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

[gorfias]

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]

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]

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]

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]

' 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]

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]

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]

-snip-

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.

 

[Simalacrum]

after all the drm and shit MS tried to push on the xbone, i am actually happy the system is failing!

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here; the Xbox One is NOT failing. Being beaten by competitors and actually being a flop are two very different things. From all accounts the Xbone has actually sold pretty damn well, and is certainly establishing itself as a serious competitor to the PS4. The Xbox One is less of a Sega Dreamcast, and more of a Nintendo 64: not winning, but certainly not being dominated either.

Now, in regards to why the PS4 is beating the Xbox One... while the Indie games hypothesis does make sense, and it may very well be a reason why gamers will consistently use a console more often, I certainly don't think thats the reason why sales are better for the PS4 than the Xbox One.

It all comes down to price, in my opinion. If the Xbox One was the same price or even cheaper than the PS4, we'd be seeing a very different scenario here. The Vita, after all, has an impressive lineup of indie games after all, but it is being massacred by the 3DS because of a) a lack of big titles, but more importantly, b) its more expensive than the 3DS (bearing in mind 3DS sales shot up once Nintendo panic-reduced the price of the 3DS).

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

The Xbox would cause nowhere near a 4% drop in Windows revenues.

Gaming is basically inconsequential to Windows. The vast majority of Windows revenue is made from selling bulk licenses to business and enterprise users, and especially the associated Office licenses that go with them.

Consumer computing in general just isn't where Microsoft makes its money, even if you don't narrow that to gaming. Almost the entire consumer computing market has been lost to Android and iOS already.

If you say that Xbox revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to Windows revenues, then Windows Gaming revenues are a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

The Xbox would cause nowhere near a 4% drop in Windows revenues.

Gaming is basically inconsequential to Windows. The vast majority of Windows revenue is made from selling bulk licenses to business and enterprise users, and especially the associated Office licenses that go with them.

Consumer computing in general just isn't where Microsoft makes its money, even if you don't narrow that to gaming. Almost the entire consumer computing market has been lost to Android and iOS already.

If you say that Xbox revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to Windows revenues, then Windows Gaming revenues are a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

Nonsense. Gaming and the exclusive support for it is a huge part of why the Windows platform achieved its monopoly. There was no other place to play MSDOS games. There was no other place to play DirectX games. Linux emulation has only recently begun to not suck, and Apple support lagged for decades and still does.

Consumer computing, especially OEM licensing, is a large portion of Microsoft revenue.

http://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/SegmentResults/S1/fy14/q2/Performance.aspx

Look at those numbers for some sense of scale. Also:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/175350-microsoft-delivers-record-revenue-profits-due-to-strong-xbox-windows-phone-and-commercial-sales

Microsoft is inexplicably CONTRIBUTING to the collapse of the consumer PC! Again, competing with themselves. It's insane.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Nonsense. Gaming and the exclusive support for it is a huge part of why the Windows platform achieved its monopoly.

It was part of it, but I wouldn't say it was a huge part. Windows has always been driven by business. And the main reason people bought Windows computers to use at home, was because they used a Windows computer at work.

I'd say you have the causation backwards. Business adoption of Windows drove other platforms out of the market, therefore Windows became the default platform for games. It wasn't gaming driving Windows.

There was no other place to play MSDOS games. There was no other place to play DirectX games. Linux emulation has only recently begun to not suck, and Apple support lagged for decades and still does.

Notice how you used "was"? It's a different world now. Using the past to argue about the present isn't a very compelling argument. Very few people are still playing MS-DOS games.

Consumer computing, especially OEM licensing, is a large portion of Microsoft revenue.

A sharply declining one. Publicly traded companies trade on the future potential, not the present or past.

Microsoft is inexplicably CONTRIBUTING to the collapse of the consumer PC! Again, competing with themselves. It's insane.

No, it's not insane. Microsoft knows that consumer desktop computing is pretty much doomed. Smart companies do compete with themselves. For example, when Apple introduced the iPhone, which competed with the iPod monopoly, or the iPad, which competed with the Mac. If Apple had been making more conservative (old Microsoft-style) business decisions, they wouldn't have dared kill the iPod gravy-train with the iPhone.

Microsoft's problem is that they realised this too late. For far too long, they coasted on their cash cows, and tried to block any outside competition or disruption - rather than trying to disrupt from within. They left themselves vulnerable to attack by disruptive technologies, rather than developing those disruptive technologies themselves.

And you can see tons of articles and studies showing this - Microsoft had a bunch of internal divisions all protecting their own interests from new ideas. So, the company fell behind, because of all these fiefdoms protecting themselves, rather than looking at the big picture.

Microsoft can't hold back time. It has enough cash reserves that it has been able to ignore reality for extended periods in the past. But, eventually it catches up with them (see: the mobile market). Pretending they can just cling to the old ways when they had all the power and there were few alternatives, is not a sustainable business model.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

You do realize he was kind of joking right?

 

[dystopiaINC]

What? Playstation Plus and the PS4's indie library are why Sony is kicking ass? I disagree.

I believe it's the $100 price difference and the "softcore" gamer's conception of the PS4 being more "powerful". Anecdotal evidence; my roommate who plays CoD and only CoD every once in a while plans on buying a PS4. He still thinks PS4's multiplayer is free. I'm not going to correct him because it'll piss him off when he finds out for himself and that'll be funny. It's only funny because we're such good friends and he's poor and going through university. Don't worry, his parents are rich as shit, he just wants to do it on his own.

Anyways, I think Titanfall is THE system seller and THE CoD killer. It's enough of a reason to buy the One over a PS4. Watch One sales increase rapidly over the next couple months.

But see, if your friend is poor then he'd be better off with PS+ since it's only $5 a month vs. XBLG's $10 a month.

I mean if your friend is in such a financial predicament that he can't even afford what amounts to a cup of coffee from Starbucks once every 30 days then perhaps spending hundreds of dollars on a new system isn't the wisest thing to do.

If he's looking for a CoD fix he should buy a PS3 since the price for even a new system would save him hundreds compared to a new PS4. Also he'd still be able to play the PS3 versions of CoD online for free.

As a 'good friend' I'd think you'd want to help him with such suggestions instead of letting him spend so much money only to be upset with what he bought.

Xbox Live is only $10 if you pay monthly, it's $25 for three months, and $60 for the year. id don't know why you would ever buy it at the monthly rate. besides a lot of places will have "buy 12 get 1 month free" codes, and I've seen lots of places that have periodic sales on the one year, I bought 2 years worth for $40 during one such sale. and while i have no uses for it if you can get some people together xbox live has a family subscription for 12 months $100 and it cover 4 profiles. for $40 extra a year you can cover 3 other profiles. that's insanely cheep if you pay separately for 2 it would be $120 at regular price... it's actually pretty reasonable...

 

[nightazday]

Sony: by fusing Indie and AAA we are now... complete

Though this video seems like a continuation of the stream video.

 

[epichappy]

Independent games are not selling the system, you even said that in the video. The title of the video is "Why-The-PS4-Is-Kicking-Xbox-Ones-Arse" and you don't answer that question. I suppose you may be referring to why it is better quality rather than why it is selling better, but I took "why the ps4 sells more units than the xbox one" from the video.

The sad thing is, the xbox one runs windows... it could play many of the games for windows 8 windows RT and windows phone... it just doesn't. This could be an XBOX OS API issue, but not a control issue as windows 8 games can use xbox 360 controllers and the APIs are there to use this input method. Anyway if the XBL Marketplace was the same as the windows store I don't think the xbox would sell better than the PS4, I think it is something else. Rather that just saying how right you are you could define what Kicking an Arse means but nooooooooo because you are so perfect you don't need to define anything in a way that makes sense.

Note: when I say xbox os I mean the way the three operating systems interect (hyper V etc.) not the part of the three oses (plural of operating system?) known as XBOX os which "AAA" games run on.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

>consoles
>still relevant

Spoiler

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.

Rainbow 6 vegas 2... really? you call that high profile?, also are we ever going to talk for instance of companies closing down servers on consoles? is specially terrible in multiplayer only games such as MAG, you purchase is made essentially pointless

i seriously cant see how PC offers worse multiplayer services

 

[Thanatos2k]

Nonsense. Gaming and the exclusive support for it is a huge part of why the Windows platform achieved its monopoly.

It was part of it, but I wouldn't say it was a huge part. Windows has always been driven by business. And the main reason people bought Windows computers to use at home, was because they used a Windows computer at work.

I'd say you have the causation backwards. Business adoption of Windows drove other platforms out of the market, therefore Windows became the default platform for games. It wasn't gaming driving Windows.

That's not the reason our family first bought one. It was for DOS games.

Notice how you used "was"? It's a different world now. Using the past to argue about the present isn't a very compelling argument. Very few people are still playing MS-DOS games.

It's still true. Windows supports the vast majority of computer games. Some have Mac versions. Some work on Linux too. Some can be fudged to run on Linux or virtualized on a Mac. Most are Windows exclusively. Especially console ports.

For example, there is no Mac version of Assassin's Creed 4. There will be no Mac version of Dark Souls 2. And so on down the line, game after game.

A sharply declining one. Publicly traded companies trade on the future potential, not the present or past.

Sharply declining in part because of Microsoft's inattention and inexplicable disdain for their own product. Windows 8 isn't helping.

 

[t850terminator]

I still dont understand why indie games cant be system sellers...

They can to us. Transistor was a major reason in my decision to get a PS4.

Anyone who cares enough about games to visit a site like this is going to care about games and the industry and a great indie title can make a big difference. But to the average Joe out there, the ones who don't know about any games that they haven't seen on television or heard about from their friends, an indie game probably wouldn't convince those customers while Call of Duty 14 with actually rendered nose hairs and a pet monkey you can pilot for 42 seconds might sway a purchase decision while Octodad might not.

Same for me, Transistor and Second Son...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

No, it's not insane. Microsoft knows that consumer desktop computing is pretty much doomed. Smart companies do compete with themselves. For example, when Apple introduced the iPhone, which competed with the iPod monopoly, or the iPad, which competed with the Mac. If Apple had been making more conservative (old Microsoft-style) business decisions, they wouldn't have dared kill the iPod gravy-train with the iPhone.

Microsoft's problem is that they realised this too late. For far too long, they coasted on their cash cows, and tried to block any outside competition or disruption - rather than trying to disrupt from within. They left themselves vulnerable to attack by disruptive technologies, rather than developing those disruptive technologies themselves.

And you can see tons of articles and studies showing this - Microsoft had a bunch of internal divisions all protecting their own interests from new ideas. So, the company fell behind, because of all these fiefdoms protecting themselves, rather than looking at the big picture.

Microsoft can't hold back time. It has enough cash reserves that it has been able to ignore reality for extended periods in the past. But, eventually it catches up with them (see: the mobile market). Pretending they can just cling to the old ways when they had all the power and there were few alternatives, is not a sustainable business model.

you are kiddin right? comuser desktops are FAAAAAR from death, they will still be a part of the standard house hold for years to come, and so is gaming in it, hell the PC gaming market is bigger than the market of any individual console