Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

bk

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

I thought all console owners hated the media options of consoles? Isnt that the reason xbone will sell 13 consoles while the PS4 will outsell the iphone?

No console owners don't hate media options, we actually quiet like them.

What we don't like is the way that MS seem to be focusing on the media options first and relegating gaming to second place.

We also don't like MS trying to make out it will somehow have better media options, when the reality is that they will likely end up exactly the same (other then the need for a sub).

bk

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

But why assume PS4 will be just as good at entertainment without assuming Xbox One will be just as good at games?

1) PS4 GPU is 50% more powerful. The GPU is probably the most important part of a games console, it is what powers the graphics.

2) PS4 has significantly faster memory.

3) PS4 is significantly easier to develop for thanks to the simply, faster memory setup and more mature development tools.

- The above three together should mean cross platform third party games will look better on the PS4.

4) Sony has the largest game development studios, who are renowned for pumping out the best first party games (Uncharted, Last Of US, God of War, etc.).

MS first party games have been very poor on the 360 over the last two years. They seemed more focused on producing poor Kinect games aimed at casuals.

Also most X1 exclusives are also destined for the PC, so not really exclusive.

5) You get all of the above for €100 cheaper.

Media apps, really don't need a particularly powerful system, hell most work just fine on underpowered smart phones, so specs don't matter.

But when it comes to games, specs do make a big difference.

Sounds like 2006 all over again, didn't the ps3 also have some super cell gazillion core mega processor too? think of it so did the ps2 that was the one that could be used to launch missiles or something, gotta love console wars lol

gizmo

bk wrote: »

What we don't like is the way that MS seem to be focusing on the media options first and relegating gaming to second place.

Thus far, they're only relegating it to second place in the amount of press they're giving it. If you actually look at the list of announced games so far, theirs is just as impressive, if not more so than Sony's offering. The only area of policy which is actually detrimental to the number and quality of games on the platform is their lack of self-publishing which Sony have them nailed on. There's also Sony's stronger studios worldwide but that's irrelevant to the above argument.

bk wrote: »

We also don't like MS trying to make out it will somehow have better media options, when the reality is that they will likely end up exactly the same (other then the need for a sub).

Not quite. MS are probably more comfortable saying this because they're more likely to sign exclusivity deals with content providers. HBO Go in the US and Sky GO in the UK, for example. Personally, they're the kind of deals that I really don't like.

ShiverinEskimo

Now just one second - 'best first party games'? That's not any kind of fact as it's based entirely on personal preference. I loved Uncharted and Uncharted 2. I didn't even finish 3. Clunky controls and sequelitis set in badly and I lost interest.

Last of Us is an amazing game for sure - I adore the story and setting - but the same clunky controls and aiming do it no favours either. Also there are plenty of things wrong with the gameplay - stealth killing one soldier with another standing one yard away not noticing is a particular peeve of mine.

Like I said above the hundred quid covers kinect. You can't judge it against the old kinect because this time every Xbox will have one meaning developing for it won't mean a limited audience from the get-go and will mean anything good they come up with will end up extremely popular amongst Xbox owners and will encourage even more innovation.

The PS4 is not easier to develop for - that's complete speculation. Direct X runs on Xbox - developers could develop for Direct X in their sleep. And anyways, you claimed the PS3 had the 'best' games yet was notoriously difficult to develop for so by your own standards it shouldn't make a difference.

We're going around in circles here for sure and some people seem far more willing to give Sony and the PS4 more concessions that the xbox and letting it away with a lot more. In the end there will be nowhere near as big a gap as some would like. MS fúcked up their launch and their policies which they have more or less fixed. From here on in it's a fairly level playing field and it will, as always, come down to brand-loyalty and particular preference for particular game franchises - ie Opinion.

AlmightyCushion

bk wrote: »

PS4 is significantly easier to develop for thanks to the simply, faster memory setup and more mature development tools

I know the ps4 is easier to develop than the PS3, thanks to the move from cell to X86, but is it easier than the X1? I doubt it given the fact they have similar hardware. Also, dev tools are something Microsoft have been doing for a long time and theirs are usually held in high regard so I doubt Sonys are better.

Underpaid Mike

bk wrote: »

No console owners don't hate media options, we actually quiet like them.

What we don't like is the way that MS seem to be focusing on the media options first and relegating gaming to second place.

We also don't like MS trying to make out it will somehow have better media options, when the reality is that they will likely end up exactly the same (other then the need for a sub).

Im sure you will counter this by saying you cant do that with my 6 year old UPC box, or I hate skype but to counter your generalist argument. Media options possible on Xbone and not supported on PS4

• Supports tv in from cable and satellite streaming through the console
• Voice control interaction
• Ability to run dual apps
• Skype
• DVR functions even through this hasnt been expanded on
• Windows 8 Apps
• SKY, HBO and ESPN exclusive partnerships
  

None of those are possible on the PS4 so how exactly is it better as a media centre?

Im obviously ignoring netflix, youtube, blu ray etc as they are on both consoles

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like 2006 all over again, didn't the ps3 also have some super cell gazillion core mega processor too? think of it so did the ps2 that was the one that could be used to launch missiles or something, gotta love console wars lol

So would you like me to explain to you in technical depth why this time around is very different to 2006?

A games console (and PCs, tablets, smart phones, etc.) are made up of a CPU and GPU.

The 360 had a slightly more powerful GPU then the PS3.

The 360 had a pretty weak CPU, while the PS3 had a crazy powerful, super compute like, highly multicore CPU that could also do graphics (normally only the GPU is used to do graphics).

So on paper, yes the PS3 was more powerful. However unfortunately the PS3 CPU was so exotic and different to what most games developers were use to that it was extremely difficult for most companies to make use of the CPU in the PS3.

So most of them who made multiplatform games mostly just used the GPU on both consoles and since the 360's GPU was slightly more powerful, most multiplatform games looked better on it in the early years.

Only Sony's first party developers could make the most of the PS3's CPU and that is how the PS3 ended up with some stunning looking games like Uncharted and Last of Us that wouldn't have been possible on the 360.

Over the last two years, even third party developers started to get to grips with the PS3 and multiplatform games started looking better on it compared to the 360.

Now we come to today and the story is very different. Both the X1 and PS4 use almost the exactly the same platform, they are both using X86 based APU (combination of both CPU and GPU on the same chip) from AMD.

The CPU of both is expected to be clocked at the same, but the GPU of the PS4 is 50% more powerful.

Remember in the early days, games looked better on the 360 as it had the more powerful GPU and that was only about a 15% difference. This time around we are talking about a 50% difference!

Difficulty of programming won't be a big difference this time around as they both use the very well understood x86 architecture that all developers are intimately familiar with from the PC world.

So this time, the PS4 is both much easier to develop for, while also being significantly more powerful.

TNT2k_

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Now just one second - 'best first party games'? That's not any kind of fact as it's based entirely on personal preference. I loved Uncharted and Uncharted 2. I didn't even finish 3. Clunky controls and sequelitis set in badly and I lost interest.

Last of Us is an amazing game for sure - I adore the story and setting - but the same clunky controls and aiming do it no favours either. Also there are plenty of things wrong with the gameplay - stealth killing one soldier with another standing one yard away not noticing is a particular peeve of mine.

Like I said above the hundred quid covers kinect. You can't judge it against the old kinect because this time every Xbox will have one meaning developing for it won't mean a limited audience from the get-go and will mean anything good they come up with will end up extremely popular amongst Xbox owners and will encourage even more innovation.

The PS4 is not easier to develop for - that's complete speculation. Direct X runs on Xbox - developers could develop for Direct X in their sleep. And anyways, you claimed the PS3 had the 'best' games yet was notoriously difficult to develop for so by your own standards it shouldn't make a difference.

We're going around in circles here for sure and some people seem far more willing to give Sony and the PS4 more concessions that the xbox and letting it away with a lot more. In the end there will be nowhere near as big a gap as some would like. MS fúcked up their launch and their policies which they have more or less fixed. From here on in it's a fairly level playing field and it will, as always, come down to brand-loyalty and particular preference for particular game franchises - ie Opinion.

Ok, before this desends into some war we should hold up for a second. The PS4 is easier to develop for and this has been discussed and explained. The PS4 uses unified memory without the 32MB RAM buffer of the X1. It is therefore easier to develop for, no speculation. Both systems are going to be easier to develop for compared to the previous anyway, but if you want to talk facts, the X1 is slightly more difficult to develop for.

As for the games, it's preference, but Sony has invested heavily in first party game studious and has many of their teams working on multiple projects. The end result is more games, new IPs and new ideas. Microsoft really sat on their laurels when it came to games and rely heavily on Halo and Gears, to echo back to your "sequelitis" view.

Currently Sony does have the upper hand with the games and that's because it's their dead-set focus with the PS4. They're not wasting time making motion shovelware and turning Rare, a once amazing developer into a causal, medicore developer.

The reason people are praising Sony is because they learned from their mistakes, they were open and honest about it and said "here, lets get back to the games. It's all about the games". MS on the other hand want a cable box for TV, sports and COD. They wanted to bring in DRM for their own gain and they wanted to get away with as much as they could in a completely area gang way. They seem so disillusioned to what the gamers want but didn't care until pre-orders spoke for themselves. That vision they had isn't gone away and they have a lot of earning back to do.

I've probably said this so many times now but MS don't seem to have any direction at the minute. They want the casuals and they want the core, but are only doing the minimum amount to do that. Timed exclusives and milking franchises like Halo repeatedly doesn't give them they same strength in games, so it is clear that Sony have more games studios, producing very high quality games more frequently than MS. They have the upper hand with the games, and that's what all the systems are about first and foremost.

Not apps and TV, games.

bk

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

Supports tv in from cable and satellite streaming through the console

Which will need to be done via an IR Blaster as your six years old * UPC box doesn't support HDMI-CEC

Having used IR blasters for ten years with a hacked series one TiVo and then Windows Media Center, while it is fun, I can assure you it isn't reliable at all and certainly won't be a great experience.

You will also still need to use the UPC remote to access your DVR content as neither HDMI-CEC nor IR blasters support it.

It really isn't going to be a very good experience.

* Not a single UPC or Sky box, not even the latest models support HDMI-CEC.

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]Voice control interaction

The PS4 comes bundles with a headset that would allow for voice control.

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]Ability to run dual apps

True, I'll give you that one. But is it really that interesting?

Are you really going to have twitter up there on your TV, yuck!

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]Skype

Is on the PS3, so could come to the PS4 too.

Also I'd be very surprised if facebook and google hangout video calling doesn't also come to the PS4.

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]DVR functions even through this hasnt been expanded on

Total speculation, been no news about this at all and no reason why the PS4 couldn't have DVR functionality too.

In fact the PS3 had significantly better TV integration then the x1 will have. With the PS4 you could buy an adaptor that worked with Freeview and Saorview in the UK and Ireland and allowed you to record TV directly to the PS4.

It wasn't very popular and I don't see the X1 TV features fairing much better, specially when they are actually inferior!

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]Windows 8 Apps

Seems that Windows 8 apps won't be coming directly to the X1 :

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/28/4470690/microsofts-secrecy-is-a-growing-problem-for-xbox-one-apps

It seems it will use similar API's etc. but looks like the apps will still need to be ported and submitted to MS for the X1.

So really no advantage there over developing PS4 apps there.

Also this has a downside too. The X1 uses three os's (really a hypervisor running a game os and a windows os as virtual machines).

Running multiple OS's like this takes up lots of RAM memory. Rumour has it that all the OS's end up using 3GB of the 8GB of RAM on the x1, while the PS4 OS uses only 1GB of it's 8GB of RAM.

That will make a big difference to games with the PS4 having signficantly more and faster RAM available to games.

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

[*]SKY, HBO and ESPN exclusive partnerships

These exclusives are for the 360. No news at all if they will continue with the X1.

As I mentioned earlier, with the competition Sky and HBO are facing from Netflix and Amazon, they will be far less likely to agree to exclusive partnerships again this time around.

If the PS4 significantly outsells the X1 as many are now predicting, these companies will be slow to locking themselves into a single platform, thus handing millions of customers over to their competitors.

Remember that when Sky did their exclusive deal with the 360, streaming services were only new and Netflix and Amazon hadn't come to the market yet. The market is very different now, it is much more competitive and Sky won't want to hand too many customers and power to Netflix, etc.

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

None of those are possible on the PS4 so how exactly is it better as a media centre?

Well one way it is better is that you don't need a subscription to access Netflix, RTE Player, etc.

On the whole I see them being on par or close to par on the media front.

TNT2k_

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I know the ps4 is easier to develop than the PS3, thanks to the move from cell to X86, but is it easier than the X1? I doubt it given the fact they have similar hardware. Also, dev tools are something Microsoft have been doing for a long time and theirs are usually held in high regard so I doubt Sonys are better.

Yes it is. Sony wanted to go the same route as MS and use DDR3 RAM and boost it up with a buffer, even with a goal of hitting 1TB/s compared to the 176GB/s on the PS4 now, but they refrained from it because it would only cause another PS3 situation where it would cause havock to the developers to unlock that power. In the end they said no to it and feel it was the best thing for developers and consumers as it would keep costs down.


Interesting on the dev tool side of things. Back in January a developer from NVIDIA, Timothy Lottes, had this to say about the OS and tools soon to be in the PS4:

The real reason to get excited about a PS4 is what Sony as a company does with the OS and system libraries as a platform, and what this enables 1st party studios to do, when they make PS4-only games. If PS4 has a real-time OS, with a libGCM style low level access to the GPU, then the PS4 1st party games will be years ahead of the PC simply because it opens up what is possible on the GPU. Note this won't happen right away on launch, but once developers tool up for the platform, this will be the case. As a PC guy who knows hardware to the metal, I spend most of my days in frustration knowing damn well what I could do with the hardware, but what I cannot do because Microsoft and IHVs wont provide low-level GPU access in PC APIs. One simple example, drawcalls on PC have easily 10x to 100x the overhead of a console with a libGCM style API....

I could continue here, but I'm not, by now you get the picture, launch titles will likely be DX11 ports, so perhaps not much better than what could be done on PC. However if Sony provides the real-time OS with libGCM v2 for GCN, one or two years out, 1st party devs and Sony's internal teams like the ICE team, will have had long enough to build up tech to really leverage the platform.

Now he's not talking years ahead of PC in terms of power, obviously, but he's talking about being years ahead in terms of accessibility to the raw, basic components.

Sony has gone to great lengths to get a very knowledgable team together and have been working on the PS4 since 2007/8. They have Mark Cerny as head of development and they are really striving to fix all the issues they faced with the PS3 and the mistakes they made with it. It looks like all that work is paying off in a massive way with the PS4, so I wouldn't rule out Sony having the inferior dev tools just yet.
MS will be using DirectX, but it'll be a modified version of it for the X1, there will be limitations to it compared to the PC version, naturally.

bk

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I know the ps4 is easier to develop than the PS3, thanks to the move from cell to X86, but is it easier than the X1? I doubt it given the fact they have similar hardware. Also, dev tools are something Microsoft have been doing for a long time and theirs are usually held in high regard so I doubt Sonys are better.

All the news from developers indicate it is.

The PS4 has a unified memory architecture, with 8GB of very fast memory that makes it incredibly easy to develop for, while the X1 has a two step memory architecture with 8GB of slow DDR 3 memory followed by a 32mb cache of very fast on chip memory.

This is a lot more complicated as you then have to manage writing graphics textures between the slow RAM and the smaller fast RAM. Lots of managment overhead to do that.

Also the reports I've read from developers indicate that the PS4 libraries, documentation and development tools are much easier to use and much more mature then the ones for the X1.

Yes, the X1 uses DX which many developers would be familiar with, but the PS4 uses OpenGL, which most developers would also be equally familiar with.

I just dont see specs making any difference one way or the other for the majority of consumers, games sell systems rather than processing speed etc. It is of course entirely debatable which system had the better games this gen and I enjoyed exclusives on both but spent far more time on my 360 due to the genre of games I enjoy (which do not require a great gpu/cpu) and the xbox's online which I found far superior than sony's. Of course many others will say the opposite and thats fine but I dont think specs really came into it last gen and the systems are similar enough to make it not an issue this gen. Multiplats will likely be determined by the lowest common denominator which ever system it may be with negligible differences only noticible by those who are really bothered to look. Exclusives is where the industry is gone now and personally the xbox one seems more interesting although neither was particularly interesting. If specs really mattered that much we all be using pc's

Underpaid Mike

bk wrote: »

On the whole I see them being on par or close to par on the media front.

Fair enough, cant argue with that lack of logic and reasoning I guess!

In fact the PS3 had significantly better TV integration then the x1 will have

:rolleyes: Moving on.......

bk

Underpaid Mike wrote: »

:rolleyes: Moving on.......

It did, it actually had a full EPG and allowed you to record directly to the PS3's hard drive. Not just control an external set top box.

Would you like to actually discuss the technical details of the merits of the two or just troll?

_Puma_

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I know the ps4 is easier to develop than the PS3, thanks to the move from cell to X86, but is it easier than the X1? I doubt it given the fact they have similar hardware. Also, dev tools are something Microsoft have been doing for a long time and theirs are usually held in high regard so I doubt Sonys are better.

Funnily enough it seems to be the case that the PS4 dev environment is much more mature that the Xbox one's this time round, according to a few sources. Learning the lessons from the PS3's failings I guess.

Microsoft are in state of flux at the moment, with a lot of things being up in the air about the Xbox one. A lot more seems to have been "Locked down" for the PS4 so far which leads to greater maturing time for developers to Iterate, with the rumours of the downclock for the Xbox one's GPU being a worrying scenario.

It will all become apparent on launch about performance but if I was forced to call it, it could only be the PS4. As for the games the noises coming from Development studios is that most have signed up to the PS4.

Pushtrak

Serious doublethink here. PS4 is all about the games*.












*But they'll have all the media stuff that the One does.

bk

Pushtrak wrote: »

Serious doublethink here. PS4 is all about the games*.

*But they'll have all the media stuff that the One does.

No double think, PS4 is the significantly more powerful console, which will cost €100 less and will have all the media services that matter.

Sony are focusing on games first, more powerful console, easier to develop for, more mature development tools and libraries.

The media stuff is there too, just that Sony isn't focusing on it. Knowing full well, that companies like Netflix, BBC, etc. will build the necessary apps for the PS4.

It is MS who are going around talking up the TV functionality, making out that it is a bigger deal then it is.

TNT2k_

bk wrote: »

No double think, PS4 is the significantly more powerful console, which will cost €100 less and will have all the media services that matter.

Sony are focusing on games first, more powerful console, easier to develop for, more mature development tools and libraries.

The media stuff is there too, just that Sony isn't focusing on it. Knowing full well, that companies like Netflix, BBC, etc. will build the necessary apps for the PS4.

It is MS who are going around talking up the TV functionality, making out that it is a bigger deal then it is.

