Ich bin pleased. I don't consider myself a Sony fanboy, I just like Microsoft to keep reaping the spoils from that infamous conference.
Report: PS4 Outselling Xbox One 3-to-1
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Then tell me what games there are out for PS4 that I'd actually enjoy?Atmos Duality said:
OT:
No, this shouldn't matter. The fact that it does is hurting not only the industry, but also harms what we consumers receive. You want a game that has trumped up graphics but shite gameplay and no story?
I have proof. Someone tell me, off the top of their head, what the hell Crysis 1 was about.
An in-depth explanation.
Now, I may be colorblind, but even I can see that these figures do not matter. Last console generation, the 360 topped sales charts and the PS3 was sorely behind. This was 3 years in-ish.
Despite that, both consoles broke pretty much even at the very end of the generation. No one want to comment on this? I bet 70% of you all jumped ship, don't care that xbox went back on the majority of their 'promises', or that (again) this early in the console lifecycle, the figures just do not matter.
We should be arguing about the games, people. Not "My toy is more powerful than yours" Or "my toy has better graphics". l probably get a PS4 once A. It gets games I actually want to play (which is the only reason to buy a console) and B. I have the money/they drop the price.
As an infamous little girl once said: Why not both?
How should I know what you would enjoy? Do you presume I'm psychic?William Ossiss said:
My comment pertains to the gaming mass-market; if a gamer were in the market for a new console, I'd like to think the one with marginally better performance specs that costs 80% of the price of its competitor, and was pitched as a game console (instead of a TV box) might sell better to gamers.
As it turns out, the results strongly agree with me.
It shouldn't matter...because you say it shouldn't?
No. That's not how this works, chum.
If one of the titans of the gaming industry starts outselling its main competitor by a factor 3, it's going to be significant on a GAMING CENTRIC WEBSITE; regardless of your personal mandates.
A US counter-attack against curiously powerful North Korean forces; aliens and their tech are involved.
I picked that up just from watching my buddy play it for about an hour.
I fail to see what sales of one over the other will do to improve that. If anything, multiplats should prove that's not at issue.William Ossiss said:
And if Microsoft can convince people to use the superior power of the Cell better and slash its price by several hundred dollars, you may have a fair comparison. Oh, right, they're not using significantly more complex architecture and they're not going to cut the price as radically.
One of the reasons you saw the shift was superior multiplatform games. Another was cost. You now have the less powerful system with less shiny multiplats costing the same amount. If it was the PS4 turning around, you might have a comparison.
Still gaming on the PS3 and the 360, like I was pretty much since launch. However, I might have gone PS3 exclusive, had I known Microsoft was going to do so little with its games (outside of HALO and Gears) after the first couple of years.
I am curious, though. Have you looked at charts of other generations to see how the sales turned out? Or are you basing your entire argument on a pattern of one?
In this case, one toy provides a more solid experience than the other, which is conducive to better games. It's also outselling the other toy, which means we're likely to see more devs gravitate towards it. The two aren't distinct issues. The games are there because of the hardware. The PS3 started to get more dev support once they knew how to code for the hardware.
You just accused 70% of "us" of "jumping ship," so that's a pretty weird comment.
The problem is that Microsoft wasn't exactly knocking it out of the parks on the 'Games Front' either during the last three and a half years of the Xbox 360's lifespan, when they were on top. They went from a pretty varied lineup in the early years, some of which were titles like Crackdown or Kameo, others of which turned out to be timed exclusives like Bioshock or Mass Effect, to pretty much pressing the same four buttons over and over again towards the end; Halo, Gears, Fable and Forza. (Unless we want to talk Kinect games, there were a metric buttload of those, but they only really mattered if you 1) owned a Kinect, and 2) LIKED Kinect games, which didn't really seem to apply to a large chunk of the 360's user base.) ((Although to be fair, there were also four ported-from-PC titles, but given how constantly I hear people on Xbox pshawing indie games cause 'They're Also On PC,' guess those don't count!))William Ossiss said:Then tell me what games there are out for PS4 that I'd actually enjoy?Atmos Duality said:
OT:
No, this shouldn't matter. The fact that it does is hurting not only the industry, but also harms what we consumers receive. You want a game that has trumped up graphics but shite gameplay and no story?
I have proof. Someone tell me, off the top of their head, what the hell Crysis 1 was about.
An in-depth explanation.
Now, I may be colorblind, but even I can see that these figures do not matter. Last console generation, the 360 topped sales charts and the PS3 was sorely behind. This was 3 years in-ish.
Despite that, both consoles broke pretty much even at the very end of the generation. No one want to comment on this? I bet 70% of you all jumped ship, don't care that xbox went back on the majority of their 'promises', or that (again) this early in the console lifecycle, the figures just do not matter.
We should be arguing about the games, people. Not "My toy is more powerful than yours" Or "my toy has better graphics". l probably get a PS4 once A. It gets games I actually want to play (which is the only reason to buy a console) and B. I have the money/they drop the price.
As an infamous little girl once said: Why not both?
It's something that they might well do differently this generation (especially if they remain behind Sony and end up working their butt off to try and catch up,) but nonetheless, it has given them a bit of an image as a platform where games, be they pretty-graphics games OR gameplay-intensive games, just aren't really high on their priority list, unless the titles are guaranteed sellers from established franchises that will make the parent company a wheelbarrow of money. It's also why the console began to look like a Dudebro unit, because for the last third or so of the generation, the Xbox 360's identity was pretty much defined by A Shooter, Another Shooter, A Racing Game, And A Fun But Veeeery Simple Fantasy Game.
So, yeah. I agree, it should be about games, not graphics. But when it comes to recent history, even Sony's got the advantage in terms of its image as a games platform, because the Xbox 360 just got kinda... well, lazy. =P
I'm in two minds about this news. On one hand it's good that Microsoft is being taught a lesson on not alienating your existing fanbase, but on the other hand as someone who bought an X1 because it has more exclusives that I like (Halo, Forza, etc) I hope that it doesn't advance the end of the console. I've already had a console (the Dreamcast) be prematurely pulled on me because people bought into the Sony hype machine hook, line and sinker. If it happens again I swear I'm going militant.
As someone who loves some of the Xbox exclusives, Microsoft's user-unfriendly tactics and current drought of games have made it really hard justify my support. However I've looked over the fence at the Sony camp and seen only tumbleweeds there so it hasn't really encouraged me to jump ship. It will be interesting to see what 2015 brings.
As someone who loves some of the Xbox exclusives, Microsoft's user-unfriendly tactics and current drought of games have made it really hard justify my support. However I've looked over the fence at the Sony camp and seen only tumbleweeds there so it hasn't really encouraged me to jump ship. It will be interesting to see what 2015 brings.
..........Doesn't everyone remember what happened at this years E3? Microsoft was all games, and Sony was games and then some shite about tv. Oh, and a thing that I can hook up to a separate tv in my house that's basically a small PS4.Programmed_For_Damage said:
Playstation did the exact same thing with TV that Microsoft did... and no one seems to care. I have noticed a similar lack of anger over Steam DRM and other places DRM.
I'm totally of the opinion that Sony would have done exactly what Microsoft proposed to do if gamers hadn't have rejected it wholesale. They saw Microsoft get put to the sword and said "see that shit you hate, we'll do the opposite." Had Microsoft been lauded over their policies I'm sure Sony would have followed suit.William Ossiss said:
First, I would like to say I agree that Microsoft had a stronger showing this E3, though it might in part be because I'm irritated with how secretive Sony's studios are being.William Ossiss said:
I say this because I have to go on and say that I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'm misunderstanding you, because it SOUNDS like you were comparing Sony's TV elements during E3 2014 to Microsoft's TV Elements during the Xbox One Reveal over a year ago and saying Sony did 'The Exact Same Thing.' The reason it sounds like this is because, and I remember this quite clearly, the Xbox One reveal is when the criticism on TV, TV, Sports, CoD started in the first place, the criticism you're upset that Sony isn't facing. But the reason I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt is because, come on man, the Xbox One Reveal show was TERRIBLE, and that's what had people so irritated.
But! On the off chance you're unaware, allow me to summarize how Microsoft's reveal for the Xbox One went, using the uploaded footage on Youtube to refresh my memory. Out of an hour-long presentation, it took them fully twenty-seven minutes to even begin talking about specific games (this case being EA Sports games.) The first look at a trailer (an EA sports montage) came thirty-three minutes in. Games got roughly twenty minutes of the sixty minute show. OF that twenty minutes, fully TEN minutes was for Call of Duty: Ghosts. Of the remaining ten minutes, the only title that was from a brand new, unestablished franchise, Quantum Break, got a whopping total of two minutes, and maybe twenty seconds of in-game footage in their trailer which was largely composed of a live-action 'teaser scene.' The rest went to Forza and EA Sports. The twenty minutes of games wasn't even twenty STRAIGHT minutes, as it was cut halfway through to talk about Halo on TV, and Sports on TV for ten minutes.
....do you reeeeally need me to break down what happened in Sony's E3 conference?
Let me just summarize it this way; the TV stuff (and I'm going to just lump in Project Morpheus, talking about the Vita, apps, the Playstation TV console, etc, etc with the 'TV Stuff' since it didn't talk about specific games,) didn't come up until an hour into the conference. That means that Sony went games, games, games for a time equivalent to the entire Xbox One reveal conference. That lasted for twenty five minutes, less time than it too Microsoft to START showing games during the reveal conference, significantly less than the forty minutes Microsoft spent not talking about games, and it was interspersed with a Mortal Kombat trailer, and an announcement that they were re-doing Ratchet and Clank to break up the monotony. They finished it off with some TLOU:R, Metal Gear Solid, GTAV for next gen consoles and, finally, Batman: Arkham Knight gameplay along with the exclusive Scarecrow content announcement.
So voila. The reason 'nobody is mad that Sony did at E3 exactly what Microsoft did that made everyone mad at them' is Sony DIDN'T do exactly what Microsoft did.
Not even cloooooose.
A valid point, and I actually agree with you, to an extent. But yes, there WERE people actively boycotting the PS3 after its dismal launch, because I saw the same type of verbage being tossed around on sites I was active on, at that time. Obviously, there is no definitive numbers I can give in either situation, but I did see alot of the same thing being said. Let me also be clear in saying that I am NOT defending Microsoft for their trainwreck of a launch for the One. I, also, was very pissed off. So much so, that I came very, very close to saying screw consoles, and going back to playing on the PC again. But Microsoft backed off and turned around on their policies, and I dont care what THEY say the reasons for it are, I believe it was because of the fans backlash. That is a GOOD thing. Sure, there are still some diehards, that will "never forgive Microsoft", as I am sure there were folks at the PS3 launch that also became staunch 360 fans because of that consoles issues, too. Using your Mass Effect analogy, there are still Mass Effect fans that have written off that fantastic series because of the failed ending (which thanks to fans and consumers standing up, did get changed a LITTLE bit for the better).Jonathan Hornsby said:
But in the overall scheme of things, I assure you that the actual numbers of people that are actively pursuing an attempt at making the xbox one "fail" are probably the same numbers that wanted to see the PS3 "fail" as well. I can also assure you that most if not ALL of that crowd are already fan boys solidly in the camp of the other console. Sure, while I loved seeing Sony fanboys eat crow last gen, after their treatment of xbox fans with the original console, I did try to insert at least SOME voice of reason in the conversations back then, too, warning that failure of the Playstation would hurt the xbox gamers, too. As it would in this case. But, like last gen, again, it wont happen.
While I get your point, I still stand by the very strong similarities of both situations. A good litmus test for the One will be this fall, as they are finally seriously bringing the heat with a ton of games. I am not saying they will suddenly start stomping the PS4, but I do expect them to hit the brakes and start seriously turning their numbers around.