XBone Vs PS4 Vs PC - VIDEOGAME POLITICS THUNDERDOME - PS4:900p-XBone:720p-PC::smug:

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

From another perspective, if the PS4 had Azure, they could have offloaded the AI workload to the cloud and used the console hardware for the processing, meaning both could run at 1080p/60fps.

So why hasn't Microsoft done this with any of the multiple other games that run at a lower res/framerate than the PS4?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

From another perspective, if the PS4 had Azure, they could have offloaded the AI workload to the cloud and used the console hardware for the processing, meaning both could run at 1080p/60fps.

come on now, xbox one is holding back the PS4 version in this case its obvious to ALMOST everyone go look around the net

the usual suspects in here defending the xbox one

You can debate things like controllers, exclusive games, media features but you nobody can honestly debate when it comes down to raw horsepower the PS4 has more its a fact

Game will still look good at these settings though its not a deal breaker

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So why hasn't Microsoft done this with any of the multiple other games that run at a lower res/framerate than the PS4?

Are you going to seriously suggest that a developer would re-write the architecture for a cross-platform game (but just for ONE console) in this way?

Originally Posted by dino7c

come on now, xbox one is holding back the PS4 version in this case its obvious to ALMOST everyone go look around the net

the usual suspects in here defending the xbox one

^The usual suspects in here whining about framerates and 180p of resolution; unknot your panties, please.

The point I'm making is that if Ubisoft claims that the CPUs - NOT the GPUs - are the AI bottleneck, surely there's ways around it given that the CPUs are actually pretty damn close to each other, with the Xbox One running at 1.75 GHz to the PS4's 1.6 GHz. The GPU portion of the APU is where the PS4 has the strongest advantage, but Ubisoft claims that isn't what's holding the game back.

It's just Ubisoft making ALL the wrong moves, it's like Watch_Dogs all over again.

(I'm happy to see your ninja-edit that you admit it'll still look just fine at these resolutions, I guess we're making progress.)

Edit: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/a...s-ubisoft.aspx

Ubisoft is suggesting neither game was going to be 900p/30fps. Ubi, here's an idea - just shut up, you guys make yourselves look like dicks.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Are you going to seriously suggest that a developer would re-write the architecture for a cross-platform game (but just for ONE console) in this way?


^The usual suspects in here whining about framerates and 180p of resolution; unknot your panties, please.

The point I'm making is that if Ubisoft claims that the CPUs - NOT the GPUs - are the AI bottleneck, surely there's ways around it given that the CPUs are actually pretty damn close to each other, with the Xbox One running at 1.75 GHz to the PS4's 1.6 GHz. The GPU portion of the APU is where the PS4 has the strongest advantage, but Ubisoft claims that isn't what's holding the game back.

It's just Ubisoft making ALL the wrong moves, it's like Watch_Dogs all over again.

(I'm happy to see your ninja-edit that you admit it'll still look just fine at these resolutions, I guess we're making progress.)

resolution its not a deal breaker...still wish it they would make the best possible quality for the system

haven't seen much of you since your "microsoft will never remove kinect" rant its good to have you back

I own all consoles and a high end PC...I just call it how I see it, most people see it the same way if you look around the net it seems pretty obvious what is going on here. With the backlash I could see a patch for the PS4 version

now is where you say

"don't hold your breath" and then I bump your post when it happens

[photon]

GPUs are terrible at the kind of processing AI requires, and AC is a pretty AI heavy game so what they're saying about the limitations is at least plausible. No doubt one or the other console could be better than the other by some percentage, they're just saying the difference was small enough to keep them the same.

Not sure I believe them, but that they'd change what was said to something like that was pretty predictable.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It's just Ubisoft making ALL the wrong moves, it's like Watch_Dogs all over again.

Ubi, here's an idea - just shut up, you guys make yourselves look like dicks.

I think we can all agree with that. It's like the Microsoft DRM PR all over again. It's amazing.

With Microsoft having just taken over from Sony for the marketing of the franchise now, the timing of this new found parity is also hilariously suspicious. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though, heh.

