Naughty Dog Releases a Massive 24 GB Patch (v1.0.4.0) for The Last of Us Part I Providing Many Fixes and Optimizations

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Naughty Dog has released a huge 24 GB patch for The Last Of Us Part I that includes crash and graphical fixes along with more optimizations. Naughty Dog has taken reports about game performance issues to heart by continuing to work on improvements for it and has added a new texture streaming setting along with improved graphical fidelity for low graphics preset setting and improved texture fidelity for the low and medium settings. The studio says that it is continuing to look into reports of other issues and will be releasing more patches to address them. Patch v1.0.4.0 is the seventh patch for the game since its PC release on March 28.

See full article...

 

[Grimlakin]

At least they are fixing it. IT feels like a lot of companies are cutting back on testing expenses and publishing based on just whatever hardware they have sitting around to test on.

Someone like FPS who tests hardware should reach out to these studios to see if a 'FPS tested and validated for AMD Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen, 3... Intel 10 Series, 11 series, 12 series... Nvidia GTX 10 series, 9 series, RTX 20 series, 30 series, 40 series... that they can then start putting on their boxes so that purchasers know when they are spending 60 to 120 dollars on a video game that it will meet SOME kind of compatibility standard with what they own.

I for one would sooner buy a game if I know a company has actually tested and certified the game to run on SOME resemblance to what I own. Maybe even with a link or QR code (if a box) to the site where I can say I have a AMD 2700x cpu and a RTx 2080 video card with a SSD non NVME, what it would recommend for resolution/settings for a few basic FPS goals. 30fps, 60fps, 120fps and 144+ FPS. at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Maybe with a explanation saying what wide screen resolutions align closest to which resolution.

Then when customers who are on a potato come in and say... My laptop with a 11 series bottom barrel CPU running an GTX280 onboard video card and a NVME drive runs this game like trash... the company can say. "The game was never certified to run that that resolution, We would recommend you adjust these settings for the best possible experience." Then end users can at least know what it's certified to work on. As an for instance.

"Horizon forbidden west is FPS Platinum certified 60hz 4k with a RTx 3070ti/6800xt or above 4/2023" Where when the person follows the URL or sticker it shows them that platinum is all features at max with no or some DLSS or FSR.

You know the more I think about it the more I think this could be a good idea, but not a primary business. You'd almost need a place of business for this with a wide range of hardware to do the testing on.

If it were in DFW I'd love to help with something like this.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

on just whatever hardware they have sitting around to test on.

I've been kind of thinking the same for a while now as well. I don't envy hardware QA for anyone these days in regard to games/software. On one hand, I'd expect guidelines from MS and various manufacturers (AMD/NVIDIA/Intel) but on the other, it sure seems like there's a lot of ground to cover between different CPUs and GPUs.

 

[Grimlakin]

I've been kind of thinking the same for a while now as well. I don't envy hardware QA for anyone these days in regard to games/software. On one hand, I'd expect guidelines from MS and various manufacturers (AMD/NVIDIA/Intel) but on the other, it sure seems like there's a lot of ground to cover between different CPUs and GPUs.

But the monitization options are there. You could even work with the vendor... Lets say you charge 5k per segment...

10 series..
11 series
12 series
13 series

then
2000x series
3000x series
4000x series
5000x series
6000x series
7000x series

Followed on with the various Nvidia and AMD and even Intel CPU series.

On top of that a rider for Mobility series GPU's and CPU's. Maybe slightly less or more depending.

Then offer a discount on recertification. Make it clear this isn't for a game review but just a will it run and at what 'rating' will it run at. The Studio's can even define. "We want to go for certification on x items with x results we are targeting." And the company can give feedback on what meets the goals and what doesn't based on their targets.

I don't know how well monetized such a service would be. But I could see it be a real value add to PC gaming. Something that companies invested in before but just clearly don't do any more.


You would need some sort of VC to help fund the startup. Maybe someone like Microsoft/activision to start getting 3rd party certifications going for games. Maybe even include an OS segment. Windows 10, 11, xx certified. Linux xx,xx,xx or whatever. That one would be FAR trickier.

From a imaging software standpoint you could easily deploy images with drivers with a boot menu to load the appropriate set. The trick would be the various BIOS and chipsets... that's kind of where your real expense multiplier would come in. And honestly the very expensive part would be the time for the individuals to actually do the certification testing. You'd need young computer gamers to do the testing and just burn the love of gaming out of their souls or ingrain it into them. You're probably looking at... 1-2 million burn before you see real income, and who knows how long before you see profit... hummm... I still think there has to be a way to do this right.

 

[Denpepe]

But the monitization options are there. You could even work with the vendor... Lets say you charge 5k per segment...

10 series..
11 series
12 series
13 series

then
2000x series
3000x series
4000x series
5000x series
6000x series
7000x series

Followed on with the various Nvidia and AMD and even Intel CPU series.

On top of that a rider for Mobility series GPU's and CPU's. Maybe slightly less or more depending.

Then offer a discount on recertification. Make it clear this isn't for a game review but just a will it run and at what 'rating' will it run at. The Studio's can even define. "We want to go for certification on x items with x results we are targeting." And the company can give feedback on what meets the goals and what doesn't based on their targets.

I don't know how well monetized such a service would be. But I could see it be a real value add to PC gaming. Something that companies invested in before but just clearly don't do any more.


You would need some sort of VC to help fund the startup. Maybe someone like Microsoft/activision to start getting 3rd party certifications going for games. Maybe even include an OS segment. Windows 10, 11, xx certified. Linux xx,xx,xx or whatever. That one would be FAR trickier.

From a imaging software standpoint you could easily deploy images with drivers with a boot menu to load the appropriate set. The trick would be the various BIOS and chipsets... that's kind of where your real expense multiplier would come in. And honestly the very expensive part would be the time for the individuals to actually do the certification testing. You'd need young computer gamers to do the testing and just burn the love of gaming out of their souls or ingrain it into them. You're probably looking at... 1-2 million burn before you see real income, and who knows how long before you see profit... hummm... I still think there has to be a way to do this right.

Not that I would be against it, but too many variables to test things in a timely or affordable manner, testing would take longer then the game developpement or would require hundreds of testers.

 

[Grimlakin]

Not that I would be against it, but too many variables to test things in a timely or affordable manner, testing would take longer then the game developpement or would require hundreds of testers.

I don't see it that way. Unless the vendors don't know their high stress areas. A playthrough to identify load peaks with a few generic testing points would be adequate I would think. Yes there would be real time needed but I think that would be a boon to developers.

 

[MadMummy76]

Not that I would be against it, but too many variables to test things in a timely or affordable manner, testing would take longer then the game developpement or would require hundreds of testers.

AAA devs already have hundreds of testers in house and external contractors as well. But for the most part they are doing game testing not hardware compatibility testing which seems to be very neglected.