Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Measuring the Xbox One Against PCs With Titanfall

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the now-you're-thinking-with-death-robots dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 377

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week, Respawn Entertainment launched Titanfall, a futuristic first-person shooter with mechs that has been held up as the poster child for the Xbox One. The Digital Foundry blog took the opportunity to compare how the game plays on the Xbox One to its performance on a well-appointed PC. Naturally, the PC version outperforms, but the compromises are bigger than you'd expect for a newly-released console. For example, it runs at an odd resolution (1408x792), the frame rate 'clearly isn't anywhere near locked' to 60fps, and there's some unavoidable screen tear. Reviews for the game are generally positive — RPS says most of the individual systems in Titanfall are fun, but the forced multiplayer interaction is offputting. Giant Bomb puts it more succinctly: 'Titanfall is a very specific game built for a specific type of person.' Side note: the game has a 48GB install footprint on PCs, owing largely to 35GB of uncompressed audio."

cancel ×

377 comments

Glorious PC Master Race (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497319)

Filthy console peasants never seem to learn.

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497387)

It's not just about frame rate either. A keyboard-mouse player will always be able to defeat a joystick player easily.

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (3, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 4 months ago | (#46497397)

A keyboard-mouse player will always be able to defeat a joystick player easily.

Not if they're both sitting on the couch.

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46497421)

Why would a keyboard player sit on a couch?

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (4, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46497517)

To make it impossible for him to play in full capacity so the joystick player gets an advantage.

Hahaa...

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 months ago | (#46497615)

Why would a keyboard player sit on a couch?

Because it's comfy. A TV dinner tray makes for a good place to put the keyboard (and mouse too, if you need one).

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#46497635)

A chair is as comfy as a sofa, unless you have a very wide butt.

Only children and people with very wide butts play games in the living room. Proper adult gamers sit at a desk.

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497633)

Put the lappy/netbook/wireless keyboard on your lap, the mouse besides you on the couch and proceed to beat the sh?t out of any controller bound adversary, especially if the game is a proper FPS instead of a newfangled "time and money, no skill required" pap.

Re: Glorious PC Master Race (2)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 4 months ago | (#46497895)

I've found trackballs work far better than a mouse for FPS...and less space needed too!

Re:Glorious PC Master Race (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497473)

Filthy console peasants never seem to learn.

It doesn't matter if you use a PC or a console, from MS' perspective, you are the product.

Microsoft is using your data to target political ads on Xbox Live

Microsoft is trying to persuade politicians to take out targeted ads on Xbox Live, Skype, MSN and other company platforms as midterm elections begin heating up around the country. To plug the idea, Microsoft officials handed out promotional materials Thursday at CPAC, the annual conference for conservatives.

It's the latest move by tech companies to seize a piece of the lucrative political ad market. The ads, which would appear on the Xbox Live dashboard and other Microsoft products, combine Microsoft user IDs and other public data to build a profile of Xbox users. Campaigns can then blast ads to selected demographic categories, or to specific congressional districts. And if the campaign brings its own list of voter e-mail addresses, Microsoft can match the additional data with individual customer accounts for even more accurate voter targeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ [washingtonpost.com] ... [washingtonpost.com]

MS marketing just likes to pretend they're not so they can keep their nasty competitor-bashing Scroogling campaigns going. This is a very dirty, unethical company, people. Don't trust anything they say or do.

Of course, Slashdot won't post this is news, because Microsoft pays them not to.

Re:Glorious PC Master Race (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497949)

This was modded "insightful"? Not funny or flamebait? Haha oh wow.

35 GB of uncompressed audio? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497323)

Will someone more aware of the rationale behind this tell me that this is not as retarded as it sounds?

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497333)

It was so that lower spec PCs can run it.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 4 months ago | (#46497353)

That doesn't make any sense. Why not offer an install option to decompress the audio if that is the case?

I could see them wanting lossless audio, but FLAC isn't very computationally expensive, and fuck we have so many cores these days you could just dedicate one of them to this and only this and you wouldn't lose anything. It is also quite literally impossible to improve audio quality beyond 48/16 FLAC if you have normal human ears, and it costs all of nothing to implement.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (-1, Troll)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 4 months ago | (#46497459)

Aren't you the guy who spammed the weird butthole stuff all over slashdot a couple months ago?

