Surprised you didn't get it on the Switch though. It'd be better suited imo.
My Switch stays attached to the telly 99% of the time so having Celeste portable isn’t really for me. I bet it looks nice on the small screen though. Mind you, I hate the Switch controllers and their stupid buttons too so using a DualShock is going to be preferable for me.
The game is lovely though.
The game is lovely though.
The Switch Pro Controller is much nicer than a DS4. There, i said it.
Obviously I wouldn't recommend buying one just for Celeste.
Obviously I wouldn't recommend buying one just for Celeste.
GazChap wrote:
GAME are opening up a new shop in Shrewsbury on Friday, and they're doing 500GB PS4s for £150 as an opening deal.
That seems crazy cheap to me.
That seems crazy cheap to me.
I guess limited numbers..
https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-11-0 ... ystation-4
Path of exile is coming to PS4.
They was the one we played a bit a while ago, isn't it?
Path of exile is coming to PS4.
They was the one we played a bit a while ago, isn't it?
Yeah, I think so
That's the super-hardcore Diablo-me-do, right? I've heard it's very hard work.
We had some fun fucking around with it. You were with us, I'm fairly sure. The tech tree gave you a semi.
I guess you weren't with us. Huh.
Your PS4 in Review
Excellently, my most played game appears to be Pro Evo 2015. So I'm assuming it's a lifetime review, rather than 2018 in review.
Excellently, my most played game appears to be Pro Evo 2015. So I'm assuming it's a lifetime review, rather than 2018 in review.
https://psvm.co/u/iRuB8Cksu5/
I’ll be damned if I can make it embed on mobile but:
My first PS4 game was War Thunder apparently. I played about 10 minutes of this F2P rubbish.
I’ve played 2400-odd hours since release.
My rarest achievement was called ECHO which only 241 people have. No idea what game that’s for.
My longest played game is Rainbow Six: Siege where apparently I’ve got a staggering 294 hours locked in.
So there you go.
My first PS4 game was War Thunder apparently. I played about 10 minutes of this F2P rubbish.
I’ve played 2400-odd hours since release.
My rarest achievement was called ECHO which only 241 people have. No idea what game that’s for.
My longest played game is Rainbow Six: Siege where apparently I’ve got a staggering 294 hours locked in.
So there you go.
Is there anywhere you can see how long you've spent on other games? I'd like to know how long RDR2 took me for instance.
https://psvm.co/u/eSj6koeTxx/
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
Attachment:
bad.png
Satsuma wrote:
I’ll be damned if I can make it embed on mobile but:
v with square brackets around it then
https://psvm.co/u/CODE/ where CODE is the weird code in your video (mine is eSj6koeTxx / Grim...'s is iRuB8Cksu5)
and /v with square brackets at the end
My mosted played game is 404 apparently, I don't even remember buying that.
Satsuma wrote:
My rarest achievement was called ECHO which only 241 people have. No idea what game that’s for.
It says on the same bit of the video.
Trooper wrote:
My mosted played game is 404 apparently, I don't even remember buying that.
After you follow the link click the bit at the bottom that says 'create my video'
zaphod79 wrote:
Trooper wrote:
My mosted played game is 404 apparently, I don't even remember buying that.
After you follow the link click the bit at the bottom that says 'create my video'
Also sign in on the menu drop down
Also it's broken.
"Your personalised video is ready"
*scrolls down*
"404 Video not found"
Sony's online presence really is the absolute fucking worst.
*scrolls down*
"404 Video not found"
Sony's online presence really is the absolute fucking worst.
Has anybody upgraded to a PS4 Pro after buying a 4K tv? Was it worth it?
The standard PS4 looks pretty great with the inbuilt upscaling of the TV, am I going to get a significant quality increase with the Pro for my £300 or so?
The standard PS4 looks pretty great with the inbuilt upscaling of the TV, am I going to get a significant quality increase with the Pro for my £300 or so?
Personally I would avoid using the inbuilt upscaling of the TV.
Get a PS4 Pro. I'm sure it'll be brilliant!
Get a PS4 Pro. I'm sure it'll be brilliant!
If I didn't have PS4 already I'd go for the pro, but I do, and the ps5 will come in the next year I expect, and the pro isn't cheap...
Let’s be fair, you don’t really buy these +consoles for the resolution but rather the performance increase. I don’t think (someone will chime in I’m sure) that you’re getting a proper 4K picture for most games on the PS4 (although the image is noticeably sharper but not massively so IMO) but the frame rates are much better.
The option to play (some) games at 60FPS with an upscaled 1080p image is what I always go for where it's available.
The PS4 just doesn't have enough grunt to do native 4K so there's almost always some sort of dynamic resolution switching and scaling going on. (And to be fair, the XB1X is borderline for 4K so often uses some of the same techniques.) Do note that it's not just resolution either, it's pretty standard now for all the consoles to use the techniques just mentioned, with the goal of hitting the target of 30FPS or 60FPS as consistently as possible, where the Pro is routinely better at this than the base console (and maintains a higher resolution, albeit still dynamically).
I believe the new Pros are better but the older ones get pretty fucking noisy when under load, mine is quite audible if I haven't got the volume loud enough to overpower it. (Whereas the XB1X has a far more advanced vapour chamber cooler on it so makes a lot less noise. Unfortunately it doesn't really have any games either, so there's that.)
If you watch any of the Digital Foundry videos you can see how things normally pan out.
TL:DR - The Pro is a nice upgrade from the base console in many ways, don't get too fixated on the 4K thing.
The PS4 just doesn't have enough grunt to do native 4K so there's almost always some sort of dynamic resolution switching and scaling going on. (And to be fair, the XB1X is borderline for 4K so often uses some of the same techniques.) Do note that it's not just resolution either, it's pretty standard now for all the consoles to use the techniques just mentioned, with the goal of hitting the target of 30FPS or 60FPS as consistently as possible, where the Pro is routinely better at this than the base console (and maintains a higher resolution, albeit still dynamically).
I believe the new Pros are better but the older ones get pretty fucking noisy when under load, mine is quite audible if I haven't got the volume loud enough to overpower it. (Whereas the XB1X has a far more advanced vapour chamber cooler on it so makes a lot less noise. Unfortunately it doesn't really have any games either, so there's that.)
If you watch any of the Digital Foundry videos you can see how things normally pan out.
TL:DR - The Pro is a nice upgrade from the base console in many ways, don't get too fixated on the 4K thing.
That pretty much answers the question then, I'm perfectly happy with my current PS4, so if it's not about the resolution, then I'll stick and wait for the next gen.
Well it's about resolution AND performance, just not at a native 4K.
I don't have a 4K TV but am very happy to have bought my Pro for the sake of better frame rate. A lot of reviews for games recently have competed the two and the experience in the Pro is judged as significantly better even without taking 4K into account. Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
I've got both because I needed two.
I don't think it's worth upgrading.
I don't think it's worth upgrading.
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
For 'hours of entertainment per £' I'm not convinced anything can touch it.
TiVo/Sky?
I feel like quality of entertainment needs to factor in this equation
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
For 'hours of entertainment per £' I'm not convinced anything can touch it.
Books?
Curiosity wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
For 'hours of entertainment per £' I'm not convinced anything can touch it.
Books?
Ass Creed Origins is on course to entertain me for 60 hours. It cost £17.
Bamba wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
For 'hours of entertainment per £' I'm not convinced anything can touch it.
Books?
Ass Creed Origins is on course to entertain me for 60 hours. It cost £17.
That’s more expensive than a book, and you don’t need to spend hundreds of pounds to read one either.
I’m being facetious rather than massively serious, of course. Books are insanely good value for money though.
Curiosity wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Bamba wrote:
Console gaming is a very cheap hobby and for the amount of time you spend with games in general it seems mad not to spend a couple of hundred quid for nicer stuff.
It's cheap compared to helicopter flying or something but I think "very cheap" is stretching it.
For 'hours of entertainment per £' I'm not convinced anything can touch it.
Books?
Ass Creed Origins is on course to entertain me for 60 hours. It cost £17.
That’s more expensive than a book, and you don’t need to spend hundreds of pounds to read one either.
I’m being facetious rather than massively serious, of course. Books are insanely good value for money though.
You've spent more than 60 hours reading many books? Or, indeed, any?
£17 worth of books could easily do 60 hours. And I've certainly spent £17 on a game that I've played for less that an hour.
But what about knitting, running, watching Netflix, origami, painting, dancing, writing, hiking, astronomy, bird-watching, train-spotting, programming (perhaps), singing, or gardening?
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Horses, though - horses aren't cheap.
But what about knitting, running, watching Netflix, origami, painting, dancing, writing, hiking, astronomy, bird-watching, train-spotting, programming (perhaps), singing, or gardening?
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Horses, though - horses aren't cheap.
grim.... wrote:
Horses, though - horses aren't cheap.
As any foal know
Is paying £300 to replace my PS4 with a Pro going to give me an extra £300 of fun?
I think that depends entirely on how much certain things bother you. I'm just not massively fussed if a game chugs a little bit during particularly busy scenes but I can accept that it might ruin the fun for someone else.
Grim... wrote:
But what about knitting...
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Knitting isn’t cheap. A single 50g ball of standard quality yarn is going to cost anything from £6-25 (discounting 100% acrylic ‘craft yarn’). Depending on the weight of that yarn it could take 8 hours to knit (laceweight) ir itcoukd take 20 minutes (super bulky) but is likely going to take about 1.5-2 hours from DK-Aran, which is what many people will knit at.
Mimi wrote:
Grim... wrote:
But what about knitting...
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Knitting isn’t cheap. A single 50g ball of standard quality yarn is going to cost anything from £6-25 (discounting 100% acrylic ‘craft yarn’). Depending on the weight of that yarn it could take 8 hours to knit (laceweight) ir itcoukd take 20 minutes (super bulky) but is likely going to take about 1.5-2 hours from DK-Aran, which is what many people will knit at.
As any wool know.
Mimi wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Grim... wrote:
But what about knitting...
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Lots and lots of hobbies are really cheap.
Knitting isn’t cheap. A single 50g ball of standard quality yarn is going to cost anything from £6-25 (discounting 100% acrylic ‘craft yarn’). Depending on the weight of that yarn it could take 8 hours to knit (laceweight) ir itcoukd take 20 minutes (super bulky) but is likely going to take about 1.5-2 hours from DK-Aran, which is what many people will knit at.
As any wool know.
Hey yo!
Trooper wrote:
Is paying £300 to replace my PS4 with a Pro going to give me an extra £300 of fun?
I don't think there's any point in trying to look at things this way. If you try and attach 'worth' to an awful lot of things we spend money on, especially in terms of 'Thing X cost Amount Y and gave me Time Z duration of enjoyment', then you're sort of missing the point IMO.
It's like, there's a local restaurant that me and Mrs Hearthly occasionally treat ourselves to lunch at, and the bill can easily head up towards £75 if we get naughty with a couple of drinks and some dessert. Is lunch ever 'worth' £75 when it lasts maybe 90 minutes or so, when I could go over the road to the Co-Op and buy the ingredients to make us something nice for a fiver or so?
In terms of games, in the end I basically bought a PS4 Pro to play God of War, The Last Of Us Remastered, and Everybody's Golf. That's a big spend for three games, but they're all PS4 exclusives and I enjoyed each of them immensely, so I don't feel like I haven't had my money's worth out of it. (I have bought and played other games for it, but off the top of my head those three are the only ones I've really invested a lot of time into.) So in terms of spend that's about £500 for, and we'll be generous here, 100 hours of play.
Then compare that to Hearthstone, which I've spent about £200 on, and have played every single day for over five years. I'll CONSERVATIVELY say about one hour per day (which is a ridiculously low estimate, but we'll go with that), which puts me at 2000 hours for £200.
So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. (Except that I'm a massive nerd, but we knew that already.)
Is Hearthstone better than the PS4? Is it better value? Is it a wiser investment of money?
It's a daft question to even ask IMO, I don't see the point of it at all.
Quote:
Is Hearthstone better than the PS4? Is it better value? Is it a wiser investment of money?
No, no and no.
Didn’t seem that hard.
You don't see the point of asking if it worth the upgrade from the PS4 to the pro?
I'm not asking if a PS4 is worth the money, as it is.
I'm not asking if a PS4 is worth the money, as it is.
Trooper wrote:
You don't see the point of asking if it worth the upgrade from the PS4 to the pro?
It's objectively a better piece of hardware and games run better on it, whilst looking nicer. As has been noted above, developers are routinely targeting the Pro/1X as being for the 'proper' version of their games now, with the base consoles getting, in some cases, a pretty shonky experience.
Attaching a 'worth' to that for me seems rather arbitrary, not least because £300 is quite a lot of cash to some people, but bugger all to others.
If you like playing PS4 games, and the cost of the Pro isn't an issue for you in terms of affordability, I don't see any reason to not make the switch.
Page 49 of 52 [ 2598 posts ]