I love how everyone says the cheapest console always wins. In the past the cheapest console pretty much always launched first including this gen where the 360 had a year head start, very similar power and much lower price, it was the better offer in pretty much every case. Going into this gen they're gonna launch within weeks or months of each other so they can be weighed up out of the box, you will be able to see if one version looks better straight away. Added features are nice, but they aren't what sells me on a machine, first thing is ALWAYS the games and how they look.

Every console launch I had people coming round to show it off and every time they would be impressed, given the choice between the one that has better looking games and the one that has motion control or netflix im sure as hell gonna buy into purdy every time.

I'm not writing MS off, going into the 360 gen they did a LOT of things right, just as said earlier in the thread ending this gen they did a LOT of things wrong. That all has an impact on how I see MS as a company and how willing I am to be blind to the issues that they may be bringing into the next gen.

Until the games hit we will have no idea what the real difference will be?, all we have to go by so far are the dev's stating the real game difference will be slight, i think with first party stuff both will use each systems own strengths to show off visuals.

About the name:

The NextBox will be written "XBox 'sign for infinity'", but read "XBox Loop".

The lemniscate is a link to Windows8 and Metro...

This of course is pure speculation, but please take it as a fact!

The difference between the leaked specs are FAR bigger than the difference between the 360 and PS3. Both current gen consoles had very specific limitations that prevented them from achieving what they theoretically could be. The leaked specs of both machines look to have similarities across the board but no real weakness or strength. The differences though between the theoretical maximums of each machine are quite stark.

Even current gen differences between games are stark, the 360 more often than not was sharper, had better shadows, higher resolution or just generally had a higher more consistant frame rate. The difference between the machines next gen would amplify that difference, you could have 720p on one machine, 1080p on the other. Solid vsync lock, higher frame rates, higher texture res or effects qualities. To write off 30% or so in gpu performance is naieve in the most.
Just look at how PC deals with more power GPU's, sure you can run the same game on a weaker machine but it will look and perform measurably worse every time.

Unless the specs are totally wrong no amount of wizardry will close the gap and my money would always be on sony's studios to extract the higher performance out of the same hardware anyway.

Price helps a great deal in making it easier for people to decide whether or not to grab a machine, and when, but it has by no means ever been the ultimate decider in long term success. It's important, but it never seals the deal. It only buys a console time, particularly if the other machine is truly offering a much better overall value for gamers.

The bigger myth, I feel, is that somehow first party titles are what somehow determines winners and the multiplatform games don't matter, because, well, they're multiplatform. This couldn't be any further from the truth.And I guarantee none of this matters when the games start getting released. These differences that people believe (read: hope) are going to show up, won't in anywhere quite as dramatic a fashion as some think. People continue to underestimate developers. Developers won't make it that easy for people to say there are these big differences. With all this extra power, comes the ability to make it even more difficult to spot major differences just by looking at a game.

Digital Foundry will do their tech analysis, which I will read every single time, and people will count pixels, which I will pay attention to because that's just me, but the majority of gamers won't walk into their local best buy looking to buy a game and say "Hey, man, the pixels counters at beyond3d counted pixels on this game and the resolution is a bit lower on this version of the game, and digital foundry did a tech analysis and found that shadow resolution is a tad lower in one version and this one is missing screen space ambient occlusion. And if you really pay attention, the rock shaders are just a bit better on this version. There might even be a few extra pedestrians on the street on this version, too." It's not impossible that people would go into a local best buy saying these things, it just won't happen to a large enough degree to mean anything.

People are also living in a fantasy world if they believe the next Xbox is going to be at a tremendous performance deficit compared to the PS4. This is precisely where we were prior to the release of the ps3 and 360, ironically enough. People believed the PS3 was every bit more powerful than the 360 as they now think the PS4 is to the new Xbox. It's always good to remind people of the dual 1080p 120fps hype talk which surrounded the ps3 and how every game would be a minimum of 1080p. 360 was meant to be HD, and PS3 was meant to be Full HD. Replace Cell and Blu Ray with the PS4's GPU and GDDR5 and this is essentially what you have all over again.

The most comforting thing in all of this, however, continues to be the fact that people now understand the importance of having 8GB of memory. It's what devs are most excited about than just about anything else, and suddenly opinions on forums everywhere have miraculously changed from just a few weeks prior when people were suggesting that 8GB of memory wasn't a big deal and wouldn't make much of a difference in games. I kid you not, it's just about all people can talk about now.

They make a console worth owning. That IS the truth. If you could get every game on each system it wouldn't matter which one you bought, but we know that isn't the case. Exclusives mean everything in terms of selling a system. Multi-platform titles mean very little....unless the platform has no exclusives and you have to overemphasise their importance? obviously a platform with no third party support would fail. But if a platform gets all multi platform releases, it isn't going to be those that get people buying into a new console, the exclusives will.

You don't buy a xbox or PS to play assassins creed. You buy them to play the stuff you can't play elsewhere. Its why the 360/PC combo is the very worst combination of platforms i can think of...because they share a lot of "exclusives".

But if you listen to most dev's that have the kits of both systems, they say the real game difference is slight, so i'm just going by that, so until we actually have hard specs and MS explain how it all works, then who knows?

I think it was in some beyond3d breakdown and Edge one? (i'm sure its in this thread somewhere as ops has quoted allot of stuff :) ), but they were always saying there dev sources told them, so yeah add to the ever getting bigger pile of rumors...

See, that's where I think you've got it all wrong. A lot of people buy xbox or playstation JUST to play COD or Assassin's Creed. A lot of people bought an Xbox 360 and PS3 for GTA4. People for years continued buying a 360 for the next COD. I have plenty of friends that bought their console not based on any exclusive for either platform, but bought it for NBA 2K. The mistake you make is assuming that if you aren't buying a console for some first party exclusive, then somehow the value of a console has not been vindicated. Who are we to tell the person who bought his xbox 360 or ps3 to play nba 2k13 or the next fifa that he's an idiot who doesn't understand true value?

And last I checked, I can't play blue Dragon or lost odyssey on a pc or on any other platforms, but even if you could, where does this attitude come from that you apparently can't enjoy a game, or that a console holds little or no value if games that you enjoy exist on another platform where other people can enjoy it, too? Sounds pretty silly to me. I feel better because I know nobody else can play this game unless they have exactly what I have....

Well, it kinda doesn't exist, so they can't. However, of the sites that have been accurate thus far, particularly edge, which was the first site to accurately say that the PS4 was going to 8GB of GDDR5, and that confirmed specs with their insiders, which I assume must be real, the developer they spoke to suggested the ps4 was slightly more powerful.

Now, far be it from me to try and guess what "slightly" in their opinion constitutes, but anybody expecting a landslide performance gap.. I don't know. I just don't see it. I see precisely how the ps4, if specs are accurate, is clearly better than the new xbox, but I don't see that as leading to dramatically superior looking titles. The difference we're talking about is more or less a Radeon 7850 versus a Radeon 7770ghz edition. Only in the case of both the PS4's gpu and Durango's gpu, both are better than their closest respective pc counterparts.

And, going by what John Carmack says about consoles and equivalent pc hardware.



I doubt we're going to be disappointed with either of these 2 machines. So just in this context alone, not just the PS4, but certainly also Durango are quite a bit more capable in the console realm than some are thinking.

Oh, good one, Phaethon. So, in conclusion, you're a fanboy if you're even remotely interested in the next xbox and aren't dismissing it by now. Nevermind the fact that you have nonsense such as multiplatform titles mean nothing and the only kinds of games that really matter are games that can't be found on other platforms. Is that what gaming's about? Bullshit I say :)

The Xbox 360 has had plenty of great exclusives, but to some fanboys they are irrelevant and easily explained away, because they just love what Sony has to offer so much more. 360 has a title that doesn't exist on PS3? Well, if it's on PC, it doesn't count. As if everybody is willing to spend the money to upgrade their computer when they can just play it on the 360... My 360 collection has quite a few great exclusives. The way some people talk, you would think there weren't also a few shitty ps3 exclusives along with some of the shitty 360 exclusives that exist. There are plenty of fantastic ones, but let's not kid ourselves here.

Essentially what I see being accepted is that if you aren't a fanboy that takes sides then you aren't a real gamer. I'd love to hear a legitimate explanation for what exactly makes Fifa or NBA 2K, and GTA4 etc, less legitimate and worthwhile gaming than foaming at the mouth all over exclusives? Even PS3 gamers buy COD more than they buy anything else. What does that say?

