Microsoft unveils full Xbox Series X specs with 1TB expansion cards
theverge.com
theverge.com
Obviously controllers work extremely well for certain game types, I even use them on PC when the game calls for it, but I won't be convinced first person shooter-like games (with or without integrated "aim assist") are a good controller experience.
I think there are some games on both platforms giving you the option to use keyboard and mouse, most don't. But with the arrival of the new generation, maybe more developers decide to implent this feature.
[1] https://beta.support.xbox.com/help/Hardware-Network/accessor... [2] https://support.playstation.com/s/article/Use-Keyboard-and-M...
https://beta.support.xbox.com/help/games-apps/apps-help/how-...
I love my PS4, but I cannot play first person shooters on it at all. I'm completely hopeless.
Trying to aim with the mushroom sticks just feels impossible for me.
Also most console FPS games that I've tried have a field of view that is too narrow, and hardly any I've tried let you change this.
What is it that prevents Windows 10 from running on an Xbox?
[1] https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/microsoft-only-using-xbox-...
Looking at how they've mentioned that owners of their new first party titles on xbox one will have an upgraded/enhanced release available at no cost on their new console - I suspect this is to blur the lines between the two series.
Also, this was around the time Microsoft got sued by Sky and had to change the name of SkyDrive to OneDrive. So there was definately a 'One' branding scheme going on. You also google his 'One Microsoft' reorganization plan and see a clear theme.
This is sort of disappointing from a technology nerdery perspective, but after years of game developers struggling with bespoke weirdness like the PS3 Cell chip, I imagine they're welcoming the change. It also makes it much easier to handle backwards-compatibility, which most gamers treat as non-negotiable these days.
They switched a generation ago to commodity architectures (likely owing, in large part, to the very slow developer uptake of Sony's exotic Cell processor). Playstation and Xbox have both been on x86 for the better part of a decade already.
But this does not make them PCs any more than Nintendo going ARM makes the Switch an Android phone. The experience of owning, using, and developing for a console remains entirely different from that of a PC, even if the underlying hardware has more in common than it did in previous generations. It's not "giving up on the market" at all.
In a way yes. Last generation you had "1/2 step" consoles, The PS4Pro and Xbox One X, which were mid generation upgrades. This generation is shifting even further towards bringing console gaming to what PC gaming is via Windows and Steam.
I have PC Games I own on steam, and as upgrade my PC components over time, I still own and play my library of steam based games. There is no concept of "backwards compatibility."
The belief is this is the last hard console generation, and instead overtime, their will be revisions to hardware that take advantage of leaps in technology.
As games come out that require more powerful hardware, those with "Xbox Series X" will have to opt to play games via streaming service.
So you can think of Xbox being the brand of a PC-like gaming experience created wholly by Microsoft. That is what their branding is trying to evoke.
> Enter Xbox Velocity Architecture, which features tight integration between hardware and software and is a revolutionary new architecture optimized for streaming of in game assets. This will unlock new capabilities that have never been seen before in console development, allowing 100 GB of game assets to be instantly accessible by the developer.
NES had 2K of work RAM + 2K of video RAM, compare to the C64 at the time that had a full 64K, or the newer 16-bit computers at the time like Amiga, Atari ST, etc. that were 128K, 256K or more.
SNES had 128K of work RAM + 64K of sound RAM. In 1991 I think typical computer memories were starting to get in the 2-4MB range.
Playstation 1 had 2MB of RAM and 1MB of video RAM. By 1995 you were firmly in the 8MB range or higher for PCs.
Playstation 2 had 32MB of RAM. My PC at that time had 256MB of RAM and that was somewhat low.
So the trend of consoles having far less RAM than PCs is well established.
2.5GB for the OS? Can someone explain why an OS needs that much?
Because modern software development is a joke.
Your comparison is like saying you can do a 305Km F1 race in a Fiesta with less fuel than an F1 car. I ran everything you listed (short of Telegram but how much can that need?) on 64MB of RAM 20 years ago. And to be fair, I can do it now in well under 500MB. But it won't run Xbox loads properly.
Game streaming and live streaming are done in hardware by the GPU through accelerated encode. System memory is only really used for sending it to the network.
From: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
"What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k."
For an 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of the extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k.