Support NeoGAF

[Sword Of Doom]

[*]It is reasonable to expect that the resolution and graphical detail will be negatively effected on the Xbox One to achieve the desired 60fps. Expect a 720p/60fps with the same settings as PS4 or something in between 720p and 1080p with noticeably reduced graphics quality.
[/LIST]

No this is not the bible and it is not fact. I'm making educated guesses based on real world data that may be completely different for the retail console versions. This is all in fun, but I think that the deduction is reasonable and matches what we have been hearing from devs and "insiders" over the past few months all along. We'll find out soon enough

Oh how fitting it would have been if MS had decided to call the xbone "Xbox 720"

 

[lyrick]

If anything, tthomas4155 post really showed me how big the expected gap between PS4/X1 would be.

PS4: 1080p/60fps (High settings)
X1; 720p/60fps ( just to maintain the same IQ settings)

damn!

I would almost agree with that sentiment if the PS4 wasn't closer to being on par with performance of a 650Ti.

The assumption of HD7870 like performance is the failure, as the GPU is much more akin to a 7970M, but slightly bastardized. a 7970M performs on par or slightly less than a 7850 or 650Ti.

 

[Ateron]

EA had sports games running at half the framerate on PS3 for two years. They're not going to cripple a SKU for the sake of first party diplomacy, especially when Sony is so clearly ahead in PR and public favor.

Well, they have a deal in place with MS, as minor as it might be (1st dlc releases before on the x1, if I'm not mistaken), and that makes me suspicious.

 

[jaythagamer]

long post

interesting read
at this point we're all just guessing but if this is really what the performance difference will be, then wow
I'm quite curious to see the multiplatform comparisons next month

 

[StuBurns]

Well, they have a deal in place with MS, as minor as it might be (1st dlc releases before on the x1, if I'm not mistaken), and that makes me suspicious.

Everyone has deals with everyone. Activision are kissing cousins with MS for CoD, and are jerking off Sony with Destiny at the same time.

Those things are boardroom politics, product quality wouldn't be affected. Sony have been in bed with Ubisoft for Assassin's Creed for years, and they've never had the better version.

 

[Zatoichi's Cane]

For one developers have never forced parity.

I would refer you to one of the latest Giant Bomb podcasts, where Jeff Gerstmann specifically mentions that this has happened before and he wouldn't be surprised if it happened again.

Also a twitter conversation, with Activision community manager that said their goal was "to make the game look & play the same across all platforms."

So, it does happen and will definitely happen again, to think otherwise is naive.

 

[USC-fan]

I would almost agree with that sentiment if the PS4 wasn't closer to being on par with performance of a 650Ti.

The assumption of HD7870 like performance is the failure, as the GPU is much more akin to a 7970M, but slightly bastardized. a 7970M performs on par or slightly less than a 7850 or 650Ti.

No way in the world its less than 7850.

Nothing you posted is correct.
Ps4 would perform better then 7850 and xbone would perform better than 7770.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I would love if this was the case, but I have a very weird suspicion that EA will make sure both versions run at 720p, even though the ps4 can wreck it at 1080p.

/tinfoil hat

I agree with you there. Especially around launch time that kind of difference would be devastating for MS

 

[IN&OUT]

I would almost agree with that sentiment if the PS4 wasn't closer to being on par with performance of a 650Ti.

The assumption of HD7870 like performance is the failure, as the GPU is much more akin to a 7970M, but slightly bastardized. a 7970M performs on par or slightly less than a 7850 or 650Ti.

PS4 is slightly above HD7850.

HD7850: 16 CUs
PS4: 18 CUs.

 

[lyrick]

No way in the world its less than 7850.

Nothing you posted is correct.

Look at the PS4 GPU specs

Look at the 7970M specs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_7000_Series]

People use the discrete models because they're more familiar with them, but it's getting close to the point of ridiculousness with the stretching of the PS4's magic.

They're both Pitcairn chips, but in reality the PS4 GPU is probably more akin to some nonexistent 7950M variant.

Also if HD7870 were really the case DICE would confirm the hell out of 1080p60 Console version of Battlefield 4, but that just isn't happening

 

[StuBurns]

Also a twitter conversation, with Activision community manager that said their goal was "to make the game look & play the same across all platforms."

You can't seriously believe that?

They mean for the experience to be comparable on all systems, not to cripple everything to match the Wii U version or whatever.

 

[Zatoichi's Cane]

You can't seriously believe that?

They mean for the experience to be comparable on all systems, not to cripple everything to match the Wii U version or whatever.

