Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

Richard Dower

, lots of discussion of this on the gaff and Reddit....loads of articles. The consoles arent even out its it is very apparent that 1080p *and* 60fps is a no go!

lol....so called next gen eh?, i think both Sony and MS opened themselves up to this debate by using off the shelf PC parts. Another reason is each gen of console actually beat PC tech at the time....this is the first gen where consoles are on par or well under current PC tech.

Tis down to the APU....i personally think they should have waited for 20nm and the upcoming AMD chips that are much more beefy in both CPU and GPU.

While i may not have expected 60fps i would have thought 1080p would be STANDARD :eek:

Tis looking worse by the day lads, and in two years?....i cant see these consoles last 4 years let alone 10 :rolleyes:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-respawn-the-titanfall-interview

tuxy

Richard Dower wrote: »

Tis looking worse by the day lads, and in two years?....i cant see these consoles last 4 years let alone 10 :rolleyes:

So you think there will be a new company that will create a new console brand in 4 years time that will blow MS and Sony out of the water?

The next gen console will last as long as the two key players want them to.
Sure you might see PC gaming continue to increase in popularity but it will not have a major impact on the console market.

Retr0gamer

It's too be expected. People demand higher details and effects in their games and this has to come at the expense of resolution and framerate. This isn't a new thing. The PS1 and Saturn had a handful of games that utilised their high resolution modes and it was the same on the PS2 era.

Why do they sacrifice framerate that will make their games play better for detail? Because good graphics sell. Just look at Killzone, a bland and dull FPS series with big control latency problems. Insomnic were very disappointed that Resistance 2 got dismissed by critics for having poor graphics despite offering a 60FPS 720p experience and changed to 30FPS for the third game to generate better sales and review scores.

Richard Dower

tuxy wrote: »

So you think there will be a new company that will create a new console brand in 4 years time that will blow MS and Sony out of the water?

The next gen console will last as long as the two key players want them to.
Sure you might see PC gaming continue to increase in popularity but it will not have a major impact on the console market.

I think PS4 - Revision 2.0

tuxy

Richard Dower wrote: »

I think PS4 - Revision 2.0

Why would they do this? The money is in the game sales. In 4 years time they will have an established player base which means higher game sales. Why would they jeperdise this?

The current gen had a long life span for this reason and it worked. Competition drives change but there is no competition.

EoinHef

Both microsoft and sony would regret not targeting 1080p 60fps if steam brought out a steam box capable of that fps at that res. And I do think they could do it in 4 years aswell,hell maybe thet were just waiting to see what sony and microsoft were gonna do. Sony and microsoft developed there new consoles in less than that time.

I personally would love to see that because at the moment not much between the two consoles so you have to companies giving us basically the same thing spec and performance wise.

Also current gen were supposed to last 10 years not 7. So I dont ses why they think this gen will outlast the previous one. Technology moves so fast these days, even pc's from 7 years ago are pieces of s#$& compared to the ones today. And the last consoles were way ahead of pc at the time, the next gen wont be!!

Danonino.

Does that mean a new fancy 1080p TV would still have to scale PS4/XB1 games up from 720p unless they choose to run the game at 30frames making them look worse?
Why the push for 4k tellys when everything outside bluray discs and super PCs are 720p and the ps4/xb1 look to be struggling with 1080p without sacrificing something?



All this new console/screen tech/PC hardware has my brain in a spin.
I'm very close to buying a 42" Plasma thats close to 720p native over a FHD LED 1080p 39"... I mean whats the point in all that resolution when it never gets used unless you watch a Bluray and sit a foot from the screen?

tuxy

Danonino. wrote: »

Does that mean a new fancy 1080p TV would still have to scale PS4/XB1 games up from 720p unless they choose to run the game at 30frames making them look worse?

The console will do the up scaling just like the current gen.

nesf

I think you would struggle rather hard to get the graphics they want and 1080p and 60fps on the hardware they're putting in and to be fair there is no way people will part with around 1,000 Euro for a console so it's fair to expect them to be putting in two powerful GPUs in SLI for 5 years of futureproofing either.