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497485)

The average machine DOESN'T have abundant cores to be able to sacrifice one to audio. The average home gaming machine has 2-4 cores. The game is not well optimised at this point and is extremely taxing on even good machines, why sacrifice more performance when the least stressed component (disk space) is an abundant resource even on most of the worst specced machines.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

JazzLad (935151) | about 4 months ago | (#46497677)

Spoken like a non-gamer. My space on my SSD is my bottleneck, why should I have to use a slower HDD just because MS thinks gaming rigs are slow?

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (3)

Narishma (822073) | about 4 months ago | (#46497915)

It's not Microsoft.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 4 months ago | (#46497983)

Some people's gaming rigs are slow - or at least slower than yours. The alternative to requiring that you use an HDD is to increase the minimum specs so that people with slower computers are prevented from being able to play the game at all.

Why should other people have to suffer because you decided to make the trade-off between speed and disk space?

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 months ago | (#46498059)

Spoken like someone who thinks his situation is everyone's. I know a lot of players with very under-specced rigs. And no SSD.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 4 months ago | (#46497771)

"least stressed component (disk space) is an abundant resource even on most of the worst specced machines."

Welcome to 2010 and later, when most mid-high end gaming rigs have a large HDD for storing miscellaneous stuff, and a small SSD for the OS and game installs. Or are running off SSDs only.

48 GB is unacceptable.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46498015)

Vote with your wallet.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497925)

I have ~660GB of space on my computer all told. Why would I want to waste 35G of it on a single game.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 4 months ago | (#46498109)

Not saying that they're absolutely right, but there are a few elements to keep in mind:
-While playing back a single FLAC (or another lossless format) isn't too expensive, games aren't music players. When you have 128 FLACs playing back at the same time, the dynamics change.
-The game's minimum spec includes dual-core CPUs. You can't dedicate an entire core to sound in that situation, yet I doubt they wanted to specifically code their engine to behave differently for dual-cores.

Now, I also heard that their sound assets were particularly inefficient (ie. repeated sounds, looping sounds being repeated multiple times in the track, etc.), so that might also account for some of the size.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497509)

So it will now stutter on lower end PCs because of large amounts of audio data being constantly loaded from a slow low end hard disk ? As far as I know, Titanfall uses a modified Source engine, and lag/stuttering while assets are being loaded from disk is a common problem with that engine. Ideally, they could have included audio in two lossy formats, for example in ADPCM (which compresses 16-bit PCM by a ratio of 4, and costs very little CPU time to decode) and Vorbis. It would still take up less than half the space used by uncompressed 16-bit files, and for users of low end PCs, ADPCM artifacts are the least of their worries.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 4 months ago | (#46497655)

>>(35GB of uncompressed audio)
> It was so that lower spec PCs can run it.
OMG have you thought your answer through? that would be effective only for a PC which is powerful enough to manage the graphics and engine and does not spare the cycles for audio.

Given that a 166mhz pc from twenty years ago effortlessly decoded mp3s in realtime, that in the meantime people have improved decoders, encoders, formats that audio playing is parallelizable, that uncompressed audio requires uncompressed IO, I think "aliens wanted that" is a better explanation. The best of course being that a 45gb game is less piratable than a 10gb one.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (2)

krakass (935403) | about 4 months ago | (#46497741)

OMG have you thought your question through? He got it from the article.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497947)

Pirates will still compress the Audio, and the end user will decompress the audio after you get it. That what pirated Dreamcast gane used to do. Compress the audio, and the Pirate would decompress the audio, inject the audio back into the ISO (or what ever format they used) and burn the game to a disk and play.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Informative)

Shinobi (19308) | about 4 months ago | (#46497341)

It was claimed that uncompressing the audio would tie up an entire core. The large amount is also because they stupidly install all languages at once, even if you select a specific language at installation time.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Insightful)

vipw (228) | about 4 months ago | (#46497855)

That's the claim, but the probable truth is that it's intentional bloat to reduce piracy.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497879)

Watch for the rip that replaces all the audio files with 0 byte empty sound files...

