Support NeoGAF

[beast786]

Minimal boost is better than nothing, I don't think MS had much choice, I think Sony forced MS' hand with this new gen.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of articles suggesting Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS4 until 2015, Sony even went out of their way in 2011 to state that the PS3 would be around for a while longer.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/will_sony_really_wait_until_2015_release_playstation_4_console
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/26/what-if-sonys-next-playstation-didnt-arrive-until-2015/

Now this is nothing NEW for Sony, they have always supported their consoles well into the next generations life-time, but, bear with me, is it possible Sony wanted confusion as to when the PS4 was releasing to put MS at ease and think they had more time than they actually had?

Everything since the Xbox One's reveal makes it seem as though MS was in a bit of a clusterf**k, and making it up as they went along.

I don't think MS had any idea just how far ahead Sony's R&D was, and then had to take a completely reactionary stance.
Rushing to make deals that were not as profitable or cost efficient as Sony's.
Locking down manufacturers, some exclusive 3rd party IPs, etc.

I do agree with it to some extend.

even here in GAF we had insiders who clearly said Durango was way ahead than orbis. here post by aegies and proelite who even indicated power wise Durango was > orbis.

but all of a sudden on Feburary 1st everything changed with playstation revel invitation. hell, Major Nelson couldn't believe it even then and now as he wonder why haven't sony show the box? it seems they really caught them off guard.

It was also clear Sony ship was tight with no leaks, hell even kojima said he had lunches with cerny and he didnt say anything, which was differnt from past.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Forget the shot... next time you're in Chicagoland I've got your tab covered.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Minimal boost is better than nothing, I don't think MS had much choice, I think Sony forced MS' hand with this new gen.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of articles suggesting Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS4 until 2015, Sony even went out of their way in 2011 to state that the PS3 would be around for a while longer.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/will_sony_really_wait_until_2015_release_playstation_4_console
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/26/what-if-sonys-next-playstation-didnt-arrive-until-2015/

Now this is nothing NEW for Sony, they have always supported their consoles well into the next generations life-time, but, bear with me, is it possible Sony wanted confusion as to when the PS4 was releasing to put MS at ease and think they had more time than they actually had?

Everything since the Xbox One's reveal makes it seem as though MS was in a bit of a clusterf**k, and making it up as they went along.

I don't think MS had any idea just how far ahead Sony's R&D was, and then had to take a completely reactionary stance.
Rushing to make deals that were not as profitable or cost efficient as Sony's.
Locking down manufacturers, some exclusive 3rd party IPs, etc.

I totally agree with you. I think everything Sony has done coming into next gen has been masterfully orchestrated. I believe Sony are at least a year ahead in their plans, and with hardware that's easier to develop for, it couldn't look any rosier for them. I know that many don't see a huge difference between the next gen offerings, but even a total novice like myself can see how the tech in games like KZS, Driveclub and Resogun, is far more advanced than anything we've seen thus far on the X1. That's not to say that games on the X1 don't 'look' great, because they do, but they just don't seem to demonstrate that jump in tech nearly as well as Sony's games (at the moment)

 

[EmptySpace]

Minimal boost is better than nothing, I don't think MS had much choice, I think Sony forced MS' hand with this new gen.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of articles suggesting Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS4 until 2015, Sony even went out of their way in 2011 to state that the PS3 would be around for a while longer.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/will_sony_really_wait_until_2015_release_playstation_4_console
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/26/what-if-sonys-next-playstation-didnt-arrive-until-2015/

Now this is nothing NEW for Sony, they have always supported their consoles well into the next generations life-time, but, bear with me, is it possible Sony wanted confusion as to when the PS4 was releasing to put MS at ease and think they had more time than they actually had?

Everything since the Xbox One's reveal makes it seem as though MS was in a bit of a clusterf**k, and making it up as they went along.

I don't think MS had any idea just how far ahead Sony's R&D was, and then had to take a completely reactionary stance.
Rushing to make deals that were not as profitable or cost efficient as Sony's.
Locking down manufacturers, some exclusive 3rd party IPs, etc.

exactly. sony started the project in 2007, while microsoft started it in late 2010.

 

[bigboss370]

I totally agree with you. I think everything Sony has done coming into next gen has been masterfully orchestrated.

they've somehow managed to keep a tight lid on everything, no significant leaks. dat 8GB GDDR5. Even VitaTV took us by surprise.

 

[spatenfloot]

I have always harbored the notion that MS was unprepared for Sony's reveal this year and have been playing catch up the entire time

Imagine if the original Xbox One plans were for release in 2014?

Would make sense to me

I am certain of that.

 

[recklesscognition]

I think the hardest part of keeping things under wraps would be your third party developers. Sony worked a lot with Sucker Punch who didn't have any moles for Microsoft to get intel from. As long as they kept their manufacturers and devs away from MS, it wouldn't be all too difficult to hide the planning of the console.

 

[spatenfloot]

I totally agree with you. I think everything Sony has done coming into next gen has been masterfully orchestrated. I believe Sony are at least a year ahead in their plans, and with hardware that's easier to develop for, it couldn't look any rosier for them. I know that many don't see a huge difference between the next gen offerings, but even a total novice like myself can see how the tech in games like KZS, Driveclub and Resogun, is far more advanced than anything we've seen thus far on the X1. That's not to say that games on the X1 don't 'look' great, because they do, but they just don't seem to demonstrate that jump in tech nearly as well as Sony's games (at the moment)

All of their studios have been working on next gen for a while. I can't wait until they unveil the second wave of titles from the heavy hitters.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

they've somehow managed to keep a tight lid on everything, no significant leaks. dat 8GB GDDR5. Even VitaTV took us by surprise.

The key statement to verify your theory (and I've been thinking the same since the reveal) is when Kaz said he sees no reason to reveal their tech before the opposition because they'd be able to copy Sony's ideas (I'm paraphrasing there of course). It was almost as if they didn't want to just hide the fact of how far on they were at that point, but they wanted to be able to turn the knife when they DID announce their next gen console on the 20th Feb. And who can argue that he wasn't right? Ms made no mention of streaming gameplay and being able to help someone out remotely, or record and share footage at their initial reveal.

 

[beast786]

I think the hardest part of keeping things under wraps would be your third party developers. Sony worked a lot with Sucker Punch who didn't have any moles for Microsoft to get intel from. As long as they kept their manufacturers and devs away from MS, it wouldn't be all too difficult to hide the planning of the console.

I don't know about that. Did you see how many people they had on stage that were indies or 3rd party.

hell it seems every other day a new ps4 title is announced. Ps4 launch title /window is probably has more games than any other console in history.

 

[Razgreez]

they've somehow managed to keep a tight lid on everything, no significant leaks. dat 8GB GDDR5. Even VitaTV took us by surprise.

No it didn't. We have clairvoyants and sooth-sayers on these forums

They should turn Vita into an Ouya box and let you hook it up to your TV. $99 PS Vita Fixed?

 

[onken]

Sort of off-topic but have they announced when X1/PS4 are due to release in HK?

 

[Timedog]

That didn't happen with original Xbox games.

Yes it did. Games were designed for PS2 and then given a few upgrades that were easy to achieve on xbox without significant optimization. Multiplatform games typically looked slightly better on xbox, but not significantly so. There are definitely exceptions to this rule though.

I don't think it will be as bad as it was then though, given how close the architectures of the PS4 and XB1 are, but one will still be gimped to some extent. This is the reality of budgeting and development cycles. The exceptions will more than likely be high profile games with large development budgets. As the generation progresses to it's later stages, and developers have intimate knowledge of both platforms, the difference in multiplatform games will increase.

 

[badb0y]

I must admit, I was shocked when I heard about the February reveal, I was thinking the PS4 would launch in 2014 and the Xbox One would launch in late 2013.

Cerny said they started planning the PS4 in 2008....2008, that's only 2 years into the PS3 cycle.

 

[onQ123]

sucks ps4 relies on numers while the box relies on games.

 

[Nightengale]

No one would've even remotely guessed it looking at Sony's PS3 first-party line-up this year.

I mean, shit, the line-up for the PS3 this year ranks up there as one of the best years for first-party exclusives, and taking into account 3rd-party exclusives like Ni no Kuni and Xillia, imo is the best year. (opinions)

Cerny said they started planning the PS4 in 2008....2008, that's only 2 years into the PS3 cycle.

From the way he made it sound, it sounded more like a very in-depth deep dive/brainstorming at all their PS3 fuck-ups, and key learnings to avoid rather than any PS4 plans immediately.

I guess one can argue discussing things not to repeat/do for next-gen is technically planning for PS4, but I don't think the team was readily assembled there and then.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Fluctuating 25-30 FPS vs. rock stable 30 FPS doesn't matter? Well, I disagree.

Pretty much, if this is Xbones idea of "not much difference", losing every single face-off and getting slammed in forums for every multiplat then I don't know what their idea of a big difference is. lol. Guess some ppl like paying same price for inferior performance.

 

[BruiserBear]

Minimal boost is better than nothing, I don't think MS had much choice, I think Sony forced MS' hand with this new gen.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of articles suggesting Sony wouldn't be releasing the PS4 until 2015, Sony even went out of their way in 2011 to state that the PS3 would be around for a while longer.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/will_sony_really_wait_until_2015_release_playstation_4_console
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/26/what-if-sonys-next-playstation-didnt-arrive-until-2015/

Now this is nothing NEW for Sony, they have always supported their consoles well into the next generations life-time, but, bear with me, is it possible Sony wanted confusion as to when the PS4 was releasing to put MS at ease and think they had more time than they actually had?

Everything since the Xbox One's reveal makes it seem as though MS was in a bit of a clusterf**k, and making it up as they went along.

I don't think MS had any idea just how far ahead Sony's R&D was, and then had to take a completely reactionary stance.
Rushing to make deals that were not as profitable or cost efficient as Sony's.
Locking down manufacturers, some exclusive 3rd party IPs, etc.

I don't think anyone who follows the industry closely was surprised the PS4 or XB1 were coming this year.

Microsoft has already admitted they simply didn't go for the best graphics because they felt Kinect had to be included, and that raised the cost significantly.

The upclocking was just an admission they'd made some poor decisions designing this console, and an attempt to claw back even a small amount of the large power gap.

 

[bigboss370]

Sort of off-topic but have they announced when X1/PS4 are due to release in HK?

Sony are gonna have a conference for Asia territories on the 18th I believe.

 

[BajiRav]

I have always harbored the notion that MS was unprepared for Sony's reveal this year and have been playing catch up the entire time

Imagine if the original Xbox One plans were for release in 2014?

Would make sense to me

That sounds like a good theory except that 7 months is too short to suddenly start making Xboxes. Not even all of MS' money can do that.

 

[AdmiralPain]

I think that many posters here exhibit a severe case of core gamer myopia, myself included. I know that core gamers want power and games, I know they don't give a crap about media functionality and casual gamer features. I don't either. But the mainstream market does and that market is crucial to the survival of the whole console business. That's why I think that Microsoft made the right call by adding mainstream-friendly features.

Look around you. The console sector is under pressure by tablets and PCs, devices that are inherently multifunction. Microsoft understands that a new console cannot be pitched to today's market as "like what you have already, only more powerful". This would be commercial suicide. New consoles need more functionality to appear attractive to the mainstream tablet-obsessed audience. The Xbox One will have games and they will look good. Its library will be largely the same as the PS4's. It's not a WiiU situation at all.

Microsoft people said that they purposefull didn't target the highest end graphics and I believe them. Every choice they made shows that, from the 8GBs of RAM right from the start, to the bundled Kinect and the deals with NFL and such. Nowadays you need to show the consumer that your device has more value than simply playing a bit prettier games.

Sony chose to go with a core gamer-focused console but it didn't go far enough. If it wanted to emphasize the machine's power, it should have added a lot better hardware than what it currently has. I don't understand how the PS4 is considered all-powerful when it's significantly weaker than my graphics card that I bought almost two years ago. If Sony wanted to sell the PS4 on power, it should have gone all out and create a device that would truly dazzle with its graphical prowess. Now it feels like a half-hearted attempt, one that I am not at all sure it will resonate with the mainstream market.

Maybe your first instinct will be to bash me and label me a Microsoft fanboy. It's partly true I guess, I own both HD consoles as well as a powerful PC but the 360 is my clear favorite from last gen. However, understand that I'm scared for console gaming's future and that's why I want both companies to win the mainstream market. I'm afraid that gaming's future is f2p and cow clickers and that really terrifies me. The old way of doing things is dead, console makers need to evolve or die. There's no third alternative, the core gamer market cannot sustain the console business by itself.

 

[Finalizer]

That sounds like a good theory except that 7 months is too short to suddenly start making Xboxes. Not even all of MS' money can do that.

