Yep, all true. I commented because people seem to believe there is a specific hardware requirement for '1080p/60fps' when there are so many more variables than that. My only point was that given the right variables the Xbox One can do 1080p/60fps.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
1080p will come to Xbox One games, but at a cost
- Thread starter TTUVAPOR
- Start date
Yep, all true. I commented because people seem to believe there is a specific hardware requirement for '1080p/60fps' when there are so many more variables than that. My only point was that given the right variables the Xbox One can do 1080p/60fps.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's not unplayable, but it looks godawful on a fixed pixel PC monitor, and I would literally lower every other setting before I touched the resolution.Just look at this absolutely blurry mess! Makes it so un-fun!
: |
Don't get me wrong, my preference is 1080p, purely because I use pretty big 1080p TV's to game on, and a 1:1 pixel mapped resolution is always more detailed and crisp. But 900p is certainly not an unplayable blurry mess. I'd rather stay away from 720p though, as that's when the blur really starts to set in, at least on bigger screens anyway.
On HDTVs it barely matters, and it's a clear case of MS not wanting to look crappier on paper.
Unknown Soldier
Member
It would be considerably simpler if Polygon was made a banned site on GAF.
Or at least anything Ben Kuchera writes.
Or at least anything Ben Kuchera writes.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
To make the dip into PC gaming worthwhile, that requires a level of engagement/commitment that a more plug and play casual gamer doesn't have the time/care for.
Someone who's buying the new XboxStation, and only wants like 3 AAA games a year for single player experience, will see a significantly better value in a shiny console, than a cumbersome and confusing rig.
JimiNutz
Banned
This.
I give zero shits about 1080p.
If it's there then fine but I'm still perfectly happy with 900p and a locked framerate.
Just like 1080p comes to the PS4 at a cost too (Just happens to be a lesser cost) 
.
In my opinion, it's a good thing, it's very noticeable when a game isn't at 1080p. If I would have said this last gen most people would disagree but now that they're getting games with that res I'm sure we could all agree.
There are other game assets that should be sacrificing before you sacrifice the resolution.
I'd argue the same for the fps but that's a way more divided subject. If only because others don't know what having 60fps as a standard feels like.
.In my opinion, it's a good thing, it's very noticeable when a game isn't at 1080p. If I would have said this last gen most people would disagree but now that they're getting games with that res I'm sure we could all agree.
There are other game assets that should be sacrificing before you sacrifice the resolution.
I'd argue the same for the fps but that's a way more divided subject. If only because others don't know what having 60fps as a standard feels like.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Embrace the 900p future, MS.
Don't be so stubborn. It's not so bad...
Don't be so stubborn. It's not so bad...
/Thread.
HA^^^
Fbh
Member
Well yeah, you don't need an expert to tell you that if you want 1080p on limited hardware you will need to sacrifice another aspect.
Articles like this really make me believe that some people think developers have a "enable high graphics + 60 fps + 1080p" button but decide not to use because they don't feel like it.
It's allways going to be the same on consoles. They are closed systems with fixed hardware that have to be sold at appealing prices. Devs will allways run into some limitations and most of them will preffer to optimize the game as much as they can with a fixed settings. Also, most of them will preffer to push the visual aspects of a game because graphics just sell more than performance.
If you want all games to run at 1080p and 60fps, and if you want to have deeper options then go get a PC
Articles like this really make me believe that some people think developers have a "enable high graphics + 60 fps + 1080p" button but decide not to use because they don't feel like it.
It's allways going to be the same on consoles. They are closed systems with fixed hardware that have to be sold at appealing prices. Devs will allways run into some limitations and most of them will preffer to optimize the game as much as they can with a fixed settings. Also, most of them will preffer to push the visual aspects of a game because graphics just sell more than performance.
If you want all games to run at 1080p and 60fps, and if you want to have deeper options then go get a PC
eso76
Member
not this shit again
carbonbased
Member
Sure, but that is irrelevant. This discussion is about value as it relates to performance, which is squarely something that the "casual gamer doesn't have the time/care for."
If you want to talk universal value, PCs also bring a host of non-gaming functionality above and beyond consoles which is being ignored.
