Y so butthurt TC?
You're making yourself look silly
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
@Thunder7151: Yes, they do. This isn't a debate, 1080p is better than 720p. It's not an argument, it's just a fact.
It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?
Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?
What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?
Link
My fine sir.
Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.
I can only speak to what my eyes perceive. What one says does not hold as much weight in my mind.
pause it at any point in the video and the x1 version has a lot of jaggies I am willing to be on a proper video feed the jaggies will be 10x more noticeable.
the x1 verison only looks darker which seems to make you think it looks better. Also there is a screen comparison going around showing that the x1 was missing a lot of background elements
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?
I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.
@AmazonTreeBoa:
You can see the difference based off of what? Another set you have? Those differences aren't always based off of resolution. Example? I have a 720p Panasonic which was the best in its class when I bought it which outperforms both my 1080p Vizio and entry level 1080p Samsung in every single way.
And as I said earlier, settings mean a lot as well.
You say you see the difference yet all the experts as well as enthusiasts at sites like AVS say you are full of shit.
It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.
Yep.
MS need to drop the price, fast.
It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.
I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.
I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.
But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).
I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.
So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.
Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.
Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).
It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?
Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?
What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?
Link
My fine sir.
Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.
Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.
I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.
The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.
Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.
Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. Their lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.
@AmazonTreeBoa:
You can see the difference based off of what? Another set you have? Those differences aren't always based off of resolution. Example? I have a 720p Panasonic which was the best in its class when I bought it which outperforms both my 1080p Vizio and entry level 1080p Samsung in every single way.
And as I said earlier, settings mean a lot as well.
You say you see the difference yet all the experts as well as enthusiasts at sites like AVS say you are full of shit.
I couldn't care less what the sites say. They don't override my eyes and the difference they see.
I agree with you OP, however I will say resolution does matter to a certain extent. I went out of my way to make sure my 32 inch TV supported 1080p when I bought it a few years ago, because I knew it was going to become a standard feature soon, and I want the best possible picture. However, it's not like the X1 is going to be running games at 720p, it will be 1080p, just not native, that's all. In my case, with a 32 inch TV, and from what I've read on the internet, I will barely be able to tell the difference when I play.
The thing is I'm really looking forward to getting DR3/Ryse/KI/Forza 5/Titanfall/Crimson Dragon on the X1, and none of these games are coming out on the PS4......so am I supposed to pass all those games up because the PS4 is capable of running more games at 1080p res.??!? That is the ludicrous proposition that Sony fanboys want you to swallow.
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?
I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.
I'm mainly a PC gamer, and yes, resolution definitely matters. Going from 720p to 1080p is big, but the difference between 480p and 1080p is HUGE...
@AmazonTreeBoa:
And again. Do you know why your eyes are seeing what they see? How are you do sure its the resolution that's making the difference? And for the third time. Have your sets seen any type of calibration ?
It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.
Yep.
MS need to drop the price, fast.
It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.
I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.
I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.
But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).
I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.
So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.
Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.
Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).
The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.
The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
Many reasons, but how many are regularly watching HD content on them? Judging by dwindling sales of Blurays and the sales the Wii had compared to 360/PS3, not many seem to care. A lot of people update every 5 years or so, so now if you upgrade to a new TV it is HD or nothing.
People will buy something new if they are told it is better without actually understanding how it is better. I have been in many houses that have HDTVs watching SD content and they think it is HD because that is what the TV is sold as.
It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.
Yep.
MS need to drop the price, fast.
It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.
I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.
I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.
But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).
I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.
So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.
Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.
Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).
The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.
The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.
Wrong, Dreamcast was always cheaper, also a superior console for games.
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?
I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.
I'm mainly a PC gamer, and yes, resolution definitely matters. Going from 720p to 1080p is big, but the difference between 480p and 1080p is HUGE...
I'm not saying there's not a difference, it's just I could care less as long as the content is good. I'm still playing SNES titles.
It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.
Yep.
MS need to drop the price, fast.
It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.
I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.
I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.
But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).
I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.
So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.
Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.
Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).
The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.
The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.
The Gamecube launched at £129 in the UK and $199 in US, the PS2 was £299 in the UK and $299 in the US at launch. I know for sure the PS2 didn't hit £100 in its first year on the market. The PS2 was inferior to Gamecube, yet commanded a higher price and outsold it by about 120 million units. Clearly power meant very little in the year 2001.
The Gamecube launched at £129 in the UK and $199 in US, the PS2 was £299 in the UK and $299 in the US at launch. I know for sure the PS2 didn't hit £100 in its first year on the market. The PS2 was inferior to Gamecube, yet commanded a higher price and outsold it by about 120 million units. Clearly power meant very little in the year 2001.
Aye, and the added value was in the games, to me. I'm just saying I don't see enough added value to justify the additional $100(£75).
Well yeah, but the games tend to be made even better when in high resolution in 60fps. Can you still have great games in 480p? Yes, that's not in doubt. I can play Twilight Princess on my Wii in 480, but I much prefer to play it in high definition with anti-aliasing on Dolphin.
It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?
Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?
What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?
Link
My fine sir.
Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.
Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.
I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.
The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.
Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.
Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. There lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.
I guess you would find it in any comparison video not digital foundry.
It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?
Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?
What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?
Link
My fine sir.
Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.
Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.
I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.
The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.
Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.
Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. There lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.
I guess you would find it in any comparison video not digital foundry.
Please link this for a poor old man, my hands are failing, typing is a struggle.
Its not if u have bad Eyesight or if 1020 is the best, its seriously, ALL THE SAME. doesnt matter if xbox one is only 720p, both consoles will have amazing graphics close to what the PC will look like.
It´s pretty easy to see the difference. Just open youtube to full screen and choose diferent resolutions. By a good reason, we want to see youtube videos at hd resolutions.
I agree with you OP, however I will say resolution does matter to a certain extent. I went out of my way to make sure my 32 inch TV supported 1080p when I bought it a few years ago, because I knew it was going to become a standard feature soon, and I want the best possible picture. However, it's not like the X1 is going to be running games at 720p, it will be 1080p, just not native, that's all. In my case, with a 32 inch TV, and from what I've read on the internet, I will barely be able to tell the difference when I play.
The thing is I'm really looking forward to getting DR3/Ryse/KI/Forza 5/Titanfall/Crimson Dragon on the X1, and none of these games are coming out on the PS4......so am I supposed to pass all those games up because the PS4 is capable of running more games at 1080p res.??!? That is the ludicrous proposition that Sony fanboys want you to swallow.
I could not agree more. Its like even when you agree the PS4 versions look better, and that the PS4 specs are superior to the Xbox One, and even when you refer to sites that universally say that Battlefield looks better to them on the PS4 than the Xbox One its only when you say the difference isn't so great that they lose their minds. Heaven forbid you like the other systems games better when they aren't 1080p native. It is the most stupid argument in System Wars history, this resolution gate.
Fact: 1080p is better clarity than 720p
Fact: Those that don't see the difference being so great have a right to that opinion, and yours being different does not invalidate theirs.
Fact: If the game sucks no one will give a **** that its 1080p or not.
Fact: If the game is great no one will give a **** if its 720p or not
If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...
Many reasons, but how many are regularly watching HD content on them? Judging by dwindling sales of Blurays and the sales the Wii had compared to 360/PS3, not many seem to care. A lot of people update every 5 years or so, so now if you upgrade to a new TV it is HD or nothing.
People will buy something new if they are told it is better without actually understanding how it is better. I have been in many houses that have HDTVs watching SD content and they think it is HD because that is what the TV is sold as.
The regular channels looks awful. I only watch the HD channels. If it doesn't come in HD, then I don't watch it...
I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:
1. A crap first party to depend on
2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse
3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.
I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:
1. A crap first party to depend on
2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse
3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.
But you PS4 Cows have:
1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive
2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more
3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy
You're welcome :)
I am honestly fine with 720p upscaled to 1080p if it meant that we would see a consistent 60fps in games for both PS4 and Xbox One.
I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:
1. A crap first party to depend on
2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse
3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.
But you PS4 Cows have:
1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive
2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more
3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy
You're welcome :)
"Bu..bu..bu...launch line-up, 720p is as good as 1080p and sony will go bankrupt!" HAHAHAHAHAH! Dat damage control
Meanwhile in the real world:
Xbox made no money at all for MS and its biggest shareholders want to get rid of the Xbox division.
Xbone had the worst publicity ever and a lot of people are switching to PS.
Xbone is a kinect, casual orientated, 720p inferior multiplats, spying, bad first-party support, cablebox that will be abandoned after its first years just like the 360.
Enjoy your fail.
You're welcome :)
I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:
1. A crap first party to depend on
2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse
3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.
But you PS4 Cows have:
1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive
2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more
3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy
You're welcome :)
1. It is a shit line up. Same with the X1. I'm not buying the ps4 until Sony bring the big guns.... Unfortunately the only elite devs MS have are turn 10 and they are just bringing out a shinier Forza 4.. So there is literally no point in getting the x1.
2. What... What... What.... I don't think it's possible for you to make any less sense. You do know the ps4 is FACTUALLY the most powerful console ever? So it has better graphics than any other console. Including your beloved xbox 1 and 360. Why I even replied to this post I do not know....
3. I thought we were discussing games?
Keep grasping at straws!
I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:
1. A crap first party to depend on
2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse
3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.
But you PS4 Cows have:
1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive
2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more
3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy
You're welcome :)
1. Incorrect on many levels and we can also add multiple free online titles (not just indies) to the list so long as you insist on trying to claim titanfall is an exclusive.
2. Incorrect. Not only have comparisons shown better graphics, but also better framerates. With better hardware, many more things than just visuals can be improved.
3. Completely irrelevant unless you own stock in the company. Also, there have been talks of Microsoft splitting off Xbox so that it is not even a division of the same company anymore.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment