Microsoft Exec Snaps Back at Fan Over Xbox One Resolution Issue

[Alpha Maeko]

Am I the only one who never heard Microsoft claim their console was faster/better/superior in specs?

All I remember them claiming was having an all-in-one experience and *potentially* more processing power via the cloud.

 

[smithy_2045]

I suppose it's hard to admit you made the worst console of the generation. Take pity on Microsoft ;D

Wii U is part of this generation, and is quite clearly worse than the Xbox One.

It's backwards compatible, so much so it can play game cube games, how does that make it worse?

Really? The best thing you can think of about the Wii U is that it can play GameCube games? My GameCube can do that, I don't need my Wii U to do that.

The Wii U is objectively an inferior console.

'Best' wasn't a term Evil Smurf used to qualify that function of the Wii U. Since that one seemed to fly over your head, it was stated for the purpose of scope; Nintendo consoles tend to have the scale to be backwards compatible, in this case, to two generations back (though it doesn't matter; no controller ports for the gamecube means no actual gamecube play).

And on terms of graphics...have you read even this thread at all? This whole issue in the big picture isn't a big deal, provided that you play games as games and not visual experiences, but it's like you've missed last generation too; Xbox 360 and PS3 had 1080p games as well. The ire is that a 'new generation' (and 400-500 bucks) should be a solution for at least one thing limited or inconsistent in the last generation, and that just isn't happening or being seen.

But in any case, this is all subjective. Just like your 'objective opinion' on inferior consoles. If you want some help on a more balanced position, try not to think about 'worse/better', 'best/worst', judgment on comparison. Consoles are supposed to be varied on a number of aspects, so 'objectively' it becomes inefficient for a simple quality comparison.

Backwards compatibility was the sole example he used to show that it isn't inferior. That implies that it's the best thing it has over the Xbox One, and it's a pretty pathetic one.

Note I said nothing about graphics, nor about the last generation.

And it's not subjective. The Wii U is underpowered, is selling like arse, and has an extremely limited pool of available games. It's got almost nothing going for it.

 

[Ipsen]

Backwards compatibility was the sole example he used to show that it isn't inferior. That implies that it's the best thing it has over the Xbox One, and it's a pretty pathetic one.

Note I said nothing about graphics, nor about the last generation.

And it's not subjective. The Wii U is underpowered, is selling like arse, and has an extremely limited pool of available games. It's got almost nothing going for it.

Wow, I'd hate to see what your other implications turn into, if you'll jump to extremes like this... and yes, they're your implications. I sure as hell didn't take the meaning as 'Wii U's backwards compatibility is its best feature over the Xbox one'. I think some would agree, and some would disagree, and I find myself somewhere in the middle, but it's largely a point out of my hands, as it's out of yours. My comment is implying something too, but who's implication includes more people?

Doesn't matter if you've never mentioned graphics or last gen. Nearly everyone else is, and you're posting here. I'll assume you have something to say in the flow of the topic.

Now the points you've made about the Wii U could be seen as objective on their own, but I hardly believe that you're making that stance. I can still believe that you're comparing consoles, and that's already subjective territory.

Case in point, it's okay to be subjective, because that's just how we make most of our judgements. Being objective negates any sort of opinion either way, and you're still showing yours.

 

[Strazdas]

"one of 10 games fit the criteria, all your complaints about other 9 are thus invalid"
good logic microsoft, keep using it.

More gaming you say? now if only Xbox was a gaming console.....

In most circumstances, yes, I'd say that players should just accept what they have and enjoy the games.

accepting less than 1080p and 60 fps from a 500 dollar machine in 2014 is very bad signal to send.
such criteria should be the bare minimum of gaming. This is not 2008 where this was "only for powerful hardware".

MS put in eSRAM, it's one of the biggest differences in design between the two consoles and, if devs use it, the XBONE has a slight edge over the PS4. So, from an extremely technical view they're not lying, but its also more complex to develop for and, just like on the 360 (had some eDRAM for same purpose), what developer is going to spend time and money to use the ESRAM while developing; especially when the PS4 is otherwise identical to develop for.

That said, most people don't understand and can't see the resolution difference (unless it's a side by side), they just know the numbers marketing hype. At the end of the day 720p is a higher resolution than most people need for the average game.

Well, Cell processor in PS3 is still around 20% more powerful than a 4th generation i-7. Not a single developer utilized it fully.
so saying that "if developers bend over and do things my way" doesnt work in real world.

Also people CAN and DO see resolution differences, unless they game on a 17" tvs. in which case resolution only works in making text readable. 720 is bad for gaming nowadays though. its not as big a problem as framerate, but its still very much a problem.

