Support NeoGAF

[Shifty1897]

I don't know, to be honest. Some current gen games don't run great, but that's usually because of forced ray tracing on a chipset that struggles with ray tracing. A PS5 Pro isn't really going to fix that.

 

[Zuzu]

It's not "perceived", examples of why mid-gen upgrades would be a terrible practice have been already provided in this thread a number of times. Both by yours truly and other users as well. If you really wanna contest anything then you should at least have the courtesy of browsing through the discussion first.

The arguments that have been provided aren’t very persuasive imo. It seems that the four primary arguments that you and the others have made are:

i) Base console games will receive less optimisation if a Pro exists and so games will run worse on base consoles.
ii) Developers will stop optimising games in general because they can just brute force them using the Pro’s available hardware.
iii) It will lead to an incremental update model like the mobile phone model where eventually new consoles will come out every year.
iv) It feeds into consumerism and rampant capitalism which has a detrimental effect on a society’s mental health, financial stability and the environment.

With regards to (i) you provided four examples of games that ran poorly on PS4 after the Pro was released - Cyberpunk, Control, Maneater & Crysis Remastered. Wrt to Cyberpunk, that game should never have been released on last gen consoles. It was too much for them to handle regardless of the existence of the Pro/One X. If the Pro had never been released, Cyberpunk still wouldn’t have run well on PS4 & Xbox One. The game was simply beyond their capabilities. Therefore the Pro didn’t affect the optimisation of that game.

Control ran very poorly on PS4 but you need to provide proof that this was due to the developer not optimising for the PS4 base as a consequence of the Pro. An alternative theory is that the game was just too graphically heavy for the base console. It was quite a graphically advanced game after all and pushed top end PC gpus hard. Even PS5 & Series X don’t run that game on max settings. The PS3 & Xbox 360 had many terribly performing games on them but they didn’t have to coexist with Pro consoles. Sometimes games are just too heavy for consoles regardless of whether or not they existed alongside a Pro.

I briefly looked up Maneater. People were complaining that that game performed poorly on both PS4 Pro and PS4. It seemed to be a generally poorly optimised game due to developer ineptitude not because of the existence of a Pro.

I looked up Digital Foundry’s Crysis Remastered video from a few years back. The PS4 version seemed to be running fine. It ran at a weird 31fps but that was because it inherited this feature from the PS3/Xbox 360 version of Crysis and wasn’t due to the Pro.

Therefore, your examples don’t provide a lot of evidence that the existence of a Pro would cause widespread optimisation issues for the base console.

Wrt argument (ii) this is a problem that already exists widely through the industry. Do Pro consoles exacerbate it? I don’t know. You guys need to provide substantial proof that developers will optimise even less than they currently do if a Pro is released. I think the biggest cause of optimisation problems in the industry is tight budgets and deadlines, poorly managed projects and poorly trained staff. The existence of a Pro probably has very, very little effect on the problem of game optimisation. I guess maybe the existence of Pro combined with already existing tight deadlines could decrease optimisation. It’s possible, but you guys need to provide evidence that this in fact happens. Do you have any statements from developers who assert that this happened last generation? And if it did, was it widespread or only in a few isolated cases? You guys are making the assertions so you need to provide the proof. Also developers still have an incentive to optimise for the base consoles since they make up the vast majority of the market share. It’s not in their best interests to just stop optimising for the base consoles since that’s where the majority of their sales will be made.

Wrt argument (iii) this needs more substantial argumentation behind it. The existence of one more console in the market doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re headed to a mobile phone model. One reason is that a mobile phone model probably wouldn’t be financially successful for the console manufacturers. If new consoles were released yearly there wouldn’t be enough of a performance improvement each year whereby a large enough audience would buy them. But one every four years makes a lot more sense because it gives enough time for technology to advance sufficiently to provide a substantial performance boost and for the console manufacturers to offer this tech at good price.

Wrt argument (iv) this is an ethical assertion about what’s best for humanity and the environment. I won’t really comment on it other than to say that the existence or non-existence of Pro consoles is not going to have an effect on problems caused by consumerism at a broad global level. So I don’t see this argument providing a strong reason to not release a Pro.

 

[wipeout364]

Deep down every console gamer wants to be a PC gamer and take part in the video card arms race.

 

[Drizzlehell]

The arguments that have been provided aren’t very persuasive imo. It seems that the four primary arguments that you and the others have made are:

i) Base console games will receive less optimisation if a Pro exists and so games will run worse on base consoles.
ii) Developers will stop optimising games in general because they can just brute force them using the Pro’s available hardware.
iii) It will lead to an incremental update model like the mobile phone model where eventually new consoles will come out every year.
iv) It feeds into consumerism and rampant capitalism which has a detrimental effect on a society’s mental health, financial stability and the environment.

Bro, I was literally being facetious about that last one, lol. I thought that tin-foil-hat gif would give it away.

As for the first two, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Based on empirical evidence of PS4 games running more poorly and being unoptimised (Control, Crysis, Cyberpunk, Maneater, etc.) on base PS4 versus how they ran on Pro, it is reasonable to be concerned that the same problems would eventually start affecting PS5 games as well. Also, more versions of the same hardware forces developers to split their resources in order to accommodate both platforms. This may lead to new hardware being under-utilised and games being scaled back because devs would have to make them run on both versions. Also, why do you think that some cross-gen PS4/PS5 games eventually dropped support for PS4 altogether (eg. Horizon DLC). That's because their devs didn't want to be held back by last-gen hardware. Something that wouldn't be possible if we'd have two versions of the current-get console. Look no further than the current situation with Xbox Series consoles if you think that's baloney.

It's amusing that you would just reject evidence simply because you arbitrarily deemed it insufficient. That's generally how flat earthers do things, you know. For example, why would I need to prove anything about how Control was developed? Do I look like a QA tester at Remedy? The game just ran like shit on PS4, end of argument. Also, you were suspiciously quick to accept Maneater's poor performance when it was more suitable to support your argument - selective much?

And lastly, the third one, ultimately the public demand dictates what happens. So yeah, if people will keep clamouring for incremental updates similar to what's going on in the mobile market, then eventually console producers will home in on it and we'll end up having to buy a new fucking console every year. If that's not a grim prospect then I don't know what is.

 

[ergem]

And how would you engage with opinions that are equally as selfish? So far anyone who was fully on board with the idea of a Pro console sounded like a living example of that "38 year old consoomer" meme and it's actually kinda funny. It's like all they care about is to scratch the itch of buying a new toy, and when I try to provide some possible reasons why Pro consoles are actually a terrible idea, all I get in response is "well, no one's forcing you to buy it."

Yeah, no kidding, thanks for letting me know. Any other brilliant suggestions? Like "don't stick a fork in a wall socket", maybe? (Not asking you specifically, ofc. I'm just yelling at clouds here.)

When PS4 pro started selling, the sales ratio was 80:20 in favor of PS4 OG. And that’s already after PS4 had already sold about 40-50 million units. We can safely say that the pro version is less than 20% of PS gamers. What makes you think that games will not be optimized for the base PS5 when the overwhelming majority of playstation gamers are on it?

Majority of gamers will buy the base model and find the pro model not worth the upgrade, and that’s fine. A few ps gamers (less than 20%) will buy the pro model, and that’s okay.

Playstation will have two models for every generation going forward. It’s hardly comparable to the phone industry and that’s fine.

Now, point to a game that was compromised on the base PS4 because of the PS4 pro. Just one. I’ll wait.

 

[Zuzu]

Bro, I was literally being facetious about that last one, lol. I thought that tin-foil-hat gif would give it away.

As for the first two, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Based on empirical evidence of PS4 games running more poorly and being unoptimised (Control, Crysis, Cyberpunk, Maneater, etc.) on base PS4 versus how they ran on Pro, it is reasonable to be concerned that the same problems would eventually start affecting PS5 games as well. Also, more versions of the same hardware forces developers to split their resources in order to accommodate both platforms. This may lead to new hardware being under-utilised and games being scaled back because devs would have to make them run on both versions. Look no further than the current situation with Xbox Series consoles if you think that's baloney.

And lastly, the third one, ultimately the public demand dictates what happens. So yeah, if people will keep clamouring for incremental updates similar to what's going on in the mobile market, then eventually console producers will home in on it and we'll end up having to buy a new fucking console every year. If that's not a grim prospect then I don't know what is.

The empirical evidence you provided didn’t provide enough of a reason for a Pro not to be released. In my post I went through each game and explained that the Pro either didn’t have a negative effect on the base version or it’s uncertain (for example with Control). Also, the vast majority of games that have been released on PS4 base since the Pro released have performed fine. It seems to me that the evidence at best demonstrates that the Pro had a negative effect on the base console in just a few isolated examples and it’s not a widespread problem. Not enough of a reason not to release a PS5 Pro imo.

More versions does mean that developers have to split their resources. Do you have evidence that this would lead to games being scaled back? Most developers already have multiple platforms they have to develop for. Adding one more which shares the same software tools with PS5 base is highly unlikely to cause games to be scaled back. Using the Xbox Series consoles isn’t that great of an example if you’re concerned about PS5 games being scaled back. The major reason why an Xbox game would be scaled back for the Series X is because the Series S is more than 3x weaker than the X. The PS5 Pro would likely be 2x stronger than the base and so the major problem inherent in the Series console arrangement doesn’t exist with the PS5/PS5 Pro dynamic.

Lastly you assert that if people want incremental updates then this would lead to a yearly model. I provided an argument that countered this in my post. Console manufactures most likely can’t offer financially and technologically viable updates on a yearly basis. Also, imo the reason the Pro/One X were attractive is because they offered a substantial improvement, not an incremental one. We don’t know how the market would respond to yearly console releases that are incremental, so I don’t think a mid-gen upgrade that has large performance gains (like 2x performance gain) would mean the console market would tolerate yearly releases with much smaller performance gains (like 25% performance increases).

 

[Drizzlehell]

Now, point to a game that was compromised on the base PS4 because of the PS4 pro. Just one. I’ll wait.

Pointed.

 

[Drizzlehell]

The empirical evidence you provided didn’t provide enough of a reason for a Pro not to be released.

Says you. Going through each listed game and coming up with some arbitrary excuses as to why it's not enough of an evidence is just that - excuses.

 

[ergem]

Pointed.

You’re claiming those games didn’t perform well because of the pro version. That’s not empirical evidence. That’s just your assumption.

Even before the pro version came into the picture, several games on PS4 have been released in a bad form. It’s not the PS4 pro’s fault.

 

[Zuzu]

Says you. Going through each listed game and coming up with some arbitrary excuses as to why it's not enough of an evidence is just that - excuses.

An “arbitrary excuse” would mean that I didn’t provide at least some plausible reasons for my arguments. I did provide reasons. There is no way that Cyberpunk would have been any different on the base PS4 had the PS4 Pro not existed. Even years later it’s received small optimisation improvements and I don’t believe anything substantial has changed (it’s a bit more playable I believe). The console simply isn’t powerful enough.

Crysis Remastered seems to have been fine on base PS4.

You may be right about Control and you may not be as well. The game was not optimised well when it released but was that primarily caused by split developer resources due to the existence of the Pro or was it caused by other factors? You need to provide more evidence that the PS4 Pro was the primary reason for Control’s poor optimisation on PS4. You can’t just assume that the Pro’s existence was the primary reason for the PS4’s performance woes in that game. We need evidence for it. Also the Pro had it’s own optimisation issues in Control at release (going by the old Digital Foundry video) and so there were optimisation issues on both base & Pro. This is evidence that at the very least the Pro was not being favoured over the base wrt optimisation.

Maneater performed poorly on PS4 & Pro. What’s your evidence that the Pro was the major reason for these optimisation issues?

 

[Soodanim]

The reason for wanting a Switch Pro couldn't be more obvious. The majority of games perform poorly and people want better than that. Let me play Zelda at 60fps at a decent resolution please.

