SvennoJ said:
vivster said:
Which is how it should be if you prefer performance in your games over visual gimmicks that barely add anything to the game.
You shouldn't think that "optimization" is a magic spell that suddenly makes 60 fps out of 30. There are extreme hardware limitations and optimization can only do so much. A 60 fps uncharted is simply impossible with the same level of visual fidelity. Unless they invent a completely new way to render games which no one has thought of before. But then we get into the realm of diminishing returns.
No developer on this planet wants to optimize. They have to because they don't want to compromise and they don't have any choice. Optimizing is a chore and can even lead to even more bugs. Everyone is talking about the burden of developing for 2 platforms. I think the burden of having to basically work magic to fit a game on a very constrained platform is an even bigger burden that costs time, money and effort for ultimately only very small gains.
|
So what I think you're saying is that NEO is a good thing as it gives some overhead to developers, or an out basically to keep the fancy graphics on the NEO and spend less effort optimizing the base version by cutting or toning down some elements instead. And that way developers can compensate for or gain back the time from the additional testing and QA. Basically the time for console type optimization is done and PC overhead will be it for the future.
Btw these limitations of consoles have led to new ways to render games which no one had thought of before.
Optimizing is actually very rewarding to do, but maybe I'm an exception :) (Testing on different machines sucks)
Intrinsic said:
I don't know, you seem to be making the right points yet at the same time arriving at some strange conclusions.
1. UWP is nothing compared to PS BSD. If nothing else, there is a ton of legacy code that makes any kinda optimization or cross compatibility a nightmare.
2. This testing for an extra hardware spec is nowhere near as big as u make it sound. Especially when Said hardware spec will run the games in the exact same way that a PS4b will run them unless the specific config setup for it is on file. And you should have seen that by looking at the last thing you said.
3. Shared... what both machines will have and thus be able to do. PS4 specific.... what the PS4 can do based on what it exclusively has. And Neo specific... what the extra muscle allows. Now pls remember that on a Neo, they are at the very least already working with something that works. PS4 build. It's not about getting something to work. it's about adding more to something that already works. there are simply too many similarities between the two consoels to be having anywhere near the kinda issues you are suggesting they may have.
I get that your fear stems from your belief (which granted is founded) that devs will just not put in the required effort since there is another SKU that will make short work of whatever problems the are having with the base model. But what I'm saying is that as long as their is an XB1 version, then rest assured there will be a good PS4 version. And if there isn't an XB1 version, then the dev team has only two PS4 skus to navigate. which in truth aren't event that much different from eachother.
|
Devs will still want to put in the required effort, yet time constraints, extra verification steps, multiple gpu binaries, they simply won't have the time on the same budget to put in the same effort as before. XB1 version and PS4 version are 2 different user bases, extra profit, ps4 + neo, same user base, no extra profit.
Btw it doesn't matter that the hardware is supposed to run the code exactly the same. It still needs to be verified. Software development doesn't work on assumptions and good faith. I've had plenty experience chasing hard to reproduce bugs on specific hardware configurations, same type processor, slightly different clockspeed, threads play slightly differently together while relying on each other and you have an opportunity for a fatal crash.
Coding for consoles and coding for PC are 2 completely different philosophies. Or were, until consoles converged to become PCs. I guess the days are over of those late gen games no one thought possible. As well as the excitement of a generational leap. Is it really worth paying $400 again for minor upgrades to get smooth running games, while likely in 3 years the games on that new machine will be the ones struggling when the next iteration appears. I moved to consoles to get away from that 'is it time to upgrade again' question when new games start to drop too many frames.
|
