GTAV "downgrade" On PS4/XBO Just A Glitch, Fixed in 1.10 Patch
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Viva;47445909]Nothing this widespread graphically not to mention everything that was missing were not just acting incorrectly they were flat out gone and all were fairly subtle aspects that to most players would be negligible.
I'm not saying rockstar definitely did it on purpose but i am saying i absolutely wouldn't put it aside them from doing something like this in the name of discrete performance boosts.[/QUOTE]
simply put, there is absolutely no reason for them to do that. they're not under any pressure to improve performance, the current gen version hasn't received any criticisms of performance. on top of that, console players generally care drastically more about graphics than they do about framerate (this only ever seems to change when the framerate is 20 and under). there is no justifiable reason for them to purposely use resources to do this.
[QUOTE=Viva;47445873]Rockstar saying it was a bug doesn't mean it wasn't intentional.
If anything they removed subtle things to get a performance boost thinking no one would notice but then everyone noticed and backpeddling occurred hardcore.[/QUOTE]
I find this harder to believe and more unlikely. The graphical downgrades were fairly obvious. Do you really think they would think they could do that and just get away with it without anybody noticing? I don't. I think it's far more likely something broke something else and so the game looked worse on accident, quickly fixed, move on. And yes, you are leaning on conspiracy theory here pretty fucking hard.
some people just want to hate something so much that logic flies in the face of confirmation bias
[QUOTE=Viva;47446050]For that matter, i honestly want to know how adding a car with higher damage resistance would screw over car damage for every vehicle. Like if i'm wrong in what i said above about it, i want to know why i'm wrong, you rated and moved a long and i keep getting ratings with no one explaining. If i'm wrong tell me why i'm wrong i'd actually like to know this.[/QUOTE]
I can't talk for GTA but from experience this can happen, see: Company of heroes
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47446206]Can't blame people for being cynical after the shitshow in gaming that was 2014[/QUOTE]
There's a big difference between being cynical and outright thinking developers are doing shit like this on purpose.
It's a stupid risk to take. If anyone ever got wind that it was done on purpose for no good reason other than "haha! we can annoy them and maybe make some money! *twiddles moustache*" they'd never recover. Seriously, what would the end game for Rockstar be in this situation? They've lowered the graphical capabilities of the game on one platform a bit...what next?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47446430]It's a stupid risk to take. If anyone ever got wind that it was done on purpose for no good reason other than "haha! we can annoy them and maybe make some money! *twiddles moustache*" they'd never recover.[/QUOTE]
'We'll deliberately make our game worse! That will certainly encourage everyone to buy it again for a different console!'
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47446430]There's a big difference between being cynical and outright thinking developers are doing shit like this on purpose.
It's a stupid risk to take. If anyone ever got wind that it was done on purpose for no good reason other than "haha! we can annoy them and maybe make some money! *twiddles moustache*" they'd never recover. Seriously, what would the end game for Rockstar be in this situation? They've lowered the graphical capabilities of the game on one platform a bit...what next?[/QUOTE]
Example: Watch_Dogs gets crippled on PC, because of console parity. Enabling the E3 demo graphic settings actually even makes the game run smoother. Ubisoft responds by removing the ability to do so.
My cynic, conspiratory side tells me right away that Rockstar did so in order to make the PC version look exponentially better. I know I shouldn't immediately suspect the worst of game developers because CAPITALISM, but I'm just saying that being cynical isn't unwarranted after the last few years.
[I]Especially[/I] after last year, with so many misleading demos, pre-alpha builds and bullshots being shown in order to build hype and boost sales. Yeah, it probably was a slip-up from Rockstar, but it doesn't inspire confidence. The games industry pulls off a lot of underhanded shit, is all I'm saying.
What the fuck is going on with ratings in this thread
Obviously it was a mistake. You could delete the update and re-download it and it fixed itself
This is Rockstar we're talking about here. They put more attention to detail than anyone in their games. They aren't going to downgrade the visuals of a game post launch just to try and make an upcoming release look better. I doubt Ubisoft would even do that. They may hate PC, but they don't hate their console market enough to shaft them
This thread is full of people that know nothing about game development, making wild claims about how they think things should work in a very complex system they have no experience with.
A game like GTA is about as massive and complex as it gets, there are hundreds of totally different systems interacting with each other at any given time. It is completely reasonable to accept that other content and changes that were made in this patch borked the graphics. Hell for all we know they forced the graphics down to make iteration times faster as they worked on the patch and then simply forgot to turn them back up. [B]SHIT HAPPENS. [/B]Even with professional game developers, they are just people. Go to WAYWO to get a taste of some of the craziness that can happen in development of a game.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter why or how it happened. [U]It got fixed quickly and they admitted to their mistake.[/U] You literally cannot ask for more than that.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47446496][I]Especially[/I] after last year, with so many misleading demos, pre-alpha builds and bullshots being shown in order to build hype and boost sales.[/QUOTE]
This has been the case since the industry fucking started. Don't bring this up like it means anything. E3 demos, previews, etc. are pretty much [B]always[/B] a vertical slice of the game, prettied the fuck up to what the developers would love to do but probably don't have the funding or time to do it for the entire game.
