AC Dev: We're dropping 60 fps. Because it's hard

@AM-Gamer: But of course there is no way to know how Infamous would perform on a discrete graphics card...is there? Which is why I stick to facts and you keep on using hyperbole and excuses. Typical console peasant.

@mikhail: You talk about me using hyperbole? LMAO really? This is coming from the dumbass who said consoles are running games at 30fps at LOW settings. So how about you show a link of one current game running anything around low settings. You can't because you are full of Shit.

Let's also conveniently not mention all the games that do hit 1080p and 60 fps at settings mixed between high and mostly Ultra such as , METRO REDUX, Wolfenstein TNO, TR:DE, FF: RR etc.

@AM-Gamer: Wolfenstein dynamically reduces it's vertical resolution just to maintain 60 fps. Tomb Raider bounces all over the place between 45-60 on PS4 producing judder and other problems.

"All the games that do hit 1080p" I suppose is correct as long as you don't mean they actually achieve and maintain 1080p/60, because only a small percentage actually do.

Fail.

@mikhail: Still waiting to see those links to the games with low settings. This is the part you disappear and don't respond.

Talk about a fail troll.

@wiiboxstation: I find it interesting that games like mario kart and beautiful, and 60fps while on a vastly underpowered system.... wtf ubisoft spend more time optimizing pl0z

The order has as much freedom as a David Cage game, small corridors with very little going on. Infamous is open world, but a dead one. The AC Unity shot above has 1000's of NPCs below so completely different situation.

@APiranhaAteMyVa: Considering the Order actually has gameplay I'd say it's more impressive then any David Cage game. And Infamous is hardly dead if you want to talk about sheer number of NPCs look at Shadow of Mordor. I've seen 100 orcs on screen with 0 slowdown.

Does it really though?

@melonfarmerz: I'd say it resembles Gears of War more then a David Cage game.

To me, PS4 games look like PC low to medium settings at best, especially in the areas of AF/AA, ambient occlusion, and other eye candy. Sorry I can't link to my opinion. Digital Foundry comparisons regularly show the console versions looking worse than PC, so you can look at any of those you wish.

Just face it, your precious console is dog shit.

@mikhail: Lol'd at your stupidity

Let me guess...you bought a PS4? Talk about stupidity.

@mikhail: Stupid peasant. I own all 3 consoles, a gaming pc and a gaming laptop, I have every right to call you retarded, because I know first hand how stupid you are to make such a claim.

@mikhail: how do you know when everyone knows you don't own one? Nobody gives 2 shits about what you think. There's websites that sort those details out. You are just a raging butthurt troll who spouts nonsense. The console versions are usually a mix of high to Ultra settings that is a fact not up for debate.

Face it you paid 3x the cost for little to know difference.

No difference, you mean.

Nicely done.

@mikhail: Ruh roh he's the grammar police now.

You have officially been owned.

Ubisoft is a big bottleneck

Who are you trying to be, AmazonAngry? Where's the "owned hermit lol!" gif?

If anyone has been "owned" it was you, the second you bought that piece of crap peasant box. Enjoy your 900p/30 for the next ten years!

I never bought any to begin with.

WIN.

Sadly, the industry believes the opposite.

Pretty games are easy to advertise. Long lasting games make it less likely you'll buy the next game.

@mikhail: buh buh they look like low settings. It's sad that shitty prebuilt box is holding its own with a your custom built machine.

I'm glad I could educate you on the difference between facts and fanboy bullshit.

Lmao the PS4 will be out for 10 years ? God you are slow.

Cutting costs, that's what it's down to.

so there you have it. twice the work for a lower rendering quality.

When do you expect the next console generation to start, then? The PS3 was out for about 7 years before the PS4 was released, and PS3 games are still being made today. The PS2 came out in 2000 and it was nearly 7 years before the PS3 came out, and those consoles continued to be made and sold for years after that, too. The PlayStation was around for about six years before the PS2 came out. What makes you think the PS4 life cycle will be so much shorter than all of these? Even if we go with the shortest life cycle, that means the PS5 won't be out until Holiday 2019 or later.

If you're expecting it sooner, why is that and when do you think would be a reasonable time that the next PlayStation may hit the market?

(This is called a discussion and sharing a fully formed opinion. Your post above is really nothing, but I figure I'll give you one more shot)

Well EA managed to make NFS Rivals (iirc) locked to 30 FPS, and bound the animation speed to it, so if you managed to unlock the frame rate to more than 30, the game would actually play out faster :D

So don't doubt human stupidity

@mikhail: Just because a console still has games come out for it doesn't mean it will be Sony's main console. If I made a educated guess I would guess you will see a new PS console around 2018. There are 3 reasons for this.

1. Most importantly is cost. The PS3 was sold at a loss of almost $250 on each console. The PS4 is breaking even already. The days of long console cycles with massive losses on each console are over. Consumers show they have no problem buying a device at a reasonable price every two to three years( look at smartphones and tablets.). A 7 year console cycle put the industry in a slump and you will most likely never see it again.

2. The X86 architecture has several advantages. It allows easy backwards compatibility and allows devs to move into next gen development with little hassle. A PS5 using more advanced parts from AMD would allow a seamless transition to the next consoles.

3. Competition, I doubt Nintendo will have the Wii U as there primary console for more then 3 years. I also expect there next console will be more powerful then a X1 and PS4. I don't ever recall console manufacturers letting the competition have more then a year head start as it would allow Nintendo to capture the hardcore audience that Sony has won over. Even Sega couldn't go much longer then a year with the Dreamcast before Sony released the PS2.

Sounds like a cynical attempt to lower the costs of game development to increase there profit Margins.

Nvidia and AMD make too much money off there cards to allow that to happen in the PC industry (i hope)

@AM-Gamer: I also did not say that the PS4 would be Sony's main console for that entire time. You can still buy PS3 consoles and games are still coming out for it and probably will be for quite some time since there are so many out there.

@mikhail: No you said " enjoy 900p at 30 fps for the next 10 years. I was pointing out I will most likely be on a PS5 10 years from now. And then the argument will be why the weak console barely achieves 4k.

Well it's hard to say what consoles and PCs will be like in 2018 or 2020. Maybe by then there will be 8k or 12k displays that are the new hot thing.