By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox One vs PS4 post policy change. An honest outlook.

BinaryDelt on 20 June 2013
bucky1965 said:
BinaryDelt said:
tuscaniman99 said:
Why do people who have absolutely no knowledge about tech keep bringing up GDDR5 vs GDDR3 like its something huge. You are just repeating what you have heard and read. Crysis 3 on PC only requires 4gb of GDDR3 ram and of course a DX11 compatible GPU. Considering it looks better than anything on these next gen consoles at the moment I'm pretty sure Xbox One will be fine with 8 GB of GDDR3. Ryse was the best looking exclusive at E3 imo (graphics wise) for either console. Also XBox Live will be miles better than last gen. Every game running on dedicated servers already makes it worthwhile. Can you say that every game will run on dedicated servers on PSN?

My degree was in computer science and I've worked in IT for 10 years.  I could care less about a tech pissing contest, that's just to give myself some credibility.  This thread doesn't need to be highjacked with a back and forth about tech specifics nobody else may care about, so I'll just throw a broad response.  We can peacefully agree to disagree or share some common ground, either is fine with me, but let's not do a back and forth "I know more about tech than you" discussion.  That's not productive.

The bandwidth of GDDR5 memory is much higher than DDR3 (176 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s).  Crysis 3 on the PC only requires 4gb of DDR3 RAM because they're not going to build to require specs so high to make it inaccessible to gamers who might not pour thousands into their PCs for gaming--it's still a business.  When you have more, more objects can be instantiated in memory.  When it's faster, those objects can load faster and be more complex without compromising the performance of the game.

There are too many factors to consider when comparing PC versus console gaming.  On a dedicated console, you have a generally minimal OS--though Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have different approaches here--and a static set of specs to develop for.  When putting out that PS4, XBox One, or WiiU game, you know exactly what that person is going to have and can really max it out.  First party developers always do this, but for third parties, it's usually which system they'd rather develop for gets the best version, the others get ports.  As for which console developers would rather develop for?  Developers have already showed support for Sony's approach such as the Super Stardust team:

"These include obvious as the graphics display with higher resolution textures or more sampling and filtering for visual effects - such as volumetric lighting and global illumination in real-time," he said. "Also processor cores and CUs use the same memory - calculation results can thus be easily shared between them. This will make it easier to distribute some demanding calculations from the processor to the CUs."

Source: http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/15259/article/super-stardust-dev-ps4-s-gddr5-is-an-advantage-over-xbox-one/

Or we could ask a developer of Crysis 3 (Tiago Sousa):

"8 GB unified mem as baseline for next tech iterations makes me very, very happy. Fun times coming ^_^"

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/crysis-3-developer-responds-to-ps4-s-inclusion-of-8-gb-gddr5-ram

I'm not saying it decides the next console generation.  I'm saying you can't deny it's faster, and if utilized properly, could make a big difference.

The other big factor will be how much memory each OS requires.  Last rumor I heard was 1 GB for PS4's OS and 3 GB for that of XBox One.

Do you know that data streaming has not been a major  issue for game coders  for quite some time?

I'm not insinuating that a previous issue existed.  I'm implying that more can be done with the extra bandwidth, and if the OS usage rumors are true, the extra available memory.

To be honest, I don't know.  None of us do.  All I know is one is faster than the other and that can't hurt.  If someone finds a way to use that to their advantage, that advantage could be huge.



Around the Network
Fusioncode on 20 June 2013

I think the current sales gap between the 360 and PS3 will remain largely similar with the Xbone and PS4. Sony will obviously win worldwide, but Microsoft may pull ahead in the US.



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

bucky1965 on 20 June 2013
BinaryDelt said:
bucky1965 said:
BinaryDelt said:
tuscaniman99 said:
Why do people who have absolutely no knowledge about tech keep bringing up GDDR5 vs GDDR3 like its something huge. You are just repeating what you have heard and read. Crysis 3 on PC only requires 4gb of GDDR3 ram and of course a DX11 compatible GPU. Considering it looks better than anything on these next gen consoles at the moment I'm pretty sure Xbox One will be fine with 8 GB of GDDR3. Ryse was the best looking exclusive at E3 imo (graphics wise) for either console. Also XBox Live will be miles better than last gen. Every game running on dedicated servers already makes it worthwhile. Can you say that every game will run on dedicated servers on PSN?

My degree was in computer science and I've worked in IT for 10 years.  I could care less about a tech pissing contest, that's just to give myself some credibility.  This thread doesn't need to be highjacked with a back and forth about tech specifics nobody else may care about, so I'll just throw a broad response.  We can peacefully agree to disagree or share some common ground, either is fine with me, but let's not do a back and forth "I know more about tech than you" discussion.  That's not productive.

The bandwidth of GDDR5 memory is much higher than DDR3 (176 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s).  Crysis 3 on the PC only requires 4gb of DDR3 RAM because they're not going to build to require specs so high to make it inaccessible to gamers who might not pour thousands into their PCs for gaming--it's still a business.  When you have more, more objects can be instantiated in memory.  When it's faster, those objects can load faster and be more complex without compromising the performance of the game.

There are too many factors to consider when comparing PC versus console gaming.  On a dedicated console, you have a generally minimal OS--though Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have different approaches here--and a static set of specs to develop for.  When putting out that PS4, XBox One, or WiiU game, you know exactly what that person is going to have and can really max it out.  First party developers always do this, but for third parties, it's usually which system they'd rather develop for gets the best version, the others get ports.  As for which console developers would rather develop for?  Developers have already showed support for Sony's approach such as the Super Stardust team:

"These include obvious as the graphics display with higher resolution textures or more sampling and filtering for visual effects - such as volumetric lighting and global illumination in real-time," he said. "Also processor cores and CUs use the same memory - calculation results can thus be easily shared between them. This will make it easier to distribute some demanding calculations from the processor to the CUs."

Source: http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/15259/article/super-stardust-dev-ps4-s-gddr5-is-an-advantage-over-xbox-one/

Or we could ask a developer of Crysis 3 (Tiago Sousa):

"8 GB unified mem as baseline for next tech iterations makes me very, very happy. Fun times coming ^_^"

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/crysis-3-developer-responds-to-ps4-s-inclusion-of-8-gb-gddr5-ram

I'm not saying it decides the next console generation.  I'm saying you can't deny it's faster, and if utilized properly, could make a big difference.

The other big factor will be how much memory each OS requires.  Last rumor I heard was 1 GB for PS4's OS and 3 GB for that of XBox One.

Do you know that data streaming has not been a major  issue for game coders  for quite some time?

I'm not insinuating that a previous issue existed.  I'm implying that more can be done with the extra bandwidth, and if the OS usage rumors are true, the extra available memory.

To be honest, I don't know.  None of us do.  All I know is one is faster than the other and that can't hurt.  If someone finds a way to use that to their advantage, that advantage could be huge.

Both systems have enough bandwidth to handle game data. The gpus will be the bottleneck. they will max out  with the data they can handle long before  there are bandwith issues.



Michael-5 on 20 June 2013

1) People won't forget at first, but in a year, so it could hurt One sales at first, but in a year people will forget.

2) That's going to hurt One if it can;t attract a large casual crowd from Kinect games.

3) Most people will like this feature, I think MS is going for a more stylish console, but I have a feeling, like clap activated lamps, this won't catch on.

4) Didn't make that much of difference between PS3-360, won't make one now. Except on Forums

5/6) Won't affect sales much.

One will do fine, MS has money, they can easily buy a new studio, or introduce a new peripheral. 360 was in trouble, and then they made Kinect.

My question is, how will Wii U compare? It probably won't get a huge lead like the Wii did, but will it outpace the One?



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Scisca on 21 June 2013
MoHasanie said:
I agree with most things you've said except the conclusion. The Xbox One won't dominate in any market, especially not in the UK where it is much more expensive than the PS4. Also, the PS4 being $100 cheaper will give it a huge advantage. Of course if Microsoft drops the Xbox 1's price below the PS4, then I could see the Xbox One winning North America but no other market.


XO surely won't dominate the markets it's not launching in. Let's not forget about the fact that it's only supported in 21 countries. God only knows when they release it in other countries, it took them over 4 years after the release of X360 to bring Live to Central Europe. WW XO doesn't stand a chance, the only question is if they can keep NA.

 

Also to Live Gold vs. PS+. I went with PS3 instead of X360 only because of Live. That was the only real reason. When Sony introduced voluntary PS+... I went out and bought a 2 years subscription together with a Vita. I love PS+ and hate Live, cause I see huge value in PS+ and absolutely no value whatsoever in Live. MS fans may keep laughing, but there is a HUGE difference between PS+ and Live and personally I don't care that it's mandatory now, since I love it and would have it anyway.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Around the Network
snyps on 21 June 2013

We all make mistakes



sales2099 on 21 June 2013
cablebox said:
weren't you one of the guys defending the DRM till the end and blaming all the whining on Sony fans. ''Huh. Interesting how someones core principles can change in an instant''

Nope I was one of the guys saying MS was going to change their polocies, it was just a matter of time. Funny thing is people told me they weren't and I should just deal with it.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 on 21 June 2013
Scisca said:
MoHasanie said:
I agree with most things you've said except the conclusion. The Xbox One won't dominate in any market, especially not in the UK where it is much more expensive than the PS4. Also, the PS4 being $100 cheaper will give it a huge advantage. Of course if Microsoft drops the Xbox 1's price below the PS4, then I could see the Xbox One winning North America but no other market.


XO surely won't dominate the markets it's not launching in. Let's not forget about the fact that it's only supported in 21 countries. God only knows when they release it in other countries, it took them over 4 years after the release of X360 to bring Live to Central Europe. WW XO doesn't stand a chance, the only question is if they can keep NA.

 

Also to Live Gold vs. PS+. I went with PS3 instead of X360 only because of Live. That was the only real reason. When Sony introduced voluntary PS+... I went out and bought a 2 years subscription together with a Vita. I love PS+ and hate Live, cause I see huge value in PS+ and absolutely no value whatsoever in Live. MS fans may keep laughing, but there is a HUGE difference between PS+ and Live and personally I don't care that it's mandatory now, since I love it and would have it anyway.

The 21 countries was in regards to the 24 hour check-in. Without that, the launch countries can grow exponentially.

In regards to PS Plus vs Live, MS has allready begun with the 2 free games per month. This will only get better. And to be frank, the only reason why PS Plus is so generous is because Sony needs a reason to justify it. Once it truly takes off, the free games won't be the same as it is now. Why do you think Vita PS Plus is so generous? Vita sales (or lack there of) is the answer.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Normando on 27 June 2013

"opinion piece, sorry if bias shows here" Should precede everything you post.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'm not really much better.



SDF1JJAK on 23 February 2014

Well, regardless how MLD tries to justify Microsofts actions... I see alot of people forgetting that Xboner is little more than a horribly built Win8 PC with dual boot.