# Why buying a Xbox One or PS4 at launch is stupid



## lisreal2401 (Nov 12, 2013)

So, I'm not sure if a lot of members here plan on buying one of these consoles at launch or soon after, but I wanted to make a point as to why it's probably not a good idea unless you really have nothing else to use your monies on. Now, I initially planned on making a longer post with lots of stuff to talk about, but I figured most of that was already known or just not needed to reiterate. Now, something I have noticed, was the fact that there's like nothing coming out for these consoles in terms of boxed releases for quite some time after launch, and even then, it's like not even five games. Lets looks at the upcoming releases, shall we?

December, January, February, March, April, May

Xbox 360: Fable Anniversary, Titanfall

PS3: Gran Turismo 6, BlazBlue

Both: Thief, Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Z, Lightning Returns Final Fantasy 13, Dark Souls 2, South Park Stick of Truth, Dying Light Earth Defense Force 2025, Yaiba Ninja Gaiden Z, Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes

PS4: Infamous Second Son, Planetside 2

Xbox One: Titanfall

Both: Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes, Watch Dogs, Dying Light, Thief, Wolfenstein The New Order, The Elder Scrolls Online

So, that means that the PS4 only has one exclusive coming out until May with Planetside 2 being on PC already, the Xbox One shares it's big game with the PC and with that Xbox 360, and only 5 games are multi platform across all consoles. Most of those games are only on current gen. With this said, why would anyone be in a hurry to buy a new console? Now, the chance of a lot of the multi platform games being better than the current gen ones is very likely, but at this point the games are going to be basically identical aside from better performance possibly and higher res. Which basically means unless you're really into good looking games (PC has most of these too, so...) you're buying one of these next gen consoles for the launch exclusives and one big exclusive within the first half of next year. Why would anyone want one now unless you're a really hardcore gamer?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 12, 2013)

Buying any console at launch is stupid.

'Nuff said.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 12, 2013)

Personally speaking, I don't game hardcore or AAA grade games on PC anymore. I prefer to game on console so i don't have to deal with nonsense DRM.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 13, 2013)

Here's the thing - if you _want_ to buy a games console at launch because:

You're wealthy and you can afford it
You don't care about whether or not it will have hidden flaws
You don't give a damn if some of the features will require updates
You just want to play on a Next Gen and you want to do it _right now_
...then there's absolutely no reason why you _shouldn't_but a Next Gen at launch. Not everyone's hunting for the best deal and not everyone cares about all the limitations that come with being an early adopter.

Us, mere breadeaters feel that buying the consoles later is smarter because the firmware is more ironed out and the hardware is cheaper, not to mention that there are more games available for the system... but not everyone is a mere breadeater.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Nov 13, 2013)

If no one buys them at launch developers won't make games and we will end up again in Wii U or Vita territory.

(edit: sorry for the 2 agains it was super late and I was on my phone)


----------



## sentinel5000 (Nov 13, 2013)

OP actually had to make a long post to state why its dumb to buy consoles at launch... It was as simple as saying: Its dumb cuz eventually prices will drop and new better versions will roll... simple as that.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 13, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Here's the thing - if you _want_ to buy a games console at launch because:
> 
> You're wealthy and you can afford it
> You don't care about whether or not it will have hidden flaws
> ...


 
That and a lot of people tend to not really worry too much about amount of games and such. I mean I have the WiiU. Bought it launch day. I don't regret it. I know the games are coming. But I enjoyed playing it what I have for it so far. Me and my friend always play it whenever we're drinking. I'm patient. I can wait.


----------



## FireGrey (Nov 13, 2013)

Why not buy it at launch?
Rather than buying it like a year after launch, wouldn't it make more sense to have the console for an extra year, at about the same price. (more value)


----------



## GameWinner (Nov 13, 2013)

I know what's in store for the PS4 over the next few years. Just didn't preorder since I would have no games to play on it at launch. (I'm also poor)


----------



## frogboy (Nov 13, 2013)

And what if you *want* some/most/all of those games? Would that not justify your early purchase, if indeed you had the money?


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 13, 2013)

Buying any of the 8th gen consoles with the possible exception of the Wii U at any point in time is a bad idea. The Xbox and PlayStation of this generation are so lacking in power that it's embarrassing. At least the Wii U offers an unique experience. The PS4 and Xbox One are basically just low-end PCs with a restricted OS and paid online service.

Most games on the PS4 and Xbox One still don't run at 1080p 60 FPS. Dead Rising 3 for example is only going to run at 720p 30 FPS on the Xbox One. Battlefield 4, while able to reach 60 FPS, only runs at 720p on the Xbox One and 900p on the PS4. A truly next-gen system should be able to do 1080p *and* 60 FPS without breaking a sweat. 1080p 60 FPS should be a baseline for gaming, not a novelty. And the situation is even scarier when you think about what's going to happen near the end of the consoles' lifespans, when games and game engines become more graphically demanding. Are gaming going to have to drop back to sub-720p resolutions, like many later games did this generation on the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Will Microsoft and Sony cut this generation short and force you to pay another $500 for a new console four or five years down the road?

Furthermore, all three 8th gen consoles are *not* going to be supporting the Oculus Rift, which won this year's Golden Joystick award for innovation. The same could be said for numerous other advanced gaming peripherals coming out in the next couple of years such as the Sixense STEM and the Virtuix Omni. We're at the beginning of the second wave of VR gaming, and consoles aren't going to be able to let you experience that.

To top it all off, both the PS4 and Xbox One forces gamers to pay for online services. This, plus the fact that games cost $50 to $60 full retail, means the price advantage of these consoles is almost non-existence. For the price of a PS4 or Xbox One, one year of online subscription, and a game, you could build a gaming PC which would deliver a higher quality gaming experience.

TL;DR: If you were thinking of buying a PS4 or Xbox One, don't.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Nov 13, 2013)

Admittedly, buying at launch is a silly option for most people, for the reasons stated. But, there is the excitement with having some fresh and brand new. Arguably, buying anything at launch is silly - most games, movies, etc fall in price considerably later. Depends how eager you are to play/watch.


----------



## Bobbyloujo (Nov 13, 2013)

This is relevant.

Also, there will be a very good reason to buy a PS4 or Xbone. A reason greater than all others. It is something that PCs probably will never have. It's kind of the greatest thing ever and I've been waiting about 10 years for it. Do you know what it is?



Spoiler



KINGDOM HEARTS III!!!


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Nov 13, 2013)

Another reason why buying at launch is dumb is that usually those early consoles have design flaws.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 13, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> Another reason why buying at launch is dumb is that usually those early consoles have design flaws.


 
Not all of them.

And plus, one of the benefits of getting launch consoles is that there's more of a chance of homebrew/emulation that can be done on them. And who knows, one day down the road, features might be missing from newer revisions.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 13, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Not all of them.
> 
> And plus, one of the benefits of getting launch consoles is that there's more of a chance of homebrew/emulation that can be done on them. And who knows, one day down the road, features might be missing from newer revisions.


 
Most of the systems I bought at launch had problems. Both my Xbox and my 360 overheated, my PS2 laser fried, and my Wii U doesn't play Wii Games. Seriously it's a bad idea to buy any system at launch, just let them work out all the kinks and enjoy it at it's fullest later.
Your second reason is extremely flawed considering most systems aren't hacked until like a year or more after launch.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 13, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Every system I bought at launch had problems. Both my Xbox and my 360 overheated, my PS2 laser fried, and my Wii U doesn't play Wii Games. Seriously it's a bad idea to buy any system at launch, just let them work out all the kinks and enjoy it at it's fullest later.
> Your second reason is extremely flawed considering most systems aren't hacked until like a year or more after launch.


 
Just because you have shit luck doesn't mean everybody does.

