Survey on next-gen console purchases may spell trouble for Xbox One.

Don't fuck it up, Sony!

What idiotic post on Gaming Blend. Trying to diss the One and PS4 while pumping up the WiiU. So what if Watch Dogs is "only" 30 fps. As long as it stays smooth and looks at good as the videos it will be awesome.

because 30 fps is barely sufficient and the next gen consoles should be doing better than that -- otherwise what is the point?

As I have said before here, there's zero incentive for game devs to aim for faster framerates on the new consoles. There's no incentive to optimize.

Meanwhile I get 50 fixed rate frames on borderlands 2 for PC with explosions going off everywhere....that game engine is sleek.

avianflu wrote on Sep 30, 2013, 10:24:
because 30 fps is barely sufficient and the next gen consoles should be doing better than that -- otherwise what is the point?

As I have said before here, there's zero incentive for game devs to aim for faster framerates on the new consoles. There's no incentive to optimize.

Meanwhile I get 50 fixed rate frames on borderlands 2 for PC with explosions going off everywhere....that game engine is sleek.

Devs have been getting away with unoptimized code for ages now, and I have to say this, mostly on the PC. Its a fucking disgrace is what it is and its pushing people towards consoles, at least it used to when console games used to look good and run without hickups.

The real question though is, is it locked at 30fps on consoles to make them all equal or because neither of the next gen consoles can do better?

LurkerLito wrote on Sep 30, 2013, 10:53:
The real question though is, is it locked at 30fps on consoles to make them all equal or because neither of the next gen consoles can do better?

Wondered that as well.

30fps for consoles makes sense. A lot of titles have run at 30fps and console gamers are used to that. They are dealing with hardware, that while vastly superior to the old stuff, is still pretty limited. You would lower your settings considerably to run at 60fps steady in most newer games with an equivalent spec PC.

But at the end of the day, you can either have a pretty looking game at 30fps, potentially with some anti-aliasing (a god send for console games on a big TV IMHO) or a less pretty looking game at 60fps, with DEFINITELY no anti-aliasing.

"A lot of titles have run at 30fps and console gamers are used to that."

NKD, that is sorta the problem....

Survey on next-gen console purchases may spell trouble for Xbox One.

Not as bad as I would have thought: 15% XB1 to 26% PS4. Given all the bad MS press, I would have thought it to be more like 10% to 40%.

Even i'm considering getting a PS4, and my last console was a Sega Genesis...

jdreyer wrote on Sep 30, 2013, 13:11:
Survey on next-gen console purchases may spell trouble for Xbox One.

Not as bad as I would have thought: 15% XB1 to 26% PS4. Given all the bad MS press, I would have thought it to be more like 10% to 40%.

It's just a poll but:

I'm surprised to see younger interests (COD crowd) polling further apart :

Asked about their interest in dedicated game devices, 26 percent of 1,297 people surveyed online last week say they are likely to purchase the new PlayStation 4 when available, versus 15 percent opting for the Xbox One.

The rift widens among those below the age of 40. Of that group of 408 people, 41 percent picked Sony's PS4 versus 27 percent for Microsoft's Xbox One, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from Sept 23 to Sept 27.

avianflu wrote on Sep 30, 2013, 13:10:
"A lot of titles have run at 30fps and console gamers are used to that."

NKD, that is sorta the problem....

Is it a problem? Like I said, doubling the framerate means significant reduction in quality and potentially resolution. Last generation even with a target of 30fps, a lot of titles didn't even run at a true 720p, let alone 1080p.

You're dealing with a $400-500 system. There are tough choices to be made as to where your computational power goes.

Keep in mind that these systems are supposed to be profitable. If they had taken a hit on the consoles like they did with the PS3 and made up for it in other places and invested more in a better video card we would be better off.

You console gamers can enjoy your 30 FPS while I, on the other hand, have every intention of buying two GTX 690's at wholesale value (should be about $333 each).

The only problem is 4k resolution will still tax this rig. God damn it.

I gotta be honest with you though. Console gamers will have a better experience than I will despite the fact that my rig will produce much better graphics.

Why?

Because PC versions of games are BUGGY AS HELL!!! The last **4** games I have bought, including a Grand Theft Auto game and Assassin's Creed, have been so fucking buggy that I couldn't even play the damned game!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: I thought I would tell you about those two games.

The GTA game had a bug where the textures wouldn't load. The character would be standing in outer space.

The Assassin's Creed game had a fatal bug where your save would revert hours back in gameplay. I put up with it 2 or 3 times until a big one happened and I just said "FUCK THIS SHIT!!!!".

The worst part about these bugs? The developers did NOTHING to fix them over the YEARS!!!!

And everywhere outside of NA MS has written them off anyway so that's all been ceded to Sony. They're going to have all of Europe and Asia to themselves. MS is so fucked. Good!

You console gamers can enjoy your 30 FPS while I, on the other hand, have every intention of buying two GTX 690's at wholesale value (should be about $333 each).

The only problem is 4k resolution will still tax this rig. God damn it.

I'm sorry, but why on earth are you buying two GTX 690s when the R9 290X is specifically designed for 4K resolution monitors and you don't have to worry about your system being taxed?

The frame rate on console games are also fixed because of the nature of the controller / sample rate.

Hellbinder wrote on Sep 30, 2013, 15:48:
The frame rate on console games are also fixed because of the nature of the controller / sample rate.

source?

Definitely not buying a 180, still have a preorder in for PS4 but the closer I get to launch the less I feel like pulling the trigger. I have more than enough to play on my PS3 / PC and I'm not expecting anything to be exclusively on the consoles that I want to play.

Sigh, I like getting new toys but besides holding that ps4 controller for myself and using it at my new pc controller (if that is possible) I can't think of any reason I want to spend $400.

Plus that star citizen dog fighter should be out by December...and $400 buys me a lot of flight controls!

"I'm sorry, but why on earth are you buying two GTX 690s when the R9 290X is specifically designed for 4K resolution monitors and you don't have to worry about your system being taxed?"

"The leaked benchmarks peg the Radeon R9-290X as equal or slightly faster than Nvidia’s GTX Titan"

The GTX 690 is more powerful than the R9-290x and the Titan. The only problem is I can only have two of them I think, whereas 3 or 4 R9-290X's would be superior.

Not sure what I'm going to do about this.

I think I will go with Nvidia. I have seen the inconsistent delivery of frames on Radeon cards and it looks absolutely horrible.

I'm sure they're limiting Watch Dogs to 30fps on the PS4 to not make it faster than XflopOne.