Xbox One exclusive Ryse runs at 900p


Recommended Posts

The cost of console gaming isn't limited to the cost of the console itself but includes the games and online charges. It doesn't cost anything to game online on PC yet both Microsoft and Sony charge you for the privilege - that's ?32.72 a year and ?261.76 over the life of the console. And games on console typically cost around 50% more than on PC and take a lot longer to drop in price - if you buy one game a month (?30 on PC, ?45 on console) then the difference amounts to ?180 a year and ?1,440 over the life of the console. That's a cost of over ?1,700, money that could be used to upgrade and maintain a gaming PC.

 

That also neglects the fact that a lot of people use PCs for work or other purposes (audio recording, video editing, photo organising, etc) and so that reduces the total cost of ownership, just like most console owners don't factor in the cost of a HDTV. Console gamers are paying over the odds for convenience.

 

thats great that in 8 years you will end up spending less by browsing the bargain bins and waiting for ports to be released,if they are ever. with consoles you pay a smaller up front cost, a tiny monthly/yearly fee to get high quality multiplayer and services, and you're always playing the latest and greatest games the second they drop. the first business model fails, the second one works.

I have to agree with LaP on this.  This is 2013, not 2005, things are very different.

 

Yes I agree that developers need time to get the best from the hardware....but 1080p gaming in 2013 is an absolute given.  This is the MINIMUM, not something to aim towards as time goes on.

 

I want the next gen consoles to breeze playing 1080p 60fps games.  They should not have the think about it, no matter how inexperienced the designers are in using the platform.

 

NOTE TO MODS:  It is not my intent to come across in this post as trolling.  This is from my personal viewpoint and I respect other forum members who share a different view.  Happy to discuss in a friendly manner with other forum members :-)

  • Like 2

but 1080p gaming in 2013 is an absolute given.

 

Yep. This is a no brainer, and it was the general expectation before details of the current gen came out. Now that we have next gen titles coming out with lackluster performance they are backpedaling and pretending that it was never expected that they would run 1080p.

 

This current gen actually saw games run at lower resolutions as time went on, as devs needed to find things to sacrifice in order to accommodate higher resolution textures in modern games.

  • Like 1

It never translates so easily.  TV's are generally 1080p/720 or some variation thereof - in fact, i'd bet the majority of tv's are still not true 1080p reoslution to even this day.  Most are some weird 1366x768 and have internal scalers that up/down convert.. yes, there are a lot of 1080p sets, yes, even 4kp, but most people won't notice on a console because there eyes are going to be set to scaled graphics already - not like on a PC where you may run 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 true resolution and even if you did, if you sat 5 feet away from your tv, i doubt you would notice.

 

apples to oranges here, but keep lying to yourself if you wish.. these never ending comparisons of pc ps4 and xone are pathetic.

 

you will notice mate...  i downloaded 1080p version of titan fall trailer and put it on my 47" TV it looked amazing, back when i had to move back to my parents house for 2 months i played lost planet 2 on there 1080p TV, it was insanely good, still havnt tried a game on my TV but might flip it over now actually ill try lost planet 3 on it. Btw on TV's if the sticker on it says HD ready its 1366x768 it has to say HD 1080p btw.

 

Lost planet 3 running at 1080p looks amazing on my 47inch TV :D

 

I do think all consoles will hit the 1080p 60 fps mark in the next batch of AAA but im starting to think they havnt got the power to run the same level of detail as a PC (which should be a given) but saying that, for the price point of the hardware the games will still look really good. Most games come with low, medium, high, very high and ultra settings i think theyll sit between the high-very settings and pending if theyve got any special chips for processing MSAA it might be set to low (2x MSAA) even if the PS4 is still more powerful than the x1 it wont be by much because the GPU cant push the level of detail so much higher that anyone would really notice cus its a mid range GPU. dunno what the extra ALU's the ps4 will do but we'll have to wait and see. 

 

My next gfx card will probably cost ?350 (volcanic islands ownage yo!) so cant expect the consoles to perform as admirably.

Yep. This is a no brainer, and it was the general expectation before details of the current gen came out. Now that we have next gen titles coming out with lackluster performance they are backpedaling and pretending that it was never expected that they would run 1080p.

 

This current gen actually saw games run at lower resolutions as time went on, as devs needed to find things to sacrifice in order to accommodate higher resolution textures in modern games.

This is factually incorrect. I can bring up example of Halo 3 and Halo 4. They were five year apart and Halo 4 was a drastic improvement over Halo 3. It had higher resolution as well as more things on the screen in much larger environments.

I have to agree with LaP on this.  This is 2013, not 2005, things are very different.

 

Yes I agree that developers need time to get the best from the hardware....but 1080p gaming in 2013 is an absolute given.  This is the MINIMUM, not something to aim towards as time goes on.

 

I want the next gen consoles to breeze playing 1080p 60fps games.  They should not have the think about it, no matter how inexperienced the designers are in using the platform.

 

NOTE TO MODS:  It is not my intent to come across in this post as trolling.  This is from my personal viewpoint and I respect other forum members who share a different view.  Happy to discuss in a friendly manner with other forum members :-)

 

The problem is you can always get better (but blurrier) gfx by reducing the resolution and let the gpu upscale the image and force some AA.

 

The devs will always have the hard choice between crisp native res gfx with reduced "quality" (let's say as an example normal quality setting) and blurrier upscaled gfx with better "quality" (let's say high quality setting).

 

Consoles are not like PC where the devs don't have to cut corners and can give the users the choice of the resolution, the quality, the aa and the filtering.

 

Personally on PC when i have the choice between native res at high quality and lower res at ultra quality i always chose native res over higher quality.

 

I expected the next gen to be always 1080p and if needed with lesser quality gfx than what would be possible at lower resolution. I simply can't stand the look of non native res gaming even on console.

But we are not talking about unknown CPU or GPU architecture that takes a while to adapt to (PowerPC, ...)...  It's X86 CPU with ATI GPU...  And the Xbox is running a version of Win8 with DirectX.

 

So, if you can game at 1080p on your PC and can't do it on the Xbox One, well, maybe it's because the hardware can't do it, it's just too slow.

 

And yes, it sucks because it's 2013 and gaming should be done in 1080p/60fps.  What will 720/900p look like on a 4K TV?

  • Like 1

Well if ps4 and x1 games really are stuck with sub 1080p resolutions for many games, than yeah, it probably wont look awesome on a 4K tv.

 

I suppose it also comes down to how each console handles up conversion, not to mention your own tv.

 

I've seen 1080p content upscaled to 4k that looks pretty darn good. 

 

Its not impossible that with the right upscaler, you could get acceptable results from say 900p. 

Why 900p of all numbers? 

 

Surely the upscaler in the xbox has been optimised for upscaling the standard resolutions - 720 -> 1080, 720 -> 4k and 1080 -> 4k? And not any random vertical resolution that someone picked out of a hat.

 

A lot of games this gen were at 640, which seems like a random number.

900p is probably as low as they had to go to hit their target and I doubt it's noticeable, every gameplay video so far out there before this news and no one made a deal out of it.  It's like KI all over, before it was official that it ran at 720p no one said crap about it but now it's an issue all of a sudden.    

  • Like 2

Yep. This is a no brainer, and it was the general expectation before details of the current gen came out. Now that we have next gen titles coming out with lackluster performance they are backpedaling and pretending that it was never expected that they would run 1080p.

 

This current gen actually saw games run at lower resolutions as time went on, as devs needed to find things to sacrifice in order to accommodate higher resolution textures in modern games.

To be honest this is not the first of many articles talking about games not running at 1080/60fps, I may be wrong but I believe Turn 10 are the only dev team to come out and say our game WILL run at these sorts of levels. I don't know what constitutes as "general expectation" but it certainly wasn't mine. Do I expect games to look better than last gen, yes. Do I expect them to come out perfect to begin with, not at all. 

But the Windows 8 Kernel has nothing to do with the Xbox OS... W8 side is for apps and other entertainment...

Xbox OS is based on NT since its inception.All "3" OS in Xbox One should be running some type of NT 6.x

1080p wont look like crap on a 4k tv. it will probably look like 1080p on a 1080p screen.

 

that said, and in spite of what's been said, I think it is a reasonable expectation for these next-gen consoles to be able to push games at 1080p resolution. 

1080p wont look like crap on a 4k tv. it will probably look like 1080p on a 1080p screen.

 

that said, and in spite of what's been said, I think it is a reasonable expectation for these next-gen consoles to be able to push games at 1080p resolution.

No doubt that it's reasonable to expect it but at the same time we've been through new console launches many times, the first batch of games is never up to par, developers don't have enough time to get more out of their code with a short deadline and non-final hardware. It's like anytime a XB1 game doesn't do 1080p@60f it's because the hardware is so weak, well what about those PS4 games that don't run so great either? Or are we just stuck in this double standard because it's MS/Xbox? I like to see what the excuse is when PS4 games come out running under those expected levels.

No doubt that it's reasonable to expect it but at the same time we've been through new console launches many times, the first batch of games is never up to par, developers don't have enough time to get more out of their code with a short deadline and non-final hardware. It's like anytime a XB1 game doesn't do 1080p@60f it's because the hardware is so weak, well what about those PS4 games that don't run so great either? Or are we just stuck in this double standard because it's MS/Xbox? I like to see what the excuse is when PS4 games come out running under those expected levels.

 

Who said anything about PS4? Get out of this stupid bimodal "console war" dichotomy. The conversation is more generalized towards both consoles showing lackluster resolutions. There have been threads here about PS4 games running at sub-HD resolutions as well and have been met with the same reception.

  • Like 1

I just don't see why people are all in a huff over this kinda stuff.  You need to remember games that are day one releases for new consoles were made with very early beta dev kits and so on top of it being a new system and learning how to pull more and more out of the system they were working with beta kits.

 

I wish they would just not even tell us the resolutions because somewhere along the way people started thinking resolution was everything. Just because something is running at 1080p does not mean it looks anywhere near as good as some other game that is only running at 720p.  If they didn't tell us i seriously doubt most would know. I mean i would venture to guess at least 75% of the complainers would have no idea if someone didn't tell them

Who said anything about PS4? Get out of this stupid bimodal "console war" dichotomy. The conversation is more generalized towards both consoles showing lackluster resolutions. There have been threads here about PS4 games running at sub-HD resolutions as well and have been met with the same reception.

Because like it or not it's fans of one system posting negative news about the other to stir things up. I don't care either way, I've said it already, no one noticed or said anything when people thought the resolution for this, and other games was 1080p, but now that they know otherwise it's a issue? The difference between 30 and 60 frames per second is more of an issue than Ryse being 900p with a little upscaler work will look just fine on your big screen TV. Otherwise people would've questioned its res long ago, back at E3, which no one did.

I've said it already, no one noticed or said anything when people thought the resolution for this, and other games was 1080p, but now that they know otherwise it's a issue? The difference between 30 and 60 frames per second is more of an issue than Ryse being 900p with a little upscaler work will look just fine on your big screen TV. Otherwise people would've questioned its res long ago, back at E3, which no one did.

 

 

I think everyone needs to remember this point.

 

It wasn't until this resolution number was mentioned that people started to pick it apart.  Up till then, I wasn't hearing anyone complain about the graphics of Ryse.  The game looks good. People start to get obsessed with these numbers and not the final product.

 

This has been going all of this generation and will continue into the next gen. 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ryse-runs-at-900p

 

Sub-1080p AND most likely 30fps.

Ahhh, interesting thread, i feel a decent discussion coming on...

My my, I wonder where all that magical hidden power the xbone is supposed to have went.

Oh well. Another troll/flame bait thread. Do.not.want.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!