Originally Posted by misturanderson
There are plenty of rumors that Sony will be moving to a fee-to-play model like Xbox live gold with PS+ on the new system. There has been no confirmation or denial of this.
Why would Sony's representatives confirm they aren't doing something they've never done before?
Microsoft charging for basic features (online p2p gaming, Netflix, etc.) is something entirely unique to the Xbox ecosystem. No one else does that. Not Steam based games, not Sony, not Nintendo, not Apple on iOS or Google on Android. It is literally a concept created by and only espoused by Microsoft. So vacuous rumors aren't worth a whole lot if you ask me when no one else has followed their lead.
It also isn't clear whether they will have a similar used games model to MS (considering that it is all being pushed for by publishers as much as the console manufacturers which affects them both equally). If Sony isn't doing this and MS is, it would be interesting to see how that impacts third-party exclusives and support.
This is literally impossible for the PS4 to do.
The XB1 ties every new game you insert into the system to your user account, won't let a game play until it's been tied to a user account online, and requires 24 hour check ins to make sure everything is running correctly (read: not being circumvented).
Sony's various representatives have all said that 1. you never need to take the PS4 online if you don't want to and 2. that any retail game will play on any PS4, online or otherwise. That alone means that MS' implementation (and any real used games blocking of single player titles) is technologically impossible from an OS standpoint.
3rd parties will be required to implement their own "always online" check to force no used games on the PS4 and Sony has said they won't stop them, but it'll be up to them and not a console standard. This is a world of difference from what MS is suggesting.
I won't get into the hardware issues since I really don't fully understand all of the numbers, but from what I read the (theoretical max) 107 Gb/s from the EDRAM would be added on to the 60 or so Gb/s inherent in the DDR3, making it essentially a wash from a numbers standpoint. Sony does have a clear advantage in the GPU department.
It doesn't work like that. You can't just add two disparate bandwidths together and call it good. They share many of the same pipelines and are heading to the same source (the GPGPU). Further, one of those two is actively feeding the other, cutting down on it's available bandwidth to run straight to the GPU.
Its a heavy handed implementation used because they needed 8GB of RAM (for a 3GB OS footprint) and couldn't safely bet on GDDR5 reaching 512mb chip sizes by 2013. Since DDR3's bandwidth would massively handicap the GPU they needed an alternative approach. That was EDRAM. It still isn't as good as pure GDDR5, cost them transistors on the GPU die, and complicates the programming environment and data management for every developer.
Originally Posted by Atwater His Ass
For any serious gaming, it's PC master race only.
Nothing but casuals up in here.
Last I checked PC doesn't have:
ANY Platinum Games (such as Bayonetta)
God of War
See the problem with PC only? Too many top tier games are console only. The real master race owns everything.
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I think they said this last gen too, in theory. A lot of it rests on the development kit though, and what 3rd parties can make out of that. That's where xbox 360 shone vs ps3 even if the hardware was maybe technically inferior.
It's usually hard to tell which hardware approach is the best until developers really start to get their hands dirty.
Last generation Sony forced a convoluted architecture in an attempt to subsidize a modular CPU model with the Cell. The focus wasn't on games or making developer's lives easier.
In the end Sony's system had a far superior CPU to the X360, but a slightly inferior GPU, a larger OS footprint, and slightly less total memory (due to the X360 also using a form of embedded RAM). Developers are primarily PC based which is a GPU first base to build from, so every PS3 game had to be heavily re-optimized to push operations off to the Cell instead of the RSX, which in turn also required complex manipulation of the Cell's multiple processors.
Now they're both x86 silicon made by AMD/ATi, based on previous Radeon GCN chipsets. They both have their libraries built on Visual Studio. Sony already greatly improved their tools last generation, bridging much of the gap they had with MS at launch. This is a pretty apples to apples comparison and it doesn't take time on both kits to know that something with 50% more TFLOPs within the same architecture is going to be more powerful.