Report: PS4 Is Selling Twice As Well As Xbox One (arstechnica.com) 136
The latest numbers released by analysts suggest that the Sony PlayStation 4 is selling twice as many units worldwide as the Xbox One since both systems launched in late 2013. The data comes from a new SuperData report on the Nintendo Switch, which is backed up by Niko Partners analyst Daniel Ahmad. SuperData mentions an installed base of 26 million Xbox One units and 55 million PS4 units. Ars Technica reports: Ahmad's chart suggests that Microsoft may have sold slightly more than half of the 53.4 million PS4 units that Sony recently announced it had sold through January 1. Specific numbers aside, though, it's clear Microsoft has done little to close its console sales gap with Sony over the past year -- and may have actually lost ground in that time. The last time we did our own estimate of worldwide console sales, through the end of 2015, we showed the Xbox One with about 57 percent as many systems sold as the PS4 (21.49 million vs. 37.7 million). That lines up broadly with numbers leaked by EA at the time, which suggest the Xbox One had sold about 52.9 percent as well as the PS4 (19 million vs. 35.9 million). One year later, that ratio has dipped to just above or even a bit below 50 percent, according to these reports. The relative sales performance of the Xbox One and PS4 doesn't say anything direct about the health or quality of those platforms, of course. Microsoft doesn't seem to be in any danger of abandoning the Xbox One platform any time soon and has, in fact, recently committed to upgrading it via Project Scorpio later this year. The gap between PS4 and Xbox One sales becomes important only if it becomes so big that publishers start to consider the Xbox One market as a minor afterthought that can be safely ignored for everything but niche games.
so what? (Score:2)
Both are viable platforms with lots of games and players. Who cares if one is twice the size of the other?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly investors, publishers and developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Since PS4 and Xbox One have both adopted similar x86 architectures this generation and have similar hardware specs, the issue is largely moot now. Developing a game designed for both systems is pretty easy and so a developer would just be throwing away money if it just developed for one or the other.
Now as for Nintendo, on the other hand....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a developer. I bought an Xbox One because I can write software for it without a $uper $pecial Dev Kit.
True, Microsoft has been generous with ID@Xbox. But if you can make more money by selling copies to PlayStation 4 owners than by selling copies to the smaller Xbox One audience, that might make up for the cost of such a devkit.
I'm developing a UWP app for a specialty niche that would allow a "cheap" Xbox One to run it instead of requiring a PC.
What keeps you from also releasing ports of the app to X11/Linux, Win32 desktop, and possibly macOS? Then you can make it available to people who already have a PC.
A PC with the same multimedia and processing capabilities that my app needs would be quite a bit more expensive than the Xbox One.
In before Hairyfeet mentions that many owners of what's now considered an entry-level desktop PC can drop in a $150 video
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't player base critically important for multiplayer games? PS4's advantage should mean that CoD/BF1/TF2/etc online player base for the game should be sustainable longer than for the XBox One.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason to own a console is that it's much cheaper than a gaming PC. Many families can't justify the cost of more than one gaming PC, and besides,
I don't believe the claim that game consoles are cheaper than gaming PCs for a few reasons:
1) Most families still need or want a computer at home for reasons besides gaming (e.g. internet, word processing, tracking finances, online banking, digital storage, remote connections to workplaces). This is particularly true for families with children because many school homework assignments today require or are greatly assisted by online research. So, if a family will have a home computer anyway, but buys a separa
Devil's advocacy (Score:2)
I tend toward PC in principle, but sometimes I argue the other side to help keep both sides honest and help bring out both sides' strongest arguments.
Most families still need or want a computer at home for reasons besides gaming (e.g. internet, word processing, tracking finances, online banking, digital storage, remote connections to workplaces).
First, these non-gaming applications can be done with a cheap eight-year-old PC with a Core 2 Duo and Intel integrated graphics. I'm told [slashdot.org] just dropping a video card into a PC with a CPU that old isn't enough to run AAA games from the present generation (2014 and later), which would quickly become CPU-bound. Second, these can be done with a laptop, and I've see
Re: (Score:2)
First, though Steam has sales. PlayStation Store also has sales. Second, console games have historically been more likely than PC games to support same-screen multiplayer with two to four gamepads, and if you have more than one gamer in the house, one copy of a $60 game that supports multiple gamepads is cheaper than three copies of a $30 game that requires a separate copy per player. Third, if everybody were to wait for the sale instead of buying in release month at full price, publishers would have no money to continue to fund development of high-production-value games.
Not to mention the fact that, unlike PC games, you can often find dirt-cheap used physical copies of console games on Amazon and other sites. A while back I bought a used copy of Battlefront for PS4 for $10 on Amazon. Good luck getting it for sale on PC for that price.
And even if you could, big Steam sales only come a few times a year and many devlopers don't even support Steam (including big names like EA and Ubisoft). By contrast, cheap used copies of console games can be found anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend toward PC in principle, but sometimes I argue the other side to help keep both sides honest and help bring out both sides' strongest arguments.
OK
First, these non-gaming applications can be done with a cheap eight-year-old PC with a Core 2 Duo and Intel integrated graphics. I'm told [slashdot.org] just dropping a video card into a PC with a CPU that old isn't enough to run AAA games from the present generation (2014 and later), which would quickly become CPU-bound. Second, these can be done with a laptop, and I've seen no evidence that people routinely upgrade a laptop with a separately purchased MXM video card. Third, a console can be used while someone else is using the family PC.
Coincidentally, I recently upgraded my PC from a 7-8 year old Core 2 Duo, and even before that upgrade I was still playing AAA games, like Dying Light, just not at the highest settings. If you think about the age of the hardware in the current generation of consoles it's roughly equivalent to an 6-8 year old PC, although they are optimized and coded better for gaming than PCs, but AAA games with cross-platform support to PC still work quite well on older machines. As I said before the tech upgrade cycle f
Re: (Score:2)
I recently upgraded my PC from a 7-8 year old Core 2 Duo, and even before that upgrade I was still playing AAA games, like Dying Light, just not at the highest settings.
Thanks for the data point. I'll mark ability to scale down to a C2D as "works for some".
most people have a PC around for other uses anyway
Except for people like one of my former co-workers, who owned only a smartphone. Mobile-only users adapt with Bluetooth keyboards and occasionally blocking out time for errands during library hours. Likewise, people who have only a laptop with Intel graphics and no standard MXM slot can't cheaply upgrade to a gaming GPU.
If you own a console with a $60/year subscription for 6 years you'd have an extra $360 to off-set the additional PC sticker price, subsequent PC upgrades (if needed), or pocket it.
Or theoretically spend it on some corresponding PC game rental service, if only one existed. Though "y
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I overlooked this part the first time I read your reply:
If you want to rent games on PC you can sign up with Gamefly, but it would cost more.
From the front page of GameFly:
Once I got past that barrier, all games listed on the All Games page [gamefly.com] appear to be either for consoles or for handhelds made by console makers, not for PC. This is because PC game rental infringes U.S. copyright, unlike console game rental.
Steam allows users to trial games and gives full refunds within a certain time, which is a good substitute for "renting."
Until Valve decides that you've abused the refund policy and takes away acce
Welcome to the Osborne Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
For those not up on computer history, Osborne was a computer maker that announced a great new model coming in a year... so sales started tanking while people waited... which meant there was no model in a year (or maybe there was, my memory is fuzzy on that detail).
I think MS was really dumb to try and compete with the PS4 Pro by saying they would have improved hardware next year. All they had to do was literally nothing, the PS4 Pro is not big enough of a bump that it would have effected XBox sales...
Although really it seems like XBox sales have been lagging even before the recent hardware upgrade was announced.
PS4 is for LUDDITES. (Score:1)
Appbox One only has appy app apps on Appdows 10! LUDDITE PS4 only has LUDDITE games!
Apps!
Re: (Score:2)
For those not up on computer history, Osborne was a computer maker that announced a great new model coming in a year... so sales started tanking while people waited... which meant there was no model in a year (or maybe there was, my memory is fuzzy on that detail).
Microsoft had a pattern of doing this throughout the 90's, and it generally worked out well for them. As soon as other PC operating systems (and OS/2 in particular) started chipping away at the badly aging Windows 3.1x line, Microsoft started promising the moon with Windows 95/PC DOS 7 -- more than two years before it shipped. They didn't deliver on most of their promises, and the end result was worse than the competition, but by that point it didn't matter -- people believed the hype and decided to skip
Cairo vs. Copland (Score:2)
Remember "Cairo"? [...] WinFS probably takes the cake
I agree that Microsoft has talked a good vapor game. But each component of the Cairo project appears to have seen eventual release in some form.
