381

Xbox One's extra features may be bringing down its gaming quality

Lately, Call of Duty Ghosts has had their guns pointed at the Xbox One – or at least that is how many people around the web have felt. With news that Microsoft’s Xbox One won’t be running the game at native 1080p, and instead a lower 720p, there is question of how the console will be able to handle gaming in the next 5-10 years (the predicted lifespan of the unit). Eurogamer decided to sit down with the developers of the upcoming Call of Duty and see what their explanation is.

Mark Rubin, one of the developers, sat down and explained that the problem had to do with the console’s Operating system. He explained that when using the memory and CPU, it is important to know what portions are in use and not being used internally for the operating system’s background features. Infinity Ward must work around allocations given to it by the system itself.

Multitasking

In regards to why the upcoming hit launch game for the console is running in 720p on the Xbox One and 1080p on the PlayStation 4, Rubin says he can’t “point to one particular case”. He stated that Infinity Ward tried to make the best decision for each console to obtain 60 frames per second.

When asked whether or not the result of the lesser frames on the Xbox One was due to the PlayStation 4, Rubin did not give an exact answer. He simply stated, that they wanted each console to achieve 60 fps and that due to the system’s allocation – Xbox One landed at 720p. He did note that they had it running at 1080p, but the frame rate was not “in the neighborhood we wanted it to be [60 fps]”.

In the end, future updates that help to relocate system resources may be the solution for Xbox One, but the extra side features and multitasking may be pulling the console down when it comes to full 1080p HD gaming.

For now – are extra features, like multitasking, worth a downgrade in game quality?

Source: Eurogamer

3
loading...
0
loading...
38
loading...
0
loading...

Comments

There are 381 comments. Sign in to comment

NIST says:

It's not like Call of Duty is going to look like Minecraft. Mercy.

That's the point of minecraft though.

dougplanet says:

That's not the point of NIST's comment though.

4Tiles says:

Due to the quality of the upscaler on Xbox I seriously doubt anyone can tell the difference of 720/1080 on consoles. And in fact since the other version has to push more pixels I wouldn't be surprised if the graphics/performance are slightly better on the 720 version. 720p version can have better graphics/frame rate.

Dont compare minecraft you can play it whit low end phones and pc....

shadow118 says:

You still need a fairly decent computer to get high and stable framerates in minecraft. And massive TNT explosions can bring even the most powerful PCs to their knees :D

 

swizzlerz says:

There was a day I was lucky if I got 28fps on my geforce 2 ti 64ddr ram video card.. was its no 60 fps?? Odd I thought its hard to see a noticeable difference over 30fps.

Armada says:

It's not really that hard if one is used to 60 fps. Between 45 to 60 is very hard to tell but below there is noticeable microstutters that one can percieve. Above 60 fps is going to vary from person.

considering most people have monitors/TVs/etc that refresh at under 61Hz, it is quite hard to truly notice a difference above 60FPS...

Bob Shiska says:

Unless the frame gets delivered to the TV in 1/50th of a second instead of 1/60th of a second, then because it only refreshes every 60th of a second it takes twice as long for the frame to actually get displayed. What you end up getting is occasional stutters to 30fps.

Luc4 says:

However 30fps doesn't stutter at all and pretty much all TV content is 1080p30 or 720p30. I'm sure about everyone won't see that as not being smooth. Sure 1080p60 is smoother but few TV's support it unless interlaced.

The 60p was in the past always interlaced so smooth motion at expense of resolution (since you were combining 2 halves at different time intervals). Not sure if this is 1080i60 interlaced or true full double framerate.

I wonder why they didn't go for 1080p30 instead of 720p60 upscaled. Also Forza runs at 1080p60 and graphics demands should be similar (the lightning engine is top notch).

Bloobed says:

I find this: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html  to be quite a good example.

peterfares says:

No.

In fact I'd like it if they removed the Kinect and dropped the price to $350 and gave that reserved power back to use on what the system is meant for: GAMING. 

Nobody said, gaming was limited to graphics. That's boring!

Bloobed says:

Very true. Then again, GPU -power and bandwidth could be used for other things as well.

ymcpa says:

The PS4 doesn't have a Kinect and it doesn't cost $350. There was a report that at $400 it was losing money on each sale. So, forget about the $350 price until the component prices decrease and the development costs are recouped. I personal would rather have a console that can to more than gaming. I might play for a few hours a day, but the rest of the time the console just sits there doing nothing. Have you seen the side by side game play videos between the Xbox one and PS4? You can't tell the difference unless you freeze the frames and zoom into certain areas to see the detail.  The xbox upscales the images to 1080p and the games still look good. I'll take entertainment center features over native 1080p game play any day?

The Kinect isn't probably not that much resources as compared to what is reserved for other multitasking goals!

RayWP7 says:

Um the manufacturer gets to choose what they intend their product to be and do? As a customer your input is your purchasing power. Unless you're on the board, you can't unilaterally define what the console is meant for after all they named it the ONE for a reason.

welsbloke says:

Maybe it was "meant for" that once upon a time but I would say what it is "meant for" now is to be an entertainment hub. Personally I cannot justify this sort of money on Gamiing consoles I need them to do a lot more.

