PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[BajiRav]

 At the end of the day if Microsoft goes back to being second

There were never #1 IIRC.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Metro

 

Beynon said the console versions are expected to run at 60 frames per second. The PS4 version will run at 1080p resolution, with the Xbox One running at 900p.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/22/5739550/metro-redux-trailer-2033-last-light

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

As expected with the id engine, Wolfenstein is not simply 1080/60

 

id Tech 5 was designed from the ground up for 60fps gameplay, so what kind of results could be extracted from it now all the power of the new generation of consoles is at its disposal? With last week's release of Machine Games' Wolfenstein: The New Order, we finally found out. In our initial performance analysis, we went in search of the first cross-platform 1080p60 first-person shooter and while the game mostly delivered, the dicovery of a dynamic resolution suggested that, once again, PlayStation 4 had managed to trump its Microsoft rival.

 

After first isolating an obvious example of the tech at work on Xbox One, a more detailed look at the captures revealed that both versions of the game achieve their locked 60Hz update by adjusting the amount of pixels rendered at any given point, in effect balancing engine load in order to put consistent refresh and controller response first.

 

Having now completed our analysis, it's clear that the PS4 gains an advantage with smaller drops in resolution that occur less frequently than they do on Xbox One. Metrics in the area of 1760x1080 are found on PS4, while on the Xbox One this can drop to an extreme of 960x1080 in some scenes. This is usually identifiable by an increase in the amount of jaggies on screen, along with a slightly fuzzier appearance to the already gritty aesthetic that Machine Games employs throughout the game.

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-wolfenstein-the-new-order-face-off

[Showan]

I know this isn't completely on topic but I will say this: All of these topics have forced Microsoft to change their game.

Xbox One appears to be either slower or harder to squeeze performance from. Xbox Gold is (currently) less valuable than PSN+. Xbox One isn't selling as much as the PS4, either due to price or PR issues.

I welcome all of this. As a consumer, this is lighting a fire under Microsoft's ass and they are finally conceding. At the end of the day if Microsoft goes back to being second, this might actually be a benefit for people who have invested serious money into this platform.

I'm a firm believer in the "You get what you pay for" model.

Though MS doesn't pump out the "newer free games" and such, Xbox Live being up more than down is more important to me.

Apps and stuff behind paywalls or not, whatever to me.

If a game has to be 900p vs 1080p, because of Kinect and the the backend behind it. I am more than happy to take the hit.

I already have a 360 and don't need an upgraded version of it. The visuals are still good enough and I am getting other tangibles.

On another note: Andy & Castor Troy, thanks for the Xbox Preview program invites. Loving that I am able to preview the updates early.

Back to topic at hand...

[Guest]

When you're using 256*256 / 512 * 512 / 1024 * 1024 assets, it doesn't matter what resolution you render the game in.

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

As expected with the id engine, Wolfenstein is not simply 1080/60

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-wolfenstein-the-new-order-face-off

Dropping to 960x1080 in some scenes on the XB1 is pretty appalling - that's literally half the resolution of 1080p.

 

If a game has to be 900p vs 1080p, because of Kinect and the the backend behind it. I am more than happy to take the hit.
I already have a 360 and don't need an upgraded version of it. The visuals are still good enough and I am getting other tangibles.

It's not because of Kinect, it's because of the inferior hardware - the console will soon be available without the Kinect. Also, we're talking about a much bigger difference - we're talking about XB1 games running at 720p/792p. That's just not 'next-gen'. It just seems rather bizarre to claim you're willing to take a performance hit for the Kinect functionality when it is barely used by any games. I can understand wanting the exclusives, preferring the XB1 controller or keeping your profile progress on Xbox Live but not Kinect.

 

When you're using 256*256 / 512 * 512 / 1024 * 1024 assets, it doesn't matter what resolution you render the game in.

Yes it does. The issue with Wolfenstein is that when the resolution drops the edges alias and the visuals go fuzzy. That's obviously a problem.

