PS4 Vs Xbox One

[Mamora BAR]

The lines are being drawn. Xbox one has been officially announced today and honestly the announcement has been met with ALOT of backlash....mostly because of the fees that gamers will have when they attempt to play used games.

Games will be installed onto your account and your xbox, but if other people wanted to play the game they would have to pay around $40-$60 extra just to activate the game itself even after purchasing it used.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/xbo...y-game-installs

http://www.gamespot.com/features/xbox-ones...ed-tax-6408691/

I cant even begin to comprehend why microsoft is trying to monopolize the used gaming sector. It astounds me to no end.

Both systems seem relatively the same at this point and the only difference between them so far is fees and exclusives. The hardware on both is nifty and its to the point to where its as powerful as a PC's processor, which could also mean that console games being moved over to PC games wont be useless buggy ports.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._...omparison_Chart

I was much more impressed with what sony had to offer. As for Microsoft...im deeply disappointed. Waiting on june 10th to be convinced that Sony is smart enough to not charge gamers to play used games or to put all these stupid ass fees onto them. Plus you have to have Kinect plugged into the new xbox or it will not function.

I wasnt even going to partake in the console wars this time around, but the exclusives and visuals that i see on PS4 have me very interested. Games like AC4, GTA5, Watchdogs and Destiny have peaked my interest.

I think this whole used game thing may have dug microsoft an early grave. There are talks that they may reverse this decision, but the damage itself is probably done.

What yall think?

Time will tell when Sony announces what the PS4 will offer.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mamora BAR

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Not sure why this is an issue. MS is not seeing a cent for 2ndary game markets. For used game owners to complain borders on the hypocritical.

For me that's like hackers complaining about DRMs that work. Why should MS cater to the outrage of people who don't actually buy their games? Not seeing any problems with any of the big 3 if the decide to start charging people who want to support resellers.

What worries me more is the "always on". For single-player games, I don't need to be online to enjoy them and frankly I don't care about achievements to share with other players. If the PS4 stays away from this, then SONY wins the next console war before they even need to sell one console. EA recently "retired" one of their Creative Directors who deflected back on consumers for not being part of the 21st century if they don't have constant access to the internet.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

I have always been an Xbox fan and always will be. I have both a 360 and a PS3, but Ive had way too many bad experiences with Sony when it came to online and basic support help.

[C. Small 1st MRB]

PS4 hands down, I don't need to read anything.

Everyone knows reading things is 4 stoopid peeps , knw wht im saying bruv ?

[S. Richards]

Doesn't matter. The minute these systems are released they've already been outdated by my PC.

[Mamora BAR]

PS4 is going to win the console war if MS keeps up with the fees. Imagine if you had a game and you wanted your friend to borrow it OR you wanted to buy a used game from Amazon or gamestop if you will. You will be charged for buying the game ALONG with paying $40-$60 extra just to activate said game.

To me that is borderline greed and idiotic. People have been sharing games and selling used games since who knows when. Its a huge market. It doesn't have to make sense or be ethical because in the gaming world its A BAD IDEA. How would you feel if you could never buy a used car? Buy a used piece of electrical equipment? What if your friend wanted to give you his 60 inch TV cause he was moving BUT you couldnt use it because its locked to his "house" or whatever? Its the same scenario. Games will be locked once they are used to that specific system.

Like i said, it doesn't matter if this is the "right" way or if its hypocritical. The gaming world will reject it and they already are. If MS keeps it then PS4 will come out on top and that is if they dont do the samething.

I agree with engle on the support aspect. Sony has always been lacking in the tech support while MS dominates that area. I've never had a bad experience with my 360, but I'm not liking where the xbox one is going with all these fees being tacked on.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mamora BAR

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

So do you hate PC gaming because you cannot buy used? If anything Sony and Microsoft would be doing a favor by allowing pre-owned at all. Where are these fee numbers you're coming up with coming from? Those are from installing the game on your console. What about just taking the disc and playing it? They didn't say you'd have to install it to play. It'll probably be easier to install it to play it but i doubt that's the only way.

You said it yourself, this generation is basically a computer. And you expect the companies making the living room computers to treat them like consoles still. These are using the frameworks of computers. It's unfair to expect the companies to keep these consoles the same as they've always been. Or else I expect you to stop using Steam.

You weaken your argument by equating used games to buying other products like televisions or cars. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't make sense.

[Penkauskas 1st MRB]

Doesn't matter. The minute these systems are released they've already been outdated by my PC.

