Last of Us PC has... issues...

[Kenrou]

Why is it SO HARD to make a damned port ??? Better yet, go back to the way it was, make games for PC 1st and THEN port them to consoles, so we can avoid stuff like this

 

[freakdiablo]

Not surprised. Most ports tend to be flaky - the good ports are fixed quick, the bad ports aren't fixed at all.

As for why consoles first

I'm sure there's a lot of money going around to get a game as an exclusive.

 

[Janus67]

I mean it's console first because it's a Sony franchise. That should be the least surprising part of it.


Horizon had issues at launch, but the other major Sony releases (god of war and spiderman) have been good at launch (per my understanding). The difference is the company hired to do the port work

 

[stompah]

Glad I didn't prepurchase or buy on release day. I knew there would be bugs. I didn't realize it would be this bad.

Please please please don't let it be another CP2077.

 

[Niku-Sama]

i think they had similar issues when they did last of us remastered on ps4...
this game seems to just have problems out the gate no matter what however they do get fixed kind of quickly, and some times by hackers

 

[=XAF=AfterShock]

refunded after 20 min not counting the 45 min to build shaders, I've been waiting for so long to play this game but the $ it costs for how old this game is + having 140fps feel like 20 - 25fps, no thanks I learned my lesson from cyberpunk. That's 1 naughty dog that should be euthanized!!!!!!

 

[mackerel]

Waiting for the Digital Foundry video on it, not that I think there'll be any surprises but I like their format. They did comment that apparently many reviewers weren't seeded with keys before launch, so it sounds like Sony knew it was a stinker and went ahead with a launch anyway.

Looking at the date might show why. They probably wanted to record the release revenue in this quarter not delay it to the next. Short term "gain" for long term damage.

Edit: skimming through Steam reviews, seeing complaints about shader compilation time. This is an interesting one, as it is there to eliminate shader stutter during gameplay. I wonder if they could do a more mixed approach between 100% pre-compiling before you start, and doing it on demand so you get constant stutters 1st playthrough. For example, Do a minimal pre-compile to get started, then dedicate a small portion of CPU to compile the rest in background, ordered in access turn so it is ready before it is needed, with minimal impact to gaming while it is still going on. This may be 1 core of a 6 core CPU, and 2+ cores on 8+ core CPUs for example. If you have a quad core you should expect pain regardless. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Kenrou]

My 1st run doing shaders (nothing in the background) took 20m-25m at the most, made the folder psolibs with 11.6gb, but something went wrong with it because just after 1st zone where it goes forward in time the textures looked like they took LSD, so closed the game, deleted the folder and the 2nd run took ~10m, game in the background while watching YouTube. Both runs used 100% CPU for most of the time, 100% GPU, 95% of my 16gb memory and 100% of the 16gb swapfile (which I always have fixed size). Reminds me of the pre-caching of CoD: Advanced/Infinite Warfare. This was on my 1tb 860 evo SSD, nothing special speed-wise, so I don't understand how it can take so much longer on much more powerful systems I've seen in the reviews? 1st time loading a game also took ~5m, from then on took anything from a few seconds to ~2m.

There are already several non-official ways to get around some of the FPS problems, but it's still inconsistent to anything below 12gb VRAM if you're planning on using High+ settings. @mackerel Seconded on the Digital Foundry video, ATM I have a nasty mix of ultra/high/medium/off which is giving me anything from 90fps-120fps+ depending on the area @1440p w/DLSS Quality, mostly smooth, but like Cyberpunk it seems to hitch near mirrors or explosions even with reflections off or low.

 

[mackerel]

Why is it SO HARD to make a damned port ??? Better yet, go back to the way it was, make games for PC 1st and THEN port them to consoles, so we can avoid stuff like this

Numbers below are out of date, and may not be accurate at the time anyway, but in the past I tried to estimate the size of potential current gen equivalent gaming market.

PS5 lifetime (to July 2022): 21.7M
XBX/S lifetime (to July 2022): 16M estimated - can't find breakout of estimated X vs S sales.
Steam: ~120M monthly active users
Proportion of Steam Hardware Survey that has a GPU comparable or better than PS5: approx. 20% in September 2022

I found the numbers for a different argument elsewhere, looking more at higher end gaming hence estimating the number of active Steam users with GPU performance comparable to PS5 or better. On that basis, while the PC market might even be bigger than each console camp, the combined potential console market is bigger than PC. Assuming most wont have both current gen consoles and just pick one or other other.

 

[Janus67]

That plus it is significantly easier to develop for a single specification (PS5 or Xbox) than the limitless possible combinations of hardware (and software) on pc

 

[mackerel]

Poked around for some more current numbers. Apparently PS5 sales passed 32M in February this year, while Steam Monthly Active Users remained about constant to above. I haven't recounted the GPU distribution.

