Top
710°

The RESOLUTION will not be televised — When will 1080p gaming become standard?

So it’s 2012 and still no sign of 1080p. 1080p where are you? And while your at it can you bring 60 frames per second along with you.

Read Full Story >>
consolecontrollus.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Nitrowolf21538d ago

I believe next gen 1080P become standard and locked at 60FPS, and maybe possibly higher.

I would be disappointed if it were not.

Scholla1538d ago

let's hope so, it's been too long.

T9001536d ago

It already is standard..... on the PC.

DeadIIIRed1536d ago

@T900 nothing is really "standard" on a PC.

superadvanced1536d ago

once 1080p 60hz does become standard people will be demanding 3840x2160 @ 120hz. Even when tvs have surpassed the limit of what the human eye can even gather they will still want more, especially if its made by sony.

Death1536d ago

No one is holding Sony to a higher standard. Sony is the one that set expectations to a level they couldn't perform. "We decide when the next generation launches" and "True HD 1080p" sound great if you actually deliver.

Blu-ray and "The Cell" did nothing for gaming this gen. Hopefully next gen will bring longer and higher def games to consoles. Faster Blu-ray drives should make a huge differance.

-Death

T9001536d ago (Edited 1536d ago )

@deadlllRed

Yes nothing is standard on the PC and thats a good thing, standards create limitations.

As for 1080p even the entry level GPUs manage it very well these days. Hence if you want to game on a PC, 1080p is very easy to acheive.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1536d ago
vulcanproject1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

Console games will probably never do 60 frames a second as a standard, more as the exception just as they are now than the standard.

This is because in order to get 60 frames, the designers have to compromise the visuals, AA or the resolution compared to the common 30 frame standard. Only when you have a powerful PC as a user can you go the whole hog and have everything, res, filters, framerate the works.

This is mostly a developer trend, they want their games to look as good as possible on console, so they aim for 30FPS. Most casual console gamers might not care or note the advantages of 60 frames, and you cant see it in stills or screenshots....so they would just say one game has better graphics than the other.

Which is why most devs aim for the best visuals and not a faster framerate, they want the casuals to be impressed with the graphics and screenshots rather than try and explain why 60 frames might be better for their game. Insomniac are another company explaining why they ditched 60 frames- http://news.softpedia.com/n...

You could expect 1080p for the next gen, nay, demand it- but don't expect every single game to run 60 frames a second too. They just won't and probably never will. As long as a bunch of racers and sports games do then that is the best you could ask for.

solar1537d ago

great post vulcan. +bubble

DigitalAnalog1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

I'm surprised that only a "few" people actually get the meaning behind 1080p/60fps concept. Wipeout HD is an example of a 1080p/60fps model but as great as that game looks for a DL title, it doesn't really stand out compared to the plethora of great looking 720p/30fps games out there.

HD/60fps or graphics. There's really no way around it for consoles unless you buy yourself a capable PC.

Persistantthug1537d ago

1. Neither you nor I know when the next Sony & Microsoft consoles will arrive, nor do we know what hardware tech they will house.

2. Typically when a console launches, the price of said console typically exceeds the cost of of what one could get on their own with the equivalent amount of money.

I fully expect 1080p & 60 frames for the next generation. And that's also why I'm in no rush for this gen to end......the longer the better for next generation consoles.

I'm rooting for 2014, myself :)

DragonKnight1537d ago

Gotta love PC fan arrogance calling console gamers "casual." As if tech determines what kind of gamer you are. I guess if I own a 6 slot toaster complete with bagel sized slots and more toasting options that makes me a more hardcore toaster than someone with a basic 2 slot toaster used strictly to make bread turn golden brown.

I hate the buzzwords of this gen.

Ducky1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

^ He didn't use tech as the reason for calling them 'casuals'.
Rather, they're labeled 'casuals' because they don't know or care about technical details such as framerate.

... and he wasn't calling all console gamers as casuals;

vulcanproject1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

FatOldMan correctly interpreted my intention of the word usage. You should not assume the negative aspects so easily DragonKnight, but then i know your comment history so i guess i am not surprised...

Persistantthug- you didn't actually say anything relevant to counter my statement. No matter what specs the machine is, devs will more often plump for 30 frames. It isn't relevant what specs they are, because whether you have the power of wii or an ubermachine the link i pointed to shows modern developer insight, it is consumer attitude that demands better looking graphics, not higher framerates.

360 and PS3 being vastly more powerful than the previous gen, PS2 or xbox, also wii, did that mean most devs aimed for 720p and 60FPS...? Obviously this is not the case.

They virtually always have gone for 30 since the polygon era began on Playstation, Saturn and N64- this generation there are several well known examples of 60 frame games but they are very much in the minority. I would say at least 90 percent of games are targeted for 30 frames and its been that way for well over a decade now.

Most of the console games you yourself would claim to be best looking, Gears of war, Killzone, Uncharted, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Skyrim, Assassins Creed, etc are 30 frames. Only a handful might try 60. How many articles or comments on here argue about 'teh bestest gfx'? Versus how many talk about which games have smoother framerates...

morganfell1537d ago

Rather than focus on 1080p gaming I would prefer developers bring us next generation gameplay...which isn't the same thing as a graphical improvement.

The Sony/CCP venture is one forthcoming example of a better direction. I would rather see more of this type of endeavor.

While not 1080p, we can find bargain bins and abandoned game collections which are rife with great looking, well advertised, yet utterly craptastic titles.

The emphasis on graphics this generation has cost us many a great gaming experience. The relevance of a game engine lies too often with the rendering ability while the AI engine is a sham, last minute collection of abandoned code. Recurrently we find AI in commercial engines gutted in favor of an equally incompetent substitute chosen for the ease of implementation rather than it's contribution to the player experience.

I love great graphics and some games demand a certain fidelity in order to provide proper gameplay elements. An example of this may be draw distances in games such as Arma 2 or shadowing in certain titles to provide proper cover in stealth situations.

That said, this focus on image driven development shows little sign of abating and I fear our favorite, would be immersive game time will be the poorer for it.

tehnoob31537d ago

@persistantthug

This trend of 30 fps for consoles will undeniably exist until games are almost indistinguishable from reality because as long as visuals will get better, developers will compromise as vulcan said.

roguewarrior1537d ago

Agreed, but this Gens "locked 30fps" always goes over budget, and we start with screen tearing and frame rate drops. Give me Epics Samaritan Demo, truly locked at 30fps with V-sync, next gen and I don't think anybody will complain about the lower fps.

Shane Kim1536d ago

To be honest dragonknight, that would make you a hardcore toaster :P

vulcanproject1536d ago (Edited 1536d ago )

@ roguewarrior

What we really need is triple buffering on 30 frame games with vsync- all the time. Uncharted 2 had it. Triple buffering basically would eliminate screen tear and also if a frame goes over budget helps minimise the noticeable speed drop you would see. Like for example from the recent ME3 demo, which is only double buffered and vsynced so when the console misses its 30FPS target it automatically crashed down to 20FPS to match the next display sync.

If it were properly triple buffered, chances are it would still run 26-28FPS and you would barely notice the framedrop.

I think this is much more likely next gen because enough memory should exist. While you still only have 512mb of memory this generation, using another 15mb or so to triple buffer seems fairly costly. Not to mention 360's eDRAM complicates the issue. We have seen how tight developers are with memory constraints, if Skyrim has taught us nothing else it is always on a knife edge.

However if you happen to have 2GB or more memory in your machine, then of course an extra 30mb for 1080p triple buffering is virtually inconsequential and a far smaller percentage of total resources.

There is only so much you can demand from developers as a manufacturer but again if you deliver a machine with that much memory you should probably tell developers that every game MUST be triple buffered.

If you have given them a machine with 3 or 4Gb of memory they would most likely just shrug their shoulders and say "okay" because it wouldn;t be a big deal.

DeadlyFire1536d ago

I am betting we see more 720p at 60 fps. If 1080 then it will be 30 fps. All depends on the hardware though which is still a mystery.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1536d ago
Mystogan1537d ago

i know for 99% sure that 1080p and 60fps will become a standard. and possibly there will be games that support 120fps

BubloZX1537d ago

Yeah...... even a i7 2730 with a nvida gtx 590 and 8 gig of ram can't do high Res 1080p gaming with 120 fps. Don't expect the next Xbox and PS to do it either.

lsujester1537d ago

I'm running an i5-2500 and a GTX580. On BF3, I average around 60fps. No way a console released in the next year or so going to double that and keep those high visuals.

raztad1536d ago (Edited 1536d ago )

What I like of next gen is that devels will be capable of doing more if they decide so, or can downgrade the visuals but keeping a decent resolution (no more 500p please)

My expectations for the PS4 (2014):

Standard on every game: 4-8xMSAA + postprocessing like MLAA, full res transparency support (PS3 doesnt have this).

Realistic looking games (KZ4, UC4/LoUS2, Batman, BF) will be full 1080p/30fps (2D) and (720p/30 in stereoscopic 3D). Lots of shaders. Cloth/hair real time sim. More particles effects. Even better water, surface fluid dynamic.

I expect next gen GT to be full 1080p/60fps (2D) and 720p/60 (stereoscopic), both likely including Motion Blur.

Arcade games could be 1080p/60 fps as a norm or 720p/60 (stereoscopic). SSHD is a proof of this.

ninjahunter1537d ago

Just to put it in perspective, that would require about a 10x horsepower jump by next gen (based on raw numbers). This is easily done, that horsepower has been available for years, but to break even, competitive pricing and all, such a system would likely cost well over $600 at launch.

This is all doable, but the question is, would you be willing to shell out the money for it?

IRetrouk1537d ago

Yes, if I think it's worth the money I will bite

HappyGaming1536d ago

10x power to run a 720p/30fps game at 1080p/60fps game... Why would you want that if you just used all your power to upgrade the resolution and the framerate?

What about all the other visual effects which are far more important?

I say make 1080p and locked 30fps a standard and forget about 60fps so that you can make your games look even better!!

QuodEratDemonstrandm1536d ago

I paid $600 for my ps3, plus another $400 for a tv to connect it.
All totalled, with games and sales tax, I spent $1204.

$600 for a ps4 won't be a problem. I probably won't be able to get it day one, but I'll get it.

GraveLord1537d ago

There will be devs that will prefer graphics over framerate. We will be getting games that are 1080p at 30FPS with amazing graphics. That's fine for a single player game. But for a online multiplayer 60FPS is a must.

novcze1537d ago

You would be disappointed, 1080p output will be probably standard, but native rendering resolution is another thing. 60fps will be also scarce just like in this generation.

SilentNegotiator1537d ago

I don't really care. I just want pop-in reduced by about a 100 times. And 2xAA or more standard (like Microsoft promised with the 360).

Make that happen and keep the great games coming, and I'd buy another 720p console. I'm not going to cry over not playing in 1080p, especially since it will probably just mean more hardware ill-equipped for the task, and we'll just end up playing 23fps, 880p, no AA.

ATi_Elite1536d ago

laughed so hard my tummy hurts!

Who plays games at 1080p? That's so old, old like using telegrams.

1600p is where the cool kids game at. "Oh so Pretty"!

seriously Next Console Gen better be 1080p and 60 fps with 4xMSAA and 8xAF. Anything less and i will just shake my head in disbelief and laugh some more.

Marquis_de_Sade1536d ago

You really find it that funny? How sad.

