#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

The list Patrick posted was may have been the official word from both companies, but it was missing all of the PS4 downloadable titles, and I thought it would be fun to see everything listed side by side, and sorted by category.

If you see anything that seems to be wrong--retail title that is listed as downloadable, missing games, and so on--let me know and I'll fix it. If there's interest, I also intend to perhaps cover some "launch window" titles as well.

Once again, suggestions / corrections are welcome.

Exclusive Retail:

PlayStation 4Xbox One
DriveClubForza Motorsport 5
Killzone: Shadow FallRyse: Son of Rome
KnackDead Rising 3

Exclusive Downloadable:

PlayStation 4Xbox One
ResogunKiller Instinct
WarframeCrimson Dragon
War ThunderLococycle
Tiny BrainsPowerstar Golf
Minecraft (timed exclusive)Zoo Tycoon
Peggle 2 (timed exclusive)

All Announced Free to Play / Free games - Day 1 and Beyond:

PlayStation 4 / PS Plus MembersXbox One / Xbox Live Gold Members
Drive Club PS+ EditionFIFA 14 (Europe only)
ResogunProject Spark
The Binding of Isaac: RebirthKiller Instinct (one free character)
Don't Starve
Outlast
Secret Ponchos
Warframe
Blacklight Retribution
Planetside 2
DC Universe Online
War Thunder

Motion Controlled:

PS4 EyeXbox One Kinect
Just Dance 2014Just Dance 2014
The PlayroomFighter Within
Zumba Fitness

Multi-platform:

PlayStation 4 & Xbox One
Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag
Watch Dogs
Battlefield 4
Call of Duty: Ghosts
Need for Speed: Rivals
Skylanders Swap Force
LEGO Marvel Super Heroes
FIFA 14
Madden NFL 25
NBA 2K14
NBA LIVE 14
#2 Edited by Tarsier (1078 posts) -

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

#3 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

Unless of course, one likes those multiplatform games. Seeing how successful franchises such as Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield are - there are loads of players who do love these multiplatform launch games. Regardless of if we're talking PS4 or Xbox One, these multiplatform games will destroy their current gen counterparts. On current gen consoles, games have been running like shit for years now. Unless one already owns a decent gaming PC, one absolutely needs these new boxes. One has been for years now, even if one was blissfully ignorant of the fact.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

If games like Watch Dogs and Battlefield 4 can't excite you, I weep for you - because they should excite you, even if they might not be for you. Killzone and Ryse don't get the credit they're due either. Ryse's GamesCom trailer certainly put it on my map. Forza 5 too is a *Prestige Production*, if I've ever seen one. So much high production value content, so much polish. How do they even turn a profit on these things? I don't know what the problem is, that some games enthusiasts have with repetition. If it's something you like or even love, how is more of it ever a bad thing? And if it's not a bad thing, it's certainly better on the new generation!

#4 Posted by Darji (5293 posts) -

I do not think this list is complete. For example you miss the new Housemarque game (Stardust developer) they showed at the press conference and which will be a launch game.

#5 Edited by Chaser324 (6744 posts) -

@darji: Nope. It looks like Resogun is a 2013 game, but it won't be available on launch day.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure about this. I see conflicting info about whether or not Resogun is a launch game.

Moderator
#6 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@seppli said:

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

Memory bandwidth makes little difference to gaming performance on PC. This has been the case for years and years and is why most don't purchase high speed RAM, it's also dumb to compare a PC with a console. My video card is going to be 3 years old in December, yet I'll eat my hat if it can't run BF4 as well as the new consoles can. Considering BF3 runs on ultra at 60 FPS perfectly fine and 4 is a marginal looking upgrade. Everybody knows CPU and GPU are what matters, so long as you have a healthy amount of RAM, the speed of it matters not.

The first run of next gen console games aren't going to doing anything a powerful PC from the last 2-3 years can't. Hell, Assassins Creed IV doesn't even look visually more impressive than Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2. I'm buying a PS4 because hey it's a new shiny console and I have a Vita so it's pretty much a lock with the PS+ across the board, but I know it's not going to blow me away because I already have a very capable gaming PC.

Unless your PC was built 3 years ago using mid-range components, then it may well be a decent upgrade. Otherwise, no not really. A GTX 480/580 still rips through most games despite its age, the only setting that kills FPS on some games is SSAO (if it's badly implemented), and of course tessellation, which practically makes no difference in motion. With the introduction of FXAA you get a lot more performance out of your video cards now as the need for MSAA is greatly diminished.

#7 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@sooty said:

@seppli said:

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

Memory bandwidth makes little difference to gaming performance on PC. This has been the case for years and years and is why most don't purchase high speed RAM, it's also dumb to compare a PC with a console. My video card is going to be 3 years old in December, yet I'll eat my hat if it can't run BF4 as well as the new consoles can. Considering BF3 runs on ultra at 60 FPS perfectly fine and 4 is a marginal looking upgrade. Everybody knows CPU and GPU are what matters, so long as you have a healthy amount of RAM, the speed of it matters not.

The first run of next gen console games aren't going to doing anything a powerful PC from the last 2-3 years can't. Hell, Assassins Creed IV doesn't even look visually more impressive than Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2. I'm buying a PS4 because hey it's a new shiny console and I have a Vita so it's pretty much a lock with the PS+ across the board, but I know it's not going to blow me away because I already have a very capable gaming PC.

It has *made* little difference, but it *will make* a huge difference, when developers can count on it and optimize their code for it. I'm no software engineer, but even as a layman I can see how unified memory and high memory bandwidth will be extremely beneficial for streaming-heavy open world experiences, seamlessly loading textures & shit into RAM. Games like The Witcher 3 are rumored to have not a single loading screen past the initial one, everything gets streamed in and out of memory.

My 1GB 5870 chugs on some of the larger maps; and for steady 60ish frames, I have to run BF3 on medium. Sure, I can run it on all ultra at around 30'ish frames, and I would be able to play BF4 well enough at an acceptable setting, but why would I want to do that, when I can have 60 FPS with a fully optimized client on PS4? And that's ontop of finally playing on an even playingfield again, free of cheaters and hack-u-sations? I definitely would have to put more than 399$ into upgrading my PC to get BF4 running on it as nicely as it indubitably will on PS4.

I believe you severly underestimate how much potential is being unlocked by this generational shift on the software engineering side of things. Most advanced shader techniques and whatnot have not yet been exploited properly in commercial products. When DICE says BF3 only uses 20% of the DX11 shader trickery that it has up its sleeve, in order to keep the game scaleable to market realities, I believe them - and I can only imagine what BF5 will do, when they'll hopefully be able to flex 100% of their engine's modern shading muscles.

Your argument is based on your past experiences, which is based on economic market realities. These realities are about to change. What you expect to be true will no longer be true. To what extent this will revolutionize commercial software engineering is anybody's guess. Hell - if John Carmack says these consoles will effectively deliver the results you'll get with a current low-end high end gaming PC (he equated the effective endresult on screen to what a capable gaming PC with a 7970 GPU will deliver; this is due to better optimization and overall system architecture with unified memory), I'm prone to believe him.

#8 Posted by Nightriff (5337 posts) -

For me personally Minecraft alone takes the indie comparison for PS4, was such a huge announcement. And I swear The Witness was supposed to be a launch game but we haven't heard anything about it since the PS4 announcement, that is the game I'm looking forward to most.

Exclusives is a toss up. I don't care for racing games and would lean toward Killzone and while Killzone has looked really good I don't know if I will get that over BF4 yet. So exclusives is a wash, probably the weakest offering on day one.

And the multiplatform games look great, can't wait to play on new hardware. I think it is a pretty solid launch line up that at least has be excited for November 15

#9 Posted by Nadafinga (959 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: I think including a "launch window" section for these titles is valid.

Polygon has the PS4 downloadable titles listed that are to be released in the first 6 weeks of launch.

#10 Edited by McLargepants (395 posts) -

@darji: Nope. It looks like Resogun is a 2013 game, but it won't be available on launch day.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure about this. I see conflicting info about whether or not Resogun is a launch game.

I'm pretty sure they said in the conference the other day that the game would be available day one, and free for PS+ subscribers on day one.

#11 Posted by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@chaser324 said:

@darji: Nope. It looks like Resogun is a 2013 game, but it won't be available on launch day.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure about this. I see conflicting info about whether or not Resogun is a launch game.

I'm pretty sure they said in the conference the other day that the game would be available day one, and free for PS+ subscribers on day one.

I second that.

#12 Edited by Chaser324 (6744 posts) -

@seppli: @mclargepants: Yeah, but I'm thinking there might be some confusion on whether it's just a launch game in EU or if it'll also be a launch game in NA when it hits shelves two weeks earlier. In either case, it seems certain that it's a 2013 game.

