Cinemablend calls out gaming press, accuses them of living in a Doritocracy
- Thread starter zomgbbqftw
- Start date
Well I knew about Doritospope but not about Lauren until now.
call_kotaku
Member
The thing I find most frustrating about this whole ordeal is the "the average consumer wouldn't know the difference" argument coming from games journalists of all people. I'm going to your website to learn more about the issues I'm interested in, and the service you provide is insight, because you're an investigative journalist and I'm not. I don't really want to read about what my opinion would've been if I had been even more ignorant of the issue.
Having to come to GAF for both my investigative reporting and expert analysis needs speaks poorly of games media more than it speaks well of GAF.
Having to come to GAF for both my investigative reporting and expert analysis needs speaks poorly of games media more than it speaks well of GAF.
Here is a secret regardless of what you say any and all establishment Gaming "journalists" are bought and paid for by developers, publishers and manufactures. All the proof I need is swag bags and exclusive access it's also known as bribery and while it might not be ca$h money exchanging hands goods with significant value do and at least where I'm from that's called goods for services rendered, period you can preform all the mental gymnastics and rationalization you like at the end of the day you will convince neither me nor 90% + of hardcore gamers otherwise.
plagiarize
Banned
You can't tell someone else what those numbers mean to them. Not anymore. I'd imagine the large majority of people have seen the difference on their own TV sets between 720p and 1080p. People that don't care, don't care. I'm not going to tell them to. I've been consistent in saying that I think that most people who choose the Xbox One are going to perfectly happy with the quality of multiplatform games and exclusives they get. I think that BF4 at 720p looks plenty next gen (at least in high bit rate, full frame rate footage).
But it's not a hypothetical question. We already have 1080p TV sets and 1080p games. I can tell my PC to output a game at 720p and see that it looks notably worse on my TV in comparison to how 1080p. I don't even need to make the comparison to spot the difference. 1080p content on my display makes it sing, and it's what I want.
If I could afford to give my PC the desired upgrade this year, I would. But I can't, so I am very happy to see the large majority of PS4 titles are going to be 1089p, at least at launch.
I don't take kindly to shit like that gamespot video inferring that I had made my mind up before the footage came out. I made my mind up the day of Microsoft and Sony's E3 conferences. I already knew about the power gap. I was hoping Microsoft would bring games and Kinect experiences that justified whatever price they were going to announce.
And they didn't. And then the prices were announced. I based my decision on price, on games, and on performance.
I'm not going 'yay! My team is winning!' I used to be a member of a forum called 360arcadians. I bought way more 360 games than PS3 games. But that was based on price, games and performance too.
I think I take about as fair a look at this as I can. I have no childhood console manufacturer to be nostalgic about. It was ZX Spectrums and Atari STs and Amigas for me. I look at the coverage of this and I scratch my head. The specialist gaming press don't seem to think it's important which system is better at playing the games.
Seriously? I don't have the answer to why that is. I don't subscribe to the payroll conspiracy... but if that isn't a warning sign that something isn't right (after so many sites defended Microsoft's DRM, and then a handful even got mad at gamers for getting Microsoft to abandon their anti consumer designs) I'm not sure what is.
Just look at baseball, ff you think the only way for there to be a problem is if you can prove it, well morep ower too you. There is enough media persons to point at that it is more then fine being suspicious, just like someone can pretend that for the most part it is "all good". Suspicion is healthy, specially in a consumer driven industry such as this, and definitely with all the reporters that continually seem to take the industries side, over the consumer. I already listed a whole host of things where the media was either mum(for the most part) or tired to defend the industry. Again, there is more then enough out there to not trust the industry at face value(which is a healthy and good thing).
Nobody wants to be the baseball writers, who were all duped into thinking their sport was clean...
SatelliteOfLove
Member
And another unbiased journalist falls right into the same trap as the others.
Why? Why don't they know? Why do they go into that reputation riptide after their brethren who made the mistake to their own doom? Why are they going to such great lengths to appear unbiased as to look biased? Why the insults to their more mentally competant and learned readers?
Why? Why, why, why, WHY?!?!?!
plagiarize
Banned
Exactly. 'Most people are ignorant to how close to their TV they should sit. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE WHO DON'T SIT TOO FAR AWAY?'
I mean, that's an accurate, though hyperbolic, summary of some of these articles.
JesseEwiak
Member
You mean, Metacritic, the place where Battlefield and CoD player had an effort to lower the score of the others user scores? You're asking me to put that as proof that scores should've been different? Come on.
Look, Skyrim finished 2nd in the NeoGAF GOTY awards in 2011. Yeah, two years later, there may be different opinions (even though I doubt how much of that is a small loud minority while everybody else happily puts 100 hours into the game), but at the time, the game was widely lauded.
JesseEwiak
Member
Maybe because PR departments at the very least, don't call them morons who know nothing about games who are paid off with Doritos and swag bags. I mean, given the choice between "mentally competent and learned readers" and the evil PR departments, at least the PR departments of game publishers treat people in the games press like human beings.
Cow Goes Moo
Member
I commend them on their wordplay
SatelliteOfLove
Member
That ain't where it's started, and it ain't the answers I'm desperately seeking, but it's probably where it'll end up (along with both sides reputations in tatters. Thing is, we on this side don't put food on our backs and clothes on our table via this...)
deranged_666
Member
Come on. Isn't it just a little disingenuous to suggest that the only people who have this mentality are gamers? Unlike a lot of other people here, I do not blob all members of the gaming press together, or think you all share one opinion, but certainly you have to at least concede that there are indeed a number of gaming journalists who directly feed into this "us vs them" narrative that you're chastising.
Giving you a recent example, but quoting Kyle Orland here, "It also seems equally clear, to me, that the difference just isn't that big a dealunless you plan on playing games while looking through a magnifying glass." I mean, what is that? First, this article gives us examples of the difference of resolution using shoddy still frames and compressed YouTube videos, suggests that these examples are a good indicator of the real world difference you would see in your living room (it isn't), and then he goes on to make that comment. It's sort of insulting, and almost accusative of the people, the gamers, who can clearly see the difference a doubling of resolution makes.
So yes, I do believe there is an "us vs them" mentality...but there are examples of the shit being flung equally on both sides of the issue.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
maybe it's because I'm drunk but I couldn;t stop laughing from doritocracy. My GF is giving me the evil eye
Over exaggeration much? Van pelt, Russillo, Steven A Smith, Colin Cowherd, Dan Lebatard, and most of all the other people working at espn seem to have less of a loathing of the fans then the game's media, and the sports fans are much more vicious that the game industry by leaps an bounds. Besides a lot of the readers seem to getting into the complexities of what is actually the opinion of the readers much better then "they are less mean".
old
Member
That's my issue with the article. It reduces a system to just it's pixel resolution and claims any journalist arguing otherwise is shilling and/or intentionally deceiving gamers. A system is more than its graphics. It's the controller. The ecosystem. The software features. The exclusive features brought by exclusive business partners. The cloud features. The exclusive games. The online service.
Maybe the PS4 kicks the XO's ass on every count. Maybe it gets its own ass kicked. We don't know yet. Acting like the PS4 has already won this battle before we even see how it all plays out is premature. And questioning the integrity of those arguing for caution is ridiculous.
JesseEwiak
Member
Because sports fans go after each other and the other teams more than games media. Also, they're being far well more well paid than games press and have much greater job security. They're also far more disconnected from the average sports fan than most people in the games press. Finally, and most important, I'm sure there's a forum of hardcore sports fan who dump on commentators and such at ESPN just as much people dump on IGN, for example, here. The difference is, nobody from ESPN is coming to that forum.
Glass Shark
Banned
plagiarize, you are an alright dude. I've enjoyed the discussion with you in this thread.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that a higher resolution means it's "better at playing the games". Bear with me...
One of the prevailing notions that I've picked up on over the past few months is that it will be kind of depressing if this next generation of consoles doesn't bring anything new to games other than higher resolutions and faster framerates. I think that's the sentiment we're starting to see here. People want this generation to be about better games, not just prettier ones. And I think the press has grabbed hold of that idea more than most.
I kind of feel the same way. It used to be I got excited every year when the new Call of Duty came out. I would wait in line at midnight to pick up the game. But that excitement has been shrinking year after year, and now I just can't bring myself to care about those kind of games anymore. I'm not looking for more explosions and more realistic-looking guns. I'm just a little fatigued by the whole one-upsmanship that's going on in development.
I don't fault people who still like the chase of better, faster, bigger, more. But that's just not for me anymore. My favorite game of last year was FEZ, whose visuals are little more than pixel art. It doesn't really matter to me if that is running at 720p or 1080p or 4K or whatever it is as long as it's fun. I can't speak for other critics and journalists, but I think many would agree with me on that point.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that a higher resolution means it's "better at playing the games". Bear with me...
One of the prevailing notions that I've picked up on over the past few months is that it will be kind of depressing if this next generation of consoles doesn't bring anything new to games other than higher resolutions and faster framerates. I think that's the sentiment we're starting to see here. People want this generation to be about better games, not just prettier ones. And I think the press has grabbed hold of that idea more than most.
I kind of feel the same way. It used to be I got excited every year when the new Call of Duty came out. I would wait in line at midnight to pick up the game. But that excitement has been shrinking year after year, and now I just can't bring myself to care about those kind of games anymore. I'm not looking for more explosions and more realistic-looking guns. I'm just a little fatigued by the whole one-upsmanship that's going on in development.
I don't fault people who still like the chase of better, faster, bigger, more. But that's just not for me anymore. My favorite game of last year was FEZ, whose visuals are little more than pixel art. It doesn't really matter to me if that is running at 720p or 1080p or 4K or whatever it is as long as it's fun. I can't speak for other critics and journalists, but I think many would agree with me on that point.
That is actually why it IS a problem. They are not just asking for caution, they are inserting a narrative that the differences the resolution represents is ONLY that, implying that performance isn't tied with the capability of what it can do with that resolution. What we know right now is that the PS4 runs these games at higher resolutions with a lot less jaggies and still maintains the same FPS if not more consistent.
Arguing or trying to downplay the differences before we know the extent of the differences IS being defensive for the other system. Arguing that the differences in performance is minor is also premature and ridiculous.
call_kotaku
Member
If there was a market analysis with real data about who can/cannot see the difference between native and upscaled 1080p or the actual impact of resolution differences on game sales, then I'd actually be interested. All these sites just say these things based on conjecture and anecdotal information, and it's neither relevant to the issue nor what their job should be. If the "average consumer" is getting a less than ideal experience from the TV or getting less value for their money on their console purchase it's the job of the media to educate them about it, not admonish people for caring.
The average consumer doesn't care. Well, great, but I do, and I want to know more. Even if it isn't the media's intention to, it reads like them trying to get away with saying "you shouldn't care".
Puppet Shadow
Member
So in other words, you're no different from any other GAF member.
The difference between writing for Kotako, on a Steam blog or posting on NeoGAF is that here you'll get called out on any bullshit pretty damn quick or be banned. Hell, if I acted like Gies did at my work, I'd be fired. Someone should send Bish over to Polygon to pay him a visit.
Do you pay attention to sports at all? And yes they do go to forums, tweet with fans, and also talk about the nasty stuff they get on twitter. Rusello actually confronted a fan who was heckling him in a very rude matter. The fact that you don't think sports fans go after the media as hard as they go after the media is just stupefying. Only thing I can think of is you either dont pay attention to the sports media or interact with the forums there, or you are part of the industry(or want to be) and just have a martyr complex.
Oh and guess what, they actually interact with fans a lot in person(Van Pelt and Russillo especially).
I mean FFS just read up on the crap Rob Parker got, after he got kicked off ESPN.
Glass Shark
Banned
That's one way to put it, sure. And that's why it's frustrating to be lumped in with a large group that many assume to be corrupt. And maybe, like plagiarize suggests, I should stop defending what GAF members think about other people and only worry about myself. But it's hard not to fight for an industry you really care about.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I can not agree more with the OP article, I have yet to hear a podcast, where the power gap is mentioned and not immediately downplayed. I've even heard people trying to explain how it is significant and they are immediately interrupted. I am so disappointed by games media.
You are right, a system is more than just power. But why can't the games media just report the news without feeling the urge to downplay it? Report the news and let consumers decide. It's very simple. COD on Xbox One is 720p. COD on PS4 is 1080p. Let the readers/listeners/viewers decide if that is important or not.
You are right, a system is more than just power. But why can't the games media just report the news without feeling the urge to downplay it? Report the news and let consumers decide. It's very simple. COD on Xbox One is 720p. COD on PS4 is 1080p. Let the readers/listeners/viewers decide if that is important or not.
I am not really interested in telling people what to think. I'm interested in reporting--in talking to developers and finding out just how these consoles will be different both short and long-term. Other reporters have been doing the same... Edge and Eurogamer come to mind as two other sites that have been doing heavy-duty next-gen tech reporting.
One thing that's become clear: people are split. Different devs see the landscape totally differently. I just talked to a developer two days ago who's positive that the COD resolution differences are insignificant and meaningless. Other developers believe that multiplatform games will have to skimp on the XB1 long-term. It's become clear that the PS4 is a more powerful machine, but it's not clear what that will mean in two, three, or five years.
