kunst nugget wrote: » It might just be a bad comparison shot but there doesn't seem to be that huge difference between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One - a bit more detailing on the ground but that's about it. They really should have used the same shot for all consoles to get a good overview of the differences.
ionapaul wrote: » Jaysus, as a PC player I'm shocked at the similarities between all four of those screen shots - all looked to be of decent enough quality and looked quite good to me, can't believe there is so little difference between the PS3 and the PS4 shots. I can see the differences, yes, but I would have thought the two would be world's apart, rather than such an incremental improvement. If I were a console player I can't say I'd be driven to get the newer machine on the back of those screen shots (taken in isolation, I know).
irishmover wrote: » I'd love to see photos of a game launched on PS3 and PS2, Xbox and Xbox 360. If it's what I'm thinking I'm sure you'll struggle to find huge differences between those screenshots either. Xbox One and PS4 are only months old. Devs normally don't revolutionise games right away on next gen but maybe I'm wrong.
Retr0gamer wrote: » There's much more to making a good looking game than triangles. Beta analysis of Titanfall is up, remember it's Beta so still a lot of room for improvement:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis
kunst nugget wrote: » At this stage though, is it not just a beta to test the servers? I can't imagine them making much in the way of changes now.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Yes it is. Also read the article, they used the most stable code for the beta not the most recent. With server stress Betas this happens a lot. Betas are usually based on code that is months old in favour of better looking unstable code. It could well be code from a trade show months back. They didn't just release the latest build of the game as a beta untested (Microsoft would definitely not allow this!). Remember it also had to pass MS certification as well. At release there could be 6 months or maybe even more of engine and performance improvements. A good example of this is how much the God of War 3 public demo differed from the final release:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-godofwariii-demo-vs-retail-blog-entry
kunst nugget wrote: » From reading that God of War article, there was about a year between demo and final release. There's a month to the Titanfall release. I know there'll be a raft of updates for it in the new six months or so but does that mean there going to be releasing the game with issues that they hope to resolve later? I know this is common enough but considering this is meant to be the game-changer title, it might not be a very auspicious start.
Retr0gamer wrote: » You're not really getting it. The Beta code that is currently being tested is probably months old, it more than likely is code from a summer trade show meaning that the game that in it's current state at respawn and the one that will be released probably has about 6 months of tweaks and optimisations over the current Beta.
kunst nugget wrote: » Okay, out of curiosity, how is the six month old code going to be off benefit in testing server stress and if the new code isn't stable enough a month before release, is that not a worry? Surely they wouldn't have decided to make it a completely open beta if they were beta-testing old code - it seems like an odd way to market a game. It just seems a bit odd.
sarumite wrote: » Testing the server load wouldn't require the most up to date code. You don't need beautiful graphics to know if your severs can handle a large number users while providing reasonably ok ping times.
Blazer wrote: » It was the same for BF4...while we were all supposedly beta testing BF4 the whole game was already done up and ready for release. Mate works for EA and he was playing the full game while we were just getting access to the beta. As for Xbox One..been very disappointed with it..I don't have any interest in it being the centre of my media room as it doesn't stream DNLA so it's out of the loop straightaway. Very disappointed with the power of it..graphically the PS4 is a big step ahead and I think no developer will bother to learn how to use esram properly. If PS4 continues to outsell at the January ratio of 2:1 MS will have no choice but to launch a new SKU without the kinect and upgraded graphics or else bite the bullet and watch as the PS4 runs off in the distance. After 13 years of playing on Xbox since 2002 and thousands spent on MS points/ digital downloads etc today I've finally called a halt to it and swapping my XB1 for a PS4 this evening.
Blazer wrote: » It was the same for BF4...while we were all supposedly beta testing BF4 the whole game was already done up and ready for release. Mate works for EA and he was playing the full game while we were just getting access to the beta.
kunst nugget wrote: » I'd kind of think that would be fair enough if the beta was 4-6 months from release not 4-6 weeks. I can't see their being a major difference between what you see now and what gets released. That gif above keeps breaking my Safari…
kunst nugget wrote: » So, in essence you're not beta testing it, you're playing a demo. It's a good marketing ploy, I'll give them that. It's the reason I bought Killzone on the Vita.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Christ almighty. It was a beta test to test server stress you don't need a full finished game to test the strain on servers.
_Redzer_ wrote: » Whatever is in it is in it for life as far as performance goes.
Grayditch wrote: » Minus points for Sony for not making the Official Sony PS3 wireless headset compatible with the PS4.
Grayditch wrote: » I cannot for the life of me get it to connect. I should try it with the PS3 to make sure it's not the headset, though.
