Support NeoGAF

[onQ123]

Why would anyone provide you with a list when you showed no proof the XBox One S method would make things worse?

I said it probably would make it worse because if the game is jumping below & above 30fps how would a higher clock GPU fix that problem?


The devs added a frame pacing problem to Rise Of The Tomb Raider with the last patch & that is using the higher specs of the PS4 Pro but the problem is still on PS4 & PS4 Pro unless you are using the high frame rate mode. so it's not a automatic fix with a higher clock rate.


So about that list.

 

[Kareha]

I just don't get the hate right now as the console is only a few weeks old.

Because people are still into their console war bollocks and not a lot is done about it unfortunately.

 

[Izuna]

So about that list.

I honestly can't believe you're being this dense.

Because people are still into their console war bollocks and not a lot is done about it unfortunately.

I'm sure a lot of PS4 owners are also wishing for the same thing as DF here.

 

[Kareha]

I'm sure a lot of PS4 owners are also wishing for the same thing as DF here.

People just need to grow up, they're just video games at the end of the day.

 

[Izuna]

People just need to grow up, they're just video games at the end of the day.

Why would you even come into this thread...

 

[Kareha]

Why would you even come into this thread...

Because I have a Pro and wanted to check the thread out

 

[Liabe Brave]

Some games weren't updated to the newest version, but pretty much everything now runs much better than on 360.

So in other words, games designed to use certain hardware have to be patched to fully utilize different hardware.

What % of 360 games are supported now?

About 21% of 360 games will run on Xbox One. I don't know what proportion run better.

Let's put it this way. If Bloodborne was a Xbone game, it's get an update without hoping the devs touch it.

Again, that is not certain. Some games see no improvement at all on Xbox One S. (I'd wager it's probable most games are unimproved, because "some" comes from Digital Foundry testing the titles most likely to show improvements.)

 

[daman824]

We already know every game with a dynamic resolution will automatically run at a higher resolution on the Scorpio. Looking at microsofts stance in regards to iterative hardware and the abandonment of "generations". Along with what they have already said about how to Scorpio will improve games that are already released, I don't see how it's much of a stretch at all to say that the Scorpio simply won't need support "patches" for games to run better in a general sense. Games will just run a lot closer to their target framerate/resolution compared to the original xb1.

Last week I spent $400 on a pro. And it's really disappointing that the only game I own right now that can fully utilize it is watch dogs 2. For example, why isn't witcher 3 a locked 30fps when I play it on my pro? It's a 4.2 TF gpu, why isn't it a locked 30fps? The game came out a year ago, if I upgrade my 2015 computer, witcher 3 WILL run better without any patch or settings changes.

I think it all comes down to Sony wanting to stick to the "generation" model of game systems. They don't want to differentiate the pro too much from the ps4. BUT ITS STILL PRETTY MUCH A NEW SYSTEM AT $400.
I think that's going to really hurt them with the ps5...

 

[respawnIN10]

This is an important point. I think a lot of people are thinking that Scorpio is going to be this magical system which uses a different (possibly zen based?) SoC and makes everything run at 4K / rock solid 1080p60 without any patching. I'm trying to keep my expectations in check.

If they use the extra year of development on the system properly, it may not be magical but it sure can have a much better launch than the Pro has so far.

 

[Renekton]

If they use the extra year of development on the system properly, it may not be magical but it sure can have a much better launch than the Pro has so far.

Sony downplayed Pro's benefits to avoid cheesing off OG owners. One way for MS to have a bigger launch is to do the reverse.

 

[Izuna]

Again, that is not certain. Some games see no improvement at all on Xbox One S. (I'd wager it's probable most games are unimproved, because "some" comes from Digital Foundry testing the titles most likely to show improvements.)

I think you mean marginal improvements, and almost none when games have a bottleneck with the CPU.

 

[Riddler]

I said it probably would make it worse because if the game is jumping below & above 30fps how would a higher clock GPU fix that problem?


The devs added a frame pacing problem to Rise Of The Tomb Raider with the last patch & that is using the higher specs of the PS4 Pro but the problem is still on PS4 & PS4 Pro unless you are using the high frame rate mode. so it's not a automatic fix with a higher clock rate.


So about that list.

Actually the last system patch on PS4 fixed the pacing problem(that stability!)

