You didn't even understand a single thing I wrote. You talked about destiny, diablo 3, AC:U and Arkham Knight. THOSE GAMES ARE NOT ON Wii U. So what relevance does it have to say "Xbox One is 3rd" place. Yes you did it to throw a jab, because the fact bears no relevance to what you were talking about. Those 4 games are not on Wii U, so why did you mention it like it's something which effects the conclusion?
Batman: Arkham Knight Aiming for identical Res/Framerate Across Xbox One and PS4
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
You didn't even understand a single thing I wrote. You talked about destiny, diablo 3, AC:U and Arkham Knight. THOSE GAMES ARE NOT ON Wii U. So what relevance does it have to say "Xbox One is 3rd" place. Yes you did it to throw a jab, because the fact bears no relevance to what you were talking about. Those 4 games are not on Wii U, so why did you mention it like it's something which effects the conclusion?
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
If there is a noticeable gap between what they expect to sell and what they actually sell and people are making a noise about the parity issue then the developer or publisher will take steps to win back what they will consider to be lost sales.
It's fairly obvious isn't it.
Your alternative seems to be just going ahead and giving money to them anyway even if you disapprove of their practices. Other than reinforcing a behaviour I disagree with I'm not sure what that would achieve.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Uhh.. Watch Dogs has "parity"?
I'd bet you passed on it because it was terrible, lol.
Lowest common denominator meaning 360 games coded to run like their PS3 counterparts, as to have one version not superior to the other.
And I could care less about their bottom lines when it comes to intentionally gimping one version as to not upset either MS or internet fanboys.
Pathfinder
Member
One would hope this is how it will turn out. In the end, it's going to depend on how the developer interprets the data presented to them.
Summer Haze
Banned
I didn't say that. They can "aim" to make the X1 version close to the PS4 version all they like, but I'm saying it would be wrong to purposely gimp the PS4 version to match the X1. That would be taking full advantage of one console, but not the other. Which, imo, would be a big middle finger to PS4 fans.
In regards to the bolded - I agree. Just throwing some what ifs out there for discussion is all.
……forgetit
Member
Ah, gotcha
Summer Haze
Banned
I don't demand anything from developers. I do expect them to use their tools to the fullest, though.
I'm thinking more they may want to say something that's "politically correct" and not actually say "yeah this is going to be higher resolution on PS4." I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft made some calls when seeing it actively reported about resolution differences, and when there is a lot of optimization to go through still it can be premature to say anything even if they were aiming at, say, 1080p/60fps.
I also wouldn't be surprised by a loose definition of "parity", as in the game runs about the same, looks roughly the same to a casual look, but one is at 1080p and the other's at 900p. Which admittedly is kind of the ideal as you want one version to be better looking, not the other outright unplayable.
A publishers dream.
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
for god sake really ?
Shaunboy97
Member
Watch Dogs wasn't a parity issue... AC Unity looks great in my opinion!! But you're entitled to your views on the matter!! But seriously, good luck this gen
Pathfinder
Member
I'm afraid I do not share your narrative of Microsoft being the bad guy who is out to gimp all video games because their console is weaker this gen.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
I know it wasn't parity, but it wasn't 1080p or good looking. GTAV for PS4 shows that I was right about it being a half-baked game.
Not when theres a pc version.
I share your sentiment, and I did not always. PS4 was my first console, bought an Xb1 less than a month ago and it really changed my opinions on thing. I'm tending to be very optimistic about a lot of things now, and this whole "MS is the bad guy" persona is extremely lame and short sighted.
If they really wanted to gimp, there were plenty of games they could have done it with (COD comes to mind), or they could have removed minecraft from playstation etc...
If you want to blame someone over a gimped game, blame the dev unless proven otherwise.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Low budget games don't have high expectations for production values.
block tower
Member
so itll be 900p, 30fps on X1? im ok with that.
I don't understand that list of games.
Strider was worse on PS4 than XB1. (Lack of AF)
Child of Light had better IQ (super sampled) and more consistent frame rate.
FIFA PS4 had better depth of field and didn't drop frames.
Zombie James
Banned
This logic comes up every time Destiny is brought up and I can't help but laugh every time I see it. I see its bad anti-aliasing and last-gen pop-in and I have to wonder if people are serious and that's what Bungie's high bar looks like. I've seen the same argument used for AC: Unity (I think) and I laugh even harder.
Here is the problem as I see it.
At the beginning of the third party multi-platform releases for next-gen, it seemed like developers were making their games with maxing out the PS4 in-mind, then just turning down the resolution/FPS for the XBONE versions.
Now for some reason (resolutiongate/Spencer tantrums) the developer have switched to just trying to max the XBone, and people are pissed. They wanted the best that next-gen could offer, not scaled games because of PR concerns.
In a nut shell Developers went from:
trying to max out the strongest console and turning down the settings for the weaker one
to
just developing for the weaker one
At the beginning of the third party multi-platform releases for next-gen, it seemed like developers were making their games with maxing out the PS4 in-mind, then just turning down the resolution/FPS for the XBONE versions.
Now for some reason (resolutiongate/Spencer tantrums) the developer have switched to just trying to max the XBone, and people are pissed. They wanted the best that next-gen could offer, not scaled games because of PR concerns.
In a nut shell Developers went from:
trying to max out the strongest console and turning down the settings for the weaker one
to
just developing for the weaker one
I laughed more than I should have at this.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
I will admit the underwhelming look of gameplay made it easy to pass on...same for Unity. I did buy BF4 and enjoyed it so I'm not completely opposed to be buy sub-1080p games.
I'm pretty sure thats not how anyone does anything in the gaming industry lol. By that logic why don't they just build with maxing PC in mind then tone down for PS4...
Nothing is upscaled from Xbox, your just making very poor, and I mean POOR, speculations.
Dragonborn
Member
Why the hell are devs so keen on gimping the PS4 version? Ugh, you know, I would have thought with the massive sales lead, deva wouldn't care too much about lack of parity
Neff
Member
So much outrage over so little actually said.
But even if the versions do end up being the same, it's not like the game will not be amazing because you're no longer getting a fractionally better visual experience than the guy with the console you didn't buy.
If you were looking forward to the game, it would be silly to stop looking forward to it because of this.
This is a good point. They can't. At least not yet, for several reasons, mainly technical and PR-related. If they outright said that the PS4 version was superior at this stage, their no-doubt good relationship with MS would drop off a cliff, and this is the kind of thing MS seems very touchy about at the moment.
But even if the versions do end up being the same, it's not like the game will not be amazing because you're no longer getting a fractionally better visual experience than the guy with the console you didn't buy.
If you were looking forward to the game, it would be silly to stop looking forward to it because of this.
This is a good point. They can't. At least not yet, for several reasons, mainly technical and PR-related. If they outright said that the PS4 version was superior at this stage, their no-doubt good relationship with MS would drop off a cliff, and this is the kind of thing MS seems very touchy about at the moment.
TrojanBlade
Member
WTH is this new trend of parity across the platforms. If that has to be the case then why not gimp the PC version too and have real parity across all? Is this MS's BS way to overcome the resolution gate and their weaker hardware. Shame on the devs for doing this.
Strider's lack of AF is a bug\oversight. The point is that it wasn't 'gimped' deliberately. FIFA and COL (and others) were also addressed before release that they are identical between the PS4 and XB1. In the end the PS4 performed better. So even when devs sound 'parity' the end product does favor the PS4 a bit.
Therefore, at the very least wait for Batman to be released before throwing accusations about purposefully 'hitting the break' on the ps4 so the xb1 version will fair better in comparison.
Also, soon enough we will have Unity's DF articles so we'll get to see what is exactly entailed by 'parity' from the publisher who first used that term because they didn't want the 'debate' around it.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Bungie never imagined Destiny could have better AA, AF or shadow quality. As far as they're concerned, they achieved the perfect look!
alexandros
Banned
OK, now I got it, thanks for explaining. I'd say that because we are still at the beginning of the new generation and publishers are still dipping their toes in the water, they don't really have a clear picture of the market yet. The PS4 is significantly ahead without a doubt, but we don't know how close game sales are in big markets like the US. If PS4 sales of Rocksteady's first next gen game dwarf those of the Xbox version's then this will send a clear message to the publisher that most of the console audience is there, making it that much harder next time to decide on enforcing parity. If sales are equal or Xbox is ahead then I can see the publisher thinking that since there is an even split they should enforce parity to keep both audiences happy.
I know it seems counterintuitive, we've been trained as consumers to vote with our wallets. But as a PC gamer I've seen the destructive effect that such boycotts can have on a platform, which is why I facepalm every time I read stuff like "Ubisoft doesn't take advantage of high end PCs so I'll buy the console version to teach them a lesson". Yeah, diminishing sales on the platform will surely convince the publisher to devote more time and resources to it.
Here we go again :S Baseless speculation, I feel like people just want to incite a console war, please state your agenda before posting something like that.
You're paragraph would have been so well if you didn't write that bit, it started so well
I'm with you if you're saying people should wait until the final verdict from Digital Foundry. Which is something I'm always recommending when one cares about these technical details.
Unrelated to that is being a moron and even talking about parity in the first place when the actual line you should go with every single time even if you're lying is that "We will try to maximize each platform to its fullest potential."
Say that every time you are asked about potential differences in tech in your game and you will avoid debates and stuff.
I agree that we're at the beginning of a new generation, but this is a game by a major publisher that already released a game for current gen only. They know the numbers of that title and other titles if they subscribe (or read GAF ;-)) and multiplatform sales recently are favoring the PS4.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
I do not care if the game is good or not. I care about the whole package. If parity in this case means 900p, I won't buy it. Watch Dogs looks horrendous @900p on my HDTV.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
It's better to be proactive than reactive. It's more likely you'll get a polished game at launch.
Pisses me off so much but I feel the same way if true. Going to hold on to preorder for now.
Bit of an exaggeration? :S 900p still looks really great, I didn't even notice it on Evolve on my XB1, thought it was 1080p but hey you may be more of a graphical nut then me.
i didn't really read the quote as "we're going to gimp the game cuz xbox", more that they're going to try and raise one version to the standard of the other (i.e getting the xbo version to run as well as the ps4 version).
that said i have no doubt in my mind that microsoft will exert pressure on publishers when one version is capable of more than the other. call me paranoid or whatever, but some of you seem to have completely forgotten that microsoft bought an exclusivity period on a formerly multiplatform game.
that said i have no doubt in my mind that microsoft will exert pressure on publishers when one version is capable of more than the other. call me paranoid or whatever, but some of you seem to have completely forgotten that microsoft bought an exclusivity period on a formerly multiplatform game.
No I called you out for literally dismissing another poster, insinuating their claims were illogical fanaticism and implying they were a liar when, in fact, they were following a logical line of thought.
Unless you what to tell me that's not what you said? So, I responded in kind stating that it was actually you who were being unreasonable and illogical by asking you to provide some reason as to why his claims were so unreasonable as to merit your terse little tirade.
I then went on to say:
Wherein I expressed my disgust at the willingness of some people to defend the practice of seeking parity across platforms. Nowhere in this statement did I imply it was directed at you because it wasn't. It was directed at responses like
Yet your response was:
Wherein you first laugh at me for saying something I never actually said. My post was simply to point out that attributing causation to MS for this is a reasonable and logical pattern of thought. You also completely ignore the questions I posed asking you to provide proof or reasoning of some kind that would validate your attack and dismissal of the initial poster's statement. Instead you call me sickening because I dare to follow the facts and form a logical conclusion based upon them.
Now being that you seem to ignore my questions and entirely miss the point of my response I decide to respond by making a post where in I list off the facts explain the logic and how one could reasonably arrive at that conclusion asserting the following:
Which led to your most recent response wherein you once again avoid answering any of the questions asked
Instead you state I made a list of facts and yet go on to say there is no "hard evidence" yet those very facts were the evidence necessary to arrive at a logical conclusion. So instead of posing a counterpoint, making an argument or providing any facts contrary to the logical conclusion you instead state that my logical progression is "lame and short sighted" and "extremely idiotic." This is precisely the pointless and baseless narrative that I posted to call you out on in the first place. I provided facts and a logical progression and you responded by throwing labels implying my statements are fanatical or baseless when in fact you provide no argument, statement or evidence to the contrary. Simply calling something "lame," "short sighted," or "idiotic" does not make it so. And contrary to what you might think arguements and conclusions bound in logic are equivalent to a mathematical formula wherein fact+fact-->logical conclusion just as 2+2=4. So long as a conclusion is founded on factual information it is indeed logically sound. Is logic absolute? No. But it is, at the very least a sane measure of reasonable expectation that is the very opposite of short sighted or idiotic.
You then go on to say
Which again attributes a statement to me that I never made. Nowhere did I say that the logical conclusion was a certainty I simply stated that it was a REASONABLE conclusion to make given the facts. It could very well not be the case. We can't know for sure. But the facts support the conclusion as a likely possibility. You also claim that my statement condemning parity was due to your saying AK is co marketed with Sony. In actuality I responded to precisely that by saying there is a precedent of MS exerting pressure on Sony co marketed games: telling blizzard that 900p is "unacceptable" and insisting on parity in resolution. Given all of the inaccurate, misinformed, rude and baseless remarks you have made in regards to me and others in this forum who dare to weigh the facts at hand and conclude that MS involvement in the recent precedent reversal of development "parity" I would request that you actually provide some fact that corroborates your various assertions or cease demeaning people who deign it logical to disagree with you about the possibility of corporate shenanigans.
O,r at very least, stop attributing labels like "baseless" to things that are, in fact, grounded in supporting facts and are thus the exact opposite.
Here we go again :S Baseless speculation, I feel like people just want to incite a console war, please state your agenda before posting something like that.
You're paragraph would have been so well if you didn't write that bit, it started so well
Saying does not make it so. Your insistence on doing so makes it seem you do protest too much.
Really?
I just was looking for examples and found battlefield 4, COD: Ghosts, and a myriad of other games that had higher resolution on the PS4 at the beginning of the console generation.
Oh and your PC question is puzzling... I mean how does that even apply here? I ask this because the games we are talking about typically show a 80/20+ share on consoles vs PC. Meaning of course the developers would target consoles here. Kind of plays into my stipulation, developing for the market leader.
Why did you even mention upscaling? I know I didn't.
EDIT: Basically developers have almost always developed targeted for the market leader. For some weird reason now they are no longer doing that. I guess it must just be a coincidence that this change is following someone throwing a temper tantrum.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Watch Dogs looks horrendous to ME. Someone else probably perceives things differently, but I like my visuals crisp and clean (and in 1080p, because it's the native resolution my TV outputs). I do not, however, care for FPS at all. Someone else likes FPS over resolution, though.
All PS4 900p games look blurry and smudged. I hate that.
IndoAssassin
Banned
I said MS as a corporation. Considering Xbox is a MS division, MS name is apart of the brand.
I never said I have proof. I said I am speculating based on the reputation of MS as a corporation.
Here's a snipette of MS's aquisitions since you couldn't find anything.
DOS
Hotmail
Visio Corporation
Skype
Nokia
Etc..
Here's the wiki page
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft
Since 1987 they have aquired on average 6 companies every year. A total of 6 were worth over a billion dollars. Now do you get the picture where MS' moneyhatting reputation comes from?
Sorry, you're incorrect. See my previous post.
Yeah, in that respect you and I agree. That said, it's informed my purchasing decisions already (skipped Watch Dogs and AC: Unity thus far) and will continue to do so throughout the gen.
Zeyphersan
Banned
There's more to graphics than just what resolution it runs at, you guys