PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[SnoopZ]

Xbox One IS epic.

I agree 100%.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Shadow of Mordor (open world games are usually most testing)

 

The Xbox One release is immediately on the back foot, with our pixel count tests highlighting an upscaled 1600x900 resolve for the platform. In contrast with the full native 1920x1080 output on PS4,

 

 

 

Curiously, the PS4 and Xbox One feature an effect that refuses to work on PC: motion blur. Despite both camera and object motion blur being available in its settings menu, enabling it gives us no visible return while in-game.

 

 

 

Besides the 900p versus 1080p divide in native resolution, there are other noteworthy contrasts between the Microsoft and Sony versions. One of the biggest is in shadow quality, where Xbox One employs lower-resolution, flickering shadows that match the PC's medium standard. PlayStation 4, meanwhile, offers much sharper outlines - particularly on hand details as Talion presses to a wall, falling close to the PC's high setting. It's a clear PS4 lead here.

 

 

Added to that, while the Sony console falls very short of the PC's level of vegetation density, by comparison to Xbox One it still boasts a notable increase in foliage across the world. Otherwise, both versions are very closely aligned in terms of effects quality and filtering - the PS4 only missing out on a subtle alpha effect around a creature's fangs in one encounter (shown in our comparison videos).

 

 

 

All of which leads us on to the topic of performance. Each of these per-platform visual tweaks service one end goal: v-synced 30fps playback on console hardware. In dialling back the LOD levels, textures and shadow quality for Xbox One and PS4, Monolith Productions achieves a near-perfect lock at this target based on our tests. Even in rendering a screen filled with irascible orc underlings, there's little that disrupts Shadow of Mordor's clean 30fps read-out. We do get the odd dropped frame when the camera quickly zooms to an alerted general; but gameplay is otherwise consistent for both platforms.

 

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-shadow-of-mordor-face-off

[trooper11]

Not a bad showing for the consoles. The pc version wipes the floor with the ps4 and X1, but the consoles do fine.

 

Basically, the ps4 version offers better shadows and resolution vs the X1. The X1 has some slight effect differences (that alpha effect comment), but both are solid performance wise with the same level of visual effects otherwise.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Andy.... BOO! All I have to leave here is this I missed from E3, no more arguing or rule breaking, I apologize for getting carried away!

 

Ubisoft's upcoming stealth-action game Assassin's Creed Unity is targeting 1080p/60fps for both the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions, level designer Bruno St-Andr? revealed in an interview with GamingBolt conducted at E3 but published today.

 

Either something has gone really wrong in development, or that was a load of BS and never the case... Either way, putting MS and Sony way into the background Ubisoft have done themselves no favours handing the gaming mobs torches with the lighters to go after them. That's all I'll say unless Ubisoft speaks up again, or we find out that staff members fate.

 

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

As for the above, I reckon its a bloody joke. Everyone knows the XB1 is a inferior machine technologically, and people are expecting games to be 900p/30fps on it. 
But the PS4 has shown time and time again that it can handle 1080p/60fps, hell check this thread for proof of that, so why the hell would Ubisoft limit what the PS4 can output?
That is seriously one of the dumbest things Ubisoft have ever done (not including Watch_Dogs fiasco).
Hundreds of people in a FB forum I manage have already said they are cancelling their PS4 pre-orders over this and the mess that is currently The Crew, I can see why.

Ubisoft have lost their edge since Watch_Dogs in my humble opinion. Then again, Ubisoft could be doing this on purpose with the intention of generating buzz for Unity, and the game always running at 1080p/60fps on the PS4, but intentionally saying its been dumbed down to match that of the XB1. 

Who knows.

In all honesty, we will buy the game no matter what anyway. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Andrew

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

If it weren't for Mordor and how much I enjoyed AC4 I probably would be quite quickly. But its hard if the formula is still too similar after how much Mordor is actually a better AC game than AC is in places from my playing. I still haven't completed AC4 even although I just said I really enjoyed it due to repetition. The nemesis system really is a breath of fresh air in Mordor even if it still has issues with repetition. That and AC combat just sucks balls, please do copy Batman if need be, it's combat is great.

I think I'll opt to repurchase GTA5 for my fall open world experience :/ Not sure. Definitely don't have the cash for a ton of games in the coming months. Nor time. I still haven't bought inFamous as open world games just eat my time... If Diablo 3 2.1 hits consoles this fall every other game is doomed for me anyway :p

January is going to be spent reading hype about Bloodborne and February initially losing my mind waiting, then playing. I really hope they get a solid 30FPS now. No excuse anymore, not with Sony funding and working with From Software.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

If it weren't for Mordor and how much I enjoyed AC4 I probably would be quite quickly. But its hard if the formula is still too similar after how much Mordor is actually a better AC game than AC is in places from my playing. I still haven't completed AC4 even although I just said I really enjoyed it due to repetition. The nemesis system really is a breath of fresh air in Mordor even if it still has issues with repetition. That and AC combat just sucks balls, please do copy Batman if need be, it's combat is great.

I think I'll opt to repurchase GTA5 for my fall open world experience :/ Not sure. Definitely don't have the cash for a ton of games in the coming months. Nor time. I still haven't bought inFamous as open world games just eat my time... If Diablo 3 2.1 hits consoles this fall every other game is doomed for me anyway :p

January is going to be spent reading hype about Bloodborne and February initially losing my mind waiting, then playing. I really hope they get a solid 30FPS now. No excuse anymore, not with Sony funding and working with From Software.

Bloodbourne is a buggy mess during my playtest at the EB Games expo last weekend. Don't expect too much from it. 

Also GTAV all the way :)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Bloodbourne is a buggy mess during my playtest at the EB Games expo last weekend. Don't expect too much from it.

Also GTAV all the way :)

Uh oh.... You just caused a black hole on Neowin saying that to me :P

/soulsfanboy

I've played it at Eurogamer, then got into the alpha test and killed the boss and completed it ;)

[Anthony Tosie Veteran]

I dont understand how anything that was posted in that other thread was even remotely rule breaking.

And the rules that he quoted dont even make sense. Thats my two cents on that anyway. 

As for the above, I reckon its a bloody joke. Everyone knows the XB1 is a inferior machine technologically, and people are expecting games to be 900p/30fps on it. 

But the PS4 has shown time and time again that it can handle 1080p/60fps, hell check this thread for proof of that, so why the hell would Ubisoft limit what the PS4 can output?

That is seriously one of the dumbest things Ubisoft have ever done (not including Watch_Dogs fiasco).

Hundreds of people in a FB forum I manage have already said they are cancelling their PS4 pre-orders over this and the mess that is currently The Crew, I can see why.

Ubisoft have lost their edge since Watch_Dogs in my humble opinion. Then again, Ubisoft could be doing this on purpose with the intention of generating buzz for Unity, and the game always running at 1080p/60fps on the PS4, but intentionally saying its been dumbed down to match that of the XB1. 

Who knows.

In all honesty, we will buy the game no matter what anyway. 

Being able to handle one game at 1080p and 60fps does not inherently mean it can play an entirely different game at those settings. A PC running Quake III at that resolution and frame rate doesn't mean it can run Crysis at that same resolution and frame rate, for instance. The image quality of some games is simply inferior, to put it another way.

 

I don't put much stock in a Gaming Bolt article, which is what all those 1080p/60ps reports for AC: Unity are citing. I'd be surprised if they weren't targeting 1080p, but 60fps doesn't seem realistic at the current stage in the console lifecycle for either system with an open-world game of Unity's image quality. It is surprising the PS4 version isn't running at a higher resolution, however. I'm betting they're BSing on that aspect.

[Luc2k]

Hundreds of people in a FB forum I manage have already said they are cancelling their PS4 pre-orders over this and the mess that is currently The Crew, I can see why.

I know this is most likely off-topic, but do you mind elaborating?

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I know this is most likely off-topic, but do you mind elaborating?

