"Xbox One" has awesome games. Haters are missing out. (So is most of Europe now)

[Graco]

To be honest I'm surprised they changed their stance. As good as that is, I still prefer the PS4. It's more affordable and has more games on it that I want as opposed to the Xbox. Nevertheless, I'm sure the hardcore Xbox fans are happy.

[Vito]

Fucking glad they did this. Console gaming is saved.

[Enigmatism415]

I'm still buying a PS4 for the reasons mentioned above, but I'm impressed that Microsoft decided to wake the fuck up. It might be too little too late though... I guess we'll see.

P.S. (har har), I also prefer the DualShock controller (no, really, I do, I'm not being sarcastic).

---

News Bot, I find it intriguing that you praise Playstation in the same breath as your condemnation of Saint Kojima... It's a combination that I've never before encountered...

Maybe I love MGS too much for my own good, but I still think that it has the best character development of any series I've ever played (no, I haven't played that many). I actually care about these characters, unlike Sheva or Piers for example. As far as Resident Evil goes, I think Jill will always be the protagonist with whom I identify and find comfort.

[Branden_Lucero]

Plus it is underpowered compared to PS4.


Still not getting it, if MS get a big enough marketshare is nothing stopping them doing another 180, and this is MS, so if they can they will. They know like RROD once people build up a library of games most people will deal with shit rather than take a loss and start over on a rival product.

dont see what's underpowered about it, considering that DDR3 > GDDR5 when it comes to moving data for a console.

[Dracarys]

dont see what's underpowered about it

Then google why. Is all over the net why.

[Branden_Lucero]

Then google why. Is all over the net why.

and yet their wrong. like usual.

[Zombie_X]

Actually the PS4 is more powerful by a good bit. Some developers came forward and said the PS4 is 40% more powerful.

[Branden_Lucero]

Actually the PS4 is more powerful by a good bit. Some developers came forward and said the PS4 is 40% more powerful.

and yet, GDDR5 was developed from DDR3. while GDDR5 can move large chunks of data, DDR3 can move smaller amounts of data at an extremely fast rate thanks to its low latency, therefore, i find neither one of them better.

and yet, everyone said that the PS3 was more powerful than the X360. it may have had a better CPU, but the X360 raped the PS3 with its GPU.

[Branden_Lucero]

anyways, now i'm disappointed. the X1 had great innovative features with its online and drm policies, that gamers literally took that shit away because of ignorance. yes, Microsoft was ignorant with these policies in the first place, but come on - THEY WERENT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. now games can't be shared between 10 people, nor can they be attached to your account and downloaded and played on any other X1. f*ckin' great. Microsoft should have just kept to their original plan.

gamers want to play online multi-player up the *ss, that anything else that has to do with online they cry a like a b*tch because of it. maybe they should realize that the phone they use and any newer vehicle they might drive also has DRM attached to it. DRM is not going to disappear. its going to come back, and its going to find its way to every electronic. you cant stop the inevitable.

[Carnivol]

^Pretty much. Although I wish people weren't killing one another, MS can't seem to win, regardless of what they do, but their DRM structure was by far better than mostly everything other DRM systems in current use have. Everyone likes to praise Steam, but I'd like to point out that just the other night, I bought something on Steam, started downloading it, when it finished downloading, Steam had an hour of (although poorly communicated?) scheduled maintenance, apparently, and I couldn't even START any of my games, thanks to me not planning for their downtime (nor getting a heads up through a channel I'm following) with offline mode - had it been a One, I'd have 24 hours of not worrying about the downtime on my own console or 1 hour if I was on a secondary unit ...

and yet, GDDR5 was developed from DDR3. while GDDR5 can move large chunks of data, DDR3 can move smaller amounts of data at an extremely fast rate thanks to its low latency, therefore, i find neither one of them better.

and yet, everyone said that the PS3 was more powerful than the X360. it may have had a better CPU, but the X360 raped the PS3 with its GPU.

And here it comes! Yeah, there are reasons you want to use 3 over 5 and vice versa. Also, the 360 had a horrible advantage over the PS3 in terms of memory usage too (512mb it could shift around, versus the locked and pre-determined reservations in the PS3's memory structure)

[News Bot]

Jesus christ.

GDDR5 is better for transferring larger amounts of data.
DDR3 is better for transferring smaller amounts of data.

GDDR5 ranges between 256bit or 384bit bandwidth.
DDR3 ranges between 64bit or 128bit.

GDDR5 is much faster, tearing DDR3 a new asshole and then some. The PS4 has lots of bandwidth but the CPU suffers due to GDDR5's latency... but this is somewhat negated by the fact that the PS4's CPU is clocked higher. Oh, and the little fact that CPUs require minimal latency because of multiple applications fighting for resources from available compute threads/cores - and multiple concurrent applications aren't likely to come into play with a console (except when you have three OS's running, like the XB1).

The PS4 also reserves less for the OS (1GB) and the rest is free to be used for anything (7GB) while the XB1 reserves more for the OS (3GB) and less for games (5GB). The XB1 has absolutely nothing over the PS4 in this case.

The differences won't be apparent for another few years, but don't kid yourself by claiming there's little difference. Once developers wrap their heads around it, the XB1 is going to be eclipsed.

[Enigmatism415]

I'm a traditional solo gamer, so Microsoft won't likely please me.

I understand the point about Microsoft revolutionising the game industry, but this doesn't have to conflict with maintaining the status quo. You can have both.

- Charge the full $59.99 (USD) for games on disc that you can purchase used, sell, trade, or share without ever having to connect to the internet (the disc serves as the dongle).
- Charge a much lower price for digital downloads that are tied to your account exclusively and pings to the mother ship every so often.

[Carnivol]

Priceless final bit.

[News Bot]

Hahaha, it's a pity Microsoft were less humble and merely shat themselves at the backlash.

[Carnivol]

There's just this nice and casual

"Well ... fuck you then. Have it your way." going on in there, followed by a crowd that's all "FUCK YEAH!" for a sec over their amazing victory ... and then it starts to sink in what they kinda had to give up.