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

But only One does not suck...

 

I'm just going buy what both companies are saying about their hardware cycle. I'll take their word for it.

 

They will both have a 10 year life cycle, the hardware is that good. Remember, they are basically PCs now - so they can update the software however they want to conform to the new technological shifts. Just look how the Xbox 360 changed over it's 8 years.

Original Dashboard, all you could do was games and messaging.


Dashboard now, with many apps and all kinds of bells and whistles. Video streaming, music streaming, web browsing, video chatting and on and on.


It is no different having a really strong gaming computer now, and then using it in a decade. You can still play some pretty good games on it and even update the OS to newer versions. The difference being, all of the games will be developed to conform to those hardware standards (unlike with a PC).

TL;DR - Game consoles are still the best investment return in entertainment in hours of enjoyment vs. dollars spent.

 

This is actually not true. The gap is much bigger than PS3 and the 360, and that was evident with some of the launch games. We saw bigger gaps in those games than any 360/PS3 gap IIRC.

This seems to be part of some FUD going around, and it is kind of annoying. It is OK to some degree because, as has been pointed out numerous times, it doesn't necessarily matter THAT much if one console is much more powerful than the other. But it seems that some people online aren't comfortable with the facts, and false information starts propagating through the Internet. Repeat a lie long enough, and it might become the truth.

If it isn't obvious, I'm not calling you out or anything. MS specifically has been pretty horrible about misleading people about this. I guess that's to be expected, though I think it would have been smarter to just focus on other things rather than trying to put out misleading information. I think it partially explains the backlash that MS PR guys like Major Nelson and Albert Penello are getting from "hardcore" gamers, while those same gamers tend to respond more positively towards people like Shu Yoshida, Mark Cerny, etc. When you keep putting out BS, people will call you out on it.

I would say the counter-argument is that Kinect might just end up being a $150 microphone. While appreciated (we've all seen the benefits of voice control), it is unclear to me right now that Kinect is "worth" its cost. You could get many of these benefits for a fraction of the cost. The camera tech itself is really awesome, but it has yet to be implemented well in games IMO.

It is an expensive bet by MS essentially, and not one with an obvious outcome. I think anyone who assumes things will turn out one way or the other is just fooling themselves. No one knows whether this gamble will pay off. If it was obviously worth it, MS wouldn't be the only ones doing it (MS and Sony both agreed on a lot of things with their machines). If it was obviously not worth it, then MS wouldn't be bothering to include it.

Personally, I'm a little skeptical about the benefits a camera like Kinect can bring to gaming. While it is true that no camera has ever been bundled with a system like Kinect, I feel like we've had a long time to experiment with camera tech in games (many of these projects were funded by Sony/MS as well, so it matters little how big the userbases are IMO). In comparison, the Oculus Rift seems to have an obvious (and significant) impact on gaming. I think it will be a bit of an uphill battle for MS in proving Kinect's "worthiness" in games, especially if the higher price tag negatively impacts sales for them (if devs have to support the PS4, PC, etc., to pay for their games, they'll be less likely to push Kinect).

But maybe I'm wrong. Certainly MS hopes I am.

I actually would prefer both consoles to include cameras, assuming the cost is not too great. You'd get all the voice control stuff (no need to just build in microphones or whatever), and as long as the camera tech is "good enough," you can have some fun (albeit probably gimmicky) things to play. Kind of like the motion sensors in the DualShock. They're pretty gimmicky and only a few games actually use them well. But if it only costs a few dollars to include it, go ahead. However, if including that stuff raises the overall cost substantially, I might prefer dropping it and/or putting those dollars elsewhere.

 

So far Xbox one sucks right now, the tv gimmick is not working with my xfinity x1 receiver.

 

Ps4 is the best console bar none.

 

Kinect was gimmick for the 360, I purchased it for Mass effect 3 gameplay. I can live with out a camera for both sony and microsoft. You want to give the consumer the option to purchase the add on or not.

 

Um, both sport an AMD APU which is x86 and houses the same GPU (Xbone is clocked higher on CPU and GPU). Both have 8GB RAM (GDDR5 for PS4, DDR3 for Xbone).

Yes, the PS4 is faster when you look into the more detailed specifications regarding the GPU and memory, but hardware-wise, they're pretty much the same which is pretty much a PC.

 

If it isn't working, you're doing it wrong. It is simply an HDMI input. Did you go through the TV setup?

It takes about two minutes to setup.
https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/live-tv/set-up-live-tv

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1sUcRu1T8U4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Trust me, it isn't a gimmick.

 

The point I was making is that there is a substantial difference in overall power between the two systems. If you want to get into semantics, yes, the two share very similar "tech", and certainly in terms of design, the two are much closer than what we had with PS3/360. But the conclusion in the original post was that we should not expect significant differences, which is not true. They can share very similar designs while still being very different in overall power. The Gamecube and Wii U share a lot in their designs IIRC, but certainly one system is much more powerful.

FYI, apparently it is no longer accepted that XBO has a faster CPU. I'm a little hesitant to outright accept the PS4's CPU as better, but the latest evidence does seem to imply that it is. Of course, the difference is so small either way, it doesn't really matter too much. You'll see a much larger impact from some of the other differences in the systems.

 

I did the set correctly, xbox one is not able to communicate with X1 receiver. So I just remove the cable hdmi and plug it directly to the tv now. Easy fix, now I have a badass blu ray player.

 

Oh I'm sorry you have xbox one and played Deadrising 3 to make that claim?

 

"...because that's how Xbox people are."

lolz

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NYbs0firps8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Dude, they're running the same damn APU. One is just clocked 150MHz higher. The RAM is where the big difference is because the PS4 is using superior gaming RAM (GDDR5) instead of consumer level RAM that is DDR3 that the Xbone is using. Next to that is the GPU is slightly beefier on the PS4 whilst the Xbone has faster core clock. Otherwise, no big difference.

 

He probably played Ryse. They should sell that game for $25 as well for Battlefied 4.

 

I don't really agree, but rather than dig out the numbers, would you agree that this difference (however small you think it is) is still quite a bit bigger than PS3/360? That was my original point.

Again, we didn't see gaps in that generation like we are already seeing now. Maybe 540p vs 600p, but not 720p vs 1080p.

 

PS4 is 900p, not 1080p.

 

And no, I don't think the difference is THAT big.

 

What?

I'm talking about CoD, which is 1080p on PS4 and 720p on XBO. Am I cherry-picking? Sure, though that was kind of intentional (i.e., what are the biggest gaps?).

But we could drop that. We ALSO didn't see anything as big as 720p vs 900p (with framerate advantages on the latter). Or 900p vs 1080p.

 

They're the same core, but very different. MS and Sony customized the APU to their own designs. I believe the PS4 has an extra core and I read a rumor that it has OC abilities which can go from the stock 1.6 to 2.2 (read it on Neogaf).

The big difference is the built in gpu. Here's a cut and paste from IGN.

PS4 - AMD Radeon Graphics Core Next engine w/ 1152 shaders [15]
XB1 - 853 MHz AMD Radeon GPU w/ 768 shaders[16]

This is where everyone is getting the PS4 is 50% more powerful, because of the gpu. CPU is similar but GPU and Ram is better. I also read the PS4 has the huMA technology/architecture AMD is starting to implement that the XB1 does not.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-HSA-hUMA-APU,22324.html