Potential PS4.5 With Better CPU+GPU ?

[krisboats]

Yeh I suppose when you put it that way it would be fine. We all understand this concept from PC gaming though (we are a tech forum after all) but interesting to see if the average gamer sees this as a positive or a negative.

krisboats what do you reckon about the Xbox approach where they will use server side GPU/CPU power to make verso game effects better. I like it but again you have to always be connected to take advantage.

I'm always open to new ideas and trying new things. Sometimes they work, sometimes they're just terrible. There's obviously going to be drawbacks to a setup like that, it'd have to be optional as opposed to mandatory. One of our regular destiny lot has internet so terrible that when we do a raid and have 6 people in the party chat his voice breaks up constantly until the chat size is reduced. If he had extra server side processing it'd kill the enjoyment factor for him completely. I think if the system worked as intended it'd be a great thing. Who doesn't want better stuff, right? They nailed the backwards compatibility and the game streaming (for most people) so yeah i'm all for it.

the development difficulties are just different now.

Now developers are struggling to get parity in performance between the two platforms and working out what compromises each version needs.

You could easily have a modular upgradeable console but then the developers would always be making use of the newest upgrades making each one mandatory, and before you know it you've got a glorified crap PC.

The only way consoles work is if the specification stays the same so customers don't have to keep upgrading and developers know what available limits they have to work with when making the games.

I can't see a modular one working for the very reasons you described. But a secondary console with a predetermined set of extra power under the hood would not be much harder to do. Like i said, most pc copies have the varying levels of visuals so the artwork will be done already and i read somewhere that a lot of developers make the renders in a high quality but when it gets dropped into the game environment and the levels are populated with extra effects and items the renders need scaling back until they find a set of compromises that work. A secondary console would simply allow for less scaling back.

 

[spoffle]

Well yeah, but it was like 300 years ago!!! An upgrade back then was like fitting an extra resistor somewhere!!

Nowadays it should be a case of just swapping out a cpu with a higher clocked model (i get that i'm simplifying it massively) and whacking on higher detail shadows/lighting. Everyones saying it's going to be so much harder for development but i thought the whole idea of this generations architecture was so that pc/console ports were a lot easier on developers. The development is getting done for pc versions of a lot of games anyway so clearly the higher detail shaders/textures are already in place.

It doesn't work like that, especially since games aren't ported despite how popular that phrase is.

It's not that "ports" are easier on developers, it's that development is easier. Because porting isn't really a real thing, "moving" a game from one platform to the other doesn't actually happen.

It's just that the X86 architecture is a lot easier to work with than previous consoles, and since PCs use X86 too, it means less work getting all versions of the games up and running.

The reason this isn't something that's going to happen is that it'll fragment the user base and will mean 2 difference PS4 versions of a game would have to be made, optimised and thoroughly tested.

 

[Mr Men]

It doesn't work like that, especially since games aren't ported despite how popular that phrase is.

It's not that "ports" are easier on developers, it's that development is easier. Because porting isn't really a real thing, "moving" a game from one platform to the other doesn't actually happen.

It's just that the X86 architecture is a lot easier to work with than previous consoles, and since PCs use X86 too, it means less work getting all versions of the games up and running.

The reason this isn't something that's going to happen is that it'll fragment the user base and will mean 2 difference PS4 versions of a game would have to be made, optimised and thoroughly tested.

Porting does happen.

 

[davewhite04]

EDIT: the idea of an additional processing box for VR could work though.

What a great idea.

 

[spoffle]

Porting does happen.

It doesn't.

 

[Heisenberg]

It doesn't.

Games are generally made using software that caters for multiple consoles/PC. That being said, the general use of the word porting does happen when you see the likes of Batman Arkham Knight where PC development was outsourced to a different studio. More recently with black ops 3 where the game was more or less developed for new gen and PC then ported by a different studio who had to go over the full code stripping out assets etc.

 

[spoffle]

Games are generally made using software that caters for multiple consoles/PC. That being said, the general use of the word porting does happen when you see the likes of Batman Arkham Knight where PC development was outsourced to a different studio. More recently with black ops 3 where the game was more or less developed for new gen and PC then ported by a different studio who had to go over the full code stripping out assets etc.

That isn't proof of porting, it's proof of poorly developed games where the PC build has been neglected.

Games aren't ported, it simply doesn't happen like that. Various builds are developed and compiled using the source code.

 

[Mr Men]

It doesn't.

It really does, but you carry on.

 

[Heisenberg]

That isn't proof of porting, it's proof of poorly developed games where the PC build has been neglected.

Games aren't ported, it simply doesn't happen like that. Various builds are developed and compiled using the source code.

Right so we have a company for example, Beenox, who have specialised in creating versions of existing games for Mac platform. Are you telling me the game doesn't have to then be ported to work on that platform? So Beenox pretty much don't do anything in your eyes?

 

[Heisenberg]

It may not be porting as it was when console games were originally ported from arcade machines, but it most people's view it's still a type of porting going on. Even if it's technically not true to the initial term. It still has to be modified and some stuff recompiled for specific platforms. The easiest way to term this process is porting.

 

[spoffle]

It really does, but you carry on.

Explain the process then.

It may not be porting as it was when console games were originally ported from arcade machines, but it most people's view it's still a type of porting going on. Even if it's technically not true to the initial term. It still has to be modified and some stuff recompiled for specific platforms. The easiest way to term this process is porting.

It's not the easiest term. Build is the easiest term and is actually accurate.

It doesn't have to be "modified" or "recompiled". It has to be compiled for the platform of choice. There is no taking of the complete game, then adaptations made so it can run on another platform.

If you need the source code to create a version for a new platform, how on earth is that "porting"?

 

[spoffle]

Right so we have a company for example, Beenox, who have specialised in creating versions of existing games for Mac platform. Are you telling me the game doesn't have to then be ported to work on that platform? So Beenox pretty much don't do anything in your eyes?

I see after this post, you've done some reading. They are a company who specialise in additional builds of games once the main developer has moved on to another project.

 

[Heisenberg]

I see after this post, you've done some reading. They are a company who specialise in additional builds of games once the main developer has moved on to another project.

I done some reading a few days ago when I was reading about the PS3/360 versions of black ops 3. I also done some reading when I read Arkham Knight was developed on PC by another dev. Developing an additional build is possibly the correct way to put it, it's easier to just term it as porting for most people. They are taking the existing game and modifying it for different systems.

 

[Heisenberg]

Here's a quote from Beenox creative director.

“What we do is we basically, step by step, reduce the polycounts on each asset, reduce the amount of memory that each effects will take, and then eventually we make sure that we maintain that core experience intact,” he said.
“The challenge really is to make that fit in memory, make sure that the experience is good and that you have a great frame rate. So there’s always a big challenge in doing that because of course the main developer will try to make the most kick-ass new-gen game possible. We don’t want them to think about constraints, we want them to go out there and have fun.”

They have an existing version of the game and are tasked with compiling a version for lesser hardware. They have essentially ported the existing game to the last gen consoles.

 

[Fr0dders]

Here's a quote from Beenox creative director.

“What we do is we basically, step by step, reduce the polycounts on each asset, reduce the amount of memory that each effects will take, and then eventually we make sure that we maintain that core experience intact,” he said.
“The challenge really is to make that fit in memory, make sure that the experience is good and that you have a great frame rate. So there’s always a big challenge in doing that because of course the main developer will try to make the most kick-ass new-gen game possible. We don’t want them to think about constraints, we want them to go out there and have fun.”
y
They have an existing version of the game and are tasked with compiling a version for lesser hardware. They have essentially ported the existing game to the last gen consoles.

You're using the wrong term here.

When referring to coding. Porting refers specifically to moving programs from one system to another incompatible system.

The process you describe above isn't porting in the strictest sense of the word, despite what the gaming community understands a "port" to be.

 

[spoffle]

Here's a quote from Beenox creative director.

“What we do is we basically, step by step, reduce the polycounts on each asset, reduce the amount of memory that each effects will take, and then eventually we make sure that we maintain that core experience intact,” he said.
“The challenge really is to make that fit in memory, make sure that the experience is good and that you have a great frame rate. So there’s always a big challenge in doing that because of course the main developer will try to make the most kick-ass new-gen game possible. We don’t want them to think about constraints, we want them to go out there and have fun.”

They have an existing version of the game and are tasked with compiling a version for lesser hardware. They have essentially ported the existing game to the last gen consoles.

What you're doing is quoting parts of the development process and using that as proof that games are ported.

The processes you're quoting isn't "porting", they are just parts of the development cycle when producing games on multiple platforms.

You're misunderstanding what is going on. The "existing version" is the source code. Not the "gold" version of the game on another platform.

 

[Heisenberg]

It's the term that the gaming community understands when referring to the process. I've actually agreed with you it's not the correct term but everyone understands what is meant when people talk about a terrible port of a game. We don't need to be experts on the matter to know that things can and do go seriously wrong when developing a game to a console or PC.

 

[spoffle]

It's the term that the gaming community understands when referring to the process. I've actually agreed with you it's not the correct term but everyone understands what is meant when people talk about a terrible port of a game. We don't need to be experts on the matter to know that things can and do go seriously wrong when developing a game to a console or PC.

Except that the use of the term breeds opinions that are incorrect. People who use the term "port" literally think games are ported from consoles, and thus foam at the mouth about "console ports" whilst blaming the "crappy consoles" for the existence of a crappy build of a game.

The PC gaming community starts whinging about "console port" the moment their game does something they don't want it to do.

It's actually important that people use the correct terminology in such a situation, because the mass misunderstanding of what really happens causes problems.

Whilst you are agreeing, you're only doing so because you've looked in to it and then realised it's actually incorrect. Some people don't even do that and just continue to assert that games definitely are ported from consoles and that consoles are "holding back" PC gaming.

 

[Heisenberg]

I said it wasn't the correct term from my first or second post. When every games publication uses the term, everyone is going to use that same term. Perhaps you should go on a crusade against the publications rather than shooting down every forum member who dares use the word port.

 

[Woden]

Definitions of words change.