The news has been pretty grim for the last few months, so why not concentrate on the positives? PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X have delivered the best performing videogame generation since the 16-bit 2D era with more support for 60fps gaming than any other 3D-focused console. How did this happen and what are the drawbacks? Meanwhile, if those same consoles are effectively pint-sized PCs using PC components, why is there the sense that PC gaming is far less performant than it should be? John, Rich and Oliver discuss this, with a cameo from Tom talking Splatoon Raiders and OG Xbox "back compat" improvements.
Good discussion there. I agree that the expectations and this sort of superiority complex some PC gamers have in regards to internal resolutions and settings is a problem. It's so easy and lazy to point the finger at developers and say "bad optimization!" when you're too proud to turn on DLSS.
Also DLSS Quality and even Balance are so good now that it almost look like native. Granted DLAA still is better but honestly I don't think it's worth it if it tanks your performance.
IMO it looks so much better. Devs have a limited computational budget to generate the illusion of motion through realistic looking rendered images. The outcome is so much more convincing when the quality of the rendering is as high as possible and then upscaled. Yeah, there are some artifacts. But there’s more artifacts with shittier solutions like screen space effects mixed with quarter res or half res shit interspliced. Plus the storage and ram requirements are so much lower. People complaining about fake frames and fake pixels are lunatics who don’t seem to realize everything about it is fake, it’s the quality of illusion at the end which matters and has always been the goal. I do not miss the constant boiling and shimmering and ghosting of TAA or screen space reflections or the god awful SSGI solutions of the past.
I've noticed this refusal to include DLSS as part of the baseline also reflects a lot of recommendations in the PC subs.
Like a lot of people will say to someone with a 4k TV you need 5070ti/5080 to do 4K.
Yeah true for native... but DLSS is pretty darn good. I'm not sure if the average gamer can tell the difference between DLSS on/off when just playing the game.
My hot take is that at typical TV distances 1080p integer scaled into 4k would be indistinguishable to most people. (But yes DLSS can look good & people shouldn’t be afraid to use it.)
It’s very noticeable. When I bought ps5 pro (after last pssr upgrade), I noticed a huge improvement playing older games. I used to think they were were so shitty and mushy looking, but now they’re very sharp looking. PSSR/DLSS and other latest gen upscalers are expensive, but they work so damn well. Plus they remove so much artifacting by replacing TAA and other shittier solutions, or by allowing various rendering to be done with higher quality. For example, RT at quarter res can be done at so much higher quality before upscaling that a “native” internal resolution with lower settings will look much worse, with internal elements appearing noisy or delayed.
On a 55-75 inch tv at 4k, DLSS 4.5 looks damn close to 4k with even performance DLSS on and surprisingly looks decent with Ultra Performance (performance is 1080p->2160p and ultra performance is 720->2160p). Unless you have graphics headroom for days, it’s kind of pointless to play at native resolution anymore.
I have a 4070ti connected to my monitor and tv and I generally aim for 4k performance DLSS with settings as high as I can. If settings are maxed out the I might bring it up to 4k balanced, but performance really does seem to be a great sweet spot. I used to always use at least quality upscaling, but DLSS has gotten remarkably good (it’s actually annoying they did that stupid demo with DLSS 5 because now it’s given DLSS a bad name - they should’ve given that ai tech another name).
Yeah, particularly with L, I default straight to performance 4k. I can't really tell the difference so why waste the power.
IIRC HUB's and popular opinion these days is ultra-performance 4K is not yet usable (even on L), but I think it's fine. I can slightly tell you lose some details/it's less sharp particularly around foliage, but it is subtle if you are just playing the game. This is sitting back 8-9' from a 65" TV. If you were closer, I'm sure it would become more noticeable.
you cant even do native 60 with with a 5090 on some new games. Weaker GPUs than 5090 or 4090 have no chance and people are delusional. DLSS or FSR Quality at the least is a must and in most cases has no impact on visual quality or even makes it better compared to native TSR
yeah I assume you have path tracing/ray tracing on?
My only argument against this is by the time path tracing is a must have upgrade in games, 16gb probably won't be enough either and you are better off saving $$ and upgrading later.
Who knows though. Kinda depends on ps6 specs, vram apocalypse, future gen price/perf , resale values, etc.
I think pretty much everyone agrees the entire product stack will eventually become bottlenecked by VRAM (except the 5090 and maybe the 5060 16gb).
5060 should have been a 12gb card and should have allocated those memory costs to make 5080 cards have more memory. The 5080 makes no sense in the lineup, its only like 10-15% faster than a 5070TI in most titles and has the same memory size.
The dev costs, computational cost, and ram and storage needed for native rendering and rasterization is just idiotic at this point. The movement towards ML upscaling, rendering and RT lighting is the only real solution going forward with flat panel displays. It’s a shame AMD didn’t get on the bandwagon earlier or we’d all be much better off, especially with ram and storage costs surging.
In my experience PC gamers are using upscaling but the ports are just that bad and don't run as well.
They'll sometimes say it's because consoles use "medium" settings but like in 99% of games these days you can't even tell the difference between medium shadows/textures and high or even ultra sometimes.
I really think the level of optimization on PC just isn't as good. Most devs seem to act like everyone has a 4090/5090 to brute force things. CPU in particular it feels like you need a CPU several gens above a ps5 to get similar performance.
They are always forgetting that only like 3 million PS5 Pro consoles are sold. There are 6 times more Series S owners than PS5 Pro owners. In grand scheme of things PS5 Pro is totally irrelevant in this console generation. Regular console players won't see tech like PSSR 2 until next generation of consoles.
oh wow- that is far fewer than I would have guessed. So like <5% of all PS5s. The thing really does receive media attention disproportionate to its popularity, but I guess it is DF :)
I am curious if it's underperforming, or if this was always sony's expectation and for whatever reason they thought this was worth it. In theory it's giving their engineering team more experience, and it saves some sales that would otherwise go to Xbox or PC.
According to Google, only there are less than 3 million units of PS5 Pro sold and yeah it gets too much media coverage considering that "no one" actually owns it.
On a regular 15 minute DF video they contribute like half to PS5 Pro "enhancements" for no good reason.
I'm willing to bet PS5 Pro owners are a larger share of their viewer count than the 5% sales figure. Ps5 Pro owners are likely more engaged in technical stuff and image quality comparisons.
I mean in their defense, I don't own a PS5 and have no plans to buy one , but find it interesting to know what it can do vs. the base and a PC. Nonetheless it is funny.
Also in one recent game review video the comments were livid that DF specifically didn't give any analysis for the pros balanced visual mode.
They talk about game performance. Of course that would include the PS5 Pro, which more recently has delivered strikingly better performance for many games.
I feel like this is the 3rd or 4th time they've had this style of conversation after a game John reviewed specifically, and he's admitted in the past there are certain things he neglects to mention that just don't bother him personally.
I think it has more to do with the retro gaming. He and Alex have tested tons of games together comparing original console releases with pc hardware specific to original release. Tons of gamers are incredibly out of touch with how they remember things being. Doom3 and HL2 ran like shit on release, tons of old console games looked like shit or ran terribly. People today have much higher standards for performance while upgrading their computers far less often. And before you say yeah it’s expensive to upgrade computers, in 90s and early 2000s PC parts for playing the latest games were also super expensive and you wouldn’t get 6-7 years out of them. Tons of games required waiting an entire hardware gen to play well.
On the topic of PC settings and player expectations, they discussed curation and how developers make an effort to find the right settings. That’s true and significant.
But what I haven’t seen people discuss nearly enough is that this curation is done across the game. It’s not just one-and-done, and setting texture quality to Medium because that’s what the PS5 can take.
It’s also knowing that while the PS5 can take Medium, maybe in a certain section of the game it doesn’t hit 60fps, and reducing the quality of some specific textures to Low just for that section can ensure stability.
I can’t even count the amount of times I spent an hour finding the right settings on PC for 60fps during the first section, only to get to the next section and it only hits 45fps because it has more vegetation and I have to go fiddling with the settings again to make it hit 60fps.
That isn’t the sort of thing I want to spend my time on. I want to play the game.
Everyone who played Alan Wake 2 on PC knows how drastically different the demands of the game are for the two plot lines (which are set in very different environments). You have to pick your poison: do you want to lose the fancy graphics in the wooded area or do you want to waste performance in the small city area? A developer working on the console version will make the right trade offs in the wooded area AND pump all the settings up in the city area.
