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

Forums - Gaming - MS told Blizzard 900p was "unacceptable" for Diablo 3 on Xbox One.

I guarantee you Microsoft will piss off publishers if they make resolution parity and some publishers, probably smaller ones will stop developing games for Xbox One. What this is basically doing is telling them to spend more time which means spend more money and people will not like that.



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

Around the Network

I was actually going to get this on Xbox One because one of my good friends was getting it, but the FPS fluctuation changed my mind. I'll see if I can get him to hold off for now. He's going to be getting the Destiny Bundle anyway! Thanks for letting me know about the frame rate problems which fluctuates enough to make things worse with micro-stutter.  I can't stand micro-stutter.



QuintonMcLeod said:

Who cares about these consoles hitting 1080p if they can't even maintain a smooth 60 fps? Wasn't that supposed to be the point? 1080p AND 60fps locked? If they can't achieve something I've been able to enjoy on the PC for YEARS, then they might as well stop trying. Diablo III is a superior game on the PC anyway. Why play this on a console??

Actually the diablo 3 next gen console versions are the superior game. They match the latest PC patch as well as having some extra features. 



Maybe, just MAYBE...If MS found 900p "unacceptable", they should have put in better hardware? Just sayin'.



Mr.Playstation said:
Vincoletto said:


ANyway, how many people have a 92 inch screen? You cant base your business or creative or technical decisions based on the minotity of the minority or the minority of your consumers.

I believe most poeple play on 42-52 inch screens

I was just talking to SvennoJ since he had stated that he has a 92" screen. Even 1080p is not needed as much for the general consumer, I usually have a resolution under 1080p ( though over 720p to be exact 1366*768) on my 32" screen and it looks really good.

It scales linearly. I sit 12ft away from that screen, that's the same field of view as 6.8 ft from a 52" tv or 3.1 ft from a 24" monitor. With a projector you basically get the field of view experience of sitting behind a pc desk at a comfortable sitting distance on a reclined couch :)

And yes, GTA 4 on ps3 and Alan Wake on 360 were pretty hard on the eyes on that screen, I'm glad 1080p is the norm now. Lugging the pc back and forth gets tiring at my age :p

A side benefit of a projector is that you sit in a darkened room, better immersion and lower light (16 ft lambert is enough for cinema, while tvs throw out as high as 50 ft lambert) means you're less susceptible to flicker and noticing frame rate dips. 24fps from movies doesn't bother me on the projector, while on the tv during the day in the living room I can see everything 'skipping' accross the screen.



Around the Network
Xevross said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

Who cares about these consoles hitting 1080p if they can't even maintain a smooth 60 fps? Wasn't that supposed to be the point? 1080p AND 60fps locked? If they can't achieve something I've been able to enjoy on the PC for YEARS, then they might as well stop trying. Diablo III is a superior game on the PC anyway. Why play this on a console??

Actually the diablo 3 next gen console versions are the superior game. They match the latest PC patch as well as having some extra features. 


How is it superior? Care to explain?



QuintonMcLeod said:


How is it superior? Care to explain?

it has local co-op



Brotherstotheend said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
 


How is it superior? Care to explain?

it has local co-op


Does diablo 3 not support LAN on pc?



Brotherstotheend said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
 


How is it superior? Care to explain?

it has local co-op

lol.

I'm assuming you're referring to offline play, since the PC can do local co-op as well.

Offline play doesn't make it superior. Especially when there's offline patches available for Diablo 3 on the PC.



Landguy said:
BreedinBull said:
1. I thought graphics didn't matter and 2. How does the lowest install base get to demand shit?


Because all of the haters in VG forums have demanded 1080p or they won't buy it.  Like I said, now people are complaining that M$ helped Blizzard achieve 1080p.

Well the only people who can credibly threaten not to buy a Xbox One game are people who own xbox one. So how are they haters? And the only people who can credibly threaten not to buy a Xb one are people who actually are considering buying a Xb one, again how can such people be haters?

And for those who own more than one platform it makes sense to buy the version of a game that has the best performance specs. It's not the only factor in deciding which version to buy, but all other things being equal people will buy the game that performs best.

It's not haters that are driving demands for resolution parity. It's MS being used to having the best performing console versions of games for the past 2 generations being hypersensitive to no longer being able to claim that crown.  And the fact is resolution is normally stated on game cases, whereas frame rate is not. So achieving resolution parit. At the expense of a small frame rate compromise (not parody or parrot) means there's no differentiation on the game case. Whereas a resolution difference with same frame rate means there is a point of difference on the game case, in favour of the PS4 version. And The reason resolution is ofbthe game case and fps is not is because resolution is always locked whereas framers is often variable. So if you put 60fps on the game case and you get dips then you run the risk of frivolous lawsuits over false advertising.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix