Support NeoGAF

[Zathalus]

Sony didn't send Mark Cerny at the start of this generation to be interview by zero influence nobodies called Digital Foundry, only to be insulted by them saying he was wrong, and then followed up with a correction letter about 3D audio on the PS5. They have a big platform which Sony felt they had no choice but to engage with.

Sony consider them an influential outlet and have done since the PS3 generation pretty much needing to give them technical previews of all their first party games to avoid outright negative coverage.

I've already linked you the source about when DF started. It was a consulting company back in 2004 and only started comparisons back in 2008:

Richard Leadbetter

Your trusted source for video game news, reviews and guides, since 1999.

www.eurogamer.net

Frankly having this conversation with you when you are so disconnected from reality is tiresome. Send Mark Cerny? They never sent Mark Cerny anywhere, DF and numerous other outlets were invited to cover the launch of the PS5. And considered them an influential outlet since the PS3 generation? They only got their first invite to cover something Sony related in 2016, and that was the Pro launch where DF and tons of other journalists where invited. Its one thing to be invited to various press events, but there is an enormous gap between that and dictating game development.

And negative coverage for Sony first party games? Are you living in the same reality as the rest of us? DF has a fucking orgasm over almost every single Sony first party game ever released. Sony usually makes up most of their best looking yearly lists as well.

Microsoft consider them to be an influential outlet and give them insider access with sweet trips to exclusive console reveals and sweet paid work. ...and Nvidia consider them to be an influential outlet with vital DF paid work, heck even Nintendo gave them serious time with Mario Kart 8's alleged not quite 60fps angle DF took. Nintendo probably did a placebo patch gave them an interview and got them to sign off on it being a locked 60fps.

So who in AA/AAA gaming isn't giving DF access because of their big influence, exactly? Saying their childish pixel counting didn't impact developers is like saying they didn't create the outcry for performance modes to be in most games this gen.

Do you know what these paid trips by Microsoft and Sony, as well as the occasional sponsored video by Nvidia have in common? They were all done in the past 5 years. So why are you bringing up relatively recent example to try and strengthen your point that DF apparently had this enormous influence to dictate what resolution games ran at back in the PS3 days? A generation that was already at the half way point before DF even started?

You know how I know the influence that DF has is limited? Easy:

- DF has criticized low resolution games using FSR to upsample. Still happens.
- DF continuously points out when frame drops occur on games. Still happens.
- DF point out and has led a crusade against stutters on PC. Still happens.

Doesn't appear they have that much say at the end of the day does it?

 

[Gaiff]

Sony didn't send Mark Cerny at the start of this generation to be interview by zero influence nobodies called Digital Foundry, only to be insulted by them saying he was wrong, and then followed up with a correction letter about 3D audio on the PS5. They have a big platform which Sony felt they had no choice but to engage with.

Sony consider them an influential outlet and have done since the PS3 generation pretty much needing to give them technical previews of all their first party games to avoid outright negative coverage.

Microsoft consider them to be an influential outlet and give them insider access with sweet trips to exclusive console reveals and sweet paid work. ...and Nvidia consider them to be an influential outlet with vital DF paid work, heck even Nintendo gave them serious time with Mario Kart 8's alleged not quite 60fps angle DF took. Nintendo probably did a placebo patch gave them an interview and got them to sign off on it being a locked 60fps.

So who in AA/AAA gaming isn't giving DF access because of their big influence, exactly? Saying their childish pixel counting didn't impact developers is like saying they didn't create the outcry for performance modes to be in most games this gen.

because most gamers don't even know what frame-rate is, but were still given the choice this gen despite it being far more work for developers that didn't choose that path as alluded to by Cerny in the pro reveal where he states developers were struggling to have enough performance to realise their visions(paraphrasing obviously)

Yes, because everyone knows that companies giving exclusive access to media outlets means their dev teams will completely change course just so they won't be criticized by them. They'll change the rendering budgets, resolution, and frame rate targets just because of DF. Worked fucking wonders for the stuttering on PC.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

For somebody who hates DF, you vastly, vastly overstate the influence and impact they have had on game development. Especially during the PS3/360 days, when they averaged only a few thousand views per video and way under 100k subscribers on YouTube. They didn't even exist for the first few years of the PS3 and 360.

I pretty confident no developer was thinking we better need to hit resolution target X otherwise DF will criticize us. I'd be shocked if most developers (never mind game publishers) even knew who they were back then.

Cheap wide-screen HD televisions came on the market so videogames had to become HD too.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I've already linked you the source about when DF started. It was a consulting company back in 2004 and only started comparisons back in 2008:

Richard Leadbetter

Your trusted source for video game news, reviews and guides, since 1999.

www.eurogamer.net

Frankly having this conversation with you when you are so disconnected from reality is tiresome.

You are being completely disingenuous because Richard - possibly for copyright reasons with REXL/gamer network - pulled all his old articles of that era and edited and republished some - maybe in 2021 going by wayback machine earliest captures - such as this

VF5 as good on 360

Sega has revealed the first shots of Virtua Fighter 5 running on the Xbox 360, and the good news is that the game is vi…

web.archive.org

This is a 16th of May 2007 article face off of sorts, even though it has been changed from the original content, and clearly has an earlier date than your claimed 2008, when he was capturing 16bit colour then 24bit colour in the gen before the PS3/360, as I clearly didn't dream that reading that a year or two after it was published by him.

