The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?). However, the new Xbox (I refuse to use Microsoft's stupid name for it) is weaker, yet everyone is making such a huge deal about it. Why is that? I'm not understanding why there's so much reaction over the Xbox being weaker...or is the leftover anger from the DRM, Kinect, and pricing bull making everyone intent on hating the new Xbox? Or perhaps the technological disparity is greater than I'm comprehending at the moment?
Is it really that bad that the new Xbox is weaker?
- Thread starter Klaw117
- Start date
Generally if a person has to choose between playing 2 different versions of a game and one looks better than the other one,will choose the one that looks better,from what Wii has shown us.
XBOX was indeed more powerful,but there was another factor that made PS2 to have more sales,and that was that it had way more games made for it. So most people preferred the extra variety of games to choose from,from the slightly better graphics.
Thing is up until now it seems that the factor of game variety is about the same for both PS4 and XBOXONE.
You have pretty much the same games coming on both platforms,so it isn't a factor any more to consider.
Which of course makes other factors more pronounced. And the factor that gets most pronounced seem to be the graphics.
In theory most gamers will prefer the console that has the most games,and between two consoles that have the same amount of games,they will prefer the one that has the games look better at it.
Factor in that,that PS4 is 100$ cheaper too.I can see how the accusation of a PS4 can seem more value for money than that of XBOX ONE,at least for people not interested in Kinect.
I think if XBOX ONE didn't included Kinect on its package and thus was 100$ or even more cheaper,the feeling players would have for it would be better.
XBOX was indeed more powerful,but there was another factor that made PS2 to have more sales,and that was that it had way more games made for it. So most people preferred the extra variety of games to choose from,from the slightly better graphics.
Thing is up until now it seems that the factor of game variety is about the same for both PS4 and XBOXONE.
You have pretty much the same games coming on both platforms,so it isn't a factor any more to consider.
Which of course makes other factors more pronounced. And the factor that gets most pronounced seem to be the graphics.
In theory most gamers will prefer the console that has the most games,and between two consoles that have the same amount of games,they will prefer the one that has the games look better at it.
Factor in that,that PS4 is 100$ cheaper too.I can see how the accusation of a PS4 can seem more value for money than that of XBOX ONE,at least for people not interested in Kinect.
I think if XBOX ONE didn't included Kinect on its package and thus was 100$ or even more cheaper,the feeling players would have for it would be better.
This is how I look at it. They all have a given amount of processing power, and realistically they're all pretty close together... and still pathetic. For reference, I'll list off some info about their actual graphical processing power, measured in FLOPS (Floating Point Operations Per Second), this is roughly how many 'things' the GPU can do per second, in this instance all are measured in the TRILLIONS.
The specs below.
Xbox One: 1.31 teraFLOPS
Playstation 4: 1.84 teraFLOPS
Now for reference, my graphics card.
EVGA GTX 780ACX: 3.97 teraFLOPS
And this is before the modest overclock on my GPU and the rest of the insanity that is my computer. So my conclusion is this. The PS4 is faster, but not by enough for it to matter.
The specs below.
Xbox One: 1.31 teraFLOPS
Playstation 4: 1.84 teraFLOPS
Now for reference, my graphics card.
EVGA GTX 780ACX: 3.97 teraFLOPS
And this is before the modest overclock on my GPU and the rest of the insanity that is my computer. So my conclusion is this. The PS4 is faster, but not by enough for it to matter.
The thing is that the Xbox is weaker and MORE EXPENSIVE which also means that the PS4 is both cheaper and stronger when it should be the other way around with the more expensive one being stronger.
It may not be the biggest thing ever but with a truckload of other issues with the Xbone anyway it really adds onto it. Right now the only reason I can see to get an Xbone is either you have friends getting it that you still want to play with or you want to play one of the exclusives they will have like Halo.
I see no other reason to get an Xbone over a PS4, that is it and the PS4 has that going for it too with it's own exclusives and established community which is why it is thankfully outselling the Xbone.
The PS4 is just the superior console right now, Microsoft has sabotaged their own console while Sony just did the same kind of thing it's always done.
It may not be the biggest thing ever but with a truckload of other issues with the Xbone anyway it really adds onto it. Right now the only reason I can see to get an Xbone is either you have friends getting it that you still want to play with or you want to play one of the exclusives they will have like Halo.
I see no other reason to get an Xbone over a PS4, that is it and the PS4 has that going for it too with it's own exclusives and established community which is why it is thankfully outselling the Xbone.
The PS4 is just the superior console right now, Microsoft has sabotaged their own console while Sony just did the same kind of thing it's always done.
It's bad for Xbone owners. They bought a more expensive console that offers an inferior experience. And it's a console made by a bunch of people who have every intention to turn it back into the nightmare that it was when it was announced.
It's too early to tell if it will be bad for the whole industry.
It's too early to tell if it will be bad for the whole industry.
It may not matter from a financial standpoint. The PS3 was more powerful than the Xbox 360 (granted, its architecture sort of ruined that advantage), and it took until last year for the 360 in terms of sales, and even then it still stayed behind the 360 in terms of software sales.