And my second reason isn't flawed at all. There could be something in the launch versions that allow for it, while newer versions don't. There's nothing flawed with that. Even if it does take a year for homebrew to happen, it doesn't mean it will happen on all consoles.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 13, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Just because you have shit luck doesn't mean everybody does.
> 
> And my second reason isn't flawed at all. There could be something in the launch versions that allow for it, while newer versions don't. There's nothing flawed with that. Even if it does take a year for homebrew to happen, it doesn't mean it will happen on all consoles.


 
The Xbox overheating was a very common problem for both Xbox and 360, the PS2 problem not so common, my Wii U not playing Wii games...yeah I am not sure how common that one is honestly. Launch problems are actually quite common and not isolated incidents.

It's flawed because it's extremely unlikely to be the case.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 13, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> The Xbox overheating was a very common problem for both Xbox and 360, the PS2 problem not so common, my Wii U not playing Wii games...yeah I am not sure how common that one is honestly. Launch problems are actually quite common and not isolated incidents.
> 
> It's flawed because it's extremely unlikely to be the case.


 
It's still a chance.

And even then, yeah launch problems are common, but they don't affect everybody. Unless it was the Xbox 360 but that was Microsoft cutting corners and getting lazy.


----------



## ToddofWar420 (Nov 13, 2013)

Anybody still remember PS3 launch? If i remember right, those earlier models are still worth more today then the new slim and super slim design with it having all those extra features. Later on down the road Sony's gonna start putting PS4 on a 'diet' and slim some of its features taking away some abilities we had at launch. I'll get the console now and maybe later get the slim for the bedroom. XBox, I won't even touch, f that pos


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Nov 13, 2013)

But how will we know if the red berries are poisonous if some one doesn't eat them first... lol


Edit:





ToddofWar420 said:


> Anybody still remember PS3 launch? If i remember right, those earlier models are still worth more today then the new slim and super slim design with it having all those extra features. Later on down the road Sony's gonna start putting PS4 on a 'diet' and slim some of its features taking away some abilities we had at launch. I'll get the console now and maybe later get the slim for the bedroom. XBox, I won't even touch, f that pos


 
The PS3 had BC and extra card readers and ports to strip away. 

The PS4 comes already pretty naked, no BC and no card readers. I guess they could nuke a couple of USB ports or something but it's already about as slim as it can get (check out the photo's of the PS4's guts. Compared to the launch PS3 there is nothing inside of it.)


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 13, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> It's still a chance.
> 
> And even then, yeah launch problems are common, but they don't affect everybody. Unless it was the Xbox 360 but that was Microsoft cutting corners and getting lazy.


 
It's still better to hold off a bit for them to fix out the kinks.
Maybe for those with the extra money to not only buy it at launch with the risks, then I guess it's worth it for them.


----------



## GameWinner (Nov 13, 2013)

ToddofWar420 said:


> Anybody still remember PS3 launch? If i remember right, those earlier models are still worth more today then the new slim and super slim design with it having all those extra features. Later on down the road Sony's gonna start putting PS4 on a 'diet' and slim some of its features taking away some abilities we had at launch. I'll get the console now and maybe later get the slim for the bedroom. XBox, I won't even touch, f that pos


I get what you're saying but Sony had to strip away a lot of features in order to move away from the $600 tag. 
I don't think the PS4 will have much removed down the line.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 13, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Buying any of the 8th gen consoles with the possible exception of the Wii U at any point in time is a bad idea. The Xbox and PlayStation of this generation are so lacking in power that it's embarrassing. At least the Wii U offers an unique experience. The PS4 and Xbox One are basically just low-end PCs with a restricted OS and paid online service.


 
X1 and PS4 have plenty of horsepower. Console doesn't need to match PC specification because hardware is fixed, allowing low level programming with much less overhead. Since PC hardware is modular, developers cannot program it specifically, instead have to rely on generic/high level implementation which yields considerably less performance. AMD recently tried to address that by rolling out MANTLE API, which is a PC only API that allows some degree of low level programming. It remains to see if MANTLE will be of any success.


Kirito-kun said:


> Most games on the PS4 and Xbox One still don't run at 1080p 60 FPS. Dead Rising 3 for example is only going to run at 720p 30 FPS on the Xbox One. Battlefield 4, while able to reach 60 FPS, only runs at 720p on the Xbox One and 900p on the PS4. A truly next-gen system should be able to do 1080p *and* 60 FPS without breaking a sweat.


 
Actually no. That would be saying Bluray needs to be on 60 fps, which is again no. Bluray actually is on 23.976 fps most of the time. If a game is properly designed to rendered at 30 fps, there will be no differences vs 60 fps.


Kirito-kun said:


> Will Microsoft and Sony cut this generation short and force you to pay another $500 for a new console four or five years down the road?


 
PC gaming is expensive too. If you want to keep brand new games running on 60 fps @ 1080p you either have to tone down graphics settings or upgrade periodically.


Kirito-kun said:


> Furthermore, all three 8th gen consoles are *not* going to be supporting the Oculus Rift, which won this year's Golden Joystick award for innovation. The same could be said for numerous other advanced gaming peripherals coming out in the next couple of years such as the Sixense STEM and the Virtuix Omni. We're at the beginning of the second wave of VR gaming, and consoles aren't going to be able to let you experience that.


 
If VR gaming gathers enough attention (too soon to tell if it will be a success), console manufacturers will do something about it. Wii sparked the movement of motion gaming, which led Sony and Microsoft to roll out Move and Kinect respectively. 


Kirito-kun said:


> To top it all off, both the PS4 and Xbox One forces gamers to pay for online services. This, plus the fact that games cost $50 to $60 full retail, means the price advantage of these consoles is almost non-existence. For the price of a PS4 or Xbox One, one year of online subscription, and a game, you could build a gaming which would deliver a higher quality gaming experience.


 
_*PC version of the same game also launched at $50 to $60, your point?*_ Sony has PS+ available, which effectively allows you to rent video games and play online for annual pricing of $50. Nothing stops you from buying later, being it brand new or used, which by then price goes down.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 13, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> *It's still better to hold off* a bit for them to fix out the kinks.
> Maybe for those with the extra money to not only buy it at launch with the risks, then I guess it's worth it for them.


 
Eh, different strokes for different folks.



trumpet-205 said:


> ---


 
Don't even try with Kirito man. Not even joking. You could be making the most sense and he'll just say "lolol pc".


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Nov 13, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Every system I bought at launch had problems. Both my Xbox and my 360 overheated, my PS2 laser fried, and my Wii U doesn't play Wii Games. Seriously it's a bad idea to buy any system at launch, just let them work out all the kinks and enjoy it at it's fullest later.
> Your second reason is extremely flawed considering most systems aren't hacked until like a year or more after launch.


 

Wow you have some pretty bad luck... The only problem I have had with a launch console (and this is going back the NES...) was I had one of those first batch of PS2's that wouldn't read either CD's or DVD's (I always forget what one it was.) Had to return it and wait a week for the store to call me back to pick up the next shipment. They exchanged it with no problems though.


----------



## Devin (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm getting one because I plan on getting one sometime in the future. Why not now? There's already 7 launch titles that I'm interested in playing. If something happens with the first batch of PS4s then I'm glad they all come with a 2 year warranty from Sony. One the Vita as well as the PS3 (Not sure about PS3.) they have it so you can extend said warranty. Which I plan on buying sometime when I get my PS4. I can play current gen games on my 360/PS3 and also play PS4 exclusives on my PS4. What's not to like?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 13, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Wow you have some pretty bad luck... The only problem I have had with a launch console (and this is going back the NES...) was I had one of those first batch of PS2's that wouldn't read either CD's or DVD's (I always forget what one it was.) Had to return it and wait a week for the store to call me back to pick up the next shipment. They exchanged it with no problems though.


 
Actually I shouldn't say every system. My GC, N64, and SNES were all bought at launch and still work perfectly to this very day.
I edited my post to reflect that.