 

I suspect this issue as the article alludes is the new functionality and the ability for the developers to work arond it. However 60fps is desireable and maybe 720p should be the default but maybe they could offer 1080p with a caveat.

rth314 says:

I agree.  I already have an Xbox 360, whose app-switching is slow as molasses.  I don't need another console designed that way.  If Sony didn't also solve the slow multitasking problem, then I'm totally not interested in that console at all, regardless of which HD resolution release title games run at.

DHHSMichael says:

The Xbox 360 only has 512MB of RAM, it was not made to be a multi-tasking machine. The Xbox One, however, has 8GB of RAM with a lot of that dedicated to multi-tasking. Multi-tasking lag theoretically should not even be a problem for this next generation.

People forget the XBOX ONE will upscale to 1080p any games running 720p. I watch alot of TV (Hulu+, Amazon & YouTube) on my XBOX 360 so I'm in favor of a all-round XBOX ONE. That been said, I've already preordered CoDGhosts, Ryse & Deadrising III and I have no remorse. Infact planning in preordering FIFA14.

james v says:

Even a cheap computer can do all multimedia stuff like seriously you would Xbox one because it can play Hulu YouTube? Lol you r silly brother.

I'm sure you're right, but I've never owned a 'cheap computer', so I wouldn't know :),

John20212 says:

NO - its a gaming console, so its primary purpose should be gaming.

 

Yeah, that should be the main focus of a game console.

Talbot690 says:

Its not a gaming console..... Its an all in one entertainment system. If your looking for a gaming console that just does gaming maybe Xbox one is not for you

Rishicash says:

It's not really an "all-in-one" entertainment system when it requires the use of a set top box. This is the deal killer for me. XB1 is already $500 and you have to either additionally buy a STB or rent one to use it for TV use.

Talbot690 says:

Sorry I assume most people already have hi-def cable so its not a problem for me. And as I said its considered by Microsoft to be an "all-in-one entertainment system". Their words not mine. Ya its already $500 dollars so what cheapo if the price is the problem buy a ps4. I'm tired of arguing with people over stupidity. I watch Netflix,TV,Movies, I go online YouTube,Facebook,emails ect. Xbox one is a no brainer decision for me. And come on now it $100 more then ps4 but comes with a Kinect sensor and does way more then ps4. I personally wont use kinects motion controls but i use Voice on 360 and i Will continue to use Voice controls on xb1. Im finished ranting

expectafight says:

grief, please explain to me how this impacts gaming?  Really.  It doesn't hinder your ability to play a game so how is gaming still not the focus?  It would be different if the console didn't ship with a controller but you guys once again go off the damn deep end with this nonsense.

jchapman01 says:

Exactly. +1 to you sir!

ratsta says:

Absolutely end of!

jlynnm350z says:

Gaming should be first and foremost the top priority of Xbox!! End of discussion!!

NIST says:

Haahaa. You jokester!!

RedSamurai says:

Huh... I'd say he's damn right o.O

Aaron M says:

Im torn on this. Personally im way more interested in the instant app switching, Kinect integration, and using two apps at once. I could care less if the newest cookie cutter release of COD is 1080p or 720p. But I know the "hardcore" gamers will care and ultimately they are an incredibly vocal, entitled, and unreasonable bunch. If MS continues to loose them to Sony, im worried Xbox one will fail.

I'm sorry but any self respecting self labeled "hardcore" gamer who cares about graphics in running this game on PC.

I have a gaming PC that's capable of better graphics than Xbone and PS4, but do you know which one I'll be gaming on, mostly? PS4. I just enjoy it a lot more. And even now, I prefer most games on PS3. That's just how I like to play. On my dedicated box. Also, there are too many good games that aren't on PC.

A hardcore gamer should not care about graphics but instead the gameplay. I would rather play a really game with respectable graphics than a crappy game with a little better graphics.

Paul May says:

The problem with the logic of a gamer should care more for gameplay and not graphics is really a moot point in this discussion as both the PS4 and XOne will have the same game with same gameplay but one will be 1080p and one wont be.

Nik Rolls says:

And even that will be fairly moot because 99% of people buying the game wont even look at the resolution spec, and wouldn't even notice the difference if they were placed side by side, so ...

james v says:

Please stop saying people won't notice. I can sure tell on PC which movie/game is running is 720p or 1080. Its probably you have 720p tv. And after 3 yrs 4k would b more mainstream than 1080 upscale of Xbox won't b useful cause it won't b as sharp as 1080p upscaled to 4k as opposed to 720p upscaled to 1080 by Xbox & then up scaled to 4k by tvs.

You can tell because your viewing distance is close enough to your PC to differentiate between the two.  Step far enough back and you won't be able to tell.  A lot of people have displays that are too small for their viewing distance to be able to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.

 

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

bshu55 says:

Hardcore gamers come in every facet. See me Im a hardcore gaming but crappy graphics are a thing of the past. The fact that this is called next Gen and using past Gen graphics cmon man be a realist and look at the facts. Its 2014 not 2005 games now a days gotta look good and play good...

