PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[XorpiZ]

I do think they will be polishing and optimising right up to the last second. Its possible they don't know what resolution it will be once patched on launch hence denying 1080p. I do think 900p is more reasonable and I would have no problem with it. I do wish, now that they have gone gold that they would state the resolution on that even if it is subject to change.

 

Yeah, I'm not quite sure why it's such a big secret. I mean, the only people getting upset about the 900p vs. the 1080p are people who weren't gonna buy the Xbox One in the first place. 

[Hedon]

According to Digital Foundry, the XB1 version of Strider is better looking than on the PS4:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-strider-next-gen-face-off

 

Both of them are running 1080p/60, but the XB1 has anisotropic texture filtering - the PS4 doesn't.

Great news. Love that the Xbox One keeps churning out more and more 1080p games. Great news for gamers.

[truthfax]

Check out some footage of Wolfenstein. Looks pretty last gen even running at 60 fps. Probably isn't pushing the hardware much.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbEUNaVYbYI

[firey]

Great news. Love that the Xbox One keeps churning out more and more 1080p games. Great news for gamers.

While yes it is great news.. I wouldn't say it is "Churning out more and more" if either console is.. it would be the PS4.. the Xbone still has a lot of catching up to do.   It is good for gamers, and everyone benefits.. for anyone looking for graphics on a console.. I would point them in the PS4 direction.

[LaP]

While yes it is great news.. I wouldn't say it is "Churning out more and more" if either console is.. it would be the PS4.. the Xbone still has a lot of catching up to do.   It is good for gamers, and everyone benefits.. for anyone looking for graphics on a console.. I would point them in the PS4 direction.

 

This will probably be patched. Aniso is mostly free these days.

[Hedon]

Yet another native 1080p game coming to Xbox One (and PS4)

 

Murdered: Soul Suspect

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/square-enix-talks-1080p-for-murdered-on-xbox-one-ps4-and-why-there-s-no-wii-u-version/1100-6417990/

 

"We're trying to keep a consistency across all the platforms." Square Enix producer Naoto Sugiyama confirmed that both versions output in native 1080p and are not upscaled to the higher resolution. Presumably, however, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game will output in something less than 1080p.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/murdered-soul-suspect-now-coming-to-xbox-one-and-ps4/1100-6417504/

 

"The new console versions will offer increased visual fidelity via native 1080p output," said Square Enix in a statement. "Elements such as subsurface scattering and an increased particle count will depict an even more immersive ghost world and cast as players guide slain Salem detective Ronan O?Connor on a quest to find his killer and escape the limbo-like world of Dusk."

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned

 

The last few days have been a complete mess in this topic, which I have now had to spend more time than anyone on staff would care to correct. This topic is of use though and has kept the other discussions free of "resolutiongate" for the rest of the Gamers' Hangout. Going forward this topic will be moderated more strictly so that it remains of value to those who wish to partake.

 

If your posts were removed or edited, then do not repost them. They were removed for a reason and the problems were caused by those on all sides of the debate. Nobody has been singled out here nor warned. I want to keep it that way.

[Showan]

WOW.... 28 pages later....  :woot:

 

I will say this.  Depending on what game you are playing, and the presentation the developer is trying to give, resolution/fps will and won't matter at all.

 

For a game like TitanFall, the resolution doesn't matter as much.  But the FPS has to be there and hold steady during all the action going on.

For a game like BF4, I think it very much matters, because Dice is trying to bring a high level of detail and a steady frame rate to show it off.

 

Depending on what is popped into the console and played, resolution/fps will always vary.  

I've been keeping an eye on Below for the Xbox One, and I am hoping that this game is full 1080/60. Just seems like the type of game that will benefit from this.

 

I personally would like for all games to be 1080/60, but after seeing Ryse,and the new trailers for The Order, I can live with some games just not getting there.

 

But I like what is being done so far early in this console generation.  That means this will get better, sooner rather than later...

[trooper11]

While yes it is great news.. I wouldn't say it is "Churning out more and more" if either console is.. it would be the PS4.. the Xbone still has a lot of catching up to do.   It is good for gamers, and everyone benefits.. for anyone looking for graphics on a console.. I would point them in the PS4 direction.

So you dont think that more games being announced running at 1080p on the X1 equals churning out more and more?

He didnt say it was more than the ps4 or that the X1 was somehow beating the ps4 in that department.

That comes off as a little unfair imo. Its not like its an attack on the ps4 or anything. If someone owns both consoles and finds out that they both run at the same level, then they can get it on either console and be happy. For anyone that is looking for the best looking multiplatform titles, then that is the ps4 as of right now.

[Hedon]

So you dont think that more games being announced running at 1080p on the X1 equals churning out more and more?

He didnt say it was more than the ps4 or that the X1 was somehow beating the ps4 in that department.

That comes off as a little unfair imo. Its not like its an attack on the ps4 or anything. If someone owns both consoles and finds out that they both run at the same level, then they can get it on either console and be happy. For anyone that is looking for the best looking multiplatform titles, then that is the ps4 as of right now.

^This.

 

I am already happy that my PS4 already has every game in 1080p. I was saddened (but content) that my X1 wasn't offering as many 1080p games at the start. Now I am happy they are churning out more and more.

 

No need to make this a PS4 vs. X1 topic.

[NightScreams]

Even on PC you don't always get to game at 1080p/60fps for various reasons without using lower detail settings which is quite a trade off imo. I prefer the most detail and smooth visuals. I've kept a high end PC built since early 2000's and I couldn't tell you guys how many games I had that hit far worse frame rates than consoles so when playing on them it's never been something that bothered me. Even GTA5 only averages like 26fps and it hasn't hindered my enjoyment of it at all so I think I'll get along just fine with a PS4.

[vcfan]

Next-Gen Face-Off: Thief
 

In the spirit of openness among developers as of late, the studio has already declared in advance that the game is running at a full 1920x1080 on PS4, while the Microsoft next-gen release runs at 1600x900 - a state of affairs confirmed by our own pixel count. However, due to the use of high quality FXAA post-processing on both platforms, the dropped pixel tally isn't a major point of differentiation.

Sony's platform does run at a disadvantage in another regard though. Unlike the other versions, the PS4 uses trilinear filtering to treat floor and wall textures, creating a blur across far-away surfaces. It's a difference that sticks out when using the PC version's 16x anisotropic filtering, which itself is like-for-like with the clarity of the Xbox One release.

If you've just bought a next-gen console, this Thief reboot is likely not your best choice for showing off its strengths. Visually, the PS4 should be the front-runner given its 1080p presentation, but through the virtues of effective anti-aliasing, the 900p frame-buffer used on Xbox One holds its own in practice. However, the PS4's weaker texture filtering does factor into the comparison more visibly, with assets appearing blurrier than they should at a distance, and asset pop-in proving slightly more evident. Given that all other settings are a match between next-gen platforms, the Xbox One release - surprisingly - stacks up favourable against a maxed-out PC playthrough.

If you're committed to buying for one next-gen platform or another, the superior texture filtering on Xbox One means it carries itself slightly better in the visual stakes - but frame-pacing aside, for the most part all three versions match up very closely indeed.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-thief-next-gen-face-off
 
also texture streaming

[NightScreams]

 

 

all three versions match up very closely indeed.

 

That's kinda the key words there. To be fair, far away surface detail isn't very important nor would the vast majority of people notice if it were not for close up comparison shots.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

That's kinda the key words there. To be fair, far away surface detail isn't very important nor would the vast majority of people notice if it were not for close up comparison shots.

 

To be fair they recommended PC, missed out in the quote above (not sure why)

 

All in all, it's hard not to be disappointed on a technical level with Thief. It's often our refrain, but in this case we'd strongly urge opting for the PC release if it's an option. If you're committed to buying for one next-gen platform or another, the superior texture filtering on Xbox One means it carries itself slightly better in the visual stakes - but frame-pacing aside, for the most part all three versions match up very closely indeed.

 

 

And at least we now know that website posted in this topic as evidence of the PS4 framerate hitting single digits and the XB1 being better was a load of nonsense

 

The phenomenon is shown in our videos by vibrato-style points in the 30fps line. However, more telling is the frame-time graph above it that tracks the amount of time each frame is on-screen, highlighting the actual impact this irregular motion has on controls. The expected turn-around for each frame on a 30fps game like Thief is 33ms, with no hitches. However, both Xbox One and PS4 succumb to stunning lows in response, with a nadir of 200ms as we move into new areas. We suspect that the background streaming code is the issue here.

 

Each version is guilty of genuine frame-rate drops too, especially when traversing main roads in The City. This manifests more aggressively on Microsoft's platform, where drops down to 20fps are possible, as compared to 25fps on PS4 - but in amongst the frame-pacing issues this is trivial. The stimulus seems to be interactions with multiple guards, and travelling at high speeds around the game world - neither of which are necessarily the core tenets of a stealth game. In either case, the PS4 version technically holds steadier at these particular stress points, but the end result still appears choppy.

 

 

The XB1 gets the better AA then they go and completely leave out parallax mapping

 

 

They put out each copy with their own technical inconsistencies, and then ended up with a mediocre game anyway. What a sad state of affairs for a game living on the shoulders of a heavily supported series.

[McKay]

Despite my reservations and the reviews, I picked it up. On Xbox this time because it has no multiplayer. After seeing the textures looking better on the XO and seeing both platforms have FPS drops anyway.

[trooper11]

They put out each copy with their own technical inconsistencies, and then ended up with a mediocre game anyway. What a sad state of affairs for a game living on the shoulders of a heavily supported series.

What dissappoints me more is the sad state of the gaming community. Look at the effort put into breaking down this game from every technical angle possible. They exhaust every point, giving some nods to the X1, some to the ps4, and some to the pc. They then recommend the pc version and at the same time admit that all three are in the same range overall.

Reading through the entire article boggles my mind honestly. Is this what gaming is all about now? Does it all boil down to this hardcore breakdown that, in the end, results in a mish mash of pros and cons that must be sifted through? All of this effort only focused on the visuals of a single game. It reminds me of how sometimes we seem to be so far away from the gaming culture of the 80s and 90s.

I get that this kind of analysis is very important to some and I certainly like reading about technical details behind the scenes, but the way that many in the online community literally hang on every word from such an analysis, making it the crux of a case for or against something, makes me miss the golden age of gaming just a little bit more.

[McKay]

Wasn't impressed by the 6GB patch required immediately after putting Thief in.

[Athernar]

What dissappoints me more is the sad state of the gaming community. Look at the effort put into breaking down this game from every technical angle possible. They exhaust every point, giving some nods to the X1, some to the ps4, and some to the pc. They then recommend the pc version and at the same time admit that all three are in the same range overall.

Reading through the entire article boggles my mind honestly. Is this what gaming is all about now? Does it all boil down to this hardcore breakdown that, in the end, results in a mish mash of pros and cons that must be sifted through? All of this effort only focused on the visuals of a single game. It reminds me of how sometimes we seem to be so far away from the gaming culture of the 80s and 90s.

I get that this kind of analysis is very important to some and I certainly like reading about technical details behind the scenes, but the way that many in the online community literally hang on every word from such an analysis, making it the crux of a case for or against something, makes me miss the golden age of gaming just a little bit more.

 

It's the opposite, this kind of pickiness is a good thing - even if some are using it as a proxy for the greater console war. Consumers should be informed about their prospective purchases, and if this increased focus leads to the reduction of ignorance and or apathy in that regard at the cost of a certain tinge of "mine is better than yours", then I think that's a bargain deal.

 

Then again I'm a PC gamer, so I'm emotionally detached from that particular mess.

[Showan]

It's the opposite, this kind of pickiness is a good thing - even if some are using it as a proxy for the greater console war. Consumers should be informed about their prospective purchases, and if this increased focus leads to the reduction of ignorance and or apathy in that regard at the cost of a certain tinge of "mine is better than yours", then I think that's a bargain deal.

Then again I'm a PC gamer, so I'm emotionally detached from that particular mess.

When used like this, it's not a good thing. It's a deliberate way of slowly getting the fire going.

It's would be a good thing if there were huge difference in gameplay between the platforms. this is a game that doesn't change at all amongst the 3 offerings.

Now Skyrim"gate" was worth talking about, because is almost seemed like the PS3 version was broken on purpose...

[BajiRav]

I found these screens of Titanfall beta on NeoGAF.

At 792p, this looks pretty good IMO - I don't get why having this at 1080p will be better given that most people will not have time to look around in the heat of the battle. The game looks good and certainly plays good going by overwhelming positive reaction (despite what some may think, Microsoft can't buy every internet forum account for positive reaction).

 

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

Stick to the topic or stay out of the thread, please.

[NightScreams]

What dissappoints me more is the sad state of the gaming community. Look at the effort put into breaking down this game from every technical angle possible. They exhaust every point, giving some nods to the X1, some to the ps4, and some to the pc. They then recommend the pc version and at the same time admit that all three are in the same range overall.

Reading through the entire article boggles my mind honestly. Is this what gaming is all about now? Does it all boil down to this hardcore breakdown that, in the end, results in a mish mash of pros and cons that must be sifted through? All of this effort only focused on the visuals of a single game. It reminds me of how sometimes we seem to be so far away from the gaming culture of the 80s and 90s.

I get that this kind of analysis is very important to some and I certainly like reading about technical details behind the scenes, but the way that many in the online community literally hang on every word from such an analysis, making it the crux of a case for or against something, makes me miss the golden age of gaming just a little bit more.

 

To be fair they recommended PC, missed out in the quote above (not sure why)

 

They put out each copy with their own technical inconsistencies, and then ended up with a mediocre game anyway. What a sad state of affairs for a game living on the shoulders of a heavily supported series.

 

What "they" recommend is no more relevant than what any other gamer would. Reviews are just one persons opinion and like belly buttons everyone has them.

 

What dissappoints me more is the sad state of the gaming community. Look at the effort put into breaking down this game from every technical angle possible. They exhaust every point, giving some nods to the X1, some to the ps4, and some to the pc. They then recommend the pc version and at the same time admit that all three are in the same range overall.

Reading through the entire article boggles my mind honestly. Is this what gaming is all about now? Does it all boil down to this hardcore breakdown that, in the end, results in a mish mash of pros and cons that must be sifted through? All of this effort only focused on the visuals of a single game. It reminds me of how sometimes we seem to be so far away from the gaming culture of the 80s and 90s.

I get that this kind of analysis is very important to some and I certainly like reading about technical details behind the scenes, but the way that many in the online community literally hang on every word from such an analysis, making it the crux of a case for or against something, makes me miss the golden age of gaming just a little bit more.

 

Perhaps you forgot but little has changed actually, in the 80's/90's the differences between platforms was far more evident than today. When reviews compared Amiga/C64/Dos and each console for multi platform games, the differences were night and day including resolutions and frame rates. 

Lets use "Shadow of the Beast" as a multiplat example. The Sega MS version looked far different than the C64 version which looked far different than every other and Snes was almost completely different. The closest visually was the Genesis and Amiga but there were still a few noticeable differences.

 

Today games are so close to each other that all anyone can do is zoom in and make screenshots...then circle them in red so we know where to look. Is that really a comparison or is it to find Waldo. Screenshot comparisons are really nothing to complain about if someone has to point it out to you and hand you a magnifying glass.

 

If anyone noticed, the majority of gamers don't even come to these forums to look at zoom in's and study pixels or worry about frame rates. They either purchased, rented or borrowed the game for their choice of platform, played it and moved on while the pixel geeks are still saying "aha, look at this pixel, look how washed out it is" in efforts to do nothing but troll and they continue to do so because it works ...again and again and again. In fact most every tech and gamer forum out there already had these discussions back when 360 was released and before that when the Dreamcast was released. It's the most effective troll in the world and if one could make money on it, many here would be rich.

 

The resolution and frame differences between the 2 consoles is insignificant. The PC will vary greatly, it will be worse for some or better for some but notice that most people don't look at the minimum frame rate as that's really the more important, more annoying one.

[trooper11]

It's the opposite, this kind of pickiness is a good thing - even if some are using it as a proxy for the greater console war. Consumers should be informed about their prospective purchases, and if this increased focus leads to the reduction of ignorance and or apathy in that regard at the cost of a certain tinge of "mine is better than yours", then I think that's a bargain deal.

 

Then again I'm a PC gamer, so I'm emotionally detached from that particular mess.

Your a pc gamer only, which means you simply aren't familiar with the issue, which is fine, but I just have to disagree with you on it. I have been gaming on a pc for a long time, so for me personally, these arguments about resoltuion, etc carry no weight. Like you, I'm completely use to comparing these kinds of details and making choices based on that. I'm actually glad to see these consoles move closer to pcs as it allows us more clarity when comparing games, leads to more games working across all three platforms, and it also means more feature parity with the pc over time.

The closest thing on the pc platform that is like the console war stuff is the video card wars :laugh:, where you have sides split on which video card manufacture they prefer, but its nothing like the console war.

I would also like to point out that I clearly said that I dont have a problem with technical analysis and I regularly follow that kind of info. My point had nothing to do with the technical analysis existing, and much more to do with how people use that information. You pointed it out correctly, people take the info and spin it into the cosnole war, which is simply rubbish. Obviously, some people have no problem with the console war stuff becuase they enjoy the drama, but to me its just a waste of everyone's time.

If most people were sane about it, then I would just be happy to see people finally educating themselves on information like this and be happy places like DF exist to share that info. However, the internet community proves time and time again that they can't behave that way.

 

 

Perhaps you forgot but little has changed actually, in the 80's/90's the differences between platforms was far more evident than today. When reviews compared Amiga/C64/Dos and each console for multi platform games, the differences were night and day including resolutions and frame rates.

For one, those were considered pc-like platforms and users were more reasonable when it came to discussing technical details, taking them at face value.

Secondly, my point was geared towars the console era after those, starting with the NES in the 80s and going until the late 90s.

In that console era, the biggest argument over 'graphics' was the bit wars, but then that was mostly a pr war between the cosnole makers. Nobody really knew what the difference in bits meant and the truth was they had no meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Still, even that stuff pales in comparison to how some in the online gaming community react to things like resoltuion and frame rates beginning last gen and expanding this gen. This stuff is not a product of the console makers, this is a completely community driven idea taking real data about the visuals of a title and spinning them to create drama. Fanboys have existed for a long time, but it seems like the internet has allowed them to realy expand.

[BajiRav]

Wow...didnt know Killzone:SF ran at sub HD resolution in multiplayer, was this known? Its framebuffer is 960x1080p and that's for an exclusive game!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

just proves how meaningless this resolution/fps discussion really is.

edit: Sony lied?

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/11/02/killzone-shadow-fall-campaign-hands-on-new-multiplayer-footage/

Then there?s the competitive multiplayer mode which, like the game?s campaign, runs at native 1080p and 60 fps

[blerk]

Wow...didnt know Killzone:SF ran at sub HD resolution in multiplayer, was this known? Its framebuffer is 960x1080p and that's for an exclusive game!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

just proves how meaningless this resolution/fps discussion really is.

edit: Sony lied?

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/11/02/killzone-shadow-fall-campaign-hands-on-new-multiplayer-footage/

 

I guess strictly speaking, 1080p is correct because the vertical resolution is still 1080 pixels tall? Even if the vertical resolution is 960...