The Last of Us Part II patch for PS5 doubles the framerate to 60 FPS

Shawn Knight

Posts: 13,439   +132
Staff member
TL;DR: Naughty Dog has released a free patch for The Last of Us Part II that boosts the game’s performance on Sony’s PlayStation 5. After installing patch 1.08, simply head to the display options in the game’s settings menu and look for a toggle to enable 60 frames per second. It’s that simple.

The developer said the new framerate option complements the other performance enhancements that the PS5 brings to the game, including a higher resolution and faster load times.

Digital Foundry was able to get its hands on the patch early, and has been testing (and re-testing) it over the past week. Their results are very promising. In fact, they only came across one sequence in the entire game where there was a dip below 60 frames per second. Otherwise, performance remained buttery smooth at the target framerate.

Digital Foundry’s video does include some in-game spoilers, so if you haven’t already played through to completion, perhaps you’ll want to avoid it for now. Then again, the game has been available for close to a year, so they aren’t exactly crossing any moral boundaries here.

The broader takeaway from DF's analysis is that the patch truly is "transformative" in terms of gameplay and improving the overall experience. Things like aiming are now much more responsive and there's a general snappiness to the game, whereas at 30 frames per second, the title had a "moderately heavy feel."

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 950   +1,751
Remember 15 years ago when console gamers always told us they liked consoles because it just worked: no performance patches, no annoying installs, etc.?

Now even on hardware that's supposedly "more optimized" since the configuration of the system and OS never changes we discovers that nope: It was just publishers cheaping out and pushing incomplete garbage out the door with what I'm sure they call "Minimum viable product" which is a business ways to say "LMAO they will eat up a barely functional game just ship it, 2077 prints money baby!"
 

Experimentongod

Posts: 337   +180
Remember 15 years ago when console gamers always told us they liked consoles because it just worked: no performance patches, no annoying installs, etc.?

Now even on hardware that's supposedly "more optimized" since the configuration of the system and OS never changes we discovers that nope: It was just publishers cheaping out and pushing incomplete garbage out the door with what I'm sure they call "Minimum viable product" which is a business ways to say "LMAO they will eat up a barely functional game just ship it, 2077 prints money baby!"

Yep the times of "consoles are better because you just put the disc in and play" are long gone. Now you have the same game running on 6 different consoles (PS4, PS4 Pro, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series S and Series X) with different performance, long installations/downloads, tons of patches, crashes, different editions of the same game, DLCs, microtransactions, etc.
 
Last edited:

dangh

Posts: 255   +321
Remember 15 years ago when console gamers always told us they liked consoles because it just worked: no performance patches, no annoying installs, etc.?

Now even on hardware that's supposedly "more optimized" since the configuration of the system and OS never changes we discovers that nope: It was just publishers cheaping out and pushing incomplete garbage out the door with what I'm sure they call "Minimum viable product" which is a business ways to say "LMAO they will eat up a barely functional game just ship it, 2077 prints money baby!"
Those games 15 years ago and older were bug fest, low performance, and noone was saying they dont need patches. Simply, it wasnt possible to have one.
Consoles are convenient devices and Sony and Nintendo exclusives makes a good reason to get one. And when working from home, I don't want anymore to sit in front of my pc after 8 hours of sitting in front of it, so consoles took over as gaming centre...
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 950   +1,751
Those games 15 years ago and older were bug fest, low performance, and noone was saying they dont need patches. Simply, it wasnt possible to have one.
Consoles are convenient devices and Sony and Nintendo exclusives makes a good reason to get one. And when working from home, I don't want anymore to sit in front of my pc after 8 hours of sitting in front of it, so consoles took over as gaming centre...

Hey I'm not going to defend older games plenty of them were for sure. Statistically most of them in fact since there's a lot of smaller, unpopular games that don't get talked about or gain much notoriety and are quite buggy.

I do think however that there's something to be said about console games now taking full advantage of modern storage devices and internet connections to have patching as the default: the reason why it has caught on in a big way is because now even the bigger releases don't actually need to fully develop a game and accept the game was buggy since "Oh, that will get patched later on" is something they can rely on.

So while overall the quality of console games hasn't gone down simply because of mere numbers, the popular ones that a decade or two ago had the expectation of being solid and playable at launch now don't have that: now even with physical media they might have mandatory 0 day patches and I am 99% sure this is just so they can rush out releases even more than in the past.

All I am saying is that even if there's many and notable exceptions, "Going gold" used to mean something at least on an aspirational sense, now it just doesn't anymore.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,864   +3,748
TechSpot Elite
Remember 15 years ago when console gamers always told us they liked consoles because it just worked: no performance patches, no annoying installs, etc.?

Now even on hardware that's supposedly "more optimized" since the configuration of the system and OS never changes we discovers that nope: It was just publishers cheaping out and pushing incomplete garbage out the door with what I'm sure they call "Minimum viable product" which is a business ways to say "LMAO they will eat up a barely functional game just ship it, 2077 prints money baby!"
I don't remember games "just working" on older consoles. There were either simple games that didn't require much in terms of bug testing or big games that had a ton of fps issues and bugs. People just forgot what the games were like.

For example, a game like Mario 64 ran at 30FPS but dropped down to 20 FPS in some places and it had its own share of bugs, like how some coins could not be collected without using glitches.

FYI even back then game studios released updated games, you just didn't have a way to patch them if you bought an early release.
 
Last edited:

dangh

Posts: 255   +321
I do think however that there's something to be said about console games now taking full advantage of modern storage devices and internet connections to have patching as the default: the reason why it has caught on in a big way is because now even the bigger releases don't actually need to fully develop a game and accept the game was buggy since "Oh, that will get patched later on" is something they can rely on.

While I agree the games are often being released with day one path and number of issues, I do not think this is console only feature. I'd say that games developed with single platform in mind usually are in a pretty good shape. More platform = more issues, and that is understandable as well.
As games becoming more like a service (which is awful move if you ask me) continuous improvement and releasing a game in late beta stage is going to be more often occurrence. Cutting fixes and a few months of QA checks might made significant savings if game actually wont have any traction. We no longer buying a done product, even tv serials usually have a first season and then next will come only if financially viable. Quick consumption, instant gratification, and psychological tricks to keep you involved are new normal, and to be honest console exclusive games often trying to go against this trend. Nintendo and Sony especially still invest heavily in story - driven products with limited monetization, and usually deliver high quality product. But with GaaS most people will go for quantity - french restaurant have a good food, atmosphere, staff, but MacDonald is just around the corner and keep your belly full and brain boosted on sugar.
 

Thretosix

Posts: 98   +106
Hey I'm not going to defend older games plenty of them were for sure. Statistically most of them in fact since there's a lot of smaller, unpopular games that don't get talked about or gain much notoriety and are quite buggy.

I do think however that there's something to be said about console games now taking full advantage of modern storage devices and internet connections to have patching as the default: the reason why it has caught on in a big way is because now even the bigger releases don't actually need to fully develop a game and accept the game was buggy since "Oh, that will get patched later on" is something they can rely on.

So while overall the quality of console games hasn't gone down simply because of mere numbers, the popular ones that a decade or two ago had the expectation of being solid and playable at launch now don't have that: now even with physical media they might have mandatory 0 day patches and I am 99% sure this is just so they can rush out releases even more than in the past.

All I am saying is that even if there's many and notable exceptions, "Going gold" used to mean something at least on an aspirational sense, now it just doesn't anymore.
Also a lot better than having to pay another $60-$70 for a remaster.