By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft seems to be forcing developers to downgrade the ps4 visuals to match xbox one games through parity clause.

Ka-pi96 said:
More Microsoft hate?

They've said there aiming for parity. Aiming would imply trying to improve one side to match the other. It also says they want parity across ALL platforms. That includes PC, 360, PS3 and if previous CODs are anything to go by maybe even the Wii U. Unless all of those are holding the game back as well?

Sledgehammer aren't developing 360 and PS3 versions. Wii U hasn't even been announced.

They're only developing the PS4, Xbone and PC versions. COD isn't really a PC game and has pretty much always been on par with consoles. So eliminating everything else, what they really mean by parity is basically having the same game for PS4 and Xbone.



 

Around the Network
jlmurph2 said:
So this conversation again? How many times does it have to be said that parity clause has absolutely nothing to do with performance. It applies to content. Doesn't even apply to AAA games this gen.


You can't argue with mass idiocy.



Lol, no. That would be an unbelievably dickish move and it would hurt Microsoft's image a lot. It would't be worth it.



This is the silliest thing of all time, and false from start to finish. It came up as a rumor last year regarding COD, was proven false when released and still exist as a rumor? People need to grow up and understand that the real world doesn't work like this.



COD is almost synonimous with xbox, I would not be surprised if MS paid a lot of $$ to keep one of its flagships relevant to its platform. The same with sports games. But I would not worry for any other games cuz it would cost them to much since the ps4 is selling 2:1 to x1.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
eva01beserk said:
COD is almost synonimous with xbox, I would not be surprised if MS paid a lot of $$ to keep one of its flagships relevant to its platform. The same with sports games. But I would not worry for any other games cuz it would cost them to much since the ps4 is selling 2:1 to x1.

Why wouldn't they have done that last year with COD: Ghosts? 

There is no way that the PS4 version of COD: Advanced Warfare will have a lower rez than COD: Ghosts. Either Xbox One version hits 1080p or parity isn't happening. Why on earth would people think parity = PS4 downgrade as opposed to Xbox upgrade? Negativity gets clicks I guess. Especiall anti-ms negativity.



That is basicaly one of the worst articles I have ever read in reguard this subject.

It looks like a 15 years old boy ranting about a think he has just a vague idea.

And to finish with a golden turd

"TL;DR: The early first gen releases for the Xbox One and PS4 showed that the PS4 could handle higher frame-rates or resolutions in multiplatform games. If forced parity starts coming into play, then it may lose those advantages."

Just forget that 90% of multiplat games released since last year share the same resolution and frame rates. There is only 2 games where the resolution delta is 720p/1080p and the COD:Ghosts everybody knows that the game was rushed and the next gen versions are just up ports from last gen games.

And why this guy goes for COD when its Battlefield that, until further notice, PS4/Xone will share the same resolution and fps? Or forget Destiny?

Microsoft is forcing no one. The developers are choosing to make the versions as close as possible. As was the case of the previous generation.



you guys can be such fanboys. kudo's to the people that dont believe this bull. parity when it comes to resolution and framerates doesnt mean parity when it comes to lighting and such Edit: I shouldnt say you guys in a broad term. most ps fanboys on this site are logical, unlike the op



Ltd predictions by the time 9th Gen comes out

Ps4:110million

Xbox one :75 million( was 65) 

Wii u: 20 milliion

Nah, pure speculation with no evidence to back up the claim. Journalism at it's finest.



Where's the actual proof? This thread makes little sense.