The last part doesn’t make sense because for whatever reason my post got massively condensed at the end.
Yeah, Knack and Killzone were amazing and not at all derivative and lame. What Sony first party games are we talking about here? The ones years away from release?
For me personally, yes. Again, speaking only for myself, nothing on the MS slate, apart from maybe FH2 is doing it for me. Beyond that, I’ll take my 3rd party games looking as good if not better on PS4 until the exclusives come around. I’m not playing my PS4 8 hours a day, but I wouldn’t say I’m lacking in games either. TLOUR for now, Diablo 3 in a couple weeks, Destiny in Sept., Evolve & Shadow of Mordor in Oct., ect. If you are excited for the Halo Collection & Sunset Overdrive, more power to you. Honestly, as much mud as you are slinging about other people being “ignorant fanboys”, you’re the only one I see outright shitting on either company. In a petulant way, I might add.
There have been plenty of studies showing that the majority of people can’t see the difference between 720 and 1080 at the average proportional scale that people view televisions. The people commenting aren’t special, they’re just self important. It gets even worse with 900p vs 1080p, which is half again the difference of something that most people already couldn’t see.
I love the argument of “it’s good enough, let’s not progress any further”. So then what’s the argument when that power isn’t to resolution but to frame rate, or to better lighting effects, better textures, realistic shadows, advanced physics, AI, ect? The whole point of having more power is you can have both, or all, without compromise. That’s why people want new consoles in the first place. I honestly don’t see why someone would ever view it as a bad thing, particularly when it doesn’t cost extra and, unless you are seriously invested in the Microsoft exclusive catalog, you aren’t giving up anything in return.
No. If both consoles gain 25% capability then they are both 25% more powerful. The proportion of difference between the two doesn’t change, so it doesn’t matter. You can’t use un cited, subjective, anecdotal evidence to argue against math.
For the sake of argument lets assume neither console is hitting it’s max yet. A logical conclusion to make, based on any previous console generation. Then we look at the hardware specs, we see any direct comparison of the two consoles, with objective numbers as supporting evidence, show the PS4 has anywhere between 25-33% more graphical raw power than the XBox One. So, if we take the Xbox One as the baseline, lets assume a launch game like BF4 is using, roughly 80% (again, for argument sake) of the XBox One’s maximum graphical output. That would mean to achieve the same graphical level, the PS4 version would be using re the only one I see outright shitting on either company. In a petulant way, I might add.
You’re arguing that the companies will get good at optimizing for hardware over time, that has nothing to do with the comparative argument between two consoles.
That goes to what I was saying about it being premature. The subjectiveness though of “I can’t tell the difference between 900p/1080p and neither can most people” is just like I said. Hugely subjective. As for optimization getting better, that IS pertinent in relation to the second point:
If they squeeze out 25% better performance through optimization in both then the comparative difference between the two platforms will remain identical. You can’t just apply the idea to one system and not the other.
That’s faulty logic. If a first generation cross-platform game is identical on PS4/XBOne, despite the hardware differences, that means that means subsequent generations of games WILL get better on both consoles, but the console with more headroom will inevitably be “more better”. Imagine two cars that start out going 80MPH. They’re starting at the same speed, despite whatever their top speed is. As they approach their top speeds, if one can hit 150MPH and the other can hit 187MPH, the former car will top out first as the second car continues to go faster. Similarly, both consoles currently have room for improvement graphically. PS4 though, has more room for improvement, because of it’s more powerful hardware.
No one is doing that, they’re just saying the differential in hardware isn’t the big thing people are saying. This is hardware laymens with an axe to grind quoting a console tear down that they don’t actually understand, and acting like it’s all that matters.
Presumptions abound. Some people may not understand the exact specifics of what makes one more powerful than another or the real-world implications of that are. When there is a consensus on it, backed up by hard evidence, that doesn’t really matter. You can argue the relevance of that fact, but you can’t argue that it is indeed fact. I’ve read Anandtech enough years to know that while I personally don’t understand A LOT of what he and his ilk talk about in their in-depth articles (I just read one about various NAND technologies that made me feel retarded), I know enough to know that 1) He knows what he’s talking about and 2) that real world performance of the PS4 had bared his (and other’s) claim out.
Considering they are the same price and I prefer Sony’s 1st parties (well, I’ll miss Forza a little bit), it is a no-brainer for me. Obviously for others, it might not be.
Delusions like these are platform agnostic. That’s nothing new or surprising. Some people just don’t understand that games are a business. Shu, Reggie, Phil Spencer, Peter Moore; none of these guys are your friend, gamers. I’d include Kotick in the list, but I don’t think anybody was under that impression to begin with.
Yeah, while I don’t disagree with Sony, it’s a decision they should have left up to the individual gamer.
Then again, I would hate to see this EA Access thing take off, if only because if it is a success, it will inevitably lead to half a dozen publisher-specific programs of a similar nature, at which point PS+/GwG will shrivel and die and we’ll be left paying $20-30 a month for something not much better than we were already getting for ~$5 a month.
You’re not far off, but they are surprisingly still a good time. Closest thing I can think of to a gaming guilty pleasure.
Yes, it’s more powerful, but not so dramatically that the laymen can actually tell the difference.
First of all, that statement is both hugely subjective and extremely premature. Go back and look at launch PS3/360 games and then Gears of War and whatever the equivalent for PS3 at the time was. The difference in just a few years is huge.
Secondly, go back and reread what he quoted from Anand. Whereas the PS3 architecture required significantly extra work to get that extra performance out of it, enough so that most 3rd parties never bothered, that is not the case with the PS4. Even on first generation, cross-generation and up-res’d ports, cross platform games are time and again either higher resolution, higher frame rate or both on PS4. As time progresses, both consoles will look better, but the gap will widen, not close, as the extra graphical power of the PS4 is put to work.
I could understand people arguing in favor of the XBox One when it had the Kinect, even at the higher price. While it didn’t appeal to me, it at least offered something the PS4 didn’t. Now that they are both basic, dumb, game playing machines that cost the same amount, I don’t understand how or why anyone would try to justify the Xbox One on a technical level. Exclusives, sure, but graphically, it’s just not there and it’s not ever going to be. The “power of the cloud” isn’t going to do it, the “freed up power” of dropping the Kinect isn’t going to do it. It’s just not going to happen. Why is that such a terrible thing to admit? The WiiU is a fraction of the power of either of these consoles and yet there are people who bought it and love it. Being graphically inferior isn’t a death sentence.
PSV, Vita TV & PSP were separate (0.75m). The 3.5m number reported was just PS3 & PS4.
No offense to Chris, but all information on Sherlock Holmes games should flow through the filter of Justin McElroy.
The success of this will depend largely on the quality of games offered and how quickly after release new games are added. If time from launch to adding to the service is 3-6 months, that’s enough to ruin it for me personally. Then again, I generally am not buying many EA games to begin with.
While I’m still not convinced NIS are the boogey men some people were making them out to be over this, it’s pretty badass of Devolver to step in and alleviate the situation. A classy move in my book.
Oh well since you were clearly CC’d on all these e-mails back and forth, please, enlighten us all. What’s the current status of the situation?