News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

I don't expect any comments soon - both he and Major Nelson are on a radio silence .
It's understandable though , what can you say ...

 

That apart from COD, they believe their right.

I've heard some people who has seen BF4 say that they think the PS4 version looked better, but I've not heard anyone say it look 30-50% better.

 

Does anyone think that the gap between the two will get wider as the generation goes on? Remember last gen when Madden PS3 ran at 30fps and XBOX360 ran at 60 at launch? Doesn't logic suggest that this is the worst the disparity will ever be?

 

They can dig through the old file of sony excuses from last gen and reuse some of those. I'm sure they'll just point to great looking exclusives.

 

As much as I wish that X1 were twice as powerful as it is, I've decided that it will be good enough for me.

If something truly mind blowing comes to PS4 a few years down the road I'll buy one.

I'm more excited for Titanfall, Quantum Break, and Project Spark than anything else coming out next year anyway.

 

This will be an interesting generation. We'll finally be able to see if more powerful hardware translates to significantly better software sales.

 

We're back to discussing price again?

Even though that theory is somewhat valid, it's not only about the amount of pixels but the quality of them, it's also about having some extra components to deal with -PS4 appears to be easier to program for, something that with the additional extra power is difficult to match- when it comes to the Xbox One -eSRAM, DMEs...-....

The quality of the SDK for development purposes at the moment seems to be also a factor.

Additionally, I think when they free up that 10% of the GPU resources (and maybe audio resources, as bkillian asked more than once) and the development tools are more mature, there should be a chance to at least improve the ports.

 

IMO X1 will be visually competitive enough that it won't be a factor with most gamers.

 

Wonder what 30 to 50% better would look like ?? Inherently a subjective metric I would assume Sure many people won't notice or care ... some even if one system is locked at 60 fps and the other bopping around 35 fps ... maybe some gaming site will do double-blind tests or something to get some decent data on the subject.

 

I keep on reading this here, sure its very valid, quality of pixels is very important.
But its like some people here have the idea that somehow even though the ps4 may has more pixels its pixels are going to be inferior to the xbone's
Where on earth does this logic come from?

say both machines render at the same resolution because of the faster hardware the ps4 has more ability to have 'better pixels' not the xbone, though having 2 different shading paths is normally more work than simply bumping the resolution I believe most will just bump the resolution

you cant put a metric on it. But things like soft shadows (more sampling), more dynamic lighting, better reflections etc theres lots of ways to improve the visuals without going to a higher resolution (or better AA/AF)
Im beginning to wonder if the DDR5 was worth even more than I thought

 

Last generation, at least for a few years, I've always checked in game reviews where the game looked/ran better and I seriously doubt that's just my quirk because that's the main motivator for permanent (PC) upgrades.

Down playing the situation for multi platform titles which make the majority of people's game library is asking for punishment. Without the multi platform title advantage the 360 wouldn't have produced higher game sales.

What kind of conclusion can we actually draw now? That Ryse is perhaps already maxing out the console with PRT/ESRAM/DMA Engines to manage 900p with that IQ? Does COD:Ghost even use ESRAM at all and only depend on main memory bandwidth? Is it such problem for that low IQ engine to do just some simple ESRAM optimization for the memory starved ops to not reach 1080p? They could have shut down this ugly situation by promising a patch but nothing happened.

 

That's likely complete nonsense. There are many possible reason as to why sales on XB360 might have been higher than the PS3 and I'm certain any performance benefit had absolutely nothing to do with the game sales.

All but the technophiles buy the games on the platform that their friends have. In the US that likely tends to be the XB360. Some likely possible reasons why they went with XB360 was the 1 year market head-start, the superior online-experiences of Xbox Live Gold, the lower priced hardware platform, or the exclusive platform titles drew them in (Halo and Gears).

 

I don't get the drama. Next year the COD teams will have had an extra year to work on the systems. I would wager the diffrences are much much less that time around.

I think the fact that both of these systems struggle with bf4 is the more worrying thing.


I really think 2013 was the wrong year for both companies to launch a system.

 

I think Mid-2015 would be a sweet spot to launch a console based on upcoming technology.

 

My personal reasoning for getting the X1 is very simple and it is very real. The $500 price I don't think is too expensive given that you get a very powerful camera system that has loads of potential. Personally I don't actually care if Kinect 2 will be used in games or not as I want it more for controlling the console and user interface. As far as graphics is concerned I stated that I would get the console only if it was capable of Samaritan techdemo type graphics...Ryse fulfilled that requirement. Multi-platform games are important but only need to be "good enough" for me to buy them. Live is also important. Everything else is just icing on the cake. For example the very nice multitasking OS features, Blu-ray movie playback, Smartglass etc.

 

I agree.

 

Delete

 

I dunno , 2014 would give them 22nm over the current 28nm. 2015 seems to be a dead zone for process nodes . Unless you think tmsc will actually have 16nm finet ready then.

 

My reasons to buy Xbox One:

- The new UI, fast and beauty
- The new controller, it looks great
- Kinect and Smartglass integration
- My friends on Xbox Live
- The launch games, Ryse, Dead Rising 3 and Crimson Dragon
- The future games, Halo, Quantum Break, TitanFall, the black tusk project, etc
- I love integration

 

People seems to forget that these are launch titles. Cod ghost is not pushing either next gen system.
Its alot more logical that the rumors we have heard about the tools and drivers being behind on the xbox one are the reasons for the resolution difference. Its not like all launch titles on the xbox one are 720p. Someone asked if the cpu could be at fault. Both consoles have the same cpu and the xbox one has slightly more bandwidth available to its cpu. I was accused in another thread of making up excuses for the xbox one. I really just dont see a closed box console with 6 cores of cpu, 5 gigs of ddr3 ram , 1.2 tflops of gpu and 32mb of esram for games having trouble running Call of duty ghost at a minimum of 900p and 60fps. I mean forza 5 is 1080p 60fps but turn 10 only has to make one version of the game for one console. Same thing with Ryse and both of these developers have had access to the xbox one longer than anyone. Infinity ward has to make 5 versions of their game for 5 consoles and release them all in the same month. So it seems logical to me that the console with the largest learning curve and dev tools running behind at launch might not reach the same resolution as its competition on some 3rd party games. It does not mean the xbox one is DOA nor does it mean that the hardware is gimped and incapable of producing future games at 1080p and 60fps.