Support NeoGAF

[RoboFu]

AI scaler doesn't do anything unless you set your console to 1080p instead of 4K

turning up the clarity option definitely helps.

 

[ManaByte]

i dont know the ones in Guardians of the Galaxy from the Videos if have seen do nothing realy for me..

So you haven't played it.

 

[DAHGAMING]

Hahaha another 1 lolzor

 

[intbal]

Has anyone with a Series console checked the File Info for this game?
Is it Gen9 or Gen9Aware?
I assume the former, but confirmation would be appreciated.

 

[01011001]

Has anyone with a Series console checked the File Info for this game?
Is it Gen9 or Gen9Aware?
I assume the former, but confirmation would be appreciated.

it's gen9

 

[Insane Metal]

1080p 30 fps for XSS , with graphical cut backs

But but but scalability! Same graphics at 1440!

Remember that? Haha. I mean, XSS is what it is and I have no problem with that. But MS just lied and people bought into that lie.

 

[Chris_Rivera]

I thought avengers had DRS? Is this not the same engine?

 

[Sosokrates]

Nothing ironic about it. Gotg is doing way more.
I dont think it looks typical at all.
We can agree to disagree though.

Like what?

 

[RafterXL]

I saw many people not believing the performance mode was on 1080p and then I got the game 2 days ago and I have to admit I agree with them, I was like "mmmh no it must be at least 1440p I almost don't see any difference on the image quality with the 4K mode" and it really is 1080p, wow, then one of the best 1080p I've ever seen, the checkerboard must be responsable of this.

Btw to me the performance mode is the mode to go, the difference between 30 and 60 is, at least to my eyes, obvious, the 30fps mode is sluggish as hell. but the difference between 4K and 1080 in this game is quite irrelevant. And also the performance mode is the default mode when you launch the game, so it's the decision that made the developers and I understand why.

Dude. You can clearly see the difference between the two modes on a 5 inch phone screen, much less on a huge television. I knew it was 1080p the second I saw the screenshots, I don't know how anyone can claim they are even remotely close.

 

[Topher]

Dude. You can clearly see the difference between the two modes on a 5 inch phone screen, much less on a huge television. I knew it was 1080p the second I saw the screenshots, I don't know how anyone can claim they are even remotely close.

I have switched back and forth from quality to performance many times and I cannot tell the difference at all on my 43" 4K Asus monitor that is sitting 3-4 feet in front of me. They look exactly the same.

 

[RavionUHD]

PC Version looks absolutely great with RT and Ultra Settings:

Runs great too, over 90 FPS with DLSS Quality in 3440*1440P with RT set to Very High.

I wonder why the performance resolution is that low on PS5 and XSX, I thought a dynamic resolution between 1080P and 1440P should be possible.

 

[SlimySnake]

I am sorry but this kind of drastic difference in foliage and geometry is not acceptable for a console that has a 40% market share among next gen xbox owners.

1080p 30 fps does not bother me as much as these sacrifices do. You are pretty much selling a console that is offering PC low settings. Consoles are not PCs. And no one should be given a drastically inferior experience no matter how much they paid for that console. Even the mid gen consoles last gen pretty much only offered resolution upgrades. Foliage density and other graphical settings were virtually identical between the base and mid gen versions.

Besides, the xss is only 1/3rd weaker than the xsx so it should be able to do way more than 1080p 30 fps with the same exact settings. Getting only 1/4th resolution with huge graphical sacrifices in foliage and geometric quality simply should not happen even for a 4 tflops console.

 

[SlimySnake]

PC Version looks absolutely great with RT and Ultra Settings:

Runs great too, over 90 FPS with DLSS Quality in 3440*1440P with RT set to Very High.

I wonder why the performance resolution is that low on PS5 and XSX, I thought a dynamic resolution between 1080P and 1440P should be possible.

which card? And whats your fps in native mode?

And yes, 1440p 60 fps should be possible unless there is a bottleneck on the ram bandwidth. the cpu and gpu in the next gen consoles are more than enough. maybe the 448 gbps of shared cpu+gpu ram is causing bottlenecks whereas most mid to high end PC GPUs ship with 448 gbps of dedicated vram.

 

[RavionUHD]

which card? And whats your fps in native mode?

And yes, 1440p 60 fps should be possible unless there is a bottleneck on the ram bandwidth. the cpu and gpu in the next gen consoles are more than enough. maybe the 448 gbps of shared cpu+gpu ram is causing bottlenecks whereas most mid to high end PC GPUs ship with 448 gbps of dedicated vram.