[George P Global Moderator]

That's some interesting tech there, I played the game on the PC but it's clear that you can tell when it's doing it's texture streaming process, specially if you spin around and look behind you quick and notice textures poping into focus, something people noticed in UE3 games but only at the start of levels. 

 

Regardless, does it even matter?  If the dips happen for short periods of time to keep the FPS, which are more important, constant then I don't see an issue here.    It's a fun game though, I enjoyed it and am player through a 2nd time but on the other timeline this time.

[Showan]

Dropping to 960x1080 in some scenes on the XB1 is pretty appalling - that's literally half the resolution of 1080p.

It's not because of Kinect, it's because of the inferior hardware - the console will soon be available without the Kinect. Also, we're talking about a much bigger difference - we're talking about XB1 games running at 720p/792p. That's just not 'next-gen'. It just seems rather bizarre to claim you're willing to take a performance hit for the Kinect functionality when it is barely used by any games. I can understand wanting the exclusives, preferring the XB1 controller or keeping your profile progress on Xbox Live but not Kinect.

Yes it does. The issue with Wolfenstein is that when the resolution drops the edges alias and the visuals go fuzzy. That's obviously a problem.

After playing Ryse and seeing its beauty, it let's me know that the One can have beautiful looking games.

And there is a 10% reservation for Kinect. It doesn't matter if the hardware is inferior to the PS4 or PC, because the games still look better than last gen, and I also get the I tangibles I want.

If Kinect games are slow to market then so be it. I love saying Xbox One, and it's waiting to see my face to say hi to me. Kinect logs me instantly (last few updates have made Kinect instantaneous for me)

I played NBA 2K14 while having IE snapped and listening to GamertagRadio. And I never really went away from my game. After a quick game and listening, I said Xbox go to Netflix, and just like that I was watching one of the Justice League Animated Movies. When the movie was over, I jumped back to play another game of 2K which was still running and I didn't have to "load back up".

I may be in the minority on this, but I personally love my $100 universal chat remote.

I'm a gamer, but I'm also a geek. And the One was killing 2 birds with 1 stone IMHO

[trooper11]

As expected with the id engine, Wolfenstein is not simply 1080/60

Yep, they tried to get away with stretching the truth. Can't hide the lacking hardware on the X1.

Pretty definitive result.

It is interesting that the ps4 could not manage a constant 1080p, but then maybe we are also seeing some of its hardware limits as well. Clearly though, its another example of the difference.

 

 

I may be in the minority on this, but I personally love my $100 universal chat remote.

Your in a huge minority around here. Maybe not so small outside the internet, but probably still small.

[LaP]

Your in a huge minority around here. Maybe not so small outside the internet, but probably still small.

 

I don't think he is necessarily in a minority.

 

I do think most people would not be able to tell the difference between the xbox one version of a multiplayer game and the ps4 version of it. Now that they are the same price it will all come down to exclusive titles. If the xbox one has the best exclusive titles people will but it first. If the ps4 has the best exclusive titles people will buy it first. If it is a tie then it might make a difference but it will likely not be a tie. We will see at e3 i guess cause right now both are weak when it comes to exclusive titles imo (sorry Titanfall lovers but i don't personally think it is as great as some people say it is anyway the pc version is nothing to write home about it's fun here and there but that's all).

 

In the end i think this gen will be like next gen. 50% market share for the xbox one and 50% market share for the ps4 worldwide. In the long run people will want to play the exclusive titles for both consoles and when they will be cheap enough lot of people will buy both of them.

 

Hardcore gamers for the most part do care tough. But most of them will buy both consoles early in the lifespan of this generation. But if the ps4 really has a little bit more power (along with the most common arch) devs might very well code for it and most multiplatform titles might be a little bit better on the ps4 like most of them were a little bit better on the 360 last gen. So if you can stand the PS4 controller (i have yet to try it personally) and you are not an xbox live ***** then it might be the version to buy. If this happens it also means the cloud wont be used for miltuplatform titles (i personally would be surprised if it is used for more than an handful of multiplatform titles outside of multiplayer servers)

 

I'm surprised that the xbox one supposedly can't run Metro games at 1920x1080. I mean my PC can and the cpu, ram and mb are 5 years old (ram and cpu overcloked i'll admit). Only the gpu is new (it's a 670 so not that new). If it is true it tells me that the dev might have focussed on the ps4 version first.

[1337ish]

I do think most people would not be able to tell the difference between the xbox one version of a multiplayer game and the ps4 version of it. Now that they are the same price it will all come down to exclusive titles. If the xbox one has the best exclusive titles people will but it first. If the ps4 has the best exclusive titles people will buy it first. If it is a tie then it might make a difference but it will likely not be a tie. We will see at e3 i guess cause right now both are weak when it comes to exclusive titles imo (sorry Titanfall lovers but i don't personally think it is as great as some people say it is anyway the pc version is nothing to write home about it's fun here and there but that's all).

 

According to the article above:

Outside of the more aggressive dynamic framebuffer on the Xbox One, there's little to separate it from the PS4 game. Shadow quality is slightly better on the PS4, but the artwork, effects and lighting are all basically identical. The PS4 holds up the closest in delivering a native 1080p experience at 60fps, so benefits from slightly more consistent image quality. As such, once again it's the PS4 release that is our preferred console choice. However, the differences between the two consoles are minor and Wolfenstein is really a worthwhile purchase no matter which one of these systems you own

[trooper11]

I don't think he is necessarily in a minority.

 

I do think most people would not be able to tell the difference between the xbox one version of a multiplayer game and the ps4 version of it. Now that they are the same price it will all come down to exclusive titles.

That decision will also be a fairly subjective one as long as all the games are considered 'good' in general. Sometimes people like to take what they consider to be the best games and just proclaim it to be the general accepted fact, when that is clearly not the case.

People can hate Titanfall and then other people can love it. It's at least considered a good game in general, but whether its a good exclusive is up in the air. Heck, same can be said for Infamous. Believe it or not, some people are not as enamored by it as others.

[LaP]

That decision will also be a fairly subjective one as long as all the games are considered 'good' in general. Sometimes people like to take what they consider to be the best games and just proclaim it to be the general accepted fact, when that is clearly not the case.

People can hate Titanfall and then other people can love it. It's at least considered a good game in general, but whether its a good exclusive is up in the air. Heck, same can be said for Infamous. Believe it or not, some people are not as enamored by it as others.

 

I personally I don't like Infamous games all that much. Not really my cup of tea.

 

Of course taste is subjective.

 

But some games are let's just say more widely accepted as must have titles than others. Halo on the XBox was one of them. Yeah some people disliked it but lot of people played it for ages (including myself). It's a little too soon to tell in the case of Infamous and Titanfall but pretty much all my friends moved away from TItanfall already on PC and started to play Diablo 3, Dota 2, Hearthstone and other games again. With Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein and other games coming out i think Titanfall might be forgotten quickly anyway on PC. Could be wrong of course but i don't see it being made of the same material as Halo, WoW, Diablo 2, BF 1942, CS and such. Can't speak for Infamous don't know anyone with a PS4. I sort of agree with the Angry Joe review of Titanfall.

 

But anyway that was not really the point i wanted to make. Some people love those games and it's all fine. I just don't see any of the current exclusive titles having a big enough impact to move consoles in the long run. But i might be wrong.

[George P Global Moderator]

Games are starting to look closer and closer to each other on the consoles, as expected.  Multiplayer games will always end up close, if the edge to the PS4 is a minor one then it's not like you're missing out on anything by going with the XB1 version.  A minor dip in res at times is hardly something to have a fit over.  We'll see how it goes with other games, but at this point, as in the past, it's the exclusives that will make a difference.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Shadow warrior, XB1 900/60, PS4 1080/60 - http://gamingbolt.com/shadow-warrior-runs-at-900p-on-xbox-one-and-1080p-on-ps4-both-versions-locked-at-60fps

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

PvZ will get a bump to 1080p on the PS4

 

https://twitter.com/PlayStation/status/471999984679014402

[trooper11]

We are seeing more 900/60 to 1080/60 examples showing up, which is certainly better then what some games have offered early on.

