KLAMarine said:
What difference does it make in the bigger picture? Today, there are things Microsoft does that neither Sony nor Nintendo do that are good for the consumer. Whether they are new or not shouldn't matter: Sony was among the first to introduce backwards compatibility and today, PS4 cannot play PS3 games. What difference does it make that they were among the first? None from what I can see: PS4 still can't play physical PS3 games. It matters because if someone isn't offering something good for gaming, and instead the opposite, then they don't need to be in the market.
I get that YOU don't want it but what about the other PS4 owners who do? They're screwed and they're not being forced to subscribe to EA Access. It's OPTIONAL. Not for PS4 owners though: it's mandatory that they cannot sign up as Sony has ordered. Contrast this to Microsoft that HAS allowed the OPTION.
Don't like it? Don't subscribe. It's not rocket science. You say that with one service. Then, Ubisoft does it. Activision. SE. Focus. Soon, every company has a service. Sure, you can say its optional, but its only a matter of time before they start putting things behind that paywall when they think they don't have as many subscribers as they would like. Like we have seen with DLC, it starts out small and with good intentions, then it balloons to where everyone is literally cutting content from the game to sell to you later. I'm glad Sony nipped this one in the bud. I'm paying for a Sony console to get Sony's services, including PS Plus, not have to buy into everyone elses just to get some extra DLC I want or because they are keeping their games off of Plus.
Had plenty to do with MS: they had to greenlight it on their console. If not for that, Bethesda mods might have just been an idea stuffed inside Bethesda HQ. Sony initially didn't want Bethesda mods but maybe the pressure got to them... Sort of... Competition is lovely isn't it? Sony is fine with mods. It's why they were the first one to allow them on their console. UT3 supported user-genereated mods on the PS3, while MS didn't allow them on the 360. Sony's problem with Bethesda is that Bethesda didn't want to have any kind of quality control or filter on their mods. Basically, let people do whatever they want, to hell with the repercussions to your console. Epic was completely fine with this, but Bethesda, who likes to let modders fix their games for them, were not. Bethesda is the one who bent to pressure, not Sony. Guess MS was the one forced to allow them, huh? Competition is lovely isn't it?
It's almost as if Microsoft are deserving of praise for competing with Valve's refund policy. No, it's not their idea but it WAS their idea to compete with Valve. I think this is a first for a console maker. Still, the fact remains, they had to adopt the standard Steam set. If not, there wouldn't even be a shot at competing.
Well where else would you download said games to without streaming? Thin air? You brought up the topic of emulation below. So, why doesn't MS just make an official 360 emulator app to play them on?
There are PS3 emulators that can run on PC built partially by volunteers and funded by Patreon.
Surely Sony of all organizations would be able to build one for the PS4. You see the specs that game is running on? The PS4 is not capable enough of emulating the Cell processor. Granted, I think it is completely ridiculous that the PS4 is not B/C with at least the PS1 games on PSN. Still, I expect the PS5 to be B/C with at least the PS4. It would also make sense for it to play the same PS2 games the PS4 can, as well as those PS1 games (would be no reason to keep them on the Store, otherwise.) Again, like I said, it's a nice feature to have. In the end, though, it means squat to most people and their want to purchase a console. Hence, the XBO's dropping sales, while the PS4 is doing fine.
I don't give MS credit for the tech, I give MS credit for putting 4K blu-ray playback into a revision of their old X1 when Sony didn't bother for their premium, upgraded Pro. It's surprising but then again, Sony sells 4K Blu-Ray players so perhaps that had something to do with it?.. Maybe. Might be more the fact that they know the market is extremely niche at this point and want to make sure they can drop the prices of their console without taking any losses from now on. Sure, it's a pure business decision, but it's a smart one. Let's just say a 4K Bluray player only costs them $15 extra dollars to put in. If they sell another 50M units, that's $750M they would have spent for a market that isn't worth that cost. MS knows they aren't selling 50M more XBOs, so they aren't at risk of losing that much on sales. Plus, they NEED something to put down as a bullet point. Of course, it isn't helping them.
Honestly, I didn't even think about DVD vs Blu-Ray back then. I cared infinitely more about playing video games on these devices. Of course. But NOW, it's something worth pointing out, huh?
Well isn't competition a lovely thing? PS4 forced X1 to ditch its old policies and now Sony's pulling back and Microsoft's getting a few jabs in. Good on Microsoft for that: if not for them to land a few blows from time to time, who? Jabs? More like flailing and missing each time. Maybe some Xbox fans think they hit, but the sales sure don't show it. Hell, XBO is in danger of not even being in the Top 100 on Amazon for this month. Something that hasn't happened to either console until now. The $400 Pro is outselling the $245 XBO. With all due respect thismeintiel, not sure you'd be the person to readily call Sony out when they push some not-so-consumer-friendly policies. You're quite enthusiastic about calling out Nintendo and Microsoft based on posts you've made in other threads... Sony fans are probably some of the better ones at calling out their console maker of choice. It's why they have gotten to where they are. It's probably why we no longer have online passes, which I also criticized them for. Why most posts, including my own, were sympathetic to people who hated that they switched to paid online. I'd say Nintendo fans are pretty good later on in the gen, after launch, especially if the console isn't performing the greatest. During launch it seems they can do no wrong, but that's more understandable. But this gen has proven that Xbox fans are the worst at it. Many were fully supporting the shitty policies of XBO. It's probably why MS was so dickish about changing it. "Hey, our fans still support us, we can go ahead with it. " If it wasn't for the gaming market of large, the XBO would be a draconian system with maybe 10M sales right now. And when it was rumored very early on that Sony may be going the same path, I already said I would be switching (back) to Nintendo if it were true. Fortunately, that turned out to be completely false. |
