Iorv3th
Member
Crimson Dragon is exclusive, sorry, I meant multiplatform.
Outside of Square, it's Konami (MGS5) and Level 5 (Wonderflick) and that's all I can think of.
What about The Evil Within?
Crimson Dragon is exclusive, sorry, I meant multiplatform.
Outside of Square, it's Konami (MGS5) and Level 5 (Wonderflick) and that's all I can think of.
Read the post above, it makes sense, ddr3 won't go faster than 68, esram can't go faster than 218gb/s ...the GPU can read them separately...but the figures can't be added. No transmission is from 1 place, esram can pass 218 ( and that's paper spec) I dunno if the GPU can even utilise that bandwidth on the x1 GPU when the ps4's sweet spot is apparently 176 and it HSS double the rope/cu,s etc
I wouldn't respond to Sony PR/ Viral Marketing Either if I were Albert.
What about The Evil Within?
I don't think Microsoft allows that when the games is behind a great partnership.
What about The Evil Within?
But DirectX!
In all seriousness though...the fact that Albert needs to keep going "I need to get back to you guys about your questions" in itself tells me enough about what he actually knows about the Xbone architecture. Don't shoot the messenger.
Why not have an actual engineer come on and do an AMA? And not that softball garbage they are doing on IGN.
Let me ask on the AMA. I think the team wanted to do something different. The people I'm talking about will be getting out there to give details.
So what if they're not from one place. That means nothing. Could design a MMU that pools them together and the programmer wouldn't be able to see the difference. The fact that they are simultaneous means that as far as the GPU is concerned it has access to that much theoretical bandwidth.
we've known since over 3 months ago PS4 is the more powerful system, I don't know why it keeps coming up lol.
Going by your posts you seem pretty rational (and pretty knowledgeable, I think your posts are usually interesting), so I don't really need to explain (again) how I will treat two different opinion, one by you and the other by ERP, right?The simple fact is that GPUs do not care much about latency due to the loads they process and that claiming that the fillrate could be effected in the face of something GPUs are not really affected by is bullshit.
Yes, undeniable, but it's not the only post he has written on Beyond3d.And BTW, the post of ERP that is quoted does not state that he was worked on the PS4 at all!
So if you even achieve that, what's its purpose or benefit over the PS4 ? Both RAM end products feeding the GPUs saturating them (176gb/s was supposedly a sweet spot for the ps4), don't we already assume the GDDR5 will have higher resolution and quality textures, more going on etc and the 32mb esram could be negated by being used as a frame buffer, then its GPU vs GPU (which I'm sure needs no comparison)...so its really down to usable bandwidth? CPU/GPU
Hasn't it already been proven by dozens of ACTUAL hardware-knowledgeable people/hardware engineers that you can't add the bandwidths together?
This has been going on since the Xbone was announced and it's still getting dug up? 4 months later and people still trying to prove engineers wrong? Funny...
This is as bad as bringing up the GDDR5 latency controversy...
That's what I thought, I'm just humouring him on what the outcome would be if it was possible to add it, I was under the impression it couldn't be (as you can see by my previous posts)
Ars Technica? Don't Know 'Em.
Ars: "Just adding up bandwidth numbers is idiotic and meaningless. While the Xbox One's ESRAM is a little faster, we don't know how it's used, and the PS4's GDDR5 is obviously a lot bigger."
Lol. People just need to give it a rest.
Fact: PS4 is 41%(?) more powerful than the Xbone in terms of gflops
Fact: Xbone does not have 272gb/s or whatever secret sauce they're spouting these days. It was debunked 4 months ago and nothing has changed since. But if you want to keep drinking that MSFT Kool-Aid, go right ahead.
Fact: PS4 has hUMA. Wasn't it said Xbone does not?
Lol. People just need to give it a rest.
Fact: PS4 is 41%(?) more powerful than the Xbone in terms of gflops
Fact: Xbone does not have 272gb/s or whatever secret sauce they're spouting these days. It was debunked 4 months ago and nothing has changed since. But if you want to keep drinking that MSFT Kool-Aid, go right ahead.
Fact: PS4 has hUMA. Wasn't it said Xbone does not?
This slide also shows that adding the 30GB/s of cache-coherent bandwidth is utter nonsense, since they are included in the 68GB/s cap.
I don't think he did.
