General Gaming This is why I won't be buying a next-gen console

[crispy4000]

25 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

Fallout never appealed to me, plus 4 sounded like a technical mess.  I stopped paying much attention to Halo after seeing the backlash to 4 and 343i.  Witcher as a franchise feels impenetrable to me.  I'd want to know the backstory, but don't want to slog through the first two games (the first especially).  And watching cinematics on youtube sounds more like a chore than fun.

So yes.  Splatoon looked like I could just pop in and have a ton of fun.  Which I did.  It's a fantastic game, well supported post-launch.
 

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

Except more and more games run like this lately. Almost like developers have realized people don't simply have low standards, they actively fight against people who point out these kinds of faults and demand better. Elitists, snobs, people-with-functioning-eyeballs, the list of terms used to describe someone who like games to not run like shit is as extensive as it is counterproductive. Games will run well when people demand that they do so.

 

When people stop saying "It runs fine, I didn't notice" then developers will make better framerates.

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

When people stop saying "It runs fine, I didn't notice" then developers will make better framerates.

'Fuck it.  Let's just release it.' - Remedy

 

It's been over 3 console generations since those framerates have been considered acceptable.

[Brian]

Bayonetta on PS3 was worse than this. Arkham Knight was literally unplayable on PC. Ton of examples of just bad games. I don’t see a trend. I just see a poorly optimized game. 

[crispy4000]

45 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Bayonetta on PS3 was worse than this. Arkham Knight was literally unplayable on PC. Ton of examples of just bad games. I don’t see a trend. I just see a poorly optimized game. 

 

Nope, even that's not true.  Like Breath of the Wild, Bayonetta on PS3 will sink to 20fps lock until it can catch up back to 30fps (which it often won't).  As bad as that is, its preferable to Control fluctuating wildly around a 17fps average in those firefights.  You'd also need a really shit PC to run Arkham Knight worse that that at similar resolutions (7200/900p), poorly optimized as it was.

There has been a slight trend of baseline hardware games running poorer since the Pro and X released.  Control, to me, speaks to the danger of how bad things could get as cross-gen comes about.  It's plainly obvious Remedy cared only about the high (RT) and middle end (Pro/X) with this game, and spec'd their game accordingly.
 

[Brian]

When compared to the 360, it is horrendous performance. Same generation. No refreshes. Another poorly optimized game. 

 

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

When compared to the 360, it is horrendous performance. Same generation. No refreshes. Another poorly optimized game. 

 

 

Poorly optimized?  Yes.  Terrible performance?  Sure.  On Control's level of framerate jank?  Most definitely not.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

How dare people have their preferences that are different from mine!

 

4 hours ago, chakoo said:

I’m skipping next gen because I’m not really playing newer stuff all that much. I barely play my PS4 or switch. I’m pretty contempt with my retro stuff and my pile of 3ds games to get through.

I don't think that's the word you're looking for.  

[chakoo]

1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I don't think that's the word you're looking for.  

Doe... Shouldn't have typed that on my phone. Yes I meant content. 

Also small correction, I don't mean I will skip next gen entirely, just heavily delay getting into it. My last 2 ps4 buys were Yakuza 6 & Fist of the north star. My next few buys will probably be Judgement (when it goes on sale) and Yakuza collection. Other then that I haven't picked up anything else these last few years.  (yeah I need to still get P5, will wait for the updated version).

[cusideabelincoln]

I'm sure the mid-cycle refreshes of the next-gen consoles will try to target a native 4k resolution all the time.  Since 1080p and 1440p require much less powerful hardware, there will be plenty of room for the base consoles to offer playable framerates at the end of the next generation by simply running the games at a lower resolution.

 

As per the Digital Foundry video, the base PS4 is trying to run Control at 900p while the Pro is targeting 1080p.  That's a much smaller difference than comparing 1080p to 2160p.  Also all of the consoles had huge performance dips, and this is most likely caused by the anemic CPU all four of these consoles are using.  The base consoles for the next generation are going to have a really strong CPU out of the gate, and I will wager the mid cycle refresh will keep the exact same CPU and opt for a stronger GPU.

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

I'm sure the mid-cycle refreshes of the next-gen consoles will try to target a native 4k resolution all the time.  Since 1080p and 1440p require much less powerful hardware, there will be plenty of room for the base consoles to offer playable framerates at the end of the next generation by simply running the games at a lower resolution.

 

All of this could be affected by raytracing and how far the industry wishes to push it.  It’s hard to predict that future, or even how well next-gen hardware will handle it (baseline and otherwise).

 

There is some wiggle room, especially if raytracing is disabled.  But can we even trust devs to optimize well for baseline consoles?  Build them their own performance mode if needed?  (As Control should have had on PS4... and XBO too.  One that treated it like a genuine port job.)

 

This gen leaves me very skeptical.  I don’t want to get stuck with bad trade-offs because a dev didn’t prioritize framerate on base hardware.

[Duderino]

Control does not exactly run great on the PS4 Pro either.  Between the Base and the Pro they clearly struggled to hit the target framerate for the two SKUs with the largest user base.

 

I don't think this is a situation of a developer favoring the technically superior systems over the rest or hitting that target and calling it a day.  Seems much more plausible that Remedy were crossing their fingers that performance would work itself out before launch and came up short.  It happens.

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, Duderino said:

Control does not exactly run great on the PS4 Pro either.  Between the Base and the Pro they clearly struggled to hit the target framerate for the two SKUs with the largest user base.

 

I don't think this is a situation of a developer favoring the technically superior systems over the rest or hitting that target and calling it a day.  Seems much more plausible that Remedy were crossing their fingers that performance would work itself out before launch and came up short.  It happens.

 

The Pro’s performance isn’t perfect, but still playable by current gen standards.  The baseline hardware just isn’t.

 

I agree with you about how it probably went down.  But again, if base hardware was all there was, they wouldn’t have released it like this.  They would have gotten eviscerated.

 

The game would have been delayed (on consoles) for a proper downgrade.

[Duderino]

Assuming they had the option to delay in the first place.

 

There is also a presidense for reviewers turning a blind eye to performance issues on other systems when they play through a tittle on the optimal SKU.  Definitely not a problem exclusive to this generation.  Happens all the time with PC gaming too.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Duderino said:

Assuming they had the option to delay in the first place.

 

There is also a precedent for reviewers turning a blind eye to performance issues on other systems when they play through a tittle on the optimal SKU.  Definitely not a problem exclusive to this generation.  Happens all the time with PC gaming too.

Most reviews of multi-platform games today are done on consoles.  Reviews done on PC are in the minority, as they always have been.  If PC reviews tilt the scale, it's never been by much.  But Pro and X have fundamentally changed the slant.

Remedy's reputation would have been torn to pieces if all console SKUs generally sat in the 15-23fps range during combat.  The pressure to delay would have felt like a gun to their head.

And that's exactly why I've said the Pro/X are being used as an excuse.  The base console performance isn't fit for release.  Remedy knew that.  But they also knew that'd be water under the bridge for reviewers because of the refresh machines, so they went ahead.

[HardAct]

On 8/28/2019 at 11:27 AM, AbsolutSurgen said:

I'll get PS5 at launch (if LoU2 or other similar exclusive comes out).  I am console only for exclusives.

That said, I hope to get a 2180Ti next year too....

The jump from my 980Ti to the forums recommended 2080ti has been mind blowing. I use a 65 inch Oled Samsung so I game @4k ultimate everything and could not be happier, so I hope you do get the card sooer than later. I buy every console at launch, but this next gen I'm not gonna do it. I'll wait for the PS5Pro and the Xbox two x, I'm buried in this gens games as it is . . .

[Duderino]

5 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Most reviews of multi-platform games today are done on consoles.  Reviews done on PC are in the minority, as they always have been.  If PC reviews tilt the scale, it's never been by much.  But Pro and X have fundamentally changed the slant.

Remedy's reputation would have been torn to pieces if all console SKUs generally sat in the 15-23fps range during combat.  The pressure to delay would have felt like a gun to their head.

And that's exactly why I've said the Pro/X are being used as an excuse.  The base console performance isn't fit for release.  Remedy knew that.  But they also knew that'd be water under the bridge for reviewers because of the refresh machines, so they went ahead.

 

I very much doubt Remedy were looking to the Pro/X as a way to divert attention away from the game's performance issues on the base systems.  Those boxes did not exactly receive preferential treatment either going by their resolution targets and the less pronounced but still present frame drops.  Not to mention no HDR as well.

 

Control lacks optimization polish across the board.  I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they significantly under estimated the work it would take, especially in the later months when marketing and GM deadlines get locked in. No doubt they were hoping a day one patch could address it, but came short there too.

 

Also, realistically speaking, the bigger distraction from performance optimizations was likely RTX support on PC.

[crispy4000]

7 hours ago, Duderino said:

 

I very much doubt Remedy were looking to the Pro/X as a way to divert attention away from the game's performance issues on the base systems.  Those boxes did not exactly receive preferential treatment either going by their resolution targets and the less pronounced but still present frame drops.  Not to mention no HDR as well.

 

Control lacks optimization polish across the board.  I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they significantly under estimated the work it would take, especially in the later months when marketing and GM deadlines get locked in. No doubt they were hoping a day one patch could address it, but came short there too.

 

Also, realistically speaking, the bigger distraction from performance optimizations was likely RTX support on PC.

 

I'll concede the last point.  I do think their greatest focus was playing with the newest tech.

The Pro/X versions of Control do use a temporal upscaling solution to 1440p/4k (Remedy's own), and I'd argue the frame drops are generally in line with what we see on consoles.  So while not perfect, it looks like it runs fine for those machines.  Up to par.

Meanwhile, the base versions dip into slide-show territory.  I think they built the game Pro/X in mind as a medium benchmark.  Low got screwed in this case.

[Duderino]

1080p, even with Remedy's temporal upscaling, is still a large concession with the Pro.  Same with 1440p on the X.  Tittles that rely on similar upscaling techniques rarely go this low.  It is not on par with other Pro/X games of the same calibur.

 

Control is a obviously a very Alpha heavy game which tends to scale poorly to higher resolutions.  The tradeoff does make sense, but it's not exactly a game targeting the specs and selling point of these quasi 4k systems.  

 

Remedy no question prioritized their vision for the game over resolution and performance on all current console hardware.  Not unlike Anthem, that can have a very negative ripple effect on the less capable SKUs if not rained in.

[Duderino]

Btw, the hitching that contributes to the performance issues on consoles is also present on PC.

 

The game has performance stability issues across the board.  Just gets even worse on weaker hardware.

[fuckle85]

Same, unless there's a Pro version available at launch.  Otherwise I guess it'll be a two year wait again.  It usually takes about that long for the interesting exclusives to start rolling out anyways.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

On 9/1/2019 at 8:06 PM, fuckle85 said:

Same, unless there's a Pro version available at launch.  Otherwise I guess it'll be a two year wait again.  It usually takes about that long for the interesting exclusives to start rolling out anyways.  

PlayStation 5 Pro To Release Together With Base Model – Rumor

 

You may be in luck!  Rumours coming out of Japan point to a "pro" version of the PS5 coming out at launch!

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

PlayStation 5 Pro To Release Together With Base Model – Rumor

 

You may be in luck!  Rumours coming out of Japan point to a "pro" version of the PS5 coming out at launch!

 

In other words:

 

PS5 Poor.  Launch.
PS5 Pro-ish.  Launch. $599 US Dollars.
PS5 Pro-er.  Mid cycle.

[Mr.Vic20]

I have strong doubts that you could have base and pro models at launch, presumably at 400 & 500 respectability and expect much of a performance difference. One of the main reasons mid generation upgrades are possible is that the ensuing 2-3 years from launch give the chip makers time to drive down prices and therefore offer a substantial jump in power for roughly the same price as the launch hardware. If a pro launched at the same time it would cost several hundred dollars more worth of chips to get an appreciable difference, especially for console owners who aren't too picky about their graphics settings historically. 

 

I would guess that if there are more than one SKUs at launch it will be based on an optional/larger SSD. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

I have strong doubts that you could have base and pro models at launch, presumably at 400 & 500 respectability and expect much of a performance difference. One of the main reasons mid generation upgrades are possible is that the ensuing 2-3 years from launch give the chip makers time to drive down prices and therefore offer a substantial jump in power for roughly the same price as the launch hardware. If a pro launched at the same time it would cost several hundred dollars more worth of chips to get an appreciable difference, especially for console owners who aren't too picky about their graphics settings historically. 

 

I would guess that if there are more than one SKUs at launch it will be based on an optional/larger SSD. 

I think, given there are some creative things they could do.  They could have one box that doesn't have an optical drive but has ray tracing cores for $500, and another that has an optical drive (but no ray tracing cores) for $400.  (Or something even more creative to get a $300 price point.)

[Mr.Vic20]

4 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I think, given there are some creative things they could do.  They could have one box that doesn't have an optical drive but has ray tracing cores for $500, and another that has an optical drive (but no ray tracing cores) for $400.  (Or something even more creative to get a $300 price point.)

Maybe, but I can't imagine the optical drive's value covering anything close to the price of a reasonable set of RT cores. These system may have them, but I'm guessing they will implement them more through software than through hardware. Could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it. Sure, the back of the box will certainly say "Ray Tracing!" but I doubt it will have much of an implementation until the mid gen refresh at which point I could definitely see RT coming into the picture in a proper manner. 

[crispy4000]

I think we'll see some form of raytracing cores in the initial sku, since the Coalition confirmed it for Scarlett.

Whether it'll be worth the resolution/framerate trade-off is another story.  Performance mode won't be going away.  Might as call it performance + resoultion mode.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Maybe, but I can't imagine the optical drive's value covering anything close to the price of a reasonable set of RT cores. These system may have them, but I'm guessing they will implement them more through software than through hardware. Could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it. Sure, the back of the box will certainly say "Ray Tracing!" but I doubt it will have much of an implementation until the mid gen refresh at which point I could definitely see RT coming into the picture in a proper manner. 

I'm suggesting that adding $100 in MSRP (and deleting the optical drive which is worth $25?) might be a way to offset the cost of adding RT cores.  Rumours out of e3 (and from the Coalition) was that Scarlett would have dedicated RT cores (I had previously assumed that it would be software based).  I don't know they will do -- I just think there is more they CAN do at launch other than having different HD/SSD sizes.

 

58 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I think we'll see some form of raytracing cores in the initial sku, since the Coalition confirmed it for Scarlett.

Whether it'll be worth the resolution/framerate trade-off is another story.  Performance mode won't be going away.  Might as call it performance + resoultion mode.

The core will likely care about Ray Tracing -- if Sony could launch a Budget SKU without it, that undercuts the Scarlett price, with a "pro" SKU that matches them on performance -- it could make a killer lineup.

 

This is just pure speculation on my part -- I got nothing to back this idea up.

 

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The core will likely care about Ray Tracing -- if Sony could launch a Budget SKU without it, that undercuts the Scarlett price, with a "pro" SKU that matches them on performance -- it could make a killer lineup.

 

This is just pure speculation on my part -- I got nothing to back this idea up.

I don't believe any machine Microsoft or Sony launches next year will be beefy enough for the raytracing developers will want to push.  They'll try anyways, of course.  And then people will say the mid-cycle refresh can't come soon enough, to realize that vision at a more modern day framerate/resolution/etc.

... I'd love to be wrong on that.  I'm speculating too.  But it's what I'm anticipating.

[AbsolutSurgen]

We’re 15 years away from us having beefy ray tracing capability at home. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

5 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

In other words:

 

PS5 Poor.  Launch.
PS5 Pro-ish.  Launch. $599 US Dollars.
PS5 Pro-er.  Mid cycle.

 

PS5 Poor - system designed before Scarlet specs revealed

PS5 Pro - system designed after Scarlet specs revealed

[Remarkableriots]

On 8/28/2019 at 12:11 PM, Pikachu said:

I'm still on my launch PS4. The PS5 can't come soon enough. I am not willing to wait till 2023 for a new console.

Same for me.

[crispy4000]

15 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

We’re 15 years away from us having beefy ray tracing capability at home. 

 

Let's just rephrase beefy as being able to run Control with full raytracing settings at 1440p60.  That would be a 'next gen' bump in performance and fidelity worth getting excited about.

It's also only feasible today with $800 MSRP GPUs.
 

15 hours ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

PS5 Poor - system designed before Scarlet specs revealed

PS5 Pro - system designed after Scarlet specs revealed

 

The sooner we stop pitting Sony and Microsoft against each other, the sooner we'll realize nothing will stop the next gen from feeling premature in 2020.

[johnny]

I’m buying ps5 day one. Ready to upgrade from launch ps4. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

11 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

The sooner we stop pitting Sony and Microsoft against each other, the sooner we'll realize nothing will stop the next gen from feeling premature in 2020.

 

They're going to be leapfrogging each other for the next two decades. Especially with mid-cycle updates now becoming a thing.