At Gamescom 2017, Bungie and NVIDIA revealed that Destiny 2 will support HDR and SLI. These features will be supported from the get-go, and HDR support will also be available during this month’s open PC beta testing phase.
In the past few months we’ve seen a lot of games not supporting multi-GPU configurations, so it is at least a relief that this upcoming triple-A title will support them.
Destiny 2 on the PC will feature an uncapped framerate, support for 4K resolutions, mouse and keyboard with custom key mapping, text chat, adjustable Field of View, FPS counter, framerate target option via the configuration files, detailed PC settings screen and 21:9 monitor support.
Destiny 2’s PC open beta phase will begin on the 29th of August and will last until the 31st. The full game is currently scheduled for an October 24th release.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Nice to hear about SLI day 1.
Good
Great, but HDR is broken with NV and Windows 10. They going to fix that as well?
Isn’t it Microsoft’s or Nvidia’s job to fix it?
Can’t really complain about any of this stuff, even if the games probably not gonna be very good.
I can complain about anything. Earlier I complained to my wife that the air was too clear in our house, so I set the coffee table on fire. That made the air very dense and dark.
Funny how this “consolized trash” that also “is not a proper PC game” supports so many features that other PC games simply don’t. Maybe it’s time for people who just like to hate for the sake of hating to admit that they are actually making an effort to deliver a good PC experience.
Yeah…… with dedicated servers & recoil to boot!
Oh, wait.
Destiny 2 does have recoil on PC, though modified. As for dedicated servers, that’s a rarity even in games like Battlefield 1 so I’m not surprised. So far the PC version of Destiny 2 is indeed shaping up better than most ports. So credit where it’s due.
Give it time, I’m sure they’ll find some way to f*ck this up. I mean, we’re talking about Bungie working with Activision & Blizzard, both. It would be miracle if they actually do this properly.
As for recoil; only after massive backslash. True on dedicated servers, but they are still something people appreciate seeing. I mean, sh*t, even U-BE-SOFT ended up shelling out for some dedicated servers for Rainbow Siege, but Activision “The Tax-Evaders” Blizzard are still too cheap, of course >.>
By the way, HDR support is coming to the PC version of Destiny 2 first.
Great.
So… in your logic, the fact that they actually took the time to modify the recoil on PC instead of just being lazy and porting the game exactly how it is on console….. is a bad thing ? As for dedicated servers, yeah, it sucks. But the majority of people will be buying this game for PvE. You don’t need dedicated servers to kill AI enemies. Unfortunate for the PvP side though, especially since I’ll probably going to be playing a lot of it.
Modifying? Please, they didn’t want to put any in until we ripped them a new one over it, at which point they tried to backtrack by claiming they meant it would have “modified” recoil. Yeah, sure, “modified.” We’ll see. As far as I’m concerned, no matter what they say these days when it’s a developer talking, I want proof. Talk is cheap, Betas are proof.
But of course, the “the Beta builds are 6 months old, don’tchaknow!” excuses are already out in force, so you can’t even trust what you’re seeing there, either – allegedly. Last time I heard that one it turned out to be nothing more than a giant pile of dog turds, so we’ll have to wait & see on that front, as well.
The guy who first talked about it didn’t express himself properly. Then, only a few hours later, the PC project lead clarified things on twitter. There wasn’t even that much backlash on the internet for them to think they need to backtrack because of negative reactions. And they are absolutely right about reducing recoil. Most PC shooters I’ve played barely have any recoil on guns. What you consider recoil is nothing compared to how much the console version of Destiny has.
Also, only the console beta was months old, because they had to go through certification with sony/microsoft ahead of time and things like that. The PC beta will be a much more recent build of the game. Of course, they will still work on it until launch (hence the 7 week delay compared to consoles).
We’ll see.
He’s back here once more to fanboy for his beloved Destiny franchise. smh
all bull$hit, coming from the number one tax evading crap-company
I’m very sure that SLI support will greatly output the graphical fidelity of this PC game…oh wait, it’s a game designed for consoles first, so it comes with a restrained and finite limitation to what it can do and display.
