View as:
Newest first
-
Oldest first
-
-
bbq4tw - September 13, 2013 7:47 a.m.
You must be new to the ballgame! It's cool this generation to bag on MS and praise Sony! Just look at the Steam announcement (I know it's not specifically Sony) to see the absolute hate there is against MS (who first announced digital game sharing but were blasted for it). The cool edgy thing right now is to be a MS hater. -
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 8 a.m.
Yes, because MS has given no reason whatsoever to be disliked *Rolls eyes* People totally bag against them because it's cool, makes total sense. What a weak fanboy defense. -
-
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 8:21 a.m.
Yes, because I'm totally saying how powerful and great the PS4 is going to be right? *rolls eyes* I've specifically stated that they are going to be the same spec-wise. And at the end of the day, what will separate them are the games. I'm not even saying MS is the devil, or the worst thing ever, but the attitude they've had, and the choices they've made HAVE been stupid. And if you're not taking that into account, congrats! you're the real fanboy! -
-
-
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 8:03 a.m.
It is kinda silly. Specially because EVEN if it were true. It won't really matter. Anyone developing for both platforms are going to make the games look pretty much the same. Just like with this generation. -
Eightboll812 - September 13, 2013 10:08 a.m.
I think anyone who is trying to be honest has to admit there is a performance advantage to PS4. Lots of reputable analysis has been made regarding the memory speed and structure (Xbone opting to use cache instead of the fundamentally faster GDDR5 RAM), and significantly more powerful GPU that PS4 went with, and how MS is overclocking to eek out 10% improvement here and there to close that gap. And the other difference is software. MS is using virtualization to carve out different operating systems for games and TV/media. If you know anything about virtualization, it sucks away resources by reserving them for the different VMs. That's great for task switching and simultaneous computing, but stealing resources away from the gaming OS doesn't necessarily mean great things for gaming performance when the competitor isn't carving out giant swaths of memory and CPU on their system. Where MS will benefit from this choice to go with virtualization is side by side where you have TV on half your TV and a game on the other half. But pure gaming will undoubtedly suffer. You are right to be skeptical of system performance claims for two reasons 1) it doesn't always translate to app/game performance, and 2) tests can be tilted to exaggerate the difference of one over another. So is it 50% better? I dunno. But there should be no doubt it's a little bit better at the very least. You can't make slower memory go faster, and you can't steal away a huge chunk of resources and hope it doesn't matter. -
Silvercloak - September 13, 2013 7:25 a.m.
With no backwards compatibility I'm not rushing out to buy either console. I can happily finish up my current library while I wait until the consoles shrink in size AND price. -
-
-
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 7:58 a.m.
Unlike the XBone though, PSN arguably offers way more benefits, and it's cheaper too ;) Of course, we'll have to see if the PSN will have a better infrastructure than it did with the PS3. But if you're going to state a fact, try to state the whole thing? -
bbq4tw - September 13, 2013 8:06 a.m.
Holy crap!! Are you kidding? The dude said you don't have to pay to play online and he was corrected twice because you actually do have to pay to play online. Where is the bias in that? If anything, your flat out defense of having to pay to play REEKS of fanboy stink. Please go back to masturbating all over your PS4 "specs". -
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 8:23 a.m.
Yep, I corrected him myself as well. But again, that's not all there is to it, is it? It's not really a defense to point out that just because you DO have to pay, you ARE getting more incentives to do so. That's just the facts. Why do you get annoyed about that? are you going to tell me it's false? how exactly am I being a fanboy for pointing that out? -
bbq4tw - September 13, 2013 9:33 a.m.
If you wanna try to be all "intellectual" (which you're failing at miserably), you definitely get more incentives to pay for xbox live than psn. You get more for free on the ps4 (netflix and such) and I believe the only thing paying for psn provides is multiplayer in games so yes, you get more incentives to pay for xbox live. -
Eightboll812 - September 13, 2013 9:54 a.m.
Wait, so you are actually trying to defend having to pay for Netflix on Xbox??? It's an "incentive". Gee, you are a real fanboy. So let's get this straight. I pay a subscription for Netflix. I also pay my local phone company for high speed internet. I then have to pay MS for my 360 to simply use my home internet connection to connect to Netflix servers, none of which touches any MS service at all. But I have to pay a fee for the privilege for my 360 to simply connect to the internet and display the video on my TV? And that's all real nice because it's just an "incentive" to have to pay MS more for something that should be free? Forget Sony completely here. You really don't have a problem with Netflix being behind the MS paywall? Admit your allegiance now, or stop trolling. -
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 10:05 a.m.
*Snerk* Thank you for showing your ignorance so wide in the open. Paying for PSN gives you access to PSN Plus. And PSN Plus is a service that every single month gives you FREE games and pretty big discounts for a lot other games that have just come out. Sony has already announced that those who get PSN Plus for the PS4 will be getting a version of DriveClub and ResoGun for free... Something that Xbox Live isn't doing. Again, if you actually DID any research, you'd know that only recently Xbox Live started to offer free games... except that it's only 2 games per month, and so far they are all over 3 years old or older, whereas with PSN Plus you can get games like X-Com, Little Big Planet Karting, Machinarium, Runner 2, Saints Row The third, and Uncharted 3... Oh, and the PSN Plus mebership is 50 bucks, not 60 bucks per year. Oh, and here's some hard proof for ya, by the way: http://winsupersite.com/xbox/games-gold-september-2013 http://us.playstation.com/psn/playstation-plus/ So yeah, what's that about the Xbox Live service giving you more incentives again? do you want to show your fanboyism and ignorance any more? :3 -
Eightboll812 - September 13, 2013 10:27 a.m.
@Bladed, He was using the reverse logic that because there are more things, such as Netflix, behind the MS paywall, there is greater incentive to get Gold than Plus, therefore you are getting "more" for your $60 per year to get Gold than you are for your $50 per year for Plus. In other words he was doing something akin to: Bladed: the sky is up bbq4tw: no, not for people in China -
Eightboll812 - September 13, 2013 9:57 a.m.
@Bladed, Actually you all haven't even completely gotten it right yet. It was stated that it was up to publishers whether they wanted multiplayer behind the paywall or not. Now, I think very quickly most games will end up behind the paywall, but we don't know that for sure. I think its safe to assume all EA and Activision titles will be, but not sure about others. So it's still "kinda, sorta, almost" required to pay, but maybe not. -
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 10:40 a.m.
Well, I am simply going for the worst case scenario. EVEN if you do have to play to play all games on-line, PSN Plus is a way better bang for your buck than Xbox Live gold. Of course, try getting that fact trough xbox MacFanboy here... -
-
-
BladedFalcon - September 13, 2013 7:59 a.m.
Yeah mate... you do have to pay to play online on the PS4. But I'd recommend you do research yourself and look at what that means. Instead of hearing it from people that could be considered biased like me or the fellows above me ;)
ProtagonistZero - September 13, 2013 7:28 a.m.