• 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

I hope GB is cool with this because it certainly is interesting enough to warrant documentation. Since some people around here think I'm an MS insider I figured what better way than to discuss things not even GAF let you. Not sure if the rest of you guys have seen it, so first, a little background on the story.

Albert Penello - A Microsoft rep that posts on GAF presumably, under his real name.

Adrian Chmielarz - Former employee of developer People Can Fly. GAF user name: Saphatoreal.

Albert has recently taken to Reddit with Major Nelson to make claims such as Microsoft not allowing Sony a <30-40% power advantage.

It all started yesterday when Adrian Chmielars, former employee of developer People Can Fly, took to Twitter and made the following claim:

Now granted his claim is a vague, second hand hearsay, and kind of meaningless in terms of actual tech talk. He should have known what that would do, but after seeing the craziness, he decided to clarify:

I think Adrian should jump into the conversation. He does it all the time in his blogs.

Here I am. So...

1. I am not doing a damage control, but I do want to clarify one thing. But first, yes, devs I know -- and as someone has shown it before in this thread, some other devs already talked about it too -- claim that there's 50% speed difference WHEN DEVELOPING in cross-gen/next-gen PS4/XO games. So there we are, I said it and I stand by it. Notice: WHEN DEVELOPING. It'll become clear in a second.

2. Will this change in the future? WIll devs discover some tricks to narrow the gap? Will stuff like XO cloud computing help? Hell if I know. Uhm, maybe? I know that devs -- well, most of them -- will do whatever they can do get you the best games possible. You're going to see a lot of multiplatform games this next gen, just as you've seen them in this gen, so it's in studios' best interest that there's no clear advantage in one version over the other.

3. Does it mean studios will cripple PS4 versions to match XO ones? Not really, do not underestimate the devs. Even if this happens, you will not know that and that's okay. You've never seen most games in their most powerful form anyway (when we work on them on our ninja dev PCs in 1080p 120fps with all the antialiasings and stuff turned on for shits and giggles). But most of the time devs have a target and they meet this target. If it's a multiplatform game, it's designed with this in mind from the start. So maybe it's not maxing out one console while going 100% on the other. Maybe it's 100% on both, but they take extra time for super-extra optimizations on the weaker hardware to make sure things look the same as on the more powerful platform. Etc. etc.

4. So what is that "one thing" I want to clarify, that some people may consider "damage control", but really is just an explanation. Someone mentioned Titanfall, which looks money and enjoys a great hype. Exactly. A great dev will make a great game no matter what's the hardware. Current gen CoDs looks great and it's 60 fps, on both platforms (well, and PC :). To most devs that is just impossible to achieve. And yet...

Think about it this way. X360 is faster than PS3. Not just easier to program on, it's faster overall (although PS is faster/better in SOME areas). And yet no exclusive on X360 looks like The Last of Us. Halo 4 looks great. Gears blew my mind in 2006. And still, the best looking AAA game of this generation belongs to the supposedly weaker platform.

So if you think that the war is over because PS4 is 50% faster TODAY, then you're delusional. This is far from over, and will probably never be over, at least not this upcoming gen.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80542977&postcount=399

Shortly after though, the mods close the thread.

Then Albert Penello gets wind of the story and responds on Twitter and another thread explodes due to the fact Albert did not know who either "Adrian and his friends" or People Can Fly is. Adrian apparently led the team that created Gears of War: Judgment under Epic.

Then the mods closed the second threads on the basis that the original claim by Adrian was 2nd hand hearsay. Which is true. But it doesn't change the fact Albert took the time to respond.

It appears to me that with this turn of events, and Albert Penello going on record to make the claims he did, then respond to Adrian on Twitter, GAF had Microsoft or at least Albert cornered into offering some sort of response and addressing the original issue. Especially since Albert is a regular poster there and Adrian took the time to post, clarification is certainly warranted and was expected to ensue.

The issue isn't so much whether or not Albert knows or doesn't know Adrian and PCF, but rather the statements each made. Seems to me the recent words of Mr.Adrian Chmielars are in complete disagreement with the words and claims Albert Penello and Major Nelson made on Reddit, And that part definitely warrants a discussion.

Now I find the attempts of character assassination that was taking place in the GAF thread disgusting, and I hope that this doesn't take place here, but isn't it weird that GAF closed both threads when they pretty much had Albert on the ropes that he would have to respond? Usually they would just ban posters that take things too far. I mean, heck I know I want to know the answer to this one. I definitely want some clarification especially with all the recent rumors and upgrades on the X1. So what's going on?

Your thoughts?

#2 Posted by Salarn (465 posts) -

Console specs don't matter, thus this twitter conversation also doesn't matter.

#3 Edited by Baillie (4068 posts) -

Couldn't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

#4 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@salarn said:

Console specs don't matter, thus this twitter conversation also doesn't matter.

Of course they do. This is something manufacturers want you to believe but they certainly do matter, and I think it's a bunch of bullshit not to disclose full specifications. I don't think they are representative of the final games in a lot of cases, but we're still initially buying a piece of hardware, with modified PC equipment, and just like I have access to parts specifications when I buy any other electronic device, or PC, or laptop, that shouldn't be any different when purchasing a console. It prevents people from making informed decisions. Different architectures will provide different results, but I'm intelligent enough to keep that in mind when comparing two products. I don't appreciate console manufacturers treating me like I'm too dumb to get it and will be too confused. That's just lame.

#5 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Best to just ignore it. If its bad enough to be closed in gaf that is impressive.

#6 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@the_laughing_man said:

Best to just ignore it. If its bad enough to be closed in gaf that is impressive.

Well that's kind of what makes it weird. It's a discussion that actually deserves to be addressed especially considering Albert's recent statements. For once, I wish GAF wouldn't have backed off. Microsoft does need to come clean with their full specs. As does Sony.

It's getting more than tiresome to have to dig in every corner of the internet just to get a bite here and a bite there from all kinds of sources ranging from VGleaks to some random Twitter post. You and I have had some conversations regarding this.

The fact is, to this day, the most information we actually got came from leaked info on VGleaks, most of which is more than a year old. That's pathetic.

