Support NeoGAF

[wiggleb0t]

That quote is ridiculous - and I'd love to see jschreier's defense for it.

How can a resolution difference that big, be quantified as anything but 'huge' - and that's without touching on the framerates and missing/lower effects (clouds etc).

That statement is the very issue these sort of threads are based on. It's not reporting, it's baseless speculation and downplaying of a non-trivial gulf in power.

Outside of publishers, non gaming advertising the 3 super powers that allow for the existance of income for gaming 'journalists' is sony, nintendo and microsoft. Which doesn't take more than common sense that's it's quarter baked sloppy marketing/pr with a sprinkle of journalism rolled into one.

Murdoch received something like 250-500million iirc to significantly reduce the amount of bad press on pharmaceuticals. A topic which all people in some form at some stage will be reliant on for living/maintaining quality of life & should have the right to be informed about said topics, however such information is withheld from aforementioned channels/articles due to greed.
Yet the biggest media outlets ethics are sold in a sleazy pimp fashion, so it's of simple reasoning to conclude the majority of gaming journalists are bound by money/pressure and want to remain employed.

(noteL not targeting you, agree with you and the topic at hand... Was a little ot but it clearly applies imo)

 

[Scarecrow]

How many sites actually have the two systems to test out at the moment?

 

[purpletentacle]

I do agree with Josh that the pixel argument is irrelevant if it only makes games sharper. there's been a lack of creativity and risk taking from AAA titles, and thankfully indies seem to have picked up that slack. so what excites me most about this upcoming gen, and why I'm firmly on team PS4 right now, is their commitment to indie gaming. Give me Helldivers, Rime, or whatever Cappy is working on next.

that said, that's just my view point. everyone will have a differing take, which is why it's hard to please all readers. some see 1080p as a big deal, others don't. you can't fault someone for that.

 

[Glass Shark]

And we come back to the root of the problem. You don't need to be convinced. You need to report this shit. That means, telling people just how big a gap it is. There is no convincing left to do - we have confirmation on the resolutions and the power gap. I don't know why you feel the need to tell people "oh there's a difference, but I'm not sure you'll notice at X viewing distance on your average LCD television". That's an opinion piece.

It's past 1AM here and I really need to go to bed, but I'll leave with this...

I've worked at several technology retailers in the past selling products on the floor, including computers, digital cameras, game consoles, etc. Most people who come into Best Buy to buy a digital camera are not that informed. They look around at the floor models and see the bulleted list of specs. If I wasn't there, they would probably just pick the one that has the highest megapixels and buy that.

However, I am there. And I'm going to ask them a lot of questions about how they use their existing camera, and how they expect to use the new one. What kind of pictures do you take? What do you like about the camera you have? What do you not like? I'm going to get to know this person, and recommend them a camera that fits their needs.

This camera probably won't have the highest megapixel rating. So they'll look over at that one and say, "What about that one? The number is higher."

That's when my value comes in. That's when I get to explain to them that numbers are not everything and while that camera over there has a higher megapixel rating, megapixels aren't everything. It's about size, weight, memory format, battery, sensor size, etc.

To me, that's much more valuable to the regular consumer and much more interesting of a way to talk about products. Most people here on GAF, and especially most people in this thread, already know what the difference between 720p and 1080p is and what it means to them. But even a layman will look at those numbers and is likely to assume that the higher one is better. So they might go with that one. And if I were recommending a game console based purely on specs and nothing else, I'd agree with them.

But just like with the digital camera, it's much more valuable and interesting to explain to them why the 1080p might not necessarily be a deal-breaker for them. That the 720p might look a little worse, but for their particular situation it should still be great. That the controller or online infrastructure or some other factor might be more important.

When it comes down to it, I understand that specs and resolution are important. Most people can read a number off a chart, but numbers can be misleading. I consider it the job of a good journalist to report on the obvious and intuitive, but to point out the non-obvious or counter-intuitive details as well.

Adieu.

 

[Espada]

Most people will be able to tell the difference. Many will see it but not care about it, and that's fine. I don't even need to see side by side to differentiate between 720p and 1080p, and I'm sure I could very easily teach you to as well, presuming your prescription isn't wrong anyway

4K isn't a thing because people with decent eyesight can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. 1080p penetration has come a huge way in the last six or seven years, and when it comes to fixed pixel displays you want native input.

and a lot of the comparisons people do is with *native* displays. the arstechnica viewing distance chart? it's based on native displays of video content. you'd find it harder to differentiate between a native 720p set running Ghosts on Xbox One next to an equally good 1080p set running it on PS4.

take whatever screen you are using now, and lower the resolution. see how horrible it looks? a lot of why it looks horrible isn't because you're looking at a lower number of pixels, it's because each pixel rendered is being stretched out to fill a non integer number of pixels. if you can select exactly half of your screen's resolution, compare that to a slightly higher resolution and you'll see the exactly half one looks sharper.

Ehh, not really. If we take the same content and display it at 480p on an SDTV and 720p on an HDTV, the difference is obvious. If we display the same content at 720p on one HDTV (720p native) and 1080p on another (1080p native), the difference is obvious. The same is true of 1080p TVs versus 2160p (4K) sets being fed the appropriate content.

Ah 2.25x increase in visual data, clarity, and so on is easy to discern. Even for folks with impaired vision.

 

[plagiarize]

Ehh, not really. If we take the same content and display it at 480p on an SDTV and 720p on an HDTV, the difference is obvious. If we display the same content at 720p on one HDTV (720p native) and 1080p on another (1080p native), the difference is obvious. The same is true of 1080p TVs versus 2160p (4K) sets being fed the appropriate content.

