View Single Post
Old 05-22-2013, 05:31 PM   #59
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
They've come out saying the always online isn't mandatory for games, but probably will be for other features. They also put to bed the rumor that they are going to require fees for used games. It will likely need to be uninstalled from your system before you can resell it, or rather, before it can be reinstalled on another system, though.
Always online was a dodge, FYI. Your system has to connect to MS' servers every 24 hours to do ANYTHING and that includes playing games. So it's basically always online but with a very friendly time out window. Still a screw you kind of move.

Also, they have clearly said that playing games from someone else's disc will require a fee of some kind, and that the game is entirely tied to your account. The example of "if your friend wants to play your game at his house you'll have to log him into your account" was given.

They'll probably have a deactivation feature that will let you trade software in, but they're still going to charge the new purchaser on the back end. That person hasn't paid them yet and they aren't getting away for free, MS has made that much incredibly clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by misturanderson View Post
There aren't enough details about either at this point to use the bolded points as a deciding factor. Sony may be moving to an online fee model similar to xbox live gold with their PSplus.
PS+ is nothing like XBL Gold. XBL Gold is an arbitrary pay wall blocking you from basic services (like Netflix and playing p2p games online). PS+ is effectively a discount club and game equivalent to Netflix in one. There are no services locked away from a non-PS+ subscriber while nearly everything of worth on XBL is behind the Gold pay wall.

Quote:
I'm not sure what compatibility issues you're speaking of. Aside from the GPU and system RAM (which based on how MS set up the embedded RAM may also be a wash as far as performance despite Sony using GDDR 5 instead of DDR 3), the actual consoles hardware are identical.
1. Hell no EDRAM doesn't make up for Sony using GDDR5. The theoretical max if a developer perfectly times the read/write ops from DDR3 to the EDRAM along with the DDR3 pipe to the GPU is 104GB/s or thereabouts. The GDDR5 RAM Sony is using runs at 176GB/s without any kind of fine tuning or tweaking.

2. They don't have the same GPU. MS' GPU is 1.2 TFLOPs while Sony's is 1.8TFLOPs. This is because MS had to use up extra die space for the EDRAM.

3. All rumors (that were right about nearly everything else) speculate that the PS4's OS is 512MB-1GB. MS has confirmed that the OS memory allocation of the XB1 is 3GB. So from the 8GB of unified memory each has to start with Sony is leaving 7GB for developers while MS is giving them 5GB.

These are all pretty significant differences. #2 in particular since both systems are built with relatively light weight CPUs and are using more conventional PC style architectures that are GPU heavy. Sony having a 50% compute edge there is a big difference. Sony being able to feed it with significantly faster ram is a big difference. Sony likely providing more total memory to developers is another big difference.

MS played it safe on the hardware, Sony took some gambles that have now paid off quite well (GDDR5). MS is also shorting the silicon's total available budget to make sure they can put Kinect in every box, while Sony is entirely focused on the games side of the system.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote