Pacific wrote:
Yes, I saw you in it already attempting to troll

[

nomotog wrote:
You know. I might be the only one, but I'm kind of excited for the kinect now because it looks like it actually works and it can do all this stuff like measure your heart beat and facial expressions. That's kind of neat. I have an idea for a game that's like a first person game and rather then having a dialog system you would just make faces and that would trigger different responses from your avatar. So if someone said something stupid and you gave them a look then your character might make a sarcastic comment about what is going on, or if you chuckle they chuckle, if your surprised they are surprised too. It would be kind of neat to have your FP avatar respond in thew same way you are.

Another aspect is just game tailoring. It knows when your happy, scared or excited so you could have a game that when you laugh at an off color joke puts in more off color jokes, or if you don't laugh it cuts out the funny stuff. Maybe a horror game that tracks your heart rate to create the exact right scare. Heck it can even do things as simple as fast forwarding a cut-scene when your console hears you yawn.

Remember when they demoed the first Kinect? Remember the first time we saw the PlayStation Move? Remember when we first saw the Wii? They looked like they worked too. I highly doubt its improved much.

I also agree that if Sony hadn't seen Microsoft's PR failure as an opportunity to twist the knife in their back, they would have done the same thing. Time will tell if they try to pull it off down the line, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Also, are we actually buying xbone games now, or are we still buying a "license" to use them? That was a big source of outrage and I haven't seen if it's changed or not.

It's so hard to be an optimist in this day and age.

Gitzbitah wrote:
Depends what the ongoing support for the 360 is like or whether it gets dropped like a stone in favour of the new shiny thing. I personally would never buy any console at launch, purely because the prices are outrageous - I would rather wait a bit till the tech beds in and prices fall.

Having said all that, there was a rumour doing the rounds recently that the delay/shift in the GTA 5 release date was because Rockstar were planning to make it Xbox One only rather than release on the 360. I really hope that isn't the case.

I dunno about GTA but Titanfall and AC4 will be on the 360, and those are the only two near-future games I'm really interested in. I'm finally jumping on the Skyrim bandwagon so that'll keep me busy for quite a while!

MrMoustaffa wrote:Also, are we actually buying xbone games now, or are we still buying a "license" to use them? That was a big source of outrage and I haven't seen if it's changed or not.

We're buying the games. It's going back to the normal, sensible disc-based format we have currently.

I just hope some of the cloud stuff still comes through, I liked where that might have gone.

In general for me though this was pretty damn wrapped up tight for a launch console, with the changes its pretty much a certainty.

Still waiting for a launch line up mind.

What irks me the most, however, is the way Microsoft handled the entire issue. I have never seen such an arrogant, ignorant and downright insulting attitude towards customers before. That one older dude who gave interviews after E3...wow. I wish I could hit him straight in the face. A lot.

I have, SONY just before the launch of the PS3, and their abandoning of European gamers in favour of Japan.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I have, SONY just before the launch of the PS3, and their abandoning of European gamers in favour of Japan.

I'd say that having the Sony president tell people to simply work more hours to afford the $599 playstation 3 ranks right up with the Microsoft VP telling people to just buy a 360 if they don't like the 24 hour check-in DRM.

 warboss wrote:

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I have, SONY just before the launch of the PS3, and their abandoning of European gamers in favour of Japan.

I'd say that having the Sony president tell people to simply work more hours to afford the $599 playstation 3 ranks right up with the Microsoft VP telling people to just buy a 360 if they don't like the 24 hour check-in DRM.

Fun fact: the guy responsible for bad press with the PS3 is the same guy that's now in charge for the Xbox 180. Make of that what ya want.

I will be buying the Xbox One because I simply prefer it lol.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I have, SONY just before the launch of the PS3, and their abandoning of European gamers in favour of Japan.

I'd say that having the Sony president tell people to simply work more hours to afford the $599 playstation 3 ranks right up with the Microsoft VP telling people to just buy a 360 if they don't like the 24 hour check-in DRM.

