I don't even know if this is a joke post or not.
it's not
I don't even know if this is a joke post or not.
it's not
Wii proved "graphics don't matter." MS is gambling they can abandon the tech performance lead to Sony, as long as they stay close enough to be relevant to third parties, and focus on other non-gaming features they believe will catch the interest of people beyond the "hardcore" crowd. They think this strategy will lead to more profits than had they just tried to one up Sony in the flops warz.
They better hope they can price this thing in the 299$ range or else their screwed from the core gaming community and I'll only have a single console under my TV for the next 5-6 years and it'll be PS4.......dumb dumb dumb move by Microsoft if they can't price this thing incredible cheap.
and If PS4 has no BC then their really screwed it's iOS and maybe PC gaming for me
I'm sure they'll bully indies and smaller publishers but I don't see this flying with EA and the like.it's not
The architectures are essentially the same and both are probably easy to develop for. If anything games will be downported from Orbis, which would benefit both consoles. It's easier to pair things back and get good results than trying to add features.
I'm sure they'll bully indies and smaller publishers but I don't see this flying with EA and the like.
alphanoid..? you are aware that you just posted that on a gaming forum.. for gamers.? I think I know neogaf as much to say, that most neogaffers want a gaming console.. not an overgrown mobilephonetablethybridthingy..
What I have learned from Neogaf today.
PS4 is far more powerful than next Xbox.
PS4 will be cheaper.
PS4 is easier to develop games on.
Xbox will be a DVR/Media Center that plays Kinect games on the side.
Xbox needs 8 gigs of RAM because of ADs.
MS will leave the industry.
Did I miss anything?
Lol, please. People don't like the Wii u because its an overpriced and underpowered land whale with no games. It has nothing at all to do with what you just typed, and you know it.
I have a strange feeling that whatever Microsoft shows at E3 and the following DF comparisons will render this thread into comedy gold.
I think we will see a $300 SKU based on what MS priced their consoles in the past.
Overall, if they are going from more of a PS2 approach (a really good improvement from the predecessor but less powerful than the main competition), then I would be fine with that if it means having a library as great/diversified as the PS2. If they could combine that with great & fast online features and services then I think that they will be in very good shape.
I saw some people say that being like the PS2 was a negative (or at least seemingly implying that) and I guess they care more about power.
Overall, I don't think it's a negative at all. The PS2 is my second favorite console of all time (SNES is #1). If MS is trying to go for a modern version of that, then I'll be greatly interested in it.
Lol, please. People don't like the Wii u because its an overpriced and underpowered land whale with no games. It has nothing at all to do with what you just typed, and you know it.
Does DF ever do exclusive vs. exclusive comparisons? I doubt there is going to be much of a gap in cross platform titles. Microsoft is in the best position with third parties coming out of this hardware cycle.I have a strange feeling that whatever Microsoft shows at E3 and the following DF comparisons will render this thread into comedy gold.
I have a strange feeling that whatever Microsoft shows at E3 and the following DF comparisons will render this thread into comedy gold.
Was that in reply to me?
If so, yes I know that people feel that way. I basically feel the same way as you described in the post.
However, I just find it funny how people act like MS is the only one that wants their console to be an all-in-one media box when Sony wants it just as much... if not more now than MS is getting so many media partners.
Lol, please. People don't like the Wii u because its an overpriced and underpowered land whale with no games. It has nothing at all to do with what you just typed, and you know it.
No I didn't. I was just in Fry's on Friday, plenty of 720p models. Sure more 1080p models but to say 720p is rare is quite an exaggeration.
VERY VERY few 720p TV in retail stores here in the states only small screens or weird off brand manufactures.
I expect more from a console in 2013. Hell I expect more from ANY consumer electronic in 2013. My smartphone can do more than these consoles, and faster most of the time. Its a media hub, its a remote control, is a social device, its a gaming device, its many more things as well. To me, a console in 2013 that focuses mostly on the gaming experience is a failure waiting to happen. It sounds great on paper, or in nerdy fantasies but the reality is.. consumers expect more these days. The proof is out there today, look at what people are buying. Look at what kids are begging their parents for and what Grandparents are finally deciding to buy into. Its smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices that do a hell of a lot more than gaming. These use unified account systems, social integration right into the OS's, media functionality, all of which are now daily common things to use. A gaming device coming out in 2013 that is expected to last for several years has to be able to offer similar capabilities or its dead on arrival. You can look directly at WiiU complaints about infrastructure and OS complaints for what I'm talking about. People just expect more these days, slow OS's, lousy content offerings, terrible unified account systems etc..
Consumers actually notice these things now, and 7 years ago they weren't remotely on their radar. The market has changed.
My next gen console better be able to at least match what my smartphone can do, or do it better. Apps should launch in seconds or milliseconds. Social integration should be tight, infrastructure and OS platform should be efficient, optimized and future proof. Cloud services need to be dialed in, and be readily available on a multitude of devices/platforms. All of those need to be there, and need to be AAA top tier software. No nonsense, no launch bugs, no working out the kinks or upgrades in a year. Out of the box, both Sony and Microsoft need to have a product that is up to date in the modern technology market. A console that plays online, has access to movies/tv/music isn't enough. That was 2005. The goddamn OS's need to be written from the ground up to serve these features on a golden platter and wow the consumer. The architecture, infrastructure, operating systems and longevity of all of them better be treated as in high regard as a AAA game. Hire the best, pay for the best and expect the best.
No more excuses, no more hiding behind a thin veil pretending that game consoles are the exception to the rule.
Outside of the standard gaming, social, marketplace stuff I personally would like to see real media center functionality built in. I'm currently running a few devices to serve up my media center needs. I want to cut off Cable tv for good, give me something that serves up online streaming content in one aggregated interface. No more launching Netflix, launching HBO Go, launching Hulu Plus. All that shit should integrate into 1 interface. Give me DVR capabilities, give me software and OS functions that can match what phones have been doing for years.
Give me 1 box to rule them all.
I'm giving both Sony and Microsoft a solid chance, whoever brings the best 'device' gets my money. So far it seems that Microsoft is designing the kind of device that I want in the year 2013, but thats just based on rumors. For all I know Sony got their shit ready to roll too and maybe even better than MS. What I dont want is a console that is focused entirely too much on gaming content. Yea, I just said that. Thats a limited device that belongs in the 1990s .. and its not the 1990s any longer. Give me a console designed for 2013 and beyond.
Give me 1 box to rule them all.
Does DF ever do exclusive vs. exclusive comparisons? I doubt there is going to be much of a gap in cross platform titles. Microsoft is in the best position with third parties coming out of this hardware cycle.
Yes. It was. But I dislike using my bloated phonecommunicatorinternet device so much I usually do as little as possible when it comes to navigating. Given that, you get kudos for making me reply!Was that in reply to me?
If so, yes I know that people feel that way. I basically feel the same way as you described in the post.
However, I just find it funny how people act like MS is the only one that wants their console to be an all-in-one media box when Sony wants it just as much... if not more now that MS is getting so many media partners.
Do you seriously think that Nintendo wants just a pure-as-snow gaming machine, what with their tablet that doubles up as a TV remote, and an assortment of apps like Netflix, web browsers etc?However, I just find it funny how people act like MS is the only one that wants their console to be an all-in-one media box when Sony wants it just as much... if not more now that MS is getting so many media partners.
Lol, please. People don't like the Wii u because its an overpriced and underpowered land whale with no games. It has nothing at all to do with what you just typed, and you know it.
The PS2 was advanced for its time. Did some special things even the Xbox and GC had trouble recreating, especially in fill rate for particle effects. It held up extremely well considering it came out a year earlier than the competition. Don't really get the PS2 comparison.
I'm still predicting that Microsoft will take the profitable power route and sell each console without taking a hit.
The key difference is that they will use the business model proven by Apple to work, which is to release incremental hardware updates.
