Quantcast
Mirror's Edge Catalyst is 900p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Mirror's Edge Catalyst is 900p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One

But we already know these things don't really matter AT ALL!


...they will only become important again when Scorpio turns out to be more powerful than PS4neo



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network

the pixels of the Xbox version are not so good but it still looks good



Locknuts said:
CGI-Quality said:

Affirmative.

Doesn't really matter. I run my Origin games through Steam anyway. Haven't come across one that doesn't work yet.

Eh, it does matter, but it's probably not a big deal.



                                                                                                                                            

Looks like it's 1080p or 60fps but not both for consoles at least until the mid gen upgrades come out.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

like all fb3 engine games



Around the Network
Mummelmann said:
And people still have delusions that the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) will somehow pull off 4k gaming?

And still be affordable lol. One dude on here seemed to think the "Xbox One Two" could be 4x more powerful than the Xbox One and be sold for $499US..... LOL.



greenmedic88 said:
Mummelmann said:
And people still have delusions that the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) will somehow pull off 4k gaming?

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Yeah, AAA gaming at 4K ain't happening on consoles for a few more years. You can't fit that kind of power in a console-sized box at an affordable price yet.



Guitarguy said:
Mummelmann said:
And people still have delusions that the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) will somehow pull off 4k gaming?

And still be affordable lol. One dude on here seemed to think the "Xbox One Two" could be 4x more powerful than the Xbox One and be sold for $499US..... LOL.

It's called wishful thinking, likely paired with a general ignorance of contemporary semiconductor industry developments with regards to graphical and general processing performance. 

It would probably be useful if users/consumers considered hardware specs with respect to available technology based on source/manufacturer (it's all coming from AMD currently, so there is no mystery voodoo techno magic going on; we know what they have been working on) and the cost of said hardware.

It becomes even simpler when you have a general MSRP target, at which point it's a simple matter of what does $399 (or $499 or whatever) worth of MSRP end product buy in specs based upon current available hardware. Unless one is assuming the manufacturer is significantly subsidizing hardware costs for the consumer by offering an end product at a much lower MSRP than BoM cost to the manufacturer, it's a pretty straightforward answer with a decent amount of wiggle room performance-wise for custom chipsets tailored by AMD for their client, whether that's MS, SCE or Nintendo.

So yeah. If someone is expecting $1500 worth of performance, either a company is selling an overly expensive (for a general consumer market) console that can only be sold to a limited market, or they are giving it away at a severe loss per unit to their company, which simply isn't a viable business model post 2008. 

I would argue that the success of the PS4 has demonstrated that the MSRP sweet spot is $399, assuming the hardware performance is industry leading, maybe even just highly competitive. It's a tough sell to convince consumers to pay more or the same price for less performance without a perceived brand/platform tax being levvied, which few are willing to pay. 



curl-6 said:
greenmedic88 said:

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Yeah, AAA gaming at 4K ain't happening on consoles for a few more years. You can't fit that kind of power in a console-sized box at an affordable price yet.

Since I don't work in the semi-conductor industry, I can't make a realistic projection of how quickly performance will climb within the same cost structure. Given the cost to build a legitimate 4K gaming PC curently, I would consider it a feat for a manufacturer to make that happen in a few years, at least not without resorting to a bit of corner cutting/"cheating" (above 1080p native render, upscaled to 4K, etc.). 

I know that Apple, with their custom SoCs were making pretty significant leaps between generations which is probably a reflection of the mobile processing industry in general, but I would be inclined to attribute that to the age of the mobile industry relative to the desktop industry. There's simply more headroom there. 

With desktop semiconductors, it's a simple case of sheer energy draw and heat generated to achieve desired performance. All we have to do is take a look at the energy draw of 4k video cards. Like you said, that has to fit in a relatively small box at an affordable price. 



Porcupine_I said:
But we already know these things don't really matter AT ALL!


...they will only become important again when Scorpio turns out to be more powerful than PS4neo

Pretty much.