I wonder what will be next!?It funny because it's actually wrong.
Maybe "XBone has a bigger power-supply! Bigger power-supply = more power than the PS4!"
I wonder what will be next!?It funny because it's actually wrong.
Im referring more specifically how this article points out the esram is not being used effectively yet and/or is hard to use.
The article itself says that xbox it is still possible of being "closer" to parity if esram and helper chips can be used well
By doing what? Not buying next Dragon Age or Mass Effect is not even an option for a lot of gamers. Buying them Xbone and PC, that will just re-enforce that notion that multiplatforms do not sell as well on PlayStation. It is not like the games on PS4 are going to run worst than Xbone. If that happened, then I will join in the boycott gladly.
Well with some concessions obviously which for all intents and purposes will go unnoticed.
People still underestimating the efficiency of the design over the brute force... that's fine
We have been all having this same argument for two months now so no surprise at all the posters who are going to tell me ps4 is more far powerful on paper :Lol
A lot of that power will be mitigated
This is my one major gripe with these two consoles. If they aren't the same, multi platform games will suffer on the superior console because devs won't make one noticeably better than the other. I play some exclusives but the majority of my games are multiplatform.
The games in a year or two will tell the story
So if we see that they are close, it won't mater if I am right and the xbox is better at rendering games than many here are expecting or if devs gimp because it's better politically
It will just be what it is
If best first party games on xbox never get crushed by the best first party on ps4 then maybe we will know
Until then we are all guessing and assuming based on paper specs and way too early rumors
Maybe you should play more exclusive games, especially when many of them are goty.This is my one major gripe with these two consoles. If they aren't the same, multi platform games will suffer on the superior console because devs won't make one noticeably better than the other. I play some exclusives but the majority of my games are multiplatform.
But how can anyone prove it? The article even has one dev saying players would never know a version was gimped for parity.Gemüsepizza;82236613 said:If a company will do this, we will know it and they will be called out and publicly shamed. Simple as that.
No offence but this sounds a lot like denial...
So we are literally going to go from "lazy devs" to "MS money-hat" this Gen if games aren't significantly different between the 2 consoles? How are we even supposed to know if it was the "Devil Money"? What is the agreed upon power difference? How should it manifest in actual games? Should PS4 games have 50% more frame rate? Effects? Resolution? What's the line that we draw and say "MS must have paid for this" versus a developer just not having the time/resources? If a 180 game is 30 fps locked should the PS4 version be 50 unlocked? I'm just trying to wrap my head around it all. Otherwise it seems like an all too easy easy "Must be MS!" for any game that looks similar between the two consoles.
How can a post that says "hey wait until devs figure out how to use the tools before declaring how the games will look" be denial?
Its called patience and not jumping to conclusions
No it's called desperately clutching at straws. The writings on the wall lol, the PS4's more powerful and easier to develop for.
How can a post that says "hey wait until devs figure out how to use the tools before declaring how the games will look" be denial?
Its called patience and not jumping to conclusions
Where has this narrative come from that the X1's design is more inherently efficient than the Ps4.
How can a post that says "hey wait until devs figure out how to use the tools before declaring how the games will look" be denial?
I wouldn't be surprised if Yosp doesn't know much more than we do about which developers would "castrate" their games to look the same on both consoles. These "political issues" are vastly overstated imo.
Gemüsepizza;82241893 said:What are you talking about? What exactly is inefficient about the PS4?
Or jumping to conclusions![]()
How can a post that says "hey wait until devs figure out how to use the tools before declaring how the games will look" be denial?
Its called patience and not jumping to conclusions
Or jumping to conclusions![]()
I can't imagine devs sharing their "MS money hat" scenarios with him so I agree, he probably doesn't know. But he DOES know how to play to his audience. His twitter is great if you like PS products and want to get hype about your purchase. When he tweeted about the NFS game I got giddy thinking how nice it'll probably look and I hadn't even considered buying it at the time! I was looking for DC to hold me down on the racing front. Thankfully I can try out DC with PS+ and hopefully get a demo of NFS. Or at the least read Gaffers opinions of NFS.
Nah!Shhh man, don't you know already?
12 CUs are more balanced than 18 CUs !!
To that I say...what about people who really want to play next Dragon Age or any other EA game? And they want to play it not because EA made it, but because the game is actually good.sorry, but I have options. If NFS gimps I expect people to pick up DC, if battlefield than I expect people to get KZ.
