**XBOX ONE** Official Thread

If that is real I hope the de3 in red is going to be dead rising 3.

These rumours about problems really do not instill confidence at all

I was hoping for that, I loved the 1st one, wasnt overly keen on the sequel though. But a next gen Dead Rising would be really interesting :D

-

Also Mr Men, I have no idea what you mean by 2007.

And I'm nice, calm and not upset. But instead of the back and forth, thats going on thats not on topic now. Let's leave it.
 
Last edited:
Reading more on neogaf really does worry me about the xb1.

Lower speeds etc not good.


I dont think the spec difference will make that big of a difference if I'm honest. Multiplat games that take the PS4 hardware close to the bone, will probably suffer on the XboxONE. That's a given due to constraints.

But any Exclusives will just run as they're intended, and look perfectly fine for it.
 
Downclocking the GPU is really the only way to get power down, I would assume that is their easiest method for reducing power in a console if manufacturing is putting the power higher than anticipated. This is why to a large degree faster memory with the power on the chip and having that speed "off die" vs the esram on die being a huge number of transistors and heat/power all on die making it a much bigger problem.

I would think they could probably find a way to downclock several cores on the CPU but with the clock speed I wouldn't be surprised if both MS/Sony would do that only as a last resort due to the kind of cpu power available and the low clock for the more powerful single threads. Also, look at a "stock" pc with a 80W cpu and 200-250W gpu, in gaming the GPU is more important, would be using the most power and thus is the first to get downclocked to save power.

as for games, Fable 1, great, fable 2 almost carbon copy(I didn't play 1 till after 2, so I didn't realise at first), Fable 3 is god awful, Fable 4.... I dread. Forza, boring, Halo, no where near my favourite game, they'd need some massively better titles to persuade me to buy. Personally I can't see buying either till WAY down the road.


Without checking the whole thread, have people seen the analyst saying the likely cost of the consoles to make is around $275 for PS4 and $325 for the X1, with most of the difference being the kinect, though I'd guess the PS4 controller costs more and the Xbox APU should cost more. They are expecting $349/$399, which I would expect to be about the same in £'s in the end, with a supposed cheaper + subscription model for the X1 as well.

No way these consoles will be £500 and no idea why anyone thinks they might be even close. PS3 had stupid expensive chip, expensive to develop, make and the bluray which cost a bomb 7 years ago, you can basically remove the bluray cost and reduce the chip costs and realise where it would be priced. £300 max, £250 for the PS4 probably, with maybe as low as £200 for a X1 + subscription.... maybe more like £225-250.
 
Last edited:
But you have spent the last few months dismissing everything MS have done or will do? You have just seen a rumoured list of E3 games and dismissed them anyway?

I haven't dismissed anything at all. MS just haven't shown me anything that interests me(apart from a nice controller).
I don't care about Kinect,I don't care about any TV things.
I buy a console for games and games alone. MS so far haven't shown any exciting games. A few EA game and a new COD? Wow! Colour me uninterested.
BUT I have said many times that i'll wait for E3 to decide if the Xbox One is for me or not.
I currently have a 360 and enjoy using it.

Yes I have been negative about MS but that's because there has been nothing positive to say about this console so far. This is MY opinion. Luckily we live in a country where you're allowed to express your opinion.

After E3 my opinion may change completely.
 
What I've never remotely understood is, precisely because of the people that buy consoles based on the controller alone.... why don't either company ULTRA secretly get ready for ages than a month before launch announce that there will be a choice of controller, make their own, then make one closer to the "other" consoles controller?

Not exactly rocket science to make a controller ffs, then anyone who wants a X1 but is going to choose the PS4 for the controller alone will change which console they'll get.

With the way the PS4 is shaping up, if just before launch they added the choice to either buy an alternative version of the console with the alternate controller, or offer it as an additional purchase, they'd steal so many sales.
 
Last edited:
Well yeah thats what I was subtly inferring to - eSRAM isnt cheap for a reason, its hard to make! But how thats improved by reducing GPU clocks is anyones guess :confused:

ps3ud0 :cool:

It's because it's all on the same chip. Not all chips produced will run at the higher speeds, lower your speeds and the higher % of chips that run reliably you have.

You either lower the clock speed, up the price or delay the system till the yield issues are sorted.
 
It's similar to what happened with the Cell. Due to have 8 SPUs, they had to knock it down to 7 because yields weren't good enough.
 
It's because it's all on the same chip. Not all chips produced will run at the higher speeds, lower your speeds and the higher % of chips that run reliably you have.

You either lower the clock speed, up the price or delay the system till the yield issues are sorted.

Also, you have the additional heat problems with eSRAM bolted on to an APU. Reducing the clocks on the GPU will reduce the heat generated.
 
Latest update from that Neogaf thread.

Mods, you can remove "rumor" from the title. ESRAM yields are "troubling", to put it lightly.

This is factual truth.

Btw, you won't hear tech talk at MS' conference. And the tech cannot change at this point. They're stuck with it.

MS rushed, they were caught off guard by Sony, due to a failure in leadership.
 
Colours the announcement by MGS head regards no minimum performance for games mentioned in the Forza thread in a new light - pretty poor show that their effective cut-corner to save costs has come to bite them on their arse...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Forza Motorsport 5 will run at 60 frames per second, Microsoft Studios corporate vice president Phil Spencer has told Edge magazine.

Confirmation of the smooth frame rate will come as a great relief to series fans who have been left wondering since the game's announcement last month.

Official word came as the Microsoft Studios chief revealed there will be no minimum performance requirements (such as resolution or frame rate) set for games released on Xbox One.

"There were games that shipped on 360 that were less than 720p," said Spencer. "It's important we give creators the best tools to create the best experience possible and I don't think that platform holders can dictate what the internal frame buffer size should be.

"Forza 5 runs at 60 frames per second, but other people will make different trade-offs. I think it's important - maybe because I'm a studio guy - that you give freedom to the creator because today, through lighting techniques and post effects, resolution is not the thing that maximises beauty."

Spencer concluded: "Some of the most beautiful games of this generation are not dictated by how many pixels they're pushing to the screen. Motion blur, antialiasing, lighting: all of these things come into play. We just give developers the tools and let them make the right creative decisions."

Guessing that's not going to be running at 1080P then..
 
Guessing that's not going to be running at 1080P then..

Yep, they would have been making a fuss about it if it was. To be honest I suspect 90% of the XB1 games are going to be 720p (real 720p this time, not the random lower resolutions we get often with PS3/360)

This thing just isn't going to have the power to be outputting 1080p games with anywhere near the graphics quality of PS4 games.
 
I do agree with him though, a lot of people always tout about resolutions(PC crowd mainly), I'd take games at lower resolutions any days, if the trade off is worth it. And generally it is.
 
Xbogus One, best thing I took from that Neogaf thread and this complete sham of a console launch. How utterly bad could they do it, It's become Waterworld laughable now. You just want to keep watching to see if it can actually get worse!
 
I do agree with him though, a lot of people always tout about resolutions(PC crowd mainly), I'd take games at lower resolutions any days, if the trade off is worth it. And generally it is.

Within reason yes I agree. If you start to go down to odd resolutions like 960 by whatever (Alan Wake was close to that), then the picture quality degrades so much that any added graphically fidelity is lost.
 
Back
Top Bottom