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

irishmover

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well you have a big misconception about PC gaming. That's how I buy games for my PC except I don't leave my house and get them online. I'm not going to convince you to go PC but what you think there about PC gaming is more like PC gaming in the 90s.

I actually think there's a little bit of a median between the two. My G75VW is 18 months old and my mid range desktop is 3 years old. I'm quite conscious of the specifications of new games coming out. My laptop or desktop has run every game I've thrown at it. The G75 sits at 60fps (vsync lock ofcourse) on ultra in Titanfall beta but I'll still continue to be conscious of whether a new game will run on my machines.

Whereas on console that's a non issue.

But I much prefer being conscious about whether a game will run on my Laptop/Desktop than simply plug and play on a console. I like the options of tweaking and figuring out the best gaming experience if things aren't going too well.

I yet to replace a part in either however I saw a deal for 8gv sticks of ram for my laptop so bought two so now have 24gb ram. Rest is stock.

Grayditch

If everyone on my XBL & PSN friends lists were playing games on PC, and if Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Santa Monica etc started making their games for PC... I'd invest in a gaming PC.

I still will build one at some stage, for the PC exclusives, but console gaming is not irrelevant for a lot of people, just because of PC's superiority in a lot of departments.

Whoever bought their Xbox One just to play Titanfall or their PS4 just to play Battlefield with people not on their current console friends lists, then they definitely messed up and should have built a gaming PC.

So many things factor into people's decisions. My friends list playing the same games is a huge deal for me.

calex71

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I prefer the ease of just going to GameStop and picking up a game that I know is optimized for the system I will be playing it on.
I don't have to wonder if I can make it look slightly better if I bought a new graphics card or whatever.
It just works out of the box as they say.
I'm a casual gamer, that system best suits my needs.

Not picking on you , but the piece in bold from the section i quoted is topical at the moment regards consoles, while the hardware will remain the same over a consoles life span there has been to me at least a worrying trend of late of console games getting kicked out the door broken and no hardware stability will save us from that, BF4 being the main offender, but others like Rocksteady saying they will not be patching Arkham city further but for progression breaking bugs is worrying. Thats probably another thread though my point being the way things are at the moment console gaming is not as pick up and play guaranteed to work as it once was, I was unable to play battlefield multiplayer on One for over 3 weeks while they patched it, and that to me was quick and only because it was a AAA title by a massive studio.

jenjenten

^ question for you guys - technically....could Microsoft or Sony release a revised/nre revision with a more powerful GPU?

I just wonder technically how it could work?....say revision 2.0 consoles are sold and games are sold that run on rev. 2.0.....but then how would that effect original consoles/rev. 1.0?

Would those new games simply not run on the original consoles?.....i just wonder if there was tecnical limitations or other reasons why they could or could not release a new version of these consoles.

Blazer

The only upgrades they really get is chipsets and increased hard drive sizes.
Chipsets get smaller and thus lead to slim versions.
However I reckon this time around we could see MS release a GDDR5 variant in a few years so as not to piss off the day one adopters. Me being one of them.

jenjenten

Blazer wrote: »

The only upgrades they really get is chipsets and increased hard drive sizes.
Chipsets get smaller and thus lead to slim versions.
However I reckon this time around we could see MS release a GDDR5 variant in a few years so as not to piss off the day one adopters. Me being one of them.

But if they upgrade to faster RAM how will that effect original console customers?....different specs/speeds....would a game work on the new console but not the old?

I fully expect the APU to get a die shrink, and maybe other chips get revised etc.....but they will run at the same speeds.

Grayditch

Remember this little fella? Can't remember of it worked out well, or badly for Nintendo, but I bought one anyway.

Will I Amnt

calex71 wrote: »

Not picking on you , but the piece in bold from the section i quoted is topical at the moment regards consoles, while the hardware will remain the same over a consoles life span there has been to me at least a worrying trend of late of console games getting kicked out the door broken and no hardware stability will save us from that, BF4 being the main offender, but others like Rocksteady saying they will not be patching Arkham city further but for progression breaking bugs is worrying. Thats probably another thread though my point being the way things are at the moment console gaming is not as pick up and play guaranteed to work as it once was, I was unable to play battlefield multiplayer on One for over 3 weeks while they patched it, and that to me was quick and only because it was a AAA title by a massive studio.

Yeah, I agree with you there. BF4 and GTA online were a disaster early on. When I say they work out of the box, I mean I don't have to mess around with my console to get it to look as best as it can.

tok9

Jenjenten, there is absolutely no chance of that.

It defeats the whole purpose of a console. If they add a better GPU or whatever it would have to be considered a new console...

tok9

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

While its important Microsoft invest in their own game studios it is very important that they find new startup game studios like Respawn entertainment who have games with great potential and offer them support and resources (free servers and expertise) in exchange for deals like exclusivity.

I'm not meaning to pick on you but none of the above seems true.

Sure Respawn were a startup company but not in the sense of a small indie team and EA picked them up for publishing.

The exclusivity deal had nothing to do with Respawn, in fact they even seemed shocked to find out that it had a lifetime exclusivity deal which was revealed in one of EAs business meetings.

Every game on Xbox One gets free servers, this isn't just applicable to Titanfall. As for expertise... I wouldn't say MS are involved at all in what Respawn are doing.

So again... purchasing Titanfall as an exclusive would not be something to instill me with confidence.

Grayditch

I'd love to know how the whole exclusivity arrangement came about and what it involved. And if it was/will be worth it. I mean, there are more PS4's sold than Xbox Ones, so that's a massive loss right there. There's the much smaller and possibly non consequential factor that Titanfall 2 might be ignored by a lot of people on PS4, because they didn't play Titanfall 1.

FAILSAFE 00

tok9 wrote: »

The exclusivity deal had nothing to do with Respawn, in fact they even seemed shocked to find out that it had a lifetime exclusivity deal which was revealed in one of EAs business meetings.

I actually dont buy that, they referred to meeting with Microsoft numerous times and that they needed Microsoft's infrastructure for a game like Titanfall. I think they are treading very carefully to not offend PS4 users who will surely buy Titanfall 2.

tok9 wrote: »

Every game on Xbox One gets free servers, this isn't just applicable to Titanfall. As for expertise... I wouldn't say MS are involved at all in what Respawn are doing.

Yes, that's why I referenced it has a positive for owning Xbox One. Microsoft has provided expertise to Respawn studios. Here is one example.

According to the following article http://mp1st.com/2013/06/24/titanfall-respawn-entertainment-talks-cloud-computing-and-why-dedicated-servers-are-better/ Jon Shiring, an engineer working with the Microsoft Cloud technology was utilized in Titanfall.

Here are some Respawn quotes from the following article.

“The Xbox group came back to us with a way for us to run all of these Titanfall dedicated servers and that lets us push games with more server CPU and higher bandwidth, which lets us have a bigger world, more physics, lots of AI, and potentially a lot more than that!”

“With the Xbox Live Cloud, we don’t have to worry about estimating how many servers we’ll need on launch day. We don’t have to find ISPs all over the globe and rent servers from each one..... Microsoft has datacenters all over the world, so everyone playing our game should have a consistent, low latency connection to their local datacenter.”

IMO this exclusivity deal came down to both parties needing something from each other. Microsoft needed a next gen shooter for Xbox One and Xbox 360 and Respawn/EA needed Microsoft's global server infrastructure for the cost of €0.

COYVB

Grayditch wrote: »

I'd love to know how the whole exclusivity arrangement came about and what it involved. And if it was/will be worth it. I mean, there are more PS4's sold than Xbox Ones, so that's a massive loss right there. There's the much smaller and possibly non consequential factor that Titanfall 2 might be ignored by a lot of people on PS4, because they didn't play Titanfall 1.

But how many less Xbox Ones would've been sold if Titanfall was a full on multiplatform title?

