I don't understand? they got exclusives from them, or?
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
I don't understand? they got exclusives from them, or?
just timed exclusives dlc on both i believe, and both somewhat now "xbox branded"
whereas last gen it was basically cod xbox branded/dlc and bf playstation branded/dlc, as they are 1 and 1a of massively popular fps this seemed somewhat natural.
You have to ask yourself why though rangers. If Xbox was better from the start they wouldn't have gone through these measures to win people over.
On the other hand if Sony were behind they would've so the chances that they would've disappeared is just your fanboy rhetoric shining through yet again.
Microsoft are in this position for a reason, they thought they had it in the bag and people would buy any old crap for a premium. Fair play to them they've realised they were wrong, but a weak ps4 and we'd still be stuck with DRM, ownership issues and 3 hour online check ins.
On the other hand if Sony were behind they would've so the chances that they would've disappeared is just your fanboy rhetoric shining through yet again.
Microsoft are in this position for a reason, they thought they had it in the bag and people would buy any old crap for a premium. Fair play to them they've realised they were wrong, but a weak ps4 and we'd still be stuck with DRM, ownership issues and 3 hour online check ins.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leave it out most of what there doing now is in responce to being a hundred pound more expensive in my opinion .
Microsoft have to justify that hundred pound ...you could argue kinect justifies the price difference or you can give other reasons like dedicated servers .....best version of all multi platform games by having exclusive content .
This is all about winning mind share if you can make the masses believe your the best when it comes to supplying gaming experiences you will win
In my opinion Microsoft are doing every think they can to justify the one hindered pound price difference .....just like Sony used blue ray to justify the high price if the PS 3 Microsoft are using free game ...dedicated servers ....best and exclusive game content to justify there high price .
These things are in the works for a long time and I dont think they're related. MS didn't go sign exclusive BF DLC in reaction to the online DRM fiasco, as you make it seem. The two are unrelated.
How is it "fanboy rhetoric" to point out objective events? forgive me for daring to say microsoft might have done something right with impressive software support
Perhaps suggesting that COD+BF4 DLC along with the same price as PS4 would relegate Sony to a bit player was a rather extreme picture to paint?How is it "fanboy rhetoric" to point out objective events? forgive me for daring to say microsoft might have done something right with impressive software support
Its the 'if they did this right from the beginning Sony and Nintendo would be bit part players' that is the issue.
And if you seriously believe all this good stuff would've happened if Xbox one wasn't flitting from one disaster to the next a few months ago then you really should reevaluate your outlook.
Everything good has come from ms being in a position of weakness.
And if you seriously believe all this good stuff would've happened if Xbox one wasn't flitting from one disaster to the next a few months ago then you really should reevaluate your outlook.
Everything good has come from ms being in a position of weakness.
No, you misunderstood, I think all these would have been required to dominate the market from Xbox:
-399 (or less)
-More than 1.8 TF (even ~3 should have been fairly possible, 7950 cards are now often on sale for ~$200 and they are 3+TF with modest clocks)
-This level of aggressive third party software support...
MS has only one of those three, so it seems you are safe at least for now.
I actually think the DRM and Kinect are fairly irrelevant in the vast scheme of things, so it didn't really matter imo how those worked out.
I honestly got that vibe purely based on software support at E3...but MS made plenty of big mistakes that make it a jump ball again (not enough power, 499, DRM). And I also said Nintendo could be relegated, which is probably happening.
like first party online passes (funny how sony was actually out attacking used games while ms was getting destroyed for just thinking about it) and moving peer to peer multiplayer behind a paywall? neither company has exactly a spotless record, we often forget.
imo the drm was overblown, i guess now that it's over i'm glad they removed it, but there's no escaping the fact it was pretty similar to steam which is beloved, and will probably more or less happen in all corners eventually as physical media withers on the vine inevitably. the self published indies was gonna happen anyway...anyways yeah sure, competition is good...
Safe how, who? Sony is safe or?
Sony is imho ahead in this round, Microsoft simply did a Sony after PS2 and lost the touch. I still don't understand how it happened, i am still waiting for something MEGATON to show up. When i saw the "reveal" tech panel afterwards, i got the impression that Microsofts XB1 was developed by a group of guys that spend alot of time patting each other on the back on how good they were and how awesome their ideas were.
Sony on the other hand, humbled by what i can only call a defeat in the PS3<>360 war seemed to have taken a step back and tried to figure out just how they ended up sucking so bad with the PS3 launch and first years. And decided to fix all that was bad and replace it with good.
The result is two very different approaches, i simply had to own both to be able to first of all enjoy the exclusive 1st party games on the consoles and secondly to learn for myself what exactly the idea is behind them. And imho anyone that has the money but decides for what i can only consider crude primitive fanboish reasons to go with only one is missing out.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Seriously? My friend has an 360, I have a PS3. We both get to enjoy both console exclusives without both of us owning both consoles. I probably get the better deal as she's been paying for Live for years.
How many folks really don't have at least one friend with the other box and a mutual love of games?
Srsly? I think you got my point.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Well you tailed off with a sentiment along the lines of: anybody who can afford both but doesn't buy both is a rabid fanboy, which is a bit strong, mate! I can afford both but I'd have trouble squeezing another console under the TV because I can't imagine retiring the PS3 for at least a year - still too many games not completed - or started! I already have a PS3, MacMini (media centre), and the surround sound system plus a charging station (DS, 3DS, Vita, PS3 controllers etc).
I'm blaming the laws of physics - plus I don't have too because I have friends who are getting Ones!
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
MS is doing fine, but they have to keep showing the value of their system to justify the $100 premium - TV features, Kinect features etc... I'm pretty sure that Kinect is probably only a $50 adder cost wise and the fact that they're using DDR3 instead of GDDR5 probably will make up most of that cost difference in the long run and they should be able to keep price parity with Sony from Fall 2014 onward if they need to.
rockaman
Regular
I find it quite interesting that Sony is teaming up with ISPs to bring help bring internet/web content to users through sharing the value of their products.
It is a win-win situation for both, though I think the whole effect for the ISPs will be mild. It is an interesting partnership and I'm glad they are being progressive in an area where both Sony and the ISPs can find common goals.
It is a win-win situation for both, though I think the whole effect for the ISPs will be mild. It is an interesting partnership and I'm glad they are being progressive in an area where both Sony and the ISPs can find common goals.
i detect from gamscom sony's indie focus is beginning to backfire. on console we want triple aaa. i'm not too interested in indies just like i'm not interested in f2p, mobile, or facebook games.
i dont buy a powerful console for octodad. games like that are incredibly boring to me.
i dont buy a powerful console for octodad. games like that are incredibly boring to me.
east of eastside
Newcomer
Sony is playing the indie card to mask their launch software weakness. Playstation "gaming" is more about what is trendy and 'cool' than actually fun gameplay-wise, so it fits with the audience.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I so buy PlayStations to be trendy. I just wished I lived in a completely glass house so people could more easily see me being trendy in my house.
And how did you extrapolate that conclusion? I had no idea the exclusive games I am enjoying on the PS3 were......."trendy"
It's call making an early investment. There are new revenue models and independent developers being brought to mobile and PC because of less restrictive policies for game submissions. That means catering to indies who can or will be future AAA developers, that means having a larger variety of games that are big and small, and having a larger audience who can learn to appreciate all different kinds of games.
You want to play nothing but the powerhouse AAA games? The PS4 will have the Killzones, Infamouses, Uncharteds, and other big games coming out. There's nothing to stop you from buying those titles. MS is springing for World of Tanks and already has Minecraft, so they must be buying into similar reasons of logic.
Because every exclusive title MS has shown will be a launch title? Come on now, what you're talking about goes for both sides. One-sided generalizations shouldn't come up either, or else we'd be arguing about Xbox being synonymous with dudebro shooters.
How about we try to keep our expectations for both consoles realistic?
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been thinking about the indie push at Sony and it seems to me now that I have reflected on this that Sony is actually doing something really smart. PS+ is geared around free games in exchange for the subscription, I have a feeling that moving forward we will see a larger percentage of the games released each month on PS+ come from indie developers. This does a couple things for Sony:
1) it gives them a close working relationship small independent developers who someday might become the next ND
2) it allows them to create the perception of value with PS+ utilizing a smaller amount of capital
3) it gives them early access to new games which potentially could be moved over their first party studios if the concept makes sense
4) it brings constant new ideas and fresh concepts to Sony which should help them avoid getting stale or too corporate
For the indie developers it gives them the ability to self publish, access to a publisher if their idea is good enough who can help take their business to the next level.
