For Microsoft, getting Diablo 3 to run at 1080P was a necessity to compete with PS4

Microsoft and Sony have been going head-to-head with their next-generation consoles, the Xbox One and the PS4, in recent months. So far, the PS4 is the front runner, after Sony announced that it has sold 10 million consoles, while Microsoft has been much quieter with its sales figures; at its last earnings call it did not separate out Xbox 360 and One sales, all we know is 1 million consoles were sold.

When Microsoft found out that Diablo 3 was going to run at 1080p on the PS4 and at 900p on the Xbox One, they were not happy. For one thing, the resolution increase on the PS4 will be attractive to hardcore gamers who prefer 1080p and 60 FPS, so if the Xbox One cannot provide this experience, which platform to choose becomes an easy choice. Knowing this, Microsoft went directly to Blizzard and got them to up the resolution for the game.

Eurogamer was able to meet up with the crew of Blizzard recently and asked them how they were able to upgrade the graphics from 900p to 1080p with a patch.

"We did find it challenging early on to get it to 1080p. That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p."

Microsoft knows that it has to make sure that every game that comes out that is cross-platform has to be equal on both systems if it wants to compete with the PS4. Especially with games coming like the highly anticipated Call of Duty: Advanced Warfighter, you can bet that Microsoft will make the same demands for that game as they did for Diablo 3 so that gamers will not opt for the PS4 for the better gameplay graphics.

Other ways that Microsoft is hoping to attract gamers to the Xbox One is with their new bundles that they announced at Gamescom, some of them include a 1TB hard drive or come in white too.

Source: Eurogamer

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

UK police want mandatory passwords for all new phones

Next Story

When the specs are the same, Windows Phone has better battery life than Android

76 Comments

Please Login or Sign Up to post a comment.

I don't buy too much into the spec battle but yeah id be worried if the xb1 couldn't even do diablo3 at 1080p

My 4 yo desktop (Xeon 3520 + Radeon 6950) runs Diablo 3 @1920x1200, 60FPS, Highest quality, with AF 8X and AA 8X.

What the hell is wrong with the Xbox One? It looks like the current console generation is outperformed by 5yo high-end PCs... that's sad

Edited by myxomatosis, Aug 21 2014, 4:11am :

I tell ya what you guys are of your head of you think mainstream 4K gaming will happen in 5 years. First of were need to have single gpu's that can max 4k and pending on how tight amd/NVIDIA are with there tech it could be possible with 2nd gen Pascal gpu's then you'll need another 3 or 4 years for lower end gpu's to be able do it so console wise your looking at x3/ps6 for native 4K gaming. Next gen will be full throttle 1080p setting as there only just managing it now and mid range PC's are kicking there butts. Long time to go for consolers, also I doubt you'll have mass market 4k penetration for 5-8 years maybe longer depends on how much 4k content is around and how often people change tv's.

Also dx12 for x1 will have a minimal performance gain and that's coming from Phil spencer dx12 is for the pc really. You can push more triangles to the gpu but the simple fact is there isn't enough shaders to render it the scene fast enough for decent framerates and resolutions

Lol ###### article seeing how the ps4 uses DirectX instruction set. If it wasnt for that all yiur games would be oprnGL which is waaaay worse then directx. But the ps4 has ###### contrast and terrible jagged edges id never support a Japanese company that fakes hardware specifications and robs you of your personal information. Peace

Meh they will drop shadows quality and voila more bandwitdh for xbox1. People will compare with screenshot and see it and complain. Same can be said about tlou remaster. 30fps softshadows, 60fps past gen shadows

This easily proves which console is more powerful. Blizzard had to be forced to up the resolution to 1080p when they already had it on the superior PS4. And just because they upped the resolution does not mean an increase in graphics. They just wanted 1080p for marketing reasons.

He's got a point though ps4 is a low end budget console. Xbox One isn't that's why the ps4 community hates on it. Wonder how much Sony paid Microsoft to use directX instruction sets? Cause I know openGL don't look that good haha

I'd much rather have solid 60FPS than 1080P. You can't tell a difference between 1080 and 900 unless they are side by side, but you sure do notice when the FPS drops.

I'm sick of marketing trying to force 1080 at the expense of FPS or visual effects. Who cares?

Asmodai said,

I prefer 1080p60, good thing I have a PS4.

