Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Next Xbox and PS5 rumoured to be in development

91 replies to this topic
RyanBurnsRed
  • RyanBurnsRed

    We're born with nothing and we die alone

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • United-States

#31

Posted 06 June 2014 - 12:21 AM

 

 

Yea but did you count on the fact you don't own those games? If you're not online you can't play them. 

 

You don't own any game you buy. Retail or digital, it doesn't matter. 

The only thing you own is the license to play it.

 

You own the disc. You own the case. You license the data in the disc. So you're wrong. 

 

That's why I feel digital should be cheaper. What do you honestly own? NOTHING

 

 

FZOEnmc.png

  • Th3MaN1, Killerdude and Geralt of Rivia like this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#32

Posted 06 June 2014 - 12:40 AM

 

 

Yea but did you count on the fact you don't own those games? If you're not online you can't play them. 

 

You don't own any game you buy. Retail or digital, it doesn't matter. 

The only thing you own is the license to play it.

 

You own the disc. You own the case. You license the data in the disc. So you're wrong. 

Lol, you realize you just repeated exactly what he said, right?


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#33

Posted 06 June 2014 - 01:29 AM Edited by redx165, 06 June 2014 - 01:30 AM.

 

 

 

Yea but did you count on the fact you don't own those games? If you're not online you can't play them. 

 

You don't own any game you buy. Retail or digital, it doesn't matter. 

The only thing you own is the license to play it.

 

You own the disc. You own the case. You license the data in the disc. So you're wrong. 

Lol, you realize you just repeated exactly what he said, right?

 

Yes, I guess you guys don't understand what I mean. Physical copies takes up more money than digital copies. You got to get the discs, game tray, ship it,  and etc... that understandable and you own the it. What you do with that game is up to you. You paid that $60 while with digital copies which should be way cheaper you can't do anything with the game. Can't sell it, trade it, lean it. Digital copies should be $50 or less. 


Straight Edge Steve
  • Straight Edge Steve

    Great Gonzos!

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#34

Posted 06 June 2014 - 01:33 AM

Money grubbin' big cerperashuns!


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#35

Posted 06 June 2014 - 01:39 AM

I got your point. It just, in no way, was related to what he was saying.


GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#36

Posted 06 June 2014 - 02:24 AM

Next gen just came out. There no reason to start making next gen already. Maybe in 2 years they can start developing it. 

 

These consoles won't last as long as the last gen and how long it takes to develop a console, of course they're working on it. They failed this gen, considering both consoles aren't native 1080p and we're on the verge of 4k. Its a given.

 

 

Yes, I guess you guys don't understand what I mean. Physical copies takes up more money than digital copies. You got to get the discs, game tray, ship it,  and etc... that understandable and you own the it. What you do with that game is up to you. You paid that $60 while with digital copies which should be way cheaper you can't do anything with the game. Can't sell it, trade it, lean it. Digital copies should be $50 or less. 

 

 

Good thing for Gamefly. $30 a month for 3 games and never have to buy any new games, ever. :^:


Burbalade
  • Burbalade

    Ebay Wizard

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#37

Posted 06 June 2014 - 02:59 AM

Just because thy're not ignoring the fact that they'll make another console means the new one is already in development?


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#38

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:00 AM

 

Next gen just came out. There no reason to start making next gen already. Maybe in 2 years they can start developing it. 

 

These consoles won't last as long as the last gen and how long it takes to develop a console, of course they're working on it. They failed this gen, considering both consoles aren't native 1080p and we're on the verge of 4k. Its a given.

 

 

Yes, I guess you guys don't understand what I mean. Physical copies takes up more money than digital copies. You got to get the discs, game tray, ship it,  and etc... that understandable and you own the it. What you do with that game is up to you. You paid that $60 while with digital copies which should be way cheaper you can't do anything with the game. Can't sell it, trade it, lean it. Digital copies should be $50 or less. 

 

 

Good thing for Gamefly. $30 a month for 3 games and never have to buy any new games, ever. :^:

 

Think about it though,

 

In order for consoles to reach this 1080p point is if they have the hardware. Sony made the mistake with the PS3 and put that machine at $600 while selling it at a lose. Consoles are a cheaper form of entertainment. 

 

Honestly maybe I still got hope in "Next Gen" cause I don't believe they're developing games 100% for it. 

 

Watch Dogs - Cross Gen 792p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Infamous - 1080p

Battlefield 4 - Cross Gen 720p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Call of Duty Ghost - Cross gen 720p Xbox One while 1080p PS4

Forza 5 - 1080p and 60 FPS 

Killzone Shadow Fall - 1080p ( Single Player ) MP ( 60 FPS )

 

If you look at these games you can tell PS4 does hit 1080p on games made for it. Watch Dogs which was made crappy on all system, Battlefield 4 which was a RUSH piece of sh*t didn't make it. Surprise Ghost hit it to be honest. 


Mista J
  • Mista J

    I can't wait to show you my toys...

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#39

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:21 AM Edited by DarthShinobi, 06 June 2014 - 03:24 AM.

ESRAM screws the XBO. 32MB isn't enough of a framebuffer for 1080p, it's possible but it probably takes a bit more of an effort so devs probably just lower the res to release multiplats on time. Plus it depends on the graphics fidelity that the devs use.

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#40

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:27 AM

You're not getting it redx. It's 2014. All games should be 1080p/60FPS. Not 1080 30 or 900 60.

It's sad that the consoles can't do it. I can understand the X1, as it's not a gaming console, but that's still a poor excuse.

The point is that 4K's coming in the near future, and consoles released in 2013 still can't even do 1080 60 with nearly everything.

That's the problem.

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#41

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:49 AM

You're not getting it redx. It's 2014. All games should be 1080p/60FPS. Not 1080 30 or 900 60.

It's sad that the consoles can't do it. I can understand the X1, as it's not a gaming console, but that's still a poor excuse.

The point is that 4K's coming in the near future, and consoles released in 2013 still can't even do 1080 60 with nearly everything.

That's the problem.

4k won't be big for some time. Do you realize 4k is going to be expensive as f*ck?

 

Tell me when has consoles were suppose to be 60 FPS? Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC that you can play the newest games on. 

 

You won't tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS on a third person game. 60 FPS is important for Racing, Shooting, and fighting games. Still I don't understand how its sad that PS4/One can't do it. Its sad that Xbox One still does 720p.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#42

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:50 AM



The point is that 4K's coming in the near future, and consoles released in 2013 still can't even do 1080 60 with nearly everything.

 

That is the main problem. It isn't a problem right now but once developers like Rockstar start pushing consoles to their limits, then there'll be quite a lot of problems. Especially with the X1.


GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#43

Posted 06 June 2014 - 04:33 AM

Think about it though,

 

 

In order for consoles to reach this 1080p point is if they have the hardware. Sony made the mistake with the PS3 and put that machine at $600 while selling it at a lose. Consoles are a cheaper form of entertainment. 

 

Honestly maybe I still got hope in "Next Gen" cause I don't believe they're developing games 100% for it. 

 

Watch Dogs - Cross Gen 792p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Infamous - 1080p

Battlefield 4 - Cross Gen 720p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Call of Duty Ghost - Cross gen 720p Xbox One while 1080p PS4

Forza 5 - 1080p and 60 FPS 

Killzone Shadow Fall - 1080p ( Single Player ) MP ( 60 FPS )

 

If you look at these games you can tell PS4 does hit 1080p on games made for it. Watch Dogs which was made crappy on all system, Battlefield 4 which was a RUSH piece of sh*t didn't make it. Surprise Ghost hit it to be honest. 

 

 

Duh, that is why these systems won't last as long as the last ones because the put in lower-end hardware compared to the last gen. Plus, that doesn't matter because some games look better on the One than the PS4 anyways.

 

 

4k won't be big for some time. Do you realize 4k is going to be expensive as f*ck?

 

Tell me when has consoles were suppose to be 60 FPS? Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC that you can play the newest games on. 

 

You won't tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS on a third person game. 60 FPS is important for Racing, Shooting, and fighting games. Still I don't understand how its sad that PS4/One can't do it. Its sad that Xbox One still does 720p.

 

 

No sh*t, by the time the systems come out 4k will be mainstream and hardware won't be as expensive. You gotta think futurely, not presently.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#44

Posted 06 June 2014 - 05:03 AM Edited by redx165, 06 June 2014 - 05:07 AM.

 

Think about it though,

 

 

In order for consoles to reach this 1080p point is if they have the hardware. Sony made the mistake with the PS3 and put that machine at $600 while selling it at a lose. Consoles are a cheaper form of entertainment. 

 

Honestly maybe I still got hope in "Next Gen" cause I don't believe they're developing games 100% for it. 

 

Watch Dogs - Cross Gen 792p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Infamous - 1080p

Battlefield 4 - Cross Gen 720p Xbox One while 900p PS4

Call of Duty Ghost - Cross gen 720p Xbox One while 1080p PS4

Forza 5 - 1080p and 60 FPS 

Killzone Shadow Fall - 1080p ( Single Player ) MP ( 60 FPS )

 

If you look at these games you can tell PS4 does hit 1080p on games made for it. Watch Dogs which was made crappy on all system, Battlefield 4 which was a RUSH piece of sh*t didn't make it. Surprise Ghost hit it to be honest. 

 

 

Duh, that is why these systems won't last as long as the last ones because the put in lower-end hardware compared to the last gen. Plus, that doesn't matter because some games look better on the One than the PS4 anyways.

 

 

4k won't be big for some time. Do you realize 4k is going to be expensive as f*ck?

 

Tell me when has consoles were suppose to be 60 FPS? Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC that you can play the newest games on. 

 

You won't tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS on a third person game. 60 FPS is important for Racing, Shooting, and fighting games. Still I don't understand how its sad that PS4/One can't do it. Its sad that Xbox One still does 720p.

 

 

No sh*t, by the time the systems come out 4k will be mainstream and hardware won't be as expensive. You gotta think futurely, not presently.

 

Yet you still don't understand what I've said. Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC. 

 

Remember the PS3? $600 for what? Sony knew they had to sell their console for a lost just cause of MS. MS can afford to do that if they wanted to just cause they make a billion alone with Windows. By the time new systems come out they WILL not produce 4k. WHY? Because you got to manage the cost of making the console and the price to sell it. If they sell it for over $500 then who would buy it? You could just get a gaming PC that would already destroy it in graphics and FPS. 

 

The reason lots of people even bought a PS3 was cause it was cheaper to buy that than it was most Blu-ray players at the time. 

 

I bought my PS3 for $500 with the Uncharted bundle. That still feels like your paying way too much for a console.

 

PS2 at its time was $300, PS3 was $600 and now PS4 is $400. The cheaper the console is the more people will buy it. 


GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#45

Posted 06 June 2014 - 05:16 AM Edited by GTA3Rockstar, 06 June 2014 - 05:22 AM.

 

Yet you still don't understand what I've said. Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC. 

 

Remember the PS3? $600 for what? Sony knew they had to sell their console for a lost just cause of MS. MS can afford to do that if they wanted to just cause they make a billion alone with Windows. By the time new systems come out they WILL not produce 4k. WHY? Because you got to manage the cost of making the console and the price to sell it. If they sell it for over $500 then who would buy it? You could just get a gaming PC that would already destroy it in graphics and FPS. 

 

The reason lots of people even bought a PS3 was cause it was cheaper to buy that than it was most Blu-ray players at the time. 

 

I bought my PS3 for $500 with the Uncharted bundle. That still feels like your paying way too much for a console.

 

PS2 at its time was $300, PS3 was $600 and now PS4 is $400. The cheaper the console is the more people will buy it. 

 

 

Duh, everyone knows that.

