Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kinda see where you're coming from. The last game I physically bought was AC Odyssey and most of my games are digital, but that's cause I've got a friend who also games on the One and we split the cost if there's a game we both want to play. With physical copies, another thing worth considering is that in other markets like Australia, digital games purchased from the Microsoft store all stick to the standard MSRP, so it's actually cheaper to buy physical in many cases.
Amazon, Ganestop etc. is your friend, buy a download code, they can be cheaper than the store, but, with publishers sales running every couple of weeks wait a month and it'll be on sale for download on the store
I kinda see where you're coming from. The last game I physically bought was AC Odyssey and most of my games are digital, but that's cause I've got a friend who also games on the One and we split the cost if there's a game we both want to play. With physical copies, another thing worth considering is that in other markets like Australia, digital games purchased from the Microsoft store all stick to the standard MSRP, so it's actually cheaper to buy physical in many cases.
I saw a post on Facebook yesterday where The Division 2 was on sale for $2.99 I picked that up even though I don't have much interest in it. It was around a 57 GB download.
I sometimes buy digital, but I'm really bad to buy used discs of something on discount.
I saw a post on Facebook yesterday where The Division 2 was on sale for $2.99 I picked that up even though I don't have much interest in it. It was around a 57 GB download.
I sometimes buy digital, but I'm really bad to buy used discs of something on discount.
Yeah, The Division 2 has been on sale for a while now. My friend already picked it up.
Sony should just start bundling/incorporating their consoles (PS5) into their tvs. Cost of tvs have been going down now for years and this is a market that their competitors have absolutely no foothold in. BOOM!!! DONE!!! Sony wins thanks to me.
Physical media (discs etc.) for games is pretty much dead, so there is no need for an actual console. Users can just download games online.
Sony should just start bundling/incorporating their consoles (PS5) into their tvs. Cost of tvs have been going down now for years and this is a market that their competitors have absolutely no foothold in. BOOM!!! DONE!!! Sony wins thanks to me.
They've missed that boat on 2 counts....
1) Stadia is being bundled with set top boxes for digital TV for free, just requiring a Stadia subscription.
2) No one is going to pay $450 more for a TV with the guts of a PS5 in it.
Plus you'd need to either redevelop the PS5 OS to include all the TV functionality, or redevelop the TV OS to include PS5 functionality. You could half ass it and have both, but, then there's going to be conflicts and issues between both functionalities, and its going to clearly look half assed on a TV that costs $450 more than a comparable Samsung, LG, etc.
My problem with the subscription model is service will inevitably get split as more companies jump in. Just like we see in the streaming movie services. Amazon prime and netflix used to get you most of what you want, now other companies are jumping in. Disney has their service, HBO and CBS has their own exclusives. How long before we have to subscribe to 5+ different services to get the games we want?
My problem with the subscription model is service will inevitably get split as more companies jump in. Just like we see in the streaming movie services. Amazon prime and netflix used to get you most of what you want, now other companies are jumping in. Disney has their service, HBO and CBS has their own exclusives. How long before we have to subscribe to 5+ different services to get the games we want?
That's an inevitable outcome of the change to online distribution of content. I do see the limitations though. If the market keeps splintering, we may very well get over a dozen streaming services each vying for the rights to iconic franchises and producing their own content.
I think that with gaming, things may work out differently then they do with movies/tv shows. Exclusives are less profitable then they used to be, so I anticipate them playing a smaller role in a console's output then they did in the past. In Microsoft's case, they are already allowing all of their published titles to be played on a Windows 10 enabled PC. Sony might be more conservative with that, but a number of their titles have made their way to the PC.
Is this still the consensus? I own a really nice PC but will still buy the PS5. PC isn't the same experience as a console and Sony has outpaced Microsoft and will with it's new console.
Is this still the consensus? I own a really nice PC but will still buy the PS5. PC isn't the same experience as a console and Sony has outpaced Microsoft and will with it's new console.
That's up for debate.
XSX beats PS5 on paper in CPU and GPU.
Question is whether it can match or exceed performance in storage I/O.
I think it might, here's why ..
Firstly PS5 has 5.5GBps storage I/O so it can read 5.5 GB per second into its RAM, effectively filling it entirely in 3 seconds.
So compare to XSX, well XSX has 2.4GBps, only 2.4GB per second, however that's direct from the disk bus to dedicated decompression hardware, that has a bus rate of 4.8 GB per second, filling its RAM in 3.3 seconds, if storage is compressed by 50% or more. However there's another interesting aspect of XSX, it selectively loads textures, there's a patent filed for hardware predictive sampling of textures in graphics intensive platforms, by the Xbox team, the patent implies that the console prioritizes which textures to load, or even to not load (because at the time of loading the mesh the texture fills is occluded, thus could be delay loaded). This is very interesting, since textures are the limiting factor for why load times take as long as they do, they're the single largest memory component of modern games, and it's this loading that's caused load times to increase, since from 2013 the hardware for both PS4 and XB1 have been bottlenecked in disk I/O.
So while Sony is brute forcing load speeds, XSX is being smart, we'll see who has the fastest practical load times. Could go either way. As a gamer I'd like Microsofts solution to succeed, because it's not kicking the problem down the road, Sonys brute force just kicks the can down the road until next gen, if there is a next gen, or even PS5/XSX later lifecycles (as happened this generation as graphics improved to 4K HDR, at least on XB1X).
I got an alienware laptop. I'm pretty happy with it. I don't know much more I will game in the next decade.
I'd get a ps5 if it was backwards compatible all the way to ps1. I did not get a ps3 because games starting doing pay for dlc content. That's why I got the alieanware laptop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I picked that up even though I don't have much interest in it. It was around a 57 GB download. 
