• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

PS4 Announced

For Saffas, the choice 9 out of 10 times will be PS3. Purely because of our pathetic internet connection. For instance, last week friday, the entire country's ADSL was offline for the whole day.

Also, the shops locally offer better warranties on Sony Products, whereas Microsoft is limited to only certain shops.
 
So the price in dollars and euro's is both 399? Guess I'll be buying one online then.

From what I understand, the difference in price is due to two things.

Firstly, the quoted price in dollars is without sales tax. Different states in America have different levels of sales tax, so it'd be impossible for companies to include this in their rrp's. However in Europe, a lot of places now have 20% 'sales tax' or VAT in Britain, and this is included in the rrp. Any countries with lower levels will probably get a worse deal.

Secondly, warranties in Europe for consumer electronics is generally 2 years (I believe it's EU law), instead of 1 year in America. So this also adds to the price.

So doing the math: $399 = €300.50. Add 20% sales tax or VAT and it adds up to €360.60, leaving €38.40 for the extra year warranty. Doesn't look far off in the end.

You could end up paying more ordering it online from America. You would probably be charged both import duty and sales tax/VAT, and you'd also loose all warranty. Delivery charges might also push the price up.
 
Last edited:
Will be PS4 for me (past consoles has been 2600>SNES>N64>PS1>PS2>Xbox>PS3>360), the reason for PS4 over the One for starters is region free so can play NCAA games.
 
I never had an N64, did have a Dreamcast though.

That was an outstanding machine.

I've had most consoles, but I'm skipping Nintendo and Microsoft this time around. It'll be the first generation where I stick with a single platform.
 
I think microsoft have dropped the ball and really went the wrong direction with the new xbox where by comparison sony have basically created an ideal product.

the xbox seems less powerful and more complex and they have taken the bold move to make their own chip with some input from AMD and are relying on fancy (fast but expensive) on processor memory to help performance.

where sony have kept things cheap, simple and powerful with the combination of DDR5 and a significantly more powerful CPU/GPU that is much more familiar to the market/devalopers compared to the PS3 or xbox one.

The end result is that it seems the PS4 will be cheaper, more powerful and an easier platform for developers than the xbox one. Where the xbox one is trying to be much more than a gaming console.

with MS also devaluing the 2nd hand/rental game market and info that internet connection will be a requirement....

I think PS3 owners will stay with the playstation and xbox owners will have a lot of reasons to switch to a PlayStation.

For me any anyone similar who just simply wants a gaming console there really is only one option from these two - the playstation.

The market is getting more interesting though with many lower cost options like the Ouya and gamestick. And the interesting steambox not too far away and more and more talk of an Apple console/smart TV thing.
 
The way I see it, MS have buggered up on price (although Kinect2 is included with Xbox One, whereas PS eye and move aren't included with the PS4), internet connection requirement and their stance on the second-hand market, all three were decisions by them that may backfire. I wonder if they'll backtrack on a couple of them if sales are slow.

Regarding the specs, both are relatively similar, although the PS4 has a quicker GPU and faster RAM. Regardless of the spin put on by MS, both CPU's are just about identical. Will this even make a difference? Probably not. What could make a difference to the quality of graphics could be the significant advantage MS have, now that both consoles are using PC based hardware. This should mean that developers can use MS's DirectX developer tools for the Xbox One, which are highly refined, and developers have been using for years. In comparison Sony will have to develop a new set of programming tools.

DirectX is one of the biggest reasons why Windows is the main gaming OS on PC's, with Linux and OSX lagging way behind. Of course, the PS4 won't be left out unlike Linux and OSX, but the quality of games, especially early on could be shifted in the Xbox One's favour because of DirectX.

On top of that, MS have been able to simply use Windows 8's kernel as the backbone of the Xbox One's operating system. The Windows 8 Kernel really is very good, especially in the management of multi-core CPU's, memory management and GPU management. They have had years and years to develop and refine an operating system to best utilise the hardware found in both the Xbox One and PS4. Sony have had to start from scratch.

But then we come back to those initial 3 issues.....
 
Last edited:
Xbox's opening approach (the stuff Dullonien has mentioned) has left gamers bitter. Gamers will be the first to buy consoles and the casuals will filter in later down the line. Xbox alienating gamers means that their opening will be weak, and they'll struggle to gain even the casual gamer when those flock to the "popular console". They've messed up, and their only hope now is a very good batch of exclusives.
 
Xbox's opening approach (the stuff Dullonien has mentioned) has left gamers bitter. Gamers will be the first to buy consoles and the casuals will filter in later down the line. Xbox alienating gamers means that their opening will be weak, and they'll struggle to gain even the casual gamer when those flock to the "popular console". They've messed up, and their only hope now is a very good batch of exclusives.

If you compare the exclusives of both consoles, I think Sony has the advantage there in recent years. A lot can happen of course, but Microsoft is already the runner-up before both consoles are on the market.
 
although they are both 8 core for the CPU. More importantly from memory the xbox one has 768 graphics cores and 8GB DDR3 where I think the PS4 has around 1152 (?) graphics cores and 8GB DDR5

it's actually quite a significant difference, basically 50% more GPU cores and faster DDR5 and if you are going to get the console based on it's power for gaming that's why the PS4 is the clear/only choice.

the one factor is that the xbox in terms of performance has 32MB of high-speed SRAM on the GPU, that is something the PS4 does not have

but that also makes it a bit more complex and importantly pushes the price up, and it wont make up the performance gap from the missing GPU core count and slower memory.
 
Larksea its GDDR5 in the PS3, also the Xbox has some eSRAM on the APU of which is currently the center for roumers regarding heat, wafer failures and GPU underclocking.

Also the reason the 360 was so popular last gen was the price point in my opinion. If your kid wants a new console one at £425 at launch (PS3) the other at ~£300 was it? you'll go cheaper. This then continued with their friends wanting what the friend had etc. Was helped alot with the consoles going sub £200 recently.
 
Certainly Larksea. The PS4 is a more powerful machine, especially when it comes to graphics. However it requires expertise to get the most out of the hardware. Just look at the PS3 and Xbox 360, the quality of graphics on both increased throughout the consoles lifecycle. Comparing the latest games to those released at launch and there's a stark difference. This is because developers learn't how to eek every drop of performance from the consoles, this takes time.

What I'm arguing is that MS could have a big head start in that regard. Developers have already had years of experience dealing with the combination of AMD (Ati) graphics cards and DirectX. They should in theory be able to hit the ground running with the Xbox One. I'm unsure if Sony will be using OpenGL or not, but even if they are, OpenGL isn't considered to be as powerful, or as refined as DirectX.
 
I thought they should have made 2 versions of the xbox. 1, purely for gaming and 2, the one they have now for TV and all other stuff. If sales are bad then they will bring out a simplier version of the xbox one I think.

As for the games, there won't be much noticeable difference.
 
I thought they should have made 2 versions of the xbox. 1, purely for gaming and 2, the one they have now for TV and all other stuff. If sales are bad then they will bring out a simplier version of the xbox one I think.

As for the games, there won't be much noticeable difference.

I don't think that there's necessarily a problem with the 'extra media stuff', after-all the PS3 sold well due to the media capabilities it had, despite the price premium. These extra features won't have added much to the build cost, the HDMI input being the biggest cost more than likely. MS already had the software in place in Windows, so adding these features shouldn't be an issue.

They may have been better not to include the Kinect2 with the console, instead selling it as an optional extra, that could have brought the price of the console itself down. I think many 'hardcore' gamers see the Kinect as a waste of space, so won't value its inclusion.

MS have also historically never sold hardware at cost level, or at a loss, so they are probably making a profit on each console. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony are selling at cost (this is historically what they do, with them making a big loss on each PS3 console sold initially, relying on making the profit on games and peripherals sales). Looking at MS, they made the same decision with their tablets, with the Surface RT selling at a healthy profit, in comparison to Google selling the Nexus 7 at cost. Personally, MS would be better off taking the hit on the consoles in order to drive sales.

Their stance regarding both DRM (internet connection) and the second-hand games market is purely idiotic, and something they should have avoided. These two issues will likely be a bigger sticking point than the price.

Edit. As an aside, I don't think MS have made the decision about requiring an internet connection solely because of DRM issues (every system is likely to be hacked regardless), but more to do with their cloud vision. I'm sure they're hoping that developers will take full advantage of the cloud as an extra resource of performance etc. if they are guaranteed that everyone playing the game has access to it. The problem is, even if people have internet access, there's no guarantee that it's quick enough to really be useful. As an example, when I move back to mid-Wales in September, the quickest internet I'm likely going to be able to get is 8MB, there's no Virgin cable, there's no BT infinity etc. There's a chance of 16MB in Aberystwyth itself. However, if I live further out, the speeds drop-off massively. My parents connection flutters between 128Kb/s and about 0.5MB, it's mostly unusable for any sort of streaming, even youtube a lot of the time.

Any information about the cost of games and peripherals yet? If games are cheaper on the Xbox One, the difference in price would be a non-issue. Similarly, if the more advanced controller on the PS4 (which I believe the Xbox One can basically simulate using Kinect2?) costs a fortune to buy separately, the difference in price may be minimal once 2-3 extra controllers are purchased.
 
Last edited:
Certainly Larksea. The PS4 is a more powerful machine, especially when it comes to graphics. However it requires expertise to get the most out of the hardware. Just look at the PS3 and Xbox 360, the quality of graphics on both increased throughout the consoles lifecycle. Comparing the latest games to those released at launch and there's a stark difference. This is because developers learn't how to eek every drop of performance from the consoles, this takes time.

What I'm arguing is that MS could have a big head start in that regard. Developers have already had years of experience dealing with the combination of AMD (Ati) graphics cards and DirectX. They should in theory be able to hit the ground running with the Xbox One. I'm unsure if Sony will be using OpenGL or not, but even if they are, OpenGL isn't considered to be as powerful, or as refined as DirectX.

yeah but the PS3 in particular takes a lot of work and experience to get the most out of with it's cell architecture it was awesomely powerful but not many games actually took full advantage of that power. the graphics of most games on the ps3 pale in comparison to Uncharted 2 & 3 in particular which were defaloped to take full advantage of the PS3 Cell.

The thing with the PS4 is that it's a setup that developers will be very familiar with right from the start, being x86-64

there is actually some info around about the PS4 graphics API set, sounds quite good.

http://www.geek.com/games/sony-iimprove-directx-11-for-the-ps4-blu-ray-1544364/

http://hothardware.com/News/Sony-Sheds-More-Light-On-PS4-Hardware/
 
Dullonien I have the same issue with internet connections. At uni we had Virgin 100mb package and got on average 95mb in non peak times (Which translates to peak activity time in a student house). Next year getting the 30mb package. Back home currently I have a 8mb connection which is lucky to get over 4mb and when I lived down south it was the same story.

Also the price of the DS4's has been reported to be around the £40-50 mark like the DS3's to start but you should be able to import like I have done both my DS3's and got them for £20 each and in different colours (1 white, 1 orange) Both legit by sony but doubt we'll see coloured controllers for a while.
 
NextGen console War results:

ay5740q_460s.jpg
 
actually some pretty sweat indie games coming to PS4, we will see a lot more of that with the PS4 being x86-64 and indie becoming more popular/getting more attention with Sony clearly using that as a selling point probably off the back of the ouya kick starter success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zYcae-PGC_c#at=197

this basically shows small game studios that have ported games to PS4 in a limited time frame.

I've never been a huge fan of Sony

I got a PS3 because I saw Daemon Souls and simply had to have it and I also needed a bluray player

But they have basically done literally EVERYTHING right for the PS4, bar having backwards compatibility for PS3 games. though sticking to x86-64 for future PS consoles means it will be likely future playstations could more easily support previous verson console games. You can understand PS4 not supporting PS3 games Sony simply had to get away from the Cell architecture. In a way it's kinda a shame but it was never properly accepted or fully utilized other than by a few developers.

Sounds like Devalopers have a huge amount of control over how to use the PS4 hardware through the API's they can customize CPU, Memory and GPU allocation/processing and find the sweat spot for their games.
 
Last edited:
You guys won't believe what happened to me yesterday.

I won a PS4 along with a game and an extra controller.

And the best part was, I didn't even know I entered the competition! This weekend my wife will not see much of me...
 
What game did you get with it?

Assassin's Creed Black flag.

I was saving up for it, so I'm very happy. I just got an e-mail that the courier is on it's way to my office to deliver the parcel and that they won't be later than 3 hours from now...
 

Latest posts

Top