Microsoft: PS4 vs. Xbox One 1080p/60fps Differences "Pretty Minor"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Microsoft: PS4 vs. Xbox One 1080p/60fps Differences "Pretty Minor"

PS4 vs. Xbox One

Microsoft director of product planning Albert Pennello claims technical differences between the PS4 and Xbox One "get way overblown."

If you haven't been keeping up with gaming news, much has been said how the Xbox One is inferior technically compared to the PlayStation 4. Most of these talks keep going to the 1080p resolution and 60fps (frames-per-second) advantage PS4 games have compared to the Xbox One versions. While some people might think these discrepancies are a big deal, Microsoft director of product planning Albert Penello thinks these differences are being way "overblown," and are "pretty minor."

I think there were 12 titles released on both platforms [PS4 and Xbox One], and all but three of them had basically the same performance on both boxes. I think these little things get way overblown versus like the quality of the games and the real differences in the two experiences which are pretty minor.

If that wasn't enough, Penello adds that he knows what's going on "behind the scenes," has more info that most people don't have access to, and that some people people tend to neglect things that swing in his favor and highlight points that tell he's wrong.

Look, I've had a lot of time to think about this and I believe in what I said. I believe that the differences [between the PS4 and Xbox One] is not that great...And I know what is going behind the scenes and I have access to more information about some of this...than a lot of people. Sometimes I think people tend to neglect the points that are in my favor and they like to highlight the points that tell me that I am wrong. Right now, I still think Ryse is still the best looking game on any platform. Period. End of story.

You can read up on all the differences between the two next-gen consoles in The Escapist's massive PS4 vs. Xbox One comparison piece where it talks about the specs, launch libraries and so much more.

Do you agree with Penello and think the resolution and frame rate differences are being overblown, or is he wrong and these things will play a bigger factor once developers get more time with the consoles?

Source: GamerTagRadio via GameSpot

Permalink

Jim Sterling put it best, these groups pushed so hard on the Resolution angle that it's kinda funny to see it bite them in the ass so damn hard.

I totally like his Appeal to Authority, who happens to be himself and his vast understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. You know, instead of just telling us why the difference is pretty minor...

Not that I particularly disagree, but the fact that it is the company with the weaker hardware saying it is kind of telling. I doubt he'd have made this statement if the Xbox was the stronger one.

I think it will matter in the long run, assuming of course developers bother to make the PS-4 versions of games fully exploit the hardware as opposed to simply doing the minimal effort for the "One" and then porting it to the PS-4 and simply have a game that doesn't fully exploit the hardware.

In the end though, we have pretty much garbage for "current gen" games on the market right now, so it's more or less irrelevant. All the fancy hardware in the world means absolutely nothing when you basically have nothing to do with it. What's more the 2014 release schedule is kind of dry, there are a few decent titles (Thief, The Evil Within, etc...) but not a whole lot coming, though I suppose there are a few shooters for those who are into that, still I honestly don't expect "Kill Zone" and "Titan Fall" to really carry these consoles for an entire year.

Also to be fair while I got the "PS4" it does seem the "One" has a slightly better set of releases coming, and honestly rather than "QQing" over how the hardware differences don't matter, the guys speaking for Microsoft should be pointing out that "yeah, you might have a more powerful system, but it's more likely to be gathering dust than ours because you have crap for games...". It might be a slight advantage but IMO it's the one you'd expect them to leverage.

Sorry but it's factual the PS4 is more powerful. Just get over it people. Even if it is minor (which it isn't for some titles).

of course he does, he works for microsoft...

but seriously, ryse the best looking on ANY platform? i think he may have forgotten PC gaming exists

You know what doesn't swing in his favor?

Price point differences, the Kinect, and trying to play Ryse off like it actually means anything.

Ryse is just a shadow of its former, much much more interesting self - a mindless button mashing game chock full of RMT whose graphical "beauty" comes solely from the fact it's made by the Cry team, you know... Those guys who essentially make games so graphic whores can jerk themselves off to sleep, instead of anything meaningful.
Kinect is... Well, it's been said so many times elsewhere that I won't even bother trying.
And price point? Dump the above and it would be a simple fix that everyone wants.