#7 Posted by Syed117 (387 posts) -

Meh. At this point I think the XB1 will have some nice benefits that developers will be able to take advantage of, but the PS4 seems more powerful based on the specs everyone is going by.

Does it matter? Not really. Yeah, better graphics are great but it's the platform that matters. If xbox live and the system OS is still better on xbox one than ps4, I don't mind taking multiplatform games that run at 55fps compared to one that runs at 60fps. Sony fans spent an entire generation buying multiplatform games that almost always looked worse on ps3 and had a terrible online service with a lack of many system level features. It's no big deal. People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions. It's still happening to this day. Saints row 3, diablo 3, splinter cell blacklist all look and run better on the 360.

Digital foundry is going to go through every frame of the new multiplatform games in 2 months. Very interested in seeing those comparisons.

#8 Edited by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

@alexglass: We won't know unless Microsoft reveals that sadly. I don't think we even have the full story on the Wii U specs either. Also what specs have Sony yet to reveal? I was under the impression that the cpu was clocked at 1.6 ghz. I think the only thing they are not clear on is if they are using SATA 2 or 3.

#9 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@roarimadinosaur said:

@alexglass: We won't know unless Microsoft reveals that sadly. I don't think we even have the full story on the Wii U specs either. Also what specs have Sony yet to reveal? I was under the impression that the cpu was clocked at 1.6 ghz. I think the only thing they i'm not clear on is if they are using SATA 2 or 3.

Nintendo are definitely not to be forgiven either. People have been spending more than a year now trying to dig into the Wii U. They may have been the first ones to actually start this trend. When the 360 and PS3 came out both manufacturers were more than willing to spill the beans and share down every detail down to how many instructions you could fit in a pixel shader. It was the same with the Xbox, PS2, and GC where Nintendo had no issues detailing their GPU and its superior multitexturing capabilities. You were literally able to do some basic math and use the information they disclosed to actually come out with solid theoretical peak numbers of actual shaded, textured, polygon numbers and particles possible for each console. Something that actually makes a lot more sense to a gamer than pure TFLOPs numbers over different achitectures. Ever since they decided to change their strategy and stop manufacturing loss leaders, now they want to hide their specs. Now MS and Sony are doing it.

That's bull. We all know they're weak anyway. Just come clean and stop selling them as supercharged PC's. It's insulting. You aren't spending the money to put high end hardware in them at a small loss. Disappointing for sure, since that was a big draw of getting a console. But I still expect to know what I'm getting in the box just like when I purchase any other piece of electronic.

#10 Posted by Syed117 (387 posts) -

Abert Penello went on record to say that there is no way the ps4 is even 30% more powerful than the xbox one.

Either he knows what he is talking about and Microsoft has some tricks up their sleeve, or he is lying out of ignorance or simply because it is his job. If it turns out the ps4 really is that much more powerful, the Internet and especially places like neogaf will crucify him.

#11 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@alexglass: Well him saying that PS4 is 50% stronger then going on gaf to say

So if you think that the war is over because PS4 is 50% faster TODAY, then you're delusional. This is far from over, and will probably never be over, at least not this upcoming gen.

Makes no sense. The PS4 thing makes it sound like on paper the specs are better. He also said " TODAY" And" This is far from over" Eaither seems like damage control or a miss understanding.

#13 Posted by Salarn (465 posts) -

@salarn said:

Console specs don't matter, thus this twitter conversation also doesn't matter.

Of course they do. This is something manufacturers want you to believe but they certainly do matter, and I think it's a bunch of bullshit not to disclose full specifications. I don't think they are representative of the final games in a lot of cases, but we're still initially buying a piece of hardware, with modified PC equipment, and just like I have access to parts specifications when I buy any other electronic device, or PC, or laptop, that shouldn't be any different when purchasing a console. It prevents people from making informed decisions. Different architectures will provide different results, but I'm intelligent enough to keep that in mind when comparing two products. I don't appreciate console manufacturers treating me like I'm too dumb to get it and will be too confused. That's just lame.

The only thing that matters is the number of units sold. The average consumer don't know what the specs are, less what they mean, and even fewer understand the complexities of how the parts work together. Which ever console sells the most will be the target platform and the other one will get the port which is scaled to fit. Also considering that there has never been a console generation that the 'winner' was the most 'powerful' system, the PS4 being slightly more powerful could be a curse.

#14 Posted by endaround (2142 posts) -

@salarn said:

Console specs don't matter, thus this twitter conversation also doesn't matter.

Of course they do. This is something manufacturers want you to believe but they certainly do matter, and I think it's a bunch of bullshit not to disclose full specifications. I don't think they are representative of the final games in a lot of cases, but we're still initially buying a piece of hardware, with modified PC equipment, and just like I have access to parts specifications when I buy any other electronic device, or PC, or laptop, that shouldn't be any different when purchasing a console. It prevents people from making informed decisions. Different architectures will provide different results, but I'm intelligent enough to keep that in mind when comparing two products. I don't appreciate console manufacturers treating me like I'm too dumb to get it and will be too confused. That's just lame.

Well yes they matter but so does the OS. And that is near impossible to quantify, especially at this point in time. Does the PS4 look to have a edge in hardware? Sure, but a 50% increase? That seems unlikely.

#15 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@alexglass: Well him saying that PS4 is 50% stronger then going on gaf to say

So if you think that the war is over because PS4 is 50% faster TODAY, then you're delusional. This is far from over, and will probably never be over, at least not this upcoming gen.

Makes no sense. The PS4 thing makes it sound like on paper the specs are better. He also said " TODAY" And" This is far from over" Eaither seems like damage control or a miss understanding.

Yeah he was doing damage control, but let's be honest. No former dev gets on Twitter to make a vague statement like that without knowing he's going to start something. I think Adrian has his reasons or agenda as well. Whatever it may be. Was it a response to Albert's recent statements thinking they were spreading fud? Was it just a genuine disclosure or endorsement of the PS4?

I don't know. Either way, it's no "innocent little comment". He's playing dumb but he knows what he's doing too. And if it's a genuine disclosure, then he also should know very well how meaningless saying 50% faster is. It says nada. Before, after spec increase? GPU, console as a whole? What?

#16 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@salarn said:

Console specs don't matter, thus this twitter conversation also doesn't matter.

