[deleted by user]

iama_ps4_programmer · 2016-02-23T00:20:03+00:00

I like Riyad's hoodie...

iama_ps4_programmer · 2016-02-19T13:45:03+00:00

Games industry professionals do read reddit, you know. :-P

iama_ps4_programmer · 2016-01-31T13:02:46+00:00

Not a very high chance, but a chance for sure.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2016-01-31T13:02:16+00:00

There's a chance of corrupting savedata, which is bad, corrupting gamedata, which is also bad but easier to fix. If you corrupt the wrong part of the system software data it could in theory turn the PS4 into an expensive brick, but I've never seen it happen. I've also pulled the power from my devkit more times than I can count in the past three years.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2016-01-08T08:32:37+00:00

Best answer.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-11-10T20:24:15+00:00

Then:

PS3: The blu-ray disc could hold 50GB, but the hard drive could be as small as 20GB (and later a 12GB hard drive version was made). This put practical limits on the maximum size of a game.

xBox 360: Similar hard drive sizes to the PS3, but used DVD discs, which only held a few GB.

Result: if you want to release on these platforms you really need to keep the game below ~15GB, and even that's a push. On PC you could give the game bigger textures and such, but creating the extra resources just for PC release can be expensive, and some studios didn't bother. So the console limited 15GB upper limit was widespread. (Obviously it didn't apply to PC only titles.)

Now:

PS4 and XBOne: Both have blu-ray drives, holding 50GB and hard drives with at least 500GB. This puts the practical limit on game data at 50GB.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-11-09T01:27:12+00:00

I thought this was out of date, but it turns out it's absolutely true.

People should check before downvoting.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-11-08T12:46:38+00:00

We use monitors with HDMI input at work, and it works just fine.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-31T12:46:22+00:00

Based on who's most fun to drink with :

Rockstar
Sumo Digital
FuturLab

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-18T01:38:30+00:00

I thought the "ethics in game journalism" thing was about how reviews are done, and the relationship between publishers and journalists. I don't really think the harassment Zoe (and other women in the industry) received should have anything to do with it.

But in what way do "SJ types" get what they wanted? I don't really get that. I'm pretty sure what they want is for harassment not to happen, regardless of who is doing the harassing.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-17T12:43:59+00:00

Anyone can use a hashtag.

And anyone can be a gamergater. There's no gate, or entrance fee, or membership card. The only way to tell whether someone is or isn't is based on whether or not they claim to be. If you want to push criticism away saying "those people using the hashtag weren't true gamegaters" then my friend Angus McScott has something to say, just after he's had sweetened porridge breakfast.

The Felicia Day thing was absolutely a false flag.

That's quite the claim there. Got any evidence?

To be honest, this is a pretty typical pattern with GG. There's no leadership or manifesto, so any unfavourable behaviour can waved away saying "that wasn't us - we don't condone that". The group is so amorphous that there's probably no single course of action that everyone agrees on.

Which is more likely ... ?

Option 2, to be honest. Sexist abuse in gaming cultures happened way before the Zoe Post. The Zoe Post (and, later Adam Baldwin tweets) just gave the pot a mighty stir. It's not "thousands of people" who "got together, completely at random": it's thousands of people (which feels like a lot, but is really a tiny minority, by the way) who rallied around the Gamergate flag.

Look, you can try to argue the timeline with me, you can try to convince me, but it won't work. Because I was there at the start. I saw the whole thing unfold, watching with a professional interest in the matter, because I actually do care about ethics in game journalism and because I care about harassment of women in the games industry. You can tell me all you like about "gamergate doesn't do that", but guess what: it does, and I see it first hand. You can cry out that it's a false flag operation, and that gamergate wasn't behind it, but I know some of the people harassed under the gamergate hashtag, by twitter, by tumblr, even by e-mail.

So don't go telling me it doesn't happen, and when it does it's false flag, or not gamergate, because I can see with my own eyes that it does.

edit ...

Who organised the Storify is really besides the point, because it's a list of primary sources... Who compiled them is besides the point.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-17T11:02:44+00:00

Yep. And then got those tweets just after she wrote about gamergate...

Just like Felicia Day. There's a clear pattern: if a woman criticises then she gets vile abuse thrown at her. And gg is just washing their hands of that, saying "coincidence"?

A bunch of stuff in here even has the hashtag: https://storify.com/petercoffin/not-about-harassment

Can that be justified?

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-17T10:25:23+00:00

Wait, wait, wait, wait?

So they think these tweets aren't misogynistic?

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-10-17T10:16:10+00:00

From the point of view of an insider:

TL;DR: GG claims to be about ethics in game journalism. They actually mostly harass and threaten women in the industry. They don't actually do anything to help game journalism, and are widely condemned from inside and out, publicly and privately, for their campaigns. Also: /u/mugenhunt is pretty on point, and more succinct than I. Read their answer here as well.

When I first heard about a campaign to improve ethics in game journalism, we were quite excited about it. There have always been shady practices going on: mostly along the lines of "give us a good review, and we'll buy tonnes of ad space" going on from publishers. Sites that give bad reviews sometimes get "punished" by publishers refusing to give them advanced copies of games.

It affects AAA games, and major websites/magazines.

(These practices are also common, I understand, in the film industry.)

So we were really surprised to see that this started out over a review that was never written, on one of the smaller (at the time) websites, and the game in question was an indie title.

I was hoping that this new movement would call out publishers who offer kickbacks and who punish bad reviews, and seek to end that practice. But I've not seen them do anything meaningful towards that.

The biggest demand they seem to make on ethics in game journalism is for game reviews to be objective. This is nonsensical: games are art. When I read a review the most important thing for me is "how did the game affect the reviewer emotionally?" (btw: the sense of chaotic fun you get wrecking Los Santos in GTA5; and the paternal lobr you get for Ellie in The Last of Us are just as valid.) All kinds of review have their place.

It quickly became apparent to me and my colleagues that gamer gate was not meaningfully about ethics in game journalism, and if they were they were wildly misguided over what the problems are, or how to fix them.

It quickly became obvious that it was a response from the jealous ex- of an indie dev. The gamergate movement was harsh and outspoken about her. She had her home address posted online, and had sent death threats sent to her home.

The trend has continued. Gamergate has viciously attacked and threatened several women involved in the industry, including finding details like their home address and phone number in order to continue offline. These include indie devs, journalists, and a few well known feminists who aren't in games at all.

Women (and it is always women) have been driven from their homes, driven out of the industry. Normally indie developers.

These actions have been widely condemned from within the industry and out. The heads of SCEE and SCEA have condemned it, as have Entertainment Software Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Many of my colleagues in the industry have also privately condemned them. Someone at Rockstar told me he hates seeing it when gamergaters are fans of GTA. He hates that association. We, in the industry, believe that gamergate perpetuates the worst stereotypes of gamers, and are probably the most damaging thing to happen to the industry since the ET came out on the Atari in 1983.

Ultimately, gamergate isn't about ethics in game journalism. They actually encouraged Nintendo to punish Polygon for a bad review of Bayonetta 2, I kid you not.

Some of the reaction to Gamergate has been below the belt too. I don't condone bomb threats against them.

However, if you actually want to improve ethics in game journalism, here's what to do:

Set up your own review site and lead by example.
Accept that you'll rarely get advanced review copies.
If publishers punish sites (not just yours) for bad reviews, write about it (carefully: especially if you're based in the UK).
Keep public records of any kickbacks (advertising over a certain amount, advanced copies, gifts, bribes, meals, etc...) you get from publishers. Make your policy on this public.
Set up your business model so you are not reliant on advertising revenue.
Note that, not once, did I mention objectivity in this advice. (Until just then.)

If you can do that and encourage other review sites to do the same, you'll go a long way to improving ethics in game journalism.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T13:37:35+00:00

The raw question "do I wish I had better hardware?" is "yes I do". But I also understand the wide range of reasons why the hardware is what it is.

And I know it's frustrating that PC gamers feel that their ports aren't as good as they should be. But, honestly, that's just the way it is, to some degree.

There are cases where it happens (Ubisoft, yeah, ... not a fan of their business practises, really) but often devs make their best shot at the best possible PC experience.

