Frugal Gaming's Mark Kerry ponders on the shift in publishers allegiances between Microsoft and Sony?
Makes sense. Always start with the most powerful hardware and work your way down. Not that the 360 was necessarily more powerful than the PS3. But it was easier to work on because of it's architecture. However, now that the PS4 and XB1 are so similar to PC's with x86 architecture, you would think that PC's would become the lead platform and it would filter down.
I just find it a bit weird now that MS has put all its billions to support TF is the time activision now wants to be chummy with sony. Personally forget COD ( no offense to the cod players)i hope ps4 is the lead platform for destiny
@Neon Actually its all about sales. I have a feeling I'll go more mainstream this generation.
they already confirmed it some time ago. PS4 lead platform it is!
Wonder how many people who hated CoD before will change their tune? Me? I haven't enjoyed a Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare, so this news doesn't affect me any. Actually, I partially take that back, as World at War's zombie mode was pretty fun. I'd like to see another version of that, if anything.
I think that the PS4 is the lead platform for destiny. I also believe that the PS4 is getting the DLC first as well.
Yup PS4 is lead platform for Destiny. I think most of if not all the footage we have seen so far was from the PS4.
Smart move by Activision, they know XB1 gamers aren't going back to COD from Titanfall. I wonder how COD will sell because of Destiny and potentially Halo 2. Hopefully Activision isn't too mad about MSFT backing EA and Titanfall, so it doesn't affect future games.
Trufan1, NO NOPE NAW TF isn't going to stop more then a very small marginal % of people from playing COD. nice try.
Everyone with an X1 abandoned CoD after Titanfall. There's no way anyone can go back to that borefest after playing Titanfall. It makes you realize how the hell Activision got away with copy and pasting the same game for years since MW2. If Titanfall 2 goes to PS4, that will be the end of the Call of Duty series, period. Just like Guitar Hero. @Blacktar The only people that'll keep playing CoD are those who never played Titanfall or casual gamers oblivious to the game. So mostly PS4 gamers, considering TF sold 1 million copies on X1 alone excluding PC and 360 sales.
Pretty sure PS4 is the lead platform for Destiny.
@true and noob - Yeah we'll see you guys when the next CoD releases and check those numbers. You're talking about a game that sold like crazy every year despite being basically the same game as the previous edition. Many many people will be playing CoD on XB1, guaranteed.
It's wishful thinking to say that CoD will be abandoned because of Titanfall (or any game really).
First off MS hasn't spent billions on TF okay millions yes billions no but they have sided with EA since the end of last gen. I think the former MS execs who are at EA have something to do with them being so chummy and giving MS preferential treatment when it comes to Sony vs MS but that's my opinion but i do feel it's a little more than a coincidence. Since MS has thrown their lot in with EA who is Activisions direct competitor they leave Activision little choice but to go with Sony and it makes sense on a few different levels. With the PS4 having the bigger install base thus far and looking like the clear cut winner out of the gate it is prudent on Activisions behalf to do what they can to make the most money in spite of all that has happened. We see Destiny has exclusive content for the PS4 and them switching the lead platform for COD to the PS4 and it's EA and Activision going at it tit for tat and if i had to choose out of those 2 publishers id probably take Activision because they put out quality games while EA has no problem taking our money and shoving unfinished work out the door leading to problematic releases.
I kinda think they should start w the weaker console (x1) and make their way up. Just like last gen. But that's just a horrible way of making games as is gamer unfriendly. And not making the best use of a console's capabilities. Good for x1 and Microsoft though, cuz the game would look and feel more identical. Imagine if most games look better on ps4. X1 is doomed.
LOL @ people thinking EA will or is already allying with MS... BF4 parity says a lot, no wait... Anyway, Titanfall was obviously a disappoint as far as EA is concerned (not that the game sold bad, EA expectations were unrealistic, they wanted COD numbers from the COD guys), just watch as the next Titanfall goes multiplatform. And this isn't about they favoring PS4 or whichever is more powerful or easier to develop for... EA and Activision don't give a rat's ass, they'll just follow the money. More people are buying PS4s and attach rate this time around is also better or equal on Sony's platform, so they'll focus a little more on it, but don't worry, it not like they would ignore the other fronts (we're talking about the whores of gaming industry, if you can make a toaster that run games, EA and Activision will support it).
@predro93 It's a little more than just sales, since right now these consoles are very early in their life cycle, it's now that's a deciding factor for companies. After a decade or so, new hardware comes to bear fruition, new contracts are made, that's all that's happened, and since EA have gone with MS, Activision have gone with the later.
At noob and true fan, check your sales figures COD: ghost sold more than TitanFall on the XB1. I could see your point if TitanFall ends up selling better, but as of now it's about 1.5 million less than COD
Now COD does not matter...Only here on N4Xbox...
ps4 is the lead platform for destiny all the exclu deals etc etc since it was announced make it so
The less powerful hardware needs the most work because they have it optomize it more to squeeze every bit of power out of it. With the Xbox 360 you need to squeeze the most out of it to get it to look it's best. With the PS3 having the extra month is like a bonus because they can just focus on the ps3 version then. But since it was more powerful you don't need to squeeze everything out of it to get it to look as good or better then the xbox 360 version. Most likely the extra month was good for coding. Then now with the ps4 developers only need to manage one pool of data and make sure the right data goes to the cpu or gpu. But now with the xbox one they have the ddr3 system ram and there is specific data that has to go through the system ram to get to the cpu. Then have to make sure the right data gets to the gpu or GDDR5 that is baked onto it. Just ultilizing 1 pool of data is a heck a lot easier then utilizing 2 pools of data.
agree with your PS4 comments, however I have to disagree with your PS3 remarks. Developers used the 360 as the lead because it was easier to code for. The Cell processor required extra optimization in order for it to truly shine. Developers like Bethesda were notorious for doing a terrible port job with their games, hence Skyrim being virtually unplayable on the PS3 at one point. However when utilized properly (GTA V), the PS3 version can truly shine.
@neon That is why I said that the extra month was most likely used for coding. But to get it as good or better then the Xbox 360 version they didn't need to use all of the power of the ps3. Needs different coding but didn't use all of the power. Sonys first party studios definately did get close to maxing it out.
the power differences between the two consoles are for the most part negligible. again - the problem with x1's launch titles is simply that its a pain in the ass to squeeze the horsepower out of the x1 so early in the release because of its separated esram/ddr/architecture - similar to the ps3 on the last go. this is already changing with new sdk's etc. i think the motivation here right now is sales numbers. the ps4 is simply just selling more and is probably easier to get a good result out of. maybe they just like the console more and its as simple as that. something tells me that money/units is the driving factor here, just like how at launch the 360 was outselling the ps3 for a while - coincidence that it was the console of choice then?
fair enough, but ease of development has to play a factor too. The Cell processor was sort of an enigma for developers for a long time, hence why a lot of games that were coded on the 360 didn't run or look as good on the PS3. Poor optimization on the developers part. PS4 and XB1 are more similar now than ever, so porting shouldn't be too much of an issue. Dealing with a few of the XB1 limitations shouldn't require that much of a workaround.
The differences are definitely NOT negligible and you're outright false for saying so. The difference's like 30 fps vs 60 fps is a HUGE difference in the games where that gap is. The other issue of 1080p vs 900p and 720p is more of a sliding scale as far as differences go i personally don't think 1080p vs 900p is a huge difference BUT MS is peddling a 500 machine that can't do most games in 1080p/60fps in 2014 and that is because of the limited hardware. Sure you can chalk some of the issues to optimization and matured tools BUT while the X1 will get better it'll never be on par with the PS4 and their tools and optimizations will improve as well which common sense says will maintain or widen the gap we already have. Microsoft is limited by their hardware choice that's something they absolutely cannot change and for that reason alone no matter what they spin or what they say or what people like you try to mislead people to believe the Xbox One will NEVER be on a level playing field with the PS4.
They want the system where the most money is to be made to be the best. There is barely any money to be made for them on the PC because the demographic of CoD isn't a big part of the PC demographic. That's why it isn't the lead platform.
yet Ubisoft builds games like Watch Dogs and The Division on PC and ports down to the consoles.
All games are built from PC. This is bull if they say otherwise. I code and have used unity. Your making the game on the computer first because that's your only option to make it on. Then you port it and I'm no PC fan. This is just how it's done. You also test the results of new material on your PC. Or else you'd have to port it to a disk(loading time) and set everything up to test every simple thing you made. Bigger companies probably have more efficient methods but nothings better then testing it right within your game engine
Neon - They can never target max PC specs though, that is one thing many PC gamers seem to overlook. They have to make their game able to run on the majority of PC's that came out within the last 3-4 years or so, in order to be able to generate enough sales to make the PC port worthwhile. Only a small fraction of the total number of PC gamers have a rig that will still be more powerful than PS4 is after you factor in DirectX and windows overhead (yes, you, PC gamer reading this, are a small fraction of the whole of the PC market). So, It makes sense to target the most powerful closed architecture instead.
The PC usually is. They can render at highest possible for pc, then reduce the assets to suit ps4 and xb1. You need to take into account that the software tools are on pc!
Activision go where the money is, and since EA and MS have partnered this time, Activision has gone with the other company 'Sony'. This always happens every generation, if EA does a deal with Sony, Activision go with MS and vice versa.
Wasnt sony partnering with ea for bf3 or moh at one point against cod and ms
Activision still hasn't come out and stated this as fact. Just speculation until confirmation. Please report facts not feelings