I think if it were the case then a parity clause on graphics would have been a much bigger story than release dates and content.
In other words, there would have been enough people angered by it in the industry that it would have come out, the same way that the content and date clauses did. They wouldn't spill half the beans.
Thanks for the disagrees.
As others have said. Post a link to a single article from a reputable source that proves the parity clause relates to graphics and I will admit being wrong.
Wrong. The parity is on content not graphics.
The difference in graphical fidelity was down to the difficulty in developing for PS3.
First party games were always going to look better than multi platform. Sony wouldn't have allowed their studios to not wring the most out of the hardware.
I have to say that Titanfall is one of the most stable online games I have ever played. I was discussing it the other day when me and a couple of friends realised we had never been kicked from a game or had difficulty joining. We hadn't even noticed lag in a game.
My ping is generally around 40ms
Am I the only one left confused? These sales are a great achievement for Sony and I commend them.
I just don't understand why it is that every time the XBone does any good sales numbers everyone says it's because the PS4 is sold out. If that were the case how could the sales go up by 106%?
Just thought I'd point that out. Like I said, I don't doubt these kinds of figures.
They're, first and foremost, an engine developer. They pretty much make games to advertise their product.
It would be good if they could make the tech demos, that are their games, a bit better though.
That would be fantastic but at the same time it would be very difficult to do in a sensitive and respectful way.
I'm not trying to detract from the horrors of WW2 but WW1 was a different beast.
I for one would love to see what devs are capable of with a new generation of hardware.
E3? I really don't know. You've got a point if that's the case.
Did Sony start Naughty Dog or did they buy it?
I already know the answer, they bought it. How is that any different? They also bought Geurilla games.
It's always been the way.
Actually, the post that was marked as trolling, while a bit harsh and un-necessary, has some truth.
http://uk.reuters.com/artic...
Here's a quote from the article "expensive development costs left Sony warning it will take at least two years to break even on the console."
That means that they couldn't reduc...
Which is what everyone was saying they should do. I'm sure everyone will still say it's an over priced piece of crap at any price.
You do realise that if something is rare to find in stock it means all units are selling through, right?
That should mean it's outselling the competition as it has been up until now.
Unless Sony's supply has suddenly reduced drastically. Then again you'd see PS4 sales numbers dropping off a cliff if that were the case.
EDGE gave it 7/10.
Are they biased? Are they shills?
In case you don't know, EDGE is the industry magazine written by developers, for developers. It's considered, internationally, to be the most intelligently written and least biased of all publications.
It's not the most widely read but it's the most admired.
Again, it is their opinion and people don't have to agree but EDGE's provenance speaks for it...
Let me get this straight. Just so that I can understand.
First off, everyone is comparing Titanfall and inFamous (two completely different games).
Okay.
Secondly, if Titanfall gets good reviews they must be paid for by Microsoft: Evil Corporation No.1.
Right.
Thirdly, if inFamous gets an unfavourable review it's because the reviewer is a shill and is biased.
All of this from people who, m...
@WeAreLegion
In your opinion. Which is absolutely fine and totally valid, you're completely entitled to that.
The thing is, other people are entitled to disagree on the same basis.
If publications gave review scores according to those of other publications I think there would be a lot more angered gamers out there.
It's like saying 'Hey, I really don't like this game that much and it's not for me but beca...
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Reviews are opinion pieces. If you find that you generally agree with the scores a website or individual gives a game you'll know whether or not you'll like the next game they review highly.
Just because one person likes a game doesn't mean that the next one will.
I generally find that my taste mirrors the reviews of Edge magazine and so that's what I generally go on.
Exchange inFamous for PS4 and Titanfall for Xbox One and you'll have your answer.
@Exies7
Yeah, I don't understand why ticking boxes equals good reviews to so many people.
Surely it's based on how good the game plays. This is a multiplayer game and should be reviewed on that basis. Not on the basis of what things it does not have. That's like saying it should be downgraded for not having a cover based mechanic. Just because other games do! Or, as many people round here seem to use 'all or nothing' comparisons, not havin...
Except many of the people arguing want to see one of the platforms die. Stupidity.
@360ICE & @creatchee
Bubbles for both of you. Well said.