The latest rumors surrounding the Xbox One are that the demos that Microsoft allowed people to play on at E3 were not running on an Xbox One, but instead running on high-end PCs with Titan graphics cards.
If this is the case, they were running the games on a system that is around 3x faster than the Xbox One.
These rumors are backed up by images that clearly show a high-end desktop under the displays of the Xbox One stands at E3.
Its like a train wreck that you can’t look away from
Not trying to play devil’s advocate here or anything, but most of the time next gen console demos are run on dev boxes or PC architecture during E3 with dummy consoles set up in their place.
Mainly because the console hasn’t been fully developed or finished. There’s no physical XBox One for them to be able to use. The dev kits sent to game developers are little more than a PC with some ports on it for the developer controllers. Considering the XBox One is built on a Windows framework with x86, them using PC architecture to run the demos isn’t surprising.
That’s likely what’s occurring here.
Also the line about “High end gaming PCs that are 3x as powerful as the XBox One” - how does this person know that? How would anyone have known that aside from the Microsoft techs at the booth? There’s no way to physically see the Titan GPU inside the box. And even if it is running a Titan GPU, that doesn’t mean anything - those demos were still coded on a dev kit - the PC running them literally doesn’t matter. They probably simply used high end PCs to make sure the demos ran smoothly with little down time.
I’m not a fan of the XBox One, but I feel like people are grasping for shit at this point.
Perhaps it’s the dev kit model I have a problem with? Perhaps I don’t understand why consoles need to exist separately from PCs at this point? Actually, it’s both.
If the device can be replaced with a PC and nobody even notices the difference, then it effectively is a PC and doesn’t need to exist, so why does it?
If you want people to pay for a dev kit, there had better be a damn good technological reason. Acceptable reasons: Hardware simulation of the device’s operational environment, like sensors that standard hardware doesn’t have. Access to package internals like on-chip clocks and sub-component statuses that again, normal hardware doesn’t have. Unacceptable reasons: Because they want money or feel that an open development platform would encourage piracy.
I’ve done embedded systems work since my undergrad. I’ve never needed to pay for a dev kit for anything like the xbo. When I have used custom devices, there’s always been a strong technological rationale.
I think the reason for console development is because consoles are the same across the board and the architecture holds standard for 5 or so years before moving on to the next iteration. It creates a standard that can easily be developed for.
PCs are inherently unequal. My PC isn’t nearly as good as my friend’s PC. Or I bought my PC 2 years ago and now I can’t play the latest games because I have to upgrade $300 worth of components in it.
The PC market is superior for gaming in the sense that the games run and look better overall. But where the PC gaming market fails is in not allowing an equal or level playing field where the back catalogue of games remains open and easily accessible. Not to mention the fact that the assumption is - if you’re a PC gamer, you somehow have to magically be made of money to keep upgrading.
As we move to more digital based gaming (Steam), then it becomes easier - but it still presents the problem that PC hardware evolves at a rate so fast that gaming companies are constantly given to pushing the envelope with them. There’s no industry standard benchmark that they start at.
My computer has no trouble whatsoever running StarCraft II, a game released about two years ago that is pretty intensive graphically even though its an RTS. But put Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn on it? The thing chews along like it’s trying to eat taffy.
My PlayStation 3? Not the same problem. Unless the game was poorly ported or badly developed - all the games run the same.
And PC gamers will say “Well, consoles slow down game development and advancement in technology.”
And you know what - I’m fine with that! I don’t need to constantly be buying a new graphics card here or new video card there, upgrading my RAM and tweaking my system in order to play Generic Shooter 4 simply because it’s pretty (*cough*CRYSIS*cough*).
So console gaming exists because it gives a level playing field for gamers and developers to work on, one that allows them the ability to develop for that platform consistently for a long time without having to worry if it’s going to be incompatible in three to six months because the hardware will have evolved beyond it by then.
Holy shit. A sensible conversation about consoles versus PCs without people raging at one another. Very well done.