How do I Choose?!?!

[darth_timon]

Good evening peeps.

I may (hopefully) soon have enough funds available to me to buy a new games console. The most recent one I had (and still have) is a Wii, which has served me well but is obviously quite dated.

This decision has me in turmoil. Every console I've personally owned or purchased has been a Nintendo console. I rate the SNES as the best console ever made, with some of the finest games ever made (A Link to the Past, Star Fox, Mario Kart, to name but a few).

So, to begin with, I've been pretty keen on the Wii U. The controller strikes me as... interesting, albeit potentially unwieldy (though Nintendo do have a classic controller that looks suspiciously like an Xbox controller). Star Fox is coming for it, which has heightened my interest, but the thing that pulls me toward the Wii U is the Zelda game. It's daft really - we have no idea what the game will be like, beyond one short video and promises of a vast open world - yet I love the Zelda series and can't imagine not sinking my teeth into the new one.

Beyond those titles though, things get sketchy. I enjoy games like F1, FIFA and Call of Duty too. There is no chance of seeing those games on the Wii U. This leaves me looking at the PS4 and XBone.

My stepson had an X360 and I dare say I quite enjoyed the feel of the controller and the games I played were good games with good graphics. I'd also played on my bro's PS3 and can say the same about that too.

(I should mention, my budget will only stretch to one console!).

So, from a practical POV (well, as practical as a games console is!) a PS4 or XBone are what my head tells me are the better choices. My heart is screaming at my head saying 'Zelda Zelda Zelda!' But I open the question to SDN - what do you think I should do?

[Jub]

I haven't played the Wii U, but the PS4 and the XBox One are in a dead heat as far as these things go. So really it boils down to which of those two have the exclusives you'll care about more.

[Vendetta]

By the time the new Zelda game comes out (probably late next year) you'll probably be able to afford a Wii U even if you buy another console now.

On the other hand, there are some good Wii U games out now, Splatoon, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors, Mario Kart 8, and the Wind Waker HD rerelease.

There's also Xenoblade X coming up which looks great.

If that sounds like an appealing lineup, then it's probably worth getting one. (I'm not keen on the tablet controller, whilst it's not actually over heavy it's too large and the control layout is not optimal, the battery life is approximately fuck all, and basically no games use it well anyway, but the pro controller is very good, albeit it's odd having the face buttons on the inner position).


That said, there isn't a great breadth of anyone else's games out for it, and so if you're predominantly married to the idea of getting the new Zelda game then you can probably wait for a Wii U and get a PS4 or Xbox now (positions of those two are roughly reversed from this time last cycle, the PS4 is generally stronger hardware and gets the better versions of multiplatform titles, but for the remainder of this year and early next the Xbox has slightly stronger exclusives coming).

[salm]

If you are interested in virtual reality I´d get an Xbox One or a PS4. It is likely at this point that they will get VR support in 2016 (Oculus Rift and Morpheus) while Nintendo hasn´t yet been able to present a VR solution. The Wii is probably simply not powerful enough for decent VR.

[bilateralrope]

I wouldn't suggest picking any platform for VR yet. Wait until you see how many games each platform has that support VR first. That goes for any unreleased feature and/or game, wait until it comes out before buying based on it. Make your decision based on what each console can do right now or, if one feature/game is really important, wait until it gets released before buying.

I'd suggest having a look at what games are on each platform:
List of Playstation 4 games
List of Xbox One games
List of Wii U software

If you find that one has significantly more games you want to play than the others, then that is the one you should go with. Otherwise I'd suggest PS4 as it has the more powerful hardware.

[darth_timon]

Thanks for the input guys.

After reading the posts and having a think (albeit still got plenty of time to reach a final decision or do a Sheldon-style in-store meltdown), I'm now leaning toward the XBone - my next question would be about the multi-player aspect - but I think, to answer my own question, the multiplayer community will vary wildly based on time of day, school holidays etc for both consoles.

From what I can gather, the XBox Live service is a little cheaper than PlayStation Network, but is it any better?

[DaveJB]

Xbox Live has generally had less in the way of major outages and hacks than the PlayStation Network over the years. That being said, most of the latter's major issues were back in the PS3 era, it seems to have been pretty solid since the PS4 arrived on the scene.

As for the Wii U, the price on that might drop even more steeply in the next year, if the rumours of Nintendo's next console, the NX being launched sometime in mid-late 2016 are true. Admittedly though, there's been no solid confirmation on that.

[General Zod]

The Playstation Network has always had free multiplayer afaik. It only costs money if you want PS+, which basically just gives you grab-bag of games every month.

[orbitingpluto]

The Playstation Network has always had free multiplayer afaik. It only costs money if you want PS+, which basically just gives you grab-bag of games every month.

That's true on the PS3, but it's different for the PS4. You have to play for online multiplayer, unless the company making the game opts to make the multiplayer free-to-play.

[Iroscato]

The Playstation Network has always had free multiplayer afaik. It only costs money if you want PS+, which basically just gives you grab-bag of games every month.

That's true on the PS3, but it's different for the PS4. You have to play for online multiplayer, unless the company making the game opts to make the multiplayer free-to-play.

WHAT?!

I think that just killed my vague desire to buy a PS4 at some point. Cheers for saving me a fucktillion quid mate

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm a PS4 fan. I like the system, am familiar with its controls and layout, and like the games available. But, then, I hate playing online multiplayer and pretty much never do it, so the issues with PS+ don't impact me at all.

[General Zod]

If you don't give a shit about multi then it's just a matter of what exclusives you want most.

[InsaneTD]

The PS4 is also getting an upgrade in the very near future, in the way of a terabyte drive. It's also supposed be slightly more energy efficient.

I'd guess the xbone would be getting a similar upgrade in the near future, but haven't heard anything about it.

[Irbis]

I wouldn't suggest picking any platform for VR yet.

Actually, choice is PC, PC, and also PC and PC.

No, really, with VR no current console can serve required FPS and resolution. Both consoles struggle with 1080 and 60 fps, good VR requires four to five times that minimum. You can do it with less but it simply isn't that good.

As for console, I'd pick XB1 (controller is far superior IMHO and if DX12 improvements filter to console it will get big performance jump) but the again, I'd never take console over stronger PC, so...

Just take a look at the list of games and pick what should appeal to you, I guess?

[salm]

I wouldn't suggest picking any platform for VR yet.

Actually, choice is PC, PC, and also PC and PC.

No, really, with VR no current console can serve required FPS and resolution. Both consoles struggle with 1080 and 60 fps, good VR requires four to five times that minimum. You can do it with less but it simply isn't that good.

Where did you get that from? IMO good VR is possible with 1080 and 75 fps and probably 60 fps as well.
The current Oculus Rift uses 1080p and 75 fps and delivers a great experience. The Samsung Gear VR is similar but to my knowledge runs at 60 fps but delivers a good experience as well according to other people. 4k resolution is not necessary.

Furthermore foveated rendering can make rendering 100 times faster without loosing quality. This means that your eyes are tracked and only the spot on the screen where you are looking at is rendered with good quality while the rest of the screen is rendered with low quality.

Also, the Morpheus is supposed to come with some sort of external part that boosts the PS4s performance.

[bilateralrope]

IMO good VR is possible with 1080 and 75 fps and probably 60 fps as well.

Opinion is not good enough.

I'm assuming that nausea from bad VR is similar to nausea from a bad FOV, in that some people will be affected worse than others if the framerate is too low. So the real question is if you will be comfortable using a specific VR product. Which sounds like it will be difficult to figure out without you personally trying the finished product.

[salm]

IMO good VR is possible with 1080 and 75 fps and probably 60 fps as well.

Opinion is not good enough.

