Microsoft "Not Sure" DX12 Will Solve Xbox One vs. PS4 Visual Disparity

Microsoft "Not Sure" DX12 Will Solve Xbox One vs. PS4 Visual Disparity

33
Richard Walker

Microsoft has been making noises about DX12 coming to Xbox One for quite some time, with its introduction potentially heralding improved performance for the console. However, the platform-holder is "not sure" that Direct X 12 will have an impact on the ongoing visual disparity between Xbox One and PlayStation 4.

"I'm not sure that DX12 in itself solves that naturally," Xbox UK Marketing Manager Harvey Eagle told us. "I think games have the potential to run faster and smoother using DirectX 12, but again, it's really up to the choice of the developer and how they want to work with the technology available."

DirectX 12 won't be something that's restricted to first-party developers and games either, although it'll be down to devs to make the most of it. "It'll certainly be available to all developers to use, but it'll be down to developer choice," Eagle added.

As for the visual differences between Xbox One and PS4, Microsoft isn't too concerned. It's all about the experience, according to Eagle. "Ultimately, it's about the experience and that experience is not always determined by having the highest resolution," he said. "It's quite difficult to tell on a TV screen up to a certain size, and as I say it's about the experience and we think our games are great to experience."

In case you didn't get that, it's all about the experience.

Could the issue (if you can call it that) be one day addressed with an Xbox One 1.5 or mk. 2? Well, there kind of already is one, in the shape of the Xbox One Elite console, which packs a 1TB solid state HDD that makes the console 20% faster when starting up. The Xbox One Elite launched earlier this month for $499.99.

