POLL: Based on console specs, what power difference would make you switch brand at mid-gen?

Based on console specs, what power difference would make you switch brand at mid-gen?

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
I have a PS3 and a 360. I've had a PS4 since launch, and i'm not interested in an XB1 due to lack of interest in MS's new games and the DRM situation MS spawned back then. More power would not make me switch consoles, Sony will be my main supplier going forward.

However, if MS finds a way to make their next console 100% BC with OG Xbox, 360 and XB1 games, i may grab one just to have as a way to play my old titles OG Xbox and 360 titles, and the few exclusives i missed out on for XB1, even though i would still not use it as my main machine.

I am way too invested in Sony's ecosystem in general at this point with tons of purchases spread out over Vita, PS3 and PS4
 
I have to say, I am not ready to abandon my PS4. I like it. It works, it's cool, it's quiet. I think this gen so far has been the best ever. So very convenient. Never really had to get up and touch the damn thing either - the power of wireless controllers, a harddrive and the internet. In fact, Sony could have supplied my PS4 with a broken Bluray drive and I wouldn't even have noticed it so far.

But the best thing about it, is how cool and quiet it runs. The PS3 was a painful vacuum cleaner and I hated it every time the fans started to spin up. So, the prospect of upgrading to a newer console that likely will be pushing boundaries a bit more and therefore will be likely more noisy makes me a skeptic. Do I need much more power that will not lead to better games (remember, the feature-set of games will likely remain the same) and likely only marginal better graphics? I'm really not sure.

For the most part, PS4 has very clean graphics, especially when you consider overall image quality. Even on my 3m projected screen, that is more than sufficient without having your eyes cut by unbearable aliasing. The only thing I'd wish for are better framerates. For the most part that isn't a problem as long as its consistent and unfortunately, even the Neo won't change that as most developers will likely continue to target 30fps instead of 60fps.

So, what's the point? This basically means that I will take a wait & see approach. Depending on the price, there might still be an incentive to upgrade even if I don't find it completely necessary. If there was no Neo, I'd be also extremely happy to see the PS4 progress to have a life-span for another few years too. I'm in no hurry for next gen and even while looking at PC games pushing boundaries, I really don't think PS4 (and XB1) built on very conservative tech is that far behind. Certainly not when you account that the game experience is much more than simply 'stunning/better visuals'.

One thing is for sure though; there's no way i'd switch platforms; for the same reasons others have already posted. I am too invested into the eco-system of the console of my choice. The competing console would have to offer something groundbreakingly better to lure me away. Such a quantum shift is rather unlikely and we've only really see that happen 12 years ago when Nintendo stayed with Cartridges and paved the way for Sony to go CD and 3d.
 
I have always bought both Xbox and PS every generation. However I am not likely buying any mid-gen refreshes. Usually next gen is around 10x faster than previous (esp GPU performance). Mid-gen refresh of anything less than 2x doesn't interest me.
 
with AMD's aggressive RX 480 GPU pricing I wonder how many might now be tempted into the PC space or at least beef their current PC up.
 
Recop said:
http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/25/11774294/xbox-one-slim-one-two-scorpio

If polygon is right, then the difference in GPU power is similar :

PS4/XB1 = 40%

PS4Neo/Scorpio = 45%

In my opinion, it's not a hazard. Microsoft probably wants a similar gap with the newer consoles, but this time at their advantage.
Click to expand...
Why? What's so important about that number? For games targeting 1080p on PS4 and 900p on XB1, I doubt 40% will amount to much notable difference (already debateable at 900p) for mainstream consumers. 30%, 40%, 50%, probably all the same sort of differential, save a couple FPS different every now and then. Whatever design choices should be based on economics, and not some Golden Ratio.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Why? What's so important about that number? For games targeting 1080p on PS4 and 900p on XB1, I doubt 40% will amount to much notable difference (already debateable at 900p) for mainstream consumers. 30%, 40%, 50%, probably all the same sort of differential, save a couple FPS different every now and then. Whatever design choices should be based on economics, and not some Golden Ratio.
Click to expand...

If MS thinks that the stronger PS4 hardware is the key of its success, that number might be important for them.

And it's a good marketing strategy if the media report that the difference is greater between the new consoles compared to the PS4/XB1.

IMO, if MS wants a chance against Sony, they have to bring an extra.
 
I am not sure even my current supplier (Sony) could get me to shell out for the Neo if it was 100% more powerful. I cannot see how their competitor could get me to do this. It would have to be cheap and powerful for me to even consider it and then it would exist alongside my PS4, not replace it.


Never understood why people hate Nickelback. Near as I can tell they are a very average band that had 1 or 2 pretty blase' hits years ago and their fans annoyed those who "knew" music. They are a great cover band :D
 
Recop said:
If MS thinks that the stronger PS4 hardware is the key of its success, that number might be important for them.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Price, performance, and power consumption are going to be far more important to what Microsoft is planning. At most they'll just be looking at making it faster, but how much faster is going to be relatively irrelevant.

In addition to that it will be about what is required to meet the requirements of Oculus VR. Right now for the AMD side that is an R9 290 which is roughly 4.85 TFLOPs. That puts the minimum they would need for XBO-T. Minimum isn't going to be what you want if you want to be impressing people, however. R9 290x is roughly 5.63 TFOPs that's getting into the ballpark of where they'd want to be. So call it 6 TFLOPs and they'll at least be in relatively comfortable territory with regards to Oculus VR.

All of that is going to be far more important than what % they are ahead of PS4 NEO. While it's always good to keep an eye on your competition, it isn't generally a good idea to be basing your project decisions on what your competition has done or plans to do.

In short, the requirements for supporting VR on Oculus hardware will be more of a driving factor than what PS4 NEO is doing.

Or to put it another way. PSVR has more influence on Microsoft's design decisions for XBO-T than PS4 NEO as that is likely what prompted Microsoft to seriously look into a VR solution for their platform.

Regards,
SB
 
I have a PS4 and have not bought an XB1 yet, for me any upgrade would likely be based on being a viable platform for VR. That said I'm not sure I'm ready to invest in either platform for VR until we see what sort of software support and more importantly the quality of VR titles available. As it stands currently my PS4 already runs plenty of titles in 1080P and a bump to 60 fps isn't a compelling reason for me personally to invest in a box even if I understand that for some it may very well be.
 
Advisory - the following lyrics contain explicit language:

Never made it as a wise man
I couldn't cut it as
A poor man stealing
Tired of living like a blind man
I'm sick of sight without
A sense of feeling
And this is how you remind me

This is how you remind me
Of what I really am
This is how you remind me
Of what I really am

Part of the PC master race !


I'm not going to jump in at the start of next gen or whatever this half step is . I'm going to just take the money and buy Vega and a new CPU/Mobo setup
 
If xbox one two three properly implement continuum and universal apps... (or even include w32 mode in developer option!). I guess rather than upgrading my PC. It's much better to just buy a cheaper and more capable xbox one two three.

Even xbox one already faster than my pc lol.

I will miss mods though.
 
orangpelupa said:
If xbox one two three properly implement continuum and universal apps... (or even include w32 mode in developer option!)
Click to expand...
When you say continuum, how would you like it to work on console?

Or do you mean phone, tablet, etc using xbox as the display, like a chromecast receiver or something?
 
Jay said:
When you say continuum, how would you like it to work on console?

Or do you mean phone, tablet, etc using xbox as the display, like a chromecast receiver or something?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming hook up a mouse and keyboard and start using w10 for regular applications


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
iroboto said:
I'm assuming hook up a mouse and keyboard and start using w10 for regular applications
Click to expand...
Yea, I understood that bit, was wondering specifically about continuum as that was also mentioned?

Maybe did just mean about uwp etc

edit :

I know ms is planning on allowing the phone to use pc/laptop screen, even under the lock screen. So thought he may have had other simular type use cases in mind
 
Last edited:
Only thing that could sway me to adopt another platform (would never downright switch, though) would be a a drastic increase in diversity of exclusive software.
 
@Jay Nothing else. It's just as @iroboto explained.

Plug keyboard and mouse and it transforms the UWP apps layout and Xbox dashboard.

Like what already done in windows 10 phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Some speculation on Next gen consoles :) Very Verbose!!!
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
scificube
S
Back
Top