You don't uderstand i like consoles alot, but most of the games released come from a hardware 7 years old ! So what will happen with the next gen consoles ? We will have again the same graphics for another 7 years ... No point buying a graphics card no improvement on graphics ...
edit : I hope ms will not go with the trend and add an lcd to the controller like wii u or the ps4 (rumors)
I dont get it why they cant get 4ghz cpu and other high end stuff, why do they go with 1.8ghz quad ??
it is like ancient history, my 10 year old single core overclocked to 5ghz would have spanked this new tech
Because they need something that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price and be sold to the average consumer. Anyone who wants one should be able to buy one.
At any rate, I'm more worried about how they approach the controls and what gets the most attention. If peripherals like kinect, sixaxis and whatnot become more prevalent, we're less likely to get (good) ports and games that offer precise controls (i.ex. more likely to rely on control-assists).
Because they need something that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price and be sold to the average consumer. Anyone who wants one should be able to buy one.
At any rate, I'm more worried about how they approach the controls and what gets the most attention. If peripherals like kinect, sixaxis and whatnot become more prevalent, we're less likely to get (good) ports and games that offer precise controls (i.ex. more likely to rely on control-assists).
that is why the ps3 cost the same as a high end cpu, mobo and gpu when the ps3 was new ?
and still used mediocre specs
Because they need something that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price and be sold to the average consumer. Anyone who wants one should be able to buy one.
At any rate, I'm more worried about how they approach the controls and what gets the most attention. If peripherals like kinect, sixaxis and whatnot become more prevalent, we're less likely to get (good) ports and games that offer precise controls (i.ex. more likely to rely on control-assists).
that is why the ps3 cost the same as a high end cpu, mobo and gpu when the ps3 was new ?
and still used mediocre specs
The cell cpu that is in the PS3 is still a VERY powerful cpu.
Because they need something that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price and be sold to the average consumer. Anyone who wants one should be able to buy one.
At any rate, I'm more worried about how they approach the controls and what gets the most attention. If peripherals like kinect, sixaxis and whatnot become more prevalent, we're less likely to get (good) ports and games that offer precise controls (i.ex. more likely to rely on control-assists).
that is why the ps3 cost the same as a high end cpu, mobo and gpu when the ps3 was new ?
and still used mediocre specs
The cell cpu that is in the PS3 is still a VERY powerful cpu.
More powerfull but only a few are coding for this cpu and 90% of the games on ps3 are ports from xbox
Its been long rumors both sony and ms were going to unveil the new systems via an apple style press conference. With GDC and E3 been a platform to showcase the software.
Might just be true,
Sony look to be trying to get the first blood, cant blame them
Its been long rumors both sony and ms were going to unveil the new systems via an apple style press conference. With GDC and E3 been a platform to showcase the software.
Might just be true,
Sony look to be trying to get the first blood, cant blame them
If i remember correctly sony told the other day that theyr not gonna release ps4 before the new xbox or atleast until they know the specs of the new xbox
Its been long rumors both sony and ms were going to unveil the new systems via an apple style press conference. With GDC and E3 been a platform to showcase the software.
Might just be true,
Sony look to be trying to get the first blood, cant blame them
If i remember correctly sony told the other day that theyr not gonna release ps4 before the new xbox or atleast until they know the specs of the new xbox
never said release, just announce.
They can still make little tweaks to the hardware.
Development sources with working knowledge of both next generation consoles have told us that PlayStation 4 will be more powerful than the next Xbox, will ship with a redesigned controller and launch by the end of the year in Japan and the US. PlayStation 4’s European launch will follow in early 2014.
Sony is set to reveal its next PlayStation on Wednesday February 20th at an event dubbed ‘see the future’. Sony Computer Entertainment released a teaser video last night to announce the event. Below, our sources revealed what to expect from PlayStation 4.
The controller
Sources close to the hardware have revealed to us that PS4 will ship with a redesigned controller which is the same size as an existing DualShock but features a small touchpad in place of the existing Select, Start and PS buttons. The tech is based on Vita’s rear touchpad, and is similarly responsive in use.
A new Share button on the controller will, when pressed, launch a new feature that will allow screenshots and video to be distributed online. The PS4 hardware will continually record the most recent 15 minutes of onscreen action (with no processing penalty, claims our source), which users will then be able to edit and broadcast via the Internet.
The launch
We’re told that PlayStation 4 will launch in Japan and the US by Christmas, with a Euro rollout following in early 2014, the delay attributed to the complexities involved in European distribution. Alongside the console, Sony will also introduce a new, improved iteration of its PlayStation Eye peripheral, which remains compatible with the PlayStation Move controller. Move will be available at launch, but it’s not clear yet whether it will be bundled with the hardware.
The specification
Sony has already earned an enormous amount of goodwill among studios working with PS4 development hardware. Privately, Sony representatives have conceded that the company made a mistake in creating such esoteric architecture for PS3, and its strategy for PS4 gives developers more opportunities this time around, notably because the hardware is much more PC-like in its makeup than PS3.
We have confirmed with sources that recently leaked tech specs are accurate. Though Durango devkits offer 8GB of DDR3 RAM, compared to Orbis’s 4GB, Sony’s GDDR5 solution is capable of moving data at 176 gigabytes per second, which should eliminate the sort of bottlenecks that hampered PS3 game performance. Importantly, we’ve learned that Sony has told developers that it is pushing for the final PS4 RAM to match up to Microsoft’s 8GB.
Both platforms are driven by eight-core AMD CPUs clocked at 1.6GHz, with Microsoft opting for a D3D11.x GPU from an unknown source and Sony utilising a more capable solution in AMD’s ‘R10XX’ architecture, alongside the so-called ‘Liverpool’ system-on-chip.
It’s clear Sony has designed a system that, on paper, outperforms Microsoft’s next Xbox. One source familiar with both platforms tells us that in real terms Sony’s console is “slightly more powerful” and “very simple to work with”.
Ultimately, the performance differences between the two consoles will have as much bearing on multiplatform releases as the differences between PS3 and 360 – very little – but Sony will be expecting big-budget firstparty releases such as the PS4 Uncharted sequel to demonstrate its console’s superiority.
Sources familiar with the Microsoft console tell Polygon that Microsoft, while already aware of Sony's launch timing, plans to hold its own announcement this spring, months after Sony's unveiling. A variety of form-factors for Microsoft's new console, we're told, are already being focus tested.
Both next generation consoles will focus on expanding their reach beyond core gaming to include more entertainment and social aspects, according to our sources. That could include, we're told, a subsidized version of the Xbox that serves as both a gaming platform and a cable box, though agreements with cable companies have yet to be finalized. Last year, The Verge reported that Microsoft was also working on a subsidized low-cost alternative to its next-gen console.
Always love how people say consoles holding back gaming when in truth, their pushing it ahead.
You can name probably 3 reasons why. I will gladly read them, so feel free to enlighten me.
Because games optimized for PCs is optimized for the most common PC on the market and that is very old PCs in asia. Just look at blizzard games that is optimized for the asian market. Old ugly games that runs well on the first generation dual core computers.
While hybrid games like Battlefield 3 is optimized to run on quad core computers. Since its optimized for quad cores the game does not fully utilize the consoles but it runs pretty good.
There are ofc some games like Call of Duty that is optimized on old dual core PCs and is far from optimized for consoles and in those cases PC gaming is holding back the consoles.
Always love how people say consoles holding back gaming when in truth, their pushing it ahead.
You can name probably 3 reasons why. I will gladly read them, so feel free to enlighten me.
Because games optimized for PCs is optimized for the most common PC on the market and that is very old PCs in asia. Just look at blizzard games that is optimized for the asian market. Old ugly games that runs well on the first generation dual core computers.
While hybrid games like Battlefield 3 is optimized to run on quad core computers. Since its optimized for quad cores the game does not fully utilize the consoles but it runs pretty good.
There are ofc some games like Call of Duty that is optimized on old dual core PCs and is far from optimized for consoles and in those cases PC gaming is holding back the consoles.
Oh-uh, you are starting from least exciting subject, and i couldn't care less about graphics right now, since gameplay is much more important. Blizzard games (ALL OF THEM) never had astonishing graphics, but gameplay was great. It's one of the most successful game company just becouse when you bought their game you knew it's game for years.
OK, i will break it down for ya. There is vast amount of games that don't even use 64-bit technology of your proc, so why concerned about x-core tech?Dev teams will get there probably. Someday.
And yea it's probably hard to optimize games for consoles to get this hardcoded 30 fps with no way to change settings.
#1519108 by unknown[512599] at 2013-02-02 12:40:39 (5 months ago) - [Quote] - [Report]
Belnick wrote:
Agent204 wrote:
Because they need something that can be mass-produced at a reasonable price and be sold to the average consumer. Anyone who wants one should be able to buy one.
At any rate, I'm more worried about how they approach the controls and what gets the most attention. If peripherals like kinect, sixaxis and whatnot become more prevalent, we're less likely to get (good) ports and games that offer precise controls (i.ex. more likely to rely on control-assists).
that is why the ps3 cost the same as a high end cpu, mobo and gpu when the ps3 was new ?
and still used mediocre specs
You could buy/build a pc that could outperform the ps3 when it was released for the price it cost?
Where is this magical store that sold parts for much less than everywhere else?
And there is a big difference from upgrading a PC and building one from scratch.
A bluray rom on its own was a substantial chunk of the cost of a PS3 not to mention, cpu, gpu, motherboard, case, psu etc etc etc
Its not even about numbers anyway, its about what they can produce on screen and no pc could be built from scratch that looked better than the PS3 or Xbox 360 for that matter when they were released.
Because games optimized for PCs is optimized for the most common PC on the market and that is very old PCs in asia. Just look at blizzard games that is optimized for the asian market. Old ugly games that runs well on the first generation dual core computers.
While hybrid games like Battlefield 3 is optimized to run on quad core computers. Since its optimized for quad cores the game does not fully utilize the consoles but it runs pretty good.
There are ofc some games like Call of Duty that is optimized on old dual core PCs and is far from optimized for consoles and in those cases PC gaming is holding back the consoles.
About battlefield if u remember correctly from the launch it took them 3 patches to optimize the game for the pc and it took them 1 year to remove the blue tint that all xbox games have
As for the blizzard games ur right i can play diablo 3 on a g210 gpu (30$)
Always love how people say consoles holding back gaming when in truth, their pushing it ahead.
You can name probably 3 reasons why. I will gladly read them, so feel free to enlighten me.
Because games optimized for PCs is optimized for the most common PC on the market and that is very old PCs in asia. Just look at blizzard games that is optimized for the asian market. Old ugly games that runs well on the first generation dual core computers.
While hybrid games like Battlefield 3 is optimized to run on quad core computers. Since its optimized for quad cores the game does not fully utilize the consoles but it runs pretty good.
There are ofc some games like Call of Duty that is optimized on old dual core PCs and is far from optimized for consoles and in those cases PC gaming is holding back the consoles.
Oh-uh, you are starting from least exciting subject, and i couldn't care less about graphics right now, since gameplay is much more important. Blizzard games (ALL OF THEM) never had astonishing graphics, but gameplay was great. It's one of the most successful game company just becouse when you bought their game you knew it's game for years.
And yea it's probably hard to optimize games for consoles to get this hardcoded 30 fps with no way to change settings.
Actually blizzard games did have some good graphics. Warcraft 2 had super nice graphics when it got released believe it was one of the first major games with SVGA resolution. Same goes for Warcraft 3 when it got released. One of the first RTS with full 3D graphics that required high end graphics card if you wanted to max out the graphics @ 1600x1200.
And I don't agree on the gameplay part anymore. Since activizionblizzard they have only released a bunch of crap really.
Quote:
OK, i will break it down for ya. There is vast amount of games that don't even use 64-bit technology of your proc, so why concerned about x-core tech?Dev teams will get there probably. Someday.
What on earth are you talking about?
x-core tech? Are you talking about multicore support in games? You do realize that if you do like most game developers does today and put the majority of the load on a single thread you are going to get massive fps drops and as you can see in a lot of games that is the case.
But that is not the only thing, if the game is threaded well they can utilize the cpu better and put more load on it. And that in return means the cpu does not require that high clockspeed.
And lower clockspeeds means less power and that is less heat and less cooling means less noise.
cronogr wrote:
Jooboo wrote:
Because games optimized for PCs is optimized for the most common PC on the market and that is very old PCs in asia. Just look at blizzard games that is optimized for the asian market. Old ugly games that runs well on the first generation dual core computers.
While hybrid games like Battlefield 3 is optimized to run on quad core computers. Since its optimized for quad cores the game does not fully utilize the consoles but it runs pretty good.
There are ofc some games like Call of Duty that is optimized on old dual core PCs and is far from optimized for consoles and in those cases PC gaming is holding back the consoles.
About battlefield if u remember correctly from the launch it took them 3 patches to optimize the game for the pc and it took them 1 year to remove the blue tint that all xbox games have
As for the blizzard games ur right i can play diablo 3 on a g210 gpu (30$)
The blue tint is still there. Was a mod that removed it but that was considered cheating.
The blue tint is not something they have taken from the console versions. It is a graphical design they choose to use to make the game look more realistic.
And BF3 worked for me without any major problems since day 1. Only problems Ive had was that it reset the graphical settings now and then and their browser launcher was a bag of poop.
and and my ancient server that is standing on a chair here, not being used is
2.8ghz x 4
2.8ghz x 4
24k ram
so yes i think that is little better
they could have used 2,9ghz, like Intel Xeon E5-2690 Octacore 2,9GHz
they are gonna mass produce so it will be cheaper and it will last longer, but ofc that would hinder the development of the playstation 5
Dave7t3 wrote:
You could buy/build a pc that could outperform the ps3 when it was released for the price it cost?
Where is this magical store that sold parts for much less than everywhere else?
And there is a big difference from upgrading a PC and building one from scratch.
A bluray rom on its own was a substantial chunk of the cost of a PS3 not to mention, cpu, gpu, motherboard, case, psu etc etc etc
Its not even about numbers anyway, its about what they can produce on screen and no pc could be built from scratch that looked better than the PS3 or Xbox 360 for that matter when they were released.
That is also besides the point. If you buy more than five games a year you WILL spend more money with a console because of the licensing fees that adds on to the console game prices. PS3 games cost €69 at launch when the ps3 was new, the 360 games were cheaper at €59. Pc games are always cheaper, both at launch and also because of steam sales etc.
(Loud Mr.Miagi) at 2013-02-01 01:07:13 (5 months ago) - [
