-
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
Proof? Seems comparable at 900p high settings in DF's analysis (compared to the console version in another video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0v4VJu4_M4
grosvenor_92
Member
Framerate will certainly take a hit. OP you should really just save up the money and build a gaming PC
Easy to say that when you're not the one developing the game.
Develop one first before blasting devs for not hitting 1080p 60fps for everything on a console that can't fully handle that without compromises (PS4 isn't excluded from this, not every PS4 game is at 1080p 60fps either) or get a PC.
Won awards because of its graphics as a result. I'm more inclined to believe them than you.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I personally will take a resolution downgrade to push the frame rate.
I regularly turn down graphical options on my PC games to get a better frame rate. On that note, I need to get a new graphics card. My current one is getting long in the tooth.
I regularly turn down graphical options on my PC games to get a better frame rate. On that note, I need to get a new graphics card. My current one is getting long in the tooth.
ovechkin10887
Neo Member
Very well said! I completely agree. It's very difficult to go back
Blurry mess? Maybe you shouldn't play without your glasses.
thelastword
Banned
Holy smokes, I just watched the smaller screens you posted and said, "hey not bad, this looks nice and sharp", the mistake I made was to click on the photos themselves....Wowzers.
EventHorizon
Member
Maybe I read the question wrong. I thought it was asking why are devs/Microsfot more willing to sacrifice FPS for resolution.
----
On another topic, what do all these constraints mean to Halo 5. Right now Microsoft is demanding 1080p @ 60 FPS for XB1 games while at the same time saying that Halo 5 will have better graphics than The Order. Something has got to give. If Microsoft insists on all that then they are going to have to seriously corridorify all their games.
I still don't get this, you've obviously experienced 1080p 60fps. What exactly is keeping you exclusively on an Xbox One when you can quite easily build your own PC and go beyond 1080p and 60fps for the ultimate experience?
If it's the Microsoft 1st party exclusives that interest you fair enough but again you get what you pay for, when possible and without a significant compromise those 1st party studios will try to hit 1080p 60fps. However there is no point in them trying to hit that just for the sake of having those numbers if it then means they have to significantly compromise what they are trying to make because you and many others will be the first ones to complain the game doesn't look good or do this or do that.
If it's the multiplats then your entire opinion is frankly ridiculous since those multiplats will always be better on a PC visually and framerate wise.
Solidsoul
Banned
The developers should do what they think is best to make their game as great as it can be. Forced 1080p and 60 fps sounds terrible.
PlayStation 3 launched in late 2006 with a native 1080p | 60 game: Ridge Racer 7. Although it was really just Ridge Racer 6 with more content. Ridge Racer 6 launched with Xbox 360 in late 2005, was native 720p 60fps
Both games looked gorgeous, but RR7 being 1080p was more than double the resolution of RR6 (as 1080p has 2.25x more pixels than 720p)
Okay, of course people who know anything about HD resolutions have long since know this.
Lets say you're playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare on Xbox 360, with the 360's output set to 1080i or 720p. You might see 1080i / 720p displayed on your HDTV (be it an old 720p/1080i CRT or a flat screen LCD) but CoD4: Modern Warfare is rendered internally at a sub-HD resolution - Meaning *less* than native 720p on both Xbox 360 and PS3.
I forget what the exact native resolutions are for the all CoD games on 360 and PS3 but at least early ones were 600p, and thus "Sub HD" since the minimum HD resolution is 720p. Regardless of what the output of your console is set to (i.e. 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p)
The upscaling of 360 / PS3 games to 720p does not mean they're rendered at the minimum HD resolution of native 720p
Many games PS360 games were at sub-HD resolutions, and a large portion of them were native 720p.
Very few were 1080p, much less 1080p60, but Ridge Racer 7 was one, and a PS3 launch game.
Both games looked gorgeous, but RR7 being 1080p was more than double the resolution of RR6 (as 1080p has 2.25x more pixels than 720p)
Okay, of course people who know anything about HD resolutions have long since know this.
Lets say you're playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare on Xbox 360, with the 360's output set to 1080i or 720p. You might see 1080i / 720p displayed on your HDTV (be it an old 720p/1080i CRT or a flat screen LCD) but CoD4: Modern Warfare is rendered internally at a sub-HD resolution - Meaning *less* than native 720p on both Xbox 360 and PS3.
I forget what the exact native resolutions are for the all CoD games on 360 and PS3 but at least early ones were 600p, and thus "Sub HD" since the minimum HD resolution is 720p. Regardless of what the output of your console is set to (i.e. 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p)
The upscaling of 360 / PS3 games to 720p does not mean they're rendered at the minimum HD resolution of native 720p
Many games PS360 games were at sub-HD resolutions, and a large portion of them were native 720p.
Very few were 1080p, much less 1080p60, but Ridge Racer 7 was one, and a PS3 launch game.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/14...-titanfall-better-than-xbox-one/1100-6417813/
"It also ran the beta of the new mech-based shooter Titanfall at 58fps at 1080p with 2XAA on, a feat not even accomplished by the Xbox One."
Lol. Stop being so damn hyperbolic. Yea it had some minor blur to it, but this is just ridiculous. And resolution is a thing that completely dictates fun now is it?
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Are you willing to pay over $550 for a console, OP?
travisbickle
Member
MS must have known the console with lesser power this gen was going to have to make sacrifices on image quality, they invented direct X for christ's sake!
So they must have thought a 1.3 Tflop GPU, with reserve for Kinect accessory, was within range of a console Sony would put out.
I remember all the talk here about a 2+ TFlop console, but did Sony actually end up releasing a console that was more powerful than MS thought?
So they must have thought a 1.3 Tflop GPU, with reserve for Kinect accessory, was within range of a console Sony would put out.
I remember all the talk here about a 2+ TFlop console, but did Sony actually end up releasing a console that was more powerful than MS thought?
It's unsurprising that you'd say that given... well, everything, but why would you not want higher resolution or framerate? I mean, maybe your console might not be able to achieve those values consistently, but still, that doesn't mean you shouldn't want it?
sturgboski
Member
That was said? Ok good luck to all I say. Graphics arms races are fun for all involved. Though I'm not sure how Halo 5 is going to look better when Halo games seem to be more expansive than what we are gettin in The Order (still excited for this game).
Ah well, competition is great so if everyone benefits from better games due to this measuring contest that Microsoft is implementing, then its great for all.
AgentClassy
Member
As an owner of a PC for about a year, I am able to tell the difference between 1080p 60fps and the lower frame rates/resolutions that the consoles have. I am more of a couch gamer so I usually play my games with a controller. I am torn since I will never be able to compete against m&kb players in fps games, or games like Diablo which have no controller support and I am open to all genres. I still haven't bought a next gen console yet because I see no value in it when I can play most next gen multiplats on PC with more on the way. For me the only reason to buy a console is for exclusives, games where I can comfortably play on the controller, and the amount of friends that own one.
I've come to learn that its going to take time for games to be 1080/60 especially on the Xbox one and I just have to live with it. I paid $1200 on a PC knowing that games will look and play better than on a console. For $400 consoles we can all agree that there will be problems with trying to upgrade visually and stick with the PC standard of 1080/60 but in time it will get better. It's just really disappointing that were at this point of where we know it can be done and is has been done.
I'm not the only person with the privilege of owning a PC and a console and for the people who aren't they're getting the short end of the stick in they're minds. But that's just part of owning a console now. I say devs should keep focusing on 1080/60 because that should be the first and foremost important aspect to every game they develop. If the graphics take a hit the so be it. Its a $400 console.
I've come to learn that its going to take time for games to be 1080/60 especially on the Xbox one and I just have to live with it. I paid $1200 on a PC knowing that games will look and play better than on a console. For $400 consoles we can all agree that there will be problems with trying to upgrade visually and stick with the PC standard of 1080/60 but in time it will get better. It's just really disappointing that were at this point of where we know it can be done and is has been done.
I'm not the only person with the privilege of owning a PC and a console and for the people who aren't they're getting the short end of the stick in they're minds. But that's just part of owning a console now. I say devs should keep focusing on 1080/60 because that should be the first and foremost important aspect to every game they develop. If the graphics take a hit the so be it. Its a $400 console.
TetraGenesis
Member
Hahahaha, it really doesn't.
I will.
What the hell?
You realize games aren't magic right? They require hardware to work. Sometimes that hardware requires sacrifices on order to run properly. Thus we have the XB1 issue. Do you seriously believe the XB1 is underperforming because the Devs just decided it would? How can anyone be that ignorant?
It'd be perfectly possible to have all games on the Xbox One running at 1080p60, there'd just have be sacrifices elsewhere. Not saying I agree with him though,
TetraGenesis
Member
No, no, no...don't try to bring logic into this.
carbonbased
Member
I don't buy it. Reusable hardware, cheap Steam game prices, and no subscription bullshit to play online make PC gaming the far better value.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
OP is asking for graphic options so you can achieve the 60 fps. That is doable on the current machines.
Or do what I do and rent, making it cheaper than any PC sale.
But no one ever remembers renting.
FreshCakes
Banned
MS probably figured that the mass audience probably does not care about frame rate, but more picture quality.
thebigaristotle
Banned
These machines shoulda have been more powerful. PS4 killzone suprised me though so I think PS4 will have some great graphicals for years to come
Garrett Hawke
Member
So I guess the solution would be to turn off some of the graphical eff-
I don't understand what's going on here
CyberPunked
Member
You gonna be pretty stuck for games to play in 3 years time. Visuals will get better and fps and resolution will decrease.
ShadowsFell
Member
Personally, I'd rather have higher graphics settings, than a higher resolution, so long as said resolution doesn't drop below 900P.
JayhawkerStL
Banned
It says that Ben Kuchera needs more clicks on his articles. It's mostly crap, as most of hi articles are.
There's no need for so many huge threads on the subject. It's all so easy so understand.
Aside from the ESRAM, the CPU/GPU architectures of Xbox One and PS4 are the same, the PS4 just has a bigger GPU with more of the same resources.
No amount of improvements to game development, devs getting more familiar with the hardware, DX12, etc, will ever allow Xbox One games to catch up to or overtake PS4 games in sheer performance, resolution, etc.
It will remain this way until there's a reset, meaning another generation of consoles.
Aside from the ESRAM, the CPU/GPU architectures of Xbox One and PS4 are the same, the PS4 just has a bigger GPU with more of the same resources.
No amount of improvements to game development, devs getting more familiar with the hardware, DX12, etc, will ever allow Xbox One games to catch up to or overtake PS4 games in sheer performance, resolution, etc.
It will remain this way until there's a reset, meaning another generation of consoles.
ShinobiFist
Banned
Turn off DOF, SSAO and AA..That's a start.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Good lord these resolution threads involve sooooooo much hyperbole.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
I didn't know that I get 1080p/60fps by default on PC regardless of my hardware.
brb playing Witcher 3 on 1080p/60fps on a hardware worth 400 $
.....
Nice joke OP.
Well to be fair, one would have to adjust down their settings to match what is on console. Running it on Ultra or High + all the other options probably isn't 1:1 like the console. Still, I get your point.
ethomaz
Banned
It can happen but I guess it won't.... they will created a baseline in 1080p with games in 30fps or 60fps... the visual will increase too due optimizations.
Uncharted 4 for example will set the bar level of the generation with 1080p60fps.
The point is scalable settings. He wants to be able to turn down certain things to achieve 1080p/60fps. It may very well be possible to play The Witcher 3 on a system with lower or equal specs to the PS4/Xbox One if the settings scale that low.
Me too. I'd rather have no AA at all but 1080p.
maniac-kun
Member
This whole 1080p thing is just pr bullshit. If they had used better hardware everything could run at that res and it wouldnt be a big deal.
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.
Sacrifices to make a game run 1080p 60fps would probably mean drastic changes to the scope and scale of the game, number of enemies, size of game world, everything. And since games are made targeting console and not PC most of the time, it would result in SIGNIFICANTLY compromised experiences on the PC version because the game would be too toned down from a size and scale perspective. We would have shit like corridor The Division shooter instead of open world.
Xbox one doesn't have the hardware to play at 1080p/60 the kinds of experiences a PC gamer wants to play. And saying a studio is not allowed to release anything on XBO that is lower than 1080p/60 means that the PC version of those same games would have so much hardware above and beyond the scaled down versions the devs would come out with, everyone would be running them at 4k/120fps.
Most of the games you played last gen were 30fps and the 360 was beefy tech compared to PC's when it launched. This gen we have serious weak sauce and now you're demanding 60fps on genres that were always 30fps on consoles?
Green Yoshi
Member
I'd rather prefer 900p and a stable framerate.
CyberPunked
Member
There's only so much you can do with optimizations, man. Uncharted 4 looks good now, but in 3-4 years it won't look that hot. Uncharted 1, and Gears of War looked pretty hot back in the day, not so much now or even a few years after they released.
This. I don't want devs to limit visuals even more on PC.