----------



## calmwaters (Nov 13, 2013)

Kouen Hasuki said:


> If no one buys them at launch developers won't make games and we will end up again in Wii U or Vita territory again


 
You're talking about consoles; everyone buys games when they launch. Consoles, not so much. And we'd still be where we are with the Wii U/Vita: consoled and gameless. (Pun not intended, but you may infer it if you like.)


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 13, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> You're talking about consoles; everyone buys games when they launch. Consoles, not so much. And we'd still be where we are with the Wii U/Vita: consoled and gameless. (Pun not intended, but you may infer it if you like.)


That's not true anymore for either system.  It took a shameful amount of time, but there is a decent number of games for the Wii U now.  I'm very picky about what I buy, and I've got 10 Wii U retail games that I really like, and maybe 20 downloads.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 13, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> X1 and PS4 have plenty of horsepower...


 
If this is the case, why are so many games unable to hit 1080p and 60 FPS? Yes, consoles have better optimization, but when the hardware is just so underpowered, it doesn't make a difference how well optimized it is. It's just simply not powerful enough to run games at a decent graphical quality.



trumpet-205 said:


> Actually no...


 
So are you saying gaming shouldn't try to push boundaries and obtain ever greater graphical quality? PCs have been able to do 1080p since the Half-Life 2 days. Are you saying that consoles automatically shouldn't have to aim for the same standards? Last gen was the 720p gen. This gen should be 1080p.




trumpet-205 said:


> PC gaming is expensive too...


 
Steam sales. Humble Bundle. F2P games.



trumpet-205 said:


> If VR gaming gathers enough attention (too soon to tell if it will be a success), console manufacturers will do something about it. Wii sparked the movement of motion gaming, which led Sony and Microsoft to roll out Move and Kinect respectively.


 
Do you know why the developers of the Rift don't want to support consoles? It's because console hardware is too weak to deliver a high-quality VR experience. In order to have an immerse VR expirence, you need games to be running at a high resolution and a high framerate. Pixelation and low framerate break immersion severely.

This is something consoles cannot do. The consumer version of Rift is going to be fitted with a 1080p display. Driving that at 60FPS is something neither the Xbone or PS4 can do.

And what's more, Oculus VR is planning to release a 4K variant of the Rift in the near future. This is something that PCs are beginning to able to do, but something the consoles are a long ways away from being able to do. For example, the GTX 780 Ti and the Titan has both been shown to be able to drive modern games such as Crysis 3 at 4K. Sure, those cards are expensive, but cards of that caliber will come down in cost over time.

Quotation from interview with Oculus VR:

"Consoles are too limited for what we want to do," he says. "We're trying to make the best virtual reality device in the world and we want to continue to innovate and upgrade every year - continue making progress internally - and whenever we make big jumps we want to push that to the public."


"The problem with consoles in general is that once they come out they're locked to a certain spec for a long, long time. Look at the PCs that existed eight years ago. There have been so many huge advances since then. Now look at the VR hardware of today. I think the jump we're going to see in the next four or five years is going to be massive, and already VR is a very intensive thing, it requires rendering at high resolutions at over 60 frames a second in 3D."



trumpet-205 said:


> _*PC version of the same game also launched at $50 to $60, your point?*_ Sony has PS+ available, which effectively allows you to rent video games and play online for annual pricing of $50. Nothing stops you from buying later, being it brand new or used, which by then price goes down.


 
On consoles you can rent games for cheap. On PC, you can buy games for cheap. Steam sales. Humble Bundle.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 13, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> If this is the case, why are so many games unable to hit 1080p and 60 FPS? Yes, consoles have better optimization, but when the hardware is just so underpowered, it doesn't make a difference how well optimized it is. It's just simply not powerful enough to run games at a decent graphical quality.


I keep seeing people making that claim, but I've only seen two games listed as being in native 720p.  I've also read that CoD Ghosts runs smoother on the X1 than on the PS4.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 13, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I keep seeing people making that claim, but I've only seen two games listed as being in native 720p. I've also read that CoD Ghosts runs smoother on the X1 than on the PS4.


 
There's also CoD Ghosts, which runs at 720p on the Xbox One but 1080p on the PS4, although not smoothly, as you pointed out.

There's also the Xbone exclusive, Ryse: Son of Rome, which runs at 900p, 30 FPS.

What's worrying is that there are ANY current games which can't hit 1080p 60FPS. What's going to happen in the next couple of years when games and game engines become ever more graphically intensive?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 13, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> There's also CoD Ghosts, which runs at 720p on the Xbox One but 1080p on the PS4, although not smoothly, as you pointed out.
> 
> There's also the Xbone exclusive, Ryse: Son of Rome, which runs at 900p, 30 FPS.
> 
> What's worrying is that there are ANY current games which can't hit 1080p 60FPS. What's going to happen in the next couple of years when games and game engines become ever more graphically intensive?


Which is two games.

There are Wii U games that run at native 1080p @ 60fps, so I seriously doubt that the X1 won't be able to pull it off.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Nov 13, 2013)

Rayman Origins and Legends say hi to the [email protected] people.
oh and Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 and 6 too. to mention the more graphically impressive games on PS3 that run at [email protected]
with that evidence alone you can tell that most developers don't give a shit about 1080p or 60hz or is simply too expensive or time consuming develop games with that level of optimization. Gran Turismo 5 was on development before PS3 was launched and continued for 4 more years before being released on an almost complete state, they needed to release updates to completely finish the product.
meanwhile on PC MASTER RACE land you can run almost everything at full with pure brute force, let me remember you an example of a really demanding game.
back in the day when DooM 3 was released nobody could get the game to run at high setting and 60fps even with a Radeon 9800 or similar high-end card of the time, and don't make me talk about the ultra setting. with this example I'm trying to prove that most modern games are made for PC and then ported to consoles and developers don't care about what resolution or frame rate they will get while doing that, they only care about getting more money out of them and thus make it fast, easy, with low resources and on all the platforms possible.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 13, 2013)

It may seem stupid to you, but there are people that buy consoles at launch just because they can. 

And that's not only okay, that's necessary. Why? Because is no one buys the consoles,  no one will make games for them. Then if no one makes the games for them, no one will buy the consoles.  And then the cycle repeats itself over and over. 

We don't want another Vita situation.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 13, 2013)

Sakitoshi said:


> Rayman Origins and Legends say hi to the [email protected] people.
> oh and Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 and 6 too. to mention the more graphically impressive games on PS3 that run at [email protected]
> with that evidence alone you can tell that most developers don't give a shit about 1080p or 60hz or is simply too expensive or time consuming develop games with that level of optimization. Gran Turismo 5 was on development before PS3 was launched and continued for 4 more years before being released on an almost complete state, they needed to release updates to completely finish the product.
> meanwhile on PC MASTER RACE land you can run almost everything at full with pure brute force, let me remember you an example of a really demanding game.
> back in the day when DooM 3 was released nobody could get the game to run at high setting and 60fps even with a Radeon 9800 or similar high-end card of the time, and don't make me talk about the ultra setting. with this example I'm trying to prove that most modern games are made for PC and then ported to consoles and developers don't care about what resolution or frame rate they will get while doing that, they only care about getting more money out of them and thus make it fast, easy, with low resources and on all the platforms possible.


 
Those games you named aren't particularly graphically demanding. You can run CS1.6 @ 1080p on a Pentium 3, but that doesn't mean the P3 is more powerful than a Core i7.

Also, the 7800GTX can run Doom 3 at maximum settings 1080p 60FPS.



JoostinOnline said:


> Which is two games.
> 
> There are Wii U games that run at native 1080p @ 60fps, so I seriously doubt that the X1 won't be able to pull it off.


 
Nope, 4 games. You also have to add BF4 and DR3. The games that run on the Wii U are less graphically demanding games. There's no games on the Wii U that runs better than the exact same game on the other 2 consoles.


----------



## DJPlace (Nov 13, 2013)

the only system i ever bought close to a launch date was a wii feb 2007. a year later when SSBB came out the damn thing broke. then i got a different wii and started into wii hacking true story.


----------



## pwsincd (Nov 13, 2013)

come xmas day our household will have 2 ps4's ... why well our eldest is getting one from his father ( im his step dad) and ill buy my son one for xmas .. ill prolly end up buyin two lots of the same games also...  its xmas .. fuk it why not ??


----------



## EyeZ (Nov 13, 2013)

I purchased my first PS3 at launch and it's still going strong now, and yeah i have the PS4 pre-ordered and can't wait for the 29th.

The thrill of a new console and the games being released for it is my drive i guess.

If i should receive a lemon then i'll get it exchanged, but in the meantime i'm counting the days.

Also, the Sony brand means quality to me, as i've purchased a few Sony products and they've served me well.



Spoiler



I wasn't gonna make another launch console purchase after the 3DS fiasco, but the PS4 was too great a temptation


----------



## Arras (Nov 13, 2013)

EyeZ said:


> I purchased my first PS3 at launch and it's still going strong now, and yeah i have the PS4 pre-ordered and can't wait for the 29th.
> 
> The thrill of a new console and the games being released for it is my drive i guess.
> 
> ...


Me and my 4 YLOD'd PS3s will probably decide to wait until a PS4 slim appears. Not to mention I don't even have an HD TV so I can't use either the X1 OR the PS4.


----------



## EyeZ (Nov 13, 2013)

Arras said:


> Me and my 4 YLOD'd PS3s will probably decide to wait until a PS4 slim appears. Not to mention I don't even have an HD TV so I can't use either the X1 OR the PS4.


 
4 YLOD's? wow you have been unlucky, like i said, my launch PS3 is still going strong.

EDIT: typo


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 13, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> tl


When I said PC gaming is expensive, I mean hardware itself is expensive. You kept saying that console game and console itself are expensive, but you are forgetting that PC game and PC hardware are just as expensive as the console, if not more. Games are not about 1080p @ 60 Hz. I played plenty games on lower fps and/or 720p on console and I can guarantee they look just as good on PC counterpart. Console version runs even smoother than PC version and I as a gamer do not have to deal with DRM such as Uplay, GFWL, etc.

Games are NOT about making graphics/paper looks good, but entertaining. 

Technically speaking X360 and PS3 can last for couple more year or so. Sony and Microsoft needed to roll out X1 and PS4 because Nintendo rolled out Wii U. Unlike Wii neither X360 and PS3 have shown its age yet.

Developers of Rift didn't say they don't want to support console, they say it is not their number 1 priority.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Nov 13, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Also, the 7800GTX can run Doom 3 at maximum settings 1080p 60FPS.


 
GeForce 7000 series came 1 year later than DooM 3. I'm talking about the date when DooM 3 came out, and you know that a year is a lot of time on technology, do you??


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 13, 2013)

Sakitoshi said:


> GeForce 7000 series came 1 year later than DooM 3. I'm talking about the date when DooM 3 came out, and you know that a year is a lot of time on technology, do you??


 
Fine, the GeForce 6800 Ultra then. It'll run Doom 3 at maximum settings 1080p 60 FPS as long as you set anti-aliasing to 4x or lower, which is good enough. If you overclock the card, you could probably squeeze in 8x AA.



trumpet-205 said:


> Developers of Rift didn't say they don't want to support console, they say it is not their number 1 priority.


 
http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...r-too-limited-for-what-we-re-planning-1198420

They've changed their stance. If you take a close look at the article, you'd see what they're implying. Read between the lines. Pretty much, there's a very high chance that the Oculus Rift is not coming to consoles.

Honestly, do you think that after the 4K variant of the Rift comes out in a couple years that consoles will actually be able to drive it properly. Remember that the Oculus Rift will cause headaches unless it's running at a perfect 60 FPS. Even the first-gen 1080p consumer version will struggle to obtain 60FPS when ran using a console.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 13, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> When I said PC gaming is expensive, I mean hardware itself is expensive. You kept saying that console game and console itself are expensive, but you are forgetting that PC game and PC hardware are just as expensive as the console, if not more. Games are not about 1080p @ 60 Hz. I played plenty games on lower fps and/or 720p on console and I can guarantee they look just as good on PC counterpart. Console version runs even smoother than PC version and I as a gamer do not have to deal with DRM such as Uplay, GFWL, etc.
> 
> Games are NOT about making graphics/paper looks good, but entertaining.
> 
> ...


 

I couldn't agree more, games should be enjoyed, not to make us lose sleep over if they're not 1920 x 1080 at 60 fps with FXAA, FSAA and trilinear mipmap interpolation, etc. I like multiplats on consoles for the same reasons, no DRM bullshit to have to deal with.  As nice as PC gaming is, console gaming is so much easier to set up and pay for.


----------



## Maxternal (Nov 13, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I couldn't agree more, games should be *enjoyed*, not to make us lose sleep over if they're not 1920 x 1080 at 60 fps with FXAA, FSAA and trilinear mipmap interpolation, etc.


I, personally, agree with you here but there are SOME people who find that high resolution and frame rate as a big part of the enjoyment.
It's all personal preference.
For instance, I play music out of my standard set of PC speakers and enjoy it just fine. They don't suck THAT bad and I feel NO need to get myself some huge speakers/sub-woofers/tweeters on a surround system to get that pristine sound quality that I probably wouldn't pay attention to, myself. To each his own.


----------



## p1ngpong (Nov 13, 2013)

When I found out that COD Ghosts doesn't run at 1080p 60FPS and also lacked Oculus Rift support on the upcoming PS4 and X1 I literally vomited all over myself and cut my wrists in despair. 

Anyway I am off now to masturbate onto my PC's graphics card while Kirito-kun watches in 1080p 60FPS VR.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 14, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> Fine, the GeForce 6800 Ultra then. It'll run Doom 3 at maximum settings 1080p 60 FPS as long as you set anti-aliasing to 4x or lower, which is good enough. If you overclock the card, you could probably squeeze in 8x AA.


 
Wrong. Doom3 needs 512 MB of VRAM to achieve maximum settings, and this is before AA. 6800 Ultra only comes with 256 MB of VRAM. 6800 XT has 512 MB of VRAM but uses much slower GDDR2. Here is an old benchmark on Doom3 running on high (not maximum),


Spoiler











First of, 1600 x 1200 has less pixel counts than 1920 x 1080. You can see that even on 6800 Ultra Doom3 is struggling to reach 60 fps. Take into the account that this is NOT maximum settings and no AA, your claim that 6800 Ultra will run 1080p @ 60 fps with 4x AA is incorrect


Kirito-kun said:


> Honestly, do you think that after the 4K variant of the Rift comes out in a couple years that consoles will actually be able to drive it properly.


 
Let's be honest here, 1080p did not reach widespread adoption until what, 2011? Even today OTA still uses 720p/1080i to broadcast TV channels. HD started around 2003 i believe.

Now look at 4K. Right now TV and AVR that advertise 4K supports can only do 2160p @ 23.976 fps. HDMI 2.0 allows 60 fps on 4K but it'll take another year for TV and AVR to start picking up HDMI 2.0. That's not even 3D, 3D is only doable on 2160p @ 29.97 fps with HDMI 2.0. Now add another 5 to 6 years on top of that (estimated widespread adoption). By then we are talking so distant future that anything could happen.

Back to OP. Not buying launch console because it is lacking in launch titles, expensive, potential hardware malfunction, etc are all valid reasoning.