Ah 2.25x increase in visual data, clarity, and so on is easy to discern. Even for folks with impaired vision.

you misunderstand what I'm saying. the difference between 480p content on a 480p screen compared to 1080p content on a 1080p screen is LESS obvious than comparing 480p content on a 1080p screen to 1080p content on a 1080p screen.

it's still obvious, but native resolutions look better, and all those viewing distance charts are based on *natively* displayed content.

viewing distance charts are a guide to decide what resolution TV to buy based on your desired screen size and preferred seating distance. they are not valid for telling you if you will see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 1080p display.

720p content looks worse on a 1080p display than it looks on a 720p display. that's all I'm saying.

hopefully my edited in example of playing DS games on a DS lite vs a 3DS better explains what I was trying to say.

although 1080p content will look fine on a 4K display, as it's a simple 2x scale.

 

[Stripper13]

It's past 1AM here and I really need to go to bed, but I'll leave with this...

I've worked at several technology retailers in the past selling products on the floor, including computers, digital cameras, game consoles, etc. Most people who come into Best Buy to buy a digital camera are not that informed. They look around at the floor models and see the bulleted list of specs. If I wasn't there, they would probably just pick the one that has the highest megapixels and buy that.

However, I am there. And I'm going to ask them a lot of questions about how they use their existing camera, and how they expect to use the new one. What kind of pictures do you take? What do you like about the camera you have? What do you not like? I'm going to get to know this person, and recommend them a camera that fits their needs.

This camera probably won't have the highest megapixel rating. So they'll look over at that one and say, "What about that one? The number is higher."

That's when my value comes in. That's when I get to explain to them that numbers are not everything and while that camera over there has a higher megapixel rating, megapixels aren't everything. It's about size, weight, memory format, battery, sensor size, etc.

To me, that's much more valuable to the regular consumer and much more interesting of a way to talk about products. Most people here on GAF, and especially most people in this thread, already know what the difference between 720p and 1080p is and what it means to them. But even a layman will look at those numbers and is likely to assume that the higher one is better. So they might go with that one. And if I were recommending a game console based purely on specs and nothing else, I'd agree with them.

But just like with the digital camera, it's much more valuable and interesting to explain to them why the 1080p might not necessarily be a deal-breaker for them. That the 720p might look a little worse, but for their particular situation it should still be great. That the controller or online infrastructure or some other factor might be more important.

When it comes down to it, I understand that specs and resolution are important. Most people can read a number off a chart, but numbers can be misleading. I consider it the job of a good journalist to report on the obvious and intuitive, but to point out the non-obvious or counter-intuitive details as well.

Adieu.

I know you're going to bed and likely will not reply. But your description is great, if you were a salesmen. You're not.

Telling someone they probably won't be able to tell the difference between a 5MP camera and a 10MP camera would not be doing right by them - regardless of the other features that surround the products.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I think that's precisely the reason why the press isn't piling on Microsoft and skewering them for the differences just yet. Much of the press hasn't even played a next-gen console yet, and those that have played them have done it in very specific environments with very specific settings. Without having the full picture of practical, real-world use, jumping to conclusions is basically fanboy tactics.

I guess this may play a bit into your feeling that the press isn't piling on MS because most of them haven't been able to play it yet, but so far the people that have seen both versions in person have come away with the opinoin that there's a rather noticeable difference between them

Hi guys. We were told by EA we couldn't cover the Xbox One version, but clearly that's not what was sent out to other media.

I've added a previously edited line back in to the review pointing out that the PS4 version, to our critic, looked vastly superior to Xbox One. Expect a more detailed comparison shortly.

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...a-slick-introduction-to-next-gen-multiplayer/

Digital Foundry

On the merits of what we've seen so far, Battlefield 4 is already set to be a formidable launch window effort from DICE. Our observations so far reveal a clear gap in fidelity between PC and PS4, and again to Xbox One, but sub-pixel break-up aside, based on what we've seen so far, the Microsoft console manages to hold up despite the undeniable, quantifiably worse metrics in terms of both resolution and frame-rate.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-battlefield-4-next-gen-vs-pc-face-off-preview

JackFrags
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGAvdJ9PHQ

He notes that even the PS4's multiplayer looked better than the Xbox One's single player. And that's obviously something that's very strange but does speak to the visual gap between the two.

So I guess at the end of the day we'll see how things go with the press once both consoles are out and once multiplatforms on both consoles have been played. One thing is for sure, Eurogamer is probably going to see more traffic than they ever have before once they start the comparison breakdowns.

 

[Glass Shark]

I've said all I really want to say on this subject. I don't have any words left that I haven't already said. You guys have brought up some interesting points that have made me think.

Above all else, I just hope that you guys will give every individual publication and writer the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions that they're all in cahoots. If what you desire is quality gaming journalism, find it and support it, don't just assume it's all bad.

 

[plagiarize]

So I guess at the end of the day we'll see how things go with the press once both consoles are out and once multiplatforms on both consoles have been played. One thing is for sure, Eurogamer is probably going to see more traffic than they ever have before once they start the comparison breakdowns.

I just really hope they get to the bottom of WHY things break down the way they do. It is going to impact my decisions on when I chose to pick up an Xbox One. I'd more readily pick one up sooner, if I knew that these *were* all just launch issues, but first party titles like Killer Instinct and that golf game have me seriously questioning that.

 

[call_kotaku]

It's past 1AM here and I really need to go to bed, but I'll leave with this...

I've worked at several technology retailers in the past selling products on the floor, including computers, digital cameras, game consoles, etc. Most people who come into Best Buy to buy a digital camera are not that informed. They look around at the floor models and see the bulleted list of specs. If I wasn't there, they would probably just pick the one that has the highest megapixels and buy that.

However, I am there. And I'm going to ask them a lot of questions about how they use their existing camera, and how they expect to use the new one. What kind of pictures do you take? What do you like about the camera you have? What do you not like? I'm going to get to know this person, and recommend them a camera that fits their needs.

This camera probably won't have the highest megapixel rating. So they'll look over at that one and say, "What about that one? The number is higher."

That's when my value comes in. That's when I get to explain to them that numbers are not everything and while that camera over there has a higher megapixel rating, megapixels aren't everything. It's about size, weight, memory format, battery, sensor size, etc.

To me, that's much more valuable to the regular consumer and much more interesting of a way to talk about products. Most people here on GAF, and especially most people in this thread, already know what the difference between 720p and 1080p is and what it means to them. But even a layman will look at those numbers and is likely to assume that the higher one is better. So they might go with that one. And if I were recommending a game console based purely on specs and nothing else, I'd agree with them.

But just like with the digital camera, it's much more valuable and interesting to explain to them why the 1080p might not necessarily be a deal-breaker for them. That the 720p might look a little worse, but for their particular situation it should still be great. That the controller or online infrastructure or some other factor might be more important.

When it comes down to it, I understand that specs and resolution are important. Most people can read a number off a chart, but numbers can be misleading. I consider it the job of a good journalist to report on the obvious and intuitive, but to point out the non-obvious or counter-intuitive details as well.

Adieu.

And hypothetically, if a camera has twice the megapixels as its closest competitor and also costs 100 dollars less, it'd be a big deal, regardless of what the "average consumer" wants or needs. If you tried to sell that expensive camera to a customer and they ask "why's that one with the higher number 100 dollars cheaper?" your answer shouldn't be "the average consumer can't tell the difference, you shouldn't trouble yourself with that". They'd (rightfully) think you're being dishonest and trying to sell them the worse camera.

There's a strange assumption that the only people who need consumer advice are the sort of people who'd ignore it. Why are people who absolutely can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p being dismissed in favor of hypothetical demographics?

 

[plagiarize]

And hypothetically, if a camera has twice the megapixels as its closest competitor and also costs 100 dollars less, it'd be a big deal, regardless of what the "average consumer" wants or needs. If you tried to sell that expensive camera to a customer and they ask "why's that one with the higher number 100 dollars cheaper?" your answer shouldn't be "the average consumer can't tell the difference, you shouldn't trouble yourself with that". They'd (rightfully) think you're being dishonest and trying to sell them the worse camera.

There's a strange assumption that the only people who need consumer advice are the sort of people who'd ignore it. Why are people who absolutely can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p being dismissed in favor of hypothetical demographics?

I don't know, but I do know that joshrholloway is mighty proud of the fact he writes for a website.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I just really hope they get to the bottom of WHY things break down the way they do. It is going to impact my decisions on when I chose to pick up an Xbox One. I'd more readily pick one up sooner, if I knew that these *were* all just launch issues, but first party titles like Killer Instinct and that golf game have me seriously questioning that.

They kinda went into it with their Resolutiongate story

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-resolutiongate-the-fallout

I think that we're likely to see more articles like that blended in with the general comparisons once they start. It's clear that there's a lot of interest in this, so I doubt that they'd miss the opportunity to try to explain things at a deeper level.

 

[Geek]

There is no logical leap here. A community manager is representative of the site. The fact that it was first (and third) comments on a fairly significant reveal is evidence enough that they had at least semi-planned a response - and I'm not sure 'curbing the resolution console wars' is necessary in an article that is literally about, the differences between console resolutions.

Wait, are you saying that Polygon planned to write that article, and in tandem planned to have the community manager make comments as an attempt to soften the news?

 

[Espada]

you misunderstand what I'm saying. the difference between 480p content on a 480p screen compared to 1080p content on a 1080p screen is LESS obvious than comparing 480p content on a 1080p screen to 1080p content on a 1080p screen.

it's still obvious, but native resolutions look better, and all those viewing distance charts are based on *natively* displayed content.

And that last bit matters because 720p sets have become increasingly rare as 1080p has established itself as the standard HDTV resolution (in all but the cheapest sets). This has been well underway for quite a few years now. If you pump 720p content to an HDTV with 1080p native res, it's not going to look as good as native content. Even with the best upscalers around.

Image quality would break down like this (assuming a 1080p display device): 1080p native > 720p native > 720p upscaled
This image quality gap widens the larger the screen is.

viewing distance charts are a guide to decide what resolution TV to buy based on your desired screen size and preferred seating distance. they are not valid for telling you if you will see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 1080p display.

720p content looks worse on a 1080p display than it looks on a 720p display. that's all I'm saying.

although 1080p content will look fine on a 4K display, as it's a simple 2x scale.

You're less able to resolve the added detail and clarity of a higher resolution beyond a certain point. Hence the joke about moving further back going around. In that way you can get "the feel of 1080p". 1080p content will look... okay on a 4k display. Fixed resolution displays don't much care for material that's doesn't match the resolution of the panel.

Hopefully we're not talking past each other since it seems like we're on the same page.

 

[thepotatoman]

I have seen camera mega pixels be called unimportant and a bad metric a ton of times before, because there are a lot of crappy cameras that use that number to deceive, but this whole situation is still the very first time I've ever seen anyone discount the difference between 720p and 1080p for any tv, device, or media, from salesman or tech news people. Some people have discounted the difference between 1080p and 4k, but never 720p and 1080p.