 

[UltimaKilo]

They don’t understand that it’s not the hardware that’s the issue. PC has 4090 GPU’s and some games are still running like crap because publishers are shipping broken and unoptimized games.

A pro console feels like a cop out and it sets a bad precedent. Having to drop more money on a new “pro” console just to get the performance you were supposed to get with the base console is ridiculous.

But these same people will complain about Sony increasing prices without adding much value…. They will continue to increase prices and not increase the value because people will buy no matter what.

Nobody “has to” buy anything. A revised console does not make the one you currently have stop working.

Mid generation upgrades are an excellent way to get more sales at higher margins. I’m all for it.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

What makes you think you deserve special treatment? It's a public discussion. Keep up.

Nothing is obfuscated if previous responses are right there for everyone to see.

great, a hand full of nothing then

 

[Krappadizzle]

I'll say the "Pro" versions of the last generation made me realize that waiting for the "Pro" versions was the best course of action as by the time they come out, the library will finally have a collection worth spending time with instead of buying these awesome consoles and then waiting for anemic drops of quality exclusive games that I can't already play on my PC.

 

[Fortuneelsewhere]

Imagine going to a car entusiasts forum and have people there complaining why BMW are producing M cars…

 

[FoxMcChief]

I’m not. If I cared that much about performance and visuals, why waste money on consoles. PC is where that’s at.

 

[Drizzlehell]

An “arbitrary excuse” would mean that I didn’t provide at least some plausible reasons for my arguments.

You literally asked me to provide evidence that the developer intentionally didn't prioritize optimizing the game. Yeah, sure bud. Brb, going to the Remedy offices to speak to my homie Sam Lake, we'll clear that right up for you. Want me to swing by Geoff Keighley's place and ask him for this year's TGA nominees while I'm at it?

 

[Drizzlehell]

You’re claiming those games didn’t perform well because of the pro version. That’s not empirical evidence. That’s just your assumption.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how inferior hardware can become a bottleneck in such scenarios. Again, look no further than Series S and how much of a pain in the ass it is for current-day development.

Like, really, if your mum tells you that she's making bean soup for dinner then you're gonna go look for beans in the boiling pot?

Even before the pro version came into the picture, several games on PS4 have been released in a bad form. It’s not the PS4 pro’s fault.

Name one.

 

[ergem]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how inferior hardware can become a bottleneck in such scenarios. Again, look no further than Series S and how much of a pain in the ass it is for current-day development.

It is a pain in the ass because the target specs is the series X and the PS5. Do you not understand that? That means the gameplay systems, map layout, texture sizes, Ram allocation and usage all have the PS5 in mind as the target specs. Now MS bring the a weaker hardware in the mix and it’s become a headache.

If the Series S is twice power of series X, it will not be a pain the ass. Neither will the Series X and PS5 unless the target specs is the more powerful hardware. It’s the same reason why the Series S will shackle the Series X. It will be easier for devs to target Series S now that it exist (and compromise the game in the process) than to create a game with the Series X in mind then port down to Series S - that would be the pain in the ass.

Xbox this generation is shackled by the Series S. It is a bottleneck for many devs but not for Sony first party devs.

It’s not the same with PS5 pro. All games will target the base PS5 because that will be console of choice of majority of gamers. Again, it’s going to be probably 80:20 split again.

The PS5 pro potential WILL BE limited by the existence of the base PS5. But don’t worry we as future owners of the PS5 pro don’t mind. We’re okay with a little bit more frames and resolution and we will not call the base PS5 a bottleneck because we understand that the Pro only exist to have a better version of a PS5 games created for the base PS5.

Name one.

Really? You know there are loads. Assassin’s Creed Syndicate was one of them very early on which was released within the launch window.

 

[SHA]

18TF is nothing to brag about, contents do though. if it's not for the contents idk.

 

[Matsuchezz]

The Ps5 Pro can’t be released soon enough just to read the meltdowns. It will be glorious

 

[bender]

Pro gamers need pro equipment like pro controllers and pro consoles along with pro gamer fuel like Doritos and Mountain Dew to hone their pro skills so they can dominate non-pro gamers.