I think both versions could be better... I mean it's a port.

What you probably don't know is that NBA2K on PS4 has 2XMSAA (maybe even 4XMSAA)  when there is no AA at all on X1. Yes Digital Foundry conveniently forgotten to do a face-off with this game. But on screenshots I have seen on NBA2K thread at Neogaf it's obvious.

But I agree visually NFS versions are really close with slightly better AO and AA on PS4 but not really noticeable in-game.

Concerning TB they said it averages at 30fps with highs as 45FPS on X1. But why wouldn't they say 35FPS average if it's really 30-45FPS?

For me it's clear when PS4 version will sub-60FPS dips X1 version will logically sub-30fps dips. The most important is the average gap in-game, like the constant 10fps average gap easily seen on BF4 DF video (on top of the 44% resolution gap for BF4 of course). I predict many disappointment if we see a constant average 20-25fps gap between the 2 versions.

But I don't think we will see a constant 30fps average gap between the 2 versions, more like 20-25FPS which would be consistant with the on-paper specs of the machines.

Well, they had an a 360.

Because the news outlet got realy confused with their sources.

There is no such a thing as "average 60FPS", unless the game go beyound that and choke and lose frames all around, remember COD:Ghost for the PS4 before the first or second patch.

We don´t know if the game is 95% of the time at 60fps. We have no relaiable information. This in fact smell much like the BS I was reading yesterday at NeoGaf. IGN had a hands on with the PS4 version 2 weeks ago, no word about the 60 frames.

We are only working with assumptions. The only way to know for certain is with a deep analisys. And I can´t belive that in less than 5 days the developers changed the target frame rate.

The developers are the ones that said the PS4 "Averages 60fps" not me, do you understand what averages means?
I guess we will find out in a week when someone tries it on a monitor with higher than 1080p60hz / hdmi 1.3 wont we.

Ouch.

It will be the default for the rest of the generation.

I remember when I posted this Guru3D review about a videocard similar to Xbone's GPU but with way more clock (faster).

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_r7_260_review_benchmarks,14.html

"R7-260 is a fun, almost entry-level product that is going to allow you to game at 1280x720 to say 1600x1200. If you stick to these resolutions then you may apply good image quality settings. At an MSRP of 79 EURO + VAT (or $109 USD) however it is a fair deal. You'll be looking at perf in-between say a Radeon HD 7770 and Radeon HD 7790. It also would be a really excellent HTPC card quite honestly. The small PCB footprint and cooler would even allow Mini-ITX setups. Then again at 75 Degrees C it does run a bit hot for such a setup. Overall though, a fun little card but don't expect to game properly at 1080P."

BTW Thief and Titanfall are 720p... I guess  Watch Dogs and The Divivion will be too... either lower resolution or lower framerate.

again they say majority of play(most of the time) 30fps vs 60 most of the time... we know what majority means right? large portion of the time its 30fps.... except and move on......

Few lucky Playstation 4 owners have already got their hands on copy of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, all thanks to GameStop and other retailers who broke the street date, and as a result of this early impression were bound to arrive on internet, and its not a good news for Crystal Dynamics.

Reddit user ChicagoBulls1984 got Playstation 4 version Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition early, and according to him its not that much better that PS3 port, its more or less the same game, framerate still stutters, textures upgrades are not that major enhancements and many more things.

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition
"If you have already played it on ‘last gen’ consoles I would advise you NOT to get this version (at it’s current price). With all the back and forth about the technical benchmarks of this new definitive version, I can honestly say it does not look THAT much better than the PS3 version. This is not to say the new version looks bad, but it’s a testament to how good the game (and many other ‘last’ gen games) already looked. I know that on paper this version has a higher resolution and better framerate, but while playing it doesn’t add that much to the game." said ChicagoBulls1984.

He also added that Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition is not worth the $60 price tag it carries, and Killzone: Shadow Fall impressed him more than this enhanced edition to Tomb Raider.

"These differences are not worth 60 dollars, plain and simple."

"I have played a game like Killzone Shadowfall that was made specifically for the PS4 and looks like a much more substantial leap over last gen than this game does. Of course it is an exclusive title. For all the hype Crystal Dynamics spewed about this version and all of its graphical enhancements I can honestly say it is only slightly better. It is more or less the exact same game. Lara is still ‘plastic’ looking. The framerate stutters here and there. The textures have been enhanced but it isn’t anything major. Her hair looks better because of the tressFX system."

So in short, ChicagoBulls1984 states that if you have played Tomb Raider (2013) on PS3/Xbox 360/PC, buying Definitive Edition won't be a smart choice as it doesn't justify $60 price tag with the content it offers.

http://www.gamepur.com/news/13448-tomb-raider-ps4-same-game-frame-rate-stutters-lara-still-plastic-looking-sa.html

Porcupine_I said:

That's hilarious.

What would the renamed last gen games be called?

PS3/360 - Outdated edition.

CGI is playing the game right now on PS4 and nothing this guy said is true.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6002427

I think you need to review your sources.

BTW a better preview: http://press-start.com.au/2014/01/24/preview-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-60fps-60fps/

The game looks better than PC version and the framerate is 60 solid.