I don't want them to reinforce that gimping will be rewarded. I rather reward dev who worked hard to make a product best to compete. Kind of how capitalism works.
So we are literally going to go from "lazy devs" to "MS money-hat" this Gen if games aren't significantly different between the 2 consoles? How are we even supposed to know if it was the "Devil Money"? What is the agreed upon power difference? How should it manifest in actual games? Should PS4 games have 50% more frame rate? Effects? Resolution? What's the line that we draw and say "MS must have paid for this" versus a developer just not having the time/resources? If a 180 game is 30 fps locked should the PS4 version be 50 unlocked? I'm just trying to wrap my head around it all. Otherwise it seems like an all too easy easy "Must be MS!" for any game that looks similar between the two consoles.
tell me technical reason why ps4 game would perform worse than XB1? because there isn't any. it will be purely due to politics or dev decision.
exactly the same way if PS4 version would perform better than PC.
Both case it would be political or dev decision . not hardware related
The Edge article, if you bothered to read, said that some companies are avoiding platform disparity to avoid ruffling Microsoft's feathers. Yosp said that NOT ALL companies are doing that, more or less implying that the article is correct.So let me get this straight, people are now arguing that Microsoft is paying publishers millions of dollars to gimp their ps4 versions of games in an attempt to please the tiny percentage of people who can notice and care about the difference between 1080p and 900p with a less taxing form of AA?
![]()
So let me get this straight, people are now arguing that Microsoft is paying publishers millions of dollars to gimp their ps4 versions of games in an attempt to please the tiny percentage of people who can notice and care about the difference between 1080p and 900p with a less taxing form of AA?
That's not what I'm reading from some posters in here....The Edge article, if you bothered to read, said that some companies are avoiding platform disparity to avoid ruffling Microsoft's feathers. Yosp said that NOT ALL companies are doing that, more or less implying that the article is correct.
Im referring more specifically how this article points out the esram is not being used effectively yet and/or is hard to use.
The article itself says that xbox it is still possible of being "closer" to parity if esram and helper chips can be used well
So let me get this straight, people are now arguing that Microsoft is paying publishers millions of dollars to gimp their ps4 versions of games in an attempt to please the tiny percentage of people who can notice and care about the difference between 1080p and 900p with a less taxing form of AA?
![]()
That's not what I'm reading from some posters in here....
The Edge article, if you bothered to read, said that some companies are avoiding platform disparity to avoid ruffling Microsoft's feathers. Yosp said that NOT ALL companies are doing that, more or less implying that the article is correct.
People said MS paid off people not to show the same games on PS4 at E3. Now people are saying that MS is going to make it where multi plats are going to be gimped.
I find it amusing.
Where has this narrative come from that the X1's design is more inherently efficient than the Ps4.
No offence but this sounds a lot like denial...
Edit: And your efficiency post is really funny as well, you'v got it the wrong way round.
And according to the article, some developers think the PS4 is powerful enough that if they do take advantage of the PS4's power for their multiplatform titles, they would look better enough to piss off Microsoft and their chances as making a deal with them.yep, very tiny.
And yet still, MS cares enough to give a PR statement about the power difference regarding all the dev speaking power difference, yet still braging about cloud power , 5 million transistor and PR mouth here in GAF going point by point.
XB1 is 25% more expensive . They can't afford the perception of being a weak console that is 25% more expensive . especially initial years when hardcore buys at premium price instead of casual that wait for price drop.
So let me get this straight, people are now arguing that Microsoft is paying publishers millions of dollars to gimp their ps4 versions of games in an attempt to please the tiny percentage of people who can notice and care about the difference between 1080p and 900p with a less taxing form of AA?
![]()
It funny because it's actually wrong.
Yeah, when worst case scenario is that the game is identical on the cheaper system it's pretty simple to decide which console to get for multiplatform games. Even with all settings the same, PS4 versions will be less likely to tear or drop frames.
Where has this narrative come from that the X1's design is more inherently efficient than the Ps4.
It's not true. There is nothing known that indicates this is true.The PS4 is simpler to develop for. Less complexity, less chance to fuck up = more efficient. What is the argument for xbone being more efficient? I see no angle where this is possibly true.
Dude this whole article is about PS4 being more efficient and powerful. there is already quote from Dev that ps4 tools are more mature than XB1.
What are you basing your call upon?
Alberts post?
seriously. i Want to know