Microsoft VP: 'play the games, not the resolution'
"If you were just looking at screen resolution and framerate, you'd be a PC gamer... But that doesn't mean the best games are there. It doesn't mean it's the best all-in-one experience."
One of the big controversies leading up to Xbox One's launch is what's (unfortunately) being called "resolutiongate." Major multiplatform games are running at a lower resolution on Xbox One than PS4, which calls into question the console's capabilities. Microsoft Studios VP Phil Spencer has defended Xbox One, saying gamers shouldn't focus on the numbers, but the experience.
"Go look at the games. Go play the games and tell us what you think about what they look. Right now, gamers don't have the games to go play. They can't walk into their local store and play the games. So, it doesn't really surprise me that they're going to focus on the specs that they can. I don't criticize anyone for doing that. In the end, we play the games, not the resolution," Spencer said.
Spencer isn't particularly concerned about Xbox One's latest scandal. He believes that once the system comes out, it will become less of an issue. "In absence of me getting my own Xbox One or PS4 games, I'm going to focus on the meme of the day, which happens to be resolutiongate," he said hypothetically. "But I think it'll blow over as people get to play the games."
But surely, Spencer must be somewhat concerned that Xbox One is seemingly less powerful than PS4? He argues that there are more factors to consider than just resolution. "Power is a subjective term. We look at all of the capabilities we put in the box, our investment in cloud, Kinect, and all-in-one entertainment, and our investment in the operating system for fast task-switching," he said. "We think we've built a very powerful system. I don't think there's any one vector of power that you can focus on and say we win because this number is bigger than that number. It's like a car. Is it horsepower? Is it torque? There's a bunch of things that you look at to see what it's capable of."
"Our proposition with Xbox One starts with the games: we've got a great launch lineup of over 20 games. We've got some great franchises, great third-party relationships. And we've built a system that natively understands you and your entertainment. I think in the long run, our hope and bet is that power will play out and show people that everything they've learned about gaming on 360 can now augment everything they can do on their television."
"You look at high-end PC games right now. If you were just looking at screen resolution and framerate, you'd be a PC gamer. Because you can spend $800 on a video card and put it in. I've built those rigs. I can play those games. And I understand that. But that doesn't mean the best games are there. It doesn't mean it's the best all-in-one experience."
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Microsoft VP: 'play the games, not the resolution'.
"If you were just looking at screen resolution and framerate, you'd be a PC gamer... But that doesn't mean the best games are there. It doesn't mean it's the best all-in-one experience."-
[deleted]
-
That's not the reason why the best games are there, but the best games are there, nonetheless.
-
-
It really is.
-
-
He's right that the entire experience of a game matters much more than the bullet points, like resolution.
-
You know what you get when you have the soul of a great game but none of the bullet points?
Deadly Premonition. Chew that one over, Microsoft. -
This is why 720p TV's are gonna make a HUGE comeback. It's just games and movies, right?
-
What? His point is that a crappy game in 1080p is still a crappy game, and a good game in 720p (or even 480p on the Wii) is still a good game. You can't argue with that.
-
OK, BUT...if it's the same game on two systems (eliminating your superfluous good-game/bad-game element), and I've bothered to buy a high resolution TV, why wouldn't I want a high resolution game if I had the option? As for Nintendo, it has been sustained almost entirely by its exclusives for a long time now - making it useless in this discussion; with Nintendo you take it or leave it.
-
...eliminating your superfluous good-game/bad-game element
Why on Earth would we ignore the quality of the games, in a discussion about games consoles?-
Because if the conditional clause "if" and what follows it in my post.
-
-
"superfluous good-game/bad-game element" O_o Yeah, I don't consider the quality of my games "superfluous" at all...
The entire point people are trying to make here is that whether a game is a good game or not is easily more important than whether a game is in 720p or 1080p. You seem to be taking great objection to that for some reason. I don't think anyone is actually disputing that a game in 1080p is better than the same exact game in 720p. If I have given you that impression I apologize for the miscommunication.
I do have to say though that I really don't get the "scandal" aspect here of "resolutiongate". We've known that Xbone is less powerful than PS4 for a long time now, why anyone would have expected that that wouldn't have any ramifications to either fidelity, resolution, or framerate is beyond me.
If that combined with the $100 price gap makes your console decision a no-brainer, then good for you. That's the competitive marketplace doing its thing. But this moral outrage is just weird.
Yep, Xbone is weaker than PS4. Wii U is weaker than Xbone. Xbox 360 and PS3 are weaker than all of the above. Wii is even weaker than that. Okay, good to know. But I can't help but feel that I'm missing the part where these facts constitute some infuriating, reprehensible travesty against God and man. Maybe I'm just out of touch with how modern gaming culture works.-
Reading a whole sentence is hard. It's always better to read half and pounce on the first thing that enters your simple head.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Yeah but I think it's disingenuous and evasive to take a stance like that. Graphical fidelity is a huge (probably the largest, these days) part of the gaming experience whether "true" gamers want to admit it or not.
-
[deleted]
-
Except displays at the 1k price point and below have only been increasing in size. Given how long this last console cycle has lasted...
I've played games like ME3 on my 360 and PC on my 42" plasma at 6ft, and the difference is stark.
To me, 1080p gaming isn't only about eye candy, but function. In Battlefield is lets me easily spot distant enemies. In a game like GTA the hazards of high-speed driving are more easily seen. Its also more fun to edit than 720p footage.
-
-
You know what the fucking sad thing is? I think you're right. So-called hardcore gamers don't give a shit if the latest Calla Dooty is the same insipid slop that they played last year, they care about counting the pixels on blown up stills of every jagged edge and screaming about it online, or whatever else is the latest pathetic bullshit they've got their panties in a twist over.
People always wonder why the AAA game industry is in such a rut, why the games have better technology and bigger budgets, but the actual design is more bland, juvenile, and creatively bankrupt than it has ever been. It's because that stuff is what most gamers really want. Judging from what you see online, the average gamer is either an actual 12-year old boy or has the psychological development of one and naturally, they want games that cater to their level. And the industry is all too happy to oblige.
I'm still waiting for the day where the big controversy in gaming is why the games they keep feeding us are such shallow garbage. Perhaps that day will never come. It certainly seems to be pretty low on gamers' list of things to outraged about at the moment.-
Seems hardly reasonable to take CoD and extrapolate it as some kind of representation of gaming as a whole. Call of Duty isn't even really the flagship for graphical fidelity in games, and I don't think it ever has been. I also don't think you have to choose one or the other. In fact, I think increasing visual fidelity can open up new types of gameplay - think stuff like LA Noire's interrogation scenes.
I just think that a lot of so-called 'hardcore' gamers take a hard line of "Fuck graphics, give me gameplay!" and it's really disingenuous, as if progressing graphical tech is somehow a bad thing, or that graphics are being prioritized over gameplay.
I don't think you can make a hard-and-fast rule about that type of thing. I think there are just a lot of uninspired games out there, and always have been.-
Yeah, I was just venting. Graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive, there's certainly nothing inherently bad or limiting about more advanced technology. And while I'm frustrated with the state of AAA as a whole, that's not to say that there aren't some really cool games still being made.
The problem is when the big budgets that are required for modern graphics result in game design that needs to appeal to everyone and their dog to merely break even, resulting in bland and derivative games. If you even go back to the PS2 generation there is so much neat stuff that would never be made by a mainstream publisher these days, and that's sad. I'd love to see that kind of creativity unfettered by the technical constraints of years past.
I think indies and crowdfunding are showing that there's still a big market for more interesting games, and that's great. Hopefully the publishers will take notice of this, look at the diminishing returns all the safe rehashed stuff seems to be getting, and make more bold games. Indie is great and all but you're never going to crowdfund the kind of budget it takes to make something with the scope and fidelity of, say, GTA.
I want the best of both worlds. The scope and polish of AAA with the ingenuity of the indie sector. I hope that can be economically viable, because obviously the game industry is not a charity and these companies need to make money.
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Well, Netflix. Which it was the #1 console for it at one point
http://www.destructoid.com/wii-is-the-most-popular-console-for-netflix-streaming-207510.phtml-
Lots of mom's and dad's putting on Spongebob for the kids.
-
-
I lived with a single mom for a little while and she would put it on for her kids in the morning before school while they ate their breakfast.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Yep, that's the problem with his otherwise correct statement.
-
-
No thanks, I'll take both. Exclusives are meh anyway.
-
-
That's almost as good as their if you want to play offline play a 360 quote during the online/offline debate.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
This is another topic that they really shouldn't have made another butt-hurt comment on.
-
i agree with the sentiment - i've always had great fun on technically-lesser platforms if the games are great. BUT, when most xbox one games will also be on PC, it is a better experience when you bump the resolution, framerate, and options up.
-
-
of course. in both cases, a proper PC version will superior in certain areas. those values are subjective and weighted, of course, per-person (sometimes i prefer the living room experience over higher-resolution desk experience).
-
-
inconvenient for others, though.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
i'd say over the past 2-3 years they've been weaker than sony in that area. for the first couple of years of the 360, they definitely had the edge. but of course, more of their exclusives showed up on PC, so it's less exclusive for an audience like shacknews, where many of us have a gaming PC and 1+ console.
god of war, uncharted, last of us, wipeout, pixel junk stuff, that's never going to be on PC. -
Sony's exclusives have always been more interesting to me than Microsoft's. Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Demon's Souls, God of War, Journey are all worth owning a PS3 for. I don't care about Gears of War, Forza and Halo. I'd like to play Lost Odyssey and Shadow Complex, but not enough to buy a 360. In any case, I don't expect that difference to change in Microsoft's favor this generation if only because the strange Japanese games will all still be on Sony's system.
-
-
It's funny how this perfectly demonstrates the conundrum of owning the PC and Xbox platforms. PC folks complain that MS is shitting on the PC when they lock stuff up on the console. But then if they don't you've got people, PC and console focused, who're now less interested in an Xbox as their only console
-
This probably does contribute to the Sony bias in PC-centric forums.
-
Yup. It really is a disadvantage, actually. No one ever gives Sony any shit for not bringing their games to PC, but because Microsoft makes Windows everyone is insulted if the Xbox games doesn't come to PC. Or they put their games on PC, and sabotage their console by leaving the Xbox with less true exclusives than PlayStation.
It's really a no-win situation. -
-
this is an interesting baseless assertion
-
How do you figure that?
The Xbox platform has only recently become profitable. It has yet to recover from the billions it lost in the early years.
Steam is extremely profitable and has turned Valve into a $2+ billion company. If it were created and branded by Microsoft, backed by marketing dollars, one could assume it would be even more popular. It could be pre-packaged into Windows even.
All Xbox does is saddle Microsoft with huge costs, and takes away potential PC gamers. PC gamers reliably buy new editions of Windows and Microsoft products for Windows. Isn't that where Microsoft makes all of its money?-
It could be pre-packaged into Windows even.
Let's just say that things like this are never easy to do with Windows, especially a few years ago...
PC gamers reliably buy new editions of Windows and Microsoft products for Windows. Isn't that where Microsoft makes all of its money?
If they're already buying Windows upgrades why does MS need to spend more money on convincing them to upgrade? They're just buying customers that already exist. I'm not saying I don't want MS to improve PC gaming but you see the logic there right? If the money is in selling Windows upgrades and this group is already buying them at a high rate then why spend more money there? Using Steam today like this is a lot of hindsight bias. Obviously MS would like to be in Valve's position with Steam. So would a ton of other companies but they also didn't see the same opportunity Valve did (and/or wouldn't have executed it as well).
As for the second bit, Windows is obviously a big part of MS's cashflow but it is far from the only thing. Office brings in as much or more and there're other business units bringing in billions. It is valuable to be diversified. Given today's war of ecosystems it certainly seems valuable to have a living room device right now doesn't it? That's why Apple is trying to push there along with Google and others.-
My point is that current Xbox gamers could be PC gamers instead, buying new editions of Windows.
Microsoft should be the champions of PC gaming, but they seem to lack faith in their own platform.
Games for Windows was early enough in the lifespan of Steam (2006) that they could have actually come out on top.-
My point is that current Xbox gamers could be PC gamers instead, buying new editions of Windows.
Right, and my point is they're likely already Windows customers. Steam survey suggests the vast majority of gamers are already on Win7 or Win8. Putting exclusive features into Windows versions to entice gamers has never really worked well before so I'm not sure it'd be reasonable to suggest there's some gamer centric way to have increased Win8 adoption at this point. So it's not that Xbox has now caused a bunch of Windows gamers to stop buying Windows, those folks have been still buying Windows while a big group of people who normally rarely buy PCs and never buy OS upgrades are on an MS system instead of a Sony or Nintendo one.
Again it's easy to look at Steam now and say "well why didn't so and so do that instead?" In 2006 and earlier (when it would've been under development) MS had very real legal concerns about packaging ancillary things in the OS (why didn't Windows just include a top tier antivirus years and years ago?).
I'm certainly not going to argue that GFWL was up to snuff or that there weren't missed opportunities there, it's just not really fair to point to Valve's current revenue and say "look how easy it was!" Blizzard could've used their WoW money to out-Steam Valve, so could a bunch of other companies. It was not such an obvious play back then while home consoles (and the future living room entertainment center) were a much clearer play.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Do you really think that platforms need exclusives to be successful?
-
they certainly need something exclusive. What do you think makes a platform successful? Keep in mind the goal here is to leverage a successful platform into a second successful platform in the following generation.
-
-
-
-
-
Tbh, Microsoft had been getting their ass handed to them when it comes to quality exclusives for the last few years. It's one of the issues I hope they are putting a lot of focus on this time around.
-
-
-
-
-
i never understand businesses who argue with the consumer... people know what they want. he should be trying to create and market a compelling product, not waste time selling something we don't want. it's the sign of a bad businessman who assumes they know better than the person they're selling to.
-
He was on to something with the car analogy. The PS4 put all its efforts into speed. If you want to win a race, that's great. The Xbox tried to make a luxury car. It goes fast, has a good sound system, has bluetooth built in, has good trunk space. It has more stuff in it that a race car. If you want an all around experience, that's great.
That's really what it comes down to. If all you care about is base graphics, then the PS4 is for you. You'll get games at a higher resolution. That's not a criticism - that's a legitimate desire. If you want games with more variety - be it motion control, voice control, cloud based multiplayer gaming - and be able to quickly switch to TV and Skype and other apps, then the Xbox is for you. If you want the highest resolution possible at the maximum settings Valcan style, then the PC is for you.-
[deleted]
-
I dislike car analogies, but at least this one is mostly accurate. It'll be interesting to see what uses developers will put the Kinect to, at least their snap stuff is already useful.
-
That's exactly how Microsoft wants you to view it, you're right. But I personally don't see a lot of merit to this point of view. Sony can certainly implement voice recognition in their menus with a simple microphone, and there's really no reason to believe that motion control in the space of your living room is anything but a gimmick.
The core purpose of a gaming console is, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be to play games well, and there's no avoiding this. Slapping a few features that consumers don't particularly care about onto the box isn't going to change this dynamic: if your console plays games that look substantially worse than your competition, then that's an enormous obstacle to overcome. In this day and age, any killer software features that one platform has that the other does not can be replicated pretty quickly.
Unless Microsoft is planning some kind of monopolistic licensing war to prevent developers from supporting the PS4, in which case the consumer would lose out massively. Who knows, I wouldn't put it past them.-
The core purpose of a gaming console is, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be to play games well, and there's no avoiding this.
http://www.vg247.com/2013/03/14/ps3-used-for-streaming-media-more-than-gaming-nielsen-study/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/xbox-more-entertainment-gaming-hbo-go-comcast-xfinity-mlb.html
In this day and age, any killer software features that one platform has that the other does not can be replicated pretty quickly.
We could simply look at the differences between Xbox Live and PSN or other parts of the OS experience (ex patching) over this generation to see that this isn't actually the case. Features like accurate voice and motion control are significantly more complicated than party chat.-
Last I checked, Microsoft hadn't solved the voice recognition thing either, and I'm still not convinced that motion control is going to amount to anything in its current state.
As for painless installs and updates, I don't know, maybe that's beyond Sony.-
quips are fun and all but why would you believe that Sony's v1 will match MS's v2? Clearly MS put a lot of effort into Kinect with a hardcore research department and years of previous work in some of these domains and you saw the result. To say that it will be easy for Sony to replicate quickly seems... off.
