Microsoft Exec Snaps Back at Fan Over Xbox One Resolution Issue

[EndlessSporadic]

Racing games don't require high end specs to run. The more important thing a racing game needs is real-time shadows and lighting and they probably just did some fancy shader magic instead of using real shadows. Forza can run at 1080/60, but that is because it is not an intensive game. When KH3 and FFXV, and the other games that matter come out chances are those games will only get 720/30.

Here's a challenge.

1) Make a level where it is snowing. Snowflakes use PhysX.
2) Use real-time shadows and dynamic lighting.
3) Use non-billboard backgrounds.
4) Add a bunch of ground clutter (once again, not billboard).
5) Make the cars run using real physics and collisions (crashes actually total the car).

Your game won't run 1080/60 on an XBone.

That being said, the rep responded a lot better than the rest of the Microsoft employees have so far.

 

[Alex Co]

In non-technical Xbox One news, a looking to track, identify and seek legal action [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131817-Rumor-Halo-2-Anniversary-Crackdown-3-Future-Xbox-One-Content-Leaked] against the NeoGAF forum poster who posted the leaks.

Wait, didn't they debunk those rumours?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131906-Microsoft-Denies-399-Disc-Less-Xbox-One
What is it Microsoft?
Are those rumours true and you are validly pursuing legal actions against someone, or are those rumours false and you're now trying to sue someone for the hell of it?

Greenberg just "debunked" the disc-less Xbox One, not the games lineup and plans. Same with the leaker. =)

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, there's no excuse for assholes, but then it looks like both sides has 'em.

So instead, I'm going to say 'Ten Love' and call it there.

 

[Something Amyss]

The poor guy must get hundreds of these trollish tweets on a daily basis.

It's only natural at some point he will snap.

I don't blame the Exec, I am not in his position of constant e-abuse.

If he can't deal with them, he probably shouldn't be in a position of public presence and corporate representation.

This is one of the stupid things about social media, but not just social media. It was a problem back before facebook and twitter. It's just been augmented now that your innermost thoughts are a tweet away. Or, more likely, your most dickish thoughts.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

This is why Microsoft execs shouldn't be allowed to have Twatter accounts.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Just keeps getting better and better. I love this, man. I think people are far too hung up on graphics. The new generation really wasn't ready. If they can't even handle these few things, then there is a problem for sure. Too complicated tech involved? Too much dedication to graphics and not the games? Clearly not having things figured out well enough to handle the expectations of the times we live in?

Whatever the case, I am glad Nintendo doesn't go bat shit insane over this stuff and concentrates on the GAMES more than anything. Games on the Wii U can still look damn amazing, and it's easy to appreciate the 3DS as well. I will admit, the capabilities of the Vita and other consoles is quite impressive. Very very impressive (I love my Vita when a good game comes out for it, holy shit). I just feel like the world is far too hung up on less important things in gaming, and it's disappointing. Try giving a kid Super Metroid from this generation. Looks godly epic when you lived around that time, right? You can bet your ass the kid will just shit on it >.> Ugh...

I'm not proud of this generation. This is why I stick with portable games. The budget actually has to go into GAMEPLAY, since graphics are limited to a point. And cmon, if I can get 100+ into Monster Hunter on my 3DS, 100+ into Kid Icarus Uprising, both of these on re play-ability alone... I think something was done right. Oh, and 465 hours on MH Freedom Unite. Yup. Looks kinda bleh now, even did then, still has good gameplay that made me come back. That is what gaming should be about. Seems the common, outspoken gaming populace forgot this themselves. /sigh

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Trolling or not, that was a stupid move on the part of the Microsoft exec. Didn't they learn anything from the 'deal with it' debarkle? Such bursts of emotion while cathartic only provide additional ammunition and further ridicule of an already damaged brand.

 

[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.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

To be fair, I'd be annoyed too if a game could run at the desired settings for once and to still have it held against me. Which is why if this was a Forza dev, I'd be sympathetic. It is a Microsoft exec, who has to speak for the whole selection of games, most of which are not 1080p. I wouldn't care about the resolution except that there are people who think it is better than the PS4, and I wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression.

 

[alj]

The problem is, everyone wants "better graphics" this let to studios dialing back the resolution and refresh rate last generation in a sad attempt to keep up with PCs level of effects and texture resolution. And now they have the processing power to deliver the games at a decent resolution and refresh rate they still dial them back to have more shininess on screen as the games have to look good in the screenshots and on youtube videos ( also locked to 30fps). What would make things better would be if games focused on a good aesthetic with a decent level of realism and spend the extra horsepower on a decent resolution and refresh rate, you game will look better feel better and be cheaper. This will allow you to take more risks and have more innovative games.

 

[Mooboo Magoo]

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

HOWEVER...

Much of Microsoft's marketing on the Xbone implied (and in some cases, outright stated) that it was technically superior to the PS4.

I can't help but feel as if anyone who purchased the Xbone, hoping to have THE cutting edge console, the one that's supposed to be the superior piece of tech, is more than justified in being upset that the Xbox is lagging behind the PS4 in terms of technical capability.

That's because you misunderstood the marketing. It's not the most cutting edge gaming system available, it's the most cutting edge cable box available. Oh, and it plays some games, too.

Ha! I guess the Xbone IS a pretty awesome cable box.

Normally I don't care about graphics or resolution or anything like that, but the PS4 and Xbone are direct competitors, or at least they are supposed to be. If this was three or four years from now and a few games were at a lower resolution on the Xbone that would be one thing, but these consoles JUST launched. As time goes on games get more and more graphically intense so that 'minor' difference is going to become more and more apparent.

It would also be different if the price points were swapped. I would expect the less expensive console to have worse performance not the other way around. Don't get me wrong I love the Kinect; it is a fantastic piece of hardware and has a ton of really interesting possibilities, but whoever decided it was a gaming peripheral is an idiot. It is awful in that capacity and no matter how hard you try a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole.

 

[JayRPG]

The thing I find most funny about all this is that Microsoft marketed that the xbox one would be more powerful than the PS4.

And not just to the general public, At the JB Hi-Fi roadshow (basically a big day where all the sales employees meet, greet and are given information by a bunch of different companies pertaining to their products) the Microsoft gaming division told us explicitly that the xbox one would be more powerful than the PS4 because of cloud computing - I said it to them then and I'll say it again now;
If Microsoft really think that cloud computing is going to be able to overcome hardware inadequacies then Microsoft really don't understand how cloud computing works or what it even is.

All this crap about how 3 other people in the cloud are going to be helping you run your own console meaning your own console only has to do 1/4th the work and all that BS... Even if that were true or possible... are they forgetting that while you are getting help from 3 other consoles.. you are also helping other consoles with yours? so the whole idea is moot, the whole idea cancels itself out.

The fact is, Microsoft lied, now they are trying to downplay it's significance, along with a healthy dose of unprofessional tweets.

 

[loa]

When did microsoft ever try to sell their amazing graphics for games?
Last thing I heard from them was "TV! TV! Football! TV!".

Or did you really believe in that "power of the cloud" gibberish?
That was "blast processing" talk. 100% meaningless marketing bullshit.

 

[Ipsen]

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.

 

[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.