Forums - Gaming Discussion - Xbox One is the best console if you don't care about exclusive new games - The Verge

reviniente said:
Xen said:

The bolded makes your idea to exchange a PS4 for a  XBO hilarious, and the rest of the post is just cancerous.

The relevant part is, curiously, everything else he said.  I can see why you didn't even attempt to offer a retort; that would've required arguments you are unable to construct, instead of derision that is so easily hurled. What is hilarious, is the idea that everybody has to like Sony's 1st party, over pretty much everything else, as if PS4 fans needed to be reminded what the best selling game on the platform is.

No, the relevant part of the post is still what I bolded: so many games shared between the PS4 and XBO that they easily make up the majority of the objectively good offerings for each - much more so for the XBO though. If the PS4 library sucks, then so does the XBO one.

As to his example with SoTC - it is not a good one (SoTC PS2 and PS4 are extremely different - SoTC Ps4 is remade!) - there is an easy retort. Not to mention his arguments to buy the XBO to play last-gen games.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

PC games launch for 40usd and console for 60usd, so even at launch their are cheaper.

You don’t game much on PC, do you? This is pretty objectively incorrect.

Yeah, thanks to having multiple storefronts competing for digital purchases, plus infinitely more indie games that are priced appropriately, software is cheaper on PC. But at launch, no, there is not a 33% advantage towards PC. On some occasions you might have a cheaper PC version because there is no physical version or retail chunk added on, but that’s rare. A vast majority of the time, a $60 game at launch is $60 regardless of platform.

You are a little late for that. There have already been this discussion and show that mostly they will launch at same price but drop a lot quickier. But thanks for entering and putting some more context.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

reviniente said:
DonFerrari said:
Well if he want to have a gigantic library of old games he could buy a PS2 for himself... or a PC.

I think he might still have trouble playing Panzer Dragoon Orta, which coincidentally, is the game that promted him to write the article.

Sure, and surely X360 was the best console because of Panzer Dragoon Orta, Game of the Generation;



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Pemalite said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

You don’t game much on PC, do you? This is pretty objectively incorrect.

Yeah, thanks to having multiple storefronts competing for digital purchases, plus infinitely more indie games that are priced appropriately, software is cheaper on PC. But at launch, no, there is not a 33% advantage towards PC. On some occasions you might have a cheaper PC version because there is no physical version or retail chunk added on, but that’s rare. A vast majority of the time, a $60 game at launch is $60 regardless of platform.

There is always a sale on somewhere though on PC.
You aren't strictly limited to Steam.

For instance, I got Civilization back in the day for 50% cheaper than what Steam was offering on launch.
The way I look at it... If you ever buy a PC game at full price, then you are doing it wrong.

In Australia though, even without discounting, PC games are $10-$20 cheaper than the console release.

I know you aren’t limited to Steam, hence the competing for digital purchases part. But if you’re talking about sales or specials you can always find those for consoles as well. He said they’re $40 and $60 though, factually, meaning MSRP. That’s incorrect. Hell, I can get any game new day one for $48 at Best Buy, doesn’t change that the game released at $60.



reviniente said:
DonFerrari said:

Will take your word on it =]

PS3 had BC (first HW and then emulated) and people happily traded it for lower cost.

There's a reason people 'happily traded it' for, but lower cost wasn't the reason. From the WSJ article:

"There’s a catch to the lower price: The new $399 PlayStation model will not play games designed for the PlayStation 2, Sony’s popular older game console. Mr. Tretton conceded that removing that capability, along with a few other features, isn’t dramatically reducing Sony’s cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system." 

And you though Sony was looking out for your bottom line.

 

Warned (for multiple posts - Baiting, Flaming, Spamming, and Trolling) ~ CGI

Don't know what you are trying to do on this... but if you read your own post you'll see that they dropped the price and people bought without caring to much about the loss of BC.

Sony only look at their own bottomline.

And since you forfeit the "BC have 0 cost, free lunch" discussion you tried to frame it in a different way?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:
DonFerrari said:

I was countering your claim that games costed the same on pc and console. Which allpc gamers on vgc say pc games are cheaper and usually launching for 40. 

My claim was that they cost the same at launch.  Your claim is that PC games costs $40 and console $60 at launch.  I'm still waiting for a current example.

And we were both wrong. I got the 40-60 from vgc itself claimed several times and was wrong, you claimed they cost the same and pemalite and the other PC gamer showed that you were wrong on same price.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

 

Warned (Trolling) ~ CGI

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 22 April 2018

jardesonbarbosa said:

I love the trend of people trying to justify their Xbox One X purchases. Yes, there are no exclusive games. Yes, God of War, Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, Horizon Zero Dawn, Nier Automata, Persona 5, Shadow of the Colossus, Uncharted 4, Mario Kart 8 and most of the critically aclaimed games released in the last couple of years? You can't play that on Xbox One, but you can play Red Dead Redemption in 4K!!!!1

I don't want to be a hater, but this makes absolutely no sense. What's the point of having the best HARDWARE if you severely lacking in the software?

Strange, my Scorpio game list sits at around 220. I don’t think you know what lacking means :)



I would be hard-pressed to say I disagree.
-Backwards compatibility across two gens (500 games and counting)
-Xbox Game Pass ($10 a month for a good library of 150+ games)
-Returns on digital purchases
-free cloud saves
-better controller layout and build quality
-4k blu-ray
-whisper quiet in operation
-a much better executed mid-gen upgrade
-more reliable online network

But all this pales in comparison when you dont have exclusives.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

DialgaMarine said:
reviniente said:

Only if you have an agenda.

 How so? It’s a known fact that a console’s quality is based primarily off of it’s exclusive software, so without exclusives, the console’s quality is greatly reduced. To say a console is the best if you ignore a lack of exclusives is no different than saying some restaurant’s hamburger is the best if you ignore it’s lack of a beef patty. It makes no sense to say that. A console without exclusives is nothing more than an underpowered PC with even less features. That’s not fanboy agenda, that’s just logic. 

If the Xbox One had no exclusives, you would have a point. But alas, it does. Then you have all those PS4 players that chose GTAV over many exclusives. What are the odds RDR2 will outsell GoW on PS4? Guess they would rather have the hot-dog over the hamburger, instead. Your logic needs work.