Spencer: Diablo III 1080p on Xbox One was a "Good Partnership;" Won't Dictate Frame Rate/Resolution

It’s pretty funny to see how things work in the gaming industry. When people don’t have something, they often demand it. When they get it, they still find room for criticism. Microsoft has been target of a lot of flak for the fact that many Xbox One games didn’t reach a 1080p resolution, and now that Diablo III has touched that “magic number” on Microsoft’s new console, some are criticizing the company for somehow “forcing” Blizzard to do it.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GarrusVakarian1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

"and now that Diablo III has touched that “magic number” on Microsoft’s new console, some are criticizing the company for somehow “forcing” Blizzard to do it"

I don't think it;s as black and white as that, there's a key peice of info that's been left out there: the fact that they "forced" them to do it *at the expense of framerate*. Resolution should NEVER be prioritized over framerate.

On the one hand Phil is saying he didn't force them, and that it should be up to the devs to determine resolution. And on the other we have Blizzard saying that MS said it was "unacceptable" to run below 1080p. What gives? Blizzard were clearly fine with running the game at 900p @ a solid 60fps, until MS told them it was unacceptable, which completely contradicts what Phil is saying here.

Abriael1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

"Resolution should NEVER be prioritized over framerate."

Sorry but... says who?

That's very subjective. There are plenty games in which higher detail provides a better experience than 60 fps, and a not exactly super-fast paced RPG like Diablo III is IMHO one of those cases.

Absolute statements like "Resolution should NEVER be prioritized over framerate" are pretty ridiculous. Who ever decided that frame rate is the most important element in game design now?

As a PC gamer, there are plenty cases in which I prioritize resolution and detail over frame rate. Playing a game like Star Citizen, I'll definitely ramp the detail all the way up, and take some occasional frame rate drops, because the game is rather slow paced, but the graphics at top detail are simply amazing, and it'd be a pity not to enjoy them.

4logpc1372d ago

Using Star Citizen as an example is a poor choice considering there really isnt much of a "game" there yet.

Resolution does not really affect the way a game plays like a frame rate does. You can have a game run at 4K but if it runs at 6 FPS, then its doesn't matter because its unplayable.

Abriael1372d ago

@4logpc: and that's where you're wrong. Star Citizen has already been partly released in the form of Arena Commander. There's plenty of a game there. I can play dogfights, and it's a lot of fun.

Of course I won't sacrifice framerate down to unplayable levels, but for a game like that, as long as it's over 30, I'll go for visual glitz all the way.

Army_of_Darkness1372d ago

Seeing how Diablo 3 running at 1080p @60fps with minor frame dips here and there is pretty impressive for the xbone in my opinion.
No one is gonna notice 4-6 frame drops now and then while playing, lets be realistic here.

Mr Pumblechook1372d ago

Phil Spencer has gone on record as saying he went to see his friends at Bungie to make sure they could upgrade Destiny on Xbone to 1080p. So Phil Spencer might not be holding a gun up to their head but he has pressured them. This is now proof of TWO times Spencer has visited two studios and asked/pressured/demanded 1080p.

4Sh0w1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

"Resolution should NEVER be prioritized over framerate."

-As if in this case resolution was sacrificed. Oh please watch the vid the game runs a pretty damm solid 60fps with only minor dips, I'd suspect 12,000 frames of scrutinized ps4 would see a minor dip here and there as well. You really seem to be overdramitizing this situation. Last gen even at 30fps games had larger dips and nobody cared unless it affected gameplay. Also given Diablo 3 game type 60 fps isn't even a necessity here, just a luxury.

mikeslemonade1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

People did care last gen^ They just didn't have a choice.

Their were plenty of resolution comparisons last gen. Most famously COD and all those multiplats running better on the 360. Only when it's the flip side this gen, and people don't like being on the losing end.

Frames over Resolution! You need 60 frames before you try to max out on your resolution. I was switching from 60 to 30 playing Last of Us Remaster and it's a substantial difference.

Lastly, Microsoft needs to stop chasing resolution. Problem is they're trying to sell a weaker system at a higher price. X1 should be $349.99. And they're starting to do that with the holiday bundles. I will be getting the white Sunset OD bundle.

4Sh0w1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

NO they should chase both, if they have the ability to improve performance on either side without affecting gameplay I say go for it. Folks cared plenty last gen when there were reasonable meaningful differences which btw were very rare but yes last gen fanboys on both sides always try to make those small differences more significant than they were, clearly this gen is just much worst not because anyone's on the other side, but because the gaming community is growing more self entitled, more prone to attack devs and anyone with a different opinion and overall more venomous in general.

So the REAL QUESTION is why do you care that the X1 version is improve on par with ps4? The ps4 version is great too..aahh but we know why, you're the worst of 'em, you can't just be happy you have, you PRAY for the worst for those who don't share your preference.

DigitalAnalog1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

"Who ever decided that frame rate is the most important element in game design now?"


Frame-rate are the wheels of the car. Doesn't matter if your car has the most pristine engine in the world but if your wheels aren't capable of supporting it, the car won't be able to run properly now would it?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1372d ago
4logpc1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

@ Abriel (hit wrong reply button)

And in the grand scheme of things, what is available for Star Citizen, its only an extremely small fraction of what the developers what Star Citizen to be. So my comment of there being hardly any "game" there still stands.

"Of course I won't sacrifice framerate down to unplayable levels"

You are kind of proving my point there. You will make sure the game is playable, which means cutting things likes resolution and effects to make sure the frame rate is stable...meaning that frame rate is more important.

Abriael1372d ago

Uh no, you're pulling an enormous strawman argument.

First of all, your argument that there's hardly any game in star citizen doesn't stand. Arena Commander is a fully playable dogfighting game, that could easily be sold stand alone (and in fact people are paying for it).

More importantly, we're not talking about framerates that bring the game to unplayable levels here. We're talking about minimal dips.

hence, talking about 6 fps is a by the book case of strawman argument that disproves itself.

I'm not proving your point, simply because you don't have one.

4logpc1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Whatever we can debate on Star Citizen all day.

"hence, talking about 6 fps is a by the book case of strawman argument that disproves itself."

Um what? I never said it would drop only 6FPS. You didn't disprove anything.

If you are not willing to lower your frame rate to a level thats unplayable, doesn't that mean its more important that how good the game looks? Why is it you aren't willing to do that? well I would guess because it's a game, and the most important part is being able to play it right?

Abriael1372d ago

@4logpc: Oh you didn't now?

"You can have a game run at 4K but if it runs at 6 FPS"

Looks like to me that you did.

Again, talking about unplayable frame rates is a strawman argument, as it isn't the argument of discussion here. Diablo III does not run at frame rates even close to unplayable.

Dudebro901372d ago

DOnt bother arguing with Abriael.

He will twist and turn anything you say to try and make you look stupid. Notice he never answered your question about why he wouldn't drop the frame rate to unplayable levels to keep the graphics at ultra.

If only he didn't come off as a complete jerk maybe people would start to like him.

G20WLY1372d ago

^Like or dislike is irrelevant. This is a comment section not a popularity contest; what matters is right or wrong (often based on opinion) as this is what drives discussion/debate and keeps N4G afloat.

I've bubbled you down for a Personal Attack.

OT: I'd usually prefer a smoother running game, but in this instance I'd actually go with a higher resolution, if I had to choose. The camera is set quite far away and it's a pretty, detailed world; I'd like to see all those details on my nice big TV and I'd give up a few FPS to get that for this particular game.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1372d ago
hello121372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

[email protected] We didn’t force any game to ship at 1080p. We work with devs to make the game they want to make on XB1.

Diablo III was coming through during GPU increases in June, was good partnership to create a great Diablo on XB1.

I just thought we could get to 1080p. If Blizzard thought it wasn’t right for Diablo they had the call on what shipped.
............................. .......................

Microsoft felt they could get the game to output at native 1080p. The devs would have released this game at 900p and then we be hearing from Sony fans, but look the xb1 can't do 1080p

Microsoft had to step in.

Sorry i gladly take a hit in frames for a second or two when 99 per cent of the time it reaches the goal of 60.

I don't know why some people are so annoyed by this. Diablo was up and running at 1080p and 60 frames for PS4 and the game suffered drops into the 40's. Should the PS4 version have just stuck with 900p

ger23961372d ago

Why didn't Microsoft step in and help all the other developers achieve 1080p?

BitbyDeath1372d ago

"Framerate should NEVER be prioritized over resolution."

Fixed it for you.
30fps locked should be the minimum requirements, resolution should then take priority.

Better resolution = better graphics and therefore better gameplay.

mhunterjr1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

I agree that framerate should be prioritized over resolution, but here we have a case where 1080p was reached, and 60fps is maintained 99.9% of the time. When you are talking about a rare frame drop in exchange for 44% more pixels, are you really making an meaningful sacrifice?

I too was pretty upset at the move, but when I got more details and looked at the big picture, It's hard to say that the overall quality of the game in its current state is less than it would have be at 900p locked at 60fps.

So while it's easy to say such a compromise SHOULD NEVER be made, we really need take a look at this case individually, and ask, objectively, if the game has been made worse by this decision. I can't say so with any certainly, and I think the overwhelming majority will be satisfied with the game they delivered.

1372d ago
700p1372d ago Show
LAWSON721372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

"Resolution should NEVER be prioritized over framerate."

It really depends, as a PC gamer and I am sure this goes for most of them, I would much prefer 1080p over locked 60fps if the drops are only into low 50s (maybe even mid 40s if not often). I won't lie though I really do not know what kind of jump 900p to 1080p is and I really never notice any stutter between say 60 to 50 FPS. I just think uping the res and sacrificing a few FPS every now and again is a much better trade off.

When a game is 30 fps absolutely it should be prioritized, because then you are at the borderline of broken and unplayable.

Also IMO 60 FPS should never be prioritized for anything other than competitive games, it limits what consoles can do and I don't want that. I want processes being used on new creative additions for these new machines not wasted on unnecessary FPS jumps especially requiring a lock.

fr0sty1372d ago

I don't see what the big deal is... Diablo 3 is a 2.5D isometric game that never even pushed high end PCs to their limits when it launched long ago, and definitely doesn't even push the consoles of today all that hard. We're not talking visuals on the level of P.T., Driveclub, Withcer 3, etc...

MRMagoo1231372d ago

Diablo on highest setting doesn't even push my gt 450 to its limits, if the xbone can't hold 60 fps on a game my crap pc can hold 100 on there is a problem.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1372d ago
nicksetzer11372d ago

900p @60fps locked or 1080p @53fps avg I would say 1080p was the right call, at least for this game. Both ps4 and xb1 versions have drops when there is lots on screen, IMO 53fps avg is not what I consider sacrificing fps for res.

slasaru011372d ago

Come on people, both killzone and tomb raider on ps4 never give stable 60fps, always floating even to 30s, but no one gives a heck about it. And here we have a game dropping to 53 and we've got a big fuss only because it's Xbox one game, lol

nicksetzer11372d ago

Essentially, plus the 53fps avg that DF came up with is based on one 2 minute portion of the game that is especially intense. (So probably has a much higher avg fps in reality) I have yet to have any significant drops and I am a few hours in.

Axios21372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

A MS engineer probably noticed there was still enough overhead to achieve better, kudus for working with the developer to achieve 1080p and 60fps 99.99% of the time, with rare dips to the mid/low 50s.

Other consoles have exclusives first person shooters that run 30fps singleplayer and 45fps multiplayer dispite a 60fps multiplayer target.

christocolus1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Exactly. Blizzards comment might have been taken out of context. MS wouldn't force blizzard to hit 1080p&Blizzard definitly knows what's best for their game. I'm sure MS&BLIZ realised they could hit that mark with the sdk update and with the help of MS engineers they decided to give it a go.

I like the fact Phil isn't pressuring devs into it especially 1st party devs. Just allow them make great games and choose the res&fps that's best for their games.

MCTJim1372d ago

I am so sure his comment was taken out of context on purpose to start a flamewar just reeked of it.

1372d ago
iamnsuperman1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

Though it is unusual for a platform holder to turn to a developer and say that the resolution is unacceptable and say they need to find a way to make it better(not my words but theres).

You helped out, which is fantastic news, but you can see why people think Microsoft forced them with the language used by the developer

4logpc1372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

I am puzzled to why people keep saying Diablo 3 runs in 53 FPS. It dipped to 53 FPS, VERY rarely. The game runs in 60 FPS 99% of the time. So this group of people trying to claim 1080p somehow killed the frame rate need to stop.

SaffronCurse1372d ago

It's been consistent at 60 frames even during intense battles. I F#cking love this game.

4logpc1372d ago

If you want someone to co op with (i dont use headset much fair wanring) add me on Xbox.

Darth Nikana

rmw2hot871372d ago (Edited 1372d ago )

@4logpc these group of people u are talking about are called ps4 fanboys

cyril sneer1372d ago

Yeah they are the fanboys who forget that the last of us a last gen game drops as many frames as diablo 3 in some areas lol.

Tedakin1372d ago

That's what people do. A game can run solid 60 for 15 straight minutes, then dip to 53 for a 10th of a second and everyone goes LOL 53!!!