Support NeoGAF

[SomeGit]

Jesus, this is how I know you don't know shit. a waiver doesn't mean do what you want and there is no certification. It means we have seen this issue but you pledge to fix it with a patch. So when you talk about Lichdom Battlemage being completely fixed or early access that is relevant to passing cert. It isn't "you printed the disc so it was A-OK"

A waiver is a pass, it means that CDPR reasoning was accepted by Sony and MS, so they relented on that point.
A waiver doesn't mean you weren't certified for release, it means the exact opposite, check the definition of waiver. The hell are you even on about?

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right or claim. It is when one party agrees to "give up" an existing, or in some cases, future right.

So yes, they were A-OK with what shipped on the disc, otherwise they wouldn't have approved its release, certification is a mandatory step to getting a game released.

Go read them yourself. So what was that about they thoroughly play the full thing and check for fps dips? They dont. They do have key information of targets and modes though.

They don't, he immediately says they do not care about performance or resolution targets. And yes they do play the game, and no you don't need to play much into Cyberpunk to get massive performance issues.
That DF part isn't 2 hours into the game, it's 10 minutes and it doesn't stop except for some interior scenes. Same with all other examples, Ark, Litchdum, etc. It's absurd to say that they missed it, all of those games have unmissable performance issues.

What are we talking about here CP2077? Subject to hardware limitations you must make a good performing game but clearly you don't see how making a completely poorly unoptimised version on Series S and a good one on XSX or PS5 could pose a problem for cert.

No, we are talking about an hypotetical game that struggles to run on S but does fine on X. If they are just giving waivers left and right, like you are implying, then no.
The publisher can just say the hardware is not up to the standard of X and ship it, or just ommit that since apperently don't play the game and ship whatever.

You started this by saying cert is a problem and now they don't even check anything and just give waivers left and right, while also implying you don't need cartification to release? Make up your mind.

What the hell do you think "optimise the performance of... the xbox consoles" means then? This only proves that the term performance is much more than just fps you were suggesting. It means if they do a patch to add anything they must 'optimise performance' for anything.

So bugfixes are performance now, the famous stability updates? Jesus man, keep digging that hole.

Don't be daft. Oh do you have that feature? What feature? You know, 2560x1188. Absolutely nobody refers to resolution as a feature and this take is laughable.

"Improved Image Quality", "Improved Visuals", "Improved resolution", "4K support", etc. That wasn't hard, you've likely seen one or most of these bullet points featured before.
Nobody referes to better resolution as "better performance", performance metrics never mention resolution. Check any VGTech thread, any DF thread, etc. they always seperate performance from resolution.

Resolution and framerate are considered performance. If my game is 1080p at 30fps it is performing similarly to a 720p60fps game.

If that was a mode selection the first would be "Quality mode", the second would be "Performance mode". Maybe they both should be called "performance mode" then by your logic?

If it's a feature does that mean the clause before WAS actually referring to resolution being optimised? After all you said "they are talking about matching feature set".
You're contradicting yourself.

I'd imagine if they released a next gen update on PS5 and XSX, MS wouldn't like if they only improved the resolution on PS5 and left the X version unchanged, maybe they don't even have to match the same exact resolution, but they'd probably complain about a feature being sold on PS5 but not on X.

I don't see how that is contradiction, exact resolution metrics don't matter have you have example from this generation and last where the exact resolution numbers don't match.

"HYPERMOTION2 TECHNOLOGY ONLY AVAILABLE ON PLAYSTATION 5, XBOX SERIES X|S, PC, AND STADIA VERSIONS"

That's because it actually has an actual feature not on old gen versions silly.

Yeah, I know, that's why I used that example, because differenting features also are accepted you don't need to have better performance than last gen.
Thank you for proving my point and discarding yours.

You gave me examples of crossgen games.

Excluding Cyberpunk, all other releases happened before the crossgen period. I gave you examples of Xbox One games approved for release on Xbox One, again we have no indication that they are being harsher for new current gen only games.

They just make a sound judgment case by case. If they feel that they can do better than 720p20fps because the game runs better elsewhere taking hardware limitations into account they can ask for it. You can't release an unoptimised mess is the point you keep trying to sidestep to concentrate on values in a gotcha. With the games out in the wild right now I would consider 720p20fps on the Series S poor performance and I'm sure MS would too. There is no cutoff, me asking for examples doesn't mean a cutoff either. Xbox one games on an xbox one are not proof of anything though.

Another paragraph were you flip flop between defending a metric and not defending it.

Why do you keep trying to gaslight me trying to tell me what I've been trying to say?

Because I quoted you 3 times saying that? That's not gaslighting, you said it, not me.
You walked back on it... pages later.

What the hell are you talking about? Obviously it isn't on One.

Yes, then I obviously wasn't talking about Matrix on that example, you missunderstood my quote.

Oh hey we optimised this but lets fail it for poor optimisation. Brilliant. They optimised it to what they would deem acceptable themselves.

Coalition isn't the certification team. They are seperate teams, what they deem acceptable could be different.

Nobody is saying there isn't certification for first party games it's part of QA after all but obviously there isn't a contract with yourself. You aren't going to legally oblige yourself to redo something if you yourself find it acceptable.

You said it above, why would cert exist for first party then, if they are would just be failing themselves.
Thanks again for proving my point.

The point at the beginning of all this was somebody suggesting that if the dev doesn't want to develop for Series S they can just release a 720p20fps version for that system and say fuck optimisation.
The point I was trying to make is they can't. If the publisher or dev decides to do that, MS legally can and likely will ask you to optimise it. This extends to after release too if they see their hardware has been given the short end of the stick because titles must remain in compliance with all certification requirements in the publisher guide on a continuing and ongoing basis.

Mate, if it's released it passed certification. What happens after is irrelevant maybe MS has a legal case but they certificated the game for release, MS is the one who prints the copies of the same, MS is the one that puts it up on the store.
You can't release on a console if the game fails certification, say it's a waiver, a freebie whatever; a release game has been certified for release, this isn't an optional step.

That's you mate. You're still hung up on numbers even when I've clarified that 720p20fps was just an example of what I would consider poor performance on any known game of which you gave me zero examples.

In this very post, again you defend that 720p20 would be rejected, that you are quote "sure of it". You say I'm hung up on numbers, but keep bringing up 720p20, the only time I do it is quoting you.
Zero examples? It's hard to hit moving goalposts, mate.

I've made my point, looking at this post now it seem you now starting to fight yourself, certification is now an on going basis, so at start devs couldn't release a broken mess now they can if the pinkie promise they'll patch it later, resolution is performance so "quality/performance" modes should be really called performance and performance mode since they are all the same, every patch MUST include performance upgrades, even if it's just a bug fix or language update otherwise they can't release it, etc. etc. You are making absurd points, to try and defend the awful initial point.

Keep digging that hole mate, you'll find oil soon. I will stop replying now, because these posts are honestly now taking too much time out of me, all while seeing you fight yourself is funny, it's annoying to be dragged into new awful arguments because you made a bad initial point.

 

[reksveks]

This thread has gotten weird.

I just want to say that the MS store on xbox does allow all kinds of BS that would never have passed the old method of games distribution.

Zoning out now.

 

[Kiya's Guard]

Yeah I'm sure it was hard to optimize amazing games like I Am Fish for the Series S

I am fish? Did they release a sequel to i am bread??

 

[jorgejjvr]

Developers aren't business people. They are literally saying, I want less sales lol

Nope

 

[Three]

A waiver is a pass, it means that CDPR reasoning was accepted by Sony and MS, so they relented on that point.
A waiver doesn't mean you weren't certified for release, it means the exact opposite, check the definition of waiver. The hell are you even on about?



So yes, they were A-OK with what shipped on the disc, otherwise they wouldn't have approved its release, certification is a mandatory step to getting a game released.

You were the one who said if they released on disc or early access it means they were fine with it. That's not true. Getting a waiver doesn't mean they can't remove it from the store later though. Certification goes beyond release and has less stringent rules for early access. It has obligations that they can extend beyond release with patches.

They don't, he immediately says they do not care about performance or resolution targets. And yes they do play the game, and no you don't need to play much into Cyberpunk to get massive performance issues.
That DF part isn't 2 hours into the game, it's 10 minutes and it doesn't stop except for some interior scenes. Same with all other examples, Ark, Litchdum, etc. It's absurd to say that they missed it, all of those games have unmissable performance issues.

Nobody said they missed it but you don't understand that obligations can extend beyond release especially for early access games.

It also means Lichdom Battlemage getting a patch that ran at 30fps900p on an xbox one s is not irrelevant just because it released. It means Cyberpunk getting removed post release can happen because they can exercise those clauses.

No, we are talking about an hypotetical game that struggles to run on S but does fine on X. If they are just giving waivers left and right, like you are implying, then no.
The publisher can just say the hardware is not up to the standard of X and ship it, or just ommit that since apperently don't play the game and ship whatever.

I said they have key points and targets only, I said they don't framerate test the game in cert but if you release a game and they see that performance is poor on their specific hardware they have the right to remove it from sale from both systems. Cyberpunk was not as broken on PS5 as it was PS4 but post release they had the right to remove it from sale because it performed poorly on the leeser machine, PS4. Certification extends beyond release. It mentions this in the contracts.

You started this by saying cert is a problem and now they don't even check anything and just give waivers left and right, while also implying you don't need cartification to release? Make up your mind.

I started this by saying you can't just release a poor performing game on Series S and call it a day because MS would care and it wont pass cert. Now we are going through all their obligations because you think cert just means pre release. How would they know how the competing platform performs pre release? I've never once said cert doesn't happen for release.

So bugfixes are performance now, the famous stability updates? Jesus man, keep digging that hole.

What? who said bug fixes are performance. What twisted logic are you applying now?

"Improved Image Quality", "Improved Visuals", "Improved resolution", "4K support", etc. That wasn't hard, you've likely seen one or most of these bullet points featured before.
Nobody referes to better resolution as "better performance", performance metrics never mention resolution. Check any VGTech thread, any DF thread, etc. they always seperate performance from resolution.

Ah yes, because terminology VGTech uses is the same as the legal document. Is this all your argument stands on? How a game performs is a combination of res and framerate.

I don't see how that is contradiction, exact resolution metrics don't matter have you have example from this generation and last where the exact resolution numbers don't match.

It's a contradiction because you are calling resolution a feature. Therefore if it is a feature the clause before which mentions feature parity and optimising them would mean that resolution would need to be optimised to the same as competing platforms within hardware limitations after just saying it isn't about optimising resolution.

Yeah, I know, that's why I used that example, because differenting features also are accepted you don't need to have better performance than last gen.
Thank you for proving my point and discarding yours.

Sure if you ignore the countless crossgen games you mention which don't have additional features on current gen but rely on better performance to meet that clause.

Excluding Cyberpunk, all other releases happened before the crossgen period. I gave you examples of Xbox One games approved for release on Xbox One, again we have no indication that they are being harsher for new current gen only games.

You think acceptability hasn't changed but this is the daftest of your arguments. An xbox one game which was running at 1080p17fps is obviously more acceptable than the same game running at 720p20fps on a Series S. That's what your argument relys on 1080p17fps on an Xbox One S to show 720p20fps would be judged the same on a Series S.

Another paragraph were you flip flop between defending a metric and not defending it.

You obviously have difficulty understanding context then.

Because I quoted you 3 times saying that? That's not gaslighting, you said it, not me.
You walked back on it... pages later.

I said nothing of the sort.

Yes, then I obviously wasn't talking about Matrix on that example, you missunderstood my quote.



Coalition isn't the certification team. They are seperate teams, what they deem acceptable could be different.



You said it above, why would cert exist for first party then, if they are would just be failing themselves.
Thanks again for proving my point.

Because they use testing criteria. What's the testing criteria here? You keep flip flopping on whether some criteria exists. What would be the testing criteria? It's case by case and compared to what's achievable given the hardware there is no given metric. Unoptimised for Series S would not pass though. the games you mention running at 1080p17fps on xbox one would not pass at 720p20fps on a Series S.

Mate, if it's released it passed certification. What happens after is irrelevant maybe MS has a legal case but they certificated the game for release, MS is the one who prints the copies of the same, MS is the one that puts it up on the store.

Again, certification extends beyond release. If MS spots an issue or sees that Series S is poor performing in comparison when it could be optimised better they have the right to request a fix.

You can't release on a console if the game fails certification, say it's a waiver, a freebie whatever; a release game has been certified for release, this isn't an optional step.

I know it isn't but you are acting like if it released then certification has been passed and does not apply anymore. It's a little more than that. They can relase for things like early access with known issues and a waiver that say within 6 months this issue or that issue would be fixed. Platform holders can request fixes and optimisation post release.

In this very post, again you defend that 720p20 would be rejected, that you are quote "sure of it". You say I'm hung up on numbers, but keep bringing up 720p20, the only time I do it is quoting you.
Zero examples? It's hard to hit moving goalposts, mate.

I brought up 720p20fps on a series S as an example of a poor performing game for the known games out there. I asked for examples because you made it seem like it happens all the time. Your examples were mostly early access games running on an xbox one s and a removed game running on PS4. The requirement for a cutoff was in your head. Even when I've been clarifying that a specific cutoff doesn't exist and it was just an example of a poorly optimised game for the 200th time.

I've made my point, looking at this post now it seem you now starting to fight yourself, certification is now an on going basis, so at start devs couldn't release a broken mess now they can if the pinkie promise they'll patch it later, resolution is performance so "quality/performance" modes should be really called performance and performance mode since they are all the same, every patch MUST include performance upgrades, even if it's just a bug fix or language update otherwise they can't release it, etc. etc. You are making absurd points, to try and defend the awful initial point.

Wierd take on the situation but none of my points are absurd.

Keep digging that hole mate, you'll find oil soon. I will stop replying now, because these posts are honestly now taking too much time out of me, all while seeing you fight yourself is funny, it's annoying to be dragged into new awful arguments because you made a bad initial point.

Ok, bye then mate.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

This is a lot more work and downgrading... YOu can't just make fully next gen anymore as it has to be S compatible.
So You make the game S compatible and then run higher res/fps on ps5/xsx....
Or You make it for ps5/xsx and then try to figure out how to make it run on S without doing 720p...

Sucks ass. This gen was suppsoed to be an easy gen to dev for because CPUS are finally great and IO is amazing.

And why would S evne exist ?! It's only 100$ cheaper than ps5 digital and so much weaker. It is pointless and stupid that m$ segregated market like that

Exactly.

 

[SlimySnake]

Never heard about “MANY” devs, what game they did ?

Must be new here. These concerns have been coming up since the Series S was first announced.

Xbox Series S RAM is a “Major Issue” – Several Devs Speak Out About Memory “Bottleneck”​

Developers from Infinity Ward, Remedy, and id Software are concerned about the Xbox Series S' memory situation.​

Xbox Series S RAM is a “Major Issue” – Several Devs Speak Out About Memory “Bottleneck”

gamingbolt.com

For instance, Billy Khan, lead engine programmer at id Software, says the Series S’ RAM is “a major issue”, and says that the “much lower amount of memory and the split memory banks with drastically slower speeds” will prove to be problematic. Similarly, Alex Gneiting, principal engine programmer at id Software, agrees with that sentiment, and says that the RAM deficiency won’t be easy to compensate, and will drag down the base specs that developers will have to consider noticeably for multiplatform games.

Sasan Sepehr, senior technical producer at Remedy Entertainment, has also chimed in, saying that while he’s excited about the Xbox Series S from a consumer’s perspective, as a technical perspective, he “sees trouble.” Then there’s David Mickner, multiplayer designer at Infinity Ward, who says that the Xbox Series S’ lower specs “will serve as a bottleneck.”

MS just confirmed those concerns by increasing the memory allocation of the Series S. Clearly, now that the devs have finally begun to make games around next gen specs, the series s' specs and bottlenecks are coming up more. The discussion is no longer theoretical for them so now they have to make decisions that may or may not affect this generation of gaming going forward.

 

[The Stig]

is the power difference between the X and the S really that big?

edit - a quick google search tells me, yes, indeed it is.

 

[twilo99]

The PS5 is doing much better than the Series S, which has been freely available in most places for a long time. So what are they missing out on exactly? They can't keep the current PS5 in stock.

There are missing out on people like me who would buy a ~$250 Sony console in a heartbeat..

 

[RoadHazard]

There are missing out on people like me who would buy a ~$250 Sony console in a heartbeat..

It would be at least $300 I'm pretty sure, if it's the same thing with just a worse GPU. And at that point, why not just spend $100 more to get a proper next-gen console (PS5 DE, or that rumored new PS5 with optional disc drive)?

 

[3liteDragon]

MS just confirmed those concerns by increasing the memory allocation of the Series S.

Idk if I missed this but when did this happen?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

is the power difference between the X and the S really that big?

edit - a quick google search tells me, yes, indeed it is.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Exactly.

Not really.



He has experience in developing for Series S/X.

- Dev's prioritise Series X, then reduce graphics from there.

- There is no separate dev kit for Series S. Series X dev kit itself has Series S mode that disables some features to bring it close to actual S. Shows how similar they are.

 

[Kataploom]

Not really.



He has experience in developing for Series S/X.

- Dev's prioritise Series X, then reduce graphics from there.

- There is no separate dev kit for Series S. Series X dev kit itself has Series S mode that disables some features to bring it close to actual S. Shows how similar they are.

Wanted to post this myself but didn't see the chance... Was waiting for the next "gotta do Series S gimped version and scale up" argument lol

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Wanted to post this myself but didn't see the chance... Was waiting for the next "gotta do Series S gimped version and scale up" argument lol

I think the video debunks the premise of thread nicely.

> Series X is lead platform. Nothing is holding it back.

> No Dev's are holding meetings to drop anything. Nobody in industry knows about it.

> Series X and S are so similar there is not even a separate dev kit for it.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Not really.



He has experience in developing for Series S/X.

- Dev's prioritise Series X, then reduce graphics from there.

- There is no separate dev kit for Series S. Series X dev kit itself has Series S mode that disables some features to bring it close to actual S. Shows how similar they are.

So why is this a concern for MANY devs across the industry…why is this even a topic…the Series S Is weaker period…its not just “drop the resolution and its all good” its “modify the game, drop the resolution and framerate, remove ray tracing to get good performance…”

 

[Banjo64]

is the power difference between the X and the S really that big?

edit - a quick google search tells me, yes, indeed it is.

33% of the power targeting 25% of the resolution.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

So why is this a concern for MANY devs across the industry…why is this even a topic…the Series S Is weaker period…its not just “drop the resolution and its all good” its “modify the game, drop the resolution and framerate, remove ray tracing to get good performance…”

Out of how many thousands of devs working on games and like 5-6 say some shit and people run with it and act like its a giant problem and gaming as we know it is being held back. It's bs and always was.

 

[Africangamer30]

People need to stop piling on the man for giving his opinion. It doesn't really matter where he works: Game developers are very connected, and it's pretty obvious that he's talking about other developers as well.

"Hurdur he made this game that's not technically impressive, what a joke" yea and what are YOUR credentials, mfer? How many games have you made?

A lot of people seem to think that, in all cases, all you have to do is change a few settings and drop the resolution and there you go: series s version. Developers from larger and more well known developers, such as remedy, have also pointed out that its not that simple.

Personally, I don't quite understand how anyone can look at the series S specs and then honesty believe that it will have no impact on game development.

"Personally i cant understand how anyone can look at [pc players] with [weak pc specs] and than honestly believe that it will have no impact on game development."
Majority of steam users still use 6 core cpus and gpus like AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT.
Series s is a 8 core amd cpu and 7nm gpu google the rest its a good 1080p-1440p nxt gen console. You get what you pay for
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/steam-hw-survey-august-2022

 

[Africangamer30]

33% of the power targeting 25% of the resolution.

Thats not that big its not a whole generation behind. People blowing this out of proportion

 

[Africangamer30]

Aka.
We made a game in 2022 that looks worse that Batman Arkham Knight from 2015, made a terrible PC port and make it to work on PS5/Series X at 30FPS only, but we are gonna blame Series S

That guys?

Exactly this all comes back to optimization and the devs fualt alone nobody not pc, ps or xbox. The devs are at fualt

 

[adamsapple]

I think the video debunks the premise of thread nicely.

> Series X is lead platform. Nothing is holding it back.

> No Dev's are holding meetings to drop anything. Nobody in industry knows about it.

> Series X and S are so similar there is not even a separate dev kit for it.

Indeed, that fits with conventional wisdom. Reportedly conventional game development is done top-down with optimizations made for weaker hardware, not the entire games development pipeline being compromised for weaker hardware.

I'm not denying that some developers may have had to do extra bespoke work for Series S but it looks like the SDK itself is very friendly and accommodating at getting you there most of the way.

 

[Topher]

This is a mute point. Microsoft is not going to allow Xbox developers to not create their games for XSS. They just aren't. If they did then they should be prepared to do a Stadia and refund every XSS customer their money back. That's just not going to happen.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Reminder that THIS is the game that has generated 922 replies and counting

This game is 30 fps on all consoles btw and has received a total of 0 threads about it on here. The state of console wars here is absolutely embarrassing at the moment.

 

[SlimySnake]

Idk if I missed this but when did this happen?

Microsoft gives Xbox Series S devs more memory to improve graphics performance

Some Xbox Series S games will get a performance boost.

www.theverge.com

August 4th.

“Hundreds of additional megabytes of memory are now available to Xbox Series S developers,” says Microsoft’s Game Dev team in a video detailing the updates. “This gives developers more control over memory, which can improve graphics performance in memory-constrained conditions.”

Those memory constraints have been detailed by Digital Foundry, with developers reportedly feeling some pain around optimizing games for the Xbox Series S. It’s less the CPU and GPU power of the Xbox Series S, particularly as the Series S has the same CPU as the X, but more the memory situation. Microsoft’s improvements, albeit small, could help reduce some of that friction around developing games for the Xbox Series S.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

"Personally i cant understand how anyone can look at [pc players] with [weak pc specs] and than honestly believe that it will have no impact on game development."
Majority of steam users still use 6 core cpus and gpus like AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT.
Series s is a 8 core amd cpu and 7nm gpu google the rest its a good 1080p-1440p nxt gen console. You get what you pay for
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/steam-hw-survey-august-2022

^^whats really holding everything back...

 

[Rykan]

"Personally i cant understand how anyone can look at [pc players] with [weak pc specs] and than honestly believe that it will have no impact on game development."
Majority of steam users still use 6 core cpus and gpus like AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT.
Series s is a 8 core amd cpu and 7nm gpu google the rest its a good 1080p-1440p nxt gen console. You get what you pay for
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/steam-hw-survey-august-2022

It's not at all the same situation.

As a developer, you can choose what kind of PC hardware your game will target. You can develop a game for a wide audience and target low specced machines. You can also develop a game for higher end hardware. You're not forced to develop for every single system on Steam.

You are, however, forced to develop for Series S even if you only want to release on Series X.

 

[01011001]

It's not at all the same situation.

As a developer, you can choose what kind of PC hardware your game will target. You can develop a game for a wide audience and target low specced machines. You can also develop a game for higher end hardware. You're not forced to develop for every single system on Steam.

You are, however, forced to develop for Series S even if you only want to release on Series X.

if you want to make money, you better make sure your game runs on a GTX1060, and therefore a big AAA developer is forced to target a PC on that level if they want to maximize profits.

 

[Rykan]

if you want to make money, you better make sure your game runs on a GTX1060, and therefore a big AAA developer is forced to target a PC on that level if they want to maximize profits.

That's just an oversimplification. You can set your game apart by developing it for high-end hardware. Just look at how much money Star Citizen has made by just developing for high-end systems: That game isn't even out yet.

There's just so much misinterpretation and wrong conclusions being drawn from the steam hardware survey. Just because the GTX1060 is the most common GPU, doesn't mean that those people are the biggest spenders and thus who you should be targeting. Indeed: We already see multiplatform games that abandoned last gen well exceed those minimum system requirements.

 

[bender]

This game is 30 fps on all consoles btw and has received a total of 0 threads about it on here.

It's easily the best physics based platformer featuring a goldfish in a bowl.

 

[01011001]

That's just an oversimplification. You can set your game apart by developing it for high-end hardware. Just look at how much money Star Citizen has made by just developing for high-end systems: That game isn't even out yet.

that game that will never come out and is mostly played by extremely rich people that buy ships for thousands of dollars... oh year, grat example

There's just so much misinterpretation and wrong conclusions being drawn from the steam hardware survey. Just because the GTX1060 is the most common GPU, doesn't mean that those people are the biggest spenders and thus who you should be targeting. Indeed: We already see multiplatform games that abandoned last gen well exceed those minimum system requirements.

I have yet to see a single game that can't run on a 1060. they might not mention the 1060 but it mostly runs everything on the market, just like the Steam Deck does, whose GPU is maybe 1/5 as powerful as a 1060.
the only one I can think of is Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, which is a rerelease of a game that runs just fine on a 1060, so that doesn't even really count, as the enhanced edition is just a super elaborate raytracing patch

edit: this is below minimum specs I guess, and here it is running lol



it may be 480p... but fully pathtraced 480p!

 

[01011001]

Reminder that THIS is the game that has generated 922 replies and counting

This game is 30 fps on all consoles btw and has received a total of 0 threads about it on here. The state of console wars here is absolutely embarrassing at the moment.

it has been brought up, source I posted a video of how much of a joke it is that this game runs at 30fps on Xbox One and also at 30fps on current gen.
so at least there's that xD not quite a thread, but a mention...

 

[yamaci17]

1060 argument is pretty moot

it has been running games like shit since last 3 years or so. 1-2 years down the line and it will run them so bad to a point people will compelled to upgrade, and once they start to mass upgrade to something better (like 3060 or 4060 or whatever), 1060 will be history

just go check how games "run" on 760. there's no "optimization" or whatsoever for it. it just runs them like super shit. that's it. you just set everything to lowest and hope for 20 fps and stuff.

if a game does not properly run (as in, it will run at 50+ fps at 1080p with med-high settings), PC folks will chose to not play it. specifically the 1060 users. i've tons of 1060 friends myself, most of them avoid games unless they get 50+ fps comfortably with DECENT settings (not dogshit looking super low settings).

you may think they're entitled but no. they can find tons of other games that run better. that's the problem of most ports and why they fail "financially" compared to consoles. you cant simply ask a 1050ti or 1060 users to accept ps4-style 30 fps lock. the fact that it is a hurdle to get 30 fps right on PC is another problematic part that drives most PC folks to target 60 fps and upwards

most of these PC people wont care if the game "runs" on their GPU. My friend deems most of the game ports in recent 3 years "unplayable" from this perspective, and he's the most stereotypical gtx 1060 user you can find on the internet. he's literally the embodiment of 1060 users that are existing.

https://www.youtube.com/c/Gaminja

you can simply scour through this channel and comment section and see what kind of mindset 1060 people have.

most of them won't even buy a plague tale requiem. tale requiem runs at 25-33 fps on lowest settings on their GPU. they won't accept that playable. for them, that product does not even exists. on a base ps4, 1080/30 is perfectly playable and you can make ALL ps4 users play with that config (they're used to it / 30 fps is properly frame paced / no other option etc.)

so please stop making moot assumptions

i dont care about series s or anything at this point but just wanted to chime on this "argument" that some people had over "low end" products. somehow some people think games run magically fine on low end hardware and people do play them. no. if they did: games would sell more. most of them ignore / refuse to buy games because of such performance.

 

[01011001]

1060 argument is pretty moot

it has been running games like shit since last 3 years or so. 1-2 years down the line and it will run them so bad to a point people will compelled to upgrade, and once they start to mass upgrade to something better (like 3060 or 4060 or whatever), 1060 will be history

just go check how games "run" on 760. there's no "optimization" or whatsoever for it. it just runs them like super shit. that's it. you just set everything to lowest and hope for 20 fps and stuff.

if a game does not properly run (as in, it will run at 50+ fps at 1080p with med-high settings), PC folks will chose to not play it. specifically the 1060 users. i've tons of 1060 friends myself, most of them avoid games unless they get 50+ fps comfortably with DECENT settings (not dogshit looking super low settings).

you may think they're entitled but no. they can find tons of other games that run better. that's the problem of most ports and why they fail "financially" compared to consoles. you cant simply ask a 1050ti or 1060 users to accept ps4-style 30 fps lock. the fact that it is a hurdle to get 30 fps right on PC is another problematic part that drives most PC folks to target 60 fps and upwards

most of these PC people wont care if the game "runs" on their GPU. My friend deems most of the game ports in recent 3 years "unplayable" from this perspective, and he's the most stereotypical gtx 1060 user you can find on the internet. he's literally the embodiment of 1060 users that are existing.

https://www.youtube.com/c/Gaminja

you can simply scour through this channel and comment section and see what kind of mindset 1060 people have.

most of them won't even buy a plague tale requiem. tale requiem runs at 25-33 fps on lowest settings on their GPU. they won't accept that playable. for them, that product does not even exists. on a base ps4, 1080/30 is perfectly playable and you can make ALL ps4 users play with that config (they're used to it / 30 fps is properly frame paced / no other option etc.)

so please stop making moot assumptions

i dont care about series s or anything at this point but just wanted to chime on this "argument" that some people had over "low end" products. somehow some people think games run magically fine on low end hardware and people do play them. no. if they did: games would sell more. most of them ignore / refuse to buy games because of such performance.

you mean comments like these:
"thanks for this videos man, my 1060 is about 4 years now instead of new gpu i got a Deck (more appealing for me now) but thanks for all these years uploading videos"

or this one:
"Its playable in low/medium settings at 1080p, with 80% scale resolution i reach solid 40 fps, a gpu with seven years in a few months, and still run games for new generation, GTX 1060 it's the best gpu in the history"

or this one:
"1060 showing its age but this game has good frametime so even in low fps it is smooth"

or that one here:
"tested here, and runs fine at 30fps, but the game is still heavy/unoptimized, thanks anyway."

how about this one:
"You can actually get 50FPS+ with custom settings. Just set the Reflections, Antialiasing Quality and Fog as LOW, you'll see the difference."

these are specifically from comments below videos of this channel where the 1060 can't reach 60fps and is mostly in the 40fps no-man's-land

 

[yamaci17]

you mean comments like these:
"thanks for this videos man, my 1060 is about 4 years now instead of new gpu i got a Deck (more appealing for me now) but thanks for all these years uploading videos"

or this one:
"Its playable in low/medium settings at 1080p, with 80% scale resolution i reach solid 40 fps, a gpu with seven years in a few months, and still run games for new generation, GTX 1060 it's the best gpu in the history"

or this one:
"1060 showing its age but this game has good frametime so even in low fps it is smooth"

or that one here:
"tested here, and runs fine at 30fps, but the game is still heavy/unoptimized, thanks anyway."

how about this one:
"You can actually get 50FPS+ with custom settings. Just set the Reflections, Antialiasing Quality and Fog as LOW, you'll see the difference."

these are specifically from comments below videos of this channel where the 1060 can't reach 60fps and is mostly in the 40fps no-man's-land

Thanks for cherry picking..
I mean comments like these;


"It's about time to shift from playing games to watching gameplay" 55 likes

"Its playable in low/medium settings at 1080p, with 80% scale resolution i reach solid 40 fps, a gpu with seven years in a few months, and still run games for new generation, GTX 1060 it's the best gpu in the history, a 250-300 usd card in 2016 give us 7 years of gaming on high resolution and nice presets, finally in 2022-23 this card need a update, but legends never die! I go for a 4070 next year, but gamers never forget this great graphic card!" merely 3 likes (clearly, most 1060 users do not appreciate or share sentiment with this user)

"dear 1060 users, our mitic card is comming to and end at least for 1080p" 33 likes (once again, clearly, most 1060 users SHARE sentiment that card is coming to an end)

"Not optimised that's why not released on ps4 and Xbox one. .even rdr2 can ran at about 50 -60 fps with better visual with GTX 1060" (the mindset that: X ran better so Y is shit for doing this: therefore no buy. happens too frequently actually)

"Why is no one calling out the shit optimisation in this game. Everyone is like amazing this and that yet this is what they release"

"Graphics look like something gtx 750 would handle.. This game is poorly made, optimisation is not done at all.. GTX 1060 6GB would eat these graphics in no time."

multiple "rip 1060" comments

"How the f*ck does the sequel run this bad when it has nearly the same graphics level as the first game?This is f***ing ridiculous"

"Very shitty optimization, graphics doesn't look that demanding..."

"The GTX 1060 is definitely being plagued by this so-called "Plague" game, please do uninstall this "plague" game in order for the performance of GTX 1060 itself to be fully get recoverd as soon as possible! LOL"

"And today we announce the death of the glorious 1060"


These users are LOST sales.

 

[THE DUCK]

That's just an oversimplification. You can set your game apart by developing it for high-end hardware. Just look at how much money Star Citizen has made by just developing for high-end systems: That game isn't even out yet.

There's just so much misinterpretation and wrong conclusions being drawn from the steam hardware survey. Just because the GTX1060 is the most common GPU, doesn't mean that those people are the biggest spenders and thus who you should be targeting. Indeed: We already see multiplatform games that abandoned last gen well exceed those minimum system requirements.

Wait, did you just use scamcitizen as an example of a game that is being developed for high end? Sorry but all credibility lost from that point on.

I dont think you are understanding just how large the low to midrange market for pc is.
You state there are games that are exceeding a 1060 right now, which is convenient for your argument, while failing to say that 95% of all pc games are still that low or even lower in some cases. Talk about cherry picking.

 

[Rykan]

that game that will never come out and is mostly played by extremely rich people that buy ships for thousands of dollars... oh year, grat example

Completely irrelevant. The fact that it already had so much money invested in it shows that there is absolutely a market on it.

I have yet to see a single game that can't run on a 1060. they might not mention the 1060 but it mostly runs everything on the market, just like the Steam Deck does, whose GPU is maybe 1/5 as powerful as a 1060.
the only one I can think of is Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, which is a rerelease of a game that runs just fine on a 1060, so that doesn't even really count, as the enhanced edition is just a super elaborate raytracing patch

edit: this is below minimum specs I guess, and here it is running lol



it may be 480p... but fully pathtraced 480p!

Running on it and running on it well are two entirely different things. This is a card that is simply not going to do as well once cross gen support ends. Just look at Silent Hill 2 remake: A 1080 is the minimum requirement. It probably won't be a very good experience on 1060, if it even runs on it at all.

Wait, did you just use scamcitizen as an example of a game that is being developed for high end? Sorry but all credibility lost from that point on.

Oh no! not my internet credibility! I don't really care much what people who are apparently incapable of understanding the essence of an argument think about my credibility, sorry.

I dont think you are understanding just how large the low to midrange market for pc is.

I do. Have you actually read my post at all?

You state there are games that are exceeding a 1060 right now,

No I haven't.

which is convenient for your argument, while failing to say that 95% of all pc games are still that low or even lower in some cases. Talk about cherry picking.

That's probably because you haven't actually read the post that you're responding to. Yikes.

 

[01011001]

Thanks for cherry picking..
I mean comments like these;


"It's about time to shift from playing games to watching gameplay" 55 likes

"Its playable in low/medium settings at 1080p, with 80% scale resolution i reach solid 40 fps, a gpu with seven years in a few months, and still run games for new generation, GTX 1060 it's the best gpu in the history, a 250-300 usd card in 2016 give us 7 years of gaming on high resolution and nice presets, finally in 2022-23 this card need a update, but legends never die! I go for a 4070 next year, but gamers never forget this great graphic card!" merely 3 likes (clearly, most 1060 users do not appreciate or share sentiment with this user)

"dear 1060 users, our mitic card is comming to and end at least for 1080p" 33 likes (once again, clearly, most 1060 users SHARE sentiment that card is coming to an end)

"Not optimised that's why not released on ps4 and Xbox one. .even rdr2 can ran at about 50 -60 fps with better visual with GTX 1060" (the mindset that: X ran better so Y is shit for doing this: therefore no buy. happens too frequently actually)

"Why is no one calling out the shit optimisation in this game. Everyone is like amazing this and that yet this is what they release"

"Graphics look like something gtx 750 would handle.. This game is poorly made, optimisation is not done at all.. GTX 1060 6GB would eat these graphics in no time."

multiple "rip 1060" comments

"How the f*ck does the sequel run this bad when it has nearly the same graphics level as the first game?This is f***ing ridiculous"

"Very shitty optimization, graphics doesn't look that demanding..."

"The GTX 1060 is definitely being plagued by this so-called "Plague" game, please do uninstall this "plague" game in order for the performance of GTX 1060 itself to be fully get recoverd as soon as possible! LOL"

"And today we announce the death of the glorious 1060"


These users are LOST sales.

about half of those are calling out how bad the game runs in relation to what it does tho, basically not saying their card sucks but that devs should do better, which tells me that they still holding on to the card and are hoping that better devs optimise better for their card.

the Series S is also more on the 1660 super level, sometimes 1660ti in some games. and that can be a more than 20% uplift in performance compared to the 1060, often 30%

also you said it yourself, on console lower performance is totally fine, so even if the Series S will be forced to run games at 900p30fps noone will really care, even tho on PC that same game will need a higher performance card to be acceptable on that market

Completely irrelevant. The fact that it already had so much money invested in it shows that there is absolutely a market on it.

Invested is an interesting term for a game that crowdfunded half a billion dollars...

Running on it and running on it well are two entirely different things. This is a card that is simply not going to do as well once cross gen support ends. Just look at Silent Hill 2 remake: A 1080 is the minimum requirement. It probably won't be a very good experience on 1060, if it even runs on it at all.

I don't expect SH2 to run well on anything... we are talking about Bloober team here using UE5... that's a hellish combination

 

[DaGwaphics]

So why is this a concern for MANY devs across the industry…why is this even a topic…the Series S Is weaker period…its not just “drop the resolution and its all good” its “modify the game, drop the resolution and framerate, remove ray tracing to get good performance…”

Probably a combination of people liking to concern troll with a sprinkling of people automatically believing anything they see posted on the internet.

 

[Rykan]

Invested is an interesting term for a game that crowdfunded half a billion dollars...

I'm genuinely not interested in any "excuse" why this game for some reason needs to be excluded. People are so fixated on the fact that I used SC as an example that the entire point that I was actually making goes completely ignored.

The whole point I was making is that 1060 being the most popular GPU doesn't mean that you MUST target this GPU because they might not be the largest spenders AND you can set yourself apart by focusing on enthusiasts or people with higher end systems instead.

By that same logic, no developer should be developing exclusively for PS5/XSX because most people still own a PS4/XBone.

I don't expect SH2 to run well on anything... we are talking about Bloober team here using UE5... that's a hellish combination

Why? The game ran just fine in the trailer and looks pretty good too. You're simply going to see a lot more games that aren't designed with the 1060 in mind once cross gen is over.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I'm genuinely not interested in any "excuse" why this game for some reason needs to be excluded. People are so fixated on the fact that I used SC as an example that the entire point that I was actually making goes completely ignored.

The whole point I was making is that 1060 being the most popular GPU doesn't mean that you MUST target this GPU because they might not be the largest spenders AND you can set yourself apart by focusing on enthusiasts or people with higher end systems instead.

By that same logic, no developer should be developing exclusively for PS5/XSX because most people still own a PS4/XBone.

Why? The game ran just fine in the trailer and looks pretty good too. You're simply going to see a lot more games that aren't designed with the 1060 in mind once cross gen is over.

Comparing gtx1060 to Series S is like comparing gtx1080 to PS5.

Maybe an rtx3050 mobile would be more apt comparison. A ton of them are selling these days and Dev's would want to target that new GPU.

 

[THE DUCK]

Completely irrelevant. The fact that it already had so much money invested in it shows that there is absolutely a market on it.

Running on it and running on it well are two entirely different things. This is a card that is simply not going to do as well once cross gen support ends. Just look at Silent Hill 2 remake: A 1080 is the minimum requirement. It probably won't be a very good experience on 1060, if it even runs on it at all.


Oh no! not my internet credibility! I don't really care much what people who are apparently incapable of understanding the essence of an argument think about my credibility, sorry.

I do. Have you actually read my post at all?

When you say silly things about games that have been in development for 3000 years that have burned through money like it's going put of style that will never come out, you lose all credibility. People didn't dump money into the game due to the "higher end" graphics, they wanted to play a newer more fully realized wing commander.

Read your post just fine, some serious denial your in there.

 

[DaGwaphics]

also you said it yourself, on console lower performance is totally fine, so even if the Series S will be forced to run games at 900p30fps noone will really care, even tho on PC that same game will need a higher performance card to be acceptable on that market

There's also an optimization benefit to the fixed hardware configuration of the console. This is what allows the 720p/30 minimum PC spec for GoW to be so far above the PS4 in terms of power, but the PS4 is still doing 1080p. People have convinced themselves that the XSS won't get ports when minimum PC specs move passed the specs of the console, but that is never the way it goes (minimum specs moved past the PS4/X1 three or 4 years ago at least). And guess what, the games have still been on there.

 

[01011001]

I'm genuinely not interested in any "excuse" why this game for some reason needs to be excluded. People are so fixated on the fact that I used SC as an example that the entire point that I was actually making goes completely ignored.

The whole point I was making is that 1060 being the most popular GPU doesn't mean that you MUST target this GPU because they might not be the largest spenders AND you can set yourself apart by focusing on enthusiasts or people with higher end systems instead.

By that same logic, no developer should be developing exclusively for PS5/XSX because most people still own a PS4/XBone.

Star Citicen runs on a 1060 btw... it's about 30fps at 1080p very high settings, so it runs on it currently

Why? The game ran just fine in the trailer and looks pretty good too. You're simply going to see a lot more games that aren't designed with the 1060 in mind once cross gen is over.

Bloober Team has not released a single game that runs well relative to what it does/looks like on any system. their games all run like trash. their best optimized game might be Medium... and that's not a great benchmark.
Blair Witch for example was terrible, dropping to 900p on One X and not being able to hold a steady framerate. on Xbox One S the camera movement was fucked due to some programming error... on PS4 it drops to 720p, barely staying at 30fps.
all version had an unlocked framerate too btw.

so I would prepare for the worst now that they are using Lumen

 

[Rykan]

When you say silly things about games that have been in development for 3000 years that have burned through money like it's going put of style that will never come out, you lose all credibility.

The whole point of the argument was to highlight that people having spend over 500m USD on a high-end game that isn't even out yet shows that there is an interest and an audience for high end games. Whether the game comes out or not is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Something you would have known if you actually bothered to read my post instead of whining about "CrEdibiLiTy".

Read your post just fine, some serious denial your in there.

Then we'll have to conclude that you purposely misrepresented my post instead.

Star Citicen runs on a 1060 btw... it's about 30fps at 1080p very high settings, so it runs on it currently

From the footage I've seen, it drops well below 30 FPS on low settings. Either way, It's pretty obvious that the game wasn't designed to deliver a great experience on 1060. Just because you "technically" can play it on a 1060 doesn't mean that it's an experience designed for it.

 

[Corndog]

is the power difference between the X and the S really that big?

edit - a quick google search tells me, yes, indeed it is.

On the gpu side yes. On the cpu, not so much.

 

[THE DUCK]

The whole point of the argument was to highlight that people having spend over 500m USD on a high-end game that isn't even out yet shows that there is an interest and an audience for high end games. Whether the game comes out or not is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Something you would have known if you actually bothered to read my post instead of whining about "CrEdibiLiTy".

Then we'll have to conclude that you purposely misrepresented my post instead

From the footage I've seen, it drops well below 30 FPS on low settings. Either way, It's pretty obvious that the game wasn't designed to deliver a great experience on 1060. Just because you "technically" can play it on a 1060 doesn't mean that it's an experience designed for it.

You keep calling it a high end game.......it's not. By the way, if star citizen ever actually sees a full normal release, I'll change my name to Star Duck.

"We" don't have to conclude anything. You can choose to conclude whatever you want, even if it's massively wrong.

Saying that any pc game that doesn't run really well on 1060 wasn't meant for it is pointless.
The fact is these games are being made to run on these lower systems and they are being played. Just because you think it's not good enough doesn't mean anything.

 

[01011001]

From the footage I've seen, it drops well below 30 FPS on low settings. Either way, It's pretty obvious that the game wasn't designed to deliver a great experience on 1060. Just because you "technically" can play it on a 1060 doesn't mean that it's an experience designed for it.

noone forces developers to make a Series S game run at 1440p60fps either.
a Series S game can run at 900p or below and at 30fps and it will be fine. it's the budget system.
hell with FSR2 they might even get away with 720p... I once for the lulz ran Cyberpunk on my TV with DLSS Ultra Performance, which means the game ran at 720p, and it looks absolutely fine

the fact that your super high end game example still runs on a 1060 shows that downporting to Series S is not an issue whatsoever.

 

[THE DUCK]

noone forces developers to make a Series S game run at 1440p60fps either.
a Series S game can run at 900p or below and at 30fps and it will be fine. it's the budget system.
hell with FSR2 they might even get away with 720p... I once for the lulz ran Cyberpunk on my TV with DLSS Ultra Performance, which means the game ran at 720p, and it looks absolutely fine

the fact that your super high end game example still runs on a 1060 shows that downporting to Series S is not an issue whatsoever.

Especially considering the series S is more in line with a 1070 and is a fixed platform - easier to optimize for.

 

[01011001]

noone forces developers to make a Series S game run at 1440p60fps either.
a Series S game can run at 900p or below and at 30fps and it will be fine. it's the budget system.
hell with FSR2 they might even get away with 720p... I once for the lulz ran Cyberpunk on my TV with DLSS Ultra Performance, which means the game ran at 720p, and it looks absolutely fine

just to show what Cyberpunk running internally at 480p upsampled with DLSS to 1440p looks like:

(the first one is standing still, the others is while walking)