If next gen consoles can't run 1080p they're building them wrong. It doesn't take much to run a decent looking game at 1080p at 30 FPS. A current midrange computer can do that, and next gen consoles should at least be THAT powerful.
-
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/60fps: what is the tech barrier for this on next gen consoles?
- Thread starter Kleegamefan
- Start date
If next gen consoles can't run 1080p they're building them wrong. It doesn't take much to run a decent looking game at 1080p at 30 FPS. A current midrange computer can do that, and next gen consoles should at least be THAT powerful.
For sure. My laptop can do that. Well its 900p but still.
NSMBW, that game that sold more than twenty five million copies a couple of years back.
One or two games doesn't prove a point. They're called outliers.
Run-M-Run
Member
Boogalogist
Member
WTH man...I'm expecting Ultra HD!! 4320p @ fixed 120fps or bust!!!
NSMB Wii, NSMB DS, Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart DS all outsold it 2:1. Super Mario Galaxy will probably pass its lifetime sales soon as well.
Haunted
Member
Well said.
I think it will almost be a necessity to increase resolution. Like last generation to this one. 720p won't be able to capture the details of next-gen graphics. I don't know if it will be 1080p or if they'll only go half way with 900p. I would be pretty satisfied with either.
As for framerate, I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps, but it don't really make much difference when I game.
As for framerate, I can tell the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps, but it don't really make much difference when I game.
The Galaxy games, NSMB1 too. Basically, using a sixteen year old game to suggest modern trends is moronic.
Krauser Kat
Member
shiny to most people is more important that smooth.
I would probably be pretty happy with at least 900p, but I'd be disappointed if I paid $400 for it.
If MS or Sony were to mandate what you two are asking for, that would give the competition a rather big advantage, limit developer options, and overall negatively impact the software on their machine.
There's a reason why MS dropped the stupid rules on the 360 almost on day one (with their own games none the less lol).
Can't really speak for Mario since that franchise will always earn great sales regardless of the frame rate IMO.
However for CoD, I think the appeal of a modern day shooter makes a bigger difference than a perceived 60fps. IF they went back to the WWII setting, I question if they would be selling as good as they are now.
True, to a point, though marketing stopped that from really happening on current gen hardware. Plus games do not really scale in a linear fashion like that. So eventually there would still be other bottlenecks to what you can render on these systems, even at 480p, that bottleneck just wouldn't come from the amount of pixels the system is rendering.
Even with that said, I still see 720p being the base minimum for next gen consoles, since many gamers can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially with good filtering. At least we should be done with sub-HD games, I hope.
It's not WW2, but BlkOps is not a modern day shooter, it's sales were completely inline with Modern Warfare.
Consoles are vastly more price sensitive. PC enthusiasts don't balk at $400 GPUs. Consoles at $400 are considered expensive.
When you have to work within those tight margins, there's no way that the hardware is going to be up to snuff. That, and even if the console manufacturers eat a loss at launch, as they usually do, to get a bigger install base, they can't really improve on the hardware after launch except marginally.
Console lifespans are being stretched too, now increasing to 8+ years. For PC hardware, that's at least 4 generations of improvements that aren't being reflected in console hardware. As a comparison, the Xbox 360 launched in November 2005. GeForce was still on its 7000 series of cards. Since then, there has been the 8000s, 9000s, GTX 100s, 200s, 300s, 400s, 500s, now 600s, and likely 700s (GK-110), before the next-gen consoles arrive. PCs are now running stuff with 8 generations of GPU improvements.
There's no doubt that console gaming is more economical, for both consumers and developers. That's why development has switched over to that side for the lion's share of games. But to ask why console tech can't do this or that is basically asking why consoles don't cost $900 and get new revisions every four years.
When you have to work within those tight margins, there's no way that the hardware is going to be up to snuff. That, and even if the console manufacturers eat a loss at launch, as they usually do, to get a bigger install base, they can't really improve on the hardware after launch except marginally.
Console lifespans are being stretched too, now increasing to 8+ years. For PC hardware, that's at least 4 generations of improvements that aren't being reflected in console hardware. As a comparison, the Xbox 360 launched in November 2005. GeForce was still on its 7000 series of cards. Since then, there has been the 8000s, 9000s, GTX 100s, 200s, 300s, 400s, 500s, now 600s, and likely 700s (GK-110), before the next-gen consoles arrive. PCs are now running stuff with 8 generations of GPU improvements.
There's no doubt that console gaming is more economical, for both consumers and developers. That's why development has switched over to that side for the lion's share of games. But to ask why console tech can't do this or that is basically asking why consoles don't cost $900 and get new revisions every four years.
Let's play a game of name that logical fallacy (hint: correlation is not causation). Halo was the hottest shit last gen, yet every game is 30; GTA4 on consoles drops and jumps around 30 too, still sold gang-busters; so there goes your theory.
I'm sure the nebulous "smoothness" that non-enthusiasts experience adds to their appreciation and enjoyment, but it's hardly a defining factor in sales. EatChildren nailed it: no.tech barrier, shiny and pretty are just more easily appreciable and marketable.
Also: mandatory 60 is a pipe dream. Resolution is more likely, but still out there. All it would take is a Gears-on-256-vs-512-esque comparison to shut those ideas down.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I suspect you will see 1080p @ 30fps and 720p @ 60fps targeted next gen. A dynamic frame buffer like Wipeout HD could also be more common. Hopefully we don't see many more sub-HD 30fps games, the bar gets raised every generation and higher resolution is a easy to appreciate graphics boost.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm having a hard time believing that we'll see absolutely NO resolution increase from consoles released in 2005/6. I know people keep saying that devs would rather up the graphical fidelity instead of the resolution, but to go so far as to not improve resolution AT ALL in between console generations to achieve that is something that has never happened before. I honestly think it's pretty crazy.
That said, 30 FPS will continue to be industry standard for a long time to come, considering 60 FPS games have been relatively rare ever since the industry went 3D. But resolution? I fully expect the standard of 720p to improve. I simply can't fathom new consoles with the same output resolution as those from 7 years ago.
That said, 30 FPS will continue to be industry standard for a long time to come, considering 60 FPS games have been relatively rare ever since the industry went 3D. But resolution? I fully expect the standard of 720p to improve. I simply can't fathom new consoles with the same output resolution as those from 7 years ago.
Next Gen Consoles can easily run current gen games at 1080p and 60fps.
Whether Next Gen Consoles can run next gen games at 1080p and 30fps is upto developers.
A midrange computer at the end of a gen can play most games easily at 1080p and 30 fps. High range 60fps and 120fps easily.
However midrange computers generally struggle during start of the gen, give decent performance during middle part of the gen and are great for the end of the gen.
I kind of regret building a midrange pc in 2008 cause it plays games from 2011/12 like crap.
I should had got a mid range now or the previous year as it would had run most games well.
HoodWinked
Member
they'll always sacrifice resolution and framerate for better visuals. current consoles can do 1080 @ 60fps but prefer more visual fidelity.
AstroNut325
Member
First two replies nail it. People don't care and developers are better off financially if they sacrifice framerate for more effects.
My 'theory' is the poll data is worthless, your post in no way imaginable proves the poll is accurate. Feel free to take another stab at it though.
Canis lupus
Member
I'm pretty sure most games next gen will be 1080p, how many fps depends on the game.