[RUMOR] Brazilians figure out a way to pirate PS4 games, everyone is kinda shocked - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710514]I'm with Adarrek on this one. Both consoles this gen are woefully underpowered. Anyone who has bought a PC since at least 2010-12 will easily be able to run games from them, whether it's intended for gaming or not, whether they own a console or not. And why should I go researching for a claim you made? If you're trying to prove the point then back it up.[/QUOTE] [I]Really[/I]? The average PC that a person buys would have an integrated intel gpu, not a 7850 or greater. Sorry, but the fact is most people do not have PCs capable of running The Witcher 3 or BF4 or Assassin's Creed or Far Cry 4 or most other popular games. Steam Hardware Surveys are proof of that, with a large amount of people having a PC weaker than a PS4 or XB1, and that only includes samples of PC gamers' computers never mind people who don't even use steam. If we could include PCs without steam installed, the average PC would almost certainly be even weaker than that. 48% of Steam users still use a dual core CPU 46.06% of Steam users only have 4gb or less of ram. 50.66% of Steam users only have 1gb or less of GPU ram. 61.87% of Steam users monitors are a lower resolution than 1080p. [url]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey[/url]

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710571]Really now? The average PC that a person buys would have an integrated intel gpu. Sorry, but the simple truth is most people do not have PCs capable of running The Witcher 3 or BF4 or Assassin's Creed or Far Cry 4 or most other popular games. Steam Hardware Surveys are proof of that, with a large amount of people having a PC weaker than a PS4 or XB1, and that only includes samples of PC gamers' computers never mind people who don't even use steam. If we could include PCs without steam installed, the average PC would almost certainly be even weaker than that. [url]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey[/url][/QUOTE] Those Intel HD4000 series are capable of playing the games you mentioned. Battlefield 4, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed can all run perfectly playably on them, even at 900p and 1080p. The Witcher isn't released yet so nobody has released any tests of it running on a HD4000 series. Yes, they might have to run it at low/ultra low settings, but that's about the fidelity you'd get from the PS4/Xbox anyway, maybe a few nicer effects from the more direct optimisation. So yes, the average person could easily run one of those games with their average PC.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710609]Those Intel HD4000 series are capable of playing the games you mentioned. Battlefield 4, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed can all run perfectly playably on them, even at 900p and 1080p. The Witcher isn't released yet so nobody has released any tests of it running on a HD4000 series. Yes, they might have to run it at low/ultra low settings, but that's about the fidelity you'd get from the PS4/Xbox anyway, maybe a few nicer effects from the more direct optimisation. So yes, the average person could easily run one of those games with their average PC.[/QUOTE] That's not even remotely true. An intel hd4000 will never be running a game anywhere close to a PS4 or XB1. Do you have any idea about how weak an Intel 4000 is or the specs of a PS4? Further, PS4 and even Xbox one isn't running games anywhere near low or ultra low settings. For example, The Witcher 3 on PS4 is running at High at 1080p.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710662]That's not even remotely true. An intel hd4000 will never be running a game anywhere close to a PS4 or XB1. Further, PS4 and even Xbox one isn't running games anywhere near low or ultra low settings. For example, The Witcher 3 on PS4 is running at High at 1080p.[/QUOTE] The console quality thing was an exaggeration of how underpowered they are. Besides, you only claimed: [quote]Sorry, but the fact is most people do not have PCs[B] capable of running[/B][/quote] Which itself isn't true. The HD4000s CAN run those games, and they are playable while doing so.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710609]Those Intel HD4000 series are capable of playing the games you mentioned. Battlefield 4, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed can all run perfectly playably on them, even at 900p and 1080p. The Witcher isn't released yet so nobody has released any tests of it running on a HD4000 series. [B]Yes, they might have to run it at low/ultra low settings, but that's about the fidelity you'd get from the PS4/Xbox anyway[/B], maybe a few nicer effects from the more direct optimisation. So yes, the average person could easily run one of those games with their average PC.[/QUOTE] Lmao, no.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710678]The console quality thing was an exaggeration of how underpowered they are. Besides, you only claimed: Which itself isn't true. The HD4000s CAN run those games, and they are playable while doing so.[/QUOTE] Nobody wants to play a game at 26fps, at sub 720p, at the lowest possible graphics with no AA and 2x AF and a draw distance of 3 meters. If they did, console gamers would stick with their PS3, or 360, instead they are jumping to current gen consoles at a faster rate than any previous gen.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710721]Nobody wants to play a game at 28fps at sub 720p and lowest possible graphics with zero AA and zero AF. Hence why console owners are jumping from PS3 and 360 to current gen consoles at the fastest rate of any previous generation.[/QUOTE] Did you just purposefully ignore this part for some reason? [quote]even at 900p and 1080p[/quote] There's footage of a HD4600 running Battlefield 4 at around 900p30fps (roughly a typical Xbox One game in terms of res/fps) with stock clocks, or 1080p30 while overclocked. As for AA and AF. FXAA works perfectly fine. Almost no performance impact, most console games use it anyway. Any GPU could handle it because it's basically just a blur filter on the screen. And AF? Most console games this gen don't even have proper AF. If the deciding factor in buying a game was AF then nobody would be buying either of the new consoles. [img]http://i.imgur.com/e7ko71p.