Not to start a flame war, but why did MS and Sony go for such low console specs?

#21Cowboy082288Posted 3/21/2014 11:37:45 PM
Golden Maven posted...
I'm sure the low RAM was a real bottleneck on the PS3 and 360, remember all the Bethesda games? I can live with a modest graphics bump, what we really needed is a RAM boost and we got it. I want to see more action on my screen and just a generally bigger scope for games.


What I'm wondering about is games like the total war series. That is the sort of thing that tends to break consoles down. Supreme commander on X360 was a complete mess. Always crashing.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#22hakmiyaPosted 3/21/2014 11:42:29 PM
I think It only looks lacking and even with the on paper so I don't really like to judge these new consoles by their spec, even with their sarchitecture. Personally I think the PS4 is pretty decent, can't really say the same for the $500 xbox one those.

Here is what gave me my perspective.
Recently I just got done with helping a family member put together a desktop.
We put in a 8 core amd cpu and a re branded 7970 video card. Excluding the rest of the parts Just these two components cost around $530.
The machine can play tombraider on ultra with fxAA and averaged 53 fps. Digital foundry clocked the PS4 version at 50 in one of their analysis.When looking at the Dxtory counter the game I did notice the lows were about 8 or so frames more but it seems negligible. The desktop was over $800, the console is $400 yet the performances with this particular game was pretty identical.
---
"Modern PC gamers are like Jehovah's witnesses. They keep knocking on doors to remind the world they still exist."-Bellum_Sacrum
#23Cowboy082288Posted 3/21/2014 11:43:38 PM
nightshadeA posted...
i posted a link to this on the pc board so be preapred for some corrections on the aforementioned statements


O no not the almighty PC board....... lol
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#24Xeeh_BitzPosted 3/22/2014 7:43:31 AM
hakmiya posted...
I think It only looks lacking and even with the on paper so I don't really like to judge these new consoles by their spec, even with their sarchitecture. Personally I think the PS4 is pretty decent, can't really say the same for the $500 xbox one those.

Here is what gave me my perspective.
Recently I just got done with helping a family member put together a desktop.
We put in a 8 core amd cpu and a re branded 7970 video card. Excluding the rest of the parts Just these two components cost around $530.
The machine can play tombraider on ultra with fxAA and averaged 53 fps. Digital foundry clocked the PS4 version at 50 in one of their analysis.When looking at the Dxtory counter the game I did notice the lows were about 8 or so frames more but it seems negligible. The desktop was over $800, the console is $400 yet the performances with this particular game was pretty identical.




http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/645/bench/Ultra_1920.png - 70 FPS

Also, ultra on the PC dominates Tomb Raider graphic wise on the consoles, not exactly a comparison
---
3770K | 780 Ti x 2
Steam: Xeeh Origin: TurboPeasant
#25richboy900Posted 3/22/2014 8:05:50 AM
SixStringHero posted...
I clearly remember the 360 having graphical effects that were not available on PCs at the time of launch.

The GPU wasn't surpassed until about 6 months after launch.


Yeah the 360 was a very capable machine. Still my favorite console ever. If only Microsoft approached the Xbox one with the same gaming first attitude.

The original Xbox was a powerhouse as well, pretty much a computer. It was on par with the Wii which is a seventh Gen console. Just a shame it was not supported that long, deserved more years.
#26Transdude(Topic Creator)Posted 3/22/2014 8:06:24 AM
Cowboy082288 posted...
nightshadeA posted...
i posted a link to this on the pc board so be preapred for some corrections on the aforementioned statements


O no not the almighty PC board....... lol


At least both this thread and it's double on the PS4 board haven't spiralled down into a flame war, but two guys on the PS4 thread are starting to argue about whether or not 4K will be a standard next gen.
---
Steam ID: jessegames1996 | 3DS FC: 2750-1600-2747 | Origin ID, NNID, & Live GT: Transdude1996
http://www.youtube.com/user/transdude1996
#27hakmiyaPosted 3/22/2014 8:41:08 AM
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
hakmiya posted...
I think It only looks lacking and even with the on paper so I don't really like to judge these new consoles by their spec, even with their sarchitecture. Personally I think the PS4 is pretty decent, can't really say the same for the $500 xbox one those.

Here is what gave me my perspective.
Recently I just got done with helping a family member put together a desktop.
We put in a 8 core amd cpu and a re branded 7970 video card. Excluding the rest of the parts Just these two components cost around $530.
The machine can play tombraider on ultra with fxAA and averaged 53 fps. Digital foundry clocked the PS4 version at 50 in one of their analysis.When looking at the Dxtory counter the game I did notice the lows were about 8 or so frames more but it seems negligible. The desktop was over $800, the console is $400 yet the performances with this particular game was pretty identical.




http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/645/bench/Ultra_1920.png - 70 FPS

Also, ultra on the PC dominates Tomb Raider graphic wise on the consoles, not exactly a comparison



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYG8cQlrNIc

I used my own two eyes. I don't Google up benchmarks of set ups I don't have, especially when driver software isn't consistent for everyone.

In some areas. the definitive version has better effects than the PC.
Don't try and BS social reject. I have it for and seen both on the same 42 inch monitor. Using two r9 290x's with the exception of the frame rates, the visual difference is no where near as huge as the PC house slave races claims. This isn't last gen. The PC version of these newer releases don't "Dominate" anything.
---
"Modern PC gamers are like Jehovah's witnesses. They keep knocking on doors to remind the world they still exist."-Bellum_Sacrum
#28schmarkenheimerPosted 3/22/2014 8:43:20 AM
I'd assume it's because both lost a lot of money last gen (took years for Sony to make a profit on the PS3, I think MS lost 1.5-2 billion, maybe more on rrod) so they took the much safer option. Probably part of why they took so long to release new gens too - wait long enough to have a relatively cheap upgrade. In 5 years time they'll make a big chunk of change off of them. I don't think 100m sales by the end of 2020 will be out of the question for either given their current sales. Advancing production, price drops etc will get a lot of units sold for both.

Assuming they don't get replaced by 2020 and with the profits they'll make, I hope they'll go a bit more expensive next time.
---
Post of the ****ing year. - crimsyn_76 Best. Example. Ever. - Veliconis
Epic. - Xade76 Want to run that by us in English instead of Derp, champ? - pies12