Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps

[JonnyLH]

The Gamersyde footage was captured with over exposed gamma settings and high brightness as the owner of the website said. 

 

I've been playing the game this morning on my X1 and its really pretty, definitely a good example of what is to come with these consoles. Regarding the frame-rate, the DF article said the large variance in the FPS on the PS4 makes it unsettling sometimes. 

 

To be honest, as much as I'd love for it to be a locked 60, I really don't like large variance in FPS and the locked 30 on the X1 is a really nice experience. Although it does have some drops from 30 if you step into waterfalls and play around with the camera for example. With how much everyone was downplaying the X1 version, I thought it'd drop from 30 more than it does. It really doesn't drop too much.

[LaP]

 

Depth of field is also missing from the One (on top). DOF is something better shown in motion before anyone just asks why is one screenshot blurry and the other not.

 

 

I actually turned DOF off on my PC cause i did not like it lol

 

Are you sure it is off on the xbox. It looks like it is set at normal to me. In TR PC a normal value for DoF looks really ugly. You need to set it at ultra or off.

[trooper11]

It was a prod at Polygon for rating COD lower on the PS4 for framerate, but not TR on the One. Its interesting that people on NW will go as far as to get upset at Polygon being criticised as somehow being unfair on the One.

Get upset? I didn't notice anyone reacting that way before your post.

Thank you for clearing that up though. I don't follow Polygon's reviews much, so I had no idea they treated COD differently. Did they have an explanation for that? Maybe they felt the fps difference in COD mattered more since it was a straight up shooter or something.

 

 

It's not just the frame rate differences, texture quality as well (and no before anyone asks I didn't add the labels ~ "Xbone")

 

 

 

It almost looks like its upscaled (I know it's not). AC4 texture differences look similar (sharp vs blurry) and it was 900p vs 1080p.

 

Depth of field is also missing from the One (on top). DOF is something better shown in motion before anyone just asks why is one screenshot blurry and the other not.

There's a good DF video comparison over these two links as well as to the frame rate differences in motion

 

PS4 / Xbox One

Wow, that is some obvious differences. The first shots you showed also seemed to show the X1 version being much brighter, or higher gamma values. Its clear the ps4 version is looking and playing better.

Is the assumption here that this due to the X1's poor hardware or a poor port?

[LaP]

I don't follow Polygon's reviews much,

 

It's probably because they are not really good ;) Polygon reminds me the old IGN of the original XBox era (i say the old IGN cause i have not read this web site for ages now so it might have changed since then).

[JonnyLH]

It was a prod at Polygon for rating COD lower on the PS4 for framerate, but not TR on the One. Its interesting that people on NW will go as far as to get upset at Polygon being criticised as somehow being unfair on the One.

To be honest, I prefer having a more locked framerate to an unlocked one. I can see why they were kept similar.

[LaP]

To be honest, I prefer having a more locked framerate to an unlocked one. I can see why they were kept similar.

 

The PS4 is not unlocked. It's locked at 60 instead of 30. It's just harder to maintain 60fps than 30fps so the average is further from the max on the PS4. As long as it doesn't drop below 50 too much it's better to have a framerate between 50 and 60 than to be capped at 30. TR might not be a fps but there's lot of action when you move a lot and quickly. On my PC the framerate was a little low (a little bit over 30) with all options at the maximum possible setting and i decided to disable a couple of options because the game was a little choppy here and there with 30fps average. I disabled postprocessing and DoF as those 2 settings made the game blurry anyway.

[JonnyLH]

The PS4 is not unlocked. It's locked at 60 instead of 30. It's just harder to maintain 60fps than 30fps so the average is further from the max on the PS4. As long as it doesn't drop below 50 too much it's better to have a framerate between 50 and 60 than to be capped at 30. TR might not be a fps but there's lot of action when you move a lot and quickly. On my PC the framerate was a little low (a little bit over 30) with all options at the maximum possible setting and i decided to disable a couple of options because the game was a little choppy here and there with 30fps average. I disabled postprocessing and DoF as those 2 settings made the game blurry anyway.

Its capped 60 and has an average of 50 fps in game play according to DF. A frame rate which can go to lows of 32fps. I'm playing the X1 version right now and it pretty much stays at 30 throughout. 

[trooper11]

It's probably because they are not really good ;) Polygon reminds me the old IGN of the original XBox era (i say the old IGN cause i have not read this web site for ages now so it might have changed since then).