 

Ok Mr. Knowitall, how do you know 5-7 years from now, hardware to produce gaming at 4k won't be affordable?? Televisions that are 4k are going down, half the price they used to be 6-12 months ago, it's not hard to understand that it will be cheaper by that time. :)

 

The only reason why the PS3 was that expensive because Sony wanted blu-ray to be the new format and had to suffer losses. Microsoft tried to get in on it but you had to buy their stupid adapter for their HDDVD format.

 

Console gaming isn't all about graphics/fps. I enjoy it more than Pc because of sitting on a comfy couch with a 70' television. So what if it's $500/600, it will last 5-6 years rather than a PC you have to upgrade to keep up with the games released in that time.

 

Simple. Consoles are in the works, so be it 4k or somewhere between 2k/4k.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#46

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:03 AM

 

 

Yet you still don't understand what I've said. Consoles are a cheaper gaming PC. 

 

Remember the PS3? $600 for what? Sony knew they had to sell their console for a lost just cause of MS. MS can afford to do that if they wanted to just cause they make a billion alone with Windows. By the time new systems come out they WILL not produce 4k. WHY? Because you got to manage the cost of making the console and the price to sell it. If they sell it for over $500 then who would buy it? You could just get a gaming PC that would already destroy it in graphics and FPS. 

 

The reason lots of people even bought a PS3 was cause it was cheaper to buy that than it was most Blu-ray players at the time. 

 

I bought my PS3 for $500 with the Uncharted bundle. That still feels like your paying way too much for a console.

 

PS2 at its time was $300, PS3 was $600 and now PS4 is $400. The cheaper the console is the more people will buy it. 

 

 

Duh, everyone knows that.

 

Ok Mr. Knowitall, how do you know 5-7 years from now, hardware to produce gaming at 4k won't be affordable?? Televisions that are 4k are going down, half the price they used to be 6-12 months ago, it's not hard to understand that it will be cheaper by that time. :)

 

The only reason why the PS3 was that expensive because Sony wanted blu-ray to be the new format and had to suffer losses. Microsoft tried to get in on it but you had to buy their stupid adapter for their HDDVD format.

 

Console gaming isn't all about graphics/fps. I enjoy it more than Pc because of sitting on a comfy couch with a 70' television. So what if it's $500/600, it will last 5-6 years rather than a PC you have to upgrade to keep up with the games released in that time.

 

Simple. Consoles are in the works, so be it 4k or somewhere between 2k/4k.

 

If I remember correctly everyone complained about the PS3/360 era. They said it lasted too long. I honestly agree with them. I felt this gen should of started in 2012. There was very little the PS3/360 could do at the end of its life cycle. PS3 produce a bit more power due to developers finally understanding how to program it. Most 2013 games felt like they were held back including GTA V. 

 

You said consoles isn't about FPS and graphics yet your the one who's complaining that these consoles ain't even 1080p 60 FPS. If you want those things I recommended asking some of these PC guys in here. They'll tell you what to do. Console gaming has and will always be a cheaper pc. A console isn't about FPS or graphics but about playing the game. Its why they're still around. 

 

What Sony was trying to push was something that would help gaming. Having more than 8 GB of data on a disc is a huge advantage. It held gaming back for a long time. 

 

New consoles are not in the works yet. If anything they are making a slim version of the PS4/Xbone just to save money. 

 

These consoles haven't been out for a year and you honestly saying these developers are pushing it? Ubisoft did a very poor job on Watch Dogs. I heard PC had tons of problems. Battlefield 4 was a rush piece of sh*t. I'm willing to bet that Star Wars Battlefront will be 1080p 60 FPS on PS4 and 900p on Xbone without DirectX12. Why don't you wait to judge the consoles and let a company that knows how to work it like Naughty Dog or Rockstar to have your final view on it. 


GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#47

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:17 AM

If I remember correctly everyone complained about the PS3/360 era. They said it lasted too long. I honestly agree with them. I felt this gen should of started in 2012. There was very little the PS3/360 could do at the end of its life cycle. PS3 produce a bit more power due to developers finally understanding how to program it. Most 2013 games felt like they were held back including GTA V. 

 

 

You said consoles isn't about FPS and graphics yet your the one who's complaining that these consoles ain't even 1080p 60 FPS. If you want those things I recommended asking some of these PC guys in here. They'll tell you what to do. Console gaming has and will always be a cheaper pc. A console isn't about FPS or graphics but about playing the game. Its why they're still around. 

 

What Sony was trying to push was something that would help gaming. Having more than 8 GB of data on a disc is a huge advantage. It held gaming back for a long time. 

 

New consoles are not in the works yet. If anything they are making a slim version of the PS4/Xbone just to save money. 

 

These consoles haven't been out for a year and you honestly saying these developers are pushing it? Ubisoft did a very poor job on Watch Dogs. I heard PC had tons of problems. Battlefield 4 was a rush piece of sh*t. I'm willing to bet that Star Wars Battlefront will be 1080p 60 FPS on PS4 and 900p on Xbone without DirectX12. Why don't you wait to judge the consoles and let a company that knows how to work it like Naughty Dog or Rockstar to have your final view on it. 

 

 

I think it lasted just long enough 7-8 years because it was developed for the future, these consoles were developed with modern hardware.

 

I said it's not all about the graphics but when you release a console that's barely doing more resolution than 8 year old technology, it's a major let down. I already have a good enough computer, hell, even my graphics card is more powerful than them.

 

Blu-ray was more for the movie industry, and will probably see another format sometime in the near future to hold 4k movies. It just helped the gaming industry for sure but it really didn't hold them back because no game was remotely close to needing more than 8gb until the end of the ps3/360 life.

 

You're in denial if you think they're not. They have teams to do multiple things, developed a newer console and making these ones more efficient.

 

I never said anything about the developers lol and why don't you stop having a biased opinion, I've said multiple times that there's games now that look better on the One than the Ps4 and that's only doing inspections to the pictures. Games will look quite similar on both consoles, those numbers are too stuck in your head and leave you loving Sony too much.

 

 

All in all, there's no doubt they're working on developing new consoles. That sh*t takes years.


Ibrahimhassounah
  • Ibrahimhassounah

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2012

#48

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:19 AM

They better use high end GPU's and decent CPU's this time. We need some proper next gen hardware, though I'm happy with what we have right now. Sony were fools for underclocking the CPU on the PS4 before it came out, and Microsoft being a bigger fool for using a sh*tter GPU and CPU. I think these consoles will last for another 7-8 years until enough games are out and people are tired of this generation. But they'll still have to support it for a while even after the PS5/XB2 comes out.

ummm.... wait a minute , the X1's CPU was running at a faster rate than PS4's CPU , anyways .

 

OT : The next generation consoles shouldn't even be thought about yet , this is how corporations betray us by letting us buy their console and then losing it's support in 5 years down the road .


Mista J
  • Mista J

    I can't wait to show you my toys...

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#49

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:24 AM Edited by DarthShinobi, 06 June 2014 - 06:29 AM.

I think the PS4s CPU was originally clocked at 2.7GHz now it's 1.6GHz.

I just realized the Xbox One uses two CPUs. It uses two quad cores instead of one octo. O.o And it has a small CPU constraint as two cores from the XBO are locked for BG tasks. Not sure if its the same for the PS4.

Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#50

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:42 AM

Both the PS4 and Xbone use sh*tty Mobile Processors anyways, So boasting Either Consoles CPU power is laughably embarrassing. 

 

They do however have some very good GPUs, If they still use HD78XX Cards.

 

 

(I have a HD7850 in my PC and I can run FC3 at Ultra 1080p and get 50-60 FPS.)


Mista J
  • Mista J

    I can't wait to show you my toys...

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#51

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:44 AM Edited by DarthShinobi, 06 June 2014 - 06:51 AM.

Xbox One uses a 7790 and PS4 uses 7870. Or cards with similar specs to those.