Corholio

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

PC gaming is so far ahead of these so called next gen consoles it's not even funny. Mods, cheaper games, steam sales, multiple controller support, stunning graphics, no online fees, loads of free games, bigger storage, upgradable parts and the satisfaction of building and upgrading your rig are some of the reasons to switch to a PC.

Why 'so called next gen'? They are next gen, the next generation of consoles. I agree with all you said about the PC's etc. Some people just aren't PC gamers though, I have a PC that I play games on from time to time but I'd be essentially a console gamer and I certainly don't feel 'less' or that I'm not taking advantage of anything.

Personally for me, I can never imagine just solely gaming on a PC, or even close to solely doing it.

Grayditch

COYVB wrote: »

But how many less Xbox Ones would've been sold if Titanfall was a full on multiplatform title?

I meant Respawn and/or EA. I'd be just curious to see how the whole deal balances out for them.

sarumite

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I actually dont buy that, they referred to meeting with Microsoft numerous times and that they needed Microsoft's infrastructure for a game like Titanfall. I think they are treading very carefully to not offend PS4 users who will surely buy Titanfall 2.

http://www.neowin.net/news/titanfall-developer-didnt-know-game-would-be-xbox-one-exclusive-forever

Quoted from Zampella

"Ea made a deal for the rest, we only found out recently =( "

Tipsy McSwagger

Corholio wrote: »

Why 'so called next gen'? They are next gen, the next generation of consoles. I agree with all you said about the PC's etc. Some people just aren't PC gamers though, I have a PC that I play games on from time to time but I'd be essentially a console gamer and I certainly don't feel 'less' or that I'm not taking advantage of anything.

Personally for me, I can never imagine just solely gaming on a PC, or even close to solely doing it.

Yes you are right they are technically the next gen of consoles but they sure as hell don't feel like it. If I was asked a year ago what to expect from the next gen of consoles one of the top things would be 1080p resolution and 60 FPS on nearly every game.

As for solely playing on PC I can totally understand the convenience of console gaming. But when I buy a game (like Tomb Raider) I want it to look and run as best it can with the added bonus that it will cost half the price of its console version.

Pushtrak

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

very helpful post considering he can answer for himself which he did:pac:

It had been said a couple of times previously in the thread too, but that didn't seem to stick.

calex71 wrote: »

but others like Rocksteady saying they will not be patching Arkham city further but for progression breaking bugs is worrying.

That wasn't Rocksteady. They're working on the next game in the series.

www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348659/scitech/geeksandgaming/batman-arkham-origins-creators-will-no-longer-release-patches

Grayditch wrote: »

There's the much smaller and possibly non consequential factor that Titanfall 2 might be ignored by a lot of people on PS4, because they didn't play Titanfall 1.

It's multiplayer only, so I wouldn't rate that too worrisome. Besides, I see lots of people jumping in to games series without having played previous games. It seems fewer people care about playing in order than those who do from anecdotal experience of seeing lots of people talk about it.

tok9

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I actually dont buy that, they referred to meeting with Microsoft numerous times and that they needed Microsoft's infrastructure for a game like Titanfall. I think they are treading very carefully to not offend PS4 users who will surely buy Titanfall 2.

Surely if this is true we'll never see it on PS4 as it doesn't have this apparent infrastructure

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Yes, that's why I referenced it has a positive for owning Xbox One. Microsoft has provided expertise to Respawn studios. Here is one example.

According to the following article http://mp1st.com/2013/06/24/titanfall-respawn-entertainment-talks-cloud-computing-and-why-dedicated-servers-are-better/ Jon Shiring, an engineer working with the Microsoft Cloud technology was utilized in Titanfall.

Jon Shiring works for Respawn, not Microsoft. That article doesn't show anything regarding Microsofts expertise.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

IMO this exclusivity deal came down to both parties needing something from each other. Microsoft needed a next gen shooter for Xbox One and Xbox 360 and Respawn/EA needed Microsoft's global server infrastructure for the cost of €0.

Needed is a strong word... I'm sure Respawn wanted free servers (which they would have got anyway).

Vince's quote that was posted above blatantly shows they had no idea of the exclusivity deal that was arranged. That's straight from the top guy at Respawn.

sarumite

tok9 wrote: »

Needed is a strong word... I'm sure Respawn wanted free servers (which they would have got anyway).

Vince's quote that was posted above blatantly shows they had no idea of the exclusivity deal that was arranged. That's straight from the top guy at Respawn.

I have no doubt a bucket load of money went from MS towards EA for the exclusivity deal. Servers had very little to do with it!

Cienciano

Another thing about PC's is modding games. Looking at the the r/skyrim on reddit and seeing all those mods, looks amazing.

COYVB wrote: »

But how many less Xbox Ones would've been sold if Titanfall was a full on multiplatform title?

IMHO you'd want to be a complete idiot to buy a lesser console based on one game, especially buying it months before that game is out. I'm sure there's a few out there that have, and they'll have to pretend it's an amazing game to justify their decision.

Pushtrak

Cienciano wrote: »

IMHO you'd want to be a complete idiot to buy a lesser console based on one game, especially buying it months before that game is out. I'm sure there's a few out there that have, and they'll have to pretend it's an amazing game to justify their decision.

People aren't really buying it for 'one game' though. The people who get Titanfall are also likely to get some other stuff, both that is and isn't multiplatform. For instance, Halo.. though that'll be divisive as it'll be Halo 2 anniversary this year. Some people who got the One will probably be pissed about that, but others will be happy. Those people who decide to only get one console should make that choice based on the system that'll give them the exclusive games.

Also, you'd think that people buy a system on the release of [game of choice] but lots of people do not do that. I saw people who 'bought a PS3 for the last guardian'. That worked well for them. I saw people who bought it at launch for the next Gran Turismo. The 'people don't buy a system for a game not out for months' expects a rationality from people that doesn't bear out in reality for a pretty decent amount of the console market.

kunst nugget

I don't think people are buying consoles just for one game, though. They are buying them out of brand loyalty, the game just becomes the justification to others of why they are buying it. I don't really see a problem with brand loyalty, if you like a particular system and it's always worked for you then I can't see a problem with you continuing to favour it. It's when it becomes about aneed to put down the other side in order to feel better about your purchase that it becomes tiresome. The Xbox one will get better like the PS3 before because if it doesn't and it fails (which considering it's sales already is highly unlikey) the lack of competition will be a very bad thing for gamers in general, I reckon. Vive la différence and all that malarkey.

Tipsy McSwagger

I bought a PS2 the day after playing GTA3 on my brothers PS2, because that game blew me away. Did i play lots of other great games on it, yes i did, but i bought it for GTA3. Would i recommend people buy a PS3 just for The Last of Us? absolutely. Is a vita worth owning for Persona 4 alone? probably. Then there's Dreamcast/Shenmue, GBA/Advance Wars, Snes/SMW or A Link to the Past, Mega Drive/Sonic, N64/Ocarina of Time or Mario 64. When FailSafe says he bought an X1 because Titanfall was not going to be on the PS4 it doesn't mean he bought it just to play that game, it was just a major factor in deciding what console to go with.

Grayditch

I too am hoping for a competitive market for both, but I'm disappointed to see MS paying to keep games off the PS4 rather than pay for the development of new games from the ground up.

If you'll excuse the footballing comparison, its like having no youth system, and buying players at massive prices when they're already established.

I told a friend in was getting Titanfall for the 360 and he laughed and said he'll be playing the better version on the One. I decided not to remind him of how most games are running better on PS4, because our other mate with a monster PC was there too.

You don't play your trips to beat a pair, when there's a flush at the table. Even if all they use that flush for is StarCraft and Wow

Pushtrak

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't think people are buying console just for one game, though. They are buying them out of brand loyalty, the game just becomes the justification to others of why they are buying it.

What creates the brand loyalty though? It's the games. It does get to a point where it is more than just the game though. To illustrate that, look at games that were previously exclusive to one system and are multiplatform... Or look at the hypothetical example of Mario in that discussion of *if* the (not going to happen) Nintendo games went to other systems. People associate the games with a certain system, and if it isn't on that system it wouldn't 'play right'. The games are what creates the brand loyalty because the games are the brand.

irishmover

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I bought a PS2 the day after playing GTA3 on my brothers PS2, because that game blew me away. Did i play lots of other great games on it, yes i did, but i bought it for GTA3. Would i recommend people buy a PS3 just for The Last of Us? absolutely. Is a vita worth owning for Persona 4 alone? probably. Then there's Dreamcast/Shenmue, GBA/Advance Wars, Snes/SMW or A Link to the Past, Mega Drive/Sonic, N64/Ocarina of Time or Mario 64. When FailSafe says he bought an X1 because Titanfall was not going to be on the PS4 it doesn't mean he bought it just to play that game, it was just a major factor in deciding what console to go with.

Weren't all them exclusives to that console/handheld? Titanfall isn't an Xbox One exclusive.

I suppose I am being a bit pedantic here though as your point still stands.

Cienciano

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't think people are buying consoles just for one game, though. They are buying them out of brand loyalty, the game just becomes the justification to others of why they are buying it. I don't really see a problem with brand loyalty, if you like a particular system and it's always worked for you then I can't see a problem with you continuing to favour it. It's when it becomes about aneed to put down the other side in order to feel better about your purchase that it becomes tiresome. The Xbox one will get better like the PS3 before because if it doesn't and it fails (which considering it's sales already is highly unlikey) the lack of competition will be a very bad thing for gamers in general, I reckon. Vive la différence and all that malarkey.

Actually, you're dead right. It's brand loyalty rather hidden under the "i bought it for xxxx game". And in fairness, I had a ps1,2 and 3 and would have bought a 4 unless the competition was far and away better. Would I be justifying an xbone if I had a string of microsoft consoles? Not sure, I doubt it. Considering I sold my ps4 first day preorder deposit and I'm thinking of heading down the PC route (something I never thought I'd do) I reckon I mustn't be that brainwashed by sony!
Maybe the constant PC master race guys is finally having an effect on me.

Pushtrak wrote: »

What creates the brand loyalty though? It's the games. It does get to a point where it is more than just the game though. To illustrate that, look at games that were previously exclusive to one system and are multiplatform... Or look at the hypothetical example of Mario in that discussion of *if* the (not going to happen) Nintendo games went to other systems. People associate the games with a certain system, and if it isn't on that system it wouldn't 'play right'. The games are what creates the brand loyalty because the games are the brand.

It's more than the games, I think people are happy with certain prodcuts and no one really likes change. It happens with all consumer products, that's why it's more than the games.

kunst nugget

Pushtrak wrote: »

What creates the brand loyalty though? It's the games. It does get to a point where it is more than just the game though. To illustrate that, look at games that were previously exclusive to one system and are multiplatform... Or look at the hypothetical example of Mario in that discussion of *if* the (not going to happen) Nintendo games went to other systems. People associate the games with a certain system, and if it isn't on that system it wouldn't 'play right'. The games are what creates the brand loyalty because the games are the brand.

Undoubtedly true but I suppose when we are talking about people buying new generation consoles where there's little in the way of games on them to judge, brand loyalty will be a big thing in terms of what they choose. Mind you, Microsoft did do a lot of damage with that in terms of how they handled their PR but I can still understand people choosing to buy xbox one if they've had a 360 the same way that a lot of people who had a PS2 would have bought a PS3 at the beginning despite the negative publicity it received at launch. I know many of you buy multiple platforms but there are a lot of people that can usually afford to splash out on one or the other.

Pushtrak

Buying the Xbox 360 was a far easier thing than buying the Xbox One. I really loved Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. When the 360 was coming out, it looked like if I wanted to play the games Bethesda and BioWare were going to make, it was upgrade the PC or 360. The One and the PS4 are going to have exclusives as things progress, and I already know ones I'll have fun with on both, but right now, games I know for either system, nothing is really on that level for either system.. Again, that is known at this point.