Draugoth
Gold Member
Last edited:
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Hogwarts Legacy Last-Gen - PS4/PS4 Pro/Xbox One/One X
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
- Compared weakest last gen with weakest current gen console version
- One S is half size of Series S. Lower texture resolution. Texture loading also slow/compromised, can take upwards of 10 seconds to load full textures. Texture filtering also lower.
- A lot of smaller things like wall adornments also taken off and assets replaced with lower quality ones.
- Lighting also cut back. AO also worse, shadow maps are lower resolution/quality.
- "A pretty big downgrade".
- Lots of pop-in, much longer loading times.
- 720p with FSR.
- 30 FPS target but dropped frames very frequent. Stretches of 20 FPS in areas and combat scenarios.
- Unlocked FPS option but only makes it very juddery with max of 40s.
- Assets in the other last-gen versions look the same, the same compromises seen in most cases.
- Xbox One and One X seem to have missing a lot of environmental shadows that PS4 / Pro have, similar to Series S.
- PS4 / Pro also have less pop-in compared to either One versions. One X also has longest load times for some reason.
- One X version seems to just be One S version in higher resolution, no bespoke 'enhancement'.
- One S: 720P. PS4: 900P. PS4 Pro: 1080P. One X: 1440P
- PS4 Pro / One X hand a steady 30 FPS with drops, but offer the most stable of the last gens.
- PS4 Pro tends to reach highest FPS when unlocked but not recommended as it doesn't go higher than 40.s
- No improvements made to current-gen version since the launch testing.
- One S is half size of Series S. Lower texture resolution. Texture loading also slow/compromised, can take upwards of 10 seconds to load full textures. Texture filtering also lower.
- A lot of smaller things like wall adornments also taken off and assets replaced with lower quality ones.
- Lighting also cut back. AO also worse, shadow maps are lower resolution/quality.
- "A pretty big downgrade".
- Lots of pop-in, much longer loading times.
- 720p with FSR.
- 30 FPS target but dropped frames very frequent. Stretches of 20 FPS in areas and combat scenarios.
- Unlocked FPS option but only makes it very juddery with max of 40s.
- Assets in the other last-gen versions look the same, the same compromises seen in most cases.
- Xbox One and One X seem to have missing a lot of environmental shadows that PS4 / Pro have, similar to Series S.
- PS4 / Pro also have less pop-in compared to either One versions. One X also has longest load times for some reason.
- One X version seems to just be One S version in higher resolution, no bespoke 'enhancement'.
- One S: 720P. PS4: 900P. PS4 Pro: 1080P. One X: 1440P
- PS4 Pro / One X hand a steady 30 FPS with drops, but offer the most stable of the last gens.
- PS4 Pro tends to reach highest FPS when unlocked but not recommended as it doesn't go higher than 40.s
- No improvements made to current-gen version since the launch testing.
TransTrender
Gold Member
Makes sense to me because there are probably a miniscule of these sold when compared to other SKUs, and most of these people quickly switched over to the Series X.
GreyHand23
Member
Also a sign of things to come when it comes to 3rd party development in general. PS5 has a much bigger market share than Xbox Series X and S and is only one platform instead of 2. It’s just smart business sense to optimize more heavily for the PlayStation version of games.
Fbh
Member
Seems surprisingly decent.
Given that the current gen version also had some performance issues I was expecting a much bigger shit show on last gen.
Still seems like a decent way to enjoy the game for people who can't afford a new console or just don't care enough about framerate/resolution/visuals to have upgraded in the last 2,5 years.
Given that the current gen version also had some performance issues I was expecting a much bigger shit show on last gen.
Still seems like a decent way to enjoy the game for people who can't afford a new console or just don't care enough about framerate/resolution/visuals to have upgraded in the last 2,5 years.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
So the One X has hardware issues?
One X absolutely destroys the PS4 pro in specs yet it's falling behind here. Dev's need a kick up the ass.
One X absolutely destroys the PS4 pro in specs yet it's falling behind here. Dev's need a kick up the ass.
Last edited:
1080p vs 1440p
01011001
Banned
missing shadows, worse draw distance, worse framerate, longer loading times than base PS4 and Base Xbox One.
this is what happens when developers port to a system they expect to sell less copies on
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
From the video it seems like for the One X they basically just took the One S version, increased the resolution and called it a day.
Disappointing but at the same time I can't really blame them for putting more effort into the consoles that not only sold more but are actually still on sale and not discontinued.
Fake
Member
I guess people always forget the watch the video.
Looks like Xbox One X shares the same code as Xbox One, so they both got the same configuration, besides resolution.
My take is, for PRO they started making first the base PS4 and than scaling up, same as for Xbox One X. They started making the Xbox One version and scaling up to Xbox One X because both share the same code.
Xbox One is a very bad machine, so they take down most of the detail/shadow, so thats explain 'why' Xbox One X lacks the same settings as base Xbox.
Oliver said there is a possibility to DRS, but never notice.
