Support NeoGAF

[Elandyll]

Honestly, I upgraded from my Sony Wega CRT because my wife wanted on of those thin TVs that weren't so heavy and easier to put where she wanted it.

Just like last gen, when the PS3 really did have the best specs, it's going to take Sony exclusives to hit those high marks for quality. Last gen the it was complaints that developers were not taking advantage of the blu-ray's capacity because Microsoft skimped on the their drive.

What developers are going to do is what the publishers feel will result in the most sales, or at least the most revenue from those sales. In this case, it makes the most sense to hit a benchmark that makes the game play and look great on the XB1 and then port to the PS4.

This was always the way it was going to play out. It is on Sony to provide the games that give you a level of performance that you can't get on the XB1. They did it on the PS3, and it will happen again.

The problem is, so far, they have produced a string a amazingly great looking titles that are mostly boring. Infamous is pretty darn good, but Sunset Overdrive kind of puts it to shame in terms of gameplay. Otherwise, Killzone, Driveclub, and Knack are not games that are going to make anyone buy a PS4, no matter how good they look.

Sony needs Bloodborne, The Order, and Uncharted to hit big. The problem is, only Bloodborne looks like it is likely to be great. The Order keeps being referred to as boring, and Uncharted'd development is rocky and uneven.

Graphics to not make a game good. And focusing on graphics over gameplay makes it harder to make a game fun to play. Developers focusing on the XB1 can concentrate on gameplay first, because that is all that is expected.

Forza Horzon 2, Sunset Overdrive and Ryse are strong games that look great. The one that got the most mixed reviews is Ryse, the one that looks the best. Ryse is actually pretty great, but obviously graphics do not drive impressions.

It's fun to read about and discuss all of the inside baseball in the games industry. But if it destroys your ability to buy a game and enjoy it because you think it could have been X amount better, maybe you should give the business section of gaming websites a rest.

Because if Batman is as good as the first two Rocksteady releases, it really shouldn't matter how much better it could be, people should buy it because it will be a fantastic experience, regardless of how many pixels are packed in.

This notion that buying a PS4 guaranteed gamers that multiplatform games would be better was a mistake, and the sense of entitlement in this thread is a little disturbing. I mean, hashtag movements, like it is freaking gamergate? Refusing to buy a game you assume is going to be great?

Wait .. what?

What you wrote makes little sense to me.
I bought a PS4 in part due to the Sony exclusives, and Infamous SS (First Light even moreso) is just amazing imo.

Now, The Order might have brought forth some concerns on Gameplay, but there's little to judge so far with only 1 old gameplay demo, and the Gfx look as mindblowing as ever.
As per Uncharted 4 ... Rocky and uneven ... What?

Last, this is not a matter of "entitlement" as you put it so elegantly. It's a matter of getting what you pay for.

If you buy something that has 50% more power, it better show up in one form or another.
The only way spec parity would be ok in this case is if indeed they aim for 1080p30 (as in rock steady 30fps, and yes, pun intended) in both versions, are able to hit it, and use that additional headroom on PS4 for better AA, lighting, shadows, etc.

What would be not ok, is have headroom and just call it a day after reaching basic parity. Destiny had the excuse of being a X gen title, there's no such anchor here.

In the end, with "spec parity" probably just aiming at 1080p30, we'll just have to wait for the DF analysis to see where this is going...

 

[Pathfinder]

I've got a hypothetical question for anyone who claims they won't stand for parity, and have cancelled their pre-orders or whatever in protest.

If you fall into this category, would you be okay with a multiplatform game appearing on PS4 3-4 months after Xbox One version gets its release, so you can get a version of the game that is more tailored to PS4's hardware?

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Pretty much.

I don't give a shit about parity, if it makes sense for the 3rd parties, then so be it. It's tough developing games and wether you like it or not, if parity makes sense financially then they should do it.




And the reason I don't give a shit about parity is that we still have 1st party to (hopefully) satisfy the graphics whore in all of us.

Well said.

 

[Head.spawn]

The problem isn't that the developers don't know what the final specs of the game will be. The problem is that their intention is to purposefully underutilize the capabilities of the PS4 in the name of parity.

I was on the fence about this game. I owned the previous two but didn't finish either. However the hype had gotten to me and I was aiming to pick it up. Since I was already on the fence, it's no big deal for me to pass on buying it or at best pick it up used. I aim to reward those devs looking to push the consoles to their limits and not just phoning it in.

