PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Microsoft sold the XB1 based on its media features, the cloud functionality and performance; Sony sold the PS4 based on its performance. The PS4 has substantially outsold the XB1 and I would argue that performance is a major factor in that. Framerate and resolution clearly are important to people.

Mobile phone users tend to upgrade every two years and the monthly payments make it reasonable to do so. As long as you can afford the monthly payments then you're sorted.

The vast majority of games are multiplatform and released on PC, meaning that they're already designed with a wide variety of hardware in mind. All the developer has to do is tweak the variables (draw distance, texture quality, anti-aliasing, polygon count, etc). Offering better performance isn't a 'problem'.

Samsung and Apple bring out new phones each year that offer better performance and maintain backwards compatibility. Users can choose to upgrade or keep with their existing phones. If a user wants to use a phone for seven years they're free to, just as users can choose to upgrade every time a new model comes out. That business model would work well for consoles. Those who can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p or 30fps and 60fps can stick with the cheaper models; those who can could buy the premium models. Everybody wins.

Console on contracts, yuck. That's how yearly phones work. Not many buy sim free every year.

MS tried the Xbox 360 on a "contract". That failed badly.

[Hedon]

MS tried the Xbox 360 on a "contract". That failed badly.

 

Failed how? Just because it's not available any longer?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Failed how? Just because it's not available any longer?

 

Precisely. If it was a success it would have taken off and still be an option on the market right now. The model as it was delivered didn't work for the console community and MS ditched it.

[Hedon]

Precisely. If it was a success it would have taken off and still be an option on the market right now. The model as it was delivered didn't work for the console community and MS ditched it.

You said badly though. I hadn't heard that it failed badly. What did you hear?

 

Sounds like it did exactly what they wanted:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579435611501785186

 

 

This week, Microsoft spokesman David Dennis confirmed the company discontinued the Xbox 360 offer in July. "This program was intended to be a pilot experiment from the start, and Microsoft routinely adjusts the mix of offers available to its customers and this change was simply standard business practice," he said.

When the program was launched in May 2012, some analysts speculated Microsoft might be testing the approach to use on the then-unannounced Xbox One. But Lewis Ward, a videogame analyst at IDC, said Microsoft executives last year told analysts the pricing shift had been a way to milk waning sales for the Xbox 360, the console version launched in 2005.

"Part of the calculus was probably the numbers of customers who were buying Xbox 360 through that approach tapered off," Mr. Ward said. The subscription option was for "squeezing the last 10-15% out of the potential market."

The Xbox 360 with the Kinect motion controller is currently priced at $299.99. The Xbox One sells for $499.99.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Yes it was an experiment, but one that wasn't sustainable for the market. I was saying that to theyarecomingforyou when he brought mobile phones into the mix.

[Hedon]

Yes it was an experiment, but one that wasn't sustainable for the market. I was saying that to theyarecomingforyou when he brought mobile phones into the mix.

Ok, understood.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Yes it was an experiment, but one that wasn't sustainable for the market. I was saying that to theyarecomingforyou when he brought mobile phones into the mix.

It was poorly marketed. Very few people were aware it even existed.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It was poorly marketed. Very few people were aware it even existed.

 

It cost a fair bit more than the console itself as well. Mobiles are more expensive than consoles, plus you're getting your air time/data plan as well.

[Hedon]

It cost a fair bit more than the console itself as well. Mobiles are more expensive than consoles, plus you're getting your air time/data plan as well.

Didn't this plan for the Xbox include the Xbox and Xbox Live Subscription for 2 years?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Here's a video highlighting the performance of Project Cars on PS4 and XB1:

 

 

Note that the XB1 version runs at a lower resolution and runs slower. Neither version is able to maintain a solid 60fps.

 

They also include a comparison of the PS4 and PC, which shows quite substantial differences:

 

[Hedon]

Just saw Xbox One is getting a patch to improve 5-7%. I can't want to see what they can do when they look at a DX 12 patch.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just saw Xbox One is getting a patch to improve 5-7%. I can't want to see what they can do when they look at a DX 12 patch.

A 5-7% improvement wouldn't even bring it up to the same framerate as the PS4 version, let alone make up for the resolution difference. I haven't seen any talk of a DX12 patch but even if there were one it would have to increase the resolution by 44% AND improve the framerate by 10-15% to match the PS4 version. That seems extremely unlikely.

