What's new

PS4 vs. XBOX One

Which console will take the cake?

  • PS4

    Votes: 23 69.7%
  • XBOX One

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • Total voters
    33
Yeah but PS4 selling at $100 more than XBOX One is proof Microsoft is just milking it.

PS4 is not selling for $100. Its selling for $100 less. And rightfully so considering it offers so much less than the XO. Same thing happened last Gen, ps3 sold for $100 more cause it offered more (bluray drive). Neither was "milking it" as you say.
 
PS4 is not selling for $100. Its selling for $100 less. And rightfully so considering it offers so much less than the XO. Same thing happened last Gen, ps3 sold for $100 more cause it offered more (bluray drive). Neither was "milking it" as you say.

lol.. obviously a typo.
 
PS4 is not selling for $100. Its selling for $100 less. And rightfully so considering it offers so much less than the XO. Same thing happened last Gen, ps3 sold for $100 more cause it offered more (bluray drive). Neither was "milking it" as you say.

Does XBOX One have bluray?
 
... so they both have bluray, and if I don't care for kinect & other media, then PS4 is a good deal.

I'm not saying it isn't a good deal (and that's not what you were saying initially either). I was responding that the price difference isn't Microsoft just "milking it".
 
I'm not saying it isn't a good deal (and that's not what you were saying initially either). I was responding that the price difference isn't Microsoft just "milking it".

... well their initial decision to charge for using used game I would say is "milking it".
 
That's a completely different point.... Haha basically you're just a Microsoft hater.

LOL... I'm not a hater. I just like to weigh my options properly before making a decision.


It's good to see Microsoft back-tracking today - but to me they've already revealed their hand/true intention (greedy).
 
Which company do you think isn't greedy?

Well there must be a balance IMO... it's important for consumers to be treated fairly.


Think of it this way. If Sony hadn't come up with the PS4 last week, Microsoft would have gotten away with charging for used games.

*frown*
 
Well there must be a balance IMO... it's important for consumers to be treated fairly.


Think of it this way. If Sony hadn't come up with the PS4 last week, Microsoft would have gotten away with charging for used games.

*frown*

Balance between what? The difference between a greedy company and a non-greedy company is the starting selling point of the console and charging for used games?
 
Balance between what? The difference between a greedy company and a non-greedy company is the starting selling point of the console and charging for used games?

well if sony didn't have to charge for it... then why do it? answer is greed... (ballmer)
 
It like being 14 years old on gamespot in. Herrrre. System war bitches.

It made sense when the XB1 still had all those restrictions. Now the disagreeing is just a form of entertainment. The difference between these systems now all boils down to personal preference, there aren't really any substantive issues left.

EDIT: I wonder what the poll would look like if we did it over. Anyone's vote definitely changed?
 
https://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905

Here was the simple vision of the Xbox One, selling and reselling games:

- Every game you bought, physical or digital, would be tied to your account. This would eliminate current-gen problems like buying a disc, and then being unable to store it or download it from the cloud.

- Because every single game, physical or digital, would be tied to an account, publishers could create a hub to sell and resell the games digitally. Let's refer to these as "licenses" from here, even though it's a loaded term.

- Because reselling games would now work through a hub, publishers could make money on resold games.

- Here is how this makes sense for YOU: New games could then be cheaper. Why? Publishers KNOW that they will not make money on resold games, so they charge more to you, the first buyer. You are paying for others' rights to use your game in the future. If the old system had gone into place, you would likely have seen game prices drop. Or, at the very least, it could have staved off price increases.

- You also would have started getting a better return on your "used" games—because a license does not have to be resold at a diminished rate.

- How do you know that this would have been the case? Because that's exactly what happens on Steam. But wait!, you shout. Steam is CHEAP cheap, and it has crazy sales. We love Steam! Micro$oft is nothing like that. Well, no, it isn't now, but Steam was once $team, too. It was not always popular, and its licensing model was once heavily maligned. Given time, though, it's now the only way almost every PC gamer wants to play games.

- Sharing games would have worked either by activating your Live account on someone else's Xbox One, or by including them in your 10-person share plan, which would not have been limited to "family.". Details on that had been scarse, but even the strictest limitations (one other person playing any of the shared games from your account) would have been a HUGE improvement over the none that we have now. We don't get that now.