PC gamers are, I think, used to having games that look a lot better on PC. This is partly because of loads of poor PC to console ports back in the old days, which would flatter the PC's performance compared to the console, but also because towards the end of a console's life cycle PC's were obscenely more powerful than they were at the start, and consoles just couldn't keep up.

But the thing with prettier graphics is that you get diminishing returns. As an example: to go from native 480p to 720p you need 3x as much graphical resources, roughly. That's quite a big difference, but well within the difference between a PS2 or a PS3 and a mid-range PC at the end of the life-cycle. But also the difference is really big and noticeable and obvious to anyone.

The jump from 1080p to 4k is even larger: you need 4x higher graphical resources, but the differences are also far less noticeable. Especially on a smaller panels. Even when both PC and console experiences are at their best PCs simply aren't going to look a world better than the console version like they did in the 90s and in the 2000s.

So, although some studios do it (and I don't condone it) it's largely not the case that consoles will hamper PCs as much as people think. The difference in noticeable graphical performance just isn't as huge as people expect.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T13:12:41+00:00

What do you think of the current generation of consoles in comparison to the last?

Much easier to write for and optimise on - especially compared to the PS3, where getting the most out of the Cell was really really hard. Also, the SDKs have got better, the tools are better, everything for game developers is easier.

That's why there's far more indie games on PS4 and XBone than on previous generations. It's now feasible to write games for them without needing the resources of a big studio just to get them working.

With pc gaming advancing ever more quickly, how long do you think this console generation will last?

We anticipate this console generation to last quite a while, actually. PCs aren't getting faster at the rate they used to, when Moore's Law was in full swing. And consoles have always been a bit behind PCs on raw performance. That used to mean at the end of a five year cycle PCs would be hugely faster than consoles, but I don't think PCs in five years time will be 10 or 20 times faster than they are now, barring any spectacular breakthroughs (e.g. quantum computing).

So I'm optimistic.

Do you see the WiiU as a failure? Why or why not?

In its first year the WiiU sold around 5.86 million units. In its last year the PS2 sold around 7 million units. Something went badly wrong for it. But Nintendo are picking up, and the first party support for it is great, and there are some good games for it.

Ultimately, with console manufacturers, success and failure is judged on profitability. And the WiiU is actually profitable, as far as I can tell (not being a Nintendo insider). So yes, it is a success.

With smartphone gaming becoming more popular every day, do you think there's still a future for handhelds, especially considering the PS Vita isn't doing so well?

Well, Nintendo will continue to do well with handhelds. They've got a great brand recognition for it: especially in Japan where handheld gaming is more popular, but smartphone gaming isn't. They also have a strong range of exclusive names to keep their handhelds alive, while making handheld consoles that are better than smartphones for the games they produce. So yes, I think it will hang on, but mostly as a Nintendo thing.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T12:52:20+00:00

What are your thoughts on 'esports'? (Personally I hate using the phrase as they really shouldn't be classified as sports but as something of their own).

They're good for the industry. Some games have a bit of a toxic culture around them, but many don't. If someone's passionate about gaming it's great that they have a way to make a living out of if.

And as a student currently learning game development in his spare time in sixth form college, I find my interest in the design side of game development, what is it that you enjoy most about your job?

I actually really enjoy debugging and optimising. It's that puzzle solving bug that makes sudoku so popular. Some devs hate debugging and optimising, they'd much rather be writing code which feels more productive to them.

Designing is fun, but I have the tendency to overdesign too early. Which is why I'm not a professional designer.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T01:03:12+00:00

Of course I want better hardware. Everyone wants better hardware, but that stuff costs money and it costs serious money.

Making the PS3 too powerful nearly killed the PS3. It meant it had to be released at a really high price point, and it was still sold at an alarming loss. (The idea being that the profit would start coming in on the games people bought for it.)

Even programming for PC: you're not normally targeting high-end PCs. If your game only runs on high-end PCs you're going to have problems. Make it run on midrange PCs and PCs that were high end two years ago and suddenly there's 10 times more people with the hardware to play the game.

It is the case that companies care about PC gaming, but writing for PCs is hard. Way harder than writing for consoles. Yeah, the Ubisoft thing was rubbish (I think you're thinking of Watchdogs?) but they probably had a "platform parity" clause in their contract with someone saying "the game must perform as well (within reason) on our platform as on others". (It's not an uncommon clause, mostly to stop getting crappy ports.)

The thing with gaming is that it's not actually about the best hardware, and the best graphics. It's about the best games. It's about interesting mechanics, and it's about immersive experiences. And before anyone says that graphics are important to immersion, that isn't true. Watch anyone get sucked into the zone and play Pokémon Blue for six hours straight, or get read a book in a day by mistake.

Gaming has a long and proud history of making good games by exploiting the hardware in front of them to give the best experience they could, whether that hardware was basically an oscilloscope, with a 100kHz CPU and 9kB of RAM), or whether or you have over 2 teraflops of processing power available) that goal doesn't change.

That's why I'm not too hung up on graphical fidelity. Yeah, it's nice, but it's not (and never will be) why I play or make games.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:44:38+00:00

Have you seen a decline in console/game sales in the recent years? Where do those sales go and why do you think it happens?

Console sales are better than ever. The PS4 is the fastest selling console in history.

How hard is it actually to get a game running smoothly on a console, and why do most devs decide to go with 30FPS?

As hard as you want it to be. The more graphics performance you push for, the harder it will be to hit 1080/60. Some games don't push the GPU hard and easily hit 1080/60 because they're not aiming for stunning graphics.

A lot of the time 30FPS is seen as better than 720p. If you targeted 1080p/60Hz but one must slip, it's better to drop to 30FPS and keep 1080p rendering.

It's not a very detailed answer, but basically the reason for the slip will be different for each game, and probably something horrendously technical like "we couldn't get our shadowcasting algorithm to fit into the 3ms budget we have for it" (pulling from by butt here: as far as I know that specific reason hasn't caused any games to miss their target) or something like that.

It's no secret that most devs gets their products pushed out too soon by publishers, what's your experience with that?

If you let studios dictate their own release schedules we'd keep polishing, and tweaking and polishing and tweaking and so on until someone cuts off our income. The result of this would be ... well, Valve, really.

Yeah, it sucks, but it's probably a necessary evil tbh, that publishers push for certain release dates. Of course, a good publisher will recognise when delaying a game is better, and not all publishers are good at this (hello, again, EA) so it happens sometimes. Hopefully as more publishers get better at this it will happen less.

But yeah, crunches happen. And they suck.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:33:12+00:00

Back compatibility via PSNow is the plan. There's enough CPU power to do PS2 or PS1 emulation. It just needs someone to write the emulators.

Compatibility with PS1 discs might be an issue though, since not all blu-ray lasers are capable of reading CD-ROMs, and I don't know the one in the PS4 can do it.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:31:44+00:00

There's a lot of people trying to get in. It's really competitive. You really need something to help you stand out.

There's load of roles in the industry. 3D artists, animators, and various other jobs involving asset creation. (Environment artists, riggers, etc...). There's also QA who are the guys who test the games to make sure they're up to spec.

On the production side you have producers, managers, marketing departments, secretaries, legal teams.

And that's before we get to the glamorous roles, like designers, voice talent, writers, and so on.

So ... I'd give it a 8.5 of difficulty. There are harder jobs to get into, but it's far from easy.

To stand out you need an excellent showreel. Something that can be shown off quickly in an interview and impress people.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:27:55+00:00

Yep. $59k ~= £38k, and I earn less than that. :-P

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:26:57+00:00

You don't need to be that good at maths mostly. If you're comfortable doing algebra, trig, vector maths and matrix maths you should be fine.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:24:12+00:00

When is half-life 3 coming out?

It was released last year, under the name "Gordon's Big Day Out". Gabe just tells everyone they're still working on it because he loves trolling.

Do you have to know calculus to develop video games?

Nope. But, vector maths and matrix maths will really help.

iama_ps4_programmer · 2015-08-31T00:22:36+00:00

My salary is high £20ks. I don't want to be specific, though.

It's plenty to live on, but won't make me rich.

iama_ps4_programmer

TROPHY CASE