@Ralizah Oh I think there is, or would have been, space for a 1080p "next gen" console....but the problem is from the perspective of 1X owners, it's a downgrade model. I disagree about it not being a downgrade. Like I said before, I believe 4K rendering is actually more important than a 4k display - it has a significant improvement on a 1080p display as well via the supersampling. The net effect is basically like getting 4xFSAA versus not. If you rewind to Crysis PC launch and ran it on a PC that could run it at the same res, but with 4xFSAA on, that would be the winner. Well this is two different res, but the "real world result" is basically like running PC @ 1080 w/ FSAA vs no FSAA.
So yeah, XSeS is basically, for 1080p display players, like saying "kinda like your old box but without FSAA enabled." Which is something of a downgrade. Only applies to 1X owners but it still puts it in odd placement.
Now I will say, especially as a monitor-player that's something I notice strongly (the XB thread had a whole thing of me going back and forth with FH4 with performance mode (1080p/60) and graphics mode (4k/30) on a 23" 1080p display. There was no question to me, everything was better, despite the worse framerate in a racing game, at 4k on the 1080 display. The FSAA, the lack of shimmers and jaggies almost entirely was not insignificant for the visuals. 4k rendering does improve 1080p graphics.
That said, I recently bought that 27" 4k/60 HDR10 display. Now, most people play on a TV, and on a TV, I really can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, so I agree with you there, though I still think that 4k RENDERING matters while a 4k DISPLAY does not due to the supersampling. However up close on a monitor, I have to say I'm now a 4k display believer as well. Losing the screen door effect when up close is great! However there's a funny truth to this:
4K rendering matters - no matter if you have a 4k display or not. 4k gets double the pixels, 1080p gets supersampling - the best AA I've seen.
4K displays matter, if you're using a monitor or sitting near a TV.
However, 4k rendering onto a 4k display really doesn't matter that much. Case in point, Splatoon 2 looks better in every way on my 4k display, despite rendering at 1080p/60. I do have an mcable on the Switch so it's doing some filtering and brightness enhancements (like the Darbee Darblet (discontinued) I run on the BD player/streamer) but it's not doing any scaling, the monitor's internal scaler is doing the pixel doubling. That game's art style, as well as W101's lends well to pixel doubling without artifacting.
So a 4k display matters up close even for 1080p content. A 4k renderer matters even on a 1080p display. But 1080p content looks better on a 4k display, and 4k content looks better than 1080p content on a 1080p display. And non-cinephiles probably could never tell the difference between 1080p and 8k when sitting a proper distance from a television, for the same reason stadium screens look like solid displays from the stands despite having the worlds worst PPI. So yeah, SeS would be a downgrade for 1X owners, even if running 1080p. It's awkward, and is no doubt why there isn't a 1080p PS5. "Here's something somewhat worse than the Pro in some areas" isn't a great look.
As for DQXI, do keep in mind I'm running the PS4 Pro version, so the difference between it and Switch is even more glaring. I ran both side by side the other day.....it's.....not subtle (and those comparison youtube videos mostly show the original Japanese release where the Pro version was more or less broken - they fixed it after that.) The PS4 version on base PS4 is really really beautiful. It's a very immersive world to roam around in, very scenic and picturesque to just take in. The Switch version is just a 3D JRPG. It looks ok, but looks kind of dated. (It's gorgeous handheld, but, docked, it leaves a bit to be desired - it's not an immersive world, it's just a video game world.)
So it really is a difficult call having to choose between the extra story, sound, and QoL versus the picturesque beautiful game. I'm not sure if I'll still have Game Pass in December. If I do, I'll have to take up your idea of seeing if DXQIS regains any of that magic at the higher res and triple tip on it - but I'm expecting foliage and the like is still going to suck. So I really am caught between play the more immersive version of the "complete version" - and I'll end up probably not playing it at all for a long time as a result. GG Square!
@Octane I kind of agree, Rare Replay (and Rare in general) are overrated. Their stuff was interesting at the time, but all of the classic stuff was a product of it's time. IMO Rare was better at world/character building than they ever were at good video games. Their DKC games were amazing, and Goldeneye was important....but the rest was not all it was hyped to be unless you were an N64 kid, and there really wasn't much else to play. But B&K had an amazing world and characters....it's worth fighting through dated gameplay to experience that "place." Same for Conker. It's woefully dated and controls like garbage, but the place and humor are fun. FWIW, there's a remake of Conker exclusive to XB that updated it and the controls considerably. It was an OG XB game - it's not in Replay, but it's sold separately on BC (and is 1X/SeXSeS enhanced, with better controls. Still woefully dated but not as bad.) Perfect Dark is a 90's shooter. It feels like 90's shooter. That's not a compliment. PD0 is good though.
