Xbone has actual games. Ps4 just kinda wobbles

[dave4555]

Nope. Ended January 1. But you can trade it in.

[dave4555]

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Xbox-One-C...-Game/34908649

Here you go porter. Free game. Jump on it.

[rickyh24]

Porter did you get your free game yet?

[dave4555]

Yeah porter, did you?

[mja271]

Pretty peeved that HBO Go is still not available on the Xbone. I understand that it's new and will build over time, but I hate that alot of things that were staples on the 360 the last few years didn't make it over initially.

[dobyblue]

Kojima: Metal Gear Solid 5 on PS4 renders at 1080p60 'with room to spare'

"Since it does it a little better than other hardware, the image quality of the PS4 is the most beautiful"

Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima has praised the technical prowess of the PlayStation 4, saying that it capable of displaying visuals at 1080p at 60 frames per second "with room to spare".

The statements were in a developer interview for Sony's 'Conversation with Creators' series, which was translated by DualShockers.

"I think, between the home consoles available in the domestic market, the PS4 is the best," Kojima said. "It's also excellent for graphics, being able to render 1080p at 60fps with room to spare."

"Since it does it a little better than other hardware, the image quality of the PS4 is the most beautiful. It's the closest to the photorealistic quality we are aiming at."

Elsewhere in the interview Kojima delivered more details on Metal Gear Solid 5, saying the PS4 hardware allowed for maps to be loaded in the background, which means the developers have been able to create one seamless world free of loading screens.

Kojima goes on to say his goal was to create a photorealistic game, but the visuals are designed to be what is seen through the lens of a camera as opposed to the naked eye.

From start to finish, the next Metal Gear Solid is presented in a single camera shot, where gameplay transitions seamlessly into cutscenes dynamically. This was done to tie into the "one world philosophy".

Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain does not have an official release date yet, but Kojima said in November that he would likely release the game "around the time that the PlayStation 4 becomes widely adapted".

Kojima Productions is set to release a prologue title, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes. Kojima has previously said his company decided to release the precursor title because full game The Phantom Pain "is extremely massive and is still going to take a while."

Ground Zeroes is a standalone game that serves as a prelude to full sequel Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

He recently had to address claims that Ground Zeroes would feature a campaign that can be completed in two hours.

The Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes release date is set for March 18.

Good 60fps quality video comparing the differences across the four platforms - http://trailers-ak.gametrailers.com/...son_10kbps.mp4

PS3 - 720p30
360 - 720p30
One - 720p60
PS4 - 1080p60

[dave4555]

Cool, I can play this game resolution game too.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...t-gen-face-off

[bamadavefan15]

Ps4 needs hbo go too

[bamadavefan15]

Originally Posted by dave4555

Cool, I can play this game resolution game too.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...t-gen-face-off

Tl;dnr. read a big quote that said the game pushed no boundaries so both games handled it the same.

[bamadavefan15]

Lol at the comments

Suck THAT PS4 owners! You can keep your better looking versions of BF4 / Thief / Assasins Creed 4 / and lots more to come - we've got Strider with slightly less screen tear! FUCK YEA.

[bamadavefan15]

The exclusives for PS4 is where the graphics really are going to shine. Can't wait.

[Cscottrun]

People are really takings this graphics comparison thing to a new level. Half of ps4 users are probably watchong on pos tv sets like sanyos or rcas. And then another half are probably watching on tvs that are 32' or smaller where you can't even notice the difference between 1080 and 720.

[Haiku Jimi]

Originally Posted by Cscottrun

Half of ps4 users are probably watchong on pos tv sets like sanyos or rcas. And then another half are probably watching on tvs that are 32' or smaller where you can't even notice the difference between 1080 and 720.

Not I sir.

Then again I've never really cared to comb over every single spec of a new console.

