Xbox One

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

If it were confidence, then all of the Microsoft executives would be on point with their messaging - each one of them would be repeating the same few points. What we're getting is that they're talking about all sorts of different points and often contradicting each other. This is panic - the preorder numbers, the sales projections, the production projections, and the way that their messaging has backfired are all beyond Microsoft's expectations, and I don't know if they have any idea for how to deal with it. When and if they stop making flubs and getting on point, we'll know that they have gotten their act together. Right now, it's the kind of material that will start showing up in business and marketing classes all over the world.

I dunno.

Look at SimCity. That game had trouble marked all over it yet it still ending up selling over 1.6 million units.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

I dunno.

Look at SimCity. That game had trouble marked all over it yet it still ending up selling over 1.6 million units.

And they will fail to sell any DLC, which was where the real money was. If you want to use Simcity2013 as proof of success, MS is in trouble.

[Nightengale]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

I dunno.

Look at SimCity. That game had trouble marked all over it yet it still ending up selling over 1.6 million units.

Selling several million consoles is peanuts for the XBONE. They'll achieve it easily with their 'loyalist' & 'system movers.'

The challenge comes after.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

Selling several million consoles is peanuts for the XBONE. They'll achieve it easily with their 'loyalist' & 'system movers.'

The challenge comes after.

Not to mention 1.6 million units of Xbox1 is not enough to cover the production costs of a AAA game. A new Halo selling 1.6 million would be a miserable failure. Halo 3 sold 8.1 million copies.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

When an expert in the field confirms what makes sense, the likelihood that this is true is very high.


Systems being easier to code for are largely an artefact of their architecture. Both the PS4 and the Xbone have similar architectures, except that the Xbone has a bunch of extra steps required to perform its tasks. Hence it is impossible for the Xbone to be easier to code for unless its development tools are superior.

Here's what Avalanche (Just Cause) has to say over that:

http://www.edge-online.com/news/ps4-...anche-studios/

We also have quotes like this regarding the PS4:

http://www.technologyguide.com/featu...orite-octopus/

In time, Microsoft might catch up to Sony, or even exceed them in development tools. But that's certainly not the case right now. And, in light of so many games at E3 not running on Xbone developer kits, it suggests strongly that the game studios are having a hard time coding Xbone games. And that this is in stark contrast to PS4 development.

My point is exactly that: Microsoft's development tools will be superior to the ones from Sony (and I would be surprised if they weren't already). Microsoft not only has a lot of skill in that area it also has a pretty good base to start from (Visual Studio on X86 Windows).

And do note that the Avalanche quote talks about driver issues, not development tools. And he also goes on to say the exact same thing I did: he's expecting Microsoft to have great dev tools.

Ease of coding will not be an argument to get games on the PS4 when compared to the XB1, that much I can bet on for the following 2 to 3 years (from then on who knows? Maybe Sony will buy someone who makes good devtools eventually).

[Nightengale]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Not to mention 1.6 million units of Xbox1 is not enough to cover the production costs of a AAA game. A new Halo selling 1.6 million would be a miserable failure. Halo 3 sold 8.1 million copies.

Comparison to SimCity sales would be a tad unfair. Like it or not, XB1 will definitely sell more than 1.6 million units.

Let's make some assumptions. Assume 50% of all Halo 3 buyers are die-hard fans, (unlikely ) who will definitely buy an XB1 just to play the next Halo. That would be 4 million units. Throw in a few other franchises, it would come to around 5-6 million.

After that... what?

Microsoft's 1st-party studios isn't as strong as it used to be, whereas Sony own studios seem to be doing very well, as some of them have separate teams for different games now.

3rd party exclusives can only last for so long. We saw that happen in the previous gen. And ultimately, the less that the XB1 sells, the less bargaining or value their exclusivity deal can offer to 3rd parties. The merit of being an XBox exclusive would lose a lot of shine if there's insufficient install bases to move sales.

From a non-gaming perspective...

TV stuff. Google TV failed. Cheaper alternatives failed. There is no proven market for a $499 media box. And there's no way Apple & Google will allow Microsoft to win in that space, nevermind cable companies.

NFL. I don't know about America, but I've never felt that the market for "exclusive content only available in whatever" is a big one. It's only the die-hards that would crave for things like this, just like exclusive DLC items, etc. NFL will never offer something truly special and unprecedented only for XB1, without charging them insane amounts of money.

Skype. TwitchTV. Bing. Internet Explorer. Windows apps. The idea of 'on-screen multitasking with voice and gesture' just kills me. Literally everyone in the media industry is talking about the '2nd screen' via smartphones & tablets, and that feels way more efficient and realistic in real-life use compared to gesturing and talking to your TV to do it.

Kinect. I've no doubt it's an excellent piece of hardware... Only 30 million bought it for the 360, and I suspect at least 5-10 million were bought for non-gaming purposes. Games with gesture controls have not shown any success. No 3rd party AAA games use them outside voice recognition.

And there's one huge problem, that I can't believe Microsoft failed to recognise... Kinect supports SIX languages. SIX. No wonder Poland didn't enter the launch list, Kinect doesn't recognise Polish. And many other languages.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

And there's one huge problem, that I can't believe Microsoft failed to recognise... Kinect supports SIX languages. SIX. No wonder Poland didn't enter the launch list, Kinect doesn't recognise Polish. And many other languages.

Ah, yes. Mandatory Kinect means mandatory voice packs. That is another headache.

[0utf0xZer0]

I had to laugh a little a Cerny saying that the number one thing developers asked for on PS4 was unified memory... I seem to recall the PS3's "256MB system, 256MB graphics" divide caused devs a lot of headache relative to the 360s 512MB unified + high speed cache approach.

I also seem to recall that the 360's high speed cache was designed to be enough to offload specific high bandwidth functions from main memory, and I imagine MS is taking the same approach here. I suspect that MS's smaller GPU is due to having to fit the cache on chip so I do think SOny has the better design, but it's worth taking some of these statements with a grain of salt.

My big question is whether Kinect can track to the finger as opposed to just arm level. If it does, it could make for some interesting "controller+" scenarios. You know how Ryse is primarily controller based but you can signal troops with gestures? If you get it to the level where it can track fingers, you could probably implement something like the spellcasting via drawing runes systems in PC games like Arx Fatalis or The Void, except without the clunkiness of trying to draw with a mouse. (It occurs to me the Wii U could also support such a control scheme. So yes, there actually is an area where PS4 is the weakest link too. Wouldn't bet on most devs caring though.)

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I had to laugh a little a Cerny saying that the number one thing developers asked for on PS4 was unified memory... I seem to recall the PS3's "256MB system, 256MB graphics" divide caused devs a lot of headache relative to the 360s 512MB unified + high speed cache approach.

I also seem to recall that the 360's high speed cache was designed to be enough to offload specific high bandwidth functions from main memory, and I imagine MS is taking the same approach here. I suspect that MS's smaller GPU is due to having to fit the cache on chip so I do think SOny has the better design, but it's worth taking some of these statements with a grain of salt.

My big question is whether Kinect can track to the finger as opposed to just arm level. If it does, it could make for some interesting "controller+" scenarios. You know how Ryse is primarily controller based but you can signal troops with gestures? If you get it to the level where it can track fingers, you could probably implement something like the spellcasting via drawing runes systems in PC games like Arx Fatalis or The Void, except without the clunkiness of trying to draw with a mouse. (It occurs to me the Wii U could also support such a control scheme. So yes, there actually is an area where PS4 is the weakest link too. Wouldn't bet on most devs caring though.)

The PS4 has a touchpad on the controller so you could easily make that sort of scenario work with it (drawing runes on the touchpad).

[Jazzrat]

I don't think tools would be much concern for this generation. The biggest issue down the line would be memory usage when games start using higher resolution textures. Also cloud computing could play a key difference later on as developer offload calculations to servers especially for multiplayer games.

Though issues like this probably wouldn't surface till very much later. Immediate issue would be indie dev's access to the platform. So far, Sony have been doing an incredible job at it and its starting to look better than Steam in lights of the recent Greenlight program controversy.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Though issues like this probably wouldn't surface till very much later. Immediate issue would be indie dev's access to the platform. So far, Sony have been doing an incredible job at it and its starting to look better than Steam in lights of the recent Greenlight program controversy.

Microsoft's stance toward indies and self publishers is pathetic. Nintendo and Sony have both worked hard to get indies on board, and it's paying off. More games means more content and more content helps push sales. The mainstream consumer isn't likely to rush out and buy a system just for indie games, but when they turn on the console and see a store filled with cheap quirky titles they'll be pleased to have stuff to play when they get tired of Call of Duty or Mario.

When both the PS4 and One hit their software droughts after the holidays, it will be indies that help fill in those big budget software gaps. The PS4 is far better positioned than the One is, in that regard.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

You take a single developer to give credibility to your argument,

Has anyone contradicted Avalanche?

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

and Mark Cerny, and a expert who work for Sony in PS4, therefore obviously partial to the console he developed (and he dont know the Xbone development tools) .

Has anyone contradicted Cerny? His quote was about architecture, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that its supposed to refer to Xbone development tools.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

I dunno.

Look at SimCity. That game had trouble marked all over it yet it still ending up selling over 1.6 million units.