I'm assuming that nausea from bad VR is similar to nausea from a bad FOV, in that some people will be affected worse than others if the framerate is too low. So the real question is if you will be comfortable using a specific VR product. Which sounds like it will be difficult to figure out without you personally trying the finished product.

Since "good" is pretty subjective i´m not sure why an opinion is not relevant. I see VR at 75 fps that is good for me all the time.
Good VR doesn´t have to be good for everybody to be good.

If VR is relevant to OP he might want to choose an xbox or ps4 over a wii because these two will probably get VR and possibly good VR while the Wii will most likely not get VR at all.
It is entirely possible that the VR on current consoles is going to suck. But with XBox and PS4 you at least have a chance.

[Starglider]

Foveated rendering should not be considered a viable fix for the Xbox One / PS4. The end-to-end latency demands are extreme, and if you get it even slightly wrong there is a whole new nausea inducing glitch on top of the usual VR issues. This is why no one has an actual viable demo of foveated VR as opposed to just an engine mock-up. Furthermore the extra cost of the eye tracking sensor is hard to fit into a mass market headset at this time. Finally for complicated technical reasons the actual GPU load benefit of foveated rendering is much less than you might expect from a naive pixels rendered comparison; at 1080p it is debatable whether it is even worth the additional QA time to debug all the issues.

Eye tracking is definitely worth having, but the user interface and depth of field adjustment benefits outweigh foveated rendering.

[Irbis]

Where did you get that from? IMO good VR is possible with 1080 and 75 fps and probably 60 fps as well.
The current Oculus Rift uses 1080p and 75 fps and delivers a great experience. The Samsung Gear VR is similar but to my knowledge runs at 60 fps but delivers a good experience as well according to other people. 4k resolution is not necessary.

One, no, it's not possible. If you have good sight, you need retina like screen in VR goggles. That's at minimum 2560×1600 resolution, doubling the number of pixels right there. Two, you need to render two screens instead of one. Even if you use cheats and tricks, performance is taking a hit. Three, you need 90 fps minimum (and more likely 120) because not only flicker is easily spotted as such close distance, you need to have buffer fps preventing dipping below rate allowing you to see individual frames (such as in action scene) as this instantly shatters immersion.

So, no, consoles that often need to be dialed down to 900p to maintain 60 fps won't suddenly start rendering triple to quadruple the number of pixels at double the rate. It's physically impossible unless you dumb down the graphics to decade ago and that won't help immersion either.

Also, the Morpheus is supposed to come with some sort of external part that boosts the PS4s performance.

Hololens comes with special holographic processor (responsible for positioning objects in 3D) on top of dedicated 3D unit. And that doesn't even provide full VR, just elements of it. Somehow, I am sceptical about Morpheus doing it better, not to mention the fact that early USB 3.0 port in PS4 isn't really something that I'd pick to send that much data back and forth if these were really cooperating. IMHO at best Morpheus is equipped with some chip sharpening picture and making it more fluid. If you look as how such chips "improve" experience in Sony TVs, you'll see a lot of people keep them turned off because they make them feel nausea, and in VR it will be far worse.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I finally tried VR via the latest Google Cardboard holder (KnoxLabs Next) with my LG G3, and I have to say it's pretty damn amazing. I don't know what the FPS is, but the res is 1440P. I wouldn't say I felt transported to the virtual realm, but it was at least as good as the latest 3D theater experience (which has gotten way better in the last few years if you haven't been lately). There's some nausea depending on the app, but apparently you get used to it and stop getting nauseous eventually. If the Oculus Rift consumer version is an upgrade on that experience, I can't see myself wanting to do much non-VR gaming after picking one up, especially for racing games and flight or space sims (which I predict will make a massive comeback thanks to VR).

[salm]

One, no, it's not possible. If you have good sight, you need retina like screen in VR goggles. That's at minimum 2560×1600 resolution, doubling the number of pixels right there. Two, you need to render two screens instead of one. Even if you use cheats and tricks, performance is taking a hit. Three, you need 90 fps minimum (and more likely 120) because not only flicker is easily spotted as such close distance, you need to have buffer fps preventing dipping below rate allowing you to see individual frames (such as in action scene) as this instantly shatters immersion.

Have you tried it? I´ve got an Oculus Rift DK2 right here in front of me and it provides good VR at 1920X1080 ( 960×1080 per eye) at 75 fps. You don´t need retina like screens. It doesn´t matter if you see pixels. It doesn´t matter if performance takes a hit either because you can simply use simpler graphics and get good results.
As mentioned before the Samsung GearVR is powered by Samsung Galaxy Note 4 or S6 and is supposed to provide decent VR as well. The graphics are simple but the VR Effect is nice.

So, no, consoles that often need to be dialed down to 900p to maintain 60 fps won't suddenly start rendering triple to quadruple the number of pixels at double the rate. It's physically impossible unless you dumb down the graphics to decade ago and that won't help immersion either.

No need to help. Immersion is not reliant on extreme graphics. Half Life 2 is awesome in VR. It runs as smooth as butter on a mediocre GPU and the new gameplay elements VR provides combined with the immersion VR provides make up more than enough for the aged graphics.

Hololens comes with special holographic processor (responsible for positioning objects in 3D) on top of dedicated 3D unit. And that doesn't even provide full VR, just elements of it. Somehow, I am sceptical about Morpheus doing it better, not to mention the fact that early USB 3.0 port in PS4 isn't really something that I'd pick to send that much data back and forth if these were really cooperating. IMHO at best Morpheus is equipped with some chip sharpening picture and making it more fluid. If you look as how such chips "improve" experience in Sony TVs, you'll see a lot of people keep them turned off because they make them feel nausea, and in VR it will be far worse.

Nobody knows what the external part is so it´s really just speculation at this time.
I´ve been following the development of the Oculus Rift for quite a while now and at least there the developers seem to be quite aware and dedicated to avoid releasing a product that makes VR suck. So to me it seems that motion sickness problems are being addressed.
Sony on the other hand doesn´t release a lot of information.

[salm]

Foveated rendering should not be considered a viable fix for the Xbox One / PS4. The end-to-end latency demands are extreme, and if you get it even slightly wrong there is a whole new nausea inducing glitch on top of the usual VR issues. This is why no one has an actual viable demo of foveated VR as opposed to just an engine mock-up. Furthermore the extra cost of the eye tracking sensor is hard to fit into a mass market headset at this time. Finally for complicated technical reasons the actual GPU load benefit of foveated rendering is much less than you might expect from a naive pixels rendered comparison; at 1080p it is debatable whether it is even worth the additional QA time to debug all the issues.

Eye tracking is definitely worth having, but the user interface and depth of field adjustment benefits outweigh foveated rendering.

Samsung just pumped pile of money into the FOVE which has integrated eye tracking. It´s supposed to be released in 2016 which will be interesting.

[Temjin]

Going back to the OP:

Right now, I have both a Wii U and a XBone. Honestly, my 360 see more play time than both combined.

The Wii U is a good little console in my mind. I don't regret buying it. I like the controller. I think it's just about the best Netflix machine out there. Gaming wise, I used to sink a lot of hours into Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate back when my GF and I played it. Bayonetta, Hyrule Warriors, Mario Kart and Smash Bros, Wind Waker were all fun. I would argue though, it doesn't really have a "killer ap" for it yet. There's a lot of games that you will have fun with if you buy the console, but there's currently no game that's worth buying the console for, if that makes any sense. It also has amazingly shitty 3rd party support.

The XBone... Well, the console has potential to be good. It's library just sucks so badly right now. My XBone just collects dust simply because I don't really have a lot of games to play on it.

I don't imagine the PS4 is too different than the XBone right now.

I'd honestly recommend holding off on buying a console right now until there's a game that you really want to play on one of these and/or until they come further down in price. I don't think it's worth it right now.