DonFerrari said:
Nintendo isn't directly competing and has portability in its favor. |
True. But both are $299 with a big difference in specs. I simply think people aren’t giving this thing it’s due for what it does at the price.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
sales2099 said:
True. But both are $299 with a big difference in specs. I simply think people aren’t giving this thing it’s due for what it does at the price. |
Sure, and certainly a lot of people will be satisfied with the proposition of Series S. It just can't be a comparison to Switch because well, Series S is proposing to be a value option against Series X and PS5, Switch isn't even concern with that.
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."
I'm surprised it can't hit 60fps at 1080p. It matches the series X CPU and has a third the GPU power. Meanwhile 1080p is one quarter the pixel count of 2160p that the Series X gets through, plus they can run lower quality textures, cheaper lighting and filtering. 1080p/60 should be feasible and it's worrying why they've not gone for it.Perhaps Ubisoft think Series S gamers aren't interested in performance, that it's basically a fortnite box? doesn't bode well.
Oh my god endless quotes are back.
shikamaru317 said:
It most likely can handle 1080p 60 fps, but Ubisoft figured that the target audience for Series S, casuals, would prefer higher resolution over higher framerate. And honestly, they might be right. But I definitely think that Series S is capable of 1080p 60 fps on AC Valhalla, another Ubisoft game from this Holiday, Watch Dogs Legion, has dynamic resolution scaling from 720p-1080p on Series S and from 1440p-2160p on Series X, with raytracing on both. The gap in performance between Watch Dogs on S and X suggests that AC Valhalla should be capable of 1080p 60 fps on Series S since Series X is 2160p 60 fps, but Ubisoft decided that the target audience of Series S would rather have 1440p 30 fps than 1080p 60 fps. It's a shame that Ubisoft isn't a fan of multiple performance profiles, would be nice if they allowed people to choose between framerate and resolution modes on Series S. |
If they had made it 1440p30fps then sure we could say they gave preference for res, but when they gone 1080p30fps versus 4k60fps of Series X then for me they were just being odd in choice. But you are right most won't care that it is 30fps, I don't.
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."
People are blaming the series S too much. I think Ubisoft is more to blame than Microsoft. You get the results depending on the effort put in
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
| shikamaru317 said: We now have an answer for why Series S is only 30 fps. Apparently Series S is using a dynamic resolution scaler that ranges from 1620p-2160p which hovers at the lower 1620p figure most of the time. The Series S was not designed for 1620p, it was designed to for either 1080p or 1440p depending on the game engine, with the same framerate and pretty much the same graphics as the Series X version. So Ubisoft chose to go against MS's recommendation of 1080p or 1440p on Series S and go for 1620p-2160p dynamic, with the tradeoff being lower a lower 30 fps framerate target. Maybe if enough people ask for it, Ubisoft will patch in a dynamic 1080p-1440p 60 fps performance mode or something. |
??
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
Im guessing people were right that Series S will hold back next gen.
Pocky Lover Boy!
shikamaru317 said:
This guy's analysis shows that both XB1 X and Xbox Series S are using a dynamic scaler that runs from 1620p-2160p, same as Series X, though they both fall towards the lower 1620p number most of the time, whereas Series X hovers from 1800p-2160p most of the time with double the framerate of Series S and XB1 X: |
So basically what we have here is not a case of the XSS falling short, but the dev being too lazy to have it scaled to 1080p-1440p for 60 fps.
This should help people feel a bit more confident in what the Series S could potentially be capable of.
Last edited by Shiken - on 11 November 2020Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984
Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261
| shikamaru317 said: We now have an answer for why Series S is only 30 fps. Apparently Series S is using a dynamic resolution scaler that ranges from 1620p-2160p which hovers at the lower 1620p figure most of the time. The Series S was not designed for 1620p, it was designed to for either 1080p or 1440p depending on the game engine, with the same framerate and pretty much the same graphics as the Series X version. So Ubisoft chose to go against MS's recommendation of 1080p or 1440p on Series S and go for 1620p-2160p dynamic, with the tradeoff being lower a lower 30 fps framerate target. Maybe if enough people ask for it, Ubisoft will patch in a dynamic 1080p-1440p 60 fps performance mode or something. |
So it is internally resolving the images at about 1620p but outputing at 1080p30fps? Very odd choice.
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."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
