Xbox One Vs PS4 - Next Gen gaming

[Slywyn]

Remember the PS3? Remember the cell processor being some next level shit? Remember how it was identical in nearly every respect to the 360 in terms of power? Remember how it patched games slower?

Specifications do not make a console. Period. It has always been that way.

Actually the 360 was behind in almost every respect with the PS3 as well. The problem was that the PS3 was created with an in-house system in mind, and developers had a tough time(At first) creating games that could utilize it. Look at a PS3 game next to a 360 game nowadays. There is a very obvious and telling difference between the systems.

Xbox has always been a step behind PS as far as system power.

[Sex Bobomb]

Being dismissive does not make for a compelling argument.

It's not dismissive. I gave a clear cut example of how "more powerfulness" doesn't make a bit of difference. Console ports happens. Graphics are nearly identical in every game last generation. The services offered and the games made exclusive matters. Not gigahertz and RAM type. That was proven last generation. It was proven the generation before that. How is that dismissive?

Actually the 360 was behind in almost every respect with the PS3 as well. The problem was that the PS3 was created with an in-house system in mind, and developers had a tough time(At first) creating games that could utilize it. Look at a PS3 game next to a 360 game nowadays. There is a very obvious and telling difference between the systems.

Xbox has always been a step behind PS as far as system power.

If you can tell the difference on a side by side comparison of the same game, I would be exceedingly impressed. I would bet good money you couldn't.

[Chris Brady]

I was actually about to post that Koren. The Kinect spies on you, and there is no way you can look around that unless you're in denial about it.

Thing is, even if Microsoft's wish is to just make your life easier by having the unit do things for you based on your habits (which is pretty Jetson's cool, I admit), the fact of the matter is that there's at least one other entity that could get access to that information.

The U.S. government.

I'm Canadian, the United States does NOT have the right to my information at any time.  And I'm pretty sure that our Overseas friends (as well as the other Americans, like South and Central, on this landmass) have laws against letting another foreign government having access to personal information.

Can't speak for anyone else, but here in the Great White North, that's currently illegal, I believe.

[Slywyn]

Xbox One Reverses DRM! Angry Rant Pt.3

I love Angry Joe. =p

[Koren]

On the issue of kinect, youre saying you can solve it by putting paper over the sensor. The kinect uses inferred, so that wouldnt stop it, also you have to have it active when playing games so it can detect you are still there. If it doesnt detect movement the console goes to sleep. The problem we have with kinect is you CANT block or disable it. It is always watching and listening and we cant do anything about it so if someone DOES take it upon themselves to hack it or record stuff with it, we cant stop them
And whether or not Microsoft will use the patents, its more they have patents specifically designed to do this and we cant stop them.

On the matter of which console was more powerful. Xbox 360 held behind the last generation of games by being less powerful. Developers have to make money so they usually end up having to work cross platform which means having to work to the lowest specs. Xbox didnt have blu ray so the amount of info they could put on disks were limited. PS3's had less power in networking so games that were cross platform multiplayer had to have that accounted for. Thats a disadvantage on each console. But overall the Xbox was lesser in quality.
http://au.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown
Eg take God of War 3. That is an incredible looking game. High quality, lots of detailed textures, reflections etc, and on xbox would have needed to have a reduced poly count and texture detail if they wanted to fit in on even 3 dvds. That game couldnt have been made to the same quality if it was cross platform.

Developers would get the same amount of money as they already do, and if you look at contracts and what microsoft said, they said its up to the publishers. Most developers contracts probably dont include anything about microsofts policy so they probably wouldnt get anything out of that used games fee without another contract and that means opening themselves up to be a publisher-less studio

The point I was making with xbox's price is that you are paying more for functionality that DOESNT work. The TV thing wont work outside of america, and also you need to buy an extra thing for it. The console doesnt come with that, it just has the capabilities to run it, the same with ps3's network and TV services that they have now.

And again, I like being able to play my single player games without the internet. Id rather have the disk in and be able to play my games, rather then not have a disk run (and run out of HDD space) and be locked out if i dont check in every 24 hours.

As far as the PSN getting hacked, you know Microsoft got hacked as well yeah? And did nothing about it? they even tried to cover it up. Sony made themselves look like fuckwits by admitting what happened, and to be honest handled the press really shitty, but at least sorted the issue.

