or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 143

post #4261 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

Or here's a crazy thought, maybe it was just that good. I'm sure every journalist probably took money or something like that, right?

So you are saying that people who have actually seen & played 100's of different games in person at this year's E3.. and can speak from that actual hands on experience.. somehow know just a little bit more than a guy from the internet who has only watched a 5 minute video on youtube?

Shocker.
post #4262 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

So you are saying that people who have actually seen & played 100's of different games in person at this year's E3.. and can speak from that actual hands on experience.. somehow know just a little bit more than a guy from the internet who has only watched a 5 minute video on youtube?

Shocker.
There's no way. I mean, most likely everyone was paid off.
post #4263 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

There's no way. I mean, most likely everyone was paid off.

While I don't think people were "paid off", reliance on access and advertising dollars is a huge problem for jounalistic integirty in the industry. Been that way for quite a while now.

I don't even bother with most game review sites because most often than not there's no rhyme or reason someone was put on a review (why is a self proclaimed FPS junkie reviewing a western JRPG?), or they just gloss over pros and cons to not get on the bad side of the hand that feeds them.

There's very few gaming "journalists" out there I trust. Same can be said for CE and technology, which has very similar problems with review and promotional capture. Hell, it's part of the reason for this site; so we can pass on real firsthand info to each other and cut through the cross clutter.
post #4264 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

jlomaga, you brought up some good points. Now I have been thinking about the two console set up for a while, but I also have some issues. This generation, I did the majority of my gaming on my Xbox, but the online on PS3 was free and it was my blu-ray player. Now both of those advantages will be gone, so besides missing out on a couple games, what is going to be the thing that causes people like me to jump in on a PS4. I am not saying I won't get it, because I am planning on getting both at launch, but I wonder what people that use the Sony consoles as their secondary console will do.

It boils down to exclusives and online content/network. If PSN can do the streaming game library stuff they mentioned that could be a plus. But I'm sure then we'll see MS buy Onlive to counter. But yeah the only real big difference right now the PS4 has over the XB1 is the price difference. I think if both were the same price XB1 is an easy and much better buy for EVERYONE. But 100 bucks is a lot to some people and will be a big factor for those people.
post #4265 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

While I don't think people were "paid off", reliance on access and advertising dollars is a huge problem for jounalistic integirty in the industry. Been that way for quite a while now.

I don't even bother with most game review sites because most often than not there's no rhyme or reason someone was put on a review (why is a self proclaimed FPS junkie reviewing a western JRPG?), or they just gloss over pros and cons to not get on the bad side of the hand that feeds them.

There's very few gaming "journalists" out there I trust. Same can be said for CE and technology, which has very similar problems with review and promotional capture. Hell, it's part of the reason for this site; so we can pass on real firsthand info to each other and cut through the cross clutter.
But like its been said, it was the journalist that played and loved it. And it wasn't just one or two of them, it was practically every site. I'll take that over some random guy on the Internet that saw a video or two.
post #4266 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlomaga View Post

It boils down to exclusives and online content/network. If PSN can do the streaming game library stuff they mentioned that could be a plus. But I'm sure then we'll see MS buy Onlive to counter. But yeah the only real big difference right now the PS4 has over the XB1 is the price difference. I think if both were the same price XB1 is an easy and much better buy for EVERYONE. But 100 bucks is a lot to some people and will be a big factor for those people.
I know I'll be getting both, so those things don't matter to me.
post #4267 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsv View Post

jlomaga, what xb1 exclusives caught your interest? I haven't been keeping up much with other games on either next gen console other than BF4.

Exclusive would be Ryse. The game was just gorgeous and I'm a big fan of the era. I loved the tv show Spartacus and Ryse has that brutality. Forza is also very solid, and the new trigger feedback is crazy. And I got to mention Dead Rising 3. Again the game looked amazing and the sheer scale is mind blowing.