It's not that "they started working on Xbox One after Sony's Feb reveal;" the idea is that they were scheduled for a 2014 release and that development was geared toward that release goal, and that Sony announcing a 2013 PS4 release caused them to quickly ratchet up development to meet a 2013 date themselves.

And honestly, looking at the situation, I don't find it terribly hard to believe. Considering that the RRoD fiasco with the 360 was partly due to cutting so many corners to meet a 2005 release just to beat Sony to the punch, I can kinda buy into a narrative where MS was caught off guard and willing to do anything just to at least launch in the same year as the competition. Given what we've heard about all the OS stuff at the reveal being phony baloney (CBOAT's thing), how apparently several Xbone launch titles are 360 games being switched over to the new system, how the Xbone SDK is apparently several months behind compared to the PS4's, how we haven't really had much of a demonstration of the OS or Kinect since the reveal... The train of thought isn't entirely far-fetched, in my mind anyway.

 

[Joemoe]

I think the talk of developers gimping their games just for graphical parity between the consoles is silly. No one outside of the hardcore circles is nit-picky enough to really care about how their console's games compare graphically with other consoles. Critics will know about hardware limitations and aren't going to strike down games just for not looking as pretty on the X1 (just like how they normally don't with 360/PS3 versions vs. PC versions). Developers (many of whom actually care about their games and want them to be as good as possible) aren't going to hold back their vision over petty "political issues," the underpowered hardware is Microsoft's problem alone.

I would bet the "political issues" comment is coming from a dev like DICE whose publisher is being moneyhatted by Microsoft. Most other devs shouldn't think twice about making their games look as good as possible on the PS4. They're not only competing with its exclusives, but with other 3rd-party devs who will be pushing the hardware to its limits.

 

[bonus_sco]

It's not that "they started working on Xbox One after Sony's Feb reveal;" the idea is that they were scheduled for a 2014 release and that development was geared toward that release goal, and that Sony announcing a 2013 PS4 release caused them to quickly ratchet up development to meet a 2013 date themselves.

And honestly, looking at the situation, I don't find it terribly hard to believe. Considering that the RRoD fiasco with the 360 was partly due to cutting so many corners to meet a 2005 release just to beat Sony to the punch, I can kinda buy into a narrative where MS was caught off guard and willing to do anything just to at least launch in the same year as the competition. Given what we've heard about all the OS stuff at the reveal being phony baloney (CBOAT's thing), how apparently several Xbone launch titles are 360 games being switched over to the new system, how the Xbone SDK is apparently several months behind compared to the PS4's, how we haven't really had much of a demonstration of the OS or Kinect since the reveal... The train of thought isn't entirely far-fetched, in my mind anyway.

It's not true.

 

[Finalizer]

It's not true.

No one outside of MS would even know the whole story either way, so it's just idle speculation.

 

[Anko]

Sony chose to go with a core gamer-focused console but it didn't go far enough. If it wanted to emphasize the machine's power, it should have added a lot better hardware than what it currently has. I don't understand how the PS4 is considered all-powerful when it's significantly weaker than my graphics card that I bought almost two years ago. If Sony wanted to sell the PS4 on power, it should have gone all out and create a device that would truly dazzle with its graphical prowess. Now it feels like a half-hearted attempt, one that I am not at all sure it will resonate with the mainstream market.

Sony set a price target, and went for the highest achievable graphics at that price point. Or do you prefer if they simply went for the highest graphics and end up with another $600 situation while taking a loss? I'd say this was the smarter approach.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that consoles are able to get more out of a graphics card because they use the same hardware across the board. They are able to do lower level, hardware specific coding and use the hardware more efficiently. If that's the case, why do people keep comparing the graphics card they have on the PC to the one on the PS4? Wouldn't they need a more powerful card to achieve similar results? Not to mention the various tweaks they added to the architecture...
Again, this is my basic understanding of the hardware, so do correct me if I am wrong...

 

[Joemoe]

No one outside of MS would even know the whole story either way, so it's just idle speculation.

I doubt Microsoft wasn't prepared for a 2013 launch. Remember this leak from a while back?

 

[Invalid GR]

I think that many posters here exhibit a severe case of core gamer myopia, myself included. I know that core gamers want power and games, I know they don't give a crap about media functionality and casual gamer features. I don't either. But the mainstream market does and that market is crucial to the survival of the whole console business. That's why I think that Microsoft made the right call by adding mainstream-friendly features.

