Jimquisition: Why The PS4 Is Kicking Xbox One's Arse

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
As a fanboy for the xbox, and as an owner of the xbox one, I am man enough to agree that the PS4 has dominated thus far. However, I will not adhere to the doom and gloom that you see alot of people pushing, that its the end of the xbox, blah blah, garbage, garbage. I believe that this is a very good and healthy thing for the xbox, in the long run, because I believe that competition is a good thing. If Microsoft (which, granted, is NOT doing badly irregardless of what some people want to believe... its still selling very, very well for them) wants to reverse the tables on the PS4 they will have to do some things differently, or better to do so. All of which bodes well for us, the consumers. Whether its putting out a version without the kinect, dropping the prices, making more exclusives, focusing more on games and less on kinect type games... or whatever, ultimately, we the fans will reap the rewards. This is going to be another long generation, and mark my words, the xbox will NOT stay in second place forever. They will surpass the PS4, and take the lead at some point. Then, the PS4 will be forced to raise the bar some more to take back the top spot, and the cycle will continue throughout the lifespan of the two consoles, and ALL of us as gamers will reap the rewards.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
Deathlyphil said:
Deadcyde said:
Nice wind down there; we have to buy you stuff to get noticed do we Jim....

Also, on topic, aren't we onto x64 chips now?
Yes we are, but they are still based on the i86 architecture.
Can you explain i86 or point to a site that shows me what i86 architecture is and how that fits into hardware? Cheers
 

Riff Moonraker

New member
Mar 18, 2010
944
0
0
TaintedSaint said:
Aardvaarkman said:
thespyisdead said:
after all the drm and shit MS tried to push on the xbone, i am actually happy the system is failing! and this is coming from someone who used to swear by Xbox360
The Xbone is lagging slightly behind the PS4 in sales. I'd hardly call that "failing."

It's not like the market can't have more than one successful platform. For one to succeed, the other doesn't have to fail. Last generation, all three major consoles were successful. I think the only likely failure this time around will be Nintendo.
PS4 is out selling xbone 2 to 1 at the moment that is not slight in anyway shape or form.
That was January. That was not the case in February, or thus far, March. So, at the moment, would be incorrect.
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
Really saying the PS4 is the best system because it plays old pc indies? IF that's the case then the WII-U must be the best since it plays all the WII games.

Anyway still not going to buy or consider a system "Winning" when it can't scrape together more then 2 "acceptable" full titles in almost 6 months and who knows when after infamous then next one will be.

4 disc games, 1 really bad, one pinball, in 6 months including your console launch is not "an healthy stream of games" No matter what old pc stuff gets ported onto it.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
Eve Charm said:
No matter what old pc stuff gets ported onto it.
I dunno, if my console makes a pc game a more enjoyable experience, ie: looks good on a tv, plays well with a controller, pick up and play style, i generally consider it a success. Though i still envy pc games and free mods
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
DrOswald said:
bibblles said:
>consoles
>still relevant


Paying to play games on the internet, after paying for internet service is not a justifiable model, no matter how much 'free content' they try to add. Both companies are wrong and pathetic so long as this little thing called THE INTERNET exists.
You do know that the internet doesn't run on good vibes generated from the pure flow of information, right? Internet based services are run by servers. Servers cost a lot of money. Good servers cost even more. Enough good servers to run a worldwide multiplayer service costs a large fortune. The console providers have a decision to make: provide a shitty, half-assed multiplayer service and destroy the one thing they have going for them over PC (a relatively hassle free experience) or charge a small monthly fee to provide a useful and good service.

And don't say "but the PC does it for free!" because it does not. PC multiplayer service is a joke. Besides a few highly successful titles PC multiplayer service is generally very poor. Many games, even high profile games, barely even function.

If I could pay $5 a month for greatly improved multiplayer on my PC I would do it today and never look back.
id like to know in what reality you live, because i cant comprehend how "PC multiplayer service is generally very poor"

there are games that are more than a decade old with working online on PC, such as starcraft and CS 1.6, not only that but PC host some of the biggest multiplayer games ever, games such as world of tanks, dota 2 and of course the most played game on earth, League of Legends

not to mention that as far as online functionality goes Steam provides the entire package for free and it even puts consoles to shame in many aspects such as:

-dedicated hubs for every single game, with forums, guides, screenshots and artwork
-trading cards, along with badges emoticons and profile backgrounds
-community market for selling ingame items and trading cards
-trading of course
-the steam workshop which allows for easy installing of mods

all this for free
You will notice that I specifically said "multiplayer service" not "secondary internet based support." There is a big difference. I will agree that PC games virtually always have better secondary internet based support, but multiplayer services on the PC are typically poor. These are two different things.

You will also notice that I specifically mentioned the relatively rare case of the extremely successful game. Lol, Dota, CS, and Left for Dead are the exception to the rule. Because they have been so wildly successful they provide good services (though even those games are often only as good as console multiplayer services.) Other games, even high profile games like Diablo 3, Sim City, and Rainbow 6 vegas 2, have often provided us with broken services from day one, requiring significant technical knowledge to overcome the difficulties associated with making it work if they can be made to function at all.

Often we are provided no service at all and are instead given a dedicated server tool, which I actually think is the best solution because there exists no good infrastructure on which to build a multiplayer service. But remember that dedicated servers are not a service and they do not allow for many of the important advantages of a multiplayer service, such as skill based match making, auto balancing, and a click and play multiplayer for those who just want to play their game.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
Caiphus said:
That would be the NPD statistic which, I believe, only measures sales in the US (it may include Canada, I'm not sure).

Vgchartz measures global sales:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/251540/ps4-vs-xbox-onevgchartz-gap-chartsfebruary-2014-update/

Yeah, those numbers are definitely from NPD. I should have mentioned that. However, NPD really is the most reliable research company out there now. VGChartz is not, nor has it even been, a reliable source for international sales. They refuse to even mention which sources they base their statistics on, which seems to be mostly a small selection of retail stores.

So in absence of proper international statistics, I think NPD is a good indication of how the consoles are doing in the currently biggest market for console sales.

Ed130 The Vanguard said:
There is something to be said about pushing your console out in order to get a large install base in order to get the real money earners as well as (I'm still assuming this is American sales figures we are talking about) beating your opposition in their home country and stronghold of the last generation is something to be amazed about.
Except that Microsoft generated a bigger profit from Xbox One sales than Sony did for their PS4 last month in America, so I'm not sure "stronghold" is the right word.

Factor in the fact that Xbox One sales stands for less than 3 percent of Microsoft's revenue, saying that Microsoft should even by concerned by this is a bit of a stretch. Sony on the other hand, which is essentially on life support with the PS4 being one of their last, few profitable products, should be worried. Sony is reporting annual loses and are cutting jobs. What I'm saying is that even in a gaming conversation such as this, it's good to have some perspective.

Nimzabaat said:
Well that's Jim Shil-er-Stirling for you. Only a 7k difference and PS4 is available in 40 more markets than the XB1 is. That's actually kind of pathetic when you think about it.

You have to remember that this is an entertainment website only. This is the last place one should look for informed reporting :)
Yeah but I still don't get it. Why create conflicts and fanboy wars where non exist by posting these obviously sensationalist videos that makes bloody YouTube look good? Is it only to generate clicks and page views?

It just seems so dumb because in the end, what everyone' should want is a tight competition between these two consoles because that's what's gonna benefit us, the consumers.

So really, we should all just be happy that both these consoles are doing insanely great, which they undoubtedly are.
 

Deathlyphil

New member
Mar 6, 2008
222
0
0
Deadcyde said:
Deathlyphil said:
Deadcyde said:
Nice wind down there; we have to buy you stuff to get noticed do we Jim....

Also, on topic, aren't we onto x64 chips now?
Yes we are, but they are still based on the i86 architecture.
Can you explain i86 or point to a site that shows me what i86 architecture is and how that fits into hardware? Cheers
Sure. i86 is the name of a family of processors, ie the CPU that sits at the heart of your computer. IIRC, i86 chips shot in to dominance because they were cheaper to make than their competitors, despite not being as powerful.

i86:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

i86-64 (the more recent ones)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

There are various other types of processor too, ARM and PowerPC being the main ones. ARM processors are generally used in low-powered devices such as phones and tablets, and PowerPC chips were (and might still be) used in workstations.

