Support NeoGAF

[digitalrelic]

I know i'm going to get those calls about being a shill but...

The article starts off with the author basically feeling sorry for remedy for some reason...and then blames microsoft for the problems with the port. It even says its their fault because the problems "could be addressed by the community right now if not for the limitations of the Universal Windows Platform." Sure, complain about the role uwp plays in this ports problems...they are definitely there. But if Remedy handled the port then 95% of the problems are theirs...why are they getting a pass on this? Perhaps i'm missing the point.

Remedy certainly has their fair share of blame, but in the end it's the publisher that decides the time allotted to develop the PC version and what platform (UWA) it has to be on. If Microsoft approved development of a PC version 3 months ago and said it must be released day-and-date with the Xbox One version, that puts Remedy in a position where it's nearly impossible to find success.

 

[epmode]

Sure, complain about the role uwp plays in this ports problems...they are definitely there. But if Remedy handled the port then 95% of the problems are theirs...why are they getting a pass on this? Perhaps i'm missing the point.

It's possible that this incompetent port is the best Remedy could do. Possible, but exceedingly unlikely. Remedy has a long history of first-class PC versions. Seriously, they're one of the best PC developers around. Even Alan Wake, which MS converted into an Xbox exclusive during development, had a nearly perfect PC port once Remedy had a chance to do it.

It's far more likely that MS didn't provide Remedy with enough time and/or money to put together a proper PC port. Not to mention that forcing Remedy to use DX12 and UWP really hurt the technical aspect of the port.

 

[mcrommert]

Remedy certainly has their fair share of blame, but in the end it's the publisher that decides the time allotted to develop the PC version and what platform (UWA) it has to be on. If Microsoft approved development of a PC version 3 months ago and said it must be released day-and-date with the Xbox One version, that puts Remedy in a position where it's nearly impossible to find success.

It's possible that this incompetent port is the best Remedy could do. Possible, but exceedingly unlikely. Remedy has a long history of first-class PC versions. Seriously, they're one of the best PC developers around. Even Alan Wake, which MS converted into an Xbox exclusive during development, had a nearly perfect PC port once Remedy had a chance to do it.

It's far more likely that MS didn't provide Remedy with enough time and/or money to put together a proper PC port. Not to mention that forcing Remedy to use DX12 and UWP really hurt the technical aspect of the port.

Agreed...definitely could be entirely MIcrosoft's fault and they put Remedy in a corner...

but we have no info about that and giving Remedy a pass, as digital foundry's article does, seems very disengenous

If they have sources regarding this they should be mentioned

 

[Weevilone]

I'm bummed I bought the Xbox One version digitally for the code that I still don't have, for the store front I don't want to use, for the port I'm prob not going to bother playing now.

 

[epmode]

Agreed...definitely could be entirely MIcrosoft's fault and they put Remedy in a corner...

but we have no info about that and giving Remedy a pass, as digital foundry's article does, seems very disengenous

If they have sources regarding this they should be mentioned

You'll never get an official answer. The buck stops with the publisher in any case. MS had every right to delay the PC version.

 

[keltickennedy]

This is guaranteed to be an Arkham Knight situation in that they'll get things a bit better, but it's never going to be as good as it should be. What an absolute mess of a release.

I will bet money that MS won't even pull it from their store until it is fixed. Remedy seems to be the only people "kind of" addressing it. Though it seems like with the one tweet says they aren't fully convinced yet if the problems are REAL. lol.

All I see from Microsoft is "QUANTUM BREAK OUT NOW FOR XBOX ONE!!" No mention of the W10 version at all.

Remember guys, "The best line-up in Xbox history". Fuck off.

I'm bummed I bought the Xbox One version digitally for the code that I still don't have, for the store front I don't want to use, for the port I'm prob not going to bother playing now.

 

[Nzyme32]

Clearly we can trust the developers and Microsoft to ensure that the games are fully functional, well supported and have great performance. That's why UWP is great for PC gaming - Users don't need the ability to fix or work around issues any more. Clearly.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I'm bummed I bought the Xbox One version digitally for the code that I still don't have, for the store front I don't want to use, for the port I'm prob not going to bother playing now.

Are you me? Am I you? Do we really exist?

 

[dr_rus]

Are we getting to the point now where we shouldn't advise getting a 970 over a 390, especially if you want to play dx12 games in the future?