#Period #EndofStory
Or, as the fellow idiot who used to work there said...
#DealWithIt

Meh, the Atari Jaguar boasted about having 64 bits in the early 90's.

In the end, I don't give a rat's ass about the raw processing power a system has, just give us a game that is truly "next gen" and I mean something that's simply not possible in previous hardware and I don't mean just prettier graphics (wich is highly debatable, I wouldn't mind if games keep looking like if they were made in 2008 and runs in 1080p and 60 fps).

Also, I highly doubt Ryse is the prettiest game in "any" platform, I also refuse to belive that's all they can do, linear corridors with QTE's, c'mon, we had plenty of those on the previous gen.

Ryse runs at 900p. It is objectively *worse* than things like Killzone which run on the PS4 at 1080p. Now you can argue that the art style is better for Ryse (a dubious argument, at that), but then you're talking about aesthetics, not graphics.

So, as more games are coming out and it's steadily becoming apparent that 1080p/60fps is not possible on Xbone where it is possible on PS4, Microsoft is suddenly and loudly declaring that it doesn't really matter anymore.

Given that system requirement are only going to go up from here and both boxes are based on PC architecture (so fewer PS3 style development quirks) it's hard to see the XBone's multi platform future being bright. For example I can't see Battlefront and Call of Duty: Whatever escaping without either visual cuts or (much worse for Microsoft) content being missing like Battlefield 3's hilariously tiny player cap on the 360/PS3. If the fidelity gap widens I can see that hurting Mixrosoft, having the more expensive less capable hardware is never a good position.

Titanfall Xbone vs Tintanfall PC could be interesting

suitepee7:
of course he does, he works for microsoft...

but seriously, ryse the best looking on ANY platform? i think he may have forgotten PC gaming exists

Microsoft has been doing that ever since they started half ass started GFWL. They gave it a bit of lip service but pointed to the 360 as it's gaming platform of choice which is why the SteamOS (if Valve plays it's cards right) could possibly supplant Windows as the gaming platform for PC.

back on topic, if it was anyone other than someone from M$ saying that it might actually mean something but it's pretty rare for a company employee to slag their own recently released hardware

Legion:
Not that I particularly disagree, but the fact that it is the company with the weaker hardware saying it is kind of telling. I doubt he'd have made this statement if the Xbox was the stronger one.

They have already used that card with the PS3 vs Xbox 360 bragging about how the 360 performed better in several games (Skyrim being the most obvious pick there) so you're completely right.

Redhawkmillenium:
Ryse runs at 900p. It is objectively *worse* than things like Killzone which run on the PS4 at 1080p. Now you can argue that the art style is better for Ryse (a dubious argument, at that), but then you're talking about aesthetics, not graphics.

Resolution isn't about graphics either. It's about the number of independent pixels.

OT: Now I will admit that I agree that the resolution doesn't matter much to me, I keep as much a distance from the screen that I am unlikely to tell where I can see individual pixels even if it were running 720p, but the fps does matter. I want my games to run at a steady rate of 50+.

Also, one thing I always find to be hilarious. Microsoft launched their console with a third part exclusive zombie game running at 720p at 30 fps. Nintendo launched their console with a third party exclusive zombie game running at 1080p at 60 fps. It's debatable which game looked the best, but considering how they have been pushing resolution and fps only to see the Wii U managing what the Xbox One doesn't...

Pennello is well within his rights to be wrong. It doesn't much matter whether or not he can tell the differences between the Xbone and the PS4, or whether he thinks resolution and framerate are a big deal or not. From a purely technical standpoint, the PS4 is the superior hardware. As game devs become comfortable with the abilities and boundaries of these new consoles and can start pushing their limits, this will become much more clear.

As for the "framrate isn't a big deal" argument, visit this link and the differences in framerate are clear as day. Take those bouncing blue boxes and then realize that they represent everything in a game and it's pretty obvious why 60FPS is important - especially on a big screen.

Eri:
Sorry but it's factual the PS4 is more powerful. Just get over it people. Even if it is minor (which it isn't for some titles).

