it's not
-
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.
VGLeaks: Durango GPU detailed
- Thread starter phosphor112
- Start date
it's not
The architectures are essentially the same and both are probably easy to develop for. If anything games will be downported from Orbis, which would benefit both consoles. It's easier to pair things back and get good results than trying to add features. Microsoft is aiming for a smaller cost on the console so that they can afford to bundle Kinect 2, which is likely much more complex than the first.
If this is true they'd better make sure the price is nice and low.
Maybe their subscription model might work a treat.
I think we will see a $300 SKU based on what MS priced their consoles in the past.
Overall, if they are going from more of a PS2 approach (a really good improvement from the predecessor but less powerful than the main competition), then I would be fine with that if it means having a library as great/diversified as the PS2. If they could combine that with great & fast online features and services then I think that they will be in very good shape.
I saw some people say that being like the PS2 was a negative (or at least seemingly implying that) and I guess they care more about power.
Overall, I don't think it's a negative at all. The PS2 is my second favorite console of all time (SNES is #1). If MS is trying to go for a modern version of that, then I'll be greatly interested in it.
seventynine
Member
I'm sure they'll bully indies and smaller publishers but I don't see this flying with EA and the like.
they'll target durango, and they won't add features.
i don't mean literally forcing, lol
If that's the case then everyone here should love the Wii U since it seems like it's going to be the closest thing to "just a gaming console" in comparison to the PS4 and next Xbox. I mean, Sony also wants their console(s) to be a "media-hybrid-thingy". Sony was really the first ones to make/market game consoles to be more than game players. Kind of silly to think that they don't want the same goal that MS currently wants.
But, many here are unimpressed with the Wii U. I guess many should just stick with PC gaming then.
DirtyManos
Member
What, you didn't make the meeting where we all decided to agree on those points? Management isn't going to be happy!
Ol No Bones
Banned
I have also heard rumors of multiple gpus so is it possible that ms would put 2 of these in their machine somehow.
DonMigs85
Member
Lol
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
It boggles my mind that people are so worked up on which console will be more powerful. I've just learned to accept whatever company that I'll buy from due to their library of games that I enjoy.
The PS2 was advanced for its time. Did some special things even the Xbox and GC had trouble recreating, especially in fill rate for particle effects. It held up extremely well considering it came out a year earlier than the competition. Don't really get the PS2 comparison.
Ultimately though I agree with the bigger point more hardware power doesn't guarantee success. In the case of Sony, they aren't building another PS3. So if it is more powerful (we'll see!) it won't be hard for 3rd parties to tap that extra power for games. Regardless of system warz that extra power will be used.
Was that in reply to me?
If so, yes I know that people feel that way. I basically feel the same way as you described in the post.
However, I just find it funny how people act like MS is the only one that wants their console to be an all-in-one media box when Sony wants it just as much... if not more now that MS is getting so many media partners.
Does DF ever do exclusive vs. exclusive comparisons? I doubt there is going to be much of a gap in cross platform titles. Microsoft is in the best position with third parties coming out of this hardware cycle.
I'm interested to see what the pricing strategies are. Wii selling so much seemed to have had zero impact on price drops for 360 and PS3 because it didn't really take away any of the software support.
Baconsammy
Banned
Perhaps. But if things switch next gen and PS is getting the better version of multi-console titles, that console will be my main. The vast majority of games I buy/play/rent are from third parties, so 360 was an easy decision this gen. If that changes, then I change. Obviously going to own both for the retail and downloadable exclusives.
Of course Sony wants that. They'd be dumb not to. But it looks like they're not willing to sacrifice power to do it. That's a good thing if they can deliver the console at a good price.
Well that quote just made me think of the Saturn. Did EA support that system very well?
Technically, the poster said 1280*720p, and those are extremely rare/nonexistent.
Most 720p tvs are 786.
Wat. Pretty much everything under 40" comes in 720p flavors.
You... mean... like a HTPC?
For exclusives they usually dedicate articles just going in depth into the features of that game in particular.
Yes. It was. But I dislike using my bloated phonecommunicatorinternet device so much I usually do as little as possible when it comes to navigating. Given that, you get kudos for making me reply!
I don't think I fault anyone for wanting to "control the living room," even though its am ancient paradigm that has been already surpassed by bloated mobilephoneinternetshiteaters but your preponderance above made me cringe! And I also wanted to call the Wii u a land whale.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Do you seriously think that Nintendo wants just a pure-as-snow gaming machine, what with their tablet that doubles up as a TV remote, and an assortment of apps like Netflix, web browsers etc?
ProfessorMoran
Member
How is the land whale going to swim when it's on land, will it flop around like a seal?
???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
Vol5
Member
I don't think that could ever work for a home console. Development cycles take years. Devs would quickly be pissed not knowing final specs of the next iteration and whether they would have to down tools to up-spec their existing games.
The mobile sector is flooded with models, each trying to 1up the other. That's the nature of the business. Home console gaming has 3 major players. They don't need to refresh hardware every year to try and beat a competitor. I can see a subscription model, definitely, but year-on-year hardware revisions.....? Consumers would be absolutely lost with choice.
Because if the specs are as it is, it's not another PS2. Sony pushed for the limit at the time with the PS2.
I never said that Nintendo doesn't want it.
Of course they want it. It's just that (in my opinion) they more than likely aren't going to match what MS and Sony will offer when it comes to media.
Heck, the Wii U at this current moment doesn't offer everything that the PS3 and Xbox 360 offers when it comes to media.
Delusibeta
Banned
So, let's have some graphics card algebra. AMD Radeon 7X00 HD: what is the value of X which makes this card closest to the Xbox 3's GPU? I have a feeling it's about 4.
