So yes empirically you're absolutely right most were not the full 720p vs. 1080p. I didn't intend it to be read like that was the norm, only that in extremis you get a 50% resolution hit.
The reason I say it has to do with the RAM (and by extension the ESram) is because of the way it was partitioned up. I'm not a developer obviously but to my limited understanding, unless you can fit your render target into the 32MB buffer of extra-speedy RAM, you're forced to relegate it into the DDR3. This meant that, especially in multiplats which seldom used the buffer, the Xbox One would construct its frame with DDR3 (which is supposed to be system RAM) while the PS4 was able to use its GDDR5. The bandwidth differences then become seriously 2.0. The new Series S has a similar tiered memory architecture which people suspect the slower 2GB will be used for the OS. But even the faster memory (8GB GDDR6) has less bandwidth than the slowest tier memory in the Series X. So to my mind, unless developers scale their rendering targets nicely, both for the GPU but ALSO for the memory bandwidth, the Series S will get the short end of the stick. In practice that means that cutting texture resolutions AS WELL as internal resolution is basically non-negotiable. Watch Dogs got it right and AC Valhalla got it wrong
Understood. My technical understanding in this is also limited, but sure it is very reasonable expectation. Will just point out what Pemalite brought on the pixel count rendering isn't that much affected by the RAM amount (and perhaps speed), but textures and other elements are. But sure if your assets are being limited by the speed/amount of RAM making the render higher would just make things unbalanced. Let's see how things will roll during the rest of the gen.
On the 50% difference on some extreme cases I don't remember what were the games, but were very few, I think CoD was one of them on the release, did it got patched later? And from what I remember even those titles that had 50% difference in pixel count while playing weren't so much worse.
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."