Gaming PS5 vs Xbox Series S|X

Which do you think will release first?

  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .
Bear in mind that it will soon have all EA Play/Access vault games added (to Ultimate subscription) and I assume in the near future all Bethesda's back catalogue will get moved over as they figure that stuff out

Then, every new Xbox first party game that will come from their studio roster. I think 2022 onwards you could well be seeing a new first party game added every 3 months.

Recently it has had games like Red Dead 2, GTA 5. Now it looks a bit weaker, I think they're saving a few announcements for closer to launch but let's see.
 
Alock1 said:
Bear in mind that it will soon have all EA Play/Access vault games added (to Ultimate subscription) and I assume in the near future all Bethesda's back catalogue will get moved over as they figure that stuff out

Then, every new Xbox first party game that will come from their studio roster. I think 2022 onwards you could well be seeing a new first party game added every 3 months.

Recently it has had games like Red Dead 2, GTA 5. Now it looks a bit weaker, I think they're saving a few announcements for closer to launch but let's see.
Click to expand...

GTA 5 is 7 years old which is crazy in itself.

RDR 2 is one of the best looking most realistic games, but its soo boring to play.

Ori is the game you should be shouting about on the game pass those 2 games are wonderful.
 
Bosws87 said:
GTA 5 is 7 years old which is crazy in itself.

RDR 2 is one of the best looking most realistic games, but its soo boring to play.

Ori is the game you should be shouting about on the game pass those 2 games are wonderful.
Click to expand...

Yep GTA is old but it's still one of the biggest games there is

Agree on Ori
 
altodevil said:
Spoke to bloke who got the Series X review console about the absence of Series S reviews/testing and he says they are sending them out soon.

Naturally I'm assuming it's because they are a bit underpowered, but latest word on the vine is that they are better than expected and closer to the Series X in performance than they really should be. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Does that not mean the Series X is worse than expected
 
Bosws87 said:
GTA 5 is 7 years old which is crazy in itself.

RDR 2 is one of the best looking most realistic games, but its soo boring to play.

Ori is the game you should be shouting about on the game pass those 2 games are wonderful.
Click to expand...

I can't agree on the RDR2 thing! That's feckin ridiculous! Brilliant game! Didn't get bored at all.

Still need to complete the first ori, rage quit when I couldn't get past a certain part :lol:

Then into the 2nd! First was brilliant till it got to a shitty part I couldn't do. Then it sucked :lol:
 
One Night Only said:
I can't agree on the RDR2 thing! That's feckin ridiculous! Brilliant game! Didn't get bored at all.

Still need to complete the first ori, rage quit when I couldn't get past a certain part :lol:

Then into the 2nd! First was brilliant till it got to a shitty part I couldn't do. Then it sucked :lol:
Click to expand...

Haha i wanted to love RDR2 so bad, but it was so damn boring and just never ended i finished it but it was more of forcing myself to do it.

See the appeal of Ori for me is the difficulty so little amount of games these days that are actually a challenge you can breeze through nearly every game released if your a semi competent gamer.

I miss the high difficulty of the older games, play Mario 3 on the SNES the difficulty was a challenge now mario games as great as they are, just too easy!

Cuphead is another fantastic game with similar difficulty curve to Ori.
 
I didn't find Ori particularly hard to be honest and completed it fine. Cuphead on the other hand I couldn't stop dying from level 1
 
Can't remember what bit of ori I got stuck on now, I kinda remember an upside down bit (with weird controls)? That was annoying, but think I got passed that at some point.
 
Brilliant. Just looked at a walkthrough and I am 100% sure I was right near the end :lol: fecks sake man. Oh well, I get to play it all again :drool:
 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/88a4ba/the-ps3-and-vita-are-being-buried-alive

But speaking to Kotaku in August [2010], Sony Computer Entertainment of America's director of marketing John Koller, said "Now that we're at a point where we're three years into the lifecycle of the PS3...there are so many PS3 disc-based games that are available that we think — and noticed this from our research — that most consumers that are purchasing the PS3 cite PS3 games as a primary [reason].” The PS3 Slim wouldn’t feature backwards compatibility at all. Three years into the PS3 lifecycle and the dreams of everyone who traded in their PS2s to buy PS3s were as dead as many of those launch models. This foreshadowed a trend in Sony's thinking. Three years ago, Sony's head of global sales, Jim Ryan made headlines by saying, of PS1 and PS2 games, "they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?"

Sure, plenty of consumers only care about the newest, blockbuster games. The ones that maximize the latest technology Sony and Microsoft can squeeze into their "little" $600 boxes. We like the New. We've been conditioned to like the New. To be dazzled by "progress." Even to see the old, as Ryan does—inferior, unworthy.

