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

[Blackhearted]

They shouldn't even be wasting their money developing this so called "next gen" version if they're gonna leave it running at 720p on both versions. What a waste.

 

 

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

 

Why would you think for a moment that they would aim higher on a weaker gpu?

[spaceelf]

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

Some people are distanced from reality when they hear things from sources they trust, I think.  Like my friend who's convinced everyone in the world still uses XP.  :rolleyes:

 

That said, this whole topic is based on something they already denied, as noted on the top of page 3.

 

Though I did find it ironic how many PS4 games shown off were struggling to keep up the framerate when X1 devs seemed to have no problem there.  I'm not saying that's how it'll be at launch, but it was interesting.

[vcfan]

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.

i know you didnt initially talk about cost,but you stated that you think ms/sony rushed this thing,and thats why we wont be able to have the greatest performance. i replied back that its not that they rushed it,these boxes have been in development for years. this particular architecture was chosen because of cost,but the consequences of using this architecture is more complex programming. the only part where i didnt agree with your original statement was the "rushing" part. maybe there was a little misunderstanding in between.

[vcfan]

Though I did find it ironic how many PS4 games shown off were struggling to keep up the framerate when X1 devs seemed to have no problem there.  I'm not saying that's how it'll be at launch, but it was interesting.

 

m $ has a big advantage in software

[neo1911]

Though I did find it ironic how many PS4 games shown off were struggling to keep up the framerate when X1 devs seemed to have no problem there.  I'm not saying that's how it'll be at launch, but it was interesting.

X1 demos were running on high powered PCs.

[vcfan]

X1 demos were running on high powered PCs.

 

for the last time, no they werent. only lococycle was running on a pc at the request of the developer. go read eurogamer, they confirmed and tested the games running on x1 hardware.

[spaceelf]

for the last time

you'd like to think so wouldn't you  :laugh:

[Astra.Xtreme]

i know you didnt initially talk about cost,but you stated that you think ms/sony rushed this thing,and thats why we wont be able to have the greatest performance. i replied back that its not that they rushed it,these boxes have been in development for years. this particular architecture was chosen because of cost,but the consequences of using this architecture is more complex programming. the only part where i didnt agree with your original statement was the "rushing" part. maybe there was a little misunderstanding in between.

Ah ok, I see what you're saying.  Cost is definitely part of it. There's also heat, which is a major concern.  They could go for crazy performance, but creating a lot of heat and having a loud fan to prevent a "RROD" isn't ideal.  Hopefully MS learned their lesson on that, but I'm also a little concerned with Sony since their PSU is integrated.  Lots of trade-offs and what-ifs.

 

Microsoft has done a lot of flip-flopping and minor tweaking of hardware, so that's probably where I'm getting the impression that it's being rushed.  And at E3 when the PS4 couldn't do 60fps, and both consoles had crashing issues, it also gave a bad impression.  Things like that should have been worked out months and months ago.

[BajiRav]

X1 demos were running on high powered PCs.

WTF, where is your source? If not drop the FUD.

[JonnyLH]

This is shocking news, for next-gen, I wouldn't call that acceptable.

You've guys have got to consider that Frostbite is an engine specifically designed around Direct X. With the PS4 having no equivalent, it doesn't surprise me that there may be a high learning curve to it.

In the EA conference, when they did that online demo, they specifically mentioned 1080p 60fps and that was on the X1. With the article around how they built Direct X for the X1 it wouldn't surprise me if this was still true.

[the evn show]

Removed

[BajiRav]

Here's the accusation, 

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Games-E3-Were-Running-Windows-7-With-Nvidia-GTX-Cards-56737.html

 

 

Here's the response:

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Microsoft-Says-Windows-7-Nvidia-GTX-PCs-E3-Were-Xbox-One-Dev-Kits-56834.html

 

There's also this 'games reporter' noting that some demo kiosks crashed to a standard-issue Windows desktop (like what you'd have on a PC) rather than what you'd get for a console running Windows 8. https://twitter.com/JazRignall/statuses/344967744808185857

 

One developer responded saying "We just didn't have time to make Xbox1-native versions so we just ran the PC version because we wanted to showcase our game."

