I guess this generation's gimmick is 4k. Much like motion controls no one wants it or needs it, nor is it even executed well because it isn't true 4k.
[QUOTE=Sharker;52435341]I guess this generation's gimmick is 4k. Much like motion controls no one wants it or needs it, nor is it even executed well because it isn't true 4k.[/QUOTE]
It's "true" 4K only if the developer wants it to be.
There's no arbitrary limit keeping the PS4P & XbOX from doing 4K, as certain games show.
[QUOTE=Sharker;52435341]I guess this generation's gimmick is 4k. Much like motion controls no one wants it or needs it, nor is it even executed well because it isn't true 4k.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, at least 4K is something that technology is working up towards for broader consumer use, compared to the Kinect being a purely gimmicky burden that hiked up the prices and yet had no good products released for it.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;52435512]Honestly, at least 4K is something that technology is working up towards for broader consumer use, compared to the Kinect being a purely gimmicky burden that hiked up the prices and yet had no good products released for it.[/QUOTE]
Well the Kinect ended up being a nice piece of tech for entirely different reasons, so i won't complain about that.
[QUOTE=Sharker;52435341]I guess this generation's gimmick is 4k. Much like motion controls no one wants it or needs it, nor is it even executed well because it isn't true 4k.[/QUOTE]
AAA PC games are more or less anchored by what the current console generation is capable of. Giving the devs more latitude with more powerful hardware will likely benefit us even if you don't care about 4k.
[QUOTE=Saxon;52435551]AAA PC games are more or less anchored by what the current console generation is capable of. Giving the devs more latitude with more powerful hardware will likely benefit us even if you don't care about 4k.[/QUOTE]
Technology has also progressed a lot slower this decade than it has in the past, using a PC that was high-end in 2000 for modern gaming in 2007 was impossible. Using a PC that was high-end in 2010 for gaming today is completely doable if you're happy with 30FPS and low-medium settings. If you want to climb up to 60FPS and high or even max settings all you have to do is swap out the graphics card. A processor like the 2600K is still very competent, while the Pentium 3 or K6-3 is complete garbage compared to an Intel Core 2 Quad or AMD Phenom
Yeah, I'm still on an i7-2600k and its still running well, as far as I can tell.
An important thing of note is that 4k is not a requirement. Devs can go for 1080p60 over 4k30 if they want or just ignore the X altogether and do 900p30 if they want. There's no real requirements there. Dev freedom and all that. Ideally this'll mean that games that can't reach 30 fps at 4k for some reason can be capped at 1080p60 on the X
[QUOTE=The freeman;52435915]Ideally this'll mean that games that can't reach 30 fps at 4k for some reason can be capped at 1080p60 on the X[/QUOTE]
If it's GPU bound, yes, but it also depends on how taxing they are on the CPU, as that's what's holding the One X back. Titles with lots of complex shit happening will be locked to 30FPS regardless of resolution
It's funny that such an educational video game channel attracts the worst comment shitposting.
Am I just being a dismissive twat when I say that I don't get the appeal of these 'upgraded' consoles? If you care enough about the performance of your games, you'll just eventually build a PC, right? Aren't consoles in general aimed at people who don't care about this stuff?
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;52436510]Am I just being a dismissive twat when I say that I don't get the appeal of these 'upgraded' consoles? If you care enough about the performance of your games, you'll just eventually build a PC, right? Aren't consoles in general aimed at people who don't care about this stuff?[/QUOTE]
For some, they prefer the console experience so they go for the upgraded version a few years later.
For others, they might have skipped the 2013 console generation, but might jump in with revised higher end versions. That's me. I recently got a PS4 Pro (my job gave it to me, but still) and plan on buying an X the moment they are available.
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;52436510]Am I just being a dismissive twat when I say that I don't get the appeal of these 'upgraded' consoles? If you care enough about the performance of your games, you'll just eventually build a PC, right? Aren't consoles in general aimed at people who don't care about this stuff?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if it's that as much as the reasons WHY most people won't do 1080/60 on a console that gets people frustrated. Usually the excuse for not having a locked 60 game comes down to "we don't think people care that much" or "cinematic feeling"; rather than the honest "oh we can't because the consoles don't have that kind of power yet" and we don't wanna sacrifice minor graphical fidelity to hit that benchmark. It also doesn't help that video games are generally designed for consoles, so even if a game looked great before, the concessions they had to make for the weakest console is generally spread to even the more powerful versions. Watch_Dogs 1 is a great example of exactly that, they had to sacrifice quality on the ps4/x1 versions because they were pushing to release on Wii U, PS3, and Xbox 360
[video=youtube;eO1j1o972QQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1j1o972QQ[/video]
notice how the ps4 version is locked to 30 frames, never dips. the ps4 version totally could have had a higher framerate
[editline]5th July 2017[/editline]
what this means is essentially even with the extra power afforded by the XB1X, they still probably won't have much over ps4 games other than 1080/60, because that requires more precious expensive dev time
I think devs are more comfortable chasing higher graphics than frame rate limits on consoles because 30fps is still widely accepted there.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;52437638]I think devs are more comfortable chasing higher graphics than frame rate limits on consoles because 30fps is still widely accepted there.[/QUOTE]That, and the console community seems to have a heavier focus on graphics quality while the PC community has an emphasis on resolution and framerate.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52436594]
notice how the ps4 version is locked to 30 frames, never dips. the ps4 version totally could have had a higher framerate
[/QUOTE]
The problem is hitting vsync at 60fps. If it drops below that then it snaps to 30fps unless you're doing dynamic vsync. You'll still get a nice shitty screen tear effect tho.
If they always stay above 60fps and never dip below that then they should set the vsync to 60fps.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;52437638]I think devs are more comfortable chasing higher graphics than frame rate limits on consoles because 30fps is still widely accepted there.[/QUOTE]
This is true to some extent, but I think more power on the console end may also give developers less incentive to actually put effort into optimization.
Why optimize the game to run at 4K when most people can't seem to tell the difference between native 4K and checkerboarded "faux-K?" Why put in the effort to optimize the game to run at 60 FPS at 1080p when most people don't seem to care about it?
Though it also probably doesn't help that dev cycles for AAA games seem to only be getting shorter and shorter due to higher and higher consumer demand. Most console gamers want their games out as fast as possible, while looking as beautiful as possible. Even if you have an 800 person team like Ubisoft, that shit's hard to do if you're making a massive open world game in the span of about a year or two.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
