nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

Josey Wales

If Sony and Microsoft release both of their new machines later this year how will you decided which machine to get? For the sake of discussion lets just say that they will be released this year.

Will it be brand loyalty? You've bought into the MS Live eco system or PSN and don't want to switch? Will it be the hardware specs of the machine or the launch line up of games? Will it be backwards compatibility? Price?

For me right now I have no idea which I would choose. In this current generation I bought all three (Wii, PS3, 360). I don't think brand loyalty will be a factor for me. In the end I will probably end up with both so I will just have to decide which one first. One important factor will be what Naughty Dog has lined up for the PS4 (or whatever they call it).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

DUBLINHITMAN

As a gamer
The decision on which console to get comes down to a couple of things

games
Forza 5 or gt6

are both consoles going to use Skype for in game chat or will it just be an app

When a game is released can I download it straight to the console on release day or do I actually have to have the disc

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

In exchange we get regular deep sales cuts though and things like the Rome Total War 2, a big and highly anticipated AAA strategy game by one of the top developers in the genre was selling as a pre-order for 25% off and the first DLC thrown in. It's not a perfect bargain by any means but at least online-only is rather unusual in PC gaming at the moment, though I worry that this will change.

That Microsoft weren't hyping up a Steam like sales model, or decent discounts on pre-orders to take some of the sting out of the DRM lockdown worried me quite a bit. It made it really look like a money grab, which really opened them up for a sucker punch from Sony.

What reliable and on-going revenue stream do people think will open up for Microsoft with their restrictions on used-games?

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

What reliable and on-going revenue stream do people think will open up for Microsoft with their restrictions on used-games?

If Sony went the same way it'd have worked for them. Also there's the casual gamer market who don't bother following gaming news who'll just wander in and buy an XBox One simply because they've a 360. Parents of younger kids as well I suppose.

It looks like a gamble on brand loyalty. Which is quite insane given the previous generations transition history.

Pushtrak

nesf wrote: »

If Sony went the same way it'd have worked for them. Also there's the casual gamer market who don't bother following gaming news who'll just wander in and buy an XBox One simply because they've a 360. Parents of younger kids as well I suppose.

It looks like a gamble on brand loyalty. Which is quite insane given the previous generations transition history.

That doesn't make it a money grab. The money will go to the publishers, not Microsoft. The above is basically moving the goalposts.

nesf

Pushtrak wrote: »

That doesn't make it a money grab. The money will go to the publishers, not Microsoft. The above is basically moving the goalposts.

I don't think all the money would have gone to the publishers. I think Microsoft would do what any company would do and siphon some of that cash flow off for itself.

Calling it a cash grab might be too harsh, but I do think locking games to accounts is just a way of increasing first party sales for them, rather than one sale turning into two further second hand sales where neither Microsoft or the developer saw any of the cash.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

If Sony went the same way it'd have worked for them. Also there's the casual gamer market who don't bother following gaming news who'll just wander in and buy an XBox One simply because they've a 360. Parents of younger kids as well I suppose.

It looks like a gamble on brand loyalty. Which is quite insane given the previous generations transition history.

All true but not really what I asked. You said, quite rightly, that people were calling their used games restrictions a money grab by them. I'm intrigued as to what financial benefit people feel it would be to them given the fact that they clarified the move with a statement saying they wouldn't be taking a cut from the altered transaction setup.

Again, you're correct in saying it would affect them in terms of non-digital first party sales but there weren't many of those and I highly doubt they'd take the risk of implementing such a system for a handful of titles that are already multi-million sellers.

AlmightyCushion

I imagine they could be asking for a bigger cut of the price seeing as they eliminated second hand sales. If both Microsoft and Sony were getting a fiver a piece from publishers per game sold, maybe Microsoft managed to negotiate a higher price based on implementing this. Win, win for both. Publishers don't "lose" sales to the second hand market. Microsoft get more revenue per game. Also, if it works and the XBox still sells bucket loads, publishers may favour the console more because it will result in more direct sales for them.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

All true but not really what I asked. You said, quite rightly, that people were calling their used games restrictions a money grab by them. I'm intrigued as to what financial benefit people feel it would be to them given the fact that they clarified the move with a statement saying they wouldn't be taking a cut from the altered transaction setup.

