Not true at all. If they are the same thing then the PS4 too would get those PS4 Pro options displayed but when enabling them nothing would happen if this is like you said or at least they would be greyed out like on PCs with weak hardwares. But instead the game detects that you are on PS4 Pro and only displays them to PS4 Pro owners so they can disable that useless option for PS4 Pro owners.It is not that hard.
I stand corrected about this title; other games do show the options to all players but grey some out. But even so, there seems little advantage in removing the mode. Just because you and I wouldn't ever choose it, why remove the option? Most missing downsampling modes in Pro-enhanced games are because the developer thought other improvements were superior and removed player choice. Yet I'm pretty sure you don't side with the devs on that topic.
They deemed one of display options is not suited in jak and Daxter, a PS2 game and they removed it in the previous patch.
Someone earlier in the thread told you this isn't true. You even acknowledged it. Why are you repeating your old claim?
Again not true at all.Sony said, supporting PS4 Pro won't require more than 1 or 2 devs and few days or weeks at max.
No, they didn't say precisely these things. This is another issue with your arguments, you base them partially on things you've misunderstood or mixed with unjustified assumptions.
In this example, Sony haven't given both a headcount and a time period simultaneously. Yes, Mark Cerny said that a
Days Gone demo at the Pro reveal event only took one programmer...but no mention of how long. (And this was not necessarily for the whole game.) Yes, on a later date he said that in general it takes a few weeks--or in rare cases, a few days--to "get up to speed" on Pro. But in that interview no number of developers was specified.
And what does "get up to speed" exactly mean? I doubt highly it means all necessary Pro work a game will ever need is done in that timeframe. Rather, it strongly sounds like this is the work required to create a Pro branch during development. As production continues, more work would be needed to keep it in sync with the standard settings, make sure it efficiently uses the extra hardware, etc. Alternately, Mr. Cerny might mean that's how long it takes to understand the Pro hardware and development environment, before any work on the specific title begins.
In any case, he didn't give explicit numbers of "x people for y days" either time. The closest he came was saying the intent was targeting Pro enhancement to take "a fraction of a percent of the overall effort". For a AAA game with 150 developers working for 3 years, a half-percent would be over 2 man-years. This is almost twenty times longer than your suggestion of 1.5 man-months max, and over 150 times longer than your low estimate. (Even for a tiny indie with 3 devs for 18 months, a half-percent still would represent more effort than the bottom of your range. A mere 3% would be above your supposed maximum.)
Again why do you still insist on perverting my posts claiming that I say devs are incompetent?
You don't use that word. But as I've explained before, when you say we should be expecting more, that it doesn't make sense that we aren't getting more, incompetence is one of the few possible explanations why we aren't. You specifically have said that existing work is "horrendous", that many Pro enhancements are "barely noticeable", and that you don't expect some devs to support Pro unless forced to. What other implication is supposed to be drawn from these statements?
But let's allow that you've never believed, or meant to suggest, that skill has ever been a factor in how disappointing you find Pro support. In that case, the only remaining options are a lack of dev desire, or inability for non-technical reasons. If you're aware of that, and you don't think they're apathetic, then the only remaining conclusion is that there are
good reasons some games will not have Pro enhancements, or will have minor ones.
And if that's the scenario, then expecting all games to have great enhancements is unreasonable. Do you see the logic now?
The higher FPS mode in Ark is 720p, Ni-Oh Action Mode is dynamic 1080p so the fact from that is it drops below 1080p sometimes and the 60 FPS mode in Hellblade drops in 900p most of the time and is not 1440p like you said in your OP,
The higher-resolution mode in
ARK is 1080p. I did mention that some 1080p modes are dynamic.
Hellblade is exactly like I said; that it stays below its target a lot of the time is mentioned in the list. It also doesn't change the fact that every single game can hit 1080p on Pro at least some of the time. But in the end it probably doesn't matter, because I don't think Sony ever promised that anyway. See below.
The fact some games like this exist means Sony isn't mandating any of their supposed rules. Even Sony said there won't be increased FPS in MP games on PS4 Pro to not give advantage for PS4 Pro owners....
The only source I know of for either of these mandates is the leaked presentation to developers from last March. So you're basing your expectations on material from before any PS4 Pro devkits existed, and that was never meant to be seen by the public. This is like complaining that you were promised a hero named C.J. Thorpe in
The Star Wars.
I can understand that Sony can't make sure every company can follow the "rules" or to be more precise the suggestions for PS4 Pro support and devs aren't forced to follow them either.
All I'm suggesting is that you apply that knowledge, and you'll see clearly why it's unreasonable to expect every game to have the best tech possible on the hardware.
Again, I must point out that I have no issue with you
wanting the absolute best from every game, or being disappointed when it doesn't occur. I'm simply adamant that making this an expectation is unreasonable. That's exacerbated by the fact that you seem to partially base your expectations on false premises.