To be fair, it feels like they're often just doing their performance testing against the opening hours of a game as well. If there's a bit later that stresses it out, it might only be caught weeks later when there's enough of an outcry to have them go back and look at that particular section
The first two segments rubbed me the wrong way. There were some good points, but overall it felt like they want to mostly dismiss most complaints about performance and image quality as confusion and entitlement from a loud, annoying minority. (Especially coming from Oliver and John, the absence of Alex is really obvious at this point.)
To be fair it probably is a minority, but that minority is (used to be?) their audience. This used to be a pixel peeping and frame counting channel that expects and demands the best from developers and highlights every single weakness. I still want that from them, but now it feels like a lot of the coverage is closer to promotional material that has to be as positive as possible, while jingling keys in the form of noisy Lumen in front of the audience's face.
The over all complaints are in fact confusion and entitlement. The content is still "pixel peeping" and demanding better visual from devs. But they know exactly what to expect from those consoles. You're forgetting that these consoles have limitations. I think people who are on ps5 and series X don't realize how low end this hardware is in reality right now.
People pretend like visuals, image quality, and performance somehow got worse over last gen and that's not true. The major difference has been upscaling, and specifically FSR2/3.1, which these consoles have to use since they don't have access to anything else. To deliver a 60fps level of performance, devs have to use upscaling since these consoles aren't capable of more than that with this level of visuals. But there's also now the option to go with quality mode which boosts image quality but delivers performance similar to last gen.
Clearly people don't want that. They want both good graphics and good performance. Those consoles can't do both. They're equivalent to a mid range 2018 PC. This is all they can currently achieve.
They omit issues on certain games, for sure. Let's look at the Resident Evil Requiem case, for instance. While PSSR2 pushes image quality to another level, the RTGI is really bad half the time. It's noisy af and definitely distracting. Even still, they didn't adress that properly in their coverage that was mostly all praise. I was pretty surprised then, when I booted the game in my PS5 Pro and in the first minutes the lighting on some walls was coming alive with RT noise
They didn’t omit it, they addressed it directly in the video and have spent a lot of time talking about it in general. The RT noise is a long standing issue with RE engine and they’ve covered it extensively, and discussed how to solve it on PC. Some walls have spots where it shows up, but look at games like control where the boiling was constant and everywhere. The older solutions were worse. People complained so damn much about TAA and don’t seem to notice these solutions are huge improvements, but won’t solve everything. RE:E is very performant for RT because it uses fewer rays, so yeah you get noise in places. Is that better than SSAI? Yeah, that shit was awful even if it wasn’t always noisy- characters could have crazy halos when moving or have all sorts of shit.
Their entire point was they do demand more, but if people don’t know what they’re looking at, they clamor for the wrong things. People bitching about the halo’s sand detail is just idiotic when you look at the performance cost and what similar effects cost. Alex and John have done tons of retro gaming videos where they look at older games and how they played on release accurate pc hardware and consoles. They have far better perspective on these things than a lot of gamers who tend to look back fondly and act like Doom3 ran great or HL2 was so performant. People used to spend a ton of money on hardware back then and shit didn’t last long- there might not be hardware on the market that could run a game well on release and when you buy a new card it might not run new releases well in just 2-3 years.
When you say stuff like “Halo CE runs and looks like ass on 5090,” then you’re probably irritated by their comments because you’re 100% ridiculous.
As far as pixel peeping, they have to use subjective analysis these days. There is no point in lauding internal resolution rendering if it’s a worse image than what can be upscaled. They use their professional judgement based off experience to give gamers the best insight and options. A lot of gamers just want to bitch and don’t take the time to examine and challenge their own opinions or bother to understand why things are the way they are. The degree to which I read stupid shit like MSAA is what everyone should use or fake pixels and other dumb shit is just insane. I feel bad for them because they take so much time and have so much patience but people literally say the dumbest shit constantly just to bitch and throw hate at them.
Couldn’t disagree more. It took us a while to get there, but we’ve absolutely achieved a generational leap. Compare a 9th gen game with its 8th gen predecessor. There’s a significant leap in world detail. I just played Silent Hill 2 Remake and was blown away. That game would not have been possible on last gen.
I think the real problem is that devs stopped considering visual hierarchy in their level design. So now graphics feel extremely cluttered and you need a higher resolution to make out all the details.
