The last-gen port of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor released for PS4 late last week, but since the PS5 version doesn't even run flawlessly in certain areas, the discussion around the port has been centred on its technical performance. It's still the same excellent experience in terms of gameplay, but as Digital Foundry investigates, significant cuts have been made to get the PS4 version up and running ā especially when played on a base unit.
When played on the original Sony system, the box is really starting to show its age as it reaches 11 years on the market. The tech group notes a resolution of 1280x720 on a base PS4, as well as "a cut to pre-rendered cutscene quality, texture assets and audio bitrates". An initial load into the open zone of Koboh can take over two minutes (10 seconds on PS5), while transitioning from the outside world into the interior of Pyloon's Saloon can take between 10 to 15 seconds as you wait for the front door to open.
However, Digital Foundry notes much of the game's core design remains intact: "Everything from the detailing on droids like BB8, to the dense object placement around Pyloon's Saloon is exactly as you remember. Physics-based interactions are kept in place too: body simulation on Stormtroopers and even the manner in which dangling cables slice at the point of our lightsaber's contact, are still in situ. Indeed, for Jedi: Survivor's many puzzles around the initial planet, Koboh, keeping these physics-based elements is essential."
During testing, Digital Foundry found the title's in-engine cutscenes to be quite hitchy, as the frame rate drops from 30 frames-per-second down to 15 at times. During gameplay, though, the 30fps is generally met with only a few drops when asset streaming comes into play as you quickly navigate the environment.
If you're playing Star Wars Jedi: Survivor on a PS4 Pro, the technical results are a lot better. "At a native 864p image quality is boosted, while the frame-rate in gameplay tends to lock at 30fps more convincingly. Cases of tearing, single frame blips, and uneven frame pacing are greatly reduced all round too." However, Digital Foundry claims the in-engine cinematics still hitch here and there.
"Overall then, Jedi: Survivor's delivery on last-gen machines is mixed: on the one hand the base PS4 and Xbox One are difficult to recommend given the visual cutbacks, and the frame-rate instability during cut-scenes," Digital Foundry concludes. "On the other, PS4 Pro and Xbox One X push a much more convincing take on the experience, against all odds, due to a tighter 30fps lock, and a crisper image."
Have you by any chance been playing Star Wars Jedi: Survivor on PS4? Share your own experiences in the comments below.
[source youtube.com]
Comments 51
While they are at it, I hope we get a PS3 version soon
Better to be able to play it like this, than not play it at all.
It's not good enough for me but will be for many whose base of reference is more likely to be PS4 / Mobile / Switch not PS5. As ever choice is good.
@Czar_Khastik that'd be nice, along with a PS Vita version with cross-save compatibility to carry on playing on the go
@Foxhound Now we're talkin', it would be a dream come true
@Czar_Khastik ba da tsss...
Fine by me, just enjoy the gameplay
@tameshiyaku Ono michio kun!
@Czar_Khastik Nice to Michi!
@tameshiyaku Epic reply is epic šš
@Czar_Khastik The PS3 ran Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor like a dream. It can easily handle this.
@Czar_Khastik and the Xbox series s would still be blamed for its poor performance on the PS3 as holding this generation back.
I have to say it, but it's about time we leave last gen behind, it's just holding this gen back!
@Czar_Khastik why not a PS1 version while theyāre at it using AMD FSR 4.0 ššš»š
Wow, 864p!
Im sure a number of PS4 Pro games ran (much) higher than 1080p in their 30fps quality modes - im sure i remember a few around 1600p.
Anyone who is still play on Xbox one and PS4 are probably the people who donāt care about visual quality or frame rate. They would just appreciate being able to play the game in general
Sure took EA a good while than Hogwarts Legacy.
Is the narrative of peeps playing a remastered version of these renditions without knowing it Day One still on-going? š¤
Personally, didn't get on these games yet not until I get a 699 in my hands š±š±
@themightyant "PS4 / Mobile / Switch not PS5"
I was reading this thinking it only exists b/c they were making a Switch 2 port anyway so figured might as well.
Hopefully Switch 2 is at least PS4 Pro levels but it isn't going to be PS5.
https://www.si.com/videogames/news/nintendo-switch-2-spec-leak-ram-storage-dlss#:~:text=According%20to%20them%2C%20the%20Switch,Series%20S%20before%20using%20DLSS.
Maybe Switch 2 can get a $60 2-pack before the final 3rd game in the trilogy?
https://www.polygon.com/23889211/star-wars-jedi-3-trilogy-cal-kestis-cameron-monaghan
Sega genesis version is needed.haha.word up son
PS4. 4 The Players.
Of course it won't run it nearly as well as the PS5, what were they thinking....? Oh wait.
In all seriousness, The XBoneX and Pro look fab - don't get all the dissing. Bet a Pro with SSD would shred that 2 minute load time too.
@rjejr Upscaling is going to be key to Switch 2, getting the unit to work smarter not harder. Looking forward to seeing what Nintendo and their game studios can do with it. Frame gen would be an even nicer value add but less likely.
@AverageGamer
Not an average comment not gonna lie~
No doubt people who cared bought their first PS5 š± for that reasons [#15] from their last console, just as what the PS5 Pro offers~
What an unspoken predicament if I do say so myself š¤«š
The modern PS2 of our times
@Czar_Khastik personally im holding out for the Game boy colour version.
Goes to show how RAM and VRAM are very important I find it crazy that they don't give consoles 32GB RAM it's so cheap for PCs. VRAM is understandable because AMD and Nvidia with their crap VRAM they put on thier GPUs
@Oram77 Not really as most AAA games are current gen only now and most run at poor res and struggle with 60fps.
This could have been the solution to Rebirthās flagging sales.
Still donāt get why this was necessary, but this is EA, one of the greediest companies in gaming.
What do modern games like this even have to challenge a machine with PS4 specs? Light No Fire level maps? Aincrad/Alfheim level NPCs? Or bloated pixel counts, rampant VFX and the production crunch on an optimization diet?
Mah ps4 is much alive ! I'm so pride of her.
@themightyant The next Smash, 3D Mario and Mario Kart games should look incredible w/ the upscaling, and Nintendo will get them to run at 60fps. Some Wii games, in SD, looked better than some HD PS3 games on my HD tv. First party Gamecube games also looked great, of course that was back when Nintendo made it's consoles to compete on power.
Even if Nintendo can't compete on power w/ PS5 and Series X I think Switch had enough newer game ports of games like Skyrim and The Witcher 3 that Switch 2 may be able to get most of what this new gen can handle. Especially since a lot of PS5 games were also PS4 games and Microsoft still has that "must run on Series S" mandate.
Good times.
Honestly, people still playing on ancient last gen hardware surely don't buy new, full price titles? At this point, I assumed that these machines are just used to play cheap, older games? I mean, if you can afford new games like this surely you'd just save your pennies and get a PS5?
@Dadou Starting to think the PS4 will survive the PS5!
@rjejr "Maybe Switch 2 can get a $60 2-pack before the final 3rd game in the trilogy?"
You're very cute that you think companies aren't gonna milk the heck out of Switch 2 early adopters with $60 ports of very old games.
As much as I didn't care for Jedi Survivor combat/platforming mostly confused me, eh cosmetics then enticing lightsaber stuff or other reasons to explore then just beat the story as a better goal and dialogue/story was fair.
I think it's fair of differences in what it goes for of world and other aspects in it to Jedi Fallen Order to be current gen but it depends what they really wanted to increase/sacrifice to it.
With many games I go do we need those background details, grass/foliage or other stuff besides the more particular terrain texture details? I myself don't mind flat textures of grass or rocks or whatever besides objects if they need to have them to be convincing or for platforming then design sake to be immersive of the biome or whatever then gamey.
For the physics and other stuff it makes total sense then reducing it but for some texture quality or some other particular details, many major ones then more minor ones to cut things and still make it immersive/playable on old gen I can understand why.
Then again digital only the 4 50GB Blu ray disks for PS4/Xbox One EA doesn't want to offer physical and wasn't even complete for PS5/Series X anyway with 1 disk that too.
Now off topic/old gen topic somewhat related.
With the PS5 Pro footage of Last of Us in the showcase I went huh more foliage why do we need that with the increased GPU/VRAM lol. Because if more grass not sharpening then well that's just great waste of in world resources developers to use for the GPU increase and CPU bottleneck.
As surprising as it is for people to not upgrade it made sense with PS3/360/Wii/Wii U due to eshops, due to online in third world countries, PS3 and Wii U/3DS or Vita being free online. So for those going till 2019 of disks or online services or otherwise makes sense.
But PS4/Xbox One I mean if many games are successful MP games or Indies than AAA or financial situations in their countries/lives or other factors then I'm not surprised. Or PC/X1 cloud streaming then upgrading to a Series S/X.
I have the money and won't upgrade. I have access to them from family the PS5/PS5 Slim & Series X but I have no games I care to play on them so I don't even have to buy my own & I don't even want to. Let alone Xbox Series OS is on Xbox One & is slower by like 1 minute, it's fine, PS4 runs better even besides my eh external hard drive/overheating or power usage or whatever issue but I can just unplug that or put a game in (not PS store app though crashed) & it runs fine.
I'm happy with 3rd parties on PS4/Xbox One, Switch 1st/3rd parties on occasion & mostly I've bought PS2/PS3/360/Wii games with odd PSP/OG Xbox/GBA/DS. Beaten besides Splatoon 2 earlier this year, almost 20 or on 20 PS2/PS3/360 shooters, platformers, racing & got plenty more I've bought then finished.
If everyone else has many PS4/X1 games in backlogs, PC, Switch, X1 or otherwise people going retro whether nostalgia, tone, writing/better game design as well, cheaper full price PS4/X1 then PS5/Series X copies or free upgrades & many still keep coming out on old gen & many buying 3rd parties more why bother upgrading if they can save money, companies want that money & don't care how they get it & only few will risk PS5/Series release only focus.
I'll stick to waiting for compelling game design, others financial situations/backlogs. I'll enjoy my Kya Dark Lineage wind mechanics currently then thanks. Among others in other genre/games always wanted to get around to of the past.
I know that covid really screwed things up, and the manufacturing costs of the PS5 (affected by the former greatly) are another major factor, but this has been such a weird gen. In terms of the PlayStation family (i.e. not Xbox or Switch), there are so absolutely few PS5-only games. In a few months we'll be approaching the start of the PS5's fifth year and so many new games come out on both PS5 and PS4 still, aside from the titans of the 1st party scene.
And look, some people may have valid reasons for not upgrading. I know very well the PS5 was extremely hard to come by for the first 2-2.5 years or so. I get that. I also understand for Sony and especially with digital slowly ticking up sales, the idea of selling both to people is very easy and it appeases more people.
It's just a bizarre thought to me that in theory, we could see the PS6 on the verge of a release in a few short years, and PS4 games could still be releasing left and right. That's just unheard of. And frankly, it would really diminish the PS5's identity. That's just my thoughts though. Not trying to be a downer.
@Veritas7Ax nah youāre not, the ps5 just sucks
@nomither6 Demon Souls alone made it worth it for me. š
The game looks quite well on PS4 I'm kinda baffled. Well they made a better effort then Cyberpunk on PS4 was the game ever fixed there?
@ecurb7 There are people with less disposable income and I can totally understand why people have a PS4 or a Xbox One it's quite cheap gaming with a lot of great games.
@ecurb7 Unless thereās really nothing they want to play on PS5, and donāt see a reason to upgrade.
