Perhaps you could read what I said.... I said the 360 had the best MP, that is multiplatform versions of games. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Its possible I guess to say that MP titles reached parity or something close enough to it in the past year or so but for much of the 360/PS3 generation the 360 provided the best platform for these titles both in terms of graphics and services when you compare PSN and LIVE.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Perhaps you could read what I said.... I said the 360 had the best MP, that is multiplatform versions of games. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Its possible I guess to say that MP titles reached parity or something close enough to it in the past year or so but for much of the 360/PS3 generation the 360 provided the best platform for these titles both in terms of graphics and services when you compare PSN and LIVE.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Uhhh... Yes, but you said that in the context of the graphical capabilities of both consoles and reached the conclusion that PSN and LIVE have met parity (they haven't) and that the visual differences between the PS4 and One would be hard for MS fanboys to swallow and they are upset about it.
The main theme of your message is that MS delivered the best graphics and the best services, then you say that MS made a mistake in terms of power, and then you go down the ladder to services as a secondary theme.
My point is that the majority of the population always held the belief that the PS3 was more powerful, even if that wasn't being realized, therefore, your original premise about MS fans being disappointed because the One isn't more powerful than the PS4 is flawed.
what I said and I stand by is that the OG XBOX had the best graphics and services in its era, the 360 had the best services and graphics (for MP titles) and the core MS audience to some extent expects that. I mentioned parity only say that MP titles arguably have reached parity in terms of visuals relatively recently but regardless if a gamer wanted to buy a 360 or PS3 to play the big AAA titles the 360 would be the safer bet and when you factor in the services it was and continues to be the logical choice.
What the public felt about the power of the PS3 is irrelevant to this point, the core MS gamer priorities never cared about games like Infamous or God of War. Online Multiplayer AAA third parties titles was their entertainment of choice, playing COD and BF with the best graphics, on the best servers and being able to join your friends easily is what mattered to them. And it is a difficult pill for them to swallow that now the PS4 will likely have better graphics and since we're discussing it some of LIVE's advantages have been crippled on the XB1.
You really think an agreement last year would have netted them a game this year?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Absolutely not. I think an agreement last year would have netted them the ability to do a marketing campaign that essentially says: "Don't buy a PS4, but a One instead because in March 2014 the only way you get to play GTA V DLC - The search for Trevor's Mom is on the Xbox One."
But isn't that exactly what they have done with Titan Fall? The NFL deal didn't preclude them from making deals around games. Titan Fall, Ryse and DR3 all represent exclusive next gen titles from third party devs.
Most people have figured out by now that available exclusively on Xbox means you have to wait to see it on Playstation but it will get there eventually.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Your continued intermixing of service level and graphical capabilities is what I'm struggling with.
The layman's consensus opinion that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 (and that remains to this day), completely negates your previous statements that MS fans are disappointed that the One isn't more powerful than the PS4. That has never been the main selling point of the 360 and isn't the reason for its success last generation.
I haven't experienced either the new PSN on the PS4 or the new LIVE on the One, so I have no ground to stand on in terms of how close those services now are to each other. I do know that even with the latest updates on the PS3, the PSN is worlds behind Live on the 360.
Again, this is your statement that I took exception to:
I bolded the key parts that I've been trying to address.
You clearly stated that MS core is going to somehow have difficulty with the fact that PS4 has superior visuals than the One (which remains to be seen, btw), yet the 360 was never touted as the machine with the most power or the best visuals - the PS3 always was.
So why would this MS core find this to be hard to swallow when its the same situation as last gen?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Oh, sure.
I'm saying that they didn't do enough and don't seem to be putting in the same effort in that regard as last generation. Titan Fall, Ryse, DR3 are all good examples and we'll have to wait to see if they pay off.
I just think they should have done more. Ryse, from what I know (which isn't much), was a Kinect Exclusive for the 360 that is pretty much crap that they ported and yeah.. doesn't exactly work out so well. Titan Fall could be a huge system seller but we'll have to wait and see and DR3.. aren't all Dead Rising games Xbox exclusives anyway?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Most people have figured out by now that available exclusively on Xbox means you have to wait to see it on Playstation but it will get there eventually.
Exactly true. Or that Xbox exclusive means "also available on PC".
But that still doesn't mean that having those exclusives doesn't help them move consoles.
Sure, you can play Bioshock on the PS3. But yeah, you get it a year or two after it was released on the 360. So everybody's already played it.
It's the water cooler effect. It's great to talk about that movie you just watched with your friends and coworkers. But if you waited until it was on Netflix to watch it and then want to talk to them about it? They're like "yeah, I saw that movie two years ago.. I remember it was kinda okay, but whatever"
Same thing with games, that's why you don't even need exclusives IMO (unless they are tent pole games), you just need timed exclusives for 6 months or so.
True, but the proof is in the pudding, and the 360 had games with great graphics as good as PS3, and that had to get through to consumers on some level as well.
Consumers aren't dumb. Lets say, Battlefield 4 comes out, and it looks as good on 360 as PS3. No matter how much they've thought PS3 was more powerful, that has to register.
Well, you know that I of all people agree with that
The thing is, I heard both from back channel sources (at which time I was dubious), and then it was confirmed in the Eurogamer One architects tech article, MS was considering enabling the two redundant CU's, very late in the game, and decided against it.
This was framed as a choice between the upclock, but I think it needn't have been, they should have been able to do both. I am betting the costs would have been low as well. I've read they'll likely purge the additional redundant CU's once yields get better anyway. If that's true the yield hit could not have been too great.
14 CU's at 853 mhz would have put them at 1.52 TF, at 900 mhz if they had chosen to bump clock a little more aggressively it would have put them over 1.6, it would have enabled some additional TMU's as well. I think it more or less would have ended a lot of these power problems (1.5 vs 1.8 is in negligible difference territory), and I bet the cost was exceedingly low.
BeyondTed I think, told me that he thought they didn't overclock more than 853 because it might have destroyed their ESRAM BW increase window. I kind of doubt this technically from the way the architects described how that worked, and he didn't elaborate.
But I noticed the specs of the R7 260X the other day, this is the low end for AMD, it's basically the bonaire refresh, that thing is stock clocked at 1100 mhz! It's over 1.9 TF with 896 shaders! Such a shame MS couldn't have been more aggressive like this.
That said, the Kaveri APU's are enduring clock decreases, from 4.0 ghz CPU in Richland to 3.7 in Kaveri. AMD said the reason is their old process was optimized for CPU, and now it's more balanced between CPU/GPU.
In other words I'm guessing an SOC optimized process (presumably used on Xbox) cannot clock as high as an strictly GPU optimized one (presumably used on Bonaire). STILL, I think they could have done better than 853 mhz. I am guess their only concern on the upclock was heat/noise, with unfortunately performance being dead last in priorities.
Now MS will have to spend a whole lot more in marketing and price cuts to sell an underpowered machine. It's such shortsighted management imo.
Such a little thing but I think it would have done wonders, perhaps their biggest single mistake was not enabling the two more CU's for maybe $2 per unit, imo. If I but a $500 machine, I want it to have some grunt.
Whew all of the rambling, maybe a bit OT and technical, oh well!
In the end they did give us several performance improvements:
GPU 800>853
Magical ESRAM bandwidth increase 102>204 GB/s
CPU 1.6>1.75
And none of the GAF sponsored rumored downclocks. So I guess I should be happy. I'm just kind of OCD and it's going to bother me knowing I've essentially got a lowly 7770 in my console for the next 5+ years...especially that I was rocking a 4890 in my PC from ages ago, and X1 isn't that much more powerful...
I wonder if after feeling the backlash over 720P gate, the MS execs would have enabled those two CU's if they could go back in time?
I bet it is a priority for them now to streamline the drivers, Thuway's 10% driver performance improvement rumor may be a hint. Microsoft are probably scrambling to lessen multiplatform differences next time around.
I really don't know how to be more clear:
Multi-platform experiences were often superior on the 360 in terms of graphics and certainly so in terms of the service PSN versus LIVE. That was important to MS core audience, both in terms of the visuals and the service provided by LIVE.
MS broke tradition with the XB1 and made a console that is clearly less powerful and will not be able to match PS4's visuals and matters to MS's core. Additionally some of the user friendliness of LIVE has been lost which has alienated their core audience.
You keep bringing up internet banter about the power of PS3 which has nothing to do with the fact that the OG Xbox and 360 had multiplatform titles that exceeded what was available on PS2 or PS3. You can read reviews or visit DF and read the face offs if you aren't convinced.
