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

Forums - Gaming - 900p and 30fps _ Is it a parity clause???

Badassbab on 10 October 2014

I hate all this MS is out to destroy Sony conspiracy theories I've been hearing for the past ten years by the SDF crowd but this one is definitely a bit suspect. We all know the PS4 has a noticeably more powerful GPU and has superior RAM bandwidth so it should have a higher resolution. If as Ubisoft say it's down to CPU bottlenecks due to the amount of NPC and open world nature then I expect the PS4 to be noticeably superior in other areas such as in graphical fidelity. If it doesn't then this is one conspiracy I will believe. If someone can prove Ubisoft is deliberately holding the PS4 version back then they should be sued by a class action lawsuit of irate gamers which has worked before.






Around the Network
mornelithe on 10 October 2014
Landguy said:
mornelithe said:
Landguy said:

Did this get announced today?

Yeah, Bioware announced it an hour ago or so.


Oops, I saw that and forgot already.  Too bad that only proves that there are apples and oranges.  We alreeady know that the PS4 has had better resolution on multiple titles.  What Ubisoft is claiming is a whole different thing.  My guess is that they will announce that they have got a patch to download at release that will bring the PS4 version to 1080p.  Because "they worked to bring the best version possible to each console" or something similar.

I know people enjoy seeing the Bioware thing, and it's most certainly a shot across Ubisoft's bow...but using that as an example that Ubisoft has dropped the ball is sheer folly.  Some engines require more resources in different areas.  So yeah, I agree, it's apples to oranges.

This wouldn't be an issue, if Ubisoft's guy hadn't said the reason was to avoid debate.  Cut out that line, and the firestorm would've likely been far less, and the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have fuel.  Sure, they still would've been vocal and angry, but they wouldn't have a quote from the release to hold up as proof, either.



Dark_Feanor on 10 October 2014
mornelithe said:

I personally wanted devs to delay launches on the PS3, in order to release a better product.  Things like PS3 Skyrim, should never have happened.  But, I'm also a PC Primary gamer, so delays are something I've gotten used to over the years.

As I said before, though, I think the biggest issue here is the devs actually stating this stuff out loud.  Since it's been done on at least a couple occasions at this point, it adds quotable validity to the conspiracy theories.  Whether the theories are true or not, is irrelevant.  That they've said it, provides people with enough proof.

This gen, I'm just curious why they wouldn't make their engine scale.  Given the architecture is so similar, you'd think an engine that scales between the PS4/XB1 would make sense, and in so doing would allow the PS4 version to excel where it's strengths are and the XB1 version to excel where it's strengths are.  Of course, that's how I thought last gen, so you'd think I would've given up on this curiosity by now hah.


A engine could scale very well GPU wise where the true difference remains.

Everything else is almost identical. If dev run in a CPU bottleneck (as it seems with Ubisoft Anvil engine), or memory size and bandwide, they have to compromise in resolution.

They can´t delay the game ad infinitum. They have to ship in what is possible at their time scadule.

And maybe patche it later.



mornelithe on 10 October 2014
Puppyroach said:
mornelithe said:

As I said before, though, I think the biggest issue here is the devs actually stating this stuff out loud.  Since it's been done on at least a couple occasions at this point, it adds quotable validity to the conspiracy theories.  Whether the theories are true or not, is irrelevant.  That they've said it, provides people with enough proof.

This so much. It seems dumb statements from publishers are in abundance this gen. I as an XBox fan don´t give a crap if my version of a game is at 900p, while the PS4 version is 1080p. But when they go for parity, don´t say it like the guys at UBI did, that´s just stupid.

Yeah, they're not doing themselves any favors by not vetting their statements, before release.



mornelithe on 10 October 2014
Dark_Feanor said:
mornelithe said:

I personally wanted devs to delay launches on the PS3, in order to release a better product.  Things like PS3 Skyrim, should never have happened.  But, I'm also a PC Primary gamer, so delays are something I've gotten used to over the years.

As I said before, though, I think the biggest issue here is the devs actually stating this stuff out loud.  Since it's been done on at least a couple occasions at this point, it adds quotable validity to the conspiracy theories.  Whether the theories are true or not, is irrelevant.  That they've said it, provides people with enough proof.

This gen, I'm just curious why they wouldn't make their engine scale.  Given the architecture is so similar, you'd think an engine that scales between the PS4/XB1 would make sense, and in so doing would allow the PS4 version to excel where it's strengths are and the XB1 version to excel where it's strengths are.  Of course, that's how I thought last gen, so you'd think I would've given up on this curiosity by now hah.


A engine could scale very well GPU wise where the true difference remains.

Everything else is almost identical. If dev run in a CPU bottleneck (as it seems with Ubisoft Anvil engine), or memory size and bandwide, they have to compromise in resolution.

They can´t delay the game ad infinitum. They have to ship in what is possible at their time scadule.

And maybe patche it later.

Oh I know, that was simply my take last gen.  It doesn't work for a number of reasons (Sony's image would've been hurt further, sales would've been horribly skewed etc...), but I would've been ok with them doing it.  I prefer their vision, not what happens when they're rushed.



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 10 October 2014

I expect developer laziness plays a far larger roll in this stuff than any kind of actual "parity clause".

That said, i wouldn't be surprised if MS sometimes provide developers with extra resources (whether that be money or, as we know they sometimes do, their own people) to justify pushing the X1 version up to the PS4's standards. That, unlike paying them to downgrade the PS4 version, would actually be legal :p

It's a relatively short term plan (becomes useless once the X1 is functionally "maxed"), but i can't see anything inherently wrong with it, providing they never put less effort into the PS4 version than they otherwise would have.



alabtrosMyster on 10 October 2014

Not necessarily, I think people are oversymplifying this thing...

If game X runs at a very solid 30fps on both machines, all the effects, textures, etc. look the same, well then there is something fishy.

However a team may have decided that they prefer to raise the shadow quality use a better AA solution, etc. on the PS4 version (I think these are bad choices, I.E resolution is more important in most cases) so the rendering resolution would still be the same, but the PS4 version would still have some benefits.

Grayer areas are situations like Destiny, it's 1080p30fps, was developped around that resolution and frame rate in the first and the XB1 was probably very close when MS updated their SDK... Now should the PS4 have an unlocked FPS option, certainly, it's almost sure it runs at 60 most of the time or close enough to it that is would be a net benefit :-/ at the very least it's a situation like Tomb Raider:DE (I.E. much better than locked 30).

Now about MS enforcing this, the only parity closes we had confirmation of are the content/release date closes, but MS has been known to sabotage other companie's products actively (Netscape, Oracle, Wordperfect with undocumented windows updates) ... so why not? they're not the kind to try to just create a good product and hope it will work, they will put as much efforts in causing arms to their competition as they put into creating whatever they are set out to do, they ended in court many times for this kind of behaviour.



Arkaign on 11 October 2014
Landguy said:
Dark_Feanor said:
Last gen, many titles and developers aimed for parity, or as close as possible, regardless what was possible in each platform.

Now we are in that pathetic and pittyfull pixel counting as the last battleground in the console wars.

It almost appears as an open agenda from Sony supporters as an "PDA service" to make people aware of how evil is Microfsoft with their background parity clauses, and how Sony is pure and good working for the benefit of the true gamers.

In almost one year we have dozens fo games with 1080/900p to show how small that difference is (even XOne exclusive vs PC) and how that doesn´t affect game play or people enjoyment.


Good luck ever seeing a scenario where the hardcore PS fanboy will accept that the technically superior PS4 doesn't provide much if any different gaming experience than the XB1.  Just like it would be hard pressed for most M$ fanboys to admit that the PS4 is more powerful and in some games provides even a subtle improvement in some way.

Until  I start seeing games with significant or even small changes to the gameplay because of the power difference, I will call all of these parity arguments a bunch of BS.  Especially when someone says they won't buy it because they "think" but can't prove that the game was gimped to harm them somehow.

Hell, the PS2 and Xbox could play every single game released, albeit with lowered graphics of course.

All else being equal though, I think we'd all prefer better graphics if the price is the same. On a nice display, native 1080p looks much better to me.  I looked at PS4 BF4 and wanted to puke. Native 720p on a native 720 display looks better.