I wonder how much more time and effort had to be put into the Xbox One version to make the resolution scale dynamically. Lots of fine-tuning by hand I guess. Probably only possible for games with a MS co-marketing deal.
A screen this little on a controller seems rather pointless to me. Don't know what I'd need it for and the article doesn't give any meaningful reasons for it either, except more and programmable buttons which would require you to look down on the controller since you can't sense where exactly the buttons are.
If anything, go Wii U with a big, capacitive touchscreen for Remoteplay, improve the ergonomics of the controller and make sure the battery lasts longer...
"xinhuaxia.jp was registered 1 year 5 months ago." - http://www.thedomainseo.com...
It appears its aim is to bring news from Xinhua, China's state-run news agency, to Japanese people but appears to be more of a hobbyist project and not run by any trustworthy media organization. This post should speak for my assumption and Xinhuaxia's credibility:
"Why didn`t...
Tidux said two AAA games will be announced in early December (before we even know there'd be the PlayStation Experience). If we assume that's true then TLG could be the second game. We'll see, exciting times ahead nonetheless. :)
That the game allegedly uses 25GB just for lighting screams bullshit to me, hence I'm very doubtful on the statement as a whole.
Did you read the article? Apparently not.
"What's worse, on Xbox One, it almost feels as if the renderer is out of sync with the game simulation. These particular issues don't appear in the performance metrics yet the issue is very much present. As a result, even when the game is rendering out 30fps, it sometimes feels worse than it should. To illustrate the issue, right-click, save as, and download this Xbox One clip, and compare it with this matched PlayStation...
Agreed. On the other hand, it's not out of the realm Phil Spencer's statement about their indie clause that he doesn't want X1 gamers to feel second best could extend to third party games with which MS has a marketing deal as well.
CoD AW releases in 3 weeks and before both AC Unity and DA: I, so we'll have a clearer picture by then. If all three games end up at the same resolution, we'll know something fishy is up. And the shitstorm for MS will be humongo...
Curiously, Microsoft also has a marketing deal with EA for DA: Inquisition ...
I love how they continue to talk about why they went with 30fps instead of 60fps, but completely ignore what the outrage is actually about: the 900p resolution on the PS4.
Yes. But resolution is not the issue with AC Unity. Dumb article.
#PCNoParity
If they are able to achieve that, then they should. No reason to hold any platform back to "avoid debates and stuff".
That's them doing damage control, nothing more. Until they confirm they hit 1080p on PS4 this issue isn't over.
"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff" translates exactly to what I said. One version would have been better but they decided to lock them at the same specs "to avoid debates and stuff".
As for "unstable 1080p" they've addressed this as well: "It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limi...
Guys, this isn't so much about the resolution and framerate in general but about Ubisoft's decision to purposefully hold back the PS4 version, even though it could be performing better than the XBO version.
Did any of you actually read what Ubisoft (and this article) said?
Ubisoft does what Ubisoft does best: ignoring consumer concerns. Their PR department needs a serious overhaul, if not the whole company.
They have gone from one of my favorite game companies to one of my least favorite over the course of the past few years -- PC DRM around 2009 or so, yearly installments of their franchises, turned Splinter Cell from a great stealth game into a mindless shooter, the Watch_Dogs downgrade from the initial reveal AND the downgrade of the PC vers...
The CPU+GPU/APU of the XBO costs more because of the eSRAM while the DDR3 RAM is a lot cheaper than the GDDR5 RAM in the PS4.
Oh, and there's this: http://www.cinemablend.com/...
Thanks to the fellas at Gamechup for quickly getting the word out, this shit is just beyond unacceptable.
There's just no good way to spin it for the fanboys.
If the XBO version was held back because of the lower clocked CPU in the PS4, FUCK YOU UBISOFT.
If the PS4 version was held back because of the overall weaker hardware of the XBO and the MS marketing deal, FUCK YOU UBISOFT.
That's just the most disgusting and shameful bu...
Because MS has a marketing deal with Ubisoft. There'd be no reason to hold the XBO version back then.
Otherwise, there were devs saying the PS4 CPU is a bit faster despite the lower clock and a benchmark of both CPUs with the same outcome.
It's still 1.31 TFLOPS vs. 1.84 TFLOPS. Unless you want MS to force parity on devs so that they downgrade their game to run 1080p across both systems, there's no way it'll ever be 1080p.
Devs will continue to push the envelope in terms of graphics on PS4 and the XB1 will just get the same game at a slightly lower res. That's how it should be, even though XB1 owners won't like to hear it but they'd demand the same from the devs if the XB1 was the more ...