Why so few games in 1080p?

[Googenstien]

Here is something to read. 720p is the HD standard for TV.

http://reviews.cnet.com/hdtv-resolution/

Here is a quote:

True 1080p is restricted to Blu-ray, some video-on-demand sources and the latest video games, however, and none of the major networks has announced 1080p broadcasts.

 

[Delusibeta]

Because the current consoles aren't powerful enough.

Pretty much. You also have to factor in the amount of time developers spent optimising their code. If they just spit the code out, it's not going to run well, regardless of platform. Sadly, not many developers give a damn about optimising these days.

 

[Leg End]

Because consoles can't really handle resource demanding games in 1080p. Better to lower the resolution and have a smoother game than jack it up to 1080p and have it run like shite.

Hell, until 3 or so weeks ago, I use to game on an 11 inch Emerson in 480i. With Mono sound. Left speaker only. With a fucking VCR built in. That didn't work. While playing a foot away from the screen.

Now, I play on a 37 inch 1080p VIZIO. Happy with it, have seen tiny little details in games I have not seen before. Able to tell in Bro Company 2 that the objective says A, B, C and D. But, if it randomly exploded on me, I would proudly go back to my old TV. I grew up on small screens. It is a part of the gaming legacy.

Whatever happened to enjoying the game? ;~;

Why would you assume that just because we may care about the visuals in a game, we DON'T care about the gameplay? There's nothing wrong with wanting or expecting both to be well-designed.

Yup...

<.<

When it comes at the cost of performance, I'd rather have the graphics take a shit. <.<

No doubt, but that's not something you normally have to worry about. Especially not on consoles.

<.<

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. What's the point of buying a standardized platform if you don't get generally favorable and stable frame rates? I've never had unacceptably low frame rates on my Xbox 360 running at the highest resolutions that these games support, but that's because developers know to drop the quality settings to a level it can handle.

Then again, I've never played games like Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, or Metro 2033 on my console either...those I always reserve for the PC.

So I don't have to spend money to upgrade my rig every 3-5 years and just desire to play a game?

Define "unacceptably" low. Are we talking extreme stutter or "Holy Shit, is this game even running?"?

I reserve those for consoles. When I get them, that is.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I don't mind consoles at all, convenient things they are.
It's just a fact that when games are developed for a console, they're just going to be limited in some way.

Some games are pure genius in the way they tackle their limitations, and turn out amazing.
For other games, however ... for the sake of performance you can often end up playing in a cardboard box.
Yes, call of duty, I'm talking to you.
Now, if the devs already decided that tiny maps and a relatively small # of maximum players are acceptable sacrifices to make, going 1080p is downright idiotic.

Battlefield 3 is going to have a 64 player limit on PC .. and a 24 player limit on consoles.
Why? Because they can. They want a battlefield ... so ... their grand vision requires development for PC.
Sure, if you just want to run around and shoot people, the console versions are fine.
(Actually, I have concerns about 64 player battles actually working with any semblance of order .. and small battles might provide the better gaming experience .. especially if your PC can't actually handle the bigger map, but it's nice to have options, y'know?)

Also, load times.
I hate the ridiculous load times for consoles.
My PC is well ventilated and has nice power saving features, so ... I never turn it off.
I get upset if any game ever takes more than 10 seconds to load.
10 seconds.
(Fuck you Civilization 5, you poorly coded piece of garbage, never mind load times, 30+ seconds per turn is retarded. I'm not playing you again until I build my 5GHz Ivy Bridge in November)

 

[Cronq]

Face it, 5-6 year old hardware sucks. It's time for Sony/MS/Nintendo to get off their butts and develop some modern hardware. The whole argument slips farther towards PC's every quarter that goes by.

 

[Leg End]

Face it, 5-6 year old hardware sucks. It's time for Sony/MS/Nintendo to get off their butts and develop some modern hardware. The whole argument slips farther towards PC's every quarter that goes by.

Which will be outdated in less than a month.

Modern is never really "modern". Hell, I'm fine with playing on outdated hardware. I'm playing my NES on my 37 inch.

Will always be modern to me.

 

[MrTub]

I play games in 1920x1200, fuck 1080p.

I play games in 5760x1080, fuck 1920x1080 idd

 

[octafish]

Face it, 5-6 year old hardware sucks. It's time for Sony/MS/Nintendo to get off their butts and develop some modern hardware. The whole argument slips farther towards PC's every quarter that goes by.

Which will be outdated in less than a month.

Modern is never really "modern". Hell, I'm fine with playing on outdated hardware. I'm playing my NES on my 37 inch.

Will always be modern to me.

If the GPU is capable of doing what you want it to do, why would it become outdated? I guess all consoles were outdated in less than a month after their release?

 

[MrTub]

Face it, 5-6 year old hardware sucks. It's time for Sony/MS/Nintendo to get off their butts and develop some modern hardware. The whole argument slips farther towards PC's every quarter that goes by.

Which will be outdated in less than a month.

Modern is never really "modern". Hell, I'm fine with playing on outdated hardware. I'm playing my NES on my 37 inch.

Will always be modern to me.

If the GPU is capable of doing what you want it to do, why would it become outdated? I guess all consoles were outdated in less than a month after their release?

All consoles were outdated even before they started being sold.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I play games in 1920x1200, fuck 1080p.

I play games in 5760x1080, fuck 1920x1080 idd

Wait .. is that the new surround screen?
I wanted one of those.

 

[Conza]

1080p is a good cap we have at the moment, and I'm not sure how many new caps will be introduced as 'the' standard, eg. the new Full High Definition, or when 720p and 1080i will become standard (low high defintion... low definition, any better than just rebranded as, standard definition).

The biggest issue here, my house is a classic example. I have a 720p projector, all the channels are in 720p (or 1080i, I know), but excluding blu-ray movies and some games, there's not much push for me to upgrade my projector, so I don't. It'll be great once the networks jump up a size, but I think that won't be until something jumps past 1080p.

 

[schrodingerscat]

I used to be a PC enthusiast, but I got sick of always tinkering with graphics settings just to play a game. Sometimes it would take half an hour before I could get a frame rate decent enough to play on. On the Ps3 however, I just put the game in, lie down on my comfy bed (as opposed to sitting down and craning over a monitor) and play until my eyes bleed.

 

[thespanner]

I would imagine that the majority of console users aren't quite as obsessive over resolution as PC gamers are;

1) Do they know any better (that is, how many console gamers have tried gaming at 1080 on a capable PC so that they have a point of comparison)?

2) All other things being equal, a HD TV screen will typically look better than a comparable monitor (as you would expect; they're typically several times more expensive and much better quality). This goes some way to compensate for the deficiencies of the consoles.

 

[thespanner]

PC gaming is expensive and is always advancing and to be truly good at keeping up you have to be an enthusiast.

Not true. A good quality PC gaming experience can be had pretty cheaply these days. For example, each quarter Tom's Hardware builds and tests a PC at various different price points. The most recent one they built for $US 500 delivers very good performance with results that comfortably outstrip the consoles. The picture is even better if you are simply upgrading an existing PC. Graphics hardware has never been better value than it is today.

The actual games are also typically cheaper on PC than on the consoles.

Also don't forget the cost of the big TV screen you connect your console to. Yes, you can use it for other things, but a PC can be used for all sorts of things too.

 

[Leg End]

Because consoles can't really handle resource demanding games in 1080p. Better to lower the resolution and have a smoother game than jack it up to 1080p and have it run like shite.

Hell, until 3 or so weeks ago, I use to game on an 11 inch Emerson in 480i. With Mono sound. Left speaker only. With a fucking VCR built in. That didn't work. While playing a foot away from the screen.

Now, I play on a 37 inch 1080p VIZIO. Happy with it, have seen tiny little details in games I have not seen before. Able to tell in Bro Company 2 that the objective says A, B, C and D. But, if it randomly exploded on me, I would proudly go back to my old TV. I grew up on small screens. It is a part of the gaming legacy.

Whatever happened to enjoying the game? ;~;

Why would you assume that just because we may care about the visuals in a game, we DON'T care about the gameplay? There's nothing wrong with wanting or expecting both to be well-designed.

Yup...

<.<

When it comes at the cost of performance, I'd rather have the graphics take a shit. <.<

No doubt, but that's not something you normally have to worry about. Especially not on consoles.

<.<

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. What's the point of buying a standardized platform if you don't get generally favorable and stable frame rates? I've never had unacceptably low frame rates on my Xbox 360 running at the highest resolutions that these games support, but that's because developers know to drop the quality settings to a level it can handle.

Then again, I've never played games like Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, or Metro 2033 on my console either...those I always reserve for the PC.

So I don't have to spend money to upgrade my rig every 3-5 years and just desire to play a game?

Define "unacceptably" low. Are we talking extreme stutter or "Holy Shit, is this game even running?"?

I reserve those for consoles. When I get them, that is.

Well I wouldn't say that your first comment is necessarily true, as the console turnover rate prior to this generation has generally been about three years. So it's actually quite possible to outlive a console's usefulness prior to needing an upgrade on your PC.

Below 35 FPS or so is fairly noticeable to me.

Which will be outdated in less than a month.

Modern is never really "modern". Hell, I'm fine with playing on outdated hardware. I'm playing my NES on my 37 inch.

Will always be modern to me.

And if you're going to give credit to older games, that goes both ways. Buy a single PC and you can play anything from the very beginning of gaming's history. Have a PS3 and want to play SNES games? Too bad, you'll have to buy an extra console. The prices of which only increase as they get older. And even if you do get your hands on one, good luck finding good games for it at anything less than $150.

Anything below 5fps is noticeable to me.

I prefer to have physical copies of my games and to play them on their original system. Plus, I can still find said games no matter the price.

Even if they are the Cardcaptor Sakura games and will run me $500 total. >.>

 

[RA92]

When it comes at the cost of performance, I'd rather have the graphics take a shit. <.<

Hmmm... I still haven't replaced my 3 year old ATI 4350 GPU which I got new for about $50. I've to run everything at 800x600 these days so that it doesn't lag. I'm having a personal bet with myself about how long this bastard is going to last. Very possibly till the end of this year... &nbsp

Yes. Poor PC gamers with budget PCs do exist.

 

[TelHybrid]

Because consoles struggle to render at that resolution, outdated hardware and such.

Yes the 360 runs 1080p, but that's up-scaling.

You can either be a graphics whore, or a console gamer, not both.

 

[leady129]

I was told the other day that when a PS3 is fed a disk which has 1080, 720 and below, it will often default to 720 even if the box states that 1080 is available. Apparently, a way around this is to adjust the display settings on your PS3 so that ONLY 1080 is ticked when you're given the option between the various resolutions.

I haven't had the chance to confirm or deny this yet and if it is true, I'm not entirely sure what would happen if you changed the settings and then put a disk which only offers a max of 720 in the console.