However, this time around we have an obviously weaker system that has no other real advantage over its stronger competitor, yet it is charging more. If the Xbox One had the same power, then I could understand charging more, but in this case, it does create an unusual situation that is sort of bad for Microsoft.
Again, though, it may not matter. Consoles are still behind PCs in terms of power, and anyone looking for the best there is will go with PC. The PS4's greater power and lower price are certainly a point in its favor, but it may not mean much in the end if the Xbox One can get more console and/or software sales.
However, this time around we have an obviously weaker system that has no other real advantage over its stronger competitor, yet it is charging more. If the Xbox One had the same power, then I could understand charging more, but in this case, it does create an unusual situation that is sort of bad for Microsoft.
Again, though, it may not matter. Consoles are still behind PCs in terms of power, and anyone looking for the best there is will go with PC. The PS4's greater power and lower price are certainly a point in its favor, but it may not mean much in the end if the Xbox One can get more console and/or software sales.
The PS2 came out a year before the Xbox and was backward compatible AND needed no remote for DVD playback (uncertain of Xbox: I think you needed the remote).
These are two concurrently released consoles with the PS4 actually costing less. So it matters.
I have to wonder, as the Wii units start dying out, will families go for an inexpensive Wii U which is BC with their current library, or will they go for an Xb1? Wii owner's kids are getting older and may want to move to something more fitting for them.
For now, the XB1 is behind in sales to the PS4. That may change as MS starts selling them in more locations (currently, PS4 sells to many more.)
Q2 reports should be interesting.
These are two concurrently released consoles with the PS4 actually costing less. So it matters.
I have to wonder, as the Wii units start dying out, will families go for an inexpensive Wii U which is BC with their current library, or will they go for an Xb1? Wii owner's kids are getting older and may want to move to something more fitting for them.
For now, the XB1 is behind in sales to the PS4. That may change as MS starts selling them in more locations (currently, PS4 sells to many more.)
Q2 reports should be interesting.
Most of the people I knew who bought a PS2 (me included) did so because it was the cheapest DVD player on the market at the time. This was when DVD was first starting to make a big push into the market, so for a lot of people it was a no brainer to make that system their first DVD player.
This resulted in a huge install base, which led to a lot more games being made for it, which led to gamers buying it to. Consumers were also generally less tech-conscious at the time, Apple hadn't made memorizing hardware specs for yearly improvements "cool" yet, I'm not even sure the first ipod was out or had been out long then.
Microsoft wants a now more than ever gizmo obsessed market to pay an extra $100 for less good looking games for, what? Unreliable, shoehorned voice and motion features? A perception of creepily being watched by a camera at all times? The Kinect name is already dirtied by how spotty it was on the 360, I don't think most people are going to want to pay an extra $100 for it. Especially with the "bonus" of worse looking games.
This resulted in a huge install base, which led to a lot more games being made for it, which led to gamers buying it to. Consumers were also generally less tech-conscious at the time, Apple hadn't made memorizing hardware specs for yearly improvements "cool" yet, I'm not even sure the first ipod was out or had been out long then.
Microsoft wants a now more than ever gizmo obsessed market to pay an extra $100 for less good looking games for, what? Unreliable, shoehorned voice and motion features? A perception of creepily being watched by a camera at all times? The Kinect name is already dirtied by how spotty it was on the 360, I don't think most people are going to want to pay an extra $100 for it. Especially with the "bonus" of worse looking games.
I don't really think so. What with both the Xbox and PS4 basically being weaker PCs, it comes down to the exclusives those games have. Pretty much anyone that cares about how powerful their gaming platform is, is (and should be) getting a PC.
I think the main reason the PS4 is doing better is due to the spectacular PR fuck-ups Microsoft has had over the past year. Mattrick on his own really fucked them up badly, to the level I was joking that he might be some sort of inside job from Sony =P
I think the main reason the PS4 is doing better is due to the spectacular PR fuck-ups Microsoft has had over the past year. Mattrick on his own really fucked them up badly, to the level I was joking that he might be some sort of inside job from Sony =P
It's bad if you bought it 
And bad for the bloke that got fired after that presentation. And good for Sony.
And bad for the bloke that got fired after that presentation. And good for Sony.
Bad, not necessarily because console power does not always equate to console performance. Ironic, damn yes it is because ever since Microsoft entered the console manufacturing business they've touted about how powerful their system was when compared to it's competitors. They instilled in the minds of many that resolutions and frame rates are everything, and now consumers want that as standard. Now that the Xbox One is getting chewed out by consumers for not doing native 1080p Microsoft comes out and says how "that's not important". Sorry MS, you touted that it did matter for about the last decade, and now you've reaped what you create.
So no, it's not bad that the Xbox One is less powerful, but it is ironic how Microsoft acts when they get called out for it given how they've acted about a hardware's power over the last 2 generations. Honestly Microsoft, you wanna get better PR? Fire Major Nelson then as his attitude has honestly been hurting your product from launch and was especially apparent in Angry Joe's interview.