C'mon, that'd be the lamest idea in anti-piracy since always-online.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 4 months ago | (#46497905)

yeah, it IS microsoft after all...I'd bet a bunch of it is just "junk" data to fill up all that space...

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46498087)

It's not Microsoft you imbecile. It's developed by Respawn which an independent studio and published by EA through their partners program. They have a deal with MS to make it exclusive for exactly one title. A Titanfall 2 would most likely be on both platforms (PS4 and XB1) and would not necessarily even be published by EA.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 4 months ago | (#46498127)

Huh? Developer: Respawn. Publisher: EA. Only thing Microsoft does is handle the servers, because EA uses Azure. But don't let that get in the way of some nice Microsoft trolling, eh?

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (3, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 4 months ago | (#46497965)

That's the claim, but the probable truth is that it's intentional bloat to reduce piracy.

Considering that both the pirated and legitimate versions of the game has to be downloaded, how would forcing it to be a large download prevent piracy? It would make things harder to distribute the pirated version on optical media, but who does that these days?

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46498101)

Not to mention it's an always online game with server authentication for which no game server is publicly available.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46498137)

So, is it time to go back to the good old times of ripping audio out of pirated games yet?

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497351)

Will someone more aware of the rationale behind this tell me that this is not as retarded as it sounds?

"Respawn Entertainment, the game's developer, claims the uncompressed audio was included for the benefit of slower PCs. "A two-core machine would dedicate a huge chunk of one core to just decompressing audio," says Richard Baker, Respawn's Lead Engineer. "We couldn't dedicate those resources to audio." The Xbox One decodes audio in hardware, so it has no such limitation."

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

sven_eee (196651) | about 4 months ago | (#46497357)

"A two-core machine would dedicate a huge chunk of one core to just decompressing audio,"
Maybe they should use a better suited codec/compression, there are so many to choose from these days.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497365)

Will someone more aware of the rationale behind this tell me that this is not as retarded as it sounds?

"Respawn Entertainment, the game's developer, claims the uncompressed audio was included for the benefit of slower PCs. "A two-core machine would dedicate a huge chunk of one core to just decompressing audio," says Richard Baker, Respawn's Lead Engineer. "We couldn't dedicate those resources to audio." The Xbox One decodes audio in hardware, so it has no such limitation."

Good thing disk I/O doesn't take any processing power!

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497427)

It does you insensitive clod, my DMA controller is on a caribbean cruise currently.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 4 months ago | (#46497499)

It's not like some OS have difficulties dealing with large I/O operations, freezing processes in the meantime.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 months ago | (#46497489)

So what they claw back from the CPU overhead of decoding MP3, they lose by hogging the IO and increased memory use (and paging). Sounds a pretty weak rationalisation really. Besides, if it really were an issue for dual core machines, then they could decode and cache the audio on those machines rather than inflicting this stupid overhead on every machine.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497401)

Because this is 1995 and my 486DX2@66Mhz can only play mono MP3s.

Aw wait, its 2014, hardware decoding, and there is no audio that will eat more than 1% of the weakest core.

Bloatware is bloated.

Re: 35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497619)

Because this is 1995 and my 486DX2@66Mhz can only play mono MP3s.

Aw wait, its 2014, hardware decoding, and there is no audio that will eat more than 1% of the weakest core.

Bloatware is bloated.

Well, they don't do this on the XBox version, so seem to be a conscious choice, not bloat.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497513)

It is as retarded as it sounds. There is absolutely no justification for it in this is this day and age. Using look ahead decompression and caching would be a net equal, or perhaps a smidgeon higher CPU usage. It means they are in effect wasting DMA bandwidth and CPU cache by streaming uncompressed files.

I'm a DSP guy by trade, and it's one thing that's obvious - game programmers don't know how to do sound properly.

They continue to insist on driving audio by the "main" game engine thread (see Valve's games with looping audio and stutters when things get busy). Or even when they dedicate a thread, they continue to use a push model for sound - when almost all modern audio APIs have agreed that a callback based model is the "correct" way. (The notable exception being OSS which is broken for this reason).