Fun fact: the guy responsible for bad press with the PS3 is the same guy that's now in charge for the Xbox 180. Make of that what ya want.

If this is true, then Epic Failure!

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I will be buying the Xbox One because I simply prefer it lol.

How can you prefer it already? Other than difference in controllers and Kinect, the only real difference between consoles at this point is how stupid their policies are. Because honestly, consoles are so powerful at this point that any more improvements to hardware isn't really accomplishing anything new. As for all the multimedia stuff, we already have a cable box and blue ray players, we don't need our game console for that.

I can sympathize with the controller issue though. I'm going to miss my Xbox 360 controller

but that's really all the one has going for it in my opinion. Halo isn't the same without Bungie and Gears of War got stale ages ago. It doesn't have anything I can't get on PC or PS4 at this point.

I'm legitimately curious, is there something I don't know about the Xbox one?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I will be buying the Xbox One because I simply prefer it lol.

How can you prefer it already? Other than difference in controllers and Kinect, the only real difference between consoles at this point is how stupid their policies are. Because honestly, consoles are so powerful at this point that any more improvements to hardware isn't really accomplishing anything new. As for all the multimedia stuff, we already have a cable box and blue ray players, we don't need our game console for that.

I can sympathize with the controller issue though. I'm going to miss my Xbox 360 controller

but that's really all the one has going for it in my opinion. Halo isn't the same without Bungie and Gears of War got stale ages ago. It doesn't have anything I can't get on PC or PS4 at this point.

I'm legitimately curious, is there something I don't know about the Xbox one?

Wat. Unless you are referring to PC's being more powerful then these machines.. I have no clue what you are talking about.

Also,
The controller pretty much seals the deal for me anyway. (If I do end up getting a new console at all).

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I will be buying the Xbox One because I simply prefer it lol.

How can you prefer it already? Other than difference in controllers and Kinect, the only real difference between consoles at this point is how stupid their policies are. Because honestly, consoles are so powerful at this point that any more improvements to hardware isn't really accomplishing anything new. As for all the multimedia stuff, we already have a cable box and blue ray players, we don't need our game console for that.

I can sympathize with the controller issue though. I'm going to miss my Xbox 360 controller

but that's really all the one has going for it in my opinion. Halo isn't the same without Bungie and Gears of War got stale ages ago. It doesn't have anything I can't get on PC or PS4 at this point.

I'm legitimately curious, is there something I don't know about the Xbox one?

Titanfall Nuff said.

Moustaffa's right about hardware power. We've pretty much peaked in terms of graphical capability, all that's left is advances in software.

I was saying at this point that specs don't really matter. Any shinier graphics doesn't really accomplish much besides eat up processing power and pretty much anything but 500 player per side battles you can probably pull off with the next wave. For practical purposes it doesn't really matter anymore. Yes, PC's will still be more powerful but will you really notice a difference anymore? Yeah we can get more fancy visual effects but do we really need more stuff like motion blur, bloom lighting, and glare effects? At this point all that really matters is what games each platform has and what features make it worth buying over the others.

Also, Titanfall is Xbone only? Dang that sucks, that game looked awesome.

I can totally respect the controller thing though. After 10 years of xboxes its going to be rough for me to switch to a new scheme.

The PS4 is more capable than the XBox 180° in terms of hardware.

Oh, any to burst your bubble, for Titanfall isn't an exclusive title. It also comes for PC...and the 360.

Glorious master race, unite!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I was saying at this point that specs don't really matter. Any shinier graphics doesn't really accomplish much besides eat up processing power and pretty much anything but 500 player per side battles you can probably pull off with the next wave. For practical purposes it doesn't really matter anymore. Yes, PC's will still be more powerful but will you really notice a difference anymore? Yeah we can get more fancy visual effects but do we really need more stuff like motion blur, bloom lighting, and glare effects? At this point all that really matters is what games each platform has and what features make it worth buying over the others.

Also, Titanfall is Xbone only? Dang that sucks, that game looked awesome.

I can totally respect the controller thing though. After 10 years of xboxes its going to be rough for me to switch to a new scheme.

Ah, that's what you meant. When it comes to choosing between PS4 and XBO then yes, hardware is a non-issue to me. However, I would add that the tech hasn't peaked out by far, I want that stuff to keep improving... for occulus rift purposes.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Moustaffa's right about hardware power. We've pretty much peaked in terms of graphical capability, all that's left is advances in software.

Not really. You may not prioritize the graphics but this upcoming set of consoles will be the first to output in true native 1080p for most games (almost all of the current games out are just upscaled to 1080p right now from 720) whereas 4k (so 4000p roughly) TVs are just starting to hit the market at affordable costs. The next leap in graphics is already at the doorstep.

 warboss wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Moustaffa's right about hardware power. We've pretty much peaked in terms of graphical capability, all that's left is advances in software.

Not really. You may not prioritize the graphics but this upcoming set of consoles will be the first to output in true native 1080p for most games (almost all of the current games out are just upscaled to 1080p right now from 720) whereas 4k (so 4000p roughly) TVs are just starting to hit the market at affordable costs. The next leap in graphics is already at the doorstep.

Wait so I have to upgrade my TV again. Gah! It took me almost the entire last console cycle to upgrade to my current 720p. Oddly that upgrade had the effect of making some games look worse because I could see things wrong I couldn't before. Though I really really really hope that devs don't spend all their ram on graphical fidelity. I would rather they spend it on things like more advance AI and larger levels.

 warboss wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Moustaffa's right about hardware power. We've pretty much peaked in terms of graphical capability, all that's left is advances in software.

Not really. You may not prioritize the graphics but this upcoming set of consoles will be the first to output in true native 1080p for most games (almost all of the current games out are just upscaled to 1080p right now from 720) whereas 4k (so 4000p roughly) TVs are just starting to hit the market at affordable costs. The next leap in graphics is already at the doorstep.

But how much of this will actually be noticeable? And like nomotog said, at this point the graphics are realistic enough that enhancing them further really is just a waste of RAM. The games already look real, the processing power should be going towards making them feel and act real.

nomotog wrote:
Though I really really really hope that devs don't spend all their ram on graphical fidelity. I would rather they spend it on things like more advance AI and larger levels.

For that the consoles need more cpu power and memory. At least the coming consoles are going up to 8GB of shared memory.

You never have to upgrade as its a luxury, not a necessity. If anything, no current mainstream channels transmit in 4k and neither does blu ray and likely the upcoming consoles will be mediocre at best at 4k gaming. It's basically the same as 1080p was at the beginning of the current generation. The ps3 supported it but the xbox didn't (capped out at 1080i) but it was largely a bullet point with no real meaning as the consoles generally didn't have the RAM and cpu/gpu horsepower to put out fancy 1080p graphics anyways and just upscaled the lower res 720p up to 1080 similar how they make normal dvd's a bit crisper on HDTVs. I believe the sony debut mentioned supporting 4k video (but no mention of games) and the MS one said they'd do 4k games but, again, see above. That "support" can be changed with software updates and can be largely meaningless.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Moustaffa's right about hardware power. We've pretty much peaked in terms of graphical capability, all that's left is advances in software.

Not really. You may not prioritize the graphics but this upcoming set of consoles will be the first to output in true native 1080p for most games (almost all of the current games out are just upscaled to 1080p right now from 720) whereas 4k (so 4000p roughly) TVs are just starting to hit the market at affordable costs. The next leap in graphics is already at the doorstep.

But how much of this will actually be noticeable? And like nomotog said, at this point the graphics are realistic enough that enhancing them further really is just a waste of RAM. The games already look real, the processing power should be going towards making them feel and act real.

My guess is that the true upper limit of resolution that we'll see in consumer products is the "resolution" that the average human eye can differentiate. Despite what the name would indicate, the "retina" display on apple products is still under what the eye can discern. Everything you said above was pretty much being said as well at the beginning of the current generation regarding HD gaming as well. Don't get me wrong.. I agree that they should focus on making the games feel/act better and I don't plan on upgrading my 1080p TV to 4k any time in the next 5 years... but we definitely haven't peaked. PC games right now blow 1080p resolution out of the water and pc gamers play those 2-3ft away from the screen and yet still demand MOAR GRAPHIX!

I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

It's all about the frame rate + graphics bro.

 Soladrin wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

It's all about the frame rate + graphics bro.

...cue in PC master race

PC has always been and will always be the leading platform when it comes to graphics. Where consoles should shine is local multiplayer. Nintendo got it right. For all next gen consoles... I mean...just buy a controller and play the same game on PC. Better graphics, mods etc. The Xbox 180° tries to be a multimedia console but fails at it since it blocks all but US users from using the features and everyone already got a Blu-Ray player to begin with.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

I would sat not only have we reached that point, but we have passed it. I think we could make better games more effectively if we pull back the graphics and put that money into the game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

It's all about the frame rate + graphics bro.

...cue in PC master race

PC has always been and will always be the leading platform when it comes to graphics. Where consoles should shine is local multiplayer. Nintendo got it right. For all next gen consoles... I mean...just buy a controller and play the same game on PC. Better graphics, mods etc. The Xbox 180° tries to be a multimedia console but fails at it since it blocks all but US users from using the features and everyone already got a Blu-Ray player to begin with.

I don't have a blue ray player and I see no reason to get one.

I kind of like seeing graphics continue to improve in every way imaginable.

I'm with Soladrin on the Blu-Ray, I only know one person who has one and there's pretty much no conceivable reason to get one. On an HDTV the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is so trivial that if you're worrying that much about picture quality, you're probably not going to enjoy what you're watching either way. Being able to see the fibers in some guy's shirt doesn't change the movie you're watching.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I'm with Soladrin on the Blu-Ray, I only know one person who has one and there's pretty much no conceivable reason to get one. On an HDTV the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is so trivial that if you're worrying that much about picture quality, you're probably not going to enjoy what you're watching either way. Being able to see the fibers in some guy's shirt doesn't change the movie you're watching.

Or even makes it worse, I never liked HD TV, people look like dolls because of all the make up.

Also, I have a PC and theres a thing called digital distribution. I have a 60mb connection so there's really no point for me to ever go for a phsyical copy of.. anything.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I guess, but it still seems like we're hitting a point of diminishing returns there, where even if we can make the graphics slightly better, it just isn't really worth it.

It's all about the frame rate + graphics bro.

...cue in PC master race

PC has always been and will always be the leading platform when it comes to graphics. Where consoles should shine is local multiplayer. Nintendo got it right. For all next gen consoles... I mean...just buy a controller and play the same game on PC. Better graphics, mods etc. The Xbox 180° tries to be a multimedia console but fails at it since it blocks all but US users from using the features and everyone already got a Blu-Ray player to begin with.

I don't have a blue ray player and I see no reason to get one.

Mine originally was a "gak, whatcha gonna buy!" christmas gift for my fiancee because she loves movies, but I have never looked back. You can really recognize the improved visual quality (when I wear my glasses, that is ) and it also upscales DVDs further enhancing their quality too. Plus: they are dirt cheap right now.

But yeah, most of the stuff we watch comes directly from Hulu / Netflix. We mostly use it when a few friends come over.

Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

 warboss wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

Yeah but what if we left the graphics at what they are right now, and only poured the additional power into things like destructible environment, more bodies/people/units on the screen at a time, and keeping the game at a smooth 60fps? Maybe the average game looks like Battlefield 3, but instead of a mere 16 people per side you can have a whopping 64 per side (on consoles). Instead of having bodies stay for only 30 seconds, they can stay for an hour, and you can support up to 500 on screen at once without ever going below 60fps. You could have massive destructible environments, with cratering, bullet holes, realistic physics and weather, and all sorts of crazy things. You would have immensely improved games, and to brutally honest, most people would never notice that the graphics were the same. Heck, they'd probably think they'd improved with all the new things happening on screen.