The real problem is that you have no real litmus test to discern whether that is actually true. But people won't let that get in the way of taking it as a fact, they just see "better gpu", so nothing else matters, because that is the only limiting factor and obviously not the common denominator bottleneck, which we all know yet few bring to the argument.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

do you go around every thread making dumbass troll posts? do you think you're funny? newsflash: you're not and your shtick is transparent.

wow do you really have to get so salty with his post?

he's not being serious

 

[Omnistalgic]

Until Sony puts out graphical showpieces for PS4 that forces third parties to step up, it's really up to them (3rd parties) on what is parity and what's reasonably for the team.

1st party titles will always show the difference between hardware, and if PS4's advantages are large enough for the average gamer to notice, they will be exploited. Even in the first year, Sony's first party titles always seem to graphically stand out, this trend will continue, and if third party titles are lackluster (graphically of course) compared to them, that's the only situation where PS4 will get preferential treatment IMO.

My 2 cents anyway, may not be worth a piss lol '-)

 

[Shaunboy97]

The sad thing is, instead of thinking "parity" means to bring the Xbox One close to PS4 quality, everyone automatically assumes it means bringing PS4 down to Xbox One specs...

Welp!! Have fun this gen, I'm playing games for the fun of it!!!

 

[MMaRsu]

The sad thing is, instead of thinking "parity" means to bring the Xbox One close to PS4 quality, everyone automatically assumes it means bringing PS4 down to Xbox One specs...

Welp!! Have fun this gen, I'm playing games for the fun of it!!!

Yeah because Xbone is incapable of producing the same things the PS4 is able to.

 

[QuantumZebra]

SO, really .. why was this not a thing last generation??

I do not understand why the sudden change of heart on this . Is this loyalty of developers to Microsoft because it is American? Or perhaps actually somesort of effect from last gen efforts?

It just amazes me this is not all of a sudden important...

I think its a mix of Microsoft's moneybags and devs/publishers still hungover on 360's dominance in NA. It's hard for them to realize PS4 is quickly leaving the X1 in the dust, even in NA.

 

[QuantumZebra]

do you go around every thread making dumbass troll posts? do you think you're funny? newsflash: you're not and your shtick is transparent.

calm down

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I think its a mix of Microsoft's moneybags and devs/publishers still hungover on 360's dominance in NA. It's hard for them to realize PS4 is quickly leaving the X1 in the dust, even in NA.

Or more likely, the majors like having multiple large first parties competing for marketing deals etc. and don't benefit by anybody falling way behind.

 

[RoboPlato]

The sad thing is, instead of thinking "parity" means to bring the Xbox One close to PS4 quality, everyone automatically assumes it means bringing PS4 down to Xbox One specs...

Welp!! Have fun this gen, I'm playing games for the fun of it!!!

I'm fed up with people implying that those who care about tech issues in games care less about games than you. This is a thread discussing potential parity, a practice that many do not want to support going forward because it's not something that has usually happened in the past, even with smaller hardware differences. If you don't care about it, great, but don't try to make others' stance on it less valid.

 

[Eusis]

This should not be accepted. Parity is something that didnt exist last gen. It was always: "Yeah we make the game look better on Xbox because its the more powerful console."

Now its the other way around and they are like "Parity is the best."

What? Why?

I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment existed to some extent from PS2 onwards really, or even PS1/SS when relevant. It's not really a great move to actively let one version be crap while the other is awesome even if it does happen sometimes, so they try to go for the same baseline in quality and just spruce it up a bit on the other platform if it makes sense. Ideally this is actually what we're seeing with "parity" talks, what I'm hearing about AC:U makes me wonder if being at 900p is actually hurting XB1 rather than holding PS4 back, and being 900p on XB1 and 1080p on PS4 but with more or less identical performance and graphical effects can possibly be considered parity with a key exception.

Likewise, I don't recall too many games looking dramatically better on Xbox over PS2, only those I think were intended to push Xbox like Splinter Cell that were kind of downported to PS2/GC, and certainly I didn't see many games take advantage of the PS3's blu-ray that didn't leave the 360 out in the cold entirely (if there were other audio tracks they were either DLC or the game was a late port, and larger sized games were split across multiple discs.)

 

[HORRORSHØW]

wow do you really have to get so salty with his post?

he's not being serious

calm down

thanks for bumping my question to the new page. hopefully he'll take the time out from his dumbass troll posts to answer.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

would you be okay with a multiplatform game appearing on PS4 3-4 months after Xbox One version gets its release, so you can get a version of the game that is more tailored to PS4's hardware?