Would have been something if they hosted a plethora of AA options as well as 4k textures for practically everything within the game.
I find SLi support to be useless at this point in time simply because there aren’t many games out there that can ever make good use of them. Even the odd one or two games that can make use of SLI, they won’t be on Star Citizen’s level graphically, so the extra VRAM and horsepower won’t really yield much besides some extra frames, but this gen we’ve also had console ports that are locked to 60 and some that run horribly when uncapped.
Wake me up when we see godlike levels of gains both graphically and performance wise across the board of more than 100 titles, then I’ll see SLI as being a very important, must needed game changer. Until then it’s a waste. Same goes for multiple cores with CPU’s, we hardly have any game making proper full usage of multiple cores, let alone HT.
Huh cool, well it could turn out to be a solid PC port + then, it seems like they really care.
I am looking forward to it, fingers crossed.
This is certainly a good change from “release the game with minimal effort and run away” model. At very least they understand what PC is, not a communistic console environment with only one possible configuration, so thats a good start. Don’t know about the game itself, not my kind of game, but still, respect. Won’t get it for myself, but maybe I will buy it for my younger brother if it really delivers on all of that.
All of this technology in service of what, though? The first game–and this one–don’t seem to have anything to offer beyond clicker p#rn. No interesting story, no interesting characters, nothing to really experience that’s going to stick with you. It just seems like an attempt for the publisher to continue recouping on the massive investment they made.
A lot of games can have commercial appeal BUT ALSO have something to offer the gamer beyond sating the needs of the pew-pew crowd. Witcher 3 is a perfect example. Once you play Destiny 2 for more than 30 minutes, what else does it have to offer that’s new?
It’s seems like an IP that’s meant to have this expansive world with interesting lore, but all it has is looting and shooting. Like a jock that’s pretending he’s got witty insights. Why bother with adding all that other stuff in there? Just embrace the arena-style pew-pew and stop misleading customers.
You’d prefer it if they just ported the console version over directly instead with no improvements whatsoever? Sounds to me like you’re complaining for complaining for complaint’s sake.
The game itself is shallow, repetitive and overhyped. Doesn’t matter if it’s the console or PC version. The devs are just spicing up the PC version in an even more futile attempt to pretend the game is anything more than a foot-deep looter shooter. Dummies will probably buy the game by the millions, though.
The game being shallow should have no bearing on the quality of the port. A good port should always be welcome.
“A good port should always be welcome.”
Agreed in principle, absolutely, but in practice, a good port is near-worthless if the game itself isn’t worth it in the first place, unfortunately.
The “worth” of a game is judged on the “creative” aspect. The “port” quality is judged on the “technical” aspect. There are plenty of “good” games that have been ruined by bad porting so it works both ways. And Destiny 2 isn’t nearly as bad as some other games out there so I don’t see what the problem is apart from people always wanting to complain about something. Funnily enough, if it were a bad port then these same folks would be singing a different tune.
Bit of a split hair/s statement, no? I mean, if I did this; “the worth (ergo, the value) of a game is judged (predominantly) on the creative aspect.” Doesn’t that encompass the entirety of the game in regards to how much people are willing to pay for it, period?
That is to say, chances are people will still buy a bad port of a good, great &/or decent game once it’s been patched a little (assuming it does actually get patched) – case in point; Arkham Knight still has those memory leaks (note: supposedly curable if you use the Denuvo crack), but I still snagged it in the end at a deep, deep discount, because – in my opinion – it’s a game that’s actually worth playing, regardless of those technical issues – for as long as it lets you anyway, before the memory leaks devour your FPS & force you to ragequit ^^
Whereas, when it comes to a mediocre &/or just flat-out bad game, even with a decent technical side to it….. why would I ever bother, exactly? Sure, at least if it was a graphical powerhouse I could say “okay, I’ll use it for benchmarks & whatnot” but Destiny 2 most obviously doesn’t fit into that category, meaning at the end of the day that leaves us with nothing more than either a bad / mediocre game (depending on each individual’s personal opinion of it) that has a decent assortment of technical bells & whistles to it – which is great, obviously, but I’m still stuck on the “why bother?”
