Oh and sorry, if I'm OT by referencing PCs!

I had both Xbox and PS3 pretty much until the Sony got hacked, and I then just stuck with xbl because of the livelier online presence.

Tapatalk ...

GPU limitations. It sounds to me like you had a more capable system and were freeing up some of the power.

Ah, yep. Apples and oranges.

Back on topic. The massive server farm for hosting I think pretty much seals the deal for me since all I do is fps online. I think its time to take my xbox360 to get credit towards a pre-order.

Tapatalk ...

If you can swing it I would keep my Xbox 360 for playing older games. I have some favorites I like to play that will make me keep mine for a while anyway.

Yeah, Windows has issues because of being popular, but nothing like they used to. They've made changes to their processes internally which has really helped. But it's still a huge codebase and attackers continue to get better with finding things like buffer overflows in various components. Plus the addition of various silly features to stuff that doesn't help the complexity (TCP/IP, SMB in recent years).


Also, having *accounts* hacked is one thing, and is sometimes user error/weakness. Having your entire network hacked to a degree that you have to take down your entire product for near a week? That's an endemic/inherent problem with your security.


Anyway, no need to belobor that vein of the topic. :)

You were being to narrow minded about the cloud processing power. I did not go more into detail with the response to why because SS_Firehawk answered it before I did a few posts down from your original message. Think outside the box brother!

I also agreed with you on the 5Tflops of power that may be stretching it, but again it is a theoretical number. At the same time these systems are being tested and cloud computing is nothing new. How Microsoft plans to implement it is, and people are just not understanding and/or letting it go in one ear and out the other. Games like Titanfall are already using the technology with great success.

Sony internet is still free, Playstation plus, which you pay $50 for will pay itself off the first free game you download. And theres dozens of free hot games to choose from.

It won't be on the PS4 and I think they said in November they would start charging for online access

Sent with TapAhoe

Finally! I found the perfect article to clear up some things on the 4k resolution. In a nut shell both systems will be able to output 4k video, gaming is a VERY far fetch. At most it will be by up-scaling the video and FPS would suffer greatly. At first sony was not even talking much about 4k video support. They finally announced it would. Out of the two systems they would be my best bet at 4k gaming due to the power of the system.

Well Sony has said in no way, shape, or form, will gaming be supported in 4k. So that pretty much eliminates Microsoft as well, regardless of what they say.

Here is the link for any Tech Geeks it is two pages long but clearly explains everything.
Xbox One vs PS4 4k Support

I looked it up. The PS3 will continue to be free and the PS4 will charge $5 a month based on having to make up for the costs of the features that will be available in the system.

I didn't look at the article at all but will the new consoles even do 1080p in all the games? I believe most current gen console games do 1080i and if you're lucky they'd do 720p? It's a shame they aren't making the hardware beefy enough to truly support 4K, the TVs will be affordable well before the 10 year console life cycle. what ever happened to planning for the future?

Consoles are strong enough for 1080P gaming @ 30fps. 60fps, it really depends on resources. PC gaming is a good indicator of what hardware can and can't handle, but at that same note, optimization will be improved on consoles and should see better performance with equal hardware. The big thing I see is optimizing memory usage. As new ways to implement AA, anisotropic filtering, shadow effects, lighting effects, and complexity of the game, it will become a limiting factor. 2gb is considered the recommendation now for 1080P and just a couple years ago 1gb was enough. Both Sony and MS had more powerful hardware available to them but the cost per unit could get astronomical. Most PC users know if you want to play @ 1080p at the highest fidelity settings, $1500 is a solid figure to estimate total cost of a well rounded system. Subtract SSD's, reduce HDD drive size, reduce enclosure costs, embed and integrate cooling, and remove OS costs, the under $500 total is still very far away. Integrating cpu and gpu into a single APU reduces costs, improves efficiency, reduces total material usage, and reduces power usage, but limits complexity of both cpu and gpu due to the packaging. It's still 28nm and putting too much hardware on a single APU will turn it into a smoldering oven too difficult to cool. Not only that, but increased complexity also means lower yields and higher costs due to unusable silicon.

Simply put: Yes both MS and Sony have the ability to bring something out that can have all these standards, but it will limit their market because very few people will want to spend $1,000+ on a console with features that are unusable for the next 4-5 years or for the 1% that can actually afford 4k TV's and GTX Titans for console GPU's. It's just not going to happen. Mommy and Daddy don't think Johnny needs a $$$ device to play video games. And everyone knows the Dads that do understand what I just said have a monster rig in their man cave already.

nicely put SS!

So with the topic of "next gen" gaming systems.
Thoughts on the outliers in the market. OUYA and future Android (and possibly iOS) gaming devices. Not exactly 1080P or 4K resolution, but many indie developers are sliding over to the systems.

Don't forget about the SteamBox