Top
930°

Performance Analysis: Diablo 3 at 1080p on Xbox One

EG :

"We were hoping to bring you a full Face-Off for Diablo 3 on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 in time for today's launch, but the definitive word on Blizzard's latest console release will have to wait owing to game-changing day one patches deployed for both consoles.

As promised, Xbox One sees a boost to resolution from 900p to full 1080p, while updates for both systems address a bizarre dual frame-rate bug we uncovered last week that the developer has pledged to fix."

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
The story is too old to be commented.
GarrusVakarian1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

" That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p."

Ummm, what? MS told them to get to 1080p, even helped them get to it...at the expense of framerate? I mean, it's not a huge drop in framerate by any means, but still surprising to see resolution prioritized over framerate at the behest of MS, especially seeing as Phil himself said that framerate is significantly more important than resolution to him.

They should include a "pre-patch" option in the menu for people who would rather have the rock-solid 60fps at 900p, imo.

Either way, I'm happy to see the PS4's render-side stuttering fixed. Hopefully I'll be buying this soon, been waiting ages for it.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

It's not surprising, it's just unfortunate. But apparently, the internet criticism certainly makes it seem like we gamers value arbitrary performance specs over the overall quality of the experience...

If a person only owns an xbox one, surely looking at sub1080p upscaled image isn't going to make their eyes bleed. And surely they wouldn't be be playing Diablo on their xb1 in envy of some superior version, it's not like they'd have a 1080p version to compare it to WHILE they are playing.

I think Microsoft would be better off making sure games run well on their platform instead of trying to check the same boxes as the ps4. The folks still harping about resolution gate probably wouldn't buy an xb1 anyway.

GarrusVakarian1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I think it is surprising, seeing as the head of Xbox himself said that framerate is more important than resolution.

"If a person only owns an xbox one, surely looking at sub1080p upscaled image isn't going to make their eyes bleed. And surely they wouldn't be be playing Diablo on their xb1 in envy of some superior version, it's not like they'd have a 1080p version to compare it to WHILE they are playing. "

Agreed. Which is why I think MS should implement an option to go with the stable 60fps at 900p.

"I think Microsoft would be better off making sure games run well on their platform instead of trying to check the same boxes as the ps4. "

Agreed completely.

Enemy1191d ago

So they fixed it on PS4, which now does 1080/60. They should have just kept it 900p on Xbone to help the frame rate. Too bad.

Septic1191d ago

@Lukas

"I think it is surprising, seeing as the head of Xbox himself said that framerate is more important than resolution. "

Exactly. It goes to show how MS are letting themselves get bullied by the politics of this whole resolution affair.

"I think Microsoft would be better off making sure games run well on their platform instead of trying to check the same boxes as the ps4."

Well said. They'll be playing catch up the whole time if they don't change that mindset.

darthv721191d ago

So what i would like to know is will the performance improve if you arent running the game at 1080p? I have a 42" plasma that is native 720p and i play the 360 and ps3 and wiiu at 720p. Sure i may not be getting the most from the games in regards to the resolution but its what my TV supports.

In saying that, do the newer systems adjust to the drop in output res by stabilizing the frame rate like PC's can do?

And before anyone asks...yes i have a 1080p LCD but i dont game on that because i like the rich colors and deep black of the plasma display.

thrust1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

So dropping 6fps is bad now if you get 1080p

dantesparda1191d ago

And the MS fanboys claimed that Sony is pushing 1080p on devs, when instead its MS who is pushing 1080p on devs. Oh the irony!

Finalfantasykid1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@thrust If it is not a stable 30 or 60 fps then you will typically see judder (or screen tearing if not vsync'd), so that 6-10 fps will be noticeable.

Death1191d ago

@Darth,

No, the framerate will be the same regardless what resolution you are playing at. The upscaling/downscaling is done differently than your PC when changing the output resolution.

4Sh0w1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I watched the whole vid and its 60fps the vast majority throughout this gameplay vid with at most 5-6 framerate drops out of the 12,000 frames of footage they say themselves they nitpicked by hand, wow really???...pfft are we really that concerned??? No one can honestly watch that vid and see any performance issues. Also why wouldn't micro encourage them to up the res when they know they had the code fix that would make this game run so easily at 1080p? They said devs have the freedom to pick and choose res, fps etc depending on the game when it makes sense for the game type, that's not contradictory to their actions here of still seeking to improve games coming to their platform. If any dev is open to help it's good business to help them and it will pay off in their future games too.

What's funny is when you I looked at the old 900p version screenshots compared to the 1080p ones I really dont see a difference, hell even Eurogamers says it's barely noticeable. I'm getting this game today, I never played a Diablo game before but from what I'm hearing this console version is well worth it.

user3672721191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@4Show

I watched the video myself and yup..the framerate drop is so minor out of the 12000 plus frame that it is a non issue. I already have the PC version and wouldn't be buying it but it is good that xb1 players will be getting a 1080p port that runs at 60fps 99% of the time and drop at most 6fps.

LeCreuset1191d ago

"But apparently, the internet criticism certainly makes it seem like we gamers value arbitrary performance specs over the overall quality of the experience... "

I would argue that it's the (intentional?) failure, of certain staunch defenders among MS, the Xbox fanbase and the media, to recognize the substance of that criticism that has led us here.

It may seem hard to believe, now, but there were (not too long ago given the age of the consoles) legitimate questions about how the next gen systems performed in comparison to one another. What's at the crux of the argument isn't resolution and frame-rate. Those are just convenient and readily available barometers which help us measure PERFORMANCE.

Making excessive sacrifices to a game's performance in order to check off the "we can do 1080p too" box is akin to slapping a fresh coat of paint on a rusty boat. MS knows this, as they were quick to emphasize game-play over resolution in response to resolution-gate, pretending to be oblivious to the application of that defense to an argument over multi-platform games with no difference in game-play. Refusing to just concede to being less powerful than the PS4, MS continues this illusion of being on par, even at the cost of the game-play they not too long ago told us was most important.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@LeCreuset

That's pretty much BS. Are you suggesting that a concession from Microsoft that Sony's hardware is graphically superior would have allowed us to avoid a situation where Microsoft is trying to appease detractors? If anything it would lead to them sell fewer consoles.naturally, they'd downplay the issue, and focus on the things they do well.

Do you really think that admitting it would have helped in any way? Can you give any example that where another company publicly states that their rivals product is better at anything? Nintendo won't even admit that the WiiU is less powerful... EVEN THEY now tout the performance specs of their games, despite the fact that they aren't graphically intensive by today's standards.

How silly is it to expect a company to admit inferiority. This is a business. If you ask Mcdonald's they'll tell you their beef tastes better than anything you can get anywhere.

guitarded771191d ago

We should know by now that PR speak is just a wash of BS.

LeCreuset1191d ago

mhunterjr

If you're going to declare something to be BS, the least you can do is take the time to make your case why that is, instead of just replying with a bunch of questions, the same way I made my case, whether you agreed with it or not. Regardless:

"Are you suggesting that a concession from Microsoft that Sony's hardware is graphically superior would have allowed us to avoid a situation where Microsoft is trying to appease detractors?"

I am telling you that it is MS' staunch unwillingness to just give up that point, specifically their attempts to falsely characterize the criticism as being about pixel counting rather than performance difference (the former being a measure of the latter), that has created the perception that it is all about checking off a 1080p box, which they now find themselves having to do.

"How silly is it to expect a company to admit inferiority."

There's a difference between quietly conceding a point, choosing to focus on strong-points (as Ninty does) and having officials go onto websites and before the media to deceive people about performance disparities, then making up/allowing crap about secret sauces like the cloud (3x Xbox FTW!) giving a performance boost that will allow the Xbox to match or exceed the PS4 (as MS did).

donthate1191d ago

I think what is ironic, is the fact that nobody complained about a bug in the PS4 version, because the vast majority didn't notice that the characters were closer to 40 fps.

All of a sudden a 6 fps drop on a 60 fps game is like disaster. I remember when games used to run at 30 fps with drops, now that was a bad experience.

In fact, I bet no one here will be able to tell when the game dropped those 6 fps without analysis!

Hand picking through 12,000 plus frame to find something is almost the definition of grasping at straws.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@LeCreuset

You and I both know that there is no such thing as a quiet concession. This is the internet. Look at the hoopla we have here over 6-8 frames dropped per 12000 grams.

Imagine if the headline was 'Microsoft admits PS4 is stronger'. How would they ever sell anything? Instead they attempted to deflect the situation... It's what any business would do in a similar situation. You should know this, THAT'S why I called your comment BS, because it is. What you suggest they should have done is simply unfathomable.

It was also BS to imply that MS 'Made excessive sacrifices' to achieve 1080p, when all that was lost was 6-8 frames...rarely.

There was no deception, only deflection. They dispelled secret sauce rumors anytime they were asked about them. And as far as the cloud is considered, we know that they and third parties are working on products that use cloud processing to handle tasks that are normally handled locally. You'll have to wait and see what they deliver before writing it off. If they didn't feel it would make a difference, they wouldn't have invested in it.

Dir_en_grey1191d ago

1080p is easier to market. MS does this so they can say they've got a 1080p game running at 60fps. MS is all about the marketing, and people fall for it. It's a sad thing people keep on falling for their BS marketing, but it's also why they are so big.

ThanatosDMC1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Seems like a lot of effects are missing on the video compared to when i played it on the PC a year or so ago. Also, it's stable 1080p 60fps. Little to no dip.

PONTIAC08G8GT1191d ago

Ive been playing all day on the X1, no notice of frame rate drops or anything. Looks gorgeous and is playing perfect.

LeCreuset1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

mhunter

"THAT'S why I called your comment BS, because it is. What you suggest they should have done is simply unfathomable."

Stop right there. Let's not go confusing what you are falsely claiming I suggested with what I said.

"You and I both know that there is no such thing as a quiet concession."

Again, stop. That's your position, not mine. I already provided you an example of such a case in Nintendo. They didn't declare the Wii and Wii U to be weaker, but they didn't try to deny it or put out a bunch of PR nonsense contrary to the reality.

"There was no deception, only deflection."

Deflection is changing the subject, as Nintendo does, whenever the issue comes up. Deception is what MS engaged in.

"They dispelled secret sauce rumors anytime they were asked about them."

No they haven't. The closest is Spencer admitting, months after DX12 hype was allowed to swell, that it wouldn't be a game changer for Xbox. In some cases, they're directly responsible for producing the hype. Case in point, how you're still buying into the cloud:

"And as far as the cloud is considered, we know that they and third parties are working on products that use cloud processing to handle tasks that are normally handled locally. You'll have to wait and see what they deliver before writing it off."

We'll have to wait and see. Just like with the multiplats leading up to launch. Just like with the multiplats that came after launch. Just like with the hidden gpu we had to wait for the NDA to expire for. Just like with DX12. That's the answer to any logical argument against the next big, game-changing hype for Xbox. How about instead of waiting to reign in the hype, the MS camp waits until these things change the game before letting the hype run wild?

Fix your BS detector. It's broken.

MarkusMcNugen1191d ago

Websites like this and the gamers that inhabit them are the majority of the problem. Everyone was complaining about resolution, especially fanboys. Rather than judging the games based on fun factor everyone decided specs and resolution mattered. Plenty of the fanboys made it a recurring theme.

Just enjoy the games and the consoles you like. If framerate and resolution were the end all be all of video games than everyone would have a gaming PC.

Frankly, I'm not sure I understand the gaming community anymore. Everyone is cool with the phone industry and their $800 flagship devices but how dare a console be over $400-500...

mixolydian_id1190d ago

50 to 60fps isn't so bad.

The game looks great and appears to be a lot of fun.

1080p isn't an issue... but it is a bonus.

Just what effect causes the frame drops though? Are they worse with specific characters?

The fact all these developers have to get MS involved with optimisation just shows that the dev's are struggling streamlining their products.

Next time round, the MS aid won't be needed.

Same for Tomb Raider... Say MS assist Square Enix with the development of the game for their console release...
there will then be a handful of dev's trained in optimisation for all future SE titles.

An interesting prospect to say the least!

Mr Pumblechook1190d ago (Edited 1190d ago )

So now the Xbox One version has 1080p resolution at the expense of performance. Phil Spencer said in an interview it was important to have 1080p so the Xbone can be perceived by gamers to have equal power to the PS4.

However pushing for 1080p on Xbone has come at the expense of performance. Phil Spencer also pushed Bungie to make the final version of Destiny in 1080p but this will also impact performance. Instead of pushing developers to hit a number Phil Spencer should allow them to make the game they want so it performs best. Otherwise Xbone owners will be stuck with 1080p games that have frame-rate issues and chug along. Lets the developers decide.

Digital Foundry said "there are now performance issues that creep in at the game's extremes while at 1080p. They're not game-breaking, and many players may not even notice - but it's clear that a 44 per cent boost to resolution doesn't come for free: in the same scenarios, the 900p version proved smoother."

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
mhunterjr1191d ago

Well, I think what he said was frame rate is more important TO HIM. But he is tasked with selling the console to people other than himself, and other than those who have bought it already...

I'm not SURPRISED that they've come to the conclusion that hitting 1080p, potentially at the detriment of performance would be better for business, based on the the way conversations about the matter have been playing out and on sales data. I just think it sucks that they've come to that conclusion.

Manic20141191d ago

Seems to me the Resolution Gate put pressure on MS, Agreed it would of been much better if they just kept it at 900p with a steady or locked framerate.

Death1191d ago

At 900p, the game would still be output at 1080p when it hit the tv. Framerate should take priority over native resolution, but some gamers are more vocal than others when it comes to what they feel is important. Since the start of this gen Microsoft has had a bad habit of listening to those that have no intent on buying their console.

Manic20141191d ago

Exactly and the difference would be very very small from 1080p. MS should've just let it be.

Software_Lover1191d ago

It's all about headlines this gen. I agree with you, keep it 900p and 60, but we all know how HEADLINES work here at N4G. I fear this isn't gonna be the first and only game that sacrifices frame rate to get the resolution-gate up to par.

GarrusVakarian1191d ago

"I fear this isn't gonna be the first and only game that sacrifices frame rate to get the resolution-gate up to par."

Yup. I can it see happening a lot more, unfortunately.

Letthewookiewin1191d ago

Destiny. It hit 1080p on X1 but there will be hits to frame rate

TheDrunkenJester1191d ago

Watching the video the game is doing fine. Only in the beginning did it fall a little. At around 3 minutes there are easily 20 skeletons on screen attacking and it doesn't even dip once. Not worried at all, as long as it doesn't dip to 30 or under it will be fine.

BG115791191d ago

It's just a pity that that just before that there is a frame drop of 6-8 frames just because of two trees falling down...And the most enemies accounted for in screen in all the video is only 10.

TheDrunkenJester1191d ago

BG11579*

Really? Because if you pause it at 2:54/2:55 there are easily 20 skeletons... Pity you can't count.

BG115791191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@TheDrukenJester, You're right. The player killed them so fast, I didn't count them. My bad.

Samsara821191d ago

trolls will complain that there is a MAJOR frame rate drop...When they are a lot of ennemies on screen, I've seen even better PC drop in frame rate....and its actually very surprising that its mostly at 60 and with a screen full of ennemies only gets around 50-55 ..

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1191d ago
SilentNegotiator1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

So resolution is super important to Microsoft now? Even at the cost of performance?

Is there ANYTHING AT ALL that Microsoft isn't going to 180 on this gen?

Cueil1191d ago

the performance dips are within reason... it's not an FPS I don't think you'll notice it at all... if it were to drop into the low 40s that could cause issues, but seems to be rather limited and stays over 50

SilentNegotiator1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

It doesn't matter; the developers made the decision to lower the resolution for perfect performance and MS came along and pressured them to change it to the higher resolution, determined enough to help with it.

MS has been telling us over and over and over that resolution isn't important and their actions say otherwise; pressuring Blizzard, cutting back on Forza visuals, etc. They wouldn't do all of these things if what their PR department has been telling us wasn't BS.

1191d ago
SilentNegotiator1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

No, actually I'm not doing that at all.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "resolution doesn't matter" Microsoft coming down on Blizzard for having their game at 900p.

Note that he doesn't say "And Microsoft was just like, 'This could be better. Let us help you achieve 1080p.'", but instead said "And Microsoft was just like, 'This is UNACCEPTABLE. YOU NEED TO figure out a way to get a better resolution.'"

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1191d ago
Animal Mutha 761191d ago

I'm also very surprised by that. To suggest that MS had pushed for 1080p. Strange indeed and counter to their PR about smooth gameplay.

I hope this isn't a trend where MS are trying to match PS4 'advantages' behind closed doors, yet say something else to the public.

MS should stick to their guns and play to the strengths of their system 900p and smooth 60fps is still a good place to be.

carlosjrix1191d ago

Are you complaining gettin a 1080 60 fps (dips to 50) patch from a 900 60 fps locked.. wtf?
would you like last of us 900p with a locked 60 fps?..

Letthewookiewin1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Just wait until the games are actually demanding and Msoft demands they make it 1080p and the devs say " sorry can't do it but we can do it on PS4" MS is damage controlling and it's not going to end up well for them, this kind of behavior will be seen by more than just the hardcore community eventually. Kojima straight said screw you, your system can't hit 1080p I'm making it 720p because frame rate is more important and he's right to feel that way. Blizzard should have kept it at 900p and had a perfect frame rate.

Malphite1191d ago

I think going for 1080p at 50-60fps is definately the better option in this specific case. Diablo isn't exactly the game that requires super fast reactions. At 60 fps you have about 16.7ms/frame. At 50 fps it's 20ms/f. So the difference is just above 3 ms in cases where the framerate drops to 50fps which is rarely the case. That's pretty much irrelevant especially to a game like Diablo 3.

I think this whole topic about resolution and framerates became much to big. It's used to market games nowadays and it sadly works. People like to talk about framerates and the improvements in gameplay without knowing that the latency of their controllers and TVs is much more important in most cases.

Ghost_Nappa1190d ago

Um, no. There is a huge visual difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Malphite1190d ago

@Ghost Nappa: Congratulations on not reading my comment. Where have I said that there is no difference between 30fps and 60fps? I can tell you exactly what the difference is. 60fps means lower latency and therefore faster response. Your answer tells me that you care about the fluid animations at higher framerates more than for higher response times.

Still going for 1080p at 50-60fps gives you 3.3ms more latency when the framerate drops. In comparison going for 1080p at 30fps (since you mentioned 30fps for some reason) would give you 16.7ms more latency. That's a noticable difference for some genres.

But the point I was trying to make was: Everyone suddenly seems to care about framerates and resolutions so much yet barely anyone knows the latency distance of his/her TV or input devices or the optimal viewing distance to the TV which is very important.

You can effectively eliminate all the benefits of higher resolution by sitting too far away from your TV (that may be the case for a lot of people that claim to see no difference between 720p and 900p/1080p).

Alsybub1190d ago (Edited 1190d ago )

I've brought up the issue of latency in screens before. People just seem to think that the image goes from their console to the screen instantly.

You need to take the latency of the screen processing the image and, if you have an LCD or LED screen' there may also be considerable pixel lag in to account too and this is different for every model and manufacturer.

If you run your console through an AV receiver then this will increase latency.

Another thing is image calibration. I wonder how many people actually have this set correctly. I'm going to guess very few.

1191d ago Replies(1)
Back-to-Back1191d ago

Confirmed xbox one cannot run a 2 year old game at a consistent 1080/60fps. Really sad considering diablo 3 requires very low specs to max.

kingjames181191d ago

Hows the food troll? You lapping up those 6fps drops like caramel flavored ice cream aren't ya?

Everyone hammering on this issue is really stupid. Most games even ones that are supposed "Locked" at 60/30fps will have random dips. Issues from memory leakage to problems in the code to who knows what else can cause framerate hiccups. I really want to see all of you bitching about such a small framerate drop say the same thing for the PS4 version. Because I can guarantee you that it isn't 100% locked in at 60fps with no dips.

jc121191d ago

i dont really see why the X1 would have trouble getting this game to run at 1080p/60fps. Honestly, the graphics aren't really that good; They definitely don't look "next-gen."

Evilsnuggle1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I love the Microsoft defense league it only 6fps or 1080P doesn't matter. Lol

Diablo 3 and every multi platform game will be not judge on it's own frame rates or resolution. No it will be judged on it's frame rates and resolution vs The PS4 frame rates.

