PDA

View Full Version : Next Gen Xbox 2 Gigs OH My!


Kiuju2k
01-05-2012, 12:29 AM
Literal translation:

Originally Posted by Stumpokapow:
"Level of CPU, it'll have a 6-core which has 2GB of DDR3 (ram), and our source also talked about a prototype of a double AMD GPU. We don't know how much RAM (the GPU has)"
(Again, this is my [stump's] literal translation of the original French rumour. I don't endorse or believe the rumour.)

-------------

http://www.vg247.com/2011/11/14/repo...re-cpu-inside/

I thought that it deserves its own thread because hex-core CPU is a massive increase over 3 cores (and it's still exotic on PC market) while 2GB of DDR3 RAM is much less than was expected.

Quote:
The story’s also rumouring that the machine is to have a hex-core CPU with 2GB of DDR3 RAM and has been in the works since 2005 – the year Xbox 360 released. AMD is to provide the GPU, according to the piece.

As previously rumoured, Xboxygen says a division called Loop is handling software development on the project, while another team, Infinity, is working on the console itself.


And it's a DVR?
http://kotaku.com/5872787/patents-show-that-the-next-xbox-might-be-a-dvr-too

So 2GB of Ram is better than 512, but will it run the hot shit(Newest UE)?

Is Battlefield 3 Graphics engine the future of console graphic fidelity?

Gaf says it's going to fail due to 2GB of ram. I think it's more than enough.

This is all speculation btw.

Joe Redifer
01-05-2012, 01:05 AM
Can you imagine how long it would take a DVD or Blu-ray to even fill those 2 GBs of RAM? Damn thing will be loading forever.

Kiuju2k
01-05-2012, 02:04 AM
Not if you can load the games from hard drive. They should stick with the 2GB and do the largest hardrive possible. I'm tired of proprietary formats.

eastx
01-05-2012, 02:30 AM
2 Gigs of RAM would be the most a console has ever had... I think they'd do well with it. And yeah, the larger the hard drive, the better.

Alucard
01-05-2012, 02:48 AM
Actually I think 2gb is pretty excellent. The 6 core cpu isnt anything impressive. Actually most benchmarks show quad cores outperforming them still but thats a different thing altogether. What they need to do is mention the video card. That will tell you if the system will be awesome or not. But I think they should be aiming for above BF3 quality graphics.

Drunken Savior
01-05-2012, 03:01 AM
I wonder if, after the $599 PS3 debacle, they'll aim for lower launch prices (~$400 or so)....

Kiuju2k
01-05-2012, 03:02 AM
I agree god damn video cards get so cheap year after year they can't give the fuckin things away. I hope they use something that is at least current to the consoles year of release. I know the chipsets are different and more than likely they probably designed it to all be on one board, which is part of the problem. I just want them to make this next machine with the next 10 years in mind.

I want developers to look into new shit outside of norm and bring me insane fidelity that hasn't been seen before. They bitched about Ram and now they got it. Lets see how much the video card will have.

Well DS I presume that they will shoot at the most 499. I would pay for that, but I want an insane feature, like large hard drive or something.

Just don't do what sony did and make us pay 599 (i didn't pay that, insane) for something that was comparable to what was already out (360). I am willing to pay if the hardware is mind blowing.

Drunken Savior
01-05-2012, 03:08 AM
Well then, get down on your knees and start praying that those HDD factories in Thailand get up and running to start driving down the price of HDDs... :(

On the flip side, how awesome would it be if they just passed on the price of the HDD to user and allowed people to use their own External HDDs.

eastx
01-05-2012, 03:29 AM
I really think the new console will launch at $400. But there will probably be a lower tier once again that costs $300. Everyone saw how slowly the PS3 sold until it came down in price, so Microsoft wouldn't make the mistake of shooting that high and causing the system to stall at the gate.

Alucard
01-05-2012, 05:21 AM
Dont expect anything below 500. At the very least it'll be $499 but who knows. The problem with consoles is they're sold at a loss because they make their money from game sales. They custom create their version of the video card inside. They should be making something very strong and then undercutting it, not doing a nintendo and charging premium for yesterdays technology. You want your system to last and be top dog, make it awesome out of the gate at a decent price. If everyone is buying the next Snore of Duty game and it sells 25mill, and 20mill is on your system, you'd rather that happen then go with a shitty system that will sell 1mill copies and your royalties are made on mario games alone.

darren
01-05-2012, 05:40 AM
Dont expect anything below 500. At the very least it'll be $499 but who knows.

not a chance it wil be 500$ in these economic times .. the 360 was $400 day 1 , with the cheaper HDD less version, i expect something very similar this time around.

