PS4 isn't a supercomputer by any stretch. It's only a mediocre computing device in terms of what's possible nowadays.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
I think that, alternatively, they could (and I'd argue *should*) differentiate on software and services to make up for the hardware deficiency. If they can make the XBOne+XBL sub combination a compelling enough value, they could still be competitive at the same retail price.
I didn't say it was. Neither was the PS2. My point is that in the PS2 (and somewhat the PS3 days), Sony's marketing was all about the power of the hardware compared to the competition - so much so that many people were led to believe the PS2 was somehow more powerful than the Xbox.
Today they seem to focus on the games.
That's all.
Well they could have done some marketing that the PS4 is the most powerful console available. I think they arent doing it because they dont need to (people that need to know already know it is), they know that the PS4 although more powerful it is based on hardware used by competition so they cant use unique catchy phrases and hardware names ( before they had cell, Bluray, EE,GS) and no reason to spend extra money on marketing when the price advantage and games do the work
Kinect SKUs would still do everything they do now, and none Kinect owners would be encouraged to upgrade.
There are a lot of people in the world for whom Kinect will only ever have little or no value: either they are in 50 hz land, or their tv doesn't properly support the IR blaster, or MS services (and those of partner companies) aren't available, or Kinect doesn't recognise their language or just their particular voice.
Or they just want a games console. Kinect is expensive and has NO COMPELLING SOFTWARE.
For a lot of potential customers, Kinect 2 - by far (by far) the most awesome piece of kit this gen has been turned into a dead weight by execs who don't care about games and want to try yet again to take over the living room.
Pure gaming OS would run on every machine. It wouldn't need to split the user base, but dash functionality would be cut back and rolled into the OS like with the 360. When you start a game that demands the pure gaming OS the system would reboot into the OS&game, 360 style.
Full hardware access, all cores for games (time slice on 1 core per 4 core block for OS), 7 GB+ of memory, access to all those powerful DSPs in the audio block. For every Bown, old and new.
The Xbone really isn't that much weaker - and in some areas it has definite advantages. It's the admittedly clever arrangement of virtual OSes that are dragging the 360 down. It's not just the two reserved CPU cores.
The gap shouldn't be anything like that big. XB0ne is wading through mud.
Pure gaming OS of forever for the win. Or at least, for a much smaller loss.
XBOX GO HOME SPORTS was supposed to be the killer app for Xbone. It can't be that outside of America.
If Kinect was an option (through SKU choice and also a separate purchase) it might actually convince MS that they should make some games for it, to, you know, make people think it was worth paying for.
I don't think that's a good idea for various reasons, but one being that voice control is very important in many other product lines and services. Having Kinect in every box can help them gather data to improve voice control in other languages, which in turn will help them on other products like their phones, search engines, translation, etc. Basically it's worth keeping Kinect in the box even if all it ever does for them is serve as a tool to improve multi language voice recognition just because of the various other products they make and services they are involved in.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Kinect was a paid for block of plastic that did nothing but sit on a customers shelf and collect data then I would agree. Turns out consumers can actually make use of Kinect for various things like voice control, gaming, skype, etc, so I don't see how what you are saying applies here at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
No that was not the response.
It's not worth it to them to have a non Kinect sku if anything because of the value of the voice recognition data it gives them which is relevant to their other services along with their Xbox business. The user can still use Kinect for gaming, video calls, and yes voice control. Voice control is a hot topic right now and yet it's still in it's infancy and actively being researched despite being used in products everywhere. This is where Kinect can help them quite a bit. Apple has Siri to collect that kind of data on a large volume world wide scale, Microsoft has Kinect. Throwing that away makes zero sense given the importance of voice control in so many current and upcoming products in the home, in your car, on your person, etc...
Sorry, my point was a little lost. PS2 and PS3 were sort of supercomputers - they had far more flops than typical devices. That may not have been the best design for a console, but it was something Sony could (and did) trumpet. PS4 doesn't have any relative lead against standard tech, so there's nothing much for Sony to crow about.
I'm pretty sure they have. I'm fairly confident I've seen a TV ad or something where it was mentioned as the fastest console ever made. May be wrong on that.Nesh said:
The only way to side-step the graphical comparison is to bring compelling content that isn't available on other platforms. No one was imagining how Halo or Gears of War would have looked on the PS3 because it didn't matter. Anyone who is *obviously* a true Halo fan is going to of course get the Xbox One. It's the only way to have a reasonable chance at doing well in this fight now that it appears to be a two-console race since the "3rd party games look better on our console" argument has gone out the window.
I'm weary of people thinking that "PS4 wins because it's cheaper with better graphics". The person who cares about graphics will eventually get a PC because consoles are so easily lapped.
I'm weary of people thinking that "PS4 wins because it's cheaper with better graphics". The person who cares about graphics will eventually get a PC because consoles are so easily lapped.
That's the thing, my 2 year old PC is nearly twice the horsepower as this generation of consoles. It's not like people need to wait for better hardware to trump this gen. It'll be interesting to see how long before this generation needs a refresh. Will they look good enough for 7 years?
rokkerkory
Regular
I think this gen will be repeat of last gen except the roles will be reversed. I don't expect X1 to eventually outsell PS4 however like PS3 eventually outsold 360 (WW) in the 6th or 7th year.
Both consoles will offer real value because of their exclusive games and services.
Both consoles will offer real value because of their exclusive games and services.
The thing i am still unconvinced about it just how big that gap is, i find the Tomb Raider framerate difference to be pretty shocking, it seems like a pretty big difference to push almost twice the pixels on one console compared to the other. That tells me (without really being into the deeper workings) that it's a combination of the extra GPU power and the very fast ram. But it also hints at the EDRAM not being utilized. Now, there is a real chance that it will first of all take some time before that feature of the XB1 will be used, but i find it reasonable to expect it to be part of the 3rd party engines sooner or later. It's something that has to be done in order to keep up with the competition.
And yeah, it's not like they are walking all over XB1 with the advantage they have, but maybe they are playing it smart and keeping tabs on the internet "mood", and can see that it isn't needed.. now at least.
But you are still splitting up the market.. and if you have a Kinect Sku coupled with a pure gaming OS you still lose the Kinect feature, and those that bought the XB1 with those functions in mind will be screwed over..
steveOrino
Regular
What makes you think that? How would or should it be utilized?
The 30/60 fps difference doesn't actually mean one box is pushing twice the pixels. It may mean that one box could hold 60fps often enough to where they could cap it at 60fps and deal with the occasional screen tear while the other maybe couldn't maintain 60fps often enough to warrant not capping it at 30fps.
