Kinect-less XB1 fallout thread *spawn

[joker454]

So no, I wouldn't say that last generation millions of people willing paid more money for a console that they knew was less powerful.

Here's the difference between then and now.

Then, even a cyclops could play both versions of games and notice that it wasn't just visuals and frame rate that were impaired on one version but that online features were blatantly missing. Sure people would say otherwise on the interweb but you know how people are on the net, they just say stuff to save face when in private they really know what's what. It was impossible to not notice the difference. And quite frankly many did say that the differences were noticeable and obvious and at the same time they didn't care. Which is totally fine, I can understand people not caring, it's not always the big deal forums sometimes make this out to be. Some people really just want to turn on their box and play games irregardless of what they look like.

Today, the versions of games for the most part are at visual parity aside from resolution, and I'd bet anyone here $10,000 that if you showed xb1/ps4 versions of the same game side by side to 100 people that at least 90 of them would see zero difference. That is not a bet I would have taken last gen because the difference was so obvious then, but it's not so obvious now.

On the forums people try to make the xb1/ps4 difference seem like it's between a super computer and a Colecovision, and then they act confused as to why anyone would chose a $399 xb1 over a $399 ps4. In the end they are both weak little machines trying to render what they can at a fixed price point and heat profile, which one being a little weaker than the other but still largely the same. What makes it even more strange is how some of these same people harped on and on for years about the same 5 exclusives over and over again last gen as for their reason to choose one platform over another, yet they can't see that point of view now when both machines this gen are visually much closer than they were last gen and now at the same price.

At $499 vs $399? Sure, that's a big price difference. But that's gone now and we know most people don't read Digital Foundry. They will see the games in stores or at their friends homes and not see any difference between the two, so they will have to buy based on brand, what friends have, feature set, etc. In the respect the two machines will be a toss up depending on what your wants, needs and preferences are. If you can't bear to play any game that doesn't rhyme with "illzone" or "ncharted" then you will buy a ps4. If you worship at the altar of Halo and named your first borne Marcus and your second borne Fenix then you will buy an xb1. For the rest they are two similar boxes playing similar games at similar price points, and their purchase choice will be made by some other means.

Which is why I think the claim of "who would pick a $399 xb1 over a $399 ps4" is silly.

 

[Sonic]

My bad, you are right it is different. The xb1 plays versions of games that look mostly the same as the ps4 versions but with lower resolution, whereas last gen ps3 games were missing all sorts of visual features, had blurry visuals, lesser frame rates, crappier textures, longer load times, less online features, etc, etc for the first few years. That much can't be denied because I lived it first hand and profited handsomely from that very fact.

So last gen where the difference in games was far far more pronounced the "all about the games" core gamers didn't care. But this gen where the difference is mostly just resolution that few in real world tests can even notice anyways, somehow people are scratching their heads as to why a gamer would pick an xb1 over the ps4.

C'mon now...

What are you going on about? In the US MS ended up winning the lion's share of the core market with its cheaper system. It ended up getting the better versions of games, and more times than not the games ended up selling better on 360. I'd think that having the better versions of the game helped it out tremendously. So maybe core gamers did care and chose the system that better suited their wants.

The difference this gen is that MS released an overpriced console that is weaker than the cheaper, more powerful competition. Now that they've reached price parity, by removing Kinect, we will see how that reflects in sales. It's not hard to see why someone would pick an XB1 over PS4, especially if they're vested in Live. If I didn't own both already and was looking to upgrade I'd definitely consider XB1 with the price cut. I'd likely go with PS4 as I see it as the better deal at the moment.

At the same time by removing Kinect MS is signaling they lack confidence in Kinect being able to sell systems. All I wanted was a killer app from MS to prove Kinect is worth it. They've failed to do that, so far, and now are telling me that Kinect might just be useless. If I had known in advance that I could get the machine $100 cheaper without Kinect I'd have waited and done that. MS maybe was smart for not releasing the Kinectless XB1. I hope the machine is more profitable at this price point for them so they can at least make money from hardware.

