Xbox Head: Not Every Game Should Be 1080P

Hornet said:
Comparing to previous generations, they went cheap this time and simply settled for an APU. There's only so much preformance you can pack into a single chip. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had develop a proper CPU and GPU that are designed for gaming like they did in previous generations.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING We have a winner! That is exactly what both companies did.
 
plink said:
Yeah, I really don't get why they don't let you change the gfx settings on consoles. Let the gamer choose whether they want to sacrifice graphic quality for resolution and framerate. We've only been doing this on pc for, oh I dunno, 20 years...
Click to expand...


Because you don't buy a console to min/max settings. You expect that you plug it into your tv, start game, and play it -- and it's going to look exactly the same on every console.
 
1080p is so ridiculous easy to achieve in pretty much anything with modern hardware. It really is a disgrace that the Xbox One can't do it.

I would partially agree that small differences in resolution aren't a HUGE deal, but what IS a huge deal is running at the natural resolution of your panel versus scaling and interpolating, which always looks blurry and like shit.

Either way, it's a moot point for me. You'll never find a console of any brand in my house :p (Except maybe an old 8bit Nintendo for the sake of nostalgia)
 
Hornet said:
Comparing to previous generations, they went cheap this time and simply settled for an APU. There's only so much preformance you can pack into a single chip. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had develop a proper CPU and GPU that are designed for gaming like they did in previous generations.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and I think you're on the money. For me I actually think the performance is pretty good when you consider its "integrated" graphics. Unless someone can show me, I haven't seen any of the APUs benchmarked where it got 60fps @ 1080p.

Granted I do think microsoft gambled a little too much with kinect, and the gpu horsepower suffered because of it.

Next generation IMO will continue to use APU also. But I think as the technology gets better the performance of the APUs will have significantly improved by then.
 
Reaching parity with our partners has been important
Click to expand...
Translation, we don't want to do anything extra to exploit the benefit that one system's technology might have over another.
 
Pretty much they both wanted to achieve reaping in profits faster then last gen, despite the fact that after 7 years both are still moving along..
 
Getting 1080p/60 on a PC with the details cranked can be quite the battle, too.
A lot of the people with higher resolutions and refresh rates are in a constant battle to lower details or deal with performance spikes.
Personally, 1080p/60 is my "ideal" on the PC too (since I'm using my TV) and there are definitely more than a handful of games I have to really tinker with in order to make that reality.
In terms of preference - give me framerate over resolution every time. With good upscaling (which the consoles should have), I think it makes far more of a difference. Most console games that are upscaling to 1080p are at some oddball 900p...which isn't THAT far away. It's not like they're upscaling 480p or even 720p in most cases.
 
Domingo said:
Getting 1080p/60 on a PC with the details cranked can be quite the battle, too.
A lot of the people with higher resolutions and refresh rates are in a constant battle to lower details or deal with performance spikes.
Personally, 1080p/60 is my "ideal" on the PC too (since I'm using my TV) and there are definitely more than a handful of games I have to really tinker with in order to make that reality.
In terms of preference - give me framerate over resolution every time. With good upscaling (which the consoles should have), I think it makes far more of a difference. Most console games that are upscaling to 1080p are at some oddball 900p...which isn't THAT far away. It's not like they're upscaling 480p or even 720p in most cases.
Click to expand...

Console 1080/60 MAX is a far cry from PC 1080/60 MAX settings. PCs that can do 1080/60 at console level are relatively cheap, not to mention even cheaper to upgrade several years old ones since they are still more than powerful enough on the CPU side.
 
Just a roundabout way of saying "we skimped on the hardware and now it's biting us in the ass." A mere attempt at PR damage control before the damage gets done from millions of owners catching on and complaining about it. This may have worked 5-7 years ago when the average consumer was still trying to make sense of 720p vs 1080p vs 60Hz vs 120+Hz, but most consumers know to get at least a 1080p @ 120Hz HDTV if it's in their budget.
 
I have to say the Xbox One's development seems to have been hamstrung from day one by not employing a games console specialist as the Project Head.

A lot of opportunities missed from some poor early days design decisions.
 
TwistedAegis said:
But it's not an either/or. And in this day and age, 1080P is a pretty damn low minimum standard.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

Every game should not be 1080p sounds like the 360 plan. In this generation? It shouldn't even be a decision. Every game SHOULD be 1080p. That's minimum on PC. Consoles aren't PC's, but this is supposedly "Next Generation" stuff playing less than 1080p.