Re: (Score:2)
Was Apple any worse with its "Pink" and "Copland" projects [wikipedia.org]?
I think the difference here was that Apple wasn't announcing their plans from a monopoly position in order to keep people away form the competition. Indeed, when Pink became Taligent, one of the idea of the AIM Alliance was to use a microkernel architecture that would permit various OS "flavours" to run on top of it, including Mac OS "Pink", OS/2, and Windows NT, all running on PowerPC CHRP.
My feeling was always that the problem with Apple surrounding Copland and Pink was more incompetence rather than mal
Re:Welcome to the Osborne Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Good theory, but I think you're wrong. That's not what's hurting Microsoft - Sony did the same thing, with rumors of the "Neo" appearing shortly after the console itself launched. And yet the PS4 still sold quite well from day one.
What hurt the Xb1 is that it's demonstrably weaker than the PS4, but cost significantly more at launch ($500 compared to $400). Most games are available on both, so the natural inclination is to go with the cheaper and more powerful console. With a wide library of shared games, there's lots of direct comparisons to make, and even before they launched, it was easy to tell the PS4 would be more powerful. That gave the PS4 a very strong advantage during the first year or two.
Even now, they only have price-parity, with both having an entry price around $250-$300. But more people already have a PS4, making that the more attractive option both for multiplayer gaming (if all your friends are on PS4, you'd want one too) and for the larger percentage of third-party exclusive titles (it's nowhere near as big a deal as it once was, since porting is so easy, but there's still some studios that are deciding to skip the Xb1 because the audience is smaller). And it seems to me (as a non-Xb1, non-PS4 gamer) that Sony's shoveling the money from their console sales into more first-party games, giving it a still stronger library, which is ultimately what every gamer cares about.
Microsoft doesn't have a lot of options for coming back from this, just as the PS3 struggled to come back from the Xb360's early lead and the XbC never came close to the PS2. They could make the Scorpio be *substantially* more powerful than the PS4 Pro, making it more future-proof and maybe able to handle 4K/VR better. They could slash the price, and hope to catch up that way, but that's a risky move. They could pin it on VR or AR, but that's riskier still. They could double-down on their cross-play with PC bets - make every single Xb1 game PC-compatible and bundle a PC version, which would widen their library (although it would cannibalize Scorpio somewhat). Or they could go on a spending spree and buy up every developer they can, and kill off the PS4's third-party support - Sony is no Nintendo, they can't survive on first-party games alone (even Nintendo might not do so much longer).
Re: (Score:1)
Scorpio still won't help MS (Score:2)
As you pointed out the PS4 has a giant installed base, with the X1 costing more and selling less, despite promises of enhanced games for free using the cloud to power some physics and graphical elements in games.
Again the Scorpio will be more expensive, and despite promising more power, it will not be used as developers target the much larger installed PS4 and Xbox One user base. Why should developers spend money and resources enhancing games for a tiny market segment? They don't really do that now with the
Multiplayer snowball (Score:2)
The biggest factor I think is the whole multiplayer snowball effect. As once a particular system gets a bit of an advantage for one reason or another, and people start migrating to it, the effect becomes magnified the longer it goes on. As you say probably one of the largest decisions to buy a particular system outside of exclusive games is about what system all your friends are on. Once they move, you move, the more, etc... To the point where one system starts crushing the other.
Case in point most of my fr
MS was caught off guard (Score:2)
They did not know the PS4 Pro was coming, so they had nothing ready in time... but had to counter with something. They couldn't say they weren't doing anything with sales already languishing.
Re: Welcome to the Osborne Effect (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
OGL is effectively dead for gaming, and has been superseded by mantle/vulkan. Better FPS then either OGL or DX, less overhead cost for the API. Supports all platforms and the FPS difference on team AMD or Nvidia cards is so small that it makes no difference. Where you can see +10FPS swings/drops with OGL or DX between either card. And OGL created their own death all on their own with the massive 3.0 fuckup by stripping and ripping out features that developers were waiting for, that pushed a lot of compa
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Games though? (Score:5, Informative)
They sell twice as many consoles but have about 1/5 the amount of games as Xbox. This is what happens when people get too dependent on DirectX when OpenGL is soooo much better and available to everyone.
But the Playstation doesn't use OpenGL anyway, one advantage of those high level APIs is they allow abstraction of a vast range of hardware with a cost of overhead for doing so. The Playstation does not have a range of graphics hardware so suffering that overhead would be pointless, they use their own low-level graphics API.
Re: (Score:1)
They sell twice as many consoles but have about 1/5 the amount of games as Xbox. This is what happens when people get too dependent on DirectX when OpenGL is soooo much better and available to everyone.
But the Playstation doesn't use OpenGL anyway, one advantage of those high level APIs is they allow abstraction of a vast range of hardware with a cost of overhead for doing so. The Playstation does not have a range of graphics hardware so suffering that overhead would be pointless, they use their own low-level graphics API.
But the Playstation does have a range of hardware with the release of the PS Pro. MS will have the advantage here as the DirectX API originating from the PC was designed from the start to easily develop for a range of hardware. It will be significantly easier for developers to take advantage of the extra power in Project Scorpio then it is for the PS Pro
Re: (Score:3)
But the Playstation does have a range of hardware with the release of the PS Pro.
Yes, a range of 2, just like the XBox One and Project Scorpio. And it is forward compatible meaning that you can develop for the PS4 and it works just as good on the PS4 Pro, you only need to put in additional effort if you want create a unique experience on the PS4 Pro.
MS will have the advantage here as the DirectX API originating from the PC was designed from the start to easily develop for a range of hardware. It will be significantly easier for developers to take advantage of the extra power in Project Scorpio then it is for the PS Pro
Well given the assumption that Project Scorpio will be backwards compatible with the XBox One what is a specific example of something that will be so much easier to do with DirectX on Project Scorpio to create a unique experience that will b
Re: Games though? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it really isn't. Vulkan is a hardware abstraction layer more than an API. Really good for getting down and dirty with the hardware, but way too low level for actual practical use.
Re: (Score:1)
DirectX doesn't seem to help here anyway (Score:2)
Curiously though DirectX does not seem to help with compatibility. Games on Windows still have major issues with different hardware, and interestingly on the GPU side we have Nvidia and AMD modifying their drivers to aid with game compatibility!! It seems like DirectX barely does anything to help with the situation... if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously though DirectX does not seem to help with compatibility. Games on Windows still have major issues with different hardware
I'm not quite sure what you mean specifically on how this relates to DirectX (or what you are implying is fundamentally different between it and say OpenGL), it in fact does help with compatibility in that you aren't coding for a specific GPU but for an abstraction where the implementation is provided by the driver. This is the same concept with both OpenGL and DirectX.
and interestingly on the GPU side we have Nvidia and AMD modifying their drivers to aid with game compatibility!!
Of course you do, that's where the implementation of the interface is. The driver provides the interface between the application and the har
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not quite sure what you mean specifically on how this relates to DirectX (or what you are implying is fundamentally different between it and say OpenGL), it in fact does help with compatibility in that you aren't coding for a specific GPU"
Then why are there often fixes on the game dev's end to fix issues with a specific graphics card? Shouldn't the patch notes say "fixed improper DirectX call" instead of say "fixed issue with lighting on Radeon 480" or "added support for Intel HD"... If the game is jus
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are there often fixes on the game dev's end to fix issues with a specific graphics card? Shouldn't the patch notes say "fixed improper DirectX call" instead of say "fixed issue with lighting on Radeon 480" or "added support for Intel HD"... If the game is just asking DirectX to interpret calls, why should it have to worry about specific chipsets?
It doesn't, the implementation is in the driver, just like OpenGL. What "improper DirectX call" are you talking about? I think you need to be more specific about what the issue is you're referring to to be able to explain but if there is a fix for a specific GPU then it is in the driver implementation of OpenGL/DirectX for that architecture. Sometimes on the application side there are specific extensions that might be used to target specific GPUs more efficiently or an effect might be re-written with in a l
Re: (Score:2)
Again thanks for your time....
I see, so the driver itself mplements the actual API function's behavior based on what *should* happen in a reference DirectX implementation?
I guess I previously imagined that the driver opened a very basic interface to the hardware, and that somehow a DirectX library was responsible for translating an API call into some sort of low level code for the driver to run on bare hardware (sort of how binaries are x86 CISC bytecode, and those x86 CISC instructions are translated into
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so the driver itself mplements the actual API function's behavior based on what *should* happen in a reference DirectX implementation?
Basically yes.
I guess I previously imagined that the driver opened a very basic interface to the hardware, and that somehow a DirectX library was responsible for translating an API call into some sort of low level code for the driver to run on bare hardware
The reason this isn't the case is that the low level code is GPU-specific (or at least specific to each GPU architecture) so that gets implemented by the driver vendor instead.
But most of the heavy lifting of translating the API call into machine instructions is actually done in the driver directly? So DirectX is just a spec... I guess I was confused because there is software called "DirectX" which installs libraries to the system, now I'm wondering what that huge install is, just basic SDK framework stuff like headers?
Well DirectX is more than just Direct3D, but the Direct3D component includes the libraries with the entry points that are bound to the driver implementation, helper libraries and functions for doing things like specifying state, building command buffers, math libraries, shader classes, etc. But the SDK itself also includ
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you very much for your time in explaining all this :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They [...] have about 1/5 the amount of games as Xbox
It's the other way around, a lot of indie and not so indie titles (mainly Japanese stuff, but also games like Tropico 5) are out on PS4, but not on Xbone.
Almost identical architectures (Score:2)
The danger of not supporting a platform is increased as the platforms differences increase. The Xbox One and PS4 both have similar underlying hardware. Therefore, there is not as much danger as a publisher will ignore one of those two compared to the Switch.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Nintendo has struggled with third parties in some cases in the past because of some d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little excited for the Switch for exactly the reason you hint at: I see this as maybe a chance to raise the bar on mobile gaming. Mobile games are, as you say, shit. If devs start porting over Switch games though, real games, it could perhaps help to pull mobile gaming out of that hole. At least to some degree.
Probably not. This may just be wishful thinking on my part, the interface is different bet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero userbase and a past set of consoles that have failed for 3rd party
Cost of porting, switch is a very different architecture to the 2 consoles it needs to get ports from which means games cost a lot more for a much smaller userbase
Nintendo userbase has previously shunned 3rd party games, even when they had a large userbase 3rd party ports sold poorly
The console is significantly underpowered compared to the other 2 consoles it
Re: (Score:2)
This thread started with someone claiming that system architecture would be a barrier to porting between home consoles and the Switch, i pointed out that that really wasn't true and the rest of this conversation has just been fanboi garbage.
Also: your reasons are terrible. I mean, come on - you're citing zero userbase on a product which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AAA titles are not developed for ARM. I cannot think of any game with more than $10MM in dev. costs that was for an ARM platform.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't "studio has ARM experience", its "how many hours does it take to port from the initial configuration to ARM" Because a AAA product will be designed first for Xbox/PS4/Computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, even if all that you care about is ports of other console games the fact that everyone is currently developing for ARM means th
Re: (Score:3)
It's not circular logic - ports of AAA products won't be designed for ARM because the current AAA products aren't designed for ARM. New AAA products won't be designed for ARM, because ARM doesn't have a history of AAA products that you can point to to demonstrate to the money people that AAA titles are worth it on ARM
Handhelds. Not AAA domain.
Re: (Score:2)
x86-only libraries (Score:2)
I don't think using an ARM CPU makes porting games too difficult.
Unless one of the binary-only middleware libraries you're using is available only for x86 and x86-64 architectures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is basically what I was saying, yes. Though the PS4/Switch use OpenGL, while the Xbox only uses DirectX...
No, neither of them use OpenGL. The PS4 uses a custom PSGL graphics library by Sony and the Switch uses the NVN API, a low-level, low-overhead graphics API that was designed for it by nVidia as it uses the Tegra processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So they like Chinese smartphones. Imagine that.
Pro (Score:2)
Scorpio (Score:2)
Scorpio isn't an upgraded Xbox One. The Xbox One S is. Just like the PS4 Pro is the upgraded PS4.
Scorpio is a new generation, though it'll likely be backward compatible, feature a similar UI/OS (Windows 10 everywhere...), tie into the same backend services, etc.
