117 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

With the recent news about Ubisoft not going 100% on the PS4 version because they did not want to create a debate about which version of AC: Unity is the inferior one (Xbox One vs PS4). Obviously this caused anger among many PS4 owners who feels that Ubisoft is gimping the PS4 version cause they wanted to be "fair" and what not.

 

Well, is DAI next on this list? Bioware has never really came out to say anything concrete about this other than some vague statement about trying to get the best out of each platform, but that does not mean anything. Could it be possible that the resolution and even framrate for the PS4 could be "lessened" because Bioware does not want to shadow the Xbone as being the inferior version among the current gen platforms? I mean, we all know that there is some sort of deal with M$ in regards to DAI with the timed exclusive DLC(s) and what not.

 

So yeah, what do you think?

[thebatmanreborn]

No need to worry. outrage over that has caused Ubisoft to rethink their position.

 

http://www.eurogamer...on-ps4-xbox-one

[Kantr]

They said they wanted parity on all devices (repeatedly)

[Fiery Phoenix]

For what it's worth, I asked a BioWare employee about this not too long ago and was told that they generally seek parity between consoles of the same generation. However, a 44% increase in pixel count from 900p to 1080p is up to the individual developer to decide whether or not it negates their definition of parity.

[thebatmanreborn]

The reason I can't see Bioware doing it is simply because of outrage. I feel like DAI is not only being made as a great RPG, but also a way to restore faith with the gaming community. Some are still sore about SW: The Old Republic, DA2, and the ME3 ending. Ubisoft, after repeatedly saying they are seeking parity, released a statement this morning backtracking. Why? Outrage was huge. Other companies are watching this. Some, with smaller budgets, will likely seek parity. But EA/Bioware, I can't see them risking it. Now, if there is some other reason why the game need to be kept similar on the consoles (some technical reason), that's different. But simply for the sake of parity? Well, I sure hope not.  

[Makkah876]

Judging by their gen 7 games I'm guessing they'll be shooting to make them as similar as possible. That's kinda their thing I think. If it makes you feel better, I believe they said they are aiming for 1080p on PS4 though (not sure about the bone). I'm sure the game will be beautiful either way.

[The Antagonist]

they said the cpus on the ps4 and X bone are the bottlenecks. that's why they can't up the graphics.

[c00lgy24]

Well considering they put out a AC title like every year , I'm not too worried about Inquisition . Its up to the individual developer to sort that out and from what we have seen and read/heard it will look great ! 

[finc.loki]

they said the cpus on the ps4 and X bone are the bottlenecks. that's why they can't up the graphics.

Ubisoft says a lot of thing.

 

This is one of those BS ones. When the developer said parity to avoid "debates" you know exactly what he means and it has NOTHING to do with any CPU bottlenecking.

 

What Ubisoft did to the PC version of Watchdogs was atrociously bad, I hate them more than EA now. They are just awful in their ways. That said they still have some good games and so do EA. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Giantdeathrobot]

This isn't intended at any console player (you can play any way you want and I like everyone ) but it still utterly baffles me that the ''next-gen'' consoles are already bottlenecking developpers not even a year after release. I thought the whole point of getting a new generation is that devs didn't have to make compromises anymore, or at least much smaller ones. But 900p 30 fps on Xbone for AC:U? Seriously? What's it going to be in a few years? Not to mention 900p must not look to great on a large TV.

 

As for DA:I, my guess is that it will be 30 FPS on all consoles. I hope for the sake of console players that Bioware can manage 1080p on both machines at least. Since the game doesn't have a huge city, it's probably less CPU intensive than AssCreed, so one can hope.

 

What I will say is that Ubisoft's explanations ring like pathetic excuses. ''Oh, we didn't want to create controversy'' (yeah, right, console wars are known for being totally tame affairs innit?). My favorite is when they say both consoles could top the game at 1080p with 100 fps with just graphics, but that the AI is too demanding and forces them to downgrade the game, to the aforementioned 900p 30 FPS. Uh, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty certain a friggin AI is not more demanding than rendering an entire bleeding city, and that AI has precious little to do with resolution. I know they can't just say ''yes, well, next-gen consoles shipped with **** hardware'' but it still comes off as BS.

[In Exile]

Ubisoft says a lot of thing.

 

This is one of those BS ones. When the developer said parity to avoid "debates" you know exactly what he means and it has NOTHING to do with any CPU bottlenecking.

 

What Ubisoft did to the PC version of Watchdogs was atrociously bad, I hate them more than EA now. They are just awful in their ways. That said they still have some good games and so do EA. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

You've got to give it to Microsoft - they overcame their hardware problem in a very clever way. 

[stormhit]

The only hardware problem was how everyone is convinced that the middling hardware in the PS4 is somehow drastically superior than the middling hardware in the XB1. If you have to watch clips in slow motion to notice a difference, we're not talking real world differences. This whole counting of resolution numbers has been especially ridiculous.

[MissOuJ]

they said the cpus on the ps4 and X bone are the bottlenecks. that's why they can't up the graphics.

 

Don't really think this is the case, since the Shadow of Mordor runs on 1080p on PS4 just fine.

[Arkevilex]

I don't think DAI will suffer from parity. I can't see a reason why Bioware would do that. They didn't do that with any of the previous games as far as I'm aware. 

[CROAT_56]

CPU bottleneck can be associated with the slower CPU in PS4 and the inability to offload those processes to Azure (MS).  This might not affect resolution per se but it will cause a unstable FPS, also the debate comment was most likely to avoid internal debate most people don't realize that English is not that dudes primary language.  People jump to the tin foil hats way too quickly IMO

 

Edit @missOuJ mordor doesn't have 30k npcs on screen either.... Mordor's resolution is just dev laziness as other games can achieve 1080 on either platform, not that it really matters if you care about such things play on a monster PC in 4K.  For me Gameplay and Stability trumps all.