False dichotomies are fun!

 

[darkazcura]

I'm fed up with people implying that those who care about tech issues in games care less about games than you. This is a thread discussing potential parity, a practice that many do not want to support going forward because it's not something that has usually happened in the past, even with smaller hardware differences. If you don't care about it, great, but don't try to make others' stance on it less valid.

This just isn't true. Parity has always existed. People just seem to care a bit more this generation for whatever reason. In previous generations, architectures were so dissimilar that there was usually a Xbox or Playstation or Super Nintendo or Genesis version (depending on the generation here obviously) made and then ported to another console and vice versa. The port was usually of lesser quality, but that was mainly because of lack of time and architectural differences. In situations like this the developer always tried getting the port to be as close to the "original" as possible. So, in a way, I do understand why people don't want parity this generation. The architectures are generally so similar that porting should be easier than it was in the past meaning they should have more time to upscale some PS4 assets.

Regardless, I'm not sure why so many people in this thread believe parity is a new thing. It isn't.

 

[BrainZEROX]

One way I could explain a dev could be stuck in parity is if they are only pushing their last generation engine to the next level without re-designing it.

Last gen CPUs were powerful in comparison to GPUs so designing CPU bound engines made sense. These engines on PS4 and XB1 could naturally result into parity if their CPU bound nature remains. As PS4 and XB1 pretty much run the same CPU, parity is the natural outcome.

I think Rocksteady just uses the same engine as last generation except they cheaped out and did not put the necessary effort to re-design it for GPU-centric machines. The same goes for Ubisoft.

Just one tale from my ass.

 

[PFD]

Imaginary preorder cancelled

 

[filly]

People care more about parity this gen because a lot of the time that means 900p or a random sub native res as that is the best the xbox one can seem to do with those games. Surely at the very least this gen we should be getting native res for our TV's... sure destiny got 1080p, but I feel ps4 could of hit 60fps with some optimization...

I'm getting out of this place, bought a 970 GTX on Saturday and hooked up my xbox one controller to it. Will use my PS4 and Xbox One for exclusives from now on.

 

[tbm24]

This just isn't true. Parity has always existed. People just seem to care a bit more this generation for whatever reason. In previous generations, architectures were so dissimilar that there was usually a Xbox or Playstation or Super Nintendo or Genesis version (depending on the generation here obviously) made and then ported to another console and vice versa. The port was usually of lesser quality, but that was mainly because of lack of time and architectural differences. In situations like this the developer always tried getting the port to be as close to the "original" as possible. So, in a way, I do understand why people don't want parity this generation. The architectures are generally so similar that porting should be easier than it was in the past meaning they should have more time to upscale some PS4 assets.

Regardless, I'm not sure why so many people in this thread believe parity is a new thing. It isn't.

It makes me wonder if people just assumed the PS3 versions of many games did not perform well because the devs just couldn't be bothered.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

More like aiming for parody

 

[Toparaman]

Any way we could petition this? Seems like a horrible injustice that this is still going on in 2015. I've made my buying decisions solely on non-graphical-parity dating back to MK2 on the SNES/Genesis and I'm not about to stop now. Back then I could only voice my opinion to gas station clerks as I left with an armful of Surge and Cheetos, but now because of the internet we can go to straight to the developers and let them know how they're ruining our hobby. Who's with me?!

I laughed, but come on man. This is a gaming forum, and everyone here cares about getting the best gaming experience. Doesn't mean we don't have perspective.

 

[Pathfinder]

False dichotomies are fun!

It appears you missed the part where I said I was presenting a hypothetical question. But thank you for your drive-by response. Those are always entertaining.

If a developer sets a baseline for a multiplatform game they're working on, which I'm assuming most of them do, obviously it would take more time to fine-tune it to a particular console, in this case PS4, for maximum performance.

So my hypothetical question was since fine-tuning a game to a particular console will take more time, would the gamers who don't want parity, but instead want a game worthy of their console, be okay with some extra development time tacked onto the end of a game to make it so? And would they be okay with their version of the game coming out later than the XO version?

 

[Neff]

This notion that people play games for principles and technical bragging rights more than for actual entertainment is a real eye-opener, that's for sure.

 

[Poimandres]

Yeesh, people need to calm down and treat each game on a case by case basis.

Last gen plenty of developers aimed for parity, but in practice 360 versions of most games looked/performed better than PS3. It's going to be the same deal this generation in favour of the PS4.