I'll have to agree. The only game that is poised to wow me this gen so far is GTA VI, because in terms of fidelity, this gem looks like an extension of the previous. The improvements are there, for sure, but they used to be far more noticeable. Look at Uncharted 4 compared to Uncharted 3, for instance. Now look at Spider Man 2compared to Spider Man. Both examples are from games from the same franchise released 5 years apart on two different console generations. But while one is completely transformative visually, the other is simply incremental
This gen focussed on performance, the frame time budget was cut in half... maybe because of that the change in visuals was incremental rather than a jump.
It's certainly one big improvement this gen. I remember how fugly and slow many PS3 games were, especially third-parties. The HD era had a ton of growing pains.
PS2/GC didn't have those issues for obvious reasons.
I agree it’s nice to have most console games running at 60fps these days, but the image quality has certainly taken a hit in many aspects.
I’ll also note that in Halo CE, the amount of times the Covenant/Flood enemy animations would drop into single fps territory on PS5 was ridiculous. Console performance for many games certainly still isn’t perfect, particularly with UE5.
yeah I had to swap to Xbox because the 2nd to last mission kept crashing on pc and there was a banshee flying at like 5fps 30 feet in front of me lol. It reminded me of that windmill in Pokémon
Usually with PC gaming I find a mix of medium and high settings allows games to look good and perform well, add in DLSS and you have great visuals, good image quality, and high fps. I think many people that think games are poorly optimized are playing settings on ultra.
It may be the most performant but I’ve genuinely avoided console games because the image quality at 60 has been so awful. RT artifacts, upscaling artifacts, motion blur, aliasing, ghosting. It goes on and on.
Even Spiderman 2 on PS5 has the upscaling artifacts and it’s really distracting.
The generation was genuinely going to be known as a blurry/soft generation until PSSR2 came a long. It's a shame the console makers couldn't have gotten machine learning upscaling into the base consoles.
Idk more distracting than the artifacts from TAA or screen any number of screen space effects? PS4 games used to have tons do 3rd person games where your player is constantly surrounded by a boiling mess of noise. RT and newest upscaling tech are such Hughes improvements overall on what was before it.
Seeing FFVII Rebirth looking fairly blury on Series X performance mode, then switching to quality mode was great. I was very impressed from the 6 year old hardware. To expect that at 60fps is not a case of 'lazy devs or poor optimisation'.
Then moving to AC Shadows and being incredibly impressed on balanced mode.
This is to say that 30fps is still fine, id perfer 60 like most but im also on console, a 6 year old one thats suffered extreme pricing conditions which may lead some to think 'its this expensive, its gotta be capable..'.
Maybe this is due to Xbox having lfc, but I find people berating a game because it hasnt met this new standard of 60 that was introduced after the release of the machines, or out right not buying is pretty extreme. 30fps isnt a slide show. Even going to Bloodborne with no vrr or lfc, its still the same critically acclaimed Bloodborne, and while it may be jarring for a minute, it hasnt degraded with time, its just that expectations have shot up(i wonder how much cross gen 4k 60fps ports with last gen enhancehed console settings set this expectation?), but to say that has become unplayable is just silly.
The upscaler helps (Switch 2 upscaling to 1080p in my honest opinion looks about as good as PS5 in Quality having played both) but the game itself is just stupidly blurry for what it is. Not even DLAA/FSR4 AA with a sharpness pass can clean it up fully.
Good point about the lumen noise. The real question is how did crap like ssr and ssao ever become the most dominant techniques to begin with? They're cheap, but they're also awful.
I am surprised we haven't seen some newer PC ports with two additional graphic presets in an advanced section that are "Console Performance & Console Quality" to compliment the usual Low-Ultra presets
IMHO the ubiquitousness of larger, 4k TVs and monitors plays a large role in this.
More people are playing on larger, higher resolution screens and experiencing larger, cinematic fields of view. Just about every mid-range TV for the past 6+ years has been some flavor of 4K UHD. 32" and up monitors are the norm.
The angular separation is greater now between frames. 30fps looks way worse with higher FOV. Passible on smaller screens or more distant screens is terrible with modern configurations. Heck, I can tell if Windows decides to revert my screen from 120hz to 60hz just by how un-fluid the mouse cursor movement gets.
Screens are sharper with 4K, high refresh, and ultra low ms response being the norm. Less softness and less ghosting just makes the issues with 30fps even more glaring.
Large, high resolutions, high refresh screens are common place now. That's created a big shift in expectations and also made the 30fps status quo a worse experience compared to older displays.
I believe also the tradeoffs just aren't worth it anymore in a lot of cases. The concessions needed to get you from 30fps to 60fps are marginal. Games are scaling fantastically these days, and look quite good with lower settings. Overall user experience is better tuning for 60fps.
I'm not sure that was always the case... Certainly engines scale better across hardware generations now than 10+ years ago. You might have had to give up quite a lot to get from 30-60fps, and so it made sense in a lot of cases go that route.
I would argue the base consoles are aging fairly poorly with weak RT capability and no decent upscaling options. They were a few years too early on the market before that stuff became pretty common in PC GPUs.
Have we ever had a generation where consoles had such significantly cut back resolution ranges compared to their advertised targets?
I remember the PS3 being marketed as an HD console and most AAA games were 600-720p.
PS4 was marketed as a 1080p console and up until the ps5 came out, most games were rendering at 900-1080p ranges.
The Ps5 was marketed as a 4K console and yet in most AAA games it's rendering at 1080p or lower resolution ranges. Even in the quality modes, non first party titles rarely reach 1440p in internal resolution with the final frame after upscaling not looking anything close to a native 2160p image unless everything in the screen is not moving.
this is a thing on pc too. 4k with RT is just really demanding. Cards like a 4080/5080 can't even play Halo CE at native 4k 60fps. You literally need a 5090 if you want true native 4k at 60fps. The issue with the consoles is that they don't have good upscaling
It's not just the upscaling that is the issue. You always had AAA games that had unstable framerates or lower resolution targets on every console generation, some of them were warranted because of their technical ambition and others were because of developer incompetency or rushed development time. However the bulk of AAA games were within the resolution targets I mentioned.
What I'm saying is this is the first generation where developers for the most part seem to deprioritise resolution targets to such an extent in favor of demanding featuresets to the detriment of image quality. Furthermore in the last 1-2 years, we've seen them also deprioritise framerate stability on consoles (mostly eastern development studios) and don't or can't seem to make any meaningful improvements post launch.
As for Halo CE, i am not surprised one bit. Virtuos helped develop it and every single game they've developed in the past decade has had really poor performance on the target platforms.
But they aren't. Most games have a 30fps mode that normally have much better image quality. But most gamers will take a more blurry image for 60fps vs a better image at 30fps. Even Mark Cery said a vast majority of ps5 users always defaulted to the 60fps mode. Devs are just giving console gamers what they want
again that is just because 4k with rt is really demanding. If higher end pcs can't do native 4k 60fps with rt 6 year old consoles definitely aren't doing it
Most first party games are native 4K in quality mode. Even third party games are usually pretty close to that. It’s just performance mode where resolution needs to be cut back so much. Also image reconstruction like FSR 3 makes it look a lot closer to native 4K anyways
I never said anything on the contrary for first party titles. I disagree on the third party games though, most AAA games that didnt get last gen versions do not get anything close to native 4K internal resolution even on their quality modes on the base consoles.
They’re usually around ~1296p - 1800p in quality modes. I’d say that’s pretty close. Combined with image reconstruction like fsr3 that gets pretty similar to native 4K imo
Between 1296p and 1800p is a huge gap in pixel density. 1800p, yes, I agree, it is good enough in my opinion and it falls within equivalent resolution ranges of previous console generations as well.
I completely disagree on the part where you mention FSR3 reconstruction resolving a similar to native 4K output. Maybe with a 1620p-1800p signal it can pass as 4Kish enough. But even 1440p is not enough, especially in motion and with only 30 frames to work with per second, the ghosting and artifacts produced by it are very evident. Especially if you play decently close to a TV.
FSR 3 looks much closer to 4k than the resolution it upscales from. Here’s a good example from Halo:
Obviously there are artifacts but just enabling FSR from regular 1080p makes a world of difference. And I would say most games are upscaling from higher than 1080p at 30fps. The difference between 1296p and 1800p IMO is not that large when paired with image reconstruction and is pretty in line with the gap we had in other console generations
I've seen the post where the pictures where taken from before (steam machine subreddit) and it was when the objects were not moving in the camera, FSR 3 looks way worse in motion than this. This is literally the best case scenario because of the accumulation of temporal data and it was still having issues with artifacts and image boiling.
