If he eats his hat I'll buy him a new one.
NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*
- Thread starter Barso
- Start date
- Status
If he eats his hat I'll buy him a new one.
With the tiny exception that the clocks published are not necessarily final, I think that his hat is pretty damn safe.
(For large integrated circuit products like CPUs, GPUs, and APUs, the final clocks are rarely set in stone until you actually have statistically significant amount of hardware available. In the end you choose a point on a triangle with clocks, power and yields in the corners, and you don't know how much yields or power you have to sacrifice for specific clocks until you have a lot of chips to test against. Simulations and low unit count test runs provide reasonable data, but surprises, both positive and negative, do still happen.)
(For large integrated circuit products like CPUs, GPUs, and APUs, the final clocks are rarely set in stone until you actually have statistically significant amount of hardware available. In the end you choose a point on a triangle with clocks, power and yields in the corners, and you don't know how much yields or power you have to sacrifice for specific clocks until you have a lot of chips to test against. Simulations and low unit count test runs provide reasonable data, but surprises, both positive and negative, do still happen.)
AstoundingHolmes
Newcomer
That seems true, I saw some white papers for some hynix chips that ran at 1.6v for 6Gbps (their 5.5Gbps seems to need 1.5v). However, I have seen other vendors state their chips run the full 6Gbps at 1.35v. Still we really have no idea here, as 8GB is sorta unprecedented.
Oh, right, because we're assuming these are new denser chips, not more of the same chips. Right, that makes sense.MrFox said:
I guess frequency is the next big point of contention then...
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Something tells me that some redundants cus will be activated.
Albofighter
Newcomer
only if yields are very good, but so far I would be surprised if that happens
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I thought core gamers were more concerned with performance over price. Core gamer = performance conscience. Isn't that why there has been such a backlash/shock about Durango's specs? Isn't that why all these people are believing in/hoping for "secret sauce"?
Don't we have some leaked specs on Kinect 2.0? 60ms lag and 30fps tracking equals laggy and slow, right? If not, why does every tracking camera for any Playstation avoid it like the plague?
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
So, what do YOU think core gamers usually go for (based on all that's transpired)? Forum warriors are usually part of core gamer crowd, are they not?
So, what do YOU think core gamers usually go for (based on all that's transpired)?
They'll look at the games.
And if the games are close they might well stick to the platform or set of features they prefer. Live vs. PSN or whatever other things they offer at launch.
exactly
MS will stick to their design and feature sets and laugh all the way to the bank for years to come I'd wager, by giving a growing market what they want and still meeting most HC gamer's needs.
So, what do YOU think core gamers usually go for (based on all that's transpired)? Forum warriors are usually part of core gamer crowd, are they not?
I thought forum warriors fought for whichever system they got for Christmas, and the core crowd got hold of everything.
Or the core crowd is simply the people who buy the more traditional games.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I would classify the core gamers as those who would buy more than 3-5 new games a year. They are the audience that buys the most games, and the audience who has pretty much kep the traditional console model of loss-leading HW and recouping on software sales as a viable business model.
Whether that audience, broad as it is, cares about which console has the best performance or not is yet to be seen. I don't think anyone can say, however I think there's an arguement to be made that the 360 certainly benefitted greatly this gen by taking the lions share in superiority of performance in multiplatform software. We'll have to see if history repeats itself.
On the otherhand, both Sony and MS have a chance this coming gen to implement software services and non-gaming software that can bring in substantial revenue from non-gamers (not even core or casual gamers). People who may in fact live in a household with a core/casual gamer who owns a console, and invests heavily in digital multi-media and content due to the services provided for the platform.
MS could end up selling less consoles, but still making more money than Sony, becuase they keep a larger margin on the HW, charge for online gaming, and make a killing on apps and services.
I think both these consoles will be multi-media convergence devices to varying degrees, but i do think that MS is more likely positioned to make heavy bank on very much non-gaming stuff, as much as the revenues they bring in from their game platform and game software royalties. So in many ways I don't think MS even cares if they don't sell as many consoles as Sony. As long as they sell a reaonable amount. And matching the 360's current LTD would be a worthy achievement that I think they'll eventually reach whatever happens.
Basically, Sony will advertise the PS4 as a gamers console, "play GTAVI at 1080p/60fps" and "we have 8GB GDDR5 RAM". And MS will advertise Durango as an all-in-one entertainment box (they won't even cal it a console) saying, "play all your fav movies and music using voice commands and KinectHD" and "Sony has 8GB GDDR5 RAM, but what they don't have is Kinect 2.0... with Kinect, you are the RAM!!!
".
Whether that audience, broad as it is, cares about which console has the best performance or not is yet to be seen. I don't think anyone can say, however I think there's an arguement to be made that the 360 certainly benefitted greatly this gen by taking the lions share in superiority of performance in multiplatform software. We'll have to see if history repeats itself.
On the otherhand, both Sony and MS have a chance this coming gen to implement software services and non-gaming software that can bring in substantial revenue from non-gamers (not even core or casual gamers). People who may in fact live in a household with a core/casual gamer who owns a console, and invests heavily in digital multi-media and content due to the services provided for the platform.
MS could end up selling less consoles, but still making more money than Sony, becuase they keep a larger margin on the HW, charge for online gaming, and make a killing on apps and services.
I think both these consoles will be multi-media convergence devices to varying degrees, but i do think that MS is more likely positioned to make heavy bank on very much non-gaming stuff, as much as the revenues they bring in from their game platform and game software royalties. So in many ways I don't think MS even cares if they don't sell as many consoles as Sony. As long as they sell a reaonable amount. And matching the 360's current LTD would be a worthy achievement that I think they'll eventually reach whatever happens.
Basically, Sony will advertise the PS4 as a gamers console, "play GTAVI at 1080p/60fps" and "we have 8GB GDDR5 RAM". And MS will advertise Durango as an all-in-one entertainment box (they won't even cal it a console) saying, "play all your fav movies and music using voice commands and KinectHD" and "Sony has 8GB GDDR5 RAM, but what they don't have is Kinect 2.0... with Kinect, you are the RAM!!!
".To steal Alpha's term, forum warriors and core gamers aren't necessarily equal. Core gamers came out in droves for the 360 when forum warriors were signing the praises of Cell from here to high heaven.
Personally for me, it mostly boils down to the primary controller, and making good use of it. DS3 was more advanced than X-controller, having all the sixaxis input, but that wasn't really used much and it's less ergonomical so X360 won somewhat. If games like GT5 made use of Sixaxis input for steering (or do they? I didn't play them), it could be quite different for me - as gyro control is more natural and precise in a racing game IMO.
Now we have a more ergonomic DS4 with a touchpad. If (and that's a big IF) devs would make a proper use of it, it could rival mouse for FPS control. The touchpad itself is too small to be both fast and precise, but it could be used as a coarse and fast control, with sixaxis providing precision in a 20-30 degree area. Things like jump and crouch could also be implemented using sixaxis control - by jerking controller up or down respectively. See Razer Hydra videos for examples.
If the Xbox controller stays the same and don't get gyro input, and a touchpad or optical trackball, then it just wouldn't be able to provide the variety and precision of control that is so desirable in a FPS. Kinect might be used to some extent to counter that, providing Wii/Move like control, if the controller would be provided with a solution to easily detect it, like DS4's LED bar. The only "serious" games I see Kinect could be used in is something like Ryse, but again, Sony would have a stereo camera. Producing depth field from stereo image plus object recognition is surely going to cost quite a lot, but if PS4 is indeed more powerful than X-next, they'd be quite balanced in that regard.
There are not many exclusives on Xbox and even less I'm interested in (only Halo and Forza come to mind, plus the upcoming Ryse - but I think it would be exclusive only for a limited amount of time). So, not much loss either way, and, well, it's always possible to get both consoles, and perhaps sell one after the exclusives are exhausted.
As for online game services, I think they might converge a bit - Sony is probably envious of MS's revenue on online, so online play might indeed get somewhat limited. Maybe just a day time limit - only 2 hours of online play per day, for example (probably less, as 2 hours is enough for majority of people). An unlimited access is for some premium, and PSN+ stuff is a bit further premium.
MS might go the same way, but I doubt they'd sell older games for discount or even give them for free like on PSN+. They didn't even wanted to allow any free stuff in marketplace at all.
For online non-game services, MS surely in a better position, and hopefully they will use their leverage. While basic major stuff, like browser, skype(or something else), youtube, netflix, maps, would surely be present on both, MS has advantage of bundled NUI. Nothing stops Sony from providing SDK for NUI with their camera as well, though, and touchpad is already quite good for navigation, for text input, "petal" input from Steam can be used. The strength of MS lies in their software development platform, which would surelly be much much more availible to small developers. Notions of Metro apps suggest that. However, MS has to make publication in Xbox marketplace easier for such apps than it currently is.
The defining choice would be games for highly core gamers, and games/HTPC balance for medium-core gamers (i.e. people who would play stuff like Skyrim but wouldn't cringe if, say, they would not be able to play GoW, or vice versa, but who would be interested in HTPC side of Xbox - it probably would be able to replace home PC for most people who don't work at home at PC.)
Now we have a more ergonomic DS4 with a touchpad. If (and that's a big IF) devs would make a proper use of it, it could rival mouse for FPS control. The touchpad itself is too small to be both fast and precise, but it could be used as a coarse and fast control, with sixaxis providing precision in a 20-30 degree area. Things like jump and crouch could also be implemented using sixaxis control - by jerking controller up or down respectively. See Razer Hydra videos for examples.
If the Xbox controller stays the same and don't get gyro input, and a touchpad or optical trackball, then it just wouldn't be able to provide the variety and precision of control that is so desirable in a FPS. Kinect might be used to some extent to counter that, providing Wii/Move like control, if the controller would be provided with a solution to easily detect it, like DS4's LED bar. The only "serious" games I see Kinect could be used in is something like Ryse, but again, Sony would have a stereo camera. Producing depth field from stereo image plus object recognition is surely going to cost quite a lot, but if PS4 is indeed more powerful than X-next, they'd be quite balanced in that regard.
There are not many exclusives on Xbox and even less I'm interested in (only Halo and Forza come to mind, plus the upcoming Ryse - but I think it would be exclusive only for a limited amount of time). So, not much loss either way, and, well, it's always possible to get both consoles, and perhaps sell one after the exclusives are exhausted.
As for online game services, I think they might converge a bit - Sony is probably envious of MS's revenue on online, so online play might indeed get somewhat limited. Maybe just a day time limit - only 2 hours of online play per day, for example (probably less, as 2 hours is enough for majority of people). An unlimited access is for some premium, and PSN+ stuff is a bit further premium.
MS might go the same way, but I doubt they'd sell older games for discount or even give them for free like on PSN+. They didn't even wanted to allow any free stuff in marketplace at all.
For online non-game services, MS surely in a better position, and hopefully they will use their leverage. While basic major stuff, like browser, skype(or something else), youtube, netflix, maps, would surely be present on both, MS has advantage of bundled NUI. Nothing stops Sony from providing SDK for NUI with their camera as well, though, and touchpad is already quite good for navigation, for text input, "petal" input from Steam can be used. The strength of MS lies in their software development platform, which would surelly be much much more availible to small developers. Notions of Metro apps suggest that. However, MS has to make publication in Xbox marketplace easier for such apps than it currently is.
The defining choice would be games for highly core gamers, and games/HTPC balance for medium-core gamers (i.e. people who would play stuff like Skyrim but wouldn't cringe if, say, they would not be able to play GoW, or vice versa, but who would be interested in HTPC side of Xbox - it probably would be able to replace home PC for most people who don't work at home at PC.)
Their numbers are similar worldwide. In fact, 360 probably has more casual gamers because of Kinect.
Not sure what Cell has to do with sales. ^_^
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Superior technical specifications don't necessarily mean a better gaming experience. Look at the PS3 compared to the 360. Despite some compromised design choices (two RAM pools, RSX), it was the more powerful system and games like Uncharted and God of War demonstrated a technical prowess that I've not seen on the 360, but when you include third party multi-platform games in the equation, the Xbox arguably had an overall better gaming experience. Few multi-plats were better on PS3 than Xbox and some games downright sucked technically on the PS3.
Based on what we know about PS4 and what's been rumoured about 720, it's unlikely they'll be such a perceptible difference next gen. Even if the 720 is less powerful and this results in 1080p PS4 vs 900p 720 games, few will notice. Plus there are more subtle ways to cut back on graphics budgets. When I played Red Dead Redemption on PS3 I loved it. I didn't know it was missing detail present in the 360 version; you don't miss what you never had and, aside from the fanboys and likes of posters to forums like this, I doubt many consumers watch the likes of Digital Foundry's Head to Head video comparisons on Eurogamer.
For me, which console to buy isn't a difficult decision. I'll be buying a PlayStation 4, much like I bought a PlayStation 3. Regardless of any flaws and how it may compare to the 720, what swings it for me is PlayStation's first and second party developers. The likes of Naughty Dog, Santa Monica Studios, Tokyo Studio, London Studio, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Bend Studio. The fact I own a Vita is also a factor.
Kameradschaft
Regular
Do you seriously think that PS3 has less casual gamers? both systems have their BIG share of casual gamers, casuals in the US buy the 360 for Blops 2 just as casuals in Europe buy the PS3 for the PES 2013.
To be more specific in central and southern Europe the PS3 is the system that casuals gamers prefer because Playstation here is almost synonymous with videogames - it's the strongest brand name by far plus it has CoD, PES & Assassin's Creed, that's enough for them.
I've come across people with PS3s that don't even know what an Xbox is...MS's fault to a degree? sure, but it also shows how strong is the Playstation brand here in Europe.
My definition of casual gamers is probably different from yours. My casual gamer friends don't play shooters or controller-based games at all. They will play motion games. Some don't know how to "turn on" Kinect. They ask their children to turn it on and setup the games for them. I consider light and accessible puzzle games like touch-based Sudoku casual games too.
I have met Europeans who don't know what an iPad was 2 years ago. When I pulled it out to use, they asked " What's that ?". I like their lifestyle better. It takes time for things to spread in real life.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Those aren't casual gamers, they're non-gamers.
- Status
Similar threads