@Flaming_Kaiser
Which was my point precisely. Use it to play older games for a fraction of their original cost ... but if you can afford to buy newer games at full price, I'd say you are much better off upgrading to PS5 than sticking with PS4 for subpar versions of current gen games
@LavenderShroud
If someone is willing to buy lower quality versions of current gen games like Jedi Survivor for their PS4, then presumably they do want PS5 games?
@Ralizah By the time Switch 2 launches next year SWJ: Fallen Order will be 6 years old, so my thought was they advertise Survivor for $60 on cart then include a download code in the box for FO.
Though now that you mention it probably more likely for Switch 2 games to be $70 than $60, that new price point, already reached by Zelda TotK, is still something I need to adjust to for Switch 2. So you can consider my original post edited to $70, but I'm too lazy to go back and actually edit it.
It's bad enough they'll be charging $70 for by then 2 year old Survivor, which is going for $50 now for an 18 month old port. So I say Switch users catch a break. Or not, you're probably right. š¤
@ecurb7 Eh. Iām probably not really one to answer. Game looks fine to me either way, but Iām not a graphics snob or anything.
@LavenderShroud
But you're happy with 2 minute loading times versus 10 seconds? Not to mention lower frame rates, pop in etc. (check out the full digital foundry review for more).
Some people seem to have this idea that PS5 games are just slightly prettier versions of PS4 ones, but there's a whole host of performance improvements you get as well. Which is why, if you can afford it, you'd be much better off getting the PS5 version.
@ecurb7 what games had 2 minute loading times?
@nomither6
Hint: it has the words 'Jedi' and 'Survivor' in the title. You know, the subject of the article?
If you didn't manage to get as far as the second paragraph, here's the relevant sentence:
'An initial load into the open zone of Koboh can take over two minutes (10 seconds on PS5)'
@ecurb7 That's the speed difference between a mechanical HDD and an SSD.
Similar complaints were made about HZD but I found only a few seconds difference from the reported load times on my SSD Pro.
Jedi Survivor would probably take about 20-30 secs on a Pro with internal SSD. A Ā£40 upgrade made a LOT of difference to mine.
@sanderson72
Ok, though that's still over twice as slow. Look, I have no problem with people spending their money how they want - but in 2024, it seems a bit odd to be recommending spending money on an upgrade for a PS4 Pro (which only a small % of PS4 players have to begin with), when there's a much more powerful option out there. As I said earlier, save your pennies - and get yourself a cheap used PS5 instead, maybe (especially once the PS5 Pro drops and more used base models will probably enter the market)
@ecurb7 Oh, I've got a PS5, one of the 1216 (last of the true fatties) models that I got last year. (bundled DS5 started to drift and got replaced - so far so good on the other one).
TBH, though, it's been a big disappointment and using the PS4 Pro with a 6GB/s SSD it just doesn't feel that different (apart form a much worse UI on the misery 5).
Sure, some 60fps upgrades are welcome but Sony's lacklustre release schedule (remasters, remasters and MORE remasters) I can see the point of people who can't be bothered to move to the 5 and a cheap replacement SSD is more affordable if you find load times too long.
If Sony actually produced some next gen titles that would make the PS4 wheeze, I'd probably feel more engaged with it but releasing 'shinier' versions of games I've already played is doing nothing to help.
@sanderson72
Don't fat shame the original PS5!
Anyway, we've wandered far away from the original topic I think. But the one point I would make is that I just don't agree with the narrative that the PS5 doesn't have enough games worth playing. Sure, we'd all like more first party games, but there are plenty of second and third party games that either aren't on PS4 (Stellar Blade, Alan Wake 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Final Fantasy 16 etc.) or play much worse (hello, Cyberpunk!). At any rate, I've been playing mine solidly (and happily) since I got it day one. Roll on PS5 Pro!
@ecurb7 Or just wait untill it eventually drops in price.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...