Oh Man Which One!!

[NoOther]

They are quite proactive.

Again, as I said the XBOX policies were simply reactive to what sony did. You are arguing my point for me... same goes for external storage, etc.

The Xbox policies had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sony. Its laughable that you would even say that. Xbox was being proactive with a new strategy to try and help customers move into the digital distribution age, but people weren't ready. Sony had the SAME plans. Xbox changed becuase of customer backlash, it had nothing to do with Sony. Sony changed their plans because of the backlash at Xbox.

Sony made a proactive push to have the stronger hardware out of the gate, feeling that it will yield a better gaming platform. There are quite a lot of rumors and even devs outright saying Sony is the lead console this go around, and xbox will get the downgraded ports. It is what it is.

Why did they do that? Because Xbox kicked their butts last go around. Oh and btw, what hardware did Sony go with? The hardware that Xbox was using so they could go cheaper. So who was being reactive there?

Microsoft bet on the entertainment side of things, Sony stuck to gaming. So far Sony's approach seems to be closer to what consumers want and desire, thus more sales. Basic business here folks.

No, Sony has tried also to go to the entertainment side of things, but they don't have the features to match Xbox. So they emphasized their gaming because they have nothing new other than hardware. Sony is playing catch up because they lost so bad last round. They made some good choices this round as a reaction to what Xbox did. It may pay off since Xbox took a proactive move to make their system more versatile as a home media device capable of multiple tasks albeit not as powerful as the PS4. So again, this is MS being proactive while Sony is being ractive.

 

[Vashypooh]

LOL at that external storage support being reactive. Also, Xbox One's hardware is definitely capable but, programming for it will be harder to get the most out of it. Sorry but, your rumors sound like a lot of BS which is something you pulled out of your nether regions.

Devs are not going to do downgraded ports unless they decide that selling games are not important to them. (Read: Probably never.) Oh well, guess folks are going to say whatever they can to make their purchases look better. (Although, good for you that you are happy with what you have.)

Microsoft originally had said there wouldn't be external storage the last I read about it, and a quick google suggests that its a fairly new feature to be able to store games on external drives. Even then, its only USB3, which is decent, but still no replacement for internal drives, or internal SSD's.

The ones hardware is never going to be up to the same par as the PS4 for gaming. It just isn't, and wont be. They opted for the multimedia functions, and made their cuts accordingly to get it down in price. Had they went for same hardware, and that, it would be even more expensive.

Nothing here i have listed is a fact pulled out of the air, simply from multiple devs mouths. I really am baffled you are incapable of seeing this. Activision is shifting PS4 to lead platform.

 

[NoOther]

Microsoft originally had said there wouldn't be external storage the last I read about it, and a quick google suggests that its a fairly new feature to be able to store games on external drives. Even then, its only USB3, which is decent, but still no replacement for internal drives, or internal SSD's.

The ones hardware is never going to be up to the same par as the PS4 for gaming. It just isn't, and wont be. They opted for the multimedia functions, and made their cuts accordingly to get it down in price. Had they went for same hardware, and that, it would be even more expensive.

Nothing here i have listed is a fact pulled out of the air, simply from multiple devs mouths. I really am baffled you are incapable of seeing this. Activision is shifting PS4 to lead platform.

You got that backwards. MS has always planned for external storage. Sony was the ones saying they would not have external storage.

As for Devs, they will continue to build for both platforms, just like they did last time. The difference now is there may be more Devs wanting to develop for the multimedia side of the Xbox, something that PS4 does not have. So the test is which is going to be more important to people down the road? Simply gaming, or a more versatile system?

 

[Armenius]

LOL at that external storage support being reactive. Also, Xbox One's hardware is definitely capable but, programming for it will be harder to get the most out of it. Sorry but, your rumors sound like a lot of BS which is something you pulled out of your nether regions.

Devs are not going to do downgraded ports unless they decide that selling games are not important to them. (Read: Probably never.) Oh well, guess folks are going to say whatever they can to make their purchases look better. (Although, good for you that you are happy with what you have.)

I take it you're one of those people who think that the 32 MB of eSRAM in the XBONE is going to magically make it more capable than the PS4.

But I digress. It's ridiculous that this thread has been hijacked and turned into another console war when all the OP was looking for was opinions on which console would be better for his nephew in his situation.

 

[ManofGod]

I take it you're one of those people who think that the 32 MB of eSRAM in the XBONE is going to magically make it more capable than the PS4.

But I digress. It's ridiculous that this thread has been hijacked and turned into another console war when all the OP was looking for was opinions on which console would be better for his nephew in his situation.

Please quote me where I said more capable? Thought so. However, I did say that the machine is capable but will be more difficult to program for.

 

[Armenius]

Please quote me where I said more capable? Thought so. However, I did say that the machine is capable but will be more difficult to program for.

Yes, with the same CPU and architecture as the PS4 the XBONE is somehow more difficult to "to get the most out of." The only difference between the two is memory bandwidth, graphical power, and the eSRAM.

 

[ManofGod]

Yes, with the same CPU and architecture as the PS4 the XBONE is somehow more difficult to "to get the most out of." The only difference between the two is memory bandwidth, graphical power, and the eSRAM.

Wow, great job putting words in my mouth. Whatever, we will see in 5 years. LOL

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Looks like this section is becoming useless for any help, since everything turns into a Xbox One vs PS4 debate with rabid fanboys from both sides. Nice.

 

[ManofGod]

Looks like this section is becoming useless for any help, since everything turns into a Xbox One vs PS4 debate with rabid fanboys from both sides. Nice.

I personally am no rabid fanboy. (Not that you were accusing me. ) It is just that I absolutely hate when misinformation is parroted about as fact. Besides, I believe the OP went ahead and bought a PS4 anyways so as long as he is happy with his purchase, that is what matters the most.

 

[Vashypooh]

The Xbox policies had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sony. Its laughable that you would even say that. Xbox was being proactive with a new strategy to try and help customers move into the digital distribution age, but people weren't ready. Sony had the SAME plans. Xbox changed becuase of customer backlash, it had nothing to do with Sony. Sony changed their plans because of the backlash at Xbox.

Where did Sony ever announce those plans? I never saw it announced anywhere.

Why did they do that? Because Xbox kicked their butts last go around. Oh and btw, what hardware did Sony go with? The hardware that Xbox was using so they could go cheaper. So who was being reactive there?

So you are saying Microsoft got cocky and assumed victory and now has to play catch up. Again, arguing my point for me. Sony is not using the same hardware as MS, unless you are referring to simply the architecture. Which arguably had to be the natural conclusion allowing for a more seamless approach to developing games from PC, to xbox, to PS4. It just makes sense, its the same as when Apple finally gave up on powerpc. The real winner there is AMD.

No, Sony has tried also to go to the entertainment side of things, but they don't have the features to match Xbox. So they emphasized their gaming because they have nothing new other than hardware. Sony is playing catch up because they lost so bad last round. They made some good choices this round as a reaction to what Xbox did. It may pay off since Xbox took a proactive move to make their system more versatile as a home media device capable of multiple tasks albeit not as powerful as the PS4. So again, this is MS being proactive while Sony is being ractive.

You are correct, Sony’s entertainment features are quite different than the xbox. However, the features that the xbox picked up instead of focusing on its core market, gaming, do not outweigh the losses they are taking now in my eyes. Sony didn’t do awful last generation, they did quite fine considering the rough start they had. Saying Microsoft used weaker hardware for its core function is proactive, boggles my mind. We are not talking about last generation, we are talking bout current generation. Microsoft and Sony, both learned quite a lot from the last cycle, and sadly the tune seems to be that Microsoft assumed it had the market in the bag out of the gate.

If Microsoft had a lot of these media features on the 360, I would be completely with you. However the core functions of being my cable box, and all that other nonsense, in an era where subscribers are leaving cable providers in thousands, seems like it was a wrong decision to make.

 

[Jerome36]

Where did Sony ever announce those plans? I never saw it announced anywhere.

They never announced their plans, but according to some they were going to, but silently backed away, following the Xbox One backlash. Sometime around last year's E3 I remember articles popping up suggesting as much. I don't remember the original article I read, but a quick search reveals this one. There's more, and perhaps they have actual quotes from somebody at Sony, but this was the first one I clicked on.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

I think this is an excellent illustration of why the Wii U is the console to get!!! We're all just happily playing MK8 right now, while everyone else fights over which console is best. [Tee Hee Hee]

Unfortunately for the OP's nephew, there is no hockey game that I'm aware of for the U.

 

[Vashypooh]

I think this is an excellent illustration of why the Wii U is the console to get!!! We're all just happily playing MK8 right now, while everyone else fights over which console is best. [Tee Hee Hee]

Unfortunately for the OP's nephew, there is no hockey game that I'm aware of for the U.

Agreed, I love my WiiU, probably more than my other consoles. MK8 is a riot.

 

[NoOther]

Where did Sony ever announce those plans? I never saw it announced anywhere.

For the millionth time, if you were one of the people on their announcement list for the PS4, they had a link they provided with facts of the upcoming PS4. That is where the news sites and other sites got the information. That site was changed from time to time as they updated features and information. Right as Microsoft came out with their announcement they took that site down for a bit and then they put it back up with a completely new set of information.

So you are saying Microsoft got cocky and assumed victory and now has to play catch up. Again, arguing my point for me. Sony is not using the same hardware as MS, unless you are referring to simply the architecture. Which arguably had to be the natural conclusion allowing for a more seamless approach to developing games from PC, to xbox, to PS4. It just makes sense, its the same as when Apple finally gave up on powerpc. The real winner there is AMD.

Wow...just wow. That is what you got out of all of that? Then perhaps Sony got cocky after their PS2 and assumed victory? Or maybe Nintendo got cocky and assumed victory after their Wii? That is a ridiculous statement. That just shows how far up Sony's arse you seem to be to come to that conclusion. Microsoft just went a different direction wanting to continue to improve on what features and services they could deliver. They didn't just sit on their laurels and update only the hardware. They came out with a bunch of new ideas and directions they could take their product. So who sat on whose arse and only upgraded the same things, albeit after copying their competitor? The reason I went with the PS3 last time was because they had a more interesting design, this time they went boring.

You are correct, Sony’s entertainment features are quite different than the xbox. However, the features that the xbox picked up instead of focusing on its core market, gaming, do not outweigh the losses they are taking now in my eyes. Sony didn’t do awful last generation, they did quite fine considering the rough start they had. Saying Microsoft used weaker hardware for its core function is proactive, boggles my mind. We are not talking about last generation, we are talking bout current generation. Microsoft and Sony, both learned quite a lot from the last cycle, and sadly the tune seems to be that Microsoft assumed it had the market in the bag out of the gate.

But they did focus on their core market, they just expanded it. They added a lot of new features for the gaming contingent. You are just lost in confusion here. You think that everything revolves around getting the best possible hardware and nothing else matters. The thing is, the hardware is very similar, yes the PS4 has slightly better hardware, but it isn't that significantly better. The XB1 on the other hand added a lot of other features besides just newer hardware.

If Microsoft had a lot of these media features on the 360, I would be completely with you. However the core functions of being my cable box, and all that other nonsense, in an era where subscribers are leaving cable providers in thousands, seems like it was a wrong decision to make.

Except that they have tons of ways to get media content on the XB1 outside of cable. In fact I have tons of apps from various channels and media outlets on my XB1 that gives me a ton of content that has nothing to do with cable. And that HDMI passthrough can be used for other things as well, it doesn't have to just be for cable boxes. You can use MS's guide with TV and over the air, you don't have to connect to any cable provider at all. I think you are missing the entire picture here. It is painfully obvious that you are blind to everything but your own opinions, so there is no use even discussing anything with you beyond this point.

 

[next-Jin]

LOL at that external storage support being reactive. Also, Xbox One's hardware is definitely capable but, programming for it will be harder to get the most out of it. Sorry but, your rumors sound like a lot of BS which is something you pulled out of your nether regions.

Devs are not going to do downgraded ports unless they decide that selling games are not important to them. (Read: Probably never.) Oh well, guess folks are going to say whatever they can to make their purchases look better. (Although, good for you that you are happy with what you have.)

Practically every multi platform game is a downgraded port so far. It's not a difference between generations but the differences are much greater than comparisons between PS3 and 360 were. It was a large deal back then, and from what I gather it's because the difference between a sub 720p title on a 1080p panel is much more pronounced than anything above 720p.

So while the percentages are greater it's not as pronounced. Digital Foundry does a pretty good job of explaining the differences and it's generally lower frame rates, lower resolution, less special effects or a combination of the 3.

The disparity will probably not change too much with third party titles but if I had to take a wild guess I'd say the spread between Microsoft and Sony first party titles are going to actually widen.

 

[next-Jin]

For the millionth time, if you were one of the people on their announcement list for the PS4, they had a link they provided with facts of the upcoming PS4. That is where the news sites and other sites got the information. That site was changed from time to time as they updated features and information. Right as Microsoft came out with their announcement they took that site down for a bit and then they put it back up with a completely new set of information.



Wow...just wow. That is what you got out of all of that? Then perhaps Sony got cocky after their PS2 and assumed victory? Or maybe Nintendo got cocky and assumed victory after their Wii? That is a ridiculous statement. That just shows how far up Sony's arse you seem to be to come to that conclusion. Microsoft just went a different direction wanting to continue to improve on what features and services they could deliver. They didn't just sit on their laurels and update only the hardware. They came out with a bunch of new ideas and directions they could take their product. So who sat on whose arse and only upgraded the same things, albeit after copying their competitor? The reason I went with the PS3 last time was because they had a more interesting design, this time they went boring.



But they did focus on their core market, they just expanded it. They added a lot of new features for the gaming contingent. You are just lost in confusion here. You think that everything revolves around getting the best possible hardware and nothing else matters. The thing is, the hardware is very similar, yes the PS4 has slightly better hardware, but it isn't that significantly better. The XB1 on the other hand added a lot of other features besides just newer hardware.



Except that they have tons of ways to get media content on the XB1 outside of cable. In fact I have tons of apps from various channels and media outlets on my XB1 that gives me a ton of content that has nothing to do with cable. And that HDMI passthrough can be used for other things as well, it doesn't have to just be for cable boxes. You can use MS's guide with TV and over the air, you don't have to connect to any cable provider at all. I think you are missing the entire picture here. It is painfully obvious that you are blind to everything but your own opinions, so there is no use even discussing anything with you beyond this point.

Sony initially having a DRM policy happened, but the key difference here is they actually planned for both scenarios and went with the one gamers didn't feel like they were getting fucked over from. It took Microsoft some time to switch their policies, for Sony it was as simple as having 2 different 5 minute segments during their conference. Letting Microsoft test the waters was brilliant.

I actually loved some of their plans and I hope they go back to some of them. My biggest grip has alway been they took a all in one approach without being a master of any of them. Basically I love the ability to watch tv on the same device but the nail in the coffin is no DVR capability. It kills it's usefulness other than live sporting events which could have been addressed by sport apps ya know?

I agree with them just trying to bring more to the table but they sacrificed stuff for that (see first point).

Their hardware is similar in hardware family but it's anywhere from 30% to 400% more powerful depending on what you are talking about. That's a large gap that third parties might not take advantage of other than a resolution bump or frame rate increase but first parties will.

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

 

[next-Jin]

Why did they do that? Because Xbox kicked their butts last go around. Oh and btw, what hardware did Sony go with? The hardware that Xbox was using so they could go cheaper. So who was being reactive here?

Not sure I follow this unless you mean Sony copied Microsoft for going with an APU from AMD and AMD gave Microsoft all the information they could have wanted about Sonys choices.

I hope not because Mark Cerny gave a very good brief on how they decided to go with the hardware that's in PS4 and why the APU is not balanced.

 

[NoOther]

Sony initially having a DRM policy happened, but the key difference here is they actually planned for both scenarios and went with the one gamers didn't feel like they were getting fucked over from. It took Microsoft some time to switch their policies, for Sony it was as simple as having 2 different 5 minute segments during their conference. Letting Microsoft test the waters was brilliant.

I actually loved some of their plans and I hope they go back to some of them. My biggest grip has alway been they took a all in one approach without being a master of any of them. Basically I love the ability to watch tv on the same device but the nail in the coffin is no DVR capability. It kills it's usefulness other than live sporting events which could have been addressed by sport apps ya know?

I agree with them just trying to bring more to the table but they sacrificed stuff for that (see first point).

Their hardware is similar in hardware family but it's anywhere from 30% to 150% more powerful depending on what you are talking about. That's a large gap that third parties might not take advantage of other than a resolution bump or frame rate increase but first parties will.

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

Finally a much more sensible statement. Yeah they did indeed sacrifice a bit in the performance gap. It will remain to be seen how much that will have an affect down the road and what other things might be brought to the table with the added media capabilities of XB1; whether that will help even the playing field enough.

As for the policies, I don't think MS only had the one policy, that is just the one they decided to go with when it came down to announcement time and with the direction they were trying to go with an all digital system. I am still not convinced their original plan was bad, I just think the current system of DRM is not particularly in favor, and their explanation/presentation was not well thought out or given. After all tons of people use Steam and it is effectively a massive DRM system as well.

As for the media stuff and the DVR capabilities, I am wondering with the advent of external storage if that will be something they will look at and try to add somehow in the future. Right now their snap capability combined with the streaming and companion is pretty effective and fairly well done. The multitasking is one of the things I love the most about it, although I have found it to have some limitations here and there.

 

[NoOther]

Not sure I follow this unless you mean Sony copied Microsoft for going with an APU from AMD and AMD gave Microsoft all the information they could have wanted about Sonys choices.

I hope not because Mark Cerny gave a very good brief on how they decided to go with the hardware that's in PS4 and why the APU is not balanced.

MS started off with their Xbox using more mainstream pc type parts, using more common CPU/GPU configurations. Sony was going with their custom RISC processor then the PS3 had the custom Cell processor and had a form of nvidia's GPU. And now the PS4 has gone with all AMD architecture following the same path and concept that MS started. Both have evolved, but where Sony ended up copying MS is by going to more mainstream parts that were cheaper than developing and producing them in house.

 

[Ocellaris]

As for the policies, I don't think MS only had the one policy, that is just the one they decided to go with when it came down to announcement time and with the direction they were trying to go with an all digital system. I am still not convinced their original plan was bad, I just think the current system of DRM is not particularly in favor, and their explanation/presentation was not well thought out or given. After all tons of people use Steam and it is effectively a massive DRM system as well.

MS's original plan wasn't the worst thing in the world, however their presentation of it is where it fell apart. Just like the first time the XBox One was introduced, it was all about TV TV TV TV TV and they forgot about games. Then they flubbed the Kinect by tell people the console "needed" to come with it, but didn't really show any particular gaming reason why. Mattrick was quite possibly the worst person MS could have found to handle a console launch.

Fortunately they shit canned Don "Buy the XBox 360" Mattrick shortly after launch and have more reasonable people in charge now.

 

[next-Jin]

MS started off with their Xbox using more mainstream pc type parts, using more common CPU/GPU configurations. Sony was going with their custom RISC processor then the PS3 had the custom Cell processor and had a form of nvidia's GPU. And now the PS4 has gone with all AMD architecture following the same path and concept that MS started. Both have evolved, but where Sony ended up copying MS is by going to more mainstream parts that were cheaper than developing and producing them in house.

But what you are saying is that Sony copied MIcrosofts first console. You should watch "The Road to PS4" on YouTube. Mark Cerny had two approaches to the PS4 and went with the simpler approach of the two. They discussed on board ram but saw the negatives of that.

After the PS3 fiasco you can understand their reasoning. They will be able to drop the price very quickly with the PS4. You'll see a 99 dollar PS4 at some point. The PS3 probably won't because of Cell.

 

[NoOther]

But what you are saying is that Sony copied MIcrosofts first console. You should watch "The Road to PS4" on YouTube. Mark Cerny had two approaches to the PS4 and went with the simpler approach of the two. They discussed on board ram but saw the negatives of that.

After the PS3 fiasco you can understand their reasoning. They will be able to drop the price very quickly with the PS4. You'll see a 99 dollar PS4 at some point. The PS3 probably won't because of Cell.

Yes and no, what I am saying is that Sony copied the ideology behind Microsoft's strategy to the game console. MS figured it would be cheaper to use parts that were already being mass produced for PCs. That cut the cost of R&D on chips and made it easier to manufacture and replace parts. Cost was the main reason Sony changed their approach, following the example of MS.

 

[next-Jin]

Yes and no, what I am saying is that Sony copied the ideology behind Microsoft's strategy to the game console. MS figured it would be cheaper to use parts that were already being mass produced for PCs. That cut the cost of R&D on chips and made it easier to manufacture and replace parts. Cost was the main reason Sony changed their approach, following the example of MS.

Let's be somewhat reasonable here, given the costs of PS1>PS2>PS3 and overall impact of time to triangle and third party complaints what other option would a company have to bring a console to market that:

1) made it exceptionally easy for developers
2) allowed you to release at cost with the ability to drastically lower costs over 5 years
3) stayed within power / thermal limits
4) drastically lower overall R&D costs

They only had 5 options and only 1 allowed for all 4 of those.

Custom architecture
Super Cell
PowerPC
X86 APU
X86 CPU + GPU

That's not copying.

EDIT: For clarification the 360 did not use normal x86 parts like the OG Xbox. I'm just not seeing any resemblances to their hardware roadmap (including Xbox One) that makes me think Sony saw something that they should copy.

APUs were strong enough with custom designs where not going that route would be very problematic in the market.

Personally I would have loved to see an Intel G2xxx with a GTX 680m but it's just not feasible.

 

[NoOther]

Let's be somewhat reasonable here, given the costs of PS1>PS2>PS3 and overall impact of time to triangle and third party complaints what other option would a company have to bring a console to market that:

1) made it exceptionally easy for developers
2) allowed you to release at cost with the ability to drastically lower costs over 5 years
3) stayed within power / thermal limits
4) drastically lower overall R&D costs

They only had 5 options and only 1 allowed for all 4 of those.

Custom architecture
Super Cell
PowerPC
X86 APU
X86 CPU + GPU

That's not copying.

EDIT: For clarification the 360 did not use normal x86 parts like the OG Xbox. I'm just not seeing any resemblances to their hardware roadmap (including Xbox One) that makes me think Sony saw something that they should copy.

APUs were strong enough with custom designs where not going that route would be very problematic in the market.

Personally I would have loved to see an Intel G2xxx with a GTX 680m but it's just not feasible.

So your reasonable assumption after Sony famously spent all the money on the Cell architecture after seeing how MS was able to cut production costs down with their method, is that what MS did had absolutely no impact on the direction Sony took? Okay...

 

[next-Jin]

So your reasonable assumption after Sony famously spent all the money on the Cell architecture after seeing how MS was able to cut production costs down with their method, is that what MS did had absolutely no impact on the direction Sony took? Okay...

But the 360 was not a x86 design it was a PowerPC derivative.

All you have to do is watch The Road to PlayStation 4 to know why. Ken Kutaragi had a completely different approach to consoles than that of Mark Cerny.

Mark Cerny was actively involved with PS2 and early PS3 games and knew what a pain in the ass it was to program for. Ken loved proprietary hardware and pushing the envelope, Mark was more concerned about helping developers (formation of ICE team for instance).

They didn't copy anything so much as they only had one approach to take that made sense. Mark approached AMD for an APU that Sony could help design with certain goals and that's what they did.

It's why the PS4 has a ton of ACE queues like the 290 series as opposed to the Xbox Ones more 7970 design. Mark and team wanted to put more power under the hood for compute and other things.

The ROPs to ACEs don't make a hell of a lot of sense unless you know why they did what they did.

It's not even remotely close as the OG Xbox was basically a computer in a box, the 360 was a PowerPC design and the One is a computer in a box with embedded/shared memory.

The PS4 is more like a heavily modified graphics card with a CPU tacked on. Highly customized GPU part with GDDR5 and the CPU cores. The Xbox One APU is the strongest standard level APU AMD had on their lineup, the PS4 version is way more customized than that. It was on one of the AMD slides from awhile back (the APU in Xbox One).

A much better (albeit bad) argument would be Nintendo copied MS or vice versa.

 

[Climber]

So your reasonable assumption after Sony famously spent all the money on the Cell architecture after seeing how MS was able to cut production costs down with their method, is that what MS did had absolutely no impact on the direction Sony took? Okay...

No its called common sense. If your previous generation was too cost prohibitive and unfriendly to developers then you start with those 2 problems and look what you can change. Just because similarities are there doesn't mean they copied a rival. You have no proof that this is what happened so your reasonable assumption is that Sony copied MS is no more correct or incorrect than any other reasonable assumption .

 

[RaZoRbLaDeD]

Ahhaha, I just wasted my time reading through most of this thread and came to the same conclusion as everyone else: NoOther is reaching hard, extremely upset and foaming at the mouth with fanboism...also, 99.9% of the things he claims as "fact" is made up nonsense... For starters I think you should take a look at the end sales of last gen....

I'm on my phone so I'm not really going to get into it too much buy thanks for the laugh "NoOther"...*wipes sweat from brow*.

 

[ManofGod]

Gee, I guess Sony is the do no wrong King now, eh? Oh well, enjoy your hacked accounts and rootkit. To the OP, what did you end up getting and is he happy with it?

 

[next-Jin]

Gee, I guess Sony is the do no wrong King now, eh? Oh well, enjoy your hacked accounts and rootkit.

Well that was a bit uncalled for, if he says a PS4 are you going to be really upset then?

 

[ManofGod]

Well that was a bit uncalled for, if he says a PS4 are you going to be really upset then?

Nah, just directed at the fanboy comment above my post. Oh, not upset, just tired of selective memory.

 

[NoOther]

Ahhaha, I just wasted my time reading through most of this thread and came to the same conclusion as everyone else: NoOther is reaching hard, extremely upset and foaming at the mouth with fanboism...also, 99.9% of the things he claims as "fact" is made up nonsense... For starters I think you should take a look at the end sales of last gen....

I'm on my phone so I'm not really going to get into it too much buy thanks for the laugh "NoOther"...*wipes sweat from brow*.

I laughed hard at this post. Nice try there, do you need Sony to wipe your chin for you now?

 

[NoOther]

But the 360 was not a x86 design it was a PowerPC derivative.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the PowerPC chip a common component of everyday computers? Why yes it was. Wasn't it already developed and being used in wide distribution? Ding, ding ding, it was! So what does it not being X86 have anything to do with the discussion?

 

[Ocellaris]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the PowerPC chip a common component of everyday computers? Why yes it was. Wasn't it already developed and being used in wide distribution? Ding, ding ding, it was! So what does it not being X86 have anything to do with the discussion?

If by everyday computers you mean "Used in Macs which had 3% of the market and almost no games" then sure, it was a common competent.

 

[SeymourGore]

Careful with the angsty typing, you'll be spilling your Mountain Dew soon enough gumming up your keyboards!

 

[NoOther]

If by everyday computers you mean "Used in Macs which had 3% of the market and almost no games" then sure, it was a common competent.

Were those computers not everyday desktop computers? Were those chips not mass produced? Was it not a design that was already in the market being used? I am not sure what you are expecting here?

 

[Armenius]

Careful with the angsty typing, you'll be spilling your Mountain Dew soon enough gumming up your keyboards!

You're showing your age. I'm pretty sure it's just called "Dew" nowadays .

Were those computers not everyday desktop computers? Were those chips not mass produced? Was it not a design that was already in the market being used? I am not sure what you are expecting here?

Your implication by saying PowerPC was a common component in "everyday" computers was that all computers in the market had some sort of a PowerPC architecture used in them. Apple computers are typically not used for gaming applications. The majority of the gaming market is on Windows PCs, which are powered by Win32/Win64 libraries and x86 processors. PowerPC uses a completely different instruction set from x86 that is more widely used in HPC applications. Two completely different markets, two completely different architectures, two completely different programming methodologies. You can't program something to use the x86 architecture and have it work on PowerPC, or vice versa.

 

[next-Jin]

Were those computers not everyday desktop computers? Were those chips not mass produced? Was it not a design that was already in the market being used? I am not sure what you are expecting here?

It's a different architecture, it's not used in PCs or Macs and hasn't for a long time. It was used in gaming platforms back in the day but x86 just has way more advantages.

The only thing you're missing is a response to my original question. It's the right fit for any console these days and APUs will probably power consoles for next decade or two. I couldn't imagine any scenario where a company would do anything else.

 

[NoOther]

It's a different architecture, it's not used in PCs or Macs and hasn't for a long time. It was used in gaming platforms back in the day but x86 just has way more advantages.

The only thing you're missing is a response to my original question. It's the right fit for any console these days and APUs will probably power consoles for next decade or two. I couldn't imagine any scenario where a company would do anything else.

PowerPC was used until 2006 in computers. Xbox came out in 2003, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by that? I didn't miss anything, Sony had been designing special processors for some time for their gaming systems. MS came out and decided to use parts that were already out and being used. It made the manufacturing process easier and the system cheaper to build. When it was proved they could keep up with the gaming on it, it forced Sony's hand. Remember Sony still scoffed at the original Xbox and thought they could beat out it and its successor by again designing a unique chip with the Cell processor. It cost Sony a ton of money and they lost out in the end. So they finally realized they couldn't compete that route and decided to go a similar route as MS had already done. It was a smart decision and should prove quite fruitful for them now. But it was still following MS's lead.

The funny is how much misinformation there is with people claiming stuff about the PowerPC how it "wasn't" meant for gaming and how it wasn't in general use. First off, "meant for gaming" is a misnomer, that largely depends on the infrastructure, mostly the OS and development tools made for the system to support gaming, not really the CPU. The CPU just chunks data. In fact now you see that more of the gaming is down on GPUs. Finally they are making systems that meld the CPU and GPU better. Secondly, even though Apple may only have had a small section of the market, its PowerPCs were very popular among schools and many homes, meaning it still had a large distribution and had been around and tested for over a decade.

The simple point is that MS went to those routes first, showed they worked and it was cheaper, and Sony ended up following suit. That is really all there is to it. You can try to brush it off with saying any company would be foolish not to go that route, but Sony did not go that route with the PS3 when they had the chance.

 

[DF-1]

poor guy just wanted a console suggestion, you guys have to keep throwing crap at each other to defend a fucking company? grow up.

 

[NoOther]

poor guy just wanted a console suggestion, you guys have to keep throwing crap at each other to defend a fucking company? grow up.

Nope, if you read through it, there was a lot of discussion between what things were better in each console. There then was a disagreement about which one might be poised for a better path this generation. From there it did get a little off track as we started to debate which company has been more innovating and probably has gotten into the weeds. But there was plenty of good information about both consoles and the paths they are on. I think we can have a semi safe consensus on the following:

First, since this was for the OPs nephew, he should probably go with the system that the majority of his closest friends are using.

For second considerations:

PS4 for those that want a better pure gaming experience.

XB1 if you are looking for more of an all around entertainment system.

Those are just generalities, the specifics of each are mentioned in the thread and you can read those at your leisure.