Bloobed says:

Often graphics are part of the gameplay, in some rare cases the gameplay is defined by the visuals.

danielgray says:

Gaming should be first, if console needs a few more cores or extra memory to support the gaming and multitasking, then the hardware needs changing.

ymcpa says:

This doesn't effect gameplay. Running at full speed you can't tell the difference between the PS4 and Xbox One. Here is a side by side video. http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/10/28/battlefield-4-xbox-oneps4-graphics-comparison Set the video playback to 1080p and compare. The 720p upconverted to 1080p doesn't hurt the graphics at all.

That's YouTube... Can't tell much of anything.

http://i.imgur.com/Z7Lq81D.png

http://i.minus.com/ibkTxrUV0j959u.gif

http://i.imgur.com/HWb79lR.gif

http://i.minus.com/ib0gOrDzD8ScKG.gif

Either way, much of this doesn't matter, because the worse is yet to come. These are cross-generation ports. The difference in quality will only become apparent in the coming years.

No, I think the hardware is fine. I recall Microsoft saying the XBOX ONE can play 4k, so I'm sure this 720p will soon be a thing of the past. Besides, between my brother's 42in 720p HDTV & my 46in 1080p HDTV I have never seen the difference. In fact, im sometimes envious that my bros 720p TV looks so amazing.

Agreed. All the tv/movie stuff at the reveal event were worthless to me in regards to a gaming machine.

montel22 says:

Well, to me its relevant, my children enjoy the extras. The gaming is important to me but I don't see this being an issue.

Talbot690 says:

If microsofts plan was to make a console primarily for playing games they would of but in all actuality ppl play new games for a couple weeks then go back to watching thier fave shows n movies on Netflix. Eliminating the entertainment aspect and aiming solely at gamers would be great for gamers, but this whole other audience of ppl who want tv and movies and an entertainment center that can also play their fave games would be left out.

Talbot690 says:

Xbox one probably won't win the console race... Intact its probably already lost, but as stated over and over Xbox one is an all in one entertainment center not just another gaming console

SammaelMH says:

No. This is a video game, for godsake!

akpaul49 says:

Yes, I use my Xbox for all my media.

EDDS says:

Small price to pay given the huge amount of features in the One compared to the PS4

I'm on the border. I still have my Xbox One preordered and can't wait, but I will admit that the recent news has made me surf Sony's website. What is keeping me onboard with Xbox One is the amount of features packed into the unit, but for many... gaming is first - no exceptions. (and that is fine of course)

Rick Smits says:

Don't forget party chat, Xbox live (which did not go down for 3 months), exclusive DLC, new IP's, Skype, multitasking, and Kinect. Xbox far beats the PS4 imo. PS4 is losing more exclusive down the road. Its been going this route for a couple years. For example Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes is now on Xone instead of just PS4

I wouldn't count on it, Sony owns several studios.

Rubios says:

Everyone is losing the exclusives except for first party studios (and SCE dominates everyone there).

 

Developing costs go up and everyone tries to release in as much platforms as possible, it's been happening for years now.

Rick Smits says:

Yes everyone is losing exclusives but Xbox was late to the game and PS3 has been losing IP's ever since.

Rick Smits says:

I totally forgot about SCE.

I'm willing to live with the tradeoff. The video feed is being upscalled to 1080p. So although native 720p, 1080p is output to the screen. I expect the end result to be barely noticable if at all noticable and well worth the additional features on Xbox One.

RedSamurai says:

Unless you are gaming in a 50"+ tv then the difference would definitely show

ymcpa says:

From 10 feet away or standing right next to the TV. If you are standing right next to the TV, you might see something. From the couch playing fast movie action games, you won't notice anything.

Man, I don't think there's any debating with you. You're too far gone, but I'm going to anyway.

Nothing there is worthwhile and most of it just isn't true. PS4 has party chat, which is also cross-compatible with Vita and I'm sure they'll get Skype. Vita and PSP both have Skype. PSN was definitely not down for 3 months. It wasn't even a month and Live has been hacked more times than PSN, so...
PS4 has their own camera, which is close enough to Kinect. Exclusive DLC... Really? PlayStation will have WAY more new IPs than Xbox, by the way... There's also multitasking. No snapping, which is a good feature, but there's still multitasking, which is all I care about for a game console. I'll use my PC for any of the other things. And like was said below me, everyone is losing 3rd party exclusives. They're just not feasible anymore, but Sony will keep pumping out all those first part exclusives.

I'm only going to refute your points. I won't even try to list my points. This comment is long enough. :P

Ps eye close to Kinect 2 lol fanboy much ?

npoe says:

Most games I play are like Europa Universalis, so for me Xbox One means HTPC, Fable and Forza. I don't see a reason to buy a PS4 but half of my friends will buy one.

I might buy a PS4 if real JRPG starts to show as PS4's exclusives but until then no PS4 or any portable gaming console... I don't believe in screens smaller than 24" to play.

Ultimateone says:

How is Forza 1080p and 60fps, its the developers fault not the Xbox one

ncxcstud says:

The amount of data having to be shown during a racing game is far less than that of almost any other game, FPS' in particular.  It's why racing games are always showcases in launch lineups.  They look great and run great to boot.

