Melchiah
Member
I always wonder, why people still only blame Sony for that, when it was touted by Microsoft as well.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-250632.html
PSM: PS4 specs more powerful than Xbox 720
- Thread starter [Nintex]
- Start date
- Status
I always wonder, why people still only blame Sony for that, when it was touted by Microsoft as well.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-250632.html
AngelSoldier
Banned
Yeah it did. Look at dem' exclusives. They sure is pretty.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Those aren't even the best zomg-our-console-r-awezome quotes.
Letting you jack into the Matrix and "a new canvas for humanity", anyone?
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Ooooh, you did that on purpose, didn't you? Here we go again, round 2.
Fair enough on that one too. I guess what I was implying with input and content delivery is stuff like Wii Sports or Dance Central. What it was and how it was used.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
That was fairly shitty of me.
I should have explained more. (NOT A TECH GUY BTW)
From my understanding, the PS3 has more "power" but it's laid out structurally in a way that is fairly..."fucked".
Which is why most ports (not all) are fairly dodgy on the PS3 but games where the PS3 was the primary platform tend to look and perform really nicely.
Smart people here. Am I wrong or am I right?
The ones that are photoshopped.
I'm sure they can find a way to make it more powerful and also developer friendly at the same time. That was the reason why PS3 got the shitty ports most of the time, no one bothered learning the system since it was so tough. It also doesn't mean we're going to have a $600 console again.
Uno Venova
Banned
I don't think that's happening with the PS4, they worked on making things easier for devs.
Shin Johnpv
Member
AGAIN yes the BD drive was expensive, but it didn't represent half of the 800 cost of building a PS3 at launch. Even with out a BD drive the PS3 would have been an expensive machine to build at launch.
Low yields on the Cell chip, and XDR memory spiked costs quite a bit themselves.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
It'd be nice to think they learned a few things from this gen.
I'm comfortable with the PS4 being a powerhouse. That's what Sony does. They mash the pedal to the floor and say, "Here! THIS is a next gen console. Fuck you!"
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Sort of. Kinda. I'm not really a techhead, but the PS3's GPU is weaker than the one in the 360, and the unified memory of the 360 makes it easier to work with (according to developers) than the split memory pool of the PS3. The two benefits the PS3 have are the increased space of BD discs compared to the 360's DVD discs, and that physics calculations (and some graphics effects, I think) can be offloaded to the Cell's SP, but few, if any, third party developers are gonna bother much with that, so it's mostly Sony's first party, who already know all the ins and outs of the PS3 architechture, who manage to squeeze the PS3 for all it's worth. Which is why PS3 exclusives like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God of War 3 are regularly named as the best-looking console games this gen. But overall the 360 and the PS3 more or less equal in power.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Power is one thing, how much effort it takes to harness it is another. You don't have to look further than the PS3 this generation to figure that out.
On top of that, the most powerful competitor hasn't been winning in either handheld or home console markets for generations now.
It is basically just a bullet point for console advocacy list wars that exist outside of reality.
On top of that, the most powerful competitor hasn't been winning in either handheld or home console markets for generations now.
It is basically just a bullet point for console advocacy list wars that exist outside of reality.
Geralt's model in The Witcher 2 looks more detailed than those two characters.
Not the best way to judge power, and really there is no good way to make that call with all the variables involved.
No it didn't.
All the non exclusive racers look better on the 360.
What is wrong with the world...people can't see a bad decision when its right in front of them...
Paradise?
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Bullshit! No expensive "new tech" Blu-Ray drive, no expensive nVidia GPU chip (they could have got a better GPU for that price), no "new tech" CELL CPU.
All that stuff will be cheaper this time and Sony will take care of it.
(for example: Check the VITA hardware specs).
They can make a 399$/€ console with a lot of power now.
Actually NFS: the run is pretty much equal on both systems IIRC.
Edit:
Oh yeah and Paradise has parity on both platforms too.
Welp, just checked his post history. I've seen all I need.
What did I say that was wrong? =/
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Next gen PS4 games will blow away the games I play on my PC rig right now. (Which include BF3 Maxed, Witcher 2, Crysis 1-2 etc.
A closed platform has many benefits.
Next gen will be like every generation before it. Graphics and scale will be a huge leap over 360 games.
8 years ago I had a 9700TX and was running this amazed at the graphics of this tech demo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92bIPSh6r6Y
Just one year later we had hardware(Xbox 360) that could run this, in game, 60fps with 120 fps physics etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BTo-Wzdong
8 years ago I was also amazed at the likes of Half-Life 2 and Far Cry. (Made me want to upgrade to an X800 XT PE, KATTTEEEEE!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3heDPiWFfuA
Then a mere 3 years later in 2007, we had this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1ZUSCrgqM&hd=1
Or for example, first screenshots of Battlefield 2 in 2005.
First Screens of Battlefield 3 in 2011.
I think people forget how fast tech can evolve when everything we play is not running on old consoles... and even so, it evolves pretty damn quick.
and hardware today is several times more powerful.
In 2013-2014 we will have games with graphics that absolutely blow away this generations best(Uncharted 3, Gears 3, Killzone 3, Battlefield 3 etc).
This gen has lasted longer than any other, and tech has not slowed down. It has had more time to progress. If the 720 and PS4 release with the same amount of focus on power as the 360 and PS3 did, then we will see consoles that are MANY times more powerful than what we have now.
Some people are saying that BF3 and the Witcher 2 are as good as it is going to get next gen. Those people are sorely mistaken. Us PC users have raw power, but PC devs have to account for every conceivable configuration.
Imagine if Naughty Dog made a game specifically for my PC.
Q6600@3.2
6950 2GB
4GB Ram.
Not an amazing PC, but it holds its own.
A game made from the ground up for that PC would make BF3 look like crap.
This is why although my PC version of BF3 looks worlds better than my 360 version, it does not look like a 10+ X better hardware difference.
Nobody has said The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 are good as it'll get next-gen, as far I've seen.
No, no, no that's not how we play the picture game.
You post a picture to compare to the other picture and then I tell you that you're wrong without even looking at either of the pics.
The Xbox brand has definitely changed to be in tune with the metro branding of other Microsoft products as well as just due to the branding being more attractive to a wider audience but they are going to have to attract the (hard)core audience during the next xbox's first years with core games if they want the xbox live service to continue on doing well.
Death Dealer
Member
I was just stating the obvious for the sake of clarity since the original question posed to me was if I think the PS4 will surpass what is possible on current high end PCs. The problem is twofold. We really don't know what the PS4 will be capable of doing (probably a while off before we have solid specs), nor do we know what today's high end PCs are capable of doing.
It's totally conceivable the next gen systems won't have the raw bandwidth of today's mac daddy 2 GPU one card solution, or two of them in quad SLI/X-Fire whatever.
And we don't know what today's high end PCs can really do because nobody has tried. Crytek's engines for PC are not in the same league of optimization and finesse compared to first party PS3 devs. Like someone said, if Naughty Dog made a game for a mediocre Q6600 and mid range HD6000 GPU console, the graphics would destroy the games of any current high end SLI/X-Fire rig out there, by a large margin. Open vs closed.
PsychoSoldier
Banned
Six hundred U.S. dollars confirmed.
If you're implying I think most of the shit Nintendo put out which outsells something like Uncharted 2 is better, then no. But sales are more than the quality of the product. Sony's games shouldn't just sell twenty million copies because they're good. Game design is product design, the design that attracts the largest audience is logically the best, regardless of my specific preference. Mario should sell better because it does sell better, it does a better job of selling to the masses, it doesn't matter what I think.
Okay, what if Naughty Dog had to make their games for all 3 platforms? What if Naughty Dog had to make engines that support HUGE environments like Crytek does... it never ends. :S
NFS Hot Pursuit is also the same on both platforms.
That doesn't look as good as the Gears 3 images posted at all.
Well, most of the screenshots posted (especially on that first page) - yes, they don't. But did you see Dennis4k screenshots from The Witcher 2, Mass effect 2, Deus Ex, well, basically any screenshots by Dennis4k?
And those 2 screenshots from The Witcher 2 that I provided, do they also look ages behind those Gears 3 screenshots to you?
iamshadowlark
Banned
God of war does a lot of things toy story didnt. Toy story is behind the curve technologically to todays software, it has the raw advantages of CG sure but dont go spouting off baseless statements like that.
Death Dealer
Member
Cell processors cost over $300 a piece in 2006 ? I had no idea. I was thinking around $125-150. I read they were paying around $80 for 256mb of XDR back then. What did the price spike to ? I know PS3 was the first thing to use XDR, so it took a while for production to ramp up. Same with the $150+ blue-violet laser diodes.
I think the common figure was about an $800 bill of materials. I think that works out right.
Cell $300
XDR $80
DDR-3 $40
Case, chassis, PWA and power supply - I'd think $100
Blu-ray drive assembly $175-200
60GB HD $40
Controller $10
EDIT: completely forgot about RSX. I'd guess $100 for that as well.
bigtroyjon
Member
isupply had it at $840 for the 60gb version and $800 for the 20gb. (That price difference makes sense considering how they limited the 20gb supply.)
edit- In comparison they had the 360 cost being $325 at the time of the PS3 launch.
edit2-Link
I'm curious to know what GoW does that Toy Story doesn't. There are many aspects which gaming still haven't matched Toy Story 1, especially in terms of IQ (dithering, blurrying textures, etc.), motion blur, lighting, and scene complexity. Keep in mind that these offline renders spend 1 hour+ per frame while a typical console game has 33.3ms per frame, and even less for GoW since it ranges from 40-60fps. So this should be expected really.
I'm not spouting off anything that's baseless by how I look at it.
Wasn't the Gamecube more powerful than the PS2?
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Both the OG Xbox and GC were more powerful than the PS2. The PS1 wasn't really a powerhouse either, it just happened to a) be better at 3D than the Saturn, b) be easy and cheap to develop for, so it got more third party support than the N64 and the Saturn, and c) not be made and marketed by the incompetent fucknuts at Sega.
bgassassin
Member
He/she must not be very old to make that comment.
- Status