You can't be serious... What is your IQ? SAT score? I scored a 2210 on the SAT (710 R, 770M, and 730W).

The article's main point was about the porting process on the PS4. My main point is that the PS4 version barely received any optimization. Those are 2 separate points. I linked that article, because it conveniently proved that the PS4 received no optimizations, not because I wanted to show the porting process on the PS4, which is a separate issue. You seem to have an issue differentiating arguments, so I'm going to assume you scored no higher than a 600 on the SAT Reading section.

I said "read about how they ported", because that was the article's main point. Regardless of whether I used that clause or not, my main point has been on optimizations, not on porting.

It's very common for authors to say "Read about so and so" and describe a short summary of the source they're citing even if it has nothing to do with the main point of their own articles as long as there's a section in that article that proves their own main point.

Turn off your PC and head to the library. Your reading skills are severely lacking.

I see this board isn't short on conspiracy theories.

@whistle_blower: Funny thing is that online play subs, which MS started, is also biting them in the ass. Average console gamer will probably buy those subs, but there is no way they'll pay for 2. If a gen is 6 years long, PS+ will cost $300 while XBL Gold will got $360. That's ontop of the hardware costs. Given that the PS4 has more games, more quality exclusives, better multiplats, and a thriving multiplayer base, most of them will get the PS4 only. No way will they pay for 2. MS's greedy practices are biting them in the ass.

At first, I was against SONY charging for online play, but it's actually one of the main reasons why Xbone is flopping, so I now support it. If PS4 had free online play, it's probable that many gamers would have bought 2 consoles.

Someone got owned badly. Reread the part you quoted in the article. They were talking about the porting process, not about optimization.

My first post was entirely on optimization, so why the hell would you bring up the porting process? It's well-known the PS4 has a great API that makes porting from PC easy. Whether the devs choose to optimize or not has nothing to do with the discussion, and given insiders at Neogaf, devs are choosing NOT to optimize on the PS4 because it saves resources, which they desperately need for the Xbone version.

The PS4 is FAR stronger than your choice of plastic, so just accept it and move on. Just accept that PS4 with unoptimized code runs better than Xbone with optimized code.

PORTING IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPTIMIZATION!!!

Jesus, dude. How many times do I have to say it before it gets through your thick skull? If Activision left CoD:AW at 720p at single-digit FPS on the Xbone when they first were able to get the game running on the Xbone, that would still count as porting.

Porting just means getting a software running on a different platform. It has nothing to do with whether that port is running well or running badly, which is why we use they term "good port" or "bad port".

The issue I'm talking about is OPTIMIZATION, which is what the devs can choose to do or not to do after they've ported a software to a different platform. It's obvious, given the time-constraints and amount of developers, that the PS4 barely received any optimization, if at all. The Xbone, on the other hand, is getting years of optimization and thousands of coders.

So it's common for a platform to receive only 2 coders and 6 months of support in a AAA game-development cycle?

Either you're that clueless or you're lying to avoid facing the fact that the gap between the PS4 and your beloved plastic of choice is bigger than you initially thought.

Face it: The PS4 is bruteforcing badly-optimized coding while the Xbone is receiving special treatment from devs. Even with that handicap, the PS4 still gets both higher res and higher framerates. The gap is bigger than you think.

The fact that that they only had 2-3 coders and 6 months of time on the PS4 version is actually proof.

Porting is not the same thing as optimization. Porting is just getting a software running on another platform. It has nothing to do with optimization. The article clearly says that the PS4 version received only minor tweaks from the original PC code, meaning the PS4 is bruteforcing everything else.

The PS4 is a gen ahead of the Xbone.

Porting does not mean optimization.

All multiplats are ported from PC to consoles. That's the general process. The PS4 does have a more straightforward porting process than the Xbone, but that does not say anything about optimization. For the most part, the PS4 gets minor tweaks and is left to brute force everything else.

The Xbone version is optimized from hell to heaven to reach parity with the PS4. It really is amazing how the Xbone still can't reach 1080p and stable framerates even with all the optimizations they've been doing.

Nothing you said disproves my point. They barely optimized the PS4 version and you're saying that the Xbone with 2 years of 1,000+ coder support getting lower resolution and worse framerate is proof that the gap isn't big?

Porting process does not equate to optimization process. Porting is just a way to get the game designed initially for the PC to run on a console. On NeoGaf, one of the insiders said that CoD:AW took 2 weeks to port to the PS4. Without any optimization, PS4 ran at 90 FPS average with a few stutters and hiccups, so Activision left it alone after capping the frames to 60. The Xbone took 3 months to port and it ran at single-digit FPS. They spent all their efforts optimizing the Xbone version, which is why it didn't have those stutters that the PS4 had.

Porting does not equate to optimization.

Don't let MS's actions now fool you. They're only keeping up their "for the gamers" facade to gain back marketshare so they can attempt their anti-consumer practices in the future. Just look at how they're still keeping the Pay2Play online gaming subs. That just proves MS hasn't really changed. They're still dreaming of the days when they were making billions in profit for online gaming subs. Those days are long gone now that SONY is in the massive lead and is also charging for online play. MS is still the greedy company from 2013.