-
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.
XB1 Retail Version of Battlefield 4 Will Still Run at 720p, 60 FPS, EA Rep confirms
- Thread starter TheRealTalker
- Start date
I think it's silly to believe that GAF had no hand in occurrences with a high industry impact, such as the XB1 180.
This site has a lot of readers, a large number of which are in the industry or media. The incredibly negative reaction to the XB1 policies almost certainly had some impact in shaping the wider early adopter reception, thus pre-order numbers and transitively Microsoft's policy reversal.
It's just weird to me. AMD didn't tell MS they had a better GPU they could use (the one put in PS4)? Surely MS could have used the same exact GPU. Why MS opted for the turd they put in XB1 is just strange. Ya know, "they created Direct X," you'd think they would have put a better GPU in the system. Don't know the main person that had the final say, but that person really doesn't need to be with them anymore. The GPU is the one part of the console I thought would be better than PS4's.
Zatoichi's Cane
Member
I know next to nothing about these things, and I'm firmly planted in the PS4 camp, but it's hard for me to imagine that Microsoft didn't bother to do the simple math that is being done here and realize that their system would be underpowered to handle 1080p games.
There has got to be another explanation, or technique a developer can use to get 1080p games consistently, right?
Or maybe saying something back then backfired as well so its best to say nothing at all.
The APU in PS4 was designed with sony, so AMD probably couldn't have talked about it to Microsoft, but also, the GPU section in sony's APU is larger than the GPU in xbox ones APU if that makes sense?
The APUs are xb1 bigger than ps4
The GPU's are ps4 bigger than xb1
If they used the same 18CU 32 ROP GPU that was in PS4, xb1 APU would be even bigger than it is right now.
EDIT: the same goes for increasing the amount of Esram. There was a discussion regarding esram vs. edram to keep apu size down, but there were mentions of edram production being available in less places than esram as it takes additional fabrication phases, and questions regarding whether or not AMD would be able to license x86 architecture to somewhere that made edram due to the Intel licensing deal.
mcmilliron
Banned
Because the masses will not be aware that the PS4 version could have been better. If they make the PS4 version significantly better the media would make it well known, and they would run the risk of not selling as many copies on XB1. It's not in EA's best interest for either next gen consoles to fail. Not to mention 99% of people saying they won't buy the PS4 version if it's gimped will end up buying it anyway.
I am also confident that games like Forza 5, Titanfall, and a likely better online experience, will convince many people on this site to pickup XB1. They will just never admit it on here because it's not cool to like XB1
Just tell the truth where the resolution is now and what they're realistically targeting.
Glorified G
Member
Backfired what? Not letting a false rumor spread around on an upcoming release?
Sword Of Doom
Member
The 32mb size of the esram will become a problem at higher resolutions right? As games get more and more complex and the size of each frame increases? From what I've learned on gaf that's what my logic dictates. I'm clearly not a tech person so please correct me if in wrong.
Haha, how will that benefit them?
The fact that the console versions are not 1080P 60FPS (which I am sure they themselves wish it were) just serve to fan the flamewars.
Other than that we would be nitpicking about texture reslution and shadow dithering and the micro frame rate stutters.
ConteZero76
Member
How you count false rumors ? Saying the truth.
I will get it for sure. Used, so they don't see a dime from me. it's a matter of principle, I know many people scoff at this concept, but they are part of the problem. Some publishers think that the gamer community consists of addicted people without a modicum of self restraint, like games are some sort of crack too good to pass up. I will gladly wait till I find it used.
Although I think they won't gimp the ps4 version. Not cause of the kindness of their heart, but maybe cause of the fact that all tech sites would notice it and call them out. Besides, if other FPS smoke them out on the same platform, it will make them look bad.
There's nothing quite like BF on consoles, but when I buy a new toy I'm looking to be amazed and KZ seems to cover that base for me.
Remember, it's only my personal opinion, which will clash with other people's. It's a matter of principle, call it stupid pride, or that ultimately I'm just "hurting" myself but it really doesn't bother me. And I'm sure there are a lot of people who think the same. Hell, I have friends who aren't exactly pixel counters and share the same opinion, just cause of the principle.
The only saving grace is that the ps4 is actually 100$ cheaper. If it was 100$ more expensive, the potencial outcry would be even bigger.
Didn't stop them from making inferior versions of multiplatform games on systems with more powerful hardware.
I remember games like NFS Hot Pursuit 2 being worse on the GC & Xbox vs. the PS2 with the former having different gameplay mode formats as well as those games being handled by smaller teams in comparison to the PS2 version.
