If games consoles supported Mouse & Keyboard, I'd legitimately switch to them as my main gaming machine. The hardware and value propositions are definitely "there."
Obviously controllers work extremely well for certain game types, I even use them on PC when the game calls for it, but I won't be convinced first person shooter-like games (with or without integrated "aim assist") are a good controller experience.
Both Xbox One[1] and Playstation 4 [2] support keyboard an mouse input. However, irrc the games have to choose to support it, so there does not appear that there'd default mappings for the keyboard (which kind of makes sense).
I think there are some games on both platforms giving you the option to use keyboard and mouse, most don't. But with the arrival of the new generation, maybe more developers decide to implent this feature.
Controllers are fine when you're used to them! I absolutely suck at using a mouse and keyboard, but I've been using a controller since the PS1 and reguarly come out on top when playing cross-platform games (including battle royales or ranked games at high levels). Just give it a while and it'll click :)
controllers will never be as good as a mouse and KB. I go back and forth from my PS4Pro and PC, and even in PC games I use a controller and kb/mouse. In GTA5, yeah, I'm too used to the controller to switch, but when I got the Master Cheif Collection for PC, what was a frustrating time in some firefights became almost easy in Reach and Halo 1.
You’re going to lose firefights if you have a controller and your opponents have mouse and keyboard. That’s why some games try to separate those users into separate ranking systems.
Exactly. I used to run a Quake 2/3 clan back in the day, and was on a clan for RTCW Enemy Territory. I jumped on Quake Live server last year with some folks used to controller pay, I crushed them, and I'm out of practice. These kids may be great at Halo multiplayer on consoles, but you're going to lose to a keyboard and mouse.
I agree that keyboard/mouse allow for greater precision for shooters, however I prefer console controllers for shooters anyway because of the difference in "posture" since its handier to have on the couch or standing in front of the TV. However because of the inherent advantage in accuracy I'd rather everyone have to use the same equipment since it levels the playing field.
Instead of the whole xCloud idea (which I doubt is going to work) I see much more in the console as the workhorse for heavy games. Stream the input to the console and the video back to the device. Many home networks are well equipped the handle this latency. It would allow me to game on any device from home instead of just having a controller.
The fact that the PC and the XBox share the same OS/ecosystem is not enough. A game console is deliberately limited what it can do. You can, for example, remove DirectX from Windows no issue, but for a gaming platform that would be devastating. The simplicity is reflected in the UX.
Serious question: what's the reasoning behind naming scheme of Xboxes? Only serious, non-ranting explanation I've found [1] is that they're rebranding it back to just "Xbox", which somehow makes even less sense.
It sounds like they're moving to the same naming scheme as cars, where a "Toyota Corolla" is basically the same, but has additional features or performance if you buy a new year model. Supposedly the new Xboxes are no different than consumer computers, so I could see games having a "runs best on Xbox 2021 or newer" label. Also, I remember that the "XBox 360" got its name because they didn't want "XBox 2" to be competing with "Playstation 3".
They switched a generation ago to commodity architectures (likely owing, in large part, to the very slow developer uptake of Sony's exotic Cell processor). Playstation and Xbox have both been on x86 for the better part of a decade already.
But this does not make them PCs any more than Nintendo going ARM makes the Switch an Android phone. The experience of owning, using, and developing for a console remains entirely different from that of a PC, even if the underlying hardware has more in common than it did in previous generations. It's not "giving up on the market" at all.
Basically, yes. The PS5 is also going to be just an x86 Ryzen machine with the same AMD GPUs you'd get in a PC.
This is sort of disappointing from a technology nerdery perspective, but after years of game developers struggling with bespoke weirdness like the PS3 Cell chip, I imagine they're welcoming the change. It also makes it much easier to handle backwards-compatibility, which most gamers treat as non-negotiable these days.
One difference is the large amounts of GDDR6 on the APUs in these upcoming consoles, which is not something PC CPUs typically have access to. (It'll have to share that memory for both graphics and compute though, so not a pure win.) I think that just that memory architecture difference alone could lead to some interesting performance characteristics compared to contemporary PCs.
But there are some meaningful differences right? Like it's an SOC with shared CPU/GPU memory. Theoretically this could give better performance for things like loading assets, which have to go from storage -> main memory -> graphics memory on PC.
> So consoles have entirely given up on the market and just become branded PCs?
In a way yes. Last generation you had "1/2 step" consoles, The PS4Pro and Xbox One X, which were mid generation upgrades. This generation is shifting even further towards bringing console gaming to what PC gaming is via Windows and Steam.
I have PC Games I own on steam, and as upgrade my PC components over time, I still own and play my library of steam based games. There is no concept of "backwards compatibility."
The belief is this is the last hard console generation, and instead overtime, their will be revisions to hardware that take advantage of leaps in technology.
As games come out that require more powerful hardware, those with "Xbox Series X" will have to opt to play games via streaming service.
So you can think of Xbox being the brand of a PC-like gaming experience created wholly by Microsoft. That is what their branding is trying to evoke.
