Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes

Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes News for PS4

On: PS4Xbox OneXbox 360PS3PC
Review Verdict Read Review
8Out of 10
Back to game info
Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes screenshot
Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes screenshot

Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes "looks slightly better on the PS4 compared to the Xbox One", according to Game Informer - a feeling reportedly shared by director Hideo Kojima.

Discussing the game's visuals following a hands-on playtest in its latest issue, Game Informer states that "Kojima Productions’ hard work under the hood pays off in the graphics department," noting Fox Engine's impressive lighting and the sight of "watchtowers [crumbling] to hundreds of pieces with an RPG shot".

However, it later adds that "Kojima notes that MGS V looks slightly better on the PS4 compared to the Xbox One, something we also noted before he mentioned it."

It isn't clear from the article how the two versions differ from one another, or whether one runs at a lower native resolution than the other.

A Konami representative told that they were unable to confirm the native resolution and frame rates of the two versions when contacted about any potential differences last week.

The revelation will come as a further blow to Microsoft which has already seen major titles like Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, Call of Duty: Ghosts and Battlefield 4 perform worse on Xbox One than PS4.

Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes launches on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360 and PS3 on March 21, with MGS5: The Phantom Pain following at a later date.

Source: Game Informer | March 2014

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

justerthought's Avatar


I think it is becoming clear to all that the PS4 hardware advantage is going straight to the games. Those expecting history to repeat itself like the PS3 CELL are going to be bitterly disappointed. Make no mistake, having more power GPU with 6 extra compute units that has access to lots of fast GDDR5 RAM is a game changer. The XB1 cannot hope to match the performance of that combination, with slow DDR3 RAM and a hard to use ESRAM cache that can only hold 32mb at any given time.

XB1 has a classic bottleneck. The GPU cannot draw frames fast enough because it is left waiting for RAM data as it tries to stream lots of HD game assets in real time. Open world games will suffer most on XB1 for this very reason. If PS4 did not exist, the XB1 would be considered quite a powerful piece of kit. But when a dev tries porting dense generic game code to both machines, it does not take long to realise the PS4 is in a class of its own. Port parity is just not possible because the machines are too far apart.

That gap will increase not decrease because XB1 is relying on ESRAM and cloud processing in order to provide some secret sauce. Unfortunately, all modern AAA 3rd party multiplat games are created on high end PC's using a generic code scaleable game engine, with each port optimised at the end via the various dev machines. Devs can only spend a limited amount of time with each port. They are not going to re-write the whole core game code just for one console in order to take advantage of ESRAM and cloud processing. If they made XB1 the lead platform and coded for ESRAM and cloud processing, the games would not be able to be ported to PC or PS4.

The XB1 is in a really bad place in terms of multiplat ports. A very similar situation that PS3 was in. Hard to programme, weaker GPU and not enough RAM that is poorly distributed. Devs will just do a reasonable job with each port. Unlike PS3, MS does not have brilliant 1st party studios like Naughty Dogs to push the hardware and pass the knowledge free of charge to the 3rd party devs.

The XB1 bottleneck leaves devs with a limited set of options. In order to port a playable version, they have to reduce the amount work the GPU has to do. They either reduce the pixel count, reduce the frames per second, introduce screen tear or ditch some of the eye candy. The end result is that comparisons show the game looking and playing better on PS4. This situation is no longer a rumour because it's clear for all to see.

The devs are left hoping MS can deliver more powerful drivers for the dev machines that automatically take care of the awkward ESRAM without any costly manual intervention. But this would only cure part of the problem and does not fully address the fact that PS4 has fast GDDR5 RAM available for all data, not just a rapid 32mb data stream.
Posted 06:04 on 07 February 2014
BCFC1992's Avatar

BCFC1992@ Mike11585

I think you may have misunderstood my post, i am not disputing the fact the ps4 is a more powerful console or that some multiplats run or look better on ps4 i am just saying people are exaggerating the difference in performance, by the way i have played bf4 on both systems and while i agree that bf4 does look a bit better on ps4 i did not notice one running smoother than the other.

And as for tomb raider i am pretty sure the devoloper has said both versions use identical assets, the only difference being fps.

anyway i thank you for your well thought out post and i agree with your point about the fanboys pointless bickering because in my opinion we have two very good gaming consoles, don't think you can go wrong by picking the PS4 OR XB1.
Posted 03:06 on 06 February 2014
Mike11585's Avatar

Mike11585@ BCFC1992

Eh BF 4 on Ps4 runs better and runs at a higher resolution.Yes both games look the same but the Ps4 version does a better job.
Posted 23:27 on 05 February 2014
Mike11585's Avatar

Mike11585@ BCFC1992

Tomb Raider does drop framerate but it does not get in the way.You also have to understand that the textures are slightly better on Ps4 and has zero screen tear.Everyone should know that Ps4 is a more powerful console,Sony was focused on a gaming console.A console that get's the most out of it's hardware.

MS wanted a DVR with gaming capabilities,they didn't put their efforts into the gaming side of Xbox one.They made a console that was very Pc like,everything from the Os to the ram is Pc.The issue is MS didn't want to gamble on GDDR5,if MS would had went with that memory you wouldn't see a huge difference in performance.Sony would had still had a more powerful console thanks to the Gpu side,but the performance difference would not be this wide.The fact is Sony has a very tight Os means Ps4 uses one less Cpu core then Xbox one.

I do think the whole resolution gate performance gate is childish.I also understand you have fanboys that like to spread lies.This gen is going to be about which company can pump out great games,at a steady pace.Not rushing these games but to code more efficiently.Ps4 is easier to code with,which means more time to optimize the code and push the hardware better.

I think Xbox one is an ok console,i am not too keen on kinect but everything else looks to be alright.I just wished MS would had made a more powerful console.
Posted 23:20 on 05 February 2014
BCFC1992's Avatar

BCFC1992@ BrySkye

Tomb raider on the ps4 suffers quite big dips in framerate,so saying 30fps versus steady 60fps is a bit misleading.To be fair most multiplats run the same on both systems,and the difference between the games that don't is not huge for example Bf4,ps4 is 900p 60fps vs X1 720p 60fps.
Posted 13:07 on 05 February 2014
BritishWolf's Avatar

BritishWolf@ ImBatWayne

Because MGS was primarily a PlayStation brand so most people coming from MGS4/PS3 will be sticking with PS3 or upgrading to PS4
Posted 12:27 on 05 February 2014


Yeah, I think at this Point everyone should have get it that the PS4 has a more Powerful hardware. Can we in the Future make a News when Games run the same on both Consoles and ignore it when runs better on PS4? That could save you a lot of writing ^^
Posted 11:32 on 05 February 2014


The reason this is getting so much coverage at the moment was that last year Microsoft employees insisted that any practical power gap between the consoles was minimal and there wouldn't be many differences between games (or that Xbox One games would be better thanks to "The Cloud")

Tomb Raider blew up to such an extent because, despite what Microsoft specifically said, 30fps vs 60fps is not a minor difference.

It's getting a lot of coverage because Microsoft have been releasing what can be considered misinformation, rather than just saying nothing.
Posted 11:20 on 05 February 2014
rico_rico's Avatar


I'll wait for pc version
Posted 11:06 on 05 February 2014
GurdishBurger's Avatar


Not another one, cant you just accept that people will buy what they want and that's fine. Nothing you say will influence people. I used to have a 360, now ive got a PS4, both good consoles, nothing to argue about.
Posted 09:36 on 05 February 2014
SPACED73's Avatar


Stuff resolution gate,£55 for the disc or £45 for digital for a two campaign!
Posted 08:28 on 05 February 2014
S1ghk0mantiz's Avatar

S1ghk0mantiz@ ImBatWayne

Ummm somebody is forgetting the Xbox 360 failure rate, when you account for the amount of 360's estimated to be bought when out of warranty consoles died they are far short of the PS3's numbers. Not to mention how far behind they will be by the end of the generation considering PlayStation NOW will sell a *****load of PS3's
Posted 05:30 on 05 February 2014
BCFC1992's Avatar


Depends how big the difference in performance is, im guessing if the ps4 version is 1080p 60fps the x1 version will be 900p 60fps. if that is the case its not a disaster,
but any bigger gap than that it becomes quite a big problem. what ever happens i can guarantee fanboys are going to be all over this.
Posted 00:56 on 05 February 2014
ImBatWayne's Avatar

ImBatWayne@ BritishWolf

I mean this in a harmless way, but how does buying it for the PS4 make you a MGS fan over any other system?
Posted 00:50 on 05 February 2014
ImBatWayne's Avatar


Xbox 360 sold 2.9 million more than the PS3.
Posted 00:48 on 05 February 2014

Game Stats

Release Date: 21/03/2014
Developer: Kojima Productions
Publisher: Konami
Genre: Unknown
Rating: TBC
Site Rank: 539 6
View Full Site