The First Technical Analysis Of Just Cause 3 On The Xbox One ... Isn't Great

The biggest game this week and perhaps the most anticipated title remaining for the rest of the year is Just Cause 3. Alongside Rainbow Six: Siege, it's certainly the last of the major multiplatform titles coming out.

But how good is the performance? I haven't been able to get my hands on the game just yet, but some technical analysis of the Xbox One version is starting to filter in. And the results are a little eyebrow raising.

YouTuber NX Gamer has gotten ahead of the curve with his technical breakdown of JC3 on Team Green's console, with his analysis uncovering dips in the frame rate to 17fps and an average frame rate of 27.37fps.

Perhaps the more worrying element, however, were the supposed memory leaks and substantial loading times experienced the longer the game was loaded up. This hasn't detracted from the enjoyment of the game, of course, although it's worth noting all the same.

Just Cause 3 officially launches tomorrow, so expect a spate of coverage about it everywhere. It'll be interesting to see the breakdown of JC3's performance on other platforms. I'd expect the PC to be the best platform for the amount of explosions and physics-based rendering going on, and it'll be fun to see how that holds up with a day one patch too.


Comments

    Sheesh. Average of 27 is unplayable.

      Tru dat. I'd rather the gfx take a hit than deal with that kind of chop.

      Isn't GTA V on next gen only 30fps?

        I think so, but its stable. 30 is fine as long as it doesnt dip.

    Early reports are that the PS4 version suffers similar issues...... a shame if it isn't fixed with a patch.

    Could this have something to do with the the fact that just cause 3 uses game works and consoles use amd hardware? Will be interesting to see how it goes on pc with an amd gpu. If it doesn't then this console generation is fairly ordinary two years in and already they can't maintain a solid 30 fps in aaa games. Maybe the better option is saving up a bit more and building a 1000 pc with a 380/960 in it...

      With it's current track record I wouldn't go as far as to say it's not gameworks.

      That said, it looks like it's the (what I would assume to be) VERY CPU intensive physics calculations for destruction. The destroyed pieces all remain in the game world, not falling through the map or disappearing over time and hence still having their physics calculated unlike most other games where objects disappear or come to rest (They stop being able to interact in most games, like Dark souls for example).

      And I doubt this game is using gpu compute to handle that, leaving it all to the poor wittle 1.6-1.7ghz AMD CPU's. So that'll be my bet. Also, there were other bugs and crashes reported... So it may just be unfinished/ a bad port unfortunately.

      Edit: Pity cause I love me some Just Cause. Hope the PC version is ok. :(

      Last edited 30/11/15 6:05 pm

        Good points. I hope developers can find ways of optimising console hardware otherwise everything will be held back worse than it already is.

          Well, at the end of the day I'm not 100% sure that consoles are holding back PC games tbh (Theoretically). Especially at this rate. Games running 900-1080p, 20-30fps average on console vs 60+fps on pc doesn't really scream that devs are pulling anything out for the sake of the consoles IMO. Plus there's the whole low end PC market that comes into play which can be weaker than the consoles etc, but let's ignore that for a sec.

          When features are taken out/ not fully fleshed out it probably has more to do with time and budget constraints, in most cases, more than console hardware, again IMO. Infact, with the large pool of memory on consoles, I'd debate that consoles having "too much ram" (I know, funny to think you can have to much, but run with it for a sec lol) are the reason we are seeing more un-optimized games this gen, even on PC.

          I'd like to see a bigger push to gpu compute and better multi-core support this gen, and I hope DX12 will help that along. We've only really begun to see this really utilized in first party console games, which do look and run considerably well. Plus, those are things that'll benefit us PC gamers as well as console guys, which I thin every one would be happy to see.

            You aren't wrong.
            Consoles have become the convenient bogeyman for many PC gamers despite the fact the math just doesn't add up.

            It's all about costs vs sales, spend less and sell more.

            What do you mean by large pool of ram? I was under the impression that the ps4 amd apu shares 8gb of ram between all components and has a separate driver for other things like audio controller etc. Imo, consoles don't have enough frame buffer.

            Take fallout 4 as an example, some of the textures are awful like the doors. They look terrible when you walk up to them and modders are already working on texture packs for the game like blood etc. Just like they did with skyrim.

            Consoles are effectively low end pcs so I do think that pc gamers are being held back by them. Have a look at a ps4/xbox 1 running fallout 4. Frames fluctuate from 19 to 30 fps and the quality settings are at best medium to high with draw distances set to low.

            You're right dx12 will improve consoles but I'm not sure it will be enough. I mean top end gpus can already run 4k resolution at a decent rate and next year top end pascal will be able to get close to 60fps 4k. I wish that sony/Microsoft equipped their consoles with better hardware and charged more for it.

              Well, you have perhaps misunderstood what I mean.

              EDIT: Let me start off by saying: The pool of memory is large compared to last gen and large because there is no distinction between what is reserved for system ram or graphics ram, or in the case of the PS4, frame-buffer. EDIT over.

              The consoles don't have a lot of total ram compared to SOME PC's, but the fact that they have one large pool has lead to an imbalance where developers don't have to optimize where they put what, or how long they put it there for. At least not as much as they used to.

              Because of this we have seen many spewing as much as they can into memory, cutting corners and sometimes not even compressing assets to a reasonable degree. This saves time, but can harm performance, while also not necessarily improving visual quality. I.E Compression of at least some degree isn't always a bad thing.

              Which brings me to your next point. Compression/ Fallout 4. The large pool of memory is EXACTLY the reason why Fallout 4 has received texture mods in it's first weeks. The majority of them focus on LOWERING the size of the default textures, boosting performance on PC while not noticeably lowering fidelity. This is because Fallout 4's default textures are massive in size (MB) but low in detail. This is, again IMO, a direct result of the consoles having 'to much' ram for their needs.

              So to clarify, maybe it would help to look at it this way: They don't have 'too much ram' in the traditional sense, but they are unbalanced because the pool of memory is being used as a shortcut, leading to less optimized games that ironically perform worse on console and pc. And it's being used like that because it is more than the rest of the components can, perhaps, keep up with. Hence I say 'too much'.

              Also, no. I don't think DX12 will improve consoles, they already have low level API's. I do think that it might nudge developers into better utilizing multicore support because now PC will have better multicore support at an API level. Yes, ironically, DX11 is holding back the adoption of multicore support as it stands now because it is, again IMO, the 'worst' of the current gen API's in terms of low level access. Well, that's my 2c on it anyway.

              Hope that clears things up. :)

              Last edited 30/11/15 9:41 pm

              The 90s are littered with consoles that over-capitalised on their specs and paid the price with poor sales (Neo Geo anyone?)

              I think overall MS and Somy have struck a good balance between performance and price

        PC version should be fine as Avalanche have much more experience on PC than on Consoles

          I certainly hope so. But I also hope that the consoles get patched to somewhat more acceptable. 'Cause it looks like a buggy mess, complete with crashes and memory leaks etc, which would presumably work their way onto PC< much like JC2 had on PC if I remember. No one should have to put up with it.

      thing is gameworks hasn't affected any other multi platform game and most of the time issues that do crop up are because of poor drivers from AMD or shoddy developer work, not saying gameworks is great just that its not always the problem

        Yeah, they seem to only be a problem for AMD users if, you know, turned on. I could be wrong though, haven't used and amd card for gaming in a while.

        I did, however, test the Witcher 3 with a 7870 and found it to be 100% acceptable. Performance wise ,with gameworks stuff off, it performed like it's nVidia price counterparts. Heck, hairworks even ran better on it in comparison because of AMD's ability to shave down the tessellation factor.

      we've only recently seen companies stop developing for last gen as well as next gen, takes time for them to work out how to get the most out of a new console.

    poor potatoes.

      http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif

        potato farmer.

          I do use my Wii U/PS4 more than my gaming PC these days, but I like to think of myself as a beautiful mixed race super man compared to you old tribe bound neanderthals ;)

            I've got all the consoles and a decent gaming pc. Unless it's a game that works better with a pc I find myself preferring my consoles these days.

              Me too, I treat my gaming PC like a console (plugged in to the TV, usually playing with a controller) so I'm happy I have options when it comes to playing games but I still lean toward consoles slightly only because it's just so easy to pop in a disk and play (after stupid day 1 patches of course).

              That said, I've been playing Fallout 4 on PC, looks like JC3 might have to be the same.

      Go play some Batman on yer PC... oh wait.

      Last edited 01/12/15 10:40 am

      @anoteros

      anoteros @anoteros
      November 30, 2015 5:45 pm
      poor potatoes.

      I run a 4GB GTX970 GPU and a 3.5Ghz Intel i7 CPU, and have been unable to maintain a steady frame-rate in full screen mode no matter what settings I tweak. Running the game in windowed mode helps things, but only a bit: My experience has been significantly hampered by bugs, visual glitches, and performance hitches, along with several hard crashes to desktop.

      Last edited 01/12/15 12:19 pm

    Yep first word on the ps4 version is the same, horrible load times and shit framerate. Ergh. Please let the pc version be ok...

      Giant Bomb East have a video of the PC version running at full tilt on their machine (780 Ti and a 4770K if my memory is correct). More or less holds 60 all the time with a few exceptions.

        Awesome news. Huge fan of 2 and we're getting 3 on pc, was praying the pc version would be the exception. Seems game development is leaving consoles behind rather quickly this time. Wonder if we're looking at a 5 year lifespan again.

          I heard an interesting idea the other day. The premise being that the console manufacturers could move to a more iterative hardware cycle, similar to what you get with an iPad.

          They could spit out say a 2017 Playstation model that's fully compatible with the current library (running on x86 APU's as it is so that's not terribly difficult) but runs at a quicker spec.

          Newer games could just come with a few predefined setting modes (hidden to the user of course) to maybe turn up the pretty on the newer machines much like you see with certain higher end iOS releases.

          These machines were never designed to be big power houses like last generation.

            Theoretically, but at that point you may as well just move over to pc.

              Oh sure if your aware/savvy enough to see how you'd be better off. But I'm talking about the people who buy a new tablet every 2 years. They still fiend for an update cycle with the promise of everything they like just getting that bit better but without any meaningful perceived hassle. It certainly keeps the money pouring in for Apple.

                That's where I see the console market ending up anyhow, in tablet like devices. I think it'll move away from the tv onto those tbh.

                  Nah I can't see it, one of the most important parts of a console is the couch/t.v/surround sound element that people associate with them. With the ridiculous price still on tablets, touchscreens and such there is no way we're going to be all sitting there tapping away on 9 inch screens instead of setting up entire rooms dedicated to entertainment.

                  Not for me. I console for the couch and large tv.

                  Never thought people would be happy taking up gaming on 3 - 4 inch screens either, but there ya go...

    So cinematic. You can't handle it's filmic qualities.

    No surprise there. This gen of consoles is still severely underpowered, as they were at launch. I wish MS and Sony had charged $100 more (MS could have just dropped the Kinect and put a mic in every controller or on the console) and used an extra $100 worth of corperate buying power per unit on the hardware.

      That's something I dislike about modern game development; people think the answer is to simply throw more RAM at something. It seems that many PC developers would rather hike up the recommended system requirements rather than optimise their game. But then you look at what Rockstar achieved; they managed to get Grand Theft Auto 5 running on an Xbox 360, which only has 512mb RAM. Unfortunately, developers like Rockstar are few and far between, so we're now stuck in this endless cycle of constantly upgrading hardware, because developers want to take the easy path.

        Even better, got it running on the ps3 with only 256mb for games!

        While I agree with your principle point, I have to point out that Rockstar said that they couldn't add any more content to the 360/ps3 versions of GTA Online, because there wasn't enough memory. This happened a few updates ago too, so they are missing out on things like the new custom vehicles and the hydraulics auto shop. And every future update and change.

        http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2015/09/10/rockstar-will-not-be-updating-gta-online-on-xbox-360-or-ps3-any-more

        A little bit more juice to kick the frames up a bit wouldn't hurt.

        Last edited 01/12/15 12:19 am

          True, a bit more juice doesn't hurt. But considering that current consoles feature 8GB of RAM compared to the previous generation's 512mb/256mb+256mb configurations, it would seem that there is a fair bit of potential there already. Hell, look at what Nintendo achieve on even lower-powered hardware; games like Mario Kart and the upcoming Zelda look absolutely stunning, even on a seriously underpowered console such as the WiiU. Other developers, such as the previously mentioned Rockstar, Naughty Dog and Retro show what can be achieved when you put the time in. For an even better example, compare something like Codemaster's F1 series to the F1 game the PS3 launched with.

        I can't up vote that comment hard enough - MaxPayne 3 also looked incredible on my 360.

        I have always been a console gamer and I remembers years ago when the first Xbox came out voicing my opinion that this was a stealth move by the PC gaming industry to take over the console space.

        In a way - that has happened - as much as PC master race complains about consoles holding them back - you made this guys, not Sony and not Nintendo- almost everything happening in consoles currently is an evolution of what Microsoft started with the O.G. Xbox

        Most of that has been for the good but this graphics arms race (and it's at the margins - there's not a great deal of visual difference between JC2 and JC3 - taking precedence over optimisation is causing regular people who wouldn't notice it otherwise to agonise over frame refresh rates, teraflops, pixel counts, SSAO, FXA, Texture Filtering and other engineering concepts which we can all rattle off but very few of us (including me) understand

        Long story short: I will buy this game when I get around to it - on an Xbone cuz that's what I like to play on and if the frame rate drops well that happens from time to time and has been happening in all sorts of games for as long as I can remember - who cares! Is the game fun to play? Is it frustrating? Is it compelling or addictive? Those are the real questions we should be asking

    Let's face it we used to love consoles for graphics and ease of use, being able to grab that second controller, hit start and dive right in. Lets face it, those days are over, the PC won its right to take over the living room and now with devices like the steam link, gaming will only get better as the use for consoles becomes become obsolete.

      Yep. I've always been a console gamer, I'm not so good with things like drivers and patches and things - but if anything, this latest crop of games has convinced me to switch and, when in doubt, just friggin' Google it.

        Come join the dark side! It's not that hard everything is basically automated. You can over clock you CPU and gpu with a couple of clicks! Plus websites like pcpartpicker offer a lot of help and advice if you plan on building a pc yourself.

          Until something goes wrong, that is. Then it can easily end up with an hour of port forwarding, driver reinstalling and screwing around with settings before you can get playing.

            I've had to port forward for console as well as PC :(

            Or you can just create a recovery DVD and use it or restore to an earlier restore point.

      One shit console port doesn't mean the end of consoles any more than the PC version of Arkham Knight means PC gaming is finished.

        Hey, leave logic out of this. It's like eye contact and thats the last thing a circle jerk needs.

        Last edited 30/11/15 9:02 pm

      That is not the only reason consoles have been popular, and saying those days are over is all very well but not really feasible when consoles are on the path to selling better then they ever have :-)

      Last edited 30/11/15 9:49 pm

      Yeah, except I buy nearly everything on PS4 now, evn though I have an X99/Titan combo, as the games are so often broken or problematic on the PC.
      I decided to go back, and got Fallout4 on my PC, and ended up refunding it after random crashes that lost my progress, and am now playing it on PS4.
      The PC will always have the performance edge, but in most cases now, I'm just not finding it worth it. Throw some exclusives on the consoles in, and I do most of my gaming on the consoles now.

    The lower the frame rate the more cinematic. Right?

    I think its pretty funny when one game that hasn't been released yet claims to be suffering performance issues on one console tested that all the pc power race tools jump up and scream DEATH TO CONSOLES. I'm a fan boy of games, not of one particular hardware. But I would much rather kick back on my sofa with my wireless controller in my hands, mic plugged into it and playing games on my big screen LED LCD than sit awkwardly leaning forward with my face buried into a tiny 19 inch screen while trying to remember which buttons on my keyboard I used for each particular game.
    I just think most pc gamers are butt hurt because they missed out on some awesome exclusive console releases, and cry foul on any bad news they hear about any game on console.

    Its the cpu thats holding back the ps4 and one, its just way to weak and tablets will have more powerful cpu's soon. Open world games use more cpu power than your average game and the weak jaguar just doesnt have the chops. I just wish they wouldve charged 100 more for the consoles and gave us a more powerful apu. A higher clocked quad core wouldve worked, something in the 2-3ghz range.

    Looks like another game you will get a physical copy of the game and then spend 5hrs downloading the GB's of patch. YAY consoles!

    Why do all of you allow yourselves to be alarmed and reactionary to anecdotal news where loads of relevant variables haven't been considered making it dubious at best?

    Why not STOP defending your right to be outraged at everything and perhaps start considering whether an indulgence in rage and emotion actually leads to a reasonable, holistic perspective where your words are actually valid.

    Last edited 01/12/15 1:46 pm

    i was waiting for this, another broken game. I thought it was a bit long between drinks

Join the discussion!