Of course they do. This is something manufacturers want you to believe but they certainly do matter, and I think it's a bunch of bullshit not to disclose full specifications. I don't think they are representative of the final games in a lot of cases, but we're still initially buying a piece of hardware, with modified PC equipment, and just like I have access to parts specifications when I buy any other electronic device, or PC, or laptop, that shouldn't be any different when purchasing a console. It prevents people from making informed decisions. Different architectures will provide different results, but I'm intelligent enough to keep that in mind when comparing two products. I don't appreciate console manufacturers treating me like I'm too dumb to get it and will be too confused. That's just lame.

Well yes they matter but so does the OS. And that is near impossible to quantify, especially at this point in time. Does the PS4 look to have a edge in hardware? Sure, but a 50% increase? That seems unlikely.

Which is exactly why I feel GAF should have kept that discussion going. Albert should have a chance to clarify.

Again this hide and seek game by manufacturers is beginning to take its toll. It's lame. In every sense of the word.

AMD and Nvidia have been disclosing their performance for years, fully detailed. Irrelevant of power differences, if you price your hardware accordingly, it sells. And that's what this is really about, isn't it? It's good to know which piece of hardware gives you the most bang for your buck. But that's not the be all end all of things. Beyond that you can use hardware features, game exclusives, etc, to help you make the remaining of the decision. However, it's still an important starting point if you are the type of consumer wanting to make an informed purchase.

#17 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@alexglass: I think its just stupid he then used a Dickwolves hashtag.

#18 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@alexglass: I think its just stupid he then used a Dickwolves hashtag.

I'm out of the loop on that one. Had no idea that's what it was and had to look it up.

#19 Posted by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

Are there any laws against this where they have to disclose the contents hardware of the console it self? I just figured it would be of benefit to some even if it wasn't for the main stream consumer.

#20 Posted by Jimbo (9796 posts) -

@syed117 said:
People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions.

But 'where they want to play' is informed by where the 'best versions' tend to be. PS3 often had the shitty version of early multi-plat games and the platform suffered for it, with 360 establishing itself as the multi-plat platform of choice. Eventually the game quality and service caught up on PS3 but the damage was already done, people were just too used to playing multi-plat on 360 by then. Sony never really closed the gap in multi-plat sales despite eventually being on par in terms of console sales.

I think this does matter, especially early on and especially with the consoles going head to head right from the start. With no standout launch exclusives for either console, the comparative quality of multi-plat games will be one of the few things to help people choose between them. Arguably it won't matter because the $100 difference is likely already enough to sink X1 by itself, but Microsoft definitely can't afford for X1 to be both more expensive and have a reputation for having the weak version of multi-plat games.

#21 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

Are there any laws against this where they have to disclose the contents hardware of the console it self? I just figured it would be of benefit to some even if it wasn't for the main stream consumer.

There should be. Honestly. We're buying processors in a plastic box. Consumers need to know their capabilities.

#22 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@alexglass:

On paper (respectively from the specs of the stuff soldered onto the consoles' motherboards), PS4 is roughly 30% more powerful than Xbox One (reports differ from 30-50%).

A layman's example that helps me understand what that means: "If a game runs at 60 frames per second on PS4, that same code would run at only 40 frames per second on Xbox One" - that is if you take this *on paper* power difference at face value.

Eurogamer built PCs with equivalent specs to PS4 and Xbox One in order to compare their performance, and the PS4 equivalent ran the same code with roughly 20-25% more frames. Link to the video -here-.

Sure, there's more to it than specs, but certainly not to the degree that Alberto Penello wants to make us believe. If anything, the more powerful hardware has more potential for optimization than the less powerful one. Truth be told though, what Albert Penello is doing is called *Spin*. I'll just quote wikipedia for the definition. So take all Alberto Penello says with this particular grain of salt.

Spin (public relations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.[1]

Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion. Because of the frequent association between spin and press conferences (especially government press conferences), the room in which these take place is sometimes described as a spin room. A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as "spin doctors" who engage in "spin doctoring" for the person or group that hired them.[2]

#23 Edited by Benny (1950 posts) -

those digital foundry dudes who do the frame by frame multiplatform game graphics comparisons will get to the heart of whatever differences there are before you even get your hands on a console so I'm sure whatever truth there is will be out there before long.

#24 Posted by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

@alexglass: Completely agree. If you choose not to be informed then so be it but those who would like to know what they are buying into regarding the hardware itself should have that right.

#25 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

In other words, Albert Penello is what is called in colloquial terms, a Spin Doctor!

#26 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@jimbo said:

@syed117 said:
People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions.

But 'where they want to play' is informed by where the 'best versions' tend to be. PS3 often had the shitty version of early multi-plat games and the platform suffered for it, with 360 establishing itself as the multi-plat platform of choice. Eventually the game quality and service caught up on PS3 but the damage was already done, people were just too used to playing multi-plat on 360 by then. Sony never really closed the gap in multi-plat sales despite eventually being on par in terms of console sales.

I think this does matter, especially early on and especially with the consoles going head to head right from the start. With no standout launch exclusives for either console, the comparative quality of multi-plat games will be one of the few things to help people choose between them. Arguably it won't matter because the $100 difference is likely already enough to sink X1 by itself, but Microsoft definitely can't afford for X1 to be both more expensive and have a reputation for having the weak version of multi-plat games.

I think hardcore gamers who have to have the best graphics will likely flock to the PS4. But I think there is plenty of gamers that would prefer the additional games brought to the table by Kinect over the difference in graphics of exclusives and will be pretty satisfied with the output of X1 graphics. I think the games look fantastic on both consoles. But if multiplatform games are going to end up showing a big difference, then that could sway more gamers in favor of the PS4. If we're talking Bayonetta or Skyrim type differences early on, then that's a problem.

I disagree that there are no standout exclusives(Ryse and Killer Instinct stand out to me) and I think you overestimate the importance on graphics and underestimate the impact of Kinect and additional hardware features of the X1 to the mass market consumer. There is a lot of value in that for a lot of consumers. Value that I believe will be much easier to show, sell and represent than whatever difference in graphics some are claiming to see right now. You have features just not possible on the other console. You will have game types not available on the other. That's a bigger deal to me.