 

[joker454]

What are you going on about? In the US MS ended up winning the lion's share of the core market with its cheaper system. It ended up getting the better versions of games, and more times than not the games ended up selling better on 360. I'd think that having the better versions of the game helped it out tremendously. So maybe core gamers did care and chose the system that better suited their wants.

It was many factors last gen such as the 360 launching earlier, cheaper, with better games, better online, more complete software, etc. Even with that though many still stuck to the Playstation brand regardless to where it was a wash in the end and both sold similarly. The difference is no where near that pronounced this gen, really both the xb1 and ps4 are damn similar. In fact this may be the closest two competing consoles have ever been in the history of consoles. Anything and everything you can do on one you can do on the other simply by dropping resolution a bit. It's the easiest time in history to be a multi platform developer not just because porting between the two is relative cake, but aside from a few crying on forums most all customers will think all versions look and play identical.

The difference this gen is that MS released an overpriced console that is weaker than the cheaper, more powerful competition. Now that they've reached price parity, by removing Kinect, we will see how that reflects in sales. It's not hard to see why someone would pick an XB1 over PS4, especially if they're vested in Live. If I didn't own both already and was looking to upgrade I'd definitely consider XB1 with the price cut. I'd likely go with PS4 as I see it as the better deal at the moment.

That will depend person to person. The typical buyer will see both and will not be armed with any info from forums like this because lets face it, most buyers don't read anything of what we are typing here. Both consoles will look very similar with mostly the same games and at the same price. So which one to buy? Some will look at the ps4 vr helmet and think oooh that's cool and walk out with a ps4. Some will look at kinect and think that may be cool to buy for the kids one day and walk out with an xb1. Some will see the ps4 and remember a commercial they saw at a movie trailer about some cool new ps4 game and walk out with a ps4. Others will see the xb1 and remember that last marketing blitz that MS did and walk out with an xb1. Point being it's not cut and dry now which way people will go, and I really don't think the visuals difference will matter this gen unlike last gen where the ps3 had the quadruple whammy of being pricier, obviously worse looking and running games, shipping later and with less features. Today it's two boxes that in most respects are pretty darned similar, launched at the same time and now at the same price.

 

[eastmen]

And you are utterly crazy

Nope, for better or worse 5 years is the absolute minimum they're stuck with this hardware. And I'd only go as low as 5 years if it really continues to struggle.

It's super expensive and massive inertia involved, you dont just jettison a console...

why ?

Take out everything from the xbox one that they can , bluray / Kinect and do micron drops on the system. Get it down under $200.

Use the next gen amd cpu they are developing along with GCN 3 on 16nm and put out a new system much more powerful and just release all first party games at lower res on the xbox one and higher res on the xbox two .

The xbox one doesn't have a price advantage , doesn't have a power advantage and the library is neck and neck in terms of eclusives .

With the Kinect gone , I don't see whats appealing about the xbxo one vs the ps4 aside from the controllers.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

At $499 vs $399? Sure, that's a big price difference. But that's gone now and we know most people don't read Digital Foundry. They will see the games in stores or at their friends homes and not see any difference between the two, so they will have to buy based on brand, what friends have, feature set, etc. In the respect the two machines will be a toss up depending on what your wants, needs and preferences are. If you can't bear to play any game that doesn't rhyme with "illzone" or "ncharted" then you will buy a ps4. If you worship at the altar of Halo and named your first borne Marcus and your second borne Fenix then you will buy an xb1. For the rest they are two similar boxes playing similar games at similar price points, and their purchase choice will be made by some other means.

Which is why I think the claim of "who would pick a $399 xb1 over a $399 ps4" is silly.

I agree with most of what you said, and didn't cut it off in an attempt to minimize your position. My point is that currently launch games don't demonstrate the full power of either console and that as the generation moves on, games on both will improve. I always believed that the ESRAM and the lower latency DDR would be able to close the gap to a certain degree with the PS4, but that the Xb0x was never going to be able to compensate for the differences in GPU.

The problem with this generation is that the Xb0x has, since launch, always been known as the weaker console. It's not just pixel counting in digital foundry screen shots, this is a well known fact and anybody who does research on a comparison will be told the PS4 is more powerful and that has been the story since launch and it won't change.

That's different than last generation, where I had to constantly defend my choice of the 360 and attempt to tell people that the 360 was just as powerful - if not more powerful than the PS3 and was constantly laughed at. In spite of clear evidence to the contrary. That's just how the landscape of this past generation was. This generation is different, the Xb0x is and is widely known as the weaker console.

That's why I don't believe that the question of "why buy a $399 Xb0x instead of a $399 PS4" is silly. The PS4 is widely known to be more powerful and this time, it actually is. Last generation it was widely known that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 and it was smoke and mirrors.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's not hard to see why someone would pick an XB1 over PS4, especially if they're vested in Live. .

Huh? Can you please explain. Because to me it is VERY hard to see why someone would pick an Xb0x over a PS4 unless they were already invested in Live.

What are the other reasons? Nobody so far has been able to provide an answer to this question, that seems to be the sole response to why anybody would purchase the Xb0x.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

There's at least two other threads (and probably this one) actively discussing that; its not rocket science and the notion of freeing additional graphics resource currently earmarked for Kinect started way before the Kinect-less SKU became reality, without, they say, impacting the Kinect enabled user experience.

So what you're saying is that the talking points as to why the Kinect-less SKU was actually an improvement for the Xb0x are just that - spin, because these wheels were set in motion back when they made it so the Kinect wasn't mandatory.

To Clarify - there's no "bonus" now to removing the Kinect, that "bonus" has already been realized when they rejiggered the Xb0x in order to make it so the Xb0x could be used without the Kinect being connected?

Personally I don't think you need to consider any conspiracy theories, dropping mandatory Kinect now is just a pure factor of cost/price and making sure they don't lose some much early in the cycle that it becomes too much to claw back later. Kinect will still remain a key to the mainstream as the price comes down.

Was I putting forth conspiracy theories? I'm pretty sure my stated position is that the Xb0x division is working under very strict sales/budget goals and that they believed the best way to hit those sales targets within the defined budget was to eliminate the Kinect.

What I don't understand is your confidence that the Kinect won't simply be discontinued as a result. It seems pretty obvious that if there were game-changing or console-moving Kinect games in the pipeline, MS wouldn't have made this move because those would have demonstrated the value of Kinect and the worthiness of the $100 premium.

I've been somewhat hesitate to state that MS is going to kill off Kinect entirely, because there have been so many examples of non-gaming uses for Kinect. Those examples were actually what gave many MS fans hope. If South Korea is using Kinect to aid their autonomous security robots to patrol the border with North Korea (for an example), there's clearly going to amazing games coming out for the Xb0x with Kinect2.

But apparently while Kinect has many uses, gaming isn't one of them. So MS may keep manufacturing and selling Kinect for those other purposes (as a profitable business line), but if MS can't convince 3rd parties to develop for the Kinect when it is standard equipment and apparently can't develop their own 1st party games for Kinect that would show that the $100 premium for the Xb0x is worth it, what are you basing your opinion on that MS will continue to support it for the Xb0x?

 

[Scott_Arm]

What reasons do people have for buying ps4? Games, friends, services, hardware, peripherals, price, brand loyalty. It's pretty much the same list for Xbox One. What are you expecting to hear?

 

[expletive]

Nothing, but that's all they need to sell to the core gamer who's just after the best COD/FIFA box.

