| JustBeingReal said: Xbox One is still the same core system and as far as the games, well it's sorely lacking in exclusives compared to the PS4 and no PS4 wouldn't have been in deep anything, other than still far out ahead of the competition. If Xbox One had been built around a philosophy of gaming first, as far as it's hardware goes then Microsoft would have used a combination of DDR3 and GDDR5, which would have meant the SOC die wouldn't have needed to forfit valuable die space to eSRAM, it could have used more Compute Units, but just add in an extra memory controller to use 2 seperate pools. Also Xbox One would have been a genuine HSA system, instead of one where the majority of the system bandwidth isn't diirectly accessible to the CPU, meaning the design would have been overall much more efficient. Phil didn't even do his job of managing Microsoft Studios well, he's been on board with XB1 since the day it was conceived and the lack of first party content has been clear since 2010, so I really don't get how anyone can hail Phil as this amazing gaming figurehead Since he started as the boss of Microsoft Studios there hasn't been some major shift in 1st party games output from Microsoft, Sony on the other hand have already built that foundation and would have ended up with the same grander level of games support for PS4 now compared to what XBox One's managed to get. If anything Microsoft have lost their standing as being the platform for 3rd party content and without a lot of exclusives or even a bigger volume of games you simply can't get on any other platform holder's systems, then well Microsoft have actually been left with a reduced position.
Sony were just working with what they had, which is what they've always done and if anything they've just capitalized on their own vision for this generation. Microsoft really hasn't offered competition, especially not this generation and they only really got where they did last generation because of mistakes Sony made. Anyway the sitution is what it is and none of this talk deals with how badly this is going to go for Nintendo if they're really taking this approach of using Arm and a weaker platform than even XB1. It's definitely not going to appeal to 3rd party, since it's the entire opposite of what those developers require from a platform.
The only way an OS based approach to a dedicated gaming platform, with a variety of system specs works is if a large audience can get the games they want to play on it and that is not happening if 3rd party can't port their titles easily to an architecture they're building their games around and the weakest system specs of the whole thing don't meet the needs of the vendors involved. |
Yeah I agree. OS is not going to be a game changer. MS has basically an equivalent mobile OS as Apple/Google, even better in some ways to be honest, but no one buys a Windows Phone. Why? Because it doesn't have the same app ecosystem in variety that Apple or Android have.
Also really I mean, it's not like MS and Sony are stupid either. If Nintendo has some OS features that are really well done -- guess what? Sony/MS will copy them fairly quickly. You can't patent or copyright an OS feature.
And digital games ... so what? Who cares. You can buy every game digitally from Sony or MS already. So what if it's not as sleek of a service as Steam, it's more than functional enough to get gamers any game they desire easily enough.
If anyone else started really selling games because of an OS, it would be copied quickly. Even iOS was copied quickly by Google, Apple continues to sell big numbers because they have incredible marketing and brand prestige and their phones are top of the line in performance (something this NX is not even close to).
