justsomeguy
Member
Maybe we wanted to play the xbox exclusives? I guess you bought your console for the resolution ;-)
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
They are more than fans, they are the faithful, the true believers
Well, that's why I bought an xo in addition to the rest; for exclusives. Doesn't mean the hardware isn't disappointing.
justsomeguy
Member
It's the bit where you said
that was odd. Do you feel the same about Wii U, any pc with less than a 7790, etc.? (I'm partly yanking your chain here btw, not indulging in fanboy nonsense - but hopefully you see my point)
It's funny that Richard had a problem with resolution being that high up on the poll even though his site is based on that very thing but "brand" was the top of the XB1 reason and he doesn't even make a passing comment why that is considerably worse than anything else and what truly doesn't matter.
Clearly resolution was important during last gen with practically every gaming site having 3rd party (PS3 and Xbox 360) games resolution comparison videos. It was stressed as being an deciding factor on which game "you should purchase." Now all of a sudden this gen, we're being told "it really don't matter", "both versions looks nice." Why the sudden change? For me it matters! It mattered enough for me to switch from a 720p to a 1080p LED Television.
Ha ha, well, good point. Bad wording.
I guess I don't mind console limitations all that much in the end as it can lead to some interesting results (though it's less interesting now that they're basically PCs).
The WiiU was more disappointing but Nintendo has used the hardware well to deliver beautiful, high performance games that will stand the test of time.
justsomeguy
Member
No worries. Don't diss the wii u, mine shipped yesterday *sob*
IndoAssassin
Banned
Yah but if the X1 takes the sales lead in the US and all the fans keep downplaying the power difference, doesn't that send a message to MS that it's ok to keep better profit marguns rather than build a more powerful console?
Don't get me wrong my X1 is great as an exclusive machine and they are doing a much better job than Sony with the updates and their app support. But I won't buy multiplats on it at all even if there are better versions out there just to prove my point to MS, they should have done better from the start.
Nintendo brand wasn't built on dominating in console specs. Quite the opposite. Xbox however was built on spec domination from day one. This is the first gen where they haven't had it and people are losing their shit over it. It's the first time also that Sony has had the definitive most powerful console in their entire brand's existence.
There's a prevailing opinion that he has a history of making excuses for the Xbox and otherwise downplaying the advantage exhibited by the PlayStation platform in cases where it's ahead.
UnrealEck
Member
It was sarcasm. I'd have thought most people do care about framerate too. 60 is objectively better than 30. A lot better.
The profit margins are actually worse on the Xbone hardware then the PS4, the APU is more complicated (higher transistor count because of the ESRAM) and the DDR3 RAM is likely as cheap as it will ever get. I also imagine being a bigger/heavier box adds to shipping and storage costs versus the PS4 as well.
The only reason the machines have a performance delta is Sony and Microsoft bet on different RAM configurations and total amounts early on, with the PS4 being able to greatly benefit from cost decreases while Microsoft was just kinda stuck with what they had.
CircleOfFire
Member
All those years of it mattering in the 360/PEr generation, now suddenly it doesn't matter.
For me Consistent 30FPS > 1080p Resolution > Consistent 60FPS.
For me Consistent 30FPS > 1080p Resolution > Consistent 60FPS.
Well I think it's the back and forth the DF articles have been doing either favouring one platform or the other. In this particular article he's praising the strides the X1 has made in performance against the PS4. He's basically saying fidelity and framerate are more important than resolution, which seems to be an offensive statement to many unfortunately.
A lot of people for whatever reason consider the resolution of a game to be it's defining feature and reason to even consider purchase.
Personally I have a 55 LG TV, I sit about a good 6-8 feet from it and it looks superb. Never had any issues with gaming on it (Xbox One), image quality has always been top notch for me. Games that really stood out to me were Mordor, Unity, Far Cry 4 and Sunset Overdrive.
DOWN
Banned
Opposite for me. I'll take native res and sexy visual add ins and 30, over 60. Thank the lord for Naughty Dog.
psn
Member
Most Digital Foundry articles arent written by Leadbetter.
Also, read this:http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=154082279
I find it funny people in this thread claim the hardware in Xbox One is disappointing and so forth, when matching by titles, there is not a stark difference. PS4 titles are not blowing away Xbox One titles. Playing Destiny at 900p (beta) and at 1080p on my PS4, I couldn't tell a difference on my 55 inch screen, and lets say you do, well it is not a huge advantage. The difference is small. PS4 games are not graphically more amazing than Xbox One. Then you have friend notifications, suspend and resume, instant switch, DLNA, better online voice quality I've noticed compared to playing online with my PS4 to Xbox One, better first party exclusives according to metacritic, etc. Sure on paper, the PS4 has a hardware advantage but in practice, there both similar and both have midrange hardware, yes, that's right the PS4 has a midrange GPU. It's a lot more complicated than you think when developing, especially multiplatform. Put two midrange GPUs in a PC and see what difference you're going to get running games as Digital Foundry did.
This is not to say Xbox One is better than PS4 but arguing the supposed PS4 power difference should not be a sole factor in your arguments as many people in this thread have, and what Richard says, especially when there is little to show for, and there's pros and cons to all systems, mainly the substandard OS on the PS4. Essentially, this is what Richard's article is analyzing from the Nielsen research firm results, that the major factor of PS4 owners in their purchase was graphics, when in reality the past year the Xbox One has narrowed down.
If you're doubting the capabilities of Xbox One, play Sunset Overdrive on Chaos Mode online. It has more colors than Killzone and The Order 1886. The graphics are stunning, wonderful art, but the most incredible thing is the amount of action. There is an insane amount of activity going on with 100+ enemies non-stop action, crazy particle effects, different illustrative effects that are incredible to look at and so varied that is an artistic feast, but most importantly, without a hitch. I am shocked that I don't notice drops in frame rate in Chaos Mode.
This is not to say Xbox One is better than PS4 but arguing the supposed PS4 power difference should not be a sole factor in your arguments as many people in this thread have, and what Richard says, especially when there is little to show for, and there's pros and cons to all systems, mainly the substandard OS on the PS4. Essentially, this is what Richard's article is analyzing from the Nielsen research firm results, that the major factor of PS4 owners in their purchase was graphics, when in reality the past year the Xbox One has narrowed down.
If you're doubting the capabilities of Xbox One, play Sunset Overdrive on Chaos Mode online. It has more colors than Killzone and The Order 1886. The graphics are stunning, wonderful art, but the most incredible thing is the amount of action. There is an insane amount of activity going on with 100+ enemies non-stop action, crazy particle effects, different illustrative effects that are incredible to look at and so varied that is an artistic feast, but most importantly, without a hitch. I am shocked that I don't notice drops in frame rate in Chaos Mode.
Both consoles are nearly identical. There is VERY little for a regular consumer to latch onto in regards to figuring out an actual difference between them with multiplat titles. Even a small spec difference can be meaningful to people when making a choice. So to have Leadbetter completely baffled by the decision making criteria of consumers where they find a spec difference to be important, I just don't get it.
Both consoles are basically the same. So if one shows even a slight advantage, wouldn't that be a consideration for consumers? He says they should instead pick the console that provides the best gameplay. But if the gameplay of multiplatform titles between the two consoles is identical, how exactly do the consoles differentiate from each other if not for spec? And his entire job is to point out differences in game performance. How does someone do a job like that and then not expect people to choose a console between two identical consoles, based on performance? What else are we supposed to base it on if they're exactly the same outside of resolution on multiplats?
The gameplay is NOT any different. Far Cry 4 does not play differently on XBO than PS4. So how am I supposed to make up my mind based on a console's "gameplay" on multiplat titles?
justsomeguy
Member
Games / friends list / console other features / etc.
It (the Nielson research) makes sense to me. For ppl who don't value those things then, as you say, there is not much between them so people choose the one with the better gpu.
Otherwise people go with one of those other factors.
MMaRsu
Gold Member
Great post garbage site
Right, so an entire article was written to try to what, refute the decision making process of these people? If they see two consoles playing identical games and they don't care about the friend list or whatever, and the only differentiating factor they see between the two consoles is resolution and so they choose resolution, why is that a decision making behavior that needs to be minimized by stating how close the XBO is with scaling and post processing techniques?
Will that somehow sway those Nielson poll people to change their mind and no longer value resolution? Does that scaling and post processing power on a lower resolution make the PS4 version inferior to the XBO version? He wants people to choose based on gameplay. On multiplat games, where is the differentiating factor of "gameplay" between the two consoles? And if there is zero differentiating factor of gameplay, what else is there for consumers to look at except performance?
IndoAssassin
Banned
But had the console come out at 499 without kinect kinect, that would have allowed them to come out with better hardware for gaming than the PS4.
The harsh reality is that my most consumers aren't driven by the factors people in n GAF and more enthusiast gamers will be.
Exclusives don't matter for the majority, and neither does differences in online.
For most price and perceived power are driving purchasing this gen for PS4 and XB1 (which is argue is a natural extension of how things played out last gen).
Faced with almost identical consoles with almost identical games they've turned to price (which has favoured PS4 mostly until Spencer - wisely in my view - accepted the XB1 shouldn't be pitched as the premier device, ditched Kinect and dropped prices below PS4) and power.
Now is that more casual consumer going to judge power by knowing about memory configurations, ESRAM and the like? I doubt it. They're going to go by the most obvious metric which is resolution. And that's a more obvious metric than frame rate because they already have a feel for the metric from HD TV market. They understand 1080p is better imagine than a lower number. Hence the focus.
The arguments in the article ( and yours I'm afraid) are in my view mostly a lost cause be use they don't fundamentally accept the core situation.
Whether resolution should or shouldn't mayter is hypothetical. It does and it will continue to because of the clear link to TV purchasing and the fact casual buyers (who make up the majority for big selling consoles vs informed gamers) will simply see 1080p as correct for their 1080p TV.
And let's be blunt MS are aware ofbthis impact. Hence their push to both confuse the issue, downplay resolution a bit while at the same time pushing for more 1080p games.
Obviously if you're informed you should go for the console that makes sense for you. If you like Halo, Gears and newer IP like SSO and prefer Live then the XB1 is the right choice.
But don't confuse those criteria with what drives the larger majority MS and Sony want to win over. Their purchasing criteria are quite different.
geordiemp
Member
I play on a 55 in and 900p looks like crap. Maybe it depends how far away you are (I am less than 8 ft). 18 CU to 12 CU is a power difference, but it depends if a dev uses it well.
People are not daft, its like having a faster car, but how fast the car goes depends on the driver. Yes, some drivers are not too good or don't care or don't put the time in.
Its really easy to see the devs that don't get the performance they could with the bugs, missing AF or poor frame rate lock suggesting low polish. That does not mean the hardware delta is getting less.
Personally all the consoles are too weak, and ps4 is the lesser of the evils.
justsomeguy
Member
No idea why he wrote the article, was just joining the thread discussion really.
Imo it's just a version of the "frame rate > resolution" debate.
Richard isn't refuting anything. He is simply writing a critical thinking article from the Nielsen results. He acknowledges most people in fact have chose what you're arguing. You have a point but you don't have a point. Your point is right, if both consoles are similar, there are people who will choose the better one in hardware as stated in the article, but as Richard is analyzing, it is ironic since the graphics are not mind blowing better, and there are A LOT more other important factors that differentiate the consoles. For one, I love shutting off my game for two days, and loading it up and being right where I left off in my single-player campaign, or checking out the 'Whats On' tab to see my local TV listings, where it'll change to my channel instantly from the dashboard.
In sum, to answer your question, people can consider many other things if both are similar in hardware and is what Richard finds ironic when many people could not tell which was the 1080p image in studies.
I have 20/20 vision, and I can't tell the difference from casual play then again I'm not eye fucking my TV.
alexandros
Banned
Because the introduction of non-technical elements in DF articles is often used as 'proof' that DF is biased against Sony. As Seanspeed demonstrated, DF does this all the time and for all platforms. One may disagree with it but it is in no way indicative of any sort of bias.
electroshockwave
Member
Wasn't the Destiny beta 1080p on PS4? Might explain why you didn't see a difference.
Yeah, 900p on Xbox One is what I meant if unclear and 1080p on PS4.
I play on 40" and I can see the difference.
Does resolution matter? Yes it does. Why there is still a debate over this is baffling to me.
Because it's not a bad system, it has enough power, can multi task. (something the competition does pretty badly) Can stream your tv content to your tablet, someone else can play a game.
Has a huge list of apps, has a tv guide, can stream DLNA. Has a Kinect, is great with voice control and has Xbox fitness, which in my opinion is a game changer on the fitness front, I did fitness before Xbox one.
And on top of that great fun games and most of the time good looking ones..
And they made an effort to change those decisions.. everyone deserves a second change.
And it's not all doom and gloom, I myself have all the 3 latest systems, and all 3 have strong selling points.
That's why.
Because its the exact sort of thing that DF have been criticized for in other articles? If that was said about the XB1 controller, you know damn well you'd have at least half a dozen people claiming its bullshit and they're biased and garbage because of it and they shouldn't ever talk about non graphics stuff. Say it about the PS4? Not a single complaint anywhere to be heard.
There is a lot of irony in this post. You'd probably have to be able to take a few steps back to see it, though.
geordiemp
Member
Interesting, how does one eye fuck a TV ?
Is sitting say 7 ft from a 55 inch eye fucking ?
I don't need to look hard or stare, 900p on a Panasonic AX802 4K TV at 7 ft it looks out of focus and not as sharp even with casual looking. There again, I can only judge by looking at Watchdogs and BF4 as my only 900p games, but they both look out of focus and stand out to me.
I owned 360 last gen, I do not fly the MS banner as you seem to though.
Some games have great Vistas and graphics which is nice to look at, Tomb Raider, Destiny, Dragon Age. It adds to the enjoyment for many without eye fucking as you call it.
ShutterMunster
Junior Member
In my line of work I deal with resolution snobs more than I'd like. It's a bit more ridiculous there since we're working with 2K+ images at the least. I find the resolution debate in gaming to be kind of silly. There are too many discerning factors to be able to pin a title's unimpressive image presentation on one factor. Could you tell 720p apart from 1080p next to two monitors side by side? From a certain distance, sure. 900p? Maybe, but we aren't talking night and day differences here. This isn't SD to 1080p, hell it's not even 1080p to 4K, but people love making it seem like it is.
Frame rate performance differences are WAY more important and those don't seem to be too far apart this generation. If I'm picking a console it goes 1) Exclusives 2) Where are my friends playing? 3) Price 4) UI/UX 5) Performance differences, with frame rate weighted above resolution.
Frame rate performance differences are WAY more important and those don't seem to be too far apart this generation. If I'm picking a console it goes 1) Exclusives 2) Where are my friends playing? 3) Price 4) UI/UX 5) Performance differences, with frame rate weighted above resolution.
this is my problem as well. Were people happy that sony made such a stupidly gimped piece of hardware last gen? I wasnt here so I never saw countless and countless threads ripping them for splitting the ram in half etc.
Did that happen?
I mean the wii u is my favourite console now, by a country mile. I am sure these new consoles will improve and it's down to either of them to win me over. It won;t be resolution, it will be exclusives, and sony is easily the weakest for me.
I think it is obvious that resolution does matter, or these threads would get no traction
I buy consoles for their games though. there will always be a more powerful console, does that mean the competition with the weaker console ripped us off and we should hate them for an entire generation? I don't think so, thats myself tho
I mean... yeah, sure, 900p to 1080p isn't a gulf of difference though it is noticeable. But there have been plenty of Xbox One games running at 720p, which is just unforgivable, especially when you have the PS4 counterpart running at 1080p. Plus, given the Xbox One likes to crush the fuck out of the blacks when it's below native res, I would say it's a pretty big deal.
Perhaps you should explain the irony. The #1 mistake to a bait post is to assume what it means even if you entertain the possibles.
Yeah or I don't give a rats shit about graphics on consoles because I already got the PC connected to my TV.
The only reason I went for Xbone is because after PS3 and 360 (played both just as much), I began to care less about Japanese games and the bad aftertaste the PS3 OS left on me.
MS has the games I want and has the OS I want, I just don't trust Sony with the OS. The XMB was fast at launch too, then they added actual features.
Opinions and all.
I don't fly a banner. You notice a difference. Great. I don't, and it's common knowledge the casual population are not looking at resolutions and most do not notice a difference whether its from everyday life or studies. You're not in that demographic though. That is not to say resolution is not important though.
IndoAssassin
Banned
Maybe, maybe not but all this article is saying is it's ok for console manufacturers to increase profit margins for lesser tech in a gaming console. Simple as that.
They are probably not getting a better profit margin. Nothing indicates that Xbox One is actually cheaper to manufacture. The opposite might be possible actually, that 32mb ram on die is taking a lot of the available chip-space. It's a design bet gone wrong more than an attempt to be cheaper than the competitor.
Edit : but yeah, compared to xbox 360, it's probably a more profit driven design (less custom, lower profile). But that's a common denominator with the PS4 actually
IndoAssassin
Banned
I'm talking about in the future. Only reason X1 gimped on the power is because of Kinect. If we keep saying it doesn't matter if your console tech is inferior than the competition's, this may influence the future.
Being able to spot an agenda the more and more it tries to get pushed. Seeing all the flaws and holes in the narrative. Selective quoting and arguments.
Where have I seen all this before?
this is my problem as well. Were people happy that sony made such a stupidly gimped piece of hardware last gen? I wasnt here so I never saw countless and countless threads ripping them for splitting the ram in half etc.
Did that happen?
I mean the wii u is my favourite console now, by a country mile. I am sure these new consoles will improve and it's down to either of them to win me over. It won;t be resolution, it will be exclusives, and sony is easily the weakest for me.
I think it is obvious that resolution does matter, or these threads would get no traction
I buy consoles for their games though. there will always be a more powerful console, does that mean the competition with the weaker console ripped us off and we should hate them for an entire generation? I don't think so, thats myself tho
Yes, it did happen, then Sony got ripped apart from $599 announcement. This forum was quite pro-360 early in that gen. I certainly was. But Sony has never had the most powerful system (until now). Saturn could do some things better than PS1. n64 could do some things better than PS1. Dreamcast could do some things better than PS2. Xbox could do most things better than PS2. Xbox was the only brand built from a foundation of "most powerful machine on the market". It's a branding that they carried through the 360 gen. And they really got screwed by those execs who wanted to sacrifice power for multiple OS's, Kinect, ESRAM/DDR3, etc. The brand is no longer able to hold its well earned "top spec dog" status and so some people no longer want those spec advantages they used to enjoy to be a focus.
It has been linked multiple times in this thread already that the end consumer cares about the resolution. Have a look at the Nielsen study again. Sony is even making sure that the mainstream knows about the difference in the media and it seems to work out in their favor in all markets.
- Status