We'll ignore the fact that retro and throwback games featuring visuals modeled after PS1 games (and earlier) are popular with consumers and developers alike. That lo-fi and physical media carry a cache of tangible, practical cool. Or that Sony is absolutely aware of the vocal demand for backwards compatibility (and that Microsoft, GoG, and Steam have all shown the success of historical games catalogs).
Click to expand...

Jim Ryan is pushing an ideology here as much as he’s trying to directly sell. It’s a laser targeted bit of marketing bullshit designed to do two things: First, it’s hiding the fact that Sony doesn’t care about the margins on old games. If we assume they get the industry standard of 30% for platform royalties—30% of $5 or $10 isn’t the kind of money Sony wakes up for. Especially not the small numbers old games tend to sell. Every person buying a PS5 will likely buy Demon’s Souls 5. At $70, that’s a shitton of money. But the original Demon’s Souls on PS3? It’s an embarrassment to shareholders having something old and at a bargain price on their ecommerce portal.

But the other thing Jim Ryan is doing here is programming consumers. It’s low-key conditioning. “See that mountain? You can climb it.” has become jokingly synonymous with Bethesda’s approach to open world design, consumers of Bethesda games have come to expect it or something like it.

“See those old games? They’re trash,” is what Sony hopes their consumers will come to believe. Because the more they bake “Newer, Better, More Expensive” into their own personal worldview—the better for Sony’s ongoing sales of new hardware and especially first-party games. Money is boring. Capitalism is boring. They’re not interesting arguments, and yet it’s crucial we talk about them because if we don’t we can’t fracture these marketing mythologies and understand what is really being communicated to us.
Click to expand...

Console manufacturers aren't invested in so-called "legacy content." The margins are slim, the interest is substantially lower than the mass market interest in New Shit.
And we've basically accepted this. Sony doesn't need to include backwards compatibility to sell PS5s. The bid didn't work with the PS3 in the end. And full price remasters of old games have proven much more profitable on the PS4 than the slim sales numbers of so-called "legacy content" ever could.

The only reason the PS5 is getting backwards compatibility is because Demon's Souls alone isn't going to move new consoles on its own, and bringing the recent generation over is much easier between these two generations. Sony learned the lesson from the PS3 that having a complicated architecture is like having weird parents—no one wants to come to your house to play.

But it won't last. Eventually even the PS4 will be cut loose, too. Shareholders don't get excited seeing old games sold cheap on their websites. Hardware will get deprecated, it will stop functioning, and then our options to play those games will become even more limited.

All these games, more or less exist. They will continue existing unaltered until the last PS3 dies beyond repair and the Blu-Rays erode beyond salvation. Without Sony taking a vested interest and a firm commitment to backwards compatibility, preservation, and allowing consumers access to these games—the best we can hope for is the work of emulator developers and the people who create ROMs and ISOs outside of approved channels to maintain even some semblance of what these games were.
Click to expand...

With the disconnection of the PS3 and Vita from the website, Sony is sending a clear statement of intent. They don't care about these consoles anymore. They're too old to be viable for them. Eventually, as we saw with the Wii, or Wii U, and 3DS (in Latin America and the Caribbean) stores, they will be gone entirely.

The bottom line must be preserved. Never the games that originally built it.
Click to expand...

Oof @esmufc07.
 
So I have purchased 3 years of game pass ultimate a couple of weeks ago and today pre ordered demons souls and miles morales.

Just need consoles now and I am all set...
 
Alock1 said:
I didn't find Ori particularly hard to be honest and completed it fine. Cuphead on the other hand I couldn't stop dying from level 1
Click to expand...
I thought the first game was an absolute bastard, especially the chase sequences. Played the second directly after and found it a good bit easier (but still a decent challenge).
 
Ek2aSkzUYAAO8Ns


ElBN8ZpWAAE5eHo


No atmos or DTS X on the PlayStation. Dolby vision coming to Xbox next year for gaming. Guess Sony don’t want to pay licensing fees. Unlucky @esmufc07.
 
esmufc07 said:
Can you explain it in layman’s terms
Click to expand...

Xbox use licenced audio software to create "3d" sound where the sound can come from higher, lower or nearer / further dependent on how many speakers you've got. Sony are using something called 3D audio which is software using Tempest which they've developed rather than licenced. https://www.whathifi.com/features/ps5-3d-audio-what-is-it-how-do-you-get-it

I think the Sony solution is headphone only for now, so is not as developed but it will support speakers in the future.
 
Last edited:
esmufc07 said:
Can you explain it in layman’s terms
Click to expand...

Explain what?

It’s simple, PS doesn’t have Dolby Vision Atmos or DTS X because they don’t want to pay the license fee and PS will be using their own in house sound for gaming. So as it stands the PS as a multimedia device will be lacking compared to Xbox because it’s missing the biggest audio and video technology. They can change their mind and pay the license later on. But at the moment as we going by those boxes, it is missing them. But you got your UI in 4K and I have my peaky blinders on netflix in Dolby Vision, so it’s all good.

