KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Wrong
Smash Bros Wii U is 1080p/60FPSBy the way: Even a mid range gaming PC can easily top PS4XboneWiiU graphics.
-
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
Wrong
Smash Bros Wii U is 1080p/60FPSBy the way: Even a mid range gaming PC can easily top PS4XboneWiiU graphics.
DOWN
Banned
You better never say any 1080p 60fps game has shit image quality or graphics in your life then if you want to pretend there's no loss of quality elsewhere when aiming for 1080p 60fps.
Because Ryse was 900p and still looks absolutely incredible. I really do not give a fuck about resolution, at least not to the extent of some of you guys, if I did, I would have bought a PS4 first or better yet, spent that money to upgrade my PC. 900p isn't standard def, you're being hyperbolic. Of course, I would prefer 1080p/60fps, but it has not and will never be a deal-breaker or stop me from enjoying a game. It's sad it's gotten that serious for some people where they can't even enjoy a game on consoles if it's not 1080/60; seriously, just buy a PC.
Forgottonone
Member
thing is... 1080p 60fps requires quite a beastly machine.. willing to shell out the money? The market has proved time and time again they don't want to shell out the cash.. so, the xbox one is the next best thing.
IAmRandom31
Banned
I would be more then willing to pay $600 for my next console if it meant being in the mid-high range in terms of equivalent PC power.
People keep saying it is impossible but I dunno. These machines are not for kids anymore and they are not being marketed to parents who may buy the machine for a kid for a birthday or Christmas or whatever.
I would really like the choice.
Both systems with the exact same architecture, but one just has way more ooomph then the other. So all devs have to do is basically up the sliders for the high end version and lower them for the low end version.
Low end machine = $300 or $400
High end machine = $600 to $700
Push the envelope. No more compromises. NO SURRENDER!
People keep saying it is impossible but I dunno. These machines are not for kids anymore and they are not being marketed to parents who may buy the machine for a kid for a birthday or Christmas or whatever.
I would really like the choice.
Both systems with the exact same architecture, but one just has way more ooomph then the other. So all devs have to do is basically up the sliders for the high end version and lower them for the low end version.
Low end machine = $300 or $400
High end machine = $600 to $700
Push the envelope. No more compromises. NO SURRENDER!
Ottoni_Bastos
Banned
Makes sense!
Forza is 1080p/60fps but with graphical downgrades(in comparison with E3 build)
Killer instinct is 720p/60fps.
Ryse is 900p/30fps(with slowdowns)
Dead rising 3 is 720p/30fps(with slowdowns)
Titanfall is 791?/30fps?
Tomb raider have dynamic resolution and 30fps(with slowdowns)
I don't see this getting better specially with the graphics getting heavier.
Forza is 1080p/60fps but with graphical downgrades(in comparison with E3 build)
Killer instinct is 720p/60fps.
Ryse is 900p/30fps(with slowdowns)
Dead rising 3 is 720p/30fps(with slowdowns)
Titanfall is 791?/30fps?
Tomb raider have dynamic resolution and 30fps(with slowdowns)
I don't see this getting better specially with the graphics getting heavier.
To Far Away Times
Member
It's a question of better developer priorities instead of better hardware.
Especially framerate issues. There are zero excuses for any 3D console game not hitting 60fps since the Dreamcast.
Especially framerate issues. There are zero excuses for any 3D console game not hitting 60fps since the Dreamcast.
No, no watercooler breh.
Forgottonone
Member
with that low end high end thing would require way too much work for the manufacturing process one will end up being phased out.. or re modeled.. and also lot's and lot's of bugs and compatibility problems.. Honestly the people who want what you're asking for own a PC just go into that direction.
Forgottonone
Member
yeah there is.. it's called better graphics
Most of the consoles best selling games can't run at 1080p 60 fps. Come back to reality.
I'm sure there will be plenty upset about it, lol.
I already run my PC games between 2880x1620p and (4k)2160p depending on the game. That's at a more than playable framerate in most games minus some recent ones. Arkham Origins for example can murder my card at 1620p if PhysX and all settings are cranked.
However, I still don't hold my console (and handheld) games to that. I'd miss out on a TON of great games if I did.
Even the PS4 is step down, let alone the X1 or a Wii U.
I don't hold it against any of them when it comes to great games though.
Yet the game was a blurry mess of garb, not fun to play as a result.
BuggeryBugz
Member
I'm sure most people can tell the difference. It's just that some people don't care that much when the difference is 900p vs 1080p. I'd say every xbox one owner wants 1080p.
disastermouse
Banned
I'm still scarred by PC gaming circa 1999-2000 (I'm old, fuck you.). Steam has been a godsend for PC gaming. It's the only thing that makes Windows tolerable to me (Yeah, I'm a Mac guy). Once I figure out how to shut off all the default Windows settings that shouldn't be default in the first place, download a usable browser like Chrome or Firefox, and finally get Steam on my Windows PC or Windows partition, I reach an ocean of calm.