Most people don't care about this sh*t anyway though. They just want to sit down and play. Some pretend they care, and pretend they know, but they don't.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    and everythin' that's shakin' in between

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • Kazakhstan

#52

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:50 AM Edited by tuareg, 06 June 2014 - 06:56 AM.

They're going to stay for another 6-7 years at the least. They will milk 8th gen for every cent just like they did with 7th gen.

 

And hell the masses are happy with how this gen is NOW. Imagine how happy they will be 6-7 years from now when console games end up looking slightly better aesthetically and have even more filler gameplay elements. There will be no reason for companies to innovate and history repeats itself. We may even be stuck with this gen for longer.

 

That's life, son.


Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#53

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:56 AM

The life cycle of the ps4 and the bone may end up being shorter, but they're going to stay for another 6-7 years at the least. They will milk 8th gen for every cent just like they did with 7th gen.

 

And hell the masses are happy with how this gen is NOW. Imagine how happy they will be 6-7 years from now when console games end up looking slightly better aesthetically and have even more filler gameplay elements. There will be no reason for companies to innovate and history repeats itself. We may even be stuck with this gen for longer.

 

That's life, son.

tuareg.

tuareg stahp

 

stahp it

 

you are making me sad...


Francis44
  • Francis44

    WRC!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 May 2012
  • None

#54

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:15 AM

This is no surprise at all, it's been known for years that both Sony and Microsoft start thinking about their next console as soon as they release one.


redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#55

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:34 AM Edited by redx165, 06 June 2014 - 07:41 AM.

 

If I remember correctly everyone complained about the PS3/360 era. They said it lasted too long. I honestly agree with them. I felt this gen should of started in 2012. There was very little the PS3/360 could do at the end of its life cycle. PS3 produce a bit more power due to developers finally understanding how to program it. Most 2013 games felt like they were held back including GTA V. 

 

 

You said consoles isn't about FPS and graphics yet your the one who's complaining that these consoles ain't even 1080p 60 FPS. If you want those things I recommended asking some of these PC guys in here. They'll tell you what to do. Console gaming has and will always be a cheaper pc. A console isn't about FPS or graphics but about playing the game. Its why they're still around. 

 

What Sony was trying to push was something that would help gaming. Having more than 8 GB of data on a disc is a huge advantage. It held gaming back for a long time. 

 

New consoles are not in the works yet. If anything they are making a slim version of the PS4/Xbone just to save money. 

 

These consoles haven't been out for a year and you honestly saying these developers are pushing it? Ubisoft did a very poor job on Watch Dogs. I heard PC had tons of problems. Battlefield 4 was a rush piece of sh*t. I'm willing to bet that Star Wars Battlefront will be 1080p 60 FPS on PS4 and 900p on Xbone without DirectX12. Why don't you wait to judge the consoles and let a company that knows how to work it like Naughty Dog or Rockstar to have your final view on it. 

 

 

I think it lasted just long enough 7-8 years because it was developed for the future, these consoles were developed with modern hardware.

 

I said it's not all about the graphics but when you release a console that's barely doing more resolution than 8 year old technology, it's a major let down. I already have a good enough computer, hell, even my graphics card is more powerful than them.

 

Blu-ray was more for the movie industry, and will probably see another format sometime in the near future to hold 4k movies. It just helped the gaming industry for sure but it really didn't hold them back because no game was remotely close to needing more than 8gb until the end of the ps3/360 life.

 

You're in denial if you think they're not. They have teams to do multiple things, developed a newer console and making these ones more efficient.

 

I never said anything about the developers lol and why don't you stop having a biased opinion, I've said multiple times that there's games now that look better on the One than the Ps4 and that's only doing inspections to the pictures. Games will look quite similar on both consoles, those numbers are too stuck in your head and leave you loving Sony too much.

 

 

All in all, there's no doubt they're working on developing new consoles. That sh*t takes years.

 

Developed for the future? 

 

Yes Xbox 360 came out Nov 22, 2005. ( PS3 came out Nov 17 (US) 2006 ) Xbox 360 lasted 8 years while games hardly improved ( Visually ) past 2010. With each next gen release the games don't improve by much until developers understand the hardware they're using.