I bought a One, and I'm happy with it. Fun games, and I'm enjoying it. But, saying stuff like this just makes me shake my head. 1080p is the standard. That should have been met with the hardware. :/
 
Domingo said:
Getting 1080p/60 on a PC with the details cranked can be quite the battle, too.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I haven't been playing the latest titles, (actually, I know I haven't) and I've been on 2560x1600 for a while now, but last I checked, you could do reasonably well on the PC side hitting that 1080p/60 threshold with mid grade card, like a GTX460 on a core i3. Heck, even a 650 might suffice today.

But that being said, I haven't really played anything newer than Red Orchestra 2, Civ 5, Deus Ex HR. The most recent title I played was probably Metro Last Light.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Yes, exactly.

Every game should not be 1080p sounds like the 360 plan. In this generation? It shouldn't even be a decision. Every game SHOULD be 1080p. That's minimum on PC. Consoles aren't PC's, but this is supposedly "Next Generation" stuff playing less than 1080p.

I bought a One, and I'm happy with it. Fun games, and I'm enjoying it. But, saying stuff like this just makes me shake my head. 1080p is the standard. That should have been met with the hardware. :/
Click to expand...

Been running 1600p since 2008; just shake my head at this nonsense. :(

And, ordering it online and not really realizing just how big a 30" monitor was, to this day still the hardware upgrade that blew my mind the most going from 24" to 30" :D :cool:
 
TwistedAegis said:
Been running 1600p since 2008; just shake my head at this nonsense. :(

And, ordering it online and not really realizing just how big a 30" monitor was, to this day still the hardware upgrade that blew my mind the most going from 24" to 30" :D :cool:
Click to expand...

I've had this experience a few times, and every time it was with monitors.

in ~2001 I bought a 22" Mitsubishi Diamondtron based CRT (that actually was so heavy it made my desk curve) when 16" CRT's were the norm, and it blew my mind. I was giddy (even if my wallet was somewhat empty.

Then in ~2004 I got a 24" Dell 1920x1600 screen, which also blew my mind, but actually pulled me away from gaming for a while, because even with my 6800GT overclocked as high as it would go, nothing would run well at that resolution at the time.

And in 2011 I did it again when I went with a 30" 2560x1600.

Each time they blew my mind, and amazed me seeming almost TOO big and took some getting used to, and each time, within a short period of use, anything else seemed inadequate.

It seems like the ~$1000 price point is where I jump in on new monitor technology. Wake me when decent $1000 16:10 4k monitors exist. My mind is ready to be blown again. :p
 
I think these articles about 1080p vs. 60fps will be a lot more fun in a few years when hopefully GPU power will have caught up to the point where 4k gaming is becoming normal on PCs. It will cast an interesting contrast.
 
Here is how I read that headline:

Xbox head - not every game we publish is worth buying.

How's that for some truth for ya?
 
I went from a miniscule 13" CRT to a 17" after took it to a LAN and felt any e-peen I had shrivel setting my little baby monitor next to gargantuan 21" CRTs. ;)

I actually thought going from 24" to 30" might not have been worth the money...then I saw the box. The glorious, gigantic, box.
 
TwistedAegis said:
The glorious, gigantic, box.
Click to expand...

reminds me of when I picked up my 60" Panasonic Plasma last year.

I had to open and discard the box in the parking lot, as that's the only way it would fit in my car, and I had a relatively large car. Even with the seats folded down, it would not fit :p
 
tetris42 said:
I think these articles about 1080p vs. 60fps will be a lot more fun in a few years when hopefully GPU power will have caught up to the point where 4k gaming is becoming normal on PCs. It will cast an interesting contrast.
Click to expand...
When 4k becomes ubiquitous on gaming PCs, consoles will still be stuck at 30 FPS on sub-1080p resolutions. Consumer 8k is already on the horizon FFS.
 
IF only there were hardware out there that allowed both resolution AND framerate.
 
Meh, it took years of optimizations for games on the 360 and ps3 to truly look good. It'll take the same amount of time for games to to hit 1080p at good framerate AND eye-candy on the xbone and ps4.

Either way, I'm still on my PC getting 1600p at over 60fps with maxed eye-candy. But, I also paid more far more to build my pc than the cost of either "next-gen" console. Sadly the cycle starts anew, and I can only expect games to be generally the quality of their console counterparts.

Which is why my pc is not "just" a gaming rig and why I choose not to ask myself why I spent the money to enjoy the exact same thing I could get on a console...
 
His statement would make more sense if he was talking 1080i(1080p30) vs. 720p.

Xbox Head: Not Every Game Should Be 1080P
Maybe not every console needs to be a big seller, then.
 
RGFrog said:
Meh, it took years of optimizations for games on the 360 and ps3 to truly look good. It'll take the same amount of time for games to to hit 1080p at good framerate AND eye-candy on the xbone and ps4.

Either way, I'm still on my PC getting 1600p at over 60fps with maxed eye-candy. But, I also paid more far more to build my pc than the cost of either "next-gen" console. Sadly the cycle starts anew, and I can only expect games to be generally the quality of their console counterparts.

Which is why my pc is not "just" a gaming rig and why I choose not to ask myself why I spent the money to enjoy the exact same thing I could get on a console...
Click to expand...

The optimizations are already there...both the XBO and PS4 use x86 architecture, unlike their previous brethren. Any existing game engine used for PC game development can be (and is used) for XBO and PS4 game development.

This is nothing more than a bullshit cop-out to try and cover up the fact that weak, antiquated hardware was chosen as the guts for these "cutting-edge" consoles. Sad thing is, this happens with EVERY new console generation, yet millions of morons keep running out and buying them thinking that they are going to be the gaming experience equivalent of sliced bread. If people aren't willing to make a lesson of their own previous experiences, then they get what they pay for and have no one to blame but themselves for falling for it time and time and time again. Both parties are to blame.
 
When 4k becomes ubiquitous on gaming PCs, consoles will still be stuck at 30 FPS on sub-1080p resolutions. Consumer 8k is already on the horizon FFS.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but by then, the 1080 v. 60fps articles that pop up will be that much sweeter to read.

Meh, it took years of optimizations for games on the 360 and ps3 to truly look good. It'll take the same amount of time for games to to hit 1080p at good framerate AND eye-candy on the xbone and ps4.
Click to expand...
See I'm skeptical about that, because yes, there will likely be more optimizations, but who is to say the developers won't throw that at some more eye candy and keep the framerate choked?

Sad thing is, this happens with EVERY new console generation, yet millions of morons keep running out and buying them thinking that they are going to be the gaming experience equivalent of sliced bread.
Click to expand...
Not really... traditionally consoles have had close to top-end parts in them or even exceeding what was available for PCs the time. This generation is kind of an anomaly in that it was already comparable to something mid-range right out the gate.
 
The problem is that GPUs power and complexity compounded dramatically. In order to do that again both would have had to fit something more powerful than Titan into those boxes and a CPU on the i5 level to go along with it.

Even 2 years ago folks here were saying that's impossible at 500 and under.
 
I've been wondering why they were so hardcore about it not being on the PC. Clearly they want a lot of low resolution draw calls instead of really cool looking game it would be on the pc.
 
Godmachine said:
For me frame rate is king. I'm starting to like 30 fps less and less. Except maybe for RPG's.
Click to expand...

I've never liked 30fps gaming, hence why I barely played on any consoles up until now.. where they can finally hit 60fps for once.. although I've already moved on to higher resolutions (1440p on my U2711, or 144hz gaming (120hz with lightboost mod on my ASUS).
 
I am guessing that the PS4 has a greater potential to shine long term as devs learn to eek out extra power via their memory model or type I should say.
Look at some of the stuff that Naughty Dog does with the PS3. cripes.
 
next-Jin said:
Even 2 years ago folks here were saying that's impossible at 500 and under.
Click to expand...
Well traditionally console hardware has sold at a LOSS since the costs would be made up on the game sales. This would have made even more sense if they were serious about aiming for a 10 year life cycle. That doesn't look like a happy thing quarter to quarter though.

I've been wondering why they were so hardcore about it not being on the PC.
Click to expand...
It's no secret Microsoft wants total domination in terms of profits. In Windows 8 they're trying to copy Apple's walled garden method since they see the potential for obscene profits there. Xbox is the same mentality going back further. If they develop a PC game, they can sell you the game, and the OS and that's it. If they sell a console, they get profits from EVERY game sold for it AND money per month for users playing online. The PC doesn't have the same exploitation potential as a console. The more anti-consumer something is, the more potential there is to extract maximum profit per person, or so their thinking goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top