Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

Grayditch · 17-02-2014 11:09am

There's a new trailer for The Order out tomorrow. I'm not swayed by the game yet, either way, but I'll give it a look.

ionapaul · 17-02-2014 11:54am

kunst nugget wrote: »

It might just be a bad comparison shot but there doesn't seem to be that huge difference between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One - a bit more detailing on the ground but that's about it. They really should have used the same shot for all consoles to get a good overview of the differences.

Jaysus, as a PC player I'm shocked at the similarities between all four of those screen shots - all looked to be of decent enough quality and looked quite good to me, can't believe there is so little difference between the PS3 and the PS4 shots. I can see the differences, yes, but I would have thought the two would be world's apart, rather than such an incremental improvement. If I were a console player I can't say I'd be driven to get the newer machine on the back of those screen shots (taken in isolation, I know).

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 11:57am

ionapaul wrote: »

Jaysus, as a PC player I'm shocked at the similarities between all four of those screen shots - all looked to be of decent enough quality and looked quite good to me, can't believe there is so little difference between the PS3 and the PS4 shots. I can see the differences, yes, but I would have thought the two would be world's apart, rather than such an incremental improvement. If I were a console player I can't say I'd be driven to get the newer machine on the back of those screen shots (taken in isolation, I know).

Tbf, based on that, they wouldn't really sell either of the new consoles to me either. I suppose, it's a case of seeing them in action.

irishmover · 17-02-2014 11:58am

ionapaul wrote: »

Jaysus, as a PC player I'm shocked at the similarities between all four of those screen shots - all looked to be of decent enough quality and looked quite good to me, can't believe there is so little difference between the PS3 and the PS4 shots. I can see the differences, yes, but I would have thought the two would be world's apart, rather than such an incremental improvement. If I were a console player I can't say I'd be driven to get the newer machine on the back of those screen shots (taken in isolation, I know).

I'd love to see photos of a game launched on PS3 and PS2, Xbox and Xbox 360.

If it's what I'm thinking I'm sure you'll struggle to find huge differences between those screenshots either.

Xbox One and PS4 are only months old. Devs normally don't revolutionise games right away on next gen but maybe I'm wrong.

calex71 · 17-02-2014 12:05pm

irishmover wrote: »

I'd love to see photos of a game launched on PS3 and PS2, Xbox and Xbox 360.

If it's what I'm thinking I'm sure you'll struggle to find huge differences between those screenshots either.

Xbox One and PS4 are only months old. Devs normally don't revolutionise games right away on next gen but maybe I'm wrong.

Gun and one of the tony hawk games were 2 I played at 360 launch that were also on the 1st xbox, and there were little or no major differences, they certainly looks much worse than ones developed specifically for 360 like pgr3

tok9 · 17-02-2014 12:07pm

I wouldn't be worried too much by that either.

There won't be a massive difference between cross generation games at the moment.

On top of that, we're getting to the stage where the difference in graphics is getting smaller and smaller.

PS2 to PS3 will always be a bigger difference because it was the upgrade from SD to HD.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 12:20pm

It wasn't just the upgrade in resolution though. It brought higher res textures, pixel shaders, better lighting and HDR and much vaster play areas thanks to large amounts of memory. I don't really see what this generation offers at all over the last. I was expecting to see a lot of tessellation like the high end PC games have been offering for the last few years but so far I've not really seen even much of that.

For comparison PS2 vs PS3 at around launch. There is a law of diminishing returns as polygon levels increase but so far I'd be hard pushed to tell if a game was on PS3 or PS4 unless side by side. My TV only goes up to 720p so 1080p is wasted on me

cadete · 17-02-2014 12:31pm

ionapaul wrote: »

Jaysus, as a PC player I'm shocked at the similarities between all four of those screen shots - all looked to be of decent enough quality and looked quite good to me, can't believe there is so little difference between the PS3 and the PS4 shots. I can see the differences, yes, but I would have thought the two would be world's apart, rather than such an incremental improvement. If I were a console player I can't say I'd be driven to get the newer machine on the back of those screen shots (taken in isolation, I know).

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 12:35pm

There's much more to making a good looking game than triangles.

Beta analysis of Titanfall is up, remember it's Beta so still a lot of room for improvement:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 12:40pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's much more to making a good looking game than triangles.

Beta analysis of Titanfall is up, remember it's Beta so still a lot of room for improvement:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis

At this stage though, is it not just a beta to test the servers? I can't imagine them making much in the way of changes now.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 12:51pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

At this stage though, is it not just a beta to test the servers? I can't imagine them making much in the way of changes now.