It doesn't hold any weight towards WHICH console they buy though. They see fifa or GTA running on both machines and you may as well give them a coin to flip. As is the case with multiplatform releases in general. You own a 360 or a PS3, what is going to get you to buy the one you don't own? The ability to play GTA, a title you can play anyway...or the exclusives you can't find anywhere else...exactly. The reason i want a wii-u isn't because of multiplatform titles, afterall, i can play those anywhere. Its because of zombiu. The one decent exclusive on the system.

As for that last statement. It isn't an "attitude", it's the way it is. Exclusives are created to sell consoles. And untill there is a singular, "one ring to rule them all", platform, which there never will be. They're here to stay. And the more you have for a platform, the more likely i am to buy it. As true as it is that a platform cannot survive without third party multiplatform support, nor can it survive if it had ONLY third party multiplatform support. It would become redundant.

Let me put it this way. If the 720 came out with absolutely no exclusives...EVER. It survived entirely on multiplatform releases, but the PS4 had all those multiplatform titles AND a shed load of exclusives...which would you buy? For me it's a no brainer. And sadly, that's the situation the 360 is practically in right now.

Some of what you say is true, theres a big chunk of console owners that dony buy because of exclusives, tghey buy because of a massive Multiplat title or because its deem cheap enough to pick, the later holds more sway with allot of people, if a price sweetspot is found then the console sell's very well, but intially its the hardcore that buy new consoles and they are more inclined to buy a console that has an exclusive they want to buy.

The point is who in the hell is anybody on this forum, or any forum for that matter, to dictate to others what constitutes true value from what doesn't?

Who here is such king shit among gamers that they can tell people which games they should and shouldn't find enjoyment in, and how much, if so?

The problem some people have is that they are much too engaged in the competition that should only exist between Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. It's not a damn competition. It's playing whatever the hell you enjoy as often as you like, on whichever platform you like. You think the number of exclusives any one console has in comparison to another means jack shit to a gamer if that gamer isn't interested in playing EVERY single one of those exclusives, which 95% of the time they are not? We are talking about gamers here, not game reviewers whose job it is to review and play just about everything there is. More people have played GTA4 and specific COD games on each respective console more than they've played any specific exclusive for either the 360 or PS3.

Most gamers may find one or two, 3+ if they're lucky, first party exclusives that they feel they absolutely, positively can't do without. You ever wonder sometimes why despite all the wide spread hype about all these various Playstation first party exclusives, that hardware sales don't reflect this supposed content advantage? Because it's generally the same exact people all talking up the same games. It doesn't mean the games aren't good, but it showcases that hype and volume of forum chatter doesn't exactly translate the way some would think. The Vita is a perfect example of this.

Exclusives exist for the sole purpose of fostering loyalty to that franchise and thus, the brand that it calls home. Whether people like to admit it or not, these exclusives in very equal looking numbers, exist on both platforms. And if there are truly no worthwhile Xbox exclusives, then why the hell do people keep buying xbox exclusives in the millions? Halo is more or less classified an inconsequential xbox first party exclusive by some, and yet the newest installment that just released late last year has already sold more than any single Sony First Party title, with the exception of GT5, which was in the market for over 2 years already. Just as I did this gen, I'll be getting all 3 new consoles and getting whichever exclusives catch my fancy along the way, with the majority of my multiplatform purchases taking place for my primary console, which right now is Durango because of Halo. The 360 is my primary console right now, the PS3 is my secondary, and the Wii is my third, and my 3DS I imagine for some time will dominate the majority of my time. All of my ps3 purchases are first party exclusives, except for FF13, which I always intended on getting for the PS3. Last purchases for PS3 were Uncharted 2, God of War 3 and Ni No Kuni, that studio ghibli/level 5 jrpg. Last purchases for Wii were Last Story and Xenoblade Saga.

Halo, though, is just one game that I absolutely can't do without, all it would take for the PS4 to be my primary console is for it to have more good looking jrpg exclusives, especially if any of those involve Mistwalker, who are by no means tied to Microsoft, which is why I'm not exactly so certain that I'll see a blue dragon sequel, or that MS might ever work with Mistwalker again. Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey are pretty much what made the 360 my primary console. I got onboard early in anticipation of those 2 games, and then after that I decided to check out what else the xbox 360 had to offer. Prior to the 360, I was strictly a ps2 loyalist, and damn proud of it. It was the superior console by a country mile.

I'm not convinced we will see a return to the days of the ps1 and ps2 anytime soon, which is why I generally don't buy the sky is falling stuff about Durango. The PS4 having better specs doesn't suddenly make Durango's spacs incapable of delivering incredible games, which is exactly what it sounds like people are implying. Since when has superior specs ever been the way to choose a friggin games console... If that were the case the PSP would kick DS ass, Vita would kick 3DS ass, and xbox would kick PS2 ass.

lol. Nope. Watch me carefully. The PS4 looks like the more powerful console, and easily so. Just look at the specs we have. However, I'm not convinced that this will produce the difference some think, nor will it somehow assuredly lead to bad games on the xbox platform. I do believe there will be worthwhile exclusives on both sides. Microsoft's first party has dropped off the map once before with the original Xbox, and we saw it again with the 360, but the strength of the 360 compared to the original xbox is far superior developer support, which is why I don't feel 360 gamers are exactly suffering a games deficit, and do happen to think Halo 4 is one amazing fucking game.

Microsoft simply does not have first parties that, on volume and overall diversity, match up well with Sony's first parties. We have known this for years. And I understand that not everybody can just buy multiple consoles, but at the same time, I don't feel we should be kicking dirt on a specific platform before it even has a chance to show what it has to offer. That's all I'm saying. And, behind the scenes, I fully acknowledge that I'm hopelessly, and possibly unrealistically, expecting Microsoft will greenlight a blue dragon sequel, which further plays into me refusing to believe certain things about the next xbox until I actually see them happen. Is that such a crime :P

You mark my words, I'd be the biggest friggin ps4 cheerleader if they were to greenlight games from Sakaguchi. :)

You kinda put me in a spot, as Blue Dragon Kinect was literally along the lines of my very first Kinect game ideas around the time it was first revealed, believe it or not. If I poked around a bit in earlier Kinect threads, I'm sure I'd find me saying precisely something to this effect involving Mistwalker possibly coming up with a cool way to use Kinect alongside a regular 360 controller in a turn based jrpg. I've always said that Kinect's true potential may be in turn based jrpgs, and I really did mean that. The latency related issues would be much less significant in a turn based combat system, also.

Clearly I wouldn't accept some gimmicky abomination of a game that couldn't be considered a serious jrpg due to some idiotic overuse of Kinect. That's not at all what I want, but if it's indeed a serious jrpg with Sakaguchi at the helm, I would definitely give it a chance. I would owe it that much. I like Blue Dragon too much to just tune it out because of Kinect, after all.

Kinect would mostly take a backseat to the traditional controller, so we aren't talking some Kinect dominated game, but more a Kinect enhanced game.

Kinect would be used only in instances where you want to launch very special kind of attacks or spells.

You would have to perform a series of hand gestures or signs, similar to what you see in animes like Naruto. The more advanced the magic spell or attack, the longer the sequence becomes, the shorter your time interval to get it right is, and the more severe the consequences for potentially screwing it up are. I'm guessing Kinect may not be advanced enough to handle a series of hand signs such as what's below, but the specific hand signs need not be so advanced as what's pictured below, but it gives a very good idea of what I'm getting at.



In some ways, it would take what that ds game World Ends With You did, but apply some of those similar concepts to Kinect. And, again, a turn based jrpg should be able to get around latency related problems. And then, who know what kinds of interesting ideas could be utilized in a jrpg world map. Maybe toss in some obstacles or minor puzzles that can only be solved through utilization of Kinect. I think it could work, and I've been suggesting this for some time, so don't kill me for not dismissing it immediately. :P Kinect Halo, though? I cringe at the very thought of that one, but a jrpg with some Kinect tossed in might be very possible.

Checkout Shu from Blue Dragon's ultimate attack, where he summons the entire dragon itself. Focus on what Shu does with his hands after the dragon scoops him up and then takes off into the air with him. I can easily see the animation team making a number of cool looking animations that the characters could do as you are being fed visual aide instructions on what the various hand gestures should look like. And we already know they've got the closed fists, open hand thing working on Kinect already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp_-Y-vjr9I#t=0m11s

jesus christ op...