I'm not sure that DX12 has anything to do with this but 390 is a better card than 970 in general just because it has 8GB of VRAM on it and unless your system is constrained in power supply you should definitely get a 390 over 970.

Clearly we can trust the developers and Microsoft to ensure that the games are fully functional, well supported and have great performance. That's why UWP is great for PC gaming - Users don't need the ability to fix or work around issues any more. Clearly.

Did they (Phil?) actually said anything like this? Would be hilarious if they did.

 

[mosdl]

Arkham Knight is an anomaly, likely in part due to using ageing engine/middleware that is being pushed to it's limit, and got lots of console specific optimisations, and a rushed outsourced PC port.

The rest are just because Microsoft is publishing PC games again.

Unless I missed any other big ones.

Edit: I guess WB gave MKX a rushed outsourced PC port, too.

Just Cause 3 on PC wasn't great, but I believe that also is due to that new middleware they were using for destruction?

 

[SneakersSO]

I know i'm going to get those calls about being a shill but...

The article starts off with the author basically feeling sorry for remedy for some reason...and then blames microsoft for the problems with the port. It even says its their fault because the problems "could be addressed by the community right now if not for the limitations of the Universal Windows Platform." Sure, complain about the role uwp plays in this ports problems...they are definitely there. But if Remedy handled the port then 95% of the problems are theirs...why are they getting a pass on this? Perhaps i'm missing the point.

EDIT: and before anyone says i get the problems that both uwp and Directx 12 contributed to this port...but this article is absolutely disengenous

Because MS is the publisher. Why is the game restricted to UWP? Cause MS published it. Like you said - if there were a win32 version, almost all of these issues could've been resolved. Sure, Remedy handled the port. Wanna know who told them to release it day & date with the console version, when PC versions tend to need more time to fully QA? MS did.

The reason why MS is getting more of a blame in this article is because the core of the problems on display here go back to UWP. The reason quick solutions can't be made to remedy these problems is once again, UWP. And the reason the game is only available on PC on UWP is MS.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I'm not sure that DX12 has anything to do with this but 390 is a better card than 970 in general just because it has 8GB of VRAM on it and unless your system is constrained in power supply you should definitely get a 390 over 970.

You rarely see that though in the pc parts threads.

The only other reason is space limitations.

 

[LewieP]

Just Cause 3 on PC wasn't great, but I believe that also is due to that new middleware they were using for destruction?

I didn't play that on any platform yet, but I was under the impression that it had issues on all platforms, and that the console versions had more issues than the PC version. Is that not the case?

If so, it's seems more like a game with some issues rather than a bad PC port.

 

[theultimo]

I'm not sure that DX12 has anything to do with this but 390 is a better card than 970 in general just because it has 8GB of VRAM on it and unless your system is constrained in power supply you should definitely get a 390 over 970.



Did they (Phil?) actually said anything like this? Would be hilarious if they did.

But it draws more power, heat, and even though it's getting better, still driver issues. Also the 390 is huge and it might not fit for SFF stuff.

 

[riflen]

You rarely see that though in the pc parts threads.

The only other reason is space limitations.

No-one should be buying either of those cards right now imo. We're 2-3 months from the release of their direct replacements.

 

[Trup1aya]

Because MS is the publisher. Why is the game restricted to UWP? Cause MS published it. Like you said - if there were a win32 version, almost all of these issues could've been resolved. Sure, Remedy handled the port. Wanna know who told them to release it day & date with the console version, when PC versions tend to need more time to fully QA? MS did.

The reason why MS is getting more of a blame in this article is because the core of the problems on display here go back to UWP. The reason quick solutions can't be made to remedy these problems is once again, UWP. And the reason the game is only available on PC on UWP is MS.

the lack of quick fixes goes back to UWP. The lack of multi-GPU support goes back to UWP. But the core of the problem is that it isn't a good port. There's no reason why the come shouldn't function properly w/o those things. A win32 version would allow the community to mitigate issues, but it wouldn't change the fact that Remedy didn't offer a more PC appropriate rendering solution or negotiate better drivers.

i just find it strange that the PC version of OriE was pushed back in the name of quality, but this wasn't.

 

[Big_Al]

Arkham Knight is an anomaly, likely in part due to using ageing engine/middleware that is being pushed to it's limit, and got lots of console specific optimisations, and a rushed outsourced PC port.

The rest are just because Microsoft is publishing PC games again.

Unless I missed any other big ones.

