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

fps_d0minat0r on 14 August 2014

It all comes down to the company thats winning. I dread the day when one certain company dominates the generation.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 14 August 2014
VanceIX said:
Competition is very good for consumers. If it weren't for the 360 being competitive with the PS3, the PS4 would be priced at $600 right now.

And the reason why there are so many games on all the platforms is that the platforms are almost completely identical architecture-wise, making it very easy to develop for one and release on the other.

PS2 may have had a great selection, but a lot of it was due to the disparity in console power/price. The architecture of all 3 consoles was significantly different, and the PS2 had much weaker hardware than the Xbox or GC, which led to devs not bothering with porting games for the most part to the other consoles. The PS2 was also significantly cheaper than the Xbox, and sold much more than the GC due to having a DVD player.

Eh?  I'm not sure that makes any sense, really.  Sony selling the PS4 at $600, would mean they're making an overwhelming profit on the hardware, versus the PS3 where they were selling both models at an overwhelming loss.  PSN vs XBL shows how competition helps though.



GotBoth on 14 August 2014
Intrinsic said:
GotBoth said:
Puppyroach said:
How do you know that PS2 domination meant that the games that generation got better? In my view, 7th Gen is by far the greatest generation gaming has ever seen. We had amazing sales, lots and lots of exclusives, insanely great games in TLOU, mass effect, gears, halo, uncharted and so on.

We also had an indie scene that grew massively, awesome 2D games and cheaper games than the generations before.

Yeah, competition creates greatness and more great games for gamers.

And in my opinion the PS2 generation had better games.  Opinions are opinions and I clearly stated in OP that it was my opinion.  You stating yours wont change mine.  Like I said games 7th gen had bugs because of the potential to maximize profit but pushing out unfinished games because all three brands had large install bases.

so shouldn't your thread title be "my opinion about the platform/generation myths".

And you shouldn't be pushing your opinions as facts anyways.

That being said, I do agree with you that games alone don't sell hardware. Can't say I agree with the no competition thing though... especially if you consider that without competition there is a lot we wouldn't have today. I don't even think things like PS+, PSnow, competent online gaming and infrastructure...etc would be a thing. Just look at the WiiU. 

And how do you KNOW "there is alot we wouldn't have today"? Are you psychic? If PS3 had dominated at $600 how do you know what would have turned out?



GotBoth on 14 August 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
Agree on the first one, people will buy new systems regardless of games.

The second part is silly. Games last gen "all had game breaking bugs" because of multiplatform development? Strangely, the two buggiest, crappiest sections of games I played last gen were Gears 2 (360 exclusive) and Twisted Metal (PS3 exclusive).

Hyperbole doesn't make an opinion right. Logically we all know competition makes the industry better. Look where Sony started out at launch.


How do you KNOW competition is what makes the industry better? There is no evidence to that. No study has been done.  It could be marketing or a host of other things (market research maybe) that helps in making better decisions for the future.  That is not a fact, it is a myth believed by forum gamers because all the non forum gamers i know wish the system they gamed on had all the exclusives.  So competition is some forum hope not the majority of gamers.



riecsou on 14 August 2014

Competition has a good and a bad side. The good side: we had a super powerfull $400 PS4 compare to the fiasco of the $600 PS3,: PS plus free games,:Titanfall Bundle,: Kinectless Xbox One,: DRM reversal for Xbox One.
Now the bad side:"parity clause which limit multiplat games", new microtransaction that makes a game ending costing people more than $100.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 14 August 2014
GotBoth said:
Intrinsic said:
GotBoth said:
Puppyroach said:
How do you know that PS2 domination meant that the games that generation got better? In my view, 7th Gen is by far the greatest generation gaming has ever seen. We had amazing sales, lots and lots of exclusives, insanely great games in TLOU, mass effect, gears, halo, uncharted and so on.

We also had an indie scene that grew massively, awesome 2D games and cheaper games than the generations before.

Yeah, competition creates greatness and more great games for gamers.

And in my opinion the PS2 generation had better games.  Opinions are opinions and I clearly stated in OP that it was my opinion.  You stating yours wont change mine.  Like I said games 7th gen had bugs because of the potential to maximize profit but pushing out unfinished games because all three brands had large install bases.

so shouldn't your thread title be "my opinion about the platform/generation myths".

And you shouldn't be pushing your opinions as facts anyways.

That being said, I do agree with you that games alone don't sell hardware. Can't say I agree with the no competition thing though... especially if you consider that without competition there is a lot we wouldn't have today. I don't even think things like PS+, PSnow, competent online gaming and infrastructure...etc would be a thing. Just look at the WiiU. 

And how do you KNOW "there is alot we wouldn't have today"? Are you psychic? If PS3 had dominated at $600 how do you know what would have turned out?

You do not have to be psychic, you only have to look at how Sony responded to XBL during the PS3 era.  You only have to look at Sony today and the priority they have taken with features they announced before the console release.  So think about it, when Sony was behind and fighting for marketshare from the 360 they instituted a lot of changes.  Now that they are ahead, they have taken their time to do things and priorities are different because selling 10 million without really putting in an effort to at least adopt features in the PS3 isn't hurting sales.



BeElite on 14 August 2014

PC and ninty hand held can be used for the argument comp is not overly really needed.

Comp between publisher devs is more then enough hell maybe its all that's need it for the industry to thrive and grow and be strong. Things were best under PS2, things got shitty when market was split 3 ways.



BeElite on 14 August 2014
riecsou said:
Competition has a good and a bad side. The good side: we had a super powerfull $400 PS4 compare to the fiasco of the $600 PS3,: PS plus free games,:Titanfall Bundle,: Kinectless Xbox One,: DRM reversal for Xbox One.
Now the bad side:"parity clause which limit multiplat games", new microtransaction that makes a game ending costing people more than $100.


Except you could have got the 499 PS3 but wehh wehh 600 guess fits your argument better.  PS3 was a hell of alot more tech packed and powerfull comapraed to PCs of that time then the PS4 is now,  PS3 was a much better value for the consumer then PS4 is.



Machiavellian on 14 August 2014
BeElite said:
riecsou said:
Competition has a good and a bad side. The good side: we had a super powerfull $400 PS4 compare to the fiasco of the $600 PS3,: PS plus free games,:Titanfall Bundle,: Kinectless Xbox One,: DRM reversal for Xbox One.
Now the bad side:"parity clause which limit multiplat games", new microtransaction that makes a game ending costing people more than $100.


Except you could have got the 499 PS3 but wehh wehh 600 guess fits your argument better.  PS3 was a hell of alot more tech packed and powerfull comapraed to PCs of that time then the PS4 is now,  PS3 was a much better value for the consumer then PS4 is.

500 or 600 does it really matter, both prices were outside what gamers were willing to pay besides a select few.  Also think about things that Sony stated this gen about learning from their mistakes from last gen.  Nothing make you learn harder and smarter then competition.  No competition then the mistakes are minor because gamers have no choice so you do not go into the red for the majority of that era.



BeElite on 14 August 2014
Machiavellian said:
BeElite said:
riecsou said:
Competition has a good and a bad side. The good side: we had a super powerfull $400 PS4 compare to the fiasco of the $600 PS3,: PS plus free games,:Titanfall Bundle,: Kinectless Xbox One,: DRM reversal for Xbox One.
Now the bad side:"parity clause which limit multiplat games", new microtransaction that makes a game ending costing people more than $100.


Except you could have got the 499 PS3 but wehh wehh 600 guess fits your argument better.  PS3 was a hell of alot more tech packed and powerfull comapraed to PCs of that time then the PS4 is now,  PS3 was a much better value for the consumer then PS4 is.

500 or 600 does it really matter, both prices were outside what gamers were willing to pay besides a select few.  Also think about things that Sony stated this gen about learning from their mistakes from last gen.  Nothing make you learn harder and smarter then competition.  No competition then the mistakes are minor because gamers have no choice so you do not go into the red for the majority of that era.

Yes it does and over all the price was far from the biggest issue.  Their biggest fault last get was the late release which took a gen to undo and pain in the ass programing.