That's like asking to explain why a gaming PC has more gaming potential than a current gen platform. Simply put, the PS4 reportedly is more powerful component-wise and more elegant in its architecture (conservative estimates are 25-30% more raw power, respectively frames per second), and due to the familiarity to PC and similarity to Xbox One, that will lead to smoother running prettier multiplatform games, and grander exclusives. That's what more power means to me.
Kinect has yet to prove that it adds anything to gaming that I want. Cloud computing is currently still nothing but snakeoil to me. If you chose to buy into Microsoft's corporate spin without any proof of concept given, that's your prerogative. Sony has Gaikai, so cloud computing is something Sony is taking seriously as well. Microsoft simply doesn't have the competitive edge right now. At least to me that's obvious. As is the spin that Microsoft tries to put on the situation. I feel you fell for their spin.
Sure, Xbox One is a fine enough new gen box. And it will play exclusive games that I want to play. However I chose Playstation 4 as my gaming mainstay, because it's the more powerful box for the lower price, I love PS+ and Vita, and Sony has an excellent track record in regards to interesting high quality exclusives. My user experience with Sony has only gotten better and better. Sony's definitely on the right track. Microsoft however? Not so much. With all the backpaddling that's been going on, it's clear Microsoft isn't actually doing what it wants to do right now, which doesn't inspire much trust. I'll likely get some iteration of the Xbox One, not at launch however, and not as my gaming mainstay.
Don't get me wrong I have no issues with your choice in PS4, but if you're talking about gaming potential, as a differentiating factor resulting from that power increase, well then let's talk about tech that actually introduces, changes, alters, or offers different gameplay experiences.
Because from everything that I know about graphics, gaming and how it relates to power, the 20-30% more power simply isn't going to produce any sort of revolution in your gameplay, not just over X1, but quite likely, not much different than last gen. Certainly not over what's already possible on X1. And I highly doubt you will even see this on PC either this gen, at least not until the end, even with its massive advantage of 4x the power and growing. Just like you didn't see it last generation. When the PC finally ditches rasterized graphics for ray-tracing(6-8 years minimum), and some higher end physics engine capabilities, you might be able to get some innovating gameplay changes from that move.
"Gaming potential" is a nice buzzword, but you're really using it loosely and extremely misapplied in this case imo. If you are talking about actual GAMING and GAMEPLAY and you are expecting that difference in hardware to produce anything remotely different or anything on the level that something like Kinect or cloud will, I don't see it. At least I can directly point the finger to something like the cloud and say....persistent worlds and dedicated servers...or voice recognition...or gesture recognition that's directly related to the hardware of the console and translates to something that changes how the game plays or is played. When you're talking about a 20-30% increase over the X1 in GPU, which itself is a huge increase over last generation...what are we really talking about? What do you tangibly expect that to do? What type of "gaming" will that actually translate into that won't be possible in some sort of way on the X1? How drastically different is that power going to allow Killzone 4 to be compared to the next Halo? Same freaking games.
Prettier textures? A higher polygon count model? Perhaps higher res in some games? To me that's graphics and image quality. Gaming potential is still about playing and gameplay to me, genre-defining games, gameplay innovation, etc. And in the past, when you could tie this to raw power it was because it actually allowed for different type of games due to the power allowing for some drastically different graphical techniques or massively increased geometry capabilities. Whether it meant an RTS title with lots of enemies on screen that before wasn't possible, or we needed to have expansive environments with large draw distances to have games like Halo and Battlefield, or something like Dead Rising with a whole bunch of zombies on screen, or a game like Thief or Splinter Cell which used dynamic lights and shadows to affect gameplay, whether it was online multiplayer, whatever.....that is "gaming potential" resulting from power increase.
But I just don't see this 20-30% really introducing any new gameplay changing tech or possibilities. The PC, which probably has a better chance, has 4x the power right now and there's nothing brewing over there either. Nvidia's trying to run a ray-tracing engine at sub 30fps with 2 Titan graphics card filled with noise. Think about that. What you are talking about is a higher graphical setting on your PC. As I said, spit and shine.
I think MS made the smarter move here by putting their money in the right technology. It's money much better spent on tech that will allow for a lot more gaming potential, a lot more creativity, and differentiating, compared to an increase in GPU power. Anyway, I just think you were using it more as an acceptable buzzword that sounds good, but without really thinking about it, rather than something actually related to gaming, that can be directly tied to being produced by that power. I think as this generation goes on, games like Project Spark, Kinect Sports Rivals, and voice recognition will truly differentiate the X1. And you see this at launch. I don't see this from that GPU increase at launch or on the horizon.
I can't fathom of a game type or gameplay experience that MUST have that 20-30% extra or else it can't be replicated. I just can't. I can think of quite a few game features or that require Kinect or the cloud, that simply won't be possible with out it. At all.
Log in to comment