By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sales2099 said:
Otter said:

Regarding both statements: Up until now the understanding for many has been that S simply equates to a resolution drop and that is it. Of course its important to note that this is not the case for some games. No one is saying 30fps is unplayable or anything, but these difference in console performance (60fps vs 30fps) should be noted as some people would be comfortable with limiting themselves to full HD (for example those without 4k TVs), but not comfortable knowing that they're getting half the fps as well. This isn't how the S has been advertised or understood until now, hence the thread.

I was under a impression it was resolution and FPS the entire time. Either way the target audience in theory neither notices and/or cares. 

Funny thing, I could swear from the several threads that the promise was same fps because the CPU was the same and all the cuts would be on graphical aspects.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

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