Battlefield 4 to run at 720p and 60fps. Cool wit me

[Aergan]

jerzdawg, on 23 Aug 2013 - 14:40, said:

I'd imagine within a year or so we see more 1080p games @ 60fps, launch titles usually start off with the "growing pains" but I'll wait and see what other developers are able to pull off.

 

It's on X86 arch with a long history of game engines, tools & middleware experience though which should translate over to PS4 & Xbox One this time.

[vcfan]

I just have a sneaking suspicion that Sony and Microsoft were in too huge of rush to get their next-gens released that the overall quality won't be as good as it should have been.  And that also is leading to game developers having a tough time getting the performance they were hoping for.

 

not really. its cost. buy a similar cpu and gpu today, thats $300 right there. add in the hard drive,controller,ram,bluray,etc.. you are paying way more than what they are charging,and you wont even get 1/2 or even 1/3 the performance because the way games are made for the new gen hardware is different,and coding is done specifically for the hardware,with all the multithreading and low level access to the gpu. theres just no way you're going to beat the performance to price ratio of these consoles. sure your $1200+ rig might give you better framerates or resolution,but look at how much more you're paying.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I'm anxious to hear if the Xbox One version will be aiming higher.

[Andre S. Veteran]

I'm anxious to hear if the Xbox One version will be aiming higher.

That would be deliciously ironic for all the people who claimed PS4 was going to "raep" Xbox One on graphics.

[spacer]

I would rather native 1080p and 30fps. But that's just me, it seems.

[Mando]

I'm anxious to hear if the Xbox One version will be aiming higher.

nope its also 720p upscaled to 1080p, DICE mentioned it on the first video footage released mate (think it was the show n tell of the Xbox One)

 

the only true 1080p (and higher) for BF4 is the PC variant sadly. 

 

Ill stick to playing BF on the platform that made DICE/Battlefield at a lovely 2560x1440 ;) tbh its always been a preference to play FPS type games on PC, my consoles always been driving games & sports on the big TV.

 

thats just my personal preference.

[Lamp0]

[Elliot B.]

not really. its cost. buy a similar cpu and gpu today, thats $300 right there. add in the hard drive,controller,ram,bluray,etc.. you are paying way more than what they are charging,and you wont even get 1/2 or even 1/3 the performance because the way games are made for the new gen hardware is different,and coding is done specifically for the hardware,with all the multithreading and low level access to the gpu. theres just no way you're going to beat the performance to price ratio of these consoles. sure your $1200+ rig might give you better framerates or resolution,but look at how much more you're paying.

This man is absolutely correct (y)

[firey]

Maybe I am just used to low FPS in games, or not having things on ultra.. But this doesn't bug me.  I don't need things to be 60FPS as long as the game feels smooth.  I also don't need to see every fibre on a piece of clothing.

I don't know about you guys.. but when I am playing an FPS.. I don't stand still long enough to look at the scenery.

[Lord Method Man]

I would rather native 1080p and 30fps. But that's just me, it seems.

 

I'm rather accustomed to having both myself.

[spacer]

I'm rather accustomed to having both myself.

Well, I'm one of those people that don't think 60fps is a "must". I really don't think it looks better. But, if I had the choice between 720p60 and 1080p30, I'd choose the latter.

[Houtei]

Yeah sure I run bf3 at 1080p or higher at max settings but I also spent around 1800 on my pc and the ps4 is only 399.  Also resolution is only 1 of many factors.  I can run just about any game out there at 1080p on my laptop at 60fps if i set the setting on minimum so it really depends on how many other graphical features are enabled which i care a lot more about than resolution. As long its 720 on my tv im happy and prolly wouldnt know the difference.  But if they start messing with other crap like textures i will notice right away.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Well, I'm one of those people that don't think 60fps is a "must". I really don't think it looks better. But, if I had the choice between 720p60 and 1080p30, I'd choose the latter.

Really?  :| I have a hard time with anything below 120 fps now. 30 fps doesn't look like real motion at all. At his last keynote John Carmack said he hoped the days of 30fps were behind us and I'm 100% with him on that one.

[Astra.Xtreme]

not really. its cost. buy a similar cpu and gpu today, thats $300 right there. add in the hard drive,controller,ram,bluray,etc.. you are paying way more than what they are charging,and you wont even get 1/2 or even 1/3 the performance because the way games are made for the new gen hardware is different,and coding is done specifically for the hardware,with all the multithreading and low level access to the gpu. theres just no way you're going to beat the performance to price ratio of these consoles. sure your $1200+ rig might give you better framerates or resolution,but look at how much more you're paying.

Well you're talking full-scale desktop PC components, but that comparison is invalid for a number of reasons.  Consoles don't have the GPU and memory of a traditional PC, so the overall cost is much lower.  Same as a laptop since the CPU, GPU, etc aren't as "full-scale" as a desktop.  There are less transistors and that equates to less cost and less performance. That's well accepted. 

 

PCs are also more expensive because there is a a lot of margin built-in to the prices.  On consoles, there is little to no margin, and the profits (in the beginning) are from the games.  So yeah consoles are cheaper, but you're probably buying them for close to cost.  Whereas if you buy a PC, you might be paying a 200% markup.  A console is designed different and priced different, so it doesn't make much sense to compare them to actual PCs.

 

Regardless, I was referring to the optimization of the development consoles.  It's pretty common knowledge that the development kits aren't completely the same as what the final hardware will be, so I would think that would be somewhat worrying for developers.  They can't safely push the limits since there would be a massive risk of performance degradation on the final hardware.  So for example, they could have designed BF4 to run at 1080p and it may work flawless on the development console, but they are forced to play it safe and settle for 720p.  They just have to weight out the risk to reward.  

 

After the consoles launch, I have no problem believing that future games will be able to play at 1080p60.

[Lamp0]

Really?  :| I have a hard time with anything below 120 fps now. 30 fps doesn't look like real motion at all. At his last keynote John Carmack said he hoped the days of 30fps were behind us and I'm 100% with him on that one.

 

Well in fairness that's because you've been spoilt with 120fps. To alot of folks who would play on consoles with mostly 30fps games, 120 is almost off putting at first.

[Lord Method Man]

Really?  :| I have a hard time with anything below 120 fps now. 30 fps doesn't look like real motion at all. At his last keynote John Carmack said he hoped the days of 30fps were behind us and I'm 100% with him on that one.

 

Yep. After gaming on PC going back and seeing 30 fps console games it looks like I'm watching a PowerPoint presentation.

[Osiris]

1080p @ 60fps or gtfo, how hard is that to grasp

[vcfan]

Well you're talking full-scale desktop PC components, but that comparison is invalid for a number of reasons.  Consoles don't have the GPU and memory of a traditional PC, so the overall cost is much lower.  Same as a laptop since the CPU, GPU, etc aren't as "full-scale" as a desktop.  There are less transistors and that equates to less cost and less performance. That's well accepted. 

 

PCs are also more expensive because there is a a lot of margin built-in to the prices.  On consoles, there is little to no margin, and the profits (in the beginning) are from the games.  So yeah consoles are cheaper, but you're probably buying them for close to cost.  Whereas if you buy a PC, you might be paying a 200% markup.  A console is designed different and priced different, so it doesn't make much sense to compare them to actual PCs.

 

i dont know what the hell youre arguing about. you even said it yourself they are selling the console at cost. thats what im saying,they chose these components because of cost. they cant sell you an $800 machine,so this is what we're stuck with,because this is the best performance they can get from the price range theyre after. the performance you get out of this will beat anything you can go out and buy yourself at retail,because again like you said, there is markup. you completely missed the point i was making. it is a valid comparison,because you will be able to play the same games on consoles and pcs. comparing the same performance to price,consoles will win every single time.

 

your transistor theory is completely wrong. a 7790 has 2 billion transistors. a quad jag apu has 1.3 billion transistors. remove the igpu,and add another 4 cores,and you're still sub 2. add them together,and you're looking at in the 3s billion. xbox one soc has 5 billion transistors.

[Noir Angel]

The difference in quality between 1080p and 720p for gaming isn't small, it's big. I have no problem paying a lot more for my hardware because I pay for quality.

 

Also, if the PS4 can't handle BF4 at 1080p the XBONE and it's inferior hardware won't either.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

1080p @ 60fps or gtfo, how hard is that to grasp

and how hard is it for you to grasp that it's a launch title. and when have launch titles ever been top quality on performance? just look at the launch 360 or ps3 games compared to what's offered now

[Houtei]

IMHO if your a crazy psycho about framerates being 60+ GTFO and stay with your PC.  Unless you have a high a dollar TV (and even then theres no comparison to a high dollar pc monitor) you are just not going to tell the difference and of 12 people off hand that i know of that have consoles only me and one other have a high dollar TV and we just happen to be the only ones with high dollar computers as well.

[Astra.Xtreme]

i dont know what the hell youre arguing about. you even said it yourself they are selling the console at cost. thats what im saying,they chose these components because of cost. they cant sell you an $800 machine,so this is what we're stuck with,because this is the best performance they can get from the price range theyre after. the performance you get out of this will beat anything you can go out and buy yourself at retail,because again like you said, there is markup. you completely missed the point i was making. it is a valid comparison,because you will be able to play the same games on consoles and pcs. comparing the same performance to price,consoles will win every single time.

 

your transistor theory is completely wrong. a 7790 has 2 billion transistors. a quad jag apu has 1.3 billion transistors. remove the igpu,and add another 4 cores,and you're still sub 2. add them together,and you're looking at in the 3s billion. xbox one soc has 5 billion transistors.

Umm... I clearly explained I wasn't talking about hardware or cost in the first place.  Your first response was completely out of context since it had nothing to do with what I said...  I was talking about optimization on the developer consoles being subpar causing developers to not be able to utilize the full potential as of now.  If you read my response, you'd understand that.

[Crisp]

IMHO if your a crazy psycho about framerates being 60+ GTFO and stay with your PC.  Unless you have a high a dollar TV (and even then theres no comparison to a high dollar pc monitor) you are just not going to tell the difference and of 12 people off hand that i know of that have consoles only me and one other have a high dollar TV and we just happen to be the only ones with high dollar computers as well.

 

I'm sorry but you can tell a massive difference between 30 and 60 fps.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Are you people saying you really can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, not seeing the difference in the following tests:

 

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=3

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

:huh:

[firey]

Are you people saying you really can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, not seeing the difference in the following tests:

 

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=3

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

:huh:

They looked pretty much the same to me (30fps vs 60fps).