@otterbee: Yep, because Sony is just pumping out all kinds of compelling reasons to own their system. Aside from minor differences overall with multiplatform games against Xbox One, it is extremely intriguing to me that Sony has mostly published remasters (if you want to call them that) and indie style games. There's nothing more awesome in owning the most powerful console in the world to play games that the Dreamcast could have accomplished. Not to mention, while the Xbox One got a beating for its TV functionality and "always online" plan, but Sony has done nothing but basically add services that require you to be "always online" to use them. Hey, Sony is about games...here's a TV streaming service...overpriced. Hey, here's a game streaming service...overpriced. Hey, you also have to pay to play online now. Hey, pay top dollar for those precious PS2 games you remembered playing over 10 years ago, we'll put a big effort in it and add trophies...plus its upscaled to 1080p! Hey, we offer controllers that are super awesome and comes with a rechargeable battery...lasts seven hours. Want to use an external drive? Nope, didn't think so. Want to change your PSN name? Nope...that's too hard. Do you want actual backwards compatibility? Again...that's too hard...but we have a streaming service for that...pay us monthly.
@otterbee: Oh, so you're saying that the roles between Microsoft and Sony has reversed from last generation? So maybe Sony offering free online, free games, and investing in bigger AAA exclusives, is a cause of trying to increase PS3 sales and not because they love their fan base so much?
Aside from my sarcasm, you're entirely right. You'll find more aggressive tactics by the company that is not in first. Microsoft has been leading in value with the Xbox One, as Sony lead with value on PS3.
@poseidion: Hope you weren't old enough to buy games in the mid 80's. You'd have a heart attack paying 50 bucks for games that can last no longer than a couple of hours and may come with a ton of glitches that can't be fixed. Oh, gaming is so terrible today. Waaa waaa.
@sladakrobot: No, this is a lazy port. Anyone saying that this game couldn't hit 1080p and 60fps on Xbox One is absolutely ignorant. If Chivalry can't hit that benchmark, then why can other games, that have much superior graphics, hit that benchmark? I guess we forgot that Devil May Cry, Borderlands, Halo 4, Forza 6, and Dark Souls 2, all hit, but this subpar graphically inadequate game cannot?
@e3man01: It didn't stop people from enjoying the PS2, which was hard to program for and the underpowered system. So what's your point? Maybe you forgot about the PS3 having the same issues. It was also extremely expensive upon release and was a chore to develop for as well. The parity between the PS4 and Xbox One is far better than comparable systems of the past. Any side by side videos of most games proves that.
The ignorance of Sony fans on this one is the joke. So, you guys are going to spout rhetoric about the Xbox One in this case when games like Halo4, Devil May Cry, Borderlands, and Dark Souls 2 all run 1080p and 60fps on Xbox One, but somehow this port of Chivalry not being able to hit that benchmark is due to the Xbox One not being able to handle it? Chivalry had outdated graphics when it released for PS3/Xbox 360. This is an obvious case of a lazy port.
cvantu's comments