Support NeoGAF

[quetz67]

I am surprised the framerate/resolution thread has less posts than the OT

 

[dark10x]

The PS4 is much more powerful.

Jesus.

How developers decide to use the additional resource is up to them, but parity is not the answer.

My phone does 1080p 30fps games does that mean it's as powerful as the PS4?

I think you underestimate the difference.

Hitting a stable 30 fps ultimately requires a frame-rate that is well above 30 fps most of the time. In a case like this the average frame-rate on PS4 might be higher than Xbox One - but leaving the frame-rate unlocked would still have produced an unstable update. So, when locked to 30 fps, we're not actually able to see the difference.

These developers are focused on delivering a stable experience at a certain frame-rate - not making one console look better than the other.

 

[Broly]

neither do you.

Good because I don't.

 

[Special C]

I think you underestimate the difference.

Hitting a stable 30 fps ultimately requires a frame-rate that is well above 30 fps most of the time. In a case like this the average frame-rate on PS4 might be higher than Xbox One - but leaving the frame-rate unlocked would still have produced an unstable update. So, when locked to 30 fps, we're not actually able to see the difference.

These developers are focused on delivering a stable experience at a certain frame-rate - not making one console look better than the other.

Stop using logic. This makes too much sense.

 

[RPGam3r]

Parity is fine for me. Probably cheaper for the dev, if parity helps AAA cut costs than so be it.

 

[Broly]

I think you underestimate the difference.

Hitting a stable 30 fps ultimately requires a frame-rate that is well above 30 fps most of the time. In a case like this the average frame-rate on PS4 might be higher than Xbox One - but leaving the frame-rate unlocked would still have produced an unstable update. So, when locked to 30 fps, we're not actually able to see the difference.

These developers are focused on delivering a stable experience at a certain frame-rate - not making one console look better than the other.

Great post, exactly.

 

[Freshmaker]

because its an open-world racer?

Why is that even a thing?

 

[Picklock]

Looks like parity went out the window with the PC version being able to unlock the FPS.

http://www.incgamers.com/2014/12/the-crew-pc-port-impressions

Locked at 30 would have never made a glimmer in my eye, now, maybe i'll get it on sale..

 

[Always-honest]

Launch trailer (for those who haven't seen it yet):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDUbfdfBPk

Good trailer. That will convince a lot of people it might be fun. Not sure i think the game is fun... but the trailer is well made.

 

[kitch9]

I think you underestimate the difference.

Hitting a stable 30 fps ultimately requires a frame-rate that is well above 30 fps most of the time. In a case like this the average frame-rate on PS4 might be higher than Xbox One - but leaving the frame-rate unlocked would still have produced an unstable update. So, when locked to 30 fps, we're not actually able to see the difference.

These developers are focused on delivering a stable experience at a certain frame-rate - not making one console look better than the other.

If its locked already on the One the PS4 should have plenty of GPU overhead to add simple tweaks such as additional AA filtering, Shadow res or more pixels which is what we are seeing regularly. These simple tweaks improve IQ a lot and are usually a case of flicking a switch on most modern engines. This would be even more prominent in games that are cpu bound at 30 fps and the CPU is dictating the framerate.

I've been PC gaming long enough to know what the difference should be in both machines.

The CPU's are going to struggle quickly in both machines, we need Naughty Dogs wizards to get banging the Huma driven compute drum ASAP.