Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

Pushtrak

wrt40 wrote: »

to be honest I had my hopes set on an Xbox because I felt MS were truly trying to push things to the next gen. and yes I'm very disappointed, not that they are losing the war but that the graphics performance is poor. It is important. I go through phases of wanting an xbox and phases of wanting a PS4. I obviously need to wait a bit longer and see how things develop. another disappointment, because I want one or the other now!

The sensible thing is waiting till E3. That isn't so far off.

COYVB wrote: »

Kinect, technologically, works reasonably well. The problem is that I don't think anyone is ever going to step up to the plate and implement it in a sensible way, because once that "Better With Kinect" logo gets plastered on a box, players are turned off.

From what I understand, they don't have better with kinect any more? Am I wrong on that? I thought I read somewhere they aren't going to mark that any more. It'll just be a natural part of the game. With the 360, they had to mark the kinect games from non-kinect games, but with games like Battlefield 4 featuring it in a basic way, it seemed redundant to them to use 'better with kinect'.

wrt40

COYVB wrote: »

PSN bypassed Live a while ago and hasn't looked back since.

Interesting. This is the first time I've heard this, honestly. There is very, very little talk about PSN out there. Even on here, I've asked the question a couple of times and you're the first to give an answer. You can be forgiven for assuming it mustn't be very good, so thanks for some feedback on it. I must find out more about it, maybe get a look at it in action.

COYVB

Pushtrak wrote: »

From what I understand, they don't have better with kinect any more? Am I wrong on that?

Pretty sure they've still got it, or something citing Kinect use, on the boxes, but I can't check at the moment because I'm in the office and I may have stolen the Xbox One games from here and left them at home. Shall double check when I get home

wrt40

Pushtrak wrote: »

From what I understand, they don't have better with kinect any more? Am I wrong on that? I thought I read somewhere they aren't going to mark that any more. It'll just be a natural part of the game. With the 360, they had to mark the kinect games from non-kinect games, but with games like Battlefield 4 featuring it in a basic way, it seemed redundant to them to use 'better with kinect'.

Yes this was the whole reason why the Kinect is mandatory. developers can simply integrate it into games and not have to worry about having an opt out. and no need to advertise it on the package.

COYVB

wrt40 wrote: »

Interesting. This is the first time I've heard this, honestly. There is very, very little talk about PSN out there. Even on here, I've asked the question a couple of times and you're the first to give an answer. You can be forgiven for assuming it mustn't be very good, so thanks for some feedback on it. I must find out more about it, maybe get a look at it in action.

The beauty of it is that it's very, very basic, because that's all it needs to be. Whether that's a plus or a minus for you though, will depend on you. There's no swanky bells or whistles, you just do your thing and it does its thing. What exactly are you looking for in an online service? Just the usual stuff like chat and multiplayer? Or deeper features than that? That'd help with a comparison

wrt40

COYVB wrote: »

The beauty of it is that it's very, very basic, because that's all it needs to be. Whether that's a plus or a minus for you though, will depend on you. There's no swanky bells or whistles, you just do your thing and it does its thing. What exactly are you looking for in an online service? Just the usual stuff like chat and multiplayer? Or deeper features than that? That'd help with a comparison

More along the lines of intelligence. Pairing like with like with regards broadband speed, region, ability, age etc also server performance and reliability.

COYVB

wrt40 wrote: »

More along the lines of intelligence. Pairing like with like with regards broadband speed, region, ability, age etc also server performance and reliability.

Like with MS, that's all dependent on the developers of the individual games and how they build their multiplayer logic I believe

Grayditch

The PS4 user interface is a dream compared to PS3.

_Redzer_

wrt40 wrote: »

Interesting. This is the first time I've heard this, honestly. There is very, very little talk about PSN out there. Even on here, I've asked the question a couple of times and you're the first to give an answer. You can be forgiven for assuming it mustn't be very good, so thanks for some feedback on it. I must find out more about it, maybe get a look at it in action.

As someone who had a PS3 before, the online on the PS4 has improved hugely in both speed and functionality. Couple that with PS+ and it's a fantastic experience. At this stage both do the chat and multiplayer equally, the added bonus is the games being given out with PS+ which the X1 lacks currently.

COYVB

Grayditch wrote: »

The PS4 user interface is a dream compared to PS3.

The PS3 one got a little big for its boots in the last few years. I'm not sure how what looked like a relatively simple interface crippled the machine so badly in terms of performance at times. Look at the PS3 PSN Store, for example, it's an absolute dog for something that's really not all that flashy

COYVB

_Redzer_ wrote: »

the added bonus is the games being given out with PS+ which the X1 lacks currently.

To be fair to them that's coming in the summer:)

Grayditch

COYVB wrote: »

The PS3 one got a little big for its boots in the last few years. I'm not sure how what looked like a relatively simple interface crippled the machine so badly in terms of performance at times. Look at the PS3 PSN Store, for example, it's an absolute dog for something that's really not all that flashy

Going onto the store on PS3 now is not an enjoyable experience. Am I imagining that download times on PS4 are so much quicker, or is that just because less people are downloading the games? I'm not really up to speed on that kind of thing.

COYVB

No you're definitely right. I get full line speed on the PS4 store, but with PS3 I'm lucky if I get 1mb/s

sarumite

wrt40 wrote: »

Maybe Microsoft can come up with a solution, then all would be ok? There is 8% GPU power reserved for Kinect, they have said they will free this up for developers. Will it make a big difference?

If they do that, they would effectively kill kinect as a gaming peripheral. At which point you have a machine that is €100 more expensive with a Kinect that is largely unused, which is not something I imagine is particularly appealing for MS. If they tide of superior ports on the PS4 continues, they may have to do it, but I suspect it is not something they will do in the short term.

Personally I think MS were always going to be behind in the initial sales race as early adopters were likely to be the more dedicated gamers, the same people Sony were pitching their product to but not the same people targeted by MS. However as the market develops, I think MS can pull in potential customers who are attracted by its multimedia functionality.

wrt40

COYVB wrote: »

Like with MS, that's all dependent on the developers of the individual games and how they build their multiplayer logic I believe

Ok, but it mostly depends on what's available to them.

kunst nugget

COYVB wrote: »

Look at the PS3 PSN Store, for example, it's an absolute dog for something that's really not all that flashy

How so? I'm only relatively new to the PS3 after buying a vita over a year ago and I can't see anything majorly flawed about it. Tbf, most of the times I know what game I'm after before going into the store so I'm usually mainly using the search at the top.

wrt40

sarumite wrote: »

If they do that, they would effectively kill kinect as a gaming peripheral.

It would be another U-turn, not something I'd be happy about to be honest. I'd prefer another solution. Some way to convince developers to use the esram maybe, rather than being lazy and simply slashing the resolution.

COYVB

kunst nugget wrote: »

How so? I'm only relatively new to the PS3 after buying a vita over a year ago and I can't see anything majorly flawed about it. Tbf, most of the times I know what game I'm after before going into the store so I'm usually mainly using the search at the top.

It's just so incredibly slow to load and respond at times. To be honest, you won't notice it too badly til you use it on the PS4, then going back to the PS3 will hurt (just for the Store, mind, everything else is still great)

COYVB

wrt40 wrote: »

Ok, but it mostly depends on what's available to them.

I don't think there's any major difference on that front, Azure aside, but Sony isn't exactly sans cloud capability either as PS Now demonstrates. That side of this will be interesting - because I don't buy that there exists too much grounding in reality for MS' claims about how the cloud can help in the way they say it will, but I'd love to be wrong

gaynorvader

wrt40 wrote: »

It's €100 cheaper but that's not comparing like with like. If you add in the PS Eye then the difference is (I think) €40. Most people don't care about Kinect or PS Eye, so I agree paying €100 extra for something you don't want doesn't make sense. But I would actually like to see Kinect and PS Eye games evolve, as I said I want to see something next generation. they're also more family friendly and more suited for casual gaming, which are considerations for me. It doesn't look like Sony have any plans for the PS Eye, another disappointment. It will need competition between the two for this area to develop.

True, but I already have a PS Move, just as many 360 owners I know have a Kinect. The difference is I can use my Move on a PS4 if I get one.

wrt40 wrote: »

- Kinect has a lot of potential to offer something new and innovative. I have my doubts it will deliver though, they didn't come out with anything special last gen and the improvement is not so vast that they're likely to come up with anything this generation. It's more of a hope than anything, I'd love to be at the stage where you're standing in front of the screen using voice and hand gestures for some serious gaming, coupled with a controller (why not). Augmented reality is another potential aspect to be explored.

- It needs to double up as a HTPC, or at least a DLNA client. Also TV apps (net flicks etc) and catch up services. I know neither can do DLNA browsing, but again it's down to potential. Xbox has a lot of potential with gesture, voice control, multitasking. I like the living room hub idea. Because the reality is its not going to be used purely for gaming in my house.

- Xbox live. PS Network just wasn't a patch on Xbox live. I have no idea how it fares on PS4. Free games and indie apps is a big plus, but I wouldn't write Microsoft off on this. It's not like you're going to be comparing graphics on low budget indie titles.

I think that's all. Xbox basically has stepped it up a bit as you would expect something with a title of "next generation" to do. If they has stuck with the disc-less, always on approach I'd probably own one right now. Why? Because it pushes things to a new level...as in next generation.

I largely agree with you here, but will say that if you haven't tried the PSN in the last year or so, you're working on outdated information. It's come on leaps and bounds and appears to be even better on the PS4.

Xenji

Maybe this is what could be the unique next gen selling point for the PS4, god knows when it will be released though.

Road to VR just posted report from one of their sources who is building game for Sony VR headset. Same source tried Valve VR headset. So far they have been very professional with their news reporting.
http://www.roadtovr.com/sonys-ps4-vr...details-emerge

We’ve now received word from someone claiming to not only have tried Sony’s secretive virtual reality hardware but is actively developing software to utilise the device. Our source describes the HMD as having an FOV comparable to that of the Oculus Rift DK1 but with a much higher resolution. Further, the prototype our source had extensive time with, used two glowing orbs mounted atop the headset. Using a camera, assumed at this point to be the standard PS4 stereo camera that launched alongside the console late last year, the system tracks the user’s head in 3D space using the orbs to pinpoint position. Currently we have no information as to how head orientation is tracked, but it would make sense for Sony to include a solution similar to the Oculus Rift headtracker (IMU).

Perhaps more interestingly, though, is that our developer source claims also to have attended the recent Steam Dev Days event in Seattle and sampled Valve’s apparently impressive prototype VR headset. According to the source, the two HMDs compare very favourably. The general impression was that resolution was comparable between Sony’s and Valve’s unit (reported to use two 1080p panels) and that head tracking accuracy was very close.

Finally, the developer also tells us that Sony’s VR headset was supposed to be revealed already but that technical issues delayed the announcement. What those issues were, we do not know.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=763061

Retr0gamer

Well the first store was pretty much a HTML webpage, when they redesigned it it looked better but was a real hog on resources and it's really slow to navigate. I'm pretty sure it's running in a browser whereas on the 360 the store was integrated into the OS and is a lot faster.

wrt40

Xenji wrote: »

Maybe this is what could be the unique next gen selling point for the PS4, god knows when it will be released though.

I knew PS4 was lacking something

Magill

The problem will be the power requirements needed for VR. Will be interesting to see what Sony comes up with tho.

calex71

Kind of related to VR headsets I guess, but I always wondered since Kinect and the PS cameras came out, why there was no kind of small receiver to place on your headset, surely that would only aid in tracking the player more accurately if it was small and discrete especially head movements

COYVB

calex71 wrote: »

Kind of related to VR headsets I guess, but I always wondered since Kinect and the PS cameras came out, why there was no kind of small receiver to place on your headset, surely that would only aid in tracking the player more accurately if it was small and discrete especially head movements

Small and discrete head movements happen unintentionally all the time when playing. It'd have to be very obvious and distinct movements to work

COYVB

Magill wrote: »

The problem will be the power requirements needed for VR. Will be interesting to see what Sony comes up with tho.

I seem to remember hearing around the announcement event last February that the ps4 was capable of 1080p 3D. Then that talk went quiet... Now it seems very relevant if true

Magill

COYVB wrote: »

I seem to remember hearing around the announcement event last February that the ps4 was capable of 1080p 3D. Then that talk went quiet... Now it seems very relevant if true

That depends entirely on the context. Im sure its capable of 1080p 3D for less demanding games, but i mean it isn't even capable of running tomb raider at a solid 60fps. For it to run on say the Oculus rift, it would need to run tomb raider twice at a solid 60fps. Unless i'm missing something ?

Pushtrak

Magill wrote: »

That depends entirely on the context. Im sure its capable of 1080p 3D for less demanding games, but i mean it isn't even capable of running tomb raider at a solid 60fps. For it to run on say the Oculus rift, it would need to run tomb raider twice at a solid 60fps. Unless i'm missing something ?

There is a difference between what it has done and what it can do. This applies to both the PS4 and One. What Tomb Raider did only tells you what Tomb Raider did, not what the consoles can do.

kunst nugget

Magill wrote: »

That depends entirely on the context. Im sure its capable of 1080p 3D for less demanding games, but i mean it isn't even capable of running tomb raider at a solid 60fps. For it to run on say the Oculus rift, it would need to run tomb raider twice at a solid 60fps. Unless i'm missing something ?

I thought the PS4 had no problem running at an average of 60fps for Tomb Raider?