Free to Play only after you pay subscriber fees knowing MS, which technically isn't free at all.
Well everyone predicted a worsening handheld market well before Vita launched.
Vita shouldn't have launched at all.
I try an remember cliffy for Gears 1, not the rest of the series.
COD is too entrenched to be the next big thing. It's gameplay is chained to its previous success.
In order for COD to "rewrite the rules" it would need to first fail, then be reborn.
No I mean conflate, confused assumes they didn't know the difference, I can't know that.
As to who, just read peoples favs.
1) MGS4
2) Halo Reach
If have no idea why except that they're the only games that I feel like going back to time and time again.
Since people have conflated developer with publisher I'll throw in:
Square (loved Dues, Tomb Raider, and Sleeping Dogs)
Bungie (loved Halo 3 and Reach)
EA/bioware/ea sports devs (for BF, Mass Effect, and NHL/Fifa)
2k
Naughty Dog
Gurilla
Santa Monica Studios
Rocksteady (Both batmans are way under appreciated in all aspects, graphics, story, gameplay - plus no other sequel improved as substantially than from Arkham As...
Funny that the title of the article coincided with the major reason I probably won't be getting a next gen xbox
Well if the rumours are true, graphics.
Devs should just give PS4 gamers a choice in the options menu., 1080 @ 30 FPS or 720 @ approx 60 FPS.
Even more, make it more like PC, allow PS4 gamers to turn down certain effects, AA, textures, shadow res/quality, etc to increase other aspects.
Still has the console advantage of every game working like it should straight out of the box.
I can't presume what MS Fusion or whatever it's called plans are. All I know is that I'm getting the console that has better looking/running multiplats. I love Halo and Sony's plethora of exclusives...but my fav games tend to be multiplats (Bioshock, GTA, Skyrim, Red Dead, Mass Effect, Battlefield, Batman, Metal Gear, NHL, etc.). I'd be a PC gamer if it weren't for the frequent hardware upgrades and lack of sports games.
I do know that I'm not ...
Wow, most pathetic comparison list I've seen in years.
-Saturn was much weaker than PS1 and failed as a result. They only added 3d graphics after they realized the their 2D focus in hardware was a mistake.
-PS2, GC, and Xbox all had comparable power. Sure PS2 was slightly weaker but no one would argue that PS2 wasn't in the same league as GC and Xbox. Wii U is in the same league as 360/PS3, not PS4/Fusion (or whatever its called).
-I agree with Wii as the best selling console of the gen, problem is it appealed to the casual...
People still talk about Dreamcast because it was a once Top Gaming company's last console and signalled their final failure from which they never recovered from.
I did last December too after 5 years of paying for Live like an idiot. Don't regret it at all, although my 360 feels worthless now.
Bought a game instead, smartest gaming choice I've made all gen.
Just hope the guys aren't bullet sacs like in Max Payne
All I know is that the most popular game in one-gen is never the most popular game in the next.
If it offers better looking/running multiplats and free basic online mp I'm getting a PS4 without question. If online MP costs, I hope it's no more than $30 per year.
I know a PS4/720 version obviously wouldn't really use the hardware potential given that it was designed for current-gen, but even a 1080p 60FPS version of GTA5 on PS4 would make me buy it.
If they had a PC version it would have been easy to port it to next-gen consoles. Here's hoping.
So far it looks like my first PS4 game.
Unless its bad