Stephen's recent COD story, which is cited in the Cinema Blend article as an example of journalism gone bad, does just what journalism should do: it confirms information, cites multiple developer sources, and presents the story as honestly and as fairly as possible. That's our job. It's what we're going to keep doing, even when NeoGAFfers and career trolls decide they don't like some of the conclusions.
Claude Kenni
Member
That's satire.
Which has better games is subjective, what do you not understand about that?
plagiarize
Banned
For some of the games I play, I wouldn't disagree. Pac Man CE DX+ doesn't need to look any better than it does, but for most of the games I play, smoother frame rates and higher resolutions do matter. Higher frame rates literally mean more responsive controls. Higher resolutions literally mean that it is easier to see that sniper off in the distance. That's not mentioning that like good sound design, and good art, good technology driving everything will enhance any and every game that tries to convey an atmosphere. Be that the wastelands of Fallout, the ring of Halo, Rapture in Bioshock, Columbia in Infinite, or... well... basically name any game the gaming media cite as the best example of the medium.
So I don't think it's unfair to say the PS4 plays both BF4 and COD: Ghosts better. Because it does. Because resolution and frame rate matter in meaningful ways far removed from console fanboys with magnifying glasses looking to win a forum debate.
We don't have to choose between good graphics and good game play. We can absolutely have both, and while many games employ a simple less technically demanding style, and excel with such things, that in no way diminishes the value of more powerful systems to those games that are trying to build believable atmospheric worlds for players to get lost in.
And even games like Fez are better at 1080p, with a smoother frame rate. Clean IQ means less is coming between you and the game. A locked smooth frame rate means the controls are more responsive.
And that's not even touching on what eye candy can do for a title.
Oh lol I got played then.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This almost never happens.
Talk to anyone who's been writing about movies for the last 15-20 years, find out how often people actually pay attention to who's writing what as opposed to having everyone get lumped into "The critics" whenever film writing is discussed.
Film Critics/Journalists are just pull-quotes and Rotten Tomatoes percentages.
Games Critics/Journalists are pull-quotes and Metacritic percentages.
"Most readers" don't read.
So the game, as it were, needs to elevate so the baseline isn't seen as a shill factory. THEN people will be interested in discerning who in the business is best at delivering news. Because "news" would be the baseline.
Puppet Shadow
Member
The best way to do this is to try and fix it rather than defend it. And to fix it, start calling out the kind of crap that goes on in the industry. The problem with that is this:
This illustrates perfectly the problem with the industry. People want to be promoted to better jobs, which either leads to an editor of a magazine or website, or a PR position with a gaming company. And currently, you can't get there by stepping on any toes along the way.
It must be pretty damn frustrating.
disastermouse
Banned
Just for the record, they took them off after.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
This is the thing I never got either. Sports media hounds news all day and seem genuinely excited to be talking about it, same goes for a lot of the Music and Movie/TV press. Sports Radio talk show hosts are on the air for 3-4 hours a day talking sports year round and never seem to lose an ounce of their passion. Much of the gaming press seem annoyed to be covering one of the biggest months in gaming in nearly a decade.
Glass Shark
Banned
Don't get me wrong, I'll always take a higher resolution and faster frame rate over a lower one, but I'm not sure if either of those things will ever be the determining factor in what I decide to play or what platform I choose. I'm primarily a PC gamer now mainly just due to the huge variety of things I can play on PC that I can't on consoles. Is it nice to be able to crank up the graphics when I can? You betcha.
SolidSnakex
Member
Here's what we know for certain. CoD is 1080p on the PS4 and 720p on the Xbox One. 1080p is undeniably better than 720p, and not just by a tiny amount, right? So why does stuff like this exist
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...p-about-the-next-gen-console-resolution-wars/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/28/call-of-duty-native-1080p-on-ps4-720p-on-xbox-one
http://www.edge-online.com/features...of-the-ludicrous-magnificent-resolution-wars/
No one is sitting here saying that journalists should bash the Xbox One or tell people that they shouldn't buy it because the tech inside the box is inferior. What people are asking and wondering is why is something that is a big difference being treated as if it doesn't matter? Some have noted that it seems that journalists are just trying to be balanced or impartial here. But how is it balanced or impartial when you're blatantly downplaying the advantages of one over the other? And it's worth pointing out that even though BF4 has a resolution advantage over the Xbox One version it also has a framerate advantage. But that also seems to be dismissed.