Other than that, I don't mind as I'll be getting a XBOX One regardless ;)

Ultimateone says:

I completely disagree. they are using an archaic engine all the way back from COD4, I could understand if this was something like Crysis but its just plain jane COD. The game should be able to run at 1080p at 60fps.

ncxcstud says:

The fact remains - racing games are always (or at least have been for the last few console generations) used to showcase systems because they are not as taxing as other genres on the system.  Though, I do understand what you're talking about...

But, I will say that as a launch title, this won't be indicative of what the system can do.  Go look at the launch PS3 and XBOX 360 titles and you'll see a huge difference between what developers could only do at launch and what they were able to get out of the systems at the end of their cycles...

TechFreak1 says:

The graphically superior games always come at the end of consoles' life cycle this  ismore less because as the developers get to know the consoles better thus enabling them optimise and armed with updated SDKs along with what they learned from previous games and with Sony / Microsoft streamling and making the core O/S run better and efficient. It is a two way street, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

hwangeruk says:

Im not sure it is a fact. Think of all the car geometry and physics calcs going on during a racing game.

I have no idea how many cars Forza has on track at once compared to COD soldiers but I am not sure you can claim this as fact.

I am much more sympathetic to the idea its engine related. As you say look at launch titles from last gen.

Don't forget both systems need new engines for different architectures. Last gen it was more complicated for PS4 until devs got to grips with the exotic PS3 hardware. Perhaps MS has the crinkle this time.

But like the majority have said, I'd rather have great Music, great Video, great Pary Chat, Skype and TV control plus gaming rather than a boring gaming device again like the PS4. Can't wait for mine.

Nik Rolls says:

Yeah, racing games are also easier to make photorealistic. Car paint and metals are the easiest 3D shaders to perfect.

I think the games at launch are irrelevant to the console (graphics wise) because if you look at the call of duty 3 graphics and the cod black ops 2 graphics, cod 3's graphics are nowhere near to bo2's graphics.

Tragic says:

Isn't Forza 900p or is that Ryse? If it is 1080p then yes it is the developers fault. Wouldn't it be pretty crazy if newer games skip 1080p all together and are 4k native?

Ultimateone says:

I completely disagree. they are using an archaic engine all the way back from COD4, I could understand if this was something like Crysis but its just plain jane COD. The game should be able to run at 1080p at 60fps.
Forza is 1080p/60 fps - Ryse is 900p I believe

bshu55 says:

Exclusives always look the best. Ryse is 900p 30fps not 60fps

MilkyTee says:

The most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard. smh

bshu55 says:

Its cause forza is a first party exclusive games. They always look better

Rubios says:

Because it is a current gen game running at 1080p.

Low resolution textures here and there, terrible texture filtering (in 2013, seriously...), crappy motion blur, pre-baked static lighting... even Gran Turismo 6 is giving Forza a run for its money on 7 freaking years old hardware.

sasukeluffy says:

Have you seen GT6? It looks absolutely disgusting. I checked both GT6 anf FM5 at Finnish DigiExpo, and they were not even comparable. GT6 graphics look awful, but FM5 is one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen...

GT6 looks amazing for a current gen game. What are you talking about? Other than resolution and texture resolution, GT6 actually looks better than Forza 5. Also, Forza 5 is on the Xbox One. OF COURSE it will look better than a game on PS3... Your logic, man...

hwangeruk says:

i want some of what you are smoking Rubios.

I know..either good "weed" or his tv just sucks....

Yeah, that's everyone's argument. Forza is 1080p60, so it must be developers. Forza isn't pushing much of anything, so it can pump out 1080p60. Not surprising. It's a racing game with static everything.

DonnieV says:

I luvz the graphix!

 

peachy001 says:

Nope. Gaming should be the focus.

SMOKEUFOOLS says:

Oh look, it's another anti-Xbox One article trying to get web traffic. Come on, man, you work for a Microsoft eccentric website and you have to post this garbage? SMH

We cover Microsoft - the good and the bad bits. If you want to hear just the positive, I suggest watching Microsoft commercials.

jfash007 says:

Fair enough. It will be nice for the name Windows Phone Central to be changed to Microsoft central. Been saying this like forever.

CobaltDragon says:

Yeah, more and more the content is less and less about WP itself.

ImSoWade says:

Lol well said. I think its good for consumers to know the limitations of any system, etc

Its about the headline. Even anti-MS sites worded it better than you did. I love your articles but the title is a miss imo.

Hey Krayzie,

Thank you for the compliment and I will take your words to heart. I try to define a headline that gives an overall reflection of the piece's altitude. I do feel that my last piece was titled a bit too strong in some regards and I will take note of that moving forward.

Thank you for reading WPCentral and thank you for citing your concerns in a polite manner (seriously, I love that).

-Mike

He a writer at the end.. And troll controversy generates traffic to the article...just doing his job. Buy I agree with what you said, I search at similar news on other sites.

NaNoo123 says:

Actually sounds like they were saying it was the fluid nature of the software that was the main issue, not the OS in terms of what the users will be using/doing, talking api, dev tools, allocations etc.

CommonBlob says:

Except you got it wrong

I don't expect to hear that everything is coming up roses and rainbows, but I wish you'd make an effort to not spin everything into a controversy for click-bait articles. I purposely read for author names in the WPCentral news feed just to avoid YOUR articles. I really enjoy reading the other guys but your articles really tick me off. I only clicked on this one because of the so-called Q&A with the devs hoping for a legitimate explanation.

Thank you. I'm glad they hired you. Anytime there's bad news, it just isn't reported.

60FPS or bust.

Far more important than 1080p. And finally it's starting to happen even with mainstream titles.

 

Maybe one day Youtube will get 60fps support. Combining that with more 60fps games would make high framerate movies more likely.

It could be a way to break the 24fps idiocy that is plaguing modern cinema.

K_lando says:

What I was thinking.  Unless you're gaming on a TV that's over 50 or 55 inches, the 60FPS is far more important and noticeable than 720P.

In Limbo says:

I'm not gonna say it but . . . that's what she said.

Rubios says:

60FPS or bust.

Far more important than 1080p

 

Why not both instead of 200€ camera that most gamers don't care about?

XeroJC2000 says:

I actually do care about the Kinect. I know Im not the AVG. but I think the technology gives me more for my money, PS4 I think is overpriced for what you get, I actually think the Xbox One is Over Priced but I feel like Im getting a better deal than just the box that PS4 is offering and if I bought the camera for PS4 (which I see no reason for at this point) it would be similarily priced.

Rubios says:

That's fine too, I'm not against Kinect itself... I'm against making it mandatory creating a extremely mediocre piece of hardware just to be able to fit it into a viable price for a gaming system.

 

I might have though about picking a 300-350€ XBone without Kinect (or a 400€ one with decent specs).

ymcpa says:

Because they want this to be a well rounded system that will improve the entertainement center. Let's face facts. The hardcore gamers are a small percentage of the market. The casual gamers make up a far larger number. THey play some games and watch a lot of TV.  That is who Microsoft is going for. The only danger is that the hardcore gamers are very vocal and might convince the casual crowd that the PS4 is better even though most would get far more use from the Xbox.

MikeSo says:

Absolutely. I bet that the vast majority of people outraged about 720p wouldn't be able to spot the difference between it and 1080p on their TVs.

truthsforme says:

Activion's old engine can't take advantage of the new architecture of the Xbox and its offloading capabilities.

Nik Rolls says:

I think that's more likely ...

razorguy says:

Like I've been saying, consoles are never "enthusiast" devices like high end PCs so as long as the Xbone system does a good job of upscaling to 1080P like they claim, then I don't see any downside to this. Developers will get better, the system will get more efficient with updates, and hopefully down the road all the people trashing Microsoft won't have anything negative to say when they realize the features are so much better.

This guy gets it. I'm rocking a 4 year old water cooled gaming PC (i7 920 FTW) and it's graphical capability on three screens at 5760x1080 resolution is still better than these new consoles. At the risk of sounding like a No True Scotsman, actual "hardcore" gamers who care about graphics are on PC.

I'm getting the Xbox One for its exclusives and media features.

People complaining about the extra features aren't thinking outside the box. One of my two xbox360s with Kinect is going to be moved into my garage for a hands free media device while I work on my cars and motorcycles. I want the new Kinect because it pushes the way we interact with computers forward rather than stagnating at the status quo.

JotaKa says:

+1 ... I agree. The problem is convincing the average person, who is reading all the comments from people who also don't even know how a PC works, that the resolution of a launch title doesn't matter. Microsoft needs to fight back more aggressively.

XeroJC2000 says:

+1 but in Microsofts defense everytime they have said anything it becomes a negative for them. Playstation has kept quiet and is percieved to be better because of it. Although most people won't admit it I think several people are holding there breath that Sony doesn't have a huge problem at launch because for some reason I have a wierd feeling about Playstation and their hardware

Neo Nuke says:

They have a lot of negatives. Drive Club and Watchdogs have both been delayed and there are swirling rumors about only PS biased journalistic outlets getting review PS4s because the OS and UI aren't ready and buggy. All I know is I want Titanfall

I would agree, except that there isn't anyone playing COD on the PC at this point.  I bought it originally for PC- 6,000 people at peak times on the PC.  The 360 version averages 150K at the same times.

kjordan_29 says:

No, not worth it.  I'm buying a game console, it should play games in the best quality first and extra features on top of that.  They're just that, extra features.

It will play them in the best quality it can. If you want the best quality that exists invest in a high-end PC. 

ymcpa says:

Take a look at this http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/10/28/battlefield-4-xbox-oneps4-graphics-comparison and tell me you can tell the difference. The game play is what matters. The graphics quality is plenty better than the previous console for both consoles and the difference between the two during actual game play, and not on a spec sheet, are negligible,

polychromenz says:

Thanks for that. Most of the time I preferred the XBox one. A few close up stills looked better on PS4 (to me and only in my opinion LOL)

 

To be fair, once you play for 10 seconds you are not going to care you are going to be immersed in the game

kullkid92x says:

Some of you guys are going to stay stuck in 2013 thinking like this...