I played a post beta build of The Crew at the Sydney EB Games Expo and played like a mess. It was like they pulled the bad driving mechanic out of watch dogs, and made a separate game from it. The game at the expo was panned by everyone who played it saying even thou it was meant to be a arcade racer, it didn't feel like one. People were referring to it as one of the worst driving games available. (those who played it at the expo). I played it myself and I was just as disappointed as the others. It felt clumsy, the buildings were like cardboard boxes with *low res* textures slapped on them. And the cities were lifeless. 

See 

for what I mean that video shows it all really good.

[Chris Schroeder Veteran]

 

Everyone knows the XB1 is a inferior machine technologically, and people are expecting games to be 900p/30fps on it. 

But the PS4 has shown time and time again that it can handle 1080p/60fps

 

Your phrasing of these sentences suggests you'd be wrong.  Technologically speaking, the Xbox One is SUPERIOR to the PlayStation 4.  However it would all depend on what you're comparing.  The graphical prowess of the PS4 is better, but only because it's not a hybrid system that uses eSRAM to tie into the main system memory.  The eSRAM on the XB1 is superior to the PS4's GDDR5, but the small cache size prevents it from being a game-changer.  But what the XB1 lacks in raw GPU power, it makes up for in raw CPU power.  The XB1's CPU is not only superior but it also has offloading capabilities for HD audio, which is handled by a secondary CPU on the motherboard.  That frees up the main CPU for other tasks.  DirectX 12 will make it easier to code for the XB1.  It won't revolutionize the machine as a whole, but you will see fewer spec gaps between games. 

 

In all honesty neither console is excellent when you look at the specs on paper.  Both are outdated compared to standard $600-$700 desktop PCs.  Back to the comparison: you can have next-gen graphics or next-gen gameplay experiences, but you really can't have a full helping of both on an XB1/PS4.  They just don't have the dedicated power to really deliver on both fronts and it will take another couple years before the hardware is fully utilized.  Also - the PS4 hasn't achieved 60FPS on all the games that were listed earlier.  They may say 60FPS, but constant lag drops on games like Battlefield 4 were horrendous and proved that the average frame-rate was more like 42-45FPS (hardly a boast).  Titanfall for XB1 is wrongfully advertised as 720p when it's 792p @ launch (a graphical bump was talked about by Respawn Entertainment but EA's overly-ambitious launch window prevented RE from getting the 900p/1080p target for the final product on XB1).  I blame mostly development studios "settling" on graphics to put more emphasis on other parts of the game.  They don't want to overspend on looks and launch titles rarely wow, though the Xbox 360 certainly turned heads because it brought consoles out of the 480p lockdown into 720p gaming.

 

Maybe next time around, Microsoft will try to avoid getting overly concerned about looks and size of their box and opt for a dual APU/GPU setup that is more future-proof.  But games like Ryse were still gorgeous and I love how good Destiny looks on the Xbox platform and PS4 platform.  There is something to be said about quality of pixels versus quantity.  Greater lighting effects and better smoothing techniques can be a better trade than raw 1080p because it's just not a high enough resolution to kill off the jagged edges you'll still encounter.  4K would be a completely different story, but no console can handle that.

 

To end my long response - I think Microsoft and maybe Sony will look at a mid-term refresh of their consoles.  I would expect Microsoft to go toward a 5-year launch cycle, which allows them to not overspend and lose on the box and keep each on a 10-year lifecycle.  The 360 and PS3 are being phased out in the next year or two whether MS/Sony like it or not because developers will migrate to the new consoles - another problem with current "next-gen" titles not hitting their strides.  Multi-console launches kill off the hopes for the best product possible because it's just too much to take on for almost any dev studio.

 

TLDR?  Sorry - always like to converse with people on these things :)

[BajiRav]

I dont understand how anything that was posted in that other thread was even remotely rule breaking.

And the rules that he quoted dont even make sense. Thats my two cents on that anyway. 

As for the above, I reckon its a bloody joke. Everyone knows the XB1 is a inferior machine technologically, and people are expecting games to be 900p/30fps on it. 

But the PS4 has shown time and time again that it can handle 1080p/60fps, hell check this thread for proof of that, so why the hell would Ubisoft limit what the PS4 can output?

That is seriously one of the dumbest things Ubisoft have ever done (not including Watch_Dogs fiasco).