Instead of seeing a slim console, you'll actually see a more powerful unit that makes you existing games run better and after several years developers can choose to phase out support for the older slower hardware should they so choose.
This way you can cater for the casual gamers, who'se games presumably don't need to be as shiny, whilst continuing to give the real hardcore games constantly improving graphics , whist also forcing your competitors into a bit of an awkward spot when you effectively have an endless generation that has several inherent years of backwards compatible games and a huge userbase sitting behind you.
This model would also support the notion that they are going to try and sell subsidised units via phone shops and cable suppliers, who will always have a customer at the end who can upgrade to the newest console for free/cheap.
I actually think that as a console gamer it would actually be pretty cool to go out and get the newest console, boot up your favourite game and discover it's now playable at 60fps when it wasn't before.
Of course, if this was Microsoft's intention, we wouldn't hear anything of for a couple of years.
???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
Do you seriously think that Nintendo wants just a pure-as-snow gaming machine, what with their tablet that doubles up as a TV remote, and an assortment of apps like Netflix, web browsers etc?
Xbox debuted 20 months after PS2 (March 2000 vs. November 2001). Not really a similar situation. It would have been ridiculous for it to not be more powerful than a system that probably had its design finalized two years earlier. This is before the Wii era, of course.???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
I expect more from a console in 2013. Hell I expect more from ANY consumer electronic in 2013. My smartphone can do more than these consoles, and faster most of the time. Its a media hub, its a remote control, is a social device, its a gaming device, its many more things as well. To me, a console in 2013 that focuses mostly on the gaming experience is a failure waiting to happen. It sounds great on paper, or in nerdy fantasies but the reality is.. consumers expect more these days. The proof is out there today, look at what people are buying. Look at what kids are begging their parents for and what Grandparents are finally deciding to buy into. Its smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices that do a hell of a lot more than gaming. These use unified account systems, social integration right into the OS's, media functionality, all of which are now daily common things to use. A gaming device coming out in 2013 that is expected to last for several years has to be able to offer similar capabilities or its dead on arrival. You can look directly at WiiU complaints about infrastructure and OS complaints for what I'm talking about. People just expect more these days, slow OS's, lousy content offerings, terrible unified account systems etc..
Consumers actually notice these things now, and 7 years ago they weren't remotely on their radar. The market has changed.
My next gen console better be able to at least match what my smartphone can do, or do it better. Apps should launch in seconds or milliseconds. Social integration should be tight, infrastructure and OS platform should be efficient, optimized and future proof. Cloud services need to be dialed in, and be readily available on a multitude of devices/platforms. All of those need to be there, and need to be AAA top tier software. No nonsense, no launch bugs, no working out the kinks or upgrades in a year. Out of the box, both Sony and Microsoft need to have a product that is up to date in the modern technology market. A console that plays online, has access to movies/tv/music isn't enough. That was 2005. The goddamn OS's need to be written from the ground up to serve these features on a golden platter and wow the consumer. The architecture, infrastructure, operating systems and longevity of all of them better be treated as in high regard as a AAA game. Hire the best, pay for the best and expect the best.
No more excuses, no more hiding behind a thin veil pretending that game consoles are the exception to the rule.
Outside of the standard gaming, social, marketplace stuff I personally would like to see real media center functionality built in. I'm currently running a few devices to serve up my media center needs. I want to cut off Cable tv for good, give me something that serves up online streaming content in one aggregated interface. No more launching Netflix, launching HBO Go, launching Hulu Plus. All that shit should integrate into 1 interface. Give me DVR capabilities, give me software and OS functions that can match what phones have been doing for years.
Give me 1 box to rule them all.
I'm giving both Sony and Microsoft a solid chance, whoever brings the best 'device' gets my money. So far it seems that Microsoft is designing the kind of device that I want in the year 2013, but thats just based on rumors. For all I know Sony got their shit ready to roll too and maybe even better than MS. What I dont want is a console that is focused entirely too much on gaming content. Yea, I just said that. Thats a limited device that belongs in the 1990s .. and its not the 1990s any longer. Give me a console designed for 2013 and beyond.
Give me 1 box to rule them all.
Because if the specs are as it is, it's not another PS2. Sony pushed for the limit at the time with the PS2.
???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
So, essentially, what the 360 was to the PS3? In the same ballpark, but not as strong, and cheaper.You are focusing on the power of the console itself.
I'm stating how the console could be in comparison to its competition; saying that I can see it being similar to how the PS2 was in comparison to its main competition. A good improvement over last gen though not the powerful console out of the bunch; possibly more support overall due to a cheaper/more attractive price point from it not being the most powerful console.
???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
This is some revisionist history. The ps2 was a huge leap that was marketed on power. It simply was less powerful than it's main competitors because of time. it launched 18 months before. It's not comparable to the situation today with both consoles being designed and released at the same time. There is no "modern ps2 plan."
You are focusing on the power of the console itself.
I'm stating how the console could be in comparison to its competition; saying that I can see it being similar to how the PS2 was in comparison to its main competition -- A good improvement over last gen though not the powerful console out of the bunch; possibly more support overall though due to a cheaper/more attractive price point from it not being the most powerful console.
This is some revisionist history. The ps2 was a huge leap that was marketed on power. It simply was less powerful than it's main competitors because of time. it launched 18 months before. It's not comparable to the situation today with both consoles being designed and released at the same time. There is no "modern ps2 plan."
'Compressed AA' sounds similar to quincunx, but instead of blurring it has issues with sub pixel detail.
So, essentially, what the 360 was to the PS3? In the same ballpark, but not as strong, and cheaper.
Xbox debuted 20 months after PS2 (March 2000 vs. November 2001). Not really a similar situation. It would have been ridiculous for it to not be more powerful than a system that probably had its design finalized two years earlier. This is before the Wii era, of course.
???
What is there not to get?
The PS2 was a really good improvement over the PS1 but was weaker than its main competitors, the Xbox and GC.
The next Xbox will be a really good improvement over the Xbox 360 but it seems like it may be weaker than its main competitor, the PS4.
If MS is trying to go for a "modern PS2 plan", having an attractive system to various demographics with a good price point -- therefore causing the system to have a ton of support, then I don't view that as a bad thing at all.
The reason why the PS2 held up well (as you said) was simply because of the great support it had.
I minored in Computer Engineering and even I can't read this shit.
Relative to PS2 pre launch hyperbole, The Xbox actually delivered on what was promised.
Yeah but dates had nothing to do with the comparison I made. I was simply using examples of the positives and negatives of the systems in that gen to how things look like they will be in this upcoming gen; saying how things may match in similar ways.
The PS4 releasing around the same time as the next Xbox can definitely change some things a bit but if the next Xbox has...
* Games that are big improvements from what was on the Xbox 360
* Multiplatform games that don't look any different from how they look on the PS4
* Impressive exclusive games
* (And) a cheaper price than the PS4 due to it being less powerful
...then I (again) think it will be in a spot similar to the PS2 -- less powerful than the main competition, more attractive to consumers (due to price) which can lead to better sales which will more than likely cause better support.
Why are folks complaining? Am I wrong or aren't those specs still a big step up from the Xbox 360? If you expected it to blow PC gaming out the water, or believed the "Avatar Graphics" nonsense, then it was your own fault. And seeing what it accomplished late in it's life it seems like it was a good idea to release a system that won't break the bank but still output good stuff. As it's always been, you want to push the envelope graphics wise, build a PC and download some of those high end mods for games.
Of course Sony wants that. They'd be dumb not to. But it looks like they're not willing to sacrifice power to do it. That's a good thing if they can deliver the console at a good price.
This is some revisionist history. The ps2 was a huge leap that was marketed on power.
It simply was less powerful than it's main competitors because of time. it launched 18 months before. It's not comparable to the situation today with both consoles being designed and released at the same time. There is no "modern ps2 plan."