This is a console that MS has put years of research on and they expect it to be YEARS into the future. In two years you'll have Sony playing catchup because so and so has found out that their friends Xbox can do so much more. C'mon man its only common sense, tech is spreading (and its spreading fast) in the year 2016 no one is gonna want a console that does just gaming, they'll want more. Just like everyone wants more from their smartphones and PCs.

Anyway, the console itself can HANDLE 1080p just fine, Forza has proven this. It will take some time before COD and Battlefield developers can optimize those type of games to get 1080p and STILL maintain 60fps, this is the real issue here that everyone on the internet is misunderstanding. Lets remember Battefield 4 is running at 900p on PS4 and the battlefield 4 spokesperson has already said that graphics actually look crispier on the Xbox than the upscale 900p in the PS4.

I've heard from a couple developer friends and read online that Microsoft has done some serious magic behind the up scaling abilities of the Xbox one.

This is from digital foundry;
“[T]he actual results on PS4 lack the corresponding level of crystal clarity we’d expect of such a significant resolution boost,” Thomas Morgan of Digital Foundry writes. “This should surely be a home run for Sony’s console, but what is likely to be a software-based upscale to 1080p delivers less-than-stellar returns, and for better or worse leaves the Xbox One with an often crisper looking, albeit much more aliased image.”
“What is curious is the level of ‘pop’ given to the Xbox One’s textures, where – bizarrely – artwork often seems to be more detailed than on PlayStation 4.”

clay113 says:

It's not just a game console though. It's an entertainment console. To keep saying you want it just for gaming, when stats show people use their Xbox and PS3 for a lot of media is being short sighted. From all the footage I see, the quality of Xbox One BF4 footage vs PS4 holds up quite well if not better on a lot of shots. You really have to be looking for a reason to gripe to tell me that at 60fps you are going to pick up every detail.

myjota says:

Ok i like skype in game or fast switch to tv!!!

myjota says:

But cof host can creat not 60 fps but 45 -50. Becouse our eyes dont see over 30fps!!

deluksic says:

You would be amazed how much of a difference is 30 and 60fps. Hell.. I can tell 50-60 difference. And no, your eyes work continously so there are no eye framerates. And finally, your eyes wont tell a difference between 24-60 if the image is still but as soon as it starts moving..

kb4000 says:

If you think you can't see more than 30fps you need to understand that this is not true in all cases. Read this article. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

bshu55 says:

So your gonna like to watch tv on your tv with your tv??? How does that make any sense?

DreadVenom says:

I say its year one and some devs like Turn10 have had more time than others i.e. Infinity Ward with the hardware so were able to get different results. That said, i think there is an element of laziness from some devs to really work the hardware and will jump at the easier option. That said, i cant understand what MS would have changed to lose the upper hand they gained with the 360.

Dave Bhullar says:

Wait, is it proven that extra features will be bringing down Xbox one's graphics? Is this a fact? I don't see the CoD developer mentioning it so where is this title coming from?

Reread my article and the source - it is stated that the limitations are due to the way the unit allocates system resources. Those resources are being used by other features of the console - multitasking, etc.

MacDaMachine says:

Even if it didn't have multitasking or snap or any of that, fact remains PS4 is 50% stronger. And CoD probably optimized that well.

GdgtFreek says:

PS4 is powerful but not 50 % more powerful. Compute unit performance does not scale linearly.

Bigsro says:

Xbox One is certainly not doomed. But, they have sacrificed power for functionality and flexibility. Its interesting the way the next gen platforms have panned out. For example, Mark Cerny has stated they toyed with using a similar architecture to the XB1, but decided against it. The PS4 is a pure gaming machine. They initially had only 4gb of RAM but doubled it very late in the dev cycle. I am slightly confused as to why MS didn't at least push for GDDR5 from the outset. Don't get me wrong I have an XB1 pre-ordered, but Sony have the upper hand in terms of gaming. Devs have to work around the obstacle of the fast but small ESRAM, when they have access to more resources out of the box with the PS4. As Rubin stated they aimed for 60fps and they achieved it. There is potential that textures and post processing could be 'better' on XB1 at a lower native resolution. Ryse is an amazing looking game, developed exclusively for XB1. Sony could try to add in features similar to the XB1 such as snapped apps, multitasking etc but would they be as effective? I doubt it...

Rubios says:

There is nothing more flexible about Xbox One.

Antluv82 says:

PS4 is not better than XBONE overall

Rubios says:

Define "better".

whiteSMURF says:

1bet·ter adjective \ˈbe-tər\ : higher in quality : more skillful : more attractive, appealing, effective, useful, etc. Full Definition of BETTER comparative of good 1: greater than half 2: improved in health or mental attitude 3: more attractive, favorable, or commendable 4: more advantageous or effective 5: improved in accuracy or performance

Rubios says:

You are wrong then, that does not apply.

Yeah, not like you can do more than gaming and simple web apps.. XBOX One is much more flexible. It may not be the gaming powerhouse many were hoping for, but it can do many more things than the PS4.

