Console Wars Thread! PS4 vs. Xbox One vs. Wii U Fight!

So is the only reason you bought your XBone is for Halo? Cuz you probably could've waited till its actually released some time next year in a bundle and retailers slash the bundle price to $400

And what exactly are the amazing things the XBone can do that the PS4 can't other then being a DVR?

 

You are seriously talking out of your ass. Button mashing? (I have a PS4, and I don't need to button mash to beat anyone, especially in Halo. You seriously don't want any)

No updates or interactivity? Lol what? I get updates constantly. It has a little thing that let's it update when I'm not even using it called standby mode. Do you know what the word interactivity means? Xbox Live is nice, but it's not that much better than PSN now.

Since you keep bringing up Halo's multiplayer let's talk about it. Bungie no longer makes Halo, 343 does. Bungie made Halo's multiplayer what it is. The ONLY Halo game 343 has made had the WORST multiplayer component in the entire series. Yeah worse than ODST. Go look at the stats, there have been several articles about how everyone has quit Halo 4 and gone back to Reach (Bungie's last Halo game, surprise!), Halo 3, or are playing other games.

I'm not wasting any more typing on you after this.

 

The graphical jump from last gen to this gen is not that impressive. And keep in mind these graphics will remain virtually the same until next generation which will be about seven years from now. Xbox is still struggling with 1080p and PS4 still has many games running at 30fps. My PC hit those benchmarks years ago...

I'm glad your standards are low enough to enjoy that.

 

#consolegamers

 

Kinda been covered ad nauseam already, but I'll just restate one more time that it's pointless to cite "1080p/60fps" when comparing PC to consoles.

First, basically any machine can run black-and-white Pong in 1080p, 60fps. That doesn't make Pong graphically impressive.

Second, developers are likely to continue pushing their games to be as visually impressive as possible, and to do that they're going to stay near the proverbial edge of a console's graphics capabilities. Some might see fit to make sacrifices in visual flair in order to lock at 60fps. A lot of others won't. That will probably be true basically for as long as consoles exist. It's not that they can't hit 60fps, it's that the developers choose to prioritize other things.

Such comparisons are meaningless unless you're comparing the exact same game, with all the exact same graphical doodads in play. And even if you do that, you're left comparing a standard platform against a platform that's scalable according to how much money you're willing to put into it. That's about as apples-and-oranges as you can get.

 

Framerate does not graphics make. Every console generation the initial games have come out looking similar to prior generations; then over time developers learn tricks and make the games look better over time. The more you post the more you show your ignorance.

 

Better graphics means fps will suffer; it's a performance issue. I am not saying fps makes the graphics. Also I said virtually the same bc I understand launch games do not show off the full potential of a console. Last gen had a new console graphics king pretty much every year. After the first couple years though the improvements became marginal. My PC is more powerful than both consoles and the gap will only grow over the years as I upgrade. There is no debate. PC has the graphical edge and there is no denying that despite the better optimization for consoles.

 

How much did you spend on your PC? I'm sure it's more than $400-$500. Matter of fact, I just upgraded my video card and that alone was $300. It'll be difficult to build a PC with better performance and reliability under $500.

 

I spent $400 on my last video card, and $400 on my PS4. You can't compare the two.

 

I never made an argument about price though... I simply said PC will be held back graphically by consoles. Not that many developers are going to develop exclusively for PC when the console market is so huge. Usually it's up to mods to really beautify a game and show off one's PC power.

Also you don't have to pay to play online which adds up over the years.

 

How are the graphics held back? FF14 on PS4 looks just as good as the PC version. With the new engines they use, aren't most games created on PC's and scaled back for consoles?

My most played games are on PC and some of my favorites are free to play. Counter Strike and Dota 2. Played the crap out of WC3, the original Dota, and SC as well.

 

Seriously, now-a-days, especially with the release of the Maxwell chip from NVidia, anyone could purchase a sub $200 GTX 750Ti and put it in virtually any desktop PC and you have yourself a nice low-end gaming box. This includes people with ****ty prebuilt desktop PCs from Dell, HP, and whatnot that only include a <300W power supply (aside from having space in the case itself) and still get decent GPU performance.

 

Obviously, you'll get lower FPS with a slower CPU, but the card itself is impressive.

 

FF14 is not a graphically impressive game and the physics are lacking. Of course they look similar because the game is not even demanding for consoles. It is still an aesthetically pleasing game but from a technical standpoint it's not pushing any barriers.

PC excels at numerous AI on screen, textures, draw distance, frame-rate, anti-aliasing, lighting, etc. Most high end PCs are useless for gaming right now though because currently there are no games maximizing them.

 

So after all of that babbling you just basically admitted you're full of ****. Well played.

 

Ah yes resorting to insults. That's what people do when they lose an argument...

You want to explain how I am full of ****? I said PCs are being held back graphically by consoles and gamers with common sense know that's true. Multi-platform games are built to their specs, usually one of the consoles is the lead platform. The PC versions usually looks and perform better unless there are some optimization issues. Often times a bad port. In a few years both consoles will be maxed out while high end PCs are going to be underutilized.

It's not a fair contest though because consoles have a set price and hardware is not upgradable. The hardware will become completely dated in it's lifespan. PC costs more so you have a better product but there are not enough games to demostrate that. Consoles are the lowest denominator so games are developed with them in mind since most games are mutli-platform. PC is garbage when it comes big budget exclusive games.

 

PC games are also help back by PC hardware. Big budget PC-exclusive games still don't necessarily maximize high-end hardware. See something like StarCraft 2 or Diablo 3 I guess (even though D3 is now being ported to consoles). If you go around requiring 8-core CPUs (@ 3.5 Ghz and up) and high end DX11 GPUs for your PC game, you will be excluding a large number of PC gamers (this might work for some games, but not all). Actually, these new consoles are a good thing for PC gamers IMO since they are allowing developers to target higher end configurations (be it console or PCs), and still be able to hit their sales targets. I would think the PS4 and XBO are quite a bit more powerful than the "minimum" that most developers will target (or else maybe Epic would have kept SVOGI in UE4).

Yeah, PCs are more powerful than consoles. Yay! But we can appreciate both, even ignoring things like certain games being exclusive for one or the other (MLB the Show is not playable at 1080p on PC, and Star Citizen might just be too much for PS4/XBO).

 

I like console gaming for the simple reason that in five years time I know I'll be able to go into a shop, buy a game, go home and play it. I don't have to worry about hardware at all.

I can understand that some people love to have the latest and greatest. They will update their PC and push the limits of graphics with different mods. Thats great.

Personally for me, I'm willing to trade that extra graphics kick (Which in my opinion is less of a difference than it once was) for the simplicity of plug in and play games.

I would guess at some point hardware is going to get so far ahead of what graphics can produce that none of this will matter. Sure its great to take close up screen shots and see ridiculous details that someone had added to a game through a mod, but for the most part when you are playing these games, do you really notice these details?

I saw a funny picture posted on reddit yesterday about the way most had added, and over time improved, a horses a$$hole. I can do without such detail! :grin:

 

If people were gaming on PCs instead of consoles then many more people would have high end gaming PCs which will lead to graphically impressive games regardless. You would probably see a bigger range of games from a graphical standpoint since there wouldn't be a common benchmark. People's hardware would vary so it could be annoying for devs. I agree with everything else though.

That's not going to happen though because the ease of use of consoles is too appealing. Simply plug and play with no hassle of benchmarking your PC. I spend a good amount of time setting benchmarks for my cpu and gpu which can be tedious. There is no denying the positive impacts consoles have on gaming by appealing to everyone. It has it's cons though.