Why it's bad to compare launch games

[HeyCori]

The Xbox One and PS4 share similar specs, but the devil

Good article but I also ventured further and read the comments section... wow, talk about Sony-fest, lol. That's fine given that the PS4 looks like a beast of a machine. However, the amount of nerd rage at the author's conclusion is astounding. A lot of people are incredibly upset that the author would dare say that the graphical differences won't matter in the long run. While I clearly don't have the technical expertise to verify whether he's right or wrong, I am no less stunned by the shortsightedness of the commentators.

For starters, these are launch titles and they're not indicative of overall performance. That's not to say that Sony doesn't have a clear advantage, but how much of an advantage still can't be accurately determined. After all, several PS4 games are only running at 900p, but it would be foolish to take that as a benchmark of what the PS4 is capable of. On the flip side, there are still several issues that Microsoft needs to address and others that developers need to address as well.

Some developers have already stated that Microsoft's development tools are in disarray.

Developers have faced a procession of issues with Xbox One GPU performance in the run-up to launch - some that are being tackled in the short term, others that will prove more difficult to address. Microsoft's "mono driver" for the AMD GPU had been known for months to be delivering sub-par performance prior to Gamescom in August (hence disappointing Ryse and Dead Rising 3 showings at E3) and while improvements have been - and apparently continue to be - delivered, developers have been working around a moving target, unsure exactly what the power of the graphics hardware will be in the final retail box.

Microsoft needs to improve the tools that developers use before a true comparison can be made. But for developers, they also have learn to fully take advantage of eSRAM, that magical little beast that is supposed to make the XB1 a bandwidth beast. Who knows how long it will be before developers really take advantage of eSRAM or how long it will take for Microsoft to make it easier for developer to use eSRAM.

You also have to consider what cloud computing will add in 5 years. But what about offline modes? You can't rely on cloud computing then. Yeah, but what about significantly improved online modes? Multiplayer games that only exist online, for which plenty already exists for the Xbox 360. Could it be that online multiplayer has superior AI and graphical effects when compared to their offline modes? Yes, I believe that could very much be a factor in next generation games. Or perhaps developers won't bother implementing could computing. Hopefully, Microsoft didn't setup 300,000 servers for nothing.

And have we all forgotten that Microsoft has tiled resources?

tiled resources

Seriously, there are so many intangibles that no one should consider either systems launch lineup as definitive proof of their overall graphically capabilities. I suspect it's going to be 3-4 years before we can really start talking about definitives. Maybe the PS4 will win the graphics race, maybe not, but using the launch lineup is not a good starting point. There's simply too many factors like better development tools, familiarity with eSRAM, online computing and tiled resources. It seems like a lot of people are claiming 50% increases for the PS4 without even a fraction of the knowledge necessary to make an accurate comparison.

 

[unstoppablekem]

Both consoles are great, and both have their advantages. You'll be satisfied with either one. For me, I'm getting the Xbox.

 

[gsquared]

"That's not to say that Sony doesn't have a clear advantage, but how much of an advantage still can't be accurately determined."

Contradiction of words. It either does or it doesn't. Ans as others have mentioned here MSFT is bringing more to the table than the PS4. For me, this is exactly the same decision I had to make when I bought my XB360. I looked at who had the better overall offering. Sony came up short back then and they still do today.

 

[HeyCori]

"That's not to say that Sony doesn't have a clear advantage, but how much of an advantage still can't be accurately determined."

Contradiction of words. It either does or it doesn't. Ans as others have mentioned here MSFT is bringing more to the table than the PS4. For me, this is exactly the same decision I had to make when I bought my XB360. I looked at who had the better overall offering. Sony came up short back then and they still do today.

All early reports that I've seen show that Sony does have an advantage when you directly compare hardware. However, many people are claiming that advantage is almost a firm 50% (or a massive blow out victory depending on the person, lol). I'm merely stating that there are a lot of intangibles that will cut into that so-called 50%. Things like tiled resources or eSRAM that will take time to master. Maybe eSRAM will be a game changer, or maybe the game changer will be cloud computing. Still, I don't think it's inaccurate to say that Sony has a clear advantage, just not 50%.

 

[Coreldan]

I think PS4 won the launch for the masses in the grand scheme of things, but if the generation lasts for 8 years, it doesn't matter that much. PS3 had quite a dreadful launch and it managed just fine in the years to come.

I do honestly think, as much ****** goggles off as I can, that Xbox One has more potential in the long term. When it comes to the Xbox team, I'm quite content that they will be able to harness much of that potential in the coming years. However with the consoles being all new and stuff, it seems PS4 is able to "brute force" more out of games than Xbox One at this time while both platforms are still new to developers. Obviously Xbox One won't be getting better hardware along the way, but they will learn to take more out of each console.

My choice is obvious, it's Xbox One, but I'm not your typical console buying consumer. If Xbox One would've been PS4 with a different name and brand, I wouldn't have bought it. For me it's so much about the ecosystem and what else it can do outside gaming. Obviously gaming is important but I wouldn't have bought a console purely for gaming.

If talking about advantage in terms of just hardware and how games look.. well... I don't deny that PS4 has better hardware in it, but it's really not that simple. Having seen both consoles and half of each consoles launch titles with my own eyes on a FullHD TV, there was no difference I could tell with my eyes. Then there's BF4 that I havnt seen live, but we've seen the comparison video, when it comes to other games the difference seems to be about the same - not signifigant at all. Outside the spec humping geeks in gaming media, I don't think the average Joe is gonna go "Playstation 4 obviously has better looking games" when comparing each console at the local retail store.

That said, I do feel that this depends a lot on how developers learn to utilize the ESRAM, how well and how fast.. Then there's cloud computing.. There's always the "what about offline consoles?" question, but I don't see a reason why the game couldn't downgrade fe. Graphics or AI a bit when the console isn't connected and thus not cloud powered. PC games change graphical settings in two mouseclicks, it can't be that hard on consoles either. And we know that fe. lighting is totally feasible to cloud compute up to 300ms+, since at 400ms it starts to look off, but not really before that. 300ms is really generous for any household connection (hell, even mobile connection) in any somewhat civilized area.

Regardless, if PS4 has the magical "50% advantage", they sure don't know how to take good use of it or optionally Xbox One is just frigging magical in terms of squeezing performance out of the hardware.