Underwhelemd by the 'next' generation of consoles and games?

[ps3ud0]

I think we all knew he was talking about the gpu anyway, not sure why you'd take issue when he's already clarified that. As for 'the cell can do fancy graphics stuff' weeellllll.....How much difference does that really make? It still came off worse than the 360 in most cases.

It actually made quite a difference the PS3 GPU was pretty damn awful - you have to remember it was an afterthought as Sony were looking to do everything via the Cell. And no when you talk about the PS3 graphics you cant discount the Cell, as it in reality, as Ive just explained it was expected to be the primary GPU system when the PS3 was being designed...

ps3ud0

 

[Boomstick777]

*SNIP*

Spoffle tbh at this point I have no idea what you're going on about, you said consoles were never ahead, I said different and proved it with a link from none other than Nvidia, fairly legitimate source. This thread was about the 'next gen' being somewhat of a disappointment compared to previous generations. Looks like you're trying to turn into flaming, and will just get annoyed with whatever I reply..

I will just re-iterate this,

"Nvidia: Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC Graphics"

Ask yourself this, why would Nvidia be saying Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC if they hadn't done so in the past?

Tony Tamasi : Nvidia senior vice president.

He revealed that, unlike generations in the past that were on par if not better than many performance PCs at launch, console makers no longer have the resources to jump ahead of the PC gaming hardware market.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-consoles-gpu-graphics-power,24390.html

So yeah, Nvidia acknowledge it, but somehow Spoffle knows different

This gen is def more of a refresh, let's just hope it's shortlived. Phones will be more powerful in a few years

-------------------------------------------

Think we need something a bit more lighthearted..

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[james.miller]

It actually made quite a difference the PS3 GPU was pretty damn awful - you have to remember it was an afterthought as Sony were looking to do everything via the Cell. And no when you talk about the PS3 graphics you cant discount the Cell, as it in reality, as Ive just explained was expected to be the primary GPU system was the PS3 was being designed...

ps3ud0

That only proves just how wrong sony got it

oh and boomstick is living in his own little bubble over there .

 

[spoffle]

No spoffle you are wrong face it; graphical capability as you posted != GPU and considering you are anal enough to pick up TSGs point regards porting, I think Im on solid ground with regards to you not being ultra-efficient in making in your point

The GPUs themselves are separated by a peak performance gap of around 1000%, as I pointed out, however; the other parts aren't directly comparable as all things aren't equal.

The PS3's main CPU isn't all that efficient when it comes to programming, which means theoretical performance is already down there.

The PS3's got quite low memory bandwidth available to it, as well as a very small pool of memory, compared to the PS4's too.

Then we have the unified GPU architecture compared to the PS3 GPU's fixed function GPU.

It all adds up to be around 10x the peak performance.

This is often why multiplatform games didn't look as good on the PS3 as they did on the 360, because non-Sony developers struggled to get to grips with the PS3's architecture.

It's no surprise that it was a unanimous choice to go for more traditional hardware this time around.

We can all be facetious now cant we . So when you mean GPU, say GPU - simples

ps3ud0

Yes, ports don't actually exist though, nothing is ported, not even remotely close.

 

[Craterloads]

So soon the PS4 / Xbone and Wii U will be the current cream of the crop hardware, from the top console companys. When you see that the Xbone can only output 720P on some games, Wii U is getting substandard ports as it just isn't worth developers time as it's sold so little, and the PS4 although more powerful than the Xbone only offers what an older low/mid range GPU can achieve. I can't help feel a little underwhelmed by this 'next' generation.

Previous console launches have always pushed the boundaries of what was possible, being more powerful at launch than PC's and games that would stun.

This generation their is nothing that truly screams next gen to me. Yes Killzone looks nice, Mario World looks awesome, but none have that next gen feeling or polish.. Not in graphics or features, upcoming games are rehashes of existing formulas, there is nothing really new from anyone..

Maybe this is the time for the PC to shine? Maybe consoles can't compete in performance anymore, and developers can't risk something different in games, are the days of consoles outshining PC's at launch time behind us?

I still think the PS4 offers a lot of bang for buck for it's price, I am very underwhelmed by the Xbone, Wii U was more of the same from Nintendo, cheap hardware with a focus on games, trouble is this time they gave the cheap hardware and forgot the games as well.. Overall nothing has stood out from what we already have on PS3 / X360 and Wii..

What do you guys think?

I see what you are saying but all launches are pretty much like this, underwhelming. PS3 and the 360 launches were more of the same if not worse, probably worse. Also one has to put things into perspective, recession, companies not being able or willing to lose a crap tonne of money on each console, developing propriety tech costing billions just doesn't stack up in todays market.

My outlook has been vastly improved after checking out Killzone SF direct feed vids, multiplayer 1080p/60fps launch title looking pretty darn good. And i'm not even a fan of the KZ series, but its a benchmark of what we can expect in the near future. The price and the tech in the PS4 is exceptional value for money.

I think your setting the bar to high to what's actually possible at launch, you could easily reverse what you have said and apply it to PC's. What are £1000 Titans doing that "has stood out from what we already have" from £230 GTX 680s? Also check out BF4 on the PS3 to what BF4 is like on the PS4, worlds apart in performance, FPS and scale. People were saying the same at launch on the PS3, with ugly looking launch titles, compared to late in life PS2 titles.

All I can say is give it time, and can pretty much guarantee you will get most bang for your buck from a £350 PS4 over this generation when compared to PC gaming (well hardware performance wise)

 

[ps3ud0]

That only proves just how wrong sony got it

Oh I completely agree, but this whole discussion was more about the next gen consoles and my original point was that neither Sony/MS seem to want to go with a model where they substantially subside the consoles with the expectation to recoup those losses via game licenses and the like.

I cant blame them for trying to produce consoles this time around that are priced at near profitability from the start and no doubt thats predicated the specs we have now - Im sure the BOMs will be of interest compared to something like the PS3s at launch...
EDIT:

oh and boomstick is living in his own little bubble over there .

Spoffles joined him . Lets talk audio tech instead


ps3ud0

 

[spoffle]

Spoffle tbh at this point I have no idea what you're going on about, you said consoles were never ahead, I said different and proved it with a link from none other than Nvidia, fairly legitimate source. This thread was about the 'next gen' being somewhat of a disappointment compared to previous generations. Looks like you're trying to turn into flaming, and will just get annoyed with whatever I reply..

Because you're taking what I'm saying, and changing it in to something else, then arguing against that. This is called a straw man argument.
You never proved anything, you are making claims and claiming that those claims are proof because you've made them.

I never said consoles weren't ahead, I said console hardware in peak theoretical performance, weren't ahead.

I also said that consoles can do more compared to a PC with the same theoretical peak performance.

I'm not trying to turn this in to flaiming, I'm telling you that you're wrong, and explaining why you're wrong.

You aren't responding to things I am saying, you are instead twisting what I am saying or outright ignoring it.

I will just re-iterate this,

"Nvidia: Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC Graphics"

Ask yourself this, why would Nvidia be saying Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC if they hadn't done so in the past?

Tony Tamasi : Nvidia senior vice president.

No one really takes notice of nVidia when they come out with stuff like this, as it's very obviously because they didn't get a look in with the new consoles. They don't like that EVERYTHING is AMD so they are in damage limitation mode. All multiplatform games are going to be optimised for AMD's GPUs, and you actually trust what nVidia has to say about it? THis is called damage limitation and PR BS.

Since when has nVidia ever been a source for trustworthy information?

Their name is a derivative of a Latin word which means "To view with jealousy", which sums up nVidia as a company quite perfectly.

That aside, they are saying it because they have nothing else to say, they haven't got anything to do with the consoles because they didn't get a look in, they were shunned and this is how they are dealing with it, they are trying to convince people that they had no interest in the first place after the fact they weren't given any. This is, as I've already explained above, called cognitive dissonance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-consoles-gpu-graphics-power,24390.html

So yeah, Nvidia acknowledge it, but somehow Spoffle knows different

This gen is def more of a refresh, let's just hope it's shortlived. Phones will be more powerful in a few years

nVidia is known to lie a lot, it's how they are as a company, talk smack and spin PR, it's the way they do stuff.

You still haven't acknowledged the point that when the PS3 came out, the 8800GTX did too.

I've made that bit extra big for you because you keep missing it!

 

[Craterloads]

360 came out a year before the 8800GTX and it's GPU was more powerful than the PS3's

 

[spoffle]

Oh I completely agree, but this whole discussion was more about the next gen consoles and my original point was that neither Sony/MS seem to want to go with a model where they substantially subside the consoles with the expectation to recoup those losses via game licenses and the like.

I cant blame them for trying to produce consoles this time around that are priced at near profitability from the start and no doubt thats predicated the specs we have now - Im sure the BOMs will be of interest compared to something like the PS3s at launch...

This was the point I was responding to in the first place, in that they haven't compromised, or had the specs dictated due to the cost, they have chosen to go with something that isn't as expensive to produce, yes that much is obvious but that in itself isn't letting the cost dictate the specs.

When it comes to hardware like this, the prices of things are quite simple, it's usually down to the size of parts, the power consumption and also heat output. (which is part of another reason why nVidia didn't get a look in, as they had/have nothing off the shelf that can compete with a 7850's performance at a similar die size).

With them going for what are basically off the shelf parts, they saved a ton of money, instead of designing custom parts like they usually did.

Spoffles joined him . Lets talk audio tech instead


ps3ud0

You're kind of just strawmanning my argument...

I'm pointing out that Sony consoles have a history of not living up to the peak performance because of the custom chips they liked to go for that were difficult to work with.

This time around, it's not that way at all, and this has an effect amongst other things on the graphical performance.

 

[spoffle]

360 came out a year before the 8800GTX and it's GPU was more powerful than the PS3's

I know it was, but the 360's GPU is less directly comparable. In raw performance terms, there were already PCs out that had more peak graphical performance than the Xbox 360 when the 360 came out, it's just that due to the nature of the chip used in the Xbox, it's not as comparable.

 

[eggyoke]

I've been completely underwhelmed by what I've seen of next-gen tbh. I was hyped like hell for the PS4 during the initial announcement, but in terms of gameplay videos... I'm not seeing anything that makes me get truly excited.

What impressed me more than anything was QuanticDreams' Dark Sorcerer tech demo. It's exciting to think of games that will have a similar atmosphere, but so far I've not seen anything remotely like it in the current game offerings.

 

[spoffle]

What impressed me more than anything was QuanticDreams' Dark Sorcerer tech demo. It's exciting to think of games that will have a similar atmosphere, but so far I've not seen anything remotely like it in the current game offerings.

I thought that looked great, and it goes to show that people who are claiming that the PS4's hardware isn't capable, don't know what they're talking about.

There's no chance a 7850 in a PC could run a game that looked like that.

Release games are expected not to look that good compared to what is possible, when the PS3 and 360 came out, some release games could have passed for just slightly higher resolution versions of PS2/Xbox games because the developers were still getting used to the hardware and various APIs available.

I think the familiar hardware and X86-64 instruction sets have confused people in to stupidity, so that they suddenly believe there's literally 0 difference between a console and a PC because of the similar hardware and instruction sets.

These people are amusing because you just have to look at OSX and Windows to see how wrong those assumptions are.

 

[silvagti]

I'm also slightly underwhelmed by the specs of the new consoles generally but perhaps it's just because for the first time we're able to compare them directly with the PC equivalent as the technology is now much more similar.

I think this is probably the first console generation for a long time where, as others have said, it's noticeable that the manufacturers aren't willing to take a hit subsidising the hardware which has contributed to the narrowing gap in PC vs Console performance. I remember being stunned at how good games like Project Gotham, Gears of War, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion looked on the 360 compared to my PC at the time whereas I don't think there's a single console game that really makes you think it couldn't run better on a top of the range PC.

Still, at the end of the day you still can't build a PC to match the PS4 for £350 so it's still a bargain in my opinion for what it is. I'm planning on getting both a PS4 and XB1 at launch just to see for myself anyway. £400 isn't over the odds for a device that should have a lifespan of around 6 years IMO.

I built a gaming PC for over £1200 (i7-920,gtx 470, 6gb RAM) just over 3 years ago and it's already on the verge of being put out to pasture. It might be nice being part of the 'Glorious PC Gaming Master Race' but you certainly have to pay for the privilege of joining the club. I expect most people will probably baulk at the thought of spending around £400 a year to keep their PC up to date.

Steam sale prices do soften the blow slightly though so there's a good chance I'll probably get round to upgrading my rig next year when I've had my fill of console gaming

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

Still, at the end of the day you still can't build a PC to match the PS4 for £350 so it's still a bargain in my opinion for what it is.

It is, but the games are ~£15 more expensive each.

The PS4 is still an insane bargain though.

 

[Ryan-3]

As said above, you won't really match the consoles for the price you buy them for. But I always find I only play single player on PC now, especially as I no longer play MMO's, where as I play online and multiplayer a lot more with consoles.

 

[HangTime]

Every previous console launch, consoles out spec the then current PC

Xbox was basically a glorified P3-733E with 64MB of RAM which was extremely ordinary for the time of release, although the GPU wasn't bad and didn't really get superseded by PC graphics cards for about 6 months.

Consoles typically don't need to compete head-to-head with PC hardware anyway due to better optimisation but there's never really been a time since 3dfx came along where I've considered consoles to have significantly more power than a high end gaming PC (at least not within a timeframe that the developers could expoit).... nor have there been any console games that have blown me away from a graphics perspective relative to PC.

 

[spoffle]

I'm also slightly underwhelmed by the specs of the new consoles generally but perhaps it's just because for the first time we're able to compare them directly with the PC equivalent as the technology is now much more similar.

As you've acknowledged, it's because they've never been so easily comparable until now. Previously you had to have some understanding of the specs of the chips themselves to compare them, but when they're using off the shelf parts, it's very easy to look at and try to compare them.

Compared to previous generations though, the actual hardware isn't that different compared to available PCs.

I think this is probably the first console generation for a long time where, as others have said, it's noticeable that the manufacturers aren't willing to take a hit subsidising the hardware which has contributed to the narrowing gap in PC vs Console performance. I remember being stunned at how good games like Project Gotham, Gears of War, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion looked on the 360 compared to my PC at the time whereas I don't think there's a single console game that really makes you think it couldn't run better on a top of the range PC.

In the case of Sony, I think that they haven't wanted to subsidise the cost of the console, however I don't think that has dictated the specs, I think it has simply dictated the type of parts they choose, and considering the developers didn't want another big, unwieldly custom chip that they've never worked with before, it's no surprise that they went for the off the shelf parts.

Manufacturing costs aside, it wouldn't have made much sense to go with custom parts considering what developers wanted anyway, and it's much easier to use and implement parts that are already tried and tested hardware that has already had considerable R&D done on them by AMD.

Still, at the end of the day you still can't build a PC to match the PS4 for £350 so it's still a bargain in my opinion for what it is. I'm planning on getting both a PS4 and XB1 at launch just to see for myself anyway. £400 isn't over the odds for a device that should have a lifespan of around 6 years IMO.

There is a bottom line with consoles, the exclusives that you don't get anywhere else.

The cost of entry might appear to be lower, but when you add up the price of games, it evens out pretty much.

I built a gaming PC for over £1200 (i7-920,gtx 470, 6gb RAM) just over 3 years ago and it's already on the verge of being put out to pasture. It might be nice being part of the 'Glorious PC Gaming Master Race' but you certainly have to pay for the privilege of joining the club. I expect most people will probably baulk at the thought of spending around £400 a year to keep their PC up to date.

I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration. The GPU is really the only bit that you could *do* with upgrading, the rest of your PC would be fairly capable of playing modern games, and when you can get something like a 7950 for less than £200 with 3 games, it's not a bad price at all.

Steam sale prices do soften the blow slightly though so there's a good chance I'll probably get round to upgrading my rig next year when I've had my fill of console gaming

Steam sales soften the blow immensely, the amount of games you can buy for say £100 compared to a console is ridiculous. That, added to the fact that you can generally play your most if not your whole back catalog of games too.

 

[slinxy]

I personally can't tell the difference in graphics, but I've never been that much into graphics, I had an ATI 9700 pro and ATI 9800 pro back in the days when they was top dog but since then I've brought macs with mobile graphics cards and game on consoles only.

I saw this video the other night and I could actually tell the difference, shame there wasn't a PC in the comparison.

I most admit that the xbone does look better than the ps4, thou I'm still getting a ps4.

 

[Thesnipergecko]

All the xbox one footage I have seen seems to have really dark contrast.