However my overall top game of E3 was The Division. From the graphics and gameplay elements to the co-op tablet support. This is gonna be the first jewel of next-gen just showing off everything an always connected game environment will give us.

Oh and I noticed a lot of Titanfall talk, that was by far my least favorite of the show. It's pretty an all and has potential but it just didn't grab me and make me go WOW like other games. Those saying it's being over hyped are correct.
post #4268 of 14797
Has there actually been anyone who got to play Titanfall at E3? I am looking on youtube and all I can find are interviews and canned demos, no actual hands on impressions from anyone.
post #4269 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Has there actually been anyone who got to play Titanfall at E3? I am looking on youtube and all I can find are interviews and canned demos, no actual hands on impressions from anyone.

No it wasn't hands on. The majority of game's this year were eyes only. The only things really hands on were launch titles, like Ryse, Forza etc. Anything beyond that or the scale of Titanfall and Dead Rising weren't playable. But we did see actual gameplay and not just CG trailers.
post #4270 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlomaga View Post

No it wasn't hands on. The majority of game's this year were eyes only. The only things really hands on were launch titles, like Ryse, Forza etc. Anything beyond that or the scale of Titanfall and Dead Rising weren't playable. But we did see actual gameplay and not just CG trailers.

Problem with that is a lot of those games were running on high end PCs, can't make any calls about graphics or framerate when they aren't even running on the console. (And aren't playable in most cases)

Remember the Aliens CM demo? I no longer trust hands off demos for anything, too easy to make a bullshot demo these days.
post #4271 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Problem with that is a lot of those games were running on high end PCs, can't make any calls about graphics or framerate when they aren't even running on the console. (And aren't playable in most cases)

Remember the Aliens CM demo? I no longer trust hands off demos for anything, too easy to make a bullshot demo these days.

Well the truth is I have very rarely when attending private/invite only events played any pre-release game on actual consumer hardware. DO NOT read into the reddit rage as it's stirred by people who are sitting at home making assumptions. Over the last 5 years attending E3 I have seen many eyes only previews and I can not say one has fallen short when the demo was touted as being on console equivalent hardware. Only after launch has console dev kits moved from PC towers to near console looking cases. Any website or "game journalist" saying opposite is stirring **** to produce hits.
post #4272 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post



Remember the Aliens CM demo? I no longer trust hands off demos for anything, too easy to make a bullshot demo these days.

That was a first though; Gearbox had an entire bull-demo where most publishers just push bullshots. Come to find out the entire game got outsourced and something terrible happened to it. What, no one really knows. But they sure did break it.

Sad really. But it is a cautionary tale for journalists that pushed puff pieces on it right up until the review NDA's lapsed. How many copies were sold to unknowing people going on the prior info/hype?

Likewise though, E3 for games 6-14 month out aren't always showing their best builds. More often they'll pick a build that might not be up to graphical or performance snuff, but is stable and won't crash or do something embarrassing; even though they're currently much further along. They don't want what happened to AC:Black Fail to happen in front of gamers and a industry audience.
post #4273 of 14797
Sorry, but an Nvidia GPU powered PC tower running Windows 7 is not equivilent of anything in the Xbox One. It vastly out powered the target specs. At least the 360 demo PCs were actually weaker and we were surprised at launch.

With Microsoft having yield problems with the APU thanks to the eSRAM, system power may slip even further to reduce heat, this is another reason I don't trust their hands off demos, or even their hands on demos, we have no clue what the final hardware will actually be able to do thanks to this.
post #4274 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Sorry, but an Nvidia GPU powered PC tower running Windows 7 is not equivilent of anything in the Xbox One. It vastly out powered the target specs. At least the 360 demo PCs were actually weaker and we were surprised at launch.

With Microsoft having yield problems with the APU thanks to the eSRAM, system power may slip even further to reduce heat, this is another reason I don't trust their hands off demos, or even their hands on demos, we have no clue what the final hardware will actually be able to do thanks to this.