 

[Kenrou]

I fully understand that it's much easier to code something for a fixed hardware list, but even though there are more variables with a PC system, the payoff should be greater? PCs are more powerful in general, so you can be vastly more creative in what you code in the game itself or how you code it, the point is in not being anywhere near as constrained as with console hardware. Speaking as someone that only codes "for fun", you would think it would be much simpler to create a AAA game for PC and then cut/port to console, than the reverse, no? In one scenario you have to cut down content, the other you have to add new things and possibly break the code while doing it?

 

[freakdiablo]

I fully understand that it's much easier to code something for a fixed hardware list, but even though there are more variables with a PC system, the payoff should be greater? PCs are more powerful in general, so you can be vastly more creative in what you code in the game itself or how you code it, the point is in not being anywhere near as constrained as with console hardware. Speaking as someone that only codes "for fun", you would think it would be much simpler to create a AAA game for PC and then cut/port to console, than the reverse, no? In one scenario you have to cut down content, the other you have to add new things and possibly break the code while doing it?

I can't comment on which way is easier - PC>Console or Console>PC - but I I think you answered the question in your first sentence with your second sentence.

They get creative, but with fixed hardware then they can get lazy. They can use the same tricks learned in the earlier games in the later games and improve upon them. Lets say a studio takes a year to develop a game - in that year there is most likely going to be either a new generation of CPUs, a new generation of GPUs, or both. Hey I built my desktop a little over a year ago, and since then DDR5 prices have plummeted and there are now talks of NVMe drives based on PCIe 5.0 A fixed console won't go through changes at anywhere near that rate.

 

[mackerel]

Speaking as someone that only codes "for fun", you would think it would be much simpler to create a AAA game for PC and then cut/port to console, than the reverse, no? In one scenario you have to cut down content, the other you have to add new things and possibly break the code while doing it?

To my understanding when they create games they know the target platforms so things wont be wildly out of scale. The dev world will be somewhat higher quality than we might eventually get in game. We should probably take this in two parts, the game world, and the rendering thereof.

Assets will be optimised down to a manageable level for the target hardware. On consoles they can optimise this well since it is a known target. On PC, they may offer the option of more data for those who want it (e.g. HD texture packs). So even if a game is console first, they don't have to remaster the assets significantly to bring it to PC. Not like 4k on PS5 is going to look that different from 4k on PC (ignoring frame rate and rendering tradeoffs).

The rendering paths may be more different, especially between PS5 and PC/XB, so there may be more considerations there. Rendering on PC has more options, so hopefully they can give the flexibility to balance image quality and performance for most users. On console it seems more typical to offer a performance-priority setting and a quality-priority setting which seems to do well enough for most.

 

[Kenrou]

 

[Kenrou]

Strange... just finished the game, loved the story, lots of emotional moments that hit you right in the feels, good combat, amazing graphics (especially animations), really want to play the 2nd and (maybe) 3rd......... Problem, have zero interest in replaying it, normal or new game +............ I've done multiple (completionist) playthroughs of similar games like Days Gone, Metro, Mass Effect and others, but this one... don't know? Thoughts?

 

[freakdiablo]

I haven't played it but watched twitch streamers and let's plays of it and just seems like that kind of game. Very story driven and kind of linear - you can adjust play strategy a little but that's about it.

 

[Janus67]

 

[dfonda]

Glad I didn't prepurchase or buy on release day. I knew there would be bugs. I didn't realize it would be this bad.

Please please please don't let it be another CP2077.

If there were any issues on CP 77 I never encountered them...Had it on launch day.

 

[mackerel]

For anyone wanting a tldw for the DF video, following are observations I made at the time:

Their "mid spec" system is 3600 + 2700 Super, which is also chosen to approximate PS5 hardware.
Settings for above: 1440p DLSS quality, high overall with medium textures

Their high end system (12900k+4090) did look and behave better but still differences to PS5 version, even putting aside probable glitches that need to be fixed.

On VRAM: the game leaves a portion of VRAM for OS/other apps. It seems to scale with VRAM on the model, and does not consider what is actually being used outside of the game.
"high" textures on PC comparable to PS5, no further improvement on "ultra".
Medium textures is blurry.
They considered more than 8GB required for high textures. HUB benchmarks didn't reveal problems with "high" at 8GB, may depend on where they tested.

Game is CPU intensive, and as much of a limiter as GPU. Their testing suggests 3600 is not going to deliver consistent 60fps when GPU is not limiting.
Game loads data for new areas as you advance, resulting in lower perf while it does so
They commented the game files appears to include a library to handle PS5 textures. Have to wonder if this is less optimal than one made for PC.
Post launch patch has reduced shader compilation time.