Is it really that bad that the new Xbox is weaker?

Recommended Videos

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
The Xbox One is more expensive than the PS4, so you are essentially paying more for a less powerful machine. By comparison, the PlayStation 2 was slightly less expensive than the Xbox, Gamecube and Dreamcast at the time and it was mostly sold as a DVD player, not a game console (unless we are all supposed to assume that 200 million PS2s all went to people interested in gaming).

Personally I still go by the philosophy of "They are both pretty much the same, buy the one which has games you'd actually want to play", but most people won't. They'll get the cheaper console to go play Battlefield and Call of Duty on.
 

Chrozi

New member
Apr 8, 2010
71
0
0
The PS2 was not less expensive than the Gamecube or Dreamcast. In fact once the PS2 hit you could get a Dreamcast for free if you signed up for 2 years of seganet. (in the US anyway) Also it was not sold as a DVD player, it was always marketed as a video game console first but did have one of the cheapest DVD players you could get at the time. Unlike Blu-Ray at the time of the PS3 release, DVD was already accepted as the next physical media standard so everyone scooped them up.
 

BakedSardine

New member
Dec 3, 2013
166
0
0
Evonisia said:
The Xbox One is more expensive than the PS4, so you are essentially paying more for a less powerful machine. By comparison, the PlayStation 2 was slightly less expensive than the Xbox, Gamecube and Dreamcast at the time and it was mostly sold as a DVD player, not a game console (unless we are all supposed to assume that 200 million PS2s all went to people interested in gaming).

Personally I still go by the philosophy of "They are both pretty much the same, buy the one which has games you'd actually want to play", but most people won't. They'll get the cheaper console to go play Battlefield and Call of Duty on.
I'm not sure if it was MOSTLY sold as a DVD player, but I think this is an often forgot detail of the PS2. In 2000 the average price of a DVD player was still around $150 (range probably $100-250) so for another $150, you also had a great video game player. Sony also had all the momentum from the PSX and pretty much every developer on board.
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
I do not really care about it, but I know this.

If the Xbone was more powerful than the PS4 the fanboys wouldn't shut up about it. So I call it a positive result.
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
The main issue is that while neither power nor price are necessarily killer advantages for the PS4, the Xbone just doesn't have any advantages over the PS4. So why get one?
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Back in the day the specs didn't matter quite so much. Nintendo had Mario, Street Fighter etc, Sega had Sonic, Ghosts and Ghouls etc. Nearly the whole catalog for each was different and you bought based on which games you wanted to play.

These days the vast majority of games are available for both systems. Worse still a lot of the third party titles are available on PS3/360 so there's not a lot pushing you into buying a new console given the exclusives so far haven't been outstanding (Ryse vs Knack isn't much of a competition).

There's probably not TOO much difference in the specs between the two, but everybody seems to agree that the PS4 is higher-specced and cheaper.

If the Xbox could provide one unique selling point, it could claw back this disadvantage.

In theory, this is all the TV services
In theory, this is the Kinect (which it might have been if Microsoft had either delayed the launch of the original Kinect to coincide with its new console, or genuinely shown why Kinect 2 is better than Kinect 1 with actually games)
In theory, Microsoft is really hoping this is Titanfall.

In practice, I'm going to wait and see, but if I had to buy a console tomorrow it would be the PS4.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
Avalanche91 said:
I do not really care about it, but I know this.

If the Xbone was more powerful than the PS4 the fanboys wouldn't shut up about it. So I call it a positive result.
Instead we have the other fanboys going on about how great it is that their machine is more powerful, it's a double edged sword. Unless you prefer hearing positive things about the PS4, that is. Then again either way you'll get the old "console versus PC graphics picture" (even if it doesn't really involve graphics).

BakedSardine said:
I'm not sure if it was MOSTLY sold as a DVD player, but I think this is an often forgot detail of the PS2. In 2000 the average price of a DVD player was still around $150 (range probably $100-250) so for another $150, you also had a great video game player. Sony also had all the momentum from the PSX and pretty much every developer on board.
I should have incorporated it's huge amount of games, but I still do think it's a big stretch of disbelief to think that it wasn't a major factor (which you've admitted) given it's huge sales figure.
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
Normally it wouldn't be all that bad if a console was weaker.

... but the xbone is the weaker console and it's more expensive. People who buy it are paying more for less.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Klaw117 said:
The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?). However, the new Xbox (I refuse to use Microsoft's stupid name for it) is weaker, yet everyone is making such a huge deal about it. Why is that? I'm not understanding why there's so much reaction over the Xbox being weaker...or is the leftover anger from the DRM, Kinect, and pricing bull making everyone intent on hating the new Xbox? Or perhaps the technological disparity is greater than I'm comprehending at the moment?
You forget 4 major reasons the PS2 sold more than the Xbox.

1: It had backwards compatibility.
THis essentially allowed Sony's new console to have an instant library filled with several classics right out of the gate.

2: It had a DVD drive.
Many people also got it to use its DVD drive exclusively and provided another bullet point for getting one for gamers.

3: It came out before the Xbox.
As in several months before, enough time to build up a massive market share.

4: Microsoft were newcomers.
MS was known for spreadsheets, while Sony already had the first Playstation under its belt establishing that it knew how to build a console.

As the the reasons why the Xbone being weaker is bad news:

1: It's more expensive.
Normally you'll expect the cheaper console to be less powerful but now you get more graphical bang for less bucks buying the PS4.

2: The reason for it being so expensive is rather situational and no longer unique.
The Kinect and TV integration for the Xbone sounds an awful lot like the DVD for the PS2 right?
No.
For one the TV is rather heavily slanted towards American audiences and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rest of the world is rapidly gaining the buying power necessary that the American market isn't the biggest and a company could fail in its US launch but still be rolling in bank thanks to sales in Europe, Asia, etc.
The TV integration also requires an external set-top box, leaving people with internal decoders little reason to buy it.
The Kinect is beginning to have competition, with Samsung newest Smart TV's having integrated voice and motion controls.
On top of that, the Xbone isn't SDTV capable, meaning that people who wouldn't shell out for one of those aforementioned Smart TV's couldn't use a Xbone to prolong their older TVs's and provide some more modern functionality.

3: It could hold back progress.
Developers create games with the lowest common denominator, for last generation it was the 360 with its bigger install base for most of its life and its ease of coding compared to the PS3's CELL processor. Admittedly this isn't as much of an issue with both consoles using x86 architecture and the PS4 beating the Xbone in terms of sales but its still there.

4: This is the Next Generation.
1080p has now become the standard format for TV's with 4k on the horizon (as in there are a few horrendously expensive 4k TV out on the market). A console that can't reach it isn't going to be looked upon with kindness, especially when:

5: Microsoft had been pushing the GRAPHICS! card.
Microsoft really pushed the graphics are everything card, as did past console manufacturers did during the bit wars and all this news about it being weaker has really bit MS in the arse with portions of console gamers expecting MOAR POWER and following it instead.

So yes, the all this news is bad... For Microsoft executives.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
The_Kodu said:
The PS4

- More powerful

-Better programming architecture (that 1.31 teraflops was only obtained due to the use of some extra high speed Ram MS put in the console, meaning like the PS3 the Ram is split while in the PS4 it's more like the 360 with a large block of Ram)

- Clearer indie game publishing system. MS in about 1 month will kill off their indie game self publishing system the XNA creators club and while they've claimed every console can become a dev kit there's been little in the line of self publishing talk. On the other hand PS4 has been going out their way more and giving dev kits to indie game creators to try and get them developing for the console. Also should point out here Nintendo also do well with courting indies their only main problem is they give indies far more freedom and treat them like any other developer, which means indies have to buy dev kits and pay to become Nintendo licensed developers ( which includes a simple programming exam, one it's said most first year computer programming students could pass).


Xbox One

- Kinect: which still has an image problem and hasn't shown how it will make next gen gaming better.
Also, Sony has allowed indie devs to use the Vita as a back door into getting onto the PS4 network, ie develop for Vita and you can also port it over to the PS4 network store.
 

Lord Doomhammer

New member
Apr 29, 2008
430
0
0
Country
United States
The_Kodu said:
The PS4

- More powerful

-Better programming architecture (that 1.31 teraflops was only obtained due to the use of some extra high speed Ram MS put in the console, meaning like the PS3 the Ram is split while in the PS4 it's more like the 360 with a large block of Ram)

- Clearer indie game publishing system. MS in about 1 month will kill off their indie game self publishing system the XNA creators club and while they've claimed every console can become a dev kit there's been little in the line of self publishing talk. On the other hand PS4 has been going out their way more and giving dev kits to indie game creators to try and get them developing for the console. Also should point out here Nintendo also do well with courting indies their only main problem is they give indies far more freedom and treat them like any other developer, which means indies have to buy dev kits and pay to become Nintendo licensed developers ( which includes a simple programming exam, one it's said most first year computer programming students could pass).


Xbox One

- Kinect: which still has an image problem and hasn't shown how it will make next gen gaming better.
Actually according to the teardown info from each console the Xbox One has a 'more expensive' Jaguar processing unit but uses 2133MHZ GDDR5 memory. The Play Station 4 uses a cheaper version of THE SAME Jaguar processor BUT it has 5100MHZ GDDR5 memory. Because they're both using APU's from AMD, the faster memory will give more benefit than the more expensive processor. Even still, the memory speed aside (as I said before) the differences are not significant given the actual processing output.

THAT SAID. It has also been determined (by TOP LEVEL neckbeards) that the Xbox's processor has been under-clocked. That combined with the MONSTROUS heat sync indicates that Microsoft took the lesson of the Xbox 350 RROD issue to heart and designed the machine accordingly.
 

Stavros Dimou

New member
Mar 15, 2011
698
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
The problem is see is that they stake much of the reason to upgrade your console purely on graphical gains. If they can't even come close to being the 2nd best then why bother? Why put so much time and effort in 'the graphics' of a game at expense of it's other aspects when you can't even hope to compete with another platform.

This has been the problem with many consoles and console games for a good while now; they have tried to incorporate various PC systems with varying degrees of success until we have reached this point in time where they have all the drawbacks of modern PC gaming (Updates, DRM, rushed broken releases fixed with patches, mandatory installation etc) without the benefit of being an open platform.

The technical aspect is where post HD generation consoles have made the most boasting, it seems to be their only focus for improvement in terms of in-game, and their have failed on their own terms.
Some of these 'drawbacks of PC gaming' were absolutely required for the games you are getting on the new consoles to look as good as they do and play like that.
Take for example hard drive installation.
The reason you install something on a hard drive,is because hard drives can feed the processor with data on a much faster rate than let's say DVDs. The more detailed the graphics are,the more data is needed to carry that detail. And hard drives are simply much faster than portable discs.

The slowest hard drive that you can buy has a speed of 5400rpm.
The fastest Blu Ray drive that exist has a speed of 1200rpm.

That basically means that the slowest hard drive can transfer is multiple times faster than the fastest Blu Ray.

And consider that even that in modern technology is considered 'too slow' and ancient. The fastest hard drive runs at 10000rpm,which equals about 152mb per second,(Western Digital Velociraptor) while SSDs have taken transfer speeds to ridiculous amounts of things like 1.5gb/s (OCZ Revodrive) and 3gb/s (Fusion I/O)
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
Klaw117 said:
The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?). However, the new Xbox (I refuse to use Microsoft's stupid name for it) is weaker, yet everyone is making such a huge deal about it. Why is that? I'm not understanding why there's so much reaction over the Xbox being weaker...or is the leftover anger from the DRM, Kinect, and pricing bull making everyone intent on hating the new Xbox? Or perhaps the technological disparity is greater than I'm comprehending at the moment?
I guess it all depends, honestly. I have the One, and the original xbox pulled me off of PC gaming, and I havent looked back since, and will stay on the Xbox, and have no interest in the Playstation brand. So I am definitely hardcore in the Xbox camp. But I have to admit that its really starting to piss me off with the continuous reports of games running at less than 1080p. Yes, I see plenty of people saying its not THAT big of a difference, but considering this is supposed to be next gen, is it really too much to ask for? I will also admit that there is a part of me that thinks perhaps the PS4 handing the One its backside right now is a good thing. I keep hoping that someone will wake the hell up and realize that what put the Xbox on the map to begin with were GAMES, and maybe they will get back to focusing on that if enough ass-kickery ensues. If they would put me in charge of the frakking division, I could fix this ship, and fast.

Get rid of the Kinect. I wouldnt even leave it optional, because that will still result in wasted time from SOMEONE making the god-awful kinect only games, and thats just inefficient.

Do whatever necessary to eliminate this less than 1080p mess... its next gen, and that should be a given.

Focus on more exclusives, and not let developers or opportunities to pick up developers slip through your fingers. IE Bungie, and if I had been in charge, I would have gone after Bioware HARDCORE and not let EA get them... etc.

Drop the price immediately after ditching the Kinect, and get the idea out of our heads of going completely digital. Having it, and a console that is completely digital and much cheaper as an OPTION, is ok. But I would never venture away from physical disks, as an option, either.

And I am sure I could come up with plenty of other ideas, as this is just off the top of my head. Wake UP, Microsoft, or maybe you are going to need a few more punches to the groin before you wise up, and if so... so be it. However, I will also say something I continue to preach, and thats if anyone wants EITHER of these consoles to fail and go out of business, you have lost your ever-loving mind. You will only lose in the long run with that scenario. Besides, neither the Xbox or the Playstation are going anywhere, nor should they, as they are good for each other, whether or not you can see it.
 

Flammablezeus

New member
Dec 19, 2013
408
0
0
I don't think power has much to do with it. I just know that paying extra just to be able to play the multiplayer modes on games I've already paid full price for is basically a scam. I was scammed once with the 360 (didn't know I had to pay extra until I actually tried to set up a multiplayer game, and then proceeded to not do so) and learned my lesson. Heck, I even got a free month of gold when my 360 red ringed (the only console to have failed on me in 20 years of gaming) and then saw that Australia doesn't even seem to get hosted servers. I would have been paying for Americans to have a good connection, while I couldn't even stay in a game with more than one other person because it would disconnect.

Plus there's the fact that my 360 now won't play many games for long before crashing. Even opening the thing and cleaning it out does nothing and it's long past its warranty. So now I can't even play the few games left on it that I enjoy (luckily, most of the games I enjoyed on 360 I now own on PC which runs them all better anyway.)

That's why Xbox is bad.
 

Strelok

New member
Dec 22, 2012
494
0
0
Klaw117 said:
The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?). However, the new Xbox (I refuse to use Microsoft's stupid name for it) is weaker, yet everyone is making such a huge deal about it. Why is that? I'm not understanding why there's so much reaction over the Xbox being weaker...or is the leftover anger from the DRM, Kinect, and pricing bull making everyone intent on hating the new Xbox? Or perhaps the technological disparity is greater than I'm comprehending at the moment?
Sony didn't charge $100 extra for the PS2, in fact they did a pretty early price cut and put it $100 less than the XBox instead of the same. Also less than 1080p in 2014? Technology moves fast, even faster now and consoles are showing their irrelevance to the future of gaming, so yes it is a big issue in the gaming consoles twilight years.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Klaw117 said:
The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?). However, the new Xbox (I refuse to use Microsoft's stupid name for it) is weaker, yet everyone is making such a huge deal about it. Why is that? I'm not understanding why there's so much reaction over the Xbox being weaker...or is the leftover anger from the DRM, Kinect, and pricing bull making everyone intent on hating the new Xbox? Or perhaps the technological disparity is greater than I'm comprehending at the moment?
PS2 was the successor to the PS1 and had backward compatibility. When you bought a PS2, you were upgrading and all your PS1 games were still playable on superior hardware. I think the PS2 had faster loading and smoothing for PS1 games. The Xbox brand wasn't even in the same ball park with the Playstation brand at that time. Sony was in the major leagues while Microsoft was playing teaball. Now, this gen:

Xbox One has no backward compatibility, it's weaker than the PS4 but is also more expensive. Playstation Plus is perceived by most (me included) to be a better deal than Live Gold.

I have no interest in either of them until I see a few JRPG's. I won't be buying a first person shooter machine this time around. BTW, the original Xbox was inferior to the PS2 for me because the PS2 was the JRPG king as was the PS1 and the SNES in their respective generations.
 

Zaydin

New member
Mar 2, 2009
373
0
0
To me, it doesn't really matter. Then again, I don't have a PS4 or an Xbox One, but as I got a 1080p HD TV for my birthday last month, upgrading from a 720p HD TV, I haven't really noticed a marked improvement in visual quality on my 360 games. It's the games themselves I care about.