Top
780°

Battlefield Hardline: Multiplayer 900p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One

Battlefield Hardline developer Visceral Games has confirmed resolution details for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the upcoming cops-and-robbers multiplayer shooter. As was the case with Battlefield 4, the PS4 edition will output in a higher native resolution than its Xbox One counterpart.

The story is too old to be commented.
Qrphe1083d ago

>2015

Hopefully at least it's actually locked at 60

Randostar1083d ago

It wont be.
The game will run at 45-50 fps average on consoles, just like BF4.

Bansai1083d ago

Oh boy, I can already see fanboys boiling.

MMOBytes1083d ago

ugh, 30-45 FPS and 1080p or 900p and high AA settings would be better imo.

GMR_PR1083d ago Show
roslindros1083d ago

Its will not go below 55 often at all with 66 playas with that new uber fast tick rate, trust me, believe in me. All on the X1.

badz1491083d ago Show
Stsonic1083d ago Show
MRMagoo1231082d ago

I can imagine the tiny maps will make the fps easier to hit imo.

GarrusVakarian1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

"The game will run at 45-50 fps average on consoles, just like BF4"

From my experience, it depends entirely on the game mode. The framerate was anywhere from 30fps-60fps on Conquest Large in BF4. The game modes with smaller player-counts, though, such as Rush, Squad Deathmatch, and Domination, were much more solid and held 60fps much better than CL.

Hardline's framerate should hold up pretty well in the smaller game modes if BF4 is anything to go by. Luckily for me I've never been a fan of the huge, conquest-style game modes.

Crimzon1082d ago

I'll always take framerate over resolution, because it's much more crucial to gameplay than resolution ever will be.

Having said that however, I'll also avoid any EA games for a long while. BF4 was broken for a long time and ended up being all about the DLC, a trend that looks to continue with Hardline and the Star Wars game as well.

Massacred1082d ago

Didn't EA swear it would 1080p at E3 2014?

Cindy-rella1082d ago Show
nicksetzer11082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

Beta looked fine, so not to worried about resolution on paper if the game looks and plays well.

@cinerella dude, move on. Cry to someone else, somwhere else. What is more hilarious, MANY people (even in this comment section) will play thia game for over 100 hours plus a 6 hour campaign and plenty of content. Those same people still feel this game should be 20-40$. It almost makes you whole point turn right back on you.

SilentNegotiator1082d ago

" I guess this consoles are really underpowered after all :/ "

Considering that they're $350-400 hardware, absolutely not.

nowitzki20041082d ago

This makes me even more happy that I just switched my primary gaming machine to PC. It makes a difference to me. I have a 720p tv, 900p monitor, and 1080p 3dtv. Believe me every game looks so much better on the 1080p screen.

chrismichaels041082d ago

My friends and I really enjoyed the beta. We're definitely looking forward to getting into the full game.

NatureOfLogic_1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

PS4 version was blurry during the beta. I was hoping for a resolution upgrade. As for Xbox One, lmao, 720p in 2015 is ridiculous. There's no excuse to have a 720p game in 2015.

Edit: After doing some research, there are only 4 900p games on PS4. 2 of those games are EA games(Both BF games). The other 2 are ubisoft games.

900p is a big downgrade from 1080p on my TV. I'm use to 1080p with most PS4 games. BFHL beta was my first 900p game this gen and I could tell instantly that it didn't look too good. It looked blurry and was actually a bit painful to look at some times. I can imagine 720p is much worse though.

Eonjay1082d ago

Is this the engine that will run Star Wars?

Saito1082d ago

@cinderella your info is wrong and why bring the Order into this?

bouzebbal1082d ago Show
Septic1082d ago

Funnily enough, just got back into Battlefield yesterday and to be honest, its impressive just how much it pulls off with all the player numbers and vehicles and carnage.

mikeslemonade1082d ago

This is why BF is 2nd-rate behind COD. There game almost looks last gen and still they can't hit the minimum standards.

Septic1082d ago

@mike

"This is why BF is 2nd-rate behind COD. There game almost looks last gen and still they can't hit the minimum standards."

Wait, what are you talking about here? COD or BF because COD MP is the one that looks last gen and is hardly doing anything above what the previous gen is.