Hundreds of people in a FB forum I manage have already said they are cancelling their PS4 pre-orders over this and the mess that is currently The Crew, I can see why.

Ubisoft have lost their edge since Watch_Dogs in my humble opinion. Then again, Ubisoft could be doing this on purpose with the intention of generating buzz for Unity, and the game always running at 1080p/60fps on the PS4, but intentionally saying its been dumbed down to match that of the XB1. 

Who knows.

In all honesty, we will buy the game no matter what anyway.

I think Ubi made a mess by promising 1080p/60fps on PS4 to begin with. They achieved 1080p/30fps with a patch on PS4 Black Flag and probably similar thing will happen on this one. I bet its their engine that's holding them back or the dev. cycle was too short for proper optimization.

The only thing inferior on XB1 is its memory setup, we haven't seen any noticeable difference due to the beefier GPU on PS4. Almost all differences so far have been attributed to the ESRAM+DDR3 setup vs GDDR5 on PS4.

Heck PS4 didn't even hit 1080p/60fps on its exclusives (KillZone MP, Infamous:SS and now DriveClub) so the parity isn't just coming from XB1.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Boogie says it well

http://youtu.be/I-QPOUqI6Ww

Ubisoft PR has now reverted to things aren't locked down...

7/10/14 11.40am: Ubisoft has told Eurogamer that Assassin's Creed Unity's final technical specifications for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually still to be locked down.

With around six weeks to go until the game's launch, the developer revealed in a new expanded statement that there was still room for things to change.

"Final specs for Assassin's Creed Unity aren't cemented yet," a Ubisoft spokesperson explained, "but we can say we showed Assassin's Creed Unity at 900p during our hands-on preview event last week. We're confident that gamers will be thrilled with the gorgeous graphics and how Paris is brought to life in Assassin's Creed Unity.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-07-ubisoft-defends-assassins-creed-unity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one

[Polonium]

Ubisoft back tracking already? No surprise really I guess.

[spenser.d]

Ubisoft back tracking already? No surprise really I guess.

Weren't you the one who thought they were paid by MS to gimp it? If so, it should be a surprise :P

[Polonium]

Weren't you the one who thought they were paid by MS to gimp it? If so, it should be a surprise :P

I did think it yes. In my mind it was the only answer and I hope I'm wrong.

[BajiRav]

Weren't you the one who thought they were paid by MS to gimp it? If so, it should be a surprise :p

Looks like sony paid them more.

[BajiRav]

@BajiRav,

 

Those are only 3 Sony games and all of them are at 1080p, something the X1 can barely manage to achieve it seems.

Those are all Sony exclusives not running at 1080p/60fps. These games should have been "optimized" to run at what is apparently a golden standard of gaming.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Looks like sony paid them more.

 

It's a silly argument in the first place, but to go along with it, you think Sony could outbid MS? Sony couldn't outbid a homeless person.

 

AC has been co-marketed by Sony for last few years, now it's being done by MS. Tomb Raider has historically been PS tied, and sold better on that console, now it's a timed XB1 exclusive. Sure they managed to get Destiny, but MS already control COD, both published by Activision, potentially conflicting interests for MS to take on both.

 

MS just paid 2.5 billion for Minecraft... I'm sure your post is clickbait sarcasm, but if you're serious, really, Sony being able to outbid MS?

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I really have to say I am not sure how we are expected to have any type of real conversation about this topic if people just cannot accept the truth of the current situation.

The PS4 is the more powerful gaming console out of the two consoles.

There it is. Saying this does not make me any better of a person. It does not make anyone else any worse of a person.

However what it does make me is a realist.

At this point in time it has proven itself to be the better console from a purely gaming perspective.

If people cannot accept this simple fact how can we have any real conversation on this topic?

 

You can speculate about what the One may be capable of doing, and it very well may even do it one day, but the simple truth is so in this console generation, the PS4 has proven to be the dominate console from a technical perspective when the conversation is games.

Sure, the argument can be made the One handles other things better, which it absolutely does, I own both consoles myself so I have no issue saying that either, but the title of this thread is in regards to resolution and frame rate. Two aspects which are relative to the games themselves. Not the social features. Not the motion or voice control features. Not the media player functionalities. Games.

 

So sincerely and truly, if you want your opinion on things to be taken seriously and not questioned or called out or subject to scrutiny, your opinion does need to also have some fact behind it in order to be considered legitimate.

If you cannot admit what has been proven over and over thus far as the reality of the situation, and you insist on continuing to defend a console which has not proven itself to be defendable in regards to the very things you are choosing to defend it for, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously?

 

I just wish people would sit back and realize that accepting the reality of things does not make you any better or any worse than anyone else. If you prefer the XBox One over the PS4 more power to you. Rock on with your bad self. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prefer either console over the other one. Raw processing power in regards to frame rate and resolution just happens to be the one feature where there really is not much of a debate. At least not yet.

[trooper11]

snip

 

 

You hit the nail on the head with this one. The X1 is inferior for gaming.

The problem is that you have people that like to rub it in in various ways, which only results in an equal negative reaction in the other direction. I suggest more reporting of posters that go too far in either direction. They won't police themselves as evidenced by other threads.

I think another important point to make, as a realist, is that the ps4 is not capable of high end graphics like say a pc can. Not many ps4 games hit 1080p/60fps and some don't even hit 1080p. If Ubisoft had said nothing but the resolution, I wouldn't have been shocked since its not the first time. Watchdogs was 900p, so why not Unity.

This would be totally different if Ubisoft didn't open their mouth.

As a ps4 owner, I realize that at worst I'm going to get an equal quality multiplatform game (Destiny) or at best a better performing one. I also realize the ps4 does not mean 1080p or 1080p/60 across the board. That is pc territory. I'm not going to raise heck if a multiplatform title is only equal to the X1 version. I'm not going to feel insulted. But if some idiot at a developer wants to make it sound like they gimped a game on purpose, then I won't be happy.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Andrew

[Emn1ty]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. The X1 is inferior for gaming.

 

I don't think this is true in the slightest. Inferior resolution does not a poor console make. We have less than a handful of genuinely good titles on either console to really judge from, with games on both sides hitting high resolutions and framerates (be it both at the same time or not).

 

What I find mystifying is that we are judging the "inferiority" of a console based on how many fps/pixels it has rather than the quality of their interfaces, the refinement of their dashboards and the library/services available. Hardware differences are only one part of a console. What frustrates me about this console war is people seem to be hyper-focused on two of the most minute details about any gaming machine.

[trooper11]

I don't think this is true in the slightest. Inferior resolution does not a poor console make. We have less than a handful of genuinely good titles on either console to really judge from, with games on both sides hitting high resolutions and framerates (be it both at the same time or not).

 

What I find mystifying is that we are judging the "inferiority" of a console based on how many fps/pixels it has rather than the quality of their interfaces, the refinement of their dashboards and the library/services available. Hardware differences are only one part of a console. What frustrates me about this console war is people seem to be hyper-focused on two of the most minute details about any gaming machine.

You are right in the sense that a difference in resolution does not mean a console is bad for gaming.

Maybe its more accurate that the X1 is inferior to the ps4 in regards to raw gpu power. The rest is up to debate and opinion.

As for being a good gaming console, that is more debatable based on some opinions.

[Polonium]

I don't think this is true in the slightest. Inferior resolution does not a poor console make. We have less than a handful of genuinely good titles on either console to really judge from, with games on both sides hitting high resolutions and framerates (be it both at the same time or not).

 

What I find mystifying is that we are judging the "inferiority" of a console based on how many fps/pixels it has rather than the quality of their interfaces, the refinement of their dashboards and the library/services available. Hardware differences are only one part of a console. What frustrates me about this console war is people seem to be hyper-focused on two of the most minute details about any gaming machine.

 

frames and resolution aren't exactly minute details though, not really. If a game doesn't run at a constant frame rate it hampers the enjoyment, if resolution isn't up to scratch the game will look muddy and not as clear as it should do.

 

Hardly minute really. If your console of choice has a great UI and can play movies over a network, music, etc, etc but has choppy, muddy games - it's not a great games console, is it?