The Last of Us 1.08 Pro Patch draws controversy

Reply Agree 20 Disagree 54

freshslicepizza2700d ago

this game should easily handle 1080p and solid 60fps on the pro. or pehaps the cpu is still a major bottleneck.

Razrye22700d ago

Show

2700d ago

ShadowKnight2700d ago

Show

Drizzy2699d ago

Exactly

Agree 0 Disagree 0

Reply Agree 12 Disagree 27

1nsomniac2700d ago

If I'm honest Uncharted 4 looks no different at all to me on the Pro over the standard version. Whereas TLOU actually looked like it had a little upgrade to visuals.

nyctophilia132700d ago

Going from 1080p to ~2K HDR was a big leap to me, and U4 already looked fantastic to begin with.

Agree 17 Disagree 7

Perjoss2700d ago

You must not have a 4K TV then because the difference is pretty huge going from 1080 to the higher resolution.

Agree 18 Disagree 6

2700d ago

1nsomniac2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Let me clear that up. I'm playing at 1080p, so no 4K, no HDR, just downsampling.

However TLOU looks great, although I havnt played it with this newest patch. It looks noticeably improved with a crisper cleaner image. Uncharted 4 to me looks no different at all with the pro patch.

Agree 4 Disagree 3

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2700d ago

never4get2700d ago

retarded(slow) PS3 codes still ruining games to this day.

Reply Agree 6 Disagree 24

EverydayGuy2700d ago

Maybe it's not fully optimize from the PS3 version and that's what causing problems, just speculating.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 4

Reply Agree 25 Disagree 5

mad-dog2700d ago

WTF?!! I bought the pro for downsampling on a 1080P screen. It looked SOOOO good without the shimmering and jaggies.
At least give people the choice ND..

Reply Agree 5 Disagree 25

2700d ago

Replies(10)

Eidolon2700d ago

I thought the game ran horribly at the 30fps mode on PS4 Pro.

Eidolon2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Input latency was awful for me.

Agree 4 Disagree 17

Reply Agree 12 Disagree 4

Eonjay2700d ago

Read the whole article tho. They said that downsampling is still in place on 4k screens. That means its a glitch and nothing more. The monitor you use does not affect performance. Obviously there is a glitch when its connected to 1080p screens. The option is still there obviously if they tested it on a 4k TV and it worked. They will fix it.

Ju2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

4k doesn't downsample. It renders the higher res on those TVs. But they removed that when running on 1080 screens instead they now render in native 1080 with some more features enabled. 4k and downsample to 1080 gives you a noticeable crisper image, though. TLoU does not have any graphical options other than a 30fps lock.

Agree 4 Disagree 3

Eonjay2700d ago

Please reread my comment or the article. On a 4k TV they were able to play in 1080p downsampled from 1800p. So clearly, they can do the same on a native 1080p screen. This has nothing to do with the native 4k presentation... and its obviously a glitch.

Agree 1 Disagree 3

Ju2699d ago

This isn't a glitch. This was removed on purpose. I am well aware it was downsampling before, it's the whole point of the discussion here, that it doesn't do it any more maybe to address the FPS criticism?

Agree 0 Disagree 0

ITPython2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

I bought the pro to have games which look more crisp, sharp and run at a higher framerate on 1080p. Sadly many of the pro games are forcing supersampling on us with no choice, which often makes the game run worse than the standard ps4 version (supersamping AA is extremely resource intensive) and also softens the image to make it less sharp and more blurry. When I went from playing Deus Ex on my standard PS4 (which I thought looked amazing) to playing it on my Pro, I actually thought it was a downgrade. Yes, the jaggies were pretty much mostly eliminated, but the picture quality was far too soft, and there was still tons of frame-rate issues in certain areas of the game. Plus to me it seemed they dropped the texture detailing down a bit (since supersampling AA is so resource intensive, they might have had to bring some graphical down to make it run smoothly).

I have done a lot of experimenting with graphical options on my PC build, and the only way I got supersampling to look absolutely great at 1080p (with a sharp image and visuals that really popped) was to crank it up to 4x (I did this on Tomb Raider). Running at x4 was a genuine 4k resolution downsampling back to 1080p, but oh man was that incredibly resource intensive and made the game unplayable. However if I chose a x2 (which is basically what we get with supersampling on our Pro since it's not native 4k resolution), the image was soft, not sharp, and the visuals didn't pop at all. And in fact after hours and hour and hours of messing with graphical options on that game, I actually found that if I ran no AA at all, it looked just as good as the x4 supersampling (it just had jaggies, which don't bother me). And since I was running no AA, I could crank up all the other graphical settings to ultra or super high and still get a buttery smooth 60fps.

I do agree we should have the choice though, like what Infamous:SS does. But so far the vast majority of the Pro games are going the supersampling route (it's the lazy way, since they only need to make one change in order for it to work for both 1080p and 4k).

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 0

mad-dog2699d ago

Not that often. Most games are patched and run better. There are still a couple that run worse.
Downsampling is great. And the performance is mostly better or the same.

Agree 0 Disagree 0

Aenea2700d ago

Wow, that's crazy! Why on earth would they do it this way.

They could have decided to go with, let's say, 1600p instead when connected to a HDTV so the frame drops would be gone but still would have resulted in a nice supersampled image...

Maybe in 1.09! :)

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 7

Reply Agree 4 Disagree 19

2700d ago

DillyDilly2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Can't have Pro games look better than regular PS4 games thats why but thats also making the Pro useless lol

Aenea2700d ago

And what nonsense is this? Care to elaborate?

Agree 16 Disagree 1

RedDevils2700d ago

Careful you'll make those Pro owners mob angry, when they thought everything will magically will be better on the Pro lol

Agree 4 Disagree 8

2700d ago

Replies(3)

ITPython2699d ago (Edited 2699d ago )

Supersampling anything less than a native 4k resolution results in a less crisp/sharp image that is "flat and fuzzy" looking on a 1080p TV. This is what we are getting with the vast majority of Pro enhanced games now since the SS is not native 4k on most (or all) games.

I have found that so far all the games I have tried that supersample actually look and run worse than the baseline ps4 version (only difference is the SS version is mostly jaggy free).

Reply Agree 9 Disagree 11

2700d ago

Replies(1)

2700d ago

Replies(1)

kevnb2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

god dammit digital foundry, quit pointing out 1-2 fps drops and making a it seem like a big deal... the guys at naughty dog take the internet very seriously.

Reply Agree 5 Disagree 31

RonsonPL2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

You will NOT believe me if I tell you that there's a HUGE difference between 59 and 60fps, even between 238 and 240fps you will notice it, while you will not notice 35vs 50fps in different setup.

So rather than arguing I'll tell you how to see it for yourself:
1. Go here and read this http://www.blurbusters.com/... and other info in ARTICLES and LIGHTBOOST section
2. Buy a proper gaming display (monitor/TV) with low persistence mode
3. Now, since you have blur-free display, connect a PC, enable low persistence mode (different names: ULMB, BBR, MotionFlow 400 (or more) on Sony TVs, backlight strobe, backlight scanning) and run a game with stable 60fps at 60Hz. Pan the camera with a joypad. Limit (google how to do this) your framerate to 59fps.
If you don't see the difference then you closed your eyes or switched the display off. Really.
PS. Before you start, go http://www.testufo.com/ and test if your display is actually capable of displaying the same image in static image and in motion. Even some TVs/monitors with LP can achieve just "less blured" image instead of crystal clear.

So yeah, you won't notice:
- true awesomeness of 60fps @60Hz or 120fps @120fps
- microstutter, like 58 instead of 60fps
- any detail in motion

if you play on non-LP display, as 99% of gamers do, unfortunately.

But please. Educate yourself before you comment next time, because the fact that you have a crappy display doesn't mean you have the right to say that something is not important just because your display won't allow you to see the difference, OK?
Drops even by 2fps in otherwise stable 60fps is a HUGE deal, and this PS4pro version never should've had this issue. I would be outraged if I witnessed it, and it's VERY GOOD that Digital Foundry pointed that out. Even better that ND reacted. They should've give an option but then again millions of idiots would cry because "booo! you are making a PC from our consoles! Boo! Options are scary and evil! I won't buy your games unless you get rid of the options because I hate PC. Booo! How could you!"
(don't believe me? Go look on the forums and look what happened after Final Fantasy remake got options to choose res and framerate preference)

kevnb2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

its not a constant 59 fps, its random drops every now and then and it really isn't a big deal. Stop making a mountain out of an ant hill. I'm also not too concerned about the folks over at blurbusters, they are a little extreme and not like the rest of us.

Agree 17 Disagree 1

RonsonPL2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

@kevnb

59 was an example, because it's the hardest for layman to understand how 59 vs. 60fps can be a big difference.

Random drops below (insert display refresh rate) are ALWAYS very noticeable and hurt the fun factor by a lot in most cases (not so much if you play Chess game ;) ).
Believe me, I've spent hundreds of hours researching this topic, tested a lot of games/settings/displays/displa y settings and I do it since 1995, on CRTs, LCDs, plasmas. Results are always the same even if you test 158fps at 160Hz, which I also did.

Even Digital Foundry said that Mario Kart in singleplayer mode is annoying because it has 59 instead of 60fps, which means a small stutter every second.
I'd rather play in 1080p with stable 60fps @60fps instead of 55-60fps on @60Hz at 4K. Really. It's annoying. Fun and gameplay first. Graphics second.

edit: Why cannot I reply to your reply? :/

Agree 2 Disagree 20

Ju2700d ago

Somewhere there I was missing the /s...

Agree 3 Disagree 1

ILostMyMind2700d ago

@RonsonPL
"Random drops ... hurt the fun factor by a lot."

NO GOD! PLEASE NO!!! NOOOOOOOOOO

Agree 5 Disagree 0

2600Thunder2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Right. And this is why games that are either 30 or 60 are ok because a 60 hz display (which is the most common out there) can deal with both fine. Any other number in between will not work (yes this includes 59) because it is out of sync with refreshing simultaneously with 60hz. I wish console games that cannot hit 60 would always include a 30 lock. A display and input commands choke at 59 and games become jerky messes. It's about SMOOTH gameplay, so yes 30 works also because pacing is halved. The problem with 30 vs 60 (another debate) is that input delay is more apparent on 30 but forgivable since it is still smooth.

Vocal and uncaring people who yell out "it's only 1 frame" don't understand and are the same kind of people who go out of their way to protect big companies instead of consumers. Companies have lawyers; we consumers don't need to fanboy for them. This is also why this gen has been the worst relative to all others. Thank God for the silent group who dont listen and hold companies to higher standards. Developers and publishers are not your kids making breakfast where getting close is good enough. Games are an expensive hobby, especially for people who love multiple platforms. Fine, but if they are going to be expensive then the quality should reflect the price - meaning all aspects affecting gameplay (the core user interaction) should be fine-tuned for the best possible user experience.

DF pointed out valid, measurable frame rate gameplay affecting issues and presented the technical reasons to help us understand why they are frustrated, unlike most popular gaming liberal arts journalists who pander to big companies that pay them big ad money and perks. DF held nothing back and treated ND like everyone else, and I can appreciate that. At least they are one of the few who side with us consumers instead of the normal gaming journalist vomit.

Turn down res or scale down some of the "purdy" things in order to hit that 30 or 60 so the game doesn't stutter. Nothing kills the fun more than a stuttering game.

Agree 2 Disagree 8

Kryptix2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

As a PC gamer who plays a couple of games at 59fps to offset the occasional V-Sync input lag... I've done my research for optimizing...

I don't believe you. Yes, there are micro stutters, but they're not "every second" and the eye can't really perceive a difference between 59 and 60. 59fps is used by many to greatly reduce input lag which is awfully helpful in twitch shooters or racers, like in Mario Kart that you mentioned.

I rather have a very responsive ms (latency) to my input versus something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

/\ That has been fixed though, wonder if the fps got reduced by 1 or .5 to offset it. That's an example though why some devs might go toward 28, 29, 58, or 59fps. TLOU seems like a case where it's adaptive, probably needs better optimization of it.

Agree 1 Disagree 0

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2700d ago

2700d ago

Articuno762700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

It's a big deal if you just paid £350 for the privilege of getting a game that runs worse.