[chemgear]

And the more I think about it, I'm not sure what to be more amused or horrified at:

1. The s**tty practice of gimping a version in the first place (and the potential implications of how it was motivated)
2. Being bold enough to slap customers with the bald faced honest (potential money hatting) truth of the original quote.
3. The (somewhat insulting but obviously only recourse) PR spin of "oh yeah, I can totally see how you were confused by the obviously clear and blunt original message."
4. The thought that gimping the performance of the game would help them "avoid the debates and stuff".
5. Or the fact that customers are even more aware of the power disparity of the two systems now given their efforts.

The lead up to the November 11 release date should be even more amusing and horrifying I'd imagine.

[Violator]

ohh chemgear your to funny

[chemgear]

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by chemgear

And the more I think about it, I'm not sure what to be more amused or horrified at:

1. The s**tty practice of gimping a version in the first place (and the potential implications of how it was motivated)
2. Being bold enough to slap customers with the bald faced honest (potential money hatting) truth of the original quote.
3. The (somewhat insulting but obviously only recourse) PR spin of "oh yeah, I can totally see how you were confused by the obviously clear and blunt original message."
4. The thought that gimping the performance of the game would help them "avoid the debates and stuff".
5. Or the fact that customers are even more aware of the power disparity of the two systems now given their efforts.

The lead up to the November 11 release date should be even more amusing and horrifying I'd imagine.

You realize Black Flag for PS4 and XB1 was just an upscaled version of the 360/PS3 versions. It's pretty obvious that Ubisoft's current engine is kind of plateaued if they can't get better than 30 fps out of either version. If you are Ubisoft there's no way you ship a product at lower visual standards than is possible in this competitive market where other games are trumpeting visual bells and whistles. IMO it's the last gen games that are crippling things as they are still basing the game on that engine.

[cDnStealth]

It's far easier (faster, cheaper and less work) to put out a game that is exactly the same then to tailor it to different platforms. We've been dealing with this kind of garbage forever on PC. The amount of games that are ported to PC without a damn FOV slider pisses me off to no end.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

It's far easier (faster, cheaper and less work) to put out a game that is exactly the same then to tailor it to different platforms. We've been dealing with this kind of garbage forever on PC. The amount of games that are ported to PC without a damn FOV slider pisses me off to no end.

Dark Souls on PC was BS.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You realize Black Flag for PS4 and XB1 was just an upscaled version of the 360/PS3 versions.

As essentially a launch title, I'd agree you're probably more right than wrong. But even then, the Xbone couldn't keep up with the PS4 in terms of resolution or frame rate for that upscaled version.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO it's the last gen games that are crippling things as they are still basing the game on that engine.

From my understanding Assassin's Creed Parity . . . er, Unity is only coming to PS4, Xbone and PC. Not the previous generation at all.

[chemgear]

Ahh some more updates and commentary from the Digital Foundry guys today:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...n-ps4-xbox-one

UPDATE 7/10/14 11.40am: Ubisoft has told Eurogamer that Assassin's Creed Unity's final technical specifications for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually still to be locked down.

Some fans have even pointed to the fact that this year - for the first time in many years - the brand is allied to Xbox, rather than PlayStation. Microsoft will be able to feature the game in its Christmas Xbox marketing, and the game will - for once - not include any PlayStation-exclusive content.

"That said, the design of Xbox One and PlayStation 4 makes the decision to lock specs on Assassin's Creed: Unity difficult to fathom. Time and time again, we've seen evidence that the Xbox One graphics hardware operates almost like a subset of the PS4's - perhaps not surprising bearing in mind that Sony's GPU is essentially a larger version of Microsoft's. We often see resolution differentials on cutting edge titles, and even though the difference is frequently less of an issue than the raw numbers suggest, a cleaner presentation overall is obviously welcome.

"We're a bit puzzled by the ACU situation and had a chat about it amongst ourselves. Internal bandwidth is shared between CPU and GPU on both machines which can result in a battle for resources, and if ACU is as CPU-heavy as Ubisoft says it is, that could potentially have ramifications - the only problem with this theory is that there's very little evidence that other titles have experienced the same issue, certainly not judged by Ubisoft's own output.

