The amount of memory and computation speeds are two of the most important factors in deciding where games technology will be going next.
More scarier? Good one gaming bolt.
Sorry about that. Fixed now.
Good thing PS4 has 1.81 tflop with 8 ACE. Once Async Compute becomes more popular, it will properly take advantage of the far stronger GPU.
@apex Far stronger? No, not really.
Sureshot# Im sorry but for some pepole 1.6ghz to 1.75ghz is massive change but 1.84 tlof vs 1.3 tlof is not? Absolutely ridiculous
@Sureshot 40% compute power is pretty large. Thats almost as if having 3 Xbox One to match power of 2 PS4. To add to that you have 8 Ace over 2 ACE. But like DRanzer said, you can talk about how big less than 10 percent clock increase is. Even though that that only reduced the power gap from 50% to now 40%.
Come back when the PS4 is pushing 4K triple plats. Until then, no, the difference is negligible between the consoles.
@Apex Having an extra core used for gaming (7 not 6) all running slightly faster then the PS4 CPU is considered a decent gap aswell. Lets do the maths shall we. PS4 - 1.6ghz x6 = 9.6ghz XB1 - 1.75ghz x6 = 10.5ghz That's 0.9ghz more CPU usage in favour of XB1, now add 50% of the 7th core available for devs to use and you get 0.85ghz. Now add that to 10.5ghz and you have a total of 11.3ghz of CPU processing power. 11.3ghz - 9.6ghz = 1.7ghz more CPU processing. Now I used 50% of the 7th core and its been claimed that devs can use even more I think up to 75% of the 7th core if they wanted to. Sure the PS4 GPU has a 40% more compute power but the XB1 has 1.7ghz CPU advantage over the PS4 and considering the CPUs are the bottlenecks with these current systems, it seems PS4 is going to need a much more powerful GPU to make up for the CPU because games are becoming more CPU reliant since Consoles are now focusing on the PC market games. Also DX12 is suppose to push the X1 CPU even further ahead. GPUs in both systems arent the problem, the problem is the CPU which it seems the X1 has that advantage in current and future specs.
OMG!! This is just so crazy scary and frightening!!!!! How will I cope with this?!?!?! This revelation is going to make me impotent because its so shocking! In fact, this is so frightening that I am not going to even click the article to read it!!! The horror!!!!!!
"GPUs in both systems arent the problem, the problem is the CPU which it seems the X1 has that advantage in current and future specs." True, microsoft built a balanced system, sony beefed up a GPU in vain, clearly built a bottleneck into the system.
[email protected] What bottleneck? 90% of multiplatform games runs on higher res and fps on ps4,and again you distorts the facts
Rashid, Another one of them stories that take an interview chops it up and takes stuff out of context and make it barely comprehensible? Reality is that this is moot, consoles are destined to be weaker than PC. We aren't buying consoles due to the "powah" and "resolution" despite what one group of fanboys will tell you. In fact the difference between console and PC is in magnitudes i.e. we aren't talking 50%, we are talking 1000% (10x). On the flip side though, Xbox One will beat even a high end gaming PC several times over with Crackdown 3 cloud powered physics technology! Who knows what else developers can do with that technology! If you aren't on Xbox One already, consider: * best lineup in console game history with exclusives like Halo 5, Forza 6, ReCore, ScaleBound, Quantum Break, Gears of War 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider and lots lots more. * backwards compatibility * all 4x Xbox 360 gears of war game included * best in class online multiplayer experience with Xbox Live Cloud * Crackdown 3 cloud technology next year that a high end PC cannot even match or get close too. Beta in summer of 2016 * new dashboard * monthly updated features * all GwG free will be compatible with BC so 4 free games a month on Xbox One * EA Access for $30 and you get a vault of full games you can play all for free. Games include Titanfall, Dragon Age Inquisition, Need for Speed, UFC, and a host of others. It is the Netflix of gaming! * AND SO MUCH MORE! What are you waiting for. Jump in now!!! It is a dang good time to be an Xbox One gamer!!! :D
Azz any slight advantage the xone has in cpu speed (and it is slight) is far outweighed by the superior GPU not to mention memory in the PS4, to pretend otherwise is ignorance of the highest order. Xbox One: 1.18 Teraflop GPU with 12 active Compute Units (2 disabled) 768 Shaders 48 Texture mapping units 16 Render output units 2 Asynchronous Compute Engines with 16 queues PlayStation 4: 1.84 Teraflop GPU with 18 active Compute Units (2 disabled) // 56% higher than Xbox One 1152 Shaders // 50% more 72 Texture mapping units // 50% more 32 Render output units // 100% more 8 Asynchronous Compute Engines with 64 queues // 400% more
@Azzanation X1 7th GPU is not "unlocked" It still gets used for OS most of the time. MS allowed dev to access it if there is no OS stuff going on. Which dev have mentioned that would result to being useful only 3 % of the times. Not to mention you cant really rely on it because it is based on users activity. "GPUS arent the problem" LOL. you ever notice lower res and reduced effects. pop ups? low vegetation? less polygon? or lower framerate during heavier action? Yea. Those are all due to weaker GPU.
Also, PS4 has second CPU for helping out with OS. Yes. The supposedly super X1 secret sauce of second CPU is real on PS4.
donthate, PC isn't a thing that exists with awesome magical powers. "the difference between console and PC is..." Is? Whose PC? My neighbor's? My grandma's PC runs Battlefield 5 at 8000p 26000 frames per second? IS 1000% more powerful than current gen consoles? Is? Or a capable one IS. 'A higher end PC IS capable of being 1000% more powerful.' Qualify your statements, because "PC" isn't a specific thing that exists. Yet you PC folk continually talk like it is.
@donthate Let's not go overboard here...the XBO is a great system with an easy potential to end up the best Xbox to ever hit the market, but we are still waiting for these consoles to hit their stride. You can't honestly say that the XBO has the "greatest lineup in console gaming history" and then go on to name all of the titles that haven't even been released yet. Name cache alone will not guarantee quality, we saw that last gen with Gears Judgment. I'm all for being pumped about the potential on offer but people really need to learn to temper their expectations when it comes to unknown properties like ReCore or brand new gaming tech like the destruction in Crackdown. Let's see how these games release, because lists & numbers mean nothing if they aren't backed up by inherent quality. People are really setting themselves up for disappointment when they hype games & lineups as the greatest thing to happen since the beginning of games themselves. Hard for any box to live up to that kind of hype.
@Azz I will also add this and this will basically end the discussion. CPU Power Difference:0.01 Tflop in X1 advantage. GPU Power Difference:0.5 Tflop in PS4 advantage. You are trying to make a hill out of a mole. 0.01 tflop difference... really? Again that is not even counting the second CPU that PS4 has. @EeJLP- Not only that, user Donthate's message sounds straight up Xbox One advertising.
Now I'm just wondering what a 1000% (10x) more capable gaming PC costs.. taking optimization into account you'd need more than 10x to result in 10x. Anyone post the cost of a 20+ tflop PC (John Carmack [Doom/Quake/etc.] supposedly says you need about double in PC strength just to be equal to console. Whether that's true or not, we may need to see 36 tflops to be 10x a PS4), that would be helpful.. with general specs so there's clarity if something isn't accounted for. Quad 980 TIs at ~$2600 for just the GPUs I'm assuming might get to that number. Someone more knowledgeable though, because I'm not sure how the CPU, RAM, etc. factor in to calculating tflops. I'm seeing 5.63 tflops for a 980 TI. So yea, at least quad highest end GPUs.. I believe I've also read in the past that dual GPUs for example likely don't give you double the real world performance. Again, I could be wrong, but I'm thinking these 10x more capable gaming PCs don't exist or they're prohibitively expensive for just about everybody.
@amiga-man "Azz any slight advantage the xone has in cpu speed (and it is slight) is far outweighed by the superior GPU not to mention memory in the PS4, to pretend otherwise is ignorance of the highest order. Xbox One: 1.18 Teraflop GPU with 12 active Compute Units (2 disabled) 768 Shaders 48 Texture mapping units 16 Render output units 2 Asynchronous Compute Engines with 16 queues PlayStation 4: 1.84 Teraflop GPU with 18 active Compute Units (2 disabled) // 56% higher than Xbox One 1152 Shaders // 50% more 72 Texture mapping units // 50% more 32 Render output units // 100% more 8 Asynchronous Compute Engines with 64 queues // 400% more" does not matter how much proof you show to Xbox1 FANBOYS they will never agree that the ps4 has more power, it is pointless to point it out to them they wear MS BLINKERS, unlike true gamers who dont wear blinkers they go by facts shame they cannot learn to use facts instead of bullshit they keep spouting.
That's more better. Thank you!
For all of the numbers being thrown around here, people seem to forget that only one console can do BC and HEVC processing. Both were deemed impossible tasks by numerous mainstream tech sites. Where does this power come from then? Apparently, not from anywhere that's been factored into the 1.3tf...
@TheCommentator "For all of the numbers being thrown around here, people seem to forget that only one console can do BC and HEVC processing. Both were deemed impossible tasks by numerous mainstream tech sites. Where does this power come from then? Apparently, not from anywhere that's been factored into the 1.3tf.." can you put a 360 game into a xbox1 and play it no you cannot so it is not BC it does converted games to run on xbox1 which is not the same as TRUE BC.
Yeah man can't wait 2 see more games using the tech CrackDown 3 is using .
That still is in the concept phase, watching something running on a devkit in a controlled space is one thing, running at home on a user end console is another. The theory is fantastic, I just hope the practice lives up to the concept.
Yep, always online after all. Mission accomplished.
My question is "What about people with sub par internet capabilities?" Will they still ride the clouds claim to fame?
@ b163o1 They don't matter.
@Shaun Why don't they matter? I'd be pissed to buy a system, then learn down the line that it has the capability to basically upgrade itself, but based on my shi*ty internet service I'll be stuck in the past....
Foehammer: "Future looks bright" So what you're saying is, Greatness Awaits? ;-)
Well, it is VERY scary! oh whait, all consoles run out of both at some point (however I think 8GB is pretty big for the kind of computing ressources we have in these machiens... especially given the unified memory structure the PS4 has). Eitherway, a game that would require "more" processing would means improved physics and other simulated aspects being done locally WHILE keeping very good graphical details, image quality, etc. or just running everything we have now at 1080p 60fps! In a way they are alreaday "out" because most games have some level of frame drops or are locked at a frame rate that is below that of the display (60fps)... That running out thing is basically B.S. computers, all of them were always out of memory and processing, super computers can take days (or months) to finish rendering some simulation, render farms can take hours to output a single frame of a movie, database servers can require hundreds of gigabytes of memory of RAM just for their daily operations, web servers can only handle x amount of requests per seconds before slowing down or completely crashing, game machines, be it PC or consoles all need some trade offs to run games at a given frame rate/resolution... you cannot just declare a machine ahs run out of ressources like that, it depends on the scope of the project you want to achieve! Many games run well on the XB1, even the Wii U, like many games ran pretty well on the Neo-Geo back in the day, it had only 64KB of RAM and a 12mhz CPU coupled with a very nice graphics processor that could handle tons of sprites, the machine never ran out of steam as long as you did not try to make it do stuff it was not meant for!
Sony should have just went with a updated Cell ... Those tablet CPU's are a joke and the gpu is a low to mid range laptop gpu :/ .... Imaging if Sony went with the cell again games like drive club would easily be doing 60fps.... That Mark guy really fbomb the ps4 this gen I wish crazy Ken was still in charge of the PS designs.
Sony played it safe this gen. The Cell would have cost more money to add not tot mention, they wanted to ensure devs found it easy to develop on the consoles.
While the Cell was a very good device many developers had a difficult time with it so like "Sunny_D" said Sony played it safe although they did decide on GDDR5 instead of DDR3 which looks like a good call. Still from what I have read Sony did canvas Developers on what type of hardware they would like keeping in mind that they wanted a machine that was relatively cheap to build yet fairly powerful as well.
Hopefully Nintendo will fix this problem with the NX. They won't have any problems getting third party support if games can run at 1080p 60fps with no drops or graphical sacrifices.
Seeing as the latest leak mentioned optional optical drives, easy development on phones, tablets, portables and home consoles, I'm hoping Nintendo has a multi-tier platform :) maybe a 1440p/4k model, keep the wiiu and a standard NX for 1080p, that would be stellar
Scary? What is this a 10 year old writing this ? Can we get some grown ups / adults to write these articles please.
The PS3 and 360 were released almost 10 years ago and they have 512mb of ram but guess what? It's 2015 and developers are still finding ways to squeeze games into the 360 and PS3 even with all the limited memory those consoles have. Look at games like Killzone 1&2, Uncharted, TLOU, GOW 3, Beyond Two Souls and Crysis 3. If developers can fit those games onto 512mb and work with 512mb of ram for 10 plus years than I think they can work with 8. It's all about optimization. If you optimize games correctly then they will run on these consoles. These consoles will be fine.
Agreed. Have many not realized MGSV is also on those last gen consoles? Its about about support, merely having the hardware doesn't mean it will get supported. Both MS and Sony did a good job with their consoles. I don't care for PC folks who keep making it sound as if something is wrong with console tech..the point it to remain profitable while making a quality system with quality design. They do just that quite fine every gen. I'm fine with how they made them and I own a gaming PC and PS4.
The crazy thing to me was watching the comparison videos for MGSV between 360 & XBO...they were very close in a lot of aspects. That's not knocking the current gen versions, it's just a testament to last gen & the Fox Engine that they are still making games look so amazing. This gen is all about the smaller details that this new horsepower allows. It makes all the difference for a game in motion to see the tiny muscles rippling in a horses leg, or to see the subsurface scattering on skin surfaces, along with all of the many points of articulation, the sharper draw distances & the increased particle counts & volumetric smoke effects. We are really reaching the upper limits of what console gaming can be in a lot of ways, and now that we are hitting these second & third years on the market, we will start seeing the actual quality & length of these games catch up to the graphical advantages to mark the first true wave of what next gen will be. We've already seen a few titles here & there start hitting these marks but this holiday season is when the floodgates open, and they don't close until the next gen is gearing up. Exciting times for sure, I personally don't see any kind of hardware limitations putting a damper on these systems, the most important aspect of gaming in any realm, be it Nintendo, Xbox, PS or PC, will be & has always been the creative minds that shape the medium & create the software, not the hardware they utilize to do so. As a guitarist we all have a saying, it's not about your tools, it's all in how you use them. Give one guy a 5,000 dollar Les Paul and he still won't sound as good as the guy with the 100 dollar Squier unless he knows how to properly play it.
@edmix I agree with you, but let me say one thing. PC is my primary gaming platform, and like many others, I do not hate on any of the consoles, not even the Wii U. These PC elitists give a bad name to the average gamer. Most PC gamers, I would say in my experience 90-95%, game on consoles as well, because we like games no matter the platform. Anyway, I'm not chiding you, just wanted to let you know that sane PC folks exist.
@Ben-Rage-3- thanks so much! Much appreciated. As someone that games on all platform types, I just hate hearing PC only gamers try to hype up or exaggerate the market. Be real about the situation. I own a gaming PC and I'm not going around stating its "better" or anything like that. Its "better" by a technical default, that doesn't mean much in the way of support. Is a NASA computer not BETTER then a gaming PC? When did any company make a game that supported that? lol. Having hardware doesn't mean having support. The ironic thing about PC being more powerful due to being modular is that it can't get specific support on the high end due to low returns. Many need to ask themselves...how many games have they seen require SLI? Crossfire? How many games require a Titan X as minimum entry points? By having hardware that anyone can just change based on choice, they also create an install base with many, many different varitions, ie 100 million PC's are not the same as 100 million current gen consoles. 100 million current gen consoles all have the same base specs, 100 million PCs could be low end, high end etc. Thus, many publishers run the risk of losing money if they support only the high end, thus...they lower settings to support the low end, its no different then PS3 and 360 getting support with cross gen games. How many would like to see GTAVI on PS3 and 360 just because? Many might, more likely would rather a full current gen version. This very same dilemma goes on in the community of PC gaming. Many might not like to see so much attention being put on scaling a game and would like to see more attention for higher end. That becomes hard when higher end PC gamers don't upgrade anything like what console gamers do during the start of a gen. Long story short....PC gaming needs more games like Star Citizen pushing the tech and stating, upgrade or stay home. Thats the way it needs to be, but thats something many publishers clearly won't do as even Star Citizen needed to be crowded funded just to exist in its current state. PC gaming is amazing for what it is, but the high end will remain small due to the price to actually obtain high end parts and publishers will always treat it as a place to make money from ports from as its not big enough to support exclusive content. Thats not even a dis, that is just reality.
