Given how their AA solution is a post-processing AA method, I'm pretty confident that if the Xbone can handle it at 1080p30, then the PS4 can handle a slightly more expensive one.
So yes, "they should flip that switch."
Digital Foundry: Destiny Beta XB1 analysis and PS4 comparison
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
So yes, "they should flip that switch."
I hope not. People have me worried talking about some 10 year plan for a game that is coming out for PS360.
intheinbetween
Member
I should have bolded the 360 part, PS3 is superior "hardware-wise"
To be honest the game doesn't even look that good, it's obvious that it's a PS3/360 game with extra resolution (screen, textures, shadows) on next gen consoles.
It shouldn't be hard to get 1080p and 30fps on the XB1, they could have pushed for more on PS4, it probably means they're happy as they are considering it's huge game on many consoles.
I'm far more interested in the comparison for Assassin's Creed Unity considering it's the only next gen conceived game coming out in the next few months, but that's an other story.
It shouldn't be hard to get 1080p and 30fps on the XB1, they could have pushed for more on PS4, it probably means they're happy as they are considering it's huge game on many consoles.
I'm far more interested in the comparison for Assassin's Creed Unity considering it's the only next gen conceived game coming out in the next few months, but that's an other story.
we.are.the.armada
Member
Chromatic Aberration is fucking gross looking and they should give an option to remove that filth from this gorgeous game 
Xenon
Member
Yeah but the PS4 is gimped more! It's not fair.
intheinbetween
Member
and that should be the norm for MS due to the power gap between both consoles
Caayn
Member
You do realize that Bungie needed the help of an MS engineering team in order to get the Xbox One at 1080p/30fps. I'm not saying Bungie isn't a talented studio but it might just be that they can't get the PS4 running higher without help from outside, like how it was done with the Xbox One version.
Dragonborn
Member
A bit different. PS3 is inly better if devs took full advantage of it. And even then, I'd say the 360 was pretty close. Stuff like Gears and Halo 4 looked really good. Only a few games on PS3 looked better (and really it was mostly just ND, SSM and maybe GG)
The hardware difference is much bigger this gen and a lot easier to compare since the two next gem consoles are pretty similarily built
It's really not. It has split RAM. It takes a lot of massaging to get the Cell pipeline to make up for the weaker video. Cell gives it more capabilities than 360, but lack of unified RAM and unimpressive GPU cause it to be a pain in the ass to try to access it.
LittleJohnny
Banned
You're forgetting that the new SDK which released the reserve for Kinect, ALSO includes some serious driver optimizations, so it's not just the 10% reserve, but also better use of overall resources.
Also, big misconception is that the 10% resource reserve would mean a 10% boost, but anyone familiar with what happens when something is hogging resources, the effect is a lot more detrimental than down clocking your CPU by 10%. The problem is that it's not publicly clear what this 10% resource represents, only MS and developers really know the details.
Maybe the esram isn't such a bad thing like everybody here originally ASSUMED. Watching presentations by MSoft engineers, they have specifically talked about how utilization of esram down the road will increase graphical fidelity. The fact that MSoft sent engineers to Bungie to help them out leads me to believe that they helped them utilize the esram to the absolute fullest, and also the kinect reserve power. I am not surprised at all that the games are virtually identical. When we had differences of 360 or 180p at launch with no utilizatin of esram and no extra kinect power, did people really think the differences would grow larger???
They made all versions subpar by using FXAA. Any extra details would be canceled out by it, anyway.
Why is it when I see this argued, it's always with the caveat that the PS4's not also undergoing similar optimizations? As if Microsoft will slowly but surely somehow magically make up for the hardware difference in software, and Sony will just keep the PS4 in its launch state forever.
Maybe they can't. I still don't see why it wouldn't be legitimate criticism in that case either.
Who knows how the final version ends up, but it's just a fact that if they run at visual and performance parity then they fucked up.
LukasTaves
Member
I'm going with the first, most likely the reason for 900p was never due the lack of processing grunt, sounds more likely having to fit everything within the esram.
And they hedged wrong if their plan was to give gamers something new, because this game is nothing new. It's possible a mediocre, same-old same-old 1st game could damage the franchaise.
I mean, imagine what Modern Warfare have been if it had to have parity on PS2. But whatever, it is what it is: a cross-gen coop shooter with pvp and a dreadful (so far) story.
intheinbetween
Member
therefore it's more powerful, and that's something we've known since PS3 was announced. talking about dev tools is a different story, but hardware wise PS3 is more powerful than 360.
MS took some good decisions hardware wise: gpu and memory, while Sony bet for Cell and Bluray, but overall PS3 was more powerful, at least on paper.
how much bigger? 30+%?
Something to be applauded apparently
they should try and do this. 30fps online shooters are tragic.
