Forbes: PS4 and Xbox One are already out of date

[Ashley]

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.

 

Agreed. I don't want my post turning into a rage-fest.

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

[Ashley]

This... duh...

 

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

6 years ago XBone and PS4 performance would have crushed multi-GPU configs. That would have been Radeon 4000 series and Geforce 8000 series I believe.

 

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

Consoles are currently the place to go for local multiplayer. And I remember having a ton of fun on Halo 3 customs with friends.

Although I still think a mouse is better for a FPS.

[MEC-777]

The gaming community is in such a mess right now. All this hate and conflict between PC vs xbox vs PS4 vs whatever, is largely unnecessary. 

 

The problem is not the hardware. The problem is marketing.

 

The marketing teams behind the games and devices have made it about everything BUT the games themselves. Example: Ubisoft - "Watch Dogs will look and play the same on the next-gen consoles as it does on a high-end PC!" and they intentionally handicap the PC version to closely match that of the console version in terms of visual fidelity. But why? Who cares if it's 720p on the consoles and 1440p on PC with added effects? You know what really matters? IS THE DAMN GAME GOOD? Does it play well? Does it have new/unique aspects and mechanics that set it apart from other similar games of the past? Is the story line engaging and interesting? 

 

Frame rates and resolution are certainly very important aspects, but I would argue that they are not THE most important aspects. With most of the new games being released, people are paying more attention to and bickering about the resolution and frame rates and forgetting about whether the games them selves are actually good/fun to play or not. From what I've seen, many of them are mediocre at best. I don't want to play a "meh" game that looks good, on any platform. I play games that are engaging and interesting/unique.  

 

Here's what they should do; Make the bloody games look and run as good and smooth as possible on the consoles and leave it at that, don't gimp the PC version - let it push the hardware like crysis and don't advertise the game based on it's resolution and frame rate on the consoles. Instead, advertise the games based on the game itself! (Wow, how about that!? lol) show how it will engage the player, what new game play elements it brings to the table, etc.

 

It seems like the gaming community spends more time and energy arguing than actually playing games.  :rolleyes:

[AlwaysFSX]

6 years ago XBone and PS4 performance would have crushed multi-GPU configs. That would have been Radeon 4000 series and Geforce 8000 series I believe.

No, the chips they have in them now were mid range almost 4 years ago.

 

Sometime like a 5870 is about the same performance as a PS4.

[Ashley]

The gaming community is in such a mess right now. All this hate and conflict between PC vs xbox vs PS4 vs whatever, is largely unnecessary. 

 

The problem is not the hardware. The problem is marketing.

 

The marketing teams behind the games and devices have made it about everything BUT the games themselves. Example: Ubisoft - "Watch Dogs will look and play the same on the next-gen consoles as it does on a high-end PC!" and they intentionally handicap the PC version to closely match that of the console version in terms of visual fidelity. But why? Who cares if it's 720p on the consoles and 1440p on PC with added effects? You know what really matters? IS THE DAMN GAME GOOD? Does it play well? Does it have new/unique aspects and mechanics that set it apart from other similar games of the past? Is the story line engaging and interesting? 

 

Frame rates and resolution are certainly very important aspects, but I would argue that they are not THE most important aspects. With most of the new games being released, people are paying more attention to and bickering about the resolution and frame rates and forgetting about whether the games them selves are actually good/fun to play or not. From what I've seen, many of them are mediocre at best. I don't want to play a "meh" game that looks good, on any platform. I play games that are engaging and interesting/unique.  

 

Here's what they should do; Make the bloody games look and run as good and smooth as possible on the consoles and leave it at that, don't gimp the PC version - let it push the hardware like crysis and don't advertise the game based on it's resolution and frame rate on the consoles. Instead, advertise the games based on the game itself! (Wow, how about that!? lol) show how it will engage the player, what new game play elements it brings to the table, etc.

 

It seems like the gaming community spends more time and energy arguing than actually playing games.  :rolleyes:

 

Are resolution and fps the only things that matter? No, certainly not. Do they effect gameplay? Yes. But also they are easy number to quantify and ramble off quickly. We shouldn't try to just achieve 1080p60 for resolution and frame rate's sake and sacrifice gameplay and detail settings to get there. However if I have the option to play at 30 or 60 I think it does matter, and even above 60 looks and feels better and better until about 80 for me personally.

So yes, gameplay is important, detail settings are important, resolution is important.

 

And gaming is part of our culture. You can't expect an art which is a major part of our culture to not be debated and talked about. We should however have these conversations as civilly as possible without personal attacks and needless trolling.

 

 

No, the chips they have in them now were mid range almost 4 years ago.

 

Sometime like a 5870 is about the same performance as a PS4.

In all fairness, you said 6 years ago which would be late 2008. That was the Radeon 4000 series vs the GTX 200 series. Not the Radeon 5000 series.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2549

 

And maybe "crushing multi-gpu configs" was a slip-up on my part, but these consoles would have been beating high-end single gpu configurations in the Radeon 4000 series and GTX 200 series.

 

Radeon HD 4870: the teraflop card that falls further short of hitting its theoretical performance than NVIDIA did with GT200. But theoretical performance isn't reality, and nothing can be done if every instruction is a multiply-add or combination of a multiply-add and a multiply, so while marketing loves to trot out big numbers we quite prefer real-world testing with games people will actually play on this hardware.

[polke45]

No, the chips they have in them now were mid range almost 4 years ago.

 

Sometime like a 5870 is about the same performance as a PS4.

This is what happen when Sony and Xbox decided to purchase 3rd party hardware over manufacturing their own. Cheaper if they manufacture it their own. If Sony stayed with cell processor for PS4, it would be much better than the current cpu and possibly cheaper/around the same price as what they are paying to AMD. However, since the x86 architecture has been demanding on both Intel and AMD platform, it is far too late for Sony to have a team dedicate to design the x86 chip.

 

Sony and Xbox could make their console much more powerful, but with the current economy, no one is willing to pay $600 for a console even if it will last longer. You can say the same with battery-only powered vehicle. With a premium price, you can save so much gas per year and eventually, save more during its lifespan. However, why do most people opted out for it? It is because no one (the general mass market) want to pay a premium price for it

[AlwaysFSX]

This is what happen when Sony and Xbox decided to purchase 3rd party hardware over manufacturing their own. Cheaper if they manufacture it their own. If Sony stayed with cell processor for PS4, it would be much better than the current cpu and possibly cheaper/around the same price as what they are paying to AMD. However, since the x86 architecture has been demanding on both Intel and AMD platform, it is far too late for Sony to have a team dedicate to design the x86 chip.

Sony also threw a lot of money in the hole to develop a processor that screwed them over.

[BallGum]

The thing about articles like these is that phrases such as "out of date" are woefully ambiguous and differ between people. You'd need to come up with some sort of definition you can agree on regarding it, and then go from there

[dalekphalm]

Sony also threw a lot of money in the hole to develop a processor that screwed them over.

Indeed, the Cell processor might have been "powerful" when it was first released, but it was a total bitch to work with. That's part of the reason that the XBox 360 was ahead for years, because it was a lot harder to develop for the PS3.

 

x86 is really easy to work with, especially since now you have a much larger pool of developers and talent to choose from.

[Electrostatik]

Forbes....Contributor 

 

Basically just some dude's blog post.  Not a staff report.

[Equlix]

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

I'm playing it today.

[Ashley]

Forbes....Contributor 

 

Basically just some dude's blog post.  Not a staff report.

 

The thing about articles like these is that phrases such as "out of date" are woefully ambiguous and differ between people. You'd need to come up with some sort of definition you can agree on regarding it, and then go from there

 

"Out of date" isn't something you can objectively report @Electrostatik

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

water is indeed wet

[kuddlesworth9419]

Instead of them talking about FPS and resolution. I want developers to start caring about aesthetics.

 

Edit: This is more or less what I am on about.

 

Nintendo are doing it really well with the Wii U. They are focusing on aesthetics and clever design rather then trying to make their graphics realistic. They run their games at 60fps and the aesthetics are more pleasing then the more powerful consoles because they have actually thought about their games and how they can get them to work best on the hardware. 

[Equlix]

I still think a mouse is better for a FPS.

100% agree.I play csgo and The lack of control drives me crazy sometimes but like the games.

[Toggle]

Well, it's kinda about time a very mainstream source decided to tell the truth instead of regurgitating the same marketing BS the rest of the media has been.

[Biggerisbetter]

Sony and MS under estimated the TV tech when designing it's consoles. Also future proofing consoles to meet 4k would have increased the over all cost of consoles. Must console consumers wouldn't ante up 200 to 300 more just to have 4k. Consumers would have been better off just buying a PC. Something Sony and MS didn't  want their consumers to consider. We are currently in a era of HDTV. At some point the HDTV tech proliferation will slow down and consoles can catch up. Remember the avg console consumer will not consider what the future tech landscape will look like.  when they buy a new console.

[Ashley]

100% agree.I play csgo and The lack of control drives me crazy sometimes but like the games.

Also cyber high five for 1440p 96hz Korean monitors!

[TheGosuStandard]

I feel like they were outdated the moment they were released. 

[StingBull]

 

And you see here an old timey gentlemen beating his dead horse while fondling his crotch.

 

[Equlix]

Also cyber high five for 1440p 96hz Korean monitors!

High five accepted.

[zacRupnow]

My comment on that page;

"They were obsolete when they were released, they can't even meet a 1080p (standard hd) and 60 fps standard. There was one conslow in history that surpassed PCs and that was the Xbox 360, which only surpassed PC for the first 3 years of its 10 year lifespan. You can get a PC that kicks "next gen" into the ground for the same price. LinusTechTips, a very well respected tech reviewer, had difficulty DOWNCLOCKING (adjusting to run slower) a 4 year old mid-range Graphics Card to be as slow as the "next gen" Xbone and PS4."

[zacRupnow]

And since the PS4/One are 400, thats a tall order. 

 

You need a small case, a equivalent GPU and CPU (new, since we are achieving parity here in quality and features), a motherboard that has WiFi + BT, near silent operation (cause thats what the consoles do), and a OS. 

I'll sit here and wait at what monstrosity people make. Sure, cases smaller than the XBO exist, but cases like the PS4? LOLNOPE. 

I spent (well, have spent) around triple of what a console costs on my "gaming" rig. Its large, its beefy, its barely comparable. I can't make a PC that outdoes the consoles for 400. To say that is asinine RIGHT NOW. 

Maybe the next generation of CPUs and GPUs will allow low price point builds to finally outdo the consoles entirely, but this circle jerk of "DAE 400 DOLLAR PC BEATS CONSOLES" is getting tiresome. 

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. 

Xbone launched at $500, and a $500 PC can do 1080p 60fps constant - maybe not at Ultra but at medium or low yes.

[SubTract]

To be fair. Both the PS4 and Xbox one could probably run games in 4k.............

With the details down, With no effects, no filters and no post processing..........

at 1 FPS >.>

 

But hey I mean if people are willing to call less than 30 or less FPS Acceptable than who knows what will happen.

Maybe MS or Sony will bring out a pong clone that runs in 4K just so they can say their consoles can run 4k games.

[Thony]

Sick of consoles holding back the delivery of super awesome graphics that PCs are capable of processing :'(