By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Crytek Admits Microsoft Had To Rewrite Xbox One Code To Run Software

Tagged games:

Ashadian said:
selnor1983 said:
Ashadian said:
That's the thing tho it wasn't running on X1 at E3. It was running on PC like most of the stuff at E3. If you read the article you will see it mentioned. It's MS job to give the drivers and development libraries to Crytek. If they were behind then its their job to give them assistance. The developer quiet clearly states that they and MS are trying to solve the pipelines puzzle. I think MS needed it to be shown more than Crytek. Crytek could have easily shown a trailer! I highly doubt anyone doubts Cryteks pedigree when it comes to graphics!
It's MS job to provide the development tools/libraries and drivers. Especially upto date ones!


Digital Foundry say Ryse at e3 was running on xbox 1. 

 

In either case, the game looks significantly better now.


So cause a magazine/website said so makes it true???

Edge Magazine stated that the Devs it asked that the PS4 is significantly more powerful than the X1. So going by what your saying this then must also be true???





Around the Network
Ashadian said:

Why? Because its always claimed they were running on actual X1 hardware at E3 when there is significant evidence they were running on PC's or early dev units. Big difference! Sony haven't made any claims that they were showing anything running on an actual PS4 at E3! Thats why a lot of the games on X1 resolution and quality has changed since those reveals at the X1 showcase and E3.

Of course they were dev kits. MS has said as such. These companies consider dev kits to be hardware. There is no difference.

Which games are you referring to that had to be "changed" quality and resolution wise? Because it was never said what KI was running at. Ryse looks better than it did at E3. Forza is the same. I know I am just feeding a troll here but please, list all of these supposed downgraded titles because I think it will be a fun list to read.



endimion said:
if you say so ethomaz I ain't arguing with you anymore anyway...

I call that very smart.  ethomaz would argue you to death even when he is wrong and you would waste a lot of your time.



They did a great job cuz it looks amazing!



Did you know ps4 only supports a 2.4 wireless signal?

The xbox one supports a wireless adapter capable of 2.4 - 5.0ghz.

The ONLY next gen console to do so. 

endimion said:
 sharper definition doesn't make good graphics...


But boy does it help. *Ignores the fact I am running at a resolution larger than 4k*




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
endimion said:
 sharper definition doesn't make good graphics...


But boy does it help. *Ignores the fact I am running at a resolution larger than 4k*

not really... your perception of it is better through sharpness of the output.... if you have shit even with 16K you will just have very sharp shit at 16K

I see what you are saying though... but to be fair, pushing better rendering at a lower res is better in most cases than the opposite (targeting higher res with lesser quality "rendering")

and 4K on PC might be good but I'll argue that there isn't really many affordable 4K TV with a size to distance ratio interesting enough to justify the investment... without saying that you don't have much content out beside high spec PC games.... a 4k 60" or lower makes apsolutely no sense and I would deffy most people to make a real difference with a 1080p at the same standard viewing distance.... now 80" and over we enter a new galaxy of awesome :D



can't wait for a 4k 80" OLED TV to come out at less than 5000 bucks with good reviews



endimion said:

not really... your perception of it is better through sharpness of the output.... if you have shit even with 16K you will just have very sharp shit at 16K

I see what you are saying though... but to be fair, pushing better rendering at a lower res is better in most cases than the opposite (targeting higher res with lesser quality "rendering")

and 4K on PC might be good but I'll argue that there isn't really many affordable 4K TV with a size to distance ratio interesting enough to justify the investment... without saying that you don't have much content out beside high spec PC games.... a 4k 60" or lower makes apsolutely no sense and I would deffy most people to make a real difference with a 1080p at the same standard viewing distance.... now 80" and over we enter a new galaxy of awesome :D


I'm running triple 27" (81" total of screen real estate.) 2560x1440 monitors for a total resolution of 7680x1440, that's a larger resolution than 4k.
I have screen real estate AND resolution.

Resolution helps, I would rather poke my eyes out before going back to 1920x1080 or lord-forbid, 1366x768 regardless of panel size, the difference between those resolutions and mine is stupidly massive.

Besides, I won't accept a phone with a 720P resolution with a 6" screen, so why should I accept such a resolution on a larger display?




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

well because it's a matter of viewing distance.... I made sure to precise I wasn't talking about a PC set up where most of the time you are right on the screen (less than 3 feet away) same with cellphones...

but for TVs 4k on anything under 50 inches at 6 feet viewing distance or more is money thrown away period....

that being said I was surprised the other day but even 1080p is an exception on PC for most people... to me it seems like it should be by far the most used minimum res...

http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=17&qpcustomb=

nice set up BTW... if I was still gaming on PC I would go for that... now I throw my tech cash in living room appliances until I get my own place (or build) and do a dedicated room for Movie/entertainment...