Sony sucker-punches Xbox on price, specs, DRM-free gaming Microsoft may not have been listening to the rumbling of discontent over some of the new "features" coming with Xbox One, but Sony certainly has. Sony's new PlayStation 4 'It's the games, stupid' Sony unveiled the new PS4 console at this week's E3 gamers conference in Los Angeles, and it undercuts Redmond Xbox One by $100 …
I guess that is what you get when a company like Sony starts to think forum posters are their customers. They have a business to run and, while their stance is brave, it will also be financial suicide. In the end the X1 will probably offer a more satisfactory way of managing your games to the iPad generation. Who the hell lends out disks or puts them on ebay anyway nowadays? The future is digital!
take those covers from your eyes, mate! Who the hell lends out disks or puts them on ebay? have you looked on ebay? Are you actually a gamer and do you have actual gaming friends? For many many years this has been standard practice amongst gamers and i'm actually astounded about your casual attitude towards it.
Surely you're trolling? please, someone tell me he's trolling, nobody can be this blind.
**That Nvidia / AMD have managed to release a new GFX card which does pretty much nothing the old one did but shift around pixels faster on games not worthy of any note and yet they are being viewed as the best hardware.**
Troll harder on /b/ next time XD
i'll grab my coat, its the 1 with the copy of ravenshield in the pocket XD
I have actively avoided any Sony product since their utterly contemptible treatment of their customers over the rootkit fiasco. A couple of later missteps only confirmed to me my choice was right, at the time.
Now they have managed to rehabilitate themselves in my eyes, at least to some extent. Should I upgrade my console (Xbox 360) I will not be staying with Mickeysoft. That doesn't mean I will not watch Sony like a hawk, expecting them to screw up once again, but for now the ban on all things Sony is lifted. Not entirely transferred to the Redmond mafia, but getting close.
I can see XBoxers attempting to continue game trading by having a throwaway user account for each game and trading those.
Account: Halo9Account_95864812
Nickname/gamertag/whatever: Halo 9
Chuck Norris
123 Fake Street
Beverly Hills 90210.
Then MS will crack down on accounts that only have one game registered to them, the internet mobs will go off their tits and someone will start a class-action lawsuit against MS for all this.
Steam introduced an online model with games without resale, so other than with respect to the DRM, spying, games cost, portability, constant validation, need to buy console & general distrust of MS, why was there not a simular outcry? Is it the size & influence that MS has on its larger gaming market share?
Consoles have always been about ease of use and portability. Your game would work just the same when you took it round your mates house. Locking a game to an account is a fundamental betrayal of what a console is. There has been a slide towards this with downloadable games but that came with the upsides of easy access to free demos and the like, and it was always alongside discs that could be loaned out or sold on at your whim.
This latest step smacks of doing DRM Hollywood style - punishing paying customers with a locked down 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality which will end up pushing paying customers towards piracy.
There was certainly enough outcry about Steam when it first launched but that's now more than 10 years ago and it was a content distribution system, not a digital distribution or DRM service. It's grown to be those as well but that's only after a lot of development and a long time. Valve have built a reputation over the years for being trustworthy and a hell of a lot more gamer centric than the vast majority of publishers. The Steam hardware survey is probably the most accurate representation of gaming system specs in the world, Valve make SDKs available for modders and actively encourage them to make what they want of the software they provide, they promote indy studios by not charging exorbitant fees to make their software available, allow download of free to play games where they make nothing and are generally the champion of the every day gamer. It hasn't always been that way as we didn't half hate them when CS 1.6 was released along with the then extremely buggy Steam platform, they've put a lot of time and effort in to building customer base and loyalty with no secret made about the fact that you simply cannot transfer games if you buy from them - then they go and hold ridiculous sales that give me an acute case of wallet cramp! Steam also doesn't require always online, once a month is sufficient then you can go offline until prompted again. They've been known to extend this period on a per account basis for services personnel deployed overseas as well. Add on top of that the fact that you can literally install and play a Steam game on any system as long as you can install it, remember your log in details and it runs a supported OS then it really isn't the same.
In contrast, Microsoft have a reputation for shafting the consumer in general, releasing dodgy, bug ridden software (I consider new Windows launches to be an MMO beta test and Games for Windows Live has done SO well!) and hardware (RROD anyone?), change anything on a whim, already have draconian DRM (Windows reauthentication on changing hardware, seemingly triggered at random) and definitely don't show the same integrity. It isn't even an apples to oranges comparison, more a fish to bicycle one.
BTW, Valve have about 70% of the PC digital distribution market share and offer support for three PC operating systems so far (all be it slightly limited for two of them) as well as two console platforms. I could be wrong but I believe that they may have a larger market share than Microsoft where gaming is concerned - at least with regards to software.
I just don't think it is this simple. I think the xbox one is looking towards the future of the industry and not just at what people want today. have a look at my thoughts http://wjminnovate.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/xbox-one-and-playstation-4-go-head-to-head/
In all this excitement there has been no mention of Sony now charging to play online.
Even if it allows non-gaming access free of charge this will now result in $50 per year(more if it is per account like XBL) for any kind of gaming goodness.
So it is not all good.
It's these kinds of artificial unjustifiable toll-bridges that make people angry.
I've paid for the console,the broadband access and the game disc.
But I still have to pay on top for online gaming?
No wonder EA retired the online pass model. They knew this was coming.
You can blame Microsoft for that as well. Sony would not have been able to get away with it had not Microsoft shown that people are willing to get ripped off for online for years.
But at least PS+ is a much better deal as you get so much more for your money. Also I believe this online fee is what allowed them to keep the price down so it's not all bad, especially for those that only want to play single player.
Remember, in the console world, they don't allow for user-owned or -rented servers. That's why there's generally no online fees on PCs—the users themselves provide the hosting hardware, not to mention the matchmaking and so on. Those that are left are subscribed (WoW), microtransaction-based (F2Ps), or some combination of the two. Or the servers are sponsored as a means to drive hardware sales and the like.
The console makers don't really trust user-owned servers, seeing them as a possible exploit avenue to penetrate their walled gardens.
It does look like the Sony announcement has made my mind up. I already have all the stuff I need for a 'home media hub' I don't need or want a game system to to do that especially if it doesn't let me stream whatever format I want to the screen. I remember how long it took for Microsoft to add codecs to the 360 before I had my smart TV (which streams most stuff). I have a Kinetic, never use it, my living room is just too narrow and after the initial novelty wore off I don't care about it. My internet connection is pretty solid but I know that if just once, only once it did go off for 24 hours I would be psychotically mad that my console didn't work either. It would be a big thing for me because I would know it would be an unnecessary inconvenience and a deliberate choice by someone to put me in that position. Oh yea also there's a guy on my high street in a little shop near me. He makes a living part of which is buying and selling old games. He keeps part of my high street alive, pays local taxes that go towards local services and employs another guy. Sometimes when I can't justify buying a new game I go down there and pick some game up I would otherwise never had bought new to try out. Will Redmond be paying his dole and fixing my roads when they "Collectivise" the second hand game market ? This seems like an anti microsoft rant and maybe it is. I know Sony are in it for the money also but I'm happy they have made the choice not to follow. Now its up to consumers to show they made the right choice. PS4 for me.
Microsoft has got this very wrong, and they are going to hurt because of this.
I have an XBOX 360, but since the games won't be playable on XBOX ONE, there is no lock in. If I am going to the next gen consoles, I have a free choice - either way, I'll need to buy new games.
To be honest, I never sold, borrowed or gave a game away, and my box was always connected to the net anyway. But given that the other console is $100 cheaper, and doesn't impose these stupid restrictions, there would need to be a really compelling reason to choose the XBOX. If it was out a year ahead of the PS4, some people might pile in anyway rather than wait. But with both coming around the same time, it's a simple head to head.
I reckon XBOX is going to get trounced by a margin of 3 to 1, and by Feb or March, MS is going to be frantically trying to fix it with price reductions and repealing some of the onerous terms. But it will be too late. Sony has this one in the bag.
I'm a big Microsoft fan. Having programmed for the PS1, PS2 and Xbox 1 (not ONE) and 2, coding for the xbox was a dream after sony's electrical engineering "documentation" and terrible tool support. I also love graphics, and the PS2 never quite cut it for me. I swore I would never have a Playstation in my home.
But...
Microsoft seems keen to move as far as possible away from "gamers" as it can. It completely misreads and misunderstands its audience. Games and gamers are what will decide which console is bought, and Microsoft seem to not have had their finger on the pulse. Gamers dont want always on. Gamers dont want server based single player games. They dont want their game machine to become an ad streaming box. And Microsoft seems to be blind to all this.
And with the Prism revalations - I know I do NOT want a machine which requires internet access every 24 hours and which will lock me out of my own games when I wont let it connect. I do NOT want a machine with an always open mic. I do NOT want a machine with a 3D camera watching me which is a fundamental component and not an optional add-on.
So, fuck you XBox One.
(Even the name 'One' pisses me off, and is telling about how stupid Microsoft's management team are. You already had an Xbox one, and it wasnt that long ago...Its like they wanted a confusing, lack-luste hard-to-google name...)
If you remember, the original xbox 1 penalised you for switching it off at the wall. It had an internal capacitor that rapidly powered down, resetting the internal clock. A switch-off at the wall meant it had the incorrect date when switched on again if left off for even just a day or two. Worse, some game saves checked their timestamp against the current date and erased saves with "impossible" dates... You had to be careful to remove your game save dongle (remember those?) before powering on an xbox that had been off.
the thing is, these were (clearly!) never designed to impress consumers - they were put there to please developers. so the fact that consumers cheer to hear a console doesnt have them is hardly news. the question is how much it upsets the developers.
its also notable that sony said there would be no 'additional' limitations - so things like online passes will, almost certainly, still exist...
that said, i'm far more likely to get a ps4 than a xbox1 - though really, its all down to the games, and in a world without exclusives i'd happily stick with my pc.
I think it was all put in there to slow down people trying to write an Xbox One emulator for PC, otherwise I expect it would be pretty easy given the low specs of the Xbox 1 and the fact that it's now basically a PC, and not even a special PC.
At least the PS4 has the 8GB of GDDR5 as both main and system RAM which will makes things a little more complicated for those trying to get an emulator running on a normal PC.
A 'war' would imply a battle involving participants capable of fighting each other.
What MSFT have done to themselves is so hopelessly silly, that can't even assert to be adequately armed. Sony have come along, done the splits in front of them, and issued one (1) Jonny Cage-style bruiser right in the balls.
The big question is whether MSFT will have the humility to back-track and save their new console. Sadly, I'm doubting it - like most corporate projects that are pets of people in power, the internal politics and / or policy is enough to keep dumb ideas proliferating, just so long as the powers-that-be are kept happy. It does make me wonder how many engineering voices within MSFT screamed 'for the love of God, NO!' regarding the draconian DRM, but were silenced by corporate line-towing.
It'll be costly for MSFT, and the consumer - including for me, someone who jumped in with the Xbox very, very early on. It seems those days of just popping Halo in the drive and playing are getting away from us, and that is very sad. Indeed, it's the raison d'etre for a console, isn't it?
I assume the rule is for multi-player games where developers such as EA already charge gamers for online-play if their game is 2nd hand. I'm not a developer but I'm sure it costs a lot to develop games so I think they do deserve some money for 2nd hand games.
Although we might be used to developers not receiving any money from 2nd hand games I bet, given the opportunity, they would have forced this upon us ages ago.
I know car analogies are a bit tedious, but seriously if a manufacturer wants to see some money from trading second hand then they should set up their own trade in programme just like the auto guys do. If they want to be paid again they should do some work for it.
Car analogies are tedious because they never work.
Car manufactures often sell many variants at cost and make money on service, parts and high end models. MS and Sony sell one model at a loss and make money on subscriptions, accessories and licensing.
It's the loss, or your console subsidy that has them looking for more ways to make more money.
The thing with cars is that they can sell them at whatever price they want, so as long as they can make money off of it they're fine. Games tend to be sold at the same price when they come out, regardless of the cost of development, probably due to licensing deals with console manufacturers, so they may have to sell a lot just to break even.
Also, technically, the multiplayer games do extra work for it, they are providing you with another service--multiplayer ability, there are server, support and maintenance costs associated with them, unlike single-player games which will only have to be updated due to major bugs.
So, the car analogy doesn't really work for multiplayer games because once the car manufacturers have sold you the car they normally won't have to fork out any more money on it. A better comparison would be if they carried out the MOT and other maintenance stuff for free, but the cost of the car was not increased.
I read the Microsoft quote at the end as basically saying “We hope the fact we have Call of Duty first and Halo etc means that gamers will buy this in spite of all the crap we will put them through”. Unfortunately for them the games industry is full of examples of gamers going for alternatives to the ‘standard’ due to issues like pricing, un-welcome changes or just to try something different, otherwise your Sensible Soccer/Pro Evo’s of this world would not exist, and while Halo may be the biggest Alien based FPS it is no way the only one, even if COD, the biggest console game in the world was only on Xbox, there are plenty of other options to choose from,
As for Sony being good, they haven’t they just concentrated on sticking to what the people want, rather than forcing people to do what THEY want, it shows how much of a fail Xbox have made by the fact Sony did not have to do anything at all for people to be applauding them.
Or in other words
PlayStation = Pepsi
Xbox one = New Coke
1. Rootkit, ok Sony shouldn't have tried it on, but your crappy MS OS shouldn't have let it happen
2 Other OS, if some knobend hadn't tried to abuse it Sony wouldn't have removed it, what other solution should they have implemented ?
The real story here is that for multiplayer on the PS4 you will now have to pay WTF!!! Sony must be pissing themselves with laughter, they managed to start charging for something that was free and everyone is delighted. Talk about a good day for bad news.......
"Gamers Without Internet Can Stick With Xbox 360, Says Microsoft"
“We have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360.”
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/12/gamers-without-internet-can-stick-with-xbox-360-says-microsoft
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
