• 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.

EuroGamer: More details on the BALANCE of XB1

Sounds obvious but they could use Azure for PS4 too.
Yep. And I bet that's one of Microsoft's goals.

It's a win-win-win for everyone.
Developers have cheaper (at least for Xbone games) and more accessible ways to manage external services for their games.
Players will have better online experiences.
Microsoft expands their Azure platform.
 
Exactly

Been there done that -2005-2006


There will be little to no difference in games ...regardless if a bunch of people say over and over that there will be.

I hope you haven't posted in any of the last 5 years of Eurogamer face-offs, laughing at the people who had to play the 'inferior' version of all those multiplatform games.
 
A little off-topic perhaps, but what competitive advantages does Azure have, if any, over for example Amazon Web Services?
I'm not sure upon what basis the notion arises that lots of publishers are going to switch to using Azure? E.g. Just googling now I see that Ubisoft announced a partnership with a company called Cloudscaling. Naughty Dog apparently uses AWS.
 
Any ideas when we can start to get real comparisons between the two systems?

'When the games come out' like you keep repeating on and on and on.

They have written the ability to use Azure into their SDK though. Makes it very easy for developers to use. Sony don't have that so going on the actual information we have as opposed to assuming or guessing, MS have a definite advantage.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't appear to have automated ESRAM management in the SDK though, so can we remove that advantage?
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
A little off-topic perhaps, but what competitive advantages does Azure have, if any, over for example Amazon Web Services?
I'm not sure upon what basis the notion arises that lots of publishers are going to switch to using Azure?

The biggest advantage on XB1 is that it is written into the SDK. I am not a developer but I assume this is a good thing and cut's down on the work needed to use the cloud.

I am not sure but it may allow for things that aren't practical when using a 3rd party cloud that isn't so tightly integrated.
 
A little off-topic perhaps, but what competitive advantages does Azure have, if any, over for example Amazon Web Services?
I'm not sure upon what basis the notion arises that lots of publishers are going to switch to using Azure?
Well since Microsoft is offering steep discounts on the Azure platform for Xbone games, it could be a more attractive solution for use on all versions rather than developing implementations for multiple different cloud platforms.
 

nib95

Banned
Well since Microsoft is offering steep discounts on the Azure platform for Xbone games, it could be a more attractive solution for use on all versions rather than developing implementations for multiple different cloud platforms.

I find it strange that despite these discounts most publishers are still using their own servers, such as Ubisoft, Activision (with COD), EA etc. Perhaps the discounts aren't that great that it offsets buying and managing your own servers?
 
Exactly

Been there done that -2005-2006


There will be little to no difference in games ...regardless if a bunch of people say over and over that there will be.


cue the but this gen is different because...

do you ever get bored of thread shitting? because that's all you ever seem to do...

why not post a valid argument to back up your statements, or are you just some pissed off whiney XB1 fan with an axe to grind?

I mean how old are you? what 12? start acting your age and not your shoe size...
 
I find it strange that despite these discounts most publishers are still using their own servers, such as Ubisoft, Activision (with COD), EA etc. Perhaps the discounts aren't that great that it offsets buying and managing your own servers?

I also find it strange that TechnicPuppet doesn't think Microsoft will happily sell Azure server space to third parties at discounted prices as well. I can't imagine the Azure division will be willing to lock themselves into only making money off XB1, all MS departments compete with each other.
 
I find it strange that despite these discounts most publishers are still using their own servers, such as Ubisoft, Activision (with COD), EA etc. Perhaps the discounts aren't that great that it offsets buying and managing your own servers?

Some big developers might still use their own solutions, but it is definitely an attractive offer for devs.
EA tends to use their own servers for Battlefield and Sports games, but TitanFall is using the Xbox cloud servers.
I believe Activision is using their own solution for Destiny servers, but they are using the Xbox cloud for COD servers.

Plus, these games have been in development for years, and who knows how long they knew the details of the Xbox cloud.
I'd guess it just wasn't a real option for most launch day games as the service was probably still in development while most of those games were in development.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
I find it strange that despite these discounts most publishers are still using their own servers, such as Ubisoft, Activision (with COD), EA etc. Perhaps the discounts aren't that great that it offsets buying and managing your own servers?

Activision?
 

nib95

Banned
Some big developers might still use their own solutions, but it is definitely an attractive offer for devs.
EA tends to use their own servers for Battlefield and Sports games, but TitanFall is using the Xbox cloud servers.
I believe Activision is using their own solution for Destiny servers, but they are using the Xbox cloud for COD servers.

Plus, these games have been in development for years, and who knows how long they knew the details of the Xbox cloud.
I'd guess it just wasn't a real option for most launch day games as the service was probably still in development while most of those games were in development.

Guess it really depends on Microsoft's pricing. We don't actually have any tangible figures, so we don't even know if it is cheaper than solutions from Amazon etc.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
I also find it strange that TechnicPuppet doesn't think Microsoft will happily sell Azure server space to third parties at discounted prices as well. I can't imagine the Azure division will be willing to lock themselves into only making money off XB1, all MS departments compete with each other.

They can use Azure or any other cloud but they aren't written into the SDK. Also Thunderhead is only available on XB1.
 
Guess it really depends on Microsoft's pricing. We don't actually have any tangible figures, so we don't even know if it is cheaper than solutions from Amazon etc.
We kinda do know that it is cheaper than the other hosting options.
You posted this quote from Respawn on the last page...

"Microsoft priced it so that it's far more affordable than other hosting options"

Now I'm sure those rates don't apply to builds of games outside of the Xbone platform, however having Xbone discounted is a big incentive to only build one implementation of the cloud services using Azure for all platforms.
 

nib95

Banned
They can use Azure or any other cloud but they aren't written into the SDK. Also Thunderhead is only available on XB1.

Do we know how much of advantage that will even hold? Might save a bit of time, but I doubt anything considerable, otherwise I think more third party multiplatform devs/publishers would be using Microsoft's solutions instead of their own.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

We kinda do know that it is cheaper than the other hosting options.
You posted this quote from Respawn on the last page...

"Microsoft priced it so that it's far more affordable than other hosting options"

Now I'm sure those rates don't apply to builds of games outside of the Xbone platform, however having Xbone discounted is a big incentive to only build one implementation of the cloud services using Azure for all platforms.

Doesn't specify which other hosting options, but yes I suppose you're right. I hope we learn more.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
Do we know how much of advantage that will even hold? Might save a bit of time, but I doubt anything considerable, otherwise I think more third party multiplatform devs/publishers would be using Microsoft's solutions instead of their own.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Where COD goes others follow. If COD on XB1 is a big success and the whole cloud thing works great for everyone involved it will make a lot of other developers take notice.

On the other hand if its a massive failure no one will touch it ever again.
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
It's getting tiresome isn't it. The main issues last gen were the memory pool and cell. It was a double whammy on devs and you could even argue exclusives show that the PS3 was the more powerful but hey.

This time round any complexities appear to lay with the weaker machine so I expect at least last gen in reverse at launch and then the gap to grow.

Of course there may be something we don't fully understand, but logic at this stage suggests this will be the case.

It's also odd that several XBO games have seem minor downgrades to hit performance (Ryse a good example) conversely we see DC Devs are trying to push their game further.

You monster!
 
They can use Azure or any other cloud but they aren't written into the SDK. Also Thunderhead is only available on XB1.

But how much of an advantage does that give them? Developers don't seem to have a great deal of trouble with online netcode, cloud saves etc. this generation, so what are they going to gain with these SDK hooks? And what sort of Azure shortcuts are available to developers in the SDK?
 
Klocker still fighting that good fight. One of the last remaining staunch supporters teetering on the edge.

There were discernible differences this gen even with wildly different architectures and similar specs. This time around they are the exact same architecture with one being 50% more powerful.

Keep trying to reassure yourself though. Even the vast majority of Xbone fans have just given up on it. Or--you could go chill with Misterxmedia and crew on their weirdo blog.

Yeah, the difference in power between the ps3 and 360 was smaller than the difference between the xb1 and ps4. The ps4 has the clear graphical power edge. Something Microsoft is trying to cover-up with their slick little orchestrated PR damage control campaign. I don't think it was a coincidence that MS got Richard (4.5gb ram) Leadbetter to "interview" their technical fellows.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
But how much of an advantage does that give them? Developers don't seem to have a great deal of trouble with online netcode, cloud saves etc. this generation, so what are they going to gain with these SDK hooks? And what sort of Azure shortcuts are available to developers in the SDK?

I have no idea I am not a developer. Hopefully we see things that no one has even thought of yet.
 

alterego

Junior Member
Microsoft's Ken Lobb comments:

“They maybe have a little more GPU,” says Lobb. “We have eSRAM [embedded memory] and crazy bandwidth to that eSRAM. Which is going to be better in the long run from a developer [perspective]? We’re going to see as the games go head to head. A lot of it will come down to – as always – which exclusive teams push a piece of hardware best.”

http://m.edge-online.com/news/from-crisis-to-contender-microsoft-on-xbox-one-and-the-power-of-the-crowd/


Not sure about "crazy" ESRAM bandwidth. The real world attainable figures seem to be a lot less than GDDR5.
 

Sky78

Banned
Amazon has the biggest cloud server farm in the world. Anyone can rent out their cloud service.

Exactly.

Some people seem to miss the point spectacularly with the X1/dedicated servers thing - there is nothing special about the dedicated servers themselves, the big story is that MS is offering use of their own server farm at extremely discounted rates - for the X1/360/PC versions of the game.

That's why Ghosts has dedicated servers on X1, and its why Respawn are launching on X1.

There is no technical barrier to dedicated servers on PS4, but there is a financial barrier, which MS have lifted with their scheme. Small developers like Respawn could not acheive their vision of a multiplayer game with dedicated servers without that deal, and even huge giants like Activision would rather save the money unless they get the discount.
 

Bundy

Banned
Here's to hoping people don't use the intellectually dishonest tactic of using launch games as irrefutable evidence of console parity.

As I've already posted:

And this is exactly what MS will do, when both consoles are launching.
Just as Major Nelson said a few weeks ago with his "Looking forward as the truth comes out" comment.
They will point their fingers at RYSE and you will hear comments like "Look, look! Look how good (single-player) RYSE is looking! It's maybe the best looking next-gen game. See! No performance differences."
Just wait and see. This is exactly what will happen!
But in the end.... this is not how it works, MS!
Just wait!

Exactly
Been there done that -2005-2006
There will be little to no difference in games ...regardless if a bunch of people say over and over that there will be.
cue the but this gen is different because...
lmao
Klocker won't give up.
 
Microsoft's Ken Lobb comments:



http://m.edge-online.com/news/from-crisis-to-contender-microsoft-on-xbox-one-and-the-power-of-the-crowd/


Not sure about "crazy" ESRAM bandwidth. The real world attainable figures seem to be a lot less than GDDR5.

Ken Lobb obviously hasn't seen these numbers.

Originally Posted by nib95

Those are going by Nvidia's still fluffed numbers. The real numbers look more like this.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive this generation.

Very different situation now...

PS4 | GPU: 1.84 Tflops and CPU: 100 Glops, Total 1.94 Tflops

Xbox One | GPU: 1.31 Tflops and CPU: 109 Gflops, Total 1.41 Tflops

PS4 based on raw performance is 38% more powerful than the Xbox One, but without any of the previous issues that plagued the PS3, and with a whole host of other advantages over the XO. This time it's the PS4 with the unified ram, the higher ram bandwidth, the higher ram availability etc. It's a completely different situation.
 

Klocker

Member
do you ever get bored of thread shitting? because that's all you ever seem to do...

why not post a valid argument to back up your statements, or are you just some pissed off whiney XB1 fan with an axe to grind?

I mean how old are you? what 12? start acting your age and not your shoe size...

Haha ok yea.

I have backed up plenty and it's the same old nonsense regurgitated back at anyone who contradicts the common opinion and claims that the games will by and large look and play the same on both systems....


We will all see in a Few short months anyway how this will most likely play out so some of us will be right and some wrong.


I'm just tired of the nonsense, assume I'm right and will wait to see it play out like the rest of the people here who give their opinion.


Klocker still fighting that good fight. One of the last remaining staunch supporters teetering on the edge.

There were discernible differences this gen even with wildly different architectures and similar specs. This time around they are the exact same architecture with one being 50% more powerful.

Keep trying to reassure yourself though. Even the vast majority of Xbone fans have just given up on it. Or--you could go chill with Misterxmedia and crew on their weirdo blog.



There is no 50% power difference Just 50% more CUs the gpu...Not the same thing....

And i don't need to make myself feel better about anything, feel fine thanks for asking. I expect to be proven right eventually and don't mind being in the minority...if anything, it makes me more confident I am probably correct actually.

Funny to see all of the jumpers quoting my opinion and trying to run me off and shut me up...lol
 

KidBeta

Junior Member
There is no 50% power difference Just 50% more CUs the gpu...Not the same thing....

