FarFromAnyGame
Banned
Yeah I asked the mods to change it since the original title was excessive.
Ask them to change it to a couple of games.
Yeah I asked the mods to change it since the original title was excessive.
So will PS4PRO devs release patches for games like Bloodborne and Witcher 3, allowing them to run at 60fps without needing to release a whole new version?
For reference, I have a GTX 1070 in my PC and run things at 1080p so I have that overhead for my frame rate. That card was made to run things at 1440p or 4k but that's not where my priority is. So I purchase 1080p displays.
As for the PS4 Pro itself, my only criticism, if it can be called that, is that I still don't understand who it is for and why it exists in the first place. I guess early adopters, console hardcore gamers and Playstation fans are interested in it. Is this a big enough audience to justify a new console release? Those who still haven't bought a PS4 are likely mainstream gamers who are waiting for price drops, console owners who don't want a PS4 for whatever reason or PC gamers who don't want a console.
Does pro affect your base PS4 experience in any way? Why are you so concerned who it's for?
Just wondering really.
Same here.I like consoles, I like the option for stuff to look better. Result, I'm a Pro owner.
4 games out of 36 available means a lot?
Come on....
The drops are normal, it's still a console, and I think the kind of drops that WD2 experiences are going to be there for the majority of third party AAA, is not a huge deal either IMO.
Funny how the several people that are being aggressive with you for your concerns did the same exact thing me on another Pro related thread. I guess people don't like to get their purchases questioned.
I like consoles, I like the option for stuff to look better. Result, I'm a Pro owner.
Wow, these N4G topic titles lately...
it's a lot easier to market 4k than it is to market a steady framerate. i feel like 1440p should be the aim if they're going to go for better graphics. naughty dog has it right
9% isn't that small of an amount
Isn't there a qa process to release on ps4? Why are games that dip below 30fps allowed to pass??
Did you own a PS4 before the pro?
You're so naive, do you really think devs will lose time with optimizing all of this when they can't even finished their game properly because of the publishers pushing them ? I don't think so.
I've been watching all the Digital Foundry footage and the Pro is really disappointing IMO, when it was first announced I thought it would improve all current games (like when you buy a new GPU on PC) so every 30fps game would now actually run at 30fps and others that were close to 60fps would now run at 60fps but what we got was even better graphics with worse performance, the Pro just enhances the problem I have with consoles in the first place so I'll stick with my regular PS4 which is purely an exclusive box anyway (can't wait for Horizon).
Yes.
Gotta go PC if you care that deeply. Simple as that.
As far as I know Sony only tests that the games don't screw up the console. They don't test frame rates or graphical options.
Come on now. There are only 3 games out of the 35+ that are negatively affected in their performance. All of them can be fixed with a patch.
Then you belong to the part of the market that I understand. I questioned whether the PS4 Pro would entice consumers that are yet to buy a PS4.
As for the PS4 Pro itself, my only criticism, if it can be called that, is that I still don't understand who it is for and why it exists in the first place. I guess early adopters, console hardcore gamers and Playstation fans are interested in it. Is this a big enough audience to justify a new console release? Those who still haven't bought a PS4 are likely mainstream gamers who are waiting for price drops, console owners who don't want a PS4 for whatever reason or PC gamers who don't want a console.
I guess what I'm asking is this: What does the PS4 Pro offer that the PS4 doesn't? Better visuals, sure. How many console gamers care about that? Hardcore PC gamers care about visuals but also really care about performance and the Pro doesn't offer that. I think the PS4 Pro will sell well to the audience that bought a PS4 at full price three years ago but I don't see it enticing people who haven't bought a PS4 yet or who already own a good gaming PC.
1440p alone pushes 78% more pixels than 1080p, 1800p is 150% more, and 2160p/4K is of course 300%. Most games run at the same speed or faster, some run just slightly slower, which when I consider what's being done for $400, is pretty impressive. There are exceptions that have problems that truly do need to be fixed/optimized, though. I don't do side-by-side comparisons all the time like DF, so I'm probably never going to notice a 1-3 fps drop. Hope future patches just let games render in the original 1080p (or lower) resolution if players want either the vanilla experience on the Pro or increased IQ at 1080p. I would certainly appreciate that, even though I have a 4K display.
Isn't there a qa process to release on ps4? Why are games that dip below 30fps allowed to pass??
If it matters that much to you, PC is the only option. Big reason why I migrated over.
This issue and worse preformance on Pro titles is the real issue.
Why are we beng inaccurate with The Last of Us by trying to clam the difference is smaller than it is? It's not just 2 frames. DF clearly states it's often in the mid 50s with around 5 frames lost and can hit as low as 10 frames worse. That's not only 2 frames. Can we at least accurately represent the state rather than try to sugar coat it?It's not an "issue" though .. 4 out of 41 games, two of which have already been patched.
Last of Us runs at native 4K with a rock solid 30, only dops 2 frames out of 60 more than OG PS4 but even that's rendering at 1800p, almost double that of the OG PS4.
People trying to make it a bigger "issue" than it really is, is the actual issue here.
Why are we beng inaccurate with The Last of Us by trying to clam the difference is smaller than it is? It's not just 2 frames. DF clearly states it's often in the mid 50s with around 5 frames lost and can hit as low as 10 frames worse. That's not only 2 frames. Can we at least accurately represent the state rather than try to sugar coat it?
1800p with checkerboard (what most games are falling to) isn't a 150% increase, it's less than double the resolution.
It's not an "issue" though .. 4 out of 41 games, two of which have already been patched.
Last of Us runs at native 4K with a rock solid 30, only dops 2 frames out of 60 more than OG PS4 but even that's rendering at 1800p, almost double that of the OG PS4.
People trying to make it a bigger "issue" than it really is, is the actual issue here.
They do for PSVR, but for some reason have no such policy for regular games.
I skimmed through the video again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a58dH2OzgB0
At most it goes 5~6fps below the OG version in the 60 FPS mode in like for like scenes. It would be a bigger deal if it drops 5, 6 FPS on a 30 FPS game constantly.It's not sugar coating when you factor in the game is still pushing almost twice as many pixels in the unlocked mode and is a solid 30 FPS at native 4K to boot.
There seems to be a lot of concern going on in this thread about these 3, 4 games giving off a few less frames than their OG counterparts at much higher resolutions while ignoring the other 90% currently patched Pro games which offer both visual and performance enhancements. It's like people are latching on to the same 3, 4 games and using it as the crux of their arguments.
Exactly... Cause for whatever reason they want it to fail or their so anal it's absurd. If you're playing a game and say omg thats 29 fps.. You should stop gaming cause you're not having fun anymore nitpicking the shit out of everything. I've played watchdogs 2 before and after patch and I can't tell a difference.. Didnt notice any frame difference before... I'm playing the game not looking for shit to complain about.