 

Still, the trend remains solid. Even PvZ is best on the ps4.

[BajiRav]

So looks like The Order won't hit 1080p and won't even manage 60fps. Their excuse is hilarious! :laugh:

"60 fps is really responsive and really cool. I enjoy playing games in 60 fps," Jan told me. "But one thing that really changes is the aesthetic of the game in 60 fps. We're going for this filmic look, so one thing that we knew immediately was films run at 24 fps. We're gonna run at 30 because 24 fps does not feel good to play. So there's one concession in terms of making it aesthetically pleasing, because it just has to feel good to play.

source: http://kotaku.com/a-developers-defense-of-30-frames-per-second-1580194683

In other words they couldn't get the PS4 to do 1080p/60fps with the IQ they wanted and this is a PS4 exclusive that has already been delayed (at least) once.

Obligatory note: if this was an X1 developer, they would be laughed at by every armchair critic - see Ryse/Crytek.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Difference is the PS4 has plenty proof already of obtaining 1080p regularly, and hitting 60FPS in a fair few cases.

 

I know it's a card Xbox fans will continually play now, but unfortunately for those doing so it doesn't change the dynamics of what we have, PS4 hitting either a higher resolution, or higher framerate in 90% of multiplatform titles.

 

They can have their artistic reasons when it's a one off, it's not as if it's multiple devs making excuses, or running in unusual resolution ratios (the film ratio of The Order) due to not being able to match the competition.

 

State it's funny all you want, one dev choosing to do something different from every other dev is hardly worrying for the hardware's limitations. You need a trend for people to really take notice, not one title. Not to mention a title that probably has the cleanest looking IQ from any next gen game we've seen so far, they're implementing a form of AA that you'd be hard pushed to see on many other titles (4xMSAA).

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Face-Off: Watch Dogs

 

On the console front, it's all too easy to recommend Watch Dogs on PS4 over its Xbox One equivalent: performance is more consistent and there's obviously the resolution boost to factor in as well. However, for the vast majority of the run of play, the two versions play in exactly the same way, and in motion the worrying notion of a significantly sub-native 792p rendering resolution looks nowhere near as bad as the raw numbers suggest.

 

The filmic approach to effects work in combination with an aesthetic that eschews jagged edges and intricate texture detail produces a game that presents itself in a mostly similar manner whether you're gaming at 792p, 900p or indeed 1080p. Console-wise, we feel confident in recommending both Xbox One and PS4 versions, but go for the latter if you have your choice of consoles: it's effectively an additional sheen of polish at no extra cost.

 

[trooper11]

Difference is the PS4 has plenty proof already of obtaining 1080p regularly, and hitting 60FPS in a fair few cases.

 

I know it's a card Xbox fans will continually play now, but unfortunately for those doing so it doesn't change the dynamics of what we have, PS4 hitting either a higher resolution, or higher framerate in 90% of multiplatform titles.

Yep, PS4 fans know the truth.

Xbox fans don't get the chance to poke fun at ps4 games precisely because the ps4 has already been proven to be the standout. If more 1080p games show up for the X1, then maybe, but not now. Its just one of those things to accept.

[McKay]

Yep, PS4 fans know the truth.Xbox fans don't get the chance to poke fun at ps4 games precisely because the ps4 has already been proven to be the standout. If more 1080p games show up for the X1, then maybe, but not now. Its just one of those things to accept.

People can do what they want, and some will want to point it out when a PS4 exclusive can't hit 1080. Because plenty of Sony fans are very vocal in their gloating of 1080 when an Xbox game doesn't reach it.

[BajiRav]

Difference is the PS4 has plenty proof already of obtaining 1080p regularly, and hitting 60FPS in a fair few cases.

 

I know it's a card Xbox fans will continually play now, but unfortunately for those doing so it doesn't change the dynamics of what we have, PS4 hitting either a higher resolution, or higher framerate in 90% of multiplatform titles.

 

They can have their artistic reasons when it's a one off, it's not as if it's multiple devs making excuses, or running in unusual resolution ratios (the film ratio of The Order) due to not being able to match the competition.

 

State it's funny all you want, one dev choosing to do something different from every other dev is hardly worrying for the hardware's limitations. You need a trend for people to really take notice, not one title. Not to mention a title that probably has the cleanest looking IQ from any next gen game we've seen so far, they're implementing a form of AA that you'd be hard pushed to see on many other titles (4xMSAA).

 

I am applying the same yardstick that "sony fans" use when it comes to  X1 games. I am all for devs choosing whatever they think is best for their games and although I would prefer 1080p/60fps, I am realistic given the console hardware.

It's funny because their reasoning is exactly same as what Crytek gave with Ryse but now that the game is on Sony's side, "sony fans" are suddenly changing their tunes. My post is in no way relates to PS4vsXB1 or their relative power, just wanted to point out the hypocrisy around this topic. I got expected response. 

 

Simple forum search and this popped up in first few results, (red emphasis mine)

 

That's more to do with why is it only 30 on one console (60 or uncapped on other)/this game is 30 and it's graphics do nothing to suggest why it should be 30 (possibly not 1080p, or textures are just meh). Even the XB1's graphical powerhouse Ryse couldn't muster up 1080p with a 30 framerate, that's why questions are being asked, not simply because we're in 2014. If you're not going to hit 60FPS you're definitely going to have to hit 1080p and/or show that your game is a graphical powerhouse.

 

And your time frame remark isn't quite spot on, simulation racing titles have always been demanded at 60FPS. Even Gran Turismo 3 was 60FPS. PGR devs did have to explain their choice as well (and unsurprisingly it was to do with graphics).

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Yeah and I stand by that as a rule of thumb. The Order is choosing a ratio where 1080p cannot be done and as I said above if one game wants to try something different you're not going to get a fire started no matter how hard you try. Only if a trend is set will people question the PS4s internals in the same light as the XB1.

[LaP]

Yep, PS4 fans know the truth.

Xbox fans don't get the chance to poke fun at ps4 games precisely because the ps4 has already been proven to be the standout. If more 1080p games show up for the X1, then maybe, but not now. Its just one of those things to accept.

 

Anyway people keep mixing resolution and framerate but those are 2 different subjects.

 

I can't speak for everyone but every PC gamers i know including myself don't run their games at a perfect 60 fps. To run newly released AAA games at a perfect 60 fps it requires a very good PC. Most PC gamers i know try to achieve a minimum fps of around 40 and an average of over 50. Personally i will never sacrifice MSAA to get 60 fps if i feel the game is playable with MSAA on. I actually played Alan Wake and Tomb Raider at an average of 45 fps cause i felt it was perfectly playable and i wanted the best gfx possible for those games.

 

Even World of Warcraft doesn't run at a perfect 60 fps on my machine. I get a solid 60 fps in raids and arena but while questing in the open world my fps get in the low 40 often and in big cities it can get as low as 30 something fps. If there's a raid in a capital then the game mostly becomes a slideshow.

 

I'll try to achieve 60 fps and i'll sacrifice gfx to achieve it only when i'm playing a game competitively online. Like it was important for me to get 60fps in raids when i did heroic progression in wow. But for offline games 40 fps something is perfectly fine. Even 30 is still ok if the framerate never dip below 30 (but i prefer 40-50 with triple buffering and vsync on).

People can do what they want, and some will want to point it out when a PS4 exclusive can't hit 1080. Because plenty of Sony fans are very vocal in their gloating of 1080 when an Xbox game doesn't reach it.

 

Yeah but the order is running at native res. Yes they are cheating with those black borders but the game is not upscaled at all.