PlayStation 4 costs $399, supports offline play, doesn’t restrict used games

On the heels of Microsoft’s Xbox One event, Sony revealed yesterday that the PlayStation 4 will be priced $100 lower than its rival. The system will retail for just $399 when it comes out this holiday season—and pre-orders have already begun at Amazon and other e-tailers.

Sony’s E3 event also saw the unveiling of the PlayStation 4’s hardware design. Up until then, we’d only gotten a glimpse at the controller. Now, we know what the full console looks like: not much less sober than the Xbox One, but with a somewhat more playful leaning shape that angles the front surface up and the rear one down. (You’ll find more images in the gallery below.)

According to Joystiq, Sony dropped a couple of other bombshells during its press conference. The company reportedly said PlayStation 4 games that come on physical discs "can be traded in without restriction, borrowed from friends, or kept for life." Sony also stressed that the PS4 won’t need an Internet connection—unless, of course, you want to play multiplayer games.

That’s a little different from Microsoft’s plan for the Xbox One. As Joystiq points out, the Microsoft console will support used games, too, but there will be certain restrictions involved. Also, the Xbox One will only support up to 24 hours of offline play at a time.

Comments closed
    • Techgoudy
    • 6 years ago

    Microsoft has been pissing me off with all of idiotic things they have done lately.

    Let’s take a look at what Microsoft has made in the past year and what it represents:

    Windows 8 and Xbox One….

    Both are very architecturally sound products that bring new features to the table and increase the potential of the platforms they support, but they both have one very wrong thing in common.

    The fact that Microsoft has been trying to force users to bend to their will and trying to come up with half assed solutions to fix a problem instead of giving users what they really want in a product. They seem to not understand that we control how well a product does. Even though Windows 8 sells, I bet it doesn’t or didn’t sell as good as Windows 7 and we can see that they are trying to change that with that piece of Windows 8.1 crap.

    How many people will they need to screw over before they realize that what they are doing is digging themselves a grave?

    What we, the consumer, has to be afraid of is supporting this business model of businesses not giving us what we ask for and that we do not own what we buy. If we all let Microsoft get away with this, other companies that can get away with a business model like that will follow suit.

    TL DR; Microsoft is digging a very, very large grave that they will eventually lie down in, if they keep up with the shenanigans.

    • GrimDanfango
    • 6 years ago

    I don’t feel an awful lot has changed on the Playstation side this generation – the PS3 was a good solid, mostly well thought out, and powerful platform, and they underestimated how aggressive Microsoft could be, and fell afoul of a more cheaply built product, that packaged less extras but was similarly powerful and came to market at a very aggressive price.

    This time around, they’ve built another solid, well thought out, powerful platform. About the only change is they’ve attempted to iron out the dev-unfriendliness this time around.

    Microsoft haven’t changed that much either, besides ending up on the opposite side of the pricing fight. They’ve continued to be aggressive, but somehow this time around it’s been misdirected towards that insane realm of customer control measures that bit EA in the ass with Sim City, rather than directing it into cutting corners on build quality like last time.

    Time will tell whether their aggressive tactics work as well this time around. I get the feeling they’re in very real danger of getting their collective asses handed to them by a customer base that isn’t going to put up with this crap any more than they put up with the red ring of death… except this time it’ll be people asking for refunds rather than repairs.

    All the while, Playstation seems to be a reasonable, fairly honest, solid platform with a good range of games.
    I think Sony are getting placed on a bit of a pedestal over all of this, and I don’t think we should necessarily deify them just because their main competitor is taking the piss, but when all said and done, I know which system I’m more likely to go for.

      • Krogoth
      • 6 years ago

      PS3 wasn’t really thought out though. Sony thought that could get away with selling $499-599 price points. They hinged everything on Cell chip, but realize it fell short in the graphical processing department so they threw in “Geforce 7900GT with XDR” at the last minute. The Cell itself was unfriendly to develop with. As a result, PS3 didn’t have any decent launch titles. The only thing going for the PS3 it was the cheapest BR player you could pay at time of its lunch.

      PS3 didn’t build any momentum until Sony realize that consoles don’t sale well at $499-599 and axed some of the extra stuff to cut costs. The PS3 Slim was born and that’s when PS3 started to make significant market share. The developers were starting to get a hold of the hardware. PS3 managed to get a solid finish, after a rocky start.

      • Diplomacy42
      • 6 years ago

      Your opinion that not much has changed for either platform is clearly contradicted by the facts, its also buried in that essay. Clearly a lot has changed for both platforms since launch. The Xbox will be running a version of windows for god’s sake. I suppose that if you mean that both of these game consoles are still game consoles that sit by the TV and play games, then yes, not much has changed. the hardware is 10 times better (with more RAM which means that console games might be worth playing again and it won’t just be an endless stream of corridor FPS and sports franchises). Both consoles have improved software usability as-well, and don’t even get me started on the USELESS garbage they are shoveling into the systems like kinect and the share button. very different.

      Now onto the other point about not deifying Sony for their noble fight against the evil game publishers, where tiny Microsoft was strongarmed into some DRM scheme that was inevitable and not their fault for some reason, well, I think that’s a little disingenuous. People are pissed at Microsoft and rightfully excited about a new system, but I haven’t seen much evidence that its more than that.

    • quock
    • 6 years ago

    “supports offline play”

    Kinda weird that that’s a feature, and that it needs to be supported nowadays. 🙁

      • GrimDanfango
      • 6 years ago

      Yes, it’s a bit like saying a lightbulb supports darkness. It’s only weird that the need exists to differentiate themselves from a lightbulb that doesn’t.

        • Diplomacy42
        • 6 years ago

        well, except in this case, there is a system that doesn’t support offline play. Congratulate Microsoft for making the light switch legacy technology.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 6 years ago

    The ONLY good reason to buy a console is to play with friends. The sad part is that you could do this on PC, for free, if they werent inevitably going to buy a console. Not that the existence of consoles isn’t good for the industry, but it’s clearly inferior to PCs that can do everything a console can do and more. Good luck telling them that though.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 6 years ago

    I’d rather buy that new Xbox 360 than an Xbox One. In fact, I’d rather buy a Wii U than either of them. Nintendo may not have the greatest consoles on the market, but they have wayy more exclusives that keep Nintendo fans coming back again and again. The Xbox doesn’t have anything close. All they have is brand recognition from a successful has-been product. All Nintendo has to do is match the PS4 within the next few years and the Xbox will be completely ruined. They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better strategy or they’re done.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    If you’ve been wondering why the Xbox One and PS4 seem so different, just remember:

    Microsoft thinks like a software company.

    Sony thinks like A consumer electronics and entertainment company.

    • Welch
    • 6 years ago

    I’m curious to know what Video and Audio encoding will be possible with the PS4? I’ve hated having AVI or MKV files with AC3 audio and not being able to play it on my PS3. I’d love to see a repository of free for use Codecs that you can download for the PS4 or perhaps even a pay scheme if they are licensed codecs. Not being able to play a video on your device these days is ridiculous.

    I’d also be interested to know if some or all of the games will nicely support Mouse/Keyboard hook ups if I want to play them that way or surf the web on an actual useable browser.

    And….. Will Sony get their Playstation Store shit together and fix the poor encoding they use which requires a lot more bandwidth to stream/download a video. VP9 perhaps?

      • Diplomacy42
      • 6 years ago

      It never for a second occurred to me that with an HDMI output and 3 USB 3 ports, either or both of these consoles might feel at home on my desktop… that would be awesome.

