Well you did leave your brain at home... and in THIS universe.
Many... MANY people don't want PvP. Not only just PvP, but PvP multiplayer shooter, so sorry, Madden and Fifa don't count. But even if it did, you're still wrong.
No one was saying that all those games don't have a huge online community, and even MOBA's, but last I checked, I don't see anywhere near 7 billion, or even say, 4-5 billion discounting for toddlers and geriatrics... playing these types of game.
I for one love PvP multiplayer shooters, but most people don't game, or if they do it's the casual crap on a phone. Most people do not own and play console and PC games.
PS4 version ran great. Can't expect anything more out of 1.8 TFlops
PC version ran great. A GTX 970 easily could do 120 FPS on almost all ultra settings. 4k looked ungodly but you had to turn down settings to achieve a 40-65 FPS range (in which it still looked amazing).
This game performs VERY well, you don't need 10 TFlops to run this effectively.
Didn't play the Xbox One version, but apparently it preformed nicely as well.
In 2015, Frostbite engine multiplayer games are not performance hogs.
Wow. Simply amazing. So much of this article doesn't make sense.
With VR the whole point is for it to be good and affordable. Throwing money at R&D won't achieve that.
Just remember people, Farcebook is in the data collection business. That's it. They create services to gather your data. Facebook was just their first conduit. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
Now they have another conduit, via the OR.
Will they hide some services behind facebook? Log-in to experience.......whatever.
Their open source isn't to be open, it's to make their standard the standard, so they can pick and choose more compatible partners to acquire which they can then wall off into exclusivity. How do people not see this?
You can only have a single #1 focus.
It used to be that the focus of OR was gaming. Now it's data collection and ad revenue. You can't have both be the #1 focus. One will be elevated, and Flakebook didn't spend 2 billion dollars to be #2.
Backers will get A product, but not THE product they were backing.
Yes, you clearly are. Look at your own comment. The game has some serious issues. Framerate issues in a first person shooter game? Yes I can still have fun, but it harms the experience and screws people over.
You sir can't think and have been blinded by fanboyism.
This isn't a Minecraft indie game. This is a first person shooter that was claimed by Phil Spencer to set the bar so high in gameplay and all this other crap that others will be trying to match it for a long time.
Sorry bud, you have no argument. You look like a fool.
How about commenting on something real instead of saying ....blah blah blah.
I've had plenty of fun on games rate 4 or 5, but they still deserved their scores. Too bad you can't step out of fantasy zone and actually think critically.
Let alone the other design decisions. Mechs don't hover? They claimed it was a vertical game yet the maps are pretty flat. Much closer to CoD map size then BF4.
It's a decently fun game, and worth a buy at some point on PC, but the technical issues and resolution on a game engine from before the 360 was released on the Xbox One is horrendous. There is no environmental destruction, either. The game graphics even on max on PC look very dated. Passable, but oh so dated.
People will have fun with it, but there are way too many things wrong for this game to be getting the scores it is.
SimCity fans have wanted a sequel for a decade. We are still wanting one that is a legitimate successor to Sim City 4. I preoredered my copy Oct 2011 because of newegg free shipping + $12 off + no tax. So that's like a $20 savings that could of gone out the window if I cancelled the preorder and they fixed the issues. A decade+ of waiting lowers ones standard.
But yeah it was pretty apparent that the small map sizes, online only, and a few other things were probably going to bring down this game. There was never legitimate excuses for forcing people online for a single player game. There simply isn't one. It's like saying you are required to fasten your seatbelt while you sit on your recliner and play games or your PC/Console won't boot up. I mean it's literally that insane. They said some was going to get fixed. You knew there were going to be connection issues, there generally is.
But when you have all of those flaws, then all the bugs, and prolonged connectivity issues, along with save games that reset or lost so all your progress got destroyed it literally was the worst launch probably ever...and what's worse is that all of the problems came out of crappy design decisions. There was never a reason to force online, or to rely on cloud saves, etc. Oh the traffic in that game, horrendous, and then of course they have all the DLC, one of which was something that was another transportation option....which meant some people paid to lessen one of the bugs...which of course pissed people off.
As for BF4, it's a great game, that's marred with bugs. I can't speak to the single player, because quite frankly when I pop in a FPS/TPS game with a multiplayer component...I didn't buy the game for a single player. I bought it to rake face against human opponents online. So by that count BF4, when it worked, was amazing. Just like 3. But oh the launch bugs. I still had a ton of fun. I just got a bunch of disconnects. If you can roll with the punches you could of had fun online with BF4 from day 1. Of course I'm speaking PS4 version, which crashed about as often as my PC beta version. Both of which were extremely fun. Now the multiplayer portion of the game is basically fixed, and while I like CoD, and don't begrudge anyone liking that game the most, BF4 to me is vastly superior.
BF4 was going to get fixed, anyone with a brain who went through the BF3 launch knew this. Most were just hoping it wouldn't release quite as buggy. But shame on EA for not getting it done and while this is a failure on EA, the game is and always has been amazing and fun. BF4 was never crap. It was fun and extremely buggy. Those bugs are mostly gone now. From crashes every other game and no conquest mode to maybe a crash every dozen hours or so and conquest is fully playable.
Still for these reasons and many others, I'm quite sure EA will win the worst company in America for a 3rd straight year. Sure it should be JP Morgan, or Wells Fargo, or BofA, or Goldman Sachs, or Monsanto or a list of others that actually are the worst. But in terms of gaming there's only two EA and Microsoft. EA will win because they had as bad of a year a software company can have and are current champions of crap two years running.
Well 2014 for Microsoft is starting out the same as 2013. Completely bat**** crazy and out of touch with reality.
There's two ways to look at hardware differences. 1. Is the notion that if it isn't a generation difference, then it 'isn't much'.
2. Is the fact that within generations there can be massive differences
Microsoft is claiming #1 when it's clearly #2. It's quite dishonest. There is a MASSIVE difference in power within the generation.
But there again there's even more subtlety. How does the effectual massive difference happen? Well it's not just raw power, but also archtitecutal superiority of the PS4, or to be more precise the ESRAM bottleneck of 32 mb's instead of 128 mb's that then lowers the Xbox One below its stated specs that has the effect of widening the difference between the two consoles.
You can do that math easily for the framebuffer. Resolution Width x Resolution Height x bytes per pixel quality /1024/1024. The number cannot exceed 32mb's, and really you need it to be quite a bit UNDER 32 mb's because you need more then just the framebuffer going through there. If you notice, most next gen frame buffers with a quality of 24-40 bytes per pixel basically can't fit in 32 mb's. Even at 16 bytes per pixel. A 1080p framebuffer sucks up ~31.64 mb's. Leaving nothing for anything else. Hard to use the ESRAM to boost bandwidth with ~0.35 mb's left over.
Sure you get more bandwidth then DDR3 alone with ESRAM, but the ESRAM is too small to hold a next-gen deferred rendered 1080p framebuffer of any significant quality. That's why for next-gen deferred rendering games the Xbox One will have 600p-900p resolutions. Deferred rendering dyanmic lighting, around on the PC since last decade, IS a huge part of next-gen. It's used in all the next gen engines. It's used in many of the multiplatform games...especially open world or semi-open world. GTA, AC, BF, CoD, etc, etc, etc. Xbox One will always be behind on these and many more games.
Oh and by merely having ESRAM it makes the coding more difficult then without it. So you have more complexity and a bottleneck, that lowers Xbox One's overall effectual power...then being measured against the PS4 which has it's fairly more raw power with none of these limitations, as well as other architectural advantages. More ROPS, More ACE's, etc, etc, etc.
How Microsoft can even claim there isn't much power difference when there are already games out which are on both and the PS4 holds a performance (FPS), quality (graphical effects), and resolutions (higher resolution) all in one.
It's like saying my car cost less then your car, and it is faster, gets better gas mileage, and can stop on a dime.
We already have 1080p vs 720p games. What's worse is that what the Xbox One does poorly, is what is most popular with gamers. The games everyone wants the most will have the biggest disparities. Sure a dev could maybe not optimize a PS4...just get it up and running, and then spend the other 99 percent of the time trying to catch up the Xbox One and then this lessens the gap, but that's unlikely to happen often, if at all. Theoretically it could happen though.
But overall it's just amazing Microsoft has already come out in 2014 and said 'nothing's changed'. We're still the lunatic company oblivious to reality.
jmc88888's comments