Camera mega pixel numbers is a bullshit example because manufactures have been known to fudge those numbers by cheapening up on other key specs, leading to a picture with less quality though more pixels, while with video games, the resolution basically comes as a result of all the specs put together. The only one deceiving with unimportant numbers is microsoft with their upscaled resolution statistic that means literally absolutely nothing.

 

[PaulExcellent]

I don't know, but I do know that joshrholloway is mighty proud of the fact he writes for a website.

Is... is that bad?

Spoiler

Lurking the thread.

EDIT: Well, after reading the thread, I must say I'm rather surprised to see some members actually stating that the resolution difference is 'not a big deal'. I mean, come on. It's very obvious when a game is 720p or 1080p, no matter what shading and scaling it uses. It's just stupid to say it's not different.

That doesn't mean Xbox = POS, though. People might really like the Microsoft-exclusive IPs, and that's totes fine. Hell, I want one just to play Killer Instinct.

That doesn't mean that it's a-ok for reviewers to state that there's not a huge difference. That's a lie.

 

[plagiarize]

Hopefully we're not talking past each other since it seems like we're on the same page.

I think we're good. I just evidently needed to clarify what I had said. We're on the same page.

1080p native > 720p native > 720p upscaled. just like you say. it's yet another point that's being lost in all this 'people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p' nonsense.

Is... is that bad?

Spoiler

Lurking the thread.

I find it endearing, even if I do so in a 'aww isn't he cute all proud of his freelance work' semi patronizing way. he sure liked to mention it.

 

[LowEndTorque]

I read the entire article and I'm having a hard time finding anything to disagree with.

 

[Om3ga]

It's past 1AM here and I really need to go to bed, but I'll leave with this...

I've worked at several technology retailers in the past selling products on the floor, including computers, digital cameras, game consoles, etc. Most people who come into Best Buy to buy a digital camera are not that informed. They look around at the floor models and see the bulleted list of specs. If I wasn't there, they would probably just pick the one that has the highest megapixels and buy that.

However, I am there. And I'm going to ask them a lot of questions about how they use their existing camera, and how they expect to use the new one. What kind of pictures do you take? What do you like about the camera you have? What do you not like? I'm going to get to know this person, and recommend them a camera that fits their needs.

This camera probably won't have the highest megapixel rating. So they'll look over at that one and say, "What about that one? The number is higher."

That's when my value comes in. That's when I get to explain to them that numbers are not everything and while that camera over there has a higher megapixel rating, megapixels aren't everything. It's about size, weight, memory format, battery, sensor size, etc.

To me, that's much more valuable to the regular consumer and much more interesting of a way to talk about products. Most people here on GAF, and especially most people in this thread, already know what the difference between 720p and 1080p is and what it means to them. But even a layman will look at those numbers and is likely to assume that the higher one is better. So they might go with that one. And if I were recommending a game console based purely on specs and nothing else, I'd agree with them.

But just like with the digital camera, it's much more valuable and interesting to explain to them why the 1080p might not necessarily be a deal-breaker for them. That the 720p might look a little worse, but for their particular situation it should still be great. That the controller or online infrastructure or some other factor might be more important.

When it comes down to it, I understand that specs and resolution are important. Most people can read a number off a chart, but numbers can be misleading. I consider it the job of a good journalist to report on the obvious and intuitive, but to point out the non-obvious or counter-intuitive details as well.

Adieu.

So you're saying that as a salesman you'd tell a customer to buy the more expensive camera even though the cheaper camera with more MP's takes a better picture? I mean sure the more expensive camera might come with an extra lense (that can be bought for $60). Also it might have more features and a better UI, but the consumer really just wants to take pictures. Yet you're now trying to upsell them to features they may not need or use just because they probably wouldn't notice the difference 50% more mega pixels will give them?

You really chose a bad analogy there.

 

[fade_]

Wow, the blindness in the comments is astounding. Some of the stupidity is actually making me angry.

 

[Nerokis]

I have to say, this is a very poor article. It's notable for pandering to people's skepticism of games journalism, and little more (the term "Doritocracy" is pretty funny, too). One of the outlets they call out is Kotaku, but the article they link to is actually much superior in terms of balance, intellectual honesty, and prose. Seriously, guys: if all you want in games journalism is people agreeing with your opinion behind the pretense of "speaking truth to power," let's not pretend this is an issue of journalistic values.

 

[Fess]

I want to see a critical article like this for online multiplayer paywalls.

Anyhow, this is a strange article, I would agree if there were only multiplatform titles, then everyone would look at benchmarks etc and simply buy a PC and never look at consoles again.

But there are platform exclusives too and therefore benchmark tests won't help anyone choose which platform to invest in.

Differences in resolution, framerate, online service, price, etc means very little as long as there are exclusives and as long as the exclusives keep being the best of the best on every platform.

Going by that article would mean that nobody should buy a WiiU for example, not ever, yet we'll probably see lots of people getting a WiiU this holiday. Why? Because that's the only place where Super Mario 3D World will be.

And why did people buy a PS3 last gen even though the console was more expensive and almost all multiplatform titles were worse than on 360? Where else could you play Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo etc?

But lets keep ignoring that Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, Halo, Forza, Killer Instinct, Gran Turismo, God of War, Uncharted etc exists and that the exclusives are basically the only titles that could ever be true system sellers. I'd say that console gamers only buy multiplatform titles to fill in the blanks while waiting on the exclusives, especially this generation when consoles are so similar to PCs.

 

[plagiarize]

I want to see a critical article like this for online multiplayer paywalls.

Anyhow, this is a strange article, I would agree if there were only multiplatform titles, then everyone would look at benchmarks etc and simply buy a PC and never look at consoles again.

But there are platform exclusives too and therefore benchmark tests won't help anyone choose which platform to invest in.

Differences in resolution, framerate, online service, price, etc means very little as long as there are exclusives and as long as the exclusives keep being the best of the best on every platform.

these things all matter. we can argue their relative worth to your average person, but none of them mean very little. Also, I'm sure you'd find a lot of people that don't think the best games on 360 were the exclusives.

Going by that article would mean that nobody should buy a WiiU for example, not ever, yet we'll probably lots of people getting a WiiU this holiday. Why? Because that's the only place where Super Mario 3D World will be.

We're probably not going to see 'lots' of people buying Wii Us this holiday. Unless you don't mean 'lots' in terms of console sales figures, and you mean lots as in, say, what would be a lot of people to come around your house all at once.

And why did people buy a PS3 last gen even though the console was more expensive and almost all multiplatform titles were worse than on 360? Where else could you play Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo etc?

But lets keep ignoring that Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, Halo, Forza, Killer Instinct, Gran Turismo, God of War, Uncharted etc exists and are basically the only titles that could ever be true system sellers. I'd say that console gamers only buy multiplatform titles to fill in the blanks while waiting on the exclusives.

riiiight. COD. GTA. just filler. I love Metroid. OBVIOUSLY, but it's very clearly not much of a system seller. Killer Instinct? Really?

 

[hawk2025]

I've said all I really want to say on this subject. I don't have any words left that I haven't already said. You guys have brought up some interesting points that have made me think.

Above all else, I just hope that you guys will give every individual publication and writer the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions that they're all in cahoots. If what you desire is quality gaming journalism, find it and support it, don't just assume it's all bad.

Absolutely.

In the interest of honesty, I will tell you this much, however: Between shrugging off evidence, including what I brought up regarding Gies as "not relevant", and your baffling opinions, you've been handily and definitely thrown into the "bad" pile, unlike Jason.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and you've failed to address the relevant issues and present a perspective that makes sense.

 

[patapuf]

I have to say, this is a very poor article. It's notable for pandering to people's skepticism of games journalism, and little more (the term "Doritocracy" is pretty funny, too). One of the outlets they call out is Kotaku, but the article they link to is actually much superior in terms of balance, intellectual honesty, and prose. Seriously, guys: if all you want in games journalism is people agreeing with your opinion behind the pretense of "speaking truth to power," let's not pretend this is an issue of journalistic values.

It's not a well written piece and its too hyperbolic, it also goes into some tinfoil hat theories.

The issue however is very real. When even tech focused sites downplay all differences the question has to be asked as to what the gaming press is actually doing before a console launch.

I don't have high standarts, but a comparison of specs and price is like the most basic thing. You don't even have to be particularly knowledgable to do it. And yet so many outlets are trying to sell us a 100$ and 50% power difference as basically "the same".

 

[Naminator]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually take cinemablend seriously?

 

[plagiarize]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually take cinemablend seriously?

I find their 'To 3D or Not To 3D' series of articles informative. Even though I rarely take their final advice, they do a great job of letting me know if a film was shot in 3D, or at least conceived to be post converted into 3D in early planning, or if indeed it was a late decision from the studio to try to make some extra money.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

I don't think this is a strong or convincing article. I don't think it really has a point. I think it's strange more than anything.

It starts by complaining about advertising, although this point is abandoned and never returned to because the author cannot actually sustain the connection of his thesis that the media is biased in favour of Xbox One or deliberately overlooks its shortcomings and that the source of this bias is advertising for fear of pissing off corporate overlords. So we'll abandon it and move on to what it actually says.

It links CBOAT and famousmortimer (uh oh, entering the meta zone, I feel like this article is maybe a GAF thread posted as an external article for some reason?) to establish that sources have suggested that the Xbox One is limited or is having development trouble. It makes the bizarre and irrational claim that the Xbox One might be weaker than the Wii U.

Then it claims that "the media", no examples given, excoriated famousmortimer for claiming the Xbox One was weaker. It then notes that we're now starting to get concrete examples of how the performance gap between Xbox One and PS4 is manifesting in actual software, IE resolution issues in Ghosts and BF4. "The rumour long held in contempt by the gaming media had been proven true".

Then it links some no-name blogs that basically think the Xbox One is a shitty console. It does this to contrast with the purported coverup by Kotaku. It links a Kotaku article that can best be summarized by "Although we know the PS4 has, on paper, higher specs than the Xbox One, and that launch software shows a resolution or performance difference, we don't yet know whether or not SDK iteration and further development experience will help overcome bottlenecks". Certainly we could argue that Kotaku is being overly cautious in refusing to commit more concretely, and now that we have some concrete information I'm sure they will, but is this really evidence of a coverup?

The site then argues that if an nVidia card has double the framerate of an AMD card, we decide that AMD lost the benchmarking war. Sure, but Kotaku's not arguing that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful than the PS4, it's arguing that as of right now it remains unclear what kind of performance differences we're going to have long-term over the life of the system.

Then we enter page two. The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned? Do we really think that advertising is paying off all these random blogs? This is like "my friend said something dumb on facebook" level elevation of some individual dumb argument somewhere strawmanning) as claiming that Xbox One and PS4 versions are "barely distinguishable". In reality, the article says: "What this difference in native resolution means for Battlefield 4 is that, more or less, the Xbox One version will be more aliased (jaggy) than the PS4 version." ". In terms of performance, the PS4 version of the game keeps a small lead of frames-per-second over the Xbox One, and it recovers just a little faster from dips in frame rate." "So, if you’re torn between which version of BF4 to pick up, though the PS4 version performs a little better, the choice should come down to which console’s controller you prefer, and how much you hate even a semblance of aliasing"

Next, it quotes Toms Hardware arguing that although the Xbox One certainly faces a performance deficit off the bat, it is possible that further development experience will allow devs to work around bottlenecks and achieve something closer to parity. Toms compares this to early issues with the PS3. Now, it should be said that the PS3-Xbox360 versus Xbox One-PS4 comparison is not perfect, because in the former it was a case of a very unorthodox architecture versus a relatively plain one with some difficulty trying to actually benchmark the two, whereas in the latter the PS4 is clearly more powerful, but the reason Toms is making the comparison is not to suggest that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful, but rather to suggest that bottlenecks in architecture can be overcome. Rather than engaging in a criticism of the metaphor, the article strangely fixates on the last gen argument by basically saying that late gen PS3 games look better and how dare anyone suggest that the PS3 merely "closed the gap" when it's clearly better looking.

It then misquotes Edge by taking a quote about marketing and PR out of context and suggesting it's a quote about about performance between the machines.

Finally it quotes Ars, where an author says that he personally doesn't see a big difference between the visual output of the two machines. In other words, that the resolution difference is not a big deal to him. I think this is the kind of comment that can be very easily criticized. Obviously individuals have a different reaction to differences in IQ or framerate. Certainly there have been many multiplatform games this generation with a wide variety of comparisons in terms of IQ, framerate, etc. The degree to which any one individual is sensitive varies widely. And yet still we can agree that even if you think Bayonetta PS3 plays well or that CoD Wii looks fine, there's a clear gap and people should be made aware of that gap. So certainly saying "It doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter to anyone" is poor reasoning. However, the reverse is to some extent true--there is no value in trying to convince someone that a distinction they don't feel is relevant ought to be relevant to them.

It then argues that "The weakest console wins so why pretend there isn't a weakest console", which is bizarre both because I don't think it is sustainable to argue that the PSX was in all regards "weaker" than the N64, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion in 2013 that the Wii "won" this generation depending on how the long tail occurs for the other consoles and particularly how Sony's efforts in EMEA regions play out, and it's not clear why this argument matters, because none of the previously cited sources seemed to make assumptions about how the generation would play out in terms of sales so why introduce this dimension now?

Finally, it introduces the price difference and accuses the media of being inconsiderate of the fact that the Xbox One does not justify the additional price. This might be the case, but again none of the discussion that was being called out was discussing the value of the console. If the allegation is that the media is not upfront about the difference in price, it may be because the author is reading articles that are discussing relative performance, IQ, and development hurdles, not value to the end consumer.

Basically this is weirdly conspiratorial, says very little, is profoundly uncharitable in how it chooses to interpret the words (let alone the motivations) of the sources it attacks, and it strangely masturbatory in the way it elevates GAF posters in specific. By far the most delusional claims against the PS4 or for the Xbox One occurred before evidence was available, when people were wildly speculating ("secret sauce" type nonsense). Now that evidence is available the conclusions have been updated to reflect the evidence, which is what is supposed to happen. All the linked articles are moderate in tone and none appear to deny reality or make unsupportable claims.

I have no idea why it was written, I have no idea why it was posted, and it's not clear to me how it adds anything to the many, many, many locked dick-waving threads we have already in the run-up to launch about the IQ issue or the relative value of either console.

I love it when I see posts like this, mainly because it keeps me from having to type out long and thorough replies of my own. I don't want to just quote you and go "what he said" though, so I'll add this about the OP:

Many other similar blogs/editorials/tweets/etc about this generation's XB1/PS4 battle have been simplified via reductionist logic to "click bait" by those reading them. I think sometimes people don't even read past the first sentence (maybe not even past the title) before claiming "click bait" though, and in this instance I think the same knee-jerk reaction could happen again.

But after reading the entire article, I have come to the conclusion that it isn't click bait necessarily, but just the pointless nonsensical raving of a console warrior that can't keep a coherent train of thought. As the gentleman quoted above me stated, the author of the article starts off on one premise but rather than citing arguments to support that premise, he jumps all over the place pointing at various other no-name sites and giving an internet rub down to GAF "celebs".

I started off reading the article expecting to agree with everything he said, because I too have felt that the media has been functioning with somewhat of a "damn the truth" attitude, but came away realizing he almost proved the opposite point from what he set out to get across. I'm not saying the media has been totally un-biased or as forthcoming and hard-hitting as I would've liked since June, but they don't seem to be in MS's pocket either as far as I can tell.

I DO think that they did an ENORMOUS disservice to consumers by acting like DRM didn't matter prior to the 180 by MS, but that's a different discussion and has nothing to do with debating the technical merits of either system.

That being said, once the systems launch I expect some completely unbiased hands-on comparisons between the two consoles by January or so. Any "big name" site that doesn't come through on this point will henceforth be on my ignore list after that point.

Sheesh, and I thought I wasn't going to type such a long reply after quoting someone who said a lot of what I was thinking.... damn my long-windedness!

Now which mod can I PM requesting permission to create a new thread about something I sincerely want to open up a discussion about? I know thread privileges must be earned on GAF, but I'm willing to type of a draft of the thread I want to create and have a mod create the OP instead of myself if need be. I just want some educated discussion and any site that is XB or PS specific just leads to almost zero discussion and massive amounts of trolling/flaming. I'm hopeful that here at least a discussion can be had, even if the trolls and flames do get interspersed in the thread.

