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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox One much more expensive to make than PS4 even without KInect-according to teardown!

selnor1983 said:
Normchacho said:
selnor1983 said:
Normchacho said:
selnor1983 said:
Normchacho said:

 



Are you saying Guirella Games all of a sudden arent good at graphics? On a console 50% more powerful ( according to certain people ) and easier to develop and optimize Guirella Games still couldnt achieve the best visuals. So what does that mean? Or are you gonna throw the linear comment making last generaion linear Uncharted, TLOU, Heavy Rain etc all firmly in the mud in terms of visuals?

No, it's just that other developers focus on other things. Like gameplay, which crytek is notoriously crappy at. It's also silly to suggest that scale has no effect of graphics. I'm trying to discredit how Ryse looks. there is nothing wrong with a game looking great because it's linear. All three of those games you mentioned looked so good partly because they were linear games, no doubt about it. But lets be honest here, the specs are the specs. The PS4 has more powerful hardware no matter which way you look at it. It will probably take a couple of years to see the full difference (unless ND and there new talent speeds things up) but it's there.

Please, take off the goggles every now and again and these discussions  wouldn't even need to happen.

Lets get this out there. Firstly I dont believe the PS4 is 50% more powerful. I also believe the Xbox one as power but locked in in a different attainable way. Hence the more difficult to program for comments from devs.

All last gen PS3 gamers would to no end use linear titles as evidence of power. When Microsoft really only threw some money at visuals towrards the end of the gen. Look what 343i achieved in a open game with Halo 4. Really showing there was nothing in the hardware between PS3 and 360. Even though graphs and figures at the beginning of that gen would show PS3 in raw power the cell was said to be 200% more powerful in flops over Xenon. Microsoft said then the figures wont tell the story. And they were proved right.

This gen its happening again. But slightly different. Microsoft this time have the more different hardware approach. Theres more little processors on the die. Theres differences all over. IW already said Microsofts dve software wasnt up to speed yet the same as Sony's. So that will actually help alot in development of their next Xbox One game.

This power 50% rubbish is all talk. At least until we are in year 2 or 3 and then if PS4 is destroying Xbox One with graphics then fine. But I highly doubt that based on previous generations where x Sony console is said to be y% more powerful for that to turn out in realtime to be horsesh*t

I never said that the PS4 was 50% more powerful. Don't take other peoples opinions and claim they are mine. But it is clearly not as powerful. Ryse for instance looks very good. But it runs at 900P @ 30 fps. Now, that doesn't make a huge visual difference unless you're playing on a really big TV, but the difference in power it takes to run a game at 1080P @ 60 fps vs. 900P @ 30 fps is giant. It simply woulnd't be possible for the game to look as good as it does without the resolution and framerate drop.

There is a pretty strong argument between whether Ryse or SF looks better and from a cinematic standpoint I think Ryse looks a bit better. But when you consider that SF is not only a much larger scale game but that it also runs at 1080P @ 60 fps it is clearly the more demanding game graphically. Let me put it this way. You could run Ryse pretty easily on a PS4 without making any cutbacks or changes. I don't think you could run SF on an Xbox One without taking a pretty serious performance hit.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network

wait so it's $471 + $75 Kinect?

EDIT: corrested myself...it you take $75 from the total  price it's still a  more than PS4



kurasakiichimaru said:
It's funny that this selnor guy is trying to distract everyone from the topic.

Xbox One was clearly rushed. I can't see its price going down in the foreseeable future with the losses it's taking. Even I don't see how it's going to fare without Kinect. It'll be seen as an overpriced hardware that has no real advantage over PS4.

remind me there is a XB360 fanboy always call PS3 as 'overpriced internet browser blu-ray player' from other site last time...



selnor1983 said:
Captain_Tom said:
selnor1983 said:
Its a different architecture. In the right hands things like Ryse happen. In the wrong hands things like Ghosts happen.

First parties will blow 3rd parties away on Xbox One. Just watch.


Just to clarify, you think first parties will make Xbox One exclusives look better than Uncharted on PS4?


Yes. I thought as Digital Foundry did that Halo 4 was visually in the same ballpark as Uncharted 3. Crysis 3 on 360 beat Uncharted 3 visually. TLOU got more praise for graphics than Uncharted 3. But I thought it looked worse than UC3.

Havent seen Black Tusk Studios yet, they should be good. Remedy can and 343i definately can. 343i is basically devs from Naughty Dog, Crytek, old Bingie and Epic. Like a master race of developers from top studios. Hence why Halo 4 looked so good.


You can think whatever you want but even my 360 fanboy friends laughed when I asked them if they thought Halo 4 looked as Uncharted 3  (I was honesly curious).  But that is off subject.  The 360 and PS3 were fairly close in terms of power.  

The PS4 is FAR stronger than the Xbox One.  There is nothing to debate because they are made of components from the same families.  One just has better parts. Periode.

 

P.S. IMO Crysis games look like garbage on the consoles.  I would even go as far as saying many 360 exclusives look better than the crysis games on 360.



Microsoft made some bad design choices if this is actually true. Making a less powerful system that is more expensive to build is just plain bad design.

That doesnt mean the x1 isnt worth having, but this eliminates microsofts possible advantage of being able to undercut the ps4s price in the future...



Around the Network
kurasakiichimaru said:
It's funny that this selnor guy is trying to distract everyone from the topic.

Xbox One was clearly rushed. I can't see its price going down in the foreseeable future with the losses it's taking. Even I don't see how it's going to fare without Kinect. It'll be seen as an overpriced hardware that has no real advantage over PS4.

They really needed that extra year to:

-Get 3000 MHz DDR4 in there

-Get a stronger GPU in there

-Iron out all the kinks in the softwhere

-Figure out exactly what the Xbox One is and all of its policies.



I wouldn't put too much faith in these breakdown costs.



freedquaker said:
Can somebody break down the costs of the main components except for the Kinect? I just like to see how the costs in each machine compare. This whole thing seems quite ironic or a bit dubious. How can XB1, with lower performance, more common components, in a much less compact design, cost more? Why would the AMD chip inside XB1 cost more than in PS4?


The Xbone AMD chip has the eSRAM that makes it 363mm^2 compared to the PS4's 348mm^2



Wasn't kinect supposed to be way more expensive?



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

 

sales2099 said:
Wasn't kinect supposed to be way more expensive?



I'm fairly certain that whoever made that claim, he means the R&D cost of Kinect 2.