NoirVisage
Banned
One thing this whole fiasco has proven to me beyond a doubt is that most of the gaming press has no technical knowledge at all. Even an idiot can look at the specs for the Xbox One and the PS4 and tell you which one is better.
I can see why some people may be skeptical with the gaming media based on recent events and I can't really blame them for it.
There's a lot of valid reasons to buy an Xbox One. Maybe you enjoy the integration with the TV. Maybe you enjoy the exclusives better. Maybe you like the Kinect. But the one thing that is a fact is that Xbox One is less powerful than the PS4, if that makes you mad or doesn't tickle your fancy then don't enter technical discussions about the consoles. As for the gaming press in general, it is important to tell your audience the facts without trying to spin it. These companies already have PR departments they don't need another one.
I can see why some people may be skeptical with the gaming media based on recent events and I can't really blame them for it.
- When the news about Xbox One DRM came out most of the press said that Sony would release a similar DRM system and we should wait and see. False.
- When the news about the PS4 and Xbox One technical differences came out, most of the gaming press said we should wait until we saw the games before we jumped on Microsoft. This is a fair point but we already knew the performance of the parts that were going into the systems so we could extrapolate the data and see the difference. Most of the press just regurgitated the Microsoft PR garbage they were being fed. (Does anyone fact check anymore?)
- When the difference in performance was actually displayed (CoD: Ghosts/BF4) we are now being told it doesn't matter anymore. (lolwut?)
There's a lot of valid reasons to buy an Xbox One. Maybe you enjoy the integration with the TV. Maybe you enjoy the exclusives better. Maybe you like the Kinect. But the one thing that is a fact is that Xbox One is less powerful than the PS4, if that makes you mad or doesn't tickle your fancy then don't enter technical discussions about the consoles. As for the gaming press in general, it is important to tell your audience the facts without trying to spin it. These companies already have PR departments they don't need another one.
I think the thing that gets people frustrated is that the behavior is completely inconsistent compared to last gen. We're all struggling to find out why. It started with the DRM BS and has continued. Simply the wait and see approach is appropriate but that's not what's happening. The press consistently said Sony was going to have DRM also without any evidence. I think we're all fairly logical extremely interested people, but shit that kind of obtuseness is just plain maddening. That's why you're seeing this blow up. People feel it's part of your job to report on this and you're not.
To put it another way, the PS3 rightfully got shit on for multiplatform support. The differences in resolution and frame rate are monumentally bigger now than they ever were.
I know you're a good dude, I was at a panel you were part of at PAX East and felt myself nodding when you had the chance to speak. Plus you like jRPGs. Can't hate a dude that's into them.
I think people just don't trust the gaming press as a whole. I find myself going to kotaku only for your articles so don't think your interactions here are falling on deaf ears.
Glass Shark
Banned
That same idiot would be able to tell you that the PS3 is technically powerful than the Xbox 360. That doesn't make it the better console.
Personally, I am hard-pressed to tell the difference in the BF4 footage between the two consoles even when scrutinizing it closely. I don't think I'd be able to tell at all while sitting at a regular viewing distance from my TV.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Not going to question that. I don't mean to turn this into a list war, but you still glossed over the point that for many people the PS4 offers the best of everything for them. Price, power, and games. If it doesn't tick those boxes for you, especially in relation to games who am I to tell you differently?
PS. I said the PS4 would have the better selection of games (read variety and quantity), which I think at this point is a definitive statement and not an opinion. I just also happen to think they also will be great games as well.
call_kotaku
Member
But really the story we want to see written about this probably won't be written for atleast another 3-4 years. What we want to know is how the Xbox One ended up the way it did and whatever internal Microsoft decisions that led up to it, and that article really needs to be a post-mortem.
Ultimately what's interesting about this isn't strictly 720p vs 1080p, but why that difference happened in the first place. As Albert said, "there's no way we're letting them have a 30% advantage", but evidently they did and a lot of us are curious as to why.
Ultimately what's interesting about this isn't strictly 720p vs 1080p, but why that difference happened in the first place. As Albert said, "there's no way we're letting them have a 30% advantage", but evidently they did and a lot of us are curious as to why.
Glass Shark
Banned
My guess would be that Microsoft was simply in the seat of complacency and didn't expect Sony to be so aggressive. They certainly seemed surprised by a lot of decisions that Sony made. A lot of speculation that the Xbox One wasn't even going to come out until 2014 but they felt the pressure to get it out soon.
NoirVisage
Banned
Really? What footage have you seen? Link pleae?
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
I think a lot of the American gaming press is more connected to MS, and third party devs that have a closer relationship with MS as well, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were being told those things by members of the gaming industry, but were just as clueless.
Remember the reports coming out everywhere last year from developers that Sony was way behind MS in the development of their next console? How things change.
Glass Shark
Banned
The most common theory was that game publishers were forcing Microsoft's hand on the DRM issue, and that Sony would have no choice but to play ball with the same policies. Turns out that people gave Microsoft too much credit.
plagiarize
Banned
I lost a bigger reply to this, so I'm going to summarise. Not telling you to tell people what to think. I specified major US sites, but even Edge only ran a disparaging editorial about the reaction to the news, and don't seem to have reported the news as far as I could find on their site. That's not doing what you describe as what journalism should do.
Those developers seem to agree that the PS4 is more powerful, they just seem to differ on how much impact that'll have. SPOILER: In two to five years the PS4 will still be more powerful.
As a piece of reporting Stephen's piece is fine, if technically tone deaf. 'Our best sources don't expect the fact that the PS4 is more powerful and easier to develop for will have a major impact on the graphics of both systems'.
Well, okay, maybe they don't expect that, but I really don't see how that's the end of the story. There's some clear further digging to be done there.
And there is clearly further reporting to be done given the rumors as to why we're seeing certain games running below 1080p, and that the facts that have come to light since corroborate them.
Find out what developers are using which techniques. It would only take one confirmed 1080p game with deferred lighting to confirm there isn't an issue in general with the technique on the Xbox One. Ask 2K Sports. Ask EA Sports. Even if we can't get developers to confirm native resolutions of Xbox One versions, we can find out what the confirmed ones are doing to see if it fits the assertions of the people who reported the rumors in the first place.
Wrong. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 had no architectural similarities so even a well experienced engineer would have a tough time telling you which one is stronger based on raw spec numbers (Xbox 360 is slightly stronger).
The PS4 and Xbox One are actually, in their simplest forms, the same goddamn console. The PS4 just has more under the hood, quoting the great Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2Anand Lal Shimpi said:
Of course if the so called gaming press did some research on the consoles they would know this.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think this is a strong or convincing article. I don't think it really has a point. I think it's strange more than anything.
It starts by complaining about advertising, although this point is abandoned and never returned to because the author cannot actually sustain the connection of his thesis that the media is biased in favour of Xbox One or deliberately overlooks its shortcomings and that the source of this bias is advertising for fear of pissing off corporate overlords. So we'll abandon it and move on to what it actually says.
It links CBOAT and famousmortimer (uh oh, entering the meta zone, I feel like this article is maybe a GAF thread posted as an external article for some reason?) to establish that sources have suggested that the Xbox One is limited or is having development trouble. It makes the bizarre and irrational claim that the Xbox One might be weaker than the Wii U.
Then it claims that "the media", no examples given, excoriated famousmortimer for claiming the Xbox One was weaker. It then notes that we're now starting to get concrete examples of how the performance gap between Xbox One and PS4 is manifesting in actual software, IE resolution issues in Ghosts and BF4. "The rumour long held in contempt by the gaming media had been proven true".
Then it links some no-name blogs that basically think the Xbox One is a shitty console. It does this to contrast with the purported coverup by Kotaku. It links a Kotaku article that can best be summarized by "Although we know the PS4 has, on paper, higher specs than the Xbox One, and that launch software shows a resolution or performance difference, we don't yet know whether or not SDK iteration and further development experience will help overcome bottlenecks". Certainly we could argue that Kotaku is being overly cautious in refusing to commit more concretely, and now that we have some concrete information I'm sure they will, but is this really evidence of a coverup?
The site then argues that if an nVidia card has double the framerate of an AMD card, we decide that AMD lost the benchmarking war. Sure, but Kotaku's not arguing that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful than the PS4, it's arguing that as of right now it remains unclear what kind of performance differences we're going to have long-term over the life of the system.
Then we enter page two. The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned? Do we really think that advertising is paying off all these random blogs? This is like "my friend said something dumb on facebook" level elevation of some individual dumb argument somewhere strawmanning) as claiming that Xbox One and PS4 versions are "barely distinguishable". In reality, the article says: "What this difference in native resolution means for Battlefield 4 is that, more or less, the Xbox One version will be more aliased (jaggy) than the PS4 version." ". In terms of performance, the PS4 version of the game keeps a small lead of frames-per-second over the Xbox One, and it recovers just a little faster from dips in frame rate." "So, if you’re torn between which version of BF4 to pick up, though the PS4 version performs a little better, the choice should come down to which console’s controller you prefer, and how much you hate even a semblance of aliasing"
Next, it quotes Toms Hardware arguing that although the Xbox One certainly faces a performance deficit off the bat, it is possible that further development experience will allow devs to work around bottlenecks and achieve something closer to parity. Toms compares this to early issues with the PS3. Now, it should be said that the PS3-Xbox360 versus Xbox One-PS4 comparison is not perfect, because in the former it was a case of a very unorthodox architecture versus a relatively plain one with some difficulty trying to actually benchmark the two, whereas in the latter the PS4 is clearly more powerful, but the reason Toms is making the comparison is not to suggest that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful, but rather to suggest that bottlenecks in architecture can be overcome. Rather than engaging in a criticism of the metaphor, the article strangely fixates on the last gen argument by basically saying that late gen PS3 games look better and how dare anyone suggest that the PS3 merely "closed the gap" when it's clearly better looking.
It then misquotes Edge by taking a quote about marketing and PR out of context and suggesting it's a quote about about performance between the machines.
Finally it quotes Ars, where an author says that he personally doesn't see a big difference between the visual output of the two machines. In other words, that the resolution difference is not a big deal to him. I think this is the kind of comment that can be very easily criticized. Obviously individuals have a different reaction to differences in IQ or framerate. Certainly there have been many multiplatform games this generation with a wide variety of comparisons in terms of IQ, framerate, etc. The degree to which any one individual is sensitive varies widely. And yet still we can agree that even if you think Bayonetta PS3 plays well or that CoD Wii looks fine, there's a clear gap and people should be made aware of that gap. So certainly saying "It doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter to anyone" is poor reasoning. However, the reverse is to some extent true--there is no value in trying to convince someone that a distinction they don't feel is relevant ought to be relevant to them.
It then argues that "The weakest console wins so why pretend there isn't a weakest console", which is bizarre both because I don't think it is sustainable to argue that the PSX was in all regards "weaker" than the N64, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion in 2013 that the Wii "won" this generation depending on how the long tail occurs for the other consoles and particularly how Sony's efforts in EMEA regions play out, and it's not clear why this argument matters, because none of the previously cited sources seemed to make assumptions about how the generation would play out in terms of sales so why introduce this dimension now?
Finally, it introduces the price difference and accuses the media of being inconsiderate of the fact that the Xbox One does not justify the additional price. This might be the case, but again none of the discussion that was being called out was discussing the value of the console. If the allegation is that the media is not upfront about the difference in price, it may be because the author is reading articles that are discussing relative performance, IQ, and development hurdles, not value to the end consumer.
Basically this is weirdly conspiratorial, says very little, is profoundly uncharitable in how it chooses to interpret the words (let alone the motivations) of the sources it attacks, and it strangely masturbatory in the way it elevates GAF posters in specific. By far the most delusional claims against the PS4 or for the Xbox One occurred before evidence was available, when people were wildly speculating ("secret sauce" type nonsense). Now that evidence is available the conclusions have been updated to reflect the evidence, which is what is supposed to happen. All the linked articles are moderate in tone and none appear to deny reality or make unsupportable claims.
I have no idea why it was written, I have no idea why it was posted, and it's not clear to me how it adds anything to the many, many, many locked dick-waving threads we have already in the run-up to launch about the IQ issue or the relative value of either console.
It starts by complaining about advertising, although this point is abandoned and never returned to because the author cannot actually sustain the connection of his thesis that the media is biased in favour of Xbox One or deliberately overlooks its shortcomings and that the source of this bias is advertising for fear of pissing off corporate overlords. So we'll abandon it and move on to what it actually says.
It links CBOAT and famousmortimer (uh oh, entering the meta zone, I feel like this article is maybe a GAF thread posted as an external article for some reason?) to establish that sources have suggested that the Xbox One is limited or is having development trouble. It makes the bizarre and irrational claim that the Xbox One might be weaker than the Wii U.
Then it claims that "the media", no examples given, excoriated famousmortimer for claiming the Xbox One was weaker. It then notes that we're now starting to get concrete examples of how the performance gap between Xbox One and PS4 is manifesting in actual software, IE resolution issues in Ghosts and BF4. "The rumour long held in contempt by the gaming media had been proven true".
Then it links some no-name blogs that basically think the Xbox One is a shitty console. It does this to contrast with the purported coverup by Kotaku. It links a Kotaku article that can best be summarized by "Although we know the PS4 has, on paper, higher specs than the Xbox One, and that launch software shows a resolution or performance difference, we don't yet know whether or not SDK iteration and further development experience will help overcome bottlenecks". Certainly we could argue that Kotaku is being overly cautious in refusing to commit more concretely, and now that we have some concrete information I'm sure they will, but is this really evidence of a coverup?
The site then argues that if an nVidia card has double the framerate of an AMD card, we decide that AMD lost the benchmarking war. Sure, but Kotaku's not arguing that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful than the PS4, it's arguing that as of right now it remains unclear what kind of performance differences we're going to have long-term over the life of the system.
Then we enter page two. The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned? Do we really think that advertising is paying off all these random blogs? This is like "my friend said something dumb on facebook" level elevation of some individual dumb argument somewhere strawmanning) as claiming that Xbox One and PS4 versions are "barely distinguishable". In reality, the article says: "What this difference in native resolution means for Battlefield 4 is that, more or less, the Xbox One version will be more aliased (jaggy) than the PS4 version." ". In terms of performance, the PS4 version of the game keeps a small lead of frames-per-second over the Xbox One, and it recovers just a little faster from dips in frame rate." "So, if you’re torn between which version of BF4 to pick up, though the PS4 version performs a little better, the choice should come down to which console’s controller you prefer, and how much you hate even a semblance of aliasing"
Next, it quotes Toms Hardware arguing that although the Xbox One certainly faces a performance deficit off the bat, it is possible that further development experience will allow devs to work around bottlenecks and achieve something closer to parity. Toms compares this to early issues with the PS3. Now, it should be said that the PS3-Xbox360 versus Xbox One-PS4 comparison is not perfect, because in the former it was a case of a very unorthodox architecture versus a relatively plain one with some difficulty trying to actually benchmark the two, whereas in the latter the PS4 is clearly more powerful, but the reason Toms is making the comparison is not to suggest that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful, but rather to suggest that bottlenecks in architecture can be overcome. Rather than engaging in a criticism of the metaphor, the article strangely fixates on the last gen argument by basically saying that late gen PS3 games look better and how dare anyone suggest that the PS3 merely "closed the gap" when it's clearly better looking.
It then misquotes Edge by taking a quote about marketing and PR out of context and suggesting it's a quote about about performance between the machines.
Finally it quotes Ars, where an author says that he personally doesn't see a big difference between the visual output of the two machines. In other words, that the resolution difference is not a big deal to him. I think this is the kind of comment that can be very easily criticized. Obviously individuals have a different reaction to differences in IQ or framerate. Certainly there have been many multiplatform games this generation with a wide variety of comparisons in terms of IQ, framerate, etc. The degree to which any one individual is sensitive varies widely. And yet still we can agree that even if you think Bayonetta PS3 plays well or that CoD Wii looks fine, there's a clear gap and people should be made aware of that gap. So certainly saying "It doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter to anyone" is poor reasoning. However, the reverse is to some extent true--there is no value in trying to convince someone that a distinction they don't feel is relevant ought to be relevant to them.
It then argues that "The weakest console wins so why pretend there isn't a weakest console", which is bizarre both because I don't think it is sustainable to argue that the PSX was in all regards "weaker" than the N64, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion in 2013 that the Wii "won" this generation depending on how the long tail occurs for the other consoles and particularly how Sony's efforts in EMEA regions play out, and it's not clear why this argument matters, because none of the previously cited sources seemed to make assumptions about how the generation would play out in terms of sales so why introduce this dimension now?
Finally, it introduces the price difference and accuses the media of being inconsiderate of the fact that the Xbox One does not justify the additional price. This might be the case, but again none of the discussion that was being called out was discussing the value of the console. If the allegation is that the media is not upfront about the difference in price, it may be because the author is reading articles that are discussing relative performance, IQ, and development hurdles, not value to the end consumer.
Basically this is weirdly conspiratorial, says very little, is profoundly uncharitable in how it chooses to interpret the words (let alone the motivations) of the sources it attacks, and it strangely masturbatory in the way it elevates GAF posters in specific. By far the most delusional claims against the PS4 or for the Xbox One occurred before evidence was available, when people were wildly speculating ("secret sauce" type nonsense). Now that evidence is available the conclusions have been updated to reflect the evidence, which is what is supposed to happen. All the linked articles are moderate in tone and none appear to deny reality or make unsupportable claims.
I have no idea why it was written, I have no idea why it was posted, and it's not clear to me how it adds anything to the many, many, many locked dick-waving threads we have already in the run-up to launch about the IQ issue or the relative value of either console.