That likely won't mean much to alot of people, and won't be eye catching like lots of fancy visual effects will be. Selfishly, i prefer console games to be capped at 30fps as that means the base game is of a higher visual quality which means a better quality PC game. As mentioned, making the consoles cheaper is the priority here, higher margins for Sony/MS/Nintendo and/or lower prices for consumers.
Disagree, on every point. If 1080P doesn't mean anything, then why is resolution on every TeeVee in the store? I can't imagine walking into a store and being told 'sorry, but the resolution isn't important so we're not going to tell you what it is - but doesn't the teevee look nice?...Shiney, no?' And...do you really believe that a game looks nicer if (and only if) the frame rate is capped on a console to 30? I do not understand how this fallacy has even made it into the minds of intelligent people, I really don't. It doesn't make any sense. Making consoles cheaper is never a priority, it's an incredibly difficult balancing act when you design a console and you just have an overall $ target to work towards. This is why the Xboner was the price it was at launch.
Content broadcasted on TV and content of a video game are not the same. Real life doesn't suffer low framerate when recorded at a higher resolution. If it's just capped? No. But if they target 30fps can they technically raise the maximum fidelity of the game? Yes. Do they in practice? I don't know. But if Microsoft said "Every Xbox One game must target 60fps @ 1080p" a lot of games would look worse in order to hit that. Uh what? I mean you're statement about balance when focusing on $ is correct but obviously Sony was targeting a lower price, hence why the PS4 is a lower price. So obviously getting that price lower was a priority. Not to mention the fact that Sony was losing money on every PS3 sold. Pretty sure for a company bleeding money ever quarter having that not happen is a priority.
Well I mean I don't see your point, sorry. I'd rather have a higher detailed game at 720p @ 30fps then a lower detailed game at 1080p @ 60fps on a console. Mostly because the TV i'd have the console connected too is like 10' from me and already has 20+ms input lag even in game mode. I also think that when it comes to differentiating between current and previous generation consoles it's easier to do that through effects in game then it is through resolution. I also don't get the fallacy part. Are you arguing that a game at 10000fps @ 400k resolution can visually look as good as a game at 30fps @ 1080/720 given that they are both running on the same hardware? Because that's what you're saying. And I don't agree with that, neither at the ridiculous scale I proposed or at 1080/60 vs 720/30. The 720/30 will always be able to get better visuals given the medium.
Who said anything about 1080p? I said a line of text saying 60fps is not going to sell a game in the way fancy visual effects will. How does capping a game to 1080/30 not make the visuals better? Are you serious? I was able to max most games by capping the framerate, im shocked that i have to explain this. Dropping prices is always a priority if you want to tempt new buyers, i have no idea why you would think otherwise.
God NO 720p is why I cant stand playing 90% of all games from last gen 720p is terrible eye sore to me special on 32+ inch hdtvs Whole point of 1080p being default resolution is that 1080p is the native resolution of most HDTV. To me there huge difference from 720p and 1080p on 19" and as the screen get bigger the difference only gets that much more noticeable. I rather have that 1080p 30FPS over sub 1080p and 60FPS Upscaling IS and never will be the same. it also add to input lag, cause the TV or console just has to process the upscaling This whole debate about 1080p@30 and Sub 1080p@60 or anything in between shouldnt of even been issue with this gen but it is which huge let down to me
I'd rather have devs throwing in as much detail as they can running consoles at 30fps than cutting back on graphics to make a console run at 60fps. More eye candy for PC gamers.
Yup. These consoles can do 1080P and they can do 60FPS, but according to so many industry idiots, if they were to do this, the games would somehow turn into the worst looking games since the beginning of time and gamers eyes would explode just by looking at them. So, we got spin in some cases and in other cases we got outright total and utter lies. Gamers want fast responsive games at a minimum of 1080P, because 1080P is the teevee standard right now - globally. If anyone cared about GFX, no one would have bought the last 8 years of console games. End of argument. ON TOPIC: Don't care really, because I don't own a current gen console. If AMD have found a way to make something smaller, then why should I pat them on the back for doing something which I think is (or should be) just another day at the office?
Cause in amds eyes this good for them? To me it means nothing to me other then maybe I wont have to hear the jet engine that fan of launch consoles have Fat launch ps3 was jet engine when fan cranked up, The slim is silent. The ps4 i borrowed from few months , was jet engine when the fan cranked up just like ps3 intial systems were. If i buy consoles that is worse then my pc performance wise it better be quieter then my pc. PS3/PS4 launch system before the die shrink where all much louder then my pc. So short of that die shrink bring the promise of quiter system that i cant hear over the games it means nothing, 15 min on launch ps3 fan is louder then the games volume, same with the launch ps4. Then again i have yet to get my personal ps4 and probably wont till prices drops they not worth the price in in my eye
This smells of trollling, but i will bite nonetheless. No one said the graphics would be awful at 1080/60, but at 1080/30 the graphics will always be better. This isn't industry spin or lies, it's an indesputable fact.
I was doing research on what FPS Nintendo used on their past systems such as the Wii and Gamecube for their games and it turns out the majority of the games was 60fps with a few being 30 fps such as 2 player Mario Kart. Heck even the Wii-U is capable of 60fs and it has the weakest hardware out of the 3 systems. Even though some of the Wii-U titles are 720p they are 60fps. If Nintendo can do 720p @60 fps with the Wii-U then Sony and MS should keep the FPS at 60 and downgrade the resolution to what ever they can get 60 fps on. 60fps is still better than 30 no matter the resolution you have the game set to.
... Wut What exactly is holding developers back from hitting 1080p @ 60fps then? Why aren't they doing that currently if it far outweighs 720p @ 30? The entire point is that there is a relationship between all three of the following: FPS Resolution Visual Graphics If you want higher of any of them you need to decrease the other two or one twice as much. Wii U has high FPS but it sacrifices both resolution and visual graphics of the game to achieve that. Looby is literally saying that game developers can improve all three simultaneously, which is impossible. If I have a game and it's running at 720p @ 30fps and lets assign a "graphic's number" at 100. And I want said game to be 1080p @ 60fps then that "graphics number has to decrease in order to achieve that. You can't have your cake and eat it too, the performance needs to come from somewhere. If looby is implying that every single game developer out there is intentionally crippling the games to not perform up to standards then my mind is beyond blown. At this point I think that's what he is saying, either that or the thousands of developers in the industry are incapable of optimizing their engine properly and he clearly is capable of this. Edit: Also I'm not saying that I don't think 1080p @ 60fps is unnecessary or inferior. I'm saying that given the constraints of the hardware in the console, developers would rather put bigger focus on improving lighting, particles, physics, etc then increasing resolution. Hell some of these games barely look better than previous generation ones. If they were rendered at 1080p @ 60fps the increased rendering power would probably all go to that.
Wow!! They still don't get it. Hmm lets see... Say you are a dev that just released 60fps console game. Later down the road you upgrade the rendering quality of your game by bringing in compute AA, OpenCL driven global illumination, high quality shadows, photorealistic textures, 2xSupersampling etc etc. Basically cutting your frames/sec to 1/4. Through the sheer quality of your engine and your optimization skills you manage to increase performance by 100%. Award winning question: What should be your target fps for the same console as game 1?
Is there really a need for such heated disagreement? We're all PC gamers here, I'm not sure why anyone is concerned about the consoles maybe getting a die shrink. If they do, it will purely be to cut costs or establish a new fabrication level, not to improve performance. Come on now.
As per usual it has changed into something else, but surely heated is fine as long as it doesn't involve trolling or name calling? In my opinion, this page alone (some arguing 1080/30 should be the minimum, while others saying it should be 720/60) is proof that there should be no standard on consoles when it comes to resolution or framerate, and is something that should be decided on a per game basis. As i said previously, you could have a 5960X and 2-3 980's inside a console and you would still have plenty of devs cranking everything up to the max and capping the framerate to 30fps.
There was a tad bit of trolling from a certain someone. Repeat posts of meme images is sadly not appropriate.