However...I PC game almost exclusively on Mac Bootcamp partitions, so Steam mostly works well for me. I've seen that it's a bit...fiddlier for normal Windows PC users. There's just so much shit that happens on Windows PCs that just shouldn't. Apps fighting for default status, apps changing basic OS settings....just...how do you live like that??
disastermouse
Banned
See? This guy gets it.
Don't we have constant DF comparison threads that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Xbox one ISN'T the next best thing?
CaptainGyro
Banned
ehh the other guy was right. You're being hyperbolic.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Either I'm missing sarcasm, or we're definitely seeing way different realities.
Dude, you aren't lucky. If you don't get to see how crisp 1080p really is, then that's not a good thing. It's cool that you don't worry about resolution at all, though.
Is that a good thing then when a company decides something you can't see (resolution) is more important than something you can see (framerate)? How does that make you "lucky" when a company sacrifices something you CAN see for something you CAN'T see?
matrixman92
Member
I played murdered soul suspect on 360, which ran at about a cool 15 fps at some parts and enjoyed the hell out of it. I honestly dont care about both at all. I can see frame difference more than I can see resolution... when it is a huge difference like 30 vs 60 that is. As people have said in this thread, the drop in frames for diablo is minuscule. Just give me fun games and I will be happy.
I pose the question again...to those of you who enjoy watching Blu-ray movies...would you prefer to watch the DVD version of your fav movie or the blu-ray version?
1080p (and in the future it'll be 4K, if not already) and 60fps is absolutely the best experience in my opinion for video games. Anything below that is very noticeable and isn't the same experience.
If you haven't actually experienced 1080p at 60fps...then you can't really form an opinion...it'd be no different if you've never experience high-def TV. Once you go high-def, going back just isn't the same.
My wife and I saw 4K tvs at the store this past weekend and my god, it's incredible the amount of detail, it's obviously better than 1080p...but because of cost, it's not practical yet...but hell, once we get a 4K tv, there's no going back to 1080p, why would you?
Same goes for video games. I think the 30fps crowd out there simply hasn't played enough of proper 1080p 60fps.
1080p (and in the future it'll be 4K, if not already) and 60fps is absolutely the best experience in my opinion for video games. Anything below that is very noticeable and isn't the same experience.
If you haven't actually experienced 1080p at 60fps...then you can't really form an opinion...it'd be no different if you've never experience high-def TV. Once you go high-def, going back just isn't the same.
My wife and I saw 4K tvs at the store this past weekend and my god, it's incredible the amount of detail, it's obviously better than 1080p...but because of cost, it's not practical yet...but hell, once we get a 4K tv, there's no going back to 1080p, why would you?
Same goes for video games. I think the 30fps crowd out there simply hasn't played enough of proper 1080p 60fps.
corrosivefrost
Member
I'm salty that I gave Kuchera a click, as he's a blatent troll and total ass.
That said, MS dictating that Blizzard must run at 1080p and causing the game to have framerate dips? I cannot even fathom how someone would choose 1080p over 900p with drops... seems like a(nother) bad move by MS here.
Exactly.
That said, MS dictating that Blizzard must run at 1080p and causing the game to have framerate dips? I cannot even fathom how someone would choose 1080p over 900p with drops... seems like a(nother) bad move by MS here.
Exactly.
The fear isn't what it does to Diablo 3 which makes it 50fps instead of 60fps at certain times. The fear is "if there is a blanket mandate that anything sub 1080p is now no longer good enough, how much framerate are they willing to sacrifice in other games to achieve it?"
Interficium
Banned
Stealth lazy devs thread.
EventHorizon
Member
99.99999%
CaptainGyro
Banned
Obviously people with Blu-ray players would prefer the Blue-ray version, that's pretty much the reason why they bought a Blu-ray. That wouldn't make the idea of watching a dvd out of the question though.
Then again if somebody said they couldn't handle watching dvds after watching Blu-ray , comparing Blu-ray/ dvd to 1080p/ 900p isn't really that great of a comparison anyway.
Ben kind of answers his own dilemma at his editorials conclusion - he's just going to play the PS4 version.
And in that regard, gamers do have a choice- They can play their games on the superior hardware (ps4) and not have to worry about resolution or framerate quite so often OR they can play on xbox one and suffer the differences and set backs.
I admit though, it could hardly be that difficult to add in even a dynamic resolution option that just bumps things down to always maintain 60 fps. RAGE does this but most games might not even have to go as far as it does. Maybe if you play solo on xb1 it stays 1080p throughout , perhaps even with 2 players in the same game ? but add in a 3rd or a 4th player and it drops to 900p to keep the framerate up a bit. Maybe the game drops down to 720p as soon as there are more then X number of particles and shit on screen (X being equal to whatever it takes to drop more then 5 frames in any given second).
Given players options never really hurt anyone but MS is really trying to downplay that hey have the weaker box this time out (and not just a little bit weaker either, it's actually far weaker than even the PS3 at it's worst compared to the 360 ever was). It's the exclusive games that will matter in the end and I think MS has a few good looking games so they should just focus on those rather then trying to fight a tech war in the shadows.
And in that regard, gamers do have a choice- They can play their games on the superior hardware (ps4) and not have to worry about resolution or framerate quite so often OR they can play on xbox one and suffer the differences and set backs.
I admit though, it could hardly be that difficult to add in even a dynamic resolution option that just bumps things down to always maintain 60 fps. RAGE does this but most games might not even have to go as far as it does. Maybe if you play solo on xb1 it stays 1080p throughout , perhaps even with 2 players in the same game ? but add in a 3rd or a 4th player and it drops to 900p to keep the framerate up a bit. Maybe the game drops down to 720p as soon as there are more then X number of particles and shit on screen (X being equal to whatever it takes to drop more then 5 frames in any given second).
Given players options never really hurt anyone but MS is really trying to downplay that hey have the weaker box this time out (and not just a little bit weaker either, it's actually far weaker than even the PS3 at it's worst compared to the 360 ever was). It's the exclusive games that will matter in the end and I think MS has a few good looking games so they should just focus on those rather then trying to fight a tech war in the shadows.
What? No it doesn't. The consoles out perform it on launch games. The 750 Ti is going to be closer to minimum spec soon enough.
Sword Of Doom
Member
But then it might not look next gen enough
so sick of hearing this from the verge. give it up already.
we don't need devs with a split focus on "versions" of games ... pick a framerate and rez ..and make yr game around that.
there is enough dilution of concept with having to cater for LCD with multiplatform devlopment .. don't need this shit mudddying the waters even more ..this is why PC gaming sucks .. keep it out of consoles , k thx bye
we don't need devs with a split focus on "versions" of games ... pick a framerate and rez ..and make yr game around that.
there is enough dilution of concept with having to cater for LCD with multiplatform devlopment .. don't need this shit mudddying the waters even more ..this is why PC gaming sucks .. keep it out of consoles , k thx bye
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Well, I disagree with you completely. I would rather have developers like Platinum and FromSoft not worry about whiny tech enthusiasts and focus on making their games as mechanically sound as possible.
Because yes, prioritizing framerates and resolution takes resources and also runs the risk of affecting the scope of the finished game.
I think if the hardware doesn't have the specs to pull off 1080/60 then it shouldn't. It should scale back until it can have a consistent FPS + whatever resolution they have to settle on to get the performance top notch. MS just needs to accept that they chose to invest in other things instead of raw specs, and it is what it is. I don't even know why MS is trying to go head to head with Sony on this. I mean, I get it...they have to given they are trailing in sales, and there is so much negative press from the gaming community over it.
But I mean, MS's entire pitch for the X1 was that it was a game machine + an all in one entertainment center. So instead of focusing on going head to head with specs they can't, why not go with the "X1 experience"...ie all the stuff their console + service can provide you on top of the game. I dunno. It just feels like they designed their system around this philosophy and then abandoned it completely.
I dunno, maybe they can't. But as an X1 owner it sure would suck that we have to suffer because MS made a bad investment, and are trying to measure up to something they can't. For the record, I watched the DF video of Diablo 3 and didn't really notice the FPS drops as being massive enough to matter. I'm speaking more in a general sense (looking ahead to the future, where games will have to scale back things because of the hardware limitations.)
SenjutsuSage
Banned
To hell with that. I don't need nor want 1080p 60fps in every game.
But it'll feel next-gen.
Kind of funny when you think about it.
Always saying "you can't build a PC as good as the consoles for $400!" why would I when I can build a far better system for a couple of hundred more dollars.
1080/60fps is the bare minimum for me on PC, not something to aspire to.
Maninthemirror
Banned
This is actually given that performance of x1 will take a hit if they want same image IQ at the same resolution
Bit OT
Is this something new at polygon ?
I've never seen that for their stuff before
Bit OT
Is this something new at polygon ?
I've never seen that for their stuff before
Im not sure I understand this comment. If it is real time in game animation, it is not rendering or set to pre determined frame rate. Yes something can be keyframed initially at 30fps but the machine will interpolate however many frames you want inbetween keyframes. Resulting in smoother animation. Unless I am missing something.
However things like animated sprites and pseudo 3D fx like smoke and sparks can sometimes be locked to 30fps while rendering in a 60fps engine.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Money.
I think if it's achievable, all games are better at 1080p 60fps (even if certain genres aren't night and day better). But it's not worth sacrificing performance to hit it, if the hardware has limitations and can't pull it off. At this point, I feel like MS fans bought the X1 because Xbox Live and the MS brand (ie first party titles, and things associated with the brand). They aren't going to stop playing their X1 because the PS4 has the same games at better performance.
So I'm not sure why MS is so focused on trying to compete this way. I guess maybe they are looking at potential new customers? And they think new customers will go with PS4 over X1 because it has better spec/performance overall? Well, that's the consequences they made for investing in the wrong things.
However, as I said in my post above, they should start focusing on ways to better sell the overall X1 experience instead of trying to compete in somewhere they can't. They have to live up to their investment (even if it failed), and find new ways to sell the X1 experience to new customers.