Support NeoGAF

[Raide]

The Division is an example of a game that won't consistently render at 30 fps but on the right PC will render at 120 fps with low frame latency AND higher resolution textures.

Consoles are great, but not at being the bleeding edge.

Sure but how many people really have the right kit to run that at 1080p+ and at 120fps? The Division looks utterly amazing and it will need some serious power to push that and high-end.

Also, how do we know that it won't render consistently at 30fps on next-gen consoles? Is that something that have said outright? Sure they are not bleeding edge but people are already writing them off and we have barely seen launch titles yet.

 

[Nokterian]

If only.

Oh a unbeliever how funny!

 

[Nethaniah]

Oh a unbeliever how funny!

Only believe i have is that ATI is long gone.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

The PS3 was $800 worth of parts in what started as a $600 product. The PS4 is a $400 product with what is, based on Sony's language, no more than $500 in parts. Even with the Blu Ray drive removed as a variable, there is a very significant difference here.

Everyone is excited that the PS4 price is so low; I get that, it's good. But lower starting prices generally come with consequences, and one of those consequences is that standard technologies will much more quickly outpace your starting position. It may take PCs 3 years to clearly outperform an $800 dedicated machine, 1.5 years to outperform a $600 dedicated machine, and virtually zero time to outperform a $500 machine.

Don't like this, and want the PS4/Xbone to match or outperform PCs for a few years? Petition Sony and Microsoft to put more power in the system (And subsequently raise the price). You can't have it both ways.

I wonder if that has ever happened? can that happen? I assume there would be lots of logistics problems with the factories and such...

Sure but how many people really have the right kit to run that at 1080p+ and at 120fps? The Division looks utterly amazing and it will need some serious power to push that and high-end.

Also, how do we know that it won't render consistently at 30fps on next-gen consoles? Is that something that have said outright? Sure they are not bleeding edge but people are already writing them off and we have barely seen launch titles yet.

I have the right kit, hehehe. can't wait for that game. also the "right kit" is what your expectations are.

 

[Raide]

I have the right kit, hehehe. can't wait for that game. also the "right kit" is what your expectations are.

Damn you.

I wish this gen would get launched already! Need some fresh games to play!

 

[teh_pwn]

Sure but how many people really have the right kit to run that at 1080p+ and at 120fps? The Division looks utterly amazing and it will need some serious power to push that and high-end.

Also, how do we know that it won't render consistently at 30fps on next-gen consoles? Is that something that have said outright? Sure they are not bleeding edge but people are already writing them off and we have barely seen launch titles yet.

It is definitely not running at 30 fps here. Very choppy even for youtube.

I'm not "writing them off". Reality is that PC GPUs are already multiple times faster than PS4's GPU and major redesigns are hitting in 1 month from AMD and Maxwell in 6-12 months. Then there will be a die shrink, more transistors, faster GPUs. Whatever console games do PCs will do 3-4x faster on a flagship GPU, then 6x in a year, then nearly 10x in 2015. Moore's law hasn't ended and PCs have plenty of space for cooling.

I'm not arguing about the merit of PCs based on possible install base. Not sure where that's coming from.

 

[alexandros]

The PS3 was $800 worth of parts in what started as a $600 product. The PS4 is a $400 product with what is, based on Sony's language, no more than $500 in parts. Even with the Blu Ray drive removed as a variable, there is a very significant difference here.

Everyone is excited that the PS4 price is so low; I get that, it's good. But lower starting prices generally come with consequences, and one of those consequences is that standard technologies will much more quickly outpace your starting position. It may take PCs 3 years to clearly outperform an $800 dedicated machine, 1.5 years to outperform a $600 dedicated machine, and virtually zero time to outperform a $500 machine.

Don't like this, and want the PS4/Xbone to match or outperform PCs for a few years? Petition Sony and Microsoft to put more power in the system (And subsequently raise the price). You can't have it both ways.

Great post. I will now wait to see how many people will try to educate Opiate on coding to the metal, HSA and GDDR5, how many will ask him to assemble a PC for 400 dollars and how many will accuse him of trying to spoil the anticipation for the next gen consoles.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

This only makes sense if you are looking at screenshots. Textures can always benefit from being higher resolution in an interactive medium. We are no where near the point in graphical fidelity where texture resolution is bottle-necked by monitor resolution.

I agree with that.

Just look at the current gen. Most current games have art assets that are not even well suited for 720p.

Take Arkham City: I love that game and for me it one of the ten best game of this gen, but the console textures are most of the time really ugly and washed out and not suited for 720p resolution.

 

[jond76]

"There's a modern military shooter for those who want high rez texture work, its called Battlefield 4."

. -Infinity Ward

 

[SapientWolf]

I wonder if the PC textures are exactly the same as the consoles but at a higher resolution. It seems like the kind of thing Acti would do.

 

[Nokterian]

Only believe i have is that ATI is long gone.

Not sure if serieus or trolling..or doing both..

 

[Latvian Hitman]

The PS3 was $800 worth of parts in what started as a $600 product. The PS4 is a $400 product with what is, based on Sony's language, no more than $500 in parts. Even with the Blu Ray drive removed as a variable, there is a very significant difference here.

Everyone is excited that the PS4 price is so low; I get that, it's good. But lower starting prices generally come with consequences, and one of those consequences is that standard technologies will much more quickly outpace your starting position. It may take PCs 3 years to clearly outperform an $800 dedicated machine, 1.5 years to outperform a $600 dedicated machine, and virtually zero time to outperform a $500 machine.

Don't like this, and want the PS4/Xbone to match or outperform PCs for a few years? Petition Sony and Microsoft to put more power in the system (And subsequently raise the price). You can't have it both ways.

I agree on all fronts. Just not sure how any of this pertains to texture res, which almost never incurs a performance hit unless you're starved for memory, which is the one problem next-gen consoles won't be facing for a while.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

I haven't been following this thread, but is this really news-worthy?

I mean there are loads of games with "ultra high" settings that have higher res textures than even what next gen consoles can handle. This is only going to be a trend that continues as the next gen consoles can't handle the "ultra high" settings that beefy PC rigs can handle. PS4/XBO will probably have textures from the "high" or "medium" setting which will still look great on your TV.

This seems like par for the course when PC hardware is capable of outpacing console hardware.

Console peeps are just surprised that 8GB is not doing the magic right away or like they hoped at all.

I wasn't saying that because of usefulness, but rather practicality. High res textures take time. Higher res textures even more so.

It takes even more time to find the right texture resolution for weak machines so that they can run the game. So if you have a powerful console then you only need to spend time with the high res textures and less time optimizing.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

I'd like to remind you that PS3 was very easily outperformed by PCs on launch day: An Intel Core2Duo E6300 (great overclocking potential btw) and a Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX are much more powerful on paper and in real world scenarios than a PS3. The PS3 was a great bang for the buck for people that were interested in the BluRay drive, but as a gaming console it was ridiculously overpriced and highly underutilized for many, many years. It never performed anything like a $800 console.

Consoles can't compete with high-end PCs in terms of graphical power. It's just impossible given the form factor and TDP budgets, but that doesn't automatically mean that consoles are cheap low-end hardware. Console gaming clearly aims for the best bang for the buck and PS4 just looks like an incredible deal. Many PC gamers will be suprised by the performance of this little $399 box, that's for sure.

One reason why I'll buy the PS4 is because I finally want to see the HSA in action. I'm a fan of this tech since AMD announced in the noughties. PS4 uses the most powerful HSA processor ever built and the fact that it's an embedded systems with devs like Naughty Dog behind it is just the icing on the cake. I'm very confident for this console.

The CELL made up for the weaker GPU.

 

[Dmented]

I wonder if the PC textures are exactly the same as the consoles but at a higher resolution. It seems like the kind of thing Acti would do.

Uhh, that's exactly what it is. Unless you mean upscaling?

 

[Stallion Free]

I feel like some posters in here are purposely ignoring the clear explanations of why this has nothing to do with power...

The higher resolution the game is being played to enjoy the superior textures requires more power though.

 

[iamshadowlark]

The higher resolution the game is being played to enjoy the superior textures requires more power though.

Correct. That's why this isn't of consequence to console gamers. Consoles are meant for HDTVs.

 

[Stallion Free]

Correct. That's why this isn't of consequence to console gamers. Consoles are meant for HDTVs.

But HDTVs are slowly moving towards 4k. I can actually buy a 4k TV right now for non-insane prices.

 

[Durante]

I'd like to remind you that PS3 was very easily outperformed by PCs on launch day: An Intel Core2Duo E6300 (great overclocking potential btw) and a Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX are much more powerful on paper and in real world scenarios than a PS3.

