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

[WhiteSkyMage]

Its amazing there are still people who get surprised that these "next gen" consoles can't do 1080p. Most devs have troubles even keeping the games running at 30 FPS at sub-1080 resolutions, which would mean BF:Hardline is actually an impressive feat if indeed can do 60 FPS at least. If I were a console developer I would focus on 720p60 and hope this generation of consoles goes by fast and true 1080p60 capable consoles come out soon. Although even if that did happen, I would imagine most devs would still sacrifice the resolution and FPS for a small increase in effects department...

lol i was thinking of something crazy but i will probably get sued for this if i am a game developer... If you know how loud is PS4 when at full load, you will just surprised, just see it on youtube...my friend has a ps4 and it was loud as heck. it's just like a jet taki g off. well, what if i put a small program with a game and have it "overclock" the APU - you would expect this fan to be at 100% and some of the consoles...will just start smoking from behind.... :D

[Ertman]

They were advertised as powerful 1080p 60 machines before coming out for months and months.

It's their fault for having sub par hardware. Has nothing to do with being 2013 hardware.

You said both details (quality) and resolution should be done since it's 2015, 2013 hardware shouldn't apply the same way to that scenario.

Well they could do 1080p 60, the games just won't look very good.

[OlekKing]

You said both details (quality) and resolution should be done since it's 2015, 2013 hardware shouldn't apply the same way to that scenario.

Well they could do 1080p 60, the games just won't look very good.

What the hell are you talking about?

There has been hardware capable of doing 1080p 60fps with high graphical detail for years before 2013. 

When the consoles released people were saying the same thing: It's 2013 and these consoles are sub-par, same thing in 2014.

They were advertised to be capable of 1080p, 60 fps with "next gen" graphics in games. How is it not clear to you?

[OlekKing]

And the "next gen" consoles still can't do it AAAs. Even 1680x1050p. LOL! I wish i could take a PS4, overclock it and force it to do 1680x1050p on Hardline...it will burn in flames like you've pit it on fire...

When you think about it, Sony has used hardware which was 2 years behind out of the game, just to keep the $400 price tag. It would have been much better if they could used what Nvidia offered them and sell it for $500 and that will be it.

Think you went full retard at the end. The hardware is not AMD's fault, both companies wanted something cheap and that's exactly what AMD gave them, they could have given them better hardware if they were paid more and if i recall correctly there were rumours about AMD telling both companies that they should be getting faster hardware but both companies refused.

[minibois]

ayy lmao, let's stop arguing. K? Thx.

[MrRg52]

#ConsoleMasterRace

[Dabombinable]

You said both details (quality) and resolution should be done since it's 2015, 2013 hardware shouldn't apply the same way to that scenario.

Well they could do 1080p 60, the games just won't look very good.

EVGA Geforce 6200 512MB @ AGP 4x, 2x Pentium III 1GHz @ 1.3GHz, 2GB RAM=Games from 2005 and previous played at low to mid settings 1080p@30FPS, mid to high 720p@60FPS+ (vsync off-85Hz 720p LCD monitor). Consoles have no excuse what so ever. And do not forget that at that time 1080p was no where near standard for any game.

[minibois]

#ConsoleMasterRace

Lel xddd

Your signature is too big by the way, it can be max. 3 lines on a 1080p screen and yours is 5 lines.

[MrRg52]

Xbox fanboys will be soo mad

[minibois]

Xbox fanboys will be soo mad

As if PS fanboys have something to be happy about. It is still running horribly on their console.

[MrRg52]

i am mostly on my laptop

[minibois]

i am mostly on my laptop

Are you talking to me?

Qoute people when answering them

[MrRg52]

yeash i am just new to this website style

[minibois]

yeash i am just new to this website style

No problem. Just underneath the signature, there's a "QOUTE" button. Press that when answering people (otherwise they don't get notified of your post).

[MrRg52]

No problem. Just underneath the signature, there's a "QOUTE" button. Press that when answering people (otherwise they don't get notified of your post).

Thanks !

[SkilledRebuilds]

Who remembers when GAMING (not just 2D work) @ 1024x768 first started appearing... 3DFX days (possibly before this), enabling systems to go from 800x600 to 1024x768

 

Shortly thereafter, 1280x1024.

 

Regardless of aspect ratio changes,.. Over 10 years ago we had 1280x1024!!!!

[WhiteSkyMage]

Think you went full retard at the end. The hardware is not AMD's fault, both companies wanted something cheap and that's exactly what AMD gave them, they could have given them better hardware if they were paid more and if i recall correctly there were rumours about AMD telling both companies that they should be getting faster hardware but both companies refused.

I am not saying it's AMD's fault, I am saying that Sony and Microsoft made the worst ever decision to get the cheaper stuff, ONLY because of holding a price point without taking into consideration that the hardware is 2 generations behind, which on the PS3, Sony took current gen hardware (as for the time back then). Seriously...why? Is 500$ that much more than $400 price point? Now i really do now wish Sony's fail in their Morpheus project.

[Ertman]

What the hell are you talking about?

There has been hardware capable of doing 1080p 60fps with high graphical detail for years before 2013.

When the consoles released people were saying the same thing: It's 2013 and these consoles are sub-par, same thing in 2014.

They were advertised to be capable of 1080p, 60 fps with "next gen" graphics in games. How is it not clear to you?

No need to get your feathers ruffled, calm down. Breathe. I just want to have a reasonable discussion about this. Now, the hell I am talking about is you quoted a requirement for 2015 and the consoles are from 2013. High graphical settings and expectations in 2013 (or years before as you say) are not the same for games of 2015.

Well if we want to split hairs they are capable of 1080p60 with next gen graphics, just depends what you consider next gen and that capable (not a requirement) doesn't equal to running all or any games at 1080p60 with next gen graphics. It does seem that much of the problem might be related to the CPU chosen. The game developers are left with few options for hardware that equivalent to budget pc gaming. Either, turndown graphic quality, or turn down resolution and/or frame rates. Optimization will eventually happen, but they will likely never do much better in terms of frame rate or resolution.

Smile and have a good day.

[Albatross]

Why is the resolution difference between the systems there? I thought they were about equal in hardware or does this mean the PS4 has a bit more power in it than the Xbox One?

[Dabombinable]

Why is the resolution difference between the systems there? I thought they were about equal in hardware or does this mean the PS4 has a bit more power in it than the Xbox One?

Yep.

[-TesseracT-]

 

 

 Over 10 years ago we had 1280x1024!!!!

I hate that aspect ratio so much. There are some old games that I play that can only run at 5:4 and it looks terrible  

[dalekphalm]

I thought that next gen consoles could of at least run it at 1080p 30fps

Often times they can. But in this case, since BF: Hardline is a fast paced FPS (First Person Shooter) with heavy Multiplayer focus, they decided FPS (Frames Per Second) was more important then resolution. I happen to agree.

 

They probably could have squeezed out 1080p30 with Hardline, but they made the right decision to do 720p60/900p60 instead.

 

Yeah, you're right, math error on my part.  But it reinforces my earlier point: the hardware simply isn't there, and firmware/software isn't going to make it get there either, so the community at large can stop being surprised at this kind of news.  It is what it is.

 

The console makers are at a point where to pack the hardware that really punches into their systems they need to start charging more.  I personally don't see this as a huge problem because how many millions of people pay out the ass for premium smartphones that cost x2 to x4 more than the current consoles.  But they don't, perhaps because they are afraid of alienating customers, perhaps because of the competition (Sony puts out a $900 console that DOES have good hardware but Microsoft keeps shelling out $300 pieces of hot plastic, who sells more?), perhaps because as others have said in the thread: console players/average people don't give a shit.

 

I do think the latter has some merit.  I work with some console players and they just game, they haven't a clue what's possible.

To be fair, @-TesseracT- is correct, because you used the wording "125% MORE pixels, it in essence does mean 2.25 times multiplier. I read what you said as "1080p is 125% the pixels of 720p". Where 100% is the baseline (720p). But rather, what you said was technically correct, where 100% was a doubling.

 

1080p has a little more than 100 % more pixels than 720p, aka twice as many. 200 % more would be three times as many.

Indeed, you are correct. I misread the way he presented the numbers. His 125% is actually almost perfectly accurate.

 

Yes but that's not an 225 % increase. It's a 125% one. An 100% increase would be a doubling.

 

 

You're having problems with English. He didn't say anything wrong.

"2.25 times as many" is correct.

You're correct, but so is he, because of the specific wording used.

 

Think you went full retard at the end. The hardware is not AMD's fault, both companies wanted something cheap and that's exactly what AMD gave them, they could have given them better hardware if they were paid more and if i recall correctly there were rumours about AMD telling both companies that they should be getting faster hardware but both companies refused.

Agreed, AMD has no fault here at all. They just provided the specs that the Console makers wanted. If Microsoft and Sony wanted a 290x powered APU inside the consoles, AMD would've made it happen.

 

Why is the resolution difference between the systems there? I thought they were about equal in hardware or does this mean the PS4 has a bit more power in it than the Xbox One?

The PS4 has a few more Compute Units (GPU Cores) compared to the XBox One. It's slightly faster on the GPU side of things (Though not a very large difference).

[Ertman]

EVGA Geforce 6200 512MB @ AGP 4x, 2x Pentium III 1GHz @ 1.3GHz, 2GB RAM=Games from 2005 and previous played at low to mid settings 1080p@30FPS, mid to high 720p@60FPS+ (vsync off-85Hz 720p LCD monitor). Consoles have no excuse what so ever. And do not forget that at that time 1080p was no where near standard for any game.

I have a 6200 too.

I am not saying they have an excuse, but resolution and frame rate aren't everything. I'd like to see the 6200 play Hardline at all...

The consoles' excuse is their hardware equivalent to budget gaming pc, running low power cpu. Maybe they're also trying to control minimum framerate, who knows. There has to be something going on there as a 260x can "apparently" run hardline on high at 50fps and 1080p. Maybe they need to map more of the CPU calculations over to the GPU or turn down the quality settings.

[SkilledRebuilds]

I hate that aspect ratio so much. There are some old games that I play that can only run at 5:4 and it looks terrible  

Yeah I know, It sucks on todays panels.

[OlekKing]

I am not saying it's AMD's fault, I am saying that Sony and Microsoft made the worst ever decision to get the cheaper stuff, ONLY because of holding a price point without taking into consideration that the hardware is 2 generations behind, which on the PS3, Sony took current gen hardware (as for the time back then). Seriously...why? Is 500$ that much more than $400 price point? Now i really do now wish Sony's fail in their Morpheus project.

Morpheus will inadvertently fail. The PS4 does not have enough horsepower to render good looking games at 60 fps or higher in stereoscopic 3D (90 is the minimum for the best VR experience without any sickness).

No one would want to use it on PC even if they made it compatible since it's so inferior to both the Oculus and Vive.