Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

CatInABox

hardweir wrote: »

This cboat guy on neogaf says that 720p will be the norm for the xbox ones life cycle and is brought about by the esram being a bitch to work with and the fact that the gpu is underpowered compared to the ps4

He also predicted the low yields on the Xbox One chip. If you don't remember that one, then I'm not surprised, seeing as it was totally false.

I am amazed people still use him as a 'source', what with his propensity for saying that things changed, and that it was accurate when he posted.

_Puma_

The thing about Forza is it will not be using high anti aliasing and other post-processing effects/Day night Cycles(That the GPU is capable of, and most games nowadays utilise) that eat up bandwidth to achieve the 1080p 60fps target. There are tradeoffs that need to be made in maximising bandwidth to reach the target. Kinda like how I would optimise a game on my PC. Set to maximum Resolution I can get and then back off the effects until I can get a decent FPS. The dropping to 720p in COD is telling as First person shooters would make use of a lot more PP effects. It can handle 1080 resolution so there must be bottlenecks further up that are holding it back and since they have to resort to dropping the Resolution so significantly I would worry(And so should Microsoft if this is the problem 3rd party Developers are running into).

The question is given more time would they have been able to optimise further to reach the 1080p target or is there a fundamental roadblock with the buffer the eSRAM provides. Given the resources that were pumped into IW and the fact that COD would be a flagship 3rd party title I would go with the latter.

Xenji

CatInABox wrote: »

He also predicted the low yields on the Xbox One chip. If you don't remember that one, then I'm not surprised, seeing as it was totally false.

I am amazed people still use him as a 'source', what with his propensity for saying that things changed, and that it was accurate when he posted.

He said this today

yaes. Ripend tools helalp. Dvoper familiarty 2. same thihg ocuredwithn ps3cel last tme rou^nd.

@#ESRMA is handicap prob for now but workarohd wil cume.

Hdwaarwe powr is alwysa behnd tho. never chagns,ing. wo cpomlet HW upate. 900-720p wil be norm. gamwes wil be goud !!thoug and that hwath mat ers. just struggle mre to wok on xon.

I hgu you friend flesh itw alget bettr I promise (:

Translated :pac:

Yes. Ripened tools help. Developer familiarity, too. Same thing occurred with PS3 and Cell last time around.

ESRAM is a handicap for now but a workaround will come.

Hardware power is always behind though. Never changing without a complete hardware update. 720p - 900p will be the norm. The games will be good though, and that's what matters. They'll just struggle more to work on the Xbox One.

I hug you friend Flash. It will get better, I promise.

hardweir

CatInABox wrote: »

He also predicted the low yields on the Xbox One chip. If you don't remember that one, then I'm not surprised, seeing as it was totally false.

I am amazed people still use him as a 'source', what with his propensity for saying that things changed, and that it was accurate when he posted.

Yes i know this guy is all over the place but many others have posted and tweeted similar reports.

Your still left with the fact that the esram is not ideal and the gpu is not as powerfull.What worries me,if true,is that ghosts engine is barely next gen and its suprising that this game in paticular might not run 1080p.Battlefield i could understand.

If all of this is true,we will have to try and avoid Eurogamer and Digital Foundry for a while.:D

Otacon

CatInABox wrote: »

He also predicted the low yields on the Xbox One chip. If you don't remember that one, then I'm not surprised, seeing as it was totally false.

Why is the XBO only launching in 13 countries then?

CatInABox wrote: »

I am amazed people still use him as a 'source', what with his propensity for saying that things changed, and that it was accurate when he posted.

He has been proven right quite a few times at this stage.

Grayditch

Is this CBOAT lad... dyslexic, or is it just a ...style? Or a bad phone... on a bumpy train?

ZiabR

_Puma_ wrote: »

The thing about Forza is it will not be using high anti aliasing and other post-processing effects/Day night Cycles(That the GPU is capable of, and most games nowadays utilise) that eat up bandwidth to achieve the 1080p 60fps target. There are tradeoffs that need to be made in maximising bandwidth to reach the target. Kinda like how I would optimise a game on my PC. Set to maximum Resolution I can get and then back off the effects until I can get a decent FPS. The dropping to 720p in COD is telling as First person shooters would make use of a lot more PP effects. It can handle 1080 resolution so there must be bottlenecks further up that are holding it back and since they have to resort to dropping the Resolution so significantly I would worry(And so should Microsoft if this is the problem 3rd party Developers are running into).

The question is given more time would they have been able to optimise further to reach the 1080p target or is there a fundamental roadblock with the buffer the eSRAM provides. Given the resources that were pumped into IW and the fact that COD would be a flagship 3rd party title I would go with the latter.

It is all about the trade off. For example with the likes of BF4, there is just so much going on at the same time that a drop in resolution to 720p is the solution for the best framerate. While the console can handle 1080p, the framerate would suffer too much and the game would not be playable. Compare that to Forza when you only have 6-8 cars racing, the console can easily handle the 1080p here because there is considerable less real-time rendering to do.

I think, until developers get their head fully around the new consoles, First person shooters will be in 720p. I dont mind tbh, as long as the games are good.

Look at Titanfall, running at 720p and looks amazing.

Xenji

Grayditch wrote: »

Is this CBOAT lad... dyslexic, or is it just a ...style? Or a bad phone... on a bumpy train?

He does it deliberately.

Xenji

Strangely enough CBOAT has also been name dropped on ABC and Fox News when talking about the whole X1 privacy uproar.

Grayditch

Has it been said who he works for, or how he gets his info?

maximoose

Xenji wrote: »

He does it deliberately.

I hate people.

shuffles03

For all you collectors out there:

KIERAN1

Well what has changed since June, because Infinity Ward have already said COD Ghosts runs at 1080P (60 frames) on X Box 1.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-11-call-of-duty-ghosts-runs-at-1080p-and-60fps-on-xbox-one-and-ps4

Sony fans spreading disinformation?

Fifa 14 next gen runs at 1080p 60 frames, so does NBA Live 14 and Forza, Dead rising 3 runs at 1080p but frame is only 30, which is not surprising its a slower paced game.

Ryse is 900p and 60 frames, dropped to 900 to focus more on graphics.

These games we know, other xb1 games we haven't got official word what resolution and frame their using. But the majority of XB1 games so far are 1080p and 60 frames.

60 frames is bigger deal anyway.especially when your playing shooters.

Grayditch

KIERAN1 wrote: »

Sony fans spreading disinformation?

Why does it have to be Sony fans, though?

KIERAN1

Grayditch wrote: »

Why does it have to be Sony fans, though?

I think the claims were made by people on the forum Neogaf. Which is a haunt for Sony fans. I've been on there reading posts. The hatred for the XB1 is bad.

Grayditch

KIERAN1 wrote: »

I think the claims were made by people on the forum Neogaf. Which is a haunt for Sony fans. I've been on there reading posts. The hatred for the XB1 is bad.

But this guy who's made the claim could be a developer with whome MS has burned bridges with or treated badly. We've seen that happen. Is this cboat chap notably pro-Sony?

Xenji

Grayditch wrote: »

Why does it have to be Sony fans, though?

I blame those pesky Wii fanboys.

Grayditch

Oh, well they're monsters.

Always so damn fit, though.

Mitch Connor

Grayditch wrote: »

Oh, well they're monsters.

Always so damn fit, though.

Ah, but us xboxers will be fit soon too - what with our year of free xbox fitness thing. Can't wait to get all sweating infront of the kinect camera.

Tony Horton and co are going to have me P90 Xing every day.

Or I will play Fifa for hours on end.

ZiabR

KIERAN1 wrote: »

Well what has changed since June, because Infinity Ward have already said COD Ghosts runs at 1080P (60 frames) on X Box 1.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-11-call-of-duty-ghosts-runs-at-1080p-and-60fps-on-xbox-one-and-ps4

Sony fans spreading disinformation?

Fifa 14 next gen runs at 1080p 60 frames, so does NBA Live 14 and Forza, Dead rising 3 runs at 1080p but frame is only 30, which is not surprising its a slower paced game.

Ryse is 900p and 60 frames, dropped to 900 to focus more on graphics.

These games we know, other xb1 games we haven't got official word what resolution and frame their using. But the majority of XB1 games so far are 1080p and 60 frames.

60 frames is bigger deal anyway.especially when your playing shooters.

It's like i was saying. It depends on what type of game it is. Any war based FPS is going to have Fire/Smoke/Explosions etc which kill framerates. It would be happier to play a 720p or 900p at 50-60fps than a 1080p at 25-35fps.

Mitch Connor

What is the correlation between 1080p and graphical quality?

Is the 1080p thing really an issue - surely the graphical quality of the game can still be superb at 720p, better than some current gen titles at 1080p?

Ryse, for example, is at 900p, to focus more on graphics - so that indicates (unless I am being thick) that the graphics aren't massively related to the resolution.

Obviously a higher resolution will look crisper - but would the difference be all that big between 1080p and 720p? If the same graphics engine is used, same textures, same effects etc, would the difference be enough to really have an issue with it?

Genuine question - as I simply don't know how big an issue resolution is over the graphics engine etc.

ShiverinEskimo

Everything looks much sharper in 1080p. You can have all the textures in the world but at the end of it all if they are displayed with 4 times the pixel on screen they will look much much better.

When I'm PC gaming I sacrifice effects like AA and Shadows/Water effects in favour of bumping the resolution because as you say - it's sharper/clearer. See below - image on the left is 1080p.

Mitch Connor

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Everything looks much sharper in 1080p. You can have all the textures in the world but at the end of it all if they are displayed with 4 times the pixel on screen they will look much much better.

When I'm PC gaming I sacrifice effects like AA and Shadows/Water effects in favour of bumping the resolution because as you say - it's sharper/clearer. See below - image on the left is 1080p.

wow - thats a huge difference.

Yeah, I can see the disappointment so.

ZiabR

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What is the correlation between 1080p and graphical quality?

Is the 1080p thing really an issue - surely the graphical quality of the game can still be superb at 720p, better than some current gen titles at 1080p?

Ryse, for example, is at 900p, to focus more on graphics - so that indicates (unless I am being thick) that the graphics aren't massively related to the resolution.

Obviously a higher resolution will look crisper - but would the difference be all that big between 1080p and 720p? If the same graphics engine is used, same textures, same effects etc, would the difference be enough to really have an issue with it?

Genuine question - as I simply don't know how big an issue resolution is over the graphics engine etc.

It is a trade off. Yes games can still look amazing in 720p and 900p. Often when there is a reduction in resolution from 1080p to 900p for example the game will use a higher level of anti aliasing which smooths out edges making the graphics look super. Gears of War used high end bump mapping and anti aliasing to achieve amazing graphics.

If you push up the resolution to 1080p then sometimes you need to lower other graphs settings like anti aliasing and sometimes even textures to achieve the same level of framerate.

ShiverinEskimo

In truth the argument about 720p X1 versus 1080p PS4 is too simplistic without knowing what other graphical settings are in play.

If the PS4 has 1080p and all the bells and whistles like AA in tow while the X1 is on 720p with the bells and whistles then that is a huge win for the PS4 on the presumption frame-rates won't be frequently affected on PS4.

It's entirely a pointless argument until we see both in practice and no-doubt picked to bits by Digital Foundry and Anand and the like.

ZiabR

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

In truth the argument about 720p X1 versus 1080p PS4 is too simplistic without knowing what other graphical settings are in play.

If the PS4 has 1080p and all the bells and whistles like AA in tow while the X1 is on 720p with the bells and whistles then that is a huge win for the PS4 on the presumption frame-rates won't be frequently affected on PS4.

It's entirely a pointless argument until we see both in practice and no-doubt picked to bits by Digital Foundry and Anand and the like.

Would agree here, very much depends on the other settings used and not just the resolution chosen. In an ideal world we would be using 1440p with all settings at max and anti aliasing at full but the hardware required to achieve a steady frame rate at these levels would push the costs of consoles through the roof. Is all about finding a middle ground. A trade off between graphics, framerates and cost.

Pushtrak

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/435165/xbox-one-and-ps4-specs-now-almost-identical-says-shinji-mikami/

Mega man co-creator Keiji Inafune also told the site: "I don't think there's a major difference between them. If you get down to the tiny details then maybe each is better at one thing than the other, but it doesn't really impact the way you make a game.

"It's not like PS4 or Xbox One are particularly hard to develop for," he added. "Quite the opposite: you can make whatever you want on either one, and that should be enough for anyone."

shuffles03

This:

"Quite the opposite: you can make whatever you want on either one, and that should be enough for anyone."

At the end of the day, it's all about the games. It's easy to get caught up in the 'which one does this, which one does that'. It's irrelevant. Games speak for themselves - and only time will decide that outcome. Personally, I'm as excited as a sleepless child on Christmas Eve about the incoming generation no matter where my brand loyalty lies.

KIERAN1

Grayditch wrote: »

But this guy who's made the claim could be a developer with whome MS has burned bridges with or treated badly. We've seen that happen. Is this cboat chap notably pro-Sony?

Hes insider supposedly, that's all i know about him. I think it was different user on there, who claimed Ghosts was running 720p on xb1

hardweir

Microsofts advertising kicks off-

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-25-watch-microsofts-expensive-looking-xbox-one-ad-starring-steven-gerrard-and-spock

Jaysus that must have cost a pretty penny,decent effort all the same made me smile.