By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Otter said:
DonFerrari said:

For the games that performed better in PS5 yes. And guess what through people pointing out to DF that the drop in the RT mode was a bug (it won't drop if you restart a checkpoint, don't always happen, didn't exist before a patch) on twitter John confirmed it, but well on the video that is missed.

This doesn't answer the question really. COD on PS5 doesn't have performance issues, just a few minor drops during set pieces. Off the top of my memory when they contacted devs, it was for much bigger performance issues or disparities. Like Dirt, DMC5 and AC5 where the Series X version has had big performance problems and bugs including a camera jittering during cutscenes. 

The DF guys didn't suspect the PS5 frame drops were a bug which is why they didn't report it as such. If the question is can things slip past them? Sure, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Stating bias however is something else entirely. And it should be mention that if on paper specs depict series X as the more powerful platform, taking this into account in your analysis does not count as bias

Minor drops that aren't replicable are exactly what you would expect of a bug. Something that is present 100% time, for 100% people for 100% of a mode isn't a bug it is a tradeoff choice. Do you that curiously the time they though was a bug were the ones that Xbox was doing worse? And the only one that have been positive confirm of bug (doesn't always occur) is on the PS5 and they acknowledged that later. But on video you would thought Xbox version runs much better (and on Shikamaru table the impression is even worse) with PS5 hiccups being expected, on the other hand similar situation shoes reversed they will do different. But I feel like I'm restating myself. Even more as I already said I don't think they are biased, but struggling with finding explanations to their expectations not being met.

shikamaru317 said:
foodfather said:

While the deep dive from DF is appreciated , plenty of reviews have declared this games MP a visual downgrade from MW.

The whole debacle reminds me of Ghost a bit. Good graphics in the SP but the MP graphics and quality of gameplay are poor.

I'm not surprised really, this game was rushed out. Originally CoD 2020 was supposed to be a Sledgehammer game; since Sledgehammer's last CoD was WWII in 2017, it was Sledgehammers turn on the CoD studio rotation. However, there was some kind of falling out over at Sledgehammer with the founders leaving and then disagreements between Sledgehammer and Raven (who was co-developing it with them) on the direction of the game, so 1 year into development Activision took Sledgehammer off the project and Treyarch got brought in to convert their planned 2021 CoD multiplayer into multiplayer for 2020 CoD, with Raven put in charge of the Cold War campaign. So basically Cold War got 2 years of development, like CoD 1 through Ghosts, instead of 3 years of development like CoD Advanced Warfare through Modern Warfare 2019. And CoD 2021 will presumably have 2 years of development as well now because of the upheaval to the studio rotation, though we don't know yet if CoD 2021 will be Infinity Ward or Sledgehammer developed.

So a game that potentially had much more rushed development and was favored to PS5 got a virtual tie, how does that fit with the other games that had preference to Xbox but run worse?

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

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"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."