Hurt? The PS3 has been outselling the 360 since launch worldwide while beeing more expensive, not having more powerful hardware and have crappy version of multiplats and a small selection of exclusives in the first dew years.
-
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.
RUMOUR: Xbox One version of Call of Duty: Ghosts is 720p, PS4 version is 1080p?
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Hurt? The PS3 has been outselling the 360 since launch worldwide while beeing more expensive, not having more powerful hardware and have crappy version of multiplats and a small selection of exclusives in the first dew years.
scoobs
Member
PS3 was weaker in that its GPU was worse, and its architecture was more complicated for developers to take advantage of.
Chobel
Member
1) Ryse is 30fps, COD is 60fps
2) eDRAM was managed automatically by X360 hardware, it couldn't be managed by devs. eSRAM has to be managed explicitly by the devs.
Gemüsepizza
Member
The differences between PS4 and X1 will be much bigger than between PS3 and X360. And unlike this gen, where some games look better on PS3 and some games look better on X360, probably all games will look a lot better on PS4 than on X1. So of course this is also a bigger deal for many people.
But the PS4 version seems to have 60 fps too. At 1080p.
Oh I think it did, Sony got dethroned from being the king of selling software plus the higher price of the console never helped their case until price drops happened.
One thing we can take from Sony and the PS3 is that software won't sell bad enough on Xbox One for devs to drop support ala Wii U.
travisbickle
Member
Overcome the theory that pairing a modern GPU with a low bandwidth memory pool is a bad idea.
I'm guessing no one has tried it because it sounds like a bad idea on paper? MS has now tried it, and we will see if the theory of it being a bad idea has any relevance in reality.
EmptySpace
Banned
with framerate, it is understandable for devs to not say a figure until very late into development, but can devs change the resolution as well? EmptySpace never came across a game that changed resolutions from its initial showing, at least in games as complex as titanfall.
gamerforever
Banned
I think it's well known now that the PS4 is not only significantly more powerful than the Xbone, it is also significantly more easier to develop for.
The 360 had the advantage with the latter this gen, but they've done a 180 and I fully expect PS4 games to look significantly better than Xbone equivalents unless devs manage to choose the Xbone as the lead platform, which wouldn't make any sense.
First party games will destroy anything Xbone has got, infact Killzone SF is proof, and it's early days yet!
The 360 had the advantage with the latter this gen, but they've done a 180 and I fully expect PS4 games to look significantly better than Xbone equivalents unless devs manage to choose the Xbone as the lead platform, which wouldn't make any sense.
First party games will destroy anything Xbone has got, infact Killzone SF is proof, and it's early days yet!
Can anyone elaborate on what exactly "has to be managed by the devs"?
I'm just curious, I'm not a tech wizard.
PS3 isn't nececcesarily weaker than 360, but it's not stronger either. Having better looking first party games doesn't prove amything.
Hmmm, thanks for that. Sounds like it might be somewhat borked then? Possibly?
I've no plans to buy an XboxOne, but I do hope things improve. I don't think a runaway Sony train is really great for the industry, even if its going to make a lot of fans here happy and gloating.
He never mentioned price? The point is, these sorts of resolutions are already somewhat outdated by modern standards on the PC and will get further and further away still in the next few years. Even if 4k doesn't go mainstream that quickly, 1440p will definitely be there to make even 1080p feel somewhat primitive.
scoobs
Member
I'm just struggling to understand how microsoft plans for the XB1 to be a future proof device... how can it be future proof if it can't even do 1080p native, which is old technology? lol. Just odd. What happens in 6 years when people are buying 4K TVs? Just gonna upres from 720P to whatever the hell resolution 4K is? That just sounds terrible
Gemüsepizza
Member
If things go bad, maybe never. Will be interesting how shareholders will react to those Xbox numbers.
Look up multiplat sales across both consoles and get back to me. Inferior multiplat titles absolutely hurt the PS3.
GoofsterStud
Member
And that memory..
I was on the anti-PS3 side...
Weak GPU
Worse Memory Architecture
Harder to program for
More expensive
Now I'm singing the same toon to the Xbox One... At least the PS4 had Cell, which was/is a significant difference in CPU power... The Xbox One doesn't have the nearly the CPU advantage the PS3 did though...
:-/
But it's raining...
I addressed that in my post.
SpartanN92
Banned
Destroy is a VERY strong word...wait till Halo 5 rolls around before we start saying words like destroy.
PS3 sold ~5M more units than 360 in 7 years (add 360's first year sales and 360's still ahead), PS2 outsold Xbox like 5:1. The combination of hardware, services, policies and price allowed MS to be much more competitive, but this time Sony has the advantage on most of those things.
call_kotaku
Member
Considering Sony's lead and market share coming into this gen, that's still massively underperforming.
The first couple years of the PS3 was a disaster that Sony still hasn't fully recovered from, so I don't see how Xbox One repeating those mistakes should somehow be viewed favorably.
What CPU advantage? The CPU in the PS3 is more of a compensation than an advantage.
SpartanN92
Banned
Edit: iPhone error
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Something tells me there's always going to be something on the horizon that will disprove the disparity.
but not weaker in the sense that in capable hands, naughty dog and the likes of santa monica studios created titles that were second to none, didn't require installs, were hd, and examples of some of the best visuals and highly rated titles...?
the xbone has no such representation, as far as a first.party title shitting all over the hate Bout the system/performance complaints. so far its a lot.of.words, in response.to direct feed ps4 content.
Derpcrawler
Member
And yet I bought PS3 version and discovered about differences later. At least I was playing on SDTV so wasn't so salty about it not being native 720p.
GoofsterStud
Member
I guess that's better than having no compensation.
gamerforever
Banned
True, but I reckon Destiny will top everything.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Meanwhile the master race is moving to 4K. Why are you guys even fighting over this?
ZackieChan
Member
I also remember Sony being crapped on constantly by journalists for having the worse version of every multiplat. 1Up Yours used to say that Sony should have ninjas dropping into every game dev studio to make those games run well, especially after that first year of Madden where the PS3 version was only 30 fps. It wasn't until Burnout Paradise used PS3 as a lead platform that things started to turn around for it.
I can't imagine that Sony wasn't bothered by all of this. The system had the potential to be so much more amazing than what 360 could do, yet it was getting the reputation of being worse. This was shown in sales of multiplatform titles. Why would anyone argue that they "didn't care?"
There's been a number of little whispers about eSRAM since E3.
I think an underexplored analogy is maybe PS2's memory setup.
The flexibility of eSRAM to read and write data, vs write only on 360, may be a rather double edged sword if it turns out you actually need to do a fair bit of reading from it to make up for DDR3 bandwidth. No one's really talked about the implications of that, knock on effects on output buffer resolution. But I guess if this is all true, devs might start opening up about it more publicly after launch.
I think an underexplored analogy is maybe PS2's memory setup.
The flexibility of eSRAM to read and write data, vs write only on 360, may be a rather double edged sword if it turns out you actually need to do a fair bit of reading from it to make up for DDR3 bandwidth. No one's really talked about the implications of that, knock on effects on output buffer resolution. But I guess if this is all true, devs might start opening up about it more publicly after launch.
RedAssedApe
Banned
lol...its always so disparaging when someone mentions gaf
IHaveCandy
Banned
But we all prefer 1080p at 60fps.
MysticGoujon
Banned
1) Point still remains, Ryse is leagues above COD in visuals and running a higher res. There is power in the machine to push it higher than 720p, if not we can refer to Forza 5, much better looking game running at 1080p60. My suspicion is still that the first party has had access to more advanced drivers earlier, allowing them more time to make use of the hardware.
2) I'm pretty sure that in that digital foundry article that it said the ESRAM was an evolution of the EDRAM, however unlike before, the developer could get full access to it and control it themselves, however if they didn't want to, the system would manage it for them.
Meanwhile, this thread isn't really about PC gaming now is it?
Whiteshirt
Member
It does work. The problem has to do with amount and how its utilised. Heck, Intel went with 128mb of what basically works as L4 cache for a very good reason: future proofing. They had an especially good hit rate with the cache and they really could have stayed with 32mb. But apparently Intel said that they should either go big or go home.
Its questionable whether or not 32mb has any real longevity especially since its essential to the performance of the Xbox One's GPU. This isn't like the Xbox 360 where the small amount of extra fast memory is an added bonus: its downright essential that they manage this properly or else you're going to get shit bandwidth.
SpartanN92
Banned
I doubt that. Game developed solely for one console>multi gen title.
hooijdonk17
Member
Where's the 'Wait for ...' blackboard .jpg when you need it.. (I couldn't find it on google search
)It's not an honest opinion it's a debate tactic. By downplaying the effect those mistakes had on the PS3 he can turn the argument into how it won't effect the Xbox One, and if does it's because people hate Microsoft. It's a bit of revisionist history mixed in with a persecution complex for good measure.
To be honest I don't think the performance of the Xbone will affect sales of the machine. As mentioned previously, PS3 Vs X360 multi platform games were generally better on the X360. I know 720p vs 1080p is a huge difference, but I just don't think many third party developers will go the extra mile to differentiate between the two platforms.
Similarly to PC gaming in the last few years, only a few developers seemed to put the extra effort in on the PC ports. Apart from resolution, texture quality & frame rate, the games have been identical. To gamers who frequent this site and other games sites, this is a very important factor but to the casual users who make up the majority of sales, they probably can't even see the difference.
Similarly to PC gaming in the last few years, only a few developers seemed to put the extra effort in on the PC ports. Apart from resolution, texture quality & frame rate, the games have been identical. To gamers who frequent this site and other games sites, this is a very important factor but to the casual users who make up the majority of sales, they probably can't even see the difference.
By then the next Naughty Dog game will be known
SpartanN92
Banned
Because not everyone has $2000 to build the wizard that produces the Jizz's tower.
MysticGoujon
Banned
How is it proof? Ryse is just as good looking, arguably better, which one you think looks the best is very much down to your preference in art style though.
killatopak
Member
lmao!
If we're talking about technicalities KZ:SF is better than rise and 1080p>900p.
EmptySpace
Banned
kinda like how the master race has been bragging about their 16 gb rams and 8gb vrams yet they're stuck with the same ai, animation, and physics engines as the console owners in majority of their games? higher resolution, yay. better graphical effects, yay. those pc specs can do more than those. devs could've crammed in the best animations, the most intelligent ai, the most sophisticated physics engines, yet what? pc skyrim and console skyrim are the same experience. same dumbshit pathfinding ai, same repetitive animations, same arcadey physics. with master race specs, one would've assumed it's more than just for looking prettier or running faster. too bad the arma games come out every 3 years.
EmptySpace digresses.
IHaveCandy
Banned
900p 30fps
hooijdonk17
Member
When we were kids, we would go crazy talking things like how many bits this guy's console is, how many colors that guy's graphics card could display, how many sound samples an Amiga could play, how much better CD-ROM games look compared to floppy games.. You really underestimate kids' tendency to boast about having something superior and how much buzz it can create.
- Status