Obviously the wii U version is not going to look like the PC. This conversation was in the context of comparing the PS4 to Xbone. So yes, I seriously believe that, and I sure as shit believe Jeff Gerstmann over you. Not meant as an insult towards you but emphasizing Jeff's knowledge in these matters over you and I.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

You can't seriously believe that?

They mean for the experience to be comparable on all systems, not to cripple everything to match the Wii U version or whatever.

I don't have a link but I remember that conversation. It was specifically about next gen console graphics and if there would be a difference between PS4 and Xbone versions of the game

 

[ZiggyRoXx]

better match would have been the 7850 for ps4 and 7770 for xbone.

No it wouldn't, with all the additional optimisations that come with console territory, the PS4 GPU will perform closer to a 7870 than a 7850.

As for the Xbox...who cares.

 

[Finalizer]

Look at the 7970M specs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_7000_Series]

People use the 7850 because it's a much closer comparison, albeit with the PS4 having more CUs (18 vs. 16) and a slightly lower clockspeed (800 vs. 860). The PS4 comes out a bit ahead in pure GLOPS.

 

[dragonelite]

since when does 2.56TF == 1.84TF ???
The 7850(860mhz) at 1.76 is closer to 1.84.
If you can find an benchmark at 7850 at 900mhz then they are the same.

 

[vpance]

I don't have a link but I remember that conversation. It was specifically about next gen console graphics and if there would be a difference between PS4 and Xbone versions of the game

Of course the PR guy will say that, they want both versions to sell as well as possible.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if CoD looked the same on both. The game doesn't exactly look good period. How much can it really be pushing?

 

[ZiggyRoXx]

People use the 7850 because it's a much closer comparison, albeit with the PS4 having more CUs (18 vs. 16) and a slightly lower clockspeed (800 vs. 860). The PS4 comes out a bit ahead in pure GLOPS.

The difference between a 7850 & 7870 is only 15-20% (depending on the type of game engine) anyway...if it's shader limited or fill rate limited.

Sony would have to have done something seriously wrong with their GPU API layer if they can't make up that difference with console overheads.

 

[RayMaker]

I know it's somewhat silly since these console will be out in about a month or so but for those of us that enjoy the speculation, I think the PC performance of the BF4 beta may give some insight into the performance difference between the consoles. My reference article is the Tom's Hardware Graphic Card Comparison: Tom's Hardware Graphic Card Comparison.

A couple of things to keep in mind for the purposes of my comparison:

• The PS4 GPU is assumed to be roughly equal to the 7870 GPU
• The Xbox One GPU is assumed to be roughly equal to the 7790 GPU ( The difference in ROPS and CUs between these PC cards are the same as the delta in the consoles)
• According to DICE 60fps is the target for the game and resolution/settings are the variables

So will next gen versions be able to hit the 1080p/60fps mark? Well if this is anything to go by, we can see that the 7870 is pretty averaging 60fps with the high settings @ the full 1080p. Taking into account that this is a beta and the retail performance on the PC should be even better in addition to the fixed nature of the console allowing for better optimization, I think it reasonable to say that it is possible for the PS4 version to hit the 60fps mark at the full 1080p with at least High preset. However, the 7790 is only averaging just above 40fps. Furthermore, if you actually read the article on Tom's Hardware, you'll note that the framerate variance is particularly high on the 7790 at this setting indicating that the GPU isn't really "comfortable" (i.e. stable) with 41.5fps at those settings. Thus, to get the game to run on a 7790 @1080p/High preset, a console dev would likely opt to lock the fps at 30. There is very little chance of getting that card to run the game comfortably @ 60fps and 1080p with high presets.

So what would it take for the 7790 (Xbox One) to run the game @ 60fps? Clearly, either the resolution would need to be reduced and/or the setting dropped. Tom's Hardware noted that the medium preset did not offer much of a difference in performance from the High preset. So that may not help much in this case. But what about resolution?

Dropping the resolution to 1680x1050 and keeping the settings to High increased the 7790 performance by about 20% but it is still a long way from 60fps on average. So either the resolution would need to be dropped further to 720p or so while keeping the high settings or the settings would need to drop some. In other words, it's up to DICE to make the tradeoff: the graphics details vs. the resolution.

So what did we learn:

1. BF4 (Beta) is a real world example showing that the 50% increase in shader units and 2x the number of ROPS can actually look like a 50% difference in fps. The 7870's perf @ 1080p/High is over 40% higher than the 7790 (58.7 vs 41.5)
2. The PS4 GPU is likely capable of running BF4 @ native 1080p/60fps with the graphics set to at least high
3. The Xbox One's GPU is likely NOT capable of running at native 1080p/60fps with the High preset.
4. It is reasonable to expect that the resolution and graphical detail will be negatively effected on the Xbox One to achieve the desired 60fps. Expect a 720p/60fps with the same settings as PS4 or something in between 720p and 1080p with noticeably reduced graphics quality.

No this is not the bible and it is not fact. I'm making educated guesses based on real world data that may be completely different for the retail console versions. This is all in fun, but I think that the deduction is reasonable and matches what we have been hearing from devs and "insiders" over the past few months all along. We'll find out soon enough

But with the mantle API(apparently similar to the X1's and PS4'S API) there is a performance increase, so comparing using standard DirectX wont give similar results.

 

[daman824]

bone fans and MS are going to be consistently upset paying $60 for inferior versions of the same game. I doubt MS will be able to do anything to force parity since virtually every big-budget multi-plat game will be superior on PS4 they can't moneyhat every single developer to gimp the PS4 version which will have superior results in one or more:

Lighting, Textures, Particle Effects, Physics, DoF, Motion Blur, AA, AF, HBAO, Reflections, Animations, Shadows, Scale, Draw Distance, Loading Times, Uber-sampling, 3D, VR, Polygons, decals, hair rendering, subsurface scattering, etc etc etc etc etc.

Lol, the PS4 versions of multiplats will consistently look better. But if you think things like scale, hair rendering, animations, physics, or polygons are going to be noticeably different between the two consoles your wrong.

Biggest differences next gen will be shadows, AA, and resolution. Maybe some slight texture differences too. Slightly lower quality shadows running at half the pixels with less AA will close that 50% gap easily.

First party games will show more differences though.

 

[Riky]

I don't know if these comparisons with PC cards really stack up, how would a X1900 or a GTX7800 run Crysis 3 in comparison to a 360 or PS3?

 

[qa_engineer]

Ahh its the thread that keeps on giving (and breathing). I really do feel like these PC comparisons are rather pointless, but please continue.

 

[professor_t]

It's not a fallacy. The Xbox One will live or die based on its ecosystem, games, and messaging.

The XBox one has a lot of problems, but this power gap that the internet won't shut the fuck up about isn't really one of them. The DS annihilated the PSP. the 3DS is annihilating the Vita. Power gaps mean very little in the console game. Much larger gaps than we're going to see here have been rendered moot by messaging, mindshare and content.

When the Xbox One flops (and I suspect it will), it will be because they fucked up in their business model and messaging, not a power gap that only matters to about 0.1% of the gaming populace. A small percentage that happens to include me, for what it's worth, but the people who genuinely buy the better version of multiplats and don't just boast on the internet when their "team" has a perceived power advantage is a tiny, tiny, portion of the game-buying public. A portion that has about as much sway in the console war as hardcore turn-based strategy fans.

*applause*

I wish we could have a club for the people who actually get it (maybe call it the "One Percent Club"). You are a charter member.

Judging by their commentary, a huge proportion of the people on this site cannot grasp the difference between what matters to them (and to me, incidentally) and what matters to the general populace (and, ultimately, the success or failure of a console).

I don't know, maybe it's an unfair characterization, but it seems like few people understand what drives the success of a console (and they haven't learned their lesson from the Wii vs. everyone else, the DS vs. the PSP, the PS2 vs. the Xbox, the 3DS vs. the Vita, etc.).

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Oh how fitting it would have been if MS had decided to call the xbone "Xbox 720"

Ooooooooooooohh Snap!

 

[StuBurns]

Obviously the wii U version is not going to look like the PC. This conversation was in the context of comparing the PS4 to Xbone. So yes, I seriously believe that, and I sure as shit believe Jeff Gerstmann over you. Not meant as an insult towards you but emphasizing Jeff's knowledge in these matters over you and I.

I don't believe Jeff, for a very simple reason, no one could have paid for parity, because there wasn't any. He said it was a sports game in the first year, and the 360 version of every sports game handily beat the PS3 version. So Sony didn't pay to have the 360 version butchered, and there's no way MS paid to have them made even, because that would have meant paying to cripple their own versions. I think it's much more likely he's misremembering the disparity in Madden with allowing 360 owners a player creation suite, which apparently caused Sony to push for a content equality element to the cert rules, something MS already had.

People can speculate all they wish, but there has always been games with very noticeable differences between SKUs. It makes sense to have a target for quality, and if one system is easier to achieve that on, to spend more time on the other version. For example, if it requires two months to port the PC version of CoD:Ghosts at 1080p/60fps to PS4, and it takes four months to do that for XBO, it makes sense to prioritize the XBO version. It doesn't make sense to deliberately butcher a version. Above all else, Activision is competing with EA, CoD is going up against BF, and unless there was some backroom meeting where both CEOs agreed to not take advantage of the PS4's more notable GPU performance, neither of them are going to leave performance on the table, it's a competitive resource being wasted.