Because, what incentive do I actually have to buy the damn thing, even at a deep discount? After all, I won’t get to enjoy any sort of “epic graphics”, I won’t get to enjoy good content, but I’ll get to….. f*ck about with a PC port that someone actually invested some time into? Okay, great, I guess? >.>
But even so, is it actually worth spending even a little money to buy the game just to do that? Especially if the developers aren’t a case of “let’s buy it anyway, in order to support further future endeavours!” or whatnot.
“Doesn’t that encompass the entirety of the game in regards to how much people are willing to pay for it, period?”
— Not entirely. If a game has no technical issues whatsoever, then people are willing to pay a premium on account of technical accomplishments. For example, games like Crysis 3 are bought mainly because of the technically stunning nature of the game as opposed to the game’s story/gameplay itself.
“case in point; Arkham Knight still has those memory leaks”
— But its quality has been significantly improved compared to initial release via patches. So if that hadn’t happened, you’d probably have not bought it to begin with. A good game cannot be good if it’s not playable.
“it’s a game that’s actually worth playing, regardless of those technical issues”
— Had those technical issues prevented you from playing the game properly to begin with, you wouldn’t even be able to find out what’s “good” about that game.
“Whereas, when it comes to a mediocre &/or just flat-out bad game,
even with a decent technical side to it….. why would I ever bother,
exactly?”
— Two things… firstly, Destiny 2 is by no means a “bad” game, comparatively speaking. Secondly, have you heard of “Bad Rats”?
“which is great, obviously, but I’m still stuck on the “why bother?”
— Because if they hadn’t, PC gamers would be eating them up over releasing a “shoddy port”. In which case it would be ideal for them to not even release the game on PC, going by that logic.
“Because, what incentive do I actually have to buy the damn thing, even at a deep discount?”
— You might, others might. For example I absolutely detest strategy games and never buy any of them, but I absolutely welcome technically competent strategy games in the PC gaming space. You have to keep in mind that “creative quality” is subjective, whereas “technical quality” is not.
“But even so, is it actually worth spending even a little money to buy the game just to do that?”
— I’d think so, assuming the game does something technically new in the PC space. For example… Final Fantasy X is implementing HDR 10 and I’d love to see how it is. It’s situational
If they hadn’t bothered to fix Arkham Knight I’d probably have waited for the price to drop about 99%, pirated it, or just snagged it on consoles, honestly, though AK had certain advantages going for it, namely that it was the third game in the trilogy & people (myself included) wanted to finish up the storyline they’d already started.
I mean, hell, I even bought DMC3SE on PC once the community managed to fix it themselves (as best they could). Sure, not exactly the same situation, but there is also always that possibility to consider.
Like how Mass Effect 3 sold despite its ending controversy & people still want to see Halo 3 on PC because “finishing the fight” is one hell of a f*cking cliffhanger for us to be stuck on for over a decade, now.
But yeah, I semi-see what you mean with Crysis 3, though to be fair, its sales figures were abysmal, regardless of those visuals.
“Had those technical issues prevented you from playing the game properly to begin with, you wouldn’t even be able to find out what’s “good” about that game.”
Eh, not necessarily…. I mean, I do know some people who own it on consoles & a couple of nutters who’s opinions I trust actually braved the PC version before its re-release & rated it positively, before they inevitably succumbed to the technical issues :S
“Two things… firstly, Destiny 2 is by no means a “bad” game, comparatively speaking.”
Well, point of view, I suppose. Unless you mean from a technical standpoint, in which case, sure, it does seem like a pretty solid PC port, agreed. Yeah, I’ve heard of Bad Rats?