I wanted to experience a lot of Wii games, but I wasn't willing to have to chose between the core games and the casual Wii experience. I wanted it all. Wii wasn't worth giving core games up to me. But in my case, I'm willing to accept a smaller difference in multiplatform titles in the worst case scenario to have access to all the extra tech and games possible with Kinect. However, the gap does make a difference. So this is important. It's important if it means rather than a small difference, you have a situation where third party developers start making more core games on the PS4 exclusively because of the additional power.

I'm perfectly ok with paying the $100 more because the value and potential is tremendous for me. But I might not be be so ok if it means a trade-off in multiplatform games possible. Then we're right back to the Wii situation, and having to trade game types for game types, rather than the current situation which is paying a steeper price for additional game types and features.

#27 Edited by Syed117 (387 posts) -
@jimbo said:
@syed117 said:
People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions.

But 'where they want to play' is informed by where the 'best versions' tend to be. PS3 often had the shitty version of early multi-plat games and the platform suffered for it, with 360 establishing itself as the multi-plat platform of choice. Eventually the game quality and service caught up on PS3 but the damage was already done, people were just too used to playing multi-plat on 360 by then. Sony never really closed the gap in multi-plat sales despite eventually being on par in terms of console sales.

I think this does matter, especially early on and especially with the consoles going head to head right from the start. With no standout launch exclusives for either console, the comparative quality of multi-plat games will be one of the few things to help people choose between them. Arguably it won't matter because the $100 difference is likely already enough to sink X1 by itself, but Microsoft definitely can't afford for X1 to be both more expensive and have a reputation for having the weak version of multi-plat games.

You're talking about people who would even know that versions can differ in performance and visual quality.

The average person does not know that and never will. I own both and I play all multiplatform games on 360. At least up until the last year or so when I started playing them on PC when possible. It depends on how much of a difference there is. We aren't talking about one version being incredible and the other being unplayable. Most people would never notice unless they are going to places like digital foundry.

Microsoft has always been right about one thing and that is how important services are to the consumer. Xbox 360 didn't succeed because multiplatform games looked and played a bit better on it, it succeeded because of services like xbox live and the little things the guys talk about on this weeks bombcast. Little things like profile management and the relative ease of use for so many features. PS4 can be a fresh start for people but people also stick with what they are comfortable with. I know that when I get the xbox one, my friend list, chat, the party system, signing in and out of profiles and all those things will simply work. The system may be new, but those things already exist and work well right now.

I don't know how party chat, profiles, invites and all those things will work on the ps4. Yeah, it's going to be exciting figuring it all out, but Sony spent an entire generation not being able to fix those problems. It's all brand new for them. Will those things all work as easily as they should? I would like to think so, but that's an assumption based on nothing.

Do you have any idea how many times I've personally had to deal with friends and family in regards to the ps3 this generation? Most recently with the last of us. Getting people to play online. Telling them to go out and get Bluetooth headsets. Helping them set up those headsets. Going into the settings and adjusting volume and doing all those things. It's fine for people like us, but it's not ok for the average person. Yes, Sony now includes that shitty earbud but the average person already associates a part of the Sony experience with that hassle. Those feelings are hard to change and unless Sony can prove that they make it as easy as Microsoft does, people will still support the xbox one.

#28 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@jimbo said:

@syed117 said:
People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions.

But 'where they want to play' is informed by where the 'best versions' tend to be. PS3 often had the shitty version of early multi-plat games and the platform suffered for it, with 360 establishing itself as the multi-plat platform of choice. Eventually the game quality and service caught up on PS3 but the damage was already done, people were just too used to playing multi-plat on 360 by then. Sony never really closed the gap in multi-plat sales despite eventually being on par in terms of console sales.

I think this does matter, especially early on and especially with the consoles going head to head right from the start. With no standout launch exclusives for either console, the comparative quality of multi-plat games will be one of the few things to help people choose between them. Arguably it won't matter because the $100 difference is likely already enough to sink X1 by itself, but Microsoft definitely can't afford for X1 to be both more expensive and have a reputation for having the weak version of multi-plat games.

I think hardcore gamers who have to have the best graphics will likely flock to the PS4. But I think there is plenty of gamers that would prefer the additional games brought to the table by Kinect over the difference in graphics of exclusives and will be pretty satisfied with the output of X1 graphics. I think the games look fantastic on both consoles. But if multiplatform games are going to end up showing a big difference, then that could sway more gamers in favor of the PS4. If we're talking Bayonetta or Skyrim type differences early on, then that's a problem.

I disagree that there are no standout exclusives(Ryse and Killer Instinct stand out to me) and I think you overestimate the importance on graphics and underestimate the impact of Kinect and additional hardware features of the X1 to the mass market consumer. There is a lot of value in that for a lot of consumers. Value that I believe will be much easier to show, sell and represent than whatever difference in graphics some are claiming to see right now. You have features just not possible on the other console. You will have game types not available on the other. That's a bigger deal to me.

I wanted to experience a lot of Wii games, but I wasn't willing to have to chose between the core games and the casual Wii experience. I wanted it all. Wii wasn't worth giving core games up to me. But in my case, I'm willing to accept a smaller difference in multiplatform titles in the worst case scenario to have access to all the extra tech and games possible with Kinect. However, the gap does make a difference. So this is important. It's important if it means rather than a small difference, you have a situation where third party developers start making more core games on the PS4 exclusively because of the additional power.

I'm perfectly ok with paying the $100 more because the value and potential is tremendous for me. But I might not be be so ok if it means a trade-off in multiplatform games possible. Then we're right back to the Wii situation, and having to trade game types for game types, rather than the current situation which is paying a steeper price for additional game types and features.

You do understand that PS4 has a Kinect equivalent in PS Eye? You do understand that hardware power doesn't just affect graphics? For example - more frames aren't just more graphics. More frames are more playability. That said, both consoles play in the same league. You'll be happy with either, for the most parts - some games will just run worse or be less pretty on Xbox One, that's all.

If you really want to have said Kinect-like experiences, you'll get them on PS4 too, you'll just have to shell out whatever Sony's asking for the PS Eye (and then some for the PS Move controller, which actually is a more proven value than Kinect in regards to core games).

Kinect enhancing core games? I'll believe it when I see it. Thus far, it just hasn't happend yet. In fact, most core games using Kinect as a primary input method were unmitigated desasters, and otherwise it was merely used for voice command activated menues and such - which yet again are a matter of taste. I for one hate nothing better than voice commands.

Better with Kinect? No - not really. It certainly is not for me. For me, it's got to be PS4. It is more powerful. It's also cheaper, because it doesn't force me to buy its motion capturing camera/voice command device. PS4 is the more capable dedicated gaming device, at a lower asking price, with more and more accomplished first party developers supporting it. Right now, if you only buy one of the boxes, there's just no competition, as far as I'm concerned. PS4 it is.

#29 Edited by EXTomar (4625 posts) -

November 22 can't come fast enough! I can only hope someone's too busy playing instead of posting conspiracy threads.

#30 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@seppli said:

You do understand that PS4 has a Kinect equivalent in PS Eye? You do understand that hardware power doesn't just affect graphics?

That said, both consoles play in the same league. It's just PS4 is more powerful. It's also cheaper, because it doesn't force everyone to buy its motion capturing camera/voice command device. So if you really want to have said Kinect-like experiences, you'll get them on PS4 too. In regards to Kinect enhancing core games? I'll believe it when I see it. Thus far, it just hasn't happend yet. In fact, most core games using Kinect as a primary input method were unmitigated desasters, and otherwise it was merely used for voice command activated menues and such - which yet again are a matter of taste. I for one hate nothing better than voice commands.

Better with Kinect? No - not really. It certainly ain't for me.

I don't think the two compare. At best the Eyetoy will be lucky to have the same type of support the original Kinect got, let alone the difference in tech because it's not standard. There always has and always will be a tremendous difference between accessories and standard hardware. I didn't care for the original Kinect precisely because it suffered the fate of an accessory targetting the casual audience and the success it achieved despite that is a feat in of itself. The fact it hasn't happened means nothing to me, because I understand that and always have. From the days of the Sega CD to the original Kinect, this is a very well known, proven and established trend. I would have to ignore this very well known trend, to judge the potential of Kinect and gaming by the support an accessory got at the tail end of a generation. Voice recognition and gesture recognition, the technology itself, is every bit as viable technology as controller input, that when it matures enough, will no doubt offer the next step in video gaming immersion. It's far more important, practical and viable than even VR. And I expect it to produce different games outside of your typical established genres. Kinect just makes it really practical in bringing it all together because it allows you to hold a standard controller in your hands while using it. There is no trade-off taking place.

But anyway, I'm going to refrain from getting into any more talk about that, and try to stay on topic.

#31 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@seppli said:

You do understand that PS4 has a Kinect equivalent in PS Eye? You do understand that hardware power doesn't just affect graphics? For example - more frames aren't just more graphics. More frames are more playability. That said, both consoles play in the same league. You'll be happy with either, for the most parts - some games will just run worse or be less pretty on Xbox One, that's all.

If you really want to have said Kinect-like experiences, you'll get them on PS4 too, you'll just have to shell out whatever Sony's asking for the PS Eye (and then some for the PS Move controller, which actually is a more proven value than Kinect in regards to core games).

Kinect enhancing core games? I'll believe it when I see it. Thus far, it just hasn't happend yet. In fact, most core games using Kinect as a primary input method were unmitigated desasters, and otherwise it was merely used for voice command activated menues and such - which yet again are a matter of taste. I for one hate nothing better than voice commands.

Better with Kinect? No - not really. It certainly is not for me. For me, it's got to be PS4. It is more powerful. It's also cheaper, because it doesn't force me to buy its motion capturing camera/voice command device. PS4 is the more capable dedicated gaming device, at a lower asking price, with more and more accomplished first party developers supporting it. Right now, if you only buy one of the boxes, there's just no competition, as far as I'm concerned. PS4 it is.

I don't think the two compare. At best the Eyetoy will be lucky to have the same type of support the original Kinect got, let alone the difference in tech because it's not standard. There always has and always will be a tremendous difference between accessories and standard hardware. I didn't care for the original Kinect precisely because it suffered the fate of an accessory targetting the casual audience and the success it achieved despite that is a feat in of itself. The fact it hasn't happened means nothing to me, because I understand that and always have. From the days of the Sega CD to the original Kinect, this is a very well known, proven and established trend. I would have to ignore this very well known trend, to judge the potential of Kinect and gaming by the support an accessory got at the tail end of a generation. Voice recognition and gesture recognition, the technology itself, is every bit as viable technology as controller input, that when it matures enough, will no doubt offer the next step in video gaming immersion. It's far more important, practical and viable than even VR. And I expect it to produce different games outside of your typical established genres. Kinect just makes it really practical in bringing it all together because it allows you to hold a standard controller in your hands while using it. There is no trade-off taking place.

But anyway, I'm going to refrain from getting into any more talk about that, and try to stay on topic.

I don't deny Kinect 2.0 has potential. More so than PS Eye? Sure - I guess the fact that it's standard hardware does make it more attractive to developers. It will spawn interesting entertainment software, no doubt. However, I don't want it. Over 70% of Xbox 360 owners didn't want it as an accessory either.

Microsoft is patronizing its consumerbase. It thinks it know better than I, what I want. I don't want Kinect. I certainly don't want to buy the cat in the bag. That fact alone is enough to make Xbox One my second choice. At launch PS4 is simply the better deal.

It's not like I cannot buy Xbox One at a later point in time, when and if Kinect 2.0 has proven itself to be something I want. Once Xbox One delivers Kinect-enhanced experiences that live up to that mystical potential you conjure up so lively in your mind, who am I to deny its awesomeness? If it's cool, it's cool, and I'll get with it.

Kinect 2.0 is nothing to me right now. Certainly not worth paying those extra 100$ (more like 150-200$ around my parts, once the box releases sometime in 2014). You make a great case to not write off Xbox One. I never have. However, you don't make a case at all for buying Xbox One over PS4 at launch, because for all its potential, none of it is apparent at launch. Xbox One is the weaker box at a higher pricepoint with an included feature I'm not willing to pay for yet.

#32 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

$100 cheaper and if it does indeed break out that the PS4 has considerably more power then yeah, it's certainly not good for Microsoft.

Specs do matter, these aren't extremely casual orientated systems like the Wii. What I will say is specs will matter little for launch games most likely but you bet your ass it will be an issue in a year or two. It's still unclear how accurate these claims really are are, so hold onto your hats I guess.

I have a Vita so it would be pretty dumb for me to pay more for an Xbox One. I'm thinking of getting one a few years later when they release a version without a Kinect.

#33 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Does he mention who these Devs are? Has he worked on the Xboxone?

#34 Edited by Syed117 (387 posts) -

"There is no way we're giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony"

For him to say that in those words would be ridiculous if he didn't have some way to back it up. That's the thing that is surprising about this. People can say all they want about spinning the situation, but answers to these kinds of questions are usually vague and never so straight forward. He is flat out denying that the PS4 is more powerful in any practical ways. I don't think you can get away with that.

Maybe developers will need some time to learn the advantages of the hardware that he is talking about. We might see multiplatform games run better on PS4 around launch and the developers get better as they learn how to use the supposed extra stuff the xbox one does. The gap might get smaller as time goes on if there are things we don't understand yet. However, they are saying that people will see "the truth" in a few months.

As much as people say that specs matter, they really don't. Sony fans tend to be the biggest hypocrites in the world when it comes to this. They are proving that now more than ever. Games are what matter. So all these people screaming about the PS4 and how powerful it is blindly devoted themselves to the PS3 despite the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on the 360? How exactly does that logic work? It's fine if you want exclusives and games are what matter, but you can't bitch about something that apparently didn't matter a generation ago. These are the same people crying about how powerful the PS4 is and how great multiplatform games will run on it. So now the xbox one is the potential piece of shit because multiplatform games might run worse on it. Right.

#35 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@the_laughing_man said:

Does he mention who these Devs are? Has he worked on the Xboxone?

No he doesn't and no he didn't. Which is why I also think he has an agenda of his own for him to come with this statement. But...since Albert commented and it's been established who Adrian is, he needs to clarify the original topic. That's what the Twitter poster was referring to when he asked Albert whether or not are there unrevealed X1 specs. Since Albert's saying one thing on Reddit, and made some pretty specific and bold comments about specs, and now there's a former developer claiming he's hearing otherwise, then....what's up?

#36 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@syed117 said:

As much as people say that specs matter, they really don't. Sony fans tend to be the worst hypocrites in the world when it comes to this. They are proving that now more than ever. Games are what matter. So all these people screaming about the PS4 and how powerful it is blindly devoted themselves to the PS3 despite the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on the 360? How exactly does that logic work? It's fine if you want exclusives and games are what matter, but you can't bitch about something that apparently didn't matter a generation ago. These are the same people crying about how powerful the PS4 is and how great multiplatform games will run on it. So now the xbox one is the potential piece of shit because multiplatform games might run worse on it. Right.

They matter. If I have both Xbox One and a PS4 (which I probably will), I'm not going to choose the version on the inferior platform if we're talking the difference between a solid 30 frames and dipping below it. The PS3 having bad ports always mattered, I long considered that console a piece of shit and still kind of do, the only developers that got a firm grasp on the console were Naughty Dog and Guerilla, I can't think of any other developers who managed to make the console look a step ahead of the Xbox 360.

The 20-30% difference if even remotely true will definitely rear its head later on in the generation too, if rumours about some games running at 30 on one and 60 on the other are accurate.

edit: I'll agree that it's never going to matter for a casual gamer, price will. If Sony can keep keeping their price down then that is going to be a deciding factor for sure. It's pretty amazing the PS3 even managed to ship an even amount of units with the Xbox 360 despite its ridiculous price and bumpy launch years. I don't even know how accurate the amount of 360s sold/shipped is because of all the red ringed units.

#37 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

It's only going to matter at the end of the generation, just like this one(PS3/360)

As always the developers will pander to the lowest common denominator The WiiU doesn't count, and you know it.(Xbone) instead of the more powerful one(PS4) when it comes to multiplat. games.

#38 Edited by Syed117 (387 posts) -

@sooty said:

@syed117 said:

As much as people say that specs matter, they really don't. Sony fans tend to be the worst hypocrites in the world when it comes to this. They are proving that now more than ever. Games are what matter. So all these people screaming about the PS4 and how powerful it is blindly devoted themselves to the PS3 despite the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on the 360? How exactly does that logic work? It's fine if you want exclusives and games are what matter, but you can't bitch about something that apparently didn't matter a generation ago. These are the same people crying about how powerful the PS4 is and how great multiplatform games will run on it. So now the xbox one is the potential piece of shit because multiplatform games might run worse on it. Right.

They matter. If I have both Xbox One and a PS4 (which I probably will), I'm not going to choose the version on the inferior platform if we're talking the difference between a solid 30 frames and dipping below it. The PS3 having bad ports always mattered, I long considered that console a piece of shit and still kind of do, the only developers that got a firm grasp on the console were Naughty Dog and Guerilla.

The 20-30% difference if even remotely true will definitely rear its head later on in the generation too, especially if rumours about some games running at 30 on one and 60 on the other are accurate.

I meant that they don't matter to most people. The experience mattered to me as well. Why the hell would I play the worse version of any game? Even multiplatform games being released now run worse on PS3, but the sony fanbase still buys them. They don't care that the PS3 was inferior for multiplatform games. They just care now because the xbox one might be weaker. It's nothing but hypocrisy.

I was talking about the people who are now screaming about power but would never even consider buying an xbox. I'm talking those kinds of people. There are a lot. Even on this forum. Those people are losing their minds screaming about TFLOPS and GDDR5, but last generation they happily played inferior versions even when they knew they were inferior.

That math doesn't work. 20%-30% doesnt mean double the frame rate. If all other things are equal, you would need 100% more power to get one version to run at 30 and the other to run at 60. I'm pretty sure the PS4 isn't twice as powerul as the xbox one. Each platform will have its strengths, but you also have to remember that games are optimized for those platforms. If things continue to go the way they have always gone, we won't see real differences for a few years. Or maybe we will. Who knows.

