Dying Light 2 Dev Says It is Looking at 30 FPS on Xbox Series S as 'GPU is Holding us Back' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 March 2022 / 4,335 Views
Developer Techland released Dying Light 2 Stay Human last month on the Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC via Steam and Epic Games Store.
Lead designer Tymon Smektala took to Twitter to respond to fan complaints on the game including fixing co-op as the high demand is causing problems. They are also working on the field of view and motion blur, as well as looking into the 30 frames per second on the Xbox Series S.
"We’re fixing the coop issues first, the demand broke Sony/Microsoft/Epic sewers," said Smektala. "Motion sickness will be addressed in the first upcoming patch. Fov + motion blur will be considered for the next. 30fps on Series S will be looked at, but the consoles GPU is holding us back."
He added, "Different games have different needs. [Dying Light 2 Stay Human] is unique due to density and verticality of its world, it streams more data than most open world games. Surely our optimization skills can improve, but please search for the analysis on Digital Foundry, we didn’t suck at the job at all."
Dying Light 2 Stay Humanhas already proving to be a success as it has already surpassed 200,000 concurrent players on Steam in its first day and reached a peak of 274,332 players over the weekend, according to SteamDB.
The main story of the game will take about 20 hours to complete, while the main story and all of the side quests will take around 80 hours. The 500 hours to 100 percent the game includes all main and side quests, choices and endings, checking every place on the map, every dialogue and finding every collectible.
Dying Light 2 Stay Human is available now on the Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC via Steam and Epic Games Store.
We’re fixing the coop issues first, the demand broke Sony/Microsoft/Epic sewers. Motion sickness will be addressed in the first upcoming patch. Fov + motion blur will be considered for the next. 30fps on Series S will be looked at, but the consoles GPU is holding us back.
— Tymon Smektała (@smektalaTM) February 5, 2022
Different games have different needs. DL2 is unique due to density and verticality of its world, it streams more data than most open world games. Surely our optimization skills can improve, but please search for the analysis on @digitalfoundry, we didn’t suck at the job at all.
— Tymon Smektała (@smektalaTM) February 6, 2022
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Too many armchair experts around, clueless comments from clueless people. Except the restraints of a cheap console, 30 FPS will be normal for all later in the gen, that is what consoles are.
Yep. They had to cut the resolution to 1080p just to hit 60 fps on the big consoles.
Ultimately that’s just going to be one of the trade offs playing on a console, the developer decided the settings and frame rates for you. And it’s clear most developers prefer image quality to frame rates. Not sure I agree, but it is what it is
Nah they have barely tapped into the new features and tech of new consoles. They are just using raw horse power at this point. Devloping for pc and porting. Maybe in 2 or 3 years they will start using next gen features, while first party will get a head start.
Their engine needs more optimisation. There's no need for the game to be 1080p 60fps on next gen.
Their engine needs more optimisation. There's no need for the game to be 1080p 60fps on next gen.
Than why dont they just scale the visuals back even more..
I'd be fine with a "scale the visuals back even more" mode to get a 60 FPS on my Series S, as an option. I'm always happy to lose visual fidelity to gain temporal fidelity. No problem at all. Just give people a choice.
I'm not expert, but it seems to me some modern games devour GPU resources with effects and seemingly have little to show for it.
As great of a little machine the Series S is, I think Xbox scaled back the GPU power a bit too much where 2-3 years from now, it'll struggle to reach 60fps for most games.
But series x and ps5 ate 1080p for 60fps which is disappointing. Shows the engine is terrible
And you are an expert in this due to your years of software development analysis? The game is amazingly dense, tremendously vertical, and is therefore very GPU-heavy. I think you're conflating the end result by comparing against games that are more balanced in their CPU and GPU usage.
Because dying light 1 wasn't too flash om console and was a resource hog on pc.
On console there was alot of frame inconsistency, grainy textures and so on. It didn't reach native 1080p lol.
Dying light on pc had a myriad of issues and it was due to the engine. Just Google dying light pc and u will see it. In 2015 when the game out, recommended settings included 16 gb ram which was alot then. As the developer said they could optimise better but they wont. They are relying on brute force to make it playable. 1080p shouldn't be a standard to reach 60fps. I understand if it was with ray trace and 60fps but it isnt.
Well, Digital Foundry disagrees with your assessment and... well, that's their whole thing, and they're the experts at it.
Your argument is like saying Crysis was poorly designed for its day because it required a powerful system. Diagree, it was just a demanding game.
Requiring more RAM and not hitting arbitrary resolution or temporal fidelity targets doesn't mean it's poorly coded. Pong can easily hit 120 FPS in 8K. But if the game is unusually dense or unusually vertical then it's going to need a very high-end system to do the same.
Yes correct. Baxk then crysis was built for single core pc hence why prior to the remastered editon, if u olayed crysis 1 on a powerful pc with a multicore cpu, ur fps wasnt great. However crysis then wss graphically ahead of his time
It had stuff thst no other game was doing. Hence why it still looks good today. Dying light on the other hand is nkt ahead of this time graphically. Not even close. I have watched digital foundry for dying light 2 and theh were suprised that for 60fps thst it was 1080p resolution. Thats low for next gen consoles. It was also disappointing for sweies s not having 1080p 60fps options as well. As i have said google dying light 1 pc and u will see myriad of problems. Just saying that develoeprs themselves admitted that they could optimise better but they wont. They said the same excuse with dying light aand dying light 2.for an open world game it looks good but they are better looking open world games out there
Crysis came out in 2007. It's poorly designed today, but wasn't poorly designed for the hardware of the day (especially if you further backtrack to when it went into development).
How am I aware that it's poorly designed for today? Because a Digital Foundry analysis said so. The same experts who disagree with your assessment on Dying Light 2.
You can be as surprised at the Dying Light 2 presentation as you wish, and you can assert it is or is not impressive to you. Digital Foundry is impressed, they're the experts, and that's good enough for me.
You are entitled to your opinion. Digital foundry is easily impressed. Doesnt take much lol.
U do know that saber interactive did the remastered not crytek who did the 2007 version. Hence crysis 2 and 3 had more of crytek assistance as a result of how the remastered wss done. In saying that the crysis1 remastered is still better looking than most open world games. Level of physics and amoubt applied in the workd, coupled with level of destructability snd interactive of the environment is still rare and unheard of in the open world space. Far cry 2 came close but it still wasnt crysis 1 close it gives dying light 2 a run for its money
I am more impressed by Digital Foundry's analysis than I am by the analysis of internet commentators using unnecessarily charged language.
I am aware of who developed which of the Crysis games. I was only referring to Crysis (2007), so I'm not sure of the relevance of your comment.
Many people say Soul Calibur on Dreamcast is the more impressive looking DC launch arena fighter, but Virtua Fighter 3tb on Dreamcast is actually generally seen as the more impressive game technically. So what looks more impressive to the lay-person, and what actually is more impressive on a technical level, isn't always the same thing.
I actually think the RAM in the Series S is a bigger limiting factor than the number of teraflops (12 GB in One X, 10 GB in Series S). Keep in mind that teraflops don't compare well from one architecture to the next, but RAM compares a little more apples-to-apples (or closer to, at any rate).
I still love my Series S. I have no regrets as I've had 15 months of current-gen gaming thanks to it. If I'd insisted on a Series X, I'd have been stuck on last-gen hardware all that time. But if they ever come out with a Series X Mini (perhaps removing the optical drive as part of shrinking it down, as I will never need one) I'll be likely to upgrade at that point.
Yes, AI-enhanced upscaling can and should be a big part of keeping the Series S relevant later in this gen. Game streaming too, as you're streaming the Series X versions of games when you stream.
i made a comment that the series s will be effected , and i got scolded. Everyone told me all they have to do is scale back resolution to 1080p. Now that i have an xbox, i have to defend it a little. No one is taking advantage of velocity architecture of the series s/x. Not even close.
Framerate should always be prioritized.
Fully agreed. Not everyone has a 120 FPS set. Not everyone has a 4K panel. Some people are on 1080p, or even 720p screens. But the one and only thing almost every one of them has in common is the ability to do 60 FPS. So 60 FPS should be the standard. If you want to do an optional 30 FPS mode to amp up the detail, fine. If you want to do an optional 120 FPS mode to amp up the frame-rate, fine. But 60 FPS should be the default that the developer is shooting for, and the default mode when you start the game, as it's the lowest common denominator that almost every single TV and monitor has in common.
Lol "we got sick by the 30fps"
60fps gameplay became common on consoles since like 3 days ago, calm your tits
When will they start using mesh shader tech, machine learning and dlss. Couldn't they run the game at 900p and have it upscaled to 1080p atleast. The xbxo velocity architecture. Sampler feedback streaming? 30 fps is bull.
I understand that as this very demanding game across all platforms, including PC. However, I'm pretty sure you could scale back the graphics even more as this is GPU related. The CPU's on X and S are identical. I bet the PC community of low spec gamers would find a way to run it at 60 fps, with acceptable graphics. Unless RAM is the issue (16GB vs 10GB)
They are similar but not identical, the real "problems" are the GPU and the Ram
Just a thought, but I am gonna throw it out there. Dying Light 2 runs at 30 fps on Xbox One and PS4, even with a good resolution and visual settings. So maybe... the Series S could have have done done 60 FPS with 8th gen graphics as a setting?
I dunno, I'm not expert of course. But I feel like Series S could do 60 fps in Dying Light 2 with compromises. The same way we've seen other games hit 60 fps on Series S. Metro Exodus with ray tracing being one of the more extreme examples of compromise to hit 60 fps.
I'll judge Dying Light 2 when Starfield will release on Xbox Series S. If in case Starfield is able to run at 1080p 60fps then I'll blame Techland otherwise I'll not.
If people just focused on current gen consoles then they wouldn't be having a hard time!
The series s deserves to be on past gen haha can't even be a proper current gen what's the point?
Series S has next gen tech in it. Dont blame the hardware, blame the devs.
The Series S should be able to survive gen 9, it is a powerful little box for the price. However it has always been fated to eventually become a 900p - 1080p 30 fps machine when the Series X and PS5 finally get pushed. The whole 1440p machine pthing was based on MOST cross gen games, though that was left out for obvious reasons. It has the tools to push the visual effects of gen 9 games I believe, but resolution and anything over 30 fps will always take a big hit to pull it off.
Having said that, this is a cross gen game that even runs 60 fps mode at 1080p even on Series X and PS5. We have seen more demanding games with better performance than this, as well as more demanding games with Series S getting a 60 (or in some cases 120) fps mode with even more scaled back resolution. It is clear that this game was not fully optimized for all of the gen 9 consoles, not just the Series S.
I don't think that's clear. I think this game is more GPU demanding than most. The developer is correct when he says this game is unusually dense and vertical, IMO. And the developer is correct when he says Digital Foundry agreed with that (I just watched their video on it this afternoon).
Digital Foundry addressed that in its analysis. The game doesn't run as well on the base PS4 or X1 as on the Series S. And the biggest jump from the PS4/X1 to the Series S is on the CPU side of things, which isn't especially helpful for this particular game.
I strongly disagree that it's "clearly" not optimized when the most credible independent analysis doesn't agree that it's poorly optimized.
Not surprising considering the One X targets 1080p@30fps.
To get 60fps on a GTX 1060 you need to deck shadow quality, volumetrics and GI. It's possible, but at a serious cost to the consistency of the presentation.
The game runs at 1080p 60fps on the Xbox series X and PS5 which is pretty pathetic. I have to imagine that is a flaw of the developers, I don't care how dense and vertical the game is, you need to hit 1440p 60fps on the main console, hell I'll take 1080p 60fps if ray tracing is included on that.
Digital Foundry doesn't agree with your assessment, and they're the experts. FWIW.
Ha. Millions bought in on the series S. Nearly double the series X. ( A scam by Microsoft btw)
With many years to go and many more massive detailed open worlds its gonna suck!
A scam? Are you real lol
Ya a scam. Sony has sold over 18 million PS5s. Microsoft has shipped over 11 mill xboxs with over half being the series S. Chip shortages be damed but Microsoft is choosing not to over produce series X and push series s and gamepass. They want the most powerful console title but theyre probably taking a huge hit on price to get it.
They did the same with the one x and that was only manufactured for a year and then abandoned just to get the plaudits!
So are you just going to ignore Sony's own announced shipment numbers?
Ignore what they plan to ship 14 mill PS5s sue to chip shortages. Bringing them to 34 million Ps5s in 2 years.
Theyll be doing just fine
Ignore what they plan to ship 14 mill PS5s sue to chip shortages. Bringing them to 34 million Ps5s in 2 years.
Theyll be doing just fine
More than half are the Series S? I'm not sure I've seen reports that agree with that. Phil Spencer said to expect early in the X|S life that most units would be Series X, and that only late in the generation would they mostly be Series S.
Also, the One X was manufactured for more than a year. Manufacturing of One X would have begun before launch, then it was launched in late 2017, and finally the end of production was announced in mid-2020 (though we don't know exactly when it occurred). One X was likely manufactured for somewhere in the 2 to 3 year range, with 2.5 years being a strong guess.
Do you know what "scam" means? The word "scam" I mean...
How? It's a 1080p box for cheap price. MS probably should not have put 120 fps on the box though.
They all do it. Sony has 8k on the box.
Essay Pro