An E6300 is not more powerful on paper or in many game-related real-world scenarios than Cell, not by a long shot. The 8800 does easily outperform the PS3 GPU though, that much is true.

 

[Foxyone]

The CELL made up for the weaker GPU.

Might the PS4 be doing the opposite and using the GPU to make up for a weaker CPU?

 

[Exuro]

Not sure if serieus or trolling..or doing both..

I can't tell if you understood Nethaniah's original comment or not. ATI doesn't exist anymore. AMD bought them out.

 

[childplease]

Is inexcusable with better hardware in new consoles.

Not when the ps4 is too weak to handle the textures.

 

[mrklaw]

Of course you could have a texture that is perfect on a 4k monitor when your character is 1cm away from a wall, but that is unrealistic. What you want is textures optimised for your target resolution. On PC that can be much higher than PS4/Xbox one at 1080p, so the required texture resolution is simply higher for the same optimal quality.

 

[alexandros]

I'd like to remind you that PS3 was very easily outperformed by PCs on launch day: An Intel Core2Duo E6300 (great overclocking potential btw) and a Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX are much more powerful on paper and in real world scenarios than a PS3.

W!CKED, you were the only one that stuck to his guns against Opiate's opinion and you've earned my respect for it. Everyone else folded as expected, they're quick to gang up against random forum members but don't have the balls to do the same against a mod.

As for the quoted part above, there was never any doubt that PC technology would outperform consoles. The important question for the industry is "at what price". If you could do it today for half the price that you would have payed back in 2006, that would be a major coup.

 

[BigTnaples]

Not when the ps4 is too weak to handle the textures.

But it isn't.

 

[apana]

The PS3 was $800 worth of parts in what started as a $600 product. The PS4 is a $400 product with what is, based on Sony's language, no more than $500 in parts. Even with the Blu Ray drive removed as a variable, there is a very significant difference here.

Everyone is excited that the PS4 price is so low; I get that, it's good. But lower starting prices generally come with consequences, and one of those consequences is that standard technologies will much more quickly outpace your starting position. It may take PCs 3 years to clearly outperform an $800 dedicated machine, 1.5 years to outperform a $600 dedicated machine, and virtually zero time to outperform a $500 machine.

Don't like this, and want the PS4/Xbone to match or outperform PCs for a few years? Petition Sony and Microsoft to put more power in the system (And subsequently raise the price). You can't have it both ways.

I thought I read somewhere they were breaking even on PS4, or perhaps it was just speculation. I don't think they should raise the price, but I do wonder if they can take a larger loss. Especially Microsoft, they have a lot of money. Sony is not in such good shape right now.

 

[TheD]

Maybe it has higher res textures included with the PC version for cards with more VRAM than what the consoles can assign from their unified pool for graphics and still have enough room for the rest of the game.....

Getting upset that the devs are putting in even higher res textures for high end PC cards and not limiting it to just what the consoles can do is childish.

 

[BigTnaples]

Maybe it has higher res textures included with the PC version for cards with more VRAM than what the consoles can assign from their unified pool for graphics and still have enough room for the rest of the game.....

Getting upset that the devs are putting in even higher res textures for high end PC cards and not limiting it to just what the consoles can do is childish.

I don't think anyone is upset that they are taking extra steps to support PC gamers like myself.


People are upset because the games textures already look garbage compared to every other next gen game out there. Even the 60fps ones. The PS4 is capable of way more then this. Its a sloppy port job, and they keep hyping it up to be a completly new next gen experience.


If they came out and said, "hey, this is just a cross gen port with a couple added features, next year will be our true next gen title, in which we will put care and effort into making it competitive graphically." (Which of course they won't say) then there would have been a lot less backlash.


Its all of the "Hey look at our next gen water!" that is identical to current gen water.

Or "Hey look at our next gen fish AI!" That is identical decade old AI.

Or "Hey look at our HDR lighting! Only possible with the power of current gen consoles!" - Identical to 2006-7 game HDR.

"Real time lighting!"- A few random Sunshafts and otherwise identical lighting.


Its a bit ridiculous.

CoD: Ghosts is a port with bumped resolution a couple, maybe even a few, next gen features tossed it. No more, no less.

 

[TheD]

I don't think anyone is upset that they are taking extra steps to support PC gamers like myself.


People are upset because the games textures already look garbage compared to every other next gen game out there. Even the 60fps ones. The PS4 is capable of way more then this. Its a sloppy port job, and they keep hyping it up to be a completly new next gen experience.


If they came out and said, "hey, this is just a cross gen port with a couple added features, next year will be our true next gen title, in which we will put care and effort into making it competitive graphically." (Which of course they won't say) then there would have been a lot less backlash.


Its all of the "Hey look at our next gen water!" that is identical to current gen water.

Or "Hey look at our next gen fish AI!" That is identical decade old AI.

Or "Hey look at our HDR lighting! Only possible with the power of current gen consoles!" - Identical to 2006-7 game HDR.

"Real time lighting!"- A few random Sunshafts and otherwise identical lighting.


Its a bit ridiculous.

CoD: Ghosts is a port with bumped resolution a couple, maybe even a few, next gen features tossed it. No more, no less.

Texture res is mostly based on how much VRAM space you can spare, if they had enough space they would of gave the consoles the higher res textures.
You are basing the textures being bad off one small part of a video showing textures at point blank range while trying to show off tessellation features!

The most of the other things they point out are firsts in CoD, nothing wrong with talking about them and the use of subdivision and displacement mapping is nothing to turn your nose up at!

 

[StevieP]

I thought I read somewhere they were breaking even on PS4, or perhaps it was just speculation. I don't think they should raise the price, but I do wonder if they can take a larger loss. Especially Microsoft, they have a lot of money. Sony is not in such good shape right now.

Ps4 will be at a loss, supposedly. Just not a major 300 dollar loss. Xbox one will likely be sold at a very minor loss. Not a massive one. Microsoft's shareholders, however, are demanding more than massive losses from the gaming division this time around. People within the organization have said just as much. Their current forays have not been... Profitable enough to say the least. So a 300 dollar loss leader isn't an option for anyone. The prices of both boxes are already far too high for the mass market as is (with it likely taking years to reach that level), so it was definitely a balancing act as Opiate has already succinctly stated. Both from a costing perspective and a physics perspective, thanks to the direction PC Gpus have taken to achieve the multiples of power they currently possess over the newly launching consoles.

 

[Gvaz]

Sure but how many people really have the right kit to run that at 1080p+ and at 120fps? The Division looks utterly amazing and it will need some serious power to push that and high-end.

Also, how do we know that it won't render consistently at 30fps on next-gen consoles? Is that something that have said outright? Sure they are not bleeding edge but people are already writing them off and we have barely seen launch titles yet.

I can run what you've seen on the ps4 demos on a system that is like 5 years old. Consoles will never be on PC's level.

 

[Saintguine]

Just give me an FOV slider so I wouldn't have headaches playing your game.

 

[gillFTR]

I like 60 fps, but playing Blackops 2 it has so many jaggies that I can't even play it was so bad my eyes. Will fucken rage if ghosts doesnt have hd resolution on next gen consoles.

 

[Grief.exe]

But HDTVs are slowly moving towards 4k. I can actually buy a 4k TV right now for non-insane prices.

If you don't think 4K TVs will become more mainstream this generation, then you are probably shortsighted.

On the other hand, the monitor industry is in a sad place right now.

 

[VariantX]

I don't think anyone is upset that they are taking extra steps to support PC gamers like myself.


People are upset because the games textures already look garbage compared to every other next gen game out there. Even the 60fps ones. The PS4 is capable of way more then this. Its a sloppy port job, and they keep hyping it up to be a completly new next gen experience.


If they came out and said, "hey, this is just a cross gen port with a couple added features, next year will be our true next gen title, in which we will put care and effort into making it competitive graphically." (Which of course they won't say) then there would have been a lot less backlash.


Its all of the "Hey look at our next gen water!" that is identical to current gen water.

Or "Hey look at our next gen fish AI!" That is identical decade old AI.

Or "Hey look at our HDR lighting! Only possible with the power of current gen consoles!" - Identical to 2006-7 game HDR.

"Real time lighting!"- A few random Sunshafts and otherwise identical lighting.


Its a bit ridiculous.

CoD: Ghosts is a port with bumped resolution a couple, maybe even a few, next gen features tossed it. No more, no less.

Yeah, it was kind of weird when they said in that MP presentation thingy, "look at all this awesome next gen stuff, that we put in current gen!" If it works in current gen, then reason stands that the stuff you're doing isn't really next gen stuff.

 

[zoukka]

wat?

I'm really surprised a PS4/Xbone can't handle textures that are just as high-res as the PC version.

Not about handling them most likely. It's about optimizing the game file size, loading times, pop in and so on. I imagine they want COD to be as snappy and fluid of an experience as possible due to the multiplayer heavy design of the game.

 

[Grief.exe]

I don't think anyone is upset that they are taking extra steps to support PC gamers like myself.


People are upset because the games textures already look garbage compared to every other next gen game out there. Even the 60fps ones. The PS4 is capable of way more then this. Its a sloppy port job, and they keep hyping it up to be a completly new next gen experience.


If they came out and said, "hey, this is just a cross gen port with a couple added features, next year will be our true next gen title, in which we will put care and effort into making it competitive graphically." (Which of course they won't say) then there would have been a lot less backlash.


Its all of the "Hey look at our next gen water!" that is identical to current gen water.

Or "Hey look at our next gen fish AI!" That is identical decade old AI.

Or "Hey look at our HDR lighting! Only possible with the power of current gen consoles!" - Identical to 2006-7 game HDR.

"Real time lighting!"- A few random Sunshafts and otherwise identical lighting.


Its a bit ridiculous.

CoD: Ghosts is a port with bumped resolution a couple, maybe even a few, next gen features tossed it. No more, no less.

Does this look worse for Activision? Or the typical Call of Duty consumer? I would argue the latter.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And so it has begun.

 

[ScaryMovies]

Meh, the only PC that has more GDDR5 available to games than PS4 is nvidia Titan 6GB which costs $1000, not anything to brag about when only super rich PC gamers will experience those "better" textures.

You won't be needing a Titan to max out CoD Ghostz on PC...

 

[Brofist]

The PS3 was $800 worth of parts in what started as a $600 product. The PS4 is a $400 product with what is, based on Sony's language, no more than $500 in parts. Even with the Blu Ray drive removed as a variable, there is a very significant difference here.

Everyone is excited that the PS4 price is so low; I get that, it's good. But lower starting prices generally come with consequences, and one of those consequences is that standard technologies will much more quickly outpace your starting position. It may take PCs 3 years to clearly outperform an $800 dedicated machine, 1.5 years to outperform a $600 dedicated machine, and virtually zero time to outperform a $500 machine.

Don't like this, and want the PS4/Xbone to match or outperform PCs for a few years? Petition Sony and Microsoft to put more power in the system (And subsequently raise the price). You can't have it both ways.

Pretty accurate observation.

One thing I will add though is the PS3 really wasn't as powerful as the parts price indicated. Most of it was due to the exotic parts, blu-ray etc. It really wasn't long before PCs passed it in raw power.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I do really wonder, outside of graphics nerds and selected websites that spend their time facing off consoles and PC's, is anyone going to really notice the different between PS4/Xbox One textures and PC textures?

Yes?

 

[Stallion Free]

Just give me an FOV slider so I wouldn't have headaches playing your game.

The community put together great fov fixes for MW2/3.

 

[EternalTruth]

Yup, and apparently those higher res textures mean a minimum 6GB requirement.

 

[Tom Penny]

I don't see consoles aging very well this time around if they can't match current gen PC games that aren't even visual powerhouses.

 

[Sentenza]

Yup, and apparently those higher res textures mean a minimum 6GB requirement.

Speaking as someone who doesn't match that requirement (but I'm fine with it, I was well aware that I had to change my 6-years-old PC at some point in this next gen transition) I honestly can't see it as a problem.
Is there any gaming PC built in the last 2-3 years who doesn't boast at least 6-8 GB of DDR3?

In fact, the only reason I'm not equipping that much RAM myself is that with my old system I should go for DDR2, paying it double price for less performances.

 

[Cipherr]

Yup, and apparently those higher res textures mean a minimum 6GB requirement.

Not a problem these days. 6GB was becoming the standard like 2 years ago for gaming PC's. These days you just slap 16+ in without even thinking about it.

 

[BigDug13]

So this probably means the PS4/XBO version of the game won't be 50GB like the PC version if the PC version has high res textures.

 

[Sentenza]

So this probably means the PS4/XBO version of the game won't be 50GB like the PC version if the PC version has high res textures.

Textures these days are usually the biggest chunk of a game's disk size (except for occasional high quality FMV in games that make heavy use of it), so probably not.

 

[SniperHunter]

So these textures are for those gaming at beyond 1080p resolution? Looking forward to the pics.