Posted on Leave a comment

Sponsored: How Arm is solving mobile game development’s big 3 challenges

Presented by Arm

Once more, the Game Developers Conference (GDC) is upon us and, with it, frantic activity by our graphics engineering team to finalize all our demos, talks and collaborations with our partners. As an industry leader in mobile technology, Arm comes to this event with a focus on the questions that we keep hearing from mobile developers: how can I; a) build great-looking content that, b) can run on the widest range of devices, while c) keeping my power consumption down to enable longer play sessions?

This is the holy grail of mobile game development. The answer to those conflicting demands comes from an understanding of the hardware, firmware and APIs underpinning modern graphic engines. While game development is above all a creative endeavor, there is no escaping the fact that every buffer copied, unnecessary draw call or redundant triangle will compromise the artist’s ability to produce stunning content in the tight package of a mobile device.

  • Vulkan as the future for open standard APIs
  • The benefits of optimization to reach a mass market
  • How to achieve console quality graphics on mobile

Vulkan as the future of open standard APIs

Vulkan is an open standard, cross platform API designed from the ground up to enable applications to run more efficiently on modern CPU and GPU architectures spanning desktop, console and most importantly, mobile. It has become evident over the last few years that OpenGL and OpenGL ES have completed their life cycle and that it was impossible to further evolve an API that carries so much inherited weight after serving the industry for over 25 years. Additionally, GPUs are becoming highly programmable and compute capable, mobile platforms are becoming more relevant, memory is becoming unified and processors are becoming multi–core. Therefore, Vulkan is central to the GPU future.

“GPUs are becoming highly programmable and compute capable, mobile platforms are becoming more relevant, memory is becoming unified and processors are becoming multi–core. Therefore, Vulkan is central to the GPU future.”

One of the key open source Vulkan related releases Arm has made this year is PerfDoc. A Vulkan Layer designed by Hans Kristian Arntzen, which aims to validate applications against the Mali Application Developer Best Practices document, which can be found on the Arm Developer website. Just like the LunarG validation layers, this layer tracks your application and attempts to find API usage which is discouraged. PerfDoc focuses on checks which can be done up-front and checks which can be portably run on all platforms which support Vulkan. The intended use of PerfDoc is to be used during development to catch potential performance issues early. The layer will run on any Vulkan implementation, so Mali-related optimizations can be found even when doing bringup on desktop platforms. We’re really proud of the feedback we have gotten about PerfDoc, and wish to showcase it as much as we can.

At GDC this year, Arm has teamed up with Samsung to explain how to fully avail of Vulkan and develop even the most demanding content using validation layers. We will show developers how to optimize on the Mali GPU architecture with supporting Arm tools like PerfDoc, Mali Graphics Debugger and DS-5 Streamline. Lastly, you will see practical examples from some of the world’s leading mobile titles.

Check out the sponsored session on the GDC website here.

Arm’s resident graphics expert Pete Harris explains to me that the limitation of smartphones from a performance point of view is the form-factor. Passively cooling a chip inside a sealed case is never an easy task and the ability of a device to dissipate heat will determine the how much power it can sustainably draw during game play. The challenge for AAA content on mobile is to get as much useful work as possible out of that thermally stable power budget, which is somewhere around 3 watts for a typical smartphone. With the mobile game market’s notable growth worldwide and increasing demand for AAA games; creating performant, visually-stunning content has never been so important. Arm tools help measure and optimize applications to fit within the boundaries set by devices.

“Creating performant, visually-stunning content has never been so important. Arm tools help measure and optimize applications to fit within the boundaries set by devices.”

Nordeus, a mobile games studio based in Belgrade, Serbia is our partner for showcasing optimization and its advantages. During the sponsored session at GDC, Arm and Nordeus will explain how to profile your game using the Arm tools, alongside identifying and resolving pipeline bottlenecks with targeted optimization (e.g. shaders). Using Spellsouls: Duel of Legends as a case study, we will look at how to optimize the rendering pipeline and budget for efficient post-processing effects such as bloom at high FPS.

Most high-fidelity games are currently targeted to upmarket, expensive devices. With Arm’s Mali GPU being the primary graphics processor in the Asian market, we encourage developers and game engines to use Arm’s optimization tools and techniques to build richer worlds with better graphics and more effects that can be played in mass market devices by more people.

Check out the sponsored session on the GDC website here.