 

[Odrion]

I'm glad other people are noticing this, for a second I thought I was being paranoid.

 

[I Stalk Alone]

"They're downplaying how big of an investment $500 is."

but $400 isn't? Honestly I agree that the $100 isn't much. You're already in an price range where ita expensive. $100 isn't going to be a priority in pushing someone away. It might help some decide they want the PS4, but either way you're going to spend a lot more than $400/$500 when you add in one game and a subscription, at minimum. Honestly both the Xbox One and PS4 are luxury products. The people buying them aren't going to be turned off by the $100 difference alone.

you still have to buy games and pay for online along with that price. and extra controllers if you want more than one person in the house playing it at the same time

 

[Terrell]

"They're downplaying how big of an investment $500 is."

but $400 isn't? Honestly I agree that the $100 isn't much. You're already in an price range where ita expensive. $100 isn't going to be a priority in pushing someone away. It might help some decide they want the PS4, but either way you're going to spend a lot more than $400/$500 when you add in one game and a subscription, at minimum. Honestly both the Xbox One and PS4 are luxury products. The people buying them aren't going to be turned off by the $100 difference alone.

But with Microsoft and Sony offering essentially the same experience from a games perspective, the only remaining differentiators are features. I'm not naive enough to think that the TV functions and hyper-Kinect are gonna sell people on an extra $100 spent. And while the exclusives play to our desires, at the end of the day, it's all nothing to the average consumer. Microsoft's best hope is that they can close the gap.

 

[Fess]

these things all matter. we can argue their relative worth to your average person, but none of them mean very little. Also, I'm sure you'd find a lot of people that don't think the best games on 360 were the exclusives.


We're probably not going to see 'lots' of people buying Wii Us this holiday. Unless you don't mean 'lots' in terms of console sales figures, and you mean lots as in, say, what would be a lot of people to come around your house all at once.



riiiight. COD. GTA. just filler. I love Metroid. OBVIOUSLY, but it's very clearly not much of a system seller. Killer Instinct? Really?

I think so yes. I would never choose a PS3 over a 360 because CoD was better (don't know if that is the case), I'd choose a PS3 because that's where I could Uncharted, Last of Us, Gran Turismo etc. And I wouldn't buy a WiiU to play CoD either to get gamepad features, I'd buy it to play the next Mario, Zelda and yes Metrid too. And if people think pixels and frames are so incredibly important that they're basing their platform purchase on DF FaceOffs on CoD, BF, AC etc because the differences are so "huge" I strongly believe that they will (or should) come out of the store with a PC instead. Because this generation it's quite clear from day 1 that PC will always be there to take the pixel counting and framerate crown. Some multiplatform titles sell a lot but I definitely think it's the exclusives that will both make the consoles stay relevant this generation and make people choose one console over another.

 

[Gertso]

CB has been all over Sony nuts for a while now. This article is just a product of that.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

So you're saying that as a salesman you'd tell a customer to buy the more expensive camera even though the cheaper camera with more MP's takes a better picture? I mean sure the more expensive camera might come with an extra lense (that can be bought for $60). Also it might have more features and a better UI, but the consumer really just wants to take pictures. Yet you're now trying to upsell them to features they may not need or use just because they probably wouldn't notice the difference 50% more mega pixels will give them?

You really chose a bad analogy there.

It's amazing how some of you are choosing to misinterpret what he said.

 

[Faustek]

The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned?

uhm...no? Just because you don't frequent these sites doesn't mean they are "no-name". Been around for a while and if anyone has anything in their head they visit many of these sites and compare tests instead of blindly following just one.

What irks me the most thou is that these PC sites have started dabbling in writing for consoles and trying to estimate their performance differences, or just not acknowledge the gap but when they test for PC they actually compare the performance without mercy and then tack on "bang-for-the-buck" scale but ALWAYS stay on the mark and say how it is. Sure it gives hits it might even be fun to work outside of your usual routine but come on!

I don't want to crap on anyone who has console as their main system for gaming but to many of us "PC-Gamers" the console is just an extra piece of fluff, one we buy just for the annoying exclusives we wont get on the PC.

 

[disastermouse]

I think so yes. I would never choose a PS3 over a 360 because CoD was better (don't know if that is the case), I'd choose a PS3 because that's where I could Uncharted, Last of Us, Gran Turismo etc. And I wouldn't buy a WiiU to play CoD either to get gamepad features, I'd buy it to play the next Mario, Zelda and yes Metrid too. And if people think pixels and frames are so incredibly important that they're basing their platform purchase on DF FaceOffs on CoD, BF, AC etc because the differences are so "huge" I strongly believe that they will (or should) come out of the store with a PC instead. Because this generation it's quite clear from day 1 that PC will always be there to take the pixel counting and framerate crown. Some multiplatform titles sell a lot but I definitely think it's the exclusives that will both make the consoles stay relevant this generation and make people choose one console over another.

It's not the resolution itself, it's the implication that the console that's 25% more expensive is significantly less powerful.

The 'buy a PC if you really care about performance' bit is tiresome. Yes, PC will beat these consoles, but PCs cost a LOT more. You're implying that since we're not willing to spend dramatically more for a gaming PC that we don't care about the performance differences of two products at roughly the same price points.

That's like saying that because I can't afford a Ferrari, I shouldn't compare the specs and performance between the hot-hatches in which I'm interested. It's a dismissive and disingenuous thing to say.

 

[ThisWreckage]

No one has been able to explain to me why frame rate, resolution, and games running better on one platform is being completely being swept under the rug this time around when, in fact, it was a major selling point of the 360 last generation. How did that sentiment change? The press went from saying, "Buy the 360 version of this multiplatform title because it is the definitive console version," to "Most people won't notice and this is not a big deal. This is being overblown."

I think it's questionable to say the very least.

 

[kevm3]

If the jump from 720p to 1080p is negligible, what will they say when the PS4 version is 720p and yet sports a way higher framerate? That the framerate doesn't matter and only hardcore gamers will notice?

 

[andromeduck]

No one has been able to explain to me why frame rate, resolution, and games running better on one platform is being completely being swept under the rug this time around when, in fact, it was a major selling point of the 360 last generation. How did that sentiment change? The press went from saying, "Buy the 360 version of this multiplatform title because it is the definitive console version," to "Most people won't notice and this is not a big deal. This is being overblown."

I think it's questionable to say the very least.

that's the magic of HD baby

it's all diminishing returns after 720p

 

[Espada]

that's the magic of HD baby

it's all diminishing returns after 720p

Diminishing returns isn't in effect when it comes to resolutions. We're nowhere near that point.

 

[Fess]

It's not the resolution itself, it's the implication that the console that's 25% more expensive is significantly less powerful.

The 'buy a PC if you really care about performance' bit is tiresome. Yes, PC will beat these consoles, but PCs cost a LOT more. You're implying that since we're not willing to spend dramatically more for a gaming PC that we don't care about the performance differences of two products at roughly the same price points.

That's like saying that because I can't afford a Ferrari, I shouldn't compare the specs and performance between the hot-hatches in which I'm interested. It's a dismissive and disingenuous thing to say.

You don't have to run the games in 4K at 100fps, I've seen people on here and serious websites claim that they can build PCs that is said to beat both consoles in performance for almost the same price as the consoles, and games are cheaper on PC (for some reason! Why?!), so I'm not sure the Ferrari analogy is needed.

 

[Fess]

No one has been able to explain to me why frame rate, resolution, and games running better on one platform is being completely being swept under the rug this time around when, in fact, it was a major selling point of the 360 last generation. How did that sentiment change? The press went from saying, "Buy the 360 version of this multiplatform title because it is the definitive console version," to "Most people won't notice and this is not a big deal. This is being overblown."

I think it's questionable to say the very least.

Online was free on PS3, I believe that's one reason, I went with PS3 for this reason myself lots of times. XB1 lacks that kind of advantage.

 

[hawk2025]

You don't have to run the games in 4K at 100fps, I've seen people on here and serious websites claim that they can build PCs that is said to beat both consoles in performance for almost the same price as the consoles, and games are cheaper on PC (for some reason! Why?!), so I'm not sure the Ferrari analogy is neaded.

I'm sure you've seen those people, but it's a blatant exaggeration.

It is not possible to build a complete PC with input devices from the consumer side that beats both consoles.

To be more precise -- a PC that runs BF4 at 900p/60fps and comparable graphic features.

I'd love to be proven wrong, actually.

 

[Faustek]

I'm sure you've seen those people, but it's a blatant exaggeration.

It is not possible to build a complete PC with input devices from the consumer side that beats both consoles.

To be more precise -- a PC that runs BF4 at 900p/60fps and comparable graphic features.

I'd love to be proven wrong, actually.

Are we counting peripherals? Screen? Chassis?

If we are taking everything into consideration I would say most people are BSin or they are satisfied with a sub-par screen and MS keyboard/mouse for $10

 

[Fess]

I'm sure you've seen those people, but it's a blatant exaggeration.

It is not possible to build a complete PC with input devices from the consumer side that beats both consoles.

To be more precise -- a PC that runs BF4 at 900p/60fps and comparable graphic features.

I'd love to be proven wrong, actually.

PC have other advantages too though and it's scalable so if framerates is your thing it's easy to get games to run smoothly. My wife have a several years old PC, not very expensive I believe, that runs Skyrim smooth as butter with tons of mods and high res textures while I play on consoles that struggle to run at 30fps. Quite annoying actually.

 

[oconnomiyaki]

That's like saying that because I can't afford a Ferrari, I shouldn't compare the specs and performance between the hot-hatches in which I'm interested. It's a dismissive and disingenuous thing to say.

I don't think no one has said you shouldn't consider it. The analogy is more like this: the top speed of car A is 25kmph higher than car B. But seeing as the speed limit is 100kmph, it's not going to matter that much.

Of course, it would also be silly to just look at the speed and torque of a car when purchasing unless you just want to get into a pissing contest with your mates. What if the faster car doesn't come with air conditioning?

 

[disastermouse]

You don't have to run the games in 4K at 100fps, I've seen people on here and serious websites claim that they can build PCs that is said to beat both consoles in performance for almost the same price as the consoles, and games are cheaper on PC (for some reason! Why?!), so I'm not sure the Ferrari analogy is needed.

And those PCs come with keyboards, monitors, an OS, a controller, and possibly a monitor?

 

[disastermouse]

I don't think no one has said you shouldn't consider it. The analogy is more like this: the top speed of car A is 25kmph higher than car B. But seeing as the speed limit is 100kmph, it's not going to matter that much.

Of course, it would also be silly to just look at the speed and torque of a car when purchasing unless you just want to get into a pissing contest with your mates. What if the faster car doesn't come with air conditioning?

It matters how quickly you get to 100kmph/hr.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The article, frankly, isn't very good. :/

It seems to be all over the place trying to string together disparate points.
Meanwhile, there are better examples to draw from, that I've seen posted on here, that indicate a different approach/reaction to the discrepancy in hardware and visual outcomes than has been shown previously.

While there's some outright FUD, like that Marcus Beer overheating thing, which was complete bullshit.