The big E3 discussion thread

FAILSAFE 00

Mitch Connor wrote: »

But Spencer/MS are not really in any position to be throwing stones. When they were on top, in the previous generation, didn't they have exclusive content deals? Didn't GTA4 or 5 have exclusive content? Didn't one of the CoD games have map exclusives? Doesn't the division have timed exlusives (and technically the destiny stuff is timed)

Personally I have no problem with COD and the Division exclusivity deals. In the divisions case it was 30 days early access to DLC for Xbox however no game content was released only for Xbox.

Anything that helps bring the industry forward is good in my book.

Take a game like Rainbow 6 Siege. They could have charged for DLC maps and extra DLC characters as that would be the norm for a console shooter at that point but they didn't. The built a loyal dedicated following due to not splitting up their playerbase with paid DLC.

Other studios then took note of this like Respawn entertainment with Titanfall 2. They release free maps and other free titans. We now see Battlefront 2 is following this also.

Generic Dreadhead

The big E3 Destiny 1 DLC Exclusivity discussion thread

Fixed it

FAILSAFE 00

Penn wrote: »

So can we take that as a yes then? You do believe Sony are paying devs to cut content that was originally meant to be in the game from the Xbox versions and the devs are agreeing to do that?

I am referring to game performance. Not content. However to answer your question we already know that Destiny has PS4 Only content sectioned off for PlayStation at launch so we know that Sony indeed pay for content to make sure it doesn't appear on other platforms until it is nearly irrelevant.

petes

qrx wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced on the x or to get a ps4 yet. Very much like the games coming to xbox but not convinced it warrants a new console. The great thing is the new dev tools and the power of the 1x are bringing games to the whole xbox range and vice versa to the pc. Dare I say It, they're also bringing games to ps4. But if I do get a ps4 it'll be the slim. Pro has no appeal. Fwiw, switch is coming to my house this Xmas too

I think it's a great combination having the ps4 (or xbox) and a Switch. I'm loving Zelda at the minute.

I would say that if people are looking to get one for themselves or kids etc. at Christmas they'd want to buy one as soon as they possibly and financially can. If you think there is a shortage now...

Mitch Connor

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Again, its a highly customised CPU that works in unison with other components such as the graphics card to produce greater results that what can be seen with an off the shelf CPU with a similar spec.

Developers can choose how they use the power of the One X. They can keep a game at a stable 30 FPS and push for incredible visuals or they can make some sacrifices to up the frame rate to 60 if the game is quite demanding.

Throughout the life cycle of One X we will see games at 30 and 60 fps. 4K native and upscaled 4K. Its going be a developer decision for each game that releases.

I relation to Destiny and what we have seen I think it could run Destiny 2 at 4K 60FPS. Although we still haven't seen much of the game. It could get insane in certain parts. We will know once the game is on PC. People will test it to see if an Xbox One X version at 60 is possible.

What we don't want to see is shady deals holding back the Xbox One X version of any multiplatform game. Once Call of Duty, Destiny and Battlefront launch we will know more about how these marketing deals impacting the XB1X versions of the games.

Whether the One X could do it is only one part of the equation. Wether PS4 Pro could do it is only one part of the equation.

If the Xbox One can't handle it at 60fps - it is probablymores pertinent to the discussion as to why One X doesn't run it at 60fps, than either Sony console is. It is simply as likely that Xbox One is holding the scorpio back (as I believe the PS4 does the Pro, to a lesser extent, because the power leap isn't nearly as much).

I also think Bungie themselves just wouldn't dev different frame rates across the consoles (all 4 of the versions). I think the argument could be made that the Xbox One is holding back the PS4, which holds back the PS4 Pro which holds back the One X.

IMO the One X could be all singing all dancing, but because it is the same family as the One, and games have to run on both consoles, because it isn't actually a generation leap - then you were never likely to get 60fps PvP on One X and 30fps PvP on One. Blaming Sony is baseless, imo.