 

 

Not really a huge difference. Let's compare Uncharted 1, 2, and 3 ( I would of compared Halo 3 to 4 but the game was made by different people )

 

 

If you can't see the difference then you need to get your eyes checked. The reason the UC3 looks better is cause they know what the PS3 can and can't do. They even keep it a even 30 FPS throughout the whole game. 

 

To the blu-ray argument. Lots of games were made in mind with that 8 GB restriction that Xbox 360 had. The PS3 blu-ray disc could hold more data but very few games ( outside exclusives ) took advantage of that. Now that both systems have blu-ray we at least get more out of our games. 

 

What games look better on Xbone than PS4? ( Note were not talking about Xbox One exclusives look better than PS4. )

 

BF4: 
PS4 900p with a higher FPS count

Xbone 720p with a lower FPS count

 

Winner PS4

 

COD Ghost:
PS4 1080p with a FPS bug problem

Xbone 720p with a better FPS

 

Winner: PS4 ( The FPS problem hardly happens and when it does its only for a few seconds. Keep in mind its also 1080p ) ( I also forgot to add that there's a problem with this game and the Xbone controller. There's a dead zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I35kd9RR77c&list=UUelv0S-NtH-ChgXQLnPKybQ )

 

Assassin Creed 4:
PS4 1080p ( after update ) with a stable FPS

Xbone 900p with a stable FPS

 

Winner: PS4

 

Tomb Raider:
PS4 1080p with a unlocked FPS at 60

Xbone 720p with a locked 30 FPS

 

Winner: PS4 ( Link to Digital Foundry made a video about the unstable frame rate advantage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXjSpeMzWm8&list=UU9PBzalIcEQCsiIkq36PyUA )

 

Watch Dogs:

PS4 900p with a stable 30 FPS and less screen tearing

Xbone 792p or 797p with more screen tearing and FPS goes down more

 

Winner: PS4

 

So tell me again how these games are better on Xbone?

 

( Note to mods this isn't a attempt to start a console war. This is discussion with mature members on this forum ) 

 

Back to next gen not having enough power. What do you expect? PS4 is $400 while Xbone is $500 with kinect. Sony isn't stupid like last time, they want control over the gaming market like they did in the PS2 era. So how do you do it? Cheaper hardware ( which surprisingly is more powerful than Xbox One ), cheaper online, even made a video making fun of Xbone's DRM and then making it cheap enough for people to afford it. Not many could afford a PS3 while you had a 360 was WAY cheaper.  

 

May I also remind you that the original PS3 allowed you to play PS1 and PS2 games. Which was taken away later on for newer PS3s to keep the price down. 

 

Don't call me a Sony fanboy cause a Sony fanboy wouldn't say that most games looked and ran better on the 360. A Sony fanboy wouldn't say that 360 had control over the gaming market. PS3 barely came back and that's with its Free online, Blu-Ray, and great exclusives that weren't the same repetitive online games that Microsoft has. Even with its come back the 360 still won last gen ( not in sales wise but with the amount of gamers having it ). Proof? Look at the pre-orders of any game and you'll see Xbox 360 was always ahead. 


Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#56

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:12 AM

Red, I hope you understand by now that not Many people can Take you seriously, What with your Hardcore Fanboyism.

  • Th3MaN1 likes this

GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#57

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:23 AM Edited by GTA3Rockstar, 06 June 2014 - 08:24 AM.

Spoiler

 

That's why I said the systems are developed for the future.... Of course they're going to look great later in the system's life, just compare Call of Duty 2 vs Ghosts

 

Spoiler

 

 

Just like I said, games didn't require more than 8gb for the first 6 years or so, of the systems life because they looked sup-par and not as demanding as the games nowadays are. So really, double layered was fine.

 

Numbers numbers numbers, did you even read what I said? They look better, just because the spreadsheets show the PS4 version can do it so and so by so and so, doesn't mean anything.

