While I can see the difference and prefer the PS4 version, they really don't look different enough to really impact much of anything. Having said that, while the X1 is upscaling the image, it's not just simply making it larger (this is what it looks like when an image is simply enlarged - blurriness and loss of detail), but rather running some filters on it to enhance the image.
As for the differences in brightness and contrasts, what looks better largely depends on your monitor/tv and how you have it calibrated. If I watch the comparison videos on my old Sony monitor, the X1 looks slightly better to me in terms of that. If I move it to my IPS monitor, the PS4 looks far better to me, as an example.
The only real thing you can use these facts for, is showing that the PS4 - as of right now - is performing much better on the technical side of things. While the visual difference may be slight, the performance cost difference between 1080 vs 720 isn't small; despite that, the X1 has zero advantage on the performance side of things. Both run at the same FPS and dip from 60 in roughly the same areas as well (at least according to the BF4 FPS comparison video floating around in the other thread).
To be honest, I'm more curious to see what FPS speeds the PS4 would run this at if they dropped the res down to 720. 90 FPS? 120? But that's just curiousity :P
Whether it matters to you though, simply depends on you.
Because since the new consoles have made step toward more of a PC architecture I have become more interested in them. And as a graphic whore I like to talk about these things regardless of platform.
Out of curiosity, were you around during the "bit wars"? I still remember these exact same fights over Nes vs Genesis. Genesis was 16 bit so it had better graphics than the "inferior" 8 bit Nes, that was the argument back then.
Nes beat Genesis, Gameboy beat Gamegear, N64 beat Saturn, Gamecube beat Dreamcast. Nintendo consoles were consistently weaker than their Sega counterparts, but they never failed to out sale them.
Xbox 360 and PS3 sales both sit around the 78 million mark, both have failed to out sale the other and I highly doubt this generation will be any different since the established fanbase of each console has become so dedicated and entrenched.
Slightly unrelated side note, I always liked Sega more than Nintendo.
Before I moved on to PC gaming I grew up on snes and genesis. But back than I was unaware of any bit wars or any kind of fanboy wars, which probably was a good thing. And I liked Nintendo more than Sega because it had more rpgs like Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger.
You didn't miss out on much, fanboys back then were the same as they are now. You need to understand one thing though, Genesis does what Nintendon't with blast processing and the Sega CD, its not like I was going to wait for Nintendo to make one.
In the end regardless of the graphics, its really about which platform has the exclusives you personally want to play the most. And when it comes to console exclusives its always been the Playstation since the first one before xbox even existed. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear series has been the top reasons why I stuck with playstation. I did have both consoles. First Xbox introduced me to Elder Scrolls series with Morrowind. I got a 360 for a few exclusives but not the ones everyones crazy about like Halo and Gears, instead it was Lost Oddyssey and Blue Dragon, Infinite Undiscovery. Later the 360 disk drive stopped working all of a sudden and I didnt really care for it anymore anyway since there wasnt really anymore exclusives I was looking forward to. But the PS3 for me has had great exclusives to its very end such as The Last of Us, MGS4, Beyond Two Souls, Uncharted, Tales of Xillia and it never had any kind of hardware failure.
I didnt really become a graphic whore until I got into PC gaming. Back in the snes and genesis days I didnt really even notice graphics, it was all about the gameplay
Originally posted by Krashner Originally posted by ElRenmazuoBecause since the new consoles have made step toward more of a PC architecture I have become more interested in them. And as a graphic whore I like to talk about these things regardless of platform.
Out of curiosity, were you around during the "bit wars"? I still remember these exact same fights over Nes vs Genesis. Genesis was 16 bit so it had better graphics than the "inferior" 8 bit Nes, that was the argument back then.
Nes beat Genesis, Gameboy beat Gamegear, N64 beat Saturn, Gamecube beat Dreamcast. Nintendo consoles were consistently weaker than their Sega counterparts, but they never failed to out sale them.
Xbox 360 and PS3 sales both sit around the 78 million mark, both have failed to out sale the other and I highly doubt this generation will be any different since the established fanbase of each console has become so dedicated and entrenched.
Slightly unrelated side note, I always liked Sega more than Nintendo.
WHAT?!
I mean, really ....WHAT?!
