But there are several components of the Xbox One architecture which are unexplained and (possibly) non-intuitive. It's worth mentioning that the Xbox One architecture is much less straight forward than the Playstation 4 architecture - which could easily be argued as both a positive and a negative.
How can that POSSIBLY be a positive?
I thought the PS3 was proof that you really want to make development as easy as possible.
I still don't get how something being approximately 1.5 times better is anything to brag about so extensively or to believe that it will make that much of a difference.
Ask the 360 fanboys who cheered on 2-3 fps differences in multiplatform games and trolled ps3 users all day long.
The Sony fanboys (who are just as immature as those idiotic xbox fanboys) are taking their revenge now at any moment they get, and have more ammo since the architectures are so similar and it is easier to judge each consoles power. The Xbox fanboys didn't have that last gen due to the vastly differing components and architectures.
The Xbox fanboys would be having a field day too if the situation was reversed.
and btw, I hate both types posters and am not condoning the sony fanboys for their revenge.
Edit: Also doesn't help that MS revealed their console the way they did and had those policies in the beginning, really ticked a lot of people off, even Xbox fans, and reversing their stance on it didn't completely get rid of the damage.
PSN: SYRAPH , GT: TheRealSyraph Going through backlog by release date (almost), Current game: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Next up: Mini Ninjas
^ Fair enough, but the power difference seems to be getting a lot of focus lately when it makes no sense to me. Developers will always develop multiplats with the One in mind but the closeness in hardware will likely result in a negligible difference in quality anyway. PS4 may get the better looking exclusives, but that really won't matter because they're exclusives that likely weren't going to hit the One in the first place.
The $100 price difference, Live Vs. PS+ differences ("free" games), and mandatory Kinect are the bigger things I'd focus on but I guess they follow the trends...
It wouldn't be ridiculous at all, it would actually be quite reasonable for the system to have a second GPU. In fact, the leaked roadmap from 2010 actually showed the system having two GPUs. It would not however be the SAME GPU as the primary one like everyone seems to assume it has to be, it would a much simpler one for secondary tasks like media encoding/decoding, system overlays and OS usage, etc.
Along with the additional CPUs however, they probably cut it out for cost reasons and just transferred its tasks to the main GPU.
The context of the rumor (assuming it's the same one I read) is what was ridiculous. This wasn't a GPU meant to take the some of the work off from the main GPU, and it wasn't even rumored to match the power of the GPU already in there. No, it was a super secret Volcanic Islands powerhouse they were going to surprise everyone with.
Well the price gap is smaller and the Xbox One actually has advantages. It didn't launch like PS3 did with much less to offer in terms of games. Its got dedicated servers which could be far more important to those wanting third party MP games. Its got better OS features and integration due to snap and Kinect. Its also got Kinect to supplement gaming.
The PS3 launched for $200 more, looked worse, had no games and had an OS that took up 3x the space as the 360 but with worse performance. It was a big mystery in terms of what advantages it would have. The only advantage for like the first three or four years was being able to play Bluray bit Bluray itself made the games slower and require installs.