Actually, I'd prefer 720P with a good quality antialias over 1080P with none. I'm hoping most games don't give up 2x of their 6-8x power improvement just for pushing twice as many pixels, there are so many more interesting things they could do with that power.
I'm right there with ya. Not many got to see the BF4 gameplay footage in native 720p on the 360 dashboard when it was briefly put online, but I did and it was absolutely, without hestitation the best IQ I'd ever seen. Yes, at 720p. Not a single jagged edge, zero pixels flickering, everything was crystal clear and razor sharp. If PS4's power will be primarily used to try eeking out visual fidelity from frame resolution superority that just won't work out in its favor at all. I have suspicions that MS knows the highly diminished returns that hits frame res around 900p or so. The display planes seem to suggest they are well aware of this. Their analogous MSR studies on foveated rendering bear that out to a tee.
There's a certain perception, whether valid or not, that MS is forcing you to pay for Kinect and TV features, which you may not be interested in using (or paying for, which would be a kick, to pay to change your TV channels).
The price they're going to charge is going to be determined partly by the cost for Kinect and the non-gaming features. Or they could have delivered more gaming performance for the same price if not for Kinect and the other stuff.
No need to feel betrayed. There's competition, not just from other consoles but other electronic toys.
It will be interesting from a social psychology pov to see how connotations adjust, if at all, when Sony comes out with a similar used games policy and a similar always online concept and ships a camera in every box. IF that happens, it will be fun watching the mass displays of complete cognitive dissonance play out.
That's not really what he said. In context, he clearly seems to be discussing the console generation as whole, which would include the PS4 and Wii U:
Yeah well the numbers guy Greenberg disagrees with Yusef. I'll give MS credit. They astounded everyone when claiming they felt the industry as a whole would expand to reach a billion ppl playing games back in 2005. Turns out they seem to have been on the money there. Greenberg feels next gen will likely top out at around 350mil iirc. Still, that's huge growth.
You mean than show them a box? Yeah I suppose there is, maybe showing them what's inside the box? Nah, wouldn't be prudent.
As Dave noted, they actually did a great job with this, whether anyone online wants to give them credit for it or not. And the other venues I think he was referring to was E3. These boxes both have too much to show at a single showing. They both want core gamers, casuals, mediaphiles, and general tech geeks to be buzzing over what they show/announce. MS opted to announce their vision of the general, broad platform as well as feed the tech geeks first. They wanted to get the mediaphiles excited and I think they did. At E3 they will focus on core and casual gaming.
All the clerical bullshit will be out of the way, used game stuff is being cleared up before the show, so at E3 all that's left is a show for gamers. That's the smart move imho. It's annoying right now for some of us, sure. But it's the best approach not only from a sales pitch pov but also for gamers. Think about it, come E3 Sony will need to talk about Vita, their 3 big PS3 games for 2013, their OS and media features, their marketplace, the camera tech, maybe even Move too...all before really digging into the games themselves. If the choice is between broad reveal with negative press early vs narrow reveal with pissed off gamers later I choose the former 10 times outta 10. Ultimately gamers will get over their qualms and the hysteria once they see amazing games they wanna play. Sony may have to make unpopular announcements after showing their games, and that's never helpful.
