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

Not sure who you're talking at, seeing that I don't own one. Pretty sure Atheist said he didn't either earlier in the thread. And yes, there isn't much new with it. Which for like the 50th time, is the reason I don't own one.

What's new with the Xbox One? Oh, a game that performs better on the PC anyhow? Brool story co.

 

What source? You mean all those links you posted that did nothing at all to back you up?

 

Again, I don't own either one. Also, I'm not much interested in Second Son right now, as I didn't like the second game. The only games I know I want right now for PS4 are Assassin's Creed IV (which is both multi-platform and multi-generation anyway, but looks better on PS4 than anywhere else), and Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends, because I like the Dynasty Warriors games. Also, I'm still excited about Deep Down, although a lot is still unknown about that one. Only two games, which is why I haven't bought a next-gen system yet. Maybe when Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs are both out it will tip the balance for me.

Titanfall? A lot of people are going to like it, but it's not for me. I didn't particularly like Halo, either. There are too many FPSes out there.

 

Consoles have and always been judged by their exclusives, and I can assure you that every major Microsoft Exclusive going forward that can, will fully utilize the cloud. The cloud is just one of the many differentiating factors with this generation. What is clear however, is those that hate on Microsoft hate on Xbox One for no other reason than they are bored.

If you had an Xbox One Microsoft gives you options. Cover your Kinect up, or unplug the damn thing. If you find something creepy, it only stays "creepy" to you if you let it. Bringing it up is ridiculous. It is like saying that you're afraid of the dark, but you refuse to turn the lights on. It is a stupid argument.

Forza 5 uses the cloud, but you wouldn't know that because you don't own one. So saying that the cloud can't be used as an excuse for Xbox charging for Xbox Live or for having ads is ridiculous. It has been used since launch day and many people, including myself love it. I really like loading up a race and racing against my friends - even thought they aren't online. It is a unique feature, on a unique service and was available at launch. So you Xbox Live "cloud haters" are talking out of your butts.

Forza 5 and Titanfall are just two of the many, many games that will utilize Xbox Live's cloud going forward... if you don't think Microsoft is going to leverage probably their best product in their entire product lineup (Windows Azure), you're drunk.

 

First of all, I don't "hate" the cloud. Where are you getting that? All I said was that it hasn't made a difference in multiplatform games so that the XB1 version outperforms the PS4 version. That's all. How are you not getting this?

And guess what? This first sentence I've quoted here is the relevant one. You like that feature, which is great. I'm glad you like it. But guess what? I'm not interested in the game, because I'm not a big fan of racing games. I fiddled around with Burnout Paradise years ago, haven't touched another racing game since. So again, you can talk about how much you love Forza 5, including the features the cloud gives you. But that still doesn't change the fact that what's important is the game as a whole.

It still comes down to multiplatform games. Otherwise it is just apple game vs. orange game, and at that point it's just personal preference, period.

 

Not sure if you are aware of this or not, but this is a discussion forum - and a topic 70+ pages long. I'm responding to just more than one person.

So what if Forza 5's cloud usage isn't for you? That doesn't change the fact that it is THERE, which is what just a page or two people were clamoring for... including you. Of course more games are going to use it after launch, it wasn't available until launch for non-Microsoft Studio games (Forza 5), as they finalized it. To act like it isn't going to be a factor in the future is ridiculous. That's the point.

I provide real-world proof of it in usage (including more than 1 million using it in the Titanfall beta), but it wasn't what you were looking for. That doesn't change the fact that it is there, and in use and will be in use going forward.

You're contradicting yourself.

 

First of all, I think you understand sarcasm. The 720 crack was at people who seem to think it will be a cure-all for everything, including graphics -- which isn't the case. You said so yourself -- network/host performance is different from graphical and computing performance.

So where exactly am I contradicting myself? For one, where was I "clamoring for" cloud usage? Very confused on that one. What I said was that I want the best possible experience on multiplatform games, and so far you've given no examples where the cloud does that.

For the gazillionth time, the cloud is fine. I never said it didn't give any advantages. But trying to convince anyone that the cloud matters on exclusive games when they don't care about the games is a nonstarter. If you want Forza 5, you should buy an XB1. If you want Titanfall, you should buy an XB1. It's that simple, and I never said any different. Saying the cloud enhances these games is a fine thing to say. But when someone says "I'm not interested in those games," then talk about the cloud is superfluous. It would be like you saying you didn't like GTAV, and me responding with "but it's got an open-world!" Yes, duh. GTAV has an open world and Titanfall uses the cloud. So?

So if you think that the XB1 is better than the PS4 because it has games like Titanfall and Forza 5, that's great, more power to you. We have different taste in games, good on both of us. But then why are we arguing about this? It's just personal preference on games. On the other hand, multi-platform game performance can actually be compared in a more objective way that gets beyond the personal taste of liking Titanfall better than Dynasty Warriors 8.

