@
mark5916:
I'm just going to reply to your post point by point. Hope you don't mind.
I honestly don't think "Any normal person would expect 60 fps." Most people (that I've known) who buy consoles don't think too long and hard about res, framerate, etc. They just want a nice-looking game that plays decently. Hobby-ists (like us) tend to desire smoother framerates and higher res, better AA solutions, etc. Like I said before, 60fps is the exception on consoles, not the norm. Most people seem to be fine with that. It's how it's always been. Not that I would mind if they included a 60fps option, but I'm perfectly fine with 30fps. Otherwise I'd still own a gaming PC. Devs just tend to go for 30fps on consoles in order to maximize the game's prettiness. It was the case for PS3 and PS4, it'll be the same for Scorpio and PS5.
The Witcher had its share of framerate issues in Velen's foggy marsh areas, but most of that's been taken care through their rigorous patching process. I'm grateful to CDPR for putting so much time and effort into that.
Fallout 4 is a Bethesda game. All Bethesda open world RPGs have had a wealth of issues on consoles, from framerate to glitches to outright game crashing bugs. Remember the mess that Skyrim was on PS3? It got to the point where they were debating the possibility of cancelling/delaying DLC for that version. It's a developer problem, it's not the console's fault (although the Cell architecture was notoriously difficult to code for). Simply put, Bethesda's engine sucks. They should either have toned down the graphics (which aren't that impressive to begin with), or spent a longer dev cycle on the game. That said, Bethesda's games are huge, and they can't test every single possibility. QA costs would be through the roof. I personally don't like their games very much, so I generally just shake my head at the fact they haven't switched to a better engine, and leave it at that.
Personally, I'm not the slightest bit interested in mods. It's really cool for people that love them, but again, it's a very typical advantage and selling point for PC gamers. My answer is simple: if you want mods, you'd be better off gaming on a PC. It's an open platform, and it scales better. Consoles are closed systems. They're not intended to support mods. It's awesome that Xbox One included it, but it's a feeble attempt compared to the variety and possibilities you get on PC.
PS4 Pro is not a reactionary move. They planned it way in advance, and they'd probably have done more to counter Microsoft's Scorpio specs had their hardware configuration not been locked down already. There was an AMD conference call about it. There's tons of reports about it on the net. Their major advantage this time is that they're coming out a year ahead of Microsoft, sadly with about a third less power than Scorpio. Either way, designing a console and balancing its hardware for power consumption, heat, capability and (in this case) compatibility with existing games takes YEARS. Heck, I might even get Scorpio when it comes out, assuming that PS5's not launching a year after or something. I'm really impressed with Microsoft's drive to catch up and take the lead again. I just hope they're able to keep it all going. They have Play Anywhere, Early Access, multiple console SKUs, back compat... That'd better be part of a sound strategy.
I won't dispute that the PS4 could have been a lot more powerful. I'm all for powerful hardware. But it has to be affordable, it has to support a wealth of features, and it has to be easy to develop for. I'm happy with the limited leap in power that PS4 Pro represents, happy enough to get the console on launch. Devs will decide what to do with its 4.2 TF. Games will look great either way. But the highest framerate will not be a primary concern, as usual. Look at Wolfenstein: The New Order. Game looked quite okay, but it had some low res textures and flat lighting overall. It was a crossgen game, built on idTech 5. However, it ran at a solid 1080p60 fps. And yes, the new DOOM does too, but that game's also a fairly linear shooter.
It all depends on what you want to do with your game, how you're developing it. Sandbox games that continuously stream in huge worlds will NOT run at the highest res while maintaining 60fps on a console. Not if you're looking to maintain impressive visual fidelity in textures, lighting, AA, etc. There's a limited power pool. Allocate its available resources according to your vision, and optimize as you see fit. That's the basic philosophy of game development. Personally, I thought The Witcher 3 ran beautifully on PS4, given the richness and vastness of its open world, not to mention the gorgeous graphics.
Lastly, don't forget that this half-step iteration is fairly uncommon in the console space. Last time they tried to upgrade existing hardware mid-cycle, we're talking rumble packs, memory packs, and of course, the timeless classic... stacks upon stacks of SEGA hardware (32x and whatnot). Sony are trying to bring better graphics to the table while avoiding splitting the userbase AND maintaining compatibility between the systems. This stuff is hard.
You're mentioning all these generalizations: "Everyone wanted a Full HD gaming experience, without any compromises on performance." I get the underlying thought, but this is still a console, not the be all and end all of gaming. Most people I know don't care how many frames they're getting. They like the games they're playing. When the framerate starts to dip into AC Unity levels, THEN they'll have something to say. But as far as I know, most people who bought Sony's console are perfectly happy with what they got. I'm going to reiterate this: if you want 1080 60fps, the PC's still your best bet. The PS4 Pro is, first and foremost, aimed at 4KTV owners.
And there's already quite a few affordable 4K TVs out there. You can get a decent size, quality 4KTV for 600-700 euros nowadays. I admit that I was originally a bit baffled by how fast they were bringing this thing out, as most people are probably still gaming on a 1080p TV. But going forward, 4K sets are going to be the majority of TVs offered and sold. So in that sense it's good that they're anticipating, and good that they're not holding PC gamers back, I guess. They want to keep up. They want to improve graphical fidelity, within the same console gen. But they have to be able to sell their system at a decent price. In 2016, that means an upclocked CPU and 4.2 TF.
It all sounds pretty cool to me.
I'm looking forward to better graphics within the same console ecosystem, and I'm perfectly okay with the lack of mods and a decent 30fps.
But I DO want a Pro patch for The Witcher 3. I'll welcome just about ANY graphical upgrade for that game. :yes
