about marketing it to other developers, just using it themselves.

That's what I'm saying, how would you know? Do you know how Sony implements its server infrastructure? I don't. Maybe all their servers are implemented in a Sony cloud, maybe none of them are, how would we know. Sony isn't going to do a public tech brief on their internal servers architectures, why would they? MS is promoting the cloud because they want to get other people to use their solution. On Xbox they want to get game developers to use Xbox Live Compute, in business they want to get companies to use Azure, they have a marketing push behind it to both developers and the public because they are trying to sell a product. If Sony isn't providing the service to developers or the public why would they bother to issue press releases or marketing or whatever? Without them doing that how would you or I ever know if they were using cloud computing or not.

That's where I think its good to see MS doing that, at the very least it could be an inspiration to over developers going forward.

Why would Sony care about inspiring developers to use the cloud if they aren't providing a cloud service for them to use? As long as they release their game on the PS3/4 Sony is happy, they don't care if the game is single player only, peer-to-peer, dedicated servers, cloud, or anything else. Developers can do whatever they feel is best for their particular game Sony has no reason to try to drive them in a particular direction. Sony tries to stay out of their way, not guide them.

I just think MS' public push is a good thing for the industry and could lead to more developers trying to use such things whether that is on the X1 or any other platform.

Its not a huge thing, but I really see MS' push as a positive.

I agree here. MS's push to cloud computing is a HUGE positive but it exists because they are a competitor in the general cloud market while Sony isn't. MS's Azure technology is AMAZING and I wouldn't be shocked to see even PS4 games being hosted on the public Azure cloud during this console generation. MS's Developer Tools are GREAT too, Visual Studio is awesome, I used it every business day. Guess what, so do PS4s as Visual Studio is the preferred IDE for PS4 development. A lot of PS4 development is likely done on MS Windows PCs. Sony probably uses Microsoft Office. MS is a big company and they do a lot of different things and Sony doesn't want or need to compete with them in every market. Sony doesn't want to make it's own IDE, they use Visual Studio, they don't want to make their own Office Suite, and they don't want to make their own public cloud for external developers to use. If they aren't offering a product in a given field they have no reason to promote that field.

[vcfan]

Do you have any evidence at all that shows this is a hardware limitation specifically?  I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I didn't find anything in a quick google search and I would be very interested in reading it.  There are plenty of PS4 games that use AF so it's not like the PS4 can't do it.  Maybe some devs just choose not to use it.  Maybe some devs choose to drop AF in favor of using the extra bandwidth to push the game to 1080p instead of 900p.  Who knows but again I'd be very interested in seeing a cross platform dev or some such say that the hardware wouldn't allow them to use it.

 

its a bandwidth issue

 

ICE team programmer

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

[+Asmodai MVC]

 

its a bandwidth issue

 

ICE team programmer

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

I saw that tweet in my googling.  That is a tweet from a Sony employee who works on the ICE team that creates core graphics tech for the PlayStation platform saying that it is NOT a hardware (i.e. bandwidth) or SDK (software optimization in the tools Sony provides) issue.  He's placing the blame squarely at the developers feet not the platform.  That doesn't support your claim at all, it DIRECTLY contradicts what you said.  I was thinking of posting that myself to prove you wrong but I figured you would just write it off as Sony marketing spin since it is from a Sony employee.  If however you accept him as a credible source then thank you for disproving yourself.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Andrew G.

[vcfan]

What are you talking about!?!?  I saw that tweet in my googling.  That is a tweet from a Sony employee who works on the ICE team that creates core graphics tech for the PlayStation platform saying that it is NOT a hardware (i.e. bandwidth) or SDK (software optimization in the tools Sony provides) issue.  He's placing the blame squarely at the developers feet not the platform.  That doesn't support your claim at all, it DIRECTLY contradicts what you said.  I was thinking of posting that myself to prove you wrong but I figured you would just write it off as Sony marketing spin since it is from a Sony employee.  If however you accept him as a credible source then thank you for disproving yourself.

 

wrong. he isnt saying its not a bandwidth issue, hes saying theres nothing wrong with the hardware or SDK that prevents them from enabling AF. he tells to ask the developer because it is the developer who controls how saturated the bandwidth available to them becomes based on the visuals they are pushing. they arent enabling AF because the bandwidth is already too saturated. they can turn on AF no problem, but then the games performance will suffer.

[+Asmodai MVC]

hes saying theres nothing wrong with the hardware or SDK that prevents them from enabling AF.

Right, and bandwidth is a hardware issue.

he tells to ask the developer

He sure does because he has no idea what trade offs the developer may have made so he's saying to ask them.

because it is the developer who controls how saturated the bandwidth available to them becomes based on the visuals they are pushing. they arent enabling AF because the bandwidth is already too saturated. they can turn on AF no problem, but then the games performance will suffer.

NONE of this is supported by that tweet. Cort doesn't know the reason, that's why he says to ask the developer.  Heck it may be different from developer to developer and game to game. Again if you have anything that actually supports your bandwidth claim I'd love to see it but that tweet isn't it.

[BajiRav]

Far Cry 4 is 1792x1008 on PS4 at unstable 30fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-hands-on-with-far-cry-4

[wakjak]

Far Cry 4 is 1792x1008 on PS4 at unstable 30fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-hands-on-with-far-cry-4

 

Well Xbox 1 version sub 20fps confirmed. or 900p/sub 30

[Polonium]

Unstable makes it sound bad... Reading the article makes it sound better as its only occasional dips and all on code that months away from completion.

Happy days. I reckon this will hit a steady 30 fps at 1080p on ps4.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topics merged & cleaned

 

There is really no reason to have the SDK "news" in a separate topic which had little direction from the offset and eventually descended into Resolutiongate territory.

[trooper11]

That's what I'm saying, how would you know? Do you know how Sony implements its server infrastructure? I don't. Maybe all their servers are implemented in a Sony cloud, maybe none of them are, how would we know. Sony isn't going to do a public tech brief on their internal servers architectures, why would they? MS is promoting the cloud because they want to get other people to use their solution. On Xbox they want to get game developers to use Xbox Live Compute, in business they want to get companies to use Azure, they have a marketing push behind it to both developers and the public because they are trying to sell a product. If Sony isn't providing the service to developers or the public why would they bother to issue press releases or marketing or whatever? Without them doing that how would you or I ever know if they were using cloud computing or not.

I really think Sony's internal game development teams would mention it if a feature was relevant to end users. It doesn't matter if Sony has a stake in cloud computing directly or not. If they were to leverage the tech in a way that creates a selling point to end users, they would talk about it. If say GT comes out with something similar to what the Forza team has done for Forza 5, then you will hear about it for example. My point is that has not happened yet. It doesn't mean it won't, it just means as of today it has not.

Why would Sony care about inspiring developers to use the cloud if they aren't providing a cloud service for them to use? As long as they release their game on the PS3/4 Sony is happy, they don't care if the game is single player only, peer-to-peer, dedicated servers, cloud, or anything else. Developers can do whatever they feel is best for their particular game Sony has no reason to try to drive them in a particular direction. Sony tries to stay out of their way, not guide them.

Sony is all about inspiring game developers. They reach out to developers all the time to help get their game recognized through their own platforms or help them make use of various features that Sony offers. However, your right that if Sony has no interest in using cloud tech, then maybe they aren't interested in helping other developers do the same, which is perfectly fair.

MS isn't forcing a developer to use cloud computing at all, but they are offering a lot of support for those that do.

For you and I, people that feel that cloud computing is the future, its good to see someone promoting and pushing the technology. The only way it all improves is if more people try to use it. This is beyond the petty console war argument. I'm just looking at it from the point of view of progressing tech.

I agree here. MS's push to cloud computing is a HUGE positive but it exists because they are a competitor in the general cloud market while Sony isn't. MS's Azure technology is AMAZING and I wouldn't be shocked to see even PS4 games being hosted on the public Azure cloud during this console generation. MS's Developer Tools are GREAT too, Visual Studio is awesome, I used it every business day. Guess what, so do PS4s as Visual Studio is the preferred IDE for PS4 development. A lot of PS4 development is likely done on MS Windows PCs. Sony probably uses Microsoft Office. MS is a big company and they do a lot of different things and Sony doesn't want or need to compete with them in every market. Sony doesn't want to make it's own IDE, they use Visual Studio, they don't want to make their own Office Suite, and they don't want to make their own public cloud for external developers to use. If they aren't offering a product in a given field they have no reason to promote that field.

