Support NeoGAF

[lifeexpectancy]

What gets me is the excuse of that it'll be optimized and catch up to the PS4 quickly. It isn't as simple a case as the Xbox One catching up to the PS4 with optimization.

With this gen, the PS3 was more powerful technically but it was difficult for a lot of devs to get their heads round. It took time for it and even now we have issues like Skyrim.

But with this gen the architecture is very similar except for a few differences. The PS4 is just more powerful. Any improvements in terms of optimization the Xbox One version of a game could achieve is as possible for the PS4 version.

I don't see how it could really close the gap, they'll just both improve with the Xbox One always having to try and play catch up until it eventually hits a brick wall.

And the biggest thing overlooked by the likes of Adam is that resolution is just the first real obvious difference. It's more like the first symptom of what's to come. It could, as the consoles get older, affect everything from textures to framerate to loading to size/scale and so on.

I'm not getting either machine personally so I'm not trying to pick sides or anything like that, it's just something to take note of in what'll probably be a largely multiplatform generation like this one has generally been.
Sure, there'll be an exclusive here or there, but as always, it'll be multiplatform dominate and something like this should be looked at.

Sounds a lot like (shameless link again for lazy TL;DR people that ignored it) what I said here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88688792&highlight=#post88688792

Although I was maybe too verbose.

 

[Jinko]

And you are surprised? Journalists of all kinds have to watch what they say unless they want to dig a hole they can't climb out of.

This is simply playing nice so MS don't blacklist them/him from future freebies and interviews.

 

[Static Jak]

Sounds a lot like (shameless link again for lazy TL;DR people that ignored it) what I said here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88688792&highlight=#post88688792

Although I was maybe too verbose.

It surprises me that so many people in places of influence like Sessler just seem to ignore this or wave it away with a "wait and see" approach.

 

[dark10x]

And you are surprised? Journalists of all kinds have to watch what they say unless they want to dig a hole they can't climb out of.

This is simply playing nice so MS don't blacklist them/him from future freebies and interviews.

Leads me to believe that Microsoft plays a lot rougher with journalists than Sony or Nintendo.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Sessler chatting rubbish? Are you sure?

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Simple. They're members of the gaming community every bit as much as anybody that posts on this very forum. They pay attention to whatever's the hot topic of the moment and then they weigh in with their own opinions. No matter what any journalist says it can't change the importance, or the lack of importance, of a particular issue in any one gamer's view. For some people it is THE defining issue of this generation of games. For others it really isn't that serious, believing that the individual games themselves matter a lot more. I expect a lot of people to literally use their own personal experience with a game more than what the numbers tell them. It isn't enough to just say a game is better on the PS4. What's the state of the same game on the Xbox One? How does it look? How does the game perform? What stands out as the most inferior aspect of the game compared to any other version? Unless these things are as easily discernable as one could expect of the average user, only the most detailed of technical analysis are going to even bother picking these games apart. Some sites may do so early on, but just watch and see how fast it gets old. Only the most devoted to technical analysis will keep delving into these releases, and that includes places like Digital Foundry.

Even this generation with the 360 and PS3, the only moments in which certain publications went out of their way to point out an issue was when it was of such a blatantly obvious and serious nature that it simply couldn't be ignored. The skyrim issues, the red dead redemption issues, the bayonetta issues etc.

Sorry, but I don't see how this is a response to my post, where I was not talking about members of the gaming press downplaying the magnitude of the issue (e.g. "I can hardly tell the difference,") but talking about the implications of the issue on things like sales (e.g. "soccer moms picking up a system for little Timmy won't be able to tell the difference,"). Both are prominent, but the former is an opinion with relevance to the audience (though personally I'd say that the downplaying of resolution differences goes some way in discrediting what is supposed to be a more informed perspective) whereas the latter is an opinion that in no way informs or relates to the experiences of a prospective console buyer reading a gaming magazine or website. The only purpose I can see for it are to make the writer feel superior to their audience, to maintain an artificial sense of "neutrality" or to bias a discussion (I listed those in descending order of both likelihood and shittiness).

 

[lifeexpectancy]

It surprises me that so many people in places of influence like Sessler just seem to ignore this or wave it away with a "wait and see" approach.