You mean the system that also can't run all games in 1080P 60 FPS all the time? Made by the company that is currently being sued for up scaling Killzone instead of having native 1080? Good thing indeed :p

LightEco said,

You mean the system that also can't run all games in 1080P 60 FPS all the time?

The PS4 runs Diablo 3 at a consistant 1080p60. Of course it doesn't run ALL GAMES at 60fps ALL of the time. There are ZERO games that the Xbone can run 1080p and but the PS4 can't though but there are many games the PS4 can run at 1080p but the Xbone cannot.
LightEco said,

Made by the company that is currently being sued for up scaling Killzone instead of having native 1080? Good thing indeed :p

That's one game, does Xbone run it at a higher rez? Of course not. I haven't really followed the story but I believe the up scaling is only in multiplayer as well. The single player DOES run at 1080p native.

Just saying, if you prefer native 1080P 60FPS for your gaming, you might want to get a system that can do it on all games. Perhaps a PC? ;)

LightEco said,
Just saying, if you prefer native 1080P 60FPS for your gaming, you might want to get a system that can do it on all games. Perhaps a PC? ;)

So you used Killzone on an example you intended to support why you should get a PC? Killzone doesn't run at even 1fps on a PC because it's an PlayStation 4 exclusive so having a PC isn't going to help you one bit. I actually do have a gaming PC as well though, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I prefer Diablo 3 on the PS4 with it's 4 player local co-op and lack of "always on" requirement. Skyrim however is orders of magnitude better on a PC then a console.

Enron said,
Killzone was mediocre. Who cares what resolution it runs at?

Apparently he does, he brought it up. I was confused with what it has to do with anything myself since this article is about Diablo 3. Then it made even less sense when he claimed he was trying to point out how if you want to play 1080p you should go PC... why would you use a PS4 exclusive game to do that?

Asmodai said,

Apparently he does, he brought it up. I was confused with what it has to do with anything myself since this article is about Diablo 3. Then it made even less sense when he claimed he was trying to point out how if you want to play 1080p you should go PC... why would you use a PS4 exclusive game to do that?

I don't know but the whole idea of 1080p on PC is pretty silly if you ask me. 4K is where it's at.

I'm an Xbox One owner who does not regret the purchase and is happy with the console. While I am happy with the Xbox One, I do not have any issues with PS4 and hope that people who purchase the PS4 are happy with their purchase as well.

I find it ironically funny that MS is jumping on the developers when the PS4 technically outperforms the Xbox One as it is their own fault for making the hardware choices they did.

It's my personal preference, but I prefer higher frame rate over higher resolution.

Maybe DX12 will help balance out the hardware discrepancy between the two systems, maybe it won't. I bet MS is a little more aggressive on the specs of their next unit when the time comes.

it is kinda funny but if MS thinks it should be possible to achieve the same thing its great they are willing to send people to go and show developers what they need to be doing to get more out of it.

Houtei said,
it is kinda funny but if MS thinks it should be possible to achieve the same thing its great they are willing to send people to go and show developers what they need to be doing to get more out of it.

Reminds me all too well of the super powerful "cell" processor... that also needed a bit of work in order to better utilize it. Microsoft had a great run last generation, and given Sony's issues that were seen by everyone, it's a wonder how they've seemingly ignored Sony's troubles and are now reliving the history of their competitor. (higher price, added complexity...)

they didn't do the same. there is not added complexity to the xb1, it simply has less gpu resources. however the problem for sony is that the PS4 games don't look any better. If they looked as good as PC games vs console games, then I'd admit sony would have the long term upper hand. But beyond the raw numbers which is what MSFT is fixing, there is basically no difference: both consoles are too underpowered to really make a run for it.

Raist999 said,
I find it ironically funny that MS is jumping on the developers when the PS4 technically outperforms the Xbox One as it is their own fault for making the hardware choices they did.

Not sure what's funny mate. Microsoft have shown with their own first party games like Forza 5 (http://www.gamespot.com/articl...1080p-at-60fps/1100-6409332) that the Xbox One is fully capable of 1080p at 60fps. If a developer cannot get their game to run in a similar fashion, who's fault is it really?

Microsoft going in to show them how it's done and give them guidance and tutorials on how to best make use of the hardware and the special RAM is actually a good thing if you ask me, as others have said, in a similar way to how developers took a while to figure out the cell processor of the PS3.

neonspark said,
they didn't do the same. there is not added complexity to the xb1, it simply has less gpu resources. however the problem for sony is that the PS4 games don't look any better. If they looked as good as PC games vs console games, then I'd admit sony would have the long term upper hand. But beyond the raw numbers which is what MSFT is fixing, there is basically no difference: both consoles are too underpowered to really make a run for it.

Well, I'm speaking on behalf of those here who say that we can't have 60 fps or 1080p because developers aren't spending enough time to fully utilize esRAM to it's potential. (which sounds like a stretch to me)

I agree with you though. Fixing software issues will only get them so far. Fact of the matter is, they're still struggling to play a two-year old Blizzard game.

TCLN Ryster said,

Not sure what's funny mate. Microsoft have shown with their own first party games like Forza 5 (http://www.gamespot.com/articl...1080p-at-60fps/1100-6409332) that the Xbox One is fully capable of 1080p at 60fps. If a developer cannot get their game to run in a similar fashion, who's fault is it really?

Microsoft going in to show them how it's done and give them guidance and tutorials on how to best make use of the hardware and the special RAM is actually a good thing if you ask me, as others have said, in a similar way to how developers took a while to figure out the cell processor of the PS3.

Yeah it's capable of 1080p60 if you sacrifice other things and optimize really well.

But the PS4 and XB1 have DIRECTLY comparable CPU and GPUs. They're the same architecture. The PS4 just has more GPU cores (at a slightly lower clock speed). It has faster RAM. The PS4 is simply a faster system by a pretty significant amount. If you spend as much time optimizing a game for XB1 as you do on PS4 then it's going to look better on PS4.

The XB1 GPU has 12 CUs at 853MHz while the PS4 has 18 of the same CUs at 800MHz. The PS4 is simply faster.

mrp04 said,
The PS4 is simply faster.

That isn't in dispute. I didn't dispute it, unless I blacked out for a moment as I was typing and failed to remember doing so. The PS4 is faster for sure.

All I'm saying is that the Xbox One is fully capable of rendering at 1080p and 60fps while maintaining visuals that are perceivably identical to the PS4 (i.e. You'd have to do a side by side comparison and compare the screens in detail to see the differences).

Also, in my opinion enjoyment of a console isn't always down to just raw power. I, personally, prefer the UI of the Xbox One. Sony;s UIs have always been relatively bland and uninspiring.,Also let's face it... Microsoft have always had better software and services than Sony, and the rate at which Microsoft are powering ahead with software updates and feature additions is pretty breathtaking.

Could it have been a better console if some decisions had been taken differently? or had different people been in charge during the console's development? Sure. Again, not in dispute.

I sure do hope so. Diablo 3 not running at 1080p would have been a disaster. A 7 years old PC with a 200$ mid range gpu upgrade can probably run this game at 1080(p) and a playable framerate ...

Edited by LaP, Aug 20 2014, 3:08pm :

LaP said,
I sure do hope so. Diablo 3 not running at 1080p would have been a disaster. A 7 years old PC with a 200$ mid range gpu upgrade can probably run this game at 1080(p) and a playable framerate ...

I doubt that. Many people with rather beefy systems had issues accomplishing that for the game.

shinji257 said,

I doubt that. Many people with rather beefy systems had issues accomplishing that for the game.

7 years old is stretching it but my 5 years old core i5 with a 670 was able to pull it easily and you can find a 670 equiv (760) for around 200$ these days.

Yeah, it's not a very demanding game. I can't tell you the exact framerate, but I was playing this with my old 9800gtx+ and core 2 duo at max settings/1200p and it ran smoothly.

Disdain said,
Yeah, it's not a very demanding game. I can't tell you the exact framerate, but I was playing this with my old 9800gtx+ and core 2 duo at max settings/1200p and it ran smoothly.

How long ago was that? When the game first came out there were a bunch of complaints about unstable framerates and huge dips for no reason.

60 fps is almost never 60 fps. PC gamers who say they are always running all the last games at 60fps are either lying or spending a ridiculous amount of money to keep their multi gpus PC up to date.

Most PC gamers run their AAA gfx games with a fps dipping below 60 fps here and there. There's no problem with the fps dipping in the 50 here and there as long as the vsync method used don't make it 30 when it happens.

It always makes me laugh to see this guy with a Core 2 duo and a 5850 saying he can run Last Light at max settings 1080p with a fps always at 60 while my overclocked Core i5 750 with a 770 can't actually pull it.