    • Buzzard44
    • 6 years ago

    This makes me really, really wonder what the heck is going on at Microsoft.

    Windows 8, a disappointing patch for Windows 8, then Xbox One?

    What has changed on the development/management team in the past five years that makes Microsoft think that they know what the customers want more than the customers do?

    Even though I’m still sore at Sony over the whole putting rootkits on music CDs thing, I have to say – they saw what people wanted, and they delivered. While the delivery may be the hard part, it appears as though Microsoft is intentionally trying to NOT deliver what people ask for…

      • JohnC
      • 6 years ago

      At Microsoft? Not sure, but I suspect something like this:
      [url<]http://stevefakeballmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/me.png[/url<] Perhaps involving less clothes and more illegal substances 😉

      • Chrispy_
      • 6 years ago

      Microsoft is a directionless mess with absolutely no sensible decisions being made at any point anywhere in the company.

      That is all the information you need to know. It’s useful, because if you don’t know what direction the industry is moving in and you need to find out fast, look at what Microsoft are doing and the correct answer is the exact opposite.

      I think their mantra is “Ignore, irritate and prevent” at the moment.

      • Krogoth
      • 6 years ago

      I think it is because upper management at MS have no idea why 360 was successful. They are still trying to capture the HTPC space and think that Xbox One is the ticket. They don’t understand that most console gamers don’t care for a HTPC. They want a dedicated gaming system that plays game with no hassle or frills. Sony and Nintendo understand this and have designed their consoles accordingly.

      Windows 8 is just a massive panic attack from Apple’s leverage in the tablet and portable market. What’s funny is that Microsoft try to seize the table and portable market back in early 2000s, but hardly anyone cared. It wasn’t until iPad 1 that mainstream gave a damm about tablets.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 6 years ago

      What’s going on? I thought it was apparent they were committing seppuku in slow motion.

      Plus all their idea people are gone while Ballmer is still in charge.

    • Shoki
    • 6 years ago

    I like the look of the PS4. It reminds me a lot of the PS2 design.

    I want a PS4 but I am going to stay with my PC as long as possible. I getting older and I do not need to play every exclusive game and or every hot game on release day.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      The only game MS demo’ed that interests me is Project Spark and that’s coming to Windows. Halo and Gears of War are stale, Forza is same old, same old, and Fable was never interesting to me. The rest of their exclusives read like b-list games from developers who have spotty track records and/or problems delivering. I love Remedy, I loved Alan Wake, but you know their new game is either going to be massively delayed or vastly changed before it releases. Or both. And it’s going to be extremely niche and few console gamers are going to get behind it. It’s just what happens to them.

      Insomniac should have delayed Fuse’s release because right now after that game, no one thinks as highly of Insomniac as they once did and so a MS exclusive by them just seems like savvy excising of the fat by Sony. In fact, Insomniac’s rapid decline in status with Fuse actually reminds me of other developers that MS took on that rapidly lost their mojo. Examples include Too Human, anything Rare’s made for MS, anything FASA made for MS, anything Ensemble made for MS for consoles, and Crackdown 2.

      The PS4 will have Sony’s exclusives and those are more prevalent and more frequent than the 2nd parties that MS occasionally hires to make them games. Plus, can you imagine what an Uncharted or The Last of Us game by Naughty Dog is going to be like with the PS4’s hardware? Sony’s just far more reliable at doing first party titles than MS is at doing second party ones that aren’t Gears of War.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 6 years ago

      Since you’ll be able to pick up disc-based games second-hand on the PS4, that makes it the system you’ll want, since you don’t want to buy on release day.

    • odizzido
    • 6 years ago

    Sounds like the console to get is the PS4. XBO will be a DRM infested nightmare. People will still buy them by the millions though, they know this because they already tested on the PC crowd and people still keep buying simcity.

    Not that I will buy one of the consoles. I have way too many games on PC already from the humble bundles, GOG, and steam sales that are constantly selling me games for next to nothing.

    • dmitriylm
    • 6 years ago

    A few points:

    1) I personally will be going with the PS4 unless something drastic comes up to change my mind. The PS4 appears to be the more powerful gamer centric console all while costing less money. Seems like a win win. This is coming from someone who went with the original XBOX over the PS2 and the XBOX 360 over the PS3 and felt good about each decision.

    2) I’ve seen the comparison to low cost HTPC’s or other PC based option as an alternative would like to mention why it wouldn’t work (at least for me). I used to build my own gaming PC’s, particularly throughout middle school and high school. Then I finally jumped on the console bandwagon and found that I was quite happy not upgrading my PC like clockwork on a yearly basis. I’ve also become used to the idea of gaming in my living room on a 52″ display while being lazy and comfortable in my recliner. The thought of sitting so damn close to a relatively tiny display for extended periods of time on a cramped table sounds simply awful. I understand that you can use a large display with a PC but you still can’t really get around the control issue particularly since many pc games are designed around a keyboard and mouse (hard to use on a couch/recliner). Even with a good HTPC, the experience will be very different and likely no where as pleasant as it would with a dedicated console in the environment that I now prefer.

      • superjawes
      • 6 years ago

      1. Wireless Controllers (they work with PCs)
      2. You can connect PCs to TVs
      3. You don’t have to upgrade every year

        • nanoflower
        • 6 years ago

        4. If you are upgrading your PC every year then you are getting much better performance (speed and graphic) than you would with the consoles.

          • dmitriylm
          • 6 years ago

          Its true that in the long term the PC games will look better graphically but I just stopped caring enough to make the cost worth while. PC games are designed around the keyboard/mouse. Having the ability to use a wireless controller with a PC does not mean you’re going to have the same experience as you would on a console. Maybe as I got older the idea of casual gaming along with the occasional multi hour session and ease of setup just became more attractive than dealing with hardware installs, drivers, etc. I haven’t even had a desktop PC in years. I use notebooks around the house for general computer use and game entirely on my xbox 360.

    • Decelerate
    • 6 years ago

    So far, since the rebirth of consoles post-Atari FUBAR, it seems that the landscape has been played like this:

    [b<]Round 1 (8-bit):[/b<] +Nintendo - NES (new kid on the block) [b<]Round 2 (16-bit):[/b<] +Nintendo - SNES (whoop whoop!) [b<]Round 3 (64-bit?): [/b<] -Nintendo - Nintendo64: I don't need no CD addon +Sony - Playstation : Ok, die for cancelling our relation! [b<]Round 4 : [/b<] +Sony - Playstation 2 (DVD Baby!) -Microsft - Xbox: It's like a PC! -Nintendo - GameCube: Ok, we get discs' appeal, but! [b<]Round 5 : [/b<] +Microsoft - Xbox360: 2nd try's a charm! (before the charm RRoDed) -Nintendo - Wii: Magic-motion! -Sony - PS3: Eating humble-pie [b<]Round 6 :[/b<] Sony - Playstation 4: We learned our lesson Microsoft - XboxOne: Windows Genuine is calling Nintendo - WiiU: Magic, now with a "yoU"! Personally our family kinda screwed rounds 4 (Xbox) and 5 (Wii, then PS3). Based on initial impressions though (all over the net, aside from the acolytes), Sony can do no harm this round. Microsoft has enough $$$ to change its mind and meet it down @ 399$ though...

      • rika13
      • 6 years ago

      Genesis does, what Nintendon’t. You also forgot the Genesis had the Sega CD, 32X, Power Base Converter (which let it Master System games), modem, and The Sega Channel (yeah, you could DL games on the Genesis).