I heard that Steve Ballmer pushed the idea of the Xbox 360's successor being named "Xbox One". He was hoping people would start calling it 'The One' because it was supposed to be a unifying home media device.
Also, this was around the time Microsoft got sued by Sky and had to change the name of SkyDrive to OneDrive. So there was definately a 'One' branding scheme going on. You also google his 'One Microsoft' reorganization plan and see a clear theme.
I remember there was a director's commentary on a Simpson's episode where they remarked that they tried several times too inject a word into the American lexicon, and it failed miserably every time. Apparently it's extremely unpredictable what people will latch on to.
The Portal writers apparently tried to get a hoop from the final scene of the game made into a meme. It didn't go over at all, but "the cake is a lie" -- memed instantly.
I suspect they want to diminish the concept of console generations altogether and push towards an "xbox as a service" type idea.
Looking at how they've mentioned that owners of their new first party titles on xbox one will have an upgraded/enhanced release available at no cost on their new console - I suspect this is to blur the lines between the two series.
I'm guessing it has something to do with game compatibility improvements. Consoles used to only support games from that generation, i.e. Nintendo and Super Nintendo are not compatible. I think the model is more like an iPhone, most apps are compatible with multiple platforms and versions of the OS, to a point. So my guess is that its a play to change the way people think about console generations.
I'm surprised how little RAM they're giving it. The amount available to the game is only increasing by 50% over the Xbox One X. I think developers are going to struggle to squeeze the proposed visual improvements. If Sony gives a more meaningful RAM boost in the PS5, developers are just going to ship their cross platform games at lower quality on Xbox Series X.
They may have something in mind for that? This is from the article on xbox.com:
> Enter Xbox Velocity Architecture, which features tight integration between hardware and software and is a revolutionary new architecture optimized for streaming of in game assets. This will unlock new capabilities that have never been seen before in console development, allowing 100 GB of game assets to be instantly accessible by the developer.
If I understand this properly (and perhaps I don't) then many PC games run just fine on 8GB, possibly since the GPU has the textures and whatnot offloaded to it. Not many games would need much more than 8GB pure game process data in memory at once. Furthermore the bottleneck of games performance is rarely the amount of RAM, so performance went elsewhere.
Atari 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, even the KIM-1 onboard 6502 had a eight times that - a full 1K--the Apple I had 4K of RAM.
NES had 2K of work RAM + 2K of video RAM, compare to the C64 at the time that had a full 64K, or the newer 16-bit computers at the time like Amiga, Atari ST, etc. that were 128K, 256K or more.
SNES had 128K of work RAM + 64K of sound RAM. In 1991 I think typical computer memories were starting to get in the 2-4MB range.
Playstation 1 had 2MB of RAM and 1MB of video RAM. By 1995 you were firmly in the 8MB range or higher for PCs.
Playstation 2 had 32MB of RAM. My PC at that time had 256MB of RAM and that was somewhat low.
So the trend of consoles having far less RAM than PCs is well established.
> Developers will be using the overall 16GB of memory in two ways: there’s 10GB for fast GPU optimal memory, 3.5GB for standard memory, and 2.5GB reserved by the OS.
2.5GB for the OS? Can someone explain why an OS needs that much?
The OS needs to handle downloading updates in the background while streaming or recording the game, running Spotify and Xbox live party voice chat, and the dashboard. It could probably make do with less but you can't change (e: increase) the memory allocation later.
Misplaced aggression. Consoles are still one of the most heavily optimized platform. The OS is doing a lot more these days those - voice chat, playing music, background downloads, etc etc
But can you do voice chat, play music, background downloads, live streaming and game streaming (to another device), etc.? Because a console has to do it all real-time, without crapping out, and without any future possibility of upgrading the RAM.
Your comparison is like saying you can do a 305Km F1 race in a Fiesta with less fuel than an F1 car. I ran everything you listed (short of Telegram but how much can that need?) on 64MB of RAM 20 years ago. And to be fair, I can do it now in well under 500MB. But it won't run Xbox loads properly.
Yes, yes I can. Pacman does background downloads, Spotify does music streaming, Telegram does voice chat. Firefox does the rest. Mind you, that's the amount of memory when I'm doing it all at once. You won't be listening to music, using the browser, downloading updates and streaming at the same time.
Game streaming and live streaming are done in hardware by the GPU through accelerated encode. System memory is only really used for sending it to the network.
8k at 120fps is an exciting prospect. I just looked and you can buy Samsung TVs that are 8k for £2000. By Christmas these might even hit an affordable price amount.
How big does a display have to be for 8k to be meaningful? It seems like you hit a point of diminishing returns with resolution: in terms of resource requirements (GPU, VRAM etc.) the cost goes up parabolically, and beyond a certain point it seems really hard to tell the difference.
"What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k."
No one (almost) has a TV which is big enough for 8K to be noticable unless you're 1 foot away from the screen.
For an 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of the extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k.
Obviously controllers work extremely well for certain game types, I even use them on PC when the game calls for it, but I won't be convinced first person shooter-like games (with or without integrated "aim assist") are a good controller experience.