What is perfect here? 30Hz with some dips to 20Hz? Solid 30Hz? Solid 60Hz? Most auto-configuration mechanisms attempt to configure your PC game settings to maximize visual fidelity while ensuring the baseline performance that the title is intended for, e.g. 60 Hz on COD. Would you want the "PS4" settings on your PC game to result in a lower framerate in order to match the visual settings of the console? Seems like a weird request.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
It is time for developers to finally provide "PS4/Xbox" graphical presets in PC versions of their games
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Pretty embarrassing display here from PC gamers who game on a platform the embrasses options - adding more options wouldn't take anything away from anyone.
IMO if a PC isn't capable of playing the base PS4 version of a game (which would be similar to low/medium), they probably can't play the game at all right? And it's just an option. If their PC can't run it at PS4 settings, then what's preventing them from lowering the settings further to the absolute minimum? Or upgrading their CPU/GPU/replacing their PC? The option to use a console level preset is not harming anything on PC gaming.
IMO if a PC isn't capable of playing the base PS4 version of a game (which would be similar to low/medium), they probably can't play the game at all right? And it's just an option. If their PC can't run it at PS4 settings, then what's preventing them from lowering the settings further to the absolute minimum? Or upgrading their CPU/GPU/replacing their PC? The option to use a console level preset is not harming anything on PC gaming.
That is obviously not what OP is asking for. OP is asking for settings that match the draw distance/geometry quality/shading quality/etc of the console versions, as that's what the developers (who are more informed than most or all users) considered to be the most optimal combination of visual flair and performance for mid-range hardware.
I already assume presets like "medium and "high" represent different balances between graphics fidelity and performance, so I don't see much point in having a preset which simulates how it looks like consoles. I suppose it could be novel knowing exactly what the console version looks like (andI imagine Digital Foundry would find it very convenient), but I wouldn't have any practical use for it.
What I would freaking love to see is console games getting more options. I would be okay with sacrificing resolution and overall graphics quality in every game in order to maintain a higher framerate.
What I would freaking love to see is console games getting more options. I would be okay with sacrificing resolution and overall graphics quality in every game in order to maintain a higher framerate.
This is pretty much it.
Even if they put a lot of time and effort into the port, you are probably going to get less performance on console settings if you have similar hardware to the console you are setting to given the differences in architecture between the two platforms.
Developers would just be setting themselves up for people calling them incompetent.
It can be fairly difficult actually because there is quite a lot of features available in console APIs (PS specifically) which don't have a 1:1 analogue on PC.
It's also possible that some things can be done way more efficient on PC while resulting in a slightly different quality result - these would have to be excluded despite the fact that you may loose a lot of performance with no apparent quality gain here.
98% of PC players have no need or desire for this, outside of maybe a passing curiosity.
When I tinker with graphics settings, my goal is to attain a smooth 60fps experience at maximum fidelity. I don't see how console-parity presets would be relevant. At best, they would be another arbitrary starting point among the other presets.
As mentioned, but there are already presets. There are also automatic optimizers that are built into some games or stuff like GeForce Experience if that's your thing.
Edit: same as the above poster. I just crank everything up besides turning off motion blur, CA, and depth of field/AA if it's a poor or aggressive implementation. If it's not staying at a stable 60fps, I typically just have to sacrifice shadow detail and I'm done.
Edit: same as the above poster. I just crank everything up besides turning off motion blur, CA, and depth of field/AA if it's a poor or aggressive implementation. If it's not staying at a stable 60fps, I typically just have to sacrifice shadow detail and I'm done.
Because instrisically PC gaming and consoles are two different worlds (radically so in parts of the world), matched with hardware and market for different applications.
Because it muddies acceptable ports, when you hold a baseline for a whole console cycle, which is already solved thru normal. And if you add a 'console' spec that just confuses normal. And if a user uses console settings and gets garbage results, they won't be any more educated.
Because someone who bought pc for Battlefield is probably already comfortable with pcs.
Nioh only has that because they designed the game around 60 fps. Not the other way around
I guess I'm not against this but I don't really see a point. I'm content with presets of Low, Medium, High, Ultra and fine tuning if you wat.
This response just shows ignorance on the subject. GeForce Experience is an example of a program that has existed for literally over half a decade at this point that will automatically attempt to tweak your settings for you, with some ability to even choose your target performance. If you don't want to tweak then you don't have to.
Also, if you want most multiplatform games to look "as the devs intended" then the consoles already aren't for you. Most AAA games by EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, and Activision-Blizzard are already running at significantly reduced visuals compared to their PC counterparts. That's not even mentioning how many console releases have questionable performance. I'm sure the devs at Infinity Ward didn't want the Xbox One version of their game (MW2019) to drop below 50 fps constantly. That's not their intention for a series that always targets 60.
People keep asking in this thread for "the option." Console visual settings are partly arbitrary and don't represent some kind of best possible balance between visuals and performance. An easy example is how anistropic filtering is literally negligible in performance but can significantly reduce image quality, yet literally dozens of major console releases both multiplatform and exclusive neglect this setting. I can understand the kind of instinct to pretend that these consoles are some sort of baseline, but their settings don't even make sense for a lot of PC hardware. The current consoles are very underpowered in the CPU department and might need to make optimizations for that, while its extremely common on PC to have a significantly better CPU than on consoles, making some types of optimization make way less sense on PC. Another quick example is that PCs tend to be more VRAM limited (I'm obviously speaking for the mid range mostly here) and have significantly more general purpose RAM.
If you don't want to tweak, it's why games often support performance levels that just hide all the deeper setting by default. If High is running too bad for you, drop to Medium. The names don't mean anything. For some games, the closest to equivalent console settings are the max settings, because the devs didn't want to upgrade the PC version. For others it's Medium, since they wanted to have some upgrades but allow scaling down for worse PCs. For many, it's Low, and even for some, the console settings would require going below the lowest default options.
Doesn't seem like that's at all the case with RDR2, nor was it the case with Gears 5 (at least for the expensive stuff like vol lighting and SSR), and that's a 1P title.
It's to niche for them to care. If ppl really want to compare pc hardware to console they can do the work required.
They should just get rid of the high and ultra settings in PC games. Since, at least from reading PC-gaming subreddits, it seems only a few people in those communities get that graphics will eventually get better and their old 1060 can't just hit ultra every game forever.
Hyperbole aside, I agree OP. If users had a frame of reference for what was actually considered the "ideal base" settings that the developers intended the game to look like then there would be a lot less confusion. Typically consoles have a mix of settings, certain ones on high, some on low, etc. The current preset system just isn't helpful other than how I use it - which is set everything to medium and adjust a few settings up to high/max that I know I should (like texture quality and AF).
Hyperbole aside, I agree OP. If users had a frame of reference for what was actually considered the "ideal base" settings that the developers intended the game to look like then there would be a lot less confusion. Typically consoles have a mix of settings, certain ones on high, some on low, etc. The current preset system just isn't helpful other than how I use it - which is set everything to medium and adjust a few settings up to high/max that I know I should (like texture quality and AF).
OP
OP
Digital Foundry drops a new RDR2 video comparing the game running at "as close as possible to console" preset and make the same obvious common sense argument as myself, that this should just be included by default as an optional baseline to make it much more logical for people to understand the level of performance:
Because people are used to just using "high" or whatever and then bitching about bad optimisation, when they do not know what that preset entails.
Because people are used to just using "high" or whatever and then bitching about bad optimisation, when they do not know what that preset entails.
I would very much like this, though consoles being a 'closed' system where as pc being a compilation of third-party products the results will vary too much. My pc has slightly better specs then my pro, yet my pro runs third-party titles much smoother then i can ever get my pc to do. So even though i would very much like it, i dont think its possible. Games like Uncharted and Horizon are able to squeeze out every inch of performance since the devs know exactly what hardware they are working with. Having a setting on pc that would at least mimic this is still welcome however.
would be nice, i have a laptop that's a essentially a vanilla ps4 1.5 but a lot of games run considerably worse (i could get them there but i'm not a tweak master)
but as mentioned, optimizing for a baseline isn't as simple as flipping a switch, unless you assume everybody is rocking the same setup
but as mentioned, optimizing for a baseline isn't as simple as flipping a switch, unless you assume everybody is rocking the same setup
OP
OP
...what are you talking about? What "limit yourself"? How would an optional console preset be limiting anything in any way? It would just make it easier to tweak the game from a standard console-like baseline. I am not, and Digital Foundry is not, asking for it to be limiting of anything in any way.
OP
OP
What do you mean? Why should everybody have the same setup for an optional console-like preset? I feel like I am in a bizzaro universe where people do not understand how words work.
bespoking a simple 'console option' amongst a permutation of CPU and GPU variations wouldn't complicate things a bit? i mean maybe not i'm not a software engineer but ... yeah
It's a setting that is "the default", one the developers probably fine tuned their game the most. I have a mid-range PC and I'm constantly going back and forth trying to decide if I want to sacrefice performance or quality and I don't like this experience. I would love to have a setting where the developers decided this for me (leaving the granular setting for those who want it, ofc)
Having graphics options preset from non-pc platforms will be a hassle, imagine additional options below 'auto detect' which would say
- Switch handheld graphics
- Switch docked graphics
- Xbox One base console graphics
- Xbox One X console graphics (resolution)
- Xbox One X console graphics (performance)
- PS4 base console graphics
- PS4 Pro console graphics (resolution)
- PS4 Pro console graphics (performance)
No please, those above number of options would actually be more than the default graphics options in some games.
- Switch handheld graphics
- Switch docked graphics
- Xbox One base console graphics
- Xbox One X console graphics (resolution)
- Xbox One X console graphics (performance)
- PS4 base console graphics
- PS4 Pro console graphics (resolution)
- PS4 Pro console graphics (performance)
No please, those above number of options would actually be more than the default graphics options in some games.
Last edited:
your pc doesn't completely reproduct a console hardware, nor would handle the game exactly as a console even if it had the same exct hardware inside of it. It means that if you go for a preset based on a console hardware, you are going to overshoot or undershoot some parts of the settings that you rig can handle better or worse than consoles.
if you want a baseline, you already get that with the usual low-mid-high-very high presets present in most games.
a console preset isn't a thing because it doesn't actually benefit anyone other than people that want to go for comparisons.
Of course developers are free to offer the option if they want depending on how much work it actually entails, but i still think it kind of miss the point of the entire existence of graphical options on a pc game, which is to customize your experience.
The console "settings" are just what the developer could come up with based on what hardware they're working with, what frame rate they're targeting and what resolution they want to run at. It's not what their vision of what the game should look like or what they feel is the ideal bunch of settings for a balanced experience. They're literally designed based on the exact hardware they console is running on which is completely irrelevant to PC.
Telling a PC to run at "Xbox 1X" settings makes zero sense because the developers gimped all the settings so that they could hit an arbitrary 4K target. Do you ever see people on PC capping themselves to 30fps and putting half the settings on low just so they can run at native 4K? That's literally what the X is doing.
So sure you could make some console preset which is probably designed for 30fps (while PC is generally 60) but that would be a poor use of whatever custom hardware you're' running. You're much better off just running at low/medium/high which is the type of presets that a lot of games have already.
Telling a PC to run at "Xbox 1X" settings makes zero sense because the developers gimped all the settings so that they could hit an arbitrary 4K target. Do you ever see people on PC capping themselves to 30fps and putting half the settings on low just so they can run at native 4K? That's literally what the X is doing.
So sure you could make some console preset which is probably designed for 30fps (while PC is generally 60) but that would be a poor use of whatever custom hardware you're' running. You're much better off just running at low/medium/high which is the type of presets that a lot of games have already.
On PC there are tools like Geforce Experience that will automatically recommend settings based on your actual hardware. This will give you a much better result than trying to use console-like settings that have been "fine-tuned" for running at 30 fps on a different set of hardware.
The "Low, Medium, High, Ultra" presets that are included with many games are also likely to be better tuned for running on PCs than a console preset would be.
Low, "Console", Medium, High
IO Interactive knows what to turn on and off to reach console-like graphical quality, so just make that a preset in addition to the usual. people thinking console-level toggles are "limiting" are just complicating things for the sake dick waving
IO Interactive knows what to turn on and off to reach console-like graphical quality, so just make that a preset in addition to the usual. people thinking console-level toggles are "limiting" are just complicating things for the sake dick waving
After seeing these 60fps switch game mods on overclocked units (DQ11, Witcher 3), I actually agree lol.
It takes extra resources though for frame-rate; even if you're advertising variable frame rate you gotta ensure it's stable, nothing gets broken etc.
But shadows and LOD are variable too?! You can't expect to take settings from a 1080p optimized version and switch the resolution to 4K while expecting the same image quality. Maybe they used 1k shadow maps or low res AO and it will look terrible on 4K. Same with the LOD and other settings.
OP
OP
No, it would not. Permutations of CPU and GPU are completely irelevant. I am simply asking them to include optional preset that has similar shadow/LoD/etc settings as the leading console. It has zero to do with anyone's PC hardware.
Yes, let's take an idea, blow it into insane hyperbolic proportions and pretend it is inpractical.
FFS. Obviously I am not asking for developers to include every single console permutation. Just one from, say, the leading console would suffice. Or one depending on their choice.
The preset does not have to be 100% identical, although that wouldn't be all that difficult. But just like there are already existing presets, there could easily be one most closely matching the console from the already existing settings. Like Digital Foundry is asking.
You claiming it would not benefit anyone is just your personal incorrect opinion. At the very least it would benefit me, since it would make tweaking easier.
In my experience GF Experience is useless (always undershoots or overshoots) and the presets high/normal etc are nice and all, but give no information about what they actually are, so I still have to go and tweak them.
If I had a, say, PS4 preset available. I would simply choose that, see how the game runs, and then increase my resolution or detail accordingly.
Yep. It is bizzare.
Good point - but that's why it would just be optional baseline and you can go and tweak to your hearts content from that.
A PS4 preset may be horribly optimized for running on PC hardware and at your target resolution / framerate, though.
The thing to understand from a technical perspective is that certain settings may cause huge performance cliffs on some hardware - for instance if they require more VRAM that you have or take advantage of special functional units that aren't present on your GPU. Even though console hardware is generally less powerful than current PCs, there are still areas of the microarchitecture that will perform better. For instance, there is a cache-coherent bus between the PS4's CPU and GPU, but you don't have that on a PC with discrete CPU and GPU. This also applies to the software side; there may be different bottlenecks in the GPU driver and graphics libraries. The performance cost of the settings do not scale linearly either, so a mixture of settings that may well balanced if you are running at 30 fps may be poorly balanced for running at 60 fps.
This is why your argument that GFE is "useless" because it overshoots / undershoots, but that you would "simply" choose a PS4 present seems bonkers to me. The PS4 preset will have much worse overshoot / undershoot and require more tuning. It would be more difficult to get right rather than simpler.
I will say, I agree with you that the presets giving you no information is a real problem, but I think what you are proposing is not the right solution. I think a better solution would be to have some kind of live preview function built into the settings menu, so you can actually see what happens to the visuals / performance as you toggle the presets or individual settings.
how would that be any different than choosing the "high" setting and getting low performance?
isn't that the point that a console preset trying to solve? it gives a baseline of where a pc player can scale up or down from.
There's nothing uniform about 'console' settings, not to the point that you could make a baseline for whatever the dev cycle of a console generation maybe. Not to mention the redundancy with pc exclusives that are basically the reason that pc gaming is pc gaming.
not like there's uniformity in the current setup to begin with. one game's high is another's medium is another's low, especially over time as games age. like with what we're seeing with Red Dead now
Please continue on to read the next paragraph of the post you quoted. I will reproduce it below for your convenience.
The "high" preset on a PC game is probably tuned decently for running a game using a high-end discrete PC GPU with DirectX (or whatever graphics API the game is actually using in its PC build) at 60 fps. If you pick High and get bad performance, try Medium or Low. One of them is likely to be a good starting point, and you can tweak individual settings further if desired.
This makes a lot more sense than a preset that is based around a console's hardware and API bottlenecks at 30 fps. Its settings are unlikely to be well balanced for any PC and are not a good starting point for tweaking settings further.
What I'm saying is pc already has a scale. There's a whole publishing industry about benchmarks and reviews that is freely available out there. I see no venn diagram between pc gamers and console settings.
Facts.
Also, I disagree with those who think automatic settings based on hardware on PC don't work too well. Many modern games automatically pick the perfect settings for many hardware configurations.
Furthermore, we have apps like GeForce experience which digs into a games ini file and further tweaks a games graphical settings to get acceptable performance depending on the hardware.
Honestly, what OP is proposing already exists but these option are for someone's personal PC hardware, console hardware is completely irrelevant.