Xbox One vs. PS4

[jonnaver]

I was at Fan Expo today and got to tinker around the Xbox section for a while. Couldn't even barely move in the PlayStation section because it was packed. Looks like Sony is just owning the console war this gen.

 

[TaliZorah]

I got an Xbox One. It does everything I want and has / will have all the games I want. I could care less if PS sells more consoles. Xbox beat them last gen. Competion only drives each company to do better and only the gamers benefit. Be a gamer, not a ******.

 

[jonnaver]

It was a much closer thing last gen.this gen has been a massive lead for Sony so far

 

[Crasstoe]

I said it earlier I'll say it again, wait til the Halo MC collection is released, it's got a huge following and 4 games remastered will sell the Xbox like only halo can.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk

 

[unstoppablekem]

People should realize that the people who work in the Xbox and PlayStation edition are not as extreme fanboys as Xbox and PS extremists, who say everything good about their system and how the other can't do anything better.

For example, I see the Xbox and PS guys tweeting each other a lot, in a nice way.

 

[TaliZorah]

It was a much closer thing last gen.this gen has been a massive lead for Sony so far

And Xbox had a massive lead on PS the first few years of last gen as well. Big deal.

 

[Keith Wallace]

And Xbox had a massive lead on PS the first few years of last gen as well. Big deal.

The PS3 launched a year later for $200 more because of desirable new tech (Blu-Ray, which was a plus for the console near the end, when Xbox 360 games ended up on 2-3 discs). These consoles launched just a few weeks apart, and the One came at a higher price point most were not interested in paying for. Plus, once the PS3 dropped to a competitive price, the battle moved to the Sony side, while the One's price drop has not resulted in anything close to that through the first few months.

The situations aren't directly comparable.

 

[unstoppablekem]

The PS3 launched a year later for $200 more because of desirable new tech (Blu-Ray, which was a plus for the console near the end, when Xbox 360 games ended up on 2-3 discs). These consoles launched just a few weeks apart, and the One came at a higher price point most were not interested in paying for. Plus, once the PS3 dropped to a competitive price, the battle moved to the Sony side, while the One's price drop has not resulted in anything close to that through the first few months.

The situations aren't directly comparable.

I seriously think if the console w/o kinect is priced at $350, it would sell better. Not just because it's another price drop, because it needs to be. It's the same price as the PS4, which you have to admit, has better specs for the same price ($400). If it is $350, it can sell a lot better, and regular consumers (NOT fanboys of a platform, etc) can have a reason to buy it over the PS4. I think the Wii U is $350, and people will have less reasons to buy PS4's, as the Xbox is cheaper. I doubt it would take away from the Wii U sales though. The Wii U will sell even if it was $400, as its exclusives are amazing. Smash Bros, Mario Cart, etc.

 

[TaliZorah]

The PS3 launched a year later for $200 more because of desirable new tech (Blu-Ray, which was a plus for the console near the end, when Xbox 360 games ended up on 2-3 discs). These consoles launched just a few weeks apart, and the One came at a higher price point most were not interested in paying for. Plus, once the PS3 dropped to a competitive price, the battle moved to the Sony side, while the One's price drop has not resulted in anything close to that through the first few months.

The situations aren't directly comparable.

It doesnt matter what the reasons are. The point was that one company had a big lead on the other in the beginning. Different reasons why that is this gen compared to last is moot unless it has a direct effect on the situation at the end of the generation which we pronably wont know for 7-10 years.

Also, once the PS dropped in price the "battle" never went to Sonys side. They saw better sales but thats about it.

 

[rex.reyesiii]

I seriously think if the console w/o kinect is priced at $350, it would sell better. Not just because it's another price drop, because it needs to be. It's the same price as the PS4, which you have to admit, has better specs for the same price ($400). If it is $350, it can sell a lot better, and regular consumers (NOT fanboys of a platform, etc) can have a reason to buy it over the PS4. I think the Wii U is $350, and people will have less reasons to buy PS4's, as the Xbox is cheaper. I doubt it would take away from the Wii U sales though. The Wii U will sell even if it was $400, as its exclusives are amazing. Smash Bros, Mario Cart, etc.

Nahh, the reason MS was banking on was the "other" features besides the gaming. That extra dollars is for those features. I don't think MS will cut those prices for now.

If there are regular consumers who are interested in those features besides gaming then it will sell more.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I seriously think if the console w/o kinect is priced at $350, it would sell better. Not just because it's another price drop, because it needs to be. It's the same price as the PS4, which you have to admit, has better specs for the same price ($400). If it is $350, it can sell a lot better, and regular consumers (NOT fanboys of a platform, etc) can have a reason to buy it over the PS4. I think the Wii U is $350, and people will have less reasons to buy PS4's, as the Xbox is cheaper. I doubt it would take away from the Wii U sales though. The Wii U will sell even if it was $400, as its exclusives are amazing. Smash Bros, Mario Cart, etc.

The Wii U is $300, and it comes with NSMBU and SLU. It most certainly would not sell worth crap at $300. I personally got it because it was a cheap acquisition (long story), but if the price was $100 higher, I wouldn't have touched it.

Of course the One would sell better if it cost less, that's how economics works. I do agree, though, that the price SHOULD get below the PS4's to give the general, third-party gamer (those whose main interests are CoD and BF and AC and the other major third-party releases) a reason to accept the inferior hardware/visuals/performance that has occurred with some titles. The problem is, the profit margin was almost nothing on the hardware to begin with. A decent chunk of those miniscule profits came from the Kinect's inclusion, so taking it out made the console hardware a money loser, most likely. Eating another $50 per-console with a price drop would make the hardware tougher to justify as a long-term investment. Plus, if they dropped the Kinecless SKU to $350, they'd almost certainly have to drop the with-Kinect model to $450, and I just don't think that the gaming division's well-liked enough for Microsoft to do that.

It doesnt matter what the reasons are. The point was that one company had a big lead on the other in the beginning. Different reasons why that is this gen compared to last is moot unless it has a direct effect on the situation at the end of the generation which we pronably wont know for 7-10 years.

Also, once the PS dropped in price the "battle" never went to Sonys side. They saw better sales but thats about it.

Oh, it absolutely DOES matter. There's a difference in having a year's head start in the market vs. releasing a product with lesser hardware than the competition. You can say that the point was about the lead, but all that does is mean that you made a point without thinking about the variables in-play in each situation. Also, it definitely went to Sony's side after the price drop. The consoles ended up selling rather equally be the end of the generation. For that to happen after Microsoft had the lead you mentioned, it meant that Sony had to outsell Microsoft from that point forward.

 

[jonnaver]

And Xbox had a massive lead on PS the first few years of last gen as well. Big deal.

Not nearly as much as this gen. On top of that, Xbox was out in more big markets before the ps4 was when the sales lead happened which makes it an even bigger whupping

 

[TaliZorah]

Not nearly as much as this gen. On top of that, Xbox was out in more big markets before the ps4 was when the sales lead happened which makes it an even bigger whupping

Wrong. Xbox 360 at one point had a 10 million lead on the PS3. Wont be surprised if PS4 never even sees that big of a lead. I can tell you are a ****** and not just a gamer. Have fun believing what you want.

 

[jonnaver]

Wrong. Xbox 360 at one point had a 10 million lead on the PS3. Wont be surprised if PS4 never even sees that big of a lead. I can tell you are a ****** and not just a gamer. Have fun believing what you want.

No need to be a baby about it, man up

 

[rex.reyesiii]

here's the most "balanced" comparison article I found on the Web so far imho

The PS4 vs Xbox One – What Matters Now

 

[coip]

here's the most "balanced" comparison article I found on the Web so far imho

The PS4 vs Xbox One ?€“ What Matters Now

The fact that anyone would consider that an unbiased article is exactly the problem. Case in point, the proclamation that the PS4 controller is vastly superior to the Xbox One because it has a headphone jack and rechargeable batteries. The first one is definitely a plus, but the latter one? How about mentioning that the PS4 controller's rechargeable batteries go dead every 6-8 hours and will likely be absolute rubbish in another year or two. In contrast, my Xbox One controller batteries easily last 4-5 weeks on average. There is a lot more bias in the article, but I don't have time to deconstruct them all here.

 

[Keith Wallace]

There's definitely bias in your battery assessment. The PS4's controller might die after 6-8 hours of heavy play, but then you basically quote an Xbox One controller's battery life based on occasional play. The Play & Charge certainly won't last 4-5 weeks of heavy play, no batteries do. My eneloop rechargeable batteries last a week AT MOST when used heavily.

An opinion isn't bias. I didn't read the article, but just because the author has an opinion on the controller, it doesn't mean it makes the article unjustly biased, but that the author has a preference and expressed it.

 

[MobileVortex]

My rechargeable batteries last at least a month if not more. Both controllers work plugged in.

 

[rex.reyesiii]

The fact that anyone would consider that an unbiased article is exactly the problem. Case in point, the proclamation that the PS4 controller is vastly superior to the Xbox One because it has a headphone jack and rechargeable batteries. The first one is definitely a plus, but the latter one? How about mentioning that the PS4 controller's rechargeable batteries go dead every 6-8 hours and will likely be absolute rubbish in another year or two. In contrast, my Xbox One controller batteries easily last 4-5 weeks on average. There is a lot more bias in the article, but I don't have time to deconstruct them all here.

The tone of the article is what I got me thinking it was unbiased specailly regarding the Res-Gate issue.

 

[Coreldan]

There's definitely bias in your battery assessment. The PS4's controller might die after 6-8 hours of heavy play, but then you basically quote an Xbox One controller's battery life based on occasional play. The Play & Charge certainly won't last 4-5 weeks of heavy play, no batteries do. My eneloop rechargeable batteries last a week AT MOST when used heavily.

An opinion isn't bias. I didn't read the article, but just because the author has an opinion on the controller, it doesn't mean it makes the article unjustly biased, but that the author has a preference and expressed it.

You're right in that "6-8h" vs "4-5 weeks" wasnt the fairest comparison, but even then it's not subjective at all, it's a fact that the Xbox One controller has way better battery life regardless of use. I recall the launch of the consoles, many reviewers were saying something like 30-40 hours they got out of the default batteries, many said they didnt manage to run them out in the time they had the console available for testing before writing the review.

I can't understand why on earth did Sony make them 1) not user replaceable 2) way bigger. The battery life on it at the moment is quite pathetic and I would be really pissed off. It kills half of the point of a wireless controller when you have to put it on the charger after every session, let alone having to plug it in midsession (not a problem to all, but would be to me with a toddler in the house)