Support NeoGAF

[travisbickle]

I think the XB1 will be the lead platform for two reasons:

Developers/publishers will go with the most financially expedient option, that is why Sony has been promoting the "time to triangle" and "matured dev tools" on their platform. Time costs money.

 

[HMC]

Enough of a performance difference to force MS to hype the shit out of superior online, system versatility, and motion control intergration.

MS already lost the power battle, they better take advantage of their usability advantages...

 

[10k]

Developers/publishers will go with the most financially expedient option, that is why Sony has been promoting the "time to triangle" and "matured dev tools" on their platform. Time costs money.

Yes, this is true. If the PS4 is the lead platform, I don't see most devs utilizing it to it's fullest capabilities. They will only do as much as the XB1 can handle.

I don't know how much more powerful the PS4 GPU is (20% or something), but what I'm trying to say is devs will use 79% of the PS4's GPU in order to easily port over to the XB1 so it can use 99% of it's GPU.

I am trying to be simplistic, it's obviously much more complicated then this lol.

 

[mysteriousmage09]

Multi-plats all come down to how the devs approach the development cycle for their games. When it comes to showing off the hardware difference between the PS4 and Xbone, I think Sony Santa Monica, Guerrilla Games and Naughty Dog will be the ones to put the comparisons to rest.

 

[Piggus]

I think the XB1 will be the lead platform for two reasons:

1) Xbox 360 was the leading HD console in sales for a majority of the generation and has huge mass appeal in NA and the UK. These are two major markets in the western part of the world (where the gaming audience has shifted to since the early 2000's). It would make sense to follow that up by having devs supporting the leading console (I realize the PS3 has taken over worldwide now).

But think about how many ports the PS3 got at the beginnning of the gen, all because the PS1 and PS2 were so dominant and publishers were expecting PS3 to follow suit (but it didn't take off as they planned). Then western devs quickly banked on the 360 as the lead platform (this was also due to PS3's cell architecture being difficult to master compared to 360's PC-like architecture). That's why you saw lot's of third party games and Unreal Engine 3 games coming out on Xbox 360 first (i.e. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls IV, etc.)

The bone isn't the 360 though. It's not the dominant system by any means. Especially in terms of mind share and pre-orders.

 

[Duxxy3]

It would be more likely to see 1080 vs. 900p upscaled to 1080 or both 1080 but one dipping to 25 fps during big scenes and the other remaining locked.

I don't think 720 vs. 1080 is happening as that is 2.25x the number of pixels.

Even in worst case scenario we won't see 720p vs. 1080p.

 

[Skeff]

Agreed. Usually the console that sells the most is the lead platform (NES, SNES, PS1, PS2, Wii was too weak so Xbox 360 was lead platform)

I think the XB1 will be the lead platform for two reasons:

1) Xbox 360 was the leading HD console in sales for a majority of the generation and has huge mass appeal in NA and the UK. These are two major markets in the western part of the world (where the gaming audience has shifted to since the early 2000's). It would make sense to follow that up by having devs supporting the leading console (I realize the PS3 has taken over worldwide now).

But think about how many ports the PS3 got at the beginnning of the gen, all because the PS1 and PS2 were so dominant and publishers were expecting PS3 to follow suit (but it didn't take off as they planned). Then western devs quickly banked on the 360 as the lead platform (this was also due to PS3's cell architecture being difficult to master compared to 360's PC-like architecture). That's why you saw lot's of third party games and Unreal Engine 3 games coming out on Xbox 360 first (i.e. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls IV, etc.)

2) The lowest powered console is usually the lead platform because it's easier to make a game run with minimum specs and then crank up the graphics and effects for the more powerful platforms. It's much more difficult to make a huge sexy game like FFXV and try to get it running on Wii U for example.

Now, this is also misleading because usually the lowest powered console is the highest selling, but if the PS4 takes off in sales and is selling twice as much as the XB1, you may see the PS4 as the lead platform, but most of the time the games will be identical as it's easier to port up instead of porting down.

Good points, I would have agreed for the start of the generation at least, however due to the reports we've had of the Microsoft API's being rather slow to arrive and that the only console version of multiplats that is being shown to the media is Battlefield 4 PS4 which has XB1 exclusive content and showed up at the Microsoft conference, I think these could switch multiplatform development sooner than anticipated.