That's partly true, although honestly, I have a hard time saying that any of the 'mainstream' review sites stand out as great. They all seem to have issues. The other reason I don't read their reviews much is simply their web layout. It seems like they are trying way too hard to stand out visually and its too much imo. Their consoles reviews were better in that respect, but most reviews are not shown well.

[firey]

Definitely contemplating picking this up for PS4. I haven't played it yet (on pc or otherwise).  I do enjoy these style games, but is it one I should grab now, or wait for a bit on?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I'd wait to see what's happening with the PC version, they said it wouldn't be getting this release, but considering the console release is just the PC copy with tweaked graphics and all DLC, that could change.

[BajiRav]

How does it not matter? If it continues it's telling of the technical differences between the consoles, which to some could be a deciding factor which they buy.

 

If it doesn't matter to you then that's fine and your opinion, but it certainly matters as far as the industry is concerned.

 

If you mean doesn't matter with TR, then I agree because it's not even a balanced debate.

Honest question: If these technical differences(fps, resolution, texture res etc.) really mattered, why did so many people (including possibly Audioboxer) bought PS3 last generation (especially at launch)? Why did they bother buying mutliplatforms on PS3 when Xbox 360 was clearly superior in almost all cases?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Honest question: If these technical differences(fps, resolution, texture res etc.) really mattered, why did so many people (including possibly Audioboxer) bought PS3 last generation (especially at launch)? Why did they bother buying mutliplatforms on PS3 when Xbox 360 was clearly superior in almost all cases?

 

Can't speak for AB but that's certainly why I bought 360 versions instead of PS3. Plus controller preferences and XBL being superior at the time.

 

In a lot of peoples cases PSN has reached the level where they feel it's on par or better in some cases and the new controller is finally favourable.

 

I will be buying PS4 multiplatforms this time if this continues though.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Honest question: If these technical differences(fps, resolution, texture res etc.) really mattered, why did so many people (including possibly Audioboxer) bought PS3 last generation (especially at launch)? Why did they bother buying mutliplatforms on PS3 when Xbox 360 was clearly superior in almost all cases?

Originally a little denial at the PS3 launch, Sony arrogance and CELL chat brainwashing. Coming off the PS2 high confidence in Sony. Then as time passes being invested in one platform, trophies, friends/GF having a PS3 and so forth. Accepting that for the most part devs will lead on 360 and the multiplats will be superior there, but as many feel enjoying Sony's more diverse (IMO) lineup compared to 360. Back then as well with no PS+ free MP was a selling point, along with Netflix/iPlayer when they launched not being paywalled.

To be honest I mostly owned exclusives to begin with, and in recent years besides Bayonetta most PS3/360 titles haven't been that different, with some even being better on PS3.

You've also got to understand this is a new console generation in which the focus isn't simply having HD. Last generation was the OMG we've moved to HDMI cables and HD. Now we are expecting PC like results as what else is there really? We had 3D last generation as well. With no other fresh technology advancement we're looking for our new hundreds of ???$$$ pieces of equipment to vastly improve on last gens attempt at HD, and I say attempt with the amount of subHD. You're simply going to get a lot of scrutiny at the start of a console generation and in regards to MS specifically when people like Pennello and Nelson speak out so confidently against performance differences, the internet will now be bringing out the microscope each time a multiplat title has differences. And to be fair differences aren't really arguably minor here when its FPS/texture and missing effects in play.

Tomb Raider is also a title that was released last gen, and if you're going to get gamers to spend 60 bucks again, you really need to make a difference. The game was already capped at 30FPS before...

[BajiRav]

Can't speak for AB but that's certainly why I bought 360 versions instead of PS3. Plus controller preferences and XBL being superior at the time.

 

In a lot of peoples cases PSN has reached the level where they feel it's on par or better in some cases and the new controller is finally favourable.

 

I will be buying PS4 multiplatforms this time if this continues though.

 

Originally a little denial at the PS3 launch, Sony arrogance and CELL chat brainwashing. Coming off the PS2 high confidence in Sony. Then as time passes being invested in one platform, trophies, friends/GF having a PS3 and so forth. Accepting that for the most part devs will lead on 360 and the multiplats will be superior there, but as many feel enjoying Sony's more diverse (IMO) lineup compared to 360. Back then as well with no PS+ free MP was a selling point, along with Netflix/iPlayer when they launched not being paywalled.

To be honest I mostly owned exclusives to begin with, and in recent years besides Bayonetta most PS3/360 titles haven't been that different, with some even being better on PS3.

You've also got to understand this is a new console generation in which the focus isn't simply having HD. Last generation was the OMG we've moved to HDMI cables and HD. Now we are expecting PC like results as what else is there really? We had 3D last generation as well. With no other fresh technology advancement we're looking for our new hundreds of ???$$$ pieces of equipment to vastly improve on last gens attempt at HD, and I say attempt with the amount of subHD. You're simply going to get a lot of scrutiny at the start of a console generation and in regards to MS specifically when people like Pennello and Nelson speak out so confidently against performance differences, the internet will now be bringing out the microscope each time a multiplat title has differences. And to be fair differences aren't really arguably minor here when its FPS/texture and missing effects in play.

Tomb Raider is also a title that was released last gen, and if you're going to get gamers to spend 60 bucks again, you really need to make a difference. The game was already capped at 30FPS before...

 

So in the end, you both somewhat agreed to the point that these tech differences are secondary reasons for choosing a console in most cases.

 

I think most people go where their friends go. I am pretty sure my XBL list of friends will turn to mostly Xbox One because almost all of them are Halo regulars. Not everybody buys both consoles and whenever next Halo drops, most people on my list will be getting XBO. Once they buy XBO for Halo/Titanfall, extra FPS or more resolution is not a compelling factor for buying another console.

Sony survived last generation mainly on blu-ray being its unique feature and more exclusives post 2010.

As AB said, hardware features wise both consoles are on similar ground (ignoring kinect for a moment) so things that will make a difference are services/apps i.e. software & ecosystem.

XBO apps are code compatible with WinRT and that might turn out to be its killer feature if Microsoft opens it up to all devs. Sony will probably end up integrating Android runtime and Google services to match because as of now it has no real answer to SkyDrive or WinRT apps or even Kinect.

 

I would have preferred if XBO had a consistent 1080p/60p game with Ryse like IQ for all games (may be it will still have) but if that meant dropping Kinect or raising price to $600 then I am (grudgingly) glad they did what they did.

 

In the end, FPS and resolution "don't matter" as much as we think they do.

 

 

p.s. A note about XBO not able to do 1080p/60fps on a last gen game. May be that's the reason, remember the lazy devs argument?

[GotBored]

Honest question: If these technical differences(fps, resolution, texture res etc.) really mattered, why did so many people (including possibly Audioboxer) bought PS3 last generation (especially at launch)? Why did they bother buying mutliplatforms on PS3 when Xbox 360 was clearly superior in almost all cases?

 

PS3 didn't require a subscription service to use online streaming services or internet browser, or was required to play games online. It was also the cheapest blu-ray player for some time, one of the first devices to support 3D playback. (3D playback support was also added in a firmware update and was free).

 

Also the PS exclusives; Gran Turismo, Beyond Two Souls, Infamous, God of War, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm, Ridge Racer, SingStar, Last of Us, Time Crisis, Twisted Metal, Haze, Heavy Rain, plus about a 100 other exclusives.

(Then there were ones which were PS3 exclusives or planned to be but later went multiplatform like Tekken, Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV).

 

I bought both cause each had something to offer that the other didn't, This gen I only got the PS4 because the Xbox doesn't offer anything over the PS4 which I actually want.

 

The live NFL features, the TV features, the tv guide, etc I wouldn't even use let alone pay for XBL to be able to use. The exclusives Ryse, Halo, Gears of War, Sunset Overdrive and Project Spark I have no interest in. (I did play Fable and have a interest in that IP but the new xbox one fable looks terrible imho, maybe when the Fable after that one comes out I will get the Xbox One if it looks good). I know someone will mention TitanFall but I can get that on PC and I prefer to play FPS on PC, but I'm still not convinced its a title worth owning yet so will wait till its released and have had the chance to try it out or seen more gameplay.

 

My point is that the PS3 did have features which made it worth the purchase last gen.

[BajiRav]

PS3 didn't require a subscription service to use online streaming services or internet browser, or was required to play games online. It was also the cheapest blu-ray player for some time, one of the first devices to support 3D playback. (3D playback support was also added in a firmware update and was free).