 

So let's take BF4 http://static.gamesp...06978-bf4-x.png

The lines are more crisp, the facial features are more detailed and not as grainy.

 

Now AC4 http://i1.ytimg.com/...xresdefault.jpg

Everything is just more crisp on the One. Especially the objects in the distance.

 

Some Ghosts http://gamingbolt.co...-one-vs-ps4.jpg

Looks exactly the same.

 

As I stated before, its still a let down that both of them can't be equal by the numbers, because everyone is too inlove with them, but I had to show you those numbers mean nothing.

So, tell me again how numbers are better than visuals?

 

I know that, I had that PS3, thank you very much.

 

I'm calling you a fan boy because you're coming at me with all these numbers the PS4 can do, 'great exclusives that weren't the same repetitive online games that Microsoft has', your links to defend why there are some problems with some games, let alone going into the Xbox One topic and causing problems, especially ones that noone has been saying.

 

 

I'ma leave it at that, reply if you want, take it as you want but either way, enjoy what you enjoy. :)


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#58

Posted 06 June 2014 - 11:47 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 06 June 2014 - 11:53 AM.

4K isn't readily available as of right now, but it will. It's coming. Fast.

Meanwhile, the consoles can't even pull 1080 60 with consistency.

And no, 60FPS is not NEEDED for certain games, but it's still good to have it. Frame rate is the most important part of games.

Also, consoles are there for people who are too stupid/lazy to game on computers and all the sh*t it comes with. With $500 or so, or maybe a bit more, you can beat the consoles in everything while simultaneously saving money on games.

Consoles are for simple gaming. Them being a little bit cheaper than a better PC is no excuse for some really subpar output in this day and age.

Mr Rabbit
  • Mr Rabbit

    Part-time spy, full-time maniac

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#59

Posted 06 June 2014 - 11:47 AM Edited by Flynny, 06 June 2014 - 11:55 AM.

The thing is with building a computer, someone said $1000 I built mine for £1000, in US prices would have been less than $1000 the UK gets shafted on computer parts, like to  an extreme level. They were the cheapest parts I could find without doing 1 on 1 deals with used parts which is a dumb way to go because you have no idea if it is what you want or if it even works anymore.

 

New consoles will take a while to build I'd say by 2020 latest, 2019 probably.

 

and 4k isn't really a thing yet, it costs way too much to get a 4k monitor, although I did see one go quite cheaply the other week, like £650, usually 4 figures in pounds for those, and you need some f*cking hardware to run 4k so it will cost a lot of money to do it. 2k is much more sensible. On my budget, with aforementioned price shafting in UK I could only afford to go 1080p but i can run every game I have that is not a god-awful port at 1080p ultra and get a silky framerate. That's really the main issue with PC gaming for me, bad ports on good games, I shouldn't really have to ask the question "will it run ok?" and have that question NOT be about my hardware, maybe I am old fashioned like that, stupid lazy developers. Basically i get what I want out of my pc for now, I will ake a step up to 2k eventually, the main stumbling point was finding a monitor for a decent price, then I might need a 2nd gpu for that then good to go. That would be the price of a new console if the monitors come down in price to a levvel i would be wanting, if not then a price of a new console plus a game or 2.

 

and you are right guy above me 60fps is not important, for me a consistent rame rate is, if it jumpps between 60 and 30 then no no, stays constant 30 is better than jumping between 30 and 60. not about the number really it is about the range, for me at least. Still ahs to be above a certain point cos a steady 1 fps is not good. I honestly cant tell much difference between 60 and 30 fps if it is constant,


esmittystud101
  • esmittystud101

    You Sir, Do Not Praise The Sun

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#60

Posted 06 June 2014 - 12:49 PM

I am not very tech savy at all. Way behind most on this forum. I have read alot of posts on this forum and this topic. But I do have a question. How can a game developed by MachineGames and published by Bethesda Softworks, Wolfenstein: A New Order, hit 1080p 60 FPS on both next gens? I'm not trying to poke at anyone's post or anything. Is it because there is no multi-player? I need schooled on this please.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users