Hope this helps.
 

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Have you read their press releases during and after E3?Microsoft was dead set on shoving their vision of the 'future' onto everyone whether we liked it or not.

24 hour check in otherwise your XBONE locks down?They were planning to do that.

Locking games onto the console to prevent people from sharing or selling their games and violating the law of First Sale?They were planning on doing that also.

Having the console spy on everyone in the room and collect info to then be sold to the highest bidder?They were also planning to do that.

If Microsoft's idea of the future is to be a bastion of anti consumerism then I'm glad the gaming community is 'clinging to the past' as you put it.When a change is shit and designed to screw over people then it's not needed.
There is only one problem with that assessment. None of the things you attribute to the original intent of the console, was the POINT of having said mechanisms on the console.

- 24 hour check in was to perform updates when you were not using the console
- Digital media belonging to a device or an account made usage history and device transfer a lot easier.(And you are using the idea of First Sale incorrectly)
- User recognition has nothing to do with spying. Just like FB or Google, it was a way of tailoring the experience to the user. yup, you are correct, easily abused, but to say this was their primary goal is preposterous.

Knee jerk reaction and a bunch of whiny journalists looking for a reason to bash a big company(hell it's not like they don't scrutinize Sony) does not actually prove the hysteria. Being anti consumer does not behoove any large company, and more often than not the perception of being such is a projection brought on by people who either do not understand the technology, or who are entrenched in the status quo.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
bibblles said:
DrOswald said:
bibblles said:
You do know that the internet doesn't run on good vibes generated from the pure flow of information, right? Internet based services are run by servers. Servers cost a lot of money. Good servers cost even more. Enough good servers to run a worldwide multiplayer service costs a large fortune. The console providers have a decision to make: provide a shitty, half-assed multiplayer service and destroy the one thing they have going for them over PC (a relatively hassle free experience) or charge a small monthly fee to provide a useful and good service.

And don't say "but the PC does it for free!" because it does not. PC multiplayer service is a joke. Besides a few highly successful titles PC multiplayer service is generally very poor. Many games, even high profile games, barely even function.

If I could pay $5 a month for greatly improved multiplayer on my PC I would do it today and never look back.
You haven't been to the internet much have you?
I'm not sure where to start with this so I'll just go in order.
You're right about one thing. The internet does not run on 'good vibes.' It does indeed run on money, usually through ads. And if you've ever been to a player hosted dedicated server(remember this word "dedicated server" I'll return to this point later), you'll probably have noticed the ads that play when you enter the server, and their 'perks' for members of the community that contribute. So yea, sometimes its better to pay, but you're paying a trifle of what these giant corporations charge, for none of their bullshit, and a much better and more creative and involving community. Not that xbox live and psn don't have communities, but having grown out of my teens, I find the language and behavior in these communities to be lackluster at best, and a good example for human extinction at worst.

You mentioned 'pc multiplayer service is a joke' and I'd like to know what planet you're living on that you think this is a logical sentence. It is most definitely not a joke. If you look at the steam statistics alone, you'll find evidence contrary. That's not taking Origin, LOL, GOG and Blizzard's services into account. PC multiplayer is not a joke, it crushes the consoles in every event, and in most cases it crushes them while not being a 'pay to play' service with gated content and restrictions on modding (not cheating, i'm talking custom maps, and games revived from the dead by the community), it's a free and open ecosystem, something Microsoft and Sony seem to hate and fear.
Steam is not a multiplayer service. Neither is Origin or GOG. I am specifically talking about multiplayer services here. And I specifically did take into account LOL and Blizard's service, noting that sometimes a highly successful game will give good service, but that is the exception to the rule. For most games multiplayer service consists entirely of a list of currently online players who are trying to start a game. Many games don't even have multiplayer service, instead opting for multiplayer to be entirely on player run dedicated servers. (More on this later)

If you want you can pay 5$ a month, any community server would gladly welcome you and make you a premium member on their DEDICATED SERVERS for that cost.
Premium membership for an amateur run single game dedicated server is not comparable to professional level dedicated multiplayer services for nearly every game on a platform. They are completely different things. You aren't even comparing apples and oranges here, you are comparing apples to steak.

And this is the last and most important thing. DEDICATED SERVERS, something completely alien in the console world. And something that has ruined so many console games. A dedicated computer, just running the game server, consoles rely on Peer to Peer services. These giant servers you mentioned above? DO NOT RUN THE GAMES YOU PLAY. They host content and multiplayer matchmaking.
And I never claimed they did, though with the new generation of consoles it is becoming more and more common.

Meanwhile, dedicated servers on the PC side mean that you have a stable connection to every game, and you can filter to find games where you will have very low latency when you play. If someone leaves the game it doesn't kill everyone's fun. And where consoles struggle to coordinate 16 players total, PCs and their dedicated servers have no problem hosting 32 or even 60+ players in the same game, because the machines that are playing the game don't also have to host it, that computational load is taken off of the client machines and put onto one large host machine called the 'dedicated server.' And remember, these are free on the PC side of things, so is everything else these consoles gate off.
I know what dedicated servers are, and I think they are a great tool. I ran a dedicated minecraft server for nearly a year and whenever my group of friends gets a new game I am the one to put together the server. I know their advantages and disadvantages.

So lets make something clear: dedicated servers, while awesome, are not a multiplayer service. They are a multiplayer tool. And as such they do not allow for the many advantages of a multiplayer service, including region wide skill based matchmaking, auto balancing, a region/world wide community of players, a non fragmented player base, and easy click and play multiplayer for those who don't want to spend hours hunting down a dedicated server not run by a bunch of assholes.
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
TomWiley said:
Nimzabaat said:
Well that's Jim Shil-er-Stirling for you. Only a 7k difference and PS4 is available in 40 more markets than the XB1 is. That's actually kind of pathetic when you think about it.

You have to remember that this is an entertainment website only. This is the last place one should look for informed reporting :)
Yeah but I still don't get it. Why create conflicts and fanboy wars where non exist by posting these obviously sensationalist videos that makes bloody YouTube look good? Is it only to generate clicks and page views?

It just seems so dumb because in the end, what everyone' should want is a tight competition between these two consoles because that's what's gonna benefit us, the consumers.

So really, we should all just be happy that both these consoles are doing insanely great, which they undoubtedly are.
Sensationalism and laziness. That's what gets clicks and gets people reading. Clicks = money for websites so as long as they get people up in arms, facts are secondary.

For me, i'm still on the fence as to which console I may actually buy. Though I agree that healthy competition between the two major companies is good for everybody and hopefully we'll see some damn good games this year or the next.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
Atmos Duality said:
Currently, the PS4 is winning for one big reason: PS4 is cheaper.
My Wii U was only $300, no subscription fee paid. Sadly, when one looks at the numbers, the Wii U, with its year advantage already fell to Sony. The PS4, at an affordable $400, is the most powerful of the 3 consoles while being less expensive than the XB1.

Sony believed they could ride out the next generation on the PS2's victory lap alone;
Nintendo arguably thought the same regarding its success with the Wii. My advice: They should have upped the price by $40 and put a pro controller in there.


The PS+ is a system justifier. Good term Jim.

People ask what I'm using the PS4 for and I write I have AC 4 (and I compare to AC3 on my PS3 and switch back and forth between screen inputs to show them the difference, so, yes I'm happy to have a Gen 8 version of the game) bit also, 4 games so far that I didn't pay anything for.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Gorfias said:
Atmos Duality said:
Currently, the PS4 is winning for one big reason: PS4 is cheaper.
My Wii U was only $300, no subscription fee paid. Sadly, when one looks at the numbers, the Wii U, with its year advantage already fell to Sony. The PS4, at an affordable $400, is the most powerful of the 3 consoles while being less expensive than the XB1.
The PS4 also has GAMES. Something the WiiU lacks.
Regardless, my statement is aimed at the topic "PS4 vs Xbone".

Sony believed they could ride out the next generation on the PS2's victory lap alone;
Nintendo arguably thought the same regarding its success with the Wii. My advice: They should have upped the price by $40 and put a pro controller in there.
Quite true.
Though once the Wii fad was over, there was nothing Nintendo could do.
They burned their bridges with core gamers of all kinds (myself included), and once the casuals grew bored with their waggle-fad, they left. Left in droves.

Seriously, the 2011 Wii and related game sales plunge is nothing short of incredible.
Nintendo lost a tremendous sum of money in overproduction costs, posting their first loss in history.
A feat they're certain to repeat this year barring a miracle.

I've never seen the bottom fall out of such a popular system that quickly in my life.
It was like "Welp, Skyward Sword is out. And that's all we got. *THUD*"

With the WiiU, the only thing Nintendo could hope for was to make lightning strike twice and launch a new fad. Towards this end, Nintendo chose a tablet controller gimmick, and it didn't work. Nobody wants to make games for it because the Tablet is complex to program for, and unlike the controllers, apparently is integral to the WiiU's programming.

(moreso than the Wiimote controllers ever were for the Wii; Not surprising since the Wii was literally built on the same platform as the Gamecube, and that Wiimotes were just shy of being a remapped Gamecube controller with a light gun taped to the side.)

That tablet has been cited as being so integral to the system itself that it's a big turnoff for developers, and unlike the Wii, it doesn't have an enormous, gullible install base to justify the cost; making the WiiU not only unappealing as a native platform, but port-unfriendly as well.

So yeah. Nintendo was hosed no matter what they did.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Drummodino said:
Thanatos2k said:
This is something I call one of the biggest paradoxes in gaming. Microsoft should be doing everything in their power to promote the PC ecosystem as superior. Why? Because Microsoft is a company that makes the majority of its money making Operating Systems for PCs.

Microsoft should be doing everything they can to promote the PC as a superior gaming platform over consoles. The prevalence of gaming available exclusively for the Windows platform is one of the main reasons why Windows achieved its monopoly. Now that market share erodes daily over to Apple and Linux as Microsoft flounders in its support for PC gaming, offering half baked applications (Games For Windows Live, lol) and empty platitudes about how they "care" about PC gaming as they barely release anything there. Or if they do, it's shoddy PC ports.

It makes no sense for Microsoft to be in the gaming space. They are actively competing with themselves, and screwing their company over the long term. Gaming makes up a very small fraction of Microsoft's overall revenues, most of which come from Windows and enterprise suites for Windows. Fanboys rage whenever you say that Microsoft should be selling the Xbox division but any serious thought about the topic indicates it's something that must be done.
Microsoft is in the gaming industry with Xbox because they make money from every game that gets sold for it. Just think about that - every game that's sold on an Xbox platform. They do not get anything for every PC game that is bought unless it was made by one of their studios.

Microsoft would much rather people were on Xbox and people just used PC for everything else. Let's face it - the vast majority of people who own an Xbox also own a PC with Windows. So they still get the sale of the OS, they will still sell things like Office. The only games Microsoft would prefer be on PC are free to play games and MMOs - they wouldn't make money off free to play titles and they don't want to have to provide the infrastructure for something like WoW.
It doesn't matter if they make money on each game, the question is how much money is made. The Xbox revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to their PC revenues, so it doesn't matter how viable the business model is if it's causing LOST revenues in the far more important wing of their company. More and more of those people who own Xboxes now own Apple computers. If the Xbox causes a 4% loss in Windows revenue that's more revenue than the entire Xbox division brought in, and that's why Microsoft needs to jettison their gaming division for the sake of their own long term viability.
 

Chris Moses

New member
Nov 22, 2013
109
0
0
TheDoctor455 said:
Also... isn't "paid fanboy" a bit of an oxymoron anyway?
What's better than being a fanboy? Being PAID to advertise your obsession like a proud strutting pimp. Simply being paid for something wont generate that same enthusiasm. You can observe this just by looking into the sad, empty eyes of the next fast-food worker you encounter.

I do understand what you were trying to say, and people in advertising certainly can get paid a disgusting amount of money relative to the average fast-food worker, thus generating of a lot more enthusiasm, but I don't think the proposed situation is as oxymoronic as you think.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
Atmos Duality said:
' my statement is aimed at the topic "PS4 vs Xbone".
That the PS4 is beating the less expensive Wii U I think helps show people are thinking about more than price alone. I personally would have coughed up the extra $100 for the XB1 but the Sony Exclussives of Gen 7 helped convince me to stick with them. I loved the 360, but their hardware wasn't as good, red ringing before year 3 and finally just dying around year 6. I have 2 PS3s still working. I still game on them and use them as Bluray players (Revision3.com HD Nation thinks the best, most supported player out there.) They started VERY slowly

I actually dislike the idea of a camera always on me too. I have a buddy that swears he will never, ever buy an XB1 while it has this in it.

