nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

deadybai

*NB*

See mod warning here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88945474&postcount=2483

*NB*

Not sure if there is a poll for this. Just wondering which one will you plan on getting?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

johnny_ultimate

When it comes to PS+, Netflix is the closest comparison. I still buy dozens of BluRays, DVDs and games (digital + disc based) every year, but for the price for three or four discs I get a dizzying amount of other content I can dip into whenever I want. In PS+, it's often games that I've been interested in playing or generally curious about but would likely never have had the motivation or money to pick them up. This can lead to plenty of welcome surprises and even a more positive, open mindset going into the game. Contrast, for example, is an imperfect game and feels somewhat rushed, but after a lot of middling reviews I was pleasantly surprised to find a game with a rich setting, good gameplay ideas and overall a well realised aesthetic and atmosphere. There's many more like that .

I was late to the PS Plus bandwagon: I too couldn't shake the fact that I wouldn't own the games. But a year or two ago it got to the point where the value and variety of the service improved exponentially. And, to Sony's credit, they actually have a strict quality control on it (even if Metacritic scores are a problematic barometer) - there's games you won't be interested in, but the vast majority of them are at least worth a chance and, for most players, a further majority will stick.

I still buy games I want to play - Steam, physical releases, whatever. But for a few euro a month, it's difficult to ignore, especially when I simply cannot afford to pay for all the interesting games out there. Like Netflix, I still occasionally wonder about the future viability. Right now, though, it's among the best few euro I spend a month. And, having grown up in a house where a video or game rental was a weekly ritual anyway, 'renting' has become a considerably more generous, long-term prospect anyway. I can't see a circumstance yet where I'm happy to surrender physical media and 'ownership' entirely. There's an infinite amount of great media out there simply not available through streaming or download channels, but a handful of subscription services out there offer pretty definitive bang for one's modest buck.

jonerkinsella

Titanfall looks like BF4 in a mech suit to me...I do not see what is so appealing about it. It's been all done so many times before.

Mehh.

Loll. I just seen that it's developed by the COD team.
http://www.ea.com/titanfall

I'm sorry for comparing Titanfall to BF4 now. Please accept my apology Dice

kunst nugget

Kirby wrote: »

Xbox live doesn't cover one system. It covers two. I know that lessens the impact of your statement a little bit but the truth tends to do that.

Tbf, the Instant Games Collection is across all 3 platforms with PSPlus at the moment while the games with Gold are only with the 360. I'd imagine that when they roll out the games for the One in the summer, they'll be on a rental/subscription basis like PSPlus.

At the moment, I have 48 games a year minimum with the Vita and PS3 to play with and I can 'purchase' the PS4 games so that I'll have a full library of them when I ever get the console.

CiDeRmAn

MS would make some decent money digging into their XBLA back catalogue and releasing the likes of Trials HD and Geometry Wars 2 for free, they've a vast, well received library of games there to be exploited.

wrt40

Aren't MS coming out with free games online soon? along with indie titles? PS4 has the advantage of being first on this front, but that is all.

wes

wrt40 wrote: »

Aren't MS coming out with free games online soon? along with indie titles? PS4 has the advantage of being first on this front, but that is all.

MS already has Games for Gold. The games there offering have been getting better slowly.

wrt40

sarumite wrote: »

If they do that, they would effectively kill kinect as a gaming peripheral. At which point you have a machine that is €100 more expensive with a Kinect that is largely unused, which is not something I imagine is particularly appealing for MS. If they tide of superior ports on the PS4 continues, they may have to do it, but I suspect it is not something they will do in the short term.

Personally I think MS were always going to be behind in the initial sales race as early adopters were likely to be the more dedicated gamers, the same people Sony were pitching their product to but not the same people targeted by MS. However as the market develops, I think MS can pull in potential customers who are attracted by its multimedia functionality.

