PS4 is definitely stronger than the Xbone, and the difference is a whole lot bigger than last gen.

I wouldn't look at multiplats to judge hardware strengths, as most devs don't optimize PS4 versions while spending millions of dollars, 1000s of engineers optimizing the Xbone version. PS4 is bruteforcing badly optimized codes in multiplats.

Read DF's article on how Ubisoft ported The Crew to consoles. The PS4 team had just TWO coders. That's right. TWO. TWO. I'll say it again: TWO. They worked for a total of a couple of weeks and left the PS4 version alone.

Xbone had hundreds, if not thousands, of coders working 24/7 for 2 years to get the Xbone version up to par.

It's amazing how PS4 bruteforcing none optimized codes mostly runs better than Xbone 2-years of 1000+ coder, 24/7 optimized code.

You do know Ubisoft and most devs barely worked on the PS4 versions of their games, right? They start with a general PC version then do a 2-week simple port on both the Xbone and PS4. They see the PS4 running fine with slight framedrops, so they code a simple framecap and leave it alone. On the Xbone, they see it running at single-digit FPS, so they work for 2 years optimizing the game to reach parity with the PS4.

They spend every last second working on the Xbone versions and do a 2-man port on the PS4 version, making the PS4 brute-force badly optimized codes, which is why some PS4 games have slightly lower framerate than the Xbone versions. It took nearly a year for TW3 to run better on the PS4 because the devs started optimizing the PS4 version after the game was released.

It's sad knowing that the PS4 can do a lot more, but keeps getting held back by the Xbone.

Microsoft deserves the ass-whopping their getting. Anyone who votes no is a fanboy.

MS doesn't invest in first party, they hire incompetent engineers (Seriously... You hire 5,000 engineers and all of them got bested by a single man?), they started all the bad crap in gaming (Pay2play peer2peer online gaming, paid DLC, etc.) and if they were in the lead they'd probably have pushed even more anti-consumer practices. If MS weren't so stubborn, they'd have removed pay2play online gaming by now, but they're still clinging onto that fantasy that they'll regain their 360 heyday and make bank off gold subscriptions, which SONY has stolen through their own PS+ subscription. Those days are long gone, but MS is too blinded by greed to accept that fact. As long as SONY continues to charge for online play as well, very few people will buy the current Xbox and future Xbox.

MS should just leave the industry so another company can join. Anyone who isn't a fanboy would agree. Bad competition isn't good for the industry. If google joined the industry, you can bet that online gaming would be free on google's console, forcing SONY to do the same.

I thank Mark Cerny for being an engineering genius. I hope SONY uses him again for the PS5. All SONY needs is Cerny and a couple million in R&D and they'll create a superior machine to MS with their 5,000-man engineering team with $6 billion in R&D.

The other guys at SONY were just using common business sense. Everyone could see from a mile away that MS screwed up their unveiling, and SONY took advantage of it.

lol @ the people who think Xbone sold more than 15 million. I'd put the figure around 12-13 million. Xbone is at 8 million in the US, and the US make up the majority of the xbone sales. Last gen, the US made up 70% of 360's global sales; it's no doubt making up over 80% this gen, considering how lopsided the PS4 is winning in other nations.

Right now, I only buy 90+ meta games. Sometimes, I buy 85-90 meta games if they join the bargain bin (<$20). I'll pick-up Fallout 4 in 3+ years when it comes down to $15.

Don't even look at games scoring < 85.

I just can't enjoy playing a sub-90 game after paying $60+ for it, because I feel ripped-off paying a large amount for a B-tier game. I paid $60 for Halo 4 when it came out and I felt sick after playing for an hour. The game was horrible (True to its 87 meta) and I felt so mad paying that much for a mediocre game.

I think games should have their starting prices match their meta scores. That means only SONY exclusives should have a $60+ pricetag because you're paying for supreme quality. Microsoft should lower their exclusive prices to $30.

@BigShotSmoov007:I think it happens to most people in games, movies, shows, etc.

I couldn't enjoy the Man Of Steel movie because it got mediocre reviews.

To be frank, playing a game that didn't score above a 90 hurts my enjoyment. It's always in the back of my mind while I'm playing the game.

On topic: I do not believe Xbox ONE will ever have an exclusive that scores above a 90. Their first-parties are mediocre at best and the third parties that make 90+ games are too expensive to be bought out. Microsoft isn't going to be spending much money on a division that's bleeding money and has no prospects for a successful future. MS couldn't even buy full exclusivity for TR, and that's not really a big-seller or a great game. I bet the PlayStation division gets more funding than the Xbox division these days.

@nyadc: LAWL LAWL LAWL...

Xbox LIVE does not have dedicated servers, you fangirl. Specific games might have dedicated servers, but that is entirely up to the devs, and considering history, SONY uses more dedicated servers than MS. Almost everything on 360, even exclusives like Halo and Gears, used Peer2Peer connection.

Xbox LIVE is 99% Peer2Peer gaming, which costs $0 for MS.