-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Skyrim and Fallout 4 patches are now out on the Xbox One X
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
Happy to see Fallout, but I'd rather have a Prey patch over Skyrim. Not sure if that one is happening at this point.
Yeah, I am hoping for a Prey patch. I waited till the last hour of the MS Store Sale and bought Prey in hopes of a patch. It was a great price, but will feel a bit burned if it never gets a patch.
I'm surprised they didn't go for 60fps, at least on Skyrim. I would expect the X could do it pretty handily.
Pathetic lol. It's a free patch that they had no obligation to add.
The physics is based off the fps and they couldnt even fix it for PC.
The game ran on last gen CPU's so I don't see why a 60FPS option at least wouldn't be possible. A damn shame, hope there's more to each patched than the notes, really underwhelming otherwise. Fallout 4 downloaded two updates, one 1.8GB and one 17GB, must be higher resolution textures?
I know that at 120fps and up, things start to get wonky in the PC version. I don't remember running into issues though at 60fps
A free patch on a game that still sells great for at least $30 on a $600 console.
I expected more.
The PC high res texture pack was over 50 GB but it's possible the Xbox One X doesn't have enough memory to run those textures.
Was thinking about that, I assume they're compressed and smaller but still substantially better than the originals. Then again weren't the high resolution textures on PC underwhelming especially for 50GB?
Pete Hines kinda hinted at a Prey patch during the Xbox One X launch stream but no definitive word
Based on the size of this patch for Skyrim, I'm guessing there's more to the enhancements that just a render resolution change.
Assuming it means it avoids the framerate jumps from the Pro version, I'm actually glad to hear there's a dynamic scaler for the 4K output. Ideally, there would be an option to choose optimization depending on your display res, though supersampling to 1080p can give incredible results.
Assuming it means it avoids the framerate jumps from the Pro version, I'm actually glad to hear there's a dynamic scaler for the 4K output. Ideally, there would be an option to choose optimization depending on your display res, though supersampling to 1080p can give incredible results.
Yeah according to PC Gamer there isn't a huge difference: http://www.pcgamer.com/fallout-4-high-resolution-texture-pack-comparison-screenshots/
It's strange to see a native 4K Pro game be dynamic resolution on the X. Bethesda gonna Bethesda I guess.
They didn't hit 60fps on Pro, not sure why you expected it here. XB1X CPU is clocked like 5% higher than Pro's
The Pro version runs like crap. I image the X version is dynamic just incase, I'm willing to bet it doesn't drop from native 4k except in the most extreme cases.
I figure they're implying that if previous-gen console CPUs could handle a close-enough 30 fps target, mid-gen upgrades to the current round of consoles should be able to handle the additional computations. Assuming the issue is processing power, and not engine-level bottlenecks.
Your points aren't mutually exclusive, lol
Also, I agree that it's likely a "safety net" to try to avoid the hitching in the current Pro version. This is the sort of thing that could easily be implemented there too, if it gives a smoother result.
They might've learned something from the PRO version. Apparently it doesn't run very well (worse performance than the standard PS4 version) because of the commitment to native 4K.
It really is. It's still just a Jaguar CPU with a minor upclock over the PS4 Pro.
PS4 - 1.6 GHz
XB1 - 1.75 GHz
PS4 Pro - 2.1 GHz
XB1 X - 2.3 GHz
I would educate yourself if I were you. Yes, the X is impressive and 'beastly' in the graphics department for a console, no one's debating that. But the CPU is an albatross around it's neck.
These mid-gen upgrades are specced for graphics upgrades, with a minor performance boost owing to the CPU upclock. If you're expecting 60fps patches for every X title then you're going to be sorely disappointed with your purchase.
This is a 2011 game. CPUs managed to do 60fps 6-7 years ago, I'm sure the X could as well if Bethesda actually put effort into these patches.
The difference being that those CPUs 6-7 years ago were desktop-class and most are still relevant today. The Jaguar CPUs in the consoles are laptop-equivalent and were outdated and outspecced prior to the consoles launching.
These both read exactly like the Pro updates. Right down to the extra god rays and draw distance on Fallout 4. Seems like they didn't do anything extra beyond those.
Fallout 4 runs at 1440p on the Pro IIRC. I imagine it runs higher on the XBX with similar visual settings. Also wonder why they both say "Dynamic resolution", even Skyrim says that when it runs at a constant native 2160p @ 30 FPS on the Pro.
Fallout 4 runs at 1440p on the Pro IIRC. I imagine it runs higher on the XBX with similar visual settings. Also wonder why they both say "Dynamic resolution", even Skyrim says that when it runs at a constant native 2160p @ 30 FPS on the Pro.
How so? I don't think I was rude at all. Merrill is saying that 60fps should be no problem for the XB1 X's CPU for this game when that clearly is not the case (and the same for the majority of games). If it came off as rude that wasn't my intent and I'm sorry.
I did not know that, I was under the impression it ran fairly well. It's still strange though, X should've taken care of the performance issues on Pro anyway.
This would apply to most current gen games, not so much for ports of last gen games.
The game ran at 30FPS on Xbox 360, I doubt this is a CPU bottleneck but keep arguing that it's always the CPU. I had a lot of similar people telling me the same thing when I said I wanted a performance mode for Gears of War 4, and well we got one and it runs great.
Of course it's not always the CPU. Some games are GPU-bound, some are CPU-bound. In Skyrim's case, it's an open-world physics-based game that is heavily CPU dependant.
If the CPU is the excuse, how are the same CPUs running Doom 2016, Battlefield 1, and MGS V @ 60fps?
It's not doing anything overly different that's CPU heavy to the 360 version besides higher LOD. I think this is just a case of Bethesda not wanting to have two different graphical modes in the game.
Those games have been designed around the consoles CPU limitations to hit 60FPS.
Because you can fill an entire house with blocks of cheese in Skyrim.
They run fine. Skyrim Pro has received further performance improvement patches and no one's done a FPS counter after that. I have that game and it seems to always run at a solid 30 FPS.
Fallout 4 Pro is a weird case. If you run the base game without the Pro patch with boost mode, it runs at a better locked 30 FPS. With the Pro patch it doesn't run solid and can drop *BUT* even with the Pro patch, it still has better average performance than the OG PS4... that part is straight up misinformation.
You can read more about it here:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-fallout-4-ps4-pro-patch-analysis
The frame rate only seems to boggle in the stress test areas, other than that the Pro patch is a huge improvement. Higher resolution, better god rays, increased draw distance and generally better performance than the OG PS4 version in all places.
If doing a 60 fps mode was simple enough, I think they'd have done it. I'm personally assuming the reason is more to do with bottlenecks in the engine itself more than there not being the raw overhead to double cpu calls since last gen. As much as the 1X CPU is still built around a value-price CPU, I'm under the assumption that it can handle at least double the calculations of an Xbox 360. If someone knows otherwise, then that would be an answer in itself.
The CPU combined with the developer is the excuse.
If it was developed in house then yes, maybe this game could have run at 60fps. With the developer and their engine however, it was never going to happen.
Although.... Skyrim PS4 VR runs at 60 minimum right? Please tell me that it does ....
The Xbox 360 had a 3.2-GHz Tri-Core Xenon CPU. It was arguably as powerful as the Xbox One's/PS4's Jaguar CPU.
or that they are limited at what they can do and the cpu is holding it back. Which is probably more of the case.