Nice facts with question marks.
He's taking a jab at Penello's own "don't know 'em" comment.What?
I remember them doing major writeups on the PS2.
You know . i wasn't going to post in here but i told myself if someone posts something about buying parity again i am gonna respond to this So please don't take this personally .
The idea of MS buying parity is simply silly.
First of all how would they regulate that ? MS going around devs and going :this part of the game runs better on PS4 . make it worse ?
And secondly Do you really expect Sony to just bend their knee to MS and say: we understand . please make the game on our system worse so we can achieve parity ?
Please . Please stop thinking that MS rules the game industry and everyone bends their knee for them . it is beyond silly .
I am not going to comment on who is right or wrong as all the games will do the talking and if it turns out somebody has been making up BS it will be clear as day to see for us and no amount of spin can disprove what we can see with our own eyes.
So wait, has everything Penello said been defended by tech experts at this point? That's quite the article on the face of it.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/microsoft-demands-simultaneous-multiplatform-releases/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...crosoft-taking-pound-of-flesh-from-publishers
It can simply be a unilateral demand, and developers will yield to pressure of potentially losing half the install base. I realise the articles refer to content parity, but "content" as you know is a loosely defined term. Who is to say that even just a higher resolution texture is not to be considered extra "content"?
You know things are heating up when shill is being thrown around it and it isn't even referring to someone who actually works for one of the companies.
In those types of agreements, content refers to substantial modes and gameplay features. We've seen many multiplatform games with differences in visuals and minor console exclusive content.
No matter what Penello, Major Nelson or any other MS PR guy on Neogaf says (or how much more a joining for damage control).Defended? More like defeated.
Everything is either "No. That's a bold faced lie." or "There's no way of verifying that."
No matter what Penello, Major Nelson or any other MS PR guy on Neogaf says.
It doesn't change the fact that the PS4 is more powerful.
Some guys should give it a rest already.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/microsoft-demands-simultaneous-multiplatform-releases/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...crosoft-taking-pound-of-flesh-from-publishers
It can simply be a unilateral demand, and developers will yield to pressure of potentially losing half the install base. I realise the articles refer to content parity, but "content" as you know is a loosely defined term. Who is to say that even just a higher resolution texture is not to be considered extra "content"?
I wouldn't respond to Sony PR/ Viral Marketing Either if I were Albert.
Nope, just the person I quoted. Pretty obvious to me
Albert,
If you're scared, go to church.
Best Regards,
NeoGAF.
Just made this for the occasion.
you misinterpreted those articles. MS doesn't have the marketshare to make demands like that. They currently have dominant marketshare...in the US. If third parties want to sell anything in the EU or JP, they have to satisfy Sony and their fans as well. Microsoft has no leverage outside of the US, and gimping games isn't going to fly.
on top of that, even when sony literally controlled 80% of the market, they couldn't stop GC and Xbox ports from outperforming their PS2 counterparts.
While it does all come down to games at the very end, I believe the reason people are still bringing it up is because MS continues to do so. If they would let it go, I imagine most of GAF would too. Besides, whenever anything countering official claims showed up in the past, I saw it get posted during my time lurking here. Why should this be any different?
Brilliant
How did I misinterpret those articles when Microsoft did make those demands on their "content submission and release policy"?
...what does that even mean?
Wow. That sounds like a damn strong accusation.
I'd assume you have some damn strong proof?
because release date language and feature complete language is fairly standard. BOTH platforms have had that for some time. When one console gets a release 6 months earlier than another, there's usually a significant financial incentive to do so, and only for high profile titles unlikely to be turned down.
that is absolutely NOT the same thing as "Sony's game can't be prettier than ours." That language has NEVER flown, even from platform holders (nintendo with the SNES, Sony with the PS1/2) with far more marketshare than MS.
edit: hell, both of those articles are from 2011 anyway. they're two years out of date and don't even apply to the XBone.
Wow. That sounds like a damn strong accusation.
I'd assume you have some damn strong proof?
It's pretty simple actually:
Church is where people go to worship their god.
The Christian god is believed to have created the world in 6 days.
If you divide 6 into two equal parts, you get 3 and a half.
Half Life 3 confirmed!
Wizman23Nope, just the person I quoted. Pretty obvious to me
Wizman23
Banned
Posted it elsewhere but it fits here too: