The Guardian: Microsoft to unify PC/One platforms, ending fixed console hardware

[Rice N Beans]

You aren't the one that gets to dictate the aim of purpose.

Which is a concept you're having a hard time grasping since you started quoting me.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Which is a concept you're having a hard time grasping since you started quoting me.

I didn't chose anything. I used the general idea of success.

Xbox has achieved, popularity, profit and, distinction.

If you wanted to create your own metrics, then you should specify what those metrics are.

But even using your own metrics, the determination of success or failure is still based on facts.

If your metrics are Xbox had to turn @Rice N Beans into an Xbox Stan in order to be successful. Then we still have to look at the facts to determine if they were successful or not.

It still comes down to a factual yes or no. Is Rice N beans an Xbox Stan or not.

So no. Success is absolutely not subjective. The metrics for success may be subjective. But the actual determination of success or failure is still based off of fact.

 

[Fatboi1]

can you name these games ? Sounds like you arent playing to your computer specs and trying to over do it

Okay, i'll give you some games that aren't named Batman Arkham Knight.

Gears of War Ultimate Edition just came out and that game runs like crap on AMD GPUs.


The new Gears of War Ultimate Edition is a DX12 disaster | ExtremeTech

And before you say it's just an AMD issue, there are some users with Nvidia GPUs reporting problems nontheless.

Anyway, I have a GTX970 and an I54690K. I can tell I'm getting constant stuttering on the high pre set, but for the tutorial it was fine. Not particularly happy with the performance so far, but it's late and I didn't have time to test properly. The game was like £20 and I felt like trying out the Win10 store. It will take something special to keep me coming back because I'd rather play these games on my Xbone as it stands since the performance matches the hardware on that system. No surprises here, I knew the MS store would be trash, Quantum Break will be trash and that's just my 2 cents. MS won't change.

Btw anyone else having stuttering and hitching during the campaign? Using a 980ti, i7 5820k, 16gb ram and it performs like ass.

Rise of the Tomb Raider
This game has areas where the frame rates drop for no reason even on presets that match the Xbox One version closely at 30fps. I'm talking, you look in one direction and your frames drop hard. You can google "Geothermal valley" PC peformance for ROTR and see for yourself. This was at 1080P too.

Fallout 4

Even with a i7 6900K and 980 TI, I am seeing low 40's in some areas. What the hell Bethesda?

Well I take back what I said, the game still runs like garbage on my 970. Load times are absurd as well, even when simply exiting buildings.

I myself had lots of performance issues in city areas and others with stronger hardware reported the same. The common denominator here is that although each users hardware was different and there was lots of other variables to consider, subsequent patches for some of these games improved performance whereas some seems to have gotten worse.

On the console side, there are several games that get performance boosts via patches that proves that the game isn't "struggling" because of the hardware but more so because of other things(Engine complexity, optimizations, bugs etc.) When games on PS4 get boosts like:
Fallout 4
Fallout 4 patch 1.03 improves console graphics quality
The performance still was about the same on PS4(30fps with drops sometimes).

The Witcher 3 had a big patch a while ago that fixed some vsync performance issues on PS4.

Far Cry Primal runs at a smooth 30fps on PS4/Xbox One at 1080P(1440x1080 for XB1) so the notion that the hardware struggles is dumb. Would MGSV running at 1080p/60fps be considered a miracle?? No, it's just running on a good engine and it's cross gen roots show. It's just a fairly lite game compared to The Witcher 3 for example.

All I'm saying is y'all like to get logical when it comes to PC performance woes and bugs saying shyt like "But the devs are to blame! The game engine isn't optimized.. Consoles are holding it back.. shytty port.." but when the exact same thing happens on console you suddenly throw all logic out the window and say "It's the fukking puny hardware!" ignoring so much other things that can cause that. Not to mention the myriads of games that run perfectly fine on consoles that gets ignored because it's not a hot topic.

 

[Fatboi1]

I also don't get the logic of some of you who think stronger hardware will somehow "solve" console problems(performance/graphics) when it's such a vague term. If a theoretical Xbox V3 is out and has some strong specs in contrast to it's lower end model, a comparison between a game built with that in mind isn't really a true measure of how strong it is because a stronger system will always run better by pure brute force.

A PC will always have the luxury of being able to be upgraded to get what performance you desire if possible. EVERY game can run at 1080P/60fps on PS4 if the dev were to aim for that visual fidelity but then you'd have the usual suspects saying they didn't buy the system to play remastered looking games. All this to say, stronger hardware doesn't equal performance/visuals that correlate to the refresh rate of a TV and it's resolution. Devs would target better visuals and more scene complexity than to target perfect 60fps and even then that's not a given. There's always a tradeoff.

The 1080P/__FPS has become such a misused and misunderstood buzzword being thrown around with absolutely no understanding of it. Like I bet you there's dudes out here that think a game like MGSV is somehow better than say TW3 or any other open world 30fps because "It runs at 1080P/60fps!" when that's such a shortsighted view.


Note: This doesn't mean I'm against this sort of idea(of tiered consoles) but I'm just giving out my thoughts on it.

 

[Rice N Beans]

I didn't chose anything.

Yes you did. By listing my statement as incorrect you had already chosen to replace what was the basis of my opinion with that of your own.

I used the general idea of success.

Which is again subjective...

Xbox has achieved, popularity, profit and, distinction.

Profit the only one being objective.

If you wanted to create your own metrics, then you should specify what those metrics are.

Instead, next time you shouldn't try and fit your opinions over others as factual first then ask questions later.

But even using your own metrics, the determination of success or failure is still based on facts.

The data provided can be factual, an install base report. It's interpretation is subjective, such as whether or not it is "enough" installs.

If your metrics are Xbox had to turn @Rice N Beans into an Xbox Stan in order to be successful. Then we still have to look at the facts to determine if they were successful or not.

It still comes down to a factual yes or no. Is Rice N beans an Xbox Stan or not.

And that is how YOUR (or whomever conjured it up) subjective determination of success is going to be. I could very well interpret that as not enough were turned into stans.

The success here is subjective.

So no. Success is absolutely not subjective.

Yes, it is.

The metrics for success may be subjective.

And it's results can be as well.

But the actual determination of success or failure is still based off of fact.

In terms of data provided for determination, it can be factual. You're ignoring many things including theoreticals.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Yes you did. By listing my statement as incorrect you had already chosen to replace what was the basis of my opinion with that of your own.

You didn't and still have not given the basis of your statement. I treated as a general statement, using the general understanding of words. Had you ment to step outside the general idea of the words you were using, then you should have specified that basis.

Which is again subjective...
Profit the only one being objective.

No, absolutely not. Popularity, profit, and distinction are easily quantifiable metrics. They are in no way based on personal opinion.

If something is popular it has nothing to do with my own personal metrics.

I'm not a Drake fan, but there's no way I can deny his popularity.

Instead, next time you shouldn't try and fit your opinions over others as factual first then ask questions later.
Click to expand...

Again. If you have an argument that is the opposite of the general consensus, then the onus is on you to explain your argument.

You can't make general statements, then hide behind "it's my opinion" when challenged. That just shows how you can't even back up your own shyt.

The data provided can be factual, an install base report. It's interpretation is subjective, such as whether or not it is "enough" installs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You can't set a goal as "enough" you have to quantify what "enough" is.

And that is how YOUR (or whomever conjured it up) subjective determination of success is going to be. I could very well interpret that as not enough were turned into stans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That would still be a factual assertion. You'd have to know how many people are stans in order to determine if "enough" are.

The success here is subjective.

In terms of data provided for determination, it can be factual. You're ignoring many things including theoreticals.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is no "theoretical" success. It's a yes or no question.
Click to expand...​

 

[itsyoung!!]

Okay, i'll give you some games that aren't named Batman Arkham Knight.

Gears of War Ultimate Edition just came out and that game runs like crap on AMD GPUs.


The new Gears of War Ultimate Edition is a DX12 disaster | ExtremeTech

And before you say it's just an AMD issue, there are some users with Nvidia GPUs reporting problems nontheless.

