BF4 PS4 has 64 player battlers...60fps

[QUOTE="zekere"]

My GTX680 OC 2Gigs destroys the PS4 then???

mastershake575

It has an i5, I don't need an i7 for gaming...

So where was this confirmed to be 720p. I think it could be sub-1080p, but I want more than speculation. I could be just slightly less than 1080p like COD running 1280x640 or whatever on last hardware.

 

 

StrongBlackVine

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So where was this confirmed to be 720p. I think it could be sub-1080p, but I want more than speculation. I could be just slightly less than 1080p like COD running 1280x640 or whatever on last hardware.

 

 

mitu123

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="menes777"]

Still not a valid source, but whatever.   How about answering my real question?

clyde46

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So where was this confirmed to be 720p. I think it could be sub-1080p, but I want more than speculation. I could be just slightly less than 1080p like COD running 1280x640 or whatever on last hardware.

lostrib

uh 1280x640 is not slightly less than 1080p

I said that is what COD did last generation. Why couldn't Dice do a 1920x950 or something like that if every one is so sure 1080p is out of the question?

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

I did the same search and came up with the results from .... ask.com.  LOL 

Not a credible source even for SW.  Yet I am wondering WTF does this have to do with 720p still being ok in 2013?  When PC is on the edge of getting into 4k gaming as not quite the super high end?

menes777

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So where was this confirmed to be 720p. I think it could be sub-1080p, but I want more than speculation. I could be just slightly less than 1080p like COD running 1280x640 or whatever on last hardware.

mitu123

Again I meant that is what was done on last gen hardware so something similar could be done with some games running a bit under 1080p this gen.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So where was this confirmed to be 720p. I think it could be sub-1080p, but I want more than speculation. I could be just slightly less than 1080p like COD running 1280x640 or whatever on last hardware.

 

 

StrongBlackVine

Again I said that is what was done a last gen hardware so something similar could be slightly under 1080p.

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Also I think you meant 1920x640, 1280x640 is less than 720p!!!

mitu123

Again I said that is what was done a last gen hardware so something similar could be slightly under 1080p.

If Knack releases under 1080p that will be pathetic. It is not 60FPS that I know of and doesn't seem to be doing much on-screen other than the all particles that combine together.

It has an i5, I don't need an i7 for gaming...

zekere

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

Again I said that is what was done a last gen hardware so something similar could be slightly under 1080p.

StrongBlackVine

If Knack releases under 1080p that will be pathetic. It is not 60FPS that I know of and doesn't seem to be doing much on-screen other than the all particles that combine together.

Must be the ps4s cpus fault if it cant do 1080p. Because i could easily get above 60fps  at 1080p (ultra) with aa and ao turned off! On gtx 570 with 1.25 vram. And the 570 is somewhat equall to a 7850

Must be the ps4s cpus fault if it cant do 1080p. Because i could easily get above 60fps  at 1080p (ultra) with aa and ao turned off! On gtx 570 with 1.25 vram. And the 570 is somewhat equall to a 7850

rogelio22

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

I did the same search and came up with the results from .... ask.com.  LOL 

Not a credible source even for SW.  Yet I am wondering WTF does this have to do with 720p still being ok in 2013?  When PC is on the edge of getting into 4k gaming as not quite the super high end?

menes777

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

Actually it's viewing distance and screen size that determines this kind of stuff. Your room size won't change in common situations but your screen's size probably will with time.

I would say that most people work with distances around 5 to 10 feet. Meaning that 4K TV's will only be worth it past 80" most of the time.

looking forward to more consoles having 64p, should mean better balance for higher player numbers. nutcrackr

And no more modes and maps designed around small numbers. It should be the full on BF experience this time

60FPS? Nice! Is it 1080p though? Or just 720p up-scaled to 1080p?

Desmonic

Probably up-scaled to 1080p

[QUOTE="rogelio22"]

Must be the ps4s cpus fault if it cant do 1080p. Because i could easily get above 60fps  at 1080p (ultra) with aa and ao turned off! On gtx 570 with 1.25 vram. And the 570 is somewhat equall to a 7850

mastershake575

Look forward to playing it on my PC at 2560x1440 at 100+ FPS with everything maxed out and KB/M.  

Fizzman

Yea, and that'll cost ya what - like $800?

On a HUGE monitor, like those 52" jobs, I can see where 720p might be a drawback - that's a lot of pixel stretching. That could get icky looking.