Last edited:
The enhanced consoles don't have ports they just change a few lines of code . maybe they left the shadows off to hit 1440P 30fps & the loading is just a bug.
01011001
Banned
the point is, the quality of a port is not necessarily down to the hardware of a given system.
when fully utilised we have seen One X versions run at 2x the pixel output as PS4 Pro at the same or better graphics settings.
this right here is significantly lower settings, lower perfomance, longer load times, and not quite 2x the pixels in terms of resolution, let alone if we include framerate in the pixel output measurement.
Fake
Member
Not exactly. Those days everything to resolution and lod are dynamic, so as soon as your system get more resources, they scale up automatic.
The port is good, but as Oliver mention this is a problem when 2 or more consoles share the same code. This can be adressed by a patch, but is Xbox One to blame because of that stupid reason of using 8 GB DDR3, while the others 3 consoles uses GDDR.
Xbox One X is a more powerful machine than PRO, but they should drop base Xbox in favor of the X because of the type of memory.
Just think about. Imagine if base PS4 had DDR3 like Xbox One, probably the same problem with Xbox/One X would happen on PS4/PRO as well.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Users on here don't want to read your facts...but they are facts.
Mr Moose
Member
One X is a higher res One S version, PS4 Pro is a higher res PS4 version. Shocking.
Fake
Member
FTFY
01011001
Banned
we have seen games with static resolutions and settings that exhibit a 2x pixel output, either through resolution or framerate on One X.
this was often even combined with higher settings.
example, RDR2, better framerate and 2x resolution on One X.
they didn't even have enough power left on Pro to implement an actual Checkerboarding solution, so they just rendered the game at half 4k on Pro, and streched the image horizontally.
Hitman 2 didn't even try to give the PS4 Pro a performance mode, because the console couldn't handle it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
They didn't go over how the architecture of the castle is changed so that it doesn't have to load the outside anymore when traversing between wings. The hallways went from open air (current gen) to covered (last gen). It looks like they didn't actually play that much of the game and only focused on changes that you'd only really notice in the beginning of the game.
01011001
Banned
low priority video, and 4 versions to cover... the sad reality of the YouTube algorithm.
videos need to be released at a steady pace, noone who watches them really gives a shit about these versions, so they used it as a quick in-between video
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
One X should be destroying the PS4 Pro version in effects, and resolution. It is considerably more powerful. but the one x is worse than the PS4 version...something doesnt add up and it's not hardware related.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"Fuck cross-gen, until we can argue about tech comparisons."
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
?
X1x is over 77% more pixels compared to the PS4 Pro.
- One S: 720P. PS4: 900P. PS4 Pro: 1080P. One X: 1440P
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Same settings, draw distance, effects and improved loading?
01011001
Banned
we usually see higher framerates and 100% more pixels at the same or higher settings when we look at actually highly optimised One X versions.
what we see here is significantly lower settings and lower framerate at "only" 77% resolution boost over pro.
lower framerate = effectively less of a pixel advantage than 77% as well.
so all in all, the One X version got basically zero work done for it, which is confirmed by the fact that he mentioned an issue with loading assets and loading times compared to every other version, including One S.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They are not going to "highly optimize" in 2023 for more than likely 100% the least sold SKU of last gen. Especially when most of those owners are more than likely now on a Series console and this is this dev's first big AAA game.
Waste of arguing, this.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
well of course... but keep this in mind when we see weird issues with Series X ports
when a power monster like the One X can be this bad compared to significantly worse hardware, then imagine how this works out when the hardware of 2 systems is almost on par with eachother.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What do you mean? The narrative was that they "port down" when the XSS was announced.well of course... but keep this in mind when we see weird issues with Series X ports
when a power monster like the One X can be this bad compared to significantly worse hardware, then imagine how this works out when the hardware of 2 systems is almost on par with eachother.
01011001
Banned
I mean that it's laughable when people talk about random hardware advantages that one or the other system has when PS5 and SX games get tested.
you see 5FPS more on one system and people are like "see the superior pixel fillrate helps here" and shit like that.
in reality, what's most likely happening is that one version got more attention or the engine and game the devs make is easier to run well on one or the other
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No it isn't. Both have their strengths and weaknesses depending on what gets leveraged. It's pretty much a wash between the two depending on that factor, as many developers leaked prior and were laughed at because of the antiquated Flop/CU line of measurement.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
my point is that you literally can not accurately argue about why a game runs better or worse, because as we can see here, a significantly more powerful system (in Literally every way) runs way below expectations.
and this can simply happen because the developers fucked up, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any hardware aspects of the console.
hence, it's ridiculous to talk like we know it's a hardware issue, when we simply don't, and when we see post launch patches that significantly alter performance and/or settings.
from one patch to the other, The Witcher 3 suddenly ran worse in Performance mode, without any changes to the visuals....one patch later it's fixed again.
you can't explain discrepancies like this with hardware. and especially not when the hardware of both consoles is so similar.
unless of course you actually developed the game and or have deeper knowledge about the development of a game.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
In this situation, yes. They just did not apply all the resources for a dead gen, let alone a very dead SKU.
In modern (current year) and more focused applications, you can.
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
It runs a significantly higher resolution, but at worse settings, which it inherits from Xbox One. My guess is that they took that base code and just amplified that versus actually enhancing for the enhanced machine.
PS4 pulling sub-1080p gets me back to the start of the previous gen where this was common for a few games there.
Nevertheless, the game looks okay, especially when comparing downports from the generation below that. This is still a functional game that runs okay and that is mightly impressive considering what we are running at.
That wouldn't stop you lot from either backpedaling, ignoring or arguing the case if it were because everything can be doubted these days.
01011001
Banned
this is nothing new tho.
Resident Evil 3 ran significantly worse on One X, with only a tiny resolution advantage.
then they reduced the resolution with a patch to match PS4 Pro, and the performance was only a tiny bit better than Pro.
that also never made sense.
Ace Combat 7 runs at the same res and settings, and runs significantly worse on One X.
multiple ports on One X used One S settings at a higher res because the devs didn't give a shit...
this happens on consoles that are still new as well.
and it happens more when the devs know that one version will sell significantly more copies
Last edited:
Luigi Mario
Member
Preemptive cope for when comparisons may get less and less favorable in the coming years.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It does feel like one is trying to argue these comparison into a corner where one box (PS5 vs XSX) should never ever lose, no matter the rendering strengths and weaknesses of varying engine pipelines.
Last edited:
CamHostage
Member
Visually, I believe the Switch version will be fine. There's a lot which can be altered for this unique platform to make it work for its capabilities, developers have come a long way in Switch downporting knowhow, this developer found somebody to do an okay version of Disney Infinity on Vita back in the day, the engine's strengths are not necessarily "next gen" here, variations of FSR have already been used in Switch games... its a lot of assets to pack into a small Switch card, and surely it will have some yucky comparison points, but the core game I believe should work out for what Switch fans expect these days.
My concern is the loading. These non SSD versions look to be a real burden to sit through when transitioning areas, and Switch is going to have issues there too.
Last edited:
Tsaki
Member
Last gen versions came out better than expected. PS4 seems quite satisfactory and the Pro is just that but with a resolution bump. 1080p seems low though seeing that it has quite more fps. They could increase its resolution further until it reaches the fps of the other consoles.
One S is by far the worst, but it is also dogshit system architecture. Good hardware like the One X inherits the sins of its predecessor and it's also probably the least used console of them all. Its bigger RAM explains the longer loading times.
Can't wait to see how they'll tackle the Switch.
One S is by far the worst, but it is also dogshit system architecture. Good hardware like the One X inherits the sins of its predecessor and it's also probably the least used console of them all. Its bigger RAM explains the longer loading times.
Can't wait to see how they'll tackle the Switch.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
You cant have both. The x1x GPU is 40% more powerful. You cant have a higher resolution AND better effects.
It has a 77% higher resolution so clearly it had more GPU headroom because its going up from the base Xbox version.
I agree that it could be better optimized but you ARE getting a massive resolution increase. So at least its something.
CamHostage
Member
If a developer is going to commit to an Xbox One release in its SKU set, it must run on Xbox One S, the lowest model of the line. So, you do that job, that work will translate upstream to the other XB1 variants, and from there you evaluate any further custom work based on time/manpower, viability, sales projections, and expected value of results. QA also would probably be a factor.
Currently, there are publishers questioning the value of Xbox One and PS4 versions of games in the first place; custom work would raise further questions on the project schedule.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
noone says that. but anyone claiming to know why one or the other has differences of any kind is full of shit
there are games that load faster on SX than on PS5... under what logic should that ever be able to happen? it shouldn't right? but it does...
so people being wannabe experts in these threads as to why one version is running worse or uses different settings are just talking out of their asses.
when the reasons are obvious, sure go ahead, but there are some idiots on these threads all the time that try to act like they know why one version runs at a lower resolution, or why effect xyz is lower quality in one version compared to the other.
when in reality the reason could be anything from API issues, to genuine hardware limitations, all the way to developers simply not noticing issues/discrepancies during development.
and this all is even more true in the current landscape of every game launching unfinished.
01011001
Banned
explain how One X games have in the past often reached 2x resolution then?
RDR2 not only runs at exactly 2x the resolution as on Pro, but also smoother (unless you force the Pro to 1080p, at which point they are even)
77% res boost at lower framerate, with missing shadows and lower draw distance, as well as longer loading times than base Xbox One make zero sense for the hardware if we look at other games.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The resolution increase here is the most basic barebones .ini modification shit they could have done, it retains the same draw distance cut-offs and somehow even longer load times on the much more capable One X.
I hate to use the term 'lazy devs' but this is a pretty sloppy effort. Whether they didn't want to devote extra resources to it because they don't believe it'd be fiscally viable is a different matter, but the hardware itself is definitely being under-utilized. No denying that.
Last edited: