DucksUnlimited said:
VitroBahllee said:
Serious_frusting said:
ahhh the classic If if mines is crap so is yours. Whats the point in arguing over what console is least shitty?
Thats what this thread looks like to me. Dumb thread to be honest. Now show me the specs of a PC that runs tom raider at 1080p 60 fps with all the bells and whistles. Then price it up. Cheers. |
I think the real question the OP is asking is: 'Why launch a new console generation NOW when the kit you get for the price can't do 1080p/60. Why not start it in a year when it could? Why are we rushing to lock into a generation that features specs we might be chafing against in a couple years?'
It's a reasonable question.
|
That doesn't make sense. Of course the PS4 and X1 are capable of 1080p/60fps. Hell, the PS3 and 360 are capable of it. The issue is that most developers are willing to compromise the framerate and resolution if it means being able to make improvements in other areas like textures and effects. The PS4 and X1 could've released in 2015 and there would still be numerous games that wouldn't hit 1080p/60fps. It's a matter of what the devs choose to prioritize.
|
That's a good point, too. It's a constant trade off between resources for various effects. Good point indeed.
And, to someone else, you can definitely respond to someone who is making an off-topic point and continue to be off-topic even though its a response. Sort of like this now, so I'll cool it myself.
-CraZed- said:
VitroBahllee said:
-CraZed- said:
Because it isn't last year's game. Look I just went over to IGN's site where they posted a suposedly powerful PC build for Steam OS and their $1400 PC build could only achieve an average of 30-45 fps (GTX 770 and GTX 780 Ti respectively) on last year's Tomb Raider at max settings at 1080p and that version is missing many of the updated effects found in the Definative Edition. Granted I would have built it a little different than they did but still $1400 and struggling to reach 60 fps as well. Which is what happened on my rig when I played it, but mine is a bit older.
I am not saying that these consoles are more powerful than a high end PC but for the price they are very much in line with what a "next-gen" console ought to be.
|
Fair enough. That's really intersting honestly. Facts: they're fascinating things!
Maybe it's just the fault of the perception that '1080p/60fps' is a standard for things, just because it's standard for video? It really makes you wonder about 4K gaming. Maybe 4K gaming is a few years further off than 4K video.
|
Oh god let's not get started on 4k lol. Were looking at at least 5 years before we see 4k going mainstream. With video streaming becoming the norm and isps looking for ways to cap or charge for extra bandwidth (pay for what you use) 4k simply is to resource heavy and we'll even need a larger disc format because blu-ray as it is now can't hold it. And gaming is even further I think.
|
Do you really think it'll be that long before it's mainstream? There are a variety of sub-$1k TVs launching now. I definitely see it as something that is going to grow in a big way in the next couple years. That said, I tend to agree that it might be 5 years before broadcast TV fully adopts 4K. Phones like the Galaxy Note 3 already shoot 4K video, so I think we'll see it first gaining mainstream acceptance in people's smartphones, to be honest.
After that, I believe it won't be long before people demand TVs and monitors good enough to display the video their phone can shoot. It'll force the industry to catch up.
Thankfully, I firmly believe that both consoles can at least pull of 4K video playback. Now they both need to enable 3d bluray, pronto!
