By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

You know what, youre absolutely right. I get your point now.

All games should be 480p. If people dont like it, tough shit. Just back away from the TV. Its so obvious.

When people were complaing about X1's resolution disparity, the solution was obviously move your couch further back.

We didnt even need the X1X. They should just develop a Xbox branded tape measurer. That way people with large screen could figure out the correct distance for their screen and couch.

I don't know why you are ignoring the evidence to keep clinging to your own false narratives?

Mr Puggsly said:

Hmm... me thinks you're overestimating the capabilities of the "Spec A+ box." "LOL!"

X1X doesn't have enough CPU power to make all X1 content 60 fps. It just happens to have a significant CPU boost that makes 60 fps MORE feasible.

Its kinda like building a PC. 9th gen consoles need to have CPUs sufficient for 60 fps in demanding current and upcoming games. My guess is they will have about 10TF, so that should be enough for 60 fps in many games at about 1440p and higher.

There is more to achieving 60fps than just CPU performance.
If you are GPU limited... You aren't hitting 60fps.

And let's face it, the Xbox One is not only CPU limited, but GPU limited as well, it was never going to have a ton of 60fps games, especially as it can't even maintain 1080P.

Mr Puggsly said:

Well in the 8th gen resolution and effects saw great improvements. Not really feeling like physics or AI saw a massive boost, not to the same extent.

They did see massive increases, especially in the particles department on later titles.

A.I saw increases, especially in character counts, complexity of A.I routines I would argue haven't really taken a massive stride in years... I mean Halo: Combat Evolved on the OG Xbox verses Halo 5 on the Xbox One, it's a night and day difference in CPU performance, but not in A.I complexity.

DonFerrari said:

Reason why I'm plenty satisfied with my 4k tv at 3 to 5' distance and will only think about upgrading for real when 8k 85" are reasonably priced both on panel and hw to have that quality.

You do reach a point where things like better HDR is more important than resolution... MicroLED is likely going to be the next big panel tech which should allow for a big step up in that aspect.

I like the HDR and contrast in my TV, and I do think that the solution when 8k is mature enough to have an affordable price on a 85" panel the HDR and other aspects will have improved as well (probably will take another 5 years for that).

My opinion on X1 and PS4 is that they didn't had a specific bottleneck, yes both CPU and GPU aren't enough for most games to be 60fps and have high resolution. For me it was a well balanced budget conscious choice. Yes X1 got it a little worse using the silicon space for the edram or something like that to compensate for the slower RAM so the GPU is considerably weaker than PS4. But both have a very consistent performance for most games that weren't badly made on a 720 or 900p30fps for X1 and 900p or 1080p30fps on PS4, with either pushing more fps, resolution or effects hitting the system as a whole.

ManUtdFan said:
CGI-Quality said:

Because 30fps is totally playable and is the standard. Far less people get headaches or nausea than those that don’t. 

You want constant 60fps? Go PC.

I agree, locked 30fps is totally playable for just about every genre including multiplayer FPS's. But not racers. I've had motion sickness from playing GTA IV and Rocket League. I don't get said issue playing other games.

Low frame rate for driving games is nigh on unforgivable. It's a choice. Tone down the detail and 60 fps is easily achievable, even on older platforms. 

Most racers are 60fps, and even the ones that are 30fps are fine to play, racers usually can do well on the detail while offering double the fps compared to open world or action/adventure.

People have watched TV at 24fps for life without nausea.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."