It's just to appease fanboys who no doubts went off on one. It's like they couldn't understand that MVC haven't spoken to every retailer in the UK.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
It's just to appease fanboys who no doubts went off on one. It's like they couldn't understand that MVC haven't spoken to every retailer in the UK.
It also like saying that to flawless experience on the PS4 you need to a Vita as it seem Sony is demanding this support in all games, bar those using the camera. Luckily for me I have a Virgin Tivo box, unluckily for me I have no idea if MS is going to work with Virgin (or whoever has just bought them).
There's a difference between buying a console and already having compatible equipment and rushing out to buy more stuff from the same company.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Please inform us as to how not having a Vita will provide a less than "flawless" PS4 experience?
What do you mean by Sony's DRM solution cross referenced with MS? What use case are you thinking about ?
In general, DRM can be closed like FairPlay. Are you saying they both implement the same DRM standard, like Ultraviolet ?
The policies can be lenient even if the DRM tech is capable of more.
Probably too early to call.
I can't even fathom that logic. Either you're not aware but back then people already had home networks through their dial-up and/or used other connections(cable,isdn,adsl,sdsl,...) to not even have a way to use an analog modem. So the only practicable way to connect the xbox was through ethernet.
Not to mention that the Gamecube was ethernet (you know, for that one game that supported it), and the PS2 was ethernet.
EDIT: Nope, they also made a modem for the gamecube, I didn't know.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe you misunderstand what they mean. sony are mandating remote play, not Vita features in all games. They aren't demanding Vita touch-screen interfaces for PS4 games; just streaming of games to Vita. This level of support is basically no impact on PS4. The hardware has encoding for streaming and uploading videos. All it means it devs need to provide an IO system for Vita and support Vita controls in their game as well as DS4's. Without a Vita, you lose nothing. With Vita, you gain access to your PS4 games on Vita via remote play.Sony mandates Vita Remote Play for all games on the PS4. If you do not have a Vita one the experiences Sony has built into PS4 (if you believe Eurogamer it is uses no resources). If I have no Vita I miss that particular experience. The TV functions shown at the Xbox one launch require a TV set box that MS supports, that may or may not be the Virgin Tivo i have, if it doesn't I miss that experience. I see no difference thats what I was trying to say.
Sorry Shifty as above, I didn't explain myself well.
Okay. I'm not in favour of that meself, preferring good old buttons as more direct and responsive, or a motion interface. Tapping the PS3's shoulder button three times to skip ahead quickly is faster than saying, "Xbox, fast forward, faster, faster," and I value that immediacy. I'll be perfectly happy with any box that provides a conventional interface. If I were to get XB1, I'd rather have a really swish Surface interface, navigating schedules by touch and having options appear.
I'm saying a system with which developers and publishers are happy with. I'm assuming each party knows what the other is planing on doing
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm saying a system with which developers and publishers are happy with. I'm assuming each party knows what the other is planing on doing
Should be a system where platform holder, developers, publishers _and_ consumers are happy with. That is the difference even though they may know what the other side is planning.
wouldnt the controller still work in addition to a voice or motion activated interface?
I agree but I'd be interested to see how often people use FF/RW these days. Once you've started the activity, aside from Pause/Play/Stop i bet every other command is used very infrequently?
As you pointed out earlier, setting volume is a more challenging scenario though. Unless the XB1 has variable audio out it will be difficult to control since the proxy-control of TVs and AVRs wont have discreet commands like 30%, 70%, etc...
I'm thinking of my wife and her being able to walk into the room, turn the thing on, launch netflix, start streaming without touching a remote. She would *love* that compared to dealing with my Harmony 900 remote with 100 buttons on it.
As others have mentioned, ethernet was already quite common in 2001. And more to the point, online gaming didn't have a substantial impact until the launch of Xbox360 and the PS3. Before that, it was mostly known to PC gamers, but not to the majority playing console games. This is a bit different, in that I don't expect the most people to run out and buy new receivers, tvs and other devices in their living room only because Xbox One now offers some way to control all of them. I think it's more likely that people will see some fancy commercial and then find out, that this and that won't effectively work, because their home entertainment system isn't compatible with it.
And the more you go into the enthusiast market that likely spent a lot of money on their equipment (me included), the less likely you would want to replace that too.
HDMI CEC might be the way to go to solve some issues, but like I mentioned in my post, we don't really know how much beyond substituting some buttons with voice-commands the service will offer and how well this will work. I'm highly skeptical.
At the end of the day, I'll be buying my next console foremost to play games. Not to make it my "all in one" entertainment platform. I'm all for features that enhance gameplay, like Xbox did by including a ethernet port - however, controlling my livingroom through voice commands? Not really.
If you don't have a Vita, you can still spectate and help friends remotely (from another PS4) since PS4 will stream the game out. Vita is only needed if you want to play game on a portable screen, more akin to Second Screen.
The TV integration is a media feature that requires cable companies' cooperation. MS will just have to negotiate with them, especially for overseas operators.
Probably depends on content type.
We use Seek and FF/RW quite often for variety shows. Story movies are less often. Pr0n may have their own viewing patterns.
EDIT: For TV series, it's not uncommon to seek ahead when trying to catch up on the backlog after a vacation.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
I think perhaps you're mis-understanding what Remote Play is (and maybe the TV support for the XBO as well). First, without Remote Play (distinct from Second Screen) you're experience is the same. You play the same game, you just play it on your display and only on your display instead of making the Vita your display and controller. You're not playing some special version, there is no unique experience or additional content.
As for the XBO's TV support, specific compatibility with your Virgin Tivo boils down to IR command support (for the IR blaster) which should be all but guaranteed. Where you may be out of luck, is if there's no program guide data based on your location and provider (the same way WMC pulls program data). That support should be pretty universal across the US. So long as your Tivo has an HDMI out to get the signal to the One.
Hypothetically speaking, if you're cable box/DVR wasn't supported at all or couldn't get an HDMI signal to the XBO for some odd reason, the difference is, you couldn't experience the TV integration at all. Whereas if you don't have a Vita for Remote Play you still experience the very same game.
