cookie-monster
Member
my main hope would be for better AF, but I realise that's never been a priority for console devs.
There are only two situations that will happen. Either the game will see a graphics bump on PS4, or both games will look exactly the same and the PS4 will have more stable framerates because it is not being heavily utilized.
Either scenario means the entire advantage that the Xbox brand has had since its inception which is the number 1 console for multiplatform game graphics/performance is wiped out.
You seem to think that the framerates will be exactly the same and the graphics will be exactly the same. History with various console spec differences have shown that to be not how things turn out.
Staurday's lotto numbers. Got em?
look, if the differences in multiplats are really significant, its over for MS. that won't happen.
nowadays some people throw that "GAF is Sonyland" around pretty often. Do they remember the early PS3 years? PS3 got beaten up daily pretty bad on GAF and other forums (rightly so).
If Sony had unveiled the PS4 with always online DRM and mandatory camera (and the other MS stuff) GAF would shit on them the same way they do/did now with MS.
To the topic: MS will optimize their software(hardware use in the coming years but so will Sony.
I agree with your second situation, both games will look exactly the same and the PS4 will have more stable framerates because it is not being heavily utilized. that 'advantage' xbox brand had i don't think was ever a significant advantage, esp. when you consider some multiplats actually did better on ps3.
look, if the differences in multiplats are really significant, its over for MS. that won't happen.
Staurday's lotto numbers. Got em?
AF should be free on most cards , so I don't see why not . You can pretty much enable it on most games without any performance loss .my main hope would be for better AF, but I realise that's never been a priority for console devs.
I agree with your second situation, both games will look exactly the same and the PS4 will have more stable framerates because it is not being heavily utilized. that 'advantage' xbox brand had i don't think was ever a significant advantage, esp. when you consider some multiplats actually did better on ps3.
look, if the differences in multiplats are really significant, its over for MS. that won't happen.
You honestly think that's a large leap of a conclusion?
DigitalFoundry already did some preliminary benchmarks with similarly specced PCs (with the Xbone PC being even more powerful than the Xbone by a decent margain) and the PS4 PC was getting 20+ more FPS across the board.
AF should be free on most cards , so I don't see why not . You can pretty much enable it on most games without any performance loss .
I'm betting the opposite when all is said and done. I think devs will come to appreciate the various parts that make up the larger whole and how some of the dedicated hardware in the box will end up suiting some some of the things they have in mind. There will be some learning of course, but when they do get a handle on it, I think they will consider the overall setup to be the opposite of a headache.
So, potentionally unlocking previously locked percentage which in turn means nothing, saying that there is no difference due to the console being balanced while arguing that low percentage boost is meaningful, infinite power of The Cloud. What is next, downloadable RAM?
This looks like Sony during the PS3 launch. It's almost as if they have some ex-Sony bosses there.
I'm betting the opposite when all is said and done. I think devs will come to appreciate the various parts that make up the larger whole and how some of the dedicated hardware in the box will end up suiting some some of the things they have in mind. There will be some learning of course, but when they do get a handle on it, I think they will consider the overall setup to be the opposite of a headache.
What dedicated hardware?
It's not as if the Xbone is the most powerful console either. Whether they figure out the hardware or not is not going to mitigate the large performance gap between the two consoles. It's pretty funny you mention PD actually. After all these years, they are still critical of the PS3 architecture while developing GT6.Senjutsu I agree with a lot of what you say typically but thats crazy talk. Kojima's team and even PD both who have always stood out as devs that could tame crazy Kens architecture in PS2 and 3 talk about what a nightmare it was developing for both systems and thats with one of them being the most powerful console on the market. No developer wants to add the hassle of "figuring out" the best way to exploit a system when building a game has enough hurdles anyway. Even though it certainly won't be as bad as the growing pains of the PS3 it makes no sense that any dev would come to appreciate developing a game for a system that they have to grapple with not just making a game on but making it match the easier and more powerful rival console.
I was watching the Making of Assassin's creed at IGN http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/02/inside-the-art-of-assassins-creed-4-black-flag and I noticed that they may have shown the difference between the 2 consoles, judging by the button prompts shown on the screen. IF this is he case (as it can not be 100% confirmed) holy crap what a BIG difference!!
Man, the speculations on both sides of the fence are hilarious in this thread because we simply don't know how it will pan out with most third-party devs and we can only go off of what we know so far. Which side is doing the wishful thinking? Who knows, but we do know there's a power difference. I just find it funny that so many people are speculating while simultaneously saying someone else is just speculating for having the opposite opinion.
It's going to be an interesting generation though. And if there is a big difference in multi-platform games, then I'm sure some of the people that were there to point out every difference in PS3 ports compared to the superior 360 versions will now be downplaying those same differences for this upcoming generation while those who said they didn't care last generation will start to care this time around although that might make sense if the differences are bigger this time around due to the hardware and development differences. Obviously some games had big differences and people were made aware of them immediately and I think the same should be done here regardless of which console has the better version. As a gamer that tends to have multiple consoles and a PC, it really helps me out in the end, but to declare WHAT differences there will be between versions already is jumping the gun a little bit and it's all still speculation on what the developers do, whether they spend the extra time on the more powerful console to give it a great version and then adjust the other version or strive for parity right off the bat and leave what differences there might be, which differences they would target first, how much of a real difference it would make, etc.
Too many variables involved that make it hard to call it over already one way or the other and dismiss the other person's claim whatever it might be. I'm just going to take in whatever we learn early on but THEN realize that it might become more of an issue as cross-gen games stop and full next-gen only games become more popular that might try to push certain areas that will test these console's differences out.
You gotta laugh at the circle of life in the console wars.
I
What are the timestamps?
The 2nd GPU powered by unicorn tears that MS is under NDA to talk about. Don't worry, it'll be there, you just wont know about it... ... ... Yet.What dedicated hardware?
Most of it has Xbox buttons but around 9:27 and 11:25 there are PS buttons.
I'm confused by it too. Or at least why they didn't go with more eSRAM with a huge (500Gb/sec+) bandwidth.If I want a single thing to be explained by Microsoft, should be this:
In my humble opinion, Sony followed the easy path. x86 AMD APU, decent GPU, GDDR5 unified memory, little custom design enhacements. Easy for developers. Profit.
As far as I know Microsoft engineers could followed the easy path, but they took the hard path. Why? Yes, I know the story. Sony got 8gb gddr5 last minute, and maybe Microsoft engineers were targeting 8gb from the start, so they went to a complex design to alleviate the DDR3 bandwith limitations: ESRAM, DMEs, smaller GPU because ESRAM took space... all of this making the console more complex for developers. Even with that I can't understand the architectural choices. Also for those who do not know, low latency thing in DDR3 is untruth, almost 0 real world performance difference compared with GDDR5.
Didn't MS engineers care about what was doing Sony? Even with just 4gb PS4 still should overtake X1 performance. What was the target with this approach? Next-gen console barely touching 1080p resolution in AAA titles? Diminishing returns? long term cloud faith?
I really hope the next Digital Foundry article coming this weekend digg into this.
What are the timestamps?
I was watching the Making of Assassin's creed at IGN http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/02/inside-the-art-of-assassins-creed-4-black-flag and I noticed that they may have shown the difference between the 2 consoles, judging by the button prompts shown on the screen. IF this is he case (as it can not be 100% confirmed) holy crap what a BIG difference!!
A little slow today?Well, they have
Phil Harrison (Rumble -> last gen)
wow.... the difference is pretty big, the sea looks way better on the ps4! But it could be that the lighting played a part in that difference, the two versions take place at a different time in the day. someone should make some gifs. I think we have our first direct comparison footage.
If I want a single thing to be explained by Microsoft, should be this:
In my humble opinion, Sony followed the easy path. x86 AMD APU, decent GPU, GDDR5 unified memory, little custom design enhacements. Easy for developers. Profit.
As far as I know Microsoft engineers could followed the easy path, but they took the hard path. Why? Yes, I know the story. Sony got 8gb gddr5 last minute, and maybe Microsoft engineers were targeting 8gb from the start, so they went to a complex design to alleviate the DDR3 bandwith limitations: ESRAM, DMEs, smaller GPU because ESRAM took space... all of this making the console more complex for developers. Even with that I can't understand the architectural choices. Also for those who do not know, low latency thing in DDR3 is untruth, almost 0 real world performance difference compared with GDDR5.
Didn't MS engineers care about what was doing Sony? Even with just 4gb PS4 still should overtake X1 performance. What was the target with this approach? Next-gen console barely touching 1080p resolution in AAA titles? Diminishing returns? long term cloud faith?
I really hope the next Digital Foundry article coming this weekend digg into this.
It maybe my eyes are going bad due to old age, but it was either the textures were much better or the Res was higher on the PS4 version, but there was a clear difference to me.
DMPrince said:
my main hope would be for better AF, but I realise that's never been a priority for console devs.
I think it is current gen versus next gen.
I somehow doubt they will use any current gen footage in these developer diaries. Ubisoft always uses the best versions to show off it's games. We don't even know how the current gen version of Watch Dogs looks like.
Xbox one is just 360 part 2 architecture wise isn't it?
I somehow doubt they will use any current gen footage in these developer diaries. Ubisoft always uses the best versions to show off it's games. We don't even know how the current gen version of Watch Dogs looks like.
If you assume MS wanted an all-in-one box, that can lead to a push to have windows 8 (or some version of it) running for apps etc, which will have a heavy overhead on memory.
Once you're fixed on 8GB for those reasons, everything else cascades from that. No point having more CUs if you don't have ESRAM, because they wouldn't be able to be fed well enough with the DDR3 memory bandwidth.
It does actually seem like a balanced setup. It is just balanced at a lower overall power level than PS4
If you are right about the all-in-one MS aproach over gaming, what a load of shit.
8-year life cycle Xbox 360 had a lot more sense. 10-year Xbox One? a console with 12 CUs and DDR3? no way.
The XBox 360 is going to have a longer than 8 year life cycle. And just because the Xbox One is planned to have a 10 year life cycle doesn't mean that they won't launch another console before 10 years is up.
Lol..i just read an old issue of Edge with Microsoft's official spec breakdown of the 360 from 2005:
256GB of EDRAM Bandwidth.
1 TFLOP of combined performance.
..there are lies, damn lies and then there are console specs.
Lol..i just read an old issue of Edge with Microsoft's official spec breakdown of the 360 from 2005:
256GB of EDRAM Bandwidth.
1 TFLOP of combined performance.
..there are lies, damn lies and then there are console specs.
The eDRAM bandwidth is true.
If you are right about the all-in-one MS aproach over gaming, what a load of shit.
8-year life cycle Xbox 360 had a lot more sense. 10-year Xbox One? a console with 12 CUs and DDR3? no way.
The worst thing about this are the lot of multiplatform games that could be downgraded for PS4-PC because Xbox One. Maybe not today with launch titles, but in two years when developers will get the most of the hardware performance.
Yep..which is why all 360 titles ran at 720p 4xAA and 60fps from day one.
..you see the point I'm making?
When you know those numbers it makes it hilarious when people say that Tflops aren't the only measure of GPU performance in defense of the XBO when PS4's advantage in the other categories is even bigger than the flop difference.
I'll host it properly for you ..
You did see the end of that movie, right?
Yeah, but the truck is the PS4 and it destroyed that bike/xbone.
Microsoft to unlock more GPU power for Xbox One developers.... I Think we are going to need this....