SNES had better hardware than the Genesis
N64 was lightyears ahead of the Saturn
Gamecube was way ahead of the PS2 which was way ahead of the Dreamcast
The only Nintendo home console that was weaker hardware wise than its Nintendo counterpart was the NES to the Sega Master System.
No wonder you cant tell the difference between 720P and 1080P, you are obviously blind.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuohttp://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/65060/infinity-wards-mark-rubin-explains-call-of-duty-ghosts-720p-on-xbox-oneIm getting the PC version and play it on max settings in 1080p. Its also pathetic that xboxs video card is so weak that of all the things, resolution is what hits performance. Xbox fans cant even hope for the more power hungry visual enhancements for games like Anti-Aliasing and HBAO/SSAO if they cant even get past such a simple thing as resolution.
Why do you keep posting this crap? Again there is no difference between the Xbox one and Ps4 graphics. My god dude just stop with your trolling of xbox one. We get it you dont like it.
Also just a little tid bit for you XBOX ONE has more presales of COD than PS4...sorry to ruin your day.
Unsurprisingly, Activision’s Call of Duty: Ghosts sits at the top of both the PS4 and Xbox One lists, with 298,180 units pre-ordered on PS4 and 329,032 on Xbox One.
Infinity Ward has two systems with nearly identical hardware, and they can't get the XB1 to push 1080p at 60fps, but they can do it with the PS4. Something is wonky on the XB1. It is using resources somewhere that could be used on games or Microsoft's libraries provided to the developers are wasting cycles someplace.
It's a difference, it's real and there's no good explanation for it except that the XB1 can't push the same number of pixels as the PS4 in a demanding game. That means later, when the games get really demanding, the XB1 is going to fall farther behind unless Microsoft fixes whatever is wrong with the XB1. Of course, for that to happen, they have to actually identify what's wrong with the XB1 and what's preventing the XB1 hardware from performing on par with the PS4.
**
Yes, I know about the esram thing, but right now that's unverified. It could very well be the reason. If it is though, it means that the developers aren't going to code around it. The solution will have to come from Microsoft.
The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation.
So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuohttp://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/65060/infinity-wards-mark-rubin-explains-call-of-duty-ghosts-720p-on-xbox-oneIm getting the PC version and play it on max settings in 1080p. Its also pathetic that xboxs video card is so weak that of all the things, resolution is what hits performance. Xbox fans cant even hope for the more power hungry visual enhancements for games like Anti-Aliasing and HBAO/SSAO if they cant even get past such a simple thing as resolution.
Infinity Ward has two systems with nearly identical hardware, and they can't get the XB1 to push 1080p at 60fps, but they can do it with the PS4. Something is wonky on the XB1. It is using resources somewhere that could be used on games or Microsoft's libraries provided to the developers are wasting cycles someplace. It's a difference, it's real and there's no good explanation for it except that the XB1 can't push the same number of pixels as the PS4 in a demanding game. That means later, when the games get really demanding, the XB1 is going to fall farther behind unless Microsoft fixes whatever is wrong with the XB1. Of course, for that to happen, they have to actually identify what's wrong with the XB1 and what's preventing the XB1 hardware from performing on par with the PS4. ** Yes, I know about the esram thing, but right now that's unverified. It could very well be the reason. If it is though, it means that the developers aren't going to code around it. The solution will have to come from Microsoft.
The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation.
So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine.
Turns out the solution might be the engine writers after all.
So the question becomes, how many developers are going to write custom ports of their games to the XB1, rather than just upscale the images? Will there be a point past which the XB1 is going fall behind the PS4 in terms of functionality and performance? Can an optimized ESRAM setup or engine outperform the PS4?
**
XB1 - 32MB of ESRAM that have 206mb/s throughput coupled to 8gb of DDR3 ram with 68mb/s throughput.
PS4 - 8gb of DDR5 ram with 176mb/s throughput.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuohttp://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/65060/infinity-wards-mark-rubin-explains-call-of-duty-ghosts-720p-on-xbox-oneIm getting the PC version and play it on max settings in 1080p. Its also pathetic that xboxs video card is so weak that of all the things, resolution is what hits performance. Xbox fans cant even hope for the more power hungry visual enhancements for games like Anti-Aliasing and HBAO/SSAO if they cant even get past such a simple thing as resolution.