Until you, or anyone, offers some actual proof that Sony simply paid Bungie to not do 60fps on One X, it should be treated as an insane conspriacy theory that someone like Alex Jones would spout - because there are much simpler and much more reasonable explanations.

Kimbot

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The real winners of E3 are those of us who think Destiny is just a big old pile of grindy nonsense.

*bans self for flame-baiting*

Me ould ban hammer was waiting for ya...... place your head on the block on front of you :P

BTW the Destiny forum is linked in my Sig for quick access lads :P

wes

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Again, its a highly customised CPU that works in unison with other components such as the graphics card to produce greater results that what can be seen with an off the shelf CPU with a similar spec.

Except we haven't seen the software bear that out. We have Assassins Creed Origin, using checker boarding much like PS4 Pro:

Assassin's Creed Origins on Xbox One X: can third parties hit 4K?

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Developers can choose how they use the power of the One X. They can keep a game at a stable 30 FPS and push for incredible visuals or they can make some sacrifices to up the frame rate to 60 if the game is quite demanding.

Throughout the life cycle of One X we will see games at 30 and 60 fps. 4K native and upscaled 4K. Its going be a developer decision for each game that releases.

Yes, and the same can be said of ever single console, including the switch, except replace 4k with 1080p in the case of the Switch, Xbox One and PS4.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I relation to Destiny and what we have seen I think it could run Destiny 2 at 4K 60FPS. Although we still haven't seen much of the game. It could get insane in certain parts. We will know once the game is on PC. People will test it to see if an Xbox One X version at 60 is possible.

If they can test it, then we already know the answer, that it simply can't. Remember you said yourself the CPU is highly customized, so there is no PC equivalent part, as its not an off the shelf part, even though I think the customization part is probably exaggerated.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

What we don't want to see is shady deals holding back the Xbox One X version of any multiplatform game. Once Call of Duty, Destiny and Battlefront launch we will know more about how these marketing deals impacting the XB1X versions of the games.

What shady deals? We have 0 proof of these at all.

Again, I would expect Gear 4 to run at 4K 60 FPS in its campaign then, and would expect we would know about that, and have seen it, if it could do it. I have yet to see a single example of a AAA 1080p 30 FPS Xbox one game, running on Xbox One X at 60 FPS 4K.

I think people are expecting way to much of a 500 euro box. Doing 4K 30 FPS is already an amazing achievement at that price. Now if we were talking about a 600 euro box with Ryzen as the CPU, then sure maybe it could hit 4K and 60 FPS on some titles.

TitianGerm

jonnycivic wrote: »

BTW the Destiny forum is linked in my Sig for quick access lads :P

They'll arrive late to the party like you did Destiny

Kirby

Most games wont run at 60 fps at 4k on the new xbox. Even less on the ps4 pro. It doesn't have the grunt. It'll either be 30 fps or upscaled 4k.

Having said that, a selection of games will be simple enough/have talented devs enough to pull it off. The new Forza is apparently 4k/60fps on the new xbox.

And it begs the question, If they can do it? I'd say the problem is a game like Destiny has a lot more going on under the hood if you will excuse the pun. Framerate is more important than resolution. The gains from say, 1440 up to 4k is alot less than the gains from 30fps to 60fps. They just "feel" so much different.

Retr0gamer

wes

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I like this one better:


Duty Calls


Yes, I do realize that I am describing myself with that .

FAILSAFE 00

wes wrote: »

Except we haven't seen the software bear that out. We have Assassins Creed Origin, using checker boarding much like PS4 Pro:

It is alpha footage that was analysed.

The game is still in development. We can't say yet whether it will be native 4K based on an alpha gameplay. It may not be native 4K on launch but we can't come to that conclusion based on alpha gameplay. Digital Foundry highlight this point in their analysis.

wes wrote: »

If they can test it, then we already know the answer, that it simply can't. Remember you said yourself the CPU is highly customized, so there is no PC equivalent part, as its not an off the shelf part, even though I think the customization part is probably exaggerated.

I suggest watching the Xbox build video of the X if you believe the customization is exaggerated. You'll see in a mater of minutes the crazy level of thought and customization put into its development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7LobG0UZiU

Developers don't need to test the CPU individually they just need to run their software on it and test its overall performance. Developer feedback/impressions and then analysis from Digital Foundry once many launch games are tested will be interesting and informative. It wont be an exact science but patterns will begin to form that will point to its PC build counterpart.

wes wrote: »

What shady deals? We have 0 proof of these at all.

That is what I have highlighted. We wont know anything until we see if these multiplatform games have XB1X support. If they don't we know a deal was done to hold back on the XB1X update.

wes wrote: »

Again, I would expect Gear 4 to run at 4K 60 FPS in its campaign then, and would expect we would know about that, and have seen it, if it could do it. I have yet to see a single example of a AAA 1080p 30 FPS Xbox one game, running on Xbox One X at 60 FPS 4K.

Again, that is up to the developer. The tools are there for 4K 60 FPS but its up to the developer what they want to do with it. Gears of War 4 is very demanding. I own it on PC. They obviously are going for ultra graphic settings at native 4K.

wes wrote: »

I think people are expecting way to much of a 500 euro box. Doing 4K 30 FPS is already an amazing achievement at that price. Now if we were talking about a 600 euro box with Ryzen as the CPU, then sure maybe it could hit 4K and 60 FPS on some titles.

I don't think they are. From what I see people are complaining about the price. I think they do not understand the value proposition. Which isn't surprising and that is why the X is aimed more at the hardcore end of the console gaming market.

You cannot even build a PC rig that will hit native 4k/30 FPS in current games for €500. Its a great deal and games will look and perform beautifully.

wes

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

It is alpha footage that was analysed.

The game is still in development. We can't say yet whether it will be native 4K based on an alpha gameplay. It may not be native 4K on launch but we can't come to that conclusion based on alpha gameplay. Digital Foundry highlight this point in their analysis.

Well, we will see at launch, but the game is out this year, so not a lot of time to get it running at native 4K. Still the fact remains as pointed out by digital foundry, we didn't see many games running from Xbox at all.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I suggest watching the Xbox build video of the X if you believe the customization is exaggerated. You'll see in a mater of minutes the crazy level of thought and customization put into its development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7LobG0UZiU

I watched all of them already. They don't go into detail on the CPU at all.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

That is what I have highlighted. We wont know anything until we see if these multiplatform games have XB1X support. If they don't we know a deal was done to hold back on the XB1X update.

You need to prove the existence of such a deal, as that is a claim your making. There exactly 0 evidence of any such deal. The specs argument doesn't prove the existence of any deal, even if its correct. The whole shady deal is just people making crap up, for console war arguments. It imho a little bit silly.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Again, that is up to the developer. The tools are there for 4K 60 FPS but its up to the developer what they want to do with it. Gears of War 4 is very demanding. I own it on PC. They obviously are going for ultra graphic settings at native 4K.

Great, so maybe Bungie have decided the same, and there is no shady deal then. You undermine your own claim here, by providing a perfectly rational reason for Bungie to have it running at 30 FPS. No shady dealing required.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I don't think they are. From what I see people are complaining about the price. I think they do not understand the value proposition. Which isn't surprising and that is why the X is aimed more at the hardcore end of the console gaming market.

You cannot even build a PC rig that will hit native 4k/30 FPS in current games for €500. Its a great deal and games will look and perform beautifully.

4K 60 FPS on a game like Destiny at high settings is imho expecting a lot from a 500 euro box. As I said before 4k 30 FPS at that price is actually a good deal.

