Visible shorter loading times are not the main effect. Cernys talk was enlightening. A big part of level design is making sure that the player doesn't move so fast that the hardware cannot deliver the assets any more. So, you get corners and corner, and elevators and whatever tricks dev use just to make sure they can load the next part of the level fast enough without showing a loading screen. If a game can request assets and they are almost instantly you don't have to redesign levels again and again because "yes, this looks the way we want, but the hardware isn't fast enough".
For me the interesting question is if developers will use the playstation specific options. For playstation exclusives it's a given, but for multi platform releases there probably won't be different levels for playstation vs pc/xbox, so much of it could be wasted. Same for all the other things. Doesn't help much if the controller has six levels of priority if game devs don't use them because PC has only two.
I found it really quite interesting, even if I don't game on consoles primarily.
Same with ongoing updates. I replaced my original HD with a FireCuda which helps some but I feel like the PS online infrastructure is run on fractional T1s and Sun boxes or something
Do you find it fails to work when you're most interested in buying something? Because that's how it goes with me, literally as soon as I'm like "oh yes I would like to buy that game" the store stops working completely.
For a low end PC system we are talking about having 8 cores, 16GB of ram, a decent video card, and an SSD usually or at least a disk capable of 100+ MB/s. Also the platform is pretty easy to develop for and release on.
For a console you get 5 or 6 cores to use, each of which is not as good as a modern CPU core, 8GB of shared ram, and a disk where you have to handle being only able to read from it at 30MB/s. You also have to deal with the black box of vendor tools, that don't necessarily work easily.
So the whole team ends up spending a lot of time actually optimising the game to actually run on these underpowered and lowest spec'd consoles. Removing extra details, downgrading graphics, culling data, compressing, managing memory, just so it can run at 30fps.
That's definitely not low-end. More like mid to high-end.
Low-end is still 2 cores, 4 GB of RAM, with integrated graphics.
Yes it's more of a mid tier system but it's a low end system that you would get to play games on.
Also given that games still target the consoles you can get away with 8GB of ram easy.
Further, no one targets 16 GB RAM for a game. Not even the non-released, next-gen consoles have 16 GB dedicated CPU memory.
Similarly, not everyone one has an SSD and therefore companies cannot target that. Only in a few months with the new gen of consoles we will see actual games targeting SSD speeds.
As with the other points though, a low-mid tier gaming PC is something like 4 core/8 thread, 16GB ram, a HDD for bulk storage and an SSD for system & some select game(s). Someone that is buying a Macbook Air or an Ultrabook or something with only 2 cores is selecting it for something else rather than gaming. So irrelevant to the discussion.
The reason no big publisher targets 16GB for a game is because of these old consoles. The games can and do use more memory if available but they are limited by having to target these low spec consoles. They're also required to support the slow HDD speed of the current generation of consoles, so no exploiting SSDs either. This takes significant time and resources to optimise for!
The console AAA games are the ones that target proper GPUs because consoles have them. If they were targeting PC only, you wouldn't see them.
But it is also very much a known quantity and games should be designed to take that into account. Arguably it should be easier to write games that hit 60fps today than it was 6 years ago.
But games have become way more complex in that time, and the expectations of players have grown considerably. So you end up having to put more content in, more features and more data. The disk and memory become a bottleneck and you need to write and optimise some pretty complex systems to be able to handle that well.
PC Hardware has actually advanced since that time as well, so the artists have now more power to create better looking and feeling things in their tools, which means more data to process and get into the game.
Also designers will often surprise you as a programmer with the features and creative solutions to problems. They don't really think and design the same way a programmer would, and don't really design for the system hardware (except for the input/output devices of it).
I would replace my current switch in a blink of an eye if a new model with reduced loading time would come out
With a gaming computer you'll get 2k resolution and 60+fps easily.
On switch you barely get 720p/30fps
Will have more time the next few weeks anyway.
I have to get out of it but then it's probably better to start a new game... :-(
I hope for the second part to include more surprises into the world itself and not in shrines.
The ideas in the shrines definitely could have been expanded on more though for sure.
Once they get a C&D and they close shop and disappear into the void taking the source with them, the patreon supporters are going to feel so dumb.
My advice is to _Never_ support the development of a closed source emulator.
Developers are doing what they can here, but the average game that has these sorts of drops is dealing with limited CPU resources, budgeted around a 30FPS target. Especially on consoles like Xbox One X (due to its powerful GPU but limited CPU), it becomes evident that, on average, resolution and graphics cuts have little effect on performance in these situations. The only mitigation is to build your game with a higher frame rate target in mind from the start, requiring serious compromises to things like simulation complexity, for instance.
