“Typical sheep that believes anything on the net”

You DO know that that means you’re calling yourself a sheep too, right? You already did quote something from the internet ‘before actual figures’ as you chimed in 800p from Somewhere….

As for KZ? I’d agree that it felt deceptive – as I am not blind nor a fanboy. However, there’s no need to jump to nonsensical conclusions and pair One Example as if it clumps to Every example of similar events in resolution misconceptions or differences.

Typical sheep that believes anything on the net. Ill be waiting for actual figures before claiming. Did you forget how they trick you with Killzone SF? How do you explain that little dilemma?

http://tay.kotaku.com/why-the-order-1886-is-1080p-and-not-800p-1518902908

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Order-1886-Runs-1080p-30fps-PS4-62101.html

I smell a fail post by Failz – What else is new. Way to +Thumb your own comment, not that I expect anything from you. I smell a sheep indeed, you should apply deodorant so you don’t reek so bad.

The Order runs at 800p at 30 frames.. lol and you blame Ryse? Also Killzone Multiplayer runs with less pixels then the X1’s Titanfall. I smell a sheep.

It’s because I knew that Diablo 3 was 900p and was going to stick there until Phil Spencer went to them and said “No, this is not good”, which such a story can be found anywhere.

Which is why my comment holds true and you shouldn’t have an issue with my post. It was going to infact be 900p and Blizzard was having issues, the very fact that Phil had to come in and tell them he was unsatisfied and that Blizzard infact ran into hurdles with a game as visually-lacking as Diablo 3 is my point. Yes, it came out fine in the end, I’m not saying it’s not 1080 or implying the FPS takes massive dips – but it’s the part of ‘They did struggle’ – and even a game like D3 almost was 900p. Similar with Xbox Ones’ ‘Trials Fusion’ being 900p and it’s just a side-scrolling dirtbike game.

I take issue with your comments regarding Blizzard and Diablo III on XB1.
Diablo III runs at 1080p@60fps on both consoles. Granted it is locked on the PS4, with the XB1 dropping on “rare occasions” according to Digital Foundry to 52fps, but mostly 60pfs. Link http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-diablo-3-ultimate-evil-face-off.

“…Most drops tend to be imperceptible, and in the end, we resorted to scanning hours of footage to track most shifts downwards from the 60fps mark. A screen filled with effects-spewing creatures isn’t necessarily the ticket to a frame-rate drop – even at its extremes the Xbox One holds up well save for a few choice moments….”
According to the face-off at no point is the XB1 “…struggling..” at 1080p.

They didn’t forget to make a game console. They made an entertainment console to cater to all needs. Their delivery of the system was wrong but it’s still a great system.

Oh and you don’t seem to know much about the Xbox one hardware while your trying to defend a system that is only a games system. The esram setup is misconstrued by lazy developers. Like Kirk said; it poses no problem to an experienced developer. When developers stop being lazy they achieve proper results and that was proven recently.

I wonder how much money Sony spent bribing developers to slander Microsoft and Xbox?

Proved no problem? at 900p, 30FPS? Lol By all means, it is a pretty game, Crytek though has their engine and know how to operate it, I’m sure they can make any game on their engine look good. However.

Any dev that worked with Microsoft early-in cannot be believed to be speaking of their own accord 100%. It’s PR-talk to stay in friendship with Microsoft, if it weren’t a problem – No devs would be saying they have a problem. Developers aren’t just going to outright go and shame Xbox One and Microsoft in public and say “ESRAM Sucks and is a bottleneck” without obviously knowing they’re biting their tongue off and causing problems. Like a news embargo, but of peoples own will that they can fabricate the truth a bit to help someone else. Developers at this early stage do not yet likely understand how to make use of ESRAM, just as no one had a grasp on how to use PS3’s Cell processor so early. What happened though? EVERYONE said the Cell was still great even though the result of multiplatform games were all inferior at the beginning of the last-gen until later on in the race. This is the same thing, but the only difference is X1 doesn’t have as great of specs in the long-run to be able to pull ahead in the visual department even with more ‘Theoretical / on-Paper’ RAM. Their GPU will hold X1 back for the most part for the end of the race.

Relative to both skill in the developers capability but as well as the result of their games on the system. Diablo 3 itself struggled on Xbox One, barely managed to reach 1080p and Diablo 3 is not a visually intensive game, I’d not be one to say Blizzard are bad at coding or bad at making games on consoles, but it’s clear something caused them a hindrance and it wasn’t the hardware overall as both current-gen consoles should clearly have enough juice in total to run the game. Using this logic, it should be obvious something is holding back X1’s hardware back, it’d not be the CPU, it’d not be the GPU (For this situation) and it’s not the DDR3 RAM – So, what’s left? ESRAM.

Allow me to illustrate it with an image that I grabbed online.

One of the best graphical next gen games in Ryse proved no problem for the devs. So now you have an Arcade pinball game and one of the best looking next gen games claiming the same thing. Take your pick.

ESram is not a problem.