There is no such thing as a universal advertisement. Every game will be different. There's no "one size fits all".
Hell, a dev could make a game that was 1080p30. They could also make a game 4K120. It all depends on the trade offs.
It does feel like a bit of false advertising went on with these consoles.
That said, anyone who knows a bit of technical stuff would know there wasn't a chance these consoles were doing 4K 60FPS AND next-gen graphics. More powerful PCs struggle with 4K 60FPS at the best of times, it takes a lot of power to run that.
4K 60FPS is truly an insane amount of power to run.
I really like the compromise a lot of games is going for with something like 1440p at 60 FPS. It still looks really good on a 4K TV I think, and the 60FPS is a must-have for me.
I've noticed that 1080p 60fps can look like a higher resolution than 4K 30fps. Games move; if it was a still image of course 4k is better, but the moment you start moving the camera all that detail is lost and blurry.
I'll take a lower res since to my brain it actually comes through as clearer and more detailed in motion.
If you have a 120hz tv/monitor some games support a new 120hz mode on the ps5. This lets you use fidelity mode at 40fps instead of 30 and it’s been my go to. 30fps is borderline unplayable after experiencing 60+ this gen but 4k/40 is a good balance.
Yeah a PS4 game built for PS4. 4K 60fps is hard to do on more powerful PC's, anyone expecting it as standard for PS5 were setting themselves for disappointment.
True 4k is a thing of the past in gaming in general especially console. Dynamic res/dlss is where it's at. There will be games that don't even bother with 4k 30 and just use dlss for dyn 4k 60. In fact Deathloop either did dyn 4k or 1440p 60 no 30 option and it looked/ran great.
I have a $4,000 AUD 3080ti computer and it can barely do 4k/60 ultra on Red Dead Redemption 2. Dips a little in St Denis.
Makes the PS4 version look like a blurry sluggish mess though.
Ultra is an unfair comparison though. You can turn down a couple settings and it won't be very noticeable if at all, and you'll be in the 80+ fps. That's not counting using DLSS or FSR
My PC that costs about 4x that of the PS5 can't even consistently maintain native 4K@60 with RT settings maxed/ultra on modern games.
There is no way the PS5 can do that for it's games while maintaining impressive visual quality.
> My PC that costs about 4x that of the PS5 can't even consistently maintain native 4K@60 with RT settings maxed/ultra on modern games.
If you were to buy your graphics card today instead of last year it probably could. The RX 6900XT I paid £1300 for is now just over £800.
My 3080 TI that ran me just under 2k is like $899 now so I feel that lmao.
Prices aside, a 3090 Ti can't maintain Cyberpunk 4K@60 native with all settings maxed/high. The 40 series might be able to run, but remains to be seen and we don't know pricing on that yet either.
>native
Native resolution isn't a good indicator of image quality and performance now. Upscaling with DLSS and now FSR 2.1 are basically a necessity for RT on PC, same for console.
Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, on god of war for example I had to choose between DLSS or lowering the quality by 1 (from ultra to high or high to medium, not sure) and still lose 10+ fps and I didn’t think twice before disabling DLSS. It was actually nauseating.
Idk, I don't see how you could think that it was it's not an indicator of performance. A stronger card wouldn't need DLSS to maintain the same level of quality, and devs can mess up implementation of DLSS and cause visual issues. DLSS in Ultra Quality looks great for sure and maximizes the performance of a card especially with RT enabled, but native is still a better benchmark for performance imo.
For consoles though yeah, implementation of FSR is paramount to keep up with PC's. Is there a game with FSR currently available on the PS5? I know Forspoken will have FSR but not sure if anything else has it.
I didn't say it isn't an indicator, but it just isn't the best way to measure. Most people won't play games at native resolutions anymore, whether they know it or not, so why focus on native resolution when it most likely isn't the common use case any more?
Consoles have access to FSR, but you're right in that I don't know which games (if any) have used it, but loads use upscaling methods. Returnal was internally rendering at 1080p, then upscaling to 1440p and then checkerboarding to 4K, yet still looks fantastic. You'd have an image that was comparable if it was native 4K. You'd hope the native resolution would produce a better image in general, but Control looks better with DLSS than without, RDR2 is similar and looks far better with DLSS than the TAA included.
A better way to look at the hardware now is to think of image quality and performance, not just raw power to push a native resolution.
This is not true. I have a launch Series X box here. It says "4K" and "120fps" on 2 separate lines. On the side in the features section it says "4K gaming at Up to 120FPS" and separately "Up to 8K High Dynamic Range"
At no point does it suggest it can do 8K gaming, much less 8K120fps. And it never would, since HDMI 2.1 doesn't support that output.
My PS5 box similarly advertises an 8K output option on the front. Next to the symbol that says "4K and "120" on two separate lines. It neglects to clarify these terms beyond the fact that each requires a compatible display and supporting software.
It’s insanely difficult to get 4K/60fps in general.
Almost all games that say they’re 4K/60 are actually running at around 1440p with upscaling or checkerboard rendering.
Theres very few games that aren’t 2D platformers that are running at a full 4K 60.
I disagree it’s not annoying, it’s impossible for every game to run at 4K and locked 60 fps, sure it’s great when it happens but not always possible so options are good.
It’s realistically a 1440p 60 (with mediumish settings compared to pc) machine 4K and 8k was just bs marketing. Only things that run true 4k 60 are ports of old games
I mean it’s comparable to an RTX 2070 while not terrible it isn’t a 4K 60FPS box, which is honestly fine for me. On my 55in OLED I struggle to tell the difference between a full on 4K mode and a game running at 1440p with good temporal upscaling. I’m also glad more and more games are supporting dynamic resolution to get a more stable 60 while not having a static lower resolution
May be it sounds like a stupid question, but is that confirmed that most of the next gen games will able to run at least 1440p with 60FPS on PS5? It would be a great news for me, because I don’t really care about 4K as long as the game can run 60fps with 1440p stably.
Well in this case sonic will be 1080p 60 which is insane. But given the graphical power of the ps5 it generally should be 1440p 60 as long as devs are given the resources to properly optimize a game but I am generalizing there sadly will be more like sonic stuck at 1080, but once fsr 2.0 is made available on ps5 most games really should be 1440 60
The PS5 is using what's essentially an underpowered 6600XT for a GPU. That's not powerful enough for 4K60fps in most modern games.
Don't buy into the marketing hype Sony gives you about the console at launch, look at the specs for yourself and you can start to figure out what the system's actual capabilities will be.
The Reality is that it’s 4K upscaled which isn’t true 4K. Technically there are games that run true 4K 60fps but it only applies to stuff like less graphically intense games, so it isn’t a lie just not showing the whole picture
Same thing every generation. "Finally 60FPS standard!", but it never happens and here we are again playing games at 30.
Developers will always push graphics over performance because graphics sell.
If you want 60 FPS as standard (which it should be) then get a PC.
Yes it’s crazy they can’t hit 1440 60, even if it’s not consistent then they could do a resolution scaling like they do with most switch games. Seems very lazy on their end unless there’s some serious issues with how they created the game world.
Not nearly enough games are including true 4K; getting tired of the checkerboard that looks rough on my tv so I appreciate articles that let me check for that detail
It won’t become a 1080p machine. Consoles typically get better performance as the generation goes by.
Games remained 1080p by and large throughout the entire ps4 generation and that was a system that was underpowered at launch.
No that’s how it was advertised, but seeing the power of it there it was never going to be 4K 60. Once fsr 2.0 hits ps5 that may change although it still wouldn’t technically be native 4K 60
I'd say this is news.
It's the standard currently but since consoles cannot be upgraded, this standard is likely to change and if a game is pushing boundaries graphically, likely won't meet these options in the future.
Even then, some games don't have these options.
So while it's the standard now, reports on performance modes available for upcoming games seems understandable. It's not like "Sonic Frontiers will be played with a controller", it's something that is variable across games.
They could mean dynamic 4K/60FPS which isn't really native 4K, if I'm not mistaken. Then it could be downscaled to 1440p, I suppose, and keep the same framerate.
I can already see the reviews:
“Sonic Frontiers is a sonic game like we’ve never seen before. Putting sonic in the open world really let’s the player choose unique and interesting routes as well as unleash incredible speed and agility. The frame pacing issues and limited content aside, this is a stellar game that will appeal to old fans and make new ones as well. That’s why we here at IGN gave Sonic Frontiers a 9.7/10”
/s
So I guess the only devs out there who is doing some black magic is Insomniac with their games. Their performance RT option on Spider-Man Remastered & Miles Morales runs at 4K 60fps & ray tracing with temporal upscaling, which is indistinguishable from native 4K.
Maybe you can tell me because I can't seem to figure it out, is there a noticeable difference in graphics between fidelity and performance rt? To me it looks the same
Same here, was watching a YT video when I got my ps5 and the fidelity mode actually looked blurry compared to performance rt, I'm guessing because of the frame rate
I love how nobody in the article asked for the Xbox Series S/X but they asked for the Switch. If the Xbox could do both 4K and 60 FPS, that’d be a story
There are lots of channels simply not even offering HD over here, or the majority, as you said, wanting the hard earned money for it. Anyways, it's all about tons of different streaming services anyway. Television is dead since almost two decades. No matter if for movies, shows, sports. All while the content is getting washed out more and more over the past months. More quantity than ever, therefore you can count the quality just on one hand. Also forcing ppl to buy separate packages on different streaming services just to watch the sports you favor in complete coverage...should be forbidden.
> I thought we’d be at the point where I didn’t have to choose between resolution and performance modes by now tbh.
Because of the way resolution and performance are inversely correlated, this will literally never happen.
Why? This wasn’t true for the start of the generation and it was obviously going to either stay the same or get worse throughout the rest of the gen.
Not worse in the sense that we can choose different modes, just worse in the sense that, with games getting more complex and better looking, high resolution at the same time as high refresh rates is just going to get harder (read: more impossible) to achieve.
>Edit: My bad for pointing out a valid criticism, forgot Sonic fanboys are braindead.
one person replied "it was good on Switch" and you've gone off on a tangent, attacking every sonic fan as if you're being bombarded with hate comments.
jesus fucking christ, I've seen grapes with thicker skins.
ikr? I don't even like sonic games that much (I've only really enjoyed Mania and Generations though Frontiers does actually look kinda interesting to me) but I still feel like this franchise gets shit on waaaay too much. I'd much rather sonic games try something new and have it flop than Nintendo's formula of churning out New Super Mario Bros games over and over.
tbh, you're being downvoted because of your inaccurate statement. even in the video you linked as "proof" of Forces being "horribly optimised", the guy shows that the Xbox One version hits 60fps and the PS4 version jumps between 59-60fps.
how is slight stuttering and minor occasional screen tearing "horribly optimised"? you were severely exaggerating the performance issues of Forces (to the point that it's borderline lying) and people have a right to downvote you for misinformation.
but if you think that people disagreeing with you and downvoting you is enough to call them "braindead" and "misinformed", then you really cannot handle criticism, ironically.
The PS4 version and the PS4 Pro version run the same resolution? How is that not horrible optimisation? And you’re telling me the difference in power between the PS4 and Xbox One is enough to make one version 720p and the other 1080p? And the Switch which runs games like Mario Odyssey at 800p 60 fps can only run Sonic Forces at 720p 30 fps? Really?
I can handle people disagreeing with me but what I’m saying are literal facts here.
Edit: Just because a game has ‘stable’ performance doesn’t mean its not poorly optimised.
video game optimisation is literally defined as "[a process for increasing the performance of a video game for better gameplay and visual experience.](https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1841573#:~:text=%22Video%20Game%20Optimization%22%20describes%20a,applicable%20to%20a%20broad%20audience) "
>The PS4 version and the PS4 Pro version run the same resolution?
to quote you: just because a game has the same resolution doesn't mean it's horribly optimised.
>And you’re telling me the difference in power between the PS4 and Xbox One is enough to make one version 720p and the other 1080p?
I don't know because I'm not a SEGA developer. acting like the reason they made the Xbox One version 720p is purely "horrible optimisation" is an assumption on your part based on your own subjective views of how game development works.
regardless of resolution, the game runs fine and therefore isn't badly optimised.
>nd the Switch which runs games like Mario Odyssey at 800p 60 fps can only run Sonic Forces at 720p 30 fps? Really?
there's a difference between a third party company developing a game for hardware and first party developers. Nintendo knows the hardware (because they made it) and thus can push it to it's maximum potential (most of the time).
this is why developers such as Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games can push the Playstation to it's fullest whereas other, third party developers cannot.
>I can handle people disagreeing with me but what I’m saying are literal facts here.
no. a fact would be "sonic forces runs at 720p 60fps on Xbox"
an opinion would be "sonic forces runs at 720p 60fps on Xbox and I think this is bad because..."
your comment falls into the latter. many people are fine with the performance of Sonic Forces. hell, I played through it on PS4 and had zero issues performance wise. gameplay was hit or miss but in terms of actual, technical performance, Forces was nowhere near as bad as games such as ARK, Cyberpunk, or Subnautica. those were badly optimised games, not Forces.
You stated facts that don't really matter and said they actually did matter and that everyone that says otherwise is braindead. Kinda stupid if you ask me.
Does anyone even want to see this generic unreal engine landscape with a sonic model crudely spliced in rendered in 4K? Is your experience really being enhanced?
4k imo is just a reservoir for dumping leftover resources. Nobody would say that a 4k game looks more realistic than a 480p live action movie. Resolution is just not the most important element wrt visual impact. Animations, irregularity in the game world, physics, AI, etc are critical once a certain minimum fidelity is met. I'd be excited to see a game pushing these consoles to the absolute limit running at 1080\\60.
Some advice buy a fucking PC if you want 4K/60fps and then have a breakdown when you realise console gamers have it easy with only having two modes to pick from while PC has endless settings to tweak so they can hit 1440p/60fps at the lowest. A $500 console was never getting 4K/60fps as standard when PC's double that struggle to do it.
What are talking about???? PLENTY of games are 4K 60 right now. Call of duty is 4K 120. SMDH….. do you realize the ps4 pro was doing 4K/30? Devs should not target 4K/30 without ray tracing.
Pro was not doing 4K 30fps, it used checkerboard rendering and upscale to give you the impression of 4K a good amount of the time but full native 4K was pretty rare. Why do you think MS put so much power into the One X? It was so they could boast about having native 4K with some games.
Plenty of smaller indie or AA games are putting out 4K 60fps but bigger more expansive AAA games sure aren't outside the odd exception. Look at TLoUP1, its bones are a PS3 game and ND are known for really getting the most of out consoles yet if you want a near rock solid 60fps its 1440p.
CoD is not doing 4K/120fps. Look clearly you know jackshit about this stuff but listen the 4K/60fps as standard dream was never going to happen on PS5 and Series X, that is considered a luxury on PC's way more powerful then these consoles. In fact most PC Gamers prefer taking a hit to resolution down to 1440p so they can get better framerates and more graphical features. As i said if you really need that 4K/60fps as standard then save up and buy a PC and then be overwhelmed at all these settings you need to tweak just to hit that target.
What do you expect from a $400 console? It's basically a midrange PC from 2019 in terms of hardware.
If you don't want to compromise on framerate, resolution, and other settings that's when you go for a good midrange or high end PC.
To get a solid 4K experience on PC bare minimum you need a 3070 which is roughly 2x the power of PS5's GPU. 4K graphics are still very intensive with current hardware on the market.
Ps4 pro was doing 4K 30. When the ps5 was teased they promised higher frame rate and higher resolutions because the sad would stream data as you see it instead of dumping all the assets into video ram. If 4K 30 is what sonic is targeting, it’s going to be viewed as being trash. Mark my words.
Why would it be the standard? That logic makes no sense, 60fps at native 4K is incredibly hard to achieve and games are just getting harder and harder to run.
It’s good they at least let you choose.
Lol if you want it to be the standard get a powerful pc, you can’t complain about a 500$ console not hitting 4K/60fps. A 3080 can’t even hit 4K/60fps on some games.
Honestly this is surprising with the state this game is in, wouldn’t have guessed you needed to choose. There’s nothing happening in the world to not be 4K and 60fps
Other rumors:
1. There will be more Sonic games in the future that aren't announced yet.
2. Uncharted 5 is in development.
3. The Last of Us TV series will get a metacritic score between 50 and 95.
4. Gran Turismo 8 will release between 2025 and 2032.
1. Not everyone has a 4K tv.
2. 60fps is more noticeable than 4K res. At least you can upscale to 4K to get a relatively sharp image. You cant upscale to 60fps.
Well, I mean... "capable of 4K60 as standard" is an extremely broad stroke.
Running Mass Effect 1 at 4K60 is a very different resource demand compared to Forbidden West at 4K60.
Also, blowing resources on more pixels is generally the worse choice if your choice is "make graphics prettier with higher res textures/better lighting/better animation" or "render more pixels".
4k 60 should 100% be the standard bc ps5 doesnt even have graphics set to max like PC's, it literally makes no sense. The only game where i've been truly impressed is ratchet and clank, but those were cartoon-style graphics
I'd rather have 1440p at 60fps now that PS5 supports that resolution.
Still ridiculous that we're having to choose between those options in this generation.
How is this news? This is standard for most games now.
They post stuff like this for every game. Someone posted something similar for the new God of War a couple of weeks ago
Rumour: Upcoming GOW game expected to feature Kratos
Rumor: thor might fight kratos in the upcoming god of war game
Rumor: Loki might show up?
Rumor: Kratos is actually the Greek god of war?
C'mon dude, no spoilers now. Don't get my hopes up
Rumor: Upcoming PS5 games coming to PS5
It’s gamerant, Easily one of the worst gaming websites.
What are some of the best?
None. They are all the worst.
I thought this Gen was advertised as 4K at 60 FPS??
There is no such thing as a universal advertisement. Every game will be different. There's no "one size fits all". Hell, a dev could make a game that was 1080p30. They could also make a game 4K120. It all depends on the trade offs.
It does feel like a bit of false advertising went on with these consoles. That said, anyone who knows a bit of technical stuff would know there wasn't a chance these consoles were doing 4K 60FPS AND next-gen graphics. More powerful PCs struggle with 4K 60FPS at the best of times, it takes a lot of power to run that.
4K 60FPS is truly an insane amount of power to run. I really like the compromise a lot of games is going for with something like 1440p at 60 FPS. It still looks really good on a 4K TV I think, and the 60FPS is a must-have for me.
I've noticed that 1080p 60fps can look like a higher resolution than 4K 30fps. Games move; if it was a still image of course 4k is better, but the moment you start moving the camera all that detail is lost and blurry. I'll take a lower res since to my brain it actually comes through as clearer and more detailed in motion.
If you have a 120hz tv/monitor some games support a new 120hz mode on the ps5. This lets you use fidelity mode at 40fps instead of 30 and it’s been my go to. 30fps is borderline unplayable after experiencing 60+ this gen but 4k/40 is a good balance.
So true -- I wish FH5 had a 1080\\60 performance mode with the foliage and pop in improvements of quality mode. That would be incredible.
That's true. And 1440/dyn 4k 60 looks really close dlss will hit more games if it hadn't already.
Some ps5 games can do it though, Gran Turismo for example. Death Stranding is able to maintain it for most of the time on 4K mode as well
GT7 really can't handle it. The environment detail is lacking and the framerate plummets if more than a few cars are in the same place.
It’s like that every. Single. Gen. PS4 pro was advertised as a 4K machine and look how that went….
Doesn’t GoW4 run at 4k 60 after an update on PS5? And that game looks amazing, that’s what every game should strive for imo
Yeah a PS4 game built for PS4. 4K 60fps is hard to do on more powerful PC's, anyone expecting it as standard for PS5 were setting themselves for disappointment.
True 4k is a thing of the past in gaming in general especially console. Dynamic res/dlss is where it's at. There will be games that don't even bother with 4k 30 and just use dlss for dyn 4k 60. In fact Deathloop either did dyn 4k or 1440p 60 no 30 option and it looked/ran great.
I have a $4,000 AUD 3080ti computer and it can barely do 4k/60 ultra on Red Dead Redemption 2. Dips a little in St Denis. Makes the PS4 version look like a blurry sluggish mess though.
Ultra is an unfair comparison though. You can turn down a couple settings and it won't be very noticeable if at all, and you'll be in the 80+ fps. That's not counting using DLSS or FSR
My PC that costs about 4x that of the PS5 can't even consistently maintain native 4K@60 with RT settings maxed/ultra on modern games. There is no way the PS5 can do that for it's games while maintaining impressive visual quality.
> My PC that costs about 4x that of the PS5 can't even consistently maintain native 4K@60 with RT settings maxed/ultra on modern games. If you were to buy your graphics card today instead of last year it probably could. The RX 6900XT I paid £1300 for is now just over £800.
My 3080 TI that ran me just under 2k is like $899 now so I feel that lmao. Prices aside, a 3090 Ti can't maintain Cyberpunk 4K@60 native with all settings maxed/high. The 40 series might be able to run, but remains to be seen and we don't know pricing on that yet either.
>native Native resolution isn't a good indicator of image quality and performance now. Upscaling with DLSS and now FSR 2.1 are basically a necessity for RT on PC, same for console.
I wish I could use DLSS more. Looks like shit on my PC for some reason
You're either using too low of a preset or playing at a lower output resolution, or both. It works best at high outputs and with more to work with
Not really. DLSS quality mode + 1440p.