@NEStalgia Series S (if properly designed and marketed) and Series X would appeal to different crowds. The type of person who buys a half-grand hardware revision to play games they already have access to at a higher resolution isn't going to care about budget hardware. But most people aren't One X owners, and don't own 4K sets, and would much rather just spend a few hundred dollars less to play their next-gen games on the displays they currently own.
What gets me is how you have this obscenely powerful hardware in the next-gen consoles, but they're still pushing janky framerates in order to chase the 4K dragon (for big AAA games, at least). It's the reason I'm building a new PC this year. I'd much rather have slightly less crisp imagery and far smoother framerates in my games.
re: DQXI S, I actually had the opposite experience. Handheld is a bit low-res and rough-looking, but the game looked gorgeous on my TV. Of course, I wasn't playing it on a 4K set. I did actually have the chance to play Astral Chain on a 4KTV recently, and it was... rough. Maybe 1080p content with an M-cable looks good, but, from what I've personally experienced, most non-4K content looks better on non-4K displays.
If you actually want a version of the game with the good music and the best visual fidelity and performance, just play it on PC. With strong enough hardware, you'll be able to play it at 4K/60 with the orchestral soundtrack blasting the entire time, which is a far better experience than you'll ever have on PS4 Pro.
@Ralizah Well "most people" don't own an XBox One at all, so.....
OTOH I'd be curious what the mix of X1X versus X1-not-X owners are. The X1 was a DOA joke until 1S and 1X launched, and it seems like it only really came into its own once the 1X launched. I'm sure 1S sold more, technically, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least a 50/50 mix at this point. I doubt the majority of 1X owners were upgraders from an OG 1 - I'm pretty sure the majority were first time X1 buyers, like myself (I had a 360 prior, laughed at X1 with everyone else at the start, and only got convinced to join in by 1X, which of course I paid less for than a launch 1. I expect that applies to a huge hunk of existing X1 owners.
I also don't know what the mix of 4k set ownership is at this point. AFAIK all but the lowest budget TVs made in the last few years are 4k only. It's just the default now, if you bought a TV in the last few years it's either 4k or a real low end box (monitors are a different story, ironically, where it matters most, the majority are still 1080p.)
I do hate janky framerates, but I'll go the opposite of you (and more mainstream?) on the res though. I'd rather have crisp imagery than ultra-high frame rates. 30fps for a cinematic game is fine (24fps is move speed, after all!) and I'd rather have movie-sharp visuals (I HATE shimmers, jaggies, and soft-edges. It annoys me to no end!) Steady framerates are great. That said I don't think "the 4k dragon" is what's killing fps. Halo Infinite (ugly as the fans think it is) was running 4k120fps!! But people would rather have the shinest surfaces imaginable, than have high res + high fps.....so we get more vfx and less of both res and performance. THAT is the dragon that's being chased. To me 4k60 (SOLID) 60 is a perfect goalpost. There's no need to cripple the dpi or the fps by adding every single fvx imaginable. Even checkerboard is just fine. But stop trying to mess with perfectly realistic water. I'll fill a bucket and go outside if I want that. The game doesn't need every light ray to reflect off the glass on the front lamp of the sailboat to look great. Just give it crisp edges and smooth motion. But that's not what the market wants....
DQXI S, I compared the "4k checker" Pro version to the Switch version both on my 23" 1080p and my 27" 4k. There's really no contest either way, it's just much nicer looking (OMG dat foliage! ) on the Pro version. The trees are....kind of sickly looking on Switch. In a game that mostly takes place in forests and fields...that's something you see a lot of.
Note that mcable does not scale to 4k60. 1080p in, 1080p out. It only scales 4k30 which is useless for games. It does do some contrast and edge enhancements - but it's just acting as a video processor like many receivers have, not a scaler. The monitor itself is doing the scaling (and I doubt it has a great scaler....bog standard average at best.) I'll have to check out Astral Chain. I think I played that entirely handheld. Sub-1080 games on Switch are probably best left with Switch set to 720p. If you set it to 1080p, Switch is doing one round of scaling and AA, and then the display is doing ANOTHER round of scaling on top of that scaling. I didn't try that with DQXI, myself, but, then, that won't fix those hideous trees and pillowy rocks. If you set it to 720 then the switch shouldn't be doing any scaling and the display should just scale once. 1080p to 4k shouldn't be a challenging or destructive scaling becuase it's a pure pixel doubling. Usually the mess comes in if you're scaling twice so you're re-approximating the approximations (like lossy compressing an already compressed MP3.) ACTUAL 1080p is literally just nearest neighbor pixel doubling. It'll soften the edges a little but shouldn't be destructive to the image itself, and solves any screen dooring going on.
LOL yeah, the PC version sounds great overall. I think I'll choose between the two versions of the game I already own on the consoles I already own or even buy a third copy for the Switch version upscaled on Pro or X rather than buying a $2000 PC to run a $60 copy of a game I already own twice.
Ok r&c and that rumored 399 price tag might sell me a pair of launch ps5s. (Screw the $25 vertical stand fee, though)
Though still really want to see XSeX price, confirm game sharing is unchanged, and the rumor of An updated switch has me curious (please be switch xl......6" isn't big enough! Lol)
I doubt [the leak] is real, because I don't think there is such a thing as a ''vertical stand''. The stand can be used to position the console both vertically, as well as horizontally. This is the reason why the stand for the disc version is thicker and more curved on one side, because it has to support the curved ''underside'' of the console. The digital version has a thin, (more or less) symmetrical stand, because the ''underside'' (in horizontal position) is pretty much symmetrical as well.
Each console comes with one stand that allows you to place it vertically or horizontally. I feel that there's a lot of misunderstanding about this. But hey, it makes it easier to spot fake leaks.
Excuse my poor Paint skills:
I think this is what we're looking at. As you can see, the stand has a wide slit (blue arrow) which holds the PS5 in the vertical position. It sits on the blue area in the drawing. Even though both consoles are in vertical position in the lower right image, [the stands are shaped differently]. This is because the disc PS5 has more curved ''underside'' (upper right image), and the stand needs to accommodate for that. In the horizontal position is lays on top of the area marked in red. However, you need to rotate the stand 90 degrees when you place the console horizontally.
Just for reference, here's a horizontal PS5 on its stand. It has the same round stand, even the edges have the same slope.
TLDR, I think there's no such thing as a vertical stand. It's BS. There is one stand per console, and it allows you to position it either way you like.
The Time Shifting on Rift Apart was like the demonstration of PS5 feature, SSD technology.
I think it was pretty similar with Super Mario 3D Land that emphasizing on 3D slider to solve some puzzles.
@Octane That makes a lot of sense. I'd have said no, but I see clearly that the PS5 has no means of standing on its own in the horizontal position at all. Which is astoundingly idiotic design that the machine actually NEEDS to rest on some kind of insecure friction-fit stand, which looks all together like a console sitting on a seesaw, just to function in any position....but that's also classic Sony (see also the Vita charging stand that is so poorly designed that the machine tips itself over on the stand due to only the weight of its own charging cord if you as much as tap it slightly. My Vita has taken a number of spills to the floor due to this - and has a chip in the corner of the acrylic top plate to prove it- though it's fortunately durable and doesn't affection the function.)
That said, it also makes the 500/400 split look less like an informed price leak.
(Though I could see Sony selling replacement/accessory stands to "move it from TV to TV like Switch" )
@Grumblevolcano I don't find that unlikely, actually. Japan was not happy about PS4 launching early in the West, and it hurt initial launch there somewhat. Currently Sony is almost irrelevant there next to Nintendo, and MS is signaling strong intent to challenge them with Japanese devs that seem decreasingly Sony-beholden. I could see them doing a 1 week, or even 1 day gesture toward Japan by launching first there to signal "we're still a Japanese console!" and keep themselves relevant there. Either simultaneous launch or Japan first, this time.
@Dezzy I played R&C PS4 like 4 times back to back trying to mostly 100% it. I NEVER 100% games, but I just had so much darned fun with that game I wished there was even more to it.
I noticed on PS the story on Activision charging $70 for PS5 from now on. Not surprising, but still, ugh "we need to keep up with rising costs" — riiight so your quarterlies have been going consistently down for years commensurate with this rise in costs divided by market growth, right?
Forums
Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread
Posts 13,561 to 13,580 of 16,083
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic