Sections

Microsoft will unlock more GPU power for Xbox One developers in the future

Wednesday, 2nd October 2013 20:29 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Microsoft has said that developers will be able to access more GPU resources inside Xbox One in the future.

Speaking with Eurogamer, Microsoft engineer Andrew Goossen said that around 10% of the console’s GPU resources are reserved for graphics processing for Kinect as well as rendering for Xbox One’s apps.

“The current reservation provides strong isolation between the title and the system and simplifies game development – strong isolation means that the system workloads, which are variable, won’t perturb the performance of the game rendering,” he said. “In the future, we plan to open up more options to developers to access this GPU reservation time while maintaining full system functionality.

“Xbox One has a conservative 10% time-sliced reservation on the GPU for system processing. This is used both for the GPGPU processing for Kinect and for the rendering of concurrent system content such as snap mode.

“We’ve chosen to let title developers make the trade-off of resolution versus per-pixel quality in whatever way is most appropriate to their game content. A lower resolution generally means that there can be more quality per pixel. With a high quality scaler and anti-aliasing and render resolutions such as 720p or ’900p’, some games look better with more GPU processing going to each pixel than to the number of pixels; others look better at 1080p with less GPU processing per pixel.

“We built Xbox One with a higher quality scaler than on Xbox 360, and added an additional display plane, to provide more freedom to developers in this area. This matter of choice was a lesson we learned from Xbox 360 where at launch we had a Technical Certification Requirement mandate that all titles had to be 720p or better with at least 2x anti-aliasing – and we later ended up eliminating that TCR as we found it was ultimately better to allow developers to make the resolution decision themselves.

“Game developers are naturally [incentivised] to make the highest quality visuals possible, and so will choose the most appropriate trade-off between quality of each pixel versus number of pixels for their games.”

You can read more tech stuff regarding the console through the link.

Xbox One is out in November.

Latest

84 Comments

  1. Erthazus

    “720p or ’900p’, some games look better with more GPU processing going to each pixel than to the number of pixels; others look better at 1080p with less GPU processing per pixel.”

    Lies. If your resolution is not 1080p you will always get shitty results unless you have Anti-Aliasing up to 16x which is not going to be for every game and especially for games that are already announced for Xbox One.
    + it depends on your TV. Maybe your TV does not have clear motion and other technology that can smooth the picture.

    1280×720 is Last Generation Period and we should not come back to it. Coming back to it is the same as playing games right now in 480p on the PC.

    Hell, 4K TV’s are on the way and Next Gen games will be in 720p or 900p? LoL. Please no.
    At least make it 1080P only and 30 frames.

    #1 12 months ago
  2. BrahManDude

    huh? why not now

    #2 12 months ago
  3. pcbros

    I guess it’s not about the games after all…

    This is getting old. Let the games speak for themselves and stop trying to put 100 bandaids on this issue.

    Everytime Microsoft tries to “push” their hardware specs by fractions, I feel like they are saying, “Wait! Wait! Look, our console is as powerful as the PS4″.

    They don’t need to do this. Only geeks care about specs, the average person will not play COD on the XB1 and say, “Hey! Wait a minute, this feels like 56fps and not 60fps like on my friend’s PS4″.

    What I want to know is where is the NFL deal they had cooking and are US gamers getting a free game as well?

    #3 12 months ago
  4. Erthazus

    ^ Averge person can stick to Xbox 360 where is CoD and 60 frames per second.

    #4 12 months ago
  5. Bloodstorm

    It’s not about scrapping the bottom of the barrel, it’s about the games and don’t forget with the power of cloud we can have limitless power!

    #5 12 months ago
  6. Erthazus

    “with the power of cloud we can have limitless power!”

    you can’t increase resolution or frames per second.

    Brainwashed people…

    #6 12 months ago
  7. Bloodstorm

    @6 It was sarcasm, Sheldon

    #7 12 months ago
  8. pcbros

    @7 – Sheldon… lol! :D

    Back to the article…

    All this talk about power and gigaflipflops are so distracting. You start to forget about the games and focus on pure hardware specs. I have no clue what kind of cpu my NES or SNES had and by golly I didn’t give a crap, because it had some of the best games in history.

    #8 12 months ago
  9. Lengendaryboss

    @3
    “I guess it’s not about the games after all…”

    It was never all about the games if various people kept fixating on “Da power of da cloud”, “da power of PS4″ 1080 60FPS and any other so called promise of next gen. Or Nintendo fans finding any little excuse they can come up with to explain why a third party game bombs on their platforms. To be honest i was gonna start a thread on it.

    #9 12 months ago
  10. Lengendaryboss

    @7
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyguhAdI7ws

    #10 12 months ago
  11. mistermogul

    @8 – You’re a good lad…

    [Disclaimer - apologies if you're female]

    #11 12 months ago
  12. Bloodstorm

    @8 Oh I agree it’s about games, but the games are the job of the developers. The job of Microsoft is to make you believe that they have the best system (and they try so damn hard that you know something off) so that you buy it so that developers know they will make money if they release it on the platform.

    @10 Rock-Paper-scissors-lizard-spock ?

    Spock, I win

    #12 12 months ago
  13. monkeygourmet

    @9

    Do the thread and stop teasing everybody!

    Specs ARE important when you are laying down a fair amount of cash on a product that may be sitting in your front room for 7 years.

    The start of a console battle is always about specs, always has been, always will. Games are secondary. Unfortunate, but true.

    We all want to see the tech inside these new machines and people are becoming more tech savvy by the day. There’s a good chance Mario 3D World will be the better game this Christmas, but it’s still hoping to get buried under the shiny new HD consoles…

    Virtually everyone I know who games regularly has been pretty disappointed with the spec of next gen and are either going PS4 (mildly spec but mainly price reasons), or PC.

    The jump just isn’t enough for me especially after I’ve been upgrading my stuff in the last few years in prep for next gen.

    #13 12 months ago
  14. Lengendaryboss

    @12
    Dammmit ;) http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3620074/bow-to-the-master-o.gif

    #14 12 months ago
  15. lookingglass

    They are right. 1080p @ 60 FPS is quite an arbitrary standard. Most who complain about it don’t understand graphical computing nor how the human eye works.

    At most common viewing distances, 1080p is beyond the eye’s ability to distinguish pixelation. Add in motion blur and even 24 FPS looks fine. Most cinema movies run at 24 FPS and look smooth due to motion blur.

    The point is, it’s arbitrary. It’s quality over quantity here. Graphics will always be limited by the human eye. Until we get cyborg eyes… Then all bets are off…

    #15 12 months ago
  16. Lengendaryboss

    @13
    Patience young grasshopper.

    #16 12 months ago
  17. bradk825

    Gibberish to me. If I pop in Watchdogs it’ll play right? Golden. Tell me nothing more.

    #17 12 months ago
  18. Erthazus

    @15, That’s not true at all. That’s not true.

    If you have any SCREEN that has 16:9 in it 1080p makes a fuckton of a difference compared to 720p.

    Most of the current gen games on consoles with 720p image have shitty jaggies all over the place. The picture is not crisp enough to produce decent image and no matter where you stand you will always have this:

    Example with 16:9 screen.
    http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/images/articles/Luther-Resolution-Large.jpg

    http://tasel.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/720p_vs_1080p.jpg – this one has better example with jaggies. In motion 720p is annoying as hell.

    #18 12 months ago
  19. xxJPRACERxx

    The image on my VHS tapes at ~240-300i(?) still look more real than any video games to date.

    I think he’s right. Some game will benefit from higher res lower details and others lower res better details.

    #19 12 months ago
  20. Erthazus

    ^ The image on your VHS tapes are first of all VIDEOS and not games that you control all the time and you can see a decent image with them with 4:3 screen or less and not with wide screen resolutions.

    If you have shitty TV at your home for 100$ that does not mean that others should suffer.

    #20 12 months ago
  21. DuckNation

    Maybe they still have that secret GPU all them x1 fanboys were trippin about <_< http://i.imgur.com/wM4KnQ9.gif

    #21 12 months ago
  22. monkeygourmet

    The point is, we should be able to have both.

    It’s not THAT hard to have 1080p & 60fps AND solid effects…

    That’s not a big ask atall, especially after waiting years and years for a new console and paying upwards of £429 for the pleasure.

    #22 12 months ago
  23. Joe Musashi

    Using a lossy format such as JPG to give (doctored) examples of resolution quality?

    Oh my.

    JM

    #23 12 months ago
  24. Erthazus

    60 frames is not important for consoles. I get that for 500$ and 400$ consoles won’t produce 1080p and 60 frames all the time (and after two years it’s going to be the same thing). The hardware is limited.

    But launch games in 720p and 900p? Come on. I don’t get that.

    @Joe, they are not doctored. Well, (First one is doctored to show a consumer the difference. Second one is a complete reality.)

    #24 12 months ago
  25. ps4fanboy

    the big plus point is the price and not the technical grunt.
    360′s price was a clear advantage over PS3′s. the more casual games like fifa and others like them release on both platforms and casual gamers will just buy the more affordable one.

    its an evidently confirmed fact

    #25 12 months ago
  26. Erthazus

    “the big plus point is the price and not the technical grunt.”
    Ok. So why we need next gen consoles?

    Don’t tell me about games because: http://kotaku.com/the-xbox-360-version-of-battlefield-4-doesnt-look-so-h-1437631835

    you know, fact.

    #26 12 months ago
  27. monkeygourmet

    PS4 has defiantly hit the price sweet spot with its tech, as long as it doesn’t bolt too much on down the line.

    #27 12 months ago
  28. derpachu

    It could be 900p and I bet half these people commenting about “grafikz”, wouldn’t notice the difference on screen from 1080p

    #28 12 months ago
  29. Joe Musashi

    “They’re not doctored. Except for the ones that are doctored.”

    Er..

    JM

    #29 12 months ago
  30. Erthazus

    @29, oh cut the crap. The first one is doctored. Sure. But it’s the reality that is with 16:9 screens.
    You can’t show a difference with 16:9 or 4:3, PAL image with real comparison over the internet unless you have at home 16:9 screen and 4:3 screen that you can compare with.

    #30 12 months ago
  31. gomersoul

    The Xbox was obviously not designed for gaming as it’s main purpose, they have to mess with the software to make it into something people will actually buy. It won’t be relevant in 10 years, took their eye way off the ball and will spend at least 5 years clawing it back, if somebody came up with a better alternative to Windows I would go pc for sure

    #31 12 months ago
  32. Hcw87

    @26
    What does that link prove exactly? Ofcourse BF4 looks shit on current gen, i’m playing the beta on 360. And even though it’s a beta i can’t wait for next gen. PS3 won’t look good either < Compared to next gen versions.

    #32 12 months ago
  33. Joe Musashi

    Cut the crap?

    I’m cutting through the crap. Your crap, to be precise. Your usual asinine “RARRRW PC SPECS WIN ALL RARRAR U R IDIOT FANBOY” PC master race crap.

    You don’t see how doctoring ONE image in a comparison sequence is actually worse than doctoring all equally?

    And then using a lossy format like JPG to convey your doctored comparison? LOL

    How about you cut the crap. For once? Go play Minesweeper in 4096 x 2400 at 120fps.

    JM

    #33 12 months ago
  34. fearmonkey

    I just don’t care about 60fps at 1080p unless it’s a multiplayer game.

    For a game like Skyrim anything that keeps above 30fps is fine for me.

    What I do care about is the best fidelity I can get and as close to 1080p doing it. I would rather have true 1080p and a slightly less pretty game, than 720p with a ton of effects and upscaling.

    #34 12 months ago
  35. Lengendaryboss

    There are only so many times i can link this:
    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdug8dqak01rnt7ww.gif

    #35 12 months ago
  36. yeoung

    Resolution is not all that important to me. I’d rather have 3D display surfaces, preferably mounted like the next step to the Oculus’ 110d FOV. Wanna get my peripheral vision on.

    I’m hoping this is the generation of systems that roll around like katamari spunging up all the various input and output methods being developed this very moment. The Oculus, the Omni, the Force Feedback vest, body and limb-tracking, facial recognition and BMI’s/BCI’s. If any system supports even a few of these, be it the PS4, be it a Steam Machine or a rose by any other name, it’ll be a new revolution, rather than an evolution.

    Hell, chances are someone will capitalize on an all-in-one package and BOOM! TIVR.
    A boy can dream..

    #36 12 months ago
  37. Joe Musashi

    On topic: Given Tuesday gave us “Specs don’t matter” and Wednesday has given us “We’ll improve our specs” I’m quite curious to see what Thursday’s Microsoft soundbite will offer.

    Here are my odds:

    10-1: “something something Halo”
    6-1: “Have you seen Titanfall?”
    5-1: “.. The Cloud ..”

    JM

    #37 12 months ago
  38. monkeygourmet

    @34

    But this is the thing….

    If we can lock 1080p & 30fps, yeah that isn’t so bad. Thing is we are gravitating back off that mark…

    900p, 720p for BF4 etc…

    Can we keep a ‘locked’ 30fps? I hope so as dropping below 30fps / screen tear and sub par HD resolutions are something I really wanted to leave behind next gen from a graphical perspective.

    #38 12 months ago
  39. Hcw87

    @37
    Nah, most likely we will have a Sony post where they say ”we can do that too” and the fanboy war will rage on.

    #39 12 months ago
  40. TheBlackHole

    All this nonsense and complaining about not having 1080p at launch… do you all realise how bad first generation games are? For the most part they are slightly up-res’d versions of current gen games. Loom at CoD: Ghosts footage.

    Also, I’m just going to leave these here…

    http://nerdeux.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/oblivion-vs-skyrim-preview.jpg

    http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/870848/uncharted3drakesface.jpg

    Now look at the best first gen games (Ryse & Killzone, probably) and imagine how good things will look in a couple of years.

    If you want it all now, buy a PC, but don’t forget we all started with real-time weapon change, Perfect Dark Zero and Oblivion.

    #40 12 months ago
  41. Lengendaryboss

    Whatever happened to gameplay = graphics? I’m starting to lose count of the various U-turns. Besides Xbox Fanboys u-turning on defending MS previous errors which is hypocritical, Sony fanboys are the same, its all about the games chucked out the window, Nintendo and its fans don’t want improvements (Yes the elephant it the third party problem), Titanfall is exclusive out the window, brainwashed by PR speak: Da power of the cloud and da power of the PS4 and last but certainly not least 1080 60FPS.

    Seriously? Jesus I’m practically creating that thread i teased.

    #41 12 months ago
  42. monkeygourmet

    @41

    Gameplay = Graphics?

    #42 12 months ago
  43. Erthazus

    @33, In other words you have nothing to say and I don’t compare here consoles to PC. I’m comparing Last generation consoles to Next Generation you IDIOT.

    @TheBlackHole, are you high?
    You showed a comparison screenshot with Uncharted that has RENDERED FACES. They don’t look like that in the game.

    http://aeportal.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Uncharted-Screenshot-12.jpg – here is the reality with CRAPPY Water.

    By the way, the reason why launch games on the 360 and PS3 were not good is because of bad production.

    this time it’s different. We have systems with x86 architecture that does not require some serious learning.

    #43 12 months ago
  44. Lengendaryboss

    @42
    I’m very certain i have seen many people in general on various sites preach “i’ll take gameplay over graphics any day” So Gameplay = Graphics.

    #44 12 months ago
  45. wildBoar

    The only thing that’s surprising is that there are fanboys on this site that are still willing to fight over this nonsense.

    I barely visit anymore, mostly because of this. Some idiots arguing at each other in a remote corner of the internet.. Such fulfilment.

    #45 12 months ago
  46. sg1974

    Another day, another EG puff-piece on behalf of MS.

    #46 12 months ago
  47. Erthazus

    Resolution, fps and graphics are not the same thing.

    Graphics are effects, shadows, textures, filters, lightning, shaders and other technologies that makes game look better artistically or realistically.

    Resolution and frames per second is the ability to make your eyes suffer less and to see decent image on the Wide screens.

    If you are playing Wii on your 480p TV. There is no reason to ask Nintendo for HD image. but we are talking about H-D consoles for HD TV’s.

    #47 12 months ago
  48. fearmonkey

    @38 – Yeah thats where I am at too, I just want 30fps+ but nothing below that. There are plenty of 360 games that were 30+ 90 percent of the time and then dipped in certain areas or parts. I would rather not have that anymore.

    To me next gen means true 1080p and 30fps+ and high res textures, and if we have to skimp on a bit of detail or objects on screen so be it. I would rather have no jaggies thanks to upscaling please.

    I love playing old games at 1080p or 1440p (if it can), the sharpness is so nice. I would much rather have that than 720p upscaled and 60fps.

    #48 12 months ago
  49. TheBlackHole

    @43

    Are you telling me UC3 looked no better than the first two? Also, you kind of proved my point showing off the crappy water.

    Anyhow.

    “By the way, the reason why launch games on the 360 and PS3 were not good is because of bad production.”

    That doesn’t apply to first party, where they would have had the hardware from inception. And in some cases (Epic with GoW) helped define it.

    #49 12 months ago
  50. monkeygourmet

    @44

    So gameplay better than graphics? Gameplay > graphics? Anyway, either way gameplay is the most important, yeah.

    But personally, as I find Nintendo provide some of the best gameplay experiences (I have that covered with Wii U & 3DS), it wouldn’t have hurt to have some eye candy too.

    I like Naughty Dog games generally, but not from a gameplay perspective entirely.

    #50 12 months ago
  51. Erthazus

    @49, Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 difference was HUGE. Uncharted 2-3 small differences in lightning and crisp effects.

    but we are not talking about graphics man. We are talking about Frames and resolution.

    #51 12 months ago
  52. FuntimeBen

    I can totally tell the difference between 1080p and 900p… if I am 2″ away from my computer monitor. I can’t even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 50″ television sitting 8 feet away.

    That being said – all Microsoft are saying is the Xbox One is underpowered for 1080p content. I’m sure the PS4 is similarly underpowered to some degree, but are smart enough to shut-up about it. I mean they are sub $500 PCs basically.

    Personally, all this news about sub-1080p resolutions has convinced me to build a gaming PC. I will cherish my PS4, but I would rather have a PC over an Xbox One at this point since most exclusives are coming out on both. I would much rather play Titanfall on PC at 1080p than on a console at 720-900p.

    (also, it is a business expense) (also, games are cheaper!) (also, steam sales)

    #52 12 months ago
  53. Hcw87

    The fanboy wars here are nothing compared to the shit over at Neogaf.

    #53 12 months ago
  54. Joe Musashi

    @43 LOL. I’ve plenty to say. Such as calling you out on your usual amateur-hour elitist bullshit fake facts. And calling everyone who doesn’t swallow your brand of inanity an idiot.

    If you had a valid counter-argument after your lies and fake images you’d provide it. As you don’t, you just go into your usual TANTRUM MODE and call people names.

    I’m as much a PC gamer as a console gamer. But PC gamers like you give all of PC gaming a bad rep.

    JM

    #54 12 months ago
  55. Hcw87

    Btw, Beyond Two Souls is a 720p title and it looks superb. I wouldn’t have guessed it was running at 720p instead of 1080p if i didn’t check.

    #55 12 months ago
  56. monkeygourmet

    @53

    Yeah, Neogaf is a horrible forum really.

    #56 12 months ago
  57. TheBlackHole

    “but we are not talking about graphics man. We are talking about Frames and resolution.”

    And how many people do you think know the difference between the two? I’m pretty certain you’ll find people see it as ‘what the game looks like on screen’, including detail, speed, smoothness etc.

    #57 12 months ago
  58. fearmonkey

    @55 – It does look great :) I was hoping to leave 720p behind in the next gen though.

    #58 12 months ago
  59. Hcw87

    @58
    Stuff don’t get pixelated unless you’re on huge screens though, and with less resolution you can add more AA.

    I’m on a 40′ TV, and i honestly can’t say that Beyond Two Souls looks worse than Metal Gear Solid 4 (one of PS3′s few 1080p titles) for example.

    #59 12 months ago
  60. monkeygourmet

    @58

    Exactly. I’m done with that resolution as weird as that sounds.

    My TV is new(ish), I have a new media system and I wanted a next gen console to take advantage of that! I’m 1080p & 3D ready and it looks like PC is easily the best option! :)

    #60 12 months ago
  61. monkeygourmet

    @59

    I think MGS4 is sub 1080p?

    #61 12 months ago
  62. Gekidami

    @60
    You must really hate the Wii-U then. Oh wait.

    #62 12 months ago
  63. Hcw87

    @61
    Nah, i checked my TV input, it said 1080. Upscaled most likely though, but still.

    #63 12 months ago
  64. monkeygourmet

    @62

    See @50

    “So gameplay better than graphics? Gameplay > graphics? Anyway, either way gameplay is the most important, yeah.

    But personally, as I find Nintendo provide some of the best gameplay experiences (I have that covered with Wii U & 3DS), it wouldn’t have hurt to have some eye candy too.

    I like Naughty Dog games generally, but not from a gameplay perspective entirely.”

    @63

    It’s still sitting on my shelf, I just can’t get into it! :)

    #64 12 months ago
  65. fearmonkey

    All I can say is that my phone is 1080p (Galaxy S4), why can’t my games be too?

    @59 – I have a question for you, does the PS3 have a scaler, like the 360 does? I was thinking it didn’t as the initial PS3 games didn’t scale but wondered if that was something they added?

    It’s very possible on that, some games look better than others on lower resolutions. TV size and it’s quality also make a difference. I have seen 720p on Plasmas look lovely. However, I mostly game on a 27inch monitor really close to my eyes, not on a tV, so any scaling or jaggies is very noticeable up close.

    @60 – I think I need a new TV. I just got a googlecast and its only 720p and my old Tube based HDTV doesnt like 720p over HDMI, only 1080.
    It doesnt have to be huge as its for a bedroom but I am wondering if I should worry about 3D for the PS4, if it will support it?

    #65 12 months ago
  66. Gekidami

    @64
    Dont worry, i’m well aware of your special pleading and hypocrisy.

    #66 12 months ago
  67. Hcw87

    @64
    Unless you’ve played the previous games (or read up on the story here for example: http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/metal_gear_solid_13_plot_char.txt) i won’t even advise you to start playing. The story is so convoluted that it won’t make any sense at all. I tried playing MGS 4 years ago as my first ever MGS game and it didn’t click with me at all. Alot better after i read up on the previous games though.

    @65
    I’ve read that MGS5 is upscaled 1080p, so there must be some sort of upscaling in there.

    EDIT: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/100893-13-upscaling-better-left-personal-opinion

    There are no dedicated hardware upscaling like in X360, but there is some sort of software upscaling for a few games. I think it’s best running games at their default resolution for the best picture though (default for MGS4 is 1080p)

    I think MGS4 is native 1080p actually when i think about it.

    #67 12 months ago
  68. monkeygourmet

    @65

    I have a Samsung 46d6530:

    http://webdenal.s3.amazonaws.com/catalog_original/422512.jpg

    Not the best set by far for 3D (although the PS3 handled it pretty poorly IMO), but a great set for 1080p movies. The 2D picture is pretty great once set up properly.

    I think its a great set for gaming and a really good size for films too. I always say, go as big as you can with a TV. It always seems weird at first, then you soon think, I could have gone one bigger. My last TV was 37″ and the 46″ is just so much better once you get used to it.

    My 37″ is now in the bedroom and it’s fine, depending on your room size and the size of the TV bezel (some are ultra thin now), 40″ may even be okay. Def no smaller than 32″ though. As for 3D, it can be great fun (COD on 360 was a good laugh), but as people are dropping support I wouldn’t let it be a deal breaker. Hope that helps! :)

    #68 12 months ago
  69. monkeygourmet

    @66

    And I’m not aware of anything about you. I’m glad you keep me in your thoughts though.

    #69 12 months ago
  70. fearmonkey

    @68 Thanks :) I have this old 24 inch tv in there and its too small (it was a kitchen TV) and i have thought about getting a 40 or above for the bedroom. I appreciate the info :)

    @65 – Thanks, I was wondering about that scaling on the PS3 and now I know :) The only true 1080p game on the 360 I remember was dragon’s Lair.

    #70 12 months ago
  71. monkeygourmet

    @70

    No worries! You can get a pretty great set for a good price now.

    Between £349 – £500 will get you a really good 40″ set. AVforums can be pretty helpful for user reviews and setting up your set properly.

    Also: hotukdeals is very helpful if you are UK based! :)

    For example:

    http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/samsung-eh5300-40-inch-full-hd-freeview-hd-smart-led-tv-379-90-argos-1670172

    Looks like roughly the same TV as mine but over half the price?!

    #71 12 months ago
  72. Dendroball

    People are already freaking out because 1080p is not mandatory on both next gen consoles, I can only imagine what it’s gonna be when The Division won’t be able to reach 1080p on both consoles.

    People always seem to forget these consoles have limited hardware in order to stay affordable for the masses and current games in development or about to come out in the coming months are way more ambitious than last gen games with buzz words surrounding them like open world, life like animations, non linear experience, realistic shaders, asynchronous multiplayer and so on there’s only so much you can do with a new 400-500$ piece of hardware and compromises need to be done in the end.

    Or maybe those developers are all under employing that next gen power in order to piss off their playerbase on purpose …

    #72 12 months ago
  73. monkeygourmet

    @72

    I would agree, but I’ve yet to see anything that couldn’t be done on 360 / PS3 bar a slight de-tune in graphics.

    #73 12 months ago
  74. Erthazus

    “Btw, Beyond Two Souls is a 720p title and it looks superb. I wouldn’t have guessed it was running at 720p instead of 1080p if i didn’t check.”

    BECAUSE:

    1) You haven’t played it

    2) The videos were recorded in 1080p

    Brainwashed people.

    I saw Final Fantasy 15 CGI at E3. it looked beautiful that all PC’s and next gen consoles are shit compared to that CGI. YEAH! This is next gen game.. video…

    P.S. By the way. Heavy Rain on the PS3 (I played it) looked okay and it had issues with frame rates. Sometimes drops were below 15 in the gameplay moment where you just go and do nothing + V-SYNC problems.

    #74 12 months ago
  75. Hcw87

    @74
    There’s a demo of Beyond, dumbass.

    Seriously, think before you post.

    Download the demo, the graphics are phenomenal.

    #75 12 months ago
  76. Erthazus

    @75, yeah. I forgot that there is a demo.

    I won’t download it. I already pre-ordered it so I will see them soon. Oh yeah.

    “the graphics are phenomenal.”

    Oh yeah… Lol. Oh yeah.

    #76 12 months ago
  77. Hcw87

    The point is that even though it’s 720p, it’s in no way more pixelated than upscaled 720p titles or native 1080p titles (MGS4).

    If a game is 900p, it will look IDENTICAL as 1080p on a TV. Only way to spot a difference is if you sit 2 feet from your 50′ TV.

    Stop getting so worked up over numbers when they mean nothing when it comes to the actual visuals in this case (Ryse 1080p vs 900p).

    There are people thinking they can see the difference between 50FPS and 60FPS aswell. It’s a weird world, obsessed with numbers.

    #77 12 months ago
  78. xxJPRACERxx

    @20 (Erth) My point about VHS tapes was that resolution is only a small aspect of overall IQ. If the devs have to sacrifice 180p of vertical resolution I don’t care if in the end the IQ is much better.

    #78 12 months ago
  79. pcbros

    @77 – I agree. I bet there were lots of games that were not 720p on the PS3/360 and I never noticed.

    Also, why is the big debate about resolution and framerate? Isn’t detail (polycount) more important when it comes to graphics?

    Any game can run at 60fps/1080p if you lower the polycount.

    #79 12 months ago
  80. derekgangi

    Yeah… I have an Xbox One Day One Edition coming my way… and I pre-ordered a PS4 first, switched to the XB1 a day later, and possibly regretting it.

    Sigh.

    #80 12 months ago
  81. Cobra951

    @64: “Gameplay > graphics?”

    Yes, and also graphics > resolution. Res is only one of several criteria affecting the quality of graphics in motion. Frame rate is much more important than whether the res is 720p or 1080p. It’s a balancing act constrained by the power of the hardware and the efficiency of the software running on it. That won’t change next gen.

    #81 12 months ago
  82. Samurai

    @79
    I’d take 60fps over fancy graphics any days. Having nice graphics is all for naught when displayed with 30fps, in my opinion. I can even handle the resolution being lower than 1080p as well. I just can’t handle 30fps and some a lot of cases even lower.

    #82 12 months ago
  83. redwood

    oh microsoft.. you are so funny.

    #83 12 months ago
  84. apoe

    @77
    I notice the difference between 50 and 60 fps fairly easily, especially when a game is running at 60 fps the whole time and then suddenly drops. You may not be able to see the difference, but that doesn’t mean others can’t. It depends on how accustomed your eyes are to a certain framerate.

    1080p has almost 50% higher pixel count than 900p, and it matches the native resolution of almost all HDTVs. Also, MGS4 renders at 1024×768, not 1920×1080. But yes, there’s far more to the visuals than just screen resolution.

    #84 12 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.