Bungie does a thing: blocks 3rd party overlays and capture software for running with Destiny 2

[Anult]

Bungie doing this just gives the impression that whatever anti-cheat system they will be using isn't as fleshed out as they want it to be.

[Cookybiscuit]

Was anyone even going to play this crap anyway?

[Eaglerino]

1 hour ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Was anyone even going to play this crap anyway?

Since the game has more preorders than Destiny 1, yes. Kind of a dumb statement. However all this garbage is making me not want to get it on PC for a while, but knowing Blizzard's client sales it'll never be on sale so I may never end up getting it

[Cookybiscuit]

6 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

Since the game has more preorders than Destiny 1, yes. Kind of a dumb statement. However all this garbage is making me not want to get it on PC for a while, but knowing Blizzard's client sales it'll never be on sale so I may never end up getting it

I've not been keeping up with the game, but I heard that the consensus from the beta is the game is pretty boring.

[suicidalfranco]

after trying warframe i find it really, really hard to get into other looter shooters, specially when other approach is to dumb down everything and make it as accessible as possible while warframe adds complexity on top of complexity and after 6 months of playing it, it's only a week ago that i discovered that the game as a counter mechanic during melee combat similar to dark souls with a finisher and all. 

Hopefully Borderlands 3 will stand out unlike what i saw in the destiny 2 beta

[sof006]

Shadowplay is a great way to record gameplay. Don't have a problem with this. I record lots of gameplay of my own using Shadowplay, can record for about 1 hour without the file exceeding 20GBs. FRAPs would go crazy and create something more in the 100+ GBs

[Sniperfox47]

10 minutes ago, sof006 said:

Shadowplay is a great way to record gameplay. Don't have a problem with this. I record lots of gameplay of my own using Shadowplay, can record for about 1 hour without the file exceeding 20GBs. FRAPs would go crazy and create something more in the 100+ GBs

The issue with shadowplay is it's encoding method. It creates significantly lower video quality when encoding than the x264 software encoder with more traditional screen recording software (eg. OBS).

[jasonvp]

44 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The issue with shadowplay is it's encoding method. It creates significantly lower video quality when encoding than the x264 software encoder with more traditional screen recording software (eg. OBS).

There are trade-offs, like everything in life.  A "high quality" x264 software encoding can and will beat down your CPU while you're playing, which will adversely affect your frame rate (assuming that's important to the type of games you're playing).  The NVENC encoder can be made to match that quality without putting any load on your system, but you need to significantly crank the bitrate of the resulting file.  That's why NVidia defaults their output to 50Mbit/sec.

 

Recording game play with NVENC is one thing.  Streaming directly to the likes of Twitch with it is another thing entirely.  That's where the bitrate thing will come back to haunt you.  If you're limited to ~7Mbit/sec for Twitch and you send an NVENC stream up, it's not going to look as good as a properly compressed 7Mbit/sec x264 encoding will.

[sof006]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The issue with shadowplay is it's encoding method. It creates significantly lower video quality when encoding than the x264 software encoder with more traditional screen recording software (eg. OBS).

At the end of the day, the video is going on YouTube and it tends to become compressed and made ugly looking anyway so doesn't make a difference.

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, jasonvp said:

There are trade-offs, like everything in life.  A "high quality" x264 software encoding can and will beat down your CPU while you're playing, which will adversely affect your frame rate (assuming that's important to the type of games you're playing).  The NVENC encoder can be made to match that quality without putting any load on your system, but you need to significantly crank the bitrate of the resulting file.  That's why NVidia defaults their output to 50Mbit/sec.

 

Recording game play with NVENC is one thing.  Streaming directly to the likes of Twitch with it is another thing entirely.  That's where the bitrate thing will come back to haunt you.  If you're limited to ~7Mbit/sec for Twitch and you send an NVENC stream up, it's not going to look as good as a properly compressed 7Mbit/sec x264 encoding will.

You're not wrong, but 50Mbit/s is also more than a little ridiculous for a 1080p video.

 

There's also other alternatives to having it destroy your CPU load, such as having a dedicated recorder on the side, or having a decent CPU.

 

I'm not trying to say that shadowplay is bad for everyone, or even bad in general, I'm just trying to explain why people might choose other options.

 

Shadowplay is certainly a good option for the casual crowd, but for anyone seriously recording, can you really justify 2-3x the file size for the same quality of video? Esp. if you wind up sharing that video with others (eg. Uploading it to YouTube/Twitch).

[jasonvp]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You're not wrong, but 50Mbit/s is also more than a little ridiculous for a 1080p video.

Well you're certainly welcome to drop that bit rate if you like.  At the cost of some quality, of course.

Quote

There's also other alternatives to having it destroy your CPU load, such as having a dedicated recorder on the side, or having a decent CPU.

It really doesn't matter how "good" your CPU is when it comes to high quality x264 encoding.  If you're playing an intensive game (GPU-bound or not) you are going to suffer a frame rate drop when software encoding.  There's just no way around it.  And please don't attempt to say otherwise, because software using x264 will happily pin every core of ANY available CPU.  Right to 100% if you let it.

Quote

Shadowplay is certainly a good option for the casual crowd, but for anyone seriously recording, can you really justify 2-3x the file size for the same quality of video? Esp. if you wind up sharing that video with others (eg. Uploading it to YouTube/Twitch).

I know several pro gamer/YouTubers that use NVENC happily to record their game play.  Storage space is essentially free.  Having larger h.264 files isn't a costly thing whatsoever.  Specially when the next step is editing those files and re-exporting before uploading.

 

So, yeah, that file size thing is really easy to justify when the award for that is a mere 1-2FPS change in gaming frame rate during the recording of it.

[Sniperfox47]

31 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Well you're certainly welcome to drop that bit rate if you like.  At the cost of some quality, of course.

That's my point though. The need to use 50Mbit/s for h.264 1080p footage to get good quality is ridiculous... That's 9Gb for 3 hours of streaming...

 

34 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

It really doesn't matter how "good" your CPU is when it comes to high quality x264 encoding.  If you're playing an intensive game (GPU-bound or not) you are going to suffer a frame rate drop when software encoding.  There's just no way around it.  And please don't attempt to say otherwise, because software using x264 will happily pin every core of ANY available CPU.  Right to 100% if you let it.

You're not going to tell me that with a modern 8-core 16 thread CPU at like 3.5GHz, you can't get away with sandboxing your gaming on four cores and your encoding on the other 4 cores... Sure you may lose 1-2 fps but who reasonably cares?

 

And if you have a dedicated recording machine as I mentioned even that 1-2fps loss disappears... Which, since it's just being used for encoding and possibly recording, doesn't even need to be a full system so you can cut out a lot of the cost of you know what you're doing.

 

49 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Storage space is essentially free.  Having larger h.264 files isn't a costly thing whatsoever.  Specially when the next step is editing those files and re-exporting before uploading.

 

So, yeah, that file size thing is really easy to justify when the award for that is a mere 1-2FPS change in gaming frame rate during the recording of it.

I don't get how you consider storage space free... I mean even if you got free hard drives or tape drives, they still take up considerable physical space to store and index...