The Ps3 was also pretty powerful... but hardly anyone could figure out how to use that power due to the engine.

Power means nothing if it cannot be adequately applied.

this reminds of balancing discussion,
rock is OP, paper is fine
regards, scissor

1080p and 60fps is great but if the game is shit then it doesn't matter. I just want some good games and unfortunately neither the PS4/XB1 has any worth buying the hardware.

Sounds like bullshit "it really isn't that big of a deal, trust me, I'm an insider" to me.

Pretty much all the evidence so far points to the Xbone being significantly weaker then the PS4, with Tomb Raider DE being 60fps on the PS4 and 30fps on the Xbone. If you want to prove to us it isn't that big of a difference, fucking prove it instead of all this vague nonsense.

I've always said this about framerate and screen resolution:
Resolution doesn't matter if the game is crap, and framerate is nice as long as it's stable. Nintendo, Sony and SEGA have managed to maintain frame rates pretty well I say, Lost World on the Wii U ran smoothly, but SE and other companies have had major frame rate problems before. Worst offenders of terrible frame rate are probably Bethesda to be honest.

Except a real gamer, the ones who you are supposed to be targeting, know the difference and will tell you it REALLY does matter. 60fps input does not feel the same as 30fps input. Microsoft, you lost. Get over it. Die a slow death or wait for the next generation.

Funny he should mention Ryse. Because the Xbone runs Ryse at 900p and upscales it to 1080p, it's not native 1080p. I think the fact that the console's "best looking game" being only 900p native that speaks volumes about the Xbone's technical inferiority.

It's a proven fact by this point that the Xbone is technologically inferior to its counterpart. Instead of denying those rumors, he should be saying "okay, but so what? We think we can deliver a better gaming experience because of X, Y, and Z."

Business 101: You don't try to deny, dismiss, or mitigate your product's flaws and weaknesses, that makes you look dishonest. Instead, you spin them into positives so that people will consider these problems to be a minor hindrance alongside the product's benefits.

Well, this sounds familiar. Folks, Microsoft just called and said that they're REALLY REALLY NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE COMPETITION THEY'RE FACING, NO REALLY! Heh heh heh heh... People don't make announcements like this unless they want to draw attention away from something they don't wanna talk about. It's gettin' as bad as EA.

While it is embarrassing that the XbOne can't do 1080p 60fps in 2014, it always breaks down to the games.

Sadly, there aren't any, for either system, so resolution is what will be judged until then Microsoft.

That is, unless you know, you could make some games, some good ones?

Then we can talk business.

"I think these little things get way overblown"
When I read that, I thought: 'If it was the other way around this guy would be SHOUTING it across the rooftops himself!'.

And then he says:
"Sometimes I think people tend to neglect the points that are in my favor and they like to highlight the points that tell me that I am wrong. "

No wayyyyyyyyyyy! That's how this game works, and he knows it. Pfft, a sore loser trying to do damage control :\
He should check the ads MSFT is running attacking firms like Apple, before he wants to claim his company is above such things.

Um okay, I'm not really on ether side of this console thing just to say that my subjective interpretation of what's going on hasn't been swayed by allegiance to ether plastic overlord, so here's what it sounds like to me.

Microsoft has noticed and accepted the superiority of Sony's consoles power which means that they can't actually claim to be better in that department. So they're now trying to lessen the gap, play it off as unimportant (the exact thing they advertised as the best) and say that it's some other stuff in their console that makes it better and that they're being unfairly judged compared to the competition.
*sigh*
I really don't care all that much about the slight power difference, I just hate this whole dance of higher ups spin doctoring anything negative into "not being understood properly by the peons"
Jeez, if they were to just say "look the difference is slight at best, to the point where over the next console cycle most people won't even notice but we've got a fully integrated voice command system that means not taking up an extra button on the controller for medial tasks thus giving you a smoother more immersive gaming experience. You know you want that." I'm sure they'd get a lot less flak.
God damn... I'm going back to playing my 3ds to calm down.

This was written in a white rage of not being able to understand people, please excuse my idealistic answers.

Alex Co:

I think these little things get way overblown versus like the quality of the games and the real differences in the two experiences which are pretty minor.

