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

Forums - Gaming - Battlefield Hardline to use 'same resolution settings' as BF4 on PS4/X1 (900p/720p) - Downgrade

AlfredoTurkey on 07 February 2015
DonFerrari said:
AlfredoTurkey said:


It also worked wonders on the PS1 and PS2... you know, the best selling console of all time?


Yep, consoles Sony didn't packed everything on it, made super powerfull and them sold at loss... they were both weaker than N64, GC and Xbox Og.


You missed the point. The PS2 was FAR more powerful than the PS1. In g-flops, the PS2 was about 62 or so times more powerful. The PS4 is at most, 6 times more powerful to the PS3. 

All major consoles saw similar leaps to previous generations. They were HUGE leaps... not small bumps. My point is, if it has ALWAYS worked that way (take a loss on hardware, recoup on software), then why change it now? It doesn't make any sense other than MS, Nintendo and Sony just want bigger profit margins.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 08 February 2015
AlfredoTurkey said:
DonFerrari said:


Yep, consoles Sony didn't packed everything on it, made super powerfull and them sold at loss... they were both weaker than N64, GC and Xbox Og.


You missed the point. The PS2 was FAR more powerful than the PS1. In g-flops, the PS2 was about 62 or so times more powerful. The PS4 is at most, 6 times more powerful to the PS3. 

All major consoles saw similar leaps to previous generations. They were HUGE leaps... not small bumps. My point is, if it has ALWAYS worked that way (take a loss on hardware, recoup on software), then why change it now? It doesn't make any sense other than MS, Nintendo and Sony just want bigger profit margins.


Please show any proof that any console have a general leap of 62x... from the data I know the biggest leap from one gen to the other were PS2 to PS3 on 35x (that made PS3 more or less close to X360 that leaped like 16x from Xbox original)... one single part of the equipment don't dictate all...

But if you want keep thinking they are doing all this just because of greedy, like 5Billion loss on PS3 is something easily forgetfull.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

curl-6 on 09 February 2015

Considering this is an open world at 60fps, at least in multiplayer, it may not be a question of bad optimization, but more of having to make sacrifices to maintain performance within the constraints of console hardware. Most games this big on PS4/Xbone are 30fps, no?

 

PieToast said:
 even if the graphical fidelity was higher tbh I feel like the artistic design still looks meh.

Which is the funny part, cos going back to Dead Space, Visceral has a history of impeccable art design. Maybe Battlefield's style left no room for them to breathe aesthetically.



oldschoolfool on 09 February 2015

game is nothing more then a $65 expansion.