Mobile consoles in general are a hard sell these days, I think. I would definitely use Remote Play more if I didn’t live alone, but even now, I use it every now and then around the house.
My favorite aspect of Sony’s ecosystem is cross-save, though. There are a ton of indie games like Mercenary Kings that would really benefit from sharing a save across both platforms. Obviously games like Infamous and The Last of Us will never support it, due to the hardware limitations of the Vita, but man, it’s perfect for the indie game renaissance.
The PlayStation 3 and Vita versions were released April 1; all three versions of the game are cross-save, meaning players can continue their game on any platform.
I have to say, it’s small things like this that really drive me more and more toward Sony’s ecosystem. If you’d have told me 3 or 4 years ago that Sony would have the most consumer-friendly digital ecosystem, I probably would’ve laughed at you.
The most disappointing thing is that so few people own Vitas that a lot of these benefits are lost; I still think Sony should release a $499 PS4/Vita bundle, as I really think a lot of PS4 owners doesn’t understand just how well the Vita compliments it – and Sony hasn’t really done a terrific job communicating it to anyone outside of the hardcore gaming community.
I really wish Nintendo would get their shit together in this area; right now, owning a 3DS gives me no motivation to own a Wii U, and vice-versa. Just look at Super Mario Bros. 3, which came out on both 3DS and Wii U today, but have absolutely no cross-platform functionality. Why can’t I share saves between them? Why can’t I buy both versions as a lower-priced bundle? Nintendo’s story for the last 2 or 3 years has been one of such wasted opportunity.
The pop-in was an issue on both platforms, not just the PS4.
I guess my thought is: If one version is objectively better than the other, and the scoring system isn’t flexible enough to represent this, perhaps the scoring system is somewhat flawed.
Fair enough. I guess it just strikes me as off, because generally I’m not even a fan of giving something a score – but I at least understand the argument that it helps give someone an at-a-glance feel for the quality of a game. This means that, at a glance, both versions of this game are exactly the same quality, but that’s not really an accurate assessment.
Not to score nit-pick, but why would the Xbox One version be rated with the same score as the PS4 version, when the One version has technical issues like screen tearing and framerate drops that aren’t present on the PS4? Doesn’t that make it, objectively, a worse experience?
This is a super-cool concept, but it sounds like it requires a lot of people to commit to it before it becomes interesting.
I have a custom built media room with a 63" plasma and a projector/92" screen combo where all the gear is built into the wall in a rack enclosure at the back of the room, behind the seating.
Pardon my drool.
After watching the Polygon Live from GDC, I can’t wait for this to come to PS4 and Vita. Any confirmation of cross-play?
If we’re talking Pie in the Sky long-term future-dreams…the only way I really see this happening is if there’s a ubiquitous general-use headset that people have come to wear as part of everyday life…sort of a Google Glass/Oculus Rift hybrid. I’m picturing a lightweight, all-day headset that serves as augmented reality while in “passive” mode and VR while in “active” mode. In such an environment, people could easily enjoy the same TV/movie content without having a TV screen and without having to “strap on” the bulky devices we currently picture when we think of VR.
Now, that said, obviously this sort of technology is a decade or two out, but I’d imagine that’s the sort of thing Luckey had in mind. It wouldn’t be something you specifically put on to watch TV, but rather, something you already had on anyway. Given Facebook’s investment, I have to imagine this is the kind of future they’re envisioning, too.
Headsets like the Oculus Rift and the Morpheus and Google Glass are the very, very early iterations of potentially life-changing products.
First of all, both systems are functionally identical in power, even using the same chipsets for quite a bit of their architecture. Right now the only differences are coming from the small splits and changes, which both parties are still compensating for and trying to figure out.
This early on, especially with the two systems sharing the majority of the same core components, it’s completely impossible to tell which will come out on top in terms of power and capacity.
Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
In order to accommodate the eSRAM on die Microsoft not only had to move to a 12 CU GPU configuration, but it’s also only down to 16 ROPs (half of that of the PS4). The ROPs (render outputs/raster operations pipes) are responsible for final pixel output, and at the resolutions these consoles are targeting having 16 ROPs definitely puts the Xbox One as the odd man out in comparison to PC GPUs. Typically AMD’s GPU targeting 1080p come with 32 ROPs, which is where the PS4 is, but the Xbox One ships with half that. The difference in raw shader performance (12 CUs vs 18 CUs) can definitely creep up in games that run more complex lighting routines and other long shader programs on each pixel, but all of the more recent reports of resolution differences between Xbox One and PS4 games at launch are likely the result of being ROP bound on the One.
Software tricks may help a bit, but game performance on the PS4 will always be noticeably superior to the One, unless third-party developers decide to intentionally cripple the PS4 version.