Support NeoGAF

[SomeGit]

no specific performance metric is being argued but a 30fps1080p target and getting 17fps1080p on an xbox one is different to what I would consider a really bad 20fps 720p on Series S which was just given as an example. 17fps1080p on an Xbox One S is crap but it's not 20fps720p on a Series S crap.

Different how? So is certification handling performance or resolution?
If you have a game running at 15fps-17fps being approved you think a 720p 20 is going to be rejected?

Oh boy, so now it's being rejected over resolution then? Because it's performing better than the one above, so clearly something is off.

It did happen before but they had next gen consoles and the PS4 and xbox one were struggling and causing the delays. you brought up a new game running on old hardware at 720p sub 30fps.

Would you at least agree that Sony removed it post release due to the fact that it was a poor performing game on a PS4?

The fact that Sony removed it is irrelevant, Cyberpunk had plenty of issue other than performance, it could be for any one of them or simply public pressure).
The certification process happened and it was approved, it's irrelevant what happened after.

Again an early access xbox one game with Ark. It certainly was a mess but an early access game on the one isn't the same as a 20fps720p game release on Series S today. That would be considered even worse performance than an Xbox One S and PS4.

It was still approved on certification, early access, demo, interactive movie, whatever. Every single application (excluding MS Store apps, that has it's own approval process) on PS and Xbox goes through first party certification, if they were rejecting them by the performance metrics you've stated, these games wouldn't have been certified. Period. A 720p20fps would pass, because we have prior examples on previous hardware that passed certification.

Why do you keep saying that it isn't the same on Series S, other than your own subjective logic? I found all the cases above unplayable, just as I think it would be the same on Series S. But how does that fit into certification? What substantial proof do you have that it would have been rejected?
I don't understand, you keep saying your original point wasn't about a especific metric, but you keep defending that a specific metric would be rejected with nothing to stand on.

 

[RoadHazard]

Sony will launch a lower tier console with the "mid gen" refresh or with "next gen"

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. A more powerful console you can release, because it will simply handle the existing games as they are (until they are updated to take advantage of the improved hardware), but a weaker one couldn't run any existing games because they're not made to run on lower specs. It would only be able to run games that have been updated (downgraded) to support it. There's no way they would release something that stupid.

 

[twilo99]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. A more powerful console you can release, because it will simply handle the existing games as they are (until they are updated to take advantage of the improved hardware), but a weaker one couldn't run any existing games because they're not made to run on lower specs. It would only be able to run games that have been updated (downgraded) to support it. There's no way they would release something that stupid.

As longs as it's more powerful than the ps4 all current games will run great.

I would love a $230 PS5 mini .. instant buy.

 

[RoadHazard]

As longs as it's more powerful than the ps4 all current games will run great

So it's another PS4 Pro then, not a PS5? Because PS4 and PS5 games are NOT the same. You can't just take a PS5 game and run it on weaker hardware, even if it's a cross-gen game.

 

[THE DUCK]

Deep and witty counter point. I swear posting a pic is a crutch for those unable to articulate a valid point.

 

[Flutta]

Rift apart is great, and I love the game, but sorry it wasn't a quantum leap in graphics. The whole instant load rift wasn't much more than a gimmic that could have been dealt with in other ways that wouldn't have changed the game much. Is it a great looking game? Sure, but so is gt7, horizon, gow, forza and other cross gen games. Does rift apart look twice as good? Demon Souls? Absolutely not. Heck even some truly last gen stuff like tlou 2 and gow hold up well even now.

I think they made a decent choice, they have a very powerfull console, and they have a budget console. It doesn't ruin next gen.

Now it would be different if there were some sort of massive leap in ps5 and series x that suddenly made games look 5 times better, and the S failed to have that feature, but its simply not the case.

 

[Blade2.0]

The can go as low as 720p/30, not good but why should anyone care except Series S owners? if a game cannot
run at this resolution on the Series S probably it will also run like shit on the big machines, Previous generations
we used to have vastly different console configurations and devs ported their games to them no problem, it's
obvious devs are becoming lazy as shit

one of the industries that overworks their employees the most with the biggest crunch times = devs are becoming lazy as shit?!

Nah, they already work their asses off for our entertainment.

 

[Three]

Different how? So is certification handling performance or resolution?
If you have a game running at 15fps-17fps being approved you think a 720p 20 is going to be rejected?

Oh boy, so now it's being rejected over resolution then? Because it's performing better than the one above, so clearly something is off.

For the 100th time no specific metric is being argued. There is a clause that mentions performance and their right to reject it if they deem performance is not good. Resolution and framerate fall under the same thing. When I asked for 720p20fps examples on Series S it was because I consider it fairly low performance. you brought up xbox one and PS4 games running on a PS4 and xbox one instead. Surely you can see that series s would have higher acceptable performance targets than new games running on ancient hardware. Even your example game like cyberpunk, pubg run higher than that on a Series S.

The certification process happened and it was approved, it's irrelevant what happened after.

Yes on a PS4 where 900p 30fps target seemed acceptable. On a PS5 it was 1188p60fps target.

It was still approved on certification, early access, demo, interactive movie, whatever. Every single application (excluding MS Store apps, that has it's own approval process) on PS and Xbox goes through first party certification, if they were rejecting them by the performance metrics you've stated, these games wouldn't have been certified. Period. A 720p20fps would pass, because we have prior examples on previous hardware that passed certification.

Why do you keep saying that it isn't the same on Series S, other than your own subjective logic? I found all the cases above unplayable, just as I think it would be the same on Series S. But how does that fit into certification? What substantial proof do you have that it would have been rejected?
I don't understand, you keep saying your original point wasn't about a especific metric, but you keep defending that a 720p20 would be rejected with nothing to stand on.

I didn't say 720p20fps would 100% be rejected. I even said insert whatever you think would be, it was just an example of what I consider a poorly optimised game on a Series S. The point is that the clause exists, are you arguing it doesn't? 1080p30fps targets with dips are not considered bad for an Xbox one game. we didn't even have 4K so 720/1080p was actually considered good when those consoles launched. The same game running at 720p20fps on a Series S I would consider poorly optimised today, whether it would be rejected or not is completely up to MS. You've just failed to give me any examples of it. There are no specific metrics but the clause is there.