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Vm54wIz.png[/img] And either way, this has gone too far off topic. The main point of this is that multiplatform games don't fully count as system sellers because there's almost always an equal or better equivalent on PC. It's always been the case, and always will be. If I have an Xbox and/or a PC, I'm not going to buy a PS4 just because it also has a game that came out on those two.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710662]That's not even remotely true. An intel hd4000 will never be running a game anywhere close to a PS4 or XB1. Do you have any idea about how weak an Intel 4000 is or the specs of a PS4? Further, PS4 and even Xbox one isn't running games anywhere near low or ultra low settings. For example, The Witcher 3 on PS4 is running at High at 1080p.[/QUOTE] Using the "most used gpu" from Steam hardware's survey isn't even an accurate representation of the average GPU the PC player has simply because it doesn't lists other any other GPU's. I would be interesting to add up all the middle-end (which can easily play games with the same fidelity of the XB1/PS4) and higher-end GPU's and see how much % we would get. Not to mention if you buy an Intel CPU nowdays you're getting integrated graphics wich let's you play almost any popular multiplayer game (Dota, LoL, CSGO, Minecraft) which any store shelf laptop nowdays is capable of doing so.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710758]Did you just purposefully ignore this part for some reason? There's footage of a HD4600 running Battlefield 4 at around 900p30fps (roughly a typical Xbox One game in terms of res/fps) with stock clocks, or 1080p30 while overclocked. As for AA and AF. FXAA works perfectly fine. Almost no performance impact, most console games use it anyway. Any GPU could handle it because it's basically just a blur filter on the screen. And AF? Most console games this gen don't even have proper AF. If the deciding factor in buying a game was AF then nobody would be buying the new consoles. [img]http://i.imgur.com/e7ko71p.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Vm54wIz.png[/img][/QUOTE] Way to cherry pick. The amount of games with AF problems on current consoles are small, the majority have 4x-8x AF. Looks like you are the one pulling statistics out of the air now. Also, a 4600 is not a 4000. And a 4600 is still massively weaker than both PS4 and XB1 so I don't see your point here. Further, BF4 is not 900p 30fps on the XB1, it's 720p@60fps (technically it averages at 50fps or so) It is however 900p on PS4 (out of only six or seven games on PS4 that aren't 1080p mind you) [editline]12th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kinky Frog;47710795]Using the "most used gpu" from Steam hardware's survey isn't even an accurate representation of the average GPU the PC player has simply because it doesn't lists other any other GPU's. I would be interesting to add up all the middle-end (which can easily play games with the same fidelity of the XB1/PS4) and higher-end GPU's and see how much % we would get. Not to mention if you buy an Intel CPU nowdays you're getting integrated graphics wich let's you play almost any popular multiplayer game (Dota, LoL, CSGO, Minecraft).[/QUOTE] I don't feel like going through the list to count the % of GPUs stronger than a slightly buffed up 7850 (as in the PS4), but I did list several other main specs which show a huge amount of Steam users have weaker PCs than the two current consoles. 50.66% of Steam users only have 1gb or less of GPU ram. Almost certainly, no GPU on the level of a theoretical 7860 would come with 1gb of memory.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710796]Way to cherry pick. The amount of games with AF problems on current consoles are small, the majority have at least 8x AF. Looks like you are the one pulling statistics out of the air now. Also, a 4600 is not a 4000. And a 4600 is still massively weaker than both PS4 and XB1 so I don't see your point here. Further, BF4 is not 900p 30fps on the XB1, it's 720p@60fps (technically it averages at 50fps or so) It is however 900p on PS4 (out of only six or seven games on PS4 that aren't 1080p mind you)[/QUOTE] Do I need to literally spell it out? Look. [quote](roughly [B]a[/B] typical Xbox One game in terms of res/fps) with stock clocks, or 1080p30 while overclocked.[/quote] There, that's the BF4 Xbox part dealt with. Never mentioned BF4 Xbox, I said it's pretty much typical for Xbox. [quote]The amount of games with AF problems on current consoles are small[/quote] Major, major AAA titles on both consoles have issues. Both Forza titles and GTA 5 for Xbox look like they completely lack AF from my experience. I can't name specific titles on the PS4 but it has so many AF-less games that even massive fans of the console on NeoGAF are concerned about "The AF issue", and Sony has even acknowledged this issue in talks with developers. [quote]Looks like you are the one pulling statistics out of the air now.[/quote] I'm pulling [I]actual[/I] statistics. I've shown you screenshots of the consoles having AF issues. [quote]And a 4600 is still massively weaker than both PS4 and XB1 so I don't see your point here.[/quote] Because I already made the point in the previous post and you ignored it. You didn't say "the Intel HD can't run the games as well as Xbox and PS4", you said they can't run the games period. I explained that they can. [quote]I don't feel like going through the list to count the % of GPUs stronger than a slightly buffed up 7850 (as in the PS4)[/quote] The 7850 is nothing special nowadays, that percentage will be very large. DigitalFoundry has demonstrated in many tests that a simple, cheapish i3/750ti combo almost always matches the framerate and graphical quality of multiplatform PS4 titles. The reason you're not understanding the point of my posts is because you're the one cherry picking. You're replying to singular parts of my posts and not even looking at anything that has evidence. This derailment has gone on too far and I've already mentioned this. Your original point was that the HD4000s can't run these games full stop. I demonstrated that they can, why is this still ongoing?

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710855]Do I need to literally spell it out? Look. There, that's the BF4 Xbox part dealt with. Never mentioned BF4 Xbox, I said it's pretty much typical for Xbox. Major, major AAA titles on both consoles have issues. Both Forza titles and GTA 5 for Xbox look like they completely lack AF from my experience. I can't name specific titles on the PS4 but it has so many AF-less games that even massive fans of the console on NeoGAF are concerned about "The AF issue", and Sony has even acknowledged this issue in talks with developers. I'm pulling [I]actual[/I] statistics. I've shown you screenshots of the consoles having AF issues. Because I already made the point in the previous post and you ignored it. You didn't say "the Intel HD can't run the games as well as Xbox and PS4", you said they can't run the games period. I explained that they can. The reason you're not understanding the point of my posts is because you're the one cherry picking. You're replying to singular parts of my posts and not even looking at anything that has evidence. This derailment has gone on too far and I've already mentioned this. Your original point was that the HD4000s can't run these games full stop. I demonstrated that they can, why is this still ongoing?[/QUOTE] Two screenshots are not statistics. They are screenshots, and not screenshots of statistics either. Also, the "PS4 AF" issue you speak of is overblown, in typical GAF fashion, and is only about one or two dozen games at most, a whopping 2-5% of PS4 games, most of them UE3 games, and several of them patched to enable AF. [quote]The 7850 is nothing special nowadays, that percentage will be very large. DigitalFoundry has demonstrated in many tests that a simple, cheapish i3/750ti combo almost always matches the framerate and graphical quality of multiplatform PS4 titles.[/quote] I highly doubt the percentage is 'large' when 50% of Steam users' GPUs only have 1gb or less of memory.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47710867]Two screenshots are not statistics. They are screenshots, and not screenshots of statistics either. Also, the "PS4 AF" issue you speak of is overblown, in typical GAF fashion, and is only about a dozen games at most, most of them UE3 games, and several of them patched to enable AF.[/QUOTE] They're direct, visual proof of the lack of AF. Since you're ignoring the rest of the post and singling that out, let me use the GAF post to show that it's not a UE issue. [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=992156[/url] - 7 in this thread. 1. Evolve - CryEngine 3 2. Saints Row 4 - Propietary engine 3. Thief - This one is UE3 4. Dying Light - Chrome Engine 5. Murdered: Soul Suspect - UE3 6. Strider - No engine listed, assuming propietary 7. Unfinished Swan - Gamebryo Only 2/7 are UE3, it's not a UE3 issue. Both consoles are extremely lacking of AF in many games. Its performance impact is tiny so it's a curious issue. It's not PS4 exclusive either, but it's most prominent in that. And please, at least acknowledge this part of my post, stop taking this further and further. [quote][B]Your original point was that the HD4000s can't run these games full stop. I demonstrated that they can, why is this still ongoing?[/B][/quote] This has gone so far that it's not even remotely related to the discussion of multiplatform games, or the ACTUAL topic of the PS4 jailbreak. I can continue this wherever you want but I'm not doing it in this thread anymore.

We someday will still take over the Internet. Now gib monis or I repot y'all

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;47710951]They're direct, visual proof of the lack of AF. Since you're ignoring the rest of the post and singling that out, let me use the GAF post to show that it's not a UE issue. [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=992156[/url] - 7 in this thread. 1. Evolve - CryEngine 3 2. Saints Row 4 - Propietary engine 3. Thief - This one is UE3 4. Dying Light - Chrome Engine 5. Murdered: Soul Suspect - UE3 6. Strider - No engine listed, assuming propietary 7. Unfinished Swan - Gamebryo Only 2/7 are UE3, it's not a UE3 issue. Both consoles are extremely lacking of AF in many games. Its performance impact is tiny so it's a curious issue. It's not PS4 exclusive either, but it's most prominent in that. And please, at least acknowledge this part of my post, stop taking this further and further. This has gone so far that it's not even remotely related to the discussion of multiplatform games, or the ACTUAL topic of the PS4 jailbreak. I can continue this wherever you want but I'm not doing it in this thread anymore.[/QUOTE] I don't know why you would take my quote to mean that a 4000 would simply fail to load the game at all instead of "not playing it at a quality remotely comparable to a PS4 or to a lesser degree XB1" (since a 4000 is a small upgrade over a PS3 and is 1/7th the power of a PS4 and 1/5th the power of an XB1)

Guys, he's right. I always count "has a screen" as a reason to buy a television. I mean I'm going to be choosing my next girlfriend using the criteria "it's a human", and choosing my next vehicle by "does it use tires".

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47710984]Guys, he's right. I always count "has a screen" as a reason to buy a television. I mean I'm going to be choosing my next girlfriend using the criteria "it's a human", and choosing my next vehicle by "does it use tires".[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning behind the sarcasm here. Okay, as enjoyable as it is using actual statistics from Steam to disprove (most of) Admiester's claims, I'm gonna go ahead and leave this thread now.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47711003]I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning behind the sarcasm here.[/QUOTE] No offense, but if you still can't see why people don't use games that are available on EVERY console to compare and contrast varying consoles' libraries, then most people don't expect you to understand the sarcasm.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47711003]I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning behind the sarcasm here. Okay, as enjoyable as it is using actual statistics from Steam to disprove (most of) Admiester's claims, I'm gonna go ahead and leave this thread now.[/QUOTE] just stop digging yourself a deeper hole

I'm probably more likely to have a PS4, but that's mainly because the relative in question who would buy it is one of those people who still thinks MS is the devil also all our Rock Band DLC is on PS and it's more likely to transfer that way

why are people saying bloodborne/infamous are ps4's only exclusives?? ps4 currently has 37 exclusives either released or announced. xbox one currently has 17 exclusives either released or announced. wii u currently has 43 exclusives either released or announced. [editline]13th May 2015[/editline] "worth playing" is the worst statistic, you can't accurately quantify that.

[QUOTE=Cold Blood;47707216]Call me crazy but I dont think the Xbone is any better off than the PS4 on exclusivity.[/QUOTE] It's really awkward how the only system that has a good amount of exclusives, the Wii U, does poorly yet those two outsell it despite most of their multiplats also being multiplats for their predecessors and a good amount of the "exclusives" just being optimized ports for last-gen games. This generation is going to do pretty terribly console sales-wise if they don't make more games that aren't just ____ Remastered, because right now, the two consoles are riding pretty heavily on the assumption that they'll get more new games unique to each or system or at least not available for last-gen, Wii U or PC.

[QUOTE=The Duke;47717705]It's really awkward how the only system that has a good amount of exclusives, the Wii U, does poorly yet those two outsell it despite most of their multiplats also being multiplats for their predecessors and a good amount of the "exclusives" just being optimized ports for last-gen games. This generation is going to do pretty terribly console sales-wise if they don't make more games that aren't just ____ Remastered, because right now, the two consoles are riding pretty heavily on the assumption that they'll get more new games unique to each or system or at least not available for last-gen, Wii U or PC.[/QUOTE] 'multiplat consoles' sell a ton because of 2 reasons: multiplats (believe it or not), and brand loyalty (however severe). they want to play the hot new AAA blockbuster game that's on everything*, but which console do they choose? "i've always had an xbox/playstation so i guess i'll get the newest." or "most of my friends have an xbox/playstation so i guess i'll get the newest." exclusives are just a bonus for the mass market**. the 'core market'*** may care about them more and make a much more informed decision when purchasing a console, but that won't be the largest demographic out there for a few more years. this generation has the added (profitable) benefit (at least for the mass market) of re-releasing remastered games from previous gens in full HD. *usually not on nintendo consoles, but activision likes to have stuff ported over there anyway. thanks for all that bo2 dlc treyarch! **anyone that makes video game purchase decisions based mainly on curb appeal, hype, and hearsay. they don't really look up reviews or gameplay videos. they often walk into game shops [I]before[/I] knowing what they're going to buy. library generally ranges from casual/motion control/mobile games to yearly release iterative M rated fps/character action games. you probably get the idea. ***anyone that played through and/or understands "intermediate" rpgs or something of equal or tougher overall difficulty. the sorts of people to become enthralled by the lore of a game. people that buy tickets to PAX and attend E3. esports 'athletes'. people that pirate games then goes and buys it because they feel guilty afterwards. anyone that built their own gaming pc.

[QUOTE=Qaus;47717876]*snip*[/QUOTE] The especially odd part about this though is that the multiplats are still selling well on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, and it floors me that the same people that whined about Wind Waker HD are buying barely "full HD" ports that in many cases aren't even always at 60fps (or 1080p sometimes, for that matter). It doesn't feel like the two new Sony and Microsoft systems are trying to make their own identity, and I feel this is going to end up biting the companies in the long run since they aren't providing much incentive for the remaining PS360 owners to move on when they still provide games for the last gen, and larger, audience. The big boom last gen was halfway through the generation when the sheer amount of new and interesting exclusives that had piled up in the previous few years came and made people justify purchasing the systems in the 2007-2009 period, but it doesn't feel like there is much in that regard aside from what Nintendo is churning out, and even that's less than they've been producing compared to earlier generations due to the longer development times of now. Considering all three current-gen systems are now out nearly for two years yet have only sold about 30 million total, it doesn't even look like the 8th gen will come close to 6th gen television console numbers (200+ million, let alone 7th gen's 270+ million) unless some wild new exclusives cause people to come en mass. It might even end up as low as 5th gen's ~150 million if things keep going the way they are.

[QUOTE=The Duke;47719020]multiplats are still selling well on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions[/QUOTE] this, a thousand times this. how do developers expect the new systems to shine and take off when they're treating it like a separate platform instead of a successor? #StopPS360Support2015

[QUOTE=Qaus;47719978]this, a thousand times this. how do developers expect the new systems to shine and take off when they're treating it like a separate platform instead of a successor? #StopPS360Support2015[/QUOTE] The change to current gen development only is starting to come. I believe at least two companies have stated this change, one being Ubisoft

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47711003]I'm sorry, I don't understand the meaning behind the sarcasm here. Okay, as enjoyable as it is using actual statistics from Steam to disprove (most of) Admiester's claims, I'm gonna go ahead and leave this thread now.[/QUOTE] Dude, how dense are you. You didn't disprove any of Admiester's claims.

i would fork over money for a ps4 today if it played my ps3 ps2 and ps1 discs i would pay 1.5x as much even

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47730115]i would fork over money for a ps4 today if it played my ps3 ps2 and ps1 discs i would pay 1.5x as much even[/QUOTE] You'd probably end up paying 4-5x as much unless you're happy with some janky ass emulation. The hardware older PS3s use was dropped due to cost, and the software emulator was just abysmal, worse than PC PS2 emulation (and that's really saying something). PS1 emulation might be stable enough for most games, the PS3 did manage it quite well. Anything else is stupidly complicated to do well.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47730115]i would fork over money for a ps4 today if it played my ps3 ps2 and ps1 discs i would pay 1.5x as much even[/QUOTE] they initially promised that you could play ps2/1 digital games you bought on ps4 through the streaming service, and that if you popped a ps3 disc into a ps4 it would just stream that to you too. but now that the streaming service is out, it's just a rental service. thx sony

[QUOTE=Yummy Pie;47704520]Aside from Bloodborne what else does the Ps4 have?[/QUOTE] Beyond the non-exclusives everyone seems to forget for some reason? [editline]15th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;47709613]Multi platform Multi platform (again) Multi platform (again again), also PC modding master race, even if Rockstar doesn't want that. No good incentives to buy a PS4, and not many either for Xbone.[/QUOTE] Quick question when was "exclusives" stated?