BF: Hardline to be 720p and 900p on consoles

[dalekphalm]

Tell that to the console fanboys who claim you can't tell the difference, and anyone who does is lying lol

Fanboys might argue this, but most console gamers won't, or simply don't care about the difference. Also @RH00D makes an excellent point. PPI + viewing distance are significantly more important compared to overall resolution.

 

Many gamers probably can't tell the difference when sitting 10 feet away on a couch.

 

I was simply pointing out that driving 1080p content is quite a bit more demanding then 720p content that is otherwise equal.

 

Personally, if I have to choose between FPS and Resolution, I'll take 60 FPS and 720p any day, on a console.

 

Whether or not you can tell the difference depends on the Pixels-Per-Inch (PPI) and the viewing distance. That is all. And most console gamers are sitting around 8-12' away on a couch. At that distance it is in fact quite difficult to tell the difference.

 

Most PC gamers are sitting around 12 inches away from their screens so resolution differences is extremely easy to notice.

[Victorious Secret]

Fanboys might argue this, but most console gamers won't, or simply don't care about the difference. Also @RH00D makes an excellent point. PPI + viewing distance are significantly more important compared to overall resolution.

 

Many gamers probably can't tell the difference when sitting 10 feet away on a couch.

 

I was simply pointing out that driving 1080p content is quite a bit more demanding then 720p content that is otherwise equal.

 

Personally, if I have to choose between FPS and Resolution, I'll take 60 FPS and 720p any day, on a console.

 

I sit maybe 16" away from my monitor. Resolution matters. 

 

I sit... ~9 feet away from my Pioneer Kuro. Now we're getting into the area where 720/1080 can be used regardless. 

 

Now, since I'm crazy I have my projector in the basement thats 18 feet away from the 130" screen it throws and I sit just in front of the projector. 1080 to 720 is painfully apparent. 1080 even looks "meh". I need 4K to get the kind of pixel saturation that would make things look "sharp" at that distance. 

 

Its painful for some people here to understand that a lot of people simply don't give a shit about the resolution. The only ones who bicker end over end happen to be fanboys. 

[dalekphalm]

https://www.g2a.com/microsoft-windows-8-professinal-upgrade-cd-key-global.html

https://www.g2a.com/microsoft-windows-8-standard-32-64-bit-cd-key-global.html

 

I know there's other places that sell it, i've seen it for even cheaper than that.

Just a warning, G2A is hardly "legitimate". They've been caught many times before selling stolen or otherwise fraudulent game-keys, and they're notorious for selling MSDN and TechNet (though not anymore for the latter - *sheds single tear*) keys.

 

Their excuse is that they act like an "eBay" market place, and it's actually the individual sellers who are being fraudulent. Which is technically correct, but from a consumer standpoint, if I don't know which sellers to trust on G2A, then I simply can't trust G2A.

[dalekphalm]

I sit maybe 16" away from my monitor. Resolution matters. 

 

I sit... ~9 feet away from my Pioneer Kuro. Now we're getting into the area where 720/1080 can be used regardless. 

 

Now, since I'm crazy I have my projector in the basement thats 18 feet away from the 130" screen it throws and I sit just in front of the projector. 1080 to 720 is painfully apparent. 1080 even looks "meh". I need 4K to get the kind of pixel saturation that would make things look "sharp" at that distance. 

 

Its painful for some people here to understand that a lot of people simply don't give a shit about the resolution. The only ones who bicker end over end happen to be fanboys. 

 

Indeed, personally, I love to sit closer to my TV. My 50" 1080p Plasma TV is probably only 6-ft away from my couch, and I'm fine with that. I'd go even bigger size wise. But many people like to sit farther away (Plus there's the so-called "optimal" sitting distance).

[Crt]

I used to play on a SNES and a Genesis, the Genesis had a lower resolution, but the games were still great.

 

Relatively speaking, even if the resolution is lower and isn't up to the 1080p standard, people will be playing at a distance (from the TV) and will probably not notice any real gains or benefits.

 

There was a video on YT, I can't remember what, but they literally just taped the bottom of the screens on three identical monitors and asked people, non-tech savvy and "tech savvy" people alike if they could see/feel the difference (perhaps its staged because the controller is a dead giveaway?), but the tech-savvy guy on the last test for Assassin's Creed thought that one of them had to be PC because it felt smoother and the other was stuttering or something. In reality they were all PS4s and the guy had the denial face going on. Perhaps it's a placebo effect of tech-savvy people to just hate on consoles for being inferior in specs. I grew up with consoles, PC, and emulators, so I don't have any true biases against one or the other. I only stay on PC because I can use a keyboard and mouse which I believe is better for hand-eye coordination than a console controller.

 

I'm a PC enthusiast myself and I love me some pixels, but if the game is overall an enjoyable experience, then I think people will live.

[Victorious Secret]

Indeed, personally, I love to sit closer to my TV. My 50" 1080p Plasma TV is probably only 6-ft away from my couch, and I'm fine with that. I'd go even bigger size wise. But many people like to sit farther away (Plus there's the so-called "optimal" sitting distance).

 

I like the larger/closer solution because its GREAT for watching movies. Having a 130" screen literally in your face for movies is fantastic. Its my poor mans IMAX at home. 

[minibois]

I used to play on a SNES and a Genesis, the Genesis had a lower resolution, but the games were still great.

 

Relatively speaking, even if the resolution is lower and isn't up to the 1080p standard, people will be playing at a distance (from the TV) and will probably not notice any real gains or benefits.

 

There was a video on YT, I can't remember what, but they literally just taped the bottom of the screens on three identical monitors and asked people, non-tech savvy and "tech savvy" people alike if they could see/feel the difference (perhaps its staged because the controller is a dead giveaway?), but the tech-savvy guy on the last test for Assassin's Creed thought that one of them had to be PC because it felt smoother and the other was stuttering or something. In reality they were all PS4s and the guy had the denial face going on.

 

I'm a PC enthusiast myself and I love me some pixels, but if the game is overall an enjoyable experience, then I think people will live.

Well the Genesis and SNES looked very different.

Aladin and Mortal Kombat are great examples.

And I suppose you were talking about this video?

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/reality-check-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-/2300-6423491/

That video was slightly flawed because they didn't say the specs and the settings of the PC.

And they also had AC: Unity in it..

 

But you are making very valid points indeed.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Launch Trailer has dropped, in 60FPS

(Didn't see it at all in the last 5 pages)

 

[Crazy Ginger]

wow, much frame rate, many pixels, very next gen, wow

 

I'm actually glad they chose to knock the resolution down.  Sure, 720p and 900p doesnt look good, but good looks do not matter if the game runs at an unplayable frame rate.  while 30fps can be playable in other genres, it is just too slow for twitch shooters like battlefield or CoD.  Id take framerate over detail any day.  It just shows that these consoles were just not well built enough this gen and existing tech was too expensive to shove into a console to support 1080p 60 fps for basicly any title.  maybe next generation will use things similar to nividia's tegra x1s or the AMD equivalent.  Cheap and powerful processor/graphics chips.  then again, consoles might not survive to the next generation.  gaming pc by then wil probably be CHEAPER than consoles, and still outperform them massively

[OlekKing]

Just a warning, G2A is hardly "legitimate". They've been caught many times before selling stolen or otherwise fraudulent game-keys, and they're notorious for selling MSDN and TechNet (though not anymore for the latter - *sheds single tear*) keys.

 

Their excuse is that they act like an "eBay" market place, and it's actually the individual sellers who are being fraudulent. Which is technically correct, but from a consumer standpoint, if I don't know which sellers to trust on G2A, then I simply can't trust G2A.

Are you talking about their community marketplace? You don't have to buy from there, just buy directly from G2A. Or if you're buying from the community you can get insurance with a small fee. When buying a key you have the choice to either get it from G2A or from a community seller which can be slightly cheaper most of the time.

There's a certain level of risk of course, but i've bought several games and have had good interactions with their customer support.

I like their store for Steam games, for other stuff like EA games i can just use a VPN directly in their store and get games for cheaper.

[IdortMasterRace]

How is it poorly optimized? Oh, I forgot you're a console shill.

 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Resolution isn't really the matter in consoles anyway.

[ivan134]

Thanks for showing me how unoptimized it is. Battlefield has a lot of problems these days, but frostbite engine isn't one of them. There is nothing wrong with preferring a console, but don't be ignorant about what it is you actually bought. I'll let you carry on with your memes.

[Nielips]

The PS3 was sold with massive loss, even at launch .. Up until like 2012

Same with Xbox 360.

 

It costs Sony ~390 USD to make a PS4 and they sell them at ~400 USD.

Minimal profit, while it used to be big loss on console and make money on games.

Plus when they have sold 20 million plus+ world wide, and more than likely with bgger profit margins everwhere else other than the US (because everyone else loves paying more ), that 10$ soon adds up.

[dalekphalm]

Plus when they have sold 20 million plus+ world wide, and more than likely with bgger profit margins everwhere else other than the US (because everyone else loves paying more ), that 10$ soon adds up.

 

Not really. Not when they likely spent hundreds of millions on R&D and prototyping, before the product was ever finalized.

 

Consoles make most of their money through game sales and add-on services (Eg: PSN and XBL).

 

Originally, XBL was a pretty crappy service, with little to no benefit (Just allowed access to online multiplayer, and artificial paywall behind online services like Netflix). However, Microsoft and Sony have both realized that the consumer-base is shifting, and in the current market, they can't get away with that anymore.

 

That's why they add value-added features to XBL and PSN, like heavy discounts (Not quite Steam Sale level, but much better then consoles have ever gotten before) and "free" games.

 

The $10 they make on each console is nothing, and if that's all the profit they had to go on, they'd be out of business in no time.

[MbV93]

It runs 1080p @ high settings above 30 FPS on a desktop rocking a R7 265. The PS4 iGPU is a bit stronger than that and is backed by a low level API. So the fact that these resolutions are low is the fact that developers are shit at migrating games from one platform to another.

 

Nope. Remember the GPUs in consoles are General Purpose GPUs, developers also offload what would commonly be CPU tasks to GPU cores because the craptastic tablet CPUs that they have are no good.

 

[MegaDave91]

That's some serious salt for console players, lmao

They don't know any better.

[dalekphalm]

Nope. Remember the GPUs in consoles are General Purpose GPUs, developers also offload what would commonly be CPU tasks to GPU cores because the craptastic tablet CPUs that they have are no good.

 

"General Purpose" GPU's? Could you elaborate what you mean a little more?

 

The GPU's inside the consoles are essentially the same as contained in the top-range APU's like the A10 (Just, on steroids, since the Consoles still have more GPU power).

 

The APU GPU's are the same GCN architecture as what AMD uses in desktop GPU's, just scaled down significantly in both core count as well as clock speed.

 

They are no more, or less, "General Purpose", compared to a AMD HD 7870 is.

[ItsAFeature]

This was an expected move. What really bothers me is that from what I've seen so far the textures look inferior to BF4.

 

I was hoping this was just because it was in Beta, but I have yet to see any images that look acceptable. Everything looks a bit flat and dull.

[minibois]

This was an expected move. What really bothers me is that from what I've seen so far the textures look inferior to BF4.

 

I was hoping this was just because it was in Beta, but I have yet to see any images that look acceptable. Everything looks a bit flat and dull.

The BETA was suppose to run on a higher res, if I remember correctly

(you should be able to find that in the handy resolutions list I linked in my original psot)

[Nielips]

Not really. Not when they likely spent hundreds of millions on R&D and prototyping, before the product was ever finalized.

 

Consoles make most of their money through game sales and add-on services (Eg: PSN and XBL).

 

Originally, XBL was a pretty crappy service, with little to no benefit (Just allowed access to online multiplayer, and artificial paywall behind online services like Netflix). However, Microsoft and Sony have both realized that the consumer-base is shifting, and in the current market, they can't get away with that anymore.

 

That's why they add value-added features to XBL and PSN, like heavy discounts (Not quite Steam Sale level, but much better then consoles have ever gotten before) and "free" games.

 

The $10 they make on each console is nothing, and if that's all the profit they had to go on, they'd be out of business in no time.

Yeah well done for stating the obvious. I was purely speculating about the margin on the console.

[Opcode]

Disagree. The clock speeds on the ps4 gpu are quite low. It's also literally impossible to buy CPUs as bad as the ones in the consoles, so no matter what you pair with the 265, it will perform better than s ps4.

The clock speed for the PS4 iGPU is 800 MHz compared to the 900 MHz of the R7 265. Meanwhile the PS4 also packs two extra compute units. So its performance should be a hair better than the R7 265. As for the CPU side of things the consoles have plenty enough CPU power to peak out their iGPU performance. Jaguar cores are about half as strong as their desktop counterparts. Tho they retain the CMP topology. So the CPU in the PS4 has more performance behind it than the 7850k when leveraged properly. Which can push a R7 265 to its performance wall in these games on the desktop.

[asim1999]

And i can run games at a higher resolution on my 10 year old monitor lol,

#PCMasterRace

Had to do it LOL 

[euniqe]

Plus when they have sold 20 million plus+ world wide, and more than likely with bgger profit margins everwhere else other than the US (because everyone else loves paying more ), that 10$ soon adds up.

 

 

Yes exactly, they cost about $600 US for a LONG LONG time in Australia (actually ~$700 AUD)

[totjup5]

Not surprising since the hardware sucks...