DF: Anthem PC vs Xbox One X

@Zero_epyon said:

@Antwan3K said:

@Zero_epyon said:

True 4K implies a native 4K image that wasn't achieved through techniques like checkerboarding or upscaling. This definition "True 4K" was boasted by MS since 2016 (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-21-microsoft-on-project-scorpio-ps4-pro-marketing-and-xbox-tweets). Soon after the official reveal, they updated their site with the definition of "True 4K" to include said techniques.

So for about a good year, most gamers and gaming journalists expected X to be a consistent native 4K console without a native 4K mandate on developers. Then MS quietly updated their definition of True 4K to include non native 4K resolutions. So yes, they've been way more misleading than Sony. Alber Pennello even agrees that Sony was never misleading about their 4K abilities with the Pro. From that same article:

No. I'm not dancing around it at all. I would actually say that if you go look at their marketing and look at what Cerny said, they talk about checkerboard rendering. They've been very open about it. I'm not accusing them of anything. They've been very open about the compromises around 4K

Sony, in that image, isn't making a false or misleading statement either. Both the Pro and S/X Xbox models can output a 4K image to a 4K TV. It literally says at the bottom of the image that the game outputs 2160p(4K) and a 4K TV is required to get that output resolution. So technically, all three consoles can play in 4K. The disclaimer being that it's a 4K output, not necessarily a native 4K rendered output.

"implies"?.. according to who?.. If Microsoft intended for people to believe all games on the Xbox One X would be native 4K, they would have simply said "Native 4K", not "True 4K".. as a matter of fact, they bent over backwards to make sure everyone knew that "results may vary", it was "up to developers" to decide how best to use the hardware, and made sure "True 4K" included those various techniques in their official definition of the phrase..

How on earth is that misleading?..

Beyond that, look at the results.. most games do tend to hit a native 4K resolution at some point during actual gameplay.. so again, how is releasing a "True 4K" console that primarily features 4K gameplay misleading?

more importantly, how is that more misleading than what Sony did in that advertisement?.. Since you seemingly love the word "implies", that ad clearly implies that Red Dead Redemption 2 runs at native 4K on PS4 Pro when it doesnt remotely come close to that resolution natively during actual gameplay.. you want to talk about what's "implied?.. that's clearly what's implied in that advertisement and its a flat out lie.. and no, saying the game "outputs at 2160p" doesn't mean anything to the average consumer.. as a matter of fact, if you asked the average Best Buy shopper what "2160p" means, they probably think it means "native 4K".. as in the "native 4K" image they would expect from a 4K Bluray movie..

The idea that you can find some equivalency there is laughable and is a clear sign of your personal bias.. and forget equivalency, you even went a step further and claimed that the Xbox One X is even MORE misleading as a "4K console" than the PS4 Pro??.. wow, dude.. wow..

having Cerny and Pennello (wo guys the average consumer never heard of) talk about "checkerboard rendering" (a technique the average consumer has never heard of) means absolutely NOTHING in comparison to making a TV ad featuring Red Dead Redemption 2 (a game everyone knows about) and saying that game can be played in "4K" (a term everyone is fairly familiar with)..

that clearly "implies" two things: the PS4 Pro is a 4K console and Red Dead Redemption 2 runs at native 4K on that console.. the very definition of MISLEADING...

Again in that same article

To go back to your original point about salting the competition or trying to be aggressive against them. I think there are a lot of caveats they're giving customers right now around 4K. They're talking about checkerboard rendering and up-scaling and things like that. There are just a lot of asterisks in their marketing around 4K, which is interesting because when we thought about what spec we wanted for Scorpio, we were very clear we wanted developers to take their Xbox One engines and render them in native, true 4K. That was why we picked the number, that's why we have the memory bandwidth we have, that's why we have the teraflops we have, because it's what we heard from game developers was required to achieve native 4K.

Now, similarly to what Sony said, that doesn't mean I'm going to require developers to do this. They're going to be able to decide to take that six teraflops of power and do what they think is best for their game. But I know that 4.2 teraflops is not enough to do true 4K. So, I feel like our product aspired a little bit higher, and we will have fewer asterisks around the 4K experiences we deliver on our box.

This is Eurogamer in that same article:

Yes, Xbox One S plays 4K Blu-rays, but the more powerful PS4 Pro will soon be available, and it won't be much more expensive. Yes, Project Scorpio will outmuscle PS4 Pro, but it launches a year after its competitor while on the face of it offering a fundamentally similar gaming experience. And yes, Project Scorpio guarantees a true, native 4K video games, but won't it always be more expensive than PS4 Pro?

Likely their belief at the time thanks to the quote the used prior to that statement:

"Launching holiday 2017, Project Scorpio is the next member of the Xbox One family and will be the most powerful console ever created with 6TFLOPS capable of delivering true 4K gaming," Microsoft said. By contrast, PS4 Pro offers 4.2TFLOPS of power.

Having a disclaimer that people can read disqualifies something from being misleading.

Wanna see something that's actually misleading

Forza 7: Native 4K

AC: Origins: Dynamic Scaled

Gears 4: Native 4K SP/Dynamic Scaled MP

Shadow of War: Native 4K

Titanfall 2: Dynamic Scaled

Tomb Raider: Native 4K

Three of those titles are not native 4K games or have modes where that resolution drops. Where's the disclaimer for this? The average gamer sees this and assumes they're all native 4K games, when they're not.

How about this?

TRUE 4K 8+ Million pixels. Native 4K just so happens to be 8,294,400 pixels. So when you see True 4K you immediately think Native 4K. It's most certainly implied.

1) Concerning those Eurogamer quotes, the design goal of the console was indeed to give developers the tools they need to make current-gen games at 4K.. Microsoft led that charge with just about all of their 1st party titles coming in at native 4K and major 3rd parties have also been able to release games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Metro: Exodus, Anthem and more at native 4K with some other games achieving 4K via dynamic scaling..

bottomline: the horsepower is clearly there, it's just up to the developer..

2) that "disclaimer" simply says the game outputs at 2160p after saying TWICE that you can PLAY IN 4K.. as far as most average consumers are concerned, 720p means 1280×720 pix, 1080p means 1920×1080 pix, and 2160p means 3840 x 2160 pix.. 3840 x 2160 is commonly know as native 4K.. how the hell can that clearly be seen as a disclaimer?..

it's not a "disclaimer" if it potentially reinforces the misleading statements that come prior to it.. saying "Play in 4K" and then following it up with what can be easily viewed as "the game outputs at 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K" doesn't disclaim anything.. it clearly implies that the game is running at native 4K on a 4K console.. that's misleading at a minimum and is arguably an outright lie.. saying "a 4K TV is required" doesnt mean anything either.. no shit, you need a 4K TV to play games in 4K..

3) Every single game you listed displays a native 4K image during gameplay and four of those 6 games are coming in at native 4K.. again, in what world do YOU live in where an ad claiming "4K Ultra HD" then provides a list of 6 games that all hit native 4K during gameplay (4 of which are certifiably native 4K throughout their campaigns) is MORE MISLEADING than a PS4 Pro ad that says "Play in 4K" for a game that never achieves native 4K in the slightest?..

set your bias aside for a second and use some common sense here.. are you seriously trying to say this Xbox One X advertisement:

clearly means all those games are NATIVE 4K and is misleading because only 4 of those games are native 4K and the other 2 games only acheive a native 4K image during varying portions of the game via dynamic scaling?..

this is despite the fact that "4K Ultra HD" is officially defined as Native 4K, Dynamic 4K scaling, and 4K Checkerboard upscaling by Microsoft as a disclaimer?.. and this is also despite your very own quote in this very thread of "I was talking about how dynamic and native 4K games can be called 4K games if the dynamic 4K game can actually reach a native 4K at some point." - Zero_epyon , Mar 2019?

yet the PS4 Pro advertisement:

which clearly says "PLAY IN 4K ON PS4 PRO", followed by "Play in 4K on PS4 Pro", and then is followed by "Game outputs 2160p" (which is 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K), somehow DOESN'T imply that you can play Red Dead Redemption in NATIVE 4K on a PS4 Pro?..

It simply means that the PS4 Pro is compatible with 4K TVs?..

if so, i dont't know what else to say.. you can't fix that type of ignorance and bias..

"Native 4K" is a quantifiable fact..

"True 4K" is a marketing term designed to let consumers know that not all games will meet the requirements to be defined as "native 4K" since Microsoft has absolutely no control over how 3rd party developers design their games..

if you don't know the clear difference between those things, that's on you.. willful ignorance and selective reading comprehension tends to be the usual culprits for you two..

The coined term true 4k is meant to be misleading. There is no "true 4k" standard. They could have called it rainbow 4k or any other word. It's a marketing term and that's it. Cows should recognize this trick as Sony did this last gen when they started calling 1080p "full hd" when in reality everything over 720p was considered hd. I'll bet the x1x has as many negative 4k games as the ps3 had negative 1080p games last gen.

Apparently it is a very shitty game regardless of the platform.

It needs a lot of work. Not only regarding technical perfomance, but also to the content. I'm lvl 21, and the story has just been so lackluster, and i'm close to the end. Bioware tried to build this huge story, but the main release only tells an incredibly small portion. Plus, when you want to join into a main mission (for example,) you can sometimes join in too late, and thus miss key aspects.

I know right..

he cites Crackdown 3, a game that was in development hell and many people thought was going to get cancelled..

Halo 5, a game that was released over 2 years before the Xbox One X even launched (hell, it's awesome that we got an Xbox One X enhancement for that game at all)..

and the multiplayer of Gears 4?.. the multiplayer that clearly prioritized a 60 fps target over any resolution goals and as a result used dynamic scaling?...

these are his shining examples of how Microsoft 1st party fell short with the Xbox One X??.. one obvious outlier, one game that was launched years prior to the console release, and one game that actually does do native 4K in the single player?.. lol "unbiased gamer" indeed..

Lems in this thread

"1st party games will be native 4K"
"Well except that one, that one and that other one. Those don't count"

You clearing either don't have a good grasp on the English language, or you're trolling.

Lems are ready to rewrite the English language if necessary...

Normally I'd agree that it's a marketing term. However, the language they used says otherwise. They called True 4K 8+ million pixels. Native 4K is 8+ million pixels. They used True 4K to differentiate their system from the, as they said in the DF article, compromised 4K. If compromised 4K isn't native 4K, then what's True 4K? Is it not native? If not, then it's compromised 4K. English!

Also Full HD is an industry term that refers to 1080p. Much like HD refers to 720p and UHD refers to 4K. These terms were not invented by Sony Playstation. Did you also know that the Xbox One S can output 4K? Did you know MS also called the S a 4K gaming machine at one point?

@Antwan3K said:

@Zero_epyon said:

Again in that same article

To go back to your original point about salting the competition or trying to be aggressive against them. I think there are a lot of caveats they're giving customers right now around 4K. They're talking about checkerboard rendering and up-scaling and things like that. There are just a lot of asterisks in their marketing around 4K, which is interesting because when we thought about what spec we wanted for Scorpio, we were very clear we wanted developers to take their Xbox One engines and render them in native, true 4K. That was why we picked the number, that's why we have the memory bandwidth we have, that's why we have the teraflops we have, because it's what we heard from game developers was required to achieve native 4K.

Now, similarly to what Sony said, that doesn't mean I'm going to require developers to do this. They're going to be able to decide to take that six teraflops of power and do what they think is best for their game. But I know that 4.2 teraflops is not enough to do true 4K. So, I feel like our product aspired a little bit higher, and we will have fewer asterisks around the 4K experiences we deliver on our box.

This is Eurogamer in that same article:

Yes, Xbox One S plays 4K Blu-rays, but the more powerful PS4 Pro will soon be available, and it won't be much more expensive. Yes, Project Scorpio will outmuscle PS4 Pro, but it launches a year after its competitor while on the face of it offering a fundamentally similar gaming experience. And yes, Project Scorpio guarantees a true, native 4K video games, but won't it always be more expensive than PS4 Pro?

Likely their belief at the time thanks to the quote the used prior to that statement:

"Launching holiday 2017, Project Scorpio is the next member of the Xbox One family and will be the most powerful console ever created with 6TFLOPS capable of delivering true 4K gaming," Microsoft said. By contrast, PS4 Pro offers 4.2TFLOPS of power.

Having a disclaimer that people can read disqualifies something from being misleading.

Wanna see something that's actually misleading

Forza 7: Native 4K

AC: Origins: Dynamic Scaled

Gears 4: Native 4K SP/Dynamic Scaled MP

Shadow of War: Native 4K

Titanfall 2: Dynamic Scaled

Tomb Raider: Native 4K

Three of those titles are not native 4K games or have modes where that resolution drops. Where's the disclaimer for this? The average gamer sees this and assumes they're all native 4K games, when they're not.

How about this?

TRUE 4K 8+ Million pixels. Native 4K just so happens to be 8,294,400 pixels. So when you see True 4K you immediately think Native 4K. It's most certainly implied.

1) Concerning those Eurogamer quotes, the design goal of the console was indeed to give developers the tools they need to make current-gen games at 4K.. Microsoft led that charge with just about all of their 1st party titles coming in at native 4K and major 3rd parties have also been able to release games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Metro: Exodus, Anthem and more at native 4K with some other games achieving 4K via dynamic scaling..

bottomline: the horsepower is clearly there, it's just up to the developer..

2) that "disclaimer" simply says the game outputs at 2160p after saying TWICE that you can PLAY IN 4K.. as far as most average consumers are concerned, 720p means 1280×720 pix, 1080p means 1920×1080 pix, and 2160p means 3840 x 2160 pix.. 3840 x 2160 is commonly know as native 4K.. how the hell can that clearly be seen as a disclaimer?..

it's not a "disclaimer" if it potentially reinforces the misleading statements that come prior to it.. saying "Play in 4K" and then following it up with what can be easily viewed as "the game outputs at 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K" doesn't disclaim anything.. it clearly implies that the game is running at native 4K on a 4K console.. that's misleading at a minimum and is arguably an outright lie.. saying "a 4K TV is required" doesnt mean anything either.. no shit, you need a 4K TV to play games in 4K..

3) Every single game you listed displays a native 4K image during gameplay and four of those 6 games are coming in at native 4K.. again, in what world do YOU live in where an ad claiming "4K Ultra HD" then provides a list of 6 games that all hit native 4K during gameplay (4 of which are certifiably native 4K throughout their campaigns) is MORE MISLEADING than a PS4 Pro ad that says "Play in 4K" for a game that never achieves native 4K in the slightest?..

set your bias aside for a second and use some common sense here.. are you seriously trying to say this Xbox One X advertisement:

clearly means all those games are NATIVE 4K and is misleading because only 4 of those games are native 4K and the other 2 games only acheive a native 4K image during varying portions of the game via dynamic scaling?..

this is despite the fact that "4K Ultra HD" is officially defined as Native 4K, Dynamic 4K scaling, and 4K Checkerboard upscaling by Microsoft as a disclaimer?.. and this is also despite your very own quote in this very thread of "I was talking about how dynamic and native 4K games can be called 4K games if the dynamic 4K game can actually reach a native 4K at some point." - Zero_epyon , Mar 2019?

yet the PS4 Pro advertisement:

which clearly says "PLAY IN 4K ON PS4 PRO", followed by "Play in 4K on PS4 Pro", and then is followed by "Game outputs 2160p" (which is 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K), somehow DOESN'T imply that you can play Red Dead Redemption in NATIVE 4K on a PS4 Pro?..

