Forbes: PS4 and Xbox One are already out of date

[Trik'Stari]

Yes, the best way to win a debate is to tell the other person to leave. Bravo on that logic. 

What does most of the internet being run on Linux have to do with GAMING support? Linux servers run by sys admins aren't going to be gaming. So what relevance does that have? 

You said Linux doesn't have a bigger market share than OSX. Which is not true at all. Linux is used by just about everything out there. Without Linux, you wouldn't have OSX OR Windows.

 

Or the ability to make your incorrect arguments online.

[deathjester]

I didn't promote anything? What the hell are you on about? Still trotting out your "astroturfed" theories are we?

Did I say Destiny does 1080p 60fps? No. I gave a list of games, some of which do 1080p30, some 1080p60, some neither. What the hell are you even on about? You really are reaching at straws these days to get likes, aren't you? 

 

Am I not allowed to say "yes, I like this game, numbers be damned?"

You are the cancerous root of this community lately, with your posts amounting to nothing more than conspiracy theory level diatribes. 

And the name is Victorious Secret, making my name feminine isn't much of an insult and it just proves how pathetic your critical reasoning skills are. 

 

You linked a site that shows inaccurate information, then accused people of posting inaccurate information. FACT. Xbox One can't even maintain 30 fps in Tomb Raider. Fact. PS4 is listed at 60 fps on the site you used as "proof" and has 33 FPS lows. That is 27 FPS from 60. It is not even close.

 

Have a great day posting misinformation there buddy. 

[Trik'Stari]

You linked a site that shows inaccurate information, then accused people of posting inaccurate information. FACT. Xbox One can't even maintain 30 fps in Tomb Raider. Fact. PS4 is listed at 60 fps on the site you used as "proof" and has 33 FPS lows. That is 27 FPS from 60. It is not even close.

 

Have a great day posting misinformation there buddy. 

Well, we should have seen through his bullshit when he quoted IGN. As if they're an objective source of information about consoles lol.

[Ashley]

Yes, the best way to win a debate is to tell the other person to leave. Bravo on that logic. 

What does most of the internet being run on Linux have to do with GAMING support? Linux servers run by sys admins aren't going to be gaming. So what relevance does that have? 

Yeah... I love Linux and all but the XWindow system is crap. Can Linux run software on a server w/o a GUI super efficiently and for free? Yes. And consumer-grade networking drivers are much better, the graphics drivers are getting some love. But Linux for the home PC user has a ways to go.

[TheArium]

I think I'm lacking far behind so I will excuse my ignorance in advance.

 

The first thing I heard was that the consoles would output 30 FPS at 720P. Then some update would allow them to run 1080P 60 FPS? I've read some games do, anyway. I this correct?

 

Now the issue is that they won't run 4K, which very few PC's can handle anyway -- AND the displays are quite expensive, not to mention if you should use a TV for that. However, the issue is that the consoles, being next gen, should be truly next gen by running 4K +60 FPS natively (or as much as your display allows), is this right?

 

Thanks.

[Ashley]

Yes, the best way to win a debate is to tell the other person to leave. Bravo on that logic. 

What does most of the internet being run on Linux have to do with GAMING support? Linux servers run by sys admins aren't going to be gaming. So what relevance does that have? 

 

 

You said Linux doesn't have a bigger market share than OSX. Which is not true at all. Linux is used by just about everything out there. Without Linux, you wouldn't have OSX OR Windows.

 

Or the ability to make your incorrect arguments online.

 

You linked a site that shows inaccurate information, then accused people of posting inaccurate information. FACT. Xbox One can't even maintain 30 fps in Tomb Raider. Fact. PS4 is listed at 60 fps on the site you used as "proof" and has 33 FPS lows. That is 27 FPS from 60. It is not even close.

 

Have a great day posting misinformation there buddy. 

 

I'm fine with people having a debate, but be respectful.

 

 

I think I'm lacking far behind so I will excuse my ignorance in advance.

 

The first thing I heard was that the consoles would output 30 FPS at 720P. Then some update would allow them to run 1080P 60 FPS? I've read some games do, anyway. I this correct?

 

Now the issue is that they won't run 4K, which very few PC's can handle anyway -- AND the displays are quite expensive, not to mention if you should use a TV for that. However, the issue is that the consoles, being next gen, should be truly next gen by running 4K +60 FPS natively (or as much as your display allows), is this right?

 

Thanks.