And you also have to consider where those drops happen i.e. not when the game was already dropping frames, but when the original was running at a stable 60. Factor in the fact that the game is V-synced so drops that cut below it manifest as judder and you have a downgrade that's discernible to the average person. It's not like the game is going from 47fps to 45fps (no one would notice that)!

It's not merely a difference of 2 frames when you look at it in context. It's the difference between smooth performance, and the retrograde lack of it. This, in spite of performance within Sony's internal documents supposedly having to at least equal the original version.

Reply Agree 6 Disagree 9

Ju2700d ago

It's not running worse. What you talking about. It still runs with more features than the standard PS4 in 1080, it's just I would prefer supersampling over "enriched" visuals at native 1080p. Like Tombraider does give players a choice.

Agree 3 Disagree 3

Articuno762700d ago

@Ju Digital Foundry ran the numbers. TLoU (1.07) runs worse on the Pro than it does on the base PS4.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

"The Last of Us on PS4 Pro runs worse than the standard PS4 model while targeting 60fps. With the resolution set to 1800p in its 60fps mode on PS4 Pro, we see frame-rate drops in places that played out smoothly on the original machine. "

Agree 6 Disagree 3

MRMagoo1232700d ago

derp ....you guys huh 😂😂😂 I wish I could pretend to be concerned about it too

Agree 4 Disagree 4

Ju2700d ago

How is running 1800p vs 1080p running worse? It doesn't reach the same high framerate as the 1080p mode when running unlocked but it sure isn't "unplayable". This is so blown out of proportion, seriously. I just played it - and I had the game on the PS3 and played it on the PS4. This just another of those armchair controversies from people not owning a Pro or the game so they have a talking point because they have nothing else to do....

Agree 4 Disagree 2

Articuno762700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

@Ju "It's not running worse."

It's running at a lower framerate with more dips. That's the definition of running worse.

Yes, it's running at a higher internal resolution leading to a clean, supersampled image, but if you cared so much about that, you'd probably play the 30fps/native 4k mode anyway (which does, in fact, run completely on par with the base PS4). If you chose the 60fps mode, however, the odds are you did it because you wanted a high and stable framerate -- something that 1.07 on the Pro compromises.

Yes, that's not unplayable, but then nor or is the 30fps mode, but it does completely defeat the purpose of having that 60fps mode in the first place if it doesn't actually hit 60fps anymore for so much of the time! And that is a big deal. It takes one of the biggest selling points of the remastered version (the 60fps mode) and essentially removes the feature from the game.

And yes, an unstable framerate IS a big issue for that mode because THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT MODE!

Agree 3 Disagree 3

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2700d ago

ILostMyMind2700d ago

The truth is: Sony needs to improve its operating system to make it easier to adapt games to any version of hardware without punishing developers. In this Microsoft is light years ahead. Sony is very slow to observe, learn and do what is necessary and what consumers want.

Reply Agree 10 Disagree 11

2700d ago

Replies(2)

Ju2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Sony always gave developers the choice to be closer to the metal. Maybe in recent times, this isn't necessary any more because the machines are fast enough. But being low level has it's price. UC4 is clock optimized to synch the GPU with the CPU. Just a minor change in frequency (which is not synchronous between cpu and gpu in the Pro) will throw off this timing. Most games won't go that far, but that's the price you pay if you fully optimize for a locked HW - which so far consoles always were. Otherwise UC4 wouldn't look like it does on the standard PS4. The Pro is still fast enough to mitigate this risk to render this game at 1440p, but could probably do more if that yet again would have been fully optimized for the (new) HW. And I am pretty sure most games would just render fine on the pro in Pro mode, even if it's a standard PS4 game (see Batman). But who's running QA on 700 or so titles to guarantee that?

ILostMyMind2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

I agree with you. Sony has been doing a great job in the field of video games and has always managed to squeeze every drop of power out of his weak consoles to get the most out of quality. But now a trend begins, have several hardware on same generation, running the same games. It needs to make the same software work perfectly without extra work on all hardware. It would be shameful if a PS5 did not run PS4 games. Microsoft will leave a fine legacy carrying its gaming platform to the PC but Sony will be stuck to its devices, locked in every generation. It needs to evolve and be prepared for a possible end to the consoles.