We all know Microsoft is doing double talk. Phil Spencer will say frame rates are more important than resolution. But we all know Microsoft will push for 1080P or parity at any and all costs.

Why because every article and website that state that PS4 has higher resolution than X1. Is just more proof that PS4 is just more powerful than X1. That's the more hard fact that PS4 is more powerful than X1. It makes it harder for Microsoft to to deceive the customer that X1 is as powerful as the PS4.

Most xbox fan boys deny the fact that not only does the PS4 have higher resolution on the last majority of 3rd party multi platform game. Most xbox fan boys only acknowledge that PS4 has higher resolution they totally ignore the fact that PS4 also has higher frame rates or improved stability or a higher average of frame rates than X1. PS4 has consistently out preformed X1 in the ability to run game better AA, better stability in frame rates , better Shadows and lighting in most 3rd party multi platform game.

Destiny will be no different the PS4 version will also preform better than the X1 version . Just getting to 1080P will have negative impact on the X1 version . It Would better serve the X1 gamers if Microsoft did not pushing for 1080P. PS4 will have the superior version when a developer is pushing the hardware because PS4 is the vastly superior hardware. Xbone fan boys can fantastic that 50% more GPU cores is insignificant . But that is far from the truth it's about 30% real world preformance by digitalfoundry benchmark of PS4 GPU vs X 1 GPU. That's doesn't take in account the huge advantage that PS4 has in it's 8 G of GDRR5 unified memory system vs the disadvantage of only 8G of slower DDR3 and 32 megs of Esram. Also PS4 huge advantage of 8 ACE' s vs X1 2 ACE's a advantage of 400% PS4. Asynchronous Compute Engines is PS4 real "secret sauce" vs X1 first party development.

BlackWolf121191d ago

It's unfortunate that Microsoft dictated to the developer like that. Very unfortunate.

But I don't blame them for saying it is unacceptable. After playing D3 on PS4 I can safely say that anything below 1080p wouldn't have looked very good.

lawgone1191d ago

Did you watch the video? Any drop in frame rate is imperceptible to the human eye. Besides, it was at 60fps most of the time with occasional, very short lived drops to 54fps and up. (Most drops hovered around 58fps.) It would be impossible to notice while playing it. I just watched the 1440p version on YouTube and tried to look for it and couldn't see any difference.

sonarus1190d ago

Microsoft needs to break perception that they are weaker than ps3 or drop their price. Its really that simple. Nobody wants to pay more for less. They will continue to push claims of 1080p and 60fps to keep up with sony. Xbox gamers unfortunately will be subjected to inferior quality maybe not all the time but at the very least some of the time and based on what we have seen so far most of the time.

Xbox owners should stand by their original claim that they don't care about graphics. Communicate this to microsoft and maybe they will stop pushing arbitrary numbers at the expense of performance.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
Kayant1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

"We did find it challenging early on to get it to 1080p. That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p." - Wait a second here haven't MS execs being like play the game not res and only recently Phil saying framerate being more important than res. That PR.

GarrusVakarian1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

"That PR."

That's exactly what it is, just PR BS. They've managed to convince some of their fans that resolution is overrated, yet they themselves don't even believe it, and are clearly willing to sacrifice playability in favour of it.

Thing is, I doubt most X1 gamers on this site, and most X1 gamers in general, wouldn't have even cared about it being 900p. So MS's "help" is ironic. I hope they don't intervene with other games and pressure the devs to make sacrifices just to hit 1080p. Especially the exclusives, because they're the ones I'll be buying.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

PR is overly used as a derogatory term. You are right that X1 gamers probably wouldn't have cared to play the game at 900p. And you are right that previously they've downplayed the importance of native resolution (which is exactly what anyone of us would do if our hardware consistently operated at a lower native resolution).

But the decision to push for more 1080p games on x1 doesn't mean that they don't don't believe in their own stance on resolution. it's simply a recognition that millions of potential customers disagree with that stance...

The customer is always right. So the PR BS that you refer to is actually an attempt at flexibility. If they had felt resolution was so important all along, they would have included hardware that made higher resolutions more easily obtainable.

GarrusVakarian1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@mhunterjr

"So the PR BS that you refer to is actually an attempt at flexibility"

I disagree. Phil said that framerate is significantly more important than resolution five days ago at Gamescom, and MS have made numerous comments about gameplay being more important than resolution in the past. I don't see the most controversial aspect of this generation so far being flexible in terms of their stance on it.

They've made it pretty clear to their fans that resolution isn't the be all and end all , and now to see them actively push for it, at the expense of framerate (even thought it's not a huge sacrifice), is a little slap in the face of everything they have said over the past year in regards to framerate and resolution.

darthv721191d ago

They could have gone for 960p as a trade off to keep the fps solid while improving the res.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@Lukas_Japonicus

A slap in the face? Really? The loss of 6-8 frames out of 12000 or so is offensive?

It was a compromise, and one that I disagree with out of principle. But to say this is anything other than an attempt to deliver what people are appear to be expecting, is sensationalist REACHING.

If the game was 1080p, but suffered from frequent stutter, I'd say it was a slap in the face...If the game was 1080p but the image quality took a dive when compared to the 900p build, I'd say it was a slap in the face... If the locked frame rate was significantly reduced, it would be a slap in the face...But here, you have a situation where the ideal resolution was reached, AND the ideal frame rate is maintained MOST OF THE TIME. It was simply a minor compromise. MS has one stance, the market has another, and they met somewhere in between. And to be honest, when looking at the end result here, they didn't stray far from their own stance.

LeCreuset1191d ago

"... most X1 gamers... wouldn't have even cared about it being 900p"

I'll do you one better, I doubt most gamers care about "Resolution-gate," beyond using resolution and frame-rate as barometers to measure and distinguish performance among the next-gen systems.

This whole thing started with COD: Ghosts, no one's nomination for best looking next gen game. It was less about graphics than performance and maximizing consumers' bang for their buck. Yes, if there are two copies of a product where one is in any way superior to the otherwise identical copy, the smart choice is to go with the superior one, unless the inferior is cheaper, but that's not why this became the scandal it has. MS willfully deceived fans about the performance difference between the consoles, resulting in the truth having to be shoved in their faces. Those differences in console performance are a point they still refuse to entirely concede.

MS' response to the evidence of the disparity — the collective of multiplat performance differences known as "Resolution-gate" — was to shift from implying that those calling out the disparity were liars to painting them as graphics snobs more concerned about counting pixels than playing games.

Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of performance differences and conceding the point, MS and their defenders played the refs (to use a sports analogy), whining about their critics to the point that the media repeated their false characterization of the criticism as being about resolution, when really it was about performance.

MS intentionally created this perception that the issue has been about simply checking off the 1080p box, at all costs. Now, they're having to meet the conditions of the reality they created.

n4rc1190d ago

Well.. It IS overrated.. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. Mostly from an image point of view, but still.. Its something they'd rather not have to explain to people obviously.

Saying framerate is more important then resolution isnt "PR bs", its fact.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
BallsEye1191d ago

Game runs almost flawlessly in 60 fps, occasionally dropping few frames when it get's too busy on screen. Is going 900p worth getting those 5-9 extra frames in occasional situations? Come on....

I guess phil meant something like 60fps 900p vs 30fps 1080p. This is clearly not the case and you know it.

candoa1191d ago

Yeah this Sony fan boys are acting like occasionally 2-5 drops in rare occasion is the end of the world, clearly they're upset that the xbox one is not 900p that is the real true. Tomb Raider was all over the in the ps4 and infamous was even worse, i guess accordign to the logic those games should have being 900p.

MRMagoo1231191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I'm guessing you guys haven't played it before because if the game drops 6 frames when you only have 20 mobs on screen it'll be far worse when you do a rift and there are 100 mobs at once as you stutter down to 40 or something.

imt5581191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Will Xbone owners for framerate drops say similar like Microsoft for resolution : "This is unacceptable"?

Well, i think that 4-8 fps framerate drops from 60fps is seamlessly to most gamers during game session.

I'm surprised that Microsoft forced Blizzard to make that game to 1080p on Xbone instead to keep framerate steady. Didn't Phil Spencer said a few days ago - framerate over resolution?