Venice Unleashed

Majority of PS4 fanboys i see on the net think 30 fps is better than 60 fps because 30 fps is more cinematic and 60 fps is unrealistic. Should i waste my time to educate them?

I don't have a PS4 but I have read that BF4 is supposed to be 60fps @ 1600x900. (Maybe you meant the PS3?)
Even though comparing a PS4 to a PC is like comparing an angry housecat to an 800lb Bengal tiger, it is a lot better than last gen.

Actually, I was seriously thinking about buying a PS4 until Sony got greedy and required a monthly fee like crappy M$.

Bruce Lee wrote:I don't have a PS4 but I have read that BF4 is supposed to be 60fps @ 1600x900. (Maybe you meant the PS3?)
Even though comparing a PS4 to a PC is like comparing an angry housecat to an 800lb Bengal tiger, it is a lot better than last gen.

Actually, I was seriously thinking about buying a PS4 until Sony got greedy and required a monthly fee like crappy M$.

It's only fair when they're providing a cheaper console which is an alternative to most people's weaker PCs by today's standards. And if you're going to pay $399, what's another $60 yearly ? That's like $5 a month...

mizudg wrote:if you're going to pay $399, what's another $60 yearly ? That's like $5 a month...

Compared to the PS3 which had no fee at all, tacking on a monthly rental fee like M$ is pure price gouging.
Besides, once they desensitize people to paying a rental fee, it won't be long before they are "forced" to raise the rate to cover "unforeseen business expenses" (i.e. translation: take more money from the suckers).

Yeah 30 fps is better so does having sex with a tree , stupid peoples will never understand

Bruce Lee wrote:800lb Bengal tiger

They are on the verge of extinction

Bruce Lee wrote:Angry housecat

Soo many of them!

Anyways, Even i don't like that monthly fee. M$ teaches such shit to sony.

mizudg wrote:It's only fair when they're providing a cheaper console which is an alternative to most people's weaker PCs by today's standards. And if you're going to pay $399, what's another $60 yearly ? That's like $5 a month...

My $500 pc does the same. BF4 1600x900 @ 60 fps and that too with (probably) higher gfx setting than ps4. And it does not need any subscription fee + It does so many other, different things that ps4 does not do. Its not alternative to "weaker pc"
And sorry. Not trying to start a pc vs console But...this was necessary -http://imgur.com/2OOYc74 It says the truth.

While 60 FPS are better, they only are if everyone playing can maintain them. this is why some PC titles need a fps cap. If you have 160 fps and your enemy has 24, you are in a clear, unfair advantage. Consoles make up for their lower general capabilities by capping it and giving the same experience to everyone. And to be honest, It looks better than a low end PC.

CaptainESS wrote:Majority of PS4 fanboys i see on the net think 30 fps is better than 60 fps because 30 fps is more cinematic and 60 fps is unrealistic. Should i waste my time to educate them?

All those ppl should run Counter-Strike -> open console -> type "fps_max 30" -> try to kill sh1t -> then type in console "fps_max 60" -> try to kill enemies and realise what they talking about. In the end "fps_max 100" for the win :)

The main reason that console gamers never complained about the 30fps cap is because of controller input lag.
The thumbsticks have a huge deadzone and the player moves like a tank turret.
Of course the most pathetic thing is the mandatory "aim-assist" that console gamers need or they can't hit anything.
They think they are pros but in reality the game is actually playing itself, lol.
Imagine a console gamer playing CS against a Keyboard+Mouse player.
They would get totally skunked, 0/1000.

i aggree