But if you're like me, and using a 23" 1080p HD monitor, 720p upscaled looks great because the smaller screen size doesn't stretch pixels as much.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I thumbed through a couple of pages of search results, clicked through to them, and took the most frequently recurring figure.  As for what it has to do with the topic, it's a simple question: what value would that add in scenarios limited by the resolving power of the human eye?

glez13

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

Actually it's viewing distance and screen size that determines this kind of stuff. Your room size won't change in common situations but your screen's size probably will with time.

I would say that most people work with distances around 5 to 10 feet. Meaning that 4K TV's will only be worth it past 80" most of the time.

Exactly, so if screen sizes are changing (ie getting bigger) and BF4 is stuck at 720p then it's going to look at like ass on those bigger screens.  So either it's going to have to sacrifice something to make 1080p or DICE is really going to have to step up their game when it comes to optimization.  Either way the gen hasn't even begun and PC is ahead of the game here?  Imagine what's going to happen in 3 or 4 years much less over the whole 7 year lifecycle of the consoles (unless that changes of course).

Its funny that x1doing 1080p@60fps and ps4 dont then bf4 comes out and it happens to be 720p at 60fps hmmmmmmmm.......;)

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I thumbed through a couple of pages of search results, clicked through to them, and took the most frequently recurring figure.  As for what it has to do with the topic, it's a simple question: what value would that add in scenarios limited by the resolving power of the human eye?

lowe0

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

Going from 30fps to 60fps is all this next gen has to offer so far (at least for BF4)?  I would be sorely disappointed to pay $400 (along with online fees) or *gasp* $500 (along with online fees) for such a paltry gain.

[QUOTE="lowe0"] I already did address how 3 monitors would add value: a wider field of view. But that presumes that I dedicate a space entirely to that. Let's approach this from an entirely different perspective for a moment. Suppose for a second that we take platform out of it: consider a PC in one's living room. Are they going to set up 3 televisions in order to get triple monitor? No. Setting cost aside, it's simply not practical - you still have to use that room as a living room, den, etc. - that space is shared among the entire household and whatever myriad uses they have for said space. So, it's simply not practical. So where's the line for practicality? How do normal people have their furniture set up, and how large of televisions do they have? Well, let's assume we're all normal people here. As I've previously invited other posters to do, grab a tape measure and head out to your living room. Measure the distance between your eyes in your normal seating position, and the screen (thanks to my lovely wife, I can establish this as 11 feet as of this exact instant). Then look it up on a chart vs. your screen size, or break out a calculator and do the math yourself (20/20 vision can resolve details of one arc minute). Are you getting full 1080p in your living room setup? If not, then why bother wasting resources on it?seanmcloughlin

Good lord you are a master of deflection. 

He could be a jedi at this point with that much deflection

I would rather them stick with 1080p at 30fps but that's just me. I guess they just want that nice 60fps refresh rate. 720 *should* be fine but I feel 1080p would be better.

I believe the next Battlefield game will probably be 1080p at 60fps. This is their first port of the Frostbite 3 engine to the next gen consoles. I bet they could move it to 1080p at 60fps but the performance isn't going to be a smooth 60fps so they are just scaling it back so that it's stable.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="menes777"]

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

menes777

Going from 30fps to 60fps is all this next gen has to offer so far (at least for BF4)?  I would be sorely disappointed to pay $400 (along with online fees) or *gasp* $500 (along with online fees) for such a paltry gain.

I would rather them stick with 1080p at 30fps but that's just me. I guess they just want that nice 60fps refresh rate. 720 *should* be fine but I feel 1080p would be better.

I believe the next Battlefield game will probably be 1080p at 60fps. This is their first port of the Frostbite 3 engine to the next gen consoles. I bet they could move it to 1080p at 60fps but the performance isn't going to be a smooth 60fps so they are just scaling it back so that it's stable.

Wasdie

or why not try for say, 40, 45, or 50 fps? There's 30fps difference of room to play with

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I would rather them stick with 1080p at 30fps but that's just me. I guess they just want that nice 60fps refresh rate. 720 *should* be fine but I feel 1080p would be better.

I believe the next Battlefield game will probably be 1080p at 60fps. This is their first port of the Frostbite 3 engine to the next gen consoles. I bet they could move it to 1080p at 60fps but the performance isn't going to be a smooth 60fps so they are just scaling it back so that it's stable.

wis3boi

or why not try for say, 40, 45, or 50 fps? There's 30fps difference of room to play with

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I would rather them stick with 1080p at 30fps but that's just me. I guess they just want that nice 60fps refresh rate. 720 *should* be fine but I feel 1080p would be better.