 

Also the PS exclusives; Gran Turismo, Beyond Two Souls, Infamous, God of War, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm, Ridge Racer, SingStar, Last of Us, Time Crisis, Twisted Metal, Haze, Heavy Rain, plus about a 100 other exclusives.

(Then there were ones which were PS3 exclusives or planned to be but later went multiplatform like Tekken, Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV).

 

I bought both cause each had something to offer that the other didn't, This gen I only got the PS4 because the Xbox doesn't offer anything over the PS4 which I actually want.

 

The live NFL features, the TV features, the tv guide, etc I wouldn't even use let alone pay for XBL to be able to use. The exclusives Ryse, Halo, Gears of War, Sunset Overdrive and Project Spark I have no interest in. (I did play Fable and have a interest in that IP but the new xbox one fable looks terrible imho, maybe when the Fable after that one comes out I will get the Xbox One if it looks good). I know someone will mention TitanFall but I can get that on PC and I prefer to play FPS on PC, but I'm still not convinced its a title worth owning yet so will wait till its released and have had the chance to try it out or seen more gameplay.

 

My point is that the PS3 did have features which made it worth the purchase last gen.

None of the things (except BD and PSN was a joke) you listed were true at PS3 launch and first few years. People still bought it.

[firey]

XBO apps are code compatible with WinRT and that might turn out to be its killer feature if Microsoft opens it up to all devs. Sony will probably end up integrating Android runtime and Google services to match because as of now it has no real answer to SkyDrive or WinRT apps or even Kinect.

 

I would have preferred if XBO had a consistent 1080p/60p game with Ryse like IQ for all games (may be it will still have) but if that meant dropping Kinect or raising price to $600 then I am (grudgingly) glad they did what they did.

 

In the end, FPS and resolution "don't matter" as much as we think they do.

 

The problem with this is that not everyone has winRT or wants winRT style apps.  I know I don't use my PS4 for checking stocks, looking up directions, weather, etc.  Even if I had the option I probably wouldn't do it.  My cell phone does it perfectly.   Also, running Xbox code on a RT base tablet requires you to own an RT Tablet.. which is the exact same as if you want to play PS4 games on the Vita.. you need a vita.

Also, if they did implement Android it would destroy the xbox simply due to the numbers of apps and such (for those that want it).   Why do we need skydrive? We already get cloud saves, ability to share/upload clips.  I don't do anything on my PS4 that would require me to save things to skydrive.  I have a computer for that.. not that I do it on there anyways.

Also, PS4 doesn't need kinect, kinect is an addon that MS has chosen to use beyond that.. but it's not required or needed.  I play games and use my ps4 100% perfectly without the ps camera/voice.

A lot of what you are claiming puts the xbo ahead is purely opinion or things you think are good.. but in the end they don't appeal to everyone.  Honestly.. if the xbo was 100$ cheaper (with or without the kinect) I would consider picking it up one day... purely for exclusives.  But the PS4 does everything I want, and need.  

My TV has built in streaming via dlna, has a full app market (smart), I don't need that stuff in my PS4.  

But again, I am basing it on my opinion and I think the thing to remember is that MS Wants a non-pc pc out of the Xbone whereas Sony wants a game console out of the PS4.

[firey]

None of the things (except BD and PSN was a joke) you listed were true at PS3 launch and first few years. People still bought it.

The PS3 was launched as a killer device.  It had the CELL, Blu-Ray, etc it was, through solid marketing on Sonys part, sold as better than the 360. In my opinion the PS2 was one of the best consoles, and Sony had a solid track record by the time of ps3 (with the ps1 and 2) that a lot of people listened and believed Sony. 

I bought the PS3 as it did have exclusives that started with ps1 and 2.  It was a step up from the PS2 and was at launch considered the best console.

[LaP]

Can't speak for AB but that's certainly why I bought 360 versions instead of PS3.

 

This. Me too i bought an XBox and an Xbox 360 because the multiplatform titles were better on them most of the time. If it's the other way around this gen then i'll go with the PS4 even if the difference is small.

[trooper11]

The problem with this is that not everyone has winRT or wants winRT style apps.  I know I don't use my PS4 for checking stocks, looking up directions, weather, etc.  Even if I had the option I probably wouldn't do it.  My cell phone does it perfectly.   Also, running Xbox code on a RT base tablet requires you to own an RT Tablet.. which is the exact same as if you want to play PS4 games on the Vita.. you need a vita.

