The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

[DonFerrari]

Captain_Yuri said:

Ruler said:

But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.

It's better to leave it to each dev, if you force things not only you can make the relationship bad but you may also make they checkbox on some features that may make the final product worst than what they would do with freedom. Because for one game 4k60fps may be better than complexity and size of map, for another dropping to 30fps will allow better IQ, etc. So having a game that only needs 30fps having to put 60fps for example would compromise other aspects of the game that were more important.

EricHiggin said:

DonFerrari said:

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

I wasn't calling him a liar, all I said was that he shouldn't have said some of the things he did. I find he says too much and promises too much sometimes. I was pointing more so to Phil and his uncompromised 4k/60. You can't really say that then talk about how balanced the console hardware is, then show off games playing 4k/30 max. The hardware is well balanced if your expecting 4k/30, which you should for a $500 console at the end of 2017, that's just not what he said. He needs to be a little more careful with his words, marketing aside, that's all.

Pemalite said: 

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

True. Doesn't exactly make it ok, but they are businessmen. It's hard to try and talk about what Phil, Cerny, etc, may have meant because there is always someone who is definitely going to use what they actually said to try and prove you wrong. If you use exactly what they said, someone is going to tell you to read between the lines.

Pemalite said: 

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

PUBG isn't the best example, but I felt do to how recent, as well as how massive the player base is for the game, that it was something people could easily relate to. Not to mention how many games are starting to become available in such an early state of development. Doesn't change the fact that the XB no more generations plan may always cause problems in terms of holding back the newest hardware.

Pemalite said: 

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Your average customer doesn't have a clue how a console actually works and what those flops truly mean, they just look at the numbers like they do HP for a vehicle. Which of course makes it easy to throw some big numbers out and get a sale when in reality there is so much more to it than that.

Maybe it wouldn't have sold better, but what seemed apparent to me was that XB was back on top with the most powerful hardware again. I think 4.5TF to 5TF would have ended up giving those fans the same feeling they got with 6TF, which wasn't so much about the actual performance, it was about the fact that Scorpio was going to be the most powerful console on the market. Price matters so much for console hardware that I can't help but imagine that $75-$100 less for XB1X wouldn't have sold even more, but that only matters if your worried about the here and now. If XB1X is really going to become the base model in 4 years time, then 6TF will most likely have been the better decision.

Ok about Phill, let's call PR shenanigans and have an agreement =]