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. |
The game launched in an aweful state, what use is all these performance modes if not one of them is well optimised? The monthly patches didn't get the game in a decent state until about a year, so instead of worrying about increasing the number of modes and optimising for them, prioritising one makes more sense if performance is a concern. For that reason you using Cyperpunk is counter productive to your argument.
1. Given the performance profile of the Xbox version is currently 30fps with drops they likely do not have a full config for how it can maintain a solid 45fps throughout the experience on said hardware, 45 has likely never been a target because it is not a desirable frame rate. They're not going to whack on a low end PC profile onto Xbox Series X & S and call it a day without a thorough round of retesting.
We've already seen with plenty of games which require work to reach higher FPS that they are not next day patches. Plagues tale launched with 40 but took an extra 6months to get it up to 60fps. The logic you're working with is that the game is easily scalable for low-end CPUs when it being capped with drops below 30 suggest otherwise.
2. Early post game content can be approaching finalisation before a game is even launched but even in scenarios where it is not, testing is continuous throughout development & post game fixes in this kind of game will be a year long endeavour. Again it feels like you're not getting the point that it's not that it being impossible to do, but simply it is not something they will put high up on the list. It took Geurilla games a whole year to get around to fixing the AA in the 60fps mode in Horizon. There are often vital patches which don't get addressed months after launch.
3. The length and complexity of game interactions absolutely impacts the amount of QA needed which is what additional performance modes is competing for resources against.
Especially for 1st party titles console performance profiles are often bespoke & there are not always 1:1 matches with available PC settings.
Lastly a single modder unlocking a frame rate and calling it a day is not the same due diligence a developer will take before putting out a patch out on millions of systems. It harkens back to Sony originally underplaying PS5's BC, for QA purposes they take a formalised route which is where the man hours come in. And again, configs for PC aren't going to just get thrown onto Xbox and ticked off as a new mode.
I would bet money on it not happening anytime soon after launch and the reason will be exactly as I'm saying, lack of priority
Last edited by Otter - on 14 June 2023