HDTVs scale well enough that 900p should be fine. If MS try and push to 1080p they'll suffer elsewhere - either in framerate or onscreen detail. I'd much prefer they just pick 900p if that allows them to keep the framerate and detail up.
Mafia Films
Neo Member
#dealwithit?
I agree, but I thinks it's the whole "not 1080p" stigma that's forcing these bumps in resolution. It doesn't look good when the competition is putting out the same title at 1080p. Plus, most consumers are more familiar with the whole 1080p speak, than texture/frames per second speak.
I was one of those that wanted Titanfall at 720p with no tears and solid 60fps. CoD runs like this, and it's still a great experience on the XB1.
I'd rather have 1080p stigma than juddering framerate or less detail stigma. MS cannot match PS4 in all games, so IMO better to just stick to what is best for their machine which I think is compromising on the resolution - they have to compromise on something.
Mike Double U
Banned
Isn't that why* you buy a console? To not have to spend 'hours trying to get games to run'? You buy a console for the convenience and price right?
*Aside from exclusives and gaming with your friends.
Huggers
Member
900p and 1080p is a big difference but surely as they push the consoles harder later into the gen and PS4 games start popping up with lower resolutions, you wonder where the Xbox One version will be. Personally I'm happy to take a resolution hit if 60fps is achieved. Looking at every other gen though this will not be the case. In a sense all these remasters are cool in that as a console only gamer I'll have lots of 60fps goodness
Also it is an absolute no brainer to include some graphics options
Also it is an absolute no brainer to include some graphics options
RockmanWhore
Member
The problem for Microsoft if they try to hard to get devs get their game running at 1080p, the difference between the PS4 and Xbox One visuals will be even more obvious. Unless MS manages to keep things down and devs won't exploit the PS4 to its full potential because of equity.
Anyway I'm glad that developpers are getting aware of the importance of image quality and framerate. Bells and whistles are nice, but they don't last long, fluidity and image quality are timeless.
Anyway I'm glad that developpers are getting aware of the importance of image quality and framerate. Bells and whistles are nice, but they don't last long, fluidity and image quality are timeless.
in what way are these two things relevant to each other? Call of Duty Ghosts is a waste of a game and a substandard entry in the series. I wouldn't want to play it in 8K at 1000fps, because it would still be boring. Sure, higher res and higher framerate titanfall would be great, but it's not the same game. What one runs at has nothing to do with the other.
Oh yeah, because all that matters in video games is that they have to be 1080p and 60fps, otherwise everything is unplayable shit that should be banned from existence, right?
Tired of this white-or-black hyperbolic shit...
Using a basic forward renderer not seen in years, yes.
Because PC stuff changes so rapidly, you can buy $400 worth of components, and get better graphics than any current console.
Canis lupus
Member
Just go for 900p and a stable framerate, use that new sdk power to add more graphical effects, I don't wanna see multiplats chained down by the 1080p demand for the Xbone and not being able to increase the visuals or fps.
What nonsense, if you want fine tuning your gaming needs to premium, you need to fork out extra money, on pc you can go as low or high as you want, for 399, you don't get that luxurious pc.
What nonsense, if you want fine tuning your gaming needs to premium, you need to fork out extra money, on pc you can go as low or high as you want, for 399, you don't get that luxurious pc.
Agreed and like one of the developers of Metro Last Light said, his name is Oles Shyshkovtsov, he clearly stated console hardware in these new consoles double the performance of the hardware they have...or how he said it is that the hardware inside the new consoles are double that of the PC equivalent hardware in performance. Basically what you see in that 400 dollar console would take probably a 800 dollars worth of PC components to match it. These are not my words, they are coming from a PC developer, a prominent PC developer that goes by the name of Oles Shyshkovtsov.
That said, personally i am more of a PC gamer than a console gamer but i do own a PS4 because of its exclusives and i would be lying to say that some of PS4's upcoming games don't match or exceed what I've seen running on my current PC which is a 3770k, 7970Ghz Edition, 16gb ddr3 ram,etc. DC for PS4 as one example. I also would be a fool to say my PC cannot outmatch my PS4 in resolution and a higher degree of IQ. but there is no doubt that once Sony's first party studios start to harness to the metal of PS4's hardware we are going to be blown away by some of those PS4 games that yes will rival that of a fairly high end PC at a 1080p level. Of course any good gaming PC will be able to achieve a higher resolution, added AA and AF,etc but for a $400 dollar PS4, you get a hell of a lot of bang for the buck in terms of what it will be about to perform graphically....there is no $400 dollar pc out there that can match it, heck it came straight from the horses mouth Mr Oles Shyshkovtsov himself said it and many other developers have said it time and time again...consoles basically because of its closed box setup and optimizations to the metal can double the performance of PC equivalent hardware and that's true, completely true.
At the end of the day though...what really matters is that PC is now becoming a more popular gaming platform and i am just very excited to see that there are more and more PC exclusives starting to come out now that are taking more advantage of PC hardware.It reminds me of the late 90's and early 2k years where we had so many cutting edge exclusive PC games coming out.
My PS4 is for PS4 exclusives, everything else will be played on my PC. I have my PC connected to my big screen tv in the living room sitting next to my ps4...so 1080p is the resolution i use even on my PC....until high end 4k HDTVs come down to more affordable prices but exciting times for both console and PC gamers indeed!
I think they probably miscalculated how much people were going to care about 1080p.
PensivePen
Member
Honestly on a TV with good scaling resolution isn't a big factor to me. I would obviously prefer higher resolutions, but I can deal with 720p. I think having a high, and stable framerate is much more important. 60fps is greatly preferred, but I think the absolute minimum any game should run at is 30fps that is consistent 99% of the time. Also no screen tearing, ever.
I would happily welcome some graphical options on console games.
I would happily welcome some graphical options on console games.
Not that it's particularly relevant, but if you do a close reading of the interview you keep citing, it seems pretty likely that 4A didn't yet have a PS4 devkit (look at how in-depth the technical discussion of the PS3 is compared to the cursory discussion of the PS4's Jaguar cores and a high-level overview of the GPU, e.g.). As for the 2x quote, that seems like a pretty direct reference to Carmack's now famous tweet from 2011, which was necessarily referring to the last-gen consoles.
I'm certain you'll disagree with my assessment, but the notion that the PS4 can do 2x the performance when compared to equivalent PC hardware is simply not borne out in multiplat performance... which I'm gathering doesn't count, to your mind.
Consoles also enjoy the sub $500 price point for great looking games. Why get into technical details if the game plays fine and looks great?!
Then if you desperately want that image quality and technical performnce then PC is the only answer which my guess would be around $900-1200 to run next-gen games at 1080p-60fps. I currently have a £700-800 PC which can run every game at the moment beyond 60fps+ but the likes of Witcher 3 and such which probably kill that dream
sobaka770
Banned
Watch Dogs is 900p on PS4 and the difference between this title and AC4 which runs native after a patch is very noticeable. I have a 42-inch TV, but my flat is not too big so I sit quite close to the telly. Those jaggies everywhere in Chicago... the blur... the general haze all over the screen. It's not as jarring as going back to PS3 or XboX360 (played with friends on his PS3 - never again), but it's there/
There is quite a big IQ drop. On my laptop I would rather disable all textures, effects, shaders etc. than drop the resolution.
When you have a proper Full HD TV and the game runs native, it's very noticeable. And no 900p or 912p or, even worse, 798p in Titanfall is even close to being acceptable, especially if the competition runs native. Microsoft knows this. They try to curb the damage with PR, but what they really need is a software miracle to make their underpowered hardware deliver at least something capable of rivaling PS4.
There is quite a big IQ drop. On my laptop I would rather disable all textures, effects, shaders etc. than drop the resolution.
When you have a proper Full HD TV and the game runs native, it's very noticeable. And no 900p or 912p or, even worse, 798p in Titanfall is even close to being acceptable, especially if the competition runs native. Microsoft knows this. They try to curb the damage with PR, but what they really need is a software miracle to make their underpowered hardware deliver at least something capable of rivaling PS4.
Personally what Ideally want is:
1080p but 30fps
900p but 60fps.
Yes I know system power doesn't scale that way but those two I find somewhat expectable.
900p at 30fps is ok I suppose but, I would like better :/
And sure 1080p at 60fps is the best.
