The CPU's in the Xbox one and PS4 are 1.75 / 1.6 GHZ which are very slow compared to modern desktop CPUs.
I suspect the CPU will be the limiting factor in many cases.
Any game that isn't an open world game can be the prettiest game.
Show me scope. scale AND amazing graphics like how we run Skyrim on PC's
Fully Antialiased, Anisotropically filtered, 1080p, 60 FPS
Anything less is a step backwards.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Fallout 4 and ES 6 get released on the 360 and PS3.
Very interesting question ...
Sick vandalism! That is a deliberate mutilation of a public service message.
Now, I want those little paint happy bastards caught and hung up by their Buster Browns
We already have this people
It's called Skyrim
That's how long it takes to make a "game of the generation"
Fallout and Elder Scrolls games are special and need to age for years before released.
I guess my point is that the idea that there's a healthy and thriving console market is an illusion.
While the PS4 may be doing well as a unit within Sony it's not going to save Sony from what seems like a dismal financial future.
Microsoft, as mentioned, is in a bit of a different situation because the Xbox brand is more of a side project that they tolerate losing money on but isn't part of their future growth plans.
Nintendo ...
There is no debate.
It's not my opinion that MS and Sony have lost billions in their respective console businesses.
It's a fact. They are publically traded companies and they release their financial numbers.
Nintendo is not doing too well either.
The Xbox and Playstation are good brands, good devices, and we all enjoy them.
It's important not to confuse their consumer popularity with business...
We live in a post-console era.
The fact that Microsoft and Sony are just continuing to burn company cash to operate their console divisions creates an illusion that there even is a console industry.
It's not profitable
It's over.
I'm comparing the Xbox One and PS4 CPU's to something like a core i7 running at 3.4 GHZ.
I understand that a modern 2 GHZ CPU is faster than something from the year 2000 at 3 GHZ.
My point is very simple.
The CPU's that are supposed to drive the next 7-8 years of high-end console gaming are a joke.
Ummm
If you left the GPU's the same and paired them with standard 3.4 GHZ desktop CPU's the performance would be significantly better.
That's all I am saying
1.6 GHZ CPU's are a step backwards.
Sorry friend
Clock speeds matter
A lot
If the PS4 or Xbox One had 3.4 GHZ CPU's they would probably hit 60 FPS regularly in games.
1.6 GHZ CPU's aren't next gen
Please already
I didn't read anywhere in the article that said the trailer was a PC version of the game.
The "worry" is from PC gamers which is ridiculous considering how the modding community usually makes games (that are modifiable) look 10 times better than the original release.
On consoles the Witcher 3 will probably look roughly similar to Shadow of Mordor
On the PC the game will look as good as your hardware will allow
You can't hit 1080p @ 60 FPS with mobile 1.6 GHZ CPU's people.
Get over it
The Xbox One and PS4 have 1.6 GHZ CPU's people.
They aren't magical boxes
Get over it
I never got the sense that Carmack was all that crazy about Facebook buying Oculus.
I would love to see somebody take a PS4 or Xbox One and overclock the CPU from 1.6 GHZ to 3.0 GHZ or higher to see how much more FPS can be pushed at 900p or 1080p
There's been too much emphasis on memory speeds and GPU architectures and not nearly enough discussion of how 1.6 GHZ CPU's can be severe bottlenecks in many cases.
There's a lot more to graphics than resolution and FPS
What about Antialiasing and Anisotropic filtering?
What about SSAO?
Depth of field ... shadows ... shadow resolution .. tecture quality .. reflections ... post processing .... tessellation
We need more than just resolution and FPS specs.
Saying the PS4 or Xbox One runs at 1080p or 900p without mentioning any of the above details is pointless.