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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Assassins Creed Valhalla runs at 30fps on Xbox Series S

Bandorr said:
Shinobi-san said:
Give it a year or two and I think Series S will show its value, keeping pace with its bigger brother while coming in at a super affordable price point.

Will be really interesting though to see the differences between Series S and Current gen!

I was thinking the exact opposite.

The S is already having problem with two cross-gen games.  WDL runs on par with the ps4 because of Ray tracing.  A feature that Capcom removed from DMC:SE on the S and is patching on later on the X.

If the S can't handle ray tracing - things are just going to get worse and worse in the future as more games adopt it.

I dont know, i think maybe because we are at the start of a generation that hardcore gamers and maybe even gaming media seem to be overly obsessed with native resolution, high refresh rate and ray tracing.

Part of the problem is that we barely have any games coming out that are built specifically for next gen. This forces Sony and even more so MS to really push the technical bullet points as if its the main marketing point.

In a year or two, people will be seeing games built with these consoles as a baseline. Slowly but surely resolution will almost always be dynamic/upscaled, fps will be back down to 30 and maybe 60 where applicable and ray tracing will be limited to light implementations on lighting and reflections. BUT we will be wowed by the games!

When this happens, I believe Series S will still be relevant given the way that MS has designed the console. PS4 and Xbox One will be completely irrelevant imo. This is where the value will come in. At the moment next gen consoles are acting as beefed up machines to run our current gen games on, and in that department Series S will not deliver what it was not meant to.

Edit: This marketing strategy with focusing on technical bullet points, will backfire though, I have already seen guys in one of the other threads pointing out that PS5 has dynamic resolution for Legion, yet its already been confirmed that Gears 5 has dynamic res ranging from 1080p to 4k. When it comes down to it native rendering resolution at 4k is simply not worth the pay-off. Maybe for the next gen when 4k TV's actually become the norm, then maybe. Even then there will likely be superior methods like DLSS 5.0 or something. In fact I think a DLSS approach to console gaming is ideal.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

Around the Network

Well, I'm one of those who is highly doubtful about the Series S and its longevity and place on the market, but Ubisoft titles are not a good benchmark. They are infamous for terrible optimization and performance, even on highly-specced PCs.

That said, the Series S will become more of a problem than a boon to MS in the long run, especially with the tiny storage and outrageous prices for upgraded storage (which puts to total price above that of a Series X). I think the Series S will sell a lot less than the Series X, it's no more than a little over a year ago that MS had to cancel the Xbox One S All-digital since it sold so poorly, despite having the same overall hardware capability of a regular Xbox One. Even if console gamers are buying more games digitally, an all-digital console is not something that most would want, in my opinion.



shikamaru317 said:

Eh, Ubisoft should have gone for 1080p 60 fps over 1440p 30 fps imo, mistake by Ubisoft aiming for 1440p on Series S when their AnvilNext2.0 engine is known to be very hardware demanding.

But on the bright side, EA just announced that Star Wars Squadrons on Series S has 1440p 60 fps with higher graphical settings from PC and 1440p 120 fps with lower graphical settings options:

https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-reveals-full-ps5-xbox-series-x-upgrade-plan

I think the drop from 1440p to 1080p in comparison to going from 30 to 60fps is not equivalent. This would have been an even harder decision to make if they were not running at a steady 60 at 1080p. Its likely they decided that a super stable 30fps at higher res better suites this particular game.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

shikamaru317 said:

Eh, Ubisoft should have gone for 1080p 60 fps over 1440p 30 fps imo, mistake by Ubisoft aiming for 1440p on Series S when their AnvilNext2.0 engine is known to be very hardware demanding.

But on the bright side, EA just announced that Star Wars Squadrons on Series S has 1440p 60 fps with higher graphical settings from PC and 1440p 120 fps with lower graphical settings options:

https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-reveals-full-ps5-xbox-series-x-upgrade-plan

Who would guess we would be using EA as a positive example, Ubi done very bad.



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."

As a playstation gamer, I will oddly defend xbox, in saying that it's the developer's problem for not having the game run at 60fps, not the console. We are talking about a current gen game , but running on a capable system that hasn't even tapped into it's potentials. But the sad thing is is that microsoft should have made it very clear to every published/developer, that 60 fps/1440p is the minimum that must be met before making a game for that system.



Around the Network

Is the day one patch applied?



That's ubisoft. Not the hardware. They've made a mess technically with more than a few games, I wouldn't use any of their titles as a benchmark of console limits or comparisons.



 

I blame Ubisoft more than Microsoft. I think we will get 60fps on series a as the generation goes on



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

KratosLives said:
As a playstation gamer, I will oddly defend xbox, in saying that it's the developer's problem for not having the game run at 60fps, not the console. We are talking about a current gen game , but running on a capable system that hasn't even tapped into it's potentials. But the sad thing is is that microsoft should have made it very clear to every published/developer, that 60 fps/1440p is the minimum that must be met before making a game for that system.

MS certainly cannot mandate 1440p  60fps when some games are only run at 1440p on Series X. Mandating performance targets is only fair on developers if optimising for Series S is as easy as toggling down resolution to 1080p, but as we've heard from developers not all GPU/Ram constraints are scaled by resolution and therein may lay the problem. Will have to wait on the DF analysis but this is also the second launch game to not feature parity, so inclined to think that S is requiring more work then developers care to put in. Something MS could have compensated for by only halving the GPU power and being more generous with the RAM



Otter said:
KratosLives said:
As a playstation gamer, I will oddly defend xbox, in saying that it's the developer's problem for not having the game run at 60fps, not the console. We are talking about a current gen game , but running on a capable system that hasn't even tapped into it's potentials. But the sad thing is is that microsoft should have made it very clear to every published/developer, that 60 fps/1440p is the minimum that must be met before making a game for that system.

MS certainly cannot mandate 1440p  60fps when some games are only run at 1440p on Series X. Mandating performance targets is only fair on developers if optimising for Series S is as easy as toggling down resolution to 1080p, but as we've heard from developers not all GPU/Ram constraints are scaled by resolution and therein may lay the problem. Will have to wait on the DF analysis but this is also the second launch game to not feature parity, so inclined to think that S is requiring more work then developers care to put in. Something MS could have compensated for by only halving the GPU power and being more generous with the RAM

Demanding certain resolution or framerate would only make some games worse or skip. The devs should be the one to see what will better show their game.



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."