Does 900p vs. 1080p Really Matter? - Podcast Unlocked

Thief is the latest game to ship in a lower resolution on Xbox One than PS4. How much does it matter?

[GribbleGrunger]

If you are on the market to play games and you prefer multiplatform games, then yes, of course it matters because it shows you you're getting value for your money with the PS4. If you have already got an X1 then, no, it doesn't really matter.

[Thatguy-310]

The problem with this fiasco isn't much about the resolution itself. I think it has more to do with how the console is priced higher and it cant even achieve what a cheaper product achieves at a 400$ price tag. God how I hate Ryan and Mitch lol something about them doesn't sit right with me. I'll take Collin's and Greg's podcast over this one any day.

[SCW1982]

Mitch is alright kind of a goober, but it absolutely floors me that Ryan still has a job as a game journalist. He is the worst in the business and such a fanboy. Halo 4 9.8. Yeah right whatever helps you sleep Ryan.

[Eonjay]

Seven years ago, Larry Hryb started writing articles on his blog to show how the Xbox 360 had "provable more power" and how this power would make gaming better. So if power mattered then, it matters now. Feel free to browse the halls of the Lens of Truth. It matters because Xbox One isn't the only option.

I can tell the difference on my 47 inch TV so Ryan's assertions are nothing more than misinformation. They are right though that if you have both systems, there is no tangible reason not to get the PS4 version of every game.

The new SDK wont make the Xbox a PS4 but it should in theory allow them to get better optimizations with less work. I can't imagine that the current SDK is so inefficient that it reduces resolution 60%+ though but developers are say it is/was pretty trashy.

[Automatic79]

I think most will continue to go on about resolution until it changes and Xbox One displays 1080p then the conversation will be about price, then games. Personally I like a discussion re: games since this is a gaming site. How times have changed.

Note: game talk meaning actual game play and experiences not resolutions.

[scott182]

It matters to people who game in 1080p and it doesn't to the people that don't...

[Oh_Yeah]

Yeah...if I were Microsoft I'd ditch the whole bundling kinect idea, sell it separate and lower the console price down to 350 with a year of live. BOOM. Oh and get some actual 1st party studios instead of being a leach, making us wait for the inevitable sequel/ better version to show up elsewhere. I know what the gamer wants, why don't they? Their pricing shows they don't get it at all and that's why I don't bother with their products, pure ignorance, they are sucky listeners, the only reason I have windows on my computer is basically because it's a monopoly and it's forced to have complete gaming compatability. If steamOS ever gets rolling...bye bye Microsoft. I'll never touch another one of your products again.

[TomShoe]

I'm not sure what people were expecting them to say. This is an XBOX podcast. Of course they were going to emphasize their strengths and downplay their weaknesses.

[MysticStrummer]

@Lito - I guess you don't remember the fun times 360 fans had on here last gen over small differences in resolution and frame rate. The same goes for sales. Now suddenly those things can't be mentioned. Times changed last gen.

[CJDUNCAN]

The consoles are priced the same except for the kinect add-on. If Xbox One never has a game that does 1080p in its life-cycle then we can officially say it was a bum of a machine.

I think resolution is being blown out of proportion especially considering how nice of a game Ryse is visually.

The PS4 is a great gaming machine without a doubt, and the devs are obviously more comfortable with its architecture, but I think the X1 is being dismissed unfairly by a lot of people that don't even have one.

To see it in videos is one thing, to see it in person is totally different.

Then again I don't care for all the tech talk to begin with, just give me a great gaming experience and I'm cool.

[CJDUNCAN]

Also isn't 1080p outdated now thanks to 4k? So if we really want a resolution war it seems both machines lose out.

[DragonKnight]

Without watching the podcast, I can safely assume that the answer to the question they asked, from their perspective, is "no."

How could I know that? Simple. Whenever an article asks the question like "does it really matter" then it means they are taking the opposing side. In this case, because the Xbox One is being trounced, they are on its side and their answer is "no, it doesn't matter."

However I would bet that if the Xbox One was doing the trouncing, this article's title would be "900p vs 1080p, why it matters" and would then proceed to extol the power of the Xbone over the PS4.

[whybag]

I've heard people complain that IGN is too Sony-fanboyish, but Colin and Greg will bitch and moan about things they don't like in a game or feature. Leading up to the X1 launch, Ryan sucked off so much XBox wang he had green flowing out of his eyes.

[Giul_Xainx]

PS4 is leading the way for 1080p this gen so far.

I have a monitor that is just barely 23 inches. But it can produce up to a 1440p resolution.

When I play games I can see in the farthest corner of the map and aim properly with my sniper rifle. Anything smaller and the pixels seem to melt into one another. I am highly accurate with just my pistol in The last of us, and I have no trouble sniping in battlefield 4. I sit just 1 to 2.5 feet away from this gorgeous led monitor. I will never go back to anything less than 1080p when it comes to shooters.

And seriously if devs complain about the es ram.... PS3 was much harder to develop for.

[nukeitall]

Resolution is blown out of proportion when the Xbox 360 had the highest resolution of consoles. Back then, "power" had more sway, and as each generation passes the "power" becomes less and less important, because of diminishing returns.

We just had 10x jump in power and frankly, the difference between last generation and current generation is harder to tell. Games won't drastically be different either.

By all accounts, consoles at launch to PC power ratio is likely the biggest it has ever been.

I think, the focus should be on things that really matter, which is controller input (do we really want to still play on controller forever, like phones never moved on to touch?), and the cloud. Doesn't matter how pretty resolution is, when you are lagging out.

Cloud with dedicated server and low ping time like this on Titanfalls is what next generation is about, me thinks:

http://www.reddit.com/r/xbo...

Graphics is on PC if you want that, and the only time it matters is when there are frame rate issues, or you have to option to choose and don't have a preference.

Unless it is, side by side, most people cannot tell even up close!

[AndrewLB]

Sounds like you just described the PS3 and how it was considerably more expensive and performed worse than 360. It's funny how so many people who did nothing but complain about the PS3 bashing and how they were "above" such petty attacks... come back now and are nothing but hypocrites. And then you b*tch when someone posts news that says anything even slightly negative about the PS4. lol.

Trolling would be someone posting up ANOTHER article about Xbone not being able to do 1080p. I think everyone understands this after 50+ articles on this site alone.

[Kribwalker]

The only reason the xbox one is 100 more is the kinect. There should be no argument about $100 more for weaker console. I had to replace my kinect and for the express replace option they charged me a $150 deposit. So that's to say without the kinect it could be $349. Yes they don't use it enough yet, and though some things are cool with it, some people could do without it, but they chose to include it at $499. But you are paying that price for the console and peripheral, not $499 just for the console.

[DatNJDom81]

Resolution mattered last gen when 360 was on top of PS3. Why shouldn't it matter now? The answer is yes it does matter. With better graphics you are more immersed into what is going on in the game. I do agree that its not the most important thing and you can still have a blast with fun gameplay. However, if your machine can do it, why not flaunt it?

[CYCLEGAMER]

Well the difference is that you are not getting a top of the line sensor with the ps4, its not like the xbox is being sold without kinect at $500.

[dantesparda]

Hell yeah it matters!!!

If i didnt care then I'd get a X1, lol!
I'll take higher res over lower res anyday. This is just more phony MS fanboy whining and downplaying. Its getting really pathetic now.

[starchild]

So basically it's similar to how the more expensive $599 PS3 performed worse on multiplatform games than the cheaper $399 Xbox 360.

[starchild]

It really does matter.

I just can't take any of you console fanboys seriously because all I heard from you for the past ten years is how resolution isn't important and games on PC aren't any better just because they have higher resolutions and framerate.

I would literally bet my life that if the PS4 and XB1 were identical in power and were both only outputting at 900p we wouldn't hear almost anything about resolution or "how important" it is. We would get the usual downplaying of PC gaming's superior resolutions.

In fact we still see almost nothing but console fanboys downplaying the resolutions higher than 1080p that PC gaming can offer. But next generation if the PS5 and next Xbox can do some of those resolutions suddenly they will be ultra important. lol It's all so laughable.

Yes, resolution and framerate matters to me. That's why I game on PC.

[starchild]

All other things being equal of course you would get the one with higher resolutions. But all things are NOT equal. Each console has different games, features, services, communities, controllers and so on.

If resolution and graphics in general were the most important considerations the PC would be the obvious choice.

The PC is my preferred gaming platform, but not only because of the better graphics and performance. The games, control choices, mods, cheaper games, free online, friends and communities on PC also weigh heavily in my preference.

People have similar considerations when deciding which console(s) to buy as well. It doesn't just come down to a simple price-to-graphical performace conclusion the way a lot of fanboys want to pretend.

[ABizzel1]

This is the most BS I've read from IGN in a while.

1080p is superior no matter how you try to spin it. I agree that it shouldn't be as big of a deal, but for the average consumer if you're looking for which console plays your games the best then it makes sense to get the PS4.

You guys were one of the main sites posting the PS3 vs 360 differences in resolution and framerate, and even had "Head-to-Head" sections comparing the two, and giving higher review scores to the 360 version because of better resolution or framerate, AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN at the time.

***LMAO a lot of their links are broken to older games, but thanks to Metacritic they can't hide.***

Madden 08 360 (8.7, 60fps)
http://www.ign.com/games/ma...
Madden 08 PS3 (7.7, 30fps)
http://www.ign.com/articles... 08 360

The Orange Box 360 (9.5)
http://www.ign.com/articles...
The Orange Box PS3 (8.4; load times, and framerate)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

NHL 08 360 (8.9, 60fps)
http://www.ign.com/games/nh...
NHL 08 PS3 (8.6, 30fps)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

The Darkness 360 (7.8)
http://www.ign.com/games/th...
The Darkness PS3 (7.7 anti aliasing, framerate drops)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

Call of Duty 3 360 (8.8)
http://www.ign.com/articles...
Call of Duty 3 PS3 (7.8, washed out graphics, inconsistent framerate)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

And that's just in the first year, now let's look at current games.

Tomb Raider PS4 (9.1, runs 1080p unlocked framreate up to 60fps)
Tomb Raider XBO (9.1, 900p - 1080p, 30 fps)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

Call of Duty Ghost PS4 (8.8, runs 1080p native)
Call of Duty Ghost XBO (8.8, runs 720p native upscales to 1080)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

Assassin's Creed 4: BF PS4 (8.5, 1080p)
Assassin's Creed 4: BF XBO (8.5, 900p)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

Battlefield 4 PS4 (8.5, 900p @ 60fps)
Battlefield 4 XBO (8.5, 720p @ 60fps, more and larger frame drops)
http://www.ign.com/articles...