This is the fundamental difference in both their strategies. Sony is after gamers knowing there is a viable market there for core gamers, and if a success, will reasonate outwards like it did with the PS2 and attract more people.

Microsoft want to catch everyone under one net and are really emphasising all those non-gaming features in a bid to win casual players or just people interested in multimedia boxes, gamers come second to this plan as that's not where they see the lion's share of the money. It reminds me of the strategy Nintendo had with the Wii.

It'd be interesting to see what happens long-term, but I'd like a far more confident, clear-visioned MS, because as of right now, I wouldn't buy their console. Too many what ifs and uncertainty for me personally, for now anyway.

ShiverinEskimo

bk wrote: »

Difficulty of programming won't be a big difference this time around as they both use the very well understood x86 architecture that all developers are intimately familiar with from the PC world.

So this time, the PS4 is both much easier to develop for, while also being significantly more powerful.

bk wrote: »

Sony are focusing on games first, more powerful console, easier to develop for, more mature development tools and libraries.

Sorry but this just isn't true. Majority of developers won't find either 'much' more easier to develop for. Both consoles will be watered down PCs and all development is done on PC architecture.

If anything the power increase on the PS4 could end up wasted for all but 1st party games given the lowest common denominator is typically used for multi-platform games. PC gamers have been giving out about shoddy ports for years because they were made purely with shipping as many as possible units in mind and so were made to be compatible with all platforms.

bk wrote: »

The media stuff is there too, just that Sony isn't focusing on it. Knowing full well, that companies like Netflix, BBC, etc. will build the necessary apps for the PS4.

It is MS who are going around talking up the TV functionality, making out that it is a bigger deal then it is.

This is not true either. MS focused on the console during their console-reveal and the games at E3. Sony focused on the console specs at their console-non-reveal and the games at E3.

You seem to want to believe the opposite is true but when you remove all the furore over the DRM that was already known about before E3, MS actually showed us plenty of games focus - in fact they arguably showed more focus on games at E3 as promised whereas Sony had their actual reveal and went about scoring valid but easy points about the DRM. That was most of the news out of the PS4 camp.

There is plenty to get excited about when it comes to games on Xbox and from the Kinect point of view, seemingly huge potential for innovation for games.

Underpaid Mike

bk wrote: »

It did, it actually had a full EPG and allowed you to record directly to the PS3's hard drive. Not just control an external set top box.

Would you like to actually discuss the technical details of the merits of the two or just troll?

I listed a number of reasons in the last post all of which are more than valid reasons that the xbone, which id like to remind you is a console designed to be a media centre, is better than the PS4 let alone the PS3 as a media centre and you ignored all the reasons or else said "that is not applicable to me" or "sony could do that if they wanted to".

What on earth would you like me to do from here?

• Its irrelevant that HDMI-CEC is not supported by Sky, the PS4 cannot offer the same tv integration
• The kinect is integrated into the control system of the Xbone, the Eye is not and so cannot offer the same experience
• Dual apps is indeed interesting and the ability to play and change my music while I play a game live is amazing. PS4 cant do this
• Skype is not integrated in the OS like the Xbone one and cannot snap while I continue gaming.
• DVR was said to be a feature of the XBone in the unveil, hasnt been touched upon since. Looks more than likely or why bother mentioning it?
• Your argument concerning 3 OSs is a huge positive for the Xbone if you are interested in it as a media centre not a negative. Dedicated processing power with zero lag
• SKY, HBO and ESPN exclusive partnerships are for the Xbox live, which is both 360 and Xbone. NFL partnership and Premiership will be coming to the console

So for those reasons, whether you like them or not, can avail of them or not, or even want to acknowledge them or not is why the xbone is a better console when it comes to media.

In other exceptionally obvious news the titanic sank a few years back because it hit an iceberg!!

TNT2k_

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

There is plenty to get excited about when it comes to games on Xbox and from the Kinect point of view, seemingly huge potential for innovation for games.

The Wii didn't innovate, PS move didn't innovate, kinect didn't innovate, what makes you think kinect 2.0 will either? A traditional controller beats out motion games far more often than not.

If you were playing a shooter how would kinect innovate or add to that? Voice commands? They've been done before on games like Socom on the PS3 for example and didn't add anything substantial to the game at all.

ShiverinEskimo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

The Wii didn't innovate, PS move didn't innovate, kinect didn't innovate, what makes you think kinect 2.0 will either? A traditional controller beats out motion games far more often than not.

If you were playing a shooter how would kinect innovate or add to that? Voice commands? They've been done before on games like Socom on the PS3 for example and didn't add anything substantial to the game at all.

Listing examples of what is being done before to deny there is potential for innovation?

That's the thing about innovation, it hasn't been innovated yet.

I don't need to have the answer to see a question. Developers will be given the details and those gifted, creative people that have been doing new and wonderful things over and over again will have a crack at it knowing every Xbox out there will be able to use it and not just kids and curious adults who took the plunge with the last Kinect.

FlyingIrishMan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Sorry but this just isn't true. Majority of developers won't find either 'much' more easier to develop for. Both consoles will be watered down PCs and all development is done on PC architecture.

If anything the power increase on the PS4 could end up wasted for all but 1st party games given the lowest common denominator is typically used for multi-platform games. PC gamers have been giving out about shoddy ports for years because they were made purely with shipping as many as possible units in mind and so were made to be compatible with all platforms.



This is not true either. MS focused on the console during their console-reveal and the games at E3. Sony focused on the console specs at their console-non-reveal and the games at E3.

You seem to want to believe the opposite is true but when you remove all the furore over the DRM that was already known about before E3, MS actually showed us plenty of games focus - in fact they arguably showed more focus on games at E3 as promised whereas Sony had their actual reveal and went about scoring valid but easy points about the DRM. That was most of the news out of the PS4 camp.

There is plenty to get excited about when it comes to games on Xbox and from the Kinect point of view, seemingly huge potential for innovation for games.

Yes, yes it is true. The simple fact is PS4 is the easier console to develop for, by how much? I don't know because I'm not a developer, but it is.

Its also a lot more likely that PS4 third party games will look better too, because they are both running on similar architecture its easy to port them back and forth, so the PS4 version could have higher res textures, or just run a better framerate and it wouldn't be any extra development effort.

I do think games wise MS did better than Sony, but that still won't do a whole lot for me personally since the only exclusive they showed that I want is Titanfall which is coming to PC, and most likely PS4 after a year.
That said, there was far more news out of the Sony camp then "no drm", Sony showed impressive games too, personally inFamous and Knack interest me more than most the Xbox exclusives though really third party games are the ones to get most excited about atm.

And again, Kinect is great - for those who want it. It shouldn't be forced upon players or pressure developers into utilizing it.

Underpaid Mike

TNT2k_ wrote: »

The Wii didn't innovate, PS move didn't innovate, kinect didn't innovate, what makes you think kinect 2.0 will either? A traditional controller beats out motion games far more often than not.

If you were playing a shooter how would kinect innovate or add to that? Voice commands? They've been done before on games like Socom on the PS3 for example and didn't add anything substantial to the game at all.

The wii didnt innovate? Ah seriously cmon thats just plain wrong. How many people ran around their living rooms playing tennis before the wii?

And the kinect didnt innovate to the extent it should have 1) not everyone had one so where was the value in spending extra development time supporting it 2) the old kinect was crude and didnt work half the time.

Requiring all consoles to have it and hugely upgrading the internals, which from the hands on reviews seems to have been done, may see developers push the boundaries when in comes to game interaction. Then again it may not but I doff my hat to them for at least trying

bk

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

If anything the power increase on the PS4 could end up wasted for all but 1st party games given the lowest common denominator is typically used for multi-platform games. PC gamers have been giving out about shoddy ports for years because they were made purely with shipping as many as possible units in mind and so were made to be compatible with all platforms.

I've already given a long and detailed explanation why this isn't true.

Does Battlefield 3 look the same on a PC with a Nvidia GT 520 as it does on a PC with a Nvidia GTX670 ?

Of course it doesn't, BF3 and all games use larger texture maps and higher frames per second (thus smoother) on PC's with more powerful GPUs.

It will be the same on X1 and PS4, it will be trivial for them to use higher texture maps and higher FPS on the PS4 with it's 50% more powerful GPU and faster and larger RAM, even for mutliplatform games.

I'll direct you back to the interview after E3 with Jack Tretton the president of Sony Entertainment. When asked about multiplatform games, he said: just go ask the developers, just go look at the multiplatform games when they launch and decide for yourself.

That to me looked like a person who was very confident that multiplatforms games will look significantly better on the PS4 and the specs are there to back it up.

ShiverinEskimo

The president of Sony Entertainment is confident in the PS4. Seriously?

bk

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

The president of Sony Entertainment is confident in the PS4. Seriously?

Yes, I'm very serious, watch the interview, it really is very convincing.

MS's execs are blathering on saying that their console will be 4 times more powerful due to the power of the cloud and BS like that.

The PS4 exec doesn't even say that the PS4 will be more powerful, he just confidently answers the question by saying just compare the mutliplatform games when they come out.

That is a far more honest and convincing answer then the marketing BS and spin we heard coming from the MS execs.

Also I notice that you ignored my comments about the more powerful GPU and why it will benefit multiplatform games even from the start, just as it does on PC.

Underpaid Mike

More than interesting news, also the first time I have seen comments about the xbone separate audio surround sound hardware. I wonder what level of load that will remove from the CPU.

Oh and to anyone about to post, ill bet thats not true the PS4 is better etc please please dont bother, id like to keep this on topic if that is possible.

Well-placed development sources have told Digital Foundry that the ESRAM embedded memory within the Xbox One processor is considerably more capable than Microsoft envisaged during pre-production of the console, with data throughput levels up to 88 per cent higher in the final hardware.

Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware

ShiverinEskimo

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Yes, yes it is true. The simple fact is PS4 is the easier console to develop for, by how much? I don't know because I'm not a developer, but it is.

Well it's not that simple a fact then is it if you can't explain it. I'm somewhat familiar with how games are developed and I can tell you, developing for x86 architecture of any shape or form is bread and butter for developers.

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Its also a lot more likely that PS4 third party games will look better too, because they are both running on similar architecture its easy to port them back and forth, so the PS4 version could have higher res textures, or just run a better framerate and it wouldn't be any extra development effort.

Bethesda (massive developer) came under a lot of criticism for Skyrim because the textures and framerate were stifled on the PC due to development for consoles the lowest common denominator (It was game-endingly broken on PS3 due to the architecture - but that's another story). Skyrim then had a HD texture pack released on PC months down the line to properly use more powerful hardware available on the PC. There's a prime example of one of the biggest games of the last generation being coded to suit the lowest common denominator first, and then being patched later to take advantage of better hardware.

That's just an obvious one too.

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

I do think games wise MS did better than Sony, but that still won't do a whole lot for me personally since the only exclusive they showed that I want is Titanfall which is coming to PC, and most likely PS4 after a year.
That said, there was far more news out of the Sony camp then "no drm", Sony showed impressive games too, personally inFamous and Knack interest me more than most the Xbox exclusives though really third party games are the ones to get most excited about atm.

And again, Kinect is great - for those who want it. It shouldn't be forced upon players or pressure developers into utilizing it.

That's fair enough - but this is akin to saying I prefer coke to pepsi. Not an argument as such, just a question of personal taste.

If people just waited until some actual cross-platform games are given the run-down in the Digital Foundary and the like before making presumptuous and speculative claims about coding, programming and APIs it would do us (and my work-load) an awful lot of good.