Zombie James
Banned
Guess it's on Rocksteady to clarify what they've said, isn't it?
Batman: Arkham Knight Aiming for identical Res/Framerate Across Xbox One and PS4
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Guess it's on Rocksteady to clarify what they've said, isn't it?
I get what you're saying, and I don't think you're alone in seeing this.
Either way, this is not good news and I really hope this does not become a trend for the rest of the generation.
He certainly seems determined to make sure everyone knows just how "crazy," "idiotic," "baseless," and "short sighted" the idea that MS is involved in recent circumstances of platform "parity" is despite actually being involved in prior situations (Diablo 3).
I said this once but I'll say it again.
I'm usually one to get easily pissed off by these practices, but what if what they meant was:
*We're not gonna bring down the ps4 version to match the x1. We're trying to maximize x1, in terms of resolution and effects to match the ps4 (which will make it perform a lot worse).*
We're already seeing it on Unity. Both versions run at the same res, same assets and whatnot. But it's been reported that the ps4 seems to have the edge on lighting and runs a bit better, so it's not exactly parity. The fact that it runs like dogshit on both is moot. I think it's one of those cases where the x1 should have been lower than 900p, as it's hurting the game's perfomance with little to no gain against the ps4 version, except for gaining parity on the Resolution Bullet Point. The engine may be flawed, sure, but the game clearly can't keep up with the ps4 at the same resolution.
If this means what I said, I don't mind. X1 owners should mind, though. If both are 1080p and have the same effects, ps4 version may run at a steady 30 while the x1 will run at 25 (numbers taken from my ass, just to provide some context). Will those versions be comparable? To the layman they will, and they will have achieved "parity". For the more core audience, the differences will be crystal clear and people will know which console version is "best".
Of course, if this means that ps4 is capable of 1080p/30 and they bring it down to 900p just for shits and giggles, it's a whole different matter. In that case, fuck them with the strength of 10,000 buffalos.
I'm usually one to get easily pissed off by these practices, but what if what they meant was:
*We're not gonna bring down the ps4 version to match the x1. We're trying to maximize x1, in terms of resolution and effects to match the ps4 (which will make it perform a lot worse).*
We're already seeing it on Unity. Both versions run at the same res, same assets and whatnot. But it's been reported that the ps4 seems to have the edge on lighting and runs a bit better, so it's not exactly parity. The fact that it runs like dogshit on both is moot. I think it's one of those cases where the x1 should have been lower than 900p, as it's hurting the game's perfomance with little to no gain against the ps4 version, except for gaining parity on the Resolution Bullet Point. The engine may be flawed, sure, but the game clearly can't keep up with the ps4 at the same resolution.
If this means what I said, I don't mind. X1 owners should mind, though. If both are 1080p and have the same effects, ps4 version may run at a steady 30 while the x1 will run at 25 (numbers taken from my ass, just to provide some context). Will those versions be comparable? To the layman they will, and they will have achieved "parity". For the more core audience, the differences will be crystal clear and people will know which console version is "best".
Of course, if this means that ps4 is capable of 1080p/30 and they bring it down to 900p just for shits and giggles, it's a whole different matter. In that case, fuck them with the strength of 10,000 buffalos.
I think most of us understand that.
It is just that to my mind tweaking resolution/FPS has got to be the very easiest way for a developer to maintain "parity" in the games while still getting the most out of the consoles. Honestly, Wouldn't that be much easier than changing textures/draw distance/objects on-screen/physics models?
I just don't see developers going through the extra effort to differentiate versions versus just turning down the resolution/FPS dial.
This is why parity is a scary word. If they mean resoltuion/FPS parity, in my mind that means that the XBone version is the lead version, and the developer just ignored the extra 600 GFLOPs of the PS4 and thereby making the game a lesser version of itself for both the PS4 and the PC. Worse yet they did it for a console that isn't the market leader (by quite a bit.)
Muppet of a Man
Member
Due to the architectures being so similar, the devs should absolutely max out the graphical effects, resolution, and performance on the PS4 if it entails little to no extra work.
There is no excuse to dumb down the PS4 version of the game if little or no extra money was involved in maximizing the quality of the final product.
If I see some bullshit like 900p @ 30 fps when the game could easily have been 1080p @ 30 fps +, I will be pissed.
I bought the PS4 primarily because the hardware was capable of producing superior third party mulitplat games. This will be a bullshit precedent by certain 3rd parties and deserves a smear campaign on Twitter (not a boycott as for the previously mentioned reasons that alexandros and others have already stated).
Embarrass a company into submission is much better idea than silently diminishing the sales of a game on your console of choice, disincentivizing further investment in future versions on that platform.
There is no excuse to dumb down the PS4 version of the game if little or no extra money was involved in maximizing the quality of the final product.
If I see some bullshit like 900p @ 30 fps when the game could easily have been 1080p @ 30 fps +, I will be pissed.
I bought the PS4 primarily because the hardware was capable of producing superior third party mulitplat games. This will be a bullshit precedent by certain 3rd parties and deserves a smear campaign on Twitter (not a boycott as for the previously mentioned reasons that alexandros and others have already stated).
Embarrass a company into submission is much better idea than silently diminishing the sales of a game on your console of choice, disincentivizing further investment in future versions on that platform.
Pathfinder
Member
To be fair, from what I've been seeing, you also seem determined to push your own personal beliefs regarding this situation onto everyone as well.
It is okay that people have differences of opinion. It's what leads to healthy debate.
Straight up telling people how they should think about something is not healthy.
alexandros
Banned
Yes.
The Cowboy
Member
Considering its just a statement on resolution and framerate its pretty clear that it is, plus we already have info showing that the PC version is getting extra effects etc.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
Just buy used mate. Easy solution. You get to play their games and they don't get any of your money.
Zombie James
Banned
If the end result is a game that looks exactly the same on both but runs at 60fps on the PS4 and 30fps on the Xbox One, then there'll be no debate or controversy. I highly doubt that will happen, though.
Youch, this brings me back to the days of when I was in Model United Nations. Sorry I don't want to bother arguing anymore, this is getting way too intense. Apologies if I was saying something which you didn't really mention, because I made a lot of assumptions based on most of the responses in this thread being similar.
I just want to touch up on your "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."
*MUN mode ON* Firstly what I find most interesting is you seem to live by this entire idea that if fact + fact = logical conclusion, then that must be the ONLY answer. Which is true in many cases, especially if we are talking about basic maths. What you start doing is listing facts, trying (or forcing) to make links between them and create a logical conclusion. Fair enough, but you clearly try to force connections between a few, and suddenly jump to the conclusion that what you are doing is similar to 2+2=4.
If anything, a lot of the links you make between your list are resulting more into something like 2+2=5, where you forced links, and your conclusion between came CLOSE enough to your original hypotheses, so you try to subtly say, since its close enough, it must be true.
Obviously you tried to stay within the realm of logic, so I commend you for that, typically if eliminate all the impossibilities, whatever you have left is the only possibility, regardless of how impossible it seems (as Sherlock put it I believe). You did not do this, you did not think of every single possibility, except only going with the most logical ones (in your head), and stuck with that, and assumed that what you had left was true.
Also just for the sake of it, this is not basics maths, and you comparing or forcing it to be is wrong, not only here, but scientifically it is wrong. I studied in one of my university courses the very basics of Chaos theory, where scientists always tried as hard as possible to replicate lets say a rock falling down bumpy hill, and no matter how accurate they were each result turned out differently. This applies here, you are trying to hard to make sure that from the start you make no mistakes, you are setting the basis (the foundation), x is true, y is true, z is true. Let me drop these facts together and wow, look the result is changing each time.
This applies here, this scientists tried so hard to break it down to simple maths, but in the end, you cannot force it to work. So stop trying to do so.
Sorry for going off a bit.