EoinHef

Danonino. wrote: »

I'm very close to buying a 42" Plasma thats close to 720p native over a FHD LED 1080p 39"... I mean whats the point in all that resolution when it never gets used unless you watch a Bluray and sit a foot from the screen?

You can have 2 screens that have the same native res but the picture can look very different on them. There are other factors than just the res at work like contrast ratio, refresh rates, backlighting etc. LED picture quality would be superior

tuxy

nesf wrote: »

I think you would struggle rather hard to get the graphics they want and 1080p and 60fps on the hardware they're putting in and to be fair there is no way people will part with around 1,000 Euro for a console so it's fair to expect them to be putting in two powerful GPUs in SLI for 5 years of futureproofing either.

True but perhaps APUs are not mature enough yet. They could have gone for a better GPU with out a big increase in price if they had not used an APU.

nesf

tuxy wrote: »

True but perhaps APUs are not mature enough yet. They could have gone for a better GPU with out a big increase in price if they had not used an APU.

Considering graphics will be expected to improve over the next few years you need to be thinking of at minimum 7970 territory if not better than that. The issue isn't running today's games on that hardware, it is running games in three year's time on it. Right now a 6870 can manage the vast majority of games at 1080p without breaking much of a sweat (especially if you imagined developers being able to code specifically for it). Will a 6870 run everything flawlessly in three years? Not a chance.

Falthyron

It seems all but confirmed that even the next generation consoles will struggle to run games at 60FPS @ 720p. Battlefield 4 being the example used here.

So, as a previous poster stated, your TV/monitor will just upscale(or stretch) the resolution to fit on the screen. Hardly surprising, because regardless of how much 'wow' factor these consoles have, they are probably running on technology that is at least one to two years old now. I reckon it won't be until the XboxTwo and PS5 that console gamers will get full 1080p, but by then 4K resolution will be the target to strive towards.

cherryghost

4k games won't happen this gen (maybe on some indie games). It's already on PC but even top end models are only getting to grips with playable framerates on modern games.

COD will be running at 1080p though, correct me if I'm wrong. Then again they're still running the game on a modified 14 year old quake engine so it's not that hard to achieve good rates. Rumours are the next Crysis engine will only push 720p on next gen consoles also.

Grumpypants

I like games to look better so I can see things more easily but that's about it. I am far more interested in good character's and stories.

Hercule

1080p @ 60fps? - thats the kind of res and hz i was fussing about 2 years ago #PCGAMINGMASTERRACE #FEELSGOODMAN

Richard Dower

The problem, as we all know, is lack of future proofing....while Sony was able to tweak the crap out of CELL....it took years for devs. to figure the chip out. PS3 games are looking their best right NOW!

But can this customised APU be the same?....we dont know!, we're basing our thoughts on PC tech, not console tech.....based on PC tech the current APU's are the best available right now.

But in 1 or two years AMD will have much more powerful APU's....same as nVidia will have more powerful GPU's. The idea is that in 2-4 years these console APU's will not be able to keep up with the eye candy etc.

We simply dont know if these customs APU's can be tweaked by Sony like they did with CELL on the PS3....Cerny says they can.............

But i think alot of potential buyers are concerned these APU's cant even handle 1080p....never mind 60fps.

Richard Dower

tuxy wrote: »

True but perhaps APUs are not mature enough yet. They could have gone for a better GPU with out a big increase in price if they had not used an APU.

Cost....they used an APU because they are cheaper then a separte CPU and GPU....they do offer the best price/performance ratio.........

ShadowHearth

To be honest, I expected minimum of 1080p as standard and then playing around with 30 and 60fps. 1080p with 30 fps suits me perfectly for launch games. I don't really expect all games to be high end pc detail level 60fps and 1080p at launch. The more devs use the New consoles, the more tricks they learn to make it more efficient. Let's have a look at ps3. Grand turismo 6 1080p 60fps. I really did not expected it from ps3 hardware, but some devs just are good at their job.

If we will still be getting 720p crap on next gen, then I am really going to bust a testicle. I am not getting bf4 on ps4 at all then. If all games are just going to be 720p rubbish then I can see my ps4 going on adverts same night it launches.

