CONTROL (Remedy)

polonyc2 said:
CONTROL PC Performance Explored – All In On RTX

Control is going to be a game that really puts the hurt on previous generations of graphics cards whether that be Pascal or GCN based cards...it also continues the trend of showing the strengths of Turing over Pascal and further separating the architectures more than what was seen when Turing first launched

Turing isn’t the only one to see a breakaway here, the RDNA based Navi cards from AMD, while suffering on the 1% and .1% lows compared to their competition, prove to be leagues faster than even the Vega based cards with less on board stream processors...

https://wccftech.com/control-pc-performance-explored-all-in-on-rtx/3/
Click to expand...

This was sort of what I was looking for. Less for me about the FPS, but more about what raytracing adds in terms of visual fidelity. Definitely some real world feature enhancements but nothing that I can't live without. At least for now.
One notable omission though in terms of graphics cards is: Radeon VII. If previous games are of any indication, it should be around 2080 or 5700XT range.
Also to note, which wasn't discussed in this article is that the RX580 is the "recommended" graphics card (on AMD side, 2060 for nVidia), which is a really low bar. This article makes it seem like last gen cards just give inadequate performance, which is far from the case. It won't take much to push this game to the limit, which is definitely nice.


Snowdog said:
Lot's of reviews, does this mean this game is released?

It's looking like a nice freebie for some people that get it with their NVidia cards (Wolf: Youngblood looks kind of mediocre).
Click to expand...

Tomorrow. Embargo for reviews is just up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Just in case you need another opinion- ArsTechnica.

I can't wait to play this, it will be interesting to see how my 1080Ti fares...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Was looking forward to this game so I am glad the reviews are looking good. Graphics look amazing without Ray Tracing. Interesting to see the RTX 2070 Super gets roughly twice the frame rates as the RTX 2060 Super. I assume a RTX 2070 will be closer in performance to the 2060 Super. Didn't think the 2070 Super was that much faster. Most other games seem to show a much less pronounced FPS jump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
polonyc2 said:
seems like you really need a Turing card to get the most out of this game...by the time the game is released on Steam (12 months) there should be much better RTX cards out
Click to expand...

Oh, is this epic games store exclusive? I guess I’ll have to wait a year to see what this game is all about then.

EDIT: That's a shame too, because I was semi-hyped for this. It looks like it has a lot of elements that I'd like to play. Puzzle elements. An actual story. A mystery. Interesting gunplay. You know, things that Remedy has generally done better than their peers (at least when combined. Arguably there are better game companies focusing on one of those elements).
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Oh, is this epic games store exclusive? I guess I’ll have to wait a year to see what this game is all about then.

EDIT: That's a shame too, because I was semi-hyped for this. It looks like it has a lot of elements that I'd like to play. Puzzle elements. An actual story. A mystery. Interesting gunplay. You know, things that Remedy has generally done better than their peers (at least when combined. Arguably there are better game companies focusing on one of those elements).
Click to expand...

because steam has done nothing in the development of this game, they should be entitled to 30% of the profit of this game, for hosting a webpage and some download files, which means to you that you will wait for it to get to steam. ok
what exactly has gaben done for you lately that he deserves this chunk of money coming from you?
 
People like Steam because it's really personalized it has lots of customization except for scaling sucks the UI is dated. I like Epic been using only for Metro Exodus but really haven't had any bugs or crashes over the past month.
 
jiminator said:
because steam has done nothing in the development of this game, they should be entitled to 30% of the profit of this game, for hosting a webpage and some download files, which means to you that you will wait for it to get to steam. ok
what exactly has gaben done for you lately that he deserves this chunk of money coming from you?
Click to expand...

Let's not have *yet another* thread derailed over this please?

Valve needs to get real about their cuts. Frankly some other things, too. They have been resting on their laurels for way too long.

Everyone needs to get back to the negotiating table. Give and take all the way around.

In the meantime: I'm looking forward to firing this up later today. It likes a helluva game. People can kid themselves all the want but "Remedy's magnum opus" and these sorts of consensus remarks abroad has to be turning some heads regardless of anything else.
 
jiminator said:
because steam has done nothing in the development of this game, they should be entitled to 30% of the profit of this game, for hosting a webpage and some download files, which means to you that you will wait for it to get to steam. ok
what exactly has gaben done for you lately that he deserves this chunk of money coming from you?
Click to expand...

