Boxy theme works well for X-Box, because, well, it has "box" in it's name. Design is consistent with the name/brand.
But I like PS5, too. Curvey, organic look. I always thought that PS4 was a bit too plain, industrial... when I put it next to my old PS3 Slim (not super-slim), I still prefer Slim's curves.
Eventually, I don't care. I don't buy them to hold dead flowers, but to play games.
@texastitan123: Based on number we have at the moment, I would bet that performance difference will be lesser than PS4/X1. 20% is quite a bit less than 50%, I hope we can agree on that.
Eventually, we will know difference for sure only after we see multiplat games dissected by DF and others.
I wouldn't bet on Sony outselling MS next gen. MS has pulled out X360 success after original Xbox mediocre sales. If memory serves, original Xbox has sold only 20-something million consoles. Directly competing PS2 has sold, was it 140 million? Microsoft was much less console household name in original Xbox days and their 2nd attempt was great.
Microsoft is ending this gen in much better position. X1X is the most powerful console in the market. X1 has sold 2x original Xbox numbers, and PS4 hasn't reached PS2 sales. If Microsoft could pull X360 in those days, surely they can put up coup today.
There are quite a few unknowns. How will theoretical performance difference translate to actual games? Will storage speed play any significant role? Will XSX memory configuration compromise performance? Wil PS5 thermals (power balancing or whatever they call it) hurt performance - is it something revolutionary, or excuse for poor thermal solution? Will any side revisit VR? Etc.
One thing is sure - MS has more flexibility to maneuver. They can undercut Sony, price wise, if they decide to. They can sell hardware at loss. They can, basically, out-PS4 Sony - offer stronger platform at lower price. They have enough cash to buy or contract developers for exclusive/timed exclusive games liked in Asia - JRPG, KRPG.
@texastitan123: I am talking percentages. Relative to their capabilities, PS4 GPU was 50% faster than X1 (0.6 is 1/2 from 1.2).
Here we have X1X being 20% faster than PS5.
Undeniably X1X is still faster. But when you consider that PS4's larger percentual advantage didn't materialize in all the multiplatform games - especially early games before PS4 took volume advantage and became default development platform, I think we will see same trend here. Primary development platform will get better optimization. Where PS5 is primary, it has chance to perform same as X1X. Where X1X is primary, we will see advantage over Sony. But much will depend on year 1 sales and if any platform will earn preferable treatment simply by being more lucrative. Well, my 5c at least. I'm open to surprises in any direction.
I don't think that optimized console OS will be taking 6GB of RAM, that feels very wasteful. OS should be much more streamlined than Windows 10 on PC. Considering that next gen is basically pumped up current gen architecture, I don't expect large difference in OS footprint. When you move Windows 10 from slowest to fastest PC hardware, amount of RAM required for OS doesn't change much. I think we will see something comparable with next gen consoles, vs. current gen. Extra RAM will go to satisfy GPU appetite, not OS bloat. I am not sure why did MS go for this asynchronous RAM architecture, but I am pretty sure it is not OS/GAME division. We'll see.
Microsoft has blasted Sony out of Delta Quadrant when it comes to backward compatibility of current gen to previous gen. I do expect that they will keep advantage in next gen, although any backward compatibility will be perceived as huge step up for Sony - simply because they had none before. I still think it will be better than 100 games, but not as good as Microsoft's solution.
Launch games... still to early for me to discuss. Let's call it restraint of the old age :)
Storage, this is a bit of an question mark. It might be that Sony is spotlighting it simply because it cannot spotlight CPU and GPU prowess. Or maybe they have ideas how to put that speed to more complex use than mere load time. I do think that, whatever can be squeezed out of that storage, we will - maybe - see only when platforms mature and devs start hitting hardware ceilings. In first couple-to-few years it will boil down to simple load times. Which will not be earth shattering.
@bababooey12: Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Every PC gamer will benefit more from having Playstation over Xbox. PC/PS combination will provide access to more games, than having PC and Xbox.
I work in IT company and every gamer (that I am aware of) has PC. Back in X360/PS3 days, there was roughly 50:50 division between X360 and PS3. With current generation, I am not aware of a single X1 in our environment. Every console we have among us is PS4.
It is still good business for Microsoft as they sell much more of their exclusives than they would if they haven't extended them to PC. My whole team currently plays Halo MC Collection - on PCs. Some of them played these games on X360, back in the days.
I actually wonder - if XSX takes good start - will MS keep this cross-platform approach. I sure hope they will, but who knows. Original Halo CE and Gears 1 were on PC, before Microsoft went hard-core Xbox exclusivity. They can decide to do this again. Eventually, I don't mind adding Xbox to collection - but I'd rather spend my gaming budget on more games, than on more gaming hardware.
In my perfect world, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would make one standard desktop and, maybe, one standard portable console each generation, and all the games would work on those standard platforms. Not gonna happen, but man can dream :)
@texastitan123: Actually, PS4 GPU was pushing 1.84TF... X1 was 1.23TF. I don't know if that was pure GPU power comparison, or if difference in RAM speed was also taken into account. X1 RAM was much slower, and addition of that little chunk of eDRAM was adding more to complexity than to performance, in real life.
XSX is at 12TF, and PS5 is at 10.3. If you bring that down to current gen values, that would be difference equivalent to 1.2 vs 1TF. That is much less difference than 1.8 vs 1.2TF.
XSX has faster part of RAM. The other part is slower than PS5. I'm presuming idea is to use faster RAM bank for GPU, and slower RAM bank for CPU. Both banks are big but not symmetrical. So we have 10GB @ 560 GB/s, 6GB @ 336 GB/s. I don't know how system works if either GPU or CPU need more than actual size of either bank. Will individual speeds remain their original values or will some compromises come to play, like speed being reduced to slower bank value.
PS5 has uniformed 16GB of RAM running at 448 GB/s. It sounds like less complicated and more flexible design, but only time will tell are there any real life benefits from that.
PS5 will have faster storage. I don't expect that that will make big impact on games performance, outside of load times. Maybe latter, when both consoles' RAM size becomes limitation, and devs fall back to assets streaming from storage.
I'm still waiting on final judgement regarding backward compatibility. My understanding is that Sony has been testing 100 most popular games - not that only those 100 games will run on PS5. If that turns out to be true, then yes - Xbox will have noticeable advantage when it comes to backward compatibility.
Never underestimate crazy fanbase - that alone will move a lot of consoles! ;)
@Sepewrath: Hold on - have I missed part that confirms Luke's sexuality? In early episodes he was presented in typical conservatives' gay stereotype. Maybe showrunners have decided to deny - or, at least, not confirm - because of poor ratings; add a bit balance to the show. Eventually, he does look a bit less stereotype in later episodes.
Father, well. He is not bad as in criminal - but I don't see him as good character. If nothing else, his presentation strikes me as conservative, unwilling to change, modern rendition of puritan. Someone who holds society back because of his own incapability to change, accept, progress. At worst, he is stone-age male living in modern times.
@Sepewrath: It is polarizing show - but we cannot know how many reviewers bombed it, and how many reviewers praised it for same reasons. I would expect that show has received many on both sides, but the average is still below average.
Regardless. I don't personally care how many characters are gay or not. It is a bit over the top that most good guys are gay, and most bad guys are straight. But then again, it is superhero show, they are over the top by definition. One way or the other.
What I did care is that I didn't bond with characters. They didn't grow and develop much; if at all. They didn't grow on me. Actually one character did - Alice. Rachel Skarsten has squeezed 120% out of given script. She would also make brilliant Harley Quinn. But everyone else just failed into non-descript oblivion. Gotham itself is pale copy of what Gotham should be. Eventually, even the story has failed to hold my attention.
Maybe it is not really 3.5, but. I am somewhat of superhero nerd, and have been watching everything I could find where I live. Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow, Titans, Swamp Thing... Daredevil, Runaways, Cloak and Dagger, Defenders, Iron Fist, Punisher, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Agents of Shield... there were good and not so good shows, but I have found them all more entertaining. Inhumans was the only show that I have found unmotivating to watch, after first two episodes. I have watched Batwoman much more, but I cannot say I have found it any better.
It just feels like producers' focus is very wrong. The show is just a wrapper to something else. It has been well reflected in their statement that they will find “a new lead actress and member of the LGBTQ community, in the coming months.” Regardless if character is gay, it feels discriminating, pointless as well, insisting that actress must be gay, too. A lot of gay actors/actresses played straight roles. Some were casted beyond perfection - I cannot think of better Sheldon. It is OK if they find well fitting actress which also happens to be gay - but the way they worded the statement, being gay is priority, and only such actresses will be given the chance. Is that really necessary? Maybe focusing on story and characters' development will do more for the show than actors' personal sexual preference?
@Herrick: Swamp is sitting at 7.6 on IMDB. Batwoman is at 3.5. I don't know about number of viewers, though. But it feels like Swamp Thing definitely deserved second season.
But we live in politically correct world. One where something as poorly reviewed as Batwoman gets "second season and beyond", while good show, such as Swamp Thing, gets axed after season 1.
I gave Batwoman chance - watched most of season 1. Found it really poorly written and acted, uninspiring... leagues under early Arrow, Flash, and more recent shows - Titans and Doom Patrol. AND Swamp Thing.
Weird that DC has allowed their (arguably) best and most precious property to be so undervalued by prioritizing agenda over quality story-telling. It is not actual Batman, true, but it is the only BAT on TV. And even Gotham was much more BAT than Batwoman.
nikon133's comments