 

[Zathalus]

You are being completely disingenuous because Richard - possibly for copyright reasons with REXL/gamer network - pulled all his old articles of that era and edited and republished some - maybe in 2021 going by wayback machine earliest captures - such as this

VF5 as good on 360

Sega has revealed the first shots of Virtua Fighter 5 running on the Xbox 360, and the good news is that the game is vi…

web.archive.org

This is a 16th of May 2007 article face off of sorts, even though it has been changed from the original content, and clearly has an earlier date than your claimed 2008, when he was capturing 16bit colour then 24bit colour in the gen before the PS3/360, as I clearly didn't dream that reading that a year or two after it was published by him.

Alright, so an article from 2007 that features no pixel counting at all is proof of DF having so much influence with developers regarding resolutions due to pixel counting?

DF had articles back in 2007, like for The Darkness, NBA 2K7, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Oblivion, etc... Those articles are still up, I even linked them in my previous post. You’ll see quite a lack of pixel counting in those earlier comparisons. It was rudimentary guesses and thoughts about output resolutions like setting your TV to 720p vs 1080i kind of thing, and with some images to compare yourself. They didn’t even have fps graphs on video yet. Hardly enough to sway the development of an entire generation.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Alright, so an article from 2007 that features no pixel counting at all is proof of DF having so much influence with developers regarding resolutions due to pixel counting?

DF had articles back in 2007, like for The Darkness, NBA 2K7, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Oblivion, etc... Those articles are still up, I even linked them in my previous post. You’ll see quite a lack of pixel counting in those earlier comparisons. It was rudimentary guesses and thoughts about output resolutions like setting your TV to 720p vs 1080i kind of thing, and with some images to compare yourself. They didn’t even have fps graphs on video yet. Hardly enough to sway the development of an entire generation.

They had articles per month/week years before that, or are you saying that the current articles haven't been edited?

I mean can you even link to original archive.org mirrors of the remaining articles from when they were published? And do you disagree with my take that DF article from the beginning have been largely removed, and those tiny amount that remain have been rewritten and had most of the screenshots and the original videos removed?

https://web.archive.org/web/2014120.../threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/

Games like VF5 on PS3 - and many others in the list - pre date 2008, and yet their resolutions are in the Jan 2008 beyond3d published lists - which again have archive.org first mirror dates 6years after the thread was posted - but these lists were compiled from DF pixel counting, so it is logical that the source for such info was DF articles prior to 2008 that have since been removed.

 

[Gaiff]

They had articles per month/week years before that, or are you saying that the current articles haven't been edited?

I mean can you even link to original archive.org mirrors of the remaining articles from when they were published? And do you disagree with my take that DF article from the beginning have been largely removed, and those tiny amount that remain have been rewritten and had most of the screenshots and the original videos removed?

https://web.archive.org/web/2014120.../threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/

Games like VF5 on PS3 - and many others in the list - pre date 2008, and yet their resolutions are in the Jan 2008 beyond3d published lists - which again have archive.org first mirror dates 6years after the thread was posted - but these lists were compiled from DF pixel counting, so it is logical that the source for such info was DF articles prior to 2008 that have since been removed.

So still absolutely nothing, yet you keep doubling down. "Debating" with you is infuriating. If it’s not a bunch of strawmen, it’s ignoring cold hard evidence all the while coming up with your own conclusions with basically nothing to back yourself up.

You’re arguing here that DF swayed an entire generation of devs because of their pixel counting, but you can produce fucking nothing to support your claims. I don’t even think they had a youtube channel back then, and if their influence was anywhere near as grand as you like to pretend, it wouldn’t be hard at all to prove. You should have a myriad of popular articles, videos, etc, of them doing just that, but you got nothing.

Just take the L, say you were being hyperbolic and move on. Nah, you have to just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

 

[Edgelord79]

Be cool if Sony could port this tech to PC and give Nvidia some competition. But that’s not gonna happen.

 

[PaintTinJr]

So still absolutely nothing, yet you keep doubling down. "Debating" with you is infuriating. If it’s not a bunch of strawmen, it’s ignoring cold hard evidence all the while coming up with your own conclusions with basically nothing to back yourself up.

You’re arguing here that DF swayed an entire generation of devs because of their pixel counting, but you can produce fucking nothing to support your claims. I don’t even think they had a youtube channel back then, and if their influence was anywhere near as grand as you like to pretend, it wouldn’t be hard at all to prove. You should have a myriad of popular articles, videos, etc, of them doing just that, but you got nothing.

Just take the L, say you were being hyperbolic and move on. Nah, you have to just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

You tell me, can you find all the articles where DF told Sony quincunx was like smearing Vaseline on their tele that all devs stop using the free AA hardware accelerated feature? I can't, which no surprise VF5 on PS3 uses no AA, and gives no option to use it despite it being zero performance impact as an ASIC feature.

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

If pssr really is better than the AMD solution fsr like how can this happen?

Amd is a GPU manufacturer with fingers in developing drivers and software and now AI. Its been developing this tech for years to compete with Nvidia and dlss.

