XB1 has 60% less RAM bandwidth + less GPU cores than PS4?

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

Those numbers are big, but mean very little. A badly ported game will still run bad.

The key for consoles, perhaps for a little while, has not been the specs, Xbox 360 proved that, it has been the hype, and the ease of porting.

For example: Wii U. It very well could be more powerful then the other consoles right now, but since it is hard to port to, and no one really wanted to buy one, no one is porting their games to it.

#52 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1039 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

I fixed it for you.

@eujin

said:

will just mean that Xbox versions of multiplatform games are going to look like a PC game running at low settings, and a PS4 version will have them running at high

What is it like to have a crystal ball?

My laptop on low settings provides better visuals than this, they should rename the XB1 version to TitanASS.

#53 Posted by xyzygy (9894 posts) -

PS3 was more powerful than the 360. So, uh, how was the frame rate on Bayonetta for PS3? And that Skyrim game you got going on PS3 how did that work out?

Specs are meaningless.

I must say they are interesting to look at though.

Just plan on buying both by the end of the cycle.

So much this. A game's quality stands apart from how much more powerful one console is than another.

#54 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

@subjugation said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

I fixed it for you.

@eujin

said:

will just mean that Xbox versions of multiplatform games are going to look like a PC game running at low settings, and a PS4 version will have them running at high

What is it like to have a crystal ball?

My laptop on low settings provides better visuals than this, they should rename the XB1 version to TitanASS.

On a game thats not even out for another year....

Also Ryse and Forza.

#55 Edited by Deranged (1837 posts) -

Oy vey.

You know what I like? Playing some goddamn vidja games.

#58 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Sorry to all, I didn't mean to start a war of sorts...just echoing what I heard. At this point not even the hardware that is out is guaranteed to be the hardware at launch for these consoles, as MS is still talking to DEVs about a RAM upgrade and/or a GPU boost..I'm no tech head, I have no idea how these things will effect the consoles, the games, or the DEVs work on those games; it is nice to see informative comments on the internet.

With that being said, I started a petition to help Major Nelsons "it's up to devs to include mods" words reach the light of day. The petition is aimed at MS helping the DEVs buy giving them a share of used games sales so that the DEVs can release free DLC and open markets for user-made content. If you are interested in the petition and it's details PM me or go to this link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/microsoft-help-establish-a-mod-market-for-console-games

Not trying to post jack, but if this petition could make it to who it is aimed at and have an affect then these bandwidth/RAM issues would seem less important. Imagine Fallout 4 with user-made mods, entire new worlds to explore on games like Destiny or a game like Mass Effect. Graphics need to be a secondary desire; we need and can bring game-play to center stage as the most important feature in games. If you agree, please sign, and share with everyone you know who would like to sign. Thank you

Stop spamming this crap. Its not allowed at all.

#59 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -
@trafalgarlaw said:
@subjugation said:
@trafalgarlaw said:

I fixed it for you.

@eujin

said:

will just mean that Xbox versions of multiplatform games are going to look like a PC game running at low settings, and a PS4 version will have them running at high

What is it like to have a crystal ball?

My laptop on low settings provides better visuals than this, they should rename the XB1 version to TitanASS.

When I play Titanfall, I'm going to PAUSE the game, exactly at that split second, stare at my screen, observe the clipping, get mad and quit.

BTW, TitanFall is using Valve's Source engine. It has little to do with what the X1 can do, obviously since we have seen plenty of other games without low res texture issues, but rather with the developer's choice in going with an old engine for their game and 60fps. Trying to use this as an example of what's going to happen in multiplatform titles is just dumb.

One thing I can say about TitanFall is that while the level of detail in textures up close is lower than other next gen games, it doesn't suffer from the more annoying issues like the noticeable LOD and pop-in I have observed in other so called next gen games. It has a huge draw distance, and runs at a silky smooth 60fps, with NO pop-in, even if I decide to get on top of a building.

So how about giving credit where credit is due, since it's one of the few next gen games that actually does the basics right.

PS: Your laptop, on low or high settings isn't going to produce a better visual than that if the texture being used is a native low res texture, which is the case here. It's going to look exactly the same.

