Do you want the Neo and Scorpio to focus on 4K, or better visuals?

4K is a thing where people hear it and they kind of know what it means. The number is bigger than the current numbers on their TV so it must be better, right?

I just don't personally really care about 4K and would just want to see higher framerates at current resolutions.

Im all for 4k with cuttent bells and whistles. but they need to maintain a solid unfluctuated 30 fps. 60 would be preferable but unrealistic.

I want the fan to be quieter, damn ps4 sounds like a wind turbine half the time.

As someone with a small-ish TV I would take 1080/60 over 4K/30 for any game.

I'd rather have a better looking game running at a solid 30 or 60 fps than displayed at 4K.

FRAME. RATE.

I can't see myself buying a 4k tv unless my current 1080p tv breaks, so in general I'd just prefer games to run better.

Should support upscaling to 4k for the future.

But not native 4k. They should have better graphics at 1080. A lot better.

In terms of what gaming is to most, which is an opportunity for people to remove themselves from our world to get lost in another, it makes more sense to focus on technical smoothing than higher resolutions. Good games are good games, whether they are in standard definition, high definition of 4K. What makes a good game bad are things that take you out of that experience, things like bad frame rates, texture pop in, AI glitches, long load times etc. It makes sense to prioritise getting the games working over having them look nicer in single frame screenshots.

And you would imagine, with more power dedicated to a 1080p/60fps game, devs could work on getting bigger worlds with more to explore, more focus on art direction and story as opposed to slugging to make the game run at 20-30fps at higher resolutions.

So logically, for anyone who really is a "gamer" (whatever the fuck that means) you need to prioritise the games over the resolution output. Which is why it makes me mad when Phil Spencer, who comes across as this really honest, down to earth "gamer" type starts spouting all the bull about needing to run games at this higher resolution and how that is the future. Alas, we do not control the market and so manufacturers need a way to sell you new consoles, new TV's and new cameras so they can keep their companies running (and to be fair, to keep a lot of people employed), so they DO prioritise the next fad and force it down the masses throats until it sticks.

I mean, can anyone say that Casablanca is a BETTER FILM on bluray than on DVD? No, it's a BETTER LOOKING film, but it's a great film either way. Real "better visuals" are down to art direction, not the amount of pixels on a screen.

Again, doesn't matter though because 4K is where games are going, despite the consequences to performance.

I would prefer better performance across the board (60 fps if possible), but considering I have a 4K TV, I guess I wouldn't mind getting rid of a whole lot of aliasing. Thing is, I'm not entirely sure the Neo can achieve native 4K on more "impressive" titles (Uncharted 4, Horizon, God of War) but I could be wrong.

Honestly, I don't really mind, I'll let the developpers choose what they feel is best. I just want good image quality, meaning as little aliasing as possible, and reliable performance, even if only at 30 fps.

1. 60 FPS

2. 1080p

...

67. 4K

Since I don't own a 4K TV and have been primarily playing 3rd party games on the PC I would take 60 fps as I think a smooth frame rate is visually better than 4K resolution anyway.

Performance and customization, let us decide if we want 4k 25-30fps, 1080p 60fps or even 1440p 45fps.

I have a 4k TV so more 4k content is always welcome, but not at the expense of a suboptimal frame rate

One thing I've noticed is a real adversity towards 4K from some people, saying it 'doesn't look that much better'. It's just so similar to when HD first rolled around. People just haven't seen it yet or aren't used to it yet so they're skeptical. Even your thread says 'do you want 4K or better visuals? 4K is, undoubtedly, better looking than traditional HD. It completely falls under better visuals. A better question would be 4K or better overall performance. My answer to that would be: I think it depends on the game. I would totally like it better if Destiny 2 ran at 60fps than if it was 30 again with 4K. Dishonored 2 would be fine at 30 though and so I'd rather have 4K for that. The new Mass Effect, although I hope they follow in ME3's footsteps and make the combat amazing, would also be fine at 30fps and is a very good example of where 4K would be insanely awesome.

1080/60 is preferable but only so people will finally shut the hell up about frame rate.

Oh wait. That'll never happen.

Seriously though, until 4K tvs are more ubiquitous, no one really cares. The other things should have a much bigger priority.

And these 4k consoles aren't coming out for a year and a half (Scorpio anyway), so by the time they sell in any quantity (say 2 to 2.5 years from now?) 4k TVs will be a lot more common.

Personally I'd still rather have better framerate myself, but I think you have to look at the timescales involved to understand Sony and Microsoft's motivation for 4k.

I want they not to exist for another three years. I don't mind backwards compatibility or old games working on newer systems going forward, but there has to be a delineation of generations and what is offered. Why would I buy a system if I know in three years or less there will be something better out? Why would I buy the better console that COST MORE, if it is hobbled by having games playable on something that came out three years ago?

The delineation of generations and not having to worry about games that must play on old hardware is what consoles nee to have. Five or six year generations are what console are about, and because has been true for nearly forty years...maybe its for good reason.

