Xbox One - General Discussion Thread

Central Scrutinizer said:
Is it worth paying $500 for the console for the launch games?

No, of course not.

Is it worth buying it for the 6-8 years of the entire generation?

Oh yes. Yes, it is. Especially since it could be a full 1-2 years before a price drop.

Forza, DR3, and Killer Instinct at launch. Up-rezzed multiplats. Up-rezzed Project Spark. Xbox Fitness. Ryse a potential sleeper.

The quality at launch will be there, and with Titanfall and Destiny slated for the Spring, the usual January-August "dead zone" that follows most launch windows won't be nearly as dull.
Click to expand...
I don't know man, I thought this was very well said. I'm interested enough in a few of the launch games to buy it now, then once Destiny and Titanfall hit....forget about it. Then there is Dragon Age Inquisition in the fall. You are buying the promise of 6+ years of great gaming and, yeah, maybe I am a bit hardcore (gaming for 32 years, since I was 4!), but I think there is good stuff to be had on 11/22 and must-purchase stuff soon enough in 2014.

I'm not at all worried about the "dead zone" between launch and March - June when the next bit titles hit because Feb is a gold mine! Fable Anniversary and Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2 for the 360 and Strider and K-Sports Rivals for the X1 = Win! Plenty of new stuff coming out early next year, let alone the stuff from this fall that I won't get to, like South Park and probably Battlefield 4 and Assassins Creed IV.

 
DestroVega said:
I still can't believe NeoGeo games were $200. But I saw it with my own eyes. What justified that price?
Click to expand...
Ha! I remember walking into Babbages and blowing a load when I saw Neo-Geo, arcade quality games on the shelf. My buddies and I tried to go in together to buy the system but it never came together. I mean, we were friggin 12 and 13 year olds, we didn't have that kind of cash. Back in those days, you just DID NOT have that fidelity at home. So, for the mega-hardcore enthusiast, Neo Geo was a cool thing to have. Unrealistic? Sure, but the wow factor made it highly desirable.

 
Admittedly for the most part when I get a new gen console, I want to be pretty much done with the previous gen console, but the current ones still have a couple of solid years left (i.e. Inquisition will be on 360 & PS3). When I bought a Wii U, it was because the Wii was dead, might as well move on to the next Nintendo console (backwards compatibility helped as I still haven't finished Skyward Sword). PS3 & 360 still have at least a couple solid years left, possibly several.

 
So, I've decided that I'm going to buy an XBOX ONE, hook it all up and then... Watch Man of Steel again on it. In the meantime I'll let you my CAG's and the rest of the internetz decide which games I should actually purchase.

 
Central Scrutinizer said:
Every single example provided was released prior to 1999. Any relevant examples in the last 14 years? The Vita is the closest that I can think of, but it started out overpriced and undersupported. Remains to be seen if it can gain any traction as a PS4 support device.
Click to expand...
The GameCube and original XBox could both serve as examples. The GameCube lost mindshare and marketshare hand over fist, but was still able to turn a profit thanks to Nintendo's design and conservative financial approach to video games. The original XBox was a brute-force attempt by Microsoft to shoulder their way into the industry. By just about every metric other than mindshare the original XBox was a complete failure.

The Vita is actually a poor example, as it is still in its infancy and could yet turn around. Just look at the PSP, which was wasting away thanks to rampant piracy, and managed to turn around in one region thanks to one game.

The industry has been relatively stable through the last decade. But there are no guarantees in an industry like this one. And the continuing pressure from other sectors are making the competition increasingly severe. It would be unwise to assume that everything will simply continue in the same direction. I could easily see both new consoles doing poorly, or at least missing their projected sales figures.

At the end of the day, purchasing a console near the end of a console cycle is always a much better proposition than purchasing one at launch. Buying a PS3 or 360 at this juncture would be affordable, and would provide the general consumer with a wealth of gaming options. I think a lot of consumers are going to be thinking the same thing going into the holiday shopping season.

 
this is being talked about in ps4 pre order thread about the ghost thing but even ps4 videos that ha showed up the game does not even look true 1080 p. Now it's possible the video being on internet destroyed the quiality of it but even on ps4 the game looks like garbage. People have to remember both ghost and titan fall are both on 360 which means they have to make the game in dev work for that which can affect how it looks on more powerfull system we seen this with ps3/360 games.