Again, you're correct in saying it would affect them in terms of non-digital first party sales but there weren't many of those and I highly doubt they'd take the risk of implementing such a system for a handful of titles that are already multi-million sellers.

Ah ok.

I see two aspects to it. The first is every sale becomes a first party sale with some losses due to people selling the games back. I suspect that these losses would affect the payout to the developers a lot more than Microsoft's cut of the first sale. Speculation sure but I doubt Microsoft would be hugely altruistic here. The second aspect is, presumably, a much reduced rate of piracy due to chipped consoles and such. Depending on how they implement the call home this may or may not be trivial to workaround. This again would increase first party sales.

Now honestly, I don't have a huge problem with the above. I do think the current generation's secondary market takes away a hell of a lot more sales than it ever did with previous generations. I don't think the current way it works is feasible long term for mid and small sized developers. I think DICE et al can shrug it off much easier than most.

mrkiscool2

I'll choose the console based on 5 different things, in ranking order

1-Games (exclusive, indie, online)
2-Specs (graphics, GPU, memory)
3-Bundle offers
4-Price
5-Entertainment.

Now, when I plug in which is best this is what happens

1-Games-XBO
2-Specs-PS4
3-Bundle Offers-???
4-Price-PS4
5-Entertainment-XBO

Which means I have no idea, once it was clear that the next-gen was coming I was putting money aside for the XBO (Until I heard about the PS4). However, unless the PS4 has a bundle offer that is good, I still think I will be going for the XBO due to the simple fact that it has better exclusives.

gizmo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I imagine they could be asking for a bigger cut of the price seeing as they eliminated second hand sales. If both Microsoft and Sony were getting a fiver a piece from publishers per game sold, maybe Microsoft managed to negotiate a higher price based on implementing this. Win, win for both. Publishers don't "lose" sales to the second hand market. Microsoft get more revenue per game. Also, if it works and the XBox still sells bucket loads, publishers may favour the console more because it will result in more direct sales for them.

That's certainly a valid theory alright and probably the most likely explanation from a financial side. Such a move seems incredibly risky on their end though, especially when you consider the fact that Sony weren't implementing something similar and had already announced a console attracting far more positive headlines than their own offering. I guess we'll see what happens come Christmas.

nesf wrote: »

I see two aspects to it. The first is every sale becomes a first party sale with some losses due to people selling the games back. I suspect that these losses would affect the payout to the developers a lot more than Microsoft's cut of the first sale. Speculation sure but I doubt Microsoft would be hugely altruistic here.

Not sure what you mean here? By first party sales I mean MS published games, not how each sale is regarded by virtue of which customer bought and sold it.

nesf wrote: »

The second aspect is, presumably, a much reduced rate of piracy due to chipped consoles and such. Depending on how they implement the call home this may or may not be trivial to workaround. This again would increase first party sales.

I don't disagree on the point but I think this is more relevant to the always-online aspect of the console rather than the used game restriction.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

Not sure what you mean here? By first party sales I mean MS published games, not how each sale is regarded by virtue of which customer bought and sold it.

Sorry, not thinking straight, third day in a row where I've been awake longer than 30 hours at a time and it's taking its toll. I'm confusing terms, third party sales in marketing etc refers to an intermediary between the original seller and the buyer, be it an agent or whoever. First party sales though in the computer game industry is what you say. I'm getting confused between the two.

For clarity, in my sleep addled mind third party meant resale of used games and first party mean sale of new games. This makes no sense of course!

gizmo wrote: »

I don't disagree on the point but I think this is more relevant to the always-online aspect of the console rather than the used game restriction.

They're linked, otherwise you couldn't enforce the lending/resale rules as well.

