Oooh, haven't heard that one in a LONG time. Anyway, yes. The technically-superior X-Box that- Whoops, RROD. God, I hope for their sake they don't have anything like that NOW. Final nail in the coffin there.Icehearted said:
Microsoft: PS4 vs. Xbox One 1080p/60fps Differences "Pretty Minor"
- Thread starter Alex Co
- Start date
He works for Microsoft. He's not basically going to say, "Yeah, they're almost as good as us. Our jobs count on being better than them. As does your $700."
Besides, does it really matter? The Sega Saturn was very, very powerful. It flopped like no fish has ever flopped before.
Besides, does it really matter? The Sega Saturn was very, very powerful. It flopped like no fish has ever flopped before.
Not overblown at all. Personally the Xbox One's lower resolution/frame rate wouldn't bother me at all, I've never cared too much for those things in my games. Rather I'm be worried about what this means for the future in other areas, as a high end game is more than just frame rates and pixel counts. These are launch titles, developers never get the most out of a console at launch that usually takes 2-3 years. If these weaker games are falling behind in technical specs already on the Xbone, I'm worried about the decisions a developer like Bethesda is going to make when they start figuring out how big and how dynamic they can make their next TES or Fallout game and how much they'll have to downscale/cut so the game will run on the lowest common denominator.
Now I don't really care about the Sony vs Microsoft thing, I'm a PC/Nintendo guy so I'm worried about how these significantly lower specs will hurt PC ports.
It honestly doesn't matter which system is more powerful, only software matters. Most people seem to feel the Xbox One has better games at this point. I haven't seen any proof otherwise, to be honest. Microsoft is just so afraid of what anyone says, they let idiots like this guy basically lie to make them look better. Ryse is an OK looking game, that has shit gameplay, as I understand it. If MS had any brains, they would simply not even address the complaints. Who gives a fuck, whether your hardware is better or worse, we are stuck with it now. You just look bad when you jump to it's defense. You could simply buckle down and find ways to get the system to perform up to your expectations, get all the juice out of it you can, so to speak. But instead you are going to sit there and say, "I know more about what's going on in the background, trust me, we have a more powerful system. Your senses are wrong, our version of games are all better."
When will Microsoft just give up the ghost? PS4 is more powerful. That doesn't mean it's better. That doesn't mean you can't have good games on it. It's just one aspect of what can make a console good.
Oh, and everybody who owns a PS4 who uses this fact to claim some sort of superiority can just knock that off, too. If you want the best graphics, get a PC.
BTW - I'm a happy PS4 owner, so no claims of me being an Xbox fanboy or a PC elitist.
Oh, and everybody who owns a PS4 who uses this fact to claim some sort of superiority can just knock that off, too. If you want the best graphics, get a PC.
BTW - I'm a happy PS4 owner, so no claims of me being an Xbox fanboy or a PC elitist.
*Looks up*
Oh never mind me, I was just playing some 1080p 60fps Borderlands 2... you know... on my PC.
I'm seriously baffled by this drama. Ignoring the fact that the more expensive console is inferior for now, anyone who cares that much about graphical power should get a PC. They've been capable of 1080p 60fps for a long time now.
Now before anyone calls me a PC fanboy, I own consoles too and I plan to get a PS4 someday. But this squabbling over graphical power... it just seems ridiculous to me. It's like squabbling over second place when the winner is already at the after-party. Play to your strengths console manufacturers, graphical power is not one of them.
Also Ryse is the best looking game on any platform? Period? Don't make me laugh.
Oh never mind me, I was just playing some 1080p 60fps Borderlands 2... you know... on my PC.
I'm seriously baffled by this drama. Ignoring the fact that the more expensive console is inferior for now, anyone who cares that much about graphical power should get a PC. They've been capable of 1080p 60fps for a long time now.
Now before anyone calls me a PC fanboy, I own consoles too and I plan to get a PS4 someday. But this squabbling over graphical power... it just seems ridiculous to me. It's like squabbling over second place when the winner is already at the after-party. Play to your strengths console manufacturers, graphical power is not one of them.
Also Ryse is the best looking game on any platform? Period? Don't make me laugh.
Truth be told, both consoles are nearly criminally underpowered. If you really like 60fps and no downsampling you're better off running at 720p. But yes, the PS4 has a lot more GPU power. My desktop PC has 2 Radeon R9 280xs so.... yeah, It's not hard to build a PC that's faster if you have the money.
It's a bit disappointing because the PS3 and Xbox 360 were actually quite powerful at the time they were released. I can't see these ones lasting 7 years. I expect we'll see phones more powerful than them in 5 years. It only took 7 years to match the last gen consoles.
It's a bit disappointing because the PS3 and Xbox 360 were actually quite powerful at the time they were released. I can't see these ones lasting 7 years. I expect we'll see phones more powerful than them in 5 years. It only took 7 years to match the last gen consoles.
I wonder why we still fight and argue over which console is better... When, if we stopped and forced the companies to stop focusing on such trivial things and start producing great games, we'd end up reaping the benefits more so than the crap we get now?
OT: I have never even bothered with that issue. 720p 1080 i, p, q, who cares? How whiny we have gotten since the implementation of HD.
OT: I have never even bothered with that issue. 720p 1080 i, p, q, who cares? How whiny we have gotten since the implementation of HD.
I think it's because I can't tell anymore, and couldn't a long time ago. When Little Big Planet came out, it's graphics were, as far as my mind could see, perfect***. Anything wrong with it would have been with the TV or my eyes, but that's irrelevant, because it never happened, because as far as mind could see, it looked perfect. It played smoothly. It showed what a PS3 could do with enough AAA money behind it (I'll get to that in a second), and even if a PS4, or an XBone, or a PC is more powerful, the ability to create a perfect-looking flower that sways in the wind in a videogame already exists.
I have a story. There's a point to it, but skip it if you want:
There was once a patch released for Bayonetta that was supposedly to fix massive loading issues, when reading something off the disk when you picked up an item, and text came up and the model spun. I'm not a programmer, but when Yahtzee was discussing it way back when, he claimed it was "just dodgy optimization". If that could be fixed with a patch, what that means isn't that the machine (the PS3, in this case) wasn't able to give the gamer the experience the developers wanted, but rather, the developers didn't know how to make the PS3 do it. But then they could patch it.
So now, the subject of cost. The additional power allows for something good, which is inefficient game design to be okay. Rather than spending money on avoiding the dodgy optimization, developers can put more resources into the graphics area, to put them at the same level as that of the AAA games. Perhaps, at some point, maybe a single indie developer like Lucas Pope could make a game such as Papers Please with the graphics level or Ryse as though it was nothing special.
I don't think that comparing AAA games on next-gen consoles is a decent way to compare graphical capabilities, or any other kind of power test.
Rather than graphics getting much better from here on, I'd say that games with good graphics will instead get more plentiful, and if the two systems (or if we include the Wii U, three systems perhaps) have a similar number of games with impressive graphics, that'll be the test of whether or not the machines' power differences are negligible. I bet they are.
...
*** I don't want to argue with this point. If you disagree, I'm sure that your other whatever game is great and I don't care, and that your vision is amazing. Replace LBP with that game in that case.
I have a story. There's a point to it, but skip it if you want:
There was once a patch released for Bayonetta that was supposedly to fix massive loading issues, when reading something off the disk when you picked up an item, and text came up and the model spun. I'm not a programmer, but when Yahtzee was discussing it way back when, he claimed it was "just dodgy optimization". If that could be fixed with a patch, what that means isn't that the machine (the PS3, in this case) wasn't able to give the gamer the experience the developers wanted, but rather, the developers didn't know how to make the PS3 do it. But then they could patch it.
So now, the subject of cost. The additional power allows for something good, which is inefficient game design to be okay. Rather than spending money on avoiding the dodgy optimization, developers can put more resources into the graphics area, to put them at the same level as that of the AAA games. Perhaps, at some point, maybe a single indie developer like Lucas Pope could make a game such as Papers Please with the graphics level or Ryse as though it was nothing special.
I don't think that comparing AAA games on next-gen consoles is a decent way to compare graphical capabilities, or any other kind of power test.
Rather than graphics getting much better from here on, I'd say that games with good graphics will instead get more plentiful, and if the two systems (or if we include the Wii U, three systems perhaps) have a similar number of games with impressive graphics, that'll be the test of whether or not the machines' power differences are negligible. I bet they are.
...
*** I don't want to argue with this point. If you disagree, I'm sure that your other whatever game is great and I don't care, and that your vision is amazing. Replace LBP with that game in that case.
These people will brag endlessly about every tiny graphical innovation that doesn't really matter, but then when their system looks relatively weak suddenly these differences are "pretty minor".
Okay then mr. Pennello, but you can never again make a big deal about having higher fps or screen resolution on future devices.
Okay then mr. Pennello, but you can never again make a big deal about having higher fps or screen resolution on future devices.
I certainly don't speak for all of console fandom, but personally I've never construed PC gamers talking about the superior specs as being insufferable fanboys. That PCs are the viable choice to people who prefer hardware power and graphics capability is just plain common sense in this day and age. It's not the information that forms a person's opinion, it's the way it's presented. As long as a person doesn't imply that my very personal disdain for keyboard-based controls is inherently wrong, or construe my lack of any sort of the computer knowledge/interest necessary to PC game successfully for the cheapest price as stupidity, then it just ain't in my nature to get mad at them for stating facts. XDDrummodino said:
That said, the rest of the post I quoted is more or less my view on the whole ordeal. Having traded cutting-edge innovation for ease of development, neither the PS4 nor the ONE should be focusing on hardware performance as a primary selling point. Work on building your library, work on streamlining and refining your online/digital services, hell, work on your cheap, silly gimmicks so that maybe they stop being cheap, silly gimmicks.
All this resolution-gate jazz does is make it seem like you're wasting time arguing over second place. I agree, the difference is fairly unimportant, so don't talk about it, demonstrate why it isn't.
If the Xbone was even slightly more powerful than the PS4, you could bet your ass they'd be doing everything they could to rub that fact in Sony's ace. Of course they're trying to downplay their disadvantage. Though I guess I don't care because I don't have a horse in the console race.
I clearly recall Microsoft saying that the hardware differences between XBone and PS4 were so small that it would have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the quality/performance of games between the two.
Now that multiple titles have been released with superior performance on the PS4, they've changed their tone to "the differences are minor, stop overblowing it!".
At this rate a few years down the road it'll be "Ok so our hardware is inferior, but games still look kinda decent on XBone don't they? Resolution/framerate isn't that important!".
Now that multiple titles have been released with superior performance on the PS4, they've changed their tone to "the differences are minor, stop overblowing it!".
At this rate a few years down the road it'll be "Ok so our hardware is inferior, but games still look kinda decent on XBone don't they? Resolution/framerate isn't that important!".
Gee, there sure are a lot of responses to a complete non-news story. Microsoft employee says Microsoft console's weaknesses are minor. Next we'll hear that Nintendo employee's think there are plenty of good games on the Wii U, and Sony employee's think that the trackpad on the controller isn't a stupid gimmick, and people will still find a way to get outraged. Oh wait, no they won't, because people only want to be outraged at Microsoft.
But there is one big difference, the Saturn was crap when it came to processing 3D and polygons -- something that blew up with the PS1 that SEGA didn't anticipate.dylanmc12 said:
I do agree that Penello is just covering his turfs. He can't say "yes, our system is much more expensive and is inferior," no? But if this was the other way around, would MS let that fact go? I highly doubt it. =)
Microsoft plays down the significance of Microsoft products inferiority. Cites objectively inferior game as example.
Come back at 10 for captain obvious interview, hindsight network out.
though yes, in comparison to PC i agree that both will be equally slow and ugly.
The fact that a new console released in 2013 cant do 1080p at 60 fps however makes me laugh. I can understand if they were released in 2008 or so, then we could have talked about this. Then again, their ahrdware is that of the 2008 level PC hardware i guess.
i would not be so sure about 4K being here soon. 1440p is more likely to be the next standart, because while technologically 4K is great achievement, considering that monitors are still relatively small (most people dont have 27"+ ones) the percieved difference appears only sitting close to them and thus the effect is diminished, which wasnt the problem of 1080 vs 720p differences (and im not even talking about 480p).
