Xbox One could last 12 years <-- RARE

[smackababy]

It'd slow down game visual progress so much to see the XboxOne/PS4 last 12 years.

If 4K gaming took til 2016 to become mainstream I'd cry.....

I think that Sony/MS's move to far weaker consoles (comparatively to the Xbox360/PS3 to hardware out at their time), means that both companies will feel far more comfortable moving to a new generation quicker than the 360/ps3 did.

I want you to look at when 1080p TVs were 'introduced' in halo products to when it became 'mainstream'. If you think it was less than 4 years, you're wrong.

 

[sweenish]

And that was with consoles pushing HD hard.

Nothing is pushing 4K right now.

 

[smackababy]

And that was with consoles pushing HD hard.

Nothing is pushing 4K right now.

There is zero 4k content to push. 4k is nice on PC, but that is only for the extra screen real estate. Once you get to gaming, you better have crossfire 290x if you want 30fps.

 

[digiram]

So are there really people that pick up games like Dota 2, LOL, Diablo 3, Ttitanfall, SC2, Dark Souls 2, etc.. look at the graphics, and can't play or have fun with them?

 

[smackababy]

Yes, there are. We laugh at them and tell them to enjoy Crysis.

 

[Majcric]

http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/kinect_sports_rivals/news/xbox_one_could_last_12_years_rare.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah okay. PS4 is considerably beefier with GPU and RAM performance, but I doubt it will last 12 years either. This guy is smoking some serious Microsoft-branded crack.

By 2016-2017 they will be a bit creaky, by 2020 they will be genuinely archaic.

If this imbecile honestly thinks they can ride this watered down console for over a decade, he's dreaming. Hell, iPads with wireless HDMI will be more powerful in less than 6 years.

Dumb PR speak never ceases to amuse.

They're already creaky, they'll be unplayable to me. (outside of maybe a platformer or fighting game) by 2016-17. In large open world games they will crumble just like their predecessors. Seeing the lazy approach both Sony and Microsoft took, I wish Nintendo would have held off on the Wii U another year and launched with equal hardware (maybe better hardware). Throw in the Nintendo exclusives and allowing the oomph to play anything PS4 and Xbox does, they could have pulled the win this generation.

With the Xbox one already struggling in Titans Fall vs Windows version, it's pretty pathetic and will only get worse It should at least get close if not match the PC, there shouldn't be compromises this early. Ohhh and this untapped power we often hear about is a joke.

 

[cmdrdredd]

They're already creaky, they'll be unplayable to me. (outside of maybe a platformer or fighting game) by 2016-17. In large open world games they will crumble just like they're predecessors. Seeing the lazy approach both Sony and Microsoft took, I wish Nintendo would have held off on the Wii U another year and launched with equal hardware (maybe better hardware). Throw in the Nintendo exclusives and allowing the oomph to play anything PS4 and Xbox does, they could have pulled the win this generation.

With the Xbox one already struggling in Titans Fall vs Windows version, it's pretty pathetic and will only get worse It should at least get close if not match the PC, there shouldn't be compromises this early. Ohhh and this untapped power we often hear about is a joke.

Lazy?

Tell me then what exactly should they have inside? They should sell you $1000 worth of hardware for $500? If not then explain what the better option was cause I don't see one. From my point of view they took the best option at the time. The move to x86 and multiple cores was a good decision and they had to keep the power usage and cost to a minimum so an APU was the wisest choice for that criteria. I imagine you wanted a GTX 680 inside there with a Hexacore i7 at 3Ghz right? Sorry but that would be both too expensive and draw too much power. Not to mention heat output.


Also Titanfall looks just fine on the XB1. The game on PC doesn't look special at all except for the AA. The textures and everything aren't cutting edge, it isn't supposed to be.

 

[Rakehellion]

So are there really people that pick up games like Dota 2, LOL, Diablo 3, Ttitanfall, SC2, Dark Souls 2, etc.. look at the graphics, and can't play or have fun with them?

The thread starter only posts in Console Gaming so he can talk about how much better his PC is.

 

[ImpulsE69]

OH come now...they will run the future of gaming just fine with the amazing games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush.



Wait..I have one more...


Guys..these weren't designed to be bleeding edge gaming systems. You are expecting way too much of your media centers.


(and no, I don't hate consoles...I just hate...the last few rounds of PC wannabe--- I mean consoles).

 

[tential]

So are there really people that pick up games like Dota 2, LOL, Diablo 3, Ttitanfall, SC2, Dark Souls 2, etc.. look at the graphics, and can't play or have fun with them?

Dota 2's graphics are mind numbingly bad. I'd rather have kept the Dota 1 graphics....
I don't mind the League of Legends graphics.

Something about Dota 2's graphics just really piss me off.

@smackababy
you're over exaggerating on the 4K gaming. Lava has a 4K monitor and 780ti and enjoys it fine. He plays exactly as I would. He turns down settings that offer little IQ gain but take huge performance losses. I'm not a "If I can't run every single setting then I'm upset" gamer. I only run the ones that actually give me a decent IQ boost for the performance hit. So for me, 4K gaming is capable now at $600 for a graphics card. 2 years from now? 4 Years from now in 2016? Definitely.

I am not the type of gamer that won't run 4K because "OMG, I can't run 8x AA at 4K? Forget about it!" No, I simply won't run AA if I'm at 4K or will run 2x tops.

As for 4K going mainstream vs 1080p going mainstream. That isn't a comparable debate at all and you know it. Technology exponentially moves faster. 4K HDTVs are already coming in at decent prices right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-65L930...ZCW_B00DG0977S

3300 for 65 inches? I paid $2.1k (a little more after taxes) on a closeout deal for a 70 inch sharp 2 years ago. That was the best deal possible at the time. 70 inch 1080p displays have slowly inched downwards in price (I kept shopping since I wanted a second one).

4K HDTVs are already "affordable".

It's posters like yourself who spread this "OMG 4K HDTVs will cost your first/second born child and you'll need at least $1800+ in graphics cards alone!!!!!" that make people think 4K is impossible. It's already here, the only thing that isn't is content but I really don't care about that because I only want it for gaming/PC use. I can wait on the content. When it gets here it gets here (movie wise). Just as long as the 4K Display is affordable I'm ok.

 

[tential]

Lazy?

Tell me then what exactly should they have inside? They should sell you $1000 worth of hardware for $500? If not then explain what the better option was cause I don't see one. From my point of view they took the best option at the time. The move to x86 and multiple cores was a good decision and they had to keep the power usage and cost to a minimum so an APU was the wisest choice for that criteria. I imagine you wanted a GTX 680 inside there with a Hexacore i7 at 3Ghz right? Sorry but that would be both too expensive and draw too much power. Not to mention heat output.


Also Titanfall looks just fine on the XB1. The game on PC doesn't look special at all except for the AA. The textures and everything aren't cutting edge, it isn't supposed to be.

I think what people are trying to get at is that the Xbox 360 when it came out was based on a 7800 GT( or 8800GT? I don't know exactly but you do probably).
Meanwhile the Xbox One is based off a 7850? (Again I don't know exactly).

These are vastly different price brackets. XboxOne was made the way it was to mitigate losses taken on hardware by MS(Same with Sony). Sony/MS were tired of taking huge upfront losses which in turn means we get a lot less power out of consoles than we were expecting after seeing the PS3/Xbox360 launches. Not that hard to follow.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think what people are trying to get at is that the Xbox 360 when it came out was based on a 7800 GT( or 8800GT? I don't know exactly but you do probably).
Meanwhile the Xbox One is based off a 7850? (Again I don't know exactly).

These are vastly different price brackets. XboxOne was made the way it was to mitigate losses taken on hardware by MS(Same with Sony). Sony/MS were tired of taking huge upfront losses which in turn means we get a lot less power out of consoles than we were expecting after seeing the PS3/Xbox360 launches. Not that hard to follow.

Remember also that they used custom CPUs and such...this time they sourced parts easily available in mass production which is why they can sell 6 million in 4 months where they barely could make 500k last time.

The GPU is based around a "target spec" and isn't really the same as putting a 7850 or 7870 in there. It's also not easy to quantify it beyond specs because you lose the windows overhead and the overhead from any drivers and API that you have on a PC. So the specs they target can punch above it's weight class a bit.

I don't see the problem, the PS4 especially is small, sleek, and powerful. The XB1 while a bit larger and boxy is both quiet and cool running. Both are quite fine for me to enjoy gaming on. Both are much more powerful than the PS3 and 360.

 

[Majcric]

Lazy?

Tell me then what exactly should they have inside? They should sell you $1000 worth of hardware for $500? If not then explain what the better option was cause I don't see one. From my point of view they took the best option at the time. The move to x86 and multiple cores was a good decision and they had to keep the power usage and cost to a minimum so an APU was the wisest choice for that criteria. I imagine you wanted a GTX 680 inside there with a Hexacore i7 at 3Ghz right? Sorry but that would be both too expensive and draw too much power. Not to mention heat output.


Also Titanfall looks just fine on the XB1. The game on PC doesn't look special at all except for the AA. The textures and everything aren't cutting edge, it isn't supposed to be.

As much as they make off of the games and accessories they could sell a $1000 hardware for $500. The PS3 was $900 hardware according to Sony. (I don't think Sony is hurting too bad from the PS3, do you?)

In all fairness, they could have at least used a better APU, Higher clocked, etc. This really applies to Microsoft especially

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think their power target had quite a lot to do with it.

 

[purbeast0]

oh look ... another pc vs. console thread. didn't see that coming from the op...

just like when the ps3/360 came out, the pc guys all said they wouldn't survive and that pc gaming would be the best place to game. yeah how'd that turn out. the same thing will most likely happen this gen, with this gen already breaking records on console sales than the previous gen.

it is amusing how certain people come out of the woodwork in threads like this who aren't recognizable in many other threads in this forum.

if someone could find me a pc that costs $500 and play uncharted, the last of us, god of war, hot shots golf, killer instinct, halo, and titanfall, i'm all ears.

 

[tential]

Remember also that they used custom CPUs and such...this time they sourced parts easily available in mass production which is why they can sell 6 million in 4 months where they barely could make 500k last time.

The GPU is based around a "target spec" and isn't really the same as putting a 7850 or 7870 in there. It's also not easy to quantify it beyond specs because you lose the windows overhead and the overhead from any drivers and API that you have on a PC. So the specs they target can punch above it's weight class a bit.

I don't see the problem, the PS4 especially is small, sleek, and powerful. The XB1 while a bit larger and boxy is both quiet and cool running. Both are quite fine for me to enjoy gaming on. Both are much more powerful than the PS3 and 360.

So you are still agreeing with what I'm saying though.
The Xbox One/PS4 is weaker comparatively to what is out now when compared to the Xbox360/PS3. That's really the point the Majcric is saying(I think). That they're weaker comparatively and won't last as long as the Xbox 360/PS3 did.

From a business perspective what Sony/MS did was extremely intelligent since lets be real, console gamers don't ACTUALLY care about 1080p vs 720p. The people that are posting about resolution, anti aliasing,etc. are mostly PC Gamers who also console game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you are still agreeing with what I'm saying though.
The Xbox One/PS4 is weaker comparatively to what is out now when compared to the Xbox360/PS3. That's really the point the Majcric is saying(I think). That they're weaker comparatively and won't last as long as the Xbox 360/PS3 did.

From a business perspective what Sony/MS did was extremely intelligent since lets be real, console gamers don't ACTUALLY care about 1080p vs 720p. The people that are posting about resolution, anti aliasing,etc. are mostly PC Gamers who also console game.

By comparison when the Xbox 360 released, PCs were pretty crappy for gaming overall in my opinion anyway. Now with more powerful GPU hardware and much better CPUs it's better than before combined together with x64 for better usage of memory and a better API with multithreading support. See the gap isn't that consoles are weak now, just that Intel, Nvidia, and AMD have massive hardware out there now and it's not all super expensive halo parts.

I do care about higher resolution, even when taking the console gamer point of view. That's for the simple reason that higher resolution increases the sharpness of the image. I like a nice sharp picture if possible.

 

[exdeath]

By comparison when the Xbox 360 released, PCs were pretty crappy for gaming overall in my opinion anyway. Now with more powerful GPU hardware and much better CPUs it's better than before combined together with x64 for better usage of memory and a better API with multithreading support. See the gap isn't that consoles are weak now, just that Intel, Nvidia, and AMD have massive hardware out there now and it's not all super expensive halo parts.

I do care about higher resolution, even when taking the console gamer point of view. That's for the simple reason that higher resolution increases the sharpness of the image. I like a nice sharp picture if possible.

240p is sharp if you use a good signal source and don't scale it.

The whole 480p (Wii) vs 720p vs 1080p thing really only matters because everyone has a 1080p display now. Anything upscaled lacks sharpness. Anything not exactly 1920x1080 looks like crap.

Wii, GameCube, etc actually probably looks pretty damn sharp on a 42" 854x480 panel with scaling set to "dot by dot". They look terrible on a 1080p panel.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Wii, GameCube, etc actually probably looks pretty damn sharp on a 42" 854x480 panel with scaling set to "dot by dot". They look terrible on a 1080p panel.

Those games look amazing when run at 1080p though.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Also Titanfall looks just fine on the XB1. The game on PC doesn't look special at all except for the AA. The textures and everything aren't cutting edge, it isn't supposed to be.

With all due respect, this is unbridled fanboyism. Titanfall does not, by any stretch, look "just fine" on Xbox One. Does it have its moments? Yes. Is it a blast to play despite its graphical shortcomings? Hell yes. But anyone who claims that the PC version doesn't look "special" compared to the Xbox One version is either blind or in certifiable denial. Aliasing, constant image tearing, routine frame dips, bizarre 792 resolution... the list just keeps on going.

If Titanfall tells us one thing about the Xbox One, it's that it's already choking on games before it's even got both feet out of the gate. And don't give me any of this "oh the devs haven't figured it out yet blah blah blah." That's total BS at this stage of the game. That crap flew with the PS3 and its borked architecture, and even with the 360 given that it was the first of its kind. But by now, the devs have been there and done that. The only accomplishment the Xbox One can claim is making the PS4 look like a beast by comparison, and that's quite a feat.

Side note: Today I received my new 760 for my PC. Until today, I was playing on a gpu that was a $100 budget card for a development PC that I built two years ago. It still knocked the socks off the One (and both are played in my home office on a 1080p monitor). I got 1080p, no tearing, and a rock solid framerate. Using a card I couldn't hock for $20 if I tried.

You were right about one thing: the textures (and lighting) aren't cutting edge... which makes the One's struggles that much more worrisome.

10 years?? ROFL!!!

Signed,
Newly minted Xbox One owner; previous PS4 owner; playing Titanfall on One and on PC

 

[master_shake_]

AFAIK the xbone wasn't a gaming console anyway...

it just happened to play games...

everything they touted said it would rule the living room, as a media player it kicks some serious ass. as a gaming console... sub par at best.

 

[cmdrdredd]

With all due respect, this is unbridled fanboyism. Titanfall does not, by any stretch, look "just fine" on Xbox One. Does it have its moments? Yes. Is it a blast to play despite its graphical shortcomings? Hell yes. But anyone who claims that the PC version doesn't look "special" compared to the Xbox One version is either blind or in certifiable denial. Aliasing, constant image tearing, routine frame dips, bizarre 792 resolution... the list just keeps on going.

If Titanfall tells us one thing about the Xbox One, it's that it's already choking on games before it's even got both feet out of the gate. And don't give me any of this "oh the devs haven't figured it out yet blah blah blah." That's total BS at this stage of the game. That crap flew with the PS3 and its borked architecture, and even with the 360 given that it was the first of its kind. But by now, the devs have been there and done that. The only accomplishment the Xbox One can claim is making the PS4 look like a beast by comparison, and that's quite a feat.

Side note: Today I received my new 760 for my PC. Until today, I was playing on a gpu that was a $100 budget card for a development PC that I built two years ago. It still knocked the socks off the One (and both are played in my home office on a 1080p monitor). I got 1080p, no tearing, and a rock solid framerate. Using a card I couldn't hock for $20 if I tried.

You were right about one thing: the textures (and lighting) aren't cutting edge... which makes the One's struggles that much more worrisome.

10 years?? ROFL!!!

Signed,
Newly minted Xbox One owner; previous PS4 owner; playing Titanfall on One and on PC

Nope...you're the blind one. The game on PC looks like utter crap to start with...it isn't supposed to be crysis. It doesn't look bad on the XB1 by comparison since they both look mediocre...it's too fast to look anything really. Maybe you stand around and stare at the walls all day who knows. Tell me you can count the pixels and see the resolution, I dare you to. My PC gets more image tearing than any console game ever will since I don't use vsync with it and it's a side effect of that. So claiming the console version sucks cause it has the same exact phenomenon is ludicrous. When I'm running around hopping between walls I don't see frames per second. I don't see resolution. I see an enemy I want to shoot and that's it.

You claim to own an XB1 and not a PS4 anymore but you crap on the XB1 all day. Don't get it...

 

[Wingznut]

The problem with so many posts here is that you guys are making a direct relationship between current graphical quality and console longevity.

Do you really think the business decision to develop and release the Xbox One and PS4 is solely because of the graphics on the 360 and PS3???

 

[cmdrdredd]

AFAIK the xbone wasn't a gaming console anyway...

it just happened to play games...

everything they touted said it would rule the living room, as a media player it kicks some serious ass. as a gaming console... sub par at best.

No, they advertised it that way at first because everyone knew the Xbox would have games. That wasn't news. They wanted to show the other stuff that they were working on.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Nope...you're the blind one. I know why I ignored you before...you are nothing but a troll.

A fine argument!

Translation: "I've got nothing."

I don't know why debate scares some of you so much. Purebeast whining about PC talk, Wingznut whining about the One being disparaged... you whining about whatever it is you're whining about (I honestly can't tell - you seem to cry 'troll' whenever you hear something you don't like).

If the few of you are really that insecure about your purchases, then maybe you should ask yourself if these are legitimate points you're hearing. If you don't think they're legitimate, then feel free to make your point (unless you haven't done your own direct comparisons like I have, in which case you really have no basis on which to argue). If you just plain can't handle the debate, then carry your sensitive self out the door and into a thread more to your liking.

Do I sugarcoat what I have to say? No; I'm a pretty black/white person. Sugarcoating obscures the facts, and if you're not open to the facts, no amount of said sugarcoating is going to help you be objective. But if it makes you feel better to assume I have a horse in this race (despite owning a One myself) so you can dismiss the irrefutable points I made in my previous post, well, whatever helps you sleep at night :thumbsup: