In a column published today on Develop, Black Rock Studio (Pure, Split/Second) technical director David Jeffrries revealed that Microsoft has removed an item from its TCRs (Technical Certification Requirements) that stated all Xbox 360 games must run at a minimum of 1280x720 (720p) resolution if the system is in HD mode. According to Jeffries, this was done earlier this year so that developers could be "free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as we see fit."
TCRs are technical "rules" that all games developed for a given platform must adhere to in order to be certified for release. Of course, some games that have skirted this specific TCR have still been allowed on the system; the most notable being Microsoft's own Halo 3, which runs at 1152x640 (progressive).
Joystiq has confirmed with a trusted source familiar with Microsoft's TCRs that Jeffries' claim is legit. Not only that, but, as of March 2009, Xbox 360 developers are no longer required to utilize full-screen anti-aliasing in their games. The elimination of both requirements is especially noteworthy since the console maker had touted that all 360 games would run at a minimum of 720p with at least 2x FSAA since before the hardware launched.
As Jeffries points out in his column, 1280x720 isn't necessarily the "starting point" for HD on many displays and that it's not nearly as crucial as anti-aliasing. It's not clear if the back-tracking on Microsoft's part was due to pressure from the development community or not, but we can probably all agree that, as long as a game looks great, it doesn't really matter how its creators got there. Does it?
Reader Comments (132)
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 10:30PM Hyams said
Silicon Siren:
I've heard that claim several times on this site, but it's not true. There aren't any 360 exclusives that run in native 1080p, but there are several PS3 ones.
Here's a list of all the console games with a native 1080p resolution: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15515141&postcount=15
Reply
I've heard that claim several times on this site, but it's not true. There aren't any 360 exclusives that run in native 1080p, but there are several PS3 ones.
Here's a list of all the console games with a native 1080p resolution: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15515141&postcount=15
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 3:28AM Badison said
@sc7
Real world applications! Both machines have somewhat exotic hardware and there are examples of one performing better than the other in different circumstances. Real world applications compared to benchmarks are more relevant especially for gaming. Storage devices and other things should be considered too, not just raw processing power. How did the Dreamcast stand up to PS1? (I loved DC, but still, it's not always about how freaking shiny a game is)
There are a number of examples of Xbox 360 performing better and it is supposed to be easier to develop for. I totally agree, games are about looking nice, however it has to be done. I play both systems a lot and am not completely convinced that either system is reaching their peak even though some comments have been made about the 360 by developers.
Ex. Oblivion had better frame rates (and more objects rendered further out) on the PS3 (imo and in many reviews),
GTA had a better frame rate and draw in distance on the PS3 but the 360 version had better effects and overall look to most people,
the limitations of the xbox 360 (storage is a factor!) prevented MGS4 from being developed in the same way as it was originally created
I just want to see more games that are developed from the ground up, specifically for 360 and PS3 :) Developers will find ways to rock socks
Reply
Real world applications! Both machines have somewhat exotic hardware and there are examples of one performing better than the other in different circumstances. Real world applications compared to benchmarks are more relevant especially for gaming. Storage devices and other things should be considered too, not just raw processing power. How did the Dreamcast stand up to PS1? (I loved DC, but still, it's not always about how freaking shiny a game is)
There are a number of examples of Xbox 360 performing better and it is supposed to be easier to develop for. I totally agree, games are about looking nice, however it has to be done. I play both systems a lot and am not completely convinced that either system is reaching their peak even though some comments have been made about the 360 by developers.