Edit: I guess WB gave MKX a rushed outsourced PC port, too.

Rushed and also handled by High Voltage Software, so a double shit serving there.

 

[mike4001_]

Did Microsoft tell them 2 months ago they also need a PC port?

The missing "Quit" option just looks that way => rushed port to the end.

Probably a few patches will fix the performance.

GSync + ... should come in May according to MS.

 

[cyen]

Just asked for a refund, they will refund me since i have 7 days to return any item from the store (their information). Sorry Remedy, i really wanted to play the game and the little i played it seemed a great game gameplay wise, but the technical problems and limitation in anno 2016 are too much for me too handle, specially at 70€.

 

[Nokterian]

Clearly we can trust the developers and Microsoft to ensure that the games are fully functional, well supported and have great performance. That's why UWP is great for PC gaming - Users don't need the ability to fix or work around issues any more. Clearly.

 

[qa_engineer]

But it draws more power, heat, and even though it's getting better, still driver issues. Also the 390 is huge and it might not fit for SFF stuff.

What driver issues? Also given that there's nearly a 50% delta in performance between the 970 and 390 in this game the additional power draw and heat would make sense.

 

[theultimo]

What driver issues? Also given that there's nearly a 50% delta in performance between the 970 and 390 in this game the additional power draw and heat would make sense.

Like I said it's getting much better, but before any major game released didn't have drivers for it ready.

However, since RoTR they have been turning around he driver division. The only glaring issues are free sync and crossfire issues.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

He's using an HDD and a GTX970 with max settings, that's why there are stutters.

Is an SSD required for high end graphics now?

 

[JaseC]

Did they (Phil?) actually said anything like this? Would be hilarious if they did.

He's parodying this post, one which is all the more amusing in hindsight given RotTR is fine (well, as fine as a UWP app can be) whereas Microsoft's own releases have issues.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Literally nothing about the push to use the Win10 Store and UWAs for traditional PC games is coming across as slowly working to successfully execute a clearly thought out plan.
It comes across as rushing to try and keep the Xbox division relevant in the face of their failure to successfully compete in the console space.

That's how I feel as well. I also see it as Xbox trying to stay relevant within Microsoft. I know we're making assumptions here but I think Phil Spencer is under a lot more pressure than people realize

 

[cleveridea]

Is an SSD required for high end graphics now?

From DF:

This is a game that must be installed on a solid state drive. We tested Quantum Break on a fast 7200rpm HGST mechanical drive as well as a Samsung 850 EVO SSD and found that performance simply wasn't acceptable on the former when transitioning between areas. Huge stutters and skips appear, leading to a very jerky experience at select points.

 

[cartographer]

The maximum frame-rate seems to be limited to 5/6th of the refresh rate - this means, when using a 60Hz monitor, the game simply cannot go beyond 50 frames per second.

That is absolutely bizarre.

 

[Elandyll]

Clearly we can trust the developers and Microsoft to ensure that the games are fully functional, well supported and have great performance. That's why UWP is great for PC gaming - Users don't need the ability to fix or work around issues any more. Clearly.

FU man.

The density of so much irony in just one post collapsed unto itself, creating a micro black hole and breaking my phone's screen.

Not cool.

 

[Banana Aeon]

He's parodying this post, one which is all the more amusing in hindsight given RotTR is fine (well, as fine as a UWP app can be) whereas Microsoft's own releases have issues.

Someone actually liking GFWL.

I've seen it all.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

From DF:

That is fucking absurd.

 

[Cels]

After reading the DF article:

The award for worst PC port this gen goes to Quantum Break.

eh, i haven't tried quantum break on PC but arkham knight on PC was awful

anyone who played both PC ports at launch care to comment?

 

[LordRaptor]

Someone actually liking GFWL.

I've seen it all.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Astroturfers on fire off the shoulder of Page 10.
I watched people being told a literal sandwich made of shit is better than nothing at all.

 

[dmix90]

eh, i haven't tried quantum break on PC but arkham knight on PC was awful

anyone who played both PC ports at launch care to comment?

AK had some missing rendering effects at launch on PC, but other than that i will say that they are on par....... Maybe QB is even worse since AK had a pretty competent 30 fps framerate lock.

 

[Jabba]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Astroturfers on fire off the shoulder of Page 10.
I watched people being told a literal sandwich made of shit is better than nothing at all.

Saw that thread too. Was like wtf???????

