A Way Out Dev: PS4 is “Like A Five Year-Old PC”

“This machine is not so strong as you think.”

Posted By | On 22nd, Jun. 2017 Under News

Depending on who you were, Hazelight’s A Way Out was either a bizarre concept unlike publisher Electronic Arts or an intriguing new experience. Either way, it made an impact and people were talking about it.

Speaking to Engadget, creator Josef Fares, who also made Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, was vocal about one particular aspect of gaming technology: The PlayStation 4. While a PS4 was running the game in front of him, Fares said, “You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think.

“This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles.”

Given that the PS4 has been out since late 2013 and was considered fairly dated upon arrival, this makes sense. Of course, given that the Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever built and still has its CPU as a bottleneck, it will be interesting to see where console tech goes in the coming years.

Meanwhile, A Way Out arrives in 2018 for Xbox One, PS4 and PC.

Tagged With: , , , , ,

Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • Jose Arcadio Morales

    ps4 was on pair with crappy tablet back in 2013

    • on pair huh? Elegant burn.

    • Dougdec92


  • Starman

    Damage control alert …. coming soon , to this article near you … rated ‘R’ no children permitted under 18 without a parent…

  • heima

    Well, it’s a four years old console, what did he expect? I don’t believe for a moment that we’d see different games if console were more powerful. According to Steam surveys, most gamers have pc that are weaker than Ps4 and Xbox One. So, no room for games with better IA, physics, game mechanics, etc.

    And, you keep repeating that Xbox X’s CPU is a bottleneck: the DF hasn’t said a thing about this, do you have informations that the rest of the world ignores, or yours is just an assumption? If it’s the latter, you shouldn’t state it as it was a fact. Just saying…

    • Riggybro

      PC games have minimum and recommended specs.

      So the people you mention with PCs weaker than XB1 will not be able to play the latest Forza or Assassins Creed etc

      How can we prove Jaguar is a bottleneck? We can’t – because we are only comparing it to itself and games are optimised to work around Jaguar, as a minimum, behind closed doors.

    • heima

      The fact that pc have minimun and recommended specs is the reason I wrote this:

      no room for games with better IA, physics, game mechanics, etc, unless developers want the majority of players to play their games with the details of a 16bit game and at a framerate similar to that of diapositive slides.

      …since the majority of pc gamers have lower spec rigs, I doubt that many developers would use the power of uber pcs to push their games further knowing that very few people would enjoy their work.
      As for the CPU, that’s the point, as of now, we can’t.

    • Riggybro

      “According to Steam surveys, most gamers have pc that are weaker than Ps4 and Xbox One”.

      Minimum specs for a AAA do not include this bracket. The game simply won’t run for them.

      As for the jaguar CPU, while we cannot benchmark a jaguar Xbox with a non jaguar Xbox, the point made with the “bottleneck” statements are based on decades of information on how CPUs have run and worked in the past. Unless MS have engineered a complete innovation in CPUs unknown to us then of course it is natural to see a CPU bottleneck with Jaguar consoles.

    • heima

      That’s the point! Most AAA won’t run on those pcs, this means that this guy’s complains are pointless, unless he wants to sell his game to very few gamers who have high end gaming rigs.

      As far as we know MS actually customized the Jaguar to the point that it has little of its former self. Unless they are stupid, I doubt that they spent all that money on R&D and forgot to make the CPU apt to the work it’s supposed to do. Obviously I don’t expect Scorpio to be on par with a GTX 1080 ti pc, for its price though, it seems a pretty decent hardware and every hardware out there has to face optimization compromises.
      Let’s see how things go, there’s plenty of time for (pretty much useless and annoying) DF analysis, endless comparisons, etc when the console is out.

    • theduckofdeath

      He was being generous when he said “5 year old PC”. He just means it’s umdeniably old by today’s technological standards. PS4 and XB1 were out dated long before they released.

      Those steam surveys include everyone playing anything on any PC on a Steam account (~150+ million). I’ve installed Steam on my parent’s computers when visiting I wouldn’t really think twice about agreeing to the survey.

    • heima

      I get where he’s coming from, my line of reasoning though is that if consoles are old compared to today’s (highest) standards, it’s also true that a game developed with high end gaming Pcs in mind will target a small segment of the pc players market. So, he can develop the most magnificent games with realistic physics, with the highest number of NPCs possible, amazing IA and level design, mindblogging graphics running on a uber powerful and moder engine, and probably he won’t make a profit from it all.
      So, excluding outdated console from the equation isn’t tantamount to gaming progressing to the next level at a faster pace. Unless developers aim for backruptcy.

    • Mr Xrat

      All those 30fps exclusives and multiplats confirm it’s a bottleneck despite a year of Xgimp denialism.

  • angryguy77

    “Of course, given that the Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever built and still has its CPU as a bottleneck, it will be interesting to see where console tech goes in the coming years”
    Only a bottle neck if the dev doesn’t use dx12. Thankfully, more and more are starting to.

    • Fleetwood

      And this is where console gamers don’t understand. The Xbox console doesn’t need DX12, it never really did.

      All gaming consoles already use a low-level api designed for their hardware. When DX12 was released, it was meant for the PC. There will be no performance benefit to the Xbox1 console, none.

      Only “benefit” will be the possibility to make it easier to have cross-platform games of Xbox and PC. That’s it.

    • Orion Wolf

      This is what you don’t understand:


      TLDR – there are barely any true dx12 based games, as the engines would have to be totally redesigned. And multiplatform devs … well publishers don’t want to bother with that (read = spend money on engine development; just ask Activision & EA)

      + How many GPUs support dx12? Yeah, that’s another matter developers have to consider when making a game … so for the most part multiplats are ports from the most successful and easier to develop for platform (aka ps4) to the rest.

      You can guess how that impacts performance.

    • Fleetwood

      You have no idea what you’re talking about, your whole comment has little to nothing to do with Xbox1 performance.

      Also DX12’s disaster is actually the same platform limitation Microsoft gives it everytime a new Windows OS is released. No offense, but just don’t talk about anything related to computer tech talk.

    • Orion Wolf

      It doesn’t? You mean to tell me 3rd party engines have been designed around dx12 and aren’t just patchworks? And that the xbox one GPU has dx12 extensions or tier levels not even a 390 nor a 980 that came much latter had?

      Or this http://wccftech.com/amd-full-support-dx12-today-fury-missing-dx12-features/

      The only disaster here is you trying to sound smart and failing miserably at it.

      “No offense, but just don’t talk about anything related to computer tech talk.”


    • Fleetwood

      Your 1st paragraph doesn’t make sense, not trying to be mean here. The XboxOne’s graphic solution happens to be somewhere around a 7870 if I recall. The consumer version of the 7870 also happens to be the one of the first GCN GPU cards on the market when it launched about 5 years ago. Each new generation of AMD cards are still based on the core GCN architecture.

      DX11 api isn’t efficient or good at handling multiple tasks simultaneously on the software side. So thus GCN cards were never used to their full potential.

      AMD created “Mantle” api to take advantage of this with working to provide Microsoft the benefits of creating a new API. Mantle soon was donated to become Vulkan and DX12.

      In other words, the XboxOne’s gpu is in the same GCN family as the R9 390 you’ve mentioned. Because the XboxOne already has a low-level API (so do most game consoles), there wasn’t going to be a major improvement in performance when DX12 was released.

      In the PC space, DX12/Vulkan will make more of an impact because games on the PC have never had such a “low-level” api that has more control over the GPU. Gaming consoles always had this advantage primarily because all Xbox consoles have the same hardware. So it was more “Safe” to give developers more control over the hardware, thus creating great visual with lower-end hardware. In the past, you would need more powerful computers than a console to reach the same level of detail/performance.

    • Orion Wolf

      Apologies, but the way you responded sounded quite rude.

      Dx12 was first announced in 2014 and was released in 2015 and that’s why even the Fury X doesn’t have full dx12 support. Therefore, it would be logical to consider that if a 3rd gen GCN card doesn’t have full dx12 support neither would previous iterations, especially
      when the API was not finalized until quite some time later.

      Main problem with the API on the xb1 is that it was based on dx11, as mentioned in that paragraph, by the metro redux devs and official hot chips slides (dx11.2 to be exact). I would argue that the GNM is the best implementation of a low level API, but Microsoft, imo, had to
      come out with something alternatively, as dx12 was nowhere near ready and, imo, it was thanks to AMD, that dx12 was introduced as early as it was.

      From a developer:

      “With the Xbox One we’re being pretty speculative right because there isn’t a game that’s using DirectX 12 on the console at this point in time, so I can’t even do a side by side comparison. Whereas on the PC we have Ashes of the Singularity. It is a game that’s been
      optimized for DirectX 11 and updated for DirectX 12, and you can run them side by side on the same hardware and get a 70% boost on DirectX 12 over DirectX 11.”

      Main problem is that for the most part engines are still heavily dx11 if not older based, as creating a game engine from scratch around a new API is time consuming and expensive. It took 10 years
      to make UE4, Frostbite 3 is 4 years old now (i.e. it was being in the 360/ps3/dx10 era), and Bethesda built Fallout 4 on an updated … well, heavily modified Gamebryo, but it’s basically an updated Skyrim engine… all of them still dx11, if not dx10 (xb360) based engines. There are very few engines that were built from the ground up with dx12/Vulkan in mind.

      Because of that the engines are quite limited when it comes to the new consoles, not all, but for the most part it is like that.

      The xb1x on the other hand is Polaris, if not possibly Vega based aka GCN, the biggest change AMD has made to their GPU technology since GCN was introduced, with it a lot more features that were
      designed around Vulkan/dx12 aka all the features/tier levels + specific implementations.

      Yes, it’s going to have a custom API, but the starting point is quite different than what it was with the xb1.

  • Mr Xrat

    Well it is about five years old.

    Xgimps don’t really have a leg to stand on in this case.

More From GamingBolt


Copyright © 2009-2017 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.