​

Rise of the Tomb Raider
This game has areas where the frame rates drop for no reason even on presets that match the Xbox One version closely at 30fps. I'm talking, you look in one direction and your frames drop hard. You can google "Geothermal valley" PC peformance for ROTR and see for yourself. This was at 1080P too.

Fallout 4

​

I myself had lots of performance issues in city areas and others with stronger hardware reported the same. The common denominator here is that although each users hardware was different and there was lots of other variables to consider, subsequent patches for some of these games improved performance whereas some seems to have gotten worse.

On the console side, there are several games that get performance boosts via patches that proves that the game isn't "struggling" because of the hardware but more so because of other things(Engine complexity, optimizations, bugs etc.) When games on PS4 get boosts like:
Fallout 4
Fallout 4 patch 1.03 improves console graphics quality
The performance still was about the same on PS4(30fps with drops sometimes).

The Witcher 3 had a big patch a while ago that fixed some vsync performance issues on PS4.

Far Cry Primal runs at a smooth 30fps on PS4/Xbox One at 1080P(1440x1080 for XB1) so the notion that the hardware struggles is dumb. Would MGSV running at 1080p/60fps be considered a miracle?? No, it's just running on a good engine and it's cross gen roots show. It's just a fairly lite game compared to The Witcher 3 for example.

All I'm saying is y'all like to get logical when it comes to PC performance woes and bugs saying shyt like "But the devs are to blame! The game engine isn't optimized.. Consoles are holding it back.. shytty port.." but when the exact same thing happens on console you suddenly throw all logic out the window and say "It's the fukking puny hardware!" ignoring so much other things that can cause that. Not to mention the myriads of games that run perfectly fine on consoles that gets ignored because it's not a hot topic.

these are issues with the games, not the PC.

The difference is consoles are the issues alongside the developers.

How can you not see the difference ?

Its like complaining a Ubisoft game runs bad on PC. Ubisoft is a shyt developer who makes shyt ports. Theres nothing wrong with the PC. Something wrong with the game.

The difference is if a game is running at 25 FPS and 900p on a console, its cause the console is also shyt.

How can you not see the difference ?

im not a console peasant, these garbage and weak arguments arent going to go over on me because im smarter than that

ps;
30 fps in 2016 is despicable.

 

[Fatboi1]

these are issues with the games, not the PC.

It's the SAME thing on consoles. If a game runs like crap, it's the GAME because if said game gets fixed later or other games come out similar in scope yet runs fine than it's disingenuous to say the console is to blame.

The difference is consoles are the issues alongside the developers.
Click to expand...​

No, this is just pure conjecture.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that.

Its like complaining a Ubisoft game runs bad on PC. Ubisoft is a shyt developer who makes shyt ports. Theres nothing wrong with the PC. Something wrong with the game.
Click to expand...​

So when Ubisoft makes a crap game that runs bad on PC, it's Ubisoft fault but when they do the same on PS4/XB1 it's the console fault for it running crappy? Far Cry Primal just came out on PS4/Xb1 and on PS4 runs perfectly fine.

Performance is excellent in Far Cry Primal, and both consoles offer up a consistently smooth gameplay experience.
Performance Analysis: Far Cry Primal
Click to expand...​

The difference is if a game is running at 25 FPS and 900p on a console, its cause the console is also shyt.
Click to expand...​

Let's stop exaggerating here, what games are running on console(namely the PS4) at 900P/25fps consistently? Name these games(and I"m sure a Ubisoft game here will be named) There's WAY more 1080P30fps/60fps games on PS4 than there are 900p/25fps as you call it. This is extreme hyperbole breh. Maybe on Xbox you'll find much more 900P games but again, this is extreme hyperbole.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that again.

im not a console peasant, these garbage and weak arguments arent going to go over on me because im smarter than that
Click to expand...​

No, these arguments aren't going to go over on you because you're so biased against consoles. You refuse to acknowledge that games that may not run as smooth on consoles can simply be a result of the GAME and not the hardware itself. I game on both PC and console and it irks me when I see this PC elitist attitude cropping up which is so contradictory and biased.
ps;

