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

[5150 Joker]

PS4 has 50% more shader performance than the Xbox One, the Xbox will never keep up. Both consoles are pathetic hardware wise with gpu less powerful than a mobile 7970m.


Sent from my Yellow Nokia 1520 (RM-937)

 

[Coreldan]

Both consoles are pathetic hardware wise with gpu less powerful than a mobile 7970m.

That's always been the case with consoles. The "power" in comparison to PCs and PC hardware typically comes from the fact that developers know exactly what hardware you will be playing on, thus it's far easier to optimize. Whereas on PC you can have like an infinite amount of HW combinations and you can even have pretty good stuff and still have the game run like crap, cos it's just hard to optimize perfectly for everything.

 

[radmanvr]

Yeah, there are definitely rights and wrongs in these discussions, like saying that one "has more of a nextgen feel." There's no such thing, it's all just a mental fallacy, in my opinion. Yea,h the Xbox One's OS can multitask, and the Kinect can do whatever, but what else "feels" next-gen? Sony's next-gen "feel," on the other hand, cranks up the graphics, while also prepping a robust online gaming service in PlayStation Now, which will at least offer SOME level of backwards compatibility.

This argument that people who care about graphics can/should go PC is so tired now, it really is. The simple fact is that a PC is a more-expensive investment, and its control scheme (mouse and keyboard) does not fit well with the portability of a console, which you can play from a chair or a couch or a floor, because the controller isn't large like a keyboard, nor does it need a laser to track. So it's really not just a "if you like graphics, get a PC," because getting a PC can mean $1,000+ to do what you want from a console. Instead, the statement could easily be "if they care about graphics that much, they can save $100 and get a PS4 to do a better job."

Yeah, it's mostly about preferences with exclusives. No, the bump in MGS pixels won't deter many form Halo. But while I am usually just one to say "get the console with your favorite exclusives," statements like "its all preference," snap me out of that stance to point out that it's simply not all about preference. There are factual matters at-hand here to assess.

I stopped reading at $1,000+ to get a PC to do what a console does.

The PC I built for my wife cost $500 and its a 6 Core 16g Ram with a Radeon HD 7 Series. My wife also has it connected to our Vizio 30 inch tv and plays while laying on the bed with an xbox controller.

 

[unstoppablekem]

There will be much better game coming out for X1 this year.

There are some great cross platform and exclusive games that are coming to the X1 this year! Titanfall, Watchdogs, The Division (if it doesn't get delayed), Halo, and more.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I stopped reading at $1,000+ to get a PC to do what a console does.

The PC I built for my wife cost $500 and its a 6 Core 16g Ram with a Radeon HD 7 Series. My wife also has it connected to our Vizio 30 inch tv and plays while laying on the bed with an xbox controller.

What are the specs? I'm guessing they don't ACTUALLY compare, but that's me. You can certainly get a $500 PC to do things just fine, but it likely won't compare to the quality of consoles, sadly.

 

[radmanvr]

What are the specs? I'm guessing they don't ACTUALLY compare, but that's me. You can certainly get a $500 PC to do things just fine, but it likely won't compare to the quality of consoles, sadly.

AMD FX 6 Series
16G G.Skillz Ripsaw Ram
AMD HD Radeon 7 Series

Can list all the details without it in front of me like the MB and the liquid cooling system and fans.

It plays Skyrim on max settings and thats what my wife cares mostly about. She stress Wild Star Online and was able to get graphics on High but not Ultra @ 60FPS

 

[paulxxwall]

Not really, when there are plenty of games running a resolution higher than 720p.

But yes, I'm pretty sure they opted out of the Xbox 720 name partially cos they didn't want it to feel like it referred to the resolution or anything.

But like MobileVortex said, resolution does not equal good graphics. If you ask me, Ryse still looks better than anything on the PS4, regardless of resolution. The PS4 is also more powerful, that's not an opinion but a fact. It's also easier to develop for so it will show in the spec/graphical difference early on. But even later on Xbox One will likely never truely match PS4 1 to 1, cos you just can't make more out of less power. However, 360 was also less powerful and it didn't change a damn thing. I'm also pretty sure Wii was less powerful than either PS3 or 360, yet it sold more than either. So yes, X1 has less power, so what?

ps4 outselling Xbox one!!

 

[mjrtoo]

This whole 1080p / 720p argument is pointless.

 

[TheKinkajou]

It is pointless. The facts are what they are and everyone gets to decide for themselves what suits their interests and needs better. The end.

 

[TechAbstract]

Microsoft is releasing new SDK that will allow for faster framerates and more 1080p games.

"They (Microsoft) are releasing a new SDK that?s much faster and we will be comfortably running at 1080p on Xbox One. We were worried six months ago and we are not anymore, it?s got better and they are quite comparable machines."

Xbox One developer: upcoming SDK improvements will allow for more 1080p games - Neowin

 

[Keith Wallace]

AMD FX 6 Series
16G G.Skillz Ripsaw Ram
AMD HD Radeon 7 Series

Can list all the details without it in front of me like the MB and the liquid cooling system and fans.

It plays Skyrim on max settings and thats what my wife cares mostly about. She stress Wild Star Online and was able to get graphics on High but not Ultra @ 60FPS

Yeah, but what you're saying now doesn't mesh with what you said before. You said the you didn't like my $1,000 quote to match a new console, so you cam back with the $500 machine you built, saying it does what the new consoles do for $500. You then say that it's used for Skyrim, which isn't the same as Battlefield 4 or The Division, in terms of graphical greatness.

Also, the FX-6300 (and the 6350) isn't really worth it for gaming at any point. A Haswell i3 will beat it for most every game for the same price, while consuming much less power. The 7000-series Radeon cards are about even with the new consoles graphically, but the consoles are better-optimized than the PC driver nightmare that can exist with AMD. The RAM's just a waste and not worth mentioning (especially since we know nothing of the clock or timings of the consoles' RAM). However, we can say with certainty that the GDDR5 in the PS4 will top the DDR3 in that build, even if the PC has more RAM (because few PCs need 8 GB). The liquid cooling? Not sure why it even matters in that build, since it's not a hot-running setup (unless you just mean a small cooler like a Corsair H90).

So that all comes back to my original point here. You can certainly can build a usable machine for $500, but it's not going to necessarily match the hardware inside of the new consoles. However, you'll have a MUUUUUCH deeper library of quality games with a PC over a console, so it balances out.

 

[marcusasdrubal]

Yeah, but what you're saying now doesn't mesh with what you said before. You said the you didn't like my $1,000 quote to match a new console, so you cam back with the $500 machine you built, saying it does what the new consoles do for $500. You then say that it's used for Skyrim, which isn't the same as Battlefield 4 or The Division, in terms of graphical greatness.

Also, the FX-6300 (and the 6350) isn't really worth it for gaming at any point. A Haswell i3 will beat it for most every game for the same price, while consuming much less power. The 7000-series Radeon cards are about even with the new consoles graphically, but the consoles are better-optimized than the PC driver nightmare that can exist with AMD. The RAM's just a waste and not worth mentioning (especially since we know nothing of the clock or timings of the consoles' RAM). However, we can say with certainty that the GDDR5 in the PS4 will top the DDR3 in that build, even if the PC has more RAM (because few PCs need 8 GB). The liquid cooling? Not sure why it even matters in that build, since it's not a hot-running setup (unless you just mean a small cooler like a Corsair H90).

So that all comes back to my original point here. You can certainly can build a usable machine for $500, but it's not going to necessarily match the hardware inside of the new consoles. However, you'll have a MUUUUUCH deeper library of quality games with a PC over a console, so it balances out.