The pro-audio guys have pretty much nailed how you do low latency high priority audio, and the game programmers continue to get it wrong.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497687)

The notable exception being OSS

And ALSA as well, and some of the Windows audio APIs. In any case, it is entirely possible to write well performing audio applications with either approach, it is a myth that the "push model" cannot have low latency. Some may think this is the case because they associate it with old APIs like MME on Windows that perform poorly simply because they are badly implemented. Also, quite often when an application uses a "callback" type of interface, since the developers do not want it to run entirely in an audio callback, it somewhere has a layer that converts it to the "push" model, which defeats even the theoretical advantages the callback based API could have had (it is particularly stupid when there are push->callback->push layers of abstractions on top of each other, like with some higher level audio libraries on Linux).

Not using threads to avoid stuttering is a separate issue.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497797)

And ALSA as well, and some of the Windows audio APIs.

No, ALSA is callback based and out of the various APIs I've tried is the one that gets it right (lets you choose your scheduling granularity and how you organise your DSP threads). Windows, yes, they have finally come around though with their recent APIs.

it is a myth that the "push model" cannot have low latency.

How do you know when your data will be output? What happens if something gets scheduling priority between when you try to push and the queueing into the audio ring buffer?

No, the push model is broken - as is the stupid insistence that "everything is a file" that OSS uses.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 4 months ago | (#46498163)

That's sadly a byproduct of how game engines are developed, I'm afraid. For the most part, game engines originate from graphics engine (so just graphics and then stuff tacked onto it), which means the vast majority of programmers working on the engine will be either generalist programmers or graphics programmers. In both cases, it's unlikely that they'll know how to deal with audio in any real capacity (I know I don't), so they'll use the same model that graphics uses: pushing commands.

Now, I'm sure that the larger devs have dedicated sound engineers, but I'm not sure just how much leeway they have with designing (and most likely, scrapping and completely redoing) the sound engine. It's also likely that their bosses will come from either a managerial background or a generalist programming or graphics programming background. Game development could use more specialists and needs to give them the flexibility they need.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (2)

Arker (91948) | about 4 months ago | (#46497593)

Yeah, it's as retarded as it sounds.

Official explanation is that older machines were using too much CPU decoding the audio. In this case the fix could be worse than the problem, because now you run the risk of saturating disk and memory IO. Frying pan, fire, hah.

Might have been wise to shop around for codec/decoder combinations that worked properly instead.

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (1)

fatp (1171151) | about 4 months ago | (#46497651)

Make it as bloated as possilbe

Re:35 GB of uncompressed audio? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497891)

My guess would be that they could not use the same compression codec used on XBox due to licensing issues, found that out only briefly before release date and didn't have time to redo it for the PC version and all they could get done in time was to pump the uncompressed audio files out.

I was wondering about that... (5, Informative)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 4 months ago | (#46497363)

Whatever the rationale for the uncompressed audio, I've got a 3.20GHz hexacore, and it has trouble sometimes. A couple rounds I've had the audio completely cock up from what I can only describe as it trying to play too many sounds at once...then just playing broken bits...then completely breaking down, requiring me to tough it out until the audio is reinitialized with the start of the next round.

I'd also like to note that it took me about 45 minutes to download the whole game, and a whole hour and a half for the installation...most of which was spent extracting the audio.

That said, the game is abso-fucking-lutely amazing and I love it. I need to fix the cooler on my other 6870 so I can put it back in, SLI the suckers, and turn the graphics up to 11. :D

Re:I was wondering about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497417)

Is this the end result of hardware accelerated audio being removed from DirectX?

Re:I was wondering about that... (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46497457)

Why do you need hardware acceleration for something that is so computationally insignificant?

Re:I was wondering about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497527)

It's becoming less insignificant - for a long time we've had odd effects with audio, like being able to 'hear' interactions the other side of a barrier as if you had direct line of sight (it does make a difference), echoes that don't match up with the surroundings, and so on. To give a fairly recent example, there are points in Bioshock Infinite where you can sit in a doorway and sounds occurring 'outside' are distorted as if you were sitting in the middle of a bunker - the audio engine uses some very basic logic for that kind of scenario because anything more complex *becomes* computationally expensive very quickly. Especially when you're chucking around thousands of samples at the same time.