Considering that 25% is normal margin for a video game, I'd say Steam is mostly in line with the retail market (or are you also suggesting that retailers that had no part in the development in the game and provide space on a shelf should also not make profit?).
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/en...010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
Considering that servers and bandwidth cost more than shelf space, that "extra $5" seems reasonable. Via Steam every developer also gets the rest in pure profit. With no printing cost, disc cost, shipping cost, or any other form of distribution cost which would normally eat more cash (not to mention any admin work or design work related to distribution necessary in the form of salary either). As noted in the article, for a game on the shelf, they would normally make less than 50% ($27 out of $60). With Steam they are getting nearly 70%.

Developers want a bigger piece of the pie, that's fair enough. But without platform they make $0, Steam has given them unprecedented access to cash. It's undeniable that smaller startups and titles would've never existed if not for a web distribution system that gave them access to a massive marketplace. For larger developers Steam has increased their bottom lines.
This platform war will inevitably benefit the consumer by increasing competition and lowering prices. But for the time being we have Epic futzing with that by systematically not allowing competition.

With that out of the way, what Steam has given me, a consumer is a unified marketplace, which makes my life convenient. I don't want or need another launcher. I suppose you also avoid shopping at Amazon, Target, and Walmart too?
Finally, what's it to you if I want it on a platform that you don't care for? It's my prerogative where I shop, same as you.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
That was for physical games, with hard goods costs, transportation costs, inventory costs...

Charging more for digital downloads doesn't exactly make it look reasonable.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of my post. Steam has increased their bottom lines by giving them access to more endusers with cash than a physical store could ever provide AND they still get a bigger chunk of the pie than they would with physical copies. Even at 30% Steam is a better deal than any retail store for developers.
Some developers are saying no to Steam's economy of scale and opting for "the sure thing" with Epic's timed buyouts. It's only a matter of time before we see if that gamble is even worth it or if they'd simply make more money being on all platforms regardless of cut. Eventually the consumer will benefit, but for now the free market can't even decide.

(Also, you can feel free to tell me how much it costs in electricity, hardware, salary, and money on bandwidth it costs to distribute a single game. Games these days are 15GB on the "small" side. If a game that size sells 500k copies via Steam, that's 7,500GB. If it's a 30GB game that's 15,000GB. How many managed servers and lines do you figure it takes to do that? I'm not saying Steam doesn't make a healthy profit, but indeed they should for their business acumen. However, it's a fallacy to just think it takes nothing and costs nothing to develop the desktop software, website, and backend for such a marketplace. It took years and 1000s of man hours for Steam to become what it is. But here on the internet you can sit in an armchair and take that for granted. Only by leveraging economies of scale does that 30% begin to mean something, but it took massive economies of scale of the hardware backend to get there.)
 
Last edited:
This runs rather horribly for me @ 2560x1440 with an i5-6600k and an RTX 2080. I get around 100 FPS with everything maxed out (except Ray Tracing which is set to medium) but there's constant framerate dips and stuttering. Already using today's drivers.

If someone finds the magic setting that fixes this, let me know. :( I've tried shutting off all the Ray Tracing crap and have tried both DX11 and DX12, but no luck.

Edit: Lowering or disabling Screen Space Reflections AND running in DX11 mode seems to do the trick. Steady 60-70 FPS now, less than before because you can't use DLSS in DX11, but there's no longer any dips or stuttering.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
You are running a CPU released in 2013.
Click to expand...

2015, and it gets ~93% as many frames as an i5-9600k would.

Additionally, I already fixed it with those settings changes. A few people over on Reddit have the same issue, regardless of hardware.
 
Last edited:
Runs great @4k with max settings on the 2080ti w/ DLSS enabled. I honestly can't see the difference between DLSS enabled or off, but it gives it playable framerates. This is the first game i've seen that raytracing really is worth the performance hit, but again, DLSS works so well here that it isn't a big deal.

I'm getting some classic Max Payne style vibes from this game. I was a big fan of Alan Wake, but so far this is proving to be a better game.
 
I picked this game up today after watching one of the streamers I follow play it.

I think the Max Payne comparison seems fair, similar style game. It's been a while since I played a good game like this.

I spent a while messing with the detail settings to get in the ~ 60FPS range at 4k. I ended up checking out Geforce Experience and letting it set the "optimal" settings which results in all RTX effects on, render resolution to 1920x1080, DLSS on and pretty much everything else maxed out except MSAA. Looks good, plays smooth at these settings on my RTX 2080ti 6700k @ 4.6 Ghz system. I only played for a half hour, but it looks pretty sweet but it's clear that this game is ready to grow into future generations of graphics cards if you want everything cranked with DLSS off, 4k render resolution etc.

Initial impressions of this game are quite positive. The story seems fairly interesting based on my first half hour or so.
 
Mchart said:
I don't think i've ever played a game that messes with the senses as much as this game does. The game isn't scary per say, but the sounds and visuals are so weird that it makes me question my own sanity after playing it.
Click to expand...
Something to keep you off balanced that is why I liked games like Ultima and Dark Age of Camelot they felt real.

I don't want to pay full price for this game but it seems Epic has taken every vendor of keys off line.
 
Comixbooks said:
Does this game have a RTX toggle switch in the menu?
Click to expand...
upload_2019-8-28_17-0-0.png
 
My only complaint so far with the graphics is that you can't disable this weird motion blur effect in the game. It's quite pronounced at times, and it really doesn't look good.
 
Mchart said:
My only complaint so far with the graphics is that you can't disable this weird motion blur effect in the game. It's quite pronounced at times, and it really doesn't look good.
Click to expand...


Yes! I'd love to disable it.
 
Welp, I was going to ask how to remove the stupid "dirt" filter that just makes everything look drab.



Maybe I'll wait a few weeks for them to iron out the bugs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Hello. I have Aorus 2080 Ti Waterforce Xtreme. And monitor 1440P. So using RTX HIGH 1440P i have fps range 35-70fps.But with DLSS i have 80+ but its blurry mess with 960p render. Why DLSS is rendering on 960p? Any tips?

I dont have 4k monitor so DLSS is on 960p:( too bad
 
mgty23 said:
Hello. I have Aorus 2080 Ti Waterforce Xtreme. And monitor 1440P. So using RTX HIGH 1440P i have fps range 35-70fps.But with DLSS i have 80+ but its blurry mess with 960p render. Why DLSS is rendering on 960p? Any tips?

I dont have 4k monitor so DLSS is on 960p:( too bad
Click to expand...

DLSS is just a glorified scaling option to increase performance.

It is not something that increases image quality.
 
but peoples with 4k native have 1440p dlss, on 1440p native is 960p dlss and image is blurred. So what i must buy 4k panel?
 
mgty23 said:
but peoples with 4k native have 1440p dlss, on 1440p native is 960p dlss and image is blurred. So what i must buy 4k panel?
Click to expand...
1440p DLSS for 4K adds blur.

You don’t get a 1440p option because your native resolution is 1440p. What you are asking for literally makes no sense. You are basically saying “why can’t I scale at 1440p on my 1440p monitor”

Again, DLSS is just a scaler that works marginally better, but it still has an image quality loss.

If you want to go waste your money on a 4K panel so you can play the game scaled up from 1440p using DLSS, go ahead, but it’ll still look just as blurry.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
1440p DLSS for 4K adds blur.

You don’t get a 1440p option because your native resolution is 1440p. What you are asking for literally makes no sense. You are basically saying “why can’t I scale at 1440p on my 1440p monitor”

Again, DLSS is just a scaler that works marginally better, but it still has an image quality loss.

If you want to go waste your money on a 4K panel so you can play the game scaled up from 1440p using DLSS, go ahead, but it’ll still look just as blurry.
Click to expand...
ah thanks for reply. Thats an real cool answer. :) thank you i understand :)
 
Anyone else getting some stuttering? Not using RTX options, everything else maxed out at 2560x1440. RTX 2070 with Ryzen 3700X.
 
Ok so what is better in terms of quality of graphic. Play on 1080p without dlss or play on 1440p with dlss ( 960p ) ? Hmm?

I have 1440P acer predator 27inch.


( i am using NVIDIA SHARPENING )


ps:
Stuttering gone after driver update for that game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top