But everyone saying we NEED this rush to 1080/60....shut up. For all technical concerns, these new consoles are PCs. and guess what? PC's for the price you can get these consoles at can't be guaranteed to achieve 1080/60 either.

Oh, theres no rush, 1080/60 is something that was doen lnog ago everywhere but consoles.
and yes you CAN definatelly but a PC for 500 dollars that will run at 1080p 60 fps on same graphical level as consoles. in fact it will run so on higher graphical level. you have to remember that console graphical settings compared to PC would be "ultra low".

On my smaller older TV (42 inch about 6 or 7 year old Panasonic Plasma) i can honestly say that the difference between 720p and 1080p is pretty much unnoticeable. Can't tell the difference particularly in visual fidelity between DVD and Blu-ray.

However, when viewing these things on my 60 inch, the difference is huge. I mean massive.

I don't think on TV's the difference between 30fps and 60fps though is hugely noticeable, on either display. PC i notice it a lot more on, maybe because closer, maybe because of higher resolutions, i'm unsure, but as far as consoles go, 1080p and 30FPS is perfectly acceptable, and looks wonderful.

Does your old TV support 1080p? because if it downscales 1080p to 720p then ofc you wont see the difference. and there are plenty of TVs that do that.

Many older TVs do 60 fps interlatively, which means its only changing half of the screen every change, thus the change is far less noticable (as in, bad TV is bad). new 120hz interlate TVs do true 60 fps and there it is very noticable.
30 FPS is never ever acceptable unless you are using vastly outdated hardware though.

It's not that these machines can't run 1080p 60fps, there were a bunch of games that could do it last gen (on the PS3, at least).

no. PS3 is hardware-incapable of native 1080p. It runs a 720p resolution and then upscales it, which is hardly helping and is more of a "i tricked you" type of deal.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, or if it's been clarified, but is it up scaled to 1080p or rendered 1080p? That would make the difference as running games at a rendered 1920x1080 can be quite taxing, depending on the gpu.

rendered. even the old consoles managed to upscale it for some games.
and rendering at 1920x1080 isnt taxing for modern GPUs. then again, Xbox doesnt use one.

I'd rather have a game at 720p and better graphics settings than 1080p and worse settings.

all i can say is you have a very strange taste or haven't actually seen the two options in comparison.

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh no! An exec snarked in a public forum! D:

...why is this a scandal? I personally think the first guy deserved it, and it's not like the "snap back" was even anything notable. Hell, on /v/, that would be a gentle tousling of the hair.

 

[klaynexas3]

I find it funny how many people think it was just a troll. "When will we see 1080p" is hardly troll tastic. And I'm pretty sure Phil Fish never even snapped that quickly at people over so little. There's no reason why this executive should have been talking like such a ponce. Past that, it's mostly non news.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

Oh, theres no rush, 1080/60 is something that was doen lnog ago everywhere but consoles.
and yes you CAN definatelly but a PC for 500 dollars that will run at 1080p 60 fps on same graphical level as consoles. in fact it will run so on higher graphical level. you have to remember that console graphical settings compared to PC would be "ultra low".

Key words in what I said are "Guaranteed", and "These Consoles". I know full well that some low cost computers can achieve 1080p/60. but it's not assured across said computers. Also, while I suppose there are some laptops you can find that could achieve these kind of stats and still be under or at 500. But I'm not sure how much that could be said for desktops.

granted, I'm of the mindset to always build my desktops, so I will claim no knowledge in what the pre-fab market is like, nor have I bought a new laptop in years. So on that front, I'm out of my area of expertise for the moment.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you agree with Ybarra that people should just play the game and stop obsessing over technical issues, or is Microsoft to blame for not releasing a stronger console?

Both. Microsoft is 100% to blame for producing a console that is so much weaker than ps4's at a more expensive price. Sure, they have their reasons (mandatory kinect 2), but still their choice.

That being said, the XBO is capable of that resolution and framerate. So he wasn't strictly wrong. The idea being that the guy was misinformed and the question was almost solely a solid ribbing (aka, trolling). People do need to be more informed.

As far as getting over technical issues. If it's actually an issue, then consumers should never get over it. People should get over specs except where specs cause an actual issue. Low resolution can impact the quality of the graphics (love them or hate them, people do pay for them) and therefore are a legitimate complaint where relevant.

But the fact is, racing games aren't usually that graphically demanding. Of course less demanding games should be playable in higher resolutions/fps. The problem as I see it is that if multiple games already aren't playing at a stable framerate at high resolutions then things are only going to get worse if it isn't just a firmware issue.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Everybody is arguing about resolutions, and I'm just sitting here playing Mario on my Wii U at 1080p with 60 fps.

