| FlamingWeazel said: LOL MS pr in full defense mode. He owes everyone at gaf an apology, No way we are giving up a 30% power advantage right albert? Ms pr worst in the industry, is there an honest person in MS? |
That you can now quote MS saying this, and directly contrast it to PS4's 50% larger GPU just make MS look like a joke.
There is no coherent explanation for how XBone can leverage any technical advantage (like PS3 eventually did vs. 360) or even parity.
PS4: 50% more power, 20% less cost. And you can talk to it too, if you really want to.
| UltimateUnknown said: Rather than talking the big game, MS need to hit the studios and develop something which shows why Kinect is so necessary that they had to sacrifice hardware fidelity and a lower price point because of it. |
They did that, and tried that. Several launch games were supposed to make much deeper usage of Kinect then they ended up doing.
Those features were cancelled, obviously because it wasn't turning out to be a very good game.
sony's PR is doing a great job of making them look good. and how did sony convince MS to pay sony's PR?!? ..pure genius.
Why are MS always doing this weekly? Sony is staying quiet and they have the better machine... I don't get it they are just putting more attention on it. It's back firing. Whoever is in charge of xbox PR division, fire them man.
UltimateUnknown said:
This is exactly what I've been trying to say along. MS held back on the overall specs of the box so that they could pack Kinect in. It was MS's choice. Sony decided to forego peripherals to make their box cheaper and more powerful. It was Sony's choice. Sony has been sticking up for the choices that they've made and trying to sell their boxes with those merits. MS on the other hand aren't sticking up for their choice of shipping kinect with the box and haven't been trying to sell why that Kinect makes them better. It just makes it look like they did something wrong when they themselves don't seem to have faith in their own product. |
You guys' point of view is straightforward but faulty nonetheless. The bill of materials in several occasions show that XB1, even without the Kinect costs pretty much the same as PS4 to manufacture. So choosing an inferior architecture was not because of cost issues. It was because
a) Simply pure designing decisions. MS does not know how to design sophisticated machines. Original Xbox was nothing but a PC as well (with a custom Celeron-Pentium III CPU). X360 also used the simplest and cheapest design possible.
b) XB1 costs pretty much the same but still much more inferior because MS just scaled up their X360 design. Ever since original XB, they have been using Regular Unified RAM + Tiny Fast RAM. This worked with Xbox and X360, but Esram solutions did not improve enough, and they were able to fit a measly 32 MB, which left no room for an advanced GPU as in PS4.
c) They never thought of putting a GDR5 because they thought it would be prohibitively expensive and the yields would be terrible. They were wrong! They necessarily wanted 8 GB because of their MEDIA CENTER ambitions (3 OSes simultaneously running). So they couldn't even take a GDR5 gamble. Sony was fine with 4 GB GDR5, so they took that gamble and won.
Finally, because of poor design decisions, they ended up with an inferior and more expensive console.
Playstation 5 vs XBox Series Market Share Estimates
Regional Analysis (only MS and Sony Consoles)
Europe => XB1 : 23-24 % vs PS4 : 76-77%
N. America => XB1 : 49-52% vs PS4 : 48-51%
Global => XB1 : 32-34% vs PS4 : 66-68%
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
