Talk:Frostbite (game engine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars game by BioWare?[edit]

When EA announced the partnership with LucasFilm, they said Dice and Visceral will be joining BioWare in developing Star Wars games. Since BioWare is still working on a Star Wars game (The Old Republic), it's unsafe to assume they're working on a new Star Wars game. In fact, all four BioWare studios are occupied with their own projects. (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, new IP, The Old Republic). For this reason, I would drop the untitled Star wars game by BioWare until an official source confirms such a game is being made. 194.78.37.122 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 with DirectX?[edit]

If Frostbite is built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and _PlayStation 3_ how can it only use DirectX? I thought PlayStation 3 only supported OpenGL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.134.15 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, PS3 uses PsGL (subset of OpenGL, similar to ES) and DirectX is a MS technology not present on Ps3. The claims made in the article are wrong, especially claims about DirectCompute on Ps3 etc. Also putting references to random game sites which claim DX11 is used in the title and don't write anything about it in their article, even revoking the info given, are not a quality source a wikipedia article needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.172.36 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, PS3 uses its own library called libgcm, which gives direct access to the RSX and from what i know - OpenGL ES on PS3 is just a wrapper around libgcm.Cre-ker (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of games[edit]

Is there a full list of games that utilize this engine anywhere? SharkD (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the article. AppleJack-7 12:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DX-11/Frostbite 2[edit]

How is it that it only supports DX-11? I assume you can still play games that use Frostbite 2 with cards like the AMD HD 4890 even though thats not a DX11 card. This should be more clarified in the article. 88.88.19.25 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. The article says only that it "takes full advantage of" DX11. --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So with other words, it supports DX 10 and 11. If you have Windows XP and DX 9, you can't play..? So you need Vista or Windows 7 and a card that supports DX 10 or 11? What if you have a video card that doesn't support DX 10 or 11, but have Windows 7? 88.88.19.25 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need at least Windows Vista and a DX10 card. These requirements are best dealt with on each game's page. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that it uses DX11 interface, drivers can emulate DX11 on DX10 hardware. PS3 and Xbox360 is really DX9 class hardware but since those systems mass produced the developer can add special support themselves - like PS3 offloading GPU work to SPU. RogerJL (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS3 and Xbox360 are not a DX9 class hardware - they are beyond DX9 specifications. Xbox 360 even has some functions, that was implemented only in dx10/dx10.1/dx11.Cre-ker (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody include the programming language used to write the engine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.0.70 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add mirrors edge 2 to the list[edit]

Mirrors edge 2 should be added to the section of games that will use the frostbite 2 engine: http://www.frostbite2.com/?page_id=50

Mirrors Edge 2 is listed there. The0JJ (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need Plants VS zombies: Garden Warfare[edit]

http://www.frostbite.com/connect/#plants-vs-zombies-garden-warfare confirmed, thought engine version unsure. Zhantshen (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the Frostbite 3 section[edit]

The Frostbite 3 section's subsections read very much like adverts, and mostly don't have any references. As they stand, I think they offer very little to the article. 82.181.79.33 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's not just me. Trying to read the shockingly awful business-speak made my brain dribble out of my ears. --—Christine (blather • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same. Pure marketing blurb 86.134.90.125 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015 reduction to notability[edit]

Greetings all. I have undertaken a major edit to bring the article closer to encyclopedic policy and standards. The encyclopedic baseline is to establish and then describe the notability for the subject as per WP:N. We are here to overview why a subject is and always will be essentially notable, not to list everything we've ever known about it (fandom, undue attention, and promotion). @Cbh, ChamithN, and Drmies: and friends, please join me in reviewing this edit to ensure that I hadn't deleted a few notable things (throw the baby out with the bathwater). For example, I don't want to commit the necessary deletion of overall non-notable lists and texts, without harvesting substantial WP:RS citations that can be collected elsewhere in a new summary text. Here is an example in another article where I reduced an inordinately gigantic list to a meaningful amount of new summary text, while retaining citations. If there is a legitimate site for fandom of the Frostbite engine, someone might want to migrate some of this deleted content to it. Furthermore, there needs to be a Reception section, including Legacy if possible. I imagine lots of reviews exist of the engine, and lots of game reviewers probably have mentioned the engine in their game reviews regarding how the engine impacted the quality, integrity, or possibilities within the game. We'd like to objectively know what Frostbite makes possible or easy that other alternatives can't do, and that's an appropriate place to summarize content of an objectively promotional or demotional nature. We need screenshots and video clips that show the signature achievements or performance landmarks of the engine, as we see on Unreal Engine. Here is a more exhaustive discussion and analysis of what we need for game engine articles to really rock. Unreal Engine is getting there, but maybe it gets a lot more press. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 05:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Language[edit]

The table on the right of the page states the Frostbite engine is written in C++. Given that the engine is proprietary and Frostbite doesn't seem to specify the language on their site, is there some other reliable source stating the language is C++? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.50.175 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article content[edit]

The bulk of the article seems to be simply a long listing of games, versions and release dates. Basically the exact same information that can be seen in the list of games - save for the description of destructible environments. I suggest removing the bulk of games mentioned in the text sections, and reduce that to actual descriptions of functionality and technical details. As it stands, more than 80% of the text is simply repeating names and dates from the games list. SplatMan DK (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering path[edit]

Would be nice to have an entire section talking on this important matter. The supported rendering APIs should be mentioned:

How to update the Frostbite engine version numbers properly[edit]

Since Battlefield 4's release DICE has not used the numerical 2.x,3.x,4.x naming convention. It was a marketing thing only which they dropped fairly quickly. In order to get the accurate from-DICE/EA/Frostbite versions you will need a hex editor to open up "Engine.BuildInfo_Win64_retail.dll", there may be other naming conventions such as "Engine.BuildInfo.dll" or "Info_Win64_retail.BuildSettings" or some variant of BuildInfo/BuildSettings. You will need to scroll down until you see the codename, build date, frostbite revision.