“Because if they hadn’t, PC gamers would be eating them up over releasing a “shoddy port”. In which case it would be ideal for them to not even release the game on PC, going by that logic.”
Sure, but like I said, even if the technical side of it is solid, if the content itself is bad, why should I ever bother with it, seeing as this isn’t a Crysis-type visually-eyeball melting benchmark game?
“You have to keep in mind that “creative quality” is subjective, whereas “technical quality” is not.”
Sure, agreed.
“Final Fantasy X is implementing HDR 10 and I’d love to see how it is. It’s situational”
Sweet! Then again, do we even have HRD 10 PC monitors, yet? Lol 😀
“If they hadn’t bothered to fix Arkham Knight I’d probably have waited
for the price to drop about 99%, pirated it, or just snagged it on
consoles”
— So you are essentially saying you bought the game BECAUSE they fixed the issues first and foremost, regardless of the fact that it’s a good game. If they hadn’t fixed the issues you’d not have bought it no matter how good the game is. You even go so far as to claim you would pirate it… a miserable idea as it is and one which deserves no recognition whatsoever from my end.
“I mean, hell, I even bought DMC3SE on PC once the community managed to fix it themselves (as best they could) because I already knew it was a good game.”
— No, you bought it because the lingering issues were fixed. The “good game” part comes after. It’s all about fixing..,. you’re saying it and not even realizing it.
“Like how Mass Effect 3 sold despite its ending controversy & people
still want to see Halo 3 on PC because “finishing the fight” is one hell
of a f*cking cliffhanger for us to be stuck on for over a decade, now.”
— Yet Dishonored 2 sold poorly on account of tech issues even though it is a “good” game. Same goes for Tales of Symphonia. See the thing is, examples can always be provided… but as I mentioned earlier… the idea of “good game” is subjective, but the idea of “good port” is not.
“But yeah, I semi-see what you mean with Crysis 3, though to be fair, its sales figures were abysmal, regardless of those visuals.”
— Compared to what? You have to keep in mind Crysis 3’s high requirements were a barrier to begin with.
“Eh, not necessarily…. I mean, I do know some people who own it on
consoles & a couple of nutters who’s opinions I trust actually
braved the PC version before its re-release & rated it positively,
before they inevitably succumbed to the technical issues”
— I don’t consider consoles or third-party opinions as valid alternatives to playing the PC version first-hand. Your mileage may vary.
“Well, point of view, I suppose.”
— Yes it is. Something which I’ve been trying to get across this entire time. “Good games” and “bad games” cannot be determining factors as far as the technical qualities of a game are concerned. Good games are subjective… good ports are NOT.
“Yeah, I’ve heard of Bad Rats?”
— Are you aware it’s universally accepted as one of the worst games out there, yet has sold very well on account of its cult status? Which would not be the case if the game performed just as bad from a technical standpoint, which it doesn’t.
“Sure, but like I said, even if the technical side of it is solid, if the content itself is bad”
— Again. “bad” is subjective.
“why should I even bother with it, seeing as this isn’t a Crysis-type visually-eyeball-melting benchmark game?”
— YOU might not, others might. Simple as that. But even THEY might be put off by bad porting, in which case NO ONE would be positive about the game. See the difference?
“Sure, agreed.”
— Great, then I believe I’ve made myself clear regarding the distinction between “good games” and “good ports” and their impacts, no?
Right, so with Nier recently making the news for reaching its 6-months mark without once being patched on PC, I think I’ve figured out where you’re coming from, so let’s see if I’ve got it;
Nier is a terrible port, but the fact that it has a community fix has saved it from being utter-God-tier-sh*t in many people’s eyes, even though the lack of even one, single patch has held off a lot [of/more] people from buying it –
– which is the point you’ve been trying to make; the quality of the game’s content comes secondary compared to the port itself, i.e. whether or not the port is good comes first, whereas whether or not the game itself is good comes second, since you only get to that after?
From there, you reach a point of; is the port itself good? Good. How good is it? Is it just a good port without anything special to it? Then at least it works, great. Is it something more, i.e. graphically? Excellent, then it can also function as a benchmarking game!