And from a developer perspective: Microsoft are controlling assholes that screw people over constantly, look at what they did to super meat boy developers vs how Sony treated that games company with journey's delay, and the fact you have to pay $10,000 to PATCH a game is so unreasonable (on psn its free at the moment), and that you have to have a publisher is even worse, especially as an indie dev which means any games i make have an incredibly less chance of making their way onto xbox then ps4 anyway.

And for the record, no one here is saying its a doomsday device, but we are saying its untrustworthy and microsoft are still treating people like shit over this, whether consumer or developer. We arent name calling or sensationalising. We are stating facts. You cant sensationalise system specs or money really. I dont get where you are getting this from

[Chris Brady]

As far as the PSN getting hacked, you know Microsoft got hacked as well yeah? And did nothing about it? they even tried to cover it up. Sony made themselves look like fuckwits by admitting what happened, and to be honest handled the press really shitty, but at least sorted the issue.

Actually, I remember after the huge deal that happened with Sony, that Microsoft AND Nintendo mentioned that they got hacked.  And in Nintendo's case, they got hacked for YEARS before they made this footnote announcement that no one seemed to notice.

And you know what made me respect Sony?  They jumped on it and decided to make good for their customers.  Literally giving away free stuff to make sure you, the customer, was potentially repaid for the pain you could have suffered.

And from a developer perspective: Microsoft are controlling assholes that screw people over constantly, look at what they did to super meat boy developers vs how Sony treated that games company with journey's delay, and the fact you have to pay $10,000 to PATCH a game is so unreasonable (on psn its free at the moment), and that you have to have a publisher is even worse, especially as an indie dev which means any games i make have an incredibly less chance of making their way onto xbox then ps4 anyway.

Here's what Phil Fish of Fez fame had to say about his experience on XBLN:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/20/4445476/phil-fish-on-fez-2-ambition-and-launch-platforms-not-xbox

And for the record, no one here is saying its a doomsday device, but we are saying its untrustworthy and microsoft are still treating people like shit over this, whether consumer or developer. We arent name calling or sensationalising. We are stating facts. You cant sensationalise system specs or money really. I dont get where you are getting this from

He's a fan, obviously.  Which is no bad thing, and frankly, as a former hardcore Nintendo fan, I can understand where it comes from.  No one likes when their favourite things being bashed, even if it seems like it's appropriate.

But I learned -the hard way- that even a beloved company can do some pretty dumb things.  And it was Sony's turn last gen, it seems it's now Microsoft's.

Here's a thought.  The Xbox game section of Microsoft was once it's own section that was left alone, for the most part allowed to do what they wanted.  And unlike most of the rest of MS' entertainment division was an amazingly successful section.  I got the impression (and other review/journalists had/have made similar comments) that the other Entertainment divisions wanted a piece, and so they are sticking their fingers into the pie and just making a mess of things.  I think it could have started back in the Kinect days.

However, that's pure supposition, with no basis in fact or anything reported.

[Inkidu]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125264-CliffyB-Microsoft-Tried-to-Have-it-Both-Ways

Discuss.

[Moraline]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125264-CliffyB-Microsoft-Tried-to-Have-it-Both-Ways

Discuss.

Can you imagine living in a world where you couldn't buy a used car without paying the car manufacturer $1000's of dollars(a small percent of the original price) every time.

I'm sorry, Sir/Madam but in order to be allowed to fuel up at our gas station you have to pay a $3000 used car fee to GM to get your car re-licensed.

I'm sorry Sir/Madam but in order to play that Sony Music CD in this Sony Stereo you must pay a $5 fee because you bought that CD from a non-authorized used retailer.

Of course... These are also the same companies that forced people to take down videos of dancing babies on YouTube because a song that they own was playing in the background. The world is insane sometimes.

PS: I'm disappointed in Cliff for this, "internet pitchfork mob who can only see 6 inches in front of their face,"
Dude, they are your customers. Very not cool.

But he is right about this...

"The shift to digital is still going to happen (FOR BOTH <consoles>) but it's going to be slow and subtle. Suddenly more DLC will be made available. More microtransactions will appear. And Day One Digital will (hopefully) be cheaper and will have so many added bells and whistles that consumers (with reliable enough bandwidth) will have a hard time refusing the tasty downloadable edition over the disc based one."

[Inkidu]

Can you imagine living in a world where you couldn't buy a used car without paying the car manufacturer $1000's of dollars(a small percent of the original price) every time.

I'm sorry, Sir/Madam but in order to be allowed to fuel up at our gas station you have to pay a $3000 used car fee to GM to get your car re-licensed.

I'm sorry Sir/Madam but in order to play that Sony Music CD in this Sony Stereo you must pay a $5 fee because you bought that CD from a non-authorized used retailer.

Of course... These are also the same companies that forced people to take down videos of dancing babies on YouTube because a song that they own was playing in the background. The world is insane sometimes.

PS: I'm disappointed in Cliff for this, "internet pitchfork mob who can only see 6 inches in front of their face,"
Dude, they are your customers. Very not cool.

But he is right about this...

It might be subtle, but there could be some intense backlash, not just from people. Spectrum crunch is a real thing and the industry seems to be barreling forward without regard to the fact that you can only support so much "stuff" in the air. Internet is not limitless. :\

[Moraline]

It might be subtle, but there could be some intense backlash, not just from people. Spectrum crunch is a real thing and the industry seems to be barreling forward without regard to the fact that you can only support so much "stuff" in the air. Internet is not limitless. :\

Actually it is pretty much limitless. The rate of growth for data storage and transfer far exceeds our ability to fill it. Spectrum crunch is a fallacy (click for MIT review) and it only really pertains to wireless signal - not the internet as a whole.

[Inkidu]

Actually it is pretty much limitless. The rate of growth for data storage and transfer far exceeds our ability to fill it. Spectrum crunch is a fallacy (click for MIT review) and it only really pertains to wireless signal - not the internet as a whole.

I was talking about wireless which is the current big push. Wires and cables create its own problems.

I call it update cycles or infrastructure cycles. As its stands now companies get to a certain point replacing their current lines and whatnot. Well, by the time it gets to the more remote locations they're going to have something else to install so people are constantly not getting any upgrades. I know this exists because it happened to my family. We couldn't pay the company to run the line three hundred yards because they were replacing their lines, by the time they get back out to us they're going to replace it with something else. :\

EDIT: Not to mention the physical and material limitations on cable. You can only fit so much through a cable before you have to expand the cable, add a boosting station, or (traditionally speaking) use rarer materials to make the cable or circuitry. :\ It's hardly unlimited.

[Moraline]

...
EDIT: Not to mention the physical and material limitations on cable. You can only fit so much through a cable before you have to expand the cable, add a boosting station, or (traditionally speaking) use rarer materials to make the cable or circuitry. :\ It's hardly unlimited.

As I've posted elsewhere on the forums before - I worked for an internet service provider for years in the Network Operations Centre. My job was large scale corporate internet support and planning. I lived in the world of internet infrastructure.

The cable lines are absolutely no where near capacity and almost all cable internet service providers in North America (all the major ones) use a Hybrid Fibre Coax network. Right now homes are lucky to get 100 Megs download but they are capable of giving them a 1 Gig connection easily. That doesn't even take into account new internet packet sending/receiving technology.

The current brand of modems in peoples homes (Ex: Motorola brands) are capable of doing over 100 Megs and coax is easily capable of data transfer rates over 1.5 Gigs. Network cards on computers don't even go that fast yet because since they made 1 Gig Network cards no one has had need of internet that fast in the general customer base - and they still don't.

Also, only a tiny fraction of customers use their current max speeds anyways. And video games barely scrape the surface of internet downloads and bandwidth usage.

There is loads of bandwidth out there. Your families issues have nothing to do with network limitations and everything to do with location and cost to the service provider. However, the majority of people living in North America, live in populated areas with excellent service. You are just a special case - you can't condemn all of the internet as being limited because a small fraction of it's user base has limited coverage. Note: People in many other countries of the world actually have much faster internet then we do in North America.

There is no data crunch, there is no spectrum crunch. There won't be anything like it because the data storage and speed of our services has stayed ahead of our capacity to use it and doesn't appear to be falling behind anytime soon.

[Chris Brady]

From what I've heard, and this is pure hearsay from others who have worked in the internet service, is that the reason there are 'bandwidth caps' is mainly because of television/cable companies.  See, they own most of it, and because they're no longer using (mostly) RF signals to send programming to TVs, they have loads of it.  But they're wanting to charge exorbitant prices for internet companies to have access to it.

There IS a crunch happening, and it's mostly because companies don't want to share.

[Inkidu]

There is loads of bandwidth out there. Your families issues have nothing to do with network limitations and everything to do with location and cost to the service provider. However, the majority of people living in North America, live in populated areas with excellent service. You are just a special case - you can't condemn all of the internet as being limited because a small fraction of it's user base has limited coverage. Note: People in many other countries of the world actually have much faster internet then we do in North America.

Actually, I can and I will. It's not like I live up in the Ozarks. I live three hundred yards away. Apparently paying the cost of running the line plus the subscription fee, and opening up a whole street of people wasn't enough for the company. So yeah I can.

[Moraline]

Actually, I can and I will. It's not like I live up in the Ozarks. I live three hundred yards away. Apparently paying the cost of running the line plus the subscription fee, and opening up a whole street of people wasn't enough for the company. So yeah I can.

I think we are talking two different things here. You can hate them for it all you want. But you can't say the internet has data limits because you can't get good coverage.

From what I've heard, and this is pure hearsay from others who have worked in the internet service, is that the reason there are 'bandwidth caps' is mainly because of television/cable companies.  See, they own most of it, and because they're no longer using (mostly) RF signals to send programming to TVs, they have loads of it.  But they're wanting to charge exorbitant prices for internet companies to have access to it.

There IS a crunch happening, and it's mostly because companies don't want to share.

Your pretty close on target.

If we take a cable company that is small and still not updated to hybrid fibre coax then you are just running copper. That would be fine by itself for 200 TV Channels and a Dozen or so HD channels... but if you throw onto that Internet Service, Telephone services, and dozens more HD channels.. then the line starts to get bogged down.

So what does your cable company do? It gets rid of a lot of those old messy signals that are in analog still and they convert to 100% digital. That makes a huge difference. Then they get rid of those old radio stations that used to broadcast over the analog signals - those are awful and cause static in the analog channels all the time. 

So with the cable line all cleaned up and turned to digital there is a ton more room on that fat coax pipe. Plus it's all really clean signal - much easier to work with and control.

Then along comes dozens.. even hundreds of HD channels. Suddenly they are hogging up all the bandwidth again. So the cable companies start packaging those into neat little wave length bundles and they do the same with digital channels.

And so it goes, on and on...

Then along comes Fibre and suddenly, none of that is an issue any longer. Not always all in that order, but something like that.

@Chris.. yeah.. Canada is also terrible at having limited competition among providers and CRTC laws that section up the land into different cable company rights. So pricing gets strictly controlled by the biggest companies. It's why our internet and other services are so bloody expensive in Canada.

However, No.. the data usage caps and throttling aren't because of Cable companies. Actually it's the old telcoms that control most of the "internet backbone." The cable companies were late comers to the internet party.

[Inkidu]

I think we are talking two different things here. You can hate them for it all you want. But you can't say the internet has data limits because you can't get good coverage.
Your pretty close on target.

If we take a cable company that is small and still not updated to hybrid fibre coax then you are just running copper. That would be fine by itself for 200 TV Channels and a Dozen or so HD channels... but if you throw onto that Internet Service, Telephone services, and dozens more HD channels.. then the line starts to get bogged down.

So what does your cable company do? It gets rid of a lot of those old messy signals that are in analog still and they convert to 100% digital. That makes a huge difference. Then they get rid of those old radio stations that used to broadcast over the analog signals - those are awful and cause static in the analog channels all the time. 

So with the cable line all cleaned up and turned to digital there is a ton more room on that fat coax pipe. Plus it's all really clean signal - much easier to work with and control.

Then along comes dozens.. even hundreds of HD channels. Suddenly they are hogging up all the bandwidth again. So the cable companies start packaging those into neat little wave length bundles and they do the same with digital channels.

And so it goes, on and on...

Then along comes Fibre and suddenly, none of that is an issue any longer. Not always all in that order, but something like that.

@Chris.. yeah.. Canada is also terrible at having limited competition among providers and CRTC laws that section up the land into different cable company rights. So pricing gets strictly controlled by the biggest companies. It's why our internet and other services are so bloody expensive in Canada.

However, No.. the data usage caps and throttling aren't because of Cable companies. Actually it's the old telcoms that control most of the "internet backbone." The cable companies were late comers to the internet party.

No, my complaint other than corporate-induced WiFi limitations is that the infrastructure sucks for surprisingly large parts of the United States for some really stupid reasons. You can look at all the LA and New York data you want, but in fly-over country the infrastructure is not their to support things like the Xbone or an all-digital model. Most of it seems to be corporate greed, because let's face it if you've got the infrastructure to pump 1 gig over a line (or whatever it's an example) but you're not using it then you might as well not have it.   

[Callie Del Noire]

I know the companies that control the bandwidth are the issue. Two years ago the cable and IPS folks pushed through a NASTY ban on municipal broadband development in NC. Apparently they felt that more cities, fed up with craptastic bandwidth and service, might want to set up their very own fibre optic service provide by the municipal governments like Salisbury and Cary NC already do.

[Moraline]

I know the companies that control the bandwidth are the issue. Two years ago the cable and IPS folks pushed through a NASTY ban on municipal broadband development in NC. Apparently they felt that more cities, fed up with craptastic bandwidth and service, might want to set up their very own fibre optic service provide by the municipal governments like Salisbury and Cary NC already do.

With the exception of the fear of government spying on your internet... I personally have always believed that internet should be supplied or at least regulated as an essential service. So having it supplied by the government, or heavily sponsored where needed is a good idea in my opinion.

Having worked for those ISP's, I can fully say that they are greedy corporate shits. They treat their employees like slave labor, they lie and deceive their customers. And they spy on absolutely everything, everyone does - then they hide behind rules, regulations, and terms of service agreements to do it. If more people had any idea just how much access to your personal private data that ISP's had, they'd be up in arms. There is literally nothing on the internet that passes through your ISP that they can't see. Nothing is secure.

But this topic has wildly digressed.... which I'm okay with.. but to sort of get back on topic....




Let's have a list of games that people really want to play on next gen consoles between now and the end of 2014 (state if the game is an exclusive).


I'd definitely consider, Watch_Dogs. (available on all systems)

[Koren]

I wont provide links only because its nearly 1am and im  too tired to look them all up but these are mine:

inFAMOUS Second Son (ps4)
Tom Clancy's The Division (multiplat as far as i know)
Daylight (ps4)
Dont Starve (ps4 [yes i know its only pc, but i like my controller])
Dying Light (multiplat)
Mirrors Edge 2 (multiplat)
Need for Speed Rivals (multipat)
Thief (multiplat)

Hopefully also : The Evil Within which im assuming is coming to ps4

[Moraline]

I wont provide links only because its nearly 1am and im  too tired to look them all up but these are mine:

inFAMOUS Second Son (ps4)
Tom Clancy's The Division (multiplat as far as i know)
Daylight (ps4)
Dont Starve (ps4 [yes i know its only pc, but i like my controller])
Dying Light (multiplat)
Mirrors Edge 2 (multiplat)
Need for Speed Rivals (multipat)
Thief (multiplat)

Hopefully also : The Evil Within which im assuming is coming to ps4

Oh, I almost forgot about inFamous: Second Son. That game looks fun.

"The Order 1886,"(PS4) looks like it might be fun to toy around with as well.

[Inkidu]

I haven't really thought about it, but I know I'm going to have to play attention to how much the game focuses on online-multiplayer features. :\

[Oreo]

I haven't really thought about it, but I know I'm going to have to play attention to how much the game focuses on online-multiplayer features. :\

+1 This will be the biggest consideration for me followed by no FSP.

Another thought just crept in. Will the XBone and PS4 still be compatible with other hardware? I love my Razer control pad. Would hate to have to give that up for the heavier, less accurate standard control pad.

[Chris Brady]

Assuming I get a next Gen console (which won't happen for a very long time, likely) I'm looking into:

Destiny (It looks like a cross between Halo, duh, and Borderlands, I lurve me some loot based gaming)

The Order, 1886

Titanfall (Maybe, but more for PC)

[Inkidu]

You know, my problem with this next generation? It's not like it's a big leap. We're not talking N64 to GameCube here. this probably the first generation of consoles that isn't entirely touted on the next big graphical experience. I mean, they've got more processing power, but that doesn't necessarily lead to better graphics, it might lead to smoother animations or more tricks and whatnot, but as for the next big leap in gaming... it's not really. :\

I'm not really excited about this coming generation. It's really just more "connected", and honestly not a big selling point for me.

[Slywyn]

Higher Processing power allows for larger worlds, more 'tricks' as you said it, better AI, better mechanics, better physics, better almost anything that isn't 'graphics'.

Graphics are not the only ways that games can progress.

I expect we'll be seeing some very impressive things out of this generation all around.