 

[twilo99]

So it's another PS4 Pro then, not a PS5? Because PS4 and PS5 games are NOT the same. You can't just take a PS5 game and run it on weaker hardware, even if it's a cross-gen game.

The ps4 pro doesn't have an SSD or a modern architecture APU, so no, I mean a PS5 with a slower GPU

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Deep and witty counter point. I swear posting a pic is a crutch for those unable to articulate a valid point.

We know what Demon's Souls and Rachet And Clank Rift Apart look like.
You are just trolling.

 

[SomeGit]

For the 100th time no specific metric is being argued.

You are, you are doing it again on this very post, you just flip flop around it.

There is a clause that mentions performance and their right to reject it if they deem performance is not good. Resolution and framerate fall under the same thing.

They do not fall under the same thing, and you should know enough about the topic to understand one is IQ the other is performance.
You don't say a 720p60 game has worse performance than a 4K15FPS, this is just reaching.

When I asked for 720p20fps examples on Series S it was because I consider it fairly low performance. you brought up xbox one and PS4 games running on a PS4 and xbox one instead. Surely you can see that series s would have higher acceptable performance targets than new games running on ancient hardware.

No, I gave you examples of past games on older generation games falling into worse performance and in some cases resolution that were approved on both PS4 and Xbox One. Then you asked me for a specific Series S game, which is funny because you are not arguing specific numbers but you are asking specific numbers, very funny, anyway I said that Matrix reaches those numbers, but that doesn't count because The Coalition worked on it so that means that certification stops being a thing for some reason.

Surely you can see that series s would have higher acceptable performance targets than new games running on ancient hardware.

No I cannot, I found the above examples unnacceptable performance on Xbox One and PS4 just like that would be on Series S. Still nothing to prove that they would be rejected on Series S, you have 0 substantial proof that certification is harsher on Series S than on One S.
Yours or my opinion on it is irrelevant.

Yes on a PS4 where 900p 30fps target seemed acceptable. On a PS5 it was 1188p60fps target.

Target's don't mean jack shit in certification, what does is an early build of either the master copy or the day one patch, that Sony looks at before releasing to the public.
Sony didn't look at 900p30 and say fine.
They looked at this and said fine:


Either you are showing complete ignorance on the certification process, or ... I don't even know what your point is.

I didn't say 720p20fps would 100% be rejected.

You did, multiple times in fact. You can walk back all you want, but you did and you are still arguing that metric.

Then you've missed the point again. The point was that min spec isn't optimised and 720p 20fps would not be certified on XSS. So saying XSS hits its 30fps only shows that it had to be optimised to be cerified.

It's people coding and creating assets for the game. Id is not shitty shovelware, Doom isn't shitty shovelware. The fact that series S is meeting its framerate target in games only shows that it's optimised for it. If it runs at 720p 20fps it would be rejected and not certified though. The point isn't that it can't meet framerate targets in released games it's that they need to optimise for it, so contrary to what people think the dev can't develop for Series X and just chuck some poor performing Series S version out. That's not how it works. It's the opposite.

I even said insert whatever you think would be, it was just an example of what I consider a poorly optimised game on a Series S. The point is that the clause exists, are you arguing it doesn't?

I'm not, I'm just saying that that clause doesn't prevent poorly performing games from coming out. It's far less strict than what you were implying.

1080p30fps targets with dips are not considered bad for an Xbox one game. we didn't even have 4K so 720/1080p was actually considered good when those consoles launched. The same game running at 720p20fps on a Series S I would consider poorly optimised today, whether it would be rejected or not is completely up to MS.

Yeah, it's just your opinion, don't spend 3 pages arguing that it's fact. And don't come back to tell me you didn't, that's just lying.

There are no specific metrics but the clause is there.

Glad you got my point.

You've just failed to give me any examples of it.

I gave multiple, you just moved the goal post every time, but it was nice talking to a wall.

 

[RoadHazard]

The ps4 pro doesn't have an SSD or a modern architecture APU, so no, I mean a PS5 with a slower GPU

That can't run PS5 games? That would be a really weird thing to release.

 

[Three]

You are, you are doing it again on this very post, you just flip flop around it.



They do not fall under the same thing, and you should know enough about the topic to understand one is IQ the other is performance.
You don't say a 720p60 game has worse performance than a 4K15FPS, this is just reaching.

You should know enough about the topic to know one affects the other based on hardware so when assessing 'performance' on hardware you are talking about both. High framerate low res or lower res higher framerate. There is no separated framerate and IQ clause. It's just performance on their hardware.

No, I gave you examples of past games on older generation games falling into worse performance and in some cases resolution that were approved on both PS4 and Xbox One. Then you asked me for a specific Series S game, which is funny because you are not arguing specific numbers but you are asking specific numbers, very funny, anyway I said that Matrix reaches those numbers, but that doesn't count because The Coalition worked on it so that means that certification stops being a thing for some reason.



No I cannot, I found the above examples unnacceptable performance on Xbox One and PS4 just like that would be on Series S. Still nothing to prove that they would be rejected on Series S, you have 0 substantial proof that certification is harsher on Series S than on One S.
Yours or my opinion on it is irrelevant.



Target's don't mean jack shit in certification, what does is an early build of either the master copy or the day one patch, that Sony looks at before releasing to the public.
Sony didn't look at 900p30 and say fine.
They looked at this and said fine:


Either you are showing complete ignorance on the certification process, or ... I don't even know what your point is.



You did, multiple times in fact. You can walk back all you want, but you did and you are still arguing that metric.







I'm not, I'm just saying that that clause doesn't prevent poorly performing games from coming out. It's far less strict than what you were implying.



Yeah, it's just your opinion, don't spend 3 pages arguing that it's fact. And don't come back to tell me you didn't, that's just lying.

You may think aiming for 1080p on a base Xbox One S is actually bad but it's not, that's not just an opinion. Especially if you take into account when it released.

I gave multiple, you just moved the goal post every time, but it was nice talking to a wall.

You are arguing in circles and ignoring key points I see. you gave 1080p30fps target early access games on an Xbox One S. Those games ran at higher res and stable fps on a Series S. I just considered 720p20fps unoptimised on a Series S and wanted to know what runs like that. Your only example for todays hardware was a tech demo that mostly hits 30fps too, optimised by first party.

They don't play the full game in certification they are given just key information about how it runs. Go back a couple of minutes in your vid and you will see most of it is 30fps ON A PS4 which I'm sure they were OK with but weren't aware that it could grind in sections or that the game was that buggy. When they did they exercised that right removed it from sale.

Do you think the xbox clause exists or not? Answer that simple question, then tell me at what performance point do you think they will push back for Series S with that clause? If your answer is never then why does it exist? You've argued countless pages trying to argue that if you are struggling you can just release a hot mess on xbox Series S nobody would care about how it performs but that's simply not true. Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4 was an example of this.

 

[PeteBull]

Best proof we can get if series S is holding back games/stronger current gen consoles is if we compare best graphically looking games made by most competent devs on both platforms, from MS its Forza Horizon 5 and Microsoft Flight Simulator( just comparing graphics), from Sony its ofc new Ratchet, Last of US part1 and Demons Souls remaster, as the games that are top of the top graphically and dont have last gen versions.

Imho at least for now, those are comparable, i especially chose those few coz devs are very competent and games get highly reviewed/are universally acclaimed, at least from graphical standpoint(so even if some1 doesnt like particular genre we all can agree they are top notch quality visuals at least).

Another proof is matrix demo, which can run(ofc hugely downgraded, mostly resolution wise but not only that) on all 3 current gen consoles and we all im sure can agree, it looks top notch if not even best for now, graphics wise.

No point comparing low effort multiplats or games made by uncompetent devs for obvious reasons(many examples here, saints row, gotham knights, just to give 2 most recent examples, but there are tons more if we dig deeper

 

[SomeGit]

Oh wow, you actually have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even jnow where to start.

You should know enough about the topic to know one affects the other based on hardware so when assessing 'performance' on hardware you are talking about both. High framerate low res or lower res higher framerate. There is no separated framerate and IQ clause. It's just performance on their hardware.

Yeah, the hardware performance, but when you are talking about software which is the case when you are talking about the software certification process, performance means framerate.
Why do you think the framerate mode is usally called "performance mode" and the resolution mode is called "quality mode"? Are you for real, dude?

You are arguing in circles and ignoring key points I see.

Cute, I even quoted you.

You may think aiming for 1080p on a base Xbox One S is actually bad but it's not, that's not just an opinion. Especially if you take into account when it released.

I don't think it's bad to aim for 1080p, it's when framerate drops to near single digits levels that's is unnacceptable.

If a tree fall down in a empty forest does it make a sound? If a game is sub-20 while never hitting it's target resolution is it really a 1080p30 game?
Ark is never at 1080p, and mostly in the low 20s, early access or not it still needs to go though certification and be approved by the first party. And they were.
Cyberpunk wasn't early access, same as above.

Those games ran at higher res and stable fps on a Series S. I just considered 720p20fps unoptimised on a Series S and wanted to know what runs like that. Your only example for todays hardware was a tech demo that mostly hits 30fps too, optimised by first party.

What does an, at the time, unreleased console mean for the certication process?
"Mostly" and "optimised by first party" is irrelevant in the certification process.
Again, stop with this, most of the games out are cross gen games, of course the only example I can give is Matrix, no game released is going to bring the Series S to it's knees, however this doesn't change that the certification process didn't change.
You cannot prove substancially that games are more harshly judge on Series S, compared to One S.

They don't play the full game in certification they are given just key information about how it runs. Go back a couple of minutes in your vid and you will see most of it is 30fps ON A PS4 which I'm sure they were OK with but weren't aware that it could grind in sections or that the game was that buggy. When they did they exercised that right removed it from sale.

No? This is just mindless missinformed, this not at all how certification works.
Even Sega back in the day would stress test the game for hours, they don't just see some key information and a couple of video and say "fine". They put a fine comb through all content printed for retail PS4s and software on PSN, they don't release based on a couple of video and an excel sheet. There is no way that a game that has the framerate crumble within seconds of gameplay, that Sony "just wasn't aware".

What a idiotic statement, why do you think developers talk all the time about the arbritary stuff they were forced to remove for certification? Because it was on the excel sheet? What the fuck dude.
This is golden post, you have no clue how certification works. Even mobile stores, are more strict than this.

They removed it from sale when the public pressure and high amount of refunds came, which again it's irrelevant, because certification happened before and was approved.

Do you think the xbox clause exists or not? Answer that simple question, then tell me at what performance point do you think they will push back for Series S with that clause? If your answer is never then why does it exist? You've argued countless pages trying to argue that if you are struggling you can just release a hot mess on xbox Series S nobody would care about how it performs but that's simply not true.

It exists but the bar is much much lower than what you think, it's not "720p20" like you keep parroting. Don't say you don't, I quoted you 3 times saying it, it's what started this.


Honestly, I'm just gonna let this post sit here.
I don't want to quote you anymore, because this post of all of them, has so much core concept and honestly just lack of knowledge about performance and the certification process, that I don't want to be the only one picking it apart.
I'm sure some here are going to have a field day with this.

 

[SomeGit]

Best proof we can get if series S is holding back games/stronger current gen consoles is if we compare best graphically looking games made by most competent devs on both platforms, from MS its Forza Horizon 5 and Microsoft Flight Simulator( just comparing graphics), from Sony its ofc new Ratchet, Last of US part1 and Demons Souls remaster, as the games that are top of the top graphically and dont have last gen versions.

Imho at least for now, those are comparable, i especially chose those few coz devs are very competent and games get highly reviewed/are universally acclaimed, at least from graphical standpoint(so even if some1 doesnt like particular genre we all can agree they are top notch quality visuals at least).

Another proof is matrix demo, which can run(ofc hugely downgraded, mostly resolution wise but not only that) on all 3 current gen consoles and we all im sure can agree, it looks top notch if not even best for now, graphics wise.

No point comparing low effort multiplats or games made by uncompetent devs for obvious reasons(many examples here, saints row, gotham knights, just to give 2 most recent examples, but there are tons more if we dig deeper

Forza has a last gen version.

 

[PeteBull]

Forza has a last gen version.

Exactly, and u cant say it looks bad/not top notch, but again- competent dev, enough time and funds given for optimisation, i look at final effect- so top quality graphics despite series s and even last gen version( u can tell tho last gen versions werent priority coz of nasty loading screenies even from the very start/midrace, so definitely last gen versions cant be compared with series x/s/pc in terms of quality of experience)- thats how it should be- big cuts if needed, and worse experience, but current gen should be lead platform.

Funny thing is- forza horizon 5 is so scalable that even if xbox series x was 2x more powerful, then it would only show its true potential, since on series X we still get 2 modes, 30 fps fidelity and 60fps mode with more visible pop up/lower res, only on a pc rig with much stronger gpu/cpu from what series X has we can see the game in its best light
here proof, 4k maxed(extreme settings, beyond even what series x does in fidelity 30fps mode), and perfectly smooth 60fps+ in gameplay(30fps cutscenes), gpu is rtx 3090 so till few motnths ago strongest on market, few months ago u had even 15% faster 3090ti and 2weeks ago roughly 60% faster rtx 4090.

 

[THE DUCK]

We know what Demon's Souls and Rachet And Clank Rift Apart look like.
You are just trolling.

I never said they looked bad. Maybe you didn't even bother to read it all or the context. I said they don't looks twice as good as other AAA games this gen, and they don't.
You want to say Ratchet and Clank looks twice as good as any other game out there this gen? Please, take off the sunglasses or get your eyes checked.

 

[Ozriel]

Best proof we can get if series S is holding back games/stronger current gen consoles is if we compare best graphically looking games made by most competent devs on both platforms, from MS its Forza Horizon 5 and Microsoft Flight Simulator( just comparing graphics), from Sony its ofc new Ratchet, Last of US part1 and Demons Souls remaster, as the games that are top of the top graphically and dont have last gen versions.

Ironically, the only games in this list that couldn't work on last gen is Ratchet (SSD) and Flight SIM (CPU)

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

I never said they looked bad. Maybe you didn't even bother to read it all or the context. I said they don't looks twice as good as other AAA games this gen, and they don't.
You want to say Ratchet and Clank looks twice as good as any other game out there this gen? Please, take off the sunglasses or get your eyes checked.

They look a generation better than games in each of there respective genre's.

We can tell who hasn't actually played them and are making a opinion/trolling.

 

[THE DUCK]

They look a generation better than games in each of there respective genre's.

We can tell who hasn't actually played them and are making a opinion/trolling.

Clearly you can't. I'm actually on my second play through of ratchet, thanks though. I'm only a few hours into Demon Souls. But most definitely spent time with both.

I know it's hard for you to quantify. If you actually read what I said, I said they didn't look twice as good as other current gen games, and couple of last get that are standouts (which had PS4 pro versions and xbox one X versions).
I didn't say they "looked the same as the pervious generation xbox one and ps4 games"
Reading is difficult apparently, your on a roll.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I could be very wrong about this, but isn't same case with PC? I'm no expert but isn't usually PC developers have to make the games able to run on low end gaming PCs?

There isn't a specific sku they have to support to any verifiable standard.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Crunch happens when you're struggling to meet milestones you've already set for yourself for the project.

Any developer making a game would have set aside milestones and time for optimizing on all shipping platforms and across multiple PC GPUs. There is no inherent crunch from optimizing for Series S.

This is as ridiculous a take a claiming that making a Switch version of a multiplatform game leads to crunch and is bad for developers.

Ridiculous for you to say that additional work won't lead to additional crunch....

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Clearly you can't. I'm actually on my second play through of ratchet, thanks though. I'm only a few hours into Demon Souls. But most definitely spent time with both.

I know it's hard for you to quantify. If you actually read what I said, I said they didn't look twice as good as other current gen games, and couple of last get that are standouts (which had PS4 pro versions and xbox one X versions).
I didn't say they "looked the same as the pervious generation xbox one and ps4 games"
Reading is difficult apparently, your on a roll.

Name a 3D platformer that Rachet and Clank Rift Apart doesn't look a generation better than.

Name a action adventure RPG (without mods and trickery) that Demon's Souls doesn't look a generation better than.

 

[PeteBull]

Ironically, the only games in this list that couldn't work on last gen is Ratchet (SSD) and Flight SIM (CPU)

yups fully agree here, to make them work u would have to make crazy big cuts, kinda like what witcher 3 experienced for its switch port, but again ,we talking series S, which has comparable(i think 200mhz lower speed) cpu to series X and very fast ssd too(altho ofc ps5 has faster one).

 

[Three]

Oh wow, you actually have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even jnow where to start.



Yeah, the hardware performance, but when you are talking about software which is the case when you are talking about the software certification process, performance means framerate.
Why do you think the framerate mode is usally called "performance mode" and the resolution mode is called "quality mode"? Are you for real, dude?



Cute, I even quoted you.




I don't think it's bad to aim for 1080p, it's when framerate drops to near single digits levels that's is unnacceptable.

If a tree fall down in a empty forest does it make a sound? If a game is sub-20 while never hitting it's target resolution is it really a 1080p30 game?
Ark is never at 1080p, and mostly in the low 20s, early access or not it still needs to go though certification and be approved by the first party. And they were.
Cyberpunk wasn't early access, same as above.



What does an, at the time, unreleased console mean for the certication process?
"Mostly" and "optimised by first party" is irrelevant in the certification process.
Again, stop with this, most of the games out are cross gen games, of course the only example I can give is Matrix, no game released is going to bring the Series S to it's knees, however this doesn't change that the certification process didn't change.
You cannot prove substancially that games are more harshly judge on Series S, compared to One S.



No? This is just mindless missinformed, this not at all how certification works.
Even Sega back in the day would stress test the game for hours, they don't just see some key information and a couple of video and say "fine". They put a fine comb through all content printed for retail PS4s and software on PSN, they don't release based on a couple of video and an excel sheet. There is no way that a game that has the framerate crumble within seconds of gameplay, that Sony "just wasn't aware".

What a idiotic statement, why do you think developers talk all the time about the arbritary stuff they were forced to remove for certification? Because it was on the excel sheet? What the fuck dude.
This is golden post, you have no clue how certification works. Even mobile stores, are more strict than this.

They removed it from sale when the public pressure and high amount of refunds came, which again it's irrelevant, because certification happened before and was approved.



It exists but the bar is much much lower than what you think, it's not "720p20" like you keep parroting. Don't say you don't, I quoted you 3 times saying it, it's what started this.


Honestly, I'm just gonna let this post sit here.
I don't want to quote you anymore, because this post of all of them, has so much core concept and honestly just lack of knowledge about performance and the certification process, that I don't want to be the only one picking it apart.
I'm sure some here are going to have a field day with this.

Nope that's not how certification works. They don't look at how it might have hit 20fps in sections, they don't care about stuff like that at all. Cert testing doesn't care about your frames dropping to 20fps somewhere, they just have a criteria but Certification and contracts extend beyond release with waivers and early access so your idea that they printed the disc so cert was A-OK is nonsense. CP2077 might even have got a waiver, I don't know. The key information is for cert testing only. They have obligations extending beyond that with just key info. For example this is a post commercial release clause for MS:

"Publisher will (1) in its implementation of such features, optimize the performance and technical capability of Xbox Console versions in parity with the Console Version video game on the Competitive Platform; and (2) make the same hardware feature updates commercially available for the Xbox Console versions either before or simultaneously with the Console Version video game on the Competitive Platform."

Now for the obligation of making the Xbox series s perform better than Xbox one which you think doesn't exist:

" include features and/or performance that differentiates the Xbox Series version of the Software Title from the Xbox One version, as described in the Publisher Guide."

If you kept the same "performing" game with a series s release you wouldn't pass this. Also if you think "performance" here just means fps you are wrong since same framerate but better res is allowed.

It exists but the bar is much much lower than what you think, it's not "720p20" like you keep parroting. Don't say you don't, I quoted you 3 times saying it, it's what started this.

Oh so now you think some metric cutoff actually exists. So tell me what you think it is?

What does an, at the time, unreleased console mean for the certication process?
"Mostly" and "optimised by first party" is irrelevant in the certification process.Again, stop with this, most of the games out are cross gen games, of course the only example I can give is Matrix, no game released is going to bring the Series S to it's knees, however this doesn't change that the certification process didn't change

The consoles were out when the Matrix demo was done. Not sure what you're saying here. Optimised by first party means they were happy with the performance in comparison. They did it. It's a tech demo. They don't have a publisher contract with themselves. I already mentioned how the cross gen games need better performance. You also have next gen only games like Deathloop or FS2020 that don't run at 720p20fps so isn't the fact that no game brings it to its knees kind of the point? They are optimised well.

 

[PeteBull]

Name a 3D platformer that Rachet and Clank Rift Apart doesn't look a generation better than.

Name a action adventure RPG (without mods and trickery) that Demon's Souls doesn't look a generation better than.

Those are extremly good looking games, definitely topnotch currently, personally i love their artsyle too, on top of graphical prowess

About looking generation better, again its not ez to compare, u have to account in how good devs were, how much time/funds they had, and such.

Generational leap can easily be seen(graphics wise) Bloodborne vs Demons Souls remaster, fair comparision coz both exclusive, both same genre.

Dunno if we can see generational leap GoW 2016 vs Ragnarok, even if we compare ps4 vs ps5 version, here i think developers still had in mind lastgen console, but maybe im wrong, we will soon get some outstanding vids from DF and NXgamer for this game

We definitely cant see generational leap from GT Sports/ps4 version of GT7 to ps5 version of GT7, u can tell right away lead platform of GT7 was ps4 and ps5 ofc has nice improvements, resolution and fidelity wise, even rt impelemtation, but its still simply another layer put on ps4 game.

Difference between HFW ps4 and ps5 version is quite noticeable, dunno here how guearilla games did it, but maybe ps5 was actually lead platform here, its much better visually vs older HZD.
Best u can see it when even looking/playing maxed settings pc port, vs 60fps ps5 mode, ps5 still wins with ease.

 

[THE DUCK]

Name a 3D platformer that Rachet and Clank Rift Apart doesn't look a generation better than.

Name a action adventure RPG (without mods and trickery) that Demon's Souls doesn't look a generation better than.

Why would I need to name something that's a "generation better than"? Your words, not mine. I never said it wasn't a generation better than anything.
Again, I said it wasn't twice as good as current gen and that's true.

Lets play!!! Name a game that is at the top of it's game, an AAA title with great graphics, that came out this generation, that ratchet and clank looks twice as good as?
Are you saying ratchet looks twice as good as Forza horizon 5, or GTA 7, or Horizon forbidden west?

Not sure why your playing such games, maybe you just can't admit that games are at a certain level right now, even the best ones.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Why would I need to name something that's a "generation better than"? Your words, not mine. I never said it wasn't a generation better than anything.
Again, I said it wasn't twice as good as current gen and that's true.

Lets play!!! Name a game that is at the top of it's game, an AAA title with great graphics, that came out this generation, that ratchet and clank looks twice as good as?
Are you saying ratchet looks twice as good as Forza horizon 5, or GTA 7, or Horizon forbidden west?

Not sure why your playing such games, maybe you just can't admit that games are at a certain level right now, even the best ones.

Generation better==2 x better basically the same thing.

You can't answer the question and yours is irrelevant/not what I said,but you already knew this.

 

[THE DUCK]

Generation better==2 x better basically the same thing.

You can't answer the question and yours is irrelevant/not what I said,but you already knew this.

You talk in circles. Generation better is most definitely not 2x better. Sometimes it's much more, sometimes it's less than 2x.
I did answer the question, you chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your reality.

 

[01011001]

This is dumb shit I've read all day. All Consoles are holding gaming back. Not just the series S

PCs hold it back even more as developers need to target GTX1060 cards in order to make sure that the most popular GPU is still supported.

games also still need to run on HDDs because of PCs

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You talk in circles. Generation better is most definitely not 2x better. Sometimes it's much more, sometimes it's less than 2x.
I did answer the question, you chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your reality.

It's actually more than 2x better.

You haven't named any games in each respective genre that my two examples aren't 2+X better than.
Instead you tried(we aren't changing the convo) mentioning other games in other genre's instead of giving examples.

Remember you claimed...

"Rift apart is great, and I love the game, but sorry it wasn't a quantum leap in graphics"

"Demon Souls? Absolutely not"

So put up or go back under the bridge.

 

[Kappa]

PCs hold it back even more as developers need to target GTX1060 cards in order to make sure that the most popular GPU is still supported.

games also still need to run on HDDs because of PCs

I agree, poor PC gamers and console buyers are holding gaming back. Gaming should only be for the rich

 

[SomeGit]

Nope that's not how certification works.

It is, stop talking about what you don't know, Yes, early access also goes through certification. No, a waiver doesn't mean it didn't pass certification it means that the first party still gave the OK. So if that happened once, why would it happen again?

You are not going to get an uncertified build of a game printed on a disc.

Hell, but let's play you stupid game, let's say "Tomb Raider 4 Lara's return again" does get a waiver and it's released on the MS store with a 720p20 game after the first level on Xbox Series X. They send a couple of youtube videos and an excel sheet with key information.
What happened to your 720p20 don't get certified? Does this make sense to you, Is MS going to unprint the discs after they were shipped?
They didn't unpublish Cyberpunk, are they going to unpublish this hypotetical game from the MS store?

Why do devs keep talking all the time about sending builds and patches for certification? Why do, sometimes, updates release on PC because the console version update is "pending certification"? Even for early access games like Rust?

If you want to know more about certification read Rami's twitter thread on it, it even outlines the constant back and forth.
Also touches on how unimportant performance and resolution metrics are.

For example this is a post commercial release clause for MS

Let me ask you, did the Xbox One versions match the performance and resolution of the PS4 version? Does the XSX match the performance/resolution, or hell, even modes as the PS5 all the time? Elden Ring wasn't certified?
Cool, now to the best part, you are cutting stuff here to prove your point, if you paste the full quote you get the examples MS is refering to:

"Software Title feature updates post-Commercial Release. Subject to hardware limitations and announce/availability of development tools, at any time after Commercial Release, with respect to any hardware feature updates made to a Software Title (e.g., HDR, spatial audio) that are available for Competitive Platform versions, Publisher will (1) in its implementation of such features, optimize the performance and technical capability of Xbox Console versions in parity with the Competitive Platform version; and (2) make the same hardware feature updates commercially available for the Xbox Console versions either before or simultaneously with the Competitive Platform version(s). As used in this Section 9.3, "simultaneously" means within [***] of the availability of such hardware feature on a Competitive Platform."

Oh look, they mentioned the examples and weren't refering to resolution/performance, they are talking about matching feature set, how funny. Note the "Subject to hardware limitations" which immediately makes your point moot.

After that:

Cross Generation Licenses. [***] Cross generation licenses must (1) grant End Users rights to both an Xbox One version and an Xbox Series version of the Software Title, and (2) include features and/or performance that differentiates the Xbox Series version of the Software Title from the Xbox One version, as described in the Publisher Guide.

Now for the obligation of making the Xbox series s perform better than Xbox one which you think doesn't exist:

If you kept the same "performing" game with a series s release you wouldn't pass this. Also if you think "performance" here just means fps you are wrong since same framerate but better res is allowed.

Performance and/or features.
Performance OR features.
Or features.

Improved IQ is a feature, no one refers to resolution as performance mate, this is insane.

Hell FIFA 23 is 1080p60 on both One S and Series S, I guess that didn't pass certification, right?

Besides, I didn't say that I said that you have no proof that certification would have harsher performance and resolution metrics over a current gen game on the Series S over a last gen game on One S, not a cross gen game, a current gen game.

You misunderstood what I said, tried to spin a quote and failed miserably… again. I don't understand how do you keep failing at attacking a point I didn't make.

Oh so now you think some metric cutoff actually exists. So tell me what you think it is?

I didn't? What metric cutoff did I say?
I said it's lower than that, because we have games approved with that. It could be 10fps, it could be 10spf, who knows. At some I imagine performance is so bad, that they would reject it. Don't you agree?

Why would I argue an arbritary cutoff point like you? Oh wait you are not arguing that, even though you have 3 different posts at the start with them. how funny.

The consoles were out when the Matrix demo was done.

The part you quoted wasn't talking about Matrix, it was talking about the Xbox One examples. It was in response to you saying "Those games ran at higher res and stable fps on a Series S.". As far as I know, Matrix isn't on One.

Optimised by first party means they were happy with the performance in comparison. They did it. It's a tech demo. They don't have a publisher contract with themselves.

They have with Epic who published the Xbox version, the support work (keyword support work) The Coalition did doesn't mean it was MS who published it.

https://www.xbox.com/en-ie/games/store/the-matrix-awakens-an-unreal-engine-5-experience/

Published by: Epic Games

Still, yes, first party games also go thorugh certification. Remember Halo 2 failed certification (several times), even thought it was a first party title.

You also have next gen only games like Deathloop or FS2020 that don't run at 720p20fps so isn't the fact that no game brings it to its knees kind of the point? They are optimised well.

Or publishers have the decency to not publish that and the Series S is strong enough to handle those games? Why must it be a certification thing?
Why isn't there a game about a green elf chooping down trees, maybe MS certification also denies that.

Keep digging that hole mate, this latest post just show how desperate for a gotcha you are.

 

[twilo99]

That can't run PS5 games? That would be a really weird thing to release.

Why not? It would run the same games at lower fidelity settings, just like the series s

 

[fran.fernandez]

Never heard about "MANY" devs, what game they did ?

 

[SportsFan581]

Why not? It would run the same games at lower fidelity settings, just like the series s

A PS5 Lite. Would probably sell like gang busters and put them over 200m.

Seems like it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do after the fact, unless they are going to go through and try to patch everything released so far.

 

[01011001]

Why not? It would run the same games at lower fidelity settings, just like the series s

then you go tell every developer out there that already made a PS5 game to now issue a patch to support that new console...

that would be a shitshow at first, and a bad launch can tank a spice of hardware forever.

 

[RoadHazard]

Why not? It would run the same games at lower fidelity settings, just like the series s

PS5 games don't have lower fidelity modes. So, like I said, every single game would need to be updated to work on a downgraded PS5.

 

[THE DUCK]

It's actually more than 2x better.

You haven't named any games in each respective genre that my two examples aren't 2+X better than.
Instead you tried(we aren't changing the convo) mentioning other games in other genre's instead of giving examples.

Remember you claimed...

"Rift apart is great, and I love the game, but sorry it wasn't a quantum leap in graphics"

"Demon Souls? Absolutely not"

So put up or go back under the bridge.

Your the only person one this entire board that thinks Demon Souls or Ratchet and clank look 2x better than other current gen AAA games.
I like how you cut out particular parts of what I said to suit your narrative instead of the whole statement.
I can see why other people just give up when responding to you, you never answer anything, you change the narrative of what is being said, then when challenged you double down on the ridiculous.
Like conversing with a brick wall, completely pointless. Calling someone a troll over and over because you don't agree with what they say is ridiculous and immature.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Your the only person one this entire board that thinks Demon Souls or Ratchet and clank look 2x better than other current gen AAA games.
I like how you cut out particular parts of what I said to suit your narrative instead of the whole statement.
I can see why other people just give up when responding to you, you never answer anything, you change the narrative of what is being said, then when challenged you double down on the ridiculous.
Like conversing with a brick wall, completely pointless. Calling someone a troll over and over because you don't agree with what they say is ridiculous and immature.

Again you still can't answer the simple questions.

So I will make you look sillier than you already have in this thread by giving some examples that show you are wrong.

Compare Dark Souls 3(mod free PC) to Demon's Souls

Compare Rachet and Clank to Rachet and Clank Rift Apart

We get 2+X | generation differences with these relevant examples.

 

[Kataploom]

then you go tell every developer out there that already made a PS5 game to now issue a patch to support that new console...

that would be a shitshow at first, and a bad launch can tank a spice of hardware forever.

Or they could run the PS4 profile as default and let PS5 exclusives dev decide if they want to take advantage of that user base... New games will have to comply to this new time though

 

[twilo99]

PS5 games don't have lower fidelity modes. So, like I said, every single game would need to be updated to work on a downgraded PS5.

Easy patch. Just look at PC games

 

[THE DUCK]

Again you still can't answer the simple questions.

So I will make you look sillier than you already have in this thread by giving some examples that show you are wrong.

Compare Dark Souls 3(mod free PC) to Demon's Souls

Compare Rachet and Clank to Rachet and Clank Rift Apart

We get 2+X | generation differences with these relevant examples.

Except you once again ignored what I said completely. I stated these games didn't look 2x better than current gen games, and very small selection of last gen. Please show me where I compared ratchet to a rift apart?
You do understand what current gen games means, right? The whole point of the original arguement was that these games even when created just for ps5, aren't twice as good graphically than the cross platform games.
For the last time, in this generation. Read it 3 times if you need to.

 

[twilo99]

then you go tell every developer out there that already made a PS5 game to now issue a patch to support that new console...

that would be a shitshow at first, and a bad launch can tank a spice of hardware forever.

Right, they won't be happy but they'll still do it…

I just doubt Sony isn't going to capitalize on what seems to be a nice chunk of the market in terms of price point, but especially after seeing how the series s is doing.

 

[RoadHazard]

Easy patch. Just look at PC games

It's not like PC games, console gamers expect a solid experience out of the box, which requires careful optimization for that specific hardware. And this would have to be done for EVERY SINGLE GAME, preferably before this imaginary console is launched. A gimped PS5 that can only run 5% of the game library would fail hard.

It's not "easy", and it's not gonna happen.

 

[RoadHazard]

Right, they won't be happy but they'll still do it…

I just doubt Sony isn't going to capitalize on what seems to be a nice chunk of the market in terms of price point, but especially after seeing how the series s is doing.

The PS5 is doing much better than the Series S, which has been freely available in most places for a long time. So what are they missing out on exactly? They can't keep the current PS5 in stock.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Except you once again ignored what I said completely. I stated these games didn't look 2x better than current gen games, and very small selection of last gen. Please show me where I compared ratchet to a rift apart?
You do understand what current gen games means, right? The whole point of the original arguement was that these games even when created just for ps5, aren't twice as good graphically than the cross platform games.
For the last time, in this generation. Read it 3 times if you need to.

You can't compare different genres.
I heard you but we aren't going off the rails.
When doing comparisons they must be proper and my examples were a good example.

We have less than a handful of current gen games and none that can be compared.

 

[Three]

It is, stop talking about what you don't know, Yes, early access also goes through certification. No, a waiver doesn't mean it didn't pass certification it means that the first party still gave the OK. So if that happened once, why would it happen again?

You are not going to get an uncertified build of a game printed on a disc.

Hell, but let's play you stupid game, let's say "Tomb Raider 4 Lara's return again" does get a waiver and it's released on the MS store with a 720p20 game after the first level on Xbox Series X. They send a couple of youtube videos and an excel sheet with key information.
What happened to your 720p20 don't get certified? Does this make sense to you, Is MS going to unprint the discs after they were shipped?
They didn't unpublish Cyberpunk, are they going to unpublish this hypotetical game from the MS store?

Why do devs keep talking all the time about sending builds and patches for certification? Why do, sometimes, updates release on PC because the console version update is "pending certification"? Even for early access games like Rust?

Jesus, this is how I know you don't know shit. a waiver doesn't mean do what you want and there is no certification. It means we have seen this issue but you pledge to fix it with a patch. So when you talk about Lichdom Battlemage being completely fixed or early access that is relevant to passing cert. It isn't "you printed the disc so we were A-OK"

If you want to know more about certification read Rami's twitter thread on it, it even outlines the constant back and forth.
Also touches on how unimportant performance and resolution metrics are.

Go read them yourself. So what was that about they thoroughly play the full thing and check for fps dips? They dont. They do have key information of targets and modes though.

