I am honestly shocked that people still can't understand this. A game designed to run at 30fps on base hardware cannot hit 60 on the Pro. Maybe it can triple the resolution, but framerates are not getting doubled. Both Sony and Microsoft took this approach (the cpu upgrade in the scorpio is also only 30 percent, compared to the quadrupled GPU...). They did this because it's cheaper to manufacture, is easier on developers, and won't give people with older hardware a disadvantage. P...
I'm so jealous man. I know people will always defend it but the PS Plus lineup used to be much better, especially in the PS3 days.
Even just 1 would be great! And it might even make them money in the long run if it prompts people to subscribe to the service.
PC simply doesn't handle it, if you're rich enough to push a game at 144fps then you have that advantage. But most people play shooters at 60fps on PC so the difference isn't too huge. Console players expect a level and fair playing field though, and it's hard to blame (it's one of the benefits of buying a console in the first place, you don't have to be at a disadvantage because you can't afford the latest and greatest). However now we've got this new problem ...
I'll keep it simple: hardware isn't as simple as you think. A PC that can run a game at 4K 30fps won't necessarily run that game at 1080p 120 fps (even though both of those are pushing the same number of pixels per second). Both the Pro AND the Scorpio have MUCH more powerful GPUs than they do CPUs. This means that they are MUCH better designed to improve resolutions vs framerates. If you look at actual examples, such as Final Fantasy 15, it shows that while the Pro can push almos...
Oh my God people. Why is it so hard to understand that the CPUs in the Pro and Scorpio cannot handle doubling the framerate of this game? It has a lot of AI enemies going on at once that use up CPU power. With an unlocked framerate at 1080p, the Pro would probably average around 45 fps, and it would be very unstable at that. The Scorpio could get closer, but it still wouldn't be able to hit a locked 60.
Yes, I would LOVE if I could play Destiny at 60fps on my Pro, but ...
It won't be able to run at 60fps on Scorpio either. It's a CPU bottleneck and the Scorpio has one as well. The Game can't not hit 60 because of the resolution, it couldn't hit 60 on any console because it's limited by the CPU. An example is FF15, it can run at 1800p 30fps but at 1080p it only hits 45 fps on average. Destiny has a lot of AI and some physics going on. So yeah not Bungie's fault, these imporved consoles were meant to mostly run games at the same framerat...
I know this is VERY minor for sales, but I personally put it off my radar because of the lack of pro support despite having the Pro enhanced sticker. Not gonna support lazy development.
@unclethursday
Yeah I was careful when getting my TV, it's response time is great. But it's true that a lot of 4K tvs out there aren't great for gaming.
In regards to these powerful consoles powering 1080p tvs, what I meant was that supersampling is essentially just very inefficient antialiasing. You can't fit more than 1080p detail on a 1080p screen, so it just seems awfully wasteful for games to render at native or checkerboard 1800p an...
I'm with you for your entire comment until the end there. The scorpio isn't magic. If a game has a dynamic resolution (like battlefield 1 for example), then without a patch all that scorpio can do is hold it to the maximum coded resolution (which is 1000p on Xbox One). Games with dynamic resolutions and games with uncapped and varying framerates will be able to avoid resolution and framerate drops without a patch, but that's all. The scorpio can't magically change the coding o...
I don't know whether my brain is messed up (I've got perfect vision...) or people really are just so petty. I cannot tell the difference between these extremely high resolutions. 1800p, 2160p, checkerboarding of those resolutions... they all look the same to me, great. I sit LITERALLY 3 feet from my TV and I can't tell the difference in clarity between the last of us at 1800p vs 2160p (same game, same still image on screen).
In regards to the Scorpio, maybe so...
I honestly am finding this stuff to be more and more nonsense. I LITERALLY sit 3 feet away from my TV, and discerning the difference between, say, 1800p and 2160p is impossible to me. At these extremely high resolutions you simply get the law of diminishing returns.
Now, if there are games on the Scorpio with 60fps options that the Pro doesn't have, that's something for sure. But I am willing to bet that most games will just run at higher resolutions. The GPU is 40 ...
As expected, the game runs at 1800p on Pro and 2160p is 40 percent more pixels.
The difference in clarity there is pretty small though (switching the last of us between thode two resolutions gives only a little more clarity).
I think it's gonna go the titanfall 2 route but to a smaller extent. It's a shame becuase it's looking to be a much better game than the first.
I'm thinking 70 percent chance it's 499 and 30 percent chance it's 599 (wouldn't be a smart move for Microsoft at that price). 499 is a good price considering the hardware. Hopefully they can bring on the games with it.
I'm in full support of this because I'm hoping that it would lead to a proper Pro patch (all they did was render the UI in 4K). Overwatch already uses Dynamic res on console so it would be nice if they lifted the res cap to at least 1440p (and higher on Scorpio).
Witcher runs at 30fps on console. I'm heavily assuming it's going to be 499 (maybe there will be a model with more storage for more) and it'll cost around that to make it as well.
Oh I understand and agree with your main point, but consoles are different. The profit you make on the console is (usually) very small compared to what you make from the software that sells on it. That's why Sony was okay with selling the PS3 at a 200+ dollar loss when it first came out.
The hardest things for the switch will be a smaller install base (most likely for a while) than even the Xbox One, let alone PS4, and lack of (REAL) third party support. Making the sys...
Should have been 249.
I'd give up on talking to this guy dude, I think he's too elitist to even understand what you're saying. What you're saying is that 1800p and 2160p look damn near identical (FACT. F A C T.) at the same graphical settings. Except big difference in performance... You might only be averaging 42 fps at 2160p vs 60fps at 1800p (do the math, those are identical pixel throughputs). And even at 200 percent scaling I could not see ANY difference between battlefield 1 at even 1728p vs 2...