Outside of Nintendo, the days of console generations being completely new shit are likely dead. Development costs are too high, and established libraries (especially digital) are a huge consideration. Both Sony and MS are using AMD's shit for CPU
Re: (Score:3)
Scorpio software will be hamstrung by mandatory compatibility with Xbox One hardware. http://www.gamespot.com/articl... [gamespot.com]
Scorpio's higher price will slow adoption, developers will still focus on the much larger install base of PS4 and Xbox One onwers, meaning developer resources won't be put into significant enhancements for Scorpio compatible games. http://www.gamespot.com/articl... [gamespot.com]
Scorpio's hardware will be outclassed 2 years later when the PS5 is released. http://www.gamezone.com/news/a... [gamezone.com]
It will be an exp
Re: (Score:2)
VR experiences don't matter, wonder why you never see reviews of VR games? VR has been out for about a year but there are no amazing games, and it's not due to lack of hardware power, games are no better on PC (which already has 10 tflops w/Nvidia 1080 vs Scorpio's 6)
Specs for Scorpio? As I said, 6 tflops, going to be AMD GPU due to compatibility with Xbox One, the rest doesn't really matter because it's already outclassed on PC and certainly will be with PS5, why wouldn't a system 2 years later have better
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt MS is going to hamstring Scorpio and treat it as the same generation as the Xbox One. We haven't even had an official reveal of it yet. All we've had is the announcement that it's coming. We'll get the full scoop this E3.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the link? This is confirmed. http://www.gamespot.com/articl... [gamespot.com]
Why would MS cut off their legs? Scorpio will have an install base of 0 until end of 2017, PS4 and Xbox One will have at least 100m combined by then (about 80m now combined). Why would devs give a system that will have such a low ownership for such a short time before the next real generation the money and resources required to significantly improve games?
Re: (Score:2)
Please go figure.
- Scorpio is 6 tflops
- Nvidia 1080 already outclasses it at 10 tflops (yet Scorpio is touting VR as a pro? It will be stripped down VR like we have now)
- 2 years is a long time in tech
- even low end GPU in 2 years will easily outclass high end options now
- PS5 expected 2 years after Scorpio, will break hardware/software lineage where Scorpio needs to maintain hardware/software compatibility
Why would it not outclass Scorpio is a better question
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off the specs leaked show it is a AMD Ryzen with an RX 480 underclocked to match performance with an RX 470. No for the parent this is not bad hardware anymore.
So no developers do not have to target PS 4 pro or Scorpio? They just simply make the same games for the xbox One which are binary compatible and up the graphic details and resolution when a higher end console is available. This is quite smart actually.
Also MS is making with game mode DirectX xbox compability (which oddly is very different from
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, upping the resolution, fps, and anti aliasing are minor upgrades on basically the same game. Scorpio games won't really poush the hardware with more detailed models, physics, AI, bigger worlds with more going on, etc... and they won't be able to either since Scorpio gamers will be matched up with Xbox One gamers online, so they can't even have different physics and AI models going on if they wanted to.
Haha DirectX and Compatible are funny to have in the same sentence!! Right now on PC they can't ev
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about emulation and how the underlying design of systems, which chips are used, makes that emulation difficult. It seems consoles at first had off-the-shelf chips that were put to a new and interesting use (NES/Master System era). As the generations went on, the chips got more specialized (XB360/PS3 era), but did not veer too far from the established general-purpose PC architectures. After all, the xbox series used
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting idea but emulation of GPUs is a significant undertaking, and games on PS4 and Xbox One go low level enough to the hardware that it won't be possible to just trap high level API calls and execute those on newer hardware. The Xbox One especially has a unique architecture with eSRAM management that will need to be handled somehow, as games use many tricks to acheive performance on that platform.
Direct hardware lineage makes more sense, but then console manufacturers are tying themselves to
Re: (Score:2)
The Xbox used virtually bog-standard Celeron CPU and NVidia GPU; the only real special thing was a unifed memory architecture. The 360 was, IIRC, three PowerPC chips and a fairly standard AMD CPU.
The PS2, on the other hand, was custom silicon; the Emotion Engine and what not, while the PS3 was Cell architecture.
The PS1 and Dreamcast were both also fairly standard components, while the N64 was SGI custom.