[spaceelf]

131 pages of arguing stupid crap heh.  Congratulations

 

I can't wait to see what dx12 does accomplish though.  I've been of the opinion that even aside from how the X1s launch was almost hilariously bombed, their having to change everything at the last minute got in the way of performance work on the OS and lead to the disparity being greater than it should be.

 

I'm not saying it'll match the competition but it should make it a lot harder to tell the difference.

[Hedon]

A 5-7% improvement wouldn't even bring it up to the same framerate as the PS4 version, let alone make up for the resolution difference. I haven't seen any talk of a DX12 patch but even if there were one it would have to increase the resolution by 44% AND improve the framerate by 10-15% to match the PS4 version. That seems extremely unlikely.

 

First off all, who here said anything about matching the already dismal PS4 performance. Think outside the box for once, not everything has to be X vs. P lol. Most gamers will be happy with ongoing improvements, not unhappy with ongoing improvements. I for one am happy when developers continue to improve code. 5-7% improvement is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

Just because you haven't seen any talk of DX12, is supposed to mean what? Do you know everything? Good lord.

 

http://www.projectcarsgame.com/faq.html

 

Will it support DirectX 12?

This is certainly something we will investigate.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-15-project-cars-technical-details-confirmed

 

A few more titbits: SMS is investigating DirectX 12 support. The game uses the Xbox One's impulse triggers so you can feel the rumble strips underneath your wheels, and on PS4, you'll hear Ben Collins, former Top Gear Stig, talking to you through the integrated speaker on the DualShock 4.

 

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/27675/article/project-cars-12k-on-pc-up-to-32-players-online-on-64-bit/

 

Of course, Slightly Mad has labored on the game before DirectX 12, or Windows 10, has launched. They claim they are definitely looking into DirectX 12. 

 

Why would they HAVE TO RAISE it to 44% to match the PS4? LOL. They don't HAVE to do anything. The PS4 would be a low standard. The PC would be the best standard.  But if THEY DO continue to improve the game, that is GREAT NEWS FOR ALL GAMERS. If they put out a DX 12 patch that notches the game the little bit left to reach 1080p and improved FPS, that can only be seen as a good thing. I assume you want it just like the rest of us would.

 

I got the game for my Xbox One instead of my PS4 and am loving the game so far.

[George P Global Moderator]

You can enjoy a game if the gameplay and story, at least for me, are good/great.  Hitting the high level of graphics for something is a bonus, but let's not forget that you can, to this day, play older, subpar looking, games and still enjoy them.  Hell, GoG put up the 25th anniv Star Trek PC game and I snagged it up for $6, it's from 1991 and looks meh, but I still loved it then and I loved it now.

 

Speaking for something newer, I'm enjoying Assassins Creed Unity, even at 900p, I just like the game itself.  I also grabbed and just finished Styx master of shadows on the PC, because I'm a stealth junky, I played it at 1080p and max gfx settings on my system but it's not the best looking game regardless of res or frame rate, it's using older UE3 tech and textures, I still loved it.

 

This whole argument about hitting the best/max res and frame rate making a game better is played out, it doesn't, it's a nice bonus if you can, but even on my PC, where I can't play the newest games at say, 1440p like some others do, maybe I can just hit 1080p or maybe I have to go a little lower like with Watch Dogs, doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game just the same.   The only reason I have one or both of the consoles is for their exclusives that I can't get on the PC, not so much because I care about the best looks period.

[Hedon]

You can enjoy a game if the gameplay and story, at least for me, are good/great.  Hitting the high level of graphics for something is a bonus, but let's not forget that you can, to this day, play older, subpar looking, games and still enjoy them.  Hell, GoG put up the 25th anniv Star Trek PC game and I snagged it up for $6, it's from 1991 and looks meh, but I still loved it then and I loved it now.

 

Speaking for something newer, I'm enjoying Assassins Creed Unity, even at 900p, I just like the game itself.  I also grabbed and just finished Styx master of shadows on the PC, because I'm a stealth junky, I played it at 1080p and max gfx settings on my system but it's not the best looking game regardless of res or frame rate, it's using older UE3 tech and textures, I still loved it.

 

This whole argument about hitting the best/max res and frame rate making a game better is played out, it doesn't, it's a nice bonus if you can, but even on my PC, where I can't play the newest games at say, 1440p like some others do, maybe I can just hit 1080p or maybe I have to go a little lower like with Watch Dogs, doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game just the same.   The only reason I have one or both of the consoles is for their exclusives that I can't get on the PC, not so much because I care about the best looks period.

 

Not to mention, the differences are so trivial. I would bet the largest majority of people wouldn't even know the difference. In fact, it is so trivial, that honestly it comes down to your controller preference, or what friends and family you play with and if you want to be on the same network as them.

[dead.cell]

This whole argument about hitting the best/max res and frame rate making a game better is played out, it doesn't, it's a nice bonus if you can, but even on my PC, where I can't play the newest games at say, 1440p like some others do, maybe I can just hit 1080p or maybe I have to go a little lower like with Watch Dogs, doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game just the same.   The only reason I have one or both of the consoles is for their exclusives that I can't get on the PC, not so much because I care about the best looks period.

Look, I'm with you on what you're saying and all, but from the OP: "I have created and pinned this topic for you all to discuss anything and everything related to the PS4 and Xbox One resolution / FPS news and developments."

 

Considering all this talk about DirectX12, Mantle, and various other topics relating to the resolution, frame rate, and overall graphical features/fidelity, I'd say this topic hasn't run its course. Maybe some people are tired of the same arguments, but it's just as easy to avoid the topic.

 

This isn't the "I still enjoy these games anyway" thread I guess is what I'm trying to say. Personally, I enjoy reading about how it's all playing out between the systems, even as a PC gamer myself.

[theyarecomingforyou]

First off all, who here said anything about matching the already dismal PS4 performance. Think outside the box for once, not everything has to be X vs. P lol.

You seem to be confused about the nature of this topic, as it's explicitly about the performance differences between the PS4 and XB1.

 

I for one am happy when developers continue to improve code. 5-7% improvement is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Of course, that goes without saying.

 

Just because you haven't seen any talk of DX12, is supposed to mean what? Do you know everything? Good lord.

You brought up DX12 improving performance when there hasn't been any mention of that. The links you provided don't suggest that a DX12 patch will be forthcoming.

 

Why would they HAVE TO RAISE it to 44% to match the PS4? LOL. They don't HAVE to do anything. The PS4 would be a low standard. The PC would be the best standard.  But if THEY DO continue to improve the game, that is GREAT NEWS FOR ALL GAMERS.

If the XB1 can't even come close to matching the PS4 then there's no hope of it hitting the level of the PC version. I don't know why you'd even mention that. I was simply highlighting the performance difference. The reason they have to keep patching the XB1 version is because there were considerable framerate drops in comparison to the PS4 version.

 

But if THEY DO continue to improve the game, that is GREAT NEWS FOR ALL GAMERS.

 

I got the game for my Xbox One instead of my PS4 and am loving the game so far.

That brings up another point, which is that gamers shouldn't have to rely on developers releasing patches to get to where they should have been day one. Developers are under no obligation to release such patches, meaning gamers should adopt a pragmatic approach. I don't understand why anyone who owns both platforms would buy the version that is lower resolution and performs worse, with the only hope being that they can slightly narrow the performance difference in a patch that may or may not come out.

 

Gamers who support such business practices are their own worst enemies.

[George P Global Moderator]

Look, I'm with you on what you're saying and all, but from the OP: "I have created and pinned this topic for you all to discuss anything and everything related to the PS4 and Xbox One resolution / FPS news and developments."

 

Considering all this talk about DirectX12, Mantle, and various other topics relating to the resolution, frame rate, and overall graphical features/fidelity, I'd say this topic hasn't run its course. Maybe some people are tired of the same arguments, but it's just as easy to avoid the topic.

 

This isn't the "I still enjoy these games anyway" thread I guess is what I'm trying to say. Personally, I enjoy reading about how it's all playing out between the systems, even as a PC gamer myself.

 

I'm not saying the thread should be closed down, it has it's place, but it's often, and almost always, driven off topic by the same old circular arguments be it about DX12 not doing anything or doing a lot or who thinks xx% gain is big or small. 

 

I'm interested in DX12 like any PC gamer out there but right now all we have is opinion posted as psudo-fact in this topic.  Till we get some real data on it later this year we can't really talk about it much, and I don't see anyone here ready to deep dive into the technical details of the API, none of us here have even used it let alone written a game for it.

[Hedon]

You seem to be confused about the nature of this topic, as it's explicitly about the performance differences between the PS4 and XB1.

 

Of course, that goes without saying.

 

You brought up DX12 improving performance when there hasn't been any mention of that. The links you provided don't suggest that a DX12 patch will be forthcoming.

 

If the XB1 can't even come close to matching the PS4 then there's no hope of it hitting the level of the PC version. I don't know why you'd even mention that. I was simply highlighting the performance difference. The reason they have to keep patching the XB1 version is because there were considerable framerate drops in comparison to the PS4 version.

 

 

That brings up another point, which is that gamers shouldn't have to rely on developers releasing patches to get to where they should have been day one. Developers are under no obligation to release such patches, meaning gamers should adopt a pragmatic approach. I don't understand why anyone who owns both platforms would buy the version that is lower resolution and performs worse, with the only hope being that they can slightly narrow the performance difference in a patch that may or may not come out.

 

Gamers who support such business practices are their own worst enemies.

The only person here that is confused is you. I never once mentioned PS4. That isn't of concern. I was talking about improving the Xbox One 5-7% and possibly improving it more with DX12. It was you and ONLY you that mentioned the PS4. So feel free to carry on that little debate on your own. It had ZERO to do with what I was talking about. I hope that you can wrap that around your head?

 

As for Direct X12, the links don't say a patch is incoming, but they do say that they are taking it serious and are looking into it.

 

As for the Xbox One reaching level of a PC, would not be obtainable. These consoles are too under powered. But there is no reason to have a PS4 goal, considering they are close enough as it is. The GOAL is improving the console, NOT MATCHING another console.

 

But we know exactly where you stand. Don't worry my friend, the PS4 is still more powerful on paper. It will be ok

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

After a weekend of testing The Witcher 3 on Xbox One, it's fair to say installing its day one patch (version 1.01) is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the 588MB file improves frame-rates slightly during play, while fixing minor bugs scattered across the game. In many ways it's a more polished experience with the patch - notably we have less geometry pop-in during cut-scenes, fewer instances of flickering shadows, and a great many more tweaks elsewhere.

 

But the downsides pack a punch too. It's apparent after switching between the game's default and patched states that these improvements come at a cost. Chief among these is the aggressive stuttering during pre-rendered cut-scenes. Essentially, encoded video files are used to portray the game's bigger plot points - such as the opening scene, re-caps after loading a save, and the dramatic end to the tutorial - while the game's engine is used for smaller beats in the story.

 

These videos weave in seamlessly amongst in-engine scenes, and do a great job of hiding loading screens. The catch: it's very easy to tell which type of scene is in play based on the frame-rate. Encoded video files stutter horribly after patch 1.01 is installed, with drops to as low as 22fps causing the playback to lurch in a manner that's impossible to ignore during any action. We've tested this several times with and without the update, and in every case an unpatched build of The Witcher 3 delivers a much smoother return, even if it's not perfectly locked at the intended 30fps.

 

 

 

Shadows also take a minor hit. Even accounting for variances in cloud positions (causing lighting to shift across plains), a perfect match in the time of day shows shadows are missing in spots on patch 1.01. This is likely related to optimising draw distances on Xbox One, as most patches of shade eventually fade in on approach - it's simply the case that the rendering range isn't as far-reaching as The Witcher 3's vanilla state. As a result, dithering is easier to catch on the patched release, at points where shadows make a transition to a fully filled-out state as you walk forward.

 

On balance, this downgrade only stands out when placing both versions side-by-side, especially given that the switch occurs at quite a distance. The only exception to this is around the Witcher's castle training ground - where foliage produces heavier shade across castle walls. Matching woodland shots also show a slight tail-off in the shadow density the further we look into the thickets, though quality up-close is the same. Besides these cases, it's clear CD Projekt makes an effort to improve Xbox One's performance during play, while not detracting too much from the visuals.

 

The big positive point for patch 1.01 is in performance, though it's not entirely ideal. What we get on Xbox One is an uncapped frame-rate that varies between 30-40fps, with v-sync engaged to avoid tearing. The unfortunate side-effect of not capping this at a straight 30fps is that frame-pacing wanders up and down the graph, causing the perception of stutter. Many of the frame-rate issues reported in The Witcher 3's early reviews are perhaps attributable to the game going over 30fps, rather than dipping beneath. It's something we'll check out once we are hands-on with the PS4 version - as that's the format used for most of the reviews highlighting the issue.

