Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
Really wish they covered the performance of hybrid drives in that video. I'm curious if the SSDs are hitting a hard bottleneck and hybrid drives would give you close the same performance with a much lower price.
Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I'm just going to buy a One from work tomorrow morning. Finally changed the pricing to match all other retailers so its a viable option now. No games sadly so I'll just have a nifty UI to futz around in for the month. And also Xbox live. Christ, expensive business, this gaming lark!
Well, if you're going to pay for the XBL service you can grab Murdered: Soul Suspect and Far Cry: Blood Dragon for free.
It's a start! :P
I couldn't get the console. I swear the fates are conspiring against me. OUr store does not sell the Solus One. We only have bundles and they ain't worth it. Ah well, money saved and backlog not affected.
Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
*video snip*
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I'm a bit confused. Since the tests are specifically about comparing the SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface connection and whether it makes much of a difference, I'm not quite sure what your umbrage is about it. More than that, though, I thought most of the PS4 Pro "enhancements" for games was supposed to be primarily on the graphics side of things (meaning that loading times and other such QoL improvements weren't on the table in the first place).
However, from what I've been able to take a quickly find, it sounds like DF did cock up one aspect of their tests: they've only looked at initial load-in times and have completely ignored any mid-game loading. From a couple of sites, it sounds like initial load times stay pretty abysmal regardless of PS4 Old-busted or PS4 Pro, but mid-game loads are pretty snappy on the move to SSD into the Pro.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
Options
LutExIVThieves Guild ChairmanIn the ShadowsRegistered Userregular
I was on the fence about swapping in my 2TB HDD from my PSOld into the Pro as opposed to picking up a SSD. I guess since the speed gain is pretty minimal the extra space will be worth it.
Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
*video snip*
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I'm a bit confused. Since the tests are specifically about comparing the SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface connection and whether it makes much of a difference, I'm not quite sure what your umbrage is about it. More than that, though, I thought most of the PS4 Pro "enhancements" for games was supposed to be primarily on the graphics side of things (meaning that loading times and other such QoL improvements weren't on the table in the first place).
However, from what I've been able to take a quickly find, it sounds like DF did cock up one aspect of their tests: they've only looked at initial load-in times and have completely ignored any mid-game loading. From a couple of sites, it sounds like initial load times stay pretty abysmal regardless of PS4 Old-busted or PS4 Pro, but mid-game loads are pretty snappy on the move to SSD into the Pro.
No, the tests are specifically about whether the SATA 3 interface makes a difference to base PS4 games. The Pro has been designed to run base PS4 games as if it's a base PS4, which means they don't take advantage of its 30% upclock, extra RAM or more powerful GPU. So why would they take advantage of the SATA 3 interface?
Not to say the improvements to Pro games would be huge, I just think Digital Foundry's testing method was shoddy.
Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
*video snip*
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I'm a bit confused. Since the tests are specifically about comparing the SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface connection and whether it makes much of a difference, I'm not quite sure what your umbrage is about it. More than that, though, I thought most of the PS4 Pro "enhancements" for games was supposed to be primarily on the graphics side of things (meaning that loading times and other such QoL improvements weren't on the table in the first place).
However, from what I've been able to take a quickly find, it sounds like DF did cock up one aspect of their tests: they've only looked at initial load-in times and have completely ignored any mid-game loading. From a couple of sites, it sounds like initial load times stay pretty abysmal regardless of PS4 Old-busted or PS4 Pro, but mid-game loads are pretty snappy on the move to SSD into the Pro.
No, the tests are specifically about whether the SATA 3 interface makes a difference to base PS4 games. The Pro has been designed to run base PS4 games as if it's a base PS4, which means they don't take advantage of its 30% upclock, extra RAM or more powerful GPU. So why would they take advantage of the SATA 3 interface?
Not to say the improvements to Pro games would be huge, I just think Digital Foundry's testing method was shoddy.
Well...I find the bolded part a bit weird since there are no "Designed for Pro" games (as per Sony's decree). I thought Fallout 4 got a PS4 Pro patch that enabled the enhanced features...or has that not come out yet?
But yes...I will agree that DF's testing method leaves a bit to be desired.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
So if I don't have a 4k tv and I'm looking to replace a burnt out OG PS4, the Slim seems to be the way to go, right?
I don't anticipate upgrading my television anytime soon, or getting into VR at all since I've got to keep one eye on the rugrat at all times.
Yea. It seems that the promised graphical 1080p shineys for the Pro aren't showing up yet. I'm sorta questionable on whether it will ever be worth it for non-Sony devs to spend time on doing that stuff so I'm not sure the Pro makes any kind of sense for you right now.
Having just gotten a refund on Steam for Dishonored 2, I can tell you that even on PC the load times were not great. I have a pure SSD system.
SSD's are pricey, but I figure if I'm going to use this Pro for another three or so years, sticking a 1TB SSD in here might not be the worst idea ever. Waiting on a couple more tests to be done to make sure the SATA 3.0 interface doesn't have an arbitrary bandwidth limit on it like the SATA 2.0 one in the original PS4 did.
Just wanted to revisit the SSD and SATA 3.0 interface thing: DigitalFoundry put out a video talking about exactly this and they came up with some.......interesting conclusions.
*video snip*
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I'm a bit confused. Since the tests are specifically about comparing the SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface connection and whether it makes much of a difference, I'm not quite sure what your umbrage is about it. More than that, though, I thought most of the PS4 Pro "enhancements" for games was supposed to be primarily on the graphics side of things (meaning that loading times and other such QoL improvements weren't on the table in the first place).
However, from what I've been able to take a quickly find, it sounds like DF did cock up one aspect of their tests: they've only looked at initial load-in times and have completely ignored any mid-game loading. From a couple of sites, it sounds like initial load times stay pretty abysmal regardless of PS4 Old-busted or PS4 Pro, but mid-game loads are pretty snappy on the move to SSD into the Pro.
No, the tests are specifically about whether the SATA 3 interface makes a difference to base PS4 games. The Pro has been designed to run base PS4 games as if it's a base PS4, which means they don't take advantage of its 30% upclock, extra RAM or more powerful GPU. So why would they take advantage of the SATA 3 interface?
Not to say the improvements to Pro games would be huge, I just think Digital Foundry's testing method was shoddy.
Well...I find the bolded part a bit weird since there are no "Designed for Pro" games (as per Sony's decree). I thought Fallout 4 got a PS4 Pro patch that enabled the enhanced features...or has that not come out yet?
But yes...I will agree that DF's testing method leaves a bit to be desired.
There are no Pro exclusives but there are base games (games with no Pro mode) and base/Pro games (games with a Pro mode). Base games run on the Pro exactly how they ran on the standard/slim PS4, not making any use of the new resources. Base/Pro games run in Pro mode on the Pro, so they make use of the new resources.
And nope, Fallout 4 hasn't been patched yet, that's meant to be part of the next patch.
Turns out it actually performs better overall than the base PS4 version, it just dips down in a couple of places the base didn't (the sandstorm in the first mission for example, which I guess was the only thing they tested initially, giving them the impression it ran worse overall). On top of that, there's better image quality, better reflections, no screen tearing and it features a dynamic resolution that moves between checkerboarded 4K and checkerboarded 1800p. Doesn't seem like such a bad version now, given that performance isn't perfect on any system and it seems like we're stuck with the awful sharpening filter.
Oh and Watch Dogs 2 was patched to fix the small Pro framerate issues. DF haven't had a look at it yet but every seems to be saying it's much improved.
Digital Foundry took a longer look at Deus Ex: Mankind Divided on the Pro:
*snip*
Turns out it actually performs better overall than the base PS4 version, it just dips down in a couple of places the base didn't (the sandstorm in the first mission for example, which I guess was the only thing they tested initially, giving them the impression it ran worse overall). On top of that, there's better image quality, better reflections, no screen tearing and it features a dynamic resolution that moves between checkerboarded 4K and checkerboarded 1800p. Doesn't seem like such a bad version now, given that performance isn't perfect on any system and it seems like we're stuck with the awful sharpening filter.
Oh and Watch Dogs 2 was patched to fix the small Pro framerate issues. DF haven't had a look at it yet but every seems to be saying it's much improved.
They also did an apples-to-apples comparison with Batman: Arkham City (from the Return to Arkham pack). Apparently, while they didn't make a patch enabling Pro-features...they made Arkham City have Pro-features enabled.
From what I understand, the hardware choices Sony made for the Pro essentially mean it's going to bad at delivering improvements for the 1080p crowd. The CPU is too much of a bottleneck to get the frame rate for the majority of games close to a steady 60. On the other hand the substantial upgrade to the GPU makes it so devs can take a game running at a steady 30 and with a little work get it running at a steady 30 at a higher resolution.
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
Who own a 4K TV
Who care about higher resolution gaming
Who don't care about higher resolution blu-rays
Seems like a weird choice.
This I'm still perplexed about, especially since in all likelihood the exclusion probably saved them about $15 or a little less per unit. In the largest market for the console, 4K streaming is pretty terrible thanks to bandwidth caps and bad service. Is it really that important to force your customers into the streaming system? I guess it is, considering Sony's in the consortium that adopted UHD BR in the first place.
Of course, for all I know selling a PSFro UHD for an additional $50 or whatever would've been an nightmare. What would you call it? Playstation 4 Pro: Dad Edition?
Then again, if the $15 price cuts into profit margins, it's going to offset by people not buying it because of lack of UHD BR support.
I kind of feel like Microsoft has the opportunity to essentially take the market away from Sony next year due to a few bad choices. For previous PS4 owners that Pro is not worth the upgrade price. For new users, yeah it may be worth it if you have a 4k TV. Microsoft has a chance to make a product that is different enough to justify a purchase and if they make the right choices they could make the system valuable to 1080p gamers as well.
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
FF15 seems to be the first game doing what I've been asking for: They are giving the user a choice, 1080p/60, or 4k/30. Thank you Square. It gives both 1080p users and 4k users something to be happy about. It even allows 4K TV users to opt to prioritize frame rate if that's something they'd rather do.
I'm hoping that the spotty support we've seen for the Pro so far is a symptom of developers having to rush support in to already released, or very soon to release games, and that FF15 is a model for what new games will do with the extra power.
Then again, if the $15 price cuts into profit margins, it's going to offset by people not buying it because of lack of UHD BR support.
I kind of feel like Microsoft has the opportunity to essentially take the market away from Sony next year due to a few bad choices. For previous PS4 owners that Pro is not worth the upgrade price. For new users, yeah it may be worth it if you have a 4k TV. Microsoft has a chance to make a product that is different enough to justify a purchase and if they make the right choices they could make the system valuable to 1080p gamers as well.
I wonder about that--it wouldn't be surprising if I completely overestimated the a video game console as UHD player. As a medium, UHD is actually in a substantially better place than the original BR was at the same point though.
Though this is an ironic twist on the original forecasted scenario--"Who's going to buy an XB1S when 'Scorpio' is just around the corner? Microsoft's killed that SKU." I actually would like to see how new PS4 and PSFro numbers compare, especially since I feel like there's been very little fanfare for the new base model, but it's probably way too early to get any sense of where the PSFro's going barely a few weeks in.
Is there any chance of Sony coming out with a Pro that has a UHD player is the near future? Also is it really playing non-4K supported games worse?
I already have a X1 and don't really want to spend money upgrading to the S while still not having a way to play any Sony exclusives, but at the same time I just bought a 4K TV and would really like to take advantage of its new capabilities. Unfortunately a console that can do that, but won't allow me to watch UHD movies and is worse with 1080p games (why is that? Is it just because the system is trying to upscale the games?) doesn't seem like the solution I'm looking for.
Is there any chance of Sony coming out with a Pro that has a UHD player is the near future? Also is it really playing non-4K supported games worse?
I already have a X1 and don't really want to spend money upgrading to the S while still not having a way to play any Sony exclusives, but at the same time I just bought a 4K TV and would really like to take advantage of its new capabilities. Unfortunately a console that can do that, but won't allow me to watch UHD movies and is worse with 1080p games (why is that? Is it just because the system is trying to upscale the games?) doesn't seem like the solution I'm looking for.
Playing non-Pro patched games is exactly the same as on the base PS4. The extra hardware isn't touched.
There's a small handful of games that are worse because of really shit Pro patches that screw up things like Depth of Field (the World of Final Fantasy patch for example), or have framerate drops (more common). There's 6 games currently with these software issues: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Hitman, Skyrim Special Edition, The Last of Us Remastered (frame drops in 60fps mode, 4k 30fps runs perfectly), Watch Dogs 2, & World of Final Fantasy (delete the Pro patch and everything looks better).
Some games, like Mantis Burn Racing, had issues but got a patch fixing them.
Meanwhile, some games like Battlefield 1 are utterly stunning and perfect on the Pro.
I hope they both completely fucking tank and Sony and Microsoft realize what a dumb idea this is. Consoles are not smart phones and treating them the same is just a bad idea.
I hope they both completely fucking tank and Sony and Microsoft realize what a dumb idea this is. Consoles are not smart phones and treating them the same is just a bad idea.
FF15 seems to be the first game doing what I've been asking for: They are giving the user a choice, 1080p/60, or 4k/30. Thank you Square. It gives both 1080p users and 4k users something to be happy about. It even allows 4K TV users to opt to prioritize frame rate if that's something they'd rather do.
I'm hoping that the spotty support we've seen for the Pro so far is a symptom of developers having to rush support in to already released, or very soon to release games, and that FF15 is a model for what new games will do with the extra power.
Technically, Rise of the Tomb Raider did it first.
Seeing the Digital Foundry videos of Dishonored 2 and Hitman on Pro versus their PS4 and One counterparts is getting me more excited again about the prospects. It's a shame Pro had such a shaky launch but I suppose this thing did kinda come out of nowhere with games that weren't really designed with it in mind
Hell, with Dishonored 2 in particular, that looks like the only way I'd even bother playing that game on consoles (if it weren't a Dishonored game, I mean). Seems to be running at a pretty consistent 30 most of the time while the other versions slack off a bit
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
FF15 seems to be the first game doing what I've been asking for: They are giving the user a choice, 1080p/60, or 4k/30. Thank you Square. It gives both 1080p users and 4k users something to be happy about. It even allows 4K TV users to opt to prioritize frame rate if that's something they'd rather do.
I'm hoping that the spotty support we've seen for the Pro so far is a symptom of developers having to rush support in to already released, or very soon to release games, and that FF15 is a model for what new games will do with the extra power.
Technically, Rise of the Tomb Raider did it first.
Sweet, that's good to know. I may buy it now just to support that model. That's how important it is to me. Even though I really have no desire to play Tomb Raider.
Just bought a Pro. Still feels kinda shit to give up the free pack-in games that are exactly the ones I did want just to be hopefully future proof. I'm sure regret is exactly the feeling Sony wants from their new customers. : (
Hopefully I'll get hype again once the thing actually shows up.
I'm looking at Scorpio as the next console of a short generation, with the added benefit of not immediately booting the last generation to the curb. We'll see how it is in practice though.
+2
Options
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
I hope they both completely fucking tank and Sony and Microsoft realize what a dumb idea this is. Consoles are not smart phones and treating them the same is just a bad idea.
The thing that would kill me is buying the Pro, and a fully backwards compatible PS5 coming out in say, Fall 2018.
depends on how the scorpio does. microsoft is actually taking a relatively large step forward where the pro is this weird, kinda misguided quarter step thing.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I mean from a purely hardware point of view it's way more than a quarter step. The problem is how they use the hardware. MS seems much more open to just letting old games auto-magically take advantage of the new hardware, to stabilize frame caps and such. Sony took a much more conservative approach.
Looking purely at the numbers the Pro is a fine step forward. So far the usage of that extra hardware has left a lot to be desired.
I mean from a purely hardware point of view it's way more than a quarter step. The problem is how they use the hardware. MS seems much more open to just letting old games auto-magically take advantage of the new hardware, to stabilize frame caps and such. Sony took a much more conservative approach.
Looking purely at the numbers the Pro is a fine step forward. So far the usage of that extra hardware has left a lot to be desired.
My guess is that if Scorpio begins to pants them, a lot of the restrictions might suddenly disappear.
From what I understand, the hardware choices Sony made for the Pro essentially mean it's going to bad at delivering improvements for the 1080p crowd. The CPU is too much of a bottleneck to get the frame rate for the majority of games close to a steady 60. On the other hand the substantial upgrade to the GPU makes it so devs can take a game running at a steady 30 and with a little work get it running at a steady 30 at a higher resolution.
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
Who own a 4K TV
Who care about higher resolution gaming
Who don't care about higher resolution blu-rays
Seems like a weird choice.
SMH, I get that it's easier to read negative information and the improvements aren't as noticeable as a full generational leap but it sure would be nice if people stopped spreading misinformation.
The Pro is the equivalent of a GPU upgrade and an overclock. What developers chose to do with that is entirely up to them and how their game works. Coming up with a blanket statement like "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p" is complete nonsense, as anyone who has upgraded their PC GPU should be able to attest. It also means you haven't been paying attention. We already HAVE games that have significantly better framerates on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex MD), we already HAVE games with better graphics on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman and Rise of the Tomb Raider) and we already HAVE a lot of games that have enormously improved anti-aliasing. These are all noticeable at 1080p and that's only the launch window, like with any launch, it's going to take time for developers to get used to the new hardware.
And the idea that Scorpio's going to be this big new gen hardware is laughable. Both companies are using the exact same tech, one's just coming out a year before the other. And they're both reliant on developers not fucking up their support.
Is there any chance of Sony coming out with a Pro that has a UHD player is the near future? Also is it really playing non-4K supported games worse?
I already have a X1 and don't really want to spend money upgrading to the S while still not having a way to play any Sony exclusives, but at the same time I just bought a 4K TV and would really like to take advantage of its new capabilities. Unfortunately a console that can do that, but won't allow me to watch UHD movies and is worse with 1080p games (why is that? Is it just because the system is trying to upscale the games?) doesn't seem like the solution I'm looking for.
Playing non-Pro patched games is exactly the same as on the base PS4. The extra hardware isn't touched.
There's a small handful of games that are worse because of really shit Pro patches that screw up things like Depth of Field (the World of Final Fantasy patch for example), or have framerate drops (more common). There's 6 games currently with these software issues: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Hitman, Skyrim Special Edition, The Last of Us Remastered (frame drops in 60fps mode, 4k 30fps runs perfectly), Watch Dogs 2, & World of Final Fantasy (delete the Pro patch and everything looks better).
Some games, like Mantis Burn Racing, had issues but got a patch fixing them.
Meanwhile, some games like Battlefield 1 are utterly stunning and perfect on the Pro.
Hitman was an urban myth. Digital Foundry just had a look at it and say it's improved in every way. Better resolution, better framerate, sharper textures, faster loading and so on.
I already talked about Deus Ex MD on the last page. It ran worse than the base PS4 version in a few areas but averaged a better framerate overall. That said, they patched those issues the day after I posted anyway, so that's fixed.
Skyrim and Watch Dogs 2 have been patched.
Right now I believe the only games with issues are World of Final Fantasy (which Square Enix finally acknowledged and is apparently fixing), The Last of Us Remastered and CoD Black Ops 3 (which flew under the radar but was just tested by DF yesterday).
Honestly, Sony should probably get on the Pro's narrative, because it's kind of starting to set in. The general vibe I'm getting, and one I can personally echo, is that if you have a 1080p TV and will so for the foreseeable future, then the Pro does "fuck all nothing" for you right now. Out of the few games with Pro patches, I don't notice a damn thing. They already looked and ran beautifully, I honestly cannot tell you what 5% jump they've taken. If you have a 4k TV? "Eehhh I guess it's slightly better?". But worse still is that the narrative of "games run worse" is spreading. Made worse by the fact that it was true, and there's videos showing that off. Yes it's fixed now, but people aren't interested in updated fact checking once they've heard something, and it's going to take a lot more than somebody on a message board to spread that word.
The biggest upgrade though, that fancy HDR stuff? It almost feels like one of the biggest grifts of the ages. Now I have no doubt at all that it probably looks freakin' amazing and makes games gorgeous. "This really improves the colours and graphics of games. You can't even believe it! We... we can't actually show you though. Y'know, since you're obviously not watching this on an HDR monitor. But uh... totally take our word for it. You need this, and you need to drop serious money on a brand new TV for it."
And in a way, the above also goes for the whole 4k resolution bump. Those Digital Foundry videos, although wonderfully insightful, are also borderline useless. "Look at the improvements gained from the resolution bump". Yeah well, those split screen shots look identical to me. Because I don't have a 4k monitor.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
While there's a chance FF15 will prove me wrong, I have a suspicion that we aren't really going to witness the potential of the Pro until Horizon Zero Dawn drops in February. If that's still just "eh, I guess the Pro yields some sort of benefit", then I would be ready to declare the Pro an egregious mistake. I'm looking to upgrade my TV this holiday season, so I may have reason to purchase a Pro come February, but not until then (at the least).
Posts
Really wish they covered the performance of hybrid drives in that video. I'm curious if the SSDs are hitting a hard bottleneck and hybrid drives would give you close the same performance with a much lower price.
What on earth. Digital Foundry should be seriously embarrassed by that joke of a test. Why would you test three base PS4 games and NO Pro games? At this point, I would assume that like everything else, bandwidth is capped while the Pro is running in base PS4 mode.
I couldn't get the console. I swear the fates are conspiring against me. OUr store does not sell the Solus One. We only have bundles and they ain't worth it. Ah well, money saved and backlog not affected.
I'm a bit confused. Since the tests are specifically about comparing the SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface connection and whether it makes much of a difference, I'm not quite sure what your umbrage is about it. More than that, though, I thought most of the PS4 Pro "enhancements" for games was supposed to be primarily on the graphics side of things (meaning that loading times and other such QoL improvements weren't on the table in the first place).
However, from what I've been able to take a quickly find, it sounds like DF did cock up one aspect of their tests: they've only looked at initial load-in times and have completely ignored any mid-game loading. From a couple of sites, it sounds like initial load times stay pretty abysmal regardless of PS4 Old-busted or PS4 Pro, but mid-game loads are pretty snappy on the move to SSD into the Pro.
Steam/PSN/XBox Live:LutExIV
No, the tests are specifically about whether the SATA 3 interface makes a difference to base PS4 games. The Pro has been designed to run base PS4 games as if it's a base PS4, which means they don't take advantage of its 30% upclock, extra RAM or more powerful GPU. So why would they take advantage of the SATA 3 interface?
Not to say the improvements to Pro games would be huge, I just think Digital Foundry's testing method was shoddy.
Well...I find the bolded part a bit weird since there are no "Designed for Pro" games (as per Sony's decree). I thought Fallout 4 got a PS4 Pro patch that enabled the enhanced features...or has that not come out yet?
But yes...I will agree that DF's testing method leaves a bit to be desired.
Maybe the CPU isn't pulling its weight despite being overclocked?
Can't be sure, I'm really just spitballing when it comes to the Pro tbh
I don't anticipate upgrading my television anytime soon, or getting into VR at all since I've got to keep one eye on the rugrat at all times.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yea. It seems that the promised graphical 1080p shineys for the Pro aren't showing up yet. I'm sorta questionable on whether it will ever be worth it for non-Sony devs to spend time on doing that stuff so I'm not sure the Pro makes any kind of sense for you right now.
There are no Pro exclusives but there are base games (games with no Pro mode) and base/Pro games (games with a Pro mode). Base games run on the Pro exactly how they ran on the standard/slim PS4, not making any use of the new resources. Base/Pro games run in Pro mode on the Pro, so they make use of the new resources.
And nope, Fallout 4 hasn't been patched yet, that's meant to be part of the next patch.
I'd probably go with the pro because it will be more future proof. It's a lot more power for not that much more.
Turns out it actually performs better overall than the base PS4 version, it just dips down in a couple of places the base didn't (the sandstorm in the first mission for example, which I guess was the only thing they tested initially, giving them the impression it ran worse overall). On top of that, there's better image quality, better reflections, no screen tearing and it features a dynamic resolution that moves between checkerboarded 4K and checkerboarded 1800p. Doesn't seem like such a bad version now, given that performance isn't perfect on any system and it seems like we're stuck with the awful sharpening filter.
Oh and Watch Dogs 2 was patched to fix the small Pro framerate issues. DF haven't had a look at it yet but every seems to be saying it's much improved.
Consider it an investment towards the future?
Doubly so if you're interested in PSVR--which, unlike the other two headsets, isn't in desperate need of a complete package upgrade to survive.
They also did an apples-to-apples comparison with Batman: Arkham City (from the Return to Arkham pack). Apparently, while they didn't make a patch enabling Pro-features...they made Arkham City have Pro-features enabled.
So the Venn diagram for people the PS4 Pro is for is the overlap of people
Seems like a weird choice.
This I'm still perplexed about, especially since in all likelihood the exclusion probably saved them about $15 or a little less per unit. In the largest market for the console, 4K streaming is pretty terrible thanks to bandwidth caps and bad service. Is it really that important to force your customers into the streaming system? I guess it is, considering Sony's in the consortium that adopted UHD BR in the first place.
Of course, for all I know selling a PSFro UHD for an additional $50 or whatever would've been an nightmare. What would you call it? Playstation 4 Pro: Dad Edition?
I kind of feel like Microsoft has the opportunity to essentially take the market away from Sony next year due to a few bad choices. For previous PS4 owners that Pro is not worth the upgrade price. For new users, yeah it may be worth it if you have a 4k TV. Microsoft has a chance to make a product that is different enough to justify a purchase and if they make the right choices they could make the system valuable to 1080p gamers as well.
I'm hoping that the spotty support we've seen for the Pro so far is a symptom of developers having to rush support in to already released, or very soon to release games, and that FF15 is a model for what new games will do with the extra power.
I wonder about that--it wouldn't be surprising if I completely overestimated the a video game console as UHD player. As a medium, UHD is actually in a substantially better place than the original BR was at the same point though.
Though this is an ironic twist on the original forecasted scenario--"Who's going to buy an XB1S when 'Scorpio' is just around the corner? Microsoft's killed that SKU." I actually would like to see how new PS4 and PSFro numbers compare, especially since I feel like there's been very little fanfare for the new base model, but it's probably way too early to get any sense of where the PSFro's going barely a few weeks in.
I already have a X1 and don't really want to spend money upgrading to the S while still not having a way to play any Sony exclusives, but at the same time I just bought a 4K TV and would really like to take advantage of its new capabilities. Unfortunately a console that can do that, but won't allow me to watch UHD movies and is worse with 1080p games (why is that? Is it just because the system is trying to upscale the games?) doesn't seem like the solution I'm looking for.
Playing non-Pro patched games is exactly the same as on the base PS4. The extra hardware isn't touched.
