chess

I'll just say I know how you feel and leave it at that.

I would recommend looking at some old threads from 2006-2007. You'll find that Sony wasn't getting treated any better while they were shitting the bed. For the most part, the NeoGAF consensus reflects reality because those who post non-facts don't last long.

I will grant you that they are more tolerant right now of piling on MS, but I would hope you'd grant that MS has earned a lot of that ire through their own action/inaction.

fumanstan

Sounds like majority rules at NeoGAF!

chuckd21

Microsoft deserves criticism, of course. But for everything they do or don't do? That's petty nonsense. It's a mob mentality for a bunch of lonely people who just want to go with the flow for fear that if they don't, they'll be the ones under attack.

mattysemo247

I want to see NeoGAF played out through Playstation Home. Now THAT would be entertaining!

chess

I agree, some of it is unfair.

RichC2

They're nearly identical game consoles that will perform similarly, one cost $399 and has Naughty Dog and a lot of japanese developers, the other is $100 more and has Titanfall and Halo.

It's a wash at this point, and will again be down to controller preferences more so than anything else.

But arguing is a fun time killer. So fuck you, Sega.

chess

Not really.

Every component on the PS4 is significantly faster or stronger other than similar CPUs, and there's no reason to think that XB1 is any more efficient, as the PS4 also has a simpler architecture with no ESRAM.

I know Carmack said they were "close", but Mark Cerny took extremely polite umbridge with that in an interview with Game Informer. Meanwhile, developers are consistently saying that PS4 is significantly stronger and/or easier to work with.

I understand why PR and the press would want to keep the water muddy on this, and I guess it's working, but the fact that nobody of consequence has ever said that XB1 is faster or better should tell us all we need to know about where the two machines stand.

RichC2

I think we have different definitions of "significant", the graphic cards are very similar despite the increased pipelines on the PS4, the CPUs are the same despite the Xbox One allegedly having a higher clockrate.

I've never seen a computer run off pure GDDR5 memory before so I can't comment on the speed increase actually being of any value. I also have never programmed directly for use of ESRAM.

It really isn't muddy at all, the fact of the matter is in practice nobody can show anything that would make anyone pick one over the other from a purely performance level. Not at this point at least. And as pieces of hardware, they are very, very similar.

Draven

That might be oversimplifying things. I don't give a shit what anyone on the internet thinks about the video game consoles I choose to buy. But I'll happily pile on when Microsoft does something stupid like require a camera to be connected and a constant internet connection. And this is from someone with 2 360s who played those over my PS3/Wii about 10 to 1 this last generation.

chuckd21

Piling on because of a required camera connection is fine. That's a legitimate customer concern.
Piling on when they announce the camera connection is no longer mandatory, because LOL MICROSOFT 180 is petty.

The latter is NeoGAF to an extent and the internet in general.

chess

These are the last numbers I've seen, but I'm open to others:

1.84TF to 1.31TF (with 10% of that currently being "unlocked" from snap)
18 CUs to 12
1152 shaders to 768
72 texture units to 48
32 ROPS to 16
8 ACE w/ 64 queues to 2 ACE w/ 16 queues
GDDR5 vs DDR3

I probably don't have as deep an understanding of the impact of those elements as you do, but I know basically what they do. Please advise if those differences aren't significant. They look significant to me.

RichC2

And there goes my write-up, thanks Network Error!

Oh well, long story short it isn't all black and white when it comes to spec stats. I hope there is a noticeable difference between the two of them, but nothing truly supports that, not yet at least. I expect them both to look like mid-range PCs (let's say everything on High, with 720p resolution.) and frankly I'll buy whatever gets GTA V first with a 60 fps lock.

chuckd21

So I'll say what I always say whenever someone starts throwing specs around. Raw numbers don't really matter. What matters is the talent of the people using them. Specs don't make games, programmers do. Yes, one console has higher specs in some areas than the other. Doesn't matter if the programmers can't utilize them properly (or get paid to gimp certain multiplatform titles for the sake of parity).

Super Mario 3D World will look and play better than some PS4/One launch titles.
Prison Tycoon 4 on max PC settings will look and play worse than some PS4/One launch titles.

Groucho

I want both, but I don't need both this year. I'm glad Microsoft has come around on most of their questionable decisions, and I really want to play Dead Rising 3...but it's $100 more for an accessory I hate.

So, for me it's a better value to buy PS4 in 2013 and Xbox One in 2014. By then, the Xbox should have had a price drop...and possibly even a Kinect-free option that drives the price down more. I can still get Dead Rising 3 and other games at that point, but at a much lower price.

Win win! Win.

chess

Raw numbers establish the ceiling for what a machine is capable of. You might not even see a difference for the first year or two, but as long as the potential is there, sombody will take advantage of it.

But you need less talent to get results on PS4, or at least that's the word from multiple devs/sources.

Microsoft.

chuckd21

PS4: Less talent required.

Edit:

Deftones

Dan

I was going to say, "PS4: Talented devs need not apply!"
But I don't want to be called biased again.

chess

I figure the combo of more powerful hardware and simpler architecture will be potent at some point...maybe not at launch though.

Notice that nobody is arguing that there isn't a difference or that PS4 doesn't have the advantage. The only question is "how much of an advantage".

Deftones

so let me get this straight.

We've got a guy working for MS who said specs aren't everything. We've got a guy from Sony who says ours is more powerful. Then we've got a neutral 3rd party (Carmack) who has said "both systems are nearly identical. One specific person here chooses to believe the guy being paid by Sony over a neutral 3rd party? Really? If that isn't the very definition of bias toward the company, I don't know what is.

fumanstan

I think third party games will have a bigger visual gap then the 360 had in most games over the PS3 this round, with the PS4 looking more noticeably better (my grammar sucks!) then the One in a lot of cases.

Graphics just aren't the end all for deciding between the two for me, and the differences won't be so significant that Xbox owners are going to be left envious. And luckily if I go in to graphics whore mode, I have my PC which is better then both anyway. The overall platform that includes controller, interface, online, and game genres that I prefer happen to fall on the Microsoft side for me. More power is nice, but I like the things Microsoft is trying to do with their system, even if there is the possibility that it fails.

RichC2

Bias! That's the word I was looking for earlier, jesus christ.

Dan

But how nearly!? Huh!?!?

chess

Chuck...change your fucking avatar! It's distracting, and I'm always losing my train of thought.

Poor Rich can't even remember words.

RichC2

It's been a long week and I need to find a new job (not unemployed but getting fucked just the same), game consoles are my distraction but it's kind of failing me right now.