So now it doesn't make a difference. HYPOCRITES.

[MysticStrummer]

"We just had 10x jump in power and frankly, the difference between last generation and current generation is harder to tell."

But the difference between the platforms is easier to tell.

[Irishguy95]

If you call Pay 2 Play value for money sure.

dboy...
500 -> X1, kinect, headset, pad
400 -> Ps4, headset, pad

That argument is just not true. The only possible way you can say the Ps4 is more value for money than X1 is if you believe Kinect is not worth the extra money. The Ps4 is not 'cheaper' than the X1. Kinect simply costs 100+. If you are buying an X1 you are forced to pay this extra 100+ for kinect

Now, value itself is subjective. Seeing as Ps3 was in exactly the same position last gen with a blu ray disk drive which definitely wasn't needed last gen. It was just a bonus that stopped you from needing more than 1 disk. Again, subjectively you can say the blu ray was worth it. You were literally paying 200+(230 for me) more for uncompressed graphics and audio, which is negligible improvement over compressed graphics and Audio. There wasn't even a resolution/fps increase for that extra 230 dollars.

[KonsoruMasuta]

A blue-ray drive isn't a peripheral. Therefore it's nothing like Kinect.

Try again.

[DragonKnight]

The PS4 is definitely more value for money than the X1. That isn't questionable. With the PS4 you're paying $400, getting superior multiplatform games, access to Sony's first party games which we already know are going to be great, not a single free app is locked behind a paywall, and then there's PS+ PS+ by itself already proves the point with early access demos, betas, discounts on new games, sales, and free games that have been as old as 6 months before.

PS+ is also not required for all games.

Then there's the fact that you aren't being forced to pay for a peripheral you'll likely not use or likely don't want to have to pay for. And that's valuable too.

So yes, you can mathematically prove that the PS4 is more value for money than X1.

[cyclindk]

And HD optical video playback out of the box... (PS3) I won't bother going into detail debunking the asinine statement about the relevance of the inclusion of a blu-ray drive last gen.

X1 WITHOUT Kinect STILL doesn't match the PS4 price as the PS4's base hardware is more advanced/costly as well (if we compare to PC specs and such).

You'd be paying say 400 for something that STILL wouldn't be a match technically. X1 for what you get - Kinect should be priced at about 300.00.

[Why o why]

'blu ray disk drive which definitely wasn't needed last gen.....'

Did you really say that. Common falacy people tend to use to make a point against something is by using the words 'need', 'needed'. They shy away from notions of that same thing being 'useful', 'helpful' or that it makes something 'better' or 'progressive'.

Nobody 'needs' steak or fine cognac irish.....

Blu ray has proved itself beyond compare to kinect as of now nor was it the only component that made the ps3 so expensive. Either way its no surprise its the defacto media for gaming this gen.

As for these ign cheerleaders, they're entitled to their opinion no matter how slanted or disingenuous I believe it to be. Nothing more than damage control. It's things like this that keep the vicious circle going. Proof will continually get pushed in the faces of those who deflect and deceive.

https://yourlogicalfallacyi...

[ChickenOfTheCaveMan]

Blu ray was much needed and it wasn't an add-on.
It wasn't like that super nice HD DVD add-on for only 199$ ;)

[jackanderson1985]

resolution on multiplats should only be the decider in SP games.... for multiplayer games surely where the people you game with should be the decider... like say BF4 it's better resolution on the PS4 but my mates all decided to get it on the X1 so i got it on the X1 aswell... thief and MGS are SP games and I'll likely get them on the PS4 (MGS will always be a sony exclusive to me) but considering thief on the X1

resolution differences on a 32" tv from 7 foot away makes no difference at all unless it goes sub 720p so resolution will never make a decision for me

[maniacmayhem]

As long as the games play exactly the same and look just as good then it all comes down to matter of choice. Do you prefer Sony's offering, MS's or Nintendo's.

The games and how fun they are is all that should matter.

[Hicken]

But if one's in 900p, and one's in 1080p, they don't look "just as good." If the game plays the same and costs the same, but one looks better, wouldn't you want the better-looking one? And if the better looking one is frequently available on the same console, doesn't it make sense to buy that console?

[maniacmayhem]

No it doesn't because one system might not offer certain features or games that I would like down the road or are available right now.

And the honest truth is there isn't a huge noticeable gap difference between 900p and 1080pp like a lot of folks are pretending it is.

So no it does not make sense to JUST buy a console because games might look a tad bit better.

If that was the case then you and others would have been die hard PC fans since from the beginning since all the multiplats could have been 1080p/60fps. Doesn't that make sense?

[GameSpawn]

Manic, I hate to argue against you, but I have to side with Hicken on the look argument.

I agree with you about the fact that games and how fun they are should be all that matters (that would be a hell of a utopia if it truly existed). Hell, I even tell people who are torn between systems:
Which has more games you'd "sell your left nut for"? (it's a common idiom - not being sexist - look it up)
That is the system for you - regardless of resolutions, specs, online services, etc.

Where I agree with Hicken is in that if you do have both systems and are given a choice with a multiplatform game - it would be a given to go with the version that runs better and/or at a higher "native" resolution to not feel cheated out of a complete experience.