Not buying launch console, or avoid them period, because it is perceived to be weak and/or no VR support, are nothing but terrible and flawed reasoning.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 14, 2013)

Hmm... nothing this generation amuses me or raises the slightest interest.  Never cared about the hardware, I couldn't give a shit about hardware.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Nov 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Buying any console at launch is stupid.
> 
> 'Nuff said.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

"Hey guys my $1000+ gaming PC runs better than your $400 console! Eat that console peasants!"

pls go home


----------



## Veho (Nov 14, 2013)

> Why buying a Xbox One or PS4 at launch is stupid


Because nogaems, high price and launch model bugs like overheating and _fire_. 



Guild McCommunist said:


> "Hey guys my $1000+ gaming PC runs better than your $400 console! Eat that console peasants!"
> pls go home


A $100 graphics card will turn the PC _I already own for non-gaming purposes_ into a gaming rig on par with any console you own. I would beg you not to cry but your tears sustain me   ;O;  

Let's just stop the dick waving contest and get back to the topic, mkay?


----------



## Sicklyboy (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm not buying any of them at launch because I don't make big bank from my peasant job/slave labor.  I will say, however, that I've played a few demos on the demo kiosk PS4 that got installed at work, and I am really quite impressed by it, and I usually steer away from Sony consoles just out of brand loyalty to Microsoft and Nintendo instead.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Nov 14, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> Wrong. Doom3 needs 512 MB of VRAM to achieve maximum settings, and this is before AA. 6800 Ultra only comes with 256 MB of VRAM. 6800 XT has 512 MB of VRAM but uses much slower GDDR2. Here is an old benchmark on Doom3 running on high (not maximum),
> 
> First of, 1600 x 1200 has less pixel counts than 1920 x 1080. You can see that even on 6800 Ultra Doom3 is struggling to reach 60 fps. Take into the account that this is NOT maximum settings and no AA, your claim that 6800 Ultra will run 1080p @ 60 fps with 4x AA is incorrect
> 
> ...


 
The GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme.






As you can see, even with AA and ultra settings, it is still possible to obtain over 40 FPS in Doom 3 with a GPU released at the time. You also have to take into account the fact that most gamers overclock their cards, so in practicality, you could obtain 50 FPS. If you put two normal 6800 Ultras in SLI, that would allow you to obtain a perfect 60 FPS.

Firstly, you're right that 4K TVs aren't going to be adopted anytime soon. But 4K monitors will be adopted much sooner. 4K 60 Hz monitors already exist such as the ASUS PQ321Q. Sure, it's expensive, but all things come down in price eventually. HDMI? You don't have to wait for HDMI 2.0. There's already something that exists called DisplayPort, which can drive 4K at 60 FPS. And DisplayPort is already widespread on PC graphics cards and high-end monitors. You're going to need a high-end system to drive 4K, but 4K is already very possible in PC gaming. You're going to need a GTX 780 Ti or two GTX 770 in SLI to drive modern games at such a resolution, but it is very possible.

And BTW, 1080p monitors were relatively common since 2008, not 2007.


----------



## mario5555 (Nov 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Here's the thing - if you _want_ to buy a games console at launch because:
> 
> *You don't care about whether or not it will have hidden flaws*
> Us, mere breadeaters feel that buying the consoles later is smarter because the firmware is more ironed out and the hardware is cheaper, not to mention that there are more games available for the system... but not everyone is a mere breadeater.


 
This x 1000.

I got a launch 60GB PS3, and it worked fine for about 5 years then overheated and died one day.  Two refurbs later, I used the third system for a time, but knew it wasn't going to last and upgraded to a slim and now the other one stays in its box collecting dust.  Which is a shame since it is a BC system with all of those awesome memory card ports, USB slots and other bells and whistles those launch systems had it cost $600 and came with that amount of tech in it.

But yeah, I won't be Sony or MS guinea pig anymore even at $400/500 that's still too much for me to early adopt, I got my PS2, about two months after launch and it still works like a champ.  But seriously, the more complex this tech is getting, the more issues they will have, and until these design flaws get stress tested and fixed through revisions I'm more than happy to wait to get the newer system.   And like was already said, I want at least a dozen games before putting my hard earned money down for something new.


----------



## orcid (Nov 14, 2013)

Which console gamer needs 4K. In a normal living room setup it is even very hard to spot any difference between 720 and 1080. The ideal distant for a 86'' 4K Tv is 1,5m. Come on. This is crazy.
Of course the resolution is important for a PC gamer because he is sitting 30 cm in front of the screen but it is not so important for all the people who like playing console games on their couch (unless they have tiny rooms with extraordinary big TVs).


----------



## elmoemo (Nov 14, 2013)

my launch xbox and ps3 (within 6 months of launch) both had their respective overheating light of death so will be holding off for new revisions personally


----------



## filfat (Nov 14, 2013)

When iv saw the title this was what did fall into my mind: "Yes, we got Wii U. we dont need Xbone or PS4" XD


----------



## kristianity77 (Nov 14, 2013)

What I find funny with Kirito-Kuns comments on PS4 and Xbox Ones games looking a tiny bit subpar is that this is the way of consoles, every single generation without fail. Suggesting that because the launch games dont hit the heights of 1080p @60fps that the hardware is "low end" PC shows an astounding lack of knowledge on their part.

Take the 360 for example. Lets look at their launch games. Call Of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo, King Kong, Tiger Woods 06 or FIFA06 are some that spring to mind. Granted most were decent games but you go back and look at them now and they look like dross. Fast forward to games from 2010 onwards and you have titles like Tomb Raider, Gears Of War 3, Mass Effect 3, Halo 4 (there are dozens of titles to choose from) that to the unknowing eye might look like they belong to a different generation than that of 2005 releases.

What Im saying is, is that first releases on a new console on a whole, look like just smaller upgrades to the late tier titles from the previous generation (because quite often, new console releases probably use alot of last gen code to begin with to speed up the development process, Id say COD Ghosts and perhaps Battlefield are cases in question this upcoming gen.) But things improve over the years as devs manage to learn more and more things, and tap more into the hardware.

We might not get full 1080p gaming at 60fps but to be honest, who cares? It didnt stop me loving every minute of games like The Last Of Us, The Uncharted Series, Tomb Raider etc. All of which are 720p and dont always even hold 30fps.

We are not all sitting 30 cms from the screen and the majority of us certainly dont cry when we see a pixel out of place or a jagged line etc. We play games because....they are meant to be played and they are a source of fun.

If a release comes out and its only "900p" or whatever it is, its certainly not going to make me not buy it. And if people do scoff at a game because of something like that, then in my eyes, you need to find another hobby, or perhaps go outside where the resolution out there is fantastic!


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 14, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> The Xbox overheating was a very common problem for both Xbox and 360


 
Original Xbox overheating?
Hardly, unless you got a very dusty console.
The original Xbox wasn't so much prone to overheating (if all, the laster versions should be more prone to overheating since they never changed the cooling design in it ;p


In all honesty, without early adopters, developers and manufacturers will get nowhere.
Buying a console at launch isn't stupid, it's what the end user wants.

If I had the money for a Xbone then I'd get an Xbone at launch.
Can't care much if there aren't enough games that interest me for it but I still got me 360 to play on.



kristianity77 said:


> *snip*


 
I completely agree with you.
To be honest, I love older games with "horrible graphics" and low res far more then the newer games.
Granted they look good and are amazing to play but in the end, it's still a game, meant to be enjoyed.

And that's where you can separate the graphixz kiddies from the real gamers.
But hey, it's the Internet, where people bitch and argue about everything.
Even things as simple as toothbrushes.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 14, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Original Xbox overheating?
> Hardly, unless you got a very dusty console.
> The original Xbox wasn't so much prone to overheating (if all, the laster versions should be more prone to overheating since they never changed the cooling design in it ;p
> 
> ...


 
Mine most likely had damaged fans or something because it was brand new and mine wasn't the only one that had that problem. Everyone I knew who got their xbox at the same time had problems with it. 
Now of course I wish I still had the system because back then I didn't bother opening it up and just returned it for a new one.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 14, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Mine most likely had damaged fans or something because it was brand new and mine wasn't the only one that had that problem. Everyone I knew who got their xbox at the same time had problems with it.
> Now of course I wish I still had the system because back then I didn't bother opening it up and just returned it for a new one.


 
Odd, I hardly heard of overheating problems nor was it as bad as the 360 tho.
Overall the old Xbox stays relatively cool (50ish C does UnleashX display on mine)

It could be a production error.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 14, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Odd, I hardly heard of overheating problems nor was it as bad as the 360 tho.
> Overall the old Xbox stays relatively cool (50ish C does UnleashX display on mine)
> 
> It could be a production error.


 
I actually have a harder time finding someone who didn't have overheating problems with the 360 at launch and I even traveled half way across the country to hear people talking about the same problem for the launch version of the 360.
The Xbox original heating problem seemed to be isolated, but at that time I did see threads on other sites about people talking about their xbox overheating. Quite possibly the EU version was repaired before the release. I mean the US version was released on November 15, 2001, the EU version was released on March 14, 2002 (source). For the 360, November 22, 2005 US and December 2, 2005 EU (source). So the Xbox had several months to fix any problems, but not so much for the 360, which even the 360 article mentions the overheating problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Technical_problems
So it wasn't so isolated with the 360.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 14, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I actually have a harder time finding someone who didn't have overheating problems with the 360 at launch and I even traveled half way across the country to hear people talking about the same problem for the launch version of the 360.
> The Xbox original heating problem seemed to be isolated, but at that time I did see threads on other sites about people talking about their xbox overheating. Quite possibly the EU version was repaired before the release. I mean the US version was released on November 15, 2001, the EU version was released on March 14, 2002 (source). For the 360, November 22, 2005 US and December 2, 2005 EU (source). So the Xbox had several months to fix any problems, but not so much for the 360, which even the 360 article mentions the overheating problem
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Technical_problems
> So it wasn't so isolated with the 360.


 

Interesting.
I'd deffo say that it's a production error then.
But then again, November 2001 to March 2002 is 4 months.
MS's stresskits would've had overheating issues before they would make a change in manufacturing.
It normally takes a couple of months before changes in production will become permanent.
That as well as the Xboxes already ready to be shipped to Europe would've been called back then.

Yeh the 360 overheating is no news to me xd
All Xenons/Zephyrs will overheat no matter what.
Falcons, well if you keep them properly maintained they'll last a long time.
Jaspers, pretty RRoD proof.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 14, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Interesting.
> I'd deffo say that it's a production error then.
> But then again, November 2001 to March 2002 is 4 months.
> MS's stresskits would've had overheating issues before they would make a change in manufacturing.
> ...


 
I wish I could dig up something on it, but all I can find is 360 overheating. So most likely they were just production errors like you said.
As I said, I didn't open my system at the time, so really anything could have been wrong with it and I just didn't check. Even if I did, I would have most likely not known what I was looking for.

Makes me kinda wish I could repeat the events to do some testing, but the Xbox I own now is from a later production and I haven't had a single problem with it.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 14, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> tl


 
Which backs up my point. Sure you can put the card in SLI but you spend 2x the money which turns out to be more expensive than console. Most gamers will overclock? Nope, PC enthusiast (those who will buy something expensive like 6800 Ultra/Extreme) only accounts about 5 to 10% of PC market share and those who will overclock is even smaller within. Everything you said comes back to bite you Kirito-kun, PC gaming is expensive. It is not going to be cheaper than buying a console.

And 4K monitor? Again you need CF & SLI at this point, which again is uber expensive. PC gaming may get you better graphics, but extra money you spent on it combine with the need of dealing DRM such as GFWL or SecuROM. Yeah, put it simply, PC gaming has a very high upkeep cost. Console on the otherhand is cheaper and simpler. You like pretty graphics Kirito-kun? That's fine, just don't assume most gamers share your vision because we don't. Like the_randomize have said, most gamers aren't going to lose sleep over the fact that some console games can't do 60 fps, 1080p, VR gaming, etc.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 14, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I wish I could dig up something on it, but all I can find is 360 overheating. So most likely they were just production errors like you said.
> As I said, I didn't open my system at the time, so really anything could have been wrong with it and I just didn't check. Even if I did, I would have most likely not known what I was looking for.
> 
> Makes me kinda wish I could repeat the events to do some testing, but the Xbox I own now is from a later production and I haven't had a single problem with it.


 
I do recall the original Xbox (1.0) having a GPU fan.
Maybe that could be the issue ;]


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 15, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> The Xbox overheating was a very common problem for both Xbox and 360, the PS2 problem not so common



The original Xbox didn't overheat, not saying no system ever overheated, but it wasn't a common issue. On early PS2's DRE was a major epidemic, only after the mass RROD on 360 did it seem small in comparison.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 15, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> The original Xbox didn't overheat, not saying no system ever overheated, but it wasn't a common issue. On early PS2's DRE was a major epidemic, only after the mass RROD on 360 did it seem small in comparison.


 
I must have just been an isolated problem with a few release batches


----------



## GameWinner (Nov 15, 2013)

My original Xbox had overheating problems. Really annoying since I had to wait like 2 hours before playing again.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> I completely agree with you.
> To be honest, I love older games with "horrible graphics" and low res far more then the newer games.
> Granted they look good and are amazing to play but in the end, it's still a game, meant to be enjoyed.
> 
> ...


 

>implying "graphixz kiddies" are a real thing and not a strawman argument created by video game hipsters.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

_"Overheating"_ XBox'es were a frequent problem, pretty much a contemporary RROD if not worse. Over 14 million power cords were recalled by Microsoft in 2005 and it didn't fix the problems which were rooted in the PSU, not the cords. According to Microsoft, 1 in 10 000 of the early systems was _a fire hazard_ if this new cord was not used, the difference being that the cord had a trip which fried the console in an event of an excessive electrical discharge from the PSU, which was more favorable than burning the house down, because that happened a couple of times.

Of course this is a completely different kind of _"overheating"_, but it still counts in my book.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Nov 17, 2013)




----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 17, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> _*Ehhh...*_


 
Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me. With attitudes like this, no wonder there's no developer interest in new platforms - why would the developers be interested in something the users aren't?


----------



## TwilightWarrior (Nov 17, 2013)

My ps4's shipping on decemeber 16th  so long but before christmas


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 21, 2013)

If you have the money and are into the homebrew scene, first edition consoles kept on lower firmware are a bit of a requirement. It's a bit of a risk if you wait, dontcha know. Though it's not a very strong reason, it is one.


----------



## codezer0 (Nov 22, 2013)

The _only_ reason for me to even consider a PS4 now, is because I know for a fact that Sony _*will*_ find a way to neuter it in a revised model.

Comparatively, a revised model of an Xbox usually isn't _losing_ any functionality. I would also say Nintendo, but... I'd been proven wrong there. At the least, Nintendo waits for a while before they start cutting stuff out.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 24, 2013)

Hey guys...did you watch the news? Apparently, there are millions of stupid people out there. 

...

Hmm...okay, I admit: when saying it like that, it doesn't sound like news*. But I'm bringing it up nonetheless as it's relevant to this thread. 


*I'd make a reference to Americans, but I don't think I've got the right audience for such a joke.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 25, 2013)

codezer0 said:


> The _only_ reason for me to even consider a PS4 now, is because I know for a fact that Sony _*will*_ find a way to neuter it in a revised model.


 
>Implying PS3 Slim was "neutered" because it cut expensive backwards compatibility for a much cheaper price.

nice try.


----------



## Veho (Nov 25, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> >Implying PS3 Slim was "neutered" because it cut expensive backwards compatibility for a much cheaper price.
> 
> nice try.


>removed functions/features 
>not neutered 

Stellar logic there, brosef.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 25, 2013)

Veho said:


> >removed functions/features
> >not neutered
> 
> Stellar logic there, brosef.


 
I call it a trade not neutered.


----------



## Sarvesh50 (Nov 25, 2013)

im going to wait i want a ps4.
First i want better games second most of the bugs will be killed when i purchase one.
Also im really looking forward to another ps4 bundle the one with shadow fall isn't the one i am looking for.
Also i'm kinda hoping for a GTA V on the ps4 it would be great to play GTA Online on the ps4


----------



## codezer0 (Nov 25, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> >Implying PS3 Slim was "neutered" because it cut expensive backwards compatibility for a much cheaper price.
> 
> nice try.


And yet you're implying:

That it still costs Sony the same to manufacture the PS2 chips now as it did back in 1999
Manufacturing process advancements _couldn't_ have been used to cut the cost of making said chips in the first place, like Sony did by melding the EE+GS chips together for the PStwo slim
Removing half the USB ports on the neutered phat & slim motherboards at the volume that they buy them at actually saved them any significant measure of money
Sony actually would pass the cost savings to the consumer... as you clearly forgot that Sony was still selling the first neutered models at $400 when they were telling their stockholders how they managed to get it down to about $270/console
There was any technical reason to actually remove support for OtherOS, when fail0verflow proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't
The move _wasn't_ to force people to re-buy the same games in half-assed "HD collections" (_God of War collection_, as a prime example) at an inflated price compared to simply playing the original PS2 discs on a properly equipped console
Sony has always _neutered their consoles_ in a visually revised model, *without exception*.


PlayStation 1
One of the chief causes of failures with the original Playstation was in part due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them had the CD-ROM drive sitting literally on top of the main processing chips in the console... generating heat on of another heat-making source
An internal revision found moving it over helped mitigate this significantly, along with simply not making the CD-ROM drive so bargain-basement cheap
A simple way to have solved this was to simply provide better venting for the original gray-box chassis, if not perhaps some active cooling
The PSOne chose to exacerbate the thermal problem by removing _all_ venting whatsoever
Revised models of the gray-box chassis removed industry-standard A/V out jacks in favor of the A/V multi-out port that has survived through to the PS3, breaking compatibility with higher-profile third-party accessories like the Namco Guncon
Removed Parallel I/O port that made "killer app" accessories like the Gameshark Pro and V-MEM possible
Granted, it wasn't supported in very many games, but (I could be wrong on this one) removing the serial I/O port needed for the Link cable for LAN play

PlayStation2
Again the original model PS2's had really lousy/weak optical drives... bad enough to warrant not one, but _two_ class-action lawsuits by disgruntled users and players, some of which with electronic experience to find out that it would degrade faster when using it as a DVD player... ironically, one of the very killer features Sony would endlessly market and harp about with the console, considering it was the cheapest DVD player at the time of release
Let's not forget the artificial memory card famine that drove prices for individual Sony PS2 memory cards to ridiculous levels (I still remember when I saw an individual 8MB card for $100 on ebay!)
The original PS2 design had a dedicated chip for handling not only the I/O for USB and firewire, but it wasn't just some ordinary chip... it was the same MIPS chip that was the primary CPU in the PS1, complete with its own set of RAM.
This allowed for very complete backward compatibility, since the boot-loader would then do a trick where it would fork over CPU control to the chip when a PS1 game was inserted, using the system's GS chip for graphics handling, since it super-ceded and retained everything the original console's graphics chip was capable of doing.
Save for certain cheat discs that had to be revised, BC on phat PS2's was damned near full proof
This design also meant that if developers _knew_ they weren't going to be using the USB or firewire ports with their game on a PS2, they could then do some trickery with the SDK that would turn that chip and associated RAM into an additional co-processor, and shunt off instructions to it that didn't need the full speed of the EE & GS chips

Sony finally gives us official hard drive support, but blunders it intentionally by shoving it in with _Final Fantasy XI_, and supporting it for all of two months before pulling the plug on availability...
... and giving us the shlock-fest that is the PStwo slim
Which promptly removed HDD compatibility in such a hap-hazard manner, that it would take the installtion of an at-the-time $140 modchip plus significant soldering and case-modding to restore functionality
Of which launching models were plagued with _Random Laser Fry_ syndrome, since Sony put VRMs on the drive laser that were rated for three times what the laser emitter itself could tolerate. This was fixed quickly with internal revisions, but it was still a stupid decision to make in the first place
Remember that MIPS chip? Gone. So how does the slim handle PS1 compatibility? In software emulation
Problem was, at its original clock speed, the EE was really slow at emulating PS1 games properly...
... So, Sony overclocked it, along with melding the EE and GS together in the same physical chip, APU-style
Remember the support for the I/O ports? Yea, this same combo chip is now tasked with handling that too

Problem with this is that any PS1 games that were 'coded to the metal' and really tasked the original MIPS chip strongly or used a lot of advanced features in the original PS1 SDK would either cause glitches or not work at all on the PStwo slim.
... Along with a lot of high-profile and technically demanding PS2 games. Or did you casually forget how the launch PStwo slim came out in time for GTA: SA, and people realized San Andreas was incompatible with this very same model? I don't know about you, but it certainly seemed like Sony set that up to troll us on purpose.
Some of that might have been fixed over the dozen-or-so internal revisions since; however, I don't exactly trust Sony to have actually bothered to fix them all, even though they damn well should have

Not to mention the ultra-cheaply made Dualshock2 controllers post-PStwo slim that used _cardboard_ instead of *metal* for the rumble motors

Then we have the PS3
Well, suffice to say, full-BC models actually got games fixed earlier and better than the _limited edition_ soft-BC models, since at launch, the systems were actually glitched or incompatible with about 200 high-profile PS2 titles, not counting the PS1 games that weren't working correctly
I still say that especially after firmware 2.40, PS1 and PS2 games played on the PS3 looked much better than they did when played on the PS2, _even when using the same Component Cables *to the same TV!*_
To date, there aren't that many PS2 games left that _couldn't run_ on a BC PS3
Then Sony released the first neutered PS3
No BC whatsoever
Half the USB ports
No Memory card slots _which I do use as a matter of fact_
Yet _still_ $400 for a half-assed console

Then came the first Slim PS3, which lost OtherOS support altogether, having those that used it (like me) naturally concerned. And despite promises to retain its functionality for those that bought a system with it, Sony *lied again* and retroactively removed it in a forced system update

... And you should know how the story goes from there.

Honestly, it stuns me how many people that have been gaming that long seem to so quickly forget all these things.  Or maliciously choose to ignore/forget them.


----------



## codezer0 (Nov 25, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I call it a trade not neutered.


I'd be less offended if the feature-complete models were still available for purchase. But Sony removed that option pretty damn quick after the release of the first neutered PS3's.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 25, 2013)

codezer0 said:


> tl.


Your logic is quite flawed. First of all technological advancement can only drive price down when there is sufficient demands. Lack of demands = much higher average production cost. When PS3 was rolled out PS2 was already seeing declining sales. It keeps declining over the years. Production cost of PS2 EE+GS chip only keeps increasing in following years. It doesn't matter if both chips are now in one package, if Sony starts to order less chips then Sony will be charged more per chip. One of the biggest complain during PS3 launch is the price. For Sony, it is all about bringing the price down, not up.

Sony lost about $300 per PS3 FAT launch model, closed to break even on early batch of Slim.

Also despite very early PS3 FAT has almost full PS2 hardware, it exhibits a noticeable 2 frames lag. I remember back then trying to play Taiko on PS3, have a very hard time doing so. You can eliminate the lag by playing it under 480i/480p, but at that point might as well stick to PS2.

Sony removed OtherOS for two reason, exploit that allowed hackers to extract root key, and hindering the sales of Blade Server (due to the fact that OtherOS turned PS3 into a much cheaper alternative).