I've never seen the bottom fall out of such a popular system [Wii] that quickly in my life.
It had been out for 5 years by then, so, given its the height of its sales, this does sound like a faster decline than even the Dreamcast. And I just read the DC sold 10 million units world wide. To date, the Wii U is still under 6. *shudders*.

So far, surprisingly, I have more Wii U games than PS4. The PS4 is so similar to the PS3, that I have a million games for, that my time is spent:
1) PC
2) PS3
3) VITA
4) WIi U
5) PS4

I had some drinking buddies over and we did spend a lot of fun time messing with the Wii U. PS4 I showed off but not really played with it... yet. 3 days to 2nd Son. I think the system will do great.

XB1? I honestly don't think I will ever buy one. Cost matters, but that camera? Xbox Live being so poor compared to PS+, it is the weaker system AND has fewer exclusives that excite me? I want them to do well because competition is good for us the consumer. But I'm writing of my own personal choice. I keep seeing them available for purchase at Walmart. I can't think of how they get out of this.

Ahhh never mind. I'm going to sell it all and get an Ouya. :)
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
The White Hunter said:
It already has made a big leap in sales:

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/67457-xbox-one-console-sales-boosted-96-per-cent-titanfall-launch/
Titanfall Xbone be pretty, better than the standard edition by miles.
The white is sexy as fuck on that machine, I really want a white one with a 1TB HDD already -__-'

Also; XBLG is 34.99 for a year at game, PS+ is 39.99. Just thought I'd bring that up. Checking facts makes these things more simple doesn't it.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
The White Hunter said:
TizzytheTormentor said:
The White Hunter said:
It already has made a big leap in sales:

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/67457-xbox-one-console-sales-boosted-96-per-cent-titanfall-launch/
Titanfall Xbone be pretty, better than the standard edition by miles.
The white is sexy as fuck on that machine, I really want a white one with a 1TB HDD already -__-'

Also; XBLG is 34.99 for a year at game, PS+ is 39.99. Just thought I'd bring that up. Checking facts makes these things more simple doesn't it.
Both are still about 55-60 euro where I'm from.

White Xbone is smexy as hell, do want more than the black VCR version.
Thats about right from price conversion I think, neither are exactly bank busting services if you buy a year, and Game have gold cards for 2 years at 59.99. I pay £40~ish every 6 months for FFXIV after all.
 

Lord Doomhammer

New member
Apr 29, 2008
430
0
0
Country
United States
DrOswald said:
bibblles said:
DrOswald said:
bibblles said:
You do know that the internet doesn't run on good vibes generated from the pure flow of information, right? Internet based services are run by servers. Servers cost a lot of money. Good servers cost even more. Enough good servers to run a worldwide multiplayer service costs a large fortune. The console providers have a decision to make: provide a shitty, half-assed multiplayer service and destroy the one thing they have going for them over PC (a relatively hassle free experience) or charge a small monthly fee to provide a useful and good service.

And don't say "but the PC does it for free!" because it does not. PC multiplayer service is a joke. Besides a few highly successful titles PC multiplayer service is generally very poor. Many games, even high profile games, barely even function.

If I could pay $5 a month for greatly improved multiplayer on my PC I would do it today and never look back.
You haven't been to the internet much have you?
I'm not sure where to start with this so I'll just go in order.
You're right about one thing. The internet does not run on 'good vibes.' It does indeed run on money, usually through ads. And if you've ever been to a player hosted dedicated server(remember this word "dedicated server" I'll return to this point later), you'll probably have noticed the ads that play when you enter the server, and their 'perks' for members of the community that contribute. So yea, sometimes its better to pay, but you're paying a trifle of what these giant corporations charge, for none of their bullshit, and a much better and more creative and involving community. Not that xbox live and psn don't have communities, but having grown out of my teens, I find the language and behavior in these communities to be lackluster at best, and a good example for human extinction at worst.

You mentioned 'pc multiplayer service is a joke' and I'd like to know what planet you're living on that you think this is a logical sentence. It is most definitely not a joke. If you look at the steam statistics alone, you'll find evidence contrary. That's not taking Origin, LOL, GOG and Blizzard's services into account. PC multiplayer is not a joke, it crushes the consoles in every event, and in most cases it crushes them while not being a 'pay to play' service with gated content and restrictions on modding (not cheating, i'm talking custom maps, and games revived from the dead by the community), it's a free and open ecosystem, something Microsoft and Sony seem to hate and fear.
Steam is not a multiplayer service. Neither is Origin or GOG. I am specifically talking about multiplayer services here. And I specifically did take into account LOL and Blizard's service, noting that sometimes a highly successful game will give good service, but that is the exception to the rule. For most games multiplayer service consists entirely of a list of currently online players who are trying to start a game. Many games don't even have multiplayer service, instead opting for multiplayer to be entirely on player run dedicated servers. (More on this later)

If you want you can pay 5$ a month, any community server would gladly welcome you and make you a premium member on their DEDICATED SERVERS for that cost.
Premium membership for an amateur run single game dedicated server is not comparable to professional level dedicated multiplayer services for nearly every game on a platform. They are completely different things. You aren't even comparing apples and oranges here, you are comparing apples to steak.

And this is the last and most important thing. DEDICATED SERVERS, something completely alien in the console world. And something that has ruined so many console games. A dedicated computer, just running the game server, consoles rely on Peer to Peer services. These giant servers you mentioned above? DO NOT RUN THE GAMES YOU PLAY. They host content and multiplayer matchmaking.
And I never claimed they did, though with the new generation of consoles it is becoming more and more common.

Meanwhile, dedicated servers on the PC side mean that you have a stable connection to every game, and you can filter to find games where you will have very low latency when you play. If someone leaves the game it doesn't kill everyone's fun. And where consoles struggle to coordinate 16 players total, PCs and their dedicated servers have no problem hosting 32 or even 60+ players in the same game, because the machines that are playing the game don't also have to host it, that computational load is taken off of the client machines and put onto one large host machine called the 'dedicated server.' And remember, these are free on the PC side of things, so is everything else these consoles gate off.
I know what dedicated servers are, and I think they are a great tool. I ran a dedicated minecraft server for nearly a year and whenever my group of friends gets a new game I am the one to put together the server. I know their advantages and disadvantages.

So lets make something clear: dedicated servers, while awesome, are not a multiplayer service. They are a multiplayer tool. And as such they do not allow for the many advantages of a multiplayer service, including region wide skill based matchmaking, auto balancing, a region/world wide community of players, a non fragmented player base, and easy click and play multiplayer for those who don't want to spend hours hunting down a dedicated server not run by a bunch of assholes.
Ok, so realistically you were just ruling out all of the benefits of the PC multiplayer world, which evolved differently than the console space and as such never needed a matchmaker, and focusing entirely on a crutch developed so MS and Sony wouldn't need to run dedicated servers. To use your analogy, that's not like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to no apples.

So by your reasoning, yes, consoles have a better service (matchmaking, not taking into account any other aspect of the multiplayer experience). But with that comes a whole different set of problems. Why then do I and everyone need to setup port forwarding to make the matchmaking system work? I know how, and I did, but seriously why did I need to 'open my nat' to play matchmaking? More to the point, why does it still produce such a terrible game experience? 4 players per team on a connection that more often than not falls apart. Sure they have a 'multiplayer service' where PC gaming relies on the players to be intelligent enough to set up their own shit. But that 'multiplayer service' is still crap. As for the 'skill based ranking'... no, just no... if a thousand million hours logged in xbox live taught me anything, its that the rank is almost always arbitrary. Especially when the connection can vary wildly from game to game, so that no matter how good you are, you can still suck and die when your fighting someone with a shit connection.

So yes, I'll grant that by your 'special' definition of 'service' as opposed to 'tool' consoles have an edge. It's just too bad that its still locked behind their price gate and a closed ecosystem. And that the 'service' is still shit.