[rickyh24]

Titanfall beta was like an 8 gig file, a first person shooter and it was running at 792 60 fps. No one with an xbone cares about MGS. It comes out like 6 days after Titanfall. It's not going to sell at all. That is probably why their developers won't spend the time to get it to run better on the console.

[Ascf33]

I got beat in FIFA 3-0 by someone named LuvDatSnatch32 last night. Am I doing video games right?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Cscottrun

People are really takings this graphics comparison thing to a new level. Half of ps4 users are probably watchong on pos tv sets like sanyos or rcas. And then another half are probably watching on tvs that are 32' or smaller where you can't even notice the difference between 1080 and 720.

Can you provide some links to support your theories? It sounds to me like you're talking out your ass sir. So 1/2 of the PS4 owners are watching on Sanyo/RCA and the OTHER half are watching on 32 (you said feet but I presume you meant inches) inch televisions? 2006 called, they want their FUD back.

As for noticing the difference between resolutions it will never be based on screen size alone. You can notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 20" monitor and you can NOT notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 65" plasma. Without including the native source material AND viewing distance your screen size alone means fuck all. It's a persistent myth that uninformed consumers like yourself keep parroting.

[rickyh24]

[dave4555]

We will duel sir. Pistols at dawn.

[rickyh24]

Originally Posted by Ascf33

I got beat in FIFA 3-0 by someone named LuvDatSnatch32 last night. Am I doing video games right?

You are awful.

[Cscottrun]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Can you provide some links to support your theories? It sounds to me like you're talking out your ass sir. So 1/2 of the PS4 owners are watching on Sanyo/RCA and the OTHER half are watching on 32 (you said feet but I presume you meant inches) inch televisions? 2006 called, they want their FUD back.

As for noticing the difference between resolutions it will never be based on screen size alone. You can notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 20" monitor and you can NOT notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 65" plasma. Without including the native source material AND viewing distance your screen size alone means fuck all. It's a persistent myth that uninformed consumers like yourself keep parroting.

Are you serious? If you think the casual gamer will actually notice the difference, you have another thing coming. And yes, you obviously need to take into account the source material. Majority of the casual gamers are just buying into the hype.

And my source, my family has owned and operated an electronic repair store for over 30 years, specializing in TV's. I know the customer base for TV's. I know that even with the common knowledge out their that Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony out perform majority of the brands, plenty of people still buy the shitty brand. I also know that a ton of people don't even properly have their gaming consoles and cable boxes properly hooked up.

You clearly took what I said way to literally. In truth, I meant the disparity, especially on smaller screens, is negligible.

And as far as sources, here is just one of the first sources I found from google:

Display resolution isn’t the whole story. Most consumers might not know it, but they’re actually worried about pixel density, which is often expressed in terms of pixels per inch. Along with viewing distance, pixel density is what actually determines how sharp an image appears to the human eye.
A 32-inch television has a surface area of about 438 square inches, and a 60-inch TV has a surface area of about 1,540 square inches. However, that 32-inch television will have a pixel density of about 46 PPI while the 60-inch TV will only have a pixel density of around 37 PPI. Even though the smaller screen runs at a lower resolution, the image will appear sharper. Ultimately, the difference between 720p and 1080p is far less noticeable than the difference between standard and HD resolutions, and the difference between 1080i and 1080p is even less pronounced.

http://www.bundle.tv/faq/why-dont-ma...roadcasts.html

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Cscottrun

Are you serious? If you think the casual gamer will actually notice the difference, you have another thing coming. And yes, you obviously need to take into account the source material. (but you didn't) Majority of the casual gamers are just buying into the hype.

And my source, my family has owned and operated an electronic repair store for over 30 years, specializing in TV's. I know the customer base for TV's. I know that even with the common knowledge out their that Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony out perform majority of the brands, plenty of people still buy the shitty brand. I also know that a ton of people don't even properly have their gaming consoles and cable boxes properly hooked up.

You clearly took what I said way to literally. In truth, I meant the disparity, especially on smaller screens, is negligible.

And as far as sources, here is just one of the first sources I found from google:



http://www.bundle.tv/faq/why-dont-ma...roadcasts.html

That article is all over the place. They start off by referring to non-1080p broadcasts as "lower resolutions", then later they acknowledge that 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution. Which is it? They don't even note that you're watching 1080p when you receive a 1080i60 signal, your set will deinterlace to 1080p unless you're watching on a very old HD CRT set, and the original source was likely 1080p to begin with and converted to 1080i60 for broadcast. So when they say "Televisions running in 1080i mode update half of their pixels at a time" they're technically correct, but that's less than 1% of all HDTV screens. That's why hardly anything is actually shot in interlaced anymore, because 99% of HDTV sets in people's homes are progressive panels.

All LCD and plasma PDPs with few exceptions are progressive panels, they can't display an interlaced signal. There is no difference in resolution between 1080i and 1080p. In fact 1080i60 takes up more bandwith than 1080p24, another error in the article and they even have a section called "A matter of bandwidth". They are correct that the cost would be the with the cable box. They're wholly incorrect that most shows are shot in 1080i, the vast majority of shows that aren't filmed are being shot in HD at either 1080p24, 1080p30 or 1080p60. Just because something is broadcast in a resolution/fr doesn't mean it was shot that way. LOST was shot at 1080p24, but broadcast at 720p60.

They state in the pixel density section "Even though the smaller screen runs at a lower resolution" - huh? How is the smaller TV running at a lower resolution? They haven't stated what the resolutions of the TVs they're talking about are!

Your shop, you said it's a repair shop and you've used that to judge who is buying what TVs? Logical fallacy. The data shows which brand has the most TV repairs, not which brand is in most people's homes. Do you survey people when they come in and check off whether they're a gamer or not? Do your technicians when doing in house calls note how every piece of equipment is hooked up instead of just fixing a television? Sounds pretty bizarre. If this is not done, how do you ascertain whether these people are using their RCA sets for casual gaming or as a tertiary set in the laundry room? Actual TV sales tell a much different story, US market's top five brands are Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sony and Panasonic. In Q1/2013 27% of LCD sets sold were LARGER than 50" according to NPD figures. Repeat, LARGER than 50", 27% of sets sold. 40~50" has been the sweet spot for several years now with consumers picking up 42" plasmas for $400 or less now for quite some time.

Casual gamers haven't bought next gen systems yet, you equate a casual gamer to someone who has no visual acuity? There's another logical fallacy. I'm a casual gamer, I play games once a month MAYBE. Casual gamer =/= AV idiot.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

tl;dr yes I'm serious and your article is drivel

[Ascf33]

Originally Posted by rickyh24

You are awful.

Kindest thing I've heard since I started playing against strangers on the internet.

[Cscottrun]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That article is all over the place. They start off by referring to non-1080p broadcasts as "lower resolutions", then later they acknowledge that 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution. Which is it? They don't even note that you're watching 1080p when you receive a 1080i60 signal, your set will deinterlace to 1080p unless you're watching on a very old HD CRT set, and the original source was likely 1080p to begin with and converted to 1080i60 for broadcast. So when they say "Televisions running in 1080i mode update half of their pixels at a time" they're technically correct, but that's less than 1% of all HDTV screens. That's why hardly anything is actually shot in interlaced anymore, because 99% of HDTV sets in people's homes are progressive panels.

All LCD and plasma PDPs with few exceptions are progressive panels, they can't display an interlaced signal. There is no difference in resolution between 1080i and 1080p. In fact 1080i60 takes up more bandwith than 1080p24, another error in the article and they even have a section called "A matter of bandwidth". They are correct that the cost would be the with the cable box. They're wholly incorrect that most shows are shot in 1080i, the vast majority of shows that aren't filmed are being shot in HD at either 1080p24, 1080p30 or 1080p60. Just because something is broadcast in a resolution/fr doesn't mean it was shot that way. LOST was shot at 1080p24, but broadcast at 720p60.

They state in the pixel density section "Even though the smaller screen runs at a lower resolution" - huh? How is the smaller TV running at a lower resolution? They haven't stated what the resolutions of the TVs they're talking about are!

Your shop, you said it's a repair shop and you've used that to judge who is buying what TVs? Logical fallacy. The data shows which brand has the most TV repairs, not which brand is in most people's homes. Do you survey people when they come in and check off whether they're a gamer or not? Do your technicians when doing in house calls note how every piece of equipment is hooked up instead of just fixing a television? Sounds pretty bizarre. If this is not done, how do you ascertain whether these people are using their RCA sets for casual gaming or as a tertiary set in the laundry room? Actual TV sales tell a much different story, US market's top five brands are Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sony and Panasonic. In Q1/2013 27% of LCD sets sold were LARGER than 50" according to NPD figures. Repeat, LARGER than 50", 27% of sets sold. 40~50" has been the sweet spot for several years now with consumers picking up 42" plasmas for $400 or less now for quite some time.

Casual gamers haven't bought next gen systems yet, you equate a casual gamer to someone who has no visual acuity? There's another logical fallacy. I'm a casual gamer, I play games once a month MAYBE. Casual gamer =/= AV idiot.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

tl;dr yes I'm serious and your article is drivel

Really your gonna nitpick at this? You know exactly what I meant. And if you want to play that game, casual also means unconcerned. My point was that the difference is negligible. You are free to disagree. Seems your all about fallacy arguments. That's fine. But your in depth analysis is proving my point. How many gamers do you really think understood, or would take the time to understand what you just said? Majority of people see what the media says and run with it.

In that sense, you probably know who you are already. If you're a sucker for super-detailed graphics, there can be only one choice. PS4. For everyone else, it's a more marginal decision.

- http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gam...atter--1195580

Also, beyond the resolution change, the improved effects offered by the next generation, like lighting and shadows, are the same across both of these new systems. Ultimately, then, while the graphics edge goes to Sony for now, it’s hardly a deal-breaker if you’re interested in the Xbox One.

- http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/29/5...ly-look-better

Many games have been released on Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo consoles and mostly look and play the same. There are plenty of articles that compare exact side-by-side screenshots and videos, but to many casual gamers, the games look roughly the same.

- http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/02/...-still-releva/

While some gamers, who obsessively notice every last drop of rain or bead of sweat, might spot the differences, they aren't that obvious to average gamers. While the differences might be a bit easier to spot on large HDTVs, the basic gaming experience between these cross-platform titles is roughly the same.

- http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/02/...-still-releva/

[UCFish]

Batteries!

[1yankeesfan]

Originally Posted by Ascf33

I got beat in FIFA 3-0 by someone named LuvDatSnatch32 last night. Am I doing video games right?

I find FIFA too be the hardest game to play over the net. It always seems like the other person is ALOT better than me lol. We still need to get a game in.

[Ascf33]

Originally Posted by 1yankeesfan

I find FIFA too be the hardest game to play over the net. It always seems like the other person is ALOT better than me lol. We still need to get a game in.

I always feel like they all play defense much better than I do. You get like a .5 seconds before they just take the ball from you every time.

[rickyh24]

Is anyone else playing plants vs zombies garden warfare ? Holy shit is it fun. Couldn't stop playing all weekend.

[sheldonlevene]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bat.../1100-6418096/

Link to the Gamespot article about the new "Arkham" game. Developed again by Rocksteady (did both Asylum and City)...looks pretty cool on first glance. Article also has a 4 minute trailer.

[rlpi100]

picking up a bone this week. I need recommendations on a headset, nothing over $120. Gracias.

[Keyz]

Originally Posted by rlpi100

picking up a bone this week. I need recommendations on a headset, nothing over $120. Gracias.

the one that comes with it...