Not So Classy

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Talk about being sensitive if this upsets you. Its harmless marketing. I've seen far more vicious marketing between mobile, car or supermarkets than comparing screen resolutions....

[soniqstylz]

*cough*

 

http://n4g.com/news/31285/microsoft-crash-ps3-launch-party-in-france-with-xbox-360-love-boat

[Martog]

Nothing unclassy about that.

Frist off it was only a tweet, not a billboard advertising campaign. 

Secondly it didn't use any false information.

Thirdly and most importantly its right, we are in 2013, no next gen console should be running most games at 720p. It doesn't matter if its only just come out. This is a time where 1080p is the most common resolution, with 1440p and higher becoming pretty common. I find it hard to believe that these are the two consoles that are to be around for the next 4-6 years. Many pc gamers have been playing at 1440p 60 fps and higher for a year+ . This is a much bigger gap than at ps3/360's release time and it ****es me off because as a PC gamer, it feels like the only thing holding back the graphics in the majority of cross platform games if the fact the were developed with consoles in mind. 

 

I'm sorry but you know what exactly goes into programming games. Especially on a brand new console that runs a custom OS (the Xbox One still runs a custom built OS for games that Microsoft won't give details on), drivers, etc, even fi the hardware at heart is x86-64 with Radeon graphics, having to program for the API's and OS does not happen over night. We also don't know what kind of dev kits they had with what kind of hardware until they got the final dev kit hardware.  Games were sure in development, but so was the hardware.  Maybe if both consoles stuffed even better graphics in them and then jacked up the price even more, they could guarantee 1080p/60 on every single game. 

 

And if you are a PC gamer, 1440p is so last year, Microsoft demonstrated 4K gaming on a triple SLI Titan setup.  I'd say that's the new thing now. Why aren't the consoles aiming for that? Oh yeah, cost.

 

Cost is a factor and they can't make the consoles too expensive, people balk at the Xbox One's price at $500, and a lot did at the PS3 60GB model being $600, let alone all the consoles in the 90's that were also very expensive that never made it anywhere but a niche system.  While a $1000 console with much better GPU's would have been nice, the sales would have also suffered greatly from such a price, due to the target market.  PC gamers don't seem to flinch badly at spending some cash, but the audience of the consoles do.

 

Microsoft could have made the Kinect 2 optional, another $150 addon, drop the X1 to $400 and bumped it's GPU and CPU and RAM to match the PS4, we'd have identical systems aside from OS and features then.  Still wouldn't fix that both have games that are not running 1080p/60.  Maybe if they stepped up to $500 both and bumped up the GPU sure. Though Sony saw how well the 360 sold at $300 and $400 price points at launch compared to the PS3's $500 and $600.

 

I also suspect neither company was keen on loosing too much on the hardware, like Sony did with the initial PS3 launch, but if they didn't include the PS2 hardware inside, would've been not as a big of blow.  That or having a brand new CPU that did not pan out exactly like they wanted and a horrible SDK to go along with it.  Though they have learned for sure this time around. :)

 

My GPU is coming up on two years old and is still more powerful than either the PS4 or X1's GPU, but hey, I also paid $500 for it at the time I got it.

 

And as far as cross platform goes, maybe developers can learn from coding PC first then down porting like they did with Assassin's Creed 4.  The PC version has a little extra fluff on top of next gen, both they developed for next gen and pc, then down ported to the older gen, which it should be PC first, but with more common hardware in them, maybe porting will be easier as they get used to the new consoles OS, API's, drivers and hardware.