Gaming PS4 vs Xbox One - The suckiest thread in the history of suckyness

[Alock1]

Me?! That was a random shout out

*watches*

*jaw drops*

Doesnt this game already exist? I've played this game. What's it called?! It's a 360 game...You fight aliens in rounds... Is this actually COD?

If so, good to see Activision have launched their version of Zombies. Good to see 4 player coop

You love Zombies so I thought you'd like this

 

[Alock1]

CBOAT has spoken again

So, nothing new that we didn't already know (or atleast, highly suspect).
And the objective was always money, right? Business was always the name of the game.

Surely, gamers know that? :\

EDIT: It's not meant to be some staunch defense of Microsoft btw, I'm just saying - the name of the game has always been profits. I think the issue is that the industry seems to make more money from the casual gamers who don't buy many games than the hardcore.

 

[Bojan11]

So, nothing new that we didn't already know (or atleast, highly suspect).
And the objective was always money, right? Business was always the name of the game.

Surely, gamers know that? :\

EDIT: It's not meant to be some staunch defense of Microsoft btw, I'm just saying - the name of the game has always been profits. I think the issue is that the industry seems to make more money from the casual gamers who don't buy many games than the hardcore.

He's right.

Microsoft if they wanted to could have easily blown Sony out the water specs wise. They don't see it as a gaming device . They see it as a entertainment box.

Don Mattrick has sadly fecked up Xbox division and has run off.

The worrying thing is the head of Nokia is replacing him. Look how bad Nokia have been in the last six years.

This just shows that Allard was truly a genius. I don't understand why people feel the need to defend them. I've owned the original xbox from day one and I am concerned about all this fecking up. If Xbox one flops then that means no competition. Which isn't good.

 

[Alock1]

He's right.

Microsoft if they wanted to could have easily blown Sony out the water specs wise. They don't see it as a gaming device . They see it as a entertainment box.

Don Mattrick has sadly fecked up Xbox division and has run off.

The worrying thing is the head of Nokia is replacing him. Look how bad Nokia have been in the last six years.

This just shows that Allard was truly a genius. I don't understand why people feel the need to defend them. I've owned the original xbox from day one and I am concerned about all this fecking up. If Xbox one flops then that means no competition. Which isn't good.

This is the thing though.. for me, their big feck up has pretty much guaranteed they can't fail.

Even if they lose in sales massively over PS4, immediately post launch they have broken even on the console. They could have included better specs and still kept the media/kinect in there easily if they had been ok taking a loss on the console for the near future.

That's the error I think they've made, too much caution in costing. It's a little ironic really, potentially they could financially bully Sony - but their huge revenues mean that they have a board to answer to, a board who aren't willing to take such big risks, so they are more concerned with spending than the struggling Sony.

 

[Alock1]

People were questioning whether the real UI will be as quick/smooth as the mock up video we saw yesterday - Albert Panello (MS Director) told them that it was really that smooth, and said 'prepare to be blown away' to one skeptic. A huge post on Neogaf followed, and here was his response:

TLR

Let me explain something about how this all works. I’m posting something similar on Reddit, so apologize for the repeat.

Even though we have rights to populate the *store* with Musicians, Artists, Movies, Actors, etc. – when it comes to us (as in Microsoft) publishing those types of things for marketing materials, it requires an extensive amount of approvals from those same Studios, Actors, Agents, Musicians, etc.

Also whenever we use game footage, the creator of the game wants to approve the footage. And finally, when something like this gets created, it needs to be used in a variety of ways that a direct feed video doesn’t work for.

Coordinating a live demo that is using approved game footage, and making sure every piece of content on-screen is approved by all the content owners is a logistical nightmare. So all of those constraints means it’s better sometimes to create your own video with already approved assets. EVERYONE does this. Every ad, every video, from every company does this for the same reasons.

Now, those same sorts of rights aren’t applied to the press. So there is a huge difference in what WE can put online vs. what the press can put online. That’s why, right now, we have a ton of press in SF seeing new live game builds and new dash builds. I’m sure you’ll be hearing back from them about how close this video is.

Since people want to know, I will explain in detail the areas where this video differs from the real UI.

1. The way the voice text gets created on-screen doesn’t work that way. It will appear as one block.
2. The video assumes that the user ALREADY has a movie started (hence why Pacific Rim is in the middle of the film), and ALREADY has a game started. In that cause, the UI will switch that fast.
3. The “Activity Feed” does not go over the UI like that, it snaps to the side
4. When the player resumes Titanfall, obviously he would have to “unpause” the game or however the individual game deals with coming back up. But you can absolutely have a game paused, and use your voice to launch new apps exactly how the video does.
5. The only egregious feature error is when the VO says “Xbox Share” or something similar. Now, the user would actually have to accept the notification or go to upload studio and share from there. We don’t share directly with voice.

Besides those small nuances, the transitions, speed, movement and everything else is a pretty accurate. I think it’s a fine representation of the experience.

As for all the other stuff blowing up over the weekend, I will make one small comment: There is a really bizarre phenomenon going on right now where the frenzy for news, drama, and behind-the-scenes dealings is clouding logic and reason. There is nothing going on behind the scenes nearly as interesting as everyone would like to believe. We are a month away from launch, and people are working hard to finalize the last of the bugs. There are still a lot things left to be done. We’re crunching and I’m sure Sony’s crunching too.

I know people are excited. I’m sorry but things are nowhere near as dire or dramatic or exciting as everyone would like to believe. That’s why I’m not commenting on every single random rumor that comes along, because everything I see is so drastically overblown vs. reality.

 

[dumbo]

So BF4 is 900p on PS4 lolz. And over on Neogaf most posters seem to be preferring the Xbone footage, with what looks like horrible crushed blacks and gamma problems to me.

Spoiler

Hooray everyones a loser!

 

[ciderman9000000]

I've said all along: BF4 will look better on XBO than on PS4.

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Looks the same to me in those two screenshots. The only difference being the blokes face is slightly less blurry in the Xbox One one.

 

[Dargonk]

both of them look fairly poor.

how long until both consoles are actually out so all the speculation is over and we see real results.

 

[Hal9000]

I've said all along: BF4 will look better on XBO than on PS4.

They don't really look that different, although the PS4 is more detailed. From that screenshot you actually have some detail in the shadowed area on hte PS4 instead of just darkness, the helicopter crash in the background is more detailed on the PS4 and the main character has some detail on his clothing where one the XO he does not really have any.

Not really a great game to compare, because there has been worries about BF4 performance on next gen consoles for a few months. DICE have already come out and said they considered delaying the next gen versions, and in my mind, if you have to consider delaying something, you probably should delay it.

 

[Hal9000]

Here's a video of the Xbox OS being as smooth as you like..

 

[dumbo]

Watching some of the Xbone multiplayer footage and the buildings look like cardboard cut outs. The PS4 motion is much nicer with better colour and contrast balance. But then again Xbone seems to have the colour/contrast 'pop' factor that the kids dig - think the ghastly vibrant settings of showroom televisions.

Still won't be buying either for a couple of years yet.

 

[ciderman9000000]

They don't really look that different, although the PS4 is more detailed. From that screenshot you actually have some detail in the shadowed area on hte PS4 instead of just darkness, the helicopter crash in the background is more detailed on the PS4 and the main character has some detail on his clothing where one the XO he does not really have any.

Not really a great game to compare, because there has been worries about BF4 performance on next gen consoles for a few months. DICE have already come out and said they considered delaying the next gen versions, and in my mind, if you have to consider delaying something, you probably should delay it.

You could try watching the footage rather than looking at the one screen shot?

[YouTube]8XqWRACk2zY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YouTube]

I think it's clear that the XBO generally has better detail, contrast and lighting effects than the PS4 footage. It's just overall much crisper than the PS4 footage which often just looks blurry in comparison.

I knew a long time ago that the XBO's BF4 was going to outperform the PS4 offering, and I've mentioned it on here a number of times. I guess finally you can see I was exactly right all along.

 

[WeasteDevil]

So BF4 is 900p on PS4 lolz.

I don't think anyone expected Battlefield 4 to run at 1080p and 60fp on the PS4. Most reasonable PCs in the beta couldn't hit it either.

 

[Sarni]

They look about the same and in the end version they probably will but don't let that stop you Cider.

 

[WeasteDevil]

They look about the same and in the end version they probably will but don't let that stop you Cider.

He's living in Cloud Cuckoo land. He can't even bother to read the article where those images come from, and before it was his favourite site to quote.

On the merits of what we've seen so far, Battlefield 4 is already set to be a formidable launch window effort from DICE. Our observations so far reveal a clear gap in fidelity between PC and PS4, and again to Xbox One, but sub-pixel break-up aside, based on what we've seen so far, the Microsoft console manages to hold up despite the undeniable, quantifiably worse metrics in terms of both resolution and frame-rate.

PC version BTW was running on: eight-core AMD FX-8350 CPU, 8GB of RAM and dual-Crossfired HD 7970s.

 

[Hal9000]

You could try watching the footage rather than looking at the one screen shot?

[YouTube]8XqWRACk2zY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YouTube]

I think it's clear that the XBO generally has better detail, contrast and lighting effects than the PS4 footage. It's just overall much crisper than the PS4 footage which often just looks blurry in comparison.

I knew a long time ago that the XBO's BF4 was going to outperform the PS4 offering, and I've mentioned it on here a number of times. I guess finally you can see I was exactly right all along.

The gamma and contrast levels are different leaving the PS4 washed out but at the same time the Xbox One very dark in places.

Even still not surprised your missed the poor AA of the XO version, the jaggedness, the pixel breaks up, crushed blacks, the lack of detail in some scenes. This is before you get to the fact that the PS4 is 900p (poorly upscaled to 1080p) hitting 60fps compared to the XO still running at 720p and running a few frames behind the PS4. PS4 version is cleaner and more crisp.

The jaggedness and flickering on the XO version as places is horrible (the power lines man!) and that's in a compressed youtube video. Imagine seeing that on your fancy 50" TV.

The gamma and contract issues can be corrected. The lower res and how dirty the XO version looks in places, can not.

 

[WeasteDevil]

It's a heavily compressed 30fps YouTube video as well.

 

[Hal9000]

It's a heavily compressed 30fps YouTube video as well.

Few people accusing DF of using sharpening on the XO capture (apparently there is an apology somewhere?) If that's true, at the M$ mouthpeice.

Just watched Jackfrags and IGN vids, difference between PS4 and XO versions clearer there.

Better detail in the XO version though.

 

[Dargonk]

I like how the XO arm in that gif has basically no camouflage compared to the PS4 version. Though in the end this graphic comparison stuff won't mean to much. Smoothness of play matters more, at least to me.

 

[WeasteDevil]

The most interesting note is that the performance gap between the two is slightly bigger than it should be when considering the on-paper specifications. PS4 is shifting over 50% more pixels per frame, has the higher frame-rate (so over a second it's more than that in terms of pixel output), and includes certain effects that are not present in the XBone build, and then has this over the top anti-aliasing solution (which I'm not too fond of). Obviously, neither version has been fully optimised.

 

[Sarni]

at this screen shot. Cider has just got owned here.

 

[swooshboy]

Few people accusing DF of using sharpening on the XO capture (apparently there is an apology somewhere?) If that's true, at the M$ mouthpeice.

Just watched Jackfrags and IGN vids, difference between PS4 and XO versions clearer there.

Better detail in the XO version though.

I think it's clear that the XBO generally has better detail, contrast and lighting effects than the PS4 footage. It's just overall much crisper than the PS4 footage which often just looks blurry in comparison.

I knew a long time ago that the XBO's BF4 was going to outperform the PS4 offering, and I've mentioned it on here a number of times. I guess finally you can see I was exactly right all along.

Nah, still think you're totally wrong.

 

[Randall Flagg]

One is darker than the other but I havent a clue which is better or not

 

[WeasteDevil]

It's a still shot, you need to see it in motion. Due to the lower resolution on the XBone you will see a lot of sub-pixel flickering and aliasing, especially in the distance, such as the power lines you can see in those two static images.

What you will basically see is this... 720p, 900p, 1080p.

The following is an over-exaggeration due to its size and compression, but you can get an idea.

 

[Alock1]

So, how do we measure the effect that these graphics have on you guys?

As we saw yesterday, I quantify my console purchases in time spent using/playing them, they are an entertainment system so time spent being entertained seems to be a fair means of measurement.

Now, of course, on buying a game then of course, if both versions are going to play identical but one will be more visually pleasing, you'd but that one.

But what I want to know is, how important and why? Would you guys play a game for longer and get more enjoyment from it? Would you ever go on the game simply to look at it?

I guess you could play the same amount of hours as on xbox, but enjoy the ps4 version more than you would the xbox.. but I doubt it for most of you.
Would it have as big of an effect on your playing time as other factors? Controller, connection (dedicated servers), friends playing, the ability to multitask, etc.etc

It's hypothetical, I'm not concerned with 'I will prefer ps4 controller anyway' or 'my mates are on ps4' - I'm wondering does it have more effect on your entertainment than simply being blown away in the first half hour.

For me it doesn't, if for you it does, can you please explain why?

Ps. This isn't specific to Battlefield, and I know that those features alternative to graphics are subjective.. please, I just want to find out how highly you prioritise graphics and what effect they have.

 

[ciderman9000000]

The footage clearly shows that whilst, yes, the PS4 is displaying better anti-aliasing, the XBO has far better textures, smoke and lighting effects. As the following screen caps show: (the PS4 is on the left with the XBO footage on the right)

We see here the obvious difference in texture quality-

Smoke effects on the PS4 are rudimentary-

Inferior lighting and smoke effects of the PS4-

Awful texturing on the road on the PS4 version-

Lighting effects vastly superior on XBO-

More obvious differences in texture quality and detail-

A lot of detail is missing from the building ahead on the PS4-

Vastly superior textures on character models on the XBO-

Likewise vastly superior textures on floors and walls-

Laughable PS4 lighting effects-

Another example of inferior textures on PS4-

 

[Sarni]

Funny how when the slightest dim of hope in regards to a single title looking marginally better on Xbone appears, you change your tune and start caring about graphics in multiplatforms. BF4 will still look better on PS4 mind.

 

[Sarni]

I like how you exaggerare everything too, 'vastly superior', 'awful on PS4'

 

[Leg-End]

The Xbox footage looks like its been post processed by a teen on instagram, upping the sharpness doesn't make it look better you know. It's running at a lower frame rate, lower resolution, crushed blacks, jaggied to feck yet somehow cider concludes it looks better despite eyes, articles and expert opinions telling him otherwise.

That footage with all the pylons highlights it best of all. DF conveniently fecked it up, Go check out the Jack Frags uncrompressed footage on youtube.

 

[ciderman9000000]

The Xbox footage looks like its been post processed by a teen on instagram, upping the sharpness doesn't make it look better you know. It's running at a lower frame rate, lower resolution, crushed blacks, jaggied to feck yet somehow cider concludes it looks better despite eyes, articles and expert opinions telling him otherwise.

That footage with all the pylons highlights it best of all. DF conveniently fecked it up, Go check out the Jack Frags uncrompressed footage on youtube.

It's clearly looking better on the XBO.

The PS4 version manages to look at little bit smoother due to it being blurry, less detailed and with inferior lighting and smoke effects.

 

[Alock1]

Whichever one you believe looks better, I can't believe that people feel it's going to seriously impact their gaming experience, and that anybody getting the one they consider worse is either: mentally challenged, retarded, stupid, going to regret it, should be worried - bla bla bla.

Who knows about other games and in the future, but judging on this - I can't believe anybody would really care about the difference on either side.

As for caring for future developments in the graphics department - that's fine, I just don't understand how you would give any shit about this in particular. Maybe COD when we see comparison footage. Even those thinking long term though, I still question the thoughts behind it.