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 25, 2013)

Plenty of PS2 games can be played on CFW'd PS3 slims even though they took out the "expensive backwards compatibility" chips. They neutered the system in order to sell more PSN versions of PS2 games.




Foxi4 said:


> _"Overheating"_ XBox'es were a frequent problem, pretty much a contemporary RROD if not worse. Over 14 million power cords were recalled by Microsoft in 2005 and it didn't fix the problems which were rooted in the PSU, not the cords. According to Microsoft, 1 in 10 000 of the early systems was _a fire hazard_ if this new cord was not used, the difference being that the cord had a trip which fried the console in an event of an excessive electrical discharge from the PSU, which was more favorable than burning the house down, because that happened a couple of times.
> 
> Of course this is a completely different kind of _"overheating"_, but it still counts in my book.



The fire hazard wasn't caused by the system overheating, it was because there was a flaw in the design of the ac port (not the PSU itself) that could under extreme circumstances cause a short if you inserted and removed the power cord too many times or with too much force. 

It only affected a small number of systems manufactured in a certain plant at a certain time, but they sent out new cords to anyone regardless of whether they needed it or not (assuming the system had been registered or you contacted MS for the cord) as a cover your ass thing.

The new cord just stuck a GFI on the end to cut power if there was a short (btw, the replacement cord they sent me worked for about a year than just went tits up, so I went back to using the original cord, still using it today). 

The new cords didn't "fix the problem" only in that the system would still be dead, but it did prevent the whole "could start a fire" thing. Same way the similar cord on your hair dryer won't save the dryer if you drop it into a filled bathtub, but it will save you from getting electrocuted if you were in the tub.


----------



## Apex (Nov 25, 2013)

Show me games I want, or I'll hold off indefinitely.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Nov 25, 2013)

I told people from the very beginning and now look. The PS4/XBO are experiecing many problems. Its quite sad. But if the gullible didn't buy then they wouldn't sell and they wouldn't fix their problems.


----------



## codezer0 (Nov 26, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> Your logic is quite flawed. First of all technological advancement can only drive price down when there is sufficient demands. Lack of demands = much higher average production cost. When PS3 was rolled out PS2 was already seeing declining sales. It keeps declining over the years. Production cost of PS2 EE+GS chip only keeps increasing in following years. It doesn't matter if both chips are now in one package, if Sony starts to order less chips then Sony will be charged more per chip. One of the biggest complain during PS3 launch is the price. For Sony, it is all about bringing the price down, not up.
> 
> Sony lost about $300 per PS3 FAT launch model, closed to break even on early batch of Slim.
> 
> ...


If you can't be bothered to actually quote correctly, then there's little reason to respond at all. As it is, it comes off very disrespectful to simply put "tl" in without addressing any of the points.

It sure as hell does not cost them that much to put the EE+GS chip from a slim PStwo into a PS3. That's manufacturing law 101. Revised processes are what allow things to be made cheaper over time. Yet Sony wants us to believe that it costs them the same to make a wafer-full of PS2 chips in 2013/2014 as it did back in 1999/2000. That just doesn't fly... and if they're sourcing this from an outside company, they're getting even more royally screwed than the contracts Microsoft had with Intel and NVIDIA for the CPU and GPU with the Original Xbox. But as we know, Sony has retained the IP rights to the hardware in each and every generation of PlayStation, so there's even less of an excuse than Microsoft's rookie effort.

I do admit the 2-frame lag on PS1/2 games for PS3 can be obnoxious, especially in timing-sensitive games like _DDR, Bust A groove_ and the like. But even at 480p via Component video, the same game on the PS3 simply looked better than when played on the actual PS2. The difference is even more pronounced over HDMI. And thankfully with CFW, I could always override the scaling via multiman.

Losing money on the hardware has been the de-facto standard business model for console gaming for over 30 years now. It's only with the Original Wii that we'd seen a system released that did the opposite. And maybe the 3DO was designed to also be profitable for the console makers even on hardware, but that thing was a colossal failure because nobody wanted to spend that much money on a console. It's the same as how cell phone providers here in the states subsidize the cost of a phone with a two-year contract. Again, the Wii was the first to actually do so successfully.

The primary reason that people were trying to glitch/sploit OtherOS was to get unhindered access to the GPU, that it by default neutered... when Sony pissed off hackers and homebrewers enough to start investigating the console wholesale, it was then discovered that the whole limitation was purely a permissions thing set up via the Hypervisor. Once the low-level keys were found so people could start signing their own custom firmware, it wasn't much longer after that until it was made possible to create an upgraded OtherOS that had the same level of functionality as the default GameOS, replete with GPU access and support. These same people looking for this _were not ever_ the target market for getting said Blade Servers you imply.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 26, 2013)

codezer0 said:


> If you can't be bothered to actually quote correctly, then there's little reason to respond at all. As it is, it comes off very disrespectful to simply put "tl" in without addressing any of the points.


 
How is it disrespectful? I simply don't want to quote the whole thing and waste other readers time on already said stuff. Other readers can simply scroll up to see quoted material. You typed a lot of things, you can't expect me to quote the whole thing so others have to scroll down all that to see later post.


codezer0 said:


> It sure as hell does not cost them that much to put the EE+GS chip from a slim PStwo into a PS3. That's manufacturing law 101. Revised processes are what allow things to be made cheaper over time. Yet Sony wants us to believe that it costs them the same to make a wafer-full of PS2 chips in 2013/2014 as it did back in 1999/2000. That just doesn't fly... and if they're sourcing this from an outside company, they're getting even more royally screwed than the contracts Microsoft had with Intel and NVIDIA for the CPU and GPU with the Original Xbox. But as we know, Sony has retained the IP rights to the hardware in each and every generation of PlayStation, so there's even less of an excuse than Microsoft's rookie effort.


 
Cost of production varies at different time period. Furthermore Sony didn't produce the actual EE and GS chip. Neither are MIPS, Nvidia, and Toshiba. They simply all work together on the design and hire a fabrication company such as TSMC to fabricate the chip. Cost per chip is determined by order volume per month (you order more you enjoy greater volume discount; vice versa). So yes Sony does pay more per chip when PS2 begins to see declining sales. This is before we factoring in other components, such as 32 MB Rambus RAM that no one else but Sony was using back then.

FYI CELL chip used in PS3 is produced by IBM. Unlike Nvidia and MIPS, IBM is not a fabless company. Same thing with Intel (since you mentioned XBOX). Intel has its own fabrication plants.


codezer0 said:


> These same people looking for this _were not ever_ the target market for getting said Blade Servers you imply.


Actually wrong. Back then US Air Force, many universities, and many research facilities bought many PS3 because they can use OtherOS and turned it into an affordable supercomputer. CELL was originally designed to be used in super computer. Back then PS3 can crunch number way faster than any other architecture. Yes Sony does make Blade Server that costs 20x more than PS3.

Of course OtherOS removal has a lot to do with exploits hackers were using, but the fact that people can use PS3 as a super computer is also a big contributing reason.


codezer0 said:


> I do admit the 2-frame lag on PS1/2 games for PS3 can be obnoxious, especially in timing-sensitive games like _DDR, Bust A groove_ and the like. But even at 480p via Component video, the same game on the PS3 simply looked better than when played on the actual PS2. The difference is even more pronounced over HDMI. And thankfully with CFW, I could always override the scaling via multiman.


Well if graphics is what you really want you have two options,

* Use PCSX2, which force games to uprender
* Use original PS2 with RGB video out coupled with professional upscaler, such as XRGB-Mini. MIni does output in HDMI.

Biggest downside with PS2 graphics is not because it is analog only, but because PS2 does a very poor job on converting RGB to YUV (YPbPr). RGB in simple layman term is the raw video, unfortunately most NA TV only supports YUV input, which is a lossy compressed RGB.

To tap into RGB, you can use SCART (480i only) or VGA cable (480p only, monitor must support sync on green).


----------