Yes, some games it may not be as noticeable as others, BUT in the case of Metal Gear I was floored at the difference between the PS4 and XB1. Adaptive weather vs static skies (on top of the resolution) are BIG differences that have a major impact on the amount of immersion you get out of either version.

If you don't have both/multiple consoles, then yes who cares about the minor differences or that you might miss out on a few things. At least (because the game is multiplatform) you are not missing out on the entire game. For example, I'm pretty sure that Xbox-only owners aren't getting their panties in a complete wad that they couldn't play the Aveline content for AC4 - they may have been a little bummed, but it didn't stop them from enjoying the rest of the game (it's only 1-2 hours of content anyway - a mere pittance to the rest of the game).

[sAVAge_bEaST]

Graphics, Gameplay, and Control's,, -ARE ALL EQUAL. TO THE HOLY TRINITY OF GAMING..

So stop with the damage control..

They mattered on the Nes, Snes, N64, Ps,Ps2, Ps360, and now.

I want all the pixels' to fill my screen, to have the sharpest picture, to see a camper across the map, with clarity, and then shoot him.

[SilentNegotiator]

"And the honest truth is there isn't a huge noticeable gap difference between 900p and 1080pp like a lot of folks are pretending it is"

If you're wearing 900p MS gaming goggles.

[maniacmayhem]

@Gamespawn

But Hicken ISN'T talking about owning both consoles and the question asked doesn't take into account already owning both.

Again I have to wonder why this res/framerate topic wasn't an issue last gen.

As I have stated before the PC could always output 1080p and play games at 60fps and the fans and fanboys here always told the PC crowd to shut up and that only gameplay and exclusives mattered.

I always agreed with gameplay and exclusives should come first. But now it seems goalposts are being moved and main interests are being changed ONLY because now the PS4 has the current advantage.

[Why o why]

'I always agreed with gameplay and exclusives should come first. But now it seems goalposts are being moved and main interests are being changed ONLY because now the PS4 has the current advantage.'

Are you kidding me.....goalpost change...you've actually been on this site for years and you speak that crap. Go back to lens of truth and digital foundry articles then tell us about whos doing all the goalpost shifting. You lost a lot of credibility with that bs. Where did ANYBODY say gameplay or exclusives dont matter or are less important..... that was the 360 camp last third last gen incase you bumped your head.

I didnt see you then telling people not to champion the minor differences on multiplats so what are you doing now other than being hypocritical. I cant believe I didn't read your fraff yesterday when you typed it.

[JsonHenry]

It matter if you have a choice. And you do. However, I will say that if you are THAT worried by the difference then you should be playing on a PC where the highest native resolutions are available.

Other than that shut up about it and play on the console you choose. If you really cared that much about graphics fidelity you wouldn't have bought the console in the first place.

[cyclindk]

Nothing to do with being "that" worried... like a two second decision, "oh this one performs better at higher specs? I pick that one."

Done deal

Other than that, shut up and play on the console/PC you choose.

[beerzombie]

If you have a choice and you have already chosen why do you care. And the Kinect is part of the echo system not an ad on like the PS camera.

[deviouslight]

Ign takes an L for this.

[rafaman]

another article staitng ryse is the best

[ITPython]

lol, they said you can't even notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on 50" or less? Perhaps that would be the case if you are standing 50 feet away from the TV. But it really matters if you sit close to your TV, which so many of us probably do when gaming. Personally I sit about 3 ft away from my TV when gaming, and I find it infuriating that these guys keep spreading this misinformation about how it doesn't matter unless you have a certain size TV. Its all about how FAR you are from that TV.

Saying it isn't noticeable is as stupid as saying "If your computer monitor is less than 50", you won't know the difference between 720p and 1080p". I dunno about you guys, but when a few million pixels are added, or taken away, to a screen I sit really close to, I can easily tell.

[MGS_fanatico_]

If minor differences such as Red Dead Redemption being 640p on PS3 and 720p on X360 mattered...

http://www.thesixthaxis.com...

Why the F*CK shouldn't GREATER differences (720p/1080p ~ 900p/1080p) be noteworthy this generation?!
They're trying to brush off the FACT that a 400 $ machine is vastly outperforming its less impressive (100 $ more expensive) competition.
The hypocrisy from these so called "journalists" is outrageous! Well, now that the tables have turned - How do you like them apples?

[dale_denton]

lol they let the two biggest xbox fanboys debate this? really?

[mcarsehat]

sorry but that statement doesn't make any sense.

yes if you have a ps4, no if you have an xbox one?

The people with the x1's are the only people that these stories are related to. and it doesn't matter because the gameplay is not affected.

[sinspirit]

Seriously? They said the eye can't perceive a difference between 720p and 1080p below 50 inches. That is the biggest lie/misinformation I have ever heard about this topic. I see clear difference on my 17.3 inch laptop screen from 720p to 900p.

If the bosses knew crap about the tech and game industry then they wouldn't release this crap or let there employees spread this BS.

[LuaMaster]

If Microsoft's main US Xbox marketing website, IGN, is doing damage control podcasts about it, then yes it obviously matters very much.

[FarEastOrient]

Podcast Beyond and crew would say otherwise.

[eferreira]

podcast beyond would complain until it's fixed. They are honest and admit the faults of the system. If you ever listened to them you would know.

Ryan is very biased towards MS. Mitch is a yes man to Ryan and Arthur Giese.

[majiebeast]

Have you seen podcast beyond? They rag on Sony all the time just this week they criticized the order.

[DA_SHREDDER]

no

[Kayant]

Mitch Dyer

"The naked eye can not perceive a difference between 1080 and 720 before 50 inches" - Wat????? Holy shit...

I guess my eyes has been deceiving me all this time even though I can spot the difference easily on my laptop screen that isn't even native res yet alone talking about my Tv.Really that is biggest BS i have heard in a while.

The conversion was actually going well until the BS statement above.

[Vegamyster]

Same, going from a laptop with 15.6 inch 1366x768 screen to 15.6 inch 1920x1080 screen is so much crisper and the same goes for the games.

[morganfell]

Apparently this clown is completely blind. He cannot tell the difference? Really? And people wonder why I attack these opinionists that are constantly shooting off their worthless mouths and damaging the industry. There is leaning one way and then there is being a shill when evidence is punching you in the face. Now you are not only a shill but you are also insulting people by thinking they are stupid enough to agree with you. At the end of the day, he is the one that comes off as stupid.

And ask people that snipe at long ranges in games if they can tell the difference in 1080p/720p.

[ITPython]

IGN is a lot like Gamestop, they just can't let go of last gen. Although I'm sure money has a bit to do with that.

[CernaML]

Just like how you cant notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps. lol

[caseh]

Mitch Dyer has a point although it's pretty inaccurate. Viewing distance is the factor when TV sizes make 720/1080 irrelevant. Sitting to close/far away will affect the quality more than most realise.

[Kayant]

He would have true if he actually decided to think before making such claims let alone researching first. Yh if he decided to add viewing distance then he would have had a better case because then it actually depends on the size of the screen which makes sense. I mean it's only common sense you don't need even need research to know that apart from getting to right numbers.

It's just the very fact that they all agreed and shrugged the difference off based on what he said without thinking. Then on twitter he defended himself by saying this --> "If the resolution thing is wrong, I'm wrong. Not a big deal. I really don't care. I'm saying find something to care about that isn't 1080p"
https://twitter.com/MitchyD...

Really now so him and the rest of the crew on that podcast tried to pass something that is completely wrong as fact without research when they are supposed to be *professional game journalists*. I mean the podcast is not even live so the fact this was even let out was an massive over site and reflects poorly on IGN. It just shows their ignorance and incompetence as a so called professional gaming website.

"Internet exploding at me because I said naked eye can't differentiate 720p from 1080p before 50". Shrug. Thing I was told. Relax. <3"

[whybag]

That part caught my attention as well, somebody should bring up the BF4 screen comparos before launch where the X1 power lines looked like crap, among other things.

[Makroyale]

That was the most unintelligent conversation I have ever heard supposed journalists have.

[Riderz1337]

I love how he even states it as if it is a fact. He doesn't say "I can not perceive a difference..." but he says "The naked eye can not perceive a difference..."

So if I can see a difference does that make me a liar? Since the "Naked eye" shouldn't be able to see a difference.

So much ignorance...smh

[Inception]

Video game journalist is a joke this day. We can't trust them to bring us actual fact :(

[AstroCyborg]

especially ign thats why you should never trust reviews as well

[bsmith61]

Why don't you go into a game's settings during gameplay and change the resolution from 900p to 1080p, the difference will be noticeable. If PC has been playing 1440p games for years now, consoles should too.

[e-p-ayeaH]

900p on a 500$ console isnt acceptable.

[Software_Lover]

But people were fine with 720p and below on a 600.00 console last gen?

EDIT: I was just showing that you can't use that as an argument. I agree that the more expensive machine should perform better, but price alone isn't the sole determining factor when it comes to game consoles.

I do agree that the XBone should be cheaper.

@below................... we're doing half decades now? Just say 7 years ago.

[Chard]

Maybe people were 'fine' with 720p last gen, but they would have preferred 1080p. Plus those consoles launched more than half a decade ago, and HDTV was still relatively new.
Terrible argument.

[eferreira]

umm 1080p was a lot harder to accomplish back then with weaker hardware. That statement is pretty ridiculous.

[ITPython]

@Software - If the PS3 was $600 today I would agree, but you can't use a comparison to a console launched 7 years ago to a console launching today. Technology doesn't stagnate, it grows exponentially while at the same time getting cheaper. Back then, 720p TV's were starting to boom, while 1080p was still reserved for only those willing to fork out the big bucks. These days you can get a 1080p HDTV/monitor for $200 or less, and is in fact the norm.

Just look at HDD's. A little while back getting a GB HDD would have cost $1,000's. While today you can buy a GB thumb drive for like $3.

You absolutely cannot compare old-tech and how much it cost to today's tech and how much it costs. But you can compare current tech with current tech. 1080p is the standard right now, and 4k is like 1080p when the PS3 launched. And 720p back then was the 1080p now.

[Megaton]

You can't really be that stupid, can you? You should be on the podcast next time.

[Software_Lover]

In pc world, no. People play the games at the best resolution for them. On the flipside, they also buy GPU's that are in their price range.

I'm all for Microsoft. I prefer their console to Sony's, but their price has to reflect performance. They should drop Kinect, and price the XBone at 350.

People will still not STFU but it will help their cause. When the ps3 was at 600.00 and we didn't see hundreds of dollars difference in games, even at the end of the generation (IMHO), they were forced to drop the price.

[KonsoruMasuta]

You did see differences. 360 exclusive never came close to PS3 exclusives in the battle of visuals. The Last of Us alone looks better than any 360 exclusive out there.

[Blacklash93]

Of course there's a difference. 720p looks perfecctly fine, but the improvment to 900p or 1080p is very plain to see.

But I do wonder. Is it possible that there will be a day where resolution reaches a plateau?

[Software_Lover]

Probably not. It's a way for companies to sell a product. Kind of like "Retina Display". The good thing about resolution bumps is less AA will be needed which frees up some power.

Me personally, I would be fine with 4k for a long time.

[cyclindk]

Agree/Disagree

I think for me, the plateau is around the 1080p resolution.

Of course this is all relative, that is, to dimensions of the respective screen you are viewing media on. Phones and tablets, average size televisions, have really gotten to the point where more (for the current price of 4K) isn't as necessary, or even nearly as noticeable an improvement over 480i to 1080p...

There was an article way back I read, excellent point on diminishing returns with increasing, not only screen resolutions, but the number of polygons on character/environment/object models in games, that as you jump (say doubling the number) continuously, eventually the jumps will become less and less apparent until there is really no point in doing so. I don't have a link just now.

Not sure if this is the original, but it is close:

http://imgur.com/aFKEttJ

http://www.extremetech.com/...

[corvusmd]

Great video podcast IGN, surprised me actually...

@Daniel...HUH? All I said was great video, maybe chill out a little...

[DanielGearSolid]

Seriously dude...

You're going to unreasonable heights to downplay the difference

[jessupj]

You enjoyed the video???

No way!! Totally wouldn't have guess that... /s

I bet your favourite part was when he said you can't tell a difference on a 50" screen between 720p and 1080p. I think I personally lost a few thousand brain cells after hearing that.

[Majin-vegeta]

That damage control :3

[Hicken]

Spin all you want. The answer is, without a doubt, YES.

[tontontam0]

Yes!!!

if you can choose between the two I would choose 1080p
even if I can't see the difference.

but if there is no choice to be made people would not mind
900p.

[AstroCyborg]

you can see the diffrence they are just anboys especailly ryan

[True_Samurai]

Show me the difference between 900p and 1080p than

[AstroCyborg]

these guys at ign are freaking morans who the heck did this get approved?

[Moncole]

It doesnt matter because when you go buy a console you dont get it for the specs you get it for the exclusives. If a person cared about the graphics so much than they will get a gaming PC and play everything at the highest resolution and the best FPS.

[RIP_Cell]

funny matters all of a sudden when your console of choice can play (many, not all) games in 1080p, how many times in the last 5 years we've heard console gamers say sub 720p games look fine and 1080p games on PC only look a little better

but now we need to decide if 60 fps matters or is 30 fps is good enough because that depends on what ps4 can run the game at.

[RIP_Cell]

wait this is a good one, does BF4 PS4 version at 900p look good enough? or does PC version look much better or doesn't matter lol?

[TheGrimReaper]

Nope, it doesn't look good enough IMO (this is tricky: when are graphics good enough?). PC version looks much better (if you can run it @1080p/60fps or better).
Every single multiplatform game looks better on PC. I'd hope so because my PC was way more expensive than my PS4.

I think you are missing the point here:
People are comparing two CONSOLES...
Of course many games are available on PC but there are a lot of gamers who favor playing on consoles. For these people it matters where they can get the most bang for their buck (in addition to the exclusives).

PS: Despite knowing that you are just trying to anger console gamers I've tried to give a respectful answer to your question.

[dillhole]

Misleading thumbnail: there were no yellowish peas in this video.

[madjedi]

Short of bills less is never better, this is a dumbass question xbox one owners weren't like gee i would really like to pay $100 more, but get a lower resolution than the cheaper competitor does.

If you want you games running at the same native resolution as your 1080p tv, yes you fucking idiot it matters.

Obviously no one at ign runs their tvs at a 1 to 1 aspect ratio.

[RiPPn]

I'm guessing most of you out there are sitting at a computer with a 21"-30" monitor @ a resolution of around 1080p. Go ahead and change your desktop resolution to 900p and see if you can see a difference. That's what I thought, these idiots doing damage control saying it's not noticeable on screens lower than 50". lol

And then moving the goal posts for xbox fans saying this wont be a topic in a year. smh

At least they admitted it does make a difference and that if they own both consoles they would get the PS4 version.

[Bolts-N-Rays1109]

It doesn't matter to me. I only have a 1080i TV, and BF4 and Ryse look great on it.

[cooperdnizzle]

idiots they are missing a lot more then 180p. 900p is not 1920x900p its 1600x900 = 520p difference. so there is a difference, and yes it does matter and i don't think xbox will make the jump ever they have a console with a graphics card that is just not capable of it. as for the t.v. needing to be over 27 inches to tell a difference that is a bullshit lie, set your monitor to a lower res and then switch to a higher one and tell me you don't see a difference. i game on a 55" tv and a 20" monitor and i can tell the difference up close or from a far with 720p and 1080p. people just go by what the media tells them and don't see things for them self. the hole no change unless over a certain size t.v. was the cause of a marketing war between the t.v. company's the same thing is going on right now with 4k vs 1080p. the lower t.v. res maker still want you to buy there t.v's at the 1080p res and not spend your money on someone else product. back to the main topic 900p is closer to 720p then it is to 1080p (1920*1080 = 2,073,600) (1600*900 = 1,440,000) (1280*720 = 921,600) full 1080 to 900p is a difference in 633,600 pixels as for 900p to 720 the difference is 518,400 pixels. thus meaning it is technical closer to the lower res of 720p then to the higher res of 1080p. in my opinion i believe that resolution make one of the biggest jumps in terms of quality, i much rather have a game at 1080p then 720p and have things like aa and other features turned off or lower to obtain a 1080p image.

[cooperdnizzle]

gaming media is a joke they have no idea what they are talking about. this resolution gate is the stuff that less educated consumers need to know about instead of getting scammed out of there money buying a console that does not perform as advertized. gaming media needs to die all they do is push ill informed opinions and don't tell the facts like they should. read my above post those are the facts for the 1080p vs 900p. ms is scamming people out of there hard earned money by selling them and inferior console for a $100 more then there competitor that has the superior console.

[BlakHavoc]

Well that's why the PS4 is selling out worldwide and the X1 can be found being sold for 100 tickets at Chuckie Cheeses.

[BlakHavoc]

It matters in this sense, unless your already determined to buy either the X1 or PS4 something like this could sway you one way or the other. If your trying to decide which console and most games you enjoy playing are multiplat then why not go with the console that puts these games out at a higher resolution? The difference is minimal but why would you go with the weaker console if your having a hard time deciding which to buy. Also dual console owners would likely buy the PS4 version since it's just a little prettier, you may not think so but something that petty does effect peoples decisions. It's like if your thinking about buying a car and you head to the dealership, the dealer has the car you want but only 2 in the exact same color, same model, with minor feature differences that don't matter to you, but one has 20,000 miles and one has 19,500. If you don't really care about which one to purchase cause there basically the same, why would you get the one with 20,000 miles?

[Empire X]

It matters enough for Microsoft not to put the res. of there games on the back of there boxes like they did with the 360. If it's not that big of a deal why does Microsoft try to avoid speaking about it? Why not put all the true info out there and let people decide witch system to get?

[jocomat9]

good point

[ElementX]

I play PS4 more, but from the comparisons I've seen online there isn't a huge difference

[killalot100]

I have two 42 inch tv's, one is 720p and the other is 1080p and I can tell a big difference. I am ok if a game runs at 720p but anything below that is a no go for me.I always hear that a human eye cant tell the difference between 720p and 1080p until 50 to 60 inches but I can notice a big difference between the two on a 27 inch monitor.

[zero_gamer]

I'd feel somewhat ripped off, but in the grand scheme of things the 900p game is still a game that can look and play well for most people.

That being said, for a system released in late 2013 at $500, it is not keeping up with a somewhat aging resolution of 1080p very well. That isn't very desirable for me.

[PsylentKiller]

No, there isn't a huge gap between 900p and 1080p. It's barely noticeable, but...it is noticeable. Which means? The difference between 720p and 1080p is easily noticeable.
I have three Xbox Ones in my house and one PS4. I bought 8 games for the Xbox and 3 for the PS4. I am a fan of the Xbox, the controller, the UI, and yes, he kinect. The fact that the games aren't 1080p native is not a problem for me I'm not gonna lie, though, AC4 and TR play and look amazing on the PS4. I am somewhat at regretting getting Bf4 for the Xbox but not regretting Ghosts for the Xbox. Sometimes resolution matters, sometimes it doesn't.
Also, I would like to point out, the freakin rumble triggers are crap. Forza is the only game that took advantage of them. But they still suck. They don't give the feeling of immersion at all as of right now. Plus, they're really freaking loud.
And another reason why people are going with the PS4 over the Xbox One games or system is because of the touchpad. The touchpad opens up the ability for more controls. Sony is just starting to take advantage of it but it is showing a lot of promise.
And the share feature is quite nice on PS4. A little cumbersome but easy to get the hang of. That share button is so much more accessible than " Xbox, Record That". Try recording something on the xbox at 1 in the morning with your fiancé sleeping right next to you. I'm like "F it, I'll just tell my friends what happened". Plus, the ability to record 15 minutes is so much nicer than the 30 second clips on the xbox. But I can record five minutes if I start recording before that awesome thing that happened. This is going to be extremely apparent when Titanfall releases. In the beta, I chained three Titan kills by rodeo. I said "Xbox, record that" and I only got video of the last Titan kill but not even me landing on it, just shooting it and then falling off. MS needs to increase the time limit or AT&T he very least, we need a theatre mode in Titanfall.

[Prime157]

I feel like there could have been a lot of arguments and points discussed about each individual part of this topic to help us on both sides to come to a better understanding about thinking.

Ugh, hope that made sense.

[BOLO]

Here's a thought...If it didn't matter and certain folks on the defense downplay the importance of resolution due to their console of choice being less capable...Why bother to upgrade to current gen? Lets just stick with the PS2 generation since resolution isn't of any necessary importance. Albeit gameplay, framerate, etc are important...To say resolution is not important in TWO-THOUSAND FOURTEEN is just ridiculous as we emerge into the realm of 4K.

