Slashdot Mirror
First 1080p Xbox 360 Games Announced
rwven writes "In the October firmware update to the Xbox 360, Microsoft added the capability for their new console to reach the coveted 1080 resolution. EA and Sega have both announced new titles that will reach that resolution, the first for the system. They're not the most visually intense games (NBA Street Homecourt, and Virtua Tennis 3), but this is another symptom of the tight race between all three consoles. Does this change the playing field at all between Sony and Microsoft?" Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?
With a really high-res video game, especially a game like basketball, I think you'd notice the lack of realism after a certain point. For example, you'd see clearly that the edges are being rendered by a computer, versus if they're a bit fuzzy, and that fuzzy effect is used to its advantage, then it might look a bit more like a regular tv broadcast of a basketball game.
stuff |
Long answer is no.
Seriously tough, while a fun game is a fun game, a fun game with great graphics is even better.
My HDTV does 1080p...but I've noticed that when I "stretch" the image from a videogame...upconversion smooths everything out, and makes it look 1080p...I expect that unless they sink time/money into coming up with dazzling textures, most folks will be disappointed.
I have a Dell 24" monitor and the 1080p titles mean that the PC equivalents will look quite nice. Marvel Ultimate Alliance looks and plays great on a PC with an XBox 360 wired controller. It is a cheap way to get a console beat um up experience for less than $100 if you have a good PC. The title is touted as 1080p and the visuals on the PC certain look great.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Uh, no. My TV only goes to 720p and the Wii only supports 480p (I do have the optional component cables).
[Insert pithy quote here]
I don't think that there is really much of a reason not to push 1080p if it can run smoothly at that resolution- but I don't think it's a huge deal yet either. While a lot of the larger sets are starting to run at 1080p, I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet. (as a side note, anyone know of an HDTV that will do 1080p and is in the 24 inch range? I keep my games set up in my office and I don't have room for anything bigger 24"-ish, but I would like to have a "true" HD display.)
I think that the biggest drawback to having 1080 on the xbox 360 will be storage space on the disk for textures. IIRC games running at 720 have already started to hit the limits of the capacity of a single DVD- and while disk switching will work for some games, I don't think it's a general purpose solution.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
how does targeting the 1% of the population who owns 1080p TVs benefit anyone else?
It doesn't, obviously the point is that it benefits that 1%, duh. As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't? Or how targeting the 1% of people who own an hd-dvd/blu-ray player with hd-dvd/blu-ray movies benefits those who don't?
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
HD is finally starting to pick up some popularity largely in part to the cost of mid-sized HDTVs plummeting. There are decent 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now. It won't be too long before that price is reflected in places like Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. That will only further fuel people's desire to jump to HD, not because of the quality as much as the price. It no longer makes much sense to buy an standard def TV when the HD isn't that much more. An LCD or plasma set is starting to become necessary to keep up with the Jonses. NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now and right now is the beginning of any semblance of mass adoption. By the time 1080p sets catch up in price, most folks will have their HDTVs and those HDTVs will mostly be 720p/1080i sets. If you thought it was hard to get the Average Joe to upgrade his SDTV for 720p, just try to convince them to upgrade their 720p/1080i for a 1080p.
You're missing the point.
These consoles are intended and expected to have life spans of 5 to 10 years. The push for 1080p is based on the idea that in a couple years, a much higher percentage of households will have HDTVs that support 1080p.
I think it is great that they support 1080p for the few that might be able to take advantage of it, but the issue for both the PS3 and Xbox360 in this arena is that most people just can't take advantage of it. In fact, pretty much all HDTV owners can't. The vast majority of HDTV's on the market right now are 32" and smaller. Most of these sets are 720p sets.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
1080p won't benefit too many people right now. But, by 2009, it'll probably benefit a lot more people - why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?
Personally I don't see the logic in buying anything less than a 1080p TV. I have a 1080p Westinghouse 42", while my parents have a 1080i Sony Bravia, and a 720p Samsung something-or-other. Gears Of War upscaled to 1080p still looks better (to me) than at 720p, and HD-DVD is dreamy at 1080p.
http://www.mushoo.net/
You're leaving out the critical 2-5% of the population with friends/roomates capable of 1080p. Not to mention the 20-30% who watch those screens with slack-jawed delight at the Best Buy. Supply side resolution. With all the recent talk of 120hz, I've become convinced that there's no such thing as hi-def, only higher than what you have.