There's a small handful of games that are worse because of really shit Pro patches that screw up things like Depth of Field (the World of Final Fantasy patch for example), or have framerate drops (more common). There's 6 games currently with these software issues: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Hitman, Skyrim Special Edition, The Last of Us Remastered (frame drops in 60fps mode, 4k 30fps runs perfectly), Watch Dogs 2, & World of Final Fantasy (delete the Pro patch and everything looks better).
Some games, like Mantis Burn Racing, had issues but got a patch fixing them.
Meanwhile, some games like Battlefield 1 are utterly stunning and perfect on the Pro.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Probably not. Then again, I was one of the people who thought they'd include it in the first place (and that it'd be more than $400).
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-playstation-4-pro-game-upgrade-guide
Hopefully the Scorpio is a little more cohesive.
I hope they both completely fucking tank and Sony and Microsoft realize what a dumb idea this is. Consoles are not smart phones and treating them the same is just a bad idea.
PSN:Furlion
Nah
Technically, Rise of the Tomb Raider did it first.
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
Hell, with Dishonored 2 in particular, that looks like the only way I'd even bother playing that game on consoles (if it weren't a Dishonored game, I mean). Seems to be running at a pretty consistent 30 most of the time while the other versions slack off a bit
Sweet, that's good to know. I may buy it now just to support that model. That's how important it is to me. Even though I really have no desire to play Tomb Raider.
Hopefully I'll get hype again once the thing actually shows up.
The thing that would kill me is buying the Pro, and a fully backwards compatible PS5 coming out in say, Fall 2018.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Looking purely at the numbers the Pro is a fine step forward. So far the usage of that extra hardware has left a lot to be desired.
My guess is that if Scorpio begins to pants them, a lot of the restrictions might suddenly disappear.
SMH, I get that it's easier to read negative information and the improvements aren't as noticeable as a full generational leap but it sure would be nice if people stopped spreading misinformation.
The Pro is the equivalent of a GPU upgrade and an overclock. What developers chose to do with that is entirely up to them and how their game works. Coming up with a blanket statement like "the Pro's going to be bad at delivering improvements at 1080p" is complete nonsense, as anyone who has upgraded their PC GPU should be able to attest. It also means you haven't been paying attention. We already HAVE games that have significantly better framerates on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex MD), we already HAVE games with better graphics on the Pro (like Battlefield 1, Hitman and Rise of the Tomb Raider) and we already HAVE a lot of games that have enormously improved anti-aliasing. These are all noticeable at 1080p and that's only the launch window, like with any launch, it's going to take time for developers to get used to the new hardware.
And the idea that Scorpio's going to be this big new gen hardware is laughable. Both companies are using the exact same tech, one's just coming out a year before the other. And they're both reliant on developers not fucking up their support.
Hitman was an urban myth. Digital Foundry just had a look at it and say it's improved in every way. Better resolution, better framerate, sharper textures, faster loading and so on.
I already talked about Deus Ex MD on the last page. It ran worse than the base PS4 version in a few areas but averaged a better framerate overall. That said, they patched those issues the day after I posted anyway, so that's fixed.
Skyrim and Watch Dogs 2 have been patched.
Right now I believe the only games with issues are World of Final Fantasy (which Square Enix finally acknowledged and is apparently fixing), The Last of Us Remastered and CoD Black Ops 3 (which flew under the radar but was just tested by DF yesterday).
The biggest upgrade though, that fancy HDR stuff? It almost feels like one of the biggest grifts of the ages. Now I have no doubt at all that it probably looks freakin' amazing and makes games gorgeous. "This really improves the colours and graphics of games. You can't even believe it! We... we can't actually show you though. Y'know, since you're obviously not watching this on an HDR monitor. But uh... totally take our word for it. You need this, and you need to drop serious money on a brand new TV for it."
And in a way, the above also goes for the whole 4k resolution bump. Those Digital Foundry videos, although wonderfully insightful, are also borderline useless. "Look at the improvements gained from the resolution bump". Yeah well, those split screen shots look identical to me. Because I don't have a 4k monitor.