Which is exactly why people are getting so upset. It's a vicious circle.

Gamer: Why aren't you covering this objectively, there are legit concerns here? I mean we'd like an intelligent discussion on this...

Press: Stupid whiny gamer, it doesn't matter.

Gamer: Why doesn't it matter? This could directly impact more than just visuals. We're talking about something that could restrict gameplay and make the envelope devs push this gen smaller....

Press: Stupid whiny gamer, resolution doesn't matter!

Gamer: FFS we're not just talking about resolution here. There's a bigger picture! (getting angry now, not about resolution, getting angry at the press)

Press: See everyone? Look at all these entitled idiots crying about resolution like it's going to ruin next gen just because of some pixels on a screen!

Game: What the fuck is wrong with you?!

Press: What's wrong with YOU!?


Seriously, that's this conversation in a nutshell. It's so hard to get an intelligent discussion going with all the damn mud flinging and name calling.

 

[boredandlazy]

There's a difference between a nice refreshing graphical bump and losing your minds over the internet because of some missing "p's" on a spec sheet.

There's also a difference between some missing "p's" on a spec sheet and 1,000,000 missing "p's" on my 1080p TV.

 

[Slair]

It's as simple as that, it's all about the games. 8 years since the debates, 7 years since the launch does anyone give a fuck about the 360 vs PS3 power anymore? Nope - we care about console features and what fucking cool games we played, PERIOD. Was Bayonetta apparently shit on PS3? Well so I was told. I played it patched, loved it. Was GTA4 apparently worse on the PS3? Yep! A bit framey for sure. Did I love it? Hell yes.

Games, games, games, period.

I give a fuck about the ps3 vs 360. As someone who cares about "games, games, games, period" i will pick up the best version available of a game every single time. I also couldn't give a shit about console features unless they make the game play better, because it's all about the games.

 

[amar212]

All I can see here, from independent EU journo perspective, is fear.

Everyone looks like they started to fear. It was very nice to live under Microsoft's cushion. Everyone from the industry knows that. And press knows it best. And now, everything changes. This will only get even more serious with time.

This is a pure deliberate play in order to secure personal positions and probably gain something by being manipulative and playing for The Cushionist.

I am really looking forward to getting the cat out of the bag soon in the US mainstream because the catharsis needs to happen. This is really a sad situation for all involved.

 

[ChryZ]

Isn't even "up-res'd 1080p" a poor choice of wording?

Up-res to me is the process of taking an older game, that was build to render at a lower res and force it to draw its old unchanged assets at an higher res, e.g. games in HD collections.

Rendering at 720p and displaying it at 1080p is lowly upscaling, IMHO.

 

[Funchameleon]

There's also a difference between some missing "p's" on a spec sheet and 1,000,000 missing "p's" on my 1080p TV.

Shouldn't you fix that avatar before you go complaining about upsampling?

 

[LukasTaves]

Which games are 1080p/60fps on ps4 and less than that on xbone?

I thought it was only CoD so far (BF4 has a difference, but it isn't as big), but I got the impression there are more games in the same situation... Did we got more confirmed resolutions/framerate from other games?

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Calling it a 'conspiracy' is kind of a strawman.

People aren't saying that all gaming journalists meet with MS representatives in a dark basement and work this out.

It's about a very obvious bias for whatever reasons, depending on what you think and who you believe, such as fear of being blacklisted, unprofessionalism and being swayed by gifts like free subscriptions, personal preference after an entire generation of the 360 having better multi-plats for the most part (again, being unprofessional), trying to retain strong ties with MS, etc.

You think after all those articles wherein tech and gaming sites suddenly decide that tech differences are unimportant, that there is no bias? Even though they were important for an entire generation, and they still are very important when comparing other gadgets, but no, in this case you must be a 'pixel-counting fanboy' if you care about it?

After all the articles about some magical balance being more important than a ~50% more powerful GPU and faster RAM?

You find it objective 'journalism' that this guy won't even say 720p and has to make up terms for upscaled 1080p?

Its cute how he tried not to say 720p. Seriously the guys credibility has gone to zero.

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

I think everybody should buy the system he really wants to play on. If someone really doesn't care much about resolution then there is no need to force him/her into buying a PS4. That would be awful. But I also think that there is absolutely no need for downplaying PS4's hardware advantage. The difference between 720p and 1080p is huge and everyone who says otherwise should stfu immediately, in my eyes.

Gaming journalism should educate gamers, but at the moment they're doing the exact opposite. When someone is still undecided and wants to buy the more powerful console then you can't say things like "Both are 1080p, but One is upscaled. You won't see the difference anyway." We have to call out "journalists" who spread bullshit like this! I can't see a single reason for downplaying the discrepancy of pushed pixels in a game like CoD except for either being paid to do so or simply being a stupid fantard.

What happens at the moment is highly unfair. Mark Cerny said multiple times that he designed the system in a way that studios can achieve very good results out of the gate. PS4 is designed to deliver nice visuals on day one, which is a first for 3D consoles if I recall correctly, and it is awful to see how some persons are downplaying the work of talented engineers.

But the absolutely worst thing is that "journalists" turn on people who criticize on Xbox One's resolution. This is unforgivable. They spin it like it's our fault that we can't live with 720p. We're stupid victims of Sony PR that are too focused on marketing terms like "1080p". It's more than obvious on which side these guys are on.

Well said.

 

[Vizzeh]

Sessler is too much of an intelligent guy to not only back track on his own opinion/target on 1080p but to not realise its about value aswell, the overall system for gaming etc.. clearly his judgement is clouded..

There were rumours of his bias and he squashed them recently by neutral responses to x1/ps4 desires.. this backtracks on that... Hate to say it but atleast leadbetter is telling it how it is (now) when the facts are in front of him

 

[Dizzy]

The way I see it....it's 2013, your console is $400-$500 and is going to be the standard for games until at the very least 2018.

1080p isn't much to ask for and we have every right to expect it. No 1080P, no buy.

Dont get why people keep bringing PC into this. Yes I care about resolution and taking advantage of what my tv can do and I do have a PC for that. But when I buy a console for the exclusives I don't want a drastic resolution drop, especially not for $500.

 

[silent]

MS should get Crytek to lower Ryse's resolution to 720p so it can have better game play.

 

[avaya]

The idea of parity on the horizon is the bigger lie.

Gap will increase.

 

[Vizzeh]

I think everybody should buy the system he really wants to play on. If someone really doesn't care much about resolution then there is no need to force him/her into buying a PS4. That would be awful. But I also think that there is absolutely no need for downplaying PS4's hardware advantage. The difference between 720p and 1080p is huge and everyone who says otherwise should stfu immediately, in my eyes.

Gaming journalism should educate gamers, but at the moment they're doing the exact opposite. When someone is still undecided and wants to buy the more powerful console then you can't say things like "Both are 1080p, but One is upscaled. You won't see the difference anyway." We have to call out "journalists" who spread bullshit like this! I can't see a single reason for downplaying the discrepancy of pushed pixels in a game like CoD except for either being paid to do so or simply being a stupid fantard.

What happens at the moment is highly unfair. Mark Cerny said multiple times that he designed the system in a way that studios can achieve very good results out of the gate. PS4 is designed to deliver nice visuals on day one, which is a first for 3D consoles if I recall correctly, and it is awful to see how some persons are downplaying the work of talented engineers.

But the absolutely worst thing is that "journalists" turn on people who criticize on Xbox One's resolution. This is unforgivable. They spin it like it's our fault that we can't live with 720p. We're stupid victims of Sony PR that are too focused on marketing terms like "1080p". It's more than obvious on which side these guys are on.

Perfect... dont lie about specs/downplay them, give neutral objective reasoning in both and compare it to next gen expectations...

X1 hasnt got much going for it in comparison with gaming hardward and capabilities, grunt or resolution so argue why we should get the x1.. what does it boil down too..games..plead that.

Problem with that argument is past the launch line up..what studios are gonna churn out the games for ms? They dont have the first party studios for it and they cant buy every exclusive indefinitely, their problem to fix.

 

[andromeduck]

I always wonder how different things might have turned out if MS just decided to up the memory to 12 or 16 GB

then it could have been like memory + cpu vs gpu + bandwidth or something similar - the spins would have actually had some credibility - but as it stands it's pretty clear cut IMO

 

[FeiRR]

I disagree with the bold part, it's not lame design, it's their vision for the console. Hence kinect and TV TV TV TV. The hardcore games and raw power were just not part of their vision for the console, imo.

This is a forum for gaming enthusiasts and their vision is lame in that perspective. Maybe some set-top box forum would be a better place for Xbox One.

 

[dark10x]

I always wonder how different things might have turned out if MS just decided to up the memory to 12 or 16 GB

then it could have been like memory + cpu vs gpu + bandwidth or something similar - the spins would have actually had some credibility - but as it stands it's pretty clear cut IMO

It's not the amount of system memory that's the issue here, though. They need more high-speed memory it seems.

 

[Pie and Beans]

I feel like Sessler has finally passed Gies in the "worst ever" stakes. Probably because its video rather than inane tweets, but also because Adam's more manic personality feeds into the absolute bullshit he's spouting at a more frantic pace.

With Gies it feels like some habitual "picked my side, can't be shown wrong" thing and even he has softened on it while Sessler seems desperate to level the playing field as if time is running out and he's on the chopping block directly.

I feel he really should look for a different career. He's so out of touch and is showing no desire to become into touch again at all but just death spiral into more absurdity like crying over not getting a free PS4 before launch for his expert analysis to engage with (can't even notice 720p to 1080p resolution change? Get new glasses.)

 

[travisbickle]

The way I see it....it's 2013, your console is $400-$500 and is going to be the standard for games until at the very least 2018.

1080p isn't much to ask for and we have every right to expect it. No 1080P, no buy.

Dont get why people keep bringing PC into this. Yes I care about resolution and taking advantage of what my tv can do and I do have a PC for that. But when I buy a console for the exclusives I don't want a drastic resolution drop, especially not for $500.

The problem with this is it would have meant the argument ended months ago, and be no YouTube vids now for clicks.

The One hasn't provided the tech for the money they are asking. Even the PS4 was a tough sell until the paltry One specs came out (remember the months of threads about Unknown spec advantage for the One).

The only good thing for PS4 is the GPU compute that appears to push it beyond the paper spec.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I don't understand some of these arguments. Yes we know games is what makes a person decide one console over another. Yes we know that gameplay is more important than resolution but its a multiplatform release. The gameplay is exactly the same on either console, except one is running more than twice the pixels. Its clear as the blue sky which is the better version yet some of these journalists just don't want to admit it.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You can't compare apples to oranges and expect to make lemonade. Last gen was an entirely different beast. The 360 was EASIER to program for than the PS4, not harder. So next gen you're going to see successive PS4 titles have stable or increasing resolutions possibly, while you're going to see memory bottlenecks on the XB1 meaning something like this:

2013 to 2014 - resolution increase
2014 to 2015 - resolution increase
2015 to 2016 - resolution decrease to maintain framerate
2015 to 2016 - stable resolution, framerate decrease to maintain physics and AI
2016 to 2017 - resolution decrease again to maintain physics, AI, and level geometry because framerate needs to stay at 30

This is conjecture of course, but the scenario we are in with relatively straightforward (and similar) x86 architecture on both means that the disparity at launch is much more due to the eSRAM bottleneck than it is lack of familiarity with coding to the systems.

And I'm purposely ignoring the fact that almost everything you gave as examples were first party titles. The disparities are going to come on the multiplat side, man.

I think you miss the larger point I was making. Resolution decreases were far more common for COD than anything else in the industry by far. There were special cases for games that simply were too much for the current gen hardware (Crysis titles, Battlefield 3), but by and large there were resolution increases on both systems. I personally don't expect to see a single title going below 720p this generation, and they shouldn't. There's no excuse for such a thing to occur. The consoles pack the power necessary to do 60fps with high graphics settings at HD resolutions in BF4. At worst we'd see a 720p 30fps title before we ever see res going lower than 720p, and I don't even see that happening either. 720p is apparently the minimum a dev can do on Xbox One this gen with their first effort.

And with regards to disparities on multi-plat side, I don't see much change there either. PS4 to be higher resolution, Xbox One lower resolution seems simple enough. I think with the power available to both systems, there's a lot of room for devs this gen to express almost anything they want within the available hardware resources. I don't anticipate there being any tremendous degree of pressure to do anything more drastic than what has already been shown with regards to resolution in these early releases. I predict no sub 720p titles, and I don't see a bigger gap than 1080p vs 720p appearing anytime this gen. I'm far more interested in the GPU compute capabilities gap that could emerge than any involving resolution.

 

[Senor Kami]

So then what's the point of next gen if graphics don't matter?

Just keep the same hardware if no one cares anyway

I'd actually like to see what someone could do if they kept graphics at current gen standards and used all of the extra memory, GPU, and CPU to feed something else.

 

[Funchameleon]

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

Is the fact that the author of one of these examples died long before he had a chance to comment on this lost on everyone?

 

[Tilian]

All I can see here, from independent EU journo perspective, is fear.

Everyone looks like they started to fear. It was very nice to live under Microsoft's cushion. Everyone from the industry knows that. And press knows it best. And now, everything changes. This will only get even more serious with time.

This is a pure deliberate play in order to secure personal positions and probably gain something by being manipulative and playing for The Cushionist.

I am really looking forward to getting the cat out of the bag soon in the US mainstream because the catharsis needs to happen. This is really a sad situation for all involved.

Interesting, thanks. Can you say more about this fear or "cushion"? Doesn't a "Sony cushion" (or whatever) also exist? (Aren't the press just as concerned with keeping Sony happy?) Just curious about any implicit power plays here.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

I think you miss the larger point I was making. Resolution decreases were far more common for COD than anything else in the industry by far. There were special cases for games that simply were too much for the current gen hardware (Crysis titles, Battlefield 3), but by and large there were resolution increases on both systems. I personally don't expect to see a single title going below 720p this generation, and they shouldn't. There's no excuse for such a thing to occur. The consoles pack the power necessary to do 60fps with high graphics settings at HD resolutions in BF4. At worst we'd see a 720p 30fps title before we ever see res going lower than 720p, and I don't even see that happening either. 720p is apparently the minimum a dev can do on Xbox One this gen with their first effort.

And with regards to disparities on multi-plat side, I don't see much change there either. PS4 to be higher resolution, Xbox One lower resolution seems simple enough. I think with the power available to both systems, there's a lot of room for devs this gen to express almost anything they want within the available hardware resources. I don't anticipate there being any tremendous degree of pressure to do anything more drastic than what has already been shown with regards to resolution in these early releases. I predict no sub 720p titles, and I don't see a bigger gap than 1080p vs 720p appearing anytime this gen. I'm far more interested in the GPU compute capabilities gap that could emerge than any involving resolution.

What I get from this post is resolution resolution resolution. There's more to this conversation than resolution, but if you're not going to read the post that I linked two or three times on the last page, then there's no point trying to discuss it with you. You can read it here if you'll even bother: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88688792&highlight=#post88688792

And if you yourself are saying you could see games drop to 720p and 30fps, then there is obviously a major problem. 30fps is considerably inferior for shooters because it effects your reaction time, which is crucial in twitch gameplay. Granted you said "at worst", but yeah I expect we're going to see that on XB1 and that's a bad thing, and yet it still ignores the other facets of gameplay that may potentially be affected (draw distance, AI, physics, level geometry, player count, npc count, etc etc etc).

Edit: In fairness you did mention the GPU compute capabilities gap. The thing is, resolution bottlenecks may adversely affect that TOO and make it even worse. They may affect a whole lot of aspects other than just resolution in and of itself, and this is something that is being completely ignored in favor of the canned response of "whiny fanboys whining about resolution".

 

[boredandlazy]

Shouldn't you fix that avatar before you go complaining about upsampling?

Nsh. I think my avatar is pretty apt for this whole situation.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Over the years I have always read Previews and the like as simple Information on said game/Console etc, like a PR piece with extra Info if you will.

Then came the Review which was usually honest/cutting and warts and all showing of the said game/hardware. Hark back to the Ye-old printing gaming press of CVG/Mean Machines even Edge, and there were some honest and cutting info with no PR fluff in the middle.

Fast Forward to the last 9 months and the X1 specificity, and we have the worst/weakest most apologetic and defending Journalism (I use the Term Loosely) that I have ever had the misfortune to witness. And it has gotten to a state now that I do not Trust ANY review or article on anything Game related when within each line or paragraph we are treated to a Justification on why this is weak/does not work/costs more as if we are standing in a shop buying the item from a Salesperson, when did this shift happen??

Anyone into tech and lets say TV's for example, would read a review on the Latest Series 8 Samsung Vs the Latest LG, now if the Samsung had better blacks/brighter screen/ less blur/higher or clearer refresh rate etc etc than the LG but cost more then this would be in the summary. The Review would state the difference and facts as they are and then leave the price there to say "Yes the Samsung is Better but is it £x's better than the LG?" for example.

Now if you had the same situation but the LG had all the better features etc and was £x'x cheaper then the summary would be "Well the LG is better on all areas than the Samsung (see Non-justified tech piece above) and is Cheaper, the decision is a no brainer".

And this is the EXACT situation we have here on these new consoles, The Cheapest one is the Most powerful, with the most options and is undeniably the best piece of hardware Bang for Buck or simply Bang in total this is undeniable. But there is no integrity or loyalty to the consumer now, with comments like (who can really see, and only fanboys care), it really saddens me that one of my favourite hobbies my entire life has been ruined and reduced to sad people in positions that should know better lying or deceiving the public in this way. Anyone not techy or just plain not interested will be given duff info from these mainstream sources that are looking to underplay and down value the clear discrepancy, and this is simply plain wrong.

I do not buy into the theory that MS have gone MoneyHat mad, I can only assume there is a dire fear within the industry that is petrified of the death of Consoles(lack of MS advertising Budget etc) and so they are vainly (and naively) trying to keep the X1 alive with false hope and cherry aid.

Stop all the Gumf and tell us the facts and let us decide, 12 months ago it was 1080/60 or bust. One console is giving us that (by and large) and one appears to miss the board by a fair margin. Shifting goal posts now is sad and desperate and only comes across as the desperate acts of Shills or lier's (Neither of which are good in a consumer driven environment).

I only hope that once both are out and we have games on each that are compelling and different we return to some genuine Journalistic intent.....although my hopes are very dashed!! /rant off

I pretty much agree with this. I've come to realise a lot in the last few just how bent the gaming media is (much more so than it seems in other entertainment fields), but this year has really opened my eyes. There seems to be so much subterfuge, constant excusing and baseless optimism* when it comes to MS, even from larger sites who I previously thought were relatively objective. I don't bother visiting gaming websites hardly at all any more; I like reading stories and news on here, both because it's usually breaking and because we don't get sugar-coated bullshit that the media specialise in.

*(I'm referring to Kinect specifically here)

 

[Marc]

Why are so many journalists attempting to make neutrality so subjective?

Especially since neutrality in the context of cold hard numbers is a bias in itself.

The whole "it doesn't matter anyway as long as the games are good" schtick fails when it's a new gen, why spend your money on more powerful consoles if power doesn't matter. Silly point of view.

 

[mrklaw]

And you are surprised? Journalists of all kinds have to watch what they say unless they want to dig a hole they can't climb out of.

This is simply playing nice so MS don't blacklist them/him from future freebies and interviews.

why is a MS hole more dangerous to dig than a Sony hole? By avoiding upsetting one, they are misrepresenting the other.

 

[disastermouse]

Sessler's implying that good games trump graphics - and they do - but he's answering a claim that no one is making. No one is claiming that they want shitty, yet pretty, games. They want good games that also look good.

And let's not compare the Xbone to Nintendo's consoles. Nintendo has IP that doesn't suffer as much from graphical down-rezzes. The main characters of all their series are cartooney and family friendly. MS has always been near the front power-wise as a console maker. Hence, its identity, mascots, and series (and de facto series) do not lend themselves well to graphical down-rezzes.

 

[avaya]

why is a MS hole more dangerous to dig than a Sony hole? By avoiding upsetting one, they are misrepresenting the other.

Sony don't pay.

 

[Lokbob]

This is the same guy who said this during drm-gate




And my favorite:

If you add the ps camera, ps plus subscription and forget about xbox live, there is price parity between ps4-xbox one.

Sessler is one of the biggest jokes in gaming journalism and I'm baffled how anyone takes him seriously.

 

[G_Berry]

Sessler's implying that good games trump graphics - and they do - but he's answering a claim that no one is making. No one is claiming that they want shitty, yet pretty, games. They want good games that also look good.

But the Xbox One games DO look good.

 

[disastermouse]

But the Xbox One games DO look good.

Yes, but not as good as the PS4 games. Better resolution of nearly identical games will always look better.

 

[tsumineko]

Sessler's an idiot. The problem is $400 for a powerful console Vs. $500 for a not as powerful console. The only issue with the resolution difference is that they confirm this power difference, the issue isn't that games are 720p.

What is wrong with the press lately... my god...

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

But the Xbox One games DO look good.

What would you have:

1) good game with good graphics
2) good game with even better graphics.

What if I told you you could get option 2 for $100 less?

 

[jayu26]

Especially since neutrality in the context of cold hard numbers is a bias in itself.

That's a nice quote man.

 

[derFeef]

What would you have:

1) good game with good graphics
2) good game with even better graphics.

What if I told you you could get option 2 for $100 less?

Depends on the game.

 

[dark10x]

Depends on the game.

How exactly?

 

[Deimo5]

Hasn't the numbers game been going on forever, I mean like...
It is just easy to communicate, nothing new.

It is also kinda hard to talk about 'the games' when they aren't even out yet.
What is left, resolution, fps, the price relative to these etc.

 

[derFeef]

How exactly?

if it's a platform exlusive game I would want to play, I mean, sorry.

 

[EGM1966]

Depends on the game.

What game would you rather have weaker graphics on a pay more for exactly?

Clearly not referring to exclusives that's a whole different story - you want Mario you have to go Nintendo, you want Halo you have to go Xbox, you want Gran Turismo you have to go Playstation..

But what multi-platform games are better in a lower res for more money exactly?

 

[Triggerhappytel]

This is the same guy who said this during drm-gate

And my favorite:

If you add the ps camera, ps plus subscription and forget about xbox live, there is price parity between ps4-xbox one.

Sessler is one of the biggest jokes in gaming journalism and I'm baffled how anyone takes him seriously.

Oh, that's beautiful. What a fucking stupid comparison. The whole point is that MS see Kinect as vital to the system, while Sony are leaving the PS Eye as optional again. Yes, the Kinect will as a result be more supported, but that doesn't change the fact that hardly anyone wants it. He's praising MS for their fast turnaround like they're doing us all a favour, while insinuating that we're close-minded for not being more accepting towards Kinect.

I always expect these Sessler's Something videos to begin with something like "This Sessler's Something is brought to you by Microsoft Surface".

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Depends on the game.

What are you talking about. Its the same game. Okay do I have to spell it out:


Pretend you want to buy COD ghosts, would you rather have:

1) COD Ghosts with good graphics
2) COD ghosts with even better graphics

Option 1 costs $100 more.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I think the reason for this (at worst) bias or apologist behaviour towards the XB1 is because the media or journalists who are displaying it are the same people that were more invested in 360 last gen, or certainly had a preference, overall, to the MS ecosystem.

Most of the gaming content most Gaffers read/listen to is English language. And what is the origin of this content? 90% is either from the US or the UK, the 360's most dominant territories. So it is also a case of pandering a little to what this media believes is their audience.

Another problem is that the games media is not terribly good at reviewing actual hardware, so value proposition is something that may get lost amongst that old gaming directive of trying to appear platform agnostic. Obviously new consoles don't come out every week, so their experience of actually reviewing them is out of touch, awkward and inexperienced against the likes of other tech media that regularly reviews hardware such as, say, Engadget or TechRadar, where value/cost is a very important facet in each product review. If all you are used to reviewing every week is games you can get your prerogatives twisted when it comes to assessing the actual hardware.

This is not to make an excuse for the gaming media, I think it is fucking terrible. Which will only lead to their slow descent into obscurity unless they start understanding their audience better. It's not fucking hard.