• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Quantum Break PC and Xbox One Patch in the Works

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
850
I'm playing it at 1440p (native) ultra on my 980Ti and it runs at around 20-25FPS most of the time. The lightning model and forced MSAA are real killers. Shit performance aside, this is easily the best looking game I've seen. Some screens here.







Really hard to see due to terrible jpg quality. Got any PNGs?
 

CHC

Member
Aug 24, 2012
12,188
5
675
I have the same specs, both OC'd, native 1080p and mixed high médium settings will net you 30fps.

Ridiculous, as I can max out games 1080p@60 90% of the time...

Yeah.... I'll probably skip this then, and instead use it to test out the new card when I finally get around to upgrading.

I don't need everything ultra maxed out but at the same time I'm not really in the mood to fuck around and lower everything just to get it to 30 FPS.
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
41,572
43,912
1,310
39
Brazil
Well their reconstruction technique works well, the performance on native explains why they went for such solution.

Expectedly running at native 1080p is very expensive.
Yeap it works well for a bad IQ... it was trash.

I can see it being a option for low hardware but the compromises are too big for my taste... I will say it is unplayable for me because how it is blurry and artifacts.

I will take 900p native over this 1080p upscalled.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
375
France
Yeap it works well for a bad IQ... it was trash.

I can see it being a option for low hardware but the compromises are too big for my taste... I will say it is unplayable for me because how it is blurry and artifacts.

I will take 900p native over this 1080p upscalled.

The IQ is what it is but my point is that the compromise must have been worth it to them, with native 1080p on Xbox One the game would have lost a lot visually. Even with complete access to the hardware and robust knowledge about its internals you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Considering how it runs at native res I doubt the Xbox One would have been enough for such a slew of beautiful effects.

I'm not fussed either way. PCs can be upgraded for a reason after all, I can't get it to run as I would love to at the moment (60fps with high/ultra but with the reconstruction tech enabled).
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
41,572
43,912
1,310
39
Brazil
The IQ is what it is but my point is that the compromise must have been worth it to them, with native 1080p on Xbox One the game would have lost a lot visually. Even with complete access to the hardware and robust knowledge about its internals you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Considering how it runs at native res I doubt the Xbox One would have been enough for such a slew of beautiful effects.

I'm not fussed either way. PCs can be upgraded for a reason after all, I can't get it to run as I would love to at the moment (60fps with high/ultra but with the reconstruction tech enabled).
I finished to mount a new ring yesterday but without GPU because I'm saving money to new AMD/nVidia... maybe late of year I will play it but the blurry and artifacts are main concerns for me.

How it play at the same Xbone setthings on PC? I guess it is 1080p retro res close to medium options.

I will eat to mess with 900p @ 60fps at high too.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
375
France
I finished to mount a new ring yesterday but without GPU because I'm saving money to new AMD/nVidia.

How it play at the same Xbone setthings on PC?

I have not seen detailed comparisons between Xbox One and PC, from what I've read shadows are high/medium and volumetric lighting is most definitely medium. SSR seems slightly better going by DF, SSAO On, AA On, no idea about LOD or effect quality, GI high I would assume.
Textures is solely a matter of VRAM so probably ultra on XB1.

The game engine has not been designed to scale much and it shows. Had the PC version been in dev from the start I'm ready to bet that a GPU very close to the console would have done the job fine even if paired with low end CPUs.
As it stands the game requires way too much on PC considering the performance/visuals found on Xbox One.
You don't need to be a seasoned engine programmer to know there is nothing rotten here.
 

jackdoe

Member
Jan 16, 2011
6,132
1
0
Downloaded the massive, nearly 30gb patch, and the game is still broken. The game thinks I run at a 1920 x 1200 resolution (it's not, it's 2560x1440) and when I started it up at 1080p native, the Nvidia driver crashed. Absolutely disappointed.
 

bananafactory

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
26,335
3
0
Downloaded the massive, nearly 30gb patch, and the game is still broken. The game thinks I run at a 1920 x 1200 resolution (it's not, it's 2560x1440) and when I started it up at 1080p native, the Nvidia driver crashed. Absolutely disappointed.