This argument of course happens both in tandem & also separately from the “is the content good?” argument, since that one is far more subjective & comes down to opinions, but as the case of Nier proves, even if the game itself is good, many people won’t buy a broken port, first & foremost, even if it does have a community fix.
Right?
In which case, I agree, but at the same time, I think my original point was intended to be; a good port won’t necessarily guarantee a sale if the game’s content itself isn’t also good, unless the game features benchmark-grade visuals, like Crysis, which Destiny 2 doesn’t.
I mean, yeah, “this game runs great on PC!” is always a great marketing bullet point, absolutely, but if the game itself isn’t worth it in the first place (to the potential buyer in question), then that point unto itself becomes utterly & wholly irrelevant in the face of the “I couldn’t possibly give less of a f*ck about this game, regardless of what” factor.
“Compared to what? You have to keep in mind Crysis 3’s high requirements were a barrier to begin with.”
Crysis 3 sold considerably less than Crysis 2 did, which in turn didn’t sell anywhere near what Crysis OG sold back in its day & the original entry had the highest system requirements of all 3 games in the series to date, so I’d argue the “high” (I mean, it’s a Crysis game) system requirements were the least of its problems, honestly.
“I don’t consider consoles or third-party opinions as valid alternatives to playing the PC version first-hand. Your mileage may vary.”
Agreed, though since I’ve always preferred playing the Batman: Arkham series with a controller rather than M/K, I figured the experience would be close enough, internal hardware differences aside. But yeah, very case-by-case basis thing, indeed.
You’re correct about a bad game + bad port being a “double whammy” so to speak, though, absolutely. Actually, Nier has brought to light an interesting point, which I think you were also talking about; Dark Souls was a sh*t port, but Dark Souls at least got patched a couple of times so that it wasn’t utterly reliant on DSFix to save itself from the sh*tter, whereas Nier hasn’t been patched once, in six months, leaving it utterly reliant on the FAR mod.
As a result, while Dark Souls actually went on to sell rather well (also, arguably, due largely in part due to the hype of “oh my god, Dark Souls is finally on PC!”), every time Nier hits the news, you get the endless inevitable stream of “waiting for patch to buy” comments.
Likewise, DMC3SE (on PC) wasn’t anything particularly special sales-wise either, as far as I’m aware & the community continued to not recommend it over the years, leading to even less potential sales, whereas nobody really has anything against Dark Souls.
I mean, yeah, it’s a bit of an off comparison seeing as Dark Souls works even without the mod, whereas Nier is still wonky even with FAR, but my point being; if the community doesn’t see the developers doing anything because they seemingly don’t give a f*ck, then the community in turn isn’t as inclined to give much of a f*ck about the game either, regardless of the community fixes for it, or how great of a game it may &/or may not be.
Hm.
Sorry for the delay. Still, figured I’d figure I’d mention a few things.
“Nier is a terrible port, but the fact that it has a community fix has
saved it from being utter-God-tier-sh*t in many people’s eyes”
— Well technically Nier is a little better than most ” initial” Japanese ports from developers who’re developing for the PC for the first time. It’s even better than ports like Darksiders in fact.
“which is the point you’ve been trying to make; the quality of the game’s content comes secondary compared to the port itself, i.e. whether or not the port is good comes first, whereas whether or not the game itself is good comes second, since you only get to that after?”
— Yes, since in order to figure out whether a game is or isn’t good, you’d have to be able to play it properly first. Which is why you’ll find game’s forums to have more threads in the “technical issues” section as opposed to in the “general discussion” section.
“but as the case of Nier proves, even if the game itself is good, many people won’t buy a broken port, first & foremost, even if it does have a community fix.”
— Well Nier did sell well, but that’s mainly because the port was quite “functional” for a Japanese game, if not great.
“a good port won’t necessarily guarantee a sale if the game’s content itself isn’t also good”
— Not a guarantee, true. But it’s the first step to a sale. The creative aspect of the game comes after that.