NTMK

Richard Dower wrote: »

Cost....they used an APU because they are cheaper then a separte CPU and GPU....they do offer the best price/performance ratio.........

it has little to do with cost compared to the thermal envelope of the console. Both the 360 and PS3 had reliability issues and neither sony nor MS want that hassle again. these custom APU's are pricey to make in comparison to a off the shelf APU as the GPU on these generates a lot more heat than the normal APU's AMD sell

Sony went with GDDR5 which isnt the cheapest thing in the world and MS went with a DDR3/ESRAM combo which is ****ing expensive and hard to make. both could have gone with standard DDR3 to cut costs. Devs only requested 8GB DDR3

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

To be honest, I expected minimum of 1080p as standard and then playing around with 30 and 60fps. 1080p with 30 fps suits me perfectly for launch games. I don't really expect all games to be high end pc detail level 60fps and 1080p at launch. The more devs use the New consoles, the more tricks they learn to make it more efficient. Let's have a look at ps3. Grand turismo 6 1080p 60fps. I really did not expected it from ps3 hardware, but some devs just are good at their job.

Gran Turismo runs at 1280x1080 when the XMB is set to 1080p, it's not full 1080p.

As for the consoles being capable of 1080p@60, that's not really the question here. As Retr0gamer said above, they're running at lower targets than this because people want shinier games with larger worlds and more players on-screen. Yes, they're "next generation" consoles but that doesn't mean everything can increase in such a manner, all for the same low hardware and software costs.

At least when Battlefield 4 launches it'll be nice to see someone try to put together a compact form factor, ready-to-go PC that can pump out 1080p@60 on the full size maps with full player compliment, all for under €400. In the meantime, take a deep breath and remember what the current generation managed with their weaker Tri-core CPUs, 256MB RAM and 256MB graphics card.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Gran Turismo runs at 1280x1080 when the XMB is set to 1080p, it's not full 1080p.

As for the consoles being capable of 1080p@60, that's not really the question here. As Retr0gamer said above, they're running at lower targets than this because people want shinier games with larger worlds and more players on-screen. Yes, they're "next generation" consoles but that doesn't mean everything can increase in such a manner, all for the same low hardware and software costs.

At least when Battlefield 4 launches it'll be nice to see someone try to put together a compact form factor, ready-to-go PC that can pump out 1080p@60 on the full size maps with full player compliment, all for under €400. In the meantime, take a deep breath and remember what the current generation managed with their weaker Tri-core CPUs, 256MB RAM and 256MB graphics card.

What do you mean by that m8? I though it was announced proper 1080p. I played Demo and it did looked impresive and smooth.

I know its like beating a dead horse at this stage, but if we are talking about going back to 720p and still being 30fps in games on new gen, then building a budget PC instead of next gen looks more and more better deal.
Next gen from announcment started as a praised platform, which will outperform high end PCs, but now we are hitting the reality, where Next gen is not even have a scratch at high end PC, not even at med range PCs. A huge price drop in GPUs in the last few weeks making PC even more affordable.
Yes, to build a PC which will be more powerful then next gen is still more then a console, but when you start putting in other expenses with consoles and benefits of game prices, then smaller initial price of a console melts very damn fast.

I got huge respect to developers who managed to pull out stuff like Uncharted, GT6, Starhawk out of PS3. They look fantastic and the amount of beauty pulled out from such hardware only deserves respect. Things is developers on next gen consoles already fighting and losing the battle for performance and graphics. At least when ps3 and xbox 360 came out we could say that those looked fantastic and were a huge improvement on anything we sow before. With this gen, we already got consoles in underdog position. We already talking about optimisation that we should see in a couple of years. Yes

norrie rugger

nesf wrote: »

Considering graphics will be expected to improve over the next few years you need to be thinking of at minimum 7970 territory if not better than that. The issue isn't running today's games on that hardware, it is running games in three year's time on it. Right now a 6870 can manage the vast majority of games at 1080p without breaking much of a sweat (especially if you imagined developers being able to code specifically for it). Will a 6870 run everything flawlessly in three years? Not a chance.