Yes it is. Also read the article, they used the most stable code for the beta not the most recent. With server stress Betas this happens a lot. Betas are usually based on code that is months old in favour of better looking unstable code. It could well be code from a trade show months back. They didn't just release the latest build of the game as a beta untested (Microsoft would definitely not allow this!). Remember it also had to pass MS certification as well.

At release there could be 6 months or maybe even more of engine and performance improvements.

A good example of this is how much the God of War 3 public demo differed from the final release:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-godofwariii-demo-vs-retail-blog-entry

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 1:15pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yes it is. Also read the article, they used the most stable code for the beta not the most recent. With server stress Betas this happens a lot. Betas are usually based on code that is months old in favour of better looking unstable code. It could well be code from a trade show months back. They didn't just release the latest build of the game as a beta untested (Microsoft would definitely not allow this!). Remember it also had to pass MS certification as well.

At release there could be 6 months or maybe even more of engine and performance improvements.

A good example of this is how much the God of War 3 public demo differed from the final release:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-godofwariii-demo-vs-retail-blog-entry

From reading that God of War article, there was about a year between demo and final release. There's a month to the Titanfall release. I know there'll be a raft of updates for it in the new six months or so but does that mean there going to be releasing the game with issues that they hope to resolve later? I know this is common enough but considering this is meant to be the game-changer title, it might not be a very auspicious start.

Oafley Jones · 17-02-2014 1:19pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's much more to making a good looking game than triangles.

Beta analysis of Titanfall is up, remember it's Beta so still a lot of room for improvement:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis

Battlefield 3 really showed me that the last gen was done. Not so much the visuals, which I thought were grand, but more the fact that it was just 24 players running around on maps that were designed for 64. It was worthless imo. It's the same with BF4... 24 Players 360, PS3 vs 64 players PS4, XB1.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 1:33pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

From reading that God of War article, there was about a year between demo and final release. There's a month to the Titanfall release. I know there'll be a raft of updates for it in the new six months or so but does that mean there going to be releasing the game with issues that they hope to resolve later? I know this is common enough but considering this is meant to be the game-changer title, it might not be a very auspicious start.

You're not really getting it. The Beta code that is currently being tested is probably months old, it more than likely is code from a summer trade show meaning that the game that in it's current state at respawn and the one that will be released probably has about 6 months of tweaks and optimisations over the current Beta.

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 1:41pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're not really getting it. The Beta code that is currently being tested is probably months old, it more than likely is code from a summer trade show meaning that the game that in it's current state at respawn and the one that will be released probably has about 6 months of tweaks and optimisations over the current Beta.

Okay, out of curiosity, how is the six month old code going to be off benefit in testing server stress and if the new code isn't stable enough a month before release, is that not a worry? Surely they wouldn't have decided to make it a completely open beta if they were beta-testing old code - it seems like an odd way to market a game. It just seems a bit odd.

sarumite · 17-02-2014 2:13pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, out of curiosity, how is the six month old code going to be off benefit in testing server stress and if the new code isn't stable enough a month before release, is that not a worry? Surely they wouldn't have decided to make it a completely open beta if they were beta-testing old code - it seems like an odd way to market a game. It just seems a bit odd.

Testing the server load wouldn't require the most up to date code. You don't need beautiful graphics to know if your severs can handle a large number users while providing reasonably ok ping times.

_Redzer_ · 17-02-2014 2:16pm

Any beta I've played that came out a month before release has always pretty much looked identical. Killzone beta springs to mind.

Betas months before release can change a lot, though.

I'm betting this looks pretty much identical when it comes out next month.

RasTa · 17-02-2014 2:23pm

Blazer · 17-02-2014 2:46pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, out of curiosity, how is the six month old code going to be off benefit in testing server stress and if the new code isn't stable enough a month before release, is that not a worry? Surely they wouldn't have decided to make it a completely open beta if they were beta-testing old code - it seems like an odd way to market a game. It just seems a bit odd.

It was the same for BF4...while we were all supposedly beta testing BF4 the whole game was already done up and ready for release. Mate works for EA and he was playing the full game while we were just getting access to the beta.

As for Xbox One..been very disappointed with it..I don't have any interest in it being the centre of my media room as it doesn't stream DNLA so it's out of the loop straightaway.
Very disappointed with the power of it..graphically the PS4 is a big step ahead and I think no developer will bother to learn how to use esram properly.
If PS4 continues to outsell at the January ratio of 2:1 MS will have no choice but to launch a new SKU without the kinect and upgraded graphics or else bite the bullet and watch as the PS4 runs off in the distance.
After 13 years of playing on Xbox since 2002 and thousands spent on MS points/ digital downloads etc today I've finally called a halt to it and swapping my XB1 for a PS4 this evening.

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 2:49pm

sarumite wrote: »

Testing the server load wouldn't require the most up to date code. You don't need beautiful graphics to know if your severs can handle a large number users while providing reasonably ok ping times.

