Konami confirms MGS5 720p on Xbox One and 1080p on PS4

[Jas00555]

No, Respawn's already in the EA fold. Allegedly, EA went behind Respawn's back and made Titanfall exclusive. That hints at the idea that they wanted to be on the PS4 from the start. Therefore, it's unlikely Respawn would jump in bed with Microsoft like that.

I mean, Keith, to be fair, I'm pretty sure almost every game developer wants to be cross-platform since that would equal more customers, thus more potential sales. I don't think the deals that EA makes affect Respawn's relationship with Microsoft that much.

 

[marcusasdrubal]

I think it's pretty clear that MS's vision is not to have the best specs... its to have the best experience and in a console that is what matters. Take a look at windows phone, runs faster and smoother then its competitors on lesser specs.

IMHO what you guys are debating are non-issues.

I have always ran my 360 at 720p even when hooked up to a 1080 TV. 720 is much more stable, which is why it's used more in TV.

But on PS4 is faster, smoother and better on visuals right now....the comparisson with Windows phone doesn't make sense at all.

 

[marcusasdrubal]

Making it easier = Removing eSRAM. The big problem is not having the single memory pool like the PS4 has. They can't fix that.

If they remove the eSRAM or disabled it, the Xbox One will render easily on 1080p, but not on 60fps. The eSRAM that supply the higher frequency on the XONE. Without it, the DDR3 memory will be only on their bus speed, very lesser than GDDR5 used on PS4. Disable it would sound a easy way to developers, but will drain the framerate.

 

[Coreldan]

Making it easier = Removing eSRAM. The big problem is not having the single memory pool like the PS4 has. They can't fix that.

Somebody mentioned that it was basically the same for 360, but MS supplied the devs early on with an SDK that had some automated tool for the ESRAM-equivalent (I think it was called EDRAM or smth?) that would help in slicing it up accordingly. But that's just what I read somewhere.

Point being, like.. every console up to PS4 has used the kind of system that Xbox One does, thus it probably isn't baseline hard, it's just that PS4 makes it easier

It seems that the devs are finding it easier to up the graphical detail outside resolution and leave the resolution lower. Cos many of these games look very similar despite the sometimes fairly big difference in resolution. The downside of this tactic is though that the upscaling will cause especially narrow objects (like power lines in the sky) look jagged. I'm not very tech sawwy, but it seems like a reasonable explanation why the difference isn't that big, even if the difference in amount of pixels is. And then there's the whole Minecraft-argument again that I guess could back up this theory.

 

[marcusasdrubal]

I am not developer, but I know MS is releasing SDKs to improve the graphics, the upscaling and etc. These are cosmetics changes to fill the gap. Right now, I believe they should achieve the 900p in all the next games, at least 900p. It will be less damage than use resolutions from the past generation. After that, they need to work in a way to take down the Kinect usage in games that doesnt need it. We can accept some games that kinects is used running on 900p, but that ones that is without it, they need to disable all the system and reach the 1080p. I would accept 900p with Kinect support (mainly the voice commands)...

IF MS reach 900p next month on all the games, it will be good. 900p to 1080p are very very close. The resolutiongate is over, since we have Kinect.

 

[unstoppablekem]

Making it easier = Removing eSRAM. The big problem is not having the single memory pool like the PS4 has. They can't fix that.

They can't make it as easy as the ps4, but they can at least try to fix it a little for developers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[marcusasdrubal]

Here a example that 900p could be a nice deal (since Kinect is having some part here)...
900 p x 1080p (Assassins) . If we reach at least 900p, it is enough. The problem and the bad press is all about that 720p is from the past generation...


Assassin's Creed 4: Xbox One vs. PS4 Graphics Comparison - IGN Video

 

[marcusasdrubal]

Can I say something:

The 900p version from Xbox One is better than PS4 1080p of Assassins

But to stop the bad press: Please at least 900p....720p is too much past generation

 

[tekhna]

I think it's pretty clear that MS's vision is not to have the best specs... its to have the best experience and in a console that is what matters. Take a look at windows phone, runs faster and smoother then its competitors on lesser specs.

IMHO what you guys are debating are non-issues.

I have always ran my 360 at 720p even when hooked up to a 1080 TV. 720 is much more stable, which is why it's used more in TV.

Lol wut? The XBox is a gaming console. Microsoft tried to make a living room solution and instead what it released was a second-best gaming console with a pile of features no one cares about.
The simple fact is, Microsoft blew the specs. The XBox One is underpowered compared to the PS4. It might not matter long-term but for now it's just generating more bad press for the XBox. And really, who wants to pay 100 dollars more for 30% worse performance? Because that's what you're doing when you buy an XBox One. You'd better be damn sure you care about Skype on your TV if you're making that purchase.

 

[maj71303]

I think Some are making this out more than it is. Your average Joe buys games for the thrill of playing them. They don't just sit there gauging resolution and counting frame rates. You average consumer just want s great game play, decent features, and a great selection of games.

 

[Keith Wallace]

The big problem is not being able to fully utilize it efficiently right now. Which is something they can figure out.

That's on the developers outside of Microsoft to figure out though, not Microsoft itself. The thing for Microsoft to fix is the footprint of the Kinect.

My point is they know how to write software to use their hardware efficiently, and their lower end devices run smoother then that of the competitors (android) Microsoft is a world class (dare i say TOP OF THE LINE) software company. With MS's server farm they are also a world class networking company. Sony is an entertainment company now nothing more. They are not world class software writers, and now they they have sold off their devices division, they are no longer a hardware company. It will be interesting to see how the next few years play out. If i had money to bet i would put it in MS's corner. Thats just my 2 cents.

It's still a different situation altogether, though. With Android, OEMs are basically delivering two operating systems--Android and the UI/software suite the OEM offers (be it TouchWix or Sense or whatever). Microsoft doesn't necessarily write better software, it puts less of it on the devices. I mean, consider the way that many bigger-name games on Windows Phone require 1 GB of RAM to run. However, Android and iOS devices with 256 MB or 512 MB of RAM are allowed to run them. It could easily be argued that Microsoft ISN'T doing a better job of writing the software, so they put in those RAM restrictions to prevent stuttering with those games.

Microsoft certainly does its job well, when it comes to delivering a usable consumer or server OS, but to act like they're doing something super-special with their OS is to ignore a bit of the smartphone landscape. iOS isn't seen as a stutter-prone OS. Android's stuttering is because of its addition of an OEM skin as much as anything--stock Android is rarely called choppy. It's avoiding bloatware that keeps Windows Phone smooth. Yes, kudos to Microsoft for getting carrier bloatware off of the OS at the user's whim, but the inconsistent performance with Android is also a byproduct of having an open, customizable OS.

Before you stop and say that Microsoft's doing everything SO WELL with their OS, take a moment to remember those RAM restrictions for games that the competition lacks. Then consider how horrendous their Xbox LIVE certification process is--so bad that developers have abandoned Xbox gaming on Windows Phone, in more than one instance. Oh, and you'll want to follow that up with the basic features Windows Phone has yet to add, like microSD support for apps. A lot of those great things coming in 8.1 are things that the competition has had for some time now. Oh, and then check out Xbox Music on Windows 8/RT. That atrocity is Microsoft's doing, even if it's not an OS.

 

[Keith Wallace]

If they remove the eSRAM or disabled it, the Xbox One will render easily on 1080p, but not on 60fps. The eSRAM that supply the higher frequency on the XONE. Without it, the DDR3 memory will be only on their bus speed, very lesser than GDDR5 used on PS4. Disable it would sound a easy way to developers, but will drain the framerate.

Not true. The presence of the eSRAM isn't slowing the console. Removing it wouldn't help. If it was that simple, then developers would just be ignoring the eSRAM in their code, and it would idle during gameplay. Dead Rising 3 ran at 30 FPS and 720p. The problem's the overall hardware. Removing stuff won't make it faster when that stuff's not even being used.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I think Some are making this out more than it is. Your average Joe buys games for the thrill of playing them. They don't just sit there gauging resolution and counting frame rates. You average consumer just want s great game play, decent features, and a great selection of games.

And when the exact same game (be it Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Dying Light, or something else) runs better on the console that is $100 cheaper, the problem shows itself. Yeah, people buy for the games, but when the vast majority of folks are playing cross-platform games, what's their incentive to spend an extra $100 to lose graphical detail?

I mean, I'm as pro-Xbox as I can be, but there's a limit. Right now, there is 0 incentive for me to buy an Xbox One. I'll get it for Halo, but when it comes to third-party stuff, what's the incentive to get it on an Xbox One over a PC? It used to be that I never really cared to play PC games. However, if a person has a PC, it's hard to say, "no, spend more money on the same game on a platform which will run it worse, and at a worse resolution." The Division is a game I really like because of its visuals. I don't care to cut back to 720p on an Xbox One for it when my PC can do it at a higher resolution, and better.

For the average consumer, you'd instead be asking "why do I want The Division at a lower resolution for $100 more?" You have to REALLY want Halo, because almost everything else is on PC, PS4, or both.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Can I say something:

The 900p version from Xbox One is better than PS4 1080p of Assassins

But to stop the bad press: Please at least 900p....720p is too much past generation

No, that's not true. Ryse got dogged for being 900p. Battlefield 4 was 900p on the PS4, and people still ragged on it a little, but they primarily focused on the 720p of the Xbox One. 900p won't fix the problem. They have to get it in-line with the PS4 100%. All 900p will do is give the fanboys a different resolution to type about when they talk about how the Xbox One won't hit 1080p. If it's not equal to the PS4 in resolution, the complaints won't stop.

 

[Polychrome]

But on PS4 is faster, smoother and better on visuals right now....the comparisson with Windows phone doesn't make sense at all.

Look. We all know that Sony knows how to stuff hardware in a box.

Can you play your 1080p MGS while watching TV? Or how about Netflix? If it's a digital edition, you may even be letting the kids watch Blu-Rays as you play. Maybe you want a news site that auto-refreshes your sports scores every now and then?

This is what he means by the "experience" Microsoft is trying to put out. This is something that NINTENDO understands better than Sony does at this point. While yes, Sony has put the seemingly more powerful game system together, Microsoft has put together a system that does just a bit more.

Honestly, I don't understand the fuss over whether or not a game is 1080p. It could be 480i for all I care as long as the end-effect looks nice. I've yet to see the PS4 put out anything that looks even REMOTELY like Ryse. That game wasn't 1080p, but when you look at it, you're not likely to care. The 360 was more powerful than the PS3...and what good did that do them? It's time to understand that they've got more to think about than you folks keeping up with the Joneses over a number.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Yeah, the PS4 has nothing to compete with Ryse visually, but I'd argue it's just a rip-off of God of War, which will likely be coming to the PS4. More importantly, my point is that the ancient, gory action game already happened, this one's just shinier. That, and you can claim that the 360 was more powerful than the PS3, but it's easily argued that it was just easier to develop for.

You can sit there and ignore the numbers and be ignorant to the issue, just as you can claim that we're flippantly looking at numbers without noticing the rest of the stuff as well. If covering your ears and acting like you can't hear the obvious helps, go for it. The simple fact is that Microsoft built a console with inferior hardware. They then bottlenecked that inferior hardware with the Kinect's mandatory existence, as it eats up 10% of the GPU. Oh, then they refused to free up that GPU for Ghosts, which allegedly would have brought it on-par with the PS4, or close to it. They also elected to bundle the Kinect with the console, putting the inferior hardware at a $100 premium.

You can call it "keeping up with the Jonses," or whatever misinformed, antiquated term you care, but that's just ignoring the point. As much as I'd prefer an Xbox One over a PS4, it's just ignoring facts. The sophistication of the OS is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft skimped on the GPU. The only part of the OS that matters, for this discussion, is that Microsoft let it and the Kinect waste 10% of the GPU, which is a big problem for developers (Infinity Ward allegedly could have gotten the One's version of Ghosts close to the PS4's, but Microsoft wouldn't let them use that extra GPU power).

I need to stop letting fanboys get me worked up, though. The more I engage you people in "discussion," the angrier I get at the sad job Microsoft did with the Xbox One's hardware, then it makes me rethink getting a One in the future all over again. By the way, the Xbox One can't play 1080p MGS while watching TV. It can't play 1080p MGS AT ALL. I don't even like MGS but you should have worded your sentence better, because it didn't help the Xbox One.

 

[Reflexx]

And when the exact same game (be it Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Dying Light, or something else) runs better on the console that is $100 cheaper, the problem shows itself. Yeah, people buy for the games, but when the vast majority of folks are playing cross-platform games, what's their incentive to spend an extra $100 to lose graphical detail?

I mean, I'm as pro-Xbox as I can be, but there's a limit. Right now, there is 0 incentive for me to buy an Xbox One. I'll get it for Halo, but when it comes to third-party stuff, what's the incentive to get it on an Xbox One over a PC? It used to be that I never really cared to play PC games. However, if a person has a PC, it's hard to say, "no, spend more money on the same game on a platform which will run it worse, and at a worse resolution." The Division is a game I really like because of its visuals. I don't care to cut back to 720p on an Xbox One for it when my PC can do it at a higher resolution, and better.

For the average consumer, you'd instead be asking "why do I want The Division at a lower resolution for $100 more?" You have to REALLY want Halo, because almost everything else is on PC, PS4, or both.

I suppose this could be an issue if all you buy a console for is to play multiplatform games.

I expect most multiplatform games to look better on the PS4. It does have better graphics hardware.

If you want innovative gameplay, then there is much more potential with the XBOX ONE. We'll probably see more games start taking advantage of the Kinect hardware in a year or so.

Sure, the PS4 will have some slightly better resolution. And it will only really be noticable if you have them side by side and you're actively looking for differences.

However, the gameplay abilities that can be built into games with XBOX ONE are things that the PS4 just can't do. Period.

And if you want a full home entertainment system, the XBOX ONE is superior there also.

So in summary, if you only want a console just for the purpose of playing multiplatform games (or Sony exclusives), then the PS4 is a fine choice. Nothing wrong with making that choice.

However, if you are looking forward to new types of gameplay, as opposed to just higher resolution, then the XBOX ONE is a great option. If you're looking for a home entertainment system, the XBOX ONE is a great option. If you're just looking for a new next gen way to interact with your console, TV, radio, then the XBOX is the best option.

 

[unstoppablekem]

Anyone else notice this thread tends to sometimes go off course from what it should be about? :-/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Coreldan]

Yeah, the PS4 has nothing to compete with Ryse visually, but I'd argue it's just a rip-off of God of War, which will likely be coming to the PS4. More importantly, my point is that the ancient, gory action game already happened, this one's just shinier.

I don't think the two games play any similarly though. Sure, the setting is "ancient <insert empire>" and both have gore, sure, but that's pretty much as far as the similarities go with actual gameplay. Well, both are more or less hack n slash, but they are still very, very different. I think GoWs have always looked boring as hell, like all games that are similar to that. Ryse then again interested me a lot more from the first trailer.

Given, I've never played any GoW personally, but I did check several different videos sometime last year when I was trying to figure out what all the fuss was about, the game didn't really appeal to me.

 

[Markham Ranja]

I think Some are making this out more than it is. Your average Joe buys games for the thrill of playing them. They don't just sit there gauging resolution and counting frame rates. You average consumer just want s great game play, decent features, and a great selection of games.

In that case, Average Joe will look at the price tag, decide that $400 is quite a bit less than $500, and choose the PS4.