You leave my 6870 alone, ya big bully

ShadowHearth

norrie rugger wrote: »

You leave my 6870 alone, ya big bully

I will defenetly fire up my good old q6600 3gb ram and 6870 to see how well it will run BF4. I am very curious how 6 years old PC with 2 years old GPU will stand against all mighty next gen .

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

What do you mean by that m8? I though it was announced proper 1080p. I played Demo and it did looked impresive and smooth.

Wait, hold on, I was looking at GT5. Gran Turismo 6 runs at 1440x1080 while in 1080p mode. An improvement over the previous iteration sure but still not full 1080p. That's in-game mind you, afaik the show rooms are in full 1080p. Don't get me wrong, it's still extremely impressive, just thought I'd mention it.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I know its like beating a dead horse at this stage, but if we are talking about going back to 720p and still being 30fps in games on new gen, then building a budget PC instead of next gen looks more and more better deal.

I think it's a perfectly valid suggestion as long as you consider the form factor issue and are upfront about all of the costs involved. I was actually surprised when I was home last that a couple of my non-techy mates were considering building new PCs in the next few months. Granted, they're only for Battlefield 4 but once you start it's a delightfully slippery slope from there.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Next gen from announcment started as a praised platform, which will outperform high end PCs, but now we are hitting the reality, where Next gen is not even have a scratch at high end PC, not even at med range PCs. A huge price drop in GPUs in the last few weeks making PC even more affordable.

The comments regarding the actual tech remain true though. For the price, the consoles will be extremely powerful, are a massive upgrade over the current gen and will be as customisable as any previous platform due to the fixed hardware. Will they have the raw power of PCs costing four figures and up? No, of course not but they were never going to have that in the first place.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I got huge respect to developers who managed to pull out stuff like Uncharted, GT6, Starhawk out of PS3. They look fantastic and the amount of beauty pulled out from such hardware only deserves respect.Things is developers on next gen consoles already fighting and losing the battle for performance and graphics. At least when ps3 and xbox 360 came out we could say that those looked fantastic and were a huge improvement on anything we sow before. With this gen, we already got consoles in underdog position. We already talking about optimisation that we should see in a couple of years. Yes

The guys at Naughty Dog were able to give us Uncharted with (for example) 512MB memory split between main system memory and the GPU. They're going to have about 10 times that in the PS4. Personally, I'm not too worried.

As for the consoles being in an underdog position already, a lot of that is only because we're talking x86-based APUs which are closer to current PC tech. The inherent advantages of the consoles still exist however, with developers able to get a huge amount of power from them by coding right down to the metal, something which people are forgetting while comparing them with their PC-based brethren.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I will defenetly fire up my good old q6600 3gb ram and 6870 to see how well it will run BF4. I am very curious how 6 years old PC with 2 years old GPU will stand against all mighty next gen .

The Q6600 will be perfectly serviceable as game-based performance on the CPU-side of things hasn't really increased that much in the last number of years, at least compared to the GPU side. Hell, I've been through a 7800GTX and 260 since I first built my Q9550-based machine and the addition of a 670 last year once again opened up a whole new level of detail levels and resolutions to me without needing to go near the guts of the machine.

K.O.Kiki

I don't need big pixel counts to have a good time.

mayordenis

It's not exactly threading new ground, but as K.O.Kiki said above it's really not going to be 1080p @ 60fps that defines this or infact any generation of gaming.

If I look back over the last generation, I can honestly say that N+, and Super Meat Boy will be more fondly remembered by myself over Killzone or Crysis or whatever else.

Dcully

Next gen my arse, so called next gen unable to run @ 1080 @ 60 fps [apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief.
FFS im playing games @ 60fps + @1080 + for over 8 years now without any hassle.

My sons 5 year old PC can run BF3 @ 1080 and 60+ fps at medium gfx settings, drop gfx down to low ie on par with current consoles gfx settings in BF3 and we are looking at close to 90fps on a 5 year old PC.

Im sorry but i find it both shocking and hilarious.

Not sure ill bother with my planned PS4 now.

Myrddin

I have to say I'm surprised too, I thought 1080p @60Hz was the target of the coming gen consoles.

Otacon

Dcully wrote: »

Im sorry but i find it both shocking and hilarious.

You find it shocking and hilarious that developers are having trouble achieving 1080p@60FPS on brand new hardware, with brand new system software and continuously updating specifications?

TBH I'm amazed they are getting the results they are - which we may want to remember are still not finished products.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Next gen my arse, so called next gen unable to run @ 1080 @ 60 fps [apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief.
FFS im playing games @ 60fps + @1080 + for over 8 years now without any hassle.

My sons 5 year old PC can run BF3 @ 1080 and 60+ fps at medium gfx settings, drop gfx down to low ie on par with current consoles gfx settings in BF3 and we are looking at close to 90fps on a 5 year old PC.

Im sorry but i find it both shocking and hilarious.

Not sure ill bother with my planned PS4 now.

The current generation consoles ran, towards the end of its lifespan, BF3 at 1280x702 / 1280x600 (360/PS3) @ 30fps on low detail settings on smaller maps and with lower player counts.

Battlefield 4 will be released at launch (so factor in what Otacon said) and will be native 720p @ 60fps at an unknown level of detail (yet will obviously look better than BF3) on larger maps with larger player counts.

Expecting higher visual fidelity and larger player counts and maps on top of a more than double resolution boost AND doubling fps, all from a €400 piece of kit is borderline technological naivety.

Dcully

Otacon wrote: »

You find it shocking and hilarious that developers are having trouble achieving 1080p@60FPS on brand new hardware, with brand new system software and continuously updating specifications?

TBH I'm amazed they are getting the results they are - which we may want to remember are still not finished products.

Considering ancient hardware can achieve this and has been for close to a decade if not more at a canter with all the overheads we have on a PC and next gen cant achieve it, Yes i find that both shocking and hilarious.

Expecting higher visual fidelity and larger player counts and maps on top of a more than double resolution boost AND doubling fps, all from a €400 piece of kit is borderline technological naivety.

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.


Im sorry but you can dress it up what way you like lads but its just a laughable scenario.

K.O.Kiki

Dcully wrote: »

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.

Including OS?

Go on then.
Prove it.

Cuddlesworth

Dcully wrote: »

[apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief

It was derived from the Quake Engine ten years ago. I doubt that even 1% of the code now is the same as the original Engine it was based on.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Considering ancient hardware can achieve this and has been for close to a decade if not more at a canter with all the overheads we have on a PC and next gen cant achieve it, Yes i find that both shocking and hilarious.

But 1080p@60 means nothing without some context. Can the consoles do it? Yes, of course they can. Forza 5 is already confirmed as running at that with a bunch of other games targeting it also. Can they always do it even when you crank up the visual fidelity while increasing the draw distance to extremely far levels on larger maps which include environmental destruction and with even higher player counts? No and for the price of the unit it's ridiculous to think they can.

Dcully wrote: »

You could build a PC on par with my sons 5 year old rig for €300 with change to spare with a tonne more HDD space.

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console, with all the necessary components including decent input devices and a Windows licence which is capable of running BF4 at 1080p@60 at the same detail levels present on the next-gen consoles for that price.

Dcully

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

The windows licence is €85, are you sure it could be built for €215?

Cuddlesworth

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console, with all the necessary components including decent input devices and a Windows licence which is capable of running BF4 at 1080p@60 at the same detail levels present on the next-gen consoles for that price.

Initially it would be about 550. But after two years, new graphics card and you have a much better machine.

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

The windows licence is €85, are you sure it could be built for €215?

Spend €85 and still over €300 left if we are talking about the same price as these new consoles.
I meant to say 300-400 since €400 is the expected retails price.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

Go check out the PC hardware and building forum and be surprised.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=842

I've seen Bloodbath's most recent effort(s) for around €400 and while it's certainly impressive even he admits it wouldn't compete with the next gen consoles, especially those platform exclusives which can really push the hardware.

Retr0gamer

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Including OS?

Go on then.
Prove it.

An OS that doesn't swallow half the available memory for itself.

Cuddlesworth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

An OS that doesn't swallow half the available memory for itself.

Memory is cheap and there is a huge difference between a gaming specific OS and the wonders of the multi-functional OS(windows/OSX/Linux).

Haven't consoles spent the last generation trying to gain the functionality of PC's?

I honestly would not be surprised if we saw hardware revisions of the platforms in the next couple of years with video scaling to accommodate the differences in spec.

Rev A = 720p @ 30fps
Rev B = 720P @ 60fps or 1080P @ 30fps
Rev C= 1080p@ 60fps

Considering the x86 architecture and underlying OS I don't see why it can't be possible.

ShadowHearth

Maybe 400eu pc is not going to break world records, but you don't need 4 digit systems to wipe the flours with next gen if 720p in bf4 is the thing that we are promised.
Haven't built systems myself for some time, but with recent massive price drop in gpus I could see a full gaming pc with Windows for 700- 800eu make next gen look sad. Xbox + live = 550eu. Game prices so far look like double the price of pc games. That 700-800eu does not really look like a lot for what you get. Considering pc is more then just a gaming device and a box to put cable box in to, which is not supported in eu...

Retr0gamer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Memory is cheap and there is a huge difference between a gaming specific OS and the wonders of the multi-functional OS(windows/OSX/Linux).

You misunderstood me. The OS of both consoles is swallowing up nearly half the available memory pool. That will come down a lot with updates but it's still an insane amount.

K.O.Kiki

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Maybe 400eu pc is not going to break world records, but you don't need 4 digit systems to wipe the flours with next gen if 720p in bf4 is the thing that we are promised.
Haven't built systems myself for some time, but with recent massive price drop in gpus I could see a full gaming pc with Windows for 700- 800eu make next gen look sad. Xbox + live = 550eu. Game prices so far look like double the price of pc games. That 700-800eu does not really look like a lot for what you get. Considering pc is more then just a gaming device and a box to put cable box in to, which is not supported in eu...

Please stop talking like the Xbone matters.

Compare your PC to a PS4 with 1 year's PS+ if anything.

johnny_ultimate

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, it never has been. And if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games.

Radiosonde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.
=

Ironically, SMG2 did run at 60fps IIRC, as did many top Wii titles, and Nintendo's own Wii U titles should also.

But yeah, if this bothers people so much get a pc. AND YOU CAN GET MODS THEN TOO!

ShadowHearth

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, and if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games and I find that rather baffling.

Same way, how you can miss out on exclusive fantastic games on PC too. No matter which platform you will choose, you will miss out on something. Its like "no **** Shelock" at this stage. Not many people can afford all 3 platforms. If I could I would preorder both PS4 and XBOX ONE, add WII U to accompany my PC, 3DS and VITA, PS3 and enjoy all the "amazing" games.
Like it or not, but ownership costs of all 3 major platforms are getting very near and something like PC, which was always a bit of "unique" spot is now a lot more affordable and realistic option. PC is not just about performance ( which is awesome on its own ), but different experience and a huge catalog of games, that are not available on consoles. Same way next gen consoles will have their own unique games, that will not appear on PC. Its not about battle as you say, but about option people have these days. Next gen consoles not being able to deliver 1080p/60fps ( I would be happy enough with 1080p 30fps to be honest ) is a **** up already.

I just really hope that 720p thing is just temporary early state, where devs dont have skills to work on new systems. If it will stick, then feck that, might as well keep ps3/360 for another few years ( yes yes, I know new consoles will use power for other game aspects then graphics bla bla bla). I know for sure, that I am not getting BF4 for ps4 now. Only PC version. Looks like it will be a new cod for PS4 just for ****s and giggles when buddy comes over or misses wants to play a bit.

johnny_ultimate

Radiosonde wrote: »

Ironically, SMG2 did run at 60fps IIRC, as did many top Wii titles, and Nintendo's own Wii U titles should also.

There's an interesting subtext to that comment, which is that when we're talking about '1080p at 60 FPS' we're really talking about AAA releases at top graphical settings. Stylised games or ones that cut corners to get to where they want to go? Much less of an issue. I played MGS: Revengeance recently that 98% of the time ran at a pretty silky smooth 60FPS (some drops during particularly madcap bits), but they clearly had to cut a few graphical shortcuts in terms of texture, detail etc... Did I mind? Not at all, it played near perfectly. These things can be achieved, and honestly I typically find myself considerably less interested in the hyper-realistic games as they often exist in genres like the FPS that I have very minimal interest in.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Same way, how you can miss out on exclusive fantastic games on PC too. No matter which platform you will choose, you will miss out on something. Its like "no **** Shelock" at this stage. Not many people can afford all 3 platforms. If I could I would preorder both PS4 and XBOX ONE, add WII U to accompany my PC, 3DS and VITA, PS3 and enjoy all the "amazing" games.

You don't need to talk to me about not being able to afford gaming devices I do not have a PC capable of running anything of any significant oomph, and will not to do for some time (much more out of financial restrictions). I am instead relegated to whatever kind indie developers release games my aging laptop can handle. This situation would be rectified significantly if I had the money to do so. And I'd love a WiiU to play Wonderful 101, a Vita to play Gravity Rush etc... I genuinely wish. Hell, I only have a 3DS because I won the damn thing! Even then, I concede I'm in a much more privileged position than many people will be, and I would never take that for granted. There'll always be gamers struggling to afford one gaming device, let alone multiple. There it all just boils down to personal preference.

But really I don't think financial restrictions are as major an issue when it comes to people cancelling preorders or vowing off a console because it can't manage 60 fps. I still think for anyone who comfortably has the finances to own a good PC and a console or two would be a tad misguided to limit themselves to just one or the other. You're dead right, plenty of PC exclusives and a huge back catalogue, and it's going to be a while before any of the new consoles are 'must owns'. But there's still always going to be exciting console only releases. Shooting yourself in the foot over minor technical quibbles isn't, IMO, worth it! Definitely sounds like its going to be worth sticking with PC for BF4 if you're lucky enough to have the choice, but then again for a while at least there's only going to be one place to play Everyone's Gone to the Rapture which, for this gamer, is a much more exciting prospect than any military shooter sequel.

In a rambling sort of way, my main hypothesis boils down to: being technically inferior to PCs has never being a major handicap for consoles before, and I don't see the paradigm shifting too radically as we enter the next generation.

Richard Dower

cerny talks future proofing http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/27/4663442/cerny-ps4-devs-will-get-more-out-of-the-hardware-in-year-three-or-four[/url

bf4 not as good on next gen as pc http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/battlefield_4/news/battlefield_4_on_ps4_and_xbox_one_we_need_to_compromise_in_some_places_says_dice.html

PickledLime

Dcully wrote: »

Next gen my arse, so called next gen unable to run @ 1080 @ 60 fps [apart from the 14 year old quake engine used in COD] is laughable beyond belief.
FFS im playing games @ 60fps + @1080 + for over 8 years now without any hassle.

My sons 5 year old PC can run BF3 @ 1080 and 60+ fps at medium gfx settings, drop gfx down to low ie on par with current consoles gfx settings in BF3 and we are looking at close to 90fps on a 5 year old PC.

Im sorry but i find it both shocking and hilarious.

Not sure ill bother with my planned PS4 now.

Yawn and yawn again.

No one in their right mind buys a console for bleeding edge graphics. Big whoop that you can push BF3 at high framerates, resolution on PC. It's not like the PS4/X1 are gonna be pushing out Atari 2600 levels of performance. Creative art design will always trump raw grunt.

For me it comes down to games and convenience. I buy a console, plonk it under the TV, 6 or 7 years and hundreds of fun games (remember why we buy games in the first place) later I buy a new one.

Do I care if the guy down the street has a higher framerate and an FOV slider? Unless the game is completely crippled (Bayonetta on PS3 - boo!) then not one bit. Most of my favourite games this gen were exclusive to console, so saying something like "but wouldn't you prefer to play the version with superior graphics?" is moot.


Some people play games to enjoy the games, others play them to count pixels and get excited over that. Each to their own, but I'm usually far too busy doing the former to pass too much heed of the latter.