I would take that over pointlessly shiny graphics every day of the week. It's getting to the point where we're just having improved graphics to have a sticker on the box and bragging rights for when people have idiotic console wars on forums (not here, talking about sites like /v/, the escapist, etc.). The diminishing returns are getting smaller and smaller every cycle. At this point it's just becoming a detriment. Graphics aren't cheap. Those massive budgets you see these latest AAA games touting? Graphics are a huge chunk of that. And the higher the budget gets to make a game, the less companies you'll see that are able to make games for it. The less companies making games, the more stagnant the market gets. The more stagnant it gets, the more Call of Duties, Maddens, and Need For Speeds you'll see. Other series will succumb to sequelitis (milking a series far past it being good) since taking a risk on a new product could bankrupt a company. In a way, the push for the "shiniest graphics" has been a big reason why many smaller studios have resorted to XBLA and playstation network games. The only companies that can afford to drop hundreds of millions on a game are companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. and even they are having a hard time keeping up. Obviously the push for graphics isn't the only thing that caused this to happen, but it's a significant contributor to it.

Oh now your talking sense and we can't have that.

Although that also explains why folks in the industry are already hinting at this new generation being around for a ten year period before they'd update again.

Gives the companies time to settle in, get a good selection of games going, and those of us who buy them know we aren't looking at an upgrade in a couple of years. I think the fast switching consoles of the nineties are dead and gone.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Actually, I take back my original statement about graphics. I'd like to see more games sport destructible environments, and when I cut something with a sword or dagger I want to see that wound.

Also, no more disappearing bodies.

I'm not sure about that last part. The disappearing bodies is due to the frame rate drops that accompany the processors handling all the extra polygons... and models will likely get a big bump in poly count with the next generation commensurate with the bump in processing power. LOL, I remember when the original Gears of War came out with the annex game mode, they set the bodies to disappear after 30-60 seconds in an engine that was built to handle only 8 models at a time; when they added all the extra corpses you could trip over and manipulate, the frame rate eventually dropped to the single digits if the control point was near a spawn. It's quite likely that the new consoles would be able to handle the current console graphics with persistent bodies for the entirety of matches but likely we'll only see a partial increase in that part. Destructable environments I would hope would be a big improvement and we'll likely see if that's possible with BF4 since that was a big part of the franchise.

Yeah but what if we left the graphics at what they are right now, and only poured the additional power into things like destructible environment, more bodies/people/units on the screen at a time, and keeping the game at a smooth 60fps? Maybe the average game looks like Battlefield 3, but instead of a mere 16 people per side you can have a whopping 64 per side (on consoles). Instead of having bodies stay for only 30 seconds, they can stay for an hour, and you can support up to 500 on screen at once without ever going below 60fps. You could have massive destructible environments, with cratering, bullet holes, realistic physics and weather, and all sorts of crazy things. You would have immensely improved games, and to brutally honest, most people would never notice that the graphics were the same. Heck, they'd probably think they'd improved with all the new things happening on screen.

I would take that over pointlessly shiny graphics every day of the week. It's getting to the point where we're just having improved graphics to have a sticker on the box and bragging rights for when people have idiotic console wars on forums (not here, talking about sites like /v/, the escapist, etc.). The diminishing returns are getting smaller and smaller every cycle. At this point it's just becoming a detriment. Graphics aren't cheap. Those massive budgets you see these latest AAA games touting? Graphics are a huge chunk of that. And the higher the budget gets to make a game, the less companies you'll see that are able to make games for it. The less companies making games, the more stagnant the market gets. The more stagnant it gets, the more Call of Duties, Maddens, and Need For Speeds you'll see. Other series will succumb to sequelitis (milking a series far past it being good) since taking a risk on a new product could bankrupt a company. In a way, the push for the "shiniest graphics" has been a big reason why many smaller studios have resorted to XBLA and playstation network games. The only companies that can afford to drop hundreds of millions on a game are companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. and even they are having a hard time keeping up. Obviously the push for graphics isn't the only thing that caused this to happen, but it's a significant contributor to it.

You guys are aware that the tech needed to further enhance graphics is the same as the things that would power improved physics and handling of extra polygons for corpses.. right? You just debunked your own argument against improving graphical tech...

 Soladrin wrote:

You guys are aware that the tech needed to further enhance graphics is the same as the things that would power improved physics and handling of extra polygons for corpses.. right? You just debunked your own argument against improving graphical tech...

I do realize the first part and stated the same thing but I have no idea what you're talking about with the later. I'm not arguing against improving graphical tech.

Seeing what the 360 managed with 500mb of RAM and the PS3 with 256 i have high hopes for the lifetime of this generation.

Were it up to me personally i would put a lockdown on polycounts, subsurface scattering, tessellation, anisotropic filtering and global illumination (i.e anything that makes graphics look more 'real') and keep the games looking like Source. Imo game graphics have never needed to look better than HL2, if i blur my eyes and it looks real that's good enough for me. I wish they'd focus on animation, art design, frame-rate stability, physics, depth of interaction and scale. Not the arm hairs on the Navy seal or the way the world is reflected real time in Masterchief's Visor.

I'm not saying the tech doesn't need to be improved, I'm saying they should using it on things besides modeling individual hairs on a dog or giving us more lens flair.

The beheadings have begun!

Don Mattrick is the first to lose his head due to the disaster that is the Xbox 180° and all the things surrounding it. He will now work at Zynga.

Now finish that really, really unfriendly, hostile and aggressive Major Nelson and you're good to go.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The beheadings have begun!

Don Mattrick is the first to lose his head due to the disaster that is the Xbox 180° and all the things surrounding it. He will now work at Zynga.

Now finish that really, really unfriendly, hostile and aggressive Major Nelson and you're good to go.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will be overseeing the Xbox division temporarily following Mattrick's departure.

Yes because this is better.

 Perkustin wrote:
Seeing what the 360 managed with 500mb of RAM and the PS3 with 256 i have high hopes for the lifetime of this generation.

Were it up to me personally i would put a lockdown on polycounts, subsurface scattering, tessellation, anisotropic filtering and global illumination (i.e anything that makes graphics look more 'real') and keep the games looking like Source. Imo game graphics have never needed to look better than HL2, if i blur my eyes and it looks real that's good enough for me. I wish they'd focus on animation, art design, frame-rate stability, physics, depth of interaction and scale. Not the arm hairs on the Navy seal or the way the world is reflected real time in Masterchief's Visor.

Advancements in those things allow for larger renderings of lower quality things, so you will benefit either way.

More polygons on the screen can be used to make those arm hairs, but they can also be used to put more sprites on screen at once in a more modest looking game. Both games might have the same number of polygons on screen, but one of them looks more like what you're asking for.

I was hoping after some of the stupid comments Mattrick made that he'd leave but I was frankly hoping he'd go somewhere with intermittent or nonexistent internet access... like a submarine.

Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

 Fafnir wrote:


Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

I only found a spec comparison from end of june. I am not sure how accurate the information is but it does support your picture. And to get a feel for the difference in gaming power i found a 3D Mark 11 benchmark for both gpus: 1500 for the xbox one gpu and 1900 for the PS4 gpu.
If you compare those numbers to the fastest single gaming gpu (4700) you'll notice they are both miles away from serious gaming though

 Minx wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Grain of salt and all, since I can't find a source, but if this is true, this is very disappointing for the Xbone, especially with that inflated price tag.

I only found a spec comparison from end of june. I am not sure how accurate the information is but it does support your picture. And to get a feel for the difference in gaming power i found a 3D Mark 11 benchmark for both gpus: 1500 for the xbox one gpu and 1900 for the PS4 gpu.
If you compare those numbers to the fastest single gaming gpu (4700) you'll notice they are both miles away from serious gaming though

If you compare their numbers with the benchmarks of a PC at an identical price point, though, you probably get something different. Consoles have always aimed more at a "quality per dollar" market. They only have to beat the 500 dollar computers.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
If you compare their numbers with the benchmarks of a PC at an identical price point, though, you probably get something different. Consoles have always aimed more at a "quality per dollar" market. They only have to beat the 500 dollar computers.

You are right of course. If you built a PC for a similar price point you'll get a similar performance. And maybe i should have phrased that differently, the "serious gaming" label was just too hilarious though

Please don't try and bypass the language filter.

Reds8n

Im in real trouble here xbone dakka.

I have supported the ps4 and Sony thus far and honestly think they deserve my money but ultimately, all my friends are getting an xbone and I was thinking about how great ps4 games will look in a few years but then thought it wont be much fun on my own so I am really thinking about getting an xbone now. The storm in my mind though is how much of a graphical difference are we going to expect, are we talking like medium to high settings difference or minor bumps in detail? God I thought next gen would be happy times but right now I am finding it the hardest decision of my gaming experience.

For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

 Soladrin wrote:
For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

The xbox this gen was a slightly less powerful but easier to program compared with the PS3 and there was a noticeable difference for the first 3-4 years of this generation. With the xbone and ps4, the PS4 will have both advantages of a stronger processor and GPU as well as easier to program/utilize RAM (according to the limited info we have). If anything, we might see a slight but noticeable difference at the beginning and end but relative parity in the middle years.

 Soladrin wrote:
For the next year or... 4 the difference is probably going to be just as un-noticable as ps3-xbox 360 comparisons. It takes a long time before devs learn all the tricks to get the most out of a new console.

It is not even a question of "the next year or 4".

It is a question of exclusivity. Any game released on both PS4 and One are going to be developed in such a way that it utilizes the resources of each best, but done so as to minimize the necessity of developing a purely PS4 version and a purely One version.

Any titles developed specifically for the PS4 will be done in such a way that they utilize that hardware to its fullest, but multiplatform titles will not.

Ah thank you Kanluwen, that has eased my worry, greatly.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Please don't try and bypass the language filter.

Reds8n

What language filter? i was typing in english

"my message was something like this; doesn't matter how powerfull the syetems are if the game companies keep publishing buggy software"

 Kanluwen wrote:
It is not even a question of "the next year or 4".

It is a question of exclusivity. Any game released on both PS4 and One are going to be developed in such a way that it utilizes the resources of each best, but done so as to minimize the necessity of developing a purely PS4 version and a purely One version.

Any titles developed specifically for the PS4 will be done in such a way that they utilize that hardware to its fullest, but multiplatform titles will not.

Yeah, and it also depends who wins this generation of console wars. If Sony wins and the Playstation becomes the default platform that publishers get most of their sales on, then they'll write their games primarily for that market, and then port them to the X-Box as best they can. If Microsoft wins, then games will be written primarily for the X-Box, with games then getting ported over to the PS3.

The actual specs themselves never seem to be that big of a deal in how things turn out. I remember the endless conversations about the better anti-aliasing the PS3 had over the 360, but ultimately that just did not matter one bit compared to number of consoles sold drawing publishers to one machine or the other. Actually, go back a few console generations before that - I'm old enough and tragic enough to remember the console wars when the Amiga CD32 was trying to take on the N64 and the Megadrive - the CD32 had far greater power but no good games, which meant no-one bought it, which meant no good games and so on. Also that whole 'we have CDs now so we can make games in FMV' was never going to work.

I've been a diehard Xbox fan for years.
On this generation, I'm not sure which way I'm going to jump or even if I will.
No backwards compatibility means that it's tabula rasa time.
If I can't use my old games, then I don't have a reason to stay loyal to one console.
I use my console as a dvd player at the moment, so the new console will be doing the same thing. I want a Blu Ray player (I have HD TV already, and despite what some say, you can see a difference)
So I'll probably be going with whichever one is best value.
Most (if not all) the games I play are multi-platform so exclusives don't matter.
The final decision will come down to which is cheapest/best bundle deal.