Support NeoGAF

[Akai__]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/19/6045141/diablo-microsoft-resolution

In my opinion, the Xbox One should be running ALL games at 1080p and 60fps. It should be a requirement. If your game doesn't run at 1080p and 60fps...go back to the drawing table.

I'm so sick and tired of the console getting mediocre graphics settings while the PC gets the luxury of tuning the game to fit the gamer's needs. Consoles should get the same treatment.

Microsoft should have focused on a gaming console, instead of the all-in-one entertainment system. With Kinect being initially mandatory, they must have sacrificed better hardware for it, in order to achieve the 500$ price-point. They should have made Kinect 2.0, when the sales of the Xbox One proved itself. Just my opinion on that matter.

I'm also pretty sure, that every game (except maybe open world games) could run on 1080p and 60FPS on the Xbox One, but it would probably look less appealing, without AA, nice looking textures and whatnot. Would you be okay with that?

Eventually, the devs will find new ways/tricks to achieve 1080p/60FPS without problem. I mean, if Halo 4 could achieve those good looking graphics on such old hardware, you would think, they can pull that again on the Xbox One with newer hardware. Well, I hope they can.

 

[CadetMahoney]

This says alot about the decision makers behind bone. Chasing that 1080p due to previously bad decisions, to make further bad decisions by sacrificing a stable framerate.

No wonder they're losing 2:1 in USA/UK.

 

[Discusguy]

A shame that rez got priority over frame rate. Does this mean unlocked frame rates suck and its either 60 or 30?

 

[EGM1966]

This feels like an endless loop. All games could be 1080p/60fps on XB1 : they'd just need to have levels, textures, animation, AI, physics, etc. scaled to enable it. There's no magic - this amount of RAM means everything is 1080lp. The same goes for the PS4.

The issue isn't the hardware itself it's about how the market approaches developing and marketing games and in particular the perception of how differences could impact sales.

Personally I just wish developers would set a target then optimize to it per platform independent of other platforms. Make the XB1 version as good as possible while ensuring your target and ideally target from 1080p/60fps through 1080p/30fps to 900p/60fps and worst case 900p/30fps : an if AA differs per platform or shadows then so be it but decide the frame rate required for your gameplay and the resolution desired for your assets then code the damn engine and assets to allow for it.

 

[omonimo]

A week ago: res not matter. All in the fps. Meh

 

[Guerrilla]

We all know that PC has no exclusives and that Sony exclusives are the only real exclusives /s

The point was that a 120$ card can already beat the consoles that aren't even on the market for a year. That's embarrassing.

this is true and sad

 

[chertipros]

I'm so glad resolution and frame rate mean so little to me. Can't imagine skipping a game over a few pixels

 

[ramparter]

I'm so sick and tired of the console getting mediocre graphics settings while the PC gets the luxury of tuning the game to fit the gamer's needs. Consoles should get the same treatment.

Yeah, because all PC games run 1080p/60fps on all PCs.

 

[boneso]

We all know that PC has no exclusives and that Sony exclusives are the only real exclusives /s

You trippin' right?

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's an old article and only shows the 50 "best" PC exclusives for that year. How many exclusives did Sony release for all of their consoles in 2013? In fact how many exclusives came from all the console manufacturers combined in 2013? Not 50, that's certain!

This google search took 10 seconds... might be wise to try it before saying things like "We all know that PC has no exclusives"

 

[Caayn]

I don't think the new Halo, Gears of War, Crackdown, Forza and Scalebound will arrive on PC, so Xbox has its real exclusives too, that said it's not even true that PC doesn't have exclusives, there are a lot of indies which are PC exclusives and stuff like, Dota 2, LOL, Counter Strike ecc

You trippin' right?

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's an old article and only shows the 50 "best" PC exclusives for that year. How many exclusives did Sony release for all of their consoles in 2013? In fact how many exclusives came from all the console manufacturers combined in 2013? Not 50, that's certain!

This google search took 10 seconds... might be wise to try it before saying things like "We all know that PC has no exclusives"

You might want reread my post, you skipped over the "/s" part

 

[figadapaura]

You trippin' right?

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's an old article and only shows the 50 "best" PC exclusives for that year. How many exclusives did Sony release for all of their consoles in 2013? In fact how many exclusives came from all the console manufacturers combined in 2013? Not 50, that's certain!

This google search took 10 seconds... might be wise to try it before saying things like "We all know that PC has no exclusives"

He was being sarcastic........

hence the /s

 

[megathor]

You trippin' right?