Jet Black

Don't like Xbox one. Keep your 360. Yup.

nucker

It's easy for me, I don't like the controller for the x-box and find the dualshock controller far much easier to handle and use, even though it isn't that ergonomic

COYVB

DUBLINHITMAN wrote: »

are both consoles going to use Skype for in game chat or will it just be an app

It's just an app. In the case of XBO, it's an app that you can snap to the side while playing a game, but from my understanding of it, it's still an app nevertheless

Beefy78

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'll choose the console based on 5 different things, in ranking order

1-Games (exclusive, indie, online)
2-Specs (graphics, GPU, memory)
3-Bundle offers
4-Price
5-Entertainment.

Now, when I plug in which is best this is what happens

1-Games-XBO
2-Specs-PS4
3-Bundle Offers-???
4-Price-PS4
5-Entertainment-XBO

Which means I have no idea, once it was clear that the next-gen was coming I was putting money aside for the XBO (Until I heard about the PS4). However, unless the PS4 has a bundle offer that is good, I still think I will be going for the XBO due to the simple fact that it has better exclusives.

What makes you think the XBO will be better for entertainment? Seems to me that the PS4 will do everything that the other one will do outside of North America. And the TV stuff seems beyond pointless anyway.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

why are people getting offended about being told to stick with the 360 if you dont have good access to internet?

shreddedloops

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'll choose the console based on 5 different things, in ranking order

1-Games (exclusive, indie, online)
2-Specs (graphics, GPU, memory)
3-Bundle offers
4-Price
5-Entertainment.

Now, when I plug in which is best this is what happens

1-Games-XBO
2-Specs-PS4
3-Bundle Offers-???
4-Price-PS4
5-Entertainment-XBO

Which means I have no idea, once it was clear that the next-gen was coming I was putting money aside for the XBO (Until I heard about the PS4). However, unless the PS4 has a bundle offer that is good, I still think I will be going for the XBO due to the simple fact that it has better exclusives.

I don't see how DRM isn't the top issue on that list. It's going to be a BIG issue consumers.

And as for the exclusives/games it's probably not best judging just on E3 announcements.

Right now, I dont see how any open minded consumer would choose the Xbox One over the PS4. Forget fanboyism, it's just good consumer sense.

heebusjeebus

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

why are people getting offended about being told to stick with the 360 if you dont have good access to internet?

...or, maybe move to the PS4.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well microsoft aren't going to suggest people move to one of their competitors...

"hey, don't like windows 8? why not try a mac, maybe linux. it's free you know"

heebusjeebus

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well microsoft aren't going to suggest people move to one of their competitors...

"hey, don't like windows 8? why not try a mac, maybe linux. it's free you know"

Well why don't they try and be less dickish to their consumers?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

right, so you dont actually care about the 360 being put forward as an alternative to the xBone you're just using anything and everything microsoft to do have a whinge.

James74

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

why are people getting offended about being told to stick with the 360 if you dont have good access to internet?

Because, rightly or wrongly, it demonstrates an impression of a certain level of arrogance that a manufacturer is comfortable to dismiss a potentially large proportion of their existing customer base from accessing their new hardware. I'm not comfortable with any company that can disregard, or appear to disregard, people that may have already been loyal customers in the past.

heebusjeebus

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

right, so you dont actually care about the 360 being put forward as an alternative to the xBone you're just using anything and everything microsoft to do have a whinge.

Are you serious or just trolling?
How can an 8 year old console be an alternative to one being released this year?

Answer me this, does a console connecting to the internet every day make the consumers life easier or better in any way? What benefits do they get or is it all in the interests of Microsoft/Publishers?

EDIT:
Just to be clear I own a PS3 and a 360. I'm looking at this with clarity, I don't think you are.

NTMK

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

why are people getting offended about being told to stick with the 360 if you dont have good access to internet?

its the "**** them" attitude that MS have taken tbh. its the same attitude sony had with the ps3 and it put me right off.

mattrick has always been an arrogant asshat. this was evident when he was in a senior role at ea (pre 2007). he should not be the face of the xbox divison.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

James74 wrote: »

Because, rightly or wrongly, it demonstrates an impression of a certain level of arrogance that a manufacturer is comfortable to dismiss a potentially large proportion of their existing customer base from accessing their new hardware. I'm not comfortable with any company that can disregard, or appear to disregard, people that may have already been loyal customers in the past.

they wanted to create an all in one entertainment device that uses an internet connection to do all sorts of things, they created an all in one entertainment device that uses an internet connection to do all sorts of things. They're not trying to please everybody and certainly not trying to please "core gamers" who are a fickle, hypocritical and ****ing moronic group of people at the best of times.
If an all in one entertainment device that can be used to play games doesn't interest you then the xBone probably isn't for you. It's not a big deal. They are under no obligation to create a product you like and you are under no obligation to like or purchase whatever product they create.

