Its been like all this all day.
😭 So so toxic in here
Its been like all this all day.
Yo, who is happy about getting a new console this week
Yo, who is happy about getting a new console this week
nope, not mention in any patch-notes
funny enough I finally caved and ordered an XB1S week too so I'm getting TWO new consoles this week
Yo, who is happy about getting a new console this week
funny enough I finally caved and ordered an XB1S this week too so I'm getting TWO new consoles this week
There may as well not be a difference. Is there a difference?Tell me there isn't a difference.
Yo, who is happy about getting a new console this week
There was a precedent for this on PS platform though. PS1 emulation on PS2 had a texture filtering option, that when enabled would warn the user that it could have negative consequences on a game. If you're worried about your sibling ruining things, they can already do that in far worse way, by overwriting your game save for example, or selecting some wrong video or audio option etc.This argument has been made before, and it's an inherent problem with a system that's often used by multiple people.
I meant just release the beta firmware with this option enabled, and let people test games and report back on playstation beta forum. You'd have people doing free work and literally cheering for it.Which is different from creating a patch, how? They have to do the same QA, and to be accepted as a Pro-enabled patch all they have to do is enable supersampling.
One way in which they are clearly flexible is that they can be loaded from any stock hard drive, and load at differing speeds. So the game needs to be programmed flexibly enough to not expect the data to come in after exactly X seconds after the loading started, or else it crashes. PS1 games were often times built in such a way that they would rely tightly on the disc loading speed for example, but that is no longer the case with new console games. XbOS offers another example - yes the improvement is small, but it universally works without breaking anything. On Sony front you had PSP where the games universally ran better on a custom firmware when you enabled 333MHz clock. I'm not aware a single game caused any problems, so it's not like I expect by default that Sony's dev tools are extremely rigid about this. On a PS4 front I am similarly only hoping they would enable the 900Hz GPU upclock and 2.1GHz CPU upclock, not actually enable the additional CUs in GPU.I don't understand what this means. How are console games 'flexible' with regards to differing hardware? What evidence is there of this? Please don't use the Xbox S with it's 2% frame uptick in a handful of games, please no.
Reviews seem to align with my own views that as a current PS4 owner [two systems no less] this upgrade isn't offering enough at present for its asking price.
Hopefully some new patches come for existing titles plus impressive upgrades for upcoming ones before Scorpio arrives because it'll be an even harder sale then.
There may as well not be a difference. Is there a difference?
I'll wait for EA/DICE to reveal what they are actually going to do.
Explain why they're "shoddy". In fact, explain his 'development techniques" to begin with - what are they?
They should be downplayed, as it's a minute improvement of a different system and it's ridiculous to use it as 'evidence' that another platform with far more significant differences between the models should not exhibit any issue. A slight GPU uptick, and that's it - vs a much larger CPU jump, massive GPU upgrade, different development environment, etc.
Why? Scorpio will be EXACTLY the same. Old games will need support and they've been quite clear that they are allowing devs to choose how they want to use the power. Literally the same thing, you just romanticized that console around some idea in your head.
I'm looking at the pics and really want to see a difference...but I see no difference.
There's no patch yet, so it shouldn't be any difference.
But there's a minimal difference
funny enough I finally caved and ordered an XB1S this week too so I'm getting TWO new consoles this week
Fair enough. However, two points:There was a precedent for this on PS platform though. PS1 emulation on PS2 had a texture filtering option, that when enabled would warn the user that it could have negative consequences on a game. If you're worried about your sibling ruining things, they can already do that in far worse way, by overwriting your game save for example, or selecting some wrong video or audio option etc.
How long would that take - and would it actually be possible - to verify that the beta participants had actually tested the games thoroughly enough? Who would be held legally responsible if there are game breaking bugs not discovered by this public beta test?I meant just release the beta firmware with this option enabled, and let people test games and report back on playstation beta forum. You'd have people doing free work and literally cheering for it.
Somewhat less-than-minor qualifier there. Wasn't anything officially supported by Sony.On Sony front you had PSP where the games universally ran better on a custom firmware when you enabled 333MHz clock.