I think your missing the point about app support on the X1. Its not about checking stocks or the weather. This can be useful to game developers and all sorts of media providers.

Don't focus so much on WinRT as a tablet platform. Its merely a core for building apps across various devices.

 

Also, if they did implement Android it would destroy the xbox simply due to the numbers of apps and such (for those that want it).   Why do we need skydrive? We already get cloud saves, ability to share/upload clips.  I don't do anything on my PS4 that would require me to save things to skydrive.  I have a computer for that.. not that I do it on there anyways.

I think there is another important point here. If you don't like MS' services to begin with, your not going to like what they do on the X1. That's clear enough looking around the net. Its all personal opinions. If someone uses skydrive elsewhere and like it, their opinion might be different.

 

Also, PS4 doesn't need kinect, kinect is an addon that MS has chosen to use beyond that.. but it's not required or needed.  I play games and use my ps4 100% perfectly without the ps camera/voice.

A lot of what you are claiming puts the xbo ahead is purely opinion or things you think are good.. but in the end they don't appeal to everyone.  Honestly.. if the xbo was 100$ cheaper (with or without the kinect) I would consider picking it up one day... purely for exclusives.  But the PS4 does everything I want, and need.

You illustrate your own point. You hate things like Kinect or using media services at all on a console. Gaming is all you want out of a console and the ps4 offers the games you want, so your opinion is in full force here. Each of us is allowed to buy what we want for any reason. What crosses the line is when we claim one side of the opinion means more than the other side or that one opinion is fact.

The reality is that your position is just another opinion in a sea of opinions. What does the market as a whole want or need from a console in 2013? That's up for debate. Its just nice that we have two consoles trying to find out through adding features.

 

My TV has built in streaming via dlna, has a full app market (smart), I don't need that stuff in my PS4.  

But again, I am basing it on my opinion and I think the thing to remember is that MS Wants a non-pc pc out of the Xbone whereas Sony wants a game console out of the PS4.

The thing is though, Sony is bringing much of the same to the ps4 as MS is. Just like MS, you can avoid it while those that like that stuff get access to it. So really, your not harmed by Sony or MS catering to more people.

I just feel that Sony and MS are actually aiming for similar goals. Sony isn't just aiming for a games console and MS isn't aiming to make a pc. Both are aiming for an all around entertainment box. Now, the PR has been different for both, which I think creates this view that they are so different.

Its like the whole TV, TV, TV thing. It turns out that Sony is just as invested in providing TV/media content on the ps4, but they rolled that detail out in small pieces over the course of many months, making it easier to digest.

Things about the ps4 seem to point to Sony treating this as much more than just a gaming console. Things like the multitasking OS and the social features are outside of the needs of a console that only cares about gaming. You could get by just fine without that, or without the media apps Sony has already released.

For me personally, I think both consoles can be used quite happily for gaming alone while they both add more and more additional features to find out what people want to use. If your the type that only wants to play games, then pick the console with the games you want.

If 3rd party games are better on the ps4 throughout this generation, then this is the reverse of last gen. It means that you will end up owning both consoles if you want the X1 exclusive games or will just own an X1 and the difference won't matter much to you. If you have no interest in X1 games, then you get just a ps4, you get the best looking versions of 3rd party games, and you can feel 'special' like some 360 owners felt when it was reversed :laugh:

[HawkMan]

I actually turned DOF off on my PC cause i did not like it lol

 

Are you sure it is off on the xbox. It looks like it is set at normal to me. In TR PC a normal value for DoF looks really ugly. You need to set it at ultra or off.

 

Game DoF is horrible. it looks horrible, due to performance requirements it's faked, so not only does it look horrible, but it has weird artifacts. same issue as with water in certain games where stuff behind the water is reflected in the water around the object....interesting physics :)

 

Maybe 5-10 years in the future when hardware is powerful enough to do real proper intracity and multisampled depth of field. I'll be happy (just fyi, proper DoF. requires for good quality at minimum each frame to be fully rendered 4-5 times, twice that or more for good results, it's somewhat hardware intensive ;), incidentally this also applied for proper motion blur. )

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Looks like it's not simply 1080p native on One after all

 

To begin with, let's address the differences between the two versions of the Definitive Edition on offer. PlayStation 4 users get a comfortably delivered 1080p presentation backed up with a post-process FXAA solution that has minimal impact on texture quality, sporting decent coverage across the scene, bar some shimmer around more finely detailed objects. Meanwhile the situation is more interesting on the Xbox One: the anti-aliasing solution remains unchanged, but we see the inclusion of what looks like a variable resolution framebuffer in some scenes, while some cut-scenes are rendered at a locked 900p, explaining the additional blur in some of our Xbox One screenshots. Curiously, the drop in resolution doesn't seem to occur during gameplay - it's only reserved for select cinematics - suggesting that keeping performance consistent during these sequences was a priority for Xbox One developer United Front Games.

 

For the most part the main graphical bells and whistles are lavished equally across both consoles, although intriguingly there are a few areas that do see Xbox One cutbacks. As demonstrated in our head-to-head video below (and in our vast Tomb Raider comparison gallery), alpha-based effects in certain areas give the appearance of rendering at half resolution - though other examples do look much cleaner. We also see a lower-quality depth of field in cut-scenes, and reduced levels of anisotropic filtering on artwork during gameplay. Curiously, there are also a few lower-resolution textures in places on Xbox One, but this seems to be down to a bug (perhaps on level of detail transitions) as opposed to a conscious downgrade.

 

 

Frame rate:

 

Our early look at performance revealed a startling gap between the next-gen platforms, with PS4 commanding a massive frame-rate advantage, while Xbox One even managed to drop below the 30fps mark under load. For the most part, on the PS4 we see frame-rates regularly fluctuating between 40-50fps depending on the complexity of the scene, with exploration in highly detailed areas with lots of effects responsible for the drop in performance. On the flipside, the game manages to hit 60fps pretty solidly in locations that have fewer effects at work, and in the more scripted action sequences where the rendering load is more predictable.

 

But despite the inconsistency in the PS4 experience, we still feel it's the preferable buy. During combat - a key element in the game - we see the Xbox One drop down to the mid 20s, with the PS4's higher frame-rate offering a clear advantage in both smoothness and response, despite the fluctuations - the bottom line is that the differences between 40-50fps on the PS4 are far less of an issue than, say, the 24-30fps drops incurred by the Xbox One.

 

 

Overall

 

Overall, PlayStation 4 takes the lead where the next-gen consoles are concerned, with the higher quality effects work and higher frame-rates providing a preferable experience overall, particularly during heated combat, where the drops in performance are both felt and seen more heavily on the Xbox One. That said, as we pointed out in the performance analysis earlier this week, we would have liked an optional 30fps cap in the display settings to eliminate the judder during the frame-rate fluctuations and keep absolute consistency with controller response throughout.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off

[HawkMan]

My TV has built in streaming via dlna, has a full app market (smart), I don't need that stuff in my PS4.  

 

 

Somewhat off topic, but, in tv DLNA is great fot push content, like sending photos or small video clips from your phone to the TV.

 

for everything else, TV DLNA and so called "Smart TV", is horrible and best avoided. even the best high end Smart TV's are horrible to navigate, they're slow, they're laggy, their video streamers crash, their apps are horrible(have you even tried using netflix on a smart tv... *shudder*). 

 

So for actual content usage of media you have saved on a media server, NAS or other computer through DLNA. a console is a FAR better option. the tv option is for much less that it's not even an option. personally I have a combined HTPC and "server" for my media needs. 

[firey]

Somewhat off topic, but, in tv DLNA is great fot push content, like sending photos or small video clips from your phone to the TV.

 

for everything else, TV DLNA and so called "Smart TV", is horrible and best avoided. even the best high end Smart TV's are horrible to navigate, they're slow, they're laggy, their video streamers crash, their apps are horrible(have you even tried using netflix on a smart tv... *shudder*). 

 

So for actual content usage of media you have saved on a media server, NAS or other computer through DLNA. a console is a FAR better option. the tv option is for much less that it's not even an option. personally I have a combined HTPC and "server" for my media needs. 

I've watched quite a few shows/movies via netflix on my TV never had an issue.  I agree that the server software (pc side) sucks, but once it connects I rarely if ever have an issue, and that's including playing mkv files.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

i love how many people are always complaining about 30 vs 60 fps on console games (or any game for that matter)

 

so long as it does not drop below 30 i do not think it is going to be a problem and anything over that does not really matter much as it is not something that you are going to be able to pick apart as you play it. The game is still going to look great either way.