soulassssns
Banned
You shouldexpect lots of disappointment in your future then
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
John Carmack on PS4 vs. Xbox One Specs: They're 'Very Close'
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
but then you can counteract that with sales like Steam. that 400 dollars u are using for paywall could virtually buy you every game you want on the steam summer sale.
i dont think so, you can lower the settings =)
but if you always want the 60 fps, fullblown AA, and tressfx then yeah
quickwhips
Member
Maybe he likes the simplicity of the PS3 interface..oh never mind that shit sucks. Please Sony Make PS4 inteface easy and fast with features built into os instead of games.
With a fixed resolution, with cross-generation multiplats pushing for release at launch or shortly thereafter, there may not be a huge difference. I think it would be a particularly bad indicator for Xbox One and more sophisticated multiplats later if there was.
Cost - yes. The CPU in those consoles is laughable and the GPUs are also on the lower end - it won't be long before you'll be able to build a $700 PC that will smoke consoles and you don't have to pay for access to the multiplayer component.
Convenience - yes. Instant access to several hundred games spanning two decades
Ease of use - it's not any more difficult to launch a PC game than it is to launch a console game. Add loading times that are MUCH quicker on PC and you have a winner.
Bigger active userbase - YES. It will take 5-6 years for consoles to catch up to PC which has over 50 million active gamers.
More Occupied Multiplayer - depends on the game. Call of Duty has more players on consoles, Counterstrike has more players on PC etc.
So? You're still getting better performance in multiplatform games. $1000 GPUs? PS4-like GPU will be well below $200 by the time PS4 launches.
Brad Grenz
Member
That $400 for 8 years of PS+ would have netted you more than 400 games.
paradise_circus
Member
more like flagship smartphones like htc one vs samsung galaxy s4
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Cost - No.
You're not building a PC with comparable specs, closed box environment, with a controller and headset packed in for $399, and you won't for many years.
Convenience - No.
Games play instantly and download in the background, couch gaming, background patching, inevitable Gaikai streaming of the playstation catalogue.
See points above -- PS4 seems to be designed with ease of use in mind, even moreso than PC.
Console games sell many times over what PC games sell. It's not about "HOW MANY PEOPLE OWN A PC", it's "HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE PLAYING COD/BF/ETC"
I'm still getting 1080p games on PS4. All of these new-generation titles will be developed with PS4/XB1 specs in mind.
Advantage is for the PC if 60fps in every game is a requirement (for me, it's not), or getting in excess of 1080p resolution.
This is a non-issue for me.
If developers actually made games with the top 1% of graphics cards in mind that truly take advantage of the extra specs in ways outside of easily scalable factors, I'd be more inclined to care.
Can Crusher
Banned
Could you explain why? I have zero doubt exclusives will have big differences. That happened this gen, and next gen i expect the gap to be bigger because things are in place for that to happen.
Cost - you will build $700 that will slaughter PS4 and you don't have to worry about paywalls. All accessory talk is meaningless since I have (and I think everyone here as well) a large collection of those by now.
Convenience - all those things are already on PC you know.
"Userbase is about how many people play multiplayer games, eg. BF3" - well here are some BF3 stats from this moment:
PC online
40 113
PS3 online
66 233
360 online
50 223
PC is at minor disadvantage here, but 40k is more than enough to be sure you will find games going on. Not to mention BF3 is not a particularly popular game, with the likes of LOL, DOTA2 or TF2 killing its numbers.
As for the last point - so if suddenly lower settings are more than enough for you, why do you care to begin with. "Scalable factors" can be a pretty big deal when on one platform you have distracting things such as jagged shadows or low res transparencies and on another you don't have them.
Can Crusher
Banned
But ccomparing to pc is one of those things, which pc are you comparing them to?
And then you have to compare between pcs. 200% actual gulf in performance, isn't comparing to your everyday pc. Pcs can go all tbhe way to quad sli.
Coffee Dog
Banned
I always love wildly innacurate and constantly disproven pc gaming stereotypes. If you try to argue that consoles are superior in any way but exclusives and convenience its not gonna turn out well.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Look - here's what you PC folks fail to understand.
"PC" isn't some static piece of hardware. You have options as to what rig you're going to build.
Console gives me the best bang for my buck -- in essence, with how common the architecture is now, I *AM* buying a PC.
How is that any different from someone who bought a mid-to-high end gaming PC this year or last year?
To get better performance you'll have to continually upgrade your rig.
I just choose to "upgrade my rig" every 6-8 years with every console cycle because it's cost-effective, gives me all the library of PC games I care about, and also a wealth of exclusives that I couldn't play on my PC.
I do this at the expense of not getting the absolute best version of games, but like I said, unless devs develop ground up for the hardware the difference in power isn't worth the gulf in price for upgrading.
Bananajama
Banned
I fully intend to just buy a PS4 with PS+
Game purchasing unlike previous generations will be few and far between.
Using rentals to fill the gaps that PS+ can't.
Theoretically I'm hoping it'll be my cheapest generation yet
Game purchasing unlike previous generations will be few and far between.
Using rentals to fill the gaps that PS+ can't.
Theoretically I'm hoping it'll be my cheapest generation yet
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Eh. Last gen the difference was more of a studio advantage than a hardware advantage. Sony has ND, SSM, QD, & GG. Microsoft had Bungie and Gears for the most part. It took 343i for people to say "that's running on 360??" again.
Based on Phil Spencer saying they've got 3 new studios specifically for AAA big budget games, I don't see that huge first party visual advantage being as great as it was last time around. Just off it not being Sony's 5+ visual feasts vs just halo and gears anymore changes the dynamic.
What do you mean? If there's one thing you can't fault RAGE for it's control latency, pulling off those visuals on consoles at 60 FPS is a seriously impressive feat.
and add that one of the biggest sony exclusive infamous ss isnt setting the graphical bar compared to what we seen for xb1.
And to counteract that, think of just how many old C64 game cassettes you could buy with all that money!
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
I choose to upgrade my rig every 3 years or so, get the absolute best bang for the buck when I do so, enjoy tremendous library of games that perform much better than they do on consoles. I will also buy one or two or three consoles (depending if I'm ever interested in their library), but the bulk of my gaming time will be spent on PC - why settle for far inferior experience?
RAGE was a terrible game, so Carmack doesn't really know much about gameplay as the game was piss poor with a standard controller.
lol for who!? u mean in your opinion?.."by far"??!?!
dont think so
mgs5 looked better to me and is a multiplat
ps. to be honest 3 or 4 games looked better than infamous
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Second son looks pretty damn good man. The only games that look better are The Order and Quantum Break. But we don't really have uncut gameplay footage of those yet so Second Son is the best looking next gen game I've seen so far.
The major differences is the incredibly cheaper price of PC games, free online saving you $50-$60 per year, greater customizability and user moddability, and infinite backward compatibility allowing you to continue to make old games look really impressive as you upgrade hardware. (Example, Morrowind can be made to look as good as Skyrim)
Then there's emulation with hardware video acceleration options making old game system games look their best.
If you buy 12 games per year and save around $20 per game getting it on PC as well as saving $60 per year with free online, your PC gaming experience costs $300 less per year than your console experience. How many years until your hardware is paid off with the savings in cost?
I still love gaming on consoles, but anyone who says console gaming is cheaper hasn't properly done the math.
I've done the math. I live the math. I track every purchase. PC gaming isn't cheaper for me.
Not every has the same purchasing habits. I can construct a scenario (or use my own) to make console games more attractive. Some else can do the same for PC. This general: this is how it is for everyone is bullshit.
Last year a person I knew bought a PS3. Had he bought PS+ for himself and his kids at the discounted price that you can get it at (35EUR), which I suggested to him, he would have gotten ~60 games on it in the span of a year. I doubt anyone can beat that.
MGSV looks good but it's current gen roots really show, especially in the hair and the rather barren and static environments.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Portugeezer
Member
I watched the keynote and he's clearly talking about the architecture and not the hard "numbers". He also says he hasn't done any benchmarking so he wouldn't even know properly.
sure it look good ..
omg IT LOOK GOOD
but infamous with kz,gow,uncharted and gt...is one of the biggest sony exclusives...and im not seeing like someone is saying this graphical difference between this exclusive and a xb1 exclusive
EightBitNate
Member
Maybe best-looking exclusive, but The Division looks better.
I'm sorry but your opinion also not higher than James.
true
i add mine is lower coz my english sucks!
TheLaughingStock
Member
It's impressive, but recall it is 60 frames because they traded off on elements such as effects and lighting to keep a high level of detail. Unless Rage received a bunch of awards for graphics, then people subjectively prefer doing things a different way. It may be more impressive than CoD, but falls short in comparison to other games.
FairXchange
Member
How can he be when he's actually said nothing about them comparatively. Do people not remember how far into detail he went about the 360 architecture versus PS3? Now he has literally nothing to say in a situation where there are significant differences in the GPU and memory between the two?
I'm not buying it as easily as some here may be.
iceatcs
Junior Member
true
Join the club.
If you see this picture
RUN!!! - also don't go to Reddit.
The Division was the highest rated "Best tech" game in the GAF E3 awards.
Just the software it was: The Division > The Dark Sorcerer > Final Fantasy XV > MGS5 > BF4
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
This totally discounts the benefits of PSN+, which gives me tons of games rather cheaply, similar to Steam's sales.
Also assumes a $20 gap in price on PC vs. consoles, which is another disingenuous assumption.
Bottom line is it doesn't pay off for me: My option would be:
1) PS4 only - get everything I need on one system
2) PC + PS4 for exclusives only
I'm not going to miss out on Sony's exclusives, I have no problem missing out on PC's exclusives since the console ports are the only thing that I'd play on the PC.
My assumption is based on buying everything brand new as preorder since this is a video games forum frequented by people who buy the games they truly want on day 1. PS+ games are not guaranteed to be the games you want but I do have PS+ and see the value in it.
My Bordelands 2 PC preorder was $37. My Borderlands 2 360 preorder was $60. If you can locate a PC game seller giving you deals like that on new games all the time then it's close to $20 savings per game. But even if you only save $10 per preordered game which is in no way a disingenuous number. That's still $180 savings per year for 1 game per month.
Yes console gaming can be done for cheap as can PC games. I personally played through both inFamous games with PS+ and $7 total.
My main point is that just because your PC hardware costs $1000, that doesn't automatically mean PC gaming is more expensive. It's situational based on your gaming habits, sure. But PC gaming also includes a wealth of benefits as well such as infinite BC with improved visuals.
I completely agree with the benefits for PC (I also think it has quite some problems.). Philosophically it's my favorite platform. (Well if they drop Windows and use Linux like I hope Valve is pushing it.)
This year I haven't been into big AAA games at launch, but the last two I bought at launch was BioShock: Infinite at ~32EUR and The Last of Us at 41 EUR.
That's almost 10 EUR difference and I think it's a good deal for both games.
Given that the prices for PCs in Germany are much higher than the same components via NewEgg.com it takes me much longer to recoup my costs for the PC.
All I disagree is that it's a clear cut numbers game valid for everyone. Someone from Brazil where the console gaming market is completely screwed up will also have a very different experience.
Exactly. PS+ is the best deal in gaming right now.
I'm hoping the forthcoming generation sees a fewer amount of lengthy and complex render pipelines. I will gladly take more responsive controls over visuals any day.
Sadly, I do not think this will happen. We've seen how it affected the Killzone series, how DICE even patched an option to remove AA to shave a frame from render in BF3, how horrid GTAIV was in this regard...
I really don't want that again this gen
Its the main reason I switched to gaming on a monitor over a TV to help drop video latency and you can still feel it.You mean in your opinion .
As for me SS was by far the best looking exclusive . 2nd only to Division and maybe MGS4 in some aspect, which like many next gen games were shown on PS4
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFHwI-DvYrM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=FFHwI-DvYrM
Lol WTF?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Aren't you guys assuming PS+ will be the same as this gen which makes no sense. An extremely large amount of PS4 owners will be getting it anyway for online, what reason would Sony have to essentially give away games to people that would own the service anyway?
I mean, most games on consoles are 720p or lower, 30fps or lower. That's pretty crappy by modern standards and I'm not interested in that, very cheap or not.