“Crysis 3 sold considerably less than Crysis 2 did, which in turn didn’t sell anywhere near what Crysis OG sold back in its day”
— Crysis 1 was a benchmark game in terms of visuals. People hadn’t seen anything like it before. Hence it sold the most… not because it was a good game (it wasn’t) but because of the wow factor. As for Crysis 2, how did it fare vis-a-vis Crysis 3? Crysis 2 sold 3 million across platforms if I’m not mistaken. What were the numbers for Crysis 3? Make me curious.
“Sorry for the delay. Still, figured I’d figure I’d mention a few things.”
Likewise ^^
“Well technically Nier is a little better than most ” initial” Japanese ports from developers who’re developing for the PC for the first time. It’s even better than ports like Darksiders in fact.”
Hahahahahahaha ^^ True 😀
“Yes, since in order to figure out whether a game is or isn’t good, you’d have to be able to play it properly first.”
Right.
“Well Nier did sell well, but that’s mainly because the port was quite “functional” for a Japanese game, if not great.”
I’d go with relatively well, as there’s a constantly vocal amount of people who are still demanding a patch from SE before they buy the game. How much of the population they actually account for is arguable at best, of course, but still.
On the other hand, SteamSpy indicates Nier has sold almost 600,000 copies on Steam, so yeah, that is some damn good numbers for a Japanese “niche” game, indeed.
On Crysis: I’d debate the opinion that it wasn’t a good game, but anyway. So, keeping in mind, of course, that Crysis (OG) & Warhead were PC exclusives until…. 2012? I forget. Either way, it was until well after Crysis 2 had launched (2011), so;
“By May 2010 the game has sold over 3 million units (and its standalone expansion about 1.5 million units) making it one of the best selling PC games of all time.”
By comparison, the multi-platform Crysis 2 sequel only sold 3 million copies across all 3 platforms, total;
“As of June 30, 2011 over 3 million copies of the game have been sold across all platforms, which is less than Crysis on PC only.”
Crysis 3, on the other hand, just outright bombed;
“sold 205,000 copies in 12 days in North America during its debut month. The title, along with Dead Space 3, another EA title that was released in the same month, failed to meet the company’s sales expectations. Cevat Yerli, Crytek’s CEO, was also disappointed by the sales of Crysis 3.”
SteamSpy offers some interesting, differing numbers on Crysis 1, Warhead & 2, however (sadly Crysis 3 was never on Steam, so there’s nothing on that one);
– Crysis: Owners: 1,096,520 ± 30,864
– Crysis Warhead: Owners: 930,767 ± 28,441
– Crysis 2 (original release): Owners: 107,922 ± 9,693
– Crysis 2 – Maximum Edition (re-release): Owners: 2,281,836 ± 44,465
Though of course, it goes without saying that these are nowhere near accurate overall sales figures, especially since Crysis originally released in a time long before Steam was anywhere near mainstream compared to Crysis 2, not to mention the question of how many people would have been deterred by the SecuROM DRM on the Steam version, compared to the DRM-free GOG version, so there is that to keep in mind as well, for whatever effect that would have had on its lifetime steam sales figures.
Either way, it seems Crysis 2 was ultimately still popular enough to redeem its initial sales flunking (due largely to the poor PC port & the changed gameplay nature, of course), but whether or not its lifetime sales figures actually ended up outselling Crysis OG’s remains highly questionable, in my opinion – regardless of if we’re just comparing PC sales, or sales across all 3 platforms.
“All of this technology in service of what, though?”
I’m just looking forward to the tsunami of salty tears from the console brand fanboys once Digital Foundry’s ‘face-off’ article is published!
“Once you play Destiny 2 for more than 30 minutes, what else does it have to offer that’s new?”
DLC!
>DLC!
You’re absolutely right, man. It’s a platform for DLC with repetitive, cow clicker-level gameplay.
Practically a social experiment that gamers pay to be involved in.