It simply means that the PS4 Pro is compatible with 4K TVs?..

if so, i dont't know what else to say.. you can't fix that type of ignorance and bias..

Conveniently, you leave out the third image that completely destroys your entire argument. You know, where MS tells the world on the E3 stage that True 4K means 8+ Million pixels.

1) That's not the point of me quoting the DF article, as no one is arguing that the Xbox is not capable of native 4K. The point was, which you're deliberately misunderstanding, is that he refers to True 4K as an answer to Sony's compromised 4K via checkerboard. His quote again:

we were very clear we wanted developers to take their Xbox One engines and render them in native, true 4K

Native (pause) true 4K. In the English language, that is interpreted as Native = True. Otherwise, what you're claiming doesn't make sense. Here's how:

we were very clear we wanted developers to take their Xbox One engines and render them in native, not native 4K

If that second quote makes sense to you, then I can't help you.

2) Also here's a definition of a Disclaimer:

a formal statement saying that you are not legally responsible for something, such as the information given in a book or on the internet, or that you have no direct involvement in it.

So the PS4 Pro outputs a 4K signal to a 4k TV. 2160p, like you said in you post, is 4K. So that's what the Pro is responsible for. It is Rockstar's responsibility to either render the game natively or use a technique to get it as close as possible. But regardless of what they do, the pro will always put out a 4K image on a 4K tv.

The only reason MS got away with that ad is because the 4K Ultra HD title in that image is itself a disclaimer, because they define what 4K Ultra HD is on their site. It includes native, checkerboard, or sparse rendering. In other words, the X is responsible for delivering a 4K output, and how these games render internally to put out that 4K output is on them. It's the same disclaimer, just that one you have to dig for and the other is plainly in the ad.

@goldenelementxl said:

@Zero_epyon said:

@Antwan3K said:

"Native 4K" is a quantifiable fact..

"True 4K" is a marketing term designed to let consumers know that not all games will meet the requirements to be defined as "native 4K"

You clearing either don't have a good grasp on the English language, or you're trolling.

Lems are ready to rewrite the English language if necessary...

Down right ridiculous. All this to avoid looking like they fell for hype. Literally no one is arguing that the X was never, or isn't capable of native 4K.

Anthem

Metro Exodus

RDR2

All native 4k.

Something TC and Cows said would never happen.

Take a seat clowns.

@kuu2: false. And that’s not even the argument.

Whatever you say CowEpyon.

@kuu2 said:

@Zero_epyon said:

@kuu2: false. And that’s not even the argument.

Whatever you say CowEpyon.

real mature...

@Antwan3K said:

1) Concerning those Eurogamer quotes, the design goal of the console was indeed to give developers the tools they need to make current-gen games at 4K.. Microsoft led that charge with just about all of their 1st party titles coming in at native 4K and major 3rd parties have also been able to release games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Metro: Exodus, Anthem and more at native 4K with some other games achieving 4K via dynamic scaling..

bottomline: the horsepower is clearly there, it's just up to the developer..

2) that "disclaimer" simply says the game outputs at 2160p after saying TWICE that you can PLAY IN 4K.. as far as most average consumers are concerned, 720p means 1280×720 pix, 1080p means 1920×1080 pix, and 2160p means 3840 x 2160 pix.. 3840 x 2160 is commonly know as native 4K.. how the hell can that clearly be seen as a disclaimer?..

it's not a "disclaimer" if it potentially reinforces the misleading statements that come prior to it.. saying "Play in 4K" and then following it up with what can be easily viewed as "the game outputs at 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K" doesn't disclaim anything.. it clearly implies that the game is running at native 4K on a 4K console.. that's misleading at a minimum and is arguably an outright lie.. saying "a 4K TV is required" doesnt mean anything either.. no shit, you need a 4K TV to play games in 4K..

3) Every single game you listed displays a native 4K image during gameplay and four of those 6 games are coming in at native 4K.. again, in what world do YOU live in where an ad claiming "4K Ultra HD" then provides a list of 6 games that all hit native 4K during gameplay (4 of which are certifiably native 4K throughout their campaigns) is MORE MISLEADING than a PS4 Pro ad that says "Play in 4K" for a game that never achieves native 4K in the slightest?..

set your bias aside for a second and use some common sense here.. are you seriously trying to say this Xbox One X advertisement:

clearly means all those games are NATIVE 4K and is misleading because only 4 of those games are native 4K and the other 2 games only acheive a native 4K image during varying portions of the game via dynamic scaling?..

this is despite the fact that "4K Ultra HD" is officially defined as Native 4K, Dynamic 4K scaling, and 4K Checkerboard upscaling by Microsoft as a disclaimer?.. and this is also despite your very own quote in this very thread of "I was talking about how dynamic and native 4K games can be called 4K games if the dynamic 4K game can actually reach a native 4K at some point." - Zero_epyon , Mar 2019?

yet the PS4 Pro advertisement:

which clearly says "PLAY IN 4K ON PS4 PRO", followed by "Play in 4K on PS4 Pro", and then is followed by "Game outputs 2160p" (which is 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K), somehow DOESN'T imply that you can play Red Dead Redemption in NATIVE 4K on a PS4 Pro?..

It simply means that the PS4 Pro is compatible with 4K TVs?..

if so, i dont't know what else to say.. you can't fix that type of ignorance and bias..

1-Irrelevant I argued this before the release and we all knew it wasn't possible to run all games in 4k,but lemmings keep drinking MS koolaid. Is a 6TF Polaris GPU we knew what it could do because there were already other 6TF GPU out there, the 1070GTX could not pull all games in 4k it was a given the xbox one X would not but you people refuse to admit it.

The horse power is so there that hitting 4k on Anthem on freaking medium is enough to give the xbox one X version the worse frame rate with drops to the low 20's,this is funny a game that dropped on PS4 was officially mock here and tag as a slice show..lol

2-MS lie period MS advertise the xbox one X on TV and on the damn internet as true 4k machine since 2016 but as soon as E3 2017 came they change the definition of what 4k means for them after clearly stated on the media that they machine was true 4k.

In fact Phil Spencer him self went as far as to claim that the Pro wasn't actually competition for the xbox one X that was competition to the xbox one S implying that since the PS4 Pro not do 2160 native in most games and it had to resort to checker board of dynamic that mean it wasn't a true 4k experience, only to change the definition of what true 4k is, and inserted Dynamic and checkerboard as true 4k as well,which prompted sony to advertise games such as RDR2 was 4k on PS4 Pro because MS it self consider those games true 4k period.

You people are lol worthy trying to redefine what the word true 4k means, the fact alone that MS included checkerboard and dynamic 4k as true 4k is lol worthy considering they slammed the Pro for using those methods in fact I can quote a ton of lemmings here making fun of the PS4 Pro been sub 4k, and parading how scorpio would have all games in 4k.

Hell I am sure I can find you between those deluded lemming.

Well at least I am sure of something because it is super evident you are a.

TRUE FANBOY.

TRUE DELUDED LEMMING.

But in the real sense of TRUE not the distorted accommodative version you like..Hahahahaa

Say what?

True 4k mean that all games will run at minimum 2160 full 4k.

Anything less than that simply is not.

No there is a difference between a marketing term and actually lying openly to affect your competitor and trick people into buying your console.

Quote sony saying this is a TRUE FULL HD Machine and downplaying the xbox 360 as been not TRUE HD.

Go ahead.

Actually 1024x 768 is also HD.

Sony never stated all games will be 1080p either by the way, hell even MS who advertise the xbox 360 in E5 2005 as having minimum 720p with 4X AA failed miserably on launch to reach such settings, and after that as well tons of 360 games were sub 720p.

What MS did was pretty clear.

@goldenelementxl said:

Lems are ready to rewrite the English language if necessary...

The fun part is that I can quote many of them downplaying the Pro for been sub 4k in most games, and parading how Scorpio would be a true 4k machine, now look at them fighting so that checkerboard and dynamic res is consider as true 4k..

Hahahaha

Lemming are a joke.

This thread is pathetic

You guys are spending so much time and energy arguing over semantics.

THIS is why this gen is full of sequels, sacrificing framerate for resolution, no innovation, etc.

Imagine if we stopped arguing over resolution and complained about half finished games, day one patches, framerate issues, forever early access, etc.

We did a good job with microtransactions, resolution is irrelevant...............its passive.

Can you tell the difference between checkerboard 4k and native 4k during active gameplay?

Both console makers have lied or stretched the truth when it comes to 4k. Its why they have PR departments.

The real question is why do we let them get away with it and fight EACH OTHER about it......................all while letting them off the hook.

Ridiculous...

@navyguy21:

Yes it checkboard not so good.

Has anybody else remember when segas Saturn come out? Nintendo 64? Sony’s PlayStation? This time game like to run around 320X240. Nintendo start to sell something call RAM for a console. 30 dollar for 4mb! So what this do it make some game run in 640X480. Saturn and PlayStation also have some game run higher than 320x240.

But what a catch. It game which run high also run as interlace. Today when you look to the past of these game with hindsight it a progressive game which look best. Some exception maybe, too. But this continue as a PlayStation 2. Many of it game run higher resolution than older console but it picture interlace. As the example for picture qualities. Take a look at some of it old arcade collection game. Arcade version run lower resolution than PlayStation 2 one but because ps2 one it interlace it look much worse.

Food with thought for you gamers.

@navyguy21: Most on here are to busy being shills to realize. Look at lengthy essays from each faction. A sad bunch of gamers.

@navyguy21: This thread has nothing to do with the number of sequels. You did a good job with microtransactions? They’re at record breaking numbers year after year. Can I tell the difference between checkerboard 4K and native 4K? Um, yes... No innovation? Have you been living under a rock? Oh no, wait. I know! You’ve sheltered yourself in the gamer echo chamber. That’s unfortunate.

Your opinions don’t reflect the real world. That pretty much makes your opinion irrelevant. Day 1 patches aren’t a bad thing? Think back to a day where patches weren’t a thing. Some folks got cartridges of games with game breaking bugs. The only fix was buying the updated copy. Is that what you want?

@goldenelementxl: You're doing God's work this thread.

Im not going to quote that big ass post of your tormentos.

Marketing is nearly always meant to be deceptive. Everybody does it. To sit and point at one as bad and one as good is foolish. Ms does it. Sony does it. You really think one is better than the other? They use techno jargon to fool the general public who don't know any better.

Not arguing over resolutions and frame rate issues assumes we all agree that choosing a higher resolution at the expense of bad frame rates is bad. However, that's not the case. This is the root of the argument is in this thread. The some posters here (including myself) saw through the PR speak and dealt with just the specs of these consoles. We argued that while the X is more powerful, it certainly wouldn't manage 4K consistently like MS' PR statements led some to believe. There would certainly be compromises, like what we're seeing here. Posters from all factions here are having these conversations to expose the very thing you want to end.

Also keep in mind that neither console maker lied when it came to 4K. Sony was up front from the beginning that checkerboard 4K was going to be the primary method of delivering 4K outputs to 4K TV users. MS also said they would leave the decision to do native 4K to devs, but they anticipate having more native 4K games than Sony. Both are true statements. However, the language used by MS' PR had a small group of xbox fans believing that the Xbox would deliver 4K sometimes paired with 60FPS in the majority of cases. These same posters are the ones in here claiming 1. that they never made such statements 2. giving MS a pass for using such language that led them to believe what they did. 3. Deflecting the discussion away from the real issue, that Xbox can't handle Anthem at medium at native 4K.

The devs should have realized this and instead use a dynamic scaler or even dropping the resolution a bit if they cold optimize their game further. These same poster, if they cared about what you think they should care about, should agree and demand better. But they're making excuses.

@Zero_epyon: in the same vein, some of those posters you claim to have "seen through the pr speak" have been just as busy underplaying the x1x as much as those lems overplayed it. Prior to release they were saying native 4k would be rare and wouldn't be the big budget games.

Well they are rare. How many native 4K games that don't rely on techniques like dynamic scaling, reconstruction, checkerboarding or upscaling exist on the X vs the rest? What about those same people saying the big budget games that do will come at a price, in the form of frame rate drops, downgraded visuals or other compromises? Look no further than Anthem, which is 4K, but suffers worse performance than the base console in higher demanding areas?

I think you made my point for me.

You agree that PR does this, you agree that we should demand better.

The rest of what you said doesnt matter.

Why? Because there are fanboys on both sides that ignores reality and have double standards.

You cant reconcile that.

You say neither MS or Sony lied...............then why get worked up over blind fanboys on both sides?

That was my point.

What matters is games, PS4 is winning and Xbox is losing.

Thats all that matters really

Xbox fans arguing over having more true 4k games are misguided

Neither Spiderman nor Horizon run at native 4k but look sharp at a stable framerate.

Thats all that matters.

so if the majority of Xbox One X games are hitting 4K natively or dynamically, those games aren't doing 8+ million pixels during gameplay??.. what are you even babbling about at this point?..

1) again if you don't understand the fact that "True 4K" is a marketing term that clearly doesnt only mean "native 4K", you're just being willfully ignorant.. of course Microsoft wants developers to make their games native 4K but not all developers are going to be able to do native 4K for a multitude of reasons.. which is why the marketing term of "True 4K" covers the range of native 4K, dynamic 4K scaling, and etc.. I see your usual amount of selective reading comprehension is on full display here..

2) Red Dead Redemption 2 is not native 4K on PS4 Pro.. a PS4 Pro ad that says "Play Red Dead Redemption 2 in 4K" followed by "Game outputs in 2160p (2160p being 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K)", is clearly misleading.. that's just the plain black and white of it..

Its funny people are so concern about the average gamer being deceived by 4k claims when the average gamer simply doesn't care in the same way they don't care about marginal drops in framerate or marginal difference in resolutions. But here the rabids are arguing about how much it matters.

I don't know how you got to that conclusion.

It seems you have a deeper issue. You don't seem to know how these devices work. Both the X and the Pro output a 4K image to a 4K screen at all times when its resolution is set to 4K in the system settings. If a game is played and that game renders below 4K, that doesn't mean that the actual output to the screen is sub 4K. Both systems will upscale from whatever the image is to a 4K output, if the game doesn't already try to. The same for downsampling on the X. The game will render the image above 4K and the X will scale down to a 4K output. In these modes, they will never push an image that's not 4K to the TV.

So by saying "Game outputs 2160p" they are not making a false statement because, at the end of the day, it's a 4K image you can display on you 4K TV. Also you're mixing two terms here. True 4K meant native 4K to MS. Shortly before the release of the X, they moved away from saying True 4K and more towards 4K Ultra HD which had a clear definition of including native plus compromised 4K.

That shift was noticed after E3. Take a look at this article:

https://www.gamepur.com/news/26951-xbox-one-s-no-labels-4k-checkerboarding.html

• 4K Ultra HD - A game has a 2160p framebuffer output. That includes Native 4K, Checkerboarding, and Dynamic Resolution.

It's exactly the same definition, just using more words than Sony. So MS can call a game 4K Ultra HD if it's native, checkerboard, or dynamic just like Sony can. But somehow, it's Sony that's more misleading?

Because once again, the argument was never about what the consoles can do or not, but how certain posters made certain claims and are now pretending that they didn't. It just so happens that the claims they made initially was a result of slick wording MS used to sell the idea of the Scorpio before they released it.

Well obviously you don't because both those statements are false.

1) The X can handle 4K as is evident in games like Forza Horizon 4 & RDR2 for example.

2) You have a PC and yet have proven that you know jack shit lol.

@i_p_daily: Why did you reply to me returning to this thread?

yeah, we both know how these devices work.. we also both know that saying you can "Play Red Dead Redemption in 4K" when the game clearly doesnt reach a native 4K image during gameplay is misleading.. we also both know that simply saying "Game outputs in 2160p" can be EASILY interpreted as the "Game outputs at 3840 x 2160, aka native 4K", which is misleading when the game doesnt hit 3840 x 2160 during gameplay and therefore cant be used as a "disclaimer"..

its just that simple.. the misleading ad is misleading.. I knew your bias was strong but I didn't know it was completely blinding..

the Microsoft ad you posted atleast features 6 games that actually hit a native 4K resolution during gameplay.. and even you agree that means the game is technically "4K".. Sony specifically picked Red Dead Redemption 2, a game that NEVER hits 4K during gameplay and tells people they can play that game in 4K on the PS4 Pro.. at a minimum, that's more misleading than the Microsoft ad, which negates your entire argument here..

this entire discussion started because you apparently can't stand the idea of Sony being called out for their misleading Red Dead Redemption 2 ad.. it's simply a misleading ad no matter how you slice it.. just stop with the nonsense..

Because you were wrong lol.

Was I supposed to reply to someone else?

I don't have notifications on so unless I see & read it I have no idea who responds to me, but you already knew that.

@i_p_daily: Then go bother someone else! I'm done with this thread, thank you!!!

@Zero_epyon said:

@kuu2 said:

@Zero_epyon said:

@kuu2: false. And that’s not even the argument.

Whatever you say CowEpyon.

real mature...

We are on a gaming forum that categorizes its participants as Cows, Lemmings, and Sheep. If you are looking for maturity you are for sure in the wrong place.

@Antwan3K:

RDR2 is advertise as 4k on ps4 because ms made it ok when they basically classify checkerboard and dynamic res as true 4k period.

Basically ms made it even easier for Sony if you can claim the xbox one x is a true 4k machine then have sub 4k games running and still call it 4k then you can also do so for ps4 pro period.

@i_p_daily:

Yeah it handle it so well in Anthem that drops to de lows 20, I use to think that lemmings did not like slice shows on their games.

Even at medium 4k is to demanding for xbox one x on anthem, just like running 60fps on xbox one x on forza horizon 4 drops the game to 1080p hell the RX 580 runs it at 1440p at 60 fps.

But a RX 580 isn't as powerful as a GTX 1070...

If they are both doing it and both ok to do it. Why they heck is there a stupidly long thread talking about it.

Wrong, Hollywood's 4K H.265 decode process has pixel reconstruction methods. Sony can market PS4 Pro as 4K as per Hollywood's 4K pixel reconstruction standard.

Prior to NVIDIA's DLSS BS, only PC master race has defined 4K with uncompressed pixels and no pixel reconstruction methods, but the argument is more about PC GPU power superiority.

Xbox One X was designed Digital Foundry's XBO resolution gate debacle since MS was also offered PS4 Pro specs in 2016.

It depends on the game, any workload that stresses ROPS path, GTX 1070 has the advantage. GTX 1070 has 64 ROPS read/write coupled with nearly ~2MB L2 cache but it's shared with TMU read/write operations. Stock GTX 1070 has about 6.5 TFLOPS of compute with overclocked GTX 1070 running TFLOPS into 7 TFLOPS range.

X1X GPU has 32 ROPS read/write coupled with 2MB render cache and 2MB L2 cache for TMU read/write operations (compute optimization path). There are higher opportunities for X1X GPU can rival GTX 1070 when compared to RX-580.

RX-580 has 32 ROPS read/write coupled with memory control channels which is instant bottleneck problem, but RX-580 has 2MB L2 cache for TMU read/write operations (compute optimization path).

This is the major reason for RX-580 's results can vary relative to GTX 1070.

NAVI is expected to master 64 ROPS with L2 cache over 256 bit GDDR6 bus design, hence more ROPS read/write opportunities to expose GCN's TFLOPS into L2 cache and external memory bandwidth!

Without ROPS read/write factor such as crypto mining workload. RX-580 is competitive against GTX 1070 i.e. it's pure uncompressed TMU read/write with compute operations.

TFLOPS are useless without read/write units being factored in!

Reasons for my selecting RTX 2080 Ti

1. absolute raster superiority over GTX 1080 Ti and Radeon VII

2. superiority over GTX 1080 Ti in compute e.g. better rapid pack math, tensor compute, BVH search accelerator (RT cores used for raytracing but it can be used for other search engine workloads) and CUDA core vs register storage ratio.

Radeon VII and RTX 2080 are pretty good GPUs.

At 1440p, Sapphire RX580 Nitro+ 8GB at 1411 Mhz (6.5 TFLOPS) dips below 60 fps during wet scenes. FH4's wet scenes wasn't saturated with alpha effects when compared to FM7's wet scenes.

As long RX-580's weakness with alpha effects is minimised or minimize register usage overflow, RX-580 should behave like X1X.

This is why I consider you a joke.

This is a test done in 1440p the average at the end is 62FPS,just because the game drops bellow 60 in a second doesn't mean the game is not 60 and considering the game is running with higher pixel count that the xbox one X version says it all.

In fact the RX580 runs FH4 in 4k ultra at 41FPS average higher than the xbox one X 30FPS.

Apparently the lemmings and Rondementia thought the xbox one X was as powerful as the 1070GTX but it can't even beat the RX580 on a game were the xbox is lead platform.

Oh I remember those days when Forza Apex text use all the time to claim you need it a 1080GTX to match the xbox one X. hahaha

Just taking the motherboard, cpu, gpu and memory used in the video it costs twice as much as Xbox One X, what do you expect to obtain.

Whats you point here? Someone made an incorrect comment that had some context that is missing and therefor on the context you put is wrong. If so well done but its about time you moved on as you have reported it enough now. The response of a few doesn't dictate the view of the many, its about time you learnt this.

If its to point out you can spend more money on PC and get a better result, well done again but everyone knows this.

That is giving by fact that the person in question doesn't own a PC at all.

There are millions of PC out there without an actual video card.

For example I already have a PC with a R9 270, all I need is $169 for a new RX580 so do many millions of people.

And while the xbox one X and Pro are cheaper than a PC they also carry a $60 dollar a year toll that on Pc doesn't exist.

There is no context missing many lemmings here openly claimed the xbox one X was as powerful as a damn 1070GTX hell Ronvalencia even claimed scorpio would exceed a damn 1080GTX based on nothing but FP16 feature of Vega which he believed was going to be in scorpio.

Since using FP16 instead of 32 allow for double the operations that meant some how that Scorpio would double to 12TF.

Even I debated that shitty notion when Marc Cerny from sony used it.

Again I already own a PC so $169 is all I need to beat and xbox one X, that is the situation of many in fact most GPU sold out there aren't sold around some one building a shinny new PC, but by people upgrading.

More Conditions to make an argument. Lets just ignore those that don't have a PC or have a PC with weaker components.

$60 a year my arse - if you going to discuss at least be real.

Xbox 360 last 10 years, your telling me the only thing you will replace in PC is a GPU, don't talk shit.

if you had an old console you could sell that to reduce the cost of a new console.

The only way you can get a fair an accurate comparison is to start from scratch and therefor what I said stands.

https://www.gamestop.com/browse/xbox-one?nav=16k-3-xbox+live+gold,28zu0,131e0

Yes lets ignore that there are more millions of PC out there without an actual GPU that xbox one sold world wide.

Yes $60 dollars.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Microsoft-Xbox-Live-12-Month-Gold-Membership-Email-Delivery/47547930?wpa_bd=1551793410326&wpa_pg_seller_id=F55CDC31AB754BB68FE0B39041159D63&wpa_ref_id=83fe2658e4d44e82a2b143e9fdffa3ff&wpa_aux_info=&wpa_tag=&wpa_pos=3&wpa_plmt=1145x1145_T-C-IG_TI_1-2_HL-INGRID-GRID-NY&wpa_aduid=da838374-c4d5-4e07-8378-9153a8eeea9b&wpa_pg=browse&wpa_pg_id=2636_4952188_5409919_6935936_8892306&wpa_st=XboxLiveSubscriptions&wpa_tax=2636_4952188_5409919_6935936_8892306&wpa_bucket=

https://www.gamestop.com/browse/xbox-one?nav=16k-3-xbox+live+gold,28zu0,131e0

Just because you can find a deal doesn't mean the original price is $60 what the fu** man you can't even play free to play games on xbox one without xbox live and is $60.

Wait so you want to argue about PC of 2005? MY PC is old and still is not 2005, But certainly any i5 or i7 can kick the living crap of the xbox one CPU, so even old versions will do.

Fact is a new GPU alone on mine is enough to beat the xbox one, and in many other PC as well.

I can also sell my old PC and reduce cost of a new one, but that wasn't the point.

Yeah lets talks about fair and accurate comparison when you can't even freaking admit xbox live as an extra fee that you don't need to pay on PC.

So upfront you save $300 in 5 years in online fee by just going PC, mind you after the 5th year which is this one already most owners since 2013 have pay over $300 for xbox live that on PC they would have save that mean you payed $500 on launch for a machine that as extra cost added $300 more that is $800 bro.

With $600 I make a more powerful PC than the xbox one X and save $300 in 5 years.