Support NeoGAF

[Nintendo Switch]

Was reminiscing with old friends and we realized that this was the first time the most powerful console was immediately apparent from the start of the generation.

We had many debates about which was more powerful when growing up...

Genesis vs Snes (CPU vs GPU)
PlayStation vs N64 (RAM vs GPU)
Dreamcast vs PS2 (Arcade board vs Emotion Engine)
Gamecube vs Xbox (The first year it wasn't immediately clear which was more powerful. Nintendo didn't release specs and Rogue Squadron and Smash and other Nintendo first party games made the Gamecube seem quite powerful.) But more importantly, Microsoft was a newcomer that already failed with Dreamcast and this likely was the main contributor to the Xbox not selling as well as it could have. The Xbox started clearly outselling the GC after the first year once it was clear that it was more powerful and that MS is sticking around.
360 vs PS3 (GPU vs CPU)

Even today, it's up for debate which was more powerful in almost every generation.

The Xbone vs PS4 was the first one where gamers immediately knew which was more powerful. And we firmly believe that factored into the purchase decision for many gamers this Gen. The same is true with the midgeneration releases (One X vs Pro).

Am I wrong?

What they believe to be the most powerful console, yeah, that did seem to matter a little more... But to be honest, it usually sounded more like them trying to convince themselves. I mean, for example current gen I heard talk about superior performance more from Xbox fans than Sony people and a little thing to consider here: we sold like 1 Xbox One for every 20 PS4's (and about 0,4 Wii U's, the numbers are completely made up, but they do feel about right) and of course also they were obviously wrong in their beliefs. From my first day at the job until the very last one, most customers were cocksure PS2 was the most powerful home console of its generation, so yeah, there's that.

For the most part the only customers talking about specs and making any kind of sense were PC gamers, of course as a platform when talking pure power it has always been king so they were usually talking about their own specs... Super interesting. Also, they hardly ever talked about games, a special breed those PC gamers still visiting physical stores.

So yes, the games, exclusives! That's the real driving force behind system sales, right? Right? Well, like the first year or two of PS4 & Xbox One I would have given that crown to MS easily, as I saw it they had way more console (pretty important distinction here) exclusives than Sony, most exclusive things worth playing on PS4 were actually PS3 games, meanwhile Wii U had a fairly decent line-up of real exclusives (and of course, zero third party games, that too). ".

So what you're saying is that the people that bought the Xbox One at launch were the ones that convinced themselves that it was more powerful than the PS4. For everyone else, it was pretty apparent that the PS4 was more powerful and it vastly outsold the Xbox One despite the Xbox One having a ton of great exclusive games during its first year

Likewise, the hype for the One X is vastly higher than it was for the Pro because it is percieved as significantly more powerful and the One X is selling gangbusters.

The Switch is by far the most powerful gaming handheld ever made, and I think it's sales reflect this fact.

In the past, power was obscured by vastly different architectures, lack of sites like digital foundry and the sales were all over the place.

This is the first generation where the architectures are so similar that it's obvious which is more powerfuI

So despite our insistence that Power doesn't matter, the sales often go to the console that is percieved as the most powerful by the general public. The only two exceptions occurred when something external garnered mainstream hype and drove sales (PS2's ability to play dvds and Wii Sports motion controls).

 

[1morerobot]

Kinda wrong. What made you know right away that PS4/XBone was more powerful? Differences we're pretty minimal if you ask me.

 

[ProBusinessgamer]

Its wrong and just bait for console wars, there are some PS4 Pro games that performed worst then the base model... there are some xbox games that performed better then there ps4 counterpart... not because the systems are not capable, but at the end of the day its up to the skill of the developers.
All xbox one x patches are not equal, all ps4 games are not made equal... the power debate is silly, its just fankids fighting over there system being better. I think minecraft looks like poop, and i dont know why anyone plays it...but people love it.... i think every switch 1st party game looks like crap compared to x1/ps4/pc....but people have fun playing them. When did the graphics become more important then the fun, and gameplay? When threads like this, and my system is better then yours thread are made.

 

[geordiemp]

Kinda wrong. What made you know right away that PS4/XBone was more powerful? Differences we're pretty minimal if you ask me.

Well I had a 360 and COD ghosts was 720p on XB1 (that GAF leak befoe launch) and 1080p on Ps4. Was pretty clear to me that MS made a mess of original XB1, and it was alot of £ in UK at launch.

Comparing the specs, it was clear Xb1 was a water cooler so I switched to Ps4 as US TV was not my think (UK). Mattrick was an idiot.

 

[Koala Driving a Ferrari]

Wii vs Xbox 360 and PS3. There are plenty of examples prior to that however.

The current gen consoles are based on the same hardware, so I guess that it makes it a clearer case on paper. But it'd be incorrect to state that it was the first time that an observable power difference existed between two consoles. In prior generations where the hardware differered, there was always a technically more powerful system but quality first/third party output made for outlier cases that highlighted strengths of particular consoles.

 

[JordanN]

Genesis vs Snes

Genesis games benefited from a faster CPU. SNES games could display more color and produced better sound but they were prone to slowdown. Nintendo also had to put out special chips in their cartridges to still compete with the Genesis faster CPU.

PlayStation vs N64

N64 was technically more powerful and it did have some clear cut advantages (i.e anti-aliasing, bilinear filtering) but Nintendo burning bridges with third parties meant PS1 was rarely overshadowed because it got the AAA treatment.

Gamecube vs Xbox (Rogue Squadron made a solid case for the Gamecube)

True in the beginning but remember, it was Xbox that was the only console that generation that got PC ports that PS2/GC couldn't run without being downgraded badly. So Xbox was the clear victor.

360 vs PS3

This was a funny case. PS3 on paper was more powerful but developers were both struggling because of architecture AND because games had now expensive budgets to worry about.

It's the same reason today why we can look at mobile phone games or indie games and despite being on more powerful hardware, they still look like PS2 graphics. It's not the power that's holding them back, it's because games from the PS3/360 had the money to afford better presentation.

Even today, it's up for debate which was more powerful in almost every generation.

PS4 had the resolution advantage out of the gate so it is true that the power argument was less debatable. The Xbox One did have a slightly faster CPU though and this showed in some Digital Foundry comparisons where XBO had a stable 30fps and the PS4 would sometimes stutter in 26 - 30fps.

 

[synce]

Xbox was clearly more powerful than anything from that gen, nothing came even close to DOA3. Just compare DOA2 Hardcore to DOA3 and try to find a similar gap in consoles since then. That kind of scenario will probably never be repeated unless you count Nintendo's stuff which is always one gen behind since Wii

 

[JordanN]

Also, is it really fair to compare 2 console out of a generation?

Dreamcast vs PS2 or Saturn vs PS1 were heavily skewed in Playstation's favor.

In the 16-bit era, you also had the Neo-Geo, 3DO, Jaguar.

 

[ReBurn]

I think the reason it's apparent this time around is because the architecture of the consoles is similar enough that it's easier to tell what a spec bump can do. This is the first time the two leaders can be compared directly to PC in terms of components and the math is easy. In the past console architecture was more exotic, so clock speeds and cores alone weren't enough to predict how well games would run.

On paper the PS3 should have been able to produce better experiences than it did at the start. Sony made it so hard to develop for that it took until the end of the generation to catch up with technically less powerful hardware. I think a lot of people were shocked considering the hype that the CELL was most powerful CPU in existence and that the PS3 was a supercomputer.

 

[goldenpp72]

I mean I might be missing context but.. Wouldn't Dreamcast vs the other consoles of the time be a clear instance of this? Drastically so even. Yeah it came out a couple years later but then, the X wasn't exactly right on top of the pro either.

Still the difference here is pretty minimal to the normal user, not quite like it was back in the day.

 

[PrinnyBomb]

That seems wrong, I think the reason ps4 is so much more popular is bc of all the exclusives it has. What exclusives are even on Xbox besides sunset overdrive, rare replay and halo?

 

[TLZ]

Kinda wrong. What made you know right away that PS4/XBone was more powerful? Differences we're pretty minimal if you ask me.

We had the specs right from the off. PS4 specs were better and the games looked better.

If the x and pro came out on release instead you'd see the x is better as well.

And this is no fanboy bs war. I don't like that stuff. Just stating facts.

 

[TGO]

Nah Saturn vs Playstation was obvious and Dreamcast vs PS2 was although DC did have benefits.
PS4 vs Xbone are probably the closest they've been despite PS4 having a clear advantage.

 

[meerak]

Wrong.

99% of all gamers don’t know shit sbout anything.

 

[ReBurn]

I mean I might be missing context but.. Wouldn't Dreamcast vs the other consoles of the time be a clear instance of this? Drastically so even. Yeah it came out a couple years later but then, the X wasn't exactly right on top of the pro either.

Still the difference here is pretty minimal to the normal user, not quite like it was back in the day.

From everything I've read Dreamcast wasn't the most powerful console. On paper, anyway. The PS2 had faster clock speeds and more system RAM. But Dreamcast did have the dedicated VRAM and hardware graphics effects which allowed it to create all of those 60fps experiences that made Sega the king of the arcade.

I loved my PS2, but the Dreamcast was always special.

 

[RoboFu]

It’s the first time where the hardware was almost exactly the same. In the past because of hardware differences each console usually showed being proficient at a certain thing. This time is just the case of exact same hadware one had more of it.

 

[Stun Damage]

Yes, it was readily apparent just how much of an advantage PS4 had over X1, but you also have to take into account factors such as media. For example, the power gap mentioned above isn't obviously larger than the gap between the original Xbox and PS2, this time in favor of Microsoft. However, you have to understand that in previous generations there weren't famous and aknowledged outlets such as Digital Foundry and people rarely got objective data on resolution and performance, not to mention limited differences in rendering make-up. So they had to rely on their eyes (and sense of input).

And I have noticed that many people are disturbingly oblivious to such matters. I've had friends unable to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a properly calibrated full HD screen, without any fancy upscaling techniques. It still boggles my mind, as 720p, even with strong AA, makes me want to gouge my eyes out, but many people are just not wired to look at edges (and surfaces with strong specular, for that matter) so the divide will always be highly subjective when it comes to the extent one notices it. At least in resolutions leading up to full HD, since I think going beyond 1800p is completely pointless, although I'm sure people with finer sight than mine would disagree.

 

[goldenpp72]

From everything I've read Dreamcast wasn't the most powerful console. On paper, anyway. The PS2 had faster clock speeds and more system RAM. But Dreamcast did have the dedicated VRAM and hardware graphics effects which allowed it to create all of those 60fps experiences that made Sega the king of the arcade.

I loved my PS2, but the Dreamcast was always special.

I mean in comparison to the N64 and PS1, it released and was immediately superior to them vastly. The PS2 was not when it first released, but the Xbox and GCN were i'd say with titles like Halo and RL.

Like I said though, I might have missed the spirit of the topic, still. The generation concept is always a bit wonky since DC kind of shares one depending on who you ask. A lot of people don't even know where to place Switch, heh.

 

[nkarafo]

Intellivision > Atari 2600

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[deadscreensky]

Xbox was clearly more powerful than anything from that gen, nothing came even close to DOA3. Just compare DOA2 Hardcore to DOA3 and try to find a similar gap in consoles since then. That kind of scenario will probably never be repeated unless you count Nintendo's stuff which is always one gen behind since Wii

Yeah, there was absolutely zero question over the Xbox being the strongest that generation. Nobody seriously considered the Gamecube being more powerful, and while the PS2 had a couple cool tricks (alpha transparencies = no problemo!) there was no way either competitor was going to touch games like DOA2U, Rallisport Challenge 2, or Chronicles of Riddick.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Lol no. About 95% of the games on these 2 consoles are the same with some having only a bit of a resolution bump over the other.

This generation has the 2 most similar consoles ever built.

 

[DragoonKain]

I don't even notice a difference these days from console to console within the same generation. But then again, I've never cared about framerate, pop-ins, things like that. Put "framerate" down for me as something in life that a ton of people talk about that I just never "got." I always see tons of people talking about good framerate/bad framerate and I never notice a difference. Maybe I'm just not conditioned to look for it. As long as I don't get super long load screens, or crazy slowdown, I can tolerate pretty much anything games do.

I think for the most part every generation has the same improvement from console to console. I remember how amazing going from Saturn/PS1 to PS2 was. And how amazing going from PS2/Xbox to to Xbox 360/PS3 were.

You have to figure at some point in the future, graphics and overall console power are just going to be so amazing and so advanced as tech gets more efficient and we find cheaper ways to make things, that it will be really hard to notice any types of differences with upgrades. Not sure how far away we are from that.

 

[The_Mike]

That seems wrong, I think the reason ps4 is so much more popular is bc of all the exclusives it has. What exclusives are even on Xbox besides sunset overdrive, rare replay and halo?

It took a while for PS4 to get all those exclusives, they weren’t there at launch.

At launch: wow ps4 is a beast. We get PS4 because the graphics are better and because ma fucked up the Xbox one launch.

After One X release: graphics doesn’t matter, but hey looks at all the exclusives!

PS4 has the lead long before it had any interesting exclusives for the masses. And now the exclusives is mostly just an excuse for saying the machine is number one in the lead imo, cus when it won over xo in the start of the gen it really had none.

 

[Meh3D]

That seems wrong, I think the reason ps4 is so much more popular is bc of all the exclusives it has. What exclusives are even on Xbox besides sunset overdrive, rare replay and halo?

You forgot Gears of War and Cup Head.

 

[iidesuyo]

Dreamcast vs PS2 was although DC did have benefits.

Dreamcast vs. PS2 was won by PS2 only in later years. Back in 2000 games like Ridge Racer V had a terrible resolution and Grandia 2 for example looked awful on the PS2.

Dreamcast had more VRAM than PS2 and it often showed in early years.

 

[The_Mike]

You forgot Gears of War and Cup Head.

Forza Motorsport
Forza Horizon
Gears of war
Cup head
Recore
Ori and the blind forest

To name a few.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

The Amiga vs the Atari ST
Spectrum vs C64

 

[Azelover]

I thought it had been clear before a few times, though it's always seen from multiple angles.

More powerful means more computing power, not superior storage or game media. The N64 had more computing power than the PSOne, I don't think that was ever a question. And this is just one example.

The thing that really makes me curious is how NEVER did the most powerful system of a generation win the cycle.

This time at the start it seemed like the winner, the PS4, would be the most powerful. But as the generation progressed, that situation changed completely. Now the XBX is the leader in specs, and it clearly won't win the race. Yet again. That's interesting to me. Shows that the game experience trumps power every time, even though the core gamers just focus on specs initially.

The notion that power is at the center of home console war is a bit of an illusion.

 

[mr_sockochris]

PS2 > Xbox was probably the biggest gap in terms of similarly powered consoles. Games like Splinter Cell and Dead or Alive looked almost a generation apart. There was nothing on PS2 that looked as clean as Conker BFD or RalliSport 2. Then there was a few games like Soul Calibur 2 that actually boasted a HD mode on Xbox.

Power doesnt really mean alot though.

Wii destroyed everything back in the day despite its technical shortcoming.

PSone ruled despite the N64 being more powerful in alot of ways.

PS2 was the weakest of the three and nothing else came close in terms of sales.

 

[Toe-Knee]

The thing that really makes me curious is how NEVER did the most powerful system of a generation win the cycle.

This time at the start it seemed like the winner, the PS4, would be the most powerful. But as the generation progressed, that situation changed completely. Now the XBX is the leader in specs, and it clearly won't win the race. Yet again. That's interesting to me. Shows that the game experience trumps power every time, even though the core gamers just focus on specs initially.

The notion that power is at the center of home console war is a bit of an illusion.

Yes isn't the case the the main focus of both companies is the base units the upgrades are just that an addition.

It would take a miracle for xbox sales to catch up this generation.

 

[Mathrin]

Forza Motorsport
Forza Horizon
Gears of war
Cup head
Recore
Ori and the blind forest

To name a few.

I take it you're not referring to complete exclusivity given every single game listed there is on the PC?

 

[DiscoJer]

Eh, I think the Colecovision Just look at Donkey Kong on the 2600 and it's pretty obvious.

 

[SMOK3Y]

Forza Motorsport
Forza Horizon
Gears of war
Cup head
Recore
Ori and the blind forest

To name a few.

I bolded the flaw of MS

 

[meirl]

Huh? Reading the title I thought OP was referring to Xbox one X vs ps4 pro... the difference between ls4 and Xbox one is minimal. Especially when you compare them directly on a 1080p screen

Now with Xbox one x vs ps4 pro the difference is HUGE when you are watching it on a 4K screen

 

[NicknameMy]

And now the Switch is on its way to be the best selling console of this gen.

 

[Discusguy]

Huh? Reading the title I thought OP was referring to Xbox one X vs ps4 pro... the difference between ls4 and Xbox one is minimal. Especially when you compare them directly on a 1080p screen

Now with Xbox one x vs ps4 pro the difference is HUGE when you are watching it on a 4K screen

I don’t a screen yet and the difference is staggering on a 1080p screen between the Xbox X vs Pro.

 

[TGO]

Dreamcast vs. PS2 was won by PS2 only in later years. Back in 2000 games like Ridge Racer V had a terrible resolution and Grandia 2 for example looked awful on the PS2.

Dreamcast had more VRAM than PS2 and it often showed in early years.

Yeah it did, better textures and AA
It showed in Ports mostly but there was games which looked beyond what the DC was doing even if they did have no AA.

 

[Malcolm9]

And now the Switch is on its way to be the best selling console of this gen.

As much as I like the Switch there is no way it will ever surpass the PS4 sales.

 

[Rellik]

Forza Motorsport
Forza Horizon
Gears of war
Cup head
Recore
Ori and the blind forest

To name a few.

He said exclusives. You just listed a bunch of multiplatform games.

I don't own an Xbox anymore and I can play them games tomorrow. That's not exclusive.

 

[NicknameMy]

As much as I like the Switch there is no way it will ever surpass the PS4 sales.

People said earlier it was impossible that it sells over 10 million, look where it is now.

Switch is currently selling at the same rate as PS4 in its first year and completly destroying the PS4 in Japan. And that while having less holiday months.

 

[iidesuyo]

Yeah it did, better textures and AA
It showed in Ports mostly but there was games which looked beyond what the DC was doing even if they did have no AA.

I guess Shenmue on PS2 would only be possible with massive downgrades in texture quality. Maybe they could have made up with higher detailed 3D models.

 

[Malcolm9]

People said earlier it was impossible that it sells over 10 million, look where it is now.

Switch is currently selling at the same rate as PS4 in its first year and completly destroying the PS4 in Japan. And that while having less holiday months.

Stop deluding yourself, it's a great console but it will never pass the PS4. Worldwide is far more important compared to Japan alone.

 

[cireza]

Is PS4 better than Xbox One ? Both feel like the same weak console to me lol. And I am not a PC gamer.

The Genesis blew me away. The Dreamcast too. For me, it was the most impressive gap in console history. Of course, consoles of the "same" generation are more powerful (but they released much later).

PS4 and Xbox are pretty much the same thing, differences are minor, and both consoles did not make a consequent gap with what previously existed in my opinion.

 

[Malcolm9]

For me the original Xbox up against the PS2 was the biggest difference, games like Splinter Cell looked so much better in every way on the Xbox.

I remember playing a mates copy at his house on the PS2 and I couldn't believe the difference. The original Xbox was amazing, I even had some love for the Duke controller.

 

[cireza]

For me the original Xbox up against the PS2 was the biggest difference

Xbox was released (around) two years later, that's the least it could do honestly.

And I agree, Splinter Cell was a very good looking game on Xbox. Loved it.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

That E3 2000 MGS2 reveal made the Dreamcast look like a damn Fisher Price toy. You want readily apparent, that was it. It looked out of this world.

 

[Airola]

It’s the first time we’re the hardware was almost exactly the same. In the past because of hardware differences each console usually showed being proficient at a certain thing. This time is just the case of exact same hadware one had more of it.

Yeah, back in the day if a game of a certain name appeared on several consoles and computers, they often looked way different from each other and in the best cases were completely different games (for example Jurassic Park on Sega and Nintendo consoles).

Today we have to read a Digital Foundry analysis to really see any differences between different versions.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

The Xbox vs PS2 comparison is kind of unfair though. They were released over one and half years apart. Especially during that time, the technological jumps were still quite large over relatively short periods of time. Obviously the Xbox was gonna come out better, plus MS (I believe) took a hit on each unit sold to really pump out a lot of power while keeping the price manageable. It was great but it arrived fairly late, same for the Gamecube.

 

[The_Mike]

I take it you're not referring to complete exclusivity given every single game listed there is on the PC?

Well, if you want to play the games with a console experience then they are exclusives.

 

[HarryKS]

The crazy part was that the more powerful console was less expensive than its competitor as well.