Achieving console quality graphics on mobile

If you search for the title above, you will find articles of Arm talking about achieving console quality graphics on mobile in 2015, so this has been a long-term goal for us. We do see mobile as the form factor where gaming will be fully mass-market, worldwide. Newzoo’s gaming report predicts that the gaming market revenue will rise by 20 billion by 2020, with mobile leading this year on year growth (1).  All you need is to hit a minimal viable level of graphics and have a big enough screen and gaming will become a pleasurable experience for the user. We already spoke about optimization, but do we have any actual examples of recent games on console that can be ported to mobile? Well, yes, we do! Fast Travel Games are a VR games development studio located in Sweden. We’ve worked with them in the past on some fun projects and we are partnering up for GDC once more. They have just launched Apex Construct, one of the most hotly anticipated VR titles of the year and which has been received with great reviews. At GDC we explain the unbridled rise in mobile gaming that have and will shift content consumption habits, quality and expectations.

More and more, demands are being placed to close the gap between console and mobile for both visual fidelity and experiences. For mobile VR especially, developers are faced with the challenge of creating immersive experiences that rival consoles – on an item that fits in a pocket. Arm and Fast Travel Games will explore how they ported part of Apex Construct to mobile VR, implemented inside-out tracking using the phone camera and optimized content to achieve an experience comparable to what consoles can offer without making any concessions on the game’s stunning visuals.

Check out the sponsored session on the GDC website here.

The race to better content never stops. Graphics optimization is one element of the equation in new media like augmented and mixed reality. Turning yourself into an emoji may seem like a rather juvenile step forward from some of the key players in the mobile space, but the level of engineering effort to integrate graphics, camera, facial recognition and lighting is by no means small. The overall goal for these companies isn’t to create an army of augmented reality emoji people to take over the world. It’s to push the boundaries of what a mobile phone can do and create new media forms for consumers and professionals. With game engines from Unity and Epic, and Google and Apple’s AR platforms, soon, everyone’s mobile phone will be the primary AR tool in the world. And once again, building a visually stunning experience will require a deep understanding of the different technologies underpinning it. Arm’s job at GDC is by no means done yet.

Posted on Leave a comment

Kirby’s back and this time he’s brought some friends!

Kirby’s back and this time he’s brought some friends!

When a new evil threatens Planet Popstar, Kirby will need a little help from his…enemies?! By making friends out of Kirby’s foes, up to four* players can join forces to save the day. With new and expanded copy abilities, classic Kirby action is deeper than ever in the Kirby™ Star Allies game.

Features

  • Use Friend Hearts to charm enemies and have them fight alongside you!
  • Drop-In/Drop-Out Co-Op: Play through the entire game with up to four* players or with CPU friends.
  • Combine abilities with elements such as wind and water to create new Friend Abilities.
  • Some bosses and enemies are weak to certain elemental attacks, so remember to strategize!
  • Earn additional Illustration Pieces and items with compatible amiibo™ figures (sold separately).

If you are interested in trying the free demo or purchasing the digital version of the game, please visit http://kirby.nintendo.com/star-allies/.

*Additional accessories may be required for multiplayer mode. Sold separately.

Game Shown:

Cartoon Violence

Posted on Leave a comment

Now Available – PAYDAY 2: VR

7.11:
==

* This version is focused on changing how the gold and buyback formulas work

* Buyback cost changed from 100 + ( Level * Level * 1.5) + (Time * 0.25) to 100 + Networth / 13
* Buyback no longer reduces gold earned after respawning

* AoE gold for the losing team no longer scales with the overall team networth difference, just the individual networth of the dying hero. Previously, a core on your team doing really well meant that a support on your team dying gave an increasing amount of gold to the enemy.

– The comeback component is now just: ( DyingHeroNetWorth * 0.026 + 70 ) / # of killers

This takes the place of the components below that considers Networth
For example in the 1 killer case, it replaces (NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375).
Like the previous formula, it is only given to the losing team.

* The gold multiplier based on the dying hero’s net worth rank changed from 1.2/1.1/1.0/0.9/0.8 to 1.2/1.05/0.9/0.75/0.6

* For reference, the previous AoE gold formula is listed below:

Terms:

NetWorthDifference = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth / AlliedTeamNetWorth ) – 1 [With a min of zero and a max of 1]
NetWorthFactor = NetWorthDifference * VictimNetWorth
NetWorthEarlyFactor (for when Enemy has more NW) = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth – AlliedTeamNetWorth ) / 4000 [Has a max of 1]
NetWorthPoorFactor = 1.3 – 0.1 * NetWorthRank (dying’s hero’s networth rank)
NetWorthRankingFactor (hero’s rank amongst allies involved in the kill): For 1/2/3/4/5 from poorest to richest are: { 1 } / { 1.3, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.0, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.15, 1.0, 0.85, 0.7}

Formula:

1 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 126 + 4.5 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
2 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 63 + 3.6 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 67.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
3 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 31.5 + 2.7 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 45 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
4 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 22.5 + 1.8 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 31.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.027 )
5 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 18 + 0.9 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 22.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.02025 )

Posted on Leave a comment

Weekend Deal – Call of Duty Franchise

7.11:
==

* This version is focused on changing how the gold and buyback formulas work

* Buyback cost changed from 100 + ( Level * Level * 1.5) + (Time * 0.25) to 100 + Networth / 13
* Buyback no longer reduces gold earned after respawning

* AoE gold for the losing team no longer scales with the overall team networth difference, just the individual networth of the dying hero. Previously, a core on your team doing really well meant that a support on your team dying gave an increasing amount of gold to the enemy.

– The comeback component is now just: ( DyingHeroNetWorth * 0.026 + 70 ) / # of killers

This takes the place of the components below that considers Networth
For example in the 1 killer case, it replaces (NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375).
Like the previous formula, it is only given to the losing team.

* The gold multiplier based on the dying hero’s net worth rank changed from 1.2/1.1/1.0/0.9/0.8 to 1.2/1.05/0.9/0.75/0.6

* For reference, the previous AoE gold formula is listed below:

Terms:

NetWorthDifference = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth / AlliedTeamNetWorth ) – 1 [With a min of zero and a max of 1]
NetWorthFactor = NetWorthDifference * VictimNetWorth
NetWorthEarlyFactor (for when Enemy has more NW) = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth – AlliedTeamNetWorth ) / 4000 [Has a max of 1]
NetWorthPoorFactor = 1.3 – 0.1 * NetWorthRank (dying’s hero’s networth rank)
NetWorthRankingFactor (hero’s rank amongst allies involved in the kill): For 1/2/3/4/5 from poorest to richest are: { 1 } / { 1.3, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.0, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.15, 1.0, 0.85, 0.7}

Formula:

1 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 126 + 4.5 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
2 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 63 + 3.6 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 67.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
3 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 31.5 + 2.7 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 45 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
4 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 22.5 + 1.8 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 31.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.027 )
5 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 18 + 0.9 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 22.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.02025 )

Posted on Leave a comment

Daily Deal – Obduction, 60% Off

7.11:
==

* This version is focused on changing how the gold and buyback formulas work

* Buyback cost changed from 100 + ( Level * Level * 1.5) + (Time * 0.25) to 100 + Networth / 13
* Buyback no longer reduces gold earned after respawning

* AoE gold for the losing team no longer scales with the overall team networth difference, just the individual networth of the dying hero. Previously, a core on your team doing really well meant that a support on your team dying gave an increasing amount of gold to the enemy.

– The comeback component is now just: ( DyingHeroNetWorth * 0.026 + 70 ) / # of killers

This takes the place of the components below that considers Networth
For example in the 1 killer case, it replaces (NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375).
Like the previous formula, it is only given to the losing team.

* The gold multiplier based on the dying hero’s net worth rank changed from 1.2/1.1/1.0/0.9/0.8 to 1.2/1.05/0.9/0.75/0.6

* For reference, the previous AoE gold formula is listed below:

Terms:

NetWorthDifference = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth / AlliedTeamNetWorth ) – 1 [With a min of zero and a max of 1]
NetWorthFactor = NetWorthDifference * VictimNetWorth
NetWorthEarlyFactor (for when Enemy has more NW) = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth – AlliedTeamNetWorth ) / 4000 [Has a max of 1]
NetWorthPoorFactor = 1.3 – 0.1 * NetWorthRank (dying’s hero’s networth rank)
NetWorthRankingFactor (hero’s rank amongst allies involved in the kill): For 1/2/3/4/5 from poorest to richest are: { 1 } / { 1.3, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.0, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.15, 1.0, 0.85, 0.7}

Formula:

1 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 126 + 4.5 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
2 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 63 + 3.6 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 67.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
3 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 31.5 + 2.7 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 45 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
4 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 22.5 + 1.8 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 31.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.027 )
5 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 18 + 0.9 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 22.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.02025 )

Posted on Leave a comment

Dota 2 Update – March 15, 2018

7.11:
==

* This version is focused on changing how the gold and buyback formulas work

* Buyback cost changed from 100 + ( Level * Level * 1.5) + (Time * 0.25) to 100 + Networth / 13
* Buyback no longer reduces gold earned after respawning

* AoE gold for the losing team no longer scales with the overall team networth difference, just the individual networth of the dying hero. Previously, a core on your team doing really well meant that a support on your team dying gave an increasing amount of gold to the enemy.

– The comeback component is now just: ( DyingHeroNetWorth * 0.026 + 70 ) / # of killers

This takes the place of the components below that considers Networth
For example in the 1 killer case, it replaces (NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375).
Like the previous formula, it is only given to the losing team.

* The gold multiplier based on the dying hero’s net worth rank changed from 1.2/1.1/1.0/0.9/0.8 to 1.2/1.05/0.9/0.75/0.6

* For reference, the previous AoE gold formula is listed below:

Terms:

NetWorthDifference = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth / AlliedTeamNetWorth ) – 1 [With a min of zero and a max of 1]
NetWorthFactor = NetWorthDifference * VictimNetWorth
NetWorthEarlyFactor (for when Enemy has more NW) = ( EnemyTeamNetWorth – AlliedTeamNetWorth ) / 4000 [Has a max of 1]
NetWorthPoorFactor = 1.3 – 0.1 * NetWorthRank (dying’s hero’s networth rank)
NetWorthRankingFactor (hero’s rank amongst allies involved in the kill): For 1/2/3/4/5 from poorest to richest are: { 1 } / { 1.3, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.0, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7 } / { 1.3, 1.15, 1.0, 0.85, 0.7}

Formula:

1 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 126 + 4.5 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 90 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
2 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 63 + 3.6 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 67.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
3 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 31.5 + 2.7 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 45 + NetWorthFactor * 0.03375 )
4 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 22.5 + 1.8 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 31.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.027 )
5 Killer: NetWorthPoorFactor * NetWorthRankingFactor * ( 18 + 0.9 * VictimLevel + NetWorthEarlyFactor * 22.5 + NetWorthFactor * 0.02025 )

Posted on Leave a comment

Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice leads BAFTA Games Awards 2018 nominations

The nominations are in for the 2018 British Academy (BAFTA) Games Awards, and Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice leads the way with nine nominations, including nods in the Best Game, Artistic Achievement, and Game Innovation categories.

Horizon Zero Dawn is the second most nominated title with eight nods, including Best Game, Game Design, and Audio Achievement, while What Remains of Edith Finch rounds off the top three with seven nominations. 

Both The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Gorogoa have received five nominations apiece, with others like Cuphead, Night in the Woods, and Uncharted: The Lost Legacy each nabbing four. 

In total, 45 games have been nominated for this year’s awards, which will see the introduction of a new ‘Game Beyond Entertainment’ category to recognize those titles that deliver “deliver a transformational experience beyond pure entertainment.”

The winners will be announced during the BAFTA Games Awards ceremony in London on April 12. You can view a select list of nominees below or head over to the BAFTA website for the full rundown.

Artistic Achievement 

  • Cuphead (StudioMDHR Entertainment)
  • Gorogoa  (Buried Signal, Annapurna Interactive)
  • Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice (Ninja Theory Ltd)
  • Horizon Zero Dawn (Guerrilla, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe)
  • The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo EPD, Nintendo)
  • Uncharted: The Lost Legacy (Naughty Dog, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe)

Best Game

  • Assassin’s Creed Origins (Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft)
  • Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice (Ninja Theory Ltd)
  • Horizon Zero Dawn (Guerrilla, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe)
  • The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo EPD, Nintendo)
  • Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo EPD, Nintendo)
  • What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, Annapurna Interactive)

Debut Game 

  • Cuphead (StudioMDHR Entertainment)
  • Gorogoa  (Buried Signal, Annapurna Interactive)
  • Hollow Knight (Team Cherry)
  • Night in the Woods (InfiniteFall, Finji)
  • The Sexy Brutale (Cavalier Game Studios, Tequila Works)
  • Slime Rancher (Monomi Park)

Game Beyond Entertainment 

  • Bury Me, My Love (The Pixel Hunt, Fig, Arte & Playdius)
  • Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice (Ninja Theory Ltd)
  • Last Day of June (Ovosonico, 505 Games)
  • Life is Strange: Before The Storm (Deck Nine Games, Square Enix)
  • Night in the Woods (InfiniteFall, Finji)
  • Sea Hero Quest VR (Glitchers)

Game Design

  • Assassin’s Creed Origins (Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft)
  • Horizon Zero Dawn (Guerrilla, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe)
  • The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo EPD, Nintendo)
  • Nier Automata (Platinum Games, Square Enix)
  • SnipperClips (SFB Games, Nintendo)
  • What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, Annapurna Interactive)

Game Innovation 

  • Gorogoa  (Buried Signal, Annapurna Interactive)
  • Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice (Ninja Theory Ltd)
  • The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo EPD, Nintendo)
  • Nier Automata (Platinum Games, Square Enix)
  • SnipperClips (SFB Games, Nintendo)
  • What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, Annapurna Interactive)