The scariest thing is the developer who don't know what optimization is
What did you say about Ubisoft ?? How dare you :p
Well said ! Hardware is not as important as game developers.
They work together, devs should not try to do something stupid with the hardware they have, but they should also have enough vision to think what they would do if they had more power or memory (if they needed it). That is a strange discussion to have because we first need to establish what it means to run out of either memory or processing power (be it CPU or GPU bound)... I have a PS4 and I'm satisfied with it, but from my point of view any game that does not run at 1080p/60fps is over reaching in some way (30fpslock works, it's just not optimal)...
@triplec One small thing is that current gen games have a lot more higher standards, gaming engines back in the 360 and PS3 days weren't that far ahead of what consoles could deliver where as for the XB1 and PS4 gaming engines like Unreal Engine 4 etc are far beyond what todays consoles can achieve. The power gap has been blown out of the water this gen with technology where as I remember when Gears of War released on the 360 it was the best looking game period because the 360 was more powerful then current PCs in its day. Today consoles are playing catch up on technology that have already done laps around these machines. The gap will further increase every year and consoles are becoming more like Phones, after a year there far from up-to-date.
I'm not sure if you know this but games like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter use Unreal Engine 4 on the PS4. Hell, some Unreal Engine 4 games run on cellphones lol. This goes back to what i was saying before. It's all about optimization. You're comparing consoles to PC's instead of judging them on their own merits. Of course games aren't going to run as well on consoles as they do on PC's. Consoles are static but developers know what's inside the box so they can code and optimize games for that specific set of hardware so consoles being static have the advantage over PC's in that respect. Just about any game can run on a console if the developer wants it too and puts effort into making it happen. Look at Crysis 3's engine running on the 360 and the PS3 which had 512mb of ram, look at Battleifeld 3's engine running on the PS3 and 360 with 512mb of ram. Now at the time those games released those games would never run on a PC with 512mb of ram. That idea seems far fetched but they ran on consoles with 512mb of ram. Now why is that? It's because of optimization. I also want to add something. You say games like Gears looked better than anything at the time of it's release but games like Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, The Order 1886, Quantam Break are some of the best looking games a lot of people have ever seen and those games rival some of the best looking PC games in terms of visuals in lots of peoples eyes. Just because you don't think any of the exclusive current gen console games look better than some of the visually demanding PC games doesn't mean other people feel the same way that you do but hey, we are all entitled to our own opinions at the end of the day.
What im saying is last gen there weren't any PCs more powerful then the 360 unless they were supercomputers or duel GPU PCs. Gears set the bench mark for graphics on its time of release where as games today look incredible however there are more powerful machines at this time and these games can look even better but are restricted to console limitations. This gen games are being developed on PCs using CPUs and GPUs way above the current consoles which leads to downgrades etc. Last gen the 360 and PS3 lead the market in technology where as this gen there behind.. by miles. They cant even run Unreal Engine 4 without downgrading its visuals and effects. Remember any good looking game you see on consoles can look even better on PC etc. The CPUs In the average PC today is miles ahead of the CPUs in both X1 and PS4 and as time goes on these consoles are going to try to maintain there standards but gaming engines arent going to wait for them to catch up.
That's because Ps3 and 360 were powerful consoles for the time they were released they even rivaled high end PC'S while Ps4 and X1 released behind even midrange laptops, and another thing let's not forget that Ps3 has a strong Cpu even by today's standards.
Yea but the PS3 and 360 weren't exactly world beaters when games like Crysis 3, GTA V and BF3 came out. In fact, the PS3 and 360 were considered ancient and outdated in terms of tech back when those demanding games came out but guess what? Those games still ran on the PS3 and 360 because developers optimized those games for the PS3 and 360. Those games would not run on a PC with 512mb of ram but they sure as hell ran on the 360 and the PS3. Hell, let me give you another example. If I had a PC with the same exact specs as a PS4 and I tried to run the same game at the same exact settings as the PS4 version guess which version of the game would run better at the same settings? 9 times out of 10 the PS4 version would run better. Why? Because of OPTIMIZATION. Honestly, consoles will probably never be as powerful as high end gaming PC's again but guess what? They don't need to be. You guys are only focusing and looking at the specs of these consoles and not taking into consideration the optimization that goes into making these games run on consoles.
That is very time consuming though, which brings the dev cost and can delay game release.
Well said sir. The voice of reason, what a refreshing and intelligent contribution.
Yeah, as much as that's true, 10 years was too much. By that point, it was showing in multiplats. Simply put, it was holding multiplats back, especially 2011 + Thing is, the leap isn't that big this time. When you reduce prices by $100, that's going to show in some way. I'm super happy with the way exclusives are looking on consoles. Talk about QB, Uncharted 4, Driveclub. Tomorrow Children. Technical masterpieces. Beautiful. Multiplats ? All three graphically impressive multiplats shown in 2013 before consoles were revealed - ALL THREE of them had to be severely downgraded. You can blame Ubisoft all you want, but if you're not also blaming the other Ubi team, as well as CDPR... it doesn't work. Honestly, since then, nothing has come close to those 2013 demos. Fact is, gamers and devs wanted and expected more powerful hardware. Like you said though, they did do quite a bit with 512 mb. We should see some pretty impressive stuff nonetheless.
I just don't remember (Ps2) and Xbox original being able to keep up Like this with the 360 and Ps3.Xbox1 and Ps4 are not foreign architecture it's based off PC so there isn't a whole lot to figure out this Gen compared to last gen.I think way to many of you don't want to believe the fact that Ps4 and X1 are both weak minor upgrades. I was so excited at launch for Ps4 than I saw the game and was like wtf.What if Ps3 launched with Ps2 style graphics at higher resolution because that's what's happening here.#Not afraid to get downvoted
Programming, particularly for games, is knowing how to write your programs within the confines of the available hardware. Nothing really scary about it. If one is scared, then they need to reassess the scope of their game.
Killzone 1 was on PS2..Killzone 2 and 3 were on PS3. Killzone Shadowfall is PS4.
This article appears to have been written under the assumption that we're in for another decade-long console generation, which I think is unlikely... the PS4 and Xbox One have both surpasssed their predecessors in terms of how quickly they've sold, which no-doubt makes repeating (or exceeding) said success a very attractive proposition for their respective manufacturers. If tech like AR/VR and cloud-processing take-off then I'd expect to see consoles tailored to such features (with the obligatory CPU/GPU/memory upgrades) announced within the next 5 or 6 years... and while I haven't put much stock in the Nintendo NX 'leaks', I'd be very suprised if it wasn't being designed with a VR component. Of the current-gen consoles, I'd say the XO is the most capable of taking advantage of gaming innovations - it's Oculus/Valve/Hololens compatibility covers those bases while their Azure cloud-compute and software like DX12 should help to alleviate the hardware's 'shortcomings'... being owned by a multi-billion dollar cyberpunk Mega-Corp does have it's advantages.
...funny thing...have you not factored that they want more units out to make money on more software? LOL! Did you just think they made systems to meet some sort of magic system spec? "the PS4 and Xbox One have both surpasssed their predecessors in terms of how quickly they've sold" OH..so its about selling faster? Really bud? LOL! As if they only want to sell fast, not more.....just sell fast. They can reach 100 million and they would still bank years later, the reality is...we don't know when they will release new hardware, the aim is to make money, more units helps do that quite a lot. " I'd say the XO is the most capable of taking advantage of gaming innovations" You sure? Last I recall Morpheus has a chance of releasing first and to a larger install base. Hololens has zero release date and is a self contained computer...it will be much more expensive by a whole lot. Has to how it will take advantage of this more with no games set to release for it is a bit odd. Oculus and Morpheus will be gaming's default VR units for a while.
Obviousy it's about profit. And yes, sales rates and totals are merely indicitive of profitibility, but as years go by the money earned from hardware drops off as the consoles are discounted - then it becomes a game of diminishing returns where losses are offset by the sales of (increasingly expensive/risky) 1st-party games and online services (which are essentialy cross-gen)... But make no mistake - if they smell an opportunity to make even more $$$ they'll go for it. Nintendo's NX (and the rapid iterations of the DS handhelds) are prime examples of this concept - the Wii-U had a phenomenal 1st-party attach rate, but the console isn't selling enough to make such a consistent approach to 1st-party quality into a large enough source of profit... so they relegate the console to Gamecube status, scale-back support and go to work on creating their next phenomenon - all within a year or two. The rest of your comment is conjecture... what does 20mil PS4s or Hololens' pricing have to do with innovation? Look at how much the xbox has changed since it was announced... Win10/DX12, game streaming, cross-play, cloud-processing, AR/VR compatibility and a variety of services, updates and policies are demonstrative of Microsoft's versatility with regards to current and potential furure innovations.
I feel this gen will last just as long as last gen and that's because of updates. launch ps3 os and launch 360 os is way different then the ps3 and 360 we have now. Same will be said for the ps4 and xbox one.. any of you remember the early days of 360 and ps3 were u had to watch your downloads? Ahhh it was so bad I hated it so much lol.
I wish the 360 would go back to its launch OS, the blades were better
Right I loved the blades!!
I'm still not understanding this fascination with the cloud. Just to make myself clear I understand exactly what it is they are doing, I have seen their tech demo and while the destruction was cool that seems to be the limit ofnehat they will be able todo in terms of real world applications and I'm yet to see beyond looking fancy how exactly it will drastically alter gameplay vs less complex destruction and done on console but still a whole destructible world for multiplayer. The latency of the Internet will limit the application (and no amount of bandwidth will compensate for this) as such I can't see cloud ever being used for someone the pie in the sky stuff some talk about; such as graphics intensive stuff or stuff other than the driveatar (which was a cool idea but one I'm not sure they kept for forza 6 oddly?) and destruction where your interaction with it beyond starting it with an action is minimal. (And as the speed of light should mean this has an upper boundary it cannot exceed. And I'm a second year physics student at university so yeah I have some notion what I'm talking about when it comes to optics, check back with me in a few months if I still hold same opinion when I should know even more specifically about that kind of different ) I also hate to point out the footage I saw looked like a ps2 game past destruction. Don't all shout at me "it's early alpham other whatever, yeah I know... However it's a year and abit at most till its due to release so games such as Uncharted 4 were shown of at a similar time in their development cycle and countless other games have been over the years and while textures aren't complete etc the fundamental structure of the engine is there and is set, it has to be for development to progress smoothly and the actual game be fleshed out. As such you tend to be able to see where it's going as a finished project and I can say now whilst it might well be a fun game it's graphics allege to gave takene a hit for that cloud tech to function. Also this cloud tech isn't exclusive to one company if one started using it more and more any developer or publisher can get it in their games they just need the servers and they can be bought or rented from many many places if required it will just cost and I have to question if it's been used for a games main campaign what happens when inevitably they shut down the servers which if every game were using compute tech would become more common due to both physical space among other limitations. As far as I'm aware the tech doesn't require all that much more investment than actual multiplayer servers usually would anyway. That brings me to my final point no online game seems to function forbears or even weeks after launch if it is popular. It either straight up is unplayable or it has some serious lag/server related bugs that take days/weeks to resolve I dread a world where I wait for release datesbof games knowing I will be unable to play it for days or weeks after that point. Whilst I could be wrong and crackdown could be the one exception that drastically upgrades it's graphics with a year from release or the cloud might take off and be in everygame- for both consoles and pc mind you it seems incredibly unlikely and the cloud would be a great excuse to force people to move on to new iterations of games in series by shutting theboldsr ones servers down to use for the next instalment and I can actually see that being something many publishers would like. Imagine making gta as unplayable just as gta 6 was releasing? Can you imagine?!
Forza 6 has Drivatars and they're smarter than ever (I acually looked to them for pointers for rain-racing) - best AI of any racer. as for your concerns regarding the cloud, most of them appear to be based off opinions or false information... Every game that launched on Azure servers has launched clean, you don't need crazy-fast internet (2-4mbps for Crackdown) and there are no PS2 games as pretty as that. The tech has applications beyond destruction - we've already seen it used for AI (Forza and Titanfall), streaming (Sunset Overdrive and PSNow) and savegames... A few months back I read an article about a dev that was using the cloud to calculate wind physics as a means of having flora (trees/branches/foliage) that bent and swayed according to their height and position relative to each other and the edge of a virtual forest. Eventually we'll probably see games that feature a suite of cloud features... a DayZ-style MMO with supermassive hordes of zombies, persistant item tracking, realistic weather and destruction might once have been a 'pie in the sky' suggestion, but not anymore. It's the WAY of the FUTURE!
Wow it would be a lot easier to just say I'm a PS4 fanboy and it's my mission to downplay any kind of advantage that the competition may have over my choice of console. You completely threw out known facts that have been stated by the actual developers of the cloud tech and replaced it with total ignorance. I'll tell you what I don't understand, this fascination with keeping the industry stagnant, cloud computing is a viable answer to the future of gaming advancing without having to put a crazy amount of processing power in the consoles which will inevitably drive thier prices sky high! And still not be able to match what can be done through cloud compute. I would bet my last £ that Sony and Nintendo if not this generation then 100% next gen will be implementing cloud compute in their games.
Blah blah blah....Crow will be served again soon to all the typical no it all arm chair devlopers. While you're waiting for CD3 to fail I'm waiting to laugh in your face once again soon. Nobody has to prove nothing to you pathetic Sony Fanboys. Good morning and have a good day Hating as usual!
Where do I start now as my original comment ended up far longer than I ever intended when I started it lol hopefully this will be shorter. OK so the driveatar's as I said were good I hadn't seen anything about them being back something I thought would have been shouted abit louder but that's great. Yeah I prefer the ps4 to the xbox one but that really has no impact on what I was saying because if the cloud works then it can and will be used across all platforms eventually. However as for the persistent crowds of zombies etc well if it's staying on server then maybe but I'm sure that can and has already been done; they can already get lots of AI in one place and games running well like that so it's bot beyond what on hardware stuff can do and there is a limitation to the technology I should have explained my point the speed of light in a fibre cable is the fastest the data can be transferred (unless ofc you want to use quantum entanglement but atm that's not readily available tech and has only been proposed (no idea if tested yet-for transferring small volumes of data.) This means over the distances between servers you are looking at lag times of like x10^-3 and x10^-4 that sort of timing. You can't change that... As far as I'm aware a gpu-cpu-ram configuration has lag times between request and computation in the realm of x10-8 or x10-9 seconds. So as for anything beyond stuff like destruction data that's stored on server... I really can't see that working I'm not commenting on the coding of any of this stuff I am simply stating what I can deduce understanding the physics of how it works. As for the amount of bandwidth it requires: I'm aware it's not that large. Latency and bandwidth are not the same thing, bandwidth can be increased with new and more fibres the latency has a cut off point where unless you and the servers are in the same place there is going to be a lag time as the data has a distance to travel that's a fact. So while I'm sure for the multiplayer games cloud technology has already been used for awhile really and new applications for mom's etc might happen but for your core story based games and single-player I can see it working. Obviously it doesn't literally look like a ps2 game... It was a metaphor, and the main structure of a game should be fixed a year out from release, textures and stuff will improve ofc but it's very rare the character models and game world assets get more polygons etc so the game won't look just like what they showed us but what the final thing should look like should be something you can imagine based on what they showed us. So as cool as the destruction may be it's certainly not as revolutionary as some are making it out to be, it's just a persistent server based city that works like most other multiplayer games but with some slightly fancier destruction physics which really it reaches a point where you probably can't tell anymore how fancy the physics of destruction are. Any game that has cloud tech like this will require individual servers per game btw and they need to be dedicated else it wouldn't work this is simply unfeasible for single-player games, even azure couldn't deal with 50 million individual servers for just gta v for example at once all saving a persistent state for the city when the user was last on. I could go on but I cba. You believe what you want but streaming all games and every game being server reliant is a long way off yet I suspect if it ever happens.... Disagree or agree if you want it really makes no difference...