Support NeoGAF

[Jest Chillin]

Sounds like he is also admitting that the Pro is inferior to the XBoneX, right?

"Devs will make the same product on the Pro than on the boneX regardless of how better the Bone is. Remember PS3 games and how they looked like 360 games? Checkmate buddy."

The question itself places the X Box One X higher. If he were to outright deny that in his answer people would be rolling their eyes even harder. As it is, there have been people highlighting the "supposed power of the X" statement.

 

[Alebrije]

I believe that developers use to the common denominator.

Also believe consoles like XboneX and PS4 pro will get their best games from MS and Sony. Need for speed never will match Forza on XboneX the same way God of War won't have competitors.

But games from UBI,EA, Squre , etc will look similar on both consoles , no matter if XboneX is more powerful

 

[michaelius]

That's revisionist history if I ever saw it.

And on the point of Destiny, there's likely not an strict enforcement of parity, probably just a deal preventing the game to have any exclusive feature/content on xbox in general (not sure if 60fps would apply, likely not, nor resolution)

Well Destiny actually had parity since Xbox one was 1080p which means PS4 wasn't fully utilized.

 

[entremet]

Keep this monkey away from the mic pls.

LMAO yes.

 

[Durante]

It's pretty damn simple to increase your rendering resolution when you get a 50% faster GPU and a lot more memory bandwidth.

 

[Savantcore]

I agree with you. Look at the wide range of effort regarding Ps4 Pro enhancements. There are some that don't bother, some that are huge enhancements, but most somewhere inbetween.

Yeah exactly. What he's saying isn't wrong, it's just that he's changed the tone from 'glass half full' to 'glass half empty' now that the extra power has shifted from PlayStation to Xbox, which is to be expected from a marketing point of view.

The concern is here that the PS4 version of the game will be updated for Pro and they won't do anything for X, leaving it with the Xbox One version.

However following the logic of what he just said they will make games for the lowest common denomination - Xbox One and not adjust for Pro...

Sure, and that's happened for the most part. There are a lot of multiplatform games on X1 and Pro that haven't been developed to take advantage of the extra power, just like a lot going forward won't take advantage of the 1X. Boh.

 

[Lys Skygge]

Guys, seriously?
He's talking about graphics features, not performance.
A dev will develop a game so that it can run decently on the lowest spec in target. Then everything else gets a better-performing version.

But very rarely devs go back and add in better textures more models different kinds of VFX and lighting etc if they're supported only by a portion of their target.

It makes perfect sense, and PS4 pro isn't supposed to be the main PS4 machine - it's supposed to be the one for people who actually care about performance, which - if the last 25 years of development weren't clear enough - isn't really a priority for anyone.

Believe it or not, but i doubt sonyMS execs actually see much value in a 900p v 1080p situation.

This is how I viewed Jims comments as well. It actually makes sense.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

"What a idiot"

"Well duh"

I love you Gaf

 

[a916]

Guys, seriously?
He's talking about graphics features, not performance.
A dev will develop a game so that it can run decently on the lowest spec in target. Then everything else gets a better-performing version.

But very rarely devs go back and add in better textures \ more models \ different kinds of VFX and lighting \ etc if they're supported only by a portion of their target.

It makes perfect sense, and PS4 pro isn't supposed to be the main PS4 machine - it's supposed to be the one for people who actually care about performance, which - if the last 25 years of development weren't clear enough - isn't really a priority for anyone.

Believe it or not, but i doubt sony\MS execs actually see much value in a 900p v 1080p situation.

This is how I viewed his comments.

The name calling is embarrassing.

 

[Kill3r7]

The futureproofing argument for the Pro and the X is some bullshit, the CPU is so behind that when Xbox Two and PS5 happen in a couple years they aren't gonna be able to keep up.

The future proofing argument is moot when we all know that these consoles will be obsolete in 3-4 years. The reason you buy either one is for a performance boost now.

 

[lostcauz]

Not even sure why he entertained the question.

Just say,
"we are happy with the additional power the pro provides balanced with a attractive price point that gamers have warmed to. The library of games makes the PS4 and Pro even better value for money and is the best place for exclusive games"

Can also add in about exclusive destiny content, Early Cod map packs etc. You get the point.

 

[Keinning]

Not even sure why he entertained the question.

Just say,
"we are happy with the additional power the pro provides balanced with a attractive price point that gamers have warmed to. The library of games makes the PS4 and Pro even better value for money and is the best place for exclusive games"

Can also add in about exclusive destiny content, Early Cod map packs etc. You get the point.

Exclusive content have nothing to do with power and all to do with moneyhatting

Not very smart to pull that point in an unrelated conversation and boast about it

 

[Proelite]

Should have just said we have a console that's $100 cheaper and 1 year more mature that already provided a great 4k experience. And UHD bluray is overrated.


And we actually have first party studios that takes advantage of our hardware.

 

[10k]

Jim please. They didn't take advantage of the extra horsepower the PS3 had because the cell processor was a nightmare to take advantage of unless you were first party.

It's also a major reason backwards compatibility is so abysmal on PS4 and remasters aren't as frequent.

 

[Azriell]

I think the 360 was the focal point of development because it was far more popular for much of the gen. As a result of this, it seemed like devs were just developing for the lowest common denominator.

You saw something different this gen with PS4 and XB1 (base models). Devs seemed to prioritize PS4 for development early on, and the XB1 version sometimes struggled to keep up. This is not developing for the lowest common denominator, this is prioritizing the most popular platform.

I think it's possible that the Pro does in fact get more support than the X, if it ends up being the popular console. Sony has said that the sales numbers for the Pro are pretty good already, they have a year+ lead on X, and they are $100 cheaper. And don't forget the overall popularity of PS4 this gen.

With that said, these machines are all x86 now. Does that mean that porting and scaling games is easier? Are we talking PC setting sliders here, or some rough equivalent here? I don't know, but effort, cost, and potential return will determine the outcome here.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I think XBX will have a lot of game options come launch simply because PS4 Pro has had a whole year to get this 4k stuff rolling. So it's good in that sense. How much better don't know.

I hope all this PRO holding back XBX is just nonsense.

It sort of depends on the frame of mind in the statement of Pro holding back X Box One X.

The theory of Sony forcing devs to hold back is plain BS.

The theory of lowest common denominator has some merit but still too soon to vet.

At the end of the day Pubs/Devs will be charging the same $60 on every console available. Are the extras to maximize potential for 1/4 consoles worth the dev time and cost?
I think it will really come down to individual Pubs/Devs and whether they feel it's worth it.

 

[Keinning]

Are the extra's to maximize potential for 1/4 consoles worth the dev time and cost? it.

2/4. PC can also benefit from better textures and improved graphics. And most multiplats into consideration for xbox one x will hit pc as well

 

[QuantumZebra]

Money, 4K, "future-proofing", etc.

Honestly, if you look at how PS4 Pro support has been so far, it doesn't look like he was too far off. Devs aren't really pushing for PS4 Pro, and hopefully now that both manufacturers have 4K machines, they'll be supported

Hell, it looks like it took X1X to get The Witcher 3 support on board.

Boost mode is amazing and should not be overlooked. I'm really happy with my Pro. Totally worth it if you have a 4k HDR TV.


And speaking of lowest common denominator, wouldn't that be irrelevant to the Pro and XBX since the LCD is the Switch or OG XB1.

 

[Lima]

Developers didn't take advantage of the PS3 because most developers had no idea how and it was too complicated.

If it's easy and they make pc versions anyway then it's a no brainer to put in some more effort.

The base Xbox One, despite obviously being too weak for 1080p most of the time, is complicated to work on just like the PS3 was.

From everything we heard from developers the Xbox One X is very easy. Takes little time to get great results. I expect to see differences because of that.

 

[Jest Chillin]

2/4. PC can also benefit from better textures and improved graphics. And most multiplats into consideration for xbox one x will hit pc as well

Well I wrote consoles to specify that I was talking about consoles as opposed to platforms. And it would still be 1/4 consoles and 2/5 platforms.

Consoles: One, One X, PS4, PS4 Pro

 

[jmdajr]

2/4. PC can also benefit from better textures and improved graphics. And most multiplats into consideration for xbox one x will hit pc as well

I assume most of this isn't that hard if almost all these games are coming to PC. The 4k assets already exist no? While you get a gazillion options on PC, you have like two for console. Unless it's more a matter of taking the extra time to test these specific settings.

Lots of these console games runs like shit on PC so maybe it's not as easy as just turning things on and off.

The base Xbox One, despite obviously being too weak for 1080p most of the time, is complicated to work on just like the PS3 was.

It is?

Is it because it's hard to program for, or just because the specs are weak? I know they have to do more "tricks" so games can run decent. But PS3 levels of complexity?

 

[The Jackdog]

jim ryan needs to stop talking

 

[Keinning]

Well I wrote consoles to specify that I was talking about consoles as opposed to platforms. And it would still be 1/4 consoles and 2/5 platforms.

Consoles: One, One X, PS4, PS4 Pro

PC can be a console and Pro/One X are iterations. Switch - PS4 - Xbox and PC are the consoles in a broader definition.

devs can still target for pc and tone down for xbox one x first and then pro second. designing for the common denominator was a thing when the consoles were different enough to make ports extra work. things are so similar now that cutting down bells & whistles for the weakest platforms isn't nowhere near as troublesome as people believe it to be. but i guess we'll have to sit and wait to see this one.

 

[Chill Penguin]

I think the 360 was the focal point of development because it was far more popular for much of the gen. As a result of this, it seemed like devs were just developing for the lowest common denominator.

You saw something different this gen with PS4 and XB1 (base models). Devs seemed to prioritize PS4 for development early on, and the XB1 version sometimes struggled to keep up. This is not developing for the lowest common denominator, this is prioritizing the most popular platform.

I think it's possible that the Pro does in fact get more support than the X, if it ends up being the popular console. Sony has said that the sales numbers for the Pro are pretty good already, they have a year+ lead on X, and they are $100 cheaper. And don't forget the overall popularity of PS4 this gen.

With that said, these machines are all x86 now. Does that mean that porting and scaling games is easier? Are we talking PC setting sliders here, or some rough equivalent here? I don't know, but effort, cost, and potential return will determine the outcome here.

Whatever is the most powerful and provides an easy to develop for environment will get the best looking and performing games. OG Xbox was a fraction as popular as PS2 but got by far the best version of every multiplat game.

 

[LukasTaves]

Well Destiny actually had parity since Xbox one was 1080p which means PS4 wasn't fully utilized.

Not because Bungie forced anything, they even needed help from Ms to get it up to par. They just didn't upgrade the current version enough from the base (which were the Ps360 versions).

 

[Bulby]

Jim Ryan is a weird weird man.

 

[gatti-man]

It's pretty damn simple to increase your rendering resolution when you get a 50% faster GPU and a lot more memory bandwidth.

This. It kills me when people say "devs won't wast their time and budget making games prettier with better hardware". The reality is this is not a hard thing to do at all in many cases. Resolution, AA/AF, draw distance, and extra effects are elementary.

 

[jmaine_ph]

Guys, seriously?
He's talking about graphics features, not performance.
A dev will develop a game so that it can run decently on the lowest spec in target. Then everything else gets a better-performing version.

But very rarely devs go back and add in better textures more models different kinds of VFX and lighting etc if they're supported only by a portion of their target.

It makes perfect sense, and PS4 pro isn't supposed to be the main PS4 machine - it's supposed to be the one for people who actually care about performance, which - if the last 25 years of development weren't clear enough - isn't really a priority for anyone.

Believe it or not, but i doubt sonyMS execs actually see much value in a 900p v 1080p situation.

This.

 

[Smokey]

Jim Ryan sure is making a name for himself.

 

[ReaperXL7]

This has been the case forever, to my knowledge the lead platform almost always ends up being the one with the largest mindshare.

SNES,PS1, PS2, X360, PS4

The original Xbox was more powerful then the PS2 by quite a bit but devs still tended to focus on the PS2 versions. It also makes sense that they would still develop the PRO for first party games which are usually the showpieces for visuals, but the option is there for devs who want to take advantage.

He's not really saying anything here that is very controversial.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

So, why make the Pro in the first place? This guy is an idiot.

What's going unsaid here is that someday, the Pro will replace the PS4 as the "baseline" the guy was talking about.

 

[MaulerX]

Meh, he does have a point on the least common denominator thing. It's always being like that. Although that doesn't mean that a game won't perform better on the more powerful console.

 

[CambriaRising]

Someone at Sony needs to put a muzzle on Jim.

 

[Jest Chillin]

PC can be a console and Pro/One X are iterations. Switch - PS4 - Xbox and PC are the consoles in a broader definition.

devs can still target for pc and tone down for xbox one x first and then pro second. designing for the common denominator was a thing when the consoles were different enough to make ports extra work. things are so similar now that cutting down bells & whistles for the weakest platforms isn't nowhere near as troublesome as people believe it to be. but i guess we'll have to sit and wait to see this one.

Those are not the definitions within the context of this discussion. Because Ryan is not discussing Nintendo at all when he's calling back to PS3/360 gen with his LCD theory.

I also don't think it's as simple as "Design for PC and tone down." And this has been shown when you get PC games ported to console that pale in more than just graphical fidelity and likewise when you have console games ported to PC. The best approach has always been developing for each platform from the ground up. The question is whether or not developers will pour additional resources into a specific iteration of a console to take full advantage of the extra headroom it provides or if they'll simply add increased resolution (as that's apparently relatively cheap dev "cost") and call it a day.

 

[Zafir]

By that logic, why even bother making games run good on the Pro, OR the Xbox One X.... :|

 

[xiaxdragon]

E3 2017 is a battle between Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer in seeing who can shove the most feet into their own mouths.

honestly......Jim Ryan though has been absolutely terrible

first the backwards compatible quote, then the cross platform play ordeal

now this'

which, If I remember correctly......didn't they say that death stranding was built from the ground up to fully harness the Pro?

 

[Jest Chillin]

honestly......Jim Ryan though has been absolutely terrible

first the backwards compatible quote, then the cross platform play ordeal

now this'

which, If I remember correctly......didn't they say that death stranding was built from the ground up to fully harness the Pro?

Death Stranding is a first party game. It's being published by Sony. Similarly, MS first party games should be expected to fully harness the One X. The LCD quote refers to multi-platform games.

 

[Hexa]

Jim Ryan needs to just never talk again.

 

[xiaxdragon]

Death Stranding is a first party game. It's being published by Sony. Similarly, MS first party games should be expected to fully harness the One X. The LCD quote refers to multi-platform games.

ah crap, you are right.......bad example

 

[creatchee]

Translation: "we only want you to care about power disparities when we're getting the best of them."

 

[RootCause]

E3 2017 is a battle between Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer in seeing who can shove the most feet into their own mouths.

Someone needs to photoshop this.

 

[carlsojo]

Everything he said in the OP makes sense to me.

Maybe I'm just a monkey though I dunno

 

[heathen]

I don't see why this is so controversial. Jaguar cpu's are the lowest common denominator for this gen, and the fact that neither Sony or MS moved beyond it for the mid-gen refresh is telling. Resolution changes are easy for devs.

 

[Lom1lo]

He and spencer should stop talking lol. Their interviews arent good this e3

 

[gatti-man]

This.

But he's wrong. All you have to do is look at PC games to disprove this. Or even PC ports of console games.

 

[staticneuron]

"Support" needs to be quantified. I don't own a Pro, so I haven't kept up with the per-game details.. but at launch, at lot of the "support" was simply faster loading right? And since then, the type of support varies from dev to dev and game to game. So, it would seem that it's at each Devs discretion, with some devs opting not to add any extra support at all.

Then you have to parse between games that were already released, where we're talking about patching support in.... against games in the middle of production when Pro came about... against games going into production after Pro's specs were well known to Devs.

Now there's definitely something to be said about the lowest common denominator theory during the 360 vs PS3 gen having to do with the Cell and all the baggage that came with it, but I don't think there's solid evidence so far with Pro support that completely nullifies the theory.

There is a list here on neogaf. And the only titles that are supposed to be "patching" support in are titles that either were released before PS4 Pro, or titles submitted meeting the reqs. And yes there were titles that had Pro support upon launch, one showcase being Rise of Tomb Raider. Faster loading is not considered a Pro feature. That is just the effect of the specs. Even after launch support just grew.

 

[Head.spawn]

Dirt bag Jim at it again.

Sure Jim, it had nothing to do with your terrible PS3 development tools and esoteric hardware.

 

[DangerMouse]

This has been the case forever, to my knowledge the lead platform almost always ends up being the one with the largest mindshare.

SNES,PS1, PS2, X360, PS4

The original Xbox was more powerful then the PS2 by quite a bit but devs still tended to focus on the PS2 versions. It also makes sense that they would still develop the PRO for first party games which are usually the showpieces for visuals, but the option is there for devs who want to take advantage.

He's not really saying anything here that is very controversial.

This.

Many are just hungry to pile on.

Boost mode is amazing and should not be overlooked. I'm really happy with my Pro. Totally worth it if you have a 4k HDR TV.

And speaking of lowest common denominator, wouldn't that be irrelevant to the Pro and XBX since the LCD is the Switch or OG XB1.

Agreed.

I believe that developers use to the common denominator.

Also believe consoles like XboneX and PS4 pro will get their best games from MS and Sony. Need for speed never will match Forza on XboneX the same way God of War won't have competitors.

But games from UBI,EA, Squre , etc will look similar on both consoles , no matter if XboneX is more powerful

This.

Guys, seriously?
He's talking about graphics features, not performance.
A dev will develop a game so that it can run decently on the lowest spec in target. Then everything else gets a better-performing version.

But very rarely devs go back and add in better textures \ more models \ different kinds of VFX and lighting \ etc if they're supported only by a portion of their target.

It makes perfect sense, and PS4 pro isn't supposed to be the main PS4 machine - it's supposed to be the one for people who actually care about performance, which - if the last 25 years of development weren't clear enough - isn't really a priority for anyone.

Believe it or not, but i doubt sony\MS execs actually see much value in a 900p v 1080p situation.

This. Pretty obvious comments and even admitting that the Pro is weaker than MS' new system and that the Pro will be held back too by the launch systems, which is obvious.
For multiplats, the base game will be made, the Pro will get extra's added (better res, effects, maybe lighting), then the XBoneX will get even more extras added on top of that.

 

[Liliana Eileen]

This dude should go into politics. The mental gymnastics he goes through to spin things is like watching congress speak.

This.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

That must explain why PS4 versions of games weren't any better than Xbox One versions right?

Jim Ryan, stop talking.