Printable View
Attachment 70579
Attachment 70580
Attachment 70581
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ko6dM9_X6g
We only have offscreen pics/vids at the moment but is anyone thinking of upgrading for FF XV? The game is already gorgeous on the original PS4 but I know from being on this forum a lot of people seemed concerned with the framerate of the game.
I've already got my PS4 Pro preordered! But that was before I heard the news about FFXV taking advantage of it.
Anything can be gorgeous in stills when you run it at 5 fps
Regardless of how it looks, the PS4 Pro is a hard sell to me to begin with. Right now I can't justify forking out that much money for an incremental console. PC components are hard enough, but at least you know you're getting a good 5+ years of mileage out of them at the best price/performance ratio. As a PS4 owner, the PS4 Pro really doesn't entice me, and I'm wondering how long it'll be (if it proves commercially viable) before an incremental successor to the PS4 Pro comes out (like the PS4 Xtreme or something). I worry it'll become as ridiculous as smartphones with a new, mildly better, version coming ever year.
Really not a fan of this new direction that both Sony and Microsoft are going for.
Agreed. I mean, look what happened with the 3DS. They released the 3DS XL, a 2DS, and the 'New' 3DS (and that itself also had an XL option). I only have the first 3DS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
Incremental baby step additions really tick me off. Because now I have the 'basic' version of both consoles, and I'll always feel I have the inferior model and that I'm missing out somehow. Like Auly, I have massive reservations on this new tack.
To be fair, the New 3DS has so far only one exclusive title.
Honestly, if I still have access to the whole library of games on a console, I don't mind that there's a version with updated graphics for people who are into that stuff, or people who have been holding off buying a console and decide to jump on later. Personally, I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (blame it on my astigmatism, maybe?), and I hate how 60fps makes everything look like a cheap soap opera. So I'll be happy to get my hands on the Luna Edition Ps4 Slim if I can, and I'll just leave this to people who like that stuff.
Also, I don't want a huge TV, so it really wouldn't make that big of a difference even to someone who does care about that stuff.
To be honest, user segmentation is probably gonna be what hurts them the most. Yes, you can run all games on any console, but mark my words, there are going to be reviewers saying "this game is great, if you play it on PS4Pro". It might not happen right away, but I'm fairly certain that some games will be a lot better with much more stable framerate on the pro, ensuring that there are going to be player tiers in competitive online play. I'm pretty sure you're gonna end up with snobs that refuse to team up with non-pro players, because they can't see as many details on screen, or because their framerate will stutter now and then and making them easy targets, or miss their shot.
Sony can say what they want, but they're not the ones paying for the extra platform optimization and quality control for the games. Some devs are sure to have too tight budget constraints to be able to support both versions equally.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been dreading from the moment the "Neo" was first leaked about. I'm not worried about anything soon coming that's been in development for years for the regular PS4, like Final Fantasy XV for example. But as time goes on I have no doubt we're going to see devs pump out games with the Pro's specs in mind and just let it run like unoptimized crap on the vanilla PS4. Basically the same kind of thing that happened to PS3/360 ports of multiplatform releases after the PS4/XB1 had been out for awhile. At first, while the PS4/XB1 versions looked obviously vastly superior, the PS3/360 versions were still all that they could be. But as time went on they got horrible, like the devs just didn't care anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Although I suppose it all comes down to how well the PS4 Pro ends up selling and generating the demand for devs to support it.
Is that scenario any different to the way that competitive online play has been on PC since its inception?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
I won't be getting a PS4 pro, I don't have that kind of money to burn for graphical upgrades, at least not at the moment. It'll be interesting to see how it does though. I think that Sony are just trying to capitalise on an age where people will get a new phone upgrade every year just to say they have it. Whether that will translate into gaming I don't know. Maybe if the PSVR is a zillion times better of the PS4 pro then that will make a difference, but Sony have stated time and again that the VR is a regular PS4 accessory, so there may be backlash if a regular ps4 can't handle it.
As for FFXV, if the game still runs like unstable crap on a standard PS4 even after their long spiel about needing another delay to optimise it then I'm sure they'll hear about it from critics and fans alike.
Yes, it is different. On PC, you can usually lower settings that aren't integral to the gameplay in order to achieve greater relevant detail and framerate. Level of detail on background trees and stuff are usually irrelevant and can be turned all the way down. Shadow quality, especially in the distance can be turned way down, or even turned off entirely in some games. PC users are free to tweak almost any part of most games, even if they might have to resort to external tools or editing configuration files. In a console game, you're lucky if the game allows you to change the FoV.
Apart from that, many console players chose to play on consoles to avoid that whole problem. They want to be sure they have the same experience and a level playing field with everyone else in their game, but they might not be able to anymore. Heck, level playing field is probably one of the reasons why most devs refuse to support kb/mouse in their console games even if the consoles have drivers for both of those. They'd have an advantage over people playing with gamepads.
True, but if you're talking about competitive gaming to the point where people are picky about who they play with then on a PC you're going to need a 120hz+ monitor, and for a decent one of those we're already at about one third to one half of the price of a new console. Not to mention they all use gaming headsets, mice, mousepads and keyboards, all of which can run from 50 to 250 dollars a pop (AUD). And even though you can be thrifty with PC building, and a well built PC will easily outlast the lifecycle of a console, the point is that if you're a pro gamer, competitive gamer, or even someone trying to break into that scene, then you're going to stay relatively up to date with your PC. Which means a couple hundred dollars here and there every few years most likely.
I think my original point is this though, if you think yourself a competitive or pro console gamer, then you have to buy the new PS4 pro because that's the gig you signed up for. Just like how a full time streamer will have to keep his setup updated with the rest of his fellow streamers. If you take your gaming that seriously then companies will probably try to force upgrades on you because they think you'll buy it. If you don't like that model then you simply complain with your wallet and don't buy the thing. But I personally don't think it's going to hurt console gaming in any big way because in my opinion the numbers of people who will upgrade will be limited, and the people who wait this long to jump in to the next gen of consoles usually do so to get a reduced price on the console. Not to pay what they could have paid 3 years ago.
The advantages of the newest mouse, keyboard and headset are greatly exaggerated. You quickly hit very diminishing returns when it comes to gamer mice and keyboards, and a headset certainly doesn't need a lot of fancy features to be good enough.
You're basically paying for bling and features that don't really help the actual game for headsets. Even my "gaming headset" that cost over 200 dollars doesn't outperform a 50 dollar gaming headset at actual gaming. It's just that it delivers the same performance while being wireless, and having fancy features like multi-input which is useless while you play anyway, and glowing lights.
As for a 120hz display, you can get one with freesync relatively cheap, and it's not like you need a new one for each new console generation. Displays last a lot longer than other components, except maybe your PSU, and retain their value for way longer than other components if you want to sell them.
Still, it's not the same because while PC gamers knew they signed up for this, console gamers did not sign up for this but are now forced to deal with hardware upgrades probably 40% more often than before.
No one is really forced to deal with anything though. If you are wanting to try and be the top 1 percent of a competitive console game then yes, you're probably going to want to buy the new PS4 pro to get a superior framerate (assuming the particular game is optimised for it), but you've probably already spent $150+ on a scuf controller and probably that amount again on a headset. But that is a very small market which is why I don't worry about those players dictating the sales and how well the PS4 Pro is received. For the rest of us it really doesn't matter unless game developers start abandoning the regular PS4, of which there is very little evidence they will do.
You can cry Armageddon, but I don't see this resulting in anything more than XBox fans gloating over how poorly the PS4 pro did.
As a somewhat "hardcore" gamer, I have no problem upgrading my console every two years or so (which is what I think will happen, despite Sony and Microsoft not being willing to confirm it just yet). That was always an inevitability as soon as Apple starting releasing phones every year. I know some people will say "BUT YOU USE A PHONE WAY MORE THEN A CONSOLE" That is really a matter of opinion however. I know people who put 500 hours into Call of Duty every year so a new $400 console every two years still makes it the cheapest hobby around.
As long as they don't make it so you HAVE to upgrade if you're only one generation behind or something. For example I have a Samsung Galaxy S4 that still does everything I need it to. Every app still works on the thing. I do appreciate that by the time the S8 comes out I may start getting locked out of things (like I did on my IPhone 3G).
yeah, but I'm guessing you don't do anything that's time or performance critical on your S4. you're not competing with people that are on S7s to do a specific task the fastest
@peesh there's little evidence that developers will abandon the regular PS4, sure, but there is also very little information in general, since this is the first time we see the top performing consoles getting a boost halfway through their expected lifetimes. it might not even be done intentionally by the developers, but there's a real chance they'll have to either spread their resources too thin to give good updates, or have to support one version less than the other, probably whichever version they think has the most users, or most paying users in case of a freemium game
They release new graphics cards every year. Do I upgrade each time? Nope. I tend to hope my stuff will last me a long time and milk it until it's either broken or can't run games at a decent setting. I doubt I'll get a PS4 Pro. I have a PS4, it does the same stuff. I don't care about competitive gaming so that doesn't matter to me at all.
I have to imagine framerates are going to be locked on online games but honestly if somebody is such a hardcore gamer that they complain about things like framerate or resolution giving other people an edge online and they are obviously paying for a high speed internet connection and a PS Plus/Xbox Live membership already.....I just can't see why they wouldn't be keeping up with the latest console.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
I don't think devs will abandon the original either, hell if anything I'm sure Sony wants to sell more slims then anything. That is where the real money is made. Once you can get a console below the $199 mark you're golden. I think it will be a slow migration, games will just begin performing worse and worse on the original. If you played any cross platform titles on PS3 after the PS4 launched you will know what I mean. A lot of them were garbage towards the end. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it still gives people the opportunity to play the games but also gives them a kick in the ass to upgrade.
and now that poor performance kick in the ass will just happen sooner. super nice for customers <3. And also what i was talking about, that games will eventually start sucking on the non-pro. Then two years after the pro, we have either a PS5 whose games can be played on PS4Pro, or a PS4-pro-pro that runs the pro games better and the gamesstart sucking even on a pro :p.
It's effectively a shortening of generations, or evisceration of generations entirely, and if it's gonna benefit anyone, it's those with a lot of disposable money, while making things worse for everyone else. i'm not expecting sony to care about that, they're a company after all, their income is all that matters. what i'm saying is that i don't think it's good for most consumers in the long run.
When somebody reminded me of the type of Engine FFXV is running on, I threw out my dreams of the game running at 45 - 60 fps on the Pro and gave up on even thinking about getting one. I also came to the conclusion that it's more likely that a majority of titles will go for the graphical increase vs. higher fps.
what type of engine is it running on?
Isn't it running on Luminous? Could be wrong.
As Looney BoB said, it runs on the Luminous Engine. In the past, the project ran on the Ebony Engine. The Luminous Engine focuses on things such as better lighting, particle effects, and other things in that domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Why can't the luminous engine achieve 60 fps on ps4? Surely, all they need to do is to scale down the visual fidelity
Scaling down the graphical fidelity given the ambition of the project is a no go. The project was never set out to be able to run at 60 FPS console side anyway. Also you can take a look at Horizon as there has been clarity that the game isn't set up to be able to run at 60 FPS. The larger the scaling and graphical fidelity of a project is, the less likely a 60 FPS option would be available for the Pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
i'm just not sure why the particular engine used plays a significant role in which framerate they are targeting. I don't think many other engines would have been able to deliver significantly better fps at the same visual fidelity either, that's what i mean.
I think it has less to do with the engine and more to do with people noticing enhanced character models, draw distance, particle effects, plant density ect.. far more then frames per second. Much easier to show in screenshots as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinalxxSin
99% of people don't even know what the difference is between 30fps and 60fps. I'm not saying some people can't notice a difference. It is just a very small hardcore minority. I'd much prefer a prettier game at 30fps, as long as it's locked.
I really think those statistics are exaggerated, unless you're counting people who don't play anyway.
I wager that most people who has an above average interest in action games would notice a difference when actually playing the game, not just looking at it.
But of course, that's the main problem. It's hard to show it in advertisement material, even if it is very obvious when a game is used in the way it's supposed to be used. Actually being played.