In the story mode it seems totally fine but online and coming from cod I didn't enjoy it at all.
edit: I swear there was more to your post a second ago. something about reaching 60fps in the crucible.
My interpretation is that because they use FXAA and a 900p frame buffer they still want the HUD to be 1080p, therefor they can't use the engine effects for the HUD because FXAA is applied to the frame buffer before the HUD is applied.
(FXAA on 900p HUD = Not nice.)
LittleJohnny
Banned
I'll give you 2 reasons:
A) Developers were vocal from the start about the state of MS' drivers being shit, while they seemed pretty content with the PS4 SDK. This means that there was a lot of room for improvement for XBO, more so than what appears to be already in good shape on the PS4. So hypothetically, if both get their drivers to their max capability, it will be MS who's going from shit to perfect, as opposed to pretty good to perfect... capice?
B) The PS4 never had any reservation of resources, this is something they can never gain because they never lost it to begin with.
Darkstorne
Member
It's a ten year plan for Destiny as an IP, not specifically the first entry in the franchise. Nowhere have they said the last gen consoles will be supported throughout. Heck, by the third and final entry I imagine the PS4 and Xbone will be considered "last gen", and we'll be complaining that Destiny 3 is cross-gen when it should have been PS5 gen only.
Chobel
Member
"some serious driver optimizations"? Where did you get that from? This SDK update is 10% more GPU and just some tools (most likely eSRAM related), it will noway add 44% more performance, you're looking at 20% more performance tops IMO.
People speculated around the launch of these systems that developers would intentionally gimp the PS4 version so that it would be equal to the bone version...
Those people were laughed at and told how stupid it would be for any developer to do that and that, "that isn't how game development works". Places like giant bomb even chimed in on the subject with the same response.
So about that...
Those people were laughed at and told how stupid it would be for any developer to do that and that, "that isn't how game development works". Places like giant bomb even chimed in on the subject with the same response.
So about that...
I haven't heard that from anyone.
I understand the disappointment, but many people act like the gap is monstrous or something. This isn't the same as the PS2->Xbox gap. As diminishing returns grows, it takes more and more power to see a difference.
Again I understand the disappointment, I'm a PS4 only owner who wouldn't mind better AA, filtering or motion blur. It just doesn't seem like some are considering all the factors here.
This.
I know that was the general acceptance last gen, but that is just not true.
There just wasn't a universal superior console last gen.
The ps3 had the better cpu, the 360 the better gpu and more memory available.
On top of this there were other differences like 2 memory pools vs one + edram.
And yes the cell can help the gpu, but only in certain cases like occlusion culling e.g.
You just couldn't do everything as fast on the ps3 as you could on the 360 and thus the ps3 isn't (universally) superior.
People always try to bring it all down to one number/word, even if it is not possible like in this case.
Or the Xbox tools have got better as well as the 10 percent boost. The ps4 version is the same because bungie got to where they wanted to be with that system and stopped ? Probably got to work on the pc version
Zombie James
Banned
I doubt Bungie's fidelity target included bad anti-aliasing and noticeable pop-in. Artistically Destiny looks fantastic, but technically it could be improved in a number of areas... which (it seems) they aren't going to do.
My guess as well, which means we may wind up with the same HUD once the Xbox Version is up and running at 1080p. Unless somehow that HUD is taxing the system which I can't possibly imagine.
Did you play Halo 2 or 3?
This is a technical moon wizard by comparison to those.
CloudyTuba
Member
Honestly, I feel the same way about Destiny's visuals. It looks like a last-gen game at 1080p. I was watching a gameplay video on youtube yesterday and didn't even notice right away that it was the PS3 version and not the PS4.
Bungie's art design is fantastic but the overall graphics are not very next-gen. It's what I expect from cross-gen titles, though.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this problem so hopefully it's just my tv. Has anyone noticed an excess of crushed blacks on the X1 beta? I know it's kind of normal for the X1 to show darker darks but it seem pretty bad on the beta. The contrast also seems too high. I tried messing with the in game brightness settings and my tv settings but the only thing it really did was wash out the colors.
GameAddict411
Member
this^^^, the game isn't a looker, and its not that advanced. bungie just choose not to improve the PS4 version in this situation, a situation that many people were afraid of.
2spooky4me
Member
'
LittleJohnny
Banned
Where did I say it added 44% more performance? I'm saying that the boost is not just single handedly Kinect related, but a combination of that plus SDK optimizations which can go a long way, especially when developers are complaining about how bad your drivers are.
http://www.neowin.net/news/report-xbox-one-graphics-drivers-lag-behind-those-of-ps4
Gameplay too, polished but last gen.
I watched a GDC talk about how they implemented the character system and they decided to limit what they could do based on the 360/PS3. So you know there's probably a million decision like that that end up meaning everyone gets roughly the same product. They aren't going out of their way to make the PS4 version worse.
edit: the talk if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSSMC4O6J8Q