By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 02 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Microsofts marketing isn't outdoing the PS4 hus far though. Even on Jimmy Fallon the PS4 got a better crowd reaction. History has shown that Microsoft more often than not will outsell Sony unless it comes to certain pieces of content (Halo, Gears, Kinect, etc). MS  Putting them up against each other head to head is almost as bad as giving Sony a head start. Sony having a price, graphics and online parity for multiplayer online is not healthy for Microsoft, not healthy at all. As I said, Nintendo severely hurt Sega because they kept third parties away from them, Sony hurt Nintendo because the third parties chose their platforms willingly, MS cut Sonys marketshare because Microsoft knew third parties sell the majority of the consoles. MS can only  hold down the fort initially based on price in America and they've lost that battle. As Jack Tretton said on IGN recently, its the core gamers that matter because they are the first initiators and after that the purchases and influence spread like wildfire. 

S.T.A.G.E., if people chose xbox live above PSN when it was free, what makes you think they will when the services are on parity? Let's be real here. I understand Sony's price advantage from a console pricepoint perspective, but so far the numbers say Xbox Live wins hands down sales-wise against Sony's online offerings, at least in the US and UK.

MS held down the fort by moneyhatting 3rd parties and by offering them a development environment that was pleasant to them (similar to PC dev thanks to Direct X and PC-like architecture).  The pricepoint also helped but it's only part of the equation. And if what Jack Tretton said was true, why is the PS3 surpassing the 360 now, despite the 360 having the early lead with exclusives such as gears of war and halo (which were geared to the core)? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.


People chose Xbox Live because of many factors, but I will name a few.

- First of all the Xboxes price which prompts intiators to explore the device and preach about it.

- User friendliness compared to PSN

- Uniform nature simplified for online usage with ease

- Cross chat ( the constant edge over PSN despite their efforts)

- Harmony between games and the online use. Sony caught up with this late in the generation.

-Xbox Live was a marketing machine helmed by COD, Halo and Gears of War.

Success is a great point but then again so is a dictatorship in the same respect. Xbox Live is forced upon consumers who plan on using the console. They cannot experience the online usage properly without Gold, whereas Sony let user dollars decide whether they want to pay for online or not based on offerings with Plus. Of the two Sony is definitely the more democratic or at least thoughtful of their audience. I dont have to work hard to prove this either.

Watch Jack Tretton on IGN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn5AraH6wAQ&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLE196726F02565118

- Outlines that in 2008 realizing the PS3 was a disaster and they had a discussion with developers on what they would want in a console.

- Outlines that they never changed their demeanor in the way the PS4 was going to be put together. Nothing was changed to beat Microsoft, they always had the people in mind. This is a people/developer friendly console, like it or not.

Microsoft moneyhats, but they did the original Xbox as well. The problem with the Xbox is that their race horses are generally not first party in any gen outside of Halo. Theres generally a third party that keeps their credibility afloat. So far it seems Respawn is that company, where as Epic was this gen and Bioware was the gen before. Sony doesn't pick a developer they let every developer have a say and their second party remains their second party for years.

As far as exclusives between Sony and Microsoft, I don't really need to say very much when it comes to internal studios.