Xbox debuted 20 months after PS2 (March 2000 vs. November 2001). Not really a similar situation. It would have been ridiculous for it to not be more powerful than a system that probably had its design finalized two years earlier. This is before the Wii era, of course.
Eh - fuck redundancy. There are so many devices that do "everything" - we dont need another. I want a gaming device, personally. I'm quite tired of everything doing everything. We have enough of that - I want something unique - an actual games console that is what it is above all else.
You are focusing on the power of the console itself.
I'm stating how the console could be in comparison to its competition; saying that I can see it being similar to how the PS2 was in comparison to its main competition -- A good improvement over last gen though not the powerful console out of the bunch; possibly more support overall though due to a cheaper/more attractive price point from it not being the most powerful console.
Glorified G
Member
This is some revisionist history. The ps2 was a huge leap that was marketed on power. It simply was less powerful than it's main competitors because of time. it launched 18 months before. It's not comparable to the situation today with both consoles being designed and released at the same time. There is no "modern ps2 plan."
So, essentially, what the 360 was to the PS3? In the same ballpark, but not as strong, and cheaper.
Sure the ps2 was hugely successful even tho it was less powerful but it also had a year head start. Two competitors releasing at the same time, same price and one being more powerful isn't as clear cut. If hardcore gamers flock to the ps4 because of specs it could easily garner the lion share of 3rd party support.
Relative to PS2 pre launch hyperbole, The Xbox actually delivered on what was promised.
PS2:
1) Sony pushed for the most powerful console at the time
2) Out a year plus before the competition
3) Install base ended up being so massive (140 million plus vs 25 million for each competitor) it made sense for exclusives
If you think Durango is going to sell 100 million plus to the Wii U and Orbis only selling around 25 million each, then you might have a point. But times have changed and the days of exclusive software is drying up. If anything, software will get even more homogeneous to be able to run on non console platforms like tablets.
I don't see a modern PS2 right now. Not even the Orbis.
It was more powerful than it's main competitor. It killed the Dreamcast dead, leaving the PS2 open to complete market dominance. The GC and Xbox arrived too late to change this, despite the technical benefits of more modern hardware.
The Xbox was only publicly announced by MS a few months before the PS2 was available to buy. The Xbox would have been unknown while the PS2 was being designed.
Qwerty710710
a child left behind
I'm still failing to see how the ps4 is super duper more powerful than the x720 which most people are saying ( mainly Sony fan boys). When developers are saying its very similar the only advantage I see is ps4 has a little more power in its gpu.
I still stand by my statement about Durango being the lead platform for multiplats. At least in the early going. I'm basing this on current North American market share with the Xbox brand name and nothing else. Should PS4 be the lead platform if it's significantly more powerful and easier to develop for? Well, yeah.. but it really doesn't work that way in the game business. At least early on..
I think this is a much more accurate comparison. The only difference is that MS may not have as big of an advantage with the 360 OS and SDK for features. Maybe MS is again counting on providing features that no one can match.
Yeah but dates had nothing to do with the comparison I made. I was simply using examples of the positives and negatives of the systems in that gen to how things look like they will be in this upcoming gen; saying how things may match in similar ways.
The PS4 releasing around the same time as the next Xbox can definitely change some things a bit but if the next Xbox has...
* Games that are big improvements from what was on the Xbox 360
* Multiplatform games that don't look any different from how they look on the PS4
* Impressive exclusive games & online services
* (And) a cheaper price than the PS4 due to it being less powerful
...then I (again) think it will be in a spot similar to the PS2 -- less powerful than the main competition, more attractive to consumers (due to price) which can lead to better sales which will more than likely cause better support.
PS2 was a monster at the time, although launched in March 2000 because there were not enough games for it, the hardware was final and completely done in 1999 and in certain things like polygon pushing, fillrate, memory bandwidth it was up to 10 times more powerful than the most powerful PCs of the time. Something we can only dream about with the new consoles that are about to be announced (which are both made of low power PC components stuffed together in a single giant chip).
That is the reason why it held up well compared to hardware coming out almost 2 years later.
That is the best reply ever! It's all jiberish
Glorified G
Member
Your post didn't really have any relevance to the point I was making. But even if it did, what you said was entirely subjective. To me God of War 2 & GT4 was some of the most impressive looking games that gen.
You're really cherry picking what made the ps2 a success while ignoring other factors. MS could be a similar spot that Sony was i back then if:
--360 dominated every major territory and was clearly the leader in sales.
--if Sony had no userbase and launched 18 months later.
--If the 360 was the only console that had serious third party support.
None of this exist. the situations are not comparable at all.
I have 2 GPUs from 2011 in my 2011 rig. Each one has double the TF output of these specs. While you could say the architecture is more efficient, I don't believe it because it's using DDR3.
People expect next gen consoles close to a high end GPU from last year, not half that of one 2.5 years ago.
MaulerX
Member
With Durango it's much more obvious because of the 8GB of RAM and hardware helpers etc... But with Orbis it's not as obvious. How do we know that they're not reserving some of that power (e.g. extra compute units) for their own non gaming or added gaming experiences? Maybe they figured that if they reserve too much of their 4GB GDDR5 RAM for other stuff then it will gimp the system no matter how fast the bandwidth. Hence Edge's report that they might increase the RAM further.
Of course. I never said it wasn't.
Did you not see the point in my post when I said that the PS2 was a good improvement over the PS1?
I understand what you said in terms of dates, but again... I never brought dates into this.
If the next Xbox is cheaper than the PS4 (due to it being less powerful) and gets more sales due to the fact, then the next Xbox will more than likely get more support.
Am I being clear with what I'm saying? Asking since I'm surprised that some of you aren't seeing where I'm coming from. Trying to explain where I'm coming from the best way I can.
Similar threads
- Poll