Xbox One to work in certain Countries at Launch (SA excluded)

[Garson007]

I'm not a fanboy. I haven't owned a console since a NES clone. I prefer a digital marketplace, as I've been used to it on a PC since the advent of Steam. The TV set top box overlay and switching is very nice feature to have. Smart TVs just do not compare in speed and integration. The OSes running on hyper-V are a stroke of genius and opens up possibilities in the future where multiple OSes can run and do what they are best at. Think XB OS running games on the PC, as a direct example.

The choice of eSRAM is an interesting one, but it is more future proofed than GDDR5. How? Low latency. It's basically an extra cache for the HSA (GPU and CPU sharing the same cache and address space). Meaning that the XBO can potentially do more real time GPU compute for its games than the PS4, because of the extended "cache". The PS4 obviously also benefits from HSA, but GDDR5 suffers from high latency so the GPU won't be able to generate and handle more than cache-sized amount of data in real time.

The XBO is the most future-proof and experimental box of the two. It gives developers multiple options to work within, including the unmentioned cloud and Kinect, irrespective of where technology is heading. Not to mention that MS are hedging their bets by going after the TV market as well.

I really can't see anything wrong with the system, apart from availability and price.

 

[Bryn]

I'm not a fanboy. I haven't owned a console since a NES clone. I prefer a digital marketplace, as I've been used to it on a PC since the advent of Steam. The TV set top box overlay and switching is very nice feature to have. Smart TVs just do not compare in speed and integration. The OSes running on hyper-V are a stroke of genius and opens up possibilities in the future where multiple OSes can run and do what they are best at. Think XB OS running games on the PC, as a direct example.

The choice of eSRAM is an interesting one, but it is more future proofed than GDDR5. How? Low latency. It's basically an extra cache for the HSA (GPU and CPU sharing the same cache and address space). Meaning that the XBO can potentially do more real time GPU compute for its games than the PS4, because of the extended "cache". The PS4 obviously also benefits from HSA, but GDDR5 suffers from high latency so the GPU won't be able to generate and handle more than cache-sized amount of data in real time.

The XBO is the most future-proof and experimental box of the two. It gives developers multiple options to work within, including the unmentioned cloud and Kinect, irrespective of where technology is heading. Not to mention that MS are hedging their bets by going after the TV market as well.

I really can't see anything wrong with the system, apart from availability and price.

I strongly disagree. The Xbox One's video card is based on a significantly weaker GPU than the PS4's (HD7790 vs. HD7870), and only 5GB of DDR3 memory is available to devs, as opposed to 7GB of GDDR5 memory on PS4. For games, the unified GDDR5 system memory will be a godsend. Sony took that approach because that's what the devs requested. Latency might be higher, but the CPU in a gaming system doesn't need low latency. The speed of GDDR5 memory is blazing fast, and a dedicated gaming system will benefit immensely from this. There's no shortage of devs commenting on the next gen console hardware, and some have suggested the Xbox One getting reduced graphics to maintain 60fps. You won't find any hardware comparison on the web that doesn't favour the PS4 after little deliberation. The difference will likely not be noticeable for a while, but when the next gen is properly underway and devs start pushing the hardware, then it will become apparent.

M$ took a gamble by enforcing North Korea style DRM and a TV-centric approach, and it has backfired horrendously. The world is almost unanimous in it's preference for PS4. Factor in the fact that the PS4 is launching much, much sooner around the world and costs $100 less, and I think the Xbox is in for serious trouble if something drastic isn't done.

Personally, I'm going with PS4 because Sony has the better attitude. They respect gamers, they've made the PS4 about gaming first and foremost, they haven't implemented horrible DRM that would otherwise cost me countless thousands, they aren't forcing motion stuff on me, they don't resort to cheap tactics to win gamers over (like bribing publishers to release on Xbox first or not show PS4 versions in development) and they strongly support indie developers. Not to mention all my friends are also committed to PS4 and I'll want to play with them.

 

[Garson007]

I strongly disagree. The Xbox One's video card is based on a significantly weaker GPU than the PS4's (HD7790 vs. HD7870), and only 5GB of DDR3 memory is available to devs, as opposed to 7GB of GDDR5 memory on PS4. For games, the unified GDDR5 system memory will be a godsend. Sony took that approach because that's what the devs requested. Latency might be higher, but the CPU in a gaming system doesn't need low latency. The speed of GDDR5 memory is blazing fast, and a dedicated gaming system will benefit immensely from this. There's no shortage of devs commenting on the next gen console hardware, and some have suggested the Xbox One getting reduced graphics to maintain 60fps. You won't find any hardware comparison on the web that doesn't favour the PS4 after little deliberation. The difference will likely not be noticeable for a while, but when the next gen is properly underway and devs start pushing the hardware, then it will become apparent.

Everything is not about graphics. You, and most of the internet, are thinking linearly - not the ability for developers to innovate. Yes, graphics on the PS4 could possibly be better than XBO, but it completely misses my point of HSA and GPU compute.

M$ took a gamble by enforcing North Korea style DRM and a TV-centric approach, and it has backfired horrendously. The world is almost unanimous in it's preference for PS4. Factor in the fact that the PS4 is launching much, much sooner around the world and costs $100 less, and I think the Xbox is in for serious trouble if something drastic isn't done.

We'll see how it sells.

Personally, I'm going with PS4 because Sony has the better attitude. They respect gamers, they've made the PS4 about gaming first and foremost, they haven't implemented horrible DRM that would otherwise cost me countless thousands, they aren't forcing motion stuff on me, they don't resort to cheap tactics to win gamers over (like bribing publishers to release on Xbox first or not show PS4 versions in development) and they strongly support indie developers. Not to mention all my friends are also committed to PS4 and I'll want to play with them.

Sony is not a knight in shining armour and did much less innovation in their technical design. Yes, that includes not bundling the PS4 camera and not being a digital platform. Absolutely zero foresight or risks taken. If all gamers want is more of the same, then go ahead and bite.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

How long before they JTag the shait out of it?

 

[Maverick Jester]

Everything is not about graphics. You, and most of the internet, are thinking linearly - not the ability for developers to innovate. Yes, graphics on the PS4 could possibly be better than XBO, but it completely misses my point of HSA and GPU compute.

Funny, this was Sony's thinking with the PS3... and developers abhorred it...

Sony is not a knight in shining armour and did much less innovation in their technical design. Yes, that includes not bundling the PS4 camera and not being a digital platform. Absolutely zero foresight or risks taken. If all gamers want is more of the same, then go ahead and bite.

The PS4 camera costs $59. By which definition is it not a digital platform?

And yes, this is what gamers want- I would think that this is the PS4's market. It certainly worked well for Nintendo.

 

[Garson007]

Funny, this was Sony's thinking with the PS3... and developers abhorred it...

That is true. Although porting and developing should be easier on the XBO than the PS3, given that it's x86 based. Time will tell. Personally I think it will be simple enough to make the GPU crunch more computational data than normal, but what do I know.

The PS4 camera costs $59.

It's not bundled. That relegates it to novelty and niche item.

By which definition is it not a digital platform?

By the definition that you can still play games off of blurays.

And yes, this is what gamers want- I would think that this is the PS4's market. It certainly worked well for Nintendo.

What worked well for Nintendo? Wii-U is a market failure. Not to mention Nintendo has ignore the core gamers for a long long time already.

 

[Bryn]

Everything is not about graphics. You, and most of the internet, are thinking linearly - not the ability for developers to innovate. Yes, graphics on the PS4 could possibly be better than XBO, but it completely misses my point of HSA and GPU compute.

As I said, Sony took the approach they did because devs said that's what they want. The eSRAM is only in the Xbone because it would be stuffed without it thanks to the DDR3 memory. The PS4 has no need for it. Technical discussions are irrelevant, as all that matters are the devs and their ability to utilise a system, and they prefer unified GDDR5 memory. Sony took a gamble with GDDR5, as sourcing large quantities and getting the system to work suitably were big challenges a few years ago, but it has paid big dividends. Hell, MS is still probably wondering how Sony managed 8GB GDDR5.

Sony is not a knight in shining armour and did much less innovation in their technical design. Yes, that includes not bundling the PS4 camera and not being a digital platform. Absolutely zero foresight or risks taken. If all gamers want is more of the same, then go ahead and bite.

The majority of people don't want a camera with their console. The majority of people aren't interested in voice commands. The majority of people don't want to be forced to enjoy their games a particular way and be prevented from being able to supplement the cost of new purchases by trading old ones. The majority of devs want fast unified system memory and a good GPU.

Sony appeased everyone, which is way more than M$ can claim. And they in fact took a huge risk with the hardware route that they took. It's not just more of the same either - you can play games while they're downloading, stream a large back catalog of PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games through Gaikai, buy every game on PSN, easily share replays and create cool Youtube videos, input textual commands very quickly with the track pad etc.

 

[Maverick Jester]

That is true. Although porting and developing should be easier on the XBO than the PS3, given that it's x86 based. Time will tell. Personally I think it will be simple enough to make the GPU crunch more computational data than normal, but what do I know.

Or developers, er, develop games for the lowest common denominator- the XBO.

It's not bundled. That relegates it to novelty and niche item.

But an affordable one in the scope of the console cost. And again- its ecosystem is not cripplingly dependant on it, and would still cost less than the XBO.

By the definition that you can still play games off of blurays.

You would be doing the exact same on the XBO?

What worked well for Nintendo? Wii-U is a market failure. Not to mention Nintendo has ignore the core gamers for a long long time already.

Not the Wii-U, but the Wii. Sadly, its success probably caused Nintendo's ignorant stance as of late...

 

[Garson007]

Or developers, er, develop games for the lowest common denominator- the XBO.

Obviously talking first party. That said though - if the game is more compute heavy in the size of data department, rather than speed of data, PS4 might be the lowest common denominator. In general, with current trends - XBO will be the lcd. I don't deny it.

But an affordable one in the scope of the console cost. And again- its ecosystem is not cripplingly dependant on it, and would still cost less than the XBO.

The ecosystem can also not use it as it wants to - irrespective of price.

You would be doing the exact same on the XBO?

Nope. All games are installed on the device. The bluray is purely a container for installation data and nothing more. After a game is installed it becomes a coaster. Just like some of my steamworks physical buys were.

Not the Wii-U, but the Wii. Sadly, its success probably caused Nintendo's ignorant stance as of late...

The Wii's success was based on the casual gamers. It's literally the last thing the core would want from Sony.

 

[Roman4604]

The bluray is purely a container for installation data and nothing more.

Yeah, I'd much rather have cloud vs. disc based DRM. Inserting discs is really old fashion and a ballache.

Also the ability to have one game purchase work on 2 separate XBOs is a bonus.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Obviously talking first party. That said though - if the game is more compute heavy in the size of data department, rather than speed of data, PS4 might be the lowest common denominator. In general, with current trends - XBO will be the lcd. I don't deny it.

Perhaps, but these are consoles after all, so I don't foresee this being a factor. I do understand why Microsoft went with their memory setup, it suits their overall approach better.

The ecosystem can also not use it as it wants to - irrespective of price.

So then, Microsoft are forcing us to pay more for their console whilst forcing upon us an element of the ecosystem that is equally as niche as the PS Eye? Means that Sony did better homework here.

Nope. All games are installed on the device. The bluray is purely a container for installation data and nothing more. After a game is installed it becomes a coaster. Just like some of my steamworks physical buys were.

So a niche feature turns it into an online console? Ok. But you ignore the other side of the coin- Xbox One hard drives are not user-replaceable. So your coasters will actually be needed again should you have to replace it.

The Wii's success was based on the casual gamers. It's literally the last thing the core would want from Sony.

But a gaming console is exactly what both the core and casual gamer markets want. And that is what Sony has given them.

 

[Garson007]

So then, Microsoft are forcing us to pay more for their console whilst forcing upon us an element of the ecosystem that is equally as niche as the PS Eye? Means that Sony did better homework here.

Game devs can choose to use it without considering any financial ramification. Devs are not forced to use it, but they will because they can. It gives devs choice. A niche item does not. Think of it this way, if a console came with a steering wheel then the racing devs wouldn't try and make a game for the gamepad. We know that is not the case for consoles that do not come with a steering wheel - even though the steering wheels do exist.

Kinect being bundled is a good thing - for the use of Kinect.

So a niche feature turns it into an online console? Ok. But you ignore the other side of the coin- Xbox One hard drives are not user-replaceable. So your coasters will actually be needed again should you have to replace it.

No. When the HDD dies you can download the game instead. Your license is on the cloud under your username - not on the disc. That is a big difference compared to how the consoles handle it today.

But a gaming console is exactly what both the core and casual gamer markets want. And that is what Sony has given them.

It certainly has the core. We'll still see about other markets. The problem is that most of the core buy both.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Game devs can choose to use it without considering any financial ramification. Devs are not forced to use it, but they will because they can. It gives devs choice. A niche item does not. Think of it this way, if a console came with a steering wheel then the racing devs wouldn't try and make a game for the gamepad. We know that is not the case for consoles that do not come with a steering wheel - even though the steering wheels do exist.

Kinect being bundled is a good thing - for the use of Kinect.

So a similar idea to what the PS3 did with Sixaxis. Will be interesting to see if this takes off. But it still gives the devs as much choice as an optional niche item.[/QUOTE]

If an XBO user doesn't want to play games made for / to use Kinect features, he is still forced to pay more for his console than the PS4 owner is, even after he decides that he wants to try out the PS Eye. It's the choice that Microsoft are taking away, whilst adding cost, that doesn't sit well with a few.

No. When the HDD dies you can download the game instead. Your license is on the cloud under your username - not on the disc. That is a big difference compared to how the consoles handle it today.

It still remains a non-definable feature in the grand scheme of things. And it still takes away your ability to take your games with you to play with your friends. Again, it's a choice that is taken away, for a feature that not everyone can or would want to use.

It certainly has the core. We'll still see about other markets. The problem is that most of the core buy both.

Yip, will be interesting to see how the casual gamers buy into the next-gen, and whether Microsoft's all-in-one solution is attractive enough to negate the rather restrictive ecosystem that it comes with.

 

[Dolby]

I was just checking something ... considering this a media 'hub' and for home entertainment as well, I see they left out 802.11ac standard for faster transfers and streaming?

Is wifi on this separate - like a dongle - so one can add later?

 

[MightyMuffinMan]

It's not 'fanboyism'. The Xbox One is filled to the brim with DRM, is focused around television rather than gaming, has less powerful hardware than the PS4, does not come close to supporting indie devs like PS4 does, requires a permanent internet connection, has a camera on you at all times, is releasing in SA second half of 2014 and costs $100 more. There's a reason the world is siding with PS4, including many gamers on Xbox forums.

Agreed and also latest Gamers for GOld promotion not available to South Africa.

 

[Maverick Jester]

I was just checking something ... considering this a media 'hub' and for home entertainment as well, I see they left out 802.11ac standard for faster transfers and streaming?

Is wifi on this separate - like a dongle - so one can add later?

802.11ac does not support 2.4GHz. Microsoft need to consider that, to accommodate for their userbase...

It may be faster on it's own, but not if the other underlying devices are not ac-supported...

 

[Dolby]

Afaik, 802.11ac APs need two radios anyhow - 802.11n (2.4/5) and 802.11ac (5) ... Thereby covering both bases and the backwards compatibility issue

If they're selling it as a media hub, they should at least have had an upgrade route if not on that unit as standard

 

[Roman4604]

Afaik, 802.11ac APs need two radios anyhow - 802.11n (2.4/5) and 802.11ac (5)

These days they're integrated on a single chip (at least ac+n+g), but I think it is still related to cost. The XBO has 2 (or 3?) independent WiFi chips since the controllers no longer use Bluetooth, but rather WiFi Direct.

 

[Dolby]

These days they're integrated on a single chip (at least ac+n+g), but I think it is still related to cost. The XBO has 2 (or 3?) independent WiFi chips since the controllers no longer use Bluetooth, but rather WiFi Direct.

Sorry - I didn't quite mean two separate radios ... I just meant that although 'ac' only operates on 5ghz, they do have the 2.4ghz for backwards compatibility. Same thing as you said.

Cost makes sense - but the R7,000 Samsung S4 and a few other Samsung mobiles have 'AC' ... So it's not unheard of. I just hope that they at least have an upgrade path, because in 2 years everything will be AC and the media hub is going to be limited by it.

Same as the PS4, I think?

 

[Maverick Jester]

If they're selling it as a media hub, they should at least have had an upgrade route if not on that unit as standard

Might clash with their whole "all-in-one" plan for the XBO...