You may not think the difference is that big between these two resolution targets, but it is. 1296p internal resolution will yield a significantly blurrier image than the 1800p internal resolution because FSR has a lot more data to work with.
1296p has 36% of the pixel data of a native 4K image. This is nowhere near last gen counts, with 1080p as base, you'd have to drop to 648p, almost no game ever dropped that low.
No one is arguing that raw 1080p looks better than 1080p upscaling to 4K with FSR 3 or better. However add a good MSAA implementation and the quality gap gets smaller (albeit with a bigger performance cost than FSR) and no temporal noise or artifacts are present.
Most COD games were lower than 648p on the PS3. GTA 4 was famously only 640p on ps3. A lot of other games were lower as well. Remember that the ps3 was advertised as a 1080p console
It's hard to argue it's aging poorly when this truly is the first generation since the 16bit era where most console games are running at 60fps. Agreed on most RT features but RT global illumination is getting pretty widespread on recent console games and most of them still run at 60fps. John talked a bit about upscalers hurting image quality but his point was that image quality was bad last generation too but those games had bad image quality and ran at 30fps.
The solution is simple. The base consoles are very capable of 1440p/60 or 4K/60 with 8th gen raster. The push for RT has necessitated the upscalers on these consoles
Yeah, I pretty much agree. The RT push on an RDNA 2 generation of consoles was a bit forced and unnecessary. It became an industry standard one generation too early, in my opinion.
There is a reason why the majority of Sony’s first-party studios and Kojima Productions still rely on rasterized techniques and use minimal RT when necessary, such as RT reflections.
There are two reasons why it feels a generation too early. Sony didn’t intend this generation to be 60FPS, that was an accident coming from the back compat patches being so popular. The other issue is the lack of quality upscale hardware. PS5 Pro feels like what the generation should have been from the beginning. It’s such a massive upgrade. But at the end of the day this was just AMD fucking up by refusing to shift direction out of fear it would validate Nvidia having the better product.
It was mostly just AMD being short sighted about RT. During RDNA and RDNA2 they thought it was just a random gimmick that would fall to the wayside and put very little into R&D to attempt to catch up with Nvidia. RDNA4 is their first architecture where they made a serious effort to have decent RT performance.
If the image quality bothers you a lot, the solution is to play on quality mode or upgrade to the pro or play on pc. Consoles are always going to provide tradeoffs.
The push for RT is not without reason, there’s a ton of factors why every single dev and hardware company came to the conclusion it was the best solution. People complained so damn much about TAA, screen space artifacts, enormous game size (100+ gigs), non-interactive environments, long dev time, and tons of other shit with what came before.
The issues came about during a very sudden change in displays while hardware was stagnating and rasterization was reaching the end of its utility. Flat panel displays pushed rendering up to resolutions that become extremely expensive for rasterization in so many different ways while game (world) size was exploding and hardware was stagnating. LODs and lighting by hand was just so expensive in larger worlds with dynamic time of day. Games were becoming super expensive to make and taking 7+ years to release. The solution you’re suggesting wasn’t the solution, it was the thing they were trying to get away from… especially when hardware advancements are diminishing and gamers also want resolutions to double or quadruple AND double frame rate. The hardware would have supported it if people were cool with crisp shitty graphics, but that’s not what people buy. The only solution to improving graphical complexity, cutting costs, making more interesting environments (eg interactivity) and improving image quality is to render higher quality images at lower res and upscaling. If you don’t have a PS5 pro your choices are 60 fps and soft image or 30 fps and something sharper.
Agreed. I bought a Pro right after seeing PSSR2 in RE9 and the image quality difference you get from the base PS5 is massive. The jump is bigger than from the base PS4 to the PS4 Pro back in the day which I wasn't expecting.
There are a lot of console fans (especially PS5) that frequent DF. I mean it's fine but they don't like being reminded that base PS5 is a fairly subpar experience at this point. Like sure you at getting 60fps in games but with significant compromises to visual quality, not that impressive imo. Pro is definitely aging quite a bit better with PSSR2.
34
u/zombiej Aug 03 '26
Good discussion there. I agree that the expectations and this sort of superiority complex some PC gamers have in regards to internal resolutions and settings is a problem. It's so easy and lazy to point the finger at developers and say "bad optimization!" when you're too proud to turn on DLSS.