Having done more research on this, it is actually 10%, 8% for the camera and 2% for the mics. The plan is to make this reserve optional, switching it off will give a 10% boost to the GPU.

The patch is due in March, so I think I will hold out on this to see what comes of it. This could be a deciding factor for me. Although I will most likely opt for the extra Kinect features, at least the option is there for me. The Xbox will probably still lag on the graphical front, but the gap will not be so wide.

Grayditch

wrt40 wrote: »

PS4 has the advantage of being first on this front, but that is all.

I don't think PsPlus is the only thing the PS4 has the advantage in right now. Hardware seems to be another and a larger list of titles set for release.

This will make for a great E3 hopefully. Microsoft will pull something very tempting out of the bag. I mean they have to. It's won't take a huge amount more that a few great new I.Ps and indie games to make me get an Xbox One.

RasTa

wrt40 wrote: »

The patch is due in March, so I think I will hold out on this to see what comes of it. This could be a deciding factor for me. Although I will most likely opt for the extra Kinect features, at least the option is there for me. The Xbox will probably still lag on the graphical front, but the gap will not be so wide.

Did you use the kinect much on the 360?

sarumite

wrt40 wrote: »

Having done more research on this, it is actually 10%, 8% for the camera and 2% for the mics. The plan is to make this reserve optional, switching it off will give a 10% boost to the GPU.

The patch is due in March, so I think I will hold out on this to see what comes of it. This could be a deciding factor for me. Although I will most likely opt for the extra Kinect features, at least the option is there for me. The Xbox will probably still lag on the graphical front, but the gap will not be so wide.

I know it is 10%, but allowing developers to use the 8% from the cameras utility was the figure mentioned in the report. Initially at least, it would suggest that 8% is the maximum MS would provide to developers. Lose camera functionality, keep voice. Considering the PS4 also has voice commands, this makes sense to me. Although at that point, the Kinect stops being relevant and they might as well sell a kinectless Xbone for the same price as a PS4....which I don't see happening

Grayditch

If motion control and flapping in front of cameras was the future, wouldn't PC gamers be doing it a long time ago? Regularly, I mean.

I like that the PSeye is optional, but if that's where console games are heading, where you can't escape it, PC it is for me.

wrt40

sarumite wrote: »

I know it is 10%, but allowing developers to use the 8% from the cameras utility was the figure mentioned in the report. Initially at least, it would suggest that 8% is the maximum MS would provide to developers. Lose camera functionality, keep voice. Considering the PS4 also has voice commands, this makes sense to me. Although at that point, the Kinect stops being relevant and they might as well sell a kinectless Xbone for the same price as a PS4....which I don't see happening

Surely it would be optional to the user? Switch off Kinect and get a resolution and\or frame rate boost. Or if developer has no use for Kinect then it simply wouldn't be available to the user and you automatically get the boost.

Kinect is already optional in most games, you simply don't have to use it. but what MS are saying is that if you don't want to use it then we might as well give you a 10% GPU boost.

Kinect will still be relevant as long as the Kinect remains part of the package and is not optional. Developers can use Kinect features safe in the knowledge that every Xbox One has the hardware.

sarumite

wrt40 wrote: »

Surely it would be optional to the user? Switch off Kinect and get a resolution and\or frame rate boost. Or if developer has no use for Kinect then it simply wouldn't be available to the user and you automatically get the boost.

I would imagine the latter is the most likeliest scenario. The developer has no use for Kinect, so it is not an option and you automatically get the boost. That said, voice commands are pretty integral to the operation of the OS, so that 2% would probably be locked down leaving the 8% available to developers. I suspect MS wants developers to use Kinect and my opinion is that the vast majority of 3rd party developers won't if they can simply use it make their games perform better.

kunst nugget

wrt40 wrote: »

Surely it would be optional to the user? Switch off Kinect and get a resolution and\or frame rate boost. Or if developer has no use for Kinect then it simply wouldn't be available to the user and you automatically get the boost.

Kinect is already optional in most games, you simply don't have to use it. but what MS are saying is that if you don't want to use it then we might as well give you a 10% GPU boost.

Kinect will still be relevant as long as the Kinect remains part of the package and is not optional. Developers can use Kinect features safe in the knowledge that every Xbox One has the hardware.

Developers can use the touchscreen features on the Vita safe in the knowledge that every Vita has them but most don't bother because they can't be bothered with the hassle of it when they're porting the game.

Kinect really should have been an optional peripheral rather than foisting it on to people that don't care for it. People are raving about the remote play option with the PS4 and the Vita but Sony wisely choose not to bundle them together.

Grayditch

Will developers turning off the Kinect make it easier for them to get the framerates and resolutions that the PS4 is getting, or does it come into play in other ways?

Pushtrak

12gauge dave wrote: »

I thought it was a playstation exclusive how wrong I was big fail by me.

Im gonna give tomb raider a go when I get paid again.

When is watch dogs set for release here?

Don't think any release date for Watch Dogs has been officially set.

Retr0gamer

Grayditch wrote: »

Will developers turning off the Kinect make it easier for them to get the framerates and resolutions that the PS4 is getting, or does it come into play in other ways?

Apparently it's a 8% gain in GPU power. Might give it a bit of a boost if it's true.

Retr0gamer

I feel both of the new consoles are a complete step back from what has come before.

Both consoles have 64-bit CPUs meaning that they are only as powerful as the Jaguar or the Nintendo 64. Sure the PS4 uses a 'Jaguar' CPU meaning it can only play Tempest 2000.

wrt40

sarumite wrote: »

I would imagine the latter is the most likeliest scenario. The developer has no use for Kinect, so it is not an option and you automatically get the boost. That said, voice commands are pretty integral to the operation of the OS, so that 2% would probably be locked down leaving the 8% available to developers. I suspect MS wants developers to use Kinect and my opinion is that the vast majority of 3rd party developers won't if they can simply use it make their games perform better.

I think it's a very big assumption to make that Kinect is useless and developers will not use it. Also that everyone hates it. I for one love the concept, have yet to be convinced of how practical it is but I'm not going to jump to conclusions that its a load of sh!te. Indications so far is that voice commands are an integral part of early release games and it will only grow from there. I need to learn more about what Kinect specific games are in the pipeline.

wrt40

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Apparently it's a 8% gain in GPU power. Might give it a bit of a boost if it's true.

This and also the fact that developers have not been utilising the available ESRAM. Basically, developers so far have been lazy and we are only talking about ports.

Grayditch

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Apparently it's a 8% gain in GPU power. Might give it a bit of a boost if it's true.

Looking at it in one way, that's a good thing. Another way is that developers have to disengage the €100 camera to bring the Xbox up to par with PS4 performance (not just to say it is, but to run cross platform games equally as well). People choosing a console might ask why they have to have the Kinect at all, if it's getting powered off so they can play the games the way they're supposed to be played.

I get that you'd use the camera for cameras related things, and it would turn off for let's say Tomb Raider, but this might mean developers will opt for performance over Kinect features when making a game?

This is why MS need a serious game or app for Kinect. It's looking like a deadweight until it's shown to be relevant. But maybe that's just from my point of view, I don't go for the camera sign in, or voice commands. Tried it on PS4 and it just seemed to lose it's charm after a day or two, but that camera was effectively free with the bundle I got, and it's back in the box for a while now. No hard feelings, PsEye.

It's kinda like buying a car and paying more for it with a trailer attached. Now they're saying you can take it off to make the car go faster to keep up.

I still think a Kinect-less Xbox was the way to go. I don't know enough about the market to know if it's suicide to do that now, but if so, then they need that game, that app, that mind blowing feature/vision of the future.

I don't feel bad for people who bought the PsEye and realised there's not a lot to do with it. They had a choice in the matter!

COYVB

wrt40 wrote: »

Indications so far is that voice commands are an integral part of early release games

They're not. They're an option feature of some, same as with the PS4, but they're relatively useless compared to the speed of a button press. It won't be until developers use them for things NOT mapped to the controller that we'll see how useful/popular they can get

COYVB

wrt40 wrote: »

This and also the fact that developers have not been utilising the available ESRAM. Basically, developers so far have been lazy and we are only talking about ports.

They have been utilizing it, I'm not sure they're able to NOT use it, given the way the system is - the eSRAM has been the problem with performance. Nothing to do with laziness, it's down to nobody knowing how to use it properly

COYVB

Grayditch wrote: »

Will developers turning off the Kinect make it easier for them to get the framerates and resolutions that the PS4 is getting, or does it come into play in other ways?

they say it's an 8-10% resource drain, but combined with the eSRAM issue, I'd say parity could still be a ways off. Once devs understand how best to use the eSRAM you'll probably get relative parity with what's around now,but at that stage PS4 will also have been further optimized

Retr0gamer

Think how long it took the PS3 to reach parity with the 360 on third party releases and you are looking at the same kind of figure. Then it still got absolute disasters like Bayonetta. PS4 will be the primary platform for consoles for the generation.

Grayditch

COYVB wrote: »

but at that stage PS4 will also have been further optimized

I wondered this. When they begin to learn ways to utilise the XBoxes power, surely that will occur with PS4.

It really feels like a reverse of the last console generation's launch(es). That would see Xbox finish on top eventually by busting a nut to do better, like Sony did. This would mean gamers with both consoles reap the rewards. Which is great.

RasTa

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Think how long it took the PS3 to reach parity with the 360 on third party releases and you are looking at the same kind of figure. Then it still got absolute disasters like Bayonetta. PS4 will be the primary platform for consoles for the generation.

Was the gap this big though? ie 720p on 360 v whatever the PS3 was doing?

COYVB

Grayditch wrote: »

I wondered this. When they begin to learn ways to utilise the XBoxes power, surely that will occur with PS4.

It really feels like a reverse of the last console generation's launch(es). That would see Xbox finish on top eventually by busting a nut to do better, like Sony did. This would mean gamers with both consoles reap the rewards. Which is great.

Yup, if the theory behind eSRAM is sound, and there's proper optimisation for it, it could well prove to be huge for the XBO - but it'll be a way off yet. With the PS4 I think developers know what they're getting, there aren't really any hidden surprises. With the XBO they've got to really figure things out like with the cell last gen

The problem there is that MS doesn't have anything close to the first party power Sony does, so you have to wonder who's going to be able to actually push the architecture like first party Sony devs did last time around. Paying third party devs truck loads of money for exclusivity on certain titles definitely won't work the way things did for Sony, because those third parties won't be as invested in the success of the platform - they'll be able to take their massive piles of cash and if it doesn't work out, they can still go multiplatform on other titles. Naughty Dog, for example, didn't have that option

COYVB

RasTa wrote: »

Was the gap this big though? ie 720p on 360 v whatever the PS3 was doing?

It was, yeah. Early PS3 multiplatform games were dreadful ports

sarumite

wrt40 wrote: »

I think it's a very big assumption to make that Kinect is useless and developers will not use it. Also that everyone hates it. I for one love the concept, have yet to be convinced of how practical it is but I'm not going to jump to conclusions that its a load of sh!te. Indications so far is that voice commands are an integral part of early release games and it will only grow from there. I need to learn more about what Kinect specific games are in the pipeline.

No developer wants to be accused of making a bad port of a game (platinum have described their PS3 port of Bayonetta as their biggest failure). If the developer needs that additional 8% to make the XBone version on parity with the PS4 version, then they can't use the kinect. So I am not saying that the kinect is useless, merely that developers may not be able to use it if they need the additional 8% .