Even without much processing, Planetside 2 suffered huge performance issues with audio at launch due the sheer number of samples involved. The engine today renders and sounds fewer participants in a battle (carefully selected to try and avoid gameplay problems), which has reduced the scale of the problem at the cost of immersion and PS2's unique battlefield ambience.

Sound is really the one thing in a modern AAA title that's most likely to remind you you're in a game.

The One dedicates some GPU power to audio (for use as a DSP?) to try and improve things in this area. We might see studios starting to employ similar tricks on the PC at some point. It's more difficult to advertise fantastic audio than it is fantastic graphics (screenshots), so it's likely to come from an indie

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

Narishma (822073) | about 4 months ago | (#46497993)

The Xbox One doesn't use the GPU for audio, it has a dedicated DSP for it in the SoC.

Re:I was wondering about that... (2)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#46498049)

And yet none of those problems are fixed by using uncompressed audio.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about 4 months ago | (#46497745)

Decompression is, in general terms, computationally insignificant. However, the hardware acceleration support in DX was not for decompression, it was for 3D spatialization and effects. And those are NOT computationally insignificant for interactive scenes, especially not when you have a significant number of audio sources.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

mikael (484) | about 4 months ago | (#46497833)

It's not simply slurping up a sound file and sending it to the sound card. Audio is post-processed in the same way that textures and graphics are. Effects such as echo (reflection shaders), reverberation, radio communication. There was a previous discussion related to the need for games to need to use segments with both data and execution permission.

Re:I was wondering about that... (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46497463)

I wonder how much your audio problems are the result of having to load the audio files and juggle them around in RAM? Where's it get the samples from? I hope not load them on the fly, and at the same time I hope not pre-load them.

There are many cases where compression can actually speed up things as reading and writing huge data is more expensive than doing a bit of maths on the much smaller result.

Re:I was wondering about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497531)

The performance problems might be more related to cache misses and thread overhead than actual computation. The CPU is only part of the problem. Still, reading reviews it seems consoles and middle end machines struggle at points with the frame rate dropping to single digits, so I wonder if it really was that much of a concern compared to other stuff or just a let's do anything we can to avoid 0 fps.

Re:I was wondering about that... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497471)

Played the beta,

Your wrong, the game is shit.

Re-spawn should be called "re-hashed the same shit that they fucked up after COD4 because they turned it into a turd fest for consoles, and reduced 32 players down to 12 for no fucking reason and then added fucking bots as the game play is boring while you wait to find an actual player"

Re:I was wondering about that... (2)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 4 months ago | (#46497595)

A couple rounds I've had the audio completely cock up from what I can only describe as it trying to play too many sounds at once...then just playing broken bits...then completely breaking down, requiring me to tough it out until the audio is reinitialized with the start of the next round.

Sounds like the audio is running on a separate thread.
Most likely, the main audio parts are loaded at launch. The thread will then destroy and load current audio while the game is running, basically hot swapping.
The reason for the corruption is probably due to failed create/destroy requests, and didnt complete in the required time for the thread.
Either that, or they haven't made it truly thread safe. Could even be a simple case of the audio play request has been made and completed before the audio was destroyed and loaded into memory, hence, casing the corruption in audio playback.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46497597)

So, using onboard sound or a PCIe/PCI soundcard? If it's the first case, it'll most likely be a driver issue. And since most onboard solutions are realtek, you get what you pay for. Complete shit. If it's the latter, you can probably narrow it down to one of three things: Something wrong with the engine/driver. Incorrect PCI/e latency, an extra "feature" of the driver like various DSP modes causing an issue.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46497613)

That's a software issue. The last time I had trouble getting enough processing power to decode mp3 files it was because I was using a 586 - I was too much of a cheapskate to get an Intel Pentium 60 to do that task. Even then it was fine in mono.

Re:I was wondering about that... (2)

Thanosius (3519547) | about 4 months ago | (#46497617)

Impressive. It would take me just under 24 hours of constant, full-speed downloading before I'd manage to get 35GB.

Fuck you and your post internet connections! I say this in the nicest way possible of course, but it surprises me how much people under-appreciate what they have in terms of bandwidth.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#46498055)

The download was probably quite a bit smaller as the audio was compressed for download, it then had to be uncompressed for the installation.

