A bit too much, don’t you think? We should not escalate like this.
And yet even on PC it’s impossible to increase some of the settings like the RT reflections (which were strikingly low resolution for what PC games usually go for). So whatever it was meant by that clause the result is that other versions were capped. Dusk golem reports and next gen and last gen versions having exactly the same settings except for raytracing is also a good indication of capcom going out of their way to ensure parity.
That’s the thing. The end result is that the game was compromised on other platforms. From xbone to SX the same settings are applied (and initially the game wouldn’t even come to last gen). And the only visual difference outside of resolution (which is raytracing) is also super limited on PC, offering the lowest resolution of any game that implement RT on Pc thus far.
Now, we may argue whether or not this result was caused by the clause. But the result is what it is. Capcom forced all the versions to be as close as possible.
Moreover it’s been proved time and time again that Sony gatekeeps technical improvements from other platforms, if even Phil threw a shade openly with Destiny 2. They force the hand of devs/pubs with everything they can like a thugh, we discovered years after the beginning of crossplay debate that they enforced a payment from publishers and devs who wanted it and it’s not a coincidence most of the games they have marketing with don’t have it (I think only COD is the exception but that’s a case of too big to stop), they even succeeded into stopping crossplay for F76 with Xbox marketing (Todd didn’t take it well), forcing japanese devs (mostly, but not the only ones) into compromising Xbox/pc ports by simply asking lead development time/effort is a child’s play in comparison.
I’m saying the suggestion that the clause is the reason is false. The clause is not the reason for the minor technical limitations of the PC version. There are other reasons why the game would not have higher settings even on PC, like the fact it is using photogrammetry for its geometry, which means they are limited in what LOD options are available for storing in their BVH for RT.
1 Like
That deal didn’t have anything to do with the technical aspects. It was all surrounding marketing and the DLC. The 1X version ran at a native 4K with improved buffer resolution for techniques like lightning. So the hardware was well utilized.
This thread isn’t for conspiracy theories, so please don’t spread them here.
Start of the gen + COVID you aren’t seeing games yet that are really using the new hardware
There’s a clause forcing technical parity, and the game was paired back on all platforms. Those 2 are facts that can be verified. How is simple stating them a conspiracy?
1 Like
I can’t find the article since 4 years have passed now, but I clearly remember Phil saying something similar to “I don’t like when commercial deals compromise technical advancements” and then Bungie CEO answered few days after denying everything. It’s completely believable that Sony deal with PS4/Pro being lead version indirectly gimped Xbox version, it happens everyday with many games.
The Capcom deal isn’t secret. We know what it says. We read it. It says anything PS5 can technically do wrt tech features should be in the game if said feature appears on any other platform. It does not limit anything for other platforms.
Again, XD, I said we all know what means being lead development version, expecially with japanese devs. They even botched Scarlet Nexus on Xbox which has marketing deal, come on.
You’re wrong. Read the leaked document again. It specifies the technical parity is “subject to material platform limitations” only, i.e. if PS5 can handle a tech feature that version needs to have it in that sku.
https://twitter.com/AlfredLameche/status/1384662376767758336/photo/1
3 Likes
tired of seeing the false narrative that a technical parity clause held all platforms back to only what the PS5 could handle. thanks
I understand why ppl have that impression due to the headlines when it was first made known, but the details make clear that was a misunderstanding. We should all update our thinking to reflect that. 
None of that is true. That is only how some interpreted it over the internet. Microsoft has similar clauses in their contracts with 3rd party studios. It’s not to limit anything on a technical level to but to ensure the developers try to best utilize their platform as much as possible. There is no proof the game was paired back on all platforms because of this clause. Please stop with this rubbish.
I would hold off on pushing this unless you can find any proof. It wouldn’t make any sense considering how hard they pushed the One X version. There was nothing gimped about that version. The only thing the Sony deal did was prevent Bungie from talking about the One X version before launch.
2 Likes
1 Like
I remembered well:
More specifically:
"I’m wondering about the situation you’re going to get with big third-party games where Sony has done a marketing deal. Do you anticipate performance and image quality parity between PS4 Pro and Xbox One X for those games because of some parity requirement on Sony’s part, or do you anticipate the Xbox One X version will look significantly better and perform significantly better? I’m thinking of the Call of Dutys, the FIFAs, the Battlefields.
Phil Spencer: I know exactly what you’re talking about. Here’s what I’ll say…
Honest answer, Phil.
Phil Spencer: I will give you an honest answer. Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever built, and this fall it will be the most powerful console in the market. There’s nothing technically that would keep any game a console game maker is building who wants to take advantage of the capability here from making Xbox One X the very best version of every one of those games.
I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play.
I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals. But this, clearly, from a technical perspective, is the most powerful console by quite a wide margin. So, when I stood on-stage and I said this will be the best place to play all those games, there’s nothing technically that would keep any developer from not making that true."
The only thing I can’t find is Pete Parsons (Bungie CEO) interview-answer, but the concept of gimped ports for marketing deals is very well hinted there.
While I would definitely lean toward the interpretation you provided, that is actually some pretty vague legalese. We would need more than that contract to know how it is meant to be interpreted (possibly differently depending on the feature or performance target at hand). Without knowing how Capcom interprets it in giving direction to their employees, likely driven by past clarification from Sony, we don’t know the nuance enough to say for sure how it applies across different features and/or performance characteristics…which is where things get a whole lot more complex in defining material limitations.
I agree that what we have isn’t enough evidence to prove that there is contractual obligation to force parity. Therefore, it definitely should not be pushed as a narrative. But it definitely doesn’t disprove it entirely either without more information.
Appreciate you finding this but this doesn’t hint, insinuate, or say anything about Destiny 2 or any other game being held back due to any deal. He even specifically says “I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.” How can he hint at something he openly admits to know nothing about? He’s saying it would not be good if it happened, not that it is happening. There’s a difference there.
So really guys, please don’t run wild with concerns or ideas that holding back games technically is something to worry about. Destiny 2 wasn’t gimped and I can’t think of any recent game that was either. Let’s try to keep this topic about the actual technical make up video games and game technology. Not theories of games being held back for whatever reason.
The only game that I can seriously think was gimped was PUBG on the One X not having 60fps at one point due to concerns of competitive balance vs Xbox One owners.
What a dumb discourse that was.