Microsoft XBOX ONE


You know what I miss? When game companies actually competed on games. Nintendo had some games, but Sega (and later Sony, and even Microsoft in the early days) had different games, and rarely did they cross platforms. Now it's not really so much about what games you can get on each system but how good a cross platform game appears visually on each.

The XBOne could be more technically capable, better CPU and memory and all that, more features, but because companies are pushing for cross platform compatibility none of those features are likely to be used. But graphics? Graphics are easy to make cross platform compatible, even if it means lowering the resolution.

So what you have are two machines with different hardware and different capabilities, one will be better at some stuff while the second will be better at others, and it's literally come down to who has the fastest rendering engine. XBox could be way better for AI, or networking, or maybe it can handle larger maps or whatever but none of that matters: it would all be reduced to lowest common denominator.

Make no mistake, the PS4 also has things that make it superior to the XBOne that probably won't be used, my lament is that developers are no longer competing to actually make use of these features, making a game that will absolutely only run on one system or the other because it takes full advantage of the system to really blow you away.

And I can't blame them for it, either. With all this new technology comes added cost, games are bigger, teams are bigger, they need to reach the widest audience to make the most money. It's an inevitability, so long as Sony and Microsoft are stuck in their cycle. Nintendo saw the cycle and broke out of it. For better or worse, no one can look at a WiiU and make a direct comparison on graphics alone against the PS4 or XBOne.

They could have done it, demonstrated that there was a trade off and added some features that took advantage of the camera in the XBone. I don't know what they would do, simply that they could have done something so it's no longer a straight up comparison between graphics. If things don't change, it's going to be just Sony, with no competition, and that's a terrible future to conceive.
 
Please stop hating on the XBOX ONE. Every single time you post links about it...it's a negative article about it.
I see no issue in posting what's being discussed about any new console.

If that's an issue find some good news and post a link in this thread so we can read that too.
It's all good. 

There will always be these arguments and debates with new consoles. I've been there for the Coleco Vs. Intellivision Vs. 5200. I was also there for the NES Vs. Master System, as well as the SNES Vs. Genesis. It's always been in good fun.

I agree with WizardStan that the industry no longer strives for uniqueness, but I understand that for the points given. The older I get, the less concerned I seem to be with the BIG picture, as I just like playing good games. I currently own the PS3 and 360, and I pick my multiplatform games based on what system performs best with said game(the most bang for my buck), so based on my current buying practices, it's highly unlikely I'll be getting any ONE games over PS4, but there are always exclusives.

I have such a huge backlog of games currently, I would have to have my head examined to even consider buying one or the other later this month, but I'm enjoying the media foolishness in all it's glory. It's fun to watch. 

"Genesis does what Nintendon't" :p

Chris
 
1. It hasn't officially launched yet.

2. The most fascinating launch was the SS.
1. That has no bearing on the flow of news since it was 'announced' at E3 though (launched being the often used but probably misapplied term).

You can't expect silence until it hits the shelves when the companies themselves are feeding the frenzy. I've only linked to stories that have provoked debate or triple digit page threads on the main news sites - often including the official Xbox One forum.

2. It wasn't as polarising as this one (nor as much instant feedback, obviously).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe. Sony had no established gaming 'fan'base to speak of, I remember a turning point (man on the street chatter - I was involved in import/export of all things gaming at the time) towards Sony when screenshots (all we had then!) of Ridge Racer started appearing next to Daytona, expectations began to shift substantially. That, and Sony were throwing parties left right and center with freebies by the truckload, and as much drink as you could handle. All I got from Sega was stickers (I still have loads!).
 
Wow, just wow. 

Mere months ago Sony/Microsoft console advocates, and even now for that matter, make a point to assert the power of their XBox 360 and PS3 systems.  Indeed it was quite common to find such advocates trying to insist a multi-thousand dollar custom built gaming rig was necessary for there to be a perceivable difference, or that no perceivable difference existed.  (Attempts at verification showed the games called gorgeous like Uncharted revealed them to be full of jaggies, muddy textures, and other things making them difficult to look at on the demo display TVs.)  Recently the manufacturers of these system have made clear their previous generation systems are significantly less powerful then the new systems coming out later this month.

In turn the aforementioned console advocates are ripping each other apart over various things like:

-How many extra dollops of GB of RAM each will have accessible to games, out of 8GB

-The difference between a what is ideally a 7790 equivalent versus a 7870 equivalent (likely massively underclocked versus desktop cards in both cases)

And yet with no irony these same people continue advocating systems with 512 MegaBytes of RAM, and roughly an order of magnitude less processing power (according to the manufacturers).  All while simultaneously whining at exactly where the new systems land relative to each other, and bitching at the industry in general for things not looking next gen.  This compliant apparently being the result of it been 8 years instead of 5 and computers having never stopped improving which strategically get called for comparison purposes, all while the console advocate still believes their console remains equivalent to serious modern gaming computer.  Thus rather then being a long overdue catch-up upgrade, the need for the new hardware is actively questioned.

The cognitive dissonance and sense of entitlement is strong.  I think I'll stick to PC and Nintendo where it's understood console should give you gaming options and experiences that you can't casually give your computer by simply investing 20USD in a Logitech F310.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the only thing that could have changed the SS fate, was an alternate universe and a completely different set of circumstances. I loved my SS long term, but the release here in the states was CRAP! There where some truly great games released in Japan, and Sega USA didn't seem interested in translating almost any of them. Same for 3rd party titles. If not for great companies like Working Designs who filled the void, the SS wouldn't have been so great overall.

I personally don't think the internet would have changed their fate. If anything, it probably would have only made it worse.

Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They just didn't see the size of the Sony Steamroller coming, the game changed completely. The 32x hadn't helped either.

Back then you could pretty much ignore specs as a sideshow (only the number of 'bits' seemed to get people worked up) and people would gravitate toward the platform with the software titles they had seen and wanted to play, overwhelmingly exclusive to each system.

There's one reason the present war is so heated, so much software already pitched for release is cross platform, and especially where there is an initial price differential - any noticeable difference is ammunition for a new skirmish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sadly, the SS was overpriced and under powered along side the PS1, and I see a similar situation playing out currently with the PS4 & ONE.

I agree with Asmo in regard to the current lineup of multiplat games, as both consoles are new, and the fact that the PS4 games are showing better speaks volumes. If both new systems where exactly the same, I would still be placing my vote with the PS4, just for the 100 less price tag. Now when you take in to account the current performance difference, and there is no contest. This is also the current WiiU problem. It is priced more than current consoles that perform about the same, and have way better and cheaper library of games.

Now can performance change? Sure! I've seen the scales tip in almost every generation, as developers come to grips with hardware, but everyone just has such a bad taste in their mouths over all the XbOne launch details, and how MS has flip flopped on almost every intended plan they had in place.

That Kinect better be a damn fine addition for the price, otherwise it will be the anchor that pulls the XbOne to the bottom.

Chris
 
Churners-out of the COD franchise, Infinity Ward's Mark Rubin comments candidly on the resolution business:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-04-xbox-one-resolutiongate-call-of-duty-ghosts-dev-infinity-ward-responds

That Kinect better be a damn fine addition for the price
He mentions (presently untouchable) kinect resources as one barrier to higher performance..

If you prefer some levity (Heads-up, satire):

http://www.p4rgaming.com/xbox-one-buyers-convinced-720p-is-better-than-1080p/comment-page-1/#comment-89818

Or looking at his post above, I think Jebe would appreciate:

http://www.p4rgaming.com/ps4-graphics-impressive-to-people-who-have-never-played-modern-pc-games/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see...

Approximate optimal pixel density is 300PPI at 12 inches: any further than that and the human eye simply cannot distinguish from one pixel to the next so there's no point in increasing the density; closer and your eyes can tell a difference.

A 30" LCD is about 15 inches tall. 1080p means a density of 72PPI while 720p means a density of 48PPI.

300/72 = 4.17; 300/48 = 6.25

Obviously the PS3 was designed to be viewed on a 30" TV 4.17 feet from your seat while the XBone is designed to be viewed 6.25 feet away.

As everyone's mother knows, sitting too close to the TV is bad for your eyes, something about radiation burning out your eyelids. The extra 2 feet of optimal distance puts you 2 feet further from the evil TV rays. Larger TVs (which give off more evil TV rays) you will have to sit even further from to obtain the same effect. Obviously this is Microsoft looking out for your safety. Everyone praise Microsoft for their forward thinking attitude towards healthy living!
 
That's why the smart folk use projectors - the closer they sit to their screen, the further they are from the retina/scrotum withering rays.
 
^ Another myth like 3D on the 3DS ;)
Yeah it had more traction with CRT screens as they are firing electrons towards the screen which will hopefully stop there... right?
With LCD/LED you can press your face against the screen like a crazy person if you like.
 
Back
Top