30 fps in 2016 is despicable.
Click to expand...​

Millions of people play games at 30fps with no problem. They have PC's for guys like you that find 30fps unplayable which I find ridiculous. a locked 30fps game>>>>>>>>>>>>>A 60fps that constantly drops to 40s. A locked 30fps which is in line with the supported 30hz on a TV is fine. I find this "30fps is a slideshow" talk so damn full of shyt. Were these nikkaz on some "Yuck fukk this 30fps" when they was playing OOT or MGS or FFVII? 60fps existed since televisions existed. This sudden influx of 60fps elitists are brand new.

Again, y'all love to be hyperbolic when talking about consoles and I notice this a lot from you.

We could be in here talking about how impressive some console game look and here y'all come with the "But STAR CITIZEN IS BEee GMADE AT 1440P/600FPS AND LOOKS WAYYYY BETTER smh at yall peasants!"

Half the times y'all overrating these PC games visuals merely off the strength of the resolution/framerate. There are sometimes games on consoles that look way better than a comparable game on PC. I have a gaming PC so I can compare myself.

You think someone will be thinking "Yeah this is garbage running at 30fps smh" when they are playing these 30fps games?

Give me a fukking break man.

 

[Rice N Beans]

You didn't and still have not given the basis of your statement. I treated as a general statement, using the general understanding of words. Had you ment to step outside the general idea of the words you were using, then you should have specified that basis.

Your misunderstanding and followed self-humilation is your fault and not mine.

No, absolutely not. Popularity, profit, and distinction are easily quantifiable metrics. They are in no way based on personal opinion.

If something is popular it has nothing to do with my own personal metrics.

I'm not a Drake fan, but there's no way I can deny his popularity.

Only profit is. Popularity is subjective, and not sure where you're going with distinction.

I can say it is my opinion the XB1 isn't popular on this subforum. You'd probably argue otherwise. Different metrics of measurement.

The wonders of opinions and their subjectiveness.

​

Again. If you have an argument that is the opposite of the general consensus, then the onus is on you to explain your argument.

So how is the XB1 a success then?

You can't make general statements, then hide behind "it's my opinion" when challenged. That just shows how you can't even back up your own shyt.

I can if I so please. You're just upset you've misunderstood the statement and drawn it out.

​

You can't set a goal as "enough" you have to quantify what "enough" is.

You're right. That "enough" variable would vary from person to person in the overall subjective understanding of success. In your stan example, one specific stan gained would be enough for you in that example, whereas I countered with it would not be enough for me to deem it a success.

Subjective subjective.

​

You'd have to know how many people are stans in order to determine if "enough" are.

In the given example? Yes. Wasn't exactly up for debate.

There is no "theoretical" success. It's a yes or no question.

Struggling to follow along are we?

Your original statement was "But the actual determination of success or failure is still based off of fact." in which I replied "In terms of data provided for determination, it can be factual. You're ignoring many things including theoreticals." In no way did I say anything close to "success is theoretical". ​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Only profit is. Popularity is subjective, and not sure where you're going with distinction.

I can say it is my opinion the XB1 isn't popular on this subforum. You'd probably argue otherwise. Different metrics of measurement.
​

​

No. Popularity is quantifiable.

Using your example of this forum, we can observe that playstation game threads usualy have more users. There's more people here with a PSN logo under their profiles. And if we wanted an exact number we could put a poll up.

Popularity is easily quantifiable.

I can if I so please. You're just upset you've misunderstood the statement and drawn it out.

And you decided to hide behind "it's my opinion" like a coward would do. If you had a strong position you would have presented it by now.

​

You're right. That "enough" variable would vary from person to person in the overall subjective understanding of success. In your stan example, one specific stan gained would be enough for you in that example, whereas I countered with it would not be enough for me to deem it a success.

Each individual person would have to define what "enough" is, for the rest of us to asses success. Otherwise there's no point in even taking about it.

If your definition of success stays in your head, then how could I ever determine if success occurred or not?

​

In the given example? Yes. Wasn't exactly up for debate

In any example, in order to determine success or failure we'd have to have a clear understanding of the factual basis for which success is determined.

Struggling to follow along are we?

Your original statement was "But the actual determination of success or failure is still based off of fact." in which I replied "In terms of data provided for determination, it can be factual. You're ignoring many things including theoreticals." In no way did I say anything close to "success is theoretical".

..​

You doing the

Right now.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

This can be very good or VERY BAD...

 

[itsyoung!!]

It's the SAME thing on consoles. If a game runs like crap, it's the GAME because if said game gets fixed later or other games come out similar in scope yet runs fine than it's disingenuous to say the console is to blame.

The difference is consoles are the issues alongside the developers.
Click to expand...​

No, this is just pure conjecture.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that.

Its like complaining a Ubisoft game runs bad on PC. Ubisoft is a shyt developer who makes shyt ports. Theres nothing wrong with the PC. Something wrong with the game.
Click to expand...​

So when Ubisoft makes a crap game that runs bad on PC, it's Ubisoft fault but when they do the same on PS4/XB1 it's the console fault for it running crappy? Far Cry Primal just came out on PS4/Xb1 and on PS4 runs perfectly fine.

Performance is excellent in Far Cry Primal, and both consoles offer up a consistently smooth gameplay experience.
Performance Analysis: Far Cry Primal
Click to expand...​

The difference is if a game is running at 25 FPS and 900p on a console, its cause the console is also shyt.
Click to expand...​

Let's stop exaggerating here, what games are running on console(namely the PS4) at 900P/25fps consistently? Name these games(and I"m sure a Ubisoft game here will be named) There's WAY more 1080P30fps/60fps games on PS4 than there are 900p/25fps as you call it. This is extreme hyperbole breh. Maybe on Xbox you'll find much more 900P games but again, this is extreme hyperbole.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that again.

im not a console peasant, these garbage and weak arguments arent going to go over on me because im smarter than that
Click to expand...​

No, these arguments aren't going to go over on you because you're so biased against consoles. You refuse to acknowledge that games that may not run as smooth on consoles can simply be a result of the GAME and not the hardware itself. I game on both PC and console and it irks me when I see this PC elitist attitude cropping up which is so contradictory and biased.
ps;

30 fps in 2016 is despicable.
Click to expand...​

Millions of people play games at 30fps with no problem. They have PC's for guys like you that find 30fps unplayable which I find ridiculous. a locked 30fps game>>>>>>>>>>>>>A 60fps that constantly drops to 40s. A locked 30fps which is in line with the supported 30hz on a TV is fine. I find this "30fps is a slideshow" talk so damn full of shyt. Were these nikkaz on some "Yuck fukk this 30fps" when they was playing OOT or MGS or FFVII? 60fps existed since televisions existed. This sudden influx of 60fps elitists are brand new.

Again, y'all love to be hyperbolic when talking about consoles and I notice this a lot from you.

We could be in here talking about how impressive some console game look and here y'all come with the "But STAR CITIZEN IS BEee GMADE AT 1440P/600FPS AND LOOKS WAYYYY BETTER smh at yall peasants!"

Half the times y'all overrating these PC games visuals merely off the strength of the resolution/framerate. There are sometimes games on consoles that look way better than a comparable game on PC. I have a gaming PC so I can compare myself.

You think someone will be thinking "Yeah this is garbage running at 30fps smh" when they are playing these 30fps games?

Give me a fukking break man.

and you used farcry primal as an example? Its pretty recognized as being complete shyt on console

but I forgot this is coli where everything is opposite of reality

 

[Trapperman Dave]

They should've done this from the jump

 

[Rice N Beans]

No. Popularity is quantifiable.

It's subjective is what it is.

Using your example of this forum, we can observe that playstation game threads usualy have more users. There's more people here with a PSN logo under their profiles. And if we wanted an exact number we could put a poll up.

If what is what you'd like to base it's popularity on, sure. As stated, there are many methods and how you judge it is how one defines it. Congrats Meach, you're following along! You'd get a gold star if I could put one there.

And you decided to hide behind "it's my opinion" like a coward would do. If you had a strong position you would have presented it by now.

Nope. You're just bitter you misunderstood my opinion and fukked up.

Each individual person would have to define what "enough" is, for the rest of us to asses success. Otherwise there's no point in even taking about it.

Which is why it's subjective. Stay in school. I take back my gold star.

If your definition of success stays in your head, then how could I ever determine if success occurred or not?

Because it's subjective and a matter of personal opinion. Congrats Meach. You've found it!

In any example, in order to determine success or failure we'd have to have a clear understanding of the factual basis for which success is determined.

Refer to previous statement.

You doing the

Right now.

Nope. Once again you've misinterpreted and brought in something that wasn't there.

Mods need to put a dunce cap avatar for you.

 

[jalamanta]

It's the SAME thing on consoles. If a game runs like crap, it's the GAME because if said game gets fixed later or other games come out similar in scope yet runs fine than it's disingenuous to say the console is to blame.

The difference is consoles are the issues alongside the developers.
Click to expand...​

No, this is just pure conjecture.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that.

Its like complaining a Ubisoft game runs bad on PC. Ubisoft is a shyt developer who makes shyt ports. Theres nothing wrong with the PC. Something wrong with the game.
Click to expand...​

So when Ubisoft makes a crap game that runs bad on PC, it's Ubisoft fault but when they do the same on PS4/XB1 it's the console fault for it running crappy? Far Cry Primal just came out on PS4/Xb1 and on PS4 runs perfectly fine.

Performance is excellent in Far Cry Primal, and both consoles offer up a consistently smooth gameplay experience.
Performance Analysis: Far Cry Primal
Click to expand...​

The difference is if a game is running at 25 FPS and 900p on a console, its cause the console is also shyt.
Click to expand...​

Let's stop exaggerating here, what games are running on console(namely the PS4) at 900P/25fps consistently? Name these games(and I"m sure a Ubisoft game here will be named) There's WAY more 1080P30fps/60fps games on PS4 than there are 900p/25fps as you call it. This is extreme hyperbole breh. Maybe on Xbox you'll find much more 900P games but again, this is extreme hyperbole.

How can you not see the difference ?
Click to expand...​

i should be asking you that again.

im not a console peasant, these garbage and weak arguments arent going to go over on me because im smarter than that
Click to expand...​

No, these arguments aren't going to go over on you because you're so biased against consoles. You refuse to acknowledge that games that may not run as smooth on consoles can simply be a result of the GAME and not the hardware itself. I game on both PC and console and it irks me when I see this PC elitist attitude cropping up which is so contradictory and biased.
ps;

30 fps in 2016 is despicable.
Click to expand...​

Millions of people play games at 30fps with no problem. They have PC's for guys like you that find 30fps unplayable which I find ridiculous. a locked 30fps game>>>>>>>>>>>>>A 60fps that constantly drops to 40s. A locked 30fps which is in line with the supported 30hz on a TV is fine. I find this "30fps is a slideshow" talk so damn full of shyt. Were these nikkaz on some "Yuck fukk this 30fps" when they was playing OOT or MGS or FFVII? 60fps existed since televisions existed. This sudden influx of 60fps elitists are brand new.

Again, y'all love to be hyperbolic when talking about consoles and I notice this a lot from you.

We could be in here talking about how impressive some console game look and here y'all come with the "But STAR CITIZEN IS BEee GMADE AT 1440P/600FPS AND LOOKS WAYYYY BETTER smh at yall peasants!"

Half the times y'all overrating these PC games visuals merely off the strength of the resolution/framerate. There are sometimes games on consoles that look way better than a comparable game on PC. I have a gaming PC so I can compare myself.

You think someone will be thinking "Yeah this is garbage running at 30fps smh" when they are playing these 30fps games?

Give me a fukking break man.

Post CGI videos of unreleased games to prove that console games have better graphics than PC, brehs.