Wasn't Watch Dogs 900/30 on PS4?
Yes, X1 was 792p. A significant boost for X1 from their last at bat, it just appears they didn't care to do more for PS4 platform since the launch of WD.
Wasn't Watch Dogs 900/30 on PS4?
Yes, X1 was 792p. A significant boost for X1 from their last at bat, it just appears they didn't care to do more for PS4 platform since the launch of WD.
Or maybe Microsoft provided Ubi some developer ninjas to bump the resolution for the X1 while Sony provided nothing. Perhaps that's how parity was acconplished.
Hey, why not throw out wild conjecture like everyone else.
I think they just want to get past the review stage of the release without the Xbox One port looking weaker. A patch will probably be released to make the PS4 1080P.
Shader aliasing is pretty bad on the metal there at the very least.
Or maybe we should simply believe what the producer said about it? That it was not because of a technical reason but a marketing reason probably from him or another producer/executive.
He said it was CPU bottleneck. He also said it was to avoid controversy.
If you think we should believe what the producer said, you should remember that he did actually give a technical reason too.
We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff
He said it was CPU bottleneck. He also said it was to avoid controversy.
If you think we should believe what the producer said, you should remember that he did actually give a technical reason too.
He never made a one to one with the 900P decision and the CPU bottleneck talk. It reads like they are two separate things, one limits the frame rate (CPU) and the other the frame buffer res (politics).
No. He never gave a technical reason for the parity. He only said the CPU limitation explained why the game was only 30fps (and not 100fps lol).
And the fact that the game is CPU limited should not at all explain the parity, quite the contrary!
BF4 was heavily CPU limited too, and there was a ~65% discrepancy between both versions if you roughly added (well multiplied) the resolution and framerate differences. I know it was before the XB1 10% GPU/ 5% CPU boost, but still.
Or maybe Microsoft provided Ubi some developer ninjas to bump the resolution for the X1 while Sony provided nothing. Perhaps that's how parity was acconplished.
Hey, why not throw out wild conjecture like everyone else.
I'm confused on how people finger point at MS because they are 'bringing the performance' of PS4 DOWN
More performance costs more money.
Eh? Depends what that "more performance" is. If the hardware can run something at higher resolutions and/or better framerates because it has the juice it doesnt necessarily equal to "more costs". Lowering resolution and capping framerate to lower than what the hardware is capable of running doesnt necessarily mean "more money saved" either.
Costs are bound to be more though if a hardware has some bottlenecks or has some peculiarities that require optimization to get the desired result.
Ugh. If your pushing the exact same things on screen in terms of CPU, there's obviously going to be a GPU reservation that's left to increase resolution, especially with a 40% advantage.
That power has to go somewhere, its not just locked up where people can't access it, unless your saying you bumped up graphics sliders on PS4 in comparison to X1 and were disallowed from going higher res wise because of that.
Why bother saying anything Ubi? "We didn't want to create any debates", you did by doing this!