Was thinking about investing in a UPS battery backup for my PS4 so when it's left in standby I have some time to shut it down properly if I lose power suddenly. I don't have problems with frequent power outages but during storms or downed line from an accident or something it does happen. I been researching UPS's but wanted to see if I could get any opinions from anyone else that may use one. I will also be using this for my Xbox One this friday.

Anyone have any input or suggestions on how big of a UPS I should get? Not sure I need one to power my whole home theater since the PS4 is easy to shut down blindly. Hold home button then 3 clicks down though I am not sure how easy it will be for the Xbox. I was thinking of a 900w one so at the minimal draw in stanby mode it would last a couple hours or so incase I am not home to shut it down. I just don't know if thats overkill cause all I see is ratings at full load and half so I am not sure how long it would actually last at only a 10w draw(or whatever the PS4 is).

Or am I over thinking this whole thing? I just been reading some debates on shut down vs standby and just thought that if this is the way consoles are headed the a battery backup would be a good investment so nothing gets corrupted or messed up.

Dude look like a cross between Sam Fisher and Drake. I wonder what the gameplay will be like. Zombie games are being done overkill lately though IMO.

Oblivion looked better on ps3, so who knows.

I will be waiting anyway to see how buggy the game is. If the ps3 version is borked, I shall possess the PC version.

Pug-Nasty

Didn't PS3 Oblivion come out a year after the 360 one? and have more time to be slightly polished up? And didn't they release a patch for the 360 to bring it up to par?

It's simply because with almost any multiplat there are usually more copies of the 360 version floating around.

Ilikemyname420

This exactly...The 360 version of games usually always sell more than the PS3 counter part. This probably leads to more copies of the 360 version being traded in thus decreasing their trade in value and lowering their used prices. This is why a used copy of Modern Warfare is only $10-$15 on 360 and $20-$25 on PS3. It could also mean PS3 owners hold onto their games longer.

New they are usually always the same price. Nothing to do with the fact one is on DVD and the other Blu-ray. I asked this question at my local Gamestop once when I noticed the used price difference, this was the explaination I got from the employee. Not to say he knew what he was talking about but it made sense.

I am glad I have both systems and have always preferred LIVE anyway but my only gripe with this whole PSN down time is the timing. I just picked up a copy of Socom 4 and Portal 2 but haven't been able to play them on line, that and I am a Plus subscriber so I wonder if I will get anything for the downtime being that I do pay. I know they give you enough stuff for free(though mostly junk, I did like the free Killzone 3 maps though) but Plus subscribers should receive some sort of compensation if it stays down another week or so.

Yes the lighting in Crysis is some of the best I have seen. The environments are not as vast as you claim it's fairly straight forward go from here to there with some different ways of approaching a situation . For your claim that people need to accept that the 360 can do just as good if not better than the ps3, I don't. As I said this is the closest the 360 has been to claiming the best in console graphics in how many years and again the game doesn't quite cut it. I don't care if the lighting is as good as it is if there are low res textures everywhere and pop-in and very low dips in fps. Have you seen all the stuff going on in Killzone 3 ? It's like a non-stop action movie. The single player looks better as a overall package and the multiplayer , well thats not even debatable. Do you not think that the developers could have added in some extra eye candy with Killzone if they made those types of sacrifices ? sure they could have, and Killzone still looks better without those sacrifices. It's pretty sad that one game in the last 3 -4 years that can compete but still falls short of the ps3 exclusives, I really wanted to be amazed when I rented it for my 360 for all the good things said about it, as I wanted a 360 game that could compete graphically with the exclusives in my ps3 collection, and while it is the closest it's been in a LONG time I came away disappointed again. xxtg82xx

Yes I have played and beaten Killzone 3 and it is not as impressive as Crysis 2...IMO...just like it is your opinion Killzone 3 is better. For years the 360 has gotten better looking multiplats including Crysis 2 which even Playstation magazines have stated is the best looking shooter on PS3. Take Mass Effect 2, the PS3 version came how much later and uses a newer engine and is still only marginally better looking than the 360 version. I am sure if Naughty Dog went multiplat and worked on the 360 they could amaze us just as much with the 360. So again I stand by my statement that when compared to the PS3 the only thing the 360 is lacking is development talent not graphical power.