This isn't a new thing, dev's don't want to be seen to favour one platform over others because that will just piss people off. Just wait and see how the game actually performs on release (or closer to release) before getting carried away.

 

[Portugeezer]

Bargain bin game confirmed.

 

[Birgitte2004]

I've got a hypothetical question for anyone who claims they won't stand for parity, and have cancelled their pre-orders or whatever in protest.

If you fall into this category, would you be okay with a multiplatform game appearing on PS4 3-4 months after Xbox One version gets its release, so you can get a version of the game that is more tailored to PS4's hardware?

This is a false dichotomy. It takes more effort on the Xbox One to get parity. If you just let things happen naturally the PS4 version will be better.

You have to put extra effort on the Xbox One to achieve parity.

Why company after company is willing to put in extra time this gen, but not last gen, really annoys the crap out of me.

 

[King_Moc]

One way I could explain a dev could be stuck in parity is if they are only pushing their last generation engine to the next level without re-designing it.

Last gen CPUs were powerful in comparison to GPUs so designing CPU bound engines made sense. These engines on PS4 and XB1 could naturally result into parity if their CPU bound nature remains. As PS4 and XB1 pretty much run the same CPU, parity is the natural outcome.

I think Rocksteady just uses the same engine as last generation except they cheaped out and did not put the necessary effort to re-design it for GPU-centric machines. The same goes for Ubisoft.

Just one tale from my ass.

Shouldn't the extra GPU power on PS4 allow for a higher resolution or more AA? Both things that don't really impact on the CPU?

 

[SparkTR]

Wonder why Nvidia can coerce Developers into PC effects but the developers insist of parity for the consoles. Regardless looking at the trailer I'd expect this game to run at 900p/30 on both consoles if they want to reach that fidelity.

 

[Pathfinder]

This is a false dichotomy. It takes more effort on the Xbox One to get parity. If you just let things happen naturally the PS4 version will be better.

You have to put extra effort on the Xbox One to achieve parity.

Why company after company is willing to put in extra time this gen, but not last gen, really annoys the crap out of me.

So higher resolution, better frame rate, extra effects, better alti-aliasing, etc just comes naturally in a programming environment?

I had no idea.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Not really a big deal. Not like the game will be any different.

 

[Hindle]

I'm suprised by this, as Arkham Knight has been heavily associated with the PS4 so far. I thought they'd prioritise the PS version. Seems like Ubi though, they don't want to alienate Xbox fans.

 

[benny_a]

So my hypothetical question was since fine-tuning a game to a particular console will take more time, would the gamers who don't want parity, but instead want a game worthy of their console, be okay with some extra development time tacked onto the end of a game to make it so? And would they be okay with their version of the game coming out later than the XO version?

Seems like a strange hypothetical given the actual developer comments that you read where Xbone is harder to develop for than PS4.

Wouldn't they in a hypothetical world develop first for PS4 and get that out of the door and then release the Xbone one later because it's less important for a business? Or is that not hypothetical enough?

 

[Prototype]

While it's sad, and makes me a little angry, I'm still going to play the shit out of this.

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

Yeah, but isn't gameplay more important than graphics? You're seriously not going to buy a game because it's just 99 % optimilized and not 100 %? That's insane.

I miss the good old days when gameplay>>>>>>>graphics and when threads about resolutions were less than 100 posts and not 1000+ posts. Something is very wrong when threads these days about resolutions are as long as the OT of the same game.

Christ.

What a foolish argument. You must be a 'true' gamer eh?
No need to make use of the technology because it's all about the gameplay for 'true' gamers?

You still play your computer games on a ZX Spectrum or C64 because, hey, why upgrade? It's all about the gameplay.

You listen to your music on a wax cylinder?
You drive a model T Ford?
When you fly abroad on holiday you go in a replica of the Kittyhawk, right?
Cos, I mean, it's all about the fundamentals isn't it?

 

[Pathfinder]

Seems like a strange hypothetical given the actual developer comments that you read where Xbone is harder to develop for than PS4.

Wouldn't they in a hypothetical world develop first for PS4 and get that out of the door and then release the Xbone one later because it's less important for a business? Or is that not hypothetical enough?

That would be a valid hypothetical question if a baseline isn't set.

I added a baseline to my scenario because I'm assuming most multiplatform developers have one in place for constraints.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

So has anything changed since page 1 or did the guy get asked about res/framerate and indicate they're aiming for them to be the same? Because as per, there's more to graphics than resolution and framerate. Additionally, even if the "target framerate" is the same on both platforms, that doesn't mean that one won't have more frequent and/or severe drops than the other.

 

[Poimandres]

So higher resolution, better frame rate, extra effects, better alti-aliasing, etc just comes naturally in a programming environment?

I had no idea.

Most dev's start with bullshit powerful PC specs, then optimize for less powerful machines.

More powerful = better performance with less need for optimization.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

It appears you missed the part where I said I was presenting a hypothetical question.

No, I didn't. But all false dichotomies are hypothetical, so I don't see how that changes anything.

But thank you for your drive-by response. Those are always entertaining.

You bet, sport.

 

[Magwik]

Why is this thread 23 pages? Why is parity such a god damn big deal to some of you?

 

[Melchiah]

I've got a hypothetical question for anyone who claims they won't stand for parity, and have cancelled their pre-orders or whatever in protest.

If you fall into this category, would you be okay with a multiplatform game appearing on PS4 3-4 months after Xbox One version gets its release, so you can get a version of the game that is more tailored to PS4's hardware?

It appears you missed the part where I said I was presenting a hypothetical question. But thank you for your drive-by response. Those are always entertaining.

If a developer sets a baseline for a multiplatform game they're working on, which I'm assuming most of them do, obviously it would take more time to fine-tune it to a particular console, in this case PS4, for maximum performance.

So my hypothetical question was since fine-tuning a game to a particular console will take more time, would the gamers who don't want parity, but instead want a game worthy of their console, be okay with some extra development time tacked onto the end of a game to make it so? And would they be okay with their version of the game coming out later than the XO version?

The question makes no sense, as the PS4 isn't any harder to develop on. Actually, it might be the contrary due to the XB1's memory architecture. Not to mention, that they have similar GPUs and CPUs. To my understanding, they should be able to get the PS4 version running quicker than the XB1 version. Especially if they use deferred rendering.

 

[cgcg]

So higher resolution, better frame rate, extra effects, better alti-aliasing, etc just comes naturally in a programming environment?

I had no idea.

Psst try playing PC games sometimes. It really is as easy as flipping a switch. For better framerate you don't even need to flip a switch for it to work, just better hardware. It's almost like magic.

 

[Pathfinder]

The question makes no sense, as the PS4 isn't any harder to develop on. Actually, it might be the contrary due to the XB1's memory architecture. Not to mention, that they have similar GPUs and CPUs. To my understanding, they should be able to get the PS4 version running quicker than the XB1 version. Especially if they use deferred rendering.

Yes, I suppose you're right.

 

[The Cowboy]

So has anything changed since page 1 or did the guy get asked about res/framerate and indicate they're aiming for them to be the same? Because as per, there's more to graphics than resolution and framerate. Additionally, even if the "target framerate" is the same on both platforms, that doesn't mean that one won't have more frequent and/or severe drops than the other.

Nope nothing has changed, its exactly as it was at the start - they got asked about res/fps and they said they have nothing set in stone right now but are aiming for them to have parity across the platforms. No other comments have been made by the team over this yet (and i fully understand why), and all we know so far is pretty much all to do with res and FPS only.

 

[daftstar]

Psst try playing PC games sometimes. It really is as easy as flipping a switch. For better framerate you don't even need to flip a switch for it to work, just better hardware. It's almost like magic.

What about those console ports to PC like Dead Rising 3 having crazy performance issues?

 

[cgcg]

What about those console ports to PC like Dead Rising 3 having crazy performance issues?

That's a shit dev effort and an outlier, but better hardware still gives you better performance regardless.

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age --
but I can't help feeling that many of those voices claiming to have no problem with the idea of PS4 having enforced parity with weaker hardware would be singing from a different hymn sheet if it were suddenly announced that from now on all Xbox One games were to be downgraded to achieve parity with the Ouya.

 

[Daingurse]

Dissapointing to hear, parity is irritating simply by principle. I'm picking this up on PC though, so I'm not personally effected here.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

But it's Batman: Arkham Knight, it looked great at the Sony stage reveal, it will look just as awesome as it did back then, when it launches in June2015.

 

[daftstar]

That's a shit dev effort and an outlier, but better hardware still gives you better performance regardless.

Just saying it's not as cut and dry as people think. Hell, most console ports are poorly optimized since the majority of income for companies comes from the console market. Ubisoft was caught red-handed downgrading the PC version of Watch Dogs. It's just the industry we live in.