Well, that's my hypothesis, we'll know for sure in a month or so.

 

[Famassu]

I don't have a link but I remember that conversation. It was specifically about next gen console graphics and if there would be a difference between PS4 and Xbone versions of the game

Yeah, and devs/publishers/PR also said that PS360 versions are all the same. We know that's far from the truth with about 99% of multiplatforms.

 

[qa_engineer]

Ooooooooooooohh Snap!

That is a double pun, you know, because of the wasted resources on Xbox One's snap feature.

 

[boredandlazy]

So what did we learn:

1. BF4 (Beta) is a real world example showing that the 50% increase in shader units and 2x the number of ROPS can actually look like a 50% difference in fps. The 7870's perf @ 1080p/High is over 40% higher than the 7790 (58.7 vs 41.5)
2. The PS4 GPU is likely capable of running BF4 @ native 1080p/60fps with the graphics set to at least high
3. The Xbox One's GPU is likely NOT capable of running at native 1080p/60fps with the High preset.
4. It is reasonable to expect that the resolution and graphical detail will be negatively effected on the Xbox One to achieve the desired 60fps. Expect a 720p/60fps with the same settings as PS4 or something in between 720p and 1080p with noticeably reduced graphics quality.

No this is not the bible and it is not fact. I'm making educated guesses based on real world data that may be completely different for the retail console versions. This is all in fun, but I think that the deduction is reasonable and matches what we have been hearing from devs and "insiders" over the past few months all along. We'll find out soon enough

What CPU did they use for the test?
Otherwise we didn't learn that much in regards to BF4 real world console performance.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

That is a double pun, you know, because of the wasted resources on Xbox One's snap feature.

Haha, didn't even think about that. Yeah, poor Xbox One is getting beat up with the discussions lately. Poor thing.

 

[RayMaker]

*applause*

I wish we could have a club for the people who actually get it (maybe call it the "One Percent Club"). You are a charter member.

Judging by their commentary, a huge proportion of the people on this site cannot grasp the difference between what matters to them (and to me, incidentally) and what matters to the general populace (and, ultimately, the success or failure of a console).

I don't know, maybe it's an unfair characterization, but it seems like few people understand what drives the success of a console (and they haven't learned their lesson from the Wii vs. everyone else, the DS vs. the PSP, the PS2 vs. the Xbox, the 3DS vs. the Vita, etc.).

I get it.

 

[dragonelite]

I don't believe Jeff, for a very simple reason, no one could have paid for parity, because there wasn't any. He said it was a sports game in the first year, and the 360 version of every sports game handily beat the PS3 version. So Sony didn't pay to have the 360 version butchered, and there's no way MS paid to have them made even, because that would have meant paying to cripple their own versions. I think it's much more likely he's misremembering the disparity in Madden with allowing 360 owners a player creation suite, which apparently caused Sony to push for a content equality element to the cert rules, something MS already had.

People can speculate all they wish, but there has always been games with very noticeable differences between SKUs. It makes sense to have a target for quality, and if one system is easier to achieve that on, to spend more time on the other version. For example, if it requires two months to port the PC version of CoD:Ghosts at 1080p/60fps to PS4, and it takes four months to do that for XBO, it makes sense to prioritize the XBO version. It doesn't make sense to deliberately butcher a version. Above all else, Activision is competing with EA, CoD is going up against BF, and unless there was some backroom meeting where both CEOs agreed to not take advantage of the PS4's more notable GPU performance, neither of them are going to leave performance on the table, it's a competitive resource being wasted.

Well, that's my hypothesis, we'll know for sure in a month or so.

Pretty much hell too be honest, i expect 1080p for ps4 and 900p for X1 in the following year when focus on current gen is over.
And xbox fans dont blame the devs for that blame Microsoft for soft balling the specs i know i do.

But i have general low opinion on next gen consoles they offer nothing really new i haven't experienced on pc for the last 2 years.
Still gonna enjoy the games tho getting dem all probably before 2015. WiiU depends on what zelda becomes.

 

[USC-fan]

Look at the PS4 GPU specs

Look at the 7970M specs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_HD_7000_Series]

People use the discrete models because they're more familiar with them, but it's getting close to the point of ridiculousness with the stretching of the PS4's magic.

