Feels like Deja vu just before PS4 and Xbox One launched a couple of years ago.
But don't worry PS5 pro and Xbox - S will launch mid generation with it own quirks.
But don't worry PS5 pro and Xbox - S will launch mid generation with it own quirks.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Developers of next-gen games won't have any excuses for subpar performance
- Thread starter Soggoth
- Start date
I mean I go out of my way to break things down for people pretty frequently on this and other boards. I don't mind answering questions or misconceptions that are specific. That guy is just so fundamentally wrong about what he's talking about, though, and very confident at the same time, that I can't help but laugh. I would take, quite literally, an entire book to explain to this guy where his misconceptions come from.
I love how gamers still don't understand devs CHOOSE to target more effects and visuals over 60fps lol
This is why I'm primarily a PC gamer. So I am not at the mercy of the poor decision making by so many devs to make their games 30 FPS so they look good in screen shots and terrible when in motion. I'll only accept 30 FPS when it's a console exclusive and I have no other option.
Like I said, some games are hurt by 30 fps, some aren't. Are you really saying that games like The Witness and Persona are lesser because they run at 30 fps?
It's going to be tricky for sure but they'll think of something.
I mean, we all know that the main reason why we don't have steady 30 fps on modern consoles are "shitty CPUs" despite the fact that it's 100% a developer choice of how to utilize these CPUs in the first place. So it'll be "shitty RT h/w" or "low memory bandwidth" or "the need to provide an improvement on these 8K TVs" or something.
I mean, we all know that the main reason why we don't have steady 30 fps on modern consoles are "shitty CPUs" despite the fact that it's 100% a developer choice of how to utilize these CPUs in the first place. So it'll be "shitty RT h/w" or "low memory bandwidth" or "the need to provide an improvement on these 8K TVs" or something.
Unfortunately "consumer demand" for more graphically intensive games with Ray Tracing etc will drop performance like a stone next gen. If you all stopped demanding better graphics and kept to Xbox One X levels, you may get your wish.
ITT - A lot of ignorant people trying to downplay the performance impact of having a 600% CPU compute increase along with an SSD and absolutely insane memory bandwidth for stable 30fps / 60fps games.
Memory bandwidth and slow storage are two of the main reasons 30fps games drop below their target framerate on PS4/XB1.
Are we really ignoring that most 30fps games this gen held their framerate much better than last gen too and that was with a tiny CPU performance leap overall. A lot of people choosing to ignore the amount of impressive looking console games that are 60fps or have 60fps modes in them too I see and that's with Jaguar...
Y'all ain't ready for next gen :)
The next gen consoles are built with native 4k rendering in mind. Developers won't be 'wasting' much by choosing it because of the much better balance of system specs compared to this generation. GPU shading cores, memory bandwidth and the SSD's aswell as modern engines are all optimized around 4k output (aswell as tricks like dynamic res and DLSS).
It won't be like this gen where dropping from 1080 to 720 will give you 20fps out of nowhere. Don't sweat it.
Memory bandwidth and slow storage are two of the main reasons 30fps games drop below their target framerate on PS4/XB1.
Are we really ignoring that most 30fps games this gen held their framerate much better than last gen too and that was with a tiny CPU performance leap overall. A lot of people choosing to ignore the amount of impressive looking console games that are 60fps or have 60fps modes in them too I see and that's with Jaguar...
Y'all ain't ready for next gen :)
The next gen consoles are built with native 4k rendering in mind. Developers won't be 'wasting' much by choosing it because of the much better balance of system specs compared to this generation. GPU shading cores, memory bandwidth and the SSD's aswell as modern engines are all optimized around 4k output (aswell as tricks like dynamic res and DLSS).
It won't be like this gen where dropping from 1080 to 720 will give you 20fps out of nowhere. Don't sweat it.
Last edited:
Games can't perform bad anymore with this. It says the "The brain of the beast", there's NOTHING more powerful than that!
Did you miss the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X ?...
A lot of posters in this thread seem to be PC only players who are now getting extremely defensive (as happens around the reveal of all next gen consoles) because this time next year a $4-500 console will run AAA next gen only games better than their current PC.
You do realize it's still devs choice right? If they want to throw so much crap on screen that it barely runs at 30fps, then they can.
Remember when people said that because battlefield 4 was 60 fps that every game on the PS4 would be 60fps as a standard?
Sometimes I do wonder how that could be the case and other games looking less impressive struggle at 30FPS.
I don't have any knowledge about game development it is just what I wonder about sometimes.
Sub-par literally means "below average".
As soon as the new consoles come out, and devs make shiny new things for them, then the average goes up. By definition, roughly half of all games have always been, and always will be, sub-par within their rough cohort.
As soon as the new consoles come out, and devs make shiny new things for them, then the average goes up. By definition, roughly half of all games have always been, and always will be, sub-par within their rough cohort.
Someone already posted a form of defective reasoning being displayed by the OP. His poor competence on this subject resulted in a poorly throughout (but confident) statement.
Your reasonable and sensible reply should've been the first type of rational used before making a highly inappropriate claim.
Man, some people in the internet are really obsessed with scores.
Of course, the problem with clipping is less pure hardware and more algorithms and simulations needing to be more advanced.
A lot of it comes down how much time/money/skill is put towards optimization. Getting games to look good AND run well is a lot of work. More powerful hardware can make this easier by way of brute force, but that's assuming you're keeping the same visual fidelity. Obviously people will expect a visual leap next gen, so you'll be right back where you started.
I'm not a game developer but from my understanding battlefield 4 was a last gen game so a lot of the assets were less demanding and Dice made their own engine specifically for first person shooters and are very good at optimizing it.(Bioware had a lot of problems with the same engine even getting rpg systems to work because the engine didn't support it)
Seems to me you're the one being defensive. Nothing I've said about devs pushing the limit is wrong really, but you chose to focus on that last line instead.
If PC gaming is anything to go by, developers will simply use the more powerful hardware as a crutch to support their shoddy optimization instead of actually putting an effort worth a damn into making the game run smooth.
When hardware was simpler you couldn't get away with shoddy optimization, so we saw all sorts of neat tricks to make games run better. That's much less the case now, unless you're Nintendo.
When hardware was simpler you couldn't get away with shoddy optimization, so we saw all sorts of neat tricks to make games run better. That's much less the case now, unless you're Nintendo.
I don't want to sound like an asshole, but it should be a mandate for every game, to be at least 60 fps, or have an option to lock/ cap at 60 fps. Either way, every game is playable at 60 fps, period. It's time. Performance needs to be top priority going forward.
I do think more games will perform better next gen simply because more games will lack the budget to really push these machines.
next gen seems to be much more balanced compared to last gen. Jaguars were trash even in 2013, and hdds even though they were the only alternative for the price, they kind of suck.
next gen seems to be much more balanced compared to last gen. Jaguars were trash even in 2013, and hdds even though they were the only alternative for the price, they kind of suck.
Armchair game developer know better than game developer themselves.
It reminds me old forum some people were worrying about a guy been level designer on Uncharted 2 because he worked on less prestigious game before with lesser budget. He made the train level.
I think OP has a point... But these type of issues usually come down to time and money. Past gens and this gen you could also say it's the hardware fault. Here's an interesting video on why games had weak performances lastgen on both the 360 and PS3. Basically the more streamline the hardware gets the easier it should be for devs to get the best out of a box without much complications. Problem this gen was how weak the cpu was. Nextgen games could require much more cpu power if devs make good use of them, so good performance isn't assured just because of better hardware. But you should expect better than what we have now.
Last edited:
I'd love for "performance mode" with locked 60 FPS to be a thing in all games but I can't see how a new generation of hardware will change that. The tech has been there for at least a couple of generations, but not the demand. In the end visuals sell better, that's at least my conclusion.
