there is no reason not to have both
It won't be long before both systems have unique enough games that will interest more people.
You guys are funny. Sure, the PS4 is finally profitable on a per unit basis. It doesn't erase almost a decade of heavy losses measuring upwards toward 10 billion that Sony had to deal with with the PS3. Microsoft is a healthy company with a sickly gaming division. Sony is a sickly company with a "finally" healthy gaming division. The Playstation 4 can't save Sony by itself, but Microsoft can easily carry a gaming division running in deficit. In spite of that, Sony will continue to heal and yes likely dominate this generation over the long term.
Rose colored glasses. I'm happy that Sony is having success in gaming for the first time since the PS2. I just think it's disingenuous to comment about the losses MS took with Xbox without also reporting the heavy losses Sony took developing the PS3 brand. Sony isn't righteous here. Both sides keep trying to force a nuggy on the other as if its a holy war...the ultimate game of "gotcha" so to speak.
In terms of market saturation, the PS4 has been extraordinary even without games. Sure, relatively speaking the XB1 is much less in numbers, but objectively still hugely successful when compared to historic numbers. Like it or not this generation will be a war of first party exclusives, as third party exclusives are going to be heavily attenuated. Sony might be on top of the tech curve, but the games are going to be distributed more evenly than ever before, except for first party exclusives.
I wish fans of Whirlpool and Maytag got this involved. Now, that would be fun to watch.
I don't want any game but The Show on PS4, and I could save money by getting it on Vita or PS3, if I REALLY wanted to. I don't consider the PS4 worth a purchase to get one game.
There's a reason to not have both, and it's that the PS4 lacks a library I care about, along with the fact that I don't care to spend the money and have more than enough games between 3 platforms without it.
For clarification.
Does the PS4 version of FIFA run in native 1080p?
Does the XB1 version of FIFA run in native 1080p?
What does the kinect version of FIFA introduce into the game?
Thanks,
ELmO
Further, I believe that neither console is worth the price of admission today if based purely on game availability.
Summary regarding Gaming:
Nintendo is doing bad.
Microsoft is doing bad.
Sony is doing bad.
Fair enough? Now cue all the apologetic posts. Sony as a whole is hemorrhaging so much a "successful PS4 launch" means peanuts. Microsoft as a whole is destroying bank accounts "a terrible XBone launch" means peanuts. Nintendo, well not many say good things (until E3 that is) about Nintendo.
Yet, people will continue to say "Sony is AMAZING" or "Microsoft is AMAZING."
Confront them, and they change their argument "stock holders aren't worried" or some other nonsense.
Well, when you got corporate spin, both companies are breaking unbelievable records! So much so, everyone already forgot Xbone has undersold X360 in the same time frame (dat record breaking!) PS4 still hasn't surpassed PS2 numbers (toss that tinsel high!) Keep in mind how each console launched, their hurdles at launch, and end of it - they're pretty much tied with previous console launch time lines (but that 1million day one sale!) Yes, that is amazing, and for the record books. But, then I think about the consoles - PS1/PS2/PS3 each used a new generation laser that had production issues, PS4 doesn't. PS1/PS2/PS3 used non-standard off the shelf components, PS4 doesn't. Then Xbone uses pretty much everything off the shelf, but didn't face that crippling hardware failure rate that caused a shortage of units as MSFT scrambled to allocate some of their shipment for replacements.
X360 was revolutionary, PS4/Xbone are pathetic evolutionary steps.
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but from Day 1 both consoles outsold their counterparts based on release data. There is no way a brand new console is going to outsell in volume an established system with a ton of games being sold at a fraction of the price. That is an unreasonable expectation and neither company expected to do that. You have to take the wide view here.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...of-predecessors-during-first-six-months-in-us
The PS2 initially sold well partly on the basis of the strength of the PlayStation brand and the console's backward compatibility, selling over 980,000 units in Japan by March 5, 2000, one day after launch.
The PS2 also had zero real competition. The Dreamcast released like 2 years before in Japan. Had the PS4 launched by itself, I would have sold a lot more IMO (same with the Xbox One).
It also launched with a huge library of titles (all PS1 games) and the ability to be a cheap DVD player.
Your argument was the PS4 wasn't doing as well as the PS2. Perhaps, that is entirely production capacity related?Unless Sony could produce more units (which they said they were already at production capacity) these 'what ifs' don't matter much.
Better argument would have been "PS4 had more pre-orders than PS2" which is most likely true.
The PS3 cost $600. Plus, Blu-ray didn't win until after that. DVD had won before the PS2 came out (in fact, I can't even remember what it competed against, if anything at all).So explain PS3's numbers versus PS2.
It, too, launched by itself (in some territories), had the biggest catalog (PS1+PS2) games, still didn't manage to surpass the PS2, while being the cheapest Blu-Ray player for months (if not years).
Are we in another video gaming crash?
Also keep in mind the PS2 would have sold a lot more if Sony didn't hold back because of their DVDROM drive supplier issues(still bothers me that they kept selling them knowing they were bad).PS4 launched to the biggest gaming market (USA) first and has failed to outsell the PS2 in the same time period when compared to it's JAPAN numbers.
Forgot to add that both versions also have 2x MSAA. Yes multi sample anti aliasing is enabled on both, not fxaa or mlaa or any other cheap blur AA. This is significant because I don't know of another game that has this enabled both ways.Fifa14 is 1080p @ 60fps on both consoles. Kinect allows you to change your lines by speaking commands. You have to go through a menu without it. So on the XB1 you can change your squad through uninterrupted game play.
Ps3 was both production limited and god awful expensive.
Ps4 is slowing down for the summer, remains to be seen if it will pick up like crazy again. Xb1 has fallen behind 360 in terms of monthly sales. Ltd is skewed for both due to highest initial launch window availability of all time. Xb1 sales were massively front loaded, 2014 demand has been average to poor. It's in a real danger zone in Europe. U is stable but slow, but only Nintendo has historically been able to play the niche game with profitability. The tablet bloated their bom and resulted in an msrp that was too high, but that should be fixed on both ends by the holidays.
Regardless of anyone's emotions on the subject, Xbox has been a horrible business venture for Microsoft so far. The totally of the expense vs return is still deep in the red, the tail end yearly profits on 360 even added together don't make up for any of the worst years. Xb1 was intended to be a massive success with paywalls for all living room entertainment and paywalled used games as well. All of that is broken along with huge wastes in the NFL license and kinect 2. Instead of domination of the us and splitting Europe, they're 2nd place in the us and nearly dead in Europe, all with a scaled back business model that sees far less potential profit per unit than before.
I doubt the investors will cut them any more slack when the xb1 accounting comes into disclosure. The promises were for a payoff, and instead there will certainly be considerable losses. 360 software sales are crashing (all 7g is dying rapidly), and launching a console is always hugely expensive. Even with perfection, ps4 and xb1 would lose money year one, but with current market realities, the xb1 losses will be insurmountable even if years 3-6 are in the green.
People hear hype like 'every ps4 or xb1 is sold at a profit', but in the real world that's just the physical bom, the billions involved in infrastructure, labor, marketing, legal, licensing, warranty, support, development, failure rate, warehousing, ad infinitum make for a bleak picture overall. It's particularly jarring to Microsoft investors due to the stark contrast to their enterprise sector that sees greater profits per quarter than gaming consoles could ever achieve.
It's bizarre to me, the real money is in software and services, and Microsoft should know that. In an alternative reality, Xbox was steam, and Microsoft simply built a stable of top tier inhouse devs, and watched as billions in profits piled up every year like clockwork. Even on losing consoles like the ps3, they could have profited handsomely just making the best games.
No clue if you're right or wrong, but I've always wondered when I read these posts, where are you getting this hard financial data? I don't see much coming across the business side in terms of their stock about the xbox at all, other than they're releasing one. I've not really heard one way or the other about how in the red they are outside of some game site saying they are. I'm prob completely missing it, which is why I ask.
No clue if you're right or wrong, but I've always wondered when I read these posts, where are you getting this hard financial data? I don't see much coming across the business side in terms of their stock about the xbox at all, other than they're releasing one. I've not really heard one way or the other about how in the red they are outside of some game site saying they are. I'm prob completely missing it, which is why I ask.
A lot of it is estimating. You can break down the parts and get an estimate cost, and then assume they are selling. Unless they actually come out and say "We are making a profit on every console." it is just guesses. Even with the Wii, it was Forbes that reported they were making a profit, and I can't find the article sources.
And losing money on console sales isn't a bad thing, as every game sold on that console generates revenue. Xbox Live and PS+ also generate revenue. Do you really think it costs that much to maintain those networks? Not at all. Do you really think Sony was "forced" to have to charge for PSN to keep it up on the PS4? Not even close. It is pretty much free money. Then, take into account anyone who purchases anything related to the Xbox. If someone is deciding between an Android or a Windows phone and they have an Xbox, they are just a little more likely to buy the Windows phone for all the extra integration. Or, any other product. MS uses the Xbox as a good marketing campaign. Like the Xbox? Well, it is made by MS and this other product is as well, I will give it a try! Unfortunately for Sony, they don't really have a ton of other product tie ins. They are losing to Korean electronic manufacturers and Sony pictures isn't exactly raking in the money either. They might have rejected the split now, but how about after another 10 years of loss on the TV side?
Also, MS having a console that is popular is selling Windows licenses. Developers are using Windows and DX, thus pushing their best products in sales.