But Microsoft and Oculus are partners. That happened last year. http://news.xbox.com/2015/06/11/xbox-xbox-and-oculus-partner-to-change-the-face-of-virtual-reality/ So the Scorpio makes perfect sense. The Xbox needs that power for Oculus. After all, VR is why the Neo is coming. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ps4-neo-ex...-awful-launch-consoles-says-developer-1562122 To bad about that huge performance gap between the Neo and the Scorpio. As you know, it's pretty big. Wow. It's even bigger than the gap between the PS4 & the XB1.
It probably doesn't need to be as big for the Neo if Sony is using their own in-house VR technology. Xbox has to go for brute force because they're not in control of the VR tech themselves.
Yeah. VR probably will fail. Those headsets are going to be too expensive for the general public. But not the new consoles. Their graphics will be scalable, just like they are on PC and smartphones. So the new consoles are going to have much better visuals than the current underpowered stuff. http://gamingbolt.com/former-sony-d...in-extra-tcr-and-scale-able-game-requirements And, as you already know, better performance equals better looking & playing games. And people love graphics. Hell, the fanboys are already starting to buzz about the power gap between them. LOL!
If you really care about the best graphics and the best hardware, you may as well just get a PC. They are effectively killing one of the few things consoles still had going for them: that you could buy the console at any point during its lifespan and not get shafted by newer faster hardware. I suspect neither of these systems will sell that well, and that Sony and MS fans will be mad that they got screwed over with the original systems. They should have just gone with adequately powered hardware back in 2013. This just makes me really glad I never bought a PS4 or XB1. And now I probably never will. Because if they are releasing newer faster versions of the PS4 and XB1 in 2016, what's to say they won't do it again in 2017 or 2018? The PC is at least built around hardware fragmentation. On consoles, I see this getting really messy and confusing and alienating a lot of people.
I don't even understand the appeal of consoles now: -local split screen multiplayer so you can play with friends sitting next to you - mostly gone -games work out of the box - nope, require patches and updates now just like PC games -cheap - not really, $400-500 for the system and $60 per game is really expensive -fixed hardware so you don't have to worry about being left behind by new technology - gone -exclusive games - almost everything is multiplatform now Consoles have effectively become crappier PCs that have all of the bad things about PC gaming and none of the good things (free multiplayer, the best hardware, kb+m, dirt cheap games on Steam). Back in the PS2/Xbox/GC days when systems were $150 to $200 and games were $30 to $50 and worked perfectly out of the box, I got it, I really did. Consoles were a cheap and easy way to play games. Now I don't see why you wouldn't take your $400 and just buy a GTX 970 and better power supply to upgrade your PC to play games.
Nothing has really changed that much. A console is supposed to have an upgrade every 5 years. The PS3/360 era spoiled people. But it was just a fluke. And IMO, an unwelcome one too. http://www.cnet.com/news/xbox-birthday-signals-death-of-5-year-console-cycle/ Microsoft is just returning to the normal 5 year cycle. 2013 to 2017. That's 5 years. The XB1 needs to be retired.
The PS4 and XB1 came out in Q4 2013, and we're talking about PS4 NEO in Q4 2016 and an XB1 refresh in Q1 2017. That's a three year upgrade cycle (or a little over three years for the XB1), not a five year one. Learn how to add. Five years from Q4 2013 would be Q4 2018. Even by your five year standard, they are doing this about two years too soon. Getting three years out of a console is pathetic. People often aren't even upgrading video cards that frequently. A good example of a three year old video card would be the GTX 780, which launched in May of 2013. The 780 is still relevant and probably wouldn't need to be upgraded unless a person intends to play at resolutions above 1080p. In fact, if they had gone with proper hardware, like a GTX 780 or R9 290 equivalent GPU, there would be no need for this mid-cycle console hardware upgrade. The only reason this is happening is because they went with low-end dumpster hardware that can't even do 1080p consistently.
PS4: Q4 2013 to Q4 2016 is 3 years. XB1: Q4 2013 to Q1 2017 is 3.25 years. lol, you can't even add/subtract. That explains a lot I guess. Having consoles on a three year upgrade cycle is fucking gay. People don't even upgrade their PCs that much usually.
Seriously? This is how you're adding them up? 2013 Q4 2014 Q1/Q4 2015 Q1/Q4 2016 Q1/Q4 The XB1 ends at 2016 Q4 because the Scorpion launches in Q1 2017? If that's the case, then I see where you're getting those numbers. But I don't think that's the way they add up these generations. They round up to the nearest whole number. If this was true, then the original Xbox ran for what? 4 years? 2001 Q4 2002 Q1/Q4 2003 Q1/Q4 2004 Q1/Q4 2005 Q1/Q3 Yeah.... 4 years. So.... the previous console generations had a cycle of 4 years or so. Not 5. And the Scorpion is launching 3 quarters early.
The first Xbox cycle doesn't count. It was breaking into the market and launched 18 months after PS2. Then it needed refreshed at the same time as PS3. Of course it's going to be a short cycle.
I'm adding them up that way because that's the exact time they were out. I'm not rounding off. A three year upgrade cycle sucks. I don't even usually change out my video cards that often. Original Xbox was a fluke because it was just breaking into the market. Even then Q4 2001 (Xbox launch) to Q4 2005 (360 launch) is four years. Anyone who bought an XB1 or PS4 is getting shafted by this. It's the shortest upgrade cycle ever. Because they went with underpowered garbage hardware in 2013. If they had put GTX 780s in the consoles like they should have, there would be no need for this. But they have to do something. All the developers are complaining that they can't work with such shitty hardware. Also lol at not using SSDs. How do you console gamers even play on these things? Between the bad graphics and long load times must be a pretty shitty experience. And it sounds like they still aren't using SSDs in these refreshes. They need to hire someone who knows something about PC hardware to design these damn things. It's clear they have no idea what they're doing. What they should have gone with i3 or i5 GTX 780 6-9 GB unified 384-bit GDDR5 256GB to 512GB SSD (they could have launched at 256GB and come out with a 512GB SKU later as SSD prices fell) What we got: underpowered dumpster hardware equivalent to what PC gamers were using in 2009/2010. So of course they need to upgrade. My GTX 460 was as powerful as the GPUs in these consoles and I replaced it back in 2013.
I totally agree that the leap from the 7th to the 8th generation was lackluster. The graphics did not improve that much at all. Microsoft wanted to push multimedia and as for Sony... they just ran out of money. The only console from this generation that has AAA after AAA exclusives is the Wii U. The only thing stopping me from buying a Wii U is that crazy DRM. Everything is tied to the console. If Nintendo would fix that, I would trade my PS4 in on a Wii U today. It might not be "next gen", but neither is the PS4. This guy sums it up pretty well... And that's why I focused on the Xbox One. They admitted their mistake and they're trying their damnedest to fix the 2013 fiasco. So far they've had wonderful exclusives, free backward compatibility, excellent network, and several controller options. And now they're going to release an upgraded Xbox One. Sort of like the Elite, but with a bitchin' GPU. And it should be fully backward compatible with my XB1. So all of my games will work on day one. What's there not to like about that? Now I can see why a PS4 owner would be upset. The PS4.5 is going to screw them over. But for an XB1 owner? I'm happy as a lark.
I have to agree with that guy. The Wii U might not be the best console but it probably the best console to complement a gaming PC.
He is not wrong, but the point is nothing new. Nintendo always had the largest selection of exclusive games and overlapping games are always better on PC. Purchase decisions are rarely as rational as they should/could be. Earlier adapters are susceptible to marketing hype and late adapters buy what their friends have.
This is the new 3ds all over again. It's a bit annoying if I upgrade to a ps4.5 since I'd need to backup and restore my data. No straight swapping of hard drives is possible. But with Sony's current mandate that there can't be neo exclusive games, and if developers don't become lazy, those on the original system shouldn't really be affected too much. I will probably upgrade, but that's because I like shiny.
Gaming PC + Nintendo is a good combination. The PC version of a multiplatform game will always have the best graphics, and you get the AAA Nintendo exclusives.