PS5 and Xbox Series X have a good chance of pushing past this limit. Current generation consoles are using aged laptop-grade CPUs while the upcoming console generation features desktop-grade Zen 2 processors at surprisingly high clock rates.
That means you'll be able to store maybe 4 AAA grade games on the SSD.
Many (most ? ) Switch games already do that automatically.
Consoles don't really make sense as a concept anymore. The only remaining appeal is their DRM capability for publishers.
As someone who prefers console gaming to computer gaming (for the most part), I have to disagree. I like that the console is hooked up to my gigantic TV instead of my less gigantic computer monitor. I like that it uses controllers instead of mouse and keyboard (the same things I'm using all day at work). I like that my console is in a different room from my computer. I like that it's more conducive to playing a game with (local) friends, since they can just sit down on the couch and turn on another controller. I like that I don't have to worry about what graphics card my console has, or worry about a game not working well with that graphics card. I like that it's simply not my computer.
Yes, I know that you can hook a computer up to a TV, and you can use controllers with your computer, and not all of these apply to everyone, and so on and so on. There's still a difference, and I like that difference.
Yeah, they're mostly just a PC under the hood. But they're PCs with consistent hardware. How much easier would PC game development be if you know all of your customers had the same CPU, GPU, RAM, and OS?
I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that the new xbox and play station are anything other than slightly customised branded PC builds that offer no physical advantages over the real thing, only marketing ones like DRM and exclusive releases.
When they come over, the thing we want to spend most of our time doing is 2 v 2 FIFA. If I spend 30 mins doing anything here, we're losing precious time. If I spend 60 mins debugging, I'm just not going to do it. I'll even take a zero probability of fixing if it means a lower probability of failure of any sort (even recoverable).
A lounge PC is a shithouse experience compared to a console. Absolute garbage. Simply supporting multiple people in a household on an Xbox is trivial and easy. On a PC using Steam it's absolute trash. Steam treats PCs like it's 1995 and single-user.
* I can rent games from my local redbox to try out for a few days. Sometimes, that's all I need and I saved myself the price of the game.
* Couch co-op is typically superior on console.
* Ease of use: simple connection to TV, simple remote controllers. The story for HDR support is also steamlined (as in, my TV supports it so if the game does too, done)
* Consoles are much quieter, making them a much better TV-room appliance.
* Easy purchase and sharing games, especially with a physical copy. Loan out the physical game, no fuss.
* Some sort of resale value for physical games, albeit not that much. However if you are the type to locust the content of a game quickly, as in the first week of release, you can often resell for most the purchase price.
* A UI built for TV and remote use. No, I'm not excited about controlling Windows from across the room by keyboard/mouse.
* Great portability. One of my consoles is a Nintendo Switch, and it travels far better than a PC. Yes you can get a gaming notebook but that solution is no longer competitive on pricing.
* Better multi-user design. It's easier to have a family console with multiple accounts than it is have a Windows PC with multiple accounts. And have parental controls, etc.
Sure, with suitable amount of time/research and other stuff I'm just no longer interested in doing, I can get wireless controllers, quiet(er) fans, apps for launching that are usable at typical resolution from 6' or more away, fiddle with multiple accounts on Windows (who ACTUALLY does this outside a work setting? It's just... not smooth at all), but there is a cost in my time I don't want to invest anymore.
and other reasons such as
* I want to step away from Microsoft Windows and various issues from privacy to updates. Since the consoles are only for entertainment (gaming, playing videos) I am less concerned about telemetry possibly swooping up everything I'm doing.
Many might not care about that last case... but how many times do half the people in an HN thread about Windows gripe loudly about privacy or monthly updates? It seems like there is some problem with a Windows update 2 or 3 times a year. Yeah, I want off that merry-go-round for my ENTERTAINMENT system.
So, I'm actually doing something about a Window dependency, rather than just griping online. I migrated to Linux for my dekstop (on a NUC) and console gaming to fill the gaming gap. Yeah it isn't perfect and there are a handful of games I still need Windows for, but between linux and consoles, that's about 90% of my need for Windows removed.
> * Consoles are much quieter, making them a much better TV-room appliance.
This is a joke, right? My gaming PC is virtually silent (140 mm exhaust fan FTW) while my friend's PS4 Pro sounds like a hair dryer under load.
My Switch is essentially 100% silent, as in, not detectable that it is on from any noise that it makes.
I don't know about Xboxes.
As far as anecdotes, I have a friend whose gaming PC is loud enough to be distracting while watching movies. Heck it's audible above the A/C.
Now that I'm more into consoles, I'm more sensitive to PC noise... before I'd just accept and tune out a certain amount, but now it is grating because I've seen the alternatives and am constantly unintentionally comparing.
Having built various gaming PC's over the years, yes you can have a fairly quiet gaming PC. But you also need to invest some time/effort/money to get liquid cooling, quiet case fans, quiet power supply, quiet CPU fans, etc and you need to take that into account.
Yes, I've read PS4's can be pretty loud. It's a common complaint on /r/PS4. I can't say I've tracked actual numbers, but my feeling is that 80% of those situations are the same root cause: dust/pet hair clogging up the fan, and after cleaning, the system is much quieter.
My current gaming PC is a PowerSpec G706. You know, for those handful of games I still need Windows for. ;) And I got lazy just buying a system instead of building individual components because... I'm just not into that anymore. Anyway, I would rate this system as pretty quiet compared to other ones I've had, but I always know that it is on. Even not playing a game, the ambient noise under zero load is there. Meanwhile, I can't always tell my PS4 is on. And I can't tell if the Switch is on without looking at it.
So, YMMV but in my experience, for off the shelf purchases, consoles are quieter than PC's on average. Also, the people that have "silent" PC's, like myself in a former gaming life, bought specialized components to get there.
If you have any links to computer systems, pre-assembled (since the average person isn't going to build them component by component) that are also price competitive with consoles (around $275 for a ps4 slim or xbox one s, around $350 for a ps4 pro or xbox one x) that are ALSO silent, I'd like to see them. I have a feeling that a PC in that price range is nowhere near as quiet as a console, but I'd love to hear otherwise.
I'll also state without proof that there is zero chance of a gaming PC, price competitive with a switch, that is quieter. That's equivalent to a gaming PC quieter than a cell phone. I don't believe it exists at that price point ($200 to $300 depending on whether you get a switch lite or regular switch).
Low framerates are almost always completely unrelated to optimization. I can make a horribly optimized version of Tetris that still runs at 144hz on modern hardware.
Likewise, I can write a perfectly optimized game that still runs at 20fps on modern consoles.
Framerates are determined by how much the developer wants to push graphical fidelity/AI etc.
Generally, in game development, the term "optimization" refers to the holistic process around getting the game performing at speed, be it compiler optimization options, SIMD-ification, or even adjusting texture resolution (graphical fidelity) or AI parameters. It often starts with profiling, and identifying bottlenecks, and focusing on what can be done to get the game to perform within spec.
Optimization is entirely about context, so, while I generally agree with your comment about Tetris, I'd say your second example is "poorly optimized" by definition.
As to your comment about being determined by how much the developer wants to push... Yes, aiming for higher fidelity will use more resource, it's hardly every simply the "developer's wants" that determine the performance of a particular title, instead performance ends up being the end result of thousands of tiny decisions and elements that contribute to the final experience.
They have a bunch of levers to pull to reach that target. Failing to pull the lever that reduces particle effects does not mean the game is un-optimized.
Source: This, specifically game optimization, is my profession and I've been doing it for 15 years.
Edit: To add, this is clearly a vocabulary argument, it'd help your argument if you gave context and defined what you think specifically optimization refers to. But even then, words are used in context, and the context here seems to be strongly game development flavored.
If you're making an 8 bit 64x64 pixel platformer, your main bottleneck is likely code. If you're making a 3D flight simulator, your main bottleneck is likely draw distance, texture resolution, and the number of assets filling the screen.
If your game is running 20 FPS, your problem very likely is lack of optimization in some way.
I would be interested to see a source on this.
Framerates are determined by how much the console has to process before it can display a frame. Apart from possibly setting an upper bound, FPS is a variable developers do not directly control.
The issue I am pointing is unintentional drops in framerate caused by game events. A developer can spend time testing their game, and tailoring the amount of processing each possible configuration of events and objects require so that at any one time, it doesn't exceed the processing budget allowed by the target framerate. That is optimization. If you do not do it, the framerate will be essentially random.
As things are now, flagship games on the PS4/Xbox One struggle to stay at 30FPS, frequently dropping to 20FPS or less, without the option to reduce graphics quality or resolution PC gamers have. All the while the low power Nintendo Switch is a joy to game on because most games are specifically optimized for it.