Callisto Protocol had people from Sony helping to get the game in shape for PS5. Ghostwire I don’t know about, but Tango was likely already all hands on Hifi Rush making it a likely straight port from PS5 by a smaller team.
John Linnerman has actually said that most games have been better on Xbox than PS5.
Edit: wanted to clarify, he was talking about the games that Digital Foundry has analyzed.
John might have said that, only for DF last week to question what happened to the 12 Teraaflop advantage and why so few games show it off. DF are slightly contradicting themselves there.
Hitman and The Medium have really shown better gfx than the PS5 versions in DF comparisons and not much else.
It should be interesting to see if Remedy takes advantage of XSX with Alan Wake 2. The fact that Sony was the one to reveal it and I guess might have some kind of deal with Remedy shouldn’t matter.
Fascinating the decisions developers have to balance to get certain features working. Two ray tracing features on a console at 60fps and at a relatively high frame rate is no small feat.
Also, because TAA has been a thing for so long now, it is good to remind people the pixel sharpness we have lost in return for greater image stability.
So, i have a question.
There is a new game out and it has almost instant dimension jumps as a core gameplay mechanic and not just some fancy gimmick. And it runs on Switch. Why is nobody talking about this tremendous, unheard of even, achievement in gaming technology?
Can i get a DF video about it?
I’m expecting Callisto Protocol 2.0 with that one, we’ll see.
My guess is that devs just put in the most effort in the most popular platform, with devs costs rising and game development becoming more difficult they’re just putting the most focus on the PS5, and Xbox having 2 different SKUs probably makes development even harder, it is what it is.
What’s the game? “What Lies in the Multiverse” was out for the while, so i don’t think that’s it.
In spoilers to be safe, but this feature was in the trailers: Cocoon
They are questioning why Microsoft isn’t pushing for devs to do more with the XSX doesn’t negate what Linnerman said. It just shows the PS5 is falling behind more often even when devs aim for parity by having it be the main console.
With respect that wasn’t what DF was saying just a week ago Richard is clearly asking the question why does the PS5 come out on top more often and in DF latest video DF are making out that the PS5 version of Cyberpunk is better again with a better frame rate and fewer artefacts
If it’s true about a PS5 Pro then 3rd developers will prioritise the PS5 and PS5 Pro. I hope XBox have a Series X Pro secretly in the works
Let’s hope not. Remedy is better than that. At first Control had some RT issues on Xbox, but those were fixed later. Hopefully there isn’t any kind of nonsense.
Cyberpunk framerate is basically the same. The artefacts are down to in the main a VRS implementation that doesn’t exist on the ps5 as only Xbox supports hardware VRS 2.0 far as we know.
The question that needs asking is why isn’t vrs2.0 getting additional performance back, but to me it seems like the problem both these consoles have is the rdna architecture and features just aren’t delivering for developers so pushing hard for the silicon for full rdna 2 has not helped the series x much if at all.
I don’t think Rich said the PS5 version comes out on top more often. They did discuss how the two versions are usually closer than what the paper specs would lead people to believe.
I think when we look at how these versions turn out, there is a lot to consider. One, TF counts is only one part of the puzzle and doesn’t entirely speak to what these systems are capable of. For example, the PS5 has a higher pixel filtrate but again, only one piece of the puzzle.
I think it’s also important to consider how developers need to split their resources between the s and X when working on the Xbox SKU. This also isn’t the same as a base and Pro SKU situation since scaling down to low end SKU likely requires more engineering and QA effort than scaling up to another system that offers even more power.
Another important factor is how long it takes to make AAA games these days. So investments in engineering efforts needs to be decided earlier in the schedule. Is the work needed to implement platform specific features worth the potential performance gains? Do these new features even fit within existing pipeline? Is there a big enough market of supporting hardware for these new features? These are only some of the questions that need to be asked. 4A games, for example, stated earlier in the generation that they currently don’t plan to utilize the mesh shaders in the Series consoles or the geometry engine in the PS5 since their current geometry pipeline is already really optimized for the standard geometry shaders. When games take 5+ years to make these days, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room to iterate on new technology from one game to the next. When implementing new features, there is the engineering effort and also the QA necessary to make sure it all works. And this is on top of the risk of this new code not being as refined or optimized as parts of the engine that have been polished for years at that point.
IMO the onus needs to be on 1st party output to show off the advantages of these systems. For example, we know the Coalition is working on their own fork of UE5. Considering the memory requirements to best utilize the engine, I hope they are implementimg sampler feedback streaming support into their version. That could extend the utilization of the available memory while also increasing the throughput of the SSD. I’m sure they are asking what the engineering effort is needed and whether or not it’s required to reach the performance goals they have in mind. The manufacturers also need to do all they can to make it as easy as possible to implement these unique features, which I’m sure they are already doing.
At the end of the day, there are hurdles on both the low end and high end side of game development. You have limited resources and budgets on the low end but also huge cost considerations on how disruptive new tech implementation can be on the high end. Unfortunately we may not see the results of a lot of this hardware investments until next gen.
To me, DF’s notion is w.r.t the investment in silicon area. Xbox has invested more in silicon area compared to PS5 and that is where they ask MS to get some answers as for why the performance lead is not permanent on xbox.
Can you name me any games that are on the PS5 and Series X, that don’t have a higher resolution on Series X?
I mean loads ‘in some respects’ if we take the analysis at face value but that metric isn’t massively useful with how developers address the rendering pipeline these days.
Given a lot of games are running at dynamic resolutions and then undergoing reconstruction of one type or another its hard to neatly put a raw metric on resolution.
For example on Cyberpunk - the game runs at dynamic res, is reconstructed via FSR2.0 and on Xbox has VRS as well. The end result being that for whatever reason you have FSR2.0 breakups on Xbox and some VRS artefacting that make the final image marginally worse. Even if the PS5 had average lower res (hard to really accurately determine - you’d need to pixel count hundreds and thousands of scenes on each to say) the end result would look marginally better on PS5.
The vast, vast majority of games have resolution parity between the two platforms. Games that run at a higher resolution on the X is usually the exception and not the norm.
I’d seen a list a while back and the resolution difference in a lot of games was upto 18% higher on Series X, which tied in with the power advantage of the Series X GPU.
Personally I’d rather they targeted 1440p and went with higher graphics settings in game.