I won't be disappointed, but I would rather they move to a new IP.
Ask me again in about 7 years.
That's one of the dumbest posts I've seen on N4G.
Given the choice between Kinect 2.0 and getting 10% of GPU performance back... I know which I'd want!
I definitely preferred DR1 above 2. Story was more fun, I preferred the location, and the characters were better.
Even bringing Frank back in Off the Record wasn't the same.
Same here. Dead Rising is the one XB1 game I'd really like to see on the PS4.
If I ever pick up an XB1 I'll definitely get this game.
Thing is DayZ - while I agree that it may be more noticeable on a TV, how many people are running PS4 / XB1 next to each other realistically?
I played Assassins Creed 1, and Red Dead Redemption on PS3 - two of the many multi-plat games that were marginally, but noticeably, better on the 360 - and I never cared one bit that the framerate in AC was a bit choppier than 360, or that RDR had less tufts of grass - the games were fun.
So I really can't see how 7...
I watched the comparison videos, and yeah PS4 wins it, but it wasn't a huge disparity - certainly not like comparing a Wii to PS3 game like some are making out! The only thing that really bugged me about the XB1 version of BF4 was the ridiculous lighting engine.
I'm no XB1 fan, but this is rubbish.
The biggest market is not the hardcore who care about resolution. If resolution was such a big deal the Wii would have sold almost zero units.
And lets be clear here. The XB1 is MORE than capable of 1080p IF the detail/effects level is lowered - but what devs appear to be doing is keeping the eye candy between PS4 and XB1 comparable at the expense of resolution. Is that acceptable? Who cares, if the games are fun.
I'm not buying an XB1, but I don't think MS should delay.
Even if launch titles are lower quality on XB1 than PS4, the majority of those buying the console won't care or notice.
It was the same with the PS3. Xbox fans went apeshit over the 'unplayable' Assassins Creed, and it's a sad day when people get paid to highlight that Red Dead Redemption was missing a few tufts of grass here and there - and you know what. I couldn't care ...
I'm split on whether to get this for PC (cheaper, slightly better graphics) or PS4 (extra content)...
Good to know it's running well on PS4 whatever.
It's interesting that sites are reviewing games released for current gen (like ACIV) but using the PS4 version which isn't out for another month.
Shows there's excitement in the media for the PS4, and the games are standing up to scrutiny.
Interestingly the Edge review of ACIV makes no mention of multiplayer, and they tested the PS4 version - so I wonder if they have a dev / debug or retail unit for testing as we know multiplayer won't work un...
@bleedsoe9mm
It looks like all launch titles will work in SP on Day 1.
If a future game needs an update I would expect it to be on the disc.
The reason 1.50 isn't on the launch discs is likely because they had gone gold and were being pressed when the update was finished.
@GGJ
My take on this is that is all comes down to deadlines.
The software to enable each of these features had to be finished and tested before PS4 hardware went in to production so it could be included in the firmware / OS.
The software / OS division missed the deadline, so Sony had a decision to make... Delay launch or go in to production and issue a Day 1 patch. We know the decision they made. You could also theorise that Sony always wan...
@Animal
I'm not a fan of this patch, and think some aspects of it are ridiculous (internet required to activate Blu-Ray movie playback... WTF) - but this is not the same situation as the XB1.
XB1 : No patch = no way to play SP or MP games
PS4: No patch = SP games playable, MP games are not
Have Sony confirmed this? As it's probably the best idea and worked well for PS3. I hope Sony have an EU / UK download available before launch so I can be ready to go.
Yes, looks like it.
http://blog.eu.playstation....
I don't think this is meant to be a 'rush out and buy it' tech. It's more of a 'Nvidia hope it becomes standard in all gaming monitors' thing.
Nvidia want it as a standard in monitors as I suspect they'll be making a small profit from selling the tech or license to monitor manufacturers. And even if they are giving the tech / license away, they still win as they can market the heck out of G-Sync to encourage people to buy Nvidia GPU's.
G-Sync sounds like a great idea. It's the biggest shake up in graphics tech in some time. I will be interested to see how it works in reality.
I've seen some sites claim that depending on the tech used it may now be the silver bullet Nvidia are claiming. But as long as the cost of adding the hardware to a monitor doesn't increase RRP by much, and as long as it provides _some_ benefit then I'll give it a go next year.
That's a pretty hostile post ATiElite! Must have been a pretty bad whipping in Arma! :)
I find PC vs console gaming a pointless argument. They are both gaming platforms, and I'll judge each game release on it's merits and buy the game for the platform that best fits. Costs don't really come in to it and for me they are probably about equal between each platform anyway.
I think it's only elitist snobs who keep upgrading GPU's every 6...