I would assume that all platforms are connected to the same network, the same router and the same isp. That is the standard methodology in order to eliminate the influence of outside factors and I trust that the DF crew is professional enough to test multiple times before printing the article. Their methodology when comparing graphics and framerate is professional and objective (not infallible of course but with a reasonable margin of error) so I really see no reason to believe that their methodology when testing connectivity is sloppy and amateurish. Do you?
As for the fact that some users contradict the DF claims, this happens every time and with everything. There needs to be a significant number of people with some degree of proof before we can cry foul.
Sorry Alexandros but not only is that naive it's not acceptable to have to "have faith" they were robust in connectivity tests. Not for a professional site.
Just as they publish how the conduct their technical analysis for a start if they want to include connectivity in their conclusions they need to publish and clarify their approach and make clear they are robust.
As it stands purely on the content of the article their statement about connectivity is anecdotal and it is therefore no better or worse than similar posts on GAF.
You never assume because a specialist is good at X they will automatically be just as robust as Y. It's just not acceptable professionally.
I have no issue with them analysing connectivity but it has to be do it properly and publish and make clear you're doing it properly or don't do it at all.
At the end of the day the article in this area is clearly flawed as they make an anecdotal observation - a seems to be - and then include it in their conclusions alongside what they position as empirical observations. That's highly amateurish and it shouldn't be defended.
For all I know they ran their tests on PS4 in the morning and Xbox in the afternoon and the PS4 issues were down to time of day and their connection.
It won't do. They need to put forward clear evidence of multiple connection tests and concurrent time of day/connection tests to remotely include this as anything other than an "off the cuff" observation.
As I noted in earlier post if they'd noted they thought they'd had connection issues and would dig into it further and left it at that it would be fine. Likewise just noting it as an observation without full checking.
But to use is within conclusions they needed to provide clarity and confidence in their methodology and they didn't from my reading of the article.
Therefore it's anecdotal. They don't get a free pass because they carefully test resolution or AF. For all I know their router/connection is highly variable or worse than mine.
Again no issue with the concept but their execution was too amateurish compared to their normal technical analysis and should be viewed as such.
These threads have become so predictable.
