This article is in reference to the XBOX ONE X not the XBOX Series X.
That's why I said One X in my post.
We don't know the resource hit on Series X
This article is in reference to the XBOX ONE X not the XBOX Series X.
I wonder if a 'Xbox Series X has updated the UI to native 4k' would even get over 5 pages of posts.
I can't imagine people seriously caring about this more than a few seconds after intially noticing it.
It's also a compromise for RAM I believePeople have been correctly complaining about that for a long time.
As someone with a base PS4 and a 4K TV, I can honestly say the 1080p interface is absolutely fine. Don't see much of a difference, to be honest.I wonder if a 'Xbox Series X has updated the UI to native 4k' would even get over 5 pages of posts.
I can't imagine people seriously caring about this more than a few seconds after intially noticing it.
I would take a 24 hour ban bet that it wouldn't reach 5 pages at all. :)
I corrected my post. Also we know that the Series X also has 3gb of ram dedicated to the OS, just like the xbox one x.That's why I said One X in my post.
We don't know the resource hit on Series X
The initial fud thread about the Series X overheating made about 900 posts here before it was locked.I wonder if a 'Xbox Series X has updated the UI to native 4k' would even get over 5 pages of posts.
I can't imagine people seriously caring about this more than a few seconds after intially noticing it.
That's weird. I mean, it's good that it allows devs to use more RAM, but is the difference between 1080p and 4K really a whole Gig?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if a 'Xbox Series X has updated the UI to native 4k' would even get over 5 pages of posts.
I can't imagine people seriously caring about this more than a few seconds after intially noticing it.
Thing is that is just for the one x and not series x. I don't think it should have been included as its just confusing people and I thought MS should have finally figured out how to get the UI in 4k like Sony has done for ps4 Pro and PS5 (and other devices like apple tv 4k, etc).So, has the addendum information in the OP about developers requesting extra memory been sourced/verified from anywhere else besides that one poster on Reddit ?
Based on the threadmarks, it seems like it was an unsubstantiated rumor.
I don't saw how they're going to fix this in a patch (as folks keep saying) if they've already made the resources available for developers to use.
I don't saw how they're going to fix this in a patch (as folks keep saying) if they've already made the resources available for developers to use.
As far as 4k in a dashboard being a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. If you've purchased a 4k tv, then it's simply nice to have everything looking crisp on that display. Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
Also the argument that aesthetics on non-gameplay elements don't matter feels a little narrow minded. Perhaps you personally don't consciously care about those smaller details, but aesthetics do matter. I remember when I was studying psychology at university, one of the phenomena we were studying was pre-cognitive neurological indicators of aesthetic appeal. People notice when something looks visually appealing and those appealing features are viewed favourably. There are lots of interesting experiments in this space too, for instance appeal is often shown to affect task performance.
The question isn't whether aesthetics matter, it's how much do they matter, and whether they're worth the cost.
But, the problem with Microsoft's decision here, is that in order to answer that question they've consulted a stakeholder with only one possible conclusion. More ram gives the developer more to play with. Even if a developer does not need it, they will tell you that they want it because there's literally no disadvantage in doing so. If they don't need the additional ram, then the won't use it, if they do, they'll be glad it was made available. It's win win for the developer because they never need to consider this from the users perspective.
I think that Microsoft took the wrong approach here. You need to identify what user experience you want to provide at the system level, and then deliver that without compromises. Then you can allocate development resources as additional, to that. If Microsoft needed 1gb of extra ram to get the UI running at 4k, then the system should have been built with more ram at the hardware level.
If the game developer had their way, the system would boot right into their game, after all. It's not the developers job to understand the users needs from the system level experience, that's Microsoft and I really do think they're failing consumers here. Everyone is looking at next gen platforms as 4K, HDR experiences, and even the system level UI should be delivering on that.
Guess I'm in the minority here but something like this can be taken care of by your tv's upscaler.
I don't saw how they're going to fix this in a patch (as folks keep saying) if they've already made the resources available for developers to use.
As far as 4k in a dashboard being a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. If you've purchased a 4k tv, then it's simply nice to have everything looking crisp on that display. Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
Also the argument that aesthetics on non-gameplay elements don't matter feels a little narrow minded. Perhaps you personally don't consciously care about those smaller details, but aesthetics do matter. I remember when I was studying psychology at university, one of the phenomena we were studying was pre-cognitive neurological indicators of aesthetic appeal. People notice when something looks visually appealing and those appealing features are viewed favourably. There are lots of interesting experiments in this space too, for instance appeal is often shown to affect task performance.
The question isn't whether aesthetics matter, it's how much do they matter, and whether they're worth the cost.
But, the problem with Microsoft's decision here, is that in order to answer that question they've consulted a stakeholder with only one possible conclusion. More ram gives the developer more to play with. Even if a developer does not need it, they will tell you that they want it because there's literally no disadvantage in doing so. If they don't need the additional ram, then the won't use it, if they do, they'll be glad it was made available. It's win win for the developer because they never need to consider this from the users perspective.
I think that Microsoft took the wrong approach here. You need to identify what user experience you want to provide at the system level, and then deliver that without compromises. Then you can allocate development resources as additional, to that. If Microsoft needed 1gb of extra ram to get the UI running at 4k, then the system should have been built with more ram at the hardware level.
