Avatar image for sooty
#1 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

Well, my Xbox One has been pre-ordered.

No Caption Provided

How does this even happen?

The statement from the team is that a locked 30fps is targeted here, but in the build we saw there's a huge gap to be bridged in this regard; drops to 20fps are consistent and sustained when outdoors, with 16fps being our record low during some of the biggest explosions.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-dead-rising-3

edit:

Make that 10 FPS:

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for nefarious_al
#2 Edited by Nefarious_Al (254 posts) -

Yo damn I hope that is fake too.

Avatar image for sooty
#3 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@nefarious_al: Updated, it's not. Holy shit.

This makes the recent video GiantBomb put up seem so steered by Microsoft/the devs. Vertical slice indeed.

Avatar image for jimmyfenix
#4 Posted by jimmyfenix (3941 posts) -

Damn.

Avatar image for cale
#5 Edited by CaLe (4759 posts) -

So much for a locked 30, the videos on there were constantly fluctuating between 20 and 30, regardless of whether there was a lot going on on screen. It's not a deal break for me personally, but still a shame to think the system is already struggling with something that doesn't exactly look mind-blowingly good.

Avatar image for sooty
#6 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system? This can't just a case of bad optimisation or not figuring the console out, it is simply poor, there is no good reason that the resolution bump from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is not possible. I don't even gain much FPS if I change games from 1080P down to 720P on PC games.

Avatar image for krullban
#7 Posted by Krullban (1471 posts) -

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system?

It's developer choice brah. NBA Nk14 is native 1080p 60 FPS on Xbox One. Dead Rising games are ALWAYS unoptimized as fuck.

Avatar image for sooty
#8 Posted by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@krullban said:

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system?

It's developer choice brah. NBA Nk14 is native 1080p 60 FPS on Xbox One. Dead Rising games are ALWAYS unoptimized as fuck.

Sports games are gonna be less demanding most likely though, being in a very confined arena setting and all.

We'll see. I don't want the Xbone to fail, but they are really doing an injustice to their price tag at the moment.

Avatar image for thornie
#9 Posted by thornie (228 posts) -

You see. It's shit like this that makes me just say "fuck it, I'm just going to get a GTX 770" and forget these lame consoles. I REALLLLYYY want to like them, there's nothing better than a shiny new toy, but this is ridiculous.

Avatar image for scroll
#10 Posted by Scroll (629 posts) -

I'm not surprised after Dead Rising 2's performance.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#11 Posted by ripelivejam (11617 posts) -

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system? This can't just a case of bad optimisation or not figuring the console out, it is simply poor, there is no good reason that the resolution bump from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is not possible. I don't even gain much FPS if I change games from 1080P down to 720P on PC games.

they're already losing money on both consoles i'm assuming. try to get real PC-level hardware in there and you'll see costs skyrocket.

i'm hoping Sony's 8GB GDDR5 memory will be the key to (at least eventually) consistent 1080p and 30/60fps locked. but i always had a feeling this gen was going to be more iterative than others.

Avatar image for rahulricky
#12 Posted by rahulricky (288 posts) -

@sooty: don't know if that counts as a vertical slice - that wasn't even part of the game, they were just dumped into an arena filled with zombies. Now we know why I guess.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#13 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -

And it...looks very similar to this generation, on top of that. Anybody else unable to see the difference between this gen and next?

Avatar image for pyrodactyl
#14 Posted by pyrodactyl (3847 posts) -

I sure wish there was a digital foundry in the kameo/perfect dark days so you could understand how launch games are poorly optimized. You kow, kinda like PC games. I'm not buying an xbox one but that doesn't change the fact that games in 6 months or a year will run perfectly fine and look much better than they're ''suppose to'' on xbox one specs. That's how consoles work. Just look at GTA 5 and tell me 20fps in dead rising 3 is the best the xbox one can do.

Avatar image for mooseymcman
#15 Posted by MooseyMcMan (12573 posts) -

Man, this really sucks. I gotta go show this to my cousin who seems hell bent on buying an Xbox One for this game, and only this game.

