intel/amd ... ati/nvidia ... apple/microsoft ... why is there always just 2? i honestly think they're all the same company. just the same company under 2 different names. Isn't it funny how there's always 2 fighting against eachother. Why wouldn't another company come out with something similar. Like Acer or one of those companies. it's not like the PS4 and xbox are state of the art technology or anything, acer were making laptops more powerful than the ps4 about 3 years ago etc, They could easily do it with the hardware thats available. Same with ATI and NvIdia. Same company, just split in half and going head to head just to generate a divide and create more buzz and interest.

One way to prove it is. How come the 2 GFX cars makers. have a completely different way of making the core's for the gfx cards, yet they just always magically are the same speed as eachother. And how come every 3 months, a new version of the same card comes out for both companies at the same time, with again the exact same scores. giving about 3fps more than the last card they sold, at twice the price.

If there was any true competition, one of these companies would have blown the other out of the water years ago by coming up with some new great concept. But for 10+ years they slowly just trickled along together gaining a frame here and a frame there.

It's an identical story with AMD and Intel... 10+ years... a new core, 100mhz faster than the previous one, 5fps more than the last one, but the exact same performance roughly as the competitor, even thought they're completely different CPU's with completely different architecture. It's a game. They know the best way to generate interest is to pretend there's a real competition. when they are both either the same company, or they have a mutual agreement that they share their technology to ensure that they always only barely increase the power of the next card/cpu/console by 1% etc.

I find it difficult to believe that after 10 years. None of them still have gone ahead in the CPU race, intel and amd etc. Intel created a brand new technology and brought out this monster i7 which was supposed to be a game changer and be just beastly leaving AMD trailing behind by about 30%. but then magically out of nowhere the following month, AMD all of a suddent can release chips the same speed as the i7's no problem, without any new advance in technology. just release a new bulldozer core or whatever.

So if they can do this to rival intel, why didn't they just do that in the first place?

i honestly think they're all the same company. just the same company under 2 different names. Isn't it funny how there's always 2 fighting against eachother. Why wouldn't another company come out with something similar. Like Acer or one of those companies. They could easily do it with the hardware thats available. Same with ATI and NvIdia. Same company, just split in half and going head to head just to generate a divide and create more buzz and interest.

One way to prove it is. How come the 2 GFX cars makers. have a completely different way of making the core's for the gfx cards, yet they just always magically are the same speed as eachother. And how come every 3 months, a new version of the same card comes out for both companies at the same time, with again the exact same scores. giving about 3fps more than the last card they sold, at twice the price.

If there was any true competition, one of these companies would have blown the other out of the water years ago by coming up with some new great concept. But for 10+ years they slowly just trickled along together gaining a frame here and a frame there.

It's an identical story with AMD and Intel... 10+ years... a new core, 100mhz faster than the previous one, 5fps more than the last one, but the exact same performance roughly as the competitor, even thought they're completely different CPU's with completely different architecture. It's a game. They know the best way to generate interest is to pretend there's a real competition. when they are both either the same company, or they have a mutual agreement that they share their technology to ensure that they always only barely increase the power of the next card/cpu/console by 1% etc.

I find it difficult to believe that after 10 years. None of them still have gone ahead in the CPU race, intel and amd etc. Intel created a brand new technology and brought out this monster i7 which was supposed to be a game changer and be just beastly leaving AMD trailing behind by about 30%. but then magically out of nowhere the following month, AMD all of a suddent can release chips the same speed as the i7's no problem, without any new advance in technology. just release a new bulldozer core or whatever.

So if they can do this to rival intel, why didn't they just do that in the first place?

So we had the chance (with xbox one) to be able to give our money to the developers more than once. And be awarded for that, but we all had an uproar about it "NOOOOOOO I DON'T WAN TO HAVE TO ONLY BE ABLE TO TRADE MY GAMES ONLINE WITH THE DEVS" etc. So now basically whats happened is we give the developer's about 20 dollars per copy of the game they make. And they never make another penny from that copy of that game they spent 3 years making.

Then you get scumbag companies like Gamestop etc, buying a game for 20 dollars, selling it for 70 dollars. the guy finishes the game and a week later trades it back in. he get's 22 dollars back for the game. So now gamestop have paid 42 dollars for the one copy of the game, but when they sell it agains, they sell it for 65. so theyve made 135 dollars from 1 copy. In 3 years time, just as an example. That 1 single copy of just 1 single game could have been sold back to them and resold 10 times, for just one copy. and every few months, the trade in price goes down.. 22 dollars, 18 dollars, 15, 8 etc. while the resale price doesn't drop nearly as quickly. so in 3 years they'll still be selling that game for 45 dollars, and only giving you 6 dollars of a trade in. So with the 10 trades of that 1 single game, they've probably made about 500 dollars profit... from 1 game.

Why doesn't the developer get any of this money? Its crazy.

I went into Gamestop (im in ireland) and Red Dead Redemption is STILL €24.99. I counted and there's 17 copies of it on the preowned shelf. 17 copies at 24.99. Instead of selling an old game for 14.99 and selling 17 of them, they sell maybe 1 or 2 of them for 24.99. There's games like colin mcrae dirt 1 in there still at 24.99. but they'll only give you 3 euro on the trade in. Basically im calling these guys out for being Gangsters.

Also how F*CKING DARE they sell you a new game for €70 (about $90). then give a guy 22 for it when he trades it back in a few days later. and then resell it for €65!!! How the hell do they get away with selling you a pre-owned copy of a game. Where the codes have been used and you probably can't play it online (basically losing 50% of the game's functionality) for €5 less than a brand new game. Is there no law's or regulations? They seem to be able to do what they want. And noone seems to call them out on it.

my last comment is digital games. Im a ps3 owner. i went online to purchase GT6, as i thought "no box, no book, no shipping, no middlemen etc, it'll be about €39.99.. SEVENTY euro... like €70... these people should be put in prison.

Because BF4 is out, i wanted to rebuy BF3 to play for a while, while im waiting to get my PS4. They raised the price of a 3-4 year olf game to €59.99. BF3 on PSN store is €60 again.

Im telling you i don't understand how all these people don't get put into prison as it's nothing short of extorsion.

so basically everyone thinks that what they've done is ok. you're saying "It's not about greed or money for the developer" then you contradict yourself saying they made the games for the xbox and ps3 because there's 8 million consoles vs 4 million consoles. pure mathematics. greed.

So she's just listed a bunch of things that were already features of the old systems. Apart from the realtime time of day thing, which of course was created first in the fox engine. And why do they always have to come up with som "cool" name for the game engine... The fox engine, the SnowDrop engine, The Cryengine.. it's like little kids tring to be cooler than eachother "THe snowdrop engine" you mean the set of modeling tools where they drag shapes out and fill them in with pixels? "well, yeah"

@fnevaeva: they're "bothering" with GT6 because they havn't released a game since 2010.. almost 4 years ago, and they won't have GT7 until 2015.. and they like money.

And i wish everyone would shut up, i've played GT since the day GT1 came out on the PSX and i just bought GT6 and i love it. I mean in Subaru's showroom alone there is nearly 60 cars. SIXTY. In 1 showroom. Stop whining and buy it. The courses and roads are beautiful, the challeneges are fun. there REALLY is around 1200 cars in it. compared to about 350 in the old game. Buy it, and add me on PSN so we can play or try beat eachothers time. ajquigley is my handle

well not to mention the fact that Sony charge 69.99 for the delux version of GT6, when it's 59.99 on a shelf in the shop with a silver tin box and lots of other googies.

Charging 59.99 for Battlefield 3 and you don't even get an instruction manual, and it's only 19.99 in the shops. they should LITERALLY be put into prison for that extorsion

OK guys i got back to work 2 months ago, bought myself a PS3 and ended up between then and now, buying 23 games (all on seperate occasions, i nkow... im not well lol. I keep turning a game on for few mins, thinking of another one and switching to that one, and rewind. I'll list the games i bought, and i want someone to sort them into What you're gonna play in order: so make a list of say 5 that i should play, start to finish, 1 at a time!! here's the games,

Skyrim Legendary Edition,

Dark Souls

Grand Theft Auto 5 (finished 4)

Deus Ex with expansion

MGS4

Half Life 2 Orange Box

GT6

GT5 Academy Edition

Mass Effect 3 (finished 1 and 2)

Assassins Creed BrotherHood (finished 1 and 2)

Borderlands (finished 1)

Siren 3 Blood Curse

MW2

MW3

Killzone 2

Uncharted

Uncharted 2

Finfal Fantasy 7 (PSX)

Final Fantasy 9 (PSX)

Driver (PSX)

Tomb Raider 2 (PSX)

Outland (10 euro downloadable game indi game)

Thanks guys! give me 5 in order of (you're not allowed play number 2 till 1 is finished). Otherwise i'll never decide...

Hey there, It's my first post in the forum but i just can't hold it in anymore. I have 2 points i want some guys who're into the industries opinions on. Remember, this is only my opinion.

1) All these companies had the option to make brand new titles for the Xbox1 and Ps4. Ghosts, Fifa14, NBA, MGS5, Assassins Creed 4 yeah? They could have made these games into masterpieces of beauty, enhances effects, colours, ultra high res custom models, amazing new physics e tc.. basically pushing the new systems hardware, and blowing us away FORCING us to be in awe of how powerful the new systems are, and showing us WHY we need one yeah?

But what did they do? Nothing like that. They got Greedy... Greed is a sickness. They thought "oooooh, if we just make the games on the PS3 and xbox, and then just smooth out the meshes after and increase the texture resolution a bit we can sell them then as "next gen" games AND current gen games"... It's true. They designed those games on the current platforms, and just spent a bit of time after adding better textures and mesh smoothing. That is pure filth. Nothing in any of those games takes advantage of ANY of the new features of the new machines, so why are we paying for them as next gen games?? im disgusted. We should be throwing this rubbish back in their faces, they should be penalized.

Want proof? Play Nba on ps3 and 4 together... the difference literally is some better textures and lighting.

Ghosts... some parts of ghost, especially outside of cutsceenes literally just look like Black Ops 2 on the PS3.. it's pathetic.

Fifa? lol. I saw it on a PS4 and im not kidding, i just thought the PS3 version was being played on a nice TV because it looked sharper. Doesn't that just show how greedy and how little respect they have for us?

2) The ram on the machines is 3x faster, and there's 16x more of it... SIXTEEN times more. The CPU's are approx 10x faster/better/more full of features/more powerful. so if we say "the new console is approx 10x more powerful than the last gen", why are the game we're seeing only approx 15-20% better looking? my opinion is, it's not the hardware (judging by the last of us and beyond 2 souls) it's the developers. They're just not good enough to take advantage of hardware that powerful. i mean, if they can make beyond 2 souls after 7 years of trying on a cpu like that with 512mb ram. And arer then handed a 10x more powerful cpu and SIXTEEN x more ram and still can only make the games look roughly the same as beyond 2 souls but with some better textures here and there... doesn't it tell us something. People are the limit, not the machines.

3) louis ck for president