FAILSAFE 00

wes wrote: »

Well, we will see at launch, but the game is out this year, so not a lot of time to get it running at native 4K. Still the fact remains as pointed out by digital foundry, we didn't see many games running from Xbox at all.

I watched all of them already. They don't go into detail on the CPU at all.

You need to prove the existence of such a deal, as that is a claim your making. There exactly 0 evidence of any such deal. The specs argument doesn't prove the existence of any deal, even if its correct. The whole shady deal is just people making crap up, for console war arguments. It imho a little bit silly.

Great, so maybe Bungie have decided the same, and there is no shady deal then. You undermine your own claim here, by providing a perfectly rational reason for Bungie to have it running at 30 FPS. No shady dealing required.

4K 60 FPS on a game like Destiny at high settings is imho expecting a lot from a 500 euro box. As I said before 4k 30 FPS at that price is actually a good deal.

I haven't claimed that there is a deal. I have stated that IF there is deal we will find out in a few months. We have Call of Duty, Battlefront 2 and Destiny. All 3 have marketing deals with Sony. If these games do not receive an XB1X update or they delay the updates that will be a confirmation that a deal is in place. So just so I am being crystal clear. At the moment we know of NO deal but in a few months we will look at this again. I am optimistic that no deal is in place but I am keeping a good eye on it.

Regarding Destiny at 4K 60fps we just don't know. There could be insane hordes of enemies but like I said in an earlier post it is most likely to do with the Xbox One.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

If you play Rainbow 6 Siege you can feel how odd it is to play most of the game at 60FPS and then run Terrorist Hunt mode at 30 FPS. It just feels out of place.

The Xbox One could only handle 30FPS in multiplayer so the X was always going to have to run the same there. It would be very off putting playing some of Destiny at 60fps and then 30FPS in multiplayer.

wes

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I haven't claimed that there is a deal. I have stated that IF there is deal we will find out in a few months.

There is 0 basis for that speculation at all. There is 0 evidence to suggest that such a deal exists at all. Its console wars fanboy stuff, and again its a bit silly.

For example, I can suggest, that there may be a deal, where MS and Sony trade winning the console generations each generation, and we won't find out until the next generation, by MS winning that generation.

What I said there, has a much validity as your suggesting there may be a secret deal Sony made with Bungie. Someone made it up, and now apparently we are suppose to take it seriously. Sorry, there is 0 evidence at all.

If your keeping an eye on the secret Bungie deal, your should keep on an eye out for the secret trading winning generations deal too. After all someone on the Internet said it .

FAILSAFE 00

wes wrote: »

There is 0 basis for that speculation at all. There is 0 evidence to suggest that such a deal exists at all. Its console wars fanboy stuff, and again its a bit silly.

For example, I can suggest, that there may be a deal, where MS and Sony trade winning the console generations each generation, and we won't find out until the next generation, by MS winning that generation.

What I said there, has a much validity as your suggesting there may be a secret deal Sony made with Bungie. Someone made it up, and now apparently we are suppose to take it seriously. Sorry, there is 0 evidence at all.

I don't think its a big reach though.

I am not just talking about Destiny. I am talking about any mutliplatform that Sony has a marketing deal with.

PlayStation global sales and marketing head Jim Ryan recently talked about this in an interview with Eurogamer.

Ryan was asked about the question whether they are forcing the developers to keep parity with the PlayStation hardware and games like Destiny 2 were listed as an example.

Jim Ryan wrote:

Not to my knowledge. Take the Destiny deal. The Destiny deal was actually done in February 2013, right? We hadn’t launched PS4. I might be wrong because great minds are at work in far-flung corners of Tokyo and San Mateo, but I don’t think anybody even thought of PS4 Pro at this stage. So, I think you’re trying to see some sort of nefarious platform-holder activity where likely none exists.

Not to my knowledge is an odd response. Shouldn't that be a simple no or no! absolutely not.

We will see. I am optimistic that there isn't a deal. We will see in a few months.

Do you remember the Watch Dogs controversy. There was a lot of speculation that the PC version was gimped to make the PS4 version look better. Never proved but there was smoke. PC players found the files that bumped up the graphics settings in the PC retail version.

wes

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Not to my knowledge is an odd response. Shouldn't that be a simple no or no! absolutely not.

We will see. I am optimistic that there isn't a deal. We will see in a few months.

Do you remember the Watch Dogs controversy. There was a lot of speculation that the PC version was gimped to make the PS4 version look better. Never proved but there was smoke. PC players found the files that bumped up the graphics settings in the PC retail version.

I think your reading way to much into things. Ubisoft reasoning for not enabling those features could just as easily as those features not being properly tested implemented.

heebusjeebus

Kirby wrote: »

Most games wont run at 60 fps at 4k on the new xbox. Even less on the ps4 pro. It doesn't have the grunt. It'll either be 30 fps or upscaled 4k.

Having said that, a selection of games will be simple enough/have talented devs enough to pull it off. The new Forza is apparently 4k/60fps on the new xbox.

And it begs the question, If they can do it? I'd say the problem is a game like Destiny has a lot more going on under the hood if you will excuse the pun. Framerate is more important than resolution. The gains from say, 1440 up to 4k is alot less than the gains from 30fps to 60fps. They just "feel" so much different.

The XBox One with 1.31 teraflops can run Forza 60FPS & 1080 resolution. Makes sense that a 6 teraflop XBox One X can run 4 times the pixels at the same framerate.
Some game engines are more streamlined and the Forza engine has had the benefit of working on PC too so it scales well.

CatInABox

Honestly, I don't think that there are shady deals going on. I'd expect that the Xbox One X will run games better than the Pro, merely because it'll be easier to increase performance due to the 50% more power. On some titles, it'll be 30fps, others it'll be 60. I'd imagine that the Xbox One X will have less "drops" overall, and maintain a stabler framerate, but outside of that, there won't be massive, night and day differences.

What I can easily see though, is that developers and publishers have and will continue to target the larger install base. It was 360 last generation, it's PS4 this generation. This kind of targeting doesn't result in large differences between consoles. It's a bit weird this generation, what with the mid-gen refresh and all, but it's still not going to change much.

At the end of the day, I'll keep my recommendation the same as it always was: Buy whichever console your friends have, and the Pro/X if you've got a 4K TV.

TitianGerm

CatInABox wrote: »

At the end of the day, I'll keep my recommendation the same as it always was: Buy whichever console your friends have, and the Pro/X if you've got a 4K TV.

Or buy both!! And have the best of both worlds.

qrx

Well certainly the choices are not clear cut. Ps4 it was all about buying the most powerful console. Now with the mid gen you have to consider that MS has been lacking badly in 1st party games. I think there is also a difference in the type of games. Xbox being more social orientated. Ps4 games to me are very similar. 3rd person hack, slash, shoot with cinematic cut scenes. It's the story and cut scenes that sets them apart, gameplay to me is too samey.

Of course it can all be simplified. Do you want the most powerful console for your 4k home theatre. 1x also has potential. Theres no doubt xbox is at the start of a new cycle. What you see is what you get with ps4. It'll be another gen before we see anythiby innovative and I guarantee with the failure of VR it will all be about 4k@60fps and honestly all gamers set to suffer if this nonsense continues.

Penn

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Do you remember the Watch Dogs controversy. There was a lot of speculation that the PC version was gimped to make the PS4 version look better. Never proved but there was smoke. PC players found the files that bumped up the graphics settings in the PC retail version.

The dev team is completely dedicated to getting the most out of each platform, so the notion that we would actively downgrade quality is contrary to everything we've set out to achieve. We test and optimize our games for each platform on which they're released, striving for the best possible quality. The PC version does indeed contain some old, unused render settings that were deactivated for a variety of reasons, including possible impacts on visual fidelity, stability, performance and overall gameplay quality. Modders are usually creative and passionate players, and while we appreciate their enthusiasm, the mod in question (which uses those old settings) subjectively enhances the game's visual fidelity in certain situations but also can have various negative impacts. Those could range from performance issues, to difficulty in reading the environment in order to appreciate the gameplay, to potentially making the game less enjoyable or even unstable.