Typically those updates are from 900p 60fps to 1080p60. Not 720p30 to 1080p60.

And the issue is consoles can't even output a 4k signal. The HDMI standard they use can't even do 4k 30fps if I'm not mistaken, or at the very least the software doesn't support 4k output. So at 4k you would be scaling a 1080p image at best but most games aren't rendered at 1080p. And most PC gaming configurations can't handle 4k 60fps currently, but at least we have the correct display standards for it and could play on medium or low settings with 30, 40, or maybe in some games 60 fps.

[Trik'Stari]

I think I'm lacking far behind so I will excuse my ignorance in advance.

 

The first thing I heard was that the consoles would output 30 FPS at 720P. Then some update would allow them to run 1080P 60 FPS? I've read some games do, anyway. I this correct?

 

Now the issue is that they won't run 4K, which very few PC's can handle anyway -- AND the displays are quite expensive, not to mention if you should use a TV for that. However, the issue is that the consoles, being next gen, should be truly next gen by running 4K +60 FPS natively (or as much as your display allows), is this right?

 

Thanks.

No, the issue is that most of their games can't even run 1080p at 60hz. And if they do, the graphics have to be turned way down. Not to mention that it's relatively easy to build a PC for the same price that will outperform the consoles.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%24400+pc+to+beat+ps4&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts

 

Oh and one other thing, Consoles lack SSD capability. While SSD's may be expensive, they make a huge difference in how the system performs (startup, and load times). If MS and sony really wanted to rub it in PC's face, they'd have slapped SSD's into those shitboxes and taken a loss on each unit sold.

 

I would actually be quite interested to see how their respective OS's improve with an SSD compared to a windows gaming pc with an SSD. If their OS's are "lighter" then the speed improvement for startup and loading times would be massive I would think

[NICKT]

You guys are all circlejerking over resolution and frame-rate as if it's the be all an' end all.

There's more things like textures, shaders and shadows, models, hitboxes, rendering.

 

It's why despite phones these days managing to handle a 1080p image they'll never be on the same level, because they don't have the rendering power. This is why consoles need to die, not because we need higher frame-rates, but because it severely limits a game in it's entirety. Look at the first preview of Watch Dogs and then compare it to release, so many things were made worse, all the way down to the way the leaves floated on the wind in the original preview which added so much subtle atmosphere to the game.

 

But hey, for some reason the whole MasterRace seems to think that only FPS and resolution matter and if we've learned anything from the degenerate fucks on the internet then it's that they never learn.

[deathjester]

No, the issue is that most of their games can't even run 1080p at 60hz. And if they do, the graphics have to be turned way down. Not to mention that it's relatively easy to build a PC for the same price that will outperform the consoles.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%24400+pc+to+beat+ps4&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts

 

Oh and one other thing, Consoles lack SSD capability. While SSD's may be expensive, they make a huge difference in how the system performs (startup, and load times). If MS and sony really wanted to rub it in PC's face, they'd have slapped SSD's into those shitboxes and taken a loss on each unit sold.

 

I would actually be quite interested to see how their respective OS's improve with an SSD compared to a windows gaming pc with an SSD. If their OS's are "lighter" then the speed improvement for startup and loading times would be massive I would think

 

You can put a SSD in a PS4. 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171271-ps4-install-an-ssd-or-hhd-to-speed-up-game-loading-time-by-20-seconds-or-more

[Trik'Stari]

You can put a SSD in a PS4. 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171271-ps4-install-an-ssd-or-hhd-to-speed-up-game-loading-time-by-20-seconds-or-more

Did not know that. Neat.

 

Still, they should have taken a hit on their margin and made SSD's standard. At least then they could say they had 1 thing (other than exclusive games) that not every PC had.

 

 

*has flashback to oblivion 360 loading screens* OH GOD, MAKE IT STOP.

[dalekphalm]

No, the issue is that most of their games can't even run 1080p at 60hz. And if they do, the graphics have to be turned way down. Not to mention that it's relatively easy to build a PC for the same price that will outperform the consoles.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%24400+pc+to+beat+ps4&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts

 

Oh and one other thing, Consoles lack SSD capability. While SSD's may be expensive, they make a huge difference in how the system performs (startup, and load times). If MS and sony really wanted to rub it in PC's face, they'd have slapped SSD's into those shitboxes and taken a loss on each unit sold.