Let me ask you, did the Xbox One versions match the performance and resolution of the PS4 version? Does the XSX match the performance/resolution, or hell, even modes as the PS5 all the time? Elden Ring wasn't certified?

What are we talking about here CP2077? Subject to hardware limitations you must make a good performing game but clearly you don't see how making a completely poorly unoptimised version on Series S and a good one on XSX or PS5 could pose a problem for cert.

Cool, now to the best part, you are cutting stuff here to prove your point, if you paste the full quote you get the examples MS is refering to:

"Software Title feature updates post-Commercial Release. Subject to hardware limitations and announce/availability of development tools, at any time after Commercial Release, with respect to any hardware feature updates made to a Software Title (e.g., HDR, spatial audio) that are available for Competitive Platform versions, Publisher will (1) in its implementation of such features, optimize the performance and technical capability of Xbox Console versions in parity with the Competitive Platform version; and (2) make the same hardware feature updates commercially available for the Xbox Console versions either before or simultaneously with the Competitive Platform version(s). As used in this Section 9.3, "simultaneously" means within [***] of the availability of such hardware feature on a Competitive Platform."

Oh look, they mentioned the examples and weren't refering to resolution/performance, they are talking about matching feature set, how funny. Note the "Subject to hardware limitations" which immediately makes your point moot.

What the hell do you think "optimise the performance of... the xbox consoles" means then? This only proves that the term performance is much more than just fps you were suggesting. It means if they do a patch to add anything they must 'optimise performance' for anything.

After that:

Cross Generation Licenses. [***] Cross generation licenses must (1) grant End Users rights to both an Xbox One version and an Xbox Series version of the Software Title, and (2) include features and/or performance that differentiates the Xbox Series version of the Software Title from the Xbox One version, as described in the Publisher Guide.



Performance and/or features.
Performance OR features.
Or features.

Improved IQ is a feature, no one refers to resolution as performance mate, this is insane.

Don't be daft. Oh do you have that feature? What feature? You know, 2560x1188. Absolutely nobody refers to resolution as a feature and this take is laughable. Resolution and framerate are considered the games performance. If my game is 1080p at 30fps it is performing similarly to a 720p60fps game.

If it's a feature does that mean the clause before WAS actually referring to resolution being optimised? After all you said "they are talking about matching feature set".
You're contradicting yourself.

Hell FIFA 23 is 1080p60 on both One S and Series S, I guess that didn't pass certification, right?

"HYPERMOTION2 TECHNOLOGY ONLY AVAILABLE ON PLAYSTATION 5, XBOX SERIES X|S, PC, AND STADIA VERSIONS"

That's because it actually has an actual feature not on old gen versions silly.

Besides, I didn't say that I said that you have no proof that certification would have harsher performance and resolution metrics over a current gen game on the Series S over a last gen game on One S, not a cross gen game, a current gen game.

You gave me examples of crossgen games. When I said you are looking at games being run on xbox one at 17fps1080p you said it doesn't matter. If everything is crossgen then a 720p20fps game on series S would be considered poorly optimised compared to 17fps1080p on an xbox one. I gave an example of what I would consider poor performance on a series s but you gave me xbox one games running on an xbox one. Now we have back and forth nonsense trying to tell me I said there was a cutoff.

you can't give me an example of what I consider a currently poor performing game on a Series S.

I didn't? What metric cutoff did I say?
I said it's lower than that, because we have games approved with that. It could be 10fps, it could be 10spf, who knows. At some I imagine performance is so bad, that they would reject it. Don't you agree?

They just make a sound judgment case by case. If they feel that they can do better than 720p20fps because the game runs better elsewhere taking hardware limitations into account they can ask for it. You can't release an unoptimised mess is the point you keep trying to sidestep to concentrate on values in a gotcha. With the games out in the wild right now I would consider 720p20fps on the Series S poor performance and I'm sure MS would too. There is no cutoff, me asking for examples doesn't mean a cutoff either. Xbox one games on an xbox one are not proof of anything though.

Why would I argue an arbritary cutoff point like you? Oh wait you are not arguing that, even though you have 3 different posts at the start with them. how funny.

Why do you keep trying to gaslight me trying to tell me what I've been trying to say?

The part you quoted wasn't talking about Matrix, it was talking about the Xbox One examples. It was in response to you saying "Those games ran at higher res and stable fps on a Series S.". As far as I know, Matrix isn't on One.

What the hell are you talking about? Obviously it isn't on One.

They have with Epic who published the Xbox version, the support work (keyword support work) The Coalition did doesn't mean it was MS who published it.

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL][URL][UR...matrix-awakens-an-unreal-engine-5-experience/

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
Published by: Epic Games

Oh hey we optimised this but lets fail it for poor optimisation. Brilliant. They optimised it to what they would deem acceptable themselves.

Still, yes, first party games also go thorugh certification. Remember Halo 2 failed certification (several times), even thought it was a first party title.

Nobody is saying there isn't certification for first party games it's part of QA after all but obviously there isn't a contract with yourself. You aren't going to legally oblige yourself to redo something if you yourself find it acceptable.

Or publishers have the decency to not publish that and the Series S is strong enough to handle those games? Why must it be a certification thing?
Why isn't there a game about a green elf chooping down trees, maybe MS certification also denies that.

The point at the beginning of all this was somebody suggesting that if the dev doesn't want to develop for Series S they can just release a 720p20fps version for that system and say fuck optimisation.
The point I was trying to make is they can't. If the publisher or dev decides to do that, MS legally can and likely will ask you to optimise it. This extends to after release too if they see their hardware has been given the short end of the stick because titles must remain in compliance with all certification requirements in the publisher guide on a continuing and ongoing basis.

Keep digging that hole mate, this latest post just show how desperate for a gotcha you are.

That's you mate. You're still hung up on numbers even when I've clarified that 720p20fps was just an example of what I would consider poor performance on any known game of which you gave me zero examples.

 

[Banjo64]

All the handwringing about smaller studios possibly struggling with next gen only games and yet DF has an article up about A Plague's Tale Requiem - an impressive next gen only game - that was scaled down nicely and runs well on the Series S.

These are hard data points.

And that's not the only one, there's plenty of stunning games on the Series S, and plenty that run at 120fps.