And i don't need to make myself feel better about anything, feel fine thanks for asking. I expect to be proven right eventually and don't mind being in the minority...if anything, it makes me more confident I am probably correct actually.

Funny to see all of the jumpers quoting my opinion and trying to run me off and shut me up...lol

Theres more differences between the two then just the raw CU size, the PS4 also have 2x the ROPs and ~50% more CU and TMU, furthermore Sony has modified parts of the cache to help with doing parallel compute and FF graphics, how much benefit this brings is yet to be seen, but clearly there will be some benefit.
 
And i don't need to make myself feel better about anything, feel fine thanks for asking
Your constant mini-meltdowns and drive-by thread shitting would beg to differ.

Your opinion is that the disparity in GPU hardware will lead to no disparity in game performance or appearance. You're free to hold such opinion. But others are going to question the basis of such opinion if you keep repeating it in a manner suggesting an evidential basis.
False equivalency is not a valid argument.

I've seen you in enough of these threads to assume you've already seen why comparisons to the situation of the PS3 and 360 are poor.
 

Bundy

Banned
We will all see in a Few short months anyway how this will most likely play out so some of us will be right and some wrong.
Here's to hoping people don't use the intellectually dishonest tactic of using launch games as irrefutable evidence of console parity.
You see, NoMoreTrolls..... it has already started ;)

I'm just tired of the nonsense, assume I'm right and will wait to see it play out like the rest of the people here who give their opinion.
You are not tired, because of "nonsense". You are tired and pissed off, because your XBone is weaker than the PS4.
There is no other reason. Just let it go, finally!

There is no 50% power difference Just 50% more CUs the gpu...Not the same thing....
They're not talking about the GPU-only!
Several devs and mags said: "Around 50% faster".
The GPU + the better architecture, more RAM, better RAM, etc. = around 50% faster
(as already mentioned: more CU's more ROPs, more more more)

Exactly! lol!
 
You see, NoMoreTrolls..... it has already started ;)


You are not tired, because of "nonsense". You are tired and pissed off, because your XBone is weaker than the PS4.
There is no other reason. Just let it go, finally!


They're not talking about the GPU-only!
Several devs and mags said: "Around 50% faster".
The GPU + the better architecture, more RAM, better RAM, etc. = around 50% faster
(as already mentioned: more CU's more ROPs, more more more)


Exactly! lol!
Dammit! Eh, I already wrote off Klocker as a definite candidate for that bullshit. Other than the odd thread, I only really started lurking in January, but it didn't take long for me to see a trend in his posts.

Klocker, it's cool to like the Xbox One, and I understand that you may feel that it's getting unnecessarily shit on by the majority of posters here on GAF. I'll let you in on a secret, though: many posters on these forums came by their newly found bias against Microsoft honestly. If you don't believe me, try and find some 2005-2006 threads regarding Sony. Sony was everybody's golden boy, coming off of the PS2--the gaming machine of choice for most gamers at the time. When Sony announced the PS3, "infinite power of the Cell," etc., etc. people were thinking "Holy hell MS is screwed! The 360 is going to fail!" People operated under the assumption that Sony had to be the best this time around because of current performance.

Then, when Sony started to announce more info ("Five hundred ninety nine U.S. dollars!") and Krazy Ken Kutaragi started to absolutely fuck the dog with awful PR blurbs, combined with Phil Harrison hyperbole, the common opinion changed. Sony were rubes, out of touch with the hardcore gamer. They had focused on multimedia for their games console, resulting in a box that was more expensive and effectively harder to develop for, making the games suffer. (Holy shit, that sounds oddly familiar! I wonder what's happened recently that sounds sort of like this...)

I would say that the general consensus on this forum (not making GAF a hivemind, mind you--it is full of unique posters. I am merely stating the seeming majority opinion) was quite pro-MS leading up to this year. People were beginning to warm to Sony because of the shifts in their business strategy and message since 2007-2008, but for the most part the 360 was more beloved by many. It was only when the rumors about Microsoft DRM policies came around that some began to worry. And even then, many still predicted the Xbox One to be hands down the more attractive system, in price, power, and featureset ("Sony can't afford to keep up with Microsoft" was a decently common and damned reasonable-sounding opinion). Most couldn't believe that Microsoft could go wrong after they did so much right this gen. This was the core premise of the "Sony too" posts, which were, once again, somewhat reasonable (at the beginning) when considering MS's lack of blunders compared to Sony this gen. It wasn't necessarily a bad assumption that Sony would follow MS into anti-consumer hell, because Sony themselves created a very anti-consumer console (from a wallet standpoint, at least) just a few years earlier.

The real shift in popular sentiment came with the initial Xbox One reveal. This was truly a turning point for forum partiality (and even public gamer bias) across the entire internet (MisterXMedia's blog notwithstanding). Things like #dealwithit, combined with the insulting PR that consisted almost entirely of nebulous buzzwords like "cloud," "five billion transistors," and the message that Microsoft did not trust its consumers to not be thieves... All of these things culminated in many gamers rejecting Microsoft's message.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about why Microsoft seems to be many people's whipping boy. They arguably flew too close to the sun. People who say things like "SonyGAF" never seem to understand that MS has earned this skepticism. Klocker, claiming that being in the minority confirms your bias can only come from some sort of cognitive dissonance. You're in the minority because you have some very strong loyalty to a brand of video games consoles. Not because you put any kind of logical thought into your preconceived notions. Neutral parties have, by and large, jumped ship to the clearly more consumer friendly PS4 (if they're going single-console). The hipster notion of the minority being right is often counter to the truth. I hope you have a breathing tube, I'd hate for you to get sand in your lungs.

I guess that expecting any kind of reasonable response from you is futile, though. Takes a lot more effort to back up your viewpoints than to make drive-by troll posts.
 
Haha ok yea.

I have backed up plenty and it's the same old nonsense regurgitated back at anyone who contradicts the common opinion and claims that the games will by and large look and play the same on both systems....

We will all see in a Few short months anyway how this will most likely play out so some of us will be right and some wrong.

I'm just tired of the nonsense, assume I'm right and will wait to see it play out like the rest of the people here who give their opinion.

There is no 50% power difference Just 50% more CUs the gpu...Not the same thing....

And i don't need to make myself feel better about anything, feel fine thanks for asking. I expect to be proven right eventually and don't mind being in the minority...if anything, it makes me more confident I am probably correct actually.

Funny to see all of the jumpers quoting my opinion and trying to run me off and shut me up...lol

"People like me like all games on xbox because that's called having good taste"
You really think anyone even takes you seriously?
 
Long time lurker and finally decided to post...

I keep seeing this...

"Here's to hoping people don't use the intellectually dishonest tactic of using launch games as irrefutable evidence of console parity."

Talk about open ended and ambiguous...When would you like to start the comparisons? So if a year passes, or two...is that OK and enough time for the PS4 to smoke the XO? Seems like a lot of people have completely sold out that PS4 will shame the XO, and have a number of built-in excuses ready to go.

- Oh the devs are just playing to the lowest common denominator
- Can't use launch titles as comparison

I await with great anticipation this dominance just as I'm still waiting for the PS3 to smoke the 360. Yes, I've read all the talking points about how the PS3 had some huge disadvantages...all that power, all dressed up with nowhere to go. The minions on this board all circle jirked each other then as well.
 

ekim

Member
btw - misterX is getting desperate :
Insider: Our nda's are still in place. The gpu's deep down information will come via Eurogamer. The last min change was due to problems with streaming and information on behalf of AMD.. Some media have been briefed over the last 24 hours. :(

:D
 

Skeff

Member
Long time lurker and finally decided to post...

I keep seeing this...

"Here's to hoping people don't use the intellectually dishonest tactic of using launch games as irrefutable evidence of console parity."

Talk about open ended and ambiguous...When would you like to start the comparisons? So if a year passes, or two...is that OK and enough time for the PS4 to smoke the XO? Seems like a lot of people have completely sold out that PS4 will shame the XO, and have a number of built-in excuses ready to go.

- Oh the devs are just playing to the lowest common denominator
- Can't use launch titles as comparison

I await with great anticipation this dominance just as I'm still waiting for the PS3 to smoke the 360. Yes, I've read all the talking points about how the PS3 had some huge disadvantages...all that power, all dressed up with nowhere to go. The minions on this board all circle jirked each other then as well.

First post banning?
 
btw - misterX is getting desperate :
:D
I kind of imagine him to be like Carrie Mathison, from Homeland, after the she's caught in a bombing.

I need the green one. My kingdom for the green one.