Thanks for playing Watch Dogs and stay safe on the mean streets of Chicago.

-The Watch Dogs Team

While many PC players encountered no issues when they accessed the graphics settings to bump them up, some did find issues. That can be the issue with PC, there are a lot more variables in play than with consoles in terms of achieving required performance levels.

It's easy to throw around accusations and then play them off as "Well... I guess we'll see..." "There were rumours..." "No smoke without fire..." "I wouldn't be surprised if...". The simple fact is you have no basis for the accusations/speculation you're bandying about and it contributes nothing to an actual discussion.

Kimbot

emmetkenny wrote: »

They'll arrive late to the party like you did Destiny

Better late than never

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Mines Bigger :pac:

kunst nugget

There were rumours that 9/11 was caused by Microsoft because they wanted to interrupt Sony's PS2 marketing schedule which would mean their launch of the Xbox that November would have a much bigger impact. Now, I have no proof but there's no smoke without fire…

SolvableKnave

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I haven't claimed that there is a deal. I have stated that IF there is deal we will find out in a few months. We have Call of Duty, Battlefront 2 and Destiny. All 3 have marketing deals with Sony. If these games do not receive an XB1X update or they delay the updates that will be a confirmation that a deal is in place. So just so I am being crystal clear. At the moment we know of NO deal but in a few months we will look at this again. I am optimistic that no deal is in place but I am keeping a good eye on it.

Regarding Destiny at 4K 60fps we just don't know. There could be insane hordes of enemies but like I said in an earlier post it is most likely to do with the Xbox One.

I think using 3 huge games, 2 of which are predominantly sold on the back of their MP aspect (I've never bought a BF or CoD game for the campaign), is the wrong way to go to highlight possible Shady Sony Shenanigans. I said it in an earlier post, developers are not likely to develop a huge MP game that runs at 30 or 60 fps on seperate consoles within the same family. Everyone on the 60fps version XBoneX would have an advantage over those on the XBone and XBoneS in MP. Do you think those on the 30fps version would not complain?

If every multiplat SP game is 30fps regardless, then MAYBE there might be something. (You would then have to look into whether the XBoneX can actually handle each individual game at 4k 60. If it can yet the developer caps it at 30, you then look at whether the PSPro can handle it at 60. If it can't, the you can start the speculation about shady deals). I suspect that we will see some SP games at 30 on the Pro and 60 on the X, therefore, in my view, nullifying all speculation of shady deals by those despicable Sony bigwigs.

qrx

kunst nugget wrote: »

There were rumours that 9/11 was caused by Microsoft because they wanted to interrupt Sony's PS2 marketing schedule which would mean their launch of the Xbox that November would have a much bigger impact. Now, I have no proof but there's no smoke without fire…

Sorry but what a stupid fcuking comment to make. This discussion has gone beyond pathetic.

SolvableKnave

qrx wrote: »

Sorry but what a stupid fcuking comment to make. This discussion has gone beyond pathetic.

We're gonna need a bit more reference here mate.

Never mind

TitianGerm

jonnycivic wrote: »

Better late than never

You joined at a great time. The lack of content had be put on the right path at that time and you never had to deal with the Forever 29™

kunst nugget

qrx wrote: »

Sorry but what a stupid fcuking comment to make. This discussion has gone beyond pathetic.

Hey, I'm just saying what the rumours are. I'm not saying they're true but you know, like I said there's no smoke without fire…

The point is you can make up any old shíte as a rumour or conspiracy, claim you're not necessarily saying it's the truth but then sign off with the classic 'no smoke without fire'.