"I think the main problem here is that the initial story suggests that the publisher has put platform parity politics over getting the best possible game out there, while the updated statement offers no real answers to the questions gamers actually have. If there's a technical reason that prevents PS4 offering a full 1080p presentation - or something closer to it compared to the Xbox One's 900p - I'm really curious to know what it is."

[Russic]

I wonder what these alignments cost? MS has done it for years with Call of Duty, and Sony recently did it with Destiny, and now MS has Assassin's Creed. It's an interesting half-measure between exclusives and multi-platform.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Ahh some more updates and commentary from the Digital Foundry guys today:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...n-ps4-xbox-one

UPDATE 7/10/14 11.40am: Ubisoft has told Eurogamer that Assassin's Creed Unity's final technical specifications for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually still to be locked down.

Some fans have even pointed to the fact that this year - for the first time in many years - the brand is allied to Xbox, rather than PlayStation. Microsoft will be able to feature the game in its Christmas Xbox marketing, and the game will - for once - not include any PlayStation-exclusive content.

"That said, the design of Xbox One and PlayStation 4 makes the decision to lock specs on Assassin's Creed: Unity difficult to fathom. Time and time again, we've seen evidence that the Xbox One graphics hardware operates almost like a subset of the PS4's - perhaps not surprising bearing in mind that Sony's GPU is essentially a larger version of Microsoft's. We often see resolution differentials on cutting edge titles, and even though the difference is frequently less of an issue than the raw numbers suggest, a cleaner presentation overall is obviously welcome.

"We're a bit puzzled by the ACU situation and had a chat about it amongst ourselves. Internal bandwidth is shared between CPU and GPU on both machines which can result in a battle for resources, and if ACU is as CPU-heavy as Ubisoft says it is, that could potentially have ramifications - the only problem with this theory is that there's very little evidence that other titles have experienced the same issue, certainly not judged by Ubisoft's own output.

"I think the main problem here is that the initial story suggests that the publisher has put platform parity politics over getting the best possible game out there, while the updated statement offers no real answers to the questions gamers actually have. If there's a technical reason that prevents PS4 offering a full 1080p presentation - or something closer to it compared to the Xbox One's 900p - I'm really curious to know what it is."

The bottom line is that the specs really are nothing more than fanboy bragging rights as there really hasn't been many titles released to date where the PS4 version is significantly better looking to the eye than the XB1 as the differences are no more significant than with 360 and PS3 where lots of multiplatform titles looked and ran better on the 360 but the average person really wouldn't be able to notice that much difference.

That said I don't condone developers having a cut off as IMO they should try to max out the hardware but in reality a difference of 180p isn't really altering the experience for anyone except the same type of phone owners that obsess over geekbench scores. It's more bragging rights stuff than anything that matters in the overall experience.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The bottom line is that the specs really are nothing more than fanboy bragging rights as there really hasn't been many titles released to date where the PS4 version is significantly better looking to the eye than the XB1 as the differences are no more significant than with 360 and PS3 where lots of multiplatform titles looked and ran better on the 360 but the average person really wouldn't be able to notice that much difference.

It doesn't start to matter until you get above 42 to 47" in set size. After that the larger your TV, the bigger the discrepancy. You're probably correct that a lot of gamers are making a bigger deal about the 180p than it really is but if you own a 65" set and really put time and effort into your home theater set-up, then it is a big deal.

From what I understand:
1600 x 900 = 1,440,000 pixels.
1920 x 1080 = 2,073,000 pixels.

So at those larger sizes you definitely can tell the difference.

[terminator]

I have yet to see any"next gen" graphics from eithe sony or MS.

S FU, these consoles changed nothing.

[MrCallahan]

You rarely see "next gen" capabilities within the first year or so of a console being released...We'll see them coming in the next few years when the developers have better control of the development tools.

I still remember being blown away with the scale of God of War on the PS2, that was definitely pushing the PS2 compared to games at the console release.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MrCallahan

You rarely see "next gen" capabilities within the first year or so of a console being released...We'll see them coming in the next few years when the developers have better control of the development tools.

I still remember being blown away with the scale of God of War on the PS2, that was definitely pushing the PS2 compared to games at the console release.

I really don't see this being the case with this console gen. "Optimizing" hardware isn't really a thing, since consoles are now more or less crippled PCs with a better API.