George-Roper Comments

Page 1 of 119

  • Advertising Standards rules No Man's Sky Steam page did not mislead consumers

  • George-Roper 30/11/2016

    @Fenbops

    If I didn't like it I would have took responsibility myself for buying a shit game, and that's it.
    Hows that then?

    Which came first, knowing you were buying a shit game, or buying a game that you then found out was shit?

    And how are both of these scenarios even remotely the same thing?
    Reply +7
  • No Man's Sky studio breaks silence, announces base building and more in huge Foundation update

  • George-Roper 27/11/2016

    In all fairness, that's a very chunky update and if they can keep rattling these out but with less time between, it might just turn the game into something special.

    But it in no way excuses or justifies the state the game was put out in. It very clearly was not fit for release and HG/Sony need to address that point before people can put it behind them and be more positive. If I'd put out full price for this at release I'd be expecting some form of compensation but perhaps the free updates aspect being touted is now a u-turn on the potential paid DLC?

    I'll be grabbing this in the next Steam sale if it drops to 15. It always looked like an indie game wrapped in AAA marketing.
    Reply -6
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @IronSoldier

    :D
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @_TheDarkSide_

    Sorry! When it comes to HG, I just can't help myself!
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @IronSoldier

    What a peculiar choice of name. I thought that foundations were something put in place first as a solid base on which to build rather than being renovations to a shambling wreck.
    Prediction time!

    Patch will release with a 'Better on Pro' tagline. Minimal changes to the core game, maximum effort on shoring up for a second run against Pro gamers, with DLC angling in within the next 3 months.

    "Look at how great our game looks and plays now, guys!"
    Reply +3
  • Burnout Paradise is gaming perfection

  • George-Roper 27/11/2016

    @peterfll

    While Paradise evolved the series, and in a direction applauded by many, it took it away from the pure fun I had with Takedown and Revenge. I got bored driving from one side of the city to another to get to an event. I really missed proper Crash stages. And I wasn't a fan of those straight point to point races.
    Couldn't agree more.
    Reply +15
  • Face-Off: Dishonored 2

  • George-Roper 26/11/2016

    @BobbyDeNiro

    I agree but the point this joker was making was that throwing $2000 at a gaming PC apparently 'isn't good enough' when the rest of us patently know that it more than is.

    I don't mind if people make informed decisions on their gaming platform but knee-jerking crap reasons like that out serves no purpose.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 26/11/2016

    @hooli-gamer

    PC:

    Original investment-$1200
    Upgrades-$800
    Total: $2000.

    No solid 60fps @ 1080p. frequently dipping into 50s/40s/(even worse)on major AAA titles.

    PS4:

    Original Investment-$350
    Total: $350 (tack on Ps+ if you want to be specific)

    No guaranteed 30fps @ 1080p, but there you go.
    Exactly, there you go. You're making a massive compromise which still cannot guarantee anything. You have ZERO guarantee of anything on consoles. We saw No Mans Sky dip into the teens on framerate, so the question really is, how far are you willing to compromise?

    Regardless, the fact absolutely remains that you WILL get a consistently higher performing result from a PC than you will from consoles. Fact, my friend because the amount of games I own that suffer from these sorts of issues is in the single figures and I have almost a thousand games in my Steam library.

    Thoughts:

    I'm paying $1650 for a fluctuating 60fps. You know what: as nice as 60fps is it's not worth it. On top of that.. constant tweaks, fixes and monitoring (gnawing away at your enjoyment).
    Erm, 60fps isn't nice, its distinctly old-hat. I'm PC gaming above 100fps nowadays, thanks to monitor technology.

    So citing 60fps as some miraculous milestone is already old hat.

    As for the 'constant tweaks', you're outing yourself as a 90's PC gamer who bitterly couldn't keep up with the Joneses when Crysis came out. Do you know how many 'constant tweaks' I had to do, the last 6 months?

    Zero.

    Why?

    Because driver updates and game settings are now a tiny, tiny aspect of PC gaming that's more or less already integrated and taken care of (if you want it).

    Conclusion:

    It's a mugs game. This will be my last upgrade.
    Conclusion, the only mug here is you, expecting every single game released to consistently hit the same performance and resolution expectation when decades of games releases to date, on all platforms, tells you the exact opposite.

    The thing PC gaming gives you is choice and options to do something about any problems you might have. Yeah, you might well have half a dozen games, out of thousands, that need to have the fidelity and FPS pulled down to get a more even experience (if those problems aren't actually patched up anyway) but the vast majority of the time you'll be riding the wave well ahead of that.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @martinfirth

    Let's not forget you can lock the PC version at 30fps. Matching consoles performance but with better graphics
    ;)

    Must sting 'em to have no comeback to that! :D
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @hooli-gamer

    I've spent around $800 upgrading my PC this year and in almost every major game i've wanted to play there's serious issues maintaining 60fps @ 1080p
    OK...

    I won't be upgrading in future, will just move back to console gaming and get out of this scammy marke
    Complains about not being able to maintain 1080/60 after spending $800 on PC bits. Proposes to move to consoles, which target half that framerate @ fauxK resolutions.

    Apple meet Orange.

    /golfclap
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    @sloth09

    I did the gaming PC thing for 15 years. I stopped when it became obvious that PC gaming, especially PC gaming as tech showcase, was dying.
    Was it? Is it dead now, then? Or in fact, does PC gaming command the largest volume of gamers worldwide, with games commanding millions upon millions of players? Steam has, what, 150 million accounts by now?

    Better start swatting the flies, eh?

    It started with Crysis when PC gamers instead of going "Hey there's this great new game, better upgrade so I can play it" as they always had before just threw internet tantrums about not being able to run it at max settings on their current hardware
    Abject nonsense.

    Your claim about it not being about money, as a reason for this shit, is transparent as fuck.

    The facts are, PC gaming for the vast majority of the time offers the best version of multiplats available. Citing individual games like Crysis (which looked and played amazing, BTW) as the reason why PC gaming died (LOL) is so fucking stupid it beggars belief.

    And as if citing a Mac has any bearing on PC gaming, whatsoever. What did you even mean by saying that?
    Reply +7
  • Watch: Ian introduces Chris to the Atari Jaguar (and its controller inserts)

  • George-Roper 25/11/2016

    Recently bought a boxed Jag purely for Tempest 2000 and you know what? It looks, plays and sounds just as good as I remember, which generally speaking never really happens.

    Amazing game.
    Reply +3
  • Capcom Vancouver defends Dead Rising 4's "super-polarising" changes

  • George-Roper 24/11/2016

    Yawnalicious. Reply -8
  • Batman: Return to Arkham has stealth PS4 Pro support

  • George-Roper 20/11/2016

    Isn't it amazing.

    Pre-Pro...

    "It's not about performance, we don't care about that, its about just being able to play games!!"

    Post-Pro...

    "FFS Sony, just let me use that extra horsepower for better performance, we want better performance!!"

    ;)

    Seriously though, Pro rocks up a 25fps scene in an old PS4 game? Can someone explain what's Pro about that? What's the impetus here? The more I read about the Pro, the more confused I'm starting to get. Who's it aimed at? What's it's actual purpose? New games run better, then get a performance regression patch (MP BF1). Old games just aren't getting the benefit they should.

    I'm no MS fan but Scorpio could well come in and steamroll Sony in a matter of months if they're not careful. This is all reading like a total mess ATM.
    Reply +26
  • Let's raise a glass to Ubisoft's other open world game set in San Francisco

  • George-Roper 18/11/2016

    @bad09

    Personally, I didn't get on with this one. The car jumping took you out of the world of a driver which really was the point of the Driver games
    Totally agree, they got the chemistry all wrong in that one.
    Reply -2
  • PS4 Pro gives Battlefield 1 gamers a multiplayer advantage

  • George-Roper 18/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Multiplayer parity on consoles has never existed, too many influences - network latency, controller latency, screen latency, player skill, player loadout etc
    The only factor you've stated there is latency variation.

    Your overblown efforts to prop up the Pro are sickening.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 18/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Who cares what platform any game feature originates from?
    You don't, because it proves the point that easy access feature changes originated from a central point. Consoles.

    It doesn't matter, except for people like you who, with s sense of smugness, believe the method someone enters a game makes a difference - matchmaking being for "kiddies".

    Eye rolling faux superiority.
    Of course it matters, again though not being something you want to admit, because the dumbing down and monetiziation of our hobby is originating from consoles.

    Just because you have the blinkers on doesn't meant it's not true.

    BTW - I played Operations last night via matchmaking, on the PC!! Oh noes...
    Yeah, missing the point as always. When games offer you more choice of how you want to play, that's a great thing.

    This notion you have that somehow, the removal of features from a game due to the focused audience is a good thing.

    Battlefront and Titanfail are classic examples, especially the former, where a primarily console-based audience had to be spoon fed features.

    Consoles are designed to be usable by the lowest common denominator. That's their entire design philosophy. For some reason though, that's really got you upset but for the life of me I don't know why.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 17/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Overwatch.
    10m accounts, no stats on how many people actually play it day to day.

    But anyway, its the same as COD. A game built to appeal to the masses.

    Regardless, the point is, matchmaking is a design feature born from the requirements to reduce the barrier to entry. Click > Play. That originated from consoles, not from PC.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 17/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Yet BF has full server browser functionality with player rented custom servers on the PS4 and XO.
    Yes but the feature isn't consistent.

    BF1 has it, Titanfail 1 and 2 don't. Nor does BF4, nor do COD games.

    So what you have here is an edge case where parity is maintained but its not a given, even across multiplats, let alone on the platform in question.

    And I guess that also really proves my point, right? BF1 gives all the options and lets players choose but its not consistent and that's because its designed that way, not by chance.

    And one of the most popular and successful competitive MP shooters on the PC is matchmaking only.
    I'm guessing you're talking COD, which has a fanbase, no doubt but I'd put good money on it having an even bigger fanbase if they'd left servers. I recall the outrage when COD dropped servers on PC, and rightly so. Taking features away is not the best way forward, yet listening to you, apparently it is....
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 17/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    My platform of choice for BF1 is PC.

    This isn't a competition between the haves and have nots, although you act as if it is.
    An objective statement of fact that consoles are built to a broad audience, thereby necessitating a much lower barrier to entry in every facet is not a competition. It's just that, a statement of fact.

    The very nature of the platform is (supposedly) plug and play, removing the complexities involved in other gaming platforms, from a hardware, software and game design perspective.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 17/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    It doesn't rub me the wrong way as it is complete bollocks.

    There is nothing "kiddie" about using matchmaking and there is nothing "adult" about using a server browser, or proxy such as Qizmo or ASE. Both are perfectly viable for getting into a game, with individual pros and cons.

    It is funny seeing someone feeling internet superior due to using server browsers though.
    Of course it does, you can't stand the fact that your platform of choice is purposefully dumbed down to make it as accessible as possible to the broadest range of user.

    If that's not true, why didn't they leave a server browser in, alongside matchmaking and give the user a choice?

    They did that with BF4 on the PC, so why not on the console versions?
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 17/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Matchmaking is for kids and makes a game "kiddie"? Posting more bollocks I see.

    Matchmaking is for convenience - I use it all the time.
    Matchmaking is designed for easy, read 'kiddie', access to MP.

    Server browsers, as anyone who has used them will attest to, afford a massive amount of extra flexibility, across several factors, helping to determine ping, tick rate, player counts, rule changes, mods, and on and on.

    Sorry that it rubs you the wrong way but that's the truth of it.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 16/11/2016

    @Solakeasa

    ...in addition to having more/exclusive trouble with cheaters.
    It's not because apart from kiddie-friendly disasters like Battelfront and Titanfail that force matchmaking onto you, other games have servers. Servers have anti-cheat but more importantly, they have admins who can kickban anyone who's doing it.

    So yeah, as always on PC its about choice. You can choose where to play MP games, because you can choose the server. I ran with a very specific BF4 server because it had the maps I liked, the modified settings I liked, the regular players, the anti-cheat for autokicks and then the admins who could manage it manually. It had forums where players could raise suspicions about players cheating, whereupon their stats were scrutinzed.

    I've been PC gaming for a long, long time and the amount of cheaters I've had ruin my gaming sessions has been in the low percentile. Easily less than 1% of the time I've spent gaming.
    Reply 0
  • Watch Dogs 2 review

  • George-Roper 15/11/2016

    @_TheDarkSide_

    I've upvoted you TWICE, today..

    .. WTF is going on here? ;-)
    Hey, I can be a reasonable guy! :)
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 15/11/2016

    @wyp100

    for us it came down to whether the seamless multiplayer part of Watch Dogs 2 is significant or not. Our view is it is not significant, so we felt the review was justified.
    That sounds dangerously close, though, to EG deciding which bits that make up a game and are advertised as a whole, are worth basing a review on.

    What if EG decided the campaign for IW wasn't significant enough compared to the MP and so ignored it and scored based on MP? That doesn't sound good.

    As electrolite said above, people won't necessarily read the detail. They'll see the Recommended badge, see the Metacritic average and decide to buy it, to then find out a fully fledged feature of the game is broken and no ETA on when it will be 100% as it should be. How do you think that reflects on EG, then?

    It's really a game-by-game basis. We do our best to make the right call each time but it can often be tricky!
    That seems at odds with other games reviews though. Only recently, you didn't put reviews out at all until the live server aspect was played through, which famously saw the NMS review delayed until after the PS4 launch, by almost a week. So the question is, what makes WD2 different?
    Reply +7
  • George-Roper 15/11/2016

    @riceNpea

    Surely EG you have to hold back the Recommended badge because components of the game aren't working at launch.
    Can only echo this comment.

    What are EG thinking, giving a knowingly broken game that's now up for sale, a Recommended badge?
    Reply +1
  • Why are some PS4 Pro titles running slower than base hardware?

  • George-Roper 15/11/2016

    However, what's clear is that stability in performance is an issue, with the game tearing and dropping frames sporadically during city traversal
    WTF? Tearing on the Pro?
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @SuperShinobi

    Why would Sony have bumped up the price of their new console for the sake of something that the majority of their customers don't really care about?
    Why bump the price? I'm pretty sure that they could have hit a 1080p/60 goal with the Pro as is, because as always its a compromise to hit the right balance.

    1080p/60/High presets with tweak options offered to the gamer would have been perfect, wouldn't it?

    Also, if you want to discuss the whys and wherefores of consoles doing stuff that people aren't interested in, where's the proof that people want 4K console gaming? Wouldn't it have made way more sense, if the Pro was being released for the purposes of bumping performance and quality, to aim for a market that's already in place and established? 1080p?

    This article cites performance that's garbage. Absolute garbage. For a console tagged 'Pro' and with all the hype from Sony themselves about it being a powerhouse of performance, it's a bad joke at the gamers' expense. You really shouldn't be defending it.
    Reply -6
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    At worst there are 20fps dips - something that surely isn't acceptable for a Pro experience.
    The decision making about what aspect of the experience needs to be bumped is utterly baffling.

    1080p/60 should have been the target. 4K gaming, even in the Pro's faux state, should not be the primary goal of a games console. It's ridiculous.
    Reply +205
  • Battlefield 1 and FIFA 17: Frostbite shines on PS4 Pro

  • George-Roper 13/11/2016

    @_TheDarkSide_

    Definitely been the case the last gen too, we saw them advertised as 1080p machines which, invariably, never really happened apart from those choice titles that didn't take much to run.

    It is a repeat of that, though I'd say in this case what we're seeing is new console hardware being used to drive TV sales, especially new tech TV sales with HDR. So if you're the sort of person who reads into the sales piece and puts a grand out for a 4K HDR set + Pro, it's going to be a bit of a rough deal, IMO.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 13/11/2016

    @electrolite

    Does price matter? Well yes. Yes of course it does*. We're talking about consumer goods.
    My comparison was against a standalone UHD player, so I suppose a few hundred?

    The point really was, you buy something to use based on its spec and how its advertised, so when you're putting a few hundred down, I don't think its unreasonable to expect it to work to the specification its sold on, consistently.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 13/11/2016

    @electrolite

    How much does your hypothetical UHD Player cost?
    Does it matter? 350?

    What if it was a TV? A 4K set that you then found out works to 2/3 that resolution? On some films.

    This wishy-washing marketing is dubious at best.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 13/11/2016

    @_TheDarkSide_

    If it was a bargain price, genuinely improved on what I'd seen before, and impressed me enough that I didn't care..
    .. Yes I would. As long as I was aware of what I was buying, I wouldn't feel shortchanged.

    My PS4 Pro arrives next week.
    Interesting. I thought the point of a *k system was that it worked to that specification?

    To put it another way, when I bought my PS3 it played Blu Rays to my 1080p set, at that native resolution, every time I watched a film.

    So how is it that Sony can put 4K all over the Pro and yet actually, if you own a 4K set the vast majority of games will not be able to hit that native resolution? Doesn't that comes across as somewhat misleading to the gaming public?

    I'm somewhat of an AV fanatic with my movies. I want to get the very best out of my hardware investment. If I found out the root of my gear, the media player, didn't actually use my setup to its specced potential, I'm not so sure I'd be forgiving.

    Don't get me wrong, my first comment on this article was very positive about the news. I'm all for a better experience. Everyone wins when games look better and play better. I just find it difficult to get my head around the notion that, because its a games console, the details that its sold on don't really matter very much. I don't think that would be acceptable on other hardware, there's something about it being a games console that seems to mean it gets a free pass.
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 13/11/2016

    @_TheDarkSide_

    I have visions of the sad sacks, cuddling their PC's, "There there. It's not real 4k, you're still my special girl"...
    Hello.

    Genuine question. Would you buy a UHD player, with 4K slapped all over it, only to find that it actually outputs at half that resolution and upscales the rest?

    If not, what makes a games console different to a dedicated UHD player and special enough to ignore the point?
    Reply -3
  • George-Roper 12/11/2016

    @higganos

    " 4K in this game is not a big achievement"

    On a box that costs 350 it is.
    Not really. By your logic, a single screen game running at 4K justifies the 350 tag (+TV if you don't already have one, +one with HDR if you want that feature too).

    Context is everything. FIFA is low on requirements. It's a single-scene with a bunch of players running around on a static pitch. The poly count on that is very low, hence why the rest can be jacked up.

    Now, can the Pro do Battlefield One at native 4K? Can it do TR at native 4K?

    No, it can't, because it has to use faux-K and lower resolutions due to those games being more complex in their geometry and model range.

    Context IS everything. The Pro running games like Battlefield One with the results it is, is definitely a step in the right direction. I've said it before, I'd much sooner devs focus on better performing games with slight hikes across resolution and fidelity, then aiming for 4K and failing or having to utilise upscaling techniques which IMO totally misses the point in the first place.
    Reply -10
  • George-Roper 12/11/2016

    Very nice, though it should be noted that Frostbite is an especially good, scalable engine so no doubt that helps things along.

    This is exactly the sort of benefit that Pro should bring.
    Reply +46
  • Arkane looking into Dishonored 2 PC performance complaints

  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    There are no poor PC console ports. Every PC game released is a testament to the highest of quality standards.
    Haha, so now you're changing the rules? Now its not about PC having a bad 18 months of ports, now its about PC games not hitting their highest possible potential?

    There's a gulf of a difference between your original statement and now this. Classic movage of goalposts.


    PES
    Mafia 3
    Deus Ex
    NMS
    Forza Horizon 3
    ReCore
    Gears of War: Ultimate Edition
    Even if I take that at face value, can you elaborate a little more? What exactly about those games has been 'bad' on PC?

    Are they 'bad' for PC, or still the 'best' across all platforms even with whatever limitations and problems they had?

    Have those games also seen patches that have improved things since their release? Is your list purely representative of launch day code?

    Did their other platform counterparts also suffer from poor performance? You note NMS and I think we all know what a chugfest that particular games was on the PS4, so what point are you making exactly? Bad developer releases poorly developed game which runs under par across all platforms.
    Reply +3
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Oh look, the person who uses mental disorders as insults feels hard done by.
    Keep going. You do realise what you look like, right? This relentless bee you have in your bonnet with me?

    Your agenda is as transparent as a glass of water.
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @dwalker109

    Bloodborne runs fine on PS4. What is the baseline for "good performance" on a mass market, inexpensive home console?
    Who are you kidding? I do own Bloodborne and know from direct experience that the framerate is a janky mess. There's a reason so many people want a Pro cut of that game.

    This is quite telling really - you're a PC guy, nothing else will cut it, we get it. You absolutely do belittle anything non PC, and insisting that there haven't been quite a lot of PC ports which don't live up to the high standards expected by PC gamers is a bit disingenuous.
    Yeah, so here's how this has gone down so far.

    1) Someone says the last 18 months have been bad for PC ports of games.

    2) I asked for proof of that.

    3) I get a character assassination and accused of belittling console gaming.

    /golfclap
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    It doesn't sting, because I'm typing this on my rather nice 2016 PC build.
    I have no idea what that means. Can you explain why you thought it relevant to mention this?

    My point about it stinging was that you made a sweeping generalisation of PC gaming for the last 18 months, which is patently and objectively untrue, that you then had zero evidence to backup.

    Citing two games doesn't prove anything, especially when the former has already been patched up. That's modern video gaming. Don't pretend like its something endemic only to one platform.

    How did No Mans Sky run on the PS4 at launch (and now, even)? How does Bloodborne run on the PS4? There many examples of poorly performing games across every single platform released.

    The difference is I don't act like a wank who belittles anything non PC.
    I didn't belittle anything in these comments. What I actually did was call you out on your bullshit, throwaway statement which wasn't based on facts in any way, shape or form.

    And I stand by my earlier statement, the past year hasn't been great for PC ports.
    And I stand by my question, where's the evidence for this? What precisely constitutes 18 months of bad PC ports?

    Oh, hang on.

    This is the bit where a character assassination takes place.
    Reply -5
  • George-Roper 11/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    What has a mental health condition got to do with anything, apart from highlighting you are a bit of a prick using it as some form of barb. Not the first time you've used it in one of your posts ubiquitous with an over compensating sense of self importance/delusions of grandeur.

    Congratulations. You own a PC. Something millions of us manage to achieve.
    Oh, is this the bit where because you have no comeback whatsoever to support your absurd claims, it rolls into attacks on my character again?

    Do you even realise how absurdly transparent you are?

    Must really sting to be called out like that in public and left with zero reply, eh?
    Reply -5
  • George-Roper 10/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Dishonored 2
    Wow, a whole two games in 18 months eh?

    The funny thing though is that it will get sorted out. Just like AK did. So unless you're an ADHD kiddie who simply must have the very best game experience, right on launch, then it's not really a problem.

    Is it?
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 10/11/2016

    @jetsetwillie

    Batman AK
    Do we judge how every game is at release and ignore subsequent patches?

    Also, do we judge how every game is compared to its competition or standalone?

    On the former, AK on PC now runs much better after patches. I know because I own it.

    On the latter, even in its gimped release state, the PC version was still the best version of the game available because it would run at 30fps with higher resolutions and fidelity than the competition.

    I never buy and play games at release, now. Reason being, after they've baked for a few rounds of patches and content, they're offering a much better experience.

    Who'd play the launch version of Fallout 4 over the patched and DLC'd version if they had a choice? Who'd go back and play the release version of No Mans Sky?

    So yeah, a blanket statement of the PC not having great ports for the last 18 months is...

    A) Focused firmly on release code, ignoring subsequent patches and

    B) Ignorant of the fact that even in that 'broken' state they were still the best versions available. Just not the best they could obviously be.
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 10/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    PC isn't having a great 12-18 months for ports.
    Isn't it?

    Pretty sure it has the best versions of all multiplat games. Can you give some examples of where it doesn't and why?
    Reply -1
  • Sony PlayStation 4 Pro review

  • George-Roper 08/11/2016

    @riceNpea

    Listen, you can take that stance with me all you like but all I'm doing is echoing the detail already in the article.

    But if you already own a PS4, the choice of whether to upgrade is a tricky one. There are no system exclusives, the library is the same, and existing games will only run better if developers go back and patch them.
    So what strikes me the most is that a lot of responses are 'if' based.

    'If' you have a 4K TV this might be worth it, bearing in mind however that there's no 4K media support and new games are extremely unlikely to be native 4K.

    'If' devs patch older games, they may look and run better.

    Would I be interested in a faster PS4, with a 60fps mandate and increased visuals for new and existing games? Hell yes! Who wouldn't want to play Bloodborne, free of the janky framerate?

    But that's not what this is and that's the real shame. A PC-esque hardware upgrade to take your existing games up a notch or three would have been fantastic.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 08/11/2016

    @IronGiant

    Clearly there isn't a market for this.
    Newsflash, your anecdotal evidence means precisely zero.

    Nobody I know is replacing their PS4 with a Pro, of which there are dozens of people. Does that make my evidence more relevant than yours?

    The fact is, you and I don't make up the vast majority of the 50 million userbase for the PS4. That's almost entirely made up of ultra-casuals who don't even read gaming websites.

    Again, just like the guy above, why don't you actually read what I'm posting, rather than knee-jerking a response out?
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 08/11/2016

    @riceNpea

    Sure 50 million have bought a PS4 so far that doesn't exclude them from getting Pro for many different reasons but the Pro wasn't designed as an upgrade path
    That sentence says its all. It's a confused mess.

    If the Pro isn't an upgrade path, what are the features of the Pro that will convince existing PS4 owners to essentially rebuy the same platform but with slightly better 'graphics'?

    Its not even full 4K. Would you buy a 4K UHD player if you found out its not actually native 4K but some upscaled version of it? Whats the point of a 4K TV if you don't use it for 4K visuals?
    Reply -4
  • George-Roper 08/11/2016

    @riceNpea

    Sony aren't targeting PS4 owners directly
    Then I'd have the obvious question, who are the target audience outside the current 50 million PS4 userbase, who've not bought a PS4 but who will see the Pro as something worthwhile?

    It doesn't make sense.
    Reply -7
  • George-Roper 08/11/2016

    @BlackFlower

    Are you serious?
    Did you miss that thing called "console wars" the last 30 years or so?
    Did you miss the main reason why DF became a success?
    Of course I'm serious.

    Of course you didn't.
    It seems you're trying to make the point again that consoles are silly and everybody should be smarter and go for PC.
    If you want to try and derail my point, then so be it, but you won't succeed because my point is 100% valid, given the article itself poses exactly the same questions. So if you want to have a go at my point, then you're also having a go at the article itself, yet I'm apparently your focus?

    Just deal with the fact that millions of people are in the market for consoles, and they make the same kind of decisions that PC gamers make: Spend a bit more on a better box, or go for the cheaper option?
    Where did I say that "People dont want better console hardware"? I own all current gen console hardware, aside from a Pro, so I'm right in the middle of all this just as much as anyone else is.

    What I said was, who out there, already a member of the 50 million PS4 userbase is going to splash out on a Pro, which is barely a 1.5 revision and whose main focal point is 4K, a TV format that in of itself is struggling to find a userbase?

    And then turns out its Faux-K anyway?

    Some may not have bought a current-gen console yet, but did buy a new TV (or getting one soon), so they may be in the market for a console that does their shiny new TV more justice.
    But the ethos behind Pro isn't to capture some unseen market, its to sell a minor hardware iteration to an existing userbase. But of those 50 million PS4 owners, what fraction really cares about a new PS4 this soon?

    Bear in mind, as much as you may think you or everyone else on sites like this represent the core console userbase, you really do not.

    I'm a PC enthusiast too, but it's really not hard to understand why people might be fine with a console, it really isn't.
    Well done. You stripped all the Pro context out of my point, ignored the context to the article itself about its relevance and went onto a tangent that wasn't even raised.

    How about you read from top to bottom and then respond accurately?
    Reply -7
  • George-Roper 07/11/2016

    @sizu_sizu

    Console related thread and here you are with your negative spin...completely predictable.
    Such as? What have I said that's negative?

    In the very article you're commenting on....

    But if you already own a PS4, the choice of whether to upgrade is a tricky one. There are no system exclusives, the library is the same, and existing games will only run better if developers go back and patch them. If you own a 4K screen or are considering a purchase, the upgrade will be highly worthwhile, but what's clear is that there's little here likely to make your existing console obsolete. With an installed base rapidly approaching 50m users, that's probably a very good thing.
    Reply -10