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

Forums - Sales - Debunking Myths Around Here: PS4 vs. Xbox One

GotBoth on 14 August 2014
Norris2k said:

I agree on both, but I don't think any domination could make the diversity and games get better nowadays
. Domination is one of the many factors that made the PS2 so great and the last gen not so good game-wise. The others factors are game dev cost that exclude smaller studios and games, gamers favoring a few series of AAA games, and hardware looking more and more similar.Anyway I agree a lower level of competition on hardware doesn't have negative impact on game and studios competition.


Reading you comment, I think you may be on to something.  I hadn't considered the few AAA games that dominate the year.  Nowadays even if PS4 does PS2 numbers, no one wants to play Oddworld, Ratchet/Clank, Knack, Max and the curse of the brotherhood (ie quirky games).  So diversity may still fail.  But I have faith that may not be the case.  Because if HYPE is saling these PS4s (just like with WiiU) people who don't game are getting PS4s and they will not play COD, AC, Madden etc.  They will want family style games.  In other words i think PS4 is getting the WiiU casuals, not because they have software to recruit them but solely becaus eo fhype.



Around the Network
Augen on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
Augen said:
Competition is good in the sense that a pure monopoly can lead to business practices that hurt consumers.

If there was no competition we likely would see who ever had the monopoly charging more for systems, controllers, games, online services. While I can agree a market leader is good and parity can be an issue, no competition is definitely bad. All I have to do is view cable companies in the US and how poorly run companies can get away with when there is no pressure on them.

I would point back to PS2 gen, it dominated (pretty much like major cable companies) and we didn' see any of the issues you pointed out.  The other system during 6th gen could serve as the smaller cable companys that can't really compete but are still available (going by your analogy).


Really? Sony circa 2006 were very arrogant and decided to have a high end system for a premium price.  They made a system that had odd architecture that was harder to program for.

They lost a massive amount of market share. The result? The PS4. A more mid range and affordable system that was built with developer input.  Sony became a better company because they were humbled with the PS3 which was born of the arrogance of PS2 domination.

One only had to look to last year. You think Microsoft would have done a 180 if there was no challenger? They would have said "deal with it" and we would have had to deal with it with no options.  A year later the X1 is almost nothing like what was intiially revealed because the market told companies what it wanted, not the other way around which does happen in monopolies.



pokoko on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
pokoko said:
If there had been no 360, then the Sony would have had little reason to improve the online components of their service.

If there had been no PS4, we'd now be playing on the original version of the Xbox One.

Yeah, competition is good for consumers.


So how do you explain PS1 and PS2 generations.  Domination didn't lead to people saying those systems suck.  Some consider them greatest consoles EVER.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the PS1.  When the PS1 was built, Nintendo dominated.  In fact, in an effort to compete with Nintendo, the PS1 moved the industry forward by a significant amount.  It's existence backs up what I'm saying.

As for the PS2, it's dominance resulted in arrogance from Sony, where they thought they could introduce an over-priced PS3 and people would still flock to it like sheep.



GotBoth on 14 August 2014
Augen said:
GotBoth said:
Augen said:
Competition is good in the sense that a pure monopoly can lead to business practices that hurt consumers.

If there was no competition we likely would see who ever had the monopoly charging more for systems, controllers, games, online services. While I can agree a market leader is good and parity can be an issue, no competition is definitely bad. All I have to do is view cable companies in the US and how poorly run companies can get away with when there is no pressure on them.

I would point back to PS2 gen, it dominated (pretty much like major cable companies) and we didn' see any of the issues you pointed out.  The other system during 6th gen could serve as the smaller cable companys that can't really compete but are still available (going by your analogy).


Really? Sony circa 2006 were very arrogant and decided to have a high end system for a premium price.  They made a system that had odd architecture that was harder to program for.

They lost a massive amount of market share. The result? The PS4. A more mid range and affordable system that was built with developer input.  Sony became a better company because they were humbled with the PS3 which was born of the arrogance of PS2 domination.

One only had to look to last year. You think Microsoft would have done a 180 if there was no challenger? They would have said "deal with it" and we would have had to deal with it with no options.  A year later the X1 is almost nothing like what was intiially revealed because the market told companies what it wanted, not the other way around which does happen in monopolies.

180s DIDNT HELP.  The people buying Xbox Ones now would have bought them regardless of policies.  And last time I checked this was the first gen PS didnt have the highest priced most advanced (in terms of new technology) system so they were arrogant when they first lauched PS1 (Y R NOT READY campaign) and dominated, arrogant when they lauched PS2 and dominated and just so happened they lauched late 7th gen.  IF PLAYSTATION HAD LAUCHED IN SAME PERIOD AS XBOX360, 360 WOULD HAVE NEVER HAD A LEAD.



jnemesh on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
jnemesh said:
I disagree on the first part, but wholeheartedly agree on the 2nd. The videogame industry did just fine before MS entered the business, and it will do just fine once they leave! The idea that Sony would have a monopoly in that case is ridiculous as well...as they still will compete with Nintendo, iOS, Android and PCs!


Not for the sake of argument but for understanding.  Is there a reason you think games trump perception and word of mouth (ie HYPE). 


It really boils down to the games in the end.  When you have a console that has TWICE the number of games as the competition, there is more chance that some of those titles will appeal to you and you will buy because of those games.  Now, when I bought my PS4, very little was available...but I knew I wanted to play Infamous (mainly because I live in the Seattle area and wanted to see how good a job they did replicating the city in the game).  Infamous made me want to buy a PS4 in a way none of the XB1 titles did.  I also knew that more games were announced for the PS4 than the XB1, so I knew there was a higher chance of finding OTHER good games on the PS4 than the XB1.  I was not mistaken...



Around the Network
jnemesh on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
Norris2k said:

I agree on both, but I don't think any domination could make the diversity and games get better nowadays
. Domination is one of the many factors that made the PS2 so great and the last gen not so good game-wise. The others factors are game dev cost that exclude smaller studios and games, gamers favoring a few series of AAA games, and hardware looking more and more similar.Anyway I agree a lower level of competition on hardware doesn't have negative impact on game and studios competition.


Reading you comment, I think you may be on to something.  I hadn't considered the few AAA games that dominate the year.  Nowadays even if PS4 does PS2 numbers, no one wants to play Oddworld, Ratchet/Clank, Knack, Max and the curse of the brotherhood (ie quirky games).  So diversity may still fail.  But I have faith that may not be the case.  Because if HYPE is saling these PS4s (just like with WiiU) people who don't game are getting PS4s and they will not play COD, AC, Madden etc.  They will want family style games.  In other words i think PS4 is getting the WiiU casuals, not because they have software to recruit them but solely becaus eo fhype.

"No one wants to play Oddworld"???  I bought that game DAY 1 and haven't regretted it one bit!  It's an awesome game!



taggartaa on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
Augen said:
Competition is good in the sense that a pure monopoly can lead to business practices that hurt consumers.

If there was no competition we likely would see who ever had the monopoly charging more for systems, controllers, games, online services. While I can agree a market leader is good and parity can be an issue, no competition is definitely bad. All I have to do is view cable companies in the US and how poorly run companies can get away with when there is no pressure on them.

I would point back to PS2 gen, it dominated (pretty much like major cable companies) and we didn' see any of the issues you pointed out.  The other system during 6th gen could serve as the smaller cable companys that can't really compete but are still available (going by your analogy).

The reason the games for the ps2 were so diverse is because of all the competition within the ps2 platform (many developers competing to get the sales). Once you release a console, you can't really increase the price of it, that wouldn't make much sense to the consumer. The ps2 domination gave birth to the ps3 launch, an overpriced, late to market console (in the end the ps3 did fine because of price drops and constant support from Sony first party studios which was all brought on by competative pressure from the 360).

What is causing games to be more stagnant today is not compettition, it's development costs. Consumers demand state of the art visuals, physical effects, and open world scenarios. That is difficult and therefore expensive to make. The more expensive something is to make, the less risk the business is willing to take.



GotBoth on 14 August 2014
jnemesh said:
GotBoth said:
Norris2k said:

I agree on both, but I don't think any domination could make the diversity and games get better nowadays
. Domination is one of the many factors that made the PS2 so great and the last gen not so good game-wise. The others factors are game dev cost that exclude smaller studios and games, gamers favoring a few series of AAA games, and hardware looking more and more similar.Anyway I agree a lower level of competition on hardware doesn't have negative impact on game and studios competition.


Reading you comment, I think you may be on to something.  I hadn't considered the few AAA games that dominate the year.  Nowadays even if PS4 does PS2 numbers, no one wants to play Oddworld, Ratchet/Clank, Knack, Max and the curse of the brotherhood (ie quirky games).  So diversity may still fail.  But I have faith that may not be the case.  Because if HYPE is saling these PS4s (just like with WiiU) people who don't game are getting PS4s and they will not play COD, AC, Madden etc.  They will want family style games.  In other words i think PS4 is getting the WiiU casuals, not because they have software to recruit them but solely becaus eo fhype.

"No one wants to play Oddworld"???  I bought that game DAY 1 and haven't regretted it one bit!  It's an awesome game!

When i say "no one" i mean the masses.  That game will not sale 1 million (hell it wont sell 350,000).



mornelithe on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
pokoko said:
If there had been no 360, then the Sony would have had little reason to improve the online components of their service.

If there had been no PS4, we'd now be playing on the original version of the Xbox One.

Yeah, competition is good for consumers.


So how do you explain PS1 and PS2 generations.  Domination didn't lead to people saying those systems suck.  Some consider them greatest consoles EVER.

Well, my theory there is that PS1-PS2 and the gens before it had the luxury of not needing to focus on _anything_ but games, and game related periphery.  Last gen the introduction of online, social features, video playback, music playback, portable storage access, wireless connectivity, online stores, DLC, online multiplayer, matchmaking systems etc...  which is all right in Microsoft's wheelhouse.  It forced Sony out of it's comfort zone and into the realm of networking which they've simply never had a presence in.  That took a great deal of their time and energy last gen, getting PSN up running, secure, competitive etc...



jnemesh on 14 August 2014

Then the "masses" are missing out.  This wasnt just a quick "spit and polish", they rebuilt the game from the ground up!  It's an incredible looking title, and the controls are much more polished than the original as well.  I hope it DOES do well, because they have said that if it sells well, they will redo the other games in the series....