As I said, there's plenty of evidence contradicting both of your claims (consoles are and will be mostly for games, all software features are easily replicated by the competition in short order).
-
You're right, I could be wrong. It could be that Microsoft can deliver a home theater experience that Sony can't, do voice recognition significantly better than Sony, and also turn the Kinect into something other than a party favor.
I guess we'll see.
-
-
-
-
-
The problem with this argument is that the bullet point list of features on XB1 isn't stuff that anyone cares about (or at least nothing that I care about). It's adding 5 sets of floor mats when what I really want is a couple more cup holders and to not have to floor it to pass someone.
Also, did you really just list "cloud based multiplayer gaming" as an advantage for XB1? Come on bro.-
We all know the difficulty internet people have with conflating "things I don't care about" with "things no one cares about", to the point where wildly successful products are dismissed as things "no one cared about".
Just like how if you talk to a lot of gamers you'll get this spiel about how Wii was a massive failure that no one wanted yet Nintendo sold 100 million of them for some weird reason. -
[deleted]
-
It's not 5 floor mats, it's more like satellite radio. There are definitely chunks of console gamer market that want these extra features.
-
Like you said but glossed over. The problem is that it's stuff you don't care about. You're going to focus on it.
Lots of the bullet points that Microsoft has out there are things that Console Buyer #120475 does care about.
People on this site - people on almost any Internet forum are the minority. You don't care if you can Skype on your XBox. Your cousin who is getting one console for Christmas and that's the only electronic device they're going to get for the next year+ does care.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
Dorito Boy was just giving Reggie a hard time because he said he prefers 7-Up over Mountain Dew.
-
-
"Our hardware sucks, but you fucking idiots won't know any better so go eat a whole bag full of dicks!"
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Ha, that's great. Anyone who takes the piss out of gamers' antics is cool in my book.
-
-
[deleted]
-
roughly, except the hardware disparity there was far far greater and the only leg up Nintendo had was their first party exclusives plus motion control. They were way behind in technical prowess to a degree that wad essentially a generation gap, their third party support (exclusive or otherwise) was behind not equivalent or ahead of competition, and their OS and online services were similarly so far behind it was closer to the previous generation of consoles than the current generation.
-
-
To make another analogy. Ford trucks may not have the most horsepower, torque or mileage, but they have the best combination of all three. That makes them the best-selling trucks on the market. It is about dependability and experience. Fanboys need to put away their rulers and stop measuring dicks.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
You are definitely in the minority. Like, a 1% minority. An independent game shop near me won't even consider selling the early 360's.
-
Yes, literally 99/100 original Xbox 360s are dead now. Literally. Li. Ter. Ally.
-
-
-
That was lovely.
-
Bravo sir
-
-
[deleted]
-
I'm sure he would have said the same thing about this last generation when 360 ports were typically better than their PS3 counterparts instead of boasting about their technological superiority.
No one should take anything these people say at face value. They are paid to bullshit. I'm just upset I didn't choose this lucrative career path.-
I can't believe a company would market its product by accentuating its strengths and downplaying its weaknesses. Disgusting liars. I'm initiating a boycott of all things starting now.
-
-
"It's next-gen if we say it is."
-
He's right, but boy does that quote appear to be crafted to really piss people off.
-
-
-
Most people still own 720p TVs iirc, so this is literally a non-issue for the majority of potential console buyers.
-
This was true maybe 4 years ago. You can get a 1080p screen for so freakin cheap now days.
-
Oh yeah, they've definitely become a lot more affordable, but TVs are also something that people only upgrade every 5-6 years in my experience, which leaves a lot of people still out there with sets that only do 720p. Of course over the life of the consoles, though, that will cease to be the case.
-
-
-
-
I don't think PC gamers give a shit about this at all.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
If there aren't some of these kicking around on the shelves a few weeks after launch I'm going to have to wonder if weed isn't actually a serious problem in America after all.
-
Good thing your core doesn't care about graphics, hardware, or performance.
-
at the end of the day, I don't care about specs. I care about games. As long as the gaming experience is great, and the netflix/hulu/hbogo experience is as good as I have seen. I will keep my 360 for the legacy games and the stuff that comes out in the next year. The PS3 will stick around until the first Naughty Dog game.