Right, the point is that the parent is asking an incredibly stupid question, which is:
"How does a product made for X benefit people who don't have X?"
And the answer is obviously that it doesn't, it benefits people who DO have X.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
It clearly benefits anyone who will buy (or sell) 1080p TVs over the next 5 years.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
By 2009 'more' people will obviously own 1080p TVs but most people will still own 1080i/720p TVs or worse ...
Also in 2009/2010 we will be hearing about the PS4, XBox 720 and (probably) the Wii 2 which will be released in 2010/2011.
"why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?"
Because I'd rather pay $300 for a product that can do what I have the ability to display now and then $300 for an even better system than today's $600 system 4-5 years from now when I actually have the ability to use said technology. I think 1080p out of the Xbox 360 is going to negatively affect games with complex graphics, because developers will have to cut back in poly count, effects, etc. that would run just fine in 720p just to make them work in 1080p. Really, I'd much rather see companies design games for 720p now (seeing that most HD monitors on the market now are geared for 720p and 1080i) and the extra processing power to make the games look EVEN better at that lower resolution than having to figure out ways to milk the hardware for all it's worth just to make it display 1080p at a respectable framerate.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Running at 1080p means pretty small jaggies, though, and the scaler that lives between the graphics output and the actual video output will give you free antialiasing when it scales the 1080p down to 720p for the majority out there who can't use it.
So yes, it's a good thing.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
One of the main reasons you hear so many developers bitching about working on the 360. And why so many 360 games end up using fake marketing shots to hide the AA/jaggy problems that plagued actual in game 360 graphics.
Hi, welcome to Slashdot!
I see you managed to make your first post okay, despite the posting interface being different from the PS3Fanboy forums you're used to.
I think you're going to settle in very well here. Many posters on Slashdot are also teenage virgins obsessed with other people's choice of game system.
But I know how you feel! It really makes my blood boil when I see someone recommending a different system to the one my mummy bought me for Christmas. One day I'm going to steal the pistol out of my dad's underwear draw and teach them all a lesson!
How about backing up some of your claims? In the interviews with developers that I've read they seem to fawn over the 360. I also just got a 360 and a 720p LCD TV in the past couple weeks. I have to say, Dead or Alive 4, Need For Speed: Most Wanted, and Project Gotham Racing 3 look pretty damn good. NFS does lag at 720p, though. Neither of my other games do.
I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
You're a total idiot. Most of what you said is entirely false. First off, many of the PS3's titles are NOT 1080p. This includes their flagship title Resistance Fall of Man. Second, it's true that none of the current 360 games run natively in 1080p, but most of them can currently be scaled to 1080p by the hardware scaler... which is something the PS3 can't do for its games that run lower than 1080p. Third, WTF are you talking about with jaggies and texture filtering? Slamming GoW shows you have no clue what you are saying. STFU and GTFO, fanboy.
Me too, but only at 37". I'm probably not interested in those games though... Can hope that Mass Effect or Halo 3 support it. Actually now my games (on the xbox 360) do play at that resolution, so they must be up-scaled somehow.
I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet.
r d=1080p+HDTV&topcat_id=&Search=Search">pretty reasonably priced now, which means there will be user demand for more 1080p content including games, with demand only ramping up from this point on.
While it's true there are not that many smaller sets, a lot of people are hooking consoles up to these larger TV's - especially if they want to use them for the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD abilities. And sets are getting http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.php?form_keywo
I think that the biggest drawback to having 1080 on the xbox 360 will be storage space on the disk for textures. IIRC games running at 720 have already started to hit the limits of the capacity of a single DVD- and while disk switching will work for some games, I don't think it's a general purpose solution.
That is a problem for a system without a standard hard drive or a disk format that can hold more than a DVD, and I do think Sony made the right call here - the same call Microsoft should have made with the 360. I think though what will happen is that game studio pressure will force Microsoft to release the "360.2", including an HD-DVD drive and also allowing games to be developed for it (which they have stated so far will not happen).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now
Well, except for all of these. For a lot of people $1200 is not that much to spend on a large TV set because it's the center of most peoples entertainment time.
"True" HD sets are coming down in price rapidly because now there is real demand for them now that there is more content, demand which is only going to ramp up this year rapidly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Honesly, on the current generation of consoles the focus on 1080p is excessive ...
That's like saying anything past 320x200x256(MCGA) for a PC game 5/7 years ago is excessive. I honestly don't see anything wrong with moving up in resolution for console gaming.
I've been told that it takes a larger HDTV (We're talking 50+ inches) to even see a noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances.
1) AA is a 360 cert requirement. Yes, a title or two may be able to get that waived by having something else special/that does the same thing. In general though, MS won't let 360 titles with jaggies ship. I am not sure what you are talking about here.
2) Yes, the EDRAM takes extra effort to work with. Sure, it would be nice if there was an infinite amount. In the end though, the tiling work generally impacts the rendering programmer for a short period and no one else. There is plenty of info for 360 devs on how to use it. If this is a devs main 360 complaint, MS is making devs lives easy - providing a good system, tools and documentation.
3) Marketing will always use renders. Their job is to get people excited about the title in a cost/time effective way - staged screenshots and renders are the fastest way to do that. This generation, difference in quality is much more visible in movies. A few marketing departments will use rendered movies here, but the cost is basically quite high relative to a rendered model.
The main 1080p challenge is the performance hit you get for drawing that many more pixels. For games that are GPU bound, going from 720p to 1080p hits the pixel shaders hard. The other issue is memory (same on both platforms) as many games have multiple full screen render targets. A 1080p render target is much larger than a 720p target.
That's not the question for today. We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions. There haven't been that many of them sold. But over the life of the console itself it will matter. What will you own a year from now? Two years? A whole lot more people may have them by then, and like games that take full advantage.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wii will have half the lifespan of the other two. I fully expect another Nintendo console within 3 years. If not, I'll be severely disappointed.
Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p?
My HDTV can do 1080i, but not 1080p. It also can't do 720p, which is one of the reasons that I have not purchased an XBOX 360.
It's an RCA 32" CRT 4:3 HDTV which does not letterbox 1080i content either. I doubt I'm even getting full resolution from my anamorphic DVDs. I'm waiting for the prices in the 42-50" range to drop a bit more.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Just FYI, you can set the XBox 360 to output 720p games at 1080i, so this shouldn't be an issue for you should you be interested in picking one up.
I would say anticipate disapointment ... Consoles do not get replaced based on their technology they get replaced based on sales.
...
The XBox lasted 4 years, the Gamecube lasted 5 years and the PS2 (has) lasted 6/7 years (so far); the XBox 360 was released in order to get the "First Mover Advantage", the Wii was released because the Gamecube stopped selling and developers were no longer developing games for it, and the PS3 was released because Sony worried about the distruption in their control on the North American and European markets that the XBox 360 could provide.
If the Wii sells well in 2007 and 2008 I wouldn't expect to see any movement (from Nintendo) to replace the Wii until it was at least 5 years old
On average, current owners paid $783 for the primary TV in their home, but plan to spend $966 on their next set.
Yes, on average - which mostly means a some people going for small cheap sets, and others going for much larger, more expensive sets. HD TV sales figures have been really good. Why do you think even that average has jumped so much? People are looking at getting large HD TV sets now.
And even if there are people a lot of people willing to spend $1200 on a new HDTV, I'd wager most of them opt for a larger 720p set over a smaller 1080p set at the price they're willing to spend, especially considering the content available in HD on TV is 720p or 1080i right now.
Many of those 1080p sets were pretty large (one of the cheaper ones was a Samsung 50" TV). Also, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p so it's not like the set is not useful for that as well even if the source is not progressive.
I don't think sheer mass is the driving factor for most people when looking at these TV's, they also want a good picture.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't?