Dolby Vision is coming to series x next year for gaming, which is going to rival HDR 10.
 
@VeevaVee what, the feck, are you on about?

On the audio, PS5 audio is supposed to be superior, but as I just use a TV bar or headphones I'm sure it'll all be the same to me anyway.
 
afrocentricity said:
@VeevaVee what, the feck, are you on about?

On the audio, PS5 audio is supposed to be superior, but as I just use a TV bar or headphones I'm sure it'll all be the same to me anyway.
Click to expand...
You cried for help from @Redlambs when you were struggling to stay above water one night here, then got rinsed by him and stopped posting. It's ok if you've repressed the memory
 
Last edited:
In the next-gen race, while the PS5 boasts its blazingly fast SSD, the Xbox Series X touts other advantages, chief among them being its GPU, which at 12 teraflops, outmatches the PS5’s 10.28 teraflops of GPU power, at least as far as pure numbers are concerned.
Click to expand...

Speaking in any interview with GamingBolt, when asked about the difference between the GPUs of the two next-gen consoles, Moreton said, “From development and gameplay perspectives, it doesn’t really have an impact. When it comes to tuning, tweaking and optimizations at the end of a game, it might mean slightly less work for one platform.”

Of course, it’s worth noting that on top of all that, multiplatform developers will also have to keep the Xbox Series S’ much less powerful GPU in mind, which means the gap between the PS5 and Xbox Series X is going to end up being irrelevant.
Click to expand...

From here...

tenor.gif


VeevaVee said:
You cried for help from @Redlambs when you were struggling to stay above water one night here, then got rinsed by him and stopped posting. It's ok if you've repressed the memory
Click to expand...

Stop chatting shite...
 
esmufc07 said:
@afrocentricity is getting my vote for poster of the year.
Click to expand...

Why? Because he’s confused about cross gen games.

Think he needs to read too

From development and gameplay perspectives, it doesn’t really have an impact. When it comes to tuning, tweaking and optimizations at the end of a game, it might mean slightly less work for one platform.”
Click to expand...

He’s comparing optimisation not performance. Try again @afrocentricity.
 
Games are going to have minimal differences between the next gen lead consoles, accept it. It's a smaller gap between them than last gen. It'll be like PS360 gen. Some small differences in one platform from time to time...... Everyone should be happy. But of course the Xbox guys aren't, they can't say it'll all look better on XBox anymore it seems....

Doesn't help that they have no games to fall back on either.
 
afrocentricity said:
Games are going to have minimal differences between the next gen lead consoles, accept it. It's a smaller gap between them than last gen. It'll be like PS360 gen. Some small differences in one platform from time to time...... Everyone should be happy. But of course the Xbox guys aren't, they can't say it'll all look better on XBox anymore it seems....

Doesn't help that they have no games to fall back on either.
Click to expand...

PS360 gen favoured the 360, so try again.

No sane multi-platform developer is going to come out in the public and say this is more powerful or whatever. They have business relationships with both companies, so not going to favour one over the other. So whatever you searching for in that article isn’t there. You confused optimisation with performance too.

It’s also a cross gen game. Yes, be happy with your PS5 and portals.
 
Regarding GamePass, I always have something to play from there. Even he's that don't look great are often quite interesting or fun. Like Golf With Friends, it's janky and all, but I had a really good time playing that with friends. I played through The Touryst in a couple of days, that game is great fun. There's a bunch of smaller titles that get overlooked or dismissed because they don't have the reputation or aren't big enough releases. Some of the best games I've played this gen were through Game Pass (Celeste, for example).

Of course there are gonna be duff games, but having the option to try them and see really allows for discovery of things you may not have given a second look if you were going to put the money down for one game at a time, and to me that is the real value of it.
 
Bojan11 said:
PS360 gen favoured the 360, so try again.

No sane multi-platform developer is going to come out in the public and say this is more powerful or whatever. They have business relationships with both companies, so not going to favour one over the other. So whatever you searching for in that article isn’t there. You confused optimisation with performance too.

It’s also a cross gen game. Yes, be happy with your PS5 and portals.
Click to expand...
I'm taking the article at face value... You the one trying to explain it away. Why?

You say PS360 gen favoured the 360. It didn't, even with XBox coming out first, being way cheaper, having less exotic architecture, and being hackable (meaning free fecking games!).... It still finished last right? I had both so gtfoh with that shit.
 
Last edited:
DavelinaJolie said:
Regarding GamePass, I always have something to play from there. Even he's that don't look great are often quite interesting or fun. Like Golf With Friends, it's janky and all, but I had a really good time playing that with friends. I played through The Touryst in a couple of days, that game is great fun. There's a bunch of smaller titles that get overlooked or dismissed because they don't have the reputation or aren't big enough releases. Some of the best games I've played this gen were through Game Pass (Celeste, for example).

Of course there are gonna be duff games, but having the option to try them and see really allows for discovery of things you may not have given a second look if you were going to put the money down for one game at a time, and to me that is the real value of it.
Click to expand...

I’ve downloaded The Touryst to give it a go! Gamepass has worked great for me - I’m steering away from multiplayer games currently as I have a 4 month old kid that has taken priority :p

So pick up an play is great - finished Quantum Break and Deliver Us the Moon, both enjoyable games on gamepass. I’d definitely recommend Deliver Us the Moon anyway, QB is cool at first but kind of flattens out - still enjoyable though.

Not long then until I get my Series X and then onto Cyberpunk :drool:
 
afrocentricity said:
I'm taking the article at face value... You the one trying to explain it away. Why?

You say PS360 version favoured the 360. It didn't, even with XBox coming out first, being way cheaper, having less exotic architecture, and being hackable (meaning free fecking games!).... It still finished last right? I had both so gtfoh with that shit.
Click to expand...

Eh it literally won nearly every digital foundry face off. Which is what you were talking about. You changed the goal posts to sales. Did you play any Bethesda games on PS3? Because they ran like shit. Orange Box was ported from another company and ran like shit because Gabe didn’t want anything to do with the PS3 at the time.

I need to go back on digital foundry and majority of the games performance was better on the 360. GTA V was the biggest title that played better on the PS3 and that came out when both consoles were dying. So yeah you are talking out your arse again and probably change the goalposts again. And the PS3 was jailbroken last time I checked.

Here I will pick a few out for you as you probably too lazy.

Assasins creed

The fact that this ambition doesn't extend to offering the same quality experience to PlayStation 3 owners is bitterly disappointing.
Click to expand...

NBA 08
With EA Sports now on its second generation PS3 titles, it's rather disconcerting to see that its development efforts are still lagging behind the Xbox 360 versions, which are clearly improving year-on-year. Bearing in mind how crucial this range of games is to the US market in particular, it'll certainly be intriguing to see what happens next year with the next range of updates. If a mammoth juggernaut with the financial muscle of EA Sports can't treat PS3 development with the same respect afforded to the competition, you really do have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Let's hope for better things next year across the whole EA Sports portfolio.
Click to expand...

Skate
In optimum conditions, both versions operate at 30fps, but while the 360 version is prone to losing the odd frame when things get difficult to render, the PS3 game judders terribly, falling down to less than 15fps in some cases. Matters are noticeably worse when the game is set to 1080p - yes there is support for the resolution, but the results look pretty poor, and frame rate takes yet another battering. In short, the online petitioners are right, Skate is fundamentally broken on PS3 and I simply can't recommend it.
Click to expand...


Splinter Cell Double agent

In all, Splinter Cell Double Agent is a deeply disappointing experience on PlayStation 3. Sure, the core of the game is pretty much the same, and yes there is an extra character and two more maps in the multiplayer mode. But who gives a toss about token improvements when such a colossal lack of care and attention has been paid to the main game itself?
Click to expand...

Sonic

So, all told then, a disastrous no-hoper of a game no matter which console you happen to own, but one that just happens to be even more abysmal on the PlayStation 3.
Click to expand...

Bayonetta

Bayonetta kicks off with a level called the Falling Clock Tower, a name which only provides a very basic description of the sheer visual majesty to which you are witness. If you've played it in the 360 demo, you'll know that it's very, very special (though it's even better in the full game). It is also completely missing from the respective PS3 sampler, and looking at the final release, it is not difficult to see why. Frame-rate is often running at half the speed of the 360 version and the performance impact, combined with the sheer amount of stuff going on, essentially makes the PS3 version more confusing than playable: you're starved of visual feedback.
Click to expand...

Mass Effect 3
However, if you're keen to play the game with a controller in hand, the 360 version is undoubtedly the next in line. Between the console versions, it tends to be far more consistent in meeting its target 30FPS during cut-scenes and heavy combat, accepting that it will discreetly tear at the top 10 per cent of the screen during those peak moments of action. This is a notable lead on the PS3's rigidly v-synced performance which, while better optimised during Priority missions in the game's second act, is still prone to locking at 20FPS during cut-scenes and combat scenarios with multiple characters in view.
Click to expand...


Red Dead Redemption

It would appear that the horse-riding sections that punctuate missions are equally smooth on both systems, but in terms of general gameplay during the all-important missions, where we have a range of characters in play, we see that the Xbox 360 sticks pretty well to the 30FPS target frame-rate, while the PS3 can fall short.

Despite already compromising in terms of resolution and frame-rate, it's clear Rockstar had to cut and pare back the PS3 version of the game still further in order to maintain performance. We can see a fairly obvious array of smaller changes between the two versions that almost always favour the 360 rendition of the game.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.