Could it be? Are gaming executives finally beginning to realize that game-play is more important than graphics?

Alex Co:

Right now, I still think Ryse is still the best looking game on any platform. Period. End of story.

Nope. Guess I misread that.

I don't think I have heard any Sony execs pounding on about the power of their console like this really. Perhaps they have (in fact I would think they probably have), but I've not read about it. Yet every week, Microsoft staff are coming out of the woodwork to proclaim their dominance. It comes off as being defensive to a fault. Or you know that guy who is constantly engaging in one-up-manship with everybody for no useful reason ("yah, well MY Mercedes has...", or "the fish I caught was...", "YOUR whatever isn't whatever", etc)? It's like their executive officers are a hive mind of that guy.

Eri:
Sorry but it's factual the PS4 is more powerful. Just get over it people. Even if it is minor (which it isn't for some titles).

It's more powerful but not enough to matter at all. All the games that show up on both systems will look and play almost identical. Pretty much how it happened with the 360 and ps3.

PC gamers comment about consoles being vastly underpowered sub 720 sub 30 fps machines(mostly) for the last 5 years and its elitism. One console runs quicker than another by a smaller performance gap than aforementioned pc and its an important difference.

BigTuk:

Eri:
Sorry but it's factual the PS4 is more powerful. Just get over it people. Even if it is minor (which it isn't for some titles).

The Ps3 was also pretty powerful... but hardly anyone could figure out how to use that power due to the engine.

Power means nothing if it cannot be adequately applied.

Except now the PS4, PC, and Xbox all use identical architectures so that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

I don't really care THAT much if a game is 60 FPS but it's just depressingly surprising to see that this is what the "next-gen" hardware can do. I mean really? you can't get 60 FPS on a game that is also on the previous platform? what exactly was the point of this new generation if they can't at least bring things up to 1080 60 fps?

Right now, I still think Ryse is still the best looking game on any platform. Period. End of story.

Really? How is PC for a platform? Does it have better looking games? Capable of better graphical performance? Capable of better processing power?

I think the answer to all of this is YES.
So shut up about your little toybox and go PC!

Microsoft isn't the only ones who think the differences are minor or non-existent and blown way out of proportion. If you have some time and aren't familiar with the hardware setup, try this YouTube podcast I found - http://youtu.be/reNiLYDpXoc (a little long and not the most professional presentation but the information is great if you're not very entrenched in the hardware conversation already). It talks more specifically about the hardware, which you MUST do in order to understand what's going on when comparing the two consoles. The PS4 is more straight-forward in its hardware engineering compared to the Xbox One which make short-term and day one developing a bit easier. Perhaps the only games to use the 32MB of ESRAM on the Xbox One were Microsoft Game Studios because they knew about it in advance. Ryse looked incredibly good for a launch title and I too think it looks better than any other XB1/PS4 title on launch days for each. Historically, consoles have had to get a couple years under their belts before the capabilities really get exercised in any new console. Microsoft will benefit from that more in the first couple years than Sony.

The 3rd party titles will even out pretty soon. The differences are barely noticeable on the few games that do appear to be better looking on the PS4. But as some people have already reaffirmed in the comments thread here - better graphics don't equal better games. It's still too early to tell, but Microsoft seems to be the more interesting console based solely off of to-be-released exclusives that will tap multiple genres and demographics. Sony has one or two of their own, sure, but with so many NEW experiences and returning franchises on Xbox One I'm more excited about gaming on that platform in 2014-2015 than I've been on any console before.

Honestly, he is probably right, small variances in resolution and framerates between systems on a television screen are probably minor differences. But... if that is the only difference then it is the thing that is most noticeable. Sure, if people cared about Kinect it would overshadow issues like these, but, yeah well, we will have to see about that.

I think these little things get way overblown versus like the quality of the games and the real differences in the two experiences which are pretty minor.

Little things like the PS4's GPU being roughly 50% better than the Xbone's, yeah little things.

I'm pretty sure that if it were the other way around, then they would be plastering the world with posters saying that their console was the best technical piece of kit around. So it is kind of painful to see them playing this card now.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here