http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFp7NlksL3k

The video starts of talking about the whole PS4 battlefield debacle, but at around 5:00 it starts getting juicy. I recommend watching the entire video, but the relevant part is at, once again, five mins out in the video.

To summarize what he said, he said that he wasvery conserned about next gen when it is supposed to be a 10 year old cycle, when his video card from 2008 could run a 1080p game and the next gen consoles can't do that at launch. I'm no expert, so I won't meddle too much with that, so if you need further explanation, the video is your best bet.

Thoughts?

I said this before and I will say it again but the whole 1080p thing has very little to do with absolute power and more to do with developer choice. Every HD game released for the past 6-7 years could have been at 1080p but rather developers opted for lower resolution with greater amounts of geometry, effects etc. Developers obviously felt that there were greater gains to be had with the latter rather than the former course. While the greater amount of power available this generations makes it easier for developers to aim for 1080p without huge compromises in other areas, it is by no means a guarantee that all games will be 1080p.

The main reason why PC games easily achieve resolutions like this (and higher) is because when developing PC games, developers have to make games that run acceptably on 'average' hardware, as that's where the majority of the market resides. Having said that there will always be a significant number of gamers that are well ahead of the hardware curve and thus have rigs far in excess of the common denominator that developers where forced to aim for.

last gen many games struggled to keep 30FPS with 720p or less. This time round we are launching with lots of 1080p 60FPS games with large advances in other areas. Honestly sub 1080p at 60FPS in what has a good chance of being one of the more technically expressive launch titles isn't too much to worry about. Console optimisation is all about trade-offs (FPS, Image quality, effects, scale, level of detail) of course the PS4 and XBone don't exactly have super high end hardware but the fact that resolution is being traded off in one game isn't a big deal.

I'm not sure what to say about the whole situation really. It is after all just a launch game, and we all know how games look late in the cycles compared to early. However, when a standard PC from 2008 could run games at 1080p in almost every cases, then why can't a console, that is dedicated to gaming, that is supposed to last for 10 years, manage that? As Rich says, where are we going to be in three years? And in 6, are we going to feel that they have pretty much maxed out the systems? After all, the PS4 is a lot easier to develop for than the PS3.

Because that game made in 2008 doesn't hold a candle to Battlefield 4. It's a combination of devs not taking full advantage of the hardware and them feeling that the lower resolution is worth the trade of for better graphics elsewhere.

We'll Lars Gustafsson confirmed BF4 would run 720p at 60FPS (even worse res than discussed in the video), so I suppose I'm a bit disappointed


so yeah I suppose this gens gonna be about 1080p @30FPS vs 720p @60 FPS

First of all, Battlefield 4 isn't out yet so we don't know how it will run in a "standard PC from 2008". And then, I doubt a mid-high PC from 2008 can run Battlefield 3 at 1080p with everything on high at 60 fps, even less Battlefield 4.

Look, 2008 was the year Nvidia and AMD launched the GTX2x0 and HD4xx0 series, and this is how they perform in Battlefield 3 at High settings:

source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063.html

(The GTX295 is a dual GPU card)

Neither the GTX285 nor the HD4870 are close to 60fps and it will be even worse in Battlefield 4. The console versions will run at 60fps and will use some of the Ultra effects (that's why they won't reach 1080p), so the difference in image quality will be a lot more noticeable that the smaller resolution. 

Consoles will be fine for the next 3-4 years. After that... well, have Sony or MSoft said that their consoles will last 10 years this time? What if this gen "only" lasts 5-6 years like they used to do? Will that be such a problem?

Can his video card from 2008 run Battlefield 4 at 1080p, 60fps? Its not simply a case of running any game at 1080p, its a question of the game your running and how graphically impressive it is (Pc allows flexible setting whilst consoles do not). Achieving 1080p in itself isn't much of an achievement (numerous ps3 games run at full HD), It all comes down to visuals you're able to achieve through leveraging the resolution against texture quality, poly counts, physics/AI, effects and fps. 

We haven't seen Battlefield running on the PS4 yet to judge whether its sub 1080p resolution is justified or whether we should be dissapointed, but either way we're talking about a launch titles that is already  demonstrating a fair leap over current gen. 64players, 60fps, and a resolution which is above 720p. 

Who says this is supposed to be a 10 year generation?  The last generation wasn't.  We will probably see new consoles in 6-7 years.

I'm taking that one from the video. He said so, and I've never really experienced him to just make up stuff. However, Microsoft also sid that they wanted to sell 1 billion Xbox ones, and I doubt that means we'll have a 6-7 year console gen.

And, the the whole pc from 2008 thing is also from the video, as I trust him enough to believe that what he says is the truth. If it isn't, then I'm sorry :p