With a wall of documents.
homeland-the-vest-claire-danes-mandy-patinkin_article_story_main.jpg

Screaming "I'm about to solve this fucking thing."

Except, he's not talking to anyone and he made the documents himself.
 
Long time lurker and finally decided to post...

I keep seeing this...

"Here's to hoping people don't use the intellectually dishonest tactic of using launch games as irrefutable evidence of console parity."

Talk about open ended and ambiguous...When would you like to start the comparisons? So if a year passes, or two...is that OK and enough time for the PS4 to smoke the XO? Seems like a lot of people have completely sold out that PS4 will shame the XO, and have a number of built-in excuses ready to go.

- Oh the devs are just playing to the lowest common denominator
- Can't use launch titles as comparison

I await with great anticipation this dominance just as I'm still waiting for the PS3 to smoke the 360. Yes, I've read all the talking points about how the PS3 had some huge disadvantages...all that power, all dressed up with nowhere to go. The minions on this board all circle jirked each other then as well.

You could have directly quoted me, brah. I stated that because I really do believe that there won't be huge differences AT LAUNCH. To qualify that statement, I believe "huge differences" to be things like 1600x900 vs 1080p, along with inferior AA or worse textures/particles. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think these differences won't show up in rushed launch games that are merely happy to be shipping on time. Now, to the heart of the matter. You claim that people always have built-in excuses, but I never said any such thing. And since you quoted me, I'm just going to remind you that I have never said something like that (look at my short post history if you don't believe me). I think there will be a clear difference by November of next year. Is that clear enough? I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. Also, the first "built-in excuse" may not be what you want to hear, but it's an entirely valid point. The onus is on you to tell us what's wrong with that assertion. Others have offered valid reasons for that statement (rush to launch, etc., etc.). As for the second "excuse," I don't think that'll happen. I've seen people say that, but I believe that to be a highly uninformed point of view. I don't remember a console generation in which that occurred. The PS2 didn't determine the quality of multiplats on the Xbox (with a few exceptions), and the 360 wasn't hampered by the difficult-to-develop-for PS3. So I agree that that excuse is somewhat of a copout, though many of the people spouting that particular line tend to be on the Microsoft side of the argument, as it's comforting for them to hold onto baseless speculation.

I like how you claim to have read about the "talking points" about the PS3... I like the loaded terminology. No way you have some sort of agenda, right? Either way, it seems like you failed to absorb any of what you reportedly read, because if you had managed to comprehend some of it, you'd understand that there are valid reasons for the PS3's on-paper advantages never making themselves manifest in third party titles.

Terrible first post, man. I'm pretty sure if you were really a long-time lurker you'd know better than to use the terms "minion" and "circle jerk." Super loaded phrasing that completely saps away any credibility your future posts could have had. Shame to see an account put to absolute waste.
 
You could have directly quoted me, brah. I stated that because I really do believe that there won't be huge differences AT LAUNCH. To qualify that statement, I believe "huge differences" to be things like 1600x900 vs 1080p, along with inferior AA or worse textures/particles. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think these differences won't show up in rushed launch games that are merely happy to be shipping on time. Now, to the heart of the matter. You claim that people always have built-in excuses, but I never said any such thing. And since you quoted me, I'm just going to remind you that I have never said something like that (look at my short post history if you don't believe me). I think there will be a clear difference by November of next year. Is that clear enough? I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. Also, the first "built-in excuse" may not be what you want to hear, but it's an entirely valid point. The onus is on you to tell us what's wrong with that assertion. Others have offered valid reasons for that statement (rush to launch, etc., etc.). As for the second "excuse," I don't think that'll happen. I've seen people say that, but I believe that to be a highly uninformed point of view. I don't remember a console generation in which that occurred. The PS2 didn't determine the quality of multiplats on the Xbox (with a few exceptions), and the 360 wasn't hampered by the difficult-to-develop-for PS3. So I agree that that excuse is somewhat of a copout, though many of the people spouting that particular line tend to be on the Microsoft side of the argument, as it's comforting for them to hold onto baseless speculation.

I like how you claim to have read about the "talking points" about the PS3... I like the loaded terminology. No way you have some sort of agenda, right? Either way, it seems like you failed to absorb any of what you reportedly read, because if you had managed to comprehend some of it, you'd understand that there are valid reasons for the PS3's on-paper advantages never making themselves manifest in third party titles.

