Xbox One exclusive Ryse runs at 900p


Recommended Posts

Actually there where other third party games who also increased their resolution and/or FPS this gen on subsequent releases.

 

You need to stop thinking in absolutes all the time, I'm sure there are a few cases of the opposite where the nature of the game benefits from one of the two - or maybe the devs could get away with a cheapo rerelease, maybe making significant progress in terms of features was ruled out by a harder limit like RAM.

 

But ultimately, the majority of console titles put perf budgets towards features ahead of FPS/Resolution. It's a clear trend and it makes sense, native resolution isn't a big deal when you're rolling "TV+Couch", and 60fps isn't as rewarding due to the limitations of interfacing with a controller instead of a keyboard and mouse.

MS and Sony don't pay retail price for the hardware so I think it's feasible to stick something with a retail value of 800-1000$ inside a, let's say 600$ console.

 

What I would have gone for is this. Keep the same basic hardware, but beef up the CPU part of the APU to desktop class and add another dedicated GPU (200-250$ retail value) for crossfire in games that need it.  Maybe the tech is a year away (desktop class steamroller APU), the box will be bigger and it would need more cooling, but I say it would have been worth it.

 

 

I will grant you that you could make an argument that a $600 console with those specs might be worth it, but does that mean it would sell well in the market today?

 

Sony was unable to convince many people to buy a ps3 @ $600.  The X1 is pushing it with $500 but at least they are trying to counter that with a pitch about the value of Kinect.  I'm just not sure if a $600 console has much of a chance beyond niche status.

 

This discussion reminds me of a couple consoles that came out during the snes/genesis era and then the sega saturn/ps1 days that demanded high prices but did in fact offer a higher end performance.  That would be the Neo Geo and 3DO.  Both consoles were clearly superior, offering games that could match arcade level quality, but they commanded a price that simply kept them out of the mass market.

The probable reason it will of been dropped to 900p is simply business requirements towards frame-rate with tightened budget while a lot of the team members may be moved onto different projects internally. We most definitely will see resolution gains based on the public acceptance of these resolution changes online. It's just annoying, but I'm guessing the Combat Vidoc trailer which was in 1080p was actually rendered in 900p and that looks sublime to be honest.

 

Also Athernar, Halo is the best example of a game which goes from Sub-HD to native 720p this generation. 

 

Anyone who bad mouths Forza needs to do more reading up on it considering every Forza game since Forza 3 has had a physics engine which runs at 360FPS. Including Forza 5. For them to push visuals at a locked 60fps also is a big feat. Considering the jump between graphics between Forza 2 and 3, I wouldn't be suprised if we saw something similar in next-gen.

  • 2 weeks later...

Looks like Ryse is back up to 1080p.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

Good. None of these games should use sub-1080p graphics. It's just pathetic that these new consoles can't guarantee 1080p60. I thought it was a sure thing a year or two ago considering how cheap it is to do on PC. But instead Microsoft makes a $350 console and forces you to buy a $150 camera and Sony releases a $400 console that can STILL not guarantee 1080p60 but is much more likely to do it than XB1. 

 

Come on!

  • Like 1

Wonder what happened since earlier he said there were downgrades: http://gearnuke.com/ryse-downgrade-officially-confirmed-crytek-ceo/

 

i sure love downgrades

 

iblrbwqLb6QbLW.gif

 

(the bluriness from the 2nd pic is because it was captured from a streamed video, 1st one is a direct screen shot).

Well going by dualshocker's two comparison articles, I'm liking the new version over the older ones.

 

The reduced jaggies looks better and I'm a lot keener on the appearance of the metal armor now - looks less like the chrome plastic that Samsung uses on their phones :P

Well going by dualshocker's two comparison articles, I'm liking the new version over the older ones.

 

The reduced jaggies looks better and I'm a lot keener on the appearance of the metal armor now - looks less like the chrome plastic that Samsung uses on their phones :p

 

The skin and armor both look more real, how some people can say the old version looks better than the new is laughable to me.   People seem to think the higher polygons in a character model the better when that's not how it works in the end, just shows that most gamers have no idea about game development.   You can have a lower poly count but make it looks better with better textures and shaders/lighting and so on.  

ryse1_by_raziel1992-d6odjcy.gif

HNNGGGGG.

 

Kudos to Crytek, dropping the polys and upping the shaders was definitely the best artistic decision. Looks stunning. The full HD tweet is vague, but hopefully it is 1080p! 

The horribly broken english of those tweets doesn't push me to believe in them.

Well it is the CEO of Crytek and they're a German company.

 

He has stated "no downgrades" since E3. 1080p confirmed at E3, would mean still 1080p now.

I think it is 900p native.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

They apply their upscaler for AA, framebuffer, and native 1080p, which is a very confusing way to put things, as that means it uses an upscaler to achieve native 1080p, which is not native right?

I think it is 900p native.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

They apply their upscaler for AA, framebuffer, and native 1080p, which is a very confusing way to put things, as that means it uses an upscaler to achieve native 1080p, which is not native right?

The interesting thing is, is that its been 900p this whole time. No-one has noticed including journalists, media and everyone who's played it. With the framebuffer comment, post-processing effects may be applied after  its upscaled which may create a weird hybrid which causes the 1080p look so to speak.

 

Since its been like this since day 1 and the E3 demo was 900p, not bothered, looks intense.

I would be amazed if many of the launch titles on both XB1 or PS4 run at 60fps/1080. Launch titles are NEVER going to use the full potential of consoles so I don't see this as any surprise.

 

Also, is there any need for the "magical hidden power" part, all you're asking for is yet ANOTHER thread that this forum could do without over who has the biggest e-p***s because they chose the "right console".

Agreed.  These discussions would be much better if they were a bit less juvenile (And posters in general thought through their posts a little before posting...  It's common sense that launch titles aren't optimized to take full advantage of ANY console's feature set or hardware...  This has been the case since the beginning of time.  LOL

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And Microsoft got walloped on here for what they were charging for the new Surface book. Not looking as bad now. This was inevitable as they have to maintain those Apple margins.
    • Now 8GB of ram looks even worse in the Neo. I'm so happy I purchased 128GB of DDR 4 when I did.... paid $174. Upgraded my parents laptop to 32GB around the same time for $48. Luckily I have a TON of spare laptops. So i'm good on laptops for a while. I also have a lot of desktops too that I could use if i had to. Lets just hope nothing happens to my main 4 monitor couch workstation.
    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
    • Ventoy 1.1.16 is out.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      134
    4. 4
      Xenon
      77
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!