PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[Polonium]

If you believe so, then you don't know or understand they're planning to do with it. Cloud empowered graphics is less about realtime graphics, and more about graphics that are not directly related to user actions, and thus are less/not impacted by latency.

I didn't say otherwise? I said what Ms were selling was a lie.

[Jarrichvdv]

I didn't say otherwise? I said what Ms were selling was a lie.

Cool, didn't knew you were an arm chair engineer. Just because it's not yet used heavily in games, it's a lie. I'll write that down. It's a good joke.

[vcfan]

How about I just ask you why we are nearly 1.5 years into this generation and no game has come about, on PC or PS4 either, which vindicates ANY of the promises/claims that were made around E3 prior to the consoles launching. All we have had is the typical dedicated servers/matchmaking.

because its not ready yet? 1.5years is not long, some games take years and years to make. look how many next gen games have been delayed, or released with stripped out features or in a broken state.

 

The crackdown dev can say whatever he wants, just like the Forza devs did. Untill we get hard evidence something is being done over the cloud that can't be done locally to better efficiency such claims are fooling no one (besides the usual dedicated servers/matchmaking/online play). Plenty of open world games already out that we will easily be able to compare to crackdown when it comes out. Will be interesting indeed.

i think we're all waiting for the final product, but reasons why i don't have such doubt as you

-microsoft demoed it

-nvidia cloud lighting presentation

-variation of the tech already used in the field

[nosense]

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

because its not ready yet? 1.5years is not long, some games take years and years to make. look how many next gen games have been delayed, or released with stripped out features or in a broken state.

 

i think we're all waiting for the final product, but reasons why i don't have such doubt as you

-microsoft demoed it

-nvidia cloud lighting presentation

-variation of the tech already used in the field

 

MS also demo'd Milo and Kinect Star Wars.

 

Once we see tangible results in an actual shipped game that aren't matchmaking/dedicated servers I'll change my stance no problem.

[Emn1ty]

How about I just ask you why we are nearly 1.5 years into this generation and no game has come about, on PC or PS4 either, which vindicates ANY of the promises/claims that were made around E3 prior to the consoles launching. All we have had is the typical dedicated servers/matchmaking.

 

The crackdown dev can say whatever he wants, just like the Forza devs did. Untill we get hard evidence something is being done over the cloud that can't be done locally to better efficiency such claims are fooling no one (besides the usual dedicated servers/matchmaking/online play). Plenty of open world games already out that we will easily be able to compare to crackdown when it comes out. Will be interesting indeed.

 

Lack of evidence is not proof of lacking. You can't approach it like that, it's a fallacy to even go so far. You can believe whatever you want but you can't preach it as fact.

 

And PC's aren't really comparable at all, because their hardware is not a fixed value (thus the impact of a cloud based rendering service is smaller). There ARE games that do it though, and have done it for years (EVE Online, for example with their ability to slow time in-game based on traffic in a star system). As far as I recall, when these discussions happened originally we talked about the advantages of cloud servers specifically for mathematical purposes. Physics calculations and other number based operations. Something where the payload is smaller than full textures, etc. 

 

Yet here we are, circling back and forgetting that entire discussion. Focusing on immediately visible advantages and when there's a lack of anything instantly noticeable you dish out judgement without a moment's notice. This is a classic appeal to ignorance.

 

If you want to prove that the MS Cloud does not exist, and is not doing anything then by all means go find definitive proof. But as far as I know, developers who use it say it helps and it's working. And as far as I know, it's not hurting anything. It's a tool available for the developers if they want it. I see no harm in that being the case, but apparently you guys do just because Microsoft is using it in marketing.

 

It's akin to getting mad at a department store for advertising their brand new, shiny Cheese Graters even though nobody is buying them. So disingenuous!

[Polonium]

Cool, didn't knew you were an arm chair engineer. Just because it's not yet used heavily in games, it's a lie. I'll write that down. It's a good joke.

I'm not sure you actually know what my profession is, do you?

You carry on carrying the flame of hope.

[Showan]

How about I just ask you why we are nearly 1.5 years into this generation and no game has come about, on PC or PS4 either, which vindicates ANY of the promises/claims that were made around E3 prior to the consoles launching. All we have had is the typical dedicated servers/matchmaking.

 

The crackdown dev can say whatever he wants, just like the Forza devs did. Untill we get hard evidence something is being done over the cloud that can't be done locally to better efficiency such claims are fooling no one (besides the usual dedicated servers/matchmaking/online play). Plenty of open world games already out that we will easily be able to compare to crackdown when it comes out. Will be interesting indeed.

 

 

That's kind of an unfair time frame to give a company...

 

Sony purchased Gakai about 3-4yrs ago... PS Now is brand new...

 

I would consider what MS doing to be more ambitious than that...  Sure they are not the same... But I'm sure the undertaking to achieve has to be as tedious...

 

I honestly don't know if what Microsoft is trying to accomplish (it plays out well in my head, but at the same time, it just seems that infrastructures the world over isn't ready yet)  will work or not... But to expect something of this taking in consumer hands afer 1.5yrs, wouldn't be to fair at all...

 

That means nVidia is also going to fail, because they are trying to achieve the same thing...

 

Edit:Last Guardian is still in development (according to Sony) and that's just 1 game... Been in development forever and a day...  Is not what Microsoft is trying to achieve, bigger and more ambitious than that?... Asking it's servers, the world over, to help with anything that it possibly can as far as GPU goes, to millions of Xbox Ones sitting in peoples homes...  

 

Is 1.5yrs really more than enough time?... Sure I would love for them to show me anything (Not a tech demo) running in a real world game enviroment...

 

Like I said, don't know if they can pull it off (but they better try, considering I bought an Xbox One and all)

[BajiRav]

MS also demo'd Milo and Kinect Star Wars.

 

Once we see tangible results in an actual shipped game that aren't matchmaking/dedicated servers I'll change my stance no problem.

MS also demoed suspend/resume and shipped it along with many other reveal promises. So have some freaking patience? They can't force developers to use their cloud, it is certainly available for use. You guys keep doubting their cloud whereas Titanfall showed that they can scale at will. EA would have had to host it in 3rd party datacenters around the world.

[Polonium]

Nobody is denying the cloud works for scaling up on the fly the point here is it can't do everything MS and developers suggested ie make graphics better.

[Showan]

Cloud is the new word for server/distributed. It's nothing new. Me and my friends are doing cloud jokes 2-3 times a week.

 

I can't count the number of companies selling dream using this single word. That's good marketing though.

 

 

Is this not the job of the PR and Marketing team... 

 

If you were trying to sell a product would you downplay it?...  If so that would equal 0 sales for ya...

 

If your not hyped for your product(s), I won't be either...

 

"Cloud" is a simple easy to grasp world for the majority of the world... Not meant for the minority (us)...  It's simple and to the point...

 

For you and I, and probably most on these forums get it... Guess what, none of my family grasp it (and they love video games)... And when you go to a Gamestop and listen to people talk... Most don't get it...

 

"Cloud" <-- That one word that keeps getting ripped on... Guess what?... It helps people get it... It helps people get it when it comes to One Drive, Google Drive, iCloud, RDS/RDP Servers, gaming... and other functions...

 

Buzzword, PR, Marketing, Smoke & Mirrors... whatever people want to throw at it... Doesn't really matter...

[LaP]

 

My problem with this demo is the non-cloud version looks like very very poorly optimized and poorly coded. For one the gfx quality of the main building is about the same as Half Life 2 running on high end PC. The gfx quality of the buildings in the back is about the same as Half Life 1 Source running on high end PC. When the guy shot on the main building twice the only thing happening visually is the windows are broken and some rocks fall off the building. Nothing we have not seen before in a video game. Yet this supposedly high end PC (let's assume a water cooled overclocked core i7 with 32+GB of high speed ram and dual gtx x80) can't render that at more than 15 fps.

Am i really the only one here thinking something fishy is going on here? There's absolutely no way a high end PC would drop in FPS when the guy is simply shooting on the building. The fsp would be around 100-120 with the level of gfx quality and the very few things going on even when factoring the physics (which honestly aint that great looking or anything special). This is of course unless it's badly coded. I really feel like they did the cloud version first and then did not really bother porting it to non cloud efficiently.

As for when the building is totally destroyed i really don't see the gain here unless it has never been done before. Honestly the physics of the building getting destroyed is not that much impressive. I'm not a fan of totally destructible environment so i don't recall if it has already be done in a game (i don't lose too much time destroying things in a game) but i can say in this demo it doesn't look impressive or particularly realistic so if it has be done before in a scripted way i can't see the gain.

Now if you can provide me a demo of some astonishing never seen before physic along with lot of enemies and astonishing never seen before AI all this running at 30fps with current gen (full hd res) gfx using the cloud in a remote environment with around 200ms of latency then you can color me impressed. Until then meh

[Emn1ty]

My problem with this demo is the non-cloud version looks like very very poorly optimized and poorly coded. For one the gfx quality of the main building is about the same as Half Life 2 running on high end PC. The gfx quality of the buildings in the back is about the same as Half Life 1 Source running on high end PC. When the guy shot on the main building twice the only thing happening visually is the windows are broken and some rocks fall off the building. Nothing we have not seen before in a video game. Yet this supposedly high end PC (let's assume a water cooled overclocked core i7 with 32+GB of high speed ram and dual gtx x80) can't render that at more than 15 fps.

Am i really the only one here thinking something fishy is going on here? There's absolutely no way a high end PC would drop in FPS when the guy is simply shooting on the building. The fsp would be around 100-120 with the level of gfx quality and the very few things going on even when factoring the physics (which honestly aint that great looking or anything special). This is of course unless it's badly coded. I really feel like they did the cloud version first and then did not really bother porting it to non cloud efficiently.

As for when the building is totally destroyed i really don't see the gain here unless it has never been done before. Honestly the physics of the building getting destroyed is not that much impressive. I'm not a fan of totally destructible environment so i don't recall if it has already be done in a game (i don't lose too much time destroying things in a game) but i can say in this demo it doesn't look impressive or particularly realistic so if it has be done before in a scripted way i can't see the gain.

Now if you can provide me a demo of some astonishing never seen before physic along with lot of enemies and astonishing never seen before AI all this running at 30fps with current gen (full hd res) gfx using the cloud in a remote environment with around 200ms of latency then you can color me impressed. Until then meh

 

You can't water things down to "it doesn't look impressive to me". It seems to have impressed some developers, enough to want to pursue it, and even other manufacturers to want to attempt it themselves. I don't see where this innate skepticism in everyone comes from.

 

How good something looks has nothing to do with how much work a computer has to do to render it. The reason the demo is impressive is because of the destructible environment (and you asked for games that have done it before, Battlefield Bad Company up to BF4, Fracture, Minecraft, Red Faction). Each one of the pieces that are generated by these environments falling apart must be processed and calculated in relation to everything else in the scene. Collisions, lighting, mass, etc. The reason these demos aren't very graphically pleasing is because to be frank textures and normal maps are the least hardware hungry parts of games these days next to polycounts.

 

Today the big hitters on your hardware is AI (specifically numerous ones), particle effects and hundreds of free-moving objects on screen. Lots and lots of calculations. You can't so easily say "That building looks like crap" and discredit it just on that notion. The point of the demo was not to show amazing graphics, but show a taxed load of physics and particles.

[LaP]

Is this not the job of the PR and Marketing team... 

 

If you were trying to sell a product would you downplay it?...  If so that would equal 0 sales for ya...

 

If your not hyped for your product(s), I won't be either...

 

 

The thing is the cloud is actually a good idea for what it is and i firmly believe Valve and Sony should implement their own version of it. It's simply not what some people think it is and i think MS is doing a mistake seeling it as something it might not be.

 

I think if MS provide scalable servers to all xbox one games for online gameplay and this for the life of the console and for a fair price then it's gonna be great. No more online part of a game closed cause the 3rd party dev doesn't want to support it anymore. No more latency because of client hosted games. No more list of empty servers cause few people are playing right now and it is not scalable. The cloud can bring the simplicity of the client hosted online matchmaking we experienced on the xbox and 360 but with the power of server hosted games.

 

The cloud can also be used for the perpetual parts of a game (something happening when the player is not looking) without the dev having to worry about setting up/renting servers and with a good api behind it.

 

Also i'm sure some devs will find original ways to use the cloud we did not think about. It gives servers to devs in a simple, efficient, scalable and convenient way. If the price and api are good it could give ideas to devs. On PC when a dev set up or rent servers it's because they are sure it will pay in the end. It's not done lightly.

 

But beside that i think we enter in the realm of possibilities that might never see the light of the day cause devs might very well not bother with something that wont be avalaible on all platforms and will require a fallback anyway just to add some non latency related physics/ai to their game. It will probably not be worth it for most devs out there. First party devs will do it to sell the cloud but the others i'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure if Forza 5 would be a 3rd party multiplatform game that it would use the cloud cause honestly the cloud did not bring anything special to the game anyway not in the few games i've played it.

 

I think MS should focus on the online gameplay part (multiplayer, mmo, perpetual, ...) of the cloud cause this is the main selling point of it and this is something that we are 100% sure the cloud will be used for. MS should let the devs handle the rest without talking about it before it's realised in a 3rd party multiplaform game sold on the shelves (and absent of the other versions of said game).

[LaP]

Y The point of the demo was not to show amazing graphics, but show a taxed load of physics and particles.

 

Until they can prove me the xbox one can render it using the cloud with current gen gfx and with enemies on the screen all this in a remote environment with not so good latency then it's not impressive. They would also need to prove me it's not doable without the cloud. In this demo they did not prove me that as the non cloud version drop at 15fps where it should not.

[Emn1ty]

Until they can prove me the xbox one can render it using the cloud with current gen gfx and with enemies on the screen all this in a remote environment with not so good latency then it's not impressive. They would also need to prove me it's not doable without the cloud. In this demo they did not prove me that as the non cloud version drop at 15fps where it should not.

 

That's fine for a personal requirement to be impressed. But the reality is you are making the claim that they are lying about it being useful. Thus, you are burdened with the task of disproving them. You have no way of knowing what 'should' or  'should not' happen in that technical demo. A blind assumption isn't good enough to make that claim.

[Hedon]

That looks amazing. I am glad MS is taking gaming to the next level with the cloud. Looking forward to play Crackdown 3 that is for sure.

[Showan]

The thing is the cloud is actually a good idea for what it is and i firmly believe Valve and Sony should implement their own version of it. It's simply not what some people think it is and i think MS is doing a mistake seeling it as something it might not be.

 

I think if MS provide scalable servers to all xbox one games for online gameplay and this for the life of the console and for a fair price then it's gonna be great. No more online part of a game closed cause the 3rd party dev doesn't want to support it anymore. No more latency because of client hosted games. No more list of empty servers cause few people are playing right now and it is not scalable. The cloud can bring the simplicity of the client hosted online matchmaking we experienced on the xbox and 360 but with the power of server hosted games.

 

The cloud can also be used for the perpetual parts of a game (something happening when the player is not looking) without the dev having to worry about setting up/renting servers and with a good api behind it.

 

Also i'm sure some devs will find original ways to use the cloud we did not think about. It gives servers to devs in a simple, efficient, scalable and convenient way. If the price and api are good it could give ideas to devs. On PC when a dev set up or rent servers it's because they are sure it will pay in the end. It's not done lightly.

 

But beside that i think we enter in the realm of possibilities that might never see the light of the day cause devs might very well not bother with something that wont be avalaible on all platforms and will require a fallback anyway just to add some non latency related physics/ai to their game. It will probably not be worth it for most devs out there. First party devs will do it to sell the cloud but the others i'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure if Forza 5 would be a 3rd party multiplatform game that it would use the cloud cause honestly the cloud did not bring anything special to the game anyway not in the few games i've played it.

 

I think MS should focus on the online gameplay part (multiplayer, mmo, perpetual, ...) of the cloud cause this is the main selling point of it and this is something that we are 100% sure the cloud will be used for. MS should let the devs handle the rest without talking about it before it's realised in a 3rd party multiplaform game sold on the shelves (and absent of the other versions of said game).

 

Even if cloud computer doesn't get used in the next 12mos., why should MS stop development of it...

 

Why does technology have to be "stagnant".... I welcome advances in Tech... I welcomed Wii, I welcomed PS Move, I welcomed Kinect.. And I still welcome these products...

 

I'm hoping that devices like these are refine to a point that they are so natural you wonder what you did without them...

 

Couldn't stand the way Gaikai (or OnLive) handled, there was something always off about them...  But I sincerely hope that Sony has expanded and pushed what has been achieved so far.

 

If MS is able to pull this off (and others trying this) then kudos to them...

 

Will MS Cloud Compute work (far as off loading goes)... I would like to hope so... But for anyone to ask for a working product of something of this magnitude in 18months is just being unfair...

[theyarecomingforyou]

Are people still trying to talk up Microsoft's cloud implementation? It was all hype. We're over a year from launch and we haven't seen any meaningful implementation. Further, there is absolutely nothing to stop Sony implementing a similar system. Microsoft talked it up because it realised the XB1 was underpowered in comparison to the PS4.

 

Cloud computing isn't going to do anything to help Microsoft address the performance gap. We may see a few titles do something compelling with it but it's not the killer feature it was hyped up to be.

[Emn1ty]

Are people still trying to talk up Microsoft's cloud implementation? It was all hype. We're over a year from launch and we haven't seen any meaningful implementation. Further, there is absolutely nothing to stop Sony implementing a similar system. Microsoft talked it up because it realised the XB1 was underpowered in comparison to the PS4.

 

Cloud computing isn't going to do anything to help Microsoft address the performance gap. We may see a few titles do something compelling with it but it's not the killer feature it was hyped up to be.

 

I don't see why people are trying to talk it down, either. Not having seen anything from it isn't evidence either way. You can't say it was 'all hype' when we haven't even seen a decision on it by developers yet. Especially when this 'performance gap' is the smallest it's ever been in a console generation.

[Showan]

Are people still trying to talk up Microsoft's cloud implementation? It was all hype. We're over a year from launch and we haven't seen any meaningful implementation. Further, there is absolutely nothing to stop Sony implementing a similar system. Microsoft talked it up because it realised the XB1 was underpowered in comparison to the PS4.

 

Cloud computing isn't going to do anything to help Microsoft address the performance gap. We may see a few titles do something compelling with it but it's not the killer feature it was hyped up to be.

 

Why do people keep saying performance gap..

 

Dying Light (One) Dying Light (PS4) isn't a performance gap.. Both are more than playable. Sure a visual gap not performance...

 

Skyrim 360 vs Skyrim PS3... is a performance gap..  PS3 version of Skyrim, unplayable...

 

 

So Microsoft should stop pursuing this?  It's a fruitless road, that you tried and could not get it done?

 

Some of the smartest people in the world in this field shouldn't even bother, because it will never achieved?

 

Those "stupid" tech demos will never become real world things we can use...

 

No one should try and advance in this field... ESPECIALLY MICROSOFT...

 

By the way...No one ever said Sony couldn't do this... I actually hope that they do pursue this road... Why be confined to a box, if you don't have to be?...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Why do people keep saying performance gap..

 

Dying Light (One) Dying Light (PS4) isn't a performance gap.. Both are more than playable. Sure a visual gap not performance...

 

Skyrim 360 vs Skyrim PS3... is a performance gap..  PS3 version of Skyrim, unplayable...

 

 

So Microsoft should stop pursuing this?  It's a fruitless road, that you tried and could not get it done?

 

Some of the smartest people in the world in this field shouldn't even bother, because it will never achieved?

 

Those "stupid" tech demos will never become real world things we can use...

 

No one should try and advance in this field... ESPECIALLY MICROSOFT...

 

By the way...No one ever said Sony couldn't do this... I actually hope that they do pursue this road... Why be confined to a box, if you don't have to be?...

 

Showan the link talks about FPS and screen tearing...

 

Thanks to an excellent motion blur implementation, the game feels surprisingly smooth and consistent. Torn frames are extremely rare on PS4, but they can occur, with dropped frames sometimes appearing instead when the performance slips a bit. There are also a select few instances on PS4 where the game jumps above 30fps for a brief moment while looking in a specific direction. It's not clear what is happening during these sections or why it's occurring, but it adds a bit of judder to the scene when it manifests. It's rare enough not to become a real issue but it is curious nonetheless. Still, by and large, the PS4 delivers a solid enough 30fps experience.

 

However, Xbox One falters a bit when it comes to sustaining its target frame-rate. Within a minute of taking control - in an enclosed area no less - we noted minor tearing along the top portion of the screen, which is rarely a good sign. Thankfully, once we hit the streets, things actually held together reasonably well, with the game holding 30fps most of the time. However, across the overall run of play, it's tangibly worse than PS4, with specific areas of the city and certain sequences operating at a lower level of performance on the Microsoft console.

 

In particular there is a grassy area early on in the game that sends the frame-rate under 30fps while simultaneously introducing torn frames. It's consistent enough overall not to dramatically alter playability, but these areas of slowdown are less than ideal and give the impression of a less polished experience. Based on the performance profile of the release software, it seems fair to say that the original 60fps goal would likely have been impossible to attain without some dramatic changes. Based on what we've played so far, we feel that Techland made the right call in favouring consistency over running its new engine fully unlocked.

 

 

There is a performance and visual difference. 

 

 

I don't see why people are trying to talk it down, either. Not having seen anything from it isn't evidence either way. You can't say it was 'all hype' when we haven't even seen a decision on it by developers yet. Especially when this 'performance gap' is the smallest it's ever been in a console generation.

 

 

Last generation besides the obvious Skyrim comparison we were discussing 640/680p vs 720p. 90% of it was 20~25 FPS vs 30FPS as well.

 

This gen its 900p vs 1080p, and in some cases 50~60FPS vs 30~40FPS. So I don't know how you can say this is the smallest gap it's ever been without seriously fudging your maths.

[Polonium]

Add to the fact its not running full HD either.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I don't see why people are trying to talk it down, either. Not having seen anything from it isn't evidence either way. You can't say it was 'all hype' when we haven't even seen a decision on it by developers yet. Especially when this 'performance gap' is the smallest it's ever been in a console generation.

We absolutely CAN say it was hype, as there hasn't been any worthwhile implementation and there is no evidence that developers intend to implement it widely. The issue is more with the way that Microsoft presented it.

 

Further, the performance gap this generation is the LARGEST we've ever seen. We saw XB1 games (Pro Evolution 5, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes, Golf Club) running at 720p while their PS4 counterparts ran at 1080p

[LaP]

Even if cloud computer doesn't get used in the next 12mos., why should MS stop development of it...

 

Where did i say they should stop development? I'm saying they should stop talking about all the endless possibilities and instead deliver them or wait for 3rd party parties to deliver them. As far as marketing goes MS should focus on what has been done not what might be done and let the devs experience with it and see what happens. I mean enough with the talking about the cloud possibilities it's been over a year now we want to see real applications of it not demos.

 

I can't wait to see what the future hold too. I think the idea is neat. I just don't like people saying the cloud can do this and that just because ms said so. I think latency is a major concern. And while i might be mistaken i don't recall MS saying how they plan to overcome this problem for real gaming applications outside of online gameplay and perpetual world.