Looks like xbox one and ps4 both amd64

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:10:34 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/12/13, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Games are not usually 'crappy desktop code', they're carefully
> > tuned, purpose-specific code.
> 
> I'd rather programmers spend their time building cool games than fast
> games. Not everything has to be
> ultra-realistic-shiny-3D-lens-flair-ultra-optimized-60fps crap.

Actually, I quite like 60Hz games ;) But that's been perfectly feasible
for a long long time: Really the only reason they haven't all been
running at 60Hz for the past 15 years is because graphical fidelity is
often considered more important than bumping up from 30Hz to 60Hz.

Not that I'm complaining about that. I can entirely understand the
tradeoff of settling for 30Hz for the sake of a higher quality image.
It's just not my preferred tradeoff - I'd normally prefer framerate.

(Of course getting a *consistent* framerate can be difficult, but
getting a higher one is fairly straightforward: Decrease the
polygon/texture budget.)

Although, there are a rare few games that manage top botch up the
tradeoff horrifically. Ex: The PS3 versions of Sonic Unleashed and
Splinter Cell frequently have absolutely *atrocious* framerates
despite the fact that the versions for *less* powerful systems (Wii and
the first XBox 1) run at consistently *good* framerates (Because for
those versions, they didn't try to cram too much into each frame and
overload the hardware).

Actually, that always bugged the hell out of me: That the at-the-time
"next-gen" PS3 versions actually ran vastly *worse* (barely even
playable, in fact) than the versions on notably *less* powerful
hardware. I know the PS3 is much more of a pain than the 360, but even
still: Something was clearly managed wrong. Especially with the Sonic
one which is heavily speed-oriented, therefore making framerate much
more important (Not that Sonic Unleashed didn't have other big problems,
though).

In any case, yea I do agree with you: I'll have a fun, low-graphics
game like Sound Shapes, Echochrome or last-gen Disgaea, over a
graphics-heavy-but-ultra-dull game like Assassin's Creed or
Heavy Rain any day.

Related to that: My absolute favorite game developer quote (because I
so strongly feel the same way) is from Johnathan Blow, creator of the
absolutely fantastic Braid (which incidentally is also *not* a
super-high-tech-graphics game):

"I like games that are interesting, that give me something to think
about or to be well-engaged in, that give me the benefit of the doubt
as being an intelligent person. Fewer games like that are being made
these days -- an awful lot of games are just about ushering the player
through a fake experience, letting him win, making him feel like he is
clever and strong without actually requiring him to be anything but a
couch potato. I'm not interested in playing those games, and as a
result of that (and other long-term design trends) these days there
aren't many games that I enjoy."
- From:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/25/joystiq-interview-blow-unravels-braid-in-post-mortem/