But I can also be a little fairer and say PS4 has Project Morpheus coming which is going to make waves even if it doesn't go mainstream. And it's had service and features that MS is copying (internet services not behind a paywall, subscription service coming with great value content). Both Sony and MS innovate and emulate in their services department and compete in a, broadly speaking IMO, equal footing.It's not like Sony's efforts are at Nintendo levels! Whatever ecosystem advantage XB1 may have, right here and now this year, what's the reason for a gamer to buy XB1 over PS4 when it's offering a lesser game experience and costs the same? When PS4 is going to offer VR? And this year is going to be quite important in establishing XB1. Cross-Windows games and apps might gradually trickle interest in switching phones and wanting an integrated experience across devices, but then you're looking at people way down the line who have been seeing PS4 outselling XB1 significantly for a year or two or three.

If XB1 can't make a name for itself this year, it'll just be the second-rate also-ran for the rest of the gen. Devs will make the most of PS4 and PC with their simple development and shuffle cheap ports to XB1. It'll be pretty uncompetitive.

Not charging for internet or giving away games with a subscription services is not innovation, its a pricing model. To that end, i think its hard to argue that Sony was not the least innovative of the big 3 last generation.

With Morpheus, Sony has not had a great track record with peripherals, so I'm not convinced they can bring it to market with content and pricing that will lead to great success.

From a development perspective Microsoft is committed to there being a significant synergy between XBO and PC with regards to tools and the environment so i can't see how an "MS Platform" developer shuffles second rate ports to the XBO. (recently read an interview where a PC game took less than 2 weeks to get fully running on an XBO, can't find it though.)

Why would someone buy an XBO? They prefer the games, XBL, the multitasking, and the disparity in multi plats (WD is 108p difference) doesn't weigh heavily.

 

[Sonic]

MS did every thing right last gen. Sony messed up big time. Launching a year earlier helped MS tremendously, but as you said there's a variety of factors at play.

Given the current gen systems are very close in terms of power, with one having a bit more CPU and the other having a decent bit more GPU, it may be that games end up having parity other than resolution for the entirety of this gen. Even with XB1 at $399, would you find it shocking if PS4 continued to outsell XB1 and increase its lead in terms of consoles sold? Would you find it shocking if PS4 ended up outselling XB1 2:1? I wouldn't be. It could of course go the other way around or even likelier end up a close race.

Removing Kinect does give MS a leg to stand on when it comes to price parity and it should do everything in its power to communicate that. A new marketing blitz advertising that fact could push some systems.

 

[(((interference)))]

Oh, come on Joker. That isn't what happened.

It was common knowledge among everybody that the PS3 with Cell! was far more powerful than the 360 and it was only lazy developers and the fact that it was going to take time to figure out the complicated architecture that was leading to the 360 initially looking better.

Sure, "initially" kept going on for years and years, but even then it wasn't until extremely late in the generation that the general consensus began to change.

So no, I wouldn't say that last generation millions of people willing paid more money for a console that they knew was less powerful.

Yeah, the difference this gen is that everyone knows the XB1 is clearly weaker, both on paper and in the real world.

Last gen, Sony profited immensely from 'TEH CELL' reality distortion field with a lot of people thinking weaker multiplats were due to 'lazy devs' as the technically brilliant PS3 exclusives 'clearly showed it was the more powerful machine' etc.

Honestly, at the beginning of last gen (and for a lot of time thereafter too), any gaming related conversation would contain the assumption that the PS3 was the more powerful machine.

 

[Sonic]

Huh? Can you please explain. Because to me it is VERY hard to see why someone would pick an Xb0x over a PS4 unless they were already invested in Live.

What are the other reasons? Nobody so far has been able to provide an answer to this question, that seems to be the sole response to why anybody would purchase the Xb0x.

Why are you spelling Xbox like that? There's plenty of reasons to want an XB1 over PS4 such as games. As others have previously stated there will be people who prefer MS franchises such as Gears and Halo. Forza could even have been a decision for some to choose XB1 over PS4, however few that actually is. Then there is.....Kinect. Kinect is still a reason why some may prefer XB1 over PS4. Do you really think there's no other reason to want an XB1 other than Live? Some might just have a bias towards the MS or Xbox brand.

Of course most of these same reasons can be applied to PS4. And when applied to PS4 it does make more sense to choose that from a value perspective. I don't agree with joker in assuming the majority of customers live in a vacuum with little knowledge of the differences in hardware. I do think that will weigh in with a lot of consumers and when considering other reasons then PS4 will end up having the better value.

 

[joker454]

Given the current gen systems are very close in terms of power, with one having a bit more CPU and the other having a decent bit more GPU, it may be that games end up having parity other than resolution for the entirety of this gen. Even with XB1 at $399, would you find it shocking if PS4 continued to outsell XB1 and increase its lead in terms of consoles sold? Would you find it shocking if PS4 ended up outselling XB1 2:1? I wouldn't be. It could of course go the other way around or even likelier end up a close race.

Removing Kinect does give MS a leg to stand on when it comes to price parity and it should do everything in its power to communicate that. A new marketing blitz advertising that fact could push some systems.

At the same price point I would be really surprised if the ps4 outsold the xb1 2:1, unless there were other factors in play like the xb1 paywall that gets talked about often, if sony's vr turns out to be a surprise hit, etc... I think the paywall issue has been fixed so they are at parity there right? I would expect sales spikes when key games come out like Halo or GT, but otherwise because the two are so close I figure marketing and non gaming features will come into play somewhat as well as brand loyalty.

I don't know if anyone watches the show Mad Men, but there's a line in there that's applicable here where Roger says elections often come down to "I don't like that guy." So irregardless of facts, speeches or what have you in the end they vote with their gut. How that applies here is that for many people all it will probably come down to is "I want a Playstation" or "I want an Xbox" irregardless of marketing, games or whatever especially given their now equal pricing. Many will just stick with the brand they know or are comfortable with.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Why are you spelling Xbox like that?

Because it is no longer the One, it is the Zero. As in, the current offering represents Zero of the original vision for the platform.

There's plenty of reasons to want an XB1 over PS4 such as games. As others have previously stated there will be people who prefer MS franchises such as Gears and Halo. Forza could even have been a decision for some to choose XB1 over PS4, however few that actually is. Then there is.....Kinect. Kinect is still a reason why some may prefer XB1 over PS4. Do you really think there's no other reason to want an XB1 other than Live? Some might just have a bias towards the MS or Xbox brand.

I put all of those things in the same category. Only current and former 360 users have a reason to buy the Xb0x. Those that are used to the UI, those that are used to the controller, those that like the MS exclusives and those that have friends lists and aren't willing to change.

Which gets me back to my point - Why would a non-360 user choose the Xb0x over the PS4 when they are of comparable pricing, there's no added potential mystery benefit of Kinect and when every single news release about either console will always include the fact that the PS4 is the more capable gaming machine?

And if their user base was going to be limited to current 360 Gold Live Members then they could have stuck with their original vision and actually provided some real visionary value. Along with the familiar UI, better controller, same friends list, exclusive games, etc.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Yeah, the difference this gen is that everyone knows the XB1 is clearly weaker, both on paper and in the real world.

Last gen, Sony profited immensely from 'TEH CELL' reality distortion field with a lot of people thinking weaker multiplats were due to 'lazy devs' as the technically brilliant PS3 exclusives 'clearly showed it was the more powerful machine' etc.

Honestly, at the beginning of last gen (and for a lot of time thereafter too), any gaming related conversation would contain the assumption that the PS3 was the more powerful machine.

Absolutely, and revisionist history is something that really irritates me. I was there, I lived it, I had to constantly defend my choice of the 360 over the PS3 and was continually told that either I was cheap or that I was just a fanboy.

The reality is and was that the 360 was an amazing piece of hardware (as was the PS3), but the 360 was actually engineered better. It didn't suffer from the same muddled vision and competing interests that the PS3 did (pushing Cell adoption, pushing BR adoption, etc). Yet it fought an uphill battle its entire life against the PS3 and Cell hype machine. By the time the truth came out and reality could no longer be disputed, it didn't matter. The generation had already been established. Even then, the PS3 still managed to close the gap based upon brand recognition.

This generation, the PS4 has the same brand recognition that it always did. The tremendous leap in marketshare that the PS3 gained at the generation proved that its brand was not as diminished as people thought. Additionally, the "hype" about the PS4 being more powerful isn't actually "hype" at all. It's reality and even the most staunchest MS fanboy isn't trying to dispute that. (they're still trying to dispute that the gap is large enough for anybody to notice, however)

But that doesn't even matter, which is my point.

My opinion is thus: Last generation, when the PS3 was more expensive and less capable than the 360 it still managed to survive and then actually gain enough momentum to win or draw even with the 360 due in large part to the promise that it would eventually prove to be more powerful and its brand. This generation, the PS4 has been less expensive (or soon to be of equal price), but still has a stronger brand than the Xb0x and there's no promises of future performance increases required - it flat out is undisputedly more powerful.

The Xb0x was always known to be less powerful, even by all those early adopters that bought it. Yet, they bought it on the same premise as those that bought the PS3 - the promise of future enhancements, and for the Xb0x those lay completely with Kinect. Kinect was the Xb0x "secret sauce", just as the Cell was for the PS3.

With Kinect gone, there is no Xb0x secret sauce. It is what it is which is an inferior version of the PS3 - with an HDMI input as the defining difference.

 

[Sonic]

At the same price point I would be really surprised if the ps4 outsold the xb1 2:1, unless there were other factors in play like the xb1 paywall that gets talked about often, if sony's vr turns out to be a surprise hit, etc... I think the paywall issue has been fixed so they are at parity there right? I would expect sales spikes when key games come out like Halo or GT, but otherwise because the two are so close I figure marketing and non gaming features will come into play somewhat as well as brand loyalty.

I don't know if anyone watches the show Mad Men, but there's a line in there that's applicable here where Roger says elections often come down to "I don't like that guy." So irregardless of facts, speeches or what have you in the end they vote with their gut. How that applies here is that for many people all it will probably come down to is "I want a Playstation" or "I want an Xbox" irregardless of marketing, games or whatever especially given their now equal pricing. Many will just stick with the brand they know or are comfortable with.

It's tough for me to say. But the gut feeling I have is that the Playstation brand is growing stronger while the Xbox brand is getting weaker. I only realized the paywall was a big deal for Live after others passionately discussed the topic. I initially thought it was relatively insignificant. Sure there will be sales spikes when hit games come out, and hopefully for both companies large spikes, but the sales in between those hits also matter a great deal. So far the data shows PS4 consistently outselling XB1. Even with MS releasing a $400 XB1 I have reservations on whether MS will be able to reach parity with Sony, even in the US. It could tip the market in MS's favor, which would surprise me more than Sony retaining a sales lead on a consistent basis.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's tough for me to say. But the gut feeling I have is that the Playstation brand is growing stronger while the Xbox brand is getting weaker. I only realized the paywall was a big deal for Live after others passionately discussed the topic. I initially thought it was relatively insignificant. Sure there will be sales spikes when hit games come out, and hopefully for both companies large spikes, but the sales in between those hits also matter a great deal. So far the data shows PS4 consistently outselling XB1. Even with MS releasing a $400 XB1 I have reservations on whether MS will be able to reach parity with Sony, even in the US. It could tip the market in MS's favor, which would surprise me more than Sony retaining a sales lead on a consistent basis.

I agree with your conclusions, but not your basis. I don't think the paywall matters a lick and that there is a single person actually purchasing a PS4 over a Xb0x using that as a factor in the decision.

The PS brand is still far stronger than I imagined through 3/4s of this generation, I didn't think there was anyway they were going to catch the 360 based upon all the problems at launch and the inevitable reality that the PS3 wasn't "magically" more powerful than the 360.

Yet, they did. Sony comes into this generation on the heels of a PS3 that was gaining steam and marketshare, with a more powerful console at a lower price.

This is a horrific spot for MS to be in to begin with, let alone with their inconsistent vision for the console that alienates even their staunches supporters.

 

[shredenvain]

Huh? Can you please explain. Because to me it is VERY hard to see why someone would pick an Xb0x over a PS4 unless they were already invested in Live.

What are the other reasons? Nobody so far has been able to provide an answer to this question, that seems to be the sole response to why anybody would purchase the Xb0x.

Halo,Gears of war,Fable,SSO, so on (exclusive games). Controller preference. Better Online ecosystem (opinion). Friends and family also owning the system. Im sure you will blow off all these answers. Then there are alot of gamers of the core variety that will purchase both systems. I mean damn some of you are really stuck on this extra gpu parts and performance add so much more value. These are game consoles not gpu cards for your Pc. Infact so many of the same people on here complaining are the same ones calling for the removal of kinect to begin with. Alot of you are of the opinion that the Xbox should just die. Why would anyone pay extra for a weaker system with a camera? Camera not manditory. Why would anyone pay the same price for a system that will run some multiplat titles at a lower resolution? They will because it isnt as important to all gamers as it is to some of you.
Some of you act like this is the only console war you have ever lived through. Why would anyone have bought a Genesis,Psx,Ps2,Wii? These were all weaker than there competition and did great as far as sales.

 

[eastmen]

http://www.totalxbox.com/76560/rare-evaluating-what-they-want-to-do-next-says-phil-spencer/

so it looks like even rare is free of the Kinect shackles. Seems to me that Kinect is completely dead

 

[Sonic]

I agree with your conclusions, but not your basis. I don't think the paywall matters a lick and that there is a single person actually purchasing a PS4 over a Xb0x using that as a factor in the decision.

The PS brand is still far stronger than I imagined through 3/4s of this generation, I didn't think there was anyway they were going to catch the 360 based upon all the problems at launch and the inevitable reality that the PS3 wasn't "magically" more powerful than the 360.

Yet, they did. Sony comes into this generation on the heels of a PS3 that was gaining steam and marketshare, with a more powerful console at a lower price.

This is a horrific spot for MS to be in to begin with, let alone with their inconsistent vision for the console that alienates even their staunches supporters.

And what is my basis? My basis is that Sony fucked up royally with the beginning of the PS3. And Microsoft did everything right. The market rewarded MS early on with Sony trying to catch up.

I agree with you that the PS brand still has good presence, but it was tarnished at the launch of PS3 and I constantly heard people deride Sony for launching a $600 machine. Sony had a rude awakening that it wouldn't be able to waltz its way into #1 position and was extremely humbled. They buckled down and made the best of it. Good for them for reaching parity with 360 worldwide, that's a great achievement. They worked hard on bringing the price down and exclusive content and it helped them claw back some market share.

Then we come to the February 2013 PS4 reveal, which is where the beginning of PS4 in the public's eyes comes to fruition. Sony's attitude since that point in time has been great and their execution has been great. With all the interviews Cerny has done I can feel a company that has gotten their shit together and are very passionate about what they do. With a fresh start at the beginning of every gen it's a reset. It's part of the reason why I feel the PS brand is getting stronger to the point where it may end up being the dominant console again.

MS seems like it's getting its shit together with Phil Spencer making good decisions. MS wouldn't have changed the paywall for Netflix and Hulu if it wasn't an issue. We know by now MS will react to people being vocal about these things. In the end it did give PS4 better value proposition but I still don't think it effected sales one bit considering early adopters. And removing Kinect means we will finally see many people out there who said they'd buy XB1 without Kinect stick to their words. Even some of those I think may choose the competition.