Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
If they'd remove the brackets and the word "console" they'd guarantee the truth of that statement.
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
The one that's located in the PSU (XB1) or the one located in the power-brick (XB360)? Such fun times...
I know everyone knows the specs of the PS5 and Xbox Scarlett in industry, Sony and Microsoft too but the difference is not big and maybe Microsoft can do a last minute frequency push like with the Xbox One and takes the lead. If it was PS4 against Xbox One or Xbox One X against PS4 Pro difference there is nothing to do.
Last edited:
TBH I'd much rather one or the other take a more aggressive position on software pricing. I have a sizable library of Xbox & 360 games and similarly own PS, PS2, PS3 and PS4 titles, if one or the other dropped the price of digital titles to 49.99 day one, I'd be inclined to settle there more so than chase slightly higher TF/power. And frankly with the distribution digital affords, I think prices should be cheaper due to not having feed retail.
Do you expect to repay for your digital library to work with the next Xbox? I surely don't.
Though my digital game library is continuously expanding I hardly have the time to play most of them. Buying a lower price console so you can keep "collecting" than buying the top model to actually play the few titles with the best performance sounds far more rational to me.
P.S. I'm also guilty of collecting titles I "would" like to play but haven't yet....I even have a few AAA full price titles I didn't manage to start yet because I waste so much time in Destiny. Any other game only gets attention in the gaps, unfortunately.
Though my digital game library is continuously expanding I hardly have the time to play most of them. Buying a lower price console so you can keep "collecting" than buying the top model to actually play the few titles with the best performance sounds far more rational to me.
P.S. I'm also guilty of collecting titles I "would" like to play but haven't yet....I even have a few AAA full price titles I didn't manage to start yet because I waste so much time in Destiny. Any other game only gets attention in the gaps, unfortunately.
Gigahertz?
Don't accuse different values as being irrational. It's perfectly rationale to prefer game longevity and an ever growing library over playing the latest games in slightly-better-o-vision, if that's your preference, and vice versa.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
It doesn't help that most games now are just too bloody long. How many films would you watch if every single one was the length of the extended LotR trilogy? How many TV shows could you watch if, with each show, they dumped the equivalent of the entire 5 seasons of Breaking Bad all at once?
I'm playing Days Gone at the moment, trying to finish it after taking a couple of months off. Like most open world games, I've pretty much run out of steam with the gameplay and just want to finish up the story.
Maybe if the occasional game was open world, it wouldn't be so bad, but so many are turning into vast, nigh empty levels where most of your time is spent travelling to the next mission, a mission which usually then involves you travelling to the objective.
Metal Gear Solid exemplifies this IMO. MGS3 could be completed in 7 hours if you really blasted through it at a good clip. Or, you could take your time, explore, and generally just be playful with the mechanics. MGS4 was pretty long, but it was also Solid Snake's swan song, a farewell after 20 years. Fair enough IMO.
Then came MGS5. A game consisting of an enormous, barren open world, with an enormous list of missions and all kinds of farting around to build up your base and research equipment. Of course, this required resources, which you then had to grind to obtain. Should you fail to obtain enough, you could go into debt.
So there I was, one Sunday, trying to relax on my one day off after a 50 hour week. I'd already spent a few of the previous Sundays playing MGS5, and this was going to be much the same, given that I didn't have enough money to actually go out and do anything. After having played the game for something like 30 hours, I was already a little bored of the mechanics and was really missing the cinematic cutscenes that have always been a staple of the series. But hey, I'll soon get to have a play with some of these new toys I've researched. Right? Wrong! In debt, in a game, which I was playing to escape my own miserable, skint existence.
Want to have fun in this game you've paid for? Well, that'll be 10 hours of slogging through shit first. Maybe next Sunday!
So my week had turned into a 60 hour work week. And I'd paid £40 to access 10 of them.
MGS5 is the only mainstream MGS that I haven't completed. And I wish I'd saved myself 40 quid and just spent that time wanking. At least I'd have been productive and guarded myself against prostate cancer.
I'm playing Days Gone at the moment, trying to finish it after taking a couple of months off. Like most open world games, I've pretty much run out of steam with the gameplay and just want to finish up the story.
Maybe if the occasional game was open world, it wouldn't be so bad, but so many are turning into vast, nigh empty levels where most of your time is spent travelling to the next mission, a mission which usually then involves you travelling to the objective.
Metal Gear Solid exemplifies this IMO. MGS3 could be completed in 7 hours if you really blasted through it at a good clip. Or, you could take your time, explore, and generally just be playful with the mechanics. MGS4 was pretty long, but it was also Solid Snake's swan song, a farewell after 20 years. Fair enough IMO.
Then came MGS5. A game consisting of an enormous, barren open world, with an enormous list of missions and all kinds of farting around to build up your base and research equipment. Of course, this required resources, which you then had to grind to obtain. Should you fail to obtain enough, you could go into debt.
So there I was, one Sunday, trying to relax on my one day off after a 50 hour week. I'd already spent a few of the previous Sundays playing MGS5, and this was going to be much the same, given that I didn't have enough money to actually go out and do anything. After having played the game for something like 30 hours, I was already a little bored of the mechanics and was really missing the cinematic cutscenes that have always been a staple of the series. But hey, I'll soon get to have a play with some of these new toys I've researched. Right? Wrong! In debt, in a game, which I was playing to escape my own miserable, skint existence.
Want to have fun in this game you've paid for? Well, that'll be 10 hours of slogging through shit first. Maybe next Sunday!
So my week had turned into a 60 hour work week. And I'd paid £40 to access 10 of them.
MGS5 is the only mainstream MGS that I haven't completed. And I wish I'd saved myself 40 quid and just spent that time wanking. At least I'd have been productive and guarded myself against prostate cancer.
Yeah, this is my problem - and why I don't like multiplayer (takes too much time to get good and then you have to keep playing to stay good!).
I miss the days of a nice 8-12 hour SP game...people used to moan about it lacking VFM but you'd spend £10 to go to the cinema for 2 hours to watch a non-interactive film, so why not £50 for a fully interactive 10 hour game?
Why would I need to repay for my digital games? They should work on new system if I redownload the game...
I transitioned to nearly 100% digital with PS4 but my previous generations we're almost exclusively physical.
Frankly I'd be pretty upset if PS4 digital titles aren't supported on PS5 and I'd feel the same way about Xbox digital library as well.
No stock on this one. If the claim is the difference between them is similar to the difference between XBO and 1S.
Then he’s gambling on final clocks. The devkits are not retail.
Again like Andrew Reiner there is something call target specs gives to devs and it seems the target specs are a bit better on Sony side but the gap is so low I think Sony is overconfident. It seems the gap is as big as Xbox One and Xbox One S maximum maybe less.
I think Sony is cocky to publish an ad like this.
Last edited:
The most interesting is why PS5 can lead xb right now.
Some possible solutions: HBM memory or advanced cooling system. So the main SOC can have more power. If it is true then PS5 can also make a last minute push on frequency then taking the lead.
It's a job advert. I think people are hanging onto every word, from every place way to much.
Even if it wasn't a job advert I wouldn't see the issue.
They've got a 50 50 chance of being right
(if you don't include any inside info they may have)
And for marketing, if Sony or Microsoft follow this type of advertisement depending who comes on top. If the difference is only 0.1 Tflops, they will use it in marketing.
Last edited:
It says 'fastest', not 'strongest' or 'more powerful'. With fastest they could talk about loading speeds or GPU clocks. And I think now they can be 99% sure about those specs.
Also this ad is here to motivate potential employees. They won't put it on buses.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
