By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Can Titanfall be THE GAME That Pushes Xbox One Above PS4 in America?

chapset on 09 January 2014

wasn't the X1 suppose to dominate the ps4 2:1 in December? what happened guise



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Around the Network
Jereel Hunter on 09 January 2014
chapset said:

wasn't the X1 suppose to dominate the ps4 2:1 in December? what happened guise


Did anyone anywhere ever say that? Seems like this statement is challenging something that was never said. Everyone, everywhere expected the PS4 to come out stronger every since the X1's disasterous unveiling.



Jereel Hunter on 09 January 2014
sales2099 said:
Jereel Hunter said:
Hiku said:
deskpro2k3 said:
The superior version of Titanfall will most likely be on PC.

^This

Kyuu said:
People keep mentioning price cut as a potential Xbox advantage. Why are you assuming Sony can't respond with a price cut of their own?

Unless Microsoft pulls another 180 by ditching Kinect, price cut will never be an advantage for them.

^And this.

If there's one thing Sony obviously learned from their mistakes of the PS3 launch, it was the price of the console.
They now have a technically more powerful console than Microsofts, and at a lower price. Who's to say they are willing to let go of this advantage if Microsoft cut the price of their machine? Sony may very well follow suit.

As for Titanfall, plenty of people will no doubt go for the PC version. Not just because it may be the best version, but also because they already own a PC, etc. When it comes to the long term, I'm not sure if Microsoft will still own the console exclusive rights to it. From the sound of it, it may be a time exclusive deal.

In conclusion, I think Titanfall will certainly boost Xbox One's sales. But whether it'll outsell PS4 or not I can't really say.

It's unlikely that Sony would follow suit on a price cut if they didnt' HAVE to. The reason MS has room to make a price cut is because MS has money. Loads of it. Every division prints money. MS makes more profit, per quarter, than Sony, as an entire company, has made in the last 10 years. If they sell their next 8 million units for $100 less, their profit margin for the year goes from $27 Billion to $26.2 Billion.  To even match half that price cut on an equal number of units, sony stands to risk going from in the black for the year (not something they even do consistently) to in the red.

As much as I would like MS to just dump a cool billion into the Xbox division to fund a price cut, it will just look bad to the shareholders and show up as red ink on a otherwise black quarterly report. For better or for worse, they want to be profitable with their current funding. Good news is 360 is still as expensive as ever with their 2008 prices........ugh. It should help pad the X1s first couple years.


Oooh it won't happen like that, the numbers I talk were purely an example of the economic strength of MS. Not that they'd kiss goodbye to $800M as if it was nothing. But rather, dropping price in order to induce sales over the year on par with PS4 (instead of selling way less) is financially viable for them. Obviously what I said didn't go into true numbers, as the lost revenue per unit would be made up for by

1) far more volume. If they made 8M sales with a $100 price drop, they'd probably be looking at 5-6M without

2) software sales volume - obviously each of those sales would buy some games, and those profits would mitigate the loss.

My example was purely to show that MS could risk the financial shift of a sudden, big price drop. It would be very dangerous for Sony to attempt even a more meager drop (until it was NEEDED to stimulate sales)



Machiavellian on 09 January 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:


Yes MS has had first party studios and killed them and so have the competition.  Did Sony not kill off 3 studios themselves.  I am not sure what your point is.  All of the console players have had and dropped dead weight.  This is not a measure of how competitent either are at creating studios.  Actually the studios from Sony I believe that are the most successful are the ones they bought not created.


They probably did kill off three businesses, but Sony hasn't left a trail of dead first party like Microsoft is all I am saying. Look at much first party Sony has now that MS forced them to not depend on third parties and now its only going to grow. MS has to match them, but they will still depend on third parties. The most successful companies have the most creative people with an eye for what people enmass want. Its easy for a corporation to buy what they couldn't make themselves. For Sony to have a vision with Naughty Dog since 1995 and come out with the games in tandem that they have together, you start to understand the level of creativity that not only flows through the developers that they align themselves with but the administrative portion of the company as well. Naughty Dog and Sony formed because they had and eye for Pixar-like games and wanted to be the forefront of that after Pixar blew up with Toy Story. Look at them now...they do that and they are onto bigger and better thing like Uncharted and Last of Us touting a much closer and creative relationship than even Rare had with Nintendo. I mean Uncharted was supposed to be a Lord of the Rings style game and Sony told them whats hot in the market and how to change it. They did the rest. All the major companies Sony purchased have an aligned mentality with Sony. Sucker Punch is no different. Sony believes in them in a way Microsoft would've dropped them for years ago. Companies like Naughty Dog &  Sucker Punch are examples of the extended style Sony touts that no one can match. Even Sony Santamonica has a similar attitude even though they do something different and Sony created them. Sony just has innate epic sensibilities especially since they are also a movie house. 

Remedy might make games for Microsoft, but they are moreso thankful for the money MS is giving them from what I've read because now they can make games as big and creative as they want to. Creative isn't Microsofts strongsuit unless you're talking OS which they floor their competition with (but Sony's isn't bad at all this gen). Look at Rares position and I feel bad for them because an outside company like Double Helix is making them look like asses. Its a shame and you know it. Rare is f'n done. Stick a fork in them unless Microsoft stops using them for Kinect. 

Stage, you are jumping to conclusions.  You state Ms has left a trail of dead first party studios, do you know how many.  I found 4, FASA, Carbonate Games, Ensemble and Aces Studio.  This is from 2006 to today.  If that is a trail of dead studios then Sony isn't far behind.  Most of the studios Sony own they bought.  They did not create those studios they bought those studios in the heyday of the PS2 so they can corner exclusive games from those top studios.  You make it sound like Sony created these studios in some type of Altristic way but instead Sony used good of business sense to grab as may good studios as they can to bloster their inhouse first party games to combat Nintendo and MS.  This is no different then what MS has done.  In order to stay competitive, they have bought or created studios using veteran talent.

Next you go on about Naught Dog.  Naughty Dog make damn good games and as long as they do that, Sony will continue to give them freedom.  3 Studios that have not performed have been closed by Sony so do not go on about how Sony believes and all this stuff.  Sony is a business just like any other and if any of their studios start to turn out crap of so so games, they will be on the block just like any other.

What I see from you is a double standard.  If it was MS who would have purchase a lot of these studios, you would be condeming them as predators.  Since it Sony, its all good.

My point is that MS and Sony are a business.  I do not see Sony any different than MS and I do not see them doing anything really different.  Sony had the head start and the proper business sense to purchase a lot of good studios when they were on top.  That has allowed them to weather the storm during the PS3 gen and it continues to be a strength this new gen.  MS it appears is serious about bring in exclusive talent to compete with Sony and Nintendo.  We will see how that turns up in a few years once those games get release.  I am not making any bets because anything can happen in the next few years.