-1080P>720P
-100$ cheaper
-Smaller (no powerbrick)
-Better multiplats from the beginning
-No need for batteries for the controller
-Plus>Live
DaRev said:
Well that just might turn out to be true but, so can the opposite - who knows. Right now, I think both are in the same boat in being consoles with almost nothing to play or show off their 'greatness'. There's only so much Killzone and Forza one man can play before he gets bored, and goes back to his PS360 - which I assume a lot of games are doing right now. So saying one is better than the other because it's faster is nonesence because RIGHT NOW, both seem equally matched. However, I think the X1 is built better, it just looks better, the UI looks better and i'm sure will get even better, even the HDMI cord and mic in the box are better, it comes with a camera,...it's just is a better value IMO, but that's just my opinion. One appears to be mainly a gaming console, while the other appears to be an entertainment console. So in that sense as well the X1 I think is a better value. |
If the bone can totally get rid of me needing a box from my cable provider, and i can turn on and of my tv with it id say it can match the PS4 in some markets.
But can it do that ? i dont want a half assed entertainment console, i want one that takes over TV/Cablebox/remote
Cleary397 said:
What? I wasnt stating that it can be done. I was merely pointing out that in terms of pure graphical power, if you have an unrestricted budget, the PC is a better powerhouse. I dont want to get into a whole pc gamers vs console gamers thing, that is not what i want. I was merely stating that XBONE and PS4 fanboys are always arguing about graphics, and whose is the best, when in the end graphics isnt what makes good games (though it can help with certain genres) |
thanks for clearing that up for us captain obvious.
BeElite said:
If the bone can totally get rid of me needing a box from my cable provider, and i can turn on and of my tv with it id say it can match the PS4 in some markets. But can it do that ? i dont want a half assed entertainment console, i want one that takes over TV/Cablebox/remote |
ha ha, yeah right,...and pay $200 instead of $100 more? You're already complaining about paying $100 more, and now you want MS to put in even more entertainment features? I just seems that no matter how great an entertanment console and value for money the X1 is, it will never be enough or the right price for Sony fans.
Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren
I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.
DaRev said:
MS made the right move in releasing the 360 ahead of the PS3, cause if they didn't, the PS3 would have been as popular as the PS2 I think. Yes the PS3 cought up EVENTUALLY, but the damage was already done. Things are on a more even plain right now, although I think there are still marginally more Sony fans out there. To answer your question, I thought MS would have brought the X1 a year earlier, before the PS3 caught the 360, to save face and to get another jump on the new console generation. Ultimately, I didn't think the PS3 would cathe the 360, or MS wouldn't have let that happen. I guess MS took a page out of Nintendo's and Sony's book and got too confident. |
Fair enough and at least your honest some people would have been on some BS and pretended like they "knew all along" despite evidence against them.
Nintendo horribly compromised the wii u in performance so it could be made for very little money and give them huge profits. Unlike the wii it backfired and people have not bought it.
Microsoft have done a similar thing on a lesser scale. They ripped out part of the capacity of the GPU so they could put in 32MB of ESRAM so they could use low cost DDR3 memory. A huge compromise but again it gives them a good profit if the console sells well. No PC has ever been designed in such a way as it hugely compromises performance.
Sony did not take such a compromise with the PS4, they took existing PC technology but designed it to max out that technology. The end result was on early released games at times they were delivering 1080p when xbox one was delivering 720p. I've already seen many reports that development time on xbox one is much longer than ps4.
The 32MB of ESRAM is effectively video memory/frame buffer. Clearly this is very limited and makes the Xbox one more limited in future with regard, 4K support, 3D gaming etc.
We are seeing the ps4 delivering twice the pixels of xbox one on multiplatform games but this could also be twice the detail in 720p games on both systems.
I don't want kinect so effectively an xbox one represents paying more for a much weaker console. Hence my Xbox one purchase may be years away but I hope to get a ps4 in the new year. Absolutely no way I'm paying £430 for an xbox one. It just doesn't represent anywhere near the performance level you would expect for that price. I built my new PC for £200 (had hdd, os and xbox pad already) and that is far more powerful than xbox one.
It uses a quad core 4ghz x 4 AMD A10 5800k with built in graphics which work in combination with a pci express HD 6670 card to give about 1.5 terraflops of performance. It also has 10GB in total (2GB in PCI GPU). Plays games like Skyrim in 1080p silky smooth with medium/high graphic settings approx (some very high, some high, some medium).
Lets face it the PS4 isn't really going all out for power but Microsoft have really gone cheap on their console. Not Nintendo cheap but still pretty bad.
I'm not a fanboy I have both a ps3 and xbox 360 and was a massive fan of the original xbox. This time though the Xbox console is much weaker than its main competitor and yet costs more money. End result no sale.
| bonzobanana said: Nintendo horribly compromised the wii u in performance so it could be made for very little money and give them huge profits. Unlike the wii it backfired and people have not bought it. Microsoft have done a similar thing on a lesser scale. They ripped out part of the capacity of the GPU so they could put in 32MB of ESRAM so they could use low cost DDR3 memory. A huge compromise but again it gives them a good profit if the console sells well. No PC has ever been designed in such a way as it hugely compromises performance. Sony did not take such a compromise with the PS4, they took existing PC technology but designed it to max out that technology. The end result was on early released games at times they were delivering 1080p when xbox one was delivering 720p. I've already seen many reports that development time on xbox one is much longer than ps4. The 32MB of ESRAM is effectively video memory/frame buffer. Clearly this is very limited and makes the Xbox one more limited in future with regard, 4K support, 3D gaming etc. We are seeing the ps4 delivering twice the pixels of xbox one on multiplatform games but this could also be twice the detail in 720p games on both systems. I don't want kinect so effectively an xbox one represents paying more for a much weaker console. Hence my Xbox one purchase may be years away but I hope to get a ps4 in the new year. Absolutely no way I'm paying £430 for an xbox one. It just doesn't represent anywhere near the performance level you would expect for that price. I built my new PC for £200 (had hdd, os and xbox pad already) and that is far more powerful than xbox one. It uses a quad core 4ghz x 4 AMD A10 5800k with built in graphics which work in combination with a pci express HD 6670 card to give about 1.5 terraflops of performance. It also has 10GB in total (2GB in PCI GPU). Plays games like Skyrim in 1080p silky smooth with medium/high graphic settings approx (some very high, some high, some medium). Lets face it the PS4 isn't really going all out for power but Microsoft have really gone cheap on their console. Not Nintendo cheap but still pretty bad. I'm not a fanboy I have both a ps3 and xbox 360 and was a massive fan of the original xbox. This time though the Xbox console is much weaker than its main competitor and yet costs more money. End result no sale. |
thats not true,the xbone actually cost more to make then a ps4, its just microsoft decided years ago that they would go ddr3 so they can have 8gb of ram to make the all in one enterinment console, while sony decided years ago they were going with 4gb of gddr5 years ago, cause they wanted to make the best gaming console. gddr5 prices went down and they decided they would just go for 8gigs, microsoft decided years ago they would sacrafice power to make the best entertainment console, the end result was a mess of a console.
My friend who is an avid PS fan was over my place playing games on the Xbox One and checking out Kinect and TV integration decided to pick up the Xbox One. He was that impressed by it. That and there's no PS4 stock around and he wants next gen now. At first he was bashing the Xbox One saying things like DRM etc - all the old policies which are no longer valid. Once he got over all the rhetoric, he decided he is a gamer and likes what he saw.
So with all the talk about the CPU and GPU aside, most games are almost identical and the majority of consumers can't tell the difference. The difference was the Kinect and the user experience and he really liked how it looks like Windows 8 (I know eh?) and the fact that he can use the "play to" functions on his Windows 8 PC to send videos to the big screen via Xbox One.
| Rafux said: -1080P>720P -100$ cheaper -Smaller (no powerbrick) -Better multiplats from the beginning -No need for batteries for the controller -Plus>Live |
That is not true. Some games are 1080P on XBOX One and eventually more will be.
The $100 is true but if you add the camera and a better headset for PS4 (the ear bud really sucks) then the price difference is negligible. Besides these systems are supposed to be 10 year cycle per MS and Sony so $100 over 10 years is $10 a year. Besides if you didn't preorder a PS4 yet then you won't be getting one for a while unless you are willing to pay much more than the retail price - in some cases even more than the Xbox One.
Yes it is smaller but once it is in the AV unit, why does this matter? My brick sits behind the console so I never see it.
As for multiplats - from what I see there is hardly any difference. It's like when they were comparing Xbox 360 and PS3 and people were nitpicking over tiny differences that you need a magnifying glass for. The average consumer would not be able to tell at all if we are to be completely honest. In fact there isn't a huge difference between current gen multi plats and the next gen so far.
No batteries for controller - I see that as a plus since the Xbox controller seems to last much longer. I also bought 4 Duracel rechargeable battery with charger for $20. This allows me to always have 2 fresh battery ready if my battery dies.
I only subscribe to Plus for a few months way back but for me Live is a much better experience than the PS network by far. It's all personal opinion but I have way more friends on Live and the few I have on both prefer Live. The experience is just simpler for my taste. As for free games, both give out free games and for the most part they are good even if older. Sure Plus may give out newer games but if you ever stop paying then those games are no longer playable while Live is more like the iOS store model where once you download they are yours for life.
superryo said:
That is not true. Some games are 1080P on XBOX One and eventually more will be. The $100 is true but if you add the camera and a better headset for PS4 (the ear bud really sucks) then the price difference is negligible. Besides these systems are supposed to be 10 year cycle per MS and Sony so $100 over 10 years is $10 a year. Besides if you didn't preorder a PS4 yet then you won't be getting one for a while unless you are willing to pay much more than the retail price - in some cases even more than the Xbox One. Yes it is smaller but once it is in the AV unit, why does this matter? My brick sits behind the console so I never see it. As for multiplats - from what I see there is hardly any difference. It's like when they were comparing Xbox 360 and PS3 and people were nitpicking over tiny differences that you need a magnifying glass for. The average consumer would not be able to tell at all if we are to be completely honest. In fact there isn't a huge difference between current gen multi plats and the next gen so far. No batteries for controller - I see that as a plus since the Xbox controller seems to last much longer. I also bought 4 Duracel rechargeable battery with charger for $20. This allows me to always have 2 fresh battery ready if my battery dies. I only subscribe to Plus for a few months way back but for me Live is a much better experience than the PS network by far. It's all personal opinion but I have way more friends on Live and the few I have on both prefer Live. The experience is just simpler for my taste. As for free games, both give out free games and for the most part they are good even if older. Sure Plus may give out newer games but if you ever stop paying then those games are no longer playable while Live is more like the iOS store model where once you download they are yours for life. |
PS Network is free. You don't pay for that. You only pay for Plus perks.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
