I am aware that a dedicated server hosts the match, and there are literally dozens of PS3 games that fit that profile... PS4 games as well. It is nothing MS exclusive by any means. There was never host migration in MAG, Resistance, Warhawk (it used a combo of both, you could choose dedicated or p2p at will), etc.
Also, the above COD quote simply implies dedicated server SUPPORT for Xbox One, it says nothing about Xbox One only using dedicated servers. In fact, the following q...
Neither of which has Xbox One proven to be better at than PC or PS4... esp. with COD. As the poster above mentioned, this was a sponsorship thing. $$$
Azure servers wouldn't be "dedicated servers", as they process a wide range of things that aren't even gaming related... therefore they're not solely dedicated to gaming. Live does likely have its own dedicated servers for certain games, however so do other services. Dedicated servers are not exclusive to Live by any means. Even PC games use them.
I think there's a reason why we haven't heard much of that dedicated server talk since COD released....
@tokugawa
The obligatory comment that attacks the poster but not their argument, since the commenter has no ground to stand on when debating the topic.
I don't have a 1440p PC monitor, so that would be pointless. My PC is also often busy encoding video, as that's what I do for a living. but I do play the vast majority of my console games at 1080p native.
Also, PS4 has dedicated servers. So does PS3. Quit parroting bullet points without knowing what you're talking about. The proof that dedicated servers have been used since the PS3 days is in the fact that many older PS3 games (much like many older 360 games) can ...
Resolution does matter when you are sniping someone from clear across the map, and their head is only made up of a few pixels.
Also, care to explain how it's better on Live over PSN? Both offer dedicated servers, party systems, cross game chat (that works better on Ps4), etc... so what's the advantage?
Yeah, after all, what professional gamer, that relies on pixel perfect, frame accurate precision, cares about having less resolution and/or framerate?
It'd had some more horsepower, yeah, but that thing wasn't much better than the top of the line handheld tech of the day.
PS4 is the only console I've ever thought didn't need a slim model. It's pretty slim as it is...
Now we're starting to bark up the right tree for cloud aided rendering realistically. However, even this will be limited. There's a reason why GPUs must use specific high bandwidth connections to work together efficiently.
However, for physics, some lighting, etc, this could be useful to have a server/client setup over a local network that let you utilize your own hardware.
The problem is, making games that would be able to utilize that hardware effec...
@supporter... nope. not true. PS4 has an entire section of the PS store dedicated to free to play games such as DC Universe Online, War Thunder, War Hammer, Blacklight: Retribution, Pinball Arcade, etc. that do not require a PS+ membership to download or even to play them online.
Then plop down another $50, and you get 2 free games per month. Let's see a PC do that.
@60fps
You do realize PS4 won't still cost $400 in 3 years, right?
Except with PS3, when developers did go the extra mile, it showed with visuals that weren't rivaled on other consoles at the time, not just parity. However, few other than first party devs bothered.
Sorry, a corridor survival horror game. better?
The game does look good, however we have to step back and look at what the game is. A corridor shooter, where there is only a small area being rendered on screen at any given time, and literally only one NPC to do AI for during the majority of the game. One AI character running around in those tight corridors... 1080p60 should be expected on all current gen platforms. Previous gen can get a free pass to 720p since both PS3 and Xbox 360 struggle to hit 1080p on anything due to memory constrain...
Are you really comparing a game that had several additional months of development time for the Xbox One version that ran on a last gen engine and was a port from a PC game released last year?
Also, Titanfall doesn't even run at 1080p or a solid 60fps, and the fact that it STILL has some screen tearing even after the patch (even you had to admit, "almost" non-existant) isn't anything to brag about.
So, because a game runs at a lower performance level on weaker hardware, it's always going to be chalked up as a lazy job on the developer's part?
Are you blind, or what? Do you even know what depth of field is? Still waiting for someone to come back with a valid argument against my point... so far just a bunch of ignorant fanboys ridiculing me for even saying it, but nobody feels comfortable enough with their position to even try to prove what i said wrong...
You can clearly see in these pics that the PS4 version has a shallower depth of field (the area of the screen that is in focus is narrower, so objects in front of or behind the object in focus are more out of focus) than the PC version.
Bokeh (blurry circles) is larger in the background of the PS4 version in this pic:
http://portcitymediaproduct...
Again, background is more ou...
I'm not really seeing what I would call a downgrade. The contrast and lighting are different, but both look great.