 

I would actually be quite interested to see how their respective OS's improve with an SSD compared to a windows gaming pc with an SSD. If their OS's are "lighter" then the speed improvement for startup and loading times would be massive I would think

Just an FYI, while you are correct in that no Console ships with an SSD, the PS4 at least, can have an SSD installed with no issues at all. I do not  believe you can replace the XBox One internal HDD with an SSD though - at least not yet.

[Trik'Stari]

Just an FYI, while you are correct in that no Console ships with an SSD, the PS4 at least, can have an SSD installed with no issues at all. I do not  believe you can replace the XBox One internal HDD with an SSD though - at least not yet.

I saw, deathjester linked me. Was not aware of it. But still, if they had shipped with an SSD, that would have been a legitimate selling point.

[deathjester]

Did not know that. Neat.

 

Still, they should have taken a hit on their margin and made SSD's standard. At least then they could say they had 1 thing (other than exclusive games) that not every PC had.

 

 

*has flashback to oblivion 360 loading screens* OH GOD, MAKE IT STOP.

 

Yeah....Mass Effect on Xbox 360. Those loading times were just stupid. I couldn't believe people put up with that crap. Then again I can't believe they put up with a monthly fee to play online. The last truly great console I remember was N64. Loaded games fast, offered a unique experience with 4 players on one screen with games like Golden Eye. Hardware was impressive for the time at the cost. Since then? All junk. The only console I see that has any point is the Nintendo for family type games, or playing with kids, gf, wife, and that is because the cost is decent and it actually has multiple exclusives.

 

MS/Sony release most of their games on PC now anyways, because it is too big to ignore for profit margins. Like the PS4. Everquest Next will prob make more money on PC then it will on PS4, because PC gamers love MMO's. Planetside 2? Same deal. H1Z1 on pc. We also don't pay a monthly fee so us paying a monthly fee for a game isn't like us taking a double hit to the wallet. 

 

PS4? It is like sports games from EA (which suck) and Uncharted. One freakin game that isn't even out yet, that you are essentially paying 500 dollars for (FOR ONE GAME). Xbox? A FPS series that I have to play with an inferior controller at lower FPS, with a player base that includes little kids....that again is costing you 500 dollars. Other than that? What do the consoles have? Inferior racers? PS4 I guess has Last of Us, but I find it really hypocritical that sites like IGN say you need to buy the game, when they downplay that PC's have better graphics... Buy this updated graphic version of the game, and updated or better graphics only matter on consoles. Seems legit lol.

 

The only other argument I could make for a next gen, is JRPG's and Japanese games on the PS4, but it doesn't have many yet, and it seems they may come to PC now. Metal Gear Solid on PC, Dark Souls was on PC. Will the traditional JRPG's follow like Persona? Or are those games just going to be put on mobile since Japan is all about mobile, and they are hardly hardware intensive.

[DeathRtH]

You can put a SSD in a PS4. 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171271-ps4-install-an-ssd-or-hhd-to-speed-up-game-loading-time-by-20-seconds-or-more

 

You can polish shit but that doesn't make it gold.

 

Console have their uses, but the fact is you can build gaming PC's in the same range. (Refer to Austin Evan's build videos)

Not to mention the benefits of a gaming PC, you can upgrade them, you can customize them to your liking, no monthly/yearly fee to play online(Not Including ISP), large catalog of F2P MMO's etc, ability to install the software you want, cheap games (Even new games end up on sale even before release), ability to mod games (Something thats not allowed on consoles) and of course new technology's are available to PC users first.

 

Also on the subject of portability I had to carry this around twice a week(Edit: AND a monitor), if you can't handle carrying a mITX/etc build around then maybe you need to buy a handheld.

[ShadowCaptain]

 

That 400 dollar PC WILL NOT be doing 1080p 60fps in all games. You'll be making the same damn compromises that developers do on console settings. 

 

You can easily make a PC for the same price that matches what the consoles do.. meaning for what they cost they are a decent buy

 

The bit about consoles that annoys me is not their performance, but the exclusivity and lack of peripheral choice, no biodegradability and no backwards compatibility (meaning I still need a ps2 and ps3)

That said most people already own a PC that $400 could easily be spent upgrading it, or when time comes to buy a new PC/Laptop, instead of spending $400 on pc and $400 on console spend $800 on a gaming rig

 

BUT since consoles still have exclusivity, as well as pick up and play nature they still have their place

[DeathRtH]

Did not know that. Neat.

 

Still, they should have taken a hit on their margin and made SSD's standard. At least then they could say they had 1 thing (other than exclusive games) that not every PC had.

 

 

*has flashback to oblivion 360 loading screens* OH GOD, MAKE IT STOP.

Those loading times were so long I had a chance to get the mail, get a snack or take a nap, or sometimes all of the above.

[deathjester]

You can polish shit but that doesn't make it gold.

 

Console have their uses, but the fact is you can build gaming PC's in the same range. (Refer to Austin Evan's build videos)

Not to mention the benefits of a gaming PC, you can upgrade them, you can customize them to your liking, no monthly/yearly fee to play online(Not Including ISP), large catalog of F2P MMO's etc, ability to install the software you want, cheap games (Even new games end up on sale even before release), ability to mod games (Something thats not allowed on consoles) and of course new technology's are available to PC users first.

 

Also on the subject of portability I had to carry this around twice a week, if you can't handle carrying a mITX/etc build around then maybe you need to buy a handheld.

 

Was just letting people know that you could. I think it is pretty clear I won't be buying a "next gen" console, unless you consider the Wii U one.

 

Also on portability? I have seen Bitfenix Prodigy's open box for like 50 bucks at times at Microcenter and they can fit a massive GPU in them that destroys consoles. Like you said, the argument is silly. Add to that an even smaller 750ti mini build will compete with next gen's, and will beat the XB1, and can also emulate with programs like Dolphin emulator and destroy any consoles, "console library". PC's are the ultimate console, and people selling anything else are pretty much full of it. You can get another console to go with the ultimate console, but PC is still far away the best financially, performance wise and has a game library that dwarfs any one console. 

[MbV93]

The quote is stupid and I do not agree with it. A console won't play games at 4k obviously and it is not necessary at all. It just makes it seem like the author doesn't know what he is talking about at all.

[polke45]

The quote is stupid and I do not agree with it. A console won't play games at 4k obviously and it is not necessary at all. It just makes it seem like the author doesn't know what he is talking about at all.

 

I agreed. Remember when 720i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p first came out for consumer (i think around the same time for LCD and Plasma tv) and it took ages before majority of consumer had one. For 4K, consumer wouldn't buy into it unless we start seeing 40in+ 4K TV (not monitor) around $400. Even then, average consumer wouldn't upgrade their tv if it is working so it makes no sense why Sony and Xbox need to add those features in.

 

For me, it makes no sense why I should replace my 60in 1080p TV with an equivalent size for 4K, ...say around $1200, just to view like 1% of content that is in 4K

 

the article, "TV manufacturers not consumers want 4K says Amazon" said it best

[DeathRtH]

The quote is stupid and I do not agree with it. A console won't play games at 4k obviously and it is not necessary at all. It just makes it seem like the author doesn't know what he is talking about at all.

 

"I don't agree with it so its wrong and he doesn't know what hes talking about."

 

It's a fact that the consoles don't have the power to last, with new technology coming to PCs and none of it being in the "Next-Gen" consoles, it won't be long before we see  PC's at the same price as consoles that can drive 1080p/60FPS and maybe even 1440p/60fps across the board, not just on some games like consoles..

[Equlix]

consoles are for scrubs.

This scrub is playing Destiny with friends and having a ton of fun.

[Captain_Slow]

This scrub is playing Destiny with friends and having a ton of fun.

 

it's coming to pc, and will be better.

[AlwaysFSX]

This... duh...

 

Their hardware would be considered high end 6 years ago. Now? No.

[dalekphalm]

I agreed. Remember when 780i, 780p, 1080i, and 1080p first came out for consumer (i think around the same time for LCD and Plasma tv) and it took ages before majority of consumer had one. For 4K, consumer wouldn't buy into it unless we start seeing 40in+ 4K TV (not monitor) around $400. Even then, average consumer wouldn't upgrade their tv if it is working so it makes no sense why Sony and Xbox need to add those features in.

 

For me, it makes no sense why I should replace my 60in 1080p TV with an equivalent size for 4K, ...say around $1200, just to view like 1% of content that is in 4K

 

the article, "TV manufacturers not consumers want 4K says Amazon" said it best

Just a minor correction:

There is no such standard as "780i" and "780p". I assume you mistyped. What you mean is "720i" and "720p".

[Whiskers]

Let's keep this discussion civil please. Although it's understandable
that some of us have strong opinions on this topic, we should still
remain respectful to those with a differing perspective on things.