Exactly, you are fully aware of why what MS is doing is a good thing. MS offers these services to anyone that wants to pay. So on any platform, a game developer, or even platform holders, could leverage Azure servers and tools to make use of cloud computing as they see fit. Sony and MS may be competitors, but they don't hate each other. They are fully capable of working together across all sorts or markets when needed.

For the console market specifically, MS has made a good gesture by offering all of that Azure and tool access for free on the X1. So if a game developer wants to build a game on the X1, its a nice bonus. If they want to build a multiplatform game, then they can reuse much of work they do for the X1 version (backend server wise) and still use the same servers and tools to build platform specific bits.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Some dev comments about RAM and resolution

 

On Xbox 360

?On Xbox 360 eDRAM usage was required for every rendering pass, so it was crucial to fit there. That?s also why many games had strange subHD resolutions like 1280?672,? he explains.

 

 

On Xbox one

 

?With Xbox One it?s a bit different. eSRAM works like an optional additional cache. It just accelerates selected memory operations and there isn?t some hard limit like on Xbox 360. Of course people are scaling down resolution, because the more stuff fits in eSRAM the better performance. We manually manage eSRAM during every rendering pass, moving data between eSRAM and DRAM from time to time. Every time trying to fully utilize available eSRAM for bandwidth heavy operations.?

[+Asmodai MVC]

I really think Sony's internal game development teams would mention it if a feature was relevant to end users.

I agree. What I disagree with however is that implementation details of how "dedicated servers" and PSPlus Infrastructure servers is being accomplished is relevant to end users. As I said before Sony first party games already used dedicated servers even though most third parties chose not to. This means what the cloud ears Sony is scalability and cost savings mostly, neither of which end users care about.

My point is that has not happened yet. It doesn't mean it won't, it just means as of today it has not.

So you're certain that you know how Sony's servers are implemented and that they do not use a cloud architecture? I'm not. I have no idea how their servers are set up one way or the other. It seems like it would be far more expensive for them to have their "dedicated servers" and PSPlus infrastructure servers with fixed hardware then a more scalable and cost effective cloud implementation but if you have some inside information that says they don't then I guess that's the case.

Sony is all about inspiring game developers. They reach out to developers all the time to help get their game recognized through their own platforms or help them make use of various features that Sony offers.

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between helping promote a game ("help get their game recognized") and pushing them to use a particular technology implementation within their game. Sure they may promote a particular tech within a game if is utilizes a service they are providing (such as voice chat lets say) but since they aren't offering cloud compute services to developers they have no reason to push developers to use that tech in their game.

However, your right that if Sony has no interest in using cloud tech, then maybe they aren't interested in helping other developers do the same, which is perfectly fair.

Sony has been using dedicated servers in their own first party games all through even the PS3 generation. As such if they implemented that technology via some cloud implementation or via straight dedicated hardware for the game would make no difference to users so they have no reason to issue a marketing campaign about it when they aren't going to provide those servers for 3rd party developers or public use. I'm not convinced that "Sony has no interest in using cloud tech", I'm not convinced by your arguments that they aren't using it already right now. I'm just saying since they aren't a provider of it to others they have no reason to evangelize it.

MS isn't forcing a developer to use cloud computing at all, but they are offering a lot of support for those that do.

MS is forcing a developer to use their cloud computing solution (as opposed to a rival or even the developers own) if they want to support anything other than peer-to-peer multiplayer on the Xbox One. I don't think locking a developer into a single option is good, even if it is free. I happen to think Azure is pretty compelling on it's own (especially when FREE) without them having to stack the deck in it's favor by banning any competition. Competition is good for consumers.

[trooper11]

I agree. What I disagree with however is that implementation details of how "dedicated servers" and PSPlus Infrastructure servers is being accomplished is relevant to end users. As I said before Sony first party games already used dedicated servers even though most third parties chose not to. This means what the cloud ears Sony is scalability and cost savings mostly, neither of which end users care about.

That is true, but then my point was not about talking about things like dedicated servers or psp plus in detail. Most end users don't care about details like that. However, even then, details about how this stuff is being used do get out into the public. Even if Sony was not pushing a particular ad campaign about a feature, we would hear about it online. This stuff is not going to remain hidden unless Sony was going to actively keep info from the public.

So you're certain that you know how Sony's servers are implemented and that they do not use a cloud architecture? I'm not. I have no idea how their servers are set up one way or the other. It seems like it would be far more expensive for them to have their "dedicated servers" and PSPlus infrastructure servers with fixed hardware then a more scalable and cost effective cloud implementation but if you have some inside information that says they don't then I guess that's the case.

Wait, what the heck are you going on about? My point was specifically about game features that took advantage of whatever server infrastructure they use for first party games. Seriously, if the next GT game does something like Forza drivatars, we will hear about it. Again, its not that I think they are incapable, its just that they have not surfaced any features in their own games that go beyond the regular features like dedicated servers.

I have no idea what their specific server config is, but that has no barring on my point.

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between helping promote a game ("help get their game recognized") and pushing them to use a particular technology implementation within their game. Sure they may promote a particular tech within a game if is utilizes a service they are providing (such as voice chat lets say) but since they aren't offering cloud compute services to developers they have no reason to push developers to use that tech in their game.

Your exactly right. Since Sony is not offering a deal around the tech, they wouldn't be pushing it heavily to third parties. However, they certainly do push the usage of features that are exclusive to playstation. That does not mean they force developers to use it, just help them use it if they want to. That covers everything from Move to the touchpad on the ps4 controller.

Sony has been using dedicated servers in their own first party games all through even the PS3 generation. As such if they implemented that technology via some cloud implementation or via straight dedicated hardware for the game would make no difference to users so they have no reason to issue a marketing campaign about it when they aren't going to provide those servers for 3rd party developers or public use. I'm not convinced that "Sony has no interest in using cloud tech", I'm not convinced by your arguments that they aren't using it already right now. I'm just saying since they aren't a provider of it to others they have no reason to evangelize it.

I never said they were not using dedicated servers. That usage of server tech has been around for many many years. The ps4 is no different. My point was about expanding its uses beyond that. I also do not think that Sony has no interest in using the cloud for things beyond dedicated servers. I just think Sony is still working on ideas behind the scenes.

MS is forcing a developer to use their cloud computing solution (as opposed to a rival or even the developers own) if they want to support anything other than peer-to-peer multiplayer on the Xbox One. I don't think locking a developer into a single option is good, even if it is free. I happen to think Azure is pretty compelling on it's own (especially when FREE) without them having to stack the deck in it's favor by banning any competition. Competition is good for consumers.

I wasn't talking about having to use XBL servers, but your exactly right on that point. Developers have no choice in that regard. I'm not as quick as you to denounce that practice, however, I do see your point about competition.

My point before was regarding the use of Azure servers for things beyond the basics of XBL (such as only as dedicated server hosting). Developers don't have to leverage the servers for anything more unless they want to take advantage of it for free. Sort of like how there is no mandate for games to run at a certain resolution, or that they must support Kinect in some way. Like on the ps4, developers can pick and choose how to build their game.

[vcfan]

Alien: Isolation 1080p on both

http://www.totalxbox.com/78678/theres-no-noticeable-change-in-graphics-between-alien-isolation-xbox-one-and-ps4/

Sniper elite 3 1080p on both

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sniper-elite-3-for-xbox-one-has-a-10gb-mandatory-day-one-patch/1100-6420670/

[Polonium]

Alien: Isolation 1080p on both

http://www.totalxbox.com/78678/theres-no-noticeable-change-in-graphics-between-alien-isolation-xbox-one-and-ps4/

Sniper elite 3 1080p on both

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sniper-elite-3-for-xbox-one-has-a-10gb-mandatory-day-one-patch/1100-6420670/

Sniper Elite might be 1080 on Xbox One but by god it has serious dips in frames and tears almost all the time.

[George P Global Moderator]

Sniper Elite has a day one patch that needs to get installed, probably fixes all of that.

[McKay]

Again with day one patches.

 

I personally think the very idea should be considered unacceptable. 

 

:dontgetit:

[Polonium]

Sniper Elite has a day one patch that needs to get installed, probably fixes all of that.

Unfortunately it doesn't.

[George P Global Moderator]

Again with day one patches.

 

I personally think the very idea should be considered unacceptable. 

 

:dontgetit:

 

It's what happens once you get a digital distro system in place, the disc copy of the game was sent out to print weeks before the version they have for digital download was done.  

[George P Global Moderator]

Unfortunately it doesn't.

 

I have yet to see a review that talks about performance issues but w/e.  It's not a fast pace shooter anyways.

[Polonium]

Regardless of that, its not great on a game that isn't really that taxing for the hardware.