Resolution obsession, yet neither can do 1080p...

Why is it difficult to believe MS brought paying to play online to the industry? Sony brought Bluray. I don't understand why Lems can't accept that they did?

Look at your original post, "Sony held out from charging as long as they could" as if they never wanted to charge for online, how is saying something as stupid as that the same as "derp well MS copied Bluray derp".

MS charged first. then Sony charged. Sony did Bluray first. Then MS did. They are the exact same thing. One does something first, then the other does. That's it!

That's not the issue though. The issue is you making out that Sony was forced into charging, particularly the "they held out aslong as they could" line. I hope it was just a bad wording on your part and that you don't actually think that way.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Nice more and more damage control coming from you, you know what? it is pointless, the damage have been done, everyone now know that this game is rendered at 800p and NOT in 1080p, because ps4 cant handle this game at 1080p and 30fps.

Now I am going back to play my games at 2560x50 (instead of 2560x1440) because according to you it makes no difference, it is only a different aspect ratio LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm going to have to step into this.

Movie's are filmed at 4:3 natively and then cropped in camera to the aspect ratio desired... meaning that you are filming it in 4:3 and but framing the scene to 21:9 or 16:9. That's how camera's work.

A game like the order is NATIVELY rendering 1920x800... Its not natively running 1920x1080 and then cropping the image, that would be a waste of resources.

MK's point is that its easier to run and he's right and your point emgesp is uninformed.

Cropping is not the same as rendering.

Actually its the other way round. You crop the image to 4:3 in the camera. You never film in 4:3 unless you are going back in time.

Just like I didn't spend 400 on "my" ps4. So you still payed more for those frames than I did for my ps4.

Well lets just go back here for a second.

I never said the PS4 hit a constant 60fps.. simply the vast majority of gameplay is indeed... at 60fps... yes there are drops, mainly due to poor coding in a cross gen game (there are exceptions here, like Resogun). Just because a game drops below 60 frames now and again does not means its not capable of 60fps..... nor does it give anyone the right to say its outright not capable of it... which is exactly what this thread it about... the PS4 not being able to hit 60fps or do 1080p... but it indeed can.... am i wrong? is my PS4 in fact constantly running at 30 fps and i'm just delusional? hope not!

Now because a game is not capable of hitting 60fps with no drops...does not mean the platform itself in incapable of doing so..... the hardware is powerful enough (as is the xbox, as we will see in the years to come) its all about the coding of games.. which of course is a complete variable.

Can you clarify something for me. Rendered Scene vs Game Scene? Im genuinely confused by what you mean. Let me explain

Rendered scene = FMV or 'Cut Scene"

Game Scene = Gameplay

If thats the case.... where did i ever compare a rendered FMV (basically a CGI movie) to a Game Scene? More to the point... where is the relevance in doing such a comparison?

My comparison with Alt Tabbing is valid as the game is still running in the background and should still be hitting 60fps constantly... regardless of whether you are looking at it (those frames are still being rendered on your card, just not pushed to the monitor) .. so if your frame rate drops when alt tabbing (which it will) then by your logic, your system is not a 60fps system... same as the PS4. Also all games FPS fluctuate to a massive degree, regardless of platform. Sure DICE or whoever could have hit 60 constantly... but they chose not to in order to get a little extra fidelity out of it and still keep a decent 60fps for most gameplay.... are you criticizing them for this decision? If so thats fine, but criticize their game design decision, not the hardware.

I have a gaming rig.... have done since i started gaming back in 2000. As of late the PC market have become such a boring place to play i never bother anymore. Not to mention all the other crap that goes along with PC gaming. I wont mention all of them but cost, comfort and game bugs (which are massively increased on PC due to no 3rd party quality control unlike consoles) are just some issues with PC Gaming these days. My point being i aint a sony fanboy..... Its just this thread is actually pointless

The fact is that the PS4 is CAPABLE of 60fps 1080p and we are still in the first wave of very very very unoptimized, cross gen games... not purely designed for the PS4 (with a few exceptions such as KZ:SF single player and 1886, where the devs are sacrificing 60 frames for more graphical fidelity, as a design decision). This alone does not mean the PS4 isn't capable before you start, only they have CHOSE to put most of their available resources into one area rather than another. This again is shown with KZ:SF Multiplayer, which is in fact 1080 and 60fps (might not be constant, but it hits it for the vast majority of the time that i have seen)

so in short... whether a game hits 60fps/1080p is a design choice by game devs... not a downfall of the hardware... in time more 1080 games will be released running at a more constant 60fps... just be patient :)

OH and the whole me not PC gaming anymore ain't entirely true, i still play Kerbal Space Program... although it runs like an absolute dog in my system due to Unity's unfortunate memory leak issues... oh the joys of no quality control :)

@clyde46 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Nice more and more damage control coming from you, you know what? it is pointless, the damage have been done, everyone now know that this game is rendered at 800p and NOT in 1080p, because ps4 cant handle this game at 1080p and 30fps.

Now I am going back to play my games at 2560x50 (instead of 2560x1440) because according to you it makes no difference, it is only a different aspect ratio LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm going to have to step into this.

Movie's are filmed at 4:3 natively and then cropped in camera to the aspect ratio desired... meaning that you are filming it in 4:3 and but framing the scene to 21:9 or 16:9. That's how camera's work.

A game like the order is NATIVELY rendering 1920x800... Its not natively running 1920x1080 and then cropping the image, that would be a waste of resources.

MK's point is that its easier to run and he's right and your point emgesp is uninformed.

Cropping is not the same as rendering.

Actually its the other way round. You crop the image to 4:3 in the camera. You never film in 4:3 unless you are going back in time.

Yeah I realised I made a mistake but was too lazy to edit.

Point still stands.

Cropping a native image is not what the developers are doing with The Order. He's under the assumption that they are natively running the game at 1920x1080 and then cropping it to 1920x800... Which would be a complete waste of power.

MS went as long as they could before going with a high capacity disc. Sony went as long as they could before charging. What's the difference?

MS charged with with the first Xbox. I owned it and payed it. Then I owned a 360 & payed it. Sony went a lot longer before charging. It is what it is.

Each company influences the gaming world with anything that's successful. Charging for online was successful at bringing in more money. Bluray was a successful high capacity gaming disc. Sony did hold off from charging as long as they could. They are now charging because their gaming division wasn't bringing in enough with the PS3. They decided to start charging only after a gen of knowing they needed to in order to keep their gaming division successful/profitable. MS always charged & didn't base it off of what Sony did. They simply did it because they saw a way to make extra money.

i am enjoying this discussion and at the end of this post i will change my tune on one of the games.

i will start with a fact or 2. wii u, ps4, xbox one - all are capable of 1080P, 60Hz output (we agree). PC you could have 120 Hz output! so i could argue that a 120fps pc could maintain an average over 60 easily - thus showing objective frame rate superiority. Also, PS4 seems to be the most powerful gaming console. capability is not the same as what the gpu outputs - including on PC.

your interpretation of a rendered scene is incorrect, your definitions are incorrect. this information can be looked up on wikipedia. sorry - i simply don't have the time to start a debate by correcting misinformation. as briefly as possible, each frame you view in a video game is a render of a 3d scene. i was never talking about video recordings of computer graphics commonly referred to as 'CGI'.

your alt tabbing comparison is flawed. i was showing you videos where in the game, you know, they're playing the game and the frame rate drops.

so on the pc, why isn't the comparison made to where you're in the game, and see if the frame rate drops in the game? why would you like to compare frame rate drops in game on a console, to frame rate drops caused by alt-tabbing?

surely the fair comparison would be to look at the FPS of a console game when you're doing something equivalent to alt-tab? compare apples with apples please.

i reject your premise that you need 60fps when the OS' focus is not on the game. the FPS when I'm alt-tabbed into another program is irrelevant to this discussion of gameplay fps.

we are having this conversation because you said 'Fact check... BF4 runs at 60FPS, As does Resogun, Killzone MP and many many more...', and i pointed out those three specific games run at FPS other than 60, such as 59, 58, 57, 56, down to 45 in some cases. when people say a console game is 60 fps, it should mean a solid 60 fps.

this made me wonder 'what is the tolerance for frame drops?' there are cod games on xbox 360 i'd call a solid 60fps despite dropping to 58 or 59 very very seldom. so, here is where i will change my mind regarding one of the games:

resogun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HhiKXeuNvM

basically, i'm watching this video and i'm not really seeing drops. ironically, this video is from digital foundry and my original quote came from digital foundry!

@tyloss: Even if Pc gaming wasn't a massive part of the industries income, you're still playing games that would be considered mediocre looking in 2008 and hailing them as graphical wonders/

wrong, unless you got your ps4 for under $220 and with 7 free games, then I win.
free games include: tomb raider (2013), the newest hitman, sleeping dogs, far cry 3 blood dragon, thief, bioshock infinite and devil may cry

Actually I payed only 150 for mines. Now I didn't get 7 free games, but I'm willig to go as far as to say that not all retailers have that deal. So you really can't use that 7 free games as a universal debate. Now if I'm wrong, then carry on.

I won't debate with the games. But how can you say no to 7 games? :P $150 is a steal. And if you really did get it at that price you are hella lucky imo. I'd say you win hands down just on that.
It reminds me of the deal I got with my second ps3. The 40/80 models had just launched, the 40 gig was $400 and I believe the 80 was $500. I managed to snag a brand new 40 gig model for only $91 on ebay.
But for the graphics thing. I got 2 7870's for the price of one and 7 games, which totaled to half the price of a ps4. I thought I had gotten a really good deal. But you take the cake sir.

Despite all the spinning from cows a simple fact remains: there are no graphically demanding games that run at 1080p and 60fps on the PS4.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@clyde46 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Nice more and more damage control coming from you, you know what? it is pointless, the damage have been done, everyone now know that this game is rendered at 800p and NOT in 1080p, because ps4 cant handle this game at 1080p and 30fps.

Now I am going back to play my games at 2560x50 (instead of 2560x1440) because according to you it makes no difference, it is only a different aspect ratio LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm going to have to step into this.

Movie's are filmed at 4:3 natively and then cropped in camera to the aspect ratio desired... meaning that you are filming it in 4:3 and but framing the scene to 21:9 or 16:9. That's how camera's work.

A game like the order is NATIVELY rendering 1920x800... Its not natively running 1920x1080 and then cropping the image, that would be a waste of resources.

MK's point is that its easier to run and he's right and your point emgesp is uninformed.

Cropping is not the same as rendering.

Actually its the other way round. You crop the image to 4:3 in the camera. You never film in 4:3 unless you are going back in time.

Yeah I realised I made a mistake but was too lazy to edit.

Point still stands.

Cropping a native image is not what the developers are doing with The Order. He's under the assumption that they are natively running the game at 1920x1080 and then cropping it to 1920x800... Which would be a complete waste of power.

The black bars will count as part of the resolution. When you get direct feed still images the resolution will be 1920x1080p because the black bars are part of the resolution. The pixel density will be exactly the same, because it would be like taking a 16x9 1080p image and cropping it from top and bottom. Sharpness/detail doesn't change, only aspect ratio.

@napo_sp said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

1080p can be done with 2.40:1 aspect ratio, that will be around 2560x1080, this is the only proper 2.40:1 aspect ratio for 1080p not your false concept.

it's not about whether or not 1920x800 will result in upscaling or not, but 1920x800 is such a cheap trick to make the game perform better, while in reality it's such a low res (1.5MP), and it's such a lower res than 4:3 1600x1200 displays found on late 90s CRT monitors lol; heck even smartphones will move to 1440p this year.

the most hilarious thing, even with such low res, the game still struggles with performance and have to be capped at 30 FPS, that and the fact that the game will be such a linear corridor shooter making it even more comical.

and no, the way real time CG rendering work, you don't render a full image only to be cropped later via post processing or something, such a thing is a complete idiocy from software engineering standpoint, instead the black bars would have been simply placed there and rendered alongside the rest of the graphics, but since it's only black then it's not in any way use hardware resources, it's like simply a blank space, or at very least only marginally use any hardware resources.

the order 1886 is a 1920x800 game period, deal with it.

2560x1080p is a higher resolution than 1920x1080p. I said you can't do 1920x1080 with a 2.40:1 aspect ratio because 1920x1080p is a native 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. So, I'm sorry, but what exactly did you prove?

1920x800p is a native crop of a 1920x1080. Pixel density won't change when you use native crops. The game won't be upscaled at all so you don't lose any benefits of your displays resolution. You are only missing picture information from the top and bottom of your screen with black bars.

The designers chose this aspect ratio for artistic purposes, not because they wanted better performance. Why do Directors use 2.40:1 in feature films, because its an artistic aesthetic choice.

the point is, the game is being rendered at 1920x800 or 1.5 mega pixels, period

ambiguous debate over 1080p layman terms doesn't change that fact, and yes 2.4:1 1920x800 movies are technically not 1080p, movie industry simply missdirected the masses also due to the inability from the display industry to properly support real 2.4:1 1080p which is around 2560x1080 res,thankfully pc users still have that option

crownkingarthur #facts about the order 1886. it's time to get fact up.

1920x800 resolution

it is not full HD. that would require rendering a scene of 1920x1080, the reality is a scene of 1920x800 is rendered, and when displayed on a 1920x1080 display the two areas top and bottom are populated with what i'll crudely describe as 'free black'.

can it still be a good game? yes.

is it a full hd game? no.

More like, Sony started charging for online as soon as was feasible which was with the PS4 and it's "revamped" PSN for the exact same reason MS did, to make more money, that's it, end of.

I really like Sony products but i'm not under any illusion of them being some kinda altruistic company who just hates having to charge their customers more money and that they will only do it when absolutely necessary. Give me a break with this fanaticism shit and get a grip on reality.

Not misinformed. He knew exactly what he was saying. But that's a fanboy for you, they ignore facts and will just straight out lie and misconstrue everything in order to pathetically attempt to talk smack to other random internet strangers because they have no self esteem and giant egos.

You also notice he can provide no real links to real world proof either. He just makes up whatever he wants and presents it as a fact. They say ignorance is bliss, so fanboys must be the happiest people in history.

Amazing how the emgesp guy still arguing about the order1886 not being 800p.

He must be very butthurt over the fact that ps4 can even do 1080p and 30fps, I am wondering what he expected, after all the ps4 have only a low-end GPU (HD7850).

The X1 is no more capable than the NES since neither are capable of constantly running at 1080p according tt OP logic.

Why is this still up when its a fact more PS4 games are 1080p than not? crappy mods!

it is funny to me that resolution adds nothing to gameplay and is the first thing i cut over other effects like draw distance, lighting, water, particles, frames per second, along with others when i dial in a new pc title but is the biggest deal for gen 8 that people will not shut up about.

if devs want to cut resolution in order to improve performance it makes perfect sense to me since it is a huge resource hog that i cut back on as the 1st thing to sacrifice if i have to sacrifice something.