Anyways yea I wished SONY would just unlock the PS4 so games wouldn't require a patch.

 

[Interficium]

Let's put it this way. If Bloodborne was a Xbone game, it's get an update without hoping the devs touch it. That's the context of the comparison, and this video itself.

Why are you assuming that Bloodborne on Xbone would be 1-to-1 with the base PS4 to begin with.

 

[Izuna]

Why are you assuming that Bloodborne on Xbone would be 1-to-1 with the base PS4 to begin with.

It's amazing how much people can completely skip the point to bring in console war BS. I think I've learnt something here, I think the benefits ARE understood (I mean, the video itself perfectly describes it already) and are just counter-arguing as a defence.

 

[onQ123]

I honestly can't believe you're being this dense.

You say that but you can't find this big list of Xbox One games that have a noticeable upgrade for Xbox One S,


If people are saying that Sony should have done what MS did with Xbox One S for unpatched games why is it so hard find a example of all these Xbox One games that got a noticeable boost from being played on Xbox One S?

The list of Xbox One games with a noticeable upgrade on Xbox One S should put the 40 something PS4 Pro games to shame right? If the number of games that got worthwhile upgrades on both consoles is remotely close then I would really like to know what all the fuss is about.

 

[Izuna]

Oh cool, so you admit you're talking about list wars. Gotcha

--

So I can clarify for you, people are wanting the passive improvement on the Pro. Like we see here in Arkham City, it can be really nice and it's a shame we don't have the option for that. Xbox One S is mentioned because it is one. Not to say Xbox One S improvements > Pro Patches, no one is saying that.

 

[onQ123]

Oh cool so you admit you're talking about list wars. Cool.

No I'm asking where all these games that got these noticeable upgrades for the Xbox One S?

why is it so hard to show how big of a difference it is compared to the number of games that have received PS4 Pro enhancements?



You're still trying to talk around it but you can't think of all the games that got a nice upgrade from being on Xbox One S.

 

[Dead Man Typing]

No I'm asking where all these games that got these noticeable upgrades for the Xbox One S?

why is it so hard to show how big of a difference it is compared to the number of games that have received PS4 Pro enhancements?



You're still trying to talk around it but you can't think of all the games that got a nice upgrade from being on Xbox One S.

If a game already runs at 1080p and locked 30 or 60fps then it will see no improvement on Xbox One S or Scorpio.

Same for any PS4 games that run at a locked resolution and framerate.

The S is such a small upgrade that Microsoft didn't even want to acknowledge that there is any performance increase. No one is describing it as a "nice upgrade". We're just hoping that games with poorer framerate and dynamic resolution play better on Scorpio and PS4 pro if Sony can allow it.

No need for lists.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

People just need to grow up, they're just video games at the end of the day.

So anyone who wants to talk about it is a child?

I said it probably would make it worse because if the game is jumping below & above 30fps how would a higher clock GPU fix that problem?


The devs added a frame pacing problem to Rise Of The Tomb Raider with the last patch & that is using the higher specs of the PS4 Pro but the problem is still on PS4 & PS4 Pro unless you are using the high frame rate mode. so it's not a automatic fix with a higher clock rate.

Actually the last system patch on PS4 fixed the pacing problem(that stability!)

Anyways yea I wished SONY would just unlock the PS4 so games wouldn't require a patch.

So the why did you ignore this response above? You also did a pretty poor job explaining how it would make it worse for Bloodborne. The patch was applied to Tomb Raider, we are talking about no patch and just using the extra resources supplied. Can you name one game that performs worse on the XBox One S compared to the Xbox One?

Why are you assuming that Bloodborne on Xbone would be 1-to-1 with the base PS4 to begin with.

This topic is going places.

 

[onQ123]

So anyone who wants to talk about it is a child?





So the why did you ignore this response above? You also did a pretty poor job explaining how it would make it worse for Bloodborne. The patch was applied to Tomb Raider, we are talking about no patch and just using the extra resources supplied. Can you name one game that performs worse on the XBox One S compared to the Xbox One?



This topic is going places.

What was there to respond to? if it was fixed it was fixed & it didn't take away from the fact that it was a problem across both consoles even when one had more power unlocked for the game.

Do we have any examples of Xbox One S fixing frame pacing issues automatically? because I was responding to someone who said that if it was a Xbox One game Xbox One S would have fixed it without people having to ask the devs to fix it, so did it fix the frame pacing issues in some Xbox One games?

 

[dark10x]

What was there to respond to? if it was fixed it was fixed & it didn't take away from the fact that it was a problem across both consoles even when one had more power unlocked for the game.

Do we have any examples of Xbox One S fixing frame pacing issues automatically? because I was responding to someone who said that if it was a Xbox One game Xbox One S would have fixed it without people having to ask the devs to fix it, so did it fix the frame pacing issues in some Xbox One games?

You sound like a politician. No list exists because who has time to actually test that? There is no list for that reason.

It's really pretty simple - you won't see improvements in games that already run smoothly and it would never fix frame pacing bugs. Games with GPU related drops, where we see dips just below 30 (or 60) or torn frames, will likely benefit. I think it's effectiveness has been blown out of proportion but it's still nice to see since it eliminates performance problems in some big games.

I'll probably do some more testing now out of curiosity but there is no magical list. Maybe I'll start one.

It's akin to an overclocked PSP. Games that were well designed within the constraints of the hardware see no benefit but for those that had issues, the overclock made a big difference and resulted in smoothed out frame-rates.

 

[Caayn]

Wait, people are actively against the use of extra power without requiring a patch?

List wars, fuck yeah

 

[Shevat]

Last week I spent $400 on a pro. And it's really disappointing that the only game I own right now that can fully utilize it is watch dogs 2. For example, why isn't witcher 3 a locked 30fps when I play it on my pro? It's a 4.2 TF gpu, why isn't it a locked 30fps? The game came out a year ago, if I upgrade my 2015 computer, witcher 3 WILL run better without any patch or settings changes.

That's not entirely true. Nvidia/AMD account for their different gpu hardware in their drivers, which is basically the equivalent of patches for Pro mode. I have had games run worse on "better" hardware after gpu upgrades in the past, because the driver support for that game/hardware config was bad. Hell, just updating drivers can have pretty big performance dips when Nvidia/AMD break something.

There is work being done on PC to ensure compatibility. It's why you have driver updates practically every time a major game release happens.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

What was there to respond to? if it was fixed it was fixed & it didn't take away from the fact that it was a problem across both consoles even when one had more power unlocked for the game.

Do we have any examples of Xbox One S fixing frame pacing issues automatically? because I was responding to someone who said that if it was a Xbox One game Xbox One S would have fixed it without people having to ask the devs to fix it, so did it fix the frame pacing issues in some Xbox One games?

First you said the Xbox One S method would have made Bloodborne run worse and used Tomb Raider post patch as some sort of reference. Then I asked what games on the Xbox One S run worse than they do on the Xbox One original model and all I get from you is a bunch of rambling and double talk.

Wait, people are actively against the use of extra power without requiring a patch?

List wars, fuck yeah

Sounds about right.

 

[black070]

I'd want this option just so others are satisfied - personally, aslong as titles going forward from this point onward support Pro in some capacity, I'm happy. As it stands, that's exactly what I'm getting.

 

[mrklaw]

Wait, people are actively against the use of extra power without requiring a patch?

List wars, fuck yeah

Xbox one S is used as a comparison but using the one game that gets a decent increase in performance, setting an inaccurate and potentially misleading baseline for the video.

Also Xbox and PS4 are clearly different. Maybe all Xbox games are developed with a higher level of forced abstraction which allows the upclock to be 'seen' by games without patching, maybe the PS4 could have more issues with doing that - especially as the CPU upclock is much higher, and the GPU is much more different too. Perhaps Sony even tried internally testing some games and found too many issues, so they took this route? We don't know

I do think it could be offered as an option per game like the PS2 did. Maybe even restrict it to just showing the clock speed increase (keep half the GPU turned off but let it stay faster)

 

[Justinh]

Just cause 3 could use that!

Ooh, I mean, I haven't played Just Cause 3, but from what I've seen it look like it could use all the help it could get.

I always thought it was like... you wouldn't see a "large list" of games with a "noticeable improvement " on the Xbox One S because the hardware isn't that much of an upgrade (I thought it was just a slight over clock).