Terrible first post, man. I'm pretty sure if you were really a long-time lurker you'd know better than to use the terms "minion" and "circle jerk." Super loaded phrasing that completely saps away any credibility your future posts could have had. Shame to see an account put to absolute waste.

First off, I have seen the whole generation first hand from owning both a PS3 and XBox 360. I've seen it all from the beginning to now. During that time I've witnessed the same emotions and the same reactions I'm seeing now. Looking back it was mostly all a bunch of wasted time because the reality is both those systems ended up being a lot closer than many wanted to admit. The multiplat games are the best representations to go by because they are often created by the same teams.

Early on we seen the PS3 struggle at times and the excuses then were indeed warranted, they simply didn't either have enough time or experience dealing with the PS3. As time went on we seen much better parity among those multiplat games. We also got a few that used the PS3 as the lead platform such as Burnout Paradise. Did that really show a huge advantage over the XBox 360? The big advantage the PS3 had was using the bluray storage to get away from disc-swapping. So a game like Star Ocean definitely benefited on the PS3 because it made backtracking an issue on the XBox 360. Could this have been countered if Microsoft made every XBox 360 have a mandatory hard-drive?

Either way we seen the arguments go back and forth with no real end. The PS3 was marketed as this powerful super computer that really didn't come to fruition because 8 years later the XBox 360 is still keeping up with it. Is GTA V much better on the PS3? Not really.

So does this mean the same thing will occur with the PS4 not being able to show the clear advantage many are suggesting now? We don't know yet. Again on paper it shows there is a clear advantage for the PS4 but Sony also showed specs for the PS3 that tried to make the XBox 360 appear to be an XBox 1.5. The excuse they make games for the lowest common denominator doesn't really ring true does it? Didn't the XBox 360 and PS3 both show clear advantages over the Wii? Didn't PC games also show clear advantages over the PS3 and XBox 360? So why was all the focus to these middle-ground platforms getting all the attention, and why does it look to be the same situation moving forward?
 
You could have directly quoted me, brah. I stated that because I really do believe that there won't be huge differences AT LAUNCH. To qualify that statement, I believe "huge differences" to be things like 1600x900 vs 1080p, along with inferior AA or worse textures/particles. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think these differences won't show up in rushed launch games that are merely happy to be shipping on time. Now, to the heart of the matter. You claim that people always have built-in excuses, but I never said any such thing. And since you quoted me, I'm just going to remind you that I have never said something like that (look at my short post history if you don't believe me). I think there will be a clear difference by November of next year. Is that clear enough? I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. Also, the first "built-in excuse" may not be what you want to hear, but it's an entirely valid point. The onus is on you to tell us what's wrong with that assertion. Others have offered valid reasons for that statement (rush to launch, etc., etc.). As for the second "excuse," I don't think that'll happen. I've seen people say that, but I believe that to be a highly uninformed point of view. I don't remember a console generation in which that occurred. The PS2 didn't determine the quality of multiplats on the Xbox (with a few exceptions), and the 360 wasn't hampered by the difficult-to-develop-for PS3. So I agree that that excuse is somewhat of a copout, though many of the people spouting that particular line tend to be on the Microsoft side of the argument, as it's comforting for them to hold onto baseless speculation.

I like how you claim to have read about the "talking points" about the PS3... I like the loaded terminology. No way you have some sort of agenda, right? Either way, it seems like you failed to absorb any of what you reportedly read, because if you had managed to comprehend some of it, you'd understand that there are valid reasons for the PS3's on-paper advantages never making themselves manifest in third party titles.

Terrible first post, man. I'm pretty sure if you were really a long-time lurker you'd know better than to use the terms "minion" and "circle jerk." Super loaded phrasing that completely saps away any credibility your future posts could have had. Shame to see an account put to absolute waste.

Thanks for the clarification regarding when you think we'll start to see significant differences. Again, we'll see if it materializes...

The intent of my post was simple...this raw numbers argument on paper has already been played out last gen. I simply wanted to point that out.

When Driveclub runs at 30fps this close to release...what's the excuse? I'm just asking...now way can it be the hardware, right?

http://gamingbolt.com/driveclub-60-fps-not-confirmed-developer-pushing-ps4-hard-to-achieve-it

And when Forza runs at 60fps at 1080p...they must be using last gen technology to achieve that performance on a 50% inferior box...just making sure I follow along.
 
First off, I have seen the whole generation first hand from owning both a PS3 and XBox 360. I've seen it all from the beginning to now. During that time I've witnessed the same emotions and the same reactions I'm seeing now. Looking back it was mostly all a bunch of wasted time because the reality is both those systems ended up being a lot closer than many wanted to admit. The multiplat games are the best representations to go by because they are often created by the same teams.

Early on we seen the PS3 struggle at times and the excuses then were indeed warranted, they simply didn't either have enough time or experience dealing with the PS3. As time went on we seen much better parity among those multiplat games. We also got a few that used the PS3 as the lead platform such as Burnout Paradise. Did that really show a huge advantage over the XBox 360? The big advantage the PS3 had was using the bluray storage to get away from disc-swapping. So a game like Star Ocean definitely benefited on the PS3 because it made backtracking an issue on the XBox 360. Could this have been countered if Microsoft made every XBox 360 have a mandatory hard-drive?

Either way we seen the arguments go back and forth with no real end. The PS3 was marketed as this powerful super computer that really didn't come to fruition because 8 years later the XBox 360 is still keeping up with it. Is GTA V much better on the PS3? Not really.

So does this mean the same thing will occur with the PS4 not being able to show the clear advantage many are suggesting now? We don't know yet. Again on paper it shows there is a clear advantage for the PS4 but Sony also showed specs for the PS3 that tried to make the XBox 360 appear to be an XBox 1.5. The excuse they make games for the lowest common denominator doesn't really ring true does it? Didn't the XBox 360 and PS3 both show clear advantages over the Wii? Didn't PC games also show clear advantages over the PS3 and XBox 360? So why was all the focus to these middle-ground platforms getting all the attention, and why does it look to be the same situation moving forward?

Thank you, you put more elegantly what I was trying to say.

The minute anyone points out the fallacy of the arguments that have played out last gen into this gen...immediately the assumption is made that I must have sold my soul to MS.
 
Why do I get the feeling that "following along" is soon all that you'll be able to do on GAF...



despicable_me_2_6.jpg

We've already covered this and I've apologized...I was out of line there. If I get banned so be it...I'll go back to reading. Truth be told there is good stuff here on these boards.
 
Thanks for the clarification regarding when you think we'll start to see significant differences. Again, we'll see if it materializes...

The intent of my post was simple...this raw numbers argument on paper has already been played out last gen. I simply wanted to point that out.

When Driveclub runs at 30fps this close to release...what's the excuse? I'm just asking...now way can it be the hardware, right?

http://gamingbolt.com/driveclub-60-fps-not-confirmed-developer-pushing-ps4-hard-to-achieve-it

And when Forza runs at 60fps at 1080p...they must be using last gen technology to achieve that performance on a 50% inferior box...just making sure I follow along.

This is another intellectually dishonest metric to use for performance comparisons. It has also been discussed to death in other threads, but I'll attempt to summarize.

First and foremost, 60fps is a design choice, nothing more. You can choose between a crazy amount of effects, or tone them down (compromises are the key to developing on a closed box system) and reach a higher frame rate and resolution. This is why you see effect heavy games like Ryse at 1600x900 on the same system as a 1080p Forza.

Driveclub and Forza are doing completely different things. Driveclub uses dynamic lighting, whereas Forza primarily uses pre-baked lighting. This is part of why there's no real change in time of day for Forza, whereas Driveclub has a day-night cycle. So the lighting and shader technologies in each are totally different, with Driveclub as the arguably more advanced, "next-gen" approach. Because of the differences in what they're doing from a technical standpoint, Driveclub uses more of the system's power on things that Forza isn't even attempting. This leads to Forza being able to render more frames per second, because there is far less computation having to be put in each frame.

I'm not very technically inclined, so I used some caveman terms in that summary. If there's any GAFers that are more proficient, I'd welcome a better-explained version of what I just said :)

EDIT: Further clarification of my argument. There are also more realistic reflections in DC. The result of the pre-baked lighting in Forza leads to the shadows of trees and buildings looking "pasted on" the pavement, and though the sun appears to shift slightly in that one video, the shadows are not affected by this change. This is because the shadows outside the cockpit are not dynamic.
 

Chumpion

Member
I was wondering. If I'm buying a PS4, what's the right distance to sit from my 60" plasma? It must be close enough that I can shit on XB1's 900p, but not so close that the Master Race gets to ridicule me.
 
Top Bottom