Do you think games not being 1080p on X1 are scaring off potential customers?

#71Satchmo25Posted 7/24/2014 10:04:00 PM
Cheers. Just doing what I can
---
GameFAQS... a forum where the mods fall asleep for days at a time and when they do their job, they do it badly.
http://i.imgur.com/AUYtAmy.png
#72Laylow12Posted 7/24/2014 10:31:53 PM
Satchmo25 posted...
Cheers. Just doing what I can


Haha! I love it!

.
---
The Queen of Light took her bow, and then she turned to go.
The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, and walked the night alone.-Battle of Evermore/Zeppelin
#73singhellotakuPosted 7/24/2014 11:40:17 PM
not really, the xbone has problems, but the slightly lower graphics quality of games is hardly one of the worse ones.
---
Humanity as a whole gets dumber every time you write sonypony nintendrone or xbot...and weeaboo...I mean, honestly people.
#74ItchyIsVegetaPosted 7/24/2014 11:59:43 PM
Yes, because I have bought PC versions of games because of it.
---
XBOX Gamertag: ITCHYisVegeta
#75jellybeanmasterPosted 7/25/2014 12:03:09 AM
Only if they're new to gaming in general. But anyone who were pro 360 are more than likely pro x1
---
PSN:ProdijusX, GT:BUMBA CLAWT,
#76HeracylostPosted 7/25/2014 12:15:53 AM
Nope.

But that reveal still grinds my gears....
#77Darkshadow6400Posted 7/25/2014 2:12:58 AM
Allgorhythm posted...
People, accustomed to 1080p on the 360, are going to be disappointed with lower resolutions on the X1.


You know that only a select few games were native 1080p on the 360, right? Most of the games were upscaled
---
There are things worth fighting for. And then there is optional DLC in a video game...
#78AllgorhythmPosted 7/25/2014 3:58:28 AM
Darkshadow6400 posted...
Allgorhythm posted...
People, accustomed to 1080p on the 360, are going to be disappointed with lower resolutions on the X1.


You know that only a select few games were native 1080p on the 360, right? Most of the games were upscaled


Yes. I also know that and also that there's a lot more that goes into graphics quality than resolution and frame rates--shading, texture mapping, anti-aliasing to name a few. Nevertheless, the average consumer equates graphics quality with resolution. When the back of the 360 game box says 1080p and the back of the X1 game box is conspicuous by the lack of a resolution, the consumer loses confidence.

The fact of the matter is that a 900p resolution on the X1 is going to be far superior to a 1080p graphics quality on the 360 whether it is upscaled or native. This is because the 3D image is rendered from much denser data using more advanced graphics processing software. In other words, the X1 images are 'better' to start out with than the images on the 360. They look better at 720p or 900p than equivalent 1080p images on the 360. A comparison of the 720p Dead Rising 3 graphics on the X1 and the 1080p Dead Rising 2 graphics on the 360 makes that obvious. An overly simplistic analogy is that if you take an out of focus picture and display it at 1080p it will look poorer than the same in-focus picture displayed at 720p. The bottom line is that the sourcing of the images is just as important if not more so than how they are displayed.

Resolution and frame rate would not have been such a big issue except that there were games like Tomb Raider that were noticeably inferior on the X1 compared to the PS4. This is because Microsoft did not allow developers to use the full potential of the console. They could only use 90% of the processing and graphics power of the console because 10% had to be set aside for the Kinect even if there was no Kinect functionality in the game. Going back to the issue of rendering, dense imaging data requiring complex computations requires the full horsepower of the CPU and GPU working in tandem. The Kinect, or rather Microsoft's policies pertaining to the Kinect, reduced the power of the console to optimize the viewing experience.

The bottom line is that you have to evaluate all components of the graphics in order to arrive at the optimal visual experience. Reducing resolution and frame rate might allow the CPU and GPU to cope with a 'better' rendered source resulting in a 'better' viewing experience. Nevertheless, the topic was, "Do you think games not being 1080p on X1 are scaring off potential customers?" And the answer is "Yes"--not because a 900p resolution is bad when assessed against all the trade-offs but because games like Tomb Raider have shaken consumer confidence and resolution has become the quality metric.

As I said in my previous post, now that Microsoft has backed off of their obsession with the Kinect, I'm optimistic things will improve. If you read what is being said about Sunset Overdrive, it is implied there will be no Kinect penalty with this game. I expect it to be spectacular and its dazzling images will erase the perception that the X1 cannot deliver the same quality as the PS4.
#79Darkshadow6400Posted 7/25/2014 4:06:07 AM
Allgorhythm posted...
Darkshadow6400 posted...
Allgorhythm posted...
People, accustomed to 1080p on the 360, are going to be disappointed with lower resolutions on the X1.


You know that only a select few games were native 1080p on the 360, right? Most of the games were upscaled


Yes. I also know that and also that there's a lot more that goes into graphics quality than resolution and frame rates--shading, texture mapping, anti-aliasing to name a few. Nevertheless, the average consumer equates graphics quality with resolution. When the back of the 360 game box says 1080p and the back of the X1 game box is conspicuous by the lack of a resolution, the consumer loses confidence.

The fact of the matter is that a 900p resolution on the X1 is going to be far superior to a 1080p graphics quality on the 360 whether it is upscaled or native. This is because the 3D image is rendered from much denser data using more advanced graphics processing software. In other words, the X1 images are 'better' to start out with than the images on the 360. They look better at 720p or 900p than equivalent 1080p images on the 360. A comparison of the 720p Dead Rising 3 graphics on the X1 and the 1080p Dead Rising 2 graphics on the 360 makes that obvious. An overly simplistic analogy is that if you take an out of focus picture and display it at 1080p it will look poorer than the same in-focus picture displayed at 720p. The bottom line is that the sourcing of the images is just as important if not more so than how they are displayed.

Resolution and frame rate would not have been such a big issue except that there were games like Tomb Raider that were noticeably inferior on the X1 compared to the PS4. This is because Microsoft did not allow developers to use the full potential of the console. They could only use 90% of the processing and graphics power of the console because 10% had to be set aside for the Kinect even if there was no Kinect functionality in the game. Going back to the issue of rendering, dense imaging data requiring complex computations requires the full horsepower of the CPU and GPU working in tandem. The Kinect, or rather Microsoft's policies pertaining to the Kinect, reduced the power of the console to optimize the viewing experience.

The bottom line is that you have to evaluate all components of the graphics in order to arrive at the optimal visual experience. Reducing resolution and frame rate might allow the CPU and GPU to cope with a 'better' rendered source resulting in a 'better' viewing experience. Nevertheless, the topic was, "Do you think games not being 1080p on X1 are scaring off potential customers?" And the answer is "Yes"--not because a 900p resolution is bad when assessed against all the trade-offs but because games like Tomb Raider have shaken consumer confidence and resolution has become the quality metric.

As I said in my previous post, now that Microsoft has backed off of their obsession with the Kinect, I'm optimistic things will improve. If you read what is being said about Sunset Overdrive, it is implied there will be no Kinect penalty with this game. I expect it to be spectacular and its dazzling images will erase the perception that the X1 cannot deliver the same quality as the PS4.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just confused by your comment that gamers were accustomed to 1080p on the 360. BTW, I've never looked at the resolution on the back of the box before purchasing a game lol. I also know about the other aspects of graphic quality, as you pointed out. Again, I was just commenting on the one sentence you made.
---
There are things worth fighting for. And then there is optional DLC in a video game...
#80KipbondurPosted 7/25/2014 5:20:55 AM
Yeah I have no doubt that the general consumer equates resolution to how good a game looks. It's the same as when I was selling cameras. I had to explain to 90% of customers that Megapixels did not determine how good the image looks.

Why do people have such a hard-on for pixels?
---
GT: Kip Bondur