Nobody felt it was worth replying to my question of how important are graphics to you, do they give you more enjoyment, will you play a game more because of them, do they trump other factors (controller, reliability, os, connection etc.).

Obviously if two versions are the same, you would go for the one with the higher graphics - but there are other factors, and I want to know the hierarchy of considerations you take into account. Graphics first and foremost, like Weaste?

 

[Leg-End]

It's isn't "clearly" looking better on the Xbox though, you just want to believe that. I guess we also ignore higher framerate at a higher resolution too right?

I was just reading one of the German PC review sites and they said the PS4 version is comparable to a $1000 spec PC. The PS4 version if you actually open your eyes and take a look is running comparable to the PC version, if you think the Xbox One looks better then your also telling me you think it looks better than the PC version? Nope.

 

[FreakyJim]

 

[Woodzy]

Is this just one big WUM from Cider?

 

[Leg-End]

Whichever one you believe looks better, I can't believe that people feel it's going to seriously impact their gaming experience, and that anybody getting the one they consider worse is either: mentally challenged, retarded, stupid, going to regret it, should be worried - bla bla bla.

Who knows about other games and in the future, but judging on this - I can't believe anybody would really care about the difference on either side.

As for caring for future developments in the graphics department - that's fine, I just don't understand how you would give any shit about this in particular. Maybe COD when we see comparison footage. Even those thinking long term though, I still question the thoughts behind it.

Nobody felt it was worth replying to my question of how important are graphics to you, do they give you more enjoyment, will you play a game more because of them, do they trump other factors (controller, reliability, os, connection etc.).

Obviously if two versions are the same, you would go for the one with the higher graphics - but there are other factors, and I want to know the hierarchy of considerations you take into account. Graphics first and foremost, like Weaste?

All that is well and good, its a fair statement but did people say the same when comparing 360 multiplats to PS3? Nope, it was an advantage the 360 was considered to have and people used it to justify recommending that console.

And in this case its not just graphics, its frame rate which is king in these particular games in my eyes. It's $100 cheaper, point out to me exactly which one you would buy if you took the brand away from it.

 

[Talking Vulture]

Thanks for your input. No one ikes a show off so kindly feck off now.
Ta

Thumbs up

 

[ciderman9000000]

It's isn't "clearly" looking better on the Xbox though, you just want to believe that. I guess we also ignore higher framerate at a higher resolution too right?

I'm sure that the XBO version could have achieved a higher resolution and framerate had they likewise decided to skimp on lighting, particle effects and texture quality.

I was just reading one of the German PC review sites and they said the PS4 version is comparable to a $1000 spec PC. The PS4 version if you actually open your eyes and take a look is running comparable to the PC version, if you think the Xbox One looks better then your also telling me you think it looks better than the PC version? Nope.

Great argument.

So the PS4 looks the same as the PC version then? Nope.

 

[afrocentricity]

Seriously tho, what is up with those shots Cider posted?

 

[Leg-End]

I'm sure that the XBO version could have achieved a higher resolution and framerate had they likewise decided to skimp on lighting, particle effects and texture quality

Keep on believing.

So the PS4 looks the same as the PC version then? Nope.

Yet again you chop and change words as you see fit. I said comparable to a $1000 spec PC, I'll get the quotes:

They're saying that it's almost impossible to see a difference between PS4 and PC version. They compared it to BF4 running on a high-end PC with a "pretty expensive Radeon card". They're also expecting that if you're an owner of a PC that costs less than 1000€ then it will look worse than on PS4 if you want to target 60fps. 60fps is almost perfectly available in PS4 version. Given the low price of the PS4, they say that this definitely speaks for the console and against the PC version. In this video the PS4 version looks brighter due to the recording that they're using. There are some effects like water drops on the windscreen that are missing in the PC version even though they are available for PS4. Shadows, level of detail, etc are indistinguishable. Game runs smoothly even in "bombastic scenes"

I'm not going to argue about it with you any longer because we all know by now you just keep hamering away until you piss the person you are arguing with off or divert peoples attention away with Project Spark/Kinect or DF copy/pasted articles. It's insanely boring and mostly the reason why this thread has the title it has.