Amazing to me how quickly current consoles have fallen behind. 30 fps, can't hit 1440p.... I find this gen disappointing. Feels like the ps5 and series x launches should have been delayed and beefed up.

I don't think more power would have resulted in a different scenario.

The issue is the industry, generally speaking, is hellbent on using every once of available performance for graphics fidelity. Give them more power and it'll be wasted on eye candies which are long past the point of diminishing returns.

There's also the UE5 engine which is a missive disappointment IMO, not because it's not powerful but because it's novelty features are way too resource hungry and every project using it seems to have realised it too late leading to subs par FPS.

Also, the true massive constraint for console is power consumption. Console have always been impressive in the fact they can match an even outperform system way more power hungry at the time of their release, but yet they are still limited to a ~200-225w at most requirement.

CPU is not an issue here, GPU power is, but performance mode is possible IMO and they may consider it after launch but it's going to be around 700p in 21:9 aspect ratio.

I'm not sure why Sony is included in this conversation.

They are the only platform holder offering multiple performance options for their games. All of Sony's first party titles have a 60FPS mode, and they are trailblazing the 40FPS option, while still offering robust accessibility options.

No matter what resource budget you increase the available pool off, for it to be translated into an actual increase in performance, it requires devs to design software to use it or some of it, in this regard. Yet they almost exclusively use it for visual representation. This leaves you with a more esthetically pleasing title for sure yet a title that runs the same as last gen and the gen before it and so on.

In other words, this issue is not about console capabilities but devs' mentality of maxing out any capability budgets in a matter that left little consideration for increased performance.   

This is their choice and they have the right to set whatever priority they want but, the thing I find to be questionable here is, with visual fidelity, we are way past the point of diminishing returns.

At the end of the day, resolution and framerate are a matter of priority; every console has a limited pool of resources and the developer chooses how much of it they want to invest in framerate, how much in geometry, how much in lighting, how much in resolution, etc.

For Hellblade, the developers clearly wanted to create a very rich, detailed, and immersive world that looks real and believable. As a result, they chose to prioritize things like lighting, character rendering, environmental detail and such over performance.

Personally, as someone who also found the PS5 and Xbox Series a bit underwhelming in terms of the graphical jump from PS4/XBO, Hellblade II's the first game this gen that really looks like a proper leap to me, and part of that is probably cos it doesn't use up half it's power just to get to 60fps.

It would have been pointless. Consoles always end up at this very same place because developers and publishers want to push visuals as a selling point, no matter how strong they are at launch. Also, optimization is hard and takes a lot of precious time.

Not to mention you literally can't release more powerful consoles (at the same price point) in 2-3 year timeframes anymore. The tech simply won't be there.

Maybe.  My understanding is hellblade is not only 30 fps and is sub 1080p....  that just seems wrong to me.

Edit

Best I can tell is console games need to stay away from UE5, consoles just can't push it properly.

Hellblade uses letterboxing so its aspect ratio is not the same as most games. DF measured the preview at between 2304x964 and 2560x1070, or basically 1296p to 1440p but with black bars for a wider aspect ratio. So still above 1080p in terms of actual pixel count.

Huh.  Did not know that.  Cool.  Thanks my friend.