Overall, a person wishing that a console didn't exist just because of the belief that their console of choice is being held back by that other console is childish console war nonsense. It all comes down to sales -- if one console greatly outsells another, then that console will get top priority regardless of whether or not it's more powerful than the other(s).
They are the devs, negative posts will have a "well fuck you" approach to their work. They won't bother to improve the game.
noexperience.jpg
Crimson_Fate
Member
AMD was under NDA. With the quantity of chips on the table and the potential penalties for breaking an NDA I doubt anyone would have disclosed that info to MS.
But I'm sure MS had all the options to put whatever they wanted, they chose the recipe of Low End + PR
Nizz
Member
Yep, I can't wait to play it. No matter what, Battlefield 4 on the new consoles will already look better than it does on the current gen. On PS4 it's gonna look a hell of a lot better than my PS3 copy. And running at twice the framerate too. I'm in...
ConteZero76
Member
Hope they'll find a way to repay their loans without my money then.
mcmilliron
Banned
You may be right. But I still think it's in their best interest to make them look the same. Who knows. I guess we'll find out soon enough!
I'm sure they will be fine
Don't get me wrong, this isn't some console warrior BS on my part. If they were CLOSE in performance, like the 360 and ps3 (with the former having the edge most of the time, but justifyingly so) I wouldn't have problems.
But this time the performance delta is huge, when comparing with current gen. There's no reason, or means to reach parity without artificially handicapping one version.And every tech site under the sun (maybe except for DFs Leadbetter) knows the discrepancy between both consoles. The numbers are out there, and it will be hard to explain how can a more powerful and easy to program console perform the exact same.
mcmilliron
Banned
I agree. Money is king. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
All the complaining in the world will not change hardware at this point. It sucks to own a more powerful console and see a multiplat game not take full advantage of it, I get it, but that's the way things are. Dev's are not going to use extra resources, time, and money to make multiplat games look much better on one system. At least I don't think they will. I could be wrong.
It is in NO dev's best interest to intentionally make their game look worse so that it can be compared unfavorably to superior looking first party titles (or even other third party titles made by companies who aren't sucking off MS). Especially on the platform that will have a higher install base. The Xbone isn't even coming out in DICE's home country this year. They should be much more concerned about how their choices impact their PS4 version sales since that will be the version most people are playing (on consoles at least).
Xbox one's APU is already pugs in the limits of what is producible at reasonable cost and yield. Because of the space taken up by the esram there physically isn't the space to fit 18CUs
Guessing they are different teams insulated from each other for competitive reasons with different design goals. And basketball reasons.
mcmilliron
Banned
If multiplat games end up looking significantly better on PS4 I will sell my XB1, after I'm done with Titanfall, and buy a PS4. I'm just worried that PSN will still run like poop and I hate the idea of using the dualshock for FPS, which is what I mostly play. I suppose I would get used to the stick layout.
On next gen. I think DICE said for BF3 out of the 3 platforms the PS3 made them the most money. Will probably be similar.
dragonelite
Member
I think microsoft went for the profit day one and flexibility to shrink die process.
Sony is biting $60 for every ps4 that needs to be earned back by psn+ and game royalties.
Could be that with kinect microsoft is biting off more loss then sony but we will probably not know about that anytime soon.
mcmilliron
Banned
I definitely see your point of view but I'm not certain it's in EA's best interest because most of their games are cross platform. And regardless of which console has a larger install base at the beginning, XB1 will still sell well, and having great looking games on both consoles will likely make them more money than having great looking games on one console. Again I could be wrong.
Can we all agree on one thing? It is better for us, the consumers, if the XB1 and PS4 both succeed. I definitely want them both to succeed!
Being a mostly online, FPS gamer, I am more confident in XB Live than PSN, and I don't want to wait a year to play Titanfall.That is why I chose XB1. But that could change later.
ConteZero76
Member
So your whole point sums up in "I'm getting an XBox one and I don't want a less appealing version, so I hope they'll gimp PS4".
Crimson_Fate
Member
That depends.. is it better for consumers if a company puts out a less powerful and more expensive piece of hardware then gets rewarded for it ?
Felix Lighter
Member
I understand the desire but I don't know how an official statement doesn't hurt them one way or the other. An official statement will result in a few different sensationalized headlines from the gaming press:
- Same resolution - Forced Parity related headlines - Sony fans upset
- PS4 higher resolution - BF4 inferior Xbox One version related headlines - MS fans upset
- God forbid Xbox One higher resolution - BF4 inferior PS4 version related headlines - The end of the world as we know it
- Say nothing - A few rumor based headlines from less reputable sites - The hardest of the hardcore are annoyed most are completely unaware of the controversy
I would just suggest anyone truly concerned at this point should simply wait for actual comparisons after launch. Maybe they do end up at the same resolution but with improved image quality and effects on PS4, which complicates any response DICE could honestly give.
Is Apple good for consumers?
Heck, post-2001 was the PS2 good for consumers (was more expensive than Gamecube)?
lowlylowlycook
Member
Exactly this. So many people don't get that the whole point of having competition is so companies get hurt when they either misbehave or can't keep up. Competition where companies are kept in business just to provide competition doesn't have the same benefits.
They won't, usual GAF minority with over active imaginations. Why would you release trailer after trailer of your next gen engine, spend 100's of millions developing the game and the engine with an emphasis on looks and then gimp it for a console with a low pre order count and likely low software sales count for said game.
Diablo Rosso
Member
So why were publishers fine with releasing sub-par PS3 versions this gen then?
Apple: no
PS2 after 2001? not sure, I was young so don't remember the prices, but being a DVD player in 2001 was an important bonus.
Personally, for me the Ideal would be for Microsoft to go through the same as sony and the PS3, Terrible first 2/3 years, but they stay commited pull out some great games and recover to being competitive.
It was $100 more than the Gamecube. They could get away with it though --- the system had too much momentum due to its games.
I wouldn't say the PS2 was bad for consumers though. It was one of the best consoles of all time.
MrPresident
Banned
If it's well built and gives a good experience then sure. The X1 will almost certainly be quieter than the PS4 (given each system's size and specs) and that's an important factor to some people. If there is a big difference in noise and little perceivable difference in visual quality then some people will appreciate the trade-off. Even the quality of the gamepad is important to some people.
It's not dissimilar to the laptop and tablet markets in that regard. 1000 USD can get you a light and quiet Macbook Air or a better performing laptop that is also louder and heavier. And, to keep with the gamepad analogy, the Macbook will likely have the better trackpad.
Unknown One
Member
This gets ignored all the time. It doesn't fit their parity narrative.
So you're saying the game will look great on both if the PS4 version is gimped to look like the Xbone version, but it won't look great on both if the PS4 version looks better? Whhhhhaaaaaaat.
LittleIdeaSLT
Member
Agreed. I dont understand why 720p is still considered fine for next gen by some people.
Regardless of some 1080p exceptions here and there, we can all agree that PS360 were 720p consoles (or at least 720 was their goal).
Take another generational step backward and we had the PS2 with its target resolution of 480p. A game like God of War 2 in 2007 was still considered a good looking game despite the fact it was running somewhere a little under 480p because it was a great looking PS2 game.
But gamers (myself included) in 2007 would've flipped out if a AAA game was released for PS360 that ran at 480p. That would've been clearly unacceptable yet that's pretty much what's happening now if next gen games come out at 720p.
If my math is correct, 720p is 2.67 times more pixels than 480p. 1080p is 2.25 times more pixels than 720p.
I'm not going to buy a next gen game running at 720p any more than I would by a previous gen game running at 480p.
There's no reason why we can't expect/demand next-gen have better graphics AND better resolution. Historically that's just how it is. I mean c'mon, most PSX games were somewhere around 240p...
And yeah, I get that these are launch games. Games like Perfect Dark Zero were running at 640p which would be analogous to a present day 900p. So for my money, 1080 is expected, 900 is acceptable, 720 is UNACCEPTABLE.
Anyways, new member, first post, yay
I know what your saying and I agree to an extent, but we really weren't far away from 480p sometimes this gen, for instance BLOPS on PS3 was 544p, that's far closer to 480p than 720p.
I Just hope they use the all of the hardware to the est of their abilities, that's all I ask.
I was already on the fence with Battlefield 4,it looks so underwhelming & safe, if it does turn out the PS4 edition has been hobbled, that's a definite no buy for me.
Any hobbled PS4 title is quickly going to come to light, and with any justice, their sales and reputation will suffer.
Any hobbled PS4 title is quickly going to come to light, and with any justice, their sales and reputation will suffer.
Seriously the kind of BS being pushed around.
Xbone DRM? Look at Steam
Xbone underpowered? Look at Apple
smh.
kriskrosbbk
Member
So the PS3 beta launches 5hrs after the PC & XBOX .I guess SONY controls that or.. another MS/EA partnershit?
Similar threads
- Locked