Graphical parity in multiplatform games
polycounter lvl 10
Topic inspired by this article http://www.gamespot.com/articles/batman-arkham-knight-aiming-for-graphics-parity-ac/1100-6423481/ and infamous interview with Ubisoft about the graphical parity of Assassin's Creed: Unity for Xbox One and PS4.
What do you think about this issue? Can any devs here explain why is this a thing? What is the logic in parity between platforms and why that parity only affects consoles and never PC? Why don't developers want to use everything they have, even if it makes one version look or perform better than the other?
Ubisoft said that the parity is made to "avoid internet debates", but that obviously backfired for them and inspired a lot of debate and even this very thread.
What do you think about this issue? Can any devs here explain why is this a thing? What is the logic in parity between platforms and why that parity only affects consoles and never PC? Why don't developers want to use everything they have, even if it makes one version look or perform better than the other?
Ubisoft said that the parity is made to "avoid internet debates", but that obviously backfired for them and inspired a lot of debate and even this very thread.
Replies
Sounds like a weak excuse, if you keep in mind that there's always a superior PC version along the console versions that is always better and utilizes features exclusive to the system. But on consoles it's parity... why?
The other more technical issues are the usual, such as for example, using the same packages across platform instead of cooking different ones per console, and make it optional for PC instead (because of settings, which consoles lack).
From a PR perspective, it also works since the user could believe that graphical parity also equates to performance parity, so if your Batman game on all consoles looks the same, most likely so will the performance (too bad more then several games showed this was impossible to achieve unless they revamped the engine from scratch, engines need to be as console centric as compression and shaders are, tsk).
All in all, it's an overall PR attempt to make things look in their favor down the line.
Except this isn't true. Instead we have to rely on people like Durante to hack PC versions to exploit the platforms, otherwise we get graphical parity even on PC more and more frequently in console-born titles.
because pc gamers throw a fit every time things don't go their way while console gamers just play the game for what it is , probably
With the commercials I've seen in the last couple days, it's possible.
If the game looks the same, but runs at 1080p 30fps on the PS4 and 1080p or 960p and 22-25fps on the XBONE, then there's no 'objective' difference in a static screenshot and plenty of idiots who think an unlocked framerate in the 20's is acceptable.
As long as those screenshots look identical (or close enough, minor fxaa and ssao changes aside) then they've done a 'good job' and are content.
Honestly, the sooner people start approaching framerate the same way they look at comparison screenshots, the better. Cant wait for this nonsense to be over with.
A lot of "damn those evil publishers should be more nice to us".
the reality is its really hard to make everyone happy, and its a combination of many reasons, its a bit politics, a tad lazyness and a whole lot of money and people down the pipeline. a small difference on the surface might be months of work when actually applied to the build.
and dont forget testing, if you build 2 versions of the game you might end up with completely different bugs on each versions, and fixing those issues will need two completely different teams.
come to think of it, if you want to do this properly, you might actually need to split your team into half (or hire more people) when you are about 50-60% into development.
why would any sane publisher do that when at the moment this "graphic pairty" isnt even directly changing sales? I bet its gona cost a lot more money to develop 2 versions of a game then one.
though usually you wait a while when releasing the pc version, so to have a small team bump some stuff up a few months later is a lot easier then to push for a simultaneous release one Xbox and PS4 with different specs.
It's not usually the case tho and PC versions are most often than not released on the same day with consoles.
isnt that the same PC ports that everybody complains about are shit and not done well?
anyway holding back either platform able to handle more in favor of the others is bullshit.. as far as it's applicable for the developer..
(just my naive view as a gamer)
the only reason I can find why I'd buy one is a few of the exclusive titles that I'll never be able to enjoy otherwise
but again. I dont work with porting games so...
I personaly dont think this is a big problem and Im not really buthurt for games "not living up to their potential". so I guess Im out of here since I dont really have anything to join the debate with.
Im not at all qualified arguing about these things, the last time I actually bought and played a game was like 2-3 years ago :poly122:
I can understand that if a developer doesn't have the resources to say, go all out on the PS4 version, then fine. But what about simple things like textures? I always make my textures at a high resolution and then downgrade from there.
It can't be a lot of work to give the PS4 version the original assets instead of of the clamped down XBO version. Same goes for anti-aliasing.
This is just not true. Gamers have not lost track of the PC world, there is just a growing demographic of gamers, and when that demographic grows the number of console gamers and PCs both grow respectively. To put that more clearly, "back in the day" say there was 2 console gamers to 1 PC gamer (begin of PS3/360 era). Say there are 3000 gamers in the world, 2000 are console, 1000 are PC. Nowadays there are at least 10x as many gamers as there was when the 360/Ps3 released, IMO. So it feels as if the PC gaming race is dying, but in reality it is just growing at a slower rate than the console race. Consoles, for the average consumer, are just soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more accessible. They can go to a store, buy it, set it up, put a game in, and play. PC gaming is a whole other beast when getting started, its daunting, and most just do not want to deal with the hassle. There are just so many pro's to a console over PC gamer for the average consumer.
As for Parity, its expensive to create an "equal" port of a Current Gen game to a last gen platform. A lot of studios do not want to deal with the expense, the effort, and have to manage essentially a second project on top of their development of the original game. Its also not easy whatsoever, the architecture is completely different between the two generations, meaning a lot of engineer work.
As for PC ports, a lot of the time they create the "top end" art. Like "max settings", etc, and then optimize for the most powerful console they will be releasing for. Then PC gets essentially that exact build, with a bigger pool of graphical customization, some platform optimization for hardware, etc. Just doesn't make fiscal sense to build the same game for each platform individually, especially if 90% of your target demographic doesn't care or will never notice. Sure it stunts growth a little bit, but its a business first and foremost.
Skippable intro cutscenes and splash screens are also a big plus and quite easy to implement, as long as your middleware allows them.
Doing these things should really not be that difficult and can gain you a lot of respect that your game might not have initially gotten from the PC gaming crowd, even if you would rather release a shoddy port and wait for Durante to fix it up in a couple of days without access to your source code or the payment he deserves.
And
I feel like I can't really participate in this discussion since it was led off with ACU, but... for reals... this sounds like a perfect thread for neogaf, not polycount :poly142:
I do understand PC first developers are the only ones that really sell well on PC.
This was my first impression when looking over this thread. Disappointed to see the first page hold this attitude/tone in terms of multi-platform development.
Also a large project needs multiple approvals from different stakeholders, so yes adding a FOV slider can take time and might be a lower priority than other more critical issues.