So how can Sony come long and just cream them with a superior solution, when Sony themselves use AMD hardware? Doesn't sound like it's possible.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

Cheap wide-screen HD televisions came on the market so videogames had to become HD too.

transition to widescreen was so janky.
pc had hit-or-miss support for years.

then the ps360 gen hit and like everything had widescreen support overnight.
there'd still be people half-assing it... think bioshock1 widescreen on pc was just the camera zoomed in to fill a 16:9 window, ha.

not exactly sure why im commenting, but uh thank you consoles for standardizing/popularizing stuff in the industry.

 

[octos]

If pssr really is better than the AMD solution fsr like how can this happen?

Amd is a GPU manufacturer with fingers in developing drivers and software and now AI. Its been developing this tech for years to compete with Nvidia and dlss.

So how can Sony come long and just cream them with a superior solution, when Sony themselves use AMD hardware? Doesn't sound like it's possible.

Hardware is irrelevant, FSR is an inferior algorithm because it's using human-made rules, whereas PSSR like DLSS is using self learning with Neural Networks. Basically the whole process has been automated: you feed the algorithm a stream of images rendered at a low resolution, and the same stream but rendered at a high resolution like 4k, and you tell it: this is the input, and this is the desired output, and it learns, and then you can apply that network to a new stream and it upscales like magic.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Be cool if Sony could port this tech to PC and give Nvidia some competition. But that’s not gonna happen.

Might happen with the ports.

 

[Zathalus]

They had articles per month/week years before that, or are you saying that the current articles haven't been edited?

I mean can you even link to original archive.org mirrors of the remaining articles from when they were published? And do you disagree with my take that DF article from the beginning have been largely removed, and those tiny amount that remain have been rewritten and had most of the screenshots and the original videos removed?

https://web.archive.org/web/2014120.../threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/

Games like VF5 on PS3 - and many others in the list - pre date 2008, and yet their resolutions are in the Jan 2008 beyond3d published lists - which again have archive.org first mirror dates 6years after the thread was posted - but these lists were compiled from DF pixel counting, so it is logical that the source for such info was DF articles prior to 2008 that have since been removed.

DF were not the only ones that started pixel counting. Plenty of users on this forum and Beyond did it themselves. The ability to do so wasn’t something they created considering how easy it is, although they really took off with it from 2008. Heck a huge amount of that list is from games DF never even covered, like most of the PSN and XBLA games for example. I see you also claim that because of DF devs stopped QAA despite that very list having dozens of games that used it, well up to the end of the generation.

While we’re on this list, it’s once again not evidence of this influence you claim they had. A list on an ultra hardcore obscure forum is not really evidence of much. It’s just evidence that a few hundred nerds wanted the info for curiosity or platform warring.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

So how can Sony come long and just cream them with a superior solution, when Sony themselves use AMD hardware? Doesn't sound like it's possible.

Well, it could be one of two reasons:

1) AMD is developing their own tech in parallel that has not yet released, but will soon.

Or

2) AMD was simply late to the game and Sony had the resources to invest in this technique for their own platform instead.

It is interesting that Sony is creating their own patented PSSR technique, because you would think AMD would have their own methodology otherwise that they'd use instead....

 

[FireFly]

Games like VF5 on PS3 - and many others in the list - pre date 2008, and yet their resolutions are in the Jan 2008 beyond3d published lists - which again have archive.org first mirror dates 6years after the thread was posted - but these lists were compiled from DF pixel counting, so it is logical that the source for such info was DF articles prior to 2008 that have since been removed.

Just to fact check this, DF took the pixel counting method from Beyond3D member Quaz51 who introduced it around the time of Halo 3's launch in September 2007.

Page 2 | Not so High Definition

Digital Foundry's shock of the week: Tekken 6, one of the most anticipated fighting games of the year, has an ugly secr…

www.eurogamer.net

According to Wikipedia, VF5 launched on the PS3 in February 2007 so could not have been pixel counted by DF on release as the method hadn't been "invented" yet. The resolutions in the listed Beyond3D thread seem to have been community sourced rather than specifically taken from DF and I found the below NeoGaf thread from November 2007 which references "That nutty pixel counter at Beyond 3D" as the source for the VF5 resolution. I assume that's referring to Quaz51, who is name checked in the same thread.

New oddball game resolutions (more 600p + Virtua Fighter surprises inside)

That nutty pixel counter at Beyond 3D just won't stop. Here are some interesting findings: Def Jam: icon (PS3) 1152x648 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (PS3) 1920x1080 FullHD Transformers (PS3) 960x1080 Pirates of the Caribbean (PS3 720p): 960x720 Pirates of the Caribbean (PS3 1080p): 780x1080...

www.neogaf.com

 

[PaintTinJr]

DF were not the only ones that started pixel counting. Plenty of users on this forum and Beyond did it themselves. The ability to do so wasn’t something they created considering how easy it is, although they really took off with it from 2008. Heck a huge amount of that list is from games DF never even covered, like most of the PSN and XBLA games for example. I see you also claim that because of DF devs stopped QAA despite that very list having dozens of games that used it, well up to the end of the generation.

While we’re on this list, it’s once again not evidence of this influence you claim they had. A list on an ultra hardcore obscure forum is not really evidence of much. It’s just evidence that a few hundred nerds wanted the info for curiosity or platform warring.

Love the the strawman about PSN/XBLA when we both know the body of work by DF for the Cube gen is no longer on the internet, and most of the early PS3/360 gen with vitriol is missing or doctored to remove such comments.

I'm glad you picked on the (quincunx) QAA issue, because FIFA is a prime example of DF's influence. EA used the performance free QAA ASIC feature in the first versions on PS3, then stopped when it was being criticised in all PS3 games by DF, and then as you will remember they did some arrangement with EA where they agreed to stop covering the FIFA games in faceoffs, and quelle surprise the feature returns in after they stop doing faceoffs for it.

 

[Zathalus]

Love the the strawman about PSN/XBLA when we both know the body of work by DF for the Cube gen is no longer on the internet, and most of the early PS3/360 gen with vitriol is missing or doctored to remove such comments.

I'm glad you picked on the (quincunx) QAA issue, because FIFA is a prime example of DF's influence. EA used the performance free QAA ASIC feature in the first versions on PS3, then stopped when it was being criticised in all PS3 games by DF, and then as you will remember they did some arrangement with EA where they agreed to stop covering the FIFA games in faceoffs, and quelle surprise the feature returns in after they stop doing faceoffs for it.

You do realize this is tinfoil hat conspiracy level nonsense right? You have absolutely zero evidence to back any of your statements up, so I guess we are done here.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Just to fact check this, DF took the pixel counting method from Beyond3D member Quaz51 who introduced it around the time of Halo 3's launch in September 2007.

Page 2 | Not so High Definition

Digital Foundry's shock of the week: Tekken 6, one of the most anticipated fighting games of the year, has an ugly secr…

www.eurogamer.net

According to Wikipedia, VF5 launched on the PS3 in February 2007 so could not have been pixel counted by DF on release as the method hadn't been "invented" yet. The resolutions in the listed Beyond3D thread seem to have been community sourced rather than specifically taken from DF and I found the below NeoGaf thread from November 2007 which references "That nutty pixel counter at Beyond 3D" as the source for the VF5 resolution. I assume that's referring to Quaz51, who is name checked in the same thread.

New oddball game resolutions (more 600p + Virtua Fighter surprises inside)

That nutty pixel counter at Beyond 3D just won't stop. Here are some interesting findings: Def Jam: icon (PS3) 1152x648 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (PS3) 1920x1080 FullHD Transformers (PS3) 960x1080 Pirates of the Caribbean (PS3 720p): 960x720 Pirates of the Caribbean (PS3 1080p): 780x1080...

www.neogaf.com

Pixel counting wasn't the only way they got the info, as they had a PS3 testkit and had developer access, and had other access through Xbox, - and he had been doing previous gen captures original at just 16bit colour, -but I don't doubt Richard got the technique from someone more technical than him

 

[FireFly]

Pixel counting wasn't the only way they got the info, as they had a PS3 testkit and had developer access, and had other access through Xbox, - and he had been doing previous gen captures original at just 16bit colour, -but I don't doubt Richard got the technique from someone more technical than him

The claim you made was that DF started pixel counting, not that DF published resolution information provided by developers. I am pretty sure DF were not the first outlet to publish information about what resolution a game was running!

 

[Physiognomonics]

I've already linked you the source about when DF started. It was a consulting company back in 2004 and only started comparisons back in 2008:

Richard Leadbetter

Your trusted source for video game news, reviews and guides, since 1999.

www.eurogamer.net

Frankly having this conversation with you when you are so disconnected from reality is tiresome. Send Mark Cerny? They never sent Mark Cerny anywhere, DF and numerous other outlets were invited to cover the launch of the PS5. And considered them an influential outlet since the PS3 generation? They only got their first invite to cover something Sony related in 2016, and that was the Pro launch where DF and tons of other journalists where invited. Its one thing to be invited to various press events, but there is an enormous gap between that and dictating game development.

And negative coverage for Sony first party games? Are you living in the same reality as the rest of us? DF has a fucking orgasm over almost every single Sony first party game ever released. Sony usually makes up most of their best looking yearly lists as well.


Do you know what these paid trips by Microsoft and Sony, as well as the occasional sponsored video by Nvidia have in common? They were all done in the past 5 years. So why are you bringing up relatively recent example to try and strengthen your point that DF apparently had this enormous influence to dictate what resolution games ran at back in the PS3 days? A generation that was already at the half way point before DF even started?

You know how I know the influence that DF has is limited? Easy:

- DF has criticized low resolution games using FSR to upsample. Still happens.
- DF continuously points out when frame drops occur on games. Still happens.
- DF point out and has led a crusade against stutters on PC. Still happens.

Doesn't appear they have that much say at the end of the day does it?

How did Leadbetter started his company in 2004 (assuming this is the starting year)? I had always wondered. For years he didn't make a lot of money, did he? Did he get a loan from a bank or something?

 

[Zathalus]

How did Leadbetter started his company in 2004 (assuming this is the starting year)? I had always wondered. For years he didn't make a lot of money, did he? Did he get a loan from a bank or something?

No idea really. He was the editor of quite a few gaming magazines back in the day (during the 80s and 90s) and probably had plenty of contacts in the industry. This is just from what I could find on the Internet.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The claim you made was that DF started pixel counting, not that DF published resolution information provided by developers. I am pretty sure DF were not the first outlet to publish information about what resolution a game was running!

Well, in hindsight I hadn't meant it so restrictively on the technique, and I'm sure he wasn't the first, but has certainly been the most influential and has seen off all competition along the way courtesy of Richard's skill from his magazine days of engaging with his readership and providing content via his industry connections.

 

[FireFly]

Well, in hindsight I hadn't meant it so restrictively on the technique, and I'm sure he wasn't the first, but has certainly been the most influential and has seen off all competition along the way courtesy of Richard's skill from his magazine days of engaging with his readership and providing content via his industry connections.

You were trying to claim that DF provided the resolution for VF5 in the Beyond3D thread you linked to. Do you retract that claim or not?

 

[PaintTinJr]

You were trying to claim that DF provided the resolution for VF5 in the Beyond3D thread you linked to. Do you retract that claim or not?

The PS3 testkit they had would have shown the resolution back then - as this was before the days of custom shader image scalers much like my modded cube signal is resolution counted by the Apollo hdmi board showing native input resolutions and output res for any game I spin up, and lots of business TVs with D-sub VGA could do that in the past too.

The game probably even had a readable config file on the testkit given its arcade cabinet roots, or he could have just asked Sega given his long standing magazine connections, I'm pretty sure it is arcade perfect the PS3 version, so might even be an exact match for the VF5b cabinet, which probably used a screen complimentary to the 1:1 aspect ratio to share the 1024x1024 frame buffer.

 

[FireFly]

The PS3 testkit they had would have shown the resolution back then - as this was before the days of custom shader image scalers much like my modded cube signal is resolution counted by the Apollo hdmi board showing native input resolutions and output res for any game I spin up, and lots of business TVs with D-sub VGA could do that in the past too.

The game probably even had a readable config file on the testkit given its arcade cabinet roots, or he could have just asked Sega given his long standing magazine connections, I'm pretty sure it is arcade perfect the PS3 version, so might even be an exact match for the VF5b cabinet, which probably used a screen complimentary to the 1:1 aspect ratio to share the 1024x1024 frame buffer.

Maybe, but if the information was already in the Beyond3D thread due to a DF article, it would not have needed to be added by Quaz51 in November 2007. So, to repeat my question, do you retract the claim that DF was the source for the VF5 resolution in the Beyond3D article?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Maybe, but if the information was already in the Beyond3D thread due to a DF article, it would not have needed to be added by Quaz51 in November 2007. So, to repeat my question, do you retract the claim that DF was the source for the VF5 resolution in the Beyond3D article?

It wasn't in the thread which didn't exist in 2007. The first date is 2008. and the wayback machine first mirror is like 2014 for that list.

You do know your EG Richard sourced article (2009 published) was actually first published in 2023 going by the wayback machine. Does that not show Richard is retcon-ing? Why remove the entire body of work that previously existed as-is and write 2009 articles in 2023 unless to remove evidence?

I'm still 99.9% sure Richard provided that resolution for VF5b, but it is irrelevant in that the childishness of the pixel counting is still in the retconned 2023 article you quoted. 2.5 gens of wasted time of devs. He even shown his culpability in quoting a retconned Bungie article

"So, Halo 3 was outed as running at 640p, clearly annoying Bungie".

(allegedly published 2007 actually published in 2022)

Bungie explains Halo resolution

Bungie has responded to claims that Halo 3 doesn't run in a high-definition resolution by saying saying it's "practical…

www.eurogamer.net

Yeah, devs didn't care about the pixel counting, really?

 

[diffusionx]

Alright, so an article from 2007 that features no pixel counting at all is proof of DF having so much influence with developers regarding resolutions due to pixel counting?

DF had articles back in 2007, like for The Darkness, NBA 2K7, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Oblivion, etc... Those articles are still up, I even linked them in my previous post. You’ll see quite a lack of pixel counting in those earlier comparisons. It was rudimentary guesses and thoughts about output resolutions like setting your TV to 720p vs 1080i kind of thing, and with some images to compare yourself. They didn’t even have fps graphs on video yet. Hardly enough to sway the development of an entire generation.

The pixel counting was on beyond3d threads and DF then picked up the baton. By the time they did, a lot of people discovered b3d.

 

[FireFly]

It wasn't in the thread which didn't exist in 2007. The first date is 2008. and the wayback machine first mirror is like 2014 for that list.

Ok, but it was in the Beyond3D thread used by Quaz51. Why would Quaz51 do an analysis and NeoGaf post it as "new" if it was just repeating known information already published by DF? There is no mention of any DF article in the NeoGaf thread. We have someone holding a smoking gun by a newly dead body, but no the real killer must have been someone three blocks away watching TV at the time.

You do know your EG Richard sourced article (2009 published) was actually first published in 2023 going by the wayback machine. Does that not show Richard is retcon-ing? Why remove the entire body of work that previously existed as-is and write 2009 articles in 2023 unless to remove evidence?

So on the one hand you tell me that the Wayback machine first published a 2008 forum thread in 2014. On the other hand you tell me that the Wayback machine is really a super accurate way of determining when something appeared on the internet!

You do realise that the 2009 article has comments that are 15 years old in it? And if you click into the posters' profiles, you can find 15 years worth of comments there? So presumably Richard has been busy creating hundreds of period accurate fake comments from different users, then going back to alter the dates on the posts in the forum software, just to make random articles look like they were published in 2009 or earlier.