I for one will never buy a console system ever again. PC gaming gives you the most bang for your buck.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Penkauskas 1st MRB

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

[Mamora BAR]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/4352314/...e-game-installs

Games have to be installed. Once they are installed you dont need the disc anymore hence why second installation has the "fee".

I'm not going to argue semantics and get into a critical thinking match. Buying a product is buying a product. They are all products.

Their going to try and make it like a computer, but its not going to work. People will oppose it. PC gaming and console gaming have always been separated so justifying that this way is the "right" way, even though used games have always existed since consoles were first developed is breaking a huge gigantic mold that has been in place for years.

You are right i mean why not? Why shouldnt MS and sony make their consoles exactly like computers? Seems harmless enough, but the public will reject it. Their attempting to change something that has always been there into something that seems like a tax to those who play on consoles. Doesn't matter if pc gamers disagree and say o we pay full price ya'll should get over it. It's a totally different ball game when it comes to consoles.

I dont dislike pc gaming at all. In fact i enjoy that i can easily upgrade my parts and play any game i want. Thats whats awesome about it. I definitely sway more towards games that are on sale. Would that mean that they are going to do the samething as well where as consoles just discount their games since no one can buy used anymore?

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mamora BAR

[Goodwin 1st MRB]

While I prefer PC gaming - inevitably there will be some motocross game that gets released for one of the systems that will make me purchase.

I will go xbox - simply because it works with everything else in my house typically. The way I've been able to seamlessly integrate my 360 and the fact it had such a huge library of games (of which I only play MX and NHL) is neat, too.

I've never been a big Sony fan - and people who raved about the PS3 forget that it came out about a year after the xbox. That means they had an entire EXTRA year of R&D to put out something awesome - the best they came up with was blu-ray and built in wireless, otherwise the specs were very similar (save for slightly faster rendering of graphics on PS3 - but again, it was a year newer!). It should have blown the xbox away, but it didn't.

Having played a host of MX games on both systems (both single player and online) the online environment is hands down better with xbox. Sony has quite a ways to go IMO in that arena as well.

This time they're coming out much closer in time frames. It will be interesting - but I think with MS' relationship with so many more developers their game library will help them keep the PS4 in check regardless of used game markets. I've only ever bought 3 used games in my lifetime - so I don't really care. And the large majority of gamers who buy these systems first thing upon release? Well, clearly they have enough money they won't be going used for quite some time either. I don't see it becoming an issue until a year or so down the road when people are actively seeking used games - and by then? I'm sure plenty of other things will have come out in similar shape/fashion that will make it a trivial point (if still an existent point at all). Microsoft doesn't usually set huge precedents when it comes to risky maneuvers so I imagine the either know something about the market we don't - or they'll make some changes to their policies before it's said and done.

Just my $.02.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Argue semantics? Do you know the meaning of the word? Disregarding the obvious flaws in how you equate two entirely different products makes this a forum where you can rant with no point. We should, therefore, allow people to resell apples they've taken a bite of. After all, a product is a product. Can't argue the difference between an apple and a video game, because apparently there's not a difference. You can't retort because that's semantics.

Have fun with the "public rejecting them" when all the new games are being released on new consoles. The layman probably won't know the difference once it lands. You don't see me retrofitting an old PC to play Full Throttle, since the new systems cannot play it. And yes, there will probably be sales. With the release of Sony's 4K TV they stated their intent to distribute more content digitally through cloud software. what's that?Both consoles have a heavy emphasis on cloud software? Oh my. Cross platform competition to start chipping away at Valve.

[Mamora BAR]

MS and the 360 have always had superior services. It makes sense with the yearly fee, you get what you pay for. What i dont understand is why are they trying to get rid of the used gaming market at all? To be honest i havent touched a console in awhile. Sold my 360 and i got a ps3 for free and I dont even play it much. Its not so much that people are moaning and groaning over backwards compatibility, but they all seem to be enraged by the whole charging fees for used games. They see it as nothing but a cash grab.

Some of the examples I've seen are like people wanting to play certain games on other peoples consoles. Like when they meet up for parties and such. Secondly what if a house has more then 1 system? Does that mean you have to buy the game 4 times for each system?

I'm failing to see the drive behind what MS is doing. I dont see a clear motive aside from angering console gamers. I'm not even completely sold on getting a PS4, but from what im learning about the new xbox so far just seems a bit disappointing. Yes the cloud sounds exciting. It has possibilities. Does it mean that there will come a time where PS4, xbox, and pc gamers can compete against eachother? What im intrigued is that the hardware on these systems come up to par in regards to PC's. Does this mean that there will be easier ways for developers to transition their console games to PC since the hardware is relatively similar? No more crappy ports? No more 1 year late release dates behind consoles? Maybe PC will be a new market for console developers.

