They priced it at $60 because they realize it'll actually be purchased at $30 by most people two+ weeks later, just like the first time around. If they priced it at $40, people would just wait for it to hit $20.
This game was 20-30 fps on 360/ps3 and that's where the initial engine was targeted. The PC port had better textures and a handful of DX11 features PLUS the tressFX but it was still the same core game - mean to be played in high detail at 30 fps. That many of us PC owners (myself included) were able to basically max the game out with tress FX off at 1080p and maintain 60fps a good portion of the time is just a bonus for PC owners.
The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much.
I've little doubt in my mind that a direct port , simply plopped into 1080p with the Hires PC textures would likely have managed 60fps on both consoles but they wanted it to look noticeably better then the 360/ps3 release.
Are these systems capable of doing this game at 60fps ? Maybe ? I don't know. It is early and perhaps with 100% custom code , a large team and some damn good programmers they could do it. OR , they just target 30 fps and crank up the details. 60fps does indeed always look better then 30fps but if it means it will be exactly the same game as before versus looking quite a bit better , I'd sooner go for better graphics. Especially if it's locked 30(I imagine it could get close to 60 in low demand scenes on PS4 but drops rather quickly during combat and explosion filled sequences so a stable framerate is better, xbox one probably does 20-40fps , so for parities sake it's better to just say they're both 30).
Ideally , in the future , when sequels and such are being made, I'd like to have a developer weight the type of game they're making with the available horsepower. 1080p 60fps should be a goal for any game sure but it frees up a fair amount of horsepower to knock it down to 30 fps. Roughly as much as switching down to 720p actually. On that note , would people rather square enix kept this port at 720p to maintain 60fps ? Most of us have 1080p TVs now so the image quality will drop substantially in doing so.
On PC, the sky is the limit, everything can and should be supported because PC owners can always spend more money to push things further. With consoles, even these brand new ones, there is a finite limit on what can really be done.
1920X1080 @60FPS should be first priority
1600X900 @60FPS if the res drop guarantees FPS 95% of the time
1920X1080 @30FPS should be used for more cinematic games
1600X900 @30FPS for particularly ambitious titles or xb1 ports
If none of the above can be achieved the scope of the game should be scaled back to make sure it does work. Failing that, if the PS4 can at least achieve 900p at 60fps , then it is acceptable for the XB1 port of whatever this game is to run at 1280X720 @60fps.
That's my personal bottom of the barrel mark. Anything running at less then 60FPS at 720P needs to be reworked. 720P needs to be thought of as a relic now, much like 480p was on the 360 or PS3. If the consolation is high frame rate and the game design requires that level of performance then I suppose it's better then nothing but honestly if I were making a game that I wanted to run at 60fps , hitting 1080P would be equally as important. Lowering the resolution was acceptable mostly for launch titles because they all had a time limit. By the end of this year I'd like to think we won't have 720p games on either XB1 or PS4 anymore.
TL;DR version -
1080P at 30FPS is perfectly fine given the level of visual fidelity in this version versus the previous console release. It is indeed a "definitive version" compared to those. Had I not already played through the game just last summer I would likely buy this version of it for full price. Instead I'll be a bargain bin purchase unless the enhancements come to PC....
PS2 also sold 150 million units so it's naturally going to have more.IMO PS2 had more 60fps games than PS3, hard to believe isn't it?
$2 per frame
It depends how low your standards are. I pay hundreds/thousands of pounds to ensure my games look the best they can, at a minimum 60FPS. I don't expect consoles to match this, but it's stupid to consider a 30fps version with slightly altered (I won't say better.... yet) models/lighting as a "definitive" version. Definitive for consoles sure, but when you've previously played the game at 1400p in 60fps on PC with everything set to maximum, it just makes you look a bit silly. It'a a marketing buzzword, nothing more.
pay hundreds/thousands of pounds to ensure my games look the best they can
What about 1280x720 @ 24fps?This game was 20-30 fps on 360/ps3 and that's where the initial engine was targeted. The PC port had better textures and a handful of DX11 features PLUS the tressFX but it was still the same core game - mean to be played in high detail at 30 fps. That many of us PC owners (myself included) were able to basically max the game out with tress FX off at 1080p and maintain 60fps a good portion of the time is just a bonus for PC owners.
The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much.
I've little doubt in my mind that a direct port , simply plopped into 1080p with the Hires PC textures would likely have managed 60fps on both consoles but they wanted it to look noticeably better then the 360/ps3 release.
Are these systems capable of doing this game at 60fps ? Maybe ? I don't know. It is early and perhaps with 100% custom code , a large team and some damn good programmers they could do it. OR , they just target 30 fps and crank up the details. 60fps does indeed always look better then 30fps but if it means it will be exactly the same game as before versus looking quite a bit better , I'd sooner go for better graphics. Especially if it's locked 30(I imagine it could get close to 60 in low demand scenes on PS4 but drops rather quickly during combat and explosion filled sequences so a stable framerate is better, xbox one probably does 20-40fps , so for parities sake it's better to just say they're both 30).
Ideally , in the future , when sequels and such are being made, I'd like to have a developer weight the type of game they're making with the available horsepower. 1080p 60fps should be a goal for any game sure but it frees up a fair amount of horsepower to knock it down to 30 fps. Roughly as much as switching down to 720p actually. On that note , would people rather square enix kept this port at 720p to maintain 60fps ? Most of us have 1080p TVs now so the image quality will drop substantially in doing so.
On PC, the sky is the limit, everything can and should be supported because PC owners can always spend more money to push things further. With consoles, even these brand new ones, there is a finite limit on what can really be done.
1920X1080 @60FPS should be first priority
1600X900 @60FPS if the res drop guarantees FPS 95% of the time
1920X1080 @30FPS should be used for more cinematic games
1600X900 @30FPS for particularly ambitious titles or xb1 ports
If none of the above can be achieved the scope of the game should be scaled back to make sure it does work. Failing that, if the PS4 can at least achieve 900p at 60fps , then it is acceptable for the XB1 port of whatever this game is to run at 1280X720 @60fps.
That's my personal bottom of the barrel mark. Anything running at less then 60FPS at 720P needs to be reworked. 720P needs to be thought of as a relic now, much like 480p was on the 360 or PS3. If the consolation is high frame rate and the game design requires that level of performance then I suppose it's better then nothing but honestly if I were making a game that I wanted to run at 60fps , hitting 1080P would be equally as important. Lowering the resolution was acceptable mostly for launch titles because they all had a time limit. By the end of this year I'd like to think we won't have 720p games on either XB1 or PS4 anymore.
TL;DR version -
1080P at 30FPS is perfectly fine given the level of visual fidelity in this version versus the previous console release. It is indeed a "definitive version" compared to those. Had I not already played through the game just last summer I would likely buy this version of it for full price. Instead I'll be a bargain bin purchase unless the enhancements come to PC....
Not that I give a shit about 60fps, but they're charging full price for this and calling it the Definitive Edition and they can't even be bothered to up the frame rate on new gen tech? It can be done, they just can't be bothered because it's a cheap and cheerful port for some easy money. Anyone who pays £30 or higher for this is a mug.
Incase you haven't seen it, here's a video showing the PS4 version versus the PC version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Teb1VF1Ptho
Because it's still gaming hardware. It's the consoles. It's a big part of gaming and it's a big part of technology.I understand what your saying but generally why would any avid PC gamer have any interest in console hardware considering that in reality it's highly inferior to anything the PC has to offer and is of no real benefit to PC gaming as a whole.
Whats the deal with showing only the PS4 version of the game? Is there any Xbone footage?
moneyhats! or like last gen where they are just stuck with whatever version they are sent for previews/reviews. which often times just happened to be the 360 version and most of the time the better version.
The equivalences you are using for both consoles are quite inaccurate. Just wanted to point that out.The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much..
I bet it'll frequently drop well below 30, as well.
The PS3 version was sub 30 fps and on my PC it looks almost like a PS2 game... For me the PS4 version will be the best way to experience this game.
Incase you haven't seen it, here's a video showing the PS4 version versus the PC version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Teb1VF1Ptho
You have no idea what the spec of his PC is, yet you think you know more about how well the game ran and looked for him? Huh.I have no idea what the spec of the pc you were playing it on, but you are still talking nonsense.
The pc version looked beautiful with dx11 advanced DOF, dx11 tessalation, high res textures, advanced ambient occlusion and not to mention that it ran at 60fps at 1080 on a 670.
You have no idea what the spec of his PC is, yet you think you know more about how well the game ran and looked for him? Huh.
Again though, that depends on your PC. It's possible that you could drop all the settings to lowest and still struggle to hit 720p/30.You do realise that he said it looked like a ps2 game? even at its lowest settings it's still a nice looking game,
I don't really care that much for the game but it was really impressive looking with good performance, well except the tressfx, to much of a hit for how it looks.
The PC version wows me. It seems more surreal.
Incase you haven't seen it, here's a video showing the PS4 version versus the PC version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Teb1VF1Ptho
Nope.Is there any Xbone footage?
"Waiting for a price drop" is the new "I want to protect her" in tomb raider threads
The pc version looked beautiful with dx11 advanced DOF, dx11 tessalation, high res textures, advanced ambient occlusion and not to mention that it ran at 60fps at 1080 on a 670.
No, it did not and this is what I was mentioning before in this thread. Many people are lying about the 60fps thing in this game and need to be more honest and not try to make it look as if the game is fluid on their machine.
I posted my specs already and the game is NOT a "60fps at 1080", it drops a lot at times with everything maxed + TressFX.
So considering that a PS4 cannot match my 4,5Ghz i2500k with a 670 at all I think it's completely unrealistic to think it could run with steady 60fps while also using better assets/fidelity.