It was stated as 800 when they mentioned the upclock. A little reading/listening goes a long way.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
TRUTHFACT: MS having eSRAM yield problems on Xbox One
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
- Status
It was stated as 800 when they mentioned the upclock. A little reading/listening goes a long way.
Well upgrading from 800->853 sounds better than downgrading from 900->853 doesn't it?
It's something we'll never actually know.
SendmefreeSTUFF
Banned
We just make it up ...........Both units are in production ...There is no problem .........
dragonelite
Member
But with the previous model you could scout on both markets and find the cheapest version.
Physical copies drop in price way faster then digital. So find the cheapest version if its physical link the license key and throw away disk and box or keep it around if you have slow download speeds or bandwidth caps.
Wow, really?
Neuromancer
Member
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I was responding to a specific post by eastmen.
opticalmace
Member
What ever happened to days ending in -Y?
Yeah, I know.
But I need the official PS4 Kuna price
Before official price announcement on E3 it was 3799. After the announcement it was corrected to 3199 kn and it also have some small intiatives.
But it is basically a 399 euro price + some small difference because of our taxes
oops. Although, Skeff has a point.
Really. Don't misunderstand i think it was originally 800 Mhz and was upclocked to counter Sony's higher hardware specs, but we'll never know for sure.
Steam positives over old one drm = ability to play a gane off line after logging in once to enable it.
Xbox one old drm postives over steam = 10 person sharing , trading in / selling of titles.
So yes there were benfits as much as some people want to close thier eyes to it.
Personaly I was excited to be able to buy a game from the diigital store or at gamestop and have the title treated the same way just like steam.
I was excited that 10 of my friends would be able to play my games.
I was also excited about not having to chamge discs.
I can see how not beong able to play your xbox one on long train rides might suck. I personaly dont travel with a tv and console . But if you wanted to youd have had 24 hours to travel with it and you could have checked in with your cell phone and extened that as long as you would have wanted. Personaly id just bring a tablet or a phone or mabye a 3ds
Can Crusher
Banned
I doubted it then and I doubt it even more these days, that the 10 people sharing feature was nothing more than glorified trials.
But by that same token I can claim that the PS4 could've been down clocked too, right before the February reveal. Causssssse, you never know?
Amazing that anyone still thinks publishers would have allowed 10 people around the world to play a game from a single purchase.
Quadraphonic
Member
You realize that was all lies, right? There's absolutely zero reason why they had to get rid of game sharing with disc-based DRM. They could have easily kept it for digital-purchased titles as an incentive to buy digital. But they got rid of it... because it wasn't real.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
This is a business. There is no buy 1 get 9 free shit.
hydrophilic attack
Member
*Terms and conditions may apply, details to be announced at a later date, Xbox Live Gold subscription required, as well as signing of class-action lawsuit waiver and NSA agreement, along with three months (minimum) mandatory service as Ballmer's towel boy.
Quadraphonic
Member
Exactly. Because it was just 1 hour full-game trials. Developers even hate THAT. Which is why even a TRIAL would be limited to 10 people.
Heck, a number of demos released on the PS3/360 this gen don't WORK anymore. EA has a number of titles, like their Green Day Rock Band or Need for Speed demos that don't boot. If you try to run it you get a popup saying to just buy the game.
SEGAvangelist
Member
To be fair, no one would be getting anything for free. If sharing were allowed for 10 people then I can't imagine more than 1 of those 10 people could play the game at once. I'm assuming the 24 hour check-in was partially for this reason. That would make it function like a physical copy, actually.
There never was a downclock no matter how much you may wish for it. That is a Fact.
We don't know the details to that particular benefit, and it was highly doubtful it was going to happen in the way some people had in their minds, because even Sony had to backpedal from sharing 5 consoles, because devs were complaining about lost sales 10 would have been insane especially given that the DRM's sole purpose was to tighten profits per game sale.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Couldn't all 5 play at once, though?
Why the difference in perception.
People are kinder to Sony because Sony have shown time and time again they are kinder to gamers, where as Microsoft has a habit of doing the complete opposite (que anti consumer and value proposition policies, nickel and diming galore, using as much proprietary stuff as possible along with the pitfalls that come with it, cutting off support for their consoles abruptly late in the cycle etc). Only the most ardent actually disagree on this front. It's never been clearer to see than recently, with Microsoft back peddling en masse just to try and get closer to where Sony already was.
The ram reserve.
To answer your questions though, the available ram allocation presently for the PS4 is 6GB. Though it is fluid and likely to change (probably for the better) as is the Xbox One's 5GB availability. The OS memory footprint will likely be reduced on both consoles going forward.
Charging for multiplayer.
With respect to charging for multiplayer, actually a lot of people (including me) picked at that. However, it is not comparable to what Microsoft is doing, and once again only highlights the gulf in value proposition between these two consoles. On the Xbox One you pay $60 for Gold to play online and get a bunch of features that should have been free anyway but are behind a paywall. On the PS4, you get all those features free without PS+, including F2P gaming (including online), however, to play online you do have to pay, but what does that $50 (cheaper than Gold) get you? Not just online play, but a crap load of free content and games, 1 or more every month in-fact, as well as a whole host of other freebies and discounts. That's why Sony is getting less flak for their move, because for that $50 they are actually giving us a massive amount of value.
DRM love.
On the last point about DRM, well Eastmen, lets just say I'm not the least bit surprised. The sad fact is though, even post DRM 180, you can STILL download your games if that's what you prefer. There's no reason Microsoft can't still offer all the perks of their previous policies for their digital library, they don't because they choose not to and would rather maximise profits over offering better value to their oft gullible consumers.
If you don't want to take the fantastic advantages involved in being able to trade in your games to add better value to your purchases, your loss.
FairXchange
Member
It wasn't up clocked to match PS4's specs because it gives a grand total of 6% performance boost. It really has nothing to do with equalising power across platforms.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Wow. That's like PR stuff there. Good work.
So...so ironic.
Is there anything I've written that you find particularly disagreeable or false?
Yes and they could all play them offline as well so long as the original owners account didn't get deleted on the system, the move to 2 people could only be seen as tightening profits for sales.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Not much.
6GB hasn't been confirmed. PS+'s value is great for creating an expanding game rental library, but it's value for a good multiplayer experience is undetermined. The Xbox 180 stopped discs from being used as digital copies that could be deactivated for trade-in purposes, so that feature was sadly taken away.
Mainly, though, I thought the structure of the post looked like PR because of the tone of the individual bullet points. That's all I was getting at really.
la flama blanca
Banned
"Nice carrot bro. Me? Only STICKS"
SEGAvangelist
Member
That's a real issue, then. At least with the MS version of game-sharing, only 1 person could probably play it at a time. In that sense it functions like a physical copy. I bet it would still be a tough sell to publishers, though.
uncledonnie
Banned
Plenty of people said they had deals with publishers though. The perceived value of the game sharing feature comes down to which insiders you chose to believe. We'll probably never know for sure unless MS brings it back, so I find it pointless to speculate.
The ability to have a digital license for a physical disc was known for sure though and losing that one does sting a bit.
freefornow
Member
I see this stated quite often with no evidence to back up this statement. How are they kinder to gamers? I'm always baffled by the notion that a corporate entity is in any way kind.
Re-read the sentence straight after it. They're kinder by not screwing us over in as many of those ways.
Because Sony could have implemented the same DRM as the original X1, just being $100 us cheaper helps a lot.
GalacticMouse
Member
Using words like "kinder" and "nicer" to describe Sony are kind of an offshoot from a different point...people perceive Sony to be focused more on the "hardcore" gamer than Microsoft is. Sony pursues more varied/risky projects, has a larger, more proven suite of developers, and is helping to bring the indie revolution to consoles more than its competitors...all while avoiding stupid things like putting Netflix behind a pay wall or trying to implement ridiculous online DRM to all games. If someone likes all of those things, they say that Sony is "nicer to" them because they're doing what that person wants.
googleplex
Member
There was never an unlimited sharing of 10 games. That shit was never going to happen! Those 10 people were limited to a time limit of 1 hours according to CBOAT. And you'd have to be a fool to doubt CBOAT at this point.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
well then that's your own failing. If you can see how clearly Sony are appealing to gamers much more so than MS than I don't know what to tell you. Other than maybe those MS marking dollars aren't going to waste
uncledonnie
Banned
So much of this is selectively comparing recent history and isolated past incidents. I see no mention about Sony's use of online passes, the proprietary thing goes both ways (Vita), etc. MS did drop the OG Xbox abruptly, but there were well documented reasons and there's no indication the same thing is happening with the 360. There aren't as many non-digital first party releases in the pipeline as Sony has for the PS3, but all indications are MS will continue to support and market the 360.
I'm not saying the perception you're putting forward isn't accurate right now, but the idea that Sony has always championed the gamer while Microsoft has shit on them is far from reality.
Night Hunter
Banned
It has nothing to do with nicer, it is about a company whose strategy is to make money by offering value
flyinpiranha
Member
I always find the PS+ comparison funny. Right now, it's a completely different type of service. Basically a way "in" to get people to start paying for it for the PS4. Now they throw MP behind a paywall and (I'll eat my crow if not) the free games are going to be less and less available or at least nothing like what we've seen. I don't see how they could support that.
I find it funny that people are willing to bet on Sony so much after what they did the first 2 years of the PS3. $599, second jobs, you'll buy it if it didn't have games ... this is our "darling"? This is the "gamer friendly' company? Come on people. Neither MS nor Sony give a fuck about us outside of our wallets. Each offers what it "thinks" we want at a price that will make them money, it's business. If you find value in one or the other that is great, I personally find more value in the PS4 but I'm not going to kid myself into thinking they are "looking out for me" and my interests.
Going back to PS+, it's just like Steam sales, super cheap and free stuff AFTER the fact. Is it bad? Hell no, it's how I got 80% of my PC library and I think it's wonderful for current PS+ subscribers. But I just don't see how (without any backwards compatibility) they are going to keep that "value" there. Indie games won't cut it and no publisher is going to want their titles so early in the generation given out for free or sever discount.
But, I will admit, I could be wrong, maybe PS4 will become the "Steam" of the console business and I'll be buying Sony packs with 5 games for $39.99.
I find it funny that people are willing to bet on Sony so much after what they did the first 2 years of the PS3. $599, second jobs, you'll buy it if it didn't have games ... this is our "darling"? This is the "gamer friendly' company? Come on people. Neither MS nor Sony give a fuck about us outside of our wallets. Each offers what it "thinks" we want at a price that will make them money, it's business. If you find value in one or the other that is great, I personally find more value in the PS4 but I'm not going to kid myself into thinking they are "looking out for me" and my interests.
Going back to PS+, it's just like Steam sales, super cheap and free stuff AFTER the fact. Is it bad? Hell no, it's how I got 80% of my PC library and I think it's wonderful for current PS+ subscribers. But I just don't see how (without any backwards compatibility) they are going to keep that "value" there. Indie games won't cut it and no publisher is going to want their titles so early in the generation given out for free or sever discount.
But, I will admit, I could be wrong, maybe PS4 will become the "Steam" of the console business and I'll be buying Sony packs with 5 games for $39.99.
googleplex
Member
Holy false equivalence Batman!
That's why in my earlier post I added the phrase "oft gullible consumers". I was referring specifically to the people who bought in to what was basically a false pipe dream, the 10 person game sharing. In reality it was little more than a 1 hour demo'ing scheme. It's sad that a lie is essentially the main proponent of the argument in favour of Microsoft's launch reveal anti consumer policies.
The amusing thing about it is that there is literally no reason why Microsoft couldn't still offer all of those previous policies for their digital store and library. Obviously the less naive realise that is never going to happen. Publishers squeezed Sony to reduce game sharing from 5 to 2, and somehow Microsoft is going to get away with 10 lol.
I'm really starting to wonder if that apparent delay from April to May for the reveal was due to MS wanting closure on some deal so they could present it. Can you imagine if they delayed the reveal a month due to Spielburg?
uncledonnie
Banned
I would have to think that part of the reason publishers agreed to it was the control of used game sales.
- Status