 

[mosdl]

AK had some missing rendering effects at launch on PC, but other than that i will say that they are on par....... Maybe QB is even worse since AK had a pretty competent 30 fps framerate lock.

AK had loading hitches if you didn't have an SSD if I remember correctly, but you could indeed run it at 30 pretty decently.

 

[cakely]

I know i'm going to get those calls about being a shill but...

The article starts off with the author basically feeling sorry for remedy for some reason...and then blames microsoft for the problems with the port. It even says its their fault because the problems "could be addressed by the community right now if not for the limitations of the Universal Windows Platform." Sure, complain about the role uwp plays in this ports problems...they are definitely there. But if Remedy handled the port then 95% of the problems are theirs...why are they getting a pass on this? Perhaps i'm missing the point.

EDIT: and before anyone says i get the problems that both uwp and Directx 12 contributed to this port...but this article is absolutely disengenous

Yes, you have a history of being a Microsoft shill, and yes, here you are telling us that we should lay off Microsoft and blame Remedy instead.

UWP clearly contributed to a large number of the problems with the Quantum Break's port, and UWP issues fall squarely under Microsoft's responsibility.

The article also justifiably blames Microsoft for the £49.99 price they set, which seems especially outrageous considering what a steaming pile the port turned out to be.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Yes, you have a history of being a Microsoft shill, and yes, here you are telling us that we should lay off Microsoft and blame Remedy instead.

UWP clearly contributed to a large number of the problems with the Quantum Break's port, and UWP issues fall squarely under Microsoft's responsibility.

The article also justifiably blames Microsoft for the £49.99 price they set, which seems especially outrageous considering what a steaming pile the port turned out to be.

But is this really clear? I'm not sure that's a verifiable connection. Remember that Rise of the Tomb Raider runs great.

If anything, I'd actually blame DX12. Plus, of course, an overall lack of development time.

 

[Luckydog]

I'm bummed I bought the Xbox One version digitally for the code that I still don't have, for the store front I don't want to use, for the port I'm prob not going to bother playing now.

You mean the Xbox One version you ordered isn't working? Not sure I understand this. Why would you buy the Xbox one version if you wanted the PC. Just buy the PC. If you wanted both, you have the xbox one version working and the PC code will come.

 

[mcrommert]

But is this really clear? I'm not sure that's a verifiable connection. Remember that Rise of the Tomb Raider runs great.

If anything, I'd actually blame DX12. Plus, of course, an overall lack of development time.

They also released patch for Rise for dx12...works great

 

[mcrommert]

Yes, you have a history of being a Microsoft shill, and yes, here you are telling us that we should lay off Microsoft and blame Remedy instead.

UWP clearly contributed to a large number of the problems with the Quantum Break's port, and UWP issues fall squarely under Microsoft's responsibility.

The article also justifiably blames Microsoft for the £49.99 price they set, which seems especially outrageous considering what a steaming pile the port turned out to be.

UWP contributes to the community not being able to fix the issues...not to the issues

The pricing stuff seems to be something Microsoft should have figured out years ago having pay platforms all over

 

[vcc]

But is this really clear? I'm not sure that's a verifiable connection. Remember that Rise of the Tomb Raider runs great.

If anything, I'd actually blame DX12. Plus, of course, an overall lack of development time.

It's very clear that the a number of the problems can be directed attributed to the properties MS decided UWP would have (much reduced user control, full screen windowed)

 

[CosmicQueso]

You mean the Xbox One version you ordered isn't working? Not sure I understand this. Why would you buy the Xbox one version if you wanted the PC. Just buy the PC. If you wanted both, you have the xbox one version working and the PC code will come.

Yeah, here's your shit sandwich. It's better than no sandwich, right?

 

[scitek]

Was Barack Lesner formerly known as Heavy?

 

[cakely]

UWP contributes to the community not being able to fix the issues...not to the issues

The pricing stuff seems to be something Microsoft should have figured out years ago having pay platforms all over

The writer of the article considers UWP a 'huge issue'. Directly from the article:

But Microsoft has to bear responsibility too: several of the issues encountered here are a direct result of UWP's lack of features and quality, to the point where even downloading and installing the game is a trial.

Normally, we would use the Nvidia half-refresh rate option or Riva Tuner Statistics Server to solve this problem but as a Universal Windows Platform app, the full-screen mode is limited to borderless window, preventing these tools from functioning at all.

