xbox "ONE"

[Asher]

I don't think it's that bizarre of an objection. Why is it unreasonable to assume companies won't act with your best interests at heart? I mean, when some business online asks me for your email address and cell phone number [not as a necessary part of doing business], do you just hand them over and say "Sure, why not"? Who's to say Microsoft doesn't collect some data from this always-on video camera and use it for their own purposes, that might not be in your own interests?

1) Privacy policy
2) Federal law
3) Utter ruin of the public trust in their brand, which is worth a TON

Yes, the strenuous objections remain irrational and bizarre.

[Asher]

Sorry, that doesn't fly as a reason to ignore the possibility. There isn't an encryption that can't be hacked, either by finding backdoors/exploitable weaknesses or brute force, or both

Please enumerate how many times the Xbox or Xbox 360 has been remotely hacked.

[snoopy369]

1) Privacy policy
2) Federal law
3) Utter ruin of the public trust in their brand, which is worth a TON

Yes, the strenuous objections remain irrational and bizarre.

You're confusing "something you disagree with" with "bizarre". The objections are reasonable. They may not be something you agree with or care about, but they're not bizarre.

[snoopy369]

Please enumerate how many times the Xbox or Xbox 360 has been remotely hacked.

I have no idea, nor do I care. The fact that something was or was not hacked is not evidence that something else with very different (and more desirable to hack) qualities may be hacked.

[Asher]

You're confusing "something you disagree with" with "bizarre". The objections are reasonable. They may not be something you agree with or care about, but they're not bizarre.

It is certainly bizarre to think Microsoft would risk the ruin of its reputation and run afoul of very strict laws all so they can eavesdrop on living room conversations.

Actually, bizarre isn't the right word. Absurd, maybe. Ridiculous. Insultingly stupid is a good phrase as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

I hacked into my neighbour's wifi

Well, that says it all, doesn't it.

I didn't do anything to his network or computers other than crack the password and scan for devices.

So you say.

[Asher]

Ben, if I wanted to I could hack your computer and expose your child porn to the authorities. Keep pushing my buttons.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, if I wanted to I could hack your computer and expose your child porn to the authorities. Keep pushing my buttons.

Good luck with that.

[Sava]

Uh, what?

Xbox 360 had 3 cores, PS3 has 8.

The reason very few games use more than two cores is because dual-core CPUs are the norm in the PC gaming space. Consoles have been multicore for longer.


Sava, no offense, but you're full of **** here.

It'll be 1080p at least. Not 720p. The GPU itself is "comparable to a 7870" but that doesn't mean performance will be in games. Things you haven't taken into account:
1) EDRAM framebuffer
2) Being able to "write to the metal" means you can get significantly more power out of the hardware than you could on anything equivalent on the PC. The PS3 has the equivalent of a GeForce 7800 GTX circa 2005, the Xbox 360 used a cut-down version of the Radeon X1800 circa 2006. There is no way you'd get anywhere close to the framerate the PS3/360 get running the same fidelity/resolution graphics on a PC.
3) PCs deal with the relatively high-latency/low-bandwidth PCI-Express interconnect. The CPU/GPU are on the same die in the new consoles with extremely fast interconnects and shared memory access. This is a huge improvement.

The specs say 1080p. That's max, not "at least". I suspect framerates will be locked at 60 hz, max. It's unclear how many, but I suspect some games will be 720p upscaled. We'll just have to see. But even if I remember and post a thread about it, you'll claim you never said "not 720p". This is one thing you share with BK... a complete and utter denial of facts that conflict with the things you say.

I don't disagree that the architecture is designed to squeeze the most out of the hardware. It has to. But the fact is, the "one" and PS4 will be comparable in performance to a 2013 mid-range gaming PC... and for me personally, each is inferior to the system I have built now.

You can split hairs about minor hardware improvements all you like. None of these consoles can run a game at 2560x1600.

The single core thing is a Windows XP/32bit OS issue. But it was a fun trolololol.

I have a 360 and a ps3... for mostly EA sports titles. So I'm not anti-console. It's just important to put them in perspective. They aren't as good as PC's. They never will be.

I'm just having fun with the whole "one" thing. The general internet consensus seems to be that M$ really dropped the ball on it.

Most of my gripes are minor... like the controller design.

The gfx specs are laughable. My 660ti has about 2500 gflops and comparable cores. The two I have running in SLI take a big fat dump on the "one". MY setup benchmarks higher than a titan... for half the price.

I may get the ps4 at some point for ea's nhl. I'm done with xbox live. I have no use for it. Consoles are best when they focus on gaming. MS wants it to do more... trying to compete... well... with PC's. It simply can't. They shouldn't try. I'm sure they might sell. Most people are content with having their technology spoon fed to them. There's nothing wrong with that. If I weren't into computers, I wouldn't want to putz around with setting stuff up... despite it being better than a console. But I am... so I do.

I share your Apple hate. But it seems to take you down a strange road... into MS love. I find it to be fascinating.

[Asher]

I don't disagree that the architecture is designed to squeeze the most out of the hardware. It has to. But the fact is, the "one" and PS4 will be comparable in performance to a 2013 mid-range gaming PC... and for me personally, each is inferior to the system I have built now.

This is completely untrue. You'll easily get twice the performance out of the same hardware on a fixed platform, all else being equal. Even more when you take into account things like the CPU/GPU being on-die together and embedded SRAM framebuffers.

You very clearly have no idea how embedded computers work. PCs and consoles are extremely different performance-wise. You would not believe the overhead incurred on PCs in hardware abstraction and making compromises so your game runs "okay" on all architectures, rather than extremely optimized for a single architecture.

When the PS3 came out, it's graphics specs were "laughable", too, compared to high-end PCs. Yet the PS3's graphics spanked high-end PCs for several years.

I share your Apple hate. But it seems to take you down a strange road... into MS love. I find it to be fascinating.

What I'm saying applies to Sony, too. This isn't a pro-MS thing. It's a reality thing.

[Sava]

Yet the PS3's graphics spanked high-end PCs for several years.

in what reality do you live?

Can you find one example of this to support your absolutely idiotic claim? Just one. Find a benchmark of from 2006-2008ish... any game... even a poor port like GTA IV. PS3 gets what, 30 hz @720p? The occasional 1080p?

You seem to be hanging your hat on the fact that I don't have an advanced degree in computer science. No, I can't sit here and explain hardware architecture. I don't have to. That's not the discussion. It's a big fat red herring.

As a gamer, I'm concerned with the end results.

On all my systems, I can play Far Cry 3@2560x1600 and get in excess of 60fps... (80-100 on my main system).

No console can do this. No next gen console can do this.

That's the end of the discussion. You can disagree with it all you want. That's what reality is. If you insist on being an idiot, I'll just laugh at you.

[Asher]

As someone with a high-end computer from 2008 who tried to play GTA IV, I'll tell you the 360 version was superior at the time.

If you want to discuss "reality", join beyond3d and tell them your reality.

[snoopy369]

It is certainly bizarre to think Microsoft would risk the ruin of its reputation and run afoul of very strict laws all so they can eavesdrop on living room conversations.

Actually, bizarre isn't the right word. Absurd, maybe. Ridiculous. Insultingly stupid is a good phrase as well.

Sorry, no. Microsoft wouldn't be doing anything lots of other major companies do. Plenty of major companies sell your personal (not-illegal-to-share) data with other companies, either under the cover of 'partners' (which means 'people who pay us money') or just straight up. Heck, you think Comcast doesn't share (sell) cable box usage statistics with the networks? Of course they do. Microsoft wouldn't be doing anything unusual there; they'd just have access to a little better data. I don't even think, myself, that it would be horrible; but I am not so full of myself that I project my opinions onto others.

[snoopy369]

Sava, I don't know anything about these consoles, nor do I care much, but the expectation would be that (hardware specs aside) consoles usually outshine their PC bretheren, even the very expensive elite gaming PCs, for a year or two after release, then for a year or two they outshine mid-level gaming machines, then for the last couple of years of the console cycle they're low-end gaming PCs. I don't think there's any reason to expect this would be different.

[Sava]

As someone with a high-end computer from 2008 who tried to play GTA IV, I'll tell you the 360 version was superior at the time.

You must have been doing something wrong.

PC Benchmarks for GTA IV... 10 months after the PC release

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5850,2433-12.html

Most of the setups give frame rates above 60@resolutions higher than both 360 and PS3.

Framerates for both consoles are capped at 30 for this game.

So yeah.

Reality.