The core MS audience is primarily interested AAA multiplatform titles and prior to this generation MS has provided hardware and services which allowed them to enjoy those titles in best possible manner. Today that is nolonger the case with PS4 offering visual fidelity which exceeds what is possible on XB1 and the additional changes to LIVE make matters worse.
Again regardless what was discussed online about the power of Cell the visuals for MP titles were superior for much of the last generation. Are you really trying to suggest that this isn't true or an important talking point for gamers?
Whatever arguments exist about best looking games Gears of War or Killzone or whatever have nothing to do with this. MS core didn't care about Killzone, they primarily care about COD, BF4, Madden and so on both in terms of the graphics and how easily they can connect online with friends and manage their matches.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Nope. What I am suggesting is that those people who bought the PS3 were continually waiting for it to show off its power, in the face of repeated evidence that the 360 was doing more with "less".
And I'm suggesting that those people who bought the 360 didn't do it because they thought it was the most powerful console with the best visuals, they bought it because of LIVE and the fact that it was still an amazing gaming machine. If visuals ever did tip in the PS3's favor, they weren't significant enough for anybody who has already made their decision to care or for those that hadn't to factor into their purchasing pattern.
And I don't see how any of this has changed.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Whew all of the rambling, maybe a bit OT and technical, oh well!
In the end they did give us several performance improvements:
GPU 800>853
Magical ESRAM bandwidth increase 102>204 GB/s
CPU 1.6>1.75
Maybe I'm the only one who remembers the last console launch and how everybody, this forum included, believed the PS3 would be way more powerful and to the point - that MS wasted a great deal of money and silicon with EDRAM.
As it turns out, that small bit of EDRAM was a huge factor in enabling the 360 to do things and continue to compete at a high level.
I know that the PS4 has greater memory bandwidth but it comes with an increase in latency. I know that MS looked at the importance and benefits of the EDRAM in the 360 and that's why they added it and increased it in the ESRAM in the One.
Who is to say that the PS4 will have significantly better visuals this generation than the One considering their architecture is actually different? Enough for the layperson to see clearly?
At this time last generation, after both consoles had launched and people had pulled them apart, the overriding theme was the PS3 would blow the 360 out of the water. That never happened. It never happened because of many factors, (shared ram, the addition of EDRAM, etc),.
I haven't seen anything yet to say that BF4 (whatever, making it up as an example) looks like crap on the One but looks gorgeous on the PS4.
The differences in these consoles are so slight that there's no way that either console will outsell the other based upon visual differences. For a few internet warriors? Sure. For the vast majority of the 50-100 million people that will buy these consoles? Nope.
I'm not discussing the Playstation core, I'm speaking about what mattered to the 360 core audience. It sounds like we agree that services mattered to them but we don't agree how much visuals mattered.
To my point if you go to any forum and look at historical post about MP titles like Madden, COD or BF you will a see a common theme (paraphrasing):
- "I'm buying it on the 360, it will look better, I have LIVE and that is where my friends are"
- "MP titles always are better on 360 so I'm buying the 360 version"
- "I guess I could wait for DF analysis but I want to preorder so I'll play it safe and get it for 360"
- "360 for multi-platforms and PS3 for exclusives."
Graphics and services matters to the 360 core IMO and MS underestimated the importance of both. I say both bc LIVE currently does not work as well on XB1 as it did on 360 and many have complained about it. Similarly the relative GPU power of XB1 has been criticized by MS's core because they expect to have their AAA third party titles with the best visuals and that has been true for the 2 previous generations.
You're ignoring the fact that people learn from past mistakes and the much more important point that there are much less unknowns in the architecture this generation as opposed to last generation, where the specifications are all over the place and hard to compare between the two.
True, but the proof is in the pudding, and the 360 had games with great graphics as good as PS3, and that had to get through to consumers on some level as well.
Consumers aren't dumb. Lets say, Battlefield 4 comes out, and it looks as good on 360 as PS3. No matter how much they've thought PS3 was more powerful, that has to register.
Well, you know that I of all people agree with that
The thing is, I heard both from back channel sources (at which time I was dubious), and then it was confirmed in the Eurogamer One architects tech article, MS was considering enabling the two redundant CU's, very late in the game, and decided against it.