      The Dreamcast was the first online console, with the 56k modem and broadband adapter (a plug-in NIC). The Sega Master System was really irrelevant, but it did exist!

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 years ago

        SNES vs Genesis was probably the largest and most significant matchup in the history of game consoles. At one point Mario and Sonic were ‘mortal enemies’.

        More importantly, the Genesis pre-dated the SNES by almost two full years (in Japan at least) and had far more games, accessories and upgrades than the SNES ever received.

        Statistically, the Genesis was more commercially successful, selling 42 million units over its 9-year lifespan, whilst the SNES shifted 49 million units but over a much longer 13-year lifespan.

      • Mat3
      • 6 years ago

      Missing every single Sega console.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        We all miss them.

        • Decelerate
        • 6 years ago

        Kept them out, they removed themselves from the race (along with the Neo-Geo, Jaguar, and other nonsensical systems) mostly to keep the list short.

        I had a Sega Master system when I was a kid.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 6 years ago

      [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console[/url<] Go learn somehing.

        • Decelerate
        • 6 years ago

        You go learn something. That post was from my point of view. I know about and use Wiki, thank you very much.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Round 1

      NES wins, Sega Master system loses. NES had more games, plain and simple. They (re)started the industry and they owned it with an iron fist.

      Round 2

      Genesis squeaks in a win because SNES was delayed for far too long. The Genesis ran an impressive spin campaign that created a marketing term (“blast processing”) to sell their Sonic series and wound up boosting the Genesis console ahead of the Mario-led SNES that eventually came to market after several delays and a somewhat higher than expected cost. More than that, Super Mario World initially looked slow and plodding next to Sonic flicking by.

      Turbo Grafix 16 barely made a mark because it was inferior both, but it did introduce the notion of portables as powerful as home consoles, which deserves honorable mention.

      3DO was a joke Trip Hawkins played on the industry. Atari Jaguar was a joke without a punchline (unless you count its controller).

      Round 3

      Sony PSX destroyed the Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn in a somewhat unexpected upset victory. The Nintendo 64 was delayed for far too long and when it arrived, the choice go stick with cartridges sent many a publisher scurrying away from Nintendo for the far cheaper licensing fees of Sony. Sega showed up with a burdensome design for Saturn after the early versions of the Playstation were discovered by Sega to walk all over their single chip-versions of Saturn. They rapidly added another chip, which theoretically provided enough oomph to match the PSX, but Sony had smartly made their system very simple to code for and highly focused on GPU’s with 3d technology (not the faux 3d, polygons) with lower than usual licensing fees and the wide open spaces of CD’s.

      Games were cheaper on PSX and bigger. Slow load times were not enough to sell the Nintendo 64 and a controller with an analog stick and rumble–big features for Nintendo 64–were rapidly and amazingly incorporated into the PSX platform, negating an advantage rather effectively.

      Round 4

      Sony PS2 walked in the assumed champion. A year after the Dreamcast run by a very humble and cash-poor Sega, the hype Sony managed to generate for the PS2–most of which was unwarranted–led to the death of the Dreamcast, the only console Sega’d made in years that actually did everything right. A year after the PS2’s constantly sold-out launch, Xbox and Gamecube showed up, but coming in second and gnawing at one another’s early adopters, dividing them, Sony’s console won by default since their audience had already cashed in.

      Despite being technically inferior to both GC and Xbox, the PS2 was easier to make cheaper and by then every publisher had just kept going on Playstation as they had with PSX. Being the leader does have its advantages when everything else is equal.

      Round 5

      Xbox 360 showed up quite the challenger. J Allard smartly decided that the ultimate problem with the original Xbox 1 was that it did not emphasize enough how NOT a PC it was. How much it was a gaming console. They embraced a very PS2-like philosophy of splitting out components that didn’t have to be part of the system and selling them piecemeal. They first focused on games to later sell the system as a platform for media content. They didn’t drive up the cost of the unit to push unnecessary media playback options (ie., HD DVD). They came a year in advance of the PS3 and they kept the cost average to what was expected.

      These things all kept MS from tanking right away. Their initial launch library sucked and they had a lot of Xbox ports that were not very good. Still, the opportunity to say their console “started at $299” was great for them, especially when Sony announced the PS3 coming at a price “starting at $499.” Moreover, when it became clear that not many of those systems (despite the value they represented) would be made in favor of $599 systems “with silver trim!” MS had an opportunity to pull an upset and they capitalized on it with Dead Rising by Capcom (proving they could win Japanese developers) and Gears of War (proving they had more than just Halo).

      When PS3 finally arrived, it hit with a dull thunk. Wii stole a lot of its glory by virtue of its gimmick and the PS3 was hemmed in by superior graphics/pricing (xenon) on the 360 and superior pricing/gimmick on the Wii. The only crowd left to sell PS3’s (since there were again no worthwhile launch titles) was the blu-ray player crowd and that was because PS3’s still cost less than the cheapest standalone blu-ray player.

      But even though MS pulled out far ahead at the start, they started to get cocky and proud. Eventually, Sony came up from behind and pulled ahead of MS briefly in worldwide sales before MS smartly released an updated Slim model of the 360 and not long after, Kinect. This was smart then, but I wonder if it’s not going to cost MS now because I wonder how many of those gamers would buy Kinect again if they had the option to redo the choice given what never came for Xbox 360’s version of Kinect.

      And how will that affect the value of Kinect for Xbox One?

      Anyway, the point is that PS3 is nipping at Xbox 360’s heels on worldwide sales and that’s mostly due to the fact that Microsoft has yet to make a dent in Japan, which is a highly dense (but small) area full of the hearts and minds of many a Japanese developer. As long as MS cannot win there, they will never dominate the gaming industry.

      Which brings us to today.

      Round 6.

      MS seems to have swapped again with Sony. Like the original Xbox and the PS3, MS is highly integrating a lot of features–many of which are NOT integral to gaming–into the Xbox One. Meanwhile, the PS4 is more like the original PSX and 360. Focusing on gaming as the first and foremost emphasis, they’ve done everything to make the PS4 the simplest, easiest platform to program for, to publish on, and the cheapest to buy, rent games for, or sell your games for. Everything the PS4 evokes is wisdom gained from what successes the PSX and PS2 had; and the pitfalls they fell into.

      Microsoft seems to have learned nothing from the past and are making the same mistakes they made with Xbox (ie., DVD playback was going to make up for its higher cost) and the mistakes they capitalized on from the PS3 (ie., blu-ray playback was going to make up for its higher cost). Now they say that TV is going to sell the Xbox One. Obviously, they failed to consider the historical record of the success of that particular argument.

      The industry is led by the console that pulls out the early lead. That’s who the publishers focus on. The lead console gets the best versions of the game and that affects then who most gamers will buy as price drops come later. Hardcore gamers right now love Sony as the savior of used games and the resistance fighter who defies the conglomerate oppression of corporate would-be taskmasters that would see us monitored and governed by always-online consoles with required webcams.

      Microsoft did something pretty incredible and turned Sony into a champion of the people. Now watch as Microsoft suffers for it.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 6 years ago

        That’s a pretty spot-on analysis. One other thing to consider is that there is now a fight to get cheap PCs (ie. ouya, steam box, shield) into the living room and into the hands of the mainstream gaming crowd. It is still the case that consoles are the easiest gaming platform to bring to market and the easiest to target for developers, but in the future this may not be the case. It is entirely possible that by the time we see the next console generation arrive, even the cheapest PCs will offer enough of a baseline on performance that developers and publishers would prefer to make their software universally available to almost everyone. This could very well be the last console generation, and Microsoft is throwing it away.