If the game developer had their way, the system would boot right into their game, after all. It's not the developers job to understand the users needs from the system level experience, that's Microsoft and I really do think they're failing consumers here. Everyone is looking at next gen platforms as 4K, HDR experiences, and even the system level UI should be delivering on that.
They have 2.5GB of OS memory. That's not impossible to get a 4k ui in - certainly many devices have done so before. I don't know what the memory footprint of all of their OS features are, none of us do really. It's not impossible they could find a way to somehow do what they want to do while also upgrading the UI resolution. It's not guaranteed either, of course. But there's enough fuzz where we can't rule that out just because at launch it isn't.
I don't know if it really is bloated, but it is Windows, known for it's bloat that 20 minute "Windows 10 1803 OPTIMIZATION Guide For GAMERS & POWER USERS! - YouTube" videos can't really get all of the bloat and "services" out. I had this one bookmarked since Windows 10 updates usually reset things, reactivates stuff, or add more stuff that would be best to deactivate. One of the many reasons I wish Linux gaming really takes off as the main platform for PC gaming. Darnit Google, you failed.Why is the OS so bloated that they can't even do a 4k native UI and have to sacrifice that to free up ram? Shit why not run it at 480p in black and white to free up even more resources.
Look i'm not even getting an xbox but it just bothers me as a tech enthusiast.
Come to think of it, I don't think it even had a UI (yes, you are of course joking and I realize that). Not even if you'd turn on the console without a cartridge - I think it just showed a black screen. But it's been so long since I've played on an N64 I could be misremembering.
The one thing everyone complaining in this thread have in common lol
It's hard to read your book here. If games look better to sacrifice UI I'm all for it...this much energy into explaining why MS wants to make games look better seems pretty silly to me.I don't saw how they're going to fix this in a patch (as folks keep saying) if they've already made the resources available for developers to use.
As far as 4k in a dashboard being a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. If you've purchased a 4k tv, then it's simply nice to have everything looking crisp on that display. Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
Also the argument that aesthetics on non-gameplay elements don't matter feels a little narrow minded. Perhaps you personally don't consciously care about those smaller details, but aesthetics do matter. I remember when I was studying psychology at university, one of the phenomena we were studying was pre-cognitive neurological indicators of aesthetic appeal. People notice when something looks visually appealing and those appealing features are viewed favourably. There are lots of interesting experiments in this space too, for instance appeal is often shown to affect task performance.
The question isn't whether aesthetics matter, it's how much do they matter, and whether they're worth the cost.
But, the problem with Microsoft's decision here, is that in order to answer that question they've consulted a stakeholder with only one possible conclusion. More ram gives the developer more to play with. Even if a developer does not need it, they will tell you that they want it because there's literally no disadvantage in doing so. If they don't need the additional ram, then the won't use it, if they do, they'll be glad it was made available. It's win win for the developer because they never need to consider this from the users perspective.
I think that Microsoft took the wrong approach here. You need to identify what user experience you want to provide at the system level, and then deliver that without compromises. Then you can allocate development resources as additional, to that. If Microsoft needed 1gb of extra ram to get the UI running at 4k, then the system should have been built with more ram at the hardware level.
If the game developer had their way, the system would boot right into their game, after all. It's not the developers job to understand the users needs from the system level experience, that's Microsoft and I really do think they're failing consumers here. Everyone is looking at next gen platforms as 4K, HDR experiences, and even the system level UI should be delivering on that.
No idea how a 4K UI would need even close to 1GB of RAM compared to a 1080p one. Most of the UI elements should be vector-based anyway, what would they put on it that would eat up so much memory?
I don't know if it really is bloated, but it is Windows, known for it's bloat that 20 minute "Windows 10 1803 OPTIMIZATION Guide For GAMERS & POWER USERS! - YouTube" videos can't really get all of the bloat and "services" out. I had this one bookmarked since Windows 10 updates usually reset things, reactivates stuff, or add more stuff that would be best to deactivate. One of the many reasons I wish Linux gaming really takes off as the main platform for PC gaming. Darnit Google, you failed.
clear, crisp UI to look at
Unfortunately any next-gen thread about the 'other side' is full of people with no intention of ever buying a PS5/XSX making sure their concerns are heard.The one thing everyone complaining in this thread have in common lol
Pfft, why even have an UI. Go full DOS.Why not make it 640x480 and unlock even more for devs.
(on a serious note, doesn't bother me).
While I have noticed this in games (for example switch FH4 between 4k/1080p), on the dashboard I don't notice anything similar with the text and UI elements there.Also, in my own experience 4k is actually most noticeable on things like UI elements, and less so during in-motion gameplay. So the fact that the UI isn't 4k for me, is a big deal.
clear, crisp UI to look at
I mean don't people buy new shiny consoles to look at UI
I mean, it still does do it. Just a matter of how picky one may be, I suppose. To be honest I haven't noticed an appreciable between any of my devices that have UIs at different resolutions. Playing media, yes, that's a different story. Maybe a little to in the weeds, but Sony's upscaling tech in their TVs is widely known to be the best in the business, so maybe that's helping me?It isn't though. I have an LG oled c6 65 inch and PS4 Pro and Apple TV 4k look really clear. Load up xbox one x and it's blurry and sharp edges everywhere in comparison. I had assumed MS had finally figured out the secret as to how other companies manage it, and could finally bring us to the present with the series x.