riderz13371 said:
ZyroXZ2 said:
binary solo said:
Slightly better graphics 100% of the time vs slightly better fps 0.1% of the time. Decisions, decisions.
Or to look at it another way:
PS4 can't achieve a locked 30fps at 1920x1080p, that's a shame. But Xb one can't even manage it at 1440x1080p, that's shameful. Xb one is rendering 25% fewer pixels per frame and still can't manage a locked 30fps. And in terms of pixel count 1440x1080 is a lower output than 900p (900p is only 17% fewer pixels than full 1080p).
|
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1440x1080 = 1,555,200 pixels
1600x900 = 1,440,000 pixels
In other words, it's higher than 900p. The beauty in this whole thing is that the Xbox One is really working to close that gap.
We went from the PS4 showing its 50% more powerful GPU almost directly translating into 50% more pixel count and better visual quality to more of a 30% pixel count gap, with near-equal visual quality.
Gotta hand it to MS, they're really working with developers to get the most out of the Xbox One. I can't deny the effort, and many players are finding this 30% gap pretty tolerable, as evidenced by the sales spike of the Xbox One.
|
You're right. The sales spike is a direct relation to the power gap between the Xbox One and PS4 closing.
Nothing to do with these factors:
1) MCC
2) Big multiplatform games coming out (CoD, AC etc)
3) Holiday season price cut and bundles.
I'm joking if you can't tell.
|
People are so scared to acknowledge that gamers are willing to deal with "less graphics" if it's close enough......
If the Xbox One had Wii U graphics and had those "big multiplatform games" running at sub-720p using last gen assets, you think it would sell that well even with a price cut?
Exactly, graphics matter to the current generation of gamers, and the Xbox One has proven it can be close enough that people will buy it and take their mulitplatform games on it even with less grass 
