tres said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Whether Xbox One games perform will better than PS4 titles (or vice-versa), however, is "too early to say," Blomberg adds.
"I think [Xbox One and PS4] will be very similar in the end," Blomberg says. "Of course, if we find areas where either platform is particularly strong then we'll take advantage of that. But it's too early to say if our games will look better on any of the two platforms. All I can say is that there's potential for visually stunning games on both platforms."
even he states it right here. They don't even know for sure that it will be better.
|
from my perspective i see this whole cloud debate as the sony corner really just want to be on top. its like microsoft is doing it it sucks, it dont work, and so on. when sony bought gaikai and all it's cloud prowess the souny corner cheered it on. it's the best thing in the world (whew almost inserted some political commentary since its soooo similar)
|
Gaikai and what MS are proposing are two very different scenarios though.
Gaikai is simply downloading a compressed video stream whilst uploading control inputs. There's not a lot of data that gets transferred. We also know Gaikai's method is feasible because they had a system working and from all accounts it was working better than OnLive (which also worked and used a similar concept).
What MS are proposing has only been touched on in MMOs and a few single player games. It would require much greater volume of data transfer hence why people are sceptical, especially when grandiose claims are made. Take Diablo 3 and Sim City which utilised a similar system; one or both suffered from lag, stuttering and connection drops. When these are users first encounters with online processing, it's not difficult to see why many are sceptical of its benefits.
Don't get me wrong, the tech has potential, but MS have to prove the techs worth in gaming.