Final Fantasy XV confirmed for PC in early 2018

[Princess Luna]

I don't see any thing wrong with using nVidia Game Works, if you dislike HairWorks or can't have it enable due to lower end GPU just don't enable it, the art of PC gaming is that you can customize your graphical settings no? Hopefully my Black Edition FE 1080ti will allow me to max the game out on 2560x1080p and keep a butter smooth 80hz fast-sync experience.

 

About the 170gb size, sure it is a lot but then again if a shitty game like CoD IW already used 90gb for just a short linear crappy campaign with slightly polished graphics from an outdated engine that's in use since CoD4 MW1, makes me feel it's at least justified this time.... better have to spare out 170gbs worth of space for a functional great game than just use 60gbs for a piece of glitching crap like Watch Dogs 2 or Mafia 3.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Finally! I have been waiting for it's announcement since the console release, now all I need is Rockstar to port RDR2 as well and the 2 only games I wanted on the PS4 will be on PC as well ^^

I bet we do get a PC port of RDR2 by early 2019. I was reading an article the other day that said the reason we never got a PC port of RDR1 (nor XB1, PS4 remasters either) is that the codebase was a complete mess that they barely got running on the current gen of consoles back then (which makes sense considering how terrible RDR1 was on PS3). Supposedly they were hacking together some custom stitched together mix between the engine used in GTA IV and the one used in GTA V.

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

You mean the general consensus of the console players that were first mocking and then protesting the PC version of the game?

 

Yeah vox populi isn't a good argument when considering brainwashed console players: The game had demonstrable issues due to the lower performance on the consoles: remember that video of a guy crashing his plane on thin air only for the tree he crashed into to finally appear during the "wasted" sequence? I do. I don't really care how many millions of copies it sold it wasn't a good experience for consoles. In fact not even for PC users when it was released if you consider the average PC specs at that time.

For ff15 the resolution would DROP like an anchor. You would go from looking at some beautiful scene, to looking at the most blurry pixelated stretched garbage ever. All to maintain the frame rate. Hoping we dont see that on PC as well.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

In fact not even for PC users when it was released if you consider the average PC specs at that time.

Exactly what PC hardware have you run GTA5 on anyway?   And 'Average PC Specs At The Time'?  The game was only released on PC two years and four months ago.

[SteveGrabowski0]

37 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I'm basically going to buy a PS4 for Persona and Kingdom Hearts 3. =X

You sure Kingdom Hearts 3 is coming out before PS5 though? 

[SteveGrabowski0]

32 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

The game can run on an Xbox One which is a glorified Radeon HD 7870 with an 8 core Bobcat CPU.  SURELY it'll scale pretty decently on a range of hardware

XBox One wishes it had a 7870. Not even PS4 has a 7870, PS4's gpu is more like a 7850. And it's something like 15% faster than the gpu in the XBone.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Exactly what PC hardware have you run GTA5 on anyway?   And 'Average PC Specs At The Time'?  The game was only released on PC two years and four months ago.

When GTA V was released it was a bit before Skylake for processors so most people playing it back then on average had an i5 haswell: fairly insufficient for the busiest parts of GTA V. For GPUs we're talking Maxwell's so on average 960 or a 280/380 which was also not really capable of cranking things up.

[SteveGrabowski0]

30 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I dunno.  I have to be totally honest, with GTA5 as an example, that is a game that you can crank to batshit crazy levels and need two 1080's in SLI to get decent 4K frame rates out, on the other hand I can use my R9 390X, run it at 1800p (scaling up to 4K), most settings just at 'normal' while maintaining 60fps and I still have a HUGELY visually gratifying experience on my TV.  Some PC games can scale remarkably well with a lot of the 'big GPU demands' really being a tremendous amount of ultra fine details that give diminishing returns as you enable them.

 

Really, so long as my highly subjective, mushy, monkey brain thinks 'Gosh this is pretty. ^_____^' isn't that all that matters?

I would never expect Rockstar level optimizations in Square Enix PC ports though. Look at how bad NieR Automata's PC port is: it's an incredible game, but there is no way a game with graphics that pedestrian should have needed so much tweaking just to run 1920x1080 at 60 fps on my GTX 970, especially since the game is almost there on the weak ass PS4 Slim.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

33 minutes ago, Pintend said:

According to this tweet, the recommended specs are brutal and the download size is monumental:

This is just somebody saying this though, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

 

Not really surprising. Well maybe to those who are unfamiliar. FF13 was 60 gigs on the PC and thats a game from 2009

 

FF13 looked good with abit of tweaking, wou;dn't expect anything less from FF15

 

Spoiler

 

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

When GTA V was released it was a bit before Skylake for processors so most people playing it back then on average had an i5 haswell: fairly insufficient for the busiest parts of GTA V. For GPUs we're talking Maxwell's so on average 960 or a 280/380 which was also not really capable of cranking things up.

...I can't help but notice that you didn't mention what PC hardware you were running GTA5 on.  You've not actually run GTA5 on PC, have you?  You have zero first hand experience on this, huh

 

Quote

Minimum specifications:

• OS: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1, Windows Vista 64 Bit Service Pack 2
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
• Memory: 4GB
• Video Card: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, *11)
• Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
• HDD Space: 65GB
• DVD Drive

Quote

Recommended specifications:

• OS: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1
• Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHZ (8 CPUs)
• Memory: 8GB
• Video Card: NVIDIA GTX 660 2GB / AMD HD7870 2GB
• Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
• HDD Space: 65GB
• DVD Drive

 

Meanwhile, yesterday I was toying around with GTA5 on a 4K TV with a six year old Sandy Bridge Laptop CPU and a HD 7950 and R9 390X just for the purposes of my Laptop to Desktop recycling project.  You can even see numbers documented in the thread.

 

 

Here you can us this post to see the 7950 (Which is basically a 280/380 as you just cited) being tested with that old laptop CPU.  I even listed the complete benchmark config from the results.  Average frame rates were in the 57-74fps range 

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I would never expect Rockstar level optimizations in Square Enix PC ports though. Look at how bad NieR Automata's PC port is: it's an incredible game, but there is no way a game with graphics that pedestrian should have needed so much tweaking just to run 1920x1080 at 60 fps on my GTX 970, especially since the game is almost there on the weak ass PS4 Slim.

It's rather unfair to judge an untested port on previous ports though.  You just said 'Rockstar Level Optimizations', how is that even a term you can use with a straight face?  GTA5 is the first Rockstar PC port that was well optimized.  They have a history of their PC ports running terribly.  Even GTA4 ran about as well as a two legged horse.  You can't say 'Rockstar Level Optimization' as if Rockstar has some kind of history of quality, well optimized PC ports, because that is entirely detached from reality.

 

'GTA5 Level Optimization', sure, maybe.  'Rockstar Level Optimization', god no.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

It's rather unfair to judge an untested port on previous ports though.  You just said 'Rockstar Level Optimizations', how is that even a term you can use with a straight face?  GTA5 is the first Rockstar PC ports that was well optimized.  They have a history of their PC ports running terribly.  Even with GTA4.  You can't say 'Rockstar Level Optimization' as if Rockstar has some kind of history of quality, well optimized PC ports, because that is entirely detached from reality.

 

'GTA5 Level Optimization', sure, maybe.  'Rockstar Level Optimization', god no.

GTA IV was indeed awful, but wasn't Max Payne 3 excellent?

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

GTA IV was indeed awful, but wasn't Max Payne 3 excellent?

I really can't deny that.  I stand corrected.  MP3, while I've not played it, was regarded as a quality PC port.  But right now it and GTA5 more or less stand alone in terms of Rockstar's history of PC ports.

[Bouzoo]

10 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

XBox One wishes it had a 7870. Not even PS4 has a 7870, PS4's gpu is more like a 7850. And it's something like 15% faster than the gpu in the XBone.

PS4 uses a modified 7870, which iirc sits between 7870 and 7850. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

13 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

When GTA V was released it was a bit before Skylake for processors so most people playing it back then on average had an i5 haswell: fairly insufficient for the busiest parts of GTA V. For GPUs we're talking Maxwell's so on average 960 or a 280/380 which was also not really capable of cranking things up.

I can't imagine Haswell i5 being a problem in GTA V, at least in single player (I never play the MP so I can't comment there). I remember playing the game after disabling two cores on my E3-1231v3 to simulate a Haswell i3 and the gameplay was great. For the most part on very high settings it ran 70-80 fps on my GTX 970 at 1080p and the worst dips were into the mid 50s and pretty rare. I was really impressed to see it do so well on what was effectively an i3 with more L3 cache.

[2FA]

AHAHAAHA so many complaining about GameWorks affecting ports. SquareEnix doesn't need GW to make a terrible running port, they do it already in 9 times out of 10.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

-snip-

Really? I outta take a look:

 

Quote

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 24.620314, 68.817245, 57.358273
Pass 1, 39.082607, 79.956421, 64.513756
Pass 2, 45.587841, 140.426453, 63.992432
Pass 3, 51.215485, 102.627869, 74.047852
Pass 4, 22.968554, 110.432838, 67.674194

Yep: fairly close to how I remember: terrible minimums that made the game feel jerky and hard to control on high speed chases through downtown.

 

I am still happy about you getting those high maximums and I'd be nice if you decide to play with just trevor in the middle of the desert though so there's that.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm glad to hear this is coming on PC. I have been tempted by the $30 sales for PS4, but a couple of months ago you started hearing rumors they would announce a PC port at Gamescon and I'd rather pay $50 for a PC version than $30 for a PS4 one.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I can't imagine Haswell i5 being a problem in GTA V, at least in single player (I never play the MP so I can't comment there). I remember playing the game after disabling two cores on my E3-1231v3 to simulate a Haswell i3 and the gameplay was great. For the most part on very high settings it ran 70-80 fps on my GTX 970 at 1080p and the worst dips were into the mid 50s and pretty rare. I was really impressed to see it do so well on what was effectively an i3 with more L3 cache.

Look up: it was and Ashley here did the homework in remembering how bad the minimums where at launch.

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

AHAHAAHA so many complaining about GameWorks affecting ports. SquareEnix doesn't need GW to make a terrible running port, they do it already in 9 times out of 10.

Looks at avatar 

[2FA]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Looks at avatar 

The stories are awesome but the performance in their titles.... yeah let's not talk about that...

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Really? I outta take a look:

 

Yep: fairly close to how I remember: terrible minimums that made the game feel jerky and hard to control on high speed chases through downtown.

 

I am still happy about you getting those high maximums and I'd be nice if you decide to play with just trevor in the middle of the desert though so there's that.

If you'd like, I could run that test again.   The i7 2630qm was revealed to be thermally throttling and showing some sharp drops in frame rate as a result of the OEM Coolermaster Socket G2 cooler that shipped with that industrial motherboard.  Later in the thread I post dramatic improvements with an after market G2 heatsink and I'll be modifying it later this week with a Noctua fan on the heatsink.  As you can imagine, it's not easy to find Socket G2 compatible cooling options.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

The stories are awesome but the performance in their titles.... yeah let's not talk about that...

Well at least you probably didn't have to tweak shit to get 60 fps at 1080p with a 1080 in Automata. Man I had to go into settings in FAR and put them at medium to get 60 fps on my 970. Ridiculous for a game whose graphics look almost PS3 level.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

If you'd like, I could run that test again.   The i7 2630qm was revealed to be thermally throttling and showing some sharp drops in frame rate as a result of the OEM Coolermaster Socket G2 cooler that shipped with that industrial motherboard.  Later in the thread I post dramatic improvements with an after market G2 heatsink and I'll be modifying it later this week with a Noctua fan on the heatsink.  As you can imagine, it's not easy to find Socket G2 compatible cooling options.

You could. Here's a suggestion also: please turn on MSAA since I noticed you didn't. Because as I said before it really made a difference, both in looks and performance. The extra settings for draw distance for shadows for example are also really noticeable so let's crank those up. A frametime graph should really help out too since the minimums I suspect will probably stay consistently bad, specially with the more high end settings that actually pushed the game beyond what the consoles were capable of, which is the point.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Well at least you probably didn't have to tweak shit to get 60 fps at 1080p with a 1080 in Automata. Man I had to go into settings in FAR and put them at medium to get 60 fps on my 970. Ridiculous for a game whose graphics look almost PS3 level.

I had a 980TI at the time but yeah I didn't need to tweak. There were some noticable dips at certain spots though. 1440p for me.