Chinpoko_Master
Member
I'm glad they're doing this. It isn't fair that the more powerful console has better looking games.
just making sure, i would hope they wouldn't be that dumb.
it was just odd that they specifically said "across all platforms" when it's current-gen + PC only.
How exactly is MS telling Blizzard Diablo 3 at 900p unacceptable them enforcing parity in order to gimp the PS4 one. Blizzard actually managed to get D3 on XB1 at 1080p, if anything that is good.
I don't think it would be possible.. The difference is there but not enough to double the fps. Maybe at given times the x1 could pump 30 against 40-45 on the ps4, but that would cause judder and sometimes it's best to just lock it down tight. I don't mind if both versions look the same, as long as the version I'm getting isn't compromised on perfomance for no good reason. We know there's a power differencial here, that's why so many games are 1080p on ps4 and 900p on x1. If a game manages to display at the same res on both, and is somewhat demanding, then something's gotta give. There's gotta be a compromise somewhere, and there has been, Unity - this gen's poster boy for parity so far - seems to run a lot worse on the x1. Why? Cause they went for parity, trying to match a resolution even ps4 seems to be struggling to handle. I blame it on the engine, but that's a different can of worms. Right now I don't think they didn't go for 1080p on ps4 for parity, but cause the console can't handle that mess of an engine the way it is. Their biggest mistake was make the x1 version 900p as well.
All I'm saying is that there are 2 ways to enforce parity, one being to code to the lowest common denominator and leaving power on the table; the other to push more than a console can handle, thus making it run like dogshit - Skyrim ps3 was a fine example. The console architecture and memory allocation made it suffer a lot to keep up with a better set up the 360 clearly had. Again, the engine was flawed, but the ps3 was being pushed too hard and ended up running worse.
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
So another game on my "not to buy list". Truly atrocious...
Pathfinder
Member
It is good, yes. However there are some who feel it is a slight against PS4 because now the two versions are on par with each other, and that's not right because one console is weaker than the other.
I don't think 360 owners would have liked their versions of Fallout, Bayonetta, and CoD to be dragged down to PS3 versions levels. People are upset with this "parity" talk as you have to apply this to the lowest common denominator between the two pieces of hardware if you want "parity".
Gillian Seed
Banned
Didn't this work out just fine for Destiny?
FranXico
Member
I don't think Destiny is a valid comparison. To begin with, it was a cross-gen title, designed to play on multiple platforms of varying performance (from the PS3 to the PS4).
Not the case of ACU or B:KN.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I blame Sony. You advertised your power advantage now tell devs to use the Ps4s full potential.
Pathfinder
Member
Didn't you say in another thread you didn't even own a next-gen console?
It's good that you can control things like resolution and graphical settings on consoles, then, isn't it.
I never heard this term last gen. Funny that developers are so eager to do this now. I doubt there will parity though unless they are intentionally not using the extra resources the PS4 has. I don't expect this from Rocksteady. Maby they mean resolution only. In which case the PS4 will have the better framerate and IQ.
M3Freak
Banned
I'm all for their effots If by parity they mean trying their best to make the X1 version the same as the PS4. But, if it means to wreck the PS4 version to prevent it from destroying the X1 version, they can suck it.
Sadly, most publishers will demand the PS4 version of games not outshine other plaforms because they want to maximise their sales. This makes me wonder why having the superior console is even necesary.
If the PS4 can handle more, do it! I WANT MY EYES TO MELT INTO A PUDDLE OF ICKY GOO!!
:: sigh ::
Sadly, most publishers will demand the PS4 version of games not outshine other plaforms because they want to maximise their sales. This makes me wonder why having the superior console is even necesary.
If the PS4 can handle more, do it! I WANT MY EYES TO MELT INTO A PUDDLE OF ICKY GOO!!
:: sigh ::
Glorified G
Member
Parity at 1080p?
Parity at 900p?
Parity at 900p?
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
Because MS was on top and Sony wasn't as desperate/didn't have the money.