JsonHenry1536d ago

1080p (at 120hz+) is already standard on my gaming rig. That is if I don't hook it up to something even higher in resolution.

ForTheFallen1536d ago

Can I ask why 60 fps? Why not just 40? Or 45?

Crazyglues1536d ago (Edited 1536d ago )

Why would this be standard when the number one selling game on both consoles is not even 720p and people ran out and bought it like hot cakes....

so no this won't happen until next gen, and even then there is no guarantee that we will see it become the standard..

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1536d ago
LX-General-Kaos1538d ago

As of now 1080p is on the PC and a few arcade games for the PS3 and 360. Im pretty sure when i played wipeout on psn it was 1080p

Scholla1538d ago

Correctamundo! Wipeout is in 1080p...I mentioned it in the article.

NobleRed1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

Sorry to burst your bubble but Wipeout has a variable resolution. It's not all the time 1920*1080P.

1728×1080, 1645×1080, 1600×1080, 1440×1080

vulcanproject1537d ago (Edited 1537d ago )

Wipeout is pseudo full 1080p. I mean yes, natively it does render at 1920 x 1080 a lot of the time, but not all of the time. It has a dynamic framebuffer which means it will render from 1280 x 1080 up to 1920 x 1080 and a few steps inbetween depending on how much load the engine is under. More load = less resolution for the next few frames. The effect is excellent though, it is not easy to tell the game isn't 1920 x 1080 all the time such is how the human eye works (focusing on one spot, your brain filling in details). This should be tried more....

Metal Gear Solid 4 software upscales to 1080p. Its actual native rendering resolution is believe it or not 1024 x 768. Yes- this is not widescreen. So the frame is rendered squashed then scaled and 'stretched' a bit like anamorphic to get 16:9. You can even sometimes see the scaling in game, like in the darkest places in say Act 3 you can detect faint macroblocking of the scaler at work.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma also upscales...it is not 1080p native. 1280 x 720...the sequel as you mention is 1280 x 718 on PS3, even less on 360.

Wipeout HD is the closest thing to proper full 1080p you mentioned there, 1080p is even rarer than you imagined on console.....

It is likely even if the next gen consoles standardise 1080p gaming, we will see a whole host of games rendering below this. Just like all the sub HD games now. Maybe like 1600 x 900 etc. 16 x 9 wouldn't be so bad TBH, if the manufacturers could just demand this was the lowest anyone could do that would be good.

PC is the only place you can get full 1080p all the time right now. It makes a massive difference when you see it with your own eyes.

Alan wake is the recent game i played in 1080p. 360 manages 960 x 540, so when you see the game finally on PC in 1080p after playing the original on console in sub HD, it is mind blowing how much crisper it is. 4 times the resolution.....

Ocelot5251537d ago

You want money , thus you write VG articles , and you use N4G to get hits. I have no problem with this... unless your article is full of BS (mgs4, wipeout 1080p).

Your lucky that n4g is full of mentally retarded 12 year olds who make N4G the only place where the craptastic articles hit the frontpage.

OpenGL1537d ago

@ vulcanproject

Yeah I recently got Alan Wake on the PC despite already owning it on the 360, and I must say the graphics are phenomenal at 1920x1080 with 8xAA.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1537d ago
kaveti66161537d ago

Okay. One or two games in 1080p mean nothing.

LX-General-Kaos1537d ago

There are alot more than one or two. Those are just the ones that i happened to remember.

Surfaced1538d ago

Maybe next generation.
Or maybe not.

room4141537d ago

you really went out on a limb with that prediction

-Mika-1538d ago

It doesn't matter. Games look great regardless and plus making a game 1080p hurts the performance of the titles so they usually just go with 720p to get the best framrate.

crazypicklemonkey1538d ago

who cares about resolution, 480p is good enough ....

.....

.....

XD

FinaLXiii1538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

if you own a CRT TV that´s true games will always look great on those with some exeptions like Uncharted for example.