          • Decelerate
          • 6 years ago

          I agree about the possible last generation of console we’ll see, but imo cheap boxes (ex-Steam, because they’re a beast) will go the way of the netbook. Also, there’s too many of them arriving at the same time, which will dilute standardization and/or identification of a “reference” platform to gather enough crowd.

            • DeadOfKnight
            • 6 years ago

            Oh I wasn’t suggesting that any of these new boxes could make it up to the top 3. They’re not going to have that kind of market share and thus support to gain even more market share to get anywhere near them. However, give it a few more years and there will be so many options that deliver plenty of performance for games on x86 and/or ARM (including smartphones and tablets) that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo could all end up becoming a bunch of Segas and investing it all in software instead.

            I could be wrong. There could always be a market for the most streamlined hardware platforms available for gaming, but I have no doubt that they will decline rapidly in significance, especially once people start to catch on that they can affordably do it all and do it better on a PC. Once that happens, a simple cost-benefit analysis will tell these guys that they’re losing money with exclusive content, but maybe to them it will be worth it?

            I dunno. The more I think about it, the dumber it sounds to even buy a console in the first place. Sure they’re cheaper, but the games are more expensive, especially on the Xbox side if you can’t go the used route. Maybe they’ll all morph into a bunch of steam boxes and you’re really just picking whatever system has your favorite interface. There are plenty of other markets where it’s an aesthetic decision more than anything. Automobiles are becoming more and more like this as well.

            • Decelerate
            • 6 years ago

            Consoles though are not only about cheap, they’re also about convenience: boot up, play. It’s the same reason why iPads and Galaxy tabs have taken over the traditional PC/laptop.

            Well, gaming being more expensive on console is a relative term, but I have to admit that the whole “Free-to-Play” movement on portables/pc is a serious wrench in the whole equilibrium equation.

            • DeadOfKnight
            • 6 years ago

            You also don’t have to pay a subscription for services such as Xbox Live or Playstation Network.

            The “it just works” argument is no longer valid. A PC “just works” with your TV and 360 controller.

        • Decelerate
        • 6 years ago

        Nice analysis.

        Frankly I never felt the Genesis’ surge (maybe it was just my neighbourhood) over the SNES, much less it predecessing it.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 6 years ago

        Missing Round 0 (Commodore 64) and Round -1 (Atari), but good show and analysis nonetheless 🙂 +1

        Wii and WiiU deserves a mention. Nintendo has stopped competing with everyone, and seems to be doing quite fine as a company. 3DS and Nintendo DS sales are up… way up… despite the smartphone craze. Nintendo’s approach of not competing with both XBox360/PS3 and XBox One / PS4 seems to be an interesting approach to me. Lets see if their technique works in the next generation.

        Nintendo has done a lot of “comeback kid” in the past. The NintendoDS and 3DS skyrocketed after a year of subpar sales. The WiiU *might* do the same (no guarantees though, it may pull a Dreamcast and may be forgotten).

        By focusing on the niche that serves them best, Nintendo has by far the most loyal fans on the market.

        • Voldenuit
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Microsoft did something pretty incredible and turned Sony into a champion of the people. Now watch as Microsoft suffers for it.[/quote<] Great post overall. I'm still amazed that Microsoft could (and did) screw up so badly that Sony got 1 minute of applause at E3 just for [i<]maintaining the status quo[/i<].

        • cphite
        • 6 years ago

        Honestly, I don’t get the big push for watching live TV through a console… I mean, for most setups you’re basically switching between whatever your TV source is and your input for the console, right? Am I missing something? For me, I press the “input” button on my remote and I’m done. I honestly don’t see it being easier than that within the Xbox interface.

        Same goes with streaming video… I mean sure, it’s great that it streams video but it’s not like that’s a new thing. My PS3 does Netflix and a bunch of others; then again so does my TV. It’s a pretty basic app. Same is true for streaming music. Microsoft is trying to sell these features like they’re somehow new and different; frankly I’d be shocked if someone put out a new console these days that doesn’t do these things. It’d be like Chevy trying to sell their new model car on the fact that it includes a radio.

        If I’m buying a console it’s for gaming. I like that it does all these extra things; but more than anything I want to play decent games, I want to play them whenever I feel like it, and I want to be able to buy them used, or sell them, or rent them, without checking in with somebody first.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Playstation won every round it attended. Certainly better than XBox 360 that couldn’t even play Blurays

    • slowriot
    • 6 years ago

    Whoa. Never imagined I’d kinda want a console.

      • mcnabney
      • 6 years ago

      The last console I bought was an Atari 2600. I’m getting a PS4 to replace my second HTPC though. Microsoft really screwed themselves over on this round.

    • Bensam123
    • 6 years ago

    If I had any interest in consoles, I would definitely buy a PS4. MS is just betting it’s name holds enough worth that people will buy their system regardless of what they throw at them (they will) and Sony is playing the underdog, by underlining all MS’s bad moves so people buy their console (they also will).

    Honestly though, none of these systems are worth buying, when compared with a HTPC for gaming. I mentioned it before, but if Valve stepped up their game in the living room they could bump both of these out of there (not with their steambox either). Honestly anyone could bump these out of there with a little bit of marketing and drumming up the PC side of things, no one has though.

    You know even TR could take a look at unique angle like this. Making mITX system guides designed with console lounging in mind would make for a interesting side of things, no one else is doing it either. Giving a hardware perspective with mITX in mind (like heat, space, what sort of performance you want to look at while compromising for mITX). Case reviews, more mITX motherboards, peripherals specifically made for HTPCs or HTg(aming)PCs.

      • JohnC
      • 6 years ago

      You mean, like Falcon NW’s Tiki?
      [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6763/highend-meets-small-form-factor-geforce-titan-in-falcon-northwests-tiki[/url<]

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 6 years ago

        Like Alienware x51, Falcon Northwest Tiki, and Digital Storm Bolt. There are even barebones solutions coming to market as well such as the [url=http://www.pcper.com/news/Cases-and-Cooling/Computex-2013-EVGA-Shows-Latest-MiniBox-Chassis-Support-High-End-GPUs<]EVGA Minibox[/url<] unveiled at Computex. I see no reason to buy a next-gen console. My backwards-compatible PS3 plays all the older exclusives I need as well as having better support for blu-ray.

          • JohnC
          • 6 years ago

          Well, the consoles are still better solution for general consumers because of ease of use… Plus, of course, there’s undeniably lower amount of cheaters and it’s easier to take care of them 😉

            • DeadOfKnight
            • 6 years ago

            Well at least the PS4 retains the advantage of being able to play used games. That and the ability to connect with all your non-PC Gamer friends over Playstation Network are pretty much the only reasons I see that make sense, but if you can get all your friends to switch over to PC then half of that reason goes away. However, used games on PC are not a big issue. I never once wished I could just use Gamefly for PC games because they’re so cheap anyhow. Sure PCs are more expensive, but chances are most people will have a PC anyway so you should really be comparing the price of a discreet GPU to make it a gaming rig vs the price of a console. In the future we can even include laptops in that argument when I/O allows for some great external solutions.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            I only think people say that because they don’t know how easy it really is to setup a PC in a living room. I suppose MS hasn’t went out of their way to make this evident, but you simply have to hook up a couple cables and pop in the disk to install. Steam you don’t even need to do that with which most people use. Big screen mode takes that a step further. It’s really quite marvelous.

