Titanfall Beta Currently Runs At '792p' On Xbox One

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Respawn's Community Manager has been quoted as saying that the Titanfall beta is currently running at 792p on the Xbox One. She went on to say that the game is obviously still being tweaked and improved upon.
 
Like I said before, this will be a 3-4 year console,if that, before MS releases a more graphically enhanced Xbox One. No real way to do an add-on. If they are already seeing challenges, what option do they really have??
 
thelead said:
That's cool, I'll play it at 1440p on my pc.
Click to expand...

Take away the PC master race stuff, and 792p still sounds like a crap res for a supposed "new, next gen console". For having so much power, it sounds like the gaming aspect of the Xbox One was crippled to pack in more of the other crap at the same price point.
 
quite a jump from last gen consoles haha

Any word on whether fps is locked on the pc? Will not play a shooter locked to 60fps even if they give it for free.
 
They said that might change like I posted in the BETA thread but Source only running at that resolution even in BETA is incredible. I think they should be able to finalize it at 900p/60.
 
Sorry but, why would anyone pay $60 for a multiplayer only game??????
 
Ur_Mom said:
Take away the PC master race stuff, and 792p still sounds like a crap res for a supposed "new, next gen console". For having so much power, it sounds like the gaming aspect of the Xbox One was crippled to pack in more of the other crap at the same price point.
Click to expand...

As I said before, personally, if all I wanted was a game machine, I would have built a Micro ITX build for that instead. The last console I bought for games only was a Nintendo 8 bit.
 
So it's running at 1502.6 x 792? How do you have partial pixels?
 
I can't even remember when I last played a game at that res. Closest thing I guess would be Deux Ex 1 or something at 1024x768 on my 15" CRT.
 
ManofGod said:
Sorry but, why would anyone pay $60 for a multiplayer only game??????
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question?

A better question would be, why do people pay $60 for single player games where the campaign is <10 hours?
 
I haven't played games on PC below 1680x1050 since 2005. The fact that consoles are still running this low of a resolution in 2014 is bordering on hilarious.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Take away the PC master race stuff, and 792p still sounds like a crap res for a supposed "new, next gen console". For having so much power, it sounds like the gaming aspect of the Xbox One was crippled to pack in more of the other crap at the same price point.
Click to expand...

This is why the PS4 gained so much popularity (something like 94% in pre-sales). PS4 concentrated mostly on the gaming side (since it is a gaming console), and I believe actually cut some of the multimedia things the PS3 could do out of the console.

MS was/is trying to make the XBOne too central to the entertainment center, and it is hurting the primary purpose of the machine.

Personally, I mostly prefer separate components to all-in-ones anyway, to a degree.
 
Megalith said:
I heard there may even be FXAA.
Click to expand...
FXAA or MLAA, I would expect. Same thing you'd use on your PC.

Though the effect is significantly better on a PC, as both FXAA and MLAA accuracy increases proportionally to input resolution.
 
ManofGod said:
Sorry but, why would anyone pay $60 for a multiplayer only game??????
Click to expand...

Because not everyone cares about a single player campaign?

Battlefield didn't have a single player campaign to start with, that was tacked on later and has been terrible in every instance.

The COD games have single player campaigns, but in recent years no one cares about them at all and the focus(I said focus, not effort, because there isn't much effort put into COD games) is on the MP anyway with a SP game that is as poorly cobbled together as the SP from the BF games.

Sure, while I've pointed out recent FPS games with a console focus that have garbage SP, even older FPS games are the same way. Unreal Tournament SP was just bot matches, same for Quake 3, yet those were perfectly acceptable since no one bought those games for single player anyway.

If they're selling it as a MP game, the focus of the marketing is on MP, it's better to have the development of the game focus on MP rather than some last minute slopped together garbage SP campaign that might as well be a rail shooter adaptation of a Michael Bay movie.
 
I guess there's a reason it was called the Xbox "720" before it was officially announced :p
 
I can't muster any interest in this game. 6x6? nahhhh. I have other games I'll play.
 
Merc1138 said:
Because not everyone cares about a single player campaign?

Battlefield didn't have a single player campaign to start with, that was tacked on later and has been terrible in every instance.

The COD games have single player campaigns, but in recent years no one cares about them at all and the focus(I said focus, not effort, because there isn't much effort put into COD games) is on the MP anyway with a SP game that is as poorly cobbled together as the SP from the BF games.

Sure, while I've pointed out recent FPS games with a console focus that have garbage SP, even older FPS games are the same way. Unreal Tournament SP was just bot matches, same for Quake 3, yet those were perfectly acceptable since no one bought those games for single player anyway.

If they're selling it as a MP game, the focus of the marketing is on MP, it's better to have the development of the game focus on MP rather than some last minute slopped together garbage SP campaign that might as well be a rail shooter adaptation of a Michael Bay movie.
Click to expand...

That pretty much makes the game entirely useless once the online community for that games dies. Sorry but, I do not think it is worth $60 and I certainly did not pay that much for UT2004 back in the day. (That was the last multiplayer game I had fun with and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory being the other.)
 
ManofGod said:
That pretty much makes the game entirely useless once the online community for that games dies. Sorry but, I do not think it is worth $60 and I certainly did not pay that much for UT2004 back in the day. (That was the last multiplayer game I had fun with and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory being the other.)
Click to expand...

Oh, correct me if I am wrong but, online communities just do not have the staying power they once did, am I right? I can still find online games for Wolfenstein ET though.
 
Rizen said:
Is this a serious question?

A better question would be, why do people pay $60 for single player games where the campaign is <10 hours?
Click to expand...

people who liked Bioshock. :D

I will admit that I waited for a steam sale <$10 for it. A better question would be, why do people pay full MSRP $60 for a 2 year old console game?
 
DF-1 said:
Yeah... being released next month.
Click to expand...

And? Assassins Creed 4 had a patch for the PS4 that upgraded it from 900p to 1080p and that patch was released only a few days after launch. The Respawn dev's have already commented that they intend for the final release to run at 900p.

Being "released next month" means jack shit these days. A patch is more than just fixing bugs , its adding content and even improving graphics these days.

So again I say "Beta".
 
Kelvarr said:
MS was/is trying to make the XBOne too central to the entertainment center, and it is hurting the primary purpose of the machine.
.
Click to expand...

This is a load of crap or Microsoft has released another epic failure. I got my xbox one around two weeks ago to be my one stop media center. I cant get it to play blu-rays reliably, i cant use netflix without paying for a microsoft subscription, i cant plug in an external hard drive and view photos, music, or videos of any sort.

The PS3 did all of the things... Sometimes when you say xbox watch TV it actually works, its neat to control my tv via hand gestures or voice - i do like that, but its really flaky and rarely works.
 
lol - im going to rush right out and buy the console and that game all for that extra 72 lines of resolution...

makes my 1440p 290xfire setup look like shit huh?

6v6? no modding? no streaming? no other basic fucking features that have been in games for 10 years?

I'd have more money taking 60 dollars, turning it into quarters and chucking them at low quality strippers or the homeless.
 
DF-1 said:
assassins creed 4? And?:confused: BF4 beta was complete trash and the final game is too.

See, i can do that too! :)

790->900p is such a HUGE improvement!... next gen, lol.
Click to expand...

So your argument is confirmation of my argument.

Well done. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top