[The Antagonist]

yeah AC:U has thousands of npcs that's why it's so cpu intensive.

[SolNebula]

Well that blows. I bought a PS4 over Xbone specifically for the 1080p resolution.

I hope DA:I will have that resolution on PS4........God i'm not a fanboy but i really start to hate Microsoft with their timed exclusives BS and constant bribing of developers to cater specifically to their console and its weaknesses. Play it fair, you developed a specific console, you get the game for that. If competition is doing it better then it's your problem.

[The Antagonist]

if resolution is important to you get a gaming pc because the ps4 was never going to run every game at 1080p, it is after all a 7850 with a weak cpu

[SolNebula]

if resolution is important to you get a gaming pc because the ps4 was never going to run every game at 1080p, it is after all a 7850 with a weak cpu

 

I was a full PC gamer one month ago (still am for Total War/Paradox games), not going back as I don't have the desire to upgrade my perfectly working PC for a couple of new games. Besides how would you react if they would do the same also for PC?? I think it's not the time for being a PC elitist all over again. I'm perfectly fine with PC version being superior but what I don't condone is Xbox dragging down everyone else because they messed up their console release.

[The Antagonist]

xbox isnt dragging down anything. The ps4 is just not as powerful as you think it is.

[SolNebula]

xbox isnt dragging down anything. The ps4 is just not as powerful as you think it is.

 

 

It's certainly not as powerful as a PC however It was proved that PS4 generally runs games natively on 1080p while most of Xbone were around 900p. So forcing PS4 games on 900p because of Xbone is dragging down.

 

http://www.ign.com/w..._and_Framerates

[Mornmagor]

Next generation my a$$.

 

I am sorry, but this kind of hardware, does not translate to next generation.

 

Back in the day, when pcs were running at 100 MHz, PS1 was at a staggering 500 MHz, and it was evidently playing games better than on pcs.

 

Today, technology is advancing further, and developers can make stunning graphics using high polygon count models, something that was impossible before.

 

If we are going to use sub-par overpriced technology like the "next" gen consoles and try to sell them as "tomorrow's gaming", then i think it's pretty clear that these people are more interested in their money income, than gaming in general.

 

I mean really, 8 gb of ram, 3.5 of which are needed for the system to run?

 

Sorry folks, i like consoles a lot, and some of my favorite games were console only, but today's "next gen' consoles, seem to be falling behind really quick.

 

Their "full hd" systems of ps3 and xbox360, were able to reach 720p AT BEST, and now the Xbox1 can't even reach 1080p?

 

Are they seriously expecting people to buy that? I guess they are, since people will apparently buy anything and think it's good.

 

In all honesty, and maybe as a hopeless romantic, i seriously think people deserve better.

[RedWulfi]

I play on Xbox One because my friends do. I bought one so I could play with them.
I care little for high end graphics.

 

People should just play on what they want and NO ONE has the right to judge them for it.

It's called preference.

[cannotseethis]

Shouldn't expect the best graphics on a system in a game by a third party dev (I'm looking at you ubisoft, Watchdogs on PS4) their main concern is to sell as many copies as possible no matter what system regardless of graphics. Rather I think the best looking PS4 games are the ones being developed exclusively for the PS4 itself (Uncharted, The Order 1886, and Bloodborne) but I agree if we pay $400 on a new console we should be able to play @1080p 60fps that has been the standard for a few years now and we should be able to play games to a system's true potential like on PC.

[mtbanger]

Their "full hd" systems of ps3 and xbox360, were able to reach 720p AT BEST, and now the Xbox1 can't even reach 1080p?

 

Are they seriously expecting people to buy that? I guess they are, since people will apparently buy anything and think it's good.

 

In all honesty, and maybe as a hopeless romantic, i seriously think people deserve better.

 

PS3 and Xbox 360 were fully capable of reaching 1080p 60fps. However game devs decided to sacrifice framerate (and sometimes resolution) in exchange for graphical fidelity in the majority of cases. CoD games ran at 720p 60fps, and Wipeout ran at 1080p 60fps on PS3.

 

Same thing with Xbone and PS4. The reason these consoles aren't achieving a locked 1080p 60fps on every game is because developers are seeing the additional resources that are available to them and deciding they're better off locking the fps at 30 and focusing on fidelity.

 

This isn't unique to consoles, I could run Metro: Last Light on "Low" at 1080p 60fps on my PC if I chose to. But I choose to run it at 1080p 30fps on "High" because I prefer the fidelity to the framerate. It works the other way too - I could run The Witcher 2 with Ubersampling at 720p 30fps if I chose - but instead I run it on high at 1080p 60fps with FXAA because Ubersampling is pointless if you sacrifice resolution. 

 

The only difference is in the case of consoles, the graphics decision is being made for you by the developers.

 

...And the reason for that is that consoles have standardized hardware. Devs know what resources they're playing with so they can make the decision in terms of settings in order to best realize their vision on the hardware, instead of having to pass the decision on to the user. I'm not saying this is a great thing, but it certainly makes sense. The majority of console gamers probably can't be bothered messing about with ini files.

 

A solution to this could be to have "console presets" where you can, for example, choose "Performance" (1080p 60fps locked) or "Fidelity" (1080p 30fps locked) in the setting screen. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of that idea, and there probably is a very good reason why it isn't implemented already in console games. This could be cost of development resources, or it could be that it has been tested and found that users don't actually like having the choice. Who knows?