Look around you. The console sector is under pressure by tablets and PCs, devices that are inherently multifunction. Microsoft understands that a new console cannot be pitched to today's market as "like what you have already, only more powerful". This would be commercial suicide. New consoles need more functionality to appear attractive to the mainstream tablet-obsessed audience. The Xbox One will have games and they will look good. Its library will be largely the same as the PS4's. It's not a WiiU situation at all.

Microsoft people said that they purposefull didn't target the highest end graphics and I believe them. Every choice they made shows that, from the 8GBs of RAM right from the start, to the bundled Kinect and the deals with NFL and such. Nowadays you need to show the consumer that your device has more value than simply playing a bit prettier games.

Sony chose to go with a core gamer-focused console but it didn't go far enough. If it wanted to emphasize the machine's power, it should have added a lot better hardware than what it currently has. I don't understand how the PS4 is considered all-powerful when it's significantly weaker than my graphics card that I bought almost two years ago. If Sony wanted to sell the PS4 on power, it should have gone all out and create a device that would truly dazzle with its graphical prowess. Now it feels like a half-hearted attempt, one that I am not at all sure it will resonate with the mainstream market.

Maybe your first instinct will be to bash me and label me a Microsoft fanboy. It's partly true I guess, I own both HD consoles as well as a powerful PC but the 360 is my clear favorite from last gen. However, understand that I'm scared for console gaming's future and that's why I want both companies to win the mainstream market. I'm afraid that gaming's future is f2p and cow clickers and that really terrifies me. The old way of doing things is dead, console makers need to evolve or die. There's no third alternative, the core gamer market cannot sustain the console business by itself.

While no one can predict the future judging from the previous gen i can't see how you make your point.Last gen X360 was almost as powerfull as the PS3 but cheaper and developer friendly.This resulted into a great number of better games overall.This time it seems to be the other way around.Sony put in the box the more ''console'' it could considering the limitations of both a closed box (heat,power etc) and price.The same thing that MS did with the 360.On the other hand MS wanted to include the Kinect day one and this was their starting point which led them to create a console that's bigger,expensive and less powerful.They lost focus like Sony did last gen when they first and foremost wanted to get a cheap BD player out more than anything else.

 

[Nightengale]

I think that many posters here exhibit a severe case of core gamer myopia, myself included. I know that core gamers want power and games, I know they don't give a crap about media functionality and casual gamer features. I don't either. But the mainstream market does and that market is crucial to the survival of the whole console business. That's why I think that Microsoft made the right call by adding mainstream-friendly features.

What is this mainstream-friendly features that PS4 doesn't have?

Kinect? Cable-TV integration? Snap-feature? Some media apps?

The most I'll give MS is that it has features that make some things easier, but there's no specific feature I see that's decidedly mainstream.

 

[Finalizer]

I highly doubt Microsoft wasn't prepared for a 2013 launch. Remember this leak from a while back?

Nah, when did that come out? I'm guessing that leak happened before I was on Gaf. (EDIT: Quick google says 2012, so yeah... Back when I wasn't paying much attention to consoles at all)

Still, the part that gets me the most is how they can be comparatively behind on SDK development, especially compared to the 360 days.

Let's just say I'm hoping for another Venturebeat-esque inside history scoop down the line, heh.

 

[bonus_sco]

Nah, when did that come out? I'm guessing that leak happened before I was on Gaf.

Still, the part that gets me the most is how they can be comparatively behind on SDK development, especially compared to the 360 days.

Let's just say I'm hoping for another Venturebeat-esque inside history scoop down the line, heh.

I don't think they're behind on SDK development, they just have a more complicated box with some unique components.

 

[Freshmaker]

Sony chose to go with a core gamer-focused console but it didn't go far enough. If it wanted to emphasize the machine's power, it should have added a lot better hardware than what it currently has. I don't understand how the PS4 is considered all-powerful when it's significantly weaker than my graphics card that I bought almost two years ago.

Which card would this be?

 

[ElTorro]

I am also skeptical about the narrative that Microsoft was caught off guard by Sony and that they originally wanted to release the XBO in 2014. Have any consoles ever been released at any other time of the year than the holiday season? If that pattern holds, Microsoft's original plan would have been to release in late 2014. However, if that is the case, I don't see any possibility of them being able to finish the console an entire year earlier. Manufacturing and supply alone must be to complicated for that to happen.

 

[Hoje0308]

It's not always about graphics, there is an all new physics engine along with a new DX 11 graphics engine.
I believe the new lighting engine improves on the global illumination system of past forza games.
http://www.el33tonline.com/post/201...t-5-drives-immersion-using-calspan-tire-data/

Nothing new, the audio engine is massively improved.
http://www.oxm.co.uk/57555/forza-5-gameplay-video-and-interview-turn-10s-audio-revolution/

Well, seeing as how the discussion originated with a statement comparing the graphics of the games in question, it actually is all about the graphics. It's true that they've made improvements to other areas of the game (the AI being generated via cloud processing using data from actual players has a lot of potential for this and future games), but the presentation still relies on old tricks. Using DX 11 is all fine and good, but it doesn't mean much when you're not taking advantage of all that it has to offer. Is there any part of the lighting system that's actually dynamic?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think another, subtle elephant in the room that hasn't been talked about extensively, is 1)How retardedly difficult the PS3 was to develop for and 2)Despite ALL of that, they[Sony First Party] learned the ins and outs of the system and created titles that no 360 game can match graphically. It's not even up for debate. Keep in mind, they've spent over seven years working with this incredibly complex system.

With PS4, the development tools are extremely easy to work with and the system is ridiculously powerful for a console.

So, you have developers, who are by all accounts USED to working with complex hardware and making it sing, giving a powerful system that's not only easy to develop for, it has EIGHT GB of GDDR5. EIGHT. That's batshit fucking insanity. Not even the Titan has that much memory. Not only that, these are companies that from all accounts compete with each other, not with other third parties. In some cases last gen, there were reports that they helped each other out on their games as well, drawing strength from each like a hivemind to cover certain weaknesses one had.

The conclusion? Considering this trend is already still going with KZ:SF looking drop dead gorgeous as a fucking launch title, the XB1 simply isn't going to compete graphically, by the time the second and third wave hits. It's not even going to be a contest. You can deny it all you want, but the facts still remain the same: Sony just gave its First Party Studios a powerful closed box with 8 GBs of high-bandwidth memory and told them to go buck wild.

Holy Shit

 

[malboroking]

Sony set a price target, and went for the highest achievable graphics at that price point. Or do you prefer if they simply went for the highest graphics and end up with another $600 situation while taking a loss? I'd say this was the smarter approach.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that consoles are able to get more out of a graphics card because they use the same hardware across the board. They are able to do lower level, hardware specific coding and use the hardware more efficiently. If that's the case, why do people keep comparing the graphics card they have on the PC to the one on the PS4? Wouldn't they need a more powerful card to achieve similar results? Not to mention the various tweaks they added to the architecture...
Again, this is my basic understanding of the hardware, so do correct me if I am wrong...

This is true, PCs have an extra layer of abstraction that they need to deal with. This is necessary because it has to support a myriad of different hardware combinations. It's a little disingenuous to suggest that PS4 will produce the same graphics as a 7850, which is a card that is comparable to the GPU in the PS4. I also disagree that it is underwhelming, they are likely selling it at a loss or at the very least breaking even on the box, and put as much power as they could given the budget and TDP they are dealing with. They also get the parts much cheaper than The general consumer. I doubt we will ever see another generation where the console manufacturers are losing hundreds of dollars per box sold just to put in cutting edge technology.

 

[Applecot]

No one would've even remotely guessed it looking at Sony's PS3 first-party line-up this year.

I mean, shit, the line-up for the PS3 this year ranks up there as one of the best years for first-party exclusives, and taking into account 3rd-party exclusives like Ni no Kuni and Xillia, imo is the best year. (opinions)



From the way he made it sound, it sounded more like a very in-depth deep dive/brainstorming at all their PS3 fuck-ups, and key learnings to avoid rather than any PS4 plans immediately.

I guess one can argue discussing things not to repeat/do for next-gen is technically planning for PS4, but I don't think the team was readily assembled there and then.

From what I remember it was a PS3 post-mortem which probably happens with most sequential product launches. Apparently at the time they did a good deal of surveying and stuff. It's pretty likely the specs of the hardware itself and whatnot were closer to 2010-2011 since they would have to had to wait for roadmaps and whatnot from AMD.

 

[Finalizer]

I don't think they're behind on SDK development, they just have a more complicated box with some unique components.

I mean, you've got bits like this in the OP's article:

Sony and Microsoft are each still working on the graphics drivers for each console, and Xbox One is lagging behind in this regard – Microsoft “has been late on their drivers and that has been hurting them,” said one source. Another described Xbox One’s graphics drivers less charitably as “horrible”.

And it's not the first time I've read something along the lines of "MS is months behind Sony in Xbone software development" or something along those lines.

I am also skeptical about the narrative that Microsoft was caught off guard by Sony and that they originally wanted to release the XBO in 2014. Have any consoles ever been released at any other time of the year than the holiday season? If that pattern holds, Microsoft's original plan would have been to release in late 2014. However, if that is the case, I don't see any possibility of them being able to finish the console an entire year earlier. Manufacturing and supply alone must be to complicated for that to happen.

If we're allowed to delve into hardcore "tales from my ass"...

Maybe the general hardware design was set earlier, and the plan would've been to work on the Xbone software suite from now to launch, locking down more deals with cable providers (possibly even including more stuff in Euroland), and have a fully-featured Kinect 2 experience ready at launch instead of the staggered "Fully featured in 5 counties, half-baked everywhere else" thing.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

what's his job?

To continue the work of nibs 0 through to 94.

 

[Codeblew]

Lots of text

At the end of the day, Sony made 50% (according to devs and flops) better hardware, at 20% less cost and in a much smaller form factor. By all accounts they drastically improved the controller which has been one of the biggest complaints for over a decade. They have been trying to make a console for gamers where Microsoft has been making a console for people that watch TV.

 

[bonus_sco]

I think another, subtle elephant in the room that hasn't been talked about extensively, is 1)How retardedly difficult the PS3 was to develop for and 2)Despite ALL of that, they[Sony First Party] learned the ins and outs of the system and created titles that no 360 game can match graphically. It's not even up for debate. Keep in mind, they've spent over seven years working with this incredibly complex system.

With PS4, the development tools are extremely easy to work with and the system is ridiculously powerful for a console.

So, you have developers, who are by all accounts USED to working with complex hardware and making it sing, giving a powerful system that's not only easy to develop for, it has EIGHT GB of GDDR5. EIGHT. That's batshit fucking insanity. Not even the Titan has that much memory. Not only that, these are companies that from all accounts compete with each other, not with other third parties. In some cases last gen, there were reports that they helped each other out on their games as well, drawing strength from each like a hivemind to cover certain weaknesses one had.

The conclusion? Considering this trend is already still going with KZ:SF looking drop dead gorgeous as a fucking launch title, the XB1 simply isn't going to compete graphically, by the time the second and third wave hits. It's not even going to be a contest. You can deny it all you want, but the facts still remain the same: Sony just gave its First Party Studios a powerful closed box with 8 GBs of high-bandwidth memory and told them to go buck wild.

Holy Shit

You shouldn't get so excited

The PS4 has more memory than the GPU can handle at any given time the Titan doesn't have that much because it can't process that much. The extra RAM is useful for streaming in levels so more data is ready to go with less "air locks". Think lifts in Dead Space or Mass Effect which are glorified loading screens.

The PS4 will be utilising most of it's bandwidth on a smaller section on RAM each frame. This will likely manifest itself compared to the Xbox One by having visibly higher quality environment textures for distances further from the camera. The Xbox will probably use more aggressive PRT settings and mipmapping to compensate for its lower memory bandwidth. The Xbox will probably use ESRAM for player character textures, or for the highest sampled sections of environment textures, etc. which will give it very high quality textures for those objects.

It'll be interesting to see the difference between the two and the different trade offs necessary.

 

[LiquidSolid]

I highly doubt Microsoft wasn't prepared for a 2013 launch. Remember this leak from a while back?

There's a big difference between planning on launching in 2013 and actually being prepared to launch in 2013. Same difference as planning on launching at $299 (mentioned in the exact same presentation you got that slide from) and actually launching at $499.

From what I could tell, the issue wasn't that Microsoft were originally planning on a 2014/15 launch, it was that Microsoft were simply behind schedule on almost everything.

 

[Codeblew]

... Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that consoles are able to get more out of a graphics card because they use the same hardware across the board.

On consoles, developers only have to optimize for the specific hardware they are releasing their games on. On PC, they have to be mindful of an infinite number of possible hardware combinations.

 

[Liabe Brave]

I think that many posters here exhibit a severe case of core gamer myopia, myself included. ...If Sony wanted to sell the PS4 on power, it should have gone all out and create a device that would truly dazzle with its graphical prowess. Now it feels like a half-hearted attempt, one that I am not at all sure it will resonate with the mainstream market.

I was with you until that "half-hearted part"--that's your severe core myopia talking. To the mainstream market, what the PS4 (and even One) can show will dazzle. To people who don't have high-end enthusiast GPUs, games on the new consoles will look like Clarkean fucking magic.

I highly doubt Microsoft wasn't prepared for a 2013 launch. Remember this leak from a while back?

While you're looking at the years printed on each drawing, note that the grey boxes they're in are actually covering up hand-drawn numbers that are all a year earlier. Microsoft pushed back the entire development schedule already, before we even saw this leak. It's not impossible they might've pushed it again without us knowing.

 

[redhot_]

Sony chose to go with a core gamer-focused console but it didn't go far enough. If it wanted to emphasize the machine's power, it should have added a lot better hardware than what it currently has. I don't understand how the PS4 is considered all-powerful when it's significantly weaker than my graphics card that I bought almost two years ago. If Sony wanted to sell the PS4 on power, it should have gone all out and create a device that would truly dazzle with its graphical prowess. Now it feels like a half-hearted attempt, one that I am not at all sure it will resonate with the mainstream market.

I can't help but laugh out loud at this. Sorry.

Think you're swinging one way to hard and this came out.

 

[DBT85]

Ms made no mention of streaming gameplay and being able to help someone out remotely, or record and share footage at their initial reveal.

Because that's all game related and they hardly showed anything game related at the initial reveal.

I'm on board with the "Sony caught them unawares" theory.

There seem to have been too many missteps and lack of coordination from MS while Sony have been on message, clear and coordinated the entire time since Feb.

Some of that might just have been MS having Sonys 2005 arrogance, but I don't think that accounts for everything.

 

[Liabe Brave]

It'll be interesting to see the difference between the two and the different trade offs necessary.

Based on what we know, there will be no tradeoffs on the PS4 side. Literally every single metric is better than One.

 

[AdmiralPain]

Which card would this be?

The Radeon 7970.

 

[Stripper13]

I think another, subtle elephant in the room that hasn't been talked about extensively, is 1)How retardedly difficult the PS3 was to develop for and 2)Despite ALL of that, they[Sony First Party] learned the ins and outs of the system and created titles that no 360 game can match graphically. It's not even up for debate. Keep in mind, they've spent over seven years working with this incredibly complex system.

With PS4, the development tools are extremely easy to work with and the system is ridiculously powerful for a console.

So, you have developers, who are by all accounts USED to working with complex hardware and making it sing, giving a powerful system that's not only easy to develop for, it has EIGHT GB of GDDR5. EIGHT. That's batshit fucking insanity. Not even the Titan has that much memory. Not only that, these are companies that from all accounts compete with each other, not with other third parties. In some cases last gen, there were reports that they helped each other out on their games as well, drawing strength from each like a hivemind to cover certain weaknesses one had.

The conclusion? Considering this trend is already still going with KZ:SF looking drop dead gorgeous as a fucking launch title, the XB1 simply isn't going to compete graphically, by the time the second and third wave hits. It's not even going to be a contest. You can deny it all you want, but the facts still remain the same: Sony just gave its First Party Studios a powerful closed box with 8 GBs of high-bandwidth memory and told them to go buck wild.

Holy Shit

What no. Put it back in your pants.

Uncharted 2 & 3 - and the small amount of TLoU I've played up to now - are gorgeous no doubt. But Gears 3 and Halo 4 were every bit as good looking (in my opinion). So - I think there is some 'debate' to be had there.

As for the rest of your post, I'm certain PS4 is going to shit all over XB1 graphically. In fact, I'm fucking pumped for next gen (Killzone, BF4 and Drive Club first up for me). However I'm hesitant to start proclaiming that Sony has went bat-shit insane with specs/memory/whatever. It's a strong system - certainly better than any of the other consoles available by a clear margin. Sony's first party's are going to do amazing things but your post got a little carried away.

 

[AdmiralPain]

I can't help but laugh out loud at this. Sorry.

Think you're swinging one way to hard and this came out.

That's OK, I understand how it may seem that way. I'm disappointed by both consoles powerwise, they're not at all what I expected from a new generation.