Anyone who says that Skyrim has the same graphics greatness of BF4, doesn't understand anything about graphics. The skyrim engine is old, buggy, the same of fallout new vegas. The games is cool and visuals are nice, but is completely less source demanding. My old notebook, a dell studio from 2009 can handle skyrim on medium. Battlefield 4 is a new engine, completely redesigned for assure a very rich enviromment. One example that the things will be worst for XONE, if MS doesn't change their current sdk is the new call of duty series coming next year. They are planning to change their current engine. They are working hard to bring something close to the next gen expectations, since they frustrated on Ghosts. I guess will be hard to Xbox One matches the PS4 version on the way the things are. Really hard to say so, but it is true. Probably Activision is already working on the new sdk, but we have to wait to see how can handle it. If they deliver a less resolution from the new CODY expected, it will be clear that the ambition of MS to made a media center, failed to deliver the whole purpose of an Xbox, gaming. The main feature is gaming. If the main feature is lacking , despite the nice media center, it will be hard to outsold PS4. The game industry is vibrant and one of the strongest of the world. The media hubs (Apple TV and etc) probably made 1/20 of the Money made on game industry. Then why MS choose to give us a nice media center? To aggregate value to their console, a nice effort. But lets face the truth, the gaming industry is the big shot. Who says that is more than a videogame is trying to avoid the truth. It is a media center, but mainly a videogame. For MS, the biggest interest is to seek gamers, since the industry is Strong. Media should be only a add-on, not the main task. Casuals will not buy Xbox One only for media. I can even say that current media center is very poor compared to others. PS4 has a dedicated share button on their controle and I can stream hours of gaming. XONE not; I love the my Xbox 360, since has made easy to develop and most of the games is better quality then PS3 counterparts. But, I believe MS tried to achieve something huge on XONE and in the end they couldnt deliver the simple and most important thing: new resolutions, new and improved graphics in terms of consoles ( I can't compare to PC)....Xbox One is not bad at all, I will buy it because I like it. But looking the bad press is clear that this generation already has a winner..

 

[Coreldan]

Much like last gen had a winner based on the terrible press for PS3 at start? It was at least on par on probably worse for PS3 early gen. Anyone who tries to make conclusions on how this gen ends based on what happens now is a fool.

And my Xbox One runs games very well and they are visually great (some more, some less) and fun, so it didn't fail at all in that regard.

But once again I don't understand why you are so set into having to win? Not winning doesn't mean that it wouldn't do good. Xbox One is so far a very succesful console, even if PS4 would do a bit better. I'm just tired of the doom and gloom that not only is full of crap but also pointless.

 

[smoledman]

I don't care about supposed SDK improvements. 50% less GPU shaders and even a bigger gap than that due to Kinect requirements. After this weekend it will be 6.3 million PS4 to 3.9 million XBone sold.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I don't think anyone's talking about winning the generation, really. It's more about having a sensibly-priced console. The main problem with the PS3 was that it was, what, $200 more than the 360? It probably sold better as a Blu-Ray player than a gaming console, initially (since standalone Blu-Ray players were often the same price as the PS3 or more). However, once the price fell, the sales quickly picked up. It didn't lack the hardware power like the One does, the two consoles were pretty equal in performance (though the PS3 took more time to master, as far as development was concerned).

Here, we're talking about an Xbox One whose price is too high, but it's paired with obviously-inferior hardware. The Kinect isn't Blu-Ray, some widely-useful feature beyond the console it is made for, so it's harder to justify a higher price tag for the Kinect than the inclusion of Blu-Ray for Sony. The two scenarios aren't as similar as you might make them to be.

 

[Coreldan]

I don't think anyone's talking about winning the generation, really. It's more about having a sensibly-priced console. The main problem with the PS3 was that it was, what, $200 more than the 360? It probably sold better as a Blu-Ray player than a gaming console, initially (since standalone Blu-Ray players were often the same price as the PS3 or more). However, once the price fell, the sales quickly picked up. It didn't lack the hardware power like the One does, the two consoles were pretty equal in performance (though the PS3 took more time to master, as far as development was concerned).

Here, we're talking about an Xbox One whose price is too high, but it's paired with obviously-inferior hardware. The Kinect isn't Blu-Ray, some widely-useful feature beyond the console it is made for, so it's harder to justify a higher price tag for the Kinect than the inclusion of Blu-Ray for Sony. The two scenarios aren't as similar as you might make them to be.

If it wasn't for the Blu-Ray, I don't think PS3 would've ever caught up with 360, so you are right, it most certainly was one thing that attracted customers.

At the same time, should Microsoft feel it's falling too much behind in sales, it can probably slash a decent chunk off the price and not even be in trouble due to the deep pockets of MS. Sony on the other hand wouldn't really be able to afford that, cos the company is basically losing money on every front except on PS4 at the moment. At the same time, outside of Kinect, the internals of X1 are likely a decent chunk cheaper. Console's become cheaper over time not only cos the hardware gets old, but they learn how to make the "old hardware" more efficiently and cheaper. GDDR5 isn't exactly cheap, while DDR3 is dirt cheap as it is. A more powerful GPU is likely more expensive than a less powerful GPU too.

Then there's the somewhat unlikely option of dropping Kinect, that would considerably drop the price without making them lose profit per console, but that would likely be a very last resort and I think they rather take loss per console with Kinect than profit with console without Kinect.