I think it would be nice if a PS4 game could use the extra power of the Pro to help smooth out some game experiences. It just seems like wasted potential for me, I guess. Maybe that's because I'm mainly a PC gamer...

That's not entirely true. Nvidia/AMD account for their different gpu hardware in their drivers, which is basically the equivalent of patches for Pro mode. I have had games run worse on "better" hardware after gpu upgrades in the past, because the driver support for that game/hardware config was bad. Hell, just updating drivers can have pretty big performance dips when Nvidia/AMD break something.

There is work being done on PC to ensure compatibility. It's why you have driver updates practically every time a major game release happens.

This is a good point. I never thought of that.

 

[ymgve]

So is the higher clock speed on Xbox One S opt-in or is it always-enabled? Because if it's the latter, that puts a pretty big hole in the argument "but adding more CPU would introduce race condition issues". Unless people can point to some games that perform worse on X1S compared to X1.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Xbox one S is used as a comparison but using the one game that gets a decent increase in performance, setting an inaccurate and potentially misleading baseline for the video.

Also Xbox and PS4 are clearly different. Maybe all Xbox games are developed with a higher level of forced abstraction which allows the upclock to be 'seen' by games without patching, maybe the PS4 could have more issues with doing that - especially as the CPU upclock is much higher, and the GPU is much more different too. Perhaps Sony even tried internally testing some games and found too many issues, so they took this route? We don't know

I do think it could be offered as an option per game like the PS2 did. Maybe even restrict it to just showing the clock speed increase (keep half the GPU turned off but let it stay faster)

I do think having a slightly thicker abstraction layer, GPU is fully virtualised too to support game and console OS's on top of the shared Hypervisor, may actually help to smooth situations like this out and help with BC in the future. It could be where a good portion of the clock speed advantage Xbox One has over PS4 goes (not a completely trivial difference and yet you hardly see it having effect in games)... not a bad move really IMHO.

Sony did bet on flawless BC for unpatched titles and making it as easy as possible to make patches that improve IQ at least (which is what a .5 mid generation upgrade bump should do really... remove most of the shortcuts developers had to take on the original model rather than usher in huge changes which is the job of a new console generation in Sony's model... and I like the concept of console generations a LOT! ). Let's see what they prepare for PS5 and the future of PS4 Pro.

 

[Izuna]

So is the higher clock speed on Xbox One S opt-in or is it always-enabled? Because if it's the latter, that puts a pretty big hole in the argument "but adding more CPU would introduce race condition issues". Unless they can point to some games that perform worse on X1S compared to X1.

S is just a little GPU boost, so I guess it isn't the same. But yeah, it's passive.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I mean, why do you have to bring in list wars for this? Xbox One S is mentioned because it shows precedent for what people were hoping with Pro. Not to say it's a better machine or anything.

If the Pro let you run all the base games with the improvements, you'd see the same amount of improvements, and some would be really lovely.

Sure but the consoles are different and what may work for one may not work for the other. It is quite possible that on PS4 Pro that approach may have brought more compatibility issues than on Xbox One S. Running above a hypervisor takes a toll, but provides some scalability benefits too. Still, I am pretty stoked for the IQ improvements developers are patching in more than a couple of FPS in unpatched unlocked frame rate games.

 

[onQ123]

You sound like a politician. No list exists because who has time to actually test that? There is no list for that reason.

It's really pretty simple - you won't see improvements in games that already run smoothly and it would never fix frame pacing bugs. Games with GPU related drops, where we see dips just below 30 (or 60) or torn frames, will likely benefit. I think it's effectiveness has been blown out of proportion but it's still nice to see since it eliminates performance problems in some big games.

I'll probably do some more testing now out of curiosity but there is no magical list. Maybe I'll start one.

It's akin to an overclocked PSP. Games that were well designed within the constraints of the hardware see no benefit but for those that had issues, the overclock made a big difference and resulted in smoothed out frame-rates.

This is what I'm saying: how many games received a noticeable performance boost on Xbox One S vs how many games got a PS4 Pro enhancement

if we had the number it would give people a better idea of what was lost by Sony not going that route.


if the number of games that got a noticeable boost from Xbox One S isn't much bigger than the number of games that got PS4 Pro enhancements why is it being brought up against the PS4 Pro method of patching games to take better advantage of the hardware?

You can't see the problem with people thinking that Xbox One S is giving a noticeable boost to all games vs PS4 Pro only enhancing a few games? Someone just claimed that it would have fixed Bloodborne which has frame pacing issues without anyone having to ask the devs to do anything.

You don't see a problem with that misconception?

If the Xbox One S way is going to be brought up against what is being done on PS4 Pro we should at least have a example of all the games that are getting noticeable performance boost on Xbox One S vs the PS4 games that are getting left with performance problems.

First you said the Xbox One S method would have made Bloodborne run worse and used Tomb Raider post patch as some sort of reference. Then I asked what games on the Xbox One S run worse than they do on the Xbox One original model and all I get from you is a bunch of rambling and double talk.



Sounds about right.

No I did not say that "Xbox One S method would have made Bloodborne run worse" I explained that Bloodborne had frame pacing issues & that it was jumping from 30 fps to 28 & 32fps & that Xbox One S method would probably make that worse.

 

[ymgve]

No I did not say that "Xbox One S method would have made Bloodborne run worse" I explained that Bloodborne had frame pacing issues & that it was jumping from 30 fps to 28 & 32fps & that Xbox One S method would probably make that worse.

Most people would consider a game with more frame pacing issues to be a game that runs worse.

 

[Piichan]

Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry, but would it be hypothetically possible for Sony to release a firmware update for the Pro, which would make it possible to unlock more of its power to non-Pro enhanced games?

 

[Izuna]

Sure but thebconsoles are different and what may work for one may not work for the other. It is quite possible that on PS4 Pro that approach may have brought more compatibility issues than on Xbox One S. Running above a hypervisor takes a toll, but provides some scalability benefits too. Still, I am pretty stoked for the IQ improvements developers are patching in more than a couple of FPS in unpatched unlocked frame rate games.

I like to use this very video as an example, however. Even if it was half of the games that were compatible, the option to do so (at the user's risk) would be a lovely addition.

 

[antyk]

We already know every game with a dynamic resolution will automatically run at a higher resolution on the Scorpio. Looking at microsofts stance in regards to iterative hardware and the abandonment of "generations". Along with what they have already said about how to Scorpio will improve games that are already released, I don't see how it's much of a stretch at all to say that the Scorpio simply won't need support "patches" for games to run better in a general sense. Games will just run a lot closer to their target framerate/resolution compared to the original xb1.

Last week I spent $400 on a pro. And it's really disappointing that the only game I own right now that can fully utilize it is watch dogs 2. For example, why isn't witcher 3 a locked 30fps when I play it on my pro? It's a 4.2 TF gpu, why isn't it a locked 30fps? The game came out a year ago, if I upgrade my 2015 computer, witcher 3 WILL run better without any patch or settings changes.

I think it all comes down to Sony wanting to stick to the "generation" model of game systems. They don't want to differentiate the pro too much from the ps4. BUT ITS STILL PRETTY MUCH A NEW SYSTEM AT $400.
I think that's going to really hurt them with the ps5...

I don't think this is about 'stance' or 'policy' as you suggest. Simply, MS from the get go - before release od X1 - had a vision of unified Windows platform with Xbox as a gaming brand, where we'd access the games via PC, Xbox Scorpio, X1(S) maybe even Surface tablets and phones; and the experience - resolution, framerate, level of detail, etc. - would be scaled up/down depending on your hardware. That could also explain why X1's development environment was such a mess - compared to that of Sony's, allegedly "a hardware company"! - at the beginning, simply because they were aiming for a much higher goal and there probably were delays with DX12, Windows10, etc. Because of that plan the devs were required to use higher-level APIs to make their games, e.g. if game wants to draw a line it'll say to the operating system "draw me a straight line from coordinates X1/Y1 to X2/Y2 in color RGB".

Sony, I think, came up with the idea of incremental updates later in the process and many games already were using their more low-level API (called GNM, I think?) to get more from the hardware, so in PS4 case the game instead of saying "draw me a line" would actually order the GPU to light up' individual pixels in the graphics memory buffer.