In the automobile market, if only 1% of consumers can afford a luxury car, then only 1% of the cars produced will be luxury models.
The situation we have right now in the console game industry is something like 5% of gamers are currently 1080p-capable, but 40% of the games being published targeting that tiny segment of the market (all numbers courtesy of My Ass, but I'd guess the margin of error is under 30%). It doesn't make economic sense.
Those 40% of games work on 1080 and everything below that, too. It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
I remember when large flat panel plasmas cost $20K+, and that wasn't that long ago. Now the same sized plasmas can be had for $2K. It won't be long before 1080p TVs are below the 1K mark and well within the range of people looking to upgrade their main TVs. You're right that a lot people who have just bought or are about to buy 720p sets won't want to upgrade right away, but some will. Also, not everyone will have HD sets before the 1080p sets hit even more reasonable prices than they are now. Consoles and the new HD movie formats will help drive the 1080p sales. Also, DLP and LCoS are the kings of affordable big screens (50"+) and they will soon only be available in 1080p. LCoS is pretty much already there and 720p DLPs are being phased out fast. LCDs and plasmas will start moving that direction this year too and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where SEDs (if they finally appear) debut. So while I agree than not everyone will want to upgrade, 1080p will not fall into obscurity. Not even close.
Since 1080p is bigger than 720p it must be better! Buy buy buy!
e-penis +1
I would wager a good 30% of the people I know have HDTVs that can do 1080p. Most of the others don't have rooms big enough to warrant a screen big enough to make 1080p useful (and that is a consideration - you need a screen bigger than about 50" or so for 1080p to be practical, and that takes a good-sized viewing distance), or are the perputal 'wait-and-see-next-years-models' type.
That being said, I'm getting a little irked at seeing "Yeah, but nobody has 1080p yet!" on headlines on Slashdot (in one form or another). Yes, people have 1080p. The same people with enough disposable income to be buying these other sorts of toys.
I have a 37" 1080p LCD TV with a plethora of different inputs and video modes (Westinghouse... who knew they made hi-def video monitors?) I have all the consoles and consider myself an Avid gamer, but far from uber :)
The difference betwen 1080i and 1080p is neglegible when it comes down to figuring out which games win. The qualitative factor of gameplay and how fun a game is will ALWAYS outweigh the quantitative specifications of a system. The mega-selling Wii is proof of this - low def, FUN games.
In the eyes of a mid-20's average guy, the only reason why 1080p is so coveted is simply because of the marketing department at Sony. This was one of their biggest pre-sale points. Now that Microsoft has this under their belt, Sony doesn't really have anything yet.
Content is king, price tag is the queen. Until the ultimate "next gen" games comes out for the next-gen consoles, the cheapest system will win.
Actually, all Xbox 360 games can currently be scaled to 1080p by the hardware scaler. That's the beauty of a hardware scaler -- you tell it you want 1080p (or 720p, or 1080i, or whatever), and that's what you get every time. While scaling is not the same as natively rendering in 1080p with high resolution textures, it's still better than trusting your TV to upscale properly. The 360's hardware scaler works upon the digital image prior to sending it to the TV. Your TV has to work with an analog signal (because the 360 doesn't do HDMI/DVI). Your TV's scaler in general won't do as well as the 360's scaler, and some TVs can introduce lag when scaling images that's not present when given a signal in their native resolution.
After being spoiled by the 360's scaler for over a year, I was somewhat disappointed with my Wii. With the 360, I've set it to 720p and I don't have to worry about anything else, whether a game supports that resolution or is widescreen or not (the 360 will appropriately side-box original Xbox 480i/p 4:3 games so I don't have adjust my set). The Wii acts more like the original Xbox, where I have to visually determine if a game is 16:9 or 4:3 and shrink or stretch the set's mode appropriately. From what I hear, the PS3 is the same way. Ugh. Hopefully the next generation of consoles (5 years from now) will all have hardware scalers.
This is interesting. I have been wondering what the deal was with the 360 ever since they added 1080p support via a software update.