Then it will also depend on functionally. Like you said goodwin it goes with everything else in your house. Connectivity/syncing ect. E3 is going to be chaotic this year and make a world of a difference when the consoles are put through the tests.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mamora BAR

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

MS and the 360 have always had superior services. It makes sense with the yearly fee, you get what you pay for. What i dont understand is why are they trying to get rid of the used gaming market at all? To be honest i havent touched a console in awhile. Sold my 360 and i got a ps3 for free and I dont even play it much. Its not so much that people are moaning and groaning over backwards compatibility, but they all seem to be enraged by the whole charging fees for used games. They see it as nothing but a cash grab.

Some of the examples I've seen are like people wanting to play certain games on other peoples consoles. Like when they meet up for parties and such. Secondly what if a house has more then 1 system? Does that mean you have to buy the game 4 times for each system?

I'm failing to see the drive behind what MS is doing. I dont see a clear motive aside from angering console gamers. I'm not even completely sold on getting a PS4, but from what im learning about the new xbox so far just seems a bit disappointing. Yes the cloud sounds exciting. It has possibilities. Does it mean that there will come a time where PS4, xbox, and pc gamers can compete against eachother? What im intrigued is that the hardware on these systems come up to par in regards to PC's. Does this mean that there will be easier ways for developers to transition their console games to PC since the hardware is relatively similar? No more crappy ports? No more 1 year late release dates behind consoles? Maybe PC will be a new market for console developers.

Then it will also depend on functionally. Like you said goodwin it goes with everything else in your house. Connectivity/syncing ect. E3 is going to be chaotic this year and make a world of a difference when the consoles are put through the tests.

I'm not quite sure where the ambiguity remains for you. Those "halcyon" days of yore you keep referring to isn't the same as having an entire corporate entities profiting exclusively on the resale of games. And now Amazon has jumped on that bandwagon as well.

To be honest, the fact that we're even talking about the outrage of used games owners is telling me that you have little knowledge of how the video game industry works (once the gold master is approved).

Admittedly I'm having a hard time seeing how this is a cash grab when the price of used games compared to new ones is so negligible. There are only 2 parties who stand to lose in this deal (there's a 3rd group that I'll discuss after):

1) businesses who's primary source of income comes from the buying and selling of used games but pay ZERO royalty to the publishers

2) individuals who contribute to the 2ndary market by selling their games to (1) for financial benefits

If group (2) were to sell directly to other purchasers then I would say that there might be a legitimate gripe. But this is nowhere near the majority situation. Group (1) can purchase new games at 1/3 the face value of hot ticket items and resell them at 90-95% the face value of a new copy. Wash-rinse-repeat. Keep in mind that publishers see 0% of this.

However, I do agree that this situation would suck balls for people who want to lend the game to friends (group 3). While there's no easy solution for single-player games, there is no effect on multi-player online games since the principle is 1 copy / player. Also, I have yet to hear of situations where a household has more than one xbox/ps - if that household would have enough $ for multiple copies of a game then I would imagine $ would be the last constraint.

Again, what worries me more as a consumer than the disincentive of the new used games landscape is: "As for the rumors that claimed the Xbox One would require a constant online connection to run games, Wired says the reality is not as overbearing. Developers will be able to create games that hook into Microsoft's Azure cloud services and are unable to be played offline, but there is as yet no requirement for them to do so." What if my internet is down or I'm in a situation where I know I won't have internet but I'll have electricity. Then it's a situation where I can't even enjoy the product that I acquired legitimately. That's a real kick in the balls.

The reality is that the used games market will still exist. Except that the returns on that market will make places like Amazon and Gamestop/EB games think twice on how much they will be willing to charge for used games. There's also nothing preventing you from selling your used game directly to another consumer for $20. With the fee + 20, it's still likely to be less than a new copy. All it means is that it cuts out the leeches.

And before you think that I'm just spouting personal opinion, I actually do know of the impact of 2nd-hand games on developer bottom-lines.

[Peaker]

My big issue is that for me console gaming has always been a social experience. I am by far a PC gamer, but I can't count the times when I took my copy of Bushido Blade 2, Final Fantasy (Whichever number) or Chrono Trigger to a friend's house and we played the hell out of that shit for days. Now, I would have to bring my whole console, if I understand well. Also, there seems to be a big focus on Sports game on the Xbox One, which really isn't my genre.