They're both Pitcairn chips, but in reality the PS4 GPU is probably more akin to some nonexistent 7950M variant.

Also if HD7870 were really the case DICE would confirm the hell out of 1080p60 Console version of Battlefield 4, but that just isn't happening

Just stop
Someone please repost artist chart.

 

[lyrick]

People use the 7850 because it's a much closer comparison, albeit with the PS4 having more CUs (18 vs. 16) and a slightly lower clockspeed (800 vs. 860). The PS4 comes out a bit ahead in pure GLOPS.

This idea also totally ignores the benefits of having a 75W TDP vs the 130 TDP of the discrete variant of Pitcairn along with the fact that the 7970m has exactly 20 Compute Units so there's room for error in production.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/7000m/7900m/Pages/radeon-7900m-series.aspx#2

You're still going to get the same GFlops due to Clock and cores (1 instruction/Cycle)x (64 shaders x 18 Compute Units) x (0.80e9 Cycles) x (2 Float ADD operations/instruction) => 1.84GFlops (ADD) regardless of Mobile or Discrete versions

 

[Tabular]

Well, he is equating the handheld console space, with the home console space.

And I'm saying they just DON'T equate. Not only do multiplatorms running better on one machine make it more attractive to your average buyer, but the more powerful console here is actually the cheaper one. Nintendo's dominance in hand helds just doesn't carry over to hardcore gaming consoles. People used to argue that Bluray wasn't going to win over HDDVD because 'the best technology never wins.' Then Bluray of course won. Obviously specs and better graphics will help PS4 tremendously. Imagine Xbox coming out with worse graphics a year after it's rival; ps2. It would have sold a lot worse than it did. The same logic should tell you Xbone is in for a world of hurt this coming gen.

 

[StuBurns]

Software and services sell consoles, not performance.

This disparity between performance might be a hot topic of discussion, but it's almost certainly the very last thing MS are concerned about.

 

[vcc]

Pretty much hell too be honest, i expect 1080p for ps4 and 900p for X1 in the following year when focus on current gen is over.
And xbox fans dont blame the devs for that blame Microsoft for soft balling the specs i know i do.

But i have general low opinion on next gen consoles they offer nothing really new i haven't experienced on pc for the last 2 years.
Still gonna enjoy the games tho getting dem all probably before 2015. WiiU depends on what zelda becomes.

Shaking off the PS3/360 gen; AAA games can get bigger now that they can target a console base with things other than corridor shooters and Indie games can port easier than the previous gen so they have a bigger market. The generation change will be good even if you don't pick up a console and on Console they'll have some of the Sony Ms exclusives.

At the moment my home system is on par with the XB1 and under the PS4 so for me the PS4 will be a slight upgrade. Saves me from having to get a new computer for a year or two. There is value in that as well.

 

[vcc]

Software and services sell consoles, not performance.

This disparity between performance might be a hot topic of discussion, but it's almost certainly the very last thing MS are concerned about.

At launch the software is tepid across both, services do can but you need something on the scale of netflix as opposed to nfl.com fantasy football. Realistically yahoo and ESPN fantasy football apps may help later but at launch the XB1 makes a very poor case for itself there.

At launch performance has been a selling point. It was for the PS1, PS2, and in a way the 360. The Ps1 and Ps2 were in fact very powerful machines for the year they launched and it was a factor in shutting down the Saturn and Dreamcast. The fact Ps3 multi-platforms were pretty bad for 2 years was a huge factor in why people preferred the 360.

MS is gravely concerned because their PR keeps bringing it up.

 

[Finalizer]

Software and services sell consoles, not performance.

This disparity between performance might be a hot topic of discussion, but it's almost certainly the very last thing MS are concerned about.

It's been enough of an issue for MS that they've had Penello throwing his reputation through the mud on Gaf for the sake of the tech argument and have had their balance message continually pumped through DF. The notion of a power disparity is obviously enough of a concern to them to put real effort into trying to shift public perception. Their worries are probably something like this:

-The hardcore are the ones buying consoles day-one and early in their lifetimes. They care about console hardware, and generally keep a close eye on all major aspects of each system, including performance.
-The "softcore"/casuals will have their opinions shaped by the general mindset emanated from the hardcore. They don't care about power per se, but will care about "which systems are games better on."