[Funky Town_TX]

90% of the games I play are multiplat and with the PS4 version being better from tech stand point it's a big deal to me. A game be 60fps is a big deal also. I know that the X1 has a camera included, but the console is weaker and it cost more? There are some exclusives that I want, so a price cut will get me in.

[ion53]

My TV is 38" and I can see the difference between 720p and 1080... It is very clear... The jaggies are noticable... And like RTUSA said, it's not all about the actual resolution, it's about it being better on a cheaoer system...

[gigoran]

So after a generation of gaming where it was important, all of a sudden it isn't? Nope! Try again. It is important and is definitely noticeable. Why on earth would someone get an xbone to play a game when they can get a cheaper console that does it better? Exclusives? Whatever floats your boat sunshine...

[beerzombie]

Resolution has a lot to do with TV size and how far you sit from it. On the pc side 4k makes since because they are sitting right in front of the monitor Just like in Japan were the rooms cam be as small as 128 sq. feet. 4k will help there.
In America you can have native 1080p on a 40 inch TV and sit 8 feet to 10 feet away at can not tell the difference at all it will be there but you cant see it.

[killzone619]

I just dont want to see ANY 720p games this gen

[RandomDude655]

lol
Last gen: oh man ps3 has 10% less frames. PS3 is doomed and sucks.
This gen: the huge power difference, frame rates, and resolution makes no difference . Titanfall titan fall Titan fall titanfall

[tommygunzII]

It's all about the games and PlayStation has them. Having the most powerful hardware is a Plus.

If Xbox had the strongest console it wouldn't matter because their games library is nowhere near as impressive.

[purp13m0nk3y]

Agreed. I was going to mention that in my post below. But saw you had already stated the fact that the PS4 has the best 1st party development teams. Thought I might just expand.

Just look at the last couple of yrs of the PS3 and Xbox360. The PS3 saw heaps of great games, and arguably some of it's best. Plus it still has huge support from SONY now and in the foreseeable future. The Xbox360 on the other hand saw a bit of a drought in terms of 1st party releases. It felt to me like MS stopped supporting it prematurely.

I know MS is currently investing big in their own 1st party. And that is awesome. But it will take time for this investment to come to fruition. We won't likely see games released by these developers till mid/late 2015 even early 2016.

[purp13m0nk3y]

Look at it this way.

Say the Xbox1 and the PS4 are PC GPU'S. Just hit the market. One sells for $500 and can only handle the latest games @720p. The other sells for $400 and runs the same games @1080p.

Which one you going to buy?

Now I know its not the best analogy as both consoles offer much more than games. But I think its a valid point.

I am a gamer. I buy consoles to play games. To hell with all the other crap they got going. I'm going to buy the one that offers the best "gaming" performance. Because first and foremost that what I want to do with the dammed thing. Everything else is a distant second.

You can argue all you want about Kinect (a gimmick who's potential has been squandered by MS due to zero interesting software) and the cloud (so far the cloud has shown zero practical potential and is no way exclusive to the Xbox1. The same tech is possible on the PS4) and HDMI pass through (a feature that will not be used by many owners), better online (though this is debatable).

If both consoles were the same price. Then maybe I'd concede that the Xbox1's other features balance out its poor hardware. But not at $100 more.

To me the Xbox1's inability to match it's rival in gaming performance should be a huge point of contention for potential buyers.

To make the Xbox1 an appealing option to consumers. The Xbox1 should be cheaper than the PS4. Or at the very least the same price. And this with all the current features included. Kinect and all.

[urwifeminder]

Went pc no longer a concern what I play my console games at they can not compare to pc beauty rez or fps , xb1 is my second games machine not so important.

[KontryBoy706]

1080p will ALWAYS be better than 720p or 900p or that ridiculous 792p. It's factual. No amount of damage control or analysis (especially on YOUTUBE with compressed video) can prove otherwise. It doesn't matter the screen size or anything else. 1080p is simply higher quality than anything lower than it in games, videos, photos etc.

[kcnsonline]

watch 1080p Test http://adf.ly/dyD0i

[lemoncake]

If you really care about resolution then you should invest in a steam machine. Affordable 4k is right around the corner and if thats your driving force then you will be happy you invested in that machine. For everything else its all about personal gaming preferance and for that only you as an individual can decide.

[Incipio]

*sniff sniff*

I smell damage control.

[GeisT]

If you are buying a console for its graphical capability then you are misguided. This whole argument was started by fanboys to promote their crappy console and nerdbash the other. Everyone knows if you want graphics then play on PC.

[Ruggadagod]

Damn look at all that Xbox damage control.

[fr3d0]

everyone knows if the tables were turned and PS4 had inferior resolution on multiplats the press and fanbois would be merciless. I think xbone is actually getting off pretty easily.

[Mister_G]

Resolution and framerate seemed to matter a lot last gen, with several multi-plats not running so well on PS3. 360 fans rejoiced.

Now we're in a new generation, and the tables have turned, suddenly resolution doesn't matter according to some people.

So when PS5 and Xbox Two are out, will it matter then?

[ninjahunter]

Eh, the difference is negligible. You wont particularly notice the difference, especially on a TV unless you are actually looking for it. And after you throw on that cheap antialiasing these devs love so much it becomes even more negligible.

[S2Killinit]

its just like ign to ask such a question. of course it matters! now if it was sony who couldn't do 1080 ign would be in a roar