Re:I was wondering about that... (1)

krakass (935403) | about 4 months ago | (#46497755)

I've heard some people are having framerate issues running SLI, so no rush on fixing the fan.

LET ME BE THE ONE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497403)

TitanFAIL !!

Piracy prevention? (4, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46497465)

The cynic in me wonders if the retarded idea of using uncompressed audio and not giving you the option to install just a subset such as the language of interest is some way of attempting to prevent piracy.

Maybe someone had the bright idea that people wouldn't bother trying to pirate that much data.

Maybe I'm just jaded.

Re:Piracy prevention? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 4 months ago | (#46497477)

People will either pirate it as-is, or just compress the audio; another case of making it more desirable than the original version (you won't need 48gigs and it'll sound exactly the same)

Re:Piracy prevention? (4, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46497511)

Pirate groups are known to sometimes work around these issues. In this case they might rip away everything but English and tweak the game to still work. Then they might ship the audio compressed (MP3, for example) and a tool which does the conversion back to RIFF Wave (or whatever the game company is using). During the uncompression, that tool displays some pixel art animation and plays chiptune music, of course. ;)

Re:Piracy prevention? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497553)

Pirate groups are known to sometimes work around these issues. In this case they might rip away everything but English and tweak the game to still work.

If Pirate groups are having to do this kind of cleanup, then they should perhaps look for a job with the manufacturer. Clearly they are in need.

Re:Piracy prevention? (5, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497913)

Pirate groups do a lot of necessary cleanup already. For example, they made it possible to play the latest Sim City at release day, something that was not possible when you bought the game instead of copying it.

Re:Piracy prevention? (0)

TyFoN (12980) | about 4 months ago | (#46497525)

35 GB takes me 47 minutes to download on this 100/100 connection.
Fiber is becoming the standard, so I don't think it would be a big deterrent.

I would actually be more concerned about the space it would hog on my SSD drives ;)

Re:Piracy prevention? (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46497537)

Fiber is becoming the standard,

If you call select fortunate areas in select fortunate cities a standard then by all means. I know people who would breach their monthly download limit just getting this game.

Your type of connection is far from the "standard".

Re:Piracy prevention? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497555)

ah, but perhaps he is not living in the US, so his statement about fiber becoming standard is actually true.

Re:Piracy prevention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497763)

"Standard" does NOT just mean in your little neck of the woods. "Standard" means I can call up my ISP and request a 100/100 fiber connection. "Standard" is not so "Standard".

Re:Piracy prevention? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497903)

I don't know a lot about content copying, but have compression tools gone out of fashion while I was not looking? I'd guess that even if the game itself was uncompressed, crackers would deliver it RAR'ed.

1408x792 (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46497521)

Why the odd 1408x792 resolution?

Re: 1408x792 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497611)

I think the differences aren't due to processing power or whatever statistic just poor programming choices.

Re:1408x792 (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 months ago | (#46497623)

Why the odd 1408x792 resolution?

Presumably that's as far as they could dial it up without having the Xbone choke.

Re:1408x792 (3, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46497671)

Per the article the Xbone is already choking and they are critical of the fact that they have the odd resolution with no real visible benefit while the game is unable to sustain 60fps.

The video is full of image tearing and stuttering.

Re:1408x792 (1)

glasshole (3569269) | about 4 months ago | (#46497627)

I'd guess they tried many combinations and it gave the best perceived quality vs avg frame rate. Odd decision none the less.

Re:1408x792 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497737)

Both dimensions are divisible by 8, so maybe optimisations involving either target render texture sizes or vectorisation needed that.

Re:1408x792 (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497939)

Hmm... doing a factorization, you get 1408 = 2^7*11, 792 = 2^3*3^2*11

GCD would even be 2^3*11, i.e. 88. (resulting in 1408 / 88 = 16 and 792 / 88 = 9, i.e. 16:9).

Doesn't look that odd to me anymore, to be honest.

mod 5down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497621)

ofaster chip [goat.cx]

SSD (1)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 4 months ago | (#46497731)

Man a game like titanfall is for the hardcore gamer, a hardcore gamer worth its salt has a SSD these days. Asking for 35GB of SSD space just for audio is ridiculous.

Re:SSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497813)

A hardcore gamer worth his salt has a SSD for the OS and Aps...and a large internal platter drive for such things as music, movies...and games.

Re:SSD (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46497953)

Erh... I have my SSD exactly FOR games. Why? Because contemporary games don't hold more than their bare minimum in ram, the rest (especially graphics, i.e. textures, map and model meshes, etc) is loaded when needed.

And yes, that stutters on a normal HD.

Re:SSD (1)

quintesse (654840) | about 4 months ago | (#46498019)

Ehm, no, I want the next map to load as fast as possible so the others won't start the next round without me, I *definitely* use my SSD for my games.
Also: gameS, if all of them start asking almost 50GB even my 500GB HDD will quickly fill up

Audio is amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46497793)

That is an absurd amount of space to use for Audio, but on the PC with headphones, I noticed right away that the audio was stunning. especially noticeable during the tutorial level when narrator is speaking.

No... (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 4 months ago | (#46497819)

"compromises are bigger than you'd expect for a newly-released console"

No, they aren't. They are big and that is exactly what I'd expect from a newley released console designed for low power usage and a low price point compared to a gaming rig designed at 2-3x the price and 2-3x the power use.

They were only mildly competitive in the past (like when the 360 was released) because then, most GPUs were not as power hungry (I even had a passively cooled high end gaming card) so the gap between a high end discrete card and the chip in the console was not as large. Plus, consoles were running PowerPC, meaning they could be more powerful for the amount of power they drew, and dramatically optimized. The newer gen x86 consoles are all about lowering development costs and game production costs, at the expense of efficiency and optimization.

sad resolution (4, Insightful)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 4 months ago | (#46497847)

While I wasn't expecting 4k levels of resolution, that these new consoles aren't even pure 1080p/60 is pretty fucking pathetic.

Nice but pointless for me (5, Insightful)

nehumanuscrede (624750) | about 4 months ago | (#46497971)

I have a strong gaming rig and I won't bother with Titanfall for one simple fact: The PC version requires Origin to play it.

I tried it with Battlefield the last Battlefield game and it was such a trainwreck I uninstalled it and tossed the game in the trash before ever getting to play it. It went something like this:

Buy the physical media ( dvd ) install game. Try to play, find out you have to install Origin, cuss, install Origin, register and do all the BS required. Try to play, find out there is a multi GB PATCH to install before I can play, cuss some more, start download ( which takes HOURS coming from their servers ) finally get it all downloaded, try to play, discover my browser opens up instead of the game, Origin now wants to install some plugin to the damn browser. At which point I gave up from sheer anger and uninstalled the entire thing, Origin and all.

I put the Battlefield disc in the microwave then ran it through the shredder resolving to never again touch any game that had an Origin requirement.

So, Titanfall may be the most amazing game ever made but due to the Origin requirement, it is a game I will never play.

Re:Nice but pointless for me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46498039)

Please next time return the disk as it didn't work without requiring to download and install other things that didn't come on the disk. Probably no where on the box did it say you'd have to download more patches before the game would work. If the store doesn't take software returns, do a charge back on your credit card claiming the produce was defective (didn't contain everything needed to run) or didn't work as advertised.

Destroying the disk can be fun, but it doesn't send a message.

It's not the hardware (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 4 months ago | (#46498079)

If you've ever written software that is ported to multiple platforms, you know that the performance of the ported version can only match the original, if serious performance tuning is done. Performance of ported software is not a measure of the hardware, but of the effort put into making it work better.

Drive usage the same on Xbox? (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 4 months ago | (#46498111)

Does the Xbox install use the same amount of space? Considering you have a fixed 500GB and games have to be installed to the drive, I would be slightly upset that one game takes up that much space.

I couldn't imagine trying to do the digital only thing they were trying to push last year. That's so much data being downloaded at once you would probably get flagged as an evil file-sharer by your ISP.

Re:Drive usage the same on Xbox? (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 4 months ago | (#46498145)

I can't edit, so I will reply to myself. It looks like the Xbox install is 'only' 17GB.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...