Why CoD is 720 on X1.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
47,791
25,304
4,279
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...all-of-duty-ghosts-dev-infinity-ward-responds

Creating a next-gen launch title sounds like a nightmare. Can you explain exactly the challenges you faced?


Mark Rubin: It is for our engineers, especially. Fortunately, both Xbox One and PS4 are very much like PC, more so than the last generation. That helped enormously. If the systems had their very peculiar architecture, like they did in current gen, this would have been a different conversation. But because of that the development this time around it was significantly easier. I have experienced the current-gen launch. I was at Infinity Ward for COD 2. When we launched it was just PC and Xbox 360, but that was our first console, period. There was a lot to learn leading up, but that was just one console, when all it was was PC and that new console. And that was an interesting challenge.

So to do PC, current-gen two SKUs and next-gen two SKUs, was a massive challenge. Working with the theoretical hardware would have been a disaster if... honestly, the hardest thing to deal with is not the architecture. It's the OS (operating system) of the systems. That's the thing that comes on the latest. The Xbox One's OS on their box versus the Sony OS, becomes the hardest. All the SDKs and stuff you have to work with - that's the stuff that changes, not the hardware itself.

Is all that you've just described the reason the Xbox One version is native 720p and the PS4 version is native 1080p?

Mark Rubin: In a way. I don't know if I can point to one particular cause. Early on, we didn't know where exactly the resolution of anything would fall because we didn't have hardware or the software to support it. We tried to focus in on 1080p, and if we felt like we were on borderline of performance somewhere... We tried to make the best decision for each platform that gives you the best-looking game we could get and maintains that 60 frames a second.

There's no specific, oh, well, the VO chat on Xbox took up so much resources that we couldn't do 1080p native. There's no definitive one to one per se cause and effect. It's just an overall thing. We took each system individually and said, 'okay, let's make the best game for each system.'

I think both look great. Some people might notice if they had them right next to each other. Some people might not. The Xbox One is 1080p output, it's just upscaled hardware wise.

It was a late decision, too. That call wasn't made until a month ago.

What everyone will ask is whether this is the result of the Xbox One simply not being as powerful as the PS4, and you're doing your best with the hardware you have, or whether for future versions you may be able to get the Xbox One version running natively at 1080p?

Mark Rubin: It's very possible we can get it to native 1080p. I mean I've seen it working at 1080p native. It's just we couldn't get the frame rate in the neighbourhood we wanted it to be.

And it wasn't a lack of effort. It wasn't that it was like last minute. We had the theoretical hardware for a long time. That's the thing you get pretty quickly and that doesn't change dramatically. It was more about resource allocation. The resource allocation is different on the consoles. That huge web of tangled resources, whether it's threads-based or if it's GPU threads or if it's memory - whatever it is - optimisation is something that could go theoretically on forever.

I definitely see slash hope both platforms will look way better the next time we get a chance at it. As an obvious analogy - and if people are not sure about this it's pretty simple - look at Call of Duty 2 versus COD 4. It was a massive leap forward in graphics, and that's just because it takes time to get through this.

First launch, first time at bat at a new console is a challenging one. That's just the way it is. For people fearful one system is more powerful than the other or vice versa, it's a long game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69
BF4 has got more going for it I understand that being 720p with the graphics and 64 players
but ghosts? that's just weird.
 
Some people simply ignore what Carmack and some other developers have been saying, I think they see them as a Microsoft-funded PR. That must be the only reason they do not buy them.

If what they were saying had any merit, they would have been smart enough to be anonymous. :smash:
 
Developing a launch game sounds like a headache. Shifting goal-posts, inability to delay, new hardware, etc. I'm sure the 720 outcome has a lot to do with that. Things should be better next time around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigfnjoe96


Thanks for the article. Its good to know its not so much of harweare being weaker. But having said that. if MS is going to sue so much resource for its media & kinect features, they should have factor this (with the knowledge of the resource for the competition console) & put in more RAM.

So, the possibility of running as good as PS4, will probably means sacrisfing (spelling?) kinect & media features like snap, which is sort of a blow to MS ( especially to the people who work their backside off, on these features) consider they put some much afford intregrating these, & advertise them so hard. The people respsonible for the decision not to upgarde the spec resulting in bottleneck in memory resources should be held accountable.

I am sure MS will make part of the resource available should developers demand it, maybe for intensive AAA games, with simplified kinect, voice & snap/multitasking features. I have mixed feeling for this.
Whats your take guys.
 
So it sounded like they tried getting it to 1080p native and succeeded but was compromised in maintaining the framerate.
 
So from what i can figure out, and im nowhere near as tech savvy as some people on here, they are blaming it on the lack of RAM? Because to me a game that looks so similar to the current gen version shouldnt be using 10 times the amount of ram surely?

I read it as he says COD engine isn't optimised enough for X1. "

"One of the greatest challenges the engineers have to deal with is memory management, or thread management."

"He also suggests future Xbox One Call of Duty games may not suffer a similar resolution issue, as developers further optimise the COD engine"
 
So it sounded like they tried getting it to 1080p native and succeeded but was compromised in maintaining the framerate.
Seemed that way, sounds like the capitalized 60fps above everything else, but was the framerate suffering so much that it took a reduction to 720p to keep it at 60? or did they just not want to go 900p?
 
http://www.edge-online.com/news/spo...-next-gen-call-of-dutys-resolution-disparity/ - seems to be better interview but this.
"I don’t know but overall I do know that other companies have been saying that they’re also 720 on Xbox One – BF4 was 720, Titanfall has already said they’re going to be 720 on Xbox One so it seems to be the dominant direction at the moment, but so much can change."
Wait..is Mark Rubin seriously quoting CBOAT here? or did Respawn come out and officially say something?
 
http://www.edge-online.com/news/spo...-next-gen-call-of-dutys-resolution-disparity/ - seems to be better interview but this.
"I don’t know but overall I do know that other companies have been saying that they’re also 720 on Xbox One – BF4 was 720, Titanfall has already said they’re going to be 720 on Xbox One so it seems to be the dominant direction at the moment, but so much can change."
just making excuses for their sh1tty fukin game engine......that takes a bigger graphics card to run than bf4........just sit back and think about that for a second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigfnjoe96
I don't think soo? lol maybe it's just true? I don't know a lot could change between here and now
I haven't heard anything official yet, but it could be out there I guess. Everyone I think just assumed when Respawn said they were focusing on 60fps over anything else first and foremost that it meant the game would be sub-1080p, and apparently that must mean it's 720p? Is 900p not a thing this gen? lol
 
I'm wishing MS would have delayed release after they saw the PS4 reveal. The PR hit from that would have been peanuts compared to what has happened since summer. Maybe they could have gotten the tools in order or changed the hardware, who knows. It's not looking good.
 
I'm wishing MS would have delayed release after they saw the PS4 reveal. The PR hit from that would have been peanuts compared to what has happened since summer. Maybe they could have gotten the tools in order or changed the hardware, who knows. It's not looking good.

Change in hardware would have taken 1+ years easily. Not a great idea imo.
 
Change in hardware would have taken 1+ years easily. Not a great idea imo.

That may be, but I can't imagine adding RAM would have taken that long, I have no idea.

It seems that there is a terrible problem with leadership at MS...whether it's Windows 8, the failure of Surface, or this Xbox debacle, they seem to be floundering. Remember, Ballmer's mantra changed from "developers, developers, developers" to "advertisers, advertisers, advertisers." Doesn't the XB1 seem like that mindset come to life?

Why should I reward them with 5 bills and another year of Live?
 
This does add some weight to the rumours that the x1 is harder to develop for than the ps4. Then again, as some else said, it could simply be down to the s***ty engine used in cod.
 
That may be, but I can't imagine adding RAM would have taken that long, I have no idea.

It seems that there is a terrible problem with leadership at MS...whether it's Windows 8, the failure of Surface, or this Xbox debacle, they seem to be floundering. Remember, Ballmer's mantra changed from "developers, developers, developers" to "advertisers, advertisers, advertisers." Doesn't the XB1 seem like that mindset come to life?

Why should I reward them with 5 bills and another year of Live?

IIRC they are already using the max density at there bus width so they would had to change the bus width, which would again have taken longer. Theres also a point where more memory is not really useful 8GB seems like the sweet spot.
 
IIRC they are already using the max density at there bus width so they would had to change the bus width, which would again have taken longer. Theres also a point where more memory is not really useful 8GB seems like the sweet spot.

Fair enough. Could they have switched to DDR5 or would it be the same issue?
 
Fair enough. Could they have switched to DDR5 or would it be the same issue?

as you mentioned GDDR5 is a completely different standard, and would require new memory controllers, data paths, and re-certification and verification.
 
Its pretty apparent what the problem is..

Tricky memory allocation + a boat load of s*** running on the OS side of things that's non-gaming specific making it even harder (Kinect, Snap, etc..)

Maybe a better memory architecture and this wouldn't be a problem, maybe not having all these resource heavy applications running..

Seems developers are gonna have to find the trick to find a way to manage memory allocation between the game and the Xbones bells and whistles..
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR SCHULTZ
Status
Not open for further replies.