Hiku said:
I said "presumably" which is different than making a claim. Though I can't think of any other reason why they'd scale down the visuals if not to maintain a certain performance framerate wise. Analysis I saw have that PS4 runs at stable rock 60fps. So if 60fps is what PSVR is doing then that is no change that would need reduction in the other parts of the game. So that is why I asked if it was running at 120.
You asked me "Does it run at 120fps in PSVR?" When you asked for a link, I answered "I don't know what framerate it runs at." However, it seems that you are contesting the notion that RE7's visuals are significantly scaled down in VR mode? If so, then I understand how that is relevant to what I said. But I thought it was common knowledge because this is a case where the downgrade is immediately noticeable that it looks considerably worse in VR. I'm not disputing that the graphics were tonned down, as that was one main complain of the port (and another reason on why it shouldn't be done for Switch). And also I said that it's quite possible that several of the downgrade on the graphics have more to do with the PSVR capabilities as a screen than the processing power of PS4 (of course we wouldn't be sure)
What's funny is that I didn't say or think any of this. It isn't just cutting down the 60fps, but also the graphics and as said before the drop in visual quality was complained a lot for the PSVR version. Sorry for barking at the wrong tree then. But still without really knowing the code and how much work would be needed to port, it's just an assumption that they could just cut down and have a good result. Thing is I guess they would do it if it was that easy, even more because that would probably mean less expense to make the port than starting the server and charging 1/3 the price. And I certainly didn't say that 30f is "better" than using the cloud. Owning the game, and streaming it is too different to boil it down to which is 'better' in that regard. I even said earlier in this topic that I find this interesting because we may see titles on Switch this way that normally couldn't be ported to Switch with acceptable results. I just don't see how RE7 is one of those games. You're either implying that I said or think these things, or your communication skills are such that you didn't consider adding "I know that you didn't say or think any of this, but other people..." Sorry if it seemed that I was implying this. I was talking more about your solution would be counter by what we usually see in the site. Maybe you're incapable of pointing out something you find incorrect, for the sake of being fair/accurate, while still agreeing with the overall subject, or even joking about it, and that's why you went off on a tangent here. I wasn't intended to being snark or anything. As I said I haven't seem anything about the downgrades of PSVR for RE7 so I was curious to check, and since you didn't gave the links I had to look at it. But there isn't anything quantifiable, just some reviews pointing out the downgrades, which of course don't help us determine how much leeway there is for the cut to make the port. |
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."