If~ I buy the next gen, I will probably buy the PS4 if they have free online play, and don't basically do the EA style of DLCs where you have to pay for everything. I heard you will have to buy the Kinect separately and thus pay for many of the functionalities that they market their console on.

No retro compatibility sucks, but isn't really a surprise.

I will be waiting for the PS4 reveal and reserving my judgement until then, though the lineup of games seems interesting thus far, I like the Cyberpunk one, hoping for a good new Final Fantasy (Hahah who am I kidding.) and I've always liked the Killzone franchise. Mostly I will favour the side with the better quality RPGs.

I will not be discarding my gaming PC anytime soon though.

[Peaker]

My big issue is that for me console gaming has always been a social experience. I am by far a PC gamer, but I can't count the times when I took my copy of Bushido Blade 2, Final Fantasy (Whichever number) or Chrono Trigger to a friend's house and we played the hell out of that shit for days. Now, I would have to bring my whole console, if I understand well. Also, there seems to be a big focus on Sports game on the Xbox One, which really isn't my genre.

If~ I buy the next gen, I will probably buy the PS4 if they have free online play, and don't basically do the EA style of DLCs where you have to pay for everything. I heard you will have to buy the Kinect separately and thus pay for many of the functionalities that they market their console on.

No retro compatibility sucks, but isn't really a surprise.

I will be waiting for the PS4 and reserving my judgement until then, though the lineup of games seems interesting thus far, I like the Cyberpunk one, hoping for a good new Final Fantasy (Hahah who am I kidding.) and I've always liked the Killzone franchise. Mostly I will favour the side with the better quality RPGs.

I will not be discarding my gaming PC anytime soon though.

[Al-Jefri 1st MRB]

As a loyal xbox fan I'm pretty disappointed

[Cutts]

Pssssst.... don't tell Microsoft.... but it's the XBOX THREE.

Keep it on the downlow, because MS might get a bit embarrassed if anyone mentions it.

In other news, Windows 7 was actually Windows 6.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

In other news, Windows 7 was actually Windows 6.

1. Windows 95

2. Windows 98

3. Windows 2000

4. Windows ME

5. Windows XP

6. Windows Vista

7. Windows 7

Am I missing something? And don't not count ME because it was only out for a year.

[Mamora BAR]

I'm not saying your wrong Pand and in fact it does make sense. I'm well aware of the industry, but most console gamers aren't. It sucks to make that generalization it really does, but its true. If they did understand then there wouldn't be so much backlash over used games. People would understand and be like o yes! the developers do deserve more money and and the money goes straight to them because it is their creation that we have been graced with playing. Its not going to happen that way. People like deals, discounts, used items, and so on. If i felt that console gamers were ACTUALLY aware of the gaming industry and how it works I'de be like o ya they wouldnt have a problem at all. It makes sense. Sadly, they dont and there will be consequences as per my examples explained earlier. Are those mistakes and or casualties small enough for MS to continue down this path? If this is the sound thing to do and the right thing to do so developers actually receive the money they deserve from their work then why is the public against it?

Btw Evo has 2 xbox 360s (1 for him and 1 for his brother). It would suck for him if he were to buy a game then have to pay for it a second time for his brother to use it. The always online thing didnt work and is downright sucky.

Btw i apologize for being a bit snippy earlier kirk. Wasnt necessarily in a good mood yesterday.

Also is MS doing this for the developers? Is it guaranteed that these fees will go directly to developers? How much of the fee will go to them if any at all?

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mamora BAR

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Actually the fees are broken down before the customer buys the game.

Publishers sell a # of copies to the retailers on something similar to a "consignment" basis. A % of new copies not sold eventually get returned (depending on what's in the contract) and publishers refund the money to the retailer (this after any number of "mark-downs"). What the practice of used games does is that it curtails print runs made after the initial release. If retailers can sustain their business without needing to re-order quantities after release then all the $ gets diverted from the developers/publishers since the extra profit comes from resales.

However, I do have to say that there is also a quite a substantial difference when the developer is not also the publisher. The profits for 3rd party development is usually made upfront during the development process since they're contracted out. Depending on the developer, you certainly have some who can swing a % of sales revenue. But these are more the exception than the norm. I do agree that many developers will get little to no benefit from MS's decision but often these devs are part of the "99%". But that's the nature of the relationship between a publisher and a 3rd-party developer.

However, the reality is that all the top developers (the "1%") also happen to be or owned by publishers as well, while some developers happen to be part of console companies. The AAA games produced by developers in these categories are usually the top grossing ones so they also lose the most.

This is why the mobile market is booming right now with indie developers. On the one hand, it's entirely digital so there's no loss to resale markets. On the other hand, 3rd parties can now become their own publishers of sorts (once you take away Apple/Android's cut) - just like STEAM allows indie devs to do now.

A lot of what's happening with AAA titles nowadays is similar to the movie industry and their fight vs piracy. With so much on the line (some games have ridiculously large costs - rivaling many blockbuster movies), it's not surprising that the publishers resemble the big movie houses. The business models are different but the principles of digital content for both games and movies are similar - to simplify/increase end-user access and reduce the impact of piracy/resale (although less so for piracy since it's harder to convince people to pay for something they can get for free). Since the console companies are far away from having big releases as digital only, charging fees for supplementary accounts seems logical as long as they continue to print games.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pandalsson 1st MRB

[Lafy BAR]

In other news, Windows 7 was actually Windows 6.

1. Windows 95

2. Windows 98

3. Windows 2000

4. Windows ME

5. Windows XP

6. Windows Vista

7. Windows 7

Am I missing something? And don't not count ME because it was only out for a year.

Actually, based on the various kernels, windows vista was the 8th version of windows, and windows 7 and 8 are minor upgrades.

1. Windows 1.01-1.04 (85-87)

2. Windows 2.03-2.11 (87-89)

3. Windows 3.0-3.2 (90-93)

4. Windows NT 3.1-3.51 (93-95)

5. Windows 95,98,ME (95-00)

6. Windows NT 4.0 (96)

7. Windows 2000,XP (00-05)

8. Windows Vista,7,8 (06-present)

If you don't like that i'm mixing NT based OSs with legacy OSs then it could be

1. Windows 1.01-1.04 (85-87)

2. Windows 2.03-2.11 (87-89)

3. Windows 3.0-3.2 (90-93)

4a. Windows 95,98,ME (95-00)

Legacy Windows Terminated

4b. Windows NT 3.1-3.51 (93-95)

5b. Windows NT 4.0 (96)

6b. Windows 2000,XP (00-05)

7b. Windows Vista,7,8 (06-present)

Or if you insist on breaking out versions of windows that are essentially identical on the inside

4b. Windows NT 3.1-3.51 (93-95)

5b. Windows NT 4.0 (96)

6b. Windows 2000

7b. XP

8b. Windows Vista

9b. 7

10b. 8

The numbering is screwy because Windows NT 3.1 was either NT 1.1 if you think of NT as something new not based on older versions of windows (which it is) or 4.1 if you want to keep the numbering for a new product. But in no way was it Windows 3.1, that already existed.

[M. Johnson 1st MRB]

It all does not matter, as it all comes down to personal opinion.

[Cutts]

OK... so the Windows numbering scheme is TOTALLY fucked. It doesn't matter what angle you look at it, there is no way in hell that you arrive at 7 when counting up to "Windows 7".

The internal version number:

Check it out, if you're running Windows 7.

Bring up a command prompt, and look at the version number at the top. Almost certainly 6.1.7601. But whatever it is, it will be 6.1.

Vista was 6.0, so they're both a type of Windows 6. If you want to look at the build numbers, though, we jumped up to 6000 for Vista, having previously been on 3790 for the end of the XP/Server 2003 life cycle. So build numbers are kinda crazy and don't really mean a lot.

The Windows NT Family History:

OK... so here is the NT family history. So 7 is the 6th major release of NT, unless you count NT3.5, but then if you count 3.5 you should also count 3.5.1 (from the perspective of marketing) which would make it the 8th release.

(1) Windows NT 3.1 - 3.5.1 (1993 - 1995)

(2) Windows NT 4.0 (1996)

(3) Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0) (2000)

(4) Windows XP / Server 2003 (aka NT 5.1 or NT 5.2 for the 64 bit version) (2001)

(5) Windows Vista / Server 2008 (aka NT 6.0) (2006)

(6) Windows 7 (aka NT 6.1) (2008)

(7) Windows 8 (aka NT 6.2) (2012)

There are other numbering systems as well, though, if you also include the 3 Windows 9x releases, and the dos based 1.0,2.0,3.0,3.1 releases.

But anyway, it turns out that there are shed loads of reasons to number Windows 7 as 6, or 8, or 9, or practically any number other than 7, and no way of satisfactorily counting it up to 7. What we learn from this is that MS's marketing department just cannot count.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Cutts 1st MRB

[Arevicci]

PS4 hands down, I don't need to read anything.

Damn straight. Too many bad experiences with the xbox 360 to even consider it.