Not sure where you get that idea. The Xbox One is a multiple purpose machine with a dedicated gaming OS and a nearly Windows 8 OS that will likely run many of the existing Windows 8 Apps (no exact announcement yet, but the capabilities will likely be there in a future update).

JotaKa says:

No, allocation does not mean that it's being used. For example, Windows allocates memory for system cache, basically reserving the memory for future use. I suspect that the Xbox One is doing this, I.e. There is memory and CPU/GPU clock cycles that games are not allowed to use at this point to prevent scalability problems in the future. That is how the Xbox One will scale well for 10 years. Someone above mentioned offloading. If current Gen engines were simply ported to Xbox one, and not redeveloped to use Xbox one specific features, then they will never run at 1080P resolution or at 60 fps. Microsoft is forcing the developer to not just throw new hardware at a crappy old engine and expect great results.

Seems like it is more a problem of developers not knowing how to increase their game's resources from the system. Considering they are releasing the game for Xbox360 and PS3, using older code is preferable for multiple platforms, even more preferable than getting the resolution to 1080 on a yet to be released system.

Well some updates should improve that percentage somewhat but once they get everything downpack its gaming and nothing else

Joel Back says:

I read elsewhere that they were really weren't ready to dial in the performance this late in development when the upconversion was already doing such a good job.

NutmegState says:

The truth will alway lie someplace in the middle.  Microsoft may need some optimizations that it could not deliver on time, Infinity Ward may have its own issues.  Once the cat was out of the bag, everyone looks for a way to explain what is happening but nobody can or is willing to give up the real issue.

But, it causes a lot of hyperventaliting like on this site.

KickAssLumia says:

lol, where is the like button when you actually need it?

AlexC00L says:

In the future i see a "game mode" on xbox one then disable the multitasking system.

 

LOL

dbam987 says:

Maybe in the bear future they can utilize the Xbox One's cloud processing capability better to achieve the 60 frames per second @ the 1080p resolution. Limited development time could be a factor since they wanted it to be a launch title, considering its also going to be available for the 360 / PS3 systems as well. Targeting four platforms at the same time is a challenge, especially when two of them are brand new to the market.

bshu55 says:

The cloud cant be used to improve hardware its not capable of doing that. Thats the misconception of the cloud.

ChrisFricke says:

Not directly no - but if environmental and/or enemy AI calculations can be offloaded then the on system "screen action" processing might be light enough to up the screen resolution. Possibly. Maybe.

KickAssLumia says:

If only things were that simple!

ChrisFricke says:

Agreed. That's probably why launch titles are having to make comprimises. Everything is so new they can't just "turn the Titanic" and rearchitect the whole system to take advantage of the new Microsoft cloudy cloud. I would further guess that not many multiplatform titles will take full advantage of Microsoft's cloud based architecture due to the complexities of coding the different methods of computation (cloud vs local) on each gaming platform. Time will tell.

Either way this news doesn't bother me - I prefer Battlefield anyways. More than that I'm a firm believer that gameplay will trump graphics everytime. :)

Bloobed says:

Procedural content creation could likely be offloaded, everything else pretty much needs to be timed correctly, which is pretty much impossible since network lag usually varies between 20ms and 300ms.

bshu55 says:

I'm no fan boy of any system im just saying that the Xbox one Is a 50/50 system half gaming half entertainment thats why some of its games are struggling to get to 1080p while the PS4 is around 80/20 gaming and entertainment. Me personally I love gaming im not gonna use all those features that the X1 uses. But one of my friends told me that if your not a fan of any of the exclusives on X1 why get one. See im not a halo fan or forza fan I like multiplatform games like BF4 and madden so to me why pay more for a system thats just half for games.. Thats just my thought on it all..

ymcpa says:

The thing is that even though the PS4 is more for gaming, you will be hard pressed to tell teh difference in actual game play. Maybe toward the end of the consoles life, teh extra horsepower of teh PS4 will give it enough of an advantage that you will be able to see differences. However, for most of the console's life you won't be able to see the difference unless you freeze an image and look really close. Both console will give great gameplay. If I'm spending that kind of money on a game console, I will take the one that can be used for more than just game play.

bshu55 says:

I've been gaming since I was 12 im 24 now I've seen game from 007 golden eye to Pokemon to Killzone shadowfall. Telling someone that they cant see the frames per second maybe from 50-60 no but a true gamer can tell the difference between 30 and 60

MSkulker says:

"A: The Xbox One Operating System System"?

XeroJC2000 says:

What it should read is The Xbox One Operating System System System (Since there are 3 OS in the Box) LOL

freshfelicio says:

Microsoft should really have put enough hardware into the Xbox to handle all the features. I mean, 1080p @60 fps is standard now, but in 5-10 years maybe 4K @ 200 fps is standart. Microsoft really should have known this. Xbox One comes at a higher price, so you expect it to be more powerful, both in hardware and software.

bshu55 says:

If Microsoft didn't spend so much money on the Kinect they could have dropped the price by $100 and added better hardware but the downside of the X1 is that the CPU only runs at 1.75. Many phones now a days have better that

ymcpa says:

But their CPU is running faster than the PS4 CPU. What's your point.

NutmegState says:

While anything is possible, this will most likely not be feasible if you know anything about the cable TV and network infrastructure in the USA.  There are also a whole bunch of standards that are yet to be defined.  For example, what is 4K.  There are at least 4 different formats and even Hollywood does not want to play in the space yet.  And if it is possible, it will be available to just a handfull of people who can pay for the bandwidth because carriers can barely handle HD.

Will it be eventually available, sure but not within the PS4/XBox One generation of consoles

People are complaining about $60 games, to make 4K games will take a lot more time, effort and resources just to manage all the media files.  We are far from 4K games

The XBox One Hardware has plenty to handle all the features.  Just like many other things digital, they may need to make a tweak to optimize it, or Infinity ward has its own inefficiencies that are easy to pass off as a Micorosft issue to get them to change versus them making a change to their engine.

Rubios says:

1080@60fps was the standard years ago, people are starting to move towards 1600p now and 4K soon™.

 

I played Half Life at a higher resolution back in 1998... is pretty sad.

kullkid92x says:

Mr Rubios it sounds like YOU are still stuck in 1998 lol

The Xbox can handle 1080p just fine, it will take some time for developers to optimize their code to run at 1080p and still maintain 60fps (for these type of games) cause I know Forza is already optimized at 1080p. But that all it is, just time and code optimization.

Anywho as I was saying, you cant think of this console war in a one year span, you need to see further, think ahead to 2016... you think Microsoft put years of research into the XOne to try and play toe to toe with Sony? no man they're thinking years ahead.

Let me ask you this, when so and so finds out that their friends Xbox can do so much more than their PS4 what happens then? you have to think like a consumer and not just a gamer. When kids see that their friend starts talking to their xbox and starts doing all this multitasking nonsense and they have all these apps snapped in place and this or that, Sony will be playing catchup in two years. Trust me, consumers want more and more out of their tech (tech is spreading so fast) we'll see in two years who's grabbing the most attention, PS4 with their core focus on gaming or Microsoft with their core focus on Gaming, Media, Multitasking, and family time in the living room...

Rubios says:

Let me ask you this, when so and so finds out that their friends Xbox can do so much more than their PS4 what happens then?

They go buy an iPad or Android tablet.

Bigsro says:

Agree, MS should have really gone all out specs/hardware wise. But...playing devils advocate, they will be making a profit on each one sold. I'm not sure if Sony will be.

bshu55 says:

Microsoft deff is not makin a profit for at least 3 years..

Bloobed says:

You need 16-20 times more resources for 4k vs 1080p, rendering the same content.

Ticomfreak says:

That doesn't even make any sense, Xbox OS is lighter than PS's.

It would take 5 minutes to make it in 1080p, just automatically downscale when CPU usage is high...

bshu55 says:

Their CPU and ram can handle it. Running at 1.75 the cpu isn't fast enough

joeynox says:

The Xbox is running 3 os's 10% of the gpu is used just for the os/kinect . So an underpowered gpu is now being cut 10% more.

Ticomfreak says:

Or perhaps, the game was written really shitty...

*cough* ANY LAUNCH GAME ON ANY PLATFORM *cough*

Rubios says:

the game was written really shitty...

And yet it renders at 1080p just fine on PS4.

Ticomfreak says:

Have you never seen a bad port?

Obviously Xbox One can handle 1080p, 60FPS fine. Just look at Forza.

Rubios says:

port

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

Just look at Forza

Just look at a glorified current gen game running at 1080p? That's pretty disappointing.

I rather look at Project Cars or Driveclub, which are miles ahead of Forza 5 from a graphics perspective.

Rubios says:

Xbox OS is lighter than PS's.

*Citation needed.

Rubios says:

How does reserved RAM indicate OS footprint?

You can have a 50MB OS and reserve 12GB for aplications, in fact the original split was 3,5Gb for games and 500MB for the OS (back when Guerrilla was developing Killzone SF for a 4GB PS4).

Ticomfreak says:

Because all other RAM space is used up by apps.

Maybe you should look into a basic Computer Science course, you'd be surprised.

Rubios says:

Because all other RAM space is used up by apps.

*Citacion needed, again.

That RAM is reserved, not necessarily used.

Ticomfreak says:

"That RAM is reserved, not necessarily used."

Exactly. Meaning programs on Xbox One have more freedom than on the PS4.

...Meaning this whole article is bullshit.

Seems to be the trend.

Bloobed says:

RAM isn't the only resource, taking up more RAM could release CPU-cycles for example.

Rubios says:

You are obsessed with the RAM amount when in fact it is least important aspect of a gaming system (just look at Sony, they were going for 4GB and Killzone Shadow Fall was pretty much the same).

 

GPU and its memory bandwidth are the two thing that matter most at this point, arguing that 500MB of RAM allocation are a important difference when talking about a system with a budget GPU and a glorified tablet CPU is hilarious, it could have 32GB of RAM, would still be a weak poorly designed (and rushed) piece of hardware.

 

 

Ticomfreak says:

Not necessarily.

But what's funny is you say the Xbox One was rushed, and underpowered. So is the PS4, they are IDENTICAL. If you're in a spec race, you'd never get a console...

Pages