Infinity Ward has two systems with nearly identical hardware, and they can't get the XB1 to push 1080p at 60fps, but they can do it with the PS4. Something is wonky on the XB1. It is using resources somewhere that could be used on games or Microsoft's libraries provided to the developers are wasting cycles someplace. It's a difference, it's real and there's no good explanation for it except that the XB1 can't push the same number of pixels as the PS4 in a demanding game. That means later, when the games get really demanding, the XB1 is going to fall farther behind unless Microsoft fixes whatever is wrong with the XB1. Of course, for that to happen, they have to actually identify what's wrong with the XB1 and what's preventing the XB1 hardware from performing on par with the PS4. ** Yes, I know about the esram thing, but right now that's unverified. It could very well be the reason. If it is though, it means that the developers aren't going to code around it. The solution will have to come from Microsoft.
The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation.
So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine.
Turns out the solution might be the engine writers after all.
So the question becomes, how many developers are going to write custom ports of their games to the XB1, rather than just upscale the images? Will there be a point past which the XB1 is going fall behind the PS4 in terms of functionality and performance? Can an optimized ESRAM setup or engine outperform the PS4?
**
XB1 - 32MB of ESRAM that have 206mb/s throughput coupled to 8gb of DDR3 ram with 68mb/s throughput.
PS4 - 8gb of DDR5 ram with 176mb/s throughput.
I think the writing was on the wall a long time ago, pretty much after the whole reveal on the consoles, the PS4 is the goto machine for serious gamers, the Xbone is the goto media center, that can also play games, just not as well.
last time i checked the Xbone was based on the 7850, and with the whole DDR3 limitation, i think people will just have to accept that games aren't going to look quite as good on the Xbone as they do on the PS4/PC, this is something thats probably only going to become more pronounced as more games are released that are more demanding even of the PS4, its quite possible that without further 'downscaling' that the Xbone might not be able to handle them at all.
Depending on how popular the Xbone actually becomes, this might mean that games themselves are forced to be 'less graphically demanding' or lose out on a segment of the market. And yes, DDR5 is much easier to develop for than a workaround that tries to use a combination of esram and DDR3. As for the slight difference between the PS4 and the Xbone, that some seem to think is marginal, last i heard it was closer to 50%, as in the PS4 was that much more powerful in terms of 'brute force graphics' than the Xbone.
It would not surprise me in the least, if the reason why MS bought the exclusivity deal on Titanfall, was because the PS4 version was going to be that much better looking, i don't think they are too worried that the PC version will look better, as thats normally the case whatever the game. But as time goes on and more games are released on both platforms, and the Xbone is shown to be continuously lagging behind in terms of graphical resolution/capabilities then the swing to the PS4 will become far more pronounced, if it isnt already.
Originally posted by Krashner Originally posted by ElRenmazuoBecause since the new consoles have made step toward more of a PC architecture I have become more interested in them. And as a graphic whore I like to talk about these things regardless of platform.
Out of curiosity, were you around during the "bit wars"? I still remember these exact same fights over Nes vs Genesis. Genesis was 16 bit so it had better graphics than the "inferior" 8 bit Nes, that was the argument back then.
Nes beat Genesis, Gameboy beat Gamegear, N64 beat Saturn, Gamecube beat Dreamcast. Nintendo consoles were consistently weaker than their Sega counterparts, but they never failed to out sale them.
Xbox 360 and PS3 sales both sit around the 78 million mark, both have failed to out sale the other and I highly doubt this generation will be any different since the established fanbase of each console has become so dedicated and entrenched.
Slightly unrelated side note, I always liked Sega more than Nintendo.
NES vs Genesis is not right they were two different gen systems. SNES vs Genesis was heated. I think they had an almost 50/50 market share. Genesis had cripser graphics and faster processing, SNES had a better soundcard and the mode 7 zoom capabilities gave it an edge over Genesis. Keep in mind also Genesis came out two years before SNES.
Gameboy beats everything. Ever. Not really a powerful point there when comparing it to Gamegear. Gamegear was huge compared to BG. It did color though which was nice. But the battery life was literally 30 minutes.
N64 vs Saturn? They weren't even in the same category. N64 was a 64 bit console heavy on the polygons and light on textures. Saturn was a 32 bit pixel specialist. It had a hard time with polys. PS1 killed em both tbh.
Dreamcast vs Gamecube. Gamecube had way better hardware than Dreamcast and even PS2. Xbox beat all in graphics that gen.
Why do you keep posting this crap? Again there is no difference between the Xbox one and Ps4 graphics. My god dude just stop with your trolling of xbox one. We get it you dont like it.
When xbox one dev tools and devs get used too pS4 will have same advantages also ,nothing changes.
Btw dont mind shills and marketers , a lot of media was cheering for win phone and tablet for advertisement money fyi , where are microsoft now ,same situation.
Originally posted by kalinis
The internal specs of the 2 systems aren't that much off. Sure the ps4 has slightly better specs. The issue here is the company is workign with new tech for the new systems and the tech they have works better on the ps4 then the xbox one. This will change as they get used to working with the new systems
What most seem to forget is that Microsoft is currently heavily investing to get the New Streaming infrastructure ready.
This might also be one of the reasons why they didn't go overboard on hardware specs, like brute Graphics Power.
When they got the New streaming infrastructure up and running, the brute CPU and GPU Processing will be done on the Streaming servers instead of locally on the XBox One.
Originally posted by Phry Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by JeroKaneOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by gamer1979Originally posted by ElRenmazuohttp://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/65060/infinity-wards-mark-rubin-explains-call-of-duty-ghosts-720p-on-xbox-oneIm getting the PC version and play it on max settings in 1080p. Its also pathetic that xboxs video card is so weak that of all the things, resolution is what hits performance. Xbox fans cant even hope for the more power hungry visual enhancements for games like Anti-Aliasing and HBAO/SSAO if they cant even get past such a simple thing as resolution.
Why do you keep posting this crap? Again there is no difference between the Xbox one and Ps4 graphics. My god dude just stop with your trolling of xbox one. We get it you dont like it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/10/29/battlefield-4-on-xbox-one-vs-ps4-no-discernible-difference/Also just a little tid bit for you XBOX ONE has more presales of COD than PS4...sorry to ruin your day.Unsurprisingly, Activisions Call of Duty: Ghosts sits at the top of both the PS4 and Xbox One lists, with 298,180 units pre-ordered on PS4 and 329,032 on Xbox One.http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/10/21/xbox-one-vs-ps4-top-pre-ordered-next-gen-video-games/[mod edit]Infinity Ward has two systems with nearly identical hardware, and they can't get the XB1 to push 1080p at 60fps, but they can do it with the PS4. Something is wonky on the XB1. It is using resources somewhere that could be used on games or Microsoft's libraries provided to the developers are wasting cycles someplace. It's a difference, it's real and there's no good explanation for it except that the XB1 can't push the same number of pixels as the PS4 in a demanding game. That means later, when the games get really demanding, the XB1 is going to fall farther behind unless Microsoft fixes whatever is wrong with the XB1. Of course, for that to happen, they have to actually identify what's wrong with the XB1 and what's preventing the XB1 hardware from performing on par with the PS4. ** Yes, I know about the esram thing, but right now that's unverified. It could very well be the reason. If it is though, it means that the developers aren't going to code around it. The solution will have to come from Microsoft. The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation.So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine. Turns out the solution might be the engine writers after all. http://gamingbolt.com/crytek-writing-to-xbox-ones-esram-yields-a-considerable-speed-up-ryse-uses-custom-smaa-1tx So the question becomes, how many developers are going to write custom ports of their games to the XB1, rather than just upscale the images? Will there be a point past which the XB1 is going fall behind the PS4 in terms of functionality and performance? Can an optimized ESRAM setup or engine outperform the PS4? ** XB1 - 32MB of ESRAM that have 206mb/s throughput coupled to 8gb of DDR3 ram with 68mb/s throughput. PS4 - 8gb of DDR5 ram with 176mb/s throughput.I think the writing was on the wall a long time ago, pretty much after the whole reveal on the consoles, the PS4 is the goto machine for serious gamers, the Xbone is the goto media center, that can also play games, just not as well.
last time i checked the Xbone was based on the 7850, and with the whole DDR3 limitation, i think people will just have to accept that games aren't going to look quite as good on the Xbone as they do on the PS4/PC, this is something thats probably only going to become more pronounced as more games are released that are more demanding even of the PS4, its quite possible that without further 'downscaling' that the Xbone might not be able to handle them at all.
Depending on how popular the Xbone actually becomes, this might mean that games themselves are forced to be 'less graphically demanding' or lose out on a segment of the market. And yes, DDR5 is much easier to develop for than a workaround that tries to use a combination of esram and DDR3. As for the slight difference between the PS4 and the Xbone, that some seem to think is marginal, last i heard it was closer to 50%, as in the PS4 was that much more powerful in terms of 'brute force graphics' than the Xbone.
It would not surprise me in the least, if the reason why MS bought the exclusivity deal on Titanfall, was because the PS4 version was going to be that much better looking, i don't think they are too worried that the PC version will look better, as thats normally the case whatever the game. But as time goes on and more games are released on both platforms, and the Xbone is shown to be continuously lagging behind in terms of graphical resolution/capabilities then the swing to the PS4 will become far more pronounced, if it isnt already.
This would explain why they are focused on "entertainment" and not "gaming". Which isn't as dumb as people here might think. The Wii focused on "entertainment" and cumulative sales for the Wii well exceed cumulative sales for the XB360 and PS3 and the Wii could only outpu 480p, and that was if the video upgrade part was purchased.
So the XB1 is a weaker system, and it doesn't focus on gaming, but that doesn't mean it's going to lose the console wars. It's probably not going to flop like the WiiU flopped at least. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
While I can see the difference and prefer the PS4 version, they really don't look different enough to really impact much of anything. Having said that, while the X1 is upscaling the image, it's not just simply making it larger (this is what it looks like when an image is simply enlarged - blurriness and loss of detail), but rather running some filters on it to enhance the image.
As for the differences in brightness and contrasts, what looks better largely depends on your monitor/tv and how you have it calibrated. If I watch the comparison videos on my old Sony monitor, the X1 looks slightly better to me in terms of that. If I move it to my IPS monitor, the PS4 looks far better to me, as an example.
The only real thing you can use these facts for, is showing that the PS4 - as of right now - is performing much better on the technical side of things. While the visual difference may be slight, the performance cost difference between 1080 vs 720 isn't small; despite that, the X1 has zero advantage on the performance side of things. Both run at the same FPS and dip from 60 in roughly the same areas as well (at least according to the BF4 FPS comparison video floating around in the other thread).
To be honest, I'm more curious to see what FPS speeds the PS4 would run this at if they dropped the res down to 720. 90 FPS? 120? But that's just curiousity :P
Whether it matters to you though, simply depends on you.
In the end regardless of the graphics, its really about which platform has the exclusives you personally want to play the most. And when it comes to console exclusives its always been the Playstation since the first one before xbox even existed. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear series has been the top reasons why I stuck with playstation. I did have both consoles. First Xbox introduced me to Elder Scrolls series with Morrowind. I got a 360 for a few exclusives but not the ones everyones crazy about like Halo and Gears, instead it was Lost Oddyssey and Blue Dragon, Infinite Undiscovery. Later the 360 disk drive stopped working all of a sudden and I didnt really care for it anymore anyway since there wasnt really anymore exclusives I was looking forward to. But the PS3 for me has had great exclusives to its very end such as The Last of Us, MGS4, Beyond Two Souls, Uncharted, Tales of Xillia and it never had any kind of hardware failure.
I didnt really become a graphic whore until I got into PC gaming. Back in the snes and genesis days I didnt really even notice graphics, it was all about the gameplay
Nes beat Genesis, Gameboy beat Gamegear, N64 beat Saturn, Gamecube beat Dreamcast. Nintendo consoles were consistently weaker than their Sega counterparts, but they never failed to out sale them.
Xbox 360 and PS3 sales both sit around the 78 million mark, both have failed to out sale the other and I highly doubt this generation will be any different since the established fanbase of each console has become so dedicated and entrenched.
Slightly unrelated side note, I always liked Sega more than Nintendo.
WHAT?!
I mean, really ....WHAT?!
SNES had better hardware than the Genesis
N64 was lightyears ahead of the Saturn
Gamecube was way ahead of the PS2 which was way ahead of the Dreamcast
The only Nintendo home console that was weaker hardware wise than its Nintendo counterpart was the NES to the Sega Master System.
No wonder you cant tell the difference between 720P and 1080P, you are obviously blind.
Meh... It is very simple.
Get a PS4 if you like last gen ideas with new tech to add all the shine
Get a XB1 if you like next gen ideas with slightly less tech and shine
If you are sane, you get a PC.. But you will miss out on some titles since most of the console market is insane.
Ps. IIRC most stuff on the PS4 will run in the 900-range and be up-scaled too Ds.
This have been a good conversation
The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation.
So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine.
Turns out the solution might be the engine writers after all.
http://gamingbolt.com/crytek-writing-to-xbox-ones-esram-yields-a-considerable-speed-up-ryse-uses-custom-smaa-1tx
So the question becomes, how many developers are going to write custom ports of their games to the XB1, rather than just upscale the images? Will there be a point past which the XB1 is going fall behind the PS4 in terms of functionality and performance? Can an optimized ESRAM setup or engine outperform the PS4?
**
XB1 - 32MB of ESRAM that have 206mb/s throughput coupled to 8gb of DDR3 ram with 68mb/s throughput.
PS4 - 8gb of DDR5 ram with 176mb/s throughput.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the writing was on the wall a long time ago, pretty much after the whole reveal on the consoles, the PS4 is the goto machine for serious gamers, the Xbone is the goto media center, that can also play games, just not as well.
last time i checked the Xbone was based on the 7850, and with the whole DDR3 limitation, i think people will just have to accept that games aren't going to look quite as good on the Xbone as they do on the PS4/PC, this is something thats probably only going to become more pronounced as more games are released that are more demanding even of the PS4, its quite possible that without further 'downscaling' that the Xbone might not be able to handle them at all.
Depending on how popular the Xbone actually becomes, this might mean that games themselves are forced to be 'less graphically demanding' or lose out on a segment of the market. And yes, DDR5 is much easier to develop for than a workaround that tries to use a combination of esram and DDR3. As for the slight difference between the PS4 and the Xbone, that some seem to think is marginal, last i heard it was closer to 50%, as in the PS4 was that much more powerful in terms of 'brute force graphics' than the Xbone.
It would not surprise me in the least, if the reason why MS bought the exclusivity deal on Titanfall, was because the PS4 version was going to be that much better looking, i don't think they are too worried that the PC version will look better, as thats normally the case whatever the game. But as time goes on and more games are released on both platforms, and the Xbone is shown to be continuously lagging behind in terms of graphical resolution/capabilities then the swing to the PS4 will become far more pronounced, if it isnt already.
Nes beat Genesis, Gameboy beat Gamegear, N64 beat Saturn, Gamecube beat Dreamcast. Nintendo consoles were consistently weaker than their Sega counterparts, but they never failed to out sale them.
Xbox 360 and PS3 sales both sit around the 78 million mark, both have failed to out sale the other and I highly doubt this generation will be any different since the established fanbase of each console has become so dedicated and entrenched.
Slightly unrelated side note, I always liked Sega more than Nintendo.
NES vs Genesis is not right they were two different gen systems. SNES vs Genesis was heated. I think they had an almost 50/50 market share. Genesis had cripser graphics and faster processing, SNES had a better soundcard and the mode 7 zoom capabilities gave it an edge over Genesis. Keep in mind also Genesis came out two years before SNES.
Gameboy beats everything. Ever. Not really a powerful point there when comparing it to Gamegear. Gamegear was huge compared to BG. It did color though which was nice. But the battery life was literally 30 minutes.
N64 vs Saturn? They weren't even in the same category. N64 was a 64 bit console heavy on the polygons and light on textures. Saturn was a 32 bit pixel specialist. It had a hard time with polys. PS1 killed em both tbh.
Dreamcast vs Gamecube. Gamecube had way better hardware than Dreamcast and even PS2. Xbox beat all in graphics that gen.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/spot-the-difference-infinity-wards-mark-rubin-on-next-gen-call-of-dutys-resolution-disparity/ read the developer and see the difference . I hope you can realise this 720p on xbox one is also with microsoft engineger support , they could not get 1080p with all that support (kalinis i hope you also read this , with all support from Microsft ) .
Everybody had been know the difference since specs out it was obvious xbox one would be underpowered vs PS4 months ago
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/30/a-deep-dive-in-to-microsofts-xbox-one-gpu-and-on-die-memory/
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/29/a-deep-dive-into-microsofts-xbox-ones-architecture/
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/16/xbox-one-backpedaling-chronicles/
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/22/microsoft-subtly-admits-losing-with-xbox-one/
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/13/xbox-next720-architecture-only-adds-to-microsofts-problems/ it has been told microsoft lost this gen console war at may . But while info is out there it could not leak to gamer circle i guess.
When xbox one dev tools and devs get used too pS4 will have same advantages also ,nothing changes.
Btw dont mind shills and marketers , a lot of media was cheering for win phone and tablet for advertisement money fyi , where are microsoft now ,same situation.
What most seem to forget is that Microsoft is currently heavily investing to get the New Streaming infrastructure ready.
This might also be one of the reasons why they didn't go overboard on hardware specs, like brute Graphics Power.
When they got the New streaming infrastructure up and running, the brute CPU and GPU Processing will be done on the Streaming servers instead of locally on the XBox One.
Infinity Ward has two systems with nearly identical hardware, and they can't get the XB1 to push 1080p at 60fps, but they can do it with the PS4. Something is wonky on the XB1. It is using resources somewhere that could be used on games or Microsoft's libraries provided to the developers are wasting cycles someplace. It's a difference, it's real and there's no good explanation for it except that the XB1 can't push the same number of pixels as the PS4 in a demanding game. That means later, when the games get really demanding, the XB1 is going to fall farther behind unless Microsoft fixes whatever is wrong with the XB1. Of course, for that to happen, they have to actually identify what's wrong with the XB1 and what's preventing the XB1 hardware from performing on par with the PS4. ** Yes, I know about the esram thing, but right now that's unverified. It could very well be the reason. If it is though, it means that the developers aren't going to code around it. The solution will have to come from Microsoft.
The solution will come from the Engine Developers like EPIC Games (Unreal Engine) who will come up With a workaround in a future Engine update that will workaround the ESRAM limitation. So in the end, the Game Developers don´t have to worry about it. They License the engine and in this example, EPIC games (together With Microsoft´s help) will fix it within their new Unreal 4.0 engine.
Turns out the solution might be the engine writers after all. http://gamingbolt.com/crytek-writing-to-xbox-ones-esram-yields-a-considerable-speed-up-ryse-uses-custom-smaa-1tx So the question becomes, how many developers are going to write custom ports of their games to the XB1, rather than just upscale the images? Will there be a point past which the XB1 is going fall behind the PS4 in terms of functionality and performance? Can an optimized ESRAM setup or engine outperform the PS4? ** XB1 - 32MB of ESRAM that have 206mb/s throughput coupled to 8gb of DDR3 ram with 68mb/s throughput. PS4 - 8gb of DDR5 ram with 176mb/s throughput.
I think the writing was on the wall a long time ago, pretty much after the whole reveal on the consoles, the PS4 is the goto machine for serious gamers, the Xbone is the goto media center, that can also play games, just not as well.
last time i checked the Xbone was based on the 7850, and with the whole DDR3 limitation, i think people will just have to accept that games aren't going to look quite as good on the Xbone as they do on the PS4/PC, this is something thats probably only going to become more pronounced as more games are released that are more demanding even of the PS4, its quite possible that without further 'downscaling' that the Xbone might not be able to handle them at all.
Depending on how popular the Xbone actually becomes, this might mean that games themselves are forced to be 'less graphically demanding' or lose out on a segment of the market. And yes, DDR5 is much easier to develop for than a workaround that tries to use a combination of esram and DDR3. As for the slight difference between the PS4 and the Xbone, that some seem to think is marginal, last i heard it was closer to 50%, as in the PS4 was that much more powerful in terms of 'brute force graphics' than the Xbone.
It would not surprise me in the least, if the reason why MS bought the exclusivity deal on Titanfall, was because the PS4 version was going to be that much better looking, i don't think they are too worried that the PC version will look better, as thats normally the case whatever the game. But as time goes on and more games are released on both platforms, and the Xbone is shown to be continuously lagging behind in terms of graphical resolution/capabilities then the swing to the PS4 will become far more pronounced, if it isnt already.
This would explain why they are focused on "entertainment" and not "gaming". Which isn't as dumb as people here might think. The Wii focused on "entertainment" and cumulative sales for the Wii well exceed cumulative sales for the XB360 and PS3 and the Wii could only outpu 480p, and that was if the video upgrade part was purchased.
So the XB1 is a weaker system, and it doesn't focus on gaming, but that doesn't mean it's going to lose the console wars. It's probably not going to flop like the WiiU flopped at least. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.