Xbox One S will upscale all games to 4K, Microsoft confirms

Microsoft has confirmed the Xbox One S will not only upscale games to 4K, but all games released can be enjoyed in 4K.

29

When we first learned about the Xbox One S at E3 2016, we knew Microsoft’s latest iteration of its Xbox One would support 4K gaming. While we assumed this meant developers could push the hardware to deliver 4K gaming from now on, it turns out previously-released Xbox One titles will also benefit from 4K support.

According to partner director of program management, Mike Ybarra, the Xbox One S will have the capability to upscale all games released on the platform to 4K. The confirmation comes from a series of tweets Ybarra traded with one Twitter user.

This confirmation is surprising to hear considering Microsoft made no mention of this killer feature during its E3 2016 press conference. Being able to upscale all games on the Xbox One to 4K will make early 4K adopters happy to finally get some good use out of the upcoming console. Although for the majority of us that have waited to buy a 4K TV, it looks like 2016 is the year we all might finally have to cave in.

Senior Editor

From The Chatty

  • reply
    July 5, 2016 7:00 AM

    Daniel Perez posted a new article, Xbox One S will upscale all games to 4K, Microsoft confirms

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 7:04 AM

      But all 4K TVs will do that anyway, won't they? The s won't render at high res.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 7:12 AM

        Yeah. The only benefit should be that the chip in the console might be slightly better than whatever's in your TV.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:16 AM

        Yep. Not really a selling feature.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:23 AM

        This gets rid of the processing delay on the TV side and will help ensure that audio and video will be closer "in sync" on 4K TV's. I've been doing a lot of testing on HDMI-in on 4K TV's and have seen that in some cases, a non-4K signal can have up to 70ms of A/V disconnect added by the TV.

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 7:09 AM

      I am actually curious to see some benchmarks when this thing comes out on games that use dynamic resolution scaling. Since the thing has a tiny bit more power in it they should in theory run better. Nothing worth upgrading for I am sure, but it should be interesting to see the numbers.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 7:11 AM

        All I've heard is that the processors in the thing will be exactly the same as the original Xbone. They just have a 4K upscaler chip as well... so this shouldn't affect games with dynamic resolution at all.

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 7:21 AM

          There were other articles out there about it having a bit more horsepower to allow for HDR. For older dynamic resolution games without HDR that might allow for an improvement. All conjecture at this point obviously.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 10:35 AM

            The little bit I've been able to find says that the minor performance increase is only available to games using HDR. It's weird, I wish MS would release more info/details.

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 7:13 AM

      Won't they get a performance increase by dropping kinect support ?

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 7:24 AM

        That happened a while ago, I think. The chunk of CPU and GPU reserved for kinect was given back to games that asked for it.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 7:50 AM

        The didn't drop Kinect support, they just removed the proprietary connector on the back. You can use an adapter and plug it into a USB port instead.

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 9:40 AM

      I have a question. Why are Sony and MS so concerned with 4k gaming? Is it to accommodate VR? I ask because I if it's just to have a higher resolution for the sake of having it,then I say they are,and always have been focusing on the wrong thing as I would rather have ALL of my games running at a locked 60 fps,even if that means 720p.

      When I look at the differences between PC and console gaming,the very first thing I notice is the framerate. For the life of me I can't understand why console devs aren't more concerned about fps than resolution.Some games would greatly benefit more from higher framerates than higher resolution.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:20 AM

        It's just a meaningless number to slap on a box as a feature. It's the "64 bit" of the current generation :(

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 3:39 PM


          4K Blast processing!

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 4:33 PM

            Whoa whoa whoa the world isn't ready for that kind of power.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:32 AM

        4K TV's can now be purchased for under $1,000, so they're starting to get into homes.

        Upscalers in TV's add a performance penalty that can be noticed in user input, and also can cause issues with audio/video sync.

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 11:40 AM

          upscalers in consoles can be crummy too, though (hello, PS3!) :(

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 6:22 PM

            MSFT since the 360 has put in very good upscalers in their systems.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 6:26 PM

            It was a contributing factor to the 360 becoming my primary console that generation. My old 55" rear projection HDTV only supported 480i/p and 1080i so many early ps3 games would only run 480p with my setup.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:40 AM

        marketing. idiot public only understands "more number more good". 4000 is more good than 1080.

        why buy a worthless old 1080p TV when you can get a new one that is 4x better in every single way right?

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 10:44 AM

          and the public doesnt at all understand resolution, but thinks it does. and it genuinely has no idea what frame rate is, and doesnt care.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 11:11 AM

            yup most don't give a shit as long as it doesn't become unplayable... which is usually > 24fps

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 11:27 AM

          Also, hilariously enough, 4k is actually only 2x the resolution of 1080p (but 4x the number of pixels). But 4k sounds way better than 2160p.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 3:57 PM

        This generation should have been about pushing 1080p 60fps easy peasy. Seems like 4K is irrelevant to most people at the moment anyway.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 4:56 PM

        Sony mandated that PS4 Neo games must run at at least as high a framerate as games on PS4. If the upgraded "Neo" version runs at a higher res than the vanilla PS4 then it cannot run at a slower framerate. That seems good

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 10:18 AM

      Will there be UHD support? That's the only wat this would be useful.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 11:02 AM

        Yes, but likely only hdr10 not dolby vision: http://windowsreport.com/xbox-one-s-hdr-support-hdr10-standard/

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 11:07 AM

          UHD Bluray only supports HDR10, so that makes sense. I don't know why they wouldn't support DolbyVision as that's what Netflix and Amazon use...they'd be really hurting themselves if they didn't.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 11:09 AM

            I mean, from what I know, the TV is the one that needs the DV hardware, not the player. That just needs to be able to send the metadata over to the TV.

