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:

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.

I watched the video and it was very interesting thanks for that.

I still feel like my points are not countered. I realize technically why live was superior but I know that despite it all Microsoft's marketing machine is a very important factor in it all, as well as of course the service level being high. And with the added injected dollars into the new servers I'm doubtful that image effect will dissipate anytime soon.

I understand that the PS4 is gamer/dev friendly, but the truth is it is too late. They are in head to head with MS now, and it will be tough. I agree including the camera and the higher pricepoint will put MS at a disadvantage to a certain extent, but remember that Kinect sold a lot of 360S' at the time and that appeal is not leaving. So it's give and take. They lose on the core on that front, and they win on the casual end due to that inclusion. It's a very tough call.


Well as far as marketing is concerned the only place Microsoft can majorly affect in the beginning is America based on the console itself and some of Europe with the help of EA on the fantasy football. I don't think it will sway the Europeans any though. The Europeans will appreciate the lower price just like the Americans with better graphics and on par multiplayer experience. Sony allows gamers the choice as well for motion gaming which they always have which frees consumers as an alternative from Microsofts once again forceable nature on buying products. Its not a race for the swift and as you've seen with the PS3 this is the case.