Consoles are absolutely migrating towards being PCs with purpose-built cases, and backwards compatibilit
Scorpio makes no sense (Score:3)
Scorpio, an upgraded Xbox One, is said to have about 3x the power of the PS4, 1.5x the power of the PS4 Pro. And 5x the power of the Xbox One, which it has to be compatible with. Scorpio software must run adequately on the Xbox One despite the huge power gap.
This is a premium system [gamespot.com] with a rumored high price tag, launching about 2 years before the expected next generation of consoles [gamezone.com] debuts.
Having to compete with the installed base of PS4 and Xbox One so late in the game, developer focus is expected to reflect this, leading to only minor updates to games such as higher resolution, framerate, and anti aliasing. Not expected are more complex models, more detailed worlds, significant shader and texture differences, increased complexity in physics models, or AI differences (especially since Scorpio gamers are expected to match with Xbox One gamers online, and the games are supposed to remain basically the same, only superficially different).
Bottom line is they expect knowledgable gamers (casuals won't care about this) to pay a high price for minor cosmetic differences not long before newer powerful machines come out that aren't resterained by compatibility with older less powerful systems. It doesn't seem like this will do much to bolster the Xbox brand, and may even make adopters upset. Probably only Microsoft's own titles will bother to put the resources behind making any significant improvements to games, especially considering how much games already cost, and how much testing will have to be done specifically for a significantly different version, and that's only 2-3 games a year?
It does not seem like Scorpio will help MS....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scorpio, an upgraded Xbox One, is said to have about 3x the power of the PS4, 1.5x the power of the PS4 Pro. And 5x the power of the Xbox One, which it has to be compatible with. Scorpio software must run adequately on the Xbox One despite the huge power gap.
It wouldn't be the first time Microsoft have gimped specs between announcement and release. When Kinect was called Project Natal it had an onboard CPU/DSP that could do motion tracking of 4 people independently, track fingers & hands, even facial expressions. Then they decided to do all the processing on the 360 instead and the thing could barely recognize a person flailing their arms in an exaggerated bowling motion.
Microsoft might take a look at the PS4 Pro and decide there is no reason to exceed it
Largest yet deployment of FreeBSD? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am quite curious if Sony is now the leading manufacturer of consumer electronics powered by FreeBSD. The only other manufacturer that I think may be in the running would be Panasonic, with FreeBSD as the basis for their televisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Hurt Themselves Early (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where they fucked up is they didn't provide a way for people to "de-register" the disc so they could sell or loan it. The obvious way to do it would be to say that whoever owns the disk can play it and other images are invalid. If you try to play from the image the console will check online to see if
Re: (Score:2)
It was a bad start... (Score:2)
Microsoft unrolled a plan that put major roadblocks up to trading or selling used games. Consumers told them to go fuck themselves. ...fast forward...
Sales are 2 to 1, in favor of the company that didn't try to pull this blatantly anti-consumerist bullshit, and rightfully so. Apparently, plenty of idiots were swayed by their last minute reversals.
No surprise. The XBone launch was a disaster. (Score:3)
The XBone launch was a disaster. They had to backpedal on just about any announcement made, having sold countless lock-ins as "features", type A Microsoft style. It's only for about a year now that people can trust the XBone to be reasonably fair to the consumer in most areas. And this is the stage of a console lifetime were those interested will go and ask around which console was better marketshare and is likely to have more people playing on- and offline. Hence even potential XBone buyers are craning their necks for the PS4s offerings.
I own the last iteration of the Xbox 360 and a stack of games, most of which would run on the XBone, and even I am reluctant of the XBone, due to the lock-in and lack of convenience in this generations consoles.
Consoles are too much of an online service extension and not really that convenient anymore these days. Pop in a disk, run a game used to be. Now it's download the update of Mafia 3 for 4 days flat until you can actually play. People who have no problem with that get a PC. XBones+Kinect "allways-on" non-sense and similar stuff was just the straw that broke the camels back, vis-a-vis the (slightly) less invasive and pretentious Sony and their PS4.
Not surprising really (Score:2)
Whether that continues when "Project Scorpio" turns up in some form remains to be seen. The PS4 Pro and PSVR didn't exactly take the world by storm so perhaps there is an opportunity for Microsoft to seize or maybe the same pit to fall into.
All I know is... (Score:2)