I'm sure all of the Launch games will be PC lead platforms as they've been in development long time, and the early 2014 releases may have started on the XB1 kits before we heard about the API's and driver issues but I think we may have multipltform games starting development now with PS4 as lead console, Though I kind of hope that the PC is the lead platform now that x86 architectures are in use in the consoles as the PC has lots of different graphical options which may allow for more suitable ports to consoles.

But who knows... It's nice to speculate.

Oh also it's 40.5% power increase in PS4 GPU, just FYI.

 

[RoboPlato]

The way I see it, it will be like the difference in gen 6. Except the Xbox One is the Gamecube and PS4 is the Xbox with the Wii U being a Dreamcast (I wish I could say PS2 but that RAM difference is insane).

Dreamcast/PS2 = Wii U
GameCube = Xbox One
Xbox = PS4

My guess as well, although we probably won't see anything on XBO like some of the abysmal ports that the GC had due to it's weird architecture.

 

[10k]

It would be more likely to see 1080 vs. 900p upscaled to 1080 or both 1080 but one dipping to 25 fps during big scenes and the other remaining locked.

I don't think 720 vs. 1080 is happening as that is 2.25x the number of pixels.

Not a chance. If an XB1 game is running 720p then the PS4 version is running 720p.

For example, if Battlefield 4 hypothetically runs at 720p30 on the XB1, it's not like you will be getting 1080p30 on the PS4 or even 720p60 for that matter. The difference will be less framerate drops on the PS4 version and maybe some extra AA and shadows. Unless Dice really wanted to push the PS4 version (highly doubt it due to EA's relationship with Microsoft).

Oh also it's 40.5% power increase in PS4 GPU, just FYI.

With the exception of third party exclusives and first and second party games, I highly doubt that extra 40.5% will be used. It may lead to better framerates or more AA like I said, but not texture resolutions.

 

[wizzbang]

There will probably not be that much of a huge difference. The Xbox One versions will be playable and at a casual glance look the same.

HOWEVER

As a Sony person who had to put up with 5 fucking years of Xbox whiners bleating about how "utterly unplayable" or "totally terrible" the PS3 versions of games were, I look forward to exaggerating to the N'th degree just how utterly repugnant the Xbox One versions of games are and how they are "simply not an option"

You know like Bayonetta which I played after the patch, played fucking fine, no issues, great fun. GTA4 - which was admittedly not as good looking and not as good a framerate but still completely playable, totally fun, looked great at the time of launch.

 

[Skeff]

Not a chance. If an XB1 game is running 720p then the PS4 version is running 720p.

For example, if Battlefield 4 hypothetically runs at 720p30 on the XB1, it's not like you will be getting 1080p30 on the PS4 or even 720p60 for that matter. The difference will be less framerate drops on the PS4 version and maybe some extra AA and shadows. Unless Dice really wanted to push the PS4 version (highly doubt it due to EA's relationship with Microsoft).


With the exception of third party exclusives and first and second party games, I highly doubt that extra 40.5% will be used. It may lead to better framerates or more AA like I said, but not texture resolutions.

What, check again I said it wouldn't be 720 vs 1080 I said we might get some 900 vs.1080

 

[K' Dash]

There won't be mayor differences with multiplats, however I expect the PS4 exclusives to be remarkably better in perfomance and graphics than X1, but thats just me.

 

[10k]

What, check again I said it wouldn't be 720 vs 1080 I said we might get some 900 vs.1080

My mistake lol. I don't see devs using 900p on TV's that are meant for 720 or 1080. It's a weird resolution.

 

[TKM]

"We must be competitive versus First party / single console developers that have the luxury of only worrying about 1 platform"

-Christina Coffin, Platform Specialist, Senior Engineer DICE
SPU-based Deferred Shading for Battlefield 3 on Playstation 3
GDC March 8, 2011

Naughty Dog, Polyphony Digital and the like will give 3rd party devs plenty to worry about.

Even with an esoteric architecture like CELL, saddled with a less flexible and slower GPU, 3rd party devs still put in some time to leverage some of its strengths.

With Playstation 4, the power is there, it's easy to tap into. And it's not even the top spec machine that only a few people will own. Enhancements to the PS4 engine will benefit a PC version. Assets built for a high spec PC can be downported to PS4. Works both ways.

XBOne needn't hold back the PS4 much.

 

[Fotos]

Wii U looks better than PS4 and XB1 combined. FACT.

 

[To Far Away Times]

40% sounds like a lot but there are diminishing returns with these types of things. I think as a general rule of thumb, games will look better on PS4 compared the Xbox One but I don't think it will be a big deal.

 

[grosvenor_92]

None to very little at launch. In a few years we'll probably start to see it

 

[AranhaHunter]

Exactly, if anything the gap will shorten, not widen considering that its the XBO architecture that's harder this time. Makes no sense, its like saying over time the gap between Xbox and PS3 multiplatform games will widen over time. 360 having the more capable GPU and being easier to program. This time XBO has the more capable CPU and weaker GPU, its like the complete 180 this gen.

Is the CPU on XBO really more capable the the PS4 one?

EDIT: Nevermind, read the rest of the thread, it could be marginally better or marginally worse. Seems like we'll have to wait until both systems are out.

 

[10k]

Wii U looks better than PS4 and XB1 combined. FACT.

 

[sadaiyappan]

Which is faster again?

 

[coldfoot]

Any game with a PC version will look better on the PS4, guaranteed, they'll enable more of the options that are available to PC people on the PS4 (still not all of them).

 

[Skeff]

My mistake lol. I don't see devs using 900p on TV's that are meant for 720 or 1080. It's a weird resolution.

They're already in use, I believe diablo 3 is somewhere around 640p or something on consoles simply upscaled to 720p on both consoles

 

[BigDug13]

Yes, this is true. If the PS4 is the lead platform, I don't see most devs utilizing it to it's fullest capabilities. They will only do as much as the XB1 can handle.

I don't know how much more powerful the PS4 GPU is (20% or something), but what I'm trying to say is devs will use 79% of the PS4's GPU in order to easily port over to the XB1 so it can use 99% of it's GPU.

I am trying to be simplistic, it's obviously much more complicated then this lol.

That's fine. They can do this all they want. While pushing graphics to the maximum that the XBO can handle, they'll port the exact same graphics to the PS4 with room to spare. We will get visually identical titles in your example and the PS4 will have additional headroom waiting for the high density action sequences which will bring the framerates down on the lesser console.

So if exact equal graphics are what we can expect, that's still cool since framerate dips won't happen (as much if at all) on PS4.

 

[SnakeEyes]

HOWEVER

As a Sony person who had to put up with 5 fucking years of Xbox whiners bleating about how "utterly unplayable" or "totally terrible" the PS3 versions of games were, I look forward to exaggerating to the N'th degree just how utterly repugnant the Xbox One versions of games are and how they are "simply not an option"

You. I like you. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[DracoBlade]

Depends on the dominant platform. Lets say there is a 40% market share lead by PS4, that said developers will more than likely develop with this dominant platform in mind more than likely utilizing the full specs of said prevailing device with little quarry down porting to competing but significantly less adopted/sold competitors.

Spoiler

but the hell do I know really, im just a fellow GAFer

 

[Unknown One]

40% sounds like a lot but there are diminishing returns with these types of things. I think as a general rule of thumb, games will look better on PS4 compared the Xbox One but I don't think it will be a big deal.

It'll get better frames and that's what counts.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

There will probably not be that much of a huge difference. The Xbox One versions will be playable and at a casual glance look the same.

HOWEVER

As a Sony person who had to put up with 5 fucking years of Xbox whiners bleating about how "utterly unplayable" or "totally terrible" the PS3 versions of games were, I look forward to exaggerating to the N'th degree just how utterly repugnant the Xbox One versions of games are and how they are "simply not an option"

You know like Bayonetta which I played after the patch, played fucking fine, no issues, great fun. GTA4 - which was admittedly not as good looking and not as good a framerate but still completely playable, totally fun, looked great at the time of launch.

You. I like you. Turnabout is fair play.

So you guys don't think it was the Playstation customers who were justifiably pissed off at the poor ports and were airing their grievances?

In any case, turnabout on the premise of trolling is childish.

 

[Vashetti]

My mistake lol. I don't see devs using 900p on TV's that are meant for 720 or 1080. It's a weird resolution.

Didn't stop loads of games from being sub-HD this gen.

 

[cyberheater]

There will probably not be that much of a huge difference. The Xbox One versions will be playable and at a casual glance look the same.

HOWEVER

As a Sony person who had to put up with 5 fucking years of Xbox whiners bleating about how "utterly unplayable" or "totally terrible" the PS3 versions of games were, I look forward to exaggerating to the N'th degree just how utterly repugnant the Xbox One versions of games are and how they are "simply not an option"

You know like Bayonetta which I played after the patch, played fucking fine, no issues, great fun. GTA4 - which was admittedly not as good looking and not as good a framerate but still completely playable, totally fun, looked great at the time of launch.