-
Do you really think that we're at a point where hardware performance doesn't translate fairly directly to a good game experience? I don't think so at all. I especially think that games need to be doing 60 fps to feel great, and if they're not targeting 1080p then I definitely doubt that they're targeting 60 fps.
You know, if you really don't give a shit about performance or think it matters at all, then why even upgrade from an Xbox 360?
I don't know, I guess I just can't comprehend the fact that we're eight years since the last generation of consoles and people are still somehow okay with the prospect of technical inferiority in a platform that may last for another eight years. It boggles my mind that native 1080p isn't a given when it's been the de facto standard on PC's for something like five years. To say nothing of the fact that VR devices seem to me to be the Next Big Thing and consoles will likely just ignore them altogether.
Basically I just think consoles are a disaster, more now than ever.
-
-
-
PC gaming is already on the cusp of 4K gaming; TV's are being released with that resolution. VR is looking at 1080p @ 60 fps as the bare minimum required for a good experience.
And it looks like the Xbox One can't reliably pull 1080p and probably won't even try for 60 fps either.
But it'll support dance games out of the box!!!-
to say that PC gaming is on the cusp of 4k is a massive overstatement. Show me the price of a 4k desktop monitor and the GPUs required to drive it today. VR requires 1080p because of viewing distance concerns that are distinct from what traditional PCs and consoles require with viewing distance measured in multiple feet instead of barely multiple inches.
-
High-end PC's exist that manage 4K right now; why on earth wouldn't you think they'd be well within the realm of standard consumer cost within 3-5 years? At which point the XB1 will presumably still be struggling with a resolution that PC's have been pushing for five years now.
But you're right, you got me, 4K isn't a viable gaming resolution right at this moment.-
The scenario you're describing is not at all unlike the current generation. The 360 and PS3 generally both did 720p at best, often a lower res upscaled to 720p, while PCs have been doing 1080p for years now. And yet the consoles survived just fine. And that was a resolution jump with fewer diminishing returns than 1080p to 4k (especially for couch gaming).
Sony spent this generation trying to convince consumers that high bitrate 1080p Blu Ray was a significantly better enough experience that you should be buying discs still. Consumers chose other features over image quality, namely convenience and accessibility. Resolution appears to not be nearly as high a value to the average consumer as to some folks here (shocker).-
Your recollection differs significantly from mine. I recall systems at the time of release for the last generation putting out around 720p and 1080p at the high end, and that the video subsystems of the consoles were roughly comparable to mid-high range PC's.
If my recollection is correct (and I believe it is, at least within the Shack sphere), then this generation differs in the way that it's significantly inferior to PC's right out of the gate.
I do think it's fantastic that you're willing to toe the company line so well, though. I can't believe you're actually suggesting that the built-in Blu-Ray player wasn't a major selling point for the PS3, but whatever, I'm sure it's not the strangest thing you've ever said. Maybe Microsoft really does have its fingers right there on the pulse of "the consumers" and everybody watching this fiasco is just too dumb to get it.-
They're not significantly inferior to PCs. They're about on par with most PCs that include a dedicated graphics card ~ $200.
If you're curious, for the PS3 launch, the computer equivalent at the time was: 2006 - Geforce 7950 GX2, Core 2 Duo - 2.93 GHz, 4gb of RAM
Which, according to Anandtech, was running Crysis at 1080p around 30 fps. -
If my recollection is correct (and I believe it is, at least within the Shack sphere), then this generation differs in the way that it's significantly inferior to PC's right out of the gate.
For one, I don't care at all about the "Shack sphere." I'm talking about the markets these consoles actually exist in.
Second, let's assume your recollection of the current gen launch is correct (I was talking about your 3-5 years post launch state of the world) and they were roughly comparable to mid range PCs at the time. What about these consoles vs today? Well, we've got both machines frequently doing sub 1080p upscaled. What about PCs today? Only ~35% of users have 1080p displays according to Steam with a negligible percentage above that. So a full 2/3s of Steam users aren't even on a 1080p display, let alone the hardware to drive it (it's not hard to look at that data too). So no, it seems rather off to characterize this generation as significantly inferior to PCs right out of the gate.
I don't know where I stated that the Blu Ray wasn't a selling point of the PS3. I stated that consumers have chosen streaming services with features other than image quality over Blu Ray's image quality. That's not a controversial statement. Blu Ray has not achieved anywhere near the success of DVD, physical discs are quickly disappearing, and the most popular Netflix streaming device for some time was the Wii at 480p. Clearly the average person feels differently about image quality than you.-
The average person can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720p and most people don't care about streaming vs Blu-ray, they just want convenience.
-
-
By DVD player died when the PS3 was the best Blu-ray player available.
It was a natural purchase. -
Honestly, Probably a third of all PS3's sold in the early days were sold JUST for the blu ray. It was the cheapest blu ray on the block for a long time. I used to sell the shit out of them to people who didn't and wouldn't game because of its price point.
-
-
-
LoL. 1080p is the overwhelmingly the most common resolution. 1440p has a whopping 1% of the market share according to Valve. 4k isn't even in the picture 5 years from now. Not unless the prices go way down. Seeing that it took a Korea and Ebay to bring IPS 1440p to affordable prices after Dell/ HP, and Apple raked people over the coals for years, 4k is a long way off.
-
I've got my PC connected to a 65" plasma and a 22" touchscreen, both at 1920 x 1080.
It'll be 1080p here for quite awhile.
-
-
[deleted]
-
On the cusp is to that 'its going to be possible' not 'every pc gamer is going to have it'.
Fuck dude. only 40 percent of steam connected computers run at 1080p.-
-
let's not make any stupider posts than necessary
-
I don't even understand what this means. I'm saying being on the verge of something does not equate to it being mainstream, which is what he reply I'm responding to is saying.
Who the fuck is talking about lcd? My 1080 argument is implying that even our standard 'normal' resolution is barely the majority. We still argue that pc gaming is 1080/60 tho. So we can say yes 4k is coming to high end pc gaming sooner than later, even if the numbers are low.
-
-
-
-
there're also multiple Xbox One games running at 60fps already. A developer can do it if it's a priority. Stop frothing because of the existence of Kinect.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
"Eat your slop and like it!".
-
Translation:
"We have this PR situation right now, and we decided, that regardless of common sense, that we would just jump balls deep right into every single chance that came along to remind people of the problems. We have alot of great people here, like folks we hired just for qualifications in PR and human behavior, that sort of thing, and we are pretty much just totally ignoring all that they say because its fun to do, they get so angry that our accounting people think the rage is actually generating income, it doesnt really make sense but its true. we have this plan for next month when the new console launches, that we are actually going to get out there in front of every problem, like literally we are going to issue press releases way before the problems are even discovered and see just how far we can push it. we even have some people looking into just making shit up, you know, things that arent even really problems, and seeing if we cant stoke this fucker to critical levels, and see if anyone will catch on. its brilliant and im really excited going forward!" -
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Because playing with your friends is easier on system X. Because matchmaking works better on system X. Because my cloud saves and patching work better and more reliably on system X. Because system X will have the DLC I want sooner. Etc. There are plenty of concerns a modern hardcore gamer would or should be concerned about instead of, or in addition to, graphical fidelity.
-
If you like the Microsoft ecosystem, yes. If you like the Sony ecosystem, no. It really is that simple.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
He's changing the subject. The point is that his machine is underpowered.
-
PC is the "best all-in-one experience."
-
while he's correct (PC master race ftw) being technologically inferior and more expensive has put them in a really bad spot. we're all a product of 30 years of consumer technological grandstanding and "holistic approach" or not, nobody wants to pay more for less. if there were demonstrated value in their addition of kinect this would be a little less bleak but so far all we have is rehashed superfluous nonsense that went nowhere last gen and a high price tag.
-
Microsoft VP: You know that product we make, the one that most of the world uses? The one we actually got into anti-trust trouble over because we completely dominated the market? The one we don't even need to promote any more? Yeah, you wouldn't want to play games on that. I mean, it would just be a crappy experience.
-
@gokart EXACTLY. All they need to do to shut people up is show us a must have experience on the Kinect. Show me a game that makes me say "oh man I am SO glad I have a Kinect, no other system can do this. This is the future."
-
-
-
I think this comment wins the Internet
-
-