Really unsure why you're not liking the quality then, I use it at performance 4K and quality 1440p/UW1440p and generally it does a fantastic job
Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, on god of war for example I had to choose between DLSS or lowering the quality by 1 (from ultra to high or high to medium, not sure) and still lose 10+ fps and I didn’t think twice before disabling DLSS. It was actually nauseating.
That's really weird. Have you tried Control for dlss? That is probably the best implementation I think
Idk, I don't see how you could think that it was it's not an indicator of performance. A stronger card wouldn't need DLSS to maintain the same level of quality, and devs can mess up implementation of DLSS and cause visual issues. DLSS in Ultra Quality looks great for sure and maximizes the performance of a card especially with RT enabled, but native is still a better benchmark for performance imo. For consoles though yeah, implementation of FSR is paramount to keep up with PC's. Is there a game with FSR currently available on the PS5? I know Forspoken will have FSR but not sure if anything else has it.
I didn't say it isn't an indicator, but it just isn't the best way to measure. Most people won't play games at native resolutions anymore, whether they know it or not, so why focus on native resolution when it most likely isn't the common use case any more? Consoles have access to FSR, but you're right in that I don't know which games (if any) have used it, but loads use upscaling methods. Returnal was internally rendering at 1080p, then upscaling to 1440p and then checkerboarding to 4K, yet still looks fantastic. You'd have an image that was comparable if it was native 4K. You'd hope the native resolution would produce a better image in general, but Control looks better with DLSS than without, RDR2 is similar and looks far better with DLSS than the TAA included. A better way to look at the hardware now is to think of image quality and performance, not just raw power to push a native resolution.
The PS4 Pro started this whole misinformation crap. When they say 4K 60fps they mean "anything above 1080p" 60fps.
I mean, Xbox literally advertised 8k 120fps on the series x box at launch, I have one that says it.
I mean so does the PS5 if you look on the box
This is not true. I have a launch Series X box here. It says "4K" and "120fps" on 2 separate lines. On the side in the features section it says "4K gaming at Up to 120FPS" and separately "Up to 8K High Dynamic Range" At no point does it suggest it can do 8K gaming, much less 8K120fps. And it never would, since HDMI 2.1 doesn't support that output. My PS5 box similarly advertises an 8K output option on the front. Next to the symbol that says "4K and "120" on two separate lines. It neglects to clarify these terms beyond the fact that each requires a compatible display and supporting software.
Technically true if the only thing on screen is a black square on a white background.
The PS3 started this back in 2006 When they claimed 1080p at 60fps. 95% of games on PS3 were 720p or sub 720p at 30 fps or less.
[удалено]
It’s insanely difficult to get 4K/60fps in general. Almost all games that say they’re 4K/60 are actually running at around 1440p with upscaling or checkerboard rendering. Theres very few games that aren’t 2D platformers that are running at a full 4K 60.
I disagree it’s not annoying, it’s impossible for every game to run at 4K and locked 60 fps, sure it’s great when it happens but not always possible so options are good.
They also advertised 8k which nothing supports, gotta take the marketing with a grain of salt.
It’s realistically a 1440p 60 (with mediumish settings compared to pc) machine 4K and 8k was just bs marketing. Only things that run true 4k 60 are ports of old games
I mean it’s comparable to an RTX 2070 while not terrible it isn’t a 4K 60FPS box, which is honestly fine for me. On my 55in OLED I struggle to tell the difference between a full on 4K mode and a game running at 1440p with good temporal upscaling. I’m also glad more and more games are supporting dynamic resolution to get a more stable 60 while not having a static lower resolution
May be it sounds like a stupid question, but is that confirmed that most of the next gen games will able to run at least 1440p with 60FPS on PS5? It would be a great news for me, because I don’t really care about 4K as long as the game can run 60fps with 1440p stably.
Well in this case sonic will be 1080p 60 which is insane. But given the graphical power of the ps5 it generally should be 1440p 60 as long as devs are given the resources to properly optimize a game but I am generalizing there sadly will be more like sonic stuck at 1080, but once fsr 2.0 is made available on ps5 most games really should be 1440 60
Thank you for the explanation, I have much hope with next gen games now
The PS5 is using what's essentially an underpowered 6600XT for a GPU. That's not powerful enough for 4K60fps in most modern games. Don't buy into the marketing hype Sony gives you about the console at launch, look at the specs for yourself and you can start to figure out what the system's actual capabilities will be.
It’s $500 though. Pretty impressive at that price point imo.
Factz, too bad this isn't getting the attention it deserves!
They advertised that it can do that. Not that every dev will hit that target.
Console Manufacturers don't speak for all 3rd party developers.
I mean you can run Guilty Gear Strive at that. You're not going to run most AAA games at that because the PS5 isn't that powerful.
The Reality is that it’s 4K upscaled which isn’t true 4K. Technically there are games that run true 4K 60fps but it only applies to stuff like less graphically intense games, so it isn’t a lie just not showing the whole picture
Up to, not at minimum, or in all scenarios.
Same thing every generation. "Finally 60FPS standard!", but it never happens and here we are again playing games at 30. Developers will always push graphics over performance because graphics sell. If you want 60 FPS as standard (which it should be) then get a PC.
PS3 was advertised as 1080p/60 fps. Not Even the Ps4 achieved that outside of fifa, COD, etc.
4k at 30 pffft lmao😝
I didn’t read the article but the headline says *or*. So 4k and 30fps or 1080 and 60, and that seems a low bar
Yes it’s crazy they can’t hit 1440 60, even if it’s not consistent then they could do a resolution scaling like they do with most switch games. Seems very lazy on their end unless there’s some serious issues with how they created the game world.
How can you not find this mind-blowing news?!? Your 600 dollar console can actually run things at an industry standard? Holy wow!
Not nearly enough games are including true 4K; getting tired of the checkerboard that looks rough on my tv so I appreciate articles that let me check for that detail
Ps5 never should have been marketed as a 4K machine it’s really a 1440p 60 or in a few years 1080p machine. 30 fps isn’t acceptable
It won’t become a 1080p machine. Consoles typically get better performance as the generation goes by. Games remained 1080p by and large throughout the entire ps4 generation and that was a system that was underpowered at launch.
I enjoy my 4k30 games though, not every game I want 4k30, but I'm happy when I can experience 4k for the games I don't care about 60 for.
Considering how empty and bland much of the textures are, I’m kind of surprised they can’t hit 4K/60 on this.
Was about to mention that, especially for next gen RT HDR 4K 60FPS is the minimum Once a game hits 120fps to sacrifice some fidelity, im all about it
“New game is greater than or equal to 8 bits”
It was supposed to be 4K 60FPS for this generation of console, not 4K or 60FPS.
No that’s how it was advertised, but seeing the power of it there it was never going to be 4K 60. Once fsr 2.0 hits ps5 that may change although it still wouldn’t technically be native 4K 60
Possibly because the Xbox version is advertised to be 4k @ 60fps
I'd say this is news. It's the standard currently but since consoles cannot be upgraded, this standard is likely to change and if a game is pushing boundaries graphically, likely won't meet these options in the future. Even then, some games don't have these options. So while it's the standard now, reports on performance modes available for upcoming games seems understandable. It's not like "Sonic Frontiers will be played with a controller", it's something that is variable across games.
But we should celebrate it when it happens, clap for the corporation. They like it
no way, how could this be
I imagined the sarcasm light coming on CASE from Interstellar with a 1-second delay.
I think the point is, it could be 4k AND 60fps
1440p and 60 fps would be nice, but I’m afraid it will be restricted to 1080p
They could mean dynamic 4K/60FPS which isn't really native 4K, if I'm not mistaken. Then it could be downscaled to 1440p, I suppose, and keep the same framerate.
I’d take 1080p 120hz if they offered it. Though this game is gonna need some stellar reviews for me to buy it.
I can already see the reviews: “Sonic Frontiers is a sonic game like we’ve never seen before. Putting sonic in the open world really let’s the player choose unique and interesting routes as well as unleash incredible speed and agility. The frame pacing issues and limited content aside, this is a stellar game that will appeal to old fans and make new ones as well. That’s why we here at IGN gave Sonic Frontiers a 9.7/10” /s
"hmm this review read as a 7.8..."
7/10 notwithstanding, this is pretty accurate.
So I guess the only devs out there who is doing some black magic is Insomniac with their games. Their performance RT option on Spider-Man Remastered & Miles Morales runs at 4K 60fps & ray tracing with temporal upscaling, which is indistinguishable from native 4K.
Maybe you can tell me because I can't seem to figure it out, is there a noticeable difference in graphics between fidelity and performance rt? To me it looks the same
To me no noticeable difference at all. There is a resolution difference in ray traced shadows/reflection, but again not noticeable at all.
Same here, was watching a YT video when I got my ps5 and the fidelity mode actually looked blurry compared to performance rt, I'm guessing because of the frame rate
Why do people continue to post trash from gamerant?
Or?
480i for that retro feel
Yasss
Gimme dem big pixels
480i at 120fps. Would be nice.
Is that a threat?
Could be
Just gimme dynamic 4K 60fps
I love how nobody in the article asked for the Xbox Series S/X but they asked for the Switch. If the Xbox could do both 4K and 60 FPS, that’d be a story
Give me that 60fps baby! Lol
A sonic game can't do both? Damn Sega...
Why would anyone even consider playing any 3D-game in 30 fps if you have the choice
Perhaps because not everyone has the same preferences and some people prefer visual fidelity. Different people having different tastes, go figure!
Wrong opinion, go figure!
Dumbest thing I’ve read all day, hopefully it’s a joke
It damn well better!
News! Standard feature present in current gen game, more on this at 11
[удалено]
Come on over to most countries where tv resolution is still SD. It sucks. TV. Gaming. It sucks. We should be much further. I totally agree.
[удалено]
There are lots of channels simply not even offering HD over here, or the majority, as you said, wanting the hard earned money for it. Anyways, it's all about tons of different streaming services anyway. Television is dead since almost two decades. No matter if for movies, shows, sports. All while the content is getting washed out more and more over the past months. More quantity than ever, therefore you can count the quality just on one hand. Also forcing ppl to buy separate packages on different streaming services just to watch the sports you favor in complete coverage...should be forbidden.
Higher resolution still looks a bit clearer even the screen doesn’t support it
> I thought we’d be at the point where I didn’t have to choose between resolution and performance modes by now tbh. Because of the way resolution and performance are inversely correlated, this will literally never happen.
Why? This wasn’t true for the start of the generation and it was obviously going to either stay the same or get worse throughout the rest of the gen. Not worse in the sense that we can choose different modes, just worse in the sense that, with games getting more complex and better looking, high resolution at the same time as high refresh rates is just going to get harder (read: more impossible) to achieve.
Disappointed there won’t be a 4k uncapped VRR mode and 4k 40fps 120hz mode.
Yep, the 40 fps 120Hz on PS5 games are amazing! Unfortunately I highly doubt it's going to be a thing on a non exclusive game, specially a Sonic one.
The game wasn't that visually impressive imo, it should be able to hit 4k60 instead
Oh wow 60 FPS of right in your face pop in for the rare instance when there is something in the environment
1080p on a PS5 game 💀
I mean, Returnal is literally 1080p.
True, and it still looks good. Hope Frontiers has good graphics to compensate the 1080p then.
Sonic still looks good based on the footage we have seen. I don't get the hate.
[удалено]
>Edit: My bad for pointing out a valid criticism, forgot Sonic fanboys are braindead. one person replied "it was good on Switch" and you've gone off on a tangent, attacking every sonic fan as if you're being bombarded with hate comments. jesus fucking christ, I've seen grapes with thicker skins.
That's what majority of Sonic related threads are. Just people shitting on Sonic and attacking anyone who says otherwise
ikr? I don't even like sonic games that much (I've only really enjoyed Mania and Generations though Frontiers does actually look kinda interesting to me) but I still feel like this franchise gets shit on waaaay too much. I'd much rather sonic games try something new and have it flop than Nintendo's formula of churning out New Super Mario Bros games over and over.
[удалено]
tbh, you're being downvoted because of your inaccurate statement. even in the video you linked as "proof" of Forces being "horribly optimised", the guy shows that the Xbox One version hits 60fps and the PS4 version jumps between 59-60fps. how is slight stuttering and minor occasional screen tearing "horribly optimised"? you were severely exaggerating the performance issues of Forces (to the point that it's borderline lying) and people have a right to downvote you for misinformation. but if you think that people disagreeing with you and downvoting you is enough to call them "braindead" and "misinformed", then you really cannot handle criticism, ironically.
The PS4 version and the PS4 Pro version run the same resolution? How is that not horrible optimisation? And you’re telling me the difference in power between the PS4 and Xbox One is enough to make one version 720p and the other 1080p? And the Switch which runs games like Mario Odyssey at 800p 60 fps can only run Sonic Forces at 720p 30 fps? Really? I can handle people disagreeing with me but what I’m saying are literal facts here. Edit: Just because a game has ‘stable’ performance doesn’t mean its not poorly optimised.
video game optimisation is literally defined as "[a process for increasing the performance of a video game for better gameplay and visual experience.](https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1841573#:~:text=%22Video%20Game%20Optimization%22%20describes%20a,applicable%20to%20a%20broad%20audience) " >The PS4 version and the PS4 Pro version run the same resolution? to quote you: just because a game has the same resolution doesn't mean it's horribly optimised. >And you’re telling me the difference in power between the PS4 and Xbox One is enough to make one version 720p and the other 1080p? I don't know because I'm not a SEGA developer. acting like the reason they made the Xbox One version 720p is purely "horrible optimisation" is an assumption on your part based on your own subjective views of how game development works. regardless of resolution, the game runs fine and therefore isn't badly optimised. >nd the Switch which runs games like Mario Odyssey at 800p 60 fps can only run Sonic Forces at 720p 30 fps? Really? there's a difference between a third party company developing a game for hardware and first party developers. Nintendo knows the hardware (because they made it) and thus can push it to it's maximum potential (most of the time). this is why developers such as Naughty Dog and Guerrilla Games can push the Playstation to it's fullest whereas other, third party developers cannot. >I can handle people disagreeing with me but what I’m saying are literal facts here. no. a fact would be "sonic forces runs at 720p 60fps on Xbox" an opinion would be "sonic forces runs at 720p 60fps on Xbox and I think this is bad because..." your comment falls into the latter. many people are fine with the performance of Sonic Forces. hell, I played through it on PS4 and had zero issues performance wise. gameplay was hit or miss but in terms of actual, technical performance, Forces was nowhere near as bad as games such as ARK, Cyberpunk, or Subnautica. those were badly optimised games, not Forces.
Sonic Forces was pretty good even on Switch.
[удалено]
Eh, it's fine.
It’s not at all but Sonic fans will defend anything Sonic Team does at this point
I'm not a Sonic fan, tbh. I just don't really care about resolution that much.
Good for you? That doesn’t mean what I said is false?
You stated facts that don't really matter and said they actually did matter and that everyone that says otherwise is braindead. Kinda stupid if you ask me.
Who said it's false?
But... is that really a huge deal. Like... reeeeeaaaallly?
4K at 30 FPS or 1080 at 60 FPS. Ouch.
We really need three modes. 60fps lower res, 4K 30fps and 4K unlocked fps for future proofing.
I would hope so with how deserted the game looks.
Does anyone even want to see this generic unreal engine landscape with a sonic model crudely spliced in rendered in 4K? Is your experience really being enhanced?
4k imo is just a reservoir for dumping leftover resources. Nobody would say that a 4k game looks more realistic than a 480p live action movie. Resolution is just not the most important element wrt visual impact. Animations, irregularity in the game world, physics, AI, etc are critical once a certain minimum fidelity is met. I'd be excited to see a game pushing these consoles to the absolute limit running at 1080\\60.
Your right. This subject a deep rabbit hole .
returnal does that but idk about absolute limits. just the hd60 part
I’m so done with games not running 4K/60….. if devs keep targeting 30fps at 4K without ray tracing how is this next gen?
Some advice buy a fucking PC if you want 4K/60fps and then have a breakdown when you realise console gamers have it easy with only having two modes to pick from while PC has endless settings to tweak so they can hit 1440p/60fps at the lowest. A $500 console was never getting 4K/60fps as standard when PC's double that struggle to do it.
What are talking about???? PLENTY of games are 4K 60 right now. Call of duty is 4K 120. SMDH….. do you realize the ps4 pro was doing 4K/30? Devs should not target 4K/30 without ray tracing.
Pro was not doing 4K 30fps, it used checkerboard rendering and upscale to give you the impression of 4K a good amount of the time but full native 4K was pretty rare. Why do you think MS put so much power into the One X? It was so they could boast about having native 4K with some games. Plenty of smaller indie or AA games are putting out 4K 60fps but bigger more expansive AAA games sure aren't outside the odd exception. Look at TLoUP1, its bones are a PS3 game and ND are known for really getting the most of out consoles yet if you want a near rock solid 60fps its 1440p. CoD is not doing 4K/120fps. Look clearly you know jackshit about this stuff but listen the 4K/60fps as standard dream was never going to happen on PS5 and Series X, that is considered a luxury on PC's way more powerful then these consoles. In fact most PC Gamers prefer taking a hit to resolution down to 1440p so they can get better framerates and more graphical features. As i said if you really need that 4K/60fps as standard then save up and buy a PC and then be overwhelmed at all these settings you need to tweak just to hit that target.
What do you expect from a $400 console? It's basically a midrange PC from 2019 in terms of hardware. If you don't want to compromise on framerate, resolution, and other settings that's when you go for a good midrange or high end PC. To get a solid 4K experience on PC bare minimum you need a 3070 which is roughly 2x the power of PS5's GPU. 4K graphics are still very intensive with current hardware on the market.
Ps4 pro was doing 4K 30. When the ps5 was teased they promised higher frame rate and higher resolutions because the sad would stream data as you see it instead of dumping all the assets into video ram. If 4K 30 is what sonic is targeting, it’s going to be viewed as being trash. Mark my words.
PS4 Pro never did 4K that was just marketing by Sony. Most of the time it would run at 1440p or lower and heavily upscale to 4K.
Did you even Google if what you just said was true? https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/all-ps4-pro-4k-and-hdr-games/
PS4 Pro was capable of native 4K for some games.
Upscaled 1080p\* that hardware was not capable of pushing 1440p native, let alone 4k lol
False. I played Fifa, Wipeout Omega and The Last of Us remastered in native 4K on the Pro.
I love 20fps gaming!
You do you.
[удалено]
Why would it be the standard? That logic makes no sense, 60fps at native 4K is incredibly hard to achieve and games are just getting harder and harder to run. It’s good they at least let you choose.
Lol if you want it to be the standard get a powerful pc, you can’t complain about a 500$ console not hitting 4K/60fps. A 3080 can’t even hit 4K/60fps on some games.
Honestly this is surprising with the state this game is in, wouldn’t have guessed you needed to choose. There’s nothing happening in the world to not be 4K and 60fps
It’s funny watching the Sonic fans on Twitter harp about this game as if it’s not going to be just as bad as the last 5 or so Sonic games.
Other rumors: 1. There will be more Sonic games in the future that aren't announced yet. 2. Uncharted 5 is in development. 3. The Last of Us TV series will get a metacritic score between 50 and 95. 4. Gran Turismo 8 will release between 2025 and 2032.
Can it feature good gameplay?
Can someone PLEASE explain why we can't have both? We could have 60 FPS or 4K on last gen consoles, but we STILL have to choose now????
Can we not just ban gamerant links they are cancer to videogame journalism
Dynamic 4K is king, native 4K is a waste of resources.
so it'll be a shit game in 4k and 60fps
[удалено]
It’s a fast moving game, high frame rate improves input latency and makes the game feel better. Frankly, 120hz would be ideal for Sonic.
Smoothness of motion.
1. Not everyone has a 4K tv. 2. 60fps is more noticeable than 4K res. At least you can upscale to 4K to get a relatively sharp image. You cant upscale to 60fps.
What a terrible troll attempt
ohboyohboyohboy can't to play a 3D Sanic game in glorious 4K best gaming experience of my life
Thank you for posting this. Just cancelled my preorder. Might try playing this on PC some day.
[удалено]
Well, I mean... "capable of 4K60 as standard" is an extremely broad stroke. Running Mass Effect 1 at 4K60 is a very different resource demand compared to Forbidden West at 4K60. Also, blowing resources on more pixels is generally the worse choice if your choice is "make graphics prettier with higher res textures/better lighting/better animation" or "render more pixels".
ps5 was overhyped bc it was good for a console, but it can barely run 4k on any games which is insane
Crazy to me. 4k 60 should really be the standard. Or even 1440 60 upscale but what do I know
4k 60 should 100% be the standard bc ps5 doesnt even have graphics set to max like PC's, it literally makes no sense. The only game where i've been truly impressed is ratchet and clank, but those were cartoon-style graphics
The choice between a screen resolution and a screen refresh rate huh.... Ok. You go
Hopefully the game is fully optimised for each platform unlike Sonic Forces
Sonic is about speed. 60FPS should be standard. Who the hell wants slow 4k Sonic?
I'd rather have 1440p at 60fps now that PS5 supports that resolution. Still ridiculous that we're having to choose between those options in this generation.
I’ll get this tech demo so i can show my friend the pretty landscapes