That (very, very simplified example! ) could make the PS4 games run faster (because there's no middle man interpreting the orders), but also made the software very much dependant on the underlying hardware. Xbox's "interpretation" layer allows to more easily swap the GPU or increase its clock and see the benefits right away - the software patch would only have to be done once, on the system / interpreter level. Whereas for PS4 it would probably break things, unless specifically patched for each game.

So, as I say it's not a matter of stance or policy - simply in this case I think MS was smarter and more forward-looking.

 

[antyk]

Actually, it would be great if some devs "in the know" could shed some light whether Sony's policy regarding using higher-level APIs changed in recent months. I imagine they'll want to make PS5 compatible with PS4/Pro and achieving that - without strictly tying themselves to AMD hardware - will be difficult without software abstraction.

 

[onQ123]

Most people would consider a game with more frame pacing issues to be a game that runs worse.

Do I have to bold the word "probably"?


someone claimed that if Bloodborne was a Xbox One game it would get a update without the devs needing to touch the game & I was explaining that the problem with the game was frame pacing & not that it needed a higher GPU clock rate. & that it would probably make that worse.

 

[Izuna]

Do I have to bold the word "probably"?


someone claimed that if Bloodborne was a Xbox One game it would get a update without the devs needing to touch the game & I was explaining that the problem with the game was frame pacing & not that it needed a higher GPU clock rate. & that it would probably make that worse.

I only mentioned Bloodborne because I know that game hasn't been patched yet. I didn't know the specific problems it had. Either way, I hope you can understand why it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

A better example would be, oh I don't know, Project Cars?

 

[Caayn]

Xbox one S is used as a comparison but using the one game that gets a decent increase in performance, setting an inaccurate and potentially misleading baseline for the video.

Also Xbox and PS4 are clearly different. Maybe all Xbox games are developed with a higher level of forced abstraction which allows the upclock to be 'seen' by games without patching, maybe the PS4 could have more issues with doing that - especially as the CPU upclock is much higher, and the GPU is much more different too. Perhaps Sony even tried internally testing some games and found too many issues, so they took this route? We don't know

I do think it could be offered as an option per game like the PS2 did. Maybe even restrict it to just showing the clock speed increase (keep half the GPU turned off but let it stay faster)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree, XB1S isn't a magical cure. In no way will it ever provide the same boost that the PS4 Pro should provide. It just shows that games can and will automatically utilize the extra hardware grunt without needing a patch (regardless of how much/little it effects games). If the API has been designed with it in mind.

Were the PS4 Pro scenario similar to the XB1S you'd see even bigger differences in more unpatched games between PS4 and Pro than you currently see between the XB1 and XB1S.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Also, don't automatically assume games will run better on Scorpio without any additional work.

Depends on the developer tools.

 

[onQ123]

I only mentioned Bloodborne because I know that game hasn't been patched yet. I didn't know the specific problems it had. Either way, I hope you can understand why it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

A better example would be, oh I don't know, Project Cars?

You did that on purpose right?

Does anyone have a estimated number of games that show noticeable improvements on Xbox One S?


I keep seeing Project Cars being brought up for up to 6 or 7 fps boost but I'm sure if there was much more to talk about someone would have a list of the games that are showing big improvements.


Like if Project Cars was to receive a PS4 Pro patch in the next few months would there be anything left to talk about?

 

[Panajev2001a]

So, as I say it's not a matter of stance or policy - simply in this case I think MS was smarter and more forward-looking.

They took a risk, a risk that caused them to get locked to ESRAM and slower DDR4 for main RAM and that probably forced them to a late clock speed bump. The virtualisation solution is smart, it allows them to separately update main OS and game OS as well as increase system security, but they effectively paved the way for their iterative console future with the money of Xbox One (pre S and Scorpio) owners.

I think people are a little bit too negative early on as far as PS4 Pro is concerned. I think it is early and so far it is fulfilling the PS4 - initial bottlenecks kind of promise they sold us when they announced it. Some of the issues people complain about are also inherent in iterative HW as a model, people had been warned but chose to overhype themselves and take a model for what they wished it to be and. Or for what it was likely going to be given other iterative HW examples.

We have seen native 4K games, we have seen good quality checkerboarded games, we have seen many instances of games whose IQ is considerably better on 1080p TV's (supersampling does wonders for surface aliasing), etc... developers will give it more attention as the sales pick up, but right now this feels a bit like the 60 FPS backlash with PS2 or subnative resolution for PS Vita where perception from a vocal minority is vastly vastly overblown compared to the reality. Myths difficult to dispel... see the PS2 has no games at launch/launch window/sold because of DVD kind of meme.

Still, he best thing for us consumers and IMHO for devs as well it is the good ol' console generation model instead of the iterative forever cross generation model which is where yearly iterative consoles would lead us to. PS4 to PS4 Pro and then one day jump to PS5 with exclusive PS5 software and BC with PS4+PS4 Pro followed by a mid gen PS5.5 refresh like the current Pro... this is likely the best compromise betweeen those of us who want console generations to stay and the people who want HW refreshes with spec bumps.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I like to use this very video as an example, however. Even if it was half of the games that were compatible, the option to do so (at the user's risk) would be a lovely addition.

You need to take into account th fact that users would press the checkbox and if too many games, subjective factor, people would scream loudly against both the game publisher and Sony... followed by the game publisher reminding Sony it was a bad idea and getting mad for the flak and extra support cost they would get. Angry customers calling support lines is not a super trivial cost BTW, for either Sony or game publishers.

I tend to believe that Sony could not guarantee enough of a risk free experience doing that and as market leader the repercussions for a fuckup are a lot worse than for MS. As a not too close second, MS has a lot less to lose and it is taking more risks... lucky for them, after taking a performance and cost hit with pushing virtualisation so hard in the original Xbox One they can reap rewards with Xbox One S.

 

[antyk]

They took a risk, a risk that caused them to get locked to ESRAM and slower DDR4 for main RAM and that probably forced them to a late clock speed bump. The virtualisation solution is smart, it allows them to separately update main OS and game OS as well as increase system security, but they effectively paved the way for their iterative console future with the money of Xbox One (pre S and Scorpio) owners.

I think people are a little bit too negative early on as far as PS4 Pro is concerned. I think it is early and so far it is fulfilling the PS4 - initial bottlenecks kind of promise they sold us when they announced it. Some of the issues people complain about are also inherent in iterative HW as a model, people had been warned but chose to overhype themselves and take a model for what they wished it to be and. Or for what it was likely going to be given other iterative HW examples.

We have seen native 4K games, we have seen good quality checkerboarded games, we have seen many instances of games whose IQ is considerably better on 1080p TV's (supersampling does wonders for surface aliasing), etc... developers will give it more attention as the sales pick up, but right now this feels a bit like the 60 FPS backlash with PS2 or subnative resolution for PS Vita where perception from a vocal minority is vastly vastly overblown compared to the reality. Myths difficult to dispel... see the PS2 has no games at launch/launch window/sold because of DVD kind of meme.

Still, he best thing for us consumers and IMHO for devs as well it is the good ol' console generation model instead of the iterative forever cross generation model which is where yearly iterative consoles would lead us to. PS4 to PS4 Pro and then one day jump to PS5 with exclusive PS5 software and BC with PS4+PS4 Pro followed by a mid gen PS5.5 refresh like the current Pro... this is likely the best compromise betweeen those of us who want console generations to stay and the people who want HW refreshes with spec bumps.

I agree, but about the bolded - why do you think 'generations' approach is better than 'iterative'? With generations I think the risk is we'd lose forward compatibility, i.e. there's little chance that PS5 games will be playable on original PS4, whereas Microsoft seems to be going into the future where any Xbox title can be played on any Xbox console (or Xbox device - tablet, phone) just that the experience would be severely compromised on low-end machines. I don't think even Sony will once again try implementing some disruptive, innovative tech (like Cell) because the R&D going into that vs. the hurdles put on the developers to learn new paradigms are not really worth it. It's smarter to leverage the commoditised PC tech and - if possible - add some tweaks here & there, like they did for PS4 and now for PS4 Pro. I think Sony should - unfortunately for performance - also go further "away from the metal" to higher abstraction level APIs, because it's good for business. Devs can then maintain single code base for their game, with just separate compiler paths for specific devices. Games are nowadays so big and complex that adding specific solutions for their console would be counterproductive, IMO.

Obviously, annual console iterations would be overkill, but if it's happening every 3-4 years and I'd know my purchase could last me 6-7 years if I don't need the top model then I'd be fine with it.

 

[Izuna]

You need to take into account th fact that users would press the checkbox and if too many games, subjective factor, people would scream loudly against both the game publisher and Sony... followed by the game publisher reminding Sony it was a bad idea and getting mad for the flak and extra support cost they would get. Angry customers calling support lines is not a super trivial cost BTW, for either Sony or game publishers.

I tend to believe that Sony could not guarantee enough of a risk free experience doing that and as market leader the repercussions for a fuckup are a lot worse than for MS. As a not too close second, MS has a lot less to lose and it is taking more risks... lucky for them, after taking a performance and cost hit with pushing virtualisation so hard in the original Xbox One they can reap rewards with Xbox One S.

Well, the suggestion was to have a "Pro Mode" with visible warning labels if the game was untested.

We have to imagine that Cerny would have done the testing on certain games, and would know some that are fine or not.

I have to now however, that it's purely see speculation that Sony would receive more flak than they are already receiving.

This is a release where actual Pro patches can have added performance and IQ problems. I'd say that they're receiving bad PR regardless.

It's just like the mod scenario. It's not possible for the average gamer to understand the possible issues. Especially when it's side by side with the Xbox One S release.

Perhaps it would be a nice middle ground if PS4 firmware updates were whitelisting games, or if there was tester's firmware that had the option or something.

I'm anxious to hear Sony's response to all this, but if some releases never get an improvement by the time Scorpio comes out, that would be unfortunate.

Finger's crossed I'm right about Scorpio though.

 

[horkrux]

You did that on purpose right?

To answer your original question: Tomb Raider Definitive Edition comes to mind. But you can't just write off Bloodborne, because that game also dips in places on top of the framepacing issues (as do most if not all games).

 

[Liabe Brave]

I think you mean marginal improvements, and almost none when games have a bottleneck with the CPU.

No, I mean zero improvements. Digital Foundry has said there are multiple games that One S doesn't improve at all.

You sound like a politician. No list exists because who has time to actually test that? There is no list for that reason.

I would think collecting technical data so as to properly inform game consumers how particular hardware runs games is pretty much the definition of Digital Foundry's job. PC sites typically test multiple benchmarks and a half-dozen games at multiple settings for each hardware release. If DF doesn't have the time to effectively investigate questions, perhaps you should bring on more employees. Otherwise your "analyses" will be unreliable exercises in guesstimation, and worthy of the scare quotes.

Actually, it would be great if some devs "in the know" could shed some light whether Sony's policy regarding using higher-level APIs changed in recent months.

No change is necessary. Sony already allows Direct X on their machine.

 

[Caayn]

No change is necessary. Sony already allows Direct X on their machine.

I'd like to see a source for this please.

Edit: Besides, that has nothing to with policies. Which Antyk queried about.

 

[mrklaw]

I agree, but about the bolded - why do you think 'generations' approach is better than 'iterative'? With generations I think the risk is we'd lose forward compatibility, i.e. there's little chance that PS5 games will be playable on original PS4, whereas Microsoft seems to be going into the future where any Xbox title can be played on any Xbox console (or Xbox device - tablet, phone) just that the experience would be severely compromised on low-end machines. I don't think even Sony will once again try implementing some disruptive, innovative tech (like Cell) because the R&D going into that vs. the hurdles put on the developers to learn new paradigms are not really worth it. It's smarter to leverage the commoditised PC tech and - if possible - add some tweaks here & there, like they did for PS4 and now for PS4 Pro. I think Sony should - unfortunately for performance - also go further "away from the metal" to higher abstraction level APIs, because it's good for business. Devs can then maintain single code base for their game, with just separate compiler paths for specific devices. Games are nowadays so big and complex that adding specific solutions for their console would be counterproductive, IMO.

Obviously, annual console iterations would be overkill, but if it's happening every 3-4 years and I'd know my purchase could last me 6-7 years if I don't need the top model then I'd be fine with it.

If you keep a purely iterative model, where is the incentive to invest in meaningful leaps forward? Why bother pushing to get an 8-16 core zen or HBM memory, if you're held back by the need for previous consoles to play the same games? We see this to an extent on iOS. The latest iPhones and iPads don't have many games that fully push the hardware because the developers rightly want to address the largest possible market which includes much older hardware.