Anuson.Phan
Banned
PS4 or XB1?
-
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.
Adam Sessler's: On Xbox One and PS4's Resolutiongate, and Day One Patches
- Thread starter Tripon
- Start date
- Status
PS4 or XB1?
lifeexpectancy
Member
What does OOST mean? I'm being serious. I feel like I'm asking what 'lol' stands for, but I don't follow acronyms much with regards to forum posting.
Exactly right. People have every right to be pissed that they're paying more for less, especially when a competitor is offering better hardware for a lower price point. That's simply sound shopping. So when you see the gaming media telling people that no, the price difference and performance difference is irrelevant, people will begin to question what's going on.
bigboss370
Member
its not that people are pissed about 720p, its that they're pissed thats its getting downplayed/defended comparatively. If both versions of CoD were 720p there wouldn't be as much of a controversy.
BOOM.
Um no. The differences were often bigger than that. Bayonetta ran at 20-30 frames per second on the ps3 while also tearing like crazy.
And that g4tv review posted before? It was a terrible port. The ps3 version often failed to load textures, had a fog filter to hide imperfections, and the framerate often had significant dips.
Does nobody on this forum know what FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) means?
Hint: It doesn't mean not making a big deal out of something that you think they should. It's the opposite, actually.
airmangataosenai
Member
To be fair, I never played Bayonetta on PS3 but from what I understand the technical issues were deeper than just the resolution.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Not sure where you were, but it had every right to be. RROD was the major blow to the system, but that wasn't the widespread news in the first month or two.
Instead, we had Live, some decent launch games with some really intriguing exclusives on the horizon, and it was the cheaper option with multiplats that were more stable.
Of course, as soon as Microsoft took care of the RROD issue, they started moving to primarily supporting third parties, particularly the COD brand, and attempting to move into the family space solely on Kinect. But at that point we started seeing a growing Sony support from the media as exclusives like Uncharted 2 showed that tech that was being trumpeted about but not really realized since the system's launch, as well as the fact that any game not from Bethesda began to be on par and at times better than their 360 counterpart.
All bogus. The PS3 versions of two of those games got reduced scores because of performance related issues. When a game meant to run at 60fps runs at 20fps, thats borderline unplayable and unacceptable.
disastermouse
Banned
It was enough to make me get it on the 360 at a point where I got everything else multiplat on PS3.
You're thirsty as hell, and you find two men each with a pool of water behind them.
The man on the left has a pool of green, murky water. He's charging $2 for a cup of his water.
The man on the right has a a pool of clear, clean water. He's charging $1 for a cup of his water.
Sessler saying it's the games that matter is like saying the water needs to be wet. It's a given, and a useless statement.
People saying you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p are saying they can't see the difference between murky and clear water.
The Crimson Kid
what are you waiting for
While I haven't been too invested in this issue and have largely just observed, I think it has spawned some very interesting discussions and illustrations on the growing rift between the games press and those that follow them.
It's quite hard to argue that the average sentiment from large games media outlets and personalities has been largely slanted in one direction, regardless of the reasons behind it being that way.
Imagine, if you will, a left-to-right spectrum where the middle is just reporting the news as it is and letting people decide for themselves. The extreme to the left is "These graphical differences are huge and Sony will succeed over Microsoft because of it" and the rightmost extreme is "No one will be able to tell the difference and this will have no negative impact on Microsoft," with degrees of moderation in between. Now, a few sources have just reported it objectively and left it at that. I haven't seen any coverage or articles from any established sources in games media arguing the leftmost position or anything close to it.
However, we have seen plenty of coverage from established sources that went out of their way to downplay the difference, and in some cases, express matter-of-factly that the mainstream wouldn't' be able to tell the difference between the two. These examples have been combed over thoroughly in these threads. Some of the statements from notable games media individuals and some sources have been more extreme and more dismissive to those who disagreed than that, but the biggest surprise was Gamespot's editorializing of this issue, where they not only deemed the issue to be irrelevant, they directly questioned the motives and prejudices of those who disagreed.
Now, during this generation, many of these same sources of reviews thought it was important to note the differences between versions of a multiplatform game in reviews. IGN does this regularly, for example. Usually it didn't lead to any significant issue with one version of a game versus another, but they thought it was important to inform people about the differences, no matter how minuscule. And I can't remember seeing any instance of a writer or an organization belittling or marginalizing the opinions of those who disagreed with their conclusion about performance differences between platforms.
So during this currents generation, these differences were important enough to be worth noting in a product review, but now, many individuals and organizations are effectively saying that these differences aren't all that important without really knowing what the differences are. Interestingly enough, plenty of these sources have nitpicked and taken issue about smaller performance differences in the past than what we have before us so far.
I could certainly see how such a strange response, in both volume and intensity, from large games media sources, would raise suspicion about the games media at large from plenty of different angles.
Simply put, there's too little information out there right now to determine what the larger picture will be like on performance across platforms or why the reaction in aggregate from large games media outlets and personalities has been as slanted as it has. The situation, both with how it relates to the consoles and how it relates to the games press, raises many more questions than answers. Some patience and more data would be wise before anyone drew final conclusions, yet we live in a post-Twitter world where attention spans are shot, so here we are.
Maybe BF and CoD were rushed and they will be the outliers in performance disparity. Maybe the games media is preparing stories to run after launch. Maybe the opposite will happen.
This is a prime example of why it is too early to be having these discussions. This is just baseless conjecture that mainly serves to project your personal bias because there's so little concrete info to go on.
We have only had a performance test done on half of a single unfinished game across PS4 and XB1. With the BF4 comparision, not only did EA refuse to let them test the XB1 MP (which performed rougher than the SP on PS4), the XB1 version tested was missing ambient occlusion that will be in the final version. And from my experience with the BF4 beta on my not-amazing PC, I know that ambient occlusion in that engine has a mighty big impact on performance. Between MP performance on PS4 being in the high-40s and the ~10FPS lower framerate when stressed in SP on XB1 with one of the most demanding graphical effects disabled, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the MP on XB1 was closer to 30 FPS on average rather than 60. If that were the case (PS4 MP at ~50/XB1 MP at ~30), I would say that we would be looking at something close to a Red Dead or Bayonetta-style performance gulf that significantly affects the experience.
Anyways, it is way too early to infer that an inferior version of a multiplatform game on this gen will look "less worse" than they did in this generation. Not only is there nowhere near enough data on next-gen games to support such a claim, so much of what looks "worse" is subjective that such an inference is basically useless.
It's quite hard to argue that the average sentiment from large games media outlets and personalities has been largely slanted in one direction, regardless of the reasons behind it being that way.
Imagine, if you will, a left-to-right spectrum where the middle is just reporting the news as it is and letting people decide for themselves. The extreme to the left is "These graphical differences are huge and Sony will succeed over Microsoft because of it" and the rightmost extreme is "No one will be able to tell the difference and this will have no negative impact on Microsoft," with degrees of moderation in between. Now, a few sources have just reported it objectively and left it at that. I haven't seen any coverage or articles from any established sources in games media arguing the leftmost position or anything close to it.
However, we have seen plenty of coverage from established sources that went out of their way to downplay the difference, and in some cases, express matter-of-factly that the mainstream wouldn't' be able to tell the difference between the two. These examples have been combed over thoroughly in these threads. Some of the statements from notable games media individuals and some sources have been more extreme and more dismissive to those who disagreed than that, but the biggest surprise was Gamespot's editorializing of this issue, where they not only deemed the issue to be irrelevant, they directly questioned the motives and prejudices of those who disagreed.
Now, during this generation, many of these same sources of reviews thought it was important to note the differences between versions of a multiplatform game in reviews. IGN does this regularly, for example. Usually it didn't lead to any significant issue with one version of a game versus another, but they thought it was important to inform people about the differences, no matter how minuscule. And I can't remember seeing any instance of a writer or an organization belittling or marginalizing the opinions of those who disagreed with their conclusion about performance differences between platforms.
So during this currents generation, these differences were important enough to be worth noting in a product review, but now, many individuals and organizations are effectively saying that these differences aren't all that important without really knowing what the differences are. Interestingly enough, plenty of these sources have nitpicked and taken issue about smaller performance differences in the past than what we have before us so far.
I could certainly see how such a strange response, in both volume and intensity, from large games media sources, would raise suspicion about the games media at large from plenty of different angles.
Simply put, there's too little information out there right now to determine what the larger picture will be like on performance across platforms or why the reaction in aggregate from large games media outlets and personalities has been as slanted as it has. The situation, both with how it relates to the consoles and how it relates to the games press, raises many more questions than answers. Some patience and more data would be wise before anyone drew final conclusions, yet we live in a post-Twitter world where attention spans are shot, so here we are.
Maybe BF and CoD were rushed and they will be the outliers in performance disparity. Maybe the games media is preparing stories to run after launch. Maybe the opposite will happen.
This is a prime example of why it is too early to be having these discussions. This is just baseless conjecture that mainly serves to project your personal bias because there's so little concrete info to go on.
We have only had a performance test done on half of a single unfinished game across PS4 and XB1. With the BF4 comparision, not only did EA refuse to let them test the XB1 MP (which performed rougher than the SP on PS4), the XB1 version tested was missing ambient occlusion that will be in the final version. And from my experience with the BF4 beta on my not-amazing PC, I know that ambient occlusion in that engine has a mighty big impact on performance. Between MP performance on PS4 being in the high-40s and the ~10FPS lower framerate when stressed in SP on XB1 with one of the most demanding graphical effects disabled, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the MP on XB1 was closer to 30 FPS on average rather than 60. If that were the case (PS4 MP at ~50/XB1 MP at ~30), I would say that we would be looking at something close to a Red Dead or Bayonetta-style performance gulf that significantly affects the experience.
Anyways, it is way too early to infer that an inferior version of a multiplatform game on this gen will look "less worse" than they did in this generation. Not only is there nowhere near enough data on next-gen games to support such a claim, so much of what looks "worse" is subjective that such an inference is basically useless.
It was a nightmare. Check this out.
Yes and that's what he's saying. By journalists downplaying the resolution difference as unimportant, they are creating doubt and uncertainty.
lifeexpectancy
Member
This is exactly my point.
Read: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88688792&highlight=#post88688792
The resolution differences NOW mean potentially serious performance differences LATER. This is the real issue at hand that's being glossed over by all this focus on resolutions.
cripterion
Member
Yet, in pc world having something that performs worse but is more expensive happens all the time and I don't see much an outcry about it. I know it's not totally comparable to the case we have here and make no mistake, I would want the Xbox one to be cheaper but hearing people cry over the price difference between the upcoming consoles is getting old. Some already made their choice and voted with their wallet.
Yeah, this post is pretty fantastic. Really points out how severe the fanboy delusion is among some of the press right now.
disastermouse
Banned
I just think that the journalists are as susceptible to wanting to continue on with their favorite platform. As much as they talk about fan-boyism, this difficulty with objectivism seems to show they have a touch of it themselves.
I don't necessarily think so. Right now the two big issues are resolution and AA. It's a little early to talk about how all this stuff will pan out in the future.
How is it not doubt? They are saying that the differences isn't really a difference. They are doubting facts. They are spreading uncertainty by downplaying the differences and saying its only because of the tools when the two systems are pretty much the same system with one system having better parts so there will always be a difference. Some have even been spreading fear like the apparent complaining by Sess of how going to a review event denies his family food.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
...and what sucks about the downplaying is that it's going to result in publishers seeing that resolution quality and solid framerates don't make one version more preferred, because there's no visible, vocal or validated dissent... then we end up with 720p/30fps on a weaker machine being the lead sku, and a generation of PS4 games running at halfmast because the system's ceiling isn't the standard, with stuff like "Resogun" being a remarkable, non-standard launch window anomaly (ala Super Stardust HD) years down the line.
It gives ground for the "they'll buy whatever we give them" attitude from publishers. It won't stop with just us on consoles either... expect PC gamers to have to rely on the community to make some significant multiplatform games look and perform how they really should, when really, the games should be starting on PC at 1080p/60fps standard, at least, and then get downported from there (where it's being developed) to whatever can run it, with as little compromise as possible. Anyone thinks big development and publishing cutting corners, going unchallenged in this regard, will innovate anything - whether it's gameplay, aesthetic style, or fidelity - they're arguing against themselves.
lifeexpectancy
Member
Not necessarily. Devs are struggling with 1080p on XB1 now and they're using last-gen engines, physics, AI, etc. Maybe soon they'll start hitting 1080p/60fps using those same last-gen aspects.
However, if a game comes out in 2015 or 2016 with cutting-edge AI and a newer, more system-taxing physics system in place, devs might be forced with a choice:
Door #1: We keep the AI and Physics in place, but it means massive framerate drops and much lower resolution.
Door #2: We keep the resolution and framerate locked in (say at 720p/60fps or 900p/30fps), but it means we need to gimp the AI and physics calculations to fit everything into what the system is capable of handling at load.
This is a VERY real possible scenario, especially if there are serious bottlenecks with the system memory architecture on the XB1, if I'm even remotely understanding all the technical jargon I've been trying to read up on when it comes to game development. Maybe I'm confusing the difference in system taxation with regards to compute tasks versus rendering tasks, and maybe this WON'T be as much of an issue on XB1. Maybe it will only ever suffer graphical limitations versus the PS4 but will hold its own on the compute side of things. I just think this is a potential worry since both the compute and render portions of the APU are accessing the same pool of memory, so bottlenecks could cause issues regardless of the relative compute power of the XB1.
Here's a quote in the c&vg article provided by emptyspace: "Red Dead Redemption is still a brilliant game on the PlayStation 3. It's one of the best games of the year and unless you're sitting side by side with both versions, you'll be unlikely to be disappointed."
FranXico
Member
The Infinite Power of the Cloud®
I'm more interested in what happens after these things launch and we get some real comparisons.
Will some sites downplay, will most just tell what they found out?
I do agree there isn't enough info now, so I'm excited to see if people change their tune(one way or the other) once the info is more readily available, or if they just stick to downplaying.
Will some sites downplay, will most just tell what they found out?
I do agree there isn't enough info now, so I'm excited to see if people change their tune(one way or the other) once the info is more readily available, or if they just stick to downplaying.
Sword Of Doom
Member
It's not about price. It's about the XB1 clearly struggling to keep up with games it should handle easily. As the generation matures, the games will be more demanding technically. It's surprises me these "journalists" don't believe this is worth talking about.
Developers on GAF have already chimed in on this topic. Devs are going for parity in most areas. A large portion of their fanbase will be on the xb1, they aren't going to spend a bunch of time and money on advanced calculations that can only work on PC and PS4. Differences will be in resolution, AA, and framerate.
Wait what, hardware specs now are not an issue?
This whole circle jerk over resolution is one of stupidest things I've seen the internet at large bitch about in quite some time. If you care about resolution and framerate, you can get both even better with a PC. Consoles are about convenience, and the average consumer probably doesn't give a shit about a minor resolution difference compared to say, which one their friends are getting, or even just brand loyalty.
Are people just bitching because the press isn't bitching? What a surprise! The press is underplaying potential differences in two unreleased consoles until they hit the market. They weren't afraid to call Microsoft out on their shit when E3 came around and they were soundly trounced and made to look like fools, or in the subsequent fallout when they backpedaled on everything.
This is all just silly. The internet looking to bitch about something.
Are people just bitching because the press isn't bitching? What a surprise! The press is underplaying potential differences in two unreleased consoles until they hit the market. They weren't afraid to call Microsoft out on their shit when E3 came around and they were soundly trounced and made to look like fools, or in the subsequent fallout when they backpedaled on everything.
This is all just silly. The internet looking to bitch about something.
Hypothetical future game maxes out PS4 but with the compromise of 720p/30fps. Now imagine trying to get it to run decently on Xbox One.
I never said it wasn't. Don't know what you are trying to say here.
lifeexpectancy
Member
Someone else thinking the same thing I am. I wish I had thread posting privs, because all this talk of resolution is really ignoring the bigger picture here I think.
Once again, I'm going to redirect you here as I've redirected others: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88688792&highlight=#post88688792
The issue isn't the resolution. The issue is what the resolution IMPLIES about other aspects of future game development.
Oh, and they didn't call MS on their shit after E3. They defended them until they reversed their policies. THEN they said "oh yeah, that stuff was a bad idea".
Chobel
Member
OK, this year Sessler said (in June):
"We are buying this new consoles, they better be 60fps at 1080p"
http://youtu.be/55mJl_zKAu0?t=1m41s
So what the hell happened now?
"We are buying this new consoles, they better be 60fps at 1080p"
http://youtu.be/55mJl_zKAu0?t=1m41s
So what the hell happened now?
So an exclusive game then? I doubt a third party dev will completely max out the ps4. The best looking game on every console is first party.
Runs at less than half the framerate of the 360 version at 720p.
Now say it ran at 480p 60fps. It wouldn't be as bad because you are getting a smoother framerate, but it is a significant difference in terms of image quality.
That is kind of where the xbox one is at right now. If you want to run a game at almost the same framerate as the ps4 you need to halve the resolution, or severely strip the game of assets and texture resolution and AA.
What is this nonsense? The XB1 and PS4 are both consoles with AMD parts. The difference between the two is that the latter has a better memory subsystem and GPU for gaming.
They're almost identical machines, one is just more powerful.
FranXico
Member
Not all of the press. A lot of them, including Adam Sessler, did quite a bit of damage control on Microsoft's behalf.
The difference between 720 and 1080 is not 'minor'. Stop.
Ploid 3.0
Member
People would be pissed at parity then. We know full well that PS4 should be able to run CoD Ghost at 1080p, it don't look that complicated for the hardware. People aren't even sure if BF4 couldn't hit 1080p, but chalk it up to first PS4 game for the team and they have to make so many versions of it across 4+ consoles.
Sword Of Doom
Member
That's my main concern. I'm not going to buy an XB1 but the decisions MS made in designing it will have an effect on everyone. Patrick Klepek chimed in on this and I'm glad for once a games journalist didn't dismiss the issue as fanboy drivel
This will probably go viral. Just found this on youtube lol
Sesslers thoughts on Resolutiongate
Warning on the offensive video title and description. The Vid would have been great without that crap.
Sesslers thoughts on Resolutiongate
Warning on the offensive video title and description. The Vid would have been great without that crap.
BadAss2961
Member
One of the best racing games ever. The nostalgia...Yeah, I remember the motorstorm review. It was dripping with fanboy venom.
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/15668/motorstorm-review/
Canis lupus
Member
So Adam Sessler post E3:
-defends MS' DRM, says they have a messaging issue
-claims PS4 is more expensive than Xbone if you buy PS+ and Camera
-GTA V review: "I can imagine, 200 years from now, like our reading of Dickens, the game will be regarded as a catalog of our contemporary travails, an accelerated reality bearing more truth than just gazing at our own reflection."
-Twitter breakdown nr1: HDCP on PS4
-Twitter breakdown nr2: No free PS4 from Sony
-Downplays the graphical difference between the consoles
-defends MS' DRM, says they have a messaging issue
-claims PS4 is more expensive than Xbone if you buy PS+ and Camera
-GTA V review: "I can imagine, 200 years from now, like our reading of Dickens, the game will be regarded as a catalog of our contemporary travails, an accelerated reality bearing more truth than just gazing at our own reflection."
-Twitter breakdown nr1: HDCP on PS4
-Twitter breakdown nr2: No free PS4 from Sony
-Downplays the graphical difference between the consoles
Ploid 3.0
Member
They sure will make it easy for PS4 and PC exclusive games if they low ball it for xbox one. If PS4 tear up the sales charts for 2 years, they will have to start competing with exclusive PS4 games that go past higher resolution and framerate.
cripterion
Member
I don't know about that, I've read many times on this forum that people would be ok if the console was sold at 350 dollars. As for the rest of your post, I agree, we'll have to find out for ourselves in the future. As It stands, the only wtf?! are reserved for COD and Killer Instinct (although I wouldn't have known about KI without being told) being 720p.
- Status