- The 24-hour check-in would have been necessary for the X1's store, which it is not for Steam, because the physical product (game discs) would still be available. This check-in, literally bytes of data exchanged, would confirm that the games installed were not gaming the system in a convoluted install-here-and-then-go-offline-and-I'll-go-home-and-check-in-and-go-offline-too-and-we'll-both-use-the-game methods.

You would also, as it happens, have been able to share your digitally purchased games. That's a REALLY BIG DEAL. We won't be able to do that now, though. We still have to use the disc for games we buy physically. This is the loss of some of the most future-facing features of the system, things that changed and challenged the traditional limitations of console gaming. We are literally standing in stasis, refusing to move forward, at the behest of those who are loudest and not ready for the future.
 
https://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905


Here was the simple vision of the Xbox One, selling and reselling games:

- Every game you bought, physical or digital, would be tied to your account. This would eliminate current-gen problems like buying a disc, and then being unable to store it or download it from the cloud.

- Because every single game, physical or digital, would be tied to an account, publishers could create a hub to sell and resell the games digitally. Let's refer to these as "licenses" from here, even though it's a loaded term.

- Because reselling games would now work through a hub, publishers could make money on resold games.

- Here is how this makes sense for YOU: New games could then be cheaper. Why? Publishers KNOW that they will not make money on resold games, so they charge more to you, the first buyer. You are paying for others' rights to use your game in the future. If the old system had gone into place, you would likely have seen game prices drop. Or, at the very least, it could have staved off price increases.

- You also would have started getting a better return on your "used" games—because a license does not have to be resold at a diminished rate.

- How do you know that this would have been the case? Because that's exactly what happens on Steam. But wait!, you shout. Steam is CHEAP cheap, and it has crazy sales. We love Steam! Micro$oft is nothing like that. Well, no, it isn't now, but Steam was once $team, too. It was not always popular, and its licensing model was once heavily maligned. Given time, though, it's now the only way almost every PC gamer wants to play games.

- Sharing games would have worked either by activating your Live account on someone else's Xbox One, or by including them in your 10-person share plan, which would not have been limited to "family.". Details on that had been scarse, but even the strictest limitations (one other person playing any of the shared games from your account) would have been a HUGE improvement over the none that we have now. We don't get that now.

- The 24-hour check-in would have been necessary for the X1's store, which it is not for Steam, because the physical product (game discs) would still be available. This check-in, literally bytes of data exchanged, would confirm that the games installed were not gaming the system in a convoluted install-here-and-then-go-offline-and-I'll-go-home-and-check-in-and-go-offline-too-and-we'll-both-use-the-game methods.

You would also, as it happens, have been able to share your digitally purchased games. That's a REALLY BIG DEAL. We won't be able to do that now, though. We still have to use the disc for games we buy physically. This is the loss of some of the most future-facing features of the system, things that changed and challenged the traditional limitations of console gaming. We are literally standing in stasis, refusing to move forward, at the behest of those who are loudest and not ready for the future.

If that's what buying and selling would have been like, why were so many developers against Microsofts DRM policy? I'm not buying it. And just because that's the way it works on Steam doesn't mean that's how it would have worked on the XO.

This would eliminate current-gen problems like buying a disc, and then being unable to store it or download it from the cloud.
This was never a problem in the first place. No one was like, "Deurrr why can't I store this game and download it from the 'cloud'? Hurrrrr durrrrr deurrrrr"

which would not have been limited to "family.
Ya, even though Microsoft came out and said "Share between family" so many times to the point where you'd probably be smart to assume that sharing would be limited to your family.

- The 24-hour check-in would have been necessary for the X1's store, which it is not for Steam, because the physical product (game discs) would still be available. This check-in, literally bytes of data exchanged, would confirm that the games installed were not gaming the system in a convoluted install-here-and-then-go-offline-and-I'll-go-home-and-check-in-and-go-offline-too-and-we'll-both-use-the-game methods.
This is complete ********. In order to have been able to play a game you would have had to install the game onto your console and tie it to your account WHILE you had the game inside the console.
The reason they'd have you go online is to update the games you have installed and put that into their database, update ads, and to take use of the "cloud"

For the most part that article is a load of crap, most of which he made up. If even half of the was true, why didn't Microsoft say any of it at either of their conferences?
 
Back
Top