Ballas said:
Johnw1104 said:
Perhaps I should refine my statement. Sony would have done well even against good competition, but with the dual faceplants Nintendo and Microsoft had right out of the gates they were given the opportunity to dominate the generation.
Truly, there's not an innovative thing about the PS4 (and I don't mean that as an insult); quite the opposite, it's the least "innovative" of the three, if innovative is said to mean bringing something new to the table. Instead, it focused on getting back to the basics, which is to say decent hardware, conventional controller, reasonable price, and a good list of games. While Nintendo and Microsoft were out there trying to redefine what gaming consoles should be, Sony just reverted to their older strategy of a simple, straightforward approach to gaming.
There's a reason the guys at Sony said they were jumping and cheering when Microsoft revealed their console would be $500... I was among the many that was leaning Xbox before that presentation, and Sony really needed a runaway success given the state of the conglomerate as a whole. They earned the victory with a quality product that whittled down those extra bits to what most gamers really wanted. Despite that, it can also be said that the console is doing immeasurably better as a result of the only two other options having some of the worst launches in recent memory. It just seems like companies can rarely avoid screwing themselves over in the console market by getting overly ambitious at times, be it a $600 console, a required gamepad, or a required constant-internet-connection + camera among other silly things.
As a side note, that's why I'm so surprised that Sony is pursuing Sony VR, as it sounds out of character and more like something Nintendo would try instead (though the development costs and strength of their hardware were likely prohibitive). I hope it works out, as it'd be fun to see Sony's again hugely successful gaming division thinking outside of the box.
|
They didn't innovate for the sake of innovating where it is not needed, aka the gamepad which is not as good as a controller. Also the constant internet connection required originally by XB1 is not an innovation at all, it was just a choice that any company can take with their console or game.
Sony did improve on the controller amd PSN which is what is required rather than innovation for the sake of it. PS VR I think is much more innovative though not unique, but definitely looks like something that could improve gaming especially genres like survival horror.
|
The first paragraph was precisely my point. Sometimes it's better to stick to the tried and true.
I actually credit Sony for changing both their controller and their online services to closer reflect what the Xbox brought to the table, which I think was a definite edge in favor of the 360 over the PS3 last gen. They improved what needed improving without creating problems where there didn't need to be any.
Microsoft tried to make their console more than just a gaming console, for instance (it's transitioning naturally in that direction anyway), and the gamepad, while cool, was not worth the additional costs it required. Both would likely have been better served by a more conventional console.
Btw, survival horror games are what initially opened my mind to VR. Watching people use VR headsets to play Alien isolation was just amazing lol