This can't be right.
 

louiedog

Member
Jul 5, 2011
4,574
4
490
I only have 31 GB so I can't update the game. I guess I could delete and redownload it from scratch. It's not that much bigger and I don't have a data cap.
 

Nostremitus

Member
Mar 24, 2012
8,868
2
0
Seoul, ROK
A few questions...


1: Is the game fixed? ie, does it run correctly?

2: Does it work correctly on 21:9 screens?

3: Is it actually fun to play?

4: Does it run well on AMD GPUs? (I have a 290x)
 

Zojirushi

Member
Jul 22, 2015
2,266
0
0
So does the patch actually increase the game size by 27GB or is there some weird redownloading, copying and deleting going on?
 

univbee

Member
Dec 10, 2015
985
0
245
So does the patch actually increase the game size by 27GB or is there some weird redownloading, copying and deleting going on?

The latter. Apparently delta patching isn't supported, and this is what it does:

- Makes a new folder
- Makes a full copy of the game to the new folder
- Fully redownloads the files which change to the new folder
- Deletes the old copy

The final size doesn't really increase, but you do need about 50 gigs free on the hard drive the game resides on while the patch installs.
 

dLMN8R

Member
Dec 14, 2007
11,578
0
880
How do you get this game to update? There is nowhere from the store I can update or in the game.

Patches download automatically in the background if you have automatic updates turned on. So you probably already have it if you're not seeing an update in the Store.

The latter. Apparently delta patching isn't supported, and this is what it does:

- Makes a new folder
- Makes a full copy of the game to the new folder
- Fully redownloads the files which change to the new folder
- Deletes the old copy

The final size doesn't really increase, but you do need about 50 gigs free on the hard drive the game resides on while the patch installs.

The Windows Store has supported delta patching since Windows 8 came out. If a patch is this large, it's because those files were actually changed substantially hence requiring them to be redownloaded.

Your description of what happens is also very inaccurate.

Source: I've worked on the Windows team for many years and have worked with this stuff quite a bit.



Here's what actually happens: The app platform looks at what's currently on your PC and compares it to what's on the service. It then requests only the changed files to be downloaded. The bytes get downloaded and installed at the same time, and to reduce redundant storage, the downloaded copy gets deleted as soon as a particular file is done getting installed.

Look at how Gears of War Ultimate Edition is 52GB+ yet its patches were roughly 1-2GB each.
 

Pathfinder

Member
Jul 25, 2014
4,624
1
0
The Windows Store has supported delta patching since Windows 8 came out. If a patch is this large, it's because those files were actually changed substantially hence requiring them to be redownloaded.

Here's what actually happens: The app platform looks at what's currently on your PC and compares it to what's on the service. It then requests only the changed files to be downloaded. The bytes get downloaded and installed at the same time, and to reduce redundant storage, the downloaded copy gets deleted as soon as a particular file is done getting installed.

Thank you for the clarification.
 

dr_rus

Member
May 3, 2007
10,983
0
1,350
Moscow, Russia
Patches download automatically in the background if you have automatic updates turned on. So you probably already have it if you're not seeing an update in the Store.



The Windows Store has supported delta patching since Windows 8 came out. If a patch is this large, it's because those files were actually changed substantially hence requiring them to be redownloaded.

Your description of what happens is also very inaccurate.

Source: I've worked on the Windows team for many years and have worked with this stuff quite a bit.



Here's what actually happens: The app platform looks at what's currently on your PC and compares it to what's on the service. It then requests only the changed files to be downloaded. The bytes get downloaded and installed at the same time, and to reduce redundant storage, the downloaded copy gets deleted as soon as a particular file is done getting installed.

Look at how Gears of War Ultimate Edition is 52GB+ yet its patches were roughly 1-2GB each.
This isn't what happens though as QB patch while it was 27GB download has eaten some 65GB while installing which is coincidentally the size of the game folder post patch.