No what? There's documented history of examples of this exact thing happening numerous times. We've had things like XB360 -> PSP ports (a substantially bigger gap than what we're talking about here) done in under 3 months on a shoe-string budget, not because anyone thought about it during 2 years of development prior - but because someone in publishing thought it would be great to add another SKU after the fact. These ports would usually still ship with all 'core' features intact, and often have additional content over the base version (though granted, they probably got 6 months for those).
All I said was 'it can, and it does happen'. What that would mean to Rift Apart is academic - if they announce a PS4 version I'm sure it'll play about as well as Resogun on PSVita did... Doesn't mean it didn't happen though.
What exactly does backport mean to you? There's no such thing as 0-compromise on any down-port in history, so by that definition - all titles are truly designed for their target hw.
Documented history of what? Remember FH2?
Source:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-forza-horizon-2-face-off
Playground Games goes one way on Xbox One, while Sumo Digital veers off in its own radically different direction on Xbox 360. What we have here are two versions that share assets, environments, concepts and themes - but in execution each release is to all intents and purposes a completely different game, and that's actually a very good thing.
Sumo Digital hasn't gone out to slavishly trace out the Xbox One blueprint. Certainly in terms of overall technology, that would have been a fool's errand - in pure technical terms, the 360 version cannot hope to compete. The beautiful physically based rendering of Playground Games' version is gone, replaced with a plainer, more flat representation of in-game lighting. Similarly, the remarkable simulation of varying weather conditions has not made its way across to Xbox 360 - weather in the last-gen world is uniformly sunny up against varying conditions on Xbox One from bright skies to lashing storms, incorporating often stunning atmospheric rendering. The gradual shift of the time of day is included, however, but time-lapse comparisons in like-for-like spots demonstrate that Xbox One is a world apart from its last-gen counterpart.
That's pretty much as close as an example of what we can apply to the same situation here. Different developer, shared assets, completely different game under the hood. FH2 could do this as it's more standalone - as in the competitive element wasn't important but with GT you have the FIA etc. that will require consistency across the frame rates, simulation models, weather conditions etc. even the reflections in the wing mirrors/rearview.
I should make it clear, I don't actually care if it is cross gen. Im purely arguing from a technical/plausibility point of view here. I really like GT:S and FH4 for what they are. What I'm contesting is the bullshit article. There's no way a decision of this scale can be made in say, November of last year - particularly for this studio that is known for under delivering content and over delivering delays. If that decision has been made that late and they now have a FH2 situation then this will not make 2022 either in my opinion. Or Q4 at the earliest (if it's an aligned launch). Now there are a few caveats to what I'm saying that I concede are different discussions which are listed below (But for the purposes of here and now, I have assumed GT7 is a true next-gen game leveraging all and every feature and improvement it possibly can).
1. GT7 isn't actually leveraging all the PS5 power and isn't really a true next generation game. It's basically an engine port, some engine enhancements (e.g. lighting, weather) and updated visuals. Hands up, this would appear to be consistent with the gameplay reveal. This makes it
easier (not easy) to create a backport or strip away certain elements - this may mean, as a byproduct that certain features are not in the PS5 version again like dynamic weather, the new lighting model.
2. It actually began development as a cross gen title, they realised they had the same limitations as GT:S and pushed for next gen only. They then reversed that decision because of money, market penetration etc.
3. They always planned it to be a PS4 release anyway and the marketing materials were wrong, which let's face it, given the car crash (pun intended) of Sony's video taglines is a possibility.
To be clear what I'm contesting is that:
Polyphony made a true next gen PS5 GT7, complete with engine overhauls that is taking fundamental design advantage of all the new PS5 goodness. Then in November (out of the blue) were told to also create a PS4 version of the same game.
My position is that:
If we run with the above as a reality, then there will be fundamental differences between those games like FH2 and if there aren't then GT7 was never really a next gen anyway.
I think that's extremely fair to be honest. To clarify, this won't make a difference on whether I decide to purchase GT7 or not, I'm just here for the debate an the implications we can deduce from the article. Ultimately why does it matter to us
when the decision was made? Whether it was in Feb '20 or Nov '20 we get the same end result, a delayed game. The only reason the timeframe means anything is because it gives
insight into how hard it is to do the port (or)
it is trying to illustrate it was a late reactive decision
The two go hand in hand. Again, the article is very airy fairy and depends completely on this line:
...to be fair to Sony, I understand the decision to release a PS4 version was made only fairly recently.
Why is that your understanding? Where from? Who from? Have the financial forecasts been amended in light of that decision etc.
www.neogaf.com