LaP said,
It always makes me laugh to see this guy with a Core 2 duo and a 5850 saying he can run Last Light at max settings 1080p with a fps always at 60 while my overclocked Core i5 750 with a 770 can't actually pull it.
He may have reached 60fps while he was staring at a wall not moving but even that is questionable lol

o0MattE0o said,
When is 60fps not 60fps!

I would like 60fps and 900p than big drops in fps at 1080p just saying! but this has changed now they have put it to 1080p but the PS4 still has bad drops in fps! and the XBOX at 900p runs at 60fps with one 1fps drop once during this review so please get your facts correct!

http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...ablo-3-performance-analysis

Microsoft = FPS
Sony = Resolution


Did you not even bother to read the article you linked to? The updates report that the issue with Sony was a bug on Blizzard's side and will be patched day one. The follow on article this Neowin post is about says it has indeed been fixed and the PS4 is solidly 60fps.

"However, upon testing, the PS4 discretely updated again to C2.0.9.26396 later that day, with the patch notes listing "improved gameplay performance throughout title" - and yes, a quick test in the problem area outside the New Tristram gates reveals the issue has been resolved."

MS pressured Blizzard to go to 1080p and they made it but while the PS4 hits 60fps consistently the Xbone drops to the low 50s.

"In areas with more enemies and effects - like the Tristram gates battle, or chaotic Act Two overground encounters - we now see frame-rates drop from the locked 60fps seen at 900p to the low 50s. In short, while Blizzard closes the gap between Xbox One and PlayStation 4 in terms of image quality, there are now performance issues that creep in at the game's extremes while at 1080p."

LaP said,
60 fps is almost never 60 fps. PC gamers who say they are always running all the last games at 60fps are either lying or spending a ridiculous amount of money to keep their multi gpus PC up to date.

Rubbish.

Given that even when games are running at a lower resolution on XB1 they still have more framerate dips than the PS4 it's fair to assume that graphical fidelity had to be sacrificed to get to 1080p.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.

The reviews have said the two look the same but that the XB1 version has a few framerate dips to the low 50s (hardly an issue) compared to the PS4 version. They look very much the same, I'd say 99% the same.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.
They should have pushed the consoles to deliver more than a standard of 1080p gaming, if these consoles are going to be around for another 10 years they need to be able to move with the fast passed tech industry. 4k tvs are already phasing and they can offer picture quality four times that of 1080p.

I'm not saying graphics arnt good at the moment, they are, however in a couple of years people are going to want more than the standard 1080p.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.

If this is really the case, then PS4 games have a serious issue considering how close they are to the XBOX One (recent ones).

The architecture differences (GDDR5 vs eSRAM, CPU and GPU clocks) make it more complicated to compare than just the raw CU count.

The PS4 is definitely more powerful on the graphics side but it doesn't seem it's anywhere close to what you state.

TheCyberKnight said,

If this is really the case, then PS4 games have a serious issue considering how close they are to the XBOX One (recent ones).

The architecture differences (GDDR5 vs eSRAM, CPU and GPU clocks) make it more complicated to compare than just the raw CU count.

The PS4 is definitely more powerful on the graphics side but it doesn't seem it's anywhere close to what you state.

One thing people have to also keep in mind is that the goal here is 1080p and ~60fps is the goal here, not like with the PC where you can go higher. If the systems could aim for, say, 1440p and so on then the added hardware advantage of the PS4 comes into play more but when the goal is a fixed one and not a moving target like with the PC I'd say the hardware in the XB1, even with it's lower CUs and so on, is enough to reach it once developers can better use it.

They will stick with it ...nothing that a software patch can do. However, just like with every iteration of the next gen console, I wouldn't be surprise if MS comes out with a beefier spec when software patch can no longer cut it.

This has been said many times but Paper Specs and real world performace are 2 VERY different things. Not to say the ps4 is not stronger but just that in my experience with upgrading graphic cards and everything else in PCs you are just in for a big let down if you let spec sheets determine your excitement. My last upgrade i did on my PC on paper was around a 50% increase in graphics card power and to be honest the only time i can tell any difference is when i run Eyefinity across 3 monitors on a taxing game and i dont get as many slow down moments.

Last time i Upgraded my cpu i actually did notice a difference in normal functions on the pc but not really in my gaming. In fact the only thing that has ever lived up to the hype for me was going from normal hdd to a ssd

George P said,

The reviews have said the two look the same but that the XB1 version has a few framerate dips to the low 50s (hardly an issue) compared to the PS4 version. They look very much the same, I'd say 99% the same.

they never said this. the comparison between the two with the updates hasn't been published yet. pre update, the ps4 was dropping to 40fps. yes,there was a bug that was producing on extra frame causing judder, which didn't really affect the 900p xbox one version(probably because the 900p xbox one version wasn't dropping legitimate frames like the ps4), and yes the bug is fixed in both with a patch, but the final results between the two systems are yet to be determined.

Arron said,
They should have pushed the consoles to deliver more than a standard of 1080p gaming, if these consoles are going to be around for another 10 years they need to be able to move with the fast passed tech industry. 4k tvs are already phasing and they can offer picture quality four times that of 1080p.

I'm not saying graphics arnt good at the moment, they are, however in a couple of years people are going to want more than the standard 1080p.

Considering you need a few Titans to push 4k at acceptable frame rates in current games, that never would've happened.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.

When it's all said and done, and developers have highly optimized correctly for each system, both will be very similar in terms of performance. Once DX12 update & developer learn how to program the special memory on the X1, the performance gap will be minimal.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.

equal no. perceptually the same, yes. that is the story. even if the PS4 graphics look better on really close inspection, they won't look as good as say, PC graphics which will mean there is really no advantage just like there was no real advantage to the PS3 over the 360 even when it had more theoretical power...there just wasn't enough gap.

Excelsis said,

Considering you need a few Titans to push 4k at acceptable frame rates in current games, that never would've happened.

and then there was DX12 :). ok maybe not but the point being, the PS4 and XB1 will not be around for long since 4K gaming is about to take off. so ok, sony wins the shortest generation in history. I bet MSFT will go back to the original xbox formula: raw specs and not much else.

off course, PC is where the games are at with the best graphics. why anybody games on a console is beyond me.

neonspark said,

and then there was DX12 :). ok maybe not but the point being, the PS4 and XB1 will not be around for long since 4K gaming is about to take off. so ok, sony wins the shortest generation in history. I bet MSFT will go back to the original xbox formula: raw specs and not much else.

off course, PC is where the games are at with the best graphics. why anybody games on a console is beyond me.

Console Gaming is similar to PC gaming, but they are different.
I have an extensive pc, and game console collection.

Some games lend themselves to a game pad, sitting in front of tv / stereo system, other's keyboard & mouse looking at a monitor. I love Tomb Raider Reboot via console, yet Skyrim on my PC. I especially love JRPG's and they tend to show up on console over PC's.

a1ien said,
The graphics can't be equal when the xbox one has 30% less shader power and 40% less rendering power.

It's safe to assume that they had to sacrifice graphics to up the resolution so they could appease Xbox One players by writing 1080p on the box.

neonspark said,
... will not be around for long since 4K gaming is about to take off. so ok, sony wins the shortest generation in history.

I bet MSFT will go back to the original xbox formula: raw specs and not much else.

I think you're seriously over-estimating the closeness of mainstream 4K gaming here... only something like 0,01% of the population (that's a guess, but I reckon it's not far from the truth) has a display device (TV or monitor) capable of 4K resolution. Hell, 1080p HD has only recently entered mainstream, with most TVs being sold being just "HD Ready" (ie. 720p/1080i) up until a couple of years ago.

And on the PC side, only the highest end graphics cards (ie. out of reach of most consumers) are capable of pushing 4K at acceptable frame rates.

No my friend, 4K gaming will not become mainstream (ie. "take off") for at least 5 years I reckon.

Regarding your last point regarding Microsoft's "original xbox formula"... wasn't the 360 technically less powerful than the PS3 with it's cell processor? Microsoft only won that generation I think because the PS3 came out of the gate ridiculously expensive, and programmers had a hard time developing for the PS3's architecture and getting the most out of it.

That said, I do feel that Microsoft would benefit from putting a little but more emphasis on power the next time around. All the other fluffy stuff like Kinect, TV, media, etc can be in the "but it can also do this..." category.

Sraf said,
I have a feeling that this console generation will be a bit shorter than the last one

I agree. These consoles were released with pretty pathetic specs and also the economy is doing a lot better now than it was during the last generation's lifetime. Going to standard X86 parts can also mean the games from these consoles can be made to work on the next ones if they stick to a similar architecture, allowing the next generation to be released sooner.

I REALLY hope we're not still using the XB1 in 8 years. It's already weak enough for now.

Long story short, couldn't do it at first, MS pushed out the June performance update, now more games are 1080p, yay good times.

George P said,
Long story short, couldn't do it at first, MS pushed out the June performance update, now more games are 1080p, yay good times.

It isn't that easy.. To the general consumer, all they now is what the heard in the past.. The june update that helps performance, is just back page news they'll never hear about.. Microsoft really needs to advertise on TV about how their games run at 1080P.. I can't wait for the Media Player update :) That's going to be awesome.. But, I still keep buying games for my PS4, because all my friends have that and don't have an Xbox One.. The Xbox just gets used for Amazon Prime and Netflix.. I will play Titian Fall and some Golf game every now and them..

fusi0n said,

It isn't that easy.. To the general consumer, all they now is what the heard in the past.. The june update that helps performance, is just back page news they'll never hear about.. Microsoft really needs to advertise on TV about how their games run at 1080P.. I can't wait for the Media Player update :) That's going to be awesome.. But, I still keep buying games for my PS4, because all my friends have that and don't have an Xbox One.. The Xbox just gets used for Amazon Prime and Netflix.. I will play Titian Fall and some Golf game every now and them..

You're also giving the general consumer too much credit in knowing what the technical specs of each new game coming out are, I doubt they know, this is why the info is listed on the back of the game box and always has been. With this first update and next year with the 2nd one (DX12) I don't expect to see any games at under 1080p going forward. I can live with a game dropping down to 45fps or so and then going back up to 60fps, it happens, it even happens on the PC, as long as we're not talking about big dips from 60fps down to 30 or under 30, then I doubt few, very few, will even notice.

fusi0n said,

It isn't that easy.. To the general consumer, all they now is what the heard in the past.. The june update that helps performance, is just back page news they'll never hear about.. Microsoft really needs to advertise on TV about how their games run at 1080P.. I can't wait for the Media Player update :) That's going to be awesome.. But, I still keep buying games for my PS4, because all my friends have that and don't have an Xbox One.. The Xbox just gets used for Amazon Prime and Netflix.. I will play Titian Fall and some Golf game every now and them..

The new media player doesn't seem to support soft subs (for us anime watchers) and mkv videos that use h.264/aac need to be converted to mp4 in order to play. You can do it with a simple rewrap app (the kind that doesn't actually re-encode) and that will be enough. I've provided the feedback for that but it might not get any attention anyways.

What will really make my day is when the VLC team does release an XBox One version of their app.

shinji257 said,

The new media player doesn't seem to support soft subs (for us anime watchers) and mkv videos that use h.264/aac need to be converted to mp4 in order to play. You can do it with a simple rewrap app (the kind that doesn't actually re-encode) and that will be enough. I've provided the feedback for that but it might not get any attention anyways.

What will really make my day is when the VLC team does release an XBox One version of their app.

I thought support for mkv and playing files via the network wasn't coming till the end of 2014. Maybe that's why your mkvs aren't playing??

fusi0n said,

But, I still keep buying games for my PS4, because all my friends have that and don't have an Xbox One.. The Xbox just gets used for Amazon Prime and Netflix.. I will play Titian Fall and some Golf game every now and them..


Well since you use your X1 so little, it wont be long before you can think about getting rid of it if the ps4 gets those couple of media features you use.

jasondefaoite said,

I thought support for mkv and playing files via the network wasn't coming till the end of 2014. Maybe that's why your mkvs aren't playing??

I'm in the preview so I already got the app for it.

The preview app doesn't have mkv support yet. That was my understanding.

Compatibility with formats such as MKV, animated GIF and MPEG-2 TS will be added to the Media Player app "by the end of the year."

Ahh... Never saw that. Then that may explain it. It was on the supported media list.

Xbox One compatible file types:

3gp audio
3gp video
3gp2
aac
adts
animated gif
asf
avi divx
avi dv
avi uncompressed
avi xvid
bmp
jpg
gif
h264 avchd
mjpeg
mkv
mov
mp3
mpeg 1 ps
mpeg 2
mpeg 2 hd
mpeg 2 ts
mpeg 4 h264 aac
mpeg 4 sp
png
tiff
wav
wma
wma lossless
wma pro
wma voice
wmv
wmv hd