 

Hahaha, this thread is so hilariously stupid. I think I just read it for the unintentional humor at this point.

 

anyone know if i can pre-order titan fall and it will download on its own while I'm at work?

 

On Xbox Live or PC? If you have a Xbox and pre-order something online, generally it will download for you. As long as you have everything set up properly.

 

I have my Xbone turned off at the power point when Im not using it.

I have a DVD case in front of the camera unless I want to use the camera.

 

seems like you're paranoid

 

Never go full tin foil.

 

Yeah, it's pretty bad. You have one guy who lies and bashes the crap out a system that he still plans on buying and another guy who thinks the PS4 being out of stock has nothing to do with its demand and is equivalent to the Surface Pro 2 being out of stock in a few local establishments.

 

A few other things:

Isn't it common sense that the console with the larger player base is going to have an easier time buying out exclusives? We are talking about nearly two-to-one in the US alone. If that is your main argument, along with a game that I can buy on the system I am currently typing this message, then you've already lost Xbox fanboys. Especially when it looks and plays better on PC.

Now, how much will it cost for Microsoft to keep Titanfall 2? My guess is A LOT more than they can afford not to since EA believed the Xbox One was going to crush the PS4 and that is FAR from the case. Does that mean I will buy it? Nope.

The PS4 is Sony's main focus and most profitable division. Don't you want the company you're buying your console from to be focused on the system you're buying? The Xbox One is pennies to Microsoft next to Windows and definitely not their main focus. If Sony didn't shift their main focus to the PS4 then they would have gone under.

As for Nintendo, they need to focus on including gamers into their player base, not just families and kids. Whoever approved that stupid controller needs to be fired. They need to be the cheapest console that's king of the motion department AND have next-gen graphics capability. They would be in this race if they just released a Wii with improved graphics and better motion sensor technology for around the same price.

 

I just like to be in control of a live camera in my house that's all. I'd have thought with everything we have found out about the use of technology in recent years that no one would be accused of being paranoid with something like that.

 

Holy Geebus guys! I take a day or two to upgrade my PC and get other things done, and then this thread gets all exciting. As is often the case with gaming, RC Cola is late to the party.

I don't think I'll be able to touch on everything in detail, but a couple of points:

* I'm not as up in arms as others when it comes to MS/Kinect and ads. I don't like it, but I just come to expect it. If Sony (or Nintendo) actually knew how this business worked, they'd probably push it more too. That's what I meant when I said "I've come to expect it." I do think MS tends to push the boundaries of what is "acceptable," but whatever. Someone else can make that argument. I'd rather talk about the lack of AF in PS4 games.

* I'm really skeptical of any claim that developers pressured MS to include Kinect. Like...VERY skeptical. Never mind the false assumption of "the only way devs will use it is if MS includes it!"

* The power of the Cloud is legit and something that is pretty awesome. MS does have a huge advantage with their Azure platform (Sony can't match them here, barring some crazy set of events), and I am curious to see how that affects things over time. That said, even if Azure is substantially better than whatever else is out there, it is unclear to me what this means for games. Does it just mean a 10% less likely chance of server downtime at a game's launch? Does it mean higher player counts? Does it mean bigger, more dynamic worlds? And what is the impact of these benefits in relative to what else is out there? We can acknowledge it is by far the best option, but if the results don't really seem that tangible, it might not really be that big of a deal. As already mentioned, if most multi-platform games decide not to use Azure (and these make up the majority of games for both platforms), this will reduce the impact of Azure, no matter what benefits it might bring.

It is fine to be optimistic about these technologies (they ARE exciting), but don't be surprised if things don't pan out quite like you think. I got burned on that numerous times in the past myself. I was excited by the massive increase in storage space Blu-ray offered for games. True, it was leveraged in many ways, and all else equal, you would want that extra storage space. But it was not something that was a huge factor in the last generation, especially for the vast majority of games. That's why I now try to take a "wait and see" approach with most exciting technologies. I like Kinect (camera tech in general), the WiiU Gamepad, Share, the Cloud, VR, PS Now, the PS4's compute customizations, DX12/Mantle, etc., but until these companies actually SHOW me WHY these things make a big difference (preferably via games, and many of them), I'm not going to get overly excited about them. I could go around thinking, "Well, in 2-3 years, developers will REALLY figure out how to use it, and things will be SO MUCH BETTER!" But 9 times out of 10, I'll be waiting 2-3 years...every year.

As an aside, I think we're all in agreement that using the Cloud to improve graphics rendering is not something reasonable to expect. That's good. Hopefully the PR folks at MS (and elsewhere) get that message too.

* It depends on the context, but exclusive games are *usually* a terrible way to compare hardware (or possibly other features/services). At least with graphics, you would generally be comparing Apples to Oranges. One game looks worse, but it is 60 FPS. The other games looks quite a bit better, but struggles to even stay at 30 FPS. Which one is "better?" Ignoring that, you also have the problem of some developers just being better than pretty much everyone else. Have two systems comparable in performane (but not equal), and I can pretty much guarantee you that games from Naughty Dog (or insert some other AAA dev) will look the best (or arguably the best), even if they were on the "inferior" hardware.

AND ON TOP OF THAT...you have the problem of judging art vs tech. A technically unimpressive game can "look" very good, due to impressive artists, while a technical showpiece of a game can be hindered by poor artists (would you like some brown to go with your gray, sir?).

Now technically...yes, exclusives can be the best way of showing what each platform is capable of doing, for the very reasons already mentioned. These developers can dedicate 100% resources to maxing out one specific platform (and everything it has to offer). Additionally, being an exclusive, the platform holder might even fund the developers to make the game a showpiece title for their platform (perhaps even sending their own engineers to aid in development). So yes, these games likely are the ones that push the platforms the hardest. BUT, due to the problems I mentioned above, it is difficult (if not impossible) to understand how the platform itself aided in providing such an experience. Could this game perform 85% the same way on the other platform? 95%? 115%? Who knows.

(Actually, if you are a graphics engineer or something, you can probably figure all of that out, but I think for the average message board poster, myself included, this is near impossible)

Now when you put the same game on two platforms, you can generally throw out some of the earlier problems. The same art is used for both versions. The same developer (usually) works on both versions. The developers likely focused on the thing they thought was important to their game (visuals vs framerate). Etc. Under this scenario, you have a more Apples to Apples comparison to aid in your analysis.

True, I'm talking about graphics rendering while the context was about Cloud services. However, I think some of the same issues still apply. Instead of framerates and resolutions, maybe we just talk about server downtimes and player count (or whatever).


* I don't necessarily disagree (depending on the context), but I think it could be a bit presumptuous to award MS as having superior tools/support for the development of console games. Though part of that is due to the vague definition of what those terms mean. For example, Sony seems more supportive of F2P games on their network. Does that mean their development support is better? PS4 won't support DX12 (or...technically any DX), but it will support much of the same functionality while also providing developers with a "thin" software layer (something those "coding to the metal" programmers tend to love). It makes the platform more difficult in some ways, but it also is "easier" to fine-tune your games to the platform. Is that better?

MS is obviously a company focused on software and software development, so I'm not necessarily arguing against the claim. I normally raise an eyebrow at the mere mention that Sony (or whoever) might be equal or near equal to MS in this area (let alone better). But to be honest, I'm not really in a position to know the answer to this question (assuming it is even answerable in its current form). Having said all that, I don't think it would be smart to simply ASSUME their tools and support would be better, just because of the background of the company. Both companies have full teams of crazy smart people (with a lot of experience in the game industry), working daily on improving the lives of game developers everywhere. I don't want to bet against MS (the creators of DirectX! ), but I also don't want to bet against Mark Cerny, Corrinne Yu, and the ICE team in general (the group of folks who actually made programming for Cell somewhat doable over time).

* Yes it is awesome that MS updated their platform so quickly, and they are bringing new features to their users. Sony is behind, and hopefully this motivates them to do the same, forcing both companies to work hard on offering gamers what they want (like MP3 playback, DLNA, etc.). Kudos to MS. In fact, despite me disagreeing with many of their business/technical philosophies, I have been very impressed with how "agile" the company has been through all of this. It is not easy to make large, quick changes to your business/product like MS has done in the last year or so. They're idiots (IMO) for trying to push their original plan, but damn, they've been relentless in trying to make up for their mistakes over the last 12 months or so. They dug themselves into a huge hole, but they seem hungry enough to get themselves out of it potentially.

 

Also, while (STILL!) on the topic of Titanfall, I found this post by one of NeoGAF's "insiders" interesting:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=102136937&postcount=335

Take with a grain of salt of course, though I would vouch for famousmortimer, at least as far as the usual "insiders" go (he's been fairly accurate in the past). Of course, we probably won't REALLY know if what he's saying is even correct, though I thought it made a lot of sense. I thought I'd post it, especially since it corrects some misconceptions I had (such as what rights EA had to future games). MS probably could deal directly with Respawn for TF2 talks (I assumed EA would have to be involved).



On a side note, it seems the PS4 might soon be sold out again at Amazon. Yes, RC Cola is now keeping track of how many PS4s Amazon has. I credit it to the new hydration unit I installed in my PC, which allows me full access to the amazing power of the Cloud.