 

-- so, what's the summary? --

We know for sure the demos weren't running all running on XBox One hardware. Some of it was explained to be running on 'pc hardware similar to an xbox one -- development kits' and that despite their considerably more powerful hardware, the machines should have performance similar to the shipping consumer version of the XBox One. Other demos just were the desktop PC version running on pretty good quality hardware because that's all the developer had to showcase.

 

Make of that what you will.

All first party XB1games ran on devkits except Lococycle. I am not going to bother with those links. This was a non issue at E3 that was blown out of proportion.

[neoadorable]

Nonsense. Both consoles can easily run that game 1080p ultra at 40 plus frames. Shoddy coding or up scaled prev Gen versions if not the case.

[neo1911]

All first party XB1games ran on devkits except Lococycle. I am not going to bother with those links. This was a non issue at E3 that was blown out of proportion.

Nothing was blown out of proportion.

 

It's just that some people were religiously hurt when the news came out. Whether first party, second party or third party doesn't matter.

 

I just hope both consoles run games at slightly higher resolution than 720p at least.

[Pupik]

Here's the accusation, 

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Games-E3-Were-Running-Windows-7-With-Nvidia-GTX-Cards-56737.html

 

 

Here's the response:

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Microsoft-Says-Windows-7-Nvidia-GTX-PCs-E3-Were-Xbox-One-Dev-Kits-56834.html

 

There's also this 'games reporter' noting that some demo kiosks crashed to a standard-issue Windows desktop (like what you'd have on a PC) rather than what you'd get for a console running Windows 8. https://twitter.com/JazRignall/statuses/344967744808185857

 

One developer responded saying "We just didn't have time to make Xbox1-native versions so we just ran the PC version because we wanted to showcase our game."

 

-- so, what's the summary? --

We know for sure the demos weren't running all running on XBox One hardware. Some of it was explained to be running on 'pc hardware similar to an xbox one -- development kits' and that despite their considerably more powerful hardware, the machines should have performance similar to the shipping consumer version of the XBox One. Other demos just were the desktop PC version running on pretty good quality hardware because that's all the developer had to showcase.

 

Make of that what you will.

Why did you single out Xbox One, when "PS4" had the same issues?

http://www.gameswelt.tv/need-for-speed-rivals/chris-zockt-gamescom-2013,35769

[neoadorable]

I don't get you guys. These are shuttle PCs with a hopped up 7790, multi core CPUs, decent clocks, min available 5GB, and less overhead than a Windows/Mac OS PC. Who in their right mind would doubt they can do 1080p native? Only really cautious or lazy developers, that's who.

[spacer]

Getting back to the fps argument; I can tell the difference between 30 and 60. But only when I stop and specifically look for the differences. During the middle of gameplay, especially in a game like Battlefield, it's much less noticeable because there is so much more going on that you need to pay attention to. So in the context of the OP that's why I said if I had to choose, I would pick 1080p30 over 720p60.

[Slammers]

Nonsense. Both consoles can easily run that game 1080p ultra at 40 plus frames. Shoddy coding or up scaled prev Gen versions if not the case.

 

Your dreaming. A ps4/nextbox gpu only averages BF3 40fps on ultra at 1080p. Obivously the console hardware has advantages with memory access and no os etc. but considering BF4 is going to be more intensive than BF3 I think it's safe to say that a PS4 / Nextbox could not run BF4 ultra 1080p at anything more than 20-30fps.

 

720p 60fps is pretty sweet for a game like this on a console I guess, I couldn't go from a PC to that though....

[Slammers]

Getting back to the fps argument; I can tell the difference between 30 and 60. But only when I stop and specifically look for the differences. During the middle of gameplay, especially in a game like Battlefield, it's much less noticeable because there is so much more going on that you need to pay attention to. So in the context of the OP that's why I said if I had to choose, I would pick 1080p30 over 720p60.

 

You can't be very good at bf3 or play very much then, as most people would definitely take 60fps. You are literally not as good in the game at 30fps. Close quarters combat and responding quickly to things especially is harder. 

Single player game it wouldn't matter as much.

[NeoWind]

the only game that wow me was watch dog. that game truly is 1080p base on my scrutiny.  In fact, next gen game should be native 1080p not a scale up version :s  if not then what is the point of buying when current gen some game scale up as well especially pc isn't optimize for true 1080p

[BajiRav]

Looks likes this was a non-issue? DICE has come out and said that final resolution is when game ships.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

Nothing was blown out of proportion.

 

It's just that some people were religiously hurt when the news came out. Whether first party, second party or third party doesn't matter.

 

I just hope both consoles run games at slightly higher resolution than 720p at least.

 

When we continue to see statements like "X1 demos were running on high powered PCs.", that's twisting facts for whatever reason. The news was specifically about Microsoft booth which showed first party games.

All third parties used PCs for PS4 and XB1 - that is always the case for new consoles, nothing new there. See the PS4 photo above.

[Mando]

Your dreaming. A ps4/nextbox gpu only averages BF3 40fps on ultra at 1080p. Obivously the console hardware has advantages with memory access and no os etc. but considering BF4 is going to be more intensive than BF3 I think it's safe to say that a PS4 / Nextbox could not run BF4 ultra 1080p at anything more than 20-30fps.

 

720p 60fps is pretty sweet for a game like this on a console I guess, I couldn't go from a PC to that though....

 

Especially as the consoles will be at last getting 64 Multiplayer. combine that with 720p@60fps that is a decent feat for this round of consoles.

 

As a comparison my 660ti with 3Gb and clocked i7 2660k (8Gb DDr2133 sys ram) struggles to push BF3 at ultra, sub 1080p (1680x1050 for 60fps at ultra, drops to 50fps@1080p) on 64 player maps. Not exactly a top end games PC by any means.

One thing I did see very obvious in the previous title, seeing bf3 on a 360 on a large screen compared to a PC on the same side by side was shocking, a PC on low was comparable to the texture detail on the 360. Id think the one and ps4 will manage to push ultra comparing it with mid-top level pc levels, granted sub 1080 upscaled, with higher texture levels giving a richer env.

 

Without an upgrade, ill be happy if my bf3 rig plays bf4 at high, never mind ultra!

 

With both consoles, there hasnt been anything announced yet that has made me go wow , more a next half gen, deffo an improvement, just not as big as i thought.

 

Tbvh in any fps anything around 40+ is plenty for a smooth experience on any platform. 

 

If I was to buy one, it would be an xbox one, still got my black brick xbox and my 360 Elite, sadly havnt gamed on the 360 for years, its a netflix/lovefilm box these days.

[Raa]

That's quite bad tbh... All that "next gen" power and they can't do a measly 1080@60fps? :P

[vcfan]

That's quite bad tbh... All that "next gen" power and they can't do a measly 1080@60fps? :p

 

on a pc, you need a 1.2-1.8gflops gpu to play BF3 at 1080p60fps on ultra like a 650ti or 7850. these are the similar specs for xbox one and ps4.  because of the custom silicon,and the lower level software access, i fully expect the hardware to be capable of running next gen titles at 1080p60fps like BF4, but again, we have to wait and see how balanced the whole system is. developers might not waste their time optimizing if its a painful experience and the sdk sucks. this doesnt mean the hardware isnt capable.

[MikeChipshop Member]

im gonna buy  GTA V and play the hell out of it and not worry about the next gen consoles till later. 

 

Exactly my plan.

Grab GTAV on launch day and rinse that for all it's worth. Once that's got boring, which looks like a long time yet, then i'll see what people who have actually used the new consoles say and i'll make my decision and grab one plus BF4.