So no, it's not bad that the Xbox One is less powerful, but it is ironic how Microsoft acts when they get called out for it given how they've acted about a hardware's power over the last 2 generations. Honestly Microsoft, you wanna get better PR? Fire Major Nelson then as his attitude has honestly been hurting your product from launch and was especially apparent in Angry Joe's interview.
Being just weaker is not necessarily bad although since the PS4 is more popular atm I think it will mean games are made for that and then ported to the Xbox One and downgraded a fraction rather than just made for the Xbox One and not bothered to be upgraded for the PS4. So its possible that the difference might be more noticeable than first thought especially with the current games with far more running in higher definition on the PS4. It early days yet though and it may prove to be trivial but likewise it could also become more noticeable as the gen wears on.
Whats really bad for the Xbox One is the kinect and its much higher price than its direct competitor (while being weaker), also the PS+ service is generally seen as better value in money than the Xbox gold service at least from what I have gleaned anyway although personally I think that both services are a scam. Oh and ofc who can forget their absolutely horrendous unveiling and PR after and their eventual backtracking TBH I am surprised they are doing as well as they are after that disaster.
Whats really bad for the Xbox One is the kinect and its much higher price than its direct competitor (while being weaker), also the PS+ service is generally seen as better value in money than the Xbox gold service at least from what I have gleaned anyway although personally I think that both services are a scam. Oh and ofc who can forget their absolutely horrendous unveiling and PR after and their eventual backtracking TBH I am surprised they are doing as well as they are after that disaster.
I think what gets people upset that it is weaker is that the XBO is also $100 USD more expensive compared to the PS4. Most people wouldn't equate the Kinect camera as something worth $100 and I am sure the system would have more initial sales with a bundle lacking it for a cheaper price. If it was equal or cheaper than the PS4 I doubt there would be so much news about it.
The difference between the PS2/XB comparison to the PS4/ XB1 is that 1080p/60FPS is considered a standard right now. Weather that standard really matters is whats up for debate. Regardless, the 1080p/60fps seems to be held by most people as a benchmark that any "next generation" should be able to achieve no problem. Since XB1 can't do it, its looking like an inferior console.
PS2/XB had its differences and even though the frame rates varied from game to game between the two, a certain frame rate or resolution was not held to a standard it HAD to achieve. So a high frame rate was considered a bonus with those consoles.
I think this standard is something that can be overlooked if the console has solid exclusive titles. Its still about fun, right?
PS2/XB had its differences and even though the frame rates varied from game to game between the two, a certain frame rate or resolution was not held to a standard it HAD to achieve. So a high frame rate was considered a bonus with those consoles.
I think this standard is something that can be overlooked if the console has solid exclusive titles. Its still about fun, right?
The power difference isn't really that big, PS3/360 was much much greater (but then so were the prices).
So it remains an important reminder that you are paying a whole lot more for a weaker system which devs just end up using as the old muddy up-scale machines rather then trying to deliver image quality.
Added with the DRM, forced ads, major security risk, Microsofts relentless microtransaction campaign makes this sum of features a really really bad deal comparatively.
So it remains an important reminder that you are paying a whole lot more for a weaker system which devs just end up using as the old muddy up-scale machines rather then trying to deliver image quality.
Added with the DRM, forced ads, major security risk, Microsofts relentless microtransaction campaign makes this sum of features a really really bad deal comparatively.
The resolution thing is absurd, why the fuck were 360 owners buying 1080 TVs at twice the price in the first place? (Ps3 I'll grant you, since it came with Blu ray, which is the only actual 1080 content).
It is however ridiculous that the 360 costs more, has less power, and is still dependent on paying for online content and that 10$ extra on new games. The Kinect maybe justifies the same price, if you can't do that leave it out.
It is however ridiculous that the 360 costs more, has less power, and is still dependent on paying for online content and that 10$ extra on new games. The Kinect maybe justifies the same price, if you can't do that leave it out.
What matters first and foremost in the short term is the sales figures, because with those you can woo the publishers your console so they can do the work ensuring what matters for the long term.
And that is 3rd party support.
If the XB1 starts going the way of the WiiU, which has pretty much lost all of its meaningful 3rd party support, then yes, it will be bad for it that its the weaker console.
The dust is only settling now and i would rather not declare a winner until either the losers stagnate, or the leader hits 10m unit sales. But in either case, my money would be on the PS4.
Also there were other factors at work with the PS2 and the XB, the XB for instance came out much later than the PS2 did, and the PS2 was one of the cheapest DVD players available at the time.
And that is 3rd party support.
If the XB1 starts going the way of the WiiU, which has pretty much lost all of its meaningful 3rd party support, then yes, it will be bad for it that its the weaker console.
The dust is only settling now and i would rather not declare a winner until either the losers stagnate, or the leader hits 10m unit sales. But in either case, my money would be on the PS4.
Also there were other factors at work with the PS2 and the XB, the XB for instance came out much later than the PS2 did, and the PS2 was one of the cheapest DVD players available at the time.