How do you go about developing for next-gen when it's still an unknown quantity? Digital Foundry's Rich Leadbetter talked to Codemasters' technical director David Springate to find out - and they had a very interesting conversation.
Regardless you can get a PS5 Digital Edition with a 6TF advantage, 6GB more ram, over 2x faster SSD, and far better launch lineup for just $100 more. Series S doesn’t have nearly as good of price per performance.
Yep. Wait until the DF comparision videos come out; looking forward to those. LOL. XS is a X1X replacement, not next gen.
I guarantee here, that we probably will discuss more what the X-X vs PS5 version looks like up to the sub pixel deltas and half a frame per second vs. 50% XS resolution deficit and no RT effects, etc.
@asuka I own. LG oled. But having said that, I really don't care about native 4k. I would rather developers upscale 1080 or 1440 and use the overhead to enhance other areas of the game, be it framerate, physics, effects, rtx, whatever. Native 4k is overrated.
I have a 65” LG C9 and I definitely want to try 120fps but I’ll likely stick with 60fps with better visuals. That is unless there’s a huge difference and there’s no turning back.
I have an LG OLED and a 1440p 144Hz Gsync monitor upstairs. I'd prefer to watch movies and play graphically intensive and cinematic games with HDR on the OLED. I've only played PvP games on my monitor for years, and this is unlikely to change.
As far as 120 fps goes, it mostly FEELS more responsive. If you're expecting it to be a massive change in the way it LOOKS, you'll probably be very disappointed. Very high frame rate and low latency are what I want for PvP games. I got tired of losing duels due to latency and upgraded everything on my PC for that. I'm personally very skeptical that 120 fps is going to deliver dramatic improvements through a controller for most gamers. I am using a Corsair K65 LUX, 69g Razer Viper mouse, and Cooler Master MP510 XL mouse pad with my PC to take advantage of my low latency/ high frame PC setup.
For console using a controller, I think the sweet spot is probably going to be 60 fps with the possible exception of competitive racing games with a racing wheel. I admit that I don't have a high end racing wheel yet; it could be a huge difference. I'm a Gran Turismo fan but not quite enough of one to invest an additional $400 or more for a great racing wheel.
EDIT: One caveat I forgot to mention is the extra power will be very beneficial for VR. Very high frame rates are very important for VR to feel smooth and minimize motion sickness issues.
I guess 120fps without VRR on TVs will probably be an issue. Like they said that it's "up to" 120fps, which is nice if your TV can handle that with variable frame rate. I guess most (current?) 120fps displays are binary. Either 60 or 120 and some image processor. The number of those supporting VRR is still fairly small. If that dips to 100 or 110 or something it'll tear some what I guess. Can't tell if that's noticeable. We'll see.
Its shouldnt be that different than what happens right now on 30 and 60fps titles. Its not like all of them lock to those framerates all the time.
Especially the performance modes in many games dont really tend to stick to 60 that much on many games this gen. Its still a significant difference even without vrr (though its definitely preferred)
I wish they'd understand that 90 or 100fps is still quite a nicer bump in smoothness and would be worth aiming for than 120fps if it means turning a couple settings a notch higher.
“It has less ram, there’s less that you’re gonna be able to do”. Says it means less texture resolution, in some cases less crowds, less weather effects, less shadows and things like that. That sounds like it’s going to hold back gaming
@yarbie1000 Yes, it has less ram, but it's also not focusing on 4k textures, so it doesn't need nearly as much ram. I think of the series s as a 1080p 60 machine, even though Microsoft is hyping it as a 1440p 120 machine. Both the ps5 and series x have touted 8k capability, though let's be realistic....those machines will be capable of hitting 4k 120 in a few early titles, but the majority will target 4k 60 or 4k 30. For me, the jargon is meaningless....the reality is the series s will upscale either 720 or 1080, the ps5 and series s will upscale 1080 or 1440, and they should. Targeting 4k native resolution is a tremendous waste of system resources, especially moving forward in this gen. Upscaling can get you a nice looking image, while providing overhead to give players better ray tracing, particle effects, framerates, etc etc. If these consoles focus on native resolution, framerates will be stuck in the 30 fps zone.....no bueno.
Omg. The studio says.... The studios will say everything to sell their games and this pr dude from Microsoft the same. Only half brain gamers believe that gamers with low budget, the S target, got TV that run at 120 frames. Pointless. But i dont agree it hold games back. Did the switch hold 3rd party games to the ps4 or xbox? Not really. It will get the worst version of all games. Lower textures, lower number enemies, lower number of npcs, lower field of vision, more fog. No S game will push forward videogaming like the series x or the ps5.
Of course not. Thats why you scale down from Series X not scale up from series s. I have a 1080p 144hz monitor and the s would be the perfect choice for my setup.
There wont be any scale down. Just poor ports. It will be funny to read the comments later on. But the S can do much more, why dont studios make the port better. They Just dont care.
It's very encouraging to hear that developers are pushing the industry forward. Very interesting as well as informative about the scalable features in each console iteration, with trade offs & compromises along the way, paring back certain elements to attain the goal of 120 fps.
As someone who has an Lg Oled with this feature, it's greatly appreciated when studios go the extra mile.
"Xbox Series S is a great piece of kit" thats good to hear.
OnRush is really underrated.
Pin unsure 120fps is worthwhile on consoles imo it's certainly more fluid than 60 but I'd rather have 60 with RT and other settings on
“It has less ram, there’s less that you’re gonna be able to do”. Says it means less texture resolution, in some cases less crowds, less weather effects, less shadows and things like that.
That sounds like it’s going to hold back gaming
Omg. The studio says.... The studios will say everything to sell their games and this pr dude from Microsoft the same. Only half brain gamers believe that gamers with low budget, the S target, got TV that run at 120 frames. Pointless. But i dont agree it hold games back. Did the switch hold 3rd party games to the ps4 or xbox? Not really. It will get the worst version of all games. Lower textures, lower number enemies, lower number of npcs, lower field of vision, more fog. No S game will push forward videogaming like the series x or the ps5.