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

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

About a year for the game to be playable is much better than a few years after release when the next edition releases (the typical scenario for Bethesda games.) CD Projekt handled this much better than Bethesda has done with any of their games. 

Note: I never said a VRR update would be soon, all I said was that they should release a performance update to add a VRR mode. John Linneman (from Digital Foundry) also expressed this sentiment.

Your idea that I implied it should happen sooner rather than later was totally imagined. 

1. Every game developer does performance scaling tests of their game throughout the development process. They might not have a profile that can achieve 45 fps 99% of the time at the current moment, but they'd know what it would take to get to that point. And of course they would've tested the PC version. 

This game is both CPU and GPU intensive, from what we've seen. Current-gen consoles also have far better CPU's (in relative terms) than the 8th generation did. 

Again I never said this would be a next day patch or even something that comes very soon. I expect it to take months, because it isn't a priority. That's not the same thing as 1000's of hours of FTE. 

2. Yes, I'd expect such a patch to be 6-12 months out. Where did I ever say otherwise? 

3. Right, I never meant to imply that they would just throw a PC config in. Obviously there is more due-diligence required than that. BUT. If the target is a variable one (45-60fps) and if you've already done a lot of performance-testing (which you would've before release) then it isn't something that requires "1000's of hours" of FTE. You don't have to test the whole scope of the game either. You can incorporate an 80-20 rule or 90-10 rule, etc. where you initially, before the first release, test the areas of the game where players are most likely to be, and then iteratively move to the other locations with future patches.