I'd kind of think that would be fair enough if the beta was 4-6 months from release not 4-6 weeks. I can't see their being a major difference between what you see now and what gets released.

That gif above keeps breaking my Safari…

_Redzer_ · 17-02-2014 2:53pm

Blazer wrote: »

It was the same for BF4...while we were all supposedly beta testing BF4 the whole game was already done up and ready for release. Mate works for EA and he was playing the full game while we were just getting access to the beta.

As for Xbox One..been very disappointed with it..I don't have any interest in it being the centre of my media room as it doesn't stream DNLA so it's out of the loop straightaway.
Very disappointed with the power of it..graphically the PS4 is a big step ahead and I think no developer will bother to learn how to use esram properly.
If PS4 continues to outsell at the January ratio of 2:1 MS will have no choice but to launch a new SKU without the kinect and upgraded graphics or else bite the bullet and watch as the PS4 runs off in the distance.
After 13 years of playing on Xbox since 2002 and thousands spent on MS points/ digital downloads etc today I've finally called a halt to it and swapping my XB1 for a PS4 this evening.

I could see them getting rid of kinect, but they can't change the hardware.

If Sony came out and upgraded the PS4's graphics when I bought a launch console I could be hugely pissed off. The backlash of that would be too much if MS did that, and they're just getting over their PR disaster recently. That's not an option. Whatever is in it is in it for life as far as performance goes.

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 2:54pm

Blazer wrote: »

It was the same for BF4...while we were all supposedly beta testing BF4 the whole game was already done up and ready for release. Mate works for EA and he was playing the full game while we were just getting access to the beta.

So, in essence you're not beta testing it, you're playing a demo. It's a good marketing ploy, I'll give them that. It's the reason I bought Killzone on the Vita.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 2:57pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'd kind of think that would be fair enough if the beta was 4-6 months from release not 4-6 weeks. I can't see their being a major difference between what you see now and what gets released.

That gif above keeps breaking my Safari…

You're still not getting it. They are testing the server load not how good the game looks. Because of this they are testing stable code because it's not much of a server test if the game keeps crashing during testing and it won't look good for them anyway.

The final stages of game development involve multiple iterations with tiny tweaks to balance the game, fix bugs and increase performance. Many of these changes can completely break the game but then get quickly fixed. Some changes will break the game but won't be found until a long way down the line. Nobody is going to release as a beta code that hasn't been tested to be stable. Another reason is microsoft won't allow it and rightfully so. Games aren't just magically in a state of near completion before release. Often they are in a state of constant flux and near broken until a month before release.

Or else you could just read the article, it's pretty much spelled out in it straight from the developers mouth.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2014 2:58pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, in essence you're not beta testing it, you're playing a demo. It's a good marketing ploy, I'll give them that. It's the reason I bought Killzone on the Vita.

Christ almighty. It was a beta test to test server stress you don't need a full finished game to test the strain on servers.

kunst nugget · 17-02-2014 3:11pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Christ almighty. It was a beta test to test server stress you don't need a full finished game to test the strain on servers.

Less of that. I'm not being arsey with you. I'm allowed to share my thoughts about the beta-testing and I'm probably going to be talking bollocks, if you disagree that's fair enough. Don't be a dick.

Blazer · 17-02-2014 4:25pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Whatever is in it is in it for life as far as performance goes.

poor bastards...7-10 years of listening to Sony fanbois boasting about PS4 graphics

Grayditch · 17-02-2014 4:55pm

Minus points for Sony for not making the Official Sony PS3 wireless headset compatible with the PS4. I've ended up using the PSEye to voice chat. I also see MS hasn't enabled surround sound on the Xbox One. There's a lot of things these companies need to get the finger out with, but sure it's not as if there weren't enough calls for caviet emptor for early buyers, I guess.

Otacon · 17-02-2014 4:59pm

Grayditch wrote: »

Minus points for Sony for not making the Official Sony PS3 wireless headset compatible with the PS4.

Was this not added in the latest update? 1.6 I think?

Grayditch · 17-02-2014 5:03pm

I cannot for the life of me get it to connect. I should try it with the PS3 to make sure it's not the headset, though.

gaynorvader · 17-02-2014 5:07pm

Grayditch wrote: »

I cannot for the life of me get it to connect. I should try it with the PS3 to make sure it's not the headset, though.

Seems like it isn't, but here's a link to a list of PS3 peripherals compatible with PS4: http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-Peripherals-Support/List-of-Compatible-PS3-Accessories-for-PS4-Updated-2-7-2014/td-p/40831841

There's a separate link for headsets, the official Sony one is not compatible (stupid).

Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

Comments