#61 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

While Xbox One is indubitably the weaker hardware, it's more than strong enough to be a true new generation system. It's certainly no WiiU. Looking at a game like Ryse - yes, Xbox One has the goods to satisfy me.

I have opted for Playstation 4 over Xbox One at launch, because I get more bang for my buck. More processing power at a lower pricetag. Multiplatform games likely running smoother on it. PS+ and Vita integration. Simply put, PS4 offers more gaming potential for less money - it's the better deal.

However, if games like Ryse prove anything (regardless of it actually turning out great or not), it's that I want to play some of Xbox One's exclusives, and with every such game Microsoft releases, I am more likely to buy into Xbox One. Seeing how I'm already tempted, they're doing a great job in delivering said experiences.

Look at Ryse's GamesCom trailer and tell me it doesn't remind you of Shadow of Rome, the PS2 era's most underappreciated game? One of my all time favorites. Yep, keep hitting my niche and I'll be into the fold soon. Likely not as my gaming mainstay, but who knows...

That thing hits in my niche. All that's missing is weighty Capcom-esque animation priority, and it'd be perfect. I'll never understand how developers favor auto targeting over Z-targeting/active skilldriven targeting.

#62 Posted by SolidStateSR71 (6 posts) -

Specs don't really matter in the end.. In a way it depends on the developers main console and even then.. You will get close to the same experience in Multi Console games.. on both.. they will not make two different games for the two different consoles.. They make sure they're stable on each system.

#63 Posted by HiroKedyn (32 posts) -

Specs matter, but only to a certain point. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360. The 360 has a 3 core CPU vs the PS3's 7 core CPU and yet the games look the same and some of the multiplatform games look and run better on the 360. The PS4 and Xbox 1 are closer spec wise than the current gens. SolidState is right, the developers are going to make the difference in how the games look and how smooth they run.

#64 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@seppli said:

I have opted for Playstation 4 over Xbox One at launch, because I get more bang for my buck. More processing power at a lower pricetag. Multiplatform games likely running smoother on it. PS+ and Vita integration. Simply put, PS4 offers more gaming potential for less money - it's the better deal.

I feel the complete opposite except you have to pay more to get it. I'm just curious how does a minor difference in graphics actually offer more gaming potential than Kinect, cloud gaming and dedicated servers?
I think you're getting what you're paying for. In both instances. The graphics difference between the two consoles will not actually lead to a different gaming capability. This hasn't been the case for years.

If the PS4 was capable of doing real time ray-racing or running insane complex physics in real time that would actually produce games otherwise not possible on other consoles, I would understand. But we're talking spit and shine here. Not one console can run GTA and the other can't.

I think we're already seeing this on Xbox One with games like Project Spark that gives you a very different game and has REAL, tangible, realized gaming potential. Like the ability to record facial animation, voice, and body motion and integrated into the gameplay.

That to me is actual gaming potential that has turned into a tangible gameplay difference. At launch. And a lot of other Kinect games. I think people who prefer the best image quality and is very important to them, should say so, but should stop calling it something else.

#65 Posted by cloudnineboya (764 posts) -

Oh god did not expect to come in this thread and find name of a old game i wanted to play back in the day but never got to, i had forgotten the name as well but now i know ,so thanks thread.

#66 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

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.

#67 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@seppli said:

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.

#68 Posted by Istealdreams (148 posts) -

You may not work for Microsoft, but I don't think that I've ever seen someone work so hard to prove that their system of choice is the best one.

Btw: "The Cloud" is a buzzword as well.

#69 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@seppli said:

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.

Sony is not, how you are so deftly implying, ignoring the potential of motion controls and cloud computing - namely its efforts are Playstation Eye and Gaikai. So if something comes of *The Cloud*, Sony's right there with Microsoft. Same goes for camera based motion controls.

I'll repeat myself one last time. I'll start caring about Kinect 2.0, if it proves itself to be something that I want, and can't get from Sony's Playstation Eye. Microsoft's *The Coud* is as of now nothing but Snakeoil. Again the proof is in the putting. I've seen Sony's cloud computing service in action. I've played Mass Effect 2 via Gaikai on PC. What Sony's promising with cloud computing is both feasible and enticing - and it's not like Microsoft's *Cloud* is some proprietary tech. If cloud offloading is viable, it can and will be done for Sony experiences as well.

Power-wise, we are looking at scenarios where the same multiplatform game is locked at 30 FPS on Xbox One, and 60 FPS on Playstation 4. Or one being rendered in 720p (Xbox One), the other in 1080p (PS4). So don't tell me it doesn't matter. It certainly matters to me. What can be done with the much higher memory bandwidth and the increased graphical capabilities of PS4's stronger GPU in terms of first party exclusives? We will see. The games certainly won't be less exciting because of it.

I'll readily admit that Xbox One and Playstation 4 play in the same *New Generation* league, Playstation 4 just is up to 30% more performant at a 25% lower pricetag - so clearly it's the better launch day deal.

#70 Posted by chiablo (904 posts) -

PS3 was more powerful than the 360. So, uh, how was the frame rate on Bayonetta for PS3? And that Skyrim game you got going on PS3 how did that work out?

Specs are meaningless.

I must say they are interesting to look at though.

Just plan on buying both by the end of the cycle.

This is a poor example because the PS3 had such weird architecture that you end up comparing apples to oranges. It's much different this time around because both systems are using AMD hardware, now we're comparing apples to apples.

But I will agree that specs don't matter. Game developers will code for the least powerful system, so whichever has the worst performance will be the one they aim for.

Online
#71 Posted by Jeust (10477 posts) -

@huey2k2 said:

The winner of each generation is clearly decided by which system is most powerful. Right?

I mean, the PS3 handily defeated the 360. The original Xbox destroyed the PS2. All those things happened right? RIGHT?!?!

The gamecube much like the PS4(comparing it to the new Xbox) had more/better ram than the PS2 and a better GPU. How'd that work out for Nintendo...

This was all the same talk before the PS3 and Xbox 360 came out and it amounted to nothing.

Yeah, but the PS4 isn't neither the PS3 or the Xbox or the Gamecube. Unlike the PS3, it is surrounded by positive publicity and games, and its cheaper comparing to the Xbox One unlike the PS3 against the Xbox 360. Unlike the original Xbox and Gamecube, there is a strong third party catalogue. The PS4 and Xbox One are different beasts from those in the past, and there is no rightful comparison unless you go for the Super Nintendo and Genesis, still it is a bit forced.

PS3 was more powerful than the 360. So, uh, how was the frame rate on Bayonetta for PS3? And that Skyrim game you got going on PS3 how did that work out?

Specs are meaningless.

I must say they are interesting to look at though.

Just plan on buying both by the end of the cycle.

Yeah, but given the available information, Sony is making a push to ease the programming burden of the developers, so frame rate issues and bugs are probably going to be less frequent, and if the PS4 takes lead in the console development the situation can easily reverse.

#72 Edited by Sergio (2050 posts) -

@alexglass: You seriously work way to hard to defend and promote your console of choice. You really don't need to make up excuses for why you're getting an Xbox One, all you really need is to point out that it has more exclusive titles on it that you want to play. That's your gaming preference. Other people might not care about Killer Instinct or any other game that you're looking forward to, and may be more interested in Knack or inFamous: Second Son, and their choice of the PS4 is right for them.

It's factual to say that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. By how much, and will it matter in the end, is yet to be seen. People pointing to the power difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 are either disingenuous or ignorant of the fact that the PS3 was harder to develop for.

The cloud will not magically change this. It's been around for a while before this marketing buzzword has been bandied about by Microsoft. What you're hoping for hasn't been proven in a commercial game yet, and isn't proprietary to Xbox One as much as you think it is. If most internet infrastructures in the future are capable of providing the correct amount of latency for players, then we might see some cool things. That doesn't shut Sony out.

The one advantage (or disadvantage for some) that Kinect has is that it comes with every Xbox One. Sony has its own motion-gaming initiative. I have yet to see anything from Fantasia that wouldn't be possible with an alternate motion-control scheme, but some people aren't interested in that game as much as others. Voice recognition has been used in games long before the first Kinect. The one cool thing I can think of is being able to launch a game with my voice instead of digging through Microsoft's UI without the need of a headset.

#73 Posted by Tobiass (150 posts) -
#74 Posted by SongWriter1987 (123 posts) -

Do you console kids really care about this shit? I mean, games will look the same on both systems. If you really wanna cry about specs build a gaming PC... I'm pretty sure Jeff and Brad will keep playing multi-plats on PC until the must have exclusives come around. (and I mean real exclusives, not Xbone + PC).

#75 Posted by Spoonman671 (4560 posts) -

Do you console kids really care about this shit? I mean, games will look the same on both systems. If you really wanna cry about specs build a gaming PC... I'm pretty sure Jeff and Brad will keep playing multi-plats on PC until the must have exclusives come around. (and I mean real exclusives, not Xbone + PC).

Console kids? I'm sure your opinion will be highly regarded here on Giant Bomb.

#76 Posted by JasonR86 (9608 posts) -

@songwriter1987 said:

Do you console kids really care about this shit? I mean, games will look the same on both systems. If you really wanna cry about specs build a gaming PC... I'm pretty sure Jeff and Brad will keep playing multi-plats on PC until the must have exclusives come around. (and I mean real exclusives, not Xbone + PC).

Console kids? I'm sure your opinion will be highly regarded here on Giant Bomb.

I know I'm taking note.

#77 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

For what its worth John Carmack and Kojima have both stated its not something to worry about in power difference.

#78 Posted by Sinusoidal (1293 posts) -

Not only do the numbers not mean anything because history has taught us so, they also mean nothing because nowadays they're one firmware upgrade away from changing anyway.

At least these mysterious games-can-pseudo-temporarily-accessorate-73.54%-of-the-RAM-bandwidth-GPU-speed-cores-cloud bullshit numbers we see constantly popping up.

Not buying either system until they've proved stable (after Microsoft's disastrous RRoD and Sony's somewhat lesser disastrous YLoD, I don't know why anyone would pre-order a brand new unproven console these days, especially in the light of the number of huge policy changes we've seen so close to release that are less than reassuring they've got a quality product on their hands) and there are some better-than-launch quality games out.

#79 Posted by Sinusoidal (1293 posts) -

Not only do the numbers not mean anything because history has taught us so, they also mean nothing because nowadays they're one firmware upgrade away from changing anyway.

At least these mysterious games-can-pseudo-temporarily-accessorate-73.54%-of-the-RAM-bandwidth-GPU-speed-cores-cloud bullshit numbers we see constantly popping up.

Not buying either system until they've proved stable (after Microsoft's disastrous RRoD and Sony's somewhat lesser disastrous YLoD, I don't know why anyone would pre-order a brand new unproven console these days, especially in the light of the number of huge policy changes we've seen so close to release that are less than reassuring they've got a quality product on their hands) and there are some better-than-launch quality games out.

#80 Posted by elko84 (1040 posts) -

Yo, my box is better than your box, bro.

#81 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2224 posts) -

I find it really fascinating that I learned Titanfall is using the Source engine in this thread.

#82 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

You may not work for Microsoft, but I don't think that I've ever seen someone work so hard to prove that their system of choice is the best one.

Btw: "The Cloud" is a buzzword as well.

Really? What should they use?

#84 Posted by Scampbell (491 posts) -

I find it really fascinating that I learned Titanfall is using the Source engine in this thread.

Actually yes, I guess it is partly due to the fact that they expected to release it for current generation, but found out it wouldn't be possible for whatever reason. And to be able to get a stable framrate of 60 fps.

It is kinda cool, sure it wont be the best looking game ever, but even light gaming PCs will be able to run it at at least 60 fps.

#85 Posted by TheHT (10888 posts) -

so it's xbots for MS fans but pswhores for sony ones?

just want to get this out of the way. :)

sony crony is waaaaaaaaay better.

#86 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Edit. Well fuck. Went to edit something and my entire post deleted its self.

Log story short. Buddy who has built computers for a long time says he doesn't think the games will look super different and that we will really only notice with exclusives.

#87 Edited by GreggD (4477 posts) -

@deranged said:

Oy vey.

You know what I like? Playing some goddamn vidja games.

Boy howdy, so do I. Also, while you dudes are arguing over semantic graphics differences, I'll be playing GTAV and not giving a FUCK about the upcoming gen. Also, BF4 on my new PC.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.