sc94597 said:
You original statement was: "Any additional performance modes probably take months of testing particularly for a game of this scale. They're not going to spend 1000s of man hours on a performance mode that will be shat on in gaming media for being unplayable, with the only saving grace being that the 1% of Xbox Series Owners with VRR displays can benefit. Especially considering the type of game it is, post launch content & bug fixing will be priority over a 60fps mode." 1. It won't take 1000s of man-hours. I'd be surprised if it took 100 man-hours. Why? Because A. They've already likely been doing continuous performance tests. That is part of game development. They know what likely has to change to get a 45 fps minimum. That reduces the number of iterations between development staff and testers. B. It really doesn't take 1000's of hours to change and test config settings, even if they didn't already have some active performance testing in place already. 2. Post launch bug-fixing definitely would be something a QA team would be involved with, but post-launch content takes time to develop, and it could be months before a QA team even sees that content. There definitely will be times, as there is in any software development, where the QA team have more capacity to take on small tasks -- like adding a performance mode, while they wait for the development team to develop new content to test.
Imagine if CD Project didn't improve performance and the game remained unplayable on many SKU's until this day. Yes, their short-term profitability might've been better in that scenario, but their credibility as developers would be trashed. I don't know what you're referring to with "bad responses" here. The game released to a "bad response" and was improved over time. Being a "30 hour game experience" really tells us nothing about how hard it is it make different performance configs. Cyberpunk 2077, unlike Starfield, pushed graphics in a way that made finding a config more difficult (leaning on ray-tracing which many platforms don't quite support well), not less. As for the other interactivity situations you describe, all of these would've been tested (if Bethesda is doing its due-diligence) in the development of the game, as the game isn't just targeting one platform. They should already have a good idea how the game scales with different hardware and what it would take to achieve 45-60 fps.
Not an official patch, but one developed by a single modder. https://screenrant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-mod-ps4-pro-4k/ "As reported by Ben T. on Twitter, modder illusion0001 has managed to push Red Dead Redemption 2 beyond its limits on the PlayStation 4 Pro, allowing the title to smoothly run around 60 frames per second and in native 4K. Ben claims that the unofficial patch unlocks the frame rate for the PlayStation Pro version, but due to the console having a weak CPU the frames hang in the 50s range and can't keep a steady 60. Additionally, another patch by the modder boosts the resolution beyond 1080p and allows native 4K with the exclusion of blurry textures." Which substantiates the point that this isn't something that takes 1000's of man-hours. |
A modder making something as a proof of concept is completely different from testing the game top to bottom making sure it works everywhere, no severe dips anywhere and stable throughout whatever you do in game. That's what takes 1000's of man-hours. Unlocking the frame rate or resolution is the easy part. He didn't optimize the engine to get a stable 60fps from start to finish, that's where the real work is.
