Xbox one in serious trouble!

[asdfen]

I'm a PC Technician and I don't want to waste the time finding fixes for PC games, you always run into some issue that takes you an hour of Googling to find some guy on some forum that found the fix for your issue. I spend more time actually playing games on console; I put the game in and it just works. For example, the first week Splinter Cell Blacklist was released, 90% of posts on the official forum were about the PC version not working whereas I played on PS3 with no issues.

Wow, that is weird, I have almost 200 games on Steam, and never had one game that I had to waste time finding a fix. Except one, which was Bioshock Infinite. This argument against PC really doesn't work anymore.

There's always some little thing that pops up that I know I can fix with the right tweak or edit so I end up spending the time to figure it out, it might be something that doesn't bother others (like a slight stutter) but I'll fix it. That doesn't happen on consoles. If I know I can make the game play better, I will do it. For example, it takes me at least 50 games played to set my sliders in MLB The Show to get the game playing the kind of baseball I want it to play (and compared to other sports games, it doesn't have many sliders). I just looked at the Titanfall PC forums and immediately found there's an issue with high end computers running the game at only 30 FPS. With console gaming, I spend more time gaming and having fun.

So you are kind of using your personal OCD like PC gaming habits, to downplay PC gaming in its entirety?
Nah, its all good. Fair enough. I was just pointing out, that that isn't how it is for all of us.

dude. stutering and bugs and glitches and constant patching are all present in console games of past generation and I am sure have been now transfered to current (dont even have to go far for an example have you played Theif on PS3? sound randomly cuts out during cutscenes). While consoles have been having more issues with bugs PC games on the other hand have been getting only better stability wise except for few horrid examples like Rage on release day. Also if you have a large library of games you will feel the horrid storage limitation on consoles such as not enough internal disk space and every game using up precious limited GBs with DLCs, game installs and whatever. I constantly have to micromanage HDD of both consoles where as on PC I have 6 TB of space and if I run out it takes 5 min to plug in another HDD.
Not only that PC games run silk smooth at 1080p at FPS that doesnt make me want to claw out my eyes. They also support any controller you want (like the ones with ventilators) or steering wheel not just a single joystick and a movecrap/kinectcrap. Gaming PCs are now available on the same budget as consoles. Did I also mention you can run 99% of the games ever released on modern PCs and if you dont care about legality you can play more previous generation consoles games with properly upscaled graphics than any of ps3/ps4/x1/x360 ever be able to without charging you again for the same game for 10th time. So really PC gaming has all pros and none of the cons

 

[Fonejackerjon]

Neither the PS4 or XB1 has shown me one game worth buying a new system for. Also, people said the same thing when the PS3 failed to sell much and the 360 sold loads. Its just pathetic to judge a console based on its first 6 months, there are maybe 8 years still to go. Stop acting like a PS4 fanboy, people will buy the console they want based on the games they want to play. Loyalty for a console brand is stupid, PS1 and PS2 were the greatest consoles ever and i still chose a 360 over the PS3. Both PS4 and 360 will do fine, MS just made the same mistake as Sony did with the PS3, they ripped backward compatibility from their console and it didnt hurt their overall sales much regardless of gamers moaning about it. Give it a year or so and then check the sales numbers, either way i will only chose the console with the games i like and not based on what is popular.

Hilarious. I said both consoles really are underwhelming I'm not a fan of either.

 

[Atmos Duality]

For those saying that we've hit some sort of "graphical ceiling"...

Have you even seen a movie these past few years? CGI shows how far graphics can still go, we just need to make tech that can render that stuff in real time. We clearly haven't reached the ceiling, we've barely climbed out of the fucking basement.

Well, not to burst your bubble, but pre-rendered CGI has a much higher practical ceiling than anything that requires real-time rendering (video games).

Games are too dynamic to take advantage of that grade of CGI fidelity...or at least, those without the requirement of very specialized studio hardware.

 

[Auron225]

And dont get me that crap about 'give this generation time to shine. Snes, Ps1 and PS2 all had early release games that showed that wow factor but not one single game on PS4, Xbox one or even the almighty PC has shown ANYTHING that has caused any jaws to drop.

The PS3 seemed to be doing fairly shit at the beginning of last gen when jack all was out for it, but it did pretty well in the end once decent games came out and Sony stopped making PS2 games. It happened before, it'll happen again. There are plenty of people like myself who have every intention of getting a current gen console once the price drops (so Microsoft have caught on faster to that it seems), a good selection of games come out and they work out all the technical difficulties.

Trust me, they will eventually release games that get people excited and it may not take as long as you think.

 

[Rob Robson]

Maybe the Escapists huge pro-PC community has you fooled, but console gaming is just as popular in the "hardcore" community

Possible definitions of 'hard core' games:


- Online competitive games with at least 20+ actively used keybinds that aren't movement related and the precision and timong of the execution of these are the differentiating factor between good and bad players. Incompatible with controllers.

- Highly twitch and accuracy based games. Incompatible with controllers. Though some of these games exist on consoles with a lower skill community.

- Full loot PvP online games with perma death or punishing death mechanics. None exist on consoles.

- Grey area: Roguelikes and otherwise very time consuming games that give off an illusion of 'hard core', (for example Dark Souls) though is so because of time sinks, forced repetition, unforgiving game mechanics - and not player skill - in other words, while they may fit a certain 'hard core' definition for single player games, it is not the one traditionally linked to gaming. Dark Souls can be mastered by anyone due to its indoctrinating/ repetitive nature, whilst a true hard core game can not be mastered by anyone - a minimum of reaction, precision, quickmindedness, Spatial IQ and/or ability to plan ahead is needed.



TL;DR - all hardcore competitive games exist exclusively on PC. Single player games have never been referred to as hardcore, while they can be punishing, they are not competitive. When referring to a "hard core community", an online competitive nature needs to exist.

 

[TaboriHK]

I want the Xbone to flop, and more importantly, I want it to be remembered as a failure of marketing and presumption. I hope it turns out that way, so that the industry can distance itself from having another one. I still haven't bought into the current gen systems; I bought a computer instead. This was spurred almost entirely by the Xbone. This was especially heartbreaking for me as the 360 is one of my favorite systems ever.

I don't know why they did what they did, but I want to see every one of the people involved in the Xbone out on their ass, and out of the industry entirely. I don't expect that to happen (because why would it), but honestly, even more depressing to me than how the Xbone was pitched is just how many people bought it regardless. It just sends the message that gamers will eat whatever shit you want to shovel into their mouths. I find the whole thing very depressing.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I know, that's why I said: We just need to make tech that can render it in real time. Our technology isn't there yet but that doesn't make it impossible. Remember the fools who said games weren't gonna look more realistic than Half-life? Don't they all look a little silly now?

I don't think we're quite at the processing ceiling yet, but the processing gains in the home market per year are inevitably going to slow (unless we start bulking up the volume of end user devices, which also has a limit).

Eventually, one can only make electronics so small before entropy makes actually building the chips a total gamble.
We're already working at the nano-level (approaching the atomic level) and others are starting to wonder how much smaller we can feasibly go RIGHT NOW.

The tech will be forthcoming in the near future, but I would not expect it to last another decade barring some breakthrough.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

So where do we go from here, I really don't know where gaming is gonna go do you guys? for the first time in gaming history I honestly believe we have hit the ceiling.

We aren't even close to the ceiling. For graphics, we are close but even then we still aren't there. All I need to say is hair. (Which may prove me wrong later in the generation, not exactly sure what Frostbite is capable of yet.) However, I am hoping the industry gets at least a little smarter and realizes gameplay mechanics make fans loyal while graphics only sell the game. A game with great mechanics makes people want to buy your next game. (Admit it, Obsidian is awesome ) Perhaps now that graphics are getting harder to push in our faces, perhaps now they can actually push awesome design in our face. CoD did exactly that last generation. CoD4 was hands down an awesome new take on online FPS gameplay. Goldeneye was great in its own right but CoD4 made people like me, that don't really like shooters, want to play that shooter.

I give props to Guitar Hero last gen too. It's just a shame that such a good design was squandered for a quick buck only to be left dead on the road just because it "isn't worth the money." (Activision: "Hey fans - tough shit.") Hell, I think artists today should consider selling their new albums as games. 20 bucks for the CD and 25 bucks for the game. Maybe record labels could offer that, I dunno. But seriously, I think there is a market in that idea.

The third person action genre as a whole got a nice boost from Naughty Dog, Epic, and Rocksteady coming out of nowhere. Inspiring the Tomb Raider reboot no doubt. Civ 5 helped the turn based genre as a whole I think. I love how many turn based strategy games hit the market last gen. The AAA market actually got some very unique titles like Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, Catherine, etc. Plus they all made some decent profits. I want to see Whore of the Orient get finished still. But I am pretty sure it died. I want to see what their second game was. Would be awesome if it 'leaked'.

Even if there is a ceiling and we are at it there is still a whole ocean out there. Games are probably the most flexible media out there.

some gameplay footage was leaked for whore of the orient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzlVkkAl2bA it looks AWESOME!!!!, i have always wanted to play a video game set in 1920's Shanghai.

 

[JakeNubbin]

Woah! Props to the escapist, this is WAY more optimistic than I was expecting. This gen hasn't quite started yet, it needs to warm up per se, and i think the introduction of the valve console among many of kickstarters almost-there kind of projects are going to kick this gen into gear and we can really start to see developers realize that we've hit the graphical ceiling and now its time we nail gameplay on the head for good.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I'm a PC Technician and I don't want to waste the time finding fixes for PC games, you always run into some issue that takes you an hour of Googling to find some guy on some forum that found the fix for your issue. I spend more time actually playing games on console; I put the game in and it just works. For example, the first week Splinter Cell Blacklist was released, 90% of posts on the official forum were about the PC version not working whereas I played on PS3 with no issues.

Wow, that is weird, I have almost 200 games on Steam, and never had one game that I had to waste time finding a fix. Except one, which was Bioshock Infinite. This argument against PC really doesn't work anymore.

There's always some little thing that pops up that I know I can fix with the right tweak or edit so I end up spending the time to figure it out, it might be something that doesn't bother others (like a slight stutter) but I'll fix it. That doesn't happen on consoles. If I know I can make the game play better, I will do it. For example, it takes me at least 50 games played to set my sliders in MLB The Show to get the game playing the kind of baseball I want it to play (and compared to other sports games, it doesn't have many sliders). I just looked at the Titanfall PC forums and immediately found there's an issue with high end computers running the game at only 30 FPS. With console gaming, I spend more time gaming and having fun.

the irony is that console games will always look and perform worse than the PC counterparts, so this argument kind of doesnt make sense, if you want your games to perform better, you get a PC

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

the irony is that console games will always look and perform worse than the PC counterparts, so this argument kind of doesnt make sense, if you want your games to perform better, you get a PC

I don't really care about stuff like better textures or resolution. I care about the game just running smoothly without issue, you always have some minor issue causing stuttering or something with PC games. When you get everything running right, then PC games are better but I'd rather just play with everything fine from the start.

Unless it is Skyrim PS3, bad dum tssh

I hate Bethesda games so...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

the irony is that console games will always look and perform worse than the PC counterparts, so this argument kind of doesnt make sense, if you want your games to perform better, you get a PC

I don't really care about stuff like better textures or resolution. I care about the game just running smoothly without issue, you always have some minor issue causing stuttering or something with PC games. When you get everything running right, then PC games are better but I'd rather just play with everything fine from the start.

Unless it is Skyrim PS3, bad dum tssh

I hate Bethesda games so...

technically almost all console games slutter compared to the PC version, while the average console game runs at 30 FPS, on a good PC, almost every game can run at 60 FPS or more


dont get me wrong, im not interested in turning you into a PC gamer or anything, its just that to me, your argument makes no sense, on top of that, when console games HAVE performace problems, such as bethesda games on the PS3 or dark souls in blightown, you cant do a single thing on consoles, you simply have to accept it

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

technically almost all console games slutter compared to the PC version, while the average console game runs at 30 FPS, on a good PC, almost every game can run at 60 FPS or more


dont get me wrong, im not interested in turning you into a PC gamer or anything, its just that to me, your argument makes no sense, on top of that, when console games HAVE performace problems, such as bethesda games on the PS3 or dark souls in blightown, you cant do a single thing on consoles, you simply have to accept it

Running at a lower framerate is not stuttering. Like I said earlier, I was on the Splinter Cell Blacklist forums and most PC gamers couldn't even play the game during the first week (90% of threads were PC issues) while I had no issue on PS3. Just scanning threads here at the Escapist, I see many PC gamers complain about certain publishers releasing poor PC versions/ports and they have issues playing the games. I have much less of that on PS3. It just has to do with a console being a specific set of hardware whereas the PC version has to run on so many different hardware configurations, you are just bond to have issues.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

technically almost all console games slutter compared to the PC version, while the average console game runs at 30 FPS, on a good PC, almost every game can run at 60 FPS or more


dont get me wrong, im not interested in turning you into a PC gamer or anything, its just that to me, your argument makes no sense, on top of that, when console games HAVE performace problems, such as bethesda games on the PS3 or dark souls in blightown, you cant do a single thing on consoles, you simply have to accept it

Running at a lower framerate is not stuttering. Like I said earlier, I was on the Splinter Cell Blacklist forums and most PC gamers couldn't even play the game during the first week (90% of threads were PC issues) while I had no issue on PS3. Just scanning threads here at the Escapist, I see many PC gamers complain about certain publishers releasing poor PC versions/ports and they have issues playing the games. I have much less of that on PS3. It just has to do with a console being a specific set of hardware whereas the PC version has to run on so many different hardware configurations, you are just bond to have issues.

i have over 130 games on my steam account and i can count with the fingers of a single hand how many games have given me trouble, and most of them were solved with a quick google search

i honestly cant symphatize with your situation, and regardless i think the perks of playing on PC outweight the probabilities of having problems, i guess i have a different perspective so that might be another reason of why i cant symphatize

 

[Chicago Ted]

The Xbox One is in a better position than the Xbox 360 was at it's time, and the 360 made one hell of a recovery. Also, graphics never really improve all that much at the beginning of a generation.

Compare Dead Rising, an Xbox 360 exclusive released in 2006,

Spoiler

With Resident Evil 4, a Gamecube exclusive eventually ported to the PlayStation 2 released in 2005.

Spoiler

When I saw that screenshot, I felt something was off, and with a little digging it looks like my feeling was right.

I'm sorry mate but that is not a valid picture in this case. I couldn't find the exact source that you pulled that from, but I did find a copy of it from a different site that's an identical screenshot.

Spoiler: Resident Evil 4

Original Image Posted:

Found Identical Image:

Source [http://www.dualshockers.com/2011/09/24/review-resident-evil-4-hd/]

The image you used was not the original Gamecube version release in 2005, but of the HD Remake released in 2011 for bot Xbox 360 and PS3. I had to do a bit of searching to find stuff I was certain of, but here is some screenshots of the 2005 Gamecube release.

Spoiler: Resident Evil 4 Gamecube

Source [http://www.gamershell.com/gamecube/resident_evil_4/screenshots.html?id=154155]

As someone else already pointed out as well, Resident Evil was more focused on a linear experience, while Dead Rising was far more open and focused on being able to pick up any object and smash the dozens of zombies rendered on screen with it.

 

[Something Amyss]

No they didn't add another "processor". That would of required a complete redesign of the mainboard.

Or, you know, I wasn't talking about a post-release processor. Several people have referenced them using multiple processors (not cores, before you get all condescending again without bothering with the whole claim). Pretty sure it was even referenced by Escapist news. If it's not true, it's not true. That's fine. But saying it would require a redesign is assuming I'm talking about something I'm not talking about.

Both systems use an 8 core AMD Jaguar APU (Basically means a CPU+GPU in the consoles case) There hasn't been another processor(CPU) added to the xbone. It's still the same weak hardware, but software overclocked.

Just by what you wrote it was assumed you meant another processor was added to the xbone, which isn't possible without a redesign of the system mainboard to accommodate it. Something that major would of been top headlines.

Both systems use the same hardware basically. MS went for the cheaper version of the jaguar, with cheaper DDR3, but a more expensive process of a specialized bridge to "boost" performance of the DDR3, in straight out speed, PS4's GDDR5 is a lot faster.

Thanks for the clarification. That's literally all I sought.