Comparing Upcoming PS4 with Xbox One

[Tanooki]

Crash is a bit much, but perhaps a nice purge of one of the big three could help. For sake of the argument, let's say that The One there is the one to get shoved out physically or at least (due to MS's ignorant will to piss billions into a hole) in gamer interest (the Saturn of the era if that.) The other two would learn a few things going forward. Persecution of gamers with mandatory internet to make sure you're being a legal eagle, that you're not sharing games between friends/houses, that you're not getting used games without paying up in part or full, that charging for full access to your games features (pay for multiplayer), being effectively a generic all in 1 PC media machine masquerading as a console is a bad idea, and whatever else won't fly with game players. Nintendo saw the early bitching, they didn't limit used titles at all, nor made an all in one box. PS4 is an unknown really until they do a true reveal of intent next month. Nintendo though is an outlier because of their weaker but still good system that lacks games and got released much like the 360 with issues too early and now media retarded silent badly needing a relaunch. If one fails, the other would have to look at themselves, their moves, and the moves of the fool that shot their foot off and why it happened so they don't roll over and die next.

[Ed Oscuro]

Here's one possible difference:
http://gimmegimmegames.com/2013/05/m...ram-for-games/

It's an old rumor, but PS4 was rumored to have 50% more compute units than the new Xbox One. That could be wrong, but it could also be right.

Some programmers have already envisioned a situation further in the life of each console where new game designs demand more out of each platform than the processing (CPUs and GPUs) alone can provide, so 8GB versus 5GB might well mean that the PS4 will be able to get away with considerably more in the way of precomputed assets, freeing up more time for the CPUs and GPUs to do work. And, even ignoring that, a 2-3GB difference in available RAM would mean that the PS4 will simply have more space to work with assets.

Another possible difference, despite efforts from some Forumers to outline a "BUT THE CONSOLES WILL BE THE SAME WE MUST ASSUME THIS" speculative scenario outside the facts, is that PS4 will allow used games and will allow you to use your games whereever you please:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ock-used-games

[Bojay1997]

Here's one possible difference:
http://gimmegimmegames.com/2013/05/m...ram-for-games/

It's an old rumor, but PS4 was rumored to have 50% more compute units than the new Xbox One. That could be wrong, but it could also be right.

Some programmers have already envisioned a situation further in the life of each console where new game designs demand more out of each platform than the processing (CPUs and GPUs) alone can provide, so 8GB versus 5GB might well mean that the PS4 will be able to get away with considerably more in the way of precomputed assets, freeing up more time for the CPUs and GPUs to do work. And, even ignoring that, a 2-3GB difference in available RAM would mean that the PS4 will simply have more space to work with assets.

Another possible difference, despite efforts from some Forumers to outline a "BUT THE CONSOLES WILL BE THE SAME WE MUST ASSUME THIS" speculative scenario outside the facts, is that PS4 will allow used games and will allow you to use your games whereever you please:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ock-used-games

The only one assuming anything is you. Sony hasn't made an official statement either way. What they have said so far sounds hopeful and combined with the backlash Microsoft got yesterday, I am encouraged that they will move in that direction. We should hopefully know for sure after their press conference at E3.

For clarity, here is the actual text of the interview you cited:

"I sat down with Yoshida a few hours after the PS4 reveal tonight and one of the first things I asked was whether used games would be blocked.

"Do you want us to do that?" he asked.

No, I said. I think, if you buy something on a disc, that you have a kind of moral contract with the person you've bought it from that you retain some of that value and you can pass it on.

Do you agree, I asked?

"Yes. That's the general expectation by consumers," said Yoshida. "They purchase physical form, they want to use it everywhere, right? So that's my expectation."

So if someone buys a PlayStation 4 game, I asked, you're not going to stop them reselling it?

"Aaaah," was Yoshida's initial answer, but seemingly only because he'd forgotten his line. "So what was our official answer to our internal question?" he asked his Japanese PR advisor. The advisor stepped in but didn't seem to answer clearly, at least to my ears. Yoshida then took control again firmly:

"So, used games can play on PS4. How is that?"

I said I thought that was fine."

Notice the person being interviewed didn't answer each question fully or directly. The first question was "whether used games would be blocked". The answer was "do you want us to do that?". There are really only two clear answers to that question, yes or no. Sony didn't give either one. All Sony agreed to is that it's the "general expectation by consumers" and that "they want to use it everywhere". Those same answers could have been given by Microsoft and they wouldn't have been lying.

As for the second part, again he avoided the question. The answer to "you're not going to stop them reselling it" can only be yes or no. His response was "so used games can play on PS4. How is that?". Microsoft could have and did give the same answer yesterday and again wasn't lying. Of course, it quickly became clear that to play used games on Xbox One, you would need to pay a fee possibly as much as full MSRP. Sony didn't rule that out and in fact, they have previously stated that developers and publishers can do the same thing on PS4 just like they can now on PS3 with online passes.

I really and truly hope that Sony not only doesn't lock out used games or require Internet access, but imposes similar conditions on publishers. The reality is that they have been just as vague as Microsoft in the past few months but they seem to have slightly better leak control and an army of fanboys ready to step in at a moment's notice to defend something they have no factual basis to claim.

[sloan]

Even if the fee is 1 dollar its fucking bullshit

That's a totally made-up number that people were speculating about because that's how much EA charged under their old on-line pass scheme.

Regardless of what the actual price of the fee turns out to be...it's still ridiculous.

NOPE!

According to destructoid and a couple of other sources, the used game fee is going to be, wait or it......FULL MSRP!!!!

Has this pay-again for used games practice ever been tested in a court of law? Is it legal or even ethical to charge for an item your company has already recouped full purchase price for once? I wonder how this will hold up to legal scrutiny?

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Has this pay-again for used games practice ever been tested in a court of law? Is it legal or even ethical to charge for an item your company has already recouped full purchase price for once? I wonder how this will hold up to legal scrutiny?

The burden of proof i imagine will be firmly on their own shoulders to reasonably demonstrate how a potential customer is knowingly complicit with the fact that give up money....for nothing.


Our physical "games" are nothing more than licenses and they can make the unspoken terms of that license reflect whatever they pulled out of their asses that day.


My knee jerk reaction is to say they'll never get away with it, but the part of me that is driven by logic tells me otherwise, this is america after all, where the golden rule has always been that the man with the gold, makes the rules.

[Bojay1997]

Has this pay-again for used games practice ever been tested in a court of law? Is it legal or even ethical to charge for an item your company has already recouped full purchase price for once? I wonder how this will hold up to legal scrutiny?

Sadly this has been the norm for PC games for at least a decade, perhaps longer. There have been arguments made over the years about the application of the "first-sale doctrine" to computer and video games, but generally courts have found that end user licensing agreements can limit the transfer of licenses if they have been accepted by the user.

[Ed Oscuro]

Locking PC games to an email account has been with us for many years - activation limits, and device and account locking, are newer on PCs. Some games use both technologies together but generally they allow some flexibility to play games on different systems. I'm actually a bit surprised to reflect on how similar this DRM box is to Steam's implementation - on Steam, for example, you are limited to being logged into your account on only one device. The difference is really just customary - people have gotten used to lengthy install processes and having their games be "tied down" to one box, and as computers generally have been expensive enough that people only game at one machine, it didn't seem like a big deal. On the other hand, the traditional system of consoles - where sharing games was possible simply due to the technology - and the simplified install process gave people the expectation that this would continue to be tolerated.

I'm not sure where I'd come down on the idea of this kind of DRM. I can certainly imagine some legitimate reasons for its existence, especially as many have tolerated it for a long time in certain circumstances. However, the Xbox One definitely has a lot to prove in my book. I'm already skeptical it will provide the better basic experience of the systems, and certainly for many people it will be an easy way to justify going for one system versus another.

It's rather ironic that a generation people thought would signify the end of differences between consoles would end up presenting such a fundamental choice about usage rights, which is at the heart of digital media of all types.

This, though:

The only one assuming anything is you.

Why is it bad that I believe that Shuhei Yoshida is not misleading or lying to us, when he's proven to be a pretty straight shooter with the media in the past? Your reading of the interview reveals you probably haven't ever read an interview with him before - and that you don't understand Japanese culture, either. I think Yoshida is a bit quirky in this, but it's clearly a Japanese kind of style, modified by his own personality and attentiveness to his customers or to journalists that come from all over the world when he is answering their direct questions. Journalists are happy to question him like this; it makes them feel like they have to be careful and precise, like they're working but also a bit like a polite game, like he cares what they think rather than that they know what the company policy is. Why is it bad to refuse to pretend that it's reasonable to call him a possible liar? At best, you'd have to say he was negligently and laughably out of touch with the console policies he has helped design. There's no good reason to believe he's lying or misleading the press. He knows his stuff.

Now, if this was some other executives - maybe somebody talking about their Aliens versus Predator game - I wouldn't make the same judgment. I do like hypotheticals and possibilities - I admit I've forced more than my share of them on my gentle fellow forum-goers over the years. But now I have to say - why? Why try to spin things out as if we don't know what we plainly do?

I feel like we're going down the same road we went down weeks past, where I can share the best sources we have currently about what's likely to happen, and you disregard them simply because it's possible something else would happen (when it conveniently tamps down any differences between the systems). Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you actually do believe things based on what's probable for the future - about which we can have no concrete knowledge - and you think it's reasonable to believe those things, too. The future being unknowable does not mean that we can't guess it.

[Bojay1997]

Locking PC games to an email account has been with us for many years - activation limits, and device and account locking, are newer on PCs. Some games use both technologies together but generally they allow some flexibility to play games on different systems. I'm actually a bit surprised to reflect on how similar this DRM box is to Steam's implementation - on Steam, for example, you are limited to being logged into your account on only one device. The difference is really just customary - people have gotten used to lengthy install processes and having their games be "tied down" to one box, and as computers generally have been expensive enough that people only game at one machine, it didn't seem like a big deal. On the other hand, the traditional system of consoles - where sharing games was possible simply due to the technology - and the simplified install process gave people the expectation that this would continue to be tolerated.

I'm not sure where I'd come down on the idea of this kind of DRM. I can certainly imagine some legitimate reasons for its existence, especially as many have tolerated it for a long time in certain circumstances. However, the Xbox One definitely has a lot to prove in my book. I'm already skeptical it will provide the better basic experience of the systems, and certainly for many people it will be an easy way to justify going for one system versus another.

It's rather ironic that a generation people thought would signify the end of differences between consoles would end up presenting such a fundamental choice about usage rights, which is at the heart of digital media of all types.

This, though:

Why is it bad that I believe that Shuhei Yoshida is not misleading or lying to us, when he's proven to be a pretty straight shooter with the media in the past? Your reading of the interview reveals you probably haven't ever read an interview with him before - and that you don't understand Japanese culture, either. I think Yoshida is a bit quirky in this, but it's clearly a Japanese kind of style, modified by his own personality and attentiveness to his customers or to journalists that come from all over the world when he is answering their direct questions. Journalists are happy to question him like this; it makes them feel like they have to be careful and precise, like they're working but also a bit like a polite game, like he cares what they think rather than that they know what the company policy is. Why is it bad to refuse to pretend that it's reasonable to call him a possible liar? At best, you'd have to say he was negligently and laughably out of touch with the console policies he has helped design. There's no good reason to believe he's lying or misleading the press. He knows his stuff.

Now, if this was some other executives - maybe somebody talking about their Aliens versus Predator game - I wouldn't make the same judgment. I do like hypotheticals and possibilities - I admit I've forced more than my share of them on my gentle fellow forum-goers over the years. But now I have to say - why? Why try to spin things out as if we don't know what we plainly do?

I feel like we're going down the same road we went down weeks past, where I can share the best sources we have currently about what's likely to happen, and you disregard them simply because it's possible something else would happen (when it conveniently tamps down any differences between the systems). Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you actually do believe things based on what's probable for the future - about which we can have no concrete knowledge - and you think it's reasonable to believe those things, too. The future being unknowable does not mean that we can't guess it.

I'm simply reading the actual response he gave to the questions. Maybe there was a language barrier, maybe he was confused, maybe he said what the journalist wanted to hear and maybe there is nothing to worry about. I think there is zero harm in being skeptical, especially since in going through my PS3 collection last night I realized that many first party Sony games already require an Internet connection to have full access to the content. For at least a couple of years now Sony has been selling GOTY versions of things like GT5 and Uncharted and they typically come with the main game on disc and multiplayer or other added features on a one-time use code sheet. As I'm sure you must be aware, Sony already uses content locking to particular accounts and requires an Internet connection to provide access to the full game experience even if the user never plays on-line. While clearly not as bad as Xbox One, to think that Sony is your new best friend that is going to deliver on the promise of free access to used games and an always offline system is unlikely at best and not reflective of the practices it already has in place on PS3 with its own first party games. So yes, until we get a clear answer to how used games will work on PS4 and whether you ever need to connect to the Internet to play non-Internet based games, I remain skeptical and unwilling to simply accept that Sony is all of a sudden the pro-consumer company that it never has been.

[Rob2600]

As I'm sure you must be aware, Sony already uses content locking to particular accounts and requires an Internet connection to provide access to the full game experience even if the user never plays on-line. While clearly not as bad as Xbox One, to think that Sony is your new best friend that is going to deliver on the promise of free access to used games and an always offline system is unlikely at best and not reflective of the practices it already has in place on PS3 with its own first party games. So yes, until we get a clear answer to how used games will work on PS4 and whether you ever need to connect to the Internet to play non-Internet based games, I remain skeptical and unwilling to simply accept that Sony is all of a sudden the pro-consumer company that it never has been.

The old saying applies here- once bitten, twice shy!

[Gamevet]

So basically no real appreciable difference, once again it comes down to exclusives and who nickel and dimes you less

No, Sony pulled a fast one on Microsoft, with their early design using only 2 GB of RAM. The move to 8 gigs of GDDR5 gave Sony's console a significant edge in graphics power.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...lysis-xbox-one

In terms of the GPU hardware, hard information was difficult to come by, but one of the engineers did let slip with a significant stat - 768 operations per clock. We know that both Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are based on Radeon GCN architecture and we also know that each compute unit is capable of 64 operations per clock. So, again through a process of extrapolation from the drip-feed of hard facts, the make-up of the One's GPU is confirmed - 12 compute units each capable of 64 ops/clock gives us the 768 total revealed by Microsoft and thus, by extension, the 1.2 teraflop graphics core. So that's another tick on the Durango leaked spec that has been transposed across to the final Xbox One architecture and the proof we need that PlayStation 4's 18 CU graphics core has 50 per cent more raw power than the GPU in the new Microsoft console. Now, bearing in mind that we fully expect PlayStation 4 and Xbox One to launch at similar price-points, how did this disparity come about?


The answer to that comes down to a specific gamble Sony made that Microsoft could not - the utilisation of a unified pool of GDDR5 memory. In the early days of PS4 development, only 2GB of this type of memory looked viable for a consumer-level device. As higher density modules became available, this was duly upgraded to 4GB. By the time of the reveal back in February, Sony had confidence that it could secure volume of 512MB modules and surprised everyone (even developers) by announcing that PS4 would ship with 8GB of unified GDDR5 RAM. The design of its surrounding architecture would not need to change throughout this process - one set of 16 GDDR5 chips would simply be swapped out for another.

[Ed Oscuro]

Being skeptical about what Sony will reveal is fine - but it doesn't require any convoluted juggling with the facts to come down to what is basic skepticism.

Both manufacturers must certainly have wondered about whether, and when, the transition to a fully-online, digitally-distributed model would happen. However Microsoft has found out that mixing up the benefits of a console and of a PC, and mixing up the DRM situation of the one platform with the expectation of relative freedom to play games on other systems of the other, will meet with a strong refusal. I don't see how you could really expect that consumers would have jumped for joy at this. People have been relatively quiet about XBLA and similar stores when they promise special features or low price-points - because it's hard to argue with the rationale of cheap games being digitally distributed, and not a big thing to most gamers to simply ignore digital distribution if they feel like it. However, trying to tack on all the restrictions of digital distribution to physical content - for which adding the restrictions of the digital store seems gratuitous - is quite predictably a kind of red line that nobody could have passed without causing mass indignation. I think Sony is right to instead quietly press ahead with making small changes to how their system works, and work on improving it for the user, than be the one who tries to cross the line. Especially they have done well not to try to cross it in such a clumsy way as Microsoft has - since the release of Windows 8, the appearance of an "our way or the highway" attitude has reminded longtime Microsoft users of many half-forgotten instances of "progress" and it has given many younger observers a view of a company that is dictatorial in its perception of needs and preferences, and which has wasted no time on trying to gauge how much advantage they may take of their users.

At the end of the day, just as big as any differences one can ferret out (and, despite the argument, they are there and they are appreciable) in the DRM implementation, it's also the same ancient story about what happens when you forget who pays your bills. It's easy to forget how a "small" issue like respect can really make a big difference.

[GhostDog]

The PS4 seems like the easy choice at this point. All Sony has to do is make online free again like they did for PS3 and the PS4 will be king.

[Griking]

I've always been a supporter of the Xbox because I've never really cared for Japanese style games and I wanted to support a U.S. company. This time around however I think I like more of what I'm reading about the PS4 and how they're going out of their way to encourage Indy developers rather than be difficult like MS seems to be. That said I probably won't purchase either console right away. Perhaps something may tempt me to change my mind in a year or so from now

[duffmanth]

Both consoles look almost the same from a hardware perspective. Like someone mentioned here earlier, it's gonna come down to exclusives, and right now Sony seems to be ahead in that category.