Ex. Oblivion had better frame rates (and more objects rendered further out) on the PS3 (imo and in many reviews),
GTA had a better frame rate and draw in distance on the PS3 but the 360 version had better effects and overall look to most people,
the limitations of the xbox 360 (storage is a factor!) prevented MGS4 from being developed in the same way as it was originally created
I just want to see more games that are developed from the ground up, specifically for 360 and PS3 :) Developers will find ways to rock socks
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 3:37AM Badison said
Also.... I'm sure lots of people already read this guy's thoughts on it way back when, but: http://www.endsights.com/2009/07/21/carmack-discusses-development-on-ps3-versus-xbox-360/
Reply
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 8:39AM (Unverified) said
@badison
GTA also ran at a lower rez on the ps3 than the 360 (630 on the ps3 compared to 720 on the 360) thats why it ran better but looked slightly worse
Oblivion also came out a year after the 360/PC version so they had a lot of time to improve it for ps3, although textures and lighting looked slightly better on the 360
mgs4 runs at 1024x768 @ 30fps
Also.... I'm sure lots of people already read this guy's thoughts on it way back when, but: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/ps3-is-not-more-powerful-than-xbox-360-says-ex-harmonix-dev/71102/?biz=1
just sayin' ;)
Reply
GTA also ran at a lower rez on the ps3 than the 360 (630 on the ps3 compared to 720 on the 360) thats why it ran better but looked slightly worse
Oblivion also came out a year after the 360/PC version so they had a lot of time to improve it for ps3, although textures and lighting looked slightly better on the 360
mgs4 runs at 1024x768 @ 30fps
Also.... I'm sure lots of people already read this guy's thoughts on it way back when, but: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/ps3-is-not-more-powerful-than-xbox-360-says-ex-harmonix-dev/71102/?biz=1
just sayin' ;)
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 7:49PM Dr Perry Ulysses Cox said
"Shoot her!"
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 7:59PM (Unverified) said
Thank you Randy Nelson for taking the time to write an actual story that gamers might be interested in. I'm so sick of reading about MadCatz fight sticks and XBLA releases. Seriously, I learned something from this article.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 8:27PM DrunkSte said
Well there are already a bunch of 360 games that don't run at native 720p and I don't really care. Dropping the standard gives developers more flexibility and I'm all for that.
One of the smartest things Microsoft did with the 360 was including the hardware scaler so any resolution can be scaled up to 1080p. To output 1080p on the PS3 many games render at non widescreen resolutions like 960x1080 and 1280x1080 then scale to 1920x1080.
One of the smartest things Microsoft did with the 360 was including the hardware scaler so any resolution can be scaled up to 1080p. To output 1080p on the PS3 many games render at non widescreen resolutions like 960x1080 and 1280x1080 then scale to 1920x1080.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 8:57PM AtomicPlayboy said
I never had any faith in the 720p/1080p claims made on the boxes, since many games are just rendered at lower resolution and then upscaled to that resolution for display. (I play FFVII at 1920x1200 all the time, but that doesn't make it a true HD game.) So effectively they've just stopped being disingenuous about the whole topic. Joy.
As to their motivation, I suppose they're seeing that most devs have hit the limits of the platform, and are hoping that by dropping AA and lowering resolution developers will be able to push more polys or have more texture effects with the frame rates players are used to. This will mitigate graphical stagnation while we wait for the next gen of consoles.
I'm ready for my 720 now, please.
As to their motivation, I suppose they're seeing that most devs have hit the limits of the platform, and are hoping that by dropping AA and lowering resolution developers will be able to push more polys or have more texture effects with the frame rates players are used to. This will mitigate graphical stagnation while we wait for the next gen of consoles.
I'm ready for my 720 now, please.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 9:13PM TarheelMark said
Translation: "We're worried that FF XIII may not fit on 3 discs."
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 9:29PM spin cycle said
Apparently it wasn't a very strong requirement since Halo 3, PGR 3 and COD4 didn't meet the standard.
PGR3 was 1024x576!
PGR3 was 1024x576!
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 10:07PM iFester said
It's fairly obvious so that devs working on games for Project Natal don't have to be forced to use those standards. Or better yet, so we can get Wii ports such as Boom Blox.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 10:28PM (Unverified) said
Everyone.. head on back to the PC for your gaming needs. My crappy Dell PC was cheaper and runs games at higher resolutions than my console was. Plus all the online stuff is totally free. (4 years of Xbox Live will cost you $200 at the minimum.)
I'm thinking about selling my Batman PS3 copy and getting the PC one when it comes out. I tried the PC demo after completing my PS3 game and was really impressed. Colors were richer, frame rate was higher, graphics were crisper.
I'm thinking about selling my Batman PS3 copy and getting the PC one when it comes out. I tried the PC demo after completing my PS3 game and was really impressed. Colors were richer, frame rate was higher, graphics were crisper.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 11:01PM CaramelZappa said
I prefer PC for most games, but $200 minimum? You can find 13 month cards for $30 pretty easily. That's $120 "minimum" and for 4 years and 4 months.
And your PC was cheaper than $300? And still has a high end graphics card? Cheaper than the $200 arcade?
Please, show me where you spent $200 on a computer that can play Arkham Asylum at max settings in 1080p.
Jesus christ everyone has to be such a fanboy.
Reply
And your PC was cheaper than $300? And still has a high end graphics card? Cheaper than the $200 arcade?
Please, show me where you spent $200 on a computer that can play Arkham Asylum at max settings in 1080p.
Jesus christ everyone has to be such a fanboy.
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 11:24PM El Capitaine said
@Nerdi Desi:
Ordinarily you cant, but in this instance you can because parent is stating that his Dell that was sub-$200 plays Arkham Asylum better than a 360. False.
Reply
Ordinarily you cant, but in this instance you can because parent is stating that his Dell that was sub-$200 plays Arkham Asylum better than a 360. False.
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 12:59AM DWells55 said
@Zappa: He's talking about his PS3. If he bought it at launch for $599, he could absolutely get a PC capable of gaming better than a console. Hell, I built a Hackintosh for roughly $330 that has a 9600GSO in it that can run CoD better than the Xbox can. With a little overclocking and having selected a better video card (rather than worrying about OS X compatibility), I could've built a machine for sub-$400 that absolutely blows the Xbox out of the water.
Reply
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 11:21PM BoBsS said
There are no games that run at native 1080p because it is literally impossible at this current age of consoles ... unless you accept 2 - 3fps as "playable" which no dev does (thankfully)
Does the problem lay in with the discs? No ... since DL-BR could theoretically hold just enough for a 1080p game ....
Also don't buy the crap of 1080p tv broadcast either because there is no bandwith large enough on this planet (to the consumer at least) to broadcast 1080p to your TV (yet)
1080p games will not happen until the next generation of consoles
Does the problem lay in with the discs? No ... since DL-BR could theoretically hold just enough for a 1080p game ....
Also don't buy the crap of 1080p tv broadcast either because there is no bandwith large enough on this planet (to the consumer at least) to broadcast 1080p to your TV (yet)
1080p games will not happen until the next generation of consoles
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 1:01AM DWells55 said
With compression, 1080p over-the-air is possible. The problem is that a lot of TVs can't handle a 1080p signal and lack the hardware to downscale it to the panel's native resolution. As a result, no one will attempt broadcasting over-the-air in 1080p because they'd lose a lot of viewers. I doubt any of the cheap DTV boxes are equipped to downconvert 1080p either.
Reply
Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 11:39PM makimak22 said
The never-ending debate about hardware specs and resolutions.... And the fact that MS actually PULLED BACK the requirement for game developer got lost. I suspect this move is partly due to the storage-limit of the DVD-ROM.
Would we see lower picture quality in games as a result? I think so coz nowadays developers catering for both platforms are just so cost-minded. Does lower resolution automatically mean the PLAY quality of the game would suffer? Not necessarily. As one of the comments pointed out, MGS(PS) resolution looks bad on HD monitor, but it's still a good game to PLAY.
PS3 exclusive games can look amazing (GT5/Uncharted2/MGS4), proving whatever hardware "inferiorities" it has can be overcome if the developer set out to do it. A lot of games were developed for the 360 1st and then "adjust-to-fit" the PS3 (kinda like running PC software via Virtual PC on MAC). This process means compromises and less than 100% of the PS3's potential is realized (e.g. Ghostbusters).
Would we see lower picture quality in games as a result? I think so coz nowadays developers catering for both platforms are just so cost-minded. Does lower resolution automatically mean the PLAY quality of the game would suffer? Not necessarily. As one of the comments pointed out, MGS(PS) resolution looks bad on HD monitor, but it's still a good game to PLAY.
PS3 exclusive games can look amazing (GT5/Uncharted2/MGS4), proving whatever hardware "inferiorities" it has can be overcome if the developer set out to do it. A lot of games were developed for the 360 1st and then "adjust-to-fit" the PS3 (kinda like running PC software via Virtual PC on MAC). This process means compromises and less than 100% of the PS3's potential is realized (e.g. Ghostbusters).
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 12:02AM CaramelZappa said
Okay, first of all the dvd drive has absolutely nothing to do with resolution.
Yea, those games look good, but so do 360 exclusives, what's your point?
Developing a game for the 360 and PS3 isn't anything like running software via virtual pc. The codebase has to be reworked entirely to work with the PS3's cell architecture, which makes developing the game much more difficult and cost consuming. The reason most devs don't use "100%" of the ps3's power is because they CAN'T on their budget, since they need to put more effort in to the cell processor to get the same results they get out of the 360. The wii, 360, and PC are easier to develop for than the PS3. Sony knew this when they chose the cell and it's the reason why the multiplatform games have suffered on the PS3.
Reply
Yea, those games look good, but so do 360 exclusives, what's your point?
Developing a game for the 360 and PS3 isn't anything like running software via virtual pc. The codebase has to be reworked entirely to work with the PS3's cell architecture, which makes developing the game much more difficult and cost consuming. The reason most devs don't use "100%" of the ps3's power is because they CAN'T on their budget, since they need to put more effort in to the cell processor to get the same results they get out of the 360. The wii, 360, and PC are easier to develop for than the PS3. Sony knew this when they chose the cell and it's the reason why the multiplatform games have suffered on the PS3.
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 12:45AM RKN said
"I suspect this move is partly due to the storage-limit of the DVD-ROM."
Interesting, PC games use this storage medium, yet they are able to display resolutions the PS3 can only dream off, such as true 1920x1080, or 2560x1600 and beyond. Your brain, use it or lose it.
Reply
Interesting, PC games use this storage medium, yet they are able to display resolutions the PS3 can only dream off, such as true 1920x1080, or 2560x1600 and beyond. Your brain, use it or lose it.
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 1:41AM (Unverified) said
So...my already good-looking Xbox 360 games are going to start looking like their sub-par PS3 ports? By which I mean GTA4 X360 resolution vs. GTA4 PS3 resolution, Ghostbusters X360 resolution vs. Ghostbusters PS3 resolution... The new games are going to look like the PS3 versions of my existing games, is what I'm asking here.
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 1:46PM incendious said
Probably more like Wii shovelware. Thanks for asking.
Reply
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 8:42AM ShortFuse said
What's the point of this? There ARE sub720p games already in the market, in fact, plenty of them.
Here's a list from http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) = 1040x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Conan = 1024x576 (no AA)
Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630 (2xAA)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA) - Same for GOTY Edition!
Far Cry 2 = 1280x696 (2xAA, centered on 720p window)
Fable II = 1120x720 (blur filter, 2xMSAA)
Fifa 2006 (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Fifa 2007 (demo) = 1200x675 (no AA)
Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
MK vs DC = 1024x576 (2xAA)
NCAA Football 08 (demo) = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Ninja Gaiden 2 = 1120x585 (2xAA)
Perfect Dark Zero (demo) = 1152x640 (no AA)
Pro Evolution Soccer 6 (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Project Gotham Racing 3 (demo) = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Prototype = 1120x640 (2xAA)
Saint's Row 2 = 640p (2xAA)
Sonic Unleashed = 880x720 (2xAA)
Star Ocean 4 = 1248x702 no AA field, 882x496 no AA in battle
Tomb Raider Legend = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Tomb Raider Underworld = 1024x576 (2xAA) - depth buffer is 1040x576
Tony Hawk's Project 8 (screenshot) = 1040x585 (2xAA)
Virtua Fighter 5 (demo) = 1024x1024 (4xAA)
Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA)
Here's a list from http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA)
Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) = 1040x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty 4 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
Conan = 1024x576 (no AA)
Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630 (2xAA)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA) - Same for GOTY Edition!
Far Cry 2 = 1280x696 (2xAA, centered on 720p window)
Fable II = 1120x720 (blur filter, 2xMSAA)
Fifa 2006 (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Fifa 2007 (demo) = 1200x675 (no AA)
Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
MK vs DC = 1024x576 (2xAA)
NCAA Football 08 (demo) = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Ninja Gaiden 2 = 1120x585 (2xAA)
Perfect Dark Zero (demo) = 1152x640 (no AA)
Pro Evolution Soccer 6 (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA)
Project Gotham Racing 3 (demo) = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Prototype = 1120x640 (2xAA)
Saint's Row 2 = 640p (2xAA)
Sonic Unleashed = 880x720 (2xAA)
Star Ocean 4 = 1248x702 no AA field, 882x496 no AA in battle
Tomb Raider Legend = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Tomb Raider Underworld = 1024x576 (2xAA) - depth buffer is 1040x576
Tony Hawk's Project 8 (screenshot) = 1040x585 (2xAA)
Virtua Fighter 5 (demo) = 1024x1024 (4xAA)
Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA)
Posted: Sep 3rd 2009 5:56PM (Unverified) said
Clever girl