In all seriousness, I find it funny that these new machines aren't the power houses fans think they are, but it's early days. Games from the start of last gen didn't run as well as things from the last couple of years, give it time.

 

[Mixahman]

Weren't people asking for an Xbox 720 a few years back? Now that M$ gave it to them, they'll all crying about it. I've owned these systems and they failed constantly. I've been waiting for a better Nintendo console that is not a multimedia knockoff of PS or M$, doesn't have mii's or none of that bullshit cluttering the OS, a way better lifespan and gaming titles to match the other consoles (1st, 2nd & 3rd party devs), plus online implemented but the the number one reason to own one. A system we need, not a system we want.

M$ has always been a micro-pc dedicated to games, the 360 was an ad infested, wonky piece of garbage and the "One" is just a multimedia hub... that plays Xbox games. Plus you have to pay for online... get the fuck out of here.

It's odd that people think or wish to believe that we are in the new generation of gaming consoles when in fact "this" is an update to the previous one. Yes folks welcome to the 7.5 generation systems. A sub division of whacky control gimmicks, HD ports galore, sequels & remakes, plus the kick to the nads.... very little content for over price shit.

 

[Zipa]

Spoiler

Arguing over puny numbers like 720p/1080p and 60fps when 120hz monitors are very mainstream now (I've had one for years now) and 4K is on the horizon seems kind of pathetic. Talk about bitter fighting for second place, Geez...

The 'ultra powerful supercomputer consoles' are looking kind of sad and limp already. In the next 5 years we will be seeing mobile devices that top those numbers with comparable rendering capabilities.

Damn right. It's a pretty sad state of affairs for this new gen.

I understand the need to limit the next graphics step-up due to ballooning costs, but that should mean that the focus ought to be on making the next-gen experience smooth and fluid.? That doesn't take the same time art assets do, surely? The fact these things are already looking dated upon their release is a worrying sign and doesn't really inspire me to go out and buy one. The lack of actual video games doesn't help either.

The thing is this isn't the gamers just taking pot-shots at them, they actively hyped up the technical capabilities of the Xbone above all else. Consoles live by the graphical sword and die by the graphical sword. This is of their own making, for years we have had "Look at our shiny resolution numbers, look at our magical Bloom effects! You need the most power to be a good game! If you've got less polygons you are shit!"

If you read any description of the Xbox one you will see more than 50% of it boasting about technical prowess. Here read this; " In addition to Xbox One's revolutionary architecture, the combination of its CPU, GPU, and ESRAM is like having a supercomputer in your living room" This is how they choose to define things.

The problem is we are also getting a whole new generation of corridor games, scared to leave the rails in-case their new shaders cause the framerate to go below their locked 30FPS and the graphical fidelity failed to live up to your next gen expectations. I wouldn't care if a game didn't have the brightest bloom effects if it was actually GOOD.

It is also outright bullshit , the new consoles (PS or Xbox) don't have a seperate CPU and GPU like most gaming PCs, they use APUs. (combined processor and graphics chip)

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, theres no rush, 1080/60 is something that was doen lnog ago everywhere but consoles.
and yes you CAN definatelly but a PC for 500 dollars that will run at 1080p 60 fps on same graphical level as consoles. in fact it will run so on higher graphical level. you have to remember that console graphical settings compared to PC would be "ultra low".

Key words in what I said are "Guaranteed", and "These Consoles". I know full well that some low cost computers can achieve 1080p/60. but it's not assured across said computers. Also, while I suppose there are some laptops you can find that could achieve these kind of stats and still be under or at 500. But I'm not sure how much that could be said for desktops.

granted, I'm of the mindset to always build my desktops, so I will claim no knowledge in what the pre-fab market is like, nor have I bought a new laptop in years. So on that front, I'm out of my area of expertise for the moment.

pretty much any new computer sold today will achieve 1080/60, unless your looking at somoen trying to get rid of their 4 year old stocks (that happens, poor people that get tricked by that).
Its very strange that you talked about laptops, considering laptops are the weaker and more expensive than desktops. It would not be so easy to find a bellow 500 dollar laptop that cna do that, desktop however - easy. Yes, i know some people look at alienware and think thats how much PCs cost. but its not. You should take alienware price and at minimum shave 50% off it.
as a person who claims to "build desktops" you should know better than to call laptops cheaper though, so i seriously doubt that statement. however even prebuilt desktops that are more expensive can achieve that.

In all seriousness, I find it funny that these new machines aren't the power houses fans think they are, but it's early days. Games from the start of last gen didn't run as well as things from the last couple of years, give it time.

the difference is, when last gen consoles came out they were mroe powerful than high end PCs at that time. now, they are less powerful than mid-range PCs, so theres not much pwoer to "tap". also due to the x86 architecture there wont be that "early days dont know how to code" excuse anymore. this is standart architecture that was used in pcs for DECADES. if they havent learn how to code on it by now they never will.

Weren't people asking for an Xbox 720 a few years back? Now that M$ gave it to them, they'll all crying about it.

M$ has always been a micro-pc dedicated to games, the 360 was an ad infested, wonky piece of garbage and the "One" is just a multimedia hub... that plays Xbox games. Plus you have to pay for online... get the fuck out of here.

They also asked for a competent console, but microsoft is still yet to deliver that.

and no, MS was not always a micro-pc, though admitedly PowerPC (Xbox 360 architecture) was clsoest to pc of the 3 consoles.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

pretty much any new computer sold today will achieve 1080/60, unless your looking at somoen trying to get rid of their 4 year old stocks (that happens, poor people that get tricked by that).
Its very strange that you talked about laptops, considering laptops are the weaker and more expensive than desktops. It would not be so easy to find a bellow 500 dollar laptop that cna do that, desktop however - easy. Yes, i know some people look at alienware and think thats how much PCs cost. but its not. You should take alienware price and at minimum shave 50% off it.
as a person who claims to "build desktops" you should know better than to call laptops cheaper though, so i seriously doubt that statement. however even prebuilt desktops that are more expensive can achieve that.

I will admit, I'm a bit outdated on prebuilt and laptop knowledge, but I've never used Alienware as a baseline. In fact they've always felt more like apple to a degree, in so far as selling based on "Prestige" of the name, which frankly said practice ticks me off when its used to sell lower quality hardware, no matter how well it works for the end user. JUST my opinion though.

as a person who builds desktops, I WILL claim laptops are cheaper in my opinion. starting from nothing, even if you find a desktop that hits the target, you still need mouse, keyboard, screen etc. A laptop, one purchase, and you've got everything. I guess though...thinking on that would more classify as "Feeling" cheaper, by reduction of the amount of purchases.....depends on the individuals perspective and how they do things then......

in the end though, I don't claim to know everything up to date in the computer world and if you can manage to keep up with all the new stuff in terms of guaranteed frame rates and such, than bravo. If you want, I'll narrow my opinion down to "I personally don't care about always having 1080/60, be it console pc or mobile" and bow out.

 

[Strazdas]

I will admit, I'm a bit outdated on prebuilt and laptop knowledge, but I've never used Alienware as a baseline. In fact they've always felt more like apple to a degree, in so far as selling based on "Prestige" of the name, which frankly said practice ticks me off when its used to sell lower quality hardware, no matter how well it works for the end user. JUST my opinion though.

as a person who builds desktops, I WILL claim laptops are cheaper in my opinion. starting from nothing, even if you find a desktop that hits the target, you still need mouse, keyboard, screen etc. A laptop, one purchase, and you've got everything. I guess though...thinking on that would more classify as "Feeling" cheaper, by reduction of the amount of purchases.....depends on the individuals perspective and how they do things then......

in the end though, I don't claim to know everything up to date in the computer world and if you can manage to keep up with all the new stuff in terms of guaranteed frame rates and such, than bravo. If you want, I'll narrow my opinion down to "I personally don't care about always having 1080/60, be it console pc or mobile" and bow out.

Then we thing the same about Alienware.

You are wrong about laptops though. if you take a laptop of identical power a laptop will be more expensive than a desktop with everything included. and the gap increases the further from "low end" you go. ALso i disagree that you got everything with a laptop - two components are missing. That is a mouse, because lets be honest the trackpads are an awful way to control your mouse, and speakers, because laptop built in speakers are made to destroy sound.
It only feels cheaper as in you actually need to buy less seperate stuff, but if you count it its more expensive. unless you consider having a cheap 5 dollar speaker comparing it to 50 dollar one and saying they are equal therefore laptosp cheaper. that doesnt work though. if we want to compare we have to compare equal quality, and in that case desktops always win.

Keeping up with everything new is a task worthy of a full time job and i dont keep up with everything. i do try to know the highlights of computers world as it is my hobby....

 

[Roxas1359]

It's backwards compatible, so much so it can play game cube games, how does that make it worse?

Wii U can't play GameCube games. I mean, it can, but it won't because Nintendo locked out the ability for the Wii U to recognize GameCube game discs because there was no place to plug in the GameCube controllers.

 

[Glaice]

I'd rather have a game at 720p and better graphics settings than 1080p and worse settings.

720p is more than enough for my PC and I don't push it to the limit reswise.