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

Forums - Gaming - Diff between PS4/XB1 > PS3/360

2008ProchargedGT on 09 August 2014
dane007 said:
CGI-Quality said:
dane007 said:
Lol the difference last gen was far bigger then the difference this gen. It seems people were forgetting the difference seen in games such as COD games, where the ps3 version had lower resolution , less aa, less detail in textures and more frame drops . Thats just COD. Other games that suffered alot was RDR. The ps3 version was horrible compared ot xbox 360 version in resolution , textures and so on. Same with fallout game, skyrim which had frame drop to single digit and more screen tearing. Then there was bayonetta athat had horrible frame rate , less detail in textures. stright from DF for bayonetta " The resulting game featured washed-out colours, a choppy frame-rate, lengthy load times and control issues.". Not to mention crysis 2 and 3 on ps3 were terrible in all aspects from AA, textures, frame rate and resolution. Compared to this gen at most you have a tiny resolution advantage towards ps4 as most games on xbox one are 900p with the exception of a few which are 720p. The textures most of the tiem are the same . The only next real difference is frame rate . sure 60fps is good but 30 ain't bad and alot payable then the fps from last gen in terms of games being built for ps3. For games like tomb raider definitive edition the frame rate of the ps4 version is all over the place and you can feel it when you play. ( i have the game and nearly finished it) compared with more constant 30fps. in that way i rather prefer constant 30fps then a variable frame rate. So yes in terms of this the difference this gen far smaller then last gen

All of those last gen's discrepancies have already happened this gen, just 9 months in. What we didn't have was such a difference in res as often as we do now. The hardware gap is bigger and the differences in multiplatform games, thus far, have been as big and/or even bigger in some cases (720p/30 fps vs 1080p/60fps).

Edit: Just look at Metro Redux:

(1920x1080) vs (1620x912) = 1,4035. The PS4 is pushing about 40% more pixels. This just didn't happen very much last gen. 

Again this gen the difference jus comes to resolution. Frame rate not so much unless teh evelopers decides to do 60fps vs 30fps. Yea but last gen they had resolution deffierence, AA differemce, Frame rate difference, Texture detail difference. Thats far bigger  difference then current gen. For me i rather take slightly lower resolution and a stable frame rate then a game  that lower resolution, lower extures, unplayable frame rate and poorer AA.

Also to note even though its 44% more pixels,, you pu tthem on a 50inch tv and most peopel won't be able to tell teh difference in resolution , clearly seen by KZ multiplayer debacle.  Whereas last gen those difference were more pronounced and obvious


Not sure if you are in denial or just uneducated. I posted a link already in this thread shkwing the diff in COD an avg of just 3% fps so that is equal or larger than than the 720P vs 1080p diff this gen?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis



Around the Network
VanceIX on 09 August 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
VanceIX said:

I think you're making this stuff up about consumers really noticing a difference for the most part, because they don't.

Reread what I posted. I said, your claim about 90% of people not noticing the difference is unsubstatiated but I didn't prove the contrary, instead I said its foolish basing rationale off of that because since its subjective/opinion.

Ask any video game player if they notice much of a difference on their One compared to their PS4 and most will say that the difference is marginal at best. Yes, I am basing this off of my own experiences as a college student with friends with multiple consoles, along with threads on this site and others.

Then you realize this is circumstantial evidence and its invalid right? 

And if you actually understood my post I say, that not only whether someone can discern the difference is subjective, its also completely irrelevant.

For consumers, they'll buy the console that has their favorite game on it, they don't give a damn about 900p upscaled to 1080p vs native 1080p. All they see is that the games look similar, and so they feel comfortable buying their console.

We are talking about Multiplats, identical games on different platforms. If someone wants COD but they also want Halo then they get an XB1, obviously. But that is an outside preference that has nothing to do with the game. Hell, chances are they won't even play the game before deciding which one they want.

This isn't like a consumer looking at the Wii U vs the PS4/One and noticing a significant difference in visuals. They see that both consoles output games that have very similar looks, and then get the one that has the games they like.

What the consumer notices is irrelevant. Here is a fact about consumers, if two products are the same price or even around the same price, they will ask the difference, unless they are buying both. 

In the end it may be subjective, but let's not pretend that majority consumers make their purchase on whether a game is 900p vs 1080p, because they don't.

Outside of outside prefrences, they will, unless their is price disparity and the price difference is worth more than the reso difference which it most certainly will be. Too bad games are 60 dollars on both platforms.

They'll make the purchase on whichever platform their friends use and the one most appealing to them, confident that the games will look almost exactly the same no matter what console.

this is obvious, but these are outside preferences that determine the sale not noticability, noticiability is completely irrelevant, even if the difference was notable, they would still choose the version of the game that appeals to them.

Thats why people buy Wii versions and Wii U version of games, whether or not the differences are noticable are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, the differences them selves mattered and will be the priority once other preferences are satisfied.

So in case A:

Johnny has all the Console, has no freinds, and is chosing which platform to get a multiplat on. And they all cost the same? He's going to get the most powerful one, end of discussion. It doesn't matter if one is 1070 p 50 fps, one is 1075 p at 56 fps and one is 1080p 59 fps, hes going to get the highest fps reso because they all cost 60 bucks.

 



You know what, I'm just going to take the high road and bow out of this. You're using completely unproveable and subjective arguments, and yet you have no problem with throwing my argument out the window for being just that.

Anyway, we'll see when this generation is over just how big the difference was in multiplats. Until then, you can't completely disregard my argument like you are now.

Goodbye and good luck.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 09 August 2014
VanceIX said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
VanceIX said:

I think you're making this stuff up about consumers really noticing a difference for the most part, because they don't.

Reread what I posted. I said, your claim about 90% of people not noticing the difference is unsubstatiated but I didn't prove the contrary, instead I said its foolish basing rationale off of that because since its subjective/opinion.

Ask any video game player if they notice much of a difference on their One compared to their PS4 and most will say that the difference is marginal at best. Yes, I am basing this off of my own experiences as a college student with friends with multiple consoles, along with threads on this site and others.

Then you realize this is circumstantial evidence and its invalid right? 

And if you actually understood my post I say, that not only whether someone can discern the difference is subjective, its also completely irrelevant.

For consumers, they'll buy the console that has their favorite game on it, they don't give a damn about 900p upscaled to 1080p vs native 1080p. All they see is that the games look similar, and so they feel comfortable buying their console.

We are talking about Multiplats, identical games on different platforms. If someone wants COD but they also want Halo then they get an XB1, obviously. But that is an outside preference that has nothing to do with the game. Hell, chances are they won't even play the game before deciding which one they want.

This isn't like a consumer looking at the Wii U vs the PS4/One and noticing a significant difference in visuals. They see that both consoles output games that have very similar looks, and then get the one that has the games they like.

What the consumer notices is irrelevant. Here is a fact about consumers, if two products are the same price or even around the same price, they will ask the difference, unless they are buying both. 

In the end it may be subjective, but let's not pretend that majority consumers make their purchase on whether a game is 900p vs 1080p, because they don't.

Outside of outside prefrences, they will, unless their is price disparity and the price difference is worth more than the reso difference which it most certainly will be. Too bad games are 60 dollars on both platforms.

They'll make the purchase on whichever platform their friends use and the one most appealing to them, confident that the games will look almost exactly the same no matter what console.

this is obvious, but these are outside preferences that determine the sale not noticability, noticiability is completely irrelevant, even if the difference was notable, they would still choose the version of the game that appeals to them.

Thats why people buy Wii versions and Wii U version of games, whether or not the differences are noticable are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, the differences them selves mattered and will be the priority once other preferences are satisfied.

So in case A:

Johnny has all the Console, has no freinds, and is chosing which platform to get a multiplat on. And they all cost the same? He's going to get the most powerful one, end of discussion. It doesn't matter if one is 1070 p 50 fps, one is 1075 p at 56 fps and one is 1080p 59 fps, hes going to get the highest fps reso because they all cost 60 bucks.

