Jump to content



Photo

PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

ps4 xbox one microsoft sony frame rate resolution

1119 replies to this topic

#91 Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 09 February 2014 - 21:19

You are thinking 2010-today, I am thinking first few years when PS3 "didn't have any games" - remember those days? :p


Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!


#92 McKay

McKay

    Neowinian Stallion

  • 5,910 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 10
  • Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: LG G3

Posted 09 February 2014 - 21:25

Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!

 

I would have loved to continue playing MGS, but I gave up on the storyline 9/10 of the way into MGS2. I'm not great at wrapping my head around Japanese writers.



#93 Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 09 February 2014 - 21:32

I would have loved to continue playing MGS, but I gave up on the storyline 9/10 of the way into MGS2. I'm not great at wrapping my head around Japanese writers.


I don't think anyone can make sense of MGS, even Kojima himself. I just love the characters, world and voice acting. Even if Hayter was getting a bit stale, I'm still annoyed he's been replaced by Jack Bauer.

Ground Zeros is leaving a stale taste in my mouth as well, the tanker was on the disc with MGS2, Konami now trying to charge us £30 for a 2 hour "demo". Capcom and Konami have been making ###### decisions for years now.

#94 OP Andrew G.

Andrew G.

    Once More 'Round the Sun

  • 24,747 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 09 February 2014 - 21:35

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

 

 

You are thinking 2010-today, I am thinking first few years when PS3 "didn't have any games" - remember those days? :p

 

 

Blu Ray player :p

And hey MGS4 came out in 2008!!!

 

And Uncharted 1 in 2007; although by today's standards and the sequels it's not very good, at the time it still beat a lot of 360 exclusives in the GFX department. I think a lot of the mentality about PS3 not having any games in the early days was because people opted to only buy exclusives. You had to wait 4 to 6 months for the next one to roll around. If you were solely a PS3 owner, you had just as many games as the 360. Eventually most the exclusive JRPGs which released during 2005/8 on 360 were later ported and included better audio (either in fidelity or had the original dubs), plus the DLC included on one disc.

 

Unless you can poll every owner of last gen why they bought the console they did, you can't say that people were influenced by hardware. People could have decided on MP being free as more important, or the exclusives, or the controller. Far too many variables to say that they ignored the RAM limitations but still bought it. Joe Bloggs doesn't even know the difference between RAM. They just hear a number and think better. I've seen people on Twitter think the PS4 is still on DDR3 :blink:

 

The truth is X1 has work to do. The optimizations they make and the lessons they learn from eSRAM will benefit only it, meanwhile the PS4 optimizations will benefit both PS4 and X1. The trouble is developers don't live in a perfect world. Games are over budget, time constraints are tighter than ever before. Convincing them to put extra work/effort into eSRAM management is not a guarantee. If you're first party then you're probably always going to get 1080 30/60, but if you're multi-plat it's not a definite and so far they've not put the effort in. It'll get better no doubt as the SDK improves and the resources freed, but it's always going to be a finite source to manage and a pain to do so.



#95 compl3x

compl3x

    OK. compl3x again.

  • 7,966 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 10 February 2014 - 00:55

Didn't play any role when people bought PS3 and games for it.

 

 

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.



#96 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,511 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 10 February 2014 - 05:41

That's strange I remember a lot of people solely using the PS3 for exclusives only last generation, one reason being picking the superior multiplat title.

Then even Andy himself said recently if the trend continues he may just opt for multiplats on the PS4. It does sway some minds.

 

And yet some people still bought those 3rd party games on the ps3.  Let's not try to throw out generalizations here.  The ps3 had decent sales numbers for 3rd party games even if the 360 version was touted as the better choice. 

 

Sometimes we all forget that outside of our relatively small circle, there is this huge mass of gamers that may just buy a single console and are basically un phased by what is touted in the gaming media or the online community. Even when they own both, they will go down the path for reasons that override that graphical difference in their opinion.  Heck, move away form console choice and just look at game choice.

 

One might think Call of Duty is universally hated if you just followed the 'popular' opinion from the online community, but then the reality seen in sales numbers paints a different picture.  Gamers still buying and still enjoying it. 

 

 

 

 

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.

 

 

Is 1080p30 vs 60 trivial?  Is 1080p60 without AA vs 1080p60 with 4XMSAA trivial? 