This was framed as a choice between the upclock, but I think it needn't have been, they should have been able to do both. I am betting the costs would have been low as well. I've read they'll likely purge the additional redundant CU's once yields get better anyway. If that's true the yield hit could not have been too great.
14 CU's at 853 mhz would have put them at 1.52 TF, at 900 mhz if they had chosen to bump clock a little more aggressively it would have put them over 1.6, it would have enabled some additional TMU's as well. I think it more or less would have ended a lot of these power problems (1.5 vs 1.8 is in negligible difference territory), and I bet the cost was exceedingly low.
BeyondTed I think, told me that he thought they didn't overclock more than 853 because it might have destroyed their ESRAM BW increase window. I kind of doubt this technically from the way the architects described how that worked, and he didn't elaborate.
But I noticed the specs of the R7 260X the other day, this is the low end for AMD, it's basically the bonaire refresh, that thing is stock clocked at 1100 mhz! It's over 1.9 TF with 896 shaders! Such a shame MS couldn't have been more aggressive like this.
That said, the Kaveri APU's are enduring clock decreases, from 4.0 ghz CPU in Richland to 3.7 in Kaveri. AMD said the reason is their old process was optimized for CPU, and now it's more balanced between CPU/GPU.
In other words I'm guessing an SOC optimized process (presumably used on Xbox) cannot clock as high as an strictly GPU optimized one (presumably used on Bonaire). STILL, I think they could have done better than 853 mhz. I am guess their only concern on the upclock was heat/noise, with unfortunately performance being dead last in priorities.
Now MS will have to spend a whole lot more in marketing and price cuts to sell an underpowered machine. It's such shortsighted management imo.
Such a little thing but I think it would have done wonders, perhaps their biggest single mistake was not enabling the two more CU's for maybe $2 per unit, imo. If I but a $500 machine, I want it to have some grunt.
Whew all of the rambling, maybe a bit OT and technical, oh well!
In the end they did give us several performance improvements:
GPU 800>853
Magical ESRAM bandwidth increase 102>204 GB/s
CPU 1.6>1.75
And none of the GAF sponsored rumored downclocks. So I guess I should be happy. I'm just kind of OCD and it's going to bother me knowing I've essentially got a lowly 7770 in my console for the next 5+ years...especially that I was rocking a 4890 in my PC from ages ago, and X1 isn't that much more powerful...
I wonder if after feeling the backlash over 720P gate, the MS execs would have enabled those two CU's if they could go back in time?
I bet it is a priority for them now to streamline the drivers, Thuway's 10% driver performance improvement rumor may be a hint. Microsoft are probably scrambling to lessen multiplatform differences next time around.
You agree with it because its pretty well established fact, I honestly don't see how its even being debated. DF served no purpose of graphics didn't matter. Much of the online discussion for much of last generation was centered around this very issue not to mention all the endless debates, spin and grasping at straws which has occured all of last year surround these 2 platforms. Graphics and services mattered then and it matters now. I think we are at a point in the curve where its not as relevant but it still matters because for the average consumer more than anything else the graphics are how they quantify power.
Consumers don't buy these devices in a vacuum, there is plenty of info available for consumers to be aware of the differences in graphics on the platforms and more than almost any other spec consumers have been trained to look at graphics. LIVE has successfully made services an important factor but if I had to venture a guess soccer moms are most likely to ask the sales person which one is more powerful and by power they mean graphics.
Honestly I'm surprised that LIVE had the issues it did but there was a decent article written about what happened. I think they will get that fixed relatively soon too which is a good sign.
steveOrino
Regular
In the end, parity won't be achieved because ultimately there is an significant hardware gap between systems. But thats fine for MS because gaming wasn't an absolute priority this time around. DDR3, HDMI pass through, IR emitters, Kinect, VMs, weak GPU, etc are calculated decisions in order to deliver an all in one media box that fits with MS's corporate goals. Their world reveal said as much.
The hardware power issue IMO is an moot point because MS wasn't planning to the have the most powerful system.
I believe it was also due to the fact that MS wasnt anticipating Sony to come up with a more powerful hardware,
Regardless, even though XB1 may continue to have some advantages in the non-gaming features, I expect the gap in non-gaming entertainment and UI design to get narrower between the two consoles. Sony is making its moves to expand the PS4's media features like streaming TV services. MS is also investing in streaming TV services making HDMI In less relevant for TV viewing.
Similar threads