 
Richard Kain said:
The original XBox was a brute-force attempt by Microsoft to shoulder their way into the industry. By just about every metric other than mindshare the original XBox was a complete failure.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, but the Xbox accomplished exactly what Microsoft needed it to. It busted down the door to the industry so the Xbox 360 could waltz in and take over.

 
another thing people are judge a system that is over a month away. If you take what you see and hear about beta versions of the os and system befoer you get the retail version and im sure will come with a major software update which has been knowing for awhile now is just non sense.  Gaf is nothing but ps4 fanboys and mostly people in EU. Might i add forza 5 runs in legit 1080 p which im sure is much more powerful game then cod so nothing to worry about on that front.

 
Ryuukishi said:
You're not wrong, but the Xbox accomplished exactly what Microsoft needed it to. It busted down the door to the industry so the Xbox 360 could waltz in and take over.
Click to expand...
The only problem being that the 360 didn't just waltz in and take over. It got blind-sided by the Nintendo Wii, and the PS3 along with it. Both of those consoles probably could have taken off a lot more swiftly if it hadn't been for Nintendo's hail-mary. But the chance that Nintendo took ended up as a runaway commercial success, defying everyone's expectations.

This is my point exactly. The current level of competition in the industry makes the future of any hardware platform impossible to predict. Massive corporate support won't be enough. The XBox One will need to turn a profit, and quickly. But the nature of the XBox One, and the compromises Microsoft have made with it are going to seriously impair the system's ability to serve as an entertainment hub. The XBox One was a stronger product when it was an all-digital system. At that point it made much more sense for Microsoft to use it as the centerpiece of their digital media strategy. It wasn't nearly as important for the hardware to be profitable, as it was really just a Trojan horse for Microsoft's on-line distribution of content and services. By turning around on the all-digital nature of the console, they are diluting it's relevance to Microsoft's overall strategy.

Purchasing any console at launch is a risk. You are spending as much money as possible for little more than potential. This is especially true for the XBox One and PS4, as neither system sports backwards compatibility.

 
Currently many rumors floating about that Call of Duty and Titanfall are both going to be 720p on the Xbox 1.

Sony is working on backwards compatibility and so is MS

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard Kain said:
The original XBox was a brute-force attempt by Microsoft to shoulder their way into the industry. By just about every metric other than mindshare the original XBox was a complete failure.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that at all. They managed to tie Nintendo for second, if not edge them out. That's a solid first effort. Nevermind ushering in Halo, developing the gold standard in Live and began the online DLC/Marketplace boom, pushed for hard drive standard, first HD console, etc. I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what "metric" you consider it a failure.

 
NinjaPenguin777 said:
Currently many rumors floating about that Call of Duty and Titanfall are both going to be 720p on the Xbox 1.

Sony is working on backwards compatibility and so is MS
Click to expand...
that would be awsome if they announce before they launch x1 can play 360 games then i could sell my 360 to help pay for x1. im thinking if it happens it will be like 360 with playing only a list of xbox games

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Corvin said:
I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what "metric" you consider it a failure.
Click to expand...
Money. They lost billions of dollars on the original XBox. In fact, they never turned a profit off of it at all. It was a continuous expense for the company throughout its entire run. Even what they were able to earn off of software licensing and first-party titles wasn't nearly enough to offset the ruinous losses that they took. And they didn't get to benefit from late-generation hardware revisions either. Because of some contractual oversights with their chip manufacturers, Microsoft ended up getting taken to the cleaners on the hardware right up until they stopped producing the XBox.

There was a very good reason why Microsoft was so eager to drop the original XBox as quickly as they could. The XBox was a textbook example of a company strong-arming their way into an industry by throwing money into a gaping hole. They acquired the Halo franchise by purchasing Bungie outright. They had no actual competence at console hardware design, they just crammed a stripped-down PC into a case.

The "success" of the first XBox was one of marketing and mindshare. In every other factor it was a complete and utter mess. The system only sold properly for four years, and XBox Live didn't even launch until after the first. (a full quarter of the console's existence) The hard drive standard you mention was dropped for the 360. (a move that still plagues the system)

I'm not trying to say that it was a bad system. But it is important to recognize that it was Microsoft's first effort. And their inexperience was evident top to bottom. The 360 was a bit rough as well, but showed noticeable improvement in most areas.

 
i was in highschool when first xbox came out and it was all people were talking about and wanted. i got a ps2 in 2001 and did not get a xbox till like 2003 and i still remember how when i played games on org xbox i could not stop thinking how the games looked little bit better then ps2. 

 
TimboSliceGB said:
i was in highschool when first xbox came out and it was all people were talking about and wanted. i got a ps2 in 2001 and did not get a xbox till like 2003 and i still remember how when i played games on org xbox i could not stop thinking how the games looked little bit better then ps2.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I felt like the original xbox was a minor step up.
 
The halo box... yup I pretty much bought Xbox Prime for Halo... and Jinx lol (it came with the system). :p

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What are games on the 360 now? 720p?

That's probably not a big deal system to system but ps4 boasting 1080p is going to make people think it's better even if the difference isn't noticeable.
 
DestroVega said:
What are games on the 360 now? 720p?

That's probably not a big deal system to system but ps4 boasting 1080p is going to make people think it's better even if the difference isn't noticeable.
Click to expand...
thing is rumor is that the games are not true 1080 p on ps4 also bf4 is like 900 p and x1 version is like 840 p but being sold at being 1080p alot of 360 games say 1080p on box so alot of people think it's 1080p but don't know it's just upscaled to 1080p

 
BF 4 is supposed to be 900p on XB1 and PS4.Most 360 games are 720p but there are some games like Call of Duty that are 640p I believe. The whole 1080p vs lower than 1080p thing is completely overblown but it's going to swing people that don't know any better

 
I find it disappointing that they aren't both 1080p 60 fps for all games. Sort of surprising to me that the next gen can't max out current gen TVs. This is theoretical for me at the moment as our TVs are 720p, but I want to get a new TV when we have the funds and of course it will be 1080p and a fair bit larger. After that I'll get a next gen system. Hopefully by then they've figured out how to do 1080p 60fps across the board.

 
crunchewy said:
I find it disappointing that they aren't both 1080p 60 fps for all games.
Click to expand...
It's not nearly as much of a standard as many people seem to think. It is also true that it's not as significant as FPS is when it comes to perception. It takes a trained eye to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially for action-heavy games. I can do it, but I'm a graphic designer who has spent most of his life staring at electronic displays. I am highly trained when it comes to identifying minute graphical details.

By and large, most developers will prioritize effects and frame rate over supporting 1080p. And there's no real problem with that. Few, if any, consumers are going to settle on a PS4 over an XBox One based on screen resolution. The price difference is a much more serious issue.

 
In any case, we're talking about launch games. Look at stuff like Kameo or Perfect Dark Zero today. Hardly representative of what devs will be able to do with a console over its lifetime.

 
Ryuukishi said:
In any case, we're talking about launch games. Look at stuff like Kameo or Perfect Dark Zero today. Hardly representative of what devs will be able to do with a console over its lifetime.
Click to expand...
That's true. It's also possible that they haven't finished optimizing performance for the title in question. It might get a bit of a bump before it is actually released. I hesitate to press that particular point, as we are less than a month away from the XBox One hitting store shelves. But a lot can happen with those optimizations in the last few weeks of development.

The only worrying factor for the XBox One is that this might be indicative of future cross-platform development. Sony might have actually made good on their promise to bring out a system that is easier and faster to develop for. This could hurt the XBox One a bit down the line. It will also insure performance parity for PS4 versions of games right out of the box. If all things were equal, this wouldn't really matter. But the price difference makes it more significant.

 
If there's hardly any difference between 720 and 1080p, then that would seem to take away one thing that made next gen seem worthwhile. I don't know. This could hurt sales of both consoles.

 
crunchewy said:
If there's hardly any difference between 720 and 1080p, then that would seem to take away one thing that made next gen seem worthwhile. I don't know. This could hurt sales of both consoles.
Click to expand...
This is something I've been talking about for months. The difference in terms of visuals between the console cycles just isn't going to be that big for the average consumer. As such, the biggest competition for the XBox One isn't going to be the PS4, it's going to be the XBox 360 and PS3.

The really smart developers are going to work hard to make sure that the frame rates are much improved on the XBox One and PS4. That will be more immediately noticeable. (though still not terribly important) Oddly enough, I think games like Skylanders are going to benefit more on the visual side of things from the upgrade to new hardware. Cross-platform realistic shooters will benefit the least.

 
Resolution isn't everything. Higher resolution textures, better lighting and shadows, higher frame rate, smoother animation-- stuff like that is going to contribute a lot to the impression that a next-gen game looks better than a current-gen game. A lot of HD televisions only support 720p anyway. I only upgraded to a 1080p television a few weeks ago when the 32-inch 720p TV I've had for several years broke.

The thing that's troubling for Microsoft isn't so much that a particular game (like, say, Titanfall) targets 720p instead of 1080p. It's that Infinity Ward was evidently able to get Ghosts running at 1080p on the PS4, but not on the Xbox One. Is that just because devs still need to get used to the XB1, or that its dev tools aren't quite as mature as Sony's, but this will iron itself out after the launch window? Or is there some inherent different in capability between the consoles that makes 1080p easier to hit on the PS4 and harder on the Xbone, for otherwise identical games developed concurrently?

 
crunchewy said:
I find it disappointing that they aren't both 1080p 60 fps for all games. Sort of surprising to me that the next gen can't max out current gen TVs. This is theoretical for me at the moment as our TVs are 720p, but I want to get a new TV when we have the funds and of course it will be 1080p and a fair bit larger. After that I'll get a next gen system. Hopefully by then they've figured out how to do 1080p 60fps across the board.
Click to expand...
to be honest it kind o is you are paying 400/500 bucks for these things and this day and age they should put enough power in these things to at least handle 1080 p at 60 fps on avg. This might be the lowest change in quality o systems in awhile. in alot of 3rd party games you will not see that much diff in games them selfs compared the better looking games on 360 and ps3.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/10/22/call-of-duty-ghosts-squads-mode-wargame-gameplay

this is the so called 1080 p ps4 video. I don't know if the quality of game is awful because it's on a video or it really looks that bad. i really now starting to question the rumor that x1 can't run this thing at 1080 p it looks current gen. the funny thing is the dude that started the rumor on that gef site did a interview with gaming news website and did not sound 100 percent confident the rumor was even true. :/

 
Richard Kain said:
It's not nearly as much of a standard as many people seem to think. It is also true that it's not as significant as FPS is when it comes to perception. It takes a trained eye to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially for action-heavy games. I can do it, but I'm a graphic designer who has spent most of his life staring at electronic displays. I am highly trained when it comes to identifying minute graphical details.

By and large, most developers will prioritize effects and frame rate over supporting 1080p. And there's no real problem with that. Few, if any, consumers are going to settle on a PS4 over an XBox One based on screen resolution. The price difference is a much more serious issue.
Click to expand...

Great post. I enjoy reading your points.

The resolution doesn't matter to the casual fan because they won't see the difference but to the hardcore gamers and videophiles it does make a difference. That in itself can start the domino effect in slight favor of the PS4. For people that are considering between which system to buy, the timing of this is a critical point in the decision tree. As TV's become cheaper and consumers become more wary of the available techonology for their future entertainment (i.e. 1080p), some people will jump in with the PS4. There's already plenty of boards with members raging over the 720p issue with Xbone out the gate.

I still think both companies will get a large install base. Not right away but by the end of the next holiday season, I expect the next gen console market to have a healthy user base. Despite a different business environment where mobile gaming has become a real threat, there will always be a huge demand to fill with regards to the home couch and lounging market. With Nintendo not being as big of a threat in the next gen race as it was in the current gen, Microsoft and Sony will be the two names people debate over. If Sony starts out strong like many expect it to, you can see the casual gaming market following suit.
 
Donut2922 said:
Great post. I enjoy reading your points.

The resolution doesn't matter to the casual fan because they won't see the difference but to the hardcore gamers and videophiles it does make a difference. That in itself can start the domino effect in slight favor of the PS4. For people that are considering between which system to buy, the timing of this is a critical point in the decision tree. As TV's become cheaper and consumers become more wary of the available techonology for their future entertainment (i.e. 1080p), some people will jump in with the PS4. There's already plenty of boards with members raging over the 720p issue with Xbone out the gate.

I still think both companies will get a large install base. Not right away but by the end of the next holiday season, I expect the next gen console market to have a healthy user base. Despite a different business environment where mobile gaming has become a real threat, there will always be a huge demand to fill with regards to the home couch and lounging market. With Nintendo not being as big of a threat in the next gen race as it was in the current gen, Microsoft and Sony will be the two names people debate over. If Sony starts out strong like many expect it to, you can see the casual gaming market following suit.
Click to expand...
720 p issue? bf 4 runs at 860 p on x1 compared to 900 p on ps4 which is by far the most power hungry game to hit these things at launch and ghost will be close to 1080 p if not at 1080p. titanfall seems like from the look of trailer it's being run down so it will work well on xbox 360 which it should sell well on.

i can tell you not every game for life o x1 and ps4 will be 1080 p legit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, people who are now getting to see these "next gen" games more and more and see that don't really look that much better, are maybe starting to realize this jump between gens isn't really going to be as big as people want to believe.

 
Deader2818 said:
I think, people who are now getting to see these "next gen" games more and more and see that don't really look that much better, are maybe starting to realize this jump between gens isn't really going to be as big as people want to believe.
Click to expand...
i agree up till this point each gen had a pretty big jump in gameplay and looks of games and i think at least for first couple years will not see much diff seeing 3rd party games have to be made in a way that thye will be playable on last gen for at least 2-3 years. people have to think to them selfs is more dynamic lighting and little better ai worth paying 400/500 bucks right now? more and more that comes out is making me 2nd guessing in getting a next gen system right away and that garbage looking gameplay video of cod is the major issue for me right now.

 
While many consumers may not be able to tell the difference (or have a capable TV), its a good marketing point for Sony if they can drive home the message that the only "Full HD" console version of CoD: Ghosts is on PS4.  It sounds like the XB1 will be much like the PS3 was at the start, the multiplatform games will be a little weaker at launch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it annoying, assuming it is true, that these games can't run at 1080p and 60fps out of the gate. Wasn't MS blabbing on about how powerful their cloud was going to be? Maybe they should have done some extra work on the hardware. I'm not a fanboy, but will be staying with the X1 since I've rode the train this long, but damn. 

Aside from exclusive, how powerful will this cloud even be? I would assume the developers are going to spend more time making their games work on multiple platforms, rather than take advantage of proprietary features (see Wii U).

 
Ryuukishi said:
In any case, we're talking about launch games. Look at stuff like Kameo or Perfect Dark Zero today. Hardly representative of what devs will be able to do with a console over its lifetime.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a two edged sword though? If less intensive launch titles can't push 1080p what hope do grandiose titles 5 years from now have?

Richard Kain said:
Money. They lost billions of dollars on the original XBox. In fact, they never turned a profit off of it at all.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that, but that is but one metric. Your post implied they failed on every level which is simply not the case at all. They were thinking long term. Gamers think short term. No they didn't turn a profit the first time out, but they laid the groundwork for everything that made the 360 so successful and profitable.

 
Corvin said:
No they didn't turn a profit the first time out, but they laid the groundwork for everything that made the 360 so successful and profitable.
Click to expand...
And they were successful and profitable. There is no doubt about that. The 360 was a marked improvement over its predecessor in just about every regard. Microsoft built on the groundwork they laid with the original XBox Live. And the general design of the 360's hardware was far superior, and much better thought out. It was even able to go toe-to-toe with the PS3, despite being technically inferior and a year older. Prudent hardware decisions on Microsoft's part mitigated most of the engineering that Sony put into the PS3. Microsoft didn't build a more powerful system, but they built one that was much better optimized for, and focused on games.

But the competition between the 360 and PS3 was almost moot, because Nintendo waltzed in and kicked them both in the teeth. While the 360 and PS3 both seem to have more staying power, neither has yet to surpass the Wii's hardware install base, and Nintendo is laughing all the way to the bank. One of the lessons to take away is that proper marketing behind the right product is far more imporant than hardware performance. Microsoft and Sony's dick-waving over who has the better system won't count for crap if the games aren't there.

And at the moment, the games AREN'T there. For either of them. There is nothing unusual about this. Lean launches are perfectly normal, especially in the given circumstances. But both companies are going to need to prove themselves in 2014. This holiday season isn't really going to matter at all. Holiday 2014 is when the real competition is going to heat up.

 
hustletron said:
Idk, PC is looking more and more like the way to go these days........
Click to expand...
A decent gaming PC is a lot more expensive than an X1 or PS4, and before long you'll need to upgrade it to play the latest games well. PC is a moving target. Not that I don't want one, but it is a much bigger outlay of cash, especially if you're wanting to play competitive online FPSs where the player who can see farther due to being able to play at a higher resolution and on a bigger screen, has the advantage. I.e. whoever spends the most wins. Well, not exactly, but certainly if you can't afford to buy top of the line and keep it top of the line, you are at an inherent disadvantage in such games. With consoles you are all on a level platform.

Having said that, I am impossibly jealous of the Daily Challenge in the Steam version of Spelunky. :(

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You forgot something called sli/ceasefire. Makes competing with GPUs a lot easier if you have a great CPU/Mobo combo. You can always add, and take away from PCs as needed.

I just sold my gaming PC because I never used it, and I hated how hot it made everything. My next PC which I will build sometime next year will be WC'd or have a H100 in it or something.
 
CheapyD said:
While many consumers may not be able to tell the difference (or have a capable TV), its a good marketing point for Sony if they can drive home the message that the only "Full HD" console version of CoD: Ghosts is on PS4. It sounds like the XB1 will be much like the PS3 was at the start, the multiplatform games will be a little weaker at launch.
Click to expand...
Sony and Microsoft never really promote the rendering resolution of games because most gamers have no idea what that is. People just care what the game will run in and Ghost will run in Full HD on both Xbox one and Xbox 360 so I dont see Sony trying to market this.

Just finished paying off Dead Rising 3 thanks to Swagbucks/bing. Sucks I waited to long to pre-oreder the xbox one so I wont be getting it at lanuch but I hope I can at least get it by the end of the year.

 
I have a forza LE question. In 4, you didn't actually own the extra cars in the game, you had exclusive access to them, but you still had to buy them with in game credits.

In GT5 LE, you actually had the cars in your garage, giving you a huge advantage in the early game( especially if you pre order that LE from GS).


Has it been said if the new game's LE and day one pack make you own the cars, or will it be like F4, where you still have to buy them in game?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crunchewy said:
A decent gaming PC is a lot more expensive than an X1 or PS4, and before long you'll need to upgrade it to play the latest games well. PC is a moving target. Not that I don't want one, but it is a much bigger outlay of cash, especially if you're wanting to play competitive online FPSs where the player who can see farther due to being able to play at a higher resolution and on a bigger screen, has the advantage. I.e. whoever spends the most wins. Well, not exactly, but certainly if you can't afford to buy top of the line and keep it top of the line, you are at an inherent disadvantage in such games. With consoles you are all on a level platform.

Having said that, I am impossibly jealous of the Daily Challenge in the Steam version of Spelunky. :(
Click to expand...
My PC runs BF3 on Ultra with no slowdown and I spent about $1100 on it 2 years ago. Including a new monitor and case and Intel SSD, which I didn't NEED. You figure both consoles are about $1100 maybe with tax, probably a little less and even if you combined the hardware from both consoles wouldn't even come close to touching my PC. I won't have to upgrade for easily another 3 to 4 years and that's factoring in scaling down the GFX on new games that come out in that time frame if necessary. I didn't spend on top of the line components and I splurged mostly on the VGA (EVGA GTX670).

That aside, I was speaking from a multiplatform standpoint. Once you've got a decent rig to run the games you want at the price point you're comfortable with, consoles fall to the wayside, and this is coming from a guy who was majorly a console gamer. But all this multiplatform shit is making PC that much more appealing especially due to the fact that 90% of the games are digital download now and run off Steam/Origin and there's no subscription costs to either so availability and convenience are a big factor too.

I know this is the Xbox forum but I guess I'm just so disappointed with these launch titles and the more than lacking specs of the new consoles. You would think since they have to install everything to the disk, they would include an SSD in the console, but for a 500 gig SSD that would probably put the console close to if not over the $1000 mark. Then you have the whole downscaling conspiracy which is probably not a big deal to most people but it's like if I'm spending that kind of money on something, I want it to do what it says on the box ya know? Even the handful of games I've been wanting are all coming out for PS4, PC, X1, and some for the 360 and PS3. It's like it's not even necessary to buy the new consoles to play the new stuff this season, which is probably my biggest gripe because I was prepared to spend!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
THE DOWNSCALING CONSPIRACY!

*EVIL MUSIC*

Sheesh.

In other news, the XBO's low-power state and suspend/resume features will be active at launch.  This is somewhat newsworthy because even though Sony was the first to announce these features way back in February, neither one will be active at launch on the PS4.

 
I think both companies rushed their consoles. Sony probably rushed to market so they could try to one up Microsoft and Microsoft had to release since Sony was going to release this year. Both of these consoles should have just waited until 2014 when they were truly ready. 

 
i have been saying that all along both these things were rushed and it shows by the lack luster launch line up. if they would have waited till next fall they would have had a amazing launch lineup with titanfall and destiny and a fully done watch dogs.

 
NinjaPenguin777 said:
I think both companies rushed their consoles. Sony probably rushed to market so they could try to one up Microsoft and Microsoft had to release since Sony was going to release this year. Both of these consoles should have just waited until 2014 when they were truly ready.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, from the specs to the games, the evidence is pretty clear.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top