The 360 PC's were actually Apple PPC (same architecture) and the official Dev kits for a while. They had the same basic architecture as the 360.

What was shown on PC's were Window 7/8 PC versions of the game, period. That much we know. Still, it could be as simple as not having a stable Dev Kit build to show, but 5 months out that worrisome.
post #4275 of 14797

Any truth to this stuff? Bias fanboys can keep their opinions out, I'm looking for info from people that know tech.
post #4276 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post


Any truth to this stuff? Bias fanboys can keep their opinions out, I'm looking for info from people that know tech.

Found this on a forum:
Quote:

The principle differences are:
•DDR3 runs at a higher voltage that GDDR5 (typically 1.25-1.65V versus ~1V)
•DDR3 uses a 64-bit memory controller per channel ( so, 128-bit bus for dual channel, 256-bit for quad channel), whereas GDDR5 is paired with controllers of a nominal 32-bit (16 bit each for input and output), but whereas the CPU's memory contoller is 64-bit per channel, a GPU can utilise any number of 32-bit I/O's (at the cost of die size) depending upon application ( 2 for 64-bit bus, 4 for 128-bit, 6 for 192-bit, 8 for 256-bit, 12 for 384-bit etc...). The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations. Normally (using this generation of cards as example) GDDR5 memory uses 2Gbit memory chips for each 32-bit I/O (I.e for a 256-bit bus/2GB card: 8 x 32-bit I/O each connected by a circuit to a 2Gbit IC = 8 x 2Gbit = 16Gbit = 2GB), but GDDR5 can also operate in what is known as clamshell mode, where the 32-bit I/O instead of being connected to one IC is split between two (one on each side of the PCB) allowing for a doubling up of memory capacity. Mixing the arrangement of 32-bit memory controllers, memory IC density, and memory circuit splitting allows of asymetric configurations ( 192-bit, 2GB VRAM for example)
•Physically, a GDDR5 controller/IC doubles the I/O of DDR3 - With DDR, I/O handles an input (written to memory), or output (read from memory) but not both on the same cycle. GDDR handles input and output on the same cycle.

The memory is also fundamentally set up specifically for the application it uses:
System memory (DDR3) benefits from low latency (tight timings) at the expense of bandwidth, GDDR5's case is the opposite. Timings for GDDR5 would seems unbelieveably slow in relation to DDR3, but the speed of VRAM is blazing fast in comparison with desktop RAM- this has resulted from the relative workloads that a CPU and GPU undertake. Latency isn't much of an issue with GPU's since their parallel nature allows them to move to other calculation when latency cycles cause a stall in the current workload/thread. The performance of a graphics card for instance is greatly affected (as a percentage) by altering the internal bandwidth, yet altering the external bandwidth (the PCI-Express bus, say lowering from x16 to x8 or x4 lanes) has a minimal effect. This is because there is a great deal of I/O (textures for examples) that get swapped in and out of VRAM continuously- the nature of a GPU is many parallel computations, whereas a CPU computes in a basically linear way.

Source: http://www.techspot.com/community/topics/whats-the-difference-between-ddr3-memory-and-gddr5-memory.186408/
post #4277 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post


Any truth to this stuff? Bias fanboys can keep their opinions out, I'm looking for info from people that know tech.
There's some truth... but not for the reasons he's saying. GDDR5 is used in video cards and not as system memory because it is more suited to GPU operations because of its higher latency. DDR3 is more suited to CPU operations. However, the differences here will be minor because the GDDR5 is a much higher speed, meaning the latency difference will be minimized, if noticeable at all. The end result will be that Xbox One may have a slight advantage with CPU operations, though we're talking NANOSECONDS here, so whether it will be anything noticeable is anyone's guess. The up side is that the slight boost in CPU operations could minimize the difference between the number of CPU cores available to games on each system. The key word there being COULD. Whether there's any difference in practice remains to be seen. But with the way each type of memory sends/receives data, the DDR3 will at least ensure better performance for the Win8 kernel side of Microsoft's 3-OS setup than if they had used GDDR5.

PS4's advantage with GDDR5 will be on the GPU side, however even that is a crapshoot. The Xbox One's ESRAM, if they use it primarily to cache out-of-order operations, will greatly minimize the differences here, since the 1920x1080 rendering target won't typically be bandwidth limited anyway (and both will have adequate framebuffer for 1080p). On the PC, that may not be as true, but in the case of these two systems, they're both directly accessing memory over a 256-bit data path. Once optimized on each platform, this will likely be a wash.

Where PS4 has the upper hand is in the additional shader cores, but not for reasons directly related to graphics (meaning you may still not see a difference on the screen). Looking at the way shaders are currently used on the PC, both systems should be very capable of handling the effects devs will be using. However, since both systems are using an APU, the PS4 will be able to directly hand off some CPU operations to those extra unused shader cores on the GPU, meaning they can leverage it for more of the back-end stuff like AI and physics (and it could also give them an advantage with particle effects, but again, at 1920x1080, this could be nigh imperceptible even if you had them side by side). People who are all focused on the "cloud computing" aspect of Xbox One will argue that this could make up that difference... but the fact of the matter is that we don't know that. We don't know just how much they will be able to pass off to the cloud to glean additional power from the system itself, and no one will be able to speak to that until YEARS into the system's lifespan, when developers start finding their groove with it. Even then, you'll likely only see that used for multiplayer games now, since with Microsoft's policy change, developers can no longer count on the cloud being an available resource for single player games (since they may be played offline, and they won't want to limit their potential audience by making a strictly single player experience REQUIRE internet connectivity to function). What you'll more likely see for now is stuff that simply couldn't be handled client-side, like the number-crunching required to create those AI profiles that Forza 5 is attempting to do. Making that a server-side operation actually makes a lot of sense, since they can do it when you're not even playing, then dump the updated profiles from the cloud storage back to the client (your Xbox One) the next time you connect to the internet to play.

Microsoft may get a slight advantage by leveraging the DirectX API on the Xbox One since PCs are the devkits for both consoles, while PS4 is confirmed to be using the latest iteration of OpenGL. DirectX is a bit more robust for most operations due to its widespread use and history (meaning it is easier for developers to implement), while OpenGL gives devs a little more freedom as far as direct access to GPU functions if the developer wants to expend the time coding items outside the existing OpenGL functions to specifically run off the GPU's shader cores. However, I don't expect we'll see much of that specific coding happen considering you wouldn't be able to do it easily on the PS4 devkit (which would make platform-specific testing unpredictable). You might see first-party Sony games do some of that though, if they're really trying to push the envelope. But by and large, DirectX will be the option more devs are familiar with implementing. That said, while OpenGL was notably less efficient than DirectX in past iterations, OpenGL's last few revisions have basically brought it up to speed, meaning (yeah, you guessed it) this will probably be a wash.

The bottom line is this: We're seeing a lot of people tossing around numbers from the known specs as if they really understand how these differences will actually manifest in the two systems, when the reality is that the two systems are not that far apart in power when optimized for each particular platform. Each will have its pros and cons for developers as far as ease of development goes, but that's far more minor to work around than what we saw with ports across PS3 and 360, which means this: Multi-platform games will very likely look near-identical between the two systems, and not just because one or the other might be lead platform the way we're seeing now (i.e. not because it was coded for the lowest common denominator). Where you're going to see the differences will be in the first-party games, where they're really able to focus on the individual system's architecture and optimize accordingly.

What I've told my friends who have asked about this stuff applies here. Both systems will be very similar in actual capability FOR GAMES at the end of the day. The questions you should focus on are:
1) Which one will my friends that I like to play with be playing on?
2) Which will have the superior online experience?
3) Which system has the exclusives that I care more about?

Outside of that, it's fanboyism. Choose based on the above criteria... or just buy both! WIN/WIN SITUATION!
post #4278 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post


Any truth to this stuff? Bias fanboys can keep their opinions out, I'm looking for info from people that know tech.

It's completely nonsensical.
post #4279 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monger View Post

It's completely nonsensical.

Yep, total nonsense. He has no idea what he's talking about, he just heard a few things, thought he understood them, and then jumped to conclusions.
post #4280 of 14797
post #4281 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craer View Post



System online - This has baffled me the whole time. You didn't buy a smart phone and then say "well, I don't want this to be always online, I want that feature to always be off". You want that feature to always be on. In fact, we cry and complaine when its not online. Yes, I understand it sucks that you cant take the xbox one to a cabin/camp site in the middle of nowhere to play. But you can take a smart phone and tether it to the xbox one to fix this problem (somewhat)
Hey I've never had either of my Xboxs connected to the net (one is at my cottage and not a cabin) and they never will be. I see no need as I play single player RPGs for the most part.
post #4282 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Yep, total nonsense. He has no idea what he's talking about, he just heard a few things, thought he understood them, and then jumped to conclusions.

Exactly. Surprised he didn't include the 5 billion transistors! smile.gif

The latency differences in memory are minimal, and game developers seem to have three main priorities they want to see in consoles: unified memory architecture, large amount of memory, and wide open bus.

He's confusing the memory difference with the fact that the PS4 GPU has 18 CU's to 14 on the XBone. Both pretty much have the same CPU, but there might be some tinkering going on there as well. We also have rumors that MS has partitioned away 3GB of RAM, 2 CPU cores, and 2 CU's for system resources (OS, APPS, Snap features, ect). Thats going to eat into game resources on a machine that already was a tad under-powered; but they should be able to free up some of that as the generation goes forward and they lessen the footprint needed.

What we really need is MS to just release the Specs. They haven't done so yet and we only semi-confirmed them because a MS Engineer let a little info slip that he probably shouldn't have in one round table.
Edited by TyrantII - 6/28/13 at 5:19am
post #4283 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post


Any truth to this stuff? Bias fanboys can keep their opinions out, I'm looking for info from people that know tech.

post #4284 of 14797
I cant believe I read that. Fanboys are funny. For anyone that really wants to dive into the techinal aspects of a system comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4


Here is there Final words or conclusion....

It’s nearly impossible for the Xbox One not to be a substantial upgrade over the Xbox 360. The fact that Microsoft could ship a single integrated SoC instead of a multi-chip CPU+GPU solution this generation is telling enough. You don’t need to integrate anywhere near the fastest CPUs and GPUs to outperform the Xbox 360, something closer to the middle of the road works just fine.

Microsoft won’t have any issues delivering many times the performance of the Xbox 360. The Xbox One features far more compute power and memory bandwidth than the Xbox 360. Going to 8GB of RAM is also a welcome upgrade, especially since it’s identical to what Sony will ship on the PlayStation 4. As AMD is supplying relatively similar x86 CPU and GCN GPU IP to both consoles, porting between them (and porting to PCs) should be far easier than ever before. The theoretical performance comparison between the two next-gen consoles is where things get a bit sticky.



Sony gave the PS4 50% more raw shader performance, plain and simple (768 SPs @ 800MHz vs. 1152 SPs & 800MHz). Unlike last generation, you don't need to be some sort of Jedi to extract the PS4's potential here. The Xbox One and PS4 architectures are quite similar, Sony just has more hardware under the hood. We’ll have to wait and see how this hardware delta gets exposed in games over time, but the gap is definitely there. The funny thing about game consoles is that it’s usually the lowest common denominator that determines the bulk of the experience across all platforms.

On the plus side, the Xbox One should enjoy better power/thermal characteristics compared to the PlayStation 4. Even compared to the Xbox 360 we should see improvement in many use cases thanks to modern power management techniques.



Differences in the memory subsytems also gives us some insight into each approach to the next-gen consoles. Microsoft opted for embedded SRAM + DDR3, while Sony went for a very fast GDDR5 memory interface. Sony’s approach (especially when combined with a beefier GPU) is exactly what you’d build if you wanted to give game developers the fastest hardware. Microsoft’s approach on the other hand looks a little more broad. The Xbox One still gives game developers a significant performance boost over the previous generation, but also attempts to widen the audience for the console. It’s a risky strategy for sure, especially given the similarities in the underlying architectures between the Xbox One and PS4. If the market for high-end game consoles has already hit its peak, then Microsoft’s approach is likely the right one from a business standpoint. If the market for dedicated high-end game consoles hasn’t peaked however, Microsoft will have to rely even more on the Kinect experience, TV integration and its exclusive franchises to compete.

Arguably the most interesting thing in all of this is the dual-OS + hypervisor software setup behind the Xbox One. With the Windows kernel running alongside the Xbox OS, I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to one day bring the same setup to PCs. Well before the Xbox One hits the end of its life, mainstream PC APUs will likely be capable of delivering similar performance. Imagine a future Surface tablet capable of doing everything your Xbox One can do. That's really the trump card in all of this. The day Microsoft treats Xbox as a platform and not a console is the day that Apple and Google have a much more formidable competitor. Xbox One at least gets the software architecture in order, then we need PC/mobile hardware to follow suit and finally for Microsoft to come to this realization and actually make it happen. We already have the Windows kernel running on phones, tablets, PCs and the Xbox, now we just need the Xbox OS across all platforms as well.
post #4285 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucknuts07 View Post

I cant believe I read that. Fanboys are funny. For anyone that really wants to dive into the techinal aspects of a system comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4


Here is there Final words or conclusion....

It’s nearly impossible for the Xbox One not to be a substantial upgrade over the Xbox 360. The fact that Microsoft could ship a single integrated SoC instead of a multi-chip CPU+GPU solution this generation is telling enough. You don’t need to integrate anywhere near the fastest CPUs and GPUs to outperform the Xbox 360, something closer to the middle of the road works just fine.

Microsoft won’t have any issues delivering many times the performance of the Xbox 360. The Xbox One features far more compute power and memory bandwidth than the Xbox 360. Going to 8GB of RAM is also a welcome upgrade, especially since it’s identical to what Sony will ship on the PlayStation 4. As AMD is supplying relatively similar x86 CPU and GCN GPU IP to both consoles, porting between them (and porting to PCs) should be far easier than ever before. The theoretical performance comparison between the two next-gen consoles is where things get a bit sticky.



Sony gave the PS4 50% more raw shader performance, plain and simple (768 SPs @ 800MHz vs. 1152 SPs & 800MHz). Unlike last generation, you don't need to be some sort of Jedi to extract the PS4's potential here. The Xbox One and PS4 architectures are quite similar, Sony just has more hardware under the hood. We’ll have to wait and see how this hardware delta gets exposed in games over time, but the gap is definitely there. The funny thing about game consoles is that it’s usually the lowest common denominator that determines the bulk of the experience across all platforms.

On the plus side, the Xbox One should enjoy better power/thermal characteristics compared to the PlayStation 4. Even compared to the Xbox 360 we should see improvement in many use cases thanks to modern power management techniques.



Differences in the memory subsytems also gives us some insight into each approach to the next-gen consoles. Microsoft opted for embedded SRAM + DDR3, while Sony went for a very fast GDDR5 memory interface. Sony’s approach (especially when combined with a beefier GPU) is exactly what you’d build if you wanted to give game developers the fastest hardware. Microsoft’s approach on the other hand looks a little more broad. The Xbox One still gives game developers a significant performance boost over the previous generation, but also attempts to widen the audience for the console. It’s a risky strategy for sure, especially given the similarities in the underlying architectures between the Xbox One and PS4. If the market for high-end game consoles has already hit its peak, then Microsoft’s approach is likely the right one from a business standpoint. If the market for dedicated high-end game consoles hasn’t peaked however, Microsoft will have to rely even more on the Kinect experience, TV integration and its exclusive franchises to compete.

Arguably the most interesting thing in all of this is the dual-OS + hypervisor software setup behind the Xbox One. With the Windows kernel running alongside the Xbox OS, I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to one day bring the same setup to PCs. Well before the Xbox One hits the end of its life, mainstream PC APUs will likely be capable of delivering similar performance. Imagine a future Surface tablet capable of doing everything your Xbox One can do. That's really the trump card in all of this. The day Microsoft treats Xbox as a platform and not a console is the day that Apple and Google have a much more formidable competitor. Xbox One at least gets the software architecture in order, then we need PC/mobile hardware to follow suit and finally for Microsoft to come to this realization and actually make it happen. We already have the Windows kernel running on phones, tablets, PCs and the Xbox, now we just need the Xbox OS across all platforms as well.

I'm not nearly nerdy enough to even pretend like I know what all that means.

But I'll say this.. I'd bet money that 99% of games will look exactly the same on both consoles.
post #4286 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

I'm not nearly nerdy enough to even pretend like I know what all that means.

But I'll say this.. I'd bet money that 99% of games will look exactly the same on both consoles.
This is what I am thinking. I think that if you ever see a boost on multiplatform games on the ps4, it won't be for a few years.
post #4287 of 14797
Depends on your definition of "exactly". If you were heading to Digital Foundry to see which had the edge this last gen, you'll notice them.

But, for 95% of people, yes, the differences should be pretty trivial. Especially at the start of the generation. I also expect exclusives to once again be the shining beacons most 3rd party titles strive to look like. You just can't get around that direct engine support offered to them.
post #4288 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

I'm not nearly nerdy enough to even pretend like I know what all that means.

But I'll say this.. I'd bet money that 99% of games will look exactly the same on both consoles.

You may be right, we will have to wait and see. I have read some developers that indicated we will see a difference in multiplatform games from day one, and others that indicate games will look the same. The Ps4 does have about a 40 to 50% advantage in pure power, and I think you will see that play out similiar to this gen where Sony's exclusives will look alot better than 3rd party games (especially the last of us, and GT6- which looks next gen), the one difference this time is that the Ps4 is alot easier to develop for than the ps3 was. I will buy both consoles, as both will have strengths in different areas, and i have alot of friends on Live. I'm just glad that microsoft has come to their senses about DRm, and now the whole adapter for headsets, as these were 2 huge negatives that have been resolved. Now I just need to figure out how to pay for both consoles, and still fund christmas.
post #4289 of 14797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

I'm not nearly nerdy enough to even pretend like I know what all that means.

But I'll say this.. I'd bet money that 99% of games will look exactly the same on both consoles.

I am. I'll take that bet. smile.gif

As he says, PS4 simply has more hardware under the hood, and you don't need to be a Jedi to extract that performance. That's what ultimately held the power of the PS3 back, and why devs never bothered to spend triple the time just to make the PS3 version slightly better.

With the architectures being so similar to each other and to PC (where scalability is required)...if the PS4 version doesn't look better 100% of the time, from the very start, it's nothing more than sheer laziness on the part of the devs. There is *always* an easy way to soak up that extra power, even if its simple as better antialiasing.

The base games will look the same, but the PS4 will present it better. Nearly identical architectures has never really happened before, so the old rules don't really apply anymore.
post #4290 of 14797
i expect the major difference in xbox one games and ps4 games to be the effects of graphics. like you see in imfamous second son.

other then that i dont think we will see that many differences except for the exclusives. titanfall so far looks like the best exclusive game for the console.

i am actually pretty excited about xbox one except for the kinect 2.0 cam that is pushed down your troat. i hope they release a xbox one without the kinect for like 399 dollar.

i still dont really understand what microsoft game is adding that xbox one camera. to me it only looks like microsoft wants to become the videogame giant of the NSA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...