Comments
33
  • The difference really isnt that big of a deal. 900p to 1080p isnt really all that noticeable anyway. Id much perfer to have actual games to play at 900p than have no games to play at 1080p. Also ps4 games have alot of problems running at 1080p anyway look at the witcher 3 for example.
  • I'm so jealous that I can't please the do not order 1886
  • @1 i do not understand how the whole resolution thing matters either. The visuals on the new Tomb Raider are stunning. As they will be on Uncharted 4, who cares what console is on. I personally prefer x1 simply because i find the controller more comfortable. As an aside, i have noticed that textures look a little bit better close up on the x1, however stuff at a distance looks better on the other console. Its only minor, and i would rather play at a steady frame rate.
  • I've always been more concerned about frame rate if I'm honest. Personally I'd rather see a game run at 900p and 60 FPS than 1080p and 30 FPS. Nothing ruins a game faster than a shitty frame rate.
  • @2 wut? was that supposed to be a slam on the order 1886?
  • Anyway, its not the resolution that makes the games look good, its the lighting. Get the lighting and the way it reflects off surfaces to look realistic, you can get away with 720 to be honest. When i get wowed, i dont go "ooh millions of pixels", i think "wow, the buildings are reflected in that puddle, wow, there are mirages on that road in the distance, wow, the sunlight reflecting off that window looks realistic"
  • @6 completely agree! I think too much stock is put in the resolution when a game's graphical quality rests on so many other facts, i.e. the ones you pointed out. Too often this becomes a crutch in so many console arguments when it can be completely misleading in some cases.
  • @6 your oppinion, man. Good graphics don't have to be the same for everyone, some people prefer comic-ish graphics while others like realistic graphics, or with more lighting, like you seem to prefer. @Topic: The resolution DOES matter, but 1080p to 900p really is barely noticeable, while 1080 to 720 is a huge leap. For me whats more important though, is clearly the framerate, the gameplay is directly affected while graphics barely affect the game at all (the only example I can think off in which graphics matter are games with large maps, like bf, when you have a superior resolution you will be able to spot enemies that are further for example)
  • i own both consoles, and i prefer my xbox for practically every reason there is, the controller , the people, the online , the app support, and the exclusives, my ps4 has collected dust almost since purchase and has only been used once in the last 4 months or so and that was for a 3d blu ray, as it looked better than the xbox one and my own personal player... that being said i am yet to come across a game on xb1 which has wowed me graphically, for 360 it was red dead redemption, that blew me away, GTA 5 came close but it already looked amazing on 360.... now on ps4 infamous second son looks stunning, and i love that game but it lacks a lot of substance and variety... as for the 1080 debate, unfortunately there is a difference , its things like jagged lines and smooth edges which do stand out.... but as i mentioned regardless of resolution or fps, xbox still has offered me the most playability with the likes of rare replay, sunset OD. tomb raider. even multi plat games i just feel teh controller is where its won and the online capabilities.
  • It doesn't really matter in the end but the entire press is making a habit of mentioning the resolution difference for each and every game Problem is, the average consumer will buy what he's reading or hearing and not what fits better his needs
  • I've been a console gamer since '89 and as much as i love both my xbox one and ps4, they're both under powered. IMO these consoles needed the power to run AAA games at 1080p 60fps as standard to ensure a long lasting console cycle, if they wanted to reach the length that the 7th gen had. (if you're not in the know, PC has been doing 1080/60fps for years) These days technology is getting better and better with each passing year and with the rise in PC gaming it's hard to determine what the future will hold for these platforms. My PC is silly powerful and when the new graphics cards are available games will be leaps and bounds ahead of these systems. I don't want 3rd party devs to suddenly promote PC and leave consoles in the lurch, because they definitely have a place atm; the console sales figures make that obvious. But it's not too crazy to think about, even nintendo have gone to mobile gaming now; the industry is always changing. But i wholeheartedly disagree with #1. If you know what you're looking for, resolution/frame rate/anti-aliasing and other creative dev tools definitely bolster the experience. Rise of the tomb raider is in desperate need of anti-aliasing, and 60fps would make the game that much more engrossing. My BenQ monitor can run at 144Hz and i would love to see ROTTR on PC with a bumped up frame rate, but as far as consoles are concerned 60fps should have been more than attainable this gen. To reiterate, I'm a console gamer through and through but these systems really are underwhelming. Another example is Halo 5, sure the game runs at 1080p, 60fps but my God were corners cut. Look at animation from enemies, choppy at best. And look at your fellow Spartans running in the distance they look like poorly drawn sprites (not the good kind like in KOF XIII but badly done, old school Chinese, knock off sprites), but when the same character gets within a few feet of you they suddenly attain full animation. Halo 5 plays amazingly well, but corners were definitely cut to get that coveted 1080p 60fps and it's a shame. I want console games to continue to play well, to continue to have great art direction and first party support. But i don't want my experience to be diluted because the hardware isn't good enough. The use of DX12 will definitely help the xbox one, but it's still not the console i want it to be. Hopefully the next console cycle will be more promising, but for now, time to craft some more arrows and get back in those tombs, they aint raiding themselves.
  • From what I've seen. I seems the x1 can render more textures and graphics improving the visuals but the ps4 delivers clearer and less muddy textures. It doesn't really make a difference at all. What the x1 needs to something to improve the processor because the install times are a bit slow.
  • @13 the solid state in the xbox one elite should improve that.
  • @13 I don' think the processor is the problem as it is actually quite powerful (they used a more powerful one than Sony did). A solid state drive is most likely the solution, and as mentioned above there is a console with one now.
  • @12 its called a console for a reason they dont have the same specs as pc's they dont have options to alter resolution and frame rate in menus on your game of choice. I personally would much rather pay 400 quid for a console that plays games well at 30fps at 900p that pay thousands of pounds for that extra fps and resolution just so I can say look how big my bollocks are my dual quad core pc runs games at 4k resolution at 120fps I would much rather buy a console I no will run my games and not have to worry about having to buy the next gen graphics card just so I can run battlefield at max specs. Its pathetic the difference isnt worth the money. Anyone who thinks it is clearly has more money than sense. Consoles also my friend are here to stay they are mainstream if anything pc gaming will die down not console gaming because lets be honest do you ever here a kid these days saying "mummy daddy please for christmas can I have a high end pc to play video games" no never they say mum dad can I have a xbox or ps4.
  • @People mentioning that the Elite has a Solid State Drive - nope. It's not an SSD, which is pure solid state, it's an SSHD. That's a regular motorised drive with a (relatively) small Solid State cache. The cache is automatically used to store and access by frequently requested data. Will it make a difference? Yes. As much as an SSD (if the system was designed to take advantage of SSD, which it isn't)? No. But that's not an option anyway. It's just a point worth mentioning to prevent confusion (which already seems to exist). TLDR: It's not a Solid State Drive, it's an SSHD (Hybrid), Drive.
  • All that should matter is having good games on it! Graphics/framerate aren't everything! I'm getting myself an xbox elite for Xmas then Ms will go and announce another xbox1 model
  • Graphics don't make the game. Minecraft is proof of that. Remember 20 years ago this shit didn't matter. I will gladly play Star Fox 64 over any new Call of Duty or Destiny. People nowadays are too focused on what looks the prettiest.
  • When's Street Fighter V?
  • @19 i remember 20 years ago (maybe longer) my little pixel art Manic Miner used to fall off the screen, hit an enemy on the screen below, die, respawn on the screen with the enemy, die again, you could not move while falling, die again, reset your computer because the game got stuck in an infinite loop. Damn, those were the days lol
  • If i wanted the best graphics I would by a pc but I wouldn't know where to start with that haha the difference between xbox an PlayStation is so minimum on most games I don't see why people make this a big deal just be happy with all the great games we get to play on any console
  • "Don't care. I'm going to go play more games." -- Me and other sensible gamers
  • One things for sure...MS has the best engineers in the world, and you can bet the Xbox Two will be a powerhouse after the critical beating it has taken this gen for being "underpowered".
  • @3 i hate the bricky controller i put off buying a xbox one solely for the controller feeling like someone dropped it and smashed it back together and didnt tell you and it just bugs you then on the curved design for 360 was nicer to the touch
  • @12 PC gaming will never overshadow console gaming while it is so cost prohibitive. The best graphics cads cost the same as an X1/PS4. Add to that the ease of use consoles have and I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
  • @11 I think you're dead wrong. As Sony had filed patents for technology to prevent used games as well they gambled that Sony would follow suit when they first announced their concept as no used games, always on, ... is clearly what both console manufacturers and all major publishers wanted. However after the huge backlash towards Microsoft Sony took opportunity of the situation and played the good guy by having none of that consumer unfriendly stuff and focussing solely on games. I think a lot of people that seem to like what they presented in the first announcement and shortly after don't realise that they never really detailed the family sharing. Yes there were rumors but no way in hell would a savy consumer trust in that being as awesome as the most positive rumors described it when the rest is so consumer unfriendly. They'd still be able to implement that for games on demand. They didn't really fail to communicate what they wanted. They just wanted to wrap their bullshit in a nicer paper but failed at that but their intentions where pretty obvious. Anyway most of the stuff they announced first can still be done: Want to have always online? Just don't play when your internet is down. Don't like region free? Just don't play a game that doesn't fit your region code Don't like playing used games? Make a big scratch if you get your hands on a used games and there you go, your X1 wont play it.
  • I've been playing call of duty since it started back on pc. Graphics mean nothing to me since I still play a pretty ugly game. Frame rate on the other hand is godly if all games can get that smooth buttery 60FPS that battlefield and Halo 5 have
  • I'm all behind the Xbox brand. There's been ups and downs - and that's been in the PlayStation camp, as well as Nintendo. As long as MS continues to try and improve the Xbox brand (and keeps listening to their customers)... things can only get better!
  • You can't really tell the difference between 900p and 1080p until you look at still images. When your playing it frame rate that's more important. I can still enjoy playing the original Wolfenstein 3d, because the gameplay is fun.
  • @26, you are posting flat out misinformation. You can now build a PC that rivals PS4 in graphical quality for cheaper than the console itself. The same is true for Xbox One. As an added note, my PC's GPU is four times as powerful as an Xbox One, and cost the same amount as an Xbox One when I bought it two years ago. I'm not trying to bash you personally but I can't stand this false info continuously posted everywhere. Also, current gen consoles have far, far less ease of use than a PC. With consoles I have to wait hours for updates to play games that still have issues (Halo 5, Black Ops III), all the while the Xbox Live service has issues every single day - like party chat not working properly, or being unable to connect to a friend's lobby. PC "just werks" far more than consoles. Just had to clear that up because it was really bugging me how this 'consoles are easier and cheaper' falsehood is perpetuated.
  • @31 well you are right but look about the devs they dont give a fuck about pc MKX was a desaster on pc so was Arkham Knight and the new AC seems to be a mess 2 . no thx I stay with console
  • @9 I can't comment on the disparity as I haven't played a PS4 but I will say that Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain amazes me graphically every time I play it, it's a beautiful game.
  • You need to register before being able to post comments

Game navigation