 



You know what, I'm just going to take the high road and bow out of this. You're using completely unproveable and subjective arguments, and yet you have no problem with throwing my argument out the window for being just that.

Anyway, we'll see when this generation is over just how big the difference was in multiplats. Until then, you can't completely disregard my argument like you are now.

Goodbye and good luck.

Except I'm not, you are. I'm simply pointing out that you are using subjective arguments. I'm not making an argument using subjectivity, IM FLAT OUT TELLING YOU NOTICIABILITY IS SUBJECTIVE AND CANNOT BE USED, I'm saying you can't use yours. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure you are actually reading what I've posted and are just reponding assuming I am simply arguing with you.

Bold 1. You can't make arguments off of unproven beleifs.

Bold 4. Circumstansial evidence is invalid, just because the friends at your dorm don't notice doesn't mean 90%+ of consumers don't either.

Bold 3. The difference is subjective and its irrelvant seeing as how other priorities such as friends and controller preference, a claim you suggested, carry precedence. You can't make up claims about who will notice what, even if you do a survey in can't be objective cause your asking what people percieve.

Bold 4. Once again Noticably is irrelvant.

Bold 5. Is a fact

Bold 6. Is also a fact, noticability is a preference. Prefrences are priortized by each consumer

Bold 7. Repeats bold 6

Bold 8. Repeats bold 6

Bold 9. Cites Wii and Wii U versions selling as evidence that Noticiability is irrelevant.

Bold 10. Is an example of Bold 6 and Bold 9

The issue is that you are seperating Noticability from preferences and trying to use it as seperate factor. In reality, Noticeablity is just a preference, the degree to which its discernable is also just a preference, someone who wants to use the Xbox controller won't give 2 fcks about whether or not the resolution makes the game look pixelated to them or not.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Machiavellian on 11 August 2014
CGI-Quality said:
dane007 said:
Lol the difference last gen was far bigger then the difference this gen. It seems people were forgetting the difference seen in games such as COD games, where the ps3 version had lower resolution , less aa, less detail in textures and more frame drops . Thats just COD. Other games that suffered alot was RDR. The ps3 version was horrible compared ot xbox 360 version in resolution , textures and so on. Same with fallout game, skyrim which had frame drop to single digit and more screen tearing. Then there was bayonetta athat had horrible frame rate , less detail in textures. stright from DF for bayonetta " The resulting game featured washed-out colours, a choppy frame-rate, lengthy load times and control issues.". Not to mention crysis 2 and 3 on ps3 were terrible in all aspects from AA, textures, frame rate and resolution. Compared to this gen at most you have a tiny resolution advantage towards ps4 as most games on xbox one are 900p with the exception of a few which are 720p. The textures most of the tiem are the same . The only next real difference is frame rate . sure 60fps is good but 30 ain't bad and alot payable then the fps from last gen in terms of games being built for ps3. For games like tomb raider definitive edition the frame rate of the ps4 version is all over the place and you can feel it when you play. ( i have the game and nearly finished it) compared with more constant 30fps. in that way i rather prefer constant 30fps then a variable frame rate. So yes in terms of this the difference this gen far smaller then last gen

All of those last gen's discrepancies have already happened this gen, just 9 months in. What we didn't have was such a difference in res as often as we do now. The hardware gap is bigger and the differences in multiplatform games, thus far, have been as big and/or even bigger in some cases (720p/30 fps vs 1080p/60fps).

Edit: Just look at Metro Redux:

(1920x1080) vs (1620x912) = 1,4035. The PS4 is pushing about 40% more pixels. This just didn't happen very much last gen. 

If the biggest difference we have seen is resolution, then the difference is no where close to last gen.  Also I cannot remember seeing any game for the X1 that was 720P/30  and 1080P/60 for the PS4.  What game actually had that big of a seperation (talking about 3rd party games not 1st party as we need to compare like for like games not which studio decided to go for 1080P/60).  If anything you had 720P/30 and 1080P/30 but I believe even that was pretty rare as most times its 900P/30 or 60 and 1080P/30 

With Metro Redux, its the same.  PS4 1080P/60 while X1 is 900P/60.  Here is Eurogamer Digital Foundry on their analysis and from reading it, resolution is the only real deference.  If anything it shows that the power edge the PS4 has only really translate to higher resolution then anything else.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-metro-redux



jnemesh on 11 August 2014

The differences are enough to make people choose the PS4 over the Xbox...and if that isn't "significant" enough for you guys, I don't know what would be!



Around the Network
2008ProchargedGT on 11 August 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Machiavellian said:
CGI-Quality said:

-snip

If the biggest difference we have seen is resolution, then the difference is no where close to last gen.  Also I cannot remember seeing any game for the X1 that was 720P/30  and 1080P/60 for the PS4.  What game actually had that big of a seperation (talking about 3rd party games not 1st party as we need to compare like for like games not which studio decided to go for 1080P/60).  If anything you had 720P/30 and 1080P/30 but I believe even that was pretty rare as most times its 900P/30 or 60 and 1080P/30 

With Metro Redux, its the same.  PS4 1080P/60 while X1 is 900P/60.  Here is Eurogamer Digital Foundry on their analysis and from reading it, resolution is the only real deference.  If anything it shows that the power edge the PS4 has only really translate to higher resolution then anything else.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-metro-redux

As I put it, 25-50% difference in res, alone, is large enough - everything else just beats the horse as it continues to decompose. Also, mentioning a game that's aiming for console parity is moot. 

Every difference from last gen has been present this gen (screen tearing/AF/AA), in addition to the res differences. No need to perpetuate the argument anymore.


My point exactly.  Not sure how some can refute this til red in the face



Machiavellian on 12 August 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Machiavellian said:
CGI-Quality said:

-snip

If the biggest difference we have seen is resolution, then the difference is no where close to last gen.  Also I cannot remember seeing any game for the X1 that was 720P/30  and 1080P/60 for the PS4.  What game actually had that big of a seperation (talking about 3rd party games not 1st party as we need to compare like for like games not which studio decided to go for 1080P/60).  If anything you had 720P/30 and 1080P/30 but I believe even that was pretty rare as most times its 900P/30 or 60 and 1080P/30 

With Metro Redux, its the same.  PS4 1080P/60 while X1 is 900P/60.  Here is Eurogamer Digital Foundry on their analysis and from reading it, resolution is the only real deference.  If anything it shows that the power edge the PS4 has only really translate to higher resolution then anything else.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-metro-redux

As I put it, 25-50% difference in res, alone, is large enough - everything else just beats the horse as it continues to decompose. Also, mentioning a game that's aiming for console parity is moot. 

Every difference from last gen has been present this gen (screen tearing/AF/AA), in addition to the res differences. No need to perpetuate the argument anymore.

@BOLDED: I agree but it seems you are throwing number around and they appear to be exaggerated.  In the end there does not seem to be any difference this gen then last beside the parties have changed sides.  The gap doesn't appear to be larger or smaller and there appear to be a lot of things very similar.  What I see is that developers are getting a handle on things faster than last gen as the new crop of games from 3rd party studios seem to suggest.

To see the real separation, I am waiting for the 1st party stuff to do that but nothing yet has really told the story IMHO.



Machiavellian on 12 August 2014
2008ProchargedGT said:

Not sure if you are in denial or just uneducated. I posted a link already in this thread shkwing the diff in COD an avg of just 3% fps so that is equal or larger than than the 720P vs 1080p diff this gen?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis

Is call of Duty the only game you know that was created during the PS3 and 360 era.  Did you just forget all the other face-offs from Eurogamer where the PS3 encountered a heck of a lot of issues with missing textures, poor aa, mising features, bad framerates you name it.  Why are you trying to use one game as your definitive example??



2008ProchargedGT on 12 August 2014
Machiavellian said:
CGI-Quality said:
dane007 said:
Lol the difference last gen was far bigger then the difference this gen. It seems people were forgetting the difference seen in games such as COD games, where the ps3 version had lower resolution , less aa, less detail in textures and more frame drops . Thats just COD. Other games that suffered alot was RDR. The ps3 version was horrible compared ot xbox 360 version in resolution , textures and so on. Same with fallout game, skyrim which had frame drop to single digit and more screen tearing. Then there was bayonetta athat had horrible frame rate , less detail in textures. stright from DF for bayonetta " The resulting game featured washed-out colours, a choppy frame-rate, lengthy load times and control issues.". Not to mention crysis 2 and 3 on ps3 were terrible in all aspects from AA, textures, frame rate and resolution. Compared to this gen at most you have a tiny resolution advantage towards ps4 as most games on xbox one are 900p with the exception of a few which are 720p. The textures most of the tiem are the same . The only next real difference is frame rate . sure 60fps is good but 30 ain't bad and alot payable then the fps from last gen in terms of games being built for ps3. For games like tomb raider definitive edition the frame rate of the ps4 version is all over the place and you can feel it when you play. ( i have the game and nearly finished it) compared with more constant 30fps. in that way i rather prefer constant 30fps then a variable frame rate. So yes in terms of this the difference this gen far smaller then last gen

All of those last gen's discrepancies have already happened this gen, just 9 months in. What we didn't have was such a difference in res as often as we do now. The hardware gap is bigger and the differences in multiplatform games, thus far, have been as big and/or even bigger in some cases (720p/30 fps vs 1080p/60fps).

Edit: Just look at Metro Redux:

(1920x1080) vs (1620x912) = 1,4035. The PS4 is pushing about 40% more pixels. This just didn't happen very much last gen. 

If the biggest difference we have seen is resolution, then the difference is no where close to last gen.  Also I cannot remember seeing any game for the X1 that was 720P/30  and 1080P/60 for the PS4.  What game actually had that big of a seperation (talking about 3rd party games not 1st party as we need to compare like for like games not which studio decided to go for 1080P/60).  If anything you had 720P/30 and 1080P/30 but I believe even that was pretty rare as most times its 900P/30 or 60 and 1080P/30 

With Metro Redux, its the same.  PS4 1080P/60 while X1 is 900P/60.  Here is Eurogamer Digital Foundry on their analysis and from reading it, resolution is the only real deference.  If anything it shows that the power edge the PS4 has only really translate to higher resolution then anything else.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-metro-redux


I used COD as an example because someone metions the diff last gen was much larger with COD specifically.....



Machiavellian on 12 August 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Machiavellian said:
CGI-Quality said:

-snip

@BOLDED: I agree but it seems you are throwing number around and they appear to be exaggerated.  In the end there does not seem to be any difference this gen then last beside the parties have changed sides.  The gap doesn't appear to be larger or smaller and there appear to be a lot of things very similar.  What I see is that developers are getting a handle on things faster than last gen as the new crop of games from 3rd party studios seem to suggest.

(900p vs 1080p). What is the mathematical difference (percentage)? (720p vs 1080p). Same question. 

Also - much the rest of your post is contradictory to your first reply to me. From my hindsight, the main difference between last gen and this gen, in regards to devs getting a "hang" - the parity clause (something not in place for the PS3). Otherwise, the situation is identical, and in some cases, favors the easier-to-develop-for machine even more (which also, this time, happens to be the more powerful console).

What does parity means to a developer.  Gamers throw this term around without really understanding what it means to a developer.  Nothing has changed from this gen then last gen when it comes to parity.  Last gen, developers worked harder to get the PS3 to perform and look as good as the 360 because it took longer for developers to access the strengths of the PS3.  Same thing goes this gen.  Developers have to work harder to get the X1 to look as good or close to the PS4.  Parity does not mean that developers gimp the PS4 version but instead, developers have a target of what they can and cannot do with both consoles.  What we have seen from parity is that developers are working with the tools and SDK MS have given them to attempt to either meet the PS4 on resolution or graphical effects.  

The thing we will see and are seeing is that the easier to code for console is not the one getting the most attention from developers because its easy.  Few tweaks are needed and thus those resources are sent to work on the hardware that takes the longest.  If the easier to code for hardware really make a lot of difference, we would see the same games on the PC totally outstripe the consoles but that does not happen.