Let Microsoft do Scorpio and Sony do Neo; and then watch a trash fire consume all the good they has since 2014. The better plan is wait until 2019 and put out systems on schedule. PCs are not a threat. Steam machines are not a threat. Windows 10 Store is going to flop. VR is not so important that they need to re-fresh system now.

Everyone in this industry need to take a chill and look towards putting out real system in 2019.

I'm hoping for a middle ground - 1440p60

I absolutely hope there are Zero 4K games on consoles, 4K is absurdly taxing on PC's I would much rather the games become more complex than the resolution.

It will never happen but for me to truly consider the console's for my games, outside of exclusives and co-op with friends, then they require at minimum a consistent 30fp/s/33.3ms frame timing and at least (I'd prefer higher) 720p as a consistent and flat rule across everything game on the platform.

If the Neo/Scorpio can guarantee me a consistent frame rate, frame timing, resolution and non-excessive (to my own standards) render distance/pop-in etc. then I will begin to consider it when I have a choice.

If they continue to value pretty particle effects over a consistent visual experience then I will continue to not care.

There is no chance that the Neo, if the leaked specs were correct, can do something like Uncharted 4 or God of War at 4K with a decent frame rate. None. It just doesn't have the necessary power.

Personally I'd rather better lighting, less pop-in/geometry culling and most importantly better frame rate over 4k. Bad lighting and pop in (and of course bad frame rate) ruin a game's immersion for me. I don't know why I'd want a game that has a better resolution but runs like a slide-show or has stuff popping in all over the place. You need to nail down the basics before you worry about stuff like resolution (so long as its already acceptable, which for me is 720p.)

I'd prefer a solid 60fps @ 1080 for all games over increased resolution

I just want stable framerates. Also there's no way either console is going to do 4k gaming at acceptable framerates. I don't care what Microsoft says. There is no way they are going to sell a box at 400 dollars that can do 4k gaming and if they make it more expensive than that nobody will buy it. We've seen it twice now that most people aren't willing to buy a console over $400. As much as Sony is doing a half step, at least they aren't being insane or just lying to people.

Someone's really into their status quo, huh? The delineation of generations is occurring because GPU technology is advancing at a higher pace than it has in the past, thus the console makers' hands are being forced. They were so underpowered by the time they even released that gamers who care a lot about visual fidelity (not the largest demographic but not an insignificant one either) are migrating to the PC.

Personally I don't plan on buying a 4K TV anytime soon, so I am falling prey to status quo bias here as well in my wishing for better fidelity at 1080p games. But I think we need to realize that the 4K transition is happening, so it makes sense for games to start supporting it.

I do not care about 4K in any way. Eventually I'll adopt because everything will support it, but right now I think 1080 is pretty good for a TV, and games look great right now. Really, I don't even want better visuals. Pump that processing power into performance and get more games to a solid 60FPS.

It's not really about what the consoles focus on. The consoles will be what they are, it's down to developers to decide how to make use of the extra horsepower. I'd imagine every game is going to be different. Some will look the same as on the regular version of the console but with a higher framerate, some will look much better at a 1080p, some will have similar fidelity in terms of assets and effects but at 4K.

I bought a TV recently. I went 4K, but while waiting for it to arrive I started researching 4K refresh rates and wondered if I had made a mistake.

The TV arrived broken. So I sent it back and went for a better spec 1080p TV instead. I haven't regretted the decision.

The layout of my lounge precludes a TV bigger than 40" anyway, and at that size I don't see 4K making much of a difference. OLED and HRD look more exciting to me, but they will be nice and affordable when I want to replace my new TV in five years or so.

So no, I don't care about 4K at all right now, but better frame rate, better visuals and, potentially, better VR would be of interest.

I forget how the ratio works, but HD resolutions represent a sweet spot between the size of the screen and how far people typically sit from their screen. To take advantage of 4K, the screen needs to be bigger and people need to be closer to the screen. Otherwise the human eye just can't tell.

We're way off a practical everyday use for 4K, but if it means there's a standard for better 1080p, that would be lovely. A rising tide lifts all boats.

No question for me. I'd rather have better looking and better running video games over 4k any day of the week. If they can add in some additional features to pretty a game up fine as long as it doesn't affect framerate/performance. Developers have gotten away from this for whatever reason and it was a bad idea period.

Would rather see a rock solid 1080/60 with better lighting effects, etc, then 4K.

Unless there's magic in those boxes the majority of games are very unlikely to be outputting 4k natively. It will just be upscaling, like usual. Xbox one sometimes can't even hit a target of 1080p at 30fps for some games, now they suddenly want to jump the fence straight into 4k territory? Color me skeptical ("target" performance or not). It would have to be one hell of a GPU in there and if so how much is it gonna cost.

Now combine that with who they are going to be selling these to, ie the market. 1-2 years ahead, do you really think most people will have 4k TVs? How often do people buy new TVs, every couple of years? So what they will push out native 4k, for an audience that mostly won't even be able to use it? Please! So yeah my money is on good old upscaling for most games. Again the majority will not be even able to tell the difference anyway.

I think they will be able to output 4k but only at current graphics fidelity and 30fps(or lower). Polaris 480x can supposedly get as good performance as a gtx980 for about 200dollars, with decent thermal output. So if they can get something close to that it's definitely possible. But i don't see anything ever getting close to 60 without a bunch of upscale trickery, which will be shit for fighting and sports games.

That would be nice. Never gonna happen, though. The middle ground isn't a thing outside of computer monitors and nothing like that is ever easy with a console.

In an ideal world I would personally want today's games to load as quick as a N64 game cartridge or gameboy, both using software optimisations and psychological trickery. After that would be frame rates and other things with resolution coming last.

Lol the reason people were saying HD didn't "look better" is because when it was being introduced, people didn't know the different between 720 and 1080p, and also NOTHING WAS IN NATIVE HD! Cable was still SD, and the original Xbox couldn't do HD lol.

4k probably looks a lot better than 1080p, but with technologies like downsampleing, I expect a lot of people to stick with a 1080p display and just downscale games from 4k, as long as those particular games can run @ 60.

@monkeyking1969: Yeah, I don't love the idea of a two to three year console iteration either, but in the end, it depends on cost, and I imagine it being more than I want to pay.

@zevvion: Yes, it does fall under better visuals, I just didn't know how to word it the best way to get the point across, but overall (even with the overall in there) 'performance' to me signifies just frame rate, so I wanted to be as clear as I could in the title. Also, I don't play on 4K, but watch TV and film on one or another 4K TV in the living room, and it does look better, but not that much that I prefer a higher resolution over other visual aspects.

@mcfart: I distinctly remember a lot of people coming forth with the exact same argument when HD first rolled out. We're just repeating predictions that turned out to be false at this point.

I was very happy when I heard about Neo, a machine that would finally give us 1080p 60fps with amazing visuals.

Then Microsoft had to come along and p*ss on the party, they're talking about Scorpio having 6 Tflops but I've read that you need 9 Tflops to have 4K@60fps or higher. I think with Scorpio we'll end up with the same as PS4 / Xbox One for 1080p, rarely achieving 60fps and having to compromise on visuals to achieve it.

I'd much prefer what Sony are doing, get 1080p perfect now and then in 2/3 years we move to 4K when affordable consoles can give us a good experience. We may even have some TV content available by then to make buying a 4K worth it.

4k is incredible but these console addons aren't going to deliver it, I don't have an interest in playing mostly just indie/2D games in 4k which is what is going to happen.

I will upgrade for 4k on PC instead and 4k makes more sense for me on PC because it's a huge benefit for photography, not just for gaming.

My gaming TV is large enough and still it is hard to tell difference between 720P and 1080P. Based on that switch to 4K would not be that noticeable. However 30/60fps difference is noticeable and so is sparse details in the game world.

I bought a 55 inch 4K screen, but not to future-proof for myself, but more being able to sell it later in case I want something different. Regarding what @cyberbloke said. I initially had a shock too regarding that, but that's before I found the Game Mode. Switching to that has so far been fine. But I also have the TV running at 1080p since it mirrors my desktop and Windows is still very bad at high density.

Regarding the focus of console makers. They will go for 4K and/or VR because it's simpler to build towards. Better visuals is more complex, it requires good hardware documentation, engine optimization and most of all better art direction. I've seen plenty of high rez crappily placed textures in modern games or lots high demand shaders which produce bad results like a lot of shader based ambient occlusion.

I'll opt for solid 60fps over a higher resolution anyday.

I'm probably getting a new TV in the next couple years, so 4k might be worth it for me, arguments about whether the hardware can actually deliver it notwithstanding. In his interview, Phil Spencer certainly talked a good game about the Scorpio's power being specifically tuned to provide that experience.

To quote that famous pick up line: I like consistent frame rates and short load times. Oh yeah~

I would much prefer frame rate, but setting that aside, modern consoles need to be able to consistently render games at 1080p before they can even think about looking into 4K resolutions. Only some of the most powerful gaming PC's can reach those resolutions and maintain a stable framerate, how the hell are consoles going to do it and remain affordable? More than likely, they'll just render games at a slightly higher resolution than what the Xbox One and PS4 are doing and then upscale the games to 4K resolutions, much like how the Xbox 360 did to reach 1080p (that console mostly rendered games at around 720p and then upscaled to 1080).

So, if you don't like reading full paragraphs - 4K is still a pipe dream for consoles and mostly for gaming PC's.

Fuck 4k, stop pushing these consoles past what they can do comfortably. Give me native 1080 with a solid 60fps and high quality visuals and make the dashboard run snappy and quick.

They need to focus on 60fps, and then worry about the other bits. (I don't expect to own a 4K TV in the next decade, so I certainly don't care about that :)

My current living room tv is mounted on the wall. It was a pain in the ass to get mounted and level. It is an older LCD tv, so the blacks kind of suck, but still I really don't want to buy a new tv. Maybe if broadcast and cable started offering content above 1080i/720p.

Better framerate and more effects / cool stuff happening on screen please.

60fps or bust!