Tell me when COD does 64 player battles with ground air and sea vehicles with proper destruction and phat ass buildings collapsing.

boing11082d ago

Hardline Beta had a steadier fps than BF4.

decrypt1082d ago Show
Timesplitter141082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

@MMOBytes

I'd rather play in 800x600 resolution at 60fps than play in 4k at 59fps

FPS is everything. At least EA has the right priorities

Sy_Wolf1082d ago

Since the engine has undergone much more optimization since BF4 there's a good chance it can run at 60. Assuming it will or that it won't is stupid when you're not involved with the development process.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 1082d ago
Bigpappy1082d ago

LOL. These developers didn't put anymore effort into improving that engine for this game. Guess they figure: if you guy bought and played it like that a year ago, you should be okay with it now too.

I never played a battle field game. So it really doesn't affect me.

Vegamyster1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

I wouldn't say no effort, there is a definite improvement in the latest beta compared to the E3 one, but they should not have said it was 1080p to begin with.

E3 Beta: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Last Beta: http://youtu.be/4y0PZv-cm68...

frostypants1082d ago

It really should be a downloadable $20 expansion pack for BF4, like the Vietnam expansion for BFBC2. Calling this a new game is a joke.

GMR_PR1082d ago Show
Eonjay1082d ago

@GMR_PR

The only difference is that you don't hear a story every week about how some API, or whatever will drastically improve the PS4.

UKmilitia1082d ago

it goes to show that its all the same as BF4 with new modes.
an expensive DLC package imo and i wont be buying it.

_-EDMIX-_1082d ago

...I see you don't know what your talking about.

"effort into improving"

A better engine also means more demanding...which means LESS FRAMES, LESS RESOLUTION!

To run 1080p 60fps, all they have to do is turn off many effects...

Those settings are game dependent, they have to do with the developers choosing to NOT downgrade their game to hit a number vs "effort into improving"

Any PC gamer will tell you, to hit 1080p 60fps...you merely need to lower specific settings to due so.

...thats it.

"I never played a battle field game"

So how can you speak on improvements?

Thats like saying L4D2 on my HD 5770 can run 1080p 60fps thus made more "effort in improvements" vs Crysis running lessor on my rig.

The better engine is actually the more demanding engine thus runs LESSOR frames, lessor resolution.

You gamers sound so slow trying to badmouth developers or publisher when you have no idea about the technical side of gaming.

1080p 60fps is a CHOICE! It isn't a default nor a require to game.

Developers are very much choosing to not having their games run that because it means having a lessor looking game.

GTAV and The Last Of Us sold mega millions and got hundreds of awards....

Yet on last gen consoles they were not 1080p 60fps.

Gamers in reality really don't care, they want beast engines, graphically superior games.

The Last Of Us would not look as amazing as it does ont PS3 IF they forced a 1080p 60fps setting as it would graphically have to be lowered just to run that.

Wipeout HD on PS3 ran 1080p 60fps, once again...a developer chooses that setting, its barely based on system as suppose to developer choosing to.

Yet...not many games ran 1080p 60fps native...its based on it wasn't worth the sacrifice graphically.

Put it this way..how do you guys know GTAV on PS3 would not have looked like GTASA if they forced it to run 1080p 60fps on the lowest settings?

Those developers see what those games look like and they make the choice to not sacrifice graphics ,effects etc for resolution and I think its a good call.

Timesplitter141082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

Why do you automatically blame the devs? Have you considered that maybe the hardware is the problem? This gen's consoles are ridiculously underpowered. The devs aren't magicians

Tiqila1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

I wouldn't buy it. If they had any respect for console gamers they would try harder to get at least a freaking full hd resolution. What good is a better engine when the game looks blurry or pixelated? If they can't improve the experience, they should not sell it for full price and make it an addon as suggested above. I am among those that prefer a crystal clear and sharp look over any fancy effect, be it lightnig, shadows, physics or whatever.

_-EDMIX-_1082d ago

@Timesplitter14- That actually isn't the case.

The performance of the PS4 and XONE are far above what was the minimum for PC games. To date, I can't even tell you a PC game that required 3.6TFLOPS of a GPU performance to actually run, yet that is 2x of the PS4's capable performance.

It has nothing to do with being um.."under-powered", it has everything to do with EA having a beast engine and pushing it to its max.

Consider the engine is using the full 3.6TFLOP performance....

What game on PC requires this currently?

Thus...doesn't that mean they are setting their engine to MAX OUT, thus it would always be 900p/720p?

Consider the PS4 and XONE had 5TFLOP in terms of performance....

SOOOOO EA could just make an engine that maxed that out too, thus again having a better looking game at 900p/720p

Game resolution and frame is GAME DEPENDENT! Its NOT hardware dependent. Someone choose those settings.

When you play a PC title...do YOU the user not choose those settings?

Well consider the developer makes the game and knows a bit more and choose to make those settings vs downgrade the game.

You might like how 1080p 60fps looks....but your not factoring all the settings that are turned off to achieve such a thing.

They very much are.

I'd rather play a game on PC on Ultra at something less then 1080p if it looked better, then 1080p low...

That is what they are doing with console games and it makes sense. People don't' buy games just based on such a number.

If that is the case, GTASA on PS3 and 360 should be outselling GTAV...

New next gen only engines at 900p/720p > old dated engines at 1080p 60fps.

Would you rather never play GTAV if it meant not in 1080p? But you could play GTASA in HD?

Consider GTAVI will very, very like not be in 1080p 60fps, will you say its because the consoles are lessor despite GTAVI looking supierior to GTAV?

When you have a GPU, you max out Crysis, Crysis 4 comes along....you can't play this game with the same settings as Crysis 1....

Doesn't really matter, Crysis 4 on medium, 900p, 30fps will likely still look better then Crysis 1.

Consider does Crysis 1 in 720p not look better then HL1?

Its not the console, its the demanding engine and the choice developers made to seek graphics, textures etc vs some number.

Nothing wrong with 1080p 60fps, but not such a huge cost.

Do you really think they want to run into next gen with a last gen engine against competition? Using better engines?

The reality is, folks will notice what engine looks better and will really not care what numbers go along with it.

ie Crysis > HL1. You can market 1080p 60fps ALL DAY, but the consumer will still just see...

Crysis > HL1.

The hardware had little to nothing to actually do with it.

Give the better hardware...EA just makes a more DEMANDING ENGINE THAT DOESN'T DO 1080p..

Consider they are still seeking to beat their competitors.

NatFanBoyRestricted1082d ago

You never played a BF before? Unlike a lab rat Ina a maze looking for the cheese Cod, there's no other game I can think of right now on this Gen console where you can fly a jet, bail out, rpg a chopper, while some one on the other side of a gigantic map compared to cod, could snipe the pilot, which is rare, just saying, outta the jet that was chasing you down. Every single bullet goes somewhere in bf4 at least when it's running fine lol. But really how can you judge a game and its devs when you've never played a BF?

Bigpappy1082d ago

For those saying I am judging the game without playing it. That is no true at all. As I am not judging the game , not even a little. It may be a great game despite the engine not being improved.

This is the same engine they used at launch. No other game, that I have heard of, is being release at 720p.

I am not a resolution whore, but many other similar games have been released at much higher than 720p and work just fine. I am not saying people should not buy and enjoy the game. I just think that its the same launch engine and just and extension of BF4, rather than a whole new effort.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1082d ago
Bathyj1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

It might hit 60, but I doubt it will be locked at 60.

If its going up and down anyway, Id prefer they just lock it at 30fps and go 1080p, unless of course its actually sitting pretty close to 60 the majority of the time.

ABizzel11082d ago

Hard to guarantee a locked 60 unless it's soaring well above 60fps, or the developer specifically goes in and codes areas that are lacking (only really works in single player).

But based on the beta it a much more consistent 60fps than BF4 was.

XxExacutionerxX1082d ago

I swear this game could have been an dlc for bf4. I just want to play single player.

UKmilitia1082d ago

me too but i play that on my pc(wink wink)
EA can release there broken mess again but i wont be paying for it again until month have passed if its even that good because the beta was a bit lame.
drive orund in circles shooting

Muzikguy1082d ago ShowReplies(3)
1082d ago Replies(2)
Bathyj1082d ago

So does anyone know what the single player portion runs at?

I see know reason why this shouldnt be 1080p seeing as you dont have to worry about those big maps and player counts.

KirbysDump1082d ago

This story is such old news. Doesmt affect my enjoyment or purchasing

Gamer19821082d ago ShowReplies(3)
otherZinc1082d ago

Glad for M$ Exclusives, to show the XBOX ONE Exclusives can achieve 1080p and 60fps.

Looking very forward to Fable Legends, Forza Motorsport 6, & Halo 5 to put lazy multiplatform developers to shame.

jc121082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

It certainly is dissapointing that this game wont run at 1080p, but I'm not surprised. Given the high level of enviornmental dyamism coupled with the large player count, I was expecting this game to run at 900p to be honest.

As with any good shooter now a days, 60FPS is pretty much mandatory. Knowing that, I'm sure Visceral never really expected this game to play at 1080p on PS4, let alont XB1. Unless of course they play the campaign at 1080p/30 and multiplayer at 900p/60, which isnt a terrible idea.

1082d ago
Deadlead1082d ago

I'm so fucking sick of these pissing contests. When did a slight res advantage become the most important aspect to discuss in the gaming community. It will make almost no difference in the overall gaming experience. Can't blame the media for pumping out these incendiary articles, when gamers continue to flock to them. And for what? Bragging rights? "Nah nah nah I bought the right console!" Christ, these companies don't care about you!

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1080d ago
SonofGod1083d ago (Edited 1083d ago )

What? They said it would be 1080p for both. Wow.

hqgamez1082d ago

I don't see the big deal. 900 from 1080p isn't far apart. I can see if you're playing on xbox one, sucks to be you but anyways 900p from 1080p you won't see much of a difference unless you got a tv that's 48in or bigger. You buy a game to play, not to look at the environments.

ArnoDorian1082d ago

wrong, games are different today, games today allows us to be immersed along with the game
for my reasons i game for fun and to be immersed within the environment of the game

Pogmathoin1082d ago Show
joab7771082d ago

I disagree that you can't tell. I certainly can. Though it doesn't bother me much as long as it's smooth. But I can't imagine 720. Thats the demand we craved... $400 consoles.

frostypants1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

900p is a 56% resolution improvement over 720p. 1080p is a 44% improvement over 900p and a 125% improvement over 720p. It's a significant difference...they are very far apart in terms of pixels. It just doesn't sound like much because the name only directly references the horizontal lines. But the pixel count difference is massive. It's just that the difference to the naked eye is a diminishing return...hence why sometimes it's a justifiable trade-off to bump the resolution down.

Haru1082d ago Show
nowitzki20041082d ago

I love to stop and stare at the environments in The Last of Us, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon, Gears, Skyrim..... Yeah The list can go forever.

modelgod1082d ago Show
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1082d ago
poppinslops1082d ago

They should have cancelled the PS3/360 versions and focused on the current-gen/PC... I doubt they'd have gotten a playable 1080p, but at least they'd have had more time to optimise.

Hopefully 'Battlefront' will run better...

scark921082d ago

They say alot of things

emilijo7771083d ago ShowReplies(7)
Cra2yey31083d ago

Battlefield 5 has got to get to 1080p...

CryLessGameMore1082d ago

you mean battlefield bad company 3

Cra2yey31082d ago

I wish I did mean that too but they announced 5 already.

Mega241082d ago ShowReplies(6)
All_Consoles1082d ago

Unless these so called next gen consoles magically get a better processor they won't

Ctiboi20101083d ago (Edited 1083d ago )

I doubt this is more about hardware limitations than it is about proper utilization of the hardware on both platforms. Down the road I'm sure things will get better once the developers properly code for both consoles. Especially the Xbox One in this situation, we should be long past 720p by now.

Anyway, regardless of resolution I hope the gameplay is great. It seems promising. That is the most important factor as far as I'm concerned.

TKCMuzzer1083d ago

Correct, if I enjoy it thats all that matters, I mean your value comes from the gameplay not the resolution.

I think Dice said they are working on updates for the frostbite engine for their next Battlefield game, improving it's performance, I assume visceral had to work with what they had of the current frostbite engine.

Randostar1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

Dev already know how to Code properly on these consoles, its x86-64 architecture. The problem is optimizing, EA knows that the biggest market they have is the PC market, so sadly this is where all the optimization really goes. If they Optimized X1 and PS4 as much as the PC version, we would have 1080p on the ps4 and 900p on x1 at least. The Framerate would also be much more consistent, while i don't think the game is going to be shi*** at all on the PS4/X1. I do know that it won't be as optimized as it could be. Blame EA.

Agent_hitman1082d ago (Edited 1082d ago )

Ah, you mean this full-pledged DLC of BF4 called Hardline? I personally think that this DLC is good enough for BF4. /s