I just don't get that if I just want to put a game in and play then it does that with no need to even see the dashboard?
Playstation 4 being announced February 20th?
- Thread starter Broken Hope
- Start date
I just don't get that if I just want to put a game in and play then it does that with no need to even see the dashboard?
Soldato
On previous dashboards I used a lot of the features and they were easy to find and in logical places. Now id have to hunt for them inbetween loads of features/adverts as a core game I have no interest in Netflix/Love Film/Kinnect/Internet Explorer etc.
You will have noticed when you load up the default screen actually playing the game you have in the drive is tucked away in a tiny square in the top left. Says it all where Microsofts priorities are now (which is fine but not for me).
If you have the console set to launch the dash instead of the game then when it starts the highlighted tile (top left) is the game in the drive and a press of A launches straight into the game, again not seeing the issue with that? Or you can have it set to launch the game when turned on bypassing the dash entirely.
Out of interest what features did you use which you now find you have to hunt for?
Out of interest what features did you use which you now find you have to hunt for?
Soldato
Mainly market place things. I used to like the inside x-box shows that they took away. I don't think the dashboard keeps together downloaded titles as good as it use to. Really you should have all the game related options on the front page and everything else not related on the other pages yet we see time and time again Microsoft pushing casual games/tv shows/ music/ subscriptions... it all just feels tacky. Its certainly for me at least the worst of the 3 major revisions. I'd rather have the blades back by a long shot.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
it is all relative to how far away you are from the screen.
a mobile phone screen is within 1 foot of your face, so therefore easier to notice the difference in res's.
a pc screen is also usually within 3 feet from your face, therefore easier to notice the difference in res's.
now take 2 x 32" screens both at 8-12 feet away (standard couch length) one is 720P and the other 1080P, most could not tell the difference, i'm not saying "all" here, i'm saying most, because of the distance and the size of screen.
it is well known that as you get bigger screen's and you get closer to the screen the differences become more apparent. therefore they suggest the average person can only tell the difference between 1080P and 720P when sitting on a couch as screens become larger than 42".
also i can tell the difference, that is why i have a 42" 1080P set in my bedroom and a 51" 1080P set in the living room, both top of the range panels.
also notice the word "similar" to pc architecture, yes it is similar, but it is not the "same" because it has been "custom" made.
Which is 5 more than the PS3, not to mention almost every tile on every 'page' is trying to sell you something (whether it's marked 'Advertisement' or not).
So the Singstar in your face when starting up the PS3 does not count?
At least they have not had ingame adverts like Sony did with Wipeout
Caporegime
Yes, I can read. I have had the total misfortune of reading your completely nonsensical posts. Funny how you miss the point and pull more random figures out your bum as an example. Also "nothing is of standard PC affair"
"Sony described the machine as being like a "supercharged" PC.
It runs off an x86-based CPU (central processing unit) - similar architecture to that found in most desktop computers - and an "enhanced" PC GPU (graphics processing unit). Both CPU and GPU are designed by the US firm Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21526450
Also I have actually provided a source to back up my point, I'm still waiting on the price list Sony provided you with
Also I'll pick you up on another point about televisions "they reckon most people can only notice the difference between 720P and 1080P when the screen sizes are greater than 42", therefore for a 1080P set you ideally want around 50" to get the most out of it."
I have a 32" 720P tv, a 42" 1080p tv and 3 24" 1080p monitors. There is a massive difference between 720p and 1080p regardless of size. Jeez, I can notice an improve res on a mobile phone screen.
If you really don't see this then the PS4 will be wasted on you.
Yeah, I think his dad's mates uncles mother in law works for Sony so he is pretty "in the know" watch this space for all the "facts" on Sony's new £400 minimum console with £100 pound ram with a disc drive that saves them £2.00 per console saving them £10.000.000 in just a few months and games will cost you £70.00 a pop.
Have I missed any?
I'm so fed up of him, I'm just pleased he's stopped posting his waffle in the Football Stadia.
It's brilliant, counter his points with sense / logic / facts and he'll just waffle on about something slightly different and claim he never said certain things.
He's clearly got an issue, like a few other posts and he obviously thinks that he's all knowing
.Anyway; back on topic! I'm now slightly convinced (myself at least) that the new GTA games will be the big releases for the launch of these consoles, I just can't see them releasing them on the old platforms and then a month later the new consoles coming out.
Caporegime
The Singstar thing isn't really an advert, but that's not to say I don't hate it and wish it could be turned off (or at least, wasn't the first thing on the screen when the console starts). It was a stupid move by Sony, along with that ridiculous seizure warning message.
Besides, PSN is a free service. Piling on the ads for XBL Silver users is one thing, but if they're going to make people pay to use virtually any online service - even ones they're not providing themselves like Netflix or 4OD - the least they could do is tone down the advertising and let people customise what's on-screen a little more.
But no. Money money money.
Besides, PSN is a free service. Piling on the ads for XBL Silver users is one thing, but if they're going to make people pay to use virtually any online service - even ones they're not providing themselves like Netflix or 4OD - the least they could do is tone down the advertising and let people customise what's on-screen a little more.
But no. Money money money.
Soldato
It's all getting out of hand from Dashboard adverts, DLC, Pre-order DLC, Gold Membership, In game Transactions. Since when did buying the game itself not become enough?
What really, really annoys me though is how much MS charge for developers to patch games... isn't that what we pay our Gold Membership for (partly)? Take the Silent Hill collection for example it has a glaring fault with the way to renders the Fog and other effects. This has since been patched on the Playstation where's the developers have come right out and said its getting left as is on the X-Box because it would be too expensive to patch.
What really, really annoys me though is how much MS charge for developers to patch games... isn't that what we pay our Gold Membership for (partly)? Take the Silent Hill collection for example it has a glaring fault with the way to renders the Fog and other effects. This has since been patched on the Playstation where's the developers have come right out and said its getting left as is on the X-Box because it would be too expensive to patch.
Caporegime
I've not seen anything about this!
I have no idea what the exculsive deal would be, much like yourselves, but I'll add that it's going to cost Microsoft a lot of money as that's what EA are about and unfortunately, how (imho) the gaming industry has gone over the last couple of years. Gaming by numbers and franchises.
PC Gaming has boomed a little bit with the influx of quality indie games but not so much on console, I'd love these two new consoles to help buck the trend.
Ah so it's not trying to sell something then? it's an advert as much as the Xbox ones are.
Yep Xbox is money money money while Sony make nothing from PS3 at all....
Caporegime
I think it might have been Valve who wanted to do cross platform play for a game but then said basically that because of the way Microsoft do updates / patches that it would be impossible to keep them both up to date.
The more I use xbox live (I've been enjoying playing my xbox again) the more these things are bugging me too.
Soldato
With Sony been more reigned in it encourages a more satisfactory gaming experience and so their user base will likely buy more games (giving Sony more from licencing) and will more than likely choose Sony over MS again this generation. That way they make money without upsetting or aggravating their user-base with direct in your face add on sales.
I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about it, you only have to look at the XMB and Xbox dashboard side-by-side to see that the MS one is very clearly more orientated towards advertising content and getting the user to buy things. Almost every screen has some kind of ad, "new release", DLC promo or recommendation.
On the PS3, you have to go into the PlayStation Store before you see anything being advertised to you. The Singstar thing is just a screen for the app (an app that really shouldn't be there I might add).
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
I'm so fed up of him, I'm just pleased he's stopped posting his waffle in the Football Stadia.
It's brilliant, counter his points with sense / logic / facts and he'll just waffle on about something slightly different and claim he never said certain things.
He's clearly got an issue, like a few other posts and he obviously thinks that he's all knowing
Anyway; back on topic! I'm now slightly convinced (myself at least) that the new GTA games will be the big releases for the launch of these consoles, I just can't see them releasing them on the old platforms and then a month later the new consoles coming out.
Indeed, nothing worse than people talking rubbish and making out that its factual. I would love GTA 5 to come out on the new consoles, I can imagine it would look jaw dropping
I am not being defensive, not any more than you are being anyway?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
You know what, I actually typed out a fairly substantial post on why this is wrong to an extent and how you contradicted yourself in earlier posts but in the end I can't be bothered debating this with you.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Heres a quote for you redstar
from http://www.semperthree.com/backwards-compatibility.html
"The decision to remove PS2 compatibility, or 'backwards compatibility', from the PS3 caused a lot of controversy for Sony. Much of this stemming from their own early press releases stating the importance of providing this feature on the PS3.
How and Why PS2 Compatibility Was Removed
The PS2, released in 2000, used a pair of proprietary Sony-built processors in its chipset. These were the 'Emotion Engine' CPU and the 'Graphics Synthesizer' GPU. These were unique processors with distinct architecture that proved difficult to emulate and expensive to manufacture.
When the PS3 was released in 2006, it contained these two processors specifically for the purpose of running Playstation 2 games; this enabled nearly 100% PS2 compatibility. These were the original CECHA 60gb and CECHB 20gb launch models.
With the system still priced at nearly $600 retail, and production costs over $800 per unit, Sony needed to reduce the cost of manufacture AND reduce the price for consumers. With cheaper and more efficient replacement parts still a few years away, they had to cut costs and remove non-essential parts.
The 'Emotion engine' CPU was subsequently removed, leaving the 'Graphics Synthesizer' GPU combined with software-driven emulation to run PS2 games. Although this reduced production costs, the emulation turned out to be sub-par and resulted in only about 80% of PS2 games being playable. The only models to use this configuration were the CECHE 80gb console and the CECHC 60gb.
Eventually, Sony determined that the sub-par emulation combined with the continued expense of including the PS2 GPU, was not giving them the cost to performance ratio that they needed to achieve. Sony at this point introduced the first non-PS2 compatible PS3. The new 40gb models debuted at $399, a full $200 dollars cheaper than the original 60gb launch models.
Even with all these changes and others to the PS3 Sony was still losing money on every console made. But, with the removal of the backwards compatibility, Sony was able to greatly reduce the cost of the PS3 to the consumer and got much closer to finding the proper performance to cost ratio, that they were looking for."
Like i said about removing CD functionality, they have done it in the past in order to save costs before with their consoles. Therefore my logic in saying they removed CD in PS4 to save money is completely sound.
from http://www.semperthree.com/backwards-compatibility.html
"The decision to remove PS2 compatibility, or 'backwards compatibility', from the PS3 caused a lot of controversy for Sony. Much of this stemming from their own early press releases stating the importance of providing this feature on the PS3.
How and Why PS2 Compatibility Was Removed
The PS2, released in 2000, used a pair of proprietary Sony-built processors in its chipset. These were the 'Emotion Engine' CPU and the 'Graphics Synthesizer' GPU. These were unique processors with distinct architecture that proved difficult to emulate and expensive to manufacture.
When the PS3 was released in 2006, it contained these two processors specifically for the purpose of running Playstation 2 games; this enabled nearly 100% PS2 compatibility. These were the original CECHA 60gb and CECHB 20gb launch models.
With the system still priced at nearly $600 retail, and production costs over $800 per unit, Sony needed to reduce the cost of manufacture AND reduce the price for consumers. With cheaper and more efficient replacement parts still a few years away, they had to cut costs and remove non-essential parts.
The 'Emotion engine' CPU was subsequently removed, leaving the 'Graphics Synthesizer' GPU combined with software-driven emulation to run PS2 games. Although this reduced production costs, the emulation turned out to be sub-par and resulted in only about 80% of PS2 games being playable. The only models to use this configuration were the CECHE 80gb console and the CECHC 60gb.
Eventually, Sony determined that the sub-par emulation combined with the continued expense of including the PS2 GPU, was not giving them the cost to performance ratio that they needed to achieve. Sony at this point introduced the first non-PS2 compatible PS3. The new 40gb models debuted at $399, a full $200 dollars cheaper than the original 60gb launch models.
Even with all these changes and others to the PS3 Sony was still losing money on every console made. But, with the removal of the backwards compatibility, Sony was able to greatly reduce the cost of the PS3 to the consumer and got much closer to finding the proper performance to cost ratio, that they were looking for."
Like i said about removing CD functionality, they have done it in the past in order to save costs before with their consoles. Therefore my logic in saying they removed CD in PS4 to save money is completely sound.