spemanig said:
And that's all it achieved. It allowed Sony to make a cheeky, meaningless jab at XBO because they had already one handily. Shallow theatrics. That's it. You know what would have happened if the XBO was everything it is now from the get go and that's what they announced? And they talked about games instead of TV? And Phil Spencer was the voice of Xbox from the get go? And the only "negative" was no used games? PS4 would be in deep shit right now, because it would actually have real competition. Sony wouldn't have dared done that demonstration under those circumstances, because they would have come off looking like idiots. Enter NX, but better. |
Xbox One is still the same core system and as far as the games, well it's sorely lacking in exclusives compared to the PS4 and no PS4 wouldn't have been in deep anything, other than still far out ahead of the competition.
If Xbox One had been built around a philosophy of gaming first, as far as it's hardware goes then Microsoft would have used a combination of DDR3 and GDDR5, which would have meant the SOC die wouldn't have needed to forfit valuable die space to eSRAM, it could have used more Compute Units, but just add in an extra memory controller to use 2 seperate pools.
Also Xbox One would have been a genuine HSA system, instead of one where the majority of the system bandwidth isn't diirectly accessible to the CPU, meaning the design would have been overall much more efficient.
Phil didn't even do his job of managing Microsoft Studios well, he's been on board with XB1 since the day it was conceived and the lack of first party content has been clear since 2010, so I really don't get how anyone can hail Phil as this amazing gaming figurehead Since he started as the boss of Microsoft Studios there hasn't been some major shift in 1st party games output from Microsoft, Sony on the other hand have already built that foundation and would have ended up with the same grander level of games support for PS4 now compared to what XBox One's managed to get.
If anything Microsoft have lost their standing as being the platform for 3rd party content and without a lot of exclusives or even a bigger volume of games you simply can't get on any other platform holder's systems, then well Microsoft have actually been left with a reduced position.
Sony were just working with what they had, which is what they've always done and if anything they've just capitalized on their own vision for this generation.
Microsoft really hasn't offered competition, especially not this generation and they only really got where they did last generation because of mistakes Sony made. Anyway the sitution is what it is and none of this talk deals with how badly this is going to go for Nintendo if they're really taking this approach of using Arm and a weaker platform than even XB1. It's definitely not going to appeal to 3rd party, since it's the entire opposite of what those developers require from a platform.
The only way an OS based approach to a dedicated gaming platform, with a variety of system specs works is if a large audience can get the games they want to play on it and that is not happening if 3rd party can't port their titles easily to an architecture they're building their games around and the weakest system specs of the whole thing don't meet the needs of the vendors involved.