The Watch_Dogs example is probably one of the few times the developer did it for no real reason other than to stop one platform being so leaps and bounds ahead of others that it might have hurt sales more. None of this shit is done out of malice, or conspiracy level plotting for maximum money. It's done for reasoned business level decisions. If developers could make everything in a game look like a bullshot, you can bet your ass they would do it. But that isn't the reality. Blame the PR departments for sprucing up any development art or images, not the developer for "failing" you.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47446773]This has been the case since the industry fucking started. Don't bring this up like it means anything. E3 demos, previews, etc. are pretty much [B]always[/B] a vertical slice of the game, prettied the fuck up to what the developers would love to do but probably don't have the funding or time to do it for the entire game.
The Watch_Dogs example is probably one of the few times the developer did it for no real reason other than to stop one platform being so leaps and bounds ahead of others that it might have hurt sales more. None of this shit is done out of malice, or conspiracy level plotting for maximum money. It's done for reasoned business level decisions. If developers could make everything in a game look like a bullshot, you can bet your ass they would do it. But that isn't the reality. Blame the PR departments for sprucing up any development art or images, not the developer for "failing" you.[/QUOTE]
Most of the time, games look better when further in development, not the other way around. Sure, marketing always tries to make a product look better than it actually is, but that's beside the point.
Like I said, I don't put it past Rockstar to make a mistake. I'm not saying that's beyond the realm of fucking possibility; I'm not [I]that[/I] crazy. I'm just saying that I have grown jaded, having swallowed so many lies and trickery from PR. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Rockstar [I]did[/I] downgrade the console graphics in order to make the PC version look even better (which, coincidentally, is right around the corner). People will still buy the game in droves, regardless of any "scandals" (myself included).
tl;dr: Probably a mistake, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't cos fuck AAA
/jetfuel
[QUOTE=WhyNott;47446505]What the fuck is going on with ratings in this thread[/QUOTE]
I dunno, but MatheusMCardoso gave me a chuckle.
Like practically every post on the first page lmao.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47446851]Most of the time, games look better when further in development, not the other way around. Sure, marketing always tries to make a product look better than it actually is, but that's beside the point.[/QUOTE]
Remember [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ"]back at Macworld '99[/URL] when Bungie gave an awesome gameplay demonstration of Halo that later was revealed to have been completely faked AI, purely scripted, nothing but a cinematic trailer done in a souped-up version of their in-development engine?
Exaggerated or outright faked screenshots, trailers, even gameplay samples is and always has been the norm, whether you remember the prominent examples from yesteryear or not.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47447087]Remember [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ"]back at Macworld '99[/URL] when Bungie gave an awesome gameplay demonstration of Halo that later was revealed to have been completely faked AI, purely scripted, nothing but a cinematic trailer done in a souped-up version of their in-development engine?
Exaggerated or outright faked screenshots, trailers, even gameplay samples is and always has been the norm, whether you remember the prominent examples from yesteryear or not.[/QUOTE]
At least those were the real graphics.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47447087]Remember [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ"]back at Macworld '99[/URL] when Bungie gave an awesome gameplay demonstration of Halo that later was revealed to have been completely faked AI, purely scripted, nothing but a cinematic trailer done in a souped-up version of their in-development engine?
Exaggerated or outright faked screenshots, trailers, even gameplay samples is and always has been the norm, whether you remember the prominent examples from yesteryear or not.[/QUOTE]
You're proving me right, then. Marketing will tell you whatever, show you whatever, in order to move copies.
I just think you're taking this whole argument as a jab towards the quality of Rockstar's work, but it's really not.
It just goes to show that PR will do whatever it can come up with, and that it's not unreasonable to question any incidents, be it accident or not.
If anything, this got a lot of talk about GTA5 going. Free advertising.
man, this much drama over a single update
I love you facepunch
[QUOTE=Viva;47446001]I'm delusional because i think it was odd that more than just a few negligible graphical aspects were missing?
It could very well have been a glitch, i said this, but i also wouldn't put it aside rockstar to try and boost performance with the additional content by stripping a few things. That's optimization for you.
How is it delusional to think a game developer would strip a few things in the name of performance?
EDIT:
I'm not screaming rockstar should have their heads on a pike and they're bastards while listing out a conspiracy theory here.[/QUOTE]
Sure you are. In reality what happened was that there was a little variable somewhere in the code called something like 'nextGenEffects' and some programmer forgot to set it back to 'true' after doing testing to rule out some bug. Cue thousands of people who have not even a vague understanding of how games development works calling for Rockstar on a platter.
Not all games are perfect.
I understand tweaking the games code can have negative effects. Especially if it's an open world game.
Speaking of which, Rockstar should honestly release Read Dead Redemption on PC and iron out the glitches, make the textures more detailed, have the lighting be more realistic, etc. Might have gone a 180 with my post here but who gives a fuck, thought it might need mentioning.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;47445981]Holy shit dude you're delusional.
Why is it so hard for you people to believe that this whole thing was a glitch?[/QUOTE]
He could say the same thing about you, to be honest.
Hand waving him as "conspiracy nut" is a stupid thing to do.
Especially seeing how such practices aren't uncommon nowadays in this industry, and R* isn't exactly a saint.
[QUOTE=proch;47449180]He could say the same thing about you, to be honest.
Hand waving him as "conspiracy nut" is a stupid thing to do.
Especially seeing how such practices aren't uncommon nowadays in this industry, and R* isn't exactly a saint.[/QUOTE]
Except its beyond retarded to say they did it on purpose and they backpeddled leading to them fixing it. They broke game fixing other major problems, they fixed part of the issue they day they broke it and the rest 6 days later. Games break the
you add new code to it, human error is very much a factor. its simply fucking dumb to succpect and or acuse R* of something that happens in anything thats a piece of code.
[editline]3rd April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Viva;47446218]Not to mention rockstar has been really obstinate about fixing some things lately. It took awhile for them to even acknowledge the turbo glitch and over a month to actually fix it. But they fixed it at least.[/QUOTE]
Ever hear of priorizing? Fixing the turbo glitch is low priorty compared to other bugs are features upcoming to GTA V.
[editline]3rd April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Viva;47446001]I'm delusional because i think it was odd that more than just a few negligible graphical aspects were missing?
It could very well have been a glitch, i said this, but i also wouldn't put it aside rockstar to try and boost performance with the additional content by stripping a few things. That's optimization for you. [/QUOTE]
It was clearly a glitch, there was zero performance boost in the broken patch, and they fixed it completly in 6 days. They didnt optimize shit.
You clearly dont know much about the complexities of game development.
[QUOTE=proch;47449180]He could say the same thing about you, to be honest.
Hand waving him as "conspiracy nut" is a stupid thing to do.
Especially seeing how such practices aren't uncommon nowadays in this industry, and R* isn't exactly a saint.[/QUOTE]
But "purposefully lowering the graphical capabilities on certain platforms post release" [B]is[/B] uncommon practice today.
This cannot be compared to things like marketing wrangling up some bullshots and vertical slices because it is not that. This was a change made post-release to a game. This doesn't happen on a regular basis at all, and of the times it has happened it's always been down to a bug, never a developer somehow trying to "make money" from it.
So no, saying Atlascore is as bad as some of the utter morons in this thread for calling those morons conspiracy nuts it's complete shit and you should really think before posting nonsense like this.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47450230]But "purposefully lowering the graphical capabilities on certain platforms post release" [B]is[/B] uncommon practice today.
This cannot be compared to things like marketing wrangling up some bullshots and vertical slices because it is not that. This was a change made post-release to a game. This doesn't happen on a regular basis at all, and of the times it has happened it's always been down to a bug, never a developer somehow trying to "make money" from it.
So no, saying Atlascore is as bad as some of the utter morons in this thread for calling those morons conspiracy nuts it's complete shit and you should really think before posting nonsense like this.[/QUOTE]
And you need to chill and not take this stuff so personally, and stop calling people morons.
All people are pointing out is that a developer pulling stuff like this off in the name of profits isn't unimaginable nowadays; and that a healthy dose of cynicism isn't uncalled for.
It was probably a mistake, but don't rule anything out. A 4.746GB hotfix for a simple mistake in graphics settings doesn't seem suspicious to you?
You don't need to defend Rockstar so religiously. The industry is constantly pulling off underhanded, consumer-unfriendly bullshit, and people should keep an eye out.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47450360]And you need to chill and not take this stuff so personally, and stop calling people morons.
All people are pointing out is that a developer pulling stuff like this off in the name of profits isn't unimaginable nowadays; and that a healthy dose of cynicism isn't uncalled for.
It was probably a mistake, but don't rule anything out.
You don't need to defend Rockstar so religiously. The industry is constantly pulling off underhanded, consumer-unfriendly bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, this "defence" that I'm able to half ass and still be doing well with isn't just for Rockstar. It's for the entire industry as gamers seem to all be so fucking entitled right now that any remote slight in the development of a game is taken as a personal attack on them and considered to be the worst thing since Hitler for no real reason.
I'm gonna call morons morons, sorry. If you don't want to be grouped with morons, stop posting moronic theories. The industry isn't perfect, but there's no conspiracy on this kind of level because it's unquestionably bad for business thanks to how obvious the changes are.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47450372]Trust me, this "defence" that I'm able to half ass and still be doing well with isn't just for Rockstar. It's for the entire industry as gamers seem to all be so fucking entitled right now that any remote slight in the development of a game is taken as a personal attack on them and considered to be the worst thing since Hitler for no real reason.
I'm gonna call morons morons, sorry. If you don't want to be grouped with morons, stop posting moronic theories. The industry isn't perfect, but there's no conspiracy on this kind of level because it's unquestionably bad for business thanks to how obvious the changes are.[/QUOTE]
And we've hit Godwin's law.
God forbid anyone be a bit vigilant or critical of luxury items they plop down $60 for. Especially when it comes to negative changes after purchase.
You can buy into anything you want and walk blindly into anything if you wish to. Just don't expect others to be so defensive of their purchases.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47450397]And we've hit Godwin's law.
God forbid anyone be a bit vigilant or critical of luxury items they plop down $60 for. Especially when it comes to negative changes after purchase.
You can buy into anything you want and walk blindly into anything if you wish to. Just don't expect others to be so defensive of their purchases.[/QUOTE]
Are you missing the point on purpose or what?
Be critical of things that you buy. No shit. But don't instantly start assuming that when something changes for the worst it was done intentionally because of some made up "precedent" you perceive. There have been zero instances I can think of of a developer doing what Rockstar did purposefully. Why would that be any different now? What does a developer have to gain from something like this?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47450433]Are you missing the point on purpose or what?
Be critical of things that you buy. No shit. But don't instantly start assuming that when something changes for the worst it was done intentionally because of some made up "precedent" you perceive. There have been zero instances I can think of of a developer doing what Rockstar did purposefully. Why would that be any different now? What does a developer have to gain from something like this?[/QUOTE]
Comparison value. Whoever wanted to buy GTA5 on consoles, already did. Twice, even. People upgraded from last-gen to current-gen because of the shiny graphics. And people will buy it again, because look how much better everything looks, at 60fps, in 4K, wowie-zowie. Better graphics lead to more sales.
Those who wanted to buy the game on console already did, those purchases are secured. It's the purchases for the PC that need to be pushed forward, now.
Again, no one here is saying Rockstar did this on purpose. Some of us just don't rule out foul play anymore, seeing how often AAA will trick you and lie to you straight-faced. It's no tinfoil hats, it's just jaded cynicism. It might be you who's missing the point.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47450230]But "purposefully lowering the graphical capabilities on certain platforms post release" [B]is[/B] uncommon practice today.[/QUOTE]
Has this actually happened at all? Any patch I can think of that intentionally affected the graphics was to improve something, like AA, or resolution (ex CoD/AC Black Flag patched to 1080p on PS4)
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47450457]Again, no one here is saying Rockstar did this on purpose.[/QUOTE]
Except you are, when you're suggesting it was on purpose to boost sales on a different platform. You may not be accusing them outright but you're saying it's a realistic possibility and getting defensive when people tell you it's not a realistic possibility.
[QUOTE=Ager O'Eggers;47450457]Some of us just don't rule out foul play anymore, seeing how often AAA will trick you and lie to you straight-faced.[/QUOTE]
Except there is no precedent whatsoever of AAA 'tricking you and lying to you straight-faced' in this way. We have two decades of the same scummy bullshot techniques, but no prior examples of a company deliberately downgrading their product.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47450481]Except you are, when you're suggesting it was on purpose to boost sales on a different platform. You may not be accusing them outright but you're saying it's a realistic possibility and getting defensive when people tell you it's not a realistic possibility.
Except there is no precedent whatsoever of AAA 'tricking you and lying to you straight-faced' in this way. We have two decades of the same scummy bullshot techniques, but no prior examples of a company deliberately downgrading their product.[/QUOTE]
I'm just pointing out how it could be a possibility, and a reasoning as to why a company would do something like that (assuming it would be on purpose).
If deliberate, this could set a precedent for the industry; discretely downgrading games post-release in order to boost sales on a different platform, according to a company's interests. GTA is a big franchise that will sell like hot cakes regardless, so it does have the clout to try out something like that.
People who were against DLC practices were also derided, and look what publishers have the gall to pull off, nowadays: on disc DLC, five different collector's editions with exclusive content to each, full-price retail games with P2W microtransactions, etc etc
So yeah, sorry if I don't rule out companies pulling off illogical, disgusting shit in an attempt to gouge consumers.
I don't see how you all acknowledge AAA's past trickery, and dismiss possible foul play at the same time. You guys selectively ignore the past all you want.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.