RTX 3080.
You can see the FPS on the top left corner, in many situation I even have more than 110 FPS. Native Mode is around 30% less as far as I know.

But yes you are right, it could be a bandwith problem on consoles.
According to this video even a GTX 1080 can do minimum 50 FPS in 1440P/High Settings:


And as far as I know the PS5 GPU should be as fast as a GTX 1080.

 

[MarkMe2525]

This is a last gen engine yet it still cant hold 1080 60fps, next gen games are gonna be 1440p 30fps, with maybe a 900p 60fps mode, me thinks.

I would imagine the fact that is a last Gen engine is a contributing factor to why they had to lower the resolution to such an extent.

 

[SlimySnake]

RTX 3080.
You can see the FPS on the top left corner, in many situation I even have more than 110 FPS. Native Mode is around 30% less as far as I know.

But yes you are right, it could be a bandwith problem on consoles.
According to this video even a GTX 1080 can do minimum 50 FPS in 1440P/High Settings:


And as far as I know the PS5 GPU should be as fast as a GTX 1080.

I think the problem is that when this thing dips, it really dips. they probably looked at the worst case scenario instead of the average.

 

[DarkMage619]

But but but scalability! Same graphics at 1440!

Remember that? Haha. I mean, XSS is what it is and I have no problem with that. But MS just lied and people bought into that lie.

People keep saying this and it is wrong every time it is said. MS NEVER said the XSS would have the same graphics as the XSX. It is absolutely preposterous that people are accusing MS of lying about what the XSS is capable of. Please name one feature the XSS is missing the XSX has outside of the optical drive.

This game runs at 1080p/60 on the high end consoles. Does that mean Sony and MS lied when they claimed their consoles were 4K? You can't be serious. So weird the budget console gets called out and no one is blaming the other systems for not running this game at 4K/60.

 

[Insane Metal]

People keep saying this and it is wrong every time it is said. MS NEVER said the XSS would have the same graphics as the XSX. It is absolutely preposterous that people are accusing MS of lying about what the XSS is capable of. Please name one feature the XSS is missing the XSX has outside of the optical drive.

This game runs at 1080p/60 on the high end consoles. Does that mean Sony and MS lied when they claimed their consoles were 4K? You can't be serious. So weird the budget console gets called out and no one is blaming the other systems for not running this game at 4K/60.

Nope they said it themselves. Same games, same graphics capabilities, lower resolution. You can find it online pretty easily. Like here

• Other graphics quality: The Xbox Series X and Series S have the same basic graphics capabilities, including support for variable rate shading and ray-traced visuals, a more advanced and realistic way to create lighting and visual effects. The Xbox Series X features a 12.1-teraflop GPU and 16 GB of RAM, while the Xbox Series S features a 4-teraflop GPU and 10 GB of RAM. Microsoft claims this power differential will largely bear out in resolution differences. But some games have already omitted ray tracing if you’re playing on a Series S.

Choosing the Right Xbox: Series X or Series S

If you’re looking for a new Xbox, we’re here to help you pick the right one.

www.nytimes.com

Or here:


Microsoft goes over what to expect out of Xbox Series S when it launches on November 10.

In this video, Jason Roland, director of program management for Xbox, goes over the finer points of Xbox Series S and how it differentiates from Xbox Series X.

In the video, Microsoft said it wanted to build two consoles with similar next-gen capabilities at a differentiated price point, but states that Xbox Series S will deliver the same experience as Xbox Series X, just at a reduced rendering resolution.

As previously reported the console is 60% smaller than Xbox Series X, and of course, it is all digital. It features the same 8 core, Zen 2 CPU architecture running at 3.6 GHz and 3.4 GHz with simultaneous multithreading enabled.

But the primary difference between Series S and Series X is the GPU. Whereas Xbox Series X features native 4K at 60fps with support up to 120fps, Series S is designed to display in 1440p with support for up to 120fps.

The latter was detailed more in a clip featuring the Coalition discussing bringing Gears 5 to the next-gen. All games shown in the video are running on Xbox Series S.

It was also discussed how the console includes an advanced hardware scaler to upscale games when connected to a 4K television. You can also expect hardware-accelerated DirectX ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading - the exact same as Xbox Series X.

Xbox Series S delivers the same core experience as Xbox Series X, just at a reduced resolution

In this video, Jason Roland, director of program management for Xbox, goes over the finer points of Xbox Series S and how it differentiates from Xbox Series...

www.vg247.com

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Very strange performance here. 1/4 of the pixels at reduced fidelity and can’t even double the framerate? Ratchet and Clank manages to keep a higher resolution at 60fps with Ray tracing.

Is that isn’t fixed quick smart, then shame on the developers.

 

[Hayabusabruh]

Seriously though. This game is freaking dope! Anyone on the fence, climb tf over that ish!

 

[Aguero9320]

Waiting for sale and patch on this. My finger has hovered over the buy button many times in the last few days, but with FH5 looming and Black Friday/Christmas sales, plus Halo Infinite and my massive backlog I can wait for it to be cheaper and run better.

It’s a little short for my extreme cheapness too. Especially as I just paid out for the FH5 premium add on thing…

 

[DarkMage619]

Nope they said it themselves. Same games, same graphics capabilities, lower resolution. You can find it online pretty easily. Like here

• Other graphics quality: The Xbox Series X and Series S have the same basic graphics capabilities, including support for variable rate shading and ray-traced visuals, a more advanced and realistic way to create lighting and visual effects. The Xbox Series X features a 12.1-teraflop GPU and 16 GB of RAM, while the Xbox Series S features a 4-teraflop GPU and 10 GB of RAM. Microsoft claims this power differential will largely bear out in resolution differences. But some games have already omitted ray tracing if you’re playing on a Series S.

Choosing the Right Xbox: Series X or Series S

If you’re looking for a new Xbox, we’re here to help you pick the right one.

www.nytimes.com

Or here:


Microsoft goes over what to expect out of Xbox Series S when it launches on November 10.

In this video, Jason Roland, director of program management for Xbox, goes over the finer points of Xbox Series S and how it differentiates from Xbox Series X.

In the video, Microsoft said it wanted to build two consoles with similar next-gen capabilities at a differentiated price point, but states that Xbox Series S will deliver the same experience as Xbox Series X, just at a reduced rendering resolution.

As previously reported the console is 60% smaller than Xbox Series X, and of course, it is all digital. It features the same 8 core, Zen 2 CPU architecture running at 3.6 GHz and 3.4 GHz with simultaneous multithreading enabled.

But the primary difference between Series S and Series X is the GPU. Whereas Xbox Series X features native 4K at 60fps with support up to 120fps, Series S is designed to display in 1440p with support for up to 120fps.

The latter was detailed more in a clip featuring the Coalition discussing bringing Gears 5 to the next-gen. All games shown in the video are running on Xbox Series S.

It was also discussed how the console includes an advanced hardware scaler to upscale games when connected to a 4K television. You can also expect hardware-accelerated DirectX ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading - the exact same as Xbox Series X.

Xbox Series S delivers the same core experience as Xbox Series X, just at a reduced resolution

In this video, Jason Roland, director of program management for Xbox, goes over the finer points of Xbox Series S and how it differentiates from Xbox Series...

www.vg247.com

Typed all that and didn't show one example of them lying. Gears 5 is the game you point to as MS lying really? Again what features is the XSS missing? MS stated the XSS has direct X raytracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading. You are claiming these things aren't possible on the XSS? You know there are games with raytracing on the XSS right now don't you?

If a 3rd party chooses to not implement a feature on any of these consoles that is up to the developers not MS. This very game on PS5 and XSX lacks raytracing even though the PC version has it. You prepared to say Sony lied too?

 

[vpance]

Sounds like they rushed the 60FPS mode out the door.

 

[ArtHands]

LOL, so a 5 years old low end graphics card can offer a performance on par (if not better) with the next gen consoles for this game?

 

[aries_71]

Where can I find a link to this analysis?

 

[Malakhov]

im running this on ultra and getting 110-120fps on pc, game looks stunning

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Performance is native 1080 at 60. I watching the video, IMO I not seeing any reason why next gen machines need to down 1920x1080 to archieve 60 fps.

This is really bad for a cross gen game and doesn't bode well for how powerful the next gen systems are. I'm a console only gamer and have been slowly coming to terms with thus disappointment as I've bought just about every AAA release this gen. There's always a sacrifice and most games in their 60 fps mode are hovering around 1440p with some using a higher res but fairly aggressive DRS.

I know I know, optimization right? But not every third party dev is ever going to do a great job with that and I'd like to think there's enough there to brute force our way to some decently high settings. I know they're only $500 machines but everyone of us was under the impression that they were very powerful and punching well above their price tag. I no longer believe that.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Curious, what would they have to do to achieve that? Have other games recently did patches to boost graphical fidelity? I'm trying to remember.

It never happens even though it SHOUlD! The one game I can think of is Mortal Shell where it was released on ps5 at 1440p but got upgraded a couple weeks later to 1800p.

1080p resolution is unacceptable at this stage of the game with these "next gen consoles". If they had a 1080p game but it used some nice upscaling like Returnal than that would be ok.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

- Both consoles miss the 60 target in 1080p60 Mode… drops to 40fps.
- Series X holds better the framerate.
- Framerate drops only in cutscenes in 4k30 Mode.
- Too heavy cutbacks in 1080p60 mode.

Seems like the best mode to play is 4k30 from their conclusion… 1080p60 visuals are really too drastic downgraded that it is weird because it is rendering 1/4 of the pixels and some effects are decrease plus the drops in framerate.

Edit - Fixed.

That sounds exactly like the Avengers Ps5 version. 4k/30 looked amazing but the 60 fps mode had settings turned down and pretty bad image quality.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

It doesn't make much sense. If PS5 and Series X can run the game at 60 fps it's not CPU limited, so the GPU is the bottleneck. But 1080@60fps requires only half the computational power of 4K@30fps, the game should run fine at 1440p and 60 fps. Very weird.


EDIT...

What? 1080 and 30 fps on Series S? What a joke!

I had read also that the devs were claiming it would be 1440p/60 in performance mode on consoles so I really don't get this crap. They should really patch it for 1440p if possible.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

I completed GOTG yesterday and playing on Series X with an LG CX OLED, game is an easy 10/10 is visuals. Looks superb. Didn't even know it was only 1080p. That's what great art style and direction can do for you. I had some issues with the gameplay and overall plot but visuals, no complaints whatsoever.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

That happens when you switch from framerate modes… give few minutes to eyes adapt and it become good again.

If you started on 4k30 without do the shift then you will barely notice.

It is a side effect from how our eyes adapts to different framerates.

Doesn't change the fact that a 3rd person action game like this will be much more responsive and playable at 60 then 30. Devs shouldn't get a pass on this as 1080p is pretty lame in 2021 with these two new consoles. 1440p/60 should've been doable.

 

[SlimySnake]

This is really bad for a cross gen game and doesn't bode well for how powerful the next gen systems are. I'm a console only gamer and have been slowly coming to terms with thus disappointment as I've bought just about every AAA release this gen. There's always a sacrifice and most games in their 60 fps mode are hovering around 1440p with some using a higher res but fairly aggressive DRS.

I know I know, optimization right? But not every third party dev is ever going to do a great job with that and I'd like to think there's enough there to brute force our way to some decently high settings. I know they're only $500 machines but everyone of us was under the impression that they were very powerful and punching well above their price tag. I no longer believe that.

Nah, you are overreacting. its possible that there are some weird ram bandwidth bottlenecks, but one game doesnt mean much. Ratchet and clank looks better than this game and runs at native 4k 40 fps locked with ray tracing and far more going on the screen at once.

These consoles are incredibly powerful. We have never had a gen where everything from the cpu, gpu, ram to ssd got a great upgrade. The consoles have no real bottlenecks. we have seen these consoles outperform the 2080 at times, and sometimes underperform. This kind of shit in rare and is bound to happen from time to time. typically if a game can run at native 4k 30 fps, it should just downscale to 1440p in order to run at 60 fps. we have seen this in many cross gen games.

Forza horizon is coming out in a few days and it runs at native 4k 30 fps in quality mode and native 4k 60 fps in performance mode with some settings dialed back. When next gen games start coming out, we already know that they will run at 1440p 30 fps like the ue5 demo. this was announced way before the ps5 came out. doesnt mean the consoles arent powerful enough. thats just the price you pay for the next gen leap.

 

[DragonNCM]

Optimization for this game on next generation consoles looks like this.........

Lets grab the MONEY !!!

 

[skneogaf]

Hoping digital foundry do a video on a i3 gtx 970 pc matching next generation consoles settings.

I would enjoy the fallout.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

So weird the budget console gets called out

Yep, seems this game is bruteforcing it's way up to 1080/60 (!) It's unlikely that any hardware will shine when playing this game when it's limping along on the most powerful consoles ever.

 

[Sosokrates]

I am sorry but this kind of drastic difference in foliage and geometry is not acceptable for a console that has a 40% market share among next gen xbox owners.

1080p 30 fps does not bother me as much as these sacrifices do. You are pretty much selling a console that is offering PC low settings. Consoles are not PCs. And no one should be given a drastically inferior experience no matter how much they paid for that console. Even the mid gen consoles last gen pretty much only offered resolution upgrades. Foliage density and other graphical settings were virtually identical between the base and mid gen versions.

Besides, the xss is only 1/3rd weaker than the xsx so it should be able to do way more than 1080p 30 fps with the same exact settings. Getting only 1/4th resolution with huge graphical sacrifices in foliage and geometric quality simply should not happen even for a 4 tflops console.

Thats why they gave people a choice....


The game is unoptimised though.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Where can I find a link to this analysis?

gamegpu.com

 

[Vagos48]

Performance mode will always be a better experience, even @ 1080p. Unless a title is only 30 fps , in which case optimization with motion blur and other tricks, can help to minimize the jerkiness. OLED tv users have the worst time with 30 fps games , due to panels instant response , that makes the perception of stuttering more pronounced than LCD tv.

 

[Riky]

Typed all that and didn't show one example of them lying. Gears 5 is the game you point to as MS lying really? Again what features is the XSS missing? MS stated the XSS has direct X raytracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading. You are claiming these things aren't possible on the XSS? You know there are games with raytracing on the XSS right now don't you?

If a 3rd party chooses to not implement a feature on any of these consoles that is up to the developers not MS. This very game on PS5 and XSX lacks raytracing even though the PC version has it. You prepared to say Sony lied too?

It's hilarious how some people quote Jason Ronald when we're talking about third party games as if he is responsible for them. It looks to me they just ported the Xbox One version setting to Series S and called it a day, pretty obvious from the last gen comparison video. It's just up to developers what they do with the hardware, some will make an effort and some won't like here.
They were all very quiet during the Far Cry 6 and Battlefield 2042 comparisons.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's hilarious how some people quote Jason Ronald when we're talking about third party games as if he is responsible for them.

The same way people quoted Kutaragi and pointed his “crazy” designs out for PS2 and especially PS3: both consoles could deliver outstanding results if you took the time as a third party developer to optimise for them… so? To be fair he is responsible but as a project manager trusting his experts and giving them direction, not as a technical lead.

As a hardware and tools/API’s/OS maker yes you share some responsibility in how the platform is used and how much it meets the needs of the current market and the vendors you want to attract to it. You own the pros and the cons… you get praise when your strategy brings tangible benefits like better BC for titles (easier improvements and taking advantage of the new HW feature like faster I/O for example), but also criticism when it may do the opposite.

 

[Kenpachii]

intro of this game was really good.

 

[Riky]

The same way people quoted Kutaragi and pointed his “crazy” designs out for PS2 and especially PS3: both consoles could deliver outstanding results if you took the time as a third party developer to optimise for them… so?

As a hardware and tools/API’s/OS maker yes you share a responsibility in how the platform
Is used and how much it meets the needs of the current market and the vendors you want to attract to it. You own the pros and the cons… you get praise when your strategy brings tangible benefits like better BC for titles (easier improvements and taking advantage of the new HW feature like faster I/O for example), but also criticism when it may do the opposite.

I don't think the comparison to PS2 and PS3 is a valid one, they were totally different architectures that would need a lot of work. Series S shares the same GDK as Series X and a cut down version of the GPU.
It's up to third parties what they do as Jason Ronald said before launch, they can reduce other visual features that don't affect the core gameplay, people just ignore that interview and repeat a small portion of a marketing video.
We've seen recently in big third party games like Far Cry 6 good results for Series S so it's obviously possible, i didn't see people coming into those threads and saying what a great job the machine was doing.
Hopefully they patch the 60fps option back in at some point soon

 

[Panajev2001a]

I don't think the comparison to PS2 and PS3 is a valid one, they were totally different architectures that would need a lot of work. Series S shares the same GDK as Series X and a cut down version of the GPU.

That does not really matter, what matters is what you deliver based on how the market works and what developers will be able to afford to invest on. I think some may have an attitude where architecture and system design is seen as a few minutes check-boxing exercise and not as a multi-year extremely difficult and easy to make mistakes in that are almost impossible to avoid, but then you need to admit they are not lopsided scenarios.

It's up to third parties what they do as Jason Ronald said before launch, they can reduce other visual features that don't affect the core gameplay, people just ignore that interview and repeat a small portion of a marketing video.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are blaming the hardware manufacturer when it is convenient to your argument or the developers when that suits you best.

Were the PS2 and PS3 objectively bad architecture that could not obtain their promised results if you optimised for them and followed the instructions and advice from the HW manufacturer? No. They certainly could perform and it was not impossible or unclear, just not trivial.

So, you could blame third parties for ports that were inferior to their Xbox 360 equivalent and third parties for not properly optimising for the XSS or you could blame Sony and Kutaragi for his strategy with PS2 and PS3 and MS and thus Ronald too for the performance of the XSS.

 

[Riky]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are blaming the hardware manufacturer when it is convenient to your argument or the developers when that suits you best.

Were the PS2 and PS3 objectively bad architecture that could not obtain their promised results if you optimised for them and followed the instructions and advice from the HW manufacturer? No. They certainly could perform and it was not impossible or unclear, just not trivial.
So, you could blame third parties for ports that were inferior to their Xbox 360 equivalent and third parties for not properly optimising for the XSS or you could blame Sony and Kutaragi for his strategy with PS2 and PS3 and MS and thus Ronald too for the performance of the XSS.

I don't know why your bringing PS2 and PS3 into this, it's not a valid comparison in any way due to the massive difference in architecture, where did I blame the hardware manufacturer for anything? Quote that or your just making things up again.
Back on topic when we already have examples of Series S doing far better than this from third parties like I stated then it's obviously possible for the machine to do a lot better than this, see Far Cry 6 and Battlefield 2042. So obviously this is down to the developers in this case, looking at the Xbox One to Series X comparison they obviously just used the last gen settings and were happy with that, maybe it was a time or budget issue but other games show it's not the hardware.
The One X version looks like the framerate is all over the place even though it's capped at 30fps, we blaming hardware for that also?

 

[Panajev2001a]

I don't know why your bringing PS2 and PS3 into this, it's not a valid comparison in any way due to the massive difference in architecture, where did I blame the hardware manufacturer for anything? Quote that or your just making things up again.

Ok, so Sony did nothing wrong with the PS2 and especially the PS3 architecture and tools then? It is the third party’s fault for the performance of cross platform games then? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too if you just blame developers for XSS titles that is all and you know it. (Re-read my full message above, I was addressing that part)

 

[Riky]

Ok, so Sony did nothing wrong with the PS2 and especially the PS3 architecture and tools then? It is the third party’s fault for the performance of cross platform games then? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too if you just blame developers for XSS titles that is all and you know it.

You decided to talk about PS3 and PS2 not me, it's irrelevant to this thread as I said earlier.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You decided to talk about PS3 and PS2 not me, it's irrelevant to this thread as I said earlier.

I did it because you blamed the devs for not following MS’s instructions: it is the attitude ever since the specs came out and even devs criticised this approach. MS’s strategy was and is right it is the devs that are wrong.
It is relevant.

This is not something I would even address as a viewpoint if that was consistent. Which is why I brought in PS3: holding Kutaragi responsible for what you would not hold Ronald responsible for. Having your cake and eat it too with a dose of “why do you bring in something that shows the hypocrisy in my argument?”.

 

[Riky]

I did it because you blamed the devs for not following MS’s instructions: it is the attitude ever since the specs came out and even devs criticised this approach. MS’s strategy was and is right it is the devs that are wrong.
It is relevant.

This is not something I would even address as a viewpoint if that was consistent. Which is why I brought in PS3: holding Kutaragi responsible for what you would not hold Ronald responsible for. Having your cake and eat it too with a dose of “why do you bring in something that shows the hypocrisy in my argument?”.

I blame the Devs because I've shown you examples from third parties that don't have these problems, why don't you address that point and stop talking about PlayStation's from several generations ago which is irrelevant? If Ubisoft and DICE can get great performance out of Series S recently then it's obviously not a hardware issue, so yes I blame the Devs.
I also blame them for what look like appalling performance on Xbox One X, where is the hardware issue there?

 

[Panajev2001a]

I blame the Devs because I've shown you examples from third parties that don't have these problems, why don't you address that point and stop talking about PlayStation's from several generations ago which is irrelevant? If Ubisoft and DICE can get great performance put of Series S recently then it's obviously not a hardware issue, so yes I blame the Devs.

You have third party and first party devs that made PS2 and PS3 sing, so?
I am not arguing that it is impossible to get good performance out of XSS in isolation, like nobody doubted you could and people did get good performance out of PS2 and PS3.

You are going for a straw man here: the argument is that the HW is broken and no developers can get good performance out of it. People made the Saturn sing too by that token. Edit: reaction is kind of expected .