Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

Grayditch

riclad wrote: »

I hope both companys will allow other third party controllers ,
i dont like the sony controller.

I don't think the 360 Controller needed any changing anyway, it's probably the best controller going, which is why the PS4 joypad is more like it now, a fair bit thicker. I'm sure the XB One controller will be as good as the 360, as it doesn't seem all that different.

Captain Chaos

It's like how Sony marketed the PS3 as the most powerful console. It was in CPU performance yes, but the GPU in the 360 was more powerful and the 360 has the better graphics rendering capability of the two but very few people know. Look at the vast majority of cross platform titles and most look and run better on the 360. There are a few exceptions like Oblivion and Dragon Age 1 that stand out as running and looking better on the PS3.

For number crunching the PS3 wins hands down as Folding at home app showed first hand.

But this time the CPU and GPU (APU) of the PS4 is more powerful and with the GDDR5 RAM, is a great match. MS going with the addition of eSRAM with DDR3 is interesting and time will tell how these two end up.

ShaneU

"I don't like the Sony controller"

You haven't even touched it.

ShiverinEskimo

ShaneU wrote: »

"I don't like the Sony controller"

You haven't even touched it.

It's the same size, dimensions and layout as the current one. I accept a lot of the speculation cannot be confirmed until we have our hands on it but as long as that left thumbstick is in that unnatural position, it is perfectly safe to say "I don't like the Sony controller".

riclad

I prefer the xbox one ,stick layout.
There,s video ,images of both controllers on the web.
I wonder will they allow keyboard ,mouse control ,for rts games ,and
games like diablo ,torchlight .
There was a few rts games released on the 360,
halo , etc but they used the 360 controller for input.

i liked the original xbox, controller ,ie the controller for the 1st xbox.

I don,t think the ps4 controller stick layout is as comfortable as the 360 design.

I think programming for the ps4 might be a bit easier as ,
the ps4 will have more memory avaidable for games ,
as opposed to kinect ,tv, apps on the 360.

Reamer Fanny

riclad wrote: »

90 per cent of people don,t use kinect,
its for kids games ,or fitness ,dancing games.
XBOX is running windows 8

The Xbox doesn't run Windows 8 lmao, it's a proprietary system sure it resembles the Windows 8 Metro UI but thats where the similarities end - it's not going to be running Windows 8.

pleasant Co.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It's the same size, dimensions and layout as the current one. I accept a lot of the speculation cannot be confirmed until we have our hands on it but as long as that left thumbstick is in that unnatural position, it is perfectly safe to say "I don't like the Sony controller".

Doesn't look like that's accurate:



I've preferred the xbox controller to the ds3 personally, but like the powerbrick, on it's own it was never a dealbreaker.

Orim

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Doesn't look like that's accurate:

I've preferred the xbox controller to the ds3 personally, but like the powerbrick, on it's own it was never a dealbreaker.

It looks better but the idiotic placement of the left thumbstick is still a major point against it.

Tea 1000

Orim wrote: »

It looks better but the idiotic placement of the left thumbstick is still a major point against it.

I've no idea why Sony don't change that. It's the biggest complaint I've seen against it from owners and non-owners alike (as in folk who didn't buy it because of the controller). It's not as if they'd be copying the 360 controller, the GameCube controller was around earlier and was quite similar ergonomically to the 360 one.

Stone Deaf 4evr

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/06/19/xbox-one-will-require-day-one-update

good breakdown on how the new software effects things like smart matchmaking etc.

TNT2k_

Orim wrote: »

It looks better but the idiotic placement of the left thumbstick is still a major point against it.

I've used both extensively and although I prefer the xbox controller, it's not at all by much. The left stick doesn't bother me, it's the smallish size that annoyed me a bit at times, the triggers could've been better too.

I was watching this video off ign here where they were talking about "if you had to pick one console, which one would it be?" and towards end the panel of lads said that the dual shock 4 is vastly improved and both it and the One are pretty much equal now. I'm happy as long as everything is improved (which it is by the sounds of things) and I'm happy with the sticks either way as they don't bother me, so there's no complaints from me!

Blazer

Orim wrote: »

It looks better but the idiotic placement of the left thumbstick is still a major point against it.

+1 ...Its a ridiculous place to put it into ..I love the xbox controller so would be looking for a ps4 version as well if I go that way.

Pushtrak

Eurogamer just posted an article on the PS4 and One controllers...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-joypads-a-true-evolution

http://omg.wthax.org/6rX43k.jpg

TNT2k_

Deleted User wrote: »

http://omg.wthax.org/6rX43k.jpg

Are people still holding to their guns on that cloud shite? It was all a lie. If it was as important and centred around "the Xbox experience" as they said, it couldn't be removed because of it's importance.

PhlegmyMoses

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Are people still holding to their guns on that cloud shite? It was all a lie. If it was as important and centred around "the Xbox experience" as they said, it couldn't be removed because of it's importance.

This is a weird statement. We'll never really know what was going to happen here. Anything can be removed if the company is that worried about losing money. The Kinect is centred around the Xbox Experience and could easily be removed if they thought that enough people were going to avoid the console completely because of it.

TNT2k_

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is a weird statement. We'll never really know what was going to happen here. Anything can be removed if the company is that worried about losing money. The Kinect is centred around the Xbox Experience and could easily be removed if they thought that enough people were going to avoid the console completely because of it.

No I mean we didn't want DRM and those few who weren't happy to see it go because they thought the cloud was something real and practical and was the future are still sticking to their guns defending it. It was a marketing gimmick, but my point was is that Microsoft made it seem like a real thing that would pay off hugely long-term, yet they couldn't explain it and it was so easily removed it only gives weight to the fact that it was all a load of hot air and nothing more.

I get what they're trying to do with kinect because if they made it optional it wouldn't catch on and it's features wouldn't be widely implemented in the majority of xbox consoles.

I'm not a fan of it but I get that. If they were to remove all that mandatory kinect it would be a lot more appealing, but I'd be thinking "wtf are they doing?" "They seem to be making it all up as they go along" which is not good if you don't show a clear focus yet ask €500 for the privilege of finding out.

Rascasse

The cloud hasn't been removed. Cloud storage is still there (just not lending) and cloud computing is still there (e.g Titanfall relies on it for AI as does Forza for the Drivertar/AI matching).

Pushtrak

How many developers will make use of the cloud though? It's kinda double think to think it'll be used by lots of developers. I could be proven wrong on it, but think about it. We acknowledge that kinect not being part of the 360 didn't get used by developers to its ability. Without the 24 hour online thing, the motivation to include cloud stuff is going to suffer a blow. Online capability isn't going to be a presumption. Now, I can live with that. Being unable to play offline is too high a cost but to people looking to the cloud as something to be serious about, I'd advise caution on that.

PhlegmyMoses

TNT2k_ wrote: »

No I mean we didn't want DRM and those few who weren't happy to see it go because they thought the cloud was something real and practical and was the future are still sticking to their guns defending it. It was a marketing gimmick, but my point was is that Microsoft made it seem like a real thing that would pay off hugely long-term, yet they couldn't explain it and it was so easily removed it only gives weight to the fact that it was all a load of hot air and nothing more.

Cloud computing and streaming games is the future. It may have been held off this gen but it is coming. Sony have Gakai, MS have reined it in but it is going to happen sooner or later. Agreed that MS didn't explain it well, but then that can be said for every single part of their reveal and E3 presentation.

TNT2k_

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Cloud computing and streaming games is the future. It may have been held off this gen but it is coming. Sony have Gakai, MS have reined it in but it is going to happen sooner or later. Agreed that MS didn't explain it well, but then that can be said for every single part of their reveal and E3 presentation.

I agree that streaming is the future, I've yet to see how that works out on the PS4 but it'll have to convince me first as I'm a bit sceptical. What Microsoft was promising is that computation would've been handled by the cloud, but given the latency and bandwidth issues involved, that was a big farce in reality and only low latency and limited computation could be possible.

Rascasse wrote: »

The cloud hasn't been removed. Cloud storage is still there (just not lending) and cloud computing is still there (e.g Titanfall relies on it for AI as does Forza for the Drivertar/AI matching).

Titanfall is on PC and 360 too, how is that going to affect them? I'd say there won't be a difference between the PC and ONE version where AI is concerned, cloud computing or not.

Rascasse

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Titanfall is on PC and 360 too, how is that going to affect them? I'd say there won't be a difference between the PC and ONE version where AI is concerned, cloud computing or not.

Well they said Titanfall couldn't be made without the Xbox One cloud support, that moving AI to the cloud freed up 2 processor threads to be used elsewhere. They've also said that "We won’t get all the nice-ities on PCs that you get on Xbox One. There will be some re-engineering things."

They've rowed back to say the PC version won't be inferior (because they want to sell it) but it will be interesting to see how they do it or what they lose.

No idea about the 360, I'd be wary of cut down games for old/inferior hardware.

FlyingIrishMan

Rascasse wrote: »

Well they said Titanfall couldn't be made without the Xbox One cloud support, that moving AI to the cloud freed up 2 processor threads to be used elsewhere. They've also said that "We won’t get all the nice-ities on PCs that you get on Xbox One. There will be some re-engineering things."

They've rowed back to say the PC version won't be inferior (because they want to sell it) but it will be interesting to see how they do it or what they lose.

No idea about the 360, I'd be wary of cut down games for old/inferior hardware.

They later stated that those niceties were nothing more than dedicated servers in good locations.

TNT2k_

Rascasse wrote: »

Well they said Titanfall couldn't be made without the Xbox One cloud support, that moving AI to the cloud freed up 2 processor threads to be used elsewhere. They've also said that "We won’t get all the nice-ities on PCs that you get on Xbox One. There will be some re-engineering things."

They've rowed back to say the PC version won't be inferior (because they want to sell it) but it will be interesting to see how they do it or what they lose.

No idea about the 360, I'd be wary of cut down games for old/inferior hardware.

Did it ever occur to you that this was Microsoft that had them say this to talk up the cloud, and "the power of the cloud" as they put it, to compensate for the now defunct DRM policies?

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

They later stated that those niceties were nothing more than dedicated servers in good locations.

Exactly.

Rascasse

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that this was Microsoft that had them say this to talk up the cloud, and "the power of the cloud" as they put it, to compensate for the now defunct DRM policies?

They said all that at E3, well before the u-turn.

Cloud computing is a real tangible thing. MS or game developers cannot lie about it as it will be obvious when the reviewers get the games if there is cloud processing or not.

It will be interesting to see if Sony jump on the cloud computing thing too. They don't have the knowledge or infrastructure that MS does but I'm sure it can be bought in from Amazon or someone else.

FlyingIrishMan

Rascasse wrote: »

They said all that at E3, well before the u-turn.

Cloud computing is a real tangible thing. MS or game developers cannot lie about it as it will be obvious when the reviewers get the games if there is cloud processing or not.

It will be interesting to see if Sony jump on the cloud computing thing too. They don't have the knowledge or infrastructure that MS does but I'm sure it can be bought in from Amazon or someone else.

Cloud Computing isn't something exclusive to the Xbox One:
http://n4g.com/news/1283531/sony-of-course-ps4-can-do-cloud-computing

Though I still don't see it providing any extreme advantages, definitely not something like improving graphics.

You're forgetting that Gaikai is the largest cloud gaming system in the world.

deceit

Rascasse wrote: »

They said all that at E3, well before the u-turn.

Cloud computing is a real tangible thing. MS or game developers cannot lie about it as it will be obvious when the reviewers get the games if there is cloud processing or not.

It will be interesting to see if Sony jump on the cloud computing thing too. They don't have the knowledge or infrastructure that MS does but I'm sure it can be bought in from Amazon or someone else.

Of course they can lie about it. Just look at sim city.
For processing power, cloud is not required for high end pc's and next gen consoles. It was just used as an excuse to sell drm.

bk

I'm sorry, but as a person with a degree in Computer Science and who actually works in the area of "cloud computing" * I can assure you that for video games, cloud computing is mostly bs.

The reality is that for most of the type of computation video games do, cloud computing simply isn't suited to it due to the limitations of bandwidth and latency of the internet connection between the cloud servers and your console.

Graphics need to be calculated in real time in order to respond to what is happening on screen.

It also might surprise people that AI isn't very computationally heavy. It has long been a solved problem, AI has to actually be limited or it ends up beating the gamer every time. There is little need to do it offline.

There are some limited scenarios where cloud computing can be useful, for instance online backups of saves, drivetars to play against, etc. But for the most part it doesn't really benefit video games and feels just like marketing BS for MS to try and make up for the fact that the X1 is significantly less powerful then the PS4

You can find a detailed article about cloud gaming here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming

* cloud computing is just a stupid new marketing term for something we have always had in the computer industry back to it foundations, in the forms of mainframes and client-server model.

TNT2k_

Rascasse wrote: »

They said all that at E3, well before the u-turn.

Exactly, before the U-turn to justify the always-on online connection. Now they've said it's not going to hold back the PC version, so I'd say it was said for marketing purposes.

Cloud computing is a real tangible thing. MS or game developers cannot lie about it as it will be obvious when the reviewers get the games if there is cloud processing or not.

It is a real thing, but you fail to understand how unviable it is right now. Only low latency computing can be done using it so things like lighting effects and physics would lag terribly, baring in mind you had a massive bandwidth speed to begin with. So I ask, what's the massive benefit of it right now if it's not good for anything substantial?

As of now cloud computing is nothing but a marketing gimmick. Microsoft knew they had the weaker console but said that it would be 10x more powerful with the power of the cloud. They're all empty promises, just as the DRM benefits were as well.

It will be interesting to see if Sony jump on the cloud computing thing too. They don't have the knowledge or infrastructure that MS does but I'm sure it can be bought in from Amazon or someone else.

They bought Gaikai in 2011 for over 380 million. They're already doing it and bought the leading streaming cloud gaming service to do it. Microsoft has proven nothing yet either so I wouldn't go talking about who has more experience in cloud gaming just yet.


Edit: forgot to mention that Sony have confirmed that the PS4 can do cloud computing, not that it's going to be of substantial use anyway, so you can lay to rest this notion that MS have some magic trick up their sleeve, it's all marketing drivel.

bk

I also laugh when people say Sony can't do cloud computing. Of course they can, anyone can and in particular Sony bought Gaikai the largest cloud based game service out there !!

It is just Sony don't go on about it too much as they know it is of only limited usefulness.