Xbox One - November 22, 2013

[skipwondah33]

I didn't mean you. Hell, I didn't even mean CLW. I don't consider anyone on here one of the die hard Sony supporters I was talking about. CLW might be a little one sided, but I truly believe that he's just having fun and doesn't take this stuff that seriously.

I was referring to the idiots that I read on various gaming sites who take this shit completely out of context and act like these "console wars" are the most important thing in the world.

Figured you weren't just wanted to air my still frustration to do this day about my 360 experience lol

To this day I still have my memory card (that I had to get NCAA rosters back then) and the hard drive that came with one of the systems that I still have Feeding Frenzy and this putt putt Golf game my wife and I use to love . I was throwing away some of my old electronics stuff I had laying around and found the card and the hard drive. I'd like to get another 360 just haven't yet. Did enjoy while it worked.

[I OU a Beatn]

Figured you weren't just wanted to air my still frustration to do this day about my 360 experience lol

To this day I still have my memory card (that I had to get NCAA rosters back then) and the hard drive that came with one of the systems that I still have Feeding Frenzy and this putt putt Golf game my wife and I use to love . I was throwing away some of my old electronics stuff I had laying around and found the card and the hard drive. I'd like to get another 360 just haven't yet. Did enjoy while it worked.

Yeah, I take every chance I get to vent about my consoles breaking down. I didn't have a 360 break down until last year. I had a launch console for 4 or 5 years and never had a problem. Sold it and got a slim and of course, the stupid thing breaks just a few months ago. I figured that they had been good to me, so I just got another.

The PS3, on the other hand, has been nothing but a pain in my ass (and if anyone on the planet deserves to hate Sony, it's me). Launch console broke after a year and a week. They wouldn't honor it even being so close to the 1 year. I got another one which lasted about 2 years or so before breaking. I got a slim, which also broke after a year and a week or two. Again, they wouldn't honor it. I got another slim, which ended up breaking AGAIN. Now, I'm on a super slim and while it feels like it's a flimsy piece of garbage, it's holding up just fine. Throw in the fact that my account was compromised and it took them 3 years to figure it out and finally release my account back to me and the fact that my barely one year old Vita broke a month or two ago and this generation has been nothing but a pain in the ass when it comes to Sony. Yet, here I am with my 5th(?) PS3 and my 2nd Vita. Not bad for a raging Microsoft fan boy.

Like I said, I don't think anyone here is a true Sony die hard. I know most people here prefer it, and CLW REALLY lets it shine through sometimes, but I think it's all in good fun. The comments I read around various sites on the internet, however, are genuine, and literally make me lose hope in mankind every time I read them. First of all, I don't understand why the hell they care so much (unless they have invested in Microsoft's or Sony's stock) and secondly, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if so and so prefers Sony, while the other so and so prefers Microsoft. I don't get the hate around Nintendo, either. Don't like them? Don't buy it. I guess I just don't understand the internet mentality of it.

[morsdraconis]

Most of the Xbox One games at E3 were running at a constant 60FPS while most of the PS4 games were running at 30FPS. Name one game right now that actually uses 5GB of RAM. Good luck. Like I said, it's overkill because right now, there's virtually none that use that much RAM. The difference is going to lie with the GPU. The one Sony is using is definitely more powerful, but it's not more powerful in the sense that they're going to have hugely better looking games. It would probably come right down to some games being able to run at a full 1080p with full effects on the PS4, while the Xbox One version would have be run a 900p to achieve full effects. Would anyone be able to tell the difference? I know I sure couldn't.

Talking about games running at E3 is pointless. The last thing that's EVER done is optimization to make things run faster, smoother, etc. Also, besides a few games, most everything was ran on high end PCs (aka 8+ gigs of RAM).

Clearly you don't understand how RAM works when it comes to games. RAM effects load speeds, ability to bare the weight of the frames on the screen without overflow, and, in general, how smooth of an experience you're going to have.

Pointing at any game that's also coming out for one of this generations consoles is pointless as well because, obviously, they aren't going to be programming the game to take advantage of what the extra RAM will allow.

As for games that use that much RAM, Crysis 3 (with high end recommendation of 8 gigs of RAM) would like to say hello.

[CLW]

I didn't mean you. Hell, I didn't even mean CLW. I don't consider anyone on here one of the die hard Sony supporters I was talking about. CLW might be a little one sided, but I truly believe that he's just having fun and doesn't take this stuff that seriously.

I was referring to the idiots that I read on various gaming sites who take this shit completely out of context and act like these "console wars" are the most important thing in the world.

A little one sided. CLW is always FAIR AND BALANCED!

PS4 v. XB1 is the 2nd most important/serious thing in my life (behind only Conservatives v. Commies).

[SCClassof93]

A little one sided. CLW is always FAIR AND BALANCED!

PS4 v. XB1 is the 2nd most important/serious thing in my life (behind only Conservatives v. Commies).

I figured rastahs for first

[CLW]

I figured rastahs for first

It's a God given right to pursue RASTASHS so that falls 3rd.

[I OU a Beatn]

Talking about games running at E3 is pointless. The last thing that's EVER done is optimization to make things run faster, smoother, etc. Also, besides a few games, most everything was ran on high end PCs (aka 8+ gigs of RAM).

Clearly you don't understand how RAM works when it comes to games. RAM effects load speeds, ability to bare the weight of the frames on the screen without overflow, and, in general, how smooth of an experience you're going to have.

Pointing at any game that's also coming out for one of this generations consoles is pointless as well because, obviously, they aren't going to be programming the game to take advantage of what the extra RAM will allow.

As for games that use that much RAM, Crysis 3 (with high end recommendation of 8 gigs of RAM) would like to say hello.

It's irrelevant whether it's optimized or not. If they already have the games running at 60FPS, which is their target, why would they add a bunch of effects that would knock them off that goal? A little common sense says they wont. Titanfall is one of those at 60FPS which already has a bunch of effects added in. "Hey guys, you know what would be awesome? Let's add a bunch of useless shit so that we can't hit the 60FPS goal." Yeah, I don't think that will happen. I realize it was on high end PCs, but several of those games were confirmed to be hitting 60FPS on Xbox One hardware, Titanfall and Forza being the 2 that immediately jump to mind.

How is it pointless to compare a PC game to what we'll have with next gen hardware? The lone difference is that games wont have to fight with the OS for memory and other resources. When that next gen hardware comes out, it still wont be up to snuff on the really high end PCs, so I'd say that's the perfect thing to compare it to.

As for Crysis 3, I run it at 1080p with 6GB of RAM and a nice 40FPS, so no, you don't need 8GB of RAM to run it. I haven't checked it, but I'd say it's using 4 or 5, which would put it in line with what the Xbox One would be able to do. As with all Crytek games, it sure as hell isn't as optimized as it could be, either.

I've also never heard of RAM having a vast impact on FPS. It handles things like loading the world, loading textures, and other things like that, but it doesn't have much of an impact at all with a game's FPS and how smoothly it runs.

[AustinWolv]

It's a God given right to pursue RASTASHS so that falls 3rd.

The Commies don't think you deserve any rights, so back to that 1st most important thing.

[morsdraconis]

As for Crysis 3, I run it at 1080p with 6GB of RAM and a nice 40FPS, so no, you don't need 8GB of RAM to run it. I haven't checked it, but I'd say it's using 4 or 5, which would put it in line with what the Xbox One would be able to do. As with all Crytek games, it sure as hell isn't as optimized as it could be, either.

I've also never heard of RAM having a vast impact on FPS. It handles things like loading the world, loading textures, and other things like that, but it doesn't have much of an impact at all with a game's FPS and how smoothly it runs.

You've clearly never played Minecraft with only 512mbs or 1 gig of RAM allocated. Frames drop when massive loads hit the processor instead of the RAM. Hell, Minecraft still has the occasional frame dip on the 10 gigs of RAM I have allocated to it sometimes. More RAM is a HUGE deal. Loading new items into memory means loading textures, frames, etc into the RAM so that the CPU and video card can process the movement, physics, and other changes made to the objects being loaded. Without the proper amount of RAM, you have frame hiccups as the processor attempts to loads the new items from scratch instead of pulling them from the RAM like normal. Thus, without the proper amount of RAM (or optimization in the sense of cutting down on the graphical quality in one area or another), you have less frames per second being put on the screen at a time and a chunkier looking experience.

It's amazing to me that developers were able to do what they've done on this generation of consoles with only 256mbs (PS3) or 512mbs (360) of RAM. The amount of workarounds and lack of visual depth some games had to do to keep even 30 FPS is amazing to look at (look at a video comparing GTAIV on a high end PC compared to the 360 version for instance to see the STARK differences between the two) and, sadly, most people won't even notice the things that they are doing with the new hardware because, graphically, we've hit the peak of what can be done within the human eye spectrum. This generation is going to be about the amount of things on the screen at once, since they've hit the wall with how graphically impressive they can make things look.

Also, eww to playing a FPS at only 40 fps. I feel bad for ya.

[I OU a Beatn]

You've clearly never played Minecraft with only 512mbs or 1 gig of RAM allocated. Frames drop when massive loads hit the processor instead of the RAM. Hell, Minecraft still has the occasional frame dip on the 10 gigs of RAM I have allocated to it sometimes. More RAM is a HUGE deal. Loading new items into memory means loading textures, frames, etc into the RAM so that the CPU and video card can process the movement, physics, and other changes made to the objects being loaded. Without the proper amount of RAM, you have frame hiccups as the processor attempts to loads the new items from scratch instead of pulling them from the RAM like normal. Thus, without the proper amount of RAM (or optimization in the sense of cutting down on the graphical quality in one area or another), you have less frames per second being put on the screen at a time and a chunkier looking experience.

It's amazing to me that developers were able to do what they've done on this generation of consoles with only 256mbs (PS3) or 512mbs (360) of RAM. The amount of workarounds and lack of visual depth some games had to do to keep even 30 FPS is amazing to look at (look at a video comparing GTAIV on a high end PC compared to the 360 version for instance to see the STARK differences between the two) and, sadly, most people won't even notice the things that they are doing with the new hardware because, graphically, we've hit the peak of what can be done within the human eye spectrum. This generation is going to be about the amount of things on the screen at once, since they've hit the wall with how graphically impressive they can make things look.

Also, eww to playing a FPS at only 40 fps. I feel bad for ya.

I'm not arguing any of that. I'm just saying that RAM doesn't play a huge role in frames per second (or at least, not nearly as much as the CPU and GPU do) and I believe that 5GB is more than enough when it's 100% solely used for the game and probably will be for the entirety of this upcoming generation. I've yet to find a game on PC I couldn't run at 1080p at over 30FPS with less than 5GB of RAM being used. The only reason I'm that low on FPS is because of the GPU I have, which is weaker than the ones in the PS4 and the One.

But, like I said before, it's better to have more RAM so that it's not a bottleneck like it was this generation. Like you said, it's impressive what developers were able to do with outrageously low RAM these current systems have.

[CLW]

Xbox One is an 'entirely justifiable' business expense, says Microsoft

http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/11/451...says-microsoft

[CLW]

Gamers Can't Handle the New Female Head at Xbox

http://news.yahoo.com/gamers-cant-handle-female-head-xbox-161250957.html

Allot of irrelevant arguments are getting over shadowed by one relevant argument that she isn't a gamer and has no gaming industry experience to lead XB1 into the future of gaming. Interesting....

[morsdraconis]

Gamers Can't Handle the New Female Head at Xbox

http://news.yahoo.com/gamers-cant-handle-female-head-xbox-161250957.html

Allot of irrelevant arguments are getting over shadowed by one relevant argument that she isn't a gamer and has no gaming industry experience to lead XB1 into the future of gaming. Interesting....

(shrugs)

Everyone has to start somewhere.

[I OU a Beatn]

Allot of irrelevant arguments are getting over shadowed by one relevant argument that she isn't a gamer and has no gaming industry experience to lead XB1 into the future of gaming. Interesting....

That's not even relevant. Don Mattrick was a gamer and look at all the stupid shit he did. As long as Phil Spencer and Aaron Greenburg are there, I have confidence they'll continue to have good games. If both of them ever leave, then we might have a problem.

[CLW]

So if you 180 from a 180 does that mean its the XBox360 again? Inquiring minds want to know.....

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/...x-one-policies

[I OU a Beatn]

No, the 180 they already did made it a 360 version 2.0, which is pretty much what the Xbox One is right now. If they were to go back on their policies (they wont), then it'll be the Xbox One again.

By the way, I signed that petition a few days ago. I'm fine if they leave things the way they are, but I'd love to have the option to have the family share plan, instant game swapping, and automatic installs to the hard drive. Happy to see it reached 15,000 signatures.

[CLW]

No, the 180 they already did made it a 360 version 2.0, which is pretty much what the Xbox One is right now. If they were to go back on their policies (they wont), then it'll be the Xbox One again.

By the way, I signed that petition a few days ago. I'm fine if they leave things the way they are, but I'd love to have the option to have the family share plan, instant game swapping, and automatic installs to the hard drive. Happy to see it reached 15,000 signatures.

I hope they do just so we can see Sony's youtube video response. It would be EPIC.

[Kingpin32]

They've already made a change at the whim of it's consumers. They really shouldn't do it again, even if it is to go back to their original plan.

[CLW]

They've already made a change at the whim of it's consumers. They really shouldn't do it again, even if it is to go back to their original plan.

Meh turned out o.k. for this guy:

[CLW]

Oh yeah and if you think Big Brother won't be listening/watching to you on Kinect:

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/07/11...grams-detailed