#39 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@syed117 said:

@sooty said:

@syed117 said:

As much as people say that specs matter, they really don't. Sony fans tend to be the worst hypocrites in the world when it comes to this. They are proving that now more than ever. Games are what matter. So all these people screaming about the PS4 and how powerful it is blindly devoted themselves to the PS3 despite the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on the 360? How exactly does that logic work? It's fine if you want exclusives and games are what matter, but you can't bitch about something that apparently didn't matter a generation ago. These are the same people crying about how powerful the PS4 is and how great multiplatform games will run on it. So now the xbox one is the potential piece of shit because multiplatform games might run worse on it. Right.

They matter. If I have both Xbox One and a PS4 (which I probably will), I'm not going to choose the version on the inferior platform if we're talking the difference between a solid 30 frames and dipping below it. The PS3 having bad ports always mattered, I long considered that console a piece of shit and still kind of do, the only developers that got a firm grasp on the console were Naughty Dog and Guerilla.

The 20-30% difference if even remotely true will definitely rear its head later on in the generation too, especially if rumours about some games running at 30 on one and 60 on the other are accurate.

I meant that they don't matter to most people. The experience mattered to me as well. Why the hell would I play the worse version of any game? Even multiplatform games being released now run worse on PS3, but the sony fanbase still buys them.

I was talking about the people who are now screaming about power but would never even consider buying an xbox. I'm talking those kinds of people. There are a lot. Even on this forum. Those people are losing their minds screaming about TFLOPS and GDDR5, but last generation they happily played inferior versions even when they knew they were inferior.

That math doesn't work. 20%-30% doesnt mean double the frame rate. If all other things are equal, you would need 100% more power to get one version to run at 30 and the other to run at 60. I'm pretty sure the PS4 isn't twice as powerul as the xbox one. Each platform will have its strengths, but you also have to remember that games are optimized for those platforms. If things continue to go the way they have always gone, we won't see real differences for a few years. Or maybe we will. Who knows.

I don't expect major differences due to diminishing returns in rasterized graphics at this power level and from everything I have read, this isn't a definitive one sided affair either with the X1 having its own advantages in terms of CPU, eSRAM and cloud offloading capabilities. The % difference is specifically between a GPU with more Compute Units to a GPU with fewer compute units. And then you have a difference in RAM. But that's not representative of console to console differences. There are more components than that. If the X1 was a straight copy with, the exact same architecture, a 30-50% GPU disadvantage still wouldn't amount to a 30%-50% difference, without the PS4 being better in each and every area and component. CPU, bandwith, memory, etc. But this isn't the case(or so I thought). And we're talking customized architectures.

However...I still want to know the bottom line facts of the hardware in both consoles.

#40 Posted by Fattony12000 (7251 posts) -

I think it will have video games on it.

#41 Edited by EXTomar (4625 posts) -

Anyone who builds PCs themselves regularly will tell you that "specs do matter" but as well as "cost does matter" as well as "stats are marketing" and the corollary "stats can lie". I have personally had machines I've built that on paper should have been better in performance but one or two parts had some issue like inferior driver support and it hampered it or outright hamstrung it. I wouldn't have bought that board if I had known the driver was no better than "beta" quality where the user reviews were glowing anyway. Specifically AMD's recent history has been damaged by this where AMD touted and showed on paper they should have had the superior product compared to Intel but when people put machines together and noticed how poorly it actually performed.

So in the end, I'm not really concerned if on paper the PS4 may have more power because that only is part of the story. I am much more interested in seeing the whole platform running software. It may turn out that one platform has inferior drivers or provides a cumbersome API which has a dramatic effect on user interaction. It doesn't matter how blazing fast some processor is when the OS basically locks down if some service isn't working under load.

#42 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@syed117 said:

@sooty said:

@syed117 said:

As much as people say that specs matter, they really don't. Sony fans tend to be the worst hypocrites in the world when it comes to this. They are proving that now more than ever. Games are what matter. So all these people screaming about the PS4 and how powerful it is blindly devoted themselves to the PS3 despite the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on the 360? How exactly does that logic work? It's fine if you want exclusives and games are what matter, but you can't bitch about something that apparently didn't matter a generation ago. These are the same people crying about how powerful the PS4 is and how great multiplatform games will run on it. So now the xbox one is the potential piece of shit because multiplatform games might run worse on it. Right.

They matter. If I have both Xbox One and a PS4 (which I probably will), I'm not going to choose the version on the inferior platform if we're talking the difference between a solid 30 frames and dipping below it. The PS3 having bad ports always mattered, I long considered that console a piece of shit and still kind of do, the only developers that got a firm grasp on the console were Naughty Dog and Guerilla.

The 20-30% difference if even remotely true will definitely rear its head later on in the generation too, especially if rumours about some games running at 30 on one and 60 on the other are accurate.

That math doesn't work. 20%-30% doesnt mean double the frame rate. If all other things are equal, you would need 100% more power to get one version to run at 30 and the other to run at 60. I'm pretty sure the PS4 isn't twice as powerul as the xbox one. Each platform will have its strengths, but you also have to remember that games are optimized for those platforms. If things continue to go the way they have always gone, we won't see real differences for a few years. Or maybe we will. Who knows.

I never said it did work, the two were unrelated. There were Twitter murmuring's about some games running at 30 and some 60 on other platforms. I think it was Jonathan Blow, but that guy does have a habit of talking utter shit.

#43 Posted by jimmyfenix (3851 posts) -
#44 Posted by NMC2008 (1237 posts) -

Madness is what happened. I watched that thread unfold and it was hilarious at first then it got real. lol

#45 Edited by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Not sure if it's to the benefit or detriment of Giant Bomb that closed topics on GAF end up migrating here.

Semi on-topic: Does the casual/doesn't-care-about-specs crowd outnumber the hardcore/foaming-at-the-mouth-about-specs crowd? My theory is that the latter group is in the minority and that specs don't matter as much as what games come out for which console.

#46 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@syed117 said:
@jimbo said:
@syed117 said:
People will play where they want to play regardless of "best" versions.

But 'where they want to play' is informed by where the 'best versions' tend to be. PS3 often had the shitty version of early multi-plat games and the platform suffered for it, with 360 establishing itself as the multi-plat platform of choice. Eventually the game quality and service caught up on PS3 but the damage was already done, people were just too used to playing multi-plat on 360 by then. Sony never really closed the gap in multi-plat sales despite eventually being on par in terms of console sales.

I think this does matter, especially early on and especially with the consoles going head to head right from the start. With no standout launch exclusives for either console, the comparative quality of multi-plat games will be one of the few things to help people choose between them. Arguably it won't matter because the $100 difference is likely already enough to sink X1 by itself, but Microsoft definitely can't afford for X1 to be both more expensive and have a reputation for having the weak version of multi-plat games.

You're talking about people who would even know that versions can differ in performance and visual quality.

The average person does not know that and never will. I own both and I play all multiplatform games on 360. At least up until the last year or so when I started playing them on PC when possible. It depends on how much of a difference there is. We aren't talking about one version being incredible and the other being unplayable. Most people would never notice unless they are going to places like digital foundry.

Microsoft has always been right about one thing and that is how important services are to the consumer. Xbox 360 didn't succeed because multiplatform games looked and played a bit better on it, it succeeded because of services like xbox live and the little things the guys talk about on this weeks bombcast. Little things like profile management and the relative ease of use for so many features. PS4 can be a fresh start for people but people also stick with what they are comfortable with. I know that when I get the xbox one, my friend list, chat, the party system, signing in and out of profiles and all those things will simply work. The system may be new, but those things already exist and work well right now.

I don't know how party chat, profiles, invites and all those things will work on the ps4. Yeah, it's going to be exciting figuring it all out, but Sony spent an entire generation not being able to fix those problems. It's all brand new for them. Will those things all work as easily as they should? I would like to think so, but that's an assumption based on nothing.

Do you have any idea how many times I've personally had to deal with friends and family in regards to the ps3 this generation? Most recently with the last of us. Getting people to play online. Telling them to go out and get Bluetooth headsets. Helping them set up those headsets. Going into the settings and adjusting volume and doing all those things. It's fine for people like us, but it's not ok for the average person. Yes, Sony now includes that shitty earbud but the average person already associates a part of the Sony experience with that hassle. Those feelings are hard to change and unless Sony can prove that they make it as easy as Microsoft does, people will still support the xbox one.

So you say services trump games when it comes to the broader audience? Interesting argument. Looking at how people use their boxes for Netflix primarily in the US, it certainly rings true.

However, I believe there's more of a herd mentality to the broader market, it flocks to whatever the tastemakers flock to. In case of videogame consoles, the tastemakers are core gamers. Apparently, if pre-order numbers are indicative, PS4 currently has captivated the mindshare of the core market. Reports have the pre-orders ratio pegged at 2:1 in favor of PS4.

Sure, there's a surprising amount of customers who stick by Microsoft, despite the RRoD debacle early in the 360's lifespan - this speaks volumes for the quality of the consumer experience that people had. That said, in the current climate? With how much the public distrusts and dislikes Microsoft as a whole, with that wiff of company-wide failure hanging about (falling OS sales, countless failed pushes into the handheld gadget and mobile markets, the whole NSA story, last but not least, the extremely mixed messaging in regards to the Xbox One, followed by a hasty 180 of all its policies and plans), it doesn't look at all like Microsoft will come out of this first phase ahead. In fact it looks like they'll lose a good amount of marketshare in North America and Europe, whilst they still do not have a handle on the Japanese market at all.

Microsoft isn't happy with how Xbox One is performing pre-orders wise in comparison to PS4. Enough to give them pause. To change all their policies and plans. To tinker with their CPU/GPU clockspeeds mere days before going into full production. To bundle free copies of Fifa or Forza with every Day 1 edition of their box. The constant spin on how the box isn't dramatically less powerful. They do their darndest to stay in the game. Sony has trounced them thus far, on every front.

So really, brand loyality can't be that deciding a factor.

#47 Posted by JasonR86 (9649 posts) -

Specs don't matter unless the difference is very big. Such as Wii U compared to X1 and PS4. If the difference is big enough that you see a resolution different, framerate difference, texture quality difference, etc. then the specs matter an awful lot. I just don't know what this means until games get out there and reviewers start reviewing products.

Online
#48 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

Specs don't matter unless the difference is very big. Such as Wii U compared to X1 and PS4. If the difference is big enough that you see a resolution different, framerate difference, texture quality difference, etc. then the specs matter an awful lot. I just don't know what this means until games get out there and reviewers start reviewing products.

As soon as the hardware is in a different league, sure. Wii U won't be able to run most of the games built specifically for PS4 & Xbox One & Gaming PCs. If the Wii U tried to run a game like The Witcher 3, it'd crash and burn at 3 frames per second - there's just no way.

I don't believe minor differences make that much of a difference, as long the hardware plays in the same league, seeing how Playstation 3 managed to sell equally well as the 360, despite most games running noticeably worse on it. I think it will be similar this generation with PS4 and Xbox One, just with reversed roles.

#49 Posted by Ramone (2960 posts) -

@fattony12000 said:

I think it will have video games on it.

You always were a crazy one Tony.

#50 Posted by Syed117 (387 posts) -

@seppli: the world has changed to the point where core gamers don't necessarily have the influence they used to. If that were the case, the Wii never would have taken off. That console was almost universally hated by core gamers. It was the joke of the industry for an entire generation. That's why we will probably never have another home console success like the ps2 was.

I'm not sure how sales or preorders affect me, you or anyone else. Does it really make you feel better about your purchase if other people also buy the same product? That is high school cool kid mentality at its finest.

Do you remember what happened last time? Everyone is so quick so point out how terrible the pre orders for xbox one are. Last time the PS3 launched a year later with what Sony claimed was a much more advanced console and sales were abysmal. They were terrible for a long time.

The PS3 was a financial disaster for Sony but at the end of the generation they did just fine sales wise. I think they've even pulled ahead by a few hundred thousand units. We are talking about a console that suffers from a lack of core features and is still getting inferior ports.

People writing off the xbox one because of what it might sell in the first year are ridiculous. Microsoft knows that this isn't a sprint. If it were, Sony would have collapsed within a year of the ps3 launching and the xbox 360 would never have been made.

If all hell breaks loose and one company has to go under. Who would it be? One of the largest companies in the world with billions in revenue? Or Sony, a company that is slashing, burning, and selling off massive buildings just to return to profitability?