As a counter to that. I reserve the right to bleat on endlessly about the devs being lazy and not using the Xbox One faster CPU and eSRAM to reach platform parity.

 

[Finalizer]

My mistake lol. I don't see devs using 900p on TV's that are meant for 720 or 1080. It's a weird resolution.

You've already got plenty of devs that use weird resolutions as it is. For example, Diablo 3 runs at 584p on consoles. Honestly, resolution is among the most likely things to be shifted around to gain performance parity since it's one of the easiest variables to tweak.

As a counter to that. I reserve the right to bleat on endlessly about the devs being lazy and not using the Xbox One faster CPU and eSRAM to reach platform parity.

Are we doing the eSRAM secret sauce dance again? It's a crutch to make up for the slow main memory, nothing more.

 

[Unknown One]

So you guys don't think it was the Playstation customers who were justifiably pissed off at the poor ports and were airing their grievances?

In any case, turnabout on the premise of trolling is childish.

It was a huge console war, so both. More on the 360 side back then though.

 

[Kuro]

As a counter to that. I reserve the right to bleat on endlessly about the devs being lazy and not using the Xbox One faster CPU and eSRAM to reach platform parity.

eSRAM isn't better than the GDDR5 though. Also this comparison doesn't make much sense when the Cell really was powerful enough to offload graphics task to while both PS4 and Xbone have a mobile CPU in them.

 

[Bishop89]

Is there much of a chance that the ps4 versions will ever be worse than the xbone versions?

Thought games like skyrim and bayonetta werent that bad (in my experience) on my ps3, its always good to have a better version.

 

[Beerman462]

As a counter to that. I reserve the right to bleat on endlessly about the devs being lazy and not using the Xbox One faster CPU and eSRAM to reach platform parity.

eSRAM is a crutch to help the slow ass DDR3 and 150MHZ on the CPU can't compete witht extra CUs on PS4, but you already know this.

 

[LAA]

At launch, probably not so much, though if its easy to optimise to each console as people claim it is, maybe there will be. Guess we'll find out nearer to launch.

 

[benny_a]

As a counter to that. I reserve the right to bleat on endlessly about the devs being lazy and not using the Xbox One faster CPU and eSRAM to reach platform parity.

If you try to argue the faster CPU (with the assumption they reserve the same amount of cores and PS4 is at 1.6GHz) in a Digital Foundry thread you're going to instantly be dismissed as someone that doesn't understand snap and the reservation for OS functionality that doesn't exist on PS4.

 

[DBT85]

Yes, this is true. If the PS4 is the lead platform, I don't see most devs utilizing it to it's fullest capabilities. They will only do as much as the XB1 can handle.

I don't know how much more powerful the PS4 GPU is (20% or something), but what I'm trying to say is devs will use 79% of the PS4's GPU in order to easily port over to the XB1 so it can use 99% of it's GPU.

I am trying to be simplistic, it's obviously much more complicated then this lol.

I do not believe that this will be the case.

The base GPU architectures are so similar that turning one platform up to 11, or turning one down to 9, should be easier than it ever has been for developers to do multiplats.

The Need for Speed devs already said one version will look a little better and that's a launch day title.

 

[Ushae]

The same difference as WiiU and Xone games.

/facepalm

 

[Gskyace]

Say “Xbox evolve”，then just sit there.
You will get what you want.

 

[cyberheater]

If you try to argue the faster CPU (with the assumption they reserve the same amount of cores and PS4 is at 1.6GHz) in a Digital Foundry thread you're going to instantly be dismissed as someone that doesn't understand snap and the reservation for OS functionality that doesn't exist on PS4.

I don't care. It's the only thing Xbox fanboys can cling on to. It's going to tough keeping that position against overwhelming evidence to the contrary but it's the only thing we've got.

 

[boredandlazy]

I don't care. It's the only thing Xbox fanboys can cling on to. It's going to tough keeping that position against overwhelming evidence to the contrary but it's the only thing we've got.

You have SHAPE...

 

[THEaaron]

Don't understand the discussion on that point so hard at all. PS4 versions will have the visual/performance related advantage that we saw in this gen for the X360.

GPU performance is by far more important than CPU performance. Those hardware accellerated audio statements can go to the grave also. When was the last time your expensive creative card accellerated audio via hardware with EAX 5.0 or something else? Even Battlefield 3 renders the whole sound without hardware accelleration. That is really not an important task at all. Killzone2 did native multichannel pcm streams (up to 7.1) and look at that lame ps3.