So it becomes part of a larger picture of which system sells more hardware, software, and subscriptions in the long-run. As such, MS wants to do everything they can to quell any idea that their system is in any way inferior to the competition.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

And I'm saying they just DON'T equate. Not only do multiplatorms running better on one machine make it more attractive to your average buyer, but the more powerful console here is actually the cheaper one. Nintendo's dominance in hand helds just doesn't carry over to hardcore gaming consoles. People used to argue that Bluray wasn't going to win over HDDVD because 'the best technology never wins.' Then Bluray of course won. Obviously specs and better graphics will help PS4 tremendously. Imagine Xbox coming out with worse graphics a year after it's rival; ps2. It would have sold a lot worse than it did. The same logic should tell you Xbone is in for a world of hurt this coming gen.

I agree. And he's also implying the Xbox One has all the things going for it which made the PS2 and the Wii more successful than their competitors. For starters there's the $100 price gap. Another problem with comparing the Xbox with the wii is that the wii wasn't trying to sell to the casuals while simultaneously going after the hardcore market which the Xbox one clearly is trying to do. It's trying to appeal to the casuals but isn't really offering a significant amount of kinect games. And a $100 more expensive added to pretty much every service behind a paywall is not gonna really attract casuals. And it's trying to appeal to the hardcore gamers but will most likely offer the inferior multiplatform games. So it's a case of jack of all trades and a master of none. And that's the main issue I have with the console. What is it trying to do exactly?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Software and services sell consoles, not performance.

This disparity between performance might be a hot topic of discussion, but it's almost certainly the very last thing MS are concerned about.

Performance matters to early adopters. Early adopters create positive network effects.

If MS weren't remotely concerned they wouldn't be trying to obfuscate the difference as hard as they have been of late.

 

[frizby]

It's been enough of an issue for MS that they've had Penello throwing his reputation through the mud on Gaf for the sake of the tech argument and have had their balance message continually pumped through DF. The notion of a power disparity is obviously enough of a concern to them to put real effort into trying to shift public perception. Their worries are probably something like this:

-The hardcore are the ones buying consoles day-one and early in their lifetimes. They care about console hardware, and generally keep a close eye on all major aspects of each system, including performance.
-The "softcore"/casuals will have their opinions shaped by the general mindset emanated from the hardcore. They don't care about power per se, but will care about "which systems are games better on."

So it becomes part of a larger picture of which system sells more hardware, software, and subscriptions in the long-run. As such, MS wants to do everything they can to quell any idea that their system is in any way inferior to the competition.

And whatever FUD campaign they have going, it seems to be working. Everywhere you look, it's either "they are about the same" or "it doesn't matter because it didn't matter in whichever generation" or "Carmack said..." or some nonsense about "balance" or "diminishing returns after 12 CUs" or the power of SHAPE.

Of all the advantages the PS4 has, power is the most clear and obvious aside from price, but MS has done a very good job of obfuscating it.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

, if it requires two months to port the PC version of CoD:Ghosts at 1080p/60fps to PS4, and it takes four months to do that for XBO, it makes sense to prioritize the XBO version. It doesn't make sense to deliberately butcher a version.
.

I think you have this reversed. If you have an easy platform and a harder platform and you can not do both concurrently then you hit the Easy platform first .

You can spend alot of time trying to get a product ready for market and you don't jeopardize the release of two products because one system has issues.

I also believe it will be a far easier port going from the PS4 to the XB1 then the reverse so if anything porting to the PS4 will save them some time porting to the XB1.

 

[vpance]

It makes sense to have a target for quality, and if one system is easier to achieve that on, to spend more time on the other version. For example, if it requires two months to port the PC version of CoD:Ghosts at 1080p/60fps to PS4, and it takes four months to do that for XBO, it makes sense to prioritize the XBO version.

Development on both platforms will happen concurrently and most likely with separate teams of developers, if not completely outsourced to another company for one of them. So while the guys working on PS4 are done ages ago and sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they'll either jump to Bone or continue to optimize PS4.

 

[LittleJohnny]

At launch the software is tepid across both, services do can but you need something on the scale of netflix as opposed to nfl.com fantasy football. Realistically yahoo and ESPN fantasy football apps may help later but at launch the XB1 makes a very poor case for itself there.

At launch performance has been a selling point. It was for the PS1, PS2, and in a way the 360. The Ps1 and Ps2 were in fact very powerful machines for the year they launched and it was a factor in shutting down the Saturn and Dreamcast. The fact Ps3 multi-platforms were pretty bad for 2 years was a huge factor in why people preferred the 360.

MS is gravely concerned because their PR keeps bringing it up.

Hmm, Saturn and Dreamcast cases were totally unrelated to power. Saturn for example launched with no games and they were unifinished and glitchy. Dreamcast lost Madden and Sega rep was destroyed by then with all their past mistakes.