So, in your opinion, if you have the ps3 with a 720p game hooked up via HDMI to a 1080p display it should be able to upscale it just as well as the 360 does since it's a pristine digital signal? Or is the 360 scaler regarded as being better than what is in most HDTVs?
Also, I have been wondering if a 1080p signal via component is really as good as a 1080p signal via HDMI? Since component is analog is it really reasonable to believe that all those pixels are going to be able to travel to the TV without being degraded? Not that I think it would be that noticeable, but it would be nice to know that your TV is receiving the exact data.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
You're in the same boat I am. We just bought a new 1080p HDTV over the holidays and now I'm having a hard time going to the Wii. The Wii looked OK on the my older and smaller TV. It was an HDTV, but it was only 34". Now we've got a 55" TV and the Wii looks pretty crappy at that size. The initial coolness factor of the Wiimote has worn off and now I'm back to the 360. Plus, there just aren't many games worth a damn on the Wii. Sure, some people say Elebits, Wario Ware, and Trauma Center are good games... but those are getting pretty average reviews overall and they simply don't interest me. And, yes, I do already have Twilight Princess.
So right now I'm just waiting on Nintendo, or another dev, to put something truly innovative and fun out. I can deal with the sub-par graphics if the game is fun. For example, I think my favorite Wii game is the Bowling on Wii Sports. My friends and I have had a good time with that game.
Also, I do also have a PS3 and I don't know if I'll need to manually set the aspect ratio or not. We only have Resistance, Blast Factor, and Go! Sudoku (wife's a puzzle game fanatic) for it so far. Resistance is 720p and Blast Factor is 1080p, so they are both widesceen by default. I don't know about Go! Sudoku. It doesn't look stretched, but I doubt it matter either way with that game. Wait... actually... I think you might be right. I played Twisted Metal 2 a couple of days ago and I think it ran stretched, but I can't recall for certain. I just tried it out late one night to see how it looked and ran. I'd have to try it out again to know for certain. Anyway, it likely won't matter with the PS3 games since they should all be HD and widescreen by default anyway.
I own a PS3, 360, and 1080p TV and I'll tell you what I have seen. First off, I can't detect any real difference in picture quality between the 360 running at 1080p via component and my PS3 running 1080p via HDMI. I haven't sat around looking for flaws/differences, but nothing sticks out. IMO, the advantage of a digital signal over analog on PCs/Consoles is vastly overrated. You have to remember we are talking about cable lengths of like 3-6 feet (~1-2 meters) for most people. Just buy any decent shielded cable and you shouldn't have any noticeable signal loss. I see zero interference in my 360's signal.
As for the upscaling... the best example I can use for what you asked is Resistance vs Gears of War. The 360 scales GoW to 1080p whereas my TV has to scale Resistance to 1080p since the PS3 can't. I can't see any issues on either system. GoW looks fantastic and Resistance looks good too. Resistance isn't as pretty as GoW, but that the game itself and not an issue with the TV scaler. Again, I haven't spent any time looking for artifacts/issues, but nothing sticks out and Resistance looks fine. But really, I don't think scaling from 720p to 1080p is that difficult for most new TVs.
The Wii on the other hand is a different story... scaling from 480p to 1080p plus the fact the screen is 55 inches results in a less than ideal picture.
I purchased a 1080p LCD because I wanted to use it as a computer monitor as well as a TV and Xbox 360 display. 1920x1080 is just big enough to be usable as a desktop, and I can now program and web surf from my couch.
The 360 looks gorgeous on it, as well.
Well, there is a marketing aspect, but it's not all that. It's the technologies that are being used. CRTs are the only TVs that can actually display any sort of interlaced signal. LCDs, plasmas, DLP, LCoS, etc... all have native progressive resolutions. There is not such thing as a 1080i TV for any of those technologies. If they list 1080i that just means they can accept that signal and will then scale it to 720p or 1080p (or 728p or whatever odd resolutions plasmas and LCDs sometimes have).
A good TV will always have a better scaler than any device because the TV knows what it's own native resolution is and the device doesn't. What that guy said only applies to cheap TV's.
And DVI/HDMI > Component if you have a good signal. I don't find it necessary for my HD cable because the video is so compressed.
Unless the publisher specifies that your hardware must downscale the image to 480p and then upscale it back to 1080p because you are using analog cables.
Do you mean 15-17? (That would be rather high, but 2D games did very fine in 1024x768 5-7 years ago, and there was certainly enough detail to do 800x600 in 16 or 32 bits in any 3D game and really lose stuff you went even lower.)
S-video doesn't have dot crawl in the same sense that composite does (where the Pr/Pb carrier bleeds onto the luma carrier), but the Pr and Pb components are still multiplexed onto one signal, and cheap decoders may produce effects similar to dot crawl but more subtle. Cheap interconnects might also cause some crosstalk between Y and Pr/Pb. In addition, S-video is still interlaced, and detailed textures scrolling up and down at some rates cause scanline crawl.
But do Xbox 360 games look significantly better on an Xbox 360 in 480i than Xbox games look on an Xbox in 480i? And what about Dead Rising, whose text is so small that it is just barely readable in 480i?
It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.Unless (say in a first-person shooter) having 1080 lines gives the player an unfair advantage in sniping accuracy.
Is AA required even for 2D titles on Xbox Live Arcade? Or does Microsoft not let 2D titles ship either, as SCEA has often been accused?
Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?
I don't have an HDTV, nor do I have any intention of getting one any time soon. But I think those that do have one will be more likely to buy 1080p games since a) 480 games look like balls on the TVs, at least on my brother's, and b) they will want to justify that purchase as much as possible.
Another poor deluded fanboy arrives. Guess what, I have a PS3 (hooked up via HDMI), Wii (hooked up via component) and a 360 (hooked up via VGA) on a 1080P set and so far the 360 has the best graphics of all the systems out there. I can't believe you had the gall to mention Gears of War in the same post as "shitty 360 graphics", please enlighten me to the PS3 game that has similar/better graphics, I'll buy it, currently on the store shelves there aren't any (I have hopes for "Lair" but we shall see). HD-DVD? I bought my game system for games, but I do have the attachment and I do watch plenty of HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks, a distinct advantage of not being blinded by marketing and irrational fear of other systems (also of having a job letting me pay for all of the above). As for sales, well there are 10+ Million 360s out there, 4+ Million Wiis and less than 2 Million PS3s so how about a fact check instead of fanboy rants? Here's something to try, take off your blinders and actually use all 3 systems and then check back in with reality OK?
My problem with my PS3 not having a built in scaler is minor watching it go through the resolution syncing every time I launch something (even at the same 1080P resoulution) is a bit jarring to watching my 360 smoothly go between things. In actual gameplay however I haven't notice any glaring issues or differences with my PS3's HDMI being scaled by the TV over my 360's VGA being scalled internally.
It's not really "targeting" since the games work on all of the sets up to 1080P. It would be a different story all together if these titles couldn't run at the other lower resolutions and required 1080P, but they don't. So why not let folks, like me, enjoy the games running at their sets highest resolution as long as it doesn't impact the game?
Must be a real pain to work with since EVERY single developer has commented on how easy it is to work with the 360 and how the PS3 requires so much more work to get results. I could get into the insane bablings about both machines but in the end the developers say that the advantages that each one has over the other end up a wash, the systems are basically at the same power level if the strengths of the systems are taken advantage of (which is not currently happening since most of the ports to the PS3 run and look better on the 360). Having all the next gen consoles lets me sit back and watch the war of words between the crazed zealots like you and laugh at the stuff you guys make up.
Microsoft told us, that 1080p was basically impossible: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/22/xbox-exec-on-ps3 -1080p-will-be-basically-impossible
Until of course, they can do it, then it is possible.. LOL. People actually take in this Microsoft spin and believe it as gospel...
They said 1080p was basically impossible..
3 -1080p-will-be-basically-impossible
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/22/xbox-exec-on-ps
Now of course, it's possible all of a sudden. What gives? The truth was it was always possible, and PS3 was doing it, Microsoft however lied, as they did not have the capability at the time..
I feel sorry for the puppets that belive anything that Microsoft says, in particular the lying b1tches at the gaming division...