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.
I believe next gen 1080P become standard and locked at 60FPS, and maybe possibly higher. I would be disappointed if it were not.
let's hope so, it's been too long.
It already is standard..... on the PC.
@T900 nothing is really "standard" on a PC.
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.
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
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.
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.
great post vulcan. +bubble
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.
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 :)
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.
^ 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;
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...
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.
@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.
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.
To be honest dragonknight, that would make you a hardcore toaster :P
@ 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.
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.
i know for 99% sure that 1080p and 60fps will become a standard. and possibly there will be games that support 120fps
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, if I think it's worth the money I will bite
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You really find it that funny? How sad.
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.
Can I ask why 60 fps? Why not just 40? Or 45?
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.. .____........___...____ .____||......||.......____|| ||.........___||.......____||
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
Correctamundo! Wipeout is in 1080p...I mentioned it in the article.
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
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.....
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.
@ 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.
Okay. One or two games in 1080p mean nothing.
There are alot more than one or two. Those are just the ones that i happened to remember.
Maybe next generation. Or maybe not.
you really went out on a limb with that prediction
Dude. Just leaf him alone...
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.
who cares about resolution, 480p is good enough .... ..... ..... XD
if you own a CRT TV that´s true games will always look great on those with some exeptions like Uncharted for example.
Next gen, but if you can't wait a PC will do just fine.
sorry games are more important to me than resolution
Then why ignore the largest platform on the planet with the most games?
because it just so happens the games I like playing are on console.
Maybe when 1080p TV's start selling for cheap.
resolution is more about size. You can easily buy a 32" HDTV 720p for the same price as a PS3 and even if it had 1080p you wouldn't see a difference at that size. But if you own a 50" plus TV then 1080p is more or less a necessity and these are expensive because the size, not the resolution.
They are cheap now. You can get a crappy brand name 32inch 1080p tv for 300$ and under
i would expect higher than 1080p on the almighty pc, but since tvs can at best prior to the 4k and 8k displays only go to 1080p then 720p looks just fine especially in exclusive games actually they are the most impressive games i have ever seen
You can get 1600p monitors for PC (2560 x 1600) but they are expensive.
I game at 1600p on a 30" inch monitor
I game at 5760 x 1080p across 3 1080p monitors.
30" 1600p monitors are dropping price and look so much better than 1080p cause of the huge amounts of detail that can be seen very clearly and without use of lots of MSAA.
Quad Full High Definition (3840×2160) and Ultra High Definition UHD (7680×4320) are the future!
Maybe when people can get a 19" 1080p TV for less than $200 total.
You can. I have a vizio that I payed 170$ for.
I bought a 24" Viewsonic for only $150. Where have you been these past years?
1080p will be the standard for next-gen consoles. The Wii U Zelda tech demo was running in 1080p at a smooth 60 FPS, and the PS4/Xbox 720 will probably be even more powerful than that, perhaps even future-proofed with support for resolutions up to 1920x1200.
1920x1200 probably won't be supported. It's the 16:10 equivalent of 1920x1080 (1080p), only used in monitors. Thing is, nearly all HDTVs have a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is what consoles are aimed at. The resolution itself isn't an upgrade to 1080p, it's just designed for a different aspect ratio. Along with that, 16:10 is being phased out in monitors too in favor of 16:9 now. Even some newer PC games are starting to drop support for it.
4k tvs are coming soon. I think 1080 will be next gen's 720 and 4k will be next gen's 1080, where most games run in 1080 with a couple in 4k. I thought 4k was gonna be just a tech demo, but they're soon gonna sell them. And with 4k, when the screen splits for 3D, it produces 2 1080 images. And I think resolution will stop increasing after 4k. The difference between 1080 and 4k is like that of the retina display on the iphone 4 compared to the previous screens. But after 4k, eyes cannot tell the difference.
You DO realize that even some of the highest end multi-GPU PCs struggle at 2650x1600? And 4K is 4096x2160. For gaming, it's not happening. 1080p is fine for next-gen.
Why do you guys even care? 720P works just fine the way it is. If they don't upgrade, fine, if they do upgrade, prepare yourself for more YLoD's and RRoD's...
You obviously haven't tried 1080p 60fps gaming.