Avatar image for joey_ravn
#16 Posted by JoeyRavn (5235 posts) -

I can hardly wait to put down €500/€400 for these consoles, you guys.

Welp, my gaming PC will have to do for the time being.

Avatar image for sooty
#17 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@ripelivejam said:

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system? This can't just a case of bad optimisation or not figuring the console out, it is simply poor, there is no good reason that the resolution bump from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is not possible. I don't even gain much FPS if I change games from 1080P down to 720P on PC games.

they're already losing money on both consoles i'm assuming. try to get real PC-level hardware in there and you'll see costs skyrocket.

This is the sad thing though: I was playing Crysis at 1920x1200, 6 years ago, on an 8800GTX. Know what that card is worth now? Nothing.

So I'm not talking about PC level hardware now, because by today's standards, the 8800GTX is a freaking dinosaur. Yet Crysis still holds up pretty well today, at least in comparison to console games.

As of now, the Xbone is failing to match the visual prowess of a 7 year old video card. What the fuck? There's a lot to be said for console optimisation, sure, but out of the gate you can't do 1920x1080 with 30 frames? I wonder how BF4 must have ran for them to have to knock it down to 720P.

Avatar image for razielcuts
#18 Posted by RazielCuts (3280 posts) -

@krullban said:

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system?

It's developer choice brah. NBA Nk14 is native 1080p 60 FPS on Xbox One. Dead Rising games are ALWAYS unoptimized as fuck.

'Choice.' Yeah, developers 'choose' to not have good frame rates and par HD resolutions. Basketball game with ~30 character models on screen at once =/= Zombie game with deforming meshes with up to I don't know how many character models on screen at once.

Avatar image for splodge
#19 Edited by Splodge (2456 posts) -

This game should really have been delayed if these frame rate drops are consistent. 16 fps? That's terrible. It would be better if they took another 6 months to optimize it. Sucks for the pre-orders etc, but Jesus....

Avatar image for jimmyfenix
#20 Edited by jimmyfenix (3941 posts) -
No Caption Provided

I am more offended at that wall in the background.

Avatar image for krullban
#21 Edited by Krullban (1471 posts) -

And it...looks very similar to this generation, on top of that. Anybody else unable to see the difference between this gen and next?

Ryse is a pretty massive difference graphically to me.

Avatar image for rafaelfc
#22 Posted by Rafaelfc (2229 posts) -

This sucks, but has been an ongoing issue for a long time.

While developers prioritize effects, graphics, lighting, particles, weather effects over performance this trend will just continue and grow worse over time.

Avatar image for tycobb
#23 Posted by TyCobb (2032 posts) -

And it...looks very similar to this generation, on top of that. Anybody else unable to see the difference between this gen and next?

I think they look better. It won't be until they find the best ways to optimize everything that it will look better. Shoot, just look at Perfect Dark for the 360. A horrendously shitty looking game and then look at GTA V. It's hard to believe they are on the same console.

Here's the video if no one wants to click the link.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for sooty
#24 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

I sure wish there was a digital foundry in the kameo/perfect dark days so you could understand how launch games are poorly optimized. You kow, kinda like PC games. I'm not buying an xbox one but that doesn't change the fact that games in 6 months or a year will run perfectly fine and look much better than they're ''suppose to'' on xbox one specs. That's how consoles work. Just look at GTA 5 and tell me 20fps in dead rising 3 is the best the xbox one can do.

7 years of hardware advancements and staying at 720P is beyond just poor optimisation.

Also PC games aren't poorly optimised, generally. Don't get me wrong you get some awful ports sometimes but for the most part, I think PC games are pretty good at working well on older hardware, especially if you don't mind either cranking down the resolution or settling with some settings at low or medium.

edit: 8 years.

@tycobb said:

@video_game_king said:

And it...looks very similar to this generation, on top of that. Anybody else unable to see the difference between this gen and next?

I think they look better. It won't be until they find the best ways to optimize everything that it will look better. Shoot, just look at Perfect Dark for the 360. A horrendously shitty looking game and then look at GTA V. It's hard to believe they are on the same console.

Here's the video if no one wants to click the link.

Perfect Dark did look shit, but some 360 launch games looked good, such as Call of Duty 2 and Condemned. PDZ was sort of an anomaly, along with shit like Gun.

In the case of the Xbox One it seems everything is running at 720P. This isn't good news at all and does point to a problem.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#26 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -

@tycobb:

Not even that, though. It's more like the leap between generations. I can see a clear difference between a good looking Wii game and a good looking 360 game; I can't see much of a difference between a good looking 360 game and a good looking XBOne game.

Avatar image for nekroskop
#27 Posted by Nekroskop (2831 posts) -

Well, at least you can watch tv

Avatar image for cale
#28 Edited by CaLe (4759 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

And it...looks very similar to this generation, on top of that. Anybody else unable to see the difference between this gen and next?

inFamous Second Son and The Division look like next-gen to me. Hard to know whether The Division was running on an actual console though, but I suspect it might not have been.

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#29 Edited by gaminghooligan (1824 posts) -

This is why you wait a while if you can help it, launch games rarely live up to expectations. That being said, to see a game on new hardware drop to 16fps is utterly disappointing.

Avatar image for splodge
#30 Edited by Splodge (2456 posts) -

@tycobb:

Not even that, though. It's more like the leap between generations. I can see a clear difference between a good looking Wii game and a good looking 360 game; I can't see much of a difference between a good looking 360 game and a good looking XBOne game.

It will take a couple of years before they get the most out of the system. I hope that the games will look way better a few years down the line. The difference between ps3 launch games and the games at the end of the cycle is pretty immense. It's a learning curve for everyone.

Avatar image for sooty
#31 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

This is why you wait a while if you can help it, launch games rarely live up to expectations. That being said, to see a game on new hardware drop to 16fps is utterly disappointing.

That's the issue here, there's accepting that launch games are always worse, but to see them to run this bad and be 720P across the board is truly something else. Especially when the competing cheaper console is consistently doing better.

@splodge said:
@video_game_king said:

@tycobb:

Not even that, though. It's more like the leap between generations. I can see a clear difference between a good looking Wii game and a good looking 360 game; I can't see much of a difference between a good looking 360 game and a good looking XBOne game.

It will take a couple of years before they get the most out of the system. I hope that the games will look way better a few years down the line. The difference between ps3 launch games and the games at the end of the cycle is pretty immense. It's a learning curve for everyone.

Yes and no, kind of. PS3 games did often run worse, but they didn't run an entire resolution gap worse in the vast majority of cases. I think one example is that GTA IV ran at a lower resolution on PS3.

Usually the PS3 versions of games just ran a bit worse and had less anti-aliasing. That system also had less RAM available for its GPU, right? Something about RAM being tied up with the in-game XMB, I've forgotten.

Avatar image for slashdance
#32 Posted by SlashDance (1867 posts) -

I agree that 720p is embarrassing in this day and age, but let's not judge these consoles based on launch software.

Avatar image for sooty
#33 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@slashdance said:

I agree that 720p is embarrassing in this day and age, but let's not judge these consoles based on launch software.

We're not. The PS4 is doing all right, it's the Xbox One putting on a worrying display.

Even for launch games 720P is terrible, that's the point...it is 8 years since the 360 which did the same resolutions fine. (even at launch, the 360 did 720P)

Avatar image for mooseymcman
#34 Posted by MooseyMcMan (12573 posts) -

@sooty: I know an issue with PS3 RAM was that it was split into two 256 MB things, not one 512 MB thing like on 360. There may be other issues too, I dunno, but I think that was the (main) thing that led to the PS3 Skyrim issues.

Avatar image for slashdance
#35 Edited by SlashDance (1867 posts) -

@sooty: So did the PS3 at launch, and it was fine.

Also, Ryse doesn't look like a current gen game and seems to run fine for the most part.

Avatar image for extomar
#36 Posted by EXTomar (5047 posts) -

I don't know if it will be "the worst" but since everyone and everything is connected by social media far more than before things like this go under a very giant microscope. Everything is getting scrutinized and everything will be picked apart.

Avatar image for gaminghooligan
#37 Edited by gaminghooligan (1824 posts) -

@sooty said:

@gaminghooligan said:

This is why you wait a while if you can help it, launch games rarely live up to expectations. That being said, to see a game on new hardware drop to 16fps is utterly disappointing.

That's the issue here, there's accepting that launch games are always worse, but for them to run this bad and be 720P across the board is truly something else.

I just hope some of the other games run better. Down the line I bet Dead Rising 3 gets a PC port, probably not anytime soon but I can wait.

Avatar image for sooty
#38 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

@slashdance said:

@sooty: So did the PS3 at launch, and it was fine.

The PS3 is 7 years old. We're talking about a brand new console, that in 2013, is struggling with 720P out of the gate.

Kind of a big difference...

and again I point back to what I said earlier; I had a video card that is 7 years old but was capable of Crysis at 1920x1200 on high settings, how can the Xbox One not be putting out 1920x1080 (so lower resolution) in 2013? Really? This is acceptable for a $500 machine?

Avatar image for original_hank
#39 Edited by Original_Hank (263 posts) -

Maybe I'm not getting it but that looked totally playable. If there wasn't a frame counter in the corner how many people would really notice? Not to say that it isn't a problem, especially if they are advertising it as being "locked at 30." That's bullshit obviously, but to say this is a disaster or the worst launch or whatever seems like a bit much.

Avatar image for sooty
#40 Posted by Sooty (8193 posts) -

Maybe I'm not getting it but that looked totally playable. If there wasn't a frame counter in the corner how many people would really notice?

The difference between 60 and 30 FPS is very noticeable, but a locked 30 is perfectly fine, frame rate fluctuations, though, are horrible. Going back and forth from 30 to 20 and even as low as 16 would be very noticeable and feel like you're trying to play a game that your PC is simply outdated for.

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#42 Edited by ArtisanBreads (8670 posts) -

@sooty said:

@krullban said:

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system?

It's developer choice brah. NBA Nk14 is native 1080p 60 FPS on Xbox One. Dead Rising games are ALWAYS unoptimized as fuck.

Sports games are gonna be less demanding most likely though, being in a very confined arena setting and all.

We'll see. I don't want the Xbone to fail, but they are really doing an injustice to their price tag at the moment.

Sports games are not less demanding. The physics, animation, simulation, etc going on... plus the image quality that that game has? 2K14 looks absolutely incredible.

Take a breath.

Avatar image for sooty
#43 Posted by Sooty (8193 posts) -

Canceling at the Microsoft Store takes a while. Also calm down OP

Oh I am perfectly calm, don't get the wrong impression. I love all this controversial bullshit. I'd be saying the same if this was the PS4 so it's not a brand thing.

Avatar image for pr1mus
#44 Edited by pr1mus (4158 posts) -

Not surprising at all. I worked in QA on Dead Rising 2 and Blue Castle (now Capcom Vancouver) aren't exactly a top tier developer and this is a launch title. I guess they do the best they can.

They were in way over their head just trying to get DR2 working in what is a fraction of the open world they are creating this time around. They managed last time but DR2 was janky and sort of holding together with a lot of duct tape.

Avatar image for mosdl
#45 Posted by mosdl (3422 posts) -

I sure wish there was a digital foundry in the kameo/perfect dark days so you could understand how launch games are poorly optimized. You kow, kinda like PC games. I'm not buying an xbox one but that doesn't change the fact that games in 6 months or a year will run perfectly fine and look much better than they're ''suppose to'' on xbox one specs. That's how consoles work. Just look at GTA 5 and tell me 20fps in dead rising 3 is the best the xbox one can do.

PC games are not optimized? Been seeing that a lot lately and its such a lie.

@cale said:

inFamous Second Son and The Division look like next-gen to me. Hard to know whether The Division was running on an actual console though, but I suspect it might not have been.

Pretty sure Division was running on PC, just like Watch Dogs was when it was revealed.

Avatar image for slashdance
#46 Edited by SlashDance (1867 posts) -

@sooty: I don't know... I think the new consoles are about as disppointing as the PS3 was when it came out, considering what was promised at the time (1080p games, among other things). The games were still great in the end so I'm saying it doesn't matter that much, and probably not at all to a lot of console gamers.

If you think resolution and framerate are vitally important, play games on PC. Even if console games ran at 1080p/60hz, they will still look like crap in 2 or 3 years when a lot of us will be playing on 1440p or even 4K monitors on the PC. That's just how it is.

Avatar image for vinny_says
#47 Posted by Vinny_Says (5914 posts) -

This would bum me out a lot more if I hadn't already lived through this exact scenario before.

At the time the console wars were still ongoing and performance was pretty important, but maybe not as important as graphical fidelity. That game came out as an exclusive to the console and it ran like absolute garbage. I'm talking constant framerate dips into the 10-20 range, stuttering almost non-stop, screen tearing, all that stupid performance shit. It also had glitches and some poor gameplay mechanics in parts, but it did one thing unlike any other games before it. It wasn't the first to do it, but it did it so well it deserved all the praise it got at the time. Today nobody remembers just how poorly it ran and instead everybody remissness over how unique and ambitious it was, how the story elements were great and how the characters will live on forever in our collective memory.

It's easy to be pessimistic and blow off a game because it looks like garbage (maybe easier than coming up with such clever forum threads?), but it's so much more rewarding to be surprised by something you weren't expecting. I'm not saying DR3 might ever compare to the game I'm talking about, but I've been at this long enough to know that a game can't be defined by only one of its good or bad aspects.

Avatar image for mosdl
#48 Edited by mosdl (3422 posts) -

I sure wish there was a digital foundry in the kameo/perfect dark days so you could understand how launch games are poorly optimized. You kow, kinda like PC games. I'm not buying an xbox one but that doesn't change the fact that games in 6 months or a year will run perfectly fine and look much better than they're ''suppose to'' on xbox one specs. That's how consoles work. Just look at GTA 5 and tell me 20fps in dead rising 3 is the best the xbox one can do.

PC games are not optimized? Been seeing that a lot lately and its such a lie.

Sports games are not less demanding. The physics, animation, simulation, etc going on... plus the image quality that that game has? 2K14 looks absolutely incredible.

Take a breath.

Actually they are less demanding - 2K14 looks good using on board graphics cards on PCs, which is why they look so good on nex gen consoles - they have more memory to work with and thus better textures/animations without having to worry about streaming in the world/etc.

Avatar image for donpixel
#49 Edited by DonPixel (2837 posts) -

@sooty said:

Is this potentially the worst console launch in history? 8 years later, and games are running at 720P, the resolution every 360 game came out of the gate with. I just don't understand how this can happen, consumer level PC hardware has been capable of 1920x1200 for at least 7 years on individual video cards.

What on earth is going on with this system? This can't just a case of bad optimisation or not figuring the console out, it is simply poor, there is no good reason that the resolution bump from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is not possible. I don't even gain much FPS if I change games from 1080P down to 720P on PC games.

So much complaining and you still pre-ordering? maybe they know consumers will consume no matter what, because reasons.. .

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#50 Edited by ArtisanBreads (8670 posts) -

@mosdl said:
@artisanbreads said:

Sports games are not less demanding. The physics, animation, simulation, etc going on... plus the image quality that that game has? 2K14 looks absolutely incredible.

Take a breath.

Actually they are less demanding - 2K14 looks good using on board graphics cards on PCs, which is why they look so good on nex gen consoles - they have more memory to work with and thus better textures/animations without having to worry about streaming in the world/etc.

But yet the game looks fantastic... so what is the point? I'm not saying it isn't easier from a baseline to do what a sports game has done, but the end result is fantastic. And it runs 60 FPS and 1080p at launch of this console.