Moderator
#13 Edited by SolidStateSR71 (5 posts) -

Woooo!!! You know.. I'm gonna get both.. I'm one of those people that plays everything on everything. I will say.. knowing my past with Playstation.. I'm very worried.. I know people seem soooo enthusiastic about Playstation 4 launch but having bought several Playstation devices at launch and in the Vita's case... A couple of months before NA Launch from Japan, I can say that I've always had an awful experience with Playstation as far as momentum. Sony gets momentum the problem is that they are really... really bad for delaying big name titles and leaving their consoles dry and exclusiveless for long periods of time..

Again.. I don't care which console people are getting I just had that horrible flashback recently to the PS Vita launch.. then the PS3 launch... Anyways... I can't wait for both launches but as far as Launch day exclusives, Microsoft takes the cake... by a long shot...

#14 Edited by jimmy_p (278 posts) -

Glad to see that the day one Kinect purchase really pays off...

#15 Posted by Wraxend (570 posts) -

I'm tempted by Knack but I'm gonna wait to see what the reviews say as I've got a limited budget on what games I can pick up at launch, which in some ways is good that EU gets a slight delay because I can then make a more informed decision.

#16 Posted by Grissefar (2830 posts) -

@chaser324 said:

@darji: Nope. It looks like Resogun is a 2013 game, but it won't be available on launch day.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure about this. I see conflicting info about whether or not Resogun is a launch game.

I'm pretty sure they said in the conference the other day that the game would be available day one, and free for PS+ subscribers on day one.

correct

Now comparing the two consoles day 1 is pointless since they both have shit lineups man. You gotta look at the future. It'll be cool to see some of the potential gamechangers down the line such as Titanfall and... The Witness and... I don't know, that Insomniac game?

#17 Posted by FTomato (233 posts) -

@grissefar: I'm definitely not buying a PS4 before inFamous comes out, so that's a big deal too.

#18 Posted by djou (878 posts) -

This is one of the most disappointing aspects of the console launch. Sony has been so aggressive touting the indie games that will release on the PS4 but the have been very coy about release date. I hoped that there would be a handful of launch titles like The Witness but it doesn't look good. I can't really blame the developers since they probably don't want to get lost in the shuffle of new console launch, BF4/CoD, and all the other AAA exclusives. At this point I have a preordered PS4 that I will buy but most likely without games. Maybe pick up Watchdogs or KZ if they are good but I pretty much decided that after E3. All the hype that has followed hasn't changed my mind one bit. The real action will be early 2014 when Infamous, Destiny, and all the indies will launch.

they both have shit lineups man.

#19 Posted by personandstuff (110 posts) -

Also might be worth noting the games like titanfall that are on PC and one of the two consoles.

#20 Edited by Sergio (2249 posts) -

It's a good comparison, but I never see the point of people counting the number of games at launch or what is exclusive at launch. You really only need one or two games that you want to play at launch, along with any games in the future that you want to play.

Personally, there aren't any exclusives at launch for either console that I'm interested in. I am looking forward to playing Watch_Dogs, so I'd rather get that for either Xbox One or PS4 than Xbox 360 or PS3. Add the exclusives after launch, and I lean more towards PS4, so it'll be my first purchase, and I'll wait for enough exclusives I want on Xbox One to come out before I consider getting one.

#21 Posted by Grissefar (2830 posts) -

@ftomato said:

@grissefar: I'm definitely not buying a PS4 before inFamous comes out, so that's a big deal too.

Wow you're right man, inFamous is not even a lunch game, which I really thought it was. It looks OK, just more of the same. The only thing missing from the formula now is multiplayer. Ha ! Ha ! But compared to the powers in Saints Row 4 it looks bland man but I'm sure it will be infinitely more polished.

#22 Posted by Elwoodan (868 posts) -

I'm getting a console day 1 because I know my PC isn't going to handle watchdogs/AC4/BF4 as well as the console will, and that console is going to be a PS4 because I love sony's first-party devs and if this generation is anything like the last one they are going to have the lion's share of JRPGs.

#23 Edited by Yummylee (22538 posts) -

I'm surprised there aren't more people excited about Dead Rising 3. Of all games to potentially show what's possible on next-gen consoles, a sprawling open-world game packed with more zombies than ever (and no loading screens apparently) sounds really interesting, if only to see it all in motion and how well it runs.

As of now, Dead Rising 3 is just about the only thing the XB1 has to give me pause. Hell, in terms of launch lineup, Dead Rising 3 kinda takes it for me all on its own. But I'm otherwise still set for the PS4, because I like a lot of the developers they have under their wing, and MS haven't exactly been oozing out much in the way of confidence lately.

#24 Posted by Darji (5293 posts) -

@ftomato said:

@grissefar: I'm definitely not buying a PS4 before inFamous comes out, so that's a big deal too.

Wow you're right man, inFamous is not even a lunch game, which I really thought it was. It looks OK, just more of the same. The only thing missing from the formula now is multiplayer. Ha ! Ha ! But compared to the powers in Saints Row 4 it looks bland man but I'm sure it will be infinitely more polished.

Infamous is confirmed to come out in february which is pretty close to launch^^

#25 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

Minecraft is timed exclusive to...PS4? Have I missed something, I thought X1 was the one getting Minecraft.

#26 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@verendus said:

Minecraft is timed exclusive to...PS4? Have I missed something, I thought X1 was the one getting Minecraft.

One of the big announcements from Sony's Gamescon press conference yesterday was that Minecraft is coming to PS4. Notch confirmed the news via twitter minutes later. This is surprising, because not only is Sony getting Minecraft--a game that is hugely popular on the Xbox 360 (frequently only second to Black Ops II, for those who didn't know)--but Sony will have Minecraft on day one, and Microsoft will not.

Anyhow, I added Resogun to the list of PS4 exclusives, and created a list of free to play / free games for each platform. It's seems Sony has quite the advantage in this area. They're going after free to play titles, and supporting free games for PS Plus subscribers, in a big, big way. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft makes some moves to compete. Currently, MS hasn't announced that their free Games with Gold Xbox 360 promotion will extend past December, or if a similar program will exist in any way for Xbox One.

As before, if anyone notices mistakes or omissions, please point them out. Right now, I'm seeing conflicting info on both Project Spark and Blacklight Retribution being launch titles, so neither of them are listed as such.

#27 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@yummylee said:

I'm surprised there aren't more people excited about Dead Rising 3. Of all games to potentially show what's possible on next-gen consoles, a sprawling open-world game packed with more zombies than ever (and no loading screens apparently) sounds really interesting, if only to see it all in motion and how well it runs.

As of now, Dead Rising 3 is just about the only thing the XB1 has to give me pause. Hell, in terms of launch lineup, Dead Rising 3 kinda takes it for me all on its own. But I'm otherwise still set for the PS4, because I like a lot of the developers they have under their wing, and MS haven't exactly been oozing out much in the way of confidence lately.

Since I've already decided on getting a PS4 at launch, I'll get excited once its timed exclusivity is up. It admittedly looks like good fun indeed. There's more than enough games that hit my tastes, I won't be starved for games anytime soon anyways.

#28 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: I see, thank you. My girlfriend will be so happy to hear this, she wasn't thrilled to hear when I told her PS4 won't have Minecraft.

And yes, I play the inferior console version, split-screen you see.

#29 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -
@seppli said:

@yummylee said:

I'm surprised there aren't more people excited about Dead Rising 3. Of all games to potentially show what's possible on next-gen consoles, a sprawling open-world game packed with more zombies than ever (and no loading screens apparently) sounds really interesting, if only to see it all in motion and how well it runs.

As of now, Dead Rising 3 is just about the only thing the XB1 has to give me pause. Hell, in terms of launch lineup, Dead Rising 3 kinda takes it for me all on its own. But I'm otherwise still set for the PS4, because I like a lot of the developers they have under their wing, and MS haven't exactly been oozing out much in the way of confidence lately.

Since I've already decided on getting a PS4 at launch, I'll get excited once its timed exclusivity is up. It admittedly looks like good fun indeed. There's more than enough games that hit my tastes, I won't be starved for games anytime soon anyways.

Has there been confirmation that it's only a timed exclusive? I read that MS put a lot of money into the game, which sounded like more than just a timed exclusive. Then again, one look at Mass Effect will tell you that things like this do tend to change.

@verendus said:

@spaceinsomniac: I see, thank you. My girlfriend will be so happy to hear this, she wasn't thrilled to hear when I told her PS4 won't have Minecraft.

The announcement went by very quickly. I don't know why Sony didn't make a bigger deal out of the announcement, especially day one exclusivity.

[edit] Time code won't embed properly. Go to 1:32:52 for the announcement.

#30 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2611 posts) -

Killer Instinct isn't a retail game.

#31 Posted by Verendus (348 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Wow, it's like they're "Well we have to get this shit out of the way so PS will be getting minecraft, let's move on" haha.

I personally think this is huge for Sony, I think a lot of people could've gone way of X1 just so they can keep playing minecraft split-screen. Inferior to PC version or not, there is no denying the game was massive success on Xbox 360.

#32 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@turtlebird95 said:

Killer Instinct isn't a retail game.

Don't know how I missed that, but thanks. It has been corrected.

On another note, while looking for a list of "launch window" games to add, I found this: http://www.geek.com/games/ps4-vs-xbox-one-launch-titles-compared-1568091/

On PS4, coming before the end of March 2014:

  • Basement Crawl
  • Contrast
  • Daylight
  • Doki-Doki Universe
  • inFamous Second Son
  • Mercenary Kings
  • Octodad: Dadliest Catch
  • Oddworld: New ‘n’ Tasty
  • PlanetSide 2
  • Pool Nation FX
  • Primal Carnage: Genesis
  • Ray’s the Dead
  • Super Motherload
  • The Crew
  • The Order: 1886
  • The Pinball Arcade
  • The Witness
  • Transistor
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order

And on Xbox One in the same time-frame:

  • Kinect Sports: Rivals
  • Minecraft: Xbox One Edition
  • Project Spark
  • The Crew
  • Titanfall
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order

19 more PS4 titles vs 6 more Xbox One titles? Does that seem right to everyone? If not, does anyone have a better list for either and / or both platforms?

#33 Edited by djou (878 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Your actually still missing a bunch for the PS4 like N++ and Hohokum which I think will be downloadable launch games. The best list I've found is the one on Polygon (link).

#34 Posted by oldenglishC (1008 posts) -

Crimson Dragon is the only exclusive on that list that really does anything for me, but I went with PS4 over Xone for my pre-order. I guess I'm bad at shopping.

#35 Posted by Zaccheus (1805 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: That seems kind of ridiculous. There has to be more Xbox One stuff coming out.

#36 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Might wanna change Warframe. The devs there said they are quite excited bout hte X1 policy change. And why is Minecraft exclusive for PS4?

Edit. NM about warframe. I miss read your chart.

#37 Edited by GERALTITUDE (3504 posts) -

@sooty said:

@seppli said:

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

Memory bandwidth makes little difference to gaming performance on PC. This has been the case for years and years and is why most don't purchase high speed RAM, it's also dumb to compare a PC with a console. My video card is going to be 3 years old in December, yet I'll eat my hat if it can't run BF4 as well as the new consoles can. Considering BF3 runs on ultra at 60 FPS perfectly fine and 4 is a marginal looking upgrade. Everybody knows CPU and GPU are what matters, so long as you have a healthy amount of RAM, the speed of it matters not.

The first run of next gen console games aren't going to doing anything a powerful PC from the last 2-3 years can't. Hell, Assassins Creed IV doesn't even look visually more impressive than Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2. I'm buying a PS4 because hey it's a new shiny console and I have a Vita so it's pretty much a lock with the PS+ across the board, but I know it's not going to blow me away because I already have a very capable gaming PC.

Unless your PC was built 3 years ago using mid-range components, then it may well be a decent upgrade. Otherwise, no not really. A GTX 480/580 still rips through most games despite its age, the only setting that kills FPS on some games is SSAO (if it's badly implemented), and of course tessellation, which practically makes no difference in motion. With the introduction of FXAA you get a lot more performance out of your video cards now as the need for MSAA is greatly diminished.

I don't mean to be an ass but you throw out a lot of your credibility when you start comparing shit like ACIV to Metro 2033 to The Witcher 2. How can someone who knows so much about computers not know that those three games are made by different companies, on different engines, had different development times, use different technology for the same purposes, have wildly different art styles/camera perspectives and (most importantly) entirely different world structures? There's zero meaningful comparison to be made here, especially considering the fact that ACIV is designed to run old and new consoles alike. BF4 to BF3 makes sense at least.

My other problem with this argument is the vaguery of "powerful gaming PC", though I do agree that if you have one of those you probably won't be blown away by the early PS4 games. But, to go back to what you said about CPUs and GPUs, the fact that PS4 uses one integrated chip should make you very excited. That's a huge advantage over traditional PC design. I *wish* we could buy something like that and slot it into our PCs.

Online
#38 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@geraltitude said:

@sooty said:

@seppli said:

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

Memory bandwidth makes little difference to gaming performance on PC. This has been the case for years and years and is why most don't purchase high speed RAM, it's also dumb to compare a PC with a console. My video card is going to be 3 years old in December, yet I'll eat my hat if it can't run BF4 as well as the new consoles can. Considering BF3 runs on ultra at 60 FPS perfectly fine and 4 is a marginal looking upgrade. Everybody knows CPU and GPU are what matters, so long as you have a healthy amount of RAM, the speed of it matters not.

The first run of next gen console games aren't going to doing anything a powerful PC from the last 2-3 years can't. Hell, Assassins Creed IV doesn't even look visually more impressive than Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2. I'm buying a PS4 because hey it's a new shiny console and I have a Vita so it's pretty much a lock with the PS+ across the board, but I know it's not going to blow me away because I already have a very capable gaming PC.

Unless your PC was built 3 years ago using mid-range components, then it may well be a decent upgrade. Otherwise, no not really. A GTX 480/580 still rips through most games despite its age, the only setting that kills FPS on some games is SSAO (if it's badly implemented), and of course tessellation, which practically makes no difference in motion. With the introduction of FXAA you get a lot more performance out of your video cards now as the need for MSAA is greatly diminished.

I don't mean to be an ass but you throw out a lot of your credibility when you start comparing shit like ACIV to Metro 2033 to The Witcher 2. How can someone who knows so much about computers not know that those three games are made by different companies, on different engines, had different development times, use different technology for the same purposes, have wildly different art styles/camera perspectives and (most importantly) entirely different world structures? There's zero meaningful comparison to be made here, especially considering the fact that ACIV is designed to run old and new consoles alike. BF4 to BF3 makes sense at least.

My other problem with this argument is the vaguery of "powerful gaming PC", though I do agree that if you have one of those you probably won't be blown away by the early PS4 games. But, to go back to what you said about CPUs and GPUs, the fact that PS4 uses one integrated chip should make you very excited. That's a huge advantage over traditional PC design. I *wish* we could buy something like that and slot it into our PCs.

I know they are different engines, I'm just saying games should be looking better than ones that predate them by 2-3 years, not worse or at best, on par. It's a bit disappointing, but maybe it's more just a credit to how well designed those games of yesteryear are. ACIV was a pretty quick turnaround after all, and one of those unfortunate stretched across two generation games. I know the games are going to look a helluva lot better within a year, so I'm excited for that, just for now I can't understand people who think they are going to get anything better than what a PC from the last 2-3 years can output.

I dunno, it seems like the same advantage consoles have always had, one core sku meaning developers optimise the hell out of everything and squeeze every last bit out. It doesn't really matter that it's a combined chip now, I believe the 360 became an all in one system in one of the later revisions. (almost certain they merged the CPU and GPU to one chip, not sure about the RAM though)

The thing I am most excited for is across the board remote play and more and more PS3/4 + Vita cross play shenanigans. Sony are killing it if they really make that stuff work.

#39 Posted by BigJeffrey (5178 posts) -

So, who's Dick is bigger?

#40 Posted by Deathstriker (335 posts) -

Neither side looks all that great IMO, but I'm probably going X1 because of DR3 and Spark. Also, I want BF4 with 64 players and I'm not about to get a new PC. I'll probably get a PS4 by the time Infamous comes out, but KZ, Knack, and Driveclub all look either lame or sub-par to me.

#41 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

Just watch these twelve unedited minutes of raw spectator footage of BF4 gameplay, and tell me you are not excited for it! If you are even the least bit inclined to enjoy online multiplayer, so many games are bound to excite. Especially Battlefield 4 is as new gen as it gets right now. Dat Paracel Storm! Impressive. And it looks like outstandingly awesome fun. It might actually be as fun to play, as it is fun to spectate, unlike BF3 - which looked much better than it felt, at least to me. All the subtle changes look excellent however. I estimate BF4 will be worlds more enjoyable, despite being very similar to BF3 at first glance.

#42 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3504 posts) -

@sooty said:

@geraltitude said:

@sooty said:

@seppli said:

@tarsier said:

hoping the ps4 is the better multiplatform out the gate. otherwise no reason to buy either.

My gaming PC is 3 years old. It has only 1/3 of the PS4's memory bandwidth and like 1/4 of its maximum RAM assigned to the GPU - so whilst having comparable stats in terms of CPU/GPU potency, it's a considerably weaker gaming system. Buying a PS4 for a measly 399$, I get to upgrade my gaming eco-system tremendously. That's more than enough reason to buy into the new generation day 1.

Memory bandwidth makes little difference to gaming performance on PC. This has been the case for years and years and is why most don't purchase high speed RAM, it's also dumb to compare a PC with a console. My video card is going to be 3 years old in December, yet I'll eat my hat if it can't run BF4 as well as the new consoles can. Considering BF3 runs on ultra at 60 FPS perfectly fine and 4 is a marginal looking upgrade. Everybody knows CPU and GPU are what matters, so long as you have a healthy amount of RAM, the speed of it matters not.

The first run of next gen console games aren't going to doing anything a powerful PC from the last 2-3 years can't. Hell, Assassins Creed IV doesn't even look visually more impressive than Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2. I'm buying a PS4 because hey it's a new shiny console and I have a Vita so it's pretty much a lock with the PS+ across the board, but I know it's not going to blow me away because I already have a very capable gaming PC.

Unless your PC was built 3 years ago using mid-range components, then it may well be a decent upgrade. Otherwise, no not really. A GTX 480/580 still rips through most games despite its age, the only setting that kills FPS on some games is SSAO (if it's badly implemented), and of course tessellation, which practically makes no difference in motion. With the introduction of FXAA you get a lot more performance out of your video cards now as the need for MSAA is greatly diminished.

I don't mean to be an ass but you throw out a lot of your credibility when you start comparing shit like ACIV to Metro 2033 to The Witcher 2. How can someone who knows so much about computers not know that those three games are made by different companies, on different engines, had different development times, use different technology for the same purposes, have wildly different art styles/camera perspectives and (most importantly) entirely different world structures? There's zero meaningful comparison to be made here, especially considering the fact that ACIV is designed to run old and new consoles alike. BF4 to BF3 makes sense at least.

My other problem with this argument is the vaguery of "powerful gaming PC", though I do agree that if you have one of those you probably won't be blown away by the early PS4 games. But, to go back to what you said about CPUs and GPUs, the fact that PS4 uses one integrated chip should make you very excited. That's a huge advantage over traditional PC design. I *wish* we could buy something like that and slot it into our PCs.

I know they are different engines, I'm just saying games should be looking better than ones that predate them by 2-3 years, not worse or at best, on par. It's a bit disappointing, but maybe it's more just a credit to how well designed those games of yesteryear are. ACIV was a pretty quick turnaround after all, and one of those unfortunate stretched across two generation games. I know the games are going to look a helluva lot better within a year, so I'm excited for that, just for now I can't understand people who think they are going to get anything better than what a PC from the last 2-3 years can output.

I dunno, it seems like the same advantage consoles have always had, one core sku meaning developers optimise the hell out of everything and squeeze every last bit out. It doesn't really matter that it's a combined chip now, I believe the 360 became an all in one system in one of the later revisions. (almost certain they merged the CPU and GPU to one chip, not sure about the RAM though)

The thing I am most excited for is across the board remote play and more and more PS3/4 + Vita cross play shenanigans. Sony are killing it if they really make that stuff work.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure the PS4s CPU/GPU combo is the first gaming device designed like this, but I could be wrong. Either way, what's most important in this discussion is that a PS4 is 399 - a PC is not. Not 2-3 years ago, and not today either. Yes, it's true PCs can do more, but when it comes strictly to gaming, I don't think anyone can argue that the PS4 isn't an amazing deal. No 500 dollar laptop is as awesome as a console either.

It's true in general the console advantage remains the same, but I think you're underselling how amazing an advantage that is. The fact that Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 look as good as they do on 7-8 year old machines should be mind blowing, it's just easy to forget how old the tech is and take those feats for granted. I love my high end PC but I know that consoles pump out many of the best looking and playing games, even if the texture resolution isn't as high as on some PC games.

I think that always expecting new games to look better than old ones is generally fair but often just not realistic. Some companies are just more graphics focused/experienced/successful, and it takes other companies years to catch up (Crysis and the Witcher, for example). And again, to go back to ACIV: that's just a way bigger, longer game than either Witcher 2 or Metro 2033, and scale always comes at the expense of fidelity.

Pretty excited for crossplay myself but my real excitement is actually for that constant video recording. I feel amazing things always happen in games and just being able to hit a button and rewind then post that stuff is going to be really fun.

Online
#43 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

And why is Minecraft exclusive for PS4?

It's just a launch exclusive, because Microsoft isn't going to have their version of Minecraft ready by launch. It doesn't appear in any official launch list that Microsoft has released, and it is confirmed for "launch window" after that. Just by not having their game finished, MS has mistakenly given Sony a rather large launch exclusive, in the way of a next-gen console Minecraft. It's kind of funny, really.

@djou said:

@spaceinsomniac: Your actually still missing a bunch for the PS4 like N++ and Hohokum which I think will be downloadable launch games. The best list I've found is the one on Polygon (link).

Freaky to think that after those 19 titles, even MORE is coming other than that. Speaking of that...

@zaccheus said:

@spaceinsomniac: That seems kind of ridiculous. There has to be more Xbox One stuff coming out.

I know, right? Anyone know of a confirmed launch window list for Xbox One? Is that really all there is? There's certainly an argument to be made for quality over quantity--and Titanfall really does look insanely good--but after adding the titles on that Polygon list, I believe the PS4 will be getting about four times the amount of games that the Xbox One sees over the same time period. Is that actually right?

Also, are Titanfall and The Order even actually confirmed for the first quarter of 2014? I don't want to add a launch window list until I know it's at least pretty close to being accurate.

#44 Edited by maccyd (82 posts) -

Ah! PS4 is better console-wise but XB1 is better games-wise!!! Which to choose!?

Is Destiny not a launch title? I swore my friend got it in a deal when pre-ordering?

PS4 is winning indie-wise but only cause of BoI:Rebirth (which will be on PC anyway) but flogging Don't Starve and Minecraft as new exclusives seems a bit cheaty...

#45 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@maccyd said:

Ah! PS4 is better console-wise but XB1 is better games-wise!!! Which to choose!?

Is Destiny not a launch title? I swore my friend got it in a deal when pre-ordering?

PS4 is winning indie-wise but only cause of BoI:Rebirth (which will be on PC anyway) but flogging Don't Starve and Minecraft as new exclusives seems a bit cheaty...

That sort of thinking isn't stopping Microsoft from calling Titanfall an Xbox One exclusive, nor should it be stopping them. If you can't play the game on any other console, that's still a console exclusive.

And Destiny is absolutely not a launch title for either system, I'm sorry to say. It's not even a "launch window" game. It will be coming to both Xbox One and PS4 sometime in 2014.

Finally, I wouldn't worry about who has the best launch lineup--and yes, I'm aware that's the point of this thread--so much as where the best overall experience is going to be. This thread gives people a list of what to look forward to in the near future, but in a year or two from now, none of these games will probably matter all that much when deciding which console to buy. Their sequels might, though. Like every console generation, the launch titles are barely scratching the surface of what these systems can really do.

#46 Edited by Jeust (10858 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

@turtlebird95 said:

Killer Instinct isn't a retail game.

Don't know how I missed that, but thanks. It has been corrected.

On another note, while looking for a list of "launch window" games to add, I found this: http://www.geek.com/games/ps4-vs-xbox-one-launch-titles-compared-1568091/

On PS4, coming before the end of March 2014:

  • Basement Crawl
  • Contrast
  • Daylight
  • Doki-Doki Universe
  • inFamous Second Son
  • Mercenary Kings
  • Octodad: Dadliest Catch
  • Oddworld: New ‘n’ Tasty
  • PlanetSide 2
  • Pool Nation FX
  • Primal Carnage: Genesis
  • Ray’s the Dead
  • Super Motherload
  • The Crew
  • The Order: 1886
  • The Pinball Arcade
  • The Witness
  • Transistor
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order

And on Xbox One in the same time-frame:

  • Kinect Sports: Rivals
  • Minecraft: Xbox One Edition
  • Project Spark
  • The Crew
  • Titanfall
  • Wolfenstein: The New Order

19 more PS4 titles vs 6 more Xbox One titles? Does that seem right to everyone? If not, does anyone have a better list for either and / or both platforms?

That list sounds just about right. It is similar to the library policy Microsoft had with Xbox 360 for some years, in which it settled for a handful of profitable properties, like Forza, Gears of War, Halo and Call of Duty.