Still dreaming about adopting Vulkan on PS4.

Agree 1 Disagree 3

Ju2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

There is no need for Vulcan on PlayStation. Vulcan doesn't solve the problem. MS will have the same problem despite Dx because the have XBO extensions in their API which must be carried over to the Scorpio. But moving forward I expect the subsequent console from MS basically being some sort of embedded PCs, nothing else.

The PlayStation OS is good enough to carry forward (NetBSD 6) and it's own graphics kernel is as much forward compatible as Vulcan. Most of the games will probably run on Pro mode, I'm certain of it. The current OS would probably take care of that. But just giving it a quick run or guaranteeing that a 30 hours open world games functions 100% will require some form of QA involved. AMD was heavily involved in Vulcan and you can bet a lot of the same tech is already in the PS4 kernel. PS4 shaders will still run on the Pro. It's the same architecture. This is the same like On PCs. It's not like someone would write to the metal, it is way more abstracted than it was e.g. with the PS3. But timing is a problem. Because this won't scale without patching. Not if you rely on these things.

Read how MS does 360 backward compatibility. They patch every single game and run it through their QA. Scorpio will do the exact same thing as the Pro if MS doesnt want to do that with every game.

I think the risk could be mitigated used a blacklist/Whitelist and a Sandbox approach. I would hope Sony would "Whitelist" more standard games. But this will not support higher resolutions if this wasn't built into the original game.

I think Sony is further ahead with their OS strategy as you might think and I expect the PS5 being fully PS4 software stack compatible.

Agree 0 Disagree 2

windblowsagain2700d ago

Old game, old news now.

Bring on some new titles.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 2

2700d ago

gbsrnctaln2700d ago

The fps inconsistency on the pro was jarring enough for me to stop playing and wait for ND to fix in an update. Being that Ive played through the game twice on ps3 and once more on ps4, im not in a huge hurry to run through it again at the moment. This is NOT the kind of update I was hoping for...

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 4

2700d ago

Articuno762700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

It's likely an intermittent measure so that people can at least enjoy stable performance again until they fix the optimisation a bit. I'd imagine the next patch won't be too far in the future and will give us the resolution options back, but with stable performance to match.

TLOU may not be a new game, but it's a major showcase title for the Pro nonetheless so I'd imagine Sony are adamant about it running and looking great.

2700d ago

yomfweeee2700d ago

Where's the big controversy by the way?

Reply Agree 7 Disagree 0

MRMagoo1232700d ago

no where to be seen but you know these sites and needing that ad click revenue.

those massive 1 or 2 frames that drop really must ruin it all 😂😂 /sarcasm

Articuno762700d ago

Honestly, it sounds like are simply rolling back/undoing the damage of the previous patch for now until they have something to sorts out the deflated performance on the Pro. Pretty sure we'll see a 1.09 patch that reinstates these features, this time with more stable performance.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 1

McErono2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

do you have the pro version running at 1800p? I don't get it cause the performance is great since 1.08. loaded lots of different areas and I did not see a single drop below 60fps. its perfect!

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 2

Reaper29r2700d ago

Why didn't they just do 1080P with better effects and AA? I'm not a game designer, but everytime I downsample on my PC it takes more grunt than just throwing AA at it. Certain games it would be a difference of as much as 20 frames. Downsampling just makes everything blurry. It's primarily good for games that don't have an AA method already baked in. Either way hopefully they get this fixed.

MRMagoo1232700d ago

what ?? 🤔 have you even used a pc before ......

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 2

Ju2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Downsampling does indeed render in much higher pixeldensity than lower res and than throw AA at it. The shimmering effect when rendering native 1080 and blurring over fine lines with AA is completely gone when Downsampling. AA doesn't help there. If you don't believe that play TR downsampling vs. high detail mode.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 3

sampson31212700d ago

You've got to love it when a website talks about others saying something is wrong with a game.
Idea, why don't you see for yourself before you write an article about the situation?

Digital Foundry is a go to site when it comes to accurate information about games performance and graphic issues.

not these guys.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 3

McErono2700d ago

hmm my tlou in 1800p is running at locked 60fps since patch 1.08, very clean image, just perfect! so this must be a bug in 1080p.

Reply Agree 4 Disagree 6

2700d ago

ziggurcat2700d ago

"However, users are suggesting the game looks worse as they’ve removed supersampling from 18oop making the image quality appear more jagged."

is there any proof of this?

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 1

MRMagoo1232700d ago

proof .......where do you think you are ? lol

when has proof ever been needed ? I'm sure a couple of concern trolls will tell you it's a travesty tho and has ruined gaming for them forever due to 1 frame dropping

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 2

ziggurcat2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

I mean, the article says there have been reports, but the author doesn't actually show any of these alleged reports or any comparison photos/videos

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 0

IceKoldKilla2700d ago

Lol N4G Refugees all over now. Hilarious.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 2

kingboy2700d ago

Sweet Lord !! The Last of Us Part II looking great

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 1

Ju2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Actually I was just talking to a friend the other day that fingers and hands are still a challenge these days and bam, TLoU2 opens with a closeup guitar solo.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 2

Maxor2700d ago

Don't give a damn about this ancient game. Give us a Bloodborne Pro patch already.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 5

snoopgg2699d ago

Hell, even bloodbotne is stale by now, bring on bloodborne 2.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 1

N311V2700d ago

That really sucks! I'll take supersampling with a side of rare frame-rate dips any day.

DashArrivals2700d ago

If there actually is a problem, then it will be patched. Relax

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 1

MagicBeanz2700d ago

Funny how its always "controversial" when its a Playstation exclusive.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 1

ITPython2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

More Pro games should be going this route, instead of forcing supersampling for those on 1080p. Supersampling a non-native 4k resolution makes the image too soft and unsharp, and it is very resource intensive so performance issues are going to be on par or worse than the base ps4 version, which is unacceptable IMO. And in some games it seems like the devs may have even dropped some graphical settings (texture detailing) in order to accommodate the supersampling.

For me supersampling is lose-lose, and in the case of Deus Ex, I actually find the base ps4 version to look way better. The only positive thing supersampling accomplishes is to smooth the edges out (less jaggies).

Supersampling Pros

- Smoothes out the edges, game has less jaggies.

Supersampling Cons

- Image quality is softened, side by side game will appear to be more blurry compared to basline game
- Performance is the same or worse than baseline ps4 game
- Due to the fact that supersampling is so resource intensive, some graphical options may be brought down below the baseline ps4 version in order to hold a more stable framerate

I'm sorry, but I'll take a few jaggies with much improved performance and graphical fidelity any day of the week over supersampling AA. I really wish more devs would stop focusing on 4k so much and ignoring those (probably the majority) who are still happily gaming on 1080p TV's.

KTF262700d ago

it's PS3 game
we shouldn't expect a lot

ThePresentIsAgift2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Downsampling with anti aliasing at 2k 60fps or even at 30fps with high/ultra/maximum details really is something on a large 1080p set or even at 2k native, it looks incredible and makes it easy to pick out distant targets in shooters. I wish they had made it a 2k native machine and aimed for that.

2700d ago

svoulis2700d ago

I took a screenshot of the game with 1.08 patch and heres what i have

http://i.imgur.com/eBLfZ1i....

I don't know about anyone else. But the one blurry screenshot I have seen looks like the guy took it while he was moving the camera

http://imagizer.imageshack....
(his picture)

I have no idea what he claims but mine looks way clearer than his and I am on the 1.08 patch as well.

dangerousbrian02699d ago (Edited 2699d ago )

Thats why both Sony & Microsoft should have waited another 2 years & let this console gen ride itself out then make console with a true 4K GPU & a faster seperate CPU thats the problem with SOC you have to either compromise the GPU power to get better CPU power or compromise CPU power to get better GPU power this midgen console cycle is only being released because both Sony & Microsoft realised straight out of the gate that both their current consoles were outdated &they are trying to play catch up & get the console gen doing what the PC gen has been doing for a few years now and the issues with the midgen console cycles also starting to show.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 0