DublinArnie

You can't play "top-gen" games in their fullest potential in current gen consoles. So people without proper internet access cannot play top gen games to their fullest because the XBOX ONE requires internet access. Microsoft telling people to stick with the XBOX 360 is a giant metaphor for a middle finger in my opinion. Sucks for you xbox people, I didn't imagine Microsoft pulling such a move. Also, it's now more of an "entertainment" console than a "gaming console" in my opinion.

Kintarō Hattori

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

...They're not trying to please everybody and certainly not trying to please "core gamers" who are a fickle, hypocritical and ****ing moronic group of people at the best of times.
....

Isn't it 'core gamers' who've made the industry the powerhouse that it is today.

Seems arrogant to exclude the people that got you where you are.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

heebusjeebus wrote: »

Are you serious or just trolling?
How can an 8 year old console be an alternative to one being released this year?

Answer me this, does a console connecting to the internet every day make the consumers life easier or better in any way? What benefits do they get or is it all in the interests of Microsoft/Publishers?

EDIT:
Just to be clear I own a PS3 and a 360. I'm looking at this with clarity, I don't think you are.

games are still going to be released for the 360. can't remember what they said but 5-6 years of support ahead of it I think. it's not a dead console yet and if you are so offended by the always on nature of the xBone it's the perfect option for microsoft to push as they are 100% never going to suggest you jump to their immediate competition.
I own a pc. I sold my 360 a month or two ago because I hadn't plugged it in for a year and a half. never owned a ps3 although i'll probably pick one up at some point in the next year to play demons souls and journey. my clarity out clarifies your clarity.

NTMK wrote: »

its the "**** them" attitude that MS have taken tbh. its the same attitude sony had with the ps3 and it put me right off.

and again, less about the actual console and more about the hurt feelings and perceptions of "core gamers" who felt that microsoft "really really cared" about them. they are a business, they think this will make them more money than focusing on an offline games machine. they're probably right too. if you don't like the idea of it, don't buy it. I won't. I'm not taking it personally though as I had nothing invested in the idea of myself as an "xbox gamer".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

DublinArnie wrote: »

You can't play "top-gen" games in their fullest potential in current gen consoles. So people without proper internet access cannot play top gen games to their fullest because the XBOX ONE requires internet access. Microsoft telling people to stick with the XBOX 360 is a giant metaphor for a middle finger in my opinion. Sucks for you xbox people, I didn't imagine Microsoft pulling such a move. Also, it's now more of an "entertainment" console than a "gaming console" in my opinion.

if you want to play "top gen" games, get a pc. consoles are always going to lag behind, that's just how it is and how it will always be. if you want to look at the various games and control systems that are out for the various gaming platforms and decide for yourself which you prefer, then get a 360/xbone/ps3/ps4/commadore 64.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Isn't it 'core gamers' who've made the industry the powerhouse that it is today.

Seems arrogant to exclude the people that got you where you are.

they're not excluding core gamers, they're just not focusing on them. microsofts e3 presentation was pretty much all games from what I remember of it and they didn't seem completely terrible.

also surely it's casual gamers that made the industry the powerhouse it is today, "core gamers" being a small number compared to the overall whole.

Beefy78

shreddedloops wrote: »

I don't see how DRM isn't the top issue on that list. It's going to be a BIG issue consumers.

For some consumers. I consider myself a big gamer but DRM doesn't concern me because I have no interest in trading games, borrowing games or buying pre-owned games.

The potential concern I have for it is the possible removal of another downward pressure on prices for new games.

EDIT - guess I'm talking about some form of DRM anyway. The 'connecting every 24 hours' thing is hella-naff.