Edit: I found this comment on the article from 15 years ago. Rich must have a sense of humour creating all these fake comments from real users (I recognise the poster).

"Oh FFS! What a pointless fucking article. If you actually care THAT much about the resolution the game is running in then it says a lot about how FUN those games are doesnt it?

Besides, if the devs are making a game run at a lower resolution, it means they can put in EXTRA effects and make it actually look better than it would've done in a higher resolution. Especially in the case of halo 3, where the game looks stunning - no doubt running at higher resolutions would've meant fewer filters and other effects - so in "true" hi def it could've looked WORSE!

The telling part of this article is that the writer himself admits that he needs a tool to grab the frame buffer to be able to tell what resolution it's running in! Surely if it was THAT important and noticeable, you should be able to tell just by looking at the fucking game!

It's complete nonsense thing to get even slightly worked up about! Does the game look good? Does it run at a decent framerate? Is it fun? All valid questions.. Does it run in full 720p? Isnt."

 

[Zathalus]

The pixel counting was on beyond3d threads and DF then picked up the baton. By the time they did, a lot of people discovered b3d.

Yes, DF only really started heavily pixel counting from 2008 onwards. Same time they first published FPS graphs. Before that b3d was doing a lot of the pixel counting.

I’m still not seeing this influence that DF supposedly had to steer multiple generations of game development. If I went to my boss telling him we need to change our entire development pipeline based on some people on a forum I’d get laughed out of the office.

Even today where DF is far more popular then they could ever hope to be in 2008, they have very little impact on game development.

 

[Ivan]

If you think about it, next generation will be the first without a traditional resolution bump.

With PSSR on top of that all the other AI stuff they're talking about, I really think good times are ahead.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Ok, but it was in the Beyond3D thread used by Quaz51. Why would Quaz51 do an analysis and NeoGaf post it as "new" if it was just repeating known information already published by DF? There is no mention of any DF article in the NeoGaf thread. We have someone holding a smoking gun by a newly dead body, but no the real killer must have been someone three blocks away watching TV at the time.


So on the one hand you tell me that the Wayback machine first published a 2008 forum thread in 2014. On the other hand you tell me that the Wayback machine is really a super accurate way of determining when something appeared on the internet!

You do realise that the 2009 article has comments that are 15 years old in it? And if you click into the posters' profiles, you can find 15 years worth of comments there? So presumably Richard has been busy creating hundreds of period accurate fake comments from different users, then going back to alter the dates on the posts in the forum software, just to make random articles look like they were published in 2009 or earlier.

Edit: I found this comment on the article from 15 years ago. Rich must have a sense of humour creating all these fake comments from real users (I recognise the poster).

"Oh FFS! What a pointless fucking article. If you actually care THAT much about the resolution the game is running in then it says a lot about how FUN those games are doesnt it?

Besides, if the devs are making a game run at a lower resolution, it means they can put in EXTRA effects and make it actually look better than it would've done in a higher resolution. Especially in the case of halo 3, where the game looks stunning - no doubt running at higher resolutions would've meant fewer filters and other effects - so in "true" hi def it could've looked WORSE!

The telling part of this article is that the writer himself admits that he needs a tool to grab the frame buffer to be able to tell what resolution it's running in! Surely if it was THAT important and noticeable, you should be able to tell just by looking at the fucking game!

It's complete nonsense thing to get even slightly worked up about! Does the game look good? Does it run at a decent framerate? Is it fun? All valid questions.. Does it run in full 720p? Isnt."

No you miss the point, the wayback machine tracks when things are published as new because it captures close to that date as an internet spider.

Yes comments from old articles match up, but the entire veracity of the article to be what those comments actually were written against is zero, because the original source has been removed, so we can't check the veracity and Richard has been able to rewrite and republish +15years later however he wants it to retcon the past.

But this whole discussion was about them childishly wasting 2.5 gens of dev effort to meet arbitrary resolutions policed by DF/beyond3d, which Bungie's response more than proves, so pretty sure this discussion has concluded

 

[FireFly]

No you miss the point, the wayback machine tracks when things are published as new because it captures close to that date as an internet spider.

Yes comments from old articles match up, but the entire veracity of the article to be what those comments actually were written against is zero, because the original source has been removed, so we can't check the veracity and Richard has been able to rewrite and republish +15years later however he wants it to retcon the past.

You change your story every post. You said the article "was actually first published in 2023 going by the wayback machine". Now you seem to claim that actually the article was published in 2009, but Rich revised (republished) it later. Except that the act of "republishing" an article in this case can just mean putting it in a place where a robot can trawl it. So it could simply mean the removal/alteration of a robots.txt file by the site administrator. Rich or someone at Eurogamer is guilty of the terrible sin of allowing more of their articles to be seen on the Wayback machine.

But this whole discussion was about them childishly wasting 2.5 gens of dev effort to meet arbitrary resolutions policed by DF/beyond3d, which Bungie's response more than proves, so pretty sure this discussion has concluded

So rather than admitting you were possibly mistaken about DF being the source, you simply change your claim to include Beyond3D!

And the proof of Bungie being influenced by (now) Beyond3D is them defending their choices:

"This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately 'real' feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels," reckons Bungie.

But funnily enough Halo Reach also just failed to reach native resolution, being rendered at 1152x720. So the terrible consequence of all that criticism Bungie took with Halo 3 for not reaching native resolution was .... deciding to continue to not ship games at native resolution!

 

[Sw0pDiller]

Amy ideas when ps5 pro hardware is in hands of some journalists. My purchase needs validation! I want to know real world perf gains.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You change your story every post. You said the article "was actually first published in 2023 going by the wayback machine". Now you seem to claim that actually the article was published in 2009, but Rich revised (republished) it later. Except that the act of "republishing" an article in this case can just mean putting it in a place where a robot can trawl it. So it could simply mean the removal/alteration of a robots.txt file by the site administrator. Rich or someone at Eurogamer is guilty of the terrible sin of allowing more of their articles to be seen on the Wayback machine.


So rather than admitting you were possibly mistaken about DF being the source, you simply change your claim to include Beyond3D!

And the proof of Bungie being influenced by (now) Beyond3D is them defending their choices:

"This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately 'real' feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels," reckons Bungie.

But funnily enough Halo Reach also just failed to reach native resolution, being rendered at 1152x720. So the terrible consequence of all that criticism Bungie took with Halo 3 for not reaching native resolution was .... deciding to continue to not ship games at native resolution!

Last attempt.

None of the info that has a wayback mirror date years apart from when it is claimed to be published has veracity.
Richard has removed the bulk of DF stuff and altered ,and republished things he wants to recon 15years later and all pre 2007 stuff has been nuked.
I trust my own memory from back then of what I read at the time over removed content, altered/republished beyond3d or eurogamer links.

The original point (about DF/beyond3d) was proven, even if you want to obfuscate it or suggest I didn't callout both in my first claim, because even after Bungie saying what they said, they compromised in Reach to get that all important 720(p) horizontal line number that Richard regularly used to downplay the 360 missing the mark he so happily beat PS3 games for missing, and then fast forward to Halo 4 and they compromised from their Halo 3 position and spent that extra resource on reaching 720p native because anything less by that stage was a marketing failure for AAA games.

 

[Jibran#one]

I've said it before and I'll say it again worse than the ps5 pro price is the fanboys who try to justify it.
Upscaling quality is usually judged by how its handling motion lets see the end product and see how it fares

 

[FireFly]

Last attempt.

None of the info that has a wayback mirror date years apart from when it is claimed to be published has veracity.
Richard has removed the bulk of DF stuff and altered ,and republished things he wants to recon 15years later and all pre 2007 stuff has been nuked.
I trust my own memory from back then of what I read at the time over removed content, altered/republished beyond3d or eurogamer links.

The original point (about DF/beyond3d) was proven, even if you want to obfuscate it or suggest I didn't callout both in my first claim, because even after Bungie saying what they said, they compromised in Reach to get that all important 720(p) horizontal line number that Richard regularly used to downplay the 360 missing the mark he so happily beat PS3 games for missing, and then fast forward to Halo 4 and they compromised from their Halo 3 position and spent that extra resource on reaching 720p native because anything less by that stage was a marketing failure for AAA games.

Well, you specifically tried to argue that DF, not Beyond3D was the source for the pixel counting and with VF5 claimed to be 99% sure it was Rich.

You also tried to claim that the 2009 article was first published in 2023, when the comments on the article indicate it existed in at least similar form from 2009. I don't see why it is unreasonable to hold you to claims that were made only a few posts ago.

Your latest post is more reasonable, but I look at it like this, to the neutral observer, what does the evidence you provide prove?

Does an article not existing on the Wayback machine until 2023 prove it was "retconned"? No, at most it proves that the article was not added until later, for whatever reason, be it innocent or nefarious.

Does Bungie's reply to the Halo 3 resolution reports "prove" that these reports influenced future development decisions? No, it proves that Bungie was aware of the reports. It may or may not have had any affect.

Does Bungie's decision to increase the resolution of Halo Reach, prove that this was due to posters on Beyond3D or comments by Rich? Well, we know that the original resolution restriction was due to the double buffer HDR solution which Bungie abandoned for Reach, while still seemingly getting equivalent results. So was the decision to abandon it after additional dev work showing it was not needed, which would have happened anyway? Or did Bungie specifically undertake the work after hearing Rich's comments? You haven't provided any evidence on this point so I think a neutral observer would remain open minded.

 

[MP!]

DLAA is not DLSS

 

[SomeGit]

This guy's lunacy never ceases to impress me, so now Richard is nuking his context to avoid being called out, by a conspiracy that the only person that is pushing is him.
Brilliant, but the WEB ARCHIVE!!!!1

Yeah because websites don't change, Eurogamer changed their URL schema multiple times since 2007, you can see it in the wayback machine.
Before it was http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=XXXXX, after that in 2013 they changed it to https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article-title and in 2022 they changed to its current schema, each time redirecting it.

You can even see old captures from 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20130707084206/https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/vf5-as-good-on-360, and even then you can even read all of his articles and find out that yes, no content was removed. And no article was rewritten, and why would he rewrite it?
Only a madmen could even come up with this "conspiracy".

 

[FireFly]

This guy's lunacy never ceases to impress me, so now Richard is nuking his context to avoid being called out, by a conspiracy that the only person that is pushing is him.
Brilliant, but the WEB ARCHIVE!!!!1

Yeah because websites don't change, Eurogamer changed their URL schema multiple times since 2007, you can see it in the wayback machine.
Before it was http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=XXXXX, after that in 2013 they changed it to https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article-title and in 2022 they changed to its current schema, each time redirecting it.

You can even see old captures from 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20130707084206/https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/vf5-as-good-on-360, and even then you can even read all of his articles and find out that yes, no content was removed. And no article was rewritten, and why would he rewrite it?
Only a madmen could even come up with this "conspiracy".

Thanks. I persisted and managed to find the original article from 2009, archived only 3 days after it came out.

Not so High Definition | DigitalFoundry

Eurogamer is the largest independent gaming website in Europe, providing news, reviews, previews, and more.

web.archive.org

I compared the text with the current version using a diffchecker and guess what, absolutely no differences were found. So PaintTinJr's claims about the articled being rectconned were – as expected – complete rubbish.

 

[Gaiff]

So PaintTinJr's claims about the articled being rectconned were – as expected – complete rubbish.

Was there ever any doubt? Someone claiming DF was responsible for shifting resolution targets at an industry-wide scale shouldn’t ever be taken seriously.

 

[twilo99]

bro pls

 

[yogaflame]

The game play of games develop by from Software like Bloodborne, Sekiro, Elden Ring, and Dark soul are excellent but to be honest they are pretty bad on the technical side. I hope with the help of PSSR ML, it will help this games to achieve 60 fps and at 4k.

 

[Thebonehead]

Last attempt.

None of the info that has a wayback mirror date years apart from when it is claimed to be published has veracity.
Richard has removed the bulk of DF stuff and altered ,and republished things he wants to recon 15years later and all pre 2007 stuff has been nuked.
I trust my own memory from back then of what I read at the time over removed content, altered/republished beyond3d or eurogamer links.

The original point (about DF/beyond3d) was proven, even if you want to obfuscate it or suggest I didn't callout both in my first claim, because even after Bungie saying what they said, they compromised in Reach to get that all important 720(p) horizontal line number that Richard regularly used to downplay the 360 missing the mark he so happily beat PS3 games for missing, and then fast forward to Halo 4 and they compromised from their Halo 3 position and spent that extra resource on reaching 720p native because anything less by that stage was a marketing failure for AAA games.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Thanks. I persisted and managed to find the original article from 2009, archived only 3 days after it came out.

Not so High Definition | DigitalFoundry

Eurogamer is the largest independent gaming website in Europe, providing news, reviews, previews, and more.

web.archive.org

I compared the text with the current version using a diffchecker and guess what, absolutely no differences were found. So PaintTinJr's claims about the articled being rectconned were – as expected – complete rubbish.

From your link lots of other articles from that actual time became available, but not with article_id's like SomeGit said they would before 2013, and instead had the new format, hmm?

and it looks like the VF5b info was from Eurogamer, but not Richard, I must have read it in the review comments back at the time(03/2007) which predates beyond3d's list by 9 months or so, so a detail from a player in the comments, but by the same token the review does take time out to discuss resolutions as important to the review.

Virtua Fighter 5 Review - PlayStation 3 - Page 2 | Eurogamer.net

Page 2 of 2. Page 1Low PunchAnd that's your lot - which leaves a rather gaping hole, of course, a gaping hole shaped a bit like a network socket. VF5...

web.archive.org

On a side note.....1080p is "sort of" supported, at least on Jap and US copies..
Using the newly accessible scaler in the PS3, a 960x1080 res is rendered (and scaled horizontally) if a 720p display is not detected, but it supports 1080i (lot of HD CRTs are like this in the US....main reason for the inclusion of this, otherwise the game downscales to 480 like earlier titles)..
1080p screen owners over here can see this if they disable 720p on their PS3's in the XMB.....no impact on frame-rate or anything like that, but to me it looks slightly better at its native 720p (little less aliasing visible)

however it would seem the pixel counting was wrong for this game, or the game got patched, between Jap/US and PAL release, as beyond3d had it as 1024x1024, and that 960x1080 value is being counted by a TV input before scaling and displaying at 1080p

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

I was curious and went looking back on DF comparisons of PS5 resolution/fidelity modes with a 4090 DLAA max settings, and preliminary comparison suggests to me that PSSR is potentially a vastly superior solution. I gathered the limited samples from today's Cerny tech talk where base PS5 fidelity mode was compared to PS5 Pro that doubled frame rate in addition to improving effective resolution. For the DF comparisons, I have Spider-Man Miles Morales and Horizon Forbidden West where, again, Alex compares 4K DLAA max settings image quality to PS5 fidelity modes (unfortunately, DF didn't use Fidelity mode for their Ratchet PC analysis). I won't point out the differences, instead I'll let you be the judge and see which ML upscaling technique appears to provide more impressive uplifts. Of course this is early days and I'm not claiming PSSR is definitively better, as 3rd party games might be a completely different scenario. But I still think the possibility of even first party games on PS5 Pro besting top of the line GPUs in image quality is a big deal.

PS5 Pro PSSR vs PS5 Fidelity Mode (Spider-Man 2/Ratchet):

4090 DLAA Max Settings vs PS5 Fidelity Mode (Spider-Man Miles Morales):

4090 DLAA Max Settings vs PS5 Fidelity Mode (Horizon Forbidden West):

 

[OverHeat]

ChiefDada where is your god now?