So while progress id coming its not coming as fast as we would like.
who cares how the game looks? people with eyes.
and HD has been around for at least 2 decades now. its not a new thing.
Come back at 10 for captain obvious interview, hindsight network out.
Depends on what you take into previuos hardware. Does that include only previuos Xbox and PS? then it may be possible. Include hardware outside of those 10 year old consoles? not going to happen.SupahGamuh said:
Well, the "ridiculous xbox 360 player cap" already came to titanfall, and its true for PC too, so Xbone is hurting the PC version now, thats how hard they are pushing it.fix-the-spade said:
that was because PS3 uses cell architecture. PS4 and Xbox One and PC uses X86 architecture. Which means that if you are coding your game for one you are coding it for all 3 of them. There will be no "we didnt knew how to port to pS3" problems anymore in this generation.BigTuk said:
the games we currently have show otherwise.Worgen said:
though yes, in comparison to PC i agree that both will be equally slow and ugly.
hmm, i wouldnt call 50% more powerful GPU a small performance gap. Thats PS4 vs Xbox 1 incase you didnt understand.sneakypenguin said:
The fact that a new console released in 2013 cant do 1080p at 60 fps however makes me laugh. I can understand if they were released in 2008 or so, then we could have talked about this. Then again, their ahrdware is that of the 2008 level PC hardware i guess.
not yet sadly. most monitors sold now actually still run on 60 hz and we seem to be unable to catch with the old CRTs that did 115. there currently is only one (commercialy feasible) manufacturer in korea that manufactures monitors that run at 112 hz that everyone overclocks to 120hz. its a very popular manufacturer because of this, and we can see more spring eventually, but currently it is not that popular.Scrumpmonkey said:
i would not be so sure about 4K being here soon. 1440p is more likely to be the next standart, because while technologically 4K is great achievement, considering that monitors are still relatively small (most people dont have 27"+ ones) the percieved difference appears only sitting close to them and thus the effect is diminished, which wasnt the problem of 1080 vs 720p differences (and im not even talking about 480p).
So while progress id coming its not coming as fast as we would like.
for some reason this reminded me of this imageel_kabong said:
there is no reason why we cant have good game with decent graphics.William Ossiss said:
who cares how the game looks? people with eyes.
and HD has been around for at least 2 decades now. its not a new thing.
No way, a guy whose job it is to say the Xbox One is good says the technical advantage the PS4 has over the Xbox One doesn't mean anything.
The fact is that the difference between 30 and 60 fps is big. But as most movies are sub 30 the general population probably won't notice the difference. It's one of those things that you only really recognise when you've actually been exposed to it. The most someone who hasn't been exposed to 60 fps will notice is the controls will feel a bit different, due to the improved responsiveness. With 1080p though that is a big difference that people will notice even without the experience.
So in response to the OP: no, I don't agree with what he's saying. Not just because of the fact that the PS4's performance is flat out better, but also because the addition processing capability that 1080/60 shows will allow the PS4 to outperform the Xbox One. Once they start scaling the resolution and frame rate down to accommodate several year old hardware I suspect the difference will be pretty significant. It would be interesting to see a comparison of what frame rates the two consoles are capable of rendering a scene at with the same resolution, might give an idea of just how big the performance difference is.
The fact is that the difference between 30 and 60 fps is big. But as most movies are sub 30 the general population probably won't notice the difference. It's one of those things that you only really recognise when you've actually been exposed to it. The most someone who hasn't been exposed to 60 fps will notice is the controls will feel a bit different, due to the improved responsiveness. With 1080p though that is a big difference that people will notice even without the experience.
So in response to the OP: no, I don't agree with what he's saying. Not just because of the fact that the PS4's performance is flat out better, but also because the addition processing capability that 1080/60 shows will allow the PS4 to outperform the Xbox One. Once they start scaling the resolution and frame rate down to accommodate several year old hardware I suspect the difference will be pretty significant. It would be interesting to see a comparison of what frame rates the two consoles are capable of rendering a scene at with the same resolution, might give an idea of just how big the performance difference is.