I don't think we're seeing either thing happen just yet cos MS and Xbox One is doing quite the opposite of badly. Sure, PS4 sells more but at the same time you still can't ignore the massive difference in available markets and even then, even a few million units more sold for the PS4 would hardly mean tha Xbox One is screwed in any shape or form.

As for lacking hardware power.. on what standards? I do get the argument if you sort of make it relative to price. Then again for me (and many others) the price difference and HW power is offset by it's other capabilities. Even if there was no Xbox One and PS4 would be 300$, I doubt I would've ever picked it up personally. You often hear about these magical "next gen standards" that have been on PC for a decade while at the same time even the PS4 can't reliably reach the magical 1080p/60fps in half of the AAA-titles.

But yea, the situation is different, but also similar. At the same time MS can afford doing a lot of things if it starts to look grim for the Xbox One, Sony can't. However, it doesn't look even remotely grim for either console. Only console it looks grim for is Wii U

EDIT: It would be really interesting to know how things would've panned out if Sony had revealed their device first (and not have the option of changing anything after they saw reactions to X1) and have X1 come second and allow MS to react. That said, "sensibly priced" device, I don't think X1 is overpriced, I think it's more about PS4 having a REALLY competetive price. Considering around here we pay 600€ for flagship smartphones (or in some cases even more, fe. Apple), 500€ for the X1 seeing it's capabilities seems like quite the bargain to me, but I guess again it's all relative.

 

[Reflexx]

I don't care about supposed SDK improvements. 50% less GPU shaders and even a bigger gap than that due to Kinect requirements. After this weekend it will be 6.3 million PS4 to 3.9 million XBone sold.

Ok. You can focus on that. Good for you.

 

[dba415]

The tables have turned since last generation.

Last generation: PS3 came more expensive, because of "unnecessary hardware" (bluray player), was harder to work with.
This gen: xbo more expensive, because of "unnecessary hardware" (Kinect), was harder to work with.

Xbox360 killed the PS3 in sales for the first half of the generation, but once Sony dropped the price and fixed some strategic issues the pS3 went on to sell pretty much on par worldwide with the 360.

What's working against Microsoft is that no one worldwide really cares about them in general so it's America or nothing for them. PS4 already has a strong lead in America.

 

[Keith Wallace]

The tables have turned since last generation.

Last generation: PS3 came more expensive, because of "unnecessary hardware" (bluray player), was harder to work with.
This gen: xbo more expensive, because of "unnecessary hardware" (Kinect), was harder to work with.

Xbox360 killed the PS3 in sales for the first half of the generation, but once Sony dropped the price and fixed some strategic issues the pS3 went on to sell pretty much on par worldwide with the 360.

What's working against Microsoft is that no one worldwide really cares about them in general so it's America or nothing for them. PS4 already has a strong lead in America.

The problem is, you're talking about drastically-different problems to fix here. For starters, Blu-Ray wasn't an unnecessary feature. Because the PS3 had Blu-Ray, it didn't end up putting games on 2-3 discs near the end, like the Xbox 360 saw with Halo 4 (2 discs), Forza 3-4 (2 discs for each, I think), L.A. Noire (3 discs), and RAGE (3 discs). Blu-Ray became a popular disc standard for HD content. Many folks paid that obscene PS3 price at the start for Blu-Ray alone (because standalone players were sometimes $1,000). Sony's problem was almost 100% based on the pricing. They fixed their "problem" because the hardware became cheaper to produce. That, and they offered free online multiplayer.

With the Xbox One, it's not JUST about the Kinect. Granted, it fits "unnecessary" MUCH better than Blu-Ray did with the PS3. However, the real problem is coming from graphical differences with third-party games. Microsoft can't fix that problem entirely, because the core of the problem is the inferior GPU. Granted, they can do a LOT by letting developers get used to the eSRAM, and freeing up wasted GPU power (because of the OS/Kinect) will do some good, but the long-term issue could be that Microsoft again sees these resolution-based struggles towards the end of the generation. The PS4 might hit 4K faster and better than the One.

 

[Satya_Nadella]

I love the Xbox1 much more than ps4, probably because im a Microsoft head overall, but if ps4 is gonna maintain that resolution advantage until mid year, I might SADLY go for the ps4 but I really hope they come up with an upgraded version of the Xbox one if they can't fix it by software