Because it is better to be on the own all systems bandwagon. That way I can play any awesome game that comes out whether it be on only one system or I can chose any multiplat and play with whatever controller I am most comfortable with.

First off Crysis 2 is NOT the best looking console game, but one of the best that the 360 has to offer, after renting it on the 360 I can safely say that . So how can some of the best looking games this gen run on the 360 which has been behind in terms of the best overall graphics a console can output for a few years now , they can't . The last game that I had in my 360 that I could truthfully say was the best looking game this gen was gears 1 and how many years ago was that. The thing with Crysis 2 is that there are flaws like pop-in, ALOT of awful looking textures, bad dips in fps and other glitches in this game that hold it back. There are a FEW great looking moments in this game that are CLOSE to the best but as a whole it's way too inconsistent. I truly feel that if you own a ps3 and a 360 and then tried Crysis 2 for 360 then play Killzone 3 , God of War , or Uncharted 2 that you would understand (I know some will still claim otherwise and that's fine), but for the ones that only own a 360 and haven't played those games and make the claim that it is the best looking game or bash the other games without trying them is very biased and how can you respect an opinon like that. Killzoned please don't ask that ridiculous question again about Alan Wake lol, it's a good looking game for sure but it not in the same league as Killzone, Uncharted and even Crysis for that matter. The fact that you even ask in the first place and after reading some of your posts makes me discredit your opinon instantly .xxtg82xx

I have both systems and have played all of the games you mention and Crysis 2 looks better then Killzone 3 and is far more impressive. It is more wide open with more destructible environments and with an unbelievable lighting system. Killzone 3 performs more stable because it simply is not doing the the things done in Crysis 2 and not on the same scale anyway. People need to accept and let go of the fact Crysis 2 is proof the 360 can produce the same/ even possibly better level of graphics than the PS3. The PS3 just has better developers that build custom engines and take time to show what it can do. The only thing the 360 lacks in comparison to PS3 is development talent not graphical power.

In the DF article I thought they say the areas where people are saying PS3 performs better are considered practically unplayable on both systems. When the frame rate does drop the PS3 handles it all a little bit better but does it matter if it is a little better if they still considered those portions unplayable on both systems? Overall they do say the 360 does perform better, run at a higher res, and has some better textures. PS3 Verizon has 0 screen tearing and some shadows that look better up close. The game does look phenomenal on both systems so go with theversion you have more friends to play with on line. I also have never seen these unplayable moments, not once, yet. I also have played the PS3 version and haven't seen anything to bad on either system. Maybe a little slow down here and there but definitely nothing I would consider unplayable.

The game definitely looks better than Killzone 3 to me. Not only did it wow me more right off the bat but it feels more wide open and with more destructible environments. It really just seamed more impressive with what they pull off all while maintaining the level of graphics they achieved on consoles. Not to mention Cows only throw out Killzone 3 to try and maintain the CGK crown because some sites consider the 360 version not only better but overall best looking game on consoles. Either way nothing changes the fact that Crysis 2 proved the 360 could achieve a level of graphics Cows touted wasn't possible on the 360.

IMO Crysis 2 > Killzone 3 > Uncharted 2

I don't get all of the Crysis 2 bashing? PC gamers are mad that it is inferior to the 1st game and PS3 gamers mad that the 360 can do something once thought impossible, produce graphics on par if not better tha Killzone 2/3 and Uncharted 2. No one is taking the time to play and see what a good game it actually is.

I was hands down more impressed with this game than I was when I played Killzone 3. Not to mention the fact that the campaign is supposedly twice as long as Killzone 3's and the levels are much bigger and more open. The environment and practically everything in it is destructible and all this while being able to fit on a DVD no less. I know nothing about programming but that all seams pretty damn impressive to me. Wouldn't it be harder to pull off these sort of things and still squeeze the power to make it look that good? Seams more technically impressive to me than Killzone or Uncharted all while looking better too IMO.