 

This is sort of a rhetorical question sense defining trivial is not something you can base on one universal fact.  It'll be an opinion.  Now personally, 720p vs 1080p seems like a big deal to me, but maybe the options I mentioned above are as big or bigger. 

 

I try to remind myself that all this boils down to wanting good games.  I sit down and play Resogun, Killzone, Ryse, or KI, and I am not thinking about the fact that Killzone is 1080p30 in single player, or that Ryse is 900p30, or that KI is 720p60.  I know that graphic fidelity can mean a lot and it makes things like art style and even gameplay better, but it seems to me that we are very close to the point where the raw numbers don't matter as much.  Maybe some people just see the differences and its all they can see when playing a game, or maybe its my long history with gaming that has 'dulled' the way I look at a game while playing it.  I certainly appreciate high end graphics, but for some reason the numbers don't bother me as much if the final game has an impact on me. A dev can make a good looking game and still not hit the high numbers everyone wants.



#97 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,516 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 10 February 2014 - 11:52

It seems every game which was multiplatform was favoured on the 360 over the PS3. A lot of those performance issues were minor. 720p vs a higher res isn't trivially & could play a more significant role in a purchasing decision.

 

inferior graphics (IQ was initially always worse on PS3)

inferior online service (still is on PS3)

 

People still bought it, I know one guy (anecdotal ftw) who was a lifelong PC gamer and bought a PS3 for CoD/MW2 because his friends had PS3. (He had to reduce PC gaming due to RSI)



#98 Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:09

Titanfall

 

Titanfall Digital Foundry beta analysis (792p, ~60fps)

 

We're currently hard at work on a detailed tech analysis based on our gameplay experience and these captures, but what we can provide now is some insight on Xbox One's native rendering resolution. It's been something of a hot topic in recent months, due to a number of factors. First up, Respawn told us that it would prioritise frame-rate over resolution when we interviewed producer Drew McCoy at Gamescom last year, with little in the way of official comment since then. Secondly, the whole Resolutiongate issue has put the GPU capabilities and memory bandwidth of the Xbox One under the microscope after a number of high-profile titles - including first-party exclusives - ran at sub-native pixel counts. Finally, rumours online have continued to suggest that Titanfall runs at 720p.
 
Well, even with access to direct captures, the issue isn't quite as cut and dried as you may think. The usual pixel-counting techniques involve capturing long horizontal and vertical edges, then comparing the number of actual rendered pixels with the output of the console. So, for example a 4:5 ratio on the vertical on a 720p output gives 576p. The ratios aren't quite so clear on the preview build of Titanfall we saw last week, but because of that, 720p can be ruled out.
 
Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played.
 
---
 
In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively.
 
Probably the biggest surprise is that, based on our testing, frame-rate doesn't quite remain locked to 60fps - not especially noticeable in most situations, but definitely more of an issue inside the titans. Bearing in mind Respawn's dedication to the locked 60fps experience, we hope that further optimisations are in development, but the videos on this page should give you some idea of the game's current performance level.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

 

Respawn have commented on trying to get it higher for launch - http://titanfallblog...th-final-build/



#99 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,511 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:14

Titanfall

 

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

 

Respawn have commented on trying to get it higher for launch - http://titanfallblog...th-final-build/

 

 

 

Why do I get the impression that this game is somehow rushed?

 

Its running on the source engine after all.  I'm not quite sure why they can't hit 1080p/60 or at least 900p/60.  I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with the X1 hardware.  A pc with similar specs could do it.

 

I saw an interview that was put up today and I got the impression that this game was originally a 360 title that was then moved to the X1 after it was announced.  I wonder if that has led to a serious lack of time to get a proper next gen version completed.



#100 Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:17

Why do I get the impression that this game is somehow rushed?

 

Its running on the source engine after all.  I'm not quite sure why they can't hit 1080p/60 or at least 900p/60.  I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with the X1 hardware.  A pc with similar specs could do it.

 

I saw an interview that was put up today and I got the impression that this game was originally a 360 title that was then moved to the X1 after it was announced.  I wonder if that has led to a serious lack of time to get a proper next gen version completed.

 

If the blame lies on Respawn, considering the noise MS have made about Titanfall, you'd of thought they'd of already shipped in a platoon of XB1 engineers last year.

