Support NeoGAF

[Walshicus]

And those PCs come with keyboards, monitors, an OS, a controller, and possibly a monitor?

Most of those are re-usable assets. My keyboard has been the same for about three PCs. My monitor is the hand-me-down panel from my living room TV (though nothing stops me using the current living room TV)...

 

[tokyostomp]

So original ipad resolution vs ipad with "retina" resolution = no difference?

 

[disastermouse]

Most of those are re-usable assets. My keyboard has been the same for about three PCs. My monitor is the hand-me-down panel from my living room TV (though nothing stops me using the current living room TV)...

And yeah, if you already have a PC, you can re-use. But that still doesn't make it completely honest to leave these costs out of the equation.

Yes, you can use your TV - if you want to set up a place in your living room for a mouse and keyboard because even if you want to use Big Picture, you still have to start out with a kb/m. And you still need a copy of Windows.

 

[Cipherr]

Again, why would anyone actively put their reputation on the line to appease them? Why not just ignore the issue? Isn't it more likely that some people just think that the resolution issue is a red herring?

You are missing the part where we literally have years of articles from those SAME PEOPLE saying the smaller resolution difference between 360 and PS3 games were a HUGE deal.

So NO, its NOT likely that those people woke up the morning that 720p was announced for COD:Ghosts and suddenly changed their freaking minds.... Its much more likely that they are completely full of feces.

Wait for a price drop. Boom. Problem solved.

Hell yeah $299 for a PS4 would be sweet.

 

[Snapshot King]

I'm very aware of the technical differences between the consoles. I understand the difference between 720p and 1080p. I get the number of pixels that are "missing" sound staggering on paper. If we want to put a label on it, I'll do that: the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One.

I'm just not convinced how that is going to translate to real-world usage for me or for most people. I'm not convinced you could put two identical TVs side-by-side, one running CoD on XO and one running it on PS4 that people could reliably tell the difference at a typical viewing distance. When both consoles come out, I would love to see this test done, and I would do it myself if I had the resources.

(Just repeating for the record here that I'll be buying a PS4 and not an Xbox One. Figured it is worth noting.)

I actually recently tested this, with my PC hooked up to my TV and some people who don't play games. I would switch between 720p and 1080p on games like Borderlands 2 and Witcher 2. All of them were able to easily tell the difference. I would worry that people who could not need corrective lenses or at least a trip to the optometrist. Anything else is at best naivete and at worst disingenuous.

 

[Jabba]

I've been gaming for 30 years, I'm older than many of these journalists.

I've experienced the launch of many new console/computer generations, the reporting of this one has been disappointing to say the least. So much so I no longer visit XYX site, this is the place to look if you want an honest, open, appraisal of the gaming industry.

Same boat for me.

@Lyriel
A ferrari vs ford comparison? Two product lines aimed at different consumer bases? Of course there's no distinction made. That's ridiculous.

Guess what though, distinctions are/will always be made with products competing for the same audience. What you think, Motortrend, Car and Driver, Autoweek etc.... wouldn't make price/performance/over all quality distinctions between Ferrari, Aston Martin and Lamborghini?

The two consoles are competing for the same early adopter. There are serious power distinctions that are being played down by the press. This is one of the over all complaints.

 

[mrklaw]

So the differences between 720p and 1080p are barely noticable from normal viewing distances?

But if that same PS4 game was running at 720p it could do much more per pixel - ether more advanced effects, or better image quality. I guess that would also be 'barely noticable' too?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I'm surprised that the price difference is a deciding factor for the core. Let's be frank; you're likely to be spending an additional $150 for games and accessories on top of your console purchase. Both groups will be spending several hundreds of dollars just in order to play videogames now rather than wait 12-18 months and save money. In that context - to that audience, is $100 really a significant factor? I don't think it would be to the majority of them, no.

The significance would be how MS would find it harder to appeal to the general consumer who will wait for a $299/$249 machine.

But if all my friends are buying an XB1, and I find that the resolution of certain games is at 720p, is it likely to get me to reconsider my purchase? I doubt it. In that sense, I can understand the defence of the XB1. The price difference now represents brand; you're paying $100 for an Xbox, not for a machine that is superior to the PS4 but one actually weaker than it. But you still get your 'Xbox experience' that you and your friends have been so familiar with. Those are the comments I hear in my own personal experience in the world outside forums from people who have pre-ordered their MS console.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

Stop looking at it from a console/pc war perspective.
The issue is not the fact that the ps4 is capable of 1080p and the PC of even more but that the Xbox One has serious difficulty to do more than 720p at launch on not so demanding and impressive titles
.
Even if you just care about Xbox exclusives and don't want to buy a ps4, it could still be a huge issue for you and it must be investigated because some people wants to play halo with a good iq.

It's like when people say we don't care about the performance of wiiu because it's the only way to play Mario and Zelda. I don't see how this relates to the power of the console and why as consumers we shouldn't worry about what exactly the system is capable and what priorities the developers will chose in the future, games with better effects at 720p or 1080p with less fancy effects? What is the cause of the 720p games? Should it be a concern for future release, is it gonna be the standard for the platform?

We need to know all that, not to declare the PC or ps4 the ultimate platform for beautiful people, but because if you gonna invest in the the Xbox One ecosystem you'll want to know what to expect. You can't sacrifice transparency because it might not put a product in the best light. People need to know what to expect and then and only then you could argue if it's a deal breaker or not.

 

[mrklaw]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

It isn't a headline article in the New York Times, but perhaps we need to take this as a starting point?

I don't think we are treating the gaming press as a singular entity, but when a vast majority (present company very much excepted) is acting like that, I think it is ok to refer to 'the gaming press' as a general term.

 

[Nervous Sausage]

I want to see a critical article like this for online multiplayer paywalls.

Anyhow, this is a strange article, I would agree if there were only multiplatform titles, then everyone would look at benchmarks etc and simply buy a PC and never look at consoles again.

But there are platform exclusives too and therefore benchmark tests won't help anyone choose which platform to invest in.

Differences in resolution, framerate, online service, price, etc means very little as long as there are exclusives and as long as the exclusives keep being the best of the best on every platform.

Going by that article would mean that nobody should buy a WiiU for example, not ever, yet we'll probably see lots of people getting a WiiU this holiday. Why? Because that's the only place where Super Mario 3D World will be.

And why did people buy a PS3 last gen even though the console was more expensive and almost all multiplatform titles were worse than on 360? Where else could you play Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo etc?

But lets keep ignoring that Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, Halo, Forza, Killer Instinct, Gran Turismo, God of War, Uncharted etc exists and that the exclusives are basically the only titles that could ever be true system sellers. I'd say that console gamers only buy multiplatform titles to fill in the blanks while waiting on the exclusives, especially this generation when consoles are so similar to PCs.

This right here says it all. Also keep in mind that games some people would never consider to be system sellers are in fact system sellers to certain people. Crimson Dragon just so happens to be one of those games that pushed me towards the Xbox One.

 

[boredandlazy]

CB has been all over Sony nuts for a while now. This article is just a product of that.

Well at worst this article is just adding a bit of balance to the whole situation then.

 

[boredandlazy]

I want to see a critical article like this for online multiplayer paywalls.

Anyhow, this is a strange article, I would agree if there were only multiplatform titles, then everyone would look at benchmarks etc and simply buy a PC and never look at consoles again.

But there are platform exclusives too and therefore benchmark tests won't help anyone choose which platform to invest in.

Differences in resolution, framerate, online service, price, etc means very little as long as there are exclusives and as long as the exclusives keep being the best of the best on every platform.

Going by that article would mean that nobody should buy a WiiU for example, not ever, yet we'll probably see lots of people getting a WiiU this holiday. Why? Because that's the only place where Super Mario 3D World will be.

And why did people buy a PS3 last gen even though the console was more expensive and almost all multiplatform titles were worse than on 360? Where else could you play Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo etc?

But lets keep ignoring that Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros, Halo, Forza, Killer Instinct, Gran Turismo, God of War, Uncharted etc exists and that the exclusives are basically the only titles that could ever be true system sellers. I'd say that console gamers only buy multiplatform titles to fill in the blanks while waiting on the exclusives, especially this generation when consoles are so similar to PCs.

Sure, the appeal of exclusives is very subjective. But exclusive games wasn't the point of this article.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

So because you bought a ps3 for Uncharted, you shouldn't know why Gta IV run like shit on the ps3.
You shouldn't know why Uncharted is looking great while every other multi platform game have problem?

Yeah some people don't care about that but for a lot of people it's important to know what exactly you're buying and what you should expect from the system.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

I don't think this is a strong or convincing article. I don't think it really has a point. I think it's strange more than anything.

It starts by complaining about advertising, although this point is abandoned and never returned to because the author cannot actually sustain the connection of his thesis that the media is biased in favour of Xbox One or deliberately overlooks its shortcomings and that the source of this bias is advertising for fear of pissing off corporate overlords. So we'll abandon it and move on to what it actually says.

It links CBOAT and famousmortimer (uh oh, entering the meta zone, I feel like this article is maybe a GAF thread posted as an external article for some reason?) to establish that sources have suggested that the Xbox One is limited or is having development trouble. It makes the bizarre and irrational claim that the Xbox One might be weaker than the Wii U.

Then it claims that "the media", no examples given, excoriated famousmortimer for claiming the Xbox One was weaker. It then notes that we're now starting to get concrete examples of how the performance gap between Xbox One and PS4 is manifesting in actual software, IE resolution issues in Ghosts and BF4. "The rumour long held in contempt by the gaming media had been proven true".

Then it links some no-name blogs that basically think the Xbox One is a shitty console. It does this to contrast with the purported coverup by Kotaku. It links a Kotaku article that can best be summarized by "Although we know the PS4 has, on paper, higher specs than the Xbox One, and that launch software shows a resolution or performance difference, we don't yet know whether or not SDK iteration and further development experience will help overcome bottlenecks". Certainly we could argue that Kotaku is being overly cautious in refusing to commit more concretely, and now that we have some concrete information I'm sure they will, but is this really evidence of a coverup?

The site then argues that if an nVidia card has double the framerate of an AMD card, we decide that AMD lost the benchmarking war. Sure, but Kotaku's not arguing that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful than the PS4, it's arguing that as of right now it remains unclear what kind of performance differences we're going to have long-term over the life of the system.

Then we enter page two. The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned? Do we really think that advertising is paying off all these random blogs? This is like "my friend said something dumb on facebook" level elevation of some individual dumb argument somewhere strawmanning) as claiming that Xbox One and PS4 versions are "barely distinguishable". In reality, the article says: "What this difference in native resolution means for Battlefield 4 is that, more or less, the Xbox One version will be more aliased (jaggy) than the PS4 version." ". In terms of performance, the PS4 version of the game keeps a small lead of frames-per-second over the Xbox One, and it recovers just a little faster from dips in frame rate." "So, if you’re torn between which version of BF4 to pick up, though the PS4 version performs a little better, the choice should come down to which console’s controller you prefer, and how much you hate even a semblance of aliasing"

Next, it quotes Toms Hardware arguing that although the Xbox One certainly faces a performance deficit off the bat, it is possible that further development experience will allow devs to work around bottlenecks and achieve something closer to parity. Toms compares this to early issues with the PS3. Now, it should be said that the PS3-Xbox360 versus Xbox One-PS4 comparison is not perfect, because in the former it was a case of a very unorthodox architecture versus a relatively plain one with some difficulty trying to actually benchmark the two, whereas in the latter the PS4 is clearly more powerful, but the reason Toms is making the comparison is not to suggest that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful, but rather to suggest that bottlenecks in architecture can be overcome. Rather than engaging in a criticism of the metaphor, the article strangely fixates on the last gen argument by basically saying that late gen PS3 games look better and how dare anyone suggest that the PS3 merely "closed the gap" when it's clearly better looking.

It then misquotes Edge by taking a quote about marketing and PR out of context and suggesting it's a quote about about performance between the machines.

Finally it quotes Ars, where an author says that he personally doesn't see a big difference between the visual output of the two machines. In other words, that the resolution difference is not a big deal to him. I think this is the kind of comment that can be very easily criticized. Obviously individuals have a different reaction to differences in IQ or framerate. Certainly there have been many multiplatform games this generation with a wide variety of comparisons in terms of IQ, framerate, etc. The degree to which any one individual is sensitive varies widely. And yet still we can agree that even if you think Bayonetta PS3 plays well or that CoD Wii looks fine, there's a clear gap and people should be made aware of that gap. So certainly saying "It doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter to anyone" is poor reasoning. However, the reverse is to some extent true--there is no value in trying to convince someone that a distinction they don't feel is relevant ought to be relevant to them.

It then argues that "The weakest console wins so why pretend there isn't a weakest console", which is bizarre both because I don't think it is sustainable to argue that the PSX was in all regards "weaker" than the N64, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion in 2013 that the Wii "won" this generation depending on how the long tail occurs for the other consoles and particularly how Sony's efforts in EMEA regions play out, and it's not clear why this argument matters, because none of the previously cited sources seemed to make assumptions about how the generation would play out in terms of sales so why introduce this dimension now?

Finally, it introduces the price difference and accuses the media of being inconsiderate of the fact that the Xbox One does not justify the additional price. This might be the case, but again none of the discussion that was being called out was discussing the value of the console. If the allegation is that the media is not upfront about the difference in price, it may be because the author is reading articles that are discussing relative performance, IQ, and development hurdles, not value to the end consumer.

Basically this is weirdly conspiratorial, says very little, is profoundly uncharitable in how it chooses to interpret the words (let alone the motivations) of the sources it attacks, and it strangely masturbatory in the way it elevates GAF posters in specific. By far the most delusional claims against the PS4 or for the Xbox One occurred before evidence was available, when people were wildly speculating ("secret sauce" type nonsense). Now that evidence is available the conclusions have been updated to reflect the evidence, which is what is supposed to happen. All the linked articles are moderate in tone and none appear to deny reality or make unsupportable claims.

I have no idea why it was written, I have no idea why it was posted, and it's not clear to me how it adds anything to the many, many, many locked dick-waving threads we have already in the run-up to launch about the IQ issue or the relative value of either console.

This right here. But the rabid horde needs something besides fact to latch onto to make their point. This unsubstantiated mob mentality is gross and is doing just as much damage as the weaker aspects of video game journalism.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm surprised that the price difference is a deciding factor for the core. Let's be frank; you're likely to be spending an additional $150 for games and accessories on top of your console purchase. Both groups will be spending several hundreds of dollars just in order to play videogames now rather than wait 12-18 months and save money. In that context - to that audience, is $100 really a significant factor? I don't think it would be to the majority of them, no.

The significance would be how MS would find it harder to appeal to the general consumer who will wait for a $299/$249 machine.

But if all my friends are buying an XB1, and I find that the resolution of certain games is at 720p, is it likely to get me to reconsider my purchase? I doubt it. In that sense, I can understand the defence of the XB1. The price difference now represents brand; you're paying $100 for an Xbox, not for a machine that is superior to the PS4 but one actually weaker than it. But you still get your 'Xbox experience' that you and your friends have been so familiar with. Those are the comments I hear in my own personal experience in the world outside forums from people who have pre-ordered their MS console.

Price difference can be the deciding factor without being the only factor.

Obviously peoples' choices will depend on various, personally relevant reasons - like you say, what friends are buying, preferred games etc. but price and technical performance are still factors than can affect the decision.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Gaming journalism has always been bullshit.
Reviews are always dictated by ad revenue. Its why some of you are fooled into thinking big budget but terribly shit games like Bioshock Infinite and Gears of War are 10s
Why Jeff Gertzman was fired
Why you'll never see one of the big sites give an anticipated big budget game a bad review
etc

Completely with you on that, except I did think the first Gears game was something special. Other than that you're 100 percent right.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

A kotaku employee complaining about clickbait

the overwhelming irony

 

[zoukka]

Yes the PS4 looks like a better deal on paper.
Yes the press sits on the lap of publishers.
Yes these are entertainment devices which by default means there is no one right defision to make because of exclusives and updates and differences in services and hardware.

100 bucks difference is nothing if you compare it to let's say smartphones and tablets.

 

[mrklaw]

Next, it quotes Toms Hardware arguing that although the Xbox One certainly faces a performance deficit off the bat, it is possible that further development experience will allow devs to work around bottlenecks and achieve something closer to parity. Toms compares this to early issues with the PS3. Now, it should be said that the PS3-Xbox360 versus Xbox One-PS4 comparison is not perfect, because in the former it was a case of a very unorthodox architecture versus a relatively plain one with some difficulty trying to actually benchmark the two, whereas in the latter the PS4 is clearly more powerful, but the reason Toms is making the comparison is not to suggest that the Xbox One is as powerful or more powerful, but rather to suggest that bottlenecks in architecture can be overcome. Rather than engaging in a criticism of the metaphor, the article strangely fixates on the last gen argument by basically saying that late gen PS3 games look better and how dare anyone suggest that the PS3 merely "closed the gap" when it's clearly better looking.


Finally it quotes Ars, where an author says that he personally doesn't see a big difference between the visual output of the two machines. In other words, that the resolution difference is not a big deal to him. I think this is the kind of comment that can be very easily criticized. Obviously individuals have a different reaction to differences in IQ or framerate. Certainly there have been many multiplatform games this generation with a wide variety of comparisons in terms of IQ, framerate, etc. The degree to which any one individual is sensitive varies widely. And yet still we can agree that even if you think Bayonetta PS3 plays well or that CoD Wii looks fine, there's a clear gap and people should be made aware of that gap. So certainly saying "It doesn't matter to me so it doesn't matter to anyone" is poor reasoning. However, the reverse is to some extent true--there is no value in trying to convince someone that a distinction they don't feel is relevant ought to be relevant to them.

Tom's hardware should know enough about the architectural differences between PS360 and PS4/one to know that example doesn't really work. You say the toms article is purely about overcoming bottlenecks generally, but then a tech site like Toms should know that even if the Xbox one tools improve, you get to a position of having a similar architecture with the PS4 having a significantly more powerful GPU. So while I agree the bottlenecks may be overcome, I have issue with that being tied to the 'Xbox achieving something closer to parity' comments in the article

The Ars article is interesting to me because Ars is a technical website. They live and breath on pointing out tiny variances between competing GPUs, helping readers find the best bang for their buck. It is like reading an article about the R290x and how it benches at 4k, followed by a comment "but honestly, who needs 4k? PC gamers probably wouldn't notice the difference compared to a 1080p monitor". That would never happen, so the context of that console comparison just makes it feel out of place.

Now, this might be down to both of those websites being more PC focused and therefore not having the console experience needed for a proper article. But in that case find someone who can, or don't run it.

 

[disastermouse]

Yes the PS4 looks like a better deal on paper.
Yes the press sits on the lap of publishers.
Yes these are entertainment devices which by default means there is no one right defision to make because of exclusives and updates and differences in services and hardware.

100 bucks difference is nothing if you compare it to let's say smartphones and tablets.

Yes, because the two consoles are exactly the same as smartphones and tablets.

$100 difference is +25%. The hardware is weaker. Microsoft is not Apple. They don't have the pull for this. They don't have the hardware reputation for this.

And even when Apple charges more for technically lacking hardware, the general tech press doesn't give them a complete pass.

 

[cripterion]

Some of the posts here are so damn silly. Calling people stupid because they purchase a console that has inferior resolution on some games or perform worse than on the other?

I guess everyone that owns a ps3 is an idiot too?

 

[Mung]

On a serious note, why is 'journalism' given such importance in the gaming industry? Especially compared to other media?

Could we not live perfectly happily without it? We could easily just get fed PR constantly from console makers and game creaters, and it wouldn't really be different to what we get with 'games journalism'. This is especially feasible in the internet age.

 

[Jabba]

A kotaku employee complaining about clickbait

the overwhelming irony

Press member missing the point of the criticism in general.

 

[disastermouse]

Press member missing the point of the criticism in general.

The contempt for the audience is palpable. It has been ever since they invented the trope of the 'entitled gamer'.

 

[patapuf]

The contempt for the audience is palpable. It has been ever since they invented the trope of the 'entitled gamer'.

He has a point though. The good/balanced articles get 2 or 3 page discussion whereas articles like this get giant threads. That is a recurrent theme, especially lately.

That's not really how to promote the "good" journalism we aparently want so much.

 

[disastermouse]

He has a point though. The good/balanced articles get 2 or 3 page discussion whereas articles like this get giant threads. That is a recurrent theme, especially lately.

That's not really how to promote the "good" journalism we aparently want so much.

So we should stop talking about how shitty they are?

Also, this thread links to a story that's critical of the gaming press, so it should be encouraged.

 

[greycolumbus]

I'm not super-worried. Your trust might be at an all-time low, but our traffic is at an all-time high, thanks to our continual news-breaking and in-depth reporting on everything from next-gen console details to the fall of LucasArts. It's a bummer that gamers seem so angry at my field, but I'm okay with continuing to do my job as best as I can do it. If people don't want to trust me because of absurd articles like this, or because they believe in the "us vs. them" narrative, then that's a real shame. But I hope most readers who care about these issues are intelligent enough to pay attention to individual writers instead of believing that the "games press" is some sort of unified blob of opinion.

What an incredible quote.

 

[patapuf]

So we should stop talking about how shitty they are?

Also, this thread links to a story that's critical of the gaming press, so it should be encouraged.

Even if i agree with the underlying point, the article is a mess and so is what else he wrote.

Encouraging bad articles is the opposite we should do. It's not like there's a lack of threads about the subject.

Edit: see above quote from schreier. We are very much keeping alive what we don't want.

 

[Thorgal]

Sony doesn't have to do squat. You literally can't preorder the system anywhere because it is globally sold out. That is free press you just can't buy. Despite what's being talked about in this thread, the general public just isn't buying it. Look at any current best seller list and you'll see ps4 marching toward the top. Sony is firing on all cylinders and for some reason the gaming "press" is taking it in as their mission to be some sort of counter balance for MS.

I agree. as i said in a n earlier post :

You know i just realized something .

Even after all the spinning .lying. shitting on fabases the FUD spreading .misinformation articles and " it makes no difference statements " There is still one sollid fact:

PS4 will still outsell the Xbox one worldwide 2:1 if not more here in the EU.

nothing will change that .

All the articles. all the downplaying and whatnot. it isn't doing squat for them in the grand scheme of things.

PS4 is still outselling the Xbox one by a factor of 2:1 in the US all the way to 8:1 in the EU if pre orders are to be believed .

No article or editorial is changing that. no matter how hard they may scream of the rooftops that it does not matter.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm not super-worried. Your trust might be at an all-time low, but our traffic is at an all-time high, thanks to our continual news-breaking and in-depth reporting on everything from next-gen console details to the fall of LucasArts. It's a bummer that gamers seem so angry at my field, but I'm okay with continuing to do my job as best as I can do it. If people don't want to trust me because of absurd articles like this, or because they believe in the "us vs. them" narrative, then that's a real shame. But I hope most readers who care about these issues are intelligent enough to pay attention to individual writers instead of believing that the "games press" is some sort of unified blob of opinion.

Enough with the contempt, please. You guys (you included) are about to cross the line from disrespect for your audience into outright hatred. Let me guess, you're shocked and dismayed that we're angry at the gaming press being terrible at their jobs.

And in your head it was okay to say "We don't care if you like us because our hits are up."? You actually thought that it was a good idea to say that?

 

[maverick40]

I respect the ones that do, but they're far and few between. Too many Arthur Gies types.

The cunt is getting worse by the day.

 

[hodgy100]

snip

So if you have a camera that is 7 mega pixels and cost's £430 and its nearest competitor is a 10 megapixel camera with a higher quality image sensor, better memory format, and cost's £350 which would you recommend?

 

[brain_stew]

The frustrating thing for myself is that no where seems to be highlighting the long term impact of this news. Sure, if you don't think there's a huge difference between 720p and 1080p, I may feel you need to visit an optician, but that's fine, the impact to the individual user and setup can be subjective to a degree. But this isn't about resolution, resolution is only the tip of the iceberg, the difference in resolution is just the manifestation of the colossal power difference between the consoles.

A couple of launch games already targeting 1080p (or 900p) @ 60fps on PS4 may be slashing resolution but that's simply the trade off that those two individual studios have decided to make. Many other studios will decide to compromise different aspects and many other games won't have the same high performance target on PS4 that allows to take the "easy" route and slash resolution.

This is the real story, the real world manifestation of the gulf in power between theses consoles and that Microsoft want to charge $500 and yet aren't providing a true generational leap forward. Struggling to get above 720p in cross generation games is a horrible sign of how this console will cope when true next generation titles start to hit. This hardware is suppose to last 7+ years yet it is already showing major signs of weakness yet no one in the gaming press seems to care. Endless stories about game journalists with crappy eyesight and/or poor HDTV setups, seem so utterly irrelevant compared to such important news. Personally, if it was my profession to judge videogames I wouldn't promote the fact I am so ill qualified to do so, but maybe that's just me.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I'm not super-worried. Your trust might be at an all-time low, but our traffic is at an all-time high, thanks to our continual news-breaking and in-depth reporting on everything from next-gen console details to the fall of LucasArts. It's a bummer that gamers seem so angry at my field, but I'm okay with continuing to do my job as best as I can do it. If people don't want to trust me because of absurd articles like this, or because they believe in the "us vs. them" narrative, then that's a real shame. But I hope most readers who care about these issues are intelligent enough to pay attention to individual writers instead of believing that the "games press" is some sort of unified blob of opinion.

Jason, I think Kotaku has been much more honest that the rest of the press in this respect. That is in no small part because of your own reporting and because of Totilo. Kotaku has turned into a decent blog that breaks good and bad news. The article mostly questions the motivations of websites that down play the differences of games and I haven't seen much evidence of that from Kotaku. I do think your site has been included unfairly.

 

[SneakyStephan]

I'm not super-worried. Your trust might be at an all-time low, but our traffic is at an all-time high, thanks to our continual news-breaking and in-depth reporting on everything from next-gen console details to the fall of LucasArts. It's a bummer that gamers seem so angry at my field, but I'm okay with continuing to do my job as best as I can do it. If people don't want to trust me because of absurd articles like this, or because they believe in the "us vs. them" narrative, then that's a real shame. But I hope most readers who care about these issues are intelligent enough to pay attention to individual writers instead of believing that the "games press" is some sort of unified blob of opinion.

The bolded is the games journalism industry in one sentence

amazing that you'd write that down without blinking an eye, seriously

 

[Vice]

He has a point though. The good/balanced articles get 2 or 3 page discussion whereas articles like this get giant threads. That is a recurrent theme, especially lately.

That's not really how to promote the "good" journalism we aparently want so much.

That's the way it works in other forms of press as well. The well researched and deep investigative work detailing police corruption gets overlooked for the 300 word blurb about an old man flying his Confederate flag on MLK day.

Journalists are supposed to do "good" work -- it's their job. Bad stuff gets called out and good, or just decent, stuff rarely ever draws immense discussion unless it's something Earth-shattering.

On a serious note, why is 'journalism' given such importance in the gaming industry? Especially compared to other media?

Could we not live perfectly happily without it? We could easily just get fed PR constantly from console makers and game creaters, and it wouldn't really be different to what we get with 'games journalism'. This is especially feasible in the internet age.

Film, music and sports journalism are all pretty important to their fields. Stuff like ESPN, Rolling Stone and TMZ all feed into peoples' desires to know about what goes into making their favorite stars, analyzing performances or speculation. They can also break news that people want to know before teams or studios comment or voice the concerns of fans to people of importance.
There's also important work that can be done in the field such as "League of Denial" about the NFL's cover-up of concussion damage or Jimmy Savile's rampant and damaging pedophilia.

 

[travisbickle]

So if you have a camera that is 7 mega pixels and cost's £430 and its nearest competitor is a 10 megapixel camera with a higher quality image sensor, better memory format, and cost's £350 which would you recommend?

Does the more expensive camera feel a bit more comfortable when you hold it? Which one have all your friends bought?

 

[Om3ga]

It's amazing how some of you are choosing to misinterpret what he said.

It's not a misinterpretation I understand what he was saying I'm just saying he chose a bad analogy to explain his stance. 720p/1080p won't matter to most people who are buying one of these consoles in a year or two. For the people that are actualy going out and reading articles online THIS early and getting a console day 1? I'm pretty sure it does and will matter.

 

[RulkezX]

I'm not super-worried. Your trust might be at an all-time low, but our traffic is at an all-time high, thanks to our continual news-breaking and in-depth reporting on everything from next-gen console details to the fall of LucasArts. It's a bummer that gamers seem so angry at my field, but I'm okay with continuing to do my job as best as I can do it. If people don't want to trust me because of absurd articles like this, or because they believe in the "us vs. them" narrative, then that's a real shame. But I hope most readers who care about these issues are intelligent enough to pay attention to individual writers instead of believing that the "games press" is some sort of unified blob of opinion.

And clicks are what's important I guess.

 

[Wiktor]

And clicks are what's important I guess.

Well..unless you get the readers to pay for the materials they kind of are.

 

[Dictator93]

And clicks are what's important I guess.

Jason is a good writer and writes pretty great investigative stuff.

He is obviously not representative of Kotaku though, nor of gaming press as a whole.

Yet the number of people who visit should not be some level of pride.

 

[-MB-]

*-MB- mumbles something about "comspiracy theories" and " persecution complex".

 

[wildfire]

Flip the two companies and their situations around and you'll see how fucking ridiculous the media has been. The PS3 was skewered for being too expensive and it had slightly better tech in it. The Xbox One is getting a pass for being more expensive even though it's weaker. Really? How did this happen? The Wii U has been slaughtered by the gaming press for being underpowered and because of their decision to bank on the tablet controller. Well, the Xbox One cut corners to include Kinect 2.0 and this is rarely brought up and Kinect is just accepted as part of the package. Really? How did this happen?

Quoting for truthiness. Everything in this post is spot on.

 

[icy_eagle]

I feel like Kotaku gets way too much flak on neogaf sometimes. Sure, they do have some clickbait-ish shit, but they seem to be the ones that do the most of that investigative journalism, at a glance anyway (as I don't really frequent any gaming related sites outside this one, so I guess I'm not the really the best judge of this still, most threads on articles that seem to involve 'proper journalism' seem to originate from Kotaku)

 

[SporeCrawler]

That free xbox360 slims MS distributed for free at E3 sure paid its dividends.

 

[leadbelly]

You don't have to run the games in 4K at 100fps, I've seen people on here and serious websites claim that they can build PCs that is said to beat both consoles in performance for almost the same price as the consoles, and games are cheaper on PC (for some reason! Why?!), so I'm not sure the Ferrari analogy is needed.

Nah, bullshit. You've got to buy a case, psu, processor, motherboard, GPU, ram, dvd-rom, copy of Windows, keyboard, mouse, etc. All that for £350 and still have a PC with better performance?

 

[Maastricht]

There is some reason for suspicion - I was impressed how long it took for me to realise that very few journalist ever had to pay for Live, and it was rarely brought up as an issue by the press, or even at all. On the other end there was also a very justifiable gain for the whole Western game industry in that Microsoft definitely helped shift the balance so that developers and studios got translated documentation sooner, easier tools, better interviews and so on. And competition helped us get better products and services, and publishers better deals.

There's no black and white, true or false here, just endless shades of grey (with fewer or more details depending on how close you look). We end up with a lot of contrast here at GAF because we like to simplify and exaggerate things. It sometimes helps getting a clearer picture, but also distorts reality. The gaming press typically wants to avoid any choice that risks alienating their readership, sure, but also they often have been around long enough that the weather is unpredictable. Looking back at the arguments for and against consoles, you will see that surprisingly many were right, but how important they were depended a lot on your personal preferences.

 

[wildfire]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

I've seen enough of your posting to know you try to be a levelheaded guy but you are failing here and you'll mostly be ignored or hated for this brainfart.

In the PC gaming review space there isn't a question of sites being biased because they empirically test hardware and tell you how much value you are getting for your money.

Console gaming sites are biased because they can't even be bothered to test things all they can offer is opinions and when facts come out that tarnish their opinions they downplay it.

Cinemablend wouldn't be getting so many clicks right now if you guys actually did a respectable job at reporting facts but you fail too many times be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

The frustrating thing for myself is that no where seems to be highlighting the long term impact of this news. Sure, if you don't think there's a huge difference between 720p and 1080p, I may feel you need to visit an optician, but that's fine, the impact to the individual user and setup can be subjective to a degree. But this isn't about resolution, resolution is only the tip of the iceberg, the difference in resolution is just the manifestation of the colossal power difference between the consoles.

A couple of launch games already targeting 1080p (or 900p) @ 60fps on PS4 may be slashing resolution but that's simply the trade off that those two individual studios have decided to make. Many other studios will decide to compromise different aspects and many other games won't have the same high performance target on PS4 that allows to take the "easy" route and slash resolution.

This is the real story, the real world manifestation of the gulf in power between theses consoles and that Microsoft want to charge $500 and yet aren't providing a true generational leap forward. Struggling to get above 720p in cross generation games is a horrible sign of how this console will cope when true next generation titles start to hit. This hardware is suppose to last 7+ years yet it is already showing major signs of weakness yet no one in the gaming press seems to care. Endless stories about game journalists with crappy eyesight and/or poor HDTV setups, seem so utterly irrelevant compared to such important news. Personally, if it was my profession to judge videogames I wouldn't promote the fact I am so ill qualified to do so, but that's maybe that's just me.

This is what is worrisome for me too.

I fear that the whole game production will be dragged down due to the limitations of the hardware MS has delivered, for a damn whole generation.
To think that a game vision must be revised cause instead the xbox one conversion would be too demanding or impossible to achieve is what get me angry and sad, it is almost unbearable.

This is what i cant forgive.