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's an old article and only shows the 50 "best" PC exclusives for that year. How many exclusives did Sony release for all of their consoles in 2013? In fact how many exclusives came from all the console manufacturers combined in 2013? Not 50, that's certain!

This google search took 10 seconds... might be wise to try it before saying things like "We all know that PC has no exclusives"

Hmm. Did you look at how many items of these 50 games that are still yet to surface? And some of those games aren't console exclusives either. Hawken, Outlast, Warframe all on PS4.

 

[Daviii]

We all know that PC has no exclusives and that Sony exclusives are the only real exclusives /s

The point was that a 120$ card can already beat the consoles that aren't even on the market for a year. That's embarrassing.

Let's see in a couple of years how your $120 card handles games with the visual fidelity a PS4 will have then.

Let's see how many $120 upgrades have you made to your system to keep the quality in the PC games.

Let's see if you manage to spend a total of $400 in a gaming PC for the next 6-7 years

I'm pretty tired of the PC comparisons. We all know what consoles are all about right? So why the sadness?

 

[old manatee]

Not my PC, and certainly not my friends', which chocke running the most mundane games. This PC standard plateform is the joke of the forums. Most of the PC gaming population configurations are LESS powerful than either console, in fact.

So, a sample size of 3?

 

[boneso]

You might want reread my post, you skipped over the "/s" part

Sorry pal. I didn't know what "/s" meant until now. Hard to tell who is being serious in here and who isn't. You get some crazy comments.

 

[hodgy100]

Let's see in a couple of years how your $120 card handles games with the visual fidelity a PS4 will have then.

Let's see how many $120 upgrades have you made to your system to keep the quality in the PC games.

Let's see if you manage to spend a total of $400 in a gaming PC for the next 6-7 years

I'm pretty tired of the PC comparisons. We all know what consoles are all about right? So why the sadness?

im pretty tired of uninformed posters making shitty arguments but heyho.

the ps4 is fixed hardware it isnt goingto get more powerful, and thegraphics card isnt going to get less powerful. you can tout console optimisations, but openGL and Directx are both being overhauled on PC to improve performance vastly. we have seen previews of this with mantle which has provided ~40% performancei ncrease's for the most part.

 

[boneso]

Hmm. Did you look at how many items of these 50 games that are still yet to surface? And some of those games aren't console exclusives either. Hawken, Outlast, Warframe all on PS4.

Like I said, it's an old list, i was just using a quick google search to make a point. There are literally hundreds of, already released, PC exclusive games. Way way more than all of the consoles put together. I'm all for buying a console for exclusives that i can't get on PC, i have done it most of my gaming life. But to say the PC has less exclusives than any console is either ignorance or denial.

Tlou, Infamous, Killzone, Knack... ummm... help me out here...

Crimson Dragon, Forza 5, Killer Instinct, Kinect sports Rivals... ummm... it's not even close.

 

[Renekton]

The 750ti graphics card which has sold as low as $120 outperforms the next gen consoles. Next year it will a sub $100 card.

750Ti is weaker than PS4's GPU.

You need a GTX760 or 270, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[boneso]

Let's see in a couple of years how your $120 card handles games with the visual fidelity a PS4 will have then.

Let's see how many $120 upgrades have you made to your system to keep the quality in the PC games.

Let's see if you manage to spend a total of $400 in a gaming PC for the next 6-7 years

I'm pretty tired of the PC comparisons. We all know what consoles are all about right? So why the sadness?

Does it matter if someone chooses to spend a bit of money every couple of years to keep up with the cutting edge graphics developers are pushing?

You get what you pay for in this world.

 

[hodgy100]

750Ti is weaker than PS4's GPU.

You need a GTX760 or 270, if I'm not mistaken.

the r9-270 isnt much more than a GTX 750ti in the UK (~£10)

 

[giapel]

Does it matter if someone chooses to spend a bit of money every couple of years to keep up with the cutting edge graphics developers are pushing?

You get what you pay for in this world.

No, the point is that your $120 card won't be supported in 2 years time and you'll be lucky if there's any games that actually work with it. So you have to upgrade, it's not really a choice. With the consoles you know that the software will be optimised for the hardware you have for at least 5-6 years. It's a trade off for sure, but one that makes sense for a lot of people.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why does this lie continue to exist that every game should be 60 fps?

 

[belmonkey]

750Ti is weaker than PS4's GPU.

You need a GTX760 or 270, if I'm not mistaken.

The 750 ti actually holds up pretty well in performance, and I think it can actually match or exceed what PS4 is doing in all (or most) current games at similar settings.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

I'm also pretty sure, that every game (except maybe open world games) could run on 1080p and 60FPS on the Xbox One, but it would probably look less appealing, without AA, nice looking textures and whatnot. Would you be okay with that?

I would be absolutely fine with it. I'm for a smooth experience, I'm not looking for eye-candy. If the eye-candy means sacrificing frame rate and resolution...why bother?

First thing I do when I first play a new PC game is before anything, I go into the video settings, set it to 1080p resolution, then I find an FPS counter and start turning down things till I get a crisp 60fps consistently, with .5% dipping. I want a smooth experience. In Diablo 3, for a while due to my hardware, I couldn't get much above 35fps and it sucked. I recently built a new PC and I'm getting 60fps at 1080p consisntently, it's like a completely different game. People who are content with playing D3 at 30fps and 1080p seem to really not understand what a 60fps experience really does for your gaming experience.

And for the record, RYSE is a blurry mess with all the crappy motion blur. The only time the game looks good is when you're standing still. As soon as you start moving the stick left to right to simply move around in the game, it's a blurry mess, not sure how that's pretty or even remotely fun. I see the same thing in BF4 on Xbox One, the motion blur takes away from the 60fps, but hell, that game can't even keep a constant 60fps, and the moment it dips below, you see it plain as day, and it's ugly.

 

[IAmRandom31]

Why does this lie continue to exist that every game should be 60 fps?

Because people with mid-high end PC's like to brag about how much better life is at 1080p x 60fps.

So little $400 mid-range systems should be able to do the same as that. Or low-end systems in the X1's case.

Just go look at benchmarks for various newer games and see what is required for 1080p x 60fps. Basically, if you spend $300 for a GPU today you will get 1080p x 60fps.

I built my PC 4 years ago, using an I5-2400 quad core @ 3.9Ghz and a Radeon 6770. I am basically forced to either make the game look like it was made in 2004 to get a stable V-synced 60fps, or I have to live with my 30fps and crank up the effects a bit.

Ultra Watch Dogs @ 1080p ( little over ), even with the $300 280X you are under 60fps average.

Whats the argument for keeping games at 30fps? Eye-candy fidelity? Are you willing to sacrifice smoothness for eye-candy?

Hell yes I am. As long as the framerate is smooth and doesnt bounce around all over the place all the time it is fine to be at 30fps.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

Why does this lie continue to exist that every game should be 60 fps?

Whats the argument for keeping games at 30fps? Eye-candy fidelity? Are you willing to sacrifice smoothness for eye-candy?

 

[figadapaura]

Whats the argument for keeping games at 30fps? Eye-candy fidelity? Are you willing to sacrifice smoothness for eye-candy?

Yeah.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

Yeah.

I don't get how eye-candy is that great at 30fps.

I look at a game like Halo 4 and say...okay, this game looks good, graphically. However, when you start actually playing the game, the environment and the aiming/looking around is blurry because of the 30fps. Now, I'm really looking forward to the MC collection because it will offer the Halo games at 1080p and 60fps...in my opinion, the way they should have been in the first place.

I find it really hard to believe people are content with 30fps and will sacrifice smoothness just to achieve eye candy to look at.

 

[boneso]

Because people with mid-high end PC's like to brag about how much better life is at 1080p x 60fps.

So little $400 mid-range systems should be able to do the same as that. Or low-end systems in the X1's case.

Just go look at benchmarks for various newer games and see what is required for 1080p x 60fps. Basically, if you spend $300 for a GPU today you will get 1080p x 60fps.

Ultra Watch Dogs @ 1080p ( little over ), even with the $300 280X you are under 60fps average.

...As long as the framerate is smooth and doesnt bounce around all over the place all the time it is fine to be at 30fps.

That's true, to get over 60fps on Ultra settings you need a relatively expensive GPU.

However, the PS4 version is:
High Settings
900p
30fps

For less than $100 you can have a 650ti, which is good for:
Ultra Settings (which means you get all the eye candy you want)
1080p
30fps (which apparently your fine with)

The value is there if you look for it. You could easily build a $400 PC based around a 650ti that will, as the graph you provided shows, run the game better than a PS4.

 

[rob305]

What a shitfest of a thread. Some of you guys really should play games instead of counting frames and pixels

 

[boneso]

What a shitfest of a thread. Some of you guys really should play games instead of counting frames and pixels

Well that was constructive!

There is nothing wrong with discussing framerates, resolutions and hardware. Maybe you should play games instead of trolling threads that you clearly have no interest in.

 

[Qassim]

What a shitfest of a thread. Some of you guys really should play games instead of counting frames and pixels

Yep. It's one or the other. Stop sharing your preferences which would help you enjoy your games more guys, you pixel counting goons!

 

[Takiyah]

The value is there if you look for it. You could easily build a $400 PC based around a 650ti that will, as the graph you provided shows, run the game better than a PS4.

Ya but the porn take over adds don't infect my PS4 with malware.

#priceless

 

[boneso]

Ya but the porn take over adds don't infect my PS4 with malware.

#priceless

But you will miss out on some great porn...

 

[StealthGoblin]

It's good that Microsoft are willing to step in to get their platforms versions of games up to snuff (even if what phil spencer says publicly and privately paints him as a hypocrite).

What I will be incredibly angry about though, is if PS4 versions of games look and perform similarly to Xbox One versions of games. We are often told to vote with our wallets but this should also translate over to companies making the most of the resources available to them on the current most popular platform.

It is beyond doubt that the PS4 is the most powerful platform so we should be seeing extra detail or seeing extra flourishes.

It isn't acceptable to see the only points of differentiation be DLC or platform level OS functionality.

 

[AmFreak]

benchmark picture

The really interesting thing here is that a R9 265 that has the same specs as the ps4 gpu (same shader power, fill rate, bandwidth [wo sharing with cpu]) seems to completely destroy the ps4 version.
Ultra settings v ps4 settings
1920x1200 v 1600x900
36fps v 30fps

 

[IAmRandom31]

That's true, to get over 60fps on Ultra settings you need a relatively expensive GPU.

However, the PS4 version is:
High Settings
900p
30fps

For less than $100 you can have a 650ti, which is good for:
Ultra Settings (which means you get all the eye candy you want)
1080p
30fps (which apparently your fine with)

The value is there if you look for it. You could easily build a $400 PC based around a 650ti that will, as the graph you provided shows, run the game better than a PS4.

Watch Dogs is one of the worst cases of crappy console ported game I've come across. There really is no reason for the PS4 not to be at 1080p @ 30fps. As you said just looking at the benchmarks for High settings you have to go down to a 260X to even get into the 30's on average for FPS @ 1080p with High details and FXAA and all that going.

Makes you wonder what the hell went wrong during development for the performance to be what it is.

And this is 1080p, not 900p. Just boggles the mind.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

What I will be incredibly angry about though, is if PS4 versions of games look and perform similarly to Xbox One versions of games.

Probably want to pause and think about your life and the things that make you angry. Such matters should not be among them. We're not talking about a generational difference between the platforms, so of course they'll look and perform similarly. Give or take a few effects and a few fps.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't get how eye-candy is that great at 30fps.

I look at a game like Halo 4 and say...okay, this game looks good, graphically. However, when you start actually playing the game, the environment and the aiming/looking around is blurry because of the 30fps. Now, I'm really looking forward to the MC collection because it will offer the Halo games at 1080p and 60fps...in my opinion, the way they should have been in the first place.

I find it really hard to believe people are content with 30fps and will sacrifice smoothness just to achieve eye candy to look at.

How difficult you find believing things actually doesn't have an impact on whether they're true.

 

[heyf00L]

Let's see in a couple of years how your $120 card handles games with the visual fidelity a PS4 will have then.

Let's see how many $120 upgrades have you made to your system to keep the quality in the PC games.

Let's see if you manage to spend a total of $400 in a gaming PC for the next 6-7 years

I'm pretty tired of the PC comparisons. We all know what consoles are all about right? So why the sadness?

Consoles obviously have a price/performance advantage out of the gate because

1. Sony/MS don't need to make a profit off the console itself.
2. They can be mass produced easier/cheaper.

So an equivalent PC will cost more at first. The questions are how much more and when will an equivalent PC be cheaper. Shockingly this generation the answer is: you can build an equivalent PC at equivalent price within a year of the console launches.

Last gen I bought a 8800 GT in 2007 and kept it until this year. It played all console ports at 1080p even. That's a $200 card 2 years after the 360 launch.

This generation within the year you can get an equal card for $150 and smoke the consoles for $200.

The consoles don't magically get more powerful. Developers learn new tricks, but those tricks work on PC, too. The same will hold for this generation even more so since the console hardware is even more PC-like. And I wonder how much difference DX12 will make.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Probably want to pause and think about your life and the things that make you angry. Such matters should not be among them. We're not talking about a generational difference between the platforms, so of course they'll look and perform similarly. Give or take a few effects and a few fps.

A lot o things make me angry!

The difference is not generational but the memory and GPU set up in the PS4 is significantly better. You'd have to put a limit on your games PS4 performance if things are looking like parity.

A conscious decision to say 'yeah that's good enough, sweet'.

PS4 owners have made a conscious decision to buy the most powerful platform. I personally think developers are doing them a disservice if they don't take advantage of that power.

 

[AmFreak]

Shockingly this generation the answer is: you can build an equivalent PC at equivalent price within a year of the console launches.

At least in Europe you even could do that from the start.

 

[boneso]

Watch Dogs is one of the worst cases of crappy console ported game I've come across. There really is no reason for the PS4 not to be at 1080p @ 30fps. As you said just looking at the benchmarks for High settings you have to go down to a 260X to even get into the 30's on average for FPS @ 1080p with High details and FXAA and all that going.

Makes you wonder what the hell went wrong during development for the performance to be what it is.

And this is 1080p, not 900p. Just boggles the mind.

It really is hard to understand how the PS4, with its "close to the metal" coding, a radeon 7870 (give or take), and 4-5gb of usable gddr5, how its not running at least 1080p Ultra settings at 30fps. Ubisoft properly messed up the development of this game. Even on massively powerful PC's with multiple GPU's it stutters and skips frames, even if the average fps is well over 60, 80, or even 100fps.

That game is a bit of an anomaly though. Generally, all of "last-gen" games (multiplats on PS3/360/PC), would be able to run at 60fps on High/Ultra on a PS4 (we are seeing this with remasters etc). So the new consoles can do the same with say, Battlefield 3 or Bioshock Infinite, as a decent gaming PC. It's the wave of "next-gen" games that the new consoles are struggling to keep up with PC's on.

 

[Hahs]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/19/6045141/diablo-microsoft-resolution

In my opinion, the Xbox One should be running ALL games at 1080p and 60fps. It should be a requirement. If your game doesn't run at 1080p and 60fps...go back to the drawing table.

I'm so sick and tired of the console getting mediocre graphics settings while the PC gets the luxury of tuning the game to fit the gamer's needs. Consoles should get the same treatment.

I absolutely agree that all (XB1) games should be pushed to the limit - however - if we're to get PC type graphics for consoles - than expect to pay an additional $200+ at launch. Cramming PC quality into a console ain't will not be cheap!

 

[Dictator93]

The really interesting thing here is that a R9 265 that has the same specs as the ps4 gpu (same shader power, fill rate, bandwidth [wo sharing with cpu]) seems to completely destroy the ps4 version.
Ultra settings v ps4 settings
1920x1200 v 1600x900
36fps v 30fps

Clock speed.

console GPU = low clock speed

 

[Coolade]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/19/6045141/diablo-microsoft-resolution

In my opinion, the Xbox One should be running ALL games at 1080p and 60fps. It should be a requirement. If your game doesn't run at 1080p and 60fps...go back to the drawing table.

I'm so sick and tired of the console getting mediocre graphics settings while the PC gets the luxury of tuning the game to fit the gamer's needs. Consoles should get the same treatment.

 

[coughlanio]

We all know that PC has no exclusives and that Sony exclusives are the only real exclusives /s

The point was that a 120$ card can already beat the consoles that aren't even on the market for a year. That's embarrassing.

It takes a little more than a $120 GPU to play games.

That's like saying a $10,000 high performance engine can outpace a $20,000 car. Which one will get you from A to B faster though?

 

[Handy Fake]

It takes a little more than a $120 GPU to play games.

That's like saying a $10,000 high performance engine can outpace a $20,000 car. Which one will get you from A to B faster though?

To be honest, a lot of the time it depends on the speed limit set by the road.

The road being the game in question.

 

[W.S.]

I don't get how eye-candy is that great at 30fps.

I look at a game like Halo 4 and say...okay, this game looks good, graphically. However, when you start actually playing the game, the environment and the aiming/looking around is blurry because of the 30fps. Now, I'm really looking forward to the MC collection because it will offer the Halo games at 1080p and 60fps...in my opinion, the way they should have been in the first place.

I find it really hard to believe people are content with 30fps and will sacrifice smoothness just to achieve eye candy to look at.

It's not like console gamers have a choice in the matter unless there's a PC like toggle, besides I don't think it should be a rule that every game has to be 60fps so it's up to the developers to decide what best fits the game's needs.

While I'm sure that 60fps would an ideal framerate for most (some like them higher even), there's always some sort of graphical compromise when you crank that up even on PC so I can take a consistent 30fps, 60fps, or even a inconsistent 60 as long as it doesn't become unplayable.

 

[AmFreak]

Clock speed.

console GPU = low clock speed

Not really an explanation:

1024:64:32 900-925 Mhz
vs
1152:72:32 800 Mhz