Support NeoGAF

[Uno Venova]

Selective memory you guys have. People then were praising how ps3's cell processor made it a super computer. It isn't until the thing actually came out that we started to see that it wasn't. Practically everyone was saying ps3 was more powerful before the consoles actually came out.

What were devs saying about the dev process?

 

[Iorv3th]

So they are not even going to try say they have better hardware?

MS PR is kind of a clusterfuck. Every console maker tries to make it seem like there console is the most powerful thing around even when its just BS. Its been the same forever. Its weird they are just giving up that fight so early.

The cloud is the new blast processing.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

What were devs saying about the dev process?

That's not the point, the point is everyone believed the hype back then and in the forums, it was just like it is now, people spitting out theoretical numbers trying to prove their points. Everyone was saying that ps3 had more theoretical power than 360. And technically, from what i read, it apparently did.

 

[Durante]

That's not the point

But it is. Making use of PS3's processing advantages was incredibly difficult. Making use of PS4's advantages should be a cakewalk, in comparison to that.

 

[N30RYU]

INFINITE Power of the Cloud

fixed

 

[Uno Venova]

That's not the point, the point is everyone believed the hype back then and in the forums, it was just like it is now, people spitting out theoretical numbers trying to prove their points. Everyone was saying that ps3 had more theoretical power than 360. And technically, from what i read, it apparently did.

I would say it is, the actual developers didn't buy into the hype you assume everyone did.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Selective memory you guys have. People then were praising how ps3's cell processor made it a super computer. It isn't until the thing actually came out that we started to see that it wasn't. Practically everyone (including in forums, not just sony) was saying ps3 was more powerful before the consoles actually came out. Thats what im saying.

The CELL was the one aspect of the PS3 tech that did live up to its hype. It actually ended up doing some heavy lifting because the GPU was so gimped. It was just a pain in the ass for developers to get their heads around.

 

[cyberheater]

You know they have an underpowered system when they're saying this.

Such a shame this'll be the first Xbox I don't buy. Loved the 360 back in Pete Moore's day and the good old Xbox before it with its great range of games.

You've seen hardly anything of the games and believe in all the anti-Xbox One rhetoric on GAF and you're basing your console buying decisions on that.

 

[hodgy100]

That's not the point, the point is everyone believed the hype back then and in the forums, it was just like it is now, people spitting out theoretical numbers trying to prove their points. Everyone was saying that ps3 had more theoretical power than 360. And technically, from what i read, it apparently did.

The PS3 Is more powerful than the 360, it was very difficult for programmers to get used to the cell that all, it was a very complex piece of silicon for its time, and very different from anything before it. It usually meant that programming in a specific way that would work best on the cell just want worth the extra time and effort. so people didn't bother, and we ended up with under performing ports or ports that were the same.

You only have to compare first party efforts to see that yeah the PS3 is more powerful.

 

[TheLegendary]

Selective memory you guys have. People then were praising how ps3's cell processor made it a super computer. It isn't until the thing actually came out that we started to see that it wasn't. Practically everyone (including in forums, not just sony) was saying ps3 was more powerful before the consoles actually came out. Thats what im saying.

People have such short term memories. Not only was it bad the year before launch, but each subsequent year people were convinced that developers would start reaching that untapped potential and the PS4 would pull in front and leave the 360 in the dust. Never happened.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

I would say it is, the actual developers didn't buy into the hype you assume everyone did.

I dont have to assume, for the most part it was exactly as it is now. Lots of Sony fanboys believing it and xbox fanboys dismissing it.

Until the games are out and being compared side by side, numbers are just that. Numbers.

 

[Uno Venova]

Oh I didn't realize we're limiting this to fanboys only. Alrighty then.

 

[cyberheater]

You only have to compare first party efforts to see that yeah the PS3 is more powerful.

Yes but does that really matter when 90% of multi plaform titles are better on Xbox 360. The lesser console.

It's not going to be a issue next gen. Sony took a brave decision and dumped cell and any chance of hardware compatibility so devs could work on non-isoteric architecture. It was a good decision on their part.

 

[Durante]

Until the games are out and being compared side by side, numbers are just that. Numbers.

I am so looking forward to when the first 5 or 6 multiplatform title comparisons are out. Not so much because of the whole PS4/XB1 rivalry (though that will also be greatly clarified), but primarily because of all the "will PC be able to keep up" posts.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

Oh I didn't realize we're limiting this to fanboys only. Alrighty then.

Honestly, i think someone would have to be one if they believe anything either company is saying right now. Im not saying ps4 wont be more powerful, im just saying back then, it was pretty much the same debate.

 

[benny_a]

Microsoft should trademark this .. it's brilliant.

 

[lastflowers]

I am so looking forward to when the first 5 or 6 multiplatform title comparisons are out. Not so much because of the whole PS4/XB1 rivalry (though that will also be greatly clarified), but primarily because of all the "will PC be able to keep up" posts.

Lol, people don't believe the PC will keep up?

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Lol, people don't believe the PC will keep up?

It's the next generation tradition!

 

[hodgy100]

Yes but does that really matter when 90% of multi plaform titles are better on Xbox 360. The lesser console.

It's not going to be a issue next gen. Sony took a brave decision and dumped cell and any chance of hardware compatibility so devs could work on non-isoteric architecture. It was a good decision on their part.

Dont get me wrong im not saying the cell was in any way the future of playstation. im glad they have gone to a more standard architecture. like your said its great.

 

[Shayan]

That's not the point, the point is everyone believed the hype back then and in the forums, it was just like it is now, people spitting out theoretical numbers trying to prove their points. Everyone was saying that ps3 had more theoretical power than 360. And technically, from what i read, it apparently did.

PS3 is more powerful than x360. Cell is way more powerful than Xenon but it wasnt something that excelled in general purpose computing. IBM benchmarked Cell vs other processors just to show how powerful it was in things like matrices and cryptography. Have you ever seen them talking about Xenon?Where is x360's response to KZ3, GOW3, UC3?

Also more ps3 games ran at 1080p 60 fps. Cell was difficult to code for since it was made for very low level languages which many devs dont use atm

as for PS4 vs xbone ...there is nothing to hide and both are based on PC parts. 16 rops vs 32 rops, slow 5gig ddr3 vs ultra fast 7 gig gddr5,18 CU vs 12 CU. devs wont have to put in extra effort to get the max performance on either HW. The advantage and the difference are both given this time. There is no secret sauce on either machine

 

[googleplex]

The CELL was the one aspect of the PS3 tech that did live up to its hype. It actually ended up doing some heavy lifting because the GPU was so gimped. It was just a pain in the ass for developers to get their heads around.

And it shows in first party games. Ps3 first party games are way more graphically impressive then anything on the 360.

 

[perineumlick]

PS3 is more powerful than x360. Cell is way more powerful than Xenon but it wasnt something that excelled in general purpose computing. IBM benchmarked Cell vs other processors just to show how powerful it was in things like matrices and cryptography. Have you ever seen them talking about Xenon?Where is x360's response to KZ3, GOW3, UC3?

Also more ps3 games ran at 1080p 60 fps. Cell was difficult to code for since it was made for very low level languages which many devs dont use atm

as for PS4 vs xbone ...there is nothing to hide and both are based on PC parts. 16 rops vs 32 rops, slow 5gig ddr3 vs ultra fast 7 gig gddr5,18 CU vs 12 CU. devs wont have to put in extra effort to get the max performance on either HW. The advantage and the difference are both given this time. There is no secret sauce on either machine

Wrong! There be clouds.....

 

[Shayan]

Wrong! There be clouds.....

lol yea clouds are the new 4D

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Weaker hardware is fine if you're Nintendo and have a large back catalogue of a high quality IP to exploit to drive sales.

If you're Microsoft, then good luck with that approach.

 

[CoG]

Digital Foundry side by side comparisons of next-gen multiplatform games are gonna be a treat later this year. I can't wait to see those threads on NeoGAF.

If it's Richard Leadbetter it wil go something like:

"While the PS4 version runs at 1080p 60fps vs 720p 30fps on the Xbox One side, the Xbox One version does have exclusive DLC to include different species of dogs, which makes the overall experience more compelling and graphically rich on the Xbox side."

 

[REV 09]

Imo specs will matter less going forward than they have in the past, mostly due to diminishing returns. Another interesting perspective is that Nintendo will eventually catch up with the hd twins even as they lag behind each gen. Once all games look amazing, I don't think many buying decisions will be made on whether the game is rendering in 1080p or 4k resolution.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

PS3 is more powerful than x360. Cell is way more powerful than Xenon but it wasnt something that excelled in general purpose computing. IBM benchmarked Cell vs other processors just to show how powerful it was in things like matrices and cryptography. Have you ever seen them talking about Xenon?Where is x360's response to KZ3, GOW3, UC3?

Also more ps3 games ran at 1080p 60 fps. Cell was difficult to code for since it was made for very low level languages which many devs dont use atm

as for PS4 vs xbone ...there is nothing to hide and both are based on PC parts. 16 rops vs 32 rops, slow 5gig ddr3 vs ultra fast 7 gig gddr5,18 CU vs 12 CU. devs wont have to put in extra effort to get the max performance on either HW. The advantage and the difference are both given this time. There is no secret sauce on either machine

Maybe, but it still remains to be seen if that will translate to substantial differences in the multiplatform games.

 

[RoboPlato]

Honestly, i think someone would have to be one if they believe anything either company is saying right now. Im not saying ps4 wont be more powerful, im just saying back then, it was pretty much the same debate.

You really think you need to be a fanboy to interpret real numbers given out by both platform holders and have been corroborated by devs? Sony gave out clear numbers and Microsoft gave enough out that with a few calculations you can draw an accurate picture of the performance. These numbers are facts.

 

[Snubbers]

as for PS4 vs xbone ...there is nothing to hide and both are based on PC parts. 16 rops vs 32 rops, slow 5gig ddr3 vs ultra fast 7 gig gddr5,18 CU vs 12 CU. devs wont have to put in extra effort to get the max performance on either HW. The advantage and the difference are both given this time. There is no secret sauce on either machine

This isn't true.

Firstly there is SHAPE, that is not the same class of audio processor that the PS3/PS4 have, it's able to do far far more with audio processing, that is one less drag on the CPU

Then the ESRAM which everyone seems to just dismiss.. It's more flexible then the eDRAM on the 360, and has many practical benefits..

The things is (as I see it), the ESRAM takes up a lot of transistors, MS could have just gone for 18CUs with no ESRAM and the only difference between systems would be the main RAM bandwidth and latencies..
But they didn't.. the 360's eDRAM is quite well understood by now, Intel even include it on their top end integrated graphics, so they also see some worth in it, so ESRAM isn't the kind of developer nightmare that CELL was..

I have no doubt the XB1 is less powerful, I'm not crazy, but I actually am intrigued to see what the practical difference ends up being.. I've heard the ESRAM is great for keeping GPU utilisation high, and GPU utilisation (and stalling them) is a big issue, they don't get anywhere near 100% because clearly not everything is GPU based... So I can see some sense in sacrificing CU's for ESRAM to try to improve GPU utilisation, and facilitate low overall latencies.

I'd 'guess' that I am kind of expecting 10-25% difference rather then the 50%+ people are getting with their over-simplifications. I actually believe MS when they say that they customised every aspect of the system, some of the differences are very small in terms of architecture, but they clearly feel they where better off going for the more efficient but less hardware approach considering their overall target was slightly lower then Sony's. What I believe really kicked them was 8GB GDDR5, had Sony gone with 4GB, I think MS's system would actually have been very very close indeed.

It's OK if I turn out to be wrong, at this moment I'm a winner no matter which console has the better mutliplats, as I have both pre-ordered.

 

[Shayan]

This isn't true.

Firstly there is SHAPE, that is not the same class of audio processor that the PS3/PS4 have, it's able to do far far more with audio processing, that is one less drag on the CPU

Then the ESRAM which everyone seems to just dismiss.. It's more flexible then the eDRAM on the 360, and has many practical benefits..

The things is (as I see it), the ESRAM takes up a lot of transistors, MS could have just gone for 18CUs with no ESRAM and the only difference between systems would be the main RAM bandwidth and latencies..
But they didn't.. the 360's eDRAM is quite well understood by now, Intel even include it on their top end integrated graphics, so they also see some worth in it, so ESRAM isn't the kind of developer nightmare that CELL was..

I have no doubt the XB1 is less powerful, I'm not crazy, but I actually am intrigued to see what the practical difference ends up being.. I've heard the ESRAM is great for keeping GPU utilisation high, and GPU utilisation (and stalling them) is a big issue, they don't get anywhere near 100% because clearly not everything is GPU based... So I can see some sense in sacrificing CU's for ESRAM to try to improve GPU utilisation, and facilitate low overall latencies.

I'd 'guess' that I am kind of expecting 10-25% difference rather then the 50%+ people are getting with their over-simplifications. I actually believe MS when they say that they customised every aspect of the system, some of the differences are very small in terms of architecture, but they clearly feel they where better off going for the more efficient but less hardware approach considering their overall target was slightly lower then Sony's. What I believe really kicked them was 8GB GDDR5, had Sony gone with 4GB, I think MS's system would actually have been very very close indeed.

It's OK if I turn out to be wrong, at this moment I'm a winner no matter which console has the better mutliplats, as I have both pre-ordered.

sorry dude, but do you work for MS?

a meagre 32mb ESRAM is the new cloud ?It will bump up the total system bandwidth to 192g/s??? secret sauce !!! Quoting this classic comment !

 

[REV 09]

I really don't get the console wars concerning tech. Why is the pc ignored so often? Why care that ps4 is more powerful than xb1 when the pc is, or will shortly be, more powerful than both?

If you care about tech specs this much then why not stay on the cutting edge instead of having to wait until new consoles release to see a meaningful upgrade.

 

[abadguy]

I really don't get the console wars concerning tech. Why is the pc ignored so often? Why care that ps4 is more powerful than xb1 when the pc is, or will shortly be, more powerful than both?

If you care about tech specs this much then why not stay on the cutting edge instead of having to wait until new consoles release to see a meaningful upgrade.

It's not really about "caring about tech" as it is a dick measuring contest between fanbases.

 

[weekend_warrior]

It's OK if I turn out to be wrong, at this moment I'm a winner no matter which console has the better mutliplats, as I have both pre-ordered.

I'm seeing a lot of posts defending MS where the author fells obliged to tell us they pre-ordered both, It's starting to feel like a "tactic" if you know what I mean...

 

[Louis Cyphre]

And it shows in first party games. Ps3 first party games are way more graphically impressive then anything on the 360.

Way more? Keep believing that Mr. Cerny. Way more would be a half decent PC in comparison to the PS3. There was actually more impressive differences between the original Xbox and the PS2 but oddly enough most people didn't seem to care back then. I take it when two high profile systems become much more competitive with one another the loyal fanbase is inclined to take drastic measures.

 

[Pingoreous]

Xbox boss says hardware analysis between consoles is “meaningless”

 

[madmackem]

Why do people keep bringing up last gen, it has no bearing on this next consoles not to mention the ps3 was an arse to get the best out of with shitty tools. That isnt the case this time. The power will be easier to tap with both systems pretty similar in flavour.

 

[Ushae]

You know they have an underpowered system when they're saying this.

Such a shame this'll be the first Xbox I don't buy. Loved the 360 back in Pete Moore's day and the good old Xbox before it with its great range of games.

You do realise that the last Xbox was also weaker than the PS3 right?

 

[Orca]

It's not really about "caring about tech" as it is a dick measuring contest between fanbases.

Exactly. If this was a Sony exec, you'd see a number of the people currently critical of it saying 'see, they get it - IT'S ABOUT THE GAMES' instead, and some of the people currently supporting it saying 'well yeah because it won't matter in the end' or something like that.

 

[mrklaw]

Doesn't more power allow for developers to create better experiences, all other things being equal? At least in the gaming area.

The only place MS can offer anything differnet is in how the games come together with TV etc using the HDMi passthrough. And possibly they will.

 

[Durante]

I really don't get the console wars concerning tech. Why is the pc ignored so often? Why care that ps4 is more powerful than xb1 when the pc is, or will shortly be, more powerful than both?

If you care about tech specs this much then why not stay on the cutting edge instead of having to wait until new consoles release to see a meaningful upgrade.

For some of us, it's interesting to discuss technology for its own sake. And sadly, some games still don't come to PC, though this set appears to be shrinking.

Also, I admittedly delight in unmasking marketing bullshit.

You do realise that the last Xbox was also weaker than the PS3 right?

It was a very different situation though. 360 was ahead architecturally on the GPU, was easier to develop for and had a far more mature tool set, particularly around the beginning of the generation. None of these three points are true now.

 

[Snubbers]

sorry dude, but do you work for MS?

a meagre 32mb ESRAM is the new cloud ?It will bump up the total system bandwidth to 192g/s??? secret sauce !!! Quoting this classic comment !

Wow.. No I don't think it'll bump the system bandwidth to anything..

Well, here's the developer of trials HD on the 360's eDRAM and then a bit on a RAM scratch pad (as the ESRAM is).

On Xbox 360, the EDRAM helps a lot with backbuffer bandwidth. For example in our last Xbox 360 game we had a 2 MRT g-buffer (deferred rendering, depth + 2x8888 buffers, same bit depth as in CryEngine 3). The g-buffer writes require 12 bytes of bandwidth per pixel, and all that bandwidth is fully provided by EDRAM. For each rendered pixel we sample three textures. Textures are block compressed (2xDXT5+1xDXN), so they take a total 3 bytes per sampled texel. Assuming a coherent access pattern and trilinear filtering, we multiply that cost by 1.25 (25% extra memory touched by trilinear), and we get a texture bandwidth requirement of 3.75 bytes per rendered pixel. Without EDRAM the external memory bandwidth requirement is 12+3.75 bytes = 15.75 bytes per pixel. With EDRAM it is only 3.75 bytes. That is a 76% saving (over 4x external memory bandwidth cost without EDRAM). Deferred rendering is a widely used technique in high end AAA games. It is often criticized to be bandwidth inefficient, but developers still love to use it because it has lots of benefits. On Xbox 360, the EDRAM enables efficient usage of deferred rendering.

Also a fast read/write on chip memory scratchpad (or a big cache) would help a lot with image post processing. Most of the image post process algorithms need no (or just a little) extra memory in addition to the processed backbuffer. With large enough on chip memory (or cache), most post processing algorithms become completely free of external memory bandwidth. Examples: HDR bloom, lens flares/streaks, bokeh/DOF, motion blur (per pixel motion vectors), SSAO/SSDO, post AA filters, color correction, etc, etc. The screen space local reflection (SSLR) algorithm (in Killzone Shadow Fall) would benefit the most from fast on chip local memory, since tracing those secondary rays from the min/max quadtree acceleration structure has quite an incoherent memory access pattern. Incoherent accesses are latency sensitive (lots of cache misses) and the on chip memories tend to have smaller latencies (of course it's implementation specific, but that is usually true, since the memory is closer to the execution units, for example Haswell's 128 MB L4 should be lower latency than the external memory). I would expect to see a lot more post process effects in the future as developers are targeting cinematic rendering with their new engines. Fast on chip memory scratchpad (or a big cache) would reduce bandwidth requirement a lot.

Sauce

And there are some Sony employees also over there that have mentioned how eD/eSRAM can be beneficial in GPU utilisation in general..

Of course, feel free to offer up some credible insight from devs into why ESRAM is useless.. Even Cerny offered up a potential system breakdown using eDRAM in a split architecture like this but the main reason for not going down that road was developer friendliness..