A good example is GameCube vs Xbox because the difference in power is probably closer to what the difference is between PS4 vs Xbox One. Both systems were vastly more powerful than the PS2 but software beats anything. It didn't matter how much more powerful than the PS2 they were, software and services always win.

Did anyone care how much more advanced Xbox was over GameCube? Sales between the 2 were pretty close. Xbox did edge out the GameCube but it had very little to do with system power. Xbox Live, Halo and the better 3rd party support is what made the difference.

PS4 vs Xbox One is an even less of a difference than Xbox vs GameCube. GPUs were a generation apart, GameCube had no programmable shaders, had almost half the ram and half the bandwidth. I could go on but the difference was quite big yet no one really complained that GameCube wasn't good enough graphically during that gen, the PS2 was FAR behind, that's kind of where the Wii U will sit from a technical standpoint albeit even farther away and nowhere near the stance of the PS2 as far as support.

It's all about software and services. Let the games begin!

 

[frizby]

A good example is GameCube vs Xbox because the difference in power is probably closer to what the difference is between PS4 vs Xbox One. Both systems were vastly more powerful than the PS2 but software beats anything. It didn't matter how much more powerful than the PS2 they were, software and services always win.

Did anyone care how much more advanced Xbox was over GameCube? Sales between the 2 were pretty close. Xbox did edge out the GameCube but it had very little to do with system power. Xbox Live, Halo and the better 3rd party support is what made the difference.

PS4 vs Xbox One is an even less of a difference than Xbox vs GameCube. GPUs were a generation apart, GameCube had no programmable shaders, had almost half the ram and half the bandwidth. I could go on but the difference was quite big yet no one really complained that GameCube wasn't good enough graphically during that gen, the PS2 was FAR behind, that's kind of where the Wii U will sit from a technical standpoint albeit even farther away and nowhere near the stance of the PS2 as far as support.

That is a terrible comparison. Xbox sold on power, and Gamecube sold on first party software and price. PS4 will have all three.

PS2 rolled them both for reasons having nothing to do with power.

 

[IN&OUT]

Hmm, Saturn and Dreamcast cases were totally unrelated to power. Saturn for example launched with no games and they were unifinished and glitchy. Dreamcast lost Madden and Sega rep was destroyed by then with all their past mistakes.

A good example is GameCube vs Xbox because the difference in power is probably closer to what the difference is between PS4 vs Xbox One. Both systems were vastly more powerful than the PS2 but software beats anything. It didn't matter how much more powerful than the PS2 they were, software and services always win.

Did anyone care how much more advanced Xbox was over GameCube? Sales between the 2 were pretty close. Xbox did edge out the GameCube but it had very little to do with system power. Xbox Live, Halo and the better 3rd party support is what made the difference.

PS4 vs Xbox One is an even less of a difference than Xbox vs GameCube. GPUs were a generation apart, GameCube had no programmable shaders, had almost half the ram and half the bandwidth. I could go on but the difference was quite big yet no one really complained that GameCube wasn't good enough graphically during that gen, the PS2 was FAR behind, that's kind of where the Wii U will sit from a technical standpoint albeit even farther away and nowhere near the stance of the PS2 as far as support.

It's all about software and services. Let the games begin!

Aside from PS2 releasing almost 2 years before Xbox and gamecube. 2013 is different than 2001. consumers can research their purchases by a mouse click. something that wasn't as widespread in 2001. also you have the effect of social media (you tube, twitter..etc) with Xbox almost having a universal negative reputation. words can spread much faster than before affecting Xbox while helping PS4 in the process.

I had bunch of my friends who didn't know Xbox was a thing until 2005, same can be said for Gamecube while PS2 was almost a synonymous for Video games.

So, power difference will definitely impact software sales on PS4/X1 and once people realize that PS4 will always run games better you will see X1 sales start to decrease. this is MS worst nightmare and that's why they are spreading the FUD that PS4/X1 are equal power wise. what makes it even worse that this gen witness the first time in consoles history were the most powerful console is actually cheaper or not the most expensive to be more accurate.

 

[vcc]

Hmm, Saturn and Dreamcast cases were totally unrelated to power. Saturn for example launched with no games and they were unifinished and glitchy. Dreamcast lost Madden and Sega rep was destroyed by then with all their past mistakes.

In both cases the launches were near the Ps1 and Ps2 and they competed directly with no other incumbent obstruficating things.

A good example is GameCube vs Xbox because the difference in power is probably closer to what the difference is between PS4 vs Xbox One. Both systems were vastly more powerful than the PS2 but software beats anything. It didn't matter how much more powerful than the PS2 they were, software and services always win.

The presence of a massively successful PS2 does confuse that. The more powerful machine in the GC vs XB1... XBO... XB... ahh XB first had 24m units while the GC has 22m. It helped that the GC was $100 cheaper and had Nintendo behind it.

Did anyone care how much more advanced Xbox was over GameCube? Sales between the 2 were pretty close. Xbox did edge out the GameCube but it had very little to do with system power. Xbox Live, Halo and the better 3rd party support is what made the difference.

The XB first came out stronger and demand for the GC was lower at first. GC had a much longer tail due to Nintendo which isn't something MS can't count on. MS is probably is in a worst position as a studio and publisher than they were in the XB first era or at the start of the 360 era. So at first yes it mattered. But Nintendo is a powerhouse studio with games that have lasting appeal. MS has never had that sort of cachet and depended on third parties and second party games; which were cheap for them to secure on the 360 due to being at the top for attach rate.

PS4 vs Xbox One is an even less of a difference than Xbox vs GameCube. GPUs were a generation apart, GameCube had no programmable shaders, had almost half the ram and half the bandwidth. I could go on but the difference was quite big yet no one really complained that GameCube wasn't good enough graphically during that gen, the PS2 was FAR behind, that's kind of where the Wii U will sit from a technical standpoint albeit even farther away and nowhere near the stance of the PS2 as far as support.

Sony had control over the third parties with the strategy of making ports so painful few would attempt them. A strategy that killed them come the 360/PS3 eras. Even so the XB1 sprinted off the starting block compared to the GC but Nintendo had the long tail. This highlights a key weakness in MS; they aren't a very prolific game studio/publisher.

It's all about software and services. Let the games begin!

Service MS will likely have Sony beat. Software as in game MS is the worst they have every been to compete there. Sony had multiple studios that crank out good games and they have that angle well managed and they take calculated risks. MS drove the 3 most famous franchises they published into the ground and lost the support of the studios/creator behind them. Halo, Gears, Fable. They are in a uniquely bad position this gen and badly need to either build up or buy talent. The kinect focus also doesn't help. There isn't any appeal for many devs to come on board if they will be pushed into kinect development.

So MS has to hope that their TV/Sports apps and kinect casual games initiative is enough. They are a year or more out from being able to compete directly and their board is not apt to throw money at third parties like they did at the dawn fo the 360.

They can still make it happen and they still may win but they are in a bad starting position.

 

[Anonumos]

Jesus, this thread is STILL going

 

[SHADES]

Pretty much hell too be honest, i expect 1080p for ps4 and 900p for X1 in the following year when focus on current gen is over.
And xbox fans dont blame the devs for that blame Microsoft for soft balling the specs i know i do.

But i have general low opinion on next gen consoles they offer nothing really new i haven't experienced on pc for the last 2 years.
Still gonna enjoy the games tho getting dem all probably before 2015. WiiU depends on what zelda becomes.

Yeah pretty much, Marc Whitton gave devs a pass on that one at the reveal when he stated "we purposely didn't target high end graphics".

That's how I view it.

 

[Skeff]

Hmm, Saturn and Dreamcast cases were totally unrelated to power. Saturn for example launched with no games and they were unifinished and glitchy. Dreamcast lost Madden and Sega rep was destroyed by then with all their past mistakes.

A good example is GameCube vs Xbox because the difference in power is probably closer to what the difference is between PS4 vs Xbox One. Both systems were vastly more powerful than the PS2 but software beats anything. It didn't matter how much more powerful than the PS2 they were, software and services always win.

Did anyone care how much more advanced Xbox was over GameCube? Sales between the 2 were pretty close. Xbox did edge out the GameCube but it had very little to do with system power. Xbox Live, Halo and the better 3rd party support is what made the difference.

PS4 vs Xbox One is an even less of a difference than Xbox vs GameCube. GPUs were a generation apart, GameCube had no programmable shaders, had almost half the ram and half the bandwidth. I could go on but the difference was quite big yet no one really complained that GameCube wasn't good enough graphically during that gen, the PS2 was FAR behind, that's kind of where the Wii U will sit from a technical standpoint albeit even farther away and nowhere near the stance of the PS2 as far as support.

It's all about software and services. Let the games begin!

I don't really understand your xbox vs. Gamecube comparison.

The xbox was the more powerful system and was $100 more expensive and that was enough to outsell nintendo who were $100 cheaper and had Nintendo's first party which absolutely trounced the xbox's first party.

Your "evidence" seems to show that the power difference is actually a big enough reason for people to spend an extra $100 and miss out on great first party games....

Which kind of makes me think More powerful, cheaper and (IMO) better first party titles will be huge this gen.