Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Xbox OneFollow

#102 May 22 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Apparently you still need your cable box. I don't know if the Xbox will have DVR abilities.


I couldn't have imagined otherwise. Most cable companies seem to be incredibly controlling over those systems. But it better have streaming potential to rival the Roku, if they're going to try selling it as the multimedia PC solution.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#103 May 22 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
#104 May 22 2013 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I will say the controller is growing on me. It's a beautiful system, but Microsoft needs to put a lot of work into its gaming-specific offerings to survive.

It would also be a brilliant PR move, at this point, if they announced opt-out programs for the online checks for the armed services. If that's possible, of course. But gaming sites, like Kotaku, are already featuring articles about how the once-a-day checks (or maybe checks in general) would be impossible for those serving in, say, the navy.

That was no small part of the critique for always-online DRM. So it would be REALLY smart to do everything they could to dispel it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#105 May 22 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts


See, now that's a clear mark against it in my eyes. Sony and Nintendo are waiving publishing requirements, but Microsoft will be keeping the draconian policies of the 360.


In semi-related news, this is the new greatest thing ever: http://i.imgur.com/7tmSCjo.gif
#106 May 22 2013 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I laughed.

I'm also having trouble processing it. It just feels so weird to be going into the next gen with Sony seeming to be at the top...

And I say this as someone who is legitimately a fan of the PS3. I love the system, and I've been completely content with my experiences with it (excepting Skyrim, which I'll happily blame on Bethesda - system difficulties or not, it's the publisher's job to work with the system they have).

In that vein, it IS worth noting what I like about the Xbox One. I like that it's a Bluray player, though that's less important now than it was in 2006. I love it aesthetically (though I absolutely abhor its interface, which is something I feel across the board of current-gen Windows products). I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.

Though these are all things that are true of the current PS3... which wasn't even my intention. I just honestly can't see anything about the product I care to mention as noteworthy. Well, besides that it has next-gen power, but I feel I shouldn't comment on that until we actually know what's inside it.

Allegedly smart glass, whatever it does, is something I could access from my phone? That could be cool, if it does something I care about.

/shrug
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 May 22 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,909 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 May 22 2013 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,269 posts
KTurner wrote:
TirithRR wrote:

To be fair, PS3 wireless built in is sh*t (at least, my old fat 80GB PS3).


Mine is too, what's up with that?


The Fat PS3s didn't have the best antenna placement, they fixed it with the slim revision.

TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.


But is the X1's HDD Proprietary again or going to be a 3.5 laptop HDD like the ps3. It was nice being able to put an SSD or a 7400 RPM in my PS3 to help increase install times etc, and be able to cheap out on the HDD off a online sale, or hand me down for a laptop upgrade.
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#109 May 22 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,909 posts
According to what they said (or, what I read about what they said) yesterday, the X1's HDD is non user replaceable, but they have USB 3.0 ports and any external storage would be able to have games installed on them.

Edit:
My point being, to idiggory, that it wasn't a new feature to the X1, that the 360 had already been using it.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 5:53pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#110 May 22 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
TirithRR wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I like that installation of games will now be possible, since it has a built-in HDD.


That's been a feature on the 360 for quite some time now. Not exactly new. PS3 was ahead on that one only because it was forced to because of the relative slowness of Blu-ray.


I feel like this... is misleading.

The 360 didn't have an install feature because not all 360s have HDDs...

I mean, yes, the installation feature was very much partly to address the speed issue of blurays. But the result was that load times for the PS3 were WAY faster than load time for 360 when considering cross-platform games.

Yeah, it's possible now. But it SHOULD have been possible at launch. And the fact there won't be a repeat of that hassle is important.

Plus, I wasn't really trying to name features I liked relative to the 360. I was just trying to name features I liked, period. I only noted the HDD thing to point out why I cared, with that being an issue with the original 360, though I can definitely see that my language was VERY misleading there.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 May 22 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,280 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#112 May 22 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
I feel like this deserves to be posted again.

Screenshot
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#113 May 22 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
**
493 posts
Screenshot
.
#114 May 22 2013 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
BonYogi wrote:
Screenshot
.


Smiley: mad
#115 May 23 2013 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
At least he knew enough to tuck and roll.

Mostly roll.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 May 23 2013 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gamespot wrote:
EA executive vice president and chief technical officer Rajat Teneja has said that the architectures of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are "a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market."
[...]
"Both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have adopted electronics and an integrated systems-on-a -chip (soc) architecture that unleashes magnitudes more compute and graphics power than the current generation of consoles," says Teneja. "These architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market and their unique design of the hardware, the underlying operating system and the live service layer create one of the most compelling platforms to reimagine game mechanics."

Ars Technica wrote:
AMD today is announcing three new families of chips that it hopes will dominate the market of high-end tablets, low-end laptops, and converged hybrid devices. The chips [...] are close siblings to the processors found in both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 console
[...]
AMD is positioning these three chips up against Intel's Clover Trail and low-end Ivy Bridge Core i3 processors, hoping to ship them into what it calls "performance tablets": tablet devices with better performance than ARM chips currently offer, and capable of running the full range of traditional x86 software


Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 May 23 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
I dont feel it's even worth comparing considering they are custom built and a console and PC have different priorities.
#118 May 23 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,280 posts
But aren't both supposed to be custom built for gaming?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#119 May 23 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
While true, they're worth considering because cross-platfrom games are realistically the industry standard now, so it certainly matters.

I have no doubt that consoles will be better than the average gaming pc at launch. I doubt they'll be better than the high-end gaming pcs at launch. And by the end of the cycle, they'll likely be below average.

That seems to be the standard trend, to be honest. My laptop has a Sandy Bridge i5 processor, using the SB integrated graphics, and the difference in graphic quality between my PS3 and this laptop is not that substantial. Noticeable? Sure. But relatively small, all things considered. If this was a tower, and I could toss in a cheap graphics card, the difference would realistically disappear.

And this is, in no way, a gaming laptop. It's one I grabbed for $400 when my last one crapped out and I needed to replace it ASAP for school.

When the PS3 launched, a $400 laptop wouldn't have given you anywhere NEAR the same quality.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 May 23 2013 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
But aren't both supposed to be custom built for gaming?


Um yeah, thats the point. It's all built and programmed with a gaming focus and I bet they get a lot better gaming performance for the hardware than you would think.

Remember that the PS3 had 512mb total memory for both graphics and system, yet they put out some very good looking games.

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

What kind of ram does your gaming PC have? I wonder what your gaming PCs memory bandwidth is... Cuz the PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 for graphics and system RAM.

Admittedly, I don't have a top of the line gaming rig, nor have I researched what a top of the line gaming rig can accomplish (or cost...), but the specs of the ps4 are impressive. The xbox, not so much.

#121 May 23 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Yes, but you're talking about different things.

They say that their architectures are ahead of PCs. And if we're limiting that solely to gaming means, that might be true. But it's not true of performance.

So, yes, their statement is potentially true. It's also misleading, because what they want is for the audience to think that the quality of their experience will be better because of this superior architecture. If we're comparing to top-of-the-line gaming PCs, which is the comparison THEY made, it won't be.

That's just the flat truth of the matter. They can optimize all they want, but it's not going to stop the top gaming PCs from being quite optimized as well, with far more power behind them.

Compared to average gaming PCs? I'm sure it'll be great, even better. But not to the top-of-the-line rigs.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 23 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yes, but you're talking about different things.

They say that their architectures are ahead of PCs. And if we're limiting that solely to gaming means, that might be true. But it's not true of performance.

So, yes, their statement is potentially true. It's also misleading, because what they want is for the audience to think that the quality of their experience will be better because of this superior architecture. If we're comparing to top-of-the-line gaming PCs, which is the comparison THEY made, it won't be.

That's just the flat truth of the matter. They can optimize all they want, but it's not going to stop the top gaming PCs from being quite optimized as well, with far more power behind them.

Compared to average gaming PCs? I'm sure it'll be great, even better. But not to the top-of-the-line rigs.


Unfortunately I don't know enough about hardware to really argue it too much, but the impressive capability of the PS3 (and probably xbox 360 though i havent looked at its specs) considering it's specs makes me think the PS4 (and xbox) will perform a lot better than it looks.

I'd be interested to see what a top of the line PC from 2006 would look like today next to the PS3.
#123 May 23 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The PS3 didn't have the best graphical output in 2006, it just had the best graphical output at that price bracket. A top of the line PC would have still provided better graphics at a higher resolution.

And that resolution is important.

The PS3 typically plays games at 720p. Even FFXIII, which is still some of the best graphics you'll see on the system, only had pre-rendered cutscenes in 1080p. Rendering an image at a lower resolution takes vastly less processing power. 1080p is 1,920 x 1,080 pixels. 780p is 1280x720 pixels. My LAPTOP has a higher resolution than that (and the laptop I bought around that time had about that).

So you need to qualify what you want. If we're reducing the image down to a 720p screen, you free up a lot of processing power that can be used to render things like shaders, shadows, reflections, etc.

If you increase the resolution (and get crisper images on an appropriate monitor), that same rig gets an image that's much crisper, but graphically less impressive.

And we might as well note that the PS3 and 360 have further limited their processing needs by capping FPS, where the PC has the option to display up to your monitor's refresh rate.

So you need to decide if you want to compare images, which is only part of the story, vs. videos (harder to evaluate, but gives a more appropriate account).

Either way, I'd be amazed if the PS3 had the best graphics on the market, all things considered, in 2006. I'll happily bet that it was near the top (maybe top 1/3 of dedicated gaming rigs?). But there's just no way it was the best.

The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.

And trying to find anecdotal accounts of the game vs. the PS3, the consensus seems to be that having a mid-range gaming rig would break about even, with high-end rigs looking better, and low-end rigs looking worse.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 May 23 2013 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:


The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.


Yeah and that game was hideous compared to skyrim, which also runs OK on those two systems with no hardware upgrade.

Besides, the cross-platform titles never seem to be that great looking on PS3, but the PS3 exclusives generally look pretty spectacular in comparison, like uncharted 3 and most likely even moreso with Last of Us.
#125 May 23 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
KTurner wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:


The only title I can actually think of to compare is Oblivion. Looking up reviews of the game from March 2006, it was stuttering on the 360 and mid-low end PCs, but high-end PCs weren't having issues.


Yeah and that game was hideous compared to skyrim, which also runs OK on those two systems with no hardware upgrade.

Besides, the cross-platform titles never seem to be that great looking on PS3, but the PS3 exclusives generally look pretty spectacular in comparison, like uncharted 3 and most likely even moreso with Last of Us.


I'm going to bluntly point out that you're the one who said you wanted a side-by-side comparison which, by necessity, means using cross-platform games. So there's that.

Now onto the actual response: The thing to remember here is that they were running on different graphical engines. Skyrim uses the Creation Engine, where Oblivion was using the Havoc engine... I think.

To put it in its most basic form, that means that the engine allows wiser allocations of the power a system has. Your PS3 isn't using less power to run Oblivion than it would to run Skyrim, it's just using it more efficiently.

It wasn't limited by the systems all that much really, it was limited by its engine. As time has passed, developers of games and engines have learned more about how to optimize for the capabilities of the consoles, allowing them to produce better graphics over time, sure. What they can't do is make the system any better at churning out graphics.

So, when we say that "Oblivion stressed the PS3, but it didn't stress high-end PCs", it doesn't matter whether or not games have graphically gotten better over time. The PC had more blunt-force power to throw at that game at the time, where the PS3 was limited by what it was being asked to do. That's the point.

What has happened over time is that developers learned how to squeeze more juice out of a system without advancing the hardware. That's true of both consoles and PCs. Say you have a PC that has exactly the recommended settings for ME1. Even though those fall below the recommended settings for ME3, ME3 is still going to look way better than ME1 did.

Same hardware, used more efficiently. True across the board.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#126 May 23 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Actually I said I wanted to see what a top of the line PC from 2006 looked like today, and you gave me an example of a game from 2006.

Regardless of that, I only meant it rhetorically anyway (since im not aware of anyone with a top of the line pc from 2006) and I'm not trying to slam PC or Xbox or w/e. I'm generally interested to know how well it actually could perform now that the developers have the system fully figured out.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)