            I also disagree about cheaters. There are plenty of people that play modified consoles. The most obvious and easily accessibly modification is buying a $20 adapter to plug a mouse and keyboard into your console, which gives you a huge advantage. I had a friend that was extremely heavy into CoD and he’d tell you there was a cheater in every other game, aiming from aimbots, to wallhacks, to clipping.

            It’s actually pretty ridiculous. Since a console is a ‘closed’ system there is absolutely no cheat protection or really anyway to deal with these guys online, including kicking them. So you’re essentially forced to play with these people or hope to find a different game they aren’t in. Cheating on consoles is actually much worse and dire then on the PC simply because it’s a problem none of the devs think exists, instead of existing and ignoring it (like BF3).

            • JohnC
            • 6 years ago

            You’re wrong. Setting up “cheats” for many games is not easy for majority of people on consoles, not very cost-effective (compared to PCs) and you can easily report person on Xbox 360 and that person can possibly (though not very likely) be forced to buy new hardware (hardware bans are not fun – I know this from my first-hand experience).

            Here’s a situation on PC’s: you download game like Planetside 2, same exact day you download a cheating package/framework (paid or free – both exist and both work for speedhacking/teleporting/aimbotting/radar), with a few mouse clicks you get it running. Then play game with cheats and if after few days you get banned – the very worst thing you’ll have to do is to change your WAN IP to different range. With a paid PC game it is slightly more complicated – you might be forced to spend $5-15 for a new serial key from dozens of illegal resellers from other countries, but the “downtime” is still extremely insignificant provided you can afford paying for these every week or so. Again, I’ve done this, definitely don’t feel proud about it (was out of sheer boredom and to “screw” with other cheaters), never do it for a long periods of time, definitely do not recommend anyone to do anything like that 😉

            And this is a very bad conversation which we should definitely NOT be having right now, so I apologize to any mods for doing this.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            [url<]http://store.xim3.com/XIM-EDGE_p_12.html[/url<] They can be found all over, easiest form of cheating right there and anyone can do it by buying a piece of hardware. This is completely undetectable and is in a grey area. Modded lobbies as they're called are also all over the place. I'm not sure where you get the notion of being banned on the PC just involves changing your internet IP... VAC for instance permanently bans your CD key so you have to repurchase the game. Most games in which they ban you, you have to repurchase the game. They don't just IP ban people, that would be silly. Perhaps you're mistaking a ban from a server admin with a ban from VAC or PB? I suppose I don't need to point out ordering keys through the online 'black market' is very sketchy. You not only risk being scammed (which does happen), but also the person who owned the account originally deciding they want to talk to support to get it back. In which case you're out however much you spent on it. The quoted $5-15 price tag is also for really old games, newer games are closer to their original prices. But considering some games are insanely cheap during Steam sales it's not worth it. This is all sorta pointless though. My original point was cheating definitely exists on consoles and it isn't some sort of utopia you made it out to be.

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          Yeah, when I was talking about TR I was suggesting more builder friendly models, not prebuilt systems. So you get the whole PC experience without relying on someone else to make a AIW you then can’t upgrade or work with. I think a important point to all of this is that PCs can easily be put in the living room with no real modification (you can put a full size ATX system in the living room if you wanted). Consoles aren’t anything special or different, that’s something important that people should begin to realize.

          TR could even do a few articles on it and call it like ‘The Lounge’ series or something. It’s not just providing a game experience in your living room, you can do a lot more with HTPCs then use them for gaming and I also think that’s an important point to get across (like a DVR).

    • CuttinHobo
    • 6 years ago

    A $100 premium for the weaker console? Ouch! As if the Xbox One needed another nail in its coffin before it’s even released. How long until Microsoft announces Xbox One Blue to try to mend fences?

    Do they really think Kinect 2 is that amazing? I have a Kinect and the input lag in games makes it more frustrating than fun (but I’m sure they’re addressing that with this one), and it annoys me even when I’m not using it. Dialog in movies will randomly trigger the Kinect keywords and before you regain control, it has fast-forwarded 5 minutes ahead and shown you spoilers. =-O. So it has spent the vast majority of its time unplugged… money well spent.

    No thanks. I’ll save my money and get the superior console in the process.

    • cphite
    • 6 years ago

    Ah, so with the Xbox One you can sell/trade your games as long as the companies that made them agree to let you, via a participating retailer. Which means for example that if you have a game that you want to get rid of, and the company that published that game is no longer around or just doesn’t feel like keeping their servers up to date; or just doesn’t like the idea of used games; you’re out of luck.

    And if you don’t have a broadband connection, you can’t have an Xbox One. If your internet is down for more than a day, you can’t play games on your Xbox One. You can only play offline if you agree to check in every day – that is, assuming you stick to games where the publishers haven’t decided that you need to be connected at all times. Of course, all this assumes that the Microsoft servers aren’t down or busy when it tries to check in…

    All this for $100 more than the system that does everything the Xbox One one does, but without the restrictions.

    PS4 is looking better and better.

      • cynan
      • 6 years ago

      I really don’t see a lot of publishers disallowing used sales. Particularly for cross-platform titles where the PS4 doesn’t have these restrictions. How can the same game be allowed to be resold on the PS4, but not an the Xbox One? Then, if most games can be resold, why would a publisher risk limiting initial sales by making their game one of the few that can’t be resold. Maybe with a few exclusives, but I don’t really see it. From the limited info MS has given us about these details, it doesn’t really sound like even they really know what will be going on at release…

        • cphite
        • 6 years ago

        I would have never imagined that a publisher would require a constant internet connection just to play a game… but…

    • cynan
    • 6 years ago

    Yup. So far it looks like a no contest win for Sony for gamers. Which still should be the majority of the target market for consoles.

    However, other than perhaps a slight edge in convenience consoles offer for multiplayer – that you have to pay for, no less – I can’t see how HTPCs don’t offer equally as good or better value than even the PS4. Will you be able to go out and buy a gaming HTPC that can match the performance of the PS4 for $400 when it is released? No. Not even close. In reality, you’ll probably need to spend close to double.

    The fact remains that games are available for much less on the PC than their console versions. Particularly if you can wait a few months after release. And even if you don’t they are often $10 or more cheaper on release. If console games continue to cost $50-$60 and you can get similar AAA games on the PC for $25-$30 or less within a few months after release, it will less than 15 games to re-align the price of a $750-$800 HTPC with the PS4 (ie, $25×15=$375 + $400 = $775). Then there are the multiplayer fees for consoles. Plus, you can do much more with the PC…

    Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe the performance of a PS4 will blow away an $800 gaming PC in 6 months time. But I doubt it. Especially with something like an HD 7950 going for as little as $250 right now. By November, you should be able to spec an $800 HTPC with graphics at least as powerful – which should match anything the PS4 can do.

    But I should really be posting this in the Xbox One article comments, because its value proposition in this regard is even worse.

      • cobalt
      • 6 years ago

      Consoles have always been a little questionable for value-vs-performance except at the beginning of their lifecycle, though. That’s not really new, nor specific to the PS4/Xbox.

      Consoles have other benefits, though. First, generally you have less system overhead than a PC, which helps keep that gap a little longer than you might expect. Further, the ability for developers to code to a specific hardware configuration means they can ensure that your exact experience is optimized for quality vs framerate. The fixed hardware/software environment means you avoid all the “why isn’t this game launching”. And the biggest one is that you know games will be made for your platform, without upgrading, for years, and devs will be able to squeeze more out of that platform the longer they have to work with it.

      Not that everyone values all these benefits, of course. I do. But I also think HTPC gaming is more viable than it’s ever been. I just want more entertainment-center-aesthetic cases and half-height cards; there are so darn few. Or else I’m going to wind up with the PC version of the X1/PS4 chips in a steam box anyway.

        • cynan
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Consoles have always been a little questionable for value-vs-performance except at the beginning of their lifecycle, though. That's not really new, nor specific to the PS4/Xbox.[/quote<] Sure. But one could argue that in the case of the PS4 and especially with the hardware and price point of the Xbox One, this is the case this generation more than ever. When the Xbox 360 came out, for example, it was packing similar hardware that you would need to pay a comfortable margin above $1000 to get gaming PC-wise. Based on speccs that we have now, the delta between $/performance for consoles vs gaming PCs has never been so close. [quote<]I also think HTPC gaming is more viable than it's ever been.[/quote<] And then there's this. With companies like Steam gearing up to offer almost console-competitive living room gaming experiences on HTPCs, the advantages that past consoles had in this regard are certainly diminishing. Plus, with the mini ITX motherboards and enclosures that have been coming out recently, you can easily build nice looking HTPCs now, more than ever. At least those that compete in this regard to consoles. I mean, it's not like the PS4 or Xbox One are going to win any beauty contests. Heck, you may even be able to build a mini ITX PC with comparable or superior performance that has a smaller footprint than either (though not by much). The major downside to HTPCs for gaming that hasn't been mentioned (though you did sort of allude to it) is that with a console, you don't need to worry about the operating system, updating hardware drivers (though, again, things like Steam have come along way to even the playing field in this regard) or, say, worry about running into PC ports with poor compatibility for your game controllers, etc. But all of this is improving. Consoles may continue to be appealing first and foremost because they have a lower initial buy in cost than a comparably performing PC. Especially at launch. And this is appealing to many. The fact is, when you think about total costs over the lifetime, or even the first year or two of ownership (assuming you are actually buying games and paying for multiplayer), the cost advantage of the console quickly goes out the window. And if you don't play games, you can get a cheap HTPC (for about the same cost as these consoles) or even cheaper set-top box that will handle your living-room media playback needs - in the case of the HTPC, probably better than the console (or at least with more options/flexibility).

          • cobalt
          • 6 years ago

          I think we basically agree here.

          Well, maybe not about HTPC cases. As far as I can tell, you mostly have two options in mini-ITX chassis: (1) Silverstone/Lian Li that have PCIe space but look like small computers, not HTPC cases (2) tiny NUC or slightly bigger, but horrific two-tone or off-brand eyesores that don’t have room for a PCIe slot. Virtually all cases that would look at home in a media center are monstrous micro-ATX or full-ATX beasts. There are only a couple promising ones like Wesena or Streacom (see the CyberPowerPC Zeus SFF), but half-height cards are so rare, you basically have the option of a 7790 or integrated.

          Basically, I can’t think of a better option except to wait for the PC versions of the X1/PS4 chips so I can find a mini-ITX case that doesn’t need room for a PCIe slot, but that’s obviously a compromise as well (e.g. upgradability).

          So yeah, better HTPC mini-ITX cases and half-height cards, manufacturers. Go! Make it happen!

            • cynan
            • 6 years ago

            Yeah, well there’s the rub. You’re just not going to find powerful GPUs on half-height cards. And if height is really important to you, then I guess the proprietary everything-solder-to-the-motherboard console design will most likely win every time.

            IMHO, I don’t really see the big deal of having a case that is an inch or two taller in my media rack.

            For example [url=http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811204042&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwordsCA&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwordsCA-_-pla-_-HTPC+%2f+Media+Center+Cases-_-N82E16811204042<]this[/url<] micro (not mini) ATX case (not that it is a real looker or anything) supports full height/length PCI/e cards and is only about 1.6 inches taller than the original "fat" PS3. It's also a bit wider than the PS3 was, but no wider than any current model receiver - so it won't look out of place under the TV. Maybe somebody will come up with an ingeneous way to fit a full height PCI card into a slimmer case, but even if that never happens, I'm personally not overly put out with the idea of having a case similar in dimensions to the one linked above in my living room. And a mini ITX version should be even smaller - if more cube like...

            • cobalt
            • 6 years ago

            The one you link is actually pretty decent, thanks for the link! I’d prefer a bit smaller, but I’m actually probably okay with a full-height card in a micro-ATX case size-wise like that one — I’ll poke around for more with that design. (The nMedia one has too a bit much clutter for my tastes, but the layout is pretty good.) So many of the mini-itx ones like the SG06 go vertical instead of horizontal and add height on top of the PCIe slot instead of going a little wider, so the entire proportion just looks weird.

    • superjawes
    • 6 years ago

    [url<]http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/11/playstation-4-drm-policies-third-party/[/url<] "The DRM decision is going to have to be answered by the third parties, it's not something we're going to control, or dictate, or mandate, or implement." Interesting move. Sounds like you can still get the shennanigans people are worried about from XBone, but Sony is diverting to your EAs and Ubisofts.

      • cobalt
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t think that statement means anything is different from e.g. the PS3 era, though.

      The PS3 has always-online games, for instance, that require you to be always connected online. It has MMOs. It has games with EA’s ‘online pass’, which is a type of DRM. In other words, the PS3 never prevented publishers from shenanigans either.

      The key piece hasn’t changed: the PS4 does not require regular checkins, it will allow you to play offline, and it doesn’t have any built-in activation to tie the game to your PlayStation accunt.

      So if a PS4 game comes out with a draconian DRM requirement, or does not allow you to play offline, we can give the publisher hell for it, just like we’d do if they did it today with the PS3 or Xbox 360 (and which we sometimes already do for PC games, SimCity).

      Edit: heading off one obvious response: yes, it’s possible with the Xbox One’s schemes, publishers might think they can/should apply DRM more broadly than they do now even for the PS4. But not having it built-in to the console itself, I think, is still critical.

        • Darkmage
        • 6 years ago

        Is that not similar to Sony’s approach to online connectivity? IIRC, Microsoft made a host of services available to developers including account management, connection code, server discovery and a host of other infrastructure APIs to assist developers with creating online components. You had to use their services, but they were provided to you. Sony let you build all of your own stuff, using whatever servers and net code you could fit on the disc.

        Perhaps Microsoft is taking the same approach to DRM. They provide the tools and the developers have to use them if they’re going to use them. Sony lets the developers roll their own.

        I dunno and frankly I’m talking out of my posterior, but it makes a kind of sense.

          • cobalt
          • 6 years ago

          In theory, yes, what you’re saying could be possible. But it doesn’t sound to me like that’s the case for the Xbox — MS was pretty clear that the 24-hr check-in and tying the game to your account was inherent. It was only the letting you *un*-tie the game from your account that they’d give the tools to publishers to allow.

            • Ryu Connor
            • 6 years ago

            Based on an update to that article it looks like that discussion was only about the concept of Multiplayer/Online Passes, which is an idea EA has decided to drop.

            Not sure if Activision, Ubisoft, or one the others even bothered with online passes.

            In short the PS4 is just like the PS3 with regard to DRM.

    • gmskking
    • 6 years ago

    After the red ring of death. MS will not see a dime from me ever again.

    • spigzone
    • 6 years ago

    Sony just bent Microsoft over the Xbox One and gave them a whole new kind of Red Ring of Death experience.

      • spigzone
      • 6 years ago

      Who DARES to down vote me!?!?!??!?!!??!?!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

    • bthylafh
    • 6 years ago

    When I saw this pic, the first thing I thought was “this looks like a flatbed scanner”. I still want to flip it open and put a piece of paper in.

      • Farting Bob
      • 6 years ago

      xmas 2013 will see a VHS player go up against a flatbed scanner for most coveted present. Who’d have guessed that a few years back!

        • PenGun
        • 6 years ago

        My Eppy V700 is a better scanner than my Zenith but my Zenith has settable levels for sound recording and is a much better audio recorder.

    • deathBOB
    • 6 years ago

    I’m interested to see if the absence of a robust used games market will drive Xbox publishers to offer more sales like the PC gaming market does. Given a competitive market (I see no indication that the games market is not competitive), Xbox game pricing should equal PS pricing + possible returns from game sales.

    Let’s be honest, do gamers ever predict anything right? They complained about paying monthly MMO costs, but MMOs were wildly successful. They complained about Steam, free-to-play games, paying for online access for consoles, lack of backwards compatibility, etc. all of which were fine. Don’t trust the Internet echo chamber, it’s frequently wrong.

      • Hattig
      • 6 years ago

      For those people that do sell games once they’ve played them, that money usually goes straight into another game purchase. So are game publishers actually that much better off by restricting used game selling?

      Gamers might not predict everything right, but if they’ve all gone and purchased a PS4 already they’re going to invest time in that, and maybe later get the XBone – the reverse of this generation. But one thing about buying that second console is you go out and get the old classics cheap – second hand or “platinum” – but the former won’t exist, and there is no incentive for the publishers to do the latter without competition from used game sales.

        • bcronce
        • 6 years ago

        Developers get charged for downloads from Sony/Microsoft. So if you re-sell a game to someone and they have to download patches/DLC/etc, the Developers of the game will get charged.

        Yes, re-selling games actually costs developers money, but I guess they’ll just have to calculate that into their games prices.

          • nanoflower
          • 6 years ago

          But one thing about used games is that unless it’s some special edition (like an Ultimate or Game of the Year) it won’t come with a lot of the DLC. So, if you like the game and want to play the DLC you will need to buy. Take Saints Row 3. If you buy the standard game there’s over $30 of DLC that you could buy even if you got the game used. So there can be a benefit to the developer if someone buys a used game.

    • steelcity_ballin
    • 6 years ago

    *COUGH* [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/ps4-owners-will-need-playstation-plus-subscription-for-online-multiplayer/[/url<] *HACK* I really, really loathe additional fees for things that should be built in. It's not quite the gatekeeper's fee that MS has for say, Netflix, but it's still a crappy way to treat your consumers IMO.

      • Decelerate
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t know, as an outsider (neither played the X360 nor PS3), I have to say that Live! trounces the Playstation store.

      • nico1982
      • 6 years ago

      PS+ gives you free games on a monthly basis. This alone worths the subscription.

        • thesmileman
        • 6 years ago

        Agreed! I thought PS one would be a joke but you get GREAT games all the time.

        • JohnC
        • 6 years ago

        Yeap. Here’s a list of the games that were provided for free for PS+ subs during last year:
        [url<]http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1dlqok/what_does_one_full_year_50_of_playstation_plus/[/url<]

          • Techgoudy
          • 6 years ago

          Thanks for the list JohnC, looks like they gave away some awesome titles. Not that I plan on getting an Xbox One anytime soon until they sort out their mess (if they ever do). I hope Microsoft gives some awesome titles as well that make the subscription worth it as well.

    • tipoo
    • 6 years ago

    They really demolished Microsofts presentation in every way, no DRM, no online checks, 100 dollars less, significantly more powerful, more NEW IPs at launch than microsoft has games in total at launch. And only 50 dollars more than the Wii U and it kills that too.

    • albundy
    • 6 years ago

    wait, ms wants $500 for a cr@p box 1? ROFL!!!! that made my day!

    • moose17145
    • 6 years ago

    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA[/url<] BWAHAHAHaaaa!!! oh yes.... Sony is definitely capitalizing on MS's stupidity

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 6 years ago

      [url<]http://youtu.be/5yC8FbgGnd0[/url<]

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        Well, I suspected this might be the case when I said that the Xbox One is one giant reason to buy another 360, which is why they were re-releasing it with Xbox One trappings.

        I guess it’s good to see I wasn’t far off.

    • Firestarter
    • 6 years ago

    I never thought I’d say this, but I’m considering pre-ordering the PS4.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    This was the obvious outcome.

    With the PS3, MS didn’t win so much as not lose. Sony didn’t get beat as much as beat themselves.

    With the Xbox One, Sony didn’t win so much as not lose. MS’s beatdown came mostly from the setup they put in place ahead of these E3 shows. If MS had listened to consumers and avoided all their consumer-unfriendly choices (including bundling Kinect and adding $100 on top of the console’s cost when the functionality most associate with Kinect’s ease of use is Voice Command, which could have been implemented without Kinect altogether and just a mic), then people right now would be complaining about Sony’s charging for online gaming now after preaching free online for so long.

    Instead, MS did so much wrong, made so many horrible choices, and used vague answers that only confused and further enraged the gaming audiences that had propelled 360 to success…

    …this outcome was almost assured from the get-go as long as Sony kept their pricing reasonable and their DRM/used games policies gamer-friendly. They did and so here we are.

    Anyone who buys an Xbox One now deserves to be “xboned” as meme is quickly growing to become a thing. Especially when MS has announced they’re ignoring Asia for an entire year. Just imagine the lead that Sony’s going to have by the end of next year with no competition in Asia for next gen and TV being one of the selling features for a console that won’t offer that feature in many countries that are not the US or the UK.

    With the early momentum in PS4’s favor, you can bet it will emerge now as the lead platform for most games, which is going to be bad for Xbox One since its GPU is weaker and its memory bandwidth is just half that of the PS4. They’re covering it mostly with the Cloud offload talk, but the reality is the Xbox One seems now destined to be the PS3 of this gen. Too expensive, too big, too much focus on things not related to gaming, and designed in such a way so as to prevent massive price drops right away. I expect now the lacking memory bandwidth, specialized caching, and inferior GPU is going to lead to Xbox One getting inferior ports from a version of each game built on PC, ported to PS4 first, and then ported again to Xbox One with less resolution and/or less AA. For that, you pay $100 more. Ridiculous.

    Even if you want the damn webcam functionality, you pay less with PS4+PSEye than you do for the whole package with the Xbox One. That’s rather sad. If you think Sony can’t copy Voice Command, I think you underestimate them.

    Gaikai is going to give them remarkable flexibility on b/c across many generations.

    Sony really learned what the 360 did right and MS really wanted to do everything wrong this time. Of course, slapping in the Windows 8 kernel probably didn’t bring good karma to the whole enterprise.

    We saw what happened last time a console released at $400 and another at $500, but they didn’t release simultaneously. I also wonder how many gamers who bought into the Kinect hype on 360 are going to be eager to buy into its hype again.

    • sschaem
    • 6 years ago

    And looking at the game play footage, Sony got an insane winner here!
    For little details like built in power suply VS large/heavy external power brick show the engineering prowess of Sony over Microsoft.
    And the PS4 is 50% more powerful, yet in a small chassis?!

    Overall, to me its official… MS officially lost the console war.

      • dmitriylm
      • 6 years ago

      This is an outright lie. The PS4 is not 50% more powerful.

      That being said, I may just go with the PS4 even though the XBOX 360 has been the better console for the current generation. I’ll see how things pan out going forward but so far the PS4 looks like the better buy.

        • cobalt
        • 6 years ago

        In what way is “50% more powerful” a lie? At least in terms of graphics performance: the PS4 has 1152 shaders and 1.8 Tflop/s, the Xbox One has 768 shaders and 1.2 Tflop/s. That’s a 50% increase.

        You might say the claim is “misleading”, as like statistics, all raw specs can be misleading in some way, but it does have 50% more GPU horsepower.

        (edited for grammar)

        • Voldenuit
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]This is an outright lie. The PS4 is not 50% more powerful.[/quote<] The Ps4 has 50% more EUs in its GPU and is running the CPU at a higher clock than the XBone. It doesn't have the [s<]128 MB eDRAM[/s<] 32 MB eSRAM of the XBone but has faster GDDR5 RAM than the XBone's DDR3. My money is on the PS4 being significantly more powerful, but I don't think it will matter outside of exclusives and sony's internal studios. EDIT: Corrected embedded memory specs, thanks Narishma!

          • Narishma
          • 6 years ago

          XBone doesn’t have any eDRAM. It has 32MB of eSRAM. Also, I don’t think we know for certain the CPU clock speed of either console.

    • maxxcool
    • 6 years ago

    /Vader/ Impressive….

      • dpaus
      • 6 years ago

      In fairness, Darth, it’s only ‘impressive’ compared to Microsoft’s monumental stupidity.

        • tfp
        • 6 years ago

        Yeah you should go get a Wii-U instead.

        • dashbarron
        • 6 years ago

        I always wondered what Korogth’s first name was, Darth apparently.

    • jessterman21
    • 6 years ago

    And the gaming populace can’t stop cheering.

    • Krogoth
    • 6 years ago

    The problem with Xbox One is that Microsoft’s upper management is trying pitch a dedicated gaming/multimedia PC as a gaming console, but fail to understand the appeal of gaming consoles. Console gamers don’t want to deal with all of the hassle that goes with a gaming PC (initial price tag of a performance gaming PC, software overhead, stupid DRM restrictions etc.) nor a gaming PC belongs in a living room setting. PC gamers avoid the Xbox One since it is a proprietary platform with no room for upgrading, tweaking the software settings and no third-party content or mods.

    It is kinda funny that PR launches for both consoles are a complete 180 degree from the last round. MS is doing the embarrassing show and Sony is understanding their key audience while snarking at MS’s feeble launch.

      • superjawes
      • 6 years ago

      Krogoth is unimpressed…and hasn’t been lurking in the SBA forums, apparently.

      I know enthusiasts are not the same thing as console gamers, but I think there’s plenty of appeal to having a media center device (in the living room) that can also do some gaming. Now whether or not Microsoft is doing it correctly…that’s another story.

      PC gamers are going to continue on PC. They aren’t going to rush out and buy either of these consoles. A year or two from now, when price drops kick in and more games are available, some PC gamers might pick one up. [i<]Might[/i<]

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    And I thought the Xbox One chassis wasn’t very nice.

    Edit – to those down-voters, it’s just that the internet has had some purported prototype images of the PS4 and they were prettier. Of course, the internet is full of hoaxes but still, it kinda quashed my expectations when I saw the final product.

      • Liron
      • 6 years ago

      As they say in the gaming forums, they look exactly the same except that the xb1 is in bold and the ps4 is in italics.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 6 years ago

        Who cares? The only question about a console is “can I stack it?” with the rest of my home theater setup/other consoles.

        OH WOW LOOK HOW SLEEK IT IS, now let me never pay attention to it ever again.

    • moose17145
    • 6 years ago

    Yea i would say sony has likely already won for this round of consoles. More powerful hardware, lower price, no restrictions with games….

      • Shambles
      • 6 years ago

      And then they had to go and put online multiplayer behind a paywall. They were [i<]that[/i<] close to doing something right for once. At least compared to Microsoft they still look like geniuses. Either way, the smart money was always on PC. It's still been interesting to watch how things develop on the console side.

        • Elsoze
        • 6 years ago

        Agreed, but like you said _compared to Microsoft_ it’s almost nothing. They already have a huge competitive advantage so why throw away profits?

        • cobalt
        • 6 years ago

        Yes, but it’s not all bad news on the PS4 online side: I believe Sony confirmed that online services such as Netflix do NOT require you to pay for PS+. Microsoft still requires you to pay for Gold to get Netflix et al. That makes the PS+ paywall at least a bit more optional than Gold.

          • Voldenuit
          • 6 years ago

          There’s also a promise of a free game every month with PS+. No word on what sort of game this is, and XBL Gold has a similar promotion I understand.

          An annoyance, yes, but it’s not a deal-killer for the console.

            • Narishma
            • 6 years ago

            The free game every month thing is already available for PS3 and Vita. All kinds of games are available through it, AAA titles as well as indie games and old PS1, PS2 and PSP games. For example next month’s free games will be [url=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/8975999184_8566aca932_z.jpg<]these[/url<].

            • cobalt
            • 6 years ago

            Absolutely. I simply don’t have as much time for gaming as I’d like right now, so I hate paying for Gold when I mostly use it to access the online streaming service I already pay for. If I had more time to play online, I wouldn’t feel too bad about Gold or PS+, and the free game promos certainly help make them worthwhile in that case.

            So as long as I’m time constrained for gaming, I won’t use the free game promos or the online gaming much. But with the PS4, I can still use the online streaming services without paying Sony for the privilege.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        For your $50 per year, you do get a lot of free games.

        I don’t use online, so I guess it doesn’t really affect me much. I’m just glad they didn’t put Netflix behind the paywall, too. At least there they did the right thing.

        • Hattig
        • 6 years ago

        Still, at least the paywall is fairly cheap, has free games and isn’t required to watch things like Netflix either. I guess you’ve got to pay for Gaikai and the cloud servers that the PS4 will connect to somehow. :S

      • VaultDweller
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]Yea i would say sony has likely already won for this round of consoles.[/quote<] Maybe. Microsoft's decisions pissed off the end-user, but I'm sure publishers they made publishers happy. If that results in the Xbox getting more exclusives, it could potentially give them the edge. Time will tell.

        • Krogoth
        • 6 years ago

        That’s unlikely.

        Publishers are more incline to go multi-platform, since both PS4 and Xbox One share the same underlying CPU/GPU architecture. PS4 just has a little more balls to it, but not substantially more. MS still doesn’t have nearly as many exclusives and franchises as Sony. It is basically Halo, Gears of War, Forza Racing and a few others. Sony has a load more on their belt, despite the PS3’s lackluster start.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        Ultimately, the publishers go where the customers are. If the customers are on a platform that is NOT giving them the control over the secondhand market they wanted, they’ll still go there.

        With MS giving up all of Asia for a year (effectively ceding it all to Sony, which is not just Japan), then I think you can count on publishers all targeting PS4 first and foremost. That has dire consequences for Kinect-use outside of exclusives and for ports from PS4 that will downgrade AA or resolution (or both) to make them run (still somewhat) less smoothly on Xbox One.

      • Silus
      • 6 years ago

      Yep, basically that’s about it.

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 6 years ago

      I’ve been waiting on these “next gen” consoles to decided if 1)I wanted to buy one and 2)which camp to reside in…. Always leaned toward the Microsoft camp but I think I’ve been jerked completely to the other side with not so much as a shoe left behind.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This