Or you take what Cerney said at face value. They tested it, and found enough instances where they didn't think the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. It could have meant only a small handful of games exhibited issues, Sony has to manage the perception of compatibility with a new device that is designed to complement the platform rather than replace it. People aren't inherently rational creatures and research the actual % chance of something not working with a new version of a product - they hear there are potential compatibility concerns, and that negative impression can snowball.Again, to me this all seems like such a no-brainer that the only reason I can think for Sony not making any moves on this front is that they know that doing this would discourage developers making proper patch, so they don't want to do it this early in the console life.
I bought an X1S on the weekend and getting the psBro this Thursday
High five bro
There may as well not be a difference. Is there a difference?
I'll wait for EA/DICE to reveal what they are actually going to do.
if that's how you interpet his posts, that's on youYou've spent this entire thread essentially defending your companies shoddy development techniques and how they'd be game breaking, downplaying anyone who's mentioned the XBOS' enhancements that end up negating the need for a patch.
Get a grip.
Disappointed by what exactly ?
Scorpio will do the same thing because semi custom Zen will not be ready by next year. I'm not exactly sure where the confusion comes from in regards to your attitude.
These are iterative units, they run the same games, at slightly better graphical settings and higher resolutions. There's nothing confusing or mysterious about them. They are not a new generation and never have been sold as a new generation to start with.
Heh if serious, why wouldn't you wait for one of the big Black Friday deals on one? Dell's got an amazing one. I'm sure they won't be the only deal in town either.funny enough I finally caved and ordered an XB1S this week too so I'm getting TWO new consoles this week
Right. I've had enough of being called a liar by people publicly and privately. These are uncompressed PNG screenshots of the 40mb/s video that we exported before uploading to YouTube. Battlefield 1. On PS4 Standard and PS4 Pro.
Tell me there isn't a difference.
Heh if serious, why wouldn't you wait for one of the big Black Friday deals on one? Dell's got an amazing one. I'm sure they won't be the only deal in town either.
As I said from the get-go, in my written and video reviews, the differences are subtle, but they're there.
So, that's a without any patch or what?
It's entirely possible it might not, if you're talking about the issues with conquest performance with 64 players. That might be a CPU barrier and the small mhz uptick might not be enough to get it back within 60fps.If the Pro patch doesn't fix the BF1 performance issues, it might as well not exist.
So, that's a without any patch or what?
It's entirely possible it might not, if you're talking about the issues with conquest performance with 64 players. That might be a CPU barrier and the small mhz uptick might not be enough to get it back within 60fps.
A lot of people claiming without. Man I'm losing my mind!!! DICE say something!!!!!So, that's a without any patch or what?
That's the question.
Was it allready on the disc or is this what the Pro does to standard games (they said that wouldn't be the case.)
There's not been any patches for it for a good week or so, if I recall.
If people really want to, I'll upload the whole of the uncompressed video review to Mega or something, it's about 2.5GB though
This is all so weird and confusing. If that's BF1 running with a patch then, as much as I hate to say it, pre-order canceled.
I think the patch is probably on the disk. Don't see how you get a res bump which is what seems to be the case.
There's not been any patches for it for a good week or so, if I recall.
If people really want to, I'll upload the whole of the uncompressed video review to Mega or something, it's about 2.5GB though
We'll know on thursday for sure. I wonder why we can't get any confirmation from Dice. They can't be under some NDA right? Since other developers have talked about their patches.
If you don't mind doing it I would really appreciate it.
You're the only person who has both the console and the game that is actually interacting with people about them.
Much appreciated.
How's the performance in MP if you've gotten the chance to try it out?
I think the patch is probably on the disk. Don't see how you get a res bump which is what seems to be the case.
I think something simpler - just uncompressed png screenshots from the same location on each system.If you don't mind doing it I would really appreciate it.
You're the only person who has both the console and the game that is actually interacting with people about them.
Much appreciated.
also, did you think I wasn't serious? do I have that impression on GAF?
I think the patch is probably on the disk. Don't see how you get a res bump which is what seems to be the case.