 

Right now hitting something strange like 792 seems like a move to simply get as far away from 720p as possible, as then the internet really would shut down for a day. The "real" COD team running with a lower res than the rushed out the door Ghosts, it just doesn't sit right  :/ I'm fairly confident it will have a day 1 900p patch at the worst, it just has to.

 

MP is usually the least taxing as well, KZSF managed 1080p/60FPS on it's MP, where as the SP was 30 unlocked (now the recent patch lets you do 30 locked).



#101 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • 7,587 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:28

1408 is a multiple of 128 (and all powers of 2 below it of course) so 1408x792 makes sense as a resolution from a hardware/software perspective. Still a bit weird to use a resolution that isn't native to any display whatsoever, i.e. even on 720p displays it'll suffer scaling.  :/



#102 vetDirtyLarry

DirtyLarry

    ®®\vers.12.vis.13.u.03.al\DL

  • 16,889 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: dirty jersey
  • OS: Win 8 | OS X 10.8.5 | Android 4.2.2
  • Phone: Galaxy S4

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:37

Its running on the source engine after all.  I'm not quite sure why they can't hit 1080p/60 or at least 900p/60.  I have a hard time believing it has anything to do with the X1 hardware.  A pc with similar specs could do it.

I really have to question why you have a hard time believing it is the hardware when the games currently released say otherwise? The only games that are 1080p/60 on the One are sports or racing games, both of which basically have static environments, so I ask sincerely based on what we have seen so far, why is it so hard to believe they cannot do 1080/60 on a game that has much more dynamic environments and a whole lot more going on?



#103 Houtei

Houtei

    Neowinian

  • 566 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 07

Posted 12 February 2014 - 19:47

If the blame lies on Respawn, considering the noise MS have made about Titanfall, you'd of thought they'd of already shipped in a platoon of XB1 engineers last year.

 

Right now hitting something strange like 792 seems like a move to simply get as far away from 720p as possible, as then the internet really would shut down for a day. The "real" COD team running with a lower res than the rushed out the door Ghosts, it just doesn't sit right  :/ I'm fairly confident it will have a day 1 900p patch at the worst, it just has to.

 

MP is usually the least taxing as well, KZSF managed 1080p/60FPS on it's MP, where as the SP was 30 unlocked (now the recent patch lets you do 30 locked).

Well from my experience MP modes are ALWAYS dumbed down from the SP graphics.  In some cases like battlefield they use different engines altogether.  Titanfall is having to do a whole lot more in its multiplayer than COD. Killzone developers already said they turned down the graphic fidelity in MP to be able to get 60FPS cause 60FPS is way more important in MP.



#104 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,511 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 12 February 2014 - 20:00

I really have to question why you have a hard time believing it is the hardware when the games currently released say otherwise? The only games that are 1080p/60 on the One are sports or racing games, both of which basically have static environments, so I ask sincerely based on what we have seen so far, why is it so hard to believe they cannot do 1080/60 on a game that has much more dynamic environments and a whole lot more going on?

 

 

I said 1080p or 900p.

 

Question me all you like, doesn't change my question of why they might be having issues.  Why is it so wrong to think that there might be specific games with issues beyond the hardware?

 

Again, its using the source engine, something that has a well known history on the pc performance wise.  Having played plenty of source engine games myself, they aren't usually known for requiring very high levels of pc hardware.  I know they could be using custom bits that make it more demanding, but based on the specs of the X1 compared to a similar pc build which can play source games well above 720p/60, I just thought it was strange.

 

But hey, if this is just another example of the X1's poor hardware, then so be it. 



#105 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,511 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 12 February 2014 - 20:05

If the blame lies on Respawn, considering the noise MS have made about Titanfall, you'd of thought they'd of already shipped in a platoon of XB1 engineers last year.

 

Right now hitting something strange like 792 seems like a move to simply get as far away from 720p as possible, as then the internet really would shut down for a day. The "real" COD team running with a lower res than the rushed out the door Ghosts, it just doesn't sit right  :/ I'm fairly confident it will have a day 1 900p patch at the worst, it just has to.

 

 

So wait, are you agreeing with me that it could be that they ran out of time to properly optimize and not a hard limit due to the hardware?





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!