            • reply
              July 5, 2016 12:28 PM

              Both need the hardware to support dolby vision (EDR Decoder). You are correct that no UHD blu-ray player supports dolby vision yet, but movies will start to feature it starting with a few universal, but they need players that support it first. The base layer must be HDR10, so these discs will still be compatible with that.

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 10:23 AM

      uh, can we focus on 60FPS 1080P first?

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 10:44 AM

        i seriously doubt any game console will ever target more than the 20-30 fps mark. the problem is you cant really advertise 60fps, but you can advertise a million godamn particles effects, stupid film-effect shaders, and extreme closeups of a polygonal celebrity you somehow swindled to be the "star" of your game.

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 10:45 AM

          i know :/ but the rare games that are 60FPS on consoles are a joy to play. and to me, the graphics in halo 5 or forza 6 or last of us remastered are plenty nice.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 11:20 AM

        Hard to do on the existing hardware. We should get there with Scorpio.

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 11:23 AM

          it's been done, though. personally i'd prefer it over fancy graphics in certain games.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 12:10 PM

            Sure, that's just game design philosophy I guess. That won't change with a minor hardware revision.

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 11:28 AM

          It totally could be done even last generation, you just have to turn down bells and whistles.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 11:21 AM

        Not enough cinematic

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 12:02 PM

        Probably not, they're just gonna push it harder so the games run 30fps but have better graphics.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 4:09 PM

        Long term what I think what we will see down the road is Freesync enter the console scene via AMD. It will be for the best since freesync and gysnc sport minimum refresh rates before it actually starts to appear crappy. I have the ROG 279Q and ~40 FPS feels like 60'ish fps. When she drops to around 35 fps it's like a light switch that turns off and it feels like 35 fps.

        This is still one of the best videos explaining the tech.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrJU5d2RfA

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 6:27 PM

        60FPS doesn't sell outside of COD

        • reply
          July 5, 2016 8:48 PM

          I'm not sure this will ever get through the shack/neogaf's skulls.

          • reply
            July 5, 2016 8:52 PM

            My skull is pretty porous. I am not one of the delusional who wish for DOOM and Witcher 3 graphics at 60FPS. I would personally prefer toned-down visuals at 60. I know this isn't going to happen and most console owners are fine with 30FPS and fancy visuals.

            But a boy can dream.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 6:37 PM

        No kidding. It's it's any consolation, the upscaler hardware stands a good chance of being outside of the GPU and will not have a negative effect on actual graphics performance, whatever that ends up being like.

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 12:09 PM

      Huh this is really interesting, and also seems like s a massive indication that Scorpio is really going to be pushing 4K gaming.

      This will give the illusion that the regular XB1's are sort of similar to Scorpio's 4K gaming and both platforms do 4K.

      Very cool, this is good news and make me think Scorpio is going to be a beast, I can't wait.

      Man next year is going to be INSANE! on all fronts, my body won't be able to handle it all :)

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 3:36 PM

      Hmm, so for games that ran at a weird internal resolution, like Titanfall at 792p or whatever, will they upscale to 1080p then to 2160p, or will they upscale straight to 2160p. I feel like the latter, even though it's the better solution, would require a patch from the developer.

      Maybe not though.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 3:49 PM

        all that's handled by the console's hardware scaler so it shouldn't require a patch, it just automatically scales the framebuffer up to the target resolution

    • reply
      July 5, 2016 4:50 PM

      I don't think I've ever even seen 4K content before. Is it really that much better on an HDTV? Is it like eye poppingly good or what?

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 4:52 PM

        no. unless you're watching a screen that's like 80" or more and 4 feet away

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 5:25 PM

        With 4k you approach a no jaggie zone which produces interesting results with picture quality.
        http://deadendthrills.com/

        This guy does a lot of custom obscene resolutions, but the results are amazing so I can understand the push for higher resolutions even in old games.

        http://barbarella.deadendthrills.com/imagestore/DET3/alienisolation/large/thehitcher.png
        http://barbarella.deadendthrills.com/imagestore/DET3/darksouls/large/bugzilla.png

        • gmd
          reply
          July 5, 2016 5:27 PM

          It also has a wider color space

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 6:14 PM

        Not really. Unless you're sitting abnormally close to the TV or have a 100" TV or whatever you'd have to have significantly better than 20/20 vision to even tell the difference.

        It looks cool as shit in showrooms though, when you're looking at it from 4 feet!

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 6:24 PM

        You need a huge screen to really benefit. I'm holding off until I can get an 85"+ OLED for under $6000.

        • gmd
          reply
          July 5, 2016 6:29 PM

          80 inch OLED is my aim as well, or until my panasonic dies

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 8:14 PM

        Don't listen to these guys lol. I have a 4k tv 55 inch and a 28 inch 4k monitor with my GTX 1080, and there's no way I'd ever go back to 1080, it looks like shit in comparison.

      • reply
        July 5, 2016 8:19 PM

        On projectors (120"+) it's very apparent, on normal (55"+) screens it's just remarkably sharp vs. 1080p. There's way more detail but we're talking blades of grass and single strands of pubes.

    • reply
      July 6, 2016 12:47 AM

      Paging vornoporno