this is why i dont like MS you never saw any game parity last gen when ps3 was inferior its pretty obvious MS had a hand in this if not why was ghost and the AC game last year patched up to 1080 on ps4 after release

lol i rembered that. i knew they will never reach 1080p 60 framers for the new AC. Thats ubisoft for saying that and wording their response when they announced 900p 30fps.  I really don't think they gimped ps4 version on  purpose. Just poor wording and super high  promises knowing that they can't deliver it. Just got an update on that , hence the share .

I'm sure you've heard of the question "what weights more, a pound of leather or a pound of feathers?" If you ask people that, many will say leather instinctively. Why? Because despite them obviously weighting the same amount, one is perceived to weight more. That effect is very much comparable to the current PS4/X1 situation.

We know the PS4 has a hardware advantage of about 50%~, and we know that advantage translates into a similar real world performance variation. Both of those things are simple math. What we don't know is how effectively  that power advantage can be used.

All we have to compare right now is multi-plats that use the difference for little more than resolution or frame rate (which in linear terms is incredibly wasteful), and no exclusives similar enough that they can be compared in a manor people perceive to be "fair".

DC vs FH2 are a good example of that. Many can't look past their linearly perceived value of the term "open world", so despite DC having a considerable visual advantage, many with that particular forced perception won't consider it valid (which i find odd, given many are willing to admit Infamous is more technically impressive than Killzone, despite the same apparent "unfairness" of the comparison). It's that type of forced perception that likewise allows some people to claim PS4 > $3k PC. In reality it's silly, but they'll defend their belief to the death, regardless to the evidence.

As the PS4 and X1 receive more exclusives, i expect the perceived difference will grow quite radically, even relative to a fairly powerful PC (and shrink slightly towards the end of the gen, but that's a different topic). It's all a matter of what forced perceptions people do and don't have, and which games can tick the right boxes.

It's why i believe Ryse and Killzone are graphically equal, despite knowing that Killzone is the much more demanding title. Ryse simply uses its resources much more efficiently than Killzone. Which of course begs the question, what would an equally efficient Killzone look like? We'll have to wait and see ^^

If Ryse used its ressources much more efficiently, the performance would be... more efficient.

But it struggles to keep a smooth 30fps. Killzone doesn't.

Shit happens, but if the gaming public finds out MS is forcing developers to limit their games for parity they are digging the Xbox brand's grave.

I'm talking purely about visual impact. That's why i said Killzone was so much more demanding, yet i consider it Ryse's visual equal. Sorry if i wasn't clear, it's like 4am so my writing capabilities are a tad limited :p

Performance wise Killzone of course wins by a landslide. Linearly, 1080p/30 - 40fps requires an awful lot more resources than 900p/26 - 32fps. However, when talking about efficiency (the most visual bang for your buck) Ryse is the more effective. Imagine if Killzone ran at the same performance rate, and concentrated all those new resources on in-game graphics. The visual difference between the two would be significantly larger than it is now, despite there being no change in actual resources.

I'd personally rather they stick to 1080p etc, but when talking about linear comparison (which are unfortunately the most effective method of comparing hardware in this context), Killzone's approach is visually wasteful.

That's a good way of looking at it ^^ And yes, in real world terms (relative to the PS4 and X1) the feathers would way 1.5lbs. Change them both to bricks and the perceived difference increases, despite no actual change.

Dude the differemce is not moot at all, and not everyone has a PC.  1080p looks quite noticably better than 900p.  Period.

Lol, this is just too good! I really can't believe this. I guess this finally gives those parity clause conspiracy wackos some tangible evidence.

In all seriousness, watch the PS4 version have better AA. Res and framerate may be one thing, but I doubt they'll just let the PS4's extra juice go entirely to waste.

The reasons are just dumb. Not just because of parity, but also because they could offload ressources for AI, number of NPCs and stuff to the GPU. There's a reason why these things have GPGPU. That is true for both systems. But I guess Übisöft don't want to take the time to handle with that, just throw out some AC every year and make some money, hooray! And why not take some extra money from Microsoft for parity? Yeah, I know, that's speculation, but still...

Good thing I never liked AC anyway.