The thing is, even in the previous generation (or should I say this?) it was all about the GPU performance. That's why the 360 could outperform the PS3 so easy. The GPU in the PS3 was sooo much slower than the X360's GPU. All that Cell power was used to compensate the slow PS3 GPU.

Now we have a ridiculous stronger GPU on one side and I will guarantee you that there will be enough differences that DF will show you in a few months. 150MHZ CPU can't compensate such a big gap in GPU performance.

This is my prediction from all those things happened in this generation.

 

[TheKayle]

Exactly. What really matters is price and games. Neither side has an exclusive killer app yet. The battle comes down to multiplats and PS4 offers the lowest entry price and most likely the best performance.

lowest price si
performance we dont know yet will wait and see

 

[Thrakier]

Don't understand the discussion on that point so hard at all. PS4 versions will have the visual/performance related advantage that we saw in this gen for the X360.

GPU performance is by far more important than CPU performance. Those hardware accellerated audio statements can go to the grave also. When was the last time your expensive creative card accellerated audio via hardware with EAX 5.0 or something else? Even Battlefield 3 renders the whole sound without hardware accelleration. That is really not an important task at all. Killzone2 did native multichannel pcm streams (up to 7.1) and look at that lame ps3.

The thing is, even in the previous generation (or should I say this?) it was all about the GPU performance. That's why the 360 could outperform the PS3 so easy. The GPU in the PS3 was sooo much slower than the X360's GPU. All that Cell power was used to compensate the slow PS3 GPU.

Now we have a ridiculous stronger GPU on one side and I will guarantee you that there will be enough differences that DF will show you in a few months. 150MHZ CPU can't compensate such a big gap in GPU performance.

This is my prediction from all those things happened in this generation.

Do we know now that PS4s CPU is only running @1.6ghz? I mean, it's the same CPU after all.

 

[TheKayle]

Cell was more powerful than 360's CPU yet I don't recall any CPU "differences" then; GPU was the key performance differentiator. That's not going to change. You need to stop making shit up.

Besides, 1.75 vs 1.6 don't mean a whole lots if Xbone reserves more cores for OS.

you dont ppl did for years (and sony expecially too)

 

[TheKayle]

Do we know now that PS4s CPU is only running @1.6ghz? I mean, it's the same CPU after all.

we are still not sure but the demo of kz sf yes was running on a 1.6 cpu..like we are not sure how many cores both console will reserve for the OS
butremembering tha xb1 have shape and move engine helping the cpu...i doubt the ps4 will have a chance to have a more cpu resource than the xb1

i can see already in a near future a GT ps4 version with headtracking on the ps4 having a looots less resource than what the xb1 could pull out ( seeing that cpu need to control the ps4eye datas,audio ..and all the rest)

 

[THEaaron]

1.6ghz for the jaguar is the sweet spot. Given the small case of the ps4, I personally don't think that they take that pill.

From this point on, raising the frequency one step will mean you'll have to handle the heat of two steps. That big Xbox One case is really good for taking that compromise.

 

[benny_a]

1.6ghz for the jaguar is the sweet spot.

What is that based on?

 

[THEaaron]

What is that based on?

Anandtech.

Looking at Kabini, we have a good idea of the dynamic range for Jaguar on TSMC’s 28nm process: 1GHz - 2GHz. Right around 1.6GHz seems to be the sweet spot, as going to 2GHz requires a 66% increase in TDP.

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/...wering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash/4

 

[Chobel]

we are still not sure but the demo of kz sf yes was running on a 1.6 cpu..like we are not sure how many cores both console will reserve for the OS
butremembering tha xb1 have shape and move engine helping the cpu...i doubt the ps4 will have a chance to have a more cpu resource than the xb1

CPU doesn't matter that much in 3d games, GPU does.

Anandtech.

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/...wering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash/4

Anandtech were wrong

I am not expecting that either. However, on a side note, people usually refer to an article from AnandTech [1] where they said that the Jaguar TDP increases by 66% if one increases clock speed from 1,5Ghz (sic) to 2,0Ghz. However, that article is slightly mistaken in that they overlooked that the APUs they were comparing also had different GPUs and different GPU clock speeds (500Mhz vs. 600Mhz).

So the impact of upclocking Jaguar by 150Mhz should not be as drastic as many people are reporting.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/...wering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash/4