Quantcast
PUGB on XB1 drops to 4fps, issues also on XB1X- Digital Foundry

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - PUGB on XB1 drops to 4fps, issues also on XB1X- Digital Foundry

Pemalite said:
Porcupine_I said:
Can anyone still keep track on how many times the Graphics/fps vs fun argument has switched sides on the console fronts this generation?

Nope. But to be fair this game has both shit graphics AND shit fps on console.

That doesn't matter if it's fun! Fun is the only thing that counts!

...see what i mean?

Actually i'm having fun with his game and i never even played it. It's hilarious on twitch fails and also the drama about it's console  release is very entertaining.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network
Porcupine_I said:
Pemalite said:

Nope. But to be fair this game has both shit graphics AND shit fps on console.

That doesn't matter if it's fun! Fun is the only thing that counts!

...see what i mean?

Actually i'm having fun with his game and i never even played it. It's hilarious on twitch fails and also the drama about it's console  release is very entertaining.

I have found the game to be rather droll personally.
The drama surrounding this game has certainly been the most entertaining aspect of it.

Gamers could simply... You know. Not buy it if they aren't happy.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DonFerrari said: 
Zekkyou said:

You're digging way too deep into this. It's a disclaimer, not an in-depth legal document. Just because you can interpret it one way, doesn't mean that is the intention. Even if MS were planning to give you universal life-time guaranteed protection from the actions of every single independent developer ever (lol), they'd still include that disclaimer because what kind of dipshit company wouldn't provide themselves with that potential flexibility? Emphasis on 'potential'.

Go look at a game on the PlayStation store. Most games have multiple disclaimers, including one which explicitly states it's a "One-time license fee". Just because that technically implies they can do all kinds of messed up things, doesn't mean they're actually planning to do so. It's there to provide them potential flexibility, and the extra 1% of protection they might one day need.

And what customer should cushion the gambles of the company? If the disclaimer doesn't have any legal validity then the protection you were claiming before is null.

And the disclaimers of digital owned games is one of the things that make me very much a hard copy owner first.

A customer that wants the benefits associated with that 'gamble'. Consumers should be protected from exstremes, and they usually are (both legally and because of PR), but if they expect benefits above the standard then risks above the standard are understandable, and should be clearly presented.

I didn't say disclaimers have no legal validity, I was pointing out that its intentions likley arn't as broad as the implications (as with most disclaimers). In situations such as the one I pointed out to you earlier, it would almost certainly stand up to scrutiny.

And yes, that's part of the point. Thanks to that disclaimer both you and Sony were able to avoid any potential legal disagreement on that specific matter.



Pemalite said:
SuperNova said:

Any reason why it consumes so much CPU power, beyond poor optimization?

Lots of draw calls I think.
The 100~ player count might have something to do with it as the net code needs to constantly keep track of everyone.

But it's really no excuse considering how much better Fortnight runs. It's really just poor optimization in the end.

SuperNova said:

For reference, I've never played PUBG, but from the brief pieces of trailer footage, it honestly visually looks no better than some mid tier assets flips that you see around. Completely lacks any kind of artistic direction and looks drap and dull. Add to that that they are apparently only now adding a second arena, while intending to launch the game properly next week. So it seems like it is devastatingly lacking in content as well. I just don't get it's popularity, I guess?

Visually the game looks like a dogs breakfast even on Ultra at 1440P with 16x AF.

It's not just dull... The assets in general are low quality, I swear Crysis from 10 years ago has some better textures than some of the low quality rock textures I have seen in this game.
The irony is, Microsoft threw technology and resources from Rare and The Coalition (Who are pretty much experts in Unreal Engine) and thus it should be in a far better state than it is, not just in regards to performance but visuals too.

The matches themselves also don't really go for very long... And if you parachute towards the edge of the map, you pretty much spend the majority of the round running towards the center as the game shrinks the playable area... Hopefully you don't get taken out from outside your vision during that process.

Honestly, I think the game would have benefited from a smaller island and abolished that mechanic entirely.

In the end though... This is a $30 game, so expectations and all that.

DonFerrari said:

I saw the video yesterday on base X1, that looks ugly. People were saying PS360 level of IQ, but to me it looks worse than a PS2 game. If I were going by memory this is level of Medal of Honor on PS1.

When you first land on the ground though, with lots of shrubbery, crepuscular rays coming through the trees, it doesn't look too bad... But then at other times it looks like an Unreal Engine 3 game in terms of fidelity.

My PC on Ultra the game isn't anything to write home about, I could only imagine how terrible it would look on my Xbox One X which is a big step down from that, let alone the base Xbox One.

This isn't the game that will showcase the Xbox One X's capabilities... And honestly, I would suggest all gamers to give this game a pass and throw your support behind the vastly superior and free Fortnite instead.

How dare you sir!

The Xbox One X compute power is close to a GTX 1080 and its GPU Memory and Bandwidth close to Titan X Series!!!

https://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one-x-gpu-compute-power-is-close-to-gtx-1080-gpu-memory-and-bandwidth-close-to-titan-x-series-war-thunder-dev



If you guys turn off dvr/broadcasting in xbox settings the game runs almost twice as much better or at least feels like it. Everything loads up faster too.

 

Edit: You also know xbox is doing something right when there is a lot of salt going on here.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
SuperNova said:

Any reason why it consumes so much CPU power, beyond poor optimization?

Lots of draw calls I think.
The 100~ player count might have something to do with it as the net code needs to constantly keep track of everyone.

But it's really no excuse considering how much better Fortnight runs. It's really just poor optimization in the end.

SuperNova said:

For reference, I've never played PUBG, but from the brief pieces of trailer footage, it honestly visually looks no better than some mid tier assets flips that you see around. Completely lacks any kind of artistic direction and looks drap and dull. Add to that that they are apparently only now adding a second arena, while intending to launch the game properly next week. So it seems like it is devastatingly lacking in content as well. I just don't get it's popularity, I guess?

Visually the game looks like a dogs breakfast even on Ultra at 1440P with 16x AF.

It's not just dull... The assets in general are low quality, I swear Crysis from 10 years ago has some better textures than some of the low quality rock textures I have seen in this game.
The irony is, Microsoft threw technology and resources from Rare and The Coalition (Who are pretty much experts in Unreal Engine) and thus it should be in a far better state than it is, not just in regards to performance but visuals too.

The matches themselves also don't really go for very long... And if you parachute towards the edge of the map, you pretty much spend the majority of the round running towards the center as the game shrinks the playable area... Hopefully you don't get taken out from outside your vision during that process.

Honestly, I think the game would have benefited from a smaller island and abolished that mechanic entirely.

In the end though... This is a $30 game, so expectations and all that.

DonFerrari said:

I saw the video yesterday on base X1, that looks ugly. People were saying PS360 level of IQ, but to me it looks worse than a PS2 game. If I were going by memory this is level of Medal of Honor on PS1.

When you first land on the ground though, with lots of shrubbery, crepuscular rays coming through the trees, it doesn't look too bad... But then at other times it looks like an Unreal Engine 3 game in terms of fidelity.

My PC on Ultra the game isn't anything to write home about, I could only imagine how terrible it would look on my Xbox One X which is a big step down from that, let alone the base Xbox One.

This isn't the game that will showcase the Xbox One X's capabilities... And honestly, I would suggest all gamers to give this game a pass and throw your support behind the vastly superior and free Fortnite instead.

Well, I haven't seem the PC version. Just looked on the YT link someone posted it about the suffering on the game... it was painfully ugly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdGBwrJ6rtI

Porcupine_I said:
Pemalite said:

Nope. But to be fair this game has both shit graphics AND shit fps on console.

That doesn't matter if it's fun! Fun is the only thing that counts!

...see what i mean?

Actually i'm having fun with his game and i never even played it. It's hilarious on twitch fails and also the drama about it's console  release is very entertaining.

Fun can be found on the most diverse things =p

Zekkyou said:
DonFerrari said: 

And what customer should cushion the gambles of the company? If the disclaimer doesn't have any legal validity then the protection you were claiming before is null.

And the disclaimers of digital owned games is one of the things that make me very much a hard copy owner first.

A customer that wants the benefits associated with that 'gamble'. Consumers should be protected from exstremes, and they usually are (both legally and because of PR), but if they expect benefits above the standard then risks above the standard are understandable, and should be clearly presented.

I didn't say disclaimers have no legal validity, I was pointing out that its intentions likley arn't as broad as the implications (as with most disclaimers). In situations such as the one I pointed out to you earlier, it would almost certainly stand up to scrutiny.

And yes, that's part of the point. Thanks to that disclaimer both you and Sony were able to avoid any potential legal disagreement on that specific matter.

What above standard benefits are they getting here? The game will launch at the same price people on early access are paying, most early access (alpha and betas) are free and also the testers usually are paid... So I see is customers forking money to be guinea pigs instead of they collecting any special benefits.

The disclaimer is made very broad so we can't say "well it states this, but it really is that".

Yep, still more and more people are turning digital and at some point will be a lot worse option to keep hardcopy primarily.

ThisGuyFooks said:
Pemalite said:

Lots of draw calls I think.
The 100~ player count might have something to do with it as the net code needs to constantly keep track of everyone.

But it's really no excuse considering how much better Fortnight runs. It's really just poor optimization in the end.

Visually the game looks like a dogs breakfast even on Ultra at 1440P with 16x AF.

It's not just dull... The assets in general are low quality, I swear Crysis from 10 years ago has some better textures than some of the low quality rock textures I have seen in this game.
The irony is, Microsoft threw technology and resources from Rare and The Coalition (Who are pretty much experts in Unreal Engine) and thus it should be in a far better state than it is, not just in regards to performance but visuals too.

The matches themselves also don't really go for very long... And if you parachute towards the edge of the map, you pretty much spend the majority of the round running towards the center as the game shrinks the playable area... Hopefully you don't get taken out from outside your vision during that process.

Honestly, I think the game would have benefited from a smaller island and abolished that mechanic entirely.

In the end though... This is a $30 game, so expectations and all that.

When you first land on the ground though, with lots of shrubbery, crepuscular rays coming through the trees, it doesn't look too bad... But then at other times it looks like an Unreal Engine 3 game in terms of fidelity.

My PC on Ultra the game isn't anything to write home about, I could only imagine how terrible it would look on my Xbox One X which is a big step down from that, let alone the base Xbox One.

This isn't the game that will showcase the Xbox One X's capabilities... And honestly, I would suggest all gamers to give this game a pass and throw your support behind the vastly superior and free Fortnite instead.

How dare you sir!

The Xbox One X compute power is close to a GTX 1080 and its GPU Memory and Bandwidth close to Titan X Series!!!

https://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one-x-gpu-compute-power-is-close-to-gtx-1080-gpu-memory-and-bandwidth-close-to-titan-x-series-war-thunder-dev

But but but devs are always 100% trustworthy on these comments.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

So Bohemia Studio is going to launch next year for Xbox One a "Game Preview" of Day Z, a STEAM  "Early Access" game launched in 2013 for PC (still Unfinished to this day) for 35$.

Hmm, gee....i wonder why?



ThisGuyFooks said:

So Bohemia Studio is going to launch next year for Xbox One a "Game Preview" of Day Z, a STEAM  "Early Access" game launched in 2013 for PC (still Unfinished to this day) for 35$.

Hmm, gee....i wonder why?

What does that have to do with PUBG, which entered the early access program in March of this year and will officially release next week, after 8 months of time in early access? Or is this just another example of taking the absolute worst case and smearing it on PUBG as a whole that you’ve been doing since Tuesday LOL.



LudicrousSpeed said:
ThisGuyFooks said:

So Bohemia Studio is going to launch next year for Xbox One a "Game Preview" of Day Z, a STEAM  "Early Access" game launched in 2013 for PC (still Unfinished to this day) for 35$.

Hmm, gee....i wonder why?

What does that have to do with PUBG, which entered the early access program in March of this year and will officially release next week, after 8 months of time in early access? Or is this just another example of taking the absolute worst case and smearing it on PUBG as a whole that you’ve been doing since Tuesday LOL.

Yeah, you can tell he is jealous. Who will spend this much time worrying about something he doesn't have/ can't have if they weren't jealous? Not trying to being mean, but I can't be the only one who thinks this.



Snoopy said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

What does that have to do with PUBG, which entered the early access program in March of this year and will officially release next week, after 8 months of time in early access? Or is this just another example of taking the absolute worst case and smearing it on PUBG as a whole that you’ve been doing since Tuesday LOL.

Yeah, you can tell he is jealous. Who will spend this much time worrying about something he doesn't have/ can't have if they weren't jealous? Not trying to being mean, but I can't be the only one who thinks this.

Totally