Anything lower than 1600x900 resolution I find unacceptable for a supposed "next gen" (now current gen) console.
1080p but 30fps
900p but 60fps.
Yes I know system power doesn't scale that way but those two I find somewhat expectable.
900p at 30fps is ok I suppose but, I would like better :/
And sure 1080p at 60fps is the best.
Anything lower than 1600x900 resolution I find unacceptable for a supposed "next gen" (now current gen) console.
Fuz
Banned
Because.. that's subjective?
figadapaura
Member
Unfortunately, your opinion won't make the Xbox One more powerful.
boneso
Member
Last generation resolution wasn't even a topic of discussion.
No one cared, or even questioned, when games were consistently running with sub-HD resolutions. Most modern games on PS3 and 360 were rendered at less than 720p. It didn't matter because everyone was happy with the jump from SD to HD. That same jump is not going to happen this generation. Games will obviously look better than last gen, but gamers are expecting too much, i was myself. This is why i have moved to PC gaming, i was underwhelmed by my PS4. So i sold it and built myself a gaming PC, haven't looked back. I will probably buy another new console in the future when the exclusives are unmissable, but for now, for 3rd party games, graphics, resolution and framerate, the PC is all i need.
Now to the OP...
The PS4 and Xbone are essentially gaming PC in all but name and form-factor. If a $1000+ gaming PC can just about manage to run a game at 1080p60, with a high level of graphical settings, what in the world makes you believe that the same game can run at the same graphical fidelity on a $400 "PC"? Let alone you demanding that it does so...
P.S: If your so "sick and tired" of consoles not getting the "luxury" of PC gaming, then bite the bullet and buy or build a PC. Stop whining about it like the console manufacturers and games developers owe you something.
No one cared, or even questioned, when games were consistently running with sub-HD resolutions. Most modern games on PS3 and 360 were rendered at less than 720p. It didn't matter because everyone was happy with the jump from SD to HD. That same jump is not going to happen this generation. Games will obviously look better than last gen, but gamers are expecting too much, i was myself. This is why i have moved to PC gaming, i was underwhelmed by my PS4. So i sold it and built myself a gaming PC, haven't looked back. I will probably buy another new console in the future when the exclusives are unmissable, but for now, for 3rd party games, graphics, resolution and framerate, the PC is all i need.
Now to the OP...
The PS4 and Xbone are essentially gaming PC in all but name and form-factor. If a $1000+ gaming PC can just about manage to run a game at 1080p60, with a high level of graphical settings, what in the world makes you believe that the same game can run at the same graphical fidelity on a $400 "PC"? Let alone you demanding that it does so...
P.S: If your so "sick and tired" of consoles not getting the "luxury" of PC gaming, then bite the bullet and buy or build a PC. Stop whining about it like the console manufacturers and games developers owe you something.
mocolostrocolos
Member
Stable framerate >>>>> resolution.
I think this should be a Law. As Newton's or thermodynamics.
I think this should be a Law. As Newton's or thermodynamics.
Who gives a shit. Can you play InFamous or TLoU with it?
hooijdonk17
Member
I could reverse the question and say who gives a shit about InFamous or TLoU, and it would be no less stupid.
Avatar quote.
Of course it doesn't apply to Xbone, since a lot of those games come to PC as well.
Caayn
Member
We all know that PC has no exclusives and that Sony exclusives are the only real exclusives /s
The point was that a 120$ card can already beat the consoles that aren't even on the market for a year. That's embarrassing.
Me too, i play everything on my powerful PC 1080p/ultra and 60fps when i can, but it doesn't bother me to play the console exclusives at 900p on my Xbox One, i've already played Ryse and Dead Rising 3 which are sub 1080p but pretty good games.
I don't think the new Halo, Gears of War, Crackdown, Forza and Scalebound will arrive on PC, so Xbox has its real exclusives too, that said it's not even true that PC doesn't have exclusives, there are a lot of indies which are PC exclusives and stuff like, Dota 2, LOL, Counter Strike ecc
CyclopsRock
Member
Whatever the result, I'd rather we got the games that Blizzard want to put out rather than what MS made them put out; I have no reason to think that what MS want us to have is more likely to give us a good result than what Bliz do. Obviously, though, console makers working with Devs is a good thing.