I'm seeing a lot of posts defending MS where the author fells obliged to tell us they pre-ordered both, It's starting to feel like a "tactic" if you know what I mean...

Stop with the Ad hominem bullshit, that's the weakest form of argument known to man...

I also believe like most that PS4 is more powerful.. I just don't think taking a simplistic view is fair or accurate.. And yes, I was surprised that the games shown at E3 wheren't complete piles of crap graphically..

 

[Shayan]

Wow.. No I don't think it'll bump the system bandwidth to anything..

Well, here's the developer of trials HD on the 360's eDRAM and then a bit on a RAM scratch pad (as the ESRAM is).


Sauce

And there are some Sony employees also over there that have mentioned how eD/eSRAM can be beneficial in GPU utilisation in general..

Of course, feel free to offer up some credible insight from devs into why ESRAM is useless.. Even Cerny offered up a potential system breakdown using eDRAM in a split architecture like this but the main reason for not going down that road was developer friendliness..

Stop with the Ad hominem bullshit, that's the weakest form of argument known to man...

I also believe like most that PS4 is more powerful.. I just don't think taking a simplistic view is fair or accurate.. And yes, I was surprised that the games shown at E3 wheren't complete piles of crap graphically..

gotta love this guy.A game like trials could itself fit into that 32mb Ram . there is no secret sauce. but for next gen games a meagre 32mb esram is not enough .Rather than posting stuffs which you have no idea why post? It all comes down to how many processes would be using the ram concurrently and for an amount that small, its not sufficient. There are no SONY devs at B3D. What about Cerny? He clearly mentioned that bumped up bandwith would be available to only "tiny ram module" . Make sure you read that part . He did say that devs could find ways to efficiently reuse it but again when you have 100s of processes on screen , that isnt viable

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Doesn't more power allow for developers to create better experiences, all other things being equal? At least in the gaming area.

The only place MS can offer anything differnet is in how the games come together with TV etc using the HDMi passthrough. And possibly they will.

That and I guess the cloud technology they keep bringing up. It looks as though the PS4 will indeed be more powerful like the PS3 was to the Xbox 360, only this time it will be easier for them to take advantage of it. More power does offer better experiences but I just hope we don't get back to the same issues and that is graphics takes precedence on creativity and good and smooth gameplay.

It's not really about "caring about tech" as it is a dick measuring contest between fanbases.

In the end games available on both systems won't likely show drastic differences and when I see games like Forza 5 run at 60 fps and natively 1080p it makes you wonder if the differences are really all that important other than comparing penis size.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

IM sure that if they had the more powerful box, it would matter then

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Imo specs will matter less going forward than they have in the past, mostly due to diminishing returns. Another interesting perspective is that Nintendo will eventually catch up with the hd twins even as they lag behind each gen. Once all games look amazing, I don't think many buying decisions will be made on whether the game is rendering in 1080p or 4k resolution.

Sorry, but there are no diminishing returns.

Not all games will "look amazing" because that term is relative, and there will always be more talented studios that put out substantially more amazing games than others... and Nintendo catching up? Hah...that hasn't happened with Wii U yet.

I really don't get the console wars concerning tech. Why is the pc ignored so often? Why care that ps4 is more powerful than xb1 when the pc is, or will shortly be, more powerful than both?

If you care about tech specs this much then why not stay on the cutting edge instead of having to wait until new consoles release to see a meaningful upgrade.

Because PC is just a platform that has countless configurations that developers support.

Developers primarily develop their games for a console's baseline of power. If that baseline is low, then it affects the games PC receives. Cutting edge "productions" aren't happening on PCs...they are happening due to the base of console support.

No one is developing PC games ground up to take advantage of the highest spec'd GPU at the time, that's suicide.

That, and I am not a PC gamer, why waste $1000 on a PC rig that won't even have all the game library I want when I can just get a PS4 for the entire gen and benefit from the amazing exclusives and the same multiplatform titles?

 

[Espada]

Selective memory you guys have. People then were praising how ps3's cell processor made it a super computer. It isn't until the thing actually came out that we started to see that it wasn't. Practically everyone (including in forums, not just sony) was saying ps3 was more powerful before the consoles actually came out. Thats what im saying.

And I already said that a lot of people bought the Power of the CELL nonsense. Even before launch we were hearing about how Xenos' setup is more powerful, little dev comments here and there saying PS3 is hard to work with, and so on. I mean, come on now.

BTW, this is a pointless discussion. The situation between the PS4 and Xbox One isn't remotely similar to that of the PS3 and 360. Both consoles have shared pools of memory, the same processor from the same supplier, and GPUs from the same supplier. One machine simply has more memory available to games, faster memory, and a GPU that outpaces the other in every area. To add on to that it's the simpler of the two consoles.

This isn't "Power of the Cell" PR crap, these are cold hardware comparisons between two very similar machines. Last generation we saw developers prefer the easier console to work with. Why do we have to "wait and see"?

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Sorry, but there are no diminishing returns.

Not all games will "look amazing" because that term is relative, and there will always be more talented studios that put out substantially more amazing games than others... and Nintendo catching up? Hah...that hasn't happened with Wii U yet.



Because PC is just a platform that has countless configurations that developers support.

Developers primarily develop their games for a console's baseline of power. If that baseline is low, then it affects the games PC receives.

No one is developing PC games ground up to take advantage of the highest spec'd GPU at the time, that's suicide.

That, and I am not a PC gamer, why waste $1000 on a PC rig that won't even have all the game library I want when I can just get a PS4 for the entire gen and benefit from the amazing exclusives and the same multiplatform titles?

There are diminishing returns if the game is linear and graphics like that are just automated sequences. A better example IMO would be Infamous: Second Son where the landscape has greater scope and interaction, and where the gamer is in complete control. I've fallen for David Cage's tricks in the past.

As for "wasting" $1000 on a PC rig the same can be said for audio equipment and various other things. It's called trying to attain the best possible experience at the time. If a game like Watchdogs doesn't get frame rate issues (not saying there will be on consoles) and higher resolutions why not if you have the money? You can also get amazing exclusives on the Wii U and the PC, so power isn't everything and the PS4 doesn't play everything either.

 

[rvy]

Both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have 512MB of RAM. The difference is that the Xbox 360 has one unified pool of memory. But its not like the PS3 version of Skyrim only runs on 256MB RAM and the Xbox 360 version is running on 512MB RAM.

They keep reducing the OS footprint, but you get what I meant.
Skyrim runs like shit on PS3 because they did a piss poor job of porting the game and they have a lot less RAM to help them out with their shit porting.

 

[Comandr]

Isn't this more or less what Reggie was saying during the interview with Geoff Keighley at E3 this year? It's funny when your weak hardware is under the withering glare of public scrutiny, it's suddenly all about the games and the great experiences that can only be found on your platform.

Nevermind the tech required to make those experiences possible. I don't think we'll be seeing Second Son's detailed open world and destructible environments on current gen consoles any time soon. Forget about The Division. Don't bother with FFXV, or Panta Rhei or the Dark Sorcerer engine. Specs don't matter. We'll just keep playing halo 4 and NSMB until our thumbs break off and our eyes fall out.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

Isn't this more or less what Reggie was saying during the interview with Geoff Keighley at E3 this year? It's funny when your weak hardware is under the withering glare of public scrutiny, its suddenly all about the games and the great experiences that can only be found on your platform.

Nevermind the tech required to make those experiences possible. I don't think we'll be seeing Second Son's detailed open world and destructible environments on current gen consoles any time soon. Forget about The Division. Don't bother with FFXV, or Panta Rhei or the Dark Sorcerer engine. Specs don't matter. We'll just keep playing halo 4 and NSMB until our thumbs break off and our eyes fall out.

Precisely! Microsoft are being total hypocrites here. Back when their console was the powerhouse they couldn't toot their horn enough about how much more powerful the XBox was.