MS drops 360's 720p requirement

By Robert Purchese Published 3 September, 2009

Devs now free to make "trade-off".

Black Rock's technical director David Jefferies has revealed that the 720p requirement for Xbox 360 games has been "retired" by Microsoft.

"Now we are free to make the trade-off between resolution and image quality as we see fit," wrote Jefferies as a guest contributor for Develop.

The reason, he said, is down to TV manufacturers such as Sony and Samsung equipping 720p LCD TVs with resolutions of 1366x768 rather than true 1280x720. The image, therefore, is upscaled using TV hardware, however good or bad it may be.

This is out of the developer's control and negates any effort expended trying to support that resolution in the first place. So, rather than drop features to reach 720p, Jefferies and Black Rock can now include extra anti-aliasing and graphical touches by using a slightly lower resolution.

Jefferies thanked Halo 3 for getting the ball rolling, after Microsoft "waived" its 1152x640 resolution.

But don't panic; Jefferies said this will become "less of an issue" as more and more tellies ship with full 1080p.

Black Rock made brilliant off-road racer Pure, and is currently hard at work on urban driving game Split/Second for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.

Our gamepages below can - like Craig David - fill you in.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (61) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Widge #1 2 years ago

    I would get a DX11 card but I can't see them being below £200, whereas I just got a refund on a 4870 and the 4890 is as little as £120!

    RE: this resolution statement. I guess everyone should pretty much agree on not caring about resolution as long as game looks good and plays good.

  • JonFE #2 2 years ago

    Was this requirement actually enforced? I'm sure that apart from Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4, other titles may have missed the mark.

  • Widge #3 2 years ago

    I think I was seeing $299 as a slated price, although what it'd cost over here is another matter.

  • MasterNameless #4 2 years ago

    "RE: this resolution statement. I guess everyone should pretty much agree on not caring about resolution as long as game looks good and plays good."

    You would hope so wouldn't you. Logic doesn't often apply in these comments section though unfortunately, especially after Halo 3 gets a mention. :/

  • Zomoniac #5 2 years ago

    TBH I'd rather they'd have foregone the HD thing completely now, and stuck with their original aim of delivering Pixar-level detail and animation in SD, instead of a slight detail improvement to account for the massive increase in resolution. But it's happened, and SD games, unless upscaled well, all look like absolute wank on HD screens (well, all SD content does), so I'd rather they at least stuck to the standard to stop everything looking like a fuzzy mess.

  • Psychotext #6 2 years ago

    "Was this requirement actually enforced?"

    Not really. You could always get out of it if you played nice with MS. I guess they've decided to do this now to level the playing field with Sony (who never had such a requirement)... no idea why they'd change it now though.

  • Widge #7 2 years ago

    Ah, sorry, reading error

  • JonFE #8 2 years ago

    Thanks Psycho, that's what I thought too...

    To be honest, I'd be more interested for enforcing requirements towards the quality of the output, like no screen tearing due to disabled V-Sync (give us the option to decide whether the performance hit is worth it) or screen resolution not matching the game resolution (I'm looking at you Resident Evil) than this.

  • Toothball #9 2 years ago

    Never really trusted 1366x768.

  • zoufouille #10 2 years ago

    Halo, the biggest microsoft license, isn't even 720p, so what's with this announcement?

  • KillerMonkey #11 2 years ago

    "Was there any good reason for them making TVs with 768p instead of 720p?"
    For selling them to people who think more is automatically better?

  • des #12 2 years ago

    Like anybody cared about that "requirement"...
    Oblivion was among first sub-hd games,and nobody complained,there where no pixel counters back then...lol

    Next gen you are going to see the same thing,resolutions all over the place,but the baseline will be higher.

  • ZuluHero #13 2 years ago

    @zoufouille

    Different rules apply to 1st party and 3rd party devs.

  • Moonprince #14 2 years ago

    "espicially"

    Awesome.

  • altitude2k #15 2 years ago

    @TheStylishHobo: it's very likely something to do with how divisible the numbers are which makes them either easier to manufacture or easier to support. If you divide 768 by 2, then by 2, then by 2 etc. you end up with it reducing to 3. This doesn't happen with 720.

  • Moonprince #16 2 years ago

    "tbh honest"

    Even more awesome.

  • JahB #17 2 years ago

    HD console owners all still in the minority and 1080p set owners even more

    but that's who these consoles were made and marketed for. and given the prices of decent HD TV's these days, i don't see why this is a minority.
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/09 @ 10:24

  • hiddenranbir #18 2 years ago

    Because most people are just regular TV users, not console gamers. Until more people adopt the HD services from their television providers then they're unlikely to get a HDTV. Also, there just aren't that many HD channels to really encourage the majority to make the switch.

    I also think a TV is one of things that people don't replace until it ends up broken. How we do, anyway.

  • Optimaximal #19 2 years ago

    This sounds less like an announcement and more an excuse! Current console hardware has never proved capable of both the resolution AND detail promised by the 'HD' moniker, so why MS continued to enforce it was lame.

    It's simple, if you want the best looking stuff in gaming today, you need to slap a decent amount of money on a top-range PC.

    I'm a PC gamer exclusively and even I can admit you need to spend more than £500 to get a decent gaming PC.

  • wizbob #20 2 years ago

    "i bet a lot of 360 owners are playing in standard def on a HD tv as they dont have the tech knowledge like the more savvy among us."

    I haven't seen a non-HDTV flat-screen for sale in a while and I think you'd have to be pretty tech savvy to get a decent CRT these days, since you'd probably be buying secondhand. The reason that HDTV owners are a minority isn't that the TVs are too expensive or that they don't understand the offering; they just don't care.

  • Zomoniac #21 2 years ago

    The reason that HDTV owners are a minority isn't that the TVs are too expensive or that they don't understand the offering; they just don't care.

    They're probably not even in a minority. The stat was something like more than half Gears 2 players play in SD. I wonder how many of those SD players are playing on HD LCDs using composite cables and think that they're playing in HD. Just after 360 came out a mate of mine told me he'd got a 360 Core system and was telling me how much better Halo 2 looked in HD. I asked him if he'd got the component or VGA cable and he said he was just using the yellow, red and white cables that came with it. I slapped him around the face.
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/09 @ 10:40

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #22 2 years ago

    Different rules apply to 1st party and 3rd party devs.

    No, the same rules apply to everyone. But if you apply for permission, you can get some of them waived, just as Squeenix got the no-install-to-hard-disk rule waived for Final Fantasy XI, so PGR3, Halo3, COD4 and others got the 720p rule waived.

    The time must have come that so many titles were requesting a waiver for that rule that they just decided to stop bothering.

  • Widge #23 2 years ago

    I know a few people playing 360's on SD TV's, not through not knowing about stuff, but for a variety of reasons. Some just wanted to get a new console on the cheap, plumped for a 360 as its cheap, getting an HDTV adds on cost. I've got a mate who swears by a quality CRT as he can't stand LCDs (which from a purist point of view is fair enough, proper blacks, proper motion, also no upgrading of TV just for gaming).

    We're still in the transition to HD, people are starting to get it and buy into it though. What we certainly DON'T need is to have 3D thrust upon us. Oh.

  • MasterNameless #24 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac

    My friend did exactly the same thing, he also received a slap. Idiot.

  • swissorc #25 2 years ago

    I have to say that with my set it's quite obvious when things are up scaled from 720p to 1080p on my 360 I know that when released virtura tennis when meant to be the first native 1080p game on the 360 but I don't know of many else. As for HDTV I would love sky HD but it's a rip off one of the selling points when I got my tv was built in freesat at least I get to watch champions league in HD and the odd film on BBC HD but thats it. I agree not many people are going to make the switch until it is better value for money with greater choice my parents got sky digital within weeks of coming out (year 2000 I think it was) and there was no lack of channels when that launched just reflects how much of a rip sky HD is surely
    Rant Over

  • Zomoniac #26 2 years ago

    Didn't Samsung make an HD CRT at one point? What happened to that? I'd love a CRT, I have 3 great HDTVs, and the 360/PS3/Blu-Rays etc look incredible, but every time I drag out the Wii or DC or other retro console I'm invariably horrified by how bad everything looks on the LCD. I just don't have enough room to accomodate one :(

  • JahB #27 2 years ago

    @Zomoniac

    i hear you. new consoles look awesome on my HDTV, but my SNES looks really, really bad

  • Gaol #28 2 years ago

    I play HD games on a (very nice) Dell monitor on PS3 and while 720p suff looks amazing, when the resolution drops too much lower it starts looking like shit. GTAIV is the worst culprit I can think of. This is a step backwards, I'd rather they stuck to a common 720p standard; and it affects me indirectly as developers making games for both systems now have less pressure to aim for 720p.

  • Bagpuss #29 2 years ago

    "Didn't Samsung make an HD CRT at one point? "

    Yes they did...it was a 32inch for £400 about 3 yrs ago and my local Comet had it in stock, it was also a 'slim' CRT about a third slimmer than a regular CRT.

    It looked very nice, although there were rumours on AV forums that it was quite a poorly made set....

    LCD's suck for retro gaming.....

  • jambii267 #30 2 years ago

    I have the Samsung HD CRT and it's a massive piece of shit!

  • Widge #31 2 years ago

    YES. The Samsung suffered from poor geometry due to the tube required for slimness. Makes you wish they'd just made a big fat one instead.

    I was always told that the US had quite a range of HD CRT's, don't know if this is factual or not.

  • ZuluHero #32 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    You're right, it should apply equally to everyone, but in reality it sadly doesn't. 1st party devs have a much easy time getting stuff waived than a 3rd party studio.

    There are exceptions to the rule, like you said COD4 and FFXI, but only when the game is considered to be a big seller.
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/09 @ 11:23

  • dither #33 2 years ago

    One thing I liked about the 360 was that you were guaranteed 720p with widescreen and surround sound support. I don't think it's a step in the right direction to be changing this now.

  • smelly #34 2 years ago

    Who cares if you WERE "gauranteed" 720p?!?

    I doubt you could even tell the difference unless someone on a website told you it wasnt running at "proper" 720p.

    As for 1080p.. The memory/bandwidth requirements for doing 1080p can severly limit developers.. Do you make the textures larger to look good at higher resolutions - at the expense of effects? A full screen render target at that resolution is going to set you back 8 meg alone...

    In fact, just taking into account front buffer/back buffer and depth buffer.. that's 24 meg gone straight away.

    Hmmm.. Actually, maybe this isnt the place for tech talk.

  • dither #35 2 years ago

    Actually I could, Smelly.

  • Gaol #36 2 years ago

    You can easily see the difference between a game at 1280x720; and something like the 1140x630 that GTAIV runs on PS3. There's less detail, and as there's more upscaling going on worse aliasing. I've played Halo 3 and that's another one that suffers from a lower resolution. PC gamers have been able to see the effect of immediate resolution changes for years.

    Whether you prefer to keep the resolution up, or trade it for extra anti aliasing and a few other effects is a matter of taste; I much prefer the former.

  • Widge #37 2 years ago

    I think we have to get back to the state where you 'make do' with a console. Trade off with more graphical sparkle vs resolution. As PC disappears into the horizon, console owner should stop focusing on the graphical side of things and just enjoy good gaming!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #38 2 years ago

    Spotting the difference in resolution is really easy - if you play a lot on the PC. If you have a PC and try out the various resolutions in a game you immediately see the difference and thus know what exactly will look different using a higher resolution. Once you know what difference the resolution can make you'll notice games running in a lower resolution quite easily.

    I'm not saying that it is important that a game runs in 720p but all the people who claim that you can't see the difference are simply wrong. You can; Whether the difference in image quality matters or not is an entirely different discussion though.



  • chessboxer #39 2 years ago

    I'm a PC gamer exclusively and even I can admit you need to spend more than £500 to get a decent gaming PC

    I spent more than that on my CPU, but I use it for more than just gaming.

  • frombrosis #40 2 years ago

    Hrm, anyone else think this will make the comparisons between xbox360 and the PS3 closer now??

  • Bazfrag #41 2 years ago

    Omgz!! Games are intolerable at less than 720p.

    INTOLERABLE!!...

  • OldK1ngCole #42 2 years ago

    "If you have a PC and try out the various resolutions in a game you immediately see the difference and thus know what exactly will look different using a higher resolution."

    Also try changing the output setting on your Xbox to 480p then back to 720p/1080i. If people can't see the difference maybe they need a trip to the opticians.

    But as you say image quality is a completey different thing.

    Maybe they've done this to get more Devs to lock v-sync (which does cause a performance hit) thus reducing screen tear and improving image quality.
    Edited by 3 at 03/09/09 @ 13:25

  • zakrocz #43 2 years ago

    When my 720p HDTV went for repair and i had to get out my old SD telly it was awful trying to play 360 games. Far Cry 2 was unplayable, the tv couldn't handle all the detail. I'm so glad I have a HDTV for my gaming, sod that PC gaming crap, hunched over a keyboard staring at a 20" monitor or feet up on the sofa with a 37" HDTV with fantastic gfx, kind of a no-brainer really.

  • JahB #44 2 years ago

    Omgz!! Games are intolerable at less than 720p.

    they're not intolerable, but they look ugly. if i wanted to play games with last gen graphics i would have kept my ps2 or bought a wii

  • MasterNameless #45 2 years ago

    @JahB

    I have a funny feeling that Bazfrag was joking. The extra exclamation marks and full stops give it away a little. ;)

  • Darren #46 2 years ago

    I'm fine with console games using a lower resolution so long as they use AA too as this works at disguising the sub-720p nature of the games pretty well as the current gen Tomb Raiders, Call of Duties and Oblivion on the Xbox 360 have proven (they're all sub-720p but used AA).

    Funny that Halo 3 got a mention though... that's sub-720p, yes, but it also does NOT use AA and, boy, does it show on large screen HDTVs. :?

    I guess we're going to have to wait for the NEXT generation of console hardware before 720p with AA is the MINIMUM standard for ALL high-definition games.

  • Machiavellian #47 2 years ago

    I believe the keyword here is Certification requirement. In other words, the developers do not have to go through hoops when their game is not MSAA and 720P.

  • BadBoyBonner #48 2 years ago

    ZeroLight

    Most of the early "HD" Plasma's were not 1024x540 but 1024x1024 (obviously the earliest were 480p).

    Sounds strange I know - as "How on earth do you get a 16x9 image from that?" - the answer is simple - make the pixels 16x9 and viola , job done.

  • JahB #49 2 years ago

    @MasterNameless

    i think you're right. my brain is stuck in slow-mo today....

  • SpyroViper #50 2 years ago

    "Sod that PC gaming crap, hunched over a keyboard staring at a 20" monitor or feet up on the sofa with a 37" HDTV with fantastic gfx, kind of a no-brainer really."

    You really are a dumb little shit aren't you?

    Have you heard of a thing called WIRELESS! I have a WIRELESS Keyboard AND mouse that I use on my PC on my 40" HDTV at 1080p relaxed 4 feet away on my reclining swively chair!

    Do your research next time you thick consoler. Have fun with your pathetic resolutions, that I was using in 1998 with Unreal!

  • MasterNameless #51 2 years ago

    ^

    Damn, maybe he used a bad word like 'crap', but he was only stating his preference, no need for so much vemon! I know I'd rather be a thick consoler than a socially inept PC user like the one above.

    And of course, I'm not saying that about all PC gamers, just the odd hate-filled one who can't understand someone else's perspective.

  • JahB #52 2 years ago

    Have you heard of a thing called WIRELESS! I have a WIRELESS Keyboard AND mouse that I use on my PC on my 40" HDTV at 1080p relaxed 4 feet away on my reclining swively chair!

    so where is your KB/mouse setup? on your lap? or on a table/desk in front of you? if so, you'd have to admit the man has a point - sitting on a couch is infinitely more comfortable than sitting at a desk, regardless of the quality of your chair

  • MasterNameless #53 2 years ago

    Haha, I spotted that his profile says, "Not comming back to EG"!

    Two fails for the price of one! XD

  • SpyroViper #54 2 years ago

    My wireless keyboard would be on my left hand (on the side) and my mouse would be on my right. While I'm laying back on the chair.

    It's alot more comfortable than holding a tiny controller (got big monkey hands) lol!

    But yes, my previous post may have had venom, but I cannot stand people who think that pc gamers today still sqink over 20" monitors.. let alone bashing pc gaming altogether. Really infuriates me..

  • JahB #55 2 years ago

    @wascallywaycyst

    your post really made me laugh. you know that the absurd clichee you're describing is an exact fit for 11 million pc (wow) players, right?

    and i'm sure that you have much more fun playing Call of Duty from a trench...
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/09 @ 15:53

  • Collymilad #56 2 years ago

    Lol zak thanks for that, i love seeing the little PC-whiney babies getting riled.

    PC gamers can suck dick. There's nothing wrong with gaming on PC but the userbase leaves a shedload to be desired the elitist idiots.
    Edited by 1 at 03/09/09 @ 16:15

  • GamesConnoisseur #57 2 years ago

    Second that lots of people do not really understand HDTV!

    We know the fabled stories of Sky Engineer coming into people home to check Sky box and note that well off bloke with mega big HDTV and SKY HD only use aerial lead etc, and with HDMI free cables in so called HD consoles from the off. SO how the heck are we assisting the transition to HD era?!

    One mate of mine did have HDTV but did not use the lead and thought was watching 'HD' but when he came over to play few games in my house some while back, he realised there and then what HD should looks like and asked me how to get HD to be set up etc. Never looked back.

    Perhaps we should start HD consulting business on the sideline?!

    Sure not everyone have the luxury of HDTV, but a shameful SIN for those who do have the right set up but not cabled or set to right resolution!!

  • Wolverfrog #58 2 years ago

    ODST uses 640p, and for a game on a two year old engine, it looks pretty amazing.

  • zedzee #59 2 years ago

    Meanwhile, Sony boasted that their customers don't have to worry about high quality/resolution because they're used to shoddy quality and poor ports, since they've never asked and developers have never managed to reach high qualities for PS3 games.

  • Darren #60 2 years ago

    N@ - "1360x768 looks better than 720p on my tele. Some games tear like a mofo at 768 ( resi 5/batman aa) but mostly games look sharper."

    That's because you're seeing more of the image as 1360x768 isn't overscanned on most HDTVs unlike 720p. As a result you'll see a sharper image with more detail that would otherwise be lost in the hidden overscan area.

  • ChoedanKal #61 2 years ago

    This is interesting.

    Read the Article "Definition Transition" on Gamesindustry.biz