I believe the next Battlefield game will probably be 1080p at 60fps. This is their first port of the Frostbite 3 engine to the next gen consoles. I bet they could move it to 1080p at 60fps but the performance isn't going to be a smooth 60fps so they are just scaling it back so that it's stable.

wis3boi

or why not try for say, 40, 45, or 50 fps? There's 30fps difference of room to play with

Screen tearing happens if you don't run at 60 fps or 30fps. The average monitor is going to refresh at 60hz. If you refresh your game at 30 hz then the monitor can refresh the same frame twice. At 45 fps you get 1.5 frames for every cycle which could end up with alot of screen tearing. This is also why it's good to limit PC game FPSs to around 60. Higher and your going to see more tearing. Lower and you'll see tearing.

30, 60, 120, those are all the sweet spot depending on the monitor you're using.

On a console the difference between 30 and 60 fps is a lot less than on a PC. On the console it is a bit more sluggish at 30fps but it's nothing compared to the sluggishness on a mouse and keyboard. Console FPS can get away with 30 fps and still feel responsive and smooth. I can't say the same for PC FPSs.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="menes777"]

Living room sizes aren't changing so why go from 720p to anything above it at all?  Why even have the PS4 or X1 if 720p is still going to be the user base for these systems?  They could just keep cranking out games for those systems at that same resolution because according to your logic about screen resolutions and viewing distances they should be fine with 720p.  In other words to enjoy 4k gaming we should get huge living rooms to make up for the large viewing distances that would be needed to enjoy it.  Otherwise we should just stay at 1080p or lower.

menes777

Going from 30fps to 60fps is all this next gen has to offer so far (at least for BF4)?  I would be sorely disappointed to pay $400 (along with online fees) or *gasp* $500 (along with online fees) for such a paltry gain.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I would rather them stick with 1080p at 30fps but that's just me. I guess they just want that nice 60fps refresh rate. 720 *should* be fine but I feel 1080p would be better.

I believe the next Battlefield game will probably be 1080p at 60fps. This is their first port of the Frostbite 3 engine to the next gen consoles. I bet they could move it to 1080p at 60fps but the performance isn't going to be a smooth 60fps so they are just scaling it back so that it's stable.

wis3boi

or why not try for say, 40, 45, or 50 fps? There's 30fps difference of room to play with

TV refresh rates

Good Job! Now the PS4 finially has a title that looks like it will run at 60 fps. Way to go Dallas!

Not going to lie this is pretty sad - 60 FPS = good, 720 P = bad.  this is 2013 almost 2014, these consoles have a 5-7 year shelf life - so these guys could potentially still be playing games at 720P in 2020?  To me this isn't acceptable and the console gamers should expect more.

My GTX680 OC 2Gigs destroys the PS4 then???

zekere

[QUOTE="Desmonic"]

60FPS? Nice! Is it 1080p though? Or just 720p up-scaled to 1080p?

mitu123

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

Can the X1 have 64 players?? At 60 fps?TheKingIAm

both versions will probably be the same

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Desmonic"]

60FPS? Nice! Is it 1080p though? Or just 720p up-scaled to 1080p?

super600

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

You shouldn't buy it at all then. Even BF3 was shit on console so I only imagine how bad BF4 will be on the old consoles.

Sounds great. My eyes can't tell the difference between 1080 or 720 and 60 or 30 anyway.Pittfan666

you may need glasses

[QUOTE="Pittfan666"]Sounds great. My eyes can't tell the difference between 1080 or 720 and 60 or 30 anyway.lostrib

you may need glasses

Finally consoles catch up to PC.:P

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Desmonic"]

60FPS? Nice! Is it 1080p though? Or just 720p up-scaled to 1080p?

super600

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]720p on med-high settings.

silversix_

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

I'm not buying either the xb1 or ps4 until next year.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]720p on med-high settings.

silversix_

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

720p hasn't been confirmed any where. It may not hit 1080p, but I doubt it goes as low as 720p either.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

[QUOTE="super600"]

Silversix has been owned if true.If I buy a version of BF it will be the 360 version most likely.

super600

I'm not buying either the xb1 or ps4 until next year.