I think that the Xbone will sell out its shipments for this year in North America, the UK, and maybe Australia. However, the threshold of success for a console is quite a bit different than that for a game. The state of the competition is also going to matter a lot. If Microsoft can be within 50% of Sony's sales by the end of the year, they'll be in relatively good shape. If they're only a quarter of the way there, the Xbone will never come close to the success of the 360.

Originally Posted by Dextro

My point is exactly that: Microsoft's development tools will be superior to the ones from Sony (and I would be surprised if they weren't already). Microsoft not only has a lot of skill in that area it also has a pretty good base to start from (Visual Studio on X86 Windows).

And do note that the Avalanche quote talks about driver issues, not development tools. And he also goes on to say the exact same thing I did: he's expecting Microsoft to have great dev tools.

Immature drivers = immature development tools. For a console, they're part and parcel as they're developed in conjunction with one another. These tools also take a long time to mature, so being behind so close to launch can impact release dates. The Wii U's development tools weren't fully mature until 6 months after launch, and we can certainly expect Microsoft to do a better job than that. However, immature tools can hurt the games that come out in the first six months of a console's launch, and that's where it will matter the most.

Originally Posted by Dextro

Ease of coding will not be an argument to get games on the PS4 when compared to the XB1, that much I can bet on for the following 2 to 3 years (from then on who knows? Maybe Sony will buy someone who makes good devtools eventually).

In the long run for most Western high-budget games, it probably won't make any difference. For indie games and Japanese developers though, it might. The main reason I bring up this though is that being easier to design for will usually mean that more time can be devoted to improving other parts of the game.

Originally Posted by Nightengale

Comparison to SimCity sales would be a tad unfair. Like it or not, XB1 will definitely sell more than 1.6 million units.

Let's make some assumptions. Assume 50% of all Halo 3 buyers are die-hard fans, (unlikely ) who will definitely buy an XB1 just to play the next Halo. That would be 4 million units. Throw in a few other franchises, it would come to around 5-6 million.

With a 77 million 360 install base, the Xbone should be able to hit 20-30 million with little difficulty. However, the question is whether it does so in its third year or its sixth year. The former will be good news for Microsoft, while the latter might well be enough to kill Xbox as a brand.

Originally Posted by Nightengale

From a non-gaming perspective...

Many of these features either won't work or have no appeal outside of the U.S. It's pretty clear why Microsoft decided to include them, but it's perplexing why they bet the farm on them.

Originally Posted by Solace

When both the PS4 and One hit their software droughts after the holidays, it will be indies that help fill in those big budget software gaps. The PS4 is far better positioned than the One is, in that regard.

Sony has way more internal development teams to begin with, so their drought should be less of a factor to begin with.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Sony has way more internal development teams to begin with, so their drought should be less of a factor to begin with.

Hey, every advantage counts. And there's no telling if they'll be games people want. But there will be a drought, no bones about it. We both agree Sony is better prepared to handle it.

[Westlo]

PS4 launch lineup is fine.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Battlefield 4
Call of Duty: Ghosts
DC Universe Online
Diablo 3
DriveClub
FIFA 14
Just Dance 2014
Killzone: Shadow Fall
Knack
LEGO Marvel Super Heroes
Madden NFL 25
NBA 2K14
NBA Live 14
PlanetSide 2
Skylanders: Swap Force Vicarious Visions
Warframe
Watch Dogs

Yes a lot of ports/crossgen games but if you're going to buy a ps4 than you should obviously be getting them for said platform. 1080p, 60fps Assassin's Creed IV is clearly superior to last gens versions...

Originally Posted by Dirty_Harry

Where'd you get that? (in bold)

I think sometimes people make very strong statements without the facts. Wishful thinking.

The ps4 ram is just 8gb gddr5 whereas the Xbone has 32MB of ESRAM added to the die along with their 8 gig of ddr3 ram, making it more complex. And yes most past consoles have been like that (Wii U, Ps2 etc) but it doesn't change the fact that Ps4s unified (and faster) ram solution is superior.

Ps4

Flops - 1.84 t/f
CU - 18
ROP - 32
Ram reserved for OS - 1gb

Xbone

Flops - 1.2
CU - 12
ROP - 16
Ram reserved for OS - 3gb

10% of the GPU power is reserved for the OS as well on Xbone, and if the clockspeed downgrade rumor ends up true... lol.

[felix]

http://www.warpzoned.com/2013/06/con...i-kinect-bill/

[Solace]

Oh lord, that is hilarious. Talk about a double standard. I'm surprised the bill is a bipartisan effort.

Still, not good for MS. Even if the bill is DOA, this just shows how far into the public psyche the machine has become, and not for good reasons.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Dextro

The PS4 has a touchpad on the controller so you could easily make that sort of scenario work with it (drawing runes on the touchpad).

Eh, good point, but I think the limited vertical height would get in the way. The comparison honestly reminds me of how my 15 inch Macbook Pro owning friend complains about the touchpad on my (11.6 inch) Thinkpad X120E every time he tried to show me something on the Thinkpad.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

My big question is whether Kinect can track to the finger as opposed to just arm level. If it does, it could make for some interesting "controller+" scenarios. You know how Ryse is primarily controller based but you can signal troops with gestures? If you get it to the level where it can track fingers, you could probably implement something like the spellcasting via drawing runes systems in PC games like Arx Fatalis or The Void, except without the clunkiness of trying to draw with a mouse. (It occurs to me the Wii U could also support such a control scheme. So yes, there actually is an area where PS4 is the weakest link too. Wouldn't bet on most devs caring though.)

I'm certain it can't. It's been improved to the point where kinect can read your thumb and thus read your hand like it was a mitten but so far I see nothing to suggest it can read individual fingers

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/43...x-one-hands-on

Spoiler:

One of the suggestions i mentioned before would have been adding a glove peripheral that would have allowed the kinect to track your fingers. That would expanded on the kinect's ability allowing to use any kind of hand gesture as controls. Really forget drawing runes, imagine if you could cast spells with different hand signs. This would have created even more options for games. The other suggestion was a navi controller which also would have expanded on kinect's playablity. Kinect is not a bad idea, but its been stupid for MS to not think about how else the device might be used and figure out how to actually play games with it.

Also the idea of casting spells via drawing runs was kinda of done in Okami on the PS2

[kyp275]

http://www.navytimes.com/article/201...TY02/306140030

and the terrible PR train rolls on...

[Urzu 7]

From another forum:

We've got those who want to tell us MS aren't so bad and just telling it like it is. Everything's going digital, and we just don't like what we're hearing.
MS aren't telling it like it is though. They're telling us how they want it, and a major issue with that is we don't like what we hear.

Let's consider why things that have gone digital have done so.

On the music front, iTunes came along.
It was just as convenient as the MP3 player. Holy shit.
99 cents per song, instant delivery, no more requirement to buy an entire shitty CD from that shitty top 40 artist just to hear those 1 or 2 songs you like from them. If you want the whole album, it's cheaper.
The format is already in the digital format the iPod wants, and we all like our iPods better than the Sony Discman.
We get convenience, cheaper music and a whole lot of shit that makes sense. Sorry Tower Records, consumers are sold on it.
We can still get CD's and trade them as we will, but the value and convenience of iTunes made digital distribution a very healthy market.

Movie rentals are an easy one. I just want to see most movies once. I'd rather rent. Oh better yet, I can order this through my cable box for the same price or cheaper and not have to worry about returning the movie and paying late fees. Shit. Sign me up. People love it. Sorry Hollywood Video.
We can still get Blu Ray's and trade them as we will, but the value and convenience of being able to watch movies is making on-demand video a very healthy market.

In these two examples, people were sold on the idea, had time to see the value in it, and opted to put their money there. The market went overwhelmingly digital. Despite that, there are still CD's and Blu Rays out there, because people still do want that sometimes.

Now we come to games, specifically console games.
Buying games digitally's been around a while.
It's great. However when people are being told their discs can't be traded, the reaction is "what the fuck?"
The reply to this is "it's where the industry is headed."
Why is it headed in that direction?
We have the option here for digital, but with a game being a bigger investment in time and money, putting a disc into your console isn't quite that much of an inconvenience. A lot of people are buying their games like this. Probably more than digital.

How come the other segments of the entertainment industry had to offer the consumers compelling reasons to go digital and earn this result while Microsoft sees fit to tell consumers how it's going to be?

People who stopped buying CD's and use digital music services did so on their own accord. Same with the shift in video. Even then, the old formats were never killed off.

MS and those defending their actions would have us believe consumers are wrong on this one despite consumers themselves being the ones who make the markets what they are. As a consumer, I like downloading games, but like the option of owning my discs too.

Why doesn't MS or any game publisher have to convince the public online is the way to go? Why do they get to obliterate trading discs instead of proving to the consumer downloading is the way to go? For all the manufacturing costs in getting those discs into cases, packed with literature and on shelves why don't they have to let consumers see they can be getting the same day one games so much cheaper and quicker by opting into a DRM-based digital sale?
Why do MS get to skip the part where the benefits become clear to most users without discs being rendered useless?

There's a huge ass difference between where the industry goes, and what those who feel like a big enough presence try to force it into.