 

 

 

Xbox One's dynamic resolution scaling may also help to uphold this level of performance - in effect before and after the patch. In theory, this allows the framebuffer to switch between a 1600x900 resolution to a native 1920x1080 on the fly, seemingly based on GPU load at any given point. However, in practice this doesn't switch as much as we'd expected - The Witcher 3 is predominantly a 900p game, and the only scenes we've found to run at a full 1080p are the in-engine rendered title screen, and the video cut-scenes. Even reducing the GPU load by looking directly up to the sky shows the game is still rendering at a native 900p. We do notice some indoors scenes rendering at what seems to be a higher resolution than 900p, but even here, it is clearly not a full, native 1080p output.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-should-you-install-the-witcher-3-day-one-patch#comments

 

Given that the dynamic resolution announcement came really late, not surprised it's pretty much exclusively 900p. Still good the patch helps performance, somewhat, with graphical trade offs..

[Hedon]

Game is looking pretty much identical on both consoles. Been enjoying it in both 900p areas and 1080p areas. Pretty slick how they got some 1080p in there last minute. I am curious to see how well they will do with DX12 upgrades.

[XorpiZ]

Apparantly the PS4 version is bugged right now. If the FPS drops below 30, it'll lock to 20 FPS.

 

 

. However, the problem here is that if the PS4's frame-rate drops below this number, it instantly locks to 20fps.

 

The PS4's approach causes the sensation of stutter to be worse at these stress points. Where performance is sub-30fps, Xbox One also retains a frame-rate advantage overall - and there's rarely a point in our analysis where Microsoft's hardware isn't ahead.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-witcher-3-wild-hunt-performance-analysis

[+Asmodai MVC]

Apparantly the PS4 version is bugged right now. If the FPS drops below 30, it'll lock to 20 FPS.

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-witcher-3-wild-hunt-performance-analysis

 

Might as well put their conclusion here as well then:

 

Overall, the fact Xbox One tends to holds a higher frame-rate is misleading in terms of the quality of the end experience; a capped 30fps is by far the preferred option in this case and we still hope to see it implemented in a future update. The PS4 release has the right tactic, but it lets itself down by being unable to stream in world geometry or render effects at a perfect 30fps to take advantage of this. The perceived effect is a judder to motion on both consoles, for cut-scenes and gameplay, though PS4 is capable of smoother passages of play at times. When it comes to performance, and factoring in the game's superior 1920x1080 output, Sony's hardware is a preference - but it's not the clear choice we had expected

[theyarecomingforyou]

Overall, the fact Xbox One tends to holds a higher frame-rate is misleading in terms of the quality of the end experience; a capped 30fps is by far the preferred option in this case and we still hope to see it implemented in a future update. The PS4 release has the right tactic, but it lets itself down by being unable to stream in world geometry or render effects at a perfect 30fps to take advantage of this. The perceived effect is a judder to motion on both consoles, for cut-scenes and gameplay, though PS4 is capable of smoother passages of play at times. When it comes to performance, and factoring in the game's superior 1920x1080 output, Sony's hardware is a preference - but it's not the clear choice we had expected.

To start with cut-scenes, a firm 30fps line is held on PS4 during an early griffin encounter, and in practice this gives us smoother motion compared to the 35fps read-out on Xbox One (higher frame-rate does not automatically mean a better experience overall, something we've covered in-depth before). However, the problem here is that if the PS4's frame-rate drops below this number, it instantly locks to 20fps. It's an instant switch, much like the double-buffer method of v-sync seen in Metal Gear Solid 4 on PS3. In one later scene involving heavy ice effects, it's notable that Xbox One does glance this 20fps figure at a similar moment, but unlike PS4 it's able to waver up and down the scale more freely. Meanwhile, Sony's platform is stuck at this value for long stretches of a scene.

Source: Eurogamer

 

 

Both suffer regular drops below 30fps and have major issues with texture / object streaming. The XB1 version has dynamic resolution scaling but is nearly always at 900p; the PS4 version runs at 1080p. However it's quite clear, based on the performance issues, that the PS4 version should have been reduced to 900p, which would have given it better performance than the XB1. It seems the desire to claim 1080p is working against gamers. Framerate is important and the PS4 dropping to 20fps is unacceptable. The draw distance and pop-in is also very poor.

 

I think it's fair to say that the issues with the PS4 version make it the lesser experience overall, though each platform has its strengths and weaknesses. Clearly neither platform is able to handle the game well.