• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Battlefield 1 on PS4 Pro - Already improved framerate and resolution

endlessflood

Member
Dec 3, 2007
6,092
0
0
Sydney, Australia (GMT +10)
Have you seen the OG PS4 analysis? Go check yourself and you can se why the pro owner have an advantage.
I haven't seen any MP analysis for the OG/Pro comparison, is anyone able to post a link?

After playing BF1 on the Pro over the weekend, I'm not really noticing a huge difference. In Conquest the big drops are gone, and the annoying downres thingy is gone, but I didn't feel any more or less competitive than I did previously (levels 1-45) and my scores didn't really differ either. It's nothing like a really good net connection or a mouse through a XIM for example, both of which offer an actual advantage.
 

bourgeois

Member
Apr 1, 2010
1,175
17
780
Go check yourself and you can se why the pro owner have an advantage.

FFS, base PS4 hardware has drops because it's simply not up to running 64 player matches at a steady 60fps (same issue with BF4/BFH). Take it up with physics. Further, DICE couldn't replicate these frame drops when running in pro mode even if they wanted to.

Such a shortsighted, and selfish position. If I can't have it, no one can...
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
FFS, base PS4 hardware has drops because it's simply not up to running 64 player matches at a steady 60fps (same issue with BF4/BFH). Take it up with physics. Further, DICE couldn't replicate these frame drops when running in pro mode even if they wanted to.

Such a shortsighted, and selfish position. If I can't have it, no one can...

It's not shortsighted. I have a PRO and I don't want a competitive advantage over any user due to hardware differences. If I beat someone I want it to come down to skill, not the fact that his system dropped a few frame so he missed the headshot.

It's Battlefields fault generally though. Multiplayer games should be consistent with their performance and any deviation simply isn't good enough. If you're game is frequently dropping frames with higher player counts then you should reconsider the graphical fidelity, output resolution, and the player count itself, to achieve competitive parity across all members of the battlefield.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Jul 4, 2004
35,734
0
0
It's not shortsighted. I have a PRO and I don't want a competitive advantage over any user due to hardware differences. If I beat someone I want it to come down to skill, not the fact that his system dropped a few frame so he missed the headshot.

It's Battlefields fault generally though. Multiplayer games should be consistent with their performance and any deviation simply isn't good enough. If you're game is frequently dropping frames with higher player counts then you should reconsider the graphical fidelity, output resolution, and the player count itself, to achieve competitive parity across all members of the battlefield.
That's even more likely on the original PS4. Even a high end PC is going to have drops under 60 sometimes. BF1 can get bananas. That's just the nature of a chaotic 64 player game.
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
That's even more likely on the original PS4. Even a high end PC is going to have drops under 60 sometimes. BF1 can get bananas. That's just the nature of a chaotic 64 player game.

Yeah that's what I mean, I think it's bad generally to have your game dropping frames. It's even worse to give players a consistent $400 option for dropping less frames, though.

Likening it to PC doesn't mean anything to me, because I play on consoles partially because I don't want to deal with those unbalanced hardware setups.
 

bourgeois

Member
Apr 1, 2010
1,175
17
780
Likening it to PC doesn't mean anything to me, because I play on consoles partially because I don't want to deal with those unbalanced hardware setups.

Naive if you think that consoles provide a level playing field. TV lag, quality/type of connection, input method (yes there are a growing number of players who essentially cheat with KB/M) ensure that it will always be inherently unbalanced. It's hardly e-sports - just 64 people derping around the battlefield. We should be celebrating that affordable console hardware is finally capable of achieving the full battlefield experience with a respectable frame-rate.
 

Trace

Banned
Feb 15, 2014
9,027
1
0
Vancouver, BC
Yeah that's what I mean, I think it's bad generally to have your game dropping frames. It's even worse to give players a consistent $400 option for dropping less frames, though.

Likening it to PC doesn't mean anything to me, because I play on consoles partially because I don't want to deal with those unbalanced hardware setups.

Battlefield isn't exactly a competitive game. If you had Rocket League running at 45 fps on PS4 and 60 fps on PS4 Pro you might have a point, but dropping frames in Battlefield isn't a huge deal.
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
Battlefield isn't exactly a competitive game. If you had Rocket League running at 45 fps on PS4 and 60 fps on PS4 Pro you might have a point, but dropping frames in Battlefield isn't a huge deal.

If someone directly affects someone else by 'beating them' at the game, then it's competitive. If you kill me you're better than me, if I kill you I'm better than you. I like that simplicity but it's confounded if things like frame rate drops affect peoples experience deferentially.

Whether it's hyper competitive, an esport, or something else doesn't matter. At a certain level, it is competitive, that's the nature of the game, team A compete against team B.
 

web01

Member
Jan 20, 2008
3,124
0
0
Different frame rates are almost never going to influence the outcome of a face off between two players. Only in extremely specific instances and specific games would it matter.

It is such a silly thing to worry about. If it was a big issue PC gaming wouldn't exist, there is huge range of people playing together with different system stats / frame rates / resolutions / graphics settings. It is just not an issue.

Even on a regular ps4 console 2 people facing off may be experiencing completely different frame rates due to what they are seeing in their field of vision.

There is no legitimate reason to lock multiplayer game on a pro ps4 to match the regular ps4 for regular multiplayer gaming.
 
Mar 21, 2010
3,550
0
0
Belgium, Ghent
Different frame rates are almost never going to influence the outcome of a face off between two players. Only in extremely specific instances and specific games would it matter.

It is such a silly thing to worry about. If it was a big issue PC gaming wouldn't exist, there is huge range of people playing together with different system stats / frame rates / resolutions / graphics settings. It is just not an issue.

Even on a regular ps4 console 2 people facing off may be experiencing completely different frame rates due to what they are seeing in their field of vision.

There is no legitimate reason to lock multiplayer game on a pro ps4 to match the regular ps4 for regular multiplayer gaming.
Thank you, was about to post something similar.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Feb 10, 2011
13,496
76
875
Different frame rates are almost never going to influence the outcome of a face off between two players. Only in extremely specific instances and specific games would it matter.

It is such a silly thing to worry about. If it was a big issue PC gaming wouldn't exist, there is huge range of people playing together with different system stats / frame rates / resolutions / graphics settings. It is just not an issue.

Even on a regular ps4 console 2 people facing off may be experiencing completely different frame rates due to what they are seeing in their field of vision.

There is no legitimate reason to lock multiplayer game on a pro ps4 to match the regular ps4 for regular multiplayer gaming.


Yep. At any given time in BF4 if you are looking at an enemy and they you, whatever you're rendering on the screen is vastly different. As are the frame rates. thats without taking into account different size and resolution displays, different input lags, distance the user is from the display, surround sound, first party vs 3rd party controllers, etc etc etc. and this is just on consoles. On PC it's even crazier variation.



It's all fine.
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
A sniper who isnt middle in battle has a higher fps than someone who is. Isnt that advantage on the OG PS4 already?

OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.

Different frame rates are almost never going to influence the outcome of a face off between two players. Only in extremely specific instances and specific games would it matter.

It is such a silly thing to worry about. If it was a big issue PC gaming wouldn't exist, there is huge range of people playing together with different system stats / frame rates / resolutions / graphics settings. It is just not an issue.

Even on a regular ps4 console 2 people facing off may be experiencing completely different frame rates due to what they are seeing in their field of vision.

There is no legitimate reason to lock multiplayer game on a pro ps4 to match the regular ps4 for regular multiplayer gaming.

This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.
 

NHale

Member
Mar 3, 2009
5,291
0
0
If it was 30fps vs 60fps then people would have every right to complain but this isn't the case.

Are you complaining about people that play with better TV's with lower input lag? Because they have a competitive advantage also, in some cases much greater than this framerate and resolution improvement.

And custom controllers? Because that also helps as well.
 

madmackem

Member
Jun 15, 2011
7,703
0
0
OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.



This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.
Bf1 can vary framerate on the base console due to the way the game is, I might be amining at someone with all the alpha effects in my for causing drops while he might have them at his back so out of his fov meaning no frame drops for him, is that an advantage?. Any game that targets 60 will target 60 on pro, any game that targets 30 will target 30 on pro in thier respected multiplayer modes, that's as fair as you can get.
 
Mar 21, 2010
3,550
0
0
Belgium, Ghent
OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.



This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.

i would agree if it were a huge difference but here the difference is so small.
I'm not getting any more kills on ps4pro then i would on ps4.
You can aim perfectly fine on ps4
 

Mabufu

Banned
Oct 21, 2014
1,457
0
0
OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.



This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.

This.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Feb 10, 2011
13,496
76
875
OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.



This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.


Nah. If it's a Pro tournament they would all be playing on the same hardware anyway. When we playing at home it's not that big of a deal. The difference in FPS is just as negligible as the input lag, controller, display size, etc etc etc.

You're trying to make an issue out of something that clearly is not.
 

GearFourth

Junior Member
Feb 20, 2016
7,031
0
0
Basically: have fun getting owned OG PS4 users.
You clearly never played on PC then. Every online multiplayer you have people have sub 30fps, 30fps, 60fps, 120fps and even higher sometimes.

People acting like Pro giving such a huge advantage is making me laugh people over exaggerating
 

mitchlol

Member
Mar 27, 2015
451
2
335
Australia
OG PS4 version featuring disparity doesn't justify the PRO making that issue more common place.



This isn't true at all, anyone that plays games competitively knows the value of a steady and high frame rate, both in relation to the responsiveness of the controls and your ability to react.

Comparison to PC is beside the point, pushing frames on PC is a big issue because it leads to a huge competitive advantage. Why do you think people end up playing games like CS and Rainbow Six on the lowest possible settings just so that they can achieve 60+ frames? Because frame rate doesn't matter? Right. One of the advantages of console gaming is not having to worry about these issues, and Pro exclusive advantages take that benefit away and therefore people have every right to complain.

Anyone that is competitive would be buying the Pro if they have such an issue with it. The real problem is with Dice thinking that sub 50fps is acceptable for a multiplayer shooter.
 
Mar 21, 2010
3,550
0
0
Belgium, Ghent
Nah. If it's a Pro tournament they would all be playing on the same hardware anyway. When we playing at home it's not that big of a deal. The difference in FPS is just as negligible as the input lag, controller, display size, etc etc etc.

You're trying to make an issue out of something that clearly is not.


There are low latency monitors that will give you more of an advantage then a couple of frames.
 

Monkfish

Banned
Oct 17, 2014
77
0
0
Pro looks a lot better, feels a lot smoother, am I playing any better and getting better scores than before? Sadly not, not sure it gives you much of a competitive edge
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
Anyone that is competitive would be buying the Pro if they have such an issue with it. The real problem is with Dice thinking that sub 50fps is acceptable for a multiplayer shooter.

Anyone that is competitive does not want to beat or kill anyone because they have a disadvantage either. Being competitive does not simply mean seeking the best playing field for yourself, but desiring a level playing field for everyone. I have a Pro so this does not affect me negatively, but I still, do not want to have any of my kills come down to their disadvantage rather than my own skill, versus theirs.

Nah. If it's a Pro tournament they would all be playing on the same hardware anyway. When we playing at home it's not that big of a deal. The difference in FPS is just as negligible as the input lag, controller, display size, etc etc etc.

You're trying to make an issue out of something that clearly is not.

It's comical to me that you think that things like display lag aren't in themselves their own issues. Playing on a high latency display is an awful experience and a significant disadvantage, if it was something the consoles could resolve, it would of course be better if those differences were eliminated too. In this instance, the console does have the capacity to achieve parity between competitors, so the developers should be striving for that. In more complex distribution environments (PC) it's in-achievable, but it isn't here, they could have allowed for other enhancements like resolution and texture quality but they sacrificed competitive validity by taking the 'easy way forward' (a frame rate increase is a very easy way to use excess resources without having to actually 'do anything', Mark Cerny was right when he suggested that these patches could be applied within an extraordinarily short period of time, if the support only entailed features like these).

I also do realise that it's not the end of the world here. I know that Battlefield is not the most competitive game on the planet, but for some it is obviously still competitive, there are some that care about the competitive validity of the game, they care about weapon balance, they care about the integrity of one versus one gunfights and therefore this framerate disparity undermines what they appreciate in a game. Additionally, it sets a worrying precedent, making the frame rate stable isn't that far from an absolute increase in the frame rate target, something that would completely ruin the competitive validity of many online games. These types of changes are a problem, if the game does not run a stable frame rate on the regular PS4 then that's an issue Dice should be addressing in and of itself. Unstable frame rates are not acceptable on standardised hardware within multiplayer environments and proposing that people may need to upgrade their system to achieve a minimal level of quality is an issue that people are justified in complaining over.

When I play Uncharted 4 there is a map where the games frame rate dips noticeably because of environmental elements. Due to this, many of my friends and I often find ourselves avoiding this part of the map entirely. I often hear friends say that they do not like going into the caves because they can see the impact it has on performance, that affects how they play the map, it affects the gameplay, and at that point, it's clear that minor discriminates in frame rate are an issue. You can't see the difference? Good for you, but others can see it and the way it affects how the game feels and plays matters to them, and they have the right to express that. It's not a 'non issue' because you don't deem it one, it's an issue if they do.

You clearly never played on PC then. Every online multiplayer you have people have sub 30fps, 30fps, 60fps, 120fps and even higher sometimes.

People acting like Pro giving such a huge advantage is making me laugh people over exaggerating

I know it's hard to consider, but are they exaggerating or do they just have different priorities to you? Your post seems like you believe it's okay to be playing something like Counter Strike at sub 30 frames, yet if anything is laughable it's that experience.

Do you believe that PC games run at different frame rates because that is the developers ideal? The diverse hardware necessitates drastic variance in performance if they want to reach as wide a target audience as possible. The incentives for that disparity do not exist on console, and the idea of a hardware related competitive advantage will likely be an issue for many who appreciate the simplicity and competitive validity that having everyone playing on one platform affords.

Using an example from another platform without appreciation for the distinct context that induce those performance disparities is reductive and ultimately, misses the point. PC players don't play at significantly lower frame rates because they believe it to be a better experience, if the developers could achieve parity across all hardware without sacrificing the scope of their audience in relation to the range of hardware their game can run on, they would surely do so. They have the opportunity to achieve parity where it matters on consoles and it's important for developers to uphold that, no matter how small or large the differences are. Frame rate objectively relates to a competitive advantage while other changes in technical fidelity such as resolution and texture quality typically do not (some exceptions when you start changing things like draw distance and lighting).