Maybe it'll sell only half as many units as the previous generation?
I was really just making a few puns, on the flip-flopping of MS (XBOX ONE doing a ONEeighty) and being only half of 360 (180 is half of 360).
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Playstation 4 VS Xbox One
- Thread starter TheJetsFan4Eva
- Start date
Maybe it'll sell only half as many units as the previous generation?
I was really just making a few puns, on the flip-flopping of MS (XBOX ONE doing a ONEeighty) and being only half of 360 (180 is half of 360).
That'd be nice. Maybe there will be some creative software choices this time.
Back in the day games shipped without the need for updates. They came 'completed'. While it's cool being able to update the systems actual interface, it shouldn't ever be needed. IMHO, the ability to update allows companies to be lazy on the front end and just say, "we'll fix it later if it becomes a problem." If I'm spending $400+ on a gaming system it better not ever need fixing or forced updating to operate properly.
I really don't see your point here or what you're even trying to get across.
Matt was simply trying to say that even with the 360s initial problems upon release, it was still in much better standing in the public's eye than the Xbox One currently is. The One will be lucky to make even half the impact the 360 did because of this nightmare than has been surrounding its pre-release. That's why he made the 180 comment.
What I meant by saying 'I wonder about you' is how you didn't understand what Matt was trying to get across. You took his statement at literal face value and didn't seem to comprehend the metaphor behind it all. It's similar to your comment towards Dwaynie. You didn't seem to understand that what he said doesn't mean he hates updates, he just doesn't see the need for them.
"We dreamed such big dreams. We did it all for you. And you killed our dreams."
Xbox executive Don Mattrick
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Hahahahaha! These guys are a PR nightmare! Just when I thought they couldn't do anything more wrong they somehow top themselves!
There was a rumor awhile back that MS is purposely trying to make the new Xbox a complete dud because of the NSA's potential to spy and monitor people via the Kinect. I definitely thought that was a good laugh at first, but now that claim is suddenly seeming to hold more water in my mind. I mean, it has to be that. I refuse to believe MS has become this incompetent.
Why would they purposely make a dud and lose a bunch of money in the process because of that potential?
It would seem to me, more likely, that they would cash in on such potential.
I think the NSA would be greatful to MS for putting the tools to spy on more civilians into the households of gamers worldwide.
Now the the whistle has been blown, however, people would be likely to turn away from the XBox due to NSA fears.
Because a video taping dud that releases bad quality games could end up producing a new series, such as "Microsoft's funniest videos!"
Because this logic would have MS being against the NSA's spying, and thus would want the system to not sell so the NSA wouldn't have a huge number of people to potentially spy on. Obviously they don't seem to care as MS has given them information in the past, but that just means MS has probably the worst PR imaginable. This will go down as one of the worst product launches in history, methinks.
"We dreamed such big dreams. We did it all for you. And you killed our dreams."
Xbox executive Don Mattrick
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Except that, if you look at the Wired article carefully, that's not a quote. It's the author's "interpretation" of what he said.
Not at all. The logic in my post would have MS being buddied up with the NSA in order to spy on everyone.
NSA to MS: "How about you guys make a system in which over the air audio and video systems are always on?"
MS to NSA: "$$$$$"
Making the XBox a dud would kind of be the opposite of either intention, no?
Thats what I was getting from your post
Maybe I got mixed up somewhere?
If MS purposefully made the new XBox a dud it wouldnt sell very many units and would therefore be less useful to the NSA, correct?
Updates are a thing of the past. And "complete" is a variable term. A lot of "complete" games even had game compromising bugs (OoT look up the speed runs, even there they are used). So complete really is when the supervisor sees it fit to completion with his team. That's all complete is. Updating is always necessary, especially in computing which is exactly what current generation tech is.
I'm saying even if ppl got put under surveillance by a gaming console, would it even be surprising?
Crap software will fade, I'm sure the systems can be optimized. I'm more concerned with crap hardware. The whole multi-core deal is getting out of hand IMO. A lot of ppl admit if a 16Ghz single core came out one day they'd take it over the 4Ghz quad-core whatever. Because the small job will always be done faster by one giant processor than four much smaller processors. After a while you can't divide tasks so evenly. Software will always be fine, regardless of bad PR. PR is not what gaming is about.
Just because you can spread a single task over four processors does not mean a single task would be done faster than one hell of a powerful single core. Look it up on google. See if I'm wrong.
The only reason we aren't staying with single cores is it wouldn't be possible to generate that much power to stably distribute over a single one.
Yes. I understand Amdahl's Law and use it every day. The problem is, there are fundamental limits on how fast you can make a single core operate. The lack of a 16GHz core isn't some marketing thing, or an evil conspiracy out to ruin your day. It's just physics. We can put more transistors on a piece of silicon but there's a limit to how fast we can make them wiggle the wires that connect them together. 4GHz is about the limit for most practical purposes. If you want more, you're going to have to pay much more $$$ and accept lower efficiency per watt and per mm^2.
That's an issue, but a relatively minor one. Getting the power (heat) out is more of a problem than getting it in.
Ok so between an i5 and i7, both quads at say.....4ghz....what's the difference?
As far as I know the main differences are HT and cache size, but I don't work for Intel so am not privy to any subtle internal details. My guess is that they're actually the same physical piece of silicon, just with some stuff disabled in the i5.
Massive backflip, so now you're paying a bunch of money for a bunch of R&D and "Features" that no longer exist, and can still be enabled at anytime, and still features the worst part that is a camera in your house 24/7.
Kudos to MS for actually listening for once though.
Although apparently some games will use "Cloud processing" and therefore will still require an online connection to play the game. This will of course be at the discretion of the publisher. Still looking for more info on this but apparently it's a thing.
All this is a little too reminiscent of the recent massive flop of a video game launch that was Sim City.
Kudos to MS for actually listening for once though.
Although apparently some games will use "Cloud processing" and therefore will still require an online connection to play the game. This will of course be at the discretion of the publisher. Still looking for more info on this but apparently it's a thing.
All this is a little too reminiscent of the recent massive flop of a video game launch that was Sim City.
Technically, the same piece of a wafer will yield varying speeds of processors but you won't find different processors on the same wafer.
Think of it like baking bread. You can cut slices thicker yielding more bread per slice but you can't bake a loaf and cut rye from a multigrain loaf.
The faster GHz proc vs multi core proc concept fails to take into account inefficiencies of single threaded programming. If you aren't good at multi proc programming, your code will run like ass on any system. Even one with a fast single core. The elegance of a multi core system is better seen with clean efficient code.
Our programmers get lazy and cram crap in code that doesn't equate to anything but the proc still has to parse and run it.
Also, cores are the fastest thing in the system. Speed is great but most cores usually sit waiting on cache, HDD or RAM to deliver the code to the core so it can do its job. Systems need to be designed with efficiencies in mind. They sometimes aren't. Most of us would never know if it was efficient or not. I know I wouldn't.
One of the greatest efficient systems made was an Amiga. It had multiple cores doing many different things. It was also an amazing gaming system. Slow cores working in unison for a "common good". And faster PCs were just slugs in comparison.
This is a great example of efficiencies in design and code writing.
Sure. But what usually happens is that you take the die and then blow fuses to disable / enable various optional features or turn off failed sections. So you could (again, I don't know what Intel are doing, but this is the way other people do it) fab a wafer containing identical parts, but then some of which end up being configured as i7s and others being configured as i5s.