Zombie James
Banned
I didn't buy it and I won't even consider buying a Bungie game after a worker (not sure exactly what the person's title is) hopped on a thread and straight up lied to us about parity.
Chinpoko_Master
Member
It's funny. We used to have two consoles that had virtually the same amount of power and we couldn't get parity across games. But now that we have two new consoles with significant power differences, devs are starting to enforce parity for some bizarre reason.
This generation sucks.
Other than AC and potentially this game, the bolded isn't happening. Not yet.
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
Yes i did... and?, does that mean that i can't have plans to buy one in the future?
Zeyphersan
Banned
If you think MS is paying devs to keep their games at parity you're delusional
Gillian Seed
Banned
We all make mistakes. Your missing out on one of the most polished games I have ever played. The gunplay is second to none as well.
Never told him how he should think I laid out the facts made my argument and called him out on frequently mislabeling, dismissing or insulting other posters. It is he who is claiming absolute certainty and superiority with assertions of "baseless" "idiotic" and "short sighted" not me.
Let's not be hasty, the Naughty Gods need to take their time. Our time will come.
SPECS TIME!
Xbone: 1.31 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +300%
ninjablade
Banned
I think we should wait for DF article, developers lie all the time about parity. sometimes they say both version will be the same when one version is diffidently worse, this happened a lot lastgen. in wiiu case, they always boasted how the graphics will be better in ports, and the the results were mostly inferior.
The Cowboy
Member
I have to ask on this, all we know so far is that they've said resolution and frame rate isn't finalised yet and that they are looking for parity between the systems when it comes to this - is there some sort of issue with having games with the same resolution and frame rate?.
Why would someone put a game onto a "not to buy list" just because the game has the same resolution and frame rate as another system without even knowing if there is any different in the in game effects/graphics etc?, it makes no sense to me at all.
If the Devs come out and say "both games will look identical on all systems, same res, same FPS, same in game graphics etc" i could maybe see the point, but parity on resolution and frame rate = not buying the game? - i just don't get it.
At no point did I insult other posters.
About that 15-20 FPS difference.. where does that come from? Honestly I have no good way of finding decent metrics of the differences between the two.
When I do a PC GPU comparison (amd 7770 vs 7850) The PS4 stand-in demolishes the XBone stand-in, but I realize it is not a great analog (1 gb vram versus 2 gb vram).
I am just asking because I have read that ~15 FPS thing thrown around some but never understood where it came from.
Wildarmsjecht
Member
Dunno how to feel about this. I do love and plan on getting Arkham, but perhaps not Day 1?
Its not really a console warrior thing for me, its really just the reasoning.
What's their reasoning? Ubisoft has a BS reason but that's Ubisoft and I don't buy their games new anyway after Ghost Recon:FS fucked me over so hard.
But Rocksteady was at least a supportive purchase. So I'm curious, what's their reason? Is it to ensure no "debates" because then you're not succeeding in that. Is it to ensure that one section of gamers has as ideal an experience as possible (which is cool, but that doesn't mean the other platform needs to be settled lower if its possible for it to be better)
I'm probably gonna get it Day 1 because its freaking batman, but I'm very curious as to what goes on behind the doors that allows decisions like this to ve made and then announcements to go along with it.
Perhaps more info will come out anonymously before launch.
Its not really a console warrior thing for me, its really just the reasoning.
What's their reasoning? Ubisoft has a BS reason but that's Ubisoft and I don't buy their games new anyway after Ghost Recon:FS fucked me over so hard.
But Rocksteady was at least a supportive purchase. So I'm curious, what's their reason? Is it to ensure no "debates" because then you're not succeeding in that. Is it to ensure that one section of gamers has as ideal an experience as possible (which is cool, but that doesn't mean the other platform needs to be settled lower if its possible for it to be better)
I'm probably gonna get it Day 1 because its freaking batman, but I'm very curious as to what goes on behind the doors that allows decisions like this to ve made and then announcements to go along with it.
Perhaps more info will come out anonymously before launch.