In text files it looks similar to this:

const char* g_frostbiteRelease="2015.4.6";

In dll's it will look similar to this:

0F18h: 57 68 69 74 65 73 68 61 72 6B 00 00 00 00 00 00 Whiteshark......

0F28h: 32 30 31 34 2E 34 2E 31 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2014.4.17.......

0F38h: 6D 6F 6E 6B 65 79 2E 77 68 69 74 65 73 68 61 72 monkey.whiteshar

0F48h: 6B 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 31 37 3A 31 31 3A 31 30 k.......17:11:10

0F58h: 5A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 30 31 35 2D 30 36 2D Z.......2015-06-

0F68h: 32 34 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 30 31 35 2D 30 36 2D 24......2015-06-

0F78h: 32 34 54 31 37 3A 31 31 3A 31 30 5A 24T17:11:10Z


Whiteshark being Star Wars Battlefront's code name, 2014.4.17 being the Frostbite Build Version, monkey.whiteshark being the build server, time, date, and timestamp. For this article we only need the Frostbite build version.

I got fed up with people mistaking all these games for just 3.0 as if there hasn't been updates and upgrades to the engine over time, as well as having a "mythical" 4.0 version which never existed. Anyone who has a Frostbite game installed can do this, and this is coming from a source of truth, not speculation/some random media article. This should be the standard of documentation moving forward.

Frostbite 2 and earlier titles may not have this style of build information, but anything from "Frostbite 3" onwards will (Battlefield 4+). This can also be done for PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 5 but you will need to decrypt the BuildInfo prx/sprx files before able to read the plain-text.

Wish everyone the best, and lets try to correct this incorrect information. 50.34.47.187 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. These are internal build numbers and not covered by reliable sources. Please stop changing these. From the public view, what matters is the engine's basic version level, such as 2.0 versus 3.0. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect, these come from DICE themselves. Please revert your changes. As described, with proof that they dropped the 2.0/3.0 nomenclature after Battlefield 4. You are replacing it with "garbage" essentially. Even ex-dice employees refer to the engine revision/builds (there is engine version, and game specific builds) as provided. 50.35.93.129 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to supply a single reliable secondary source that supported and refers to these internal build numbers. I'll wait. WP:VG/S may help you. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_I-LpjW6k
You done being wrong now?
After Battlefield 4, they stopped referring to the 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 nomenclature. That's why all GDC videos and future presentations just refer it as Frostbite, and the revisions are done by year, similar to how "Unity Game Engine" doesn't mainly refer to Unity 2014, Unity 2015, Unity 2016. It's just referred to as Unity. Clear as day 0:12. 50.35.93.129 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source. Please give another read of our reliable source guidelines and the vetted list of reliable video game sources. You may also want to read about original research and why it's not allowed on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is BF 2042 now 4.0? Where is your reliable source? Instead of just making stuff up. How about you don’t edit stuff you have absolutely no clue about? 2003:E0:F22:8B00:A03D:1D85:B1D3:6094 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that. I just reverted your inappropriate edits to the article back to the existing status quo. That said... here you go. PCMag is a reliable source and says BF 2042 used Frostbite 4.0. There's tons of other reliable sources saying the same. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also sources saying BF 2042 still uses 3.0, this seems more like an interpretation by the journalists rather than a fact. This reliable (German) source for example alleges: "...Officially, it is still the third version of the graphics engine, which has been used since Battlefield 4 and is also used in the last FIFA parts, Need for Speed or Anthem." Marv7000 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, could you elaborate why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_I-LpjW6k is not a reliable source? It's a video by a EA developer showing footage of the Frostbite engine with a clearly visible "2016.3" text. This is not original research following the original research guidelines. Marv7000 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one, I don't know that a random Youtube channel with 111 subscribers is an EA developer unless it's pointed out. But it becomes a case of being a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) with no commentary about the topic. WP:USERG and WP:SPS also apply in most cases of YouTube content, except when it's a verified/official source acting in a Primary capacity. He doesn't say "We don't call it 4.0 anymore, the game uses 2016.3". It just happens to be you see his environment and a project label shown. To make any claim about it beyond "Anton Crnkovic showed an internal project labelled Frostbite 2013.3 Demo related to PVZ GW2" is impossible from this video. This is probably a good point to mention WP:NOTCHANGELOG. While not completely applicable here, the basic fact is that Wikipedia is not concerned with presenting this kind of information without suitable coverage by reliable secondary sourcing. If reliable sources refer to it as Frostbite 4.0, even if they're wrong, that's what Wikipedia shows. It is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source built on secondary sources. Many lists like this gather a lot of cruft and technical details that aren't suitable for Wikipedia. Another Wiki site, dedicated to development or Frostbite or DICE in general, would probably be more suitable. -- ferret (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Marv7000 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All public communication about the engine since Frostbite 3.0 has not referred to a specific version, because the changes have been incremental and tracked based on the release system explained above. The "Frostbite 4.0" mentioned in the PCMag article is most likely speculation on the author's part, as there was never any official communication versioning it as such.
Regardless of what you think the public view might be, the version numbers you've removed are very helpful for people working with games that use this engine, and also give an idea as to which changes have made it into which game.
If keeping the "base" version is of concern, might I suggest that any games using iterations later than Frostbite 3.0 have instead their versions written as "3.0 (XXXX.Y.Z)"? 2A02:587:2C07:1C00:895A:13DD:6C9:CF01 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logo update[edit]

EA recently changed the frostbite logo, Making the current logo on this page out of date. Overloaded01 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frostbite_(game_engine)&oldid=1198950806"