$400 max for the next box

Icarus4578
01-05-2012, 09:05 AM
In order for MS to get serious market penetration will almost certainly require a decent price-point. Otherwise, they risk alienating potential consumers. As for what DS said about using your own HD, awesome though that would be, it isn't likely to happen. First-party manufacturers want to maintain absolute control at every level, so they'd view this as a potential opening for hackers to exploit the console.

KingOfSentinels
01-05-2012, 03:32 PM
2GB won't last long. The big graphical games of the year, like Battlefield 3, Witcher 2, and Crysis 2 with DX11 and high-res pack, all really needed 4GB at least to run great. People who were thinking the next-gen were going to produce stuff better than BF3 are kidding themselves, especially since the price of doing that would be way too much. If the Xbox has all the stuff it is supposed to have, the graphics will take a beating in order to cram everything in for a low price. So I'm guessing no maxed graphics, 1080p, 60 FPS games then.

Of course once games optimise better and developers work with the hardware a lot more, I'm sure that the consoles will be managing BF3 graphics, but only just about. Launch titles I seriously doubt will be anything close unless they're willing to charge everyone a fuck tonne for the consoles. And by that time, PC Gaming will be able to push out Samaritan levels no doubt.

COD has proved morons will buy anything, regardless of how over-priced they are, so I'm sure even with a high price tag people will come swarming back to Xbox. But it'll alienate quite a few people, and the Wii U and PS4 could work out a lot cheaper and could damage Xbox's sales. Lots of developers offer their own form of game recording with their games too; Valve, Bungie, Rockstar. And these give you more freedom in editing, whereas Xbox's will be simply recording your POV.

I can't see this being too great, but we'll of course have to wait and see.

darren
01-05-2012, 03:36 PM
comparing 2gb of ram in a console and 4gb in a pc is pointless.. the console is fully optimized where the pc is not, hence one of the reason you need so bloody much, plus sloppy coding as well

KingOfSentinels
01-05-2012, 03:41 PM
True. But graphics improve, and consoles don't. 2GB is what I'd want the bare minimum to be; and since that's all they're ever going to have, I'd personally want them to have more, and so make it more futureproof. I'm hoping they've gone all out in the graphics department.

darren
01-05-2012, 04:19 PM
since they are currently running off 512mb and putting out stuff like drakes, 2gb is WAY more than enough .. its about the GPU not the memory when its as optimised as a console is. if windows wasnt so shit and pc games optimized for a standard hardware set like consoles you wouldnt need 4gb ram or 8 or 16 or what ever.

KingOfSentinels
01-05-2012, 05:30 PM
More RAM plays a massive part in consoles if people are expecting more scale in their games, coupled with impressive graphics, 1080 resolution, and 60 frames, which many people are. I figure that's not going to happen. BF3 and Witcher 2 have ruined this generation, because nothing will probably surpass either of those games and Xbox 720 simply won't have that "wow" factor when revealing games. No console will. And it's a shame.

On a seperate note, I wonder how the recording feature is going to work; like a capture card, or FRAPS. If they have it running like FRAPS and eating away at the Xbox's processor, performance is going to take a pretty massive knock. FRAPS recording can just rape you in framerate. Not as bad as it once was, but it still takes quite a lot to do. It also fills up your HDD like a bitch. I've no experience with a capture card but I know it doesn't impact performance, so s'all good.

darren
01-05-2012, 05:57 PM
indeed .. but 2gb with optimised hardware would easily run BF3 to match my 560ti with the right gpu .. thats the difference , they can get away with much less .. pc are a piece of shit when it comes to optimization, an utter piece of shit

KingOfSentinels
01-05-2012, 06:09 PM
The entire PC platform isn't as unoptimised as you make out. Building a rig which matches the Xbox doesn't need that much more power and doesn't take that much more money, unlike popular belief that you need 2000 to match them. It's only certain games which are unoptimised and run like crap. A system with a 40 graphics card, 1GB RAM, and dual-core processer can match the Xbox in regards to power. That isn't that much more in both cost and power.

darren
01-05-2012, 06:20 PM
it has nothing to do with cost of the bits ..

its the fact devs have to cater for a zillion different pc configs, mix of ram size, types, brands, hdd types and speeds, gpus types etc etc etc .. a console has a set defined set of components which have been put together for a dedicated purpose and all devd know exactly what they are dealing with, with dedicated set of tools to develop for it .. thats why they can and always will get away with less ram for example.

a pc is most of the time is not and even if it is .. it might be totally different to what the software was built for.

and yes windows is so well optimized.

i stand by what i say 2gb ram and the right gpu in the next gen consoles would do 560ti BF3. The jump from 512mb to 2gb is going to be MASSIVE for devs .. it would be like when i went from 128 to 256gb ram for enterprise software. MASSIVE

KingOfSentinels
01-05-2012, 06:44 PM
Catering for the many different variations of PC is not as much of a headache as some developers make it out to be. I facepalm when people whine about it. Sure, the console is easier, but the limitations it gives is not a good enough trade-off imo. Porting to both consoles is more annoying than porting to a PC, with the different configurations in mind. Fuck you Sony.

And I'm not talking about just the cost of the bits, I mentioned power too. 1GB of RAM compared to 512MB of RAM is not a huge leap. Neither is a GT 240 to the shit which is in an Xbox. The power is pretty similar, and so are the results. Perhaps even better on the PC side of things. 2GB of optimised, console RAM isn't above 4GB of PC RAM when it comes to running games.

Kiuju2k
01-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Well have you accounted for the fact that pc ram is in slots and on console they are direcly soldered in. I am sure latency issues play a huge part and heating of chipsets. I believe 2GB is more than enough for what I personally need fidelity wise. If they can find a way of giving me more I am all for it, I would love all games to run 1080p 60fps.

Darren is right I am wondering what the GPU will be that they are going forward with. That's going to decide a lot.

There has to be other ways of intelligent game development that doesn't rely so much on Ram. I mean look at the fucking CPU and physics and AI. I remember reading someone saying the funniest thing about CPU in consoles being shit and pointing to the fact that we have Sf4 using sf2 ai... haha I forgot what he said, but it was funny.

darren
01-05-2012, 07:45 PM
its all about the gpu they and and how they optimizte it .. they dont need a 500 series card if they tweek it right .. they have been doing it for years and will continue to do so .. BUT tbh i expect a card with 500 series stats, at WOREST a 400 series card spec

what will be interesting for me is if they go AMD which it sounds like they all are .. does that mean no pyhsX?


There has to be other ways of intelligent game development that doesn't rely so much on Ram. .

yeep they all write better code .. big HDDs and more ram has made coders sloppy very very sloppy. which again is half the problem .. not the ram the quality of the code being written, they dont need to worry about space or memory its there its cheap .. just look at all PS3 games that have mandatory HDD installs . thats nothing more than this system was a bitch to code for, the code works but its messy and it runs better from the HDD over Bluray as or code isn't up to scratch, ohh and its probebly all a bit rushed as well to meet some stupid deadline set by some clueless fuck in a suit

2GB of optimised, console RAM isn't above 4GB of PC RAM when it comes to running games.

will have to agree to disagree 20 years of developing global enterprise software is where i come from when i talk about optimized components and how it makes a massive difference with code. .. its not just the parts its the OS its running on .. hell you could prob reduce all PC ganes min ram specs by a gig or so if windows wasn't such an un optimized pile of shit. consoles have a thin client OS which is built for doing one thing , running games no nothing else, and thus does not need much ram.

eastx
01-05-2012, 09:25 PM
Darren is right about the RAM. The Windows OS alone has a much larger footprint than a console OS, to say nothing of the other stuff like antivirus that every computer runs. KOS, you just don't like consoles so nothing they do will make you happy. It's not going to cost a thousand dollars and outperform PCs in 5 years, sorry.

Zack
01-05-2012, 09:56 PM
yeah this argument is stupid. 2gb of system ram is way more than enough for a nextgen console. what really matters is the amount of VRAM it will have.

spider-prime
01-05-2012, 10:08 PM
There are rumors that there will be a form of windows 8 on the next xbox for it's OS and it will be able to connect to tablets and smart phones and computers that use the OS.

Alucard
01-05-2012, 10:21 PM
Not much of a rumour since we all know win8 is being made specifically for crossplatform. It'll make gaming with pc/console cross over much easier. When it comes to ram I think people need to remember that the new system wont have physx, and also it wont have dx11. So the need for heaps of ram is lowered. Plus you need to take into consideration vram and other kinds of streaming that a console can do. 2gb is plenty. Video card is whats going to make that system.

Nem
01-05-2012, 10:34 PM
I'm gonna play a bit of a reversed role here but what i'll say about this is: I don't care. It comes down to the games. The more powerful systems also dont have a habit of beeing the best of the generation.
Its all gonna be rounded down to the lesser common denominator so the games can be ported to all systems.

Probably there isnt even much point going beyond what the WiiU is doing... unless you can make a difference that is CLEARLY visible. And we're all betting it wont be easy to do that.

Shipper/Reciever
01-05-2012, 11:04 PM
I'm gonna play a bit of a reversed role here but what i'll say about this is: I don't care. It comes down to the games. The more powerful systems also dont have a habit of beeing the best of the generation. .

FTW

But it is about making money. Shiny, pretty war games like cod, battlefield, and good looking rpg's are what it's about.

I'd be happy with more abe's odyssey, cave storys, and SOTNs, for what it's worth.

Alucard
01-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Graphics arent a massively huge thing me unless they feed me shit like smeary textures and dodgy character/world models. Then I get shitty. Smeary textures do NOT look good in games, no matter how cool the game is.

Kiuju2k
01-06-2012, 02:22 AM
I'm a graphics whore. I still think 2GB is more than enough for next gen. I was reading in to the post in Neogaf and some of those post are insane. They are saying 4GB is minimum. Console ram is different than PC ram.

It sounds like AMD is the choice. Link is in Neogaf for those who care. I didnt think it was worth linking.

Alucard
01-06-2012, 03:34 AM
I think they're just crazy over there. They're saying 4gb without knowing the other system specs or what sort of cheating a console developer can do for the system. They're just throwing numbers around like they know what they're talking about. 2gb is plenty. The ram plays a massive part in how much texture is going back and forth and loading speed of it. The video card is whats going to be the real power on if the system runs shit smoothly and at 1080p.

4gb minimum...lol. Games right now dont even use much past 4gb on pc. Thats with windows and other shit eating at it. Seriously, going from 8gb to 4gb, I saw zero difference in performance or quality. Games arent taking advantage or higher ram. They dont really need to.

darren
01-06-2012, 04:35 AM
4gb minimum...lol. Games right now dont even use much past 4gb on pc. Thats with windows and other shit eating at it. Seriously, going from 8gb to 4gb, I saw zero difference in performance or quality. Games arent taking advantage or higher ram. They dont really need to.

this ^^^

pc gamers always forget they are installing the games on a shit OS that not designed for gaming as its purpose and has other stuff going that eats memory for fun

i mean just looking at the memory usage on my pc right now with just steam, AIM and chrome open, and virus guard/firewall running in background Win7 is using a steady 2.59gb of memory. And when i turn on BF3 on ultra running in 3d etc etc the system memory usage goes up 1gig to 3.59 ... .. so of the near 4gb ram the system is using 1 gb is BF3 on ultra

2gb ram in a console is plenty next gen

There are rumors that there will be a form of windows 8 on the next xbox for it's OS and it will be able to connect to tablets and smart phones and computers that use the OS.

indeed .. but it will be a bastardized/optimized win8 not an vanilla install etc.


that the new system wont have physx, and also it wont have dx11. So the need for heaps of ram is lowered. .

they might do dx11 tbh, if a win8 varient is as the core as it will have dx11 as standard. but they might customize that aswell .. but no physX makes me a sad panda .. but i guess thats what you get when you opt for AMD chip sets

KingOfSentinels
01-06-2012, 06:05 AM
KOS, you just don't like consoles so nothing they do will make you happy.

Probably right, I might be a tad prejudiced against them, and work was a drag so I was a bit ratty yesterday. :lol: Since my job is working in 3D modelling and more and I've been a PC gamer my entire life, I constantly get boned by the crappy console limitations, so I'm in the same boat as Crytek when they demanded 8GB of RAM for the next console, and I can see I'm likely in the minority and not the best person to objectively decide if this is good or not. It's usually the 512MB RAM which limits you over the graphical power of the system. I just hope the graphics card is something spectacular.

I'd love for them to have DX11. I've barely even touched upon the features it gives, and it'd be really fun to do so. Would also be nice that Gaming PCs get more than 2 games per generation which actually push what they can do. Hardware cost-wise, DX11 Gaming is definitely viable, so it's not like we're delusional to want it.

Alucard
01-06-2012, 06:09 AM
nah, just because it'll have win8 on it doesnt mean it'll come with dx11, otherwise everything else that will be running win8 like smart phones etc would have it too. dx11 will be a little too much for whatever video card they plan to shove into it. No way whatever semi budget gpu they toss in there will be doing tessellation etc smoothly at 1080p, not even 720p. At best it'll have dx10, which is plenty.

Crytek can also fuck off with their 8gb demands. Useless shit company. They've already made their next gen engine and will be sticking with that for a few years at least. Dont know what their problem is.

darren
01-06-2012, 06:17 AM
that 8gb ram requirement is down to nothing more than lazy ass coders

KingOfSentinels
01-06-2012, 06:38 AM
Na, 8GB is wanting them to not be limited in what they can do. And they can't just forego consoles and stick to PC because they have a publisher breathing down their necks. With the great press which BF3 got for looking so good, I'd hope they'd do the same for Crysis 3. Cryengine 3 is one of the best engines out there and Crysis 2 was great; Crytek is far from being filled with useless coders. They're just PC devs forced onto consoles by money.

You don't just stick everything together and it runs. There's a lot in the background which makes the game work like a game. And as game fidelity and scale improves, you have more running in the background, and this requires a lot of processing power and RAM. It's why the consoles may churn out some good stuff but the 2GB is still going to limit high-end stuff. I can't help but have the inkling it's going to not be enough. But then I guess I need to think less of a PC-elitist 3D designer and more of a general gamer. If that's the case, I'm sure it won't be a problem, it's still going to be impressive stuff.

I just hate current generation. :lol: 2GB hopefully will accompany some good GPU.

Alucard
01-06-2012, 07:14 AM
Maybe you'd have a point if crytek could even accomplish using 3gb, which they cant. Remember a lot of what ram does is texture related. The larger the texture sizes, the more the ram required. Like Darren said, BF3, which is one of the best looking games around, barely uses 1gb of ram. Video cards also come with their own memory too, which is what a lot of people are forgetting. We dont know the video card yet. It might have 1gb of ram attached to it. Even 512mb of ram would be shitloads. 2gb is heeeaaaaaaaps and I'm a pc whore. I'd be fucking stoked if rpgs for next gen had witcher 2 style detail, and that isnt monstrously ram destructive either.

darren
01-06-2012, 07:17 AM
exactly .. BF3 will be using the 1gig rami have on my gpu as well as the 1gb of system memory .. anyone needing 8gb system ram for a game at this point or in the next gen, can't code for toffee

Na, 8GB is wanting them to not be limited in what they can do. And they can't just forego consoles and stick to PC because they have a publisher breathing down their necks. With the great press which BF3 got for looking so good, I'd hope they'd do the same for Crysis 3. Cryengine 3 is one of the best engines out there and Crysis 2 was great; Crytek is far from being filled with useless coders. They're just PC devs forced onto consoles by money.

You don't just stick everything together and it runs. There's a lot in the background which makes the game work like a game. And as game fidelity and scale improves, you have more running in the background, and this requires a lot of processing power and RAM. It's why the consoles may churn out some good stuff but the 2GB is still going to limit high-end stuff. I can't help but have the inkling it's going to not be enough. But then I guess I need to think less of a PC-elitist 3D designer and more of a general gamer. If that's the case, I'm sure it won't be a problem, it's still going to be impressive stuff.

I just hate current generation. :lol: 2GB hopefully will accompany some good GPU.

as i said

"i mean just looking at the memory usage on my pc right now with just steam, AIM and chrome open, and virus guard/firewall running in background Win7 is using a steady 2.59gb of memory. And when i turn on BF3 on ultra running in 3d etc etc the system memory usage goes up 1gig to 3.59 ... .. so of the near 4gb ram the system is using 1 gb is BF3 on ultra"

they do not need anywhere near 8gb of system ram if BF3 on ultra is using 1

eastx
01-06-2012, 11:55 AM
I'm gonna play a bit of a reversed role here but what i'll say about this is: I don't care. It comes down to the games. The more powerful systems also dont have a habit of beeing the best of the generation.
Its all gonna be rounded down to the lesser common denominator so the games can be ported to all systems.

Probably there isnt even much point going beyond what the WiiU is doing... unless you can make a difference that is CLEARLY visible. And we're all betting it wont be easy to do that.

Of course the games are what matter but we can't discuss those since there's nothing to go on yet. But we do have a hardware rumor, so that's what we're all exploring.

Are you suggesting that developers will limit their next gen graphics to near WiiU capabilities? That would be a huge waste. Plus, I doubt the WiiU is going to become the most popular console next gen unless Nintendo changes tons of other stuff in the way they run things (which they won't).

KingOfSentinels
01-06-2012, 12:16 PM
The Wii's reputation will stop it being the most popular console; in the West at least. We can look past it, and get it if it's good, but a large majority of people who don't keep up with the latest gaming news will still think it's just full of casual games for kids and families, and just get an Xbox or Playstation. This is good and bad, since it'll alienate some gamers but continue to bring in others which the Wii attracted originally. I'll be getting the Wii U for sure. Even if Nintendo don't keep their promise of awesome third-party games, they still have their own series. Skyward Sword basically clinched the deal with me getting a Wii U. I can't not have console Zelda in my life. :P

As for the RAM issue, sure it's enough. But I wanted more than enough. BF3 graphical games, coupled with all the Xbox Live stuff running in the background, and if the other stuff Xbox has, like recording games, eats away at performance too, 2GB hasn't got a massive amount of headroom. Not enough for if they're planning on having this generation last as long, if not longer, than what we have now. Hopefully Microsoft will splash out on a powerful GPU. Striking a midway point between affordability and power may be tricky, I wonder which way they'll swerve to.

Alucard
01-06-2012, 01:00 PM
Recording video will be cpu related not ram. And all the other xbox live stuff in the background, I seriously doubt it'll go over 100mb at the extreme most. I'll also be ignoring the next nintendo system just because they fucked me around this gen too much. Zelda and mario isnt going to keep me.

progmetal
01-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Announcing new Xbox on CES on Monday. maybe

Watch @Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's #CES keynote LIVE on our Facebook page this Monday, 1/9 at 6:30pm PST:

https://twitter.com/Microsoft/statuses/154957438871801856

KingOfSentinels
01-06-2012, 01:18 PM
I wonder if COD will get a new engine, or they'll just stick to the same one for another generation.

Half Life 3 coming on Source 2 for next generation plz

darren
01-06-2012, 01:45 PM
MVCUK have reported both the new 360 and PS will be at E3 in some form

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/next-xbox-and-ps4-set-for-biggest-ever-e3/089421

Kiuju2k
01-06-2012, 04:26 PM
I bet they will stick with it, the graphics aren't what makes cod. They are already running 60fps. I'm sure they would be hard pressed to do any kind of upgrade to their engine let a lone an overhaul seeing as their games have been looking the same for years and people still buy it. Just look at the new game, it still has assets from MW1.

Advertising works.

The reason we were saying CES is because apparenlty that is when Bill Gates and some other dude announced the original xbox or something like that. E3 sounds a lot more sensible. I don't expect the release of their next console until holiday 2013. That is basically what the formula is.

darren
01-06-2012, 04:47 PM
i expect WiiU Nov 2012, Xbox 3 6 months later, PS4 Nov 2013..
would make the most sense .. nice size gap between each system .. but not to much .. AND a littler easier on the wallet

Kiuju2k
01-06-2012, 04:59 PM
Not on your wallet. You buy something new every week.

Kiuju2k
01-06-2012, 08:14 PM
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/331361/ps4-early-specs-more-powerful-than-xbox-720-claims-source/

PlayStation 4's early technical specifications are looking "more powerful" than those of Microsoft's next-generation Xbox targets, according to PSM3's development sources.

Unbiased source?

What's funny is I still have an insane amount of games that I haven't even touched yet from this gen. Kinda sucks that new shit is coming out now.

Joe Redifer
01-06-2012, 09:04 PM
That's hilarious! "Our unconfirmed specs are way more powerful than your unconfirmed specs!"

Alucard
01-07-2012, 12:32 AM
Pure shit. Show me video card details or fuck off. Your cpu means nothing to me.

darren
01-07-2012, 06:20 AM
sadly i think sony an nintendo still think the cpu speed means everything ..


and as for that we are more powerful than you shit again from sony .. they did that last time and look what happened .. 99% of 3rd party games all looked and ran better on the "weaker" 360. power means nothing if its a bitch to code for and full of dumb ass bottle necks

KingOfSentinels
01-07-2012, 07:18 AM
It wasn't Sony who said it, it's just a Source. And that Source is probably no one, and it's just the Sony mag trying to drum up some sales.

PS3 isn't that hard to code for anyway, I don't know why some devs have whined and said it's horrible to program for. Probably depends on their engines. But it's just more difficult than the others; PC to Xbox is easy; porting to PS3 isn't hard, it's just not as easy as to the other two. But it's for from being the 'nightmare' some people portray it to be.

I'm backing Sony in this console generation anyways. Even with the hacks, which hopefully they've learnt from, I like the more open nature of their platform, and how they cater to Indie devs, let Valve use Steamworks, etc. I think they've got the better attitude and I hope it pays off, as long as they continue down this road at least. Not saying they're anything close to perfect, but the lesser of two evils, very much so.

Microsoft, I hate their business strategy with the Xbox. Demanding that you pay for everything is retarded; they didn't let Rockstar, Valve, Bungie, and probably more developers, to give out free content. Only 1 free update per game I think it is. And you need to pay for Xbox Live, while every other platform gives online for free.

Not a fan at all of that. As long as Sony don't try and do this too, and stop making stupid mistakes like with their security, I'm favouring them.

darren
01-07-2012, 07:21 AM
I think you will find way more indie games on xbl .... Way way more

KingOfSentinels
01-07-2012, 07:49 AM
There's more, yeah. But I'm sure you've seen all the news that Indie devs complaining their games are hard to see on the new dashboard? Team Meat have came out to say they don't ever want to work with Microsoft again.

Indie game developers are reporting that they are not happy with Microsoft’s inaction towards them while Sony is making a very positive outward effort to help indie developers, especially those working with their new PS Vita.

http://www.indiegamemag.com/indie-developers-feel-distanced-by-microsoft-while-sony-is-being-very-supportive/

Escaflowne2001
01-07-2012, 08:47 AM
99.9% of the indie games on Xbox Marketplace are trash though there as bad as the PS3 mini's only there are more of them.

Alucard
01-07-2012, 11:12 AM
You need to remember that the games looked better on the 360 because of the stronger video capabilities. Sony had the cpu, but whats the point of having a better cpu if you cant handle better texture sizes because of your smaller ram and weaker video processing.

If you want indie games you just stick to PC. They have shitloads more freedom which means they can do as they please.

progmetal
01-07-2012, 11:57 AM
But the Cell CPU helped alot when they made 3D Super Stardust HD run in 120fps in 3D. (60fps for each eye)

Alucard
01-07-2012, 02:19 PM
Thats because super stardust has stuff all detail compared to a game like battlefield.

DBJAY
01-08-2012, 06:39 PM
So, the fake spec war has started?

I actually think Sony will move in the direction of maximizing profitibality over just raw power of the console itself.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-11-02/sony-earnings/51038528/1

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-27/sony-sells-lcd-venture-stake-to-samsung-after-losses.html

http://news.yahoo.com/sony-abandons-oled-tv-consumer-market-013204948.html

and of course, struggles in the tablet/e-reader markets, mobile phone, etc.

So for Sony, I think they will take the Nintendo route. A capable system with a focus on selling at a small loss or even a profit per unit. Most likely a continued focus on 3D gaming, I would expect a pay version of PSN becoming necessary, and using the PS4 as a gateway/set top box to enhance the tv viewing experience (netflix, Vudu, hulu, etc.) because here comes Apple & Google to dominate that market as well. Oddly, Sony sells Google embedded TV's and one has to wonder if instead they shouldn't have figured out to promote their own custom tv app?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223231/How_Google_and_Apple_will_control_TV

MS looks like they are also going very much for the services / set-top box route, conditioning the masses for Window 8.

So i doubt this next console cycle will really be about just raw horsepower.

calintz
01-08-2012, 08:56 PM
i think sony is learning

isn't the Vita supposed to be very dev friendly?

so here's hoping the PS4 will follow - it would definitely make the next console race alot more even... and interesting

Kiuju2k
01-08-2012, 09:33 PM
OH shit thats DBJAY the analyst comes back!

Yeah I'm looking for days past where it was worth having more than one console. Bring back exclusive fucking content that highlights each consoles strengths.

That last part won't happen btw. Yeah I want that renaissance to come back during the ps1 and saturn games where motherfuckers were bold and took risk with fucking ram carts and polygons and shit.

Matter of fact bring the arcade exclusive that ran on extremely powerful tech like model 1, 2, and 3 used too. There has to be some crazy virtual reality shit that they can use to fuckin blow everyone away that can't go onto consoles or pc.

Icarus4578
01-09-2012, 09:20 AM
DBJAY, first-parties have been trying to create an all-in-one set-top box since the PS2 & original Xbox. They're trying to be everything in order to cater to everyone. Eventually everything is going to be built into the TV and you'll be able to access/transfer data between the TV and portable devices. Eventually, they will try to do away with general purpose PCs (which would be a very bad thing) until finally everything resembles your regulated iPhone apps/console desktop marketplace. Blah. I'm suddenly becoming nostalgic for the early days of PC and gaming.

Alucard
01-09-2012, 01:56 PM
Just ignore the consoles for a while and you'll see the pc is still full of magic, instead of the generic bullshit they're feeding us in joypad land lately.

Kiuju2k
01-09-2012, 02:42 PM
Man they have been trying to create a set top box since the 3do and cdi, we're close, but I am not sure it will happen that way.

Icarus4578
01-09-2012, 04:31 PM
Just ignore the consoles for a while and you'll see the pc is still full of magic, instead of the generic bullshit they're feeding us in joypad land lately.

I'm inclined to agree. Most of the chance-taking and original ideas are often home-brew w/o corporate intervention.

Man they have been trying to create a set top box since the 3do and cdi, we're close, but I am not sure it will happen that way.

It's been happening for over a decade now and will keep on going until we're left scratching our heads, asking, "Whatever happened to video game consoles?"

Kiuju2k
01-09-2012, 07:31 PM
In that regard your absolutely right, eventually you and I as old men will look back asking ourselves when the shift actually happened, and it will happen, bu this gen I am not so sure.

Icarus4578
01-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Today's consoles are already set-top boxes. The next gen will only push this concept one step farther. Consoles which focus solely on the VG experience are already a thing of the past. If a console doesn't offer web surfing, communication, movie & music channels, etc. out of the box, it would be considered corporate suicide. The thing is, us enthusiast gamers are few and far-between -- the majority of consumers don't care one bit about the kind of software we find appealing. They just want the stuff with a big license attached, stuff that resembles an interactive movie, family-friendly software built around cheap gimmickry, or those dreaded "party" titles. These are the folks most developers cater towards. It's all about making a quick buck at the lowest risk. Ironic how us gamers have become alienated in what was once our industry.

Kiuju2k
01-09-2012, 09:53 PM
I don't think the software is there yet, i use Hulu +, netflix, and espn extensively on live and the formers on psn and they still could use some work. They are very limited in what they and the quality that they are shown in. If they truly want to be the end all , this needs to be addressed.

Also outside of streaming data I need a bigger storage as I would like to be able to download my games and keep them as I please like steam, I don't think microsoft or sony are gearing in that direction, which frightens me, because like JR's biggest complaint why the fuck do I need to be logged into live to play my downloadables? Shit like that needs to be worked out, and I haven't even touched proprietary formats.

Besides it looks like the big M wants to control every known internet device to link to xbox live. The "set-top box" paradigm is definitely not what I expect it to be.

Badrats Studio
01-10-2012, 12:47 AM
On related subject :

jZyAUb6V1ho

Obviously, this kind of gimmick will be implement on next Xbox. I hope that we still can use conventional controls for gaming in the next gen.

Drunken Savior
01-10-2012, 02:25 AM
I hope that we still can use conventional controls for gaming in the next gen.

I don't think you'll have to worry about that. Despite the success motion gaming has had, there's still a hefty demand for games using controllers.

Icarus4578
01-10-2012, 09:14 AM
Also outside of streaming data I need a bigger storage as I would like to be able to download my games and keep them as I please like steam, I don't think microsoft or sony are gearing in that direction, which frightens me, because like JR's biggest complaint why the fuck do I need to be logged into live to play my downloadables? Shit like that needs to be worked out, and I haven't even touched proprietary formats.

Because, as I've been saying all along, they want to regulate their platforms and a large part of that revolves around eliminating physical storage devices and relying on stupid cloud computing so that they have unfettered access to all of your contents. When the server goes down or something goes wrong, tough. And if they ever boot you from their service, all of your contents will disappear along with it.

Oh, and they also want to do this with regards to PCs (*ahem* personal computers...). I'll stick with my physical HD. Thanks.

Besides it looks like the big M wants to control every known internet device to link to xbox live. The "set-top box" paradigm is definitely not what I expect it to be.

That's pretty much every major company's strategy, especially Apple's: The ability to link to any and all devices on the fly so that everything can be gauged and monitored: your TV, your game console, your phone, your car, your stereo, your toaster, et al.

spider-prime
01-10-2012, 09:25 AM
I miss when video games were simple. 2 buttons were all we needed in my day and we were damn proud to have them!

Icarus4578
01-10-2012, 09:40 AM
I miss when video games were simple. 2 buttons were all we needed in my day and we were damn proud to have them!

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/30/ssnnnnnnnnnnnnnn128645905102405905.jpg

stroopwafel
01-10-2012, 09:40 AM
I can still remember playing on a joystick that just had one button. It was on C64 where you had a track&field like game where you were a dot that had to jump over another dot and had to shake the stick as fast as you could to 'run' faster. I destroyed a few of those joysticks that way.

That was when games were still great :(

Alucard
01-10-2012, 09:42 AM
Fuck 2. I could save the world with just 1 button.

Icarus4578
01-10-2012, 09:48 AM
What, no D-pad?

Drunken Savior
01-10-2012, 09:59 AM
http://i43.tinypic.com/flisu8.jpg

That's what I learned how to game on. The # button fucked shit up.

Icarus4578
01-10-2012, 10:04 AM
What if Colecovision tried to make a comeback?

Oh, speaking of which, there's been homegrown efforts to create brand new games for older consoles such as Vectrex complete w/ box and instruction manuals. Pretty nifty.

spider-prime
01-10-2012, 10:21 AM
I used to play Smurf Rescue and Mr. Do and Montezuma's Revenge all the time on my colecovision.

I'm surprised there aren't more games that copied Megaman 9 and 10 and made them retro style and played just like they used to. Like Mario Bros. or even a new Ninja Gaiden NES would be ass licking awesome!

Alucard
01-10-2012, 10:44 AM
Jumpman Jnr and Cabbage patch kids on the coleco. Fucking riot.