Universal Windows Platform: This is a drum we cannot beat loud enough - the Universal Windows Platform architecture is a huge issue for the PC right now. There are problems with this game, such as frame-pacing, which could be fixed by users right now but that becomes impossible due to UWP's limitations. In the case of Quantum Break, this means that we're basically held hostage waiting for improvements from the developer or from Microsoft itself, as if this were a console game. In a perfect world, games would ship without any issues, but that just doesn't always happen, which is why it's so important for PC gamers to have the option to work around these problems with established tools and GPU control panel options. Also: bonus points to UWP for overwriting our Xbox One completed game save with fresh PC data instead, eliminating our existing progress completely.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

They also released patch for Rise for dx12...works great

I'm not saying that DX12 inherently leads to terrible games, or that UWP inherently leads to bad games... I'm just saying I don't know if we can blame UWP for the fact that this port is crappy.

We can certainly blame Microsoft—they're the publisher, so it's ultimately their responsibility to make sure that the products they release are of an acceptable quality—and we can probably even blame Remedy—although we don't know what conditions they were/weren't forced to work under—but I don't think we can blame UWP. UWP has led to both good ports and bad ports, just like Win32.

The same applies to DX12... the only reason I brought up DX12 is because it's probably responsible for at least some of the performance issues we're seeing under nVidia cards, and because I think it's being overlooked by a lot of people.

It's very clear that the a number of the problems can be directed attributed to the properties MS decided UWP would have (much reduced user control, full screen windowed)

The writer of the article considers UWP a 'huge issue'. Directly from the article:

But take a look at the context... none of these things wouldn't be a problem if the game actually had correct frame pacing to begin with.

I should be clear here that I'm no fan of UWP—I like to have control over what's running on my computer, thank you very much! I just don't think it's worth quite as much vitriol as people are giving it. Look, if I had my way, I'd be purchasing all my games as completely DRM-Free binaries from a range of different storefronts, but that's not the world we live in.

 

[LordRaptor]

The writer of the article considers UWP a 'huge issue'.

Interestingly when dark10x mentioned that he thought RotTR ran slightly better on UWA than on Steam he was frequently cited as proof that UWA was a superior format to Win32 in various threads.
Now he is pretty clearly staunchly against UWA, dat bias tho

 

[mcrommert]

The writer of the article considers UWP a 'huge issue'. Directly from the article:

You do realize that every line you posted is exactly what i said...uwp didn't make the game perform badly...it prevents users from taking simple steps to fix it.

EDIT: I think the point i'm trying to make is...lets focus on who *&%ed up this game. Remedy and Microsoft (one or the other probably more than the other). UWP is a red herring that is drawing focus away from those who caused the game to come out broken.

 

[theultimo]

I'm not saying that DX12 inherently leads to terrible games, or that UWP inherently leads to bad games... I'm just saying I don't know if we can blame UWP for the fact that this port is crappy.

We can certainly blame Microsoft—they're the publisher, so it's ultimately their responsibility to make sure that the products they release are of an acceptable quality—and we can probably even blame Remedy—although we don't know what conditions they were/weren't forced to work under—but I don't think we can blame UWP. UWP has led to both good ports and bad ports, just like Win32.

The same applies to DX12... the only reason I brought up DX12 is because it's probably responsible for at least some of the performance issues we're seeing under nVidia cards, and because I think it's being overlooked by a lot of people.

Yes we can


All the limitations of frame pacing and framerate limited is solely based on UWP borderless double buffered fullscreen

 

[michaelius]

Someone actually liking GFWL.

I've seen it all.

You know. Those UWP games make me realize that perhaps we judged GfWL too harshly.
At least those games worked most of the time.

 

[mcrommert]

I'm not saying that DX12 inherently leads to terrible games, or that UWP inherently leads to bad games... I'm just saying I don't know if we can blame UWP for the fact that this port is crappy.

We can certainly blame Microsoft—they're the publisher, so it's ultimately their responsibility to make sure that the products they release are of an acceptable quality—and we can probably even blame Remedy—although we don't know what conditions they were/weren't forced to work under—but I don't think we can blame UWP. UWP has led to both good ports and bad ports, just like Win32.

The same applies to DX12